its foes, I shall attempt, however feebly, to
present a few suggestions to those on whom
this constitution is to operate for good or evil
for weal or woe.
The word "loyal" is being attempted to be
incorporated here so quietly and unobtrusive-
ly, without even otherwise altering the phrase-
ology of the sentence, that were it not for the
antecedents of those who propose this inter-
polation in the present convention, I should
pass it by in silence. But after our experience
for the last three years, and the expressions of
political opinions which debate has elicited in
this hall, it would be criminal ignorance on
our part not to see in, or under, or behind this
word the whole political creed of the consol-
idationists.
I see following in the wake of this mighty
word its suit of oaths, and party judges, and
prison bars, and the suppression of State's
rights.
It is as construed by the self-constituted
dictators in this country, a word of fearful
import to all lovers of constitutional liberty
and republican institutions. With them it
is a suspension of the habeas corpus—a sup-
pression of the trial by jury—a violation of
the sacred obligation of contracts—an entire
abrogation of State lines and State institu-
tions—an entire disregard and irreverent re-
pudiation of the sacred obligations of our
highest judicial tribunals. In a word, it is
the absorption of all the rights and all the
powers of the people by one grand military
despotism. This, sir, this is their meaning
of "loyalty." And yet Thomas Jefferson,
whom gentlemen have so delighted to quote
here on another subject, said, speaking of a
rupture with the general government and for
the general assembly of Virginia—"They
would consider such a rupture as among the
greatest calamities which could befall them,
but not the greatest. There is yet one
greater—submission to a government of un-
limited power,' '
Cherishing as I do the brilliant memories
of our past Union, ardently desiring as I do
a reunion of all the good men of both sec-
tions under a common flag, lean but exclaim
with the elder Napoleon, " Revolutions are
brought about only by injustice." Where
would be the motive for them if governments
were guided solely by the laws of equity ?
All revolutions past and to come must be at-
tributed to injustice; and I defy the most
artful politician to assign any other cause
for them. In the object of the French revo-
lution there was nothing to condemn; all the
mischief consisted in the excesses committed
by misguided men. It is necessary to bear
in mind these two facts lest we should con-
found justice on the one hand and iniquity
on the other.
If this partizan watch-word is to be incor-
porated into the constitution the oaths are a
perfect sequitur. The disqualifications which |
follow aye a part of the political machinery
intended to work out the policy indicated by
this word "loyal."
What is to be the evidence that will estab-
lish loyalty? If a man brings a dozen wit-
nesses, and they all swear that they have
known him intimately from his birth, and
that they never heard him utter a disloyal
sentiment, will that do? Is the partizan
judge instructed to base his decision upon
such evidence as conclusive and to admit the
vote? No, sir; though the man at the polls
could produce a thousand witnesses to prove
his loyalty—though he had done more to se-
cure the interests and promote the welfare of
his country than all the State beside, if he
refuses to take an oath abjuring his political
faith and swearing paramount allegiance to
the Federal government, he is unworthy of
the elective franchise say the advocates of this
proposition—be is not loyal.
Let us here inquire for a moment, what is
the meaning of an oath? The strongest, most
sacred and inviolable test that can be imposed
upon the consciences of men, is that of an
oath. But then no oath can be presumed to
oblige to an unlawful act, or contrary to an
antecedent obligation. 'Tis the height of
impiety to suppose that any man, or any num-
ber of men, should have a power of binding
themselves in the name of God contrary to
the will of God, or, which is the same thing,
to the rules of moral equity. It is a divine
maxim, but incontestably founded in the na-
tural reason of the thing, that an oath is for
confirmation; that is, either 'of such things,
wherein we have an arbitrary power of de-
termining our choice, and may either act or
suspend action; or else concerning such
things, to which we were under a prior obli-
gation, whether we had taken an oath to ob-
serve them or not. Of this nature are all po-
sitive tests of obedience to the civil magistrate
under a legal establishment. They do not
so much create anew, as confirm an antece-
dent obligation to which we had been
bound from the nature and ends of civil gov-
ernment, and the positive laws of it; whether
we had taken any solemn test to that end or
not. But to suppose any oath could be
formed in such a manner as to oblige contrary
either to the law of God or man, is to sup-
pose the greatest solecism in morality imagi-
nable; that men may be obliged, whether by
their own act or the command of others, to
an impossibility. For in moral life, every-
thing is presumed impossible to be done that
cannot lawfully be done.
This is my idea of the nature of an oath.—
Whether I am right or wrong, it is my delib-
erate opinion. Now, sir, if you put your
test of loyalty to me, all I have to say is that
1 shall entertain an abhorrence almost BORDER=0-
ing on contempt for him who would thus
seek to deprive me of the inherent and consti-
tutional right I have to my political opinions. |
