States will remain just the same whether the
revolution succeed or fail. There is not even
a pretext for the complaint that the disaffected
States are to be conquered by the United
States if the revolution fail; for the rights of
the States, and the condition of every human
being in them, will remain subject to exactly
the same laws and forms of administration,
whether the revolution shall succeed or wheth-
er it shall fail. In the one case, the States
would be federally connected with the new
confederacy; in the other, they would as now,
be members of the United States; but their
constitutions and laws, customs, habits, and
institutions in either case will remain the
same.' '
Mr. SANDS. One question right there. If
that was loyalty in 1861, why did not the
whole southern country embrace it ?
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I am not respon-
sible for the southern country. I am a Mary-
lander, a citizen of Maryland, a loyal citizen,
standing by the constitution and the laws of
the United States. I am not apologizing for
any one. I am speaking for no one but our-
selves. I think the experience of the last
three or four years has shown that it is
enough to try to take care of ourselves. I
am speaking of loyalty in the State of Mary-
land; of those who have stood by our law,
and abode by the constitution our fathers
made, and have not gone off to make a new
constitution or to enter into new associations.
But let me go on with this policy :
"It is hardly necessary," continued Mr.
Seward, "to add to this incontestable state-
ment the further fact that the new President, as
well as the citizens through whose suffrages
he came into the administration, has always
repudiated all designs whatever, wherever
imputed to him and them, of disturbing the
system of slavery as it is existing under the
constitution and laws. The case, however,
would not be fully presented if I were to omit to
say that any such effort on his part WOULD BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and all his actions in this
direction would be prevented by the judicial au-
thority, even though they were assented to by
Congress and the people."
Does loyalty stand upon that doctrine to-
day? Does the gentleman place himself up-
on that platform for the coming canvass, as an elector for this State? Will he take this
as constitutional law and the policy of the
State, and plant himself upon it, and call
upon all loyal men to come up and stand by
him on it ?
The President said the other day that no
man might come to him from the South,
bringing a proposition of peace, without first
being authorized to declare that they aban-
doned their system of slavery in the States.
In one of the amendments I propose to offer,
I shall take this very language in the despatch
of Mr. Seward and substitute it for the fol-
lowing words in the amendment: |
"And I do further swear or affirm that I
will to the best of my abilities protect and
defend the Union of the United States, and
not allow the same to be broken up and dis-
solved."
Wendell Phillips announced to Congress
in Washington, in the presence of the Presi-
dent, that had labored for nineteen years
to break up the Union: but it was broken,
and he thanked God it was broken. Is it
not the policy of the government now, and
for some years past has it not been coming
into the idea that the Southern States are
not in the Union, that they are out of the
Union? Is it not the subject of a quarrel
now among those who sustain the President,
or his party? Is not Henry Winter Davis,
and are not others who agree with him,
blaming the President because he wants to al-
low ten righteous men to save a State under
the constitution, because he says that if they
form a republican government and that gov-
ernment is sustained by nine-tenths of the
population, it shall be sufficient? Are not
Wade and Henry Winter Davis insisting, on
the other hand, that according to the princi-
ples of the constitution it ought to require a
majority? And really, I think they have the
best of the argument.
But this oath is: " I will to the best of my
abilities protect and defend the Union of the
United States, and not allow the same to be
broken up and dissolved." By implication
you swear that it is not broken up and dis-
solved. Has not the Union of the United
States been broken up and dissolved? Is
there any Union without a constitution?
The oath says: " I will bear true allegiance
to the United States, and support, protect
and defend the constitution, laws and govern-
ment thereof, as the supreme law of the
land." That is provided for. But that is
not sufficient. You must not only support,
protect and defend the constitution of the
United States, and obey the laws, but you
must go outside of the constitution, and sup-
port, protect and defend the government
of the United States; you must protect and
defend the Union of the United States, and
not allow the same to be broken up. You
must go outside of the constitution and laws
of the country—for that is not enough to
preserve your loyalty—and protect and de-
fend the government of the United States.
Are we to be sworn to do this, when Hon.
Henry Winter Davis, one of the republican
high priests, has denounced the acts of the
President in relation to Arkansas and some
other States as usurpation and violations of
the constitution of the United States, in so
many words, and in express terms ?
Are we to be called upon, without regard
to the constitution, to follow the President,
and to say to the States of the South: " We
will have no Union with you unless you
abandon your customs, your institutions, |
