at twenty minutes past four o'clock, P. M., on
the 17th day of April, 1861.
The PRESIDENT. It was afterwards submit-
ted to the people.
Mr. PUGH. Yes, I know that. But it is a
misnomer to say that it was submitted to the
people. It never was really submitted to the
people. I know something of that.
The PRESIDENT. They actually voted by it.
Mr. PUGH. But in such a way as, in my es-
timation, to amount to no vote at all.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. How does
the gentleman know that? He had skedad-
dled by that time.
Mr. PUGH, I was a citizen of Maryland at
that time; but through my business inter-
course with the State I knew all about these
matters. I was in Virginia two or three times
In March, 1861, and I was also there in April.
In March I was in Hampshire county, in the
western part of Virginia. I was perfectly
well acquainted with several members of the
Virginia convention. I also knew some of
the members of the State senate of Virginia at
that time, and I was tolerably well posted in
regard to these proceedings, and in regard to
the election also, I therefore suggest that the
17th of April, 1861, is, in my opinion, the
time at which Virginia really seceded from
the Union, it being the date of the passage of
the ordinance of secession by the State conven-
tion.
Mr. MILLER. It would he entirely proper
that the date should be fixed at some time
when communication between Maryland and
Virginia was prohibited by the President, or
some other legal authority; because many
persons may have gone into Virginia, and
within their military lines, before communi-
cation was prohibited by law, with no inten-
tion of joining their army. But this might
deprive a great many who were entitled to
vote, of the privilege of voting under this sec-
tion.
Mr, PUGH. I will offer the amendment ]
indicated, to fill the blank with the words
"seventeenth of April in the year 1861."
And I must urge it upon the consideration of
the convention for several reasons. At the very
time the State convention of Virginia was in
session at Richmond, the State of Virginia, so
far as the rebel portion of it was concerned
was out of the Union, and they were organ-
izing to resort to arms. They were organ-
izing in Hampshire county previous to that
a company was attempted to be formed, and
I believe was actually formed in the town of
Romney, to go to Harper's Ferry and seize
the United States arsenal there. All the rebel
lions portion of the people of Virginia were
at that time actually organizing war against
the United States. And there was then, to a
greater or less extent, an exodus from the
State of Maryland of sympathizers with this
rebellion, going to Virginia to aid the move-ment
|
Another reason why I must insist upon my
proposition is that if we do not go back to
that period, we certainly will not cover the
ground sought to be covered by the gentle-
man from Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling.) I
am informed by the gentleman from Carroll
(Mr. Ecker,) that he knew as early as May
that many citizens of Maryland went into
Virginia for the purpose of taking up arms
against the government of the United States.
At the time this vote was taken in the con-
vention in the city of Richmond, one of the
members of the convention, Alfred Barbour,
was engaged in the work of betraying his
trust as United States armorer at Harper's
Ferry, and without any authority stole the
arms and burned the property of the United
States located there.
The people whom we propose to disfran-
chise by this section are the people who di-
rectly or indirectly at that early day had com-
menced to take up arms against the govern-
ment of the United States even with State au-
thority. There was organized war, to a
greater or less extent, against the government
of the United States, in many parts of the
United States, not sanctioned by any se-
cession ordinance. And it is proposed that
this restriction shall apply to those people
And it is because those people must be reached
by this section that I insist upon the time be-
ing fixed not at a later period than April 17
1861.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. I would
suggest that, by fixing the time anterior to
the President's proclamation of amnesty, the
State of Maryland might get herself into dif
ficultv with the government of the United
States. That proclamation went on to say
that all who had been in armed rebellion
against the government of the United State
should be pardoned if they came in and took
the oath.
Mr. EDELEN. All except officers above a cer
tain grade,
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's, Yes, sir
That proclamation was issued, I think, in
October, 1863. Gentlemen should take that
matter into consideration. We wash oil
hands of all responsibility for this wild course
that gentlemen are pursuing here. They
should have the whole responsibility for it
All I say about it is simply in the way of
suggestion: if gentlemen choose to take the
responsibility they may, and take the whole
of it.
Mr. DAVIS, of Charles. We have adopted
a bill of rights in which we have declared
that no ex poet facto laws ought to be passed
Now I would ask the gentleman from Balti
more city (Mr. Stirling,) as a lawyer whether
or not this is not an ex post facto law? I
therefore, move to fill the blank with "firs
day of January, 1865." lf any one then vio-
lates the law they will know the consequences
and must be prepared to take them. |
