saver" of this distracted land, the beauty of the act would whiten his whole life, and even make mankind forget the fatal 2d of December, 1852. He would deserve the eulogy of the great writer to whom I have referred; and become greater at that moment than in the midst of his most splendid conquests in the Crimea and in Italy, which he is about to illustrate in bronze upon a new Arch of Triumph in his capital! So desirable is the return of peace, so divine the office of peacemaker, that mankind joins with Vattel in picturing Augustus shutting the temple of Janus, and giving peace to the Universe, and adjusting the disputes of kings and nations, as the greatest of mortals, and as it were a god upon earth!

Second. What are the means left open to belligerents by the laws of civil war? I do not speak now of a condition of things not yet apparent in this country, when one of the parties is reduced by war to sue for peace; or where both are weary of the war, and thoughts of accommodation are entertained, and peace steps in and puts a period to the war. I assume now a condition of things in which, upon our part, as we voted the other day, our resources are greater than ever, and our spirit is unflagging; and on the other part, that the resources of the rebellion are yet for a time sufficient to harass and withstand the Federal authority in a large part of the immense area to be rescued from the rebellion. I speak now of a condition, in which an armed force of over 700,000 men are upon our side, and 400,000 on the other; the one having the advantage of resources, and the other the advantage of being near their own homes; and when the spirit of each is but little less than it was one year ago. I speak also upon the hope and hypothesis that the influence of the late elections will greatly abate the apprehensions and mitigate the aversion of the mass of the Southern people against the North; and that a less revengeful spirit, developed in these elections, prevails at the North. Thus circumstanced, and even while we omit no martial or naval exertion on behalf of the Government, where is the initiative for peace? I assume that it is not necessary that the war should stop to prepare for peace. The late war with Great Britain went on and battles were fought even while our commissioners were at Ghent, and after peace was celebrated. An armistice is not an indispensable preliminary to negotiation. In the propositions which I submitted more than a year ago to this House, I proposed to increase the armament of army and navy, even while I would have sent commissioners from the loyal States to the disloyal; not to recognize or treat with the Confederate government, but to meet commissioners from the States South, which are still and ever a legal and indestructible entity, and with whom alone we could then have conferred. Neither is it indispensable to the beginning of negotiations, that the executives at Washington and Richmond should confer.

Although publicists have held that the same power which has the right to make war and direct its operations, has naturally that likewise of concluding peace; yet by our system of government, it would be impossifor our Executive, notwithstanding the maxim I have quoted, to begin negotiations or conclude them by treating with the Confederate government at Richmond. Neither has the President of the United States any power to declare war or conclude peace. He could not if he would, he

dare not if he could, make a treaty of peace which would alienate an acre of our territory, or release a State or a citizen from the obligation due to the Federal Government. However disadvantageous war may be, yet there is no authority to conclude a peace, except in pursuance of the Constitution. It has been held that a sovereign, when the State is reduced to any calamitous exigency, may determine by what sacrifices he will purchase peace; but in this country, where the written Constitution is the guide of duty, there can be no exigency which would authorize a breach of that fundamental law upon which repose all our interests. Better the President should suffer the tortures of Regulus, than usurp a power to make a peace not in accordance with the Constitution and the integrity and indivisibility of the Republic. From no quarter and by no election has there been any expression which looks to a peace based on the separation of this country into two nations. No mediation or intervention from any foreign power, based upon such a suggestion, would be tolerated for a moment. If Europe intervened for such a purpose, the war would become continental. Any mediation or intervention would be spurned which would obstruct the relations of the Union, either by embarrassing our arms or our negotiations. But, are we to be shut off in the future from all hope of stopping the effusion of blood? If the South would be content with the Constitution faithfully administered, as they have shown by adopting it as the basis of their own establishment; and if they are aggrieved only by alleged and apprehended infractions of it, to the detriment of their local systems; why may we not hereafter come together, upon that Constitution as the basis of an amicable adjustment, and by such an amendment of it, made in pursuance of its own provisions, as will assure to the South perfect immunity from unjust intermeddling with their local rights, reëstablish the Government, while we reintegrate its territory? The difficulty is in making the advance to an accommodation, as such an advance would be imputed to weakness. Moreover, the war may be persisted in from ambition, pride, and animosi ty, or from a desire to exterminate slavery; and these may be obstacles to be surmounted. If such be our condition, then we have this rule laid down for us by Vattel, that " on such occasions, some common friends of the parties should effectually interpose by offering themselves as mediators." It is the office of beneficence; and it is held to be the indispensa ble duty of those who have the means of performing it with success. Such a mediation derogates nothing from that Constitution ab intrathat perfect autonomy of the State, which is by all public law and by the divine order guaranteed to every independent nation.

This brings me to the third resolution of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, denouncing all mediation and intervention from abroad. The Monroe doctrine never had a stronger reason than now for its enforcement. Intervention in our affairs can never be allowed. It is a vague term, and has had a variety of interpretations by the selfish and ambitious powers of Europe, struggling to fix the balance of power. Its opposite is the established principle of the law of nations. Non-intervention is drawn from the essential sovereignty of every nation, great and small. Intervention is the exception, and is only justified as an extreme measure1st, when it is demanded by self-preservation; and 2d, when some ex

traordinary state of things is brought about by the crime of the Government. (Woolsey's International Law, p. 91.) History is full of illustrations of these doctrines, running from ancient Greece to modern Italy. There never can be any application of them to this Government which is not in violation of our sovereign rights upon this continent, and which, if we had the power, we would not resist by our arms. Intervention comes arined. It takes sides. It has ambitious designs. It is against our interest, tradition, history, and feeling. But mediation is ostensibly friendly and inoffensive. We should guard against the most silken inveiglement by France or any European power; but there is nothing apparent in the note of Drouyn de L'Huys tendering a mediation, which indicates any ambitious or unkind intermeddling. In the note of the Minister of October 30, there is nothing which looks like a mediation for peace at the expense of the Union. Any "pressure" upon us is expressly repudiated; and the mediation is only tendered to smooth obstacles, in case of a wish, on our part, for such mediation. In the text of Drouyn de L'Huys' note, the Emperor bases his overtures on the painful interest with which Europe has regarded our great calamity and prodigious effusion of blood. This interest may be quickened by the idle looms of Lyons and the lessened market for French wines. The mission proposed is one which, as France feels and states, international law assigns to neutrals. It is only intended to "encourage public opinion to views of conciliation." In this tender, a scrupulous delicacy is observed against offending our national susceptibility against intervention. The constant tradition of French policy toward this country is appealed to with apparent sincerity.

We cannot be insensible to such advances. But a spectre stands in the way to scare us from its consideration-France in Mexico! Sixty thousand Chasseurs de Vincennes, Voltigeurs de la Garde, and Chasseurs d'Afrique! What are they doing there? Has a Bonaparte-the author of the coup d'état-the Emperor of that nation which fought in the Crimea and Italy, become scrupulous of shedding blood? If so, why do his legions throng toward the capital of Mexico to "regulate" a hostile people? Can humanity inspire this project of mediation in our affairs?

I prefer to think, knowing the difference between Mexico and this country, that his policy in Mexico is not intended to be hostile to us, as against the South; for nothing can be more unfavorable to the dreams of Davis and his confederates than the establishment of a European dynasty on their border. Besides, France has ever been our ally. For great reasons of State, and as an essential element of the equilibrium of the world, she helped us to establish Independence. Her blood mingled with ours to acquire it. Louisiana came from her hand to enlarge our domain. No interest in silk, wines, and cotton, no design in Mexico, ought to enter into her plans of mediation. Besides, if she meditates, by mediation, the Union of these States, she may quadruple her Chasseurs in Mexico, and her ensign may float from every castle in that ill-starred land; but our Union, if restored, would exert its first energy in reëstablishing the continental policy of Monroe, and all her plans in Mexico would fail. Therefore, from the text of the French note, and its explanation since by the secretary of the French Minister, and being confirmed in the belief that

under the "armistice France would have lent her aid to a restoration of the Union," I do not augur any present armed intervention or sinister motives in her tender of mediation. Still, the best foresight may fail in sounding the designs of the wonderful man who now occupies St. Cloud. Our safety from all intervention lies, not merely in our iron-clad navy, not in our voluminous diplomacy, but in the determination of the people to throw off this load of rebellion. If the capacity of our rulers, in the conduct of our affairs, was shown to be equal to the task of regaining the Federal supremacy at home, we should not be menaced by European patronage and meddling. If we are divided by radical counsels, and if we incite the servile race to atrocious insurrections, our revenues will be wasted, our Government broken, and England will laugh at our calamities, and Europe will intervene for our everlasting degradation. I do not believe that France means hostility to us in her tender of mediation. From my observation I believe that she is now, as she was in the days of Rochambeau and Lafayette, desirous of seeing our Union perfected. She loves England little. Waterloo is not a myth, nor has Time bleached out its red memories. Our growing naval power is not pleasing to England; but it is not obnoxious to France, which has ever been jealous and fearful of English supremacy on the sea. England refuses to join in the tender of mediation for the very reason that she winked at the "Alabama" when she cleared the Mersey, and now permits a thousand hammers to rivet the iron mail upon a score of Confederate steamers. England, whose philanthropy is in a cotton pod, refused the tender of France because she does not care to see this Democratic Republic as a standing menace to aristocracy, and ever rivalling her upon the ocean. England does not wish to mediate, for she fears that if united we might be less tolerant of her bravado. She now smiles with satisfaction over the transfer of commerce from American to English bottoms, owing to the increase of marine insurance, created by her own breaches of neutrality. France may with England have some selfish reason for wishing us at peace. But France prefers that we should have peace and the Union; England prefers peace and a separation. The one is a friend, the other an enemy.

The friendly offices of France may, after our arms shall have had more decisive success and our elections have permeated the Southern mind with a kindlier feeling, be of great use in forwarding the only true object of the war, which is peace and Union.

It is an insult to History to expect that war alone will unite us. Force may subdue the rebellion; but other means must reconcile the people North and South. Interchange of commodities and mutual courtesies will not do it; for separate nations, like France and England, have these and yet would forever remain distinct and hostile. Consanguinity alone will not do it. Many races, as the Gauls, Romans, Franks, and Burgundians, constitute France, and have become nationalized into one, without the ties of kindred. Language alone will not do it; for Great Britain is one, though the people sing with Llewellyn in Welsh, and Burns in Scotch, and Shakespeare in English. The unity of a State by the principle of nationality, results from the unforced and spontaneous union of inclinations among a people. "And Hamor, and Shechem his son, communed with the men of the city, saying: These men are peaceable with us, therefore

let them dwell in the land and trade therein; for the land, behold, it is large enough for them; let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters; only herein will the men consent unto us to dwell with us, to be ONE PEOPLE." A movement looking to this consenting of the affections will restore the Union. The sword must be garlanded with the olive. The bayonet alone, said Mirabeau, will only establish the peace of Terror-the silence of Despotism. In one way, and in one way only, could mediation be effective, by bringing together commissioners North and South, not to arrange a treaty of peace, not to agree upon a compromise, but to inaugurate IN THE STATES-in the States which are constituent elements of our Confederation, the original fountain of power from which the Constitution derived its vitality—a movement looking to a national convention where, in conformity with the requirements of our Constitution, there could be found our common judge on earth, the sovereign people of the again United States! I do not now undertake to say in detail what such a Convention ought to do. It ought to compose all our troubles in the spirit of amity; and, unless we have degenerated beyond all former generations, it ought to evoke the spirit of 1787, and weave and plait anew that bond of Union, strong as the mighty interests of this nation, which are to be imbound by it forever. In such a convention of States, rigid justice might not be meted out to either party. Neither party would be condemned to humiliating sacrifices, inconsistent with the future dignity and equality of the States. All losses could not be reimbursed; for who could call again to life the thousands slain in the unhappy strife? But in the spirit of Christian brotherhood all might be arranged, the Union be started again upon a career of progress under the old flag and with a new hope, amidst the shouts of a free and peaceful people, and all the States side by side, like the majesties of Olympus, commune kindly through all the ages of history

"Self-reverent each, and reverencing each,

Distinct in individuality,

But like each other, even as those who love."

PURITANISM IN POLITICS.

NEW ENGLAND ISMS-INTOLERANCE AND PROSCRIPTION-HER COLONIAL CUSTOMS AND LAWSVIRTUES OF NEW ENGLAND-EARLY PURITANISM AGAINST DEMOCRACY-A POLITICAL CHURCH WITHOUT A RELIGIOUS STATE-TRANSCENDENTALISM AND BRAHMINISM-POLITICAL HISTORY OF NEW ENGLAND-INVOCATION TO UNION.

THE speech which follows was not delivered in Congress, but at New York city, on the 13th of January, 1863, before the Democratic Union Association. It was reported by many of the New York papers with gross garbling. Its sentiments were misrepresented, and subjected to much acrimonious criticism in Congress. I insert it here that it may be judged properly. It touched the amour propre of New England. The " Atlantic