MR. CHAIRMAN:

I have no other purpose to-night than to attempt a review of so much of the Governor's Message as relates to National affairs. The time which this will necessarily consume, study brevity as I may, will leave me no opportunity for a formal reply to the Honorable Senator from the third. I must confine myself strictly to this purpose, or become wearisome beyond endurance.

I listened to the reading of this message, sir, with a sincere desire that I might be able to acquiesce in all its statements and conclusions. Divided counsels had already produced their inevitable results upon the country. A loyal people who, eighteen months ago, stood united and therefore invincible, had become discordant, uncertain of purpose and therefore brought to the brink of ruin. I was prepared to follow any leader, Democrat or Republican, who would sink the partizan in the patriot, and unite all loyal men in the great work of putting down this rebellion. I was disposed to avoid all irritating and useless discussion, to sacrifice my own views where principle was not involved, and adopt any plan which promised success. hoped to find in this message a clear, distinct policy enunciated. I hoped also to find such appeals as would allay discontent, animate drooping courage, and establish public confidence in

our cause

I

It is, therefore, with profound sorrow that I am compelled to say that there is much in this message of an exactly opposite tendency. If I did not think so, I should take no part in this debate. A mere difference of opinion as to the cause of this war and the proper mode of conducing it, is inevitable and harmless in itself. But when these differences are so discussed as to weaken and perhaps paralyze the Administration, through which alone the country can be saved and peace r stored, the effect is only mischievous, however patriotic the motive may be. The business of the hour is the salvation of

the government. A large section is in arms for its destruction. This rebellion will succeed unless put down by force. Force can only be used through the constituted authorities at Washington. These authorities are powerless without

the support of the people.

And

I think these propositions self-evident. it follows from them, that unless the people do sustain the Administration in the prosecution of the war, the rebellion will succeed and the country be destroyed. It is manifestly then the duty of every loyal citizen, high and low, to be found beneath the standard of his country, and to leave the conduct of the war to those whom the the constitution has made our leaders. It is not the part of exalted patriotism to stand afar off and rail at the generalship, while the smoke of battle enshrouds the contending hosts, and that standard is being torn and riven by the missiles of the enemy. Nor when we have taken the field is it wise to spend our time in quarreling with our fellow soldiers instead of fighting the common foe. In short, it is madness for us, as a people, to imitate the factions in Jerusalem when the Romans were thundering at its gates, by weakening and destroying each other in every lull of the storm which threatens to overwhelm

us.

And it is not necessary to ignore the errors and faults of our rulers in order to support the government. I concede the propriety and usefulness of free discussion of every act of the Administration. What I condemn is the exercise of this right in a way calculated to distract the people, and lead them, if possible, to believe that it is more important to crush the Administration than the rebellion

The part of the message we are considering contains much that we all approve. His faith that the country may yet be saved-his condemnation of disobedience to constituted authorities-the call he makes for economy and integrity in public affairs-his veneration for the

constitution-his declaration that the people of this State will never willingly assent to disunion -are the sentiments of each one of us.

But this is not all he says-indeed it is a very small part of what he says. The greater portion of the message is devoted to the discussion of the causes of the war, and in attacks upon the administration.

During the early period of this struggle, the discussion of the causes of the war was dropped by common consent. Every good citizen felt that such a discussion could do no good, but would inevitably lead to strife and bitterness. The unanimity which resulted from this course, proved its wisdom, while the discord now pervading the North is, to a great extent, attributable to the persistent efforts of politicians to revive the contest. I regret, therefore, that the Governor has thought it necessary to renew the discussion of the causes of the war. But since he has done it-since he has forced the question upon us-I cannot consent by silence, to seem to acquiesce in statements which I deem incorrect in fact, and evil in tendency. I am not willing that the discussion, if there must be one, shall be all on one side.

His Excellency commences with the proposition that "there are now no causes for discord that have not always existed in our country, and which were not felt by our fathers in forming the Union."

His subsequent argument shows that he here refers principally, if not entirely, to slavery. It is true, Sir, that this institution then existed and that it now exists. But it is not true that it was then the same as now, in position,-in spirit, in ambition or in power, even relatively. It was then a mere industrial institution. It has since usurped a position entirely different. It has become a great political power overshadowing the land and demanding the control of the Government as the condition of its loyalty. Our fathers had no such monstrous demands to compromise and adjust. This imperium in imperio did not then exist.

The Governor continues-"If the North and the South had understood the power and purposes of each other, our contentions would have been adjusted."

Had the South understood the power of the loyal States, and their determination to maintain the Union at any cost, it is possible that the rebellion might have been postponed, but that is all. The North could not have prevented the rebellion by any concessions which even Governor Seymour would make. I say by any concessions, for it must be remembered that when compromise and adjustment is spoken of, it always means demands on the part of the South, and concessions on the part of the North.

The offense alleged by the rebels at the time of the outbreak, was the election and inauguration of Mr. Lincoln, an event secured by themselves as certainly as if they had directly voted for him. They determined that he should be elected, and for the very purpose of precipitating the rebellion. And is there a respectable man at rth who would have consented to the

t

violent deposition of Mr. Lincoln, even if it would have prevented the rebellion?

No Sir, this assertion that the war might have been averted, so constantly repeated of late, and which is doing its work of evil amongst us, is a mere gratuitous assumption. It has not a particle of proof to rest upon. It utterly ignores the whole rebel programme as stated over and over again by themselves. It refuses to see, what is apparent to the whole world, that this rebellion had been determined for over thirty years-that its plans were forming during that whole period -and that their complaints of Northern aggression was a mere cloak to conceal their actual purpose, and a means employed to drag their own people into the conspiracy.

No Sir, it was ambition, a thirst for power that made these men rebels, not any real or imaginary injustice on the part of the North, they themselves being witnesses.

66

Says the Governor again : Affrighted at the ruin they have wrought, the authors of our calamities at the North and South insist that this war was caused by an unavoidable contest about slavery."

This is a remarkable sentence. Let us analyze it. It asserts

1st. That a portion of the people at the North are "authors" of this war.

2d. That they are equally guilty with the actual rebels for the ruin wrought.

3d. That these "authors" North and South alike insist "that this war was caused by an unavoidable con test about slavery."

Sir, I affirm that each and every of these propositions is untrue as matter of fact, and that the first two are monstrous.

First, as to the assertion that a portion of the people at the North are authors of this rebellion. Who are the persons against whom this charge is made? He cannot, does not mean that little squad of fanatics heretofore known as abolitionists? They were so insignificant in numbers and so totally without political influence, that his Excellency would not attribute to them such tremendous powers for evil. No, sir, he does not mean them. He brings this accusation against the republicans of the North, so recently largely in the majority in the loyal States, and who would now be in the majority, as I verily believe, if our armies were at home.

And what is the charge? That they are authors, not the sole authors, to be sure, but still authors, of this rebellion. In other words, that they did something, or omitted to do something, which not only occasioned the war, but which justified it also. For unless they made the war necessary and right, they cannot be called authors of it. To say that they are, by reason of anything short of this, is to pervert language, confound the most obvious distinctions, and talk nonsense. It is like saying that the victims of the St. Bartholomew massacre, because they were hated by the assassins, were the authors of that massacre. Or it is like that logic which declares that the majority of the Assembly were the authors of the recent disorders there, because they would not permit the minority to control the House.

But waiving all this, what had the republicans actually done? Was the election of Abraham Lincoln their offence? No. Gov. Seymour tells us in this very message that Mr. Lincoln was constitutionally elected-and he is the last Governor in this country or any other to question a right secured by that instrument.

Was it the so-called agitation of the slavery question? I might reply that republicans were only a portion of those engaged in this agitation that slavery was aggressive-that its advocates, North and South, made it their constant theme everywhere and upon all occasions-but I cannot stop for this. I wish merely to inquire whether any man will say that the discussion of slavery at the North is just cause for rebellion at the South ?

And above all, can Gov. Seymour, who in this same message so emphatically demands free discussion, who so solemnly and almost threateningly declares that "there must be no attempt to put down the full expression of public opinion"who is so tender in regard to constitutional rights that he declares, in substance and effect, that the general government shall not, in time of war, arrest a traitor in this State without due process of law-will he say that this constitutional right of free discussion, when exercised by republicans, is just cause for war on the part of the South?

But perhaps I shall be told that the Governor in this proposition did not refer to the election of Mr Lincoln, nor yet to the agitation of the slavery question. I know that there are no specifications, that this monstrous charge is wrapped in " glittering generalities," but if

he did not mean these things, what did he mean? The only approach to definiteness is the assertion that "we are to look for the causes of this war in a pervading disregard of the obligation of laws and constitutions; in disrespect for constituted authorities; and above all in the local prejudices which have grown up" in certain quarters which he names. I am compelled to guess even here at the meaning. I presume, however, that personal liberty bills and opposition to the fugitive slave law, are referred to in the first part of the sentence.

It is no part of my purpose to defend these bills or that opposition. But will any sane man deliberately assert that these things caused the war? It would be easy, if there were time, to show that the rebellion would just as certainly have come, if no liberty bill had ever been enacted, and if every fugitive slave had been seized, carried back and presented by us on our knees, to his master. I have already shown that this rebellion was caused by the unbridled ambition of the conspirators and nothing else.

But this subject of liberty bills tempts me to digress a moment and make an inquiry. Was it not the object of these bills to prevent the abduction of citizens and freemen and the " carrying of them many hundred miles to distant prisons in other states or territories ?" And is there not a striking analogy between the purpose of these acts, and the purpose of the Governor of this state, expressed in this message, to prevent

the military arrest and abduction of citizens of this state?

But I must pass on to the second proposition of the Governor embodied in the paragraph I am considering, viz.: that the northern authors of this war (meaning the Republicans) are equally guilty with the rebels for the ruin wrought.

Sir, shall not trust myself to characterize this proposition as it deserves. As Webster said of Massachusetts-there it is, behold it and judge for yourselves. I would not exhibit "disrespect for constituted authorities," for that, we are told, was one of the causes of this war-but I will ask if there be a man here or elsewhere who will defend this proposition? I will only add, that it is a cruel imputation upon at least one-half the people of the northern states who never conceived a treasonable design or spoke a treasonable word-who never found an excuse for standing aloof when their country was in danger, and who have freely devoted their lives and fortunes to the work of putting down this rebellion.

And now, sir, a word in regard to the third proposition contained in this paragraph, viz.: that these authors of the war, north and southmeaning the rebels of the south and the Repub. licans of the north-alike insist that this war was caused by an unavoidable contest about slavery.

It is not of much consequence, but this proposition is not true. It is not true as to the position of the rebels even-but I shall not stop to discuss that. As respects the Republicans, I deny emphatically that they have ever said any such thing. They did say that the subject of slavery was unnecessarily and wantonly forced upon the country by the unceasing and arrogant demands of the slave power. But they have never said that this controversy was the cause of the war. On the contrary, they have always insisted, and they now insist, that this controversy had nothing to do with the war-that the slave power, uninfluenced by any real or imaginary provocation, but instigated solely by ambition and the devil, inaugurated this rebellion.

If any man desires to state that an unavoidable contest about slavery was the cause of the war, let him do so as an original proposition and upon his own responsiblity-but no man has a right to state it as a proposition of the Republicans, to give himself an opportunity to refute it.

If the allegation had been that Republicans insist that slavery-not the controversy about it but that slavery itself was the cause of the war, it would have been substantially correct. We have said that. And what we mean by it is, that this unholy ambition of which I have spoken, and which inaugurated hostilities, is born of and is sustained by slavery-that this institution, of its own inherent corruption, breeds traitors to a government and constitution which secure equal rights to all.

Again, the Governor says that "the spirit of dis obedience has sapped the foundation of municipal, state and national authority in every part of our land." As is usual in the message, this

statement makes no distinction between rebellion in the South and disorderly conduct in the North. The proposition seems to be that this spirit of disobedience, uniform in character and development, exists everywhere in our country. On the Rappahannock and the Hudson-at Vicksburgh and in New York-in South Carolina and in Massachusetts. That several states have disobeyed the national authority and taken up arms against it, thus causing the war, is very certain; but why continually mix together, in this bewildering way, the people who are fighting the government and the people who are not? But no matter. This rebuke of the spirit of disobedience to lawful authority, is welltimed. There have been recent exhibitions of lawlessness here in the loyal states, that may well excite the alarm of every good citizen. It is but a few months ago, that an ex-mayor of New York proposed to revolutionize that city and and make it an independent power! And that man, by the way, has just been elected a member of Congress. It is but a few weeks since the Legislature of Pennsylvania was surrounded by a mob to overawe and control the action of that body. It is only yesterday that a similar mob gathered in your Assembly Chamber for a similar purpose. Upon the floor of your own Legislature threats were made that a certain candidate for speaker should never take his seat, if elected. There are now persons and journals among us, whose ceaseless business it seems to be to stir up a revolution against the general government. If this Jacobinical spirit be not put down, and that speedily, we shall not only lose our national government but our state government also. Not only will the Federal Constitution be destroyed, but our state laws and institutions will disappear with it. I rejoice, therefore, to find this condemnation of disobedience and lawlessness in the message, and I pray that His Excellency will crush it out in this State, by all the constitutional means he possesses.

But I must hasten on. The Governor next says-that " When the leaders of the insurrection at the extreme South, say that free and slave states cannot exist together in the Union, and when this is echoed from the extreme North by the enemies of our constitution, both parties simply say they cannot because they will not respect the laws and the constitution."

This may be good rhetoric, but it surely is bad logic. Admit the premises, still the conclusion is a non-sequitur. How an abstract opinion that free and slave states cannot exist together, even when expressed, makes a man declare that he is unable to obey the laws and constitution and that he will violate them, is not apparent.

But waiving such criticism, I say that these premises are made up of false assumptions. Put in plain language, the propositions assumed are these:

1. The leaders of the insurrection at the extreme south say that free and slave states cannot exist together in the Union.

2. The people of New England say the same thing.

That this may have been said at the south is very possible, although I do not remember ever to have seen any such remark in any defence of the rebellion. The rebels have said from the first, and now say that they will not remain in the Union, not that they cannot. They have declared that they will not respect the laws and constitution, not that such obedience is impossible.

not.

But however this may be, I deny that the people of New England have ever said that free and slave states could not exist together in the Union. Whether this may or may not have been said by that close corporation, the abolitionists of New England, I neither know nor care. For it is entirely immaterial for the purposes of my argument, whether they have or We are looking for the causes of this war. And no one will pretend that the sayings or doings of this small body of men were of the least political consequence. And, as I have before said, Gov. Seymour does not refer to them. means New England, when he designates the extreme North, and when he speaks of the enemies of the Constitution at the extreme North, he means the people of New England, except that very small and select circle of Yankees who agree with him in politics.

He

I repeat, sir, the people of New England have never said that free and slave states could not ex1st together in the Union. On the contrary, they and the republicans of the whole North have alike insisted that free and slave states could exist together in the Union-nay, that such a connection could and should be entirely harmonius, and that this would be so if the slave states would obey the Constitution and content themselves with the rights guarantied by that instru

ment.

But I shall be asked if republicans have not said that there is an irrepressible conflict between freedom and slavery. Yes. But that is a very different thing from saying that free and slave states cannot exist together in the Union. To illustrate I may say that there is an irrepressible conflict between capital and labor, but will any one contend that this is equivalent to saying that capital and labor cannot exist together in the same political community?

Labor may strive to procure the largest possible renumeration for the smallest possible amount of service, and capital may strive to obtain the greatest possible amount of service for the least possible amount of compensation, and yet capital and labor always have and always will exist together.

And, sir, this irrepressible conflict between freedom and slavery may go on, and never furnish a justifiable cause for a pro-slavery war, any more than the eternal conflict between capital and labor furnishes cause for an agrarian war.

When we say that there is an irrepressible conflict between freedom and slavery, we simply recognize a fact which now exists and which always has existed. We do not say that it should be or that it should not be. There it is, whether we will or not. It springs from the nature of slavery and the constitution

of the human mind as framed by its creator. And he who says that it shall be put down, imitates the royal Canute when he ordered the waves of the ocean not to touch his feet-to borrow an illustration used by the Senator from the Third. And I repeat the denial, that the recognition of this fact, says or implies, either that free and slave states cannot exist together, or that we cannot, or that we will not obey the laws and constitution.

But I shall be again asked, if Republicans have not said that the present relation of free and slave states could not always continue, and that the states would ultimately become all slave or all free. Yes, some of them have expressed this opinion, or rather made this prediction, for it is simply a prediction; but this also is a very different thing from saying that free and slave states cannot exist together in the Union. Nay, this opinion or prediction, call it what you will, necessarily supposes the exact contrary, viz.: that they will remain together in the Union until this irrepressible conflict shall have triumphed on the one side or the other, until freedom or slavery shall have overshadowed and absorbed the other, and the whole Union thus become alike in institutions and homogeneous in policy. It expresses the opinion that this irrepressible conflict will ultimately produce this result. It does not say or imply that the free and slave states cannnot, in the mean time, exist together. Neither does it say or imply, that those who hold this opinion intend to disobey the laws and constitution.

Again, the Governor says that "this war should have been averted." I would not pause over this brief sentence were it not to call attention to the peculiar manner in which Governor Seymour speaks of the War throughout the m ssage. Possessing great powers of denunciation which are freely exercised in this message, he never employs these powers against the rebellion, and he never charges upon it the unutterable woes it has inflicted. He never strikes a rebel unless he can couple a Yankee with him, so that the latter shall receive at least, half the blow. We never hear a clear ringing appeal to the people to cease their political quarrels and unite heart and hand to put down this infernal rebellion And yet no man in America could this day arouse the North to such a pitch of patriotism fervor as might Horatio Seymour. He is the leader of a great, patriotic and triumphant party. Every man of that party, whose support is worth having, would hail with enthusiasm a declaration from him, that we would never submit to this rebellion, but that we would crush it out. Alas Sir, this appeal has not been made. We have instead, many patriotic generalities, the most of which I have quoted. We asked for bread and we have received a stone. We are informed "that defe rence" is due our rulers provided they keep within the limits of their jurisdiction.

supported," and that "all constitutional demands (was it worth while to suppose that there would be any other?) of the government, must be promptly responded to." But lest these interlocutory remarks should be misunderstood, we have page after page of misrepresentation and denunciation, of at least, one-half the people of the Northern states; asserting among other things, that they are as much authors of this war as the rebels themselves, and that they are jointly responsible with them for all the "ruin wrought." We are told that the President of the United States, honest to a proverb, and the least ambitious of men, has usurped more than regal powers, and without the shadow of an excuse, has trampled the federal constitution and the rights of sovereign states beneath his feet.

We have also an elaborate argument to show, that one section of the loyal states should array itself against another; and to cap the climax, we have the positive assurance that we cannot subdue this rebellion, from which results the necessary inference that our military defence ought to cease.

Let

But sir, I am wandering. The expression is that "the war should have been averted." us examine this a little more critically, for it is another peculiarity of the Governor to sometimes insinuate offensive charges rather than make them, and to cover up a fallacy with plausible words-as a pill is coated with sugar, that it may be swallowed without betraying its nauseous qualities.

Observe then, it is not said that the war should never have been inaugurated or commenced, which would have thrown the blame upon the scoundrels who causelessly took up arms, but the carefully conned and deliberately framed expression is: "The war should have been averted," which casts the blame upon the miserable Yankees. The war should have been averted; that is, it could have been. There were persons who could have done this. Nobody will understand him here to refer to the rebels. Everybody will understand him to say, that the persons who could thus have averted the war were the Republicans of the North. He nowhere tells us how they could have done this, but he over and over again insinuates the charge.

But I shall be told that the Governor means that we could have averted the war by accepting the Crittenden compromise. This is an old story, and my reply must be very brief. My answer then is-1st. That this is a mere gratuitous assumption without a particle of proof to sustain it. If we are to believe the rebels themselves, they would have spurned the concession with scorn. 2d. That this compromise could not have averted the war unless it was accepted before the war, and that the Democrats of the north themselves voted down this identical proposition in Congress, at least twice before the war. That the responsibility, therefore, of not averting the war by this measure, rests upon them and not upon the Republicans. That the making of this concession after the war, would have been a cowardly yielding to violence what