the rights of the South forever, and to which no Southern man could reasonably object; they were brought up for consideration in the House, and, as far as they were acted upon, passed that body by a vote of two thirds. Among those acted on and passed by two thirds was an amendment forever prohibiting Congress from legislating on the subject of slavery; but the impetuosity of the secessionists was such that they would not wait for the final result.

Again: here is the testimony of the Richmond Whig as to the true objects of this resolution; and it must not be overlooked that that paper and its editor had become thoroughly indoctrinated in the secession school, and claims now, I believe, to have been an original secessionist; but whether this is so or not, it is certain that no Democratic paper in the South, from the time the secessionists outbid the Union men for its support, has been more violent and extreme during the progress of the war, as well as in its efforts to carry the state out of the Union, than this once honored and honorable organ of the Whig and Union party.

THE RICHMOND WHIG ON RECONSTRUCTION.

This is what the Whig said:

"Reconstruction.-The plan of ex-Senator Bigler, of Pennsylvania, for ending the war consists of a suggestion that the Legislatures of the Yankee States shall petition Congress to call a convention for the purpose of 'reconstructing the Constitution,' with the view of making it satisfactory to the Confederate States and inducing their return to the Union. Mr. Bigler mistakes the point of the difficulty. The fault was not in the Constitution, nor did the Southern States withdraw on account of dissatisfaction with that instrument. No alteration of it, even if such alteration were left altogether to themselves, would begin to satisfy the South

ern States. What they object to, and what they never will cease to object to, is association with the Yankee race on any terms. If Senator Bigler could 'reconstruct' the Yankee from head to heel, intus et in cute, in mind, heart, soul, and body, so that there would be no atom or instinct of the original beast left, we might then consider the question of reunion, but even then would probably determine that it is best for us to be alone."

Then, again, hear what Mr. Preston Brooks said in 1856. Now I do not pretend to introduce Mr. Brooks exactly in the light of a representative man of his party per se; but when his political associations and connection with the State of South Carolina and all the secessionists in Washington are considered, it may well be conceived that he imprudently gave utterance to what he well knew to be the general sentiment of the party.

He said, "Mr. Fillmore is, privately, a very respectable gentleman. He made a good President, and I believe sincerely that, if elected, he would desert his own party, and make a better President than we think. But that is the very thing I don't want. I am afraid he would do so well that he would throw back the prospects of disunion."

Mr. Brooks only expressed the sentiment of every man's mind who was connected with the leaders of the Calhoun wing of the Democracy.

WHAT ANDREW JOHNSON SAID.

But once again, read the testimony of Governor Johnson, of Tennessee, once a bright star in the galaxy of Democracy. In a speech delivered by him in Nashville in the spring of 1862, he said,

"Tariff was the pretext for disunion in 1832, and the slavery or negro question is the pretext now. How do the

facts stand when we come to examine them? Let us go back to the proceedings of the last Congress.

"What was the true phase of the times? A compromise, you remember-the Crittenden proposition-was introduced. The Southern senators, including Toombs, Benjamin, Iverson, and a host of others, pretended that, if the measure passed, the South would be satisfied; but they desired every thing else but compromise. Senator Clark of fered an amendment which we believed would be acceptable to the South. I had critically kept pace with these pretenders. Their protest was only to disguise their real intentions. When the vote was put on Clark's amendment, mark well, only fifty-five ballots were recorded. The amendment was adopted by two votes, thus defeating the original compromise. Who is responsible for this work of destruction? Six Southern senators standing and refusing to record their votes. If the Crittenden Compromise had been adopted, they would have been deprived of a pretext for their treason. Judah Benjamin, a sneaking thief and perjurer, and an unconscionable traitor, was seated near me while the vote was being taken. I told him it was his duty to come to the relief of the country by voting upon this important proposition. He sneeringly answered that, 'when he wanted my advice he would make the request.' I said, 'You are a senator, and I demand that your vote be recorded.' With six others, he contrived to defeat the measure by slipping out. They wanted no compromise.

"This, then, has caused the present difficulties. These six senators destroyed the compromise, upon which they based revolution. Let us examine ourselves, gentlemen, that we may arraign the guilty ones at the shrine of public suffering. Did Lincoln or the Republicans dissolve the Union? No! Who, then, are to blame? Men who in themselves were ca

pable of averting the storm, and yet cried there was no help for the South, no escape from separation.

"You know the clamor has been raised that the non-slaveholding states would amend the Constitution so as to legislate upon the subject of slavery. On the 20th of December South Carolina passed an ordinance of secession, took Fort Moultrie, and the revolution commenced. Soon after South Carolina went out, seven other states followed. Their argument was that the Free States would interfere with their peculiar institution by legislation. By the withdrawal of these states the North had over three fourths of the votes in Congress, and, consequently, had the power to legislate. Having the power, did they so amend the Constitution? No, they did not. They came forward with an amendment to the effect that 'Congress, in all future time, shall have no power to legislate upon the subject of slavery.' The amendment was passed by a vote of two thirds. Why did you not accept it instead of being governed by a petty tyrant ?"

I could multiply and pile up evidence upon top of evi dence to an interminable extent to show that no compromise was desired or would have been accepted; yet the people have been persuaded to believe that every expedient was resorted to to obtain a peaceable settlement of the dif culties existing, and that the overbearing power of the North had doggedly refused to listen to their complaints. And when such opportunities as these were presented for reconciliation and peace, which were not only not accepted, but purposely and pertinaciously smothered over, and, as far as could be, kept concealed from the people, what have they to say for the price they have had to pay for the costly cheat that has been put upon them?

I

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861.

To come back to the Virginia Convention. They had been in session for some two months without making any perceptible progress toward secession, except by a change of some few known aspirants for office, who conceived that the Democratic craft was the safest to take passage in; and, unfortunately, there were too many of that class of small politicians in the body, nearly every one of whom have since received office, or have been candidates for the Confederate Congress or of the State Legislature, major generals, brigadiers, colonels, majors, captains, commissaries, quarter-masters, or something else that would pay well and give them notoriety; still secession was at a great discount, notwithstanding the Convention was surrounded by a reckless and unprincipled public press, all of which not already in the service of the secessionists had become subsidized, and notwithstanding every effort at intimidation was resorted to by an infuriated mob, who assembled daily and offered personal insult to those members who still expressed attachment to their country and its institutions.

MR. BOTTS HAS AN INTERVIEW WITH MR. LINCOLN.

About this time Mr. Lincoln sent a messenger to Richmond, inviting a distinguished member of the Union party to come immediately to Washington, and if he could not. come himself, to send some other prominent Union man, as he wanted to see him on business of the first importance. The gentleman thus addressed, Mr. Summers, did not go, but sent another, Mr. J. B. Baldwin, who had distinguished himself by his zeal in the Union cause during the session of the Convention; but this gentleman was slow in getting to Washington, and did not reach there for something like a