And yet that is the principle which the Senate is now about to give up,--that principle which Abraham Lincoln said, rather than give up he would be assassinated on the spot.

Therefore do I say, Stand by the Republican party.

From the historic character of the Commonwealth, from the position it has occupied in the warfare with Slavery, and from its fame as the home of ideas, we cannot afford to be sluggish or indifferent; nor can we break up into disjointed…

It is not enough, if we give a majority sufficient to elect our candidates; we must make the majority commanding, controlling, so as to be an example and a power in the land.

Massachusetts ideas and interests are to be maintained and advanced, not merely here at home, but in the nation.

Therefore must we regard our duties to the nation, the first of which is to make Massachusetts the bulwark of the national cause.

I would add one further word in reply to those who insist that the Republican party has done its work, and therefore may die.

It has done a great and ever-memorable work; but much remains to be done.

The whole work of Reconstruction and the establishment of Equal Rights is still disputed and assailed by the Democratic party.

Until this new form of Repudiation is extinguished, there is need of the Republican party.

So long as anybody assails the Declaration of Independence, the Republican party cannot cease its patriotic labors.

It is foolish to imagine that this great party, consecrated to Human Rights, can die.

It will live as long as people cherish those sublime truths declared by our fathers, of which it is the representative and guardian.

When kings make war, No law betwixt two sovereigns can decide, But that of arms, where Fortune is the judge, Soldiers the lawyers, and the Bar the field.

War, as conducted under International Law, between two organized nations, is in all respects a duel, according to the just signification of this word,--differing from that between two individuals only in the number of combatants.

The variance is of proportion merely, each nation being an individual who appeals to the sword as Arbiter; and in each case the combat is subject to rules constituting a code by which the two parties are bound.

For long years before civilization prevailed, the code governing the duel between individuals was as fixed and minute as that which governs the larger duel between nations, and the duel itself was simply a mode of deciding questions…

No better lawyer can be named in the long history of the English bar than John Selden, whose learning was equalled only by his large intelligence.

Of course the exercise of force in the suppression of rebellion, or in the maintenance of laws, stands on a different principle, being in its nature a constabulary proceeding, which cannot be confounded with the duel.

But my object is not to question the lawfulness of war; I would simply present an image, enabling you to see the existing war in its true character.

Ascending from the individual to corporations, guilds, villages, towns, counties, provinces, we find that for a long period each of these bodies exercised what was called “the Right of War.” The history of France and Germany shows how…

Better words could not be found for the United States of Europe, in the establishment of that Great Era when the Duel shall cease to be the recognized Arbiter of Nations.

Let the controversy arise between two nations, and the Supreme Law, which is the Law of Nations, establishes, not a judicial tribunal, but the duel, as arbiter.

The duel, though abolished as arbiter at home, is continued as arbiter abroad.

War is an institution sanctioned by International Law, as Slavery, wherever it exists, is an institution sanctioned by Municipal Law.