destroyed in part, the very change making it
a new constitution; for any change in the
constitution of a nation makes it to them a
new constitution. The point which I made,
and to which I wish to direct the attention of
the gentleman, was that all the persons who
had spoken up to that time seemed to have
lost sight of the fact that there was this ques-
tion of an existence involved as well as the
question of the constitution; and in their
talking of the constitution they should not
forget that point. That was all. I did not
pretend to repudiate the constitution at all.
Mr. BELT. It amounts to just what I was
saying. It is impossible for me to conceive
what is the gentleman's idea of national ex-
istence, leaving the constitution out of view.
It is a solecism. It cannot be. The consti-
tution is the Union. There cannot be any
Union without the public law which makes
it, which is the foundation of it, and by which
it continues to exist.
I was proceeding to comment upon the
ambiguity of this clause of the oath. The
expression "loyally" is ambiguous; because
it does not say what we shall be loyal to.—
A man swears to be loyally .on one of two
sides, to be loyally on the side of the Union.
Is it necessary in order to be on the side of
the Union to be in favor of the war? Is it
necessary in order to be loyally on the side
of the Union to be in favor of the constitu-
tion? On what consideration, or on what
theory of the war is it that a man must be
in favor of the war in order to be on the
side of the government? Upon what the-
ory of the war is it? If it started merely a
war for the Union, and subsequently be-
came a war of subjugation, and for freeing
the negroes, which is it that we are to be
loyal to ?
In the second place, the term " loyal " itself
is ambiguous. What is loyalty? Is it any-
thing in God's name but obedience? Can
you make anything more of it? Is there a
man loyal to the United States except be that
obeys the law of the United States? Am not
I loyal to-night? I am not aiding the public
enemy. I raise no arm against the govern-
ment. I have not done it. I do not mean to
do it. I pay my taxes. I obey the govern-
ment in every direction, in which it is com-
petent to order me, with deference, with
cheerfulness. Is it to be said that I am not
loyal because I choose to entertain abstract
opinions which differ from the opinions of
those who happen for the time being to con-
duct the government?
Loyalty is obedience. A; loyal citizen is
an obedient citizen who performs the proper
functions the law imposes upon him within
the limits to which the law has the right to
impose them. In no other sense can any man
be said to be loyal.
Another objection to this section is that, not
content with the practical exhibitions of loy- |
alty, this oath goes on and touches mere
opinions. I affirm that it never was the case
in a free State, that the oath of office was ev-
er so constructed as to embrace mere abstract
opinions. The oath of loyalty merely went
to the practical fact that the person would
faithfully perform the duties of his position,
no matter whether loyal in opinion or not.
When was it ever proposed to extract from a
man's bosom his abstract thoughts, his ab-
stract, hidden, secret sympathies? Was it
the case in the war of the revolution? Who
does not remember the thunder tones of Fox
and Burke and all the statesmen of that
bright galaxy who were to a man arrayed
against Lord North, and against the prosecu-
tion of that war? Was there ever a war
more warmly denounced than that ?
How was it in the war of 1812, when New
England—that section now the most, intensely
loyal—almost went to the very verge of active
co-operation with the public enemy? Were
men's private opinions brought out by test
oaths then? Was it thought necessary then
that aman's inmost sympathies should bedis-
closed, to secure those whose sympathies were
with the people at the head of the govern-
ment?
And in the war with Mexico, was a refined
and abstract theory of loyalty applied to those
holding office? Who does not remember
that most remarkable affirmation which will
probably live as long as any other in the
English language, by which the American
troops who went by order of their govern-
ment to a war which that government
waged against a foreign government and a
foreign foe, were, by one of the most distin-
guished men in public life, consigned to the
"welcome of bloody hands to hospitable
graves." I imagine that if the private
thoughts, and convictions, and sympathies of
that gentleman were to be made to square
with any such particular standard of loyalty,
Mr. Corwin, who denounced the Mexican war,
and many other gentlemen who acted with
him, would have been considered disloyal to
Mr. Polk, by whom that war, whether justly
or not, was begun and prosecuted.
It is something which has never been done
or attempted, to push the tests of loyalty so
far as to embrace mere matters of opinion.
What is the practical effect of this thing in
Maryland? One man is loyal because he says
be is, and swears he is. Another man who
.performs every duty of a citizen is disloyal
because somebody suggests that he entertains
secession opinions, or disloyal opinions, or
believes in the right of secession, or is opposed
to the war. Every practical duty he performs,
but he is disloyal merely because he holds
these abstract opinions which he professes to
derive from the earliest times of our fathers.
Here is a practical exemplification of it;
because we have bad some strong practical
exemplifications of it in Maryland. I remem- |
