government had no right whatever over the
subject,
They ask us to keep still; to keep the
peace. I say this to my friends, as I have
always said. Just make it certain that there
is a peace party elsewhere, that if we ground
arms, are willing to do so, upon terms
which the government of the United States
can respectably accept, and you will have
more peace men here. It is peace all on one
side. They had an election the other day in
North Carolina. I suppose gentlemen know
bow that election was conducted. Talk
about test oaths and bayonets I There was
an exemplification of the peace-loving men
at Richmond. When Mr. Holden was elected
by the ponce men of North Carolina, by men
anxious to get back to their allegiance, and
sent up to Richmond to preach there the doc-
trine of peace, he was met before he got there,
through the organ of the Richmond govern-
ment. What were the mob told to do to
him? What was the express language?
"Crush him out! Hiss him down Hustle
him out of the hall !" That was the talk.
" This man comes to talk to you about peace ;
crush him out! Hiss him down! Hustle
him out of the hall !" Who would have
supposed that, after all the talk here? This
peace movement has no sense in it.
The people have fought four years for na-
tionality; and now are they to be juggled
out of it by the delusive hope held out to
them that there are peace men elsewhere in
favor of peace upon honorable terms? Gen-
tlemen have spoken here eloquently of the
mission of the Hon., Henry May. I never
ran away because I was afraid his persuasive
eloquence would convert me, I did not
think he had much of the Henry Clay, Cicero,
or St. Paul about him, I know what he
said when he got back, and the country
know what the response was to his mission.
If you were to give the South a blank sheet
of paper to write its own terms upon, she
would not return. With twenty millions
of people, the representatives of an outraged
and wronged nationality, we are to be put in
the attitude of begging them for peace, when
they spit upon the people of this country and
say they do not intend to submit to them,
and declare that if their country is to sink
they will go down with it to universal ruin,
before they will ever submit.
I am sorry I have had to trespass upon the
convention again, and should not have done
so, if it had not been for the announcement
upon the opposite side with reference to the
policy of the government in 1861.
Mr. DENNIS. I have two objections to this
amendment. Of the matters before the house,
I decidedly prefer the report of the committee;
but to the amendment now pending I have
very grave objections. One of these objec-
tions is founded upon the sentence which
contains the word "loyal"—"but that I |
have been truly and loyally on the side of
' the United States against those in armed re-
bellion against the United States." The
convention will bear in mind that we are
here determining the qualifications office-
holders, of those who shall hold office under
the laws of your State, Who is to determine
the question whether or not they are loyally
on the side of the country? Gentlemen tell
us that it is the individual himself. Yet if a
man is elected to an office against whom
some enemy may come forward and prefer a
charge, where is the tribunal that he is ar-
raigned before? It may be the present judge
or the present legislature who were elected
under precisely the influences and circum-
stances that seem to pervade this convention.
; There is another sentence in the oath:
' "And I do further swear or affirm that 1
will, to the beat of my abilities, protect and
defend the Union of the United States, and
not allow the same to be broken up and dis-
, solved, or the government thereof to be de-
stroyed under any circumstances, if in my
power to prevent it?"
In listening to the remarks of gentlemen
heretofore, and particularly to the remarks
: of the gentleman from Howard (Mr. Sands)
this morning, I might well ask myself the
question whether or not we are living under
agovernment of laws or the arbitrary will
'of a monarch. Really sir, the word "gov-
ernment" has now reached that point when it
is very difficult, in this republican land as it
used to be, to determine what is the govern-
; ment. My idea of it has been that it is the
written law, pervading the land, regulating
and controlling all the departments that ad-
minister the affairs of the people. Yet we
have seen in the course of the last three or
four years, and particularly within the last
twelve months, doctrines advocated and
theories put in force which may well make
the people of the nations believe that the
government of this country is the person of
one at Washington.
My colleague (Mr. Jones, of Somerset,) read
to yon this morning some remarks of Mr.
Clay; words uttered long ago, and which
have become true as words of prophecy. Let
me read to you the words of another man,
more distinguished, more eminent, justly
more eminent, than even Henry Clay :
"Let there be no change by usurpation,
for though this, in one instance' may be the
instrument of good, it is the customary wea-
pon by which tree governments are destroyed.
The precedent must always greatly overbal-
ance in permanent evil any partial or tran-
sient benefit which the use Cain at any time
yield."
That is the advice of Washington, the im-
mortal father of his country. " Let there be
no change by usurpation." Has it been so ?
I have been under the impression that this
was a government of law—written law; and 1 |
