State, but the names and ages of property he
wants to perpetuate, that even if we should
ninety or a hundred years hence knock at
the doors of Congress, we may get a little
compensation. I think there has been alit-
tle change upon that subject.
I think there has been a little change in
another respect. I have heard gentlemen
who were once very loud in extolling Jeff.
Davis, and expressing their sympathy with
the rehellion; and some of these very gentle-
men would give almost anything to-day to
get back the old Union just as it was. I be-
lieve many of them, if it were proposed now
to have the Union back with slavery, as was
proposed by the President even up to 1863,
they would jump at it rather than go on with
the fighting, in the utter hopelessness of their
cause as it now presents itself. At that time
they spurned the offer of the President and
threw it back in his teeth, in the sure expecta-
tion that they would achieve their independ-
ence, and southern rights would be estab-
lished; especially as one southern man was
equal to five northern men in a fight at any
time.
Gentlemen have changed a good deal in
these respects—gentlemen of 'he minority too;
and therefore, although we have changed, and
I admit it, it is because the state of the war
and the state of the country present a very
different aspect now from what they did when
the rebellion commenced,
President Lincoln is charged with being ty-
rannical, for that is the point atissue, and the
government is charged " with being tyrannical.
President Lincoln is charged with having
changed his position, and having asserted
new things which he did not assert in the be-
ginning, and being fur the enforcement of
things now which it would not enforce in the
beginning. We say that every offer that was
made in the beginning to these people was
indignantly refused; and there was no re-
source left to preserve the life of the nation,
but that the President should push forward
and avail himself of every power given to him.
After having made offer after coffer, proposal
after proposal, and all refused, he was obliged
to take a course which if not strictly laid
down in the letter Of the constitution was
given to) him in its implied provisions,
I shall vote for tills amendment because I
do not want men to be office-holders or voters
in Maryland unless they are willing to sub-
scribe to that. I look upon this as the only
proposition which will secure and preserve
the purity of our government in this State,
and keep it loyal to the government. I say
that no man who sympathizes with or wishes
the success of the southern confederacy in
their rebellion against these United States is
fit to be trusted with high places or the man-
agement of high offices.
Mr. DENT. I do not feel prepared at all,
to give my views upon the grave questions |
tinder consideration—for they are grave
questions, seriously grave—which have been
discussed to-day. Although the question
properly under discussion, relates to the oath
which it is intended to impose upon office
holders, under the constitution which is now
in the course of preparation, the discussion
has taken a wide range; and almost neces-
sarily so, from the fact that the oath itself is
SO vast In its proportions as to embrace the
whole political administration of the present
federal power. This is a sufficient excuse
for the scope of debate and the wide range
the discussion his taken.
The oaths which have been proposed,
look not merely to that which is to come,
or the present; but look back to the past.
They provide that you shall purge yourself,
if you have ever been guilty of any disloyalty,
or of any breach of duty towards the federal
government. No; you cannot purge your-
self by the oath. If you have had sympathies
with the party that is struggling against the
government for what they conceive to he
their State rights, you are forbidden to take
office. That is the past. No matter what
change may have taken place in your views
since. No matter how different the views
you now entertain from those you entertained
in the beginning of the war, when the strug-
gle first began, when gentlemen upon this
floor, who are now 80 fierce in their denun-
ciation of the rebellion, and so free in their
defence of the administration, did not bide
their sympathies with those in rebellion from
the public; but gave free expression to them,
as is well known. On frequent occasions,
publicly and privately, it is well known that
the late governor of your State expressed his
sympathies with the South. How could he
then take that oath? Is he capable of taking
an office under the constitution which you
propose to make, and under the oath proposed
by the amendment of the gentleman
from Cecil ( Mr. Scott ?)—for I am now speaking
of that rather than of the amendment to
it, by the gentleman from Baltimore (Mr.
Stirling".) How many gentlemen who may
be to-day most loyal, excessively loyal, may
be excluded from office because of their ante-
cedents, in the earlier stages of this struggle
between the United State, or the adhering
States more properly, and the seceded States.
Under this oath it is proposed to exclude
them all, notwithstanding they may be as
earnest in their support of the government as
now administered, as any other gentleman
who never had any sympathies with the re-
bellion against the government.
This is ex post facto. In my opinion it is
contrary to the principles of the constitution
of the United States. It is a penally. You
propose to disfranchise a citizen of the
State, to punish an act committed before the
passage of your law. You provide an oath
and require it to be taken by one who is elected |
