Besides, this cry of Union comes commonly from those whom we cannot believe to be sincere.  It usually comes from our assailants.  But we cannot believe them to be sincere; for, if they loved the Union, they would necessarily be devoted to the Constitution.  It made the Union,—­and to destroy the Constitution would be to destroy the Union.  But the only reliable and certain evidence of devotion to the Constitution is to abstain, on the one hand, from violating it, and to repel, on the other, all attempts to violate it.  It is only by faithfully performing these high duties that the Constitution can be preserved, and with it the Union.

But how stands the profession of devotion to the Union by our assailants, when brought to this test?  Have they abstained from violating the Constitution?  Let the many acts passed by the Northern States to set aside and annul the clause of the Constitution providing for the delivery up of fugitive slaves answer.  I cite this, not that it is the only instance (for there are many others), but because the violation in this particular is too notorious and palpable to be denied.  Again:  Have they stood forth faithfully to repel violations of the Constitution?  Let their course in reference to the agitation of the slavery question, which was commenced and has been carried on for fifteen years, avowedly for the purpose of abolishing slavery in the States—­an object all acknowledged to be unconstitutional,—­answer.  Let them show a single instance, during this long period, in which they have denounced the agitators or their attempts to effect what is admitted to be unconstitutional, or a single measure which they have brought forward for that purpose.  How can we, with all these facts before us, believe that they are sincere in their profession of devotion to the Union, or avoid believing their profession is but intended to increase the vigor of their assaults and to weaken the force of our resistance?

Nor can we regard the profession of devotion to the Union, on the part of those who are not our assailants, as sincere, when they pronounce eulogies upon the Union, evidently with the intent of charging us with disunion, without uttering one word of denunciation against our assailants.  If friends of the Union, their course should be to unite with us in repelling these assaults, and denouncing the authors as enemies of the Union.  Why they avoid this, and pursue the course they do, it is for them to explain.

Nor can the Union be saved by invoking the name of the illustrious Southerner whose mortal remains repose on the western bank of the Potomac.  He was one of us,—­a slave-holder and a planter.  We have studied his history, and find nothing in it to justify submission to wrong.  On the contrary, his great fame rests on the solid foundation, that, while he was careful to avoid doing wrong to others, he was prompt and decided in repelling wrong.  I trust that, in this respect, we profited by his example.