This power in the hands of a few is at this moment the disturbing element in many of our great industries. It is especially dangerous when it is promoted by rates of duty on imported goods higher than are necessary to cover the difference in the cost of labor here and abroad. When such conditions occur, the monopoly becomes offensive. Such combinations are denounced and punished by the laws of almost every civilized government and by the laws of many of our states. They should be denounced and punished by the laws of the United States whenever they affect any matter within the jurisdiction of the United States. Whenever the tendency of a monopoly is to prevent mutual competition, and to advance prices for any articles embraced in our tariff laws, the duty on the article should be at once reduced or repealed.

As Members of Congress, divided by party lines and crude platforms, must in the main, care for and protect local interests, I do not believe any fair, impartial and business tariff can be framed by them. It would be better for Congress, the law-making power, after determining the amount to be raised, to sanction and adopt a careful tariff bill, framed by an impartial commission, large enough to represent all sections and parties, all employers and employees. Hitherto, the tariffs framed by Congress have been rejected by the people. Each party, in its turn, has undertaken the task with a like result. Let us try the experiment of a tariff framed, not by a party upon a party platform, but by the selected representatives of the commercial, industrial, farming and laboring classes. Let Congress place upon the statute book such a law, and the tariff question will cease to be the foot ball of partisan legislation.

The remainder of the session was occupied chiefly in the consideration of appropriation bills. These were carefully scrutinized; many estimates of the departments were reduced. As usual, appropriations were increased in the Senate, but most of the amendments were rejected in conference.

The bill authorizing a loan for the redemption of treasury notes was passed on the 22nd day of June. Congress adjourned at noon June 25, 1860.

This memorable Congress, commencing with a contest which threatened violence on the floor of the House of Representatives, was held unorganized for sixty days by a defeated party upon a flimsy pretext, and during all that time we had to listen to open threats of secession and disunion made by its members. No previous Congress had exhibited such violence of speech and action. When fully organized it quieted down, and, with occasional exceptions, proceeded rapidly to the discharge of its public duties. A greater number of contested bills were passed at this Congress than usual. Most of these measures came from the committee of ways and means. The members of that committee were Messrs. John Sherman, of Ohio, Henry Winter Davis, of Maryland, John S. Phelps, of Missouri, Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania, Israel Washburn, Jr., of Maine, John S. Millson, of Virginia, Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont, Martin J. Crawford, of Georgia, and Elbridge G. Spaulding, of New York. Of these but two, Mr. Morrill and myself, survive. A brief notice of those who are numbered with the dead may not be out of place.

Henry Winter Davis was the most accomplished orator in the House while he was a Member. Well educated in college, well trained as a lawyer, an accomplished writer and eloquent speaker, yet he was a poor parliamentarian, a careless member in committee, and utterly unfit to conduct an appropriation or tariff bill in the House. He was impatient of details, querulous when questioned or interrupted, but in social life and in intercourse with his fellow Members he was genial, kind and courteous. On one occasion, when I was called home, I requested him to take charge of an appropriation bill and secure its passage. He did as I requested, but he was soon embarrassed by questions he could not answer, and had the bill postponed until my return. I felt for Mr. Davis a personal attachment, and I believe this kindly feeling was reciprocated. He served in the House of Representatives during most of the war, and joined with Senator Wade in opposition to Mr. Lincoln's re- election in 1864. He died at Baltimore on the 20th of December, 1865, when in the full vigor of matured manhood.

John S. Phelps in 1860 was an old and experienced Member. Born in Connecticut he removed to Missouri as early as 1837. In 1844 he was elected to Congress as a Democrat, and continued as a Member sixteen years, being chairman of the committee of ways and means during the 35th Congress. He was a valuable Member, patient, careful, industrious, and had the confidence of the House. He was moderate in his political opinions, and, though a resident of Missouri, he took the Union side in the Civil War.

Thaddeus Stevens, one of the most remarkable men of the last generation, was born in Vermont near the close of the last century; and was well educated. He taught school and studied law. He removed to Pennsylvania and there engaged in turbulent politics; served several years as a member of the state legislature; was elected to Congress in 1848 and served four years. He was known to be an aggressive Whig and a dangerous opponent in debate; was re-elected in 1858 as a Republican and at once took the lead in the speakership contest. His sarcasm was keen and merciless. He was not a very useful member of the committee. He was better in the field of battle than in the seclusion of the committee. Still, when any contest arose in the House over bills reported by the committee, he was always ready to defend its action. Though a cynical old bachelor, with a deformed foot and with a bitter tongue for those he disliked, he was always charitable and kind to the poor. He was quiet and impartial in his charity, recognizing no distinction on account of color, but usually preferring to aid women rather than men. I was often the witness of his charities. He continued in active public life until his death on the 11th of August, 1868. For some time before his death he was unable to walk up the marble steps of the capitol and two stout negroes were detailed to carry him up in a chair. On one occasion when safely seated he grimly said to them, "Who will carry me when you die?" Mr. Stevens was a brave man. He always fought his fights to a finish and never asked or gave quarter.

Israel Washburn, Jr., of Maine, was one of three brothers, Members of this Congress. Israel was the eldest, and, perhaps, the most active, of the three. He received a classical education, studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1830. He was a good debater and a useful member of the committee. He had been in Congress ten years, including the 36th. He subsequently became governor of Maine, and collector of customs at Portland.

John S. Millson, of Virginia, had long been a Member of Congress, was fifty-two years old, and regarded as a safe, conservative man of fair abilities.

Martin J. Crawford, of Georgia, was a lawyer of good standing. He was elected a Member of Congress in 1854, and continued as such until the rebellion, in which he took an active part. When Georgia seceded, he, with his colleagues, formally withdrew from Congress. Crawford and I had been friendly, and somewhat intimate. He was a frank man, openly avowing his opinions, but with respectful toleration of those of others. After he withdrew we met in the lobby; he bade me good-bye, saying that his next appearance in Washington would be as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Confederate States. I told him that he was more likely to appear as a prisoner of war. I then warned him that the struggle would be to the death, and that the Union would triumph. Long afterwards, when I visited the fair at Atlanta, he recalled our conversation and admitted I was the best prophet. We spent the evening and far into the night talking about the past and the future. He evinced no regret for the result of the war, but quietly acquiesced, and was then a judge in one of the courts in that state.

Elbridge G. Spaulding, of New York, was an excellent Member. He had a taste for financial problems and contributed a good deal to the measures adopted, in this and the 37th Congress, to establish a national currency and to build up the public credit. These Members, with Mr. Morrill and myself, were charged with the most important legislation in the 36th Congress, and I believe that the general opinion of the House was that we did our duty well.

CHAPTER IX. LAST DAYS OF THE BUCHANAN ADMINISTRATION. My First Appearance Before a New York Audience—Lincoln's Nomination at the Chicago Convention—I Engage Actively in the Presidential Canvass—Making Speeches for Lincoln—My Letter to Philadelphia Citizens—Acts of Secession by the Southern States—How the South was Equipped by the Secretary of the Navy—Buchanan's Strange Doctrine Regarding State Control by the General Government—Schemes "To Save the Country"—My Reply to Mr. Pendleton on the Condition of the Impending Revolution—The Ohio Delegation in the 36th Congress —Retrospection.

I have followed this important session of Congress to its close, but while the debate continued in Congress a greater debate was being conducted by the people. Never before was such interest felt in the political questions of the day. In many of the cities of the country clubs were organized for political discussions, and persons in public life were pressed to make speeches or lectures on the topics of the day. The Young Men's Central Republican Union, of New York, arranged a series of lectures, the first of which was delivered by Frank P. Blair, the second by Cassius M. Clay, and the third by Abraham Lincoln. The remarkable address of the last named had great influence in securing his nomination for President. It was the first time Mr. Lincoln had spoken in New York, where he was then personally almost unknown. His debate with Douglas had excited general attention. Using the language of his biographers:

"When, on the evening of February 27, 1860, he stood before his audience, he saw not only a well-filled house, but an assemblage of listeners in which were many whom, by reason of his own modest estimate of himself, he would have been rather inclined to ask advice from than to offer instruction to. William Cullen Bryant presided over the meeting.

* * * * *

"The representative men of New York were naturally eager to see and hear one who, by whatever force of eloquence or argument, had attracted so large a share of the public attention. We may also fairly infer that, on his part, Lincoln was no less curious to test the effect of his words on an audience more learned and critical than those collected in the open air meetings of his western campaigns. This mutual interest was an evident advantage to both; it secured a close attention from the house, and insured deliberation and emphasis by the speaker, enabling him to develop his argument with perfect precision and unity, reaching perhaps the happiest general effect ever attained in any one of his long addresses."

His speech was printed by the leading papers of the city, and, in pamphlet form, was widely distributed and read.

I was invited by the Republican Union to make one of these addresses, and, though very much occupied and having little time for preparation, I accepted the invitation, and spoke at Cooper Institute in the city of New York on the 30th of April, 1860. It was my first appearance before a New York audience, and I confess that I was not satisfied with the address. I undertook, what I never attempted before, to read a political speech to a popular audience. While I was treated kindly I felt quite sure my speech was a disappointment. A recent reading of it confirms my opinion that it was not equal to the occasion or the audience.

I was also invited by the Republican Club of Philadelphia to make a speech ratifying the nomination of Lincoln and Hamlin and spoke at a meeting held May 28, 1860. My address was entirely impromptu, and was far better, both in manner and matter, than the speech in New York, and was received with great applause. Since that time, I have never attempted to make a popular address from manuscript. Every speaker should know the substance of what he intends to say, but ought to rely for his words upon the spirit and temper of the audience.

The summer of 1860 was ominous of domestic discord and civil war. The success of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, the violent scenes in the House, notably those between Potter, Pryor, Barksdale, and Lovejoy, were indications that the south was aggressive, and that the north would fight. The meeting of the Democratic convention at Charleston, on the 23rd of April, soon disclosed an almost equal division of its members as to slavery in the territories. The southern platform was adopted by a majority of one in its committee on resolutions, but rejected by a majority of the convention. This was the vital issue between the followers of Davis and Douglas, and Douglas won. A majority of the delegates from six of the southern states thereupon withdrew from the convention and adjourned to Richmond. Thus, the first secession was from a Democratic convention. The remainder of that convention adjourned to Baltimore, at which city Douglas was nominated for President. The seceding delegates nominated Breckenridge. Thus, the Democratic party, which, in every stage of the slavery controversy, had taken sides with the south, was itself broken on the rock of slavery, and condemned to certain defeat.

The Republican convention met at Chicago on the 16th of May, with a defined line of public policy which was adopted unanimously by the convention. The only question to be determined was, who should be the candidate for President, who would best represent the principles agreed upon. Seward, Chase and Bates were laid aside, and Abraham Lincoln, one stronger than any of these, was unanimously nominated. The nomination of a candidate by a third party, ignoring the slavery question, did not change the issue. The conflict was now between freedom and slavery, an issue carefully avoided by the two great parties prior to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

Thus Douglas, as a consequence of his own act, was destined to defeat, and the irrepressible conflict was to be finally determined by the people in the choice between Lincoln and Breckenridge, with the distinct declaration, made by the delegates seceding from the Charleston convention, that if Lincoln was elected their states would secede from the Union, and establish an independent government founded upon slavery. This was the momentous issue involved in the election.

Congress adjourned on the 28th of June, 1860. On the 17th of July, I was unanimously renominated at Shelby. John Shauck, a venerable Quaker, 80 years of age, claimed to right to nominate me as he had done in previous conventions. He was absent at the moment, but the convention, in deference to his known wishes, awaited his coming. From that time until the election, I was actively engaged in the presidential canvass. I spent but little time in my district, as there was but a nominal opposition to my election. The Democratic candidate, Barnabus Burns, was a personal friend, and sympathized with me on many subjects. Scarcely a week day passed that I did not speak at least once.

Of the many speeches made by me in that canvass, I recall but very few. I have already referred to my debate with Cox, if it can properly be called a debate. It was friendly badinage. He charged me with pulling the Morrill tariff bill through by a trick. I answered that if it was a trick, it was a trick well played, as the bill passed by a vote of 105 to 64, many Democrats voting for it. He complained of the duties on wool, declaring that the farmers were sacrificed. I showed that the duties on wool had been advanced. He said I was president of a Know Nothing Lodge in Mansfield. I said this was simply a lie, and that there were plenty of Douglas Democrats before me who knew it. He said that I initiated therein, Sam Richey in a stable. I asked who told him that story, when the audience called out loudly for Burns. Mr. Burns rose and said he did not tell Mr. Cox so. I said I was glad to hear it, that it was a silly lie made up out of whole cloth, and asked if Richey was present. Richey was in the crowd, and rose amid great laughter and applause and said: "Here I am." I said: "Well, friends, you see my friend, Richey, is a genuine Irishman, but he knows, as I know, that Cox's story is a falsification. Mr. Cox says I am a political thief; don't think he charges me with stealing sheep, he only means to say I stole squatter sovereignty. It is petty larceny at best. But I did not steal Douglas squatter sovereignty."

I then proceeded to define the difference between the only two parties with definite principles. The real contest was, not between Lincoln and Douglas, or between Cox and me, but between Breckenridge and Lincoln, between free institutions and slave institutions, between union and disunion. I refer to this debate with Cox to show how local prejudices obscured the problem then involved. The people of Ohio were divided on parallel lines, for Cox and I agreed on Kansas, but he was for Douglas and I for Lincoln, while the south was brooding over secession, if either Lincoln or Douglas should be elected.

I went into most of the congressional districts of Ohio and perceived a strong leaning in favor of Lincoln, but Douglas also had many supporters. The Democratic party of Ohio was satisfied with Douglas' popular sovereignty, especially as it, as they alleged, had secured freedom for Kansas. Breckenridge had no great following in Ohio, and Bell and Everett less.

I spent several days in the canvass in Pennsylvania, Indiana, New Jersey and Delaware, all warmly contested states, the votes of which would determine the election. It soon became apparent that Lincoln was the only candidate who could secure a majority of the electoral vote. This fact, and the known difficulty of securing an election by the House in case of failure of an election by the Electoral College, greatly aided Mr. Lincoln. I presented this argument with care and fullness in a speech delivered at Philadelphia on the 12th of September, 1860. It was printed at the time and largely circulated. I quote a paragraph, which contains the one fact upon which my argument rested:

"Owing to the division of the Democratic party, the Republican party is the only one that can hope to succeed by a direct vote of the people. This is a fact I need not discuss, for it was written at the threshold of the contest by the conventions of Charleston and Baltimore. If the election were to be determined by the rule of plurality—a rule now adopted in every state in the Union— intelligent men would consider it already decided; but the rule of the majority is fixed by the constitution, and if Pennsylvania does not vote for Lincoln, then the election devolves upon the House of Representatives. In that event the constitution requires the House to choose immediately, by ballot, a President from the persons, not exceeding three, having the highest number of electoral votes. The vote must be taken by states, and not by Representatives. The three millions of people of Pennsylvania will have only the same political power as the one hundred thousand people of Delaware."

I recently read this speech, and, in view of the events that followed I can say that every prophecy made, and every argument stated, has been verified and sustained by the march of events. My opening criticism of Mr. Buchanan's administration may seem to be partisan and unjust, but the general opinion now is that his fault was feebleness of will, not intentional wrong. Mr. Buchanan was surrounded by men who had already made up their minds to destroy the Union, one of whom had already committed acts of treachery in the distribution of arms and military supplies, and all of whom avowed the legality and rightfulness of secession. I think what I said was justified by the conditions existing when the speech was made. The residue of my speech was certainly moderate enough to satisfy the most conservative mind. I give the closing paragraphs:

"These are, so far as I know, the leading ideas of the Republican party. I appeal to your candor if they do not commend themselves to the judgment of reasonable men. Is this the party which you would combine and conspire against, and to defeat which you would unite hostile elements? Is it to defeat these ideas that you would risk scenes of violence in the House, or the subversion of the constitution by the Senate of the United States? Is it to defeat this noble policy that you would longer trust a broken-down, corrupt and demoralized administration? Is it for this that you would continue in power a party that, by a long enjoyment of the patronage of the government, has become reckless and corrupt?

"If you will take the responsibility of preventing the triumph of the Republican party, you may do so, but it will require a close fusion of all the elements to defeat it. It is young and vigorous. It has all the unity and discipline of the old Democratic party. It holds most of the opinions, modified by experience, of the old Whig party. It has the conservative moderation of the People's party, which has influenced its nominations. It adheres to every principle proclaimed by the old Republican party of Jefferson. We have confidence in the integrity and patriotism, and wisdom of our standard bearers—Lincoln and Hamlin. If Mr. Lincoln cannot be recommended as a parlor President, like General Pierce, and is not familiar with the etiquette of foreign courts, as is Mr. Buchanan, we know that he is honest, faithful, courageous and capable. No man can read his celebrated debates with Mr. Douglas, without forming a high opinion of his capacity. He is better for having lived but a short time in Washington, for that city of politicians is not particularly celebrated for sound principles or right morals. Born in Kentucky, descended from a Pennsylvania stock, the son and grandson of Virginians, raised in Indiana and Illinois, familiar by his own experience with the wants and interests and aspirations of the people, he possesses the same traits of character which made Jackson and Clay, in their day and generation, leaders of parties and of men. Let us, my friends, unite in electing him President of the United States."

Lincoln was elected. He received 180 electoral votes; Breckenridge 72; Douglas 12; Bell 39. The question then was whether the people of the seceding states would try to carry into effect their declaration. I had no doubt they would try, but I was equally confident they would fail.

As events progressed in the south, citizens of the north held popular meetings in nearly all our cities and in many rural communities. I was invited by leading citizens of Philadelphia to attend a public dinner in that city in December, 1860. I could not attend in person, but wrote them a letter which defined clearly my convictions and my conception of the duties of our people in view of passing events. I insert it here:

"Washington, December 22, 1860. "Gentlemen:—Your note of the 15th inst., inviting me to attend a public dinner in your city, on Friday evening next, was duly received.

"I remember with pleasure the kindness shown me during the recent canvass by our political friends in Philadelphia, and would gladly avail myself of the proposed celebration, to mingle my personal thanks with your rejoicings, over the recent triumph of our political principles. Other engagements and duties, however, will not allow me that pleasure.

"No state can dispute with Pennsylvania the honor of this triumph. Her own son was upon trial, and her voice of condemnation was emphatic and decisive. The election of Governor Curtin foreshadowed her decision, and strengthened our cause in every state where freedom of election is allowed to the people. Her verdict in November reconsidered and reaffirmed her verdict in October. And now, since the victory is won, let us not lose the fruits of it.

"Fidelity to principle is demanded by the highest patriotism. The question is not whether this or that policy should prevail; but whether we shall allow the government to be broken into fragments, by disappointed partisans, condemned by four-fifths of the people. It is the same question answered by General Jackson in his proclamation of 1833. It is the same question answered by Henry Clay in the Senate in 1850. It is the same question answered by Madison and Jefferson, and recently by Wade and Johnson. It is a question which, I feel assured, every one of you will answer, in the patriotic language of General Jackson—'The Union, it must be preserved.'

"Such would be the voice of the whole country, if the government was not now administered by those who not only threaten treason, but actually commit it, by turning the powers of the government against itself. They kill the government they have sworn to maintain and defend, because the people, whose agents they are, have condemned them. In this spirit we have seen a Secretary of the Treasury, charged with the financial credit of the government, offering for sale the bonds of the government, and at the same moment declaring that it will be overthrown, and that he would aid in overthrowing it. We see other high officers receiving pay for services to the government, and yet, at the same moment, plotting its destruction. We see the treasury robbed by subordinate officers amid the general ruin. Stranger still, we see the President of the United States acknowledging his duty to execute the laws, but refusing to execute them. He admits that the constitution is the supreme law; that neither a state nor the citizens of a state can disregard it; and yet, armed as he is with all the executive power, he refuses even to protect the property of the United States against armed violence. He will not heed General Cass, the head of his cabinet. He will not heed General Scott, the head of the army. He has transferred to southern states more than one hundred thousand arms, of the newest pattern and most effective calibre, to be turned against the government.

"The American people are now trembling with apprehension lest the President allow our officers and soldiers to be slaughtered at their posts, for want of the aid which he has refused, or, what is far more disgraceful, shall order the flag of the Union to be lowered, without resistance to lawless force.

"Treason sits in the councils, and timidity controls the executive power. The President listens to, and is controlled by, threats. He theorizes about coercing a state when he should be enforcing the laws against rebellious citizens. He admits that the states have surrendered the power to make treaties, coin money, and regulate commerce, and yet we will probably have the novel and ridiculous farce of a negotiation between the President and a state, for the surrender of forts, and arsenals, and sovereignty. Congress can do nothing, for the laws now are sufficient, if executed. Impeachment is too slow a remedy. The constitution provided against every probable vacancy in the office of President, but did not provide for utter imbecility.

"The people, alarmed, excited, yet true to the Union and the constitution, are watching with eager fear, lest the noble government, baptized in the blood of the Revolution, shall be broken into fragments, before the President elect shall assume the functions of his office.

"What pretext is given for this alarming condition of affairs?— for every treasonable act has its pretext. We are told that the people of the southern states apprehend that Mr. Lincoln will deprive them of their constitutional rights. It is not claimed that, as yet, their rights have been invaded, but upon an apprehension of evil, they will break up the most prosperous government the providence of God ever allowed to man.

"We know very well how groundless are their apprehensions, but we are not even allowed to say so to our fellow-citizens of the south. So wild is their apprehension, that even such statesmen as Stephens, Johnson, Hill, Botts and Pettigrew, when they say, 'wait, wait, till we see what this Republican party will attempt,' are denounced as Abolitionists—Submissionists. You know very well that we do not propose to interfere in the slightest degree with slavery in the states. We know that our leader, for whose election you rejoice has, over and over again, affirmed his opposition to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, except upon conditions that are not likely to occur; or to any interference with the inter- state slave trade, and that he will enforce the constitutional right of the citizens of the slave states to recapture their fugitive slaves when they escape from service into the free states. We know very well that the great objects which those who elected Mr. Lincoln expect him to accomplish will be to secure to free labor its just right to the territories of the United States; to protect, as far as practicable, by wise revenue laws, the labor of our people; to secure the public lands to actual settlers, instead of non-resident speculators; to develop the internal resources of the country, by opening new means of communication between the Atlantic and the Pacific, and to purify the administration of the government from the pernicious influences of jobs, contracts, and unreasoning party warfare.

"But some of you may say, all this is very well, but what will you do to save the Union? Why don't you compromise?

"Gentlemen, remember that we are just recovering from the dishonor of breaking a legislative compromise. We have been struggling, against all the powers of the government, for six years, to secure practically what was expressly granted by a compromise. We have succeeded. Kansas is now free. The Missouri restriction is now practically restored by the incipient constitution of Kansas, and safer yet, by the will of her people. The baptism of strife through which she has passed has only strengthened the prohibition. There let it stand.

"But our political opponents, who have dishonored the word compromise, who trampled, without a moment's hesitation, upon a compromise, when they expected to gain by it, now ask us to again compromise, by securing slavery south of a geographical line. To this we might fairly say: There is no occasion for compromise. We have done no wrong; we have no apologies to make, and no concessions to offer. You chose your ground, and we accepted your issue. We have beaten you, and you must submit, as we have done in the past, and as we would have done if the voice of the people had been against us. As good citizens, you must obey the laws, and respect the constituted authorities. But we will meet new questions of administration with a liberal spirit. Without surrendering our convictions in the least, we may now dispose of the whole territorial controversy by the exercise of unquestioned congressional power.

"The only territory south of the line, except that which, by treaty with Indian tribes, cannot be included within the jurisdiction of a state, is New Mexico. She has now population enough for admission as a state. Let Congress admit her as a state, and then she has the acknowledged right to form, regulate, change, or modify her domestic institutions. She has now a nominal slave code, framed and urged upon her by territorial officers. Practically, slavery does not exist there. It never can be established there. In a region where the earth yields her increase only by the practice of irrigation, slave labor will not be employed. At any rate, it is better to settle all questions about slavery there, by admitting the territory as a state. While a territory, it is insisted that slavery shall be protected in it. We insist that Congress may prohibit it, and that the people have an undisputed right to exclude slaves. Why not, by terminating their territorial condition, determine this controversy? The same course might now properly be adopted with all the territories of the United States.

"In each of the territories there are, now, small settlements scattered along the lines of transit. Within five years, the least populous will contain sufficient population for a Representative in Congress. Dakota, Washington, Nevada, and Jefferson are destined soon to be as familiar to us as Kansas and Nebraska. It is well worthy the consideration of the old states, whether it is not better to dispense with all territorial organizations—always expensive and turbulent—and, at once, to carve the whole into states of convenient size, for admission. This was the Jeffersonian plan, which did not contemplate territories, but states. It was also sanctioned by General Taylor, and, but for his death, would have been adopted.

This is an easy, effectual remedy, within the power of Congress, and in its nature an irrevocable act. There is no necessity of an amendment to the constitution. It is not at all probable that two- thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states can agree to any amendments. Why attempt it, unless to invite new contests, to again arouse sectional animosities? We know that if Mexico is acquired the south will demand it for slavery, and the north for free institutions. We must forego, for the present, new conquests, unless the love of acquisition is stronger than the love of domestic peace.

"Suppose it to be conceded that the constitution should be amended, what amendment will satisfy the south? Nothing less than the protection of slavery in the territories. But our people have pronounced against it. All who voted for Mr. Lincoln or Mr. Douglas —over three million three hundred thousand citizens—voted against this claim. Less than a million voted for it. Should the great majority yield to a meagre minority, especially under threats of disunion? This minority demand that slavery be protected by the constitution. Our fathers would not allow the word 'slave' or 'slavery' in the constitution, when all the states but one were slaveholding. Shall we introduce these words when a majority of the states are free, and when the progress of civilization has arrayed the world against slavery? If the love of peace and ease, and office, should tempt politicians and merchants to do it, the people will rebel. I assure you, whatever may be the consequence, they will not yield their moral convictions by strengthening the influence of slavery in this country. Recent events have only deepened this feeling.

"The struggle to establish slavery in Kansas; the frequent murders and mobbings, in the south, of northern citizens; the present turbulence and violence of southern society; the manifest fear of the freedom of speech and of the press; the danger of insurrection; and now the attempt to subvert the government rather than submit to a constitutional election—these events, disguise it as you may, have aroused a counter irritation in the north that will not allow its representatives to yield merely for peace, more than is prescribed by the letter and spirit of the constitution. Every guarantee of this instrument ought to be faithfully and religiously observed. But when it is proposed to change it, to secure new guarantees to slavery, to extend and protect it, you invoke and arouse the anti- slavery feeling of the north to war against slavery everywhere.

"I am, therefore, opposed to any change in the constitution, and to any compromise that will surrender any of the principles sanctioned by the people in the recent contest. If the personal-liberty bills of any state infringe upon the constitution, they should at once be repealed. Most of them have slumbered upon the statute book for years. They are now seized upon, by those who are plotting disunion, as a pretext. We should give them no pretext. It is always right and proper for each state to apply to state laws the test of the constitution.

"It is a remarkable fact that neither of the border free states— New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, nor Iowa—have any such upon their statute books. The laws of these states, against kidnapping, are similar to those of Virginia and Kentucky. The laws of other states, so-called, have never operated to release a single fugitive slave, and may be regarded simply as a protest of those states against the harsh features of the fugitive slave law. So far as they infringe upon the constitution, or impair, in the least, a constitutional right, they are void and ought to be repealed.

"I venture the assertion that there have been more cases of kidnapping of free negroes in Ohio, than of peaceable or unlawful rescue of fugitive slaves in the whole United States. It has been shown that the law of recapture and the penalties of rescue have been almost invariably executed. Count up all the cases of rescue of negroes in the north, and you can find in your newspapers more cases of unlawful lynching and murder of white men in the south. These cases have now become so frequent and atrocious, as to demand the attention of the general government. The same article of the constitution that secures the recapture of fugitives from service and justice, also secures the rights of citizens of Pennsylvania and Ohio to all the immunities and privileges of citizens of the several states. No law has been passed by Congress to secure this constitutional right. No executive authority interposes to protect our citizens, and yet we hear no threats of retaliation or rebellion from northern citizens or northern states. So, I trust, it ever may be.

"The great danger that now overshadows us does not arise from real grievances. Plotters for disunion avail themselves of the weakness of the executive to precipitate revolution. South Carolina has taken the lead. The movement would be utterly insignificant if confined to that state. She is still in the Union, and neither the President nor Congress has the power to consent to her withdrawal. This can only be by a change in the constitution or the acquiescence of the people of the other states. The defense of the property of the United States and the collection of the revenues need not cause the shedding of blood, unless she commences a contest of physical force. The increase, in one year, of our population is greater than her entire population, white and black. Either one of several congressional districts in the west has more white inhabitants than she has. Her military power is crippled by the preponderance of her slaves. However brave, and gallant, and spirited her people may be, and no one disputes these traits, yet it is manifest she is weak in physical force. This great government might well treat with indulgence paper secession, or the resolves of her convention and legislature, without invoking physical force to enforce the laws among her citizens.

"Without disrespect to South Carolina, it would be easy to show that Shay's rebellion and the whisky insurrection involved the government in greater danger than the solitary secession of South Carolina. But the movement becomes imposing when we are assured that several powerful states will very soon follow in the lead of South Carolina; and when we know that other states, still more powerful, sympathize with the seceding states, to the extent of opposing, and perhaps resisting, the execution of the laws in the seceding states.

"In this view of the present condition of public affairs, it becomes the people of the United States seriously to consider whether the government shall be arrested, in the execution of its undisputed powers, by the citizens of one or more states, or whether we shall test the power of the government to defend itself against dissolution. Can a separation take place without war? If so, where will be the line? Who shall possess this magnificent capital, with all its evidences of progress and civilization? Shall the mouth of the Mississippi be separated from its sources? Who shall possess the territories? Suppose these difficulties to be overcome; suppose that in peace we should huckster and divide up our nationality, our flag, our history, all the recollections of the past; suppose all these difficulties overcome, how can two rival republics of the same race of men, divided only by a line of a river for thousands of miles, and with all the present difficulties aggravated by separation, avoid forays, disputes, and war? How can we travel on our future march of progress in Mexico, or on the high seas, or on the Pacific slope, without collision? It is impossible. To peacefully accomplish such results we must change the nature of man. Disunion is war! God knows, I do not threaten it, for I will seek to prevent it in every way possible. I speak but the logic of facts, which we should not conceal from each other. It is either hostilities between the government and the seceding states; or, if separation is yielded peaceably, it is a war of factions—a rivalry of insignificant communities, hating each other, and contemned by the civilized world. If war results, what a war it will be! Contemplate the north and south, in hostile array against each other. If these sections do not know each other now they will then.

"We are a nation of miliary men, naturally turbulent because we are free, accustomed to arms, ingenious, energetic, brave and strong. The same qualities that have enabled a single generation of men to develop the resources of a continent, would enable us to destroy more rapidly than we have constructed. It is idle for individuals of either section to suppose themselves superior in military power. The French and English tried that question for a thousand years. We ought to know it now. The result of the contest would not depend upon the first blow of the first year, but blood shed in civil war will yield its baleful fruit for generations.

"How can we avert a calamity at which humanity and civilization shudder? I know no way but to cling to the government framed by our fathers, to administer it in a spirit of kindness, but in all cases, without partiality, to enforce the laws. No state can release us from the duty of obeying the laws. The ordinance or act of a state is no defense for treason, nor does it lessen the moral guilt of that crime. Let us cling to each other in the hope that our differences will pass away, as they often have in times past. For the sake of peace, for the love of civil liberty, for the honor of our name, our race, our religion, let us preserve the Union, loving it better as the clouds grow darker. I am willing to unite with any man, whatever may have been his party relations, whatever may be his views of the existing differences, who is willing to rely on the constitution, as it is, for his rights; and who is willing to maintain and defend the Union under all circumstances, against all enemies, at home or abroad.

"Pardon me, gentlemen, for writing you so fully. I feel restrained, by the custom of the House of Representatives, from engaging there in political debate; and yet I feel it is the duty of every citizen to prepare his countrymen for grave events, that will test the strength and integrity of the government.

"Believing that our only safety is in a firm enforcement of the laws, and that Mr. Lincoln will execute that duty without partiality, I join my hearty congratulation with yours that he is so soon to be President of the United States. With great respect, I remain, very truly,

"Your obedient servant, "John Sherman. "Messrs. Wm. Reid, D. J. Cochran, L. S. Fletcher, H. E. Wallace, Chas. O'Neill, Committee."

The leading events in the progressive secession may be briefly stated. The States of South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, severally in the order named, adopted ordinances of secession. Each of them committed acts of war against the United States. They seized forts, navy yards, arsenals, customhouses, post offices and other public buildings of the United States. South Carolina, on the 27th of December, 1860, seized Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney, a light-house tender, and a schooner. On the 31st, she took possession of the United States arsenal, post office, and customhouse in Charleston, the arsenal containing seventy thousand stand of arms and other stores. On the 9th of January, 1861, she took possession of the steamer "Marion" at Charleston, and on that day the "Star of the West" was fired upon.

Georgia, on the second day of January, 1861, took possession of Forts Pulaski and Jackson and the United States arsenal. On the 12th of January, she took possession of the arsenal at Augusta, containing howitzers, cannon, muskets and large stores of powder, ball and grape. On the same day she seized the United States steamer "Ida." On the 8th of February, she took possession of all the money received from customs. On the 21st, she seized three New York vessels at Savannah. Florida, on the 12th of January, 1861, took possession of the navy yards at Forts Barrancas and McRae; also the Chattahoochie arsenal, containing 800,000 cartridges of different patterns and 50,000 pounds of gunpowder.

Alabama took possession of Fort Morgan, the Mount Vernon arsenal, some pieces of cannon, and large amounts of munitions of war. She took possession also of the revenue cutter "Lewis Cass."

Mississippi, on the 20th of January, seized the fort at Ship Island and the United States hospital on the Mississippi River.

On the 11th of January, Louisiana took possession of Forts Jackson, St. Philip, and Pike, and the arsenal at Baton Rouge containing fifty thousand small arms, twenty heavy pieces of ordnance, three hundred barrels of powder and other military supplies. On the 28th, she took possession of all commissary and quartermaster stores in the possession of the United States officials within her borders. On the first of February, she seized the mint and customhouse containing $599,303 in gold and silver.

Texas, on the 20th of February, took Forts Chadbourne and Belknap with all the property of the Overland Mail Company. On the 25th, General Twiggs, an officer of the army of the United States, traitorously surrendered all government stores in his command, estimated at $1,300,000 in value, including money and specie, thirty- five thousand stand of arms, twenty-six pieces of mountain artillery, and other military stores.

On the 2nd of March, she seized the revenue cutter "Dodge" and Fort Brown.

Arkansas seized the arsenal at Little Rock, containing nine thousand small arms, forty cannon, and a quantity of ammunition.

Virginia, according to the statement of Governor Letcher, would have seized Fortress Monroe, but that it was firmly held by national troops.

These were some of the acts of war committed by the seceding states before the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln.

What was done by the administration of James Buchanan to meet these acts of war? The answer to this question is a most painful confession of feebleness, vacillation and dishonor. It was shown conclusively that Floyd, the Secretary of War, during 1860 transferred from Springfield and other armories to southern arsenals 65,000 percussion muskets, 40,000 altered muskets and 10,000 rifles. On the 20th of October, he ordered 40 columbiads and four 32 pounders to be sent from the arsenal to the Fort, at Galveston in Texas, the building of which had hardly been commenced. It was shown by a report of a committee of the House that the vessels of the United States were dispersed by the Secretary of the Navy to distant ports, for the purpose of preventing their use in the defense of the property of the United States.

The Mobile "Advertiser" said:

"During the past year, 135,430 muskets have been quietly transferred from the northern arsenal at Springfield alone, to those in the southern states. We are much obliged to Secretary Floyd for the foresight he has thus displayed in disarming the north and equipping the south for this emergency."

Jefferson Davis, on January 9, 1860, in introducing into the Senate a bill to authorize the sale of public arms to the several states and territories, significantly said: "There are a number of volunteer companies wanting to purchase arms, but the states have not a sufficient supply."

This bill was agreed to by the Senate by a party vote, yeas 28, nays 18. In the House the bill was never reported.

Mr. Buchanan, in his annual message at the beginning of the 2nd session of the 36th Congress, announced the startling doctrine that a state could not be coerced by the general government, and said:

"After much serious reflection, I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress nor to any other department of the federal government. It is manifest, upon an inspection of the constitution, that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress; and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not 'necessary and proper for carrying into execution' any one of these powers."

Again he says:

"Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that the power to make war against a state is at variance with the whole spirit and intent of the constitution. . . .

"The fact is, that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it cannot live in the affections of the people it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation; but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force."

This doctrine, if acquiesced in, would leave the United States utterly powerless to preserve its own life, whatever might be the exigencies, even against the most insignificant state in the Union. It was manifest that while Buchanan remained President, and Commander- in-Chief of the army and navy, it was utterly futile to resist the secession of the least of these states, or even to protect the public property in them.

On the 4th of December, 1860, the House of Representatives organized what is known as the "committee of thirty-three," of which Mr. Corwin, of Ohio, was chairman. So much of the President's message as related to the perilous condition of the country was referred to it. Propositions of all kinds were sent to the committee, but the final result was, as anticipated, a disagreement upon all the measures proposed.

On the 16th of January, 1861, Mr. Crittenden offered his celebrated resolutions, proposing certain amendments to the constitution of the United States, in relation to slavery, but they were rejected in the Senate and were not acted upon in the House.

A peace conference was held at Washington, at the request of the legislature of Virginia, composed of delegates from the several states appointed by the governors thereof. John Tyler was president and Thomas Ewing, of Ohio, was one of the most active and influential members of the conference. It sat during nearly all the month of February and recommended seven articles of amendment to the constitution. These propositions were adopted by the conference and reported to the Senate on the 2nd of March, and were rejected by a vote of 3 yeas and 34 nays. Subsequently they were again offered by Mr. Crittenden and rejected by a vote of 7 yeas and 28 nays. They were presented to the House on the 1st of March, 1861, and were there rejected.

A Senate committee of 13 was organized on the 18th of December, 1860, to consider the condition of the country, but its report was disagreed to by the Senate. Many other propositions of adjustment were made both in the Senate and House, but none of them were agreed to. Not only were no measures adopted to prevent secession, but it was proposed by Mr. Mason, that, to avoid the possibility of a conflict between the forces of the army and navy and of the seceding states, all the laws providing for the use of the army in aid of the civil authorities in executing the laws of the United States, should be suspended and made inoperative in those states. These were the laws passed during the term of President Jackson and, at his earnest request, to enable the government to enforce the laws of the United States against the opposition of the State of South Carolina. It was a striking presentation of the difference between General Jackson and James Buchanan.

Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, proposed to retrocede to the seceding states, the property of the United States. The last act of Jefferson Davis was to offer a joint resolution providing:

"That upon the application of a state, either through a convention or legislature thereof, asking that the federal forces of the army and navy may be withdrawn from its limits, the President of the United States shall order the withdrawal of the federal garrisons, and take the needful security for the safety of the public property which may remain in said state.

"That whenever a state convention, duly and lawfully assembled, shall enact that the safety of the state requires it to keep troops and ships of war, the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to recognize the exercise of that power by the state, and by proclamation to give notice of the fact for the information and government of all parties concerned."

On the 11th of February, 1861, Burton Craige, of North Carolina, offered a joint resolution:

"That the President of the United States be, and is hereby required to acknowledge the independence of said government (The Confederacy of the United States South) as soon as he is informed officially of its establishment; and that he receive such envoy, ambassador, or commissioner as may or shall be appointed by said government for the purpose of amicably adjusting the matters in dispute with said government."

Such was the hopeless condition of the United States in the last months of the administration of James Buchanan. It would appear from the resolute action of the seceding states, their union as Confederate States, the hopeless imbecility of the President of the United States, the presence of the seceded traitors in both houses of Congress, the weakness and feebleness of that body, left but little hope for the preservation of the Union. The future presaged a civil war, and opened up a dark prospect, a discouraging example for future republics, but the 4th of March came, and a new life was infused into the national councils.

The second session of the 36th Congress commenced on the 3rd day of December. The message of the President I have already commented upon. It was regarded as a feeble wail of despair, an absolute abnegation of the powers of the general government. No expectation or hope was indulged in that the President would do any act or say any word to arrest or delay the flagrant treason, then being committed in South Carolina. "After me the deluge" was written on every page of his message. Our only hope was in the good time coming, when, at the close of his term, he would retire to private life.

Having charge of the appropriation bills as chairman of the committee of ways and means, of the 36th Congress, I was only solicitous to secure the passage of these bills, so that the new administration would have money to meet the current wants of the government. Within a few days, all these bills were reported, and were pushed forward and passed at an early period of the session.,

I purposely postpone consideration of the financial condition of the United States during this session so as to consider it in connection with the measures adopted at the called session in July, 1861.

The House of Representatives was almost constantly occupied in considering and rejecting the many schemes "to save the country," already referred to. The only political speech I made was in reply to an ingenious speech of my colleague, George H. Pendleton, made on the 18th day of January, 1861. I replied on the same day without preparation, but with a lively appreciation of the dangers before us. As I believe that it states fully and fairly the then condition of the impending revolution, I insert extracts from it here:

"I have listened with respect and attention to all that has fallen from my colleague. Much that he has said I approve; but it seems to me that instead of appealing to this side of the House for conciliation, kindness and forbearance, he should appeal to those around him, who alone, provoke the excitement now prevailing in this country.

"He says the army should not be used to coerce a state. If by this he means that the army should not be used to conquer a state, to compel her to be represented, to maintain the courts or post offices within her limits, to burn her cities or desolate her fields, he is entirely correct. I do not believe any administration will pursue such a policy. But, sir, we have a government, a great government, to maintain. It is supreme within the powers delegated to it; and it is provided with ample authority to protect itself against foreign or domestic enemies. It has the exclusive right to collect duties on imports. It is the exclusive owners of forts, arsenals, navy yards, vessels, and munitions of war. It has a flag, the symbol of its nationality, the emblem of its power and determination, to protect all those who may of right gather under its folds. It is our duty, as the representatives of this government, to maintain and defend it in the exercise of its just powers. Has it trespassed upon the rights of a single individual? Does any citizen of South Carolina allege that this government has done him wrong? No man can say that. The government for years has been in the hands of the Democratic party, whose power and patronage have been controlled chiefly by southern citizens; and now, when the Republican party is about to assume the reins, these citizens seek to subvert it. They organize revolution under the name of secession.

"What have they done? The State of South Carolina has seized the customhouse in the city of Charleston, has closed that port, and prevented the United States from the exercise of their conceded exclusive power of collecting the revenue from imports. It has taken, by force, money from the treasury of the United States, and applied it to its own use. It has seized the arms and munitions of war of the United States deposited in arsenals within the conceded exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, and turned them against the army of the United States. It has seized a loyal citizen of the United States engaged in the discharge of his duty, imprisoned him, and threatened his life, for the exercise of a plain constitutional duty, charging him with treason against the State of South Carolina. It has taken citizens of different states rightfully and peacefully attending to their business, insulted them, inflicted the most degrading indignities upon them, and then forcibly expelled them. It has raised a military force of artillery, cavalry, and infantry, with the avowed purpose of expelling, or, to use their own chosen word, coercing, the United States from the forts, arsenals, and other property of the United States. When Major Anderson removed from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, it seized Fort Moultrie, Fort Pinckney, and other property of the United States.

"More recently they fired upon a vessel in the employ of the United States, conveying reinforcements and provisions to our troops. In this act of war, they used the cannon and munitions of war paid for out of our treasury. Forts ceded by the State of South Carolina to the United States were used to expel a vessel of the United States in the pursuit of its lawful commerce. WHen the 'star-spangled banner' was hoisted to her mast-head, as a sign of nationality, appealing to all the patriotic recollections which cluster around it—your flag, my flag, the flag of Virginia, of Ohio, of Kentucky, of Massachusetts, the flag of every state and of the whole Union, the rustle of whose folds has so often excited the pride and patriotic ardor of Americans in every part of the habitable globe —that flag, invoked for the protection of an unarmed vessel, carrying provisions to our own troops, was fired upon and dishonored. An act of war by citizens of the United States, and therefore an act of treason, was applauded by officers and citizens of that state, and perhaps by those of other states. It was not an act of war against you and me merely, but against every loyal and patriotic citizen of this great republic. Up to that moment we had done nothing. This government had been more forbearing, more quiet, more complacent, under this series of offenses, than any government instituted since the foundation of governments.

"And now, Mr. chairman, the same lawless violence is breaking out in other parts of the country. Forts, arsenals, navy yards, and vessels of war, intrusted without defense to the patriotism of the people, have, upon one pretext or another, been seized, and are now held by lawless force. Upon the recommendation of Members of Congress, Fort Pulaski was seized by troops, under an order from the Governor of Georgia. I suppose there is not a Member upon the opposite side who will declare that it would be given up peacefully to the troops of the United States if it were demanded by our national authorities. More recently still, the navy yard at Pensacola was taken by an armed force, under the order of the Governor of Florida. I have here a telegraphic dispatch sent to this government:

'January 12, 1861.—Commissioners appointed by the Governor of Florida with a regiment of armed men at the gate, demanded the surrender of this navy yard, having previously taken possession of one of the magazines. I surrendered the place and struck my flag at half-past one o'clock, p. m., this day.'

"Mr. chairman, suppose Great Britain, suppose France, suppose all the powers of the world combined, had thus outraged the flag of the United States; would not every one of us have demanded men and money to wipe out the indignity, and to repel further like assaults, at whatever hand? Yet, sir, the Governor of Florida, before the State of Florida had seceded, goes with an armed force, seizes upon our property, and turns the guns of the people of the United States against the army and the navy of the United States. I am also told —with what truth I do not know—that cannon are planted upon the banks of the Mississippi River, at or near the city of Vicksburg, in the State of Mississippi, and that our steamboats are now compelled to land there and to give an account of themselves. We do not know at what moment they may be subject to tribute and seizure. To whom? To the State of Mississippi? I agree with all my colleagues from the State of Ohio, from both sides of the House, that there is one thing immutable—a law that is a higher law. It is, that the Mississippi River, gathering all the rivulets of the northwest into one current, must be permitted to float our commerce, uninterrupted and untrammeled, to the sea, or thousands of men will float down upon its waters and make it free.

"No one doubts, I suppose, that the forts at the mouth of the Mississippi are in the possession, not of the troops of the United States, but troops that will resist the troops of the United States. There is no doubt that Baton Rouge has been seized; no doubt, sir, that act after act of war has been repeated.

"I ask you, as the representative of a brave people, what shall we do? The question is not, shall we coerce a state? but shall we not defend the property of the United States against all enemies, at home and abroad, here or wherever the flag of our country floats? Must this government submit to insult and indignity? Must it surrender its property, its flag, its nationality? Do you, gentlemen from Virginia, whose great statesman had so large a share in laying the foundations of our government, desire to see it thus dishonored? Are you ready to join excited men, who will not listen to reason; who even spurn your patriotism as timidity; who reject your counsels, and who would drag you as unwilling victims at the heel of their car of juggernaut, crushing under its weight all hope of civil liberty for ages to come? Are you aroused into madness by political defeat?

"Sir, it was but the other day that I was told by a distinguished citizen of an absolute monarchy—and the remark made a deep impression on my mind—that he deplored the events now transacting around us; that he deplored what he considered the inevitable fall of this republic, but, said he, one good will result from it; it will stop forever the struggle for free institutions in Europe; it will establish upon a secure basis the existing governments of the Old World. I felt that the remark was true. If this government cannot survive a constitutional election; if it cannot defend its property and protect our flag; if this government crumbles before the first sign of disaffection, what hope is there for free institutions in countries where kings and nobles and marshals and hereditary institutions and laws of primogeniture have existed for ages? Sir, when the masses of any people, inspired by the love of country, have demanded in modern times the right of self-government, they have been pointed to France with its revolution of 1798, to South America, where changing republics rise and disappear so rapidly that not ten men in this House can tell me their names, and also to Mexico. God forbid that the despots of the Old World should ever adorn their infernal logic by pointing to a disrupted Union here! It is said, with a poet's license, that—

'Freedom shrieked as Kosciusko fell.'

"But, sir, freedom will die with the fall of this republic, and the survivors of the calamity will find springing into existence military despotisms north, south, east and west. Instead of two divisions, there will be many divisions. The condition of this country will be worse than that of Mexico, because we are a braver, a more powerful, people, who will fight each other with greater tenacity. If this republic is dissolved, the man now lives who will be the Napoleon of some section thereof. All history teaches us that whenever a free government is disrupted a military despotism of force is substituted for the will of the people; and we have no right to suppose that our country will be an exception to the general rule.

"I appeal to the Representatives of the border states to arrest the progress of this storm for a little time, at least. Let us see whether there is any hope for peace and conciliation. If there is not, then, if we cannot agree, let us fight; but if we can agree, let us do it like men, and not be hurried off by wild and insane feelings of rage and disappointment, by the weakest state in this confederacy. Sirs, if you do calm this storm, peace will again smile upon our country. If you do not, I see nothing but civil war before us. My colleague may paint in beautiful language the blessings of peace; and cry 'peace! peace!' when there is no peace; but, Mr. chairman, you and I see already rising in the west, where military feeling is so rife, a spirit which will not brook much longer the insults already cast upon the flag of our country. I do not threaten, for I dread—nor for you or me, or the Members of this House, for I suppose we have the ordinary courage of our race, and we are but atoms in the storm—but thousands and millions of men, like us, will regret the day when this government was hurried into revolution, without opportunity for parley or delay.

"If your people will not aid the government in maintaining the public property in the seceding states, then we must do it in spite of you, or perish in the attempt. We must not allow the government to crumble at our feet. You can arrest this movement, and you alone can do it. I ask you, gentlemen from Virginia and the south, does not your blood boil with indignation when you read of the surrender of our forts and the dishonor of our flag? Are they not yours as well as mine? Has the feeling of sectionalism become stronger than love of country? I ask if the same patriotism which brought your fathers and mine into common battlefields, amid all the storms of the Revolution, does not now rebel when you are forced into a civil war by the madness of a few men in the southern states? Sir, I do not believe it. For the moment, under the smart of imaginary wrongs, under the disappointment of political defeat, your people may be hurried into acts of madness; but when returning reason comes, woe be to them who have led them astray! Then a single wave of the star-spangled banner will silence the miserable party cries with which you have misled them.

"Let us not deceive ourselves with the idea that this government can be broken up on Mason and Dixon's line, or upon any other line, without involving us in all we dread. There is no man, with a head to reason and a heart to feel, who does not shudder at the idea of civil war. Do you suppose that this government can be divided into two, according to the plan of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Garnett), with this capitol, with the mouth of the Mississippi, with the territories, and a thousand things that unite us, without provoking civil war? Why, sir, we may do all we can to prevent it; we may throw ourselves into the breach; we may stand up and yield everything, or cringe down and yield everything; but I tell you that will not stop the surging waves. If this government is divided, though we may agree to separate in peace—though every man here may sign the bond—we know that events hurriedly running forward will bring these two sections in hostile array against each other; and then, what a war is there, my countrymen! I know that your southern people are brave, spirited, active, quick; no man doubts that; but if you have made any misapprehension about the northern people—if you suppose that, because they are cold, because they are not fired by your hot blood, they will not perform their duty everywhere, you are very much mistaken. We are the equals of each other; we are of the same blood, the same parentage, the same character; your warm sun has quickened your blood, but our cold climate has steadied our intellects and braced our energies.

"I again repeat, Mr. chairman, that we should not allow ourselves to be deceived by words. The question is not whether the United States will coerce a state, but whether a state shall coerce the government; whether this noble fabric, devised by our fathers, shall fall without a blow. I appeal to you again; I appeal to the Representatives of all the states, whether we shall allow Fort Sumter, the only place where our flag floats in the harbor of Charleston, to be surrendered at discretion.

"For one, I say, NEVER! NEVER! Even if to-morrow I should vote to give South Carolina license to leave the confederacy, if I had the power, yet, while that flag floats, it is the bounden and sacred duty of this government to protect it against all enemies, and at all hazards. I had fondly hoped, while we disagreed, and while I knew that our disagreement was marked and decided, that you, gentlemen of the south, would yourselves take the lead in the defense of our property and our honor; therefore I sat silent. I had hoped that, while we were discussing, you would insist upon the protection of the property of the United States, and that our flag should not be dishonored until we separated, in peace or in war.

"I was much struck by a remark made the other day by the honorable Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Davis), that if we could not agree with each other, we ought to separate in peace—that we should take this old flag, and fold it away, and keep it as a much-loved memento for us all. But, sir, we cannot do that now. It has been lowered and tarnished, and we all know and feel it.

"I was surprised that my colleague (Mr. Pendleton) did not vote for the resolution offered by the gentleman from New Jersey, in regard to Major Anderson. I hoped that the Ohio delegation would unite in favor of the resolution. I was still more surprised, allow me to say to the Representatives of Kentucky, that when their own gallant son had but performed his bounden duty they should have refused to vote to sustain him in his removal from Fort Moultrie to the strongest point in his command.

"The resolution simply expressed a desire to enforce the laws and to preserve the Union—no more. I am willing to stand on this platform. I can join heartily with all those who made that pledge, whatever else they may think or believe about the questions that divide our people. If we can stand by each other, if our constituents will stand by us in that emphatic declaration, I do believe the good ship that has borne us thus far on a prosperous voyage will outlive the storm. But, sir, if we yield too far to the fury of the waves; if we now surrender, without resistance, the forts, arsenals, dock-yards, and other property of the government, we only demonstrate that we are not fit for the duties assigned us; and, if our names survive our times, they will only be recorded as those of a degenerate race, who had not the manhood to preserve what their fathers won.

"Gentlemen cannot come here and say, 'We demand this; or, we demand that; stand and deliver.' That is the language of the highwayman. This is a great tribunal, where men reason and judge and weigh and doubt and hesitate and talk—and we have a good deal of that. No section and no state can, because the presidential election has gone against it, say, 'We will have this change in the constitution, or we will fire upon your flag; we will have that change in the constitution, or we will seize upon your forts.' That is not the principle upon which this government was founded. Mr. Jefferson, when elected President in 1801, declared the true principle. He said it was the duty of all good citizens to obey the constitution; to submit to a constitutional election; and he congratulated the country that the Federalists were willing to give the Democrats a fair trial. . . .

"Under the grave responsibility upon which we are acting, I feel it to be my duty to you, my fellow Members, and to my countrymen, north and south, to say frankly, that, in voting for this army bill, I vote with the expectation that the army will be used in protecting the acknowledged property of the United States, in recovering that which has been unlawfully taken, and in maintaining the Union.

"It may be said that the gravity of the events that surround us demands a greater force than is provided by this bill. The regular army is a mere skeleton. The present force will scarcely defend our frontier from Indian incursions; but it forms a nucleus capable of any re-enforcement demanded by the exigencies of the times. I do not contemplate, in any event, hostile invasions of the soil of any state, unless demanded for the defense of the acknowledged property of the United States. It is the duty of the government to suppress insurrection in a state; but in this event the military power can only be used in strict subordination to the civil authority. If the civil authority refuse to call for such aid, or suppress the courts, the military power cannot interfere. If the courts are closed, the duties of postmasters must necessarily be suspended. No doubt this measure will soon be adopted. If the revenue is refused, or cannot be collected, then goods cannot be imported, and ports must be closed. If a state shall, in violation of the constitution, undertake to regulate commerce, then her commerce must be suspended.

"No doubt other measures can be devised that will preserve the peace of the country until the people of the states may confer in a constitutional way, unless one or more of the seceding states shall, by military force, shed the blood of their fellow-citizens, or refuse to surrender to the proper authorities the acknowledged property of the government. I know that all the gentlemen around me must deeply deplore a civil war, especially if that war shall involve the fate of this capital and the disruption of the government. No man can contemplate the inevitable results of such a war without the most serious desire to avert it. It is our duty as Members of the House, it is the duty of Congress, I am happy to say it is now the acknowledged duty of the President, as it is of the incoming administration, to use forbearance to the extremest point. Let not physical force be arrayed in civil war until the last hope of peace and conciliation has been exhausted; then let each branch of the government, acting in concert with each other, perform its respective duties, though the heavens fall!

"What can we do for peace and conciliation? I anticipate at once your reply; you say, 'Let us compromise; yield what we demand of you. Let us compromise, and we will preserve the Union; civil war will be averted.' This, I know, is the earnest appeal of patriotic men in the southern states, who would gladly give their lives to stop the march of treason in those states. How useless it is to talk about compromises, concessions, conciliation, adjustment, when, if everything was conceded, the integrity of the government may be broken up by a majority of a single state. If we hold this Union, and all the rights it secures to us, and all the hopes we have upon it, upon the whim or will of a single state, then, indeed, it is the weakest government ever devised by man. If a single state may destroy our nationality, then, indeed, is the wisdom of our fathers the wisdom of babes. We can no longer talk about the weakness of the old confederacy or anarchy of Mexico.

"Sir, we owe it as the most sacred of duties to put down this heresy. If it now fortifies itself by sectional animosities, if it rises from party rebellion to sectional and civil war, still it must, and will, be met with determined resistance. Upon this point, I am glad to say, the people of Ohio are united, if the unanimous voice of the legislature of that state is a true indication.

"Again, I say, what is the use of concession, conciliation, or compromise, when, if we yield everything you demand, you cannot say to us 'It will save us from disunion or war?' Are we not in danger of quarreling about terms of conciliation, when traitors are overthrowing the government we wish to preserve? Are we not dividing ourselves for their benefit? What will satisfy South Carolina and Florida and Mississippi and Alabama? They want disunion, and not compromise or conciliation. The Democratic party would not agree to their terms, and they seceded from the Charleston and Baltimore conventions. Is it likely that we will yield what our northern Democratic friends could not yield? Can you expect this 'black Republican party,' as you please to call it, will yield to you what your northern Democratic associates dare not? It is utterly idle to talk about any such terms of concession. I do not believe any terms which our people could yield, and preserve their own self-respect, would satisfy South Carolina, Florida, or some of the other southern states, because they are bent upon disunion.

"We know that gentlemen who represented South Carolina on this floor, if the newspapers correctly report them, declared in the Charleston convention, held recently, that they had brooded over this matter for long years, and that they only sought an opportunity, an occasion, or, if I may use the word, a pretext, for the secession of the State of South Carolina and the disruption of the Union. Some stated that they had brooded over disunion and prayed for its consummation since boyhood. We know, sir, that the seeds of this revolution were sowed in the time of Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun. We know that in 1832 the doctrines upon which this revolution is going forward were initiated, and from that time the young men of South Carolina have been educated in the school of disunion. They have cherished these doctrines in their innermost hearts. All the concessions we might make, all the compromises we could agree to, all the offerings of peace we could make for the salvation of the Union, would not be able to secure the desired end, if South Carolina could prevent it.

"Again, we might, on this side, properly say we have done nothing to impair any constitutional right. We propose to do nothing to infringe yours. We have succeeded in a constitutional way in electing a President of the United States. All we ask is that he may be inaugurated in peace, and may develop his policy in the usual manner. We can add that this is the demand of all our people, not only of those who voted for Mr. Lincoln, but of every loyal citizen. You tell us your people are excited and alarmed, that they apprehend that an overwhelming anti-slavery element is about to be inaugurated in power that will, directly or indirectly, affect the constitutional rights of your states.

"Perhaps you will confess, what you know to be true, that for political purposes, in the struggle of partisans for ascendancy, both parties in the south have united to fire the southern mind against the hated 'black Republicans' of the north. Speeches have been distorted, single sentences have been torn from their context and made to deceive and mislead. Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Seward, Lincoln and latterly Douglas, have been mixed in a hated conglomerate, and used to excite your people. A philosophic opinion of Mr. Seward has been construed as the statement of a settled purpose to overthrow slavery in the states, although in the very paragraph itself all idea of interference by the people of the free states with slavery in the slave states is expressly excluded. It is but a year since you inflamed your constituents because some of your fellow-Members recommended, without reading, a book written by one of your own citizens, containing obnoxious opinions about slavery. Nearly all of you gave birth, vitality, and victory to the Republican party, by adopting a policy you now join in condemning. Some of you broke down the only political organization that could compete with us, and thus gave us an easy victory. You have all contributed, more or less, in perverting the public mind as to our principles and purposes. And I tell you, gentlemen, that when you call the Republican party an abolition party, in the sense you use the word abolition; when you quote from Garrison, Wendell Phillips, and from like extreme men, and circulate their opinions all over the south, telling the people of your states that the people of the north have been educated in these sentiments, profess them, and are going to put down slavery in the states, you do a great injustice to the intelligence and the safety of your people.

"I have heard here, over and over again, this course of agitation, pursued only the other day in the Senate of the United States. Mr. Douglas quoted from one of the speeches of Mr. Lincoln that passage so familiar to us all, that, in his opinion, that states would at some day be all slave or all free. Sir, in this time when the people of the southern states are in a storm of excitement, that speech of the Senator from Illinois is sent over those states as tending to show that Mr. Lincoln would in some way interfere with slavery in the states. Mr. Lincoln answered this inference with a solemn disclaimer over and over again on the same 'stump' with that Senator. I ask whether it was just to quote the opinion without giving the disclaimer? It certainly was not. We might answer all you say by declaring that the Republican party does not propose to interfere with your constitutional rights. I have no doubt that the administration of Mr. Lincoln will carry out the doctrines of the Chicago platform; but not the platform as you pervert it. Sir, it will convince the southern people that all the things said about us are unfounded. What, then, will be the fate of hundreds of politicians in the southern states who have stirred their people up to the present intense excitement?

"Yet the baptism of misrepresentation, through which this Republican party has thus far advanced, does not excuse us from doing all in our power to produce conciliation, harmony, peace, quiet, a fair and honest adjustment of all the difficulties that surround us. . . .

"Now, Mr. chairman, I have gone over the whole field. I have given my views, speaking for no other man, frankly and fearlessly, and I will stand by them now and in the future. I have given you my opinion upon all these points. I tell you that this whole controversy was fought and won by us two years ago, and all you have to do now is to admit Kansas. That is the only act of power now needed. There let it stand. Let us live together like a band of brothers. If we cannot agree with you about slavery, why, you do not agree with us. I know there has been a great deal of intemperance of language on this subject; but I ask, if it has been used upon our side, has it not been used upon yours? If there has been harsh and violent words used, I have not uttered them that I know of. If I have, I beg every man's pardon; because I think that violent language, calculated to stir up excitement and agitation, ought not be used in a deliberative assembly. I ask you if you have not sins to repent of, if we have? Let us be at peace. Let us go on with the administration of the government kindly, harmoniously, hopefully, trusting in that providence of Almighty God which has thus far guided and guarded us, until this nation has become a marvel to the world. Can we not go on in the same way in which we have gone on in the past? Why not let the Republican administration be inaugurated in peace and quiet? Try it in the name of God! Are you cowards, that you would flee from an apprehension? I know you are not. Stand by the old ship of state! Give the Republican administration a fair chance. If it does not do right, you will find thousands—ay, millions—in the northern states who will stand by you. I believe it will do right. Give it a trial. That is all we ask, and what we demand at all hazards."

The delegation from Ohio, during this Congress, was regarded as a very strong one. I do not disparage any by a brief reference to a few.

Thomas Corwin was, by far, the most distinguished member of the delegation. I have already referred to his eminence as a popular orator. His speech against the Mexican War, though unfortunate as a political event, has always been regarded as one of the most eloquent ever made in either House of Congress. His speech in reply to Crary, of Michigan, is still remembered as the best specimen of humorous satire in our language. He had served in the legislature of Ohio, as a Member of Congress for ten years, as Governor of Ohio, as a Member of the Senate, and as Secretary of the Treasury. After an absence from public life for six years, he was elected a Member of the 36th Congress. Here he was regarded as the "peacemaker" of the House. In the contest for speaker, he made a long speech, in which he exhibited marked ability, humor, pathos and persuasive eloquence. As chairman of the committee of thirty, he did all that man could do to quiet the storm, to compromise and soothe the contending factions, but this was beyond human power. He was re- elected to the 37th Congress, but in 1861 was appointed minister to Mexico by Mr. Lincoln. In December, 1865, he attended a party of his Ohio friends, at which I was present. He was the center of attraction, and, apparently, in good health and spirits. He was telling amusing anecdotes of life in Ohio "in the olden times," to the many friends who gathered around him, when, without warning, he suffered a stroke of apoplexy and died within two or three days, leaving behind him none but friends. Tom Corwin, "the wagon-boy," had traveled through all the gradations of life, and in every stage was a kind friend, a loving father, a generous, noble and honest man.

The life of George H. Pendleton was a striking contrast to that of Corwin. He was a favorite of fortune. His father was a distinguished lawyer and a Member of Congress. George had the advantage of a good education and high social position, a courtly manner, a handsome person and a good fortune. He served several terms in the House of Representatives and six years in the Senate. He was the candidate for Vice President on the Democratic ticket with McClellan, and a prominent candidate for nomination as President in 1868. He was minister to Germany during the first term of Cleveland as President. He died November 24, 1889. My relations with him were always pleasant.

Samuel S. Cox was an active, industrious and versatile Member of Congress for more than twenty years. He was born in Ohio, graduated at Brown University, was admitted to the bar, but, I believe, rarely practiced his profession. His natural bent was for editorial and political conflicts, in which most of his life was spent. He was a good debater, overflowing with humor without sarcasm. In the campaign of 1860, he and I had a running debate at long range. In a speech at Columbus, then his residence, I spoke of his erratic course on the Lecompton bill. He replied at Mansfield with shrewdness, humor and ability. I reviewed his speech at the same place, and we kept up a running fire during that canvass, but this did not disturb our friendly relations. Some years later, he removed to New York, where he was soon taken into favor, and was elected several times to Congress. He was the author of several books of merit, and was the champion of a measure establishing the life-saving service of the country upon its present footing. He may be classified as a leading Member of the House of Representatives, a bright and successful speaker and a copious author. He died September 10, 1889.

John A. Bingham was regarded, next to Mr. Corwin, as the most eloquent member of the Ohio delegation, and, perhaps with one or two exceptions, of the House of Representatives. He studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1840. He served for sixteen years in the House of Representatives on the judiciary and other important committees, and took an active and leading part in all the debates during this long period. He was a man of genial, pleasing address, rather too much given to flights of oratory, but always a favorite with his colleagues and associates. He was subsequently appointed United States minister to Japan, where he remained for many years. He still lives at a ripe old age at Cadiz, Ohio.

During the existence of the 36th Congress, I do not recall any political divisions in the committee of ways and means, unless the tariff is considered a political measure. It was not so treated by the committee. The common purpose was to secure sufficient revenue for the support of the government. The incidental effect of all duties was to encourage home manufactures, but, as the rule adopted was applied impartially to all productions, whether of the farm, mine, or the workshop, there was no controversy except as to the amount or rate of the duty. The recent dogma that raw materials should not have the benefit of protection did not enter the mind of anyone. The necessity of economy limited the amount of appropriations, but if the war had not changed all conditions, the revenues accruing would have been sufficient for an economical administration of the government.

In a retrospect of my six years as a Member of the House of Representatives, I can see, and will freely admit, that my chief fault was my intense partisanship. This grew out of a conscientious feeling that the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was an act of dishonor, committed by a dominating party controlled by slaveholders and yielded to by leading northern Democrats, headed by Douglas, with a view on his part to promote his intense ambition to be President of the United States. I felt that this insult to the north should be resented by the renewed exclusion, by act of Congress, of slavery north of the line of latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes. This feeling was intensified by my experience in Kansas during the investigation of its affairs. The recital by the Free State men of their story, and the appearance and conduct of the "border ruffians," led me to support extreme measures. The political feebleness of Mr. Buchanan, and the infamy of the Dred Scott decision, appeared to me conclusive evidence of the subserviency of the President and the Supreme Court to the slave power. The gross injustice to me personally, and the irritating language of southern Members in the speakership contest, aroused my resentment, so that in the campaign of 1860 I was ready to meet the threats of secession with those of open war.

It was unfortunate that the south at this time was largely represented in Congress by men of the most violent opinions. Such men as Keitt, Hindman, Barksdale, and Rust, were offensive in their conduct and language. They were of that class in the south who believed that the people of the north were tradesmen, hucksters, and the like, and therefore were cowards; that one southern man was equal in a fight to four northern men; that slavery was a patent of nobility, and that the owner of slaves was a lord and master. It is true that among the southern Members there were gentlemen of a character quite different. Such men as Letcher, Aiken and Bocock entertained no such opinions, but were courteous and friendly. But even these shared in the opinions of their people that, as slavery was recognized by the constitution, as an institution existing in many of the states, it should not be excluded from the common territory of the Union, except by the vote of the people of a territory when assuming the dignity and power of a state. It would appear that as in 1860 the exclusion of slavery from Kansas was definitely settled by the people of that state, and that as the only region open to this controversy was New Mexico, from which slavery was excluded by natural conditions, there was no reason or ground for an attempt to disrupt the Union. In fact, this pretense for secession was abandoned by South Carolina, and the only ground taken for attempting it was the election of Mr. Lincoln as President of the United States. If this was conceded to be a just cause for secession, our government would become a rope of sand; it would be worse than that of any South American republic, because our country is more populous, and sections of it would have greater strength of attack and defense. This pretense for secession would not have been concurred in by any of the states north of South Carolina, but for the previous agitation of slavery, which had welded nearly all the slaveholding states into a compact confederacy. This was done, not for fear of Lincoln, but to protect the institution of slavery, threatened by the growing sentiment of mankind. Upon this question I had been conservative, but I can see now that this contest was irrepressible, and that I would soon have been in favor of the gradual abolition of slavery in all the states. This could not have been effected under our constitution but for the Rebellion, so that, in truth, South Carolina, unwittingly, led to the only way by which slavery could be abolished in the present century.