288 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



approached me with his copy of the letter and 

 asked me if it was a correct copy. I told him 

 I did not know ; I had written to the Gover- 

 nor of Michigan a private note and had kept no 

 copy, and could not say whether this was cor- 

 rect or not. He told me that if it was a cor- 

 rect copy he would wish to make use of it; 

 and, if it was not, he did not propose to make 

 use of it. I said, ' Sir, I will adopt it, and you 

 may make any use of it you please.' So to- 

 day that is my letter. If not originally writ- 

 ten by me, it is mine hy adoption. 



" And, Mr. President, what were the cir- 

 cumstances under which that letter was writ- 

 ten ? I had heen in this body then nearly four 

 years, listening to treason day by day and hour 

 by hour. The threat, the universal threat 

 daily, hourly, was, ' Do this, or we will dis- 

 solve the Union ; if you do not do that, we 

 will dissolve the Union.' Treason was in the 

 White House, treason in the Cabinet, treason 

 in the Senate, and treason in the House of 

 Representatives; bold, outspoken, rampant 

 treason was daily and hourly uttered. The 

 threat was made upon this floor in my pres- 

 ence by a Senator, ' You may give us a blank 

 sheet of paper and let us fill it up as we please, 

 and then we will not live with you.' And an- 

 other Senator stood here beside that Senator 

 from Texas and said, ' I stand by the Senator 

 from Texas.' Treason was applauded in the 

 galleries of this body, and treason was talked 

 on the streets, in the street-cars, in private cir- 

 cles; everywhere it was treason treason in 

 your departments, traitors in the White House, 

 traitors around these galleries, traitors every- 

 where. The flag of rebellion had been raised ; 

 the Union was already dissolved, we were 

 told ; the rebel Government was already es- 

 tablished with its capital in Alabama. ' And 

 now we will negotiate with you,' was said to 

 us. Upon what basis would you negotiate? 

 Upon what basis did you call your peace con- 

 vention ? With rampant rebellion staring us 

 in the face, sir, it was no time to negotiate. 

 The time for negotiation was past. We had 

 offered everything we could in the way of ne- 

 gotiation, everything in the way of compro- 

 mise, and all our proffers had been indignantly 

 refused. 



" Sir, tins was the condition of affairs when 

 that letter was written ; and, after Mr. Powell 

 had made his assault upon me in this body for 

 it, I instantly responded, relating what I have 

 related here now with regard to the letter, and 

 I said, 'I stand by that letter,' and I stand by 

 it now. What was there in it then, and what 

 is there in it now ? The State of Michigan 

 was known to be in favor of the Constitution 

 and the Union and the enforcement of the 

 laws, even to the letting of blood if need be, 

 and that was all there was and all there is in 

 that letter. Make the most of it. 



" The Senator from Georgia says that I did 

 not shed any blood. How much blood did he 

 shed ? Will somebody inform us the exact 



quantity of blood that the Senator from Geor- 

 gia shed ? " 



Mr. Hill : " The difference between us is, 

 that I was not in favor of shedding anybody's 

 blood." 



Mr. Chandler ; " Nor I, except to punish 

 treason and traitors. Sir, the Senator is not 

 the man to stand up on this floor and talk 

 about other men saving their own blood. He 

 took mighty good care to put his blood in Fort 

 Lafayette, where he was out of the way of 

 rebel bullets as well as Union bullets. He 

 is the last man to stand up here and fcalk 

 to me about letting the blood of others be 

 shed. 



il Mr. President, I was then, as I am now, 

 in favor of the Government of the United 

 States. Then, as now, I abhorred the idea of 

 State sovereignty over national sovereignty. 

 Then, as now, I was prepared even to shed 

 blood to save this glorious Government. Then, 

 as now, I stood up for the Constitution and 

 the Union. Then, as now, I was in favor of 

 the perpetuity of this glorious Government. 

 But the Senator from Georgia was, as he tes- 

 tified before a committee, ' a Union secession- 

 ist.' I have the testimony here before me. 

 Will somebody explain what that means 'a 

 Union secessionist ' ? Mr. President, I should 

 like to see the dictionary where the definition 

 can be found of ' a Union secessionist 'I I do 

 not understand the term. 



" He says that they have a right to have a 

 solid South, but a solid North will destroy the 

 Government. Why, Mr. President, the South 

 is no more solid to-day than it was in 1857." 



Several Senators : " Eighteen hundred and 

 sixty-one, you mean." 



Mr. Chandler : " Well, it was the same in 

 1857. It was just as solid in 1857 as it is to- 

 day. It has been solid ever since, and it was 

 no quarrel with the North that made it solid. 

 It was solid because it was determined either 

 to ' rule or ruin ' this nation. It tried the 

 'ruin' scheme with arms; and now, having 

 failed to ruin this Government with arms, it 

 comes back to ruin it by withholding supplies 

 to carry on the Government. Sir, the men 

 have changed since 1857. There is now but 

 one member on this floor who stood here with 

 me on the 4th of March, 1857. The men have 

 changed, the measures not at all. You then 

 fought for the overthrow of this Government, 

 and now you vote and talk for the same pur- 

 pose. You are to-day, as you were then, de- 

 termined either to rule or ruin this Govern- 

 ment, and you can not do either." 



Motions were made on the Republican side 

 to strike out all the clauses of the bill repeal- 

 ing the portions of acts relating to jurors, 

 supervisors, and marshals. These were re- 

 jected by a strict party vote. 



The President pro tempore : " If there are 

 no further amendments, the question is, Shall 

 the bill be read the third time ? " 



The bill was read the third time. 



