On the record
A grave moral responsibility rests upon those who continue a contest of arms after it is made clear that there is no longer a possibility of success.
Source
gutenberg.orgJames Blaine: “A grave moral responsibility rests upon those who continue a contest of arms after it is made clear that there is no…”
Editor's note · Context
Blaine emphasizes the moral implications of continuing a war when success is no longer possible.
Share
More from James Blaine
If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities carried on by the Central Government against a State, then it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would be ipso facto an expulsion of such State from the…
All these provisions are made to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve the peace, and not to plunge them into civil war.
If this view of the subject be correct, as I think it is, then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the General…
And if Congress shall break up the present Union by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the domestic tranquility which the Constitution was meant to insure…
Other voices in this conversation
