was by no means the least relishable part of the discussion, though it had no relevancy directly to the matter in hand. There were more, however, who "had no intention of speaking," &c., but would "take the opportunity," &c., "to say a few words," &c., "to define my position," &c. I suppose it was all right, but I own that I could n't see the need for so much explanation, if all the Unionism has such age and purity as it claimed for itself! Half the twenty speakers professed themselves unable to see any very essential difference between the two propositions, and of course could n't understand why the leaders should manifest such interest in the debate.

Mr. Nathaniel Boyden, of Salisbury, chairman of the committee, defended the ordinance which he had reported. He thought it of the utmost importance to declare that the secession ordinance had always been null and void, and that the ordinance of 1789 had always been in force. Before the passage of the ordinance of 1861 the State occupied her true position, and all her rights under the Constitution were granted to her. It is now of the greatest importance that we should affirm that we have always been entitled to those rights, and only deprived of them by illegal military force. I desire to put her in such position that no one in Congress can set up a denial of her equality when her representatives present themselves there. You may say that the President admits that we have never been out of the Union. I answer that it is not sufficient for him to admit it, we cannot fairly claim our rights unless we here so affirm. Before 1861 our people never felt the Constitution of the United States except through its blessings. I pray to God that it may be at once fully restored to us. I want the secession ordinance buried so deep that even the Day of Resurrection can't find it. Who clings to it now? Have we not had enough of it? Are not all our hearts heavy with loss and sorrow,—is not the land red

with the death-blood of our bravest and best? God give us clearness of sight and strength of will to do our duty like men! There never was anything more than a pretence for secession, and it becomes us now to make an end of the infernal heresy. The wording of this ordinance is not intended to be discourteous, and only those wil deem it so who are tinctured with the heresy at which it is aimed. If it be said that the phraseology is unusual, I answer, so is this assembly, so'is the order under which we meet here, so is the history of the last four years, so was the action of that body which assembled here in May, 1861.

Colonel Ferrebee, a gentleman of fine figure, good looks, courteous manner, moderate abilities, and forty-five years, said he had always opposed secession, but had voted for it in the Convention of 1861, because he believed the situation of affairs at that time made it necessary for the State to withdraw from the Federal Union. She took a course which she may regret, but of which she has no cause to be ashamed. And I maintain that the ordinance of the committee casts a stigma upon every son of North Carolina who took up arms in her defence, and is an asult to every member of the Convention of 1861. Its language does not indicate calm and deliberate action, but only malice prepense. I am as tired of the war and as anxious to return to the Union as anybody. Why not go back with kindly feelings? We can all vote for the substitute which I have proposed. Why not accept it, and have harmonious action? Whether the principle of secession is true or not, thirty thousand North Carolina soldiers are in their graves in attestation of the validity of the ordinance of May 20, 1861. In their names I come forward with the olive-branch.

Mr. John B. Odom, of Northampton County, said the principle of coercion is as well established as if it were written in the Constitution. The war has taught us that the government of the United States is something more than

a rope of sand, - - it has given the lie to despots who say that republicanism has no inherent life. I have no fear that any faction will ever again attempt a dissolution of the Union; but secession has wellnigh ruined the country. It is odious to me, and I care not how strong the language in which I express my detestation of it. Give me the committee's ordinance, I will accept that if I can get nothing more pungent. The leaders of the Rebellion were men who wanted to steal from us the freedom of the ballot-box. Mr. Lincoln was the Mordecai sitting in their gate, and they undertook to play the part of Haman. I am for helping them through. I had much rather they would rule in hell than serve in heaven. Since the war began they 've made me swallow many a bitter pill; now I want them to take this dose without the least sweetening.

Mr. George Howard, of Edgecombe County, one of the circuit judges of the State during Confederate times, said he voted heartily for the ordinance of secession, as an act of revolution. So far as the United States is concerned, he admitted that the ordinance has always been null and void; but so far as the pei ple of the State are concerned, it is the charter under which they have acted and carried on a government de facto for four years, and he would not wrong them by tearing it ruthlessly away. He denied that military power had taken the State out, or kept it out, and said it did not follow that those who oppose the ordinance of the committee are Secessionists. The declaration that it was necessary to make secession odious, implied that some were hostile to the general government. He felt sure there was not a man in the State but came back heartily and cheerfully.

Mr. John Pool, of Bertie County, a prominent candidate for United States senator, said he believed the action of the Convention to be of the utmost importance. The State is in the Union or out of it. If in the Union, then she has the

high powers and privileges belonging to the States under the Constitution. If she is out of the Union, she is a conquered province. It is no small matter which of the two propositions presented is accepted. The one declares that we have rights which illegal acts have not taken from us; the other makes us subjects, kneeling at the feet of the conqueror. There is a vast difference between the two propositions. It was intended by the fathers that the Constitution of 1789 should be binding forever. I dissent in toto from the doctrine that a State has the right to secede. I even go further, and say that I do not believe one fourth of the delegates in the Convention of 1861 held that the ordinance of secession was constitutional. They voted for it under constraint of the military status then existing. They believed it a rebellious or revolutionary measure, and at once prepared for war. In their words they tried to make us believe that their course was legal, and that we should come peaceably through the difficulty; but their every act told a different tale, and bade us expect bloodshed. I mean to assert no more, now, than that they knew they were doing what was revolutionary and unconstitutional. For myself, I don't hesitate to admit that I have always believed the secession ordinance null and void. It is said that the ordinance of the committee is unusual. It is a most unusual thing for a State to rebel, a most unusual business that we have to settle, and it demands unusual remedies. I have yet to learn that any course is wrong because it is unusual. Shall we admit that we are a conquered province? We do that if we accept the proposed substitute. There are those in the States never in rebellion, who affirm that the rights of the conqueror are over us. Shall we furnish them with arguments in support of that doctrine? Not so. The act of the Convention of 1861 was revolutionary, the ordinance

of secession has always been null. I appreciate the scruples of gentlemen here who voted for it; but if they believed it

constitutional, they must now vote against the ordinance before the house, as I shall, with my views, vote against the proposed substitute. It is the old question of the right of secession, on which I cannot compromise.

Colonel Ferrebee interrupted, and said that both ordinances declared the act of secession null.

Mr. Pool continued, and answered, not so. One says it is null: the other says it was null. Of course, it is null now: the result of the war has made it so; but I demand that you shall say it always was null. Can we compromise there? If gentlemen want a smooth road, let them take the stones from the path marked out by the committee. We are told not to throw obstacles in the way: the first obstacle comes from the men who raise the cry. This is n't a mere question of language, but a question of principle; and I warn gentlemen not to overlook this fact. I am proud as any one can be of the valor and patriotism and devotion of the sons of North Carolina, who battled for what their leaders taught them was right. If there is a stigma on any one, it is on us and not on them.

Colonel Ferrebee asked if the Convention of 1861 did not obey the voice of the people in passing the secession ordi

nance.

Mr. Pool answered that he did not now believe, and never had believed, that a majority of the people of the State ever favored secession or revolution.

Mr. Edward Conigland, of Halifax County, would vote for the substitute because he believed the functions of a Convention were legislative, and not judicial. He did n't believe this body had a right to go back and pass upon the doings of a former Convention. He thought it useless to declare that North Carolina never favored secession. She would go down to posterity as having been for it almost unanimously.

Mr. Giles Mebane, of Alamance County, who gesticulated