in a single point the institution of slavery. But what was this to the schemers of treason? Their work was to destroy the Union, not to defend slavery. If they stopped to do the latter, the former would be left undone; if they used their constitutional power to protect slavery, or to obtain guarantees, the Constitution would be preserved; so they trampled upon the Constitution, abjured their allegiance, snapped the bond of brotherhood, and seized the sword to redress a grievance which they themselves designedly aided to produce! I need not ask if history has a parallel to this. It stands out in hideous deformity, the monster iniquity of all the ages, whose dark, deep stain ages cannot wash away. Charles D. Drake, 1861.

THE CAUSES OF SECESSION.

THE review I have taken of the causes I have assigned for secession, reduces them to three only which have foundation in fact the election of a President by a sectional vote, the personal liberty laws of four States, and the exclusion of the South from the common territory. As to the first, nothing more need be said: it was produced by the act of the South itself; let not the South complain. As to the second, it is too insignificant as a justification of rebellion, to deserve a moment's notice. Concerning the last, it is clear to me as the sunlight around us that it is a shallow subterfuge, and that the South, in reality, cared nothing about the Territories. If the right to take their slaves there was of such value as, when interfered with, to justify them to their own consciences in revolutionary violence, can they tell-can any man tell-why they should take a step which would inevitably exclude slavery from the Territories forever? Did they believe that an institution could be planted there by war which they could not carry there in time of peace? Did they hope that, with sword in hand, they could wrest from the Government a vast domain, from which the people of the North should be shut out, except upon such terms as the South might, as an independent power, prescribe? Did they suppose that fear would grant what justice and equity refused? Did they imagine that after seceding from the Union, and thereby renouncing all rights flowing from the Union, they could obtain more easy access to the Territories? No: they knew that secession from the Union was secession from the common property of the Union, as well as from its Constitu

tion. It is therefore manifest, that they did not secede because the Territories were closed, or were threatened to be closed against them; for, by seceding, they barred and bolted the gates of the Territories against themselves forever.

Charles D. Drake, 1861.

THE DUTY OF DEFENDING THE UNION.

My countrymen, we are in the midst of an unnatural and consuming civil war. Some four hundred thousand men are under arms, and we know not at what moment the land may tremble under the shock of contending hosts. It is a sight to make the world weep. The cause of humanity, the claims of freedom, the spirit of Christianity, all demand that this terrible conflict should be stayed. But, from the depths of a troubled spirit, I ask, how can it be? A part of the nation rebels-declares its revolt irreconcilable-announces that it asks no compromise or reconstruction, will consider none, even though permitted to name its own terms-defies the power of the Nation-wages war upon the national Government, and cries out, "ALL WE ASK IS TO BE LET ALONE!" How can they be let alone without destroying the Union and the Constitution? If any man will tell me that, I will say, Let them alone. With unequalled skill in raising false issues, the secessionists in our midst labor to fan the flame of rebellion here, by impressing upon the minds of all within the reach of their influence, that the controversy of the revolting States is with Abraham Lincoln; when those States are in arms against the supreme constitutional authority of the nation. Abraham Lincoln, fulfilling his sworn duty to protect the Constitution, is to them a demon of darkness; Jeff. Davis, striking deadly blows at that Constitution, which he has time and again sworn to support, is an angel of light. They profess immaculate loyalty with their tongues, but they are in their hearts as traitorous as Benedict Arnold. They denounce in unmeasured terms the mili tary preparations of the Government to meet this rebellion, and exalt the insurgents as patriots, armed to defend their families and their firesides; when not a soldier would have been added to the regular army, or a regiment marched southward, but for a revolt, aiming at the entire demolition of the Constitution, and the seizure of the Government by armed usurpation. All these are but the artful shifts of treason, to sustain its desperate cause. I despise and reject the

whole brood of them. I STAND BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES; and when it is threatened with destruction, I no more stop to inquire who is President, than, if the police of my city were engaged in quelling a riot, I would higgle about who is chief of police. The question is: Where is constitutional authority? He who arms himself to subvert that authority, is, by the law of God and man, arebel and a traitor, no matter who holds office; and if any man can find any other way to deal with him than with the weapons he himself has chosen, let him point it out;-I know of none. Before God, I take no pleasure in the necessity which demands such a resort. All my instincts and principles are against bloodshed; but no rebellion ever was put down without it; and this can hardly expect to be an exception. Upon its instigators must rest all the awful consequences of their appeal to arms. They have challenged the combat, and it lies not in their mouths, or in those of their aiders or abettors here to complain that the Government defends itself by extraordinary, or even by unconstitutional means. Had such an attack been made upon it by a foreign foe without being repelled, the nation would have stood disgraced before the world forever: if this rebellious assault be not resisted by all the power of the loyal portion of the nation, shall we meet any other fate? It is, then, no spirit of malice or vindictiveness which justifies the Government in self-protection by arms. The simple alternative is, government or anarchy. The latter would destroy our freedom, perhaps forever, and blight us with a perpetual curse. are lost, if our Constitution is overthrown. Thenceforward we may bid farewell to liberty. Never were truer or greater words uttered by an American statesman, than when Daniel Webster closed his great speech in defence of the Constitution, nearly thirty years ago, with that sublime declaration-" LIBERTY AND UNION, ONE AND INSEPARARLE, NOW AND FOREVER." Union gave us liberty; disunion will take it away. He who strikes at the Union, strikes at the heart of the nation. Shall not the nation defend its life? And when the children of the Union come to its rescue, shall they be denounced? And if 'denounced, will they quail before the mere breath of the Union's foes? For one, I shrink not from any words of man, save those which would justly impute to me disloyalty to the Union and the Constitution. My country is all to me; but it is no country without the Constitution which has exalted and glorified it. For the preservation of that Union I shall not cease to struggle, and my life-long prayer will be, GOD SAVE THE AMERICAN UNION!-Charles D. Drake, 1861.

We

MARTIAL LAW AND GEN. JACKSON.

THE impression is sought to be made on the public mind, that this is the first and only case where the power of declaring martial law has been exercised. I have shown that there is one tenfold more striking that occurred during our struggle for independence. Is this the first time that persons in the United States have been placed under martial law? In 1815, when New Orleans was about to be sacked, when a foreign foe was upon the soil of Louisiana, New Orleans was put under martial law, and Judge Hall was made a prisoner because he attempted to interpose. Is there a man here, or in the country, who condemns Gen. Jackson for the exercise of the power of proclaiming martial law in 1815? Could that city have been saved without placing it under martial law, and making Judge Hall submit to it? I know that Gen. Jackson submitted to be arrested, tried, and fined $1,000; but what did Congress do in that case? It did just what we are called on to do in this case. By the restoration of his fine an act passed by an overwhelming majority in the two houses of Congress the nation said, "We approve what you did." Suppose, Mr. President, (and it may have been the case,) that the existence of the Government depended upon the protection and successful defence of New Orleans; and suppose, too, it was in violation of the strict letter of the Constitution for Gen. Jackson to place New Orleans under martial law, but without placing it under martial law the Government would have been overthrown; is there any reasonable, any intelligent man, in or out of Congress, who would not indorse and acknowledge the exercise of a power which was indispensable to the existence and maintenance of the Government? The Constitution was likely to be everthrown, the law was about to be violated, and the Government trampled under foot; and when it becomes necessary to prevent this, even by exercising a power that comes in conflict with the Constitution in times of peace, it should and ought to be exercised. If Gen. Jackson had lost the city of New Orleans, and the Government had been overthrown by a refusal on his part to place Judge Hall and the city of New Orleans under martial law, he ought to have lost his head. But he acted as a soldier; he acted as a patriot; he acted as a statesman; as one devoted to the institutions and the preservation and the existence of his Government; and the grateful homage of a nation was his reward.

Hon. Andrew Johnson, 1861.

AN APPEAL FOR EAST TENNESSEE.

SIR, I come to the Government, and I do not ask it as a suppliant, but I demand it as a constitutional right, that you give to the people of East Tennessee protection, arms and munitions. If they cannot be got there in any other way, then take them there with an invading army, and deliver the people from the oppression to which they are now subjected. We claim to be the State. The other divisions may have seceded and gone off; but if you give us protection we intend to stand as a State, as a part of this confederacy, holding to the stars and stripes, the flag of our country. We demand it according to law; we demand it upon the guarantees of the Constitution. You are bound to guarantee to us a republican form of government, and we ask it as a constitutional right. We do not ask you to interfere as a party, as your feelings or prejudices may be one way or another in reference to the parties of the country; but we ask you to interfere as a Government, according to the Constitution.

The amendments to the Constitution, which constitute the bill of rights, declare that "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Our people are denied this right secured to them in their own Constitution, and the Constitution of the United States. We ask the Government to interpose to secure us this constitutional right. We want the passes in our mountains opened; we want deliverance and protection for a down-trodden and oppressed people, who are struggling for theit independence without arms. If we had had ten thousand stand of arms and ammunition when the contest commenced, we should have asked no further assistance. We have not got them. We are a rural people; we have villages and small towns-no large cities. Our population is homogenous, industrious, frugal, brave, independent; but now harmless, and powerless, and oppressed by usurpers. You may be too late in coming to our relief; or you may not come at all, though I do not doubt that you will come; they may trample us under foot; they may convert our plains into graveyards, and the caves of our mountains into sepulchres; but they will never take us out of this Union, or make us a land of slaves-no, never! We intend to stand as firm as adamant, and as unyielding as our own majestic mountains that surround us. Yes, we will be as fixed and as immovable as are they upon their bases. We will stand as long as we can; and if we are