Therefore I put aside, as entirely irrelevant, much that we have heard against the proposed rule. This is not the time to say that the oath is unconstitutional, or that it is _ex post facto_. These are considerations properly arising on the passage of the statute, or on a proposition for its repeal. The Senator from Delaware [Mr. BAYARD] and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON], who have argued these topics so exhaustively, were either too late or too early. The statute is already the law of the land, and there is no bill pending for its repeal. On a former occasion I vindicated the constitutionality of the statute, and I now willingly leave that topic to the judgment of Senators, enlightened by the wisdom of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. COLLAMER], whose argument has not been answered. But I repeat that this objection is utterly out of place at this moment. A Senator over the way [Mr. HENDRICKS] has gone so far as to introduce my course on a former occasion as an apology for not taking the oath.[290] Because I denounced an infamous statute, which was a scandal to civilization, as unconstitutional and utterly unworthy the support of virtuous citizens, it is argued that the Slave-Drivers, then in power, were more lenient to me than we are now to them. In other words, the Slave-Drivers required of me an oath to support a statute which I abhorred, and therefore we are wrong in requiring the proposed oath. But this argument confounds two cases which are wide apart as the poles. While denouncing an outrageous statute, and refusing to play the part of slave-hunter, I never joined in rebellion against my country, or uttered one word except in loyalty. But here are persons with bloody hands, in battle array, striking at all we hold dear,--or others who have acted with them. Such persons will be justly brought to the test of an oath, and they can claim no immunity from the example of those patriot citizens who, recognizing the crime of Slavery, refused to become in any way its tools. And another Senator [Mr. JOHNSON] has taken this occasion to arraign me for certain opinions on another question, and he complained that I place them under the protection of a judgment of the Supreme Court. This is not the time for the discussion of “Reconstruction.” It has nothing to do with the matter before the Senate. I may think that the Government of the United States has _belligerent rights_, as well as _the right of sovereignty_, over the Rebel States,--that it is especially the duty of Congress to take care that these rights are so exercised as to crush the Rebellion, and to prevent its breaking out again,--and that, to this end, Congress must take all possible bonds for the future. These opinions, which the Senator chose to characterize harshly, may be wrong, but they have nothing to do with the business in hand. At a proper time I shall be ready to defend them. At present I choose not to be diverted from the issue before us.