selves and each other would be sufficient. Of
all the speeches delivered here, no two of
them have been alike; no one even completely
consistent with itself. I do not mean in
point of talent or authority; but they have
not been in the same direction, they have not
taught the same doctrine. One gentleman
tells us that there is a sort of mixed alle-
giance; that a part of the allegiance of the
citizen is due to the State Government, and
a part to the United States Government;
but neither is paramount. Another gentle-
man seems to ignore almost entirely the
existence of the United States Government ;
he says that the State governments are su-
preme; though there was a sort of obedience
due for the time being to the United States
Government, it might be withdrawn at any
time.
But my honored friend from Somerset (Mr.
Jones) presented about the rawest specimen of
secession—with all due deference and respect I
make the remark. [Laughter.] He said the
States could assume the rights and powers
granted to the General Government at any
time; that it was a perfect matter of conve-
nience to them. They could remain in the
Union as long as it suited their purposes, and
at any time without a moment's notice, with-
out a word of apology, they could withdraw
their powers from the General Government
and establish themselves into an independent
nation. Indeed the whole debate reminds me
very much of what I see on the restaurant signs
—"Oysters in every style." [Great laughter.]
The Somerset dish I designate as the raw;
[renewed laughter,] the Prince George's dish is
cooked and somewhat seasoned to suit a more
delicate palate, [Continued laughter.] These
remarks apply about the same to all of them ;
there were no two of the speeches alike.
But notwithstanding the great variety of
these speeches, the wide range they took, and
their dissimilarity in many respects; it mat-
tered not what their terms were, nor how
they pursued their theory, they all arrived at
the same result. I do not know exactly what
to call it. I know they most all denounced
anything like secession, and of course, we
have to take them at their word, and I will
not call them secessionists. But if I was up
in Cecil county, I should call them all seces-
sion speeches, for we have a homely way up
there of calling things by their right names ;
and that is what I would call all these speeches
if made up there.
I forgot one gentleman from Somerset, (Mr.
Dennis.) His fury against the administra-
tion and the government was so intense that
he forgot to say whether he was secesh or
not; whether there was any allegiance due
to anybody or not. He was so rampant and
raging at the assumption of military power
or martial law by the General Government,
that he forgot everything else, and did not
exactly state his platform, except that mar- |
tial law was no law, but the absence of all
law; and that we in Maryland were suffering
under the greatest tyranny and oppression
felt anywhere on earth. Now, the very fact
that the gentleman was permitted to utter
such language in this House or anywhere
else under the flag of the United States, proves
the litter falsity of his own assertions.
The doctrine of State rights as taught by
the Prince George's school, or the Somerset
school, is no new doctrine. As early as 1831
and 1832 it was taught in South Carolina,
and attempted to be reduced to practice there.
But it so happened that we had a stubborn
old customer in the Presidential chair—one
Andrew Jackson. [Applause.] He had not
got his education in that school, and if I had
thought of it, before I came over here this
afternoon, I would have brought his procla-
mation along, for it is first-rate reading, and
I think as much to the point as anything that
can be read here He had something to say
about that matter, and inflicted upon it such
a total and overwhelming defeat that since
that time it has not dared to show its face
openly, but has pursued its purposes in a se-
cret and disguised way.
Consequently, we heard of Southern com-
mercial-conventions, in which all the South-
ern States we represented. What they did
behind the curtain the world never knew,
except as it could judge from the develop-
ments made since. Publicly they made great
professions about steamships from New Or-
leans and Mobile, perhaps some other ports,
to Europe; a great anxiety for ocean steam
communication. That was what the world
beard of. But their real purpose was to edu-
cate the Southern mind into the belief that
the State governments were superior to the
General Government; so that whenever the
interests of slavery taught them it was time
to break down the General Government, the
people would be prepared to do it. That
was the simple purpose for which those
Southern commercial conventions were called.
And although the Constitution of the United
States expressly prohibits the States from
sending or receiving ambassadors, yet they
baptized certain individuals " State Commis-
sioners," who went travelling hither and
thither all over the country laying their plans
to break up this government,
And here permit me to say that, notwith-
standing the general expression of loyalty
made by gentlemen here, their opposition to
secession, and their devotion to the country,
which I do not choose to question, there is
one very remarkable coincidence to be no-
ticed. That is, that Burnett, and Breckin-
ridge, and Davis, and Yancey, and Rhett, and
Wigfall, and many other' snow in arms against
the Government of the United States, all made
just such speeches and professions up to the
very hour when they left their seats in Con-
gress to take their places in the ranks of the |
