Year: 1865

doubt, died good Catholic. .5


|


Andrew johnson in 1891.


The following are extracts from a
speech of Andrew Johnson in the
United States Senate, February 5,
1861. They will be read with interest
at this time as showing the ground
upon which he then stood:


Referring to the charge of Senator
Lane, that Mr.. johnson was in favor
of war on the South, Mr.. johnson
said:


{" l march down upon South Caro-
lima! Did l propose any such thing ?
No. War is not the natural element
Of my mind; and, as / stated in that
speech, my thoughts were turned on
peace, and not on war. want no
strife; / want no war. In the Ian
guage Of denomination that is very
numerous in the country, / may say
i hate war and love peace. belong
TO the peace party. / thought, when
L was making that speech, l was
holding out the olive-branch Of peace.
i wanted to give quiet and reconcilia-
ton to a distracted and excited coun-
try. That was the object / had in
view. War, / repeat, is not the natu-
raj element of my mind. 1 would
rather wear upon my garments the
time of the shop and the dust of the
field as badges of the pursuits of
peace, than the guady epaulet upon
my shoulder, or sword dangling by
my side, with it's glittering scabbard,
the insignia of strife, of war, of blood,
of carnage sometimes Of honorable
and glorious war. But, sir, would
rather see the people of the United
States at war with every other power
upon the habitable globe, than be at
war with each other. If blood must
be shed, let it not be shed by the peo-
pie of these States, the one contending
against the other"


81 do not believe the
Federal Government has the power
TO coerce State; for by the eleventh
amendment Of the Constitution Of the
United States, it is expressly provided
that you can not even put one of the
States of this Contederacy before one
of the courts of the country as u
party. AS State, the Federal Gov
ernment has no power to coerce it
but it is a member Of the compact to
which it agreed in common with the
other States, and this Government has
the right to pass laws, and to enforce
those laws upon individuals within
the limits of each State. While the
one proposition is clear, the other is
equally so. This Government can, by
the Constitution of the country and
with the Constitution, operate upon
individuals, and has the right and the
power, not To coerce a State, but to
enforce and execute the law upon in
dividuals within the limits of a State.


q know that the term, to 'coerce a
State is used in an ad eoptdndmm
manner. 1t is Sovereignty that is
to be crushed! How is a State in the
Union? What is her connection with
it? All the connection she has with
the other States is thft which is agreed
upon in the connection between the
States. / do not know whether you
may consider it in the Union, or out
of the Union, or whether you simply
consider it a connection, or a discon-
nection, with the other States; but to
the extent that State nullifes or sets
aside any law, or any provision OF the
Constitution, to that extent 1t has dis
solved its connection, and no more
/ think the States that have passed
their personal liberty bills, in violation
of the Constitution of the United
States, coming into conflict with the
Fugitive slave Law, to that extcnt
have dissolved their connection, and
to that extent il is revolution. But
because some of tho FREQ States have
PASSED laws violaiive of the Constitu-
tom because they have, to some ex-
tent, dissolved their connection with
this Government, does that justify us
of the South in following that bad
example? Because they have passed
personal liberty bills, and have, to
that extent violated the compact which
is reciprocal, shall we turn around, on
the other hand, and violate the Con-
stitution by coercing them to conf
pliance with it? Will we do so?


"Then como back to the starting
point; let us stand in the Union and
upon the Constitution, and if any
body is to leave this Union, or violate
its guarantees, it shall be those who
have takes the initiatives, and passed
their personal liberty bills. i am in
the Union, and intend to stay in it
| intend to hold on to the Union, and
the guarantees under which this Union
has grown and l do not intend to be
driven from it, nor out of it, by their
unconstitutional onactmonts."


"But, Mr.. President, recurring to
what said yesterday, there are two
parties in this country that want to
break up the Government. Who are
they? The nullifers proper Of the
South, the secessionists or disunionists
for use them all as synonymous
terms. There is portion OF them
who, PER s. desire the disruption of