January 11, 1865 (2)

Mr. SMITHERS. Mr. Speaker, after the elaborate discussion which this question has received, it ought perhaps to be deemed superfluous to add anything to the matter which has already been adduced in support of the pending proposition.

The locality from which I come, and the people which I represent, are the only considerations which induce me to trespass upon the patience of the House, already sufficiently taxed. Representing a constituency governed by laws tolerating and regulating the institution of African slavery, it is scarcely proper that I should permit the vote to be taken on a measure so important and so material to their interests, without a brief presentation of the reasons which induce me to support it. In doing so I shall not deal with the humanitarian phase of the question or argue the share slavery has had in originating or maintaining the existing rebellion.

The immediate practical effect of this measure is to abrogate the possibility of slavery in Kentucky and Delaware, and it is in view of the fact that I have the honor to represent the people of the latter State, that I feel it incumbent on me to offer any suggestion in relation to it. Satisfied that the measure is constitutional and beneficial, not only to the Republic, but eminently to my immediate constituency, I cheerfully accord my vote to the passage of the bill.

In arguing the constitutionality of the question there has but one objection been proposed that strikes me with any degree of plausibility. The powerofamendrpentis so clearly conferred by the* Constitution, and the mode so distinctly pointed out, as to preclude question or even cavil as to the authority or the method. Unless the Constitution be itself unconstitutional, there can be no difficulty m the exercise of the power so far as this House is concerned in originating this measure. That instrument has explicitly provided for its own amendment. This power was distinctly surrendered by the States and the people, save only in the two cases expressly mentioned, and except as to them exists without limitation. So in the ratification by the Legislatures or conventions to which it is to be referred; the power is expressly delegated to three fourths to bind the whole, and the act of the requisite number is agreed and declared to be considered as the act of the whole as fully as if each had formally assented and actually adopted the proposed measure. The only question which remains is whether the subject of African slavery is properly and legally within the purview and fair intendment of prohibition by constitutional amendment; and here the objection is raised that we invade the domain of private rights and destroy the vested interests which individuals have in a subject of property.

The mistake of those who propose this objection seems to me to consist in not •sufficiently distinguishing between the taking of the thing and the abolition of the tenure by which it is hold. I do not entirely agree with those who allege that slavery is impossible in law or necessarily unconstitutional. It has been too Ion# established, too clearly recognized, not only by the acquiescence but by the express sanction of the Constitution and the repeated adjudication of the courts, for me to deny its legality or doubt the validity of the right. Its origin lost m the remoteness of antiquity, practiced at sometime by every nation of the earth, it vindicates its lawfulness by the universality of its existence, and cites as the monument of its title the common consent of mankind. And the sentiment that" that is property which the law makes property however condemned by the moralist or reprobated by the humanitarian, must be respected by the jurist and accepted by the legislator.

The nature of the right, however, is material in determining the question presented for solution, and the quality of the recognition is equally material in deciding the extent of our constitutional power. How far soever into the past the beginning of the enslavement of mankind may have extended, it is unquestionable that it has its origin in force. It claims no natural sanction for its existence, nor in us operation is it confined to any race. The white man equally with the black has been the subject of its oppressive jurisdiction. The slave pens of Algiers have confined Christian captives until they were haled forth to the auction block; and our boasted Saxon ancestors wore around their necks the symbols of bondage. In this country it has existed from its earliest settlement, and in every colony it found forbearance, if not active effort for its introduction and maintenance. It obtained in Massachusetts as well as in South Carolina, and that it spread more rapidly and endured more firmly in the latter is due perhaps quite as much to the quality of the climate and the adaptation of the soil to the productions rendering its labor remunerative as to the superior morality or intelligence of the inhabitants. Though thus universally practiced, its injustice was too patent not to be recognized, and its tendencies too deleterious not to be mourned. Its existence became soon to be tolerated rather than encouraged, and at the adoption of the Constitution there is abundant evidence, not only of the hope but the expectation, that it would soon cease to prevail. Arid in this connection it ought not to be forgotten that its introduction into Indiana was denied even by southern slave owners against the repeated petition of the inhabitants. The invention of the cotton gin gave a fresh impetus to Us expansion, and by rendering it more valuable stimulated its growth. The inventive genius of New England furnished the induce* mc ntj and the cupidity of the master, in estimating his pecuniary advantages, lost sight of the wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I am no apologist for slavery, but I cannot be false to truth by willfully perverting history. The necessary characteristics of slavery are bad enough; it is of itself and in itself wrong enough; its concomitants and consequences are injurious enough to deserve universal condemnation without attributing to the master qualities which sink him below the level of mankind. It is not true that wanton cruelty and unmitigated oppression were universally or even ordinarily exercised toward the slave. The fact that from four hundred thousand, at the adoption of the Constitution, the race has increased to four million in the space of less than eighty years, is a sufficient evidence that their treatment has been generally humane.

In this respect the slave owners of the South present a marked and laudable contrast to those of the West Indies, where a different policy prevailed. In the latter it was the accepted maxim that it was cheaper to import than to raise; more profitable to kill than to maintain. The result was visible in the effect. While in those islands at the time of the emancipation there were fewer slaves than had been imported, in the States they have increased to tenfold their original number.

The title by which they are held, and the nature of the property recognized and protected, form the material subjects for our consideration in answering or avoiding the objections proposed to the pending measure. Whatever this right is, it exists only by the laws of the States in which the institution obtains. It has no warrant in nature; it finds no sanction in the enumeration of thesubjects of property over which dominion was given to man by the Creator. Whether existing by force of custom, or by immemorial usage, or by positive enactment, its origin is human and not divine. So existing it was confined to the locality in which the custom obtained, or over which the law recognizing it was capable of enforcement. If the slave escaped beyond this jurisdiction, if the master carried him beyond its confines, the bond which obliged him was loosed, the tenure by which he was held was dissolved. The owner could neither retake or detain. That such was the light in which it was regarded by the framers of the Constitution is manifest from the necessity of the clause authorizing the recapture and requiring the surrender. The language in which it is couched is guardedly framed. In this provision it is expressly and intentionally declared that—

"No person held to service or labor in any State under the laws thereof shall, by escaping into another, be deemed to be discharged."*

The tenure by which such person was held was declared to be the municipal law of the State— that and that only was recognized as the foundation of the claim. When such law ceased to exist, either by the act of the constituted authorities of the State or by the intervention of a superior power rendering it null, the right was at an end by the abrogation of the authority by which alone it had existence. The property or thing is not taken, but the law is repealed under and by virtue of which we could set up any claim toaslave. The operation of the amendment is upon the law, not upon the subject; its effect is to convert into a man that which the law declared was a chattel; but this effect only followed as the result of ousting the jurisdiction which enables the courts to take cognizance of the claim of the master.

The Constitution specially ordains that—

"This Constitution, and tiie I tws of the United States made in pursuance thereof,"***/. sliail be the supreme- law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything m the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Providing in terms for its own amendment, the same high and overruling sanction pertains to every provision subsequently ordained in conformity with the mode prescribed.

In conferring this power I have said that the people imposed no limitations except in the particulars specified, and in adopting the very clause they refuse to incorporate a provision which from its connection and language by necessary construction was intended to protect the institution of slavery from destruction by constitutional amendment. Nor to this question of power is it material whether the Constitution is a compact between States or an organic law emanating from and founded upon the express sanction of the people. In the one case it would inure as a surrender by the States of a right of sovereignty, and would operate upon them in their political capacities as parties to the agreement; in the other as a limitation by the people upon their own power when acting through the agency of State organizations. Nor in the exercise of this power is there any just pretense of right to compensation. This claim inures under the special provision of the Constitution, and then only when private property is taken for public use. It has no reference to the action of the people in ordaining a Constitution, nor are communities restrained by anysuchlimitations in exercisingsovereignpower over the personal or proprietary rights of the subject in settling the principles of government. Without a provision saving the right there is no restriction; the mode or extent of its exercise depends upon the will of the sovereign.

By the arret of France abolishing Slavery in her colonies, it was done immediately, unconditionally, and without compensation. Great Britain in performing an act of similar character recognized the propriety of payment to the master for the loss of the service of the slave. In either case it was a mere question of expediency, and each sovereignty regulated the matter according to its own discretion.

Having no doubt, Mr. Speaker, as to the right of Congress to initiate this measure, I pass to the consideration of the question whether in voting for it I should act in conformity with the sentiments of my immediate constituents.

Slavery has obtained intheState ofDelawarc by force of the general customary law to which it everywhere owes its existence, and is regulated by statutory provisions withoutever having received the sanction or support of constitutional recognition. Though established by immemorial usage, maintained by force of habit and education, and operated as a political machine, it has never been regarded with affection by the people. Founded only in custom, it has obtained no place in the organic law of the Government, and may at any time be abolished by an ordinary act of legislation. Nowhere does it exist in so mild a form— the master subject to so many restraints, or the slave guarantied such substantial protection.

The wise and humane sentiments prevailing from the earliest period impressed themselves upon the legislation of the State, and prevented its growth by prohibiting the introduction or extradition of a slave except under specified conditions and stringent regulations.

Regarding him as a person entitled to the protection of law as well as the subject of property in a modified sense; it forbade the master to deal with him as an ordinary article of commerce, by preventing the exportation for sale, it kept his value reduced to the price justified by the demands ofa purely agricultural region, in which his labor had no peculiar value, and by prohibiting the introduction from abroad it announced its judgment that such species of population was neither beneficial nor desirable. n

Not only is this sentiment manifested by the general legislation of the State; but on more than one occasion the Representatives of the people have expressed their opinion in unequivocal and memorable terms.

In the contest which occurred as to the admission of Missouri j a resolution was adopted by the General Assembly whh entire unanimity in the House of Representatives and with but two dissenting voices in the Senate, declaring that in the admission of any State into the Union it was not only the right but the duty of Congress to require, as an inviolable condition, the fundamental provision that it should forever thereafter be free from slavery.

Whatever opinion may be entertained as to the right to exact this condition thirecan be no doubt as to the judgment of the State in relation to its propriety. In 3845 in the discussion which ensued concerning the acquisition ot Texas, the Legislature resolved that slavery was a moral, social, and political evil, and denounced the project of annexation as designed for its extension and perpetuation, and at the following session in 1847, having gone before the people upon the principle of that resolution and being sustained by their votes, the General Assembly adopted the Wilmot proviso.

It is unnecessary to recurto subsequent events to account for the apparent decline of the antislavery sentiment iVi Delaware. In the general abandonment of their manhood by the friends of liberty throughout the whole country we participated, and the hand of freedom went back upon the dial. Again it is moving forward and is fast upon the hour of noon.

Of all those who voted for me I do not know one who would not vote for this amendment; and I am well assured that of those who did not support me there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, who will hail with joy the accomplishment of this great measure ofjustice, tranquillity, and security.

Mr. TOWNSEND. Mr. Speaker, an impartial listener to the discussion here for the last few days might reasonably come to the conclusion that all those gentlemen who did not favor the proposed amendment of the Constitution of the United States were either enemies of the Union or supporters of the institution of slavery. Sir, on behalf of the constituents whom 1 have the honor to represent, and on my own behalf, I deny the imputation, and I ask the attention of the House to the reading of a resolution adopted by the House of Representatives July 22, 1861.

The Clerk read, as follows:

Resolved, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital. That in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feeling of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country. That this war is not waged upon our part in any ppiut of oppression or for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, or purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and* to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired, and that as soon as these objects arc accomplished the war ought to ceasa."

Mr. TOWNSEND. Mr. Speaker, in the interpretation of that resolution, in th$ wise and truly national spirit it exhibits, are to be found the views of my constituency. Sir, the able arguments on this question that have been presented to the House render it assumption on my part to occupy their attention longer than briefly to state that my vote will be found recorded against the amendment on this ground, if no other, that in a timeofcivilwarthe laws ofsocietylose their force, and are seldom supplied by those of humanity; the ardor of contention, the pride of victory, the memory of past injuries, tne sense of future dangers, all conspire to render the public mind incapable of judging calmly, much less of changing the organic law of the Constitution which the greatest minds have pronounced the greatest monument of human wisdom.

Mr. HOLMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will not discuss the question of political power involved in this amendment. I will consider only the question of expediency.

It is not, sir the hour of peace and prosperity, but of misfortune, that tests the principles of a Government and the fortitude of its people. The gravest question that ever forced itself on any nation—the gravest because it affects the fortunes and freedom of uncounted millions that which we are solving. -Will this nation pass through the fiery ordeal resisting the countless tendencies to absolutism of power inevitably incident to a great war, and preserve the form and substance of its Government unimpaired? I trust in the God of our fathers that we shall; but if we do, sir, the virtue and fortitude of our people will stand without a parallel in the history of mankind. That the public mind should be active in seeking expedients to avert the impending danger is but natural. That the several departments of this Government should seek to usurp power on the ever present plea of public necessity conforms to the experience of other nations. That a great party, flushed with victory, should seize upon such a moment to carry out a leading idea of partisan faith, however much to be deplored, is but the nature and instinct of party. These are but natural, and against them our fathers have arrayed the just divisions of political power, for experience had shown how public danger and apparent necessity had ever suggested the usurpations which changed the foundations of government. But it is remarkable, sir, and a painful consideration, that in the Constitution of our country, so long the subject of eulogy in all quarters of the globe, should be found the cause of our misfortunes, and in its amendment their only remedy.

Two bills are pending in this House to amend the Constitution: the one to abolish the institution of African slavery, the other to authorize the Federal Government to impose an export duty 011 the products of the United States. The one measure affects the domestic policy of certain States, and especially the State of Kentucky; the other imposes a direct tax on the labor and products of the States of the Northwest, ever seeking a market beyond the limits of our own country. My colleague, [Mr. Orth,] in his very able advocacy of the one measure, a few days since, did not inform the House or his constituents of his views of the other. It is true it was not the subject of debate, but the question was natural, when you begin to amend the Constitution, where will it end? To weaken our rebel enemies is the argument for the one measure; the absolute necessity of increased taxation is the argument for the other. Who shall foretell sir what other necessities for amendment will appear? The sanctity of that venerated instrument once impaired, the harmony of its provisions destroyed, and who shall tell of the wreck which party spirit will make of the title deed of our freedom?

Gentlemen assume that the Constitution is responsible for slavery and bewail the error of our fathers. Sir, this assumption is not true. The Constitution is in no sense responsible for slavery. The whole theory of the Government is that the States alone control their domestic affairs; no power of local domestic government is delegated to Congress:" the powers not delegated are reserved to the States or to the people." If in the judgment of our fathers African slavery had been inconsistent with a republican form of government, it could have been abolished -under the power to "guaranty to each State a republican form of government." But Washington signed the bills to admit Kentucky and Vermont into the Union with their respective domestic policies. Generations had confirmed this interpretation of the Constitution. To preserve the comity of the States persons fleeing from justice or from engagements for service or labor were to be surrendered up; this provision neither establishes nor recognizes slavery. You do not even 111 your amendment propose its repeal. It would be proper if slavery never existed; the words do not imply slavery. As a citizen of a free State, as a Repre.sentative of a free people, I thank God that the Constitution of the United States, the object of our love and veneration, is not responsible for any form of human servitude. It organizes States possessed of domestic sovereignty into a sovereign nation; it charges upon the federal Government the duty of maintaining the integrity of that nation, to represent it in the family of nations, nothing less, nothing more. In domestic affairs the States are foreign to each other. 1 am in no sense responsible for the domestic policy of Kentucky. You aie not, air. I would resist interference in her domestic affairs as I would resist even with arms her interference with the domestic policy of my own State. Such was the universal doctrine of our fathers. Such has ever been the doctrine of the Democratic party of the free States. Yet, sir, for not interfering you charge the Democratic party with being pro slavery Sir, what is more unjustand ungenerous and untruthful than party spirit? The Democratic paity pro slavery because they insist on the right of the States to domestic government! Sir, the charge brands with pro slavery ism every illustrious statesman of the Republic from Washington and Adams to Webster tihd Clay, and the great army of heroes who survived the Revolution and bequeathed to you the legacy of frcegovernment. Instead of a reproach it is the highest encomium upon the Democracy of the free States that they have resisted the rage of fanaticism in their fidelity to the principles of these illustrious men.

It is not to be questioned, sir, that many, I may say most, of the earlier statesmen, even of the southern States, were impressed with the belief that slavery m any form was a crime against human nature, but States were forming a Government, and the harmony and strength of that Government depended as much on their domestic sovereignty as on the national sovereignty of the Federal power, and looking to the lieedomof the white race every where else enslaved, they organized government on that foundation, content that each State should be responsible to God and humanity for the exercise of its domestic powers, and three generations, the most fortunate in history, were faithful to the compact. The Democratic party of the free States are neither the advocates nor the apologists for slavery. Democracy and slavery are natural enemies. Impressed with the value of free labor, there is not a Democrat in the North who would not resist the establishment of slavery in a free State, for what free people, sir, have ever failed to regard their own institutions the best? Inopposingthisamendmentthe Democratic party are not controlled by a desire to preserve African slavery; they oppose it because they are for the Constitution just as it is, just as our fathers made it. They oppose itespecially at this time, when impending danger demands the united energies of every friend of free government Kentucky, against whom this measure is especially directed, as well as of every other State of the Union—wheiever, indeed, a citizen is found loyal to the Constitution of his country; we need the united energy of them all. The Constitution is the common standard around which the friends of freedom may rally. In the gathering darkness leave us at least this pillar of light.

Mr. Speaker, there is one feature of this debate which must have struck the impartial hearer with astonishment. I speak with deference. I refer to the intemperate vagaries indulged in by gentlemen on this question of slavery, greatly to the dishonor of our country, and manifestly unjust to its history. Slavery is but an incident to our Government for which the nation is not responsible; an unfortunate legacy from the remote ages. It may be assailed without tarnishing the fame of the Republic. Yet gentlemen, like the reformers of France, would invalidate all the cherished traditions of the past to open up their new era. Thus ithas become the rage to underrate the value of our Government. My colleague, [Mr. Orth,] usually so conservative, will excuse me for illustrating by reference to his able speech on the pending question. Looking upon the past, once so cheerful, my colleague only sees eighty years of infamy and dishonor. How miserable have been our people! Only by a kind dispensation of Providence could they have been unconscious of their misery! A dreary and desolate retrospect. Not a ray of light illumines the eighty years of the past. We shrink from its history. We would deny our fathers and claim that we are aliens in the land of our birth. If my colleague is right how cruelty our people have been deceived in indulging the belief that they were the happiest people on the face of the earth Yet still it was a pleasant delusion, and he ought not to have torn away the vail and exposed our wretchedness. According to my colleague whatever Uie last eighty years has produced has been the effect of slavery. To the undistempeied imagination he is conceding infinitely too much to slavery. I think it is entitled to no such credit; but to him slavery is alone lespon ible for the past, and he wants a new era, something better than the old. It fslavery] laid its hand on our nervous system and the nation became palsied." When was this, sir? Was it in the great Revolution or 111 the second war for independence? Was it in establishing a great empire in the Northwest and prosperous States on the Pacific? Was it in the war with Mexico, or when Abraham Lincoln called for seventy five thousand men to uphold the Constitution and then for more and more and more, until the tramp of our gallant armies shook the continent? When was it, sir, that the mighty energies of this nation were palsied?" For eighty years it has molded the legislation of the country." What, slavery such a legislator! Ilcgives slavery too much credit. I deny its claim to any such honor. Our system of laws has been deemed the best in the world by our credulous people. In four years of ample power you have only repealed two of the many thousands which have been enacted, one approved by Washington and the other by Fillmore. If these laws are the offspring of slavery, why does not my friend introduce a bill to wipe out the infamous record? "For eighty years it has controlled the foreign policy of the Government." That foreign policy has preserved an unexampled peace and given us an empire extending from the Gulf to the Pacific. Franklin and Adams and Jefferson and Clay and Bancroft were not deemed mean embassadors, and until now were not deemed minions of the slave power. But my colleague reaches the climax when he declares that" for eighty years it has made the American name a hissing and a byword among the nations of the earth." And what nation sir has been so prosperous and free that it could afford to hiss at this ignoble Republic? IsitGreatBritain, sir, after being twice scourged from our soil, and twice beaten by our navies upon the ocean; a nation, sir, that holds millions of her own people in servitude, oppresses Ireland, planted slavery on these shores, and for a century has held a hundred million of the people of Asia in hopeless slavery? Is it France, sir, with the iron heel of a usurping tyrant on the neck of prostrate millions, and holding millions more on the soil of Africa, in the seat of the ancient empire of Carthage, in abject slavery? Is it France that could hiss at America, the France who, to repleni h an exhausted treasury, sold us an empire already cursed with African slavery? Is it the despot of Russia or of Austria, or the petty despotism of Portugal or Spain, or the still pettier despotisms which mar the face of Europe, where labor toils on from age to age without hope, and from the oppression of which millions have fled to our shores? Are these the favored nations, sir, that can sneer at our Republic? Or does my colleague refer to the Ottoman empire, with its uncounted millions of serfs? Or upon our own continent, to Biazil, an empire founded upon African slavery; or to Mexico, where African slavery, it is tiuo, is abolished— Massachusetts herself could not complain of her radicalism where the flag of the eagle floats no more, and a people once a republic weakened by internal feuds trembles at the tread of a petty scion of a race of tyrants, and these nations applaud when a republic is blotted out—is it unfortunate Mexico that can hiss at the only Government on earth that could have saved her from a fate more terrible than death? Is it S wit Zetland, whose hardy sons come m thousands from her rocky ramparts, where freedom defies the rage of tyrants, to a republicanism purer than her own? Where is the nation, sir, on God s green earth, that stands so erectand spotlcssin the light of freedom that it can hiss at the dazzling brightness of this Republic, unless it be tyrants who, like reptiles, hiss at the sun that waims the nations into life? No, sir; with all her imperfections and her faults, even in the present hour of her adversity, in all the elements of human happiness, of justice, and liberty, she stands the first among the nations, not a" byword" to the nations, but the hope of the downtrodden poor, and a terror to tyrants. No son of America can afford to defame his own country.

For eighty years it has commanded the Army and Navy." What does my colleague mean? Have not the Army and Navy been well commanded? From Washington to Grant, have ever more consummate soldiers commanded armies? From Paul Jones to Farragut, have ever greater captains swept the ocean? Ai my and Navy! Is my colleague ashamed of their history? I blush at the question. Does my colleague eulogize slavery, or does he condemn the Army and Navy? But again:" For eighty years it has robbed the American people of their rights under the Constitution." Who has done this? Slavery, slaveholders, the southern people represented in the Federal Government; Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Clay, Crittenden, nay, Washington himself was one of the robbers; yet in that period seven powerful free States have grown up and flourished on soil freely surrendered by a slave State to freedom. Yet foreighty years we have been robbed of our constitutional rights, and, what is worse, by the very men who made the Constitution; and our cowardly fathers have submitted to it, nay, more, my worthy colleague, a Clay Whig, submitted to it himself for a quarter of a century, and the elder and the younger Adams and Fillmore and Webster submitted to it, and Silas Wright and Cass and Douglas, and all the great masses of the ever growing and increasing free States. What vile dishonor if they did submit; if they did not, why defame their memIt has defiled the judicial ermine and corrupted every department of Government." How could my colleague live in a country so infamous? Why lias divine justice spared such a country? I had thought, sir, that no son of America could speak thus of her judiciary, of whose distinguished members it has been said by one of the purest of American scholars, they" distributed justice with the same independence and impartiality to the helpless alien and the mighty Napoleon, to the humble citizen and the corporation, to public officers and to States. Neither awed by power, nor influenced by patronage, nor seduced by talents and learning, nor corrupted by wealth; serene, courteous, and dignified, amid intimidation and calumny they have never forgotten what was due to their own honor and usefulness, or to the character of their country they have been "the pride and honor as they have been thegoodgeniusof theseUnited States." Thus, sir, all that is pure, and noble, and virtuous, must be blackened and turned into ashes, and the very dead defamed, that the public faith may be destroyed in the excellence of our Government, that party spirit may riot on the ruins of its Constitution. How much more like a patriot does John Gluincy Adams review the history of his country for thirty six years, which gentlemen are now accustomed to characterize as a tissue of infamy, corruption, and fraud:

"The year of jubilee since the first formation of the Union has just elapsed; that of the declaration of our independence i« at hand The consummation of both was effected by this Constitution. Since that period a population of four million have multiplied to twelve; a territory bounded by the Mississippi has been extended from sea to sea; new States have been admitted to the Union equal to those of the first Confederation; treaties of peace, amity, and commerce, have been concluded with the principal dominions of the earth; the people of other nations, inhabitants of regions acquired not by conquest but by compact, have been united with us in the participation ot our rights and duties, of our burdens and blessings; the forests have fallen by the ax of our woodmen; the soil has been made to teem by the tillage of our farmers; our commerce has whitened every ocean; the dominion of man over physical nature has been extended by the invention of our artists; liberty and law have marched hand in hand; all the purposes ot human association have been accomplished as utFeetively as under any other Government on the globe, and at a cost little exceeding in a whole generation the expenditure of other nations in a single year. Such is the uncxag erated picture of our condition under a Constitution founded upon the republican principle of equal rights. To admit that this picture has its shades is but to say that it is still the condition of men upon earth."

How different from the language of this hour 1 Now the shades and imperfections alone are seen, and the rich blessings conferred by the Constitution inspire no gratitude. My colleague would reform the Constitution that we may have il in truth and in fact, a republican form of government." The great statesmen who formed the Constitution believed that they were establishing," in truth and in fact, a republican form of government." Were they or are these reformers deceived? Whatlistof names in the world s history compares with theirs, Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, Madison, John Rutledge, and all? Yet politicians would question their wisdom and reform the instrument which has created this great Republic, and which, for sixty years, even party spirit has not dared to assail. Sir, that Constitution has been the source of our greatness, and is now the only ark of our safety. It is said, sir, that the doctrine of State rights is the cause of the present war, and this amendment, while apparently aimed at slavery, is in truth an attack on the rights of the States; not of some, but of all, at least by the establishment of a precedent. Amend this Constitution now and future amendments will be easily effected; the argument of necessity is never wanting. Begin, and consolidation is inevitable, and then, sir, how long will the public hbertysurvive? I deny, sir, that the doctrine of States rights now so generally sneered at by those who desire a strong Government, has contributed to this rebellion. The pretended right of' secession is a most infamous perversion of that doctrine. Mr. Madison declared it to be "a colossal heresy." There is not an intelligent man in America who in truth believes that one State or eleven States have the rightto destroytheGovemment. The proposition is monstrous; it was a dishonest pretense that could have deceived no citizen. The rebellion is the offspring of the fierce partisan feuds between the politicians of the North and the South and the remorseless ambition of the southern leaders, and slavery was the pretense, as the tariff was in the days of Jackson. It was not the assertion of a right, but an appeal t® revolution. I have ever: ns v itcd sir, that it was the solemn duty of the' Federal Government to maintain the Union, a duty from which it could not escape; and if, sir, in this appeal to arms on the dishonest pretense of protecting slavery, which has moistened the land with the best blood of the Republic slavery has perished, there will be no tears shed over its grave. It is ajust retribution foran unspeakable crime.

Mr. Speaker, is it necessary to amend theConstitution to abolish slavery? My colleague has said that nothingcan shield it from its inevitable doom; no act of ours is necessary to secure that result. Viewing the present posture of affairs, I concur in this opinion. Let us see the present status of the question. Maryland, Missouri, and Louisiana have abolished slavery. The negroes of Tennessee capable of labor have been enrolled into your service; so to a great extent in Kentucky. The proclamation of the President does in fact (I do not argue the question you assert its validity) abolish slavery wherever our armies occupy the soil, and what more could a constitutional amendment effect? This covers the whole ground, except in Kentucky. In that State bills are now pending in both branches of her Legislature to abolish it. I must say, sir, that I should greatly prefer seeing Kentucky, with her thousands of gallant soldiers in your Army, by her own act dispose of this question, than to see it forced upon her by the power of the Government. It would argue better for the future and the public safety. In view of the passing events, I trust, sir, she will consider it her interest to abolish slavery, but the question should be left to the judgment of her own people.

In any event, under the present policy of the Government, if the armed rebellion is overthrown African slavery is dead. I do not discuss the subject, but assert what must be apparent to all.' If the South arms her slaves in the cause of the rebellion African slavery is dead, no matter what are the fortunes of the war. In my judgment the fate of slavery is sealed. It dies by the rebellious hand of its votaries, untouched by the law. Its fate is determined by the war, by the measures of the war, by the results of the war; these, sir, must determine it, even if the Constitution were amended. Therefore I oppose the amendment, because, admitting the full force of your arguments, it is unnecessary, a dangerous precedent without a benefit.

In the recent election the people decided that the war should bo prosecuted for the maintaining of the Union; that question oveishadowed all others; the derision would have been the same no matter which of the great parties had triumphed, for the Union was to be maintained at every hazard. But this question was scarcely heard of in the canvass, it would have divided public opinion, for the Democratic party are for the Constitution as it is; the people are devoted to the old charter; but on the abstract question of slavery there is no division of opinion m the free States. Upon that question, sir, there can be no parties in the North.

Other issues loom up in the future. By the side of this bill is another measure which indicates your real policy; it is the entering wedge to the idea that the freedom of no class of men can be secure unless they be citizens of the Republic arid invested with the right of suffrage. I refer to the next bill upon your Calendar. I but state the fact, sir, to indicate the ultimate purpose, the inauguration of the new era which is to open up the golden age. Where arc we drifting, sir? Will this reorganize civil government in the South? Unless, when their armies are overthrown, we can reorganize civil government there on the general consent of the masses, standing armies are inevitable, a continued increase of the tremendous public debt, and, more dangerous if possible than all, the boundless and corrupting patronage of the Executive, for unless, as a result of the war, we restore the Union the sacrifice of our gallant sons will be in vain. If by these visionary schemes, you prolong the war, and realize all the vagaries that reformers have dreamed of, will the laborer, bending hopelessly under the burden of public exactions, feel that you have advanced the real cause of freedom?

I am no apologist of slavery. I know no argument for its defense. I would to God there was not a slave on the face of the green earth. I have ever indulged the hope that time and Providence would relieve this nation from the reproach and still preserve the public liberty unimpaired; but such are the embarrassments of the question in providing for the very people you would in theory incorporate into the body of your citizens, that in dealing with it as a practical question, even a son of Massachusetts, with absolute military and civil power, in Louisiana, only changes the form of slavery and converts the slave into a serf. But these are but the incidents of the pending measure, It is upon the amendment of the Constitution that we decide.

My colleague says, "The old fogy has become an antique relic." He need not have reminded us, sir, thatthepreceptsandexample ofourfathers were forgotten. The condition of a once prosperous country too painfully reminds us of tlje fact. The presence of eager reformers pressing forward to mutilate the Constitution, to tear down the venerated landmarks, reminds us too well that Washington and Adams and Jefferson and Jackson and Clay and Webster are dead. The grand old i republicans who so long guided the counsels of the people are no more, and new statesmen, remodeling the elements of government, treading with arrogance where the old masters would have trembled, threaten to rob their country and the world of the fruits of their wisdom and labors. Seeking to be guided, sir, by then precepts, and knowing of no light so sure as the light of experience, 1 am for the Constitution, the grand old Charter, as it is, and if I err, sir, it is in following the most illustrious examples.

Mr. CRAVENS. Mr. Speaker, before the debate closes on this proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States, I desire to say a word or two merely to place myself right in regard to the vote 1 shall give. The speeches made by gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber have tended to leave the impression that those who vote against this measure are influenced to do ^30 by a desire to protect and perpetuate the institution of slavery. I am only authorized to speak for myself, and in doing so I declare that no desire to perpetuate slavery will influence my vote. I shallvoteagainsttheamendmentbecause I think this is not the proper time to make radical changes in our fundamental law. 1 shall vote against it because! believe there could not be that fair, free, and unbiased deliberation had by the whole people on the question that its importance demands, and because, in my judgment, it will not remove from the halls of legislation a question that has been a disturbing element for more than half a century mean the question of the condition of the negro, irrespective of his condition as a slave. I believe that the passage of this amendment will multiply rather than diminish our troubles upon that subject. The men who commenced and have continued the agitation of slavery up to the time of its culmination in the present civil war will not be content to let the subject rest with the mere abolishment of slavery by constitutional amendment; it will still be the apple of discord while there is any considerable number of that poor and unfortunate African race on our soil. I have nothing to satisfy my mind that it is any part of the policy of the abolitionist to deport these people when they are liberated; they must therefore be diffused through the free States or allowed to remain where they are. I believe, as a general proposition, that the people of the free States are opposed to the diffusion of emancipated negroes among them. They must then remain where they are; and that being the case, who does not atoncesee the many perplexing and dangerous questions which are to grow out of theadoption of the amendment at this time? If we assume the responsibility of liberating three or four million slaves by the operation of this amendment, will we not impose upon ourselves the moral obligation to provide for and support all that large number of helpless women and children, decrepit and old, who would become mendicants or wandering outcasts without such protection from us? To my mind this duty is plain; and I do not desire to incur such fearful responsibilities in the face of the obligations resting on us to provide for and look after the comfort and welfare of those of our own race who, in large numbers, have been rendered helpless by the operations of this terrible war. There are many reasons which satisfy my mind of the impolicy of passing this measure at this time. I have not had occasion to question the constitutional power of Congress to submit an amendment, provided it is done in the mode and manner prescribed by that instrument. Taking it for granted that we have the power, I am induced to vote against it on the grounds of policy and expediency.

I do not think that this question entered sufficiently into the considerations which determined the late election in favor of the present Administration to amount to an instruction to the present Congress to pass the amendment. And if I so thought I should find my justification in voting against the amendment in the overwhelming vote of my district for my successor, who entertains ■sentiments upon this and other kindred questions in accordance with my own. I am satisfied that under the laws of war and the incidents attending it the problem of slavery is being rapidly work* d out. I think slavery is dying, and will eventually die if we will but address ourselves to the one great subject—the restoration of the Union—by putting down the rebellion. Already too4nuch attention has been given to this subject of slavery. I think the rebelliomwould have been ended long ago if we had never said a word on the subject. I had not intended to and would not have said a word on this subject had it not been for the persistent efforts on the other side of the House to place us in a false position before the country.

I have not attempted to elaborate or even enumerate all the reasons that control my vote against the amendment.

I am in favor of progress and reform, but when it is proposed to change the fundamental law of tile land f would prefer that it should bo done in the calm hours of peace rather than amid the storms of rebellion and war.

I look upon this measure as another stumblingblock thrown by the party in power in the way of Union. To the already excited and hostile mind of the southern people this proposed amendment will appear as a measure of vengeance, dictated by power arrogant with success, and not as an olive-branch of peace.

It is hopeless jto make a constitutional Government permanent in the establishment of which the great mass of the people have been deprived of n free choice. Such choice we well know cannot be had in the present condition of the southern States which are the theater of war and most to be affected by the proposed change of the Constitution. In forcing this radical change on an unwilling people will you not sow the seeds of discontent and future revolution? Let well enough alone. Slavery cannot be saved. Prolong not by needless legislation here or elsewhere the evils and dangers which have attended the progress of its dissolution under the blows it has received in the house of its friends. Would it not be wiser, in view ofall the surrounding circumstances, to leave this question where the Constitution leaves it, to be dealt with by the States? Time and events are rapidly doing their work in the minds of the southern people. Will not the immediate forced abolition of slavery be dearly bought if it shall involve a distraction or even a weakening of our Federal system of government? Entertaining the views I have expressed on this subject I shall vote against the amendment.

Mr. BIIOGMALL, Mr. Speaker, after the length to which this argument has gone, and the able manner in which the subject has been presented on both sides of the House, it would seem to require some apology from me for offering any remarks of mine; and the only and best apology I have to offer is to say that my remarks shall not be extended. 1 esteem it a great honor to be a member of the present Congress, if for no other reason, at least for the opportunity which it affords me of casting my vote for this resolution. No matter what errors I may have committed on other questions since I have been a member of this body, no matter to whatextent I may approve or disapprove of my votes on them, I do know that I shall approve of the vote which I shall cast upon this question to the last day of my life.

I do riot propose to enter at length into the arguments for and against the institution of slavery. I look upon the question, whether or not the institution ought to be abolished in a proper way, as having been settled by the people at the last election, and the verdict rendered upon that occasion I hold must and will be carried out, if not by this, at least by the next Congress.

But I propose to examine some of the arguments against this measure which have been offered by gentlemen upon the other side of the House. It is assumed upon the other side of the House, by gentlemen who it appears to me ought to understand the laws of the land, that we have no power to abolish the institution of slavery. This* is a very singular -position for any legal mind to take. Why, sir, the institution of slavery is not among the reserved exceptions in the Constitution of the United States. Wherever power was not intended to be given to the people toaltertheirfandamentallaw itwas so expressed in the body of the Constitution, and the institution of slavery does not appear in that instrument as one of the subjects to be interdicted from the action of the people upon their organic law.

The gentleman from New York [Mr. Fernando Wood] says, however, that the power does not exist in Congress to pass this measure, because the people m framing the Constitution did not commit the subject of slavery to Congress; that the power to alter the Constitution extends only to those subjects which were committed to the Government of the United States in the formation of the Constitution. I do not so read that instrument. And if I did I would deny the fact upon which he bases his argument.

Sir, the question of human liberty is committed by the Constitution to the people of the United States. I have always supposed that the framing of the Constitution and the formation of our Government were for the express purpose of perpetuating and preserving the liberties of the people, And upon the very threshold of that instiumont I find authority for thatnosition. We are told, in the preamble of the institution, that—

Wo the people of the United States, in order to fonn a more pcrfeet union, establish justice, inline dome He tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general wcliaro, and ventre (he blessings of liberty to ours eh ct and our posterity, do ordain and establish tins Constitution.'> Showing that this very subject was before the framers of the Constitution, and m direct and positive language committed to the Govei nmont of the United States, to be exercised whenever the people, m a constitutional way, should call upon that Government to exercise it.

But the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fernando Wood] takes another position very strange position for any man to occupy at this late day of Christian civilization that is, that the condition of slavery is the proper and normal condition of the negro. I thought that that doctrine belonged to the past days of the Republic. I thought that when the dominant party that ruled this country for so many years went down, that doctrine went down with it. And u may be said, to the credit of gentlemen upon the other side of the House, that few, very few, probably none but the gentleman from New York, has udvoca ted so strange a doctrine.*

What! the normal condition of a human being, his natural and normal condition, is to be that of a slave! What is the argument in favor of that position? What reason can be alleged for it? I suppose thegentleman will fall back upon the only one that can be presented; that is, that the condition of the negro now is that of a slave. "Well, if he should fall back upon that reason, 1 will leply to him that the same argument might have been madeagainstourforefathers when they raised the standard of revolution against the Government of England; they might have been told they were then subject to the Government of England, and therefore should remain so. According to this doctrine whatever is is to be continued, light or wrong.

The gentleman s own ancestors were slaves as abject as any in the South. It has been but a few centuries since the gentleman s own ancestors were bought and sold with the land upon which they lived. More than that, it has been but a few centuries since our mothers were themselves forced, by despotic law and custom, to submit themselves to liberties upon the part of their masters, and probably the little Norman blood that exists in his veins, if any does exist in the veins of that gentleman, is derived from that circumstance.

Suppose some wise statesman of that day had told our ancestors, when they were being bought and sold j that it was their normal and proper condition, because it was then their condition, what would the gentleman s ancestors have said in reply to that argument? Ah! when the question comes to be turned the other side up; when the question comes to be put to a man, whether he himself will submit to be a slave, then it is time for him to say that slavery is the normal and natural condition of a human being.#

I remember that, at the last session of Congress, a question was propounded to one of my colleagues [Mr. Thayer] something like this; whether he maintained that there existed power in the people of the United States under the provision of the Constitution allowing them to alter their organic law, to so alter it as to establish slavery in any State where it does not now exist. The answer to that question is easy. Power can do anything that is possible to it, and when the people of the United States resolve by physical force to enslave any portion of a free people, I know of no means but resistance with the sword to prevent it. But I do say that there arc some things that are not within the limits of human legislation. It is not within the limits of human laws to legislate away the soul of man; wc cannot deprive him, by any process of legislation, constitutional or otherwise, of his free agency; we cannot legislate away his liberty. No man can sell himself. Hence no man can empower his Government to sell him.

Now I call the attention of the legal gentlemen on the other side of the House to a question which 1 propose to put to them, and which I want answered with all calmness and honesty; and in older that it may not be misunderstood 1 have reduced it to writing, and will read it. I desire •the gentlemen from 6l Ohio, [Mr. Pendleton,] who will probably follow me in this discussion, to have his attention particularly directed to it, and I should be obliged to him for aclear and decisive answer.

By the fifth article of the Constitution of the United States power is given to three fourths of the States to change the terms of the compact at will except in the single item of representation in the Senate,) against the const nt of the remaining States. Now, I desire to ask those who mge the principle of State sovereignty against the pending resolution whether the States, by subscribing to that article, did not, ipso facto, surrender their sovereignty; whether a State, entering into even a mere treaty with other States, by the terms of which the treaty may be altered at will by the others against its consent, can, after that, and under the treaty, still claim to be sovereign. It looks to me as if those who deny the power to pass this pending resolution, upon the ground of State sovereignty, will find it very difficult to answer that question in such a way as to justify the position they arc taking.

But it is said, as ain that we ought not so to alter the Constitution as to abolish slavery in the absence of the seceded States. It seems to me that that argument comes with a very bad grace from those who are even the apologists of the doctrine of secession. It is not our fault that those States are not represented here. We did not dm c them away. But for their own mad act their own Representatives might bo here engaging in this discussion and aiding the gentleman from Kentucky in preserving his darling institution and keeping his specimens of humanity.

But, again, it is a grave question question which, I believe, divides the opinion of lawyers in this country—whether or not the resolution passed by us will require the assent of three fourths of the whole number of States, including those that have seceded, or of only three fourths of the States represented in t e Government at the present time. I do not pretend to offer an opinion, at this time at least, upon that question, though I entertain one. But if it requires three fourths of the whole number of States to assent to the measure, how are the States that are not represented here injured? If they were represented here, or if they were in a position to vote upon the question and were all united, it would make no difference if three fourths of the whole number were against them. If, on the other hand, but three fourths of those represented in the Government are necessary then I fall back upon my former answer, and say that it is no fault of ours that they are not in a position to vote upon this question when it .shall be submitted to them. And I say further, that inasmuch as these things require time, inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States itself was not adopted by the last State that ratified it until three years after it had been submitted to the States, there is yet time for those States to repent, to return to their allegiance, and cast their votes upon this question.