June 15, 1864

The House then resumed the consideration of joint resolution of the Senate (No. 16) submitting to the Legislatures of the several States a proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to discuss directly the question before the House, I wish to devote a few moments in replying to some remarks which fell from the lips of my colleague [Mr. Ross] last evening, and incidentally to remarks which have been uttered by othergenflemensince thisdebate commenced. 1 was surprised at the speech of my colleague last evening, in the whole course of a prepared speech of an hour s length, scarcely one word did he utter by way of rebuke of the rebels and traitors of the South. The entire burden of his speech, with a very small exception, from beginning to end was abuse of the Administration and of°the Government, misrepresentation as to the manner in which the war had been conducted, and allegations against the Union men of the country that they had produced the war and were continuing it with a view to self aggrandizement It is true that he did for a very few moments, in a very mild and ging erly manner, take issue with Jeff. Davis and his crew upon the dogma of the rio ht of States to secede from the Union under the Constitution; but it was done in a very deferential and careful and tender manner. To the balance of his speech it was like a grain of wheat hidden ill a bushel of chaff; you may search for it all day, and when you find it it is not worth the seeking; or like Fulstafl s bill at IV! i s. CXulckly a tavern, a penny worth of bread to an enormous quantity of sack.

My colleague said that lie and the party with which he acts are the friends of the soldier, that he himself introduced into the House a resolution to instruct the Committee on Military Affairs to increase the pay of officers and soldiers thirtythree per cent., but that instead of the committee reporting a bill to increase the pay of officers and soldiers of the Army thirty three per cent, they had only reported a bill to increase the pay of the soldiers ten cents a day, while at the same time they reduced his rations.

Now, what is the truth about this? A bill has been reported and has passed this House to increase the pay of soldiers from thirteen to sixteen dollars per month. It is true that Mat bill also provided for the repeal of part of the act of 1861, which act largely increased the rations of the soldier. And why? Because it was found that the soldier did not require these rations, and did not consume them. It was found that the rations provided by law for the soldiers in the field were sufficient to support a frugal family of a man, wife, and three children. The surplus rations were wasted, or their proceeds went into the pockets of commissaries and quartermasters, or were wasted. No soldier has complained of the reduction of his rations. I defy my colleague or any other gentleman on this floor to point to the case of a single soldier in the Army of the United States who complains of the loss.

True, my colleague did introduce a resolution, as he says, to increase the pay of officers and soldiers thirty three per cent., but I think a few moments examination ofthe votes ofmy colleague and the party with which he acts on other questions will not only convince the House and the country but thesoldiers also, that those measures are not introduced by him from any friendly motive or feeling toward the soldier.

What has been the course of that gentleman and his party on this floor in regard to voting supplies to the Army? What has been their course in regard to raising money to pay the Army? His vote will be found recorded in almost every instance against the appropriation bills, against ways and means for raising money to pay the Army. It is only a week ago last Monday that a bill was introduced hen; to punish guerrillas, to punish those men who infest the woods and highways, playing neutrals when our Army comes along, and then prowling along the highways to shoot the wounded soldier who is dragging his weary footsteps to the rear to a hospital; and now did my colleague vote? Against the bill. First, there was a motion made to lay the bill on the table, and my colleague voted for that motion. On the passage of the bill, when the yeas and nays were again ordered, my colleague voted in the negative. And yet he is the friend of the soldier 1 I submit on this point an extract from the Globe of the proceedings of June 6:

Mr. Garfiki o I am directed by the Committee on Militaiy Affairs to repoit back bill ol the Hou e No. 429, topiovideior the more speedy punishment of guerrillas, on l for other puiposep.

The bill was read in extenso.

Mr. Ancona. How does that bill come in under this call.

The Spfaker. Under the call of States for resolution5? Mis may he introduced. That has been the uniform practice ot the House.

"Mi. Cakhem>. 1 call for the previous question.

"Mr. Lb Blond. 1 move that tiie bill he referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

The Speaker. That motion is not in order during the demand for the previous question.

"Mr, Le Blond. Is a motion to refer to a standing committee in order?

The Speaker. It is not now in order.

"Mr. I e Blond.[ move, then, that the bill be laid upon the table.

Mr. Eldiudge, I demand the yeas and nays.

"The yeas and nays were ordered.

"Mr. Eldiudge. I withdraw the demand for the yeas and nays to see whether the previous question is seconded or not.

The motion to lay upon the table was disagreed to.

"The House was then divided; and there weie—ayes CO, noes 35.

"So the etrH for the previous question was seconded.

Mr. Eldiudge moved that the bill be laid upon the table.

"Mr. Blair, ot West Virginia, demanded the yeas and Mr. Eldridoe demanded tellers ort the yeas and nays. "Tellers were ordered; and Messrs Eldiudge and Cole of California, were appointed.

"The House was divided; and the tellers! reported— ayes thirty five.

So (moic than one fifth voting in favor thereof) the yeas and nays were ordered.

"The question was isiken; and it was decided In the negative—yeas 33, nays G7; as follows:

Yijas—Me rs James 0. Alien, Ancona, Bliss, James 8. Brown, Cot. Cravens, D nvhon Eden, Ed erton Eldridge, Fmelc, Orider, Harding, Hamilton. Charles M. Ilarus, U ruek liutchins, William Johnson, Knm, Le Blond Long, Muilorv, Muiey Mc Dowel!, James R. Morris, Motiw n Noble, Pendleton, Perry, 3tobitv on Roger-*, Itovs. Scott Chilton A. White, and Joseph W. White—33. "Nays—Messrs. Allison, Ames, Arnold, Ashley, Daily, John D. Baldwin, Beaman, Blame, Jacob B. Blair, Broomnil, Imbioso W Ci n k. Cobb, Cole, Creswell, Thomas T. Davis. Dawes, Dixon, Donnelly, Dri« js Eliot, Farnsworth, Fenton, Frank, Garfield, Grimieli, GrisWold Male, Hooper, Hotchki^, A abU W. Uubb ud Joim H. fluhbaid, Ingrrsoll, Jenckes, Julian, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Litth john Longyear, Maivm, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Ciuiles O Neill Orth, 1 atferc on Peiham, Price, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Itice, Edward II. Rollins, Scofield, Shannon, Sloan, Smuhers, Spalding, Thayer, Tracy, Upson, JEJhhu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Whaley, Wilder, Wilson, Wmdom, and Woodbndge—67.

So the bill wus not laid upon the table,

"The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered, which was on the passage of the bill.

"Mr. Alley called for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative—yeas 72, nays 37; as follows:

Yeas—Mes rs Alley, Allison, Ames, Arnold, Ashley, Baily, John D. Baldwin, Beaman, Blaine, Jacob B. Blair, Broomal!, Ambrose W Clark Cobb Cole Creswell Dawes, Dixon Donnelly Diiggs Eliot Farnsworth, Fenton, Frank, Garfield, Gooeh, Grmneil, Griswold, Hale, Hooper, Hotehkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard', John H. Hubbard, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Littlejolm, Longyear, Marvin, Mcindoe, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Charles O Neill Orth, Patterson, Perham, Price, Alexander 11. Rice, John H. Itice, Edward H. Rollins, Scofield, Shannon, Sloan, Smuhers, Spalding, Thayer, Tracy, Upson, F ihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Whaley. Williams, Wilder, Wilson, Windom and Woodbridge

Nays—Messrs. James C. Allen, Aneona, Augustus C. Baldwin, Bliss, Coffroth, Cravens, Henry Winter Davis, Dawson, Denison, Eden, Edgerton, Eldridge, Finck, Grider, Harding, Harrington, Charles M. Harris, Ilutchms, King, Knapp, Le Blond, Long Mallory Marcy, McDowell, Morrison, Noble, Pendleton, Perry, Robinson, Rogers, Ross, Strouse, Voorhees, Wadsworth, Chilton A. White, and Joseph W. White—37.

So the bill was passed."

On the subject of arming slaves, of putting negroes into the Army, how has my colleague and his party voted? Universally against it. They would strip from the backs of these black soldiers, now in the service of the country, their uniforms, and would send them back to slavery with chains ar d manacles. And yet they are the friends of the soldier!

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I rise to a point of order. The gentleman from Illinois is not discussing the question before the House.

The SPEAKER. The constitutional amendment opens a very wide range of debate. The gentleman s colleague [Mr. Ross] to whom he refers followed the same course of debate last evening, and it was tolerated.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. My colleague [Mr. Farnsworth] is only replying to the speech of my other colleague [Mr. Ross] who spoke last night, and on whom no point of order was raised.

The SPEAKER. The Chairhas notattempted to confine gentlemen very closely in debate, for the proposition certainly opens up a very wide range.

Mr. HOLMAN. I trust the point of order will not be pressed. But I trust that he will not charge that the Democratic party has, by any declaration, favored the returning of slaves to rebel mas te rs

Mr. FARNSWORTH. On the vote to repeal the fugitive slave law how did that side of the House vote? Does not the fugitive slave law affect the black soldier in the Army who was a slave? That side of the House are in favor of continuing thefugivive slave law, and of disbanding colored troops. How did that side of the House vote on the question of arming slaves and paying them as soldiers? They voted against it. I They are in favor of disbanding the colored regiments, and, armed with the fugitive slave law, sending the men back to their masters. I do not charge this on the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Holman.] I think he does not vote invariably with his party. He has too much sense and too good a heart for that.

Another objection to this proposition, made by my colleague, [Mr. Ross,] and also by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Fernando Wood,] and by the other gentleman from New York, [M r. Pruyn,] is that it strikes at property; that it interferes With the vested rights of the people of States in property. What constitutes property? I know it is said by some gentlemen on the other side that what the statute makes property is property. 1 deny it. "What vested right has any man or State m property in man? We of the North hold property, not by virtue of statute law, not by virtue of enactments. Our property consists in lands, in chattels, in things. Our property was made property by Jehovah when He gave man dominion over it. But nowhere did He give dominion to man over another man. Our title extends back to the foundation of the world. That constitutes property. There is where we get our title. There is where we getour" vested rights" to property.

In these points are summed up pretty much all the arguments made on the other side of this House against the passage of this bill, and I will occupy no more time in answering them.

Mr. Speaker, at the time of the organization of this Government there were but about fifty thousand slaves within the limits of the United States. When our fathers rose out of the clouds of the Revolution and formed this Constitution, which I trust we are about to amend, no one of them dreamed that slavery in this land would continue until this time.

This fact may be gathered from the writings ofthe men who wrote and from the speeches of the men who spoke in that day. Why, sir, immediately after the Revolution, Congress issued an address to the people in which occur these memorable words:

Let it be remembered, finally, that it has ever been the boast and pride of America that the rights for which she contended are the rights of human nature."

This language was deliberately adopted and addressed to the people of the United States. This was after the Declaration of Independence, wherein they had declared as self evident facts that all men were created equal, and endowed with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And when they followed this by the adoption of the Constitution the greatest care was taken that no words should be incorporated into that instrument which would imply that l man could hold property in man." I use the very language of James Madison, a member ofthe Convention which framed the Constitution. He objected to incorporating the word "slave" or" slavery" into the Constitution for the reason, as he said, that he would have nothing put into it which would recognize the right of a man to hold property in man. And you may search through the Constitution from the beginning to the conclusion of it, and no stranger to the fact that slavery hasexistedintheUmted States would believe for a moment that slavery could exist under it.•

Let that Constitution go before a court which is a stranger to the fact that slavery has existed here, and let it be construed as courts are required to construe written instruments, by itself, without looking to the facts of contemporaneous history, and no judge thus construing the Constitution would say that slavery could exist under it. Our fathers were thus careful in framing the Constitution so that when slavery should be entirely abolished, and when their posterity should come to look in there, they could find nothing to mar its beautiful symmetry. That was the object, that when future generations came to look at that sacred instrument they should not find anything in it to indicate or imply that slavery ever existed in this land. Why, sir, they believed that slavery was going to die out speedily. Already steps had been taken in several of the States toward the abolition of slavery, and several of the States abolished it soon afterwards. There were, as I said before, but fifty thousand slaves in the Union. The raising of slaves for market was unprofitable. The old fathers who made the Constitution, the men who fought the battles ofthe Revolution, fought for the lights of human nature, and they believed that slavery was at war with the rights of human nature. Of course such men, who had just gone through the fires of a seven years' war for those principles, and who framed the Constitution upon such a base, believed that slavery would die, and that speedily. Mr. Jefferson in his Notes on Virginia, says: "In the very first session held under the republican Government the Assembly [of Virginia] passed a law for the perpetual prohibition of the importation ot slaves. This will in some inua uio stop the increase ot this great ■political and moral evil, while the minds of our citizens maybe ripening tor a complete emancipation of human nature."

Why, sir, it has been said by gentlemen over the way, if not now I have heard the sentiment uttered before on that side of the House, and by men of that party, that the" human nature" lefcrred to in that address of Congress was not meant to apply to black human nature; that that only meant white men, Anglo Saxons—Anglo Saxon human nature! But Mr. Jefferson declares that the abolishing of the importation of slaves may prepare the way for the "speedy emancipation of human nature." That shows what was meant and how those words were understood and used by the good old Democrats of the Revolution. They included every son and daughter of Adam, whether born under a tropical or a frigid sky. One of the first things they did was to prohibit slavery in all the territory belonging to the United States. They said," We will see to it that this great curse shall spread no further." Why, sir, this shows the hearts and heads of our forefathers were imbued with the spirit of freedom, emancipation—abolition, if you please. In the very first Congress under the Constitution of the United States a petition was presented to it by Benjamin Franklin, as the president of an abolition society of Philadelphia, praying Congress to go to the very verge of the authority vested in them for the abolition of slavery.

I refer to these things for the purpose of showing the doctrine which prevailed in thatday," in the early and better days of the Republic." But, sir, alas! it happened we took our departure from these landmarks. Men became greedy and avaricious. The invention of the cotton gin the cultivation of cotton made it profitable to raise men and women for the southern market. The price of slaves was enhanced; from being worth $250 they went up to 1 200 and §1 300 Then the greed for power took possession of the slaveholders, and the avarice of these men overleaped itself and they became clamorous for the extension of slavery. The bounds were too narrow for them. They became ambitious of a nation that should be founded upon the" corner corner-stone of slavery." Then it was, Mr. Speaker, that the slave power got the control of the Government, of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments. Then it was that they got possession of the high places of society. They took possession of the churches. They took possession of the lands. Then it became criminal for a man to open his lips in denunciation of the evil and sin of slaveholding. Then followed those scenesof jiotand bloodshed in the North, the dragging ol Garrison through the streets of Boston with aropeaiound his neck to be hanged; the issuing of a message by the Governor of Massachusetts, Edward Everett, declaring that the men agitating the slavery question were indictable at common law; the indictment in southern States of men in the North for anti-slavery publications in the city of New York. Then came requisitions upon the Governor^ of the North to surrender the bodies ol these men to be taken South to be tried; the offering rewards for the heads of northern men; the murder of Love joy at Alton; the thrusting of that old patriot Joshua R. Giddings, out of Congress; the attempt to expel John Quincy Adams; the throttling of the right of petition; suppressing the freedom of the press; the suppression of the freedom of the mails; all these things followed the taking possession of the Government and lands by the slave power, until we were the slaves of slaves, being chained to the car of this slave Juggernaut. Both the great political parties of the country wore its yoke and were prostrate before its power. But, thank God, there were men in the land who stood shoulder to shoulder and declared that they would not be slaves, that they would still make their voice and action felt. The better sense of the people began to revolt against the continued aggressions of this monster. Agitation continued, agitation simply to bring back the country to the landmarks of the fathers, to make this what it professed to be, to wit, a republican Government, to maintain the rights of" human nature," for which our fathers had declared they had fought. Then came the conventions of the rival political parties, in which they declared that the agitation of this vexed question should cease. But it would not cease, for the slave power was still clamoring for more, more, more! Then came the decision of the Supreme Court. Why, sir, the spii it of slavery took possession of that court and instigated the palsied arm of a judge upon the brink of the grave to attempt to snatch the charter of human liberty from the throne of the AliTi i 111 y.

f need not go further with the history of this subject. We all know how it culminated. When we stood in the breach and declared that slavery should go no fur her that it should not spread over the land, that they should not "call the roll of their slaves under the shadow of Bunker Hill nor "flog them in the corn fields of Hhnois, then the slaveholders brought on the rebellion. Yet strange as it is, men from, the free North still cling to the carcass of slavery, and try to galvanize it into new life, and say to it," Thou shalt not surely die!" Although this is an old subjectto many, yet I desire for a few moments to call the attention of the House to the comparative benefits and evils of free and slave institutions as they are practically illustrated by the census reports. I wish to read from a speech I had the honor to make in this House six years ago the present Congress. I then said:

"Virginia lias something over sixty thousand square miles of territory, while New York has some forty seven thousand square miles. Vngmia has as good a soil, and a better climate than New York—and had much the start in settlement! I have prepared a table which I will give, showing the progress of the two States up to L850:

Total population at different periods, including slaves 1790. 1800. 1830. 1850. Virginia 748 308 8S0 200 1 211 405 1 421 631 New York 340 120 586 756 1 918 608 3 097 394 Again, sir; in 1850 there was invested hi church property in New York 21 134 207 and in Virginia the sum of only 2 856 076 At that time there were published in New York 428 riew papeis with an aggregate circulation on 10 385 473 while in Vnguiia there were but 87, with a circulation of 9 223 008 New York expends 2 50u 000 yeaily for educational purposes, while Virginia expends about §700 000 In Virginia, taking the entire free white native population, there are 75 868 adults over twenty j years of age who cannot read or write, while in New York there are but 23 241 of the same class. In New York it is about one in fifty of the adults, while in Vngmia it is about one in five! Sixty yeas* ago Virginia ranked as the noblest and richest State or them all; she was then justly regarded as the mother of statesmen and of States; then she had ten Representatives, while New York had only six. Now New York has thirty tine and Virginia thirteen. Why, sir, John Randolph said a good many years ago 4 Virginia isso impoverished by the system ot slavery, that the tables will sooner or later be turned, and the slaves will advertise for runaway masters.'

"Take another example: Kentucky and Ohio, nearly eqU tl in ariM, Kentucky having the advantage in climate; and m all other ip per ts a-^ to soil, position, and natural re ouiees equal to Ohio; and how do they stand in the iaee ot piogress? Kentucky had much the start, having, in 1790, 73 000 inhabitant*, while Ohio had none. Kentucky was admitted into the Union by act of Congress of Fobi uary 1791. Ohio was admitted in 1803, with one Representative. /ti the year 10U0 Kentucky had 221 000 inhabitants, and Ohio had only 45 365 In 18 20 Kentucky had 564 000 while Ohio had 581 000 And in 1850 Kentucky had 982 605 while Ohio had 1 980 329 It will be borne in mind that lhi> enumeration in Kentucky includes over 210 000 slave*, while in Ohio they are all freemen.

In 1850 Kentucky had 62 newspapers, with a circulation of 6 582 838 and Ohio had 201 newspaper*, with a circulation ot 30 473 407 Kentucky had 131 M0 pupilsand students attending schooK, and Ohio had 5L4 09 attending behooK Kentucky has now 10 Representatives, and Ohio 21; and after I860 the disparity will be much greater. Upon the adoption ofthe Federal Constitution,! think South Carolina had five Representatives. In seventy years this State, which, if we are to believe her statesmen, haasuch an excellent social and political system, and .such a pure and genuine democracy, has managed, principally by the increase of her slaves, (who now number more than half her entire population,) to grow just one Representative.

"Take one other example, -Mr. Speaker, and I have done with this subject—Alabama, the most flourishing of all the slave States In 1820 she had 127 900 inhabitants; while Illinois, at the same time, had but 55 200 They were admitted into the Union about the same time. I think Illinois was admitted m December, 1818, and Alabama in December, lt 19 Well, there they are, J fairly started in the race ofpiogie-«. Alabama having inoie than twice as many people a* Illinois, sitnatcdnectly upon the Gulf of Mexico, with the harbor of MobOc, capable ot accommodating almost the entire shipping of the world; her products of a much more valuable character than those of Illinois; while Illinois was a far western State, difficult of acce s far away from the ea coast and from an inviting market. Now, sir, let us see 'what time they have made' in the race, and how they come out.

Population.

1820. 1830. 1840. 1850. AHhima 127 900 309 527 590 756 771 623 157 44 476 183 851 470 '■This include* M ive Ji l all. The white population of Al ibama 111 1850 \vi- only ami to uay f sir, while Illinois lias more than a million and a Ii ilf ot "cpincn there are not probably more than half a million in Alabama. In Alabama, in 1 0 there we«> bO with an auL ieuate circulation of 2 G6 3 41 and in with a circulation of 5 10"" °76 In Alabama there were 02 84 5 pupils and students attending schools. See; and m Illinois there were, at the same tune, 18 2 292 attending schools." In 188# theiPopuiauo.. of Increase from 1850 toUSU in Tupnia;.. WJO This includes 490 000 slaves in Virginia. In 1800 the population of Alabama was t.« Illinois was

Increase from 1850 to 1850 >n Alabama 30 000 ii i( K Illinois OUU JUU This includes 435 030 slaves in Alabama.

"What an astounding picture is this I Kentucky has as good a soil, a better climate, more valuable productions, a larger area of territory, and with seventy thousand inhabitants before Ohio had any, and yet when they started upon the race how steadily Ohio gained upon and overtook her competitor and marched onward and upward in the race of progress.

1 made a calculation in reference to the comparative influences of free and slave institutions upon public intelligence:

In Massachusetts, in 1850, there were but one thousand and fifty five native white persons over the age of twenty years who could notread and write; oraboutoneto every seven hundred and seventy eightof the entire white native population. At the same time there were of the same class in Alabama thirty three thousand six hundred and eighteen who could not read and write, or one to every twelve and a half of the entire white native population; and that is about tiie average in the slave States. Why, sir, in the slaveholding States to day from eighteen to twenty per cent, of all the free white native voters cannot read the ballots they east, nor sign their own names to a poll book

My friend near measles if these men, who cannot read and write, do not vote the Democratic ticket. I can only say that they generally do in my State. Now, sir, we see that the effects of slavery are baneful, that it is in every conceivable form a curse to the soil, to the people, to intelligence, and to industry; a curse to white men and to black men; that it cripples and palsies; that wherever its giroccobreath floats overaTerritory it poisons the stream of prosperity and intelligence; and that where the spirit of liberty breathes upon a State it rises like a giant and becomes great, prosperous, and powerful. And yet gentlemen will cling to this old carcass of human slavery. They will not let -it go.

I thank God that the Republic has at last recognized the manhood of the negro. Gentlemen may call us" miscegenists," and they may talk of equal rights. I do not know of any man in the party to which I belong who is fearful of coming into competition with the negro. 1 know there are many men of the party of my colleague who spoke last evening, [wlr. Ross,] who do feel that the negro is their natural competitor and rival, and they do fear, and fear with some reason, too, that the negroes will outstrip them if we give them a fair chance. I have heard gentlemen talk about their fears that negroes might become Representatives upon this floor. Well, I am inclined to think that the country would not suffer by such a change in some instances. Oh! they are afraid of" negroequality and miscegenation." You must not unchain the slave and allow him the fruits of his own toil and permit lum to fight for the Republic for fear of negro equality and miscegenation. Can the head or heart ol man conceive of anything more mean and despicable?

The slave owner *s cutting at the heart of the nation; yea, sir, he is cutting at the throats of your sons and brothers, of your neighbors and friends; he is with mad desperation seeking to destroy the beautiful fabric of this nation, and to quench in our blood the fires of republican liberty which have burned so long, a beacon light to other nations, and the hope of the world. All this he is trying to do that he may erect a slave empire instead; and yet men who falsely call themselves patriots and Union men. are unwilling to let slavery go. Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid of" miscegenation." If my colleague over the way is afraid of it, if he requires the restraining influences of a penal statute to keep liim and his party from running into miscegenation, I will willingly vote lt to them. But we do not want it; we do not practice miscegenation; we do not belong to that school; that is a Democratic institution; that goes hand in hand with slavery. Why, sir, some of the verybest blood of the Democracy of Virginia may be found in the contraband village at Arlington today; the blood of the Masons, the Hunters, the Garnetts, the Cartels, and the Haxalls; their lineal though natural descendants are among the contrabands.

I said I thank God that this nation at last has recognized the manhood of the negro, lt diutliat when it put on him the uniform of a soldier ot the Republic, and put him into the field to defend the country. His rights and his manhood were recognized, and nobly does he vindicate himself. Sir, I know something of the good faith, of the reliability and nobility of the negroes, and of the faithfulness with which they assist us. Ine very first information that the army of McClellan had of the approach of Jackson from the Shenandoah toward Mechanicsville was given by a contraband who came into my lines a little above Atlee s station. When I had examined him I sent him to headquarters, with a note stating that he possessed and had given me valuable information. Porter sent him back to me with directions to send him through my lines again for more information. That very night he passed through the picket lines of the enemy, and in twenty four hours returned with information of the exact position of Jackson and his army, and of his designs. And yet, according to the doctrine of my colleague, I should have put chains and manacles on that man, and with stripes sent him back to his master. What right had he there? Set at him the blood-hounds of the fugitive slave law; "theCoNSTiTUTioNguarantiesslavery; you are agitating the rebels and making them worse." Irritating them; yes, sir, that is the expression. I irritated that man s master by not sending him back. Was not that man more valuable to the Government than Jeff. Davis and his whole crew ever were? Was he not better entitled to respect from the white men of this nation than any man now in the rebel ranks, or who sympathizes with them, no matter what his position or wealth?

Mr. ROSS. I desire to ask the gentleman whether he thinks the white man is equal to the negro.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, that is a silly question which it is useless to answer. I think some white men are better than some other white men. I think some white men are better than some negroes, and that some negroes are better than some white men, especially those of the copperhead persuasion

Mr. Speaker, upon every battle field where the black troops have had any chance to show their gallantry and bravery, they have vindicated the high estimation which has been placed upon them ami the confidence imposed in them in elevating them to the position of soldiers. I know it used to be said when the idea of arming the blacks was first broached that white soldiers would not fight by the side of black men. Go to the Army to day and witness the charge of a black brigade, and then come back and tell me whether the white soldieris not willing that the black man shall light by his side. Witness the shouts and plaudits and cheers which ring out from the throats of the white soldiers as the black men march steadily up to the serried lines of the rebels, and then come b ck and tell me if the white man is not willing that the black man shall help him to fight the battles of his country.

Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of finishing this business entirely and finally now. No child is so simple as not to know that slavery is the cause of this war; that it is the source of all our woe. Then why not finish it? It has spread the land with weeds and mourning. It has hung the very heavens with black. It has disgraced and dishonored us long enough with the other nations of the earth, and God is now chastising us for the sin.

Mr. THAYER. Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to detain the House at this late period of the present discussion with any protracted expression of my views in regard to the measure now before the House. I rise merely to make one or two suggestions in reply to the line of argument which was pursued yesterday upon this question by gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, and to give my reasons why I believe it to be the duty of every man who lias the welfare of his country at iujait 10 vote im the joint resolution now before the House. With that class of thinkers who agree with the member from the. fifth congressional district of New York [Mr. Fernando Wood] that slavery is the best possible condition for the negro race, or for any race, I do not intend at the present time to enter into argument. Sir, I would consider it derogatory to the representatives of a free people to enter into a deliberate argument to refute a proposition so monstrous and so barbarous as that enunciated by the gentleman fiorn New York. Humanity and civilization revolt against a sentiment so inhuman m itself, and so debasing to the mind that holds it, as the sentiment which we listened to yesterday, that slavery is the best possible condition of the negro race.

Mr. FERNANDO WOOD, i reaffirm it.

Mr. THAYER. I am willing that he shall reaffirm it. Let that record which he here reaffirms to day go down to posterity in the history of this country, and let those who act with the gentleman from New York assume the responsibility of that sentiment before the country if they dare.

Sir, the gentleman from New York has a right to his sentiments. He has a right to express them. While I find no fault with his expression of them I can only say that for myself I would not hold or avow a sentiment so barbarous, so cruel, and so inhuman in its character as that for all the wealth and honor that are embraced within the four quarters of the world.

I do not intend, sir, to enter into an argument to show that the negro is not a brute but a man. I will not insult the presence in which I stand by entering into an argument to prove that which every man s conscience, which every man s humanity, must or ought to admit without argument. I have said, sir, that I do not intend in the few moments during which I shall occupy the attention of the House to deal with that kind of argument. I content myself here with simply denouncing such sentiments as those expressed by the gentleman from New York as barbarous, inhuman, uncivilized and unchristian. I am willing that the record which he has made shall go down to posterity as he has chosen to make it yesterday and to reaffirm it to day

Mr. FERNANDO WOOD. That is why I did it, for posterity, not for this House, nor for the fanaticism of the day.

Mr. THAYER. I pass from that. I have nothing to say to men who hold sentiments of that character. In my opinion it js too late in the history of the world, and too late in the history of this country, for it to be necessary to enter into any argument to prove the falsity and the inhumanity of a sentiment like that to which I have ■referred.

But, sir, I pass to some objections which were urged to the passage of this joint resolution on the ground of a want of power in Congress to pass it. It was said by the gentleman from New York from the fourteenth district [Mr. Pruyn] that we had no right—at least I understood that to be the line of his argument provide for an amendment of this character to the Constitution. He referred to the fact that all the amendments of the Constitution that have hitherto been adopted were restrictive in their character. And, if I understood him, he meant to build upon a statementof that fact an argument that we had no light so to amend the Constitution as to enlarge the powers of the General Government. I take issue with the gentleman on thatargument. I stand on the Constitution when I say that the people of the United States have by the forms and instrumentalities prescribed in the Constitution an unlimited right to amend that instrument, except in the particulars in which they are prohibited by the fundamental law itself. When I find in an instrument like this a power given to amend in every respect except in certain specified particulars, on what has an argument to stand which says that you can only amend it in one direction, that you can only amend it in a manner that shall restrain and contract the powers originally granted, and that you cannot amend it in a direction that will enlarge its powers or improve its character? Such a principle as that conflicts with the very foundationsofliberty. Upon what ground, I ask, are the people of the United States to be told that they cannot, if they choose, improve the fundamental law of their Government? Suppose (he people of the United States were to propose to amend the Constitution so as to enlarge the presidential term of office to six years, would that be a restriction of the rights already granted? Undoubtedly not. And yet, according to the theory of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Pruyn,] they could not so amend the Constitution. So if the people should choose to alter the Constitution in regard to the length of service of their Representatives in Congress, or to enlarge the powers of Congress, they clearly may do it. I suppose there is no one on this floor who would deny that proposition. And yet such an amendment would be in direct contravention of the principle laid down by the gentleman from New York, because it would not be a restriction or limitation of the rights already granted, but an enlargement of them.

I mightmultiply these illustrationsindefinitely, but there is no necessity to do so. The fallacy of the argument is as clearly demonstrated by one example as it would be by a hundred. The truth is that there is not the slightest foundation for the principle laid down by the gentleman from New York.

The people have, in making the Constitution, reserved to themselves aright of amendment unlimited, except m the particulars in which they have chosen, in the fifth article, to restrain themselves from amendment, and those are so clearly defined that it is impossible to fall into any mistake in regard to them. You cannot alter the equality of suffrage in the Senate without the consent of the State to be affected thereby. You could not, prior to 1808, prohibit the slave trade or alter the proportion of direct taxes to the census as prescribed in the ninth section of the first article. These were fundamental points which the framers of the Constitution declared should not be changed. In no other respects was the will of the people to be restricted. In all other matters the power of amendment is unlimited. In all other matters three fourths of the States may amend, revise, restrict, enlarge, or correct, as it may suit their own judgment.

Sir, this is a matter for the people of the United States. We are not amending the Constitution. We do not propose to amend the Constitution. We propose by this joint resolution to afford the people the opportunity of amending their Constitution if they see proper to exercise that power. When the Legislatures of the several States shall act upon the amendment proposed to them by Congress in accordance with the provisions ofthe Constitution, they will act as the representatives of the people. The votes which they will give for or against any such amendment are the votes of the representatives of the people. Their voices are the voice of the people. If then, sir, the people have an unlimited right of amendment of their Constitution except in so far as they have chosen in the fundamental law to restrain themselves from the exercise of that right, the only question which remains is whether it is proper at the present time to afford the people the opportunity of so amending the Constitution of the United States, if they shall see proper so to do, as to prohibit slavery forever within the territory of the United States.

But here we are met with the objection that the time is not auspicious for such action; that it is not a proper time to amend the Constitution in this respect. Why, sir, what time could be more opportune for effecting this great national reform than the present time? What hour is more proper for the punishment of a great State criminal than the hour in which he is found engaged in the commission of his crime? This institution, sir, has waged war against the life, the liberties, and the Government of the nation; and this institution for this crime deserves to die. It should die in the commission of its great and unpardonable crime. No more proper time could be fixed for inflicting the punishment than the time in which it is engaged in carrying on this desolating war against the very existence of the Government.

But we are told that this will exasperate the people ofthe South; that we should act calmly upon so grave a measure; that it will drive the South to fiercer resistance. Sir, if a smile were not out of place in the discussion of a subject so terrible and so distressing in its character as the war which now rages in this country, surely such an argument as this would justify it. The atrocities committed by the traitors in arms have been so many and so great that it is mere folly t speak of increasing their hatred or exasperation. To the ferocity and vindictiveness of those who, for the extension and perpetuation of this cruel and e- morseless institution, have commenced and are now carrying on this war against the Government of the United States, you can add nothing by any legislation which youmay propose here; youcun add nothing to the hate which these conspirators against public liberty entertain against the free institutions of the United States" and the people who are in arms to defend them.

I repeat, sir, that now is the time to uproot and destroy forever this prolific cau e of all our sufferings. Let the institution of human slavery, which has seton foot this diabolical war and filled the land with desolation and sorrow perish from the earth. It alone stands between our countryanil its future greatness, prosperity, and glory. Let us so act to day that its injustice, its cruelties, and its bloody footprints shall speedily and forever disappear from the soil of America.

Mr. MALLORY. I not only take issue with the gentleman from Pennsylvania who just addressed the House, on his assertion that this is preeminently the time to amend the Constitution, Tout, sir, I believe the calm reason of the House, if they would submit themselves to their calm reason, and the calm reason of the country, will bear me out in declaring that of all the times, from the foundation of the Government down to the present moment, for taking into consideration the Constitution, that great instrument of organic law, for the purpose of alteration and amendment, this is the most in opportune and unfit. That instrument, sir, was given us by a band of men the like of whom I believe has never been seen' in this or any other country; men of wisdom unparalleled; men of almost more than human wisdom, for I believe I shall be sustained in the declaration which I now make iti the full view of history and of the great events in which they lived, those noble sires, when they gave us that great instrument, spoke almost as men inspired with wisdom from on high.

Do you tell me, when the passions of the entire country are swayed to and fro by the civil war now raging in our midst, when the public passion and feeling are upheaved from their lowest depths, that we are fit, calmly and deliberately, to acton the work of those great masters and say in what particulars it should be changed? Sir, the declaration is one of arrogance and presumption, against which I offer my solemn protest. Who are the men who are to take into consideration and pass in review this wonderful work of those mighty men? Where are the giants of the present day to correct the work of the giants of the past? Do we see them in this Hall? I cannot see them. Do we see them in the Senate of the United States? That was a great body in former times. They are not there. Are they to be found in this country, either in high official position orin the walks of private life? If they are, I have failed to find out where and who they are.

Sir, when you compare the pigmies who undertake to trifle with the Constitution and the legislation of this land upon this floor to day with the great men who framed and expounded that Constitution in the earlier and better days of the Republic, it is like comparing Hyperion to a satyr.

Nu, Mr. Speaker, this is not the time for changing the Constitution of theUnited States. When men return to their reason, or when reason returns to men, when passion has subsided, when this civil war has ended, and peace spreads her wings over this land, will be time, if there be a necessity for it, to consider this greatsystein and attach to it such amendments as the calm wisdom of that day shall adjudge proper. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Thayer] feel that he is competent to examine and analyze and alter and amend this great instrument? Has he the conscious powei r

Mr. THAYER. In this particular! think that we are all fitted.

Mr. MALLORY. In this particular! Why, sir, in this particular* you are less fitted to act than in anyother particular that can be imagined. You cannot reason about the institution of slavery. You cannot judge about it. You run a" muck" whenever the question is introduced into this Hall. No word of reason, no word of judgment, and no word of sense scarcely falls tiom your lips when the subject is mooted. Yet in this particular you feci yourselves competent to do better than the great men who framed this Government have done!

The provisions of that great instrument in relation to the subject of slavery were the result of compromise, without which this Government never could have been framed. To that Constitution, with that and other compromises embraced in it, every State in the Union gave not only an implied but a direct and express assent. We are informed by the best waters on the science of government at least they have consented to the tiutli of the aphorism, that" all government derives its lust powers from she consent of the o uvemcd Even now in this time of war, in this time of passion and excitement, to change the Constitution oh a vital point, when eleven States are not here to consult and act with us, and when their assent to this altered Constitution is not expressed and cannot be implied by any sort of forced construction, and say that the^ shall be subjected to it, is in utter violation of this great and just principle They do not compose a foreign country and a foreign Government, as so many on that side of the House have asserted. They are States of the Union yet, who have formally given their assent to the Constitution which you now propose to amend. If you change it in their absence what right have you to declare that they shall abide by it? If all Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, when you have amended this Constitution what right have you to say to those States in revolt, who are not here to day to engage in your deliberations, that they are bound by that Constitution to which they have given neither assent or dissent?

Sir, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Thayer] urged that this amendmentis necessary; ay, in that new language which the President of the United States has put into their mouths, I suppose he and his party would say indispensable in order to preserve the peace of this country and the integrity and perpetuity of the Government. It is necessary, it is indispensable in order to effect these great objects that slavery now, when you have the power in the absence of those States, should be stricken from existence. And they say this is necessary because it is impossible to continue this Government of ours any longer with slavery in it. Jit is such a disturbing element that peace and slavery are incompatible, and through all time, if you permit this crisis to pass without exterminating it, you will have this disturbing cause to produce civil war in this country.

I deny that theory. From the commencement of this Government down to this time period of seventy five years—slavery has existed in the United States, and I defy the most astute man upon that side of the House to point to a nation that has progressed like ours in everything which makes a nation great, prosperous, and happy, in the same space of time. It was not until you undertook to strike down this institution that it became a disturbing element, and agitation to restrict and destroy it, commenced by the North, and for its extension by the South, have produced the effects from which we are now suffering. Slavery inconsistent with the republican liberty which we have enjoyed under the Constitution of the United States' Slavery inconsistent with peace! An irrepressible conflict between free and slave States in the same Confederacy The absurdity of the doctrine is proved by the inexorable logic of history; by proof incontestable and absolute.

Where do those who differ most widely upon the subject of slavery live? On the Gulf of Mexico, and away up in the cold region of New England; States not in contact; States as wide apart almost as the poles; in SouthCarolina from which a slave rarely ever escaped, and Massachusetts, into which one, scarcely ever fled, whose people rarely met, and knew little of each other. But 111 the border States where 1 live, where free and slave States come in contact, a different state of feeling prevails. Take the immense strip of country where this contact exists along the Ohio river; take Kentucky on one side and Indiana on the other; Kentucky on one side and Illinois on the other; Virginia on one side and Ohio on the other; Missouri on one side and Illinois on the other, and Missouri and Iowa, and I defy any man to point out any portion of the people of this country who have lived in more perfect peace and accord and harmony. The southern portion of those free States bordering on the slave States, along the Ohio, have never objected to the institution of slavery. They have agreed withussocially; they have had constant friendly intercourse with us as neighbors; they have returned our property, and the most friendly relations have existed between those portions of the free States and the slave States along the Ohio.

But when you go further north you find a people who are constantly exciting the public mmd by inflammatory writings and speeches, and by everything calculated to arouse afeehng of hatred against the people of slave States. There is no irrepressible conflict between the free and slave States; no want of homogeneity in the people of those States in which slavery exists and those in which it does not exist; and there is no enmity except that which has been engendered by the teachings of the enemies of our country North and South. An aspersion of this kind is a mere pretext; it has always been such, and it has nothing to warrant it. Did not theStates which adopted this Constitution, did notthe State which Irepre' sent, and of which I am proud, when they gave their consent to the Constitution of the United States, pledge themselves that every State should be preserved particularly in the light to hold slaves, for I do not want to talk about the matter in that limited and confined viewbut did they not pledge themselves that every State should have the right to the unfettered control of their own domestic institutions in their own way? If we were disposed not to value slavery and cared nothing about it, yet we ought to stand in solid phalanx protesting against this infringement which, if not rebuked, will reduce us to abject submission and slavery. Give up our right to have slavery if we choose, submit to have that right wrested from us, and in what right are we secure' One after another will be usurped by the President and Congress, until all State rights will be gone, and perhaps State limits obliterated, and a grand imperial despotism erected on the ruins of our rights and liberties. It will matter very little whether this is accomplished by amendments to the Constitution, orunder the plea of military necessity, or under the claim that whatever is indispensable is lawful, even though clearly in violation of the Constitution. Against this consummation I will speak and if necessary to prevent it, I will fight.

Kentucky, sir, protesting here on this floor, protesting by her people, protesting through her press, protests against amendment of the Constitution at this time, and does not hold herself bound to a Constitution that you change in spite of her protest and in spite of the absence of those States which would aid her in preventing that amendment.

You say that slavery is incompatible with peace, and fealty and allegiance tp the Constitution dangerous to the Union. Sir, did the existence of slavery in Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland lead those States into rebellion against the General Government? Did it induce them to follow the lead of South Carolina into rebellion? Yet slavery existed there. It exists in those States now. llow then can you, in the face of this proof, say thatslavery cannotexist inStates and those States be loyal? Why persist in the declaration that it is impossible to preserve the Union and letslavery exist? In making this declaration you give the, lie to your President and his prime minister. Seward, in his letters to Dayton and Adams, says," Slavery will remain whether the rebellion succeeds or fails." Ah, Mr. Speaker, slavery is not properly a ground or a cause for a dissolution of this Union, for civil war, or for disturbance. But I am very much afraid that the party upon the other side of the House, aided by the present Administration of the General Government, may make slavery the cause for the disruption of this Union. You have changed your whole policy in regard to the war. You have converted it from a war to preserve the Union, as you acknowledge and boldly declare, into a war for the abolition of slavery, because y° ®iy that is the only way to preserve the (Jtiion. "What has been the effect of your course? You have united the people of the southern States m solid phalanx and divided the people of the North, and alienated to a great extent the people of States who were almostundivided atthe commencement of the war. By your peculiar policy, the confiscation bill, the freedmen s bill, and now by your, proposed- amendment to the Constitution, you have made the South a unit against you, wlicx e at the commencement of the war there was a divided opinion.

Sir, I remember a. remarkable statement rnaue of the great man who now heads the Administration of this Government, and whom you are trying tn make your President for the next four years on this subject. On the Sunday preceding the day on which the extra session of Congress was to adjourn in 1861 1 called upon the Piesidentby appointment in company with two of iwy colleagues, now dead, the lamented Crittenden, and Jackson who fell so gallantly at the battle of Perryville, and my colleague from the Maysville district Mr Wadsworth.] Congress had passed the confiscation bill, limited in its operation and scope, confiscating only the property of rebels used in the rebellion and emancipating the slaves so used. We thought we saw in that measure the commencement of this emancipation policy of the Government which would lead to disastrous results. We visited the President with a view of trying to induce him to forbid that law. We had a long and free conversation with him. He left the impression on my mind and on the minds of my colleagues that he would not give his sanction to that law. He said that he was opposed to this whole system of legislation, and left the impression on us, although he did not say so m express terms, that he would veto that bill. In the course ofthat conversation he turned to meand, addressing me personally, said: "Mr. Mallory, this war, so for as I have anything to do with it, is carried on on the idea that there is a Union sentiment in these States, which, when set free from the control now held over it by the presence of the confederate or rebel power, will be sufficient to replace those States in the Union. If I am mistaken in this, if there is no such sentiment there, if the people of those States are determined with unanimity, or with a feeling approaching unanimity, that their States shall not be members of this Confederacy, it is beyond the powerof the people of the other States to force them to remain in the Union and said he," in that contingency— in the contingency that there is not that sentiment there—this war is not only an error; it is a crime." That was his declaration at the commencement of this war. Since then he has been induced to change his policy by his friends on the other side of the House.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?

Mr. MALLORY. 1 have only forty minutes, and must decline to yield.

Mr. STEVENS. I dislike to raise a point of order on the gentleman; but if he will not let me ask my question, I shall have to do so.

Mr. MALLORY. Go on and make your point of order. I do not yield under a threat.

Mr. STEVENS. I do not threaten; and if the gentleman takes it unkindly, 1 will withdraw the request. I thought he was going on out of order.

Mr. MALLORY. If the gentleman asks me in that way i will yield to him. I did not wish to yield under a threat,

Mr. STEVENS. Oh, no; I meant no threat. I withdraw the request.

Mr. MALLORY. Mr. Speaker, from that time to this charge here—the President of the United States, after having made tome thisderlaration, and his aiders and abettors on that side of the House have persistently, constantly and with diabolical ingenuity, struggled by their legislation and policy to crush out the Union sentiment existing in the southern States. I go further, and s iy that 1 believe that by that harsh policy they have accomplished their purpose. I go still further, and say that 1 believe, with many a man on that side of the House, this was designed and looked for and intended. They wished to crush out Union sentiment in the South, and to have nobody there their friend. They wished to pursue that whole country with a sword in one hand and a fire brand in the other, burning and destroying as they went, in order todo—what? To wipe out the white people of the country and supplant them by black free men, whom they are going to make American citizens, to be controlled and governed by the northern emigrants whom they may think proper to send there from New England.

I am very much afraid, Mr. Speaker, as I charged a few moments ago, that by that policy, by that persistent effort to exterminate slavery by means of cruel and unconstitutional acts, they have succeeded in rendering a continuation of this Union impossible, and theymay in that way have made slavery the cause of the dissolution of the Union. 1 deplore it, sir. This Union is the very life blood of Kentucky, and I deplore its destruction. I will raise my voice and do any act to prevent a consummation which we in our State would deplore as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, evil that could befall uu. If you say to those rebellious States, "Submit to the authority of the Federal Government, yield obedience to the law," they have the right to ask you what they are to expect if they comply with your demand. And what is the reply? "You are to expect that you shall be stripped of every particle of your property. You have to expect that the right of self government will be taken from you. You have to expect that the President and Congress will frame and impose on you such form of State government "as they may think proper; that the President shall indicate notonly the men who shall vote in the elections for members of Congress and of the State Legislatures, but shall also indicate the men who shall be elected to those offices, and the peculiar qualifications of electors and office holders in those States. You have to expect nothing better than that. You are to expect, if you come back, to come back the abject and submissive slaves of the conquering power." Sir, in the most arrogant days of the Roman empire, when, after a province was subdued, the conqueror came back to Rome with a long train of captives following his chariot and forced to pass sub jugo, there never was presented a spectacle more mournful and degrading than that which you propose to subject this people to.

Mr. WADSWORTH. It is impossible.

Mr, MALLORY. I believe it is impossible, it cannot be done until all spirit and pride are crushed out of a gallant and proud race, and that can only be done when they are exterminated.

Mr. Speaker, what is the necessity for this constitutional amendment? Why do gentlemen of the Republican party want to tamper with the Constitution? TheBaltimoreconvention indorses every act of the President of the United States; and the President says in his letter to A. G. Hodges, of Kentucky, that while there is a step to be taken indispensable to save the nation he will take it, although he knows it to Mi in violation of the Constitution, and that he has a right todo it, and that such step is lawful. Lawful to violate the Constitution which he has taken a solemn oath to protect and defend! Lawful to violate that in order to presrve the nation by the commission of any act he may deem indispensable to such preservation! Oh! what fidelity to the Constitution rests on the conscience of that great man 1 Whatalaw maker what a law giver what a law enforcer he is! Would he not be a pretty amender of the Constitution of the United States framed by Washington and Hamilton and Madison? Why do you want to change it?

The President strikes down the writ of habeas corpus, the safeguard of personal liberty, and says that is indispensable and is right. And you support him m it. He abolishes trial byjury, and says that it is indispensable to do it in order to get at traitors; and you say so, too, and that he has a light to do it, because he deemed it indispensable. He has arrested without" warrant" and condemned without "due process of law" hundreds of our citizens, and confined them in prisons and forts, who have been ascertained to be guiltless of any crime, and you approve it. He has subjected hundreds of free citizens not in military service to be tried by military tribunals, and punished by martial law, and you indorse it. He struck down slavery, as he himself acknowledges, in defiance of the rights of the States to control their own domestic institutions. He says it was in violation of the Constitution, and that he knew it when he did it. You say it was indispensable as a war measure, and, constitutional or unconstitutional, it is right. Very well; why, then, do you want to tamper with the Constitution? Why do you want to change the Constitution? Why do you want to exercise this power through the Constitution to accomplish that which you say the President has already done with your consent, in spite of and in violation of the Constitution? The Constitution is no impediment to the President or to you.

Sir, in discussing this question I feel for my country, 1 feel for those who framed the Constitution, I feel even for you gentlemen upon the other side of the House, for I do not want to see inflicted upon any portion of my fellow citizens the contempt of the country and of the whole civilized world, such as will be visited on your heads for the tergiversation you have practiced since the commencement of this war. You have broken faith with the country; you have broken faith with States still loyal to the Constitution; you have broken faith, and you now propose to break faith by taking to yourselves the control over an institution which not only the requirements of the Constitution but all the dictates of reason and justice join in urging should remain under the control of the several States.

I ask gentlemen, if they will not regard the dictates of conscience and reason in this matter, to consider what a precedent they are setting. We are now carrying on a war which I believe, so help me God, unless the policy upon which it is being carried on is changed, will render any other result than the total destruction of the Union impossible. You are heaping up a national debt of four to six thousand millions, which will in future be represented by the bonds of the United States. You are heaping up this debt at a fearful rate for the benefit of shoddyites and the manufacturers and capitalists in the eastern States. Suppose you do as you profess to believe; after carrying on the war until you have heaped up the public debt to five or six thousand million dollars, wrung from the labor and sweat of the people of the whole country, and especially of the West, by taxes, by which those colossal fortunes in the East have been reaped, suppose you bring it to a close by crushing out the power of the South, have you ever reflected on what is to follow? Have you ever reflected what a precedent you are setting by the acts of broken faith you have heretofore perpetrated and are now enacting? When this public debt of five or six thousand million dollars, held by eastern men, shall come to stare the nation in the face; when the men of the West shall be called on to have wrung out of their scanty earnings the amount required to pay the interest on that debt, and when the price of their products shall have been reduced as they will be in that day, these men, with starvation before them, will be driven to say they will no longer submit to" these exactions, they will be no longer responsible for the public debt. You will say, "That is a breach of the public faith; your faith was plighted to pay this debt; you will be disgraced in the eyes of the civilized world if you repudiated." In that day ofyour terror and your alarm, in that day, when these millionaires, these men of opulence, are being reduced to poverty and want, I will not laugh at your calamity, I will not mock when your fear cometh; I will mourn with you in your affliction.

But if the people of this country, following the wild precedents you have set them, and are proposing to set them to day swear that they will not submit to be impoverished by exactions to swell the bloated coffers of the eastern millionaire enriched by sucking like a vampne the blood of his country, and in the exercise of their power wipe this debt, and the barnacle fortunes that hang to it, out of existence, it will not be for you to complain. It will not become you to cry out, Broken faith!

Now, let me ask you a practical question. What do you intend to do with the slaves you propose to set free? What are you going to do with the elephant when you get him? [Laughter.] Has anybody attempted to furnish a solution of this question? Yes, sir, a solution has been attempted; 1 will examine it. They propose to put those cf them capable of rendering military service into the Army tofightthe battles of thecountry. They have been placed in the Army to the number of one hundred and thirty or one hundred and fifty thousand. Where, in your armies, have you placed these men? Have you placed them as a shield between the enemy and yourwhi e troops? A gentleman in this House in the last Congress declared he was willing a black soldier should stand as a shield between his son and the bullets of the enemy. No, sir; these black men have not been placed in that position; they have been placed behind fortifications and out of the reach of the guns of the enemy. You make them equal to white soldiers in pay, clothing, rations', and position; you make them superior in position to white soldiers by saving them from danger and wounds and death. You degrade the white private soldier to a level with or below the negro; but the officers you make a privileged class. You make the black private soldiers equal to the white, but you will not allow your white officers to be degraded by allowing the negro to become his equal in position as an officer in the Army of the United States. Why do you not do that? You assert that Bob Small and Fred. Douglass and others are equal to white men in gallantry and intelligence, and all the elements of the military leader, and yet refuse them positions commensurate with their asserted merit. Why is this?

Do you say in reply," We want to use these 'officers, we want to keep in their good graces. We will not debase them by saying that a negro shall be their equal. Our officers are gentlemen; they would be offended if we raise the negro to their level or degrade them to the negro s level, though he shall be the equal of the contemptible scum that composes the rank and file of the Army." That is your policy, is it?

You will not put the negro forward to share the dangers of the white soldier. I ask you why? You say that he is a good soldier. Lorenzo Thomas, suspected of being a rebel at the commencementof the war, who has gone throughout the South to organize the negro forces, says that he is a better soldier than the white man, because he has a musical ear thatenables him to keep step better: I suppose to the music of the Union. He says that he is a better soldier, because he has been accustomed to be commanded and readily obeys. There it is: he obeys without questioning, and therefore you want to save him from the ravages of war. You want to see that one hundred and thirty thousand negro soldiers spoken of by Mr. Lincoln increased to three hundred thousand. You do not want the number diminished. You want to save them from the bullets of the rebels. This obedient, submissive race, when this war is over, may be needed for some other purpose. They have had this class of soldiers in Europe. There they have had hired soldiers known as Swiss, ignoring home and country with no local attachment. Like the dog, they follow and obey their master; dependent for their pay and subsistence upon their employers, they know and obey no one else. We do not want that class of soldiers in the United States. History points them out as the tools used to crush out the liberties of the people and to preserve and defend despotic power. If you want them, for what purpose do you want them? Sir, this is a pregnant question; it is notanswered here. I hope that history may not write the answer in b ood in the destruction of ourGovernment and liberty, in the erection of a despotism on the ruins of our Republic.

What do you propose to do with those you cannot use in the Army—the women and children and worn out men? Three years ago I asked that question in this House, and the answer by the leading abolitionists then was," We will colonize them." I stated then that this would not be done, that the country would never consent to add to its debt twelve or fifteen hundred million dollars for such a purpose. I said truly. Ynuhaveabandoned the idea of colonization. Numbers of the free States by law prohibit their immigration ■within their limits. You are afraid as yet to resist the exercise of this right m despite of that prohibition, although you dispute it. You cannot send them into those States; but you propose to leave them where they are freed, and protect them in their right to remain there. You do not intend, however, to leave them to the tender mercies of those States. You propose by a most flagrant violation of their rights to hold the control of this large class in these various States tn your own hands. The abolitionists of New England, by means of a majority which they hope to secure in Congress and an Administration they expect to retain in office in some way, intend to govern thousands of these creatures m my State and the other border slave States, and exempt them from the operation of the laws of those States. They intend to establish an" imperium in imperio" in all those States. Do you expect that the States •will submit quietly to this outrage? You are not so infatuated. Do you expect then to force obedience to your will, to coerce obedience to the regulations of the" Frecdmen s Bureau" by means of negro soldiers to be garrisoned in these States to overawe the people? Do youmtend to "quarter a standing army on us without our consent?" Our history teaches a lesson on this subject which 1 commend to your consideration. You have brought thousands of these unfortunate wretches from the fields of Grant s operations to your Fieedmen s Village, around Arlington, at the public expense, and in boats which ought to have been used for the transportation of wounded and suffering soldiers, to be maintained at the expense of the national Treasury, in this way adding millions to the already intolerable public debt, taxing the already overtaxed people of the country for a purpose never contemplated by the Constitution. And are they freed? .No, sir; no, sir. You still govern and control them. They do not govern themselves. You regulate their conduct, you prescribe their work, you determine what to give them, you control their actions. They are still slaves, by whatever name you may call them. You have kidnapped thorn from their masters in Virginia and made them your slaves.

How have you freed them in Louisiana? Banks, with the consent of the President hasestablished a system of slavery there, better for the master* and worse for the slave, than any that Ihaveany experience of. By it the master is relieved ofthe expense of rearing the slave until he is capable of performing profitable labor, and released from all obligation to maintain him after he has become unfitted by age or disease to render remunerating service. Nor is there the least freedom conceded to the slave by this system, unless it be the liberty to wander off, when overtaken by death, and die like a dog on the first dung heap untended and uncared for by a kind and Christian master. He has not the liberty to work where he pleases; he is confined to the limits of a particular plantation. He has not the right to work when he pleases; his hours of labor are- prescribed. He has not the right to demand such wages as he may think his services worth; his wages are fixed for him. He has not the privilege of expending his earnings as he pleases; this la done for him by regulation. And I make the declaration that the compensation he is forced to labor for is not near equivalent to what a slave in Louisiana received under the slave system, which these wise humanitarians, Banks and the President, wish to supplant by their system of free labor. God save the mark. Mr. Speaker, by such a change as this you do not abolish slavery, but you rob it of all its humanizing and redeeming characteristics. By destroying all interest of the master in the preservation of the health of the slave, you diminish his care and kindness and indulgence to him. The watchful care of the intelligent and interested master over the young is lost, and they are left to grow up uncared for except by the negro father and mother, whose ignorance and indifference to the welfare of their ofi spnng are matters of common notoriety.

Mr. Speaker, I will not touch this subject in its connection with political economy. I will not argue that African slave labor is the most profitable labor for the land owner I would never propose that African slavery should be introduced where it does not exist. I would leave all people in all States free to have it or abolish it, as a regard to their own interests may prompt them. I will not assert that African slavery is best for the white man. I may be in doubt as to that. But this I do say, in view of an experience and observation of a lifetime, and in spite of the horror excited in the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Thayer] by the declaration of thegentleman from New York, [Mr. Fernando Wood,] that the condition of slavery existing in my State and the other slaveSrates is the best condition m which the African has ever been placed on the continent of America; I mean the best for the negro as it regards his physical, moral, and intellectual wants. tl

Mr Speaker, 1 will conclude what I have to say with the assertion that I believe that the on y way to preserve this Union is to Stand by the Constitution as our fathers made it; not to change it- to preserve its great safeguards of liberty from destruction or violation; to return to the original policy of this Government, indorsed by the President and his Cabinet, by Douglas and Crittenden; the policy of conciliation and coercion which has received the name of border State policy— the policy of conciliation and coercion going hand in hand, f was always for it—I am for it now. While I would put down the military power of the South by force of arms I would" still carry m my right hand gentle peace 5 I would hold it out to them; I would persuade them by every inducement I could offer them as erring men and brothers to abandon their bloody rebellion. I will not denounce them as devils. I would not say that I will exterminate you if you do not submit, and strip you of all you have if you do; but I would say, "Come back, and I will forgive you as freely as the Son of man ever forgave repentant sinners."