01 
 
 2 028 027 2 # 
 
 pennulife* 
 P H8.5 
 
E 458 
 .4 
 
 .N877 
 Copy 1 
 
 THE JOINT DEBATES 
 
 tieorge northrop, Esq,, Democratic, and Hon.Wm, 0, Kelley, Republican, 
 
 NOMINEES FOR CONGRESS O THE FOURTI1 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF PENRA. 
 
 coDRiRESiPOiisriDiEisrciE. 
 
 Mr. Northrop to Judge Kellty. No. 524 Walnut Street. 
 
 Hon. William D. Kelley. Dear Sir: You and I have been nominated by the respective poli- 
 tical parties to which we beloDg, as candidates for Congress in the Fourth District of Pennsylvania. 
 Of course, we ask the support of the voters of the District on account of the principles which we 
 severally represent. 
 
 In order, therefore, that the people of the District may judge between us in this respect, I pro- 
 pose to you that the citizens of both political parties should be called together, and that we should 
 together address them. 
 
 If this proposition shall be accepted by you, arrangements can be made to secure order and fair- 
 ness in the discussion. 
 
 Please let me have your reply at once, as your absence from the city has already delayed me. 
 September 13, 1864. Respectfully yours, GEORGE NORTHROP. 
 
 Judge Kelley to Mr. Northrop. -N. E. CpR. Forty-first and Myrtlb Streets. 
 
 George Northrop, Esq. Dear Sir : I regret that your favor of the 13th. inst., containing a 
 request that I would let you have my reply at once, as my absence from the city had already de- 
 layed you, was not handed me by your friend until to day. I was at home on the day of the date, 
 and would have given it immediate attention. 
 
 I at once accept your proposition, that the citizens of the Fourth Congressional District of both 
 political parties shall be called together, and that we shall together address them. As the District 
 is composed of five populous wards, and as your object is to make the people of the District to 
 judge between us in respect to the principles we respectively represent, I suggest that arrange- 
 ments be made for two meetings, 'at least, in each Ward, which shall continue for not less than 
 three hours each. This arrangement will enable us both to state our principles, and the good or 
 evil likely to flow from their application to the questions now pending before the country, in the 
 hearing of a majority of the voters of the District. Should you prefer a larger number of meet- 
 ings, I will not object, as my purpose in accepting your proposition is to enable the people to 
 select between us with knowledge of our principles and those of the parties which have placed us 
 in nomination. 
 
 If you will have the goodness to send me the names of friends to whom you wish to confide the 
 arrangements for the discussion, I will take measures to bring them into intercourse with an equal 
 number of my friends. Hoping tuat what I have said will be satisfactory to you, 
 September IB, 1804. I remain, very truly, yours, WM, D. KELLEY. 
 
 Mr. Northrop to Judge Kelley. No. 524 Walnut Street. 
 
 Hon. William D. Kelley. Dear Sir: I acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 16th, 
 accepting the proposition riiade by me in my letter of the 13th. The gentlemen of the Committee 
 to act on my behalf in arranging the discussion, are Col. James Page, Hon. Wm. H. Witte, and 
 Col. McCandless. They will be glad to meet those whom you may select at any time designated 
 by you. I am, very respectfully, yours, 
 
 September 17, 1864. 
 
 GEORGE NORTHROP. 
 
 Judge Kelley to Mr. Northrop'. N. E. Cob. Forty-first and Myrtle Streets. 
 
 George NoRTHRor, Esq. Dear Sir : Your favor of the 17th reached me late in the evening of. 
 that day, and I avail myself of the earliest moment to reply. 
 
 It gives me pleasure to name Leonard R. Fletcher, Esq., of the Fourteenth Ward, William H. 
 Kern, Esq., Fifteeuth Ward, and John M. Riley, Esq., Twentieth Ward, as constituents who will, 
 meet your friends and make all necessary arrangements for the discussion ydu propose. 
 
 If agreeable to Messrs. Page, Witte, and McCandless, a meeting can be had to-morrow afternoon 
 at four o'clock, at the office of Mr. Kern, second story, Perm Mutual Insurance Company building, 
 No. 921 Chestnut street. Very truly, yours, WM. D. KELLEY. 
 
 Mr. Northrop to Judge Kelley. No. 524 Walnut Street. 
 
 Hon. William D- Kelley. Dear Sir: Your note of to-day has just been received 
 The gentlemen who have consented to act for me will meet your Committee at the hour and place 
 
 designated by you. Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 September 19, 1864. GEORGE NORTHROP. 
 
I n u ill u l ll l u 1 11 1 1 Ul I ft 
 
 In pursuance of the above arrangement the Committees have agreed upon the following prelimi- 
 naries : 
 
 George Northrop, Esq., Democratic candidate for Congress in the Fourth Congressional District 
 of the State of Pennsylvania, having challenged the Hun. William D. Kelley, the National Union 
 candidate for the same District to open discussion (before the citizens of both political parties,) the 
 Hon. .William D. Kelley accepted the said challenge. Mr. Northrop appointed Colonel James 
 Page, Hon. Wm. H. Wide, and Colonel McCandless, for arranging the discussion on his behalf; 
 the Hon. William D. Kelley having appointed Messrs. L. R. Fletcher, Esq , William H. Kern, and 
 John M. Riley. Said Committees met on the 20th instant, and agreed upon the following prelimi- 
 naries: 
 
 First. There shall be eight meetings, commencing at 1\ o'clock P. M., and continuing three hours. 
 
 First meeting to be held on Friday, September 23d, Second meeting to be held on Monday, 
 September 26th, at Broad and Spring Garden streets, for the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Wards. 
 Third meeting on Wednesday, September 28th. Fourth meeting on Thursday, September 29th, at 
 Seventeenth and Poplar streets, for the Twentieth Ward. Fifth meeting on Monday, October 3d. 
 Sixth meeting on Tuesday, October 4th, at the Masonic Hall, Manayunk; for the Twenty-first 
 Ward. Seventh meeting on Thursday, October 6th. Eighth meeting on Friday, October 7th, at 
 the West Philadelphia Hall, Thirty-seventh and Market streets, in Twenty-fourth Ward. 
 
 At the first meeting on Friday, September 23d, George Northrop, Esq., will open the discussion 
 and occupy an hour; the Hon. William D. Kelley to follow and occupy one and a-half hours; Mr. 
 Northrop to conclude and occupy one-half hour, and the discussion to alternate thus during the 
 continuance of the meetings. 
 
 Personalities are to be avoided ; evidences of approbation or disapprobation on the part of the 
 audience not to be allowed. No badge or lantern to be permitted at the meetings. 
 
 Messrs. Northrop and Kelley shall each appoint a friend to act as moderator alternately, and in 
 case of their inability to agree, the moderator to appoint an umpire. 
 
 The expense of the several meetings to be borne equally by the parties. 
 
 L. R. Fletcher, Wm. H. Kern, and John M. Riley, Committee on behalf of the Hon. Wm. D. 
 Kelley. James Page, W. H. Witte, and Wm. McCandless, Committee on behalf of George Nor- 
 throp, Esq. Philadelphia, September 20, 1864. 
 
 The First Joint Debate between George Northrop, Esq., and 
 Hon. William D. Kelley, 
 
 IN THE HALL OF THE SPRING GARDEN INSTITUTE, FRIDAY EVENING, 
 SEPTEMBER 23, 1864. 
 
 GEN. WILLIAM M'CANDLESS, Moderator. 
 
 OPENING REMARKS OF GEORGE NORTHROP, Esq. 
 
 PHONOGRAPHIC REPORT BY D. WOLFE BROWN. 
 GEORGE NORTHROP, Esq., being introduced by the Moderator, said :— 
 
 Fellow-citizens: — It is well, perhaps, that I should say a few words to you in relation to 
 the manner in which the canvass is now proposed to be conducted in the Fourth District. 
 
 I believe we all agree that the present position of parties involves issues of the very 
 highest importance ; and I have thought it well, in this time of trouble and excitement, 
 and political and sectional division, that those who ask to represent the sentiments of 
 the district in Congress, should come before the people of the District and explain the 
 views which they severally hold, and upon which they ask* their support. As far, 
 gentlemen, as I am concerned, it was, I assure you, with no vain-glorious spirit that I 
 asked the gentleman who opposes me to-night, and who opposes me in the canvass, to 
 enter thi: lists. Ifwas not for the purpose of testing his well-tried experience, or claiming 
 even the notoriety of antagonism to his positions. I come before you with but the one 
 earnest desire — to develop the truth — to exhibit perfectly the issues which lie between the 
 two parties in this canvass — thoroughly to examine all the questions which have agitated 
 the country, (some of them newly agitated within the last three years,) and to give the 
 reasons of the political faith which we may hold. 
 
 Gentlemen, if there ever was a time when it was important to settle political questions 
 acording to the truth — when it was important to settle the principles which should control 
 and govern parties, and control and govern the country, that time is now ; and in order 
 that there may be a full and clear statement of the questions of the day, and the proposi- 
 tions which it is suggested shall be discussed, I shall proceed at once to state a lew pro- 
 
3 
 
 positions and a few questions; as it devolves upon me to open this discussion, and T pre- 
 sume, to a certain extent, to suggest the topics of this evening's discussion, as well perhaps 
 as those of the canvass. 
 
 The first proposition which I announce is this : That the Constitution of the United States, 
 within its limitations, is the supreme law of the land, and the only bond of the Union of 
 the States. 
 
 2. The only mode by which the Constitution can be altered or amended is prescribed by 
 that instrument itself. 
 
 3. Whenever any department of government exercises any power beyond or antagonistic 
 to the Constitution, it is revolution. 
 
 4. A successful revolution against the Constitution by those in power, subverts the prin- 
 ciples of our Government, produce's anarchy and establishes a despotism. 
 
 5. The theory of the equality of the negro with the white man is not a justifiable prin- 
 ciple of revolution. 
 
 In addition to these, I have a few qnestions which I will propound as I proceed in the 
 argument. 
 
 Gentlemen, although you may understand perfectly well all the theories of government 
 which may have existed prior to the adoption of the Constitution, we can never too often 
 revert to the fact that, when it was framed, it embraced, as a principle of government, a 
 new element. There had been governments from time out of mind ; but there had always 
 existed an antagonism between the governing element and the people. You recognize the 
 fact that history has been but one single succession of statements in relation to the dynas- 
 ties and families and men who have governed ; and the "divifie right of kings" has been 
 taught, with the divine right.of transmitting their divinity to their successors. The peo- 
 ple suffered and groaned, but, nevertheless, ordinarily submitted to the power of the govern- 
 ment which they recognized to be the supreme power to control them. 
 
 Once in a while, during this history of the past, men of the people arose, and questioned 
 this "divine right of kings." They believed that there was a right on the part of the 
 people to have something to say with regard to the government and the principles of 
 government, and they did not believe at last that it was a settled fact, against which the 
 people could raise no voice of protest, that there should be this divinity and this succes- 
 sion of power. They did not believe that the people were made simply to fill armies and 
 to be taxed. They believed that the people had a right to be heard — had a right to con- 
 trol the government — in other words, they taught boldly that government was for the peo- 
 ple, and for the benefit of the people, and 'not for the benefit of the ruling caste. These 
 teachings created revolutions and disturbances in the different nations of Europe. The 
 whole history of many of the years of the past has been a simple history of the struggles 
 of the people against power. Now and then the people would gain a foothold; but the 
 tide of despotism was strong; they would lose that which they had gained; and every- 
 thing would relapse into the old channels. 
 
 The principle thus contended for from time to time was that upon which our ancestors acted 
 when they laid down the broad foundation and placed it in the Constitution as a cardinal 
 principle, that Government was for the people, and not for those who executed the Govern- 
 ment. In other words, they built a structure of government in which the sovereignty of 
 the people was the ruling element, and not the right and power of monarch or prince. 
 Accordingly, they framed a Constitution embodying the principle that those who conduct 
 the Executive Department of the Government are the servants of the people; that they 
 derive their authority from the people under the Constitution, and that their power and 
 their control and their influence are limited legitimately by the Constitution and the Laws. 
 Upon this basis, the States of the Union came in under that Constitution. In that 
 instrument, as first framed, there were many things which were objected to. Different 
 States had their different views with regard to certain propositions. Certain of them 
 thought it well to have what was called a bill of rights, declaratory of the rights which 
 they the sovereign States possessed, prior to their entering into this compact, this confede- 
 ration, or this Union. Others thought that there should be other provisions in that 
 Constitution. The result was that subsequently to the adoption of the original Constitution, 
 which was given to the people by the Convention over which George Washington presided, 
 there were adopted certain amendments — stronger than protests, stronger if possible than 
 bills of right, stronger than any legislative enactments of States with regard to the positions 
 of those States, because they were engrafted in the Constitution itself, co-equal and co- 
 extensive in power and application with that Constitution as originally framed. 
 
 Those amendments were deemed at that time, as we still deem them, the most 
 important parts of the Constitution. They are embraced in twelve articles. The 
 first article prohibits Congress from making any "law respecting an establishment of 
 religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of 
 the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government 
 for a redress of grievances." Article Second provides that "The right of the people to keep 
 and bear arms shall not be infringed." Article Fourth declares that "The right of the 
 
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable 
 searches and seizures, shall not be violated ; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable 
 cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, 
 and the persons or things to be seized." Article Fifth provides that "No person shall be 
 deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." And then comes what 
 was deemed the most important clause of all. It is found in the Tenth Article, in these 
 words, — "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited 
 bv it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 
 
 Now, Gentlemen, the men of that day foresaw that there was a probability or a possibility 
 that there might arise questions differing from those which had then arisen, and which 
 might disturb the harmony or at least divide the popular sentiment of the different parts ^ 
 of this country. In order to meet that contingency, they provided in the Fifth Article of 
 the original Constitution that there should be the mean.-, which they designated, ot making 
 amendments to that Constitution. I have submitted, as my second proposition, that the 
 only mode by which the Constitution can be altered or amended is prescribed by that 
 instrument itself; and there exists on this continent no power which can legally interfere * 
 with that provision, to change any principle of that Constitution. 
 
 An important proof of the conciliatory spirit of the early days is to be found in the history 
 of the eleventh article of these amendments, which reads thus: — "The judicial power of 
 the United States .-hall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced 
 or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens 
 or subjects of any foreign State." 
 
 Now, Gentlemen, I-will give you what perhaps may be little known to most of you, the 
 history of that amendment. After the adoption of the Constitution as originally framed, 
 a question arose under a section of that Constitution which gives to the Federal judiciary 
 the power of trying questions where citizens of a State might be parties on the one hand 
 and a State a party on the other. In reference to one of the States of this Union the 
 following facts occurred: — There was a proceeding instituted against this State by persons 
 alleging themselves to be citizens of another State. Tliey cited this State before the Federal 
 tribunal ; notwithstanding that there was a provision of the Constitution giving to the 
 judiciary of the United States power to entertain such a case, that State held that it should 
 n- u be and would not lie brought before any tribunal, at the action of any citizen, to have 
 its sovereign power degraded and disgraced. It held the doctrine which all States have 
 held, that, if you have any claim against a sovereign State, you must urge or press it by 
 petition to the proper authorities; that you cannot cite a sovereign State before any judi- 
 cature, because you may, in process of law, have to issue executions or other processes, 
 which might militate against the freedom and sovereign rights of the State. 
 
 That Siate at once stood in a hostile attitude, defying that law and that principle. 
 What did the people of that day do? Did they say "There is that principle in the Con- 
 stitution, ami thai principle shall be enforced at all hazards, and you shall be brought into 
 subjection by armed interposition?" No; with a conciliatory spirit (and I do not think 
 that I am traveling out of the record when I express the wish that such a spirit hail existed 
 within the last three years) the people of that day, ihe leading men of that time took cog-* 
 nizance of the position of that State; they acted upon the suggestion of that State; and the 
 Eleventh Article of the amendments of the Constitution was adopted, which took out of 
 the Federal jurisdiction the right to entertain any suits by citizens of one State against a 
 sovereign State. This passed by quietly — so quietly that within the short history of our 
 time the reason for the adoption of that article is almost forgotten. 
 
 That circumstance shows that even where there is an element of antagonism to the 
 Government, wisdom is manifested by taking the conciliatory side of the question and by 
 appeasing all the element- of ill-feeling and opposition rather than by attempting to trample 
 them down and raising still more dire and formidable opposition. 
 
 Now, Gentlemen, the Constitution having been adopted, the principle of alteration having 
 been placed there as a safeguard, important results having taken place in relation to the 
 amendments under that, very principle. I say that I hold it (as does I believe the party I 
 represent) as a cardinal principle that whenever any department of government exercises 
 any power beyond or antagonistic to the Constitution, that is revolution. We know that 
 in other countries, with settled forms of government, where the element of the people's 
 power is not felt, where there are no constitutional provisions to make changes, there is 
 DUl one way to change the course of political events, it is by revolution and antagonism — 
 by tearing down the existing order of things and the government which may at the time 
 Bubsist ami by establishing upon its ruins that which the revolutionary power desires to be 
 established, or which the people insist shall be established. 
 
 Now, it is a fair corollary from tin.-, that a successful revolution against the Constitution 
 by those in power subverts the principles of the Government, produces anarchy, and 
 establishes a despotism. 
 
 J am discussing lor the presenl these abstract propositions of government, and the time 
 will come in this discussion when 1 shall show their applicability to all the issues involved 
 
in the present contest. I do not believe that any theory, that any policy of any adminis- 
 tration has a right to place itself beyond, or above, or antagonistic to, the principles of the 
 Constitution ; and I avow here the Democratic doctrine that the very instant a policy or a 
 theory is avowed which the Constitution does not sustain, and for the support of which 
 you must go outside of the Constitution, that very instant the power which inaugurates 
 that policy or theory begins a revolution against the Government itself. If a policy or 
 principle cannot stand the test of the Constitution, you need not argue to me the "military 
 necessity" or any other necessity. It matters nothing to me on what principle or what 
 theory any party may interfere with the rights that I believe to be mine, and inalienably 
 mine; it matters nothing to me upon what abstract principles you base your theories or 
 how you bring- the personal applications to bear; I stand simply and solely upon the 
 doctrine that those* rights which are guaranteed to me by the Constitution are dearer to 
 me and better for me, if I have the right of judgment (which I claim I have) than any 
 theories which you can raise which infringe upon those rights and upon my freedom. 
 
 Since the Constitution was framed, there has seldom been any necessity, save within 
 the last three years, to discuss any principle with regard to the paramount character 
 of that Constitution, under the limitations contained in it, as a principle of govern- 
 ment. With that Constitution, inseparably connected, (a sundering of one being a 
 severence of the other) is the Union, which exists under that and with that, and with 
 certain powers of sovereignty in the States beyond that, because reserved and guaranteed 
 to those States by the very instrument itself. 
 
 The Democratic party, holding these general principles, believe that the present Admin- 
 istration has completely defied them and set them at naught. We believe that it is evident 
 from the discussions in Congress, that the gentlemen who represent. Administration views 
 cannot agree upon the terms of re-union, measures of policy, or upon the positions of the 
 different States of this Union in this contest. We believe that there can be no division of 
 this country, no strife between sections, that cannot have at least the brotherly element of 
 peaceful solution applied or attempted to be applied to it. We all know that when this 
 contest commenced there was a united North to answer the call of the authorities at 
 Washington to suppress what was supposed to be a rebellion of a few days. Why was 
 that united feeling exhibited? Becaiuje the statement was made at that time that the 
 course of the Administration was designed to reduce rebellious States to their allegiance 
 to the Constitution in the Union. The whole policy and course of the Administration 
 seemed to point toward that end. You know as well as I know that no divisions were 
 made, no party lines were drawn, with regard to the uprising which then took place in 
 response to the call of the President. Why was it? Men did not stop to discuss what 
 other appliances there were. Their sentiment was that, if the theory of the Administra- 
 tion was war, and that war could put down the rebellion and bring back the Union to its 
 original condition, they would agree to that policy, and would take part in it. How long 
 did that condition of affairs remain? 
 
 I argue this without bitterness. I know that there are in this room friends of mine who 
 belong to the Democratic party. 1 know that there are upon the other side gentlemen 
 who belong to the opposition party ; that that opposition party embraces various elements 
 and different degrees of antagonism. I know that there is in that party a leading ele- 
 ment — the Abolition element; but I also know that there are some gentlemen belonging to 
 that opposition party who do not believe that the success of the Abolition element is the 
 all-important purpose to be attained by this Government. I know that they believe that 
 there may be other measures to bring back the Union, beside that of the destruction of 
 slavery, which is very problematical in its results. I am here to-night with the earnests 
 ness of a man pleading for the life, not of a fellow-man, but of a nation, before you, a jury 
 of the people, who are to judge of these great questions, upon which, as I believe, the life 
 of the nation depends. I do avow my conviction that re-construction is not possible under 
 any circumstances, save under the doctrines and theories of the Democratic party. I do 
 not believe that any theory of reconstruction is practicable except that which recognises 
 the great. and sovereign principle of reconstruction by the States. You cannot treat as 
 two antagonistic Governments. You cannot draw the line as to what Mr. Lincoln shall 
 represent, or what Mr. Davis shall represent, if you come to any treaty or any arrange- 
 ment or any agreement. Suppose Mr. Lincoln's ultimatum be taken, and that we say to 
 the South " You shall have slavery abolished before any single word of yours shall be 
 heard; you shall not crawl back upon your knees with a single slave within your Terri- 
 tory." "What does this mean ? Why, it means that the war is carried on now in view of 
 the element of slavery, and on behalf of antagonism to slavery. It means, not that there 
 shall be a Union as it was, nor the Constitution as it is, but that there shall be one single 
 uniform, overshadowing principle in this country, originating in New England, which 
 principle is the abolition of slavery. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I say that the right of the States to control their own domestic insti- 
 tutions — the right of the States to settle those institutions — belongs to them exclusively ; 
 and no other State or power has a right to interfere. The States now in rebellion must be 
 1* 
 
brought back in one of two ways, whether it be by war or by peace. You must bring 
 them back either as sovereign States under the Constitution, with all the privileges of 
 sovereign States guaranteed to them by that instrument; or you must bring them back as 
 conquered provinces — which no constitution of this country recognizes. 
 
 Now, here is the point with regard to amendments: If there be in the Constitution an 
 element which puts in the hands of any State or any set of States a power which is anta- 
 gonistic to the principles of our Government, let it be altered or taken away under the 
 provisions of that Constitution for amendments. And I hold that when this war began to 
 be waged against an element which, however objectionable to many, was an element which 
 each State in the South had a right to consider as a part of its domestic institutions — when 
 the war was waged against that, it was waged against the Constitution, against the privi- 
 leges of the States, and the principles of the Government, and it was, and is, revolutionary. 
 I say further, that when Acts were passed by the Congress of the United States, and Pro- 
 clamations were made by the President, which militated against my rights and your 
 rights as citizens, under the plea of "military necessity/' then also there was a position 
 ,of antagonism in the Administration at Washington against the Constitution, and that was 
 revolutionary. 
 
 I say, moreover, that while I contend here for these principles, I am not contending for 
 them as Southern propositions for the sake of Southern success, I am contending for these 
 principles as a man standing upon Northern soil, in my own State of Pennsylvania, and 
 beseeching my friends and fellow-citizens of this great Commonwealth not to be deluded by 
 false issues, but to see that they understand the questions involved before they give willing 
 and substantial support to any policy. I am contending simply and solely for my rights 
 as a Northern man : and Task Northern men to consider the question whether the aboli- 
 tion of slavery (which is a question between New England fanaticism on the one hand and 
 the hereditary institutions of the South on the other) — is a question in which you are going 
 to take part, politically or otherwise, to the detriment and loss of your liberties both politic 
 cal and individual. 
 
 My proposition is, that I do not believe that the theory of the equality of the negro with 
 the white man is a justifiable principle of revolution. If Slavery is to be aboltghed, it 
 must not be abolished by proclamation ; for any attempt to do so is Unconstitutional. 
 Gentlemen, you may talk about this thing being forced to this point; you may say that 
 this is a question which the war has brought upon us. I tell Mr. Lincoln and his friends, 
 to-day, that he had it in his power to place the whole of these Northern States upon a 
 unanimous basis of support. He, when he arrayed the great armies of the North, might 
 have paused — in the name of humanity, in the name of religion, in the name of the great 
 strength of the Northern people, and in view of the great future of the country, he might 
 have paused, and said, "Before I call these millions of Northern men to put down what 1 
 believe to be a causeless rebellion and revolution— r I pause upon the threshold. I halt my 
 army upon tout borders. 1 ask you now what cause of grievance you have — what you 
 demand. Send me your commissioners, that I may know your complaints. Let me know 
 whether there can be no peaceful solution of this difficulty. Let me hear what the people 
 of the South demand." If he had done so, my wOrd for it, the questions would have been 
 settled. There would have been peace to-day. There would not have been these innume- 
 rable graves. There would not have been this terrible feeling of hatred and hostility 
 between the two sections of the nation. There would not have been a country ruined in 
 every thing but the manufacturing interests, which sustain the war, and which the war 
 sustains. There would have been no terrible piling up of taxation for the support of this 
 principle of war and this theory of the abolition of slavery. But suppose, on the other 
 hand, that the powers professing to represent the Southern element, should have said, 
 " No ; we will send no commissioners; we will not treat with you ; we will not regard your 
 voice of warning; we do not accept your invitation." What would have been the feeling 
 of the Northern people under such circumstances'? There would have been one unanimous 
 support of the principle of the Administration, that war should be carried on tor the main- 
 tenance of the Constitution and the reconstruction of the Uniou. Whatever differences and 
 distinctions there may be between parties with regard to ultimate points and the mode of 
 treating great questions for results, I state my firm belief, that such would have been The 
 consequence of a conciliatory course on the part of the Administration. But no such 
 appeal was made. The armies of the North were poured down upon the South ; antagon- 
 ism was met by antagonism. All the Feeling and spirit in that Southern country in favor 
 of the Constitution, and of the Union (and I believe that there was much of such spirit and 
 feeling) were trampled out; and, finally, bitterness was added to bitterness, and power 
 begat the lust of power, until military domination supplanted in the land the element of 
 law, the element of order, and you have placed in an unyielding position those men whom 
 you might have won by conciliation. This is my theory with regard to the progress of 
 this war. 
 
 Now and then you found that there was some word coming across this border land of 
 contest, which looked to peace, to Union, to reconstruction, to the recognition of the Con- 
 
 - - - 
 
stitution. These proffers came indirectly, because those making them did not wish to be 
 roughly met and turned back. But at last Mr. Lincoln and the Administration supporters 
 of Mr. Lincoln promulgated their edict "To whom it may concern," shutting out all con- 
 cession, all arrangement, all hopes of Union, all hopes ol the restoration of the authority 
 of the Constitution, unless, under the most absolute and unequivocal degradation and the 
 yielding up of every right. Again, when yon insist upon the abolition of slavery in the 
 Southern states, what do you pretend to do with the States? how do you profess to* bring 
 them back? What will be the terms under which you will rule them"? How will you ex- 
 ercise the authority of the law over them ? You must keep standing armies there. You 
 will have no union of heart and feeling and sympathy, such as should spring from a reali- 
 zation of our common brotherhood and the destiny of the race and the progress of this 
 Republic and its principles. You have shut that out forever* and even if you conquer 
 every Southern State and. bring every man, woman and child in the South upon their knees 
 before you; you have but a military despotism, which will cost as much to sustain over 
 them as it does now to carry on the war ; and you have no result of peace, you have no 
 result of quiet. You keep them forever in an abject position; and those only will have 
 benefit from that who may go into different sections, of that country, and buy up and settle 
 npon the lands of the South under the Government bayonets, which must protect them in 
 their possessions. You will have but that result. And when you talk ofa reconstruction 
 of the Union by force of arms, think for one instant, what you would do under like circum- 
 stances, and whether it would be possible for you under any conditions to give up every- 
 thing that was exclusively your own ; because, recollect that, in yiplding up what they 
 believe to be right, and a domestic institution which is necessary to them, they yield all 
 that constitutes their wealth, their success, their enterprise. 
 
 They say very frankly to you, "We do not see why our slaves, working peaceably and 
 quietly upon the fields of the South, should be taken from their white masters and put into 
 servitude in the North, under white officers — a slavery which is" more dangerous to them ; 
 you do not acknowledge the equality of the races, why then do you seek to take them from 
 under our care, where they are engaged in the peaceful cultivation of the soil, and place 
 them in Northern armies under other white men's control, to take them down to fight and 
 die upon the battle-fieJd. You give them as little discretion in the one case as in the other ; 
 and we do not see that such a policy will redound to the benefit of the black man : you do 
 not carry out your doctrine of negro equality ; you place him in no position of responsi- 
 bility or trust." 
 
 These are questions which are directly in issue between the two parties. There is now 
 a pronounced and distinct avowal that there can be no peaceful arrangement made under 
 the administration of Mr. Lincoln, save that which looks to the New England element of 
 the abolition of slavery. You cannot escape from that proclamation, " To whom it may 
 Concern." The door is shut forever. What might have placed us as a power correct and 
 invincible before the world as against the South, has been lost. That is now gone forever. 
 There is no hope of a stoppage of the war, there is no hope of a reconstruction of the Union 
 under Mr. Lincoln, or within the next four years, if he should be re-elected, unless he 
 changes his policy, as he did shortly after he took his seat in the Presidential chair. He 
 said to gentlemen who wished him to deal with this slavery question by proclamation, that 
 he had no right to do so ; that even if he did, such a proclamation would be inoperative and 
 void; that it would be like "the Pope's bull against the comet." He resisted these 
 things for a certain time; bu< the tide of fanaticism was too much for him. He paused, 
 and he gave up all that he had pledged himself to do in sustaining the Constitution and the 
 rights of the States, not only in his oath of office to support that Constitution, but in his 
 Inaugural Address. By the course which he has taken and the issue which he has placed 
 as the only issue between the North and the South, he has abjured all the solemn obliga- 
 tions which he himself acknowledged in the beginning of his Presidential career. 
 
 Now, I hold that I. who am for the largest liberty possible to each of the races of man- 
 kind, am not to be deprived of my liberty that you may hear less distinctly the fancied 
 clank of any negro's fetters. I do not believe that the liberty of all the negroes on this 
 continent is worth the blood of the white men that have been slain in this contest. And 
 I ask those gentlemen who support "him to paiuse; I would rather have asked them to 
 pause prior to that proclamation of Mr. Lincoln's "To whom it may concern;" I would 
 have asked them then to pause. I care not if they should have had the glory of reconstruc- 
 tion. I want reconstruction ; I want peace; I want tranquillity. I desire that the elements 
 of progress shall be again evolved. I would be glad to-day to have every facility given to 
 Mt. Lincoln and his administration to carry out these principles and these results. But 
 he has put his foot down distinctly and unequivocally, leaving no question as to his posi- 
 tion ; and the great political point is between the permanence or perpetuity of the power of 
 Mr. Lincoln and the installing of a new administration. It is whether for such on object 
 as Mr. Lincoln holds out, you desire this war to go on to its bitter end, with its destructive 
 results, with its immense out-pouring of blood, the fearful feeling of antagonism which it 
 stirs up between the sections, its enormous piling up of taxation upon the people, the 
 
retarding of civilization and the progress of this great country. That is one of the ques- 
 tions to be settled, 
 
 Involved directly in the propositions which I have submitted, there are certain questions 
 which I will, with all respect to my friend upon the other side, now propose to him. They 
 are all points entering into the issue directly or indirectly, and most of them directly result- 
 ing from the propositions already stated. 
 
 1. Are you in favor of the restoration of the Union of these States, with their rights 
 and powers as they were at the breaking out of this rebellion? 
 
 2. Do you regard as constitutional, and do you approve of, the exercise of the military 
 and civil power of the Federal Government to create and establish new States out of 
 parts of old one? 
 
 3. Do you approve of any or all of the twentv-three acts of Congress, each having for its 
 object the declared purpose of giving to the negro all the rights, immunities and privileges 
 which have hitherto been enjoyed by the white man only? 
 
 4. Are you prepared to declare yourself in favor of the military power as superior to the 
 civil power, on the plea of military or any other "necessity?" 
 
 5. Are you prepared to defend, upon the plea of " military necessity," the suspension of 
 the civil power, so that the question of personal liberty, or security, or property, is held 
 only by the frail tenure of the President's pleasure? 
 
 6. Did you vote for, or are you in favor of, the Act of March 3, 1863, entitled " An Act 
 relating to the habeas corpus and repealing judicial proceedings in certain cases," which 
 Act allows the President's order to be an answer to any proceeding at. any time? 
 
 7. Are you in favor of the doctrine of non-interveution of foreign powers with affairs on 
 this Continent, known as " the Monroe doctrine?" ,. 
 
 _ These are questions fairly deducible from the positions I have taken. They are ques- 
 tions which affect every man in this community, involving issues which to a great extent 
 are to be settled in the coming contest. They are issues which cannot be escaped; they 
 are issues which I desire all of you to consider. I believe that I know myself thoroughly 
 when I assert that I am actuated by nothing but an earnest desire that the people of this 
 Northern country should understand the questions involved in this contest; and while I 
 have developed the general principles which I suppose will be discussed (and fairly dis- 
 cussed) in this contest, I shall take the opportunity at future meetings to elaborate these, 
 to show what have been the circumstances of outrage and oppression, and wherein the 
 Constitution has been invaded; and I shall address you as men who have this great issue 
 within your control to settle in the coming contest. I will ask you, fairly and earnestly — 
 without regard to party predilections — without regard to any of the old feelings of animo- 
 sity which the word "Democrat" may arouse — without regard to the taunts and epithets 
 which have been hurled meaninglessly at us — without designating us as "Secessionists," 
 or "Copperheads," or Disloyalists" — I ask you simply to hear us for our cause— to hear 
 us for the great principles which we believe are involved. We call no names. Yoit have 
 said that we were "traitors;" you have heaped upon us a thousand epithets; bait we know 
 that if you had understood the law and the Constitution better, you would have known 
 that these terms which you have applied to us are not properly applied, are not legally 
 applied — that they have no meaning in the application which you give them. We have 
 borne it all. But we. stand at last face to face with our opponents. We are not a party 
 which has been destroyed. No party which sustains the Constitution can be destroyed. 
 Until that Constitution is trampled out to its last letter, the Democratic party will exist 
 for the purpose of sustaining and supporting the record while it lasts, and they will be 
 true to the record till the end. They have conducted wars successfully: they never have 
 infringed upon the Constitution. They ask that you will now weigh these matters. They 
 are more than the mere antagonisms of party; they are more than the mere feelings 
 which one party-man may have toward another party-man. They are fraught with ele- 
 ments that will either bring success and peace to the country, or will bring ruin and 
 degradation. I do not care what pretexts may be resorted to; I do not care how subtle 
 may be the sophistry, or how violent may be the denunciation against me or these propo- 
 sitions ; I ask you to look at the facts, the reason, the philosophy of these relative posi- 
 tions, and say to me and every other Democrat that you will candidly consider questions 
 that you believe to be important questions, and that you will so decide them that the 
 future may never look back to your action in this contest, and lay upon you the dishonor, 
 if dishonor thereto in its results; but that you may look back to this contest with the 
 consciousness that you have conscientiously dealt with its issues, and have made a record 
 that you are willing shall remain forever. 
 
Mr. NORTHROP, being again introduced, spoke as follows: — 
 
 Gentlemen: — In opening this evening, I propounded certain propositions to the number 
 of five, and certain questions to the number of seven. Two of those propositions the gen- 
 tleman who has just concluded has directly and distinctly endorsed; but in thai endorse- 
 ment he has suggested what was entirely out of the two propositions, not depending upon 
 them, having nothing to do with them, to wit: the question of State sovereignty : and this 
 he professed to consider I was sustaining as against the Constitution, as against the Union 
 and against the powers which, under the Constitution, should be rightfully exercised in 
 relation to the States. I do not care to begin to discuss what faults there may have been, 
 or what were the peculiar views of any man in. power when a great* insurrection began, 
 and when a great revolution followed. I am not here to defend anything in relation to the 
 past in this respect. My issues to-night are upon totally distinct subjects ; and when I 
 made my propositions to the gentleman, and when I showed, as I believe 1 did, that they 
 were correctly founded on the principles of the Constitution, I suggested no opposition to 
 the Constitution by the Southern States, or any States, or any statesman of the Democratic 
 party ; I brought up the propositions as those which Mr. Lincoln and his party could not 
 sustain and support, because their conduct and their principles have been directly in 
 defiance of them. When Christ preached upon the earth his great doctrine of regenera- 
 tion and good-will and peace, he did not stand before the wickedness of the time and dis- 
 cuss the question as to who was the author of sin, or how original sin came into the world. 
 He took the wickedness as he found it ; he took humanity as lie found it; he applied the 
 principles' that were necessary to work out the salvation of men as they wen — without 
 discussing the question with regard to the thousands of sinners who might have died 
 before his coming. So the Democratic party come forward and ask to rescue this Country 
 from its abject position — from its misery — from impending ruin — from misrule — from 
 opposition to the Constitution. It is its mission to do this, and it only asks you to con- 
 sider the present circumstances of the case, and determine whether its doctrines will not 
 apply to the temporal 6alvatio'n of this ruined land. 
 
 The gentleman talks about the secession principles of Mr. Calhoun ; he talks about these 
 dogmas as being preached in the South in 1847 and in 1832. I tell the gentleman that this 
 doctrine comes from the same quarter whence all the good, as he thinks, and all the bad, 
 as some of us think, has ever come. New England preached the doctrine of secession in 
 1796, almost immediately after the Constitution had been adopted; At a later period it 
 preached it again, and made public the announcement that a State had a right to secede, 
 and that it was the judge when and how it would secede. She was the author of the 
 Hartford Convention, defying the Constitution and the authorities of that day. _ It won't 
 do to say that the Democratic party is the party that has preached this doctrine. The 
 gentleman must seek the origin of this doctrine where he gets all his good principles, as 
 he calls them. New England is responsible for the bad political doctrines which the 
 gentleman has condemned, as well as a great many more which have not been enumerated, 
 as you will probably see in the course of the discussion. 
 
 But, I deny that any of my propositions covered the doctrine of the right of the Southern 
 States to withdraw from the Union and defy the Constitution. I said no word in favor of 
 secession. I said no word in favor of. the position which the Southern people have taken. 
 I did not say that there was reason for their acting as they have acted, or that they 
 acted ^ider the Constitution. That has been an ingenious point thrown out by the 
 gentleman to make you believe that the drift of my argument was in favor of a Southern 
 opposition to the Constitution, rather than a protest against Mr. Lincoln's opposition to 
 the Constitution. I made no such point. I made no such reference. I took the fact that 
 there is now existing in this country a war, — a bitter war. 1 said that that war had been 
 carried on originally under a different pretext. Did you find, sir, [addressing Mr. Kelley,] 
 at the outbreak of the war that the Democratic party stood upon any one of these abstrac- 
 tions with which you credit them? Did you not find, as I have already indicated, that 
 the Democratic party arose as one man, and sustained what they believed to be the Con- 
 stitutional rights of the Croverninent ? But it very soon learned (and the gentleman did 
 not care to answer me on this point) that the war was to be carried on, as Mr. Lincoln 
 himself has expressly declared, for the destruction of slavery. I say that tint is not an 
 issue sufficiently important (however the mock philanthropy or humanity of the gentleman 
 may deem itj to justify- the whole of this great country in continuing this desolating war 
 another three or four years. 
 
 We take these facts as we find them. I am arguing, in these propositions, that it is 
 Mr. Lincoln who has taken ground against the Constitution. And the very Constitution 
 which the gentleman believes should be so operative over the whole length and breadth of 
 this country, contains^ provision which requires that slaves shall he delivered up, if they 
 escape, — recognizing fully the doctrine of slavery. I am not discussing the reason for 
 the insertion of that provision in the Constitution; I am not discussing whether, it was 
 properly inserted. The gentleman has avoided all the issues which I have laid down, and 
 
10 
 
 has made it a condition that I should answer his propositions before he will condescend 
 to answer mine. Those propositions have not been touched by the Gentleman. When the gen- 
 tleman talks about imaginary amendments and asks me whether such and such things 
 took place, I answer, "Why, of course such things did not take place." I am not stupid 
 enough to get up here and maintain that there was or was not any amendment to the Con- 
 stitution allowing the Southern Slates to go out of the Union. Nobody discusses a question 
 like that. It has no element of logic in it. It is a question without relevancy; it is a 
 question without application ; it is a question which you can all answer for yourselves. 
 Why turn aside from the issue to ask such a question as that? 
 
 The gentleman savs, "Why not refer disputed questions to the Supreme Court?" T say 
 to him that the action of this administration with regard to the Supreme Court is one of 
 the bitterest records of the administration. Why, sir, the Supreme Court was hold enough 
 to deliver the Dred Scott decision. It did not suit you then? — [addressing Mr. Kelley.] 
 Why does this tribunal suit you now? Do you appeal to it now, because of the new 
 elements upon that bench? Do you appeal to it now, because passion and prejudice have 
 placed upon that bench new men to fill the positions of those who were placed there long 
 before these sectional questions and prejudices arose? You turn me to the Supremo Court. 
 Why, sir, the very Chief Justice of that Court in Baltimore, asserted, in a judicial decision, 
 the right of the citizen to the writ of habeas corpus; and the soldiers of Mr. Lincoln crushed 
 out of the opinion of the Chief Justice, and refused that right. Talk to me aboHt a reference 
 to the Supreme Court for the maintenance of my civil rights, when you have passed a law 
 declaring that you have only to plead the order of the President in any case, and the pro- 
 ceeding cannot" go on ; that there is justification for all that may have been done under 
 that order. Oh! it won't do, sir, to point me to the Supreme Court, with the knowledge I 
 have that it dare not act under certain circumstances. It won't do to refer me to that 
 Court when you have taken from it all the glory that was associated with it for so many 
 years — all the integrity which commanded for its decisions respect from all parts of the 
 country. It won't do to talk to me of Courts of Justice, when bayonets stand in the place 
 of the civil tribunals, and judges are dragged from the Bench by your soldier's in the dis- 
 charge of their sworn duty. The military power in your hands has suspended the civil 
 power. Oh no, sir! it won't do for you to tell me to go to the Courts, when you know that 
 you have passed laws under which I have practically no rights. If I should go into a Court 
 with a suit for false arrest and imprisonment — if I should go into a Court with any con- 
 stitutional question affecting the liberty of the citizen in the name of Heaven, what would 
 be the answer? Have there not been citizens who have addressed themselves to the Courts? 
 Have there not been citizens who believed that the provisions of the Constitution were 
 sufficient to guarantee to them the rights which they thought they possessed, and have 
 they not appealed to the Courts in furtherance of their rights? And have they yet had a 
 verdict? Talk to me of leaving a case to a civil tribunal with a puny Judge and twelve 
 Jurymen — because all civilians and all law are puny now before the hand of power, and 
 "the inexpressible power of the bayonet. The gentleman has suggested an issue: I accept it. 
 It is a hitter thing that we cannot go to the Supreme Court or any other tribunal to try 
 these questions of the rights of the citizen against the parties in power. It is a bitter thing; 
 but do not taunt me with it, and say, "Go there," when you know what must be the result. 
 
 In following closely the suggestions which the gentleman has thrown out, I must neces- 
 sarily be somewhat desultory. I pledge myself to follow him closely without one particle 
 of departure, much more closely than he has ventured to follow my argument. Tl 1 fail 
 to meet any point which he presents, I hope he will call my attention to it. I pledge 
 myself throughout this contest to shirk no question, but to give a candid answer to every 
 point which may be presented. 
 
 The gentleman has said that the issue now to be decided upon the battle-held is the 
 supremacy of the Constitution. I point again to Abraham Lincoln's proclamation, and I 
 say that the gentleman has made a mistake. The question now to be decided by this war 
 is the question of slavery. 
 
 The gentleman makes the Democratic party responsible for the' existence of the con- 
 federacy that was established under the Administration of Mr. Buchanan. That involves 
 the doctrine of secession, which I have not held and have not suggested, and which I have 
 never intimated was a part of the Democratic creed. It is a part of New England good- 
 ness ami virtue in polities; and I cannot help saying that my conviction is that New 
 England polities has never been truer to the Constitution than New England religion has 
 been to the bible. 
 
 The gentleman has referred to Pennsylvania and to her enactment for the abolition of 
 slavery. Pennsylvania did pass that law in which she prohibited slavery within her bor- 
 ders. "She did well. I do not object to it. "That act is one of the proud records of Penn- 
 sylvania eloquently expressed," the gentleman has said ; but, however expressed, the fact is, 
 as I believe, creditable to Pennsylvania. But, gentlemen, Pennsylvania enacted no law, 
 originated no party, passed no resolutions which attempted to make her law with regard 
 to slavery the necessary law of South Carolina, Georgia, or any other State. 
 
11 
 
 The gentleman will recollect that when he speaks of the doctrines of the Democratic 
 party as making the Constitution what he terms "a rope of sand," that is his deduction 
 alone. But I place upon the record the New England doctrine that the Constitution is a 
 "covenant with hell." Choose between them — the gentleman's deduction or the New 
 England assertion. 
 
 I concur with the gentleman as to the enormous increase of this country in the few 
 years of its existence ; but the gentlemen omitted to mention one important fact. New 
 England did do a share of the fighting ; but she did no more, and the record shows rather 
 less, than other States in the Union. But, gentlemen, remember one thing: That which 
 the gentleman considered so important in his argument — the acquisition of territory from 
 France and Spain and Mexico was in. every case accomplished under Democratic Adminis- 
 trations, under Democratic rule,^j.nd under no other. Kemember, too, that the great chain 
 of north-western states was the gift of Virginia. She surrendered to the United States the 
 north-western territory out of which those States were made. There is no exclusive merit in 
 that particular section of country from which the gentleman would have us believe all that 
 is good and great and proper alone arises. 
 
 The gentleman complains in his argument that Congress did not amend the'Constitution, 
 or that the Democratic party did not amend the Constitution, or some such thing, for the 
 purpose of allowing the South to go out. The gentleman says that they established a 
 Southern Confederacy, and asks whether it was under an amendment to the Constitution. 
 He seemed to suggest that there should have been such an amendment to give them the 
 power. 
 
 Mr. Kelley. I simply asked when such an amendment was passed. 
 
 Mr. Northrop. My dear sir, it never was passed. I am not dealing with antediluvian 
 .records, nor am 1 dealing with things that never had an existence. 1 am dealing with 
 facts. I do not ask why it was that Parr did not live to be five hundred years old. It has 
 no application to the question ; there is no illustration in it. I am saying to you that when 
 the Administration stands antagonistic to the Constitution, it works revolution. I do not 
 say that the South should take advantage of it. I do not say that the Administration 
 stood so before the South did revolutionize. I only say now what I said before, that stand- 
 ing here upon Northern soil, I do charge the Administration with revolutionizing and 
 opposing the principles of the Constitution, by overturning that instrument, by setting up 
 its own policies and theories against it. I say nothing about the South. Fight the battle 
 as you please there; you have your views — I have mine. But I am fighting now for the 
 principles and the rights of Northern men. I have told you what I would do, and what I 
 believed would be proper to do with regard to this war that is now pending and with regard 
 to the South. I know what Gen. Jackson did. I know that Gen. Jackson did that which 
 if it had been done by Mr. Lincoln, would have averted this revolution. The -gentleman 
 spoke of the ships and the soldiers and all the paraphernalia of war which were ordered 
 by Gen. Jackson down toward South Carolina; but also he said that President Jackson 
 issued a proclamation telling the people of that Sj-ate what they must expect; and the 
 gentleman knows the fact that Jackson did not coerce South Carolina back, but that it was 
 a peaceful compromise and settlement which brought her back. I take the gentleman's 
 record in regard to South Carolina and Gen. Jackson ; and I am sorry that the action of 
 President Lincoln toward the seceded States has not exhibited the same spirit of concilia- 
 tion which was manifested by Andrew Jackson. 
 
 Th.e gentleman has referred to the fact that at the present time Florida cannot be resorted 
 to by the health-seeker from the North, and that the Northern man cannot settle in Texas 
 under the homestead law. Well, gentlemen, I am exceedingly sorry that, if you have 
 weak health, you cannot go to Florida, and I am sorry that you cannot take advantage of 
 the homestead law in Texas. But I will tell you a little more than my friend did : if Mr. 
 Lincoln's dynasty is continued for another Presidential term, you won't reach Florida or 
 Texas within the next four years!' I sympathize with the invalid, and I sympathize 
 with the homeless man ; but if it be a sine qua non that they shall go to Florida and Texas 
 and settle there peaceably, the Administration must pursue another course; its present 
 policy is not that which will establish the health of the invalid or conduce to Northern 
 prosperity. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, if there is any question which has beeo propounded by the gentleman 
 upon the other side, which I have not answered, or at least attempted to answer, he will 
 oblige me by suggesting it; and I shall take the liberty from time to time of calling his 
 attention in the same way to what he conceives to be "metaphysical questions" of mine — 
 Virginia abstractions, perhaps! But he must remember one thing: it will not do to frame 
 propositions about the enormity of the offence which may have been committed by any 
 part of a people who are defiant of the law, and conclude that, because he opposes it, the 
 Democratic party supports it. We do not profess to be the opposition party. It is a mis- 
 take to suppose so. We are the old original party of the Constitution. We have had 
 
12 
 
 various oppositions; but never was the opposition so powerful and so fraught with ruin as 
 it is now. It is because we are the conservative party of the Constitution that we stand 
 here, and that I stand here. It may not be that anything I can say will, by force of 
 reason or argument or declamation, change your views ; but I stand here calling upon you 
 to look at the record of the Democratic party. Has there been a great act in the history 
 of our country that is not traceable to it? Look at the elements of power which it has 
 developed in this country. There is no good or great thing of which it has not been the 
 author. .1 believe that every Territory (certainly there has been but a single exception) 
 has come in under Democratic rule. When the gentleman refers to the widespread pro- 
 gresa of this country, so far as Territorial acquisition is concerned, I tell him that it is 
 all the result of Democratic policy and Democratic Administration. I say too, that that 
 portion of our country that is in hostile position to-day, with armed bands upon it,- can 
 only lie brought back under the same principle of Democratic rule. 
 
 When I speak, sir, of State sovereignty, I do not speak of State sovereignty as antago- 
 nistic to. or defiant of, the Constitution ; I speak of State sovereignty accordant with the Con- 
 stitution and recognized by the Constitution. I recognize it as a Constitutional principle, 
 and so I speak of it, so I discuss it ; and when I speak of that great principle a? being the 
 reconstructive element, it is because the States can call together their own Conventions 
 and settle this disturbing question forever; and I believe it must ultimately be done in 
 that way. I do not believe, sir, in blotting out the lines of States and making either Con- 
 gressional or military districts of them. I believe in keeping up State lines : and I claim 
 the sovereignty of the State as a protection for those lines. I believe, sir, in the right of 
 the militia; of this country under the Constitution; and I believe it is State militia, and it 
 should be called from the State as such, and not from the Congressional districts of the 
 United States. I am sorry to see established in this country that which was to the l'ramers 
 of the Constitution an object of so much dread — a standing army. I know well, and you 
 know well, how long the questions with regard to a militia and a standing army were dis- 
 cussed, bow seriously they were weighed. The leading men of the Convention pointed to 
 the old Governments of Europe; they showed what standing armies had done against the 
 liberties of the people; and they wisely concluded that they could leave the question of 
 freedom with the militia of the States — that this force would be al all times adequate to 
 repel invasion and to put down insurrection and rebellion. I am sorry that there has 
 come a day when the power of the Administration has been able to turn the militia of the 
 States into a standing army against the people of the country'. 
 
 JOII\ CAMPBELL, Publisher, 
 
 419 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia. 
 
 LIBRAE °^SS 
 
 "7 5i2 028 *27 2 ft 
 
Ill lllvl»»» 
 
 1 .n.9 028 027 2 
 
 012 028 
 
 penm^life® 
 pH8J