The treacherous purposes of professedly-loyal Copperheads being seen through, and promptly and emphatically denounced to the Country by Union statesmen, the Copperheads aforesaid concluded that the profuse circulation of their own Treason-breeding speeches ­through the medium of the treasonable organizations before referred to, permeating the Northern States, ­would more than counteract all that Union men could say or do.  Besides, the fiat had gone forth, from their Rebel masters at Richmond, to Agitate the North.

Hence, day after day, Democrat after Democrat, in the one House or the other, continued to air his disloyal opinions, and to utter more or less virulent denunciations of the Government which guarded and protected him.

Thus, Brooks, of New York, on the 25th of January (1864), sneeringly exclaimed:  “Why, what absurdity it is to talk at this Capitol of prosecuting the War by the liberation of Slaves, when from the dome of this building there can be heard at this hour the booming of cannon in the distance!”

Thus, also, on the day following, Fernando Wood ­the same man who, while Mayor of New York at the outbreak of the Rebellion, had, under Rebel-guidance, proposed the Secession from the Union, and the Independence, of that great Metropolis, ­declared to the House that:  “No Government has pursued a foe with such unrelenting, vindictive malignity as we are now pursuing those who came into the Union with us, whose blood has been freely shed on every battle-field of the Country until now, with our own; who fought by our side in the American Revolution, and in the War of 1812 with Great Britain; who bore our banners bravest and highest in our victorious march from Vera Cruz to the City of Mexico, and who but yesterday sat in these Halls contributing toward the maintenance of our glorious institutions.”

Then he went on, in the spirit of prophecy, to declare that:  “No purely agricultural people, fighting for the protection of their own Domestic Institutions upon their own soil, have ever yet been conquered.  I say further, that no revolted people have ever been subdued after they have been able to maintain an Independent government for three years.”  And then, warming up to an imperative mood, he made this explicit announcement:  “We are at War. Whether it be a Civil War, Rebellion, Revolution, or Foreign War, it matters little.  It must cease; and I want this Administration to tell the American People when it will cease!” Again, only two days afterward, he took occasion to characterize a Bill, amendatory of the enrollment Act, as “this infamous, Unconstitutional conscription Act!”

C. A. White, of Ohio, was another of the malcontents who undertook, with others of the same Copperhead faith, to “maintain, that,” as he expressed it, “the War in which we are at present engaged is wrong in itself; that the policy adopted by the Party in power for its prosecution is wrong; that the Union cannot be restored, or, if restored, maintained, by the exercise of the coercive power of the Government, by War; that the War is opposed to the restoration of the Union, destructive of the rights of the States and the liberties of the People.  It ought, therefore, to be brought to a speedy and immediate close.”

It was about this time also that, emboldened by immunity from punishment for these utterances in the interest of armed Rebels, Edgerton of Indiana, was put forward to offer resolutions “for Peace, upon the basis of a restoration of the Federal Union under the Constitution as it is,” etc.

Thereafter, in both Senate and House, such speeches by Rebel-sympathizers, the aiders and abettors of Treason, grew more frequent and more virulent than ever.  As was well said to the House, by one of the Union members from Ohio (Mr. Eckley): 

“A stranger, if he listened to the debates here, would think himself in the Confederate Congress.  I do not believe that if these Halls were occupied to-day by Davis, Toombs, Wigfall, Rhett, and Pryor, they could add anything to the violence of assault, the falsity of accusation, or the malignity of attack, with which the Government has been assailed, and the able, patriotic, and devoted men who are charged with its Administration have been maligned, in both ends of the Capitol.  The closing scenes of the Thirty-Sixth Congress, the treasonable declarations there made, contain nothing that we cannot hear, in the freedom of debate, without going to Richmond or to the camps of Treason, where most of the actors in those scenes are now in arms against us.”

With such a condition of things in Congress, it is not surprising that the Richmond Enquirer announced that the North was “distracted, exhausted, and impoverished,” and would, “through the agency of a strong conservative element in the Free States,” soon treat with the Rebels “on acceptable terms.”

Things indeed had reached such a pass, in the House of Representatives especially, that it was felt they could not much longer go on in this manner; that an example must be made of some one or other of these Copperheads.  But the very knowledge of the existence of such a feeling of just and patriotic irritation against the continued free utterance of such sentiments in the Halls of Congress, seemed only to make some of them still more defiant.  And, when the 8th of April dawned, it was known among all the Democrats in Congress, that Alexander Long proposed that day to make a speech which would “go a bow-shot beyond them all” in uttered Treason.  He would speak right out, what the other Conspirators thought and meant, but dared not utter, before the World.

A crowded floor, and packed galleries, were on hand to listen to the written, deliberate Treason, as it fell from his lips in the House.  His speech began with an arraignment of the Government for treachery, incompetence, failure, tyranny, and all sorts of barbarous actions and harsh intentions, toward the Rebels ­which led him to the indignant exclamation: 

“Will they throw down their arms and submit to the terms?  Who shall believe that the free, proud American blood, which courses with as quick pulsation through their veins as our own, will not be spilled to the last drop in resistance?”

Warming up, he proceeded to say:  “Can the Union be restored by War?  I answer most unhesitatingly and deliberately, No, never; ’War is final, eternal separation.’”

He claimed that the War was “wrong;” that it was waged “in violation of the Constitution,” and would “if continued, result speedily in the destruction of the Government and the loss of Civil Liberty, and ought therefore, to immediately cease.”

He held also “that the Confederate States are out of the Union, occupying the position of an Independent Power de facto; have been acknowledged as a belligerent both by Foreign Nations and our own Government; maintained their Declaration of Independence, for three years, by force of arms; and the War has cut asunder all the obligations that bound them under the Constitution.”

“Much better,” said he, “would it have been for us in the beginning, much better would it be for us now, to consent to a division of our magnificent Empire, and cultivate amicable relations with our estranged brethren, than to seek to hold them to us by the power of the sword. I am reluctantly and despondingly forced to the conclusion that the Union is lost, never to be restored. I see neither North nor South, any sentiment on which it is possible to build a Union. in attempting to preserve our Jurisdiction over the Southern States we have lost our Constitutional Form of Government over the Northern. The very idea upon which this War is founded, coercion of States, leads to despotism. I now believe that there are but two alternatives, and they are either an acknowledgment of the Independence of the South as an independent Nation, or their complete subjugation and extermination as a People; and of these alternatives I prefer the former.”

As Long took his seat, amid the congratulations of his Democratic friends, Garfield arose, and, to compliments upon the former’s peculiar candor and honesty, added denunciation for his Treason.  After drawing an effective parallel between Lord Fairfax and Robert E. Lee, both of whom had cast their lots unwillingly with the enemies of this Land, when the Wars of the Revolution and of the Rebellion respectively opened, Garfield proceeded: 

“But now, when hundreds of thousands of brave souls have gone up to God under the shadow of the Flag, and when thousands more, maimed and shattered in the Contest, are sadly awaiting the deliverance of death; now, when three years of terrific warfare have raged over us, when our Armies have pushed the Rebellion back over mountains and rivers and crowded it back into narrow limits, until a wall of fire girds it; now, when the uplifted hand of a majestic People is about to let fall the lightning of its conquering power upon the Rebellion; now, in the quiet of this Hall, hatched in the lowest depths of a similar dark Treason, there rises a Benedict Arnold and proposes to surrender us all up, body and spirit, the Nation and the Flag, its genius and its honor, now and forever, to the accursed Traitors to our Country.  And that proposition comes ­God forgive and pity my beloved State! ­it comes from a citizen of the honored and loyal Commonwealth of Ohio!  I implore you, brethren in this House, not to believe that many such births ever gave pangs to my mother-State such as she suffered when that Traitor was born!”

As he uttered these sturdy words, the House and galleries were agitated with that peculiar rustling movement and low murmuring sound known as a “sensation,” while the Republican side with difficulty restrained the applause they felt like giving, until he sadly proceeded: 

“I beg you not to believe that on the soil of that State another such growth has ever deformed the face of Nature and darkened the light of God’s day.”

The hush that followed was broken by the suggestive whisper:  “Vallandigham!”

“But, ah,” continued the Speaker ­as his voice grew sadder still ­“I am reminded that there are other such.  My zeal and love for Ohio have carried me too far.  I retract.  I remember that only a few days since, a political Convention met at the Capital of my State, and almost decided, to select from just such material, a representative for the Democratic Party in the coming contest; and today, what claims to be a majority of the Democracy of that State say that they have been cheated or they would have made that choice!”

     [This refers to Horatio Seymour, the Democratic Governor of New      York.]

After referring to the “insidious work” of the “Knights of the Golden Circle” in seeking “to corrupt the Army and destroy its efficiency;” the “riots and murders which,” said he, “their agents are committing throughout the Loyal North, under the lead and guidance of the Party whose Representatives sit yonder across the aisle;” he continued:  “and now, just as the time is coming on when we are to select a President for the next four years, one rises among them and fires the Beacon, throws up the blue-light ­which will be seen, and rejoiced over, at the Rebel Capital in Richmond ­as the signal that the Traitors in our camp are organized and ready for their hellish work!  I believe the utterance of to-day is the uplifted banner of revolt.  I ask you to mark the signal that blazes here, and see if there will not soon appear the answering signals of Traitors all over the Land. If these men do mean to light the torch of War in all our homes; if they have resolved to begin the fearful work which will redden our streets, and this Capitol, with blood, the American People should know it at once, and prepare to meet it.”

At the close of Mr. Garfield’s patriotic and eloquent remarks, Mr. Long again got the floor, declared that what he had said, he believed to be right, and he would “stand by it,” though he had to “stand solitary and alone,” and “even if it were necessary to brave bayonets, and prisons, and all the tyranny which may be imposed by the whole power and force of the Administration.”

Said he:  “I have deliberately uttered my sentiments in that speech, and I will not retract one syllable of it.”  And, to “rub it in” a little stronger, he exclaimed, as he took his seat, just before adjournment:  “Give me Liberty, even if confined to an Island of Greece, or a Canton of Switzerland, rather than an Empire and a Despotism as we have here to-day!”

This treasonable speech naturally created much excitement throughout the Country.

On the following day (Saturday, April 9, 1864), immediately after prayer, the reading of the Journal being dispensed with, the Speaker of the House (Colfax) came down from the Speaker’s Chair, and, from the floor, offered a Preamble and Resolution, which ended thus: 

“Resolved, That Alexander Long, a Representative from the second district of Ohio, having, on the 8th day of April, 1864, declared himself in favor of recognizing the Independence and Nationality of the so-called Confederacy now in arms against the Union, and thereby ’given aid, Countenance and encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility to the United States,’ is hereby expelled.”

The debate which ensued consumed nearly a week, and every member of prominence, on both the Republican and Democratic sides, took part in it ­the Democrats almost invariably being careful to protest their own loyalty, and yet attempting to justify the braver and more candid utterances of the accused member.

Mr. Cox led off, April 9th, in the defense, by counterattack.  He quoted remarks made to the House (March 18, 1864) by Mr. Julian, of Indiana, to the effect that “Our Country, united and Free, must be saved, at whatever hazard or cost; and nothing, not even the Constitution, must be allowed to hold back the uplifted arm of the Government in blasting the power of the Rebels forever;” ­and upon this, adopting the language of another ­[Judge Thomas, of Massachusetts.] ­Mr. Cox declared that “to make this a War, with the sword in one hand to defend the Constitution, and a hammer in the other to break it to pieces, is no less treasonable than Secession itself; and that, outside the pale of the Constitution, the whole struggle is revolutionary.”

He thought, for such words as he had just quoted, Julian ought to have been expelled, if those of Long justified expulsion!

Finally, being pressed by Julian to define his own position, as between the Life of the Nation, and the Infraction of the United States Constitution, Mr. Cox said:  “I will say this, that under no circumstances conceivable by the human mind would I ever violate that constitution for any purpose!”

This sentiment was loudly applauded, and received with cries of “That is it!” “That’s it!” by the Democratic side of the House, apparently in utter contempt for the express and emphatic declaration of Jefferson that:  “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest.  The laws of Necessity, of Self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.  To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with Life, Liberty, Property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absolutely sacrificing the end to the means.”

     [In a letter to J. B. Colvin, Sept. 20, 1810, quoted at the time      for their information, and which may be found at page 542 of vol.      v., of Jefferson’s Works.]

Indeed these extreme sticklers for the letter of the Constitution, who would have sacrificed Country, kindred, friends, honesty, truth, and all ambitions on Earth and hopes for Heaven, rather than violate it ­for that is what Mr. Cox’s announcement and the Democratic endorsement of it meant, if they meant anything ­were of the same stripe as those querulous Ancients, for the benefit of whom the Apostle wrote:  “For the letter KILLETH, but the Spirit giveth life.”

And now, inspired apparently by the reckless utterances of Long, if not by the more cautious diatribe of Cox, Harris of Maryland, determining if possible to outdo them all, not only declared that he was willing to go with his friend Long wherever the House chose to send him, but added:  “I am a peace man, a radical peace man; and I am for Peace by the recognition of the South, for the recognition of the Southern Confederacy; and I am for acquiescence in the doctrine of Secession.”  And, said he, in the midst of the laughter which followed the sensation his treasonable words occasioned, “Laugh as you may, you have got to come to it!” And then, with that singular obfuscation of ideas engendered, in the heads of their followers, by the astute Rebel-sympathizing leaders, he went on: 

“I am for Peace, and I am for Union too.  I am as good a Union man as any of you. [Laughter.] I am a better Union man than any of you! [Great Laughter.] I look upon War as Disunion.”

After declaring that, if the principle of the expulsion Resolution was to be carried out, his “friend,” Mr. Long, “would be a martyr in a glorious cause” ­he proceeded to announce his own candidacy for expulsion, in the following terms: 

“Mr. Speaker, in the early part of this Secession movement, there was a Resolution offered, pledging men and money to carry on the War.  My principles were then, and are now, against the War.  I stood, solitary and alone, in voting against that Resolution, and whenever a similar proposition is brought here it will meet with my opposition.  Not one dollar, nor one man, I swear, by the Eternal, will I vote for this infernal, this stupendous folly, more stupendous than ever disgraced any civilized People on the face of God’s Earth.  If that be Treason, make the most of it!

“The South asked you to let them go in peace.  But no, you said you would bring them into subjugation.  That is not done yet, and God Almighty grant that it never may be.  I hope that you will never subjugate the South.  If she is to be ever again in the Union, I hope it will be with her own consent; and I hope that that consent will be obtained by some other mode than by the sword.  ’If this be Treason, make the most of it!’”

An extraordinary scene at once occurred ­Mr. Tracy desiring “to know whether, in these Halls, the gentleman from Maryland invoked Almighty God that the American Arms should not prevail?” “Whether such language is not Treason?” and “whether it is in order to talk Treason in this Hall?” ­his patriotic queries being almost drowned in the incessant cries of “Order!” “Order!” and great disorder, and confusion, on the Democratic side of the House.

Finally the treasonable language was taken down by the Clerk, and, while a Resolution for the expulsion of Mr. Harris was being written out, Mr. Fernando Wood ­coming, as he said, from a bed of “severe sickness,” quoted the language used by Mr. Long, to wit: 

“I now believe there are but two alternatives, and they are either the acknowledgment of the Independence of the South as an independent Nation, or their complete subjugation and extermination as a People; and of these alternatives I prefer the former” ­and declared that “if he is to be expelled for the utterance of that sentiment, you may include me in it, because I concur fully in that sentiment.”

     [He afterwards (April 11,) said he did not agree with Mr. Long’s      opinions.]

Every effort was unavailingly made by the Democrats, under the lead of Messrs. Cox ­[In 1886 American Minister at Constantinople.] ­and Pendleton, ­[In 1886 American Minister at Berlin.] ­to prevent action upon the new Resolution of expulsion, which was in these words: 

“Whereas, Hon. Benjamin G. Harris, a member of the House of Representatives of the United States from the State of Maryland, has on this day used the following language, to wit:  ’The South asked you to let them go in peace.  But no; you said you would bring them into subjection.  That is not done yet, and God Almighty grant that it never may be.  I hope that you will never subjugate the South.’  And whereas, such language is treasonable, and is a gross disrespect of this House:  Therefore, ’Be it Resolved, That the said Benjamin G. Harris be expelled from this House.’”

Upon reaching a vote, however, the Resolution was lost, there being only 81 yeas, to 58 (Democratic) nays ­two-thirds not having voted affirmatively.  Subsequently, despite Democratic efforts to obstruct, a Resolution, declaring Harris to be “an unworthy Member” of the House, and “severely” censuring him, was adopted.

The debate upon the Long-expulsion Resolution now proceeded, and its mover, in view of the hopelessness of securing a two-thirds affirmative vote, having accepted an amendment comprising other two Resolutions and a Preamble, the question upon adopting these was submitted on the 14th of April.  They were in the words following: 

“Whereas, Alexander long, a Representative from the second district of Ohio, by his open declarations in the National Capitol, and publications in the City of New York, has shown himself to be in favor of a recognition of the so-called Confederacy now trying to establish itself upon the ruins of our Country, thereby giving aid and comfort to the Enemy in that destructive purpose ­aid to avowed Traitors, in creating an illegal Government within our borders, comfort to them by assurances of their success and affirmations of the justice of their Cause; and whereas, such conduct is at the same time evidence of disloyalty, and inconsistent with his oath of office, and his duty as a Member of this Body:  Therefore,

“Resolved, That the said Alexander Long, a Representative from the second district of Ohio, be, and he is hereby declared to be an unworthy Member of the House of Representatives.

“Resolved, That the Speaker shall read these Resolutions to the said Alexander Long during the session of the House.”

The first of these Resolutions was adopted, by 80 yeas to 69 nays; the second was tabled, by 71 yeas to 69 nays; and the Preamble was agreed to, by 78 yeas to 63 nays.

And, among the 63 Democrats, who were not only unwilling to declare Alexander Long “an unworthy Member,” or to have the Speaker read such a declaration to him in a session of the House, but also refused by their votes even to intimate that his conduct evidenced disloyalty, or gave aid and comfort to the Enemy, were the names of such democrats as Cox, Eldridge, Holman, Kernan, Morrisson, Pendleton, Samuel J. Randall, Voorhees, and Fernando Wood.

Hence Mr. Long not only escaped expulsion for his treasonable utterances, but did not even receive the “severe censure” which, in addition to being declared (like himself) “an unworthy Member,” had been voted to Mr. Harris for recklessly rushing into the breach to help him!

[The Northern Democracy comprised two well-recognized classes:  The Anti-War (or Peace) Democrats, commonly called “Copperheads,” who sympathized with the Rebellion, and opposed the War for the Union; and the War (or Union) Democrats, who favored a vigorous prosecution of the War for the preservation of the Union.]