tutional features which make it a free gov-
ernment, but a government made by men
with swords imbued in the blood of their
brothers just before they made it. I must
confess I have no sympathy with this extreme
shuddering about civil war. God knows it
is a natural feeling, and the war is disagree-
able enough to me. In its actual progress it
has come near enough lo me on several occa-
sions to make me feel the torturing anxieties
and the deep distresses which inevitably at-
tend it. But I ask, Mr. President, whether
a people that was anything but imbecile
slovenly, effeminate, and fit only to be kicked
out of the civilized world, ever existed with-
out civil war.
Gentlemen talk about civil war consoli-
dating the government. There is no gov-
ernment in the world that is worth anything
that has not got consolidation enough to pre-
serve its own existence. The gentleman says
that the Government of the United States
protects us abroad, and nobody goes abroad.
The Government of the United States pro-
tects us by its great and immediate powers
abroad; but I ask under whose protection
and by whose power do the Governments of
the States exercise their beneficent jurisdic-
tion at home. By their combination among
themselves they have lifted among the ban-
ners of the earth a banner which is every-
where respected and feared; and it is because
the Declaration of Independence declared cer-
tain general principles represented in our
form of government, emblematized by that
flag, and supported by the United States
people, making this country so strong at
home and so feared abroad, that the State
Governments have been able, peaceably and
quietly to discharge their all-important and
valuable functions. Take a government scat-
tered and separate, like any small principality
that stands shuddering every day lest its
powerful enemies tear it to pieces; and I ask
you whether in a government in that condi-
tion the liberty of the citizen is safe and the
property of the citizen is protected.
Gentlemen say that the history of the world
is written all over with evidence that consoli-
dation has destroyed liberty and ruined na-
tions. I am not in favor of that consolida-
tion which absolutely blends together these
people; but I am in favor of that consolida-
tion which is necessary to keep them united,
and to preserve their power among the na-
tions of the earth. With all deference to the
learning and opinion of gentlemen who have
pronounced this theory, I say you cannot
point me to an instance in the history of the
world, where the consolidation of a nation
has either destroyed the liberty or destroyed
a people. Gentlemen talk about the despot-
isms of Europe. Why are they despotisms?
Not because they are' consolidated, but be-
cause the institutions of the people, and the
partial development they have made, and the |
customs they have lived under, make them despotic;
and if they were not consolidated they
would be just as despotic. Go back to feudal
times, and trace up the French nation, with
their kings, and ultimately with their em-
pire; and, I ask whether they would have been
under the dominion of Louis Napoleon to-
day, as despotic as it is, if the rights of life,
liberty, property; and the pursuit of happi-
ness, had not suffered under the Duke of
Guise or Henry of Navarre, or any of the
half kings who exercised authority over the
portions of France. I say that Louis XI, as
bad a man as he was, as corrupt and despotic
a man as be was, conferred liberty upon the
people of France as far as it could be con-
ferred, for the people were not fit for liberty,
when the people of France, who had been pil-
laged and despoiled by the separate princes
of France, were consolidated under one grand
government. And what ruined the republics
of Greece? Was it consolidation? The
most glorious page in their country's bistory,
was under the empire of Philip and Alexan-
der. It is that history which has spread
their renown over the civilized world, and
which carried Greek civilization over every
portion of the then known world. It was
despotic, of course. In the growth of civil-
ization the rights of man had never got above
that standard, and any government they
could have had would have been despotic;
and a united despotism is better than a di-
vided despotism.
What follows when a nation is divided into
small fragments? The very fact that the
people are weak, makes them willing to trust
their government with power. The very fact
that the nation is small and weak, makes
it more necessary for them m to concentrate
every energy in one executive head. It is
only when a people becomes strong; it is
only when a people becomes as the United
States have become, vast in numbers, and
wealth, intelligence, and power, that they
are able to organize a free government with
divided powers; because then and only then
people know that they are strong enough not
to make it necessary to keep up a demonstra-
tion of power.
Gentlemen talk about the blessed progress
of the government under the States' rights
idea. I deny that the government ever ad-
vanced upon the States' rights idea. Yon
had sometimes States' rights men in different
offices of the government; but whether that
is so or not, I ask with what consistency it
can be said that this government has ad-
vanced under the States' rights theories, rather
than under the consolidation theory under
the Constitution. I am not disposed to go
into the argument about the outrages said to
have been committed upon any State, But
I ask you, if it is true that President Lincoln
controls more power than he ought to con-
trol, and if it is true that Jefferson Davis con- |
