when the imperial standard, floating from Dublin Castle, announced to Ireland the depth of her degradation, and from that period to the present, there has been no union, no peace, no justice, no content for Ireland. That union, thus misbegotten of force and fraud, was weakness to England and ruin to Ireland. In one rebellion alone, that of 1798, there were 20,000 loyal lives lost, and 50,000 .insurgents, and property worth $15,000,000. A conspiracy here, a plot there, a rebellion at the capital, a rising at the extremities, public waste, private impoverishment, general corruption, periodical starvation, political turpitude, and national bankruptcy-these are the features of national thraldom which Ireland presents for our warning, when we talk of subjugation and confiscation. How much better would it have been for both countries, had the sagacious advice of Sydney Smith been followed, when he said:

"How easy it is to shed human blood; how easy it is to persuade ourselves that it is our duty to do so, and that the decision has cost us a severe struggle; how much, in all ages, have wounds, and shrieks, and tears been the cheap and vulgar resources of the rulers of mankind. The vigor I love consists in finding out wherein subjects are aggrieved, in relieving them, in studying the temper and genius of a people, in consulting their prejudices, in selecting proper persons to lead and manage them in the laborious, watchful, and difficult task of increasing public happiness by allaying each particular discontent."

The wiser statesmen of England once learned this lesson. They strove to apply it to America in the revolution of 1776. Every argument in favor of an unrelenting and exterminating policy by the British ministry was used and acted upon. In vain Chatham, Barré, and Burke appealed. Chatham, though provoked at our contumacy, as we are provoked at the conduct of the South, still felt that provocation could no longer be treated as such when it came from one united province, and when it was supported by eleven provinces more. Accordingly, in February, 1775, be introduced a bill, whose conclusion was: "So shall true reconcilement avert impending calamity." We know the sequel; but do we heed the teaching? When in 1860 our wiser men strove to avert calamities by true reconciliation, who prevented? Who yet stand in the path of reconciliation, with flaming two-edged sword, barring all ingress to the blessings of peace? Who clamor yet for a dictatorial régime? Who shout for death penalties, outlawries, forfeitures, and all the barbarous schemes of vulgar despotism? Or who, on the other hand, still hope for victory without reprisals; success without the tarnish or breach of the Constitution; equality of rights, without irresponsible tyranny; free opinions freely expressed--the only reward which a Union restored can grant, worthy of the great sacrifices which the noble soldiers of the Republic have made!

Let us have done with juggling amnesties and ambitious schemes, with philanthropic ferocity and enforced elections. Under no such policy, pitched in the key-note of the President's proclamation, or chanted in the mellifluous tones of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. DAVIS], can the South ever be held in honorable alliance and harmony. A Government inspired thus would be out of all relations to the States of this Union. It would have neither "the nerves of sensation which convey intelligence to the intellect of the body politic, nor the ligaments and muscles which hold

its parts together and move them in harmony." It would be as Russia is to Poland, as England to Ireland, the government of one people by another. It would never succeed with our race. It would never succeed with a territory whose configurations are so peculiar and whose interests are so varied as ours.

No citizenship is worth granting to those who dishonor themselves to receive it. No common bond of allegiance or nationality is possible on such terms. Mean and degrading conditions which unfit the citizen for manly equality are more despicable than rebellion. You cannot expel the poison of sedition by adding to its virulence. You cannot draw men from crime by stimulating the motive which led to it. Not thus-not thus were the early insurrections in our country assuaged. True, these rebellions were pigmies to this gigantic outbreak, but the principle of their settlement is eternal. It is the very gospel of God; the very love which saves mankind. Inspired thus, what might be done if a wise and sagacious Executive should extend the same beneficent policy to the factions which are bleeding our beloved land!

Will our rulers heed these lessons in time? While they return to the purpose of the war, as declared by General McClellan, for the sole great object of the restoration of the unity of the nation, the preservation of the Constitution, and the supremacy of the laws; and while they conduct it, as he declared it should be carried on, in consonance with the principles of humanity and civilization, abjuring all desire of conquest, all projects of revenge, and all schemes of mock philanthropy, let them remember, also, that all our labors to rebuild the old fabric will fail, unless out of the "brotherly dissimilitudes" of section and interest, we evoke the spirit of fraternity, which has its true similitude in the perfect spirit of Christian fellowship!

Pursuing such a course, we may, like the fugitive prophet upon Mount Horeb, approach and interrogate DEITY itself in our despondency and for our deliverance. And though, like him, we may hear the roar of the wave and the whirlwind of war, though we may tremble amidst the earthquake of its wrath, and though God may not be in the storm, the wind, or the earthquake; yet we may find Him in the still, small voice-sweet, clear, electric,

"Speaking of peace, speaking of love,
Speaking as angels speak above,"

whose depth and sweetness are not those of tempestuous force or elemental strife, but soft as an angel's lute, or a seraph's song, promising redress for wrong and deliverance from calamity. Horeb stands as a monumental lesson to our rulers forever, for it stands amidst the shadows of Sinaispeaking the still, small voice of divine conciliation, amidst the thunders of the law and the forces of physical nature! I wait for that voice to be spoken. My soul waiteth for it "more than they that watch for the morning; I say, more than they that watch for the MORNING!"

VII.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY.

NATIONAL CONVENTION-AMENDMENTS BY VIRTUE OF STATE RIGHTS— MADISON, HAMILTON, AND CALHOUN CITED-HISTORY OF THE CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION-JUDGE STORY'S OPINION-IRREVOCABLE LAWS-USE OF THE POWER TO AMEND AS COMPROMISES IN 1860-CHECKS AGAINST THE ABUSE OF THE POWER-DANGERS IN TIME OF WAR OF RADICAL CHANGES-INEXPEDIENCY OF THE AMENDMENT.

THE debate on the question of the power to amend the Constitution, so as to abolish slavery, was unusually interesting. It was so, because there was a direct issue, which gave no room for discursive discussion. It illustrated, moreover, what is seldom shown by Congressional debate, a progress, during the debate, toward correct opinions. Before the debate concluded very few upon either side denied the unlimited power to amend ; unlimited, save by the exceptions mentioned, and save by the mode prescribed in the Constitution. This mode is the only safeguard against unwise amendments. It is ample, however, inasmuch as no amendment can be made except by the concurrence of two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the Legislatures of the States. If these be not sufficient guards against unreasonable amendment, what other or better prevention have we against violent revolution?

The part taken by me in the discussion was in some sort compelled: 1st, by a desire to be consistent with my previous votes given in 1860-'61, when amendments concerning slavery were common; and 2d, by a colloquy in which I engaged, where I committed myself to the doctrine above stated. On the 10th of January, 1865, while Mr. KASSON was speaking, Mr. MALLORY asked whether, by an amendment of the Constitution, we could so change the government as to convert it into a monarchy, an aristocracy, or a despotism. Mr. KASSON avoided the question; but with his permission, I answered it by saying: "I carry the Democratic doc

trine to such an extent, that I maintain that the people, speaking through three-fourths of the States, in pursuance of the mode prescribed by the Constitution, have the right to amend it in every particular, except the two particulars specified in that instrument; that this includes the right to erect a monarchy; to make, if you please, the King of Dahomey our king." This expression excited surprise upon both sides of the House. It was animadverted upon by Mr. PENDLETON and by others, who had given much study to the question. But as the debate progressed, this power to amend became the fixed opinion of a majority, even of those who thought it then inexpedient to use the power. Mr. BOUTWELL held the power to be limited only by the preamble of the Constitution. Mr. THAYER, thereupon, argued that that was equivalent to saying there are no limitations, which was his own position. Mr. DAWES, grasping the question comprehensively at once, argued that since the preamble was submitted to three-fourths of the States, they were the law-makers and law-expounders, who could as well alter the preamble as any other part of the instrument; that it was competent for them, as a tribunal from which there was no appeal, to say that any thing, save the limitations prescribed by the instrument itself, does or does not contribute to the ends set forth in the preamble, even to the extent of permitting a man of foreign birth to be chosen President-even the King of Dahomey himself— with which Mr. THAYER and others agreed. This occurred subsequent to my speech, which was delivered on the 12th of January, 1865.

It was incomprehensible to some, that, admitting the power to amend, I did not vote to submit the amendment. I had, as will be perceived, left myself free to vote for the amendment, in case its passage would not interfere with any attempts at negotiation. I had several interviews with party friends, at my room, with that view. I was anxious, as a Democrat, and with a view to the upbuilding of the party I cherished, to drive this question, which had become abstract by the death of slavery through powder and ball, from the political arena. Many agreed with me, whose votes were recorded with mine against the amendment. I fully intended, when I came to the House, at noon of the last day of January, when the vote was taken, to cast my vote for the amendment; for I had said publicly and privately, that if all hope of negotiation had failed, and the South stood upon its independence, and the people were freeing their negroes for soldiers, I would not stop to consider further. The amendment would no longer be a block in the path of reconciliation and union. I had been advised by high officials, that no further negotiations were possible; that so Mr. BLAIR, sen., had reported from Richmond, whence he had just come. But on arriving at the hall of the House at

half-past twelve, I learned that commissioners were actually waiting to be conducted over the lines. These were Messrs. CAMPBELL, HUNTER, and STEPHENS. I sent to Mr. ASHLEY to know if this were true. He inquired of Mr. NICOLAY, the President's private secretary, who was present in the hall, who declared that he knew of no such commission. I begged Mr. ASHLEY, as my vote depended on that fact, to inquire of the President. He wrote him a note, to which the President, about half-past one o'clock, responded, that he "knew of no such commission or negotiation." This was signed "A. L." It was shown to me. I however made further inquiries, and satisfied myself that either the President was mistaken or was ignorant of what was transpiring at General GRANT'S headquarters. It was upon this information, which I obtained from other than official sources, that I voted. It proved to be correct information. Whether my vote was correct or not, it was given upon the belief that in the negotiations then about to be begun at once, this amendment would prove an insurmountable obstacle to peace and union. Weighing in one scale the dead body of slavery, which was to be abolished by this amendment; and in the other, peace and union, and these latter, too, without slavery-could I do any thing else than doubt the wisdom of an amendment which would postpone peace and imperil the Union? But the speech, which I matured in advance of these hurrying events, is the test by which my motive and judgment are to be tried. I submit it to the reader:

Mr. SPEAKER: When we left these halls last year, there was a prospect that the administration of the Government would have been changed by the election. The political conventions of the two parties met. The party of the Administration made this amendment of the Constitution a part of their creed. They went before the people claiming the power to abolish slavery by constitutional amendment. Nowhere did the opposite party take ground against the power; everywhere they took ground against its exercise. The convention which met at Chicago adopted their creed. It called for a cessation of hostilities, but with one view, a national convention, in order to reestablish union. Not giving up the principles laid down in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798 and 1799, when moved by my colleague [Mr. LONG] in the convention, which, rightly considered, constituted a main foundation of its political creed, it laid them on the table on my own motion, as abstractions unsuited to the demands of the agonized country. Regarding peace as the great practical need of the hour, the convention waived all other questions to reach that. How? By the Constitution, in its fifth article, which provides that a national convention shall be called for proposing amendments to the Constitution. This proposition of the convention was at once our weakness and our strength: our weakness when misunderstood by the people, our strength when rightly interpreted. My colleague [Mr. PENDLETON] ac