^ .3 
 
J 
 
 pH8^ 
 
The UsDrpatious of tlie Federal OoTernment 
 
 '•'HE DANGERS OF CENTRALIZATION. 
 
 E 458 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. ROBMT C. HUTCHINGS 
 
 OF NEW^ YORK. 
 
 ON THE GOYERNOE'S ANNUAL MESSAGE, 
 
 DELIYEEED IN THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE 
 
 OF NEW YOEK, 
 
 February, 26th, 1863. 
 
 ALBANY: 
 
 ATLAS & ARGUS PRINT. 
 
 1863. 
 
 .- -A 
 

 ^^ 
 
SPEECH. 
 
 The House being in Committee of the Whole on '. 
 the annual Message of the Governor, Mr. Htjtch- 
 IKGS obtained the floor, and said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman — I solicit the attention of the 
 members of the Committee to the views which I 
 desire to present, upon the Federal and State rela- 
 tions as treated of in the Message of his Excellency 
 the Governor. I solicit their respectful attention 
 for the reason that I am aware that my views will 
 not be in consonance with those entertained by the 
 Republican members, who constitute an equality of 
 this house, and I am not certain that they will re- 
 ceive the approval of all of my political colleagues. 
 But however you may differ with me, award me the 
 credit of expressing views which are based upon the 
 honest convictions of my judgment and conscience. 
 We have, as it has been expressed, passed the mili- 
 tary, and we are now approaching the intellectual 
 epoch of the revolution. The time is near when 
 men will be permitted to investigate its causes 
 and to present their opinions upon the policy 
 of the administration without being charged 
 with treason, and called by the vilest names which 
 party malignity can conceive. I trust that 
 tha day is not distant when the standard of patriot- 
 ism will not be the changing and imbecile policy of 
 the administration, but the ancient standard — 
 obedience to the mandates of the Constitution and 
 laws, based upon the Constitution, by both the North 
 and South. And when that day arrives, men will 
 be permitted to exclaim in the words which the ven- 
 erable and politic Cardinal of France uttered to his 
 youthful and impetuous page : " Take away the 
 sword. States can be saved without it 1" To 
 those, and there are some in this house, who will 
 not award me the credit of honesty of conviction, 
 and who denounce all those who differ with them as 
 to the policy of the war, for disloyalty and sedi- 
 tion, I would address the words of Charles Fox, 
 the great parliam-^ntary orator of England, when 
 his country was involved in a war with France, and 
 to the policy of which he was opposed: "Say at 
 once that a free Constitution is no longer suiiable 
 to us; say at once, in a manner, that upon an am- 
 ple review of the state of the world, a free Consti- 
 tution is not fit for you ; conduct yourselves at once 
 as the Senators of Denmark ; lay down your free<'om, 
 and acknowledge and accept of despotism. But do 
 not shock the . understandings and feelings of man- 
 
 kind by telling the world that you are free, — by 
 telling me that if, for the purpose of expressing my 
 sense of the public administration of this country, 
 of the calamities which this war has occasioned, 
 I state a grievance, or make any declaration of my 
 sentiments in a manner that may be thought sedi- 
 tions, I am to be subjected to penalties hitherto 
 unknown to the law. Did ever a free people meet 
 so? Did ever a free state exist so?" The day 
 must come — I believe it to be very near — when wa 
 must surrender our partisan prejudices, and investi- 
 gate in the coolness of reason, and in the calmness 
 of peace, the causes of this war, and the remedies 
 for its consequent disasters — when we must decide 
 upon the nature of the politj' under which we are to 
 live as a people, whether it shall be one, based as 
 ourffithers made it, upon local sovereignty, or of a 
 centralized and consolidated form. 
 
 I purpose, sir, to trace the causes of the reyolu- 
 tion if which this country is now the scenic theatre, 
 and to state to what principles of government those 
 who now shape the policy, and guide the destinies of 
 the country must return, if they desire a restoration 
 or even a reconstruction of the Union, and an hon- 
 orable peace. I intend moreover to speak of this 
 revolution in the full estima< on of its proportions. 
 It "aas been too long the standard of "loyalty" to 
 nnder-estimate it, and to speak confidently of its 
 certain and speedy overthrow. 
 
 THIS IS A REVOLUTION. 
 
 The time is appropriate for reason. At the com- 
 mencement of this revolution, for that which was 
 cal'ed a rebellion at the outset, has since expanded 
 into the proportions and reached the majesty of a 
 revolution, grander and vaster than history records, 
 reason was dethroned, and enthusiasm, which is bas- 
 ed on unreason, ruled not only the fickle and un- 
 thinking multitude, but the councils of the legisla- 
 tors and administrators of the government, who 
 should never be governed by enthusiasm or the 
 clamors of the populace, but only by reason. This 
 is a revolution — not a rebellion. The latter be- 
 come revolutions when based upon a great popular 
 belief of government, and when the ends reached 
 for are new bases and forms of polities. 
 I The rebellions of modern times are scarcely remem- 
 I bered by us in name, and their causes were too 
 trivial to merit remembrance, for they were, as re- 
 bellions are, but the transient mutterings of dissat- 
 
4 
 
 isfaotion of a portion of the people — then, general- 
 ly,, the interposition of armed forced, a c infest of 
 short duration, and final quiet. But revolutions 
 are hased upon the great popular belief, whatever 
 that belief may be, though it is generally just and 
 triumphant, and which cannot be overcome 07cly by 
 legions of armed men and parks of artillery, but 
 need the prudence, wisdom and skill of statesman- 
 ship. 
 
 This revolution will rank in history with those 
 of 1688 of England, and 1789 of France, and 
 will be known as that of the "Revolution of the 
 States." Like those, it is alleged by its origina- 
 tors, to be founded upon a great popular principle 
 of government, and in addition to that, upon con- 
 stitutional and statutory assertions of government. 
 The popular principle is the same — the general 
 cause of all great revolutions — opposilion to cen- 
 tralization in government, whioh the people of the 
 South claimed had, under our system, become fed- 
 eral despotism, as under a mouarchy it is regal des- 
 potism. I desire the overthrow of this revolution, 
 and the restoration of the Union, but I do not de- 
 sire the restoration of the mere forms of the Union, 
 without its soul — I cannot support that policy of 
 the administration, as evinced in its measures, 
 which in their triumph, destroys all State sovereign- 
 ty and personal rights at the North — which secures 
 the social equality of the Negro and destroys the 
 political freedom of the White race at the North 
 as well as at the South. I am no apologist for the 
 constitutional right of secession, but I must say, 
 upon my honest convictions, that upon the triumph 
 or failure of the policy of the administration, 
 hinges not merely the /destinies of the Southern 
 States, but the fate of the Northern States and the 
 future nature of the central government. In the 
 success of its measures, unconstitutional, despotic 
 and usurping, I behold the perpetual loss of "the 
 Union as it was." 
 
 There is but one way by which the revolution can 
 be overthrown, and the "Union as it was" restored, 
 and that is by the triumph of the principle upon 
 "which the union of the States rests, and which is al- 
 leged to be also the principle upon which the revo- 
 lution was originated. 
 
 It is the part of the patriotic and wise, who would 
 overthro.y this revolution, and who desire the re- 
 storation of the Union, and who would preserve the 
 vital principle of that Union, and in the recognition 
 of which in the past by the executive agents of the 
 government in the persons of the long and illustri- 
 ous line of Democratic Presidents was able to pre- 
 serve it, and in the violation of which are embrac- 
 ed all those aggressions on sovereign and domestic 
 rights which are alleged to be the cause of this war 
 — by expression and action in the legislatures of the 
 Northern States and in Congress, to guide this re- 
 volution in its furlher career, to assuage its fury, 
 to cripple its march, and finally to conquer it, by the 
 supremacy of the principle upon which it is based 
 — the "Equality of the States." When the peo- 
 ple of the North return to their ancient belief in 
 this doctrine, they will conquer the revolution, and 
 will restore the Uuion, and also preserve the sov- 
 ereign riglits of their respective States and their 
 personal liberties. 
 
 To conquer the revolution in this way, for it can 
 rcver be overcome only by the war measures of the 
 imbecile administration of Abraham Lincoln, nor can 
 the Union of old, made and existing by the "con- 
 sent of the States," be restored in its life, however 
 its form may be preserved, by the mere "coercion of 
 arms," we must study the causes of the former and 
 the nature of the latter. Partisans cannot study them 
 
 if the shadow of a political platform is looming up 
 before them. Only those who believe that party 
 creed is subordiuate to country, and are governed 
 more by fealty to the Constitution than mere blind 
 consistency to political ritual, and servile approval 
 of federal usurpation are capable and worthy of this 
 great work. 
 
 It has for t'ho last two years been considered an 
 evidence of patriotism to be the loudest mouthed in 
 denunciation of the action of the Southern States. 
 Let us however see if the Northern States have 
 not been partially guilty in originating this revolu- 
 tion, by direct and open violation of, or by their 
 omission to execute the mandates of the Constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 THE ORGANIZATION CF THE REPUBLICAN 
 
 PAllTY WAS A CRIME AGAINST THE 
 
 ISTATES 
 
 The organization of the Republican party, and 
 the spirit with which it was, and is still imbued, 
 and which existed long before its formal birth, was 
 one of the causes — was the great cause of this war! 
 
 Its organization was a crime against the States. 
 
 In this text is embraced the jjulitical history of 
 the country, for the doctrines of that party were 
 professed and the creed of its "apostles, prophets 
 and guides" was recited long before the day of its 
 official birth, when it was christened with its dis- 
 tinctive name, which has been the synonym of vic- 
 tory and dominance in the free States for nearly a 
 decade. Its natural birth was before the throes of 
 Kansas — it antedates the "Repeal of the Missouri 
 Compromise." It was born — the spirit of the Re- 
 publican party — the infusing spirit of the "Typhon 
 of revolution'-' which is now raging over the laud, in 
 the days immediately succeeding the Convention of 
 the States whiih framed the Constitution, as soon 
 as selfish interest, sectional jealousy, and commer- 
 cial rapacity were substituted for the elements of 
 conciliation, liberality and patriotism which called 
 the Union into being. We can trace that spirit 
 through the whole histdry of our country from that 
 time to the present — the si)irit which animated the 
 Republican party in its struggles for ascendancy, 
 and which now animates it in its struggles for ab- 
 solute power — that party which, by its promises and 
 professions before, and its action after triumph was 
 the prominent cause of the secession of the Southern 
 States. John C. Calhoun said in 1837, when 
 "abolition petitions were first presented to Congress, 
 as follows : "As widely as this incendiary spirit has 
 spread, it has not yet infected this body, or the 
 great mass of the intelligent and business portion 
 of the North; but unless it be si)ecdily stopped, it 
 will spread and work upward till it brings the two 
 great sections of the Union into deadly conflict." — 
 The secession of the Southern States, though it was 
 not justified by any constitutional right, was natural, 
 and had been thixatened if the Republican party, 
 with its distinctive creed of antagonism to the in- 
 stitutions of those States, should succeed. The 
 creed of that jiarty was in bold violation — not only 
 of the compromises upon which the Union w«8 
 founded, but of the plain and written provisions of 
 the Constitution. 
 
 The Democratic party, notwithstanding the enthu- 
 siasm, energy and magnanimity which it has evinc- 
 ed in its support of the government since the seces- 
 sion of the Southern States, has not forgotten, and 
 will not forget, that the Republican party by its 
 professions before and by its acts after its triumph, 
 was the great oause of the war. 
 
 The Union, if not broken, is inoperative by its 
 .agent — the common agent of the States for the pur- 
 
poses of the Union. In seeking for the means by 
 which the States can he so united as to acknowledge 
 again the federal government as their agent for 
 the common welfare, and those other objects for 
 which it was established, we are compelled to study 
 the nature of that Union and the bases upon whicn 
 it rests. We can then decide as to the justice of 
 the grievances of the Southern States, and whether 
 war alone can restore the Union. 
 
 THE UNION UPON THE CONSTITUTION. 
 Little more than seventy years ago, the Union 
 ■was established. It was called the "United States 
 of America." It was the successor of those Unions 
 which had existed before on this continent, of the 
 colonies under the protection and rule of England, 
 but it was the immediate successor of that which, 
 under the "Articles of Confederation" had carried 
 us through the great struggle for our "chartered 
 rights, for English liberties, for the cause of Al- 
 gernon Sydney and John Hampden — for t'-ial by 
 jury, the Magna Charta and Habeas Corpus"' — all 
 embodied and CDndensed in the Anglo-Saxon prin- 
 ciples of local self-government and personal liberty 
 — that Union, which, in its formation, without 
 and against the armed will of the King and parlia- 
 ment redeclared, and confirmed by the formal act 
 of the colonies in their transformation into inde- 
 pendent and sovereign States, the great assertion of 
 the "Declaration of Independence" — that "Grov- 
 ernments derive their just powers from the consent 
 of the governed." The change from the Union 
 under the "Articles of Confederation" to that un- 
 der the Constitution, was not to have a centralized, 
 consolidated government, in which the ancient and I 
 hitherto undenied local sovereignty of the respective 
 States was to be sacrificed. The stern devotion to 
 State sovereignty and jealousy of an extreme cen- 
 tral power was as great then as when the people 
 threw off the rule of England and made the govern- 
 ment, under the "Articles of Confederation." This 
 is evidenced by the tardiness of the States, even 
 when they were conscious of the necessity of a re- 
 Tision of that system, to consent to a convention of 
 the States to discuss and decide — not upon a new 
 method, which was not then generally intended — 
 but only upon a revision. The necessity for a re- 
 vision, but wh ch became a change of the system 
 of the government, was the imbecile nature ef the 
 polity which, while it conferred enumerated func- 
 tions upon the central government, failed to bestow 
 authority upon Congress to execute them. The ne- 
 cessity is concisely expressed in the language of 
 John Quincy Adams : "The system was about to 
 dissolve in its own imbecility — impotence in nego- 
 tiation abroad — domestic insurrection at home, were 
 on the point of bearing to a dishonorable grave the 
 proclamation of a government founded on the rights 
 of man." 
 
 The Union, based on the Constitution, was the 
 successor of the old system. What is that Consti- 
 tution? I do not ask what the Union is, for with- 
 out the Constitution there can be no Union. 
 
 I ask what that Constitution is, for, as I 
 believe, an incorrect conception and violation of it 
 by a sectional party of the North — the organized 
 result of sectional teachings at the North, for many 
 years — almost as many years as the age of that 
 Constitution, has involved us in this war. I ask 
 what that Constitution is, for unless we become im- 
 bued with the spirit of its ordaining preamble, and 
 study the great principle embodied in the last 
 amendment to it, made by the first (^^gress, and 
 respect and obey the mandates of that sacred in- 
 strument we can never — no, never restore the Union, 
 
 as it was created upon that Constitution. It is a 
 contract ("the adjective federal is derived from the 
 Latin word foedu'i, a contract") made and en- 
 entered into by sovereign States, acting by their 
 respective delegates — from States which had from 
 the time they threw off the royal authority, been 
 sovereign States — who were under no compulsion to 
 make the contract, but who voluntarily and delib- 
 erately broke the "Articles of Confederation" and 
 seceded from the government under those articles, 
 as they had previously declared themselves absolv- 
 ed from the rule of Great Britain. The latter was 
 an armed revolution justified by success. The 
 former was a political revolution justified by its 
 subsequent confirmation by the States. That Con- 
 stitution delegated certain defined powers, which 
 are few, and specifically enumerated, to the federal 
 government, \\ith the power to execute them, and 
 so far as those powers were granted and reached, 
 the States surrendered their former sovereignties — 
 but no further. All otherinherent powers, possessed 
 and enjoyed by the States, and not granted among 
 those enumerated, were reserved by the States, 
 sovereign yet as to thenr. All those sovereign pow- 
 ers which we find specifically defined in the Consti- 
 tutions of the several States^ as possessed by them, 
 and those which are not defined, but which had been 
 possessed and enjoyed by them frum usage, prece- 
 dent and upon the common law of England, were re- 
 served by them. Their sovereignty cannot be more 
 concise!}' and yet comprehensively expressed than 
 in the words of the amendment of the tirsl Congress : 
 "The powers not delegated to the United States by 
 the Constit-ution nor prohibited by it to the States, 
 are reserved to the States respectively or to the 
 people." The federal government is, as it has been 
 well expressed "an agreement which comes between 
 anarchy and despotism, — a confederation by which 
 one supreme government makes uniform laws (so far 
 as it has delegated powers) and secures internation- 
 al intercouse between thirty-one diSerent nations 
 without the complexities of an endless amount of 
 treaties and conventions." The federal government 
 was created by the States as the central and com- 
 mon agent of those powers which thej' had surren- 
 dered. It was the common agent to enact and exe- 
 cute the uniform laws so far as it was delegated 
 with power, which were to regulate the intercourse 
 between the States, and control the difficulties and 
 disputes which might arise between them from their 
 diii'erent and antagonistic interests, aud protect 
 their respective domestic institutions and property. 
 It was the common agent which represented them 
 abroad as a nation, and not as different States. As 
 an agent, it had only t'lat power with which it had 
 been invested bj' its creator. The proviuonsof the 
 Constitution are plain as to the powers of the fed- 
 eral government. They are defined with almost 
 mathematical precision. Its defenses are as seem- 
 ingly impregnable, as any usurpations on its pa¥t of 
 the reserved and sovereign rignts of the Stales are 
 apparently impossible. No one can read that Jon- 
 stitution, unless he be a bigoted partisan, who 
 places his political creed — the shibboleth of the 
 election hour — above that sacred covenant, who can 
 fail to perceive that the objects of the Union, aud 
 the defenses of the States have been overthrown 
 during the last few years. How marked by almost 
 ! mathematical precision as to the objects and powers 
 } of the federal government are its provisions from 
 ] the preamble in which are declared its objects: 
 I "We the people of the United States, in order to 
 I form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure 
 I domestic tranquility, provide for the common de- 
 1 fcnscj promote the general welfare, and secure the 
 
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, 
 do ordain and establish this Constitution for the 
 United States of America'" — to the last amendment 
 of the first Congress, and without which New York 
 State would never have approved it — "The power* 
 not delegated to the United States by the Constitu- 
 tion, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserv- 
 ed to the States respectively or to the people." In 
 the ordaining preamble are contained the purposes 
 of the Union. In this, the last amendment of the 
 first Congress, which met in the city of New York, 
 under the administration of George Washington is 
 contained the defenses of the States. Who per- 
 verted those purposes of the Union, and who over- 
 threw those defenses of the States, and the nature 
 of the policy by which the Union can be restored in 
 the spirit of the ordaining preamble of the Consti- 
 tution, and with it the reestablishment of the de- 
 fenses of the States, I shall discuss hereafter. 
 
 THE UNION UPON COMPROMISES. 
 The Constitution was moreover conceived and 
 born in the spirit of compromise. This may be an 
 unhappy word. In the resolutions of partisan as- 
 semblies, compromise and treason are designated as 
 synonymous words. But I am not ashamed even in 
 the din of battle to say that when the day arrives, 
 •which i' certain to arrive, when the Union can bo 
 restored by wise compromise of the differences which 
 exist, I prefer to restore the Union by that policy — 
 the policy which brought the Union into being — 
 than by the subjugation and extermination of cm. 
 half of our own race, and the colonization of their 
 States by ourselves — the three methods to "restore 
 the Union " which have been avowed by members 
 of the Republican party on this floor. It is a writ- 
 ten compromise. It is a compromise between men 
 of different parent races, creeds, educations and 
 social conditions — of their thoughts, ideas, social 
 and political theories. The Puritan in religion and 
 Roundhead in politics of New England, with Lis 
 bigotry of belief, which had become the despotism 
 of religious idea, whose narrow mind could only 
 conceive a pure civil policy of a theocratic natuie — 
 the sturdy Dutchman of thatraca which settled the 
 southern portion of our State, and which can proud- 
 ly and truthfully boast above all others that their 
 race was the "originator of modern liberty in 
 Europe," the Catholic caviller of Maryland and 
 the Episcopalian cavalier of Virginia, who boasted 
 that they were descendants of that spirited 
 race which crossed the English channel from the 
 white cliffs of Normandy to England, and the b'.uod 
 which couroed through their veins -.^as " unstained 
 by that of any Saxon churl" and the Huguenots 
 of the Carolinas — here upon the altar of eo-^- 
 stitutional liberty sacrificed their distinctive le- 
 ligions, political and social ideas. It was a com- 
 promise of religious belief, which threw its mantle 
 of constitutional protection and equality over all 
 lorms. It placed religious and also moral belief 
 outside of the political system. I am particular 
 in stating this, for the great assertion which has 
 never risen to the dignity of an argument of the 
 ■writers and orators of Republican party before its 
 triumph, .vas the immorality and irreligion of the 
 institution of slavery. And the defence of the 
 present policy of this war, which is declared by 
 those who have at least apparent ^ut lority to 
 speak for the administration, is not simply the "re- 
 storation of the Union as it was," but the recon- 
 struction of it upon a purer and more moral basis — 
 by the destruction of slavery, and as pertinently 
 expressed in their shibboleth — " No compromise 
 ■with Blavery !" They, like a distinguished Senator 
 
 of the upper House, cite from the writings and 
 speeches of our ancestors. I concede the correct- 
 ness of their citations, but the authors of them, 
 whether of the North or of the South, sacrificed 
 their personal objections — they compromised their 
 private prejudices and scruples upon the altar of 
 the Union. It was a compromise between the po- 
 litical theories-of the different races. I award to 
 New England much credit for the magnanimous 
 sacrifice of her preferences and prejudices in the 
 great and difficult work of framing the Constitution, 
 ye' history will not permit me to concede that she 
 conceived the great principle upon which it was 
 bused. That t:,reat principle was in the immortal 
 assertion of the Declaration of Independence — that 
 " ill men were created free and equal." It was 
 one of those who boasted that they were the descen- 
 dents of the cavaliers of Prince Rupert — the "curl- 
 •^'I darlings" of Charles the First, who met and were 
 shivered by the stern Irunsidts on Marston moor, 
 who wrote that immortal declaration of the politi- 
 oa' equality nf white men. It was not the Puritan 
 w'.io bclievd that the "earth, and the fullness 
 thereof was the Lord's and his saints, and that he 
 vas one of his saints," and that all goodness, 'right- 
 eousness and wisdom was in him and in his belief, 
 but one of the "aristocrats" — a member of tho 
 "slave oligarchy" as it was called at that time as 
 now, was the champion of Democracy? This great 
 principle — the great assertion of the 18th century 
 — the first formal declaration of it by a people, but 
 ftr which men had vaguely contended, but never 
 fully conceived, hedged in and smothered by the 
 hereditary and even popular ideas of privilege of 
 rank and caste — a slight gleam of which but eman- 
 ates from Magna Charta, clouded and scarce!}' dis- 
 tinguishable by the throng of the nobles who stood 
 around its declaration by the King, with swords in 
 their hands, to crush the people as well as the King, 
 the two foes of feudal and aristocratic privilege, 
 was conceived not in some conventicle on the sterile 
 hills of New England, but on the plantation of 
 Thos. Jefi'erson.* It was the slave institution which 
 gave conception to the thought which resolved it- 
 self into that immortal declaration. The concep- 
 tion of such an idea by the Puritan was impossible 
 in the pride of his religious intolerance and social 
 caste, and who believed himself superior to other 
 men. It was the Virginian living in a state 
 whore he was surrounded by a race entirely 
 strange and different from his own, and beholding 
 every day its physical, mental and social inferiori- 
 ty, .vho conceived the idea, notwithstanding his ar- 
 istocratic prejudices, that Lis white neighbor, 
 though his abode might be in a hovel, while he liv- 
 ed on the m.inorial estate, and was possessed of all 
 the necessities and luxuries that wealth could be- 
 stow, was a member of the same great Caucasian 
 race as himself, and was created like him "free 
 and equal." In that assertioUj^ as essentially re- 
 produced in the Constitution — in the equality of all 
 men — there was a compromise of social caste in 
 which the superiority of any rank or class was ob- 
 literated, as there was a political equality of the 
 States, whatever might be the nature of their do- 
 mestic institutions. The slave institution, with ♦ 
 its attendant evils, was at the time of the for- 
 mation of the Constitution, distasteful to many of 
 the people of New England, as i: is now. Their 
 sentiments were avowed in the debates of that con- 
 vention. But they were represented by noble and 
 
 •This id^ is ably developed by Dr Van Evrie, 
 of New York, Editor of tho Caucasion, in one of his 
 XPAuj able worki. 
 
patriotic men like Ellsworth and Sherman, at 
 have jugt and liberal men now who carry boldly and 
 fearlessly the banner of the Constitution, and who 
 sacrificed their prejudices for the consummation of 
 their great project — the Union upon the broad basis 
 of non-intervention with the domestic institutions 
 of the States. 
 
 THE GREAT COMPROMISE. 
 
 It was also a compromise — the great (ompromiie 
 — between material interests, the commercial and 
 agricultural, or slave interests. It was the great 
 compromise, which embraces all the others, but all 
 of which have been broken. The assumsd purer 
 religion and more perfect morality of the North 
 have been the weapons used in the pulpit and press, 
 the legislature and Congress, and even on the judi- 
 cial bench, to violate the great compromise between 
 the commercial interests of the maritime States of 
 the North and the agricultural interests of the slave 
 States of the South. The antagonism between the 
 different interests of the States, at the time of the 
 Constitutional Convention, were created from geo- 
 graphical, climatic and soil differences. The section 
 west of the Susquehannah and south of the Ohio 
 fljmposed the great slave holding section, though in 
 the north-west portion it was but thinly settled. 
 Slavery existed in all of the States, except one, 
 but in some to a very limited degree. In the north- 
 ern and eastern sections, the institution was rapidly 
 decreasing on account of the expense incurred in 
 its support, and the failure of an equivalent for 
 slave labor. It was decreasing also in obedience to 
 the laws of soil and climate — the only just and cer- 
 tain abolition agents. But it had become a great 
 element in the domestic ecocomy of the southern 
 States, for it is but a domestic institution, outside 
 of the political system, as its morality is outsid* 
 the control of the federal Constitution. The pecu- 
 liar products which the slave returned to his master 
 were many per cent above the expense incurred in 
 his subsistence, while the results of his labor in the 
 northern States was less than his support. Tobao- 
 eo had already become a staple of the South. Cot- 
 ton was already a young prince, soon to wear the 
 insignia of royalty. This slave institution, from its 
 peculiar nature, needed to be fostered and protect- 
 ed. Those States, which were greatly interested 
 in it, were not willing to form the Constitution and 
 to become parties to the proposed Union, unless their 
 ancient and hitherto undenied rights were guaran- 
 teed to them, and new and stronger safeguards were 
 thrown around the institution of slavery. 
 
 Slavery could never be a permanent institution in 
 the New England States, because they were not 
 agricultural. Negro slavery is an important ele- 
 ment only in agriculture, for the negro slave has not 
 and never will, from his mental inleriority, reach a 
 higher grade than the menial-agriculturist. Even 
 now, with all the inventions to assist in the devel- 
 opment of the soil, we find, it has been remarked, 
 bat few at the North, who may be denoted by that 
 appellation originally applied to the feudal lords of 
 fertile and Central Europe, and which may be ap- 
 propriately applied to the great planters of the 
 Sonth — the adscripli glebat — the tenants of the 
 
 BOll. 
 
 There were two other pursuits in which the men 
 of New England could derive richer and more rapid 
 returns to their investments. The people of the 
 Korth had years before the establishment of the 
 federal Union, discovered, as I have stated, that 
 •lavery was a profitless institution, not only because 
 the negro race oguld not thrive in hor cold climate, 
 
 but alio because agriculture wag a profitless occu- 
 pation. They had commenced to be a. navigating 
 people, and were promising to be like the ancient 
 Phoenicians — "the people of the waters and the 
 masters of the sea." The bleak and aterilo hills of 
 New England taught her sons that not in tho soil 
 must they essay to reap their wealth, o. e^en to 
 gain their livelihood ; but no less did her long and 
 extended sea-coast, studded with magnificent har- 
 bors, scooped out by nature from the rockt andhilli, 
 with safe and capacious entrances to broi'^' \nyn in 
 which might float in security the mercantile navies 
 of the world, point out to them that their appro- 
 priate mission was on the watery fields of commerce 
 — on which to be the maritime carriers of the world. 
 
 The beautiful science of physical geography showg 
 to UB the laws by which the great Creator was gov- 
 erned in forming the world, and the purposes of those 
 laws — how each of the old continents has had its 
 destined mission, or is now performing it, as each 
 era has had its pecrliar phase and development of 
 humanity — how from the contours and conforma- 
 tions of continents, the dwellers on them have fol- 
 lowed those pursuits, advanced in those paths, and 
 filled their appropriate places, not according to their 
 own volition as they have imagined, but in obedi- 
 ence to the inexorable laws which he has placed 
 upon the destinies of men as dwellers upon the dif- 
 ferent continents or parts of them. He whose laws 
 the philosopher beholds in "the tiny bubble whirl- 
 ing on the surface of the brook," and looking above, 
 sees '''repeated in the massive mechanics of the 
 sky" has not neglected to give laws to the pursuits 
 of men. He rules them by the elements of tho 
 earth, the watdr and the air. The Puritan of New 
 England must not in his pharisaical belief think 
 that he by convictions of morality, religion, and 
 justice abolished the institution of slavery. The 
 agents which abolished it were the great natural 
 elements and the laws of interest. 
 
 To the already important commercial interests of 
 New England was added the spirit of manufactur- 
 ing industry. Until that time, the colonies had 
 been dependant on the mills and manufaoturies of 
 England. New England desired to be not only free 
 from the old country, but to be also the manufac- 
 turer for tl e States. She beheld the great markets 
 open in the agricultural States. She had all the 
 facilities for manufacturing — the ingenuity and in- 
 dustry of her sons, unsurpassed motive powers on 
 her rapid running streams, and a large and increas- 
 ing population seeking their livelihood, which they 
 were unable to gain from her sterile soil. To couq- 
 pete in maritime commerce with Great Britain, and 
 to build up her mercantile navy, she demanded spe- 
 cial privileges and.protection, such as the taxing of 
 foreign tonniige, and navigation acts, so that her 
 ships would be selected by the importer in prefer- 
 ence to those of other nations, especially England. 
 And to build up her manufaoturies, and to protect 
 them from foreign monopoly, and to permit them to 
 compete at an advantage with the uiills of Lancar- 
 shire and Manchester, she demanded the Imposition 
 of duties on foreign goods. These demands were 
 made by New England as the sine qua non of her 
 becoming a party to the Union. 
 
 The Southern States, or the slaveholding States, 
 as I have before stated, as their condition of joining 
 the Union, demanded the protection for their slave 
 property. They had no capital embarked in com- 
 merce or manufactories. They never expected to 
 be commercial or manufacturing States. They 
 were agricultural. They therefore desired free trade, 
 j but were willing to surrender that great benefit, and 
 
8 
 
 to grant protection to the peculiar interests of New 
 England, provided their conditions of guarantees 
 and protection to slave property were granted . The 
 conditions of the two sections as to the protection of 
 their great interests were engrafted in the Constitu- 
 tion. They were the great co /(promise, ■wilhont 
 which the Union would never have been created. — 
 It is a historical compromise. Curtis in his mag- 
 nificent history of the Constitution treats it as the 
 great compromise which resulted in the successful 
 termination of the labor of the Convention. Hildreth 
 in his "History of the United States" writes of it 
 in detail. Permit me to quote from him (vol. Ill 
 p. 520): 
 
 "Thus by an understandiDjr, or as Gonvernour Morrlj> 
 called it, "a bargain", betweon the comraercial repreeen- 
 tativeBoCtheNorihern tStates. and tbe delegates of Souih 
 CarnliDa and Georgia, and in spile of the opposition of 
 Maryland ami Viruinia, ihe unrestricted power of Con- 
 grees to enact navigation laws wag conceded to the 
 Northern nierchniils, and to the Carolina rice planters as 
 an equivalent, twenty J ewrs continuance of the African 
 slave trade. Thin was the third great coniiironiisu oi 
 the Constitution. The other two were the coDceaPiOn 
 to the smaller fctates of an equal reprcsenlatiou ii' the 
 Senate, and, to the claveholdeis. the counting of Tbr-^e- 
 flfth? of the slaves in determining the ratio of r.-preseu- 
 tation If this third oompromiee dirtered from the other 
 two by involving not merely a political but a niornl hmc- 
 riflce, there was this partial compensation about it, lii at 
 It was not permiinent, lilse the other, but expired at the 
 end of twenty yeaie by its own limitation " 
 
 This paragraph is but a feeble presentation of the 
 "bargain" as it was called, but which wa-s a full 
 and comprehensive compromise of the antagor-3tio 
 interests of the different sections. I recommend to 
 my Republican friends, the "sum and sub.nance" 
 of whose argument has been the "policy of freedom" 
 of those who framed the Constitution, to read care- 
 fully the forty seventh chapter of the second volume 
 of "Hildreth History of the United States," where 
 they will find a full account of this great com- 
 promise. They will there find a most violetit anti- 
 slavery speech by Gonverneur Morris which has not 
 been excelled in bitterness by any of thc4attcr-day 
 apostles of the abolition crusades, and yet they will 
 also find that he sacrificed all of his moral prejudices 
 80 that the great bargain might be made, which re- 
 sulted in the Union upon a constitutional comprom- 
 ise. I have not the time to read that history to- 
 night. I do not censure New England for making 
 the condition of her becoming a party to the Union, 
 the protection to her interests, but I denounce her 
 for receiving the benefits of the compromise and re- 
 fusing to respect the condition made by the South- 
 ern States. Every speech made by a Kcpublicau 
 member of this and the upper house has been in ths 
 nature of an essay on the immdralitj' of slavery. — 
 If they will turn to the pages of that history ^hich 
 I have cited, they will there read, that their ances- 
 tors surrendered their moral objections to slavery 
 for the benefits granted by the Southern States to 
 their commerce and manufactures. And as I have 
 read the political history of the country I find tha' 
 the South — whatever may be her position to-day — 
 generally respected the compromise. Has the North 
 been true to that compromise as to the slave pro- 
 perty of the South? 
 
 The contract of the Union is now broken — broken 
 as the Republican party claims, by the secession of 
 the Southern States. It was broken long before 
 by the North refusing through her legislatures to 
 respect the provisions of the covenant, and the 
 armed resistance of the people to the federal gov- 
 ernment when attempting to execute the mandates 
 of the Constitution. In place of the "aggressions 
 ©f the South" — the shibboleth of the Republican 
 
 party, I appeal to the politicnl history of the coun- 
 try. I do not desire to apoligizc for the ihany er- 
 lOrs coniraitted by the South. I can never be an 
 apologist for the secession of the Southern Stat'S. 
 They were ungenerous in leaving their allies in the 
 North — the great Democracy — when they were de- 
 feated. We had fought the battles of the Consti- 
 tution for j'ears — we had borne the brunt and din 
 of the contest, and they left us in the day of disas- 
 ter and defeat. The doctrine of constitutional se- 
 cession is one which does not receive my belief. — 
 But we of the North are not guiltless. The day 
 will come, when we must decide the contest in which 
 we are now engaged by an honorable comprotnise, 
 and we will hasten that result wheu we comprehend 
 our errors of the past, and are willing to be just in 
 the future. 
 
 On the 4th day of March, 1861, the representa- 
 tive and chief of a triumphant sectional party of the 
 Northern States — those States a numerical majori- 
 ty of those which constitute the Union — made a 
 majority by the concessions, or at least by the fi- 
 delity of the South to the great compromise, in the 
 passige of the tariff acts for the benefit of the 
 North, which had increased the industrial popula- 
 tion of the latter from the old world, which class 
 had settled in the territories and brought them into 
 the Union as free States, joined to the repeated de- 
 feats of the South to carry into those terri tori ties, 
 the "common property of all the States," their 
 slaves. I read that history in this conuection no 
 further than to that historic dav when the chief of 
 this sectional and revolutionary party — revolution- 
 .ary because sectional — ascended the steps of that 
 C£tpitol where, on so many previous occasions none 
 other than the representatives of a conserved and 
 unviolated nationality ascended, with the symbol.s 
 of tnumph in the recorded greatness, triumph and 
 glory of the Republic to encourage them on in the 
 same anticipated path. 
 
 THE SPIRIT OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 
 
 Through almost as many years as those of the 
 Republic I trace the spirit of the Republican party 
 in the steadfast and increasing purpo.se of a portion 
 of the people of the North to commit aggressions on 
 the rights of slave property. Longago — only a few 
 j'ears after the adoption of the Constitution, were 
 heard the croak ings of the ravens in the distant 
 East. At first a little brood, but faintly heard and 
 seen, but increasing in number with every quadru- 
 ple of years, until they were plainly hesird and seen 
 — black-winged in plumage and ominous in sound, 
 intermingling with the joyful voices of the people 
 their hoarse, discordant and doleful cries. This 
 black brood — prolific as birds of ill-omen are — over- 
 spread the Northern land. They were the forerun- 
 ■ler.s of war and carnage. From that early day to 
 the present, 'here has been an increasing and con- 
 stant abuse of the people of the South, in petitions 
 to Congress, articles in newspapers and periodicals 
 and sermons from the pulpit. Then the pestiferous 
 agitators, becoming numerous, organized themselves 
 into societies whose avowed object was the agitation 
 of the question of slave-property. I'lance makes 
 the boast that she is the only Christian nation that 
 goes to war for an idea. We behold, as we study 
 history, how the dynasty of a nation, through suc- 
 cessive generations, and under dift'erent heads, like 
 that frigid one of the Romanoffs of Russia, pursue 
 one idea of destiny — how all things and circum- 
 stances, all little diflerences of men, as well as 
 great hostilities of nations, are moulded to the suc- 
 cess of the one great object. So the Puritan ele- 
 ment of New England, naturally one of organiza- 
 
9 
 
 tion, lioni in no necessary rivalry, tag, from the 
 earliest days, used the question of slavery as one to 
 excite the moral and religiousprejudicesof the peo- 
 ple of the Northeru States, for the purpose of the 
 political degradation of the South, and the suprem- 
 acy of the New England Stares. Uaving imbued 
 the minds of the people of the North with a belief 
 In the immorality and irreligion of slavery — that in 
 it was the "sum of all villanies," it had no difficul- 
 ty in using these true agencies of assault in the 
 political world. And having thus systematically 
 poisoned the minds of the people, it had but little 
 difficulty in infusing them with the general Ifelief 
 that the attempt of the slaveholding States to pre- 
 serve and defend their constitutional rights, were 
 "the agressions of the South." Under this politi- 
 cal shibboleth, which never rose to the aignity of an 
 argument, as it was destitute of logic as of fact, the 
 battle of sectionalism was fought and won. In 
 my opinion, from a study of the political history of 
 the country, the so-called "aggressions of the 
 South" or "slave power," as it is called, have been 
 the attempts of the people of that section to preserve 
 their rights of propertj' and "State sovereignty" 
 over their domestic institutions. The policy of the 
 South, at least before the present revolution, was 
 defensive — only asking for a strict construction of 
 the Constitution. I have not the time to review 
 the great contests over the admission of States, re- 
 cogniaing slave property, into the Union. Every 
 contest is but a repetition of that over the admis- 
 sion of Missouri, as to the position of the North. — 
 For in the refusal of the Northern members of Con- 
 gress to admit Missouri, unless she presented her- 
 self as a "free State," that is unrecognizing in her 
 constitution, the right of property in slaves, was the 
 assertion of the principle of "intervention" as to 
 the domestic institutions of a State by the federal 
 government — a principle, the legitimate fruits of 
 whose triumph are now apparent in the dethrone- 
 ment of all State sovereignty in free as well as slave 
 States. 
 
 The domestic institutions of the Southern States 
 have been overthrown. And the Northern States 
 have been dethroned of their sovereignty, and the 
 people of their personal panoplies. 
 
 As the Republican party was defensive in its pro- 
 fessions before it came into power, so it has been 
 ag2;resdive since its attainment. As it was hypo- 
 critical in its policy of "freedom" in a minority, so 
 it has been bold and audacious in its tyrannies and 
 usurpations and crimes in its majority. It was 
 scarcely to be expected that a party, whose policy 
 was aggressive, would after it had obtained power, 
 even wlien danger threatened the Republic, relin- 
 quish the attempted realization of those promises 
 which were the elements of its success. Factions 
 do not compromise. Their missions are not to 
 preserve but to destroy liberty. The history of this 
 party as exemplified since its triumph, may yet be 
 written, if it is permitted to pursue its reckless 
 course, in the fable of an ancient race, which tells 
 ns that faction is the twin brother of liberty, who 
 was born before the latter, and the only one of the 
 two who is immortal. 
 
 THE REPUBLICAN PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR 
 THE WAR. 
 
 It is responsible for this war, unless it was crim- 
 inal for it ti have sacrificed its creed. We remem- 
 ber how after the election of Mr. Lincoln, the 
 Southern States, by their representatives in Con- 
 gress, were willing to remain in the Union, provid- 
 ed they were guaranteed protection for their pro- 
 perty, their prayer being that the Constitution, or 
 
 at least the compromise resolutions of Mr. Critten- 
 den, in which were less than their rights under the 
 Constitution, should be the rule and guide of action 
 — how Virginia, forgetting and forgiving, in her 
 love for the Union, the raid of the Northern ma- 
 rauders upon her soil, called the "Peace Congress" 
 --how the legislatures of the northern States, includ- 
 ing New York, who was as guilty, aye, more guilty 
 than the others, because she was the greatest of 
 them, when the country was on the verge of civil 
 war, sent to that Congress men who believed in no 
 Constitution, but only in the cr^;ed of a past politi- 
 cal campaign, and how the peaceful and conciliat- 
 ing propositions of the "Border States" were re- 
 jected, undoubtedly by the consent, if not the in- 
 fluence of the President. These events are all parts 
 of the record of this Administration which will be 
 reviewed in truth by the historian. We can all re- 
 call vividly, as though it were but yesterday, the 
 strange scene which the North presented when the 
 news flashed over the wires of the fall of Sumpter. 
 Never was there a sublimer scene witnessed — never 
 was there a grander pageant in the history of the 
 world than the apotheosis of the symbol of the 
 Union. And never was there such a dethronement 
 of memory, and of reason by the people in their for- 
 getfulness of the history of the Republican party, 
 its sectional principles and aggressive creed, and of 
 its stern fanaticism in refusing to grant the slight- 
 est guarantees of constitutional justice or even 
 equity. 
 
 There was nothing strange in the enthusiasm 
 which took the place of memory and reason, for a 
 nation's flag, from the time when Palamedes of 
 ArgoB "formed the first systematic line of battle," 
 representing its position and distinguishing it in 
 contest, has been, whatever may been its form, 
 however rough in outline and poor in decoration or 
 of the finest embroidery, the object of veneration 
 and devotion like the symbol — the "two transverse 
 lines" — of our holy religion. 
 
 I had the honor to be at that time a member of 
 the Legislature of this State. I voted for the ap- 
 propriation of $3,000,000 to equip volunteers from 
 this State to defend the capitol of the country from 
 threats which were made against it. I have no 
 regrets to make for that vote. It was a duty im- 
 posed upon me from which I could and would not 
 absolve myself. I trusted that tho action of the 
 government would be wise and conservative — that 
 it would be defensive and not aggressive. I stated 
 then that I would support the government in all 
 just and wise measures of public defence. "Not one 
 cent for aggressive coercion, but all for the defense 
 of the capitol, the preservation of the govern- 
 ment, and the wise and discreet execution of the 
 laws." I feared then, from my conception of the 
 policy of the Republican party, that it would at- 
 tempt to enforce its policy, and make triumphant its 
 principles, if legislative measures failed, by those of 
 armed power. Men who were then regarded as 
 "loyal" are now called secessionists. But the 
 standard of patriotism has changed. It is no long- 
 er the Union upon the Constitution, as illustrated 
 in seventy years of greatness and glory, but the 
 Union as it should be of the radical leaders of the 
 Republican party — one resting upon armed subjuga- 
 tion and not will — upon the ruins of States, and not 
 by the consent of the States and living in the hearts 
 of the people. Whoever will not approve and even 
 applaud the progressive policy of those reckless and 
 imbecile leaders who attempt to guide the govern- 
 ment, are called secessionists. The Democratic par- 
 ty has and never will countenance the doctrine of 
 seeesaion. The doctrine of constitutional secesaioo 
 
10 
 
 tWy regard as a "heresy" »Bd the recognition of 
 ■which would be destructive to our government. — 
 There is undoubtedly secession by revolution, but 
 one which should be resorted to only upon necessity. 
 It is always a right when triumphant in its results. 
 The people who resort to revolution for the redress 
 of grievances and their liberation from oppression 
 have always two alternative fates before them, 
 which are triumph or defeat, and the synonyms of 
 which are in this connection patriotism or treason. 
 It is not a legal right. "It is a right against law 
 and above law. It is a right against majorities as 
 well as minorities." "It is," as Mirabeau express- 
 ed it, "the tocsin of necessity alone that gives the 
 signal when the moment is come for fulfilling the 
 imperscriptable duty of resistance, a duty always 
 imperative, whenever the Constitution is violated, 
 always triumphant when the resistance is clearly 
 just and national." I repeat that the Democracy 
 do not justify the action of the Southern States. — 
 They forsook us who had fought their battles, for 
 they had none to fight in the South— in the day of 
 our defeat. If they had been wise they would 
 have remained in the Union, for then the present 
 practical realization of the promises of the Republi- 
 can party would have been impossible. But wheth- 
 er secession be based upon constitutional authority, 
 asjthe statesmen of the South allege, or upon only 
 that of revolution, it is now a, fact, though it is not 
 yet successful, and never will be if a wise policy is 
 adopted. What has been the policy of the govern- 
 ment in relation to the position of the Southern 
 States ! It has not been that of conciliation since 
 their action, to bring them back, as it was not to re- 
 strain them when they threatened revolution. Its 
 only policy has been that of "coercion by arms" — 
 and by that not of a civilized nature, but barbaric 
 — the avowed objects of which have been not to re- 
 store them to their ancient sovereignty, but to make 
 them subjugated provinces. 
 
 As I stated at the outset of my remarks, we are 
 approachiug that stage of the Revolution when the 
 great questions which will arise in the triumph or 
 defeat or compromise of this revolution will be the 
 subjects of investigation and study. Where can 
 we find more valuable materials for such investiga- 
 tion than in the opinions of those great statesmen 
 who framed the Constitution. Although circum- 
 stances may have changed, and with those changes 
 the plans and measures for the present, yet we may 
 learn something from them as to the policy to be 
 pursued in preserving or restoring the Union. I 
 know that there are many dupes of the false 
 logic of political leaders, who believe that the sys- 
 tem of our government is a failure, and who desire 
 one existing upon the principle of the centralization 
 of authority, and supported by the "coercion of 
 arms." But 
 
 ••The dead, yet soeptered sovereigns, who still role. 
 Our epirite from iheir urns," 
 
 expressed different views which at least demand 
 our respect. 
 
 Alexander Hamilton in the State Convention was 
 compelled to protest against an undue exercise of 
 ITedural authority. He aald : 
 
 "The States can never lose thelrpoWers till the whole 
 people of .America are robbed of their liberties. Tbtso 
 muBi go together; they muit support each other, or meet 
 a common late." 
 
 If Hamilton had assumed the contrary position, 
 Kew York State would not have adopted the Con- 
 stitution, and would have remained out of the Union 
 
 as a separate nation. These views were generally 
 entertained by the members of the Convention from 
 all of the States. It is interesting at this time 
 when the modern ideas of the Union prevail, to read 
 the opinions of our fathers as they are found in the 
 paper of Mr. Madison and Elliott's debates. But it 
 must be admitted that they did not foresee the eir- 
 eumstances which characterized the commencement 
 of this contest — the first gun beingfired by a State 
 on a federal fort. But after the contest had com- 
 menced their views should have been followed so 
 far at least that the war should have been waged, 
 as the people demanded, and as Congress declared 
 it should be, for the rsstoration of the legitimate 
 authority of the federal government, and not against 
 the institutions of any State, "but that when the 
 rebellion should be put down and the war at an end, 
 each State should emerge from the ruins, with all 
 its pristine rights and dignity complete, untouched 
 and undiminished." 
 
 I might cite the views of all the great framers of 
 the Constitution to show at least that war alone as 
 the means of a policy cannot restore the Union. War 
 alone, every sensible man must admit, cannot re- 
 store the Union, for it exists upon the "consent of 
 the governed." I have an abiding faith, which 
 never fails, that the Union will be restored. The 
 inevitable result of the next presidential election — 
 the triumph of the policy of the Democratic party 
 — will restore it, when the people of the South ex- 
 hausted like those of the North, will consent to re- 
 turn to their old Union. But the war has not been 
 carried on even under the pretence of the restora- 
 tion of the "Union as it was." It has been to de- 
 stroy a particular species of property — it has been to 
 subjugate and exterminate a people by the policy of 
 barbaric warfare. It has been to overthrow the 
 sovereignty of the "loyal States," and to d stroy 
 the liberties of the people of the North. But yet 
 this has been the natural result of the success of 
 the Republican party. It promised the overthrow 
 of State sovereignty at the South, and the natural 
 result has been the verification of the prophecy of 
 Alexander Hamilton, that 
 
 ' The States can never lose their powers till the whole 
 people of Americi^are robbed of their hbertiea." 
 
 I do not refer to the revolted States, but to the 
 dethronement of the local sovereignty of the North- 
 ern States, and the loss of our own liberties. The 
 licentious results of the siagZe policy of the Repub- 
 lican party of the "coercion by arms" of States, no 
 oje can forsee. 
 
 THE DANGERS OF THE FUTURE. 
 
 We are now, as I believe, at a point from which 
 two piths diverge into two forteen futures — one ta 
 centralized despotism, the other to anarchy. The' 
 unsuccessful attempt to follow the former, will, 1 
 fear, lead us in the latter. But there is yet time- 
 to retrace our steps in that wide path in which our 
 country had made and was making such a grand 
 natural advance until the days of November, 1861. 
 I appeal to history for the truth of the grand past,. 
 and I appeal to the present for the sad realitiei^ 
 and the threatened disasters of the future. Under 
 the policy of the Republican party within less than 
 two years, this nation, which was reaching the 
 acme of civilization, has been relapsing into the 
 moat ancient barbari^-^m as to the policy of war, and 
 has modelled the administration of government after 
 the most odious despotisms. At the commencement 
 of the war, thousands of brave men, believing thai 
 
11 
 
 it was for the cause of "a betrayed Union, and vio- 
 . lated Constitution," grasped their arms and spran; 
 into the "armies of the Union" at the call of the 
 President. They enrolled themselves to fight for 
 the honor of their national flag, but as the deluded 
 followers of Mokanna, the false prophet, beheld 
 when he raised the Silver Veil from his countenance 
 in place of the anticipated celestial features of a 
 God, merely the hideous feature* of a fiend, so they 
 now behold that that flag was but a thin outer gauze 
 covering the real emblem — the black flag on which 
 is inscribed — Extermination to the people of the 
 South and slavery to thosecf the North. Hundreds 
 of thousands of them now sleep the last sleep under 
 the Southern soil. Hundreds of thousands of them 
 are maimed and crippled for life. The youngest, 
 the noblest and the bravest have both met the same 
 fate. There being no more who are willing to ofl'er 
 themselves up as a holocaust to the imbecility of 
 the administration, and to fight for the policy of a 
 party which has been substituted for that of a na- 
 tion, and which has for its result, thougU it may 
 not be its avowed object — a San Domingo war of 
 outrage and massacre of the defenceless women and 
 children of our own race by slaves changed into de- 
 mons of lust and blood, the Administration declares 
 that the war must go on, if it has to be prosecuted 
 ty armies of slaves, 
 
 THE PEOPLE OF THE NORTH DIVIDED AS TO 
 
 THE PuLICY OF THE WAR, AND THE 
 
 WAR ITSELF. 
 
 There is no doubt that the people of the Northern 
 States are divided as to the war. It is the question 
 which the States will settle, if they are any longer 
 States in the political system 
 
 " but the 
 Tributes of the State, the States themselveB, 
 To bind, to looce, to build and to destroy, 
 In peace, in war to govern ; i av, to rule 
 Their very fates, like some superior ttiing." 
 
 seem to be assumed at present by the President. 
 
 The people of the North are divided into three 
 classes. There is oiie who are opposed to the pre- 
 sent policy of the war, but who are in favor of its 
 prosecution for, as they allege, the restoration of 
 "the Union as it was, and the Constitution as it 
 is." 
 
 The second class is composed of those who are op- 
 posed to the war, on the ground that war cannot 
 restore the Union. 
 
 In the third classs are embraced those who sup- 
 port the Administration, whatever may be its poli- 
 cy, who have followed it through all its changes of 
 measures and of men, and who illustrate in their 
 actions the formula of Archbishop Laud, "Passive 
 obedience and non-resistance to the king," and 
 who b3' their servile adulations of the President and 
 his usurpations of State and personal rights, permit 
 him to boast as the flatteries of the courtiers of 
 Louis XIV extorted from him the exclamation — 
 L'etat, c'est moi, and who say that the war must 
 be prosecuted to the end, whatever may be the 
 means employed, provided the result is reached. — 
 What the result would be of such a policy I shall 
 speak of hereafter. Those who belong to the first 
 class are opposed to the present policy of the Ad- 
 ministration, for the reason that even if war can 
 restore the Union, the measures of the Administra- 
 tion are opposed, not only to the rules of civilized 
 warfare, but tend to excite the people of the revolt- 
 ed States to desperation and to unite them in their 
 struggle for independence. 
 
 The Administration hag adopted the war policy 
 of barbaric ages. It is well expressed by Chan- 
 cellor Kent in his Commentaries : 
 
 "The end of war is to ptocure by force the justice 
 which caonot be otherwise obtained; and the law of na. 
 tions allows the means requisite to the end. There is 
 no limitation to the career of violence and ueftrucUou, 
 if we follow the carlieut writers on thin subject who 
 have paid too much deference to the maxims and prac- 
 tices of the ancientB and the usages of the Gothic ages 
 They have considered a state of man ai a dissolution of 
 all moral ties, and a license for every kind of dinorder, 
 and intemperate flerceness. An enemy was regarded as 
 a criminal and an outlaw, -who had forfeited his rights, 
 and whose life, liberty and property lay at the leet of the 
 conquerors. Everything done against an enemy was 
 held to be lawful. He might be destroyed, though un- 
 armed and defenoelesa. Fraud might be employed, as 
 well BB force, and force without any regard to the 
 mean». But these barbarous rights of war have been 
 queHtioned and checked In the piogrees of oirilizsition. 
 fublic opinion, as it becomes enlightened and refined, 
 condtmna all cruelly, and all wanton destruction of life 
 and property aci equally useless and injurious, and it 
 contro.B the violence and severity of war oy the energy 
 and severity of its reproaches " 
 
 * Kent Commeutaries, Lecture 5, p. 99. 
 
 They regard the measures of the administration 
 — especially the Prjclamation of Emancipation and 
 the Confiscation bill, the objects of which are the 
 game — as bein^ not only unconstitutional, unjust, 
 and impolitic, but against all precedents, if not of 
 all civilized governments, at least of that from 
 which we derived our common law precedents. I 
 can have no sympathy with Secession, nor with the 
 government of the Confederate States, as my alle- 
 giance is due only to my own State, and the Fede- 
 ral government. But I assert that the people of 
 the Southern States, and those portions where the 
 protection of our government does not reach them, 
 should not be stripped of their property, for render- 
 ing their allegiance to the Confederate government, 
 however irregular may be its form. It is not my 
 intention to discuss the unconstitutionality of these 
 measures, as I regard them but as the natural con- 
 sequence of the triumph of the creed of the Repub- 
 lican party — as the of&cial consummation of its de- 
 signs and anticipated results. I cannot, however, 
 refrain, in this conneetion, from quoting a few lines 
 from the Commentaries of Blackstone. My pur- 
 pose in so doing, is not in justification of the action 
 of the Sonthorn States, but in condemnation of the 
 policy of the administration, whose results must be 
 to strengthen the revolution, and unite the Southern 
 people in perpetual allegiance to the Confederate 
 government: 
 
 N .tional allegiance is therefore perpetual, and local 
 temporary only; and that for this reason, evidently found- 
 ed upon the nature of ihe government, that allegiance is 
 a debt due from the euhjf:ct, upon an implied contract 
 with the Prince, that so long: a' the one aff rds proteciioa 
 so long the olh«r will demean himi'elf fai'hful'y. * * 
 • • • From which deci ion Matthew Hale 
 
 deduces this consequence, that thc.ugh there be an usur- 
 per of the crown, yet it is treason f r any subject, wiiile 
 the usurper is in full pos«eision of the soveregniy, to 
 pricxice anything against l. is crown and dignity. There- 
 fore, al hough iho trae Prince regain the Kovereignly, yet 
 such altptnpti ag»iiut the uiurper (unless in detense or 
 aid of ihe rn^htful King) hare been aftsrwards pun- 
 ished with death,- bejause of the breach of the tem- 
 porary allegiance which was due to hiin as King dt 
 Jo'to. And apon this footing, afier Edward IV. received 
 the crown, wr.ich had been lung: deiamed from l>is house 
 by the line of Lanetsler, treason committed against 
 Henry IV. was eapitaliy punished, though Henry had beett 
 declared a usurper by Parliament. 
 
 Was there ever a people, the subjects of an usur- 
 pation, so forced by the imbeoilitj of the legitimate 
 
12 
 
 government — to support and defend with their lives 
 the govemnent which protected (hem, however ir- 
 regular may have been its forms, or illegitimate 
 the source of its authority, as the people of the 
 Southern States. They behold in the Proclamation 
 of Emarcipation and the Confiscation bill, measures 
 which must destroy all desire at the South for the 
 success of the cause of the Union; for that success 
 will, under the sweeping provisions of these meas- 
 ures, deprive them of their property and homes. — 
 They are right when they declare that they cannot 
 support the war under its present policy, for it is no 
 longer even ostensibly, a "war for the Union." Mr. 
 Stevens, the leader of the Kepublijan party in Con- 
 gress, made this declaration : "That he would never 
 consent to the restoration of the Union as it was." 
 His Union is that one which would be the creative 
 result of the policy of his administration and party. 
 It cannot be a war for "the Constitution as it is," 
 for that, sacred instrument has been superceded by 
 the revolutionary measures of the President and 
 Congress. And there is no predicting what meas- 
 ure tbe administration may adopt, and for what ob- 
 jects the war may be prosecuted. Revolutions 
 march rapidly, and the administration is the repre- 
 sentative of a revolutionary party. Its ori inal 
 leaders, like the Girondists, the authors of the 
 French Revolution, and the judges of the King, 
 have been thrown aside, and the "radicals" — the 
 same class as the Jacobins of that age — now shape 
 the policy of the war, and guide the destinies of 
 the country. And if they are permitted to prose- 
 cute the war under their present and progressive 
 policy, they will not only make a San Domingo of 
 one half of the land, but they will destroy even 
 the forms of State governments and personal liber- 
 ties at the North. Michelet says, in his French 
 Revolution, that, 
 
 The sects which were the offspring of the Revolution, 
 annulled ihe Revolution Itself; people became Constitu- 
 ants, Montagnards, but the Revolutionists ceased to 
 exist. 
 
 So the Republican of 1860 — the simplo and hon- 
 eet believer in the creed of Chicago — so the patri- 
 otic War Democrat of 1861, who gave not only his 
 thousands, but his sons, to the cause of what he 
 believed to be the redemption of the Union — must 
 be now, under the present standard of patriotism, 
 which is a changing one, an emancipationist, an 
 abolitionist,' an advocate of armies of negro slaves, 
 of usurpations and dictatorship at the North, and 
 whatever may be the new and progressive policy of 
 the radical and revolutionary administration which 
 he suppsrts. 
 
 Thi; secoad class do not support the war, what- 
 ever may be its policy, because they are opposed to 
 the war as the means to restore the Union. The 
 future will decide whether they were the "wise 
 men" of the age, or not. 
 
 THE TWO ANTAGONISTIC PRINCIPLES— CEN- 
 TRALIZATION AND LOCAL SOVEREIGNTY. 
 
 As I stated at the outset of my remarks, there 
 are two antagonistic principles of government which 
 are contending for mastery — one or the other of 
 which must triumph. I speak of this contest at, the 
 North — the "loyal North." The policy of the ad- 
 ministration, though it may he disguised under the 
 cry of safety for the Republic, is yet shaped for the 
 former. I believe that the triumph of that princi- 
 ple in our government is as lamentable as the disso- 
 lution of the Union. It is more, for the Union can 
 he reconstructed; but ft froo people, history tell* 
 
 us, who lose their liberties, seldom regain them.* 
 In fact, in its triumph, tbe Union is destroyed. It 
 is the old principle of ccntralizationm government 
 which has been the seed of destruction to so many 
 nations, as it has been the weapon of oppression to tho 
 people. It destroyed the Ancient Republics, upon 
 the ruins of which were erectad the rule of the Con- 
 sular-Dictators and Imperators of Rome, and tho 
 tyrants of Athens. The antagonism of our Eng- 
 lish ancestors to this principle, was the key note of 
 all their popular struggles. The Barons of England 
 extorted the abnegation of it from King John, at 
 the points of their swords, when he in Magna Charta 
 granted local sovereignty and personal protection. 
 J ,hn Hampden asserted it when he refused to pay 
 the local ship tax imposed by the king. Charles 
 the First, because he failed to comprehend the 
 odiousness of this principle to the people, lost his 
 throne and mounted the scaffold. And Louis XVI. 
 followed him a century later, for asserting to the 
 people the pentralization of absolut", power in hina- 
 self. All the great writs of English freedom which 
 we believed were our inheritance, were the fruits of 
 the defeat of this principle, and our fathers believed 
 when they triumphed over the attempts of the king 
 and parliament to centralize the local government 
 of tlie Colonies in themselves, that they had buried 
 this principle on this Continent. Only once in our 
 history has it been asserted — under the administra- 
 tion of the elder Adams, in the "Alien and Sedi- 
 tion" laws, by the Federal party which had the 
 seat of its power in the New England States, and 
 which tue people of the Southern and Middle States 
 overthrew. Elliott, in his "History of Liberty," 
 writes of it as follows: 
 
 Over ttie ages of old, there broods, from first to 
 last a giant shape, conjured up by human laws. — 
 Wherever men came together, upon the Eastern plams 
 or around the Western citadel, they dwell m the shadow 
 of centralization. This is one ot the two systems by 
 whic'i s()ciety IS constituted The other is Union. Cen- 
 irolizaiion binds men together. Bul.il binds men toge- 
 ther to the benefit of the minority. The mBJority is op- 
 pressed. 
 
 Kosouth saidj in one of his speeches, in this 
 country : 
 
 I hope tlint the great French nation will soon fucceed 
 to estabhsii e true Republic. But I have come to tho 
 
 * Since delivering the above speech, I bavs read tho 
 following reiiitrks of >*enalor Harris, of this State, in 
 the U S. Senate, whi' h are worthy of attention, as from 
 a distinguished Republican: 
 
 " In this counirv, even in our utmost need, and England 
 with her many wars and often jcarciiy of men, never 
 resortea to this despotic measure (the Ccnscripiii.n bill). 
 1 1 was a mode 'if raising armies only used by despoil, 
 hut never by Republican governments; and the princi- 
 ple, if adopted, would p ovidi large standing armies 
 whicli itliriost inevitably lead todespuUsm. In a govern, 
 me: t of deligHted power, and which rested upon the con- 
 sent of the governed, it was inexpedient anj niinecei- 
 sary. Cougress liad not the piwer, under the Constitn- 
 tion, thus to destroy the militia of the State, which the 
 Con«iiiuiion provided for, as a reserved ;orce of the 
 Union. If this measure was adopted, there would be 
 centralized power. He would not say that the President 
 wou'd make bad use of this power, but he ob ected to 
 the principle. It was alwa)S dangerous to eentraliso 
 .sBCh immense ;>ower under one man — an ambitious m»n. 
 Might not ihe fate of France be thai of this country? — 
 Our forefathers saw the d.tngem. and wisely placeil 
 cheek! upon a too great ccBiralization of power. It has 
 been said that the life nf the nation was at stake He 
 believed that tht liberties of a frtt ■people were of more 
 importance than anything else, and it he were to choose 
 between am Imperial Government, stretching over the 
 whole country ar.d including Mexico and Canada, and 
 two or three separate rcpablies, be would have no he«- 
 tation in ehoosing the latter." 
 
13 
 
 coBviciJon that for freedom there is no duration jn cen- 
 tralization, which IS a legacy of ambitious men. To be 
 conquerors, power must be centralized; but to be a 
 nation, selt-governmeiil must reign in fam lies, villages, 
 cities, count es, stales. As power now is lodged in France, 
 the goveri ment has in us hands a half a million o{ men 
 under that war di?cip;ine which is neei'ed in a standing 
 army. «*♦*»** 
 Now, genilpmen, is it not clear that with sucli authority 
 and force — not to become dauger'^us to liberty, every 
 President must needs lo be a Washington. And Wash- 
 ingtons are not so thickly strewn around. Woe to ihe 
 country whose institutions are such ihat their freedom 
 depends upon the personsl character of one man. B.; 
 he the best man in the world, lie will not overcome the 
 osseniial repugnance of his position to Freedom. When 
 France abandons thi« eentra!iz«tion, and carries out her 
 own principles of "Liberiy, Equally, Fraternity " by 
 loial self govtrnmcnt, she will be ihe great basis of Euro- 
 pean Republics. I lake it that the right to east a vote 
 for the election of a President every four years, does not 
 exhaust the sovereign righls oi a people. A people de- 
 ciding about Its own raaileis, must be everywhere mas- 
 ter* of lis own faie, in villages, communes, as much as 
 in electing us chiet officer. 
 
 Was there ever a more daring assertion of this 
 principle than by the party who control the Federal 
 Government? I warn the people that there is more 
 danger to their lilierties than ever menaced a free 
 people. Those who are in favor of it, and there 
 are many honest men tinder the influence of de- 
 signing leaders who are, should, if they desire to 
 make it triumphant, support the administration in 
 the most vigorous and extreme measures, and most 
 despotic policy, by the overthrow of State sovereign- 
 ty and the violation of all personal rights at the 
 North, by the advocacy of the usurpation and con- 
 centration of all powers in the Federal Government, 
 by the conscription of those ULwilling to volunteer, 
 and the incarceration of the opjionents of the policy 
 of the administration. 
 
 The other principal is local sovereignty, known 
 to us more generally by the term of " State 
 sovereignly." It is the principle upon which the 
 American Revolution was founded. It has been 
 called the Anglo-Saxon principle from the jealous 
 devotion of that people to it. Lieber says in his 
 " Civil Liberty" that, 
 
 " In England we fi^^l see applied in practice auC on a 
 «-rand scale, the idea which came or g mall y from the 
 NeUicrla! ds, that liberty must not be a boon of the gov- 
 ernrneni, but that a must derive iis righls from the peo- 
 p.e." 
 
 This local sovereignty, within defined limits, 
 exists in England, in counties, shires, cities, towns, 
 and even in the cottage of the peasant. Lord 
 Chatham expressed it thus ; 
 
 " Every man's house ii , his castle. Why? bcpuse it 
 is Burrouudf.d bya moat and deiended by a whil? No 
 It may be a siraw-buili hut; the wind may whisilo uround 
 itj the rain may enter it, but the king of Eng aril can- 
 nel!" 
 
 Our fathers brought this principle of government 
 ■with them, and deiended it against king and par- 
 liament, who attempted to wrest their local sov- 
 ereignty from them, and to centralize all the con- 
 trol over the colonies in themselves. The Union can 
 never be restored without the recognition of thit 
 principle — the promised violation of it was the cause 
 of this war. I did not support the policy of the 
 Republican party before its triumph. I cannot sup- 
 port its measures now — the result of the triumph 
 of that policy. The measures of tbu administra- 
 tion are but the realization of the policy which the 
 Republican party promised, should be that of its 
 chief representative if he were elevated to the. 
 Presidency. That policy was to be interventioH 
 in the domestic institutions, and the overtbiow ( 
 
 of the sovereignty of the Southern States. — 
 Few of those who enrolled themselves un- 
 der the standard of that party expected that it 
 would be exercised except as to the institution of 
 slavery. It is not my purpose to attempt to prove 
 that such measures as the " arbitrary arrests," 
 the imposition of " martial law" over the "loyal 
 States;" the " suspension of the habeas corpus," 
 and the obnoxious measures of the administration, 
 are illegal and unconstitutional. The most gifted 
 jurists of the country have, in the most elaborate 
 arguments proven the affirmative of the proposition. 
 I regard them but as the natural consequence of 
 the tt iumph of the great principle — the essence 
 of the creed of the Republican party. 
 
 The advocacy of the application of this insiduous 
 doctrine by the Federal Government, so totally 
 repugnant to the essence as well as the theory of 
 our polity, and the consent by a majority of the 
 people of the North, that it should be applied as to 
 the Southern State, has resulted in the overthrow 
 of their respective local sovereignties and the loss 
 of their personal liberties, as the necessary conse- 
 quence of the former. 
 
 All the great inalienable rights of the people as 
 defined and enumerated in the Constitution of the 
 United States, and the several States, have been, 
 by the " arbitrary power'" of the Federal Govern- 
 ment, wrested from them. I need not repeat what 
 those great rights are. They are known to us, as 
 we have always enjoyed them. Not the Federal 
 Constitution, but what has been called the '- neces- 
 sity of the hour," has been the rule and guide of the 
 action of the administration and a servile Congress. 
 The State Constitutions have become mere nulli- 
 ties under the exercise of the arbitrary and usurped 
 power of the Federal administration. Summary ar- 
 rests and summary incarcerations, have been sub- 
 stituted for the arrest by the warrant of law, and 
 the preliminary examination. Lettres dc cachet 
 of the style of the regime of Louis XV, issued by 
 the officers of the administration, and their subordi- 
 nates, and summary condemnation without trial or 
 even explanation, have been substituted for the 
 legal processes, as ordained in the Constitution, the 
 embodied reproduction of the writs of English 
 freedom. Provost Marshals, support 'd by military 
 power, have been appointed in the different " loyal 
 States," 10 enforce its arbitrary and despotic 
 measures. The Governors of the States, unless they 
 resist and are supported by the people, have been 
 virtually deposed as their States have been de- 
 prived of their sovereignty. AVhile our armies 
 have been contending, as they believe, for the 
 " restoration of the Union," it has been destroyed 
 at the North, and in it* place has been erected a 
 gigantic, consolidated despotism. There is no 
 longer a President of the United States, but there 
 is a dictator, assuming the right to exercise more 
 power than the Emperor of Austria or the Czar of 
 Russia. If Napoleon HI attempted to assume such 
 arbitrary power, he would raise a revolution which 
 would rock the imperial throne to its centre. 
 The supporters of the different measures of the ad- 
 ministration do not claim that they are constitu- 
 tional. They admit them to be extra-constitution- 
 al, but necessary as the war itself for the preser- 
 vation of the government, for " the life of the Na- 
 tion,-' toi out nationality. This is the argument 
 which ha* been ever used by usurpers and their 
 parasites. Where was there ever one that did not 
 justify his usurpation by this plea, even though he 
 were obliged to wade through blood to obtain 
 the desired power. The dictators of Rome; the 
 tyrants of Athens; the Protector of England; the 
 
14 
 
 first Napoleon and his sucoeesor, the present Em- 
 peror of France, nsed this plea. 
 • The Union to-day exists onW im name at the 
 Worth. It has been destroyed by those to whom 
 its preservation was entrusted. Upon its debris 
 they hare erected a gigantic, consolidated govern- 
 ment, all its power issuing from a Federal head; 
 despotic and usurped power, the object and result 
 of which must be, unless popular agencies prevent, 
 the fate of all free Republics whiah have pre- 
 ceded it. 
 
 I owe a fealty to the Union as represented by the 
 Federal Government, but to a Federal Administra- 
 tion, which distorts the sacred and ordained pur- 
 poses of the Union, and which usurps the sovereign 
 rights of the States, I owe no allegiance. I prefer 
 the Union of Madison, Hamilton, Ellsworth and 
 their as.-ociates in the great work of its establish- 
 ment, to that polity which the Republican party de- 
 mands, and for the substitution of which the policy 
 of the war has been changed. There are many who 
 desire to have a strong consolidated government, 
 some from interest and power, and others from honest 
 preferences. There has not been a speech made in 
 this or the upper House by a Republican member, 
 which has not been an open or indirect advocacy of 
 such a polity. We read such sentiments expressed 
 in the journals of the day. 
 
 "Tiie repre?eni3iive pyitcm i> laughed at, a«d the 
 id M of mo 'arcliial or political tluolatism is draped anew, 
 and worshipned by ihnus;iHd» as if it were the latest 
 avaiar of their political QniV 
 
 Such a government would be undoubtedly respeted 
 and feared abroad, as great empires are, but it 
 would also resemble theai in that it would be op- 
 pressive and odious at home, resting upon military 
 power, and only to be overthrown by the giant form 
 of armed revolution I prefer that one which blesses 
 its own subjects to that which oppresses them, 
 though it may terrify other nations. I prefer that 
 one which is based upon the assertion of our fathers, 
 that "governments derive their just powers from 
 the con.sent of the governed," and not that which 
 the new political teachers would found upon the 
 maxim of " divine right and passive obedience" of 
 George Jeffrys — A Deo Rex, a Rege Lex, and 
 which entrenches itself upon the absolute decrees 
 of the Stuarts and Bourbons of past centuries, and 
 the Romanofls and Hapsburgs of this age. I am 
 still a believer in the former, weak and defenceless 
 though ir may be, as alleged by the advocates of 
 consolidation, but strong and united, when the 
 compromises and principles of which it is the off- 
 spring are respected by its rulers; that government, 
 which, when more powers are demanded by the exi- 
 gencies of the hour, appeals to the people, the 
 natural and true source of all power, and not like 
 the latter to absolute decrees and usurpations — the 
 ultima ratij regum- 
 
 In the return by the Administration, to the for- 
 mer of the two ]iriDciples, I can find the only hope 
 for the restoration of the Union, not merely in its 
 form, but in its essence. The Union has been 
 virtually overthrown at the North by the Administra- 
 tion, that is, if it is based on the Constitution, for 
 there is scarcely a section of it which has not been 
 violated. 
 
 THERK CAN BE NO J-UBJUGATION, BUT THE 
 REVOLUTION CAN BE CONQUERED. 
 
 The polioy of the war has been shanged, aa has 
 
 been the nature of our GoTernment. It is no longer 
 
 for the ' 'restoration of the Union," whioh the Demo- 
 
 ratie party lupported, hut it hai beteue one, as 
 
 admitted by the supporters of the Administration, 
 for the destruction of slavery, the extermina- 
 tion of the people of the revolted States, and the 
 colonization of iheir States by Northern men. — 
 These objects maybe carried out, for there may be 
 nothing impossible to the great Northern race. 
 The resources, the mi'itary character of the people 
 of the Nofth, and their bravery hare astonished the 
 worlds But 1 have never faltered in my concep- 
 tion for what ends this war should be, if war is the 
 means. I have my own peculiar views, based on a 
 study of the opinions of the great men who framed 
 the Constitution, as to the policy of "coercion by 
 arms," ojtZy, as the means; but the people of the 
 North decided that such should be the policj', and 
 when its object was, as they demanded it should 
 be, the restoration of the Union, upon the 
 Constitution, I never threw obstacles in the way 
 of the Government. But a different policy has been 
 substituted — one which it is not even claimed is 
 for that purpose. It has now become a war to carry 
 out the principles of a party, and not those of the 
 Union — it is a war fought ontside the Constitution, 
 to found a new nationality. I prefer that policy, 
 which sent with the armies, instead of the "Procla- 
 mation of Emancipation," to arouse servile insur- 
 rections, and the "Confiscation Bill," which deters 
 the revolutionists of the South from renewing their 
 fealty to the Federal Government, and forces them 
 to sustain the Confederate Government, however 
 irregular it may be, which protects their property, 
 the declaration made by Congress, after thei first 
 battle, and defeat on the plains of Manassas. I 
 have an abiding faith in the restoration of the 
 Union. I can speak for my party, when I say that 
 it will never be content with anything less than tbe 
 old Union, including all the revolted States. How 
 will it be restored? By arms? Not by arms only. 
 I am not in favcr of disbanding our armies. What- 
 ever may have been the cause of this w.ar, however 
 great may have been the original error of it, as some 
 allege, however unjustifiable it may be by Con- 
 stitutional authority, we are now at war. I ex- 
 pect it will go on. What will be the the measure of 
 it will depend upon the policy of the Administration, 
 and the temper of the people. But, I have no hesi- 
 tation in saying that the restoration of the Union 
 by the "coercion of arms" only, w-.U be an im- 
 pusibtlity. If our armies conquer all the revolted 
 States, and hold them by "military power," will 
 the Union be restored? No! For that Union was 
 made and has existed by the "consent of the States." 
 This is the essence of the Union — its living force — as 
 was declared by New York State, as the condition 
 of agreeing to the adoption of the Constitution — the 
 bond of the Union. Tlie forms of the Union may bo 
 exhibited to foreign nations. There may be no 
 blockade of the Southern coast — its ports may be 
 open to tbe commerce of the world. Our gun boats 
 may open the Mississippi, to the free navigation 
 of all the people who live on its banks. But it will 
 not be the Union, living in the hearts of the people, 
 and embracing all the States by their sovereign con- 
 sent. The name may still be that, by which it was 
 known to the nations who had beheld its re- 
 splendant banner; and heard of the great Republic, 
 the "United States of America." But thej' will 
 not be States united by their sove?;eign consent, but 
 subjugated, if you succeed in that policy, and held by 
 armed power. It will be a Union in name only, such 
 at those of Poland to Russia, Hungary and Venetian 
 Italy to Austria. It will not be that Union, neither 
 in its history, purposes or principles, which was 
 established ia 1789, and whose record reaches to 
 
15 
 
 of the Administration, as proclaimed by its leadin^ 
 Bupporters, should be triumphant, a gigantic con- 
 solidated despotism. Subjugation is seldom the re- 
 sult of war. There is not an instance of history of 
 such a country as that which stretches from the Po- 
 tomac to the Kio Grande, and from the Northern 
 frontier of the revolted States, to the Gulf, and in- 
 habited by such a large population of such a spirited 
 and warlike race — the same composite race to which 
 we belong, however different may have been theor- 
 ignal and parent races — provided so abundan tly with 
 all th« modern material of war, and defending a 
 •ountry whieh from its national adaptation to de- 
 fense may be said to be, as Thucydides the ancient 
 historian described Greece, "all armed with iron,'' 
 subjugated. Is Poland, a little province in compari- 
 son with that of the Southern States, subjugated? 
 Thespirit of Kosciuzko, still "walks the Carpathian 
 heights." Poland to-day is in arms ! Is Hungary 
 subjugated? She may be in arms to-morrow! Is 
 Venetian Italy subjugated? The Empire of Aus- 
 tria has become bankrupt in its endeavors to hold 
 them by armed power? Such a result would not be 
 the Union ! It would be the human form without 
 the heart to give the pulsations of life, and the soul 
 to give illustrations to that life, by all the elements 
 of mental beauty. It would be a religion without a 
 creed! It would be a temple without a God ! Our 
 armies may marsh from the Potomac to the Gulf of 
 Mexico, aud then without the consen'. of tho people 
 there will be, not only no Union, but no subjugation. 
 The great Napoleon, and we have no Generals like 
 him, marched tlrough Spain, but he left every day 
 a hostile country behiud him. That wonderful man 
 overthrew all Europe. He was at one time the 
 Xmperor, not merely of France, but of Europe. — 
 He died, and tho "map of Europe returned to its 
 ori.inal place." Even the trophies of Rome were 
 restored. The policy of subjugation, extermination 
 and colinization, avowed by some, is an impossi- 
 bility. Even if it were a jjossibility, such a resuU 
 would be no honor to us, but to our historical in- 
 famy. But the views of those theorists, who be- 
 hold the exterminition of a race, the division of 
 their estates among the courtiers, and the favorite 
 Generals of the Administration, and tae coloniza- 
 tion if the lands of tho South by the Northern 
 soldiers, will never be realized. 
 
 The war will go on. The President has been in- 
 Tested with absolute power to prosecute it, and one 
 party declares that it will support him, whatever 
 may be his policy. But the map of tho Union will 
 return two years from now to its original place. I 
 heliev* that it oould be returned bow, if tho Ad- 
 jainistvation with its armies in the field, would say 
 to the suffering and mourning, but still the deter- 
 mined people of the South — "The North has but 
 one policy — the restoration of the Union in its in- 
 ttfrity, the provisions of the Constitution shall be 
 • ^forced as to your institutions, and the rights of 
 your States shall be inviolate." Th« revoiution 
 »a% then bt corquered. Unless this be its policy, 
 the glory of restoring the Union will b« reserved for 
 that party, whose history is that of the eountry in 
 the days of its peace, prosperity and greatness, at 
 well as its Union. But this maybe compromise ! 
 Iti» an unhappy word in these days, when apostate 
 followers of the " Prince of Peaee" «ry out, 
 from the altar, "war to the knife, and the knife to 
 th* hiU." It was an uuhappy word in this Room 
 two y«ars ago this month. I recollect, a« though it 
 war* but yesterday, the reply made by the dit- 
 tlBjCuiihed leader of the Kepabliean party, of the 
 
 1861. It will be, it must be, If the present policy] Legislature, a gentleman of just and liberal tea- 
 ,xL- 4 j_;_:..__^.-._ , • ,1 ,.,.:,, denoies, to the sneering opposition made by one of 
 
 his political colleagues to the endorsement of the 
 Crittenden resolutions. Two years of bloody eivil 
 war have not effaced that reply from my memory ! 
 It was as follows : 
 
 "When the burly bnrly's done, 
 When the hauls i« lost or won, 
 
 there must be compromise." Compromise is 
 the result of all contests, unless there be 
 subjugation, which x is very rare. I beheld Na- 
 poleon III. start from the city of Paris to place 
 himself at the head of the most magnificent army 
 which ever trod the earth. He declared that "Italy 
 shall be free, from the Alps to the Adriatic !" He 
 won the battles of Magenta and Solferino. But as 
 he looked upon the last battle-field and beheld its 
 vast circumference crowded with the ghastlv forms 
 of his brave soldiers, he asked himself whether the 
 repetition of such sanguinary contests were worth 
 the anticipated result. He foresaw that the ulti- 
 mate result of a contest with such a great military 
 power a; that of Austria, though all his battles 
 might be victories, must be a compromise. In a 
 tent on the hill of Villafranea a treaty was made 
 for the future peace of Europe, as all ttie great con- 
 tests of Europe have been compromised by treaties. 
 I want a compromise upon the Constitution — one 
 only which restores the Union. That result can, I 
 confidently believe, be attained by a wise and just 
 policy. I believe that t.ie people of the South are 
 tired of this fratricidal war. I do not mean the 
 leaders, the contractors and generals, any more 
 than their compeers at the North; but the people, 
 who are fighting, as they believe, for their homes, 
 and their property. The returned soldiers of our 
 armies will tell you that those of the Southern 
 armies desire peace, and say "with oar two armies- 
 we can conquer the world." 
 
 THE FUTURE. 
 
 Two hostile armies if the present policy of the 
 Administration continues, and unless other agencies 
 intervene, will, two years from last November, face 
 each other. But armed revolution will dissolve as 
 rapidly as the snow on the mountain tops at the first 
 breath of summer, when it is whispered by the sol- 
 diers from the Northern lines across to the warriors of 
 the Southern lines, of the great political revolution 
 at the North, and that the reign of abolitionism is 
 over. The reign of secession will then expire. And 
 upon the ruins of despotism, both at the North and 
 South, will be seen, as the clouds of war are dis- 
 pelled by the purer political atmosphere, the Old 
 Union, resting upon its ancient basis of the Consti- 
 tution, and supported by the pillars of the States. 
 Whatever may be the result of the congests which 
 may intervene between now and then, whether they 
 be lost ur won, there will then be a compromise, 
 which will be in the return of the people of both 
 the North and South to their old fealty to the Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 I frankly admit that I long for the morning which 
 shall usher in the day of peace, and the restoration 
 oftheUnioo. "When I read the violent denuncia- 
 tions of "peace" in the radical journals of the day, 
 if I did not mix among the people, in the public 
 thoroughfares, on the crowded marts and in the paths 
 of daily life, I would be led to believe that the 
 philosopher was right when he said that " peaee is 
 the dream of the wise, but war is tho history of 
 mankind." But however it may be in the other 
 parts of the State, I kaow that the hearts of the 
 peopla of the great metropolis, of which I have the 
 
16 
 
 honor in part to represent, are throbbing for the 
 faintest hope of peace with the restoration of the 
 Union; and that their p"ayer is that the adminis- 
 tration will adopt that policy which will ensure those 
 results. The weapon oi intimidation is being used 
 against those who doinand some other method of re- 
 storiu<? the Union that that of the administration. 
 It is the old weapon. "Intimidation, " says Lord 
 Urougham, " is the never-failing resource of the 
 partisans of revolution iu all ages." It is now not 
 only the weapon of the revolutionists at the North, 
 but of the contractors and place men who cluster 
 around the Administration. The "Hartford^Conven- 
 tion" has, as a threat upon me as aa opponent of 
 the present policy of the war, no effect. There is a 
 difference in a lori;ign and a civil war — between that 
 Vfhich meets a strange enemy on the field, of a dif- 
 ferent race, and speaking an unknown tongue, and 
 that which is wa^ed around our own hearthstones, 
 and substitutes for the holy household gods the 
 malignant furies of domestic hate and strife. 
 
 All the Democratic party asks, whatever may be 
 the individual differences of its members,, is that 
 the Administriition shall change its policy from that 
 of a party, which is to-day in a minority in the 
 " loyal States," to that of the people, and that if 
 the war i.s to go on, it shall be, if it can be, for the 
 restoration of the Union, and not for its destruction 
 and the erection upon its ruins at the North of a 
 consolidated despotism. Be assured of this how- 
 ever, that the iJemocratic party will not permit 
 either the dissolution of the Union, nor the destruc- 
 tion of its forms, nor the violation of the two great 
 assertions of the Constitution — the Sovereignty of 
 the Stw es and Personal Rights. We believe that 
 there are leading men in the councils of the nation, 
 who, if they cannot succeed in their war policy, 
 prefer a Northern Kepublic to the restoration of the 
 Union. No matter how mighty and prosperous 
 thej may vision this Northeru Kepublic t« us, wo 
 
 will not permit them to bequeath the wealth of, 
 divide the power of, and sacrifice the prestige of the 
 Union between t>vo distinct and antajjonistic Repub- 
 lics. History repeats itself in parallels; and their 
 fate will be written io a parallel to those who have 
 attempted, but tailed to reach the giddy heights of 
 usurped posver, or who, having scaled them, have 
 been cast down by the giant form of revolution. I 
 doubt sometimes whether the most flagrant con- 
 spirators who sit in the Senate House expect to be 
 tried before the "tribunal of a free people," to be 
 there adjudged by the inexorable lawvi of popular 
 retributive justice. 
 
 The Democratic party will restore the Union, as 
 it was able to preserve it. Upon its ensign is in- 
 scribed, erea rmid the iitorms of battle, the 
 maxim — 
 
 Conciliation called the Union into being — simple aad 
 even-handed justice will preserve it forever. 
 
 In the spirit of that maxim the great men of the 
 infant age of the Kepublic were imbued, and the 
 words of which should be inscribed upon the walls of 
 every legislature, as upon those of some of tho 
 courts of justice of England is inscribed the maxim 
 of law and equity — Audi alteram partem, ! so 
 that it " may be kept in perpetual remember- 
 ance.-' It has no sympathy with the barbaric war- 
 cry, which resounded on the fertile plains of Italy 
 centuries ago, and, in the triumph of those who 
 uttered it, was only destruction, and who left no 
 traces of civilization and State forms, and which is 
 now the prevailing war-cry of the Republican party, 
 the triumph of which will be a parallel in result to 
 the triumph of the Gothic hordes — the faa victix! 
 But in the spirit of the former, it will restore the 
 Union of the States, and make it again the happi- 
 ness, the pride and exultation of its piiople, and 
 
 Siill a mark to fjuide the nations on, 
 I Like a tall waich-iower flashing o'er the deep. 
 
 LS?/ Of^ CONGRESS 
 
 012 026 657 3 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 \ 
 
 «« >M%MA * 1 V^y* .