Sir, in the section of the country where I live, notwithstanding we reside in a slave State, we believe that freemen are capable of selfgovernment. We care not in what shape their poverty exists; whether it is in the shape of slaves or otherwise. We hold that it is upon the intelligent free white people of the country that all governments should rest, and by them all governments should be controlled.

I think, therefore, sir, that the President and Senator from Kentucky have stated the question aright. This is a struggle between two forms of government. It is a struggle for the existence of the Government we have. The issue is now fairly made up. All who favor free government must stand with the Constitution, and in favor of the Union of the States as it is. That Union being once restored, the Constitution again becoming supreme and paramount, when peace, law, and order shall be restored; when the Government shall be restored to its pristine position; then, if necessary, we can come forward under proper and favorable circumstances to amend, change, alter, and modify the Constitution, as pointed out by the fifth article of the instrument, and thereby perpetuate the Government. This can be done, and this should be done.

We have heard a great deal said in reference to the violation of the Constitution. The Senator from Kentucky seems exceedingly sensitive about violations of the Constitution. Sir, it seems to me, admitting that his apprehensions are well founded, that a violation of the Constitution for the preservation of the Government is more tolerable than one for its destruction. In all these complaints, in all these arraignments of the present Government for violation of law and disregard of the Constitution, have you heard, as was forcibly and eloquently said by the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Browning) before me, one word uttered against violations of the Constitution and the trampling under foot of law by the States or the party now making war upon the Government of the United States? Not a word, sir.

The Senator enumerates what he calls violations of the Constitution-the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, the proclaiming of martial law, the increase of the army and navy, and the existing war; and then he asks, "Why all this ?" The answer must be apparent to all.

But first, let me supply a chronological table of events on the other side:

December 27, 1860. The revenue cutter William Aiken surrendered by her commander, and taken possession of by South Carolina. December 28. Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney, at Charleston, seized.

December 30. The United States arsenal at Charleston seized. January 2, 1861. Fort Macon and the United States arsenal at Fayetteville seized by North Carolina.

January 3. Forts Pulaski and Jackson, and the United States arsenal at Savannah, seized by Georgia troops.

January 4. Fort Morgan and the United States arsenal at Mobile seized by Alabama.

January 8. Forts Johnson and Caswell, at Smithville, seized by North Carolina; restored by order of Governor Ellis.

January 9. The Star of the West, bearing reinforcements to Major Anderson, fired at in Charleston harbor.

January 10. The steamer Marion seized by South Carolina; restored on the 11th.

January 11. The United States arsenal at Baton Rouge, and Forts Pike, St. Philip, and Jackson, seized by Louisiana.

January 12. Fort Barancas and the Navy Yard at Pensacola seized by Florida.

January 12. Fort McRae, at Pensacola, seized by Florida.

These forts cost $5,947,000, are pierced for 1,099 guns, and are adapted for a war garrison of 5,430 men.

We find, as was shown here the other day, and as has been shown on former occasions, that the State of South Carolina seceded, or attempted to secede, from this confederacy of States without cause. In seceding, her first step was a violation of the Constitution. She seceded on the 29th of last December, making the first innovation and violation of the law and the Constitution of the country. On the 28th day of December what did she do? She seized Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney, and caused your little band of sixty or seventy men, under the command of Major Anderson, to retire to a little pen in the ocean-Fort Sumter. She commenced erecting batteries, arraying cannon, preparing for war; in effect, proclaiming herself at once our enemy. Seceding from the Union, taking Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney, driving your men, in fact, into Fort Sumter, I say were piratical acts of war. You need not talk to me about technicalities, and the distinction that you have got no war till Congress declares it. Congress could legalize it, or could make war, it is true; but that was practical war. Who began it? Then, sir, if South Carolina secedes, withdraws from the Union, becomes our common enemy, is it not the duty, the constitutional duty of the Government, and of the President of the United States to make war, or to resist the attacks and assaults made by an enemy? Is she not as much our enemy as Great Britain was in the revolutionary struggle? Is she not to-day as much our enemy as Great Britain was during the war of 1812?

In this connection I desire to read some remarks made by the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Polk) in his speech the other day, in regard to this general idea of who made the war:

"This has all been brought about since the adjournment of the last Congress-since the 4th of March; indeed, since the 15th of April. Congress has declared no war. The Constitution of the United States says that Congress shall be authorized to declare war;' and yet, sir, though Congress has declared no war, we are in the midst of a war monstrous in its character, and hugely monstrous in its proportions. That war has been brought on by the President of the United States since the 4th of March, of his own motion and of his own wrong; and under what circumstances? Before the close of the last Congress, as early as the month of January, secession was an accomplished fact. Before the close of the last Congress, as many States had seceded from the Union, or had claimed to secede, as had on the 15th of April; and yet the last Congress made no declaration of war; the last Congress passed no legislation calculated to carry on the war; the last Congress refused to pass bills having this direction or having any purpose of coercion. Now, sir, how has this war been brought on? I have said that, in my judg ment, it has been brought on by the President of the United States, and a portion of the procedure which has resulted in it is named in the preamble of this joint resolution, which it is proposed that we shall approve and legalize."

The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Powell) spoke in similar language. Alluding to the refusal of Kentucky to respond to the first call of the President for seventy-five thousand men, he said:

"She believed that the calling forth of such an immense armament was for the purpose of making a war of subjugation on the Southern States, and upon that ground she refused to furnish the regiments called for. The Senator seems to be a little offended at the neutrality of Kentucky. Sir, Kentucky has assumed a position of neutrality, and I only hope that she may be able to maintain it. She has assumed that position because there is no impulse of her patriotic heart that desires her to imbrue her hands in a brother's blood, whether he be from the North or the South. Kentucky looks upon this war as unholy, unrighteous, and unjust. Kentucky believes that this war, if carried out, can result in nothing else than the total disruption of the Confederacy. She hopes, she wishes, she prays, that this Union may be maintained. She believes that cannot be done by force of arms; that it must be done by compromise and conciliation if it can be done at all; and hence, being devoted truly to the Union, she desires measures of peace to be presented for the adjustment of our difficulties."

I desire in this connection to place before the Scnate the remarks of both the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Missouri, and to answer them at the same time. The Senator from Missouri

says the war was brought on since the 4th of March by the President of the United States of his own motion. The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Powell) pronounces it an unjust, an unrighteous and an unholy war.

But, sir, I commenced enumerating the facts with the view of showing who commenced the war. How do they stand? I have just stated that South Carolina seceded-withdrew from the Confederacy; and in the very act of withdrawing, she makes practical war upon the Government, and becomes its enemy. The Star of the West, on the 7th of January, laden simply with provisions to supply those starving men at Fort Sumter, attempted to enter the harbor, and was fired upon, and had to tack about, and leave the men in the fort to perish or do the best they could. We also find, that on the 11th of April, General Beauregard had an interview with Major Anderson, and made a proposition to him to surrender. Major Anderson stated in substance, that he could do no such thing; that he could not strike the colors of his country, and refused to surrender; but he said, at the same time, that by the 15th of the month his provisions would give out, and if not reinforced and supplied starvation must take place. It seems that at this time Mr. Pryor, from Virginia, was in Charleston. The Convention of Virginia was sitting, and it was important that the cannon's roar should be heard in the land. Virginia was to be taken out of the Union, although a majority of the delegates in the Convention were elected against secession, and in favor of the Union. We find that after being in possession of the fact that by the 15th of the month the garrison would be starved out and compelled to surrender, on the morning of the 12th they commenced the bombardment, fired upon the fort and upon your men. They knew that in three days they would be compelled to surrender, but they wanted war. It was indispensable to produce an excitement in order to hurry Virginia out of the Union, and they commenced the war. The firing was kept up until such time as the fort was involved in smoke and flames, and Major Anderson and his men were compelled to lie on the floor with their wet handkerchiefs to their faces to save them from suffocation and death. Even in the midst of all this, they refused to cease their firing, but kept it up until he was compelled to surrender.

Who, then commenced the war? Who struck the first blow? Who violated the Constitution in the first place? Who trampled the law under foot, and violated the law morally and legally? Was it not South Carolina in seceding? And yet you talk about the President having brought on the war by his own motion, when these facts are incontrovertible. No one dare attempt to assail them.

But after Fort Sumter was attacked and surrendered, what do we find stated in Montgomery when the news reached there? Here is the telegraphic announcement of the reception of the news there :

"MONTGOMERY, Friday, April 12, 1861. "An immense crowd serenaded President Davis and Secretary Walker, at the Exchange Hotel to-night."

Mr. Davis refused to address the audience, but his Secretary of War did. The Secretary of War, Mr. Walker, said:

"No man could tell where the war this day commenced would end, but he would prophesy that the flag which now flaunts the breeze here would float over the old Capitol at Washington, before the 1st of May. Let them try Southern chivalry and test the extent of Southern resources, and it might float eventually over Faneuil Hall itself."

What is the announcement? We have attacked Fort Sumter and it has surrendered, and no one can tell where this war will end. By the 1st of May our flag will wave in triumph from the dome of the old Capitol at Washington, and ere long, perhaps, from Faneuil Hall in Boston. Then was this war commenced by the President on his own motion? You say that the President of the United States did wrong in ordering out seventy-five thousand men, and in increasing the army and navy under the exigency. Do we not know, in connection with these facts, that so soon as Fort Sumter surrendered they took up the line of march for Washington? Do not some of us who were here know that we did not even go to bed very confidently and securely, for the fear that the city would be taken before the rising sun? Has it not been published in the Southern newspapers that Ben McCulloch was in readiness, with five thousand picked men, in the State of Virginia, to make a descent and attack the city, and take it?

What more do we find? We find that the Congress of this same pseudo-republic, this same Southern Confederacy that has sprung up in the South, as early as the 6th of March passed a law preparing for this invasion-preparing for this war which they commenced. Here it is:

"That in order to provide speedily forces to repel invasion, maintain the rightful possession of the Confederate States of America in every portion of territory belonging to each State, and to secure the public tranquility and independence against threatened assault, the President be, and he is hereby, authorized to employ the militia, military, and naval forces of the Confederate States of America, and ask for and accept the services of any number of volunteers, not exceeding one hundred thousand.”