Atlas Of Dermoscopy 3rd Edition 3rd Ashfaq A

Marghoob Natalia Jaimes download

https://ebookbell.com/product/atlas-of-dermoscopy-3rd-
edition-3rd-ashfaq-a-marghoob-natalia-jaimes-55490118

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Atlas Of Dermoscopy Ashfaq A Marghoob Ralph Braun

https://ebookbell.com/product/atlas-of-dermoscopy-ashfaq-a-marghoob-
ralph-braun-4342748

Atlas Of Dermoscopy Ashfaq A Marghoob Ralph P Braun Alfred W Kopf

https://ebookbell.com/product/atlas-of-dermoscopy-ashfaq-a-marghoob-
ralph-p-braun-alfred-w-kopf-4342750

Atlas Of Trichoscopy Dermoscopy In Hair And Scalp Disease 1st Edition

Lidia Rudnicka

https://ebookbell.com/product/atlas-of-trichoscopy-dermoscopy-in-hair-
and-scalp-disease-1st-edition-lidia-rudnicka-4388186

Atlas Of Dermatoscopy Cases Challenging And Complex Clinical Scenarios

1st Ed Horacio Cabo

https://ebookbell.com/product/atlas-of-dermatoscopy-cases-challenging-
and-complex-clinical-scenarios-1st-ed-horacio-cabo-22425714
Comprehensive Atlas Of Dermatoscopy Cases 1st Ed 2018 Horacio Cabo

https://ebookbell.com/product/comprehensive-atlas-of-dermatoscopy-
cases-1st-ed-2018-horacio-cabo-7045086

Comprehensive Atlas Of Dermatoscopy Cases Horacio Cabo Aimilios Lallas

https://ebookbell.com/product/comprehensive-atlas-of-dermatoscopy-
cases-horacio-cabo-aimilios-lallas-11085630

Atlas Of Pediatric Dermatoscopy Giuseppe Micali Et Al Eds

https://ebookbell.com/product/atlas-of-pediatric-dermatoscopy-
giuseppe-micali-et-al-eds-7004192

Clinical And Dermoscopic Atlas Of Nonneoplastic Dermatoses Variability

According To Phototypes Enzo Errichetti

https://ebookbell.com/product/clinical-and-dermoscopic-atlas-of-
nonneoplastic-dermatoses-variability-according-to-phototypes-enzo-
errichetti-50463072

Reflectance Confocal Microscopy Of Cutaneous Tumors An Atlas With

Clinical Dermoscopic And Histological Correlations 1st Edition
Salvador Gonzalez

https://ebookbell.com/product/reflectance-confocal-microscopy-of-
cutaneous-tumors-an-atlas-with-clinical-dermoscopic-and-histological-
correlations-1st-edition-salvador-gonzalez-1391110
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
himself a Slaveholder, yet none the less desired the adoption of this
Thirteenth Article of Amendment, for, said he: "We cannot save the
Institution if we would. We ought not if we could. * * * If it were a
blessing, I, for one, would be defending it to the last. It is a curse,
and not a blessing. Therefore let it go. * * * Let the iniquity be cast
away!"
It was about this time that a remarkable letter written by Mr.
Lincoln to a Kentuckian, on the subject of Emancipation, appeared in
print. It is interesting as being not alone the President's own
statement of his views, from the beginning, as to Slavery, and how
he came to be "driven" to issue the Proclamation of Emancipation,
and as showing how the Union Cause had gained by its issue, but
also in disclosing, indirectly, how incessantly the subject was
revolved in his own mind, and urged by him upon the minds of
others. The publication of the letter, moreover, was not without its
effect on the ultimate action of the Congress and the States in
adopting the Thirteenth Amendment. It ran thus:

"EXECUTIVE MANSION.
"WASHINGTON, April 4, 1864.
"A. G. HODGES, Esq., Frankfort, Ky.
"MY DEAR SIR: You ask me to put in writing the substance of—
what I verbally said the other day, in your presence, to Governor
Bramlette and Senator Dixon. It was about as follows:
"I am naturally anti-Slavery. If Slavery is not wrong, nothing is
wrong. I cannot remember when I did not so think and feel, and yet
I have never understood that the 'Presidency conferred upon me an
unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling.
"It was in the oath I took, that I would to the best of my ability
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I
could not take the Office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view
that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using
the power.
"I understood, too, that in ordinary and Civil Administration this
oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract
judgment on the moral question of Slavery. I had publicly declared
this many times, and in many ways.
"And I aver that, to this day, I have done no Official act in mere
deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on Slavery.
"I did understand, however, that my oath to preserve the
Constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of
preserving by every indispensable means, that Government—that
Nation, of which that Constitution was the Organic Law.
"Was it possible to lose the Nation and yet preserve the
Constitution?
"By General Law, life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb
must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to
save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise Unconstitutional, might
become lawful, by becoming Indispensable to the Constitution
through the preservation of the Nation.
"Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could
not feel that, to the best of my ability, I have even tried to preserve
the Constitution, if, to save Slavery, or any minor matter, I should
permit the wreck of Government, Country, and Constitution,
altogether.
"When, early in the War, General Fremont attempted Military
Emancipation, I forbade it, because I did not then think it an
Indispensable Necessity.
"When, a little later, General Cameron, then Secretary of War,
suggested the Arming of the Blacks, I objected, because I did not
yet think it an Indispensable Necessity.
"When, still later, General Hunter attempted Military Emancipation,
I again forbade it, because I did not yet think the Indispensable
Necessity had come.
 "When in March, and May, and July, 1862, I made earnest and
successive appeals to the Border-States to favor compensated
Emancipation, I believed the Indispensable Necessity for Military
Emancipation and arming the Blacks would come, unless averted by
that measure.
"They declined the proposition, and I was, in my best judgment,
driven to the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with
it, the Constitution, or of laying strong hand upon the Colored
element. I chose the latter. In choosing it, I hoped for greater gain
than loss, but of this I was not entirely confident.
"More than a year of trial now shows no loss by it in our Foreign
Relations, none in our home popular sentiment, none in our white
Military force, no loss by it anyhow, or anywhere. On the contrary, it
shows a gain of quite a hundred and thirty thousand soldiers,
seamen, and laborers.
"These are palpable facts, about which, as facts, there can be no
cavilling. We have the men; and we could not have had them
without the measure.
"And now let any Union man who complains of this measure, test
himself by writing down in one line, that he is for subduing the
Rebellion by force of arms; and in the next, that he is for taking one
hundred and thirty thousand men from the Union side, and placing
them where they would be best for the measure he condemns. If he
cannot face his case so stated, it is only because he cannot face the
truth.
"I add a word which was not in the verbal conversation. In telling
this tale, I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to
have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have
controlled me. Now at the end of three years' struggle, the Nation's
condition is not what either Party, or any man, devised or expected.
God alone can claim it.
"Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of
a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North, as well as you of
the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial
history will find therein new causes to attest and revere the Justice
and goodness of God.
"Yours truly,
"A. LINCOLN."

The 8th of April (1864) turned out to be the decisive field-day in

the Senate. Sumner endeavored to close the debate on that day in a
speech remarkable no less for its power and eloquence of statement,
its strength of Constitutional exposition, and its abounding evidences
of extensive historical research and varied learning, than for its
patriotic fervor and devotion to human Freedom.
Toward the end of that great speech, however, he somewhat
weakened its force by suggesting a change in the phraseology of the
proposed Thirteenth Amendment, so that, instead of almost
precisely following the language of the Jeffersonian Ordinance of
1787, as recommended by the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, it
should read thus:
"All Persons are Equal before the Law, so that no person can hold
another as a Slave; and the Congress may make all laws necessary
and proper to carry this Article into effect everywhere within the
United States and the jurisdiction thereof."
Mr. Sumner's idea in antagonizing the Judiciary Committee's
proposition with this, was to introduce into our Organic Act,
distinctive words asserting the "Equality before the Law" of all
persons, as expressed in the Constitutional Charters of Belgium, Italy
and Greece, as well as in the various Constitutions of France—
beginning with that of September, 1791, which declared (Art. 1) that
"Men are born and continue Free and Equal in Rights;" continuing in
that of June, 1793, which declares that "All Men are Equal by Nature
and before the Law:" in that of June, 1814, which declares that
"Frenchmen are Equal before the Law, whatever may be otherwise
their title and ranks;" and in the Constitutional Charter of August,
1830 in similar terms to the last.
 "But," said he, "while desirous of seeing the great rule of Freedom
which we are about to ordain, embodied in a text which shall be like
the precious casket to the more precious treasure, yet * * * I am
consoled by the thought that the most homely text containing such a
rule will be more beautiful far than any words of poetry or
eloquence, and that it will endure to be read with gratitude when the
rising dome of this Capitol, with the Statue of Liberty which
surmounts it, has crumbled to dust."
Mr. Sumner's great speech, however, by no means ended the
debate. It brought Mr. Powell to his feet with a long and elaborate
contention against the general proposition, in the course of which he
took occasion to sneer at Sumner's "most remarkable effort," as one
of his "long illogical rhapsodies on Slavery, like:

'—a Tale Told by an Idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.'"

He professed that he wanted "the Union to be restored with the

Constitution as it is;" that he verily believed the passage of this
Amendment would be "the most effective Disunion measure that
could be passed by Congress"—and, said he, "As a lover of the
Union I oppose it."

[This phrase slightly altered, in words, but not in

meaning, to "The Union as it was, and the Constitution
as it is," afterward became the Shibboleth under which
the Democratic Party in the Presidential Campaign of
1864, marched to defeat.]

He endeavored to impute the blame for the War, to the northern

Abolitionists, for, said he: "Had there been no Abolitionists, North,
there never would have been a Fire-eater, South,"—apparently
ignoring the palpable fact that had there been no Slavery in the
South, there could have been no "Abolitionists, North."
He heatedly denounced the "fanatical gentlemen" who desired the
passage of this measure; declared they intended by its passage "to
destroy the Institution of Slavery or to destroy the Union," and
exclaimed: "Pass this Amendment and you make an impassable
chasm, as if you were to put a lake of burning fire, between the
adhering States and those who are out. You will then have to make
it a War of conquest and extermination before you can ever bring
them back under the flag of the Government. There is no doubt
about that proposition."
Mr. Sumner, at this point, withdrew his proposed amendment, at
the suggestion of Mr. Howard, who expressed a preference "to
dismiss all reference to French Constitutions and French Codes, and
go back to the good old Anglo-Saxon language employed by our
Fathers, in the Ordinance of 1787, (in) an expression adjudicated
upon repeatedly, which is perfectly well understood both by the
public and by Judicial Tribunals—a phrase, which is peculiarly near
and dear to the people of the Northwestern Territory, from whose
soil Slavery was excluded by it."

[The following is the language of "the Ordinance of

1787" thus referred to:
"ART. 6.—There shall be neither Slavery nor
Involuntary Servitude in the said Territory, otherwise
than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted: * * *."]

Mr. Davis thereupon made another opposition speech and, at its

conclusion, Mr. Saulsbury offered, as a substitute, an Article,
comprising no less than twenty sections—that, he said, "embodied in
them some things" which "did not meet his personal approbation,"
but he had consented to offer them to the Senate as "a
Compromise"—as "a Peace offering."
The Saulsbury substitute being voted down, the debate closed
with a speech by Mr. McDougall—an eloquent protest from his
standpoint, in which, after endorsing the wild statement of Mr.
Hendricks that 250,000 of the people of African descent had been
prematurely destroyed on the Mississippi, he continued.
 "This policy will ingulf them. It is as simple a truth as has ever
been taught by any history. The Slaves of ancient time were not the
Slaves of a different Race. The Romans compelled the Gaul and the
Celt, brought them to their own Country, and some of them became
great poets, and some eloquent orators, and some accomplished
wits, and they became citizens of the Republic of Greece, and of the
Republic of Rome, and of the Empire.
"This is not the condition of these persons with whom we are now
associated, and about whose affairs we undertake to establish
administration. They can never commingle with us. It may not be
within the reading of some learned Senators, and yet it belongs to
demonstrated Science, that the African race and the European are
different; and I here now say it as a fact established by science, that
the eighth generation of the Mixed race formed by the union of the
African and European, cannot continue their species. Quadroons
have few children; with Octoroons reproduction is impossible.
"It establishes as a law of nature that the African has no proper
relation to the European, Caucasian, blood. I would have them
kindly treated. * * * Against all such policy and all such conduct I
shall protest as a man, in the name of humanity, and of law, and of
truth, and of religion."
The amendment made, as in Committee of the Whole, having
been concurred in, etc., the Joint Resolution, as originally reported
by the Judiciary Committee, was at last passed, (April 8th)—by a
vote of 38 yeas to 6 nays—Messrs. Hendricks and McDougall having
the unenviable distinction of being the only two Senators,
(mis-)representing Free States, who voted against this definitive
Charter of American Liberty.

[The full Senate vote, on passing the Thirteenth

Amendment, was:
YEAS—Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark,
Collamer, Conness, Cowan, Dixon, Doolittle,
Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harding,
Harlan, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Johnson,
Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill,
Nesmith, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague,
Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade,
Wilkinson, Willey, and Wilson—38.
NAYs—Messrs. Davis, Hendricks, McDougall, Powell,
Riddle, and Saulsbury.]
 CHAPTER XXIV.

TREASON IN THE NORTHERN

CAMPS.

The immortal Charter of Freedom had, as we have seen, with

comparative ease, after a ten days' debate, by the power of
numbers, run the gauntlet of the Senate; but now it was to be
subjected to the much more trying and doubtful ordeal of the House.
What would be its fate there? This was a question which gave to Mr.
Lincoln, and the other friends of Liberty and Union, great concern.
It is true that various votes had recently been taken in that body,
upon propositions which had an indirect bearing upon the subject of
Emancipation, as, for instance, that of the 1st of February, 1864,
when, by a vote of 80 yeas to 46 nays, it had adopted a Resolution
declaring "That a more vigorous policy to enlist, at an early day, and
in larger numbers, in our Army, persons of African descent, would
meet the approbation of the House;" and that vote, although
indirect, being so very nearly a two-thirds vote, was most
encouraging. But, on the other hand, a subsequent Resolution,
squarely testing the sense of the House upon the subject, had been
carried by much less than a two-thirds vote.
This latter Resolution, offered by Mr. Arnold, after conference with
Mr. Lincoln, with the very purpose of making a test, was in these
direct terms:
"Resolved, That the Constitution shall be so amended as to
Abolish Slavery in the United States wherever it now exists, and to
prohibit its existence in every part thereof forever."
 The vote, adopting it, was but 78 yeas to 62 nays. * This vote,
therefore, upon the Arnold Resolution, being nowhere near the two-
thirds affirmative vote necessary to secure the passage through the
House of the Senate Joint Resolution on this subject amendatory of
the Constitution, was most discouraging.
It was definite enough, however, to show the necessity of a
change from the negative to the affirmative side of at least fifteen
votes. While therefore the outlook was discouraging it was far from
hopeless. The debate in the Senate had already had its effect upon
the public mind. That, and the utterances of Mr. Lincoln—and further
discussion in the House, it was thought, might produce such a
pressure from the loyal constituencies both in the Free and Border
Slave-States as to compel success.
But from the very beginning of the year 1864, as if instinctively
aware that their Rebel friends were approaching the crisis of their
fate, and needed now all the help that their allies of the North could
give them, the Anti-War Democrats, in Congress, and out, had been
stirring themselves with unusual activity.
In both Houses of Congress, upon all possible occasions, they had
been striving, as they still strove, with the venom of their widely-
circulated speeches, to poison the loyal Northern and Border-State
mind, in the hope that the renomination of Mr. Lincoln might be
defeated, the chance for Democratic success at the coming
Presidential election be thereby increased, and, if nothing else came
of it, the Union Cause be weakened and the Rebel Cause
correspondingly strengthened.
At the same time, evidently under secret instructions from their
friends, the Conspirators in arms, they endeavored to create heart-
burnings and jealousies and ill-feeling between the Eastern
(especially the New England) States and the Western States, and
unceasingly attacked the Protective-Tariff, Internal Revenue, the
Greenback, the Draft, and every other measure or thing upon which
the life of the Union depended.
 Most of these Northern-Democratic agitators, "Stealing the livery
of Heaven to serve the Devil in," endeavored to conceal their
treacherous designs under a veneer of gushing lip-loyalty, but that
disguise was "too thin" to deceive either their contemporaries or
those who come after them. Some of their language too, as well as
their blustering manner, strangely brought back to recollection the
old days of Slavery when the plantation-whip was cracked in the
House, and the air was blue with execration of New England.
Said Voorhees, of Indiana, (January 11, 1864) when the House
was considering a Bill "to increase the Internal Revenue and for
other purposes:"
"I want to know whether the West has any friends upon the floor
of this House? We pay every dollar that is to be levied by this Tax
Bill. * * * The Manufacturing Interest pays not a dollar into the
public Treasury that stays there. And yet airs of patriotism are put on
here by men representing that interest. I visited New England last
Summer, * * * when I heard the swelling hum of her Manufactories,
and saw those who only a short time ago worked but a few hands,
now working their thousands, and rolling up their countless wealth, I
felt that it was an unhealthy prosperity. To my mind it presented a
wealth wrung from the labor, the sinews, the bone and muscle of the
men who till the soil, taxed to an illegitimate extent to foster and
support that great System of local wealth. * * * I do not intend to
stand idly by and see one portion of the Country robbed and
oppressed for the benefit of another."
And the same day, replying to Mr. Morrill of Vermont, he
exclaimed: "Let him show me that the plethoric, bloated
Manufacturers of New England are paying anything to support the
Government, and I will recognize it."
Washburne, of Illinois got back at this part of Mr. Voorhees's
speech rather neatly, by defending the North-west as being "not only
willing to stand taxation" which had been "already imposed, but * *
* any additional taxation which," said he, "may be necessary to
crush out this Rebellion, and to hang the Rebels in the South, and
the Rebel sympathizers in the North." And, he pointedly added:
"Complaint has been made against New England. I know that kind of
talk. I have heard too often that kind of slang about New England. I
heard it here for ten years, when your Barksdales, and your Keitts's,
and your other Traitors, now in arms against the Government, filled
these Halls with their pestilential assaults not only upon New
England, but on the Free North generally."
Kelley of Pennsylvania, however, more fitly characterized the
speech of Voorhees, when he termed it "a pretty, indeed a
somewhat striking, paraphrase of the argument of Mr. Lamar, the
Rebel Agent,—[in 1886, Secretary of the Interior]—to his confreres
in Treason, as we find it in the recently published correspondence:
'Drive gold coin out of the Country, and induce undue Importation of
Foreign products so as to strike down the Financial System. You can
have no further hope for Foreign recognition. It is evident the weight
of arms is against us; and it is clear that we can only succeed by
striking down the Financial System of the Country.' It was an
admirable paraphrase of the Instructions of Mr. Lamar to the Rebel
Agents in the North."
The impression was at this time abroad, and there were not
wanting elements of proof, that certain members of Congress were
trusted Lieutenants of the Arch-copperhead and Outlaw,
Vallandigham. Certain it is, that many of these leaders, six months
before, attended and addressed the great gathering from various
parts of the Country, of nearly one hundred thousand Vallandigham-
Anti-War Peace-Democrats, at Springfield, Illinois—the very home of
Abraham Lincoln—which adopted, during a lull, when they were not
yelling themselves hoarse for Vallandigham, a resolution declaring
against "the further offensive prosecution of the War" as being
subversive of the Constitution and Government, and proposing a
National Peace Convention, and, as a consequence, Peace, "the
Union as it was," and, substantially such Constitutional guarantees
as the Rebels might choose to demand! And this too, at a time (June
13, 1863), when Grant, after many recent glorious victories, had
been laying siege to Vicksburg, and its Rebel Army of 37,000 men,
for nearly a month, with every reason to hope for its speedy fall.
 No wonder that under such circumstances, the news of such a
gathering of the Northern Democratic sympathizers with Treason,
and of their adoption of such treasonable Resolutions, should
encourage the Rebels in the same degree that Union men were
disheartened! No wonder that Lee, elated by this and other
evidences of Northern sympathy with Rebellion, at once determined
to commence a second grand invasion of the North, and on the very
next day (June 14th,) moved Northward with all his Rebel hosts to
be welcomed, he fondly hoped, by his Northern friends of Maryland
and elsewhere! As we have seen, it took the bloody Battle of
Gettysburg to undeceive him as to the character of that welcome.
Further than this, Mr. Cox had stumped Ohio, in the succeeding
election, in a desperate effort to make the banished Traitor,
Vallandigham—the Chief Northern commander of the "Knights of the
Golden Circle" (otherwise known as the "Order of the Sons of
Liberty," and "O. A. K." or "Order of American Knights")—Governor
of that great State.

[The Rebel General Sterling Price being the chief

Southern commander of this many-named treasonable
organization, which in the North alone numbered over
500,000 men.
August, 1864.—See Report of Judge Advocate Holt
on certain "Secret Associations," in Appendix,]

And it only lacked a few months of the time when quantities of

copies of the treasonable Ritual of the "Order of American Knights"—
as well as correspondence touching the purchase of thousands of
Garibaldi rifles for transportation to the West—were found in the
offices of leading Democrats then in Congress.
When, therefore, it is said, and repeated, that there were not
wanting elements of proof, outside of Congressional utterances and
actions, that leading Democrats in Congress were trusted
Lieutenants of the Supreme Commander of over half a million of
Northern Rebel-sympathizers bound together, and to secrecy, by
oaths, which were declared to be paramount to all other oaths, the
violation of which subjected the offender to a shameful death
somewhat like that, of being "hung, drawn, and quartered," which
was inflicted in the middle ages for the crime of Treason to the
Crown—it will be seen that the statement is supported by
circumstantial, if not by positive and direct, evidence.
Whether the Coxes, the Garret Davises, the Saulsburys, the
Fernando Woods, the Alexander Longs, the Allens, the Holmans, and
many other prominent Congressmen of that sort,—were merely in
close communion with these banded "Knights," or were actual
members of their secret organizations, may be an open question.
But it is very certain that if they all were not oath-bound members,
they generally pursued the precise methods of those who were; and
that, as a rule, while they often loudly proclaimed loyalty and love
for the Union, they were always ready to act as if their loyalty and
love were for the so-called Confederacy.
Indeed, it was one of these other "loyal" Democrats, who even
preceded Voorhees, in raising the Sectional cry of: The West, against
New England. It was on this same Internal Revenue Bill, that
Holman of Indiana had, the day before Voorhees's attack, said:
"If the Manufacture of the Northwest is to be taxed so heavily, a
corresponding rate of increase must be imposed on the
Manufactures of New England and Pennsylvania, or, will gentlemen
tax us without limit for the benefit of their own Section? * * * I
protest against what I believe is intended to be a discrimination
against one Section of the Country, by increasing the tax three-fold,
without a corresponding increase upon the burdens of other
Sections."
But these dreadfully "loyal" Democrats—who did the bidding of
traitorous masters in their Treason to the Union, and thus, while
posturing as "Patriots," "fired upon the rear" of our hard-pressed
Armies—were super-sensitive on this point. And, when they could
get hold of a quiet sort of a man, inclined to peaceful methods of
discussion, how they would, terrier-like, pounce upon him, and
extract from him, if they could, some sort of negative satisfaction!
 Thus, for instance, on the 22nd of January, when one of these
quiet men —Morris of New York—was in the midst of an inoffensive
speech, Mr. Cox "bristled up," and blusteringly asked whether he
meant to say that he (Cox) had "ever been the apologist or the
defender of a Traitor?"
And Morris not having said so, mildly replied that he did "not so
charge"—all of which little bit of by-play hugely pleased the touchy
Mr. Cox, and his clansmen.
But on the day following, their smiles vanished under the words of
Spalding or Ohio, who, after referring to the crocodile-tears shed by
Democratic Congressmen over the Confiscation Resolution—on the
pretense that it would hunt down "innocent women and children" of
the Rebels, when they had never a word of sympathy for the widows
and children of the two hundred thousand dead soldiers of the Union
—continued:
"They can see our poor soldiers return, minus an arm, minus a
leg, as they pass through these lobbies, but their only care is to
protect the property of Rebels. And we are asked by one of my
colleagues, (Mr. Cox) does the gentleman from New York intend to
call us Traitors? My friend, Mr. Morris, modestly answered no! If he
had asked that question of me, he knows what my answer would
have been! I have seen Rebel officers at Johnson's Island, and I
have taken them by the hand because they have fought us fairly in
the field and did not seek to break down the Government while
living under its protection. Yes, Sir, that gentleman knows that I
would have said to him that I have more respect for an open and
avowed Traitor in the field, than for a sympathizer in this Hall. Four
months have scarcely gone by since that gentleman and his political
friends were advocating the election of a man for the Gubernatorial
office in my State, who was an open and avowed advocate of
Secession—AN OUTLAW AT THAT!"
And old Thaddeus Stevens—the clear-sighted and courageous "Old
Commoner"—followed up Spalding, and struck very close to the root
and animus of the Democratic opposition, when he exclaimed:
 "All this struggle by calm and dignified and moderate 'Patriots;' all
this clamor against 'Radicals;' all this cry of 'the Union as it Was, and
the Constitution as it Is;' is but a persistent effort to reestablish
Slavery, and to rivet anew and forever the chains of Bondage on the
limbs of Immortal beings. May the God of Justice thwart their
designs and paralyze their wicked efforts!"
 CHAPTER XXV.

"THE FIRE IN THE REAR."

The treacherous purposes of professedly-loyal Copperheads being

seen through, and promptly and emphatically denounced to the
Country by Union statesmen, the Copperheads aforesaid concluded
that the profuse circulation of their own Treason-breeding speeches
—through the medium of the treasonable organizations before
referred to, permeating the Northern States,—would more than
counteract all that Union men could say or do. Besides, the fiat had
gone forth, from their Rebel masters at Richmond, to Agitate the
North.
Hence, day after day, Democrat after Democrat, in the one House
or the other, continued to air his disloyal opinions, and to utter more
or less virulent denunciations of the Government which guarded and
protected him.
Thus, Brooks, of New York, on the 25th of January (1864),
sneeringly exclaimed: "Why, what absurdity it is to talk at this
Capitol of prosecuting the War by the liberation of Slaves, when from
the dome of this building there can be heard at this hour the
booming of cannon in the distance!"
Thus, also, on the day following, Fernando Wood—the same man
who, while Mayor of New York at the outbreak of the Rebellion, had,
under Rebel-guidance, proposed the Secession from the Union, and
the Independence, of that great Metropolis,—declared to the House
that: "No Government has pursued a foe with such unrelenting,
vindictive malignity as we are now pursuing those who came into the
Union with us, whose blood has been freely shed on every battle-
field of the Country until now, with our own; who fought by our side
in the American Revolution, and in the War of 1812 with Great
Britain; who bore our banners bravest and highest in our victorious
march from Vera Cruz to the City of Mexico, and who but yesterday
sat in these Halls contributing toward the maintenance of our
glorious institutions."
Then he went on, in the spirit of prophecy, to declare that: "No
purely agricultural people, fighting for the protection of their own
Domestic Institutions upon their own soil, have ever yet been
conquered. I say further, that no revolted people have ever been
subdued after they have been able to maintain an Independent
government for three years." And then, warming up to an imperative
mood, he made this explicit announcement: "We are at War. * * *
Whether it be a Civil War, Rebellion, Revolution, or Foreign War, it
matters little. IT MUST CEASE; and I want this Administration to tell
the American People WHEN it will cease!" Again, only two days
afterward, he took occasion to characterize a Bill, amendatory of the
enrollment Act, as "this infamous, Unconstitutional conscription Act!"
C. A. White, of Ohio, was another of the malcontents who
undertook, with others of the same Copperhead faith, to "maintain,
that," as he expressed it, "the War in which we are at present
engaged is wrong in itself; that the policy adopted by the Party in
power for its prosecution is wrong; that the Union cannot be
restored, or, if restored, maintained, by the exercise of the coercive
power of the Government, by War; that the War is opposed to the
restoration of the Union, destructive of the rights of the States and
the liberties of the People. It ought, therefore, to be brought to a
speedy and immediate close."
It was about this time also that, emboldened by immunity from
punishment for these utterances in the interest of armed Rebels,
Edgerton of Indiana, was put forward to offer resolutions "for Peace,
upon the basis of a restoration of the Federal Union under the
Constitution as it is," etc.
Thereafter, in both Senate and House, such speeches by Rebel-
sympathizers, the aiders and abettors of Treason, grew more
frequent and more virulent than ever. As was well said to the House,
by one of the Union members from Ohio (Mr. Eckley):
"A stranger, if he listened to the debates here, would think himself
in the Confederate Congress. I do not believe that if these Halls
were occupied to-day by Davis, Toombs, Wigfall, Rhett, and Pryor,
they could add anything to the violence of assault, the falsity of
accusation, or the malignity of attack, with which the Government
has been assailed, and the able, patriotic, and devoted men who are
charged with its Administration have been maligned, in both ends of
the Capitol. The closing scenes of the Thirty-Sixth Congress, the
treasonable declarations there made, contain nothing that we cannot
hear, in the freedom of debate, without going to Richmond or to the
camps of Treason, where most of the actors in those scenes are now
in arms against us."
With such a condition of things in Congress, it is not surprising
that the Richmond Enquirer announced that the North was
"distracted, exhausted, and impoverished," and would, "through the
agency of a strong conservative element in the Free States," soon
treat with the Rebels "on acceptable terms."
Things indeed had reached such a pass, in the House of
Representatives especially, that it was felt they could not much
longer go on in this manner; that an example must be made of
some one or other of these Copperheads. But the very knowledge of
the existence of such a feeling of just and patriotic irritation against
the continued free utterance of such sentiments in the Halls of
Congress, seemed only to make some of them still more defiant.
And, when the 8th of April dawned, it was known among all the
Democrats in Congress, that Alexander Long proposed that day to
make a speech which would "go a bow-shot beyond them all" in
uttered Treason. He would speak right out, what the other
Conspirators thought and meant, but dared not utter, before the
World.
A crowded floor, and packed galleries, were on hand to listen to
the written, deliberate Treason, as it fell from his lips in the House.
His speech began with an arraignment of the Government for
treachery, incompetence, failure, tyranny, and all sorts of barbarous
actions and harsh intentions, toward the Rebels—which led him to
the indignant exclamation:
"Will they throw down their arms and submit to the terms? Who
shall believe that the free, proud American blood, which courses with
as quick pulsation through their veins as our own, will not be spilled
to the last drop in resistance?"
Warming up, he proceeded to say: "Can the Union be restored by
War? I answer most unhesitatingly and deliberately, No, never; 'War
is final, eternal separation.'"
He claimed that the War was "wrong;" that it was waged "in
violation of the Constitution," and would "if continued, result
speedily in the destruction of the Government and the loss of Civil
Liberty, and ought therefore, to immediately cease."
He held also "that the Confederate States are out of the Union,
occupying the position of an Independent Power de facto; have been
acknowledged as a belligerent both by Foreign Nations and our own
Government; maintained their Declaration of Independence, for
three years, by force of arms; and the War has cut asunder all the
obligations that bound them under the Constitution."
"Much better," said he, "would it have been for us in the
beginning, much better would it be for us now, to consent to a
division of our magnificent Empire, and cultivate amicable relations
with our estranged brethren, than to seek to hold them to us by the
power of the sword. * * * I am reluctantly and despondingly forced
to the conclusion that the Union is lost, never to be restored. * * * I
see neither North nor South, any sentiment on which it is possible to
build a Union. * * * in attempting to preserve our Jurisdiction over
the Southern States we have lost our Constitutional Form of
Government over the Northern. * * * The very idea upon which this
War is founded, coercion of States, leads to despotism. * * * I now
believe that there are but two alternatives, and they are either an
acknowledgment of the Independence of the South as an
independent Nation, or their complete subjugation and
extermination as a People; and of these alternatives I prefer the
former."
As Long took his seat, amid the congratulations of his Democratic
friends, Garfield arose, and, to compliments upon the former's
peculiar candor and honesty, added denunciation for his Treason.
After drawing an effective parallel between Lord Fairfax and Robert
E. Lee, both of whom had cast their lots unwillingly with the enemies
of this Land, when the Wars of the Revolution and of the Rebellion
respectively opened, Garfield proceeded:
"But now, when hundreds of thousands of brave souls have gone
up to God under the shadow of the Flag, and when thousands more,
maimed and shattered in the Contest, are sadly awaiting the
deliverance of death; now, when three years of terrific warfare have
raged over us, when our Armies have pushed the Rebellion back
over mountains and rivers and crowded it back into narrow limits,
until a wall of fire girds it; now, when the uplifted hand of a majestic
People is about to let fall the lightning of its conquering power upon
the Rebellion; now, in the quiet of this Hall, hatched in the lowest
depths of a similar dark Treason, there rises a Benedict Arnold and
proposes to surrender us all up, body and spirit, the Nation and the
Flag, its genius and its honor, now and forever, to the accursed
Traitors to our Country. And that proposition comes—God forgive
and pity my beloved State!—it comes from a citizen of the honored
and loyal Commonwealth of Ohio! I implore you, brethren in this
House, not to believe that many such births ever gave pangs to my
mother-State such as she suffered when that Traitor was born!"
As he uttered these sturdy words, the House and galleries were
agitated with that peculiar rustling movement and low murmuring
sound known as a "sensation," while the Republican side with
difficulty restrained the applause they felt like giving, until he sadly
proceeded:
"I beg you not to believe that on the soil of that State another
such growth has ever deformed the face of Nature and darkened the
light of God's day."
 The hush that followed was broken by the suggestive whisper:
"Vallandigham!"
"But, ah," continued the Speaker—as his voice grew sadder still
—"I am reminded that there are other such. My zeal and love for
Ohio have carried me too far. I retract. I remember that only a few
days since, a political Convention met at the Capital of my State, and
almost decided, to select from just such material, a representative
for the Democratic Party in the coming contest; and today, what
claims to be a majority of the Democracy of that State say that they
have been cheated or they would have made that choice!"

[This refers to Horatio Seymour, the Democratic

Governor of New York.]

After referring to the "insidious work" of the "Knights of the

Golden Circle" in seeking "to corrupt the Army and destroy its
efficiency;" the "riots and murders which," said he, "their agents are
committing throughout the Loyal North, under the lead and guidance
of the Party whose Representatives sit yonder across the aisle;" he
continued: "and now, just as the time is coming on when we are to
select a President for the next four years, one rises among them and
fires the Beacon, throws up the blue-light—which will be seen, and
rejoiced over, at the Rebel Capital in Richmond—as the signal that
the Traitors in our camp are organized and ready for their hellish
work! I believe the utterance of to-day is the uplifted banner of
revolt. I ask you to mark the signal that blazes here, and see if there
will not soon appear the answering signals of Traitors all over the
Land. * * * If these men do mean to light the torch of War in all our
homes; if they have resolved to begin the fearful work which will
redden our streets, and this Capitol, with blood, the American People
should know it at once, and prepare to meet it."
At the close of Mr. Garfield's patriotic and eloquent remarks, Mr.
Long again got the floor, declared that what he had said, he believed
to be right, and he would "stand by it," though he had to "stand
solitary and alone," and "even if it were necessary to brave
bayonets, and prisons, and all the tyranny which may be imposed by
the whole power and force of the Administration."
Said he: "I have deliberately uttered my sentiments in that
speech, and I will not retract one syllable of it." And, to "rub it in" a
little stronger, he exclaimed, as he took his seat, just before
adjournment: "Give me Liberty, even if confined to an Island of
Greece, or a Canton of Switzerland, rather than an Empire and a
Despotism as we have here to-day!"
This treasonable speech naturally created much excitement
throughout the Country.
On the following day (Saturday, April 9, 1864), immediately after
prayer, the reading of the Journal being dispensed with, the Speaker
of the House (Colfax) came down from the Speaker's Chair, and,
from the floor, offered a Preamble and Resolution, which ended thus:
"Resolved, That Alexander Long, a Representative from the
second district of Ohio, having, on the 8th day of April, 1864,
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."
The debate which ensued consumed nearly a week, and every
member of prominence, on both the Republican and Democratic
sides, took part in it—the Democrats almost invariably being careful
to protest their own loyalty, and yet attempting to justify the braver
and more candid utterances of the accused member.
Mr. Cox led off, April 9th, in the defense, by counterattack. He
quoted remarks made to the House (March 18, 1864) by Mr. Julian,
of Indiana, to the effect that "Our Country, united and Free, must be
saved, at whatever hazard or cost; and nothing, not even the
Constitution, must be allowed to hold back the uplifted arm of the
Government in blasting the power of the Rebels forever;"—and upon
this, adopting the language of another—[Judge Thomas, of
Massachusetts.]—Mr. Cox declared that "to make this a War, with the
sword in one hand to defend the Constitution, and a hammer in the
other to break it to pieces, is no less treasonable than Secession
itself; and that, outside the pale of the Constitution, the whole
struggle is revolutionary."
He thought, for such words as he had just quoted, Julian ought to
have been expelled, if those of Long justified expulsion!
Finally, being pressed by Julian to define his own position, as
between the Life of the Nation, and the Infraction of the United
States Constitution, Mr. Cox said: "I will say this, that UNDER NO
CIRCUMSTANCES CONCEIVABLE BY THE HUMAN MIND WOULD I
EVER VIOLATE THAT CONSTITUTION FOR ANY PURPOSE!"
This sentiment was loudly applauded, and received with cries of
"THAT IS IT!" "THAT'S IT!" by the Democratic side of the House,
apparently in utter contempt for the express and emphatic
declaration of Jefferson that: "A strict observance of the written laws
is doubtless one of the highest duties of a good citizen, but it is not
the highest. The laws of Necessity, of Self-preservation, of SAVING
OUR COUNTRY WHEN IN DANGER, are of higher obligation. To LOSE
OUR COUNTRY by a scrupulous adherence to written law WOULD BE
TO LOSE THE LAW ITSELF, with Life, Liberty, Property, and all those
who are enjoying them with us; thus absolutely SACRIFICING THE
END TO THE MEANS."

[In a letter to J. B. Colvin, Sept. 20, 1810, quoted at

the time for their information, and which may be found
at page 542 of vol. v., of Jefferson's Works.]

Indeed these extreme sticklers for the letter of the Constitution,

who would have sacrificed Country, kindred, friends, honesty, truth,
and all ambitions on Earth and hopes for Heaven, rather than violate
it—for that is what Mr. Cox's announcement and the Democratic
endorsement of it meant, if they meant anything—were of the same
stripe as those querulous Ancients, for the benefit of whom the
Apostle wrote: "For THE LETTER KILLETH, but the Spirit giveth life."
 And now, inspired apparently by the reckless utterances of Long, if
not by the more cautious diatribe of Cox, Harris of Maryland,
determining if possible to outdo them all, not only declared that he
was willing to go with his friend Long wherever the House chose to
send him, but added: "I am a peace man, a radical peace man; and
I am for Peace by the recognition of the South, for the recognition of
the Southern Confederacy; and I am for acquiescence in the doctrine
of Secession." And, said he, in the midst of the laughter which
followed the sensation his treasonable words occasioned, "Laugh as
you may, you have got to come to it!" And then, with that singular
obfuscation of ideas engendered, in the heads of their followers, by
the astute Rebel-sympathizing leaders, he went on:
"I am for Peace, and I am for Union too. I am as good a Union
man as any of you. [Laughter.] I am a better Union man than any of
you! [Great Laughter.] * * * I look upon War as Disunion."
After declaring that, if the principle of the expulsion Resolution
was to be carried out, his "friend," Mr. Long, "would be a martyr in a
glorious cause"—he proceeded to announce his own candidacy for
expulsion, in the following terms:
"Mr. Speaker, in the early part of this Secession movement, there
was a Resolution offered, pledging men and money to carry on the
War. My principles were then, and are now, against the War. I stood,
solitary and alone, in voting against that Resolution, and whenever a
similar proposition is brought here it will meet with my opposition.
Not one dollar, nor one man, I swear, by the Eternal, will I vote for
this infernal, this stupendous folly, more stupendous than ever
disgraced any civilized People on the face of God's Earth. If that be
Treason, make the most of it!
"The South asked you to let them go in peace. But no, you said
you would bring them into subjugation. That is not done yet, and
God Almighty grant that it never may be. I hope that you will never
subjugate the South. If she is to be ever again in the Union, I hope
it will be with her own consent; and I hope that that consent will be
obtained by some other mode than by the sword. 'If this be Treason,
make the most of it!'"
 An extraordinary scene at once occurred—Mr. Tracy desiring "to
know whether, in these Halls, the gentleman from Maryland invoked
Almighty God that the American Arms should not prevail?" "Whether
such language is not Treason?" and "whether it is in order to talk
Treason in this Hall?"—his patriotic queries being almost drowned in
the incessant cries of "Order!" "Order!" and great disorder, and
confusion, on the Democratic side of the House.
Finally the treasonable language was taken down by the Clerk,
and, while a Resolution for the expulsion of Mr. Harris was being
written out, Mr. Fernando Wood—coming, as he said, from a bed of
"severe sickness," quoted the language used by Mr. Long, to wit:
"I now believe there are but two alternatives, and they are either
the acknowledgment of the Independence of the South as an
independent Nation, or their complete subjugation and
extermination as a People; and of these alternatives I prefer the
former"—and declared that "if he is to be expelled for the utterance
of that sentiment, you may include me in it, because I concur fully in
that sentiment."

[He afterwards (April 11,) said he did not agree with

Mr. Long's opinions.]

Every effort was unavailingly made by the Democrats, under the

lead of Messrs. Cox—[In 1886 American Minister at Constantinople.]
—and Pendleton,—[In 1886 American Minister at Berlin.]—to prevent
action upon the new Resolution of expulsion, which was in these
words:
"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 may be. 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."
Upon reaching a vote, however, the Resolution was lost, there
being only 81 yeas, to 58 (Democratic) nays—two-thirds not having
voted affirmatively. Subsequently, despite Democratic efforts to
obstruct, a Resolution, declaring Harris to be "an unworthy Member"
of the House, and "severely" censuring him, was adopted.
The debate upon the Long-expulsion Resolution now proceeded,
and its mover, in view of the hopelessness of securing a two-thirds
affirmative vote, having accepted an amendment comprising other
two Resolutions and a Preamble, the question upon adopting these
was submitted on the 14th of April. They were in the words
following:
"Whereas, ALEXANDER LONG, a Representative from the second
district of Ohio, by his open declarations in the National Capitol, and
publications in the City of New York, has shown himself to be in
favor of a recognition of the so-called 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 to the
said Alexander Long during the session of the House."
The first of these Resolutions was adopted, by 80 yeas to 69 nays;
the second was tabled, by 71 yeas to 69 nays; and the Preamble
was agreed to, by 78 yeas to 63 nays.
And, among the 63 Democrats, who were not only unwilling to
declare Alexander Long "an unworthy Member," or to have the
Speaker read such a declaration to him in a session of the House,
but also refused by their votes even to intimate that his conduct
evidenced disloyalty, or gave aid and comfort to the Enemy, were the
names of such democrats as Cox, Eldridge, Holman, Kernan,
Morrisson, Pendleton, Samuel J. Randall, Voorhees, and Fernando
Wood.
Hence Mr. Long not only escaped expulsion for his treasonable
utterances, but did not even receive the "severe censure" which, in
addition to being declared (like himself) "an unworthy Member," had
been voted to Mr. Harris for recklessly rushing into the breach to
help him!

[The Northern Democracy comprised two well-

recognized classes: The Anti-War (or Peace)
Democrats, commonly called "Copperheads," who
sympathized with the Rebellion, and opposed the War
for the Union; and the War (or Union) Democrats, who
favored a vigorous prosecution of the War for the
preservation of the Union.]
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com