cisions are the interpreters of Constitu-
tional law, as the "higher law" doctrine,
Which, if the gentleman and those with whom
he acts can get the power, will he put in op-
eration in this country, and build up as un-
limited a despotism of the majority as history
ever recorded—a despotism in which white
men alone will not take part. For one, I
would rather have my face veiled, and sink
into the earth beneath me, than to witness
that species of despotism in which the black
man will figure as the enslaver and partial
despot of the white man.
The question was raised before the Su-
preme Court, of the right and authority of
the President and Congress to declare the
ports of the Southern States which entered
into the rebellion, to be blockaded. And
it was there held, that
" 5. A state of actual war may exist with-
out any formal declaration of it by either
party; and this is true of both a civil and a
foreign war.
"6. A civil war exists, and may be prose-
cuted on the same footing as if those opposing
the government were foreign invaders, when-
ever 'the regular course of justice is inter-
rupted by revolt, rebellion or insurrection, so
that the courts cannot be kept open.
" 7. The present civil war between the
United States and the so-called Confederate
States, has such character and magnitude as
to give the United States the same rights and
powers which they might exercise in the case
of a national or foreign war; and they have
therefore the right jure bello to institute a
blockade of any ports in possession of the re-
bellious States.
"8. The proclamation of blockade by the
President is of itself conclusive evidence that
a state of war existed, which demanded and
authorized recourse to such a measure.
"9. All persons residing within the terri-
tory occupied by the hostile party in this
contest, are liable to be treated as enemies,
though not foreigners."
So there is the doctrine announced by the
Supreme Court, ye loyal men in those States,
that you can have no more protection from
the government. Your property is liable to
capture. You can be treated under the law
us enemies, just as much as the man found
with arms In his hands. That is the principle
upon which the Federal authorities are now
prosecuting this war.
Mr, STIRLING. I will ask the gentleman
whether he accepts that decision of the Su-
preme Court ?
Mr. CLARKE. I will say this; I do accept
this as law, that the government of the
United States has no right, if it proceeds un-
der the Constitution and is dealing with men
under that instrument, to carry on the war
except according to the Constitution. But
this decision goes to another point: that in
putting down this rebellion the government |
has placed itself in a position where it cannot
prosecute it within the limits of the Consti-
tution, but must fall back upon rights de jure
bel o. It has put itself in a position where it
can no longer hold up the flag, and say the
government is fighting for the old flag
and the Constitution, We must wage the
war with the South as belligerents. it is
practical recognition on the part of the Su-
preme Court, to a certain extent, of the in-
dependence of the Southern States. You do
not, Mr. President, treat the men who are
carrying on the war as traitors. You are
taking them every day. They are traitors
according to one theory. Why does not the
Government try them and hang them? Why
is not every man of them hung? Merely
from the fact that to the extent of the decision
of the Supreme Court it is an admission as
laid down in Vattel, that the government is
waging war against States. Hence tire very
doctrine that this is a war by the General
Government against a revolution by States,
is recognized both by acts of the General
Government and the decision of the Su-
preme Court. The result is this: The Gov-
ernment has got itself into such a position
that nothing remains but to carry on the war
against these States for purposes of subjuga-
tion. That is the issue which the people of
the country are called on now to meet,
whether this war shall be carried on for the
purpose of subjugation by fire and sword, to
overthrow all Constitutional rights, and de-
stroy, as it is now claimed the Government
can lawfully do, all rights which belong to
the people in those States—the rights of
slavery, their personal rights of property,
and the rights which have ever been deemed
"immortal and unimpeachable"—the rights
of the States,
There is another doctrine therein declared,
that every man-in the Southern States is an
enemy. Does the converse of that decision
hold? Does the Supreme Court intend to re-
cognize the principle that persons residing
within the territory of the United States not
occupied by the hostile party are to be treated
as friends , as loyal men, as men who under
the Constitution, can claim their rights? So
help me God, so long as I have that decision
of the Supreme Court to stand upon, so long
as I hold the Constitution of the United States
and this form of government to be as much
mine as the gentleman's from Baltimore city
(Mr. Stirling's) I contend that he is entitled
to no right under it which I have not an equal
right to claim, whether of person, of property
or of liberty. I hold the gentleman and
those who act with him liable, If they violate
the Constitution and laws of the United States,
passed in pursuance thereof, to be treated as
traitors who should be dealt with accordingly.
And when you deal with us, and with those
who act with us, under this decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States, you are |
