Baltis H. Kennard's words as delegate to Maryland's Constitutional Convention in 1864.
In another place, at another point in time, I will discuss Baltis' part in the Convention mentioned above. For now, I will share the words he used in explaining why he supported his Legislative Committee's use of the word "paramount" in the draft of Article 4.
"Article 4. The Constitution of the United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof, being the supreme law of the land, every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the United States, and is not bound by any law or ordinance of this State in contravention or subversion thereof."
I will in the future give some context to these words which argue against various members who debated against the use of that word, at length I might add. The words below can be found on pages 477-488 in the minutes of the Convention that detail the arguments and debate.
I must add that Latin was not my choice of study in foreign languages. I'm certain there are mistakes in the Latin Baltis uses as I transcribed his oration due to my ignorance and the poor quality of the text read. If someone sees a mistake, or can with certainty fill in a blank, please email me.
Baltis' words now follow:
"As there appears to be no disposition on the part of gentlemen to occupy the attention of the Convention in the further discussion of this question, I will submit a few remarks for their consideration. It is fair to conclude that by this time we have arrived at the full heat of the battle in the discussion of this question. It was remarked by a member from Somerset, (Mr. ___) at the inception of this debate, after the first speech had been made, occupying the attention of this body for a considerable length of time, that that was merely the introductory debate; that we had seen but the skirmish; that the contest had not attained to its highest fury, and that when that time arrived we would see an exhibition of strength in point of _____ controversy, in which we had there _____ been _______. The noble county of Prince George's had the honor to furnish the first gallant knight to throw down the glove, and with spear and lance to begin the assault. Since that time gentlemen of other counties have announced that that was but introductory. The noble county of Somerset has furnished two noble knights; and it is fair to presume now that the contest has attained its fullest height. I am inclined to the opinion that the fury of the strength has expended itself to a great extent, and that by the time that Baltimore city, represented by the chairman of the Committee on the Declaration of Rights (Mr. Stirling) shall give the coup de grace to the discussion of this question, the State of Maryland will emerge from the cloud and the smoke of this contest more splendidly adorned than before, having upon her frontlet a jewel which heretofore has not been there, which will do her honor and add to her historic renown.
I did not intend to submit any remarks to the consideration of the Convention upon the article now under consideration, for the reason that my impression was that the passing moments of the hour bore in their train momentous issues. Time bears upon its shoulders the weight of many years; and we may not now in this hour of peril and of imminent danger, play in dalliance with fleeting moments. He who would be wise will not tarry upon the margin of the stream when its currents dash onward, bearing upon its bosom the fate of nations. He who would be wise will hearken, and heed the call of the hour, and act with promptitude and despatch, when demands are made upon him. The admonition now sounding in our ears, coming with such terrific force, with such impressive lessons, are not the admonitions of days or of hours, but of moments. Impressed with such views, I thought it better became me to be silent, to utter no opinion respecting this article, but to let my recorded vote in favor of it be my sufficient answer. But I have been induced to change my determination in that respect.
The discussion of this question has opened up before us a wide field of debate. It is seemingly illimitable. Gentlemen have been wont to go wherever the promptings of speculative fancy have induced them to wander. The circuit of this debate has not been adhered to, but gentlemen have flown away, and plunged into the recesses of deep shadow, the shades of the past, and have traversed it declivities and its depths, and the gorges of the wilderness where no foot has ever dared to tread. They have wandered among the dead leaves and plants of an ____ philosophy, and brought them here magnificently pointed, and paraded them here before our eyes, but they have appeared to us only as ashes without life.
Gentlemen in this discussion may say what they please and claim what they please with reference to the course which their arguments have taken. They may _______ everything ____ identify with States' rights ideas, or with the doctrine of State sovereignty, as it has been avowed and announced by its fathers and protectors. But the discussion of this question here has returned that subject before us, and has presented that entire question of States' rights sovereignty before us as a body. And in engaging in this discussion we cannot be charged, any one of us, with trenching upon the opinions expressed by gentlemen of the minority upon this question. We have a right to deal with the question as the discussion presents it.
Here in the State of Maryland, in the hall of the House of Delegates, that dead body of States' rights and State sovereignty has been exhumed. It is dead, Sir. Its friends killed it. But the favorable opportunity and the precious moment has arrived in the midst of the strength of the contest which is now being waged between us and under the kind auspices of a beneficent Government, the friends of States' rights are paying their final respects to the resting place of that nondescript, and have brought it here on its funeral bier with all the cerements of the grave about it. They have gathered about that dead corpse. Various views have been expressed respecting it. Various attempts have been made to restore that lifeless body; but they have proved _gatory and ineffectual. Gentlemen have differed in their opinions respecting the organism of the body. Some have doubted whether it be dead. Some have said it was dead. Some have insisted that it lived. Nevertheless, sir, it is that same dead body; gone, gone, irretrievably gone, and all that they can do to it now is to give it respectable sepulchre.
It is not without a considerable degree of embarrassment that I approach the discussion of this question. I know well that it is a theme of contest between the most eminent minds of this country. I know that it has been discussed for many years. I am inclined to the opinion - and I think I shall be sustained in that by the opinions of all, by the facts of history, and by the developments which are taking place all around us - that the subject has been entirely exhausted. Its seed cannot longer grow in American soil. I am also impressed with the fact, and the presence which surrounds me warns me that it is no trifling thing, and will be no trifling effort on my part, to enter the arena of this fight. I am admonished that there are around me men trained from childhood, who know well how to wield the weapons of logic, men around whose brow are gathered the symbols of age, and whose light is known to history. I am warned that one with the little experience I have in matters of this kind, has no small work to do, to encounter such men. When I contemplate this whole question of political science, and see its barred doors, possessing no ____ charm or _____ word by the utterance of which the doors will open, and I may enter and _____ its secret by-ways and enter its arenas, and there get the information I need to sustain me on this question. I feel its deepening, dampening shadows resting upon me, and I shall not attempt to enter it. I shall be guided by the light of facts; guided by experience common to all men.
Allow me here to say that the public place afforded by the beneficence of the State, where all may go and obtain the lore that they desire for the maintenance of any views they may hold or any opinions they may entertain - the library of the State of Maryland - I find that it has been depleted of all words appertaining to the subject under consideration. I am inclined to make this reference for the reason that when the gallant knight from Prince George's county (Mr. Clarke) was able to maintain himself with shield and buckler, and bore around so fiercely with his lance, he said he was not prepared for this debate that had been suddenly sprung upon the minority of the House; and the same thing was echoed by pretty much every gentleman after him. I should judge from the condition of the library of the State of Maryland that they were pretty thoroughly prepared. If they are not, the Lord knows the majority are not, for none of them can get the books. I am at a loss to conjecture, and I submit now to the intelligent men who compose the minority of this House, that were it not for the word "paramount" in this article now before us, the minority would have no argument at all, because that has been the burden of their complaint in the whole argument. If the majority of this House could perambulate the lexicon, and by any possibility find out some word more potent, with more concentrated force in it than the word "paramount", I apprehend that the minority would contend for "paramount" as much as we contend for it now.
We seem to be towing them along step by step. They are slow in their progress. They are not inclined to take the lead, or to follow on ___crest of the wave, as the progress of the age drives onward; but they are disposed to be led. They are coming on, coming on, step by step. The only difficulty is that the majority of this House lead them almost too fast. They are so lame and feeble that they stumble and fall as they follow.
I will do the gentlemen the justice to say, that so far as I understand it, some of them at least, have not insisted upon the States' rights theory entire. They have acknowledged and contended that it was the duty and the province of every American citizen to owe fealty and support to the Constitution of the United States. The first gentleman who spoke (Mr. Clarke) insists that they owe fidelity and support to the Constitution of the United States within _______ limits, but that they only owe it while they who are the administrators of the law adhere to the provisions and the restraints of the Constitution. That, in my judgment, is as fatal a heresy and as fatal an error as exists in the extreme States' rights theory. If the authorities who administer the government or execute the laws, constitutionally elected by the people of the country according to the provisions of the laws under which we live, are distasteful or objectionable to certain persons, and do not administer the laws according to the rules laid down, what must be the position of gentlemen who wish to be true to the government? They must either submit to this malfessance in office, they must submit to the maladministration, and wait until they can redress those grievances in the civil and constitutional mode, or, as those in armed rebellion have done, they must come out and make war upon the government of the United States and repudiate its authority. That is the only alternative, put it in any shape we may. If they are not disposed to recognize the men who administer the laws, they must either submit or go out. Submitting is a tacit and implied obedience to the government of the United States, a willingness to wait until the grievances can be redressed is the constitutional mode.
Abraham Lincoln, for instance, is elected President of the United States. Gentlemen living in Maryland, in New York, or in South Carolina say that they will not submit if Abraham Lincoln is elected; they will repudiate the government. While we adhere to the Constitution, say they, we repudiate Abraham Lincoln; and because he is elected, although the Constitution remains intact, and as capable of exercising all its functions as before, we will go out. That is precisely what Southern States did. This is the predicament in which these gentlemen place themselves who proceed upon this fallacy; that because certain men administer the laws, if that administration changes, we are not to be patient; we are not to have confidence in the government and stand firm and loyal to it; but we must go out because certain men may be in power whom we cannot indorse.
What has been my experience and what has been the experience of many other members of this body? Franklin Pierce - poor Pierce! I will say, although I do not intend to bandy the names of retired gentlemen, famous or infamous, who according to some accounts was a modern Solomon whose name was adorned with lustre too magnificent to be beheld, and that might only faintly be conceived, and if it had been the pleasure of the gentlemen of this body to contemplate the splendors of his reign in the light which was so radiant in the sight of the gentleman from Prince George's (Mr. Belt) we might have exclaimed, as the Queen of Sheba did of old, that the half had not been told me. He was not the man of my choice, and he was not the choice of many other people throughout the country; but we felt no disposition to revolt. No such emotion stirred in my bosom. No such feeling had an existence in my mind. I felt it due to the government to be loyal to him, and so did the people throughout the country. I entertain the belief that "truth is mighty and will prevail". I believe that a great principle cannot be restrained or kept down. I have confidence in the ability of the people to determine wisely and justly respecting every subject that may be presented to them for consideration. I believe they are more capable of acting wisely, fairly, and impartially than those who hold places of power, and who are interested in a very great degree. I believe that what is necessary for the interests of this people is to allow the power to be exercised through the constituted medium of government; and I believe the power is ample and full, for any redress that is needed, through the medium of those courts composed of the wisest and the best that could be selected by human judgment.
I held on with others, knowing that four years was but a short time, and that we should then have an opportunity of securing perhaps another man that would be more satisfactory to us as the Chief Magistrate of the country; when lo and behold! James Buchanan, a son of Pennsylvania was borne to the Chair of State and borne their under circumstances not at all creditable. I have nothing to say against the men who sustained Mr. Buchanan. I have no affiliation with the pertinacity with which men cling to old party ties. The man who can dissolve his connection with any political party with which he may heretofore have acted, in order to sustain the government when it is in peril, is my friend and my brother. I glory in his patriotism and in his resolution. Mr. Buchanan was carried to the Chair of State under circumstances that were morally wrong, and did this country great detriment. The public mind was watched from one end of the nation to the other, and the rod was held in terrorem over the heads of the people of this country; for they said then that if a certain man was elected President of the United States, there would be secession, disunion, and civil war. This was all morally wrong, and we are now reaping the legitimate but fearful consequences of that wrong.
Millard Fillmore of New York was my choice for President; and he received the vote of the single State of Maryland. Mr. Buchanan was elected. Did we secede then, according to the views entertained by gentlemen? No, sir, we held on still. We had given our support to Fillmore, because he was a true, and a faithful servant, and in him we recognized the embodiment of good Union-loving loyalty and good faith. What he is now, I know not, nor do I care; but at that time the State of Maryland cast its electoral vote for him for the reasons I have named that we had full confidence in his loyalty and fidelity to the best government on which the sun ever shone.
But we held on and held firmly. The succeeding year we elevated to the gubernatorial chair Thomas H. Hicks, and it was well in the Providence of God that we did put him there; for today this scene of carnage that now devastates the State of Virginia, would have swept in fearful surges over Maryland. But Maryland today stands firmly anchored within the pale of the Union; and before we get through our work as a Convention, the majority of which represents the loyal people of the State, we have made up our minds that Maryland shall rise above every power that has heretofore kept her down, and take a position that will make her one of the proudest and fairest of the sister States of the Union.
In reference to the article under consideration, let me say that I am in favor of it, first, because a National Government founded upon the principles of liberty, capable of maintaining itself at home and abroad, is essential and indispensable to the promotion of the good of any people.
No one I presume, will deny the proposition that government ordained upon some basis, possessing some elements of strength, capable of supporting itself and compelling obedience to its authority, founded upon true principles, administering and dispensing justice and equity among all the people, recognizing universally conceded principles of law so established by the experience and judgment of mankind and founded upon principles of truth and justice, is indispensable to the happiness and peace of mankind. Men may differ about the basis, forms and machinery of government, and men do materially differ in that particular, but among all civilized people there is no dispute as to the necessity of forms of government combining the elements of power and strength that will compel obedience to its laws within itself, and be capable of maintaining itself and people against invasion or subjugation from abroad, whilst mankind demonstrate, by the proofs of history, a tendency thus to combine in masses and centralize power under appropriate restrictions. The question of government has furnished a subject of controversy for centuries, as to the best mode of constructing it, how to render it efficient for good, and promotive of the happiness of the human race.
The condition of a people at the time of the formation of a government have much to do with the character of the government they may set up. The age of the world and the progress of things at the time that marks the era of a people in history, go very far to determine the forms of government they may desire. Greece and Rome, from their nomadical state, passed through various gradations before the furnished that compact and well settled type of nationality that afterwards marked their career. So has it been with modern Europe, England originally was inhabited by a race that became totally extinct, and the basis of its nationality was constituted of mingled races from various parts of the Continent of Europe. But its territory and its position geographically furnished the outline of national individuality, and although the surges of civil war and the unsettling effects of the devastation produced by the change of masters which swept over the face of England for centuries, it maintained its name and its marked features of nationality down to the present time. Yet its government passed through various gradations, and was changed and altered as the caprice or necessities of the times dictated or demanded. But irrespective of its changes, the forms of government at all times was the government of England.
The people who settled the territory of North America between the Lakes and the Gulf of Mexico, and there established a government, differed from any other people in history who have ever formed a government. They were more advanced in the principles of enlightenment - they came to a new country possessing the advantages afforded the old. They came as intelligent men equal in capacity to those who constituted the pride and stability of the mother country. They came to enjoy liberty not afforded them in the country of their nativity. They also possessed the peculiarities of people jealous of their liberties, and partaking to a very considerable extent of the prejudices and spirit of persecution against those who differed from them that prevailed in the countries from whence they came. It was also, Mr. President, that a people so remarkable as they were escaping from the persecutions and oppressions that existed at home, settling down in a vast territory, that each particular community and colony should be jealous of each other, and seek to set up an exclusiveness and a peculiarity of rights that inured to them specially as such, that caused them to guard those rights with a very jealous care. But sir, experience and a common interest changed the practice of our people, if it did not change their theories; and if their notions traditionally have descended to their posterity, they have no more existence now than they had then, and are traditions and impracticable ideas still. They differed in their colonial governments, and in the rights and privileges of their governments.
Gentlemen insist upon State sovereignty; insist upon States having never yielded up that right, and implied that the States have nationality. How does a State get sovereignty, and what is its capacity to enforce its authority? What is its ability to protect itself from invasion from abroad? No State can possess the power of nationality unless it has the element of strength to maintain it. The colonies were different from each other in character. We had a proprietary system, a charter system, and a provincial system, and they all differed. We were all as has been said under the control of the British crown. But the people of each colony had peculiarities which naturally inclined them to be sectional and exclusive to claim certain rights and to desire to maintain them within their jurisdiction. But the necessity arose afterward for them to unite their strength, in one common warfare in their common defense. There was a natural tendency on the part of the people, from necessity and from the character of their governments to become a united people, furnishing in the early history of the colonies the germ of the nationality which has been maintained down to the present day.
I therefore insist that States, exclusively as such, dependent upon themselves in the absence of the authority of the General Government, could not long maintain themselves as States. Virginia was larger than she is now. A State may be a lesser unit than it is now, or it may be a greater unit; but its existence depends upon its power, its ability to protect itself and maintain itself independent of other powers adjacent to it. These necessities were manifest to our people from the beginning. They were manifest through all the changes through which they passed as a people down to the time when they adopted the Constitution of the United States as it now exists. In reference to that Constitution, there have been various speculations and theories, growing out of the traditions and feelings handed down from our fathers, which have had an importance given to them which they did not possess within themselves. Other interests have arisen since, within the States' rights theory for the purpose of pressing these interests upon the minds of the people of the country. Other causes have arisen. Demagogues, seeking to avail themselves of these pretexts that might be popular with the people of certain sections of the country, have urged these questions and agitated them before the people. Nevertheless, this same germ of nationality exists, and must be maintained by the people if they want safety, peace and happiness. Let me here give the views of Daniel Webster, which I will read as my own views in support of the article under consideration:
That the Constitution of the United States is not a league, confederacy or compact between the people of the sovereign capacities; but a government proper, founded on the adoption of the people, and creating direct relations between itself and individuals.
That no State authority has power to dissolve these relations; that nothing can dissolve them but revolution; and that, consequently, there can be no such thing as secession without revolution.
That there is supreme law, consisting of the Constitution of the United States, acts of Congress passed in pursuance of it and treaties; and that in cases not capable of assuming the character of a suit in law or equity, Congress must judge of and finally interpret the supreme law, so often as it has occasioned past acts of legislation; and in cases capable of assuming, and actually assuming the character of a suit, the Supreme Court of the United States is the final interpreter.
That an attempt by a State to abrogate, annul, or nullify an act of Congress, or to arrest its operation within her limits on the ground that, in her opinion, such law is unconstitutional, is a direct usurpation on the just powers of the General Government and on the equal rights of other States; a plain violation of the Constitution, and a proceeding essentially revolutionary in its character and tendency.
Upon the question that has been mooted here, whether the people who framed the Government of the United States and the Constitution of the United States ignored the idea of nationality, Mr. Webster Says:
Finally sir, how can any man get over the words of the Constitution itself? We the people of the United States do ordain and establish this Constitution itself? These words must cease to be a part of the Constitution; they must be obliterated from the parchment on which they are written, before any human ingenuity or human argument can remove the popular basis on which that Constitution rests, and turn the instrument into a mere compact between the sovereign States.
But, __ let us go to the actual formation of the Constitution; let us open the journal of the Convention itself and we shall see that the very first resolution which the Convention adopted was that a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme legislature, judiciary and executive.
This itself completely negatives all idea of league and compact, and confederation. Terms could not be chosen more fit to express an intention to establish a national government, and to banish forever all notion of a compact between sovereign States.
This resolution was adopted on the 30th of May. Afterwards the style was altered, and instead of being called a national government, it was called the Government of the United States; but the substance of this resolution was retained, and was at the head of that list of resolutions which was afterwards sent to the committee who were to frame the instrument.
It is true, there were gentlemen in the Convention who were for retaining the confederation and amending its articles; but the majority was against this and was for a national government. Mr. Patterson's propositions, which were for continuing the articles of confederation with additional powers, were submitted to the Convention of the 5th of June, and referred to the committee of the whole. And the resolutions forming the basis of a national government, which had once been agreed to in the committee of the whole, and reported, were re-committed to the same committee on the same day. The Convention, then, in committee of the whole, on the 19th of June, had both these plans before them; that is to say, the plan of a confederacy or compact between States, and the plan of a national government. Both these plans were considered and debated, and the committee reported, "that they do not agree to the propositions offered by the Hon. Mr. Patterson, but that they again submit the resolutions formerly reported." If, sir, any historical fact in the world be plain and undeniable, it is that the Convention deliberated on the expediency of continuing the confederation with some amendments, and rejected that scheme, and adopted the plan of a national government, with a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary of its own. They were asked to preserve the league; they rejected the proposition. They were asked to continue the existing compact between States; they rejected it. They rejected compact, league and confederation; and set themselves about framing the Constitution of a national government; and they accomplished what they undertook.
I do not intend to introduce any more authorities upon that. I think the House has heard enough. But I wish to reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller) upon the subject of naturalization. He said that when aliens were naturalized they were required to take the oath of allegiance to the State where they were naturalized, but only the oath to support the Constitution of the United States so far as allegiance to the General Government is concerned. I had had occasion to administer the oath of naturalization to foreigners, and my memory did not serve me that such was the fact. So I have taken occasion to procure the form of the certificate which is this:
Be it remembered, that on the ____ day of ____, in the year aforesaid, N.N., a native of ___, and at present residing in the ____ of ____, appeared in open court here, and applied to be admitted to become a citizen of the United States. And it appearing to the satisfaction of the court here, that the said N.N. had declared an oath, taken in the ___, on the ___ day of ___, in the year ____, two years at least before his admission, that it was bone fide his intention to become a citizen of the United States. And it also appearing to the satisfaction of the court here, upon the testimony of W.W. and T.T., citizens of the United States, that the said N.N. both continued to reside within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, five years at least, and one year at least, immediately preceding this application, within the State of Maryland; that during the said term of five years he hath resided in ___, and hath conducted himself as a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness, and the said N.N. having declared on oath, taken in open court here, that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state and sovereignty whatever, and particularly all allegiance and fidelity to the ___. The court here, thereupon admits the said N.N. to become a citizen of the United States.
There is not a word said with reference to allegiance to the State of Maryland, but only that he shall reside one year in the State prior to his being naturalized.
Instances might be multiplied; but I do not regard it necessary; and I think the Convention has been simply entertained in that respect. What is the use of speculating in reference to this question? What does it all amount to? What does it prove? What are the facts now?
Whether State rights are right or wrong, whether State sovereignty is right or wrong, it has resulted in a strife of arms between the Government of the United States, and those who have availed themselves of the pretext of the State rights idea. Then what does it become us as wise men to do? Are we to stand here on the margin of the stream and trifle in reference to this thing? We must do one of two things. We must ally or range ourselves on the side of the American Republic, in which our common destiny is wound up and involved, or we must combat that government, and range ourselves on the side of the rebels against the government. I submit to the gentlemen of this House, how is the States rights idea to be carried out, if it were to be allowed to be the true idea? Are we in Maryland to come up here and call upon the federal arms, or the national authority to protect us in our rights and privileges and immunities, and subjegate the States rights men of the State of Maryland, or are they to subjugate us? That is the question to be determined. If we have the majority and the power we can put them down, and if they have the majority and the power they can put us down. They have not the power today, even if they had the will, to enforce the States' rights idea in the State of Maryland. This is, in my opinion, no time to trifle. The Republic is on its trial for its life; and I say, black is the heart of the man who cannot say viscit aim__ patrios - the man who will stand afar off and tremble amid the storm of war, or find fault with the government under whose broad and ample protection he stands. I cannot conceive what would be our circumstances were the American Republic to be once blotted out. I know no other nation as mine. I feel no squeamish feelings with regard to Maryland. Destroy the Government of the United States and I have no government. I would then be a wanderer in the land, and must wait until anarchy resolves itself into some substantial form in which I can make my selection; if I have such a privilege afforded me. Once blot out the American Republic, and destroy this great central life which now pervades the people of all these States; blot out this great central sun and no one can imagine the consequences, from the tremendous forces left to act unrestrained by legitimate channels. Once let loose, colliding and running in fierce encounter, and it will crush and destroy all that was once beautiful and sublime. The heart sinks in contemplating such a scene.
The, sir, I would say here, in an extremity like this, and it is especially applicable to the people of Maryland: Tempera mutantur et nos insilomur in illis. To the Union men of Maryland I would say that our liberties, and all the best interests of our children depend upon the success of the American Republic. We are determined in the State of Maryland to it, and to say that Maryland is fixed and firm within the bounds of fidelity to the Government of the United States.
I shall vote for the article now before us, because I have no squeamishness with reference to this word "paramount". The fact that it has been used before, that it originated in feudal times or any other times, with reference to allegiance, amounts to nothing, so far as I am concerned. All words had their origin in some peculiarities at the time of their formation. We use the term to signify obedience, faith, obligation, fealty to the supreme government, rendered necessary by the condition of things as they are; and I shall vote for it for Maryland.
I shall now refer to the same thing that was referred to in the introductory part of this debate, in comparing the United States with the solar system. Maryland is the nearest planet to the great central orb. She revolves the nearest to the great heart of the Republic. It becomes her therefore to have her shield brilliant and bright, and to have her garments pure and beautiful while she revolves around that centre, that she may be in this hour of peril the first brilliant example to her sister States in the Union. I shall vote for the article, that she may be enhanced in brilliancy, and that the report may be abroad that Maryland, the nearest the heart of the Republic, has set an example worthy of the imitation of her sister States."
[Demonstrations of applause promptly checked by the President]
END
|
