c 
 
 - 
 
 ' 
 
 < 
 
 < < c <: 
 
 > 
 
 i 
 
 
 < 
 
 c * < 
 -c 
 
 V <: T << 
 
 C< t 4 
 
 c? c c
 
 tfy 
 
 LINCOLN ROOM 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 MEMORIAL 
 
 the Class of 1901
 
 ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE, 
 
 BY 
 
 THE DEMOCRACY OF WISCONSIN, 
 
 ADOPTED IN STATE CONVENTION 
 t HVTilwaiakee, September 3, 1862. 
 
 W address you in a time of great trial and 
 calamity. We addrens you in a time of nation- 
 al suffering and sorrow. We nddress you in a 
 crinis of featful peril to the Union and to the 
 free institutions established by our fitheis in 
 the several states. We do so with a solemn 
 sense ef responsibilities reeling upon us in 
 common with the whole American people. We 
 do so with the single design of contributing all 
 our aid to the preservation of the Union, the 
 constitution, nnd the liberties of the states. 
 And we propose to do so, according to our 
 lights, fearlessly and openly, let whatever new 
 power frown upon the ancient American birth- 
 right of freedom of speech. 
 
 Our state constitution, asserting (he inviola- 
 ble right of liberty of pomcul discussion, 
 adopts nn American maxim ap old as Ameri- 
 can independence, when it declares that "the 
 blessings of free government can only be main- 
 tained hy frequent recurrence to fundamental 
 principles " And whosoever, in whatsoever 
 position, asserts that there hns come a time in 
 American history, when freedom of speech 
 should be suppressed, when the safeguard of 
 political opposition should be abandoned, and 
 the voilp of all parties, except one, should be 
 silenceoT. 'when'the administration of the gov- 
 ernment should pass uacensured and unques- 
 tioned, when loyalty to the institutions of our 
 country should give way to passive sut-tnission 
 
 popular liberty, has been in all history the 
 tyrant's plea. When popular liberty succumbs 
 to the cry of stnte necessity, the land bus al- 
 ready ceased to be free. 
 
 Loyalty, in America, is the franchise of no 
 office or officer. American loyalty is due to the 
 Constitution alone. Fidelity to the Constitu- 
 tion is loyalty to the Union. There is no Union 
 outside the Constitution. The Constitution is 
 the Union. And whatever man, officer or party 
 assumes to be true to ihe Union nnd not to the 
 Constitution as our forefathers made it and our 
 fathers enjoyed it, is /lisloval to both. Blind 
 suV'miss on to the Adminictrition of the gov- 
 ernment, is not devotion to the country or the 
 
 Constiiution. 
 government 
 
 The Administration is not the 
 The government is established 
 
 hy the Constitution and rests in its provisions. 
 The Administration is as subject to the Consti- 
 tution and as responsible for its observance, as 
 the people. The Administration may err. hut 
 the Constitution does not change. And when 
 the Administration violates the Constitution, 
 loyaUy to the Administration may become dis- 
 loyalty to the Union. Devotion to the Consti- 
 tution is the only American loyalty. 
 
 In times of peace and prosperity, there is 
 little danger of the loyalty of the people Jorsak- 
 ing the constitution for the principles of a party, 
 or tue policy of an Administration. But in 
 days of civil discord and convulsion, there is 
 
 to our rulers, has little sympathy with ihe j danger of patriotism being blindfolded, mistak- 
 spirit of the liberty won by the valor of our ing the object of its faith, and transferring to 
 fathers, or of the free institutions established by I the servant of the altar the djvotion due only 
 their wisdom. In a free country, the freedom to the altar itself. And in such days it is the 
 
 ot the people abides in peace and war, in do- 
 mestic trauquility and civil discord The con- 
 stitution of the United States and the constitu- 
 tions of the several nf,ates provide alike for all 
 
 duty of all parties to consider well their posi- 
 tion, and to determine how far their loyalty to 
 the constitution is consistent with their support 
 of the Administration of the government. 
 
 the exigences of peace at home and abroad, of j Almost as old as the Union, founded in the 
 foreign war and domestic insurrection, The j broad principles of the constitution, identified 
 
 constitution of the United States >md the laws 
 enacted in pursuance of it. are the supreme 
 law of the land in all conditions of the country. 
 The constitution is inviolate in all circum- 
 stances of the people and the government. 
 State necessity has no power to suspend the 
 constitution or abridge the freedom of the peo- 
 ple. State necessi.y as an excuse for invading 
 
 with all the prosperous history of the United 
 States, the Democratic party has no new prin- 
 ciples to enunciate, no new loyalty to pledge. 
 It has always been, as it is, the party of the 
 consitution. In all its career, the constitution 
 has been its only creed, the altar of the country 
 its omy place of worship. It is human, and has 
 erred. It has been depressed by defeat and
 
 elated by success, and baa at times mistaken 
 the true path of duty. But it baa never lost 
 sight of the constitution or wandered far from 
 its ways. Its history chronicles a devotion to 
 the constitution, and a sympathy with the 
 spirit of the people, as just and steadfast as 
 human devo'ion and sympathy can attain. If 
 not always right, it has not been often or long 
 wrong. Human history can say no more for 
 any party, in any age or country. The Demo- 
 cratic party needs to-day no platform but. its 
 history. But in this unprecedented and tertihle 
 crisis, it becomes us to consider the application 
 of old principles to new conditions. 
 
 The Democratic party has outlived many an- 
 tagonists. The Federal party, the National 
 Republican party, the Whig party, have suc- 
 cessively struggled with it with varied success; 
 but have successively disappeared from history. 
 This was not accidental. The democratic party 
 was as subject to accident as its rivals. It hs 
 been frequently defeated. But it has survived 
 all its defeats, while its ancient enemies have 
 not survived occasional success. The reason is 
 apparent. It was founded on the true princi- 
 ples of our government, and guided by true 
 sympathy with the spirit of American institu- 
 tions. They rested in a narrower comprehen- 
 sion of the genius of the American people and 
 iu mistaken views of the principles of the Con- 
 stitution. They died the death of error; it 
 lives the life of truth. 
 
 The history of the country ia the history of 
 the democratic party. With occasional inter- 
 missions, it has administered the national gov- 
 ernment and guided the march of American 
 history. Under its influence the true spirit of 
 the Constitution displaced the narrow and un- 
 Atnerican comprehension of our system of 
 government which originally prevailed, and 
 gave tone to the Administration of the elder 
 Adams. Under its influence the commercial 
 and economical interests of the country ware 
 emancipated from the hot house system of tar- 
 iffs and currency, which bound American en- 
 ergy and^kill in the chains of European theory. 
 Under its leadership, the American flag was 
 carried in glory through war, and sent in peace 
 floating in security over all the seas of commerce. 
 Under its leadership the area of the country 
 was almost doubled, and new fields of enterprise 
 were populated by prosperous American com 
 munities. Under the guidance of no other 
 party was any great stride made in civil or 
 commercial prosperity, was a war ever waged 
 \?ith a foreign enemy, was an acre of territory 
 ever added to our vast domain. The democratic 
 party led the country from its feeble and poor 
 condition at the beginning of the present cen- 
 tury, to the great and glorious empire of free- 
 dom, the unparalleled political and material 
 prosperity, in which it met with its last detent 
 iu the presidential election of 1860. 
 
 Such defeats of the great party of the country 
 never betore carried with them permanent evil 
 to the nation, 'rue old opponents of the demo- 
 cracy took the administration of the government 
 upon its defeat, and surrendered it again upon 
 its ouccess, the Constitution and the Union re- 
 
 maining unimpaired The ancient antagonists 
 of the democracy, whatever their sins of doc- 
 trine or action, were national parties, resting 
 upon no sectional policy, representing no sec- 
 tional constituency. When in power, they 
 administered the government upon the policy 
 of a majority of the whole country. When in 
 opposition, they spoke for a majority of the whole 
 country. They were loyal, because they were 
 national. The Union was safe, because they 
 were loyal. Their success was harmless to the 
 Constitution, because it was the defeat of a 
 constitutional party, and not of the spirit of 
 the Constitution itself. 
 
 The defeat of the Democratic party in 1860 
 has been fallowed by the revolt of several of 
 the states from the Union and by the preseat 
 terrible civil war, because it was defeated by a 
 sectional party. We reprobate that revolt, as 
 unnecessary, unjustifiable, unholy. Devoted to 
 the Constitution, we invoke the vengeance of 
 God upon all who raise their sacrilegious hands 
 against it , whether wearing the soft gloves of 
 peace or the bloody gauntlets of war. But we 
 affirm that the revolt and consequent civil war 
 were a long foretold and probable result of the 
 accession to power of a sectional party, because 
 their success was the defeat of the spirit of the 
 Constitution. 
 
 In so vast a union of states, of such differing 
 interests, habits and institutions, the danger of 
 sectional parties to the peace and permanence of 
 the Union, was early foreseen by the fathers of 
 the Constitution. The Father of his Country, 
 himself, gave voice to these apprehensions in 
 his farewell address in 1796 He passed a eu- 
 logium upon the Union, which no tongue or pen 
 has since improved. He urged the ''unity of 
 the Government which constitutes us one peo- 
 ple." He impressed upon the nation, that it 
 was "a main pillar in the edifice of our real in- 
 dependence; the support of our tranqnility at 
 home; of our power abroad, of our safety, of 
 our prosperity, of the very liberty which we so 
 highly prize." In a spirit of prophecy, he cau- 
 tioned the people and their posterity against the 
 dangers it might encounter, and with his part- 
 ing words invoved them 'indignantly to frown 
 upon the first dawning of every attempt to alien- 
 ate any portion of oar country from the rest,or 
 to enfeeble the sacred ties which now linked to- 
 gether tfce various parts.'' He enlarged upon 
 the mutual dependence of the various parts of 
 the country. North and South, East and West, 
 he warned us against parties founded on "geo- 
 graphical discriminations whence designing 
 men might endeavor to excite a belief that there 
 is a real difference of local interests and views.' ' 
 He foretold that ''one of the expedients of par- 
 ty is to acquire influence within particular dis- 
 tricts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims 
 of other districts." He forewarned us that "we 
 could not shield ourselves too much against the 
 jealousies and heart burnings which tend to 
 render aliens to each other those who onght to 
 be bound together by fraternal affection." 
 Fearful prophecy , fearfully fulfilled? How the 
 great spirit of the illustrious Washingtoa would 
 have mourned had he been able to foresee the
 
 fall and terrible measure of the danger he fore- 
 told, the insane and terrible disregard of his 
 holy advice, which has accomplished it 
 
 There was no reason why tne several States 
 of the Union should not have abided togethtr 
 in harmony, for all time. Their domestic insti- 
 
 Consfitution and denounced its guarantees of 
 the rights of slavery as a compact of sin and 
 shame. Many of its teachers openly advocated 
 diniinion ; and many more proclaimed an irre- 
 pressible conflict between the domestic systems 
 of the north and the south, arguing that the 
 
 tutions, their social condition and their habits | prate? of the Union must become all free or all 
 
 of life, differed indeed from the beginning. I slave. 
 
 And, in the language of General Jackson, this j These dangerous and revolutionary doctrines 
 
 difference was unavoidably increased by the 
 varying^ principles upon which the American 
 colonies were originally planted; principles 
 which had taken deep root in their social rela- 
 tions before the revolution, and therefore, of 
 necessity, influencing their policy since they 
 became free and independent States." The 
 progress of all the states was great, but fre- 
 quently in different directions. But the Consti- 
 tution left to the several states the exclusive 
 control of their domestic concerns; and had the 
 spirit of the Constitution prevailed, differences 
 of domestic institutions would never have dis- 
 turbed the peaceful relations of the states in 
 the Union. The slavery of the African race 
 formed from the beginning the most important 
 and dangerous of these differences. The Con- 
 stitution was a compact of compromises, and in 
 no instance more wisely or generously BO than 
 in relation to the institution of slavery. And 
 had the several states of the Union abided in 
 their politics by that necessary and magnani- 
 mous spirit of compromise, the Union would 
 now be undisturbed, and ancient harmony and 
 prosperity would reign where civil war HOW 
 rages. 
 
 Fanaticism is the bane of harmony. It has 
 disturbed many states and overturned many 
 governments. It is one of the most difficult 
 bocial evils to deal with. It has a growth of 
 prosperity, and yet gains strength under perse- 
 cution. It often appeals to the most generous 
 prejudices of humanity; it often wears the garb 
 of religion and morality ; it has wonderful 
 powers of proselytism; it has great capacities to 
 make wrong look like right, and to deck errors 
 in the robes of truth. It is a terrible apostle of 
 evil. Discord follows its lead, and revolution 
 too often is the end of its career. 
 
 Unfortunately among many elements of good 
 and greatness, fanaticism emigated to this 
 country. From time to time, it has played its 
 part in marring the record of civil and relig- 
 ious liberty in American history. It has, from 
 time to time, sent forth various heretical dog- 
 mas of politics. It has asserted a h'gher law, 
 above the Constitution itself. It has ia recent. 
 
 have always been combatted by the democratic 
 party. The democracy has no apology to make 
 for southern slavery. We regard it as a great 
 social evil. But we regard it as a misfortune, 
 not a crime. The crime ia in the presence of 
 the African race upon the continent That is 
 a crime of the past, not of the present. And 
 even in he past, it was less the crime of the 
 south, than of those who grew rich in the slave 
 trade, and who now clamor for the abolition of 
 slavery which they themselves planted. We 
 hold this country to be the possession of the 
 white race, and this government to be instituted 
 by white men for white men. We commisserate 
 the condition of the slave ; but we are unwil- 
 ling to violate the constitution in his behalf, or 
 to disturb society by emancipating four millions 
 of an inferior race in a land possessed by a su- 
 perior race. It is the sin of history that the 
 African race is here ; once here in great num- 
 bers, the proper condition of the African was 
 subjection in some form to the White. Equali- 
 ty was impossible. Nature has made social 
 equality impossible without fatally ginning 
 against her laws, and without social equality 
 political equality is impossible. Nature never 
 placed the races together; when brought to 
 gether, the servitude of the inferior is the best 
 condition for both races ; a necessary evil re- 
 sulting from the violation of natural law in 
 bringing them together. 
 
 But fanaticism did not so see it. Fanaticism 
 at the north, unembarrassed by the presence tf 
 slavery, did not see slavery as a necessary evil, 
 but only as an abstract wrong. It could make 
 no allowance for the condition of the south, and 
 had no toleration for the compromises of the 
 constitution or the safeguards which it extend- 
 ed to the institutions of the south. 
 
 For a long time the abolition party was a 
 weak political minority: but it was from the 
 beginning an energetic and dangerous apostle 
 of unconstitutional doctrines and sectional 
 jealousies and distrusts. 
 
 As long ago as 1837, the warrior statesman, 
 Andrew Jackson, in his farewell address, 
 warned us against it. lie quoted the warnings 
 
 ConstitutioD. 
 
 memorable words, sought to do in the name of j of Washington; and said: "The lessons con- 
 God what could not be done in the name of the I tained in this invaluable legacy of Washington 
 
 to his countrymen, should be cherished in the 
 heart of every citizen to the latest generttion, 
 and perhaps at no period of time could they be 
 more usefully remembered than at the present 
 moment. For when we look upon the scenes 
 which are passing around us, and dwell upon 
 the pages of bis parting address, his paternal 
 counsels would seem to be not merely the off- 
 spring of wisdom and foresight, but the voice of 
 prophecy, fortelling events, and warning us of 
 
 of the country in political abolition. The north 
 had rid itself of the incubus of slavery. The 
 north was as responsible for slavery in the 
 south, as the south itself is. But fanaticism 
 became offended with southern slavery ; and 
 overlooking home evils and home reforms, it 
 devoted itself to the discussion of the evils of 
 African slavery, clamoring against its criminal- 
 ity and urging its abolition. It disregarded the 
 
 the evil to come. * * * 
 
 The
 
 federal constitution was then regarded by him 
 as an experiment. ****** The 
 trial has been made. It has succeeded beyond 
 the proudest hopes of those who framed it. 
 Every quarter of this widely extended nation 
 has felt its blessings and shared in the general 
 prosperity produced by its adoption. But amid 
 this general prosperity and splendid success, 
 the dangers of which he warned us. are be- 
 coming every day more evident, and the s:gns 
 of evil are sufficiently apparent to awaken the 
 deepest anxiety in the bosom of the patriot. We 
 behold systematic efforts publicly made to sow 
 the seeds of discord between different parts of 
 the United States, and to place party divisions 
 directly upon geographical distinctions; to ex 
 cite the south against the north, and the north 
 against t.ie south, and to force into the contro 
 ver^y the most delicate and excited topic-, upon 
 which it is impossible that a large portion of the 
 Union can ever speak without strong emotions 
 .Appeals too are constantly made to sectional 
 interests, * * * * * and the pos- 
 
 sible dissolution of the Union has at length 
 become an ordinary and familiar subject of 
 discussion. 
 
 ''Has the warning voice of Washington been 
 forgotten, or have designs already been formed 
 to sever the nation ? * * * * * * 
 Mutual suspicions and reproaches may in time 
 create mutual hostility ; and artful and design- 
 ing men will always be found, who are ready to 
 foment these fatal divisions and to inflame the 
 natural jealousies of different sections of the 
 country. ******* Delude not 
 yourselves into the belief that a breach once 
 made may be afterwards repaired. If the Union 
 is ouce severed the line of separation will grow 
 wider nd wid*r, and the controversies which 
 aie debated and settled in the balls of legisla- 
 tion, will be tried in fields of battle and deter- 
 mined by the sword. ***** The 
 Constitution cannot be maintained nor the Union 
 preserved, in opposition to public feeling, by the 
 mere exertion ot the coercive powers confided 
 to the general government. The foundations 
 must be laid in the *ffectious of the people ; in 
 the security it gives to life, liberty, character 
 and property in every quarter of the country; 
 and in the fraternal attachment which the citi 
 zeus uf tne several states bear to one another, 
 as members of one politic tl family mutually 
 contributing to promote the happiness of each 
 other. Heucu the uitizentt of every state should 
 studiously aoid every thing calculated to wound 
 the seusibility or offend the just pride of the 
 people of other states ; and they should frown 
 any proceedings within their own borders likely 
 to disturb th irauquility of their political breth- 
 ren in other portions of the Union. * * 
 Eich state has the unquestionable right to reg- 
 ulate its own internal concerns, according to 
 its own pleasure. ***** ^ n ,j 
 effort- on the p.ti-t of the people of other states 
 to cast odium ou i licit institutions, aud all meas- 
 ures calculated to disturb iheir rights of pro- 
 perty or to put iii jeopardy their peace and in- 
 ternal traiiquilny, are in direct opposition to 
 the spirit iu wniuh the Union was founded and 
 
 must endanger its safety. Motives of philan- 
 thropy may be assigned for this unwarrantable 
 interference, and weak men may persuade them- 
 selves for a moment thnt they are laboring in 
 the cause of humanity and asserting the rights 
 of the human race; but every one upon sober 
 reflect! "ii will see that nothing but mischief can 
 come from these improper assaults upon the 
 feelings and rights of others. Rest assured 
 tbat the men found busy in this work of dis- 
 cord, are not worthy of your confidence, and 
 deserve your strongest reprobation." 
 
 So spoke one of the greatest and wisest pat- 
 riots of American history. Counsels so sacred 
 and warnings so solemn, were disregarded by 
 the abolitionists ; and the abolition party con- 
 tinued to teach its treasonable doctrines and to 
 preach its crusade against the south and its 
 institutions. 
 
 The result so wisely foretold, .necessarily 
 followed. The denunciation of the South at the 
 north, was met by denunciation of the north 
 at the south. Hostility jn the north to the 
 institutions of the sonth provoked hostility in 
 the south to the people of the north. The great 
 mass of the people in the south were loyal to 
 the Union ; but a class of puplio men in the 
 south had for some time been tainted with 
 disloyalty, and aimed to separate the southern 
 states from the Union, whenever an opportu- 
 nity should arise to carry the people of the 
 south with them. These men zealously con- 
 tributed to foment the abolition excitement at 
 the north, aud exaggerated its power and im- 
 portance at the south. Thus faction begot fac- 
 tion , and the abolition party at the north pro- 
 duced the disunion party at the south The 
 spirit of Northern abolition and Southern 
 disunion insensibly grew together for years, 
 until the period of the last presidential election, 
 when a bitter animosity existed between Inrge 
 and powerful factions in the north and in the 
 south. 
 
 In the meantime in 1854 6 the whig party 
 most unhappily abandoned its organization, and 
 the present republican party WHS founded on the 
 basis of the old abolition party. The best and 
 most enlightened pturiotp of the whigs refused 
 all alliance with the new sectional party; but 
 the ast body of the wbigs surrendered ttteir na- 
 tional politics to its narrow and sectional bigotry. 
 The great leaders of<he whig party were gone. 
 The mighty voice of Webster which always 
 spoke for the whole country and never uttered 
 a sectional dogma, was silent forever. The 
 great head aud heart of Clay, whose statesman- 
 ship had served to save the Union from more 
 than one peril and was as broad as the Union 
 itself, lay low in death. H.id these great lights 
 of the whig party survived, we fuUy believe 
 that they would have saved their ,iarty from 
 the shame ot prostituting itself iu the unholy 
 embraces of a sectional and revolutionary or- 
 auiz ition. But they were gone; pigmies satin 
 the seats of giants; the whig puny went out of 
 being, and the republican party was ingrafted 
 on the abolition party. 
 
 It is true that the Republican party avows its 
 abolition tendencies less manfully than the old
 
 abolition party, They assume to interfere with 
 slavery in the territories and other places sub- 
 ject to the jurisdiction of the United States only 
 and not in the states. This thin disguise of 
 their real policy, is fully exposed by the uni- 
 form tone of their discussions of slavery, by 
 their resistance of the fugitive slave law, by 
 their avowal of an irrepressible conflict between 
 the institutions of the north and south, and by 
 the whole tenor of their legislation wherever 
 and whenever they have been in power. That 
 a large and respectable body of the party have 
 no sympathy with its abolition proclivities, is 
 perhaps true; but there is no room for doubt 
 that the abolition element tn that party is its 
 largest, most energetic, and influential ele- 
 ment. 
 
 With the strength and influence of the Re- 
 publican party, grew the strength and influence 
 of the party of secession. Both were sectional; 
 both revolutionary. 
 
 It would be iJlo to show the revolutionary 
 character of the secession party. Its revolution- 
 ary purposes were avowed. The.Republican 
 party was no less revolutionary, though its 
 revolutionary tendencies were less manifest 
 
 It is evident, from whut has already been seen 
 that Washington and Jackson, fit representa- 
 tives of the sages and patriots of the revolution 
 nry and succeeding eras, regarded sectional 
 parties as revolutionary. Under our system 
 they are essentially so ; for no sectional party 
 could accomplish any end, excep' by the sever- 
 ence of ihe bonds of fraternity uad unity be- 
 tween the different parts of the country upon 
 which the Uhion rests. It is not we wuo day, 
 it is the sages aud patriots of the past who have 
 said, that in American politics every sectional 
 party is essentially disloyal to the Union. 
 
 lu almost every state of the Union, in which 
 the republican party have the power, they en- 
 acted laws impeding the execution of laws ot 
 the Union States. Such laws were passed by 
 them in this state. A republican judiciary iti 
 this state nullified acts of Congress, assumed to 
 overrule the decisions of the Supreme Court ol 
 the United States in cases arising under the 
 Constitution aud laws of the Union, disobeyed 
 its mandates, and sanctioned by judicial deci- 
 sion the forcible rescue of prisoners held under 
 the judicial process of the United States. But 
 not content with his measure of disloyalty, the 
 republican legislature o? this state passed in 
 1859, and has ever since refused to rescind, re- 
 solutions setting at defiance the authority of 
 the United States, and asserting the doctrine ot 
 secession as broadly as it has ever been asserted 
 by any southern tate. This is well understood 
 at home, by democrats aud republicans; but to 
 avoid the suspicion of exaggeration abroad, we 
 here insert two of these resolutions in full: 
 
 "Jtesolved, That the government iotmed by 
 the Constitution of the United States was not 
 made the exclusive or final judge of the extent 
 of the powers delegated to itself; but that, as 
 in all other cases of compact, having no com- 
 mon judge, each party has an equal right to 
 judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the 
 mode aud measure of 
 
 " Resolved, That the nrlnciple of construc- 
 tion contended for by the party which now rules 
 in the councils of the nation, that the General 
 Government is the exclusive judge of the ex- 
 tent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing 
 short of despotism, since the discretion of those 
 who administer the Government, and not the 
 Constitution, would be the measure of their 
 powers ; that the severa; states which formed 
 that instrument, have the unquestionable right 
 to judge of its infraction ; and that a positive 
 defiance of those sovereignties, of all unauthor- 
 ized acts done or attempted to be done under 
 color of that instrument, is the RIGHTFUL REM 
 EDY." 
 
 These resolutions had relation, not to the 
 acts of the executive of the United States or 
 even of Congress, but to a solemn decision of 
 the Supreme Court of the United States upon 
 the Constitution and Laws of the United Sutes. 
 This is the doctrine caught from seceding 
 South Carolina by Republican Wisconsin, aud 
 repeated by the Republican party of Wisconsin, 
 in full communion with the Republican party of 
 the North, to justify secession in every disloyal 
 state in the South. 
 
 Thus the Republican party, as well as the 
 secession party, was revolutionary. Aud these 
 two revolutionary parties grew in numbers and 
 influence duwu to the Presidential election in 
 1860, when the Democratic party was defeated 
 by the sectional influence of both 
 
 The sectional party of the South succeeded 
 in intruding some members into the Democrat- 
 ic Conveniion; and when defeated there by the 
 steadfrtst loyalty of the true Democracy, put 
 in nomination ;t reneg-ide from his party aud 
 his country. The sectiouul party of the North 
 put in nomination a distinguished geiitleiii'tn, 
 the author of the doctrine that the several 
 states must, ultimately become all slave or all 
 free. 
 
 The Democratic party nominated ae their 
 candidate, a statesman now no more, of great 
 experience and ability in public affairs, of 
 great energy and integrity g* character aud 
 life, the author of the only just aud practical 
 solution of the question of slavery in the terri- 
 tories, whose whole public life was devoted to 
 the maintenance of the Constitution as it is, 
 and the Union as it was; aoid whose zeal for the 
 preservation of the country sacrificed his life 
 in its prime. 
 
 The history of the convention which nomi- 
 nated Mr. Douglas, pluiul> shows that the 
 champions of secession had no hope to carry 
 the people of the South witn them suve by de- 
 feating the candidate ot the Democratic party. 
 The whole tone and temper of the Republican 
 leaders aud press at the North, before and dur- 
 ing the session of the convention, plainly shows 
 that they had no hope of electing their candi- 
 date, save by diverting the vote of the touih 
 from the Democratic candidate to the secession 
 candidate. Thus the action ot the two sec- 
 tional parties tended to the same result of the 
 Presidential election. Had Mr. Douglas betn 
 elected, secession could not have prevail- 
 ed at the South, and the several aims ot boih
 
 6 
 
 sectional parties would have been alike defeat- 
 ed. 
 
 The result was the defeat of Mr. Douglas and 
 the election of the Republican candidate. We 
 have no personal objection to the distinguish- 
 ed gentleman who now sits in the seat of Wash- 
 ington. His election was perhaps less mischie- 
 vous than ihat of any other prominent Republi- 
 can. Tbe evil of his election belongs to his 
 party, not himself. The good he has done is in 
 a great degree personal to him. Republican as 
 he is, he hns not forgotten his old national patri- 
 otism. If he has not always, he has often, 
 resisted the abolition element in his party and 
 stemmed me tide of its revolutiooary course. 
 In this, be has done the country immeasurable 
 service ; and we hope that he will continue, to 
 stand as a barrier as well against the moat de- 
 structive faction of his own party, as against the 
 armed enemy of the Union. Tbe responsibilities 
 of his position are such as might awe any man ; 
 and in all his efforts to sustain the constitution 
 against revolution and innovation, he has our 
 hearty sympathy and support. 
 
 The election was the signal for the movement 
 of secession. It was no excuse for the guilt of 
 disunion. The insincerity and bad faith of the 
 leaders in the movement is demonstrated by the 
 lact that in both Houses of Congress there was 
 a safe majority against the republican party. 
 But the truth is that the apostles of secession 
 were traitors at heart, independent of the elec 
 tlon ; and that they wanted and used the elec- 
 tion only as a lever to precipitate the south 
 from its allegiance. Thej duped the south in- 
 to the belief that the entire people of the 
 north were infected with the leprosy of abo- 
 lition. 
 
 As it was, we fully believe that the majority 
 of the whole southern people stood loyal to the 
 Union and that in no seceding state, except 
 South Carolina, was the ordinance of secession 
 fairly carried before the people. 
 
 The election of Mr. Lincoln, though effected 
 by a minority of votes, was carried in all the 
 forms of the Constitution, was obligatory upon 
 all the states and the people thereof, was no 
 palliation for the unhallowed act of secession, 
 was no ground for the risks, sufferings, hor- 
 rors, and ruin of the most shameless and de- 
 testable civil war known in the history of civ- 
 ilized man. 
 
 The standard of revolt was raised, and civil 
 war began. Whatever may have been the rel- 
 ative guiH of the two sectional parties in the 
 causes which prepared the South for revolution, 
 the sole guilt in the war itself rests with the 
 Southern party of secession. 
 
 Congress has declared the war is waged by 
 the government of the United States, not in the 
 spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the 
 purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the 
 rights of institutions of the states, but to de- 
 fend and maintain the supremacy of the Con- 
 stitution, and to preserve the Union with all 
 the dignity, equality and rights of the several 
 states unimpaired; and that as soon as these 
 objects are accomplished, the war ought to 
 cense. Thus carried on, the war is not only 
 
 expedient, but necessary; not only justifiable, 
 but holy. It is a defensive war. It is H war 
 of self preservation. Disunion, once success- 
 ful, would be a recurring evil; and instead of 
 leaving a Northern Union and a Southern Con- 
 federacy, would continue its destructive career 
 until all of the states would be broken and dis- 
 severed by petty sovereignties and wasted by 
 petty warfare. We cannot calmly contemplate 
 disunion. We know and love the blessings of 
 Union; but no human eye can penetrate the 
 dart and terrible future which lies beyond the 
 grave of the Constitution. The war for the 
 preservation of the Constitution has all our 
 sympathies, all our hopes and all our energies 
 
 But we have a right to demand, it is our duty 
 to demand, and we do demand, that this war be 
 carried on by the government for the constitu- 
 tion alone, and under the constitution alone. 
 To that end, amongst others, we retain our polit- 
 ical organization, and will use our best efforts 
 from time to time and at all times, to regain for 
 the democratic party, under the forms and 
 sanctions of the constitution, the control of 
 the legislative and executive departments of the 
 government of the United States. 
 
 In the meantime, the war must be carried on 
 and sustained with all the energies of the United 
 States, and the people thereof. No blood or 
 treasure is too 'dear a price to re-purchase the 
 Union inherited from our fathers and to trans- 
 mit unimpaired to our children. 
 
 It is not our province to relate the history of 
 the war, or to criticise its movements. Many 
 hundreds of thousands of our loyal brethren 
 have patriotically gone forth to battle for the 
 Union. All haye done nobly, all have suffered 
 nobly, many have died nobly. The angel of 
 death has made bloody vacancies in many a 
 northern home. Few have escaped without the 
 loss of aome near or dear friend. American 
 liberty has been re baptized in loyal blood; and 
 hundreds of thousands of loyal men are now in 
 the field, or hastening hither, to conquer or die 
 for the constitution. We owe it to the memory 
 of the dead, we owe it to the living' hosts in the 
 field, we owe it above all to the constitution, to 
 respond with cheerful alacrity to every constitu- 
 tional call for men, to submit to every constitu- 
 tional exaction of treasure. We owe all that we 
 have, and all that we are, to the Union; we 
 must pay the whole debt if it be necessary. 
 
 But war is not our whole duty. We owe a 
 political debt to the Constitution, and that too 
 must^e paid. We adopt the language of Gen. 
 Jackson, thai, war alone cannot preserve the 
 Constitution against disunion War can.and we 
 hope speedily will, subdue the armies of the 
 revolted states. War can, and we hope speedily 
 will disarm every traitor, possess every place of 
 strength, and uphold the grand old flag on every 
 flag staff in the United States. But when war 
 shall have accomplished all that war can do, the 
 Union will not be fully restored. The partici- 
 pation of the revolted states in the Government 
 of the Union must of necessity be voluntary. 
 War has no power to compel such voluntary 
 action. The peace and permanency of the re- 
 stored Union will depend, in a great measure,
 
 in the confidence of the people of the recovered 
 states.in the justice of the General Government, 
 and in the faithfnl observance of their Constitu- 
 tional rights. War has no power to inspire this 
 confidence. The stability of the Union then, as 
 in times past, will need the mutual good will j 
 and affection of the people of the several states. 
 War has no power to control the affections. 
 The people of the South will return to the Union, 
 when they do return, wounded in their pride 
 and embittered in their feeling. When they re- 
 turn, they will return as brethren, and merit 
 the treatment of brethren. The law may de- 
 mand its victims, but those guiltless of the war, 
 and those forgiven by the law, will again be our 
 political brothers. The restored states will re 
 turn to the Union with all the rights of other 
 states. To win back the confidence and affec- 
 tion of their people, and to restore the Union 
 in the spirit of the Constitution, the sectional 
 party at the North must be vigorously corabatted 
 and in due time overthrown at the ballot box 
 by the Democratic party, the only national. 
 Constitutional party left in the land. 
 
 If the Democratic party should be disbanded, 
 or should suffer itself to remain inactive, the 
 south would retain its old distrust of the Re- 
 publican narty, and its old aversion to the gen- 
 eral government administered by it. It would 
 then believe that the whole north was indeed 
 given up to abolition, and that the weaker south 
 would receive BO justice from the stronger 
 north. But if the south sees the Republican 
 part/ defeated, and the ancient defender of its 
 rights against sectional influences once more in 
 power iu the Union, or even bold in maintain- 
 ing its old political warfare against sectional 
 parties and influences, then may the people of 
 the south, misled from their allegiance by the 
 detestable intrigues of ambitious demagogues, 
 well hope to find once more in the Union old 
 rights, old blessings, old safety. Disunion is 
 the offspring of sectional parties, and the com- 
 plete restoration of the Union, in all its old 
 peace and harmony, rests upon the utter rout, 
 north and south, of a.ll sectional parties. The 
 spirit of the constitution must go hand in hand 
 with the letter*of the constitution. 
 
 It is no less essential to the people of the loy- 
 al states to establish the full reign of the spirit 
 of the constitution; to restore as the supreme 
 law of the land, in peace and war, in prosperity j 
 and adversity, in all circumstances of society, 
 the constitution, the whole constitution, and 
 nothing but the constitution. 
 
 We claim the right, as free and loyal Ameri- 
 can citizens, to discuss the conduct of the ad- 
 ministration, and to censure it when we deem 
 it worthy of censure. Our fathers won and 
 established this right, and we will not surrender 
 it. We utterly deny to the Executive of the 
 United States the power assumed by Congress 
 in the sedition act of 1798 to suppress opposi- 
 tion to the Administration, or restrict the full 
 freedom of political discussion in the loyal 
 states. This would be to assume a power above 
 the Constitution. The administration has no 
 more power to suspend the Constitution, than 
 have the people. The administration is the 
 
 child of the Constitution, and the servant of the 
 people. The child must not reject the authority 
 of the parent, nor the servant ueurp the rights 
 of the master. The Constitution and the laws 
 give the administration ample power to protect 
 itself and enforce its authority in the loyal 
 states; and i; would at this day be an evil ex- 
 ample pregnant with anarchy and disorder, to 
 disregard the constitutional rights of the loyal 
 states and their people. We cannot bring our- 
 selves to the belief that such a reign of terror 
 is impending over us. We respect the adminis- 
 tration too much for such an apprehension. But 
 if such times are upon us, we must play our 
 parts like men, and not disavow our principles 
 and opinions like cowards. Loyal to the core 
 to the Constitution and government of the United 
 States, the democracy has nothing to fear from 
 the assertion of its principles and the discus- 
 sions of its political views. 
 
 Allowing much of minor evil to pass unnotic- 
 ed, in view of the difficult patt which the ad- 
 ministration has had to play, there are some 
 grave acts of tbe Executive and legislative 
 departments of the government, for which we 
 hold the republican party responsible, and for 
 which we arraign it at the bar of public opinion. 
 
 We denounce the mischievous and unconsti- 
 tutional tone of much of the discussion in both 
 Houses of Congress at its late session. We hold 
 the general tenor of these discussions against 
 the rights of slavery in the slave holding states, 
 and in favor of the exercise by Congress of pow- 
 ers not delegated by the constitution, to be em- 
 inently dangerous in sustaining the spirit of 
 secession at the south and increasing a disre- 
 gard for the constitution at the north. 
 
 We denounce the abolition of slavery In the 
 District of Columbia, at the cost of the United 
 States, as unconstitutional, and peculiarly 
 mischievous at this time in giving force to the 
 distrust at the north in all the slave states. 
 
 We denounce the sweeping and indiscrimi- 
 nate measures of confiscation and emancipation 
 as unconssitutional, and as having a strong 
 tendency to unite the whole south against the 
 Union, as one man. 
 
 We believe that these and kindred things 
 have had a great weight in diminishing the 
 numbers and influence of the Union Party at the 
 south. 
 
 We deny the powers of the executive to sus- 
 pend the writ ofhibeax corpus in the loyal states. 
 We deny that this act, materially changing the 
 laws of the land, is an executive act. We have 
 the authority of the Supreme Court of the Uni- 
 ted States, pronounced by the voice of Chief 
 Justice Marshal as long by 1807, and affirmed 
 by every commentator on the Constitution since, 
 that under the Constitution of the United States, 
 it is a legislative power. No king has assumed 
 such a power in England, since the revolution. 
 
 We deny the power of the executive to make 
 arrests in the loyal states. The suspension of 
 the writ of habeas corpus, if validly done, would 
 not authorize this. There are federal courts in 
 all the loyal states with full power and juris- 
 diction to punish all crimes against the United 
 States. No Exercise of executive power has
 
 ever been more odious than lettns de eaehtt, by 
 which rhe executive could arrest and imprison 
 without judicial writ, accusation, or trial. We 
 hold this manner of arrest in the loynl states of 
 persons not in arms against the government to 
 
 W believe that the executive acts of whfcb. 
 we complkin, were doce rather in inadvertence 
 
 by soborflkate officers, than in the deliberate 
 purpose or subverting the Constitution, or 
 wi<h t'?e sanction of the President.' The 
 
 be in violation of Sec 2, Art 3, of the Consti- Th f-trength of power, however, is too great 
 tution of the United States, and of Ar'. 4. 5 nd and too dangerous to the liberties of the people, 
 6 of the amendments thereto And wt consider ; to p-iss without the protest of the free nnd 
 this practice i* vr -pc^ss^ry and. tending to loytl 1'emocracy. If done as part of a full and 
 brini the r ns'itu'ior into Disregard. ' dehhejute policy, they strike at the root of 
 
 We deny the power of the executive to trnm- j Ameri an liberty, and we are drifting from the 
 me! the freedom of the pre.'s by the suppression safe anchorage < f the Constitution into an un- 
 of newspapers. The press is judicially responsi- known wilderness of cruel wiiter?. 
 ble for abuses; hut the freedom of the press. Let whatever may come, the Democracy will 
 subject to judicial remedies. ?s essential to the ! abide rv their lime honored principles, by the 
 freedom of the people. And we protest against \ Constitution and the Union "We will not sur- 
 the manifest partiality with which this new and render our rights nor forsake them. We will 
 dangerous power is exercised. niiiint,' n our constitutional liberty at all hz- 
 
 We deny the recont semi-official definitions of nn Is. >ud as a necessary step towards that end, 
 the crime r' treafjn. "Treason against the ! we w,i i maintain the Uoion in like manner. 
 United States shall consist only in levying w r We are for the Constitution as it is, and the Un 
 against them, or in adhering to their enemies, ion as- it was." 
 
 giving them nid and comfort." In commenting ! V-'e . ill upon our brethren throughout the state 
 on this definition in the constiiution. Judge to or; ,mize the party for the coming election 
 Story quotes with approbation the remark of : of meubers of Congres , -uid of the State Legis- 
 Montecquien. that if the crime of treason be in- j 'atun-. We cll upon them to nominate as can- 
 determinate, that alone is sufficient to muke any | didates tried and true democrats on strictly 
 government degenerate into arbitrary power; ' part / principles, inviting theof support all per- 
 and he denounces, s the Supreme Cou-t of the ' sous. l>ut acting in affiliation with uo o'her par- 
 United States had rejected, the doc'rnie of con ty or faction whatever. We call upon tiiem, 
 struc/ive treason. It was in apprehension of the ; for the sake ot "liberty and onion, now and 
 dangers of constructive treason, that the defi forever, one and it separable, to exert all their 
 nition of this crime was introduced into the ', Constitutional right and power to elect conser 
 body of the constitution itself : and il if, a defini- vative men. who will not blasphemously assume 
 tion far more in keeping with the rights of a free | to do any official act ir. the name of God, which 
 people than su"h vague phrases as disloyal prac- \ cannut bo dune under tt'<- sanctk':i of tlie COE- 
 (tces. The statutes of the United States amply stitution. So doing th deuiocnicy of Wiscon- 
 
 provide for the punishment of fre.iaonable 
 crimes under the coostiiution, and we recognize 
 no power in the executive to enlarge them. 
 
 sin will best serve the cause of ue Union, and 
 give the highest proof of then loj'alty to the 
 Constitution. 
 
 We deny the power of the executive to trans- We claim the right on their behalf and our 
 port persons accused of crime in the loyal states, -iwu, to censure the political acts of the Admia- 
 frorn the state where the crime is alleged to have! i^trution, when we think that they dt'gerve i', 
 been committed, to any o'her state or place for! and to do all lawfully within our power to &ut 
 trial; to cause the trial of any person in the!taiu the suoremacy of the Constitution in all 
 loyal states for any crime before military tribu- places north and south, and over all persons il 
 nals or other courts, except before a jury in the i otfice, and out of it. And to that end we devc.e 
 Constituti'/n'al Distrfct Courts of the United i our bear's, minds and estates to aid the Adm'.n- 
 States; or to subject such persons to such trial, ! istratiou in the most vigorous and speedy pios- 
 except upon the indictment, of a grand jury. ! ecution of the war waged against the Union by 
 These rights are guaranteed to every person. ! the revolted states. We believe that in so doing 
 
 under all circumstances, by the constitution 
 itself And we fully believe that the loyal 
 people of the United States are worthy of their 
 
 we fulfill the most sacrod duty we owe to the 
 Constitution. 
 
 And to this, we solemnly pledge the faith of 
 
 fathers, who formed the constitution, and will i our party and ourselves, until the war be ended 
 be found unwilling to surrender Hghts so sacred | and the Constitution restored, as the supreme 
 and BO essential to their liberties. ' law of the land, in every state of the Union. 
 
 PATKIOT OFFICE PRINT, MADISON, W1S.
 
 WAR POWER 
 
 ETHE CONSTITUTION 
 
 MAT. H. CARPENTER'S 
 
 R E V I K W 
 
 OF 
 
 MR, RYAN'S ADDRESS. 
 
 "6f "' h - 
 
 7n </-, H,<2t' 
 
 j ^TT^. o, Vinci 
 
 '/^P y * /> "1 /// > ' * "**T 
 
 / 
 J 
 
 
 
 MILWAUKEE, WIS. : 
 
 Ciiloric Presses of Shirr & Son. 212 and 214, East. Water Street. 
 
 1862.
 
 ,iq yj 
 
 M. IL CARPENTER'S REVIEW 
 
 OF 
 
 MR. RYAN'S ADDRESS. 
 
 /ix* . . _ 
 
 as 
 
 - 
 
 IT would be carrying the joke too^far, and doing injustice to a large por- 
 tion of our people, to represent this/address as embodying the views of the 
 democrats of Wisconsin. George B. Smith, Esq., one of the oldest and 
 most eloquent democratic orators in the state, and A. R. R. Butler, Esq., 
 who is too well known as a democrat to need any commendation, opposed 
 it with all their power ; and Jonathan E. Arnold, a patriot, a democrat, an 
 orator and a gentleman, put forth one of his happiest efforts protesting 
 against the bitterness, of its partisan spirit, at a time when the government 
 stands in need of the united voices and exertions of the whole people. 
 
 This convention was as remarkable as the address. There were probably 
 never so many extreme men in one assembly before. As one of the dele- 
 gates said of the rest, not one in twenty believed in the address. But they 
 were angry at the administration ; angry at everybody and every thing ; 
 they could not express their feelings among their loyal neighbors ; and find- 
 ing themselves in strength, and gaining confidence from numbers, they de- 
 termined to have one long, loud, saucy talk, and then be silent forever more. 
 In this unamiable state, wanting a physician who could " minister to a mind 
 diseased," they naturally looked to Mr. Ryan, who had the ability and was 
 in the mood to do it. Accordingly before the convention was organized, 
 Mr. Eldredge of Fond du Lac, moved the appointment of a committee on 
 resolutions, with Mr. Ryan for Chairman. This was rather a left-handed 
 compliment to the presiding officer, who is ordinarily supposed to have suffi- 
 cient intelligence to appoint committees ; but the boys were not going to 
 forego their treat, they wanted a " saucy talk ; and they fixed it in advance, 
 so that no blunder could interfere with their designs. After the permanent 
 organization, Mr. Eldredge renewed his motion for the appointment of a 
 committee of five on Resolutions, with Mr. Ryan for chairman. This was 
 carried, and Mr. Ryan presented his resolution, filling five columns in fine 
 typo in the News. Mr. Ryan called it an address ; but no committee had 
 been raised to draft an address ; and the production in question should be 
 called " Mr. Ryan's resolution to kill the democratic party." Some have 
 suggested that there was on his part a suppressed, disguised patriotism in 
 writing this address ; that he really deprecated the existence of parties in 
 this perilous hour, and therefore determined to destroy the only party in 
 which he was entitled to raise his voice, or exercise his septic powers.
 
 There are some features of the address that render this theory plausible ; 
 hut upon the whole it is not certain that this is its true explanation. 
 
 The democratic party has heen called by its enemies the pro-slavery party. 
 This has been repelled as a slander by ail the democrats of Wisconsin. 
 They have said that with slavery we had nothing to do ; that it was a local 
 institution, protected iu the States by the constitution ; that the provisions 
 of the constitution in relation to slavery, wro a p.vrt of the compromises 
 upon which that instrument was based ; and that it was our duty to obey 
 every provision, whether \ve approved or disapproved. The Baltimore Con- 
 vention in 1840, set forth the democratic en ed upon the slavery question as 
 follows : 
 
 "Resolved, That Congress has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with or con- 
 trol the domestic institutions of the several States; and Unit such Stales are the sole and 
 proper judges'- of everything pertaining to their own affairs, not. prohibited by the constitu- 
 tion; that all efforts, by abolitionists or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with 
 questions of slavery, or take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to 
 the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such c (forts have an inevita- 
 ble tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and per- 
 manency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend to our political in- 
 stitutions." 
 
 This resolution was re-adopted by the National democratic conventions, of 
 1844, 1848, and pledged the democracy to let shivery alone, as' a thing it had 
 no right to interfere with. It is believed that no democratic convention in a 
 fret) state ever went beyond this, to a justification of slavery _/>er se. Jelter- 
 son pronounced slavery a curse and a sin. But hear what Mr. Ryan says: 
 
 " Nature never placed the races together. When brought together, the servitude of the 
 inferior is the best, condii ion of both races : a necessary evil resulting from the violation 
 of a natural law in bringing them together. But Fanatacis.m did not so sec it," &c. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson did not so see it; nobody in a free state except Mr. Ryan, 
 ever did see it so, nor was it over heard of in a slave state until Mr. Cal- 
 houn promulgated the infamous dogma to the astonishment of the Christian 
 world. The Spaniards have been universally execrated in history for ensla- 
 ving the Indians But according to Mr. Ryan, this was perfectly right. 
 The sin was in the white race coining here. " Nature never placed the ra- 
 ces together." But when the white man had committed the sin against na- 
 ture of discovering and settling upon this continent, then inhabited by an in- 
 ferior race, he was perfectly justified in enslaving it. " It is the best condi- 
 tion for both races.' 1 '' 
 
 Is this democracy? Is this the creed, which if a man does not believe, 
 he shall be driven from the face of Mr. Ryan and the whole democratic 
 party ? Mr. Ryan tells us in the cutset that " it becomes us to consider the 
 application of old principles to new conditions ;" and he has set us the ex- 
 ample with a vengeance. The most cruel andbarhorous slavery ever known 
 on earth, the slavery of the Indians by the Spaniards, is, by the doctrine of 
 this address, justified, per se ; and that too in the platform of a democratic 
 convention, in a free and Christian country, in the hist half of the nineteenth 
 century. Did Mr. Eldredge of Fond du Lac, and John W. Carey, Esq., of 
 this city, both of whom voted for this address, believe in this part of it; or 
 did they willingly vote for an address they did not believe in ? If this com- 
 plete justification of slavery per se is an article of democratic faith, who ori- 
 ginated it? Who has ever before advocated it? In what convention has 
 it ever found favor, or in what democratic platform has it ever been a plank? 
 
 This address, adopted by a convention of which the News admits that not 
 a few of its members ''had never before participated in the proceedings of a 
 democratic convention, or voted a democratic ballot" commits the very fault,
 
 the democrats have so long condemned in the abolitionists. It assumes to 
 interfere with slavery in the States, by discussing its merits, and concludes 
 with the implied advice that it should never bo abolished. "It is the best 
 condition for both races." The abolitionist reasons over the same ground 
 and ends with the advice that it .should be abolished, because it is the worst 
 condition for both races. Now while the two extremes differ in their ad- 
 vice, they concur to violate the principle of political faith, announced in the 
 Baltimore platform, that the States are ''the sole and proper judges of every 
 thing pertaining to their own affairs." 
 
 alai-tii!' 
 
 But a far more objectionable, because more dangerous part of the address, 
 is its manifest apology for the rebellion ; and its labored efforts to throw the 
 blame of it upon the North. Paragraph is piled upon paragraph to show 
 that the abolitionists are really answerable for this \var; and the occasional 
 express repudiation of the necessary inference from all its statements and 
 arguments, cannot redeem it with any intelligent reader. A skillful lawyer, 
 wishing to apologize for a murderer, would say, "Now, gentlemen of the 
 jury, I do not justify my client, but you should consider the circumstances 
 of his offence. My client was an honest, peaceable man, pursuing his own 
 calling, on his own premises ; the deceased came there ; came with insult- 
 ing language and menacing gestures; my client declined any discussion 
 with him and requested him to go away ; but the deceased became more 
 rude aud insolent, heaping upon my unfortunate client every kind of offen- 
 sive epithet, until finally overpowered with the anger the deceased had in- 
 spired, he struck a fatal b,low ; a blow the law cannot justify, tfcc." Now 
 read this long address and see jf it is not in this spirit and of this character 
 throughout. The trick of oratory, to pretend one thing while 1'eally accom- 
 plishing another, and exactly the reverse, is not new with Mr. Ryan. An- 
 thony practiced the same art in his consummate oration to the Roman citi- 
 zens after the death of Cfesar, in which every school boy knows how he 
 protested, that Brutus was " an honorable man," aud at the same time con- 
 vinced the people that he was the vilest of malefactors. Had Anthony said 
 Brutus was a murderer, the people would not have listened to him. Mr. 
 Ryan would not have been listened to, had he said in words the rebellion 
 was justifiable. But both could, and both have disguisedly, but percepti- 
 bly, labored to carry their hearers to a conclusion directly opposite to the 
 point proposed. It is pretended that the object of the address is to incite 
 the party to sustain the government; and how docs it accomplish this? By 
 laboring, laboring, laboring to show, that if the North is not absolutely in 
 the wrong, yet the South have been annoyed and worried till human nature 
 could endure no more, "Thrice is he armed who hath his quarrel just ;" 
 and this address labors to show that our quarrel is unjust ; that the South 
 have taken up arms in consequence of the triumph of a sectional party in 
 the election of Mr. Lincoln. What more has Jeff. Davis ever claimed or 
 said ? 
 
 The differences between the North and South, have swolltwi beyond the 
 reach of argument ; a terrible exertion of physical strength, must settle the 
 question. If the South were conquered, if this rebellion were crushed out, 
 then it would be proper to discuss what should be her treatment. But at 
 this time when rebel artillery is belching on the capital, the direct and only 
 effect of such an address is to make our people doubt the justice of their 
 cause, and thus enfeeble and unnerve the arm of the government. It is 
 matter of unfeigned astonishment and regret that any man could be found
 
 6 
 
 willing, at such a time, to perform this task ; and it is hot less astonishing 
 that any man who has invited and urged his neighbors and friends to volun- 
 teer to fight in this war on the part of the North, should after they had 
 moved to the battle-field, give his voice for a formal address to be promul- 
 gated ex cathedra tending to show that these volunteers are engaged in a 
 war, which to say the least of it, had been brought on bi/ the ayyressions of 
 the North upon the South. 
 
 There are many things in this address that will astonish democrats. 
 But the principal thing that is so apparently unpatriotic as to strike the eye 
 and offend the heart, is its direct and open repudiation of the last counsels 
 of Douglas to the American people. And when a member of the conven- 
 tion moved to insert in the address a part of one of Mr. Douglas' great ap- 
 peals to patriotism above party, the incongruity was felt to be so striking, 
 that the mover was begged to withdraw the amendment, and save the con- 
 vention that was willing to endorse Ryan, from the open shame of repudiat- 
 ing Douglas. But it was apparent that the sentiments of both could not 
 stand side by side in the same address ; and Douglas' appeal, that for dis- 
 interested patriotism has no counterpart in American literature, that lends 
 new charms and imparts a higher lustre to his name and character, was 
 voted down. 
 
 Mr. Douglas said : 
 
 "Whoever is not prepared to sacrifice party organizations and platforms on the altar of 
 his country does not deserve the support and countenance of honest people. How are we to 
 overcome partizan antipathies in the midst of men of all parties ,so as to present a united 
 front in support of our country ? We must cease discussing party issues, make no allusions 
 to old party tests, have no criminations and recriminations, indulge in no taunts one 
 against the other as to who has been tha cause of these troubles." 
 
 And again : 
 
 "Let him be marked an no true patriot who will not abandon all such issues in times like 
 this." 
 
 Mr. Ryan, after indulging plentifully in criminations, and discussions as 
 to " who has been the cause of these troubles, proceeds thus : 
 
 " We call upon our brethren throughout the State to organize the party for the coming 
 election of members of Congress, and of the State Legislature. We call upon them to nom 
 inate as candidates tried and true democrats, on strictly party principles, inviting the sup 
 port of all persons, but acting in affiliation with no other party or faction whatever." 
 
 These quotations are sufficient to show that if Douglas was a patriot, this 
 address is most unpatriotic and pernicious. No two addresses were ever 
 more diametrically opposite. Thoir authors had essentially different views 
 and purposes ; and it may be left without further remark to the people to 
 determine which was the patriot, which loved his country, which was the 
 best exponent of democratic duty, and which address is the safer guide out 
 of the horrors of these " disjointed times." 
 
 Thus far we have spoken of this address as expressive of the peculiar 
 views of its author. But there is one position not argued but assumed as a 
 premiss, the invention of which cannot be charged upon Mr. Ryan. It is 
 this : 
 
 "The constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the several States, pro- 
 vide alike for all the exigencies of peace at home and abroad, of foreign war and domestic 
 insurrection." 
 
 The traitor Breckenridge, shortly before joining the rebel army^ main-
 
 
 7 
 
 tained in the Senate and in public speeches, substantially the same doctrind. 
 And if he could have convinced others of its soundness, he probably would 
 still have remained in the Senate, and there have contributed more effective 
 aid to the South, than he can with his sword in the field. Mr. Yancey late- 
 ly writing to the people of one of the revolted States, expressed his surprise 
 at the resources the North had been able to command, and his utter aston- 
 ishment and horror at the disregard shown in Congress for the constitution 
 
 This language seems more appropriate in a traitor's letter than in the ad- 
 dress of a Northern democratic convention, but comes to the same practical 
 end. If the constitution does indeed provide " for all the exigencies of peace 
 at home and abroad, of foreign war and domestic insurrection," then it is cer- 
 tain that the South \vi\l succeed, if we heed the constitution ; and it would 
 tend very much to discourage the North in this contest to convince them 
 that they are daily violating the constitution they supposed they were fight- 
 ing to maintain. But fortunately for us, and for all that is at stake in this 
 controversy, the doctrine here announced cannot be maintained. 
 
 The constitution is the chart of civil government' and as such provides 
 for the raising of armies and navies, and that the President shall be Com- 
 mander-in-Chief, &c. All this is part of the machinery of the civil State. 
 It is not very certain what is meant by " provides for all the exigencies of 
 foreign war." The address is extremely general and oracular at this point. 
 One of the exigencies of foreign war, placed General Scott and his army in 
 the city of Mexico. Now is it meant that the constitution provides for such 
 a case, and directs what General Scott might or might not do in an enemy's 
 capital ? If it means anything it means this : and yet how unfounded is the 
 assertion. The constitution no where directs when, where, or how a battle 
 shall be fought, or a city be taken ; and if General Scott had looked to its 
 provisions, he would have found not one word applicable to the subject ; or 
 that any one has ever pretended was applicable. When our army inarched 
 to Mexico, it went, not under the* constitution of the United States, but un- 
 der the law of nations and the usages of war ; and had precisely the same 
 rights and duties as an array of Great Britain or Russia in the same situa- 
 tion. The army in an enemy's country, or. to quote the address, eugaged in 
 foreign war, never consults the constitution of the civil State at home ; the 
 army of a republic or a monarchy, or of an absolute despotism, conducts its 
 campaigns by the same code ; totally unaffected by the frame of govern- 
 ment which sent it forth. And our constitution has not-pretended to regu- 
 late or control the law of nations, or to determine the usages of war; nor 
 could it do so, if it had attempted. What then is meant by the language, 
 the " constitution provides for all the exigencies of foreign war." Any 
 meaning that occurs is entirely unfounded. If it is simply meant that 
 the frame of the civil State, and its powers in tnere civil matters remain 
 the same whether engaged in Avar, or at peace, then this may be conceded ; 
 but the concession cannot aid the address nor justify its deductions. It is 
 true that during the Mexican war. Congress had no power to pass a law 
 respecting the establishment of religion, or creating a title of nobility, more 
 than it could in time of peace. 
 
 But because the civil powers of the government are limited by the consti- 
 tution alike in Avar or peace, it by no means follows that the Avar power is 
 defined, limited or controlled by the constitution. It is a very artful feature 
 of this address one borrowed from the methods of Mr. Calhoun that ii 
 passes over the really debatable ground upon this subject, and without argu- 
 ment or discussion, assumes as premises, the very points in controversy. It 
 is asserted, that the constitution provides for all the exigences of war, and 
 thence it is argued irresistably, that the constitution is belno- violated in the
 
 8 
 
 prosecution of the war. But the premises assumed are totally denied. The 
 great fallacy in this part of the address is at the starting point, and in what 
 is assumed with perfect confidence as an axiom. If a man were to com- 
 mence an argument by assuming that the moon is made of green cheese, he 
 would have little difficulty in proving that its presence would not " illumine 
 the night." 
 
 But to return ; if there is any meaning in this part of the address, it 
 means that the provisions of the constitution apply to the persons against 
 whom the war is waged, and regulate the extent to which the war may be 
 carried, as against such persons. A few examples will put this pretence at 
 rest. The constitution provides for instance, that no man shall' be deprived 
 of life without due process of law. Does this provision apply to the conduct 
 of the war, and can no rebel be killed till he has been first tried and .con 
 victed by a jury? Then every rebel slain on the battle-field is murdered. 
 So we may take up the provisions of the constitution one by one, and show 
 that no one of them applies or pretends to apply to the conduct of the war. 
 War is entirely outside the constitution ; the constitution makes preparation 
 for it, but is silent as to its management. It furnishes the instrumentalities, 
 but does not direct their use. This is as true of domestic as of foreign war. 
 The constitution commands the President to take care that the laws are 
 faithfully executed, and gives him the army and navy for that purpose. 
 And the President and the military and naval officers under him must of ne- 
 cessity, judge in the first instance, of the exigences of the war, and prose- 
 cute it in all places till the principal object be accomplished. The power' to 
 arrest is as undoubted as the power to kill, and is as necessary an exercise 
 of the war power. The power to destroy property, if necessary to the suc- 
 cessful prosecution of the war, is of the same undoubted nature. It is wor- 
 thy of notice, that in the constitution, the protection of life, liberty and 
 property, are united in the same provision, as follows : No person shall " be 
 deprived of life, liberty or property j^tjjput due process of law;" and all 
 stand upon the same footing saiar as,' this Tliscussion is concerned. An ex- 
 ercise of the war power may sweep them all away ; and the constitution no 
 more pretends to protect -oife UwutUie Jj nt ' r 5 as against the war power. 
 Would it be pretendodjttfat if ~a*~ spy came within the military lines, under 
 such circumstances as are forbidden by the usages of war, that the Presi- 
 dent, or his servants, could not arrest him without warrant ? And could it 
 make any difference that the spy, whose character was clearly ascertained, 
 should be found, ift'one of the loyal states? Suppose the government should 
 be collecting at Oincinnatti a large force for a particular purpose ; and a sol- 
 dier from the rebel army should be sent in disguise within our camps to spy 
 out the number, condition and destination of the troops, would there be tilt- 
 slightest doubt of the right and duty of the President or his military subor- 
 dinates, summarily to arrest such person, and subject him to military trial 
 and punishment as a spy? 
 
 Yet the address says, in most charming generality of expression : 
 
 " We deny the power of t!ie Executive to make arrests in the loyal $(/<!,:<;. * There 
 are federal courts in all the States with full power and jurisdiction to punish <//'. 
 against the United States." 
 
 Again suppose the success of a particular campaign should be found to 
 depend upon entire secrecy; yet some newspaper in New York should 
 persist in publishing day after day full particulars of all preparations and 
 plans of the campaign, thus acquainting the rebels with the information 
 necessary to render it a failure. Would any man doubt that this was, if 
 done knowingly and wickedly, giving aid to the rebellion "i Would it not
 
 9 
 
 under such circumstances be the duty of the president or his military agents 
 or officers to arrest such editor; and suppress such newspaper, with artil- 
 lery, if it could not otherwise be suppressed. Yet this address says, with- 
 out any qualification whatever, "we deny the. power of the executive to 
 trammel the freedom of the press by the suppression of newspapers," &c. 
 
 The error of this part of the address is that it is not directed against an 
 improper exercise of the power, but denies the poiver, in even a proper and 
 absolutely necessary case, to, arrest a spy in a free State, or prevent a news- 
 paper giving information to the enemy that will render a campaign abortive. 
 This egregious error is the more to be reprehended, that it was penned and 
 endorsed by an eminent lawyer, who well knew the broad distinction be- 
 tween the existence of a power, and the improper exercise of it in a given 
 instance. 
 
 Manifestly the character of the offence must determine whether it be 
 amenable to military punishment, and not the place or State where it was 
 committed. If a soldier from the rebel array is really a spy, it can make 
 no difference with the mode and extent of his arrest and punishment, 
 whether the field of labor assigned him by his commander be on the north 
 or the south side of the Ohio, at New Orleans or New York. If the act 
 complained of be in its character a military offence, then it merits and 
 must receive the speedy award of military law. The arresting, of spies, by 
 warrants from the Courts, would be a good joke indeed. Somewhere in 
 Burke's works, he ridicules the Chief Justice of India, by representing 
 that he tried to suppress a rebellion with affidavits. Mr. Ryan must have 
 risen from a recent reading of Burke's works, when he penned this part of 
 his address. It is unnecessary to speak of particular instances of the ex- 
 ercise of this power to arrest and to suppress newspapers, or to express any 
 opinion as to the propriety or impropriety of its exercise in particular 
 cases, because this is not discussed in the address. The subject of discus- 
 sion is the power itself; and not whether it has been improperly exercised. 
 No power was ever lodged with any human being that might not be mis- 
 takenly exercised; but this is no argument against the existence of the 
 power. 
 
 And every lawyer knows that wherever a power is lodged, there rests 
 also with it the right to judge whether the proper case is presented for its 
 exercise; this is absolutely necessary to the utility of the power. The 
 President and his military subordinates must therefore judge, answerable 
 to public opinion and on their consciences to their God, whether the proper 
 case exists to make a military arrest, to batter down a fort, or blow up a 
 newspaper. The President must judge of the conduct of men, and of the 
 character of the publications, and say whether they are of a class to be 
 proceeded against in the Courts, or with bayonets. The President, for in- 
 stance, must judge of the character of Mr. Ryan's address, and of this 
 criticism of it, and if in his opinion either are calculated to spread dissen- 
 sions in the north, to such extent as to render present aid to the military 
 opeiations of the south, he is as clearly authorized to deal with the author, 
 as he would be to deal with him for doing any other act that directly aided 
 the rebel campaign of arms. If a paper embodies abstract doctrines merely 
 erroneous, but which cannot contribute directly or presently to aid the mil- 
 itary operations of the enemy; but are like the address only calculated and 
 intended to secure for its author favorable political considerations on the
 
 10 
 
 part of southern politicians after the war is ended, then I suppose the author 
 should not be arrested without a warrant from the Courts; but it' the paper 
 contained information or sentiments directly and presently calculated to 
 strengthen the rebel, and paralyze the loyal arm, on the field of battle ; 
 then the author should be arrested, and punished by military law. If the 
 offender is found giving present aid to the military operations of the enemy, 
 whether with his pen or his sword, he is amenable to military law. Anil 
 the President must of course judge in any given instance to which class a 
 publication belongs and treat it accordingly. We can comceive that in a 
 critical point of a campaign, the mere announcement on a certain day in a 
 New York paper, that ten regiments from New England Ind landed in New 
 York that morning, might give the enemy information upon which he would 
 either fight or decline to fight, at a particular time or place, and thus enable 
 the enemy to win a victory over us, or prevent us from winning one over 
 him. And this publication, if made for this purpose, would render the 
 editor as guilty of treason, as though he had contributed with his musket to 
 help the rebel army to gain a victory or avoid a defeat. The prosecution 
 of a campaign requires a great variety of efforts to ensure" its success. 
 Some must fight in the field, some must take care that provisions and ammu- 
 nition are furnished to those who do fight; and others must act as^pies and 
 obtain and transmit military information. It is immaterial which one of 
 these necessary branches of military service a man is found performing, hs 
 is equally guilty of treason; he is equally rendering present aid to the mil- 
 ity operations of the enemy; and is equally subject to summary arrest and 
 military trial and punishment. 
 
 There are many other equally unfounded and erroneous statements in 
 this address, affirmed with a confidence that may well make a man who 
 reads it wonder whether he is dreaming, or listening to a burlesque upon 
 patriotism and democracy; but these few things may serve to illustrate the 
 balance. 
 
 There are some occasional and shining truths, that half redeem the ad- 
 dress; such for instance as this "Unfortunately, among many elements of 
 good and greatness, fanaticism emigrated to this country." If any one 
 doubts it, let him read the address. And in considering it, it is a consola 
 tory and conclusive evidence that the democrats of Wisconsin are sound 
 and loyal, that go where you will in this city since its publication, you hear 
 it spoken of only in terms of unmeasured denunciation. 
 
 While a man's opinions are kept to himself, they are his own; but when 
 they are foisted in this way upon a great political party, as the expression 
 of their creed and doctrines, every man who now does, or ever did call 
 himself a democrat, is interested and authorized to protest against them.
 
 11 . , 
 
 The Milwaukee News of the day after the publication of the above Re- 
 view, contained the following : 
 
 THE STATE ADDRESS AND THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 Some of " the boys" in these days are getting wiser than their fathers. 
 They have discovered that war all war, and especially a war to suppress 
 insurrection " is entirely outside the Constitution." So they attack the 
 Address of the Democratic State Convention, because it says : 
 
 " The constitution of the United States and the laws enacted in pursuance of it, are the 
 supreme law of the land in all conditions of the country, The constitution is inviolate in 
 all circumstances of the people and the government. State necessity has no power to sus- 
 pend the constitution or abridge the freedom of the people." 
 
 For the benefit of those who think this is bad democracy, we quote from 
 Andrew Jackson not to convince them that Jackson was right, but to 
 show what an " old fool" Old Hickory was. In his proclamation to South 
 Carolina, he said of the Constitution; 
 
 " We have hitherto relied on it as the perpetual bond of our union. We have received it 
 as the work of the assembled wisdom of the nation. We have trusted to it as the sheet-anchor 
 of our safety IN THE STORMY TIMES OF CONFLICT WITH A FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC FOE." 
 
 Again, in the same proclamation : 
 
 "The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary powers on 
 the subject my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution." 
 
 Again, addressing the people of the United States : 
 
 " I rely with equal confidence on your undivided support in my determination to execute 
 the laws to preserve the Union by all Constitutional means." 
 
 Again, in his message to Congress, on the South Carolina rebellion, he 
 
 says : 
 
 " If these measures cannot be defeated and overcome by the powers conferred by the Conttitution 
 on the federal government, the Constitution must be considered as incompetent to its own de- 
 fence, the supremacy of the laws is at an end, and the rights and liberties of the citizens 
 can no longer receive protection from the government of the Union !'' 
 
 Again still speaking of the southern rebellion : 
 
 " The duty of the ''government seems to be plain. It inculcates a recognition of that 
 state [South Carolina] as a member of the Union, and subject to its authority ; a vindica- 
 tion of the just power of the Constitution; * * and the execution of the laws BY ALL 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS." 
 
 George Washington, himself the President of the Convention which 
 framed the Constitution, was another such crazy old fellow on this question. 
 In 1794 he suppressed a miniature rebellion in Pennsylvanin by the use of 
 the militia, and before he marched his soldiers there, he issued a proclama- 
 tion which began in this way : 
 
 "Now, therefore, 1, George Washington, President of the United States, in obedience to 
 that high and irresistible duty consigned to me by the Constitution, &c." 
 
 Washington and Jackson thought war should be carried on within and 
 according to the Constitution " by constitutional means." Neither of them 
 ever imagined that they could carry on war without the authority of the 
 Constitution. Neither of them supposed that a " military necessity" could 
 exist for a violation of any one of the provisions of the Constitution. 
 The whole history of the Constitutional Convention shows that the Consti- 
 tution was intended to be adapted to all the exigencies of war, granting 
 every power necessary to carry on war without rendering its own violation 
 necessary. And the man who supposes that a state of war implies the hos-
 
 12 
 
 tility of the government to the Constitution, or a power in the administra- 
 tion to trample upon the Constitution, or any part of iu s.-icivd provisions, 
 never had his mind enlightened with the first gleam ui' democracy of any 
 sort. 
 
 - 
 
 M. H. CARPENTER'S REPLY TO THE ABOVE. 
 
 An Editor was never more unfortunate in defending a, bad cause, than 
 was the Editor of the News, when he attempted to sustain the doctrines of 
 Mr. Ryan's address, by reference to the lives or writings of Washington or 
 Jackson. The quotations with which the Editor has adorned his article 
 have not the remotest application to the point under discussion, that is, 
 does the Constitution provide for all the exigencies i.of war ?. But there 
 are in the life and writings of Jackson, and in the speeches and reports of 
 Jackson democrats, abundant material to condemn Mr. Ryan's address, in 
 its letter and in its spirit. 
 
 To say nothing of his Florida campaign, in which he exercised innumer- 
 able imperial powers, which he and his friends justified, not by the consti- 
 tution, but by the necessities of the case, let us come directly to the last 
 war, when Jackson had military command at New Orleans ; and there we 
 shall find many cases directly in point, and completely overthrowing Mr. 
 Ryan's theory, that the constitution is a regulation oftvar, or a guide to the 
 President and his military subordinates, in conducting the war. We shall 
 see many things which Jackson did outside the constitution ; and how he 
 and his political friends defended his conduct. 
 
 He first proclaimed martial law, and while it was in force, though after 
 the report of peace had reached the United States, the Louisiana Gazette, 
 a newspaper printed at New Orleans, published a certain article which 
 called from the old hero a communication denying its truth, which he sent 
 by an aid-de-camp to the offending editor, "with a written order requiring 
 its insertion in the next issue of the paper, and concluding as follows : 
 
 "Henceforth it is expected that no publication of the n;Uim> of th;it herein alluded to 
 and censured, will appear in an// pn/nr >/ t/ic cili/, unless the editor sbiill li.ive previously as- 
 certained its correcfniess, ami ynintd /icnnixsioH /<*; it* in.-ii /i.'nii /r-j.-n tfanroper source." 
 
 During this state of things, Frenchman attempted to elude the General's 
 grasp, under so-called protections from the French Consul at New Orleans ; 
 and Jackson issued an order requiring all unnaturalized Frenchmen, to- 
 gether witli the French Consul, to leave New Orleans within three days, 
 and not to return to within one hundred and twenty miles of the city, until 
 the news of the ratification of peace should be otlicially published. This 
 ordc/ was thought by some to be " outside the constitution :'' and they pro- 
 tected against it in an article in the Louisiana Connor, (another newspaper 
 o r the city,) v'iueli protest reads exceedingly like. Mr, ]{,ifa>is address, and 
 jenounces the order us illegal atid unconstitutional. Thereupon Jackson 
 ordered the editor to headquarters, and compelled him to disclose the name 
 of the writer, Louallier ; and then Jackson sent a file of soldiers to arrest 
 Louallicr. Indignant that his article, which is in the very strain ot Mr.
 
 13 
 
 Ryan's address, and written to prove that "the constitution provides for all 
 theexi-enciesofwar," should be regarded as cause for arrest, Loualher 
 applied" to Jud'-c 11:. 11 of the United States Court, for a writ of habeas cor- 
 pus. That worthy functionary, believing like Mr. Ryan, that the constitu- 
 tion does indeed provide tor all the exigencies of war ; that the freedom o 
 the press coul'd not be trammelled, and that the arest of Loualher, without 
 process, in a loyal State, was illegal, allowed tho writ, The officer came 
 to serve it ; and Jackson being informed of what had taken place, rushed 
 to meet the officer, seized the writ of habeas corpus from his hand, and de- 
 tained it ; and immediately ordered Judge Hall to be arrested and he was 
 imprisoned, in the same room with the French expounder of the doctrine 
 that the constitution provides for all the exigencies of war. 
 
 Now, actions speak louder than words. This is what Jackson did ; and 
 that, too, in a loyal State ; and this he did as a representative of the Pres- 
 ident, exercising" by delegation from the then President, Mr. Madison, the 
 President's executive power. Turn now to Mr. Ryan's address and seo 
 how it is supported by the authority of Gen. Jackson. 
 
 1. ' M> dfivi th". power of the executive to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in the loy- 
 al States. We deny that this act, materially changing the laws of the land, is an execu- 
 tive act." 
 
 * Jackson suspended the writ ; and then suspended the Judge who 
 issued it; and all this in a loyal State. 
 
 2. " TFe flcni/ the pawer of the executive to make arrests iu the loyal States. 
 
 There are 1'cderal Courts in all the loyal ?(ates with full power and jurisdiction to punish 
 ish all crimes ag.iinst the United States." 
 
 Jackson made arrests in a loyal State ; and arrested the Judge of a fed- 
 eral Court in a loyal State. 
 
 5. " We iifiiy the power of the executive to trammel the freedom of the' press, by the 
 suppression of newspapers." 
 
 Jackson trammelled the freedom of the press ; and if he did not do it by 
 suppressing the newspaper, it was because the editor who had heard the 
 lion's roar, did not provoke his paw. 
 
 Here then, are three distinct planks of Mr. Ryan's platform, which ex- 
 clude Jackson from the tents of the democracy, as clearly as other portions 
 exclude Douglas. When this address shall be universally applied, and all 
 those shall be excluded who do not believe its doctrines, or practice its les- 
 sons, Mr. Ryan will remain the leader, and the Neivs the organ, of a glori- 
 ous LITTLE party, the harmony of which will never be disturbed by any 
 impulsive patriotism. 
 
 But this is not all ; not only did Jackson when exercising by delegation 
 the executive power of the President, deliberately violate these three funda- 
 mental dogmas of Mr. Ryan's address, but he and his friends afterwards, 
 in many places, and during many years, in speeches before the people, in 
 legal arguments, in State papers, in reports and debates before Congress, 
 added the weight of their opinion and their votes to sustain the conduct of 
 Gen. Jackson ; and thus to condemn the principles of this address. 
 
 After martial law ceased in New Orleans, the released Judge Hall called
 
 14 
 
 the conquering hero "before him to teach him that thereafter he must con- 
 duct was inside the constitution ; must not trammel the freedom of the 
 press ; rmtst not make arrests in loyal States, and a great many other things, 
 all of which can be found in Mr. Ryan's address. Upon this occasion 
 Jackson delivered a long paper in his defence over his own signature, fully 
 justifying his conduct, which fills eleven columns of Niles' Register, and 
 every paragraph of which is in deadly antagonism with the doctrine of Mr. 
 Ryan's address (8 Niles' Register, 245.) One paragraph will give an 
 idea of the paper : 
 
 " A writ of habeas corpus was directed for his (Louallier's) enlargement. The very case 
 which had been foreseen, the very contingency on which martial law was intended to ope- 
 rate, had now occurred. The civil magistrate seemed to think it his duty to enforce the enjo;/- 
 ment of civil rights, although the consequences which have been described would probably 
 result. An unbending sense of what he seemed to think the conduct which his station required, 
 might have induced him to order the liberation of the prisoner. This, under the respondent's 
 sense of duty, would have produced a conflict which it was his wish to avoid. No other 
 course remained then, but to enforce the principles which he had laid down as his guide ; 
 and to suspend the exercise of this judicial power, whenever it interfered with the necessary 
 means of defence. The only effectual way to do this icas to place the Judge in a situation 
 in which his interference could not counteract the measures of defence, or give confidence 
 to the mutinous disposition that had shown itself in so alarming a degree. Merely to 
 have disobeyed the writ would have increased the evil, bnt to have obeyed_ it wot wholly re- 
 pugnant to the respondent's idea of the public safety and to his own sense of duty. The Judge 
 was therefore confined and removed beyond the lines of defence." 
 
 This document is signed with the great name of " Andrew Jackson." 
 
 The Judge however, was inexorable, and Gen. Jackson was fined one 
 thousand dollars, and paid his fine. 
 
 Subsequently, and after Gen. Jackson had been President, and had re- 
 tired to private life, a bill was introduced into Congress 'to refund the fine, 
 upon the ground that the conduct of Jackson had been perfectly proper ; 
 and this led to a debate by most of the statesmen of that day npon the 
 very point now under discussion. 
 
 Robert J. Walker, in the senate, submitted a report upon this subject, in 
 which he said : 
 
 " The law which justified this act, was the great law of necessity ; it was the law of self- 
 defence. This great law of necessity of defence of self, of home, and of country never 
 was designed to be abrogated by any statute, or by any constitution." 
 
 Mr. Payne, of Alabama, speaking upon this subject, said : 
 
 "/ shall not contend that the constitution or laws of the United Stales authorize the declara- 
 tion of martial law by any authority whatever ; on the contrary, it is UNKNOWN TO THE CON- 
 STITUTION OR LAWS." 
 
 And speaking of the argument that if the constitution did not authorize 
 it, the general ought not to declare martial law, he says : 
 
 " Who could tolerate this idea ? An Arnold might, but no patriotic American could. It 
 may be asked upon what principle a commander can declare martial law, when it is conce- 
 ded that the constitution or laws afford him no authority to do so ? t answer, upon 
 that principle of self-defence which, rises paramount to all written laws; and the justifi- 
 cation of the officer who assumes the responsibility of acting upon that principle, must rest 
 upon the neceseity of the case." 
 
 Mr. Livingston, in a written document submitted by Jackson to the court 
 as a part of his defence, gave his opinion as follows : 
 
 " On the nature and effect of the proclamation of martini law by M.-ijur General Jackson, 
 my opinion is, that such proclamation is UNKXOWN to Uie constitution and laws of the United 
 States ; that it is to be justified only by the necessities of the case," &c. 
 
 The legislatures of several of the states, instructed their senators, and
 
 15 
 
 
 
 requested their representatives to vote for the re-payment of this fine with 
 cost and interest. The legislature of New York, then largely democratic, 
 prefaced their resolutions as follows : 
 
 " WHEREAS, the salutary energy of General Jackson at New Orleans, during the campaign 
 of 1814, and 1815, hag repeated!'/ received the approbation of the American people : And, 
 whereas. Congress, on the loth day of February 1816, voted thanks to that illustrious citi- 
 wn for his gallantry at New Orleans, and directed a gold medal to be struck and presented 
 to him in testimony of the high sense entertained by Congress of events so memorable and 
 services so eminent ; 
 
 " Resolved, Therefore," &c. 
 
 Levi Woodbury, equally eminent as a jurist and a democratic politician 
 of the school of Jackson, speaking in the Senate upon the question whether 
 martial law was properly continued after reports reached Jackson of the 
 ratification of peace, said : 
 
 " It would be conceded at once that this question was not to be argued technically, by 
 special pleading ; for technically speaking, there was perhaps no constitutional authority for 
 declaring martial law in the way in which it had been done. The necessity, the expediency, 
 the moral obligation would be allowed as sufficient authority," &c. 
 
 While this matter was before Congress, General Jackson wrote a letter 
 to Mr. Linn, which was read by him in the Senate, in which Jackson says: 
 
 " It is not the amount of the fine that is important to me ; but it is the fact that it was 
 imposed far reasons that were not well founded ; and for the exercise of an authority which 
 was necessary to the successful defence of New Orleans. In this point of 
 
 view, it seems to me that the country is interested in the passage of the bill : for exigencies 
 like those which existed at New Orleans may ayain arise; and a Commanding General ought not 
 to be deterred from taking the necessary responsibility from the reflection that it is in the power 
 of a vindictive judge to impair his private fortune, and place a etain upon his character 
 which cannot be removed." 
 
 Many pages might be quoted from the 'discussions of those days to the 
 same point ; but surely these are sufficient. Douglas himself made his 
 first great speech upon this subject; but as he is no longer recognized as a 
 democrat, the New* would never forgive my quoting his speech against Mr. 
 Ryan's address. But afterwards General Jackson, in a personal interview 
 tendered his thanks to Douglas for his speech, and speaking of the perfect 
 justification which Douglas had made out for him, he said : 
 
 "I never could understand how it was that the performance of a solemn duty to my 
 country a duty which if I had neglected would have made me a traitor in the sight of God and 
 man, could properly be pronounced a violation of the Constitution." 
 
 After mature consideration, and while the democratic party had the 
 majority in both houses, Congress repaid *he fine imposed upon Jackson; 
 arid thus vindicated him from all censure for saving his country; and sanc- 
 tioned in advance, the conduct of any President or Commander, who under 
 like necessity shall take the responsibility of conducting war " outside the 
 Constitution." 
 
 One of General Jackson's letters, in justification of his military conduct, 
 contains the following postscript : 
 
 " It will be recollected that in the revolutionary Avar, at a Urn* of groat trial, General 
 Washington ordered deserters to be shot without trial. Captain Reed under this order, hav- 
 ii;g arrested three, had one shot without trial; but he (General Washington) reprimanded 
 Reed for not shooting the -whole three." 
 
 Washington and Jackson met the exigencies of war, not with statutes 
 and constitutions ; but with a healthy application of military law ; and in 
 the proper case with summary arrest, and speedy death. The severity and 
 military vigor of Jackaon's New Orleans campaign, would end this rebellion
 
 16 
 
 
 
 in six weeks ; hence Breckeiiridge labored to prove that the war power Is 
 limited by the constitution. 
 
 The principle announced by Breckenridge is elaborated, polished, hid in 
 meal, sugared over with an artful expression of conceded truths, in this ad- 
 dress ; and democrats are bidden to fall down before it. The Neius, the 
 organ of this doctrine in Wisconsin, says " (he boys" that is those who do 
 not believe in it should read Jackson. Bowing to-its authority, and will- 
 ing to have our democracy corrected if it was in fault, " the boys" have 
 been to-day to the fountain head of democratic faith, illustrated by prac- 
 tice ; not any barren recital of dead dogmas, but the living, abiding, daily 
 counsel and conduct of Andrew Jackson ; and it appears that if this ad- 
 dress embodies democratic opinions, democracy has sprung up since Jack- 
 son went down to the grave. 
 
 Now, Mr. Editor of the News, the above quotations are the fruit of a 
 day's reading of the times of Jackson, undertaken upon your suggestion. 
 If you know any other father of democracy, whose writings you think can 
 be safely relied on to prove that the war power is limited Inj tlic constitution, 
 please name him, and the " the boys" will search and give you the result of 
 the investigation. And until some approved democratic writer can be re- 
 ferred to as maintaining such suicidal doctrine, wo shall continue to square 
 our democracy by the practice of Jackson, and tin- teachings of Woodburry, 
 Walker, Douglas, and all the worthies ivho have fj'>ne before. 
 
 In reading and re-reading Mr. Ryan's address, \vr are more and more as- 
 tonished, that any democratic writer should have the audacity to condemn 
 
 political heresy. Perhaps the o .}> 
 is to be found in the fact admitted by the News wlicn speaking of this con- 
 vention, that "not a feiv were there ii'ho had never before participated in tin- 
 proceedings of democratic convention, or vj!cda democratic ballot." Such 
 a convention could not be expected to know much about democracy.
 
 
 / 
 
 u 

 
 ** 
 
 > ;:*>. '> ' 
 
 ^ 
 
 ? 5 
 
 >>i 
 
 >> ^ >> 
 
 * > > df -> '> 
 
 ^> - T3*i>^