and If the South had .been a unit upon that
subject, the North never would have made
war, and the rights of the South would have
been maintained. I believe that a proper ex-
ecutive officer in the State of Maryland could
have done more at that time to preserve the
Union than any other man in the country ;
and, in my judgment, could have saved the
Union. For we know now, when we look
back. to the history of those days of passion
and excitement, that when the President of
the United States had under discussion the
question of peace and war, Secretary Chase was
opposed to war, as well as a number of other
northern men whose voices were heard implor-
ing fur peace. And, sir, what brought on the
war? A small coterie of governors from the
northern States, and some men in the BORDER=0
States who styled themselves Union men,
as Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, and others
like him, called upon the federal authorities
to apply force to put down the rebellion.
And when this question is settled—I know
not how it may be, but I hope it will be settled
honorably to all parties and all men—when
that is done, and we know all the facts, in
my humble judgment, it will be found that
the Union men of the bolder States did more
to bring about this war, this sacrifice of blood
and treasure, than even the men of new England
—certainly more than Secretary Chase,
and those who acted with him upon that ques-
tion. I go further, and say, that the State of
Maryland, manacled and chained, saw at that
time great events transpiring around her, and
was permitted not even to articulate a word,
except as uttered by her Governor, who de-
clared "he would see his right arm wither
before it should ever be raised against his
southern brethren," at the very time when he
was allied with, and immediately afterwards
known to be in council with those who pre-
cipitated a civil war upon the country. Why
not, in this the first utterance which Mary-
land makes through a sovereign Convention,
let her speake something worthy of her inde-
pendence and dignity as a State? Why
bring her in meek and lowly submission be-
fore the throne of Federal power, and make
her utter, through a bill of rights, a syco-
phantic confession of paramount allegiance on
the part of her people to the Constitution and
Government of the United States, which no
State in the Union has been senile enough to
offer, or so forgetful of the principles of FREE
government as to tolerate in its organic
law. it is a spectacle of infantine weakness
which astounds me more than anything that
I have yet witnessed in the chapter of Mary-
land's history; for the reason that this
professes to be the free will offering of
men who have recently sworn " to bear
true allegiance. to the Constitution and Gov-
ernment of the United States and the State
of Maryland," and not paramount alle-
giance to the former. My only explana- |
tion of this course of the committee is
this: "Little stars wish to reflect the light
of the larger planets around which they re-
volve." And I should like to ask the gentle-
man from Baltimore city whether it origin-
ated in his brain, in the brain of the gentle-
man from Allegany, or the brain of the gen-
tleman from Worcester, or the brain of the
gentleman from Caroline, If I might be
permitted to guess, to use a Yankee privilege,
and gentlemen will remember now that I
make no charge—I should say that it bears
the evidence of the inspiration of a certain
gentleman whom the Senator from Frederick
last winter announced upon the floor of the
Senate; in open session, was using his influ-
ence to place the notable Don Piatt—notable
abroad as well as here—in command of the
State of Maryland, with a view to carry out
the purposes of those who were to call this
Convention together.
Mr. STIRLING. If the gentleman will permit
me, I will say that the gentleman he alludes
to never saw a word of this article unless he
has read it in the newspapers.
Mr CLARKE. I make no assertion; but I
say it bears the ear-marks of a certain Cooper
Institute speech delivered in New York city ;
and the doctrine which the chief legal ad-
viser of Col. Piatt announced last November,
in the Military Headquarters at Baltimore,
when the subject of allegiance underwent dis-
cussion there. Sir, the' doctrine surpasses
even the famous Schenck standard of loyalty.
What is that? He says, in an order, dated
October 27, 1863:
"It is known that there are many evil dis-
posed persons, now at large in the State of
Maryland, who have been engaged in rebellion
against the lawful Government, or have giv-
en aid and comfort or encouragement to others
so engaged, or who do not recognize their
allegiance to the United States, and who may
avail themselves oof the indulgence of the au-
thority which tolerates their presence to em-
barrass the approaching election, or through
it to foist enemies of the United States into
power. It is therefore ordered .
"1. That all provost marshals and other
military officers do arrest all such persons
found at or hanging about, or approaching
any poll or plaice of election on the 4th of
November, 1863, and report such arrest to
these headquarters.''
That is what General Schenck says. He
says nothing about paramount allegiance.
Now I recognize an allegiance to the Consti-
tiation and Government of the United States,
within the limits of the powers conferred
upon that. government by the Constitution.
And then follows the form of oath, showing
that this is no dogma even of this administra-
tion. The issue was made, and to a very great
extent by the very same gentleman I have
already alluded to. It is a doctrine—and
here I particularize no individual of a set of: |
