Disorganization and disunion : speech of Hon. Edward McPherson, of Pennsylvania, delivered in the House of Representatives, February 24, 1860

DISORGANIZATION AND DISUNION

SPEECH

OF

Hon. edward Mcpherson,

OF PENNSYLVANIA.

Delivered in the House of Representatives, February 24, 1860.

The House being in Committee of the "Whole on the state
of the Union —

Mr. Mcpherson said:

Mr. Chairman : A parliamentary contest, the
most extraordinary in our annals, has recently
closed. During its existence, it attracted the
attention, and finally awakened the anxiety, of
the country. At its termination, every patriot
heart felt glad. In its origin, progress, and is-
sue, it challenges the study of those who wish to
understand the real position and animating spirit
of parties, the capabilities and dangers of our
eystem, the tendencies of events, and the nature
of the moulding influences which surround our
institutions.

This contest, which has been already noticed
in Europe tojhe disparagement of the republi-
can form of government, was not an ordinary
party move merit, indicating nothing, and wisely
forgotten as soon as made. It was not accidental,
purposeless, unmeaning. It was not an isolated
fact, coming one knows not whence, pointing
one knows not whither. On the contrary, it was
a concerted scheme, had a congenial origin, and
pointed to a desired result. It was a political
demonstration of the very highest significance.
It came in a natural succession of events. It
was one of a chain, the threats of disunion in the
contingency of Fremont's election in 1856, made
by Democratic leaders, and their subsequent en-
dorsement of the lawlessness, crime, and blood-
shed, which prevailed in Kansas, as a result of a
like violent, arbitrary, reckless, and revolution-
ary policy on the part of the Democratic party,
being the immediate antecedent links ; all these
developments being symptomatic of the loath-
some and deep-seated disease which has stolen
the beauty from the life of the Democratic party,
and is now destroying the life. It was a genu-
ine growth ; a natural outcrop ; a legitimate and

necessary result of the ideas and principles lately
infused into the Democratic party — ideas and
principles which have completely changed its
character, and transformed it into a mere ma-
chine for factionists to handle in their war with
the Government and the interests of the people.
Neither was it the. work of unknown or uninfiu-
entiil men. It was coined in the brains of prom-
inent officials, approved by the leaders of an
organized party, and carried out with the sys-
tem, energy, and determination of men in ear-
nest— its marked characteristics, distinctive fea-
tures, peculiar nature, striking developments,
and significant surroundings, constituting it one
of the most remarkable and suggestive indica-
tions of the day.

IT STANDS ALONE.

In almost aM respects, it was without parallel.
In duration only, was it exceeded by that of
1855-6, which can, in no other respect, be com-
pared. Then there was no resort to parliament-
ary strategy, to prevent efforts to elect a Speak-
er, and more votes were taken in one week than,
this session, were taken in six weeks. There
was no persistent speech-making for the same
purpose; there was no factious interposition, by
a minority, to prevent the majority from per-
forming the first duty imposed upon them by the
Constitution and the laws ; there was no defiant
declaration of treasonable purpose to break up
the Government the moment the administration
of it passes from present hands ; there was no
organized movement directed towards a dissolu-
tion of the Congress, without a discharge of its
functions. In one word, then, there was no in-
cipient treason.

ITS NATURE AND EFFECT.

I have endeavored to view this subject calmly,
fairly, and impartially. I have looked at it in
the light of the various excuses by which it i3

sought to justify or palliate the course of the
Administration party, and my conviction is firm
that, notwithstanding the approval given it by
high officers of State, it was not only in violation
of the Constitution and of parliamentary and
statute law, but was factious and revolutionary
in character. During it, there was resort by
them to means unusual and unheard of; there
were purposes announced incompatible with the
safety of the people, the peaceful performance of
duty by their Representatives, and the stability
of the Government ; and there were precedents
set of the most alarming and fearful character,
which, if followed, will place it in the power of
fifty members wholly to prevent the organization
of any future House ; thus making its existence a
matter of sufferance, and the Government as fee-
ble as the old Confederation which it supplanted.
Nothing can save us from this perpetual danger
but the enactment of a law, of which I am glad
to see notice has been already given, by which
these revolutionary precedents w ill be nullified,
a future turbulent and disorganizing minority
will be disarmed, the majority principle pre-
served, and the rights of majorities secured
against all possible combinations.

THE LAW AND ITS OBLIGATION.

Let the facts bear testimony ! We met on the
5th day of December in pursuance of law, where-
upon the names of the members elect were called
by the Clerk of the last Congress. On motion, it
was resolved, according to immemorial usage,
that the members proceed to elect a Speaker.
This was clearly the fir3t duty ; and the motion
was unanimously agreed to. The Constitution
confers upon the members of the House of Rep-
resentatives the power to choose their Speaker
and other officers ; and the act of Congress of
1789, the first on the statute book, provides that
he shall be chosen ; that the oath of office shall
be administered by one member of the House to
the Speaker, and by him to all the members
present, and to the Clerk, " previous to entering
on any other business." Thus the organization
of the House, by electing a Speaker and Clerk,
is made a condition precedent to entering on any
other business, and is the first and essential step.
No member is at liberty to disregard this duty.
No one can do so without infidelity. And all are
bound to perform it at once; or, failing in that,
to use all practicable means to effect it at the
earliest possible moment. No one can be justi-
fied in interposing the least obstacle to the per-
formance of this duty by the House. Tried by
this test, how stand the parties ?

THE MEANS USED TO KEEP UP DISCORD.

After one vote for Speaker had been taken
without result, an Administration member intro-
duced a resolution of an extraordinary character,
in violation of parliamentary law and practice,
and in contravention of the act of 1789 — a reso-
lution which, if adopted, would have been in-
operative, which hence had no practical value,
and could not in any manner have facilitated the
organization ; and which was so objectionable in
its terms that at the conference of representatives
of the three anti-Republican elements of the
House — the Administration party, the South

Americans, and a portion of the Anti-Lecompton
Democrats — held on Sunday, January 8, in pur-
suance of an arrangement publicly made in the
House, with the avowed purpose of securing a
union of their votes to defeat Mr. Sherman, it
was unanimously resolved to recommend the
withdrawal of the resolution, and the substitu-
tion of another, differing much in phraseology
and spirit. Pending the consideration of this
resolution, the Administration party forced the
House to adjourn on the first day without a sec-
ond vote for Speaker. On the next day, a sub-
stitute for it was offered, when, after debate, it
was moved to lay the whole subject on the table,
that the House might proceed to elect a Speaker.
This was lost by a tie vote — all the Administra-
tion members voting in the negative. Thereupon,
they claimed unlimited freedom of debate, and
denied that there was any power in the body to
stop it. Points of order and other complications
of the question were made and withdrawn, as the
exigencies of debate suggested. They spent
wholi weeks in making mischievous and incen-
diary speeches, which, intemperate in the high-
est degree, caricatured the principles held by this
side of the House, and were intended to arouse
sectional animosities, and intensify alarm, that
miserable partisan purposes might be promoted.
They objected to a resolution proposed by the
gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Morris,] that no
debate be allowed until after the election of
Speaker. They refused to make an arrangement
for having at least one vote for Speaker each
day ; again, they objected to a resolution pro-
viding for three votes daily ; and for a time they
even turned a deaf ear to the feeling appeal of
the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Clemens,]
who, in feeble health and wearied with long ses-
sions, desired a settled understanding on the
subject, that he might know when his presence
was necessary, and when he might retire from
the floor.

When not ready to speak, being unwilling to
vote, they made dilatory motions, and thus com-
pelled an adjournment. They refused to permit
the offering of a resolution to limit each debater
to thirty minutes, and one speech on a pending
question, until all desiring had spoken. They
threatened to remain in session until March 4,
1861, rather than allow the adoption of the plu-
rality rule, which was twice adopted under like
circumstances, is recognised in the rules of the
House and in all popular elections, and which
for weeks appeared to be the only escnpe from
the entanglement. At first, they appeared willing
to permit a vote to be taken upon the rule, and
submit to the result. Then they made that con-
tingent upon the House voting on the resolution
offered the first day. Then they declined to say
that if the latter were voted on, they would agree
to vote upon the former. And, finally, they de-
clared that it never should be voted upon ; and
that, to prevent it, resort would be had to every
parliamentary means at command. Not content
with declaring this purpose, which, in the exist-
ing condition of things, seemed tantamount to
absolute prevention of organization, form and
substance were given to this threat by fifty-eight

3

of them signing a paper pledging themselves to
each other to act together in resisting, by all
parliamentary tactics, strategy, and means, known
to the Constitution aud the law, the adoption of
the plurality rule.

The full force of this will be better understood
when it is stated that fifty men, thus banded to-
gether, a unit for purposes of disorganization,
can, by resorting to the endless chain of dilatory
motions to adjourn, to adjourn over, to be ex-
cused from voting, &c, on all which, constantly
repeated, they could call the yeas and nays, ef-
fectually and forever prevent the election of a
Speaker, the passage of a bill, or the transaction
of an item of legislative business. Such a com-
bination was made on the Administration side,
and its nature and terms, and their purpose to
persist in it, openly proclaimed upon the floor.
This conspiracy contemplated three things : to
prevent a vote being taken on the plurality rule;
• to prevent its adoption ; and to prevent the elec-
tion of a Speaker under it. It was made by a
minority in the House, who, by these anti-consti-
tutional methods, proposed to prevent the ma-
jority from adopting such rules as would rescue
the House from its condition of embarrassment
It was an attempt of a minority to coerce the
House into their line of policy ; to introduce
force into our system — the last desperate resort
of those bent on ruining if no longer permitted
to rule.

Let me say that all the Administrationists did
not enter into this conspiracy. Several, it was
stated, refused to do it; and it was further
stated, that no Northwestern Democrat had sign-
ed it. I have no doubt this is true. More might
have been said — that no Northern Democrat had
taken this bold step. But I do not recollect a
single occasion, after it became known that this
factious and revolutionary combination existed,
on which any of the Northern Democracy refused
to vote under the leadership of the very gentle-
men who admitted the existence of the compact,
and were in the act of fulfilling it.

It must not be understood that the Adminis-
tration party refused to permit any votes for
Speaker to be taken. They were too sagacious
for that. When it was known to be safe, they
were willing to amuse themselves, flatter each
other with cheap compliments, and, above all,
satisfy the country, as the phrase goes. During
the first week, they allowed three votes to be
taken ; during the second, seven ; during the
third, when there were hopes of an Adminis-
tration combination with other parties, eleven ;
during the fourth, when these hopes had disap-
peared, three ; during the fifth, five; during the
sixth, five ; during the seventh, none ; during
the eighth, five ; aud during the ninth, five; in
all, forty-four votes in forty days of actual ses-
sion. In 1855, there were over one hundred and
thirty votes taken in the same period.

Of course, only factious means could have pro-
duced such results. When the contest was in
its earlier stages, and before the worse steps
were taken, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Cobb] admitted that the prevention of votes,
raising frivolous points of order, making dilatory

motions, and discussing every proposition with
unlimited freedom, both as to time, range of
thought, and frequency, were factious ; but there
is scarcely a parliamentary word which can
truthfully characterize the policy of the Admin-
istrationists, when it ripened into organized con-
spiracy. The early course was factious ; the
later, revolutionary. The non-organization of
the House is of itself a revolutionary act, and so
admitted to be by the gentleman from Maryland,
[Mr. Stewart,] involving disturbance, clogging,
stoppage of the whole machinery of Govern-
ment. It is not revolution completed, but that
is ©nly because of the limited power of the par-
ties conspiring. Yet we were repeatedly and
most positively assured that, except the House
were organized in the manner they preferred, it
never should be organized, no matter what the
consequences ; and constant proofs of this pur-
pose were spread upon the records, and sent
forth to the people. By whom, and how, was
this done?

WHO WERE THE CONSPIRATORS ?

I have not been able to find, upon the rec-
ords, that declarations such as have been ad-
verted to were made by any gentlemen except
those who are members of the Administration
party, or, being outside of all political organiza-
tions, habitually vote with it. And, except one
South American, the fifty-eight signers of the
mutual pledge are exclusively members of the
Democratic party, or gentlemen who co-operate
with it, and certain of them are recognised
leaders.

It is in no spirit of exultation that I state these
unquestionable facts. On the other hand, it is
with deep regret that I am compelled to believe
that the great Democratic party — that party
which has been, for more than a quarter of a
century, the controlling interest in the Repub-
lic ; which was founded by great men to accom-
plish good purposes ; which has impressed itself
most forcibly, and generally beneficently, upon
the history of the country, and through it upon
the world ; which has linked its name with some
grand achievements, and which has had upon
its roll patriot statesmen, eloquent orators, ac-
complished scholars, and gallant soldiers— has
degenerated into an organization, whose leading
spirits, if sincere in their enunciations, are ene-
mies of the Government, and, if insincere, are
bad men, who add to the guilt of hypocrisy a
recklessness which is well-nigh impious.

THEY ARE ALREADY REBUKED.

Sir, gentlemen on the other side of the House
do not realize the position they have deliberately
assumed, if they suppose that the American
people do or can approve it. This nation is not
prepared to commit self-destruction. Nor will
it permit misguided, impulsive, rash men, who
happen to be their Representatives, to destroy
what they are chosen to uphold ; to violate what
they were elected to defend. The shocking sen-
timents uttered on the other side have already
received the condemnation of the people — that
great tribunal of America, to whose judgment
all political questions are referred. All over the
Southern country, the voice of reason is heard

above the din of madness ; and flippant dema-
gogues are warned of their impotency to per-
form their self-assumed task of preparing the
public mind for disunion. The press, and the
people through mass meetings and their local
Legislatures, unite to reprobate the crime, and
warn those drifting towards its commission.
All over the North there is but one sentiment.
It pervades all parties : penetrates all communi-
ties ; fills all hearts. That sentiment is :

THE MAINTENANCE OP OUR NATIONAL UNION,

against all foes, foreign and domestic. I have
said this sentiment pervades all parties. For
this reason it is, that, whilst Northern Democrats
in Congress have been comparatively unconcern-
ed about the general course of their Southern
allies on this vital question, the leaders at home,
who have had occasion to see the effect pro-
duced, have been exceedingly restive under the
ceaseless preaching of disunion. They have
made haste to disown it, to rid their skirts of
all responsibility for it, and have gone to the
extent of reading out of the Democratic party
the leading gentlemen on the other side of this
House.

PENNSYLVANIA DEMOCRATS.

A striking instance in point recently occurred
in Pennsylvania. While the struggle for Speaker
was at its height, the General Assembly of that
State passed two resolutions on the subject.
The latter is in the following terms :

" Besolved, That Pennsylvania remains, as ever, faithful
and true to the Constitution and the Union, and determined
that they shall be maintained ; that the treasonable threats
of disunion uttered by the adherents of the present National
Administration on the floor of Congress will not deter her
people from the expression of their political views and the
proper protection of her interests, but will be treated with
the utmost contempt and scorn ; while any attempt to carry
such threats into execution will be met by her determined
resistance."

A day or two after the passage of these reso-
lutions, the Democratic members of the Senate
placed upon the journal of that body a protest,
embodying the reasons why they had voted
against the resolutions of the majority, concern-
ing which they say, among other things, that —

"They [the majority resolutions] are untrue in the inti-
mation that ' the adherents of the present National Admin-
istration on the floor of Congress ' have uttered treasonable
threats of disunion ; for it is notorious that any such threats,
by whomsoever uttered, were not made as adherents of an
Administration distinguished for its steadfast devotion to the
Union, and its unflinching support of the Confederacy and
the Constitution on which it rests."

The anxiety of these Pennsylvania Democratic
Senators to escape the odium of being identified
with Utterers of treasonable disunion sentiments
is most apparent. Before, however, proceeding
to consider that point, let me remark that their
protest raises another question of fact ; that is,
whether the present Administration has been
distinguished for its steadfast devotion t*> the
Union and its unflinching support of the Consti-
tution. I will not waste time in discussing the
question; but wish to say that, in my opinion,
this Administration has been controlled by
Southern nullifiers ; has strengthened that inter-
est which now, likewise, aims to despotize over
.the people ; has introduced and intensified dis-
cord ; has violated the foundation principles of

free government ; and has given countenance and
approval to arbitrary, despotic, and anti-consti-
tutional doctrines, whose prevalence has, in turn,
weakened the Confederacy, by disturbing the just
relations of the States to each other — for proof
of which, I confidently appeal to current history.
Observe, also, the quibble in the denial of the
protest. It is said that treasonable threats, &c,
by whomsoever uttered, " were not made as ad-
herents of an Administration," &c. That is, they
were not made by persons in the capacity of ad-
herents ! If this be the meaning of the Senators,
their subterfuge is contemptible, and justly lays
their motives open to suspicion. If this be not the
meaning, and if the obscure phraseology be a
mere error of expression, and if their allegation
be that the Administration Congressmen have not
been uttering disunion threats, I appeal to the
record for the language used, and for the politi-
cal stattis of the members using it. I think it
can easily be proved that the Administration
party in Congress is tainted in all its parts, and
certainly in its head and heart, (the Southern
portion,) with both secession and disunion here-
sies.

DEMOCRATIC DISUNIONISTS AND THEIR THREATS.

Why, if there be meaning in language and
sincerity in men, the master spirits of the Demo-
cratic party in Congress are covered with the
scrofulous taint of disunion. There yet ring in
our ears the echoes of the most unexampled
declamation, every note of which grates harshly
upon our ears.

The gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr.
Keitt,] in a recent speech, said :

" Should the Republican party succeed in the next Presi-
dential election, my advice to the South is to snap the cords
of the Union at once and forever."

And the honorable member was one of the
most active in efforts to effect the election of a
Democratic Speaker, and supported every candi-
date named on that side, except that Northern
Democrat in whose hands the flag went down in
defeat.

The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Lamar]
said that when the spirit of the Constitution (of
course, as he understood it) was no longer ob-
served on this floor, he would be against the
Government, would raise the banner of seces-
sion, and would fight under it as long as the
blood flows and ebbs in his veins.

His colleague, former Governor of his State,
[Mr. McRae,] declared that, in case of the
election of a Republican President, his coun-
sel to the people of Mississippi " would be to
take independence out of the Union in preference
to the loss of constitutional rights, and conse-
quent degradation and dishonor, in it." He said,
further, "that this is his position, and the posi-
tion the Democratic party of Mississippi will
maintain." They propose to consider the mere
election of a Republican President cause for dis-
union, without waiting for the loss of constitu-
tional rights, &c, which they affect to believe
might flow from it. The gentleman from Missis-
sippi is a member of the Democratic party, and
has for years been one of its distinguished lead-
ers. This session, he was one of the famous

committee constituted to make the proposed Ad-
ministration combination, and organize this
House. He voted for all the Democratic candi-
dates for Speaker.

Another gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Sin-
gleton] gave notice that —

" When you elect a Black Republican— Hale, Seward, or
Chase— President of the United States ; whenever you un-
dertake to place such a mau to preside over the destinies of I
the South, you may expect to see us undivided and indivisi-
ble friends, and to see all parties of the South arrayed to re-
sist his inauguration. * * * We can never quietly stand
by and permit the control of the army and navy to go into
the hands of a Black Republican President."

He further expressed the opinion that, unless
certain conditions were complied with, and,
among others, the Territories of the Union
thrown open to slavery, and slavery protected
in them by Congress, the historian now lives
who would write the sad epitaph of Ilium fuit
upon the monument of the nation.

The author of this language also voted for all
the Democratic candidates for Speaker.

Another member from Mississippi [Mr. Davis]
said :

" Gentlemen of the Republican party, I warn you. Pre-
sent your sectional candidate for 1860 ; elect him as the rep-
resentative of your system of labor; take possession of the
Government, as the instrument of your power in this con-
flict of ' irrepressible conflict,' and we of the South will tear
this Constitution in pieces, and look to our guns for justice
and right against aggression and wrong."

Thus it is announced, that the election of a
President representing the free white-labor sys-
tem of the country will be accepted as, of itself,
justifiable cause of dissolution of the Union !
Men may be elected and inaugurated as President
who represent the negro slave-labor system, and
will wield all the power of the Government for
its expansion. But the Union must be dissolved,
and the inauguration of an elected President be
prevented, who represents, sympathizes with, or
would build up, the interests of the free white
laboring men of the United States ! Such is the
deliberate announcement made on this floor, by
a gentleman mOst prominent in the councils of
the Democratic party. I commend it to North-
ern working-men.

The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Moore]
would not wait for any overt act, but would
consider the election as President of any Repub-
lican candidate, entertaining sentiments like
those of Seward or Chase, as a declaration of
war against the rights of his people ; and he
believed that his gallant State will not hesitate,
in such a contingency, let the consequences be
what they may, to fall back on their reserved
rights, and declare to the world, "As for this
Union, we have no longer any lot or part in it."
lie rebuked the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Nelson] for " his laudation of this glorious
Union."

His colleague [Mr. Curry] said :

" I am not ashamed or afraid publicly to avow that the
election of William H. Seward or Salmon P. Chase, or any
such representative of the Republican party, upon a section-
al platform, ought to be resisted to the disruption of every
tie that binds this Confederacy together."

Which sentiment, the Congressional Globe
informs us, was applauded "on the Democratic
side of the House."

His colleague [Mr. Pugh] said, if the Republi-
cans get possession of the Government —

"Then the question is fully presented, whether the South-
ern States will remain in the Union, as subject and degraded
colonies, or will they withdraw and establish a Southern
Confederacy of coequal homogeneous sovereigns? In my
judgment, the latter is the only course compatible with the
honor, equality, and safety of the South ; and the sooner it
is known and acted upon the hotter for all parties to the
compact."

His colleague [Mr. Clopton] defended " the
policy of secession in the event of the success and
triumph of the Black Republican party, as apre-
ventive remedy against injustice and oppression."

All of these gentlemen acted with the Demo-
cratic party in the contest for Speaker, though
they refused to vote, on the last ballot, for the
gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. McClernand.]

The member from Georgia [Mr. Crawford]
said he spoke the sentiment of every Democrat
on the floor from that State, when he declared
"they will never submit to the inauguration of a
Black Republican President ; " which, the Con-
gressional Globe informs us, was applauded from
the Democratic benches. He repeated the re-
mark, and he was again applauded in the same
quarter. Further, he said for himself, that he
had lost all hope of equality in the Union, and he
was for independence now. He also said that
slavery " demands expansion, and will have it."
His colleague [Mr. Gartrell] expressed sub-
stantially the same sentiment. These gentlemen
voted for all the Democratic candidates for
Speaker.

The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Bon-
ham] said, that upon the election of Seward, or
any such man, he " was in favor of an immediate
dissolution of the Union."

His colleague [Mr. Miles] said he was a sec-
tional man; that he owed his chief and primary
allegiance to South Carolina ; and that he felt no
sympathy with that general, indiscriminate laud-
ation of this nation, which seems to swallow up
in that one idea every notion of State rights and
State sovereignty.

The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Moore]
said that to his." gallant State he owed his first
and highest allegiance."

His colleague [Mr. Curry] protested that to
" Alabama he owed his first and undivided alle-
giance."

The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. De Jar-
nette] said, that Seward might be elected Presi-
dent of the North, but of the South never; and
that Virginia, in view of her ancient renown, in
view of her illustrious dead, and in view of her
sic semper tyrannis, will resist his authority.

His colleague [Mr. Leake] denies that Virginia
will consent to fight within this Union for her
rights — as lately proposed by Governor Wise, and
approved by some of the delegation in Congress.
He said the idea was ridiculous in the extreme ;
and he claimed that Virginia has the right, when
she pleases, to withdraw from the Confederacy ;
which sentiment, the Globe's report of proceed-
ings states, was applauded upon the Democratic
benches. Both these Virginia members voted for
all the Democratic candidates for Speaker.

6

NO DISUNIONISM OUTSIDE OF THE SOUTHERN DEMOC-
RACY.

I might multiply extracts, selecting from other
speeches in the House, and from those of most
prominent Democrats in the Senate. Surely,
these will satisfy the most incredulous that a very
large proportion of the Democratic leaders of the
South are secessionists and disunionists ; that
these opinions place them beyond the pale of
sympathy or confidence from the Union-loving
masses; and that they are, of necessity, most
unsafe and unfit men to be intrusted with our
great national interests. Yet it is most true, that
the Democratic organization is in the hands of
these gentlemen, and such as they; that the
States they represent elect Democratic Presidents,
and send the bulk of Democratic members of both
branches of Congress; that they control the Con-
gressional caucuses and National Conventions,
and mould the policy of the party ; and that a
large portion of their power for evil grows out of
their position as managers of the Democratic
party. Outside of them, there is no disunion
sentiment of the least consequence. The dis-
unionist's home is in or near the Democratic par-
ty; and he selects that because his brethren are
at its head, and because he has found it to be the
most eligible workshop he can find, in which to
prepare the weapons he intends to wield against
the Union.

Sir, let me not be misunderstood. I speak
not of the masses of that party, North or South.
In both sections they are honest, sincere, and
patriotic. They are lovers of the Union, and
would shed their blood to maintain it, as their
fathers did to confirm and preserve it. But they
have been betrayed. Already the truth is break-
ing upon them, and they begin to realize, more
or less clearly, that they are in truth the motive
power of a machinery which is actually levelled
at what is nearest and dearest to them. It is
difficult to realize such perfidy ; but when con-
vinced of it, and of the policy of the masters of
the Democratic organization, the people of both
sections will rise in their might and majesty,
and, plowing up all the prejudices of education
and all the influences of habit, turning deaf ears
to party rallying cries, and offering all their per-
sonal preferences a sacrifice upon the altar of
their country, they will pull down and stamp
with reprobation those who have gained confi-
dence only to abuse it, sought power only to sap
the foundations of the Republic. There is a
fearfulness in a people wielding the sword of
avenging justice. Here it will be done peacefully,
quietly, but effectually, as it has hitherto been;
and the splendid devotion of a whole nation to
themselves — as will on that day be made mani-
fest— will send fear to the hearts of the traitor-
ous, joy to the hearts of the patriotic.

The Administration party in this House have
not only pursued a reckless, factious, disorgan-
izing, and revolutionary course ; not only raDged
themselves under the banner of avowed seces-
sionists, and, at the least, given the approval of
silence to the boldest declarations of treasonable
purposes, thereby shocking at once the moral
sense and the patriotic instincts of the people ;

but they have shown, in the actual votes cast
for Speaker, that there is wanting to them the
compactness of men devoted to great ideas, and
united for their establishment; that there is no
bond of principle between them. The demoral-
ization of the Administration party in this House,
as proved in this contest, is everywhere accept-
ed as a type of its demoralization throughout
the country ; which, in return, is the reward of
its abandonment of principle.

Let us see the variety of their candidates for
Speaker, with a view to aid in fixing the present
position of parties.

THE CANDIDATE OF THE ADMINISTRATIONISTS.

Their caucus candidate for Speaker was the
gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Bocock,] who has
been identified with the legislation of the last
twelve years, and who, in 1850, after the passage
of the compromise measures, in company with
thirty-seven other members of the Democratic
party, (Governor McDowell, of Virginia, not in-
cluded,) issued an address to the people of the
South, from which the following is an extract :

"We, whose names are hereto annexed, address you in
discharge of what we believe to be a solemn duty, on the
most important subject ever presented for your considera-
tion. We allude to tho conflict betweeD the two great sec-
tions of the Union, growing out of a difference of feeling and
opinion in reference to the relations existing between the
two races, the European and the African, which inhabit the
Southern section, and the acts of aggression and encroach-
ment to which it has led. The conflict commenced not long
after the acknowledgment of our independence, and has
gradually increased until it has arrayed the great body of
the North against the South on this most vital subject. In
the progress of this conflict, aggression has followed aggres-
sion , and encroachment encroachment, until they have reach-
ed a point when a regard for peace and safety will not per-
mit us to remain longer silent." — See Benton's Thirty Years'
View, p. 734, toll 2.

This manifesto was signed by the present Sen-
ators from Virginia, Senators Fitzpatrick of
Alabama, Yulee of Florida, Johnson of Arkansas,
and others not now in public life. Mr. Seward
has been most severely criticised, and most ve-
hemently denounced, for having said in his
Rochester speech, in 1857, that there was in this
country an "irrepressible conflict between op-
posing and enduring forces," by means of which
the United States will, sooner or later, become
either entirely a slaveholding nation, or entirely
a free-labor nation. The conflict he speaks of is
one of ideas. That of which the Democratic
manifesto speaks is, " the conflict between the two
great sections of the Union," which is the inter-
pretation placed by the Democrats on Mr. Sew-
ard's remark, and at which they have express-
ed utmost horror. Thus, the doctrine of the
irrepressible " conflict between the two great
sections of the Union," held up as a fearful phan-
tom by the Democracy, has a Democratic pater-
nity ; is at least ten years old ; and, so long since,
received the endorsement of the Democratic cau-
cus candidate for Speaker, who, in turn, has been
supported and endorsed by every member of the
Democratic party on this floor.

Failing with the gentleman from Virginia, they
rallied upon hi3 colleague [Mr. Millson] with
the same result.

Twenty of them then voted for the gentleman
from Virginia, [Mr. Boteler,] who is widely

the Philadelphia Convention which nominated
Mr. Fillmore in 1856, and is in favor of a Con-
gressional slave code for the Territories.

Forty of them then voted for the gentleman
from Tennessee, [Mr. Maynard,] who, though
presented as an old-line Whig, and as never a
member of the Know Nothing order, had politi-
* cal association in the last Congress, and has
in this, with the South Americans.

They gave eighty-nine votes to the gentleman
from Texas, [Mr. Hamilton,] who is understood
*. to be in favor of a Congressional slave code for
the Territories.

They gave eighty-three votes to the gentle-
man from California, [Mr. Scott,] who had pre-
viously denied, on the floor of the House, the
power of Territorial Legislatures to prevent the
existence of slavery in a Territory, and who,
thereby, placed himself on the south side of the
Cincinnati platform.

They gave, once thirty-three and again thirty-
seven votes ; and later in the session, ninety-
one, and again eighty-five votes, to the gentle-
man from Illinois, [Mr. McClernand,] who
claims for the Territorial Legislatures the power
denied by the gentleman from California, [Mr.
Scott,] but who considers the existence of the
power a judicial question, to be affirmed or de-
nied by the proper tribunals, to whose decision
he is willing to defer. It is but just to state,
that nine Southern members, who voted for one
or more of the other Democratic candidates, de-
clined to vote for the gentleman from Illinois.

The Democratic or Administration party also
gave all their votes, save two, to the gentleman
from North Carolina, [Mr. Smith,] who, calling
himself a Whig, twice received the support of
the Americans of his district, to an extent sym-
pathizes with and approves of their principles
and policy, and is now here by virtue of that
support ; who acts ivith the S. uth American party
in this House; who supported the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Boteler] when he was the
South American candidate for Speaker, and
subsequently the gentleman from North Caro-
lina [Mr. Gilmer] when he occupied that posi-
tion ; who was placed before this House by the
South American member from Kentucky [Mr.
Mallory] as the candidate of that party, nomi-
* nated in a full caucus, at which the Northern
member of the party [Mr. Briggs] says he was
present; and who received the votes of that en-
tire delegation on this floor. No one who wit-
fc nessed can ever forget that scene, as one by one,
first rapidly, then more and more slowly, the
Democratic members fell out of their own line
into another, until all but two, conveniently for-
getting the bristling declarations of the Cincin-
nati platform on the subject of Americanism,
and the unrepealed resolutions of the Demo-
cratic members of the Thirty-fourth Congress,
placed their votes side by side with those of the
South Americans of the House, whose position
and doctrines they have recently assailed with
intensest bitterness.

The county from which I come yet rings with
Democratic protestations of undying hostility to
Americanism in all its forms. On every hill-top,

in every school-house, from every stump, there
has gone up this one all-absorbing rallying- cry.
I have never doubted its insincerity. It was a
transparent man-trap. It was too persistently
made to be honestly meant. All over the land,
there was, for a time, the same expression of
opinion ; and the various State and county plat-
forms pledged a ceaseless warfare with Ameri-
canism. On the 27th of January, I860, in the
House of Representatives of the nation, there
was furnished indubitable evidence that another
issue absorbs Democratic devotion ; that a
new question has dwarfed the American into
insignificance ; and that Democratic profession
of hostility to Americanism is as meaningless as
Democratic profession of protection in 1844, and
fidelity to free labor in 1856.

Now, let me recapitulate the variety of candi-
dates whom the Democrats in Congress have
more or less generally supported, and the variety
of doctrines they have endorsed.

They voted for the gentleman from Virginia,
[Mr. Bocock,] who voted for the repeal of the
Missouri compromise, sustained the Lecompton
Constitution, and in 1850 proclaimed, in its
broadest and most offensive form, an irrepressi-
ble u conflict between the two great sections of
the country."

They voted for the gentleman from Virginia,
[Mr. Millson,] who voted against the repeal of
the Missouri compromise.

They voted for the other gentleman from Vir-
ginia, [Mr. Boteler,] who, a South American,
repudiates, like the two preceding, popular sov-
ereignty, and is in favor of a Congressional slave
code for the Territories.

They voted for the gentleman from Tennessee,
[Mr. Maynard,] who, a Whig with American as-
sociations, supported the Lecompton Constitu-
tion, and scouts at popular sovereignty.

They voted for the gentleman from Texas,
[Mr. Hamilton,] who is now a Democrat, and in
favor of a slave eode, and who, in withdrawing
his name, gravely expressed the opinion that the
Union was then in process of dissolution — a great
dissolving view in the act of disappearing from
mortal vision 1

They voted for the gentleman from California,
[Mr. Scott,] who, a Free-State Democrat, dis-
cards popular sovereignty, upon which the Dem-
ocratic party made their successful campaign in
1856.

They supported the gentleman from Illinois,
[Mr. McClernand,] who, a Free-State Democrat,
defends popular sovereignty, and objects to a
slave code.

And they supported the gentleman from North
Carolina, [Mr. Smith,] who, a Whig with Amer-
ican associations, affinities, and sympathies, and
the nominee of a South American caucus, repro-
bates popular sovereignty.

Who can say, after such an exhibition, what
Democratic doctrine is in practice? It cannot be
hostility to popular sovereignty ; for Democratic
Congressmen have endorsed, as fit to be Speaker,
a popular-sovereignty man. It cannot be advo-
cacy of popular sovereignty ; for Democratic
Congressmen have endorsed, as fit to be Speaker,

8

several anti-popular-sovereignty men. It cannot
be reprobation of the "irrepressible conflict;"
for an endorser of it, of ten years' standing, is
their chosen candidate. Nor can it be hostility
to Americanism ; for Americans, and Whigs sym-
pathizing with them, received the support of
Democratic Congressmen for the high position of
Speaker — the third position in the Government.
What a commentary is this last fact upon the
high-sounding, comprehensive, and sweeping
declarations of the Cincinnati platform, about
" religious freedom " and " accidental birth-
place ! " Alas, that there should be added to
the first using and then betraying protectionists
in 1844, and the free white labor interest in 1856,
this last and crudest proof of political insincer-
ity—the betrayal of the foreigners by birth and the
Catholics in religion, who, for safety from appre-
hended evil, sought security in Democratic ranks,
and in return gave victory to Democratic hosts.
How sad the spectacle, yet how instructive !

Thus much for others — a few words for myself.
I have uniformly acted so as to promote an or-
ganization of the House. I supported first for
Speaker a prominent and experienced member
from Pennsylvania. When he declined, I cast
my vote for the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr.
Sherman,] who had received the largest num-
ber of votes on this side of the House, and who
was commended to me by valuable public ser-
vices, by the possession of peculiar qualifica-
tions, and by great purity of character. He was
efficient in exposing the Kansas policy of Presi-
dent Pierce, with its complicated web of fraud
and outrage, and the corruption and extrava-
gance of certain departments of the present Ad-
ministration; for all which the minions of power
cwed him revenge, but the people owed him
thanks. Upon his withdrawal, I voted for the
gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. Pennington,]
now the Speaker of the House. In each case,
I sustained gentlemen faithful to the right of
self-government, (assailed in the last Congress,)
to the interests of free white labor, and to that
protective policy which, while vitally important
to Pennsylvania, would, if adopted, promote the
prosperity of all the States. I sustained them
as patriotic, Union-loving, Constitution-respect-
ing men, who would do nothing in violation of
the letter or spirit of the great charter which
constitutes us one people, and who would yield
only with life their devotion to the Union. I
did not understand the prominent candidates on
the other side as occupying this position, and I
could not, would not, give them my support.

The cardinal doctrine of my political faith is

THE MAINTENANCE OF THE UNION OF THE STATES.

I will not support any man who thinks or speaks
lightly of it, or does not consider it the greatest
good, its preservation a prime duly, and its de-
struction the greatest of calamities. Sir, I am
not ready to imperil all which this Government
now secures to us, and the thirty millions of our
population. I expect never to be ready for it.
And because I am not, and would not be, I did
not vote for either of the gentlemen upon whom

the disunion sentiment of thi3 House was con-
centrated, and whose election would have been
acceptable and strengthening to that interest.
Sir, such a course requires no explanation or
apology. Every man with a patriotic sentiment
in his heart instinctively greets, approves, and
endorses it.

The three million Pennsylvanians whom this,
delegation represent are a unit upon this sub-
ject. No man can have political life among them
who is not in harmony with this sentiment. A
secessionist has never been born upon her soil,
which is the natal-spot of our Constitution. A l
disunionist has never been reared within the
settlement of Penn, whose eastern boundary is
associated with a thrilling exploit of Wash-
ington ; whose southern line is a memorial of
early fraternity ; whose valleys sparkle with glo-
ries of the war of independence ; and whose broad
bosom is the home of a people treasuring the
just precepts of their immortal founder, and as
abounding in all the elements of greatness as any
the sun smiles upon and makes glad. Sir, I
seek not to pronounce their eulogy. They need
none. Their history is their highest praise. Let
doubters but look around. On every hand is
the proof of her power, pealed forth in the mu-
sic of the ringing anvil, the restless shuttle, the
humming spindle, the roaring stack, the shrill
whistle, the measured tread of mighty machine-
ry, and the flow of cheerful industry through the
thousand channels opened by the ingenuity of
man. Her progress in both moral and physical
development has all the marks of healthful
growth, and her proportions, already colossal, do
not fill the measure of her vast capacity. In her
hands are the implements of multiform industry ;
in her heart a love of justice; in her step the
elasticity of freedom ; in her mien the dignity of
true greatness. She is a noble embodiment of
the great thought underlying our whole system —
the excellence, accretiveness, and humanizing
influence, of intelligent, well-applied Free labor.

The peacefulness, protection, and security,
which have afforded the opportunity of achiev-
ing so great results, have been the gifts of the
Constitution, with whose history her own is
closely intertwined, and the Union which is the
result of its beneficent provisions. Pennsylva-
nia can never forget her honorable past, or be -
insensible to the inestimable blessings of the
present. Until faithless to both, she will never
do or sanction any act in conflict with the Con-
stitution, but will rigidly give to others what she
will as rigidly demand for herself — all the rights
which each can justly claim. She will never do
or sanction any act tending to or effecting a
disruption of this Union, and will frown upon,
disown, and if necessary put down and trample
under foot every man, every faction, every party,
whose animating thought is not the integrky of
the Constitution, the purity of the Government,
and the perpetuity of the Union. With her, I
am devoted to this grand and inspiring senti-
ment, ready to follow whithersoever it may lead.

BUELL & BLANCHARD, Printers, Washington, D. C.

7/. 1009 OSV. OWlt