forcible abolition of slavery, should be contemplated for a moment. In prosecuting the war, all private property and unarmed persons should be strictly protected, subject only to the necessity of military operations; all private property taken for military use should be paid or receipted for; pillage and waste should be treated as high crimes; all unnecessary trespass sternly prohibited, and offensive demeanor by the military towards citizens promptly rebuked. Military arrests should not be tolerated, except in places where active hostilities exist; and oaths, not required by enactments, constitutionally made, should be neither demanded nor received. Military government should be confined to the preservation of public order and the protection of political right. Military power should not be allowed to interfere with the relations of servitude, either by supporting or impairing the authority of the master, except for repressing disorder, as in other cases. Slaves, contraband under the act of Congress, seeking military protection, should receive it. The right of the government to appropriate permanently to its own service claims to slave labor should be asserted, and the right of the owner to compensation therefor should be recognized. This principle might be extended, upon grounds of military necessity and security, to all the slaves of a particular State, thus working manumission in such State; and in Missouri, perhaps in Western Virginia also, and possibly even in Maryland, the expediency of such a measure is only a question of time. A system of policy thus constitutional, and pervaded by the influences of Christianity and freedom, would receive the support of almost all truly loyal men, would deeply impress the rebel masses and all foreign nations, and it might be humbly hoped that it would commend itself to the favor of the Almighty. Unless the principles governing the future conduct of our struggle shall be made known and approved, the effort to obtain requisite forces will be almost hopeless. A declaration of radical views, especially upon slavery, will rapidly disintegrate our present armies. The policy of the government must be supported by concentrations of military power. The national forces should not be dispersed in expeditions, posts of occupation, and numerous armies, but should be mainly collected into masses, and brought to bear upon the armies of the Confederate States. Those armies thoroughly defeated, the political structure which they support would soon cease to exist. In carrying out any system of policy which you may form, you will require a commander-in-chief of the army, one who possesses your confidence, understands your views, and who is competent to execute your orders, by directing the military forces of the nation to the accomplishment of the objects by you proposed. I do not ask that place for myself. I am willing to serve you in such position as you may assign me, and I will do so as faithfully as ever subordinate served superior. I may be on the brink of eternity; and as I hope forgiveness from my Maker, I have written this letter with sincerity towards you and from love for my country. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, | principles of humanity and civilization, working no injury to private rights and property not demanded by military necessity and recognized by military law among civilized nations. And, finally, I understand him to agree with me in the opinion that the sole great objects of this war are the restoration of the unity of the nation, the preservation of the Constitution, and the supremacy of the laws of the country. Believing our opinions entirely agree upon these points, I would, were it in my power, give to Judge Woodward my voice and vote. Proposed Censures of Officials. OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN. First Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress. July 15-Mr. VALLANDIGHAM offered the following: Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States confers upon Congress alone the power to "raise and support armies," and to" provide and maintain a navy" and therefore the President, in the proclamation of May 3, 1861, and the orders and action, by his authority, of the War and Navy Departments, increasing the Army and Navy, and calling for and accepting the services of volunteers for three years without warrant of law, usurped powers belonging solely to Congress, and so violated the Constitution. 2. That the right to declare a blockade as against an in dependent power, is a belligerent right, depending upon the existence of a state of war; and that as Congress, and Congress alone, have the power to declare or recognize the existence of war, the President has no right to order a blockade until after Congress shall have declared or recog nized war with the power whose ports are to be blockaded; and further, that Congress alone can abolish or shut up the ports of entry of any State within the Union; and that, therefore, the President, in blockading and shutting up the ports of entry in certain of the States of the Union, without the authority of Congress, violated the Constitution. 3. That Congress alone have the constitutional power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus; and that until the writ has been suspended by act of Congress, it is the duty of the President, and all other officers, civil and military, to obey it; and that, therefore, the President, in suspending said writ himself, or attempting to authorize certain military officers to suspend it, or to disobey it, or in sustaining them in disobedience to it, violated the Constitution. 4. That by the Constitution "no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law;" and that in ordering the drawing from the Treasury of money unappropriated or appropriated for cre purpose, and applying the same to purposes for which no appropriations had been made by law, the President viola ted the Constitution. 5. That the search of certain telegraph offices in the month of May last, by several officers and agents of the Excentive, without search warrrant upon probable cause, sup ported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the things to be seized; and the seizure of papers and despatches in said offices was a violation of the constitutional "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects agunt unreasonable searches and seizures;" and that the Pre dent, in ordering such search and seizures, violated the Cen stitution. 6. That neither Congress, nor the President, nor the judi ciary, have any constitutional power to abridge the freedo of speech or of the press; and that the suspension of new paper presses by military authority and force, and the arre of citizens by military or civil authority, for the expresion by speech, or through the press, of opinions upon political subjects, or subjects of any kind, is a violation of the Con It has been my earnest endeavor heretofore to avoid participation in party politics. I had determined to adhere to this course, but it is obvious that I cannot longer maintain silence under such misrepresentations. I therefore request you to deny that I have written any such letter, or entertained any such views as those attributed to me in the Phil-stitution. adelphia Press, and I desire to state clearly and distinctly, that having some days ago had a full conversation with Judge Woodward, I find that our views agree, and I regard his election as Governor of Pennsylvania called for by the interests of the nation. I understand Judge Woodward to be in favor of the prosecution of the war with all the means at the command of the loyal States, until the military power of the rebellion is destroyed. I understand him to be of the opinion that while the war is urged with all possible decision and energy, the policy directing it should be in consonance with the 7. That the arrest without civil process of persons net subject to the rules and articles of war, nor in casi arising in the land or naval forces or in the militia, whe in actual service, by soldiers in the service of the United States, is a breach of the Constitution, and a violation of the constitutional liberty of the person. On motion of Mr. LOVEJOY, these resolutions were at once laid upon the table-the House refusing to order the yeas and nays. OF EX-PRESIDENT BUCHANAN. Third Session, Thirty-Seventh Congross. IN SENATE. Ashley, Baily, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blame, Francis P. Blair, Boutwell, Boyd, Broomall, William G. Brown, Ambrose W. Clark, Freeman Clarke, Cobb, Cole, Cres well, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T. Davis, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eliot, Frank, Garfield, Gooch, Grin 1862, Dec. 15-Mr. DAVIS, of Kentucky, nell, Hale, Higby, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, offered this resolution : John H. Hubbard, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Loan, Marvin, McBride, MoResolved, That after it had become manifest that an insur-Clurg, McIndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Morrill, Daniel Morris, rection against the United States was about to break out in Amos Myors, Leonard Myers, Norton, Orth, Patterson, Pike, several of the southern States, James Buchanan, then Pres- Pomeroy, Price, William H. Randall, Edward H. Rollins, ident, from sympathy with the conspirators and their treas- Schenck, Scofield, Shannon, Smith, Smithers, Spalding, Starr, onable project, failed to take necessary and proper Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Ellihu B. measures to prevent it; wherefore he should receive the Washburne, William B. Washburn, Webster, Whaley, Wilcensure and condemnation of the Senate and the American liams, Wilder, Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge-84. people. Same day-The resolution and proposed amendment were laid upon the table-yeas 38, nays 3, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Arnold, Browning, Carlile, Clark, Collamer, Cowan, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Field, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harding, Harlan, Harris, Henderson, Kennedy, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Latham, Morrill, Nesmith, Pomeroy, Powell, Rice, Saulsbury, Sherman, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Willey, Wilson of Massachusetts, Wilson of Missouri, Wright-38. NAYS-Messrs. Davis, Howe, Wilkinson-3. OF MESSRS. LONG AND HARRIS. First Session, Thirty-Eighth Congress. 1864, April 9-Mr. COLFAX, the Speaker, (Mr. ROLLINS, of New Hampshire, in the Chair,) offered this preamble and resolution: Whereas on the 8th of April, 1864, when the House of Representatives was in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, ALEXANDER LONG, a Representative from the second district of Ohio, declared himself in favor of recognizing the independence and nationality of the socalled confederacy now in arms against the Union; and whereas, the said so-called confederacy, thus sought to be recognized and established on the ruins of a dissolved or destroyed Union, has as its chief officers, civil and military, those who have added perjury to their treason, and who seek to obtain success for their parricidal efforts by the killing of the loyal soldiers of the nation who are seeking to save it from destruction; and whereas the oath required of all members, and taken by the said ALEXANDER LONG on the first day of the present Congress, declares "that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encour agement to persons engaged in armed hostility to the United States," thereby declaring that such conduct is regarded as inconsistent with membership in the Congress of the United States: Therefore, Resolved, That ALEXANDER LONG, a Representative from the second district of Ohio, having, on the 8th of April, 1564, declared himself in favor of recognizing the independence and nationality of the so-called confederacy now in arms against the Union, and thereby "given aid, countenance, and encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility to the United States," is hereby expelled. NAYS-Messrs. James C. Allen, Ancona, Augustus C. Bald win, Bliss, James S. Brown, Chanler, Clay, Cox, Cravens, Dawson, Denison, Eden, Eldridge, English, Finck, Ganson, Grider, Harding, Harrington, Herrick, Holman, Hutchins, Philip Johnson, William Johnson, Kernan, Law, Lazear Le Blond, Long, Mallory, Marcy, McAllister, McDowell, McKinney, Middleton, William H. Miller, James R. Morris, Morrison, Nelson, Odell, Pendleton, Pruyn, Samuel J. Randall, Robinson, Rogers, James S. Rollins, Ross, Scott, John B. Steele, William G. Steele, Strouse, Sweat, Voorhees, Ward, Chillon A. White, Joseph W. White, Winfield, Fernando Wood-58. Mr. SCHENCK then offered this resolution: Resolved, That BENJAMIN G. HARRIS, a Representative from the fifth district of the State of Maryland, having spoken words this day in debate, manifestly tending and designed to encourage the existing rebellion and the enemies of this Union, is declared to be an unworthy member of this House, and is hereby severely censured. A motion to table the resolution was lostyeas 23, nays 80; two motions to adjourn were made and voted down; and the resolution was then adopted-yeas 98, nays 20, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnold, Ashley, Baily, Augustus C. Baldwin, John D. Baldwin, Bax ter, Beaman, Blaine, F. P. Blair, Boutwell, Boyd, Broomall, James S. Brown, Ambrose W. Clark, Freeman Clarke, Cobb, Cole, Creswell, Cor, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T. Davis, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eliot, Engrington, Higby, Holman, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, lish, Frank, Ganson, Garfield, Gooch, Grinnell, Hale, HarJohn H. Hubbard, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Kernan, Loan, Marvin, McAllister, McBride, McClurg, McIndoe, Middleton, Samuel F. Miller, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Nelson, Norton, Odell, Orth, Patterson, Pike, Pomeroy, Price, William H. Randall, Edward H. Rollins, Schenck, Scofield, Shannon, Sloan, Smith, Smithers, Spalding, Starr, John B. Steele, William G. Steele, Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Ellihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Webster, Whaley, Williams, Wilder, Wilson, Windom, Winfield, Yeaman--98. NAYS-Messrs. James C. Allen, Ancona, Bliss, Chanler, Denison, Eden, Eldridge, Law, Le Blond, Long, Wm. H. Miller, Morrison, Pendleton, Pruyn, Samuel J. Randall, Ross, Strouse, Voorhees, Chilton A. White, Fernando Wood-20. The question recurring upon the resolution offered by Mr. COLFAX April 14-Mr. BROOMALL offered this amendment, as a substitute, which Mr. COLFAX aocepted: Whereas ALEXANDER LONG, a Representative from the second district of Ohio, by his open declarations in the na tional Capitol and publications in the city of New York, has Pending which, April 9, Mr. WASHBURNE, of shown himself to be in favor of a recognition of the so-called Illinois, offered this resolution: Whereas Hon. BENJAMIN G. HARRIS, a member of the House of Representatives of the United States from the State of Maryland has on this day used the following language, to wit: "The South asked you to let them go in peace. But, no; you said you would bring them into subjection. That is not done yet, and God Almighty grant that it never maybe. I hope that you will never subjugate the South." And whereas such language is treasonable, and is a gross disrespect of this House: Therefore, Be it resolved, That the said BENJAMIN G. HARRIS be expelled from this House. confederacy now trying to establish itself upon the ruins of our country, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy in that destructive purpose-aid to avowed traitors in creating an illegal government within our borders-comfort to them by assurances of their success, and affirmations of the justice of their cause; and whereas such conduct is at the same time evidence of disloyalty and inconsistent with his oath of office and his duty as a member of this body: Therefore, Resolved, That the said ALEXANDER LONG, a Representative from the second district of Ohio, be, and he is hereby, declared to be an unworthy member of the House of Representatives. Resolved, That the Speaker shall read these resolutions Which was rejected-yeas 84, nays 58, (two to the said ALEXANDER LONG during the session of the thirds being required :) YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnold, House. Mr. Cox moved to lay the preamble and reso 888 lution on the table; which was disagreed to- | Randall, William H. Randall, Robinson, Rogers, James & yeas 70, nays 80. A division of the question was called, when The first resolution was agreed to-yeas 80, nays 70, as follows: Wheeler, Chilton A. White, Joseph W. White, Winfield NAYS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnold, Fernando Wood, Yeaman-71. Ashley, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, BoutYEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnold, well, Boyd, A. W. Clark, Cobb, Cole, Creswell, Dawes, DemAshley, Baily, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, ing, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Farnsworth, Frank, Garfield, Boutwell, Boyd, Broomall, Ambrose W. Clark, Cobb, Cole, Gooch, Grinnell, Higby, Hooper, Hotchkiss, J. H. Hubbard, Creswell, Dawes, Deming, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Farns- Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelly, Francis W. Kellogg, Or worth, Frank, Garfield, Gooch, Grinnell, Higby, Hooper, lando Kellogg, Loan, Longyear, Marvin, McBride, McClurg, Hotchkiss, John H. Hubbard, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, McIndoe, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Norton, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Loan, Long- Charles O'Neill, Orth, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Pomeroy, year, Marvin, McBride, McClurg, McIndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Price, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Schenck, Shannon, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Nor- Sloan, Smithers, Starr, Stevens, Thayer, Upson, Van Valton, Charles O'Neill, Orth, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Pome-kenburg, Ellihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, The preamble was then agreed to-yeas 78, roy, Price, William H. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, John Wilder, Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge-70. H. Rice, Edward H. Rollins, Schenck, Shannon, Sloan, Smith, Sinithers, Starr, Stevens, Thayer, Thomas, Upson, YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnold, Van Valkenburg, Ellihu B. Washburne, William B. Wash- nays 63, as follows: Ashley, Baily, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, burn, Webster, Whaley, Wilder, Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge-80. Boutwell, Boyd, Broomall, Ambrose W. Clark, Cobb, Cole, Creswell, Dawes, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Frank, Garfield, Gooch, Grinnell, Higby, Hooper, Hotchkiss, John H. Hubbard, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Loan, Longyear, Marvin, McBride, Me Clurg, McIndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Norton, Charles O'Neill, Orth Patterson, Perham, Pike, Pomeroy, Price, William H. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Edward H. Rollins, Schenck, Shannon, Sloan, Smith, Smithers, Starr, Stevens, Thayer, Thomas, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Ellihu B. Wash burne, William B. Washburn, Webster, Whaley, Wilder, Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge-78. NAYS-Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Ancona, Brown, Chanler, Clay, Coffroth, Cox, Dawson, Denison, Augustus C. Baldwin, Bliss, James S. Brown, William G. Eden, Eldridge, Finck, Ganson, Grider, Hall, Harding, Benjamin G. Harris, Herrick, Holman, Hutchins, Walian Johnson, Kalbfleisch, Kernan, Knapp, Law, Lazear, Marcy, McDowell, McKinney, William H. Miller, James R. Morris, Morrison, Nelson, Noble, Odell, John O'Neill, Pendleton, Perry, Pruyn, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Robina, Rodgers, James S. Rollins, Ross, Scott, Stebbins, John B. Steele, William G. Steele, Strous, Stuart, Voorhees, Ward, Wheeler, Chilton A. White, Joseph W. White, Winfield Fernando Wood, Yeaman-63. THE CONSPIRACY OF DISUNION. In the slaveholding States, a considerable body of men have always been disaffected to the Union. They resisted the adoption of the National Constitution, then sought to refine away the rights and powers of the General Government, and by artful expedients, in a series of years, using the excitements growing out of passing questions, finally perverted the sentiments of large masses of men, and pre-were very lengthy. pared them for revolution. therefore, had been found useful among them, came well example in this point of view to us. If the thing was right recommended by experience to us. Drawbacks stand as an in itself, there could be no just argument drawn against the use of a thing from the abuse of it. It would be the duty of Government to guard against abuses, by prudent appoint ments and watchful attention to officers. That as to chang ing the kind of rum, I thought the collection bill would provide for this, by limiting the exportation to the original casks and packages. I said a great deal more, but really did not feel much interest either way. But the debates Butler flamed away, and THREATENED A DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION, with regard to his State, as sure as God was in the firmament. He scattered his remarks over the whole impost bill, calling it partial, oppressive, &c., and solely calculated to oppress South Carolina, and yet ever and anon declaring how clear of local views and how candid and dispassionate he was. He degenerates into mere declamation. His State would live free, or die glorious. I had prepared an extensive collection of statements and facts bearing upon this point, but am obliged to omit them for want of space. The well-read in our politics can readily recur to a multitude of proofs. I append a few conspicuous points, the first of which is less well known, being from an unpublished journal by Hon. William Maclay, United States Senator Opinions of Jackson, Benton, Clay, from Pennsylvania, from March 4, 1789, to March 3, 1791, being the First Congress under the Constitution. This journal is the property disunionists, General JACKSON's recently-disReferring to the modus operandi of southern of his relative, George W. Harris, Esq., of Har-covered letter to Rev. A. J. Crawford is curious risburg, Pa. for the keenness of its perceptions, and the accuracy of its prediction: An early Threat of Dissolution. FROM SENATOR MACLAY'S JOURNAL. 1789, June 9-In relation to the tariff bill, the affair of confining the East India Trade to the citizens of America had been negatived, and a committee had been appointed to report on this business. The report came in with very high duties, amounting to a prohibition. But a new phenomenon had made its appearance in the House (meaning the Senate) since Friday. Pierce Butler, from South Carolina, had taken his seat, and flamed like a meteor. He arraigned the whole Impost law, and then charged (indirectly) the whole Congress with a design of oppressing South Carolina. He cried out for encouraging the Danes and Swedes, and foreigners of every kind, to come and take away our produce. In fact, he was for a navigation act reversed. June 11-Attended at the hall as usual. Mr. Izard and Mr. Butler opposed the whole of the drawbacks in every shape whatever. Mr. Grayson,t of Virginia, warm on this subject, said we were not ripe for such a thing. We were a new nation, and had no business for any such regulations-a nation sui gen eris. Mr. Leet said drawbacks were right, but would be so much abused, he could not think of admitting them. Mr. Ellsworth said New England rum would be exported, Instead of West India, to obtain the drawback. I thought it best to say a few words in reply to each. We were a new nation, it was true, but we were not a new people. We were composed of individuals of like manners, habita, and customs with the European nations. What, Ralph. William. and others. ["Private."] WASHINGTON, May 1, 1833. "MY DEAR SIR: *** I have had a laborious task here, but nullification is dead; and its actors and courtiers will only be remembered by the people to be execrated for their wicked designs to sever and destroy the only good Government on the globe, and that prosperity and happiness we enjoy over every other portion of the world. Haman's gallows ought to be the fate of all such ambitious men who would involve their country in civil war, and all the evils in its train, that they might reign and ride on its whirlwinds and direct the storm. The free people of these United States have spoken, and consigned these wicked demagogues to their proper doom. Take care of your nullifiers; you have them among you; let them meet with the indignant frowns of every man who loves his country. The tariff, it is now known, was a mere pretext-its burden was on your coarse woolens. By the law of July, 1832, coarse woolen was reduced to five per cent. for the benefit of the South. Mr. Clay's bill takes it up and classes it with woolens at fifty per cent., reduces it gradually down to twenty per cent., and there it is to remain, and Mr. Calhoun and all the nullifiers agree to the principle. The cash duties and home valuation will be equal to fifteen per cent. more, and after the year 1842, you pay on coarse woolens thirty-five per cent. If this is not protection, I cannot understand; therefore the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and a southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro or slavery question. sent me kindly to your lady and family, and believe mate. "My health is not good, but is improving a little. Pre be your friend Richard Henry, from Virginia gencer of November 4, 1861, makes these remarks: BENTON in his Thirty Years' View, says: The regular inauguration of this slavery agitation dates from the year 1835; but it had commenced two years before, However busy Mr. Pickens may have been in the caucus and in this way: nullification and disunion had commenced in 1830, upon complaint against protective tariff. That, after it met, the most active man in getting it up and press being put down in 1833 under President Jackson's proclaing the southern members to go into it was Mr. R. B. Khett, mation and energetic measures, was immediately substitut- also a member from South Carolina. The occasion, or aled by the slavery agitation. Mr. Calhoun, when he went leged cause of this withdrawal from the House into secret deliberation was an anti-slavery speech of Mr. Slade, of Ver home from Congress in the spring of that year, told his friends that "the South could never be united against the mont, which Mr. Rhett violently denounced, and proposed North on the tariff question-that the sugar interest of to the southern members to leave the House and go into Louisiana would keep her out-and that the basis of southern conclave in one of the committee rooms, which they gener union must be shifted to the slave question." Then all the ally did, if not all of them. We are able to state, how papers in his interest, and especially the one at Washing that at least three besides himself of those who did attend ever, what may not have been known to Governor Thomas, ton, published by Mr. Duff Green, dropped tariff agitation, it went there with a purpose very different from an interand commenced upon slavery, and in two years had the agitation ripe for inauguration on the slavery question. men were Henry A. Wise, Balie Peyton, and Wm. Cost Johrtion to consent to any treasonable measure. These three And in tracing this agitation to its present stage, and to son. Neither of them opened his lips in the caucus; they comprehend its rationale, it is not to be forgotten that it is a mere continuation of old tariff disunion, and preferred Mr. Pickens or Mr. Calhoun (whom he names) or any one went to observe; and we can assure Governor Thomas that if because more available.-Thirty Years in the Senate, vol. 2. else had presented a distinct proposition looking to disMr. CLAY, in a letter to an Alabamian in union, or revolt, or secession, he would have witnessed a 1844, (see his private correspondence, p. 490,) mentioned were as brave as they were determined. Fortu scene not soon to be forgotten. The three whom we have nately, perhaps, the man whom they went particularly to watch remained silent and passive. said: From the developments now being made in South Carolina, it is perfectly manifest that a party exists in that State seeking a dissolution of the Union, and for that purpose employ the pretext of the rejection of Mr. Tyler's abominable treaty. South Carolina being surrounded by slave States, would, in the event of a dissolution of the Union, suffer only comparative evils; but it is otherwise with Kentucky. She has the boundary of the Ohio extending four hundred miles on three free States. What would our condition be in the event of the greatest calamity that could befall this nation? EARLY HOPES OF THE REBELS.* Mr. LAWRENCE M. KEITT, when declaiming in Charleston in November, 1860, in favor of the separate secession of that State, used this language, as reported in the Charleston Mercury: But we have been threatened. Mr. Amos Kendall wrote a letter, in which he said to Col. Orr, that if the State went out, three hundred thousand volunteers were ready to march against her. I know little about Kendall-and the less the better. He was under General Jackson; but for him the Federal treasury seemed to have a magnetic attraction. Jackson was a pure man, but he had too many around him who made fortunes far transcending their sala Hon. Nathan Appleton, of Boston, member of Congress in 1832-3, in a letter dated December 15, 1860, said that when in Congress he "made up his mind that Messrs. Calhoun, Hayne, McDuffie, &c., were desirous of a sep-ries. [Applause.] And this Amos Kendall had the same aration of the slave States into a separate confederacy, as more favorable to the security of slave property." About 1835, some South Carolinians attempted a disunion demonstration. It is thus described by Ex-Governor Francis Thomas of Maryland, in his speech in Baltimore, October 29, 1861: Full twenty years ago, when occupying my seat in the House of Representatives, I was surprised one morning, after the assembling of the House, to observe that all the members from the slaveholding States were absent. Whilst reflecting on this strange occurrence, I was asked why I was not in attendance on the Southern caucus assembled in the room of the Committee on Claims. I replied that I had received no invitation. I then proposed to go to the committee room, to see what was being done. When I entered I found that little cocksparrow, Governor Pickens of South Carolina, addressing the meeting, and strutting about like a rooster around a barn-yard coop, discussing the following resolution, which he was urging on the favorable consideration of the meeting: Resolved, That no member of Congress representing a Southern constituency shall again take his seat until a resolution is passed satisfactory to the South on the subject of slavery." I listened to his language, and when he had finished, I obtained the floor, asking to be permitted to take part in the discussion. I determined at once to kill the treasonable plot hatched by John C. Calhoun, the Cataline of America, by asking questions. I said to Mr. Pickens, "What next do you propose we shall do? Are we to tell the people that Republicanism is a failure? If you are for that I am not. I came here to sustain and uphold American institutions; to defend the rights of the North as well as the South; to secure harmony and good fellowship between all sections of our common country." They dared not answer these questions. The southern temper had not then been gotten up. As my questions were not answered, I moved an adjournment of the caucus sine die. Mr. Craig, of Virginia, seconded the motion, and the company was broken up. We returned to the House, and Mr. Ingersoll, of Pennsylvania, a glorious patriot then as now, introduced a resolution which temporarily calmed the excitement. Respecting this event, the National Intelli good fortune under Van Buren. He (Kendall) threatened us on the one side, and John Hickman on the other. John Hickman said, defiantly, that if we went-out of the Union, eighteen millions of Northern men would bring us back. Let me tell you, there are a million of Democrats in the North, who, when the Black Republicans attempt to march upon the South, will be found a wall of fire in the front. [Cries of " that's so!" and applause.] Recently-found letters in Fredericksburg, Virginia, noticed editorially in Harpers' Weekly of May 28, 1864, show that the South calculated confidently upon the defection of large masses of men at the North. The Weekly, commenting on M. F. Maury's letters, says: How far Maury and his fellow-conspirators were justified in their hopes of seducing New Jersey into the rebellion, may be gathered from the correspondence that took place in the spring of 1861 between Ex-Governor Price, of New Jersey, who was one of the representatives from that State in the Peace Congress, and L. W. Burnet, Esq., of Newark. Mr. Price, in answering the question what ought New Jersey to do, says: "I believe the Southern Confederation permanent. The proceeding has been taken with forethought and deliberation-it is no hurried impulse, but an irrevocable act, based upon the sacred, as was supposed, 'equality of the States and in my opinion every slave State will in a short period of time be found united in one confederacy. * Before that event happens we cannot act, however much we may suffer in our material interests. It is in that contingency, then, that I answer the second part of your question-what position for New Jersey will best accord with her interests, honor, and the patriote instincts of her people?' I say emphatically she would go with the South from every wise, prudential, and patetic reason." Ex Governor Price proceeds to say that he is confident the States of Pennsylvaniat and New York will "choose also to cast their lot with the South," and after them the western and northwestern States. * See page 20. +January 16, 1861-A meeting of Democrats was held in National Hall, Philadelphia, Charles Macalester presiding, at which Robert P. Kane offered this, among other resolutions which were put to the meeting, and declared adopted, and which, read in the light of this revelation, appear to |