SIR,—You have the honor to represent the Albemarle district in the Congress of the Confederate States. That body is about to meet under the most appalling circumstances. The period has now arrived in Virginia which challenges the honest and fearless efforts of her ablest and best men to prevent the most calamitous results to her people. Her destiny, as a sovereign State, hangs suspended between two conflicting governments, whose rulers seem actuated more by blind passion than influenced by enlightened reason; who seem to have grasped and held the reins of power that they might oppress the people, destroy the individuality of the States, and crush individual rights under the iron heel of a military despotism, to the utter subversion of constitutional law and the extinction of all true manhood.

These are strong terms. But are they not true? As to the Federal government there can be no question; it stands outlawed before the civilized world; stereotyped in its own self-pollution. Let us review the brief history in a few prominent points of the Confederate government, and test it by the guage of the laws, and weigh it in “the balances of the constitution.” Empty words and vague implications are now useless. History is her own best expounder. We live in the burning light of historic despotism, while we profess to worship at the “altar of freedom.” Deeds speak out, and will not yield to soft appliances, or be glossed over by hollow pretensions. The representative who now allows himself to be hoodwinked and muzzled is worthy of the fate which awaits him, and must soon overtake the people and States if “a bit is not put in the mouth of tyranny.”

I will not, sir, disguise the fact that I thus address you because of your recognized ability, your ripe statesmanship, your enlarged experience, your advanced age and your personal familiarity with those great men of the past who tutored you in “the science of free government;” because you are the representative of the Albemarle district, and reside in that noble old county where lie the bones of my revered ancestors, and where I first learned the lessons taught by the “great apostles of liberty.” You know me, sir; you knew my ancestors. With that knowledge you will at least do me the justice to admit that my motives are pure, as my object is honorable. No true son of Albemarle can ever fear to plead the cause of constitutional freedom and true manhood even before a nation in arms.

We are in a death struggle for liberty, and shall we be slaves to the agent which we delegated to hold the reins and guide us in the storm of revolution? Shall we not protect the constitution from the vandal hands of those who seek its destruction? Are we to barter all for the poor privilege of choosing masters? Are the laws to prevail, or are we pliable minions of executive and ministerial self-will? Is Virginia a sovereign State or a vassal of Confederate dominion? Is the military or civil law to prevail? Are all courts to be closed, all remedies annulled, and every vested right placed at the disposal of the executive and his ministers?

These are not idle questions, as I shall show before I close this letter. I shall take care to “speak by the card,” nor will I write a word which cannot be “vouched by the record.” The naked truth is far too appalling to need the slightest embellishment. It stands forth recognized by all men who are not blinded by passion or swayed by self-interest. It hangs “like the pall of death on the warrior's shield.” It colors every view and disfigures every aspect of the “political horoscope.” It has no parallel, save in the Lincoln dynasty, from which we are seeking to escape.

There is, sir, one other reason which induces me to address you this letter. You, unfortunately for the country, I will not say for your own great fame, advocated, at the last session of Congress, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. In that position I fear you inflicted a severe blow on the main pillar of all constitutional government. The case which I shall furnish you with is an unanswerable fact, which no eloquence can dislodge; a conclusive deduction, which no sophistry can weaken. It will disclose the vital importance of always preserving sacred that shield to personal liberty without which civil liberty is a mere shadow. It is not to be disguised that this grand bulwark of civil liberty has been sported with in this revolution as though it were an ordinary and unimportant remedy—to be allowed or denied with as little regard to consequences as though it were a worthless garment, to be thrown off and resumed with as little concern as a thoughtless lad would his threadbare overcoat.

The case to which I refer is given in full at the close of this letter. As a Virginian, it challenges your profound consideration. As a statesman, it merits your deep solicitude. As a patriot, it appeals to your highest impulses. As a representative, it addresses itself to your enlarged experience. Ponder over it, sir, in its ample developments, and tell me if it does not indicate a sad state of ministerial oppression and executive neglect? Where is the patriot who will oppress or neglect the veteran and war-worn soldier? Where the statesman who will countenance the deliberate violation of the laws? Where the representative who will allow the sanction of his own legislation to be sported with as a worthless injunction? Where the Virginian untutored in the art of tyranny or unschooled in the appliances of fraud who will recognize the right of any power to violate the solemn compacts of Virginia? What does this case (consider it closely) disclose? Does it or not establish the fact that the Secretary at War has accomplished all this? Does it or not show that Mr. Seddon has assumed to violate this compact of Virginia? That he deliberately refused to appeal, as directed by the President, to the law of the case? Does it or not show that in this high neglect of an imposed duty the Secretary at War has been sustained by the President, whose directions he disobeyed?

But you may ask why I thus publicly bring this case before you at this time? I assure you, sir, I do so for no idle or improper purpose. The motives which actuate me are pure, however unpleasant the subject matter. You are a ripe statesman, and familiar with the thoughts and writings of that great man, Edmund Burke. In his letter to “a member of the National Assembly ” he uses these words: “there is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men, and by acting with promptitude, decision and steadiness on that belief.” Again, in his “Reflections on the Revolution in France,” “Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions than ruined by too confident security.” And those beautiful words and noble thoughts which I heard you recite in your masterly style in your unfortunate advocacy of the repeal of the writ of habeas corpus last session.

“But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils, for it is folly, vice and madness, without tuition or restraint. To make a government requires no great prudence. Settle the seat of power; teach obedience, and the work is done. To give freedom is still more easy. It is not necessary to guide. It only requires to let go the rein. But to form a free government—that is, to temper together these opposite elements of liberty and restraint, in one consistent work, requires much thought, deep reflection, a sagacious, powerful, combining mind.” “ Rage and phrensy will pull more in half an hour than prudence, deliberation and forethought can build up in an hundred years.”

I design no flattery, sir, when I appeal to your “reflecting, sagacious, powerful, combining mind.” We are in a deadly strife, with an unscrupulous and revengeful foe. We are in war, a fearful and bloody war, fighting for constitutional liberty as states, and vested rights as individuals. Executive and ministerial oppression, in violation of chartered franchises, caused this war, and justifies this revolution. To escape official and governmental oppression, we can well afford to bequeathe this war, with its sacred trusts, to our posterity. But if we are to be oppressed without law and against law, then, of all things imaginable, this war is the most needless occurrence of the nineteenth century. It is not only needless, but it is cruel and sacriligious. This, sir, is a sentiment deeply rooted in the hearts of the people; it is ineradicable, pervasive—stronger than the love of life. We fight for state independence and individual vested rights. Deprive us of those inestimable blessings, and we are the slaves of an irresponsible power, as hateful as it is despicable.

To quote once more from Burke—“In all mutations (if mutations must be) the circumstance which serves most to blunt the edge of their mischief and to promote what good may be in them, is, that they should find us with our minds tenacious of justice and tender of property.” What maxim could be more applicable, more instructive, more admonitory?

In this spirit, and under such lofty sentiments, I ask you to consider the case now brought to your notice at the end of this letter. What “property” is more valuable or more sacred than the vested right of the freeman, under a specific contract, to exemption from military or ministerial oppression? What oppression more galling to the freeman than to be denied his legal franchises, without the semblance of law to sustain the denial? And yet, when you come to read this case, and comprehend all of the facts and circumstances attending it, you will discover that, in the face of the solemn judgement of the court the adjudicating principle, each of these veteran, war-worn soldiers, whose character, worth and position are not over-drawn in my argument, was required to sue out his individual writ in order to avail himself of the operation of the adjudication. And yet we profess to be waging this war for the protection and enforcement of individual vested rights?

But you may ask why again agitate this question? The answer is at hand. Because this flagitious violator of the adjudicated rights of the soldier is still in office, unrebuked, unchecked, and as avaricious of the illegal exercise of unauthorized power to the oppression of the soldier as ever. This fact stands out prominent, and is suggestive of reflections which must press themselves with great force upon every sound thinker and true lover of constitutional liberty. Of all men, the soldier who fights for liberty is entitled to the blessings of legal protection.

It is with this view that I have addressed you, sir, this letter, and with it communicated the entire case. It is proper that the case, as it rests on the adjudication of the Confederate court, should pass into the hands of Congress. And in thus communicating it, it is pertinent to enquire, whether the judgment of a Confederate court, upon a Confederate law, is inferior to the mere official whims and ministerial pertinacity of the Secretary at War? Is the Judiciary to be subordinated to the mere volition of the Secretary at War? If not, are the parties, benefitted by the principle thus adjudicated, only to derive the benefit of the adjudication through the mandates of the court, at ruinous expense, in each case? Is not the Secretary at War as much bound by the adjudication as the soldier? If so, by what authority, and under what color of right, is the soldier to be held until released, by judgment, in personam? These are enquiries which I shall not undertake to answer. I respectfully submit them for your enlightened consideration, as an experienced, patriotic, ust legislator. The question is not, how many soldiers we shall have? but whether all the adjudicated rights of the soldier shall be respected? and if not, what is the proper remedy against the officer who disregards them? The strictest discipline in the army is absolutely necessary. The soldier must obey the orders of his superior, implicitly and without qualification. But must not the Secretary at War obey the law? respect adjudicated rights? The higher the officer, the more sacred the imposed duty of obedience to the law. The member of the Cabinet who seeks to extinguish the light of the law, is indeed a poor and dangerous worshiper “at the shrine of liberty.” The Secretary at War who disobeys the injunctions of the President, and neglects the mandates of the Judiciary, is setting an unworthy example to Generals under his authority. EX PEDE HERCULEM.

But there is yet another and higher view of this case, which merits your consideration. It points to the “inner temple of the altar,” and is suggested by the inquiry, “What, in these cases, would have become of the rights of these soldiers, but for the writ of habeas corpus?” This renders necessary a brief review of the position occupied by the Administration on this important and vital question. I respectfully direct your attention to it. It is admonitory and suggestive. It is important and instructive, even to you, sir, to review the acts of the authorities, as well as the deliberations of Congress, on this question. None of us are too old to learn, and none so wise that we may not derive edification even from our own reflections, when conducted in the proper spirit. It is only by degrees that the atmosphere becomes impregnated, particle by particle, with the poisonous malaria: so it is by degrees—here a slight move, and there a cautious and stealthy step—that the goal of tyranny is reached. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Now, sir, with your accustomed sagacity, read General Orders, (army) current series, 1862, Nos. nine, eleven, fifteen, eighteen, twenty-one, thirty-three, thirty-five, forty-two, fifty-five, fifty-six and sixty-six. Read them, consecutively, and your mind will stand aghast at the concrete evidence of absolute, arbitrary, irresponsible, tyrannizing dominion over the civil rights of the people, the courts, and personal franchises. No darker page rests, in its muffled gloom, on the history of the French revolution. You will discover all civil remedies suppressed, the courts closed, except in such cases as they are “permitted” to sit by military orders.

What, sir, would WASHINGTON have thought of such orders? What, sir, would Wythe and Pendleton, Marshall and Carr, Barbour and Daniel have thought of such meagre “permissions?” What would Henry and Lee, Bland and Madison, Jefferson and Randolph, Monroe and Taylor, have felt under such mandates? Where is the spirit of our ancestors? Where the genius of our ancient institutions? You form, as it were, a link, a precious and cherished link, between those great men and the present generation. It is a link of “choice gold”—let it not be alloyed, in the furnace of heated passions, which should but heighten its quality and purify its materials. Look back upon the past. Cast a hopeful glance at the future, and ponder these weighty words of your favorite author, Burke: “A spirit of innovation is generally the result of a selfish temper and confined views. People will not look forward to posterity, who never look back to their ancestors.” Let not Achilles retire to his tent. The battle is at hand, in which reason must overcome passion, wisdom must subdue phrensy, sanity must be restored, or all is lost. The people mourn, the State trembles to her foundation. The sentiment of a lofty patriotism burns in every bosom as brightly as ever; but the mad rule of red republicanism at the South, and black republicanism at the North, like the “daughters of the horse leach,” cry out for dominion, for absolute sway, over constitution, laws and people. Is there no remedy? Are the States doomed? the people enslaved?

Look now, sir, at General Order No. thirty-one, current series, 1864. What a lesson that teaches to Virginia? Ponder well its provisions, its mandates, its chains, forged by hasty legislation, to fetter the will and manacle the action of a proud, high-souled, brave people, who prefer death to dishonor, the grave to political serfdom! Are we fighting to sustain one tyrant against another? Are sovereign States to bow down, in the dust, to the imperial will of their agent—created, endowed with a borrowed life, that it might impart fresh vigor to confederated vitality? Is there no “breathing time to reason,” in which the darker passions shall be subdued? Surely not, if the reign of terror is to be protracted, the one-man-power still enlarged, extended, individualized. Is all social existence to be merged into camp life, and the very graves of our ancestors to be the battle-ground for power, and not for right? for absolutism in government, and not constitutional restraints upon government? Are we a betrayed people? enslaved States? Is the will of the Secretary at War to be the law of the land? Is his mere volition to silence the laws, fetter the courts, enslave the citizen? These questions arise from the case reported, and the orders quoted, and must be answered. If any one is so lost to a sense of the existing exigences of the country, as to answer them in the affirmative—and the past is to be re-enacted, in the re-adoption of similar acts and orders—he who will consult the “oracles of the dead” will read this significant question—“ Is it not time for Virginia to look to her colors and close her columns?”

But, sir, your enlarged experience, your ripe statesmanship, your profound sagacity, will discover the remedy. It is in Congress. It is at hand. Curb executive power; restrain it within its constitutional limits; rebuke ministerial presumption; manifest the power of the law, and re-kindle, by legislative energy its well nigh extinguished spirit, in the confidence of the people. Let them feel assured that the laws are wise, just, constitutional, and that they shall be fairly and scrupulously executed; that the Confederacy is not a grand prison-house, over which the Secretary at War presides, in the gloom of an intellect obscured by an official idiosyncracy, equalled only by the selfishness of his policy. Teach him to realize that the War Department is under Congressional supervision, and held in trust for the benefit, not the oppression, of the people and States. Teach him that law is over him, and not he over the law. Teach him that the army needs moral as well as physical power; and that when a petty tyrant, like him, seeks to rule against law, the “spirit and genius of the law” will rebuke him, and check him, and subdue him. Teach him that the Judicial and Legislative Departments are real existences in the Government, and not the mere shadow of a withered substance. In a word, sir, restore the spirit of the Constitution; re-invigorate the genius of the revolution, by shielding the liberty of the citizen, and protecting the vested rights and adjudicated status of the soldier, and he will protect and save STATE SOVEREIGNTY.

This revolution does not move in a circle, of which the Secretary at War is the centre. It is deep-laid in its foundations, pervasive in its spirit, widening and strengthening in its influence. It rests on proud, sovereign, independent States, who “are masters of the position.” No puny arm can control it. Its motive power is the will of the people; its true test, the innate power of the States; its object, anything but man-worship and the one-man power; and woe betide the functionary who grasps at arbitrary power.

You are thoroughly versed in the “philosophy of history.” Its teachings are familiar to your well-stored mind. It would be mere pedantry for me to recite illustrations. I may however, ask you one question, in conclusion. If our forefathers, situated as they were, could erect a new temple of liberty in the wilderness, cemented with their blood, and consecrated by the god-like spirit of WASHINGTON—why shall Virginia bend the knee and bow the head to any earthly authority, North or South, which seeks the demolition of her “ancient prerogatives,” more sacred than the glittering diadem in any kingly crown?

I now, sir, call your attention to the cases refered to, and commend them to your consideration.

To this letter no reply was received. And the writs were issued, and the following proceedings had:

After the judgment and discharge of a few of these men—wishing to avoid further excitement and discussion—I addressed the following letter to the President:

To this letter no reply was received. And each of these soldiers was necessitated to sue out his special writ. And this in the face of the established fact, that the facts of his case had been properly certified and vouched by his commanding officer, which, in military practice, is regarded as conclusive as to facts.

Such, sir, is the history of these cases. It speaks in trumpet tones, and should awaken the dead spirit of the Constitution. Virginia's honor, plighted faith was involved. And yet a Virginia Secretary violated her pledge, stained her escutcheon, and sought to shroud the legal remedies in the folds of his own perturbed will.

You, sir, have long known my views as to Maryland and Virginia. They are candidly expressed in my argument. What I have there uttered will, in a few years, be history. One of two results must now occur on this continent. The ultimate establishment of a vast consolidated, absolute government—based on fraud and sustained by military force: or three separate governments—independent, the one of the other. Two rival governments cannot exist.

To prevent the first alternative, State sovereignty must be sustained; and to secure State sovereignty, Maryland and Virginia must be re-united. This is a mere question of time. You nor myself may live to see it. But the sooner the fact is clearly discerned and practically developed, the better. Remember sir, you deliberate for posterity.