5
Representatives of the United States, on the 29th of January last, Mr. Lovejoy, addressing Mr. Wickliffe, of Kentucky, used this language:
“I will put the question to the gentleman now—if it is necessary to free all the slaves, and enlist them, in order to save the Union, whether he is willing that it shall be done? “Mr. Wickliffe.—I will play the Yankee on you, and ask you a question in return. If the Union is to be saved or the negroes freed, are you in favor of emancipating the slaves and of letting the Union slide? (Laughter.)“Mr. Lovejoy.—I am in favor of saving the Union first, last, and forever, by any means and all means, by abolishing slavery or by not abolishing it, as it can best be done. That is what I am in favor of. Now I want the gentleman to answer my question.”
These are the noble words of a truly unconditional Union man. The man who does not approve this sentiment is no unconditional Union man. My own position is this: I am “for the Union with or without slavery, but prefer it without.” I am emphatically an unconditional Union man. I will not make it a condition of my Unionism that slavery should be abolished, nor that it shall be maintained. I go for the Union in either case, but prefer it without slavery. We have the authority—if our common sense needed any—of the President for saying that these opinions, and various other shades of them, “may be sincerely entertained by honest and truthful men.” Perhaps it would be well for us to read what he has said on this subject. In his reply to a committee, of which Mr. Charles D. Drake was chairman, representing a delegation of “radicals” from Missouri and Kansas, dated the 5th of October last, which was written while I was in Washington, and on the subject of which I heard the President’s views orally expressed, the President uses this language:
We are in civil war. In such cases there always is a main question; but in this case that question is a perplexing compound—Union and Slavery. It thus becomes a question, not of two sides merely; but of at least four sides, even among those who are for the Union, saying nothing of those who are against it. Thus, those who are for the Union with, but not without slavery—those for it without, but not with—those for it with or without, but prefer it with, and those for it with or without, but prefer it without. Among these, again, is a subdivision of those who are for gradual, but not for immediate, and those who are for immediate, but not for gradual, extinction of slavery.It is easy to conceive that all these shades of opinion, and even more, may be sincerely entertained by honest and truthful men. Yet, all being for the Union, by reason of these differences, each will prefer a different way of sustaining the Union. At once, sincerity is questioned, and motives are assailed. Actual war coming, blood grows hot, and blood is spilled. Thought is forced from old channels into confusion. Deception breeds and thrives. Confidence dies, and universal suspicion reigns. Each man feels an impulse to kill his neighbor, lest he be killed by him. Revenge and retaliation follow. And all this, as before said, may be among honest men only.
One of the questions which has lately been thrust among the Union men of this city, and which has acted like a fire brand in some quarters, is that with regard to the present status of this State. A few gentlemen, who make up in point of talent for much which they want in point of numbers and originality, have sought to maintain a doctrine—as erroneous as it is mischievous—that Louisiana is now a Territory, and not a State of this Union. The fallacy and injustice of this doctrine have been so ably shown by many of the best lawyers of the country, especially in the recent speech of Hon. Montgomery Blair, delivered at Rockville, Maryland, which has been so extensively published and commented on, that I will not stop to discuss that question this evening. Some gentlemen of this city have recently made a publication, signed with their names, wherein they say:
“The Constitution of 1852, as amended by the Convention of 1861, was overthrown and destroyed by the rebellion of the people of Louisiana, and the subsequent conquest by the arms of the United States does not restore our political institutions.”
