cept by the practice of that mildness which cares for and does not curse the people? When Athens undertook to succor Mitylene from the Persian grasp, a confederacy was formed between them. Athens used her power despotically. Mitylene revolted. Athens regrasped her. Perfidy began. Destructive malignants-the Jacobins of that day, led by Cleon-instigated Athens to doom the citizens of Mitylene to death, their women to servitude, and their lands to desolation. But another and a better party arose, who strove to assuage grievances, prevent rebellion, and save the honor and unity of the Republic. "When all hopes of success have vanished," said one of the wiser orators, "your rebellious subjects will never be persuaded to return to their duty; they will seek death in the field rather than await it from the hand of the executioner. Gathering courage from despair, they will either repel your assaults or fall a useless prey." Wisdom prevailed, and the glory of the Grecian States remained untarnished.

But a more conspicuous analogy to our own revolution is to be found in the Marsian war of Rome. The Marsians claimed the privileges of Rome, whose empire they had enlarged and supported by their arms. They were the bravest soldiers of the empire, but they were denied equal rights in the State, which had been raised to eminence by their prowess. This war consumed above 300,000 of the youth of Italy. Finally, Rome conquered by recruiting her strength from the " Border States," to whom she communicated her privileges. The only thing, says the historian, which saved Rome, was the fact that the Latin colonies remained faithful; for immediately after the commencement of the war, the Romans made up their minds to reward them with all the rights of Roman citizens. This decree is called the lex Julia. These allies were won by something more than amnesty of hate. The grandest empire of the past was rescued from internal feuds by the wise moderation of its statesmen.

When again Rome was racked by civil war, the wisest statesman of that turbulent and ambitious era, Cicero, summed up the duty of the patriot in this sentiment, which we might ponder with profit:

"I shall willingly adopt your advice and show every lenity, and use my endeavors to conciliate Pompey. Let us try it; by these means, we can regain the affections of all people, and render our victory lasting. Let this be a new method of conquering, to fortify ourselves with kindness and liberality."

The closest analogy to our condition is to be found in the English civil war beginning in 1640. The English people are our ancestors. They had what we have, a similar code of personal freedom, great municipal independence, and a popular Parliament. The causes of the war were complicated by religious controversy; but the questions involved concerning the royal prerogative and the popular privilege are closely allied to our struggle. We know how the first Charles lost his head; how Cromwell's iron hand rescued, for a time, England from anarchy. At his death,eleven military governments, under Major Generals, like Monk, held almost absolute sway. The three nations were represented in one Parliament, which, on Cromwell's death, had been dissolved for indocility. Conspirators had been punished with death. Confiscations were common. Yet a counter revolution began. Terror began it. Cromwell's grasp was relaxed. His son, wiser than most men in power, convoked a Parliament.

The army

still reigned. It had been corrupted by power. The result of intrigues for the general safety was a union of the Royalist and Presbyterian. But before the old authority of the Stuarts could be restored, one element was wanting. It was supplied. Party vengeance was rampant then as now, but the people's representatives considered that they had to decide between a new civil war and a restoration. The latter was represented as clement, unexacting, prudent, and determined to adapt itself to the manners and wants of the time. Then came the famous declaration of Charles II. from Breda. It removed all hesitation, and the restoration began. The King in that paper declared that he desired to compose the distraction and confusion of his kingdom, to assume his ancient rights, and to accord to them their ancient liberties, without further "blood-letting." He therefore granted an amnesty to all who would return to their obedience. He gave his kingly word that "no crime whatsoever committed against us or our royal father shall ever rise in judgment to the least endamagement of them, either in their lives, liberties, or estates; we desiring and ordaining that henceforward all notes of discord, separation, and difference of parties be abolished." He conjured them to a PERFECT UNION for the resettlement of all rights, under a free parliament. When this declaration was read in parliament, though it was the false word of a designing tyrant, yet the restoration of the second Charles was voted by acclamation! It was alleged that the declaration not only comprehended the motives but the conditions of the recall. Perhaps the people's representatives were precipitate in not first settling conditions by a "free parliament." But the amnesty and declaration were none the less powerful. Nor would the same sort of declaration from Abraham Lincoln be less powerful to restore the sovereign States to their old allegiance, especially if followed by a National Convention and the restoration of a party not unfriendly to the entire union of all the States, with their "just rights." No distrust followed this declaration of the English king. He came to England. His journey to London was one perpetual fête-one continued shout of rejoicing! Faction ceased. History records that Cavaliers were reconciled with Roundheads. Exiles showed no resentment in the joy of their reA violent reaction against revolution began; war ceased; and the foundation was then laid for the permanent stability which 1688 gave to England.

turn.

On the contrary, what a lesson may we learn from the connection of Ireland and England, and the policy of the latter in striving to subjugate the former! From the time of the first and second Charles-under all rules-discontent and warfare has prevailed. The union purchased through perfidy and fraud, by appeals to the mercenary motives of men, has been a mockery. When Strafford ruled Ireland, he placed his captains and officers as burgesses in Parliament, who "swayed between the two parties," and thus began the corruption which ended in Irish subjugation. In spite of the eloquence of Grattan and Plunkett, Ireland at length became a dependency of the British crown. True, she had been despoiled before the union. From the time when the Puritans overran Ireland to exterminate and destroy, sending thousands into tropical slavery, and many thousands into that other country where crime breeds no more of its offspring, down to the first of January, sixty-two years ago,

when the imperial standard, floating from Dublin Castle, announced to Ireland the depth of her degradation, and from that period to the present, there has been no union, no peace, no justice, no content for Ireland. That union, thus misbegotten of force and fraud, was weakness to England and ruin to Ireland. In one rebellion alone, that of 1798, there were 20,000 loyal lives lost, and 50,000 insurgents, and property worth $15,000,000. A conspiracy here, a plot there, a rebellion at the capital, a rising at the extremities, public waste, private impoverishment, general corruption, periodical starvation, political turpitude, and national bankruptcy-these are the features of national thraldom which Ireland presents for our warning, when we talk of subjugation and confiscation. How much better would it have been for both countries, had the sagacious advice of Sydney Smith been followed, when he said:

"How easy it is to shed human blood; how easy it is to persuade ourselves that it is our duty to do so, and that the decision has cost us a severe struggle; how much, in all ages, have wounds, and shriel:s, and tears been the cheap and vulgar resources of the rulers of mankind. The vigor I love consists in finding out wherein subjects are ag grieved, in relieving them, in studying the temper and genius of a people, in consulting their prejudices, in selecting proper persons to lead and manage them in the laborious, watchful, and difficult task of increasing public happiness by allaying each particular discontent."

The wiser statesmen of England once learned this lesson. They strove to apply it to America in the revolution of 1776. Every argument in favor of an unrelenting and exterminating policy by the British ministry was used and acted upon. In vain Chatham, Barré, and Burke appealed. Chatham, though provoked at our contumacy, as we are provoked at the conduct of the South, still felt that provocation could no longer be treated as such when it came from one united province, and when it was supported by eleven provinces more. Accordingly, in February, 1775, he introduced a bill, whose conclusion was: "So shall true reconcilement avert impending calamity." We know the sequel; but do we heed the teaching? When in 1860 our wiser men strove to avert calamities by true reconciliation, who prevented? Who yet stand in the path of reconciliation, with flaming two-edged sword, barring all ingress to the blessings of peace? Who clamor yet for a dictatorial régime? Who shout for death penalties, outlawries, forfeitures, and all the barbarous schemes of vulgar despotism? Or who, on the other hand, still hope for victory without reprisals; success without the tarnish or breach of the Constitution; equality of rights, without irresponsible tyranny; free opinions freely expressed--the only reward which a Union restored can grant, worthy of the great sacrifices which the noble soldiers of the Republic have made!

Let us have done with juggling amnesties and ambitious schemes, with philanthropic ferocity and enforced elections. Under no such policy, pitched in the key-note of the President's proclamation, or chanted in the mellifluous tones of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. DAVIS], can the South ever be held in honorable alliance and harmony. A Government inspired thus would be out of all relations to the States of this Union. It would have neither "the nerves of sensation which convey intelligence to the intellect of the body politic, nor the ligaments and muscles which hold

its parts together and move them in harmony." It would be as Russia is to Poland, as England to Ireland, the government of one people by another. It would never succeed with our race. It would never succeed with a territory whose configurations are so peculiar and whose interests are so varied as ours.

No citizenship is worth granting to those who dishonor themselves to receive it. No common bond of allegiance or nationality is possible on such terms. Mean and degrading conditions which unfit the citizen for manly equality are more despicable than rebellion. You cannot expel the poison of sedition by adding to its virulence. You cannot draw men from crime by stimulating the motive which led to it. Not thus-not thus were the early insurrections in our country assuaged. True, these rebellions were pigmies to this gigantic outbreak, but the principle of their settlement is eternal. It is the very gospel of God; the very love which saves mankind. Inspired thus, what might be done if a wise and sagacious Executive should extend the same beneficent policy to the factions which are bleeding our beloved land!

Will our rulers heed these lessons in time? While they return to the purpose of the war, as declared by General McClellan, for the sole great object of the restoration of the unity of the nation, the preservation of the Constitution, and the supremacy of the laws; and while they conduct it, as he declared it should be carried on, in consonance with the principles of humanity and civilization, abjuring all desire of conquest, all projects of revenge, and all schemes of mock philanthropy, let them remember, also, that all our labors to rebuild the old fabric will fail, unless out of the "brotherly dissimilitudes" of section and interest, we evoke the spirit of fraternity, which has its true similitude in the perfect spirit of Christian fellowship!

Pursuing such a course, we may, like the fugitive prophet upon Mount Horeb, approach and interrogate DEITY itself in our despondency and for our deliverance. And though, like him, we may hear the roar of the wave and the whirlwind of war, though we may tremble amidst the earthquake of its wrath, and though God may not be in the storm, the wind, or the earthquake; yet we may find Him in the still, small voice-sweet, clear, electric,

"Speaking of peace, speaking of love,
Speaking as angels speak above,"

whose depth and sweetness are not those of tempestuous force or elemental strife, but soft as an angel's lute, or a seraph's song, promising redress for wrong and deliverance from calamity. Horeb stands as a monumental lesson to our rulers forever, for it stands amidst the shadows of Sinaispeaking the still, small voice of divine conciliation, amidst the thunders of the law and the forces of physical nature! I wait for that voice to be spoken. My soul waiteth for it "more than they that watch for the morning; I say, more than they that watch for the MORNING!"

VII.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY,

NATIONAL CONVENTION-AMENDMENTS BY VIRTUE OF STATE RIGHTSMADISON, HAMILTON, AND CALHOUN CITED HISTORY OF THE CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION-JUDGE STORY'S OPINION-IRREVOCABLE LAWS-USE OF THE POWER TO AMEND AS COMPROMISES IN 1860-CHECKS AGAINST THE ABUSE OF THE POWER-DANGERS IN TIME OF WAR OF RADICAL CHANGES—INEXPEDIENCY OF THE AMENDMENT.

THE debate on the question of the power to amend the Constitution, so as to abolish slavery, was unusually interesting. It was so, because there was a direct issue, which gave no room for discursive discussion. It illustrated, moreover, what is seldom shown by Congressional debate, a progress, during the debate, toward correct opinions. Before the debate concluded very few upon either side denied the unlimited power to amend; unlimited, save by the exceptions mentioned, and save by the mode prescribed in the Constitution. This mode is the only safeguard against unwise amendments. It is ample, however, inasmuch as no amendment can be made except by the concurrence of two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the Legislatures of the States. If these be not sufficient guards against unreasonable amendment, what other or better prevention have we against violent revolution?

The part taken by me in the discussion was in some sort compelled: 1st, by a desire to be consistent with my previous votes given in 1860-'61, when amendments concerning slavery were common; and 2d, by a colloquy in which I engaged, where I committed myself to the doctrine above stated. On the 10th of January, 1865, while Mr. KASSON was speaking, Mr. MALLORY asked whether, by an amendment of the Constitution, we could so change the government as to convert it into a monarchy, an aristocracy, or a despotism. Mr. KASSON avoided the question; but with his permission, I answered it by saying: "I carry the Democratic doc