March 28, 1864

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I hope the Senator from Ohio will allow me a word.

Mr. SHERMAN. Certainly.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I know that the Senator from Ohio does not intend to do me injustice, although he speaks of a proposition emanating from me as absurd and ridiculous. As he has so spoken, I desire to say a word in defense of my proposition, which was to place a loyal slaveholder in the same situation that I occupy. When the Government seizes my property, I have a claim against the Government for that property. So with the loyal slaveholder, if it be true that the slave is property, he has the same claim upon the Government that 1 would have. An appropriation in advance to pay the slaveholder is not required, in my opinion, any more than an appropriation to nay for my property. They seize my property without an apps opriatinn, and i have my claim upon the Gove i nment. 1 proposed in that amendment to free the mother, the wife, and tlie children of the soldier or the employe in the Government service, leaving the slaveholder •in the same situation that I. myself, would bo in jf my property was seized by the military authorities of the country.

Mr. SHERMAN. I certainly do not wish to do the Senator from Kansas any injustice, because he is a frank man; and I n ed not tell him that his relations and mine are very kmdiy, and 1 would not do him injustice, i do not think that I characterized his proposition as absurd, but I think it is indefensible. Here is the argument, just as it occurred. While the Senator was speaking, it seems I put this question to him:

"Mr. Sherman. The Senator from Kansas would scarcely take the slave of a loyal person without paying for Then came the answer:

4k Mi. Lake, of Kansas. J propose to pay."

My reply covered the objection:

"Mr. Sherman. Then the question is, is the Government of the United States able, at this tune, to pay for all the slaves who may be employed temporarily, even for an hour, in the service of the Government?"

There is the answer which I gave to that question; and J went on then to discuss the matter, to show that under his proposition if a slave was employed for but an hour to carry a message, or to drive a mule team, or to do any act whatever, that slave and his family would be emancipated and the Government would be bound to pay the money for them. 1 showed how much that would cost, and I opposed it on that ground, and I believe the amendment was finally withdrawn, or at any rate it was net pressed to a vote so far as I can see. So the Senator, I think, was partially convinced by my reasoning. The debate went on; but the amendment was never pressed to a vote,* And yet what I said in this incidental debate against paying for slaves not employed in the military service is tortured and perverted by the Senator from Minnesota to show that I was not willing to pay for slaves actually enrolled and employed as soldiers. What fairness is this to a political friend even if he is classed among the timid men who roll constitutional logs in the way of our armies?

But, Mr. President, let us come back to the vote for which I am arraigned. When the bill was reported to the Senate the vote was taken upon the amendments seriatim by yeas and nays after some further debate. The vote upon the principal amendment, which I offered, and for which 1 am arraigned, was yeas 21, nays 14. Among the yeas I am happy to find myself in very good company. 1 will read the yeas who belonged to the political organization of which I am proud to be a member. They were: Messrs. Anthony, Browning Cowan Doolittle, Fessenden, Foster, Harris, Henderson, Howe, Lane of Indiana, Sherman, Simmons, Ten Eyck, and Willey. It seems to me that for voting with these Senators upon a proposition .that was carried by a large majority of the Senate, it is rather too hard for that Senator to arraign me in my absence as being a timid man who wanted to put blocks in the way of the Government, and a man who may properly be classed with the New York Herald, to be "whistled down the wind." The Senator has not the caliber to do it, sir.

J do not know that it is necessary for me to pursue this matter any further. There are further extracts from this speech which I might present, but I will not follow it further. In the arraignment which it makes, the votes to which I have called attention are the only votes that are brought up and the only charges made against me. It will be remembered that a year or two ago the Senator from Minnesota was not so warm in his admiration of the President as he is now. If I would follow his bad example I might quote his language about the President that is neither polite nor agreeable. But he is a radical. And yet, when I am away he says that my radicalism now, evinced by my recent speech, is probably in consequence of the approaching presidential election. He says that 1 am becoming more radical as the presidential election onproaches, imputing tome a motive that he must have known to be false. Whenever I find amanimpuung improper motives, I always watch him, Iestthesame imputation might be cast upon him. You seldom find Senators or citizens seeking dishonorable motives in other.s unless they are guided by such motives in their search.

Sir, I am independent of the President of the United States. 1 have supported his admimsira*- tion wherever I thought it was r ght and m the mi in throughout. I did not say in the speech which 1 made here the other day a single unkind word of him. I did not say anything but what the Senator himself was compelled doubting!)' to indorse. J am wilhmr to render him a fair and" manly support. I yield to„his high office the respect due to the Chief Magistrate of a great nation; but I claim for my clf the quality of independence, and in the office I h ld from the people of Ohio to be equal to any other Senator on this floor, and as such the right to criticise the public acts of President or constable.

What a spectacle was presented here when the Senator from Minnesota attempted to divide the great Union party into two equal divisions! On the very amendment he talks about, as many Union Senators voted with me as voted with him. Why then draw a line of demarkation right in the midst of this great triumphant party, and say that on the one side are true and loyal men, and on the other timid men who throw constitutional clogs in the way of our armies?

I ask the Senator if his position in the country is such as to entitle him to make this broad distinction? No, Mr. President; we must stand shoulder to shoulder wo muststand side by side, in thisconttst. We have a duty to perform. We must render ours here in the Senate with manly independence. The President has a still higher duty. Let him perform his, and he shall have my hearty and cheerful support. Let the Army perform their duty. Let us cast no firebrands; let us have no quarrels, no contentions. Let us reason with each other like men asindependentcitizens Anything like division or distraction in the ranks of the Union party would be fatal to our cause. Our adversaries are watchful and ever eager tty seize upon these declarations. They will seize upon that atrocious sentiment uttered bytheSenator from Minnesota, and they will herald it all over this country and make honest, confiding people believe that such is the sentiment which dictates the policy of the Union party. I disclaim it; I denounce it; and I say no such sentiment was ever acted upon by that party.

But the gentleman speaks for the President, or• rather seems to speak for him, because I know he does not. On each and every one of the very votes for which he has arraigned me, the President of the United States, if he had been sitting in this body, would have voted, with me. Who doubts, it? who denies it? who controverts it? Upon the. very propositions on which I am arraigned, the President, if he were here, would have voted with me. No one questions it. And yet, sir, we are to be arraigned before the country substantially as having been false to our duty, as being timid counselors in a time of war, as throwing the Constitution as an impediment in the way ofour Army, doing what we can to prevent the success of the cause. Sir, such a policy as that is will never succeed.

I have already said more than I intended to say when I rose, but 1 could not allow this remarkable speech made in my absence to pass unnoticed, and I have taken the earliest and first opportunity to reply to it thus briefly.

Mr. WILKINSON. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio seems to think that in my speech last week I arraigned every gentleman who voted with him on the propositions to which I then referred. 1 did nor, intend to arraign those honorable gentlemen, for the simple reason that the honorable Senator from Ohio is the only one of all those Senators who voted with him on those occasions that has risen in the Senate and assailed the President of the United States for his conservatism and his backwardness on the question of emancipation. The honorable Senator from Ohio took occasion to say that owing to the" conservatism" of the President, and owing to his backwardness" in arming the negroes and giving them their freedom, the State of Ohio a year ago last fall was lost to the Republican party and given over to the Democracy. Let me read his exact words on that point, for I prefer to hold the honorable Senator to the record rather than to follow him in his vague and general denunciations. The honorable member seems to regard it as very unkind in me to reft r to his past record, but had felt no backwardness in attacking the President for his past official acts. He said:

f*<> fat w t this rori iervati ia can rod—fir[ will call it by the uatii!- it> tuc iuU choose lor it—that the political paity to which the President belongs lo«te cry election last lull.* Ohio h now represented in the other Uotike of Congiess by thirteen gentlemen who certainly do not tepresent the opinions of the majority of her people, and who owe their sears entirely to Uk: dlsuouiajrement caused by the mode in which the war was conducted. The whole of this state of ieeitng grew out of the backwaidness of the President in meeting this question of emancipation and the employment of negroes in this wai."

Now, Mr. President, of all the conservative Republican Senatois, of all those who voted and acted with the Senator from Ohio, he is the only one who has risen here to arraign the President for his "conservatism," and that is the reason why I singled out that Senator as justly entitled to criticism for the course which he had pursued. As I said before, the President of the United States lias not been as far in the advance as I think he ought to have been: but I said then, and I now repcat tyatit does not lie in the mouth of the Senator from Ohio to utter a rebuke against the President for his "conservatism" and his "backwardness" on the questions of emancipation and the employment of slaves m our Army.

The Senator rebukes me for having used certain language in my speech the other day, and I must say that he took a great deal of pains to garble my speech, for he refused to read the whole of that part of it to which he objected, and read only enough to form a basis for a severe rebuke to me for expressing a willingness to violate the Constitution of the United States, if necessary to save the country. I \^!1 read the whole paragraph to which he referred, to show precisely what I did say on that question:

"Soutrasl am eonemaed I .shall not stop to inquire whether the employment of ?-!ava> n? soldiers h coimitutloril or uncfm ntimoral whether it be legal or illegal. The question with me is. anil the only question is. is itneo stfuy Does the great low of necessity, that law which the Senator Train Maryland speaks of as the' higher law,' the law above the Constitution, require or justify it? And need any one doubt on this question?"

I have a little higher authority on this question than that of the Senator from Ohio, even. Some years ago a debate arose in the House of Representatives on the question of returning to General Jackson the fine that was imposed upon him by a judge in the city of New Orleans, and a very able statesman of this country, Hon. Stephen A. Douglas, in a speech which he made on that occasion, used this language:

But, sir, for the purposes of General Jackson^ justification, I caic not whether his proceeding* were legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, with or without precedent, if they were necessary to the salvation of that city. And 1 c ire a?, hule whether In: observed all the rules and forms and technicalities* which ^nme gentlemen seem to consider the perfection of reason and the essence of wisdom. There was but one form necessary on that occasion, and that was-, to point cannon and destroy the enemy."

Sir, if it is* necessary to employ the negroes to put down tins rebellion, I reiterate what i said before, that I care not whether it be constitutional or unconstitutional, legal or illegal, with precedent or without precedent, whether the Senator from Ohio favors it or not I am for employing all the resources of this vast nation to crush this rebellion, and the Senator fiom Ohio shall not by any constitutional sophistry prevent me from moving onward directly to the consummation of this purpose. 1 flunk I have just given him pretty good authority for the position I assumed on that question.

The authority from which 1 have read is a speech made by Hon. Stephen A. Douglas in the House of representatives m January, ltU4, to be found in the Appendix to the Congressional Globe for the first session of the Tweniy Righth Congress, pug' 45.

Now, sir, lot me ask the honorable Senator whether, li it was necessary to save the country, he would not employ all the able bodied negroes in the country whether it was constitutional or The Senator objects to the statement which 1 made that he hoietoibie scum d to regard slaves as property. Upon the question of the employment of slaves and paying for them, the Senator oppoS d l he proposition; ut hedid u I .showed in my speech the of Iji r day, ad voeate dm etly and distinctly the doctrine ol employing sLure.>, allowing them in fight in our annas, and then returning them back to slavery iiyni aft> r the war should lie over, lie contended that that did the master no harm, because you would pay him the wages which the slave fought for ami earned, and then you gave him his slave back again alter the war was over. The Senator may talk nsmueh as lie pleases about garbled extracts; but f assert here that that was the position he assumed, it was clearly laid down in his speech. There in no doubt or equivocation about it. It was not in a single speech that he assumed this position; but lie adhered to this doctrine on different occasions and at ddh rent (ones. But having uttered that theory eighteen months ago, lie now comes into the Senate and arraigns the Lhesulent for being Lie cause of our losnigthe election in Ohio a year ago last i la L 1 suited in my speech, and 1 reiterate here to day thul it n my colleagues jo the House of Repu si ntativt s had uttered that doctrine ot the Senator horn Ohm on this floor they could not have carried ten counties in the State of MinneThe objection that I have to the course of the honorable SetMf >r is not tluU he has changed his position and become nunc radical, but that he assumes to ana gn the President for his 54 conscrvan m and charges on him the loss of our elections a year ago. J do not blame the honorable gentlemen who agreed with the Senator then, because i know that wise men are liable to change their views, and all men musichange their sentiitie iIs m &ueh a re\ olution ns this; but when they come up a your and a half afterwards and closing then eyes to tiieii own acts, icpiotf the President ui| because lie is jk jI up to their present standard, it is legitimate and proper to let the country know 1 what has been the record of those gentlemen who now assume to arraign the President.

The plain matter of fact is that there is a political organization in our own party which i£ determined that Mr. Lincoln shall not be the next President. There has been a committee organized for the purpose of elevating to the Presidency the honorable Secretary of the Treasury from the gentleman s own State; and it looked very much to me, when he came in here with his speech, as though he was a party to this arrangement, and as though he wished to bring about the same result; and hence, knowing the advancement of the country in radicalism, knowing how far the people had advanced on this question of employing slaves, the honorable gentleman, as it seemed to me, thought he would join with' the honorable Senator from Kansas who sits upon his left [Mr. Pomehoy] in this crusade against the President, and tear him down if possible, in order that another might be elevated to his place. If the record of the gentleman rises up in judgment against him, so much the worse for the honorable Senator from Ohio. lie should have had a little charity for the President; for when this warcommenced neither the President nor any of us were expected to go as far as we do now. Nobody expected this result when the war commenced; and it is not for me nor for the honorable Senator from Ohio to rebuke the Presidentfor his course; and when he essays to do it, I submit to the Senator that it is legitimate that any one should search his record and see whether lie stands up a head and shoulders above any man in Israel in this great work of emancipation and of employing slaves in our Army. Sir, the truth is that the honorable Senator has been far, very far, behind the President cv« r since this war commenced, I remember to have heard the President say in private conversation— I presume it was a year and a half ago— that if any man bore a musket upon his shoulders and fought in the armies of the Union to rrsrme the Constitution and to restore our Government, so I at as he was concerned, that man should never ho returned to slavri y again. Did the honorable Senator from Ohio assume that position? No, s u he nssonnd directly an opposite position, and when the proposition was made to pay for the slaves of loyal masters, he said:

I believe tfwe are at all enppled In the phKmition of llu- W u it Will In- beeaiHe of the failure ot out hnance^. \V< «ne aheuuv t ml ai i a--rd by u d'| o tl cuiieiny. Oui hond- :ne ah< adv hi nede* par. \Ve have hi en\\ a t mi' e ousal but --av ti-- lite <t, a-ine ot lii i enimtty with n lav i h hand. We have del ih lately o fii -ed anv m a ane el n loi -a r\< e t tii it wire Is o lat hi tuc Ai nn;\\«• In v.* ii iu M d to look nnitn th'1 dtlheniij bv whi li vv<- aie -m- ioi:iidi (I; and u arn Scaam- f !>.it tin-^ no Jmte io> u> uiahataKe a n< w k jkm ihslay n hn Ij ma} nut!>*• rev' (red even by OUiUjOU Ufhi h tho wai is n* be pn >e cuted in si -j ultimate teimitmuon, and one null son ot the- e .-iave>, aie Infd b\ lo al ma vfta vuti may involve Hn-, c Miu iV in an exp hdiniP to ttie value nt' (,ne mil c n •>lave,, which. Mipciadded to all Ihe othei dillieultje> by which ^eaio now t uireumied,\\ ill ce«irunlv s vwunp u->; amt when you have pa-^« d tlu-- piovhum once, lntxiaUcd it ni you) law, you have made it a eoatsaet between the iovcinn ent and the laa tei and the {Jovcimnent and the slave; and then thiJ (iovmnient is hound by honor to maucipate ihe -lave and l<> pav the p yai master —c n c ssi ii il Jk h i hiity tfcfc illi CongicsS, sccond scsuon, p i e doitH.

ifow can the honorable Senator after this use up and say that he was inhfvor of employing the slaves 4 of loyal masters at that time and paying for them? No, sir, it was not his position. His po ohou was to employ tin m and return them to slavery a ain after the war should be over position which ho now dee uits in his speech of the other day, to be atrocious. I Will lead what he said on that point in his last MKeoh:

I say tVfin the be ri initio we should ham armed the ,-i.ive.-; but h ioie .-o, ui my judgment, we onjfht to Hfciue \t> eae he i uv tn a i u at uaiau hi w tlci j ami\ and all branches of the t iui i wonnl uut e hs j dirin j ts:-' faith ot Uie CInued States mat loo vr thereafter they .-Uouid hold then freedom /jgani?; thf r old masters."

What did he say two years ago? I know that he says the extract which I arn now about to read is garbled, but it is an extract taken word for woiu from the recorded debates of this Senate, and there "is no doubt about its meaning. Two years ago he said:

"Tfrnj nmeiuhncnt to the --ecoml soet on be adopted, this mea uoj wul not aih Ct the loyal ma ter hcoaiu e he wit! reeeue Uie conipcn 4«iti ni <;if' ed i v Saw for the s-er- v ce o{ hja slaves, ami the .-lave vvi l be his a( in° raiin i tionot thatnervice —Cuiiz cs lan yl Globe, Thnty Seventh Cofip as second sewon, page A W

What can be clearer than that? Can there be any mistake about this language? Why, sir, a child can understand it. I know it is an unpleasant record for one who claims to be a radical, but I cannot help it. It is the honorable Senator s own record, and he must stand by or renounce it. I ask the honorable Senator if he did not assume both these positions on this floor? My objection to the course he has pursued, ns t said before, is not that he hasthanged his views, but that he has the effrontery to stand up here and chide the President and rebuke him for his" conservatism," and charge upon him the loss of the election in the State of Ohio a year ago last fall. I have it in my recollection pretty clearly that it was not long ago that the Senator from Ohio turned to the "Senator from Massachusetts who sits furthest from me [Mr. Sumner —1 have not now the record before me, but if my recollection serves me he pointed to that honorable Senator— and charged that he stood alone on this floor in the advocacy of his peculiar views of emancipation and employment of negroes in our armies. Now, the Senator seems to take offense and seems very much troubled because the New York Herald has come out foremancipation. I rejoice at it. I am willing that the Now York Herald should act with me, and I do not feel any tenderfootedness like the honorable Senator from Ohio because the New York Herald does come out for emancipation. I am glad of it. I wish all the copperhead papers in the country would come out for emancipation, and that they would join with every hater of slavery in the suppression of this accursed institution. I wish to see slavery destroyed, and I am not very particular as to the agents employed to bring about this result. 1 am inclined to think that before this war shall have ended scores of men who have heretofore been fighting against abolitionism will be found in the ranks laboring earnestly for the destruction of slavery; and i shall rejoice at it.

Mr. President, the Senator complains that I made my speech in his absence. I will say that I had intended to make it long before 1 did, but I wasted for a long time before making it. He had gone to his home in Ohio, and remained some time, and I refrained from speaking until the bill came up which afforded the only proper and legitimate occasion for me to make that speech. The honorable chairman of the Committee on Military A Hairs almost insisted that I should speak, if 1 had anything to say upon the proposition, at the time when 1 did, because the bill was being crowded 5o a vote and he wished to bring up otb< r business, 1 imd no desire to make any remarks m the absence of the Senator from Ohio, and 1 will say now that there was no unkind word in my speech toward him; 1 simply read the record. Perhaps 1 ought to admit that there was an unkind word, because the record of the honorable Senator himself on this prooos1- tion is the mo 5t unkind thing that could be iut< red on this floor against him. His record is against him; his utterances in this Chamber are against him if he assumes the position which he assumed the other day in his speech. I am g ul however, that lie has now assumed u pi oper position; I am glad to see that the counti y is coming up to the great question of liberty, rismgabove all those constitutional objections and quibbles that have heretofore been hud m the way, and thateven the honorable Senator from Ohio himself is coming up to look this great question of slavery or freedom directly in the face. In my humble judgment the course of that honorable Senator and those who have acted with him has kept the President back from assuming the high position on this question of slave! y which he ou ht to have assumed, and, instead ot the honorable Senator charging his backwardness upon the President, he should have had the manliness to say,'• i am in part to blame for the backwardness of AJr. Lincoln in working out the great problems of emancipation and the employment of slaves in the armies 35

Mr. SHERMAN". Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota talks about mai.H nss. I will leave to my fellow Senators to settle that question of our manliness between us. lie talks about stcf frontery, "using thelanguatje of iJje market honse noc of the couuexl cnamber luflrftntt ry iorwhat? Because [expressed myopmionsboldlyand fearlessly, without regard to hiin.

No"/, Mr. President, I have but a few words to a y in reply to the Shmnloi ftom Tie the* i arrr nrd the P". id n ri ray tpet h other day, for l'<<- ve> y elf- of which I was guilty two y i j since. in mf very debate of two years a io which no Ar befcv mc, ami from which he has taken the garbled extract, I arraigned the policy ofcond uctin^ our armies then in severer language than I did in my recent speech. It was when the confiscation law was threatened with defeat by a veto, when our armies were used to return slaves to rebel masters. I find in the debate now lying before me the very sam° condemnation of conservatism" that 1 medein my recent spot ch. But the Senator says I h 3 vc changed my mind in regard to emancipating slaves for military service. Why sir I said on that point, in the very debate from which he read, what I will now tend, and I would test ray position even by the advanced opinion of the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Sumker.]

Mr. WILKINSON. TheSenatorismistaken; I did not say so.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator does not know what he says when he gets excited. This is what I said on that point: u Ilnw<: r emancipation should hp extended to those slave5 who sender I iuhtul seme" to thecoumrv is a more difficult question—but upon a few propoMtjnn^ we oeitatriSy can i ico Who would fiirrender to hi- ici« master ho lit roic *iuve pilot who. hv iuy eoun ie .mil iii icity added a ve> to om >\.uy? Who vi ould ^ui rend. i to a ri bel mih ti r the -l.ive\\ lio. amid hc it and -foi ta and liatt e led in I e ticfi tor and wailed on our oiri r pud *o!- diei s Who would give up to petpetu il shivery the very many n ine who dmnm the war, have ri Ked their uvea 10 eunvey a- luipoitant intelligence? 5u, whaie er vd«f i rie-, and p e udi t may cling to n^. I tiu t no one anionrr us would con cut to rewaid th servee ofloyal slave* l>y perpetual and hopeless bondage to refK' ma ters Sucli a policy would h; i«u* irwro iiU« raou than tin ieb« lion U-e! i. Without t urtuer defining my vi v upon tins >uhjeet at tins time, F am willing to olfiini torni) sell that nevei will 1 consent to fUiremler a Mave wlio has tendered any service, however menial, to our Army to the custody of a ithel mailer; nor will I deprive a lo> <it ma tei ol In intere t in the eiviee s of hi-? ,slave without mil compensation —Cun gre tioru l Glul e Thutij Seicnth Co jcsaj enjntl iCiSum, pag<- uK J

And I now affirm that the only difference between the Senator from Minnesota and myself io this whole matter is this: that he would rob the loyal master of what by the local law is properly with nit compensation, in violation of an express provision of the Constitution, while I would u -t. That is just the difference between us, the length and the breadth of it, and the whole debate shows it. The debate between the Senator from Kansas and myself shows that 1 would have exumdid cm« ncipatioo to all those shtv< s actually• employed io tb" mill!,!!1'' Vice 5:! lilir Army, but beCnut-1 u n< i ro in K rueky was omp y d to carry an "s- sa e or v. is hired fo drive a t^• nii:, I would not extend ml the provision for compensation his ca e In that debate I said that w k ue•/> r a negro, whether slave or fi ee, wore the uinl m n of the Army of the United St \U s ami s. i **i d in our ranks, I iiev* r would mart rib r hon to eitin r a loyal or rebel master, but that J would m t extend emancipation further than the law a of war justified, and I would not rob a !o val man a of w tc t by his local law is property without giving h m just compensation; n r would 1 iii iLc m 'mm:-, of trouble, whop we want all the money ihar ue eat) hu banu and gather, extend this enumeration t«> every tj t e simply because he was emp Vid m casual service not necessarily connected with the Army, and omy for tlie time heino1, and to vivo "for him compensation out ot the Treasury of the Uaiu d Sietes.

Now, Mr. Piesident, I have answered these two i dr ts I have shown that J have j a d muse a jcu t lie policy tin n ^oio^ on, by which oiu* Aruiy w.-^ eoi lu ted tw<> yonrs, thno .>d 'i. e* j<■ C' iii -pe> eh. 1 he ve .shown\ o<>; ,51 my posit* >n 'lien w us ok oi st !y the s mi'' as it is;■ w\ And yet tlie S<!i;tor, 1.1 my abs. .,^1, sn a e uv f ldly CxU l d end pt Jir d So;-\ h, i ie he ij t tlks aboi t a j iii ss ind jfujut. ry/' tiilkb edueit itdi nr eo sn uiional blocks m ;]ie way of our Ai ny talks of iin Id men w hit want to defeat <>\,r iw no.$ Why, sir, he mouths oN ut pi rn titem what he has done mk! will do fur hii omtry, wh .t•: lefifices S e will iretke. '^e, ha- L- dcit ei Vvr!, 1; so m if a u.-- h- me b

\v /ub? jui ip ituo toe jrrnv of Opheh.i, and rant a ii 1:' wh \t he v edd do to srv th s oat country of <><;rs. Tiiere is nothing vruiiiu the hmits prescribed by h v that he would do thnt I would not eo. And if his sncriikps ov« r mine, if his ,?vi.* 1 s b yotid tnine, if his wi i r ess fo devote .7. t itiu treasure, ond i ood the cause of his C iu tiy gh# him a higher rank in the roll of the,| lopd men of this country, let him take it, and I will give him the praise due to his position. I leave that point, however, to those who have seen our mutual efforts to advance the cause of our country; not to him,

I say again, in conclusion, this attack, made in my absence, not simply upon me but upon all the Senators who agreed with n e on those questions gf constitutional law, was unjustifiable and unpatriotic, tending to divide and distract those who must stand to efher shoulder to shoulder, and it ought to be and f bebc ve has be m rebuked.

3Mr, WILKINSON. The Senator insists that he holds the same view he did before

Mr. SHERMAN, if the Senator will allow me before he proceeds, 1 wish to say a word further. The Senator referred to the Senator from Kansas, [Mr. Pomeroy.] He is here to speak for himself. The Senator from Kansas is one of those radical men who voted with him. He is not one of those 44 timid men" who put constitutional blocks .in the way. The Senator from Minnesota says, or seems to intimate by insinuation, that I am a member of the committee of which the Senator fr m Kansas is chairman. Why did he not have the manliness, since he talks about*' manliness," to j>o mid ask the Senator or me was that 11 true oj not?

Mr. WILKINSON. I said no such thing, made no such intonation.

Mr 311ERM \N. The Senator did say that he behoved I was eomvc tid with the committee, or suim thiujr of that kind.

Mr. WiLKJNSON. I did not say any such thing.

Mr. SEIEPcMAN. I simply wanted to make thisstatement in correction, lfthe Senator wanted any information on that subject he could have go! it either from he Senator trom Kansas or me, by an emphatic denial.

Mr. WILKINSON. I did not say any such th n I said that 1! was well understood here and thi oui h mt tin count y that ih< re was a coiimutteo oi anized of which the honorable Senator f oni Kansas [Mi. Po v i ROy] w «s hairman, the purpose of which was to (h uat Mr. Lincoln for ;he nomin uion for the neX' Piesidency. I did not know ol* whom th" common e is composed exreot!( tin1 chairman, who, i believe, avows ir bolilly; and or« i !y h^ ri as m js because Mr. Lincoln is not tadieu! iioii h m suit iiim. 1 said ihat it se> mod to me as ii the speech of the Senatoi fiom Olijo w4 is mad> in die inn u ,-t of those u lio are rv ko u to de tcy Air. Lincoln, That was my Sl t he ll1 i und csia oil ;he hwio Mo Senator to F ay dsat hi. 11 o ds ih• fame\ a ws now ici it he d d liefia L t n L read an tX roCi imni v c i \A his made t vt y> ars ai o Tin( XT ier p i?, p.-..i[y /ui'* iit d of til he Said al ihe tnra; but it is p a I. r t of uself, •'Old I hope lie will not say mat n is ^arba d. If he shall fa5 so, !,e e. n rocsd tla- whole of u tu sl o y v heihti Ins "nouls now i u .-one views h-' did then. I must 11 U Ah,.[ I: ud!>'•!■ 0 e, the t the St aatoi- In s no Mi. Li coin 01 anybody t of!<• •,n^ 1 th S c U s- tion. 1 le ol i be fo an of mis ooie 1 xii tct whoi! I\\ as Uj' bi f.' Hew I Will e d fin ther; this is on p- jwsjs- liie Gnibo r flie bei ond session oi t Thirty dew ndi napless:

>1. JMes dcut he on v-' tnl irk i n tin? /nf>\ cmcnt, V\>: oiuht fo p in e Z l ttie >V' <e< l.o 1 iju ucc r" we t isipi 0\ ti." <hue Ot■ a fo- t'i "hi- it n< a -.lav i ni ih V.'IH t' on,•: h' e t on ihe oiauo v h i ll ii i a o!'")« on o'• f.;i> 11; M\ O, to j ^e.. .oid wo'. P a: n.- v t.!'•- !o :ii- II. ,IH u';,!><,|; V.!" :e..) 1 iin." N,( t'" 10 j.. Mi f\

H os H lie' i n,.i^ It .-nor, IJ lU d t l heft iH■ 'ei- i\ e e ii iiie til.' u -'JV.'. 5.' tei-i";'.!- iioeo' 5 ay- -a. ll A S'i: -ii..! i t o a in-! 11" hs <V' U lo :II tUv•' r1. ice 0 e- C" •a>: n c t, a j ih H <!s -eii d .00 r fh r. ml' uo th,\ a;-' ho v i -e 0 •n t aa r h\ Wei-' heiia••; n nu U osa- Ee i foihev ii. tr i.. vii- -e w e o V i t e«J i'i*>!." viee 0. vi v e t;,,< •i ;t\ to 'i 0" 't n,■ v CO l! r Gov. oir M 0; pi

Olljo

R' na mboi, ^.e S< cator was ta h tpayi for the hioV s 1 loyal m« s et riiid io too serious a piopo mon for n- -et upon lightly. We Iravf no money to throw away. If we over InU the lamp Foitunatn*, if we ever iia t ar acettmulafion f-i money, u is now wa t d aul gone, find we are comp iled by the vrob r oi v«o 1 look upon the-'*: tnavoeial oue tions and not t<> einhne k m a new x f ndi tire and pledge our en dit for a xuin of niotiey without counting the eo t I know the most thankless of aH h^iue Nlii ihe world to make objeethm, aj tl that which i> but a repeated objection but that i- our dufj now j and X tru t the desire oi the Senator fioni Kansas to emaneipat^ the phwes of loyal masters, or his des ire to avoid even h hard case, may not invoivfus in a principle which may bo dangerous, and which wfli add very much to our already accumulati d (Ufficulties."