-No State has been out of the Union.-Men can go out, however, though they can not take a State out.-The Rebel Government a de facto Government, and all its Citizens who voluntarily swore Alle- giance to it Aliens.-The Functions of the Rebel States suspended.- These Functions only to be restored by the law-making Power of the United States, viz., by President, House, and Senate acting together. -Properly elected and truly loyal Representatives entitled to Scats in Congress. To withhold the Right of such to Scats would be to placo loyal and disloyal on a par.-No Presidential Pardons legal until the Pardoned have been tried.-The Policy of Reconstruction to be recom- menced under different Auspices; the present Policy declared a Fail- urc.-The unconstitutional Action of the Virginia Legislature.—Loyal Men the only Parties legally entitled to legislate in a reconstructed THE GARNETT LETTERS-THE FIRST LETTER.-Mr. Botts is requested to "define his Position."-He does it, greatly to the Disgust of ye Traitors. He shows the Illegality of the Action of the State Legis- lature of Virginia.-He quotes Mr. Johnson's Record to show what his Policy is, or should be, rather.-He analyzes the Sequel to the great Southern Strike for higher Wages.—He quotes legal Authority as to tho pardoning Power of the President.—What Attorney General Wirt, of Virginia, said in 1820.-What Roger B. Tancy said in 1831.-IIo clenches the Nail with Chief Justice Marshall's Opinion on the Subject. -Tired of being persecuted by pardoned Rebels, he declares his Inten- tion to enter the Lists against the reconstructed Traitors alone, 344- THE SECOND LETTER.-Mr. Botts gives one of his "gentle Rebukes" to Mr. Garnett.-The "Rebuke" a scorching Epistle.-The Axioms il- lustrated. Mr. Botts's "Roland" for Mr. Garnett's "Oliver," 359–367. THE THIRD LETTER.-Mr. Botts gives Evidence of the Disloyalty of the "Reconstructed."-The Conspiracy to involve the Nation in a foreign War. The Prescience of Mr. Botts in 1841, '44, '54, and '61. - More Evidence of the Proscription of loyal People in the South.-Mr. Botts's Opinion on the Veto of the Bureau Bill, 367–375. THE FOURTH LETTER.—A Response to Mr. Garnett's Letter.—Mr. Botts - MR. BOTTS'S PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION.-His Letter to Congress.-Ob- jections to the Report of the Congressional Reconstruction Committee. -No Relief for the white Unionists of the South.-The Power to vote dependent upon the grade of Office held instead of the grade of Offense committed.-The President can not approve the Bill.-No Southern MR. LINCOLN AND HIS POLICY.-A Tribute to the Martyred President. -The gross Injustice done Mr. Lincoln.-The Lies of the Democratic Almanac.-The Republican Platform of 1860.-Its best Plank shown. -The false Statements of partisan Publications refuted.-Democratic Efforts to "fire the Southern Heart."-Mr. Lincoln's Speech in March, 1861.-His Reply to a Committee of so-called Southern Unionists.— Their false Report thercon.—Mr. Lincoln's Message in March, 1862.— Important Memorandum of an Interview between Mr. Lincoln and several Representatives of the Border States in 1862.-Another Inter- view with Members of Congress in July, 1862.-He explains his Views on the Slavery Question.-Compensation for Slaves made free, and gradual Emancipation offered to the South.-The Fremont Proclama- tion revoked by Mr. Lincoln.-Hunter's ditto.-Mr. Lincoln's Letter to the Tribune.-The Union to be saved at all Hazards-with Slavery or without it.-Mr. Botts's Comments on Mr. Lincoln's Policy.-The Vote on the Crittenden Proposition.-An apt Quotation from Presi- dent Johnson when that eminent Tennesseean regarded Treason as THE GREAT REBELLION. ORIGIN OF THE BOOK. To Charles Palmer, Esq.: Home, near Richmond, October, 1861. MY DEAR SIR,-By your letter of yesterday, I am informed that the French consul has applied to you for such information as you can furnish or obtain for him respecting the origin and progress of the doctrine of Secession, together with whatever else may be deemed important or interesting, as connected with the purposes and designs of the authors of this great Southern Rebellion; and, as one more familiar with the subject than yourself, you appeal to mo for the information required, to which I answer. It has generally been supposed that this doctrine of Sccession had its origin with the famous "Hartford" Convention that was held in Hartford, Connecticut, in the year 1814, during the last war with Great Britain; but, with all the research I have been able to make, I have not succeeded in tracing this wild and pernicious assumption to that body. That it embraced a large degree of disaffected and disloyal spirit to the government of the United States, is undoubtedly true; that the authors of its creation were suspected and charged with entertaining such a design, is also beyond question; but it does not appear, by its published proceedings, to have claimed such right, or to have resorted to such a remedy for the evils of which they complained. They certainly manifested a deep hostility to the war then existing, and a great want of respect for the Constitution, and of good feeling for the government; and to the former they proposed certain amendments, which received the sanction of two only of those States that were represented in the Convention, to wit, Massachusetts and Connecticut. It is not at all improbable, that in the outset, the members of that Convention did contemplate a resort to some such Quixotic scheme, and that they were driven from their purpose by the universal condemnation of every patriotic voice and pen that could be raised or wielded in the land; for such was the odium and the infamy that attached to that body, from the bare suspicion of its disloyalty and treasonable design of originating separate action for the States, as sovereign powers independent of their obligations to the Constitution and their allegiance to the national government, that it was quite enough to damn the fame of any man in the nation, and to hold him up to public obloquy and contempt, if upon him could be fastened the stain of being a "Hartford Conventionist" either in fact or in sympathy of feeling; and it is not less remarkable than truc, that no New England man, from that day to this, no matter what the extent of his capacity, integrity, or patriotism, has been able to achieve for himself a great national popularity and strength, because of the odium that stuck, like the shirt of Nessus, to those States for having been held to entertain such unpatriotic and unconstitutional sentiments, and for having permitted such a Convention to have been held within their limits; and every man at all familiar with the history of the country will recognize the truth of the assertion, that for more than twenty years after that Convention was held, whenever the Southern Democracy de termined to hunt an adversary down by blackening his reputation, or destroying his claims to public confidence, ho was assailed as being a "Hartford Conventionist," while in later years, when, in order to retain their power, they contemplated an ultimate resort to the same infamous and treasonable expedient of separation from the Union, they have singly, in pairs and in packs, hunted down and defamed the character of every antagonist by substituting the charge of being an Abolitionist in lieu of their famous cry of "Hartford Conventionist." SECESSION ODIOUS IN THE SOUTH PRIOR TO 1832. I will take it upon myself to say here, that at the time this charge of "secession" was made upon that Convention, there was not one man in any party in the Southern States that did not hold the doctrine in utter abomination, and did not openly proclaim it to be treason against the government; and if there were any who thought differently, they did not dare to give public utterance to the sontiment. Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, and Judge Spencer Roane, were all open and loud in their denunciation of the "treason" on the part of those who were supposed to claim such right; while now we find, that what was imperishable dishonor and infamy at that day, is regarded as the highest test of patriotism at this; and it is almost as much as a man's life is worth to be found in opposition to this odious doctrine and to its practical application. At that time there was another gentleman who exerted a great influence over thỏ minds of the Democracy of the state, who is now no more -I mean Thomas Ritchie, of the Richmond Enquirer. The Enquirer of that day-then under the control of the party headed by Mr. Jefferson, and with the whole body of thre ablest men of the Democracy in the Union as its contrib |