No one dare attempt to assail them.
But after Fort Sumter
was attacked and surrendered, what do we find stated in Montgomery
when the news reached there?
Here is the telegraphic announcement of the reception of the news there:
refused to address the audience, but his Secretary of War
did. The Secretary of War
, Mr. Walker
No man could tell where the war this day commenced would end, but he would prophesy that the flag which now flaunts the breeze here would float over the old Capitol, at Washington, before the 1st of May.
Let them try Southern chivalry and test the extent of Southern resources, and it might float eventually over Faneuil Hall itself.
What is the announcement?
We have attacked Fort Sumter
and it has surrendered, and no one can tell where this war will end. By the 1st of May our flag will wave in triumph from the dome of the old Capitol
, and ere long perhaps from Faneuil Hall in Boston
Then was this war commenced by the President
on his own motion?
You say the President
of the United States
did wrong in ordering out 75,000 men, and in increasing the army and navy under the exigency.
Do we not know, in connection with these facts, that so soon as Fort Sumter
surrendered they took up the line of march for Washington
Do not some of us who were here know that we did not even go to bed very confidently and securely, for the fear that the city would be taken before the rising sun?
Has it not been published in the Southern
newspapers that Ben McCulloch
was in readiness, with 5,000 picked men, in the State of Virginia
, to make a descent and attack the city, and take it?
What more do we find?
We find that the Congress
of this same pseudo-republic, this same Southern Confederacy that has sprung up in the South
, as early as the 6th of March passed a law preparing for this invasion — preparing for this war which they commenced.
Here it is:
That in order to provide speedily forces to repel invasion, maintain the rightful possession of the Confederate States of America in every portion of territory belonging to each State, and to secure the public tranquillity and independence against threatened assault, the President be, and he is hereby, authorized to employ the militia, military, and naval forces of the Confederate States of America, and ask for and accept the services of any number of volunteers, not exceeding one hundred thousand.
When your forts were surrendered, and when the President
of the so-called Southern Confederacy was authorized to call out the entire militia, naval, and military force, and then to receive in the service of the Confederate States
one hundred thousand men, the President
calls for seventy-five thousand men to defend the capital and the public property.
Are we for the Government
, or are we against it?
That is the question.
Taking all the facts into consideration, do we not see that an invasion was intended?
It was even announced by Mr. Iverson
upon this floor that ere long their Congress would be sitting here, and this Government would be overthrown.
When the facts are all put together we see the scheme, and it is nothing more nor less than executing a programme deliberately made out; and yet Senators
hesitate, falter, and complain, and say the President
has suspended the writ of habeas corpus, increased the army and navy, and they ask, where was the necessity for all this?
With your forts taken, your men fired upon, your ships attacked at sea, and one hundred thousand men called into the field by this so-called Southern Confederacy, with the additional authority to call out the entire military and naval force of those States, Senators
talk about the enormous call of the President
for seventy-five thousand men and the increase he has made of the army and navy.
, it all goes to show, in my opinion, that the sympathies of Senators
are with the one Government and against the other.
Admitting that there was a little stretch of power; admitting that the margin was pretty wide when the power was exercised, the query now comes, when you have got the power, when you are sitting here in a legislative attitude, are you willing to sustain the Government
and give it the means to sustain itself?
It is not worth while to talk about what has been done before.
The question on any measure should be, is it necessary now?
If it is, it should not be withheld from the Government
talk about violating the Constitution
and the laws.
A great deal has been said about searches and seizures, and the right of protection of persons and of papers.
I reckon it is equally as important to protect a Government from seizure as it is an individual.
I reckon the moral and the law of the case would be just as strong in seizing upon that which belonged to the Federal Government
as it would upon that belonging to an individual.
What belongs to us in the aggregate is protected and maintained by the same law, moral and legal, as that which applies to an individual.
These rebellious States, after commencing this war, after violating the Constitution
, seized our forts, our arsenals, our dock-yards, our custom-houses, our public buildings, our ships, and last, though not least, plundered the independent treasury at New Orleans of $1,000,000. And yet Senators
talk about violations of the law and the Constitution
They say the Constitution
is disregarded, and the Government
is about to be overthrown.
Does not this talk about violations of the Constitution
and the law come with a beautiful grace from that side of the House
I repeat again, Sir, are not violations