OUR COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY. SPEECH OF HON. H. G. BLAKE, OF OHIO,, ON THE STATE OF THE UNION. DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEB. 28, 1863. 'J le anse having under consideration the Miscellaneous Appropriation Bill, Mr. BLAKE said: Mr. Speaker: The state of the Union being under consideration, I claim the indulgence of the House while I consider that question in general, and some other things in particular. Sir, on the 5th day of last January I offered for adoption, the following resolutions: “Resolved. That this House earnestly desires the most speedy and effectual measures to be taken to put down the rebellion; that any proposition for peace or cessation of hostilities at this time, on any terms other than an unconditional submission of the rebels now in arms against the Government, to the requirements of the Constitution and laws, would be pusillanimous and traitorous; that the members of this House do hereby give the most earnest assurances to the people of the United States, that they will cheei/fully co-operate with the President as Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy in any measures he may deem proper, sanctioned by the Constitution and the laws of civilized warfare, to strengthen the military power of our gallant soldiers in the field defending the Government, and to weaken at of the enemy laboring to destroy it “Resolved, That the only ' ti G rnment can or ought at this time to offer to rebels, is ‘ submit o tec When these resolutio s e: intrt luced for the consideration of the House, I supposed thqy w of .uch a character that evt ry member would gladly vote for them. In this, however, I taken, for no sooner were they presented, than my colleagu I>ayt L.stiict, [Mr. Vallandigham] interposed his obj< t on, and under j s tin-} La to go over. V hy thA objection.a >y* ■ b-yal t ■ the Ge Litm;. m n- ’ wishing co put do wn the rebel ho , con! no vol for? it tnejc e failed to discover it. I must say, however, whatever I ma r of the policy pursued bv my colleague, that he has been from -t a consistent opposer of every measure for the suppression of rebellion. From the raising of troops to defend the Capital, the p m ng of money to pay our gallant men in the field in defense of the i overument and ours, to the confiscation of rebel property, all have a Ko received his unqualified opposition. No measures of th President and his Administration to put down the rebellion, have evei commanded the support of the gentleman, but have at all times re ceiv ,d his warm denunciation. Consistency, therefore, is a jewel, th
my colleague [Mr. Vallandigham] can wear, whether honestly or dishonestly, I will not say. It is claimed by him that he is honest in his couise of action. It may be that he is. Judas claimed to be honest, but he betrayed the Son of man with a kiss :—Saul, “yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord,” claimed to be honest; but mankind have very generally come to the conclusion, that if these men were honest, they were honestly in the commission of a very great crime. Now, my colleague appears, as the angel of peace. On the 15th day of December, 1859, while the contest for Speaker was going on in this House, my colleague said: “Sir I am as good a Western fire eater as the very hottest member from the South.” No talk of peace then. War! war ! was the music that entertained our ears frpm the gentleman. And again he says in the same speech: The controversy in this hall has been of a character, and sentiments have been avowed, which have caused the North and South to stand arrayed in hostility against each ocher, and disunion has been threatened. I occupy between these parties a position of armed neutrality. I. am not a Northern man. I have no sympathy with the North, and very little good feeling with the North, and I am bound to it by no tie whatever. But I am bound to the South; I am identified with the South and her slave institution, and at this particular time, when she is in the midst of insurrection and murder, and when she is threatened ■with the torch of the incendiary, and has the knife of the assassin suspended over her, 1 am with her, heart and soul. . Mr. Vallandigham. Do I understand my colleague to quote that as an extract from a speech delivered by me in this House ? Mr. Blake. I do, sir, from a speech delivered by you in this House, and as reported in the New York Herald. I have the Herald now before me. Mr. Vallandigham. It is not true. It is taken from the false report of a newspaper, sent out from this House. It was never delivered in the House and is not in the Globe. Mr. Blake. The gentleman is entitled to his denial; but I know that the speech was reported correctly, I heard it delivered. Mr. Vallandigham. Well, take the Globe, I will furnish it to you now. Mr. Blalil Keep cool till I get through, I have but just commenced. Mr. Vall 'Niugham. I will not keep cool when a falsehood like that । — ■ to be palmed off as true, and a forgery too. Mi. Kl It is not the first time the ‘G _ own speech. I have the spe ^ h as published in the New York Herald at the time, before me. The speech was withheld by the gentleman for several days after it was delivered, for revision, and in the revised copy as it appears in the Globe, it is true, that the language is not precisely the same in all parts of the speech as that taken down at the time by the Herald reporter, but it is substantially tne same in sentiment; and the language the gentleman then used, as reported in the Herald, but expressed the sentiments that have guided his action ever since the rebellion began. Actions speak louder than words Mi. Val^ndigham. One moment. The speech was prepared before and was published substantially as prepared.
3 Mr. Blake. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman will find if he looks at the Globe, for I have examined it, that he retained his speech against the protest of the reporters for the Globe, and because of that protest, he maintained that he bad a right to keep it as long as he pleased. He rose to a question of privilege upon this floor, and claimed that he had a right to keep it back, and he did keep the speech for revision, and did revise it. Mr. Vallandigham. And so, also, I kept a speech which I read on the 3d of July, 1862, (the only one I ever did read here,) for a few days, in order to prepare it for publication. I want no more forgeries read to the House. Mr. Blake. This is not a forgery, sir. Mr. Vallandigham. It is. It is a false report absolutely. Mr. Blake. I heard the gentleman make that speech, and there are many present who heard It. ' Mr. Vallandigham. Not a member present. You did not heat* it. It never was uttered. Mr. Blake. I did hear it, and it was uttered as is known by many members now here. Mr. Vallandigham. It is absolutely false. When you come td quote my speech, take the record. Mr. Blake. I may take the record, and I find precisely the same Bentiment uttered in the Globe as is uttered here; and where the lan-r guage does not agree with the report in the Herald, it is a false record made by the gentleman himself. Sir, I said my colleague had been consistent, but truth compels me to say that a man holding such sentiments, would appear far more consistent in the rebel Congress at Richmond, than in this Hall. Again, my colleague in the speech from which I have quoted said : “Do you ask me when the hour of disunion will come ? 1 tell you never, never while it is possible to prevent ir—never while we can secure the just, constitutional rights which the Union was made to secure—never, at least, till5 the time shall come wherein to vindicate the glorious rights of revolution. Do you ask me when that hour will come I Of that every State and every people must judge for themselves, before God and the great tribunal of history.’’ What Southern rebel ever claimed more than this? It is the very doctrine of secession and revoluion which South Carolina has asserted ever since 1832, and upon which she and the other rebel States, are now acting in their efforts to destroy the Government of the United States. This speech, then, of my colleague, was to misrepresent the people of the free States on the subject of slavery, its only tenden y to precipitate the Nor and the South into a conflict; and now that the conflict has come, the only result of his efforts will be to prolong the war, and endanger the lives of our gallant men in the field confronting the rebel army. Sir, it was in the direct line of my colleague’s [Mr.Vallandigham] consistency, that he a few days since, said in a speech at Newark, New Jersey : “Shall the Democratic party be induced for one moment to strike hands with those who desire to change the purposes of the Administration, and bring it back again to a war for the Union, when the whole people united cannot accomplish anything before the 4th of March, 1865 ? Will the war continue that long ? ['Never, never !’ from al! parts of the room.] Will you send your sons again to the battle-field ? [Overwhelming, enthusiastic, and unanimous cries, ‘No, no !' Wever, never S' ‘God forbid /’ ‘Not if I know myself!’] Shall they
4 be conscripted to carry on this war for two years more, and for the negro ? [Tremendous outbursts. Yells, cheers. Cries of ‘No, never.’ ‘Let them try it’ ‘See them d—d first’ ‘We defy them.’ ”] This, sir, is a bold declaration of treason against the Government, which ought to bring the blush of shame to the cheek of every American citizen. Sir, can it be possible that this is the American Congress, and that a man, who utters such sentiments at this time of national peril, is permitted to hold a seat here ? This, sir, is the way the rebels are encouraged to fight and protract the contest. But for such speeches, and the aid and support thb rebels have received from th* sympathisers, the war would now be at an end. The Richmond Dispatch, the organ of Jeff Davis, of February 20th, referring to this speech of my colleague, says: “This speech looks something like a ‘lucid interval’ in the Northern mind. Their army will be 300,000 only in June. Let us keep ours up to 500,000 and dictate peace at Washington or Alexandria. The Constitution declares that treason against the United States “shall consist in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort?' If this is not giving the enemies of our country “aid and comfortf I would like to know what is ? This is its natural result, and therefore, it should be regarded as treasonable by every honest man in the nation. Sir, in this same Newark speech, my colleague [Mr.^yALLANDiGHAM] said : “I remember that it was in the city of Newark, a little more than two years ago, that I first gave the pledge to any portion of the people of the United Slate's that I never would contribute, by iny words or acts, to the shedding of one drop of American blood in a civil war. (Great applause.) . How far and consistently I have kept that pledge, let you—a part of my countrymen— determine.” I have endeavored to defend the consistency of my colleague, from the commencement of this war; but there.is one pledge which my colleague gave about the time to which he refers in his Newark speech, that he has not redeemed. I refer to a meeting of the Ohio delegation in this city, called for the purpose of forming a union of all parties against the rebellion. At that meeting, my colleague [Mr. Vallandigham] declared, “that if any attempt was made tomarch, troops through his district for the purpose of coercing the South, they would have to march over his dead body before they could go through the district?' Sir, troops have marched through his district for the purpose of coercing the rebels, and they found nothing of the dead body of my colleague. Mr. Vallandigham. That is false, and tho knows it is false when he utters it. Mr. Blake. On that point I will send to the Clerk’s desk a letter to be read, and the statement of several members of Congress who were present at the meeting. The Clerk read as follows : Letter from the Hon. T O. Theaker. Washington, June 2d, 1862, Hon. S. Edgerton, Sir; I was present at a meeting of the Ohio members of Congress called by the Hon. Thomas Corwin, for the purpose of giving a united, expression against the doctrine of secession, and in favor of all loyal men uniting to put d°wn the rebellion. Said meeting was in the month of December, 1860, or the montn of January following. The Hon. C. L. Vallandigham was present at that meet-
5 ing, and declared that if any attempt was made to inarch troops through his district, for the purpose of coercing the South, they would have to march over his dead body before they could go through the district Yours Truly, T. C. THEAKER. We, the undersigned members of the 36th and 37th Congress, were present at the meeting alluded to by the Son. T. C. Theaker, in the foregoing letter of the date of June 2d,y 1862, and we hereby endorse the statement therein made concerning the declaration of the Hon. C. L. Vallandigham, at that meeting. SIDNEDY EDGERTON, JOHN A. GURLEY. I remember the statement, substantially, as made by Hon. Mr. Theaker. J. M. ASHLEY. I remember that Mr. Vallandigham at the meeting referred to, declared his hostility to 'and his purpose to resist any attempt to . march troops through Ohio to coerce the people of seceding States, to submit to the authority of the Federal Government JNO. A. BINGHAM. I concur in the statement of Mr. Bingham. JOHN HUTCHING Mr. Vallandigham. Now, Mr. Speaker, one moinent about this., I have already explained this subject long ago, and shown how this, idea came into the mind of anybody. Here are my colleagues, [Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Cox,] who heard every word I said, and have repeatedly joined me in the denial that I ever uttered such a sentiment. The manner in which it originated was this: The very evening after that on which that caucus was held, after this House adjourned,, Mr. Theaker, the member before me, [Mr. Blake,] my colleague, [Mr., Cox,] myself and others, went into the Senate just as Mr. Johhson, of Tennessee had concluded his speech. The Senator froth Oregon, General Joseph Lane, rose and, during his reply, used that language,, as follows : “ If it (civil war) should come unfortunately upon this country, inaugurated by a tyrant who would like to hold American citizens as vassals, then I will say to that coward who would do'it, ‘you will walk over your humble servant’s body first.’ ”—Cong. Globe, 1860—’61, p. 144. We had met the evening before, as I have said, in the rooms occupied by my colleagues [Mr. Pugh, Mr. Martin and Mr. Pendleton] and myself. Some four or five months afterward, and not before—it was after the war broke out—it was asserted that it was I who had used that language. I happen to have hostile record evidence, made at the time, of what I said, and it has been republished. The report in the Cincinnati Commercial (a Republican paper) next morning, sent by telegraph by its correspondent, Mr. Bickham, contained whht I did say, and it was the very reverse of that. More than that, Mr. Bickham, in his letter transmitted by mail the next day, and published about the 22d December, 1860, in that same Commercial, repeats the language more at length. It is that Mr. Vallandigham said that “if any army undertook to march down South from the northern part of the State, they should have a free passage through the Miami valley, provided they did not disturb anybody.” Now, that is the fact; and the member,’instead of discussing the great questions of the hour, has no right to undertake to single me out for his dirty personal attacks. Mr. Bnake. Mr. Speaker, I should not pursue this policy with my colleague, if his conduct was not consistent entirely with that lan
6 guage, and such as to command the attention of all loyal men. Now the time to which I refer was when Thomas Corwin was chairman of a meeting in this city, called when the Southern States were about going out of the Union, and when, perhaps, some of them had gone out, to see if we could not unite on the proposition that secession was rebellion, and that rebellion must be crushed; and to see if all parties would not unite for that purpose. We met at the room of Mr. Pugh. The Ohio delegation was present. The Ohio delegation in this House, all, did agree on that proposition, with the exception of my colleague, [Mr. Vallandigham.] I cannot be mistaken about this. It was talked over at the time, and since, between members; and I remember very well the manly position of Mr. Howard, of Ohio on the subject. I remember well, that he gave all men to understand that troops would be marched anywhere through Ohio, to put down a rebellion, if it became necessary. Mr. V allandigham, He never said any such thing. It is a downright falsehood. Mr. Slake. You can call it what you please. I let it go to the country with the evidence I have given. Your denial and my statement may go for what they are worth. Mr. Vallandigham. Very well; they may. Mr. Blake. It does not stand on my statement alone. It is in consistency with the conduct of my colleague ever since the war commenced. It stands on record evidence of men who have ears to hear, and who were present on that occasion as well as myseltj and who did hear, and they do confirm the statement I have made. I am very willing the country should decide who has told the falsehood. I say my colleague [Mr. Vallandigham] did .say, at the meeting referred to, substantially what the Hon. T. C. Theaker declares he said, and 1 believe he made use of that very language. Mr. Theaker is well sustained by several other members of Congress who were present. Some of my colleagues say they did not hear the language said to have been used by the gentleman, I am not surprised that all present did not hear it, for there was much “noise and confusion” there about that time. Sir, the fact that some gentlemen did not hear it, and say they did not, can in no way invalidate the testimony of those who did hear it, and say they did. Mr. Pendleton. If my colleague will allow me a moment, I desire to say this. I was present at the meeting of the Ohio delegation referred to by my colleague. I recollect very well what transpired there. The scene that occurred, I am sure, will never be foi gotten by any of us that were present. I desire now to say, once for aofthat f believe I heard every word whH wa» spoken during the whole of that meetmg. 1 heard the speech of my colieague, [Mr. Vallandigham,] from beginning to end, and I did not hear and I do not believe ihat there was uttered any such language as has been here to night, and repeatedly heretofore, attributed to my colleague, [Mr. Vallandigham. j Mr. Hlake. I appeal to my colleague, [Mr. Ashley,] who was present, and there were others present,'but who are absent from the Hous- at this time, I will furnish their statement to the reporter. • Mr. Ashley. I was present, sir, at that meeting. The occurrences of that uigQt are fresh in my memory. During the evening the con-
7 versation became somewhat excite^. If I do not mistake, the then Senator from Ohio [Mr. Pugh] remarked, and directed his remarks to • me, smiting upon his breast and saying, that we would have to march over his dead body before we could march an army into the South to coerce her. I replied'that we would march over it if it was necessary. He said he could raise Irishmen enough in my district to put me down. And I understood my colleague from the Dayton district [Mr. Vallandigham,] to approve and endorse this sentiment, and to say that we would have to march over the Democrats of the Miami district also, before we should be permitted to invade sovereign States for the purpose of coercing them. Mr. Vallandigham. So it was Mr. Pugh, then, who made the remark, was it? Mr. Cox. Mr. Speaker, I think there is not a member of this delegation who has a more distinct recollection of what occurred at that meeting than myself. It was on the 18th of December, 1860. I have some memoranda about it by which I am enabled to refresh my recollection. . I recollect very well, and I have recurred to it since 1 have been here, that we were talking over some propositions by which we were of opinion that, through the action of Congress, we could close up these difficulties with the South without war. That was the way in which this conversation commenced. I myself offered a resolution which was not agreed to at that meeting. The gentleman says that we were all agreed on one policy. Mr. Blake. Except one member of the House, my colleague [Mr. Vallandigham,] and one member of the Senate, [Mr. Pugh,] to the proposition that secession was rebellion, and the rebellion must be crushed out. Mr. Cox. Now, sir, I have here a resolution which I offered in that meeting, and which was rejected by the Republicans who were there. I have that resolution here now in the very language in which it was offered. I wrote in pencil at the kmc and I have preserved it thinking it might possibly be of some sort of use as a historical thing. Here it is: Resolved, That the Representatives of Ohio request.the members of the Ohio Legislature, to abrogate all laws in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, for the return of fugitives from justice, and to vote down all pending laws to impede the execution of the fugitive slave law. Well sir, one thing led to another in that discussion, I may not recollect everything that took place, but I certainly remember no remark of my colleague from the Dayton district of the tenor of that reported by my colleague over the way, [Mr. Blake.] I remember distinctly that a member of Congress from Ohio [Mr. Howard] declared something about being willing to shoulder his musket and go to war, as he has since gone to the war, but I remember nothing of the kind in reference to my colleague [Mr. Vallandigham,] such as my other colleague imputes to him. Mr. Blake. Of course I can have no controversy in respect to this question of veracity with my other colleagues from Ohio. The version I have quoted from, has been published two years and I have never heard it conti overted until now. Mr. Cox. It was denied at the time. Mr. Blake. I was not aware of it. I was present when my coleague [Mr. Edgerton] made his speech last session in this House,
8 and no man on the floor then denied it. Mr. Vallandigham, The same version was quoted in a speech of Mr. Edgerton in this House, and was denied at the time. I denied it in a card soon after it was first stated, eighteen months ago. Mr. Diven. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. Blake. This is purely an Ohio matter, I hope the gentleman will not interfere in it. Mr. Diven. I merely wanted to ask a single question. Mr. Blake. Very well, I yield to the gentleman. Mr. Diven. The question I proposed to ask of some member of the Ohio delegation who was present at this meeting is, what time in the evening it was ? (Laughter.) Mr. Blake. It was early in the evening I assure the gentleman. As I said before, I have no question of veracity with any other eolleagues upon this point. I did not kown that it was a matter of controversy; I never heard it questioned. I wish to say that my memory upon this subject I think cannot be at fault; but at the same time I do not wish to charge as treacherous the memory of any other gentleman. I am confident of the accuracy of my recollection because of other circumstances in connexion with it which are fresh in my mind. I remember the Hon. Mr. Theaker, whose letter has been read at the clerk’s desk, had, standing in the corner of the room,, a eane, and when my colleague made the remark to which I have re- fered, Mr. Theaker started to get his cane, and said: “I will march over your dead body now, if necessary.” I must believe the statement to be true, I cannot doubt the word of the Hon. T. C. Theaker and the other members who corroborate him. Upon this point, however, my colleague is entitled to his denial, and I give him the benefit -of it for I have no desire to do him any injustice. Again: I find in the Charleston Mercury, a rebel organ of the South, the following: [Correspondence of the Charleston Mercury.] “Richmond, January 26. “ Yesterday a New-Yorker, who left Washington last Friday, arrived here and sought an interview with the President He was well accredited by letters to prominent southern gentlemen. He says the war cannot last ninety days; that the Yankee finances are in an inextricable confusion; the soldiers in all their armies mutinous, and only waiting to be paid off to disband. Then, says he, will come th® hanging of the Lincolnites—and there will be a clean sweep. This, like other such statements, should but make us more vigorous in pushing on the war. You may rest assured there is something in the story about im- f ortant matters in secret session, which I have been repeating from day to day. t is a treaty, or a loan, or both, with France.” Sir, this is the way and manner the rebels are sustained in their efforts to destroy the lives of our gallant men, and encouraged to resist the authority of the Constitution and the enforcement of the laws. And yet, with these facts before us, we hear men complaining arrests ! Sir, I complain that we have not had more of them. Sir, the men who are thus aiding the rebels, ought not only to be arrested; they ought to besliot. But not only has my* colleague been consistent in his sympathy for the-rebels, and his opposition to every measure to put down the rebellion and maintain the Constitution, but he has also been consistent in his abuse of New England and his threats of a western confederacy.
9 I am somewhat troubled to know how to reconcile the consistency of my colleague in his position of the “ Constitution as it is, and the Union as it was,” with his great idea of the formation of a confederacy with “ New England left out in the cold.” No doubt, however, the gentleman can do it—at least, to his own satisfaction, if not to that of the “rest of mankind.” “New England must be sacrificed,” cries Jeff Davis, the great bull-dog of the southern traitors, and thereupon every sympathizing cur in the free States, with his mouth frothing with treason, barks out, “ New England must be humbled.” Now, sir, what does all this mean? What has New England done that demagogues should now threaten to drive her out of the Union ? Has she failed or faltered in the least in this great struggle for constitutional freedom ? Her soldiers ^re found in every battle; and every field ofconflict has been whitened with the bones and fertilized with the blood of her most patriotic children. Mr. Speaker, I shall enter upon no encomium upon New England; in the language of her immortal Webster, “She needs none. There she is. Behold her, and judge for yourselves. There is her history ; the world knows it by heart. The past, at least, is secure. There is Boston, and Concord, and Lexington, and Bunker Hill; and there they will remain forever. The bones of her sons, falling in the great struggle for independence, now lie mingled with the soil of every State from New England to Georgia; and there they will lie forever. And, sir, where American liberty raised its first voice, and where its youth was nurtured and sustained, there it still lives, in the strength of its manhood and full of its original spirit.” Sir, leave New England out of the Union, and what a Union would be left to us I But gentlemen say they don’t contemplate this. Why, then, talk about it ? Is all this tirade against New England a mere rhetorical flourish ? Does it mean nothing ? Why, sir, this cry commenced in Richmond, and soon thereafter, we find honorable gentlemen leaving their places in this House to harangue the multitude in the city of New York, representing the people of the West as saying, “ New England fanaticism and speculation have made disunion! New England stands in the way of re-union! Perish New England, that the Union may live.” Can any man fail to see that all such attacks, at this time, upon any of the loyal States can have but the one effect—to cause dissensions among those who should be friends ? These attacks on New England, sir, can have no other purpose than to produce a division at the North, for the object, and the only object of aiding the rebels of the South in this struggle. This, sir is the only hope of the, rebels in this contest against, the Union. General Johnson, commander of one of the rebel armies, said some months since, that he did not expect to “ conquer the North by force of armsf but he did expect to conquer by the force of northern dissensions!1 This is the expectation all through rebeldom, and keeps the war spirit up in the South. The Richmond Despatch says : “ Illinois is a powerful State of the great Northwest, whose real interests are just as hostile to Puritan New England as our own. That she should take this decided stand against the Abolitionism, fanaticism, and malignity of New England is a sign of the times at the North that is full of significance. It cannot but be regarded as the outgiving of the impatience of the Puritan rule that must ultimately terminate in a more formidable resistance to it, and separation from the detestable portion of the Union, which has been the source of all the troubles among the States, as it has been of all the new schools of philosophy and religion which have so fearfully demoralized society at the North.”
10 The Despatch adds, as explanatory of its interest in this attack of its allies on New England : “ The only means of securing our independence is the sure one of increasing the discord among our enemies, and rendering certain the breaking up of the Federal Union. This event is necessary to the just completion of that horrid drama now being enacted, by the punishment, the isolation in misery, of that race of men whose villainies have conjured up all the national woes which now fill this continent.” And again : The Charleston (S. C.) Courier hails the disunion movement with great joy. It says : “ They hate the sniveling, intolerant, sordid, meam Yankees as heartily as we of the South do; and such a people can and must appreciate the fine and noble qualities we have exhibited during thus bloody war. Conscious of their ability to maintain a separate and independent nationality—disgusted with the malignity, fanaticism, and sordid spirit of New England—convinced that the South will accord them the free navigation of the Mississippi, and that they can never obtain that boot by force of arms—we are hopeful that the States of the Northwest will speedily imitate' the example of their southern brethren, and come out of the disgraced, enfeebled, and bankrupt Union.” At this very time, sir, while New England is generously furnishing men and money to carry on the war, to the suppression of the rebellion, and while her brave troops are standing as a breastwork between us and the rebels, protecting this capital of the nation, meif holding the highest positions are to be found who denounce that whole section. Why, sir, if we did not know these men, we would be justified in the conclusion that they are in the pay and employ of the southern confederacy. Mr. Cox. Before my colleague takes his seat I should like to.know from what he reads ? Mr. Blake. I read from the “Caucasian” I have put the extract in quotation marks. I will do no injustice to my colleague. These remarks are what my colleague [Mr. Cox] represents as the sayings of the people in the northwest. Mr. Cox. I have no fault to find with my colleague for reading it. I however denounce some of the language there used. Now, on this subject of western hostility to New England, I have here a statement which I should like my colleague to explain along with his comments on my New York speech. The statement is this : “Wendell Phillips in his speech at Plymouth Church last week, alludes to a recent conversation with a Republican member of Congress from Ohio, which looks as if even Ohio would go with the South if there should be a division. ‘One of the best men from Ohio,’ said Mr. Phillips.” Mr. Blake. That could not mean me. (Laughter.) Mr. Cox. I do not know but that means you. “One of the best men from Ohio, said Mr. Phillips, representing one of the most advanced districts.” i Mr. Blake. That is my district. Mr. Cox. That is yours—“Republican to the very core.” Is that yours ? Mr. Blake. Yes, sir, that is mine. Mr. Cox. But they elected a Democrat to the next Congress from that district. (Laughter.) “Himself the vanguard of t]ieparty.' Mr. Blake. That is not me. I occupy a position pretty far in the rear. (Laughter.) My district elected a Democrat because some
11 eight or ten thousand men had gone from it to the war. It is Republican still, whenever the soldiers are permitted to vote. . Mr. Cox. Well, I will read the statement. “One of the best men from Ohio, said Mr. Phillips, Republican to the very core, representing one of the most advanced districts, Republican to the very core, himself the vanguard of the party, assured me that in case of separation or anything that looked like it, every town in his district would be divided, he would not say to blood, but the next door to it, upon the question whether they should go with the South and not with New England or New York. So deeply has that lesson of northern and western jealousy penetrated the very best elements of western politics. Under such circumstances we have no time to lose.” Wendell Phillips said that. Now which one of my colleagueshad that conference with him ? Was it the gentlemen from the western part of the State ? Whoever it was he goes farther than I went. He not only goes further in warning New England against this growing feeling in the west, but he seems to predict the disintegration of the Union, against which we on this side have constantly protested. Who was he ? Mr. Blake. In the first place Wendell Phillips is not a Republican. Mr. Cox. Does he tell the truth ? Mr. Blake. I believe Wendell Phillips to be a talented and honest man, but he, in my judgment, is frequently in error, and one grave one is that he is not a Republican. He never has belonged to the Republican party. He ignores that party, to which all honest men ought, in my opinion, to attach themselves. Mr. Cox. Then there are some honest, truth-telling men who do not belong to your party ? (Laughter.) Mr. Blake. Yes, sir, there are many, I am sorry to say ; I think they ought all to belong to my party. Mr. Cox. I suppose so ; the question now is, however, did Wendell Phillips tell the truth or a falsehood, and if he told the truth, who is the man among my colleagues, in the “van of the Republican party,” who said what was never even charged against me in my New York speech ? Mr. Blake. Not me, certainly. I repeat what I have already said that Wendell Phillips has no connexion with the Republican party. I know nothing of any such conversation with any man on our side of the House, nor do I believe any such conversation ever took place. In the next place, I say to my colleague, that whether Wendell Phillips said so or not, there is no such sentiment in the West. It is not true that there is any such prejudice as that against New England among the people of Ohio. There is an effort being made to bring about this state of feeling in the State, but it will never succeed. We look upon New England as a part of our country, and feel honored by her high position. We look upon her as the great light-house of our country, and it is not true, I repeat, that any respectable portion of the people of the West ever have been, or ever can be induced to join in this tirade against New England. It is true that among the party of sympathisers with the rebels, you may find men who will join in such a cry, for the purpose of aiding Jeff Davis, but no where else. You cannot find it among any respectable class of people. I repudiate and protest in the name of the people, against any such sentiment being attributed to any portion of the people of Ohio, or of the W’est. That is what I say, sir.
12 Mr. Cox. The gentleman does not answer my question. Wendell Phillips states that such a conversation was held with a Republican member of this House from Ohio. Now, what I want to know of my colleague is, who is the Republican member that furnished that sort of testimony. Mr. Blake. In the first place, the whole statement is merely an irresponsible newspaper report. No authority is given for it. The gentleman will not himself vouch for its correctness, and I protest against bringing in here such vague, irresponsible newspaper statements as the ground of a charge against menbers of this House. The gentleman brings in here such a report and then wants to know which one of my colleagues made the statement. Sir, I do not believe any one of them made it, and it is not true whether it was made or not. Mr. Cox. I merely wanted to know whether any of my colleagues had made it. Mr. Blake; I do not believe any one of them made it. I tell the gentleman there is no such sentiment among the people of Ohio; and if any one asserted such a thing to me, I would tell him he was mistaken ; if he persisted in it, I would tell him it was a falsehood. Mr. Cox. Andthen there would be a fight I suppose. (Laughter.) Mr. Blake. I suppose so, unless, as is probable, the man who made the assertion would be too cowardly to fight. Mr. Speaker, I am admonished by my time being limited that I can submit to no further interruption—I trust therefore, gentlemen will excuse me. I said sir, this cry against New England first made its appearance in Richmond, the so-called Capital of the Southern confederacy; and from that point it has spread to the sympathising friends of that nest of traitors in the free States. But a few months since, and General G. T. Beauregard, the rebel general commanding in the South, issued an order to all his men to call our troops by no other name than abolitionists; and thereupon, every man in the loyal States, and ill the United States Army every where, who is in favor of sustaining the Government, maintaining the Constitution, enforcing the laws, and using all the means, justified by civilized warfare, which God and nature have placed within our reach to put down the rebellion, was denounced by every sympathizing traitor in the North as an abolitionist. Now sir, what means all this? Is it possible that Jeff. Davis has extended his dominions into the loyal States, and that these men have taken the oath of allegiance to his government, and forsaken our own, with all of its hallowed memories ? Has Davis a branch of his government established in the free States? I cannot account for the striking agreement between the rebels and their sympathizers in sentiments and actions upon any other hypothesis, than that there is, a full understanding on both sides on these questions. If the rebels of the South and their sympathizers in the North, are not acting in concert, they are at least in harmony. Sir, the sons of New England, scattered as they are, all over the West, will yet make these gentlemen who live in their midst, and who are known to give publicity to such sentiments only for the purpose of discord, feel their power. What has made the great West, but New England enterprise ? Talk about a union without New England I Sir, you might as well talk about a solar system without a sun.
13 Why sir, under other circumstances, it would be amusing to hear my friend from Ohio [Mr. Cox] descant on the qualities of the Yankee. I am not surprised that his congregation in New York were convulsed with laughter at his delineations of Yankee character. With all the nasal twang of the Yankee, and-with many of those peculiarities by which he is known in all countries, they must have readily come to the conclusion, that if the gentleman was not born in Yankee land, there was a live Yankee around, near the place of his birth. (Laughter.) How could they help their- mirth, on such an occasion, and with such a specimen before them? It is no wonder then, they felt great merriment at the exhibition they were having of the Yankee on that occasion. Sir, being of the Hibernian stock, although born in the State of Vermont, I am unable to appreciate this cant about Yankees, and New England. I a,m not ashamed of my origin, nor the place of my birth. Vermont has never done anything that I am aware of, to disgrace me; and God being my helper, I will try to do nothing to disgrace her. My colleague [Mr. Vallandigham] in his able and extraordinary speech the other day, says: It is now two years, sir, since Congress assembled soon after the Presidential election. A sectional anti-slavery party had just succeeded through the forms of the Constitution. For the first time a President had been chosen upon a platform of avowed hostility to an institution peculiar to nearly one-half of the States, there was an irresistable conflict because of that institution between the States; and that the Union could not endure “part slave and part free.” Congress met, therefore, in the midst of the profoundest agitation, not here only but throughout the entire South. Revolution glared upon us. Repeated efforts for conciliation and compromise were attempted in Congress and out of it All were rejected by the party just coming into power, except only the promise in the last hour of the session, and, that, too, against the consent of a majority of that party, both in the Senate and House, that Congress—not the Executive—should never be authorized to abolish or interfere with slavery in the States where it existed. South Carolina seceded; Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Lousiana and Texas speedily .followed. The Confederate Government was established^ The other slave States held back. Virginia demanded a Peace.Congress. The Commissioners met, and, after some time, agreed upon terms of final adjustment. But neither in the Senate nor the House were then allowed even a respectful consideration. Sir, what are the facts? The gentleman here seeks to convey the impression that the war was brought on the country by the Republican party, when every man knows, that for months before the inauguration of Mr. Lincoln the war had commenced. On the 21st day of January, 1861, Judge David A. Smalley in his charge to the grand jury of the United States District Court for the southern district of New York said: “It is well known that war, civil war, exists in portions of the Union; that persons owing allegiance to the United States have confederated together, and with arms, by force and intimidation, have prevented the execution of the constitutional acts of Congress, have forcibly seized upon and hold a custom house and post office, forts, arsenals, vessels, and other property belonging to the United States, and have actually fired upon vessels bearing the United States flag and carrying United States troops. This is a usurpation of the authority of the Federal Government; it is high treason by levying war. Either one of thoseStcts will constitute high treason. There can be no doubt of it.” This was while the patron saint of all the sympathizers with the rebellion, James Buchanan, was President of the United States. What was the action of this man Buchanan at this time when war was upon
the country ? Why sir, from the first outbreak, with traitors for his Cabinet counsellors, he aided and abetted the rebels in arms against their country—against your Government and mine. James Buchanan in his message to Congress on the 3d day of December, 1860, declared: “This Government, therefore, is a great and powerful Government, invested with all the attributes of sovereignty over the special subjects to which its authority extends. Its framers never intended to implant in its bosom the seeds of its own destruction p. nor were they, at its creation, guilty of the absurdity of providing for its own dissolution. It was not intended by its framers to be the baseless fabric of a vision, which, at the touch of the enchanter, would vanish into thin air; but a substantial and mighty fabric, capable of resisting the slow decay of time, and of defying the storms of age. Indeed, well may the jealous patriots of that day have indulged fears that a Government of such high powers might violate the reserved rights of the States; and wisely did they adopt- the rule of a strict construction of these powers to prevent the danger. But they did not fear, nor had they any reason to imagine, that the Constitution would ever be so interpreted as to enable any State, by her own act, and without the consent of her sister States, to discharge her people from all or any of their Federal obligations.” And again he says, in strict accordance with the spirit that has inspired all those who oppose the present Administration in its efforts to put down the rebellion and maintain the Constitution : “The question fairly stated, is: Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and make war against a State. After much serious refection, I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government^ At this time no loyal man attempted to justify this monstrous doc- tri ne, and it was generally denounced by one shout of universal indig' nation from the people. This, as every patriotic man knew was adeliber* ate invitation to treason, and if acted upon must destroy the Republic But not so with my colleague [Mr. Vallandigham] he approved of this message of the persecutor of Douglas; and at a convention of his friends in Columbus, Ohio, on the 23d day of January, 1861, was passed the following resolution, sustaining Mr. Buchanan in his traitorous course: "Resolved, That the two hundred thousand Democrats of Ohio, send to the people of the United States, both North and South greeting : and when the people of the North shall have fulfilled their duties to the Constitution and the South, then, and not until then, will it be proper for them to take into consideration the question of the right and propriety of coercion.” Our country then had been at war for some time; men had confederated together to prevent the execution of the laws; they had forcibly seized upon custom houses, post offices, forts, arsenals, vessels, and other property belonging to the United States, and had actually fired upon vessels bearing the United States flag and carrying United States troops. But my colleague, and his friends at this time, were not prepared to consider even, the question of coercion. Mr. Buchanan would not, and did not consider it. The rebels persisted in their work of destroying the Union, without any effort being made to put them down. Mr. Lincoln was inaugurated on the 4th of March, W61; and because he would not pursue the policy of my colleague, and his friend James Buchanan, and not even consider the question of coer- io n ; because he dared to lay his strong hand upon the slaveholders
15 rebellion, he is now maligned, proscribed and his record falsified. Mr. Lincoln is assailed by traitors, because he has done what Buchanan should have done, but shrunk from, upon the cowardly plea that it could not be done under the Constitution. For believing that the Constitution could not be perverted to its own destruction; acting on that belief, and punishing treason promptly and fearlessly, Mr. Lincoln is how held up as an object of opprobrium. If the advice given on the 3d day of December, 1860, by James Buchanan, and sanctioned by the leading rebel sympathizers ever since, had been followed by Mr. Lincoln, he would not have responded to the popular acclaim of the people against the rebellion, after the fall of Sumter; he would have allowed Washington and Baltimore to fall into the hands of the traitors, and these cities would now be occupied by the rebel armies; he would have permitted traitors all over our country to revel in their work of riot and bloodsheed ; he would have encouraged clandestine correspondence with the public enemy; and he would have taken to his confidence the men; who have, ever since the war began, in every possible way, labored to embarass the Government in its efforts to put down the rebellion. But because he would not do this, and has labored night and day, in season and out of season, to save the Union, and to presetve the Government, he is assailed by every disloyal man in the country, as a violator of the Constitution, an assailant of the rights of the people, of freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, and as unworthy of his high position. Sir, there is one very remarkable fact about the men who assail the President and his Administration. They can never find anything unconstitutional the rebels have done, and have no terms of opprobrium for the men who have been killing our.brothers, fathers, and children, and are still seeking the life blood of the nation. All their denunciation is carefully preserved for Mr. Lincoln and the friends of the Government. Sir, my confidence is unshaken in the mass of the- people, and the time is not distant, when these men will be made to feel their indignation. The soldiers in the field who have left all to serve their country, are already beginning to speak out on this subject; and soon the people will take up the spirit that is breathed by our gallant troops. The brave, uuconquered and unconquerable troops of Illinois have spoken as follows: Corinth, Miss., January 30. At a meeting of the officers of the different Illinois regiments stationed at th|ypost, the following proceedings were had. The meeting being called to orcrer, Lieutenant Colonel Philips, of-the Ninth Illinois regiment,$was elected President, and Adjutant Letton, of the Sixty-Ninth Illinois, Secretary. Colonel Chetlain, of the Twelfth' Illinois, stated that the object of calling the Illinois officers together was to adopt resolutions to show Governor Yates and the other officers of Illinois, and all our friends at home, that we are still in favor of the vigorous prosecution of the war, and that we will uphold our President and Governor in all their efforts to put down this rebellion. On motion, a committee on resolutions was elected, consisting of the following officers: Colonel Chetlain, Twelfth Illinois, commanding post; M. M. Bane, Fiftieth Illinois, commanding Third brigade; Lieutenant Colonel Wileox, Fifty-second Illinois; Colonel Burke, Sixty-sixth Illinois; Colonel A. J. Babcock, Seventh Illinois; Colonel Mersey, Ninth Illinois, commanding Second brigade; Lieutenant Colonel Morrill, Sixty-fourth Illinois. . The committee on resolutions submitted the following, which were unani-* mously adopted: Whereas our Government is now engaged in a struggle for the perpetuation
digitalcommons.cedarville.eduRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=