Contemporary Reports of Brooks' Caning of Sumner, 1856

Previously:

Click here for a list of my other Pulaski/Rockcastle/Laurel County KY articles

-----------

Preston Brooks' attack on Charles Sumner was sparked by a speech Sumner gave on Kansas, which can be found here. 

---

[May 21, 1856] -

Mr. Sumner closed yesterday one of the most searching and fearless exposures yet made of the Giant Crime which, in its legitimate consequences, has filled Kansas with violence and threatens now to deluge her plains with blood. We are compelled to omit about one-fourth of it, but make room for this masterly effort to the utmost limit of our ability. We shall soon have the complete Speech ready in pamphlet form, and bespeak for it a wide circulation.

The whole menagerie was stirred up by the directness and power of this effort for Free Kansas, and Gen. Cain[?] responded with characteristic feebleness, Mr. Douglas with characteristic blackguardism, and Mr. Mason with characteristic insolence. Mr. Sumner briefly rejoined each, though it would have better befitted his character and the noble speech he had just closed to pass them by in scornful silence. When he had closed, the Senate adjourned.

The House spent the whole day on a Railroad Land bill for Wisconsin. Nothing was concluded. [1]

Partial List of Ku-Klux Activities in Kentucky, 1867-1871

Previously:

Click here for a list of my other Pulaski/Rockcastle/Laurel County KY articles

-----------

I don't normally write introductions to posts, but there's a few terminology misunderstandings that have come up over the years and because this has been a very popular post, I've decided to address them here.

During this time period (1860 to ~1890s), when you read old newspapers and you see reference to a "ku-klux" group, that does not usually mean the Ku Klux Klan. The Ku Klux Klan refers to a specific group that began in Giles County, TN, to which the 'modern' organization by the same name traces its roots. A "ku-klux group" refers to all bands of men like the KKK that existed throughout the South during the Reconstruction era, of which there were hundreds. The infamous Giles Co., TN group were only one of many bands of men wreaking havoc, terrorizing people, and committing atrocities throughout the Southern States following the Civil War.

I think there is a misconception that there was one large secret hierarchy, that these groups were organized into chapters, and reported back to a single leader, or something like that. Such hierarchy did not exist at this time. When you read that a "ku-klux" group committed a crime in a newspaper article, it does not mean those men had any communication with the Giles Co., TN group. These bands of men were a widespread post-war phenomenon and generally unorganized from one another.

Some of these groups were known as "ku-klux" groups, but also "regulator" groups, "law and order" clubs, or "whitecap" groups. You'll also sometimes see "ku-kluxing" used as a verb in court proceeding articles, such as "John Smith was indicted for ku-kluxing." Basically the term "ku-klux" is being used to describe mob activity, like a classification or category.

And while I'm somewhat on the subject -- "Judge Lynch" isn't a real person, it means a lynch mob. It is a turn-of-phrase; a personification/euphemism used to refer to vigilante or mob justice. In the same way that Uncle Sam isn't a real person and is actually a personification of the U.S. Government, or the Grim Reaper is a personification of death (other examples include Mother Nature, Father Time, and Old Man Winter). "Judge Lynch came to town" is a euphemism to say that a faceless mob of people took the law into their own hands and hung someone. Ultimately it's just a way for newspaper editors to tell stories in an active voice.

Anyway...

The following is a letter written to the U.S. Senate and filed in the record of the Forty-Second Congress, which contains a partial list of crimes committed by ku-klux/regulator mobs in Kentucky between Nov. 1867 to Jan. 1871. Keep in mind that this letter was most likely handwritten, so there could be transcription errors when it was transcribed for Congressional records. The dashes in the list could mean that the transcriber could not read certain dates listed in the letter. Also the letter-writers probably gathered at least some of the dates and names from various newspaper articles which could also have contained errors. The bold formatting has been added by me to highlight incidents that occurred in the counties covered by this blog.

Added 2/23/15: Added today an 1871 newspaper article which utilizes the same list of ku-klux activity as evidence against claims made in a speech by former Ky Governor Stevenson.

Assassination Attempt of Congressman Charles Van Wyck, 1861

Related Posts:
Congressman Charles Van Wyck's "True Democracy--History Vindicated," 1860
Fight Between Congressmen Van Wyck and Hindman, 1860
Assassination Attempt of Congressman Charles Van Wyck, 1861

---

From page 3 of the Cleveland (Ohio) Leader on February 25, 1861:

The Assault upon Mr. Van Wyck.

A Washington dispatch gives the following particulars of the assault upon Representative Van Wyck:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 22.

A most cowardly and brutal assault was made, about half-past 11 o'clock last night, upon Hon. Van Wyck, member of Congress from the West Point district, N. Y., by three ruffians, armed with bowie knives.  Mr. Van Wyck had just left the residence of Senator King, on Capitol Hill, and was passing down by the north wing of the Capitol to his lodgings, when a stout built man came up behind him, and struck him with a bowie knife in the breast over the heart.  The knife penetrated the outside and inside coats, passed through a folded copy of the Globe, and then nearly through a thick memorandum book, both of which were in the breast pocket of his frock coat, not quite reaching the skin.

Mr. Van Wyck struck the man a blow under the jaw which staggered him, when the second ruffian struck a blow at Mr. Van Wyck with a bowie knife, which the latter caught in his left hand, making a terrible gash across the palm.  At the same time he (Van Wyck) knocked the fellow down with his right, and instantly drew a revolver and shot the first ruffian, who dropped and was caught by his friends.

The third ruffian knocked Mr. Van Wyck with his fist.  This blow, together with the effect of the one he first received, and especially from the profuse bleeding of his hand, weakened him very much, and observing that the ruffians were making haste to escape with their wounded companion, who appeared to him quite helpless, he sank himself almost exhausted upon the sidewalk, and did not fire again.  But as soon as he gathered sufficient strength he made his way to his hotel, which he did not reach till after twelve this morning.  He said very little about the affair, except to one or two confidential friends, Dr. Lee of the House who dressed his wound, and to the police, in the hope that the parties might be discovered; but up to to-night no trace of their whereabouts has been ascertained.

Mr. Van Wyck is quite nervous this evening, and is suffering considerable pain from the wound in his hand, but is in no serious danger.

Mr. Van Wyck cannot account for this attack upon him, unless it has grown out of his speech at the last session, which created so much excitement and discussion because of its severity against the system of slavery, wherein he cited instances of slave burning.  For some time after its delivery he received letters threatening his life.  Outside of this he has no knowledge of having created the enmity of any human being.  He is a man who never visits gambling or drinking saloons, and while he is a resolute man when assailed, in his daily walk he is very quiet and gentlemanly.

The affair having become known to-night, creates intense feeling, especially in Congressional circles.

Fight Between Congressmen Van Wyck and Hindman, 1860

Related Posts:
Congressman Charles Van Wyck's "True Democracy--History Vindicated," 1860
Fight Between Congressmen Van Wyck and Hindman, 1860
Assassination Attempt of Congressman Charles Van Wyck, 1861

---

From page 3 of the Alexandria (Virginia) Gazette on April 2, 1860:

BY MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH.

Another Congressional Squabble.

WASHINGTON, March 31.-- A scene between two Congressmen which occurred this morning, occasions some excitement.  Mr. Van Wyck meeting Mr. Hindman on the avenue, held out his hand in friendly recognition, when Mr. Hindman refused to take it, making use of the words, as reported: "You d---d scoundrel, you have delivered a speech not only insulting to every Southern man, but to every gentleman."  At the same time making a movement with his left hand towards Mr. Van Wyck's face as if additionally to insult him.  It is said that a duel will result.

---

From page 2 of the Albany (New York) Evening Journal on April 2, 1860:

From Washington.

CONGRESSIONAL ROW ON PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE--VAN WYCK, OF N.Y., AND HINDMAN, OF ARK.

Correspondence of the New York Express.

WASHINGTON, March 31.

This forenoon, Messrs. Van Wyck, of New York, (who charged the Southern people with deliberately burning their slaves, and the Southerners as sanctioning this cruelty) Stewart, of Pa., and Lovejoy, of Ill., stood upon the steps of the National Hotel.  Mr. Hindman, of Arkansas, approached the steps, Mr. Van Wyck offered his hand, and addressed Mr. H., who immediately struck at Mr. Van Wyck, exclaiming, in intense anger, "how dare you speak to me, you d---d son of a b---h."

Mutual friends immediately closed in and the two Members of Congress were separated.  No blow was struck, but the affray has excited great feeling.

For the last few weeks there has been an increase of feeling and excitement between Northern and Southern members, and with many only the most cold and formal recognition exists, while others do not speak at all.  Mr. Van Wyck's attack in debate upon the inhumanity of the whole South has made him especially obnoxious.

Congressman Charles Van Wyck's "True Democracy--History Vindicated," 1860

Related Posts:
Congressman Charles Van Wyck's "True Democracy--History Vindicated," 1860
Fight Between Congressmen Van Wyck and Hindman, 1860
Assassination Attempt of Congressman Charles Van Wyck, 1861

---

Charles Van Wyck was a U.S. Representative from New York (March 4, 1859-March 3, 1863) and an outspoken abolitionist.  On March 7, 1860, he gave a speech on the floor of the House entitled "True Democracy--History Vindicated," which caused quite a bit of animosity between him and his colleagues (as you can see in my next post).  In it, he argues the progress of the country is inclined toward the extinction of slavery, for both moral and constitutional reasons.  (Click here to open a PDF of the full speech.)

The opening of his speech is of particular interest because it explains the 'excitement' in Congress and public sentiment leading up to secession in a way few historians have been able to map with similar clarity.

Though I'm well aware that the extremity of Van Wyck's abolition views were not as common as some history books would have you think, Van Wyck does make some very salient points, such as this one about popular sovereignty.   He argues that Congress has repeatedly exercised power over the territories in the past, but only recent attempts are criticized as unconstitutional.  

I think it's ironic that he calls Southerners alarmist for crying that the North is hostile toward their way of life, yet the ideas in his speech are exactly what the Southerners found hostile.  As one of the articles in my next post states, "Mr. Van Wyck's attack in debate upon the inhumanity of the whole South has made him especially obnoxious."

---

(March 7, 1860)

VAN WYCK: For many weeks I was a patient listener to eloquent speeches from the leaders of the so-called Democratic party on the floor of this House.

Why do they charge the Republican as agitators, when they themselves have been sounding the notes of disunion, and preaching violence, for the only purpose of alarming the timidity of one and the weakness of another sanction of a common country; of arraying faction against faction; first, to steel the heart against all sentiments of humanity, and then nerve the arm to execute its unholy impulses; charging treason upon the North, and counselling the South to rebellion and resistance?

When you, gentlemen, came to this Capitol, the agitation occasioned by the Harper's Ferry riot was subsiding. In the discharge of what you call a patriotic duty, you gathered together the elements of that unfortunate strife, and increased the turbulence in the public mind.

The storm which gathered for a moment across a summer sky, then broke in the sunshine and dissipated in the rain drops, you call back, and by the eloquence of words and the impulse of fear, in the "chambers of your imagery" you generate a storm whereby you seek to send forth hurricane and tempest to prostrate the oaks and temples of the Republic in one common ruin.  The torch of the incendiary had been smothered, and you seize the blackened flambeau, rush forth with the madness and folly of the suicide, and essay to light up the flames of civil war and fratricidal strife.

You, gentlemen, and not John Brown, have unchained the whirlwind of angry passion and bitter invective; you have unbarred the thunder and loosened the lightning shaft, whereby you sought to rend asunder the people of a great nation, so that, in your own language on this floor, the "Union might be wrecked from turret to foundation stone," and "the Constitution torn in tatters." Then from the ruins of one, and the dismembered body of the other, you might erect a confederacy cemented by the blood, watered by the tears, and strengthened by the groans of your bondmen; which would fill the measure of your avarice and feed the cravings of your ambition.

Day after day, with the most vindictive language, have we been arraigned as guilty of arson, treason, and murder; so base was the charge, so unjust the imputation, we meet them with our weapons at rest.

The gentleman from Louisiana, [Mr. Davidson,] whose ambition at one time seemed to be that he might appear in this Hall armed with a double-barrel shot gun, in his speech on the 22d day of December, in a defiant manner, said:

"I honestly believe that if you were tried before a jury of conscientious men, a jury of men who believe in a God of all justice and mercy, and all intelligence, you would be found guilty, as accessories before the fact, to all the dreadful deeds of Brown and his associates."

You talk of God, justice, and mercy, who hold, claiming by Divine authority, four million human beings in hopeless and irretrievable bondage, and ostracize free white men who will not sing hosannas to your traffic in the bodies and souls of men, and stigmatize as murderers and felons those who will not applaud the cruelty which tramples upon all the attributes of the mind, the affections of the heart given by the Almighty to the children of His own creation!

That same gentleman desired to present to the consideration of this House one of John Brown's pikes; let me urge him to extend his cabinet of curiosities and add one of the chains and branding irons of his coffle gang, tied by the lash with which the backs of women and children are scourged, and then, to watch them, a sleek, well-fed bloodhound, with quick scent, trained to snuff in the air the track of the fleeing fugitive; let him present these as symbols, the one of Brown's folly, and the others of his own high type of civilization. 

---

.

Matthew Lyon (1749 - 1822), Part 5: Kentucky Duel

Part 1: Obituary of Matthew Lyon

Part 2: Spitting in Roger Griswold's Face

Part 3: History of the Wooden Sword

Part 4: Duel with Griswold

Part 5: Lyon's Kentucky Duel

I decided it's time to wrap up these posts along with the month of March with one last post.  It was either this anecdote or his Sedition trial, and when in doubt I always go with the duel.  I may do a post on his Sedition trial sometime in the future, maybe, but I'm not sure.  How specific of me, I know--don't hold your breath for it...

This article on Matthew Lyon comes from the Greenfield Gazette of Massachusetts on December 15, 1806.

We have heard it reported from a gentleman who was an eye witness to "the scene of action" that on the night of the election at Eddyville, Kentucky, a misunderstanding took place between the Hon. Matthew Lyon and a Mr. Cofield, in consequence of the latter's not voting for the former.  The circumstance as related to us, was, that Mr. Cofield was introduced to Mr. Lyon, but Mr. L. instead of greeting him as one of his own kidney; observed, he did not wish to be acquainted with him as he did not vote for him, consequently Mr. C. could not be his friend--this roused the passions of Mr. C and some few hard words ensued; among them Mr. C. asked Mr. L. if he was acquainted with a certain Roger Griswold, and mentioned the "scene of action" that once took place between a certain Matthew Lyon and him, concerning the spitting in the latter's face.  Mr. L immediately cracked away at Mr. C. but Mr. C. so completely defended himself that he parried off the blow and the "scene of action" commenced hot and hard--Mr. C. at last knocked the honorable gentleman down, and made an essay to gouge him--in the attempt, however, the honorable gentleman got Mr. C's thumb in his mouth and completely amputated it at the first joint.

From the New York Balance on December 8, 1806:

A serious fracas took place at Eddyville, Kentucky, on the night of the late election, between Matthew Lyon and a Mr. Cofield, who, it seems, had refused to vote for Lyon.  Cofield attempted to gouge--but his thumb was caught in Lyon's mouth, and bitten off at the first joint. --So that Matthew is not only a spitting, but a biting Lyon.

Matthew Lyon (1749 - 1822), Part 4: Duel with Griswold on House Floor

Part 1: Obituary of Matthew Lyon
Part 2: Spitting in Roger Griswold's Face
Part 3: History of the Wooden Sword
Part 4: Duel with Griswold
Part 5: Lyon's Kentucky Duel

From the book Matthew Lyon, the Hampden of Congress: A Biography by James Fairfax McLaughlin, published in 1900 (available online), comes this early political cartoon of the Lyon-Griswold duel:

There are quite a few contemporary newspaper accounts of the second altercation between Lyon and Griswold, and I read through dozens before choosing which to post.  This one is by far the most entertaining that I found. From Porcupine's Gazette of Pennsylvania, on February 16, 1798:

A Burning Shame.

The affair which took place in Congress yesterday was but imperfectly related in my Gazette of last night; I shall therefore now endeavor to give it more in detail.

After the House had decided that nothing should be done to Lyon for spitting in Mr. Griswold's face, it seems that the former had the prudence to avoid the fight of the latter, til yesterday, when he came and took his seat.  He was sitting alone, involved in deep contemplation, when Mr. Griswold first spied him.  No sooner did this happen than he catched up a thick hickory stick, made towards the man of spittle, and in the twinkling of an eye, without giving him time either to eject his saliva or say "my a--fe," began to belabour him.  Poor Lyon got out of his seat, made at his assailant, and endeavoured to grapple with him, but the supple New Englander, who is as active as he is strong, beat him from him with his left hand, while he thrashed him with the right, and thus did the member, from Vermont, receive a shower of blows, such as never fell on the devoted hide of Don Quixote or his incontinent steed Rosinante.  You must needs think the man was not very much at his ease in this situation.  He ran to the fireplace and catched up a pair of tongs just like a lady, and attempted to use them; but his antagonist presently disarmed him, and continued to beat away as regular a stroke as did the drummers of General Gates, on a former occasion.  At last Lyon made shift to close in with him, when Mr. Griswold immediately kicked him up, and made him measure his length on the floor.  Here several gentlemen came and took off the enraged New Englander, or, it is reasonable to suppose, that he would have continued to pummel away for some time longer.

The poor man of saliva was most dreadfully cut and bruized, and had not nature (foreseeing perhaps this re counter[?]) taken particular care to fortify his head, it must have been smashed to pieces.--It is said, that several connoisseurs, from the West Indies and from the Southward, have declared that never [a] negro suffered such a drubbing.

Lyon stopped an hour or two to wash and bathe, and then retired from the House, accompanied by his friend and countryman Blair McClenachan[?].  They walked down towards Fourth-street, followed by a crowd of boys; and, would you believe it, the naughty little rascals, hollowed and shouted, "there goes the Lion and Blair!" -- Whatever may be said, or thought, of the ribroasting, I am persuaded that every one will agree with me, that it is highly disgraceful to the police of Philadelphia, that these little blackguards be allowed thus to follow and mock a member of Congress, like so many small-birds at an owl that happens to change her roost by day-light.

Matthew Lyon (1749 - 1822), Part 3: History of the Wooden Sword

Part 1: Obituary of Matthew Lyon
Part 2: Spitting in Roger Griswold's Face
Part 3: History of the Wooden Sword
Part 4: Duel with Griswold
Part 5: Lyon's Kentucky Duel

Continuing with the subject from my last post, here is Matthew Lyon's explanation of the story alluded to by Roger Griswold when he asked Lyon if he would fight the people of Connecticut with his wooden sword.  From the Massachusetts Spy on February 21, 1798 (I believe this text can also be found in the Annals of Congress):

HISTORY of the WOODEN SWORD,

By Matthew Lyon, Esq.

Massachusetts Spy, Worcester Mass, February 21, 1798
[click to enlarge]

The following Narrative was given by Mr. Lyon in the course of his Defence before the Committee of Privileges, on Thursday, February 1st, 1798.

Gentlemen of the Committee,

After having heard so much about Wooden Swords, as expression, the repetition of which, in an indignant manner, has caused you this present trouble, I hope you will indulge me with a patient hearing to a short narrative of the circumstances which awakes my feelings, and utterly disables me from hearing such reflections.  After living ten years in Connecticut, from my 15th to my 25th year, I removed to a new settlement in Vermont, then called Newhampshire Grants, about 30 miles from Ticonderoga.  On the first attempts of the British government to enslave this country, I joined with about twenty other young men to form a minute company and learn military exercise; we made proficiency, and on the first news of active war we hastened to join Ethan Allen in taken Ticonderoga, Crown Point and St. John's.  I continued in that service, without pay, or prospect of it, until the Connecticut forces came on to keep the forts; when I returned home to take care of my affairs, which had suffered in my absences.  In the same summer, 1775, the military were organized, and I was appointed adjutant of my regiment.

In 1776, after the retreat from Canada, Colonel Seth Warner being out of employ, applied to the commander in chief in the Northern Department, for some defence for the frontier of the Newhampshire Grants, which became exposed by the retreat of the army.  The General recommended to the committee of the Newhampshire Grants, of which I was a member, to nominate the commission officers for six companies, and he promised to commission them, and that they should be entitled to continental pay.  In one of those companies I received a commission as a second lieutenant.  I set about enlisting my men, and immediately obtained my quota, and, at my own expense, marched them to the rendezvous at Pittsford, about 20 miles southeast from Ticonderoga, which by this time had become head quarters.  At the rendezvous I found the captain and first lieutenant of my company had raised no men, and that there were but two companies and a part of another, besides mine, raised, and that Col. Warner, who was expected to have commanded our six companies, and received a commission and orders from Congress for raising a regiment on the continental establishment during the war, and that in his endeavors to raise his regiments the raising of our companies was wholly impeded.  Finding the business falling into supineness[?] I applied to the  General to discharge me and my men in order that I might join Warner's regiment.  The General once agreed to discharge and pay me and my men, and ordered me to make up my pay roll for the purposes.  But at this juncture application was made to the General by some people who had bought the crops of the whigs, who had removed from Onion River, and he was induced to order our party to march to Jericho and take post at a certain house on the north side of Onion River, at least 60 miles in advance of the army towards Canada, from whence the army had retreated, and about the same distance from any body of inhabitants; and the General instead of discharging, ordered me to join one of the other companies.

The idea of the people and of the committee of the Newhampshire Grants was, that these six companies, if they had all been raised, would have been stationed some where near Middlebury, which is opposite to Crown Point; and about 12 miles east therefrom, and near forty miles southward of the place appointed by the General.

The commanding officer wrote to the General representing the situation of the country, and the impossibility of our being of any service at Onion River, and as all the well affected people were moved away.  This letter was either neglected or answered with a fresh order for marching.  The order was obeyed; but the soldiers considered themselves sacrificed to the interest of those persons who bought the crops for a trifle; and wanted to get our party there to eat them at the public expense.  I opposed these murmurs with all the arguments in my power.  I used frequently to urge with them, that the absolute government of the army must be with the general; he could not be omniscient, and we ought to submit with cheerfulness, and hope for the best.  In this situation our little garrison, which contained about 60 men, besides invalids, were alarmed by the Indians taking some persons from a house about a mile distant.  Consternation prevailed; I immediately called for volunteers, and went with about 20 men to the house where the prisoners had been taken; from thence took a circuit in the woods round the garrison, in order to see if there were any parties or appearances of the enemy.  Finding none, I returned and obtained leave to take about five and twenty of the best men and pursue the enemy towards the lake; where we supposed they had gone.  I had proceeded about two miles, when two runners from the commanding officer brought me positive orders to return, with intelligence that a [?] officer had returned from a scout to the lake Champlain, about twelve miles distance, where he saw five or six hundred Indians.

Matthew Lyon (1749 – 1822), Part 2: Spitting in Roger Griswold's Face

Part 1: Obituary of Matthew Lyon

Part 2: Spitting in Roger Griswold's Face

Part 3: History of the Wooden Sword

Part 4: Duel with Griswold

Part 5: Lyon's Kentucky Duel

In 1798, Matthew Lyon got into an altercation with Roger Griswold on the House floor.  From the Annals of Congress for the 2nd session of the 5th Congress:

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. 

Mr. Venable, from the Committee of Privileges, made the follow report: 

The Committee of Privileges, to whom was referred a resolution on the 30th of January, charging Matthew Lyon with disorderly behaviour, with instructions to inquire into the whole matter thereof, and to report the same, with their opinions thereon, to the House, having examined several witness on oath touching the subject, report:  That, during the sitting of the House of Representatives on the 30th day of January, 1798, the tellers of the House being engaged in counting the ballots for Managers of the impeachment against William Blount, the Speaker had left his Chair, and many members their seats, as is usual on such occasions; the Speaker was sitting in one of the member's seats, next to the bar of the House, and several members near him, of whom Mr. Griswold was one. 

Mr. Lyon was standing without the bar of the House, leaning on the same, and holding a conversation with the Speaker.  He spoke loud enough to be heard by all those who were near him, as if he intended to be heard by them.  The subject of his conversation was, the conduct of the Representatives of the State of Connecticut, (of whom Mr. Griswold was one.)  Mr. Lyon declared that they acted in opposition to the interests of the people; that they were seeking offices, which they were willing to accept, whether yielding $9,000 or $1,000.  He further observed that the people of that State were blinded or deceived by those Representatives; that they were permitted to see but one side of the question in politics, being lulled asleep by the opiates which the members from that State administered to them; with other expressions equally tending to derogate from the political integrity of the Representatives of Connecticut.

On Mr. Lyon's observing, that if he should go into Connecticut, and manage a press there six months, although the people of that State were not fond of revolutionary principles, he could effect a revolution, and turn out the present Representatives--Mr. Griswold replied to these remarks, and amongst other things, said "If you go into Connecticut, you had better wear your wooden sword," or words to that effect, alluding to Mr. Lyon's having been cashiered in the army. 

Mr. Lyon did not notice the allusion at this time, but continued the conversation on the same subject.  Mr. Griswold then left his seat, and stood next to Mr. Lyon, leaning on the bar, being outside the same. 

On Mr. Lyon's saying he knew the people of Connecticut well, having lived among them many years--that he had frequent occasion to fight them in his own district, and that he never failed to convince them--Mr. Griswold asked, if he fought them with his wooden sword, on which Mr. Lyon spat in his face. 

The Committee having attentively considered the foregoing state of facts, and having heard Mr. Lyon in his defence, are of opinion that his conduct in this transaction was highly indecorous, and unworthy of a member of this House. 

They, therefore, recommend the adoption of the resolution submitted to their consideration by the House, in the words following, to wit: 

"Resolved, That Matthew Lyon, a member of this House, for a violent attack and gross indecency, committed upon the person of Roger Griswold, another member, in the presence of the House while sitting, be for this disorderly behavior expelled therefrom."

The following is an editorial piece the Federalist paper Gazette of the United States based in Philadelphia on 1st of February, 1798 about the above described incident:

PHILADELPHIA,

THURSDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 1: 

Mr. Griswold,--Lyon,--and a hint to Mr. Baldwin. 

It seems as if the Editors of some Newspapers cannot tread the path of truth even on the most recent occurrence.  A truth lodged in their minds immediately undergoes some horrid distortion, and is cast forth the vile abortion of falsehood and malice.  Such is Bachs’s account of the affair between Mr. Griswold and Lyon, the one a man as respectable, so honorable, and useful to his country, as the other is the reverse.  In your Gazette of this evening, you have given a correct statement of the facts relative to this business, as I learn from several sources of authentic testimony.  A most unmanner’d ruffian has offered Mr. Griswold an insult never to be endured.  With a presence of mind not to have been expected from his strength and spirit, but highly honorable, he refrained from striking him to his feet, even to the destruction of that respect and order which should ever be observed to the Representatives of America.  The House have taken, as they ought, the affront upon themselves; but as they have not done it upon Mr. Griswold’s application, it cannot be supposed he has relinquished his right to redress himself, if they shall fall short of doing him justice.  If the House then, shall be so lost or indifferent to their own dignity; if they shall be so tame or so timid, under the most gross and unprecedented outrage that has ever been offered to a public body; or if they shall be so sunk in the filth of party and dishonour, as still to suffer this so base an example to influence him, or restrain his resentment.  As Lyon has received every species of insult, and been used to nothing else all his life, from the days of his servitude to his highest exaltation; as dishonor and contempt have been heaped upon him for years without effect, or any excitement of feeling; it must be taken for granted that he has no feeling for such punishment.  His vile and worthless carcase is all that knows sensibility about him; and an appeal must be made to that.  I therefore am of opinion that Mr. Griswold should most inflexibly resolve to beat this fellow daily and every day, until one or the other of them shall be compelled to leave that house; for surely Mr. Griswold should never sit again with him as an equal and a gentlemen.  If Lyon is to be protected and justified, and He is to be expelled for [r?]isking a just vengeance on his brutality, he will have little cause of regret at having a body so insensible to its own dignity, and so unjust to his injuries. 

How happens it that Mr. Baldwin, who, some time since, made such a piteous petition to the House, to protect him from a fair meeting with Gen. Gunn has so changed his opinion about privilege, and that sanctity of the persons of the members, as, throughout, to vote in favor of this brutal assault upon Mr. Griswold, and to protect the offender from punishment.  I wish some member would call on Mr. Baldwin for his opinion on this subject.

From the Massachusetts Independent Chronicle on 1798-02-12 is Matthew Lyon's side of the story:

MATTHEW LYON,

vs.

ROGER GRISWOLD. 

In addition to what is given under our Congress head, upon the late disagreeable occurrence in our national legislature, we extract the following from the narrative given by Col. Lyon in the course of his defence before the Committee of Privileges: 

Gentlemen of the Committee, 

"I shall conclude with making some observations on the testimony; all of which corroborates, that I was standing without the bar conversing with the speaker who sat on an outside chair, the subject I believe it is apparent was Mr. Nicholas motion, I did not like the opposition given to it by the Connecticut members.  I insisted they did not act according to the [?] understanding of the people of that state.--This led to saying many other things, though my discourse was directed to the speaker, it appears I had the wit and raillery of five or six gentlemen from New York and Connecticut to withstand and reply to, it appears that I supported this with good humor. 

"It appears also by the testimony, that Mr. Griswold, in Mr. Harper's seat, gave me a must cutting insult.  The speaker who I was in conversation with, heard it as well as some others; they testify that I did not appear to hear it.  Why not hear it as well as they?  for no other reason than to keep up the good humour.  But Mr. Griswold not satisfied with the insult already given, says to one of the witnesse's "He does not hear me," and removes and intrudes himself to my side, pulls me by the arm to call my attention, and their more particularly and more deliberately repeats the insult; knowing it to be the most provoking abuse that one gentlemen could possibly offer another. 

"Under all these circumstances, I cannot but entertain the fullest assurance that I stand justified for the repulse of that deliberate insult offered me by Mr. Griswold, int he view of the committee of the house of Representatives and of every man of honor or feeling who shall ever hear the story."

From Volume 52 (Dec 1875) of Harper's Magazine:

The two members were standing near one another outside the bar, when Griswold made taunting allusion to an old "campaign story" of Matthew Lyon's having been sentenced to wear a wooden sword for cowardice in the field.  Lyon, in a fury, spat in Griswold's face.  Instantly the House was in an uproar; and although the impetuous Lyon apologized to the House, he only escaped expulsion, after eleven days' debate, through the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds vote.  This affair called forth a caricature in which the Irish member was depicted as a lion standing on his hind-legs wearing a wooden sword, while Griswold, handkerchief in hand, exclaims, "What a beastly action!"

Matthew Lyon (1749 – 1822), Part 1: Obituary

This is the first part of several consecutive posts on Matthew Lyon.  I'll begin at the end with his obituary, in hopes it will serve as an introduction to those unacquainted with him.

Part 1: Obituary of Matthew Lyon
Part 2: Spitting in Roger Griswold's Face
Part 3: History of the Wooden Sword
Part 4: Duel with Griswold
Part 5: Lyon's Kentucky Duel

From page 3 of the Arkansas Weekly Gazette of Little Rock, Arkansas on August 13, 1822:

OBITUARY.

Died, at Spadre Bluff, Arkansas Territory, on Thursday, the 1st of Agust, after a short illness, Colonel MATTHEW LYON, United States Factor, for the Cherokee Nation on the Arkansas, aged about 76 years.

Colonel Lyon was born in Ireland, but emigrated to America, at a very early period of his life.  He was one of the first settlers in Vermont, and married a daughter of one of the early governors of that state.  During the Revolutionary War, he took an active part in support of the liberties and independence of his adopted country.  After the war, he was chosen to fill several important civil offices.  He was a member of the Convention that formed the Constitution of Vermont, and was several times elected to the Legislature of that state.  About the year 1796, he was elected a Representative to Congress by the people of Vermont.  In 1797, General Washington having retired from the helm of state, he was succeeded by Mr. Adams.  This gentlemen unfortunately permitted himself to be influenced by certain members of his cabinet, who evidently aimed at the destruction of our republican institutions; and with a view to silence all opposition, a standing army was raised, and a fatal blow was given to the liberty of speech and the freedom of the press, by the passage of an act, commonly called the SEDITION LAW.  Colonel Lyon not only voted against those unconstitutional measures, but exerted all his influence to render them unpopular.  On his return to his constituents, he expressed his sentiments freely and openly respecting the conduct of the administration, and caused to be published, a letter addressed to him by a distinguished American then in France, which contained severe animadversions on the measures pursued by the General Government.   For these "high crimes and misdemeanors" he (although a Representative chosen by the people) was arrested, brought before a Federal Marshall, and sentenced to be imprisoned for three months, and to pay a fine of one thousand dollars.

At the time this unjust and disgraceful sentence was carried into effect, Colonel L. was on the eve of his departure for the seat of Government, to attend to his duties as a Representatives in Congress.  He was taken to prison during an inclement season, and for some time was treated with as much rigor as though he had been a malefactor.  A general burst of indignation was evinced in every part of the Union, at this arbitrary and vindictive conduct; and Colonel Lyon, amid his sufferings, had the satisfaction to find that his constituents had not abandoned him--on the constrary, while in prison, he was re-elected to a seat in Congress.

Having been unsuccessful in an extensive manufacturing establishment in which he was engaged in Vermont, and having a young and growing family to provide for, Colonel L. determined to emigrate to the western Country.  Accordingly, about the year 1802, he removed to Eddyville, Kentucky, on the Cumberland river, where he was for some time extensively engaged in the exporting and ship building business.

In 1803, he was elected a Representative in Congress from Kentucky, and was re-elected during the succeeding twelve years.  He was, also, several times elected to the Legislature of that state.

While in Congress, no member was more attentive to the interests of his constituents than Colonel Lyon; he likewise evinced his usual zeal and patriotism on all important national question. During 20 years of his life, he has been a member of different state Legislatures, was a member of Congress during 14 sessions, and has been a member of 7 or 8 Conventions raised for revolutionary purposes, or for forming or amending state Constitutions.

Having embarked his all in promoting improvements in his new settlement on the Cumberland, he, like many othe renterprizing and useful men, was unfortunate, and in the decline of life, had the misfortune to find himself reduced from affluence to poverty.  His friends have made his misfortunes known to the Executve, he was, in 1820, appointed to the situation which he filled at the time of his death.

About 6 or 7 months after his arrival in this Territory, an election took place for Delegate to Congress.  He announced himself as a Candidate, and nontwithstanding his advanced age, the short time he had been in the Territory, and the respectable standing of his opponent, he nearly succeeded in being elected.

In private as well as public life, the character of Colonel Lyon stood fair; his manners were calculated to make friends; he was frank, generous and sincere, and never evinced any thing like a vindicitve disposition even toward his enemies.

Pension Bill for Mexican War Veterans Stirred Sectional Emnity

In the below article, Senator Chandler states he was present at Jefferson Davis' Farewell to Congress, and accuses Davis of meticulously scheming to overthrow the U.S. government throughout his career.  So after you read this article, I encourage you to read my previous post containing Jefferson Davis' farewell speech, and think about whether you think that is a fair assessment.

"A Famous Feud." Omaha Daily Bee, Omaha, NE. July 23, 1899.

A Famous Feud.

Senator Chandler of New Hampshire, who has just had a warm controversy with his colleague, Senator Gallinger, over civil service reform, was the central figure in a famous controversy in the senate of 1879, of which ex-Senator Ingalls writes in the Saturday Evening Post of Philadelphia.  The pending question was a bill pensioning Mexican soldiers.  As this would include all southerners who fought in that war, the bill provoked a sectional debate.  Senator Hoar offered an amendment excluding Jefferson Davis from the operation of the act.  This precipitated a crisis.  Senator Garland eulogized the president of the confederacy and Senator Hoar retorted, "Two of the bravest officers of our revolutionary war were Aaron Burr and Benedict Arnold."

Senator Lamar jumped into the breach with an impassioned speech, concluding with these words: "When Prometheus was bound to the rock, it was not an eagle, it was a vulture that buried his beak in the tortured vitals of the victim!"

During this eulogy and exculpation of Jefferson Davis the northern senators sat in silence; the boldness of the performance was paralyzing; such an emergency had not been anticipated.  No one was ready.  The passionate and excited spectators in the galleries wondered why no champion of the north took up the glove.

Toward the close of the debate a note fluttered over the balustrade of the northeast gallery, and, wavering in the hot air, was caught in its descent by a page, who carried it to Senator Chandler of Michigan, to whom it was addressed.  It was written on a leaf torn from a memorandum book, without signature, and begging him in God's name to say something for the union soldiers and for the north.

He read the anonymous note brought from the gallery.  The black fury of his eyes blazed from the pallor of his face.  At the first opportunity he obtained the floor and delivered a tremendous philippic against Jefferson Davis.  It was evidently wholly unpremeditated, and therefore the more effective.

He said: "Mr. President, twenty-two years ago tomorrow, in the old hall of the senate now occupied by the supreme court of the United States, I, in company with Mr. Jefferson Davis, stood up and swore before Almighty God that I would support the constitution of the United States.  Mr. Jefferson Davis came from the cabinet of Franklin Pierce into the senate of the United States and took the oath with me to be faithful to this government.  During four years I sat in this body with Mr. Jefferson Davis and saw the preparations going on from day to day for the overthrow of this government.  With treason in his heart and perjury upon his lips he took the oath to sustain the government that he meant to overthrow.

"Sir, there was method in that madness.  He, in cooperation with other men from his section and in the cabinet of Mr. Buchanan, made careful preparation for the event that was to follow.  Your armies were scattered all over this broad land, where they could not be used in an emergency; your fleets were scattered wherever the winds blew and water was found to float them, where they could not be used to put down rebellion; your treasury was depleted until your bonds, bearing 6 per cent, principal and interest payable in coin, were offered for 88 cents on the dollar for current expenses, and no buyers.  Preparations were carefully made.  Your arms were sold under an apparently innocent clause in an army bill providing that the secretary of war might, at his discretion, sell such arms as he deemed it for the interest of the government to sell.

"Sir, eighteen years ago last moth I sat in these halls and listened to Jefferson Davis delivering his farewell address, informing us what our constitutional duties to this government were, and then left and entered into the rebellion to overthrow the government that he had sworn to support!  I remained here, sir, during the whole of that terrible rebellion.  I saw our brave soldiers by thousands and hundreds of thousands, aye, I might say millions, pass through to the theater of war, and I saw their shattered ranks return.  I saw steamboat and railroad train after railroad train arrive with the maimed and the wounded; I was with my friend from Rhode Island (General Burnside) when he commanded the Army of the Potomac and saw piles of legs and arms that made humanity shudder; I saw the widow and orphan in their homes and heard the weeping and wailing of those who had lost their dearest and their best.  Mr. President, I little thought at that time that I should live to hear in the senate of the United States eulogies upon Jefferson Davis living--a living rebel eulogized on the floor of the senate of the United States!  Sir, I am amazed to hear it and I can tell the gentleman on the other side that they little know the spirit of the north when they come here at this day and with bravado on their lips utter eulogies upon a man whom every man, woman and child in the north believes to be a double-dyed traitor to his government."

.

Jefferson Davis' Farewell Address to the U.S. Senate

Today's post comes from The Great Parliamentary Battle and Farewell Addresses of the Southern Senators on the Eve of the Civil War by Thomas Ricauld Martin, published in 1905.  It is available on Google Books, here. 

Farewell Speech of Senator Jefferson Davis, U.S. Senator From Mississippi, on the Occasion of His Withdrawal From the U.S. Senate, January 21, 1861

Mr. Davis. "I rise, Mr. President, for the purpose of announcing to the Senate that I have satisfactory evidence that the State of Mississippi, by a solemn ordinance of her people, in convention assembled, has declared her separation from the United States. Under these circumstances, of course my functions are terminated here. It has seemed to me proper, however, that I should appear in the Senate to announce that fact to my associates, and I will say but very little more. The occasion does not invite me to go into argument; and my physical condition would not permit me to do so, if it were otherwise; and yet it seems to become me to say something on the part of the State I here represent on an occasion as solemn as this.

"It is known to Senators who have served with me here, that I have for many years advocated, as an essential attribute of State sovereignty, the right of a State to secede from the Union. Therefore, if I had not believed there was justifiable cause; if I had thought that Mississippi was acting without sufficient provocation, or without an existing necessity, I should still, under my theory of the Government, because of my allegiance to the State of which I am a citizen, have been bound by her action.  I, however, may be permitted to say that I do think she has justifiable cause, and I approve of her act. I conferred with her people before that act was taken, counseled them then that if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when the convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted.

I hope none who hear me will confound this expression of mine with the advocacy of the right of a State to remain in the Union, and to disregard its constitutional obligations by the nullification of the law. Such is not my theory. Nullification and secession, so often confounded, are, indeed antagonistic principles. Nullification is a remedy which it is sought to apply within the Union, against the agent of the States. It is only to be justified when the agent has violated his constitutional obligation, and a State, assuming to judge for itself, denies the right of the agent thus to act, and appeals to the other states of the Union for a decision; but when the States themselves, and when the people of the States, have so acted as to convince us that they will not regard our constitutional rights, then, and then for the first time, arises the doctrine of secession in its practical application.

"A great man who now reposes with his fathers, and who has often been arraigned for a want of fealty to the Union, advocated the doctrine of nullification, because it preserved the Union. It was because of his deep-seated attachment to the Union, his determination to find some remedy for existing ills short of a severance of the ties which bound South Carolina to the other States, that Mr. Calhoun advocated the doctrine of nullification, which he proclaimed to be peaceful, to be within the limits of State power, not to disturb the Union, but only to be a means of bringing the agent before the tribunal of the States for their judgement.

"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever.

"I, therefore, say I concur in the action of the people of Mississippi, believing it to be necessary and proper, and should have been bound by their action if my belief had been otherwise; and this brings me to the important point which I wish on this last occasion to present to the Senate. It is by this confounding of nullification and secession that the name of a great man, whose ashes now mingle with his mother earth, has been invoked to justify coercion against a seceded State. The phrase "to execute the laws," was an expression which General Jackson applied to the case of a State refusing to obey the laws while yet a member of the Union.  That is not the case which is now presented.  The laws are to be executed over the United States, and upon the people of the United States. They have no relation to any foreign country. It is a perversion of terms, at least it is a great misapprehension of the case, which cites that expression for application to a State which has withdrawn from the Union. You may make war on a foreign State.  If it be the purpose of gentlemen, they may make war against a State which has withdrawn from the Union; but there are no laws of the United States to be executed within the limits of a seceded State. A State finding herself in the condition in which Mississippi has judged she is, in which her safety requires that she should provide for the maintenance of her rights out of the Union, surrenders all the benefits (and they are known to be many), deprives herself of the advantages (and they are known to be great), severs all the ties of affection (and they are close and enduring), which have bound her to the Union; and thus divesting herself of every benefit, taking upon herself every burden, she claims to be exempt from any power to execute the laws of the United States within her limits.

"I well remember an occasion when Massachusetts was arraigned before the bar of the Senate, and when then the doctrine of coercion was rife and to be applied against her because of the rescue of a fugitive slave in Boston. My opinion then was the same that it is now. Not in a spirit of egotism, but to show that I am not influenced in my opinions because the case is my own, I refer to that time and that occasion as containing the opinion which I then entertained, and on which my present conduct is based. I then said that if Massachusetts, following her purpose through a stated line of conduct, chose to take the last step which separates her from the Union, it is her right to go, and I will neither vote one dollar nor one man to coerce her back; but I will say to her, God speed, in memory of the kind associations which once existed between her and the other States.

"It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi to her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. That Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born—-to use the language of Mr. Jefferson—-booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal-—meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body-politic. These were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed. They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment made against George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North has been endeavoring of late to do, to stir up insurrection among our slaves?  Had the Declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal, how was the Prince to be arraigned for stirring up insurrection among them? And how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the Colonies to sever their connection with the Mother Country? When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men-—not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three-fifths.

"Then, Senators, we recur to the compact which binds us together; we recur to the principles upon which our Government was founded; and when you deny them, and when you deny us the right to withdraw from a Government which thus perverted threatens to be destructive of our rights, we but tread in the path of our fathers when we proclaim our independence and take the hazard. This is done not in hostility to others, not to injure any section of the country, not even for our own pecuniary benefit; but from the high and solemn motive of defending and protecting the rights we inherited, and which it is our sacred duty to transmit unshorn to our children.

"I find in myself perhaps, a type of the general feeling of my constituents towards yours. I am sure I feel no hostility toward you, Senators from the North. I am sure there is not one of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been between us, to whom I cannot now say, in the presence of my God, I wish you well; and such, I am sure, is the feeling of the people whom I represent toward those whom you represent. I therefore feel that I but express their desire when I say I hope, and they hope, for peaceable relations with you, though we must part. They may be mutually beneficial to us in the future, as they have been in the past, if you so will it. The reverse may bring disaster on every portion of the country; and, if you will have it thus, we will invoke the God of our fathers, who delivered them from the power of the lion, to protect us from the ravages of the bear; and thus, putting our trust in God and in our firm hearts and strong arms, we will vindicate the right as best we may.

"In the course of my service here, associated at different times with a variety of Senators, I see now around me some with whom I have served long; there have been points of collision; but whatever of offense there has been to me, I leave here; I carry with me no hostile remembrance. Whatever offense I have given which has not been redressed, or for which satisfaction has not been demanded, I have, Senators, in this hour of our parting, to offer you my apology for any pain which, in the heat of discussion, I have inflicted. I go hence unencumbered of the remembrance of any injury received, and having discharged the duty of making the only reparation in my power for any injury offered.

"Mr. President, and Senators, having made the announcement which the occasion seemed to me to require, it only remains for me to bid you a final adieu."

Invasion of the South, April 6, 1861

The following article comes from the New York Herald, on Monday, April 8, 1861, four days before the Battle of Fort Sumter, the conventional beginning of the Civil War.  The article mentions that ships left New York on the previous Saturday, which would have been April 6, 1861.

Invasion of the South--The Inauguration of Civil War 

By order of the federal government, on Saturday ships of war and transports, with troops, provisions, stores, ammunition and arms, large and small; tools, sandbags, spades and other siege tools; stalls for horses, boats, boat howitzers for landing, and "all the circumstance of war," cleared from [New York] with sealed orders, for parts unknown.  The city was like a camp, and the excitement was intense.  Some of the officers of the army, knowing the bloody mission on which the Powhatan and Atlantic are sent, resigned rather than mingle in the fratricidal conflict.  The ships which have sailed are but the van; others are preparing to follow them, not only from this port, but from the Navy Yard of Charlestown, Massachusetts, where there is the same warlike activity as at Brooklyn and New York. 

It is thus evident that a bloody civil war is resolved upon by Mr. Lincoln and his Cabinet.  After long hesitation, the President has screwed his courage to the fighting point.  At what precise spot he intends to commence hostilities or to provoke them--whether at Charleston, Pensacola, the mouths of the Mississippi or in Texas, where there is an evident design to excite "domestic insurrection," or at all of these places together--does not yet appear; but a few days will unfold the mystery. 

To Mr. Lincoln, his Cabinet and the leaders of the republican party three courses are open--first, to yield to the Confederate States and to all the slaveholding communities their just rights as coequal partners in the Union, which would have had the effect of healing the breach and reuniting the sections; second, to permit a peaceable and bloodless separation, either in the hope of reunion at a future day, or at least of a friendly alliance for mutual defense against foreign foes, and for the establishment of commercial relations, which, if not specifically favoring the North, would at least not discriminate against her; and third, to wage a war of subjugation against seven sovereign States, which will be ultimately extended to fifteen, to compel them to submit to the authority of the government at Washington, and to pay tribute to it, whether they are represented in its Congress or not, in contravention to the great principle for which the colonies fought and conquered the mother country in the Revolution of 1776--the principle that "without representation there can be no taxation." 

The first of the three courses was the best, and would have been that of a statesman.  The second is the next best course, because the most successful war could only lead to the same result after inflicting an amount of suffering and calamity upon the country at which the imagination is appalled.  As for now restoring the revolted States to the Union by war, that is the wildest chimera that ever entered the brain of man.  But it is probable that even if the Northern section should succeed in subduing the South (for that is the naked aspect of the war when stripped of all its disguise), the same favorable terms would not be obtained, certainly not the same entente cordiale so necessary to the future peace and prosperity of both sections, as could be secured by the peaceful arts of diplomacy and statesmanship, which seem to have been completely ignored at Washington.  The third course has been adopted, and that is unquestionably the worst of all.  If it fails, and that is very possible, it will be destructive to the prestige and to the interests of the North, to say nothing of the overwhelming expense and debt which it will entail upon the country, the many hearths it will leave desolate and the feelings of bitter eternal enmity which it will have engendered between two geographical sections separated by an imperceptible line. 

The pretence of carrying out the laws of this Union in the confederate States, enforcing the federal authority and collecting the revenue, is too transparent to deceive any person.  It has been clearly demonstrated that it is impossible to accomplish these objects without civil war of the most ferocious kind.  To make the attempt, therefore, is deliberately to commence a war whose end the present generation may not live to see, and whose disastrous effects will be such as to annihilate the accumulated wealth of the country at a blow, and throw back its progress half a century.  The real object of the war is not to collect revenue, nor to assert the authority of the federal government, nor to protect its property.  It is a war of propagandism--a war against the social institutions of fifteen States--a war to extirpate negro slavery, if not to exterminate slaveholders.  It is the irrepressible conflict predicted by Mr. Seward and Mr. Lincoln, and for which Garrison, Giddings and the blood-thirsty abolitionists of their fanatical party have been laboring for the last thirty years.  It is a revival of the struggle which took place two centuries ago in England between the Puritan Roundheads and the rest of the nation.  The vast majority of the people were against them, but by the military genius and iron will of Cromwell the fanatics were rendered successful for a time, after putting their king to death and deluging their native land with seas of blood.  But when their chieftain died, their cause died with him, showing that it had no root in the affections of the people, and that it was equally opposed to human nature and the freedom of man.  Hence, when Charles II, who had nothing personally to recommend him, was restored, he was "proclaimed with a pomp never before known."  A fleet conveyed him from Holland to the coast of Kent; for that republic had no sympathy with the fanaticism of the Puritan republic of England.  When Charles landed the cliffs of Dover were covered with thousands of gazers, among whom, says the historian Macaulay, "scarcely one could be found who was not weeping with delight.  The journey to London was a continued triumph.  The whole road to Rochester was bordered by booths and tents, and looked like an interminable fair.  Everywhere flags were flying, bells and music sounding, wine and ale flowing in rivers to the health of him whose return was the return of peace, of law, of freedom." 

That was the last of the Puritan faction in England.  They have never revived.  But their descendants here, the inheritors of their principles and their blood, now seek to inaugurate another civil war upon a question of morals, religion and social polity, in States over which they have not, and ought not to have, any control.  Like their ancestors in Great Britain, they are in a small minority, but by an accident and the divisions of the people they have contrived to get hold of the reins of government; they have the sword of the nation, and for the present its purse.  With this temporary power in their hands, they are preparing to embark in internecine strife, against the will of three-fourths of the people.  But whether they will be fortunate enough to find another Cromwell to lead them remains to be seen.  From our accounts the military talent of the army has espoused the side of the Southern confederacy.  The South, moreover, is united to a man when it comes to blow, while the North is divided, and will be rent asunder by still greater divisions as the war proceeds, if even insurrections and revolutions do not take place in several Northern States.  Soon the government will find itself in the position of the British government in the war of our first Revolution, only in a still greater degree.  There will be such a storm of opposition, together with a positive refusal to furnish the sinews of war, that the Lincoln administration will be compelled to succumb in disgrace, amidst the execrations of the people and the curses of mankind.  And that will be the end of the Puritanical faction in North America.