Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1864-03-23


all this, said they, we will take for the mas
ter and his slave.
Thus the issue was made up on the ont
side. There was no alternative left for the
other. Those opposed to division were com
pelled-you will remember how unwillingly-
to take up arms and submit the cause of the
Union to the chances of battle They
organized under the appropriate name oi
the Union party. The old flag was hoisted
the long roll beaten, and the opponents OF
division everywhere called upon to fall in
Straightway, then, began some to make ex-
cuseS Says one Il am opposed to dIyIs-
ion; but coercion is unconstitutional l
pray you have me excused. James Bu-
chanan said that in his last annual message.
Says another, Il am opposed to division,
and L think coercion Is constitutional; but
| believe it is impracticable. [ think the
| United States is not strong enough TO put
down rebellion so extensive, and led by
men of SO much ability, pride, and courage.
[ cannot, therefore, join you to try. / pray
you have me excused. Says a third, II
am opposed to division, and | believe that
coercion is both constitutional and practica-
BILE; but there is an easier and better way
You can compromise They only ask you
to cease talking against slavery, and if you
will not agree to do that, | too shall ask to
be excused. And SO these three classes,
each for different reason, moved off by
| themselves, and formed the nucleus of what
subsequently became a great party OF neu-
trality, observation, and criticism. 1t was
said the other day by the gentleman from
| Kentucky Mr.. Smith that there were but
two parties in this country, patriots and trai
| tors. L beg leave to differ from my friend.
L think there are three, patriots, traitors,
and neutrals. But [ Will not quarrel with
I tNV - II Il ! i Il.
! spirited kentuckian would, that he had
more admiration for the mad courage of
| treason than for the mean cOwardice Of neu-
! trality.
Let me pause here TO answer the question
sometimes yet asked, why did you not
compromise? If they only wanted you to
| agree to cease talking about their system Of
| labor, why did you not agree ?' Itwas not
| lack of dough-we had [ am ashamed to ac-
knowledge, dough enough to make whole
oven-full of compromises. 1t was not be-
cause the Unlonists were not plant, but be-
cause the disunion leaders were not fools
They knew that a contract for silence
could never be enforced unless your re-
publican Government was converted into an
absolute monarchy. What is a republic,
except the right to think and to express your
thoughts by your vote? The Frenchman
trades, travels, and seeks his pleasure as
freely as an American The Emperor takes
no note of these 1t is the free thought or
the lnsurgent conscience that wears the i'm
perial chain in France. These leaders knew
that talk would go on in spite of contract,
and therefore they did not ask and would
not accept your worthless parchment They
had tried it. They had the Atherton gag
and the Democratic and Wing resolutions
of 1852 forbidding discussion, and the whole
e +h<.t A
istrations to enforce their views. Former
Administrations, although much devoted to
the interests of slavery, found time to at
tend to some other matters. Polk, | think
it was, explored the Dead Sea- of the
Old World, and Fillmore sounded the depths
of deader sea at home for himself and his
party; but Pierce and Buchanan devoted
themselves entirely to this single purpose
They put on the masters collar and wore it
a thing of honor, and never seemed
prouder than when they saw their southern
friends spelling out the inscription, E'This is
Gerth the bondman of Cedric the Saxon"
These influences were ably welded by an
experienced corps Of slave Representatives
in these Halls and around this Capitol.
They were men that combined the opposite
qualities Of gentleness and severity so fitting
to a leader. They knew how to win the
bold and overawe the timid. They were
gentlemen among bullies and bullies among
gentlemen. But with all these powers com
bined they could not close the mouth-will |
it please you any better if | say fanatical |
mouth ?-of Wendell Phillips alone. And
so they spurned your too plant offer
Three years have passed-years fraught,
as it seems to us at distance, with great |
ruin to the South, with loss and heavy sor-
row, as We know, to the North. How stand |
the three parties now? The disunion en-
blem is still upborne, less firmly than at |
first !; and the area on which It's hateful |
shadow falls is two thirds less than in the |
Still it flies its signal word
division. All the proclamations and |
of jeff Davis, his governors and
all the laws and resolutions of his
Congress and State Legislatures talk of moth
ing but division. Will the gentleman from
New York, Mr.. Wood who talks to us so
much about peace, take notice that IN all
those official documents, if they can be call
ed official, division is the only aim and end
proposed
How stands the Union party? Well, sir,
our flag, | believe, is still floating, held
more firmly than in the beginning, sustain
ed by the courage-no, sir, that is not the
word [ mean exactly by the patriotism of
the American people-and that is not the
word | want to express my particular shade
of meaning it is upheld, believe, by
stronger sentiment than courage or patriot
ism-by the sense of duty and stern con-
science of the American people. And If
you want to find which is strongest, pride
and courage on the one hand, or conscience
and sense of duty on the other, read the his
tory of the Cromwellian war, and you will
earn that the proud Cavalier had to yield
N the end to the conscientious Roundhead.