tion in determining which side he occupied,
if you had asked him whether be wanted the
British troops whipped in America, battle
after battle? He would have said: "Al-
though the war was provoked by the injus-
tice and oppression of Great Britian, I must
be on the side of my country, when I am
forced to take a position in the contest. I
may not be in favor of the policy of the prose-
cution of the »war between my people here
and the people on the other side, but I am
on this side, and not on the other."
Look at the war of 1812, Was ever a war
opposed more bitterly than that war was
opposed by the federal party, as unnecessary,
as waged for selfish purposes, violently op-
posed, vituperatively opposed; going further
sometimes than even cinder a republican gov-
ernment they were justifiable in going? Yet
if you will go to the battle monument in Bal-
timore, upon that historical recold you may
find among the names of the men who died
at North Point in the defence of their country,
men who were born federals and died feder
als, and opposed the policy of the war up to the
very moment of their deaths. Believing that
the war was unnecessary, and ought to have
been avoided, and might have been avoided,
yet they laid down their lives upon the bat-
tle-field in defence of their country.
Take the Mexican war. Does not every-
body recollect that remarkable declaration of
John Van Buren, that the plains of Mexico
were wet with whig blood? Was there a
whig in the land, however opposed to the
Mexican war, who had any hesitation in his
own mind upon which side he was, and
where his sympathies were when it was noised
about that General) Taylor's little army was
beleaguered in a little Mexican town? Even
Mr, Corwin's celebrated declaration went no
further than this—"'If I were a Mexican, I
would welcome the invader with bloody
hands to a hospitable grave." But Mr. Cor-
win was an American, and not a Mexican,
and whatever part he may have thought it
his duty to take with regard to til's war, as
a citizen of the United States he was con-
strained to be, not actively, but in his feel-
ings, on the side of the United States.
There are a great many persons who from
conscientious convictions cannot be in favor
of any war. Yet as citizens they are to be
counted on one side and not on the other.
If any man can say that, I am perfect-
ly willing lo admit him not only to
vote but to bold office in this State. I
have no desire to enforce my political con-
victions upon anybody. Brat I say, in
a State like this, how is it possible tor
a man to properly rule over the people of
this State if he is on the other side, if his
heart is with the other army, and he wants
them to succeed? Could a man be governor
of this State, fit to rule over these people,
if be wished the army of Virginia to invade |
this State, and take its great commercial city
and its capital? It is rank absurdity.
How could he hold that position? He
might hold it, and people might vote for
him; but what would he do? Taking ad-
vantage of the forms of law to place him in
a prominent position in this government, he
would hand over traitorously the territory of
this government to the enemies.- of the gov-
ernment. That is the only thing for which be
could be consistently and rationally placed
in power. Is there no injustice in that?
Does any man suppose that the people of
this State are going' to tolerate a rule which
under the forms of the ballot box really means
success to the rehellion ?
What is the obligation imposed here?
"And I do further swear or affirm that 1
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, or the government thereof to be de-
stroyed under any circumstances, if in my
power to prevent it, and that I will at all
times discountenance and oppose all political
combinations having for their object such
dissolution or destruction."
Where is the difficulty about that? Does
that bind a man to any particular policy of
the administration ?
But where is the necessity gentlemen say,
when you have put in the first part. of the
oath an obligation to support the constitution,
of putting in also the obligation to pro-
tect and defend the Union? I suppose that
the constitution and the Union are the same
things; and the oath is to respect the Union
and the constitution. How can a man sup-
port the constitution without supporting the
Union? If there is no government where is
the constitution. This government may be
broken up into fifty fragments, and each one
of those little fragments may be a little republican
State, and it may support the old
constitution of the United States so far as it
is applicable. When a man swears to support
the constitution of the United States, he
takes an oath to support it in all respects in
which it is possible. And thus though men
may swear to support the constitution and
not the Union, he must support the Union
necessarily; and every one of these men is
bound to stand by the Union and the con-
stitution. But if you take away a large pro-
portion of the people of a territory, there is
no Union left, or constitution left, or gov-
ernment left.
But there is a practical reason which ex-
tends to all this argument, why we should
introduce this oath more than anybody else.
What is our position here in Maryland ?
The gentleman from St. Mary's (Mr.' Dent)
very eloquently said 'that the State of Mary-
land had had no voice, and was not responsi-
ble for the oaths imposed upon her people,
because she was powerless to resist. Yet the |
