Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, for more than 4 years past it has been in settled conviction, and I so declared in a speec in hlllfl.H0ll80 as early as December, 1861, and again in January, 1863, that there were 2 rebellions, one in the Northas well. as one in the South; and though seemin to differ widely on some points, yet in reality “ eagued together and unitedly Wiring” to overthrow the constitution and dissolve the Union. The only hope, therefore, of saving the Government and restoring the Union rested on the Conservatives and Democrats standing equally opposed to both extremes. The Herculean task tint devolved on them was not merely to suppress and control one, but 2 rebellions; because the success of either was the destruction of the government. President Johnsonnn a speech delivered in the Senate in February 1861, uttered a great truth when he said"Thsre are 2 partiesin this country that want to break up the Government. Who are they? The nullificrs. proKit of the South, the secessionists or dlSlIlODlllS, or Iuse themall as s nonymousterms." “Who else is or breaking it the Government? I refer to somebad men in the north. There is nset of men culled abolitionists and they want to break up the Government. They are disunionists; they are secessionists; they are niilliflers."Whose allies are the abolitionists of the North, if they are not the allies of the secessionist sand disnnionists of the South? Are they not all laboring and toilin to accomplish the end. The overthrow oft isizreat nation of ours asm! efhrccairt object is thesame." “Wetlnd 1st the run mad abolitionists of the North they are sooessionists;they are for disunien: theyare for disaolution. When Weturn to the Southwest hered hot disunionists and secessionists at the samework." Mr. Speaker the people of the South have abandoned an repudiated secession. They have returned to their allegiance, yield obedience to the Constitution and laws, and anxiously desire the restoration of the Union. The war is over. The southern rebellion is wholly suppressed. But, sir, the northern rebellion is still rampant and defiant, and there is no hope of the restoration of the Union until that rebellion is also subdued, or at least reduced to a controllable minority. We had 4 years of terrible and exhausting war to keep 11 States of the South from going out of the Union and now we have had 4 months, and are threatened with 4 years of political and congressional war, to drive these 11 States out, and prevent the restoration of the Union. These northern disunionists, the better to disguise their real object and deceive the loyal people of the North. have at different tinics assumed different names. 1st they are known as Radical Abolitionists, and then Republicans; next they claim to be Unionists, and then to belong to the Unconditional Union party. Now, their friends in Congress claim to be Reconstructionists, and have their reconstruction committee. composed of master workmen, deeply skilled in the part of breaking up the old Union, clearing away the rubbish, and building a new one. There can be no such thing as rebuilding or reconstructing the Union unless it. has been broken up and dissolved. The basis, therefore, and central idea of this revolutionary movement, called reconstruction, is disnnion. It rests on the assumption that the Union has been dissolved. It has no other foundation or support. They claim that the 11 States of the South are out of the Union. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] repeatedly declared in speeches in this House that the war between the North and the South has " Severed their original comacts and broke all the ties that bound them togctlfer. The future condition of the coniiered Powerdepends on the will of the conqueror. hcy must comcin as new Statesor remain as conquered provinces." That gentleman also said “I cannot doubt that the late confederate States are out of the Union to all intents and purposes for which the conqueror may chooseso to consider them." and again, the same gentleman said in regard to the late confederate States: "To prove that they are and for 4 years have been out. of the Union for all legal purposes and being now conquered, subjectto the absolutedisposal of conrcss. I will suggest a few ideas and adducoa few sutghorities." T hnt gentleman clearly saw the logical necessity of boldly assuming that these States are out. of the Union. He knew that upon any other theory itwas impossible to frame even a plausibledefense of the action of his party in regard to the southern States. Some of his followers, with more timidity, but with less cleariicss of perception than himself, have ventured to dispute his premises, whilethey a ree with him in is conc usions and action. at all such involve themselves in a web of contradictions. Some of that party say these States “are neither in the Union nor exactly out of it, the territory at least is in the Union.” That is, the people Iof the South are out of the Union, but the l“ands on which they live are in it. Others say these States are out of the Union for practical purposes.” That is, for all the purposes of self government and representation in congress they are out of the nion. But for the purpose of obeying laws enacted by others, and paying taxes. they are in the Union. All this is absurd. They are either in or out of the Union. There is no middle ground. Mr. Speaker, ifthe States of the South are out of the Union, how did they get out? Certainly it must. have been either by secession or by revolution; no other answer has been or can be given. Will anyone at this day contend that the Constitution of the U.S. gives any countenance to the doctrine of secession? Does the Constitution provide for its own de structionl Does it arm each separate State with the power of withdrawing at ensure, thus rising above the Constitution, dissolving the Union, and at once bringing to an end the government formed by thatvery Constitution? No, sir, no; the great men who formed that Constitution furnished it with ample powers of self prospervation. They intended and provided for its perpetuity; so that, in the language of president Johnsons message, “ no room is allowed even for the thought of a possibility of its coming to an end." If, then, as all admit, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, every prdinance of secession in the South being opposed to the Constitution and se ekin its overthrow of necessity must have been absolutely null and void; and being void must be regarded as wholly ine perative, and therefore could not work any change in the constitutional relations of the States to, the Federal Government. But, sir, it is not nce cssary to argue this question at length. It is well known that during the whole period of the war, President Lince u, with all the supporters of his Administration, se outed the idea that any resolution or ordinance of secession could take any State out of the Union, and even the men who now show themselves to be practical secessionists then professed to hold that opinion. Let us next inquire whether the revolution the war took iliese States out of the Union. The States, as such. could not commit treason, could not be indicted and prosecuted. There is no authority in the Constitution, and none has been claimed, to make war upon the States, as such; and there has been no war against them. A portion of the people in all the southern States remained loyal and true to the Union during the war. They were not guilty of trea son and incurred no forfeiture of any kind. All the proclamations of the President a regard to insurrection applied not to the States, 1 nor to the loyal people, but to that portion only of the inhabitants of the States who were in armed rebellion against the Federal Government.The insurgents in the South made war for the purpose of taking their Statesout of the Union and establishing a separate and in dependent government over them. That was the issue tendered by them; that was the issue accepted by the Federal Government, On the 22d of Ju y, 1861, both Houses of Congress passed a resolution by almost unanimous votes in which they declared that the war was not waged on our " part For any purpose of conquestor subjugation, nor purpose ofovert rowingorintertering with the rights or established institutions of theStates, but todefend and maintain the supremacyof the constitution, and to reserve the Union with all the dignity equality, and rights of the severalStatesunimpaired." The Federal arms were triumphantly success ful. No one will have the hardihood to deny that every issue involved in the war thus waged was gained to the Federal Government by the successful result of the war. This alone would seem sufficient to close all debate on this question. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVssgl] says the States of the South are out of the nion. But we answer, the war was waged to keep them from going out, and the war was successful. That gentleman holds that the war between the North and the South “severed all compacts and broke all ties that bound them together.” But the answer is, the Constitution was the tie that bound them together. The war was waged on our art “ to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, ” and the war was successful. He holds that the people of the South have been subjugated, conquered, and are subject to the will of the conqueror, “or to the absolute disosnl of Congress.” But nothing of the kintfJ could possibly result from the war, because we have seen “that the war was not waged for any purpose of conquest or subju gation.” That gentleman, and others of the same rty, contend that the war has destroyed the i States of the South and reduced them to mere Territories or conquered provinces. But the war on the part of the hederal Government was waged, as we have seen, not to destroy or overthrow, but to “preserve the States with all their dignity, equality, and rights unim paired, ” and tie war was successful. How preposterous it is for gentlemen to claim, as the result of successful war on our art, exactly what would have resulted if t. e South had been successful on their part. The war waged by the insurgents in the South to take their States out of the Union was a failure, yet gentlemen say these States are out. The war on our part to keep these States in the Union was a success, yet gentlemen say they are out of the Union. That is saying that the success of the Federal Government was its failure; and the failure of the southern rebellion was its success. This important discovery has been made by the supe prior wisdom of the northern rebellion. It was wholly unknown in the South. Mr. Speaker, what has been the public sentiment of the country on this question? When the confederate armies all surrendered, and the war closed, the whole country throughout the northern States was filled with bonfires, illuininations, and public rejoicings. Was it because the war had severed all ties between the North and the South, and separated 11 States from the rest? Did the people rejoice Over a dissevered Union? If so, then was the nation drunk. Instead of demonstrations of joy there was the doe est cause of sorrow; the whole country should have been draped in mourning, while all the bells in the land sounded the knell of the Union. But no, sir, the people were not drunk, they rejoiced in the full assurance that all the States were saved, the supremacy of the Constitution maintained, and the Union preserved. Mr. Speaker, during the whole period of the war Congress, by its action, declared the States of the South were still in the Union. The constitution provides that “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be in eludedwithin thisUnion accordingtotheir respective numbers.” Under that provision of the Constitution Congress, bylaw passed during le war, imposed direct taxes upon each of the States in the South as States in the Union. Under the same clause of the Constitution Congress also apportioned to each of the States in the South as well as to those of the North its proper number of Representatives in Congress and in fact nearly every law of a general character passed during the war extended to and included the States of the South as States in the Union. Members of Congress from Tennessee and Louisiana, representing portions of those States, were received and acted and voted in Congress during the war; and at no period of the war has then? been less than 3 members of Congress here acting with us representing the western portion 0 Vin ginia. congress has thus, by its recorded action, treate, acknowledged, and recognized those States as States in the Union, and is now estopped to deny its own record. The action of the other Depts of the Government has been to the same effect. The late proclamation of President Johnson declares the war ended, and those States re stored to the constitutional rights, now with held from them by Congress. By the proclamations of President Lincoln, and of President Johnson, and indeed by the action generally of the executive branch of the Government, those States have been recognized as States in the Union at all times during and since the war. The SCOTUS ordered that causes brought up from the southern States should be docketed, regularly called, and tried; thus, in effect, deciding that those States are still in the Union. So that at every period of the war, and by every Dept of the government, legistive, executive, and judicial, there has been the fullest recognition of the fact that those States are still in the Union. Mr. Speaker, suppose it to be true, as gentlemen contend, at the 11 States of the South are out of the Union, what is the consequence? What does it mean? If it be true that all ties between the North and the South were broken, that the States of the South “now are and for 4 years past have been out of the Union, ” a separate and foreign Power, then the moment that separation took place the allegiance of the people of those States was transferred to their own confederate government. They could no longer claim protection from the Government of the U.S., because they did not belong to it, and for the same reason owed no allegiance to it. They could claim protection from the confederate government, they were citizens of it, and therefore owed allegiance to it. It follows, therefore, that after the separation those called Union men in the South, who took up arms in favorof the U.S., then a foreign government to them, were deserters and traitors, and guilty of treason against the confederate government, to which alone their allegiance was due. But for the some reason all in the South who fought against the U.S and to sustain the confederate government, were heroes and patriots. It foilows, more over, that during tesome period, neither JeffersonDavis, nor any officer or soldier who fought under him, could essibly have been guilty of treason against the government of the U.S.; it was to them a foreign Government, and they owed no allegiance to it. Upon these principles, is not the long incarceration of Jeffersou Davis in p sou, after the war is over, an act of cruelty that admits of no justification? and again, sir, upon this theory, it follows that after the separation “and for 4 years past, ” the war on our part was not to keep the States of the South in the Union, for they were already out; but was a war for mere conquest and subjugation. Who will justify for such a purpose the millions of treasure exended and the rivers of blood that has been s ied? and, sir, was it not a base and criminal fraud for gentlemen holding such sentiments to induce 1,000s of soldiers to join the Army and pour out their blood to keep States in the Union that were already out, as such gentlemen knew, or at least believed? How will such gentlemen answer to the 1,000s of bereaved widows and stricken or hans all over the land who have been thus robed of husbands and fathers? and will not the blood of slaughtered 1,000s rise in judgment and call for vengeance on those who deceived and betrayed them? Mr. Speaker, the Union was lormed by the Constitution, and so long as it continues the Union of the States must continue. The constitution. like a band ofiron, encircles, binds, and holds the States together. It is not possiblefor any State to get out of the Union while the Constitution lasts. If it be true, then. as gentlemen contend, that the States of the South are out of the Union, then the Constitution is overthrown, and the States of the North are also out of the Union; the Constitution holds all or none. If the logic of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania proves SCarolina or Georgia to be out of the Union, it must of necessity prove that Pennsylvania is also out of the Union; and then it follows that the Constitution is overthrown and the Union dissolved; and this being" the case, Congress has no authority, all its action is usurpation, an unlawful assembly, and the sooner broken up and dispersed the better. All the consequences [ havementioned, and more necessarily result from the assumption that the States of the South are out of the Union. The theory of the reconstruction party means disunion and revolution, and it means nothing else. Mr. Speaker, when we diseard the estilent heresics of northern disunionists, an turn to the sound constitutional theory held by loyal men, that, by the successful result of the war the rebellion in the South has been subdued, the supremacy of the Constitution maintained, and the Union with all the constitutional rights of the States preserved, we find not the s adow of a legal or constitutionaldifficulty in the way of coin lete restoration, harmony, and peace. When the rebellion in the South was subdued, and the insurgents yielded obedience to the Constitution and laws, then the States were in law restored to all their constitutional rights in the Union and they would have been in fact restored months ago, and the whole machinery of national and State governments moving in harmony, but for the fact that the northern rebellion has thrown itself like a lion across the pathway of restoration, and arrested every movement in that direction. Mr. Speaker, if the Constitution and the Union have been preserved, and the States of the South are in the Union, as I think has been fully proved, then it necessaril follows that the States of the North and of the South are coe uals in regard to all the constitutional rights O States in the Union. This is a self evident proposition, its truth cannot be disuted, because the Constitution knows no dif erence, it allows no difference, but places all the States on the ground of perfect equality and for men to attemptto entiirce a difierence in regard to the admission of members of congress, or any other right, is to turn revolutionists and trample under foot the Constitution they have sworn to support. In view of the Constitution, what becomes, sir, of all we have heard in these Halls from week to week about guarantees, guarantees, and bonds to keep the peace? The representatives of part of the States in the Union, with magisterial air turning to other States in the Union and demanding guarantees, dictating the terms upon which they will graciously deign to allow their Representatives seats on this floor, assuming to inquire into the political and moral history of Representatives sent here by States in the Union! If the Representative is found loyal according to their standard, inquire whether the State that sent him is loyal, but if so, then demand guarantees that the State will remain loyal for all time to come. Sir, this is the senseless argon we have heard here ringing in these llalls until the true friends of the country are weary of it. Mr. Speaker, the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] is always consistent, though, as I think, always wrong in regard to the status of the southern States; still he seldom, if ever, reaches a conclusion at war with his premises. But this is far from being true as to others who act with him. Some weeks ago the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. RAYMOND] favored us, with a speech in reply to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania. The 1st part of that speech was a successful attack upon the position of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania “that the soutfiern States were out of the Union, conquered provinces, and subjectto the will of Songress.” The Gentfrom NewYork established the reverse of that proposition; and he went on to say: " I regard these States asjust u truly within the jurisdiction of the Constitution and thereforejust as really and truly States of the American Union as they werebeforethe war.” In regard to our action or dealings with those States the gentleman said: “ We are to be guidedandgoverned, not simply by our own sovereign will and pleasure as conquerors, but by the restrictions and limitations of the Constitution of the U.S. precisely us we are restrained and limited in our oalings with all other States of the American Union.", We listened with great interest and pleasure to these sound constitutional views so ably presented and defended by that gentleman. llKut it was with pain that we heard the gentleman in the latter art of the same speech declare, that before al owing their representatives seats i“n Congress, he would require of these States certain conditions in the nature of rurantces for the future.” They must repu into their war debt; abandon and renounce the principle of State sovereignty; guaranty the propertreatment of the freedmen; “he would exact of them all needed and all just guarantees for their future loyalty to the Constitution and laws of the U.S. ” and he further said: " I would exercisea rigid scrutiny into the character and loyalty of the men whom they may send to Congress beforeI allowed them to articipato in the high prerogative of legislating for the nation." It seems strange that the Gentfrom NewYork, startin out from premises exactly the reverse, should nevertheless be found in his conclusions hand in hand with the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, ready to vote and act with him in holding the States of the South “subject to the absolute will and disposal of Congress.” Possibly that gentleman, after assaultin and carrying the outer works and stronghofds of his adversary, became panic stricken, and when victory was within his reach surrendered to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania. It would have been crueltyif the Pennsylvanian had imposed harder terms, for the surrender was unconditional. Now, sir, it is plain that if Congress can require of a State in the Union any guarantee or any condition not provided for in the constitution, as the ground upon which the State shall be allowed representation in Congress, then any number or kind of guarantees and conditions may be required; so that the right of the State to representation is made to depend wholly on the sovereign will and pleasure of Congress, and therefore the State may be excluded from representation altogether ifCon gress shall thin proper to do so. Sir, it is seen at a glance that all the guarantees and conditionsmentioned by the Gentfrom NewYork are in utter contempt of the restrictions and limitations of the Constitution. No one here would for a moment think of saying to a State of the North, “ Give us guarantees that you will remain loyal in future and we will allow your Representatives seats with us, but not otherwise." such a demand by Congress would be the highest evidence of its own disloyalty to the Constitution, and show it engaged in revolution to overthrow it. The Constitution defines, limits, and fixes the qualifications of members of Congress. As to liiis House the Representative must be 25 years of age; must have been 7 years a citizen of the U.S.; and when elected on inhabitant of the State in which he is chosen. Everything else is left to the judgment and discretion of the people who elect him. If the Representative sent here has the age, citizenship, and residence I havementioned, then the Constitution declares him qualified. congress has no power to add to or take from these (tialifications. To do so would be to change the Constitution. Congress can judge of but cannot fix or make qualifications. It is plain, therefore, what is meant by that other clause of the Constitution which says “each House shall be the judge oflhc elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members.” Now, when a Representative from a State presents himself here, this House has power under that clause of the Constitution to judge of what, of his character, of his loyalty, of the loyalty of his constituents? No, of none of these; but only whether he has the qualifications fixed by the Constitution as to age, citizenship, and residence, and whether the election and returns are according to law. This is all that is meant by that clause of the Constitution: and with the Gentfrom Pennsylvanind say, “It seems amazing that any man of legal education could give it any larger meaning." Mr. Speaker, when it is earnestly insisted here that the plain provisions of the Constitution should alone control this House in admit ting Representatives iuto this body, whether sent from the South or from the North, the Constitution as to both being the some, Gentlemen seem alarmed, and say, “The South may send here men who were leaders in the rebel army.” and in holyhorrorthey exclaim, “Are we to take by the hand and welcome to seats here rebels whose hands have been stained with loyal blood?” But in reply it might be asked, “Will you, then, stain your souls with perjury by violating the plain provisions of the Constitution you have sworn to support, and thereby make yourselves as guilty and criminal as you say they are?” But let us not be too much alarmed, but examine the question a moment. There would be more reason to believe entle men sincere in the alarm they express if they had not refused seats to Representatives sent here from the South who are men of acknowledged loyalty, men who were in the Union Army and periled their lives in defense of its dog. If the South should send a man here guilty of treason or other high crime, who had neither been tried, punished, nor pardoned, anyone of you could have him arrested and sent off for trial, and so avoid his presence. Possibly, sir, a similar case might arise in the North, and what then would be the action of those gentlemen? We all know that for many years before the war there were large numbers in the North of open and avowed disunionists and traitors, laborifrom year to year to dissolve the Union. lake a single example. Some time before the wars society of these disunionists met in Boston, Massachusetts, and passed this resolution: "Resolved, That the one great issue before the country is the dissolution of the Union, in compar ison with which all other issueswith the slave power are as dust in the ballroom therefore we give our selves to the work of annulling this covenant with deathasossentialto our owninnocence and thespeedy and everlasting overthrow of the slave system." support of the resolution Wendell Phillips sai: “ I entirely accordwith the sentimentsof that last resolution. I think all we have to do is to prepare the public mind by the daily and hourly presentation of the doctrine of disunion, Events which, furtu natcly for us, the Governmentitselfund other parties:53 producingwith unoxampledrapidity, are our best and even during the war, Phillips, in aspeech in this city. boasted that he had spent 19 years to take 19 Slates out of the Union; and there are many such men in the North. Now, suppose the people of Massachusetts should clect and send here Wendell Phillips as their Representative,:1 man who has been steeped in treason for 20 ears; and yet who doubts that the very men who are alarmed at the idea of seein a southern rebel here, would nevertheless ta O by the hand this great rebel leader of the northern rebellion, and wel come him to a seat by their side in this House? But at the same time their loyal nerves would be shocked if a southern rebel were in the House. How righteous these political saints are; almost as right cons as were the scribes and Phariseesl Mr. Speaker, when aCongress like this, Representing only part of the country, arrogutes to itself the power to ignOre the Constitution and fix its own rules lbr the admission of members from other parts of the country, it is manifest that Congress, and not the people, choose the Representative, because unless ewill suit their wishes and strengthen their party the door of congress is closed against him. There can be no piiiiuer act of revolution to overthrow republican government than this and yet, sir, that is precisely what has been going on here for more than 4 months of this session. This body of Representatives from the northern and middle States have, in fact, for the time being, nullified the Constitution and seceded from the other States of the Union; and are now, as to the legislative branch, carrying on a separate government to the exclusion of the other States, based on this act of secession. They have what they call “a reconstruction committee.” This committee matures plans and adopts rules for the larger body; it answers all the purposes and more nearly resembles one of the secession conventions of the South than anything else seen in this country since 1861. Sir, was not President Johnson right when he charged, in the Senate in February, 1861, that the abolitionists of the North “ were nullifiers and secessionists?” They are now demonstrating the truth of the charge, though acting under another name. But certain gentlemen say if the Representatives from the South are allowed to come into Congress there is danger that laws may be reealed which they desire to perpetuate, and other measures distasteful to them enacted. Well, suppose it should be so, what do you propose todo about it? You answer, you “ inten to provide against it, ” you “do not intend to submit to it.” Then you do not intend to have a government contro led by a majority of the people of the whole country. You intend to establish an oligarchy on the ruins of republican government. You are now seeking to accomplish your purpose by civil revolution, but you are preparin the elements that may bring on a fearful and by goody conflict. Of one thing rest assured: the people of the countuy will never long submit to a government of any form that does not allow the voice of the whole people to be heard in its management. Mr. Speaker, the northern rebellion, or disunion party of the North, at every period and under all its assumed names, has been, and now is, substantially the some. Always too busy with the sins of others to repent of its own; always aggressive and intolerant; always moved by a rapacious lust of power; its Vlifll principle of action, its motive power, is native, inbre, political depravity. lo gain political power it assumed the garb of philanthropy, shed hypocritical tears over the negro, and struck foathe abolition of slavery. its cease less agitation of the slavery nestion from year to year culminated in a war between the North and the South, the most desolating and sanguine the world ever saw. Taking advantage of the war thus brought on, it accomplished the abolition of slavery and here, sir, passing by that enormous public debt that has (loomed the white race to the grinding and oppressive slavery of taxation for generations to come; forgetting the million of brave white men that have alien and perished in camp and battle field; by their maimed survivors, with the Innptaispslirgg 1,000s of widows and orphans that fill and sudden the land: passing y all this, let us pause and consider for a moment what abolitionism has done for the black race. 4 million slaves, by nature for inferior to the white race, never accustomed to think or provide for themselves, depending wholly on their masters for homes, support, and protection, a large portion of them aged and infirm men and women and helpless children: all of them are suddenly robbed of food, clothing. home, and l protection, and turned out naked, homeless, and penniless to struggle for existence as best they can with a superior and highly cultivated white race. As must have men foreseen by all but blind fanatics, already many 1,000s of them have perished and died from disease, exposure, cold, and hunger. 1,000s more all over the country are now perishing, starving, and dying. Even here in this city, the voice of sulfering and hunger appeals to us from all the abolition pens, where 100s of them are huddled together in rags and 5th, perishing and starving. Only a few days ago you appropriated $25,000 to save from starvation, a few days longer, the miserable inmates of these abolition pens in this city and you call these wretched victims of your policy “freedmen.” and the act by which you placed them in this condition, you call “ emancipation.” But “the iron pen of history will record it as the most monstrous act of cruelty that ever darkened the annals of any of the nations of the earth.” Sir, the country begins to see now that abolitionism and not the constitution is indeed “a covenant with death” to the negro. Not content with the ruin they have wrought, these pestilent agitators seize on the fact that slavery is abolished, and make that the basis of a new conflict. They are now everywhere striking for negro equality, warring against the laws of natureI seeking to blot out all distinctions, and crash down the white race to political and social equality with the blacks; all for the purpose of gaining a new recruit of negro voters to aid them in ruling and governing the white people in the South and border States. The natural tendency of this movement will be to engender a bitterness of feeling and burning antagonism between the whites and blacks that may break out in a war of races, resulting in the extermination of the whole remnant of the negro race in this country. But taking for their motto “ Better reign in hell than serve in hea ven, ” these mad, restless spirits rush on to another conflict, reckless of all consequences, determined to rule or ruin. Sir, the country will see after awhile. begins to see now, that abolitionism, not slavery, was the “ sum of all villainiesz” and the poor deluded negro will find too late that his master was his best and kindest friend, and the abolitionist his worst and most cruel enemy. Mr. Speaker, the rebellion in the South can plead in extenuation much provocation long and patiently borne, but the northern rebellion can urge no such plea. Radicalism in the North was the source and origin of all the terrible convulsions and bloody horrors this country has suffered. The South, with all its errors, made no aggressions on the rights of the North. It never intermeddled with, nor sought to control, the domestic institutions of the States in the North. The South claimed only to exercise that control over its own do mestic affairs it freely conceded to the North, and which was secured to both by “common Constitution. But the radicals of the North, without the hope of benefiting that section, and with no temptation save the gratification of a fallen, de praved, and malignant spirit, denounced the constitution as “a league with death and a covenant with hell, ” and made lawless and unprovoked aggressions from year to year on the constitutional rights of the South. This ledJQ the formation of 2 bitter sectional parties, one in the North and one in the South. and, as foretold by the Father of his Country, these sectional parties soon brought on a horrid conflict that reddened the land with kindred blood, and blasted the country with desolation, as if smitten by the light nings of heaven. “By their fruits you shall know them.” Radicalism in the North sowed and cultivated the seed, and the fruit was a harvest of blood. To conceal its horrid visage, radicalism put on the robe of philanthropy, and 4 millions of the black race are robbed of home and protection, and doomed to extermination, while the whole race of free white laborers through out ths whole country are sold into the galling slavery of taxation, cut off even from the hope that their children after them will be emanncipatd. Thus has the sun dial of prosperity and appiness of this great country been set back ha i a century and now, sir, the same party, under another name, and with the cry of liberty, on its tongue, is earnestly striving to subvert the foundations of republican government, laboring to centralize, consolidate, and build up a frightful Federal despotism, under whose dark and deadly shadow self government and all State rights would utterly sink and perish. Sir, the people have been too long deceived by the hy ocritical professions and fair names assumed by the northern disunionists. They should remember that under the mask of the best names the worst crimes have been committed. In the name of “liberty and equality” France wasdeluged in blood, while all law and all liberty lay prostrate beneath the iron trend of tyranny and in otherdays, in the outraged name of religion, martyr fires were kindled, and men “ of whom the world was not worthy" consumed at the stake. Sir, the times are alarming. The horizon is full of dark and omine us clouds. Let the true friends of the country, of every name, unite with the Democratic hosts of the North, rally around and sustain the President in his patriotic and noble stand for the liberty of the people; and the northern rebellion will be crushed and subdued, our blood boughtheritnge of constitutional liberty wrested from its deadly grasp, and the Constitution with the Union restored and preserved. THE NATION and ITS LABOR.