ment. In this Congress proves its just appreciation of our Federal system as conceived by its authors. Madison, in the Federalist says: "The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the Federal government, whilst the latter is no wise essential to the operation or organization Legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be of the former. Without the intervention of the State Legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a just share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases of themselves determine it," &c. "More than a million of brave men have left their homes, and one hundred thousand of them, at least, have laid down their lives to put down the conspirators and lift up the loyal men in whose sacrifice it was designed to sacrifice the Union. To what purpose have our glorious soldiers devoted themselves? To destroy the rights of the true men they went to save, together with the rights of these states of these states consecrated to the Union by memory of the renown that belongs to our history? And on "The consequence of this imposed as a duty what pretext is it that states which fought the on the part of the general government to each battles of our independence-states older than state a guarantee of a republican form of govthe Union, and which labored in its construc-ernment, which supposes a pre-existing govtion, are to be disfranchised of the rights that ernment of the form which is to be guaranteed, Union is pledged to guarantee to them under a and in effecting this guarantee, both Madison Republican form of government as equal in the and Hamilton unite in saying the Union may Confederation? interpose in crushing the dominant majority in a state. Madison thus touches this point: "Congress is to take to itself parliamentary powers-disfranchise certain states, declare others to be mere territories, having no government, and this because 'there are in those states no local functionaries bound by constitutional oaths,' so that in fact there are no constitutional functionaries, and since the state government is necessarily composed of such functionaries, there can be no state government. And what fatal results come upon the states from the want of local functionaries bound by constitutional oaths. Therefore, 'no constitutional functionaries! Therefore, 'no state governments.' And, finally, the want of 'local functionaries bound by constitutional oaths' extinguishes the states in one-third of the Union, and their destiny is sealed with this pronunciamento-'the whole broad rebel region is tabula rasa, or a clean slate, where Congress, under the constitution, may write the laws.' "It is strange that a party bases such immense power on such an immaterial fact that it might be mistaken as to the existence of the fact. The states involved in insurrection have multitudes of magistrates, state and United States Judges, and other sworn functionaries, ready to resume their functions the moment the rebel military duress is removed, and the whole machinery of the state governments will be put in motion by the election of representatives and all civil officers as soon as the military power of the Union has accomplished its duties. In the meantime, are not the state governments in the hands of their appropriate functionaries, bound by constitutional oaths, when the army of the nation is in their midst? Then our army and its officers are at this instant executing in all the states proposed to be disfranchised their most appropriate functions in breaking the rebel power and lifting up and invigorating the state authority everywhere. "In this way the most potent recognition the Union can afford is given to the Union. Not only army and navy and President give this recognition, but Congress, in voting men and money to erect this grand retinue, pays its homage to the endangered States, of whose maimed condition the ultra abolitionists would take advantage to reduce to territories and strip them of the rights of republican govern "At first view it might not seem to square with the Republican theory to suppose either that a majority have not the right, or that a minority will have the force to subvert a government, and consequently that the Federal interposition can never be required but when it would be improper. But theoretic reasoning in this as in most cases must be qualified by the lessons of practice. Why may not illicit combinations for purposes of violence be formed as by a majority of a county or district of the same state,and well by a majority of a state, especially in a small state, as if the authority of the state in the latter case to protect the local magistracy, ought not the Federal authority of the state ought in the latter case to protect the former to support the state authority? Besides, there are local magistracy, ought not the Federal authority in the certain parts of state constitutions interwoven with the Federal Constitution that a violent blow cannot be given to the one without communicating the wound to the other," &c. "He asks again: "Is it true that force and right are necessarily on the party possess such a superiority of pecuniary means, of same side in republican governments? May not a minor the military talents and experience, or of secret success from foreign powers, as will render it superior also in an appeal to the sword? May not a more compact and advantageous position turn the scale on the same side against a superior number so situated as to be less capable of a prompt and collected exertion of its strength? Nothing can be more chimerical than to imagine that in a trial of actual force victory may be calculated by the rules which prevail in a census of the inhabitants, or which determine an election." of the Union interposing by force to protect a "Hamilton, in his paper, shows the propriety state government against internal foes, upon of legal autority, can too often crush the opthe score that usurpers, clothed with the forms position in embryo. Against this anticipated danger he points to our happy federation of state governments for safety. He says: "Power being almost always the rival of power, the General Government will at times stand ready to check the usurpation of state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the General Government.The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can invoke the aid of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them, by cherishing the Union, to preserve to themselves an advantage which cannot be too highly prized.' "And yet the abolitionists would begin the work of demolishing this system, by disfranchising one throwing out one-third of the states at the very moment the Union is working out the salvation of the nation in the mode prescribed in its charter "The abolition manifesto protests against "The instant restoration of the old state governments in all their parts through the agency of loyal citizens, who, meanwhile, must be protected in this work of restoration." And why may not the loyal citizens perform this most esential and patriotic duty? "Because," adds the paper, "it attributes to the loyal citizens of a rebel state, however few in numbers-it may be an insignificant minority-a power clearly inconsistent with the received principle of popular government, that the majority must rule. The seven votes of old Sarum were allowed to retun two members to Parliament, because this place, once a Roman fort, and afterwards a sheep walk, many generations before, at the early casting of the House of Commons, had been entitled to this representation; but the argument for state rights assumes that all these rights may be lodged in voters as few as ever controlled a rotten borough in England." "The argument of Madison, which I have already quoted, indicates the principle of the Constitution which sends the masses of the United States into a state to assert the rights of a loyal minority over an usurping majority there. But the sneer at the loyalty of the South in the suggestion of Old Sarum is unjust. Notwithstanding the conspiracy at work in secret societies and in public bodies throughout the United States to undermine the loyalty of the South for thirty years; notwithstanding two Northern Presidents joined this conspiracythe one wielding the powers of the Federal Government to add Kansas as a state to reinforce it, and the other sending the navy into distant seas to give it security, and the army into the remote West, to be surrendered, with all the posts, forts, navy-yards, mints, munitions of war, custom-houses, national edifices, and wealth of all sorts-thus, in effect, making the nation itself an ally of treason, notwithstanding the President of the United States thus betrayed the states of the South into the hands of the conspirators with the means of the nation to strengthen them in the possession of the governments they usurped; the President declaring by message to Congress, that they could not be coerced, still the traitors could not bring a majority of the voters to the polls in any of the states but South Carolina to countenance the usurpation. "In Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Maryland and Virginia, a majority voted against secession, in defiance both of the lurking armed conspirators who pervaded the whole South to control its will, and the insulting taunts of the Abolitionists, who now wish to disfranchise them-to 'let them go.' Does it become any party in this country, pretending fealty to republican government, to sneer at a loyalty which has passed through such an ordeal, and which still bears up under the cruelty of an armed tyranny, which has improved on its experience in the school of slavery-treating the loyal men of the South worse than slaves? "I turn from the abolition programme to that which is presented by President Lincoln. The issue is made; we must choose one or the other. His plan is simple. He would dishabilitate the rebels and their usurpation called a Confederacy of the States, and rehabilitate the loyal men and their States and republican governments. To do this he must break the power of the conspirators; crush or expel them from the region of the insurrection, restoring in the persons of loyal citizens within the confines of their respective states the republican governments which now have their administration committed to our loyal armies and loyal citizens who have their protection. As soon as this protection is needless, the state governments resume their functions under officers chosen by citizens who have been true to it, and by such others as may be comprehended in an amnesty, and who have given in a sincere adhesion to it and the government of the Union and the measures taken in its maintenance. "Missouri, whose Governor, Legislature and Judicial officers betrayed her, expelled her faithless representatives with the aid of the Federal government, and filled their places with loyal men, abolishing slavery as an earnest of her abhorrence of the means and the ends for which the conspirators against the Union labored. Kentucky, temporarily paralyzed by the treachery of her Governor, was soon put right by the people when furnished with arms by the government, carried to them by the lamented and gallant Nelson. In Maryland the attempt to turn her over to the rebels was crushed by the arrest of treasonable legislators. Virginia was overwhelmed for a time; but Western Virginia, being delivered from the armed brigands, called a convention, elected a Legislature for the whole state (the greater part of it being still held by the rebels), was recognized as the law making power of the whole state, as such divided the state and set up a new state in the west. "This exemplifies the President's mode of saving the Union. He saves the States, putting the powers of the government as soon as they are redeemed into the hands of loyal men, and then the State resumes its place in the councils of the nation with all its attributes and rights. He has signified his purpose of inviting Tennessee and Louisiana-now in preparation-to follow these examples, and every other State, as soon as it can be rescued from the rebel armies, will be aided to come in and reintegrate the grand family of republics. "Now, what is the pretext for abandoning this safe and healing policy of the President? So far it has worked well, and secured the approbation of all well-wishers of the country.The abolition programme shows somewhat of the motive for converting states into rerritories, and carrying them back into colonial bondage, to take law from Congress without representation. The reasons assigned: "'Slavery,' says the programme, 'is impossible within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.' "For many years I have had this conviction, and have constantly maintained it. I am glad to believe that it is impossible, if not expressed in the Chicago platform. Mr. Chase, among our public men, is known to accept it sincerely. Thus, slavery in the territories is unconstitutional; but if the rebel territory falls under the once. exclusive jurisdiction of the national government, then slavery is impossible there. In a legal and constitutional sense, it will die at The air will be too pure for a slave. I cannot doubt but that this great triumph has been already won. The moment that the states fell, slavery fell also, so that without any proclamation of the President, slavery had ceased to have a legal or constitutional existence in every rebel state. "It is manifest now that the President must steer his course through the strong conflicting tides of two revolutionary movements-that of the nullifiers, to destroy the Union and set up a Southern Confederacy, and that of the ultra abolitionists, which has set in to dischanfrize the South on the pretext of making secure the emancipation of the slaves. The attempt of the nullifiers is rebuked from the cannon's mouth, and the proposal of France to secure their object for her friendly mediation is put aside by the President telling the Emperor that he will confer with the rebels through no indirect medium; that Senators and Represen "In concert with the elaborate article in the Atlantic Monthly, a department organ, the Chronicle, at Washington, strikes the key note of state annihilation, in a leading editorial: "There is (says this print) a conflict of authorities-oftatives in Congress coming from the Southern State and Federal authorities--and it is clear that one or the other must be annihilated. If the State succeeds, the Federal authority is gone forever; nothing can restore it; not even the State itself which destroyed it; for in this case the Federal authority would become subordinate to the State authority, and be no government at all. For the same reason, if the Federal authority prevails, and succeeds in putting down the rebellious states, must the authority be destroyed." And then the case is put of the present conflict: "in which several states combine against their common Federal Government. "Here the power to be overcome is not only greater, but, in a moral point of view, far more dangerous to the Federal government. Hence when such a rebellion is subdued, it is not only necessary to destroy the treasonable element in such rebellious state, but also the power which these states had to combine against the Federal authority," &c. "In conjunction with these movements at Washington and Boston to annihilate the state governments which preceded and helped to create that of the nation itself, the coadjutors of Presidential schemers in St. Louis and throughout Missouri are endeavoring to throw that state into the cauldron of revolution, that it, too, may be annihilated or declared vacated as one or the other of the counts of "state suicide," "state forfeiture," "state abdication," the "tabula rasa" or clean slate on which Congress may write the laws it pleases. "Does not the extreme anxiety evinced in certain quarters in these forces, efforts to prevent the states dropped out of the Union by conspirators from returning under the auspices of the President, the patriotic army of the Republic, and the loyal citizens who would, through them maintain their own and the rights of the states in question indicate something of a design to command a great event in prospect by revolutionary measures. Is a ban upon one-third of the states, marking them for exclusion from the Union, when treason is defeated and the traitors expelled, as just, as wise, as constitutional, as likely to end the troubles of the country, as that marked out and pursued by the President? . States, and bringing with them an earnest of returning loyalty, will be met as equals and admitted to the councils that are to dispose of the destiny of the nation. "Alterations in its laws must be made by Congress; changes in the constitution by delegations in convention from all the states, according to the terms of that instrument. This is the final response of the President to the rebels and to the French Emperor. To the revolutionary demand for the disfranchisement of the southern states, the President's reply from his first message to the last, and all his published letters, has been uniform. It is couched in the words I read you from his proclama tion: "The Executive will in due time recommend that all citizens of the United States who have remained loyal thereto throughout the rebellion shall, upon the restoraration of relations between the United States and the people, if that relation shall have been suspended or disStates, including the loss of slaves." turbed, be compensated for all losses by acts of the United "The issues are thus made up between the President and the rebels and their foreign ernment to create a separate government in the sympathizers, who would revolutionize our govSouth, on the one hand, and on the other hand ists, who would disfranchise the southern secbetween the President and the ultra abolitionthe latter, though aiming at a different result, tion of our country. It is not improbable that will be found co-operating in the end with con spirators of the South and their foreign allies. They may prefer parting with the South to partnership and equality under the constitution." CHAPTER XXVII. CONFISCATION-VIOLATION OF THE interference with it. This bill proposes to liberate 3,000,000 of slaves-truly the most treCONSTITU-mendous strike for universal emancipation ever attempted in the world. Indeed. I think it is to be the effect of this upon the war? Shall virtually liberates the whole 4,000,000. What we be stronger, or shall we find that we have only doubled the number of these men in arms against us? They now have no cause for rebellion. Will not this furnish them one? [That was precisely what the Radicals were driving at.] Let the loyal men of that section who know them, answer this question. I will abide the answer. The Confiscation Scheme...The Constitution Ignored... Testimony of Senator Cov an... Political Extremes Compared...Postmaster General Blair on Secessionists and Abolitionists...Comments of "National Intelligencer" ...Senator Doolittle on Colonization and Emancipation... The Three "Solutions": Of Calhoun, John Brown, (the same as Radicals), and Jefferson...Doolittle on Confiscation... Also, on Same and Abolition Denunciations of the "Government"...A Republican Journal on Senator Doolittle. THE CONFISCATION SCHEME. We will not offer opinions of our own on this subject, but will be content to favor the reader with a few gems from Republican sources. Hon. Mr. COWAN, a Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, made a speech in the Senate on the Confiscation bill, on the 4th of March, 1862. We give his remarks at great length, not fearing to be called "traitor," for wẹ quote from one who votes the Republican ticket: "I submit again that no deliberative Assembly ever before sat in judgment on so stupendous an issue. Yes, as if to blind us still more, this bill has a proposition of still greater difficulty; that is, to take these millions and transfer them to some tropical clime, and to to protect them there with all the rights and guarties of freemen. I find this all provided for in a single section, and a single section of nine lines! Truly, we must recently have tical facts and set down in the romantic retransported ourselves from the domain of pracgions of Eastern fiction Do the advocates of the measure propose to confer upon the President the gold-making touch of Midas? Nothing short of the ring and lamp of Alladin, "This bill proposes to go forward and strip with their attendant genii, would insure the the whole population of the South of their success of such a scheme, unless it is believed property, and reduce them to poverty-and that the Treasury note [greenbacks] possesses while yet 400,000 of them have arms in their this power. And even under that supposition, hands. If there is anything calculated to make I think the owners of these Southern climes, that entire people our enemies always, it will and the transportation companies, ought to be be the promulgation of such an act as this.-consulted in regard to the legal tender clause. Will they yield to us any sooner in view of such a destruction? What would we ourselves do under any such circumstances? I need hardly ask that question of men who have descended from sires who refused to pay a paltry tax on tea, and from grandsires who raised a revolution rather than pay twenty shillings ship money-that I think was the amount demanded from Hampden-a revolution which cost King Charles' head. No such sweeping measure as this has ever been enacted, even in the days of William the Conqueror. The proud Norman and his barons were content with the fiefs and castles of the Saxon leaders. They did not dare to strip the people of their property, nor even much increase their burdens. They knew that, victorious as they were, they would have involved themselves in a far more dangerous struggle, in which every peasant would have been a principal combattant The English in their contest with, and bills of attainder against, the Irish never attempted to touch the possessions of the common peoplebut only the property of the nobles. This bill goes farther, and attempts to confiscate another species of property which cannot be put into the coffers of the conqueror. I mean the property of slaves. I dont intend to stop to discuss the question of property of this kind. It is enough for me to say that all the South seem to agree as to the kind of property with wonderful unanimity, and to resent any *. * * Then, again, there is a fourth consideration in this bill, and one of still greater moment, which is, that it is in direct conflict with the constitution of the United States, requiring of us, if we pass it, to set aside and ignore that instrument in its most valuable and fundamental provisions-those which guarantee the life and property of the citizen, and those which define the limits and boundaries of the several Departments of this Government. Pass this bill, and all that is left of the constitution is not worth much-certainly not worth this terrible war, which we are now waging for it-for be it remembered that this war is waged solely for the preservation of the constitution. [Mr. Cowan must be a Republican copperhead.] I am aware that some think that the Constitution is a restraint upon the conduct of this war, which they suppose could be carried on a great deal better without it. I have no hesitation in saying that no greater mistake has ever been made anywhere, than is made by such people. I am afraid it will amount to a confession that they have not carefully examined the full scope of its provisions. The greatest danger is, that these propositions, at the first glance, seem probable, and even plausible. They are not the rolling breakers which every one may see, but the sunken rocks, which are all the more dangerous, because they are hidden. Therefore I am opposed to this bill, and I will proceed to give my reasons, and show, if I can, why I think that in its main provisions, it is, persons placed back-to-back at the North Pole, unnecessary, impolitic, inexpedient,and, I may and walking in apparently opposite directions, add, utterly and totally useless, and I think I can show that the Government has all the pow- yet both are going due South. But, we will er under the Constitution which is necessary let Post Master General BLAIR give his views, to put down this rebellion, and punish the reb- which link these two factions with the Southels, and that there is not, in reality, any neern secession extreme, forming a most baneful cessity for straining any of its provisions in trinity. any way." Mr. COWAN then goes into a lengthy disquisition, both able and conclusive, to show that the confiscation bill was a clear violation of the Constitution, and that it would weaken, instead of strengthen our cause. We regret that our space will not admit the whole of this able, conservative speech, but we have given enough to show the drift of the honorable Senator's argument. We know that with a certain class of radical disunionists it is useless to talk about the Constitution. One might as well attempt to whistle down a whirlwind,, The radicals are mad. | Flushed with power and gorged with spoils, they are determined to break up the Union. It is; in fact, broken up, and never can be restored, except by and through the conservative element of the country. If they continue in power, all such conservative Republicans as Senator COWAN must be jostled aside, to make room for some "first rate second rate" demagogue. Alas, our Constitution is no more. Its demise has been predicted and pronounced by the ablest men that belong to the reigning traitorous dynasty. POLITICAL EXTREMES COMPARED. Metaphors are sometimes very useful in illustrating ideas, causes and effects. The Republican politician sometimes feels insulted if you call him an Abolitionist, though that reticence is now wearing off, since leading Republicans (Gov. Stone, of Iowa, for e..g.) admit this is "an Abolition war." But, as the Republicans and Abolitionists have acted together and voted together since 1854, and all now pursue the policy and dogmas that distinguished the Abolisionists years ago, we feel justified in using the metaphor of Col. BENTON, who said that the Abolitionists and Republicans were like a pair of shears, working on a common fulcrum, to cut the Union in twain. Doesticks, or some other humorous writer, says there is no more difference between a Republican and an Abolitionist than there is between two links of sausages, made from the same dog! They may also be likened to two In Mr. BLAIR's speech at Concord, New Hampshire, he said: "There are two knots of conspiring politicians at opposite ends of the Union that make slavery a fulcrum on which they would-play see-saw with the Government, and willingly break it in the middle and demolish it to make experiments with the factions in reconstrucknown as hostile to the well-balanced Constitions suited to their designs, which are only tutions inherited by our fathers. The Calhoun and Wendell Phillips Juntos have both sought the accomplishment of their adverse ends by a common means-the overthrow of the Constitution. Calhoun's school would destroy every free principle, because repugnant to the perpetuity and propagation of slavery universally as the only safe foundation of good government-Phillips's school would subject all our systems of goverment to the guillotine of revolutionary tribunals, because they recognise the existence of different races among us, of white, red, and black; because they repudiate the idea of equality and fraternity in regard to citizenship that tends to produce that amalgamation, personal and political, which would make our Government one of mongrel races; and because they authorize legislation, state and national, which may exclude them from taking root in the soil and government of the country. The white man has excluded the Indian race from dominion on this continent, its native-born original inheritor; the African was introduced on it, not as its owner or to give it law, but to be owned and receive law; and under this aspect the white man, as a conqueror, has accommodated the constitutions of the country to his own condition-that of the ruling race. The ground which Wendell Phillips and his followers take is not merely to alter the law and enfranchise the races held under it as inferior to that holding the dominion by right of conquest, but to abolish the constitutions which recognise that right as established, and admit to equal participation those races hitherto excluded as inferiors." After remarking, says the National Intelligencer, that the Free States of the North exclude the manumitted slaves from their soil, avowing the abhorrent feeling of caste as an insuperable bar to the association on any terms, much less of equality, Mr. Blair asks how it can be expected that the people of the Southern States will acquiesce in arrangements which proceed on the assumption that this excommunicated race, surrendered by them as |