. ..... .... 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 

 
 
 * ^niv • A «, *j 
 
 
 
 ^ v ;, 
 
 O A? 
 
 »'. "**** 'MBK' ****** :'&m' ** 
 

 
61505 Slvv.5 
 
 » 
 
 COERCION COMPLETED, 
 
 TREASON TEIUMPHANT. 
 
 REMARKS, 
 
 BY JOHN C. HAMILTON, 
 
 SEPTEMBER, 1864 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 W5I. C, BRYANT £ CO., TRIN'TERS, 41 NASSAU STREET, CORNER OF LIBERTY. 
 
 1864. 
 
 3/ 
 
\ 
 
 & 
 
 On the fifth of December, 1860, President Buchanan, acknowledging a 
 correspondence which I sent to him between Madison and Hamilton — the 
 subject, the right of a State to withdraw from the Union — wrote to me : 
 '■ I have read the Hamilton and Madison Correspondence to several friends 
 both in the Senate and the House, with, I think, a good effect upon some 
 of them." 
 
 In the letter thus acknowledged, I proposed to communicate to him the 
 opinions of Washington and Hamilton — Jefferson and Madison — asserting 
 the right of the Coercion of refractory States. This overture was declined. 
 On the *7th of December I informed the President of a communication 
 from Charleston, which had come to my knowledge, seeking minute infor- 
 mation as to the military defences in that harbor ; and on the following 
 day, not apprized of the President's false views, and therefore ignorant of 
 his motives for declining my overture, I sent to him the opinions pre- 
 viously referred to. Subsequently, at the request of General Scott, I 
 transmitted to him a copy of my last letter to the President. This noble 
 patriot — anxious, as he observed, " for some practical scheme of compro- 
 mise " which would meet the crisis, yet fully prepared, in the grievous 
 emergency, to put forth the military arm of the nation — wrote to me on the 
 22d of December ; " In a long interview, a week ago, with the President, 
 I endeavored to bring him out on General Washington's and Mr. Jeffer- 
 son's doctrines on the Coercion of States, but could not make him touch 
 the subject or allude to your letter. Of course, I did not. He declined 
 even to say that he would enforce (after secession) the revenue laws." 
 
 The effort had been made and had failed, and the nation was permitted 
 to drift into a civil convulsion. Subsequently I was informed that my 
 father was quoted for opinions hostile to Coercion. I gave so preposterous 
 a statement little heed until recently, when I met the pamphlet hereafter 
 referred to. I felt it was a duty to the public not to be silent, and there- 
 fore these remarks. 
 
 New York, September 24th, 1864. 
 
 John C. Hamilton. 
 
i 
 
 COERCION COMPLETED 
 
 OR 
 
 TREASON TRIUMPHANT. 
 
 1 am neither a partizan nor a politician. I voted for Bu- 
 chanan to exclude Fremont — then apprehensive of the crisis 
 which lias since occurred — and I did not vote at the last Presi- 
 dential election, influenced by the same apprehension. 
 
 Recognizing the Government of the United States as existing 
 in the Constitution of the United States as a " Representative 
 Democracy," for all its officers are directly or indirectly " the 
 choice of the people," and the Constitution itself is " revocable and 
 alterable by the people," I am a Democrat — and, as " the Con- 
 stitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State Govern- 
 ment-;, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, 
 by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and 
 leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important 
 portions of the sovereign power," is a " Federal Government," 
 1 am a Federalist. 
 
 In both these aspects, I am compelled to be and am an 
 Unionist — for in addition to the value of the union in all other 
 respects, I know that a " firm union is of the utmost moment to 
 the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic 
 faction and insurrection." Believing in the preservation of this 
 "Firm Union," as containing the life of our nation, I regard 
 the doctrine of secession as a doctrine of political suicide. So 
 1 utterly reject it. Assured that coercion by the laws of the 
 nation, and when the necessity has arisen — by the arms of the 
 nation, is indispensable to the preservation of its life, the 
 motives which oblige me to reject the doctrine of secession, 
 equally oblige me to assert and vindicate the right and the duty 
 
 of « "i RCION. 
 
 The idea of secession — the power of secession, the right of 
 secession — the duty of secession, are unknown in the history of 
 
the American people, until two years before the close of the last 
 century ; even the word secession, used in a political sense, is 
 believed until that time to have been unknown. To " secede," 
 means " to withdraw from a fellowship." In no one of the 
 constitutions of the several States of this Union, was the right 
 " to withdraw" reserved. All of these constitutions look to the 
 continuing existence of these several States in Union, — and the 
 Articles of Confederation declaratory of their common opinion 
 and exigent purpose, are defined by themselves to be " Articles 
 of Confederation and Pekpetual Union." Not only do not the 
 constitutions of any of the States reserve a right " to withdraw" 
 —a right of secession, but in the restrictions imposed on them- 
 selves as States, by themselves as States, when entering into this 
 " confederation and perpetual Union," they erected barriers to 
 such withdrawal, and to secure the perpetuating those common 
 united interests, imposed common united duties, and established 
 common united powers. It was not in the absence of a common 
 sense of the value of a Union, that the Articles of Confederation 
 were defective, it was in an absence of the means of rendering 
 that Union a common blessing, by its mild operations through 
 the medium of all pervading laws, thus provoking foreign 
 agressions and internal conflicts, without adequate powers to 
 repel or subdue them. This was the disease of the confedera- 
 tion ; and the present Constitution of the United States was 
 offered to the people of the United States, and was accepted, as 
 the remedy for this disease, by " the people of the United 
 States." Setting forth in its preamble the great purposes in 
 their view, they " ordained and established this constitution for 
 the United States." Framed and proposed by the general con- 
 vention of the people, of which "Washington was the head — re- 
 commended by the Congress of the several States — adopted by 
 the people of the United States in conventions, called by the 
 State Legislatures, this adoption was not the act of the several 
 States, — nor of the people of the several States — agreeing with 
 each other, but it was the act of the people of the several States 
 agreeing to the Constitution — and thus ordaining and establish- 
 ing it. The words " ordain and establish" here used so promi- 
 nently, were well understood by the framers of this constitution. 
 They were words derived from the scriptures — used in a scrip- 
 
tiiral sense, used most solemnly in fill their significance, in their 
 application to the highest of human acts — the creation of a go- 
 vernment — to express an act of Supreme power by the people 
 of the United States — " decreeing and settling firmly" — a com- 
 plete and final act — a constitution of government for " them- 
 selves and their posterity." The Constitution sought two pri- 
 mary objects. For the insufficient and conflicting powers of 
 war under the confederation, it substituted a plenary sovereign 
 power of war, making the President of the United States, 
 "Commander-in-Chief of the Army and ISTavy of the United 
 States," thus empowering him to fulfill the obligations of his 
 inaugural oath, " to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitu- 
 tion.*' To prevent a conflict with this plenary power by the 
 State governments, the Constitution declares that " no State 
 shall, without the consent of Congress, keep troops or ships of 
 war in time of peace — enter into any agreement or compact 
 with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war 
 unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not 
 a<lmit of delay." 
 
 The other primary object of the Constitution was to substitute 
 within the domain of the United States, a government of law, 
 instead of a government by arms. " The great and radical vice," 
 it is stated in "The Federalist" — the great American commen- 
 tary on the Constitution, " in the construction of the confedera- 
 tion, is in the principle of legislation for States or governments, 
 in their cobpobate or collective capacities, and as contradis- 
 tinguieed from the individuals of whom they consist — a princi- 
 ple in itself evidently incompatible with Government, a princi- 
 ple, in short, which, if it is to be executed at all, must substitute 
 the violent and sanguinary agency of the^sword to the mild 
 influence of the magistracy." 
 
 Nor is the evidence wanting that such was deemed the true 
 theory of the Articles of Confederation. Madison and Jefferson 
 have been regarded as the especial guardians of American 
 liberties, as the founders of the school of strict constitutional 
 bonstructions— as the friends, above all others, of State eights, 
 and thus became the idols of Democracy. What were their 
 opinions as to the right and the power of Coercing States? 
 
 Madison, then a member of Congress sitting at Philadelphia, 
 
thus writes to Jefferson, on the 16th of April, 1781. — " Madi- 
 son Papers, vol. 1, p. 86." 
 
 " The necessity of arming Congress with coercive powers 
 arises from the shameful deficiency of some of the States, which 
 are most capable of yielding their apportioned supplies — and 
 the military exactions to which others, already exhausted by 
 the enemy and our own troops, are in consequence exposed. 
 Without such powers, too, in the General Government, the 
 whole Confederacy may be insulted, and the most salutary 
 measures frustrated by the most inconsiderable State in the 
 Union. As the Confederation now stands, and according to the 
 nature of alliances much less intimate, there is an implied 
 right of coercion against the delinquent party." 
 
 " As long as there is a regular army on foot, a small detach- 
 ment from it, acting under civil authority, would at any time 
 render a voluntary contribution of supplies due from a State, 
 an eligible alternative. But there is a still more efficacious 
 mode. The situation of most of the States is such, that two or 
 three vessels of force employed against their trade, will make it 
 their interest to yield prompt obedience to all just requisitions 
 on them." 
 
 What is this but an express assertion of the right of coer- 
 cion of a State or ' States to enforce the " contribution of sup- 
 plies " to the common treasury, by detachments from the 
 regular army, or of a squadron from the navy % 
 
 j^or is the assertion of this right of coercion less explicit 
 by Jefferson : " It has been so often said," he publicly writes, 
 " as to be generally believed, that Congress have no power by the 
 Confederation to enforce anything, for example — contributions 
 of money. It was not necessary to give them power expressly, 
 
 THEY HAVE IT BY THE LAW OF NATURE. When two parties 
 
 make a compact, there results to each a power of compelling 
 the other to execute it. Compulsion was never so easy, as in 
 our case, where a single frigate would soon levy on the com- 
 merce of any State, the deficiency of its contributions.'''' Here 
 again is an assertion of the right of coercion without any 
 reserves whatever, and for the mere purpose of enforcing " con- 
 tributions of supplies." This right of coercion, it must be 
 remembered, was avowed by both these public men, anterior to 
 
the adoption of the existing Constitution — and by both as re- 
 sulting from a compact between the States. Nor can this 
 result, as fairly deducible from the position of a government 
 existing by compact, be denied. Ancient and modern history 
 agree in showing, that in the case of one of several confederates 
 combined in a league, the sword, in the event of a delinquency, 
 is the only arbiter, and civil war the necessary consequence. 
 It was to prevent tins resort and the inevitable consequence, 
 that the present Constitution was established, creating a Na- 
 tional Government, to be executed bylaws passing "into im- 
 mediate operation upon the citizens themselves." By this 
 instrument it is provided, that, "this Constitution and the laws 
 of the United States, which will be made in pursuance thereof, 
 shall be the supreme law of the land ; and it is further provided 
 that, " the people in every State shall be bound thereby, any- 
 thing in the C< institution or laws of the State to the contrary, not- 
 withstanding.'' In further pursuit of this object, it declares that 
 the representatives of the States and of the people in Congress, 
 "the members of the several State Legislatures, and all execu- 
 tive and judicial officers, shall be bound by oath or affirmation 
 to support this Constitution." Thus it is, that any civil acts of 
 any of the States in contravention of the Constitution were 
 made inoperative. All, therefore, that it was possible to do, 
 according to the structure of the Constitution of the United 
 States, to secure its legal supremacy, was done — postponing to 
 the great emergencies of " domestic violence" the employment 
 of the military arm of the nation. 
 
 While these formal avowals of Madison and of Jefferson of the 
 right of coercing States, have been carefully kept out of view 
 by the partizans of the Rebel Confederates, the language of 
 Hamilton, in the Convention of New York, held in 1788, has 
 been quoted in denial of that right. His argument, truly stated 
 and truly understood, recognizes the right as existing under the 
 Confederation; objects to the Confederation, as making the 
 resort to coercion a necessary means of compelling the success 
 of its ordinary operations; and points to the then proposed, 
 now existing Constitution — as providing the peaceful remedy. 
 The quotation employed most unwarrantably omits the preced- 
 ing and following sentences, which fully explain its import : 
 
8 
 
 "Sir," Hamilton remarked, "if we have national objects to pur- 
 sue, we must have national revenues. If you make requisi- 
 tions and they are not complied with ; what is to be done ?" It 
 has been well observed, that to coerce the States is one of the 
 maddest projects that ever was devised. A failure of compli- 
 ance will never be confined to a single State. This being the 
 case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war ? Here is a 
 nation at war with itself! A government that can exist only 
 by the sword. Every such war must involve the innocent with 
 the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to 
 dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government. * * 
 "What is the cure for this great evil ? Nothing, but to enable 
 the national laws to operate on individuals, in the same manner 
 as those of the States do." 
 
 The abuse of Hamilton's language, the purpose of which is 
 clearly shown by the context, is resorted to in order to de- 
 nounce the administration for employing the military power of 
 the Government in resistance to a military attempt to subvert 
 it. For it must always be remembered, that this war was not 
 begun by the United States, that it is not a war merely of coer- 
 cion, that the right or duty of the initiatory coercion of States 
 is not at all the question ; that, on the part of the Government, it 
 is the exercise of a power necessarily incident to all government, 
 the power of self-defence, and the exercise of an express consti- 
 tutional power — a war against a war begun — a war against 
 " treason," which the Constitution declares " consists in levy- 
 ing wak against the United States." "Was ever treason marked 
 by more overt acts; the attack on Fort Sumter ; the occupation 
 of the other forts ; the seizure of the public property of the 
 United States ; the compelling the troops of the United States 
 to surrender on parole ; the firing on the militia of the United 
 States called forth for the defence of the capital ; the project to 
 assassestate the President on his journey to the seat of Govern- 
 ment ; and the organized bodies of troops in Virginia to seize 
 ms peeson. All of these acts of treason are patent facts, with 
 the exception of the two last ; and as to one of these, I quote 
 the declaration of General Scott : " Those who deny the inten- 
 tion to assassinate the President are little acquainted with the 
 facts ;" and as to the last, the plot to seize his person, I refer to 
 
the authority of General Wool. They live to confirm these 
 statements. 
 
 But to return to the chief topic of these remarks. I will now 
 show by their positive, explicit declarations, that Washington 
 and Hamilton both asserted the power under the present Con- 
 stitution to coerce one or more rebellious States, and approved 
 the exertion of that power. 
 
 Treason most often raises its head in the moments of a na- 
 tion's danger — moments when patriotism quickens the roused 
 current of its blood, and raises its mighty arm. The doctrine 
 of a subsisting compact between the States is seen to have been 
 the ground upon which Madison and Jefferson asserted a power 
 in the confederation to coerce a State. The same doctrine of a 
 subsisting compact, not applicable to the existing Constitution 
 of the United States, is the basis used by the same persons, 
 Jefferson and Madison, to assert to a State or States a right to 
 nullify — that is, render inoperate, and to resist ''laws of the 
 United States," declared by the Constitution to be the "supreme 
 law of the land" — a term as broad as the limits of the American 
 Republic— comprehending all its States and all its territories, 
 and even its adjacent ocean waters. France was waging a 
 practical war against the United States, seizing the ships, and 
 depredating on the commerce of the nation, as England has re- 
 cently been depredating upon it through confederate corsairs. 
 The leaders of the democratic party — then in the interest of 
 France, as now in the interest of Great Britain, seeking to dis- 
 solve the Union— were then engaged in exciting sedition, as 
 they now are engaged in exciting sedition, employing then as 
 now, as its principal instruments, aliens, and recently natural- 
 ized aliens. The National Government found it necessary to 
 pass laws to restrain sedition and to control these aliens — laws 
 expressly approved and vindicated by Washington, when re- 
 tired from office. To clamor against and to oppose these laws 
 was the policy of Jefferson and of Madison, whom Washington, 
 in the firsl draught of his "Farewell address" denounced to the 
 world. This hostility to the Government gave birth to the 
 Kentucky and Virginia resolutions ; the former from the hand 
 of Jefferson, the latter from that of Madison. 
 
 In the first of these Kentucky resolutions, Jefferson declares, 
 
10 
 
 that the States were united by a compact under the title of a 
 Constitution — that " to this compact each State acceded, as a 
 State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming as to itself, 
 the other party — and that, as in all other cases of compact 
 among parties having no common Judge, each party has an 
 equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the 
 mode and measure of redress." Then follows the declaration, 
 that in the assumed cases — " JSTulltfication of the act is the right- 
 ful remedy." (See Jefferson's Works, IV., 344— Letter of Jef- 
 ferson, admitting himself to have been the author of these reso- 
 lutions.) Madison followed ; and on the same ground of a com- 
 pact to which the States were parties, asserted their right to 
 interfere. 
 
 On this very theory of a compact of States, as if it warranted 
 one or more States to nullify a law of the United States — as 
 " one party " to that compact, it warranted the " co-States " as 
 " the other party," to enforce that law. The non-feasance or 
 resistance of " the one party " justifies and compels coercion by 
 " the other party." According, therefore, to their own theory — 
 the States Rights theory — as applied to the Constitution of the 
 United States, Jefferson and Madison are the advocates of coer- 
 cion. But such is not the tine theory of the Constitution. 
 This doctrine of a compact of States is diametrically in opposi- 
 tion to the Constitution. It was the doctrine made use of to 
 prevent its being adopted. Judge Wilson, one of the signers of 
 the Declaration of Independence, repelled it in the Constitution 
 of Pennsylvania, in 1788 : " I cannot discover the least trace of 
 a compact in that system. There can be no compact unless 
 there are more parties than one : I know no bargains that could 
 be made there," (in the General Convention.) I am unable to 
 conceive who the parties could be. The State governments 
 make a bargain with one another ! Far other were the ideas of 
 the Constitution, and # /#?' other are those conveyed in the system 
 itself. This is not a government founded on compact. It is 
 founded on the power of the people. They express in their 
 name and in their authority — " We, the people, ordain and 
 establish." From their ratification alone, it is to take its con- 
 stitutional authority. These expressions declare in a practical 
 manner, the principle of the Constitution. It is " ordained and 
 established" by the people themselves." 
 
11 
 
 This doctrine of a compact is the false and gratuitous assump- 
 tion upon which this rebellion wholly relies to prove its right- 
 fulness. This is the ground upon which it is justified by its 
 advocates among us, while waging open and barbarous war. 
 
 People of America, I invite you, I conjure you to read the 
 words of Washington, who never deceived you — as applied to 
 these resolutions and to the authors of them — and as now appli- 
 cable to the party opposing the administration. Washington 
 thus writes to La Fayette, December 24, 1798 : " The sum 
 amounts to this — that a party exists in the United States, formed 
 by a combination of causes, which oppose the Government in 
 all its measures, and are determined, as their conduct evinces, by 
 clogging it^ wheels, indirectly to change the nature of it, and to 
 subvert the constitution." Of the alien members of their party, 
 Washington wrote, declaring their express purpose to be, that, 
 of " poisoning the minds of our people, and sowing dissensions 
 among them, in order to alienate their affections from the Gov- 
 ernment of their choice, thereby endeavoring to dissolve the 
 Onion." " It is somewhat equivocal still,'' Washington wrote to 
 Charles Carroll, "whether thai party, who have been the cuese 
 of the country, and the source of the expenses we have to en- 
 counter, may not be able to continue their delusion. What a 
 pity it is, the expense could not be taxed on them/' "That the 
 object of this party, was " to facilitate the design of subverting 
 their own Government, I have no more doubt than that I am 
 now in the act of writing this letter.'' And then looking the 
 danger full in the face. Washington points to coercion. It is in a 
 letter addressed by Washington, a Virginian, to Patrick Henry, 
 formerly Governor of Virginia, the eloquent patriot — looking to 
 coerce Virginia : " But at such a crisis as this, when everything 
 dear and valuable to us is assailed, when a party hangs upon 
 the wheels of Government as a dead weight, opposing every 
 m isure that Is calculated for defence and self-preservation, 
 abetting the nefarious views of another nation upon our rights, 
 preferring, as long as they dare contend openly against the spirit 
 and resentment of the people— the interest of France— (now the 
 interest of England)— to the welfare of their own country- 
 measures systematically and pertinaciously pursued, which 
 must eventually dissolve the Union or produce coercion." 
 
12 
 
 Read these words of Washington, people of the United States, 
 and ask yourselves whether, if written at the present time, they 
 could more aptly, more truly have depicted the party now in 
 •opposition to the Government. Head these words, and then see 
 whether Washington would not have advised coercion. Read 
 these words and compare them with the submissive, disorgan- 
 izing, sympathizing platform of the recent Chicago Convention. 
 Read them ; and then doubt, if you can, whether Washington 
 would not have again accepted the command of your armies, 
 leading them on to victory as Grant, and Sherman, and Sheridan 
 are now doing. A few words more will close this paper. 
 
 In a recent pamphlet entitled " A Great Statesman speaking to 
 the People. Alexander Hamilton on Coercion and Civil War" — 
 the passage previously partially quoted from his speech in the 
 New York Convention, is strangely adduced in favor of non- 
 coercion, in other words, in favor of permitting States to rise 
 in rebellious war, thus " to overturn the Government." The 
 purpose of that quotation has been shown, by quoting it in full, 
 as an argument in favor of the existing Constitution. Was 
 Alexander Hamilton, therefore, of the opinion that the National 
 Government could not justly, constitutionally, and if it could, 
 ought not to suppress a rebellion ? A single historical fact is de- 
 cisive — Hamilton, with Washington's assent — when Secretary of 
 the Treasury — proceeded with an army into the far interior of 
 Pennsylvania, which suppressed a rebellion • the object of which, 
 it is stated in an intercepted despatch of the then French Minister 
 (Fauchet), was to initiate a " civil war" in the United -States. 
 Nor is this the only evidence of Hamilton's opinion. Within a 
 little more than a month after the last quoted letter of Wash- 
 ington, pointing to the coercion of Virginia, on the second of 
 February, 1799, Hamilton wrote to Sedgwick. In this import- 
 ant letter he urges a report by Congress, " exhibiting with great 
 luminousness and particularity, the reasons which support the 
 constitutionality and expediency of the law," (to restrain sedition 
 and control lawless aliens) — the tendency of the doctrines ad- 
 vanced by Virginia and Kentucky, to destroy toe Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, and with calm dignity, united with 
 pathos, the full evidence which they afford of a regular con- 
 
13 
 
 spvracy to overturn the Government. A little pamphlet/' ho 
 adds, " containing this report, should find its way into every 
 house in Virginia. This should be done, and nothing to court 
 a shock should be adopted. In the meantime," he observes. — 
 looking to the eventual necessity of coercing Virginia — ■" the mea- 
 sures for raising the military force should proceed with activity — 
 whenever the experiment shall be made to subdue a refractory 
 and powerful State by militia, the event will shame the advo- 
 cates of their sufficiency." Under his advice, the then slender 
 means of Government were called into exertion. A small body 
 of troops icas stationed in Virginia ; and the contemplated re- 
 bellion was abandoned. If a similar measure, urged at the begin- 
 ning of the present crisis, had been adopted, and a small body 
 of troops been detached to Richmond to protect the friends of 
 the Union in the convention there, from being overawed by a 
 mob, Virginia would have refused her concurrence, and this great 
 rebellion might have been averted for a time. 
 
 The historical statements here given shew the direct, irrecon- 
 ciliable antagonism between the two great parties of this 
 country — the States right, as they call it, or Democratic party — 
 asserting on the supposition that " a State is clearly the ultimate 
 judge of infractions of the Constitution ;" that it has a right " to 
 judge fur itself of the mode and measure of redress," and, 
 therefore, the party of Disunion — and the Kational or Union 
 party, which asserts the power of the National Government over 
 every individual of the United States, without regard to the 
 particular locality or State in which he may reside, to compel 
 obedience to this National Government, exercising the powers 
 vested in it by the Constitution, to preserve that Union. 
 
 To say of the friends of the Union that they never have been 
 the advocates of a policy detrimental to the Union, were not 
 more untrue than to charge the members of the Democratic 
 party, without distinction, with being the advocates of Disunion. 
 
 Happily for the permanent welfare of the Nation there are 
 checks in the Constitution, and in the education of the popular 
 mind under it, that can be safely and certainly appealed to 
 against any temporary misconstructions of the powers of the 
 Constitution. This can be done, and often done ; and yet the 
 Constitution will live. Happily for the permanent welfare of 
 
u 
 
 the Nation, among the Democratic party there are numerous 
 and glorious exceptions of men, on many points having strong 
 opinions as to a national policy, who deny utterly the theory of 
 State secession, — who affirm boldly the doctrine of coercion, — 
 who cling proudly to the unbroken integrity of the Union. But 
 again, there are among their leaders those who declare that " the 
 whole scheme of Coercion is impracticable, — that it is contrary 
 to the genius and spirit of the Constitution." Give such men 
 sway, and the Constitution caxxot live. 
 
 Now, how does the issue of this election stand before the 
 people in reference to the respective candidates % The position 
 of McClellan is anomalous. What it actually is may be ascer- 
 tained from two sources. Immediately previous to the assem- 
 bling of the Chicago Convention, several of its delegates from 
 different States sojourned on their way at Saratoga Springs. 
 At this time and place was present a correspondent of the 
 British Ministerial paper, " The London PostP The Convention 
 was organized at Chicago at noon of the twenty-ninth of August, 
 1864, by Auguste Belmont, now Chairman of " the National 
 Democratic Committee," — a few years previously, consul of 
 Austria at New York. The day before the opening of the 
 Chicago Convention — on the 28th of August — a letter of that 
 date was written from Saratoga Springs by its correpondent to 
 The London Post, whence it is extracted in the New York 
 Herald of September 25th, speaking of McClellan as the pro- 
 bable nominee of the Convention. This language is used : "As 
 for his principles, it is difficult to say what they are. Avowedly, 
 McClellan is a Unionist. Openly, he professes to be willing to 
 give the South every necessary guaranty, provided the Southern 
 States consent to return into the Union. Privately, he assures 
 those friends who discourage the prosecution of the Avar that he 
 desires peace, and that he will advocate an armistice and a con- 
 vention of the States, should he receive the nomination at Chi- 
 cago. He urges, as a reason for not openly avowing these sen- 
 timents, that the people are not yet ready to endorse them, and 
 considers it impolitic to take any step too decidedly in advance 
 of the popular feeling. He feels assured, however, that the 
 triumph of the Democratic party must end in peace, for he says, 
 that, if even it wished to carry on the war, there would be no 
 
15 
 
 army of any magnitude left at the disposal of the Government 
 by the 4th of March next. What these opinions and professions 
 are worth it is hard to say. 
 
 There are not a few who distrust McClellan, and who fail to 
 place confidence in the assurances of a man, who was one of the 
 first in the commencement of this revolution to set the example 
 of the violation of personal liberty : as he did, by the arrest of 
 the members of the Maryland Legislature ; who has made all the 
 reputation he has as a war man by the prosecution of the war, 
 and who is still drawing pay from the republican Government 
 as an officer of the army now engaged in carrying on a war, 
 which he pretends to regard as ruinous to the country." 
 
 "Was ever any passage more significant than this of the plot 
 to deceive the people, and of the character of the chief instru- 
 ment of the plotters? How could there be a more complete, 
 entire solution of the 2 )rac ^ ce oi " tne Chicago Convention's 
 resolutions and of McClellan's letter of acceptance ? Every 
 line every word is replete with meaning. McClellan, with a 
 double voice, for war and for peace. Openly for war— pri- 
 vately for an armistice and for a convention; but fully assured 
 of peace, not because of the success of our arms and of the re- 
 duction of the rebels to terms — not because of the willingness of 
 the rebels to make terms — he knew the contrary, — but because 
 the Government of the United States would bo obliged to sur- 
 render itself to the rebels, he being at the head of the Govern- 
 ment to make that surrender — because "there will be no army 
 of any magnitude left at the disposal of the Government on the 
 4th of March " — the day of his hoped for inauguration ! 
 
 One more fact, and it is a fact of great pertinence, also of his- 
 torical analogy. It is the fact, that the clearest, fullest know- 
 ledge possessed of the opinions and views of the candidate of the 
 Chicago Convention for the Presidency, is derived from the offi- 
 cial Gazette of the British ministry—" The London Post." 
 
 h there no complicity i Questioned in this letter merely for 
 his uncertainty, were England only assured of his being in favor 
 of the dissolution of the Union, McClellan would be the favored, 
 supported candidate of the British Government. And, know- 
 ing, as Great Britain must know, fearing as Great Britain must 
 fear, the triumph of the Union over the rebellion, in all its tell- 
 
16 
 
 ing consequences, who can doubt that McClellan is tlie favorite 
 candidate of England ? " Several of tlie leaders of the Demo- 
 cratic party," Lord Lyons, the British minister, writes to his 
 Government, " sought interviews with me, both before and after 
 the arrival of the intelligence of General McClellan's dismissal." 
 " This intelligence dashed the rising hopes of the conservatives. 
 The General, McClellan, had been regarded as the representa- 
 tive of conservative principles in the army. Support of him had 
 been made one of the articles of the ' conservative electoral pro- 
 gramme. . . . The irritation of the conservatives at New York 
 was certainly very great ; it seemed, however, to be not unmixed 
 with consternation and despondency" 
 
 Seeking " foreign intervention" they appeared to hold that it 
 would be essential to the success of any proposal from abroad T , 
 that it should be deferred until the control of the Executive 
 Government should be in the hands of the conservative party. 
 I listened with attention to the accounts given me of the plans 
 and hopes of the conservative party. At the bottom, I thought 
 I perceived a desire to put an end to the war, even at the risk of 
 losing the Southern States altogether !" 
 
 Ye interpellates of " foreign intervention," the record of your 
 names is not lost. The time has not come yet, but the day is 
 not far distant when all will be disclosed ; when your " conster- 
 nation and despondency" because of the dismissal of McClellan 
 from the command of the army, will be traced to a purpose 
 more deeply interesting to the great body of the American peo- 
 ple than they are aware of. 
 
 The other source of information is from the lips of an astute, 
 close observing, deeply interested member of the Chicago Con- 
 vention — no less conspicuous a person than Fernando Wood. 
 
 Fernando Wood has defined in public, in a recent speech on 
 the 17th of September, the position of McClellan with singular 
 clearness, accuracy, and precision. There are those who would 
 regard his terms as terms of utter contempt. He then and there 
 declared that, " if elected, I am satisfied, lie (McClellan) will 
 entertain the views, and execute the principles of the great party 
 he will represent, fSIF without regard to those he may himself 
 possess. ""^k He will then be our agent, the creature of our 
 voice." If, then, McClellan is to be looked to as the agent — 
 
17 
 
 the creature of the voice 1 ' of the Chicago Convention, of which 
 Wood was a member — and who will doubt it — the enquiry 
 arises, what is that voice ? Nor is the answer difficult. The 
 declaration above quoted, that " the whole scheme of coercion is 
 impracticable" that " it is contrary to the genius and spirit of 
 the Constitution," is a declaration made by George H. Pendle- 
 ton in a speech in the House of Representatives on the 18th of 
 January, 1861 (reported in The Congressional Globe — Appen- 
 dix, p. 70,) after four States had seceded, and when three others 
 were menacing secession. "Why he thought coercion contrary 
 to the genius of the Constitution, Mr. Pendleton does not leave 
 to conjecture. In his studied speech, just referred to, he de- 
 clares " this Union is a Confederation of States ;" and on the 
 first day of March of the present year, he declares more fully. " I 
 hope that we may maintain the integrity of our system of gov- 
 ernment — the system of confederation — the system whose foun- 
 dation is State rights. The Constitution is a compact of govern- 
 ment made by sovereign States." 
 
 Thus has this nominee of the Chicago Convention placed 
 himself on the very heresy proclaimed in 1798 and 99, which 
 \Y a>hington and Hamilton denounced, as tending "to subvert 
 the Government, to destroy the Constitution." The decla- 
 ration of Pendleton, made openly in 1861, has been followed by 
 a series of relevant votes. Mr. Pendleton voted against the 
 bill for the collection of the revenue in the seceded States — 
 against the bill to provide the Government with additional 
 revenue — against approving and confirming the proclamations 
 and orders of the President, and the movements of the army 
 and navy for subduing the rebellion. These votes were in the 
 year 1861. Again, in 1S62, he voted against the internal 
 revenue bill, against the Treasury note act, against the im- 
 position of taxes on the insurrectionary districts, and against all 
 bills raising revenue for supporting the war. Again, in 1863, 
 his votes were of the same character ; and in the last session of 
 Congress, in this present year, 1864, he voted against a test 
 resolution of loyalty or disloyalty — that "it is the political, 
 civil, moral, sacred duty of the people to meet the rebellion, 
 fight it, crush it, and forever destroy it," and all his votes on 
 practical measures were in complete accordance with that nega- 
 3 
 
18 
 
 tive vote *— in complete accordance with his declaration that 
 "armies, money, war cannot maintain this Union" — in com- 
 plete accordance with his language, " If our differences are so 
 great, that you cannot, or will not reconcile them, let the seced- 
 ing States go in peace ; let them establish their government and 
 Empire, and work out their destiny according to the wisdom 
 which God has given them ! !" 
 
 Of such declarations and of such votes, the unanimous nomi- 
 nation of Pendleton as Yice-President by the Chicago Conven- 
 tion, is the most emphatic approval possible. It is also a most 
 explicit interpretation of their resolution, that "justice, human- 
 ity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate 
 efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an 
 ultimate convention of all the States." Thus, in " a cessation 
 of hostilities immediate, and in a convention in view, ultimate," 
 and in the gap a dissolution of the Union, we have " the voice 
 of the great party, McClellan, if elected, will represent" to be 
 its " agent" " the creature." 
 
 Pendleton has defined the position of this party. The Chicago 
 Convention approves the definition, and nominates its candi- 
 dates ; and McClellan, with this resolution before him, accepts 
 the nomination. 
 
 Thus, before us stand in their proper guise the two conjoint 
 candidates of the Chicago Convention. Pendleton — a gentle- 
 man grievously in error, dangerously in error, but to be res- 
 pected at least for his unhesitating consistency- — voting against 
 every measure to carry coercion into effect, and avowedly willing 
 to assent to a dissolution of the Union. McClellan, foiling in the 
 field the efforts of the Government by success of arms to sustain 
 the Union : and when too late dismissed from command, still 
 living on the bounty of the nation as a soldier, though believing 
 that no services of a soldier can be of any value, inasmuch as 
 " on the 4th of March next, there will be no army left of any 
 magnitude at the disposal of the Government." I have called 
 these men " conjoint candidates," and rightly so, for under the 
 perversion of the Constitution by previous party nominations, a 
 vote given for the electors of the one is given for the electors of 
 
 * N. Y. Times, Sept. 23, '64, 
 
19 
 
 loth • and a vote for McClellan as an advocate of Union is a 
 vote for Pendleton as an advocate of Disunion. 
 
 And here an enquiry presents itself of no small unmeaning 
 moment. Why has the Chicago Convention declared itself still 
 in existence ready to be convened again? To ascertain the 
 opinions of its candidates ! ! That was supposed. But we see 
 that those opinions were all well known. Pendleton had avowed 
 them openly — and there is evidence from another source than 
 that quoted, that McClellan's were also previously known. For 
 what, then, is the Convention still in being, if it is not lowering 
 over the liberties of our country — if it is not, like " The Conven- 
 tion of France," of which we read — " They have their agents out 
 all over, speaking in town houses, market places, highways and 
 byways, agitating, urging to arm." Was this still existing 
 Chicago Convention meant to be a body, under certain contin- 
 gencies to usurp the Government — perhaps in the person of 
 McClellan, should he consent to be the usurper? Have no 
 whispers been heard — no significant hints been thrown out 
 that such a purpose has been entertained ? Whence the threats 
 that our streets would yet swim with blood ? Why the drill- 
 ings of excited men still kept up in our villages at night 2 Why 
 the organization of our National Guard, such as it is alleged to 
 be? Wherefore the inflammatory menaces of Horatio Seymour? 
 Why his urged re-nomination ? Projects such as these, may be 
 abandoned under the mighty force of public opinion encouraged 
 by the great successes of our armies. Put in the onward march 
 of society, such movements are to be noted and well remembered, 
 whether as precedents or as warnings. 
 
 When the husbandman on the far frontier is awakened in the 
 dead of night by the voice of his faithful watch dog, or by the 
 rushing in of his affrighted fold, he lights his lantern, and w T ith 
 peering eyes searches every corner of his disturbed homeyard, 
 nor does he sleep ; but closing his house bolts, with trusty fire- 
 luck in hand, watches till morning opens to his view, rejoiced 
 that his timely movements had alarmed the stealthy visitor of 
 his broken slumbers. People of the United States, our homes, 
 our house — our National House — the Constitution, in early days 
 called " the neio roof" is disturbed, is threatened. We are its 
 housekeepers. The bolts we cannot close as yet, for the foe not 
 
20 
 
 only is without but is within its doors. But we can light the 
 darkness. We cannot sleep in a false security. All prepared, 
 we can watch. We must watch. We must hold at bay the 
 foe, until, at the next Presidental election, we shall have asserted 
 by our votes the supremacy of the Constitution which Washing- 
 ton signed — no " ultimate Convention in view " to change it to 
 its overturning — and that done, on that day, the sun will burn 
 with a quickened ardor, and as the night comes on, the national 
 skies will brighten and gleam with glory from every star in the 
 vast approving firmament, and then with thankful prayers we 
 can lie down to sleep. 
 
 Meantime watching, let us look at the menaced clangers be- 
 fore us. With the lights held up full in the f^ce of the Chicago 
 candidates, let us survey the consequences to follow their elec* 
 tion with a concurring House of Representatives. That ere a 
 twelvemonth from this time, a severance of the Union, and the 
 recognition of the Confederate States by England and by France 
 will ensue, I have not a particle of doubt. What next ? A 
 Monarchy of these Confederate States, with Jefferson Davis 
 the Emperor — under the protection of England, the establish- 
 ment of which is rendered easy by the actual existence of an 
 overbearing aristocracy in the slaveholding class — Dukes, Mar- 
 quises, Counts of the Empire — a Monarchy on our Southwestern 
 frontier, at the head an Austrian Prince — now Emperor— under 
 the protection of France — a Monarchy on the north, with a 
 British Prince on his provincial throne, and civil discord raging, 
 revelling among us here, " anarchy ere long shooting into a 
 monarchy," probably, from its great necessities — absolute. 
 
 What other consequences would follow if (a very improbable 
 supposition) the Union be not severed. With McClellan con- 
 templating a bankrupt treasury — with Pendleton at the head of 
 the Senate — after such his votes, and with a concurring House of 
 Representatives refusing supplies to pay a debt chiefly incurred 
 in the attempted suppression of the rebellion, the debt for that 
 very reason would be repudiated, — the currency of the whole 
 country be rendered worthless, and while its capitalists are 
 ruined, the laboring people would stand with empty hands curs- 
 ing the causers of their sufferings, clamoring for food ; the brave 
 soldiers, meanwhile, of our glorious armies, disbanded without 
 
21 
 
 their pay, moved by the common calamities, asserting their de- 
 mands by violence, and wreaking their vengeance on the false 
 men who had betrayed them with a false insulting assurance of 
 " sympathy," while engaged in betraying the noble cause for 
 which they had fought, Without supplies, not only would the 
 army be disbanded, which McClellan looks to as the forerunner 
 of peace, and Grant, and Sherman, and Sheridan, with their 
 brother officers be turned off with disdain and insult, but our 
 Navy, too, must be dismantled, and Farragut be taught that to 
 ascend the main-top and stand there the mark of some felon 
 traitor's aim, amid the boom and crash of rushing war, has not 
 raised himself far, far above the level of all naval warriors of 
 yore and present, but that he too has incurred the frowns of 
 those who find a virtue only in successful treason and rebellion. 
 Meanwhile our commerce all destroyed, our sea-coast teeming 
 with pirates, our sea-ports in ashes, would propitiate the Eebel 
 South chanting forth, " Britannia Rules the Waves." 
 
 Nor are these consequences, all or any one of them, the fig- 
 ments of a disordered imagination or the offspring of exaggerated 
 >tatement. Look buck at our history and read the evidence 
 there ; see how its lines run in wondrous parallel with the future 
 of a dismembered nation. 
 
 AlS now, the first full knowledge of " plans and hopes" against 
 the Government of the United States is gleaned from the offi- 
 cial gazette of the British Ministry, The London Post of the 
 28th of August, 1864, so the first full knowledge of " the plans 
 and hopes" of the party in conspiracy against the Government, 
 denounced by Washington, was tumid in a letter addressed to 
 Mazzei, a Florentine, published in the Moniteur, the official 
 gazette of the French Government, on the 28th of January, 
 
 1797. 
 
 Was the idea of a monarchy never entertained in the breast 
 of a Southern statesman? Edmund Pendleton, the ancestor of 
 the proposed Vice-President, thus writes to Carter Braxton, on 
 the 12th of May, 1770 : " Of all others, I own, I prefer the teue 
 English Constitution, which consists of a proper combination 
 of the principles of Honor, Virtue and Fear." * Nor was Ham- 
 ilton unaware of the tendencies of the Southern mind. Eecapi- 
 
 * Richmond Examiner, August 8, 1800, 
 
22 
 
 tulating the dangers of not adopting a vigorous constitution, he 
 portrayed to the General Convention " Dismemberment, with 
 the instance of Poland, — Foreign Influence,— Distractions set- 
 ting afloat vicious humours, — Standing armies by dissensions, — 
 Domestic factions ;" and sums the evils, pointing to a " Monarchy 
 in the Southern States." * 
 
 Is the idea of a French goverment on our South-Western 
 frontier new in the counsels of France ? For what purpose was 
 the expedition gathered at Boulogne in 1803, if not to reconquer 
 Louisiana in all its vast extent and to hold New Orleans in the 
 clutch of its first Napoleon and of his successors % As to the 
 dangers of a vigorous government in Canada, the opinions of 
 Washington, and Hamilton, and Winfield Scott, are pregnant. 
 As to a repudiation of the debt, let the whole, long, vast diffi- 
 culty of providing for the debt of the Revolution — Southern 
 men urging its being sponged — be well considered. The history 
 of that difficulty may easily be read. Nor is it silent as to the 
 worthlessness of the currency and the impoverishment of the 
 people, prompting stay laws and plunging headlong into insur- 
 rection. And who is not familiar with the story of the army at 
 Newburg incited to " redress themselves " by one of the ablest 
 after leaders of the Democratic party, and only restrained from 
 excesses by their soldiers' affection to, and confidence in Wash- 
 ington. Can it not be imagined that Grant, and Sherman, and 
 Sheridan, and their fellow officers, may be the objects of politi- 
 cal persecution, when it is remembered, that by the very men 
 who asserted that the Constitution was a compact, and Secession 
 a right, Anthony Wayne was sought to be deprived of his rank, 
 or that Farragut could be treated with contumely, when we 
 know that Truxton was insulted in the President's house by a 
 President for having captured a French frigate. Wayne had 
 fought, often fought — fought most successfully to establish the 
 Union, and was a supporter of Washington while maintaining 
 it ; and Truxton was a naval conqueror in its good behalf, while 
 France was seeking to dissolve it with the aid of her American 
 partizans. 
 
 These are but a few of the consequences to follow the success 
 
 * Hamilton's Works, II., 413. 
 
of the approvers of McClellan and of Pendleton. People of 
 America — you have read too little of the history of your country, 
 or you would see that the hour of the election of these men 
 would be the hour of signing the Death Warrant of the Union. 
 And now cursorily consider the consequences of the success of 
 the great Union Party. First — the restored and permanently 
 established Unity of this great Republic, and in this restoration 
 the great prominent fact in the face of the whole world, that the 
 United States compose a Republican Nation equal to and above 
 all possible exigencies. 2d. The vindication of the cause of 
 Freedom in its largest sense, and the practical assertion, beyond 
 all casuistry, of the great principles of the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence — that " all men are born free and equal." 3d. A 
 provision for the redemption of the whole public debt, by an 
 adequate sinking fund, within less than half a century — with 
 taxation so light as not to be felt, and yet with ample revenue 
 — the price of every useful commodity brought within the com- 
 pass of the most moderate means — while labor, with new fields 
 opened and opening, will increase largely all its proper gains, 
 till all this great " Land with one supreme law" pervading— 
 one Land of one United People — one Nation under one National 
 Government — will more than ever be a miracle among the 
 nations of the world. 4th. Our glorious armies rewarded in 
 every form of national gratitude with its growing power of re- 
 ward, fields of glory with fields that never refuse a golden harvest. 
 5th. England, glad to escape the punishments due to her great 
 offences by full reparation for the wrongs and losses inflicted 
 with her ready connivance. Gth. The Northern British posses- 
 sions, themselves seeking the boon, admitted into the Union — 
 another make weight against the danger of Southern secession. 
 7th. The brave great men, who have led our armies to victory, 
 sitting in the councils of a future Washington— vieing with each 
 other by a well measured policy, in the glorious rivalry of heal- 
 ing the wounds of this great Civil War, and of binding together 
 by stronger ties those who have been misled with those who 
 have never faltered. 
 
 These good results are not only possible. They will be ac- 
 complished—and why accomplished \ I judge of others by my- 
 self. I must vote for President Lincoln, or I must be false to 
 
This Pamphlet can be obtained at the office of the 
 Evening Post by sending — 
 
 For 1,000 copies, . ... $30 00 
 
 * * " 100 do 4 00 
 
 « 50 do. . .2 50 
 
 " 25 do 1 50 
 

 
' Tj 
 
 
 v» o ^> *■; 
 
 
 7 &• "J 
 
 
 ^. 
 
 ■ •• ', 
 
 
 W;