your laws, "in the very teeth of the Presi-
dent's pledge to European nations in 1861,
that whether the revolution should succeed
or fail the condition of slavery would re-
main the same?
Mr. STIRLING. I wish to say to the gentle-
man that I can hardly recognize my own
proposition under his interpretation, and I
should like to know what part of the oath
that is in,
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. '' I do further
swear or affirm that I will bear true alle-
giance to the State of Maryland, and support
the constitution and laws thereof, and that I
will bear true allegiance to the United States,
and support, protect and defend the consti-
tution, laws, and government thereof, as the
supreme law of the land, any law or ordi-
nance of this or any State to the contrary
notwithstanding; that I have never directly
or indirectly, by word, act or deed given any
aid, comfort or encouragement to those in
rebellion against the United States or the
lawful authorities thereof, but that I have
been truly and loyally on the side of the
United States."
What does that mean ?—"truly and loyally
on the side of the United States? "
Mr STIRLING, it simply means on the
side of the stars and stripes against the stars
and bars; on this side in the war, and not
on the other.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. Then does it
mean anything more than is contemplated in
the former part, in swearing to support the
constitution and laws of the country? The
language does not stop there. It goes fur-
ther and covers the officer of the government,
though you may know he is a violater of the
constitution and a usurper. But that is
not all the gentleman says. The person
taking the oath declares "that I have been
truly and loyally on the side of the United
States against those in armed rebellion against
the United States; 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 dissolved, or the government thereof
to be destroyed under any circumstances,
if in my power to prevent it, and that I will
atall times discountenance e and oppose all
political combinations having for their object
such dissolution or destruction."
I say that if that means anything other
than to support the constitution and the
Union under the constitution, it means a
thing that no citizen is bound to swear to
or to do, I presume, having already sworn
to support the constitution and the laws
this is an additional obligation; that it is
not considered sufficient to support the con
stitution and the laws of the United States,
hut you must go further and swear that you
will sustain the Union without regard to the
constitution and the laws. It is not intended, |
I suppose, to make a new application of that
principle; but it is to sustain the war, to
sustain the President in his declaration that
ie will not receive even overtures for a peace
except they will totally abandon all their
rights and bow in entire subjection and sub-
mission to his purpose.
That I am not willing to do. I say that
the time has come when the people of this
country ought to try the old efficient mode
of compromise and peace. Would to God
that we had a Clay to pour the eloquence of
compromise again into the ears of the Ameri-
can people as he did in his day ! It is our
misfortune that we have not a man in the
whole country—a man to rise up and with
the voice of persuasion interpose between
these contending parties, and say to the
country, come back under the constitution
your fathers made, to all your rights and all
your privileges, and let this sea of blood be
stayed.
I repeat that I think we commit a great
mistake in incorporating the passions of
the hour in our organic law. Everything that
is necessary for the faithful performance of
duty and the exercise of the elective franchise
is contained in the. constitution under which
we now live. Anything beyond that apper-
tains to and embodies the bitter passions of
the present civil strife, which we ought al-
ways to seek to avoid. Let them beforgotten
instead of being brought into perpetual re-
membrance by being incorporated in your
organic law. Let them be forgotten as the
first step to peace. Do not proscribe men
for their sentiments'.
I shall heartily regret to see a proposition
of that sort come in, and that so kind-hearted,
and excellent a gentleman as the gentleman
from Cecil (Mr. Scott) should be the means
of disfranchising men because of their sym-
pathies. Sympathy is the natural, sponta-
neous, unbidden burst and gushing of a
generous heart whenever and wherever it
sees suffering. It comes like the unhidden
blush upon the maiden's cheek, or the tear
in the poet's eye. How shall men be called
upon under oath to swear to their sympa-.
thies, not acted out—not evidenced even by
expressions? Can anything but the bitter.
ness of strife engendered in the midst of
civil war like this give rise to any such idea
or suggestion? Do not these things warn us
against letting go the old landmarks—pull
ing down the old bulwarks of human liberty
and constitutional law, and putting in these
firebrands of civil war, when we ought to be
looking to purposes of peace? If we desire
that the country should ever again be re
united under one form of republican govern
ment, we must forget the past and come to
gether again as a band of brothers upon the
negotiation of terms of reconciliation.
I might quote upon this point the inaugu
ral address of the President, in which he |
