Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

of the British Parliament at any time, or on any occasion, to have a homogeneous people. There is no centralization, no consolidation there. Even when the Sepoy went to war, civil war, against the empire of Great Britain, because he was compelled to bite greased cartridges contrary to his religion, the empire and authorities of Great Britain respected the miserable prejudices of the Sepoy, abolished the order, and restored peace throughout all that vast empire.

Mr. KASSON. Will the gentleman allow me one word? If I understand the direction of his argument, it relates to the necessity of the abolition of slavery in order to result in the homogeneity of the American people. In connection with his review of European systems, I ask him to explain, if he can consistently with his theory, why it has been found necessary in England, and France, and Denmark, and Russia, and Holland, to abolish the institution of slavery in order to establish satisfactorily to them what they consider the homogeneity of their institutions?

Mr. BROOKS. The gentleman cannot yet comprehend the whole course of my argument, but I will answer his question by saying, so far as Great Britain is concerned, that, in my judgment, slavery was abolished in her distant British West India colonies mainly to destroy this country and to rend this Union, and for no other purpose. [Laughter on the Republican side of the House.]

Mr. KASSON. How with France, and Denmark, and Holland, and Russia?

Mr. BROOKS. The system of servitude which exists in Russia is not slavery. The people there are not slaves; they are adscripti gleba-servants belonging to the soil-and that system has been changed, or is being slowly changed gradually, and not by civil war. But those institutions were not abolished in order to make or unmake the homogeneity of institutions in Europe, but for other purposes. It would divert me too far, however, from the line of my argument to enter upon that point now.

But, sir, I was about to say that not only throughout the vast empire of Great Britain there existed none of this homogeneity of institutions, but that even in the little islands of Great Britain and Ireland there was no homogeneity there. There is the Celt who speaks one tongue across the Irish Channel; there is the Welshman who looks over across that Channel, and speaking another tongue; then there are Englishmen with their various dialects in Lancashire and Yorkshire and in other counties; and there are the Gaels in Scotland who speak a language utterly incomprehensible to the great mass of the English people. Any man who has traveled over that country, as I did twenty-five years ago with a pack upon my back, throughout the whole of Lancashire and Yorkshire and those border counties, can bear testimony to this fact, that in a day's or half a day's travel among the people in that part of the country, you pass among men whose institutions not only differ far more than the institutions of the North and the South, but you go among a people speaking a language not only incomprehensible to you, but to those who are upon their borders. Thus any traveler who passes beyond the Lowlands, perhaps with some Lady of the Lake for his guide-book, into the Highlands of Scotland, will soon find that as he goes north from Stirling castle he goes among a foreign people, with foreign institutions, speaking tongues far different from those of the great majority of the English people. The wise people of England, the wise Government of England have never attempted || to have homogeneity of institutions; not only throughout their vast empire, but even in their own little islands, they have respected the rights, the privileges, the prerogatives of the Welsh, the Celts, the Gaels, and the other varieties of men throughout all parts of England, and it is only by this spirit of toleration, this noble spirit of toleration, this worthy conciliatory spirit of the nation that that vast empire of England has been able to stretch its power beyond its own little domain all over the earth, encircling the globe, as has been well said, by the beat of its drums that greet the rising of the morning sun.

Homogeneity never existed throughout the vast Roman empire. It was not attempted by the dictators of Rome; and it never was attempted subsequently by the emperors of Rome.

But

autonomy, or self-independence, was the principle on which the great Roman empire was reared and maintained, and not only so, but it was the only principle on which that Government was enabled to sustain itself in its vast aggregation of territory. When Julius Cæsar conquered the Gauls he did not take away from the barbarian people of Gaul their local institutions, their self-government, the government of their chieftains. He left all that to them. And when Pompey invaded the Asiatic cities and subjected them to the Roman empire, he left to those Asiatic cities the government and control of their own local institutions; and their self-government in that manner attached them to the empire. To the Ionians were reserved their archons and prytanes; to the Dorians, their ephori and cosmi; ay, to all the Grecian cities and States, more or less, their local institutions, their magistrates, their self-government, their peculiar institutions. Coining was allowed to some; fiscal regulations to others. Confederations were allowed to exist in Greece long after the domination of the Roman empire. There was not only the well-known Amphictyonic, but the Panionian, the Baotian, the Achæan. Autonomy, as far as possible, homogeneity seldom, if ever, was the Roman rule. The self-government of the subject States was as much as possible preserved. Their local institutions were maintained and invigorated. And it was by the preservation of their self-government, and of those local institutions, that the vast empire of Rome was maintained for so many years, and was perpetuated from age to age, often even under the worst of emperors.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I would like to ask the gentleman from New York whether he did not state in this House at the last session that the institution of slavery was dead in this country.

Mr. BROOKS. I stated in the opening of my remarks that I have nothing to unsay in what I said in that speech.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I would like a distinct answer to the question which I put.

Mr. BROOKS. My speech is on record; and I have not a word to take back of it. Mr. BOUTWELL. Will the gentleman allow me a single moment?

Mr. BROOKS. Certainly.

Mr. BOUTWELL. If the statement of the gentleman at last session be a fact, that the institution of slavery is dead, I would like to know how any action of the Government can affect the local institution of slavery in this country. Mr. BROOKS. Then why should you try to kill a dead body? Mr. STEVENS.

it become noxious.

But we ought to bury it lest

Mr. BROOKS. But that is no reason why we should have a wake over it. The whole country has become intoxicated on this subject of slavery, and in the midst of that intoxication this civil war is kept up.

I am calling the attention of the House, Mr. Chairman, to these historical facts because they are perfectly applicable to our times, and to our day. History but repeats itself. There is but little new in the history of man. Man but repeats over what preceding man has done. I was about to say, when interrupted, that the great Augustus Cæsar, whose empire stretched in the west from the pillars of Hercules to the Tigris and Euphrates in the east, from the hundred-gated Thebes in the south to the Ultima Thule of Britain in the north, embracing an empire so vast that Ovid wrote of it, "when Jupiter looked out from the portals of heaven he saw nothing but what was Roman," nil nisi Romanum; that great founder of the Roman empire over millions of human beings, that wise and wonderful man, never attempted any homogeneity of institutions. But, throughout all that vast territory, as far as was possible, there was left to the people of the empire their autonomy or selfgovernment, their local institutions. The Parthian, the Indian, the Scythian, the Sarmatian, the Briton, the Egyptian, each and all had reserved to them their local institutions, their local religions, their local governments. The gods of Egypt and the gods of Gaul, the gods of Athens and the gods of Asia, were worshiped, if not in the Capitol of Rome, at least in its close vicinity. And Augustus Cæsar himself caused sacrifice to be offered in the holy temple of the living God, in Jerusalem. All religions, all policies, more or less, were tolerated, only in subordination

to the great head of the empire at Rome. And it was the foundation of that empire in the spirit of toleration that kept it together for hundreds and hundreds of years, and which made the name of Cæsar illustrious, not only throughout that whole land, but sent down that name immortal to all posterity as the name for czars and kaisers in the royal houses of kings and emperors.

I repeat, then, that if we pay attention to the teachings, to these examples of history, we must see that homogeneity is not a possible condition for a great people. Centralization, consolidation, are the English words which we substitute for the term homogeneity. Centralization and consolidation is nothing but unlimited despotism. There is no freedom for the people, no self-government, no municipal government, no household government, no family government under such a system. There is no other government worthy of a free people; there is no other government which can maintain the rights and prerogatives of the people but one which shall be founded on some other principle than that of consolidation and centralization. It was not possible for Rome; it was not possible for Athens; it will not be possible for the Government at Washington, with all the telescopes which they may mount upon the highest pinnacles in this city, to look over the vast territory from Passamaquoddy to the Rio Grande and Oregon, and to regulate the local rights and privileges of the millions and millions of people that not only exist now, but are hereafter to exist throughout this vast territory. Even the Puritans taught us better lessons than consolidation and centralization, though their sons have forgotten that lesson. Liberty was cradled in their municipal institutions; and liberty is cradled in the family, in the county, the town, the city, and the State, and not in the federal central Government. The federal Government is to maintain liberty, but it is not its birthplace, its cradle, its nursing mother. For the cradle of human liberty, I repeat, is in the household, in the family, in the home, in the city, the county, and the State; and wherever other institutions, the product of centralization or consolidation, exist, as in France or in Russia, there must exist despotism.

Mr. L. MYERS. Will the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] permit me to ask him a question?

Mr. BROOKS. Certainly.

Mr. L. MYERS. I should like to know if at the last session the gentleman did not tell us that we were taught intolerance by the Puritans

Mr. BROOKS. That may be true. But they taught us many good things. They had some virtues as well as faults. They were right in their local institutions.

Now I have dwelt thus long upon this subject in order to approach another topic, and that is to say that if this homogeneity, this centralization is persisted in, this war must go on until the subjugation of the South follows. In my judgment no two more fatal errors exist, or have existed, or can exist, than that this is to be a short civil war, or that our hitherto southern countrymen can ever be subjugated to this empire of centralization and consolidation. Civil wars are never short when a people are in earnest, as the people of the North and the people of the South are now; we, in earnest for anti-slavery and consolidation; they, in earnest, as they say, for the maintenance of self-government. No war like that can be ended in ninety days, or in a summer's campaign, but is to be a war of years and years. Whatever we may say of the South, the earnestness of that people, their indomitable and furious character, show that in a war to subjugate them extermi

nation must follow.

All civil wars of like character, and waged with like spirit, have lasted for years. The Peloponnesian war lasted twenty-seven years, and ended in the ruin of Greece. The civil wars of Rome lasted for years and years. The wars of the houses of York and Lancaster lasted thirty years. The war of the German confederation lasted thirty years; and for over forty years raged the civil war in Holland and the Netherlands, when an effort was made by the King of Spain, under the Duke of Alva, to subjugate the people of Holland and the Netherlands to the Inquisition and taxation of Spain. All history shows that our civil war is to be long, if not endless, if it is to be conducted in the spirit in which it is conducted now. It is not

to be a war, then, of ninety days, nor of four years, nor of this Administration alone; but it is to be a war to be passed on from Administration to Administration, throughout all time, until the spirit of toleration is once more revived in this country, and we learn to revere the lessons our fathers left to us.

The subjugation of eight million people! It is an utter impossibility; it cannot be done. The outward man may be subjugated. He may be made to bend, to cringe, to bow, to take the oaths of allegiance. With bayonets surrounding him, you may for a time take from him all outward manliness. But the spirit within him, with which God has inspired him, can never be subjugated by mortal man. The soul is indomitable, although you may have the outward profession of obedience. This subjugation can never be even apparently perfected only by the constant outward exhibit of bayonets. But whenever that exhibit is withdrawn insurrection and armed rebellion will follow. This nation may be made a nation of soldiers, but if it be made a nation of soldiers altogether, I repeat again that men of our kith and kin, men of our blood and our soul, men educated in our institutions, and inspired by the education which has been given to us by our ancestors, such men, whether right or wrong, can never be subjugated. God never made the race we are born of to be subjects or slaves.

All Europe-France, England, Russia, all combined-can never subdue my own native State of Maine. You may drive the people from the seacoast, but they will go to the mountains; you may desolate their hills and their valleys, but the spirit of the noble people of that gallant State can never, never be subjugated by the whole earth combined. Eight millions of like men, for like we are, with the same blood coursing in our veins, and spread over territory reaching from the Potomac to the Rio Grande, never, never can be subjugated by men of the same kith and kin. Not only human courage, but climate, soil, and a territory fortified by swamp and forest and malaria all forbid. Every wood in Virginia is a fortress. Every swamp in Carolina and Georgia is a ditch. The vastness of the territory to be subjugated is its great defense. Marion and Sumter in the swamps of South Carolina kept at bay for months the finest infantry of England under Lord Rawdon, and the best cavalry in the world under Colonel Tarleton.

I know that these truths are unpalatable; but it is quite time that they should be preached to our countrymen even if they do not like to hear. They are not new. They have all been preached in the English tongue before, and in another great civil war. I speak but the words which our noble ancestors upon the other side of the ocean spoke in the days of the Revolution, when they said that three millions of Englishmen in the American colonies of Great Britain could never, never be subjugated by the armed empire of England. Subjugation they pronounced to be utterly impossible in 1774-75, as I pronounce it now, in 1864.

But I am asked, "What are we to do? Are we to submit to rebels and therebellion? Are we to lie down and let the rebels of the South ride over us? Are we to give up this great contest, and to surrender our holy Union and our sacred institutions?" I say, never; no, never! Never, I repeat never are we to surrender the institutions that our fathers bequeathed us, or the unity that they bestowed upon us. But we are to resort to their lessons and their instructions for the salvation, the redemption, and the reintegration of this Union. What the people of the North desire is reunion and peace. What the people of the South desire is peace, not with dishonor, but peace with honor. We both desire peace; and why not, then, try to agree upon terms? Negotiation is the preliminary step to reconciliation. This is the lesson that our fathers have bequeathed to us. Convention, consultation-these are the great prevailing principles of our Government, and the only principles upon which that Government can be maintained and handed down to our children, unless we intend to be eternally in arms.

Tell me not that I ain premature in these remarks. They are the words of Burke, and Fox, and Chatham, and Camden, and other illustrious Englishmen in the beginning of our Revolution, in 1772, in 1774, in 1776, and until the treaty of

peace in 1783. Let me call the attention of this House and of the country to some of the motions made in the British Parliament prior to the outbreak of our Revolution in 1776, and pending that Revolution.

In 1774, April 15, Lord North introduced into the House of Commons a bill to provide for the trial of Boston people who might be charged with violating the laws of England, not in Massachusetts, not in Boston, but providing for taking them to England and elsewhere to be tried. Loud was the remonstrance from Boston, and from Massachusetts generally, and from all parts of this then colonial country. But Lord North was sustained; the bill was carried in the House of Commons by a vote of 127 to 44, and in the House of Lords by a vote of 49 to 12.

In 1774, April 19, there was introduced a motion to repeal the tea duty, and Edmund Burke seconded that resolution. But Burke and those who agreed with him did not succeed. The people of England were no more willing to reason then than the people of the North or South are willing to reason now. The proposition was voted down-ayes 49, noes 182.

In 1774, November 30, in the new Parliament, the king sent in a speech adverse to the colonies utterly adverse to their right to control their local institutions, their right of local selfgovernment. There was great debate upon that; but the address was carried in the House of Commons by a vote of 264 to 73, and in the House of Lords by a vote of 63 to 13.

In 1775, January 20, in the beginning of the outbreak of our Revolution, Lord Chatham made his great effort in the House of Lords to have the British troops withdrawn from the city of Boston-to stop fighting, for fighting had begun in the city of Boston, and try consultation and conciliation with the good people of Massachusetts, in order to avoid the effusion of human blood. But Lord Chatham if heard was not heeded. The proposition was voted down (as a like proposition has been voted down in this House) by a vote of 68 to 18. On that occasion Lord Chatham said:

"Resistance to your act was as necessary as it was just, and your declaration of the omnipotence of Parliament, and your imperious doctrine of the necessity of submission, will be found equally incompetent to convince or enslave your fellow-subjects in America, who feel that tyranny, whether ambitioned by an individual part of the Legislature or the bodies who compose it, is equally intolerable to British subjects.

"I trust it is obvious to your lordships that all attempts to impose servitude upon such men, to establish despotism over such a mighty continental nation, must be vain, must be fatal. We shall be forced ultimately to retract. Let us retract while we can, not when we must."

The proposition of Lord Chatham was supported by Lords Shelburne, Camden, Rockingham, and Richmond, but was supported in vain. The British ministry was deaf to the eloquence of Chatham, and deaf to the reasoning of the surrounding nobility.

He

Lord Chatham then took another step. proposed, if the colonies would recognize the supreme Government of England, to invite from the colonies a free gift of revenue; but this was rejected by a vote of 61 to 32.

In 1775, January 29, there appeared before the British Parliament, claiming a hearing, the illustrious Franklin, the well-known Butler, and the distinguished Lee. They asked to be heard at the bar of the House of Commons in behalf of the colonies of the United States, but they were not heard. They were refused a hearing because the British Parliament would not recognize the legal existence of any Congress of the United States.

In 1775, February 2, Lord North moved his address to the king against the colonies; Fox moved to amend that by censuring the ministry, but he failed by a vote of 304 to 105. The address was carried by a vote in the House of Commons of 296 to 106, and in the House of Lords of 87 to 27.

In 1775, March 22, Burke proposed concession, conciliation, and addressed the House on the subject. He was heard undoubtedly with far less patience than I am heard here to-day. His motion was rejected, 270 to 78. Lord North then exclaimed-and the like of which we often hear on the floor of this House-that Burke was but helping the rebellion.

In 1776, Congress petitioned the king to be

heard, and the petition was rejected as from an illegal body.

The Duke of Grafton then left the party in power, and joined the Opposition. The address to the king, however, was carried by a vote in the House of Commons of 176 to 72, and in the House of Lords of 75 to 32.

Burke then proposed conciliation again, and asked for the calling of a congress by royal authority to settle the difficulties. His proposition was lost by a large majority. It is a proposition which seems to me at this time, in the omnipotence of our power and the abundance of our victories, ought to come-I will not say from this, but from the other side of the House-that there may be consultation with the people of the South to see whether this horrible effusion of human blood cannot be stopped. But the proposition of Burke was lost by a large majority, although it was supported by Barré, Fox, and others; and Lord North was said at heart to favor Burke's proposition.

Lord North, however, soon after, as an organ of the king and ministry, introduced a bill prohibiting intercourse with the colonies. Martial law was declared, and the proposition was carried by a vote of 112 to 16 in the House of Commons, and 78 to 19 in the House of Lords. And it was about that time that the British ministry resolved not to trust to the people of England, of Scotland, and of Ireland for the restoration of harmony and peace, but to rely upon the Hessians. The Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel furnished 12,104; the Duke of Brunswick 4,084; the Prince of Hesse 668; and the Prince of Waldeck 670-17,526 Hessians in all. This proposition to employ these Hessians was carried in the House of Commons by a vote of 242 to 88. There exists at this time in HesseCassel a beautiful palace, with beautiful grounds, called Wilhemshoe, and surpasses, in my judgment, Versailles, even, built by the purchasemoney of these Hessians-money obtained from the British treasury; but no Englishman looks at it, beautiful as it is, without the blush of shame that the money of England was used to employ Hessians to subjugate the colonies.

In 1778, after Burgoyne's defeat, the people of England, for the first time, began to have some sense of the magnitude of the war they were undertaking.

Mr. BROOMALL. Let me ask the gentleman whether those movements to which he is referring did not lead to the success of the rebellion in the colonies.

Mr. BROOKS. I will say to the gentleman that Lord North, the Earl of Temple, and the Tories of England generally used the very words that we have heard so often on the other side of the House, "You are helping the rebellion." But if these men had been heard and heeded in the beginning of the American Revolution there would have been no war. If the wisdom of Chatham had been confided in the colonies would not have rebelled, and there would have been no separation from Great Britain. It was because the people of England and the ministry would not listen to the admonitions of these wise statesmen that the empire was broken up, and we became independent States instead of loyal colonies.

After the defeat of Burgoyne there once more arose a great debate in the British Parliament, in which Fox and Germaine participated. The words of Fox were admonitory, and so well worth remembering that I will read them. Fox was comparing Germaine to Dr. Sangrado

"Bleeding, he said, has been his only prescription. Forten years that he has presided over American affairs, the most violent, scalping, tomahawking measures have been taken. If a people deprived of their ancient rights have grown tumultuous, bleed them. If they are attacked with a spirit of insurrection, bleed them. If their fever should have run into rebellion, bleed them, cries the State physician. More blood! More blood! Still more blood!"

This was the remedy of Lord Germaine. I will not say it is the only remedy of any member upon the floor of this House of Congress.

In 1778 Lord North, now awakened to the perils of the empire, proposed a consultation, but it was then too late. He proposed to repeal every anti-colonial act of Great Britain from 1763 to 1778, and he proposed to treat the Congress of the colonies as a body to be consulted. But it was too late. And here I beg gentlemen upon the other side to recall history, to be admonished by it, for history in this day is but a repetition of the past. Holland and France and Spain were

awakening, and Franklin and Laurens and Lee and others were in consultation with the rivals of the English monarch, and those monarchs were prepared to interfere in the contest between England and these colonies. Our Congress, aware of its strength for the first time, refused to listen to Lord North. So the storm may be gathering now. Yes, the storm is gathering beyond the Rio Grande-a foreboding storm-and the empire of France established there through Maximilian will soon be stretching its vast arms over the Rio Grande and interfering with these States of America.

But before anybody has interfered, before England, or Holland, or Spain, or France has interfered, I beseech my countrymen, in view of these lessons of history, in the spirit of forbearance and conciliation, to endeavor to end this war, now, when we are strong, and when no foreign arm is actually upraised, the more to rend asunder the Union.

Commissioners were sent to Philadelphia, but sent in vain. The emissaries of France were in Philadelphia, not to heal the breach, but to widen it, and in 1783 England was obliged to grant to these colonies their independence. I advise no such grant; I desire the acceptance of no such proposition. I am indisposed ever to receive such a proffer of peace as that; but at this day, and at this hour, holding up the lessons of history, I beseech this honorable House to study these lessons of history before it is too late, and secure a peace when it can be done by mingled kindness and conciliation as well as by force of arms.

Mr. WILSON. I desire to ask the gentleman a question: suppose the Government of the United States should adopt the plan he suggests for restoring peace to the country, and that plan should fail, is the gentleman ready then to wage war against this rebellion until it shall have been crushed and the authority of the Government maintained; or would he then acknowledge the independence of the rebel States?

Mr. BROOKS. Never will I consent to acknowledge their independence. We are one people, one country, and have one destiny; it is written out by the finger of Omnipotence.

I

Mr. WILSON. With all respect to the gentleman from New York, I desire an answer. wish to know whether, if these means should fail, the gentleman would then be willing to wage this war for the suppression of the rebellion. It not, what means would the gentleman have the Government adopt?

Mr. BROOKS. I am coming to that. I was about to say, when the gentleman interrupted me, that God made this for one country. Omnipotence seems to have written out for it one destiny and one law. It is written out in the rock-ribbed Alleghanies, which extend from the Hudson almost to the Mississippi; it is written out on the great father of the waters with its hundred thousand miles of navigation. We are made for one people, and what God has put together no man can put asunder.

But more, war is not the remedy; it is not the Christian, it is not the civilized remedy for this disaster and trouble in which we are involved at the present hour. Our first duty is to try conciliation and kindness; our first duty is to imitate the proposition of Burke in the British Parliamentnegotiation. If we offer negotiation, and the South refuse to hear negotiation upon just and equitable terms, the South will be divided and we shall be united. The war will then be there a war at the ballot-box, and in the southern country; not here a war of blood and devastation. Our remedy is not the sword, it is not the cartridge-box, until all other remedies whatsoever have been exhausted.

Then, as Christians, if we are Christians, or profess Christianity, our first duty to God, our first duty to our institutions, is to assemble in convention and to try reconciliation.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. PRICE obtained the floor.

Mr. BROOKS. I should like to have a little more time to conclude my remarks.

Mr. GARFIELD. I move that the gentleman have leave to go on.

The CHAIRMAN. Leave can be granted by unanimous consent.

No objection was made.

Mr. BROOKS. Whenever the day and hour come when Christianity fails to restore peace,

when the example of our fathers who assembled in convention fails to restore peace, I shall be ready to mark out the course that I will pursue, and I tell the honorable gentleman again that I never, never will consent to a severance of this Union. I wish to be so understood, not only here, but everywhere. I wish my voice, if possible, to be heard South as well as North. Every human effort that can be made by the arts of peace should be made, and if the Union cannot be restored exactly as it was, in the same words and in the same letters, I am prepared for some other bargain which will again be satisfactory to all sections of this Union.

Mr. WILSON. I desire to ask whether, in any event, under any circumstances, the gentleman is in favor of maintaining the Union by war against the rebellion.

system of duties between Rhode Island and New York and Connecticut, and between Annapolis, in Maryland, and the eastern coast of Virginia, so as to have one commerce, that this Constitution was made.

We might have a zollverein, as they have in Germany, for the collection of our duties. All those difficulties that exist now between ourselves and our southern countrymen might be adjusted in convention, by peaceable negotiation. But, as I have shown before by the example of nations that have gone before us, in my judgment they never can be adjusted by arms. In the end, as the President of the United States said in his inaugural address, we must come to terms by negotiation.

Mr. KASSON. Will the gentleman from New York, with a view to get his opinion on the sub

Mr. BROOKS. Certainly.

Mr. BROOKS. I repeat that under no circum-ject, permit me to ask him a question? stances will I ever consent to ask for a passport to go to Mount Vernon or Monticello or to the tomb of Marshall, or to demand one to go to Concord and Lexington and Bunker Hill. Under no circumstance, if I descend or ascend the Mississippi, will I ever consent to have my baggage examined by the officers of a foreign country upon the banks of that river.

Mr. WILSON. I submit that the gentleman has not answered my question directly. I ask again whether the gentleman is willing, under any circumstances, to secure to himself the enjoyment of the privilege he has mentioned through force of arms against the rebellion.

Mr. BROOKS. If it be necessary; if the South has no reason; if it will hear nothing of peace; if it will obstruct the Mississippi and the Chesapeake, and is determined to take from us the rights which we have had from our ancestors, then a new case will arise; but until that case arises in the rebellion, I do not propose to mark out the course which I will pursue hereafter.

Mr. WILSON. I now ask if in any event, in the new case, he would then be willing to wage war against those now in rebellion against the authority of the Government.

Mr. BROOKS. I do not believe that after any of these efforts for peace there would be any such new case. But, on the contrary, if the war should be persisted in, I am ready and willing to maintain those rights as they have been handed down to us by our ancestors. I know the astuteness of the gentleman from Iowa, and I see the coterie of claquers by which he is surrounded in this effort to catechise me.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I call the gentleman to order.

Mr. BROOKS. I am afraid the gentleman does not give a right interpretation to my words. I mean nothing objectionable to the gentleman. I do not wish to say anything that may be offensive.

I think I have expressed myself clearly. What I object to is laying down what I would do in a certain contingency; because what may happen hereafter I cannot say. I cannot lay down a programme for the future; but as explicitly as a man can say it, I have said, and repeat, that. under no circumstances will I ever consent to a severance of the Union of these States.

Mr. WILSON. But the gentleman did state a case which may occur in the future, and I ask him again, in the event of that case occurring, is he willing to meet it by force of arms?

Mr. KASSON. It is this. The gentleman from New York has run a parallel, instead of a contrast, between this causeless and infamous rebellion and that of our fathers against the English Government for a cause which they avowed with a list of their grievances. He now asserts it as a fact that, with a proper proffer of terms on our part, the Union can be restored. I ask him to give to the House the benefit of his information on that point. What evidence has he got that the South will come back into the Union on any terms consistent with the preservation of the Constitution and the Union? The evidence is what I desire.

Mr. BROOKS. What evidence could I have? If I should speak to some southern man, or if I should write to some southern man, I should, in doing so, be violating the laws of the country. I cannot write to any man in the South. I cannot commune with anybody in the South. That is one of the difficulties of the position.

Mr. KASSON. The distinguished gentleman from New York has affirmed the fact that peace can be restored on that basis. I wish the evidence of the fact on which the whole argument

rests.

Mr. BROOKS. Suppose we try. At an early period of the war a gentleman from the State of Georgia, well known in this House, a gentleman who is now vice president of the so-called southern confederacy, made an effort to be heard in the interest of peace, and was refused an audience. Another effort was made from the Canadian frontier, but the President of the United States did not permit it to come to any conclusion. Under the laws of our country, I repeat, it is impossible for an individual legitimately to obtain information from the southern country. Hence it is impossible for me to answer the question of the gentleman from Iowa. All that I can say is-try, try. If we succeed, immortality will rest upon our efforts. If we fail, we shall be right as against the South; and the responsibility will be on southern heads.

Mr. KASSON. Do I understand the gentleman from New York to say that any authorized commission to treat for peace on the basis of the Union has ever been refused to be received by this Government, either from Canada, Fortress Monroe, or elsewhere-any authorized commission to treat for peace on the basis of the Union?

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, had a commission which was understood to be for peace, and he was not received.

Mr. KASSON. It is denied by the head of that rebel government himself.

Mr. BROOKS. And is affirmed by Mr. Stephens in a speech which he has made in the South.

Mr. KASSON. I have not seen that speech. I differ with the gentleman from New York on the point of fact.

Mr. BROOKS. Whenever the South refuses all proffers of peace whatsoever, I am ready, upon the reserved rights of this nation, to maintain its legitimate constitutional authority by force of arms. (Several MEMBERS. "Now you've got it." There may be various ways of settling the difficulties with the South; even the slave question may be got over. The honorable gentleman from Wisconsin may be gratified by refusing the South the right of representation for its slaves on Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I am well aware the three-fifths principle. I think the South would that at this period of the history of the country willingly consent to that and to have every negro it is in vain to make such speeches as I am now there count one, as at the North. I think there making. I make them, not for the present mowill be no difficulty about that. I think that the ment, but to sow the seeds of thought and of consubject of the fugitive slave law, which is so of-||sideration for the people of this great country. I fensive to the great mass of the northern people, may be arranged. I see no essential difficulty in

that.

The great object in the formation of the Union was commerce and trade. Commerce and trade formed this Union, not patriotism altogether. It was because of the difficulty of having an equal

make them to be considered and dwelt upon hereafter, and I hope that they will lead to reflection throughout the country. I hope the Republican side of the House will cease to cherish that feeling against us on this side of the House in which they have hitherto indulged. We desire Union as much as they do; but we do not see, in their

mode and manner of obtaining that Union, any good result possible, and we do not believe that it is possible. I address my remarks to the House, in accordance with my purpose to try and produce some community of feeling, some community of action, which may, hereafter, be useful to our constituents. If I were acting the mere rôle of an Opposition member, I should do nothing but throw obstacles in the way of the other side of the House; but I hold it to be the duty of a man in the Opposition to propose as well as to oppose; and hence the propositions which I have put out. No man on that side of the House, I call God to witness, desires the reunion of these States more ardently than I desire it. No man would make greater sacrifices than I would make to restore to peace and harmony this now bleeding country. But I speak in vain. I am in a minority on the floor of this House, and will be in a greater minority hereafter. I can only appeal to my countrymen, to their good feeling, to their reason and their sense. To them I appeal as to Americans having a great history, not now, I trust, to end. I appeal more especially to New England men, for independence, self-action, and individuality upon this floor. I appeal to that State in which I was born-the State of Massachusetts-which sometimes thinks and acts for herself, independent even of party chains. Let her step forth and act now on this great occasion, and immortalize herself, as she has heretofore done.

Mr. ELIOT. I would ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] if it is not true that the part of Massachusetts in which he was born belongs now to the State of Maine?

Mr. BROOKS. I do not think the gentleman should ask so impertinent a question as that. The wit of the remark does not compensate for the time of the House occupied by it.

Mr. ELIOT. It has truth in it, at all events.

Mr. BROOKS. I am happy to say that I was not born in that part of Massachusetts which the gentleman represents. These personalities are wholly uncalled for.

There was a period in the history of Massachusetts when that State, great and powerful in her control over the Revolution of 1776, forgetting the rival claims of her own eminent sons, and even forgetful of the good city of Boston, in the person of John Adams nominated a slaveholder, George Washington, of Virginia, to be the Commander-in-Chief of the armies of the United States. It is in that spirit that I invoke Massachusetts men to act now; I implore Massachusetts men to look back to these antecedents of their history and emulate the glory of that era. And I also appeal to other New England men upon the floor of this House; and to those who come from the far distant shores of the Pacific I thus appeal, because this Government is now a New England Government, and, in the main, in the hands of New England men.

Throughout the vast regions of the lakes, across the Rocky mountains, the New England element governs and controls this country. Tappeal, therefore, to the three New England men from the State of lowa, and to the honorable gentleman, the leading member from the State of Illinois. I appeal to the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS,] the monitor and the Mentor of this House, who was born among the Green mountains of Vermont, and who exercises so omnipotent an influence in controlling the deliberations of this body; to him I appeal for support of this effort to bring peace again to our people. Let us together try to do honor to New England men and New England history, forgetful of those provincialisms which have been fostered by this civil war, and, if possible, accomplish the restoration of this Union.

Oh, that it was within my power to go within the portals of the White House, and to approach the Chief Magistrate there; I would do what, alas! as an impenitent sinner, I do not dare do to my Maker-on bended knees implore him in his now almost omnipotent authority to exercise all the powers of Christianity, all the lessons, all the arts of peace for the restoration of this now divided and broken Union, and to stop the further effusion of human blood. In the name of that great patriot whom we once in common revered, whose voice has been so often heard in the deliberations of this Capitol, in the name of Henry Clay, in

to resurrect-is not the blessed boon to the human family that he and others would have us believe at this day, if he is to be believed in his declarations made a few years since upon this same question. I read from his own language.

"Washington, March 8, 1833," is the date. This is December 14, 1864. Strange that a little less than thirty-one years should change so greatly a man's sentiments, change his opinions, change his

whose company, in the better days of the Repub-which the gentleman from New York now seeks lic, we both marched together, I would invoke him to remember the history of that great man. Thrice by efforts of conciliation he averted the evils of civil war. First upon the Missouri question in 1820; then in 1832, in the Senate, by his action upon the tariff, in eloquence which stirred the nation's heart, and which had an omnipotent and controlling influence then over both Houses of Congress, he again stopped the threatened effusion of human blood. And in the great compro-language, change his very being, if that were posmise questions of 1850, by his eloquence, his power, his wisdom, his social influence, as well as by his omnipotence in debate, by the respect which all portions of this country had for that great and illustrious man, civil war was again averted from this unhappy land.

Oh, that I could approach the White House, and repeat to the Chief Magistrate the lessons of our illustrious teacher, and invoke him to follow that illustrious example, and to do himself the immortal honor, to be, not the last President of the United States, but the saviour and restorer of this divided, distracted, and bleeding Union.

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I have heard it said that genius is the crowning diadem on the brow of manhood; but if I had ever been induced to believe the declaration, I should have changed my opinion since I became a member of this House. I have listened, sir, as this House has done, frequently-again and again-to the honorable gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS,] when he has held spell-bound the members of this body upon questions that have agitated this country from its center to its circumference; and when I have returned to my home on the western bank of the Mississippi, and my constituents have asked me concerning the members and the doings of this House, and when they have asked me the question "Who is the best orator in the lower House of Congress?" I have invariably referred them to the gentleman from New York who has just taken his seat. His silvery accents, his smooth sentences, his well-informed mind, enlightened not only from history, but from his travels in foreign lands, qualify him admirably to entertain and to instruct an audience of this or any other kind.

But, sir, I regret to say, and I say it with sincere sorrow, that his ingenuity is equal, if not superior, to his genius. Sir, there is not a man upon either side of this House to-day, who has listened to the honorable gentleman's speech of an hour and a half, his eloquence, his rhetoric, his oratory, but must be satisfied that the entire aim and intent of the whole speech and the desire of the man are that it shall aid the enemies of our country, and as a consequence depress the friends of the Administration and of the Government and of the civil and religious institutions with which we are blessed in this land. Slavery-the very thing that the honorable gentleman told us in that very place at the last session of Congress was deadslavery is the alpha and the omega of that speech. That speech, I undertake to say, without fear of successful contradiction, is intended to strengthen the hands of the slaveholders and the hands of the rebels; and in just so much as it strengthens their hands it weakens ours, and causes the blood of patriot hearts to flow upon southern soil. No other conclusion can be arrived at.

I

Sir, I like to meet gentlemen with their own arguments What I may say in reference to that gentleman or any other gentleman on this floor upon this question would have but a tithe of the weight (if it had so much) that would attach to a declaration coming from the gentleman's self upon this question. And I want nothing stronger, want nothing clearer, I want nothing more conclusive than what the gentleman who has just taken his seat after his eloquent effort has given to the American people upon this subject. It is fortunate for some men that they write; it is very unfortunate for others that they write and publish their writings; and I now can understand, if I never did before, the force of the sentiment long since expressed by an eminent individual, "Oh, that mine adversary had written a book!" My friend from New York has written, if not a book, at least a good many pieces in newspapers, and if they were put together and bound they would make a book. But whether a book or not, they are equally binding, and of equal force on this occa

sion.

Slavery that thing that was "dead," and

sible. Now, sir, let me tell that gentleman that, although I have never been across the Atlantic, although I claim not his knowledge of the languages or his polished, silver-tongued oratory, there is one truth that outweighs all these-that is, that principles are eternal. What was right in 1833 cannot be wrong to-day. What was right a thousand years ago must be right to-day, and will be if we live a billion of years in the future. Now, sir, what was right in 1833 in reference to that question, the gentleman himself being the judge in the case? He is posted upon this question. It is not a matter of yesterday with him. It is a question to which he has given the attention of his life and one upon which he is at this day eminently qualified to instruct the American people. He says:

"Slavery carries with it its own afflictions, its own punishments. It is a dead drag to the body-politic."

Ay, sir, and I think that some of the gentlemen's friends on the 8th of last November found it to be so much of a "dead drag" that the party who attempted to drag it found themselves dead. "It is a dead drag to the body-politic. It is impossible for any community to prosper with it in its bosom."

So I think, so think the majority of the American people that it is impossible for them to prosper with that "dead drag" hung upon their backs; and therefore they now feel disposed to get rid of it.

"The affliction bears as heavily upon the master as upon the slave."

Yea, verily, does it! It does bear heavily upon the master as well as upon the slave, and thousands and tens of thousands of the free and loyal men of this land have suffered not only in their rights but have gone down to their graves because slavery has existed in this country.

"It endangers the peace and happiness of the master.",

Does the gentleman wish to endanger the peace and happiness of his friends in the South? If not, why does he come into this Congress and continue his present course of conduct?

"And robs the slave of his freedom and his birthright." So we think.

"As to prosperity and the accumulation of property, it keeps the master in the rear of others in a like situation exempt from this evil, and thus depresses him when it depresses his servant. It is demonstrable, in my opinion, that that community of whites, taken as a whole, must be happier, more prosperous, and richer, where slavery is prohibited than where it is allowed."

Now I wish to say to the gentleman from New York that we are in favor of prohibiting slavery. Does he say that is wrong? He says that it produces unhappiness. It is his own languagenot dictated to him by me; not dictated to him by any gentleman on this side of the House, or any gentleman upon this floor, for it was written at a time when no man who occupies a seat here now was a member of this House. It was his candid opinion on the question.

It may be replied that the effort to-day, and the efforts heretofore, have not been made with the intention of strengthening slavery. Then what have they been made for? Is it only an exhibition of oratory and eloquence? The gentleman has traveled over the continents of Europe and Asia and Africa, he has quoted the history of ancient and modern times, and, not content with profane history, he has given us ample quotations from the Scriptures. I am astonished, utterly astonished, and unable to account for it, that after quoting from the Old Testament and from the New Testament, yet in the same speech, before the words had scarcely passed from his lips, he tells you he does not bow the knee to his Saviour. Well, I say, God save me from the man who quotes Scripture and yet denies its force. It may be right for some men, but I am earnest and sincere when I make the prayer that I want to be saved from men of that kind. I want to be saved from them morally, religiously, and politically.

There may be sincerity there, but I lack the apprehension to see it.

of the white population must watch under arms while the other portion sleeps."

And this was in 1833, when enjoying all the

trol of the entire Government.

"Tell me there is no belief of danger when the military watches over one's body and one's property."

But that is not all. There is a great deal which the time of the House will not justify me in read-blessings of slavery, and when they had the coning. But I do not intend that his speech shall go to the world, ingenious as it is, without being contradicted. I do not want that it shall be contradicted by any gentleman in this House, and there are many more able to reply to it than I am. I am not satisfied with that kind of answer; for I tell you, Mr. Chairman, and I tell this House to-day, that when the Globe shall go to the world with the speech of the gentleman from New York, which is intended to undermine the fair fabric of our free institutions by embarrassing the Government, it shall carry the poison and the antidote in his own language. I want the gentleman from New York answered by the same gentleman from New York. I hope the reporters will take particular pains to report this part of my speech.

"Who does not see, then, that it is for the interest of the North to have the South a slaveholding people? Cupidity and meanness and avarice all point that way. Give the South, with the climate, the free labor of the North, and the North, with her rocks and her ice, must yield. The South must become more prosperous. The people must become richer. The country must become better populated; for it is a law of our nature that what we do for ourselves we do with a better heart than what we do for others. Northern people, then, have no interest in liberating the slaves of the South."

Is that the reason why the gentleman opposes the liberation of the slaves? I do not say that it is, but it is the fair inference from what he wrote in 1833.

Again he says:

"I do not agree with many whom I meet with here, and who say, judging from what they see, that the negroes are an inferior race of men, and therefore we have a right to make them subservient to us.""

I call the attention of the House to that language. The gentleman believes the negroes are not an inferior race. If he does not believe them inferior he must believe they are at least equal

to us.

"I deny the premises, or, granting them, deny the inference. I can find negroes, very many, even here, who are active and bright, and who, if educated, would make a figure in the world;"---

Ay, "make a figure in the world." And are the chains to be riveted and the shackles fastened upon those men who, if free and possessed of the advantages of education would make a figure in the world?

"who are better gifted, and better instructed also, than some of the whites on the sand hills or the pine barrens."

Why, it seems to me that the vision of some departed old abolitionist appeared to the gentleman from New York when he wrote these lines. It would seem as if he had imbibed the spirit of Phillips, or some other abolitionist, when he penned these lines to a friend in New York:

"But the great mass of the whole black race are deplorably ignorant, deplorably incapable. Some of the freed negroes are the most stupid animated matter I ever met with. The well-trained dog has more intelligence than they have. Others about house, who come in daily contact with their masters and their families, are bright, more or less, com paratively speaking; thus showing that it is ignorance, want of education or association with educated men that brutities them; and I have observed very often that where there is the greatest mass of ignorance there is the most brutified face. Southern gentlemen sometimes inquire if you would set such a mass of ignorance loose at once, and give it freedom. I have never made up any opinion upon this question, or any other, than this, that it is none of my business, but theirs ;"

Now the gentleman thinks it is his business; that is, his business to keep them in slavery, but not to set them free

"and that I would not live in a country where such a state of things existed, and where there was so much danger."

And while he would not live in a country in which slavery existed, yet he has quoted from the Old Testament and the New Testament to uphold it; and though I have in the last thirty years often heard Paul's speech on Mars' hill preached from, I never before heard such a conclusion drawn from it as has been drawn from it by the gentleman from New York to-day.

"Southern gentlemen in general affect to despise the danger. But if they do, their wives and daughters do not. Indeed they do not. They dare not speak freely on this subject at a dinner table, when a slave is within hearing. Such conversation is obscure, or in whispers. So far they are slaves themselves, that in the presence of their slaves they must keep a guard on their conversation. They do not go to bed at night with the same ease and freedom we do. They call their military to their aid, and keep their slaves under martial law. The cities of Richmond, Charleston, and Savannah keep up a military guard. No small portion

That is a part of the gentleman's language upon the subject of slavery, and yet, in the last session of Congress, speech after speech made by that gentleman, and characterized by his usual ability and eloquence, was telegraphed over the wires to the southern confederacy. And the wires will transmit this speech, but at the same time it will carry the news that but a small portion of the House concurs in his opinion. We are treated here to-day with the hackneyed phrase that we cannot conquer the rebels, that we cannot subdue eight millions; and the gentleman quotes from Roman history. I must say that either Gibbon or he must be mistaken in regard to some of the numbers and figures. I presume Gibbon is in

error.

Do we here want to know that we cannot conquer the South? Is that declaration made to strengthen our arms and encourage our hearts? No, sir; I charge it upon the gentleman, and all others who dare make that assertion, that it is intended to encourage those who are in arms against the Government; who are endeavoring to tear down the best Government ever given to mankind. Outside of this Hall I never heard

Mr. MCKINNEY. I rise to a point of order. It is that the gentleman charges the gentleman from New York with intending to strengthen the rebels in arms. It is not in order to make such a

charge.

Mr. PRICE. That I believe he intended it. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore, (Mr. BLAINE in the chair.) The point of order is well taken, in the judgment of the Chair. It is not in order for one gentleman to characterize the remarks of another gentleman in that way.

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman

Mr. MCKINNEY. insist that the gentleman shall not go on until the House gives its consent. Mr. BRANDEGEE. I move that the gentleman have leave to proceed in order.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. PRICE. I believe this is the first time in my life-and I am fifty years old-that I was ever called to order.

Mr. McKINNEY. The gentleman has been left to run free too long.

Mr. PRICE. I will say, for the information of members of the House who are not acquainted with me, that it is not my intention to be out of order, and I say, also, positively and emphatically, that it is my intention not to shirk the truth, and if I cannot talk the truth here, I will not talk at all; but I shall speak inside the line of order if I know how.

I was saying-and this must be in order-that outside of this Hall I never heard

Mr. PRICE. Yes, and Rome. I would not forget Rome for a great deal, because there is the point where the gentleman from New York and Gibbon disagree. But I do not intend to reply to any of these things; my sole purpose was to place the language used by the gentleman to-day in juxtaposition with language used by the same gentleman on the same subject on a former occasion. And then I was proceeding to talk about what I had heard again, and again, and again, and had supposed to be disposed of and laid away on the shelf only to be resurrected some generations hence, about our inability to conquer the rebels, that we must exterminate them, and that the history of the world proves in the first place that we cannot exterminate them, and in the next place that we cannot subdue them without extermination, and then of course we shall have to give it up. That is as much as to say to the people of Richmond and to Jeff. Davis that here, in the high council chamber of the nation where the Representatives of the whole people are assembled, a gentleman who is one of the best orators on the floor, if not the best, stands up and tells this House and the country that Jeff. Davis and his friends cannot be subdued. When you can make our people believe that, why, as a matter of course, we shall have to give the rebels their own terms.

And this brings me to another part of the gentleman's speech. He says that when all proffers of peace-mark the words, gentlemen, for they seem to cover an immense amount, all proper proffers and all improper ones-when all proffers of peace shall have been extended to the rebels and rejected by them, then he will-well, he will do something, he does not say what. My colleague from Iowa [Mr. WILSON] asks him again and again would he in that case be in favor of putting down this armed rebellion by force of arms, and he dodges the question. Is that in order? He dodges it; he has not answered the question. When "all proffers" are made! What are we to understand by that? Are we to go to the South with hat in hand and say "You have been our masters, lo! these many years, and this is the first time in the history of the Government when you have tried to coerce us and we did not yield; you are now trying to break up the Government; we ask you now to resume your mastery on your own terms; what will you have us do?" Is that what we are to do? There never was a time in the history of the Government when the slave States demanded anything of the free States that was not yielded until 1861 when they saw proper to fire upon the old flag of the Union, the ensign of our nationality, and when that infamous scoundrel Pickens-is that in order?-boasted that South Carolina was the first State in the Union that had trailed the stars and stripes in the dust. Who would be the apologist or advocate of men like that? The man who would do it I think would be aiding and abetting treason. I presume that is in order.

I have heard the gentleman from New York,

Mr. CHANLER. I want to ask the gentle-not only to-day, but in the last session of this man a question in this connection. Mr. PRICE. I cannot yield.

Mr. CHANLER, (amid cries of "Order!") Did the gentleman vote for the expulsion of Mr. LONG, of Ohio?

Mr. PRICE. Oh, yes. I will answer that question, certainly. I did vote for the resolution of expulsion, and I am only sorry that it did not succeed.

I was proceeding to say-and hope this will be in order that outside of this Hall I have never heard language that I would call rubbing up along so close to treasonable language as I have heard here. It is rather a difficult matter for a man who wants to say just what he thinks, and is afraid of getting over the line of order, to so fashion his words and trim his sails as to keep within the channel. I shall try, however, to do it, and will say to gentlemen on the other side of the House that I have not risen for the purpose of making a speech. I had not any intention of saying a word upon this subject, but I thought I would let the language of the gentleman from New York spoken in 1833 go on the record with the language he has used to-day on this subject. Three fourths of the speech of the gentleman had reference to Russia, and France, and England, and Austria, and parts of Asia.

A MEMBER. And Rome.

Congress in his place here, talk about the statesmen of England, and the enviable position that they occupied toward the colonies, and say that they had built themselves a monument of fame undying. Does he wish us to understand-I would like to have an answer to that question-that he occupies the same position toward the southern confederacy, so called, that the English statesmen that he has quoted occupied toward the col onies? Is he the advocate and apologist for the southern confederacy? If not, I fail to see the force of his argument. And then, as was justly remarked by another of my colleagues, [Mr. KASSON,] does he wish to draw a parallel between this infamous and uncalled-for rebellion and the Revolution of 1776? Why, every school-boy ten years old knows that there is no parallel at all. There are contrasts, wide, marked, and unmistakable, but no parallel. They made our laws for us in England, and sent over our officers. We had no voice in the matter, and when the burden became too oppressive and intolerable longer to be borne, then, as freemen exercising the right of freemen, we contended for an adjustment of those rights, and a return of what was justly due These men of the South, whom my friend from New York compares with the men of the Revolution, have made the laws of this country for the last fifty or seventy-five years. For three

us.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »