true intent and meaning when it was adopted. .. They had, for more than a century before, been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was, at that time, fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion. And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed or more uniformly acted upon than by the English Government and English people. They not only seized them on the coast of Africa, and sold them, or held them in slavery for their own use, but they took them, as ordinary articles of merchandise, to every country where they could make a profit on them, and were far more extensively engaged in this commerce than any other nation in the world. The opinion thus entertained and acted upon in England was naturally impressed upon the colonies on this side of the Atlantic. And, accordingly, a negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property, and held, and bought, and sold as such in every one of the thirteen colonies which united in the Declaration of Independence and afterward framed the Constitution of the United States. The slaves were more or less numerous in the different colonies, as slave-labor was found more or less profitable. But no one seems to have doubted the correctness of the prevailing opinion of the time" (19 Howard, pp. 404, 407, 408). It will be seen that, instead of declaring it to be his opinion that the negroes had no rights which white men were bound to respect, he was stating historical facts, known by all well-informed men to be true, and which no one will deny, as the probable reason why the Constitution contained only the pro

visions then found in it. He showed that the English brought negroes from Africa and sold them where they could make profit, thus leading her colonies to do the same thing, stating what both thought of the matter. The Chief Justice was not responsible for history, and committed no offence in stating it. This is one of the cases where falsehood has been knowingly circulated by the telegraph and the Republican press, and the well-informed of the party, for political effect. There can be no denial or concealment of the fact that the charge was wantonly false, and known to be so by him who first sent it over the wires, and by the Republican press after the denial of its truth, for the purpose of injuring one of the best men in the world, and weakening and destroying the force and effect of what he did decide, to wit, that, under the Constitution, negroes of African descent were not citizens of the United States, and, therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction over a case where it depended upon the citizenship of a negro plaintiff. Whether that question was rightly or wrongly decided has nothing to do with the opinion falsely imputed to the Chief Justice, reiterated, and never recalled, and all for political effect. This was no fault of the telegraph, but of those who used it.

124. THE SECESSION STATES WERE NEVER, IN LAW, OUT OF THE UNION.

The Constitution expressly provides that new States may be admitted into the Union. Every new State has been admitted under this provision by an express statute, all of which remain unrepealed, nor is there any power in the Constitution authorizing a repeal. Nor any conferring power on the States to leave, withdraw, or secede, or permitting Congress to expel a State, or to declare war upon, or to conquer it. When once admitted, a State forms a part of the Union forever. There is no more power in Congress or a State to change this relation than there is for them to annul the Union, which we all claim to be sacred. Neither can change, except by successful revolution, shaking off the old Government and forming a new one, as we did when we expelled the British power and set up our own. Had our effort to shake off the British power fallen short of success, we should

have remained colonies as before the attempt. There being no power to expel States, and none to "let them go in peace," nor any on their part to sever their constitutional relations, it follows that they must remain a portion of the Union during all time. The identity of a nation is as indivisible as that of an individual. A man cannot be divided into two parts, nor can one or more parts be subordinated to the other parts, where the whole is in a condition of health. Where health is wanting, restoration becomes a necessity. The Constitution confers no power on the Government of the United States to put a State out of the Union by making a conquest over it, or in any other way. If the Government could do so, it would depend upon its will as to what State or States should be conquered and thus expelled, or be converted into mere dependent provinces. This was not the mission of our fathers. They simply were authorized to bring together what existed before in separate colonies, and each colony was an independent party-all having absolutely an inalienable right and joint interest in the Union. But the Constitution does provide for the exact case that has occurred, which conclusively proves that conquest of a State by the Federal Government was neither contemplated nor authori ed by the Constitution. It authorizes Congress to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. This power has been exercised by Congress in passing the Act of 1795, authorizing the President to call out the militia to suppress insurrections, and in 1807 a law placing under his control the army and navy to aid in that object. It was under these laws that Mr. Lincoln issued his proclamation of April 15, 1861, calling for seventy-five thousand militia, and for which Congress, by the act of July 13, 1861, voted compensation. It was under this constitutional provision that, on the 22d of July, 1861, Congress called for five hundred thousand volunteers for "suppressing insurrection," and on the 29th passed "An Act to provide for the suppression of rebellion against and resistance to the laws of the United States," in which the President was authorized "to call forth the militia of any and all the States in the Union, and to employ such parts of the land and naval forces of the United

States as he may deem necessary to enforce the faithful execution of the laws of the United States, or to suppress such rebellion in whatever State or Territory thereof the laws of the United States may be forcibly opposed, or the execution forcibly obstructed." The act of July 21, 1861, provides when the President may declare inhabitants to be "in a state of insurrection." On the 6th of August, 1861, Congress passed "An Act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes," which directs what shall be done "during the present or any future insurrection against the Government." On the 7th of June, 1862, Congress passed an act concerning the collection of taxes "in insurrectionary districts," declaring what should be done "in cases of insurrection or rebellion." On the 17th of July, 1862, Congress passed "An Act to suppress insurrection and to punish treason and rebellion," which declares the consequences of engaging "in any rebellion or insurrection." On the same day an act was passed, amending a former act concerning suppressing "insurrections," under which the President was authorized to call for one hundred thousand volunteers. On the 3d of March, 1863, Congress passed an act concerning enrolling the national forces, which recites in a preamble that "there now exists in the United States an insurrection," etc. On the 3d of March, 1863, Congress passed an act to prevent frauds "in insurrectionary districts," and made provision concerning abandoned property in places declared to be "in insurrection." These are merely specimens of the declarations of Congress which run through the statutes during the war. There is not one line of law looking to "conquest." Mr. Lincoln's proclamations contain like expressions, and so do speeches of members. In his first inaugural address he said: "It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void." The pretence of "conquest" was never even suggested until long after the war, and then by members of Congress to justify themselves in treating the secession States as conquered provinces. No military officer, in his proclamations or correspondence, even thought that he or his men were fighting for conquest. Every one supposed he was engaged in putting down insurrection,

and fighting for the Union. The soldiers even expressed their indignation when told they were fighting for the abolitionists. Our Government told the people and the world, that the sole object of the war was to suppress insurrection as the best means of restoring the Union. We complained of England and France for treating the secessionists as our public enemies, we claiming that they were insurrectionists, rebels, and traitors, subject to our laws. The Crittenden Resolution is express upon this point. We all treated and talked of the South as States belonging to and forming a part of the Union.

Congress, in its acts on the subject throughout the war, treated them as States. It apportioned members of Congress to them, and assigned to them different judicial circuits. The Constitution provides that "no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State . . . . without the consent of" such State. On the 31st of December, 1862, Congress passed an act for the admission of the State of "Western Virginia," which is still represented in Congress, in which it recites “the Legislature of Virginia, by an act passed the 13th of May, 1862, did give its consent to the formation of a new State," etc. But if Virginia had ceased to be a State in the Union, how could she give such consent? This proves conclusively that, at that time, Virginia was considered by Congress as a State in the Union, with all her powers as such. If it was so at the end of 1862, when and how did she cease to be such State? If these States were not really such, why did Congress, in imposing its direct taxes, describe them as States, and apportion taxes "to the States respectively?" The Confederate generals were not told, when they surrendered, that the South would be treated as conquered provinces. They and our generals understood that secession had failed, and the States were a part of the Union. Both Grant and Lee evidently so understood it. If these States were out of the Union, why call upon them to consent to amendments to the national Constitution, and why receive Tennessee, and admit the Senators and members on her adopting the 14th amendment? The United States Senate so understood the matter. United States district judges, marshals, and district attorneys were