of the United States; and to that end we oppose any armistice, or intervention, or mediation, or proposition for peace from any quarter, so long as there shall be found a Rebel in arms against the Government; and we ignore all party names, lines, and issues, and recognize but two parties in this war-patriots and traitors."*

This Resolution passed the House, December 17, 1863, by a vote of ninety-four to sixty-five. The ninety-four votes all belonged to that party for which Judge Chase spoke.

Was there ever an instance in the history of the world of such inconsistency, or-no! I will withhold the word I was about to utter. But let me ask, if the Federal arms had been directed against those who resisted the enforcement of the Constitution and the laws of the United States, with the real purpose of preserving "the best Government ever instituted by man," was there a single one of those who voted for this Resolution, who would not justly have been the first subjects of slaughter? These are the men who still talk of "loyal States!" Who still have so much to say of "loyal men!" Was ever noble word, when properly applied, so prostituted, as this is in its present use by this class of boasting patriots?

The Southern States were ever loyal and true to the Constitution. This I maintain as a great truth for history The only true loyalty in this country is fidelity to the principles of the Constitution! The openly "disloyal," or those avowedly untrue to the Constitution, were those who instigated, inaugurated, and waged this most unrighteous war against their Confederate neighbors! If I express myself with too much fervor on this point, you will please excuse me. I do, however, but express the thorough convictions of my judgment.

* McPherson's History of the Rebellion, p. 298.

MAJOR HEISTER. Judge Bynum, how is this? Is it true, as stated, that any of the Northern States did thus openly and avowedly refuse to comply with their Constitutional engagements, while the Southern States were always true to theirs? Is this correct? I often heard of "Personal Liberty Bills" at the North, but I thought they were intended only to secure the liberty of our own free Blacks against Kidnappers. I never supposed it was true, that the Northern States deliberately refused to obey or enforce that clause of the Constitution in relation to actual fugitives from service. I am utterly astonished at what Mr. Stephens has read from the law of Vermont, and from Judge Chase's speech in the Peace Congress. You are better posted than I am on these matters, but I feel assured that the people at the North, generally, did not look upon the questions, as he presents them; and it must be, that there is some answer to what he says and maintains with so much apparent confidence. Let us know how these things really are.

JUDGE BYNUM. I have a great deal that I might say in reply to him. But I think it best, perhaps, in these conversations to forbear, as it might stir up ill-blood and do no good. We are Mr. Stephens's guests, and if I were to go into a full explanation of the matter, I might have to refer to questions that he would not like to hear, especially about the violations of Compacts.

MR. STEPHENS. Have no uneasiness on that point. These conversations I wish to be perfectly free, full, and exhaustive. So long as they are conducted on the plan and within the bounds first stated, you are at liberty to speak your mind fully and freely. Have no fear of ruffling my temper in the least.

PROFESSOR NORTON. Not even if he goes into the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, that time-honored Compact between the North and the South.

MR. STEPHENS. None. Have no fears of the sort in relation to any subject.

MAJOR HEISTER. But how do you know what he may say?

MR. STEPHENS. I do not, of course, know what he will or may say, but I do know that there is nothing that he can say on any of these subjects, in accordance with truth and fact, which can ruffle me in the least. It is truth when told to one's disadvantage which generally ruffles temper the quickest. There is a great moral in the anecdote about Mr. Petigru,* so distinguished for his wit and learning, at which we laughed so heartily the other day, when talking upon another matter.

In this case, I know there is no truth, that can hurt, and as for bare epithets, or declamation, after I have heard with perfect equanimity all that Mr. Giddings, Mr. Lovejoy, and Mr. Sumner have said about "Slavery,"

* In speaking of Mr. Petigru's imperturbable temper his biographer says:

"At another time he was assailed in the court-yard with the most violent abuse by a turbulent fellow of the village, who lavished on him all the foul epithets and appellations he could remember or invent, of which rogue and scoundrel were among the most moderate. The assaulted party stood unmoved, with a half smile of amusement on his face. At last the noisy bully, having exhausted his ordinary vocabulary of abuse, bethought himself of a term of reproach which, at that day, comprised everything hateful-he called him a damned Federal.' The word was no sooner uttered than a blow, altogether unexpected by the brawler, laid him in the sand. He became as quiet as a lamb, and moved away without a comment. But an old gentleman present, Mr. William Hutson, one of the remains of the defunct Federal party, thought the proceeding a sort of imputation on his old creed. 'How is this,' he said to Petigru, 'you seem to think it a greater offence to be called a Federalist than to be called a rogue or rascal ?' 'Certainly,' was the reply; 'I incur no injury from being abused as a rogue, for nobody believes the charge; but I may be thought a Federalist readily enough, and be proscribed accordingly, and so I knocked the man down by way of protest against all current misconstructions.' ”—Grayson's Memoir of Jumes Louis Petigru, p. 83.

"the Slave Power," the "Slavery Oligarchy," the "Slave Driver," etc., I can promise you, in advance, that nothing that our friend, the Judge, here can say upon these subjects, or any other within the range of our conversations will ruffle me in the least. I give him full latitude to speak with perfect freedom and liberty.

MAJOR HEISTER. Well, Judge, let us hear from you. I am anxious to know what our defence against these statements of Mr. Stephens is; for he seems to me, to be candid with you, to be putting us clearly in the wrong.

JUDGE BYNUM. Well, as the subject is a long one, and may lead us into new fields, perhaps we may as well adjourn it until to-morrow.

Mean

MR. STEPHENS. This is quite agreeable to me. time, Judge, my library is at your service, if you wish to hunt up any documents or other matters to sustain you. If you have any desire to indulge in the arguments ad hominem, you will find a volume of my speeches, compiled by Cleveland, containing all the speeches of importance I made while I was in Congress, and nearly all of importance I ever made. That, as well as any thing else I can command, is at your service. If it is agreeable, we will now adjourn for the present, and the rest of us will take a drive to the old Homestead, my birth-place, about two miles off. This excursion will not only afford us some relaxation, but topics, perhaps, of a more pleasant character.

COLLOQUY XIV.

A NEW TURN IN THE DISCUSSION-NORTHERN STATES DEFENDED BY JUDGE BYNUM-SLAVERY WITH ITS AGGRESSIONS REVIEWED BY HIM-THREEFIFTHS' CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION-MISSOURI COMPACT-ITS REPEAL -ACQUISITION OF LOUISIANA, FLORIDA AND TEXAS-LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA IMPRISONING NORTHERN SEAMEN-TREATMENT OF MR. HOAR IN CHARLESTON-JUDGE CHASE'S PROPOSITION-SECESSION A CONSPIRACY TO

OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT-CONCOCTED AT WASHINGTON-DEFENCE OF NORTHERN STATES REPLIED TO BY MR. STEPHENS AT LENGTH-LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA VINDICATED-THREE-FIFTHS' CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION REVIEWED-CAUSES ASSIGNED BY CONVENTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA FOR SECEDING-CAUSES FOR SECESSION ASSIGNED BY MR. TOOMBS IN UNITED STATES SENATE.

MAJOR HEISTER. Well, Judge Bynum, how it is with the others present, I do not know; but as for myself, I confess, I am rather impatient to hear what you have to say in defence of those Northern States, against which Mr. Stephens has brought so serious a charge. Is it true that any of them did so disregard their obligations under the Constitution, and prove themselves so faithless, to the Compact, as by their breach of it, to release the Seceding States from their obligations under it? This is about the substance of his position, as I understand it. How is the fact? What say you?

JUDGE BYNUM. In reply to your question, as well as in reply to all that Mr. Stephens has said on this subject, I have a great deal to say: much more than can be said by me under present circumstances. As Mr. Stephens remarked in reference to himself, I can here repeat that a volume might be filled with what I could say upon the

54