established by that constitution as may be practically needed? Can you, if you swear to support the Constitution and believe that the Constitution establishes a right, clear your oath without giving it support? Do you support the Constitution if, knowing or believing there is a right established under it which needs specific legislation, you withhold that legislation? Do you not violate and disregard your oath? I can conceive of nothing plainer in the world.

104

* * *

(April 4, 1864, Letter to A. G. Hodges-Van Buren, p. 351.) I did understand, however, that the very 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? I felt that measures otherwise unconstitutional might become lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of 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 had even tried to preserve the Constitution, if to preserve slavery or any minor matter I should permit the wreck of government, country and Constitution altogether.

105

(June 12, 1863, Letter to Erastus Corning and others-Van Buren, p. 271.)

If I be wrong on this question of constitutional power, my error lies in believing that certain proceedings are constitutional when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety requires them, which would not be constitutional when, in the absence of rebellion or invasion, the public safety does not require them; in other words, that the Constitution is not, in its application, in all respects the same in cases of rebellion or invasion involving the public safety, as it is in times of profound peace and public security.

106

(July 20, 1863, Letter to Ohio Democrats-Van Buren, p. 294.)

You say, "the undersigned are unable to agree with you in the opinion you have expressed, that the Constitution is different in time of insurrection or invasion from what it is in time of peace and public security."

A recurrence to the paper will show you that I have not expressed the opinion you suppose. I expressed the opinion that the Constitution is different in its application in cases of rebellion or invasion involving the public safety from what it is in times of profound peace and public security; and

this opinion I adhere to, simply because, by the Constitution, itself, things may be done in the one case which may not be done in the other.

107

(October 19, 1864, Speech at a Serenade-Van Buren, p. 386.)

I am struggling to maintain the government, not to overthrow it. I am struggling especially to prevent others from overthrowing it. I therefore say that, if I shall live, I shall remain President until the fourth of next March, and that whoever shall be constitutionally elected in November shall be duly installed as President on the fourth of March. This is due to the people, both on principle and under the Constitution. Their will, constitutionally expressed, is the ultimate law for all. If they should deliberately resolve to have peace, even at the loss of their country and their liberty, I know not the power or the right to resist them. It is their business, and they must do as they please with their own. I believe, however, they are still resolved to preserve their country and their liberty; and, in this office or out, I am resolved to stand by them.

108

(July 4, 1864, To Senator Chandler-Morse, Vol. II, p. 233.)

I do not see how any of us now can deny and contradict what we have always said, that Congress

has no constitutional power over slavery in the States.

109

(August 26, 1863, Letter to James C. Conkling-Herndon, p. 552.)

I think the Constitution invests its Commanderin-Chief with the law of war in time of war.

THE COURTS AND THE PEOPLE.

110

(June 17, 1858, Speech at Springfield, Ill.-The persons referred to are Stephen A. Douglas, Franklin Pierce, Roger B. Taney and James Buchanan-Debates, p. 3.)

We cannot absolutely know that these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert, but when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen-Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James, for instanceand when we see these timbers joined together, and see that they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few-not omitting even the scaffolding—or if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such a piece in-in such a case we feel it impossible not to believe that Stephen, and Franklin, and Roger, and James, all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan, or draft, drawn before the first blow was struck.