January 11, 1865 (2)

One of the gentlemen on the other side of the House objected to the passage of this resolution because he thought we were interfering with the province of the Almighty. He says that if it is the design of the Almighty to abolish the institution He will do it in His own good time. I most heartily assent to the last branch of the proposition; but say in reply, that the Almighty sown time has come, and He is abolishing the institution now by our means and by its own act. Wo are asked," Why not let the process which is now going on, and which is liberating slaves day after day, go on until the institution shall have been abolished by war?" Mr. Speaker, I would be perfectly content to letthe institution share the fate of the rebellion; 1 would be perfectly content to let the war power exterminate it. But I sincerely hope the war will not continue long enough for that, and then it will become a grave question, a question upon which the people and the legal minds of this country will be greatly divided, whether or not the proclamation which has been issued during the time of war, and under the war power, will not fall to the ground upon the return of those States to their allegiance. At present, without having examined the question, I incline to think it will, and with the fear that such may be the decision of the highest tribunal of the land, I will vote for this measure in order that so great a calamity as the extinction of the rebellion without slavery may not befall the American people. Why, look to it. In our very armies there are men, owned by the lawsof the States from which they come, fighting for your liberty, Mr. Speaker, and mine, occupying the position which, but for them, might be occupied by your sons and mine, anil saving our blood by the spilling of their own. 1 ask whether we are going to suffer the remotest risk of those men being returned to slavery after upholding the bannerof the United States against rebellion; whether we are going to suffer the smallest risk of their being so returned after their gallant conduct. 1, for one, am not willing; and upon that ground, if upon none other, I would vote for the pending resolution.«

It is said that we are imposing new conditions upon the people of the seceded States, and that We will, when we have changed the Constitution, be doing the unreasonable thing of compelling them by force to come under these new conditions. "Why, sir, we are imposing no new condition. The condition we are imposing 13 a branch of that very compact into which they entered when they came into the Union with theother States. 'When they subscribed to that Constitution they subscribed to every part of it. They subscribed to the power given to the people of the United States, against their will, to change the organic law of the land. And that fifth article of the Constitution is as much a part of the Constitution as any other part of it. It is under that part weare now acting. Weare imposing no new conditions. We ai e simply exercising a power given to us by them at the tune of the formation of the Government, and expressly embraced in the old conditions.

But the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 1 £a l lory] takes high ground upon this question. He opposes the resolution upon the ground of humanity. He says that it would be a cruel act to turn upon the world all of these negroes. It is strange that an appeal should be made to humanity it> favor of an institution which allows tiie husband to be separated from the wife, that allows the children to be taken from the mother; ah! that allows the very children of the deceased slaveholder himself to be sold to satisfy his merciless creditors.

We are told that cruelties do not often occur under the institution of slavery, i grant that. I believe that as a body the slaveholders are a humane class of men. When i know the regard 1 have for my horse I can entirely assent to the proposition that the slaveholder shall be kind to his own negro, shall fei d him well, clothe him and be proud of him. But that At does not take away my .iy dislike of the whole institution. The very danger of the evils which I have described, arising from the institution, is enough to cause me to do away with it. i would not rest in my bed if I believed the next morning, in the event of my* death, my children might be sold to pay some creditor, though they might be darker than I and offspring of my crime.

Events like this gentlemen on the other side will not deny have occurred, are occurring, and will constantly occur so long as the institution of slavery exists in the land.

But, Mr. Speaker, I presume that the other gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Clay] had a little different view of the humanitarian side of this question. The question of humanity with him was probably the four hundred specimens of humanity whom he claims to own, and who, by the laws of nature and of God, have the same right to own him that he has to own them. If his regard for his property, his fondness for humanity in that sense, stimulates his zeal and fires his eloquence, I admit he has reason.

I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that, although never a political Democrat, I was never afraid of trusting the people with any question, and I cannot appreciate the modern Democracy that fears to let this question go to the people lest they should decide it in their own way. Let us take the initiatory step; let us pass this resolution, and I believe it will be passed, and by this Congress. Let us pass this resolution, and submit it to the States. Let us at least hope that the next President of the United States will be inaugurated over a Republic wholly free and wholly devoted to the civil and religious liberty of all the people within its borders.

Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the House long to day When ,this subject was under discussion at the last session of Congress I endeavored to maintain by argument that three fourths of the States did not possess constitutional power to pass this amendment. I endeavored then tn point out wherein this particular amendment was of a nature not embraced within the power granted. I shall not touch that specific point to day I had arrived at that conclusion after mature deliberation. I have listened with great attention to the opinions of gentlemen on the other side of the House who disagree with me. I have heard my colleague, [Mr. Ashley,] the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. KassoN,] and the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. Cuesv ki.i.,] and I have listened to the sweeping declaration of my colleague e h Cox] who sits behind me. I have endeavored to weigh impartially the arguments which they have adduced in support of their opinions. I am constrained to say that 1 have heard nothing which has in the least degree weakened my faith in the conclusion at which I had arrived. It is because I cannot go beyond this question of power, because I am not at liberty to consider any other question, that I shall confine myself exclusively to its consideration.

1 will not do my colleague from the Toledo district [Mr. Ashley] the injustice to suppose that in his argument on Friday he intended to make a complete reply to the proposition which I endeavored to sustain at the last session.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, the right of revolution. I know what are its limitations and its sanctions. Its origin is not in written constitutions; its sanctions are not in penal enactments. Its home is in the human heart; its origin is in the aspirations of man for progress; its sanction is the ultima ratio from whose dread judgment there is no appeal. The minority of the people may, if they can, subvert this Confederation, and establish in its steada consolidated unity. Much more may a majority. Three fourths of the States may abolish this republican form of government, and, to use the illustration of my colleague, [Mr. Cox,] may elect the King of Dahomey to be their autooiat; and then, responsible in the present only to e nations and to God, and responsible in the future only to the ages and to civilization, they may draw their sword, and if they have the power i i pose that form of government upon the dissenting States.

But I beg my colleagues [Mr. Cox and Mr. Ashley] to remember, and i beg gentlemen who differ from me to remember, that the right of resistance is as perfect; that the duty of resistance is more absolute; and that the cause of those who resist is sacred in the eyes of God and man and will, if they are successful, command the admiration of the world, and crown them with the fame which belongs to patriots and heroes.

But, sir, we are not discussingthat right of revolution nor yet the rightof all the States to amend this Constitution. Weare discussing the powers of change which are granted by this written Constitution. We are discussing the powers of change which by that instrument are given to the majority, and the obligation of obedience and of acquiescence which is imposed upon the minority. I suppose it will be admitted as a maxim, subject to no controversy, that wherever there is a constitutional power in the majority to change the Constitution there is a correlative duty upon the part of the minority, peacefully, and immediately to acquiesce. Wherever there is the right of resistance in the minority, there is no right of amendment in the majority.

I have endeavored to maintain that the right of amendment granted by this Constitution is limited in two ways. First by the letter of the Constitution itself, and next by the spirit and intent and scope of that instrument, and by the idea which underlies it all as a foundation.

My colleague who sits behind me, [Mr. Cox,] and my colleague from the Toledo district, [Mr. Ashley,] admit that the power of amendment is limited by the letter of the Constitution itself, but they assert that it is limited by that rule and no other. This is the answer made to my argument on this special amendment. It avoids the objections I took to it, and asserts in reply the unlimited power. I shall not repeat those objections. I beg gentlemen to remember that this is not a question of revolution or of physical force; it is not a question of abstract right or of natural justice, but of power delegated by the written text of the Constitution itself. From the times of the ancient prophets he was an honorable and upright man who stood by his word though it led to his own injury.

Now I desire .to ask gentlemen whether it is true that the power of change in that Constitution is limited only by its written language? There are but three points in which that Constitution, by its letter, could not be changed. The first was the right of impor tatron of slaves before 1808; the second was the rule of taxation, and the third was the equality of representation in the Senate. The prohibition of change in one article was necessarily limited by the article itself to the year 1808. My colleague from the Toledo district, in the speech which he made the other day, told us with reference to this point:

If i read the Constitution aright and understand the force oflangiiirg'1, the section which I have just quoted is to day 1 rce iiom all limitations and conditions save two, one ot which provides that the suffrage of tire several States m the Senate shall be equal, and that no State shall lose o this equality by any amendment of the Constitution without iu consent; the other relates to taxation. Tlieso are the only conditions and limitations."

I deny it. I assert that there is another limitation stronger even than the letter of the Constitution; and that is to be found in its intent and its spirit and its foundation idea. I put the question which 1ms been put before in this debate, can three fourths of the States constitutionally change this Government and make itan autocracy? Itis not prohibited by the letter of the Constitution.

Mr. ASHLEY. Did my colleague understand that by my speech I claimed that

Mr. PENDLETON. 1 understand exactly what the gentleman claimed and I am endeavoring to run to its extreme the premises upon which the gentleman stands to day in order to convince him of the weak point of his argument.

Mr. she 1 said in my speech thatany amendment republican in its character

Air. PENDLETON. 1 will come directly to the limitation which the gentleman put upon the power. I need not ask my colleague from the Toledo district what answer he will make to that question, because 1 have it already. He would say "No; that change is not within the scope of the power of amendment given to three fourths of the States." Why? It is not forbidden. It does not come within the two classes of limitations and .conditions asserted by my colleague. Why is it that this change cannot be made? I will tell you why. It is because republicanism lies at the very foundation of our system of government and to overthrow that idea is not to amend but to subvert the Constitution of the United States; and I say that if three fourths of the States should undertake to pass an amendment of that kind, and Rhode Island alone dissented, she would have the right to resist by force. It would be her duty to resist by force; and her cause would be sacred in the eyes of just men, and sanctified in the eyes of a just God. Lot me go a little further. Can three fourths of the States make an amendment to the Constitution of the United States which shall prohibit the State of Ohio from having two houses in its Legislative Assembly. My colleague would not agree to that. Why not? It is not prohibited in the Constitution. The letter of the Constitution is not against it. It isan amendment which may be republican in form; it contravenes no tenet of republicanism that a Legislature shall be of one house only. Why could itnot be done? Because the equality of the States lies at the very foundation of our system, and also because the control of the States over their internal affairs is equally at its foundation. And I know my colleague too well to suppose that he would not join with me in saying that such a usurpation of power on the part of three fourths of the States would justify our own State in drawing the sword.

Sir, can three fourths of tlie States provide an amendment to the Constitution by which one fourth should bear all the taxes of this Government? It is not prohibited. To be sure there is a rule in the Constitution that taxation shall be uniform, but that provision, according to the theory of my friend from Ohio, is revokable and changeable as the rest.' The gentleman knows that that amendment would not be within the scope of the powergranted to three fourths of the States, and that it would justify resistance.

Can three fourths of the States, by an amendment to this Constitution, subvert the State governments of one fourth and divide their territory among the rest? It is not forbidden; I read no prohibition in the language of the Constitution, and yet my colleague would not contend that could be done. He would justify resistance.

Can three fourths of the States so amend the Constitution of the States as to make the northern States of this Union slaveholding States? The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Tiiayuii] at the last session said that in his judgment it might be done. I know that the majority of this House would repudiate that doctrine. I would repudiate it myself. Believing, as I do, that the Federal Government can 110 more make a slave than it can make a king, I, for one, would be ready to resist it to the last extremity.

Mr. THAYER. I think the gentleman from Ohio does not precisely quote the answer that I gave to the question that he has just referred to. It I recollect rightly the answer which 1 gave to the question upon the occasion referred to, it was that So far as slavery could be rendered lawful, a constitutional provision making it lawful in all parts of the United States would have a binding and legal effect upon the people of the United States.

Mr. PENDLETON. I understood that to be the position of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and if I expressed myself clearly meant so to represent Jam, and I meant in behalf of myself to repudiate that proposition, for I do not believe that it lies within the power of three fourths of the States to give to the Federal Government the power to make the citizens of a State slaves within its jurisdiction.

Mr. THAYER. The gentleman still, I think, fails to apprehend the character of the answer which I gave to his question. I have never conceded that an amendment or a law of the barbarous character suggested by the question would have a moral force or a moral obligation upon the people of the United States. But what I said, in answer to the question of the gentleman from Ohio was, that it would have the force of law, the force of an amendment of the Constitution; that the law, if it was opposed to the inalienable rights of the people of the United States, would be, if I may use a contradictory expression, an unlawful law, a law which you could not enforce, a law contravening the inalienable rights of the citizens of this country.

1 hope, sir, that I have made myself understood, i I do not wish to be placed in the position which the last remark of the gentleman from Ohio assigned to me, of saying that either a law of Congress or any amendment of the Constitution which could be adopted by the people of the United States could introduce slavery into a State, but 1 .say that so far as it would have the effect of law it would legalize it.

Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Speaker, I would not do injustice to the gentleman from Pennsylvania s 1 believe he well knows. I go a step further than he does. I say that it would not be binding in morals; I say that it would not be binding in law. It would be illegal. It would be void. It would have 110 more sanction than that which the power of those who chose to impose it would be able to give to it. It would be binding on those who would come within the power of the sword of those who made it, and on no other.

Mr. WILSON. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question?

Mr. PENDLETON. Certainly.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, if that be the position which the gentleman designs to occupy, I should like to have that gentleman inform the House where any portion of the people of this country derived the power to make any other portion of the people slaves in the first instance.

Mr. PENDLETON. They did not derive it from the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. WILSON. I ask where they did derive it.

Mr. PENDLETON. They did not derive it from the Constitution of the United States. They did not give to the Constitution, or rather to the Government of the United States which the Constitution formed, the right to interfere with it where it existed. I will not b6 drawn now into a discussion with the gentleman as to the origin of slavery, nor to the law, which lies behind the Constitution of the United States and behind the governments of the States, by which these people are held in slavery. When that subject is pertinent I will not hesitate to enter into the debate. Perhaps he and I might not differ about that. But] am discussing the question which is put forth so ostentatiously by the other side of the House, that under the Constitution by the right of revolution—under 11s clauses and provisions, there exists the power to make this amend merit.

Mr. KASSON. Mr. Speaker

The SPEAKER. Does the gi ntlemaa from Ohio yield to the gentleman from Iowa?

Mr. PENDLETON. Certainly, sir.

Mr. KASSON. Mr. Speaker, I rose a moment" ago, as the gentleman knows the esteem in which I hold his ability on these questions, to state this to him, and to make an inquiry. It seems to me that he has taken the extreme ground of the extremest abolitionists, so frequently denounced by his political associates on this floor and at the other end of the Capitol, of a higher law than the Constitution itself. I state that as a preliminary to the inquiry which I propose to make. He is referring every proposed amendment to the individual opinion of a man as 10 whether it aceoids with the spirit which underlies the Constitution and irrespective of its letter. If that be so, it is a direct appeal to and an adoption of what has been obnoxiously styled the higher law as maintained by extreme abolitionists" time and again. Now, I wish to ask on this identical logical point to be derived from his premises, did not those who framed the Constitution affect the subject which he declares now to be incapable of amendment, when they prohibited every State from increasing its interest in slavery by any importation of the people from abroad who could increase it, and in what respect this amendment differs in kind from that incorporated in the Constitution itself, which declares to the States that they shall not swell by one, after the year 1808, the slaves they then had within their borders? I ask him Qti principle, not 011 detail, on kind, not in degree, what the difference is.

Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Speaker, it is well for gentlemen to understand exactly the position which their antagonists occupy before they go into a discussion of the kind suggested by my friend from Iowa; and I would like him to answer the question whether or not he believes, with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Thayer,] that the adoption of an amendment of the Constitution, such as I alluded to, would legally carry the institution of slavery into the 1101 them Slates.

Mr. KASSON. I will aiibwer that question directly the gentleman frankly and clearly answers mine.

Mr. PENDLETON. The gentleman says he will answer my question as soon as I answer his. I say they did not touch this question of slavery in the States, or the power of each State over its citizens. I say to him that I was very unfortunate if I did not make myself clearly understood in the proposition that I was arguing. I was considering the powers guarantied by the instrument itself. I was considering only those powers, and I expressly distinguished between the right of revolution and the right under which gentlemen claim that they have the power to make this amendment.

For all purposes of this argument I have only sought to place myself on the Constitution of the United States, and not to invoke the authority of any law higher than it. I have taken extreme cases. I told my colleague [Mr. Ashley] that I intended to take extreme cases, because it is only by extreme cases that the soundness of principles can be measured.

Mr. WILSON. I desire to ask the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Pendleton,] in order to fully understand the theory upon which he is conducting this argument, whether he believes that the States, acting m what he calls their sovereign capacity, have the power or the right to make a portion of the people of a State slaves?

Mr. PENDLETON. That is a question which I will discuss with the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. Wilson,] whenever it is pertinent to the subject in hand.

Mr. WILSON. I was going to suggest to the gentleman thatl understood his theory to include that. If I misunderstood him, then I ask his par-

Mr. PENDLETON. The question which we are discussing to day is not the power of the State government to decide the status of the people within its boundaries. But the question is as to the" pu wer reserved in this compact of confederation to its constituents, which are the States.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker

Mi. WADS WORTH. I object to the gentleman (rum Ohio, [Mr. Pendleton,] yielding the Door to any further interruption.

Mr. PENDLETON. I hope my friend will not object to any questions until I do.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will cause the mle to be read.

The Clerk then read the following rule of the House:

While a member is occupying the floor he may yield it to another foi explanation ot the pending measure as well as lor personal explanation."

tS The SPEAKER. The rule is a very broad one. The Chair does not see how the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Pendleton] can be limited in his right to yield the floor to any member who may desire to ask him a question.*

Mr. BOUTWELL. I understood the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Pendleton] to say that he dissented from the doctrine that the power to amend the Constitution was an unlimited power. I wish to say that I also dissent from that doctrine. I do not agree that under the article of the Constitution authorizing amendments we have the right to amend the Constitution so as to establish slavery, or to invite the King of Dahomey to rule over this country. I think the limitation, if the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Pendleton] will bear with me a moment longer, is found in the preamble, as follows:

Wo, the people of the United States, in oidor to form a more perfect union, establish justice, Insure domestic tianquillity, provide for tiie common defense, promote the gpnetal vvf welfare, and secure the bleating^ of libeiry to ourselves rind our posterity, do oidum and establish tin* Constitution."*

One provision of the Constitution is that in a certain way it may be amended. Whenever it is amended it must be amended, in order that it may have both moral and legal force, in conformity with the objects for which the Constitution was framed, as set forth in the preamble. And an amendment which tends to ((a more perfectunion, to establish justice, fo insure domestic tranquillity, to provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," is an amendment which, when made according to the form prescribed in the Constitution, is both morciliy and legally binding upon the people of the country. But if it be made in violation of those great objects, although it may be legally operative, it has no moral force. The argument would be, in my mind, that the amendment we now advocate is in conformity with those objects, while an amendment to establish slavery would be contrary to them.

Mr. PENDLETON. I see that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Boutwell] appreciates very well the argument I am now making, and he has separated himself from my colleague from the Toledo district, [Mr. Ashley,] and my colleague who sits behind me, [M r. Cox,] and other gentlemen who have preceded me in this debate in drawing the distinction as to the character of the amendments to be made. He repudiates the doctrine which those gentlemen have asserted, that the prohibition upon amendments is limited only to the letter of the Constitution itself.

Mr. ASHLEY. My colleague [Mr. Pendleton] will do me the justice to say that I was careful to make the limitation that no amendment could be made anti republican in its character.

Mr. PENDLETON. 1 will do my colleague no injustice. I was repudiating the doctrine of the right or constitutional power of three fourths of the States so to amend the Constitution as that they may carry the institution of slavery into these northern States. I was seeking to impress upon gentlemen the argument that there were other prohibitions than those which were contained in the letter of the Constitution. I declared my belief, and I repeat it, that it is not within the power of three fourths of the States to impose upon the dissenting States such an amendment. Authority over the status of its own citizens belongs to each State. 'It cannot he deprived of it.

Mr. GOOCH. I will ask the gentleman from Ohio [M r. Pendleton] whether in his opinion the men who made the Constitution could, at the time they made it, have prohibited the institution of slavery within the United States.

Mr. PENDLETON. In my judgment the Constitution of tiie United States would never have been ratified by nine of the States with such a piov isnm in it.

Mr. GOOCH. That is not my question. I ask the gentleman whether in his opinion they could have prohibited slavery without violating any of the essential and fundamental principles of the Government.

Mr. PENDLETON. They could have prohibited it, and it would have been binding upon those States which laufted it, because it was in the power of each State to give up to the Federal Giivt i nmentthe d< cision of the status ofiu people; but the other States cannot chum to make that decision except by express grant from each State.

Mr. GOOCH. I would ask the gentleman a still further question: whether by the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments to it the States have not conferred that power upon the constitutional majority, orupon that power which they have authorized to amend the Constitution.

Mr. PENDLETON. I think they have not; or else I would not have been denying the power for the last half hour. I have been endeavoring to show that the limitations in the letter of the Constitution were not the only limitations upon the power of amendment. And I have done it for the purpose of leading gentlemen of this House to a conclusion I am prepared to take. 1 have shown that you cannot, under the po wer of amendment, contravene the letter and spirit of the Constitution; that you cannot subvert republicanism; that you eannotdestroy the liberties of theStates; that you cannot decide the status of the citizens of the States. I would lead them to the conclusion that there is no power on the part of the Federal Government the part of three quarters of the States I intended to say—to adopt the amendment that is now proposed; and that if you do it, if you attempt to impose that amendment upon the dissenting States by force, it will be their right to resist you by force, and to call to their aid all the powers which God and nature have given them to make that force effective.

Now, sir, 1 do not intend to do my colleague from the Toledo district [Mr. Ashley] the least injustice in stating his argument. He felt the force of the suggestions which I have endeavored to present. They occurred to a mind accustomed to anticipate the objections which may be made to the position which he assumes. Having laid down, in the broadest possible terms, that the conditions and limitations imposed upon the power of amendment are only those which are expressly declared in the Constitution, he follows it up by a declaration that, "in my judgment, Congress may propose and three fourths of the States may adopt any amendment republican in its character and consistent with the continued existence of the nation, save in the two particulars just named." Why does he impose those two further limitations*? There is no guarantee in the Constitution that the Federal Government shall be republican in form. There is no prohibition of a change of the Federal Government to a different and antirepublican form.' The gentleman s own admission overthrows the foundation upon which his argument rests. And 1 would like to know from the gentleman where there is a prohibition upon the right of three fourths of the States to dissolve the Confederation. Lie says that any amendment must be" consistent with the continued existence of the nation." I deny it; I say thatthree fourths of the States can dissolve the Confederation. They can annul the Constitution. They can dissolve the Union; but they cannot take away from the constituent States those powers which were reserved, not only by the letter, but by the spirit and the intent and design of the instrument itself. But this speech of my colleague contains another remarkable statement, to which I desire to call hisattention. Following the line of argument which seems to have been adopted by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Gooch,] in the question which he put to me just now, my colleague says:

AIj. Speukci, f piesuinc no man, not even my colleague, will deny tli it when the thirteen colonies or States n cmbfrd by their leprebentativcs m Convention to make the piCbont national Constitution they might have abolished slaveiy at once. Or, if the theory of the old parties is true, that a H puliiic m Government may aulliouze or peinntthe enslavement of men, which 1 deny, they could have provided lot the emancipation of all slaves in twenty ot liftv years, if they had seen fit; and it the people of nine States had ot d to ratify such a con tilution slaveiy couid not, after the period named, have existed by State law and in defiance ol the national Constitution, either in one of the old tliu teen State-, 01 in any one of the States admitted into the Union since it adoption

Does the gentleman mean to say that the ratification of nine States would have prohibited the institution of slavery in the thirteen States? Does the gentleman mean to say that the ratification of nine States would have made the Constitution binding upon the thiitecn? If that is the gentleman s view, then I ask by what authority such a ratification would have had such an effect? I lead m the Constitution itself that" the ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same." Does the gentleman still contend that the provisions of the Constitution ratified by nine States would have been binding upon the thirteen?

Mr. ASHLEY. I intended, Mr. Speaker, to say this: That the ratification of the Constitution by nine States of the old Confederation practically made them a nation. It is true the clause of the Constitution quoted by my colleague declares that none but the States adopting it would be bound by it. Yet, practically, if adopted by nine of the thirteen it made the whole, with all the territory belonging to them, a nation. Undoubtedly the frameis of the Constitution believed that if it was adopted by nine States the practical effect would be to force the other four to adopt it. I have no doubtsuch was the understanding of the members of the convention, and certainly such .was the practical cfTcct of it.

Mr. PENDLETON. Well, Mr Speaker that is n most extraordinary proposition. It might be true that, in the course of time, and by the power of conquest, or by the moral influences which a Government composed of nine States would have exerted, the other States would have been persuaded to come into the Union, but I deny that anyone State would have been bound by any ratification except that proceeding from the State itself. The theory which the gentleman has explained to us just now, and which, as contained m his speech as printed in the Globe, I honestly thought, in my simplicity, to be a misprint—this theory explains what the gentleman means when he tells us that the Federal Constitution does not clothe any of the States with the attributes of sovereignty. Of course it does not. Nobody ever pretended that it did.

Mr. STEVENS. Suppose that nine States had at that time ratified the Constitution, while the other four did not; would those other four have been members of the Union?

Mr. PENDLETON. No sir

Mr'. STEVENS. Sol say. Butsuppose that three fourths of the States now ratify an amendment while the remaining fourth do not, are the States refusing to ratify still members of the Union?

Mr. PENDLETON. That will depend upon the character of the amendment, and whether it is in pursuance of the authority granted.

Mr. STEVENS. If the amendment should be adopted by three fourths of the States, while the other fourth refuse to ratify it, do the non agreeing States go out of the Union or remain in it?

Mr. PENDLETON. If the amendment be without the scope of the power granted, legally they remain in the Union, and the other States go out. [Laughter.]

Nobody pretends that the States are clothed with the powers of sovereignty by the Federal Constitution. Nor does that instrument necessarily strip them of the sovereign rights which they had before the Constitution was made. The States have sovereign powers to day except so far as that Constitution, by their voluntary act of adoption, has taken those powers from them. They do not derive power from the Federal Government. It inheres in them, and I would like to inquire of my colleague from the Toledo district, [Mr. Ashley,] if he denies the sovereignty in the States because they have agreed to suspend, or, if you please, to delegate certain powers of sovereignty which would otherwise belong to them, upon what basis can he pretend there is sovereignty in the Federal Government, which has not now and never had any authority except that which is expressly delegated to it by these States themselves.

But, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ashley] is led by his anxiety to pass this amendment into the declaration of another doctrine, which although notentirely novel, is somewhat new upon this floor. He holds to the doctrine that ordinances of secession destroy State governments, but do not affect the relations of the States, that is, of the territory and the people to the Federal Government. He holds that an act of secession is an abdication by the people of their rights but not a release from their duties; that it destroys, not the tie which binds them to the Union, but their form of Government, leaving them subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and its absolute sovereignty with all the rights of local government, and he deduces from this the conclusion that the seceding States have no voice on this amendment, but are absolutely bound by it. That doctrine was promulgated by a Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] nearly three years ago in a series of resolutions presented to the Senate, and my colleague will remember that they met wiffi no more indignant response than from the honorable, able, learned, antl patriotic gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Thomas] who then had a seat upon the floor of* this House.

The gentleman from Ohio took the instance of Florida. Florida, owned by the Federal Government as a Territory, brought up from a condition of infancy to that maturity, is admitted into the Union. Shall we claim that Florida may on the instant, by the passage of an ordi jjjjaec of secession, separate herself from this Union and declare that her Union loving citizens are traitors if they adhere to the Union? Dftes the gentleman forget that he does notstrengthen his argument by citing theinstanceof aState madeoutof territory which belonged to the Federal Government? When Florida became a State she became a State with all of the powers and authorities, with all of the rights, all of the dignities, all the elements of sovereignty which Virginia herself had. Yet the gentleman declares that such a State, admitted into this compact by the act of the Federal Government and of the State itself, does not occupy the position of the original States, but that it—more than they—is remitted by the actof secession to a condition of pupilage, and that its people—more than others—are obliged to obey the Constitution—in whose amendmentthey have no vote—which three fourths of the States, States represented here, may impose upon them.

Mr. YEAMAN. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment?

Mr. PENDLETON. I will yield if I have time. How much time have I?

The SPEAKER; Fifteen minutes.

Mr. PENDLETON. I will yield to the gentleman for a moment. He will see the necessity for beins; brief.

Mr. YEAMAN. If the Constitution as an original compact of government was binding only upcii those who did ratify it, then I ask whether by ratification they did not give the amending power to three fourths of the States.

Mr. PENDLETON. I have been endeavoring foril rec quarters of an hour to answer that question.

Mr.' YEAMAN. What number of States can amend the Constitution?

Mr. PENDLETON. In some particulars, where the power is granted, three fourths of the States can In other particulars it cannot be done except by the consent of all of the States bound by it.

Mr. YEAMAN. That brings me to the question I wish to ask the gentleman, and that is this: what is there in this particular amendment which makes it an exception to the general rule, and takes it out of the operation of the amending power?

Mr. PENDLETON. That; question I have fully answered on another occasion in this House. It does not lie within the scope of my argument now. The doctrine of the gentleman from Ohio, Mr Ashley,] to which I have just referred, is as large in its operation, though 1 think hardly as logical or conclusive, as the position taken by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens.] That gentleman is famous more for a sledge hammer power of logic than for its scholastic accuracy.

He says that we are in a condition of war, and that war absolves all compacts. It deprives the citizens of seceding States of their rights under the Federal Government, and absolves the Federal Government and the people of the adhering States from the obligations imposed by the Constitution; and, therefore, he told us, and with an emphasis we could all understand, that no State should be readmitted into the Union unless it came back carved by the Federal Government out of territory conquered by the sword.

Now, I would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] to be careful how he asserts that doctrine too far. He would g iupoti the maxim that what is broken in one thing is broken in all." i racla in xmo fracta in omnibus." Let him be careful lest he may find that it will dissolve the tie which binds these northern States one to the other, and they be remitted to theiroriginal position of independence. Let him be careful, lest when the passions of these times bo passed away, and the historian shall go back to discover where was the original infraction of the Constitution, he may find that sin lies at the door of others than the people now in arms.

Mr. JENCKES. May 1 interrupt the gentleman to ask him a question?

Mr. PENDLETON. Certainly, if the gentleman will not consume too much of my limited time.

Mr. JENCKES. I understand the gentleman from Ohio to say that when the history of this time should bo written that the sins of and the cause of this: rebellion might be laid to the doors of others thafrthose who are now in arms against the Republic. I ask him in the presence of this House and of the American people, at whose door that sin shall be laid, wherein that sin consists, and by whom it was committed? Let the gentleman place it on the records of the history of this country.

Mr. PENDLETON. I am not surprised that the gentleman is touched by what I have said upon this subject. It might be he misunderstood somewhat the exact force of the words I used. But there have been in the neighborhood of the gentleman, the ie have been within his own State or near it, there have been in the northern States, within the free States, attempts constantly to infract this Constitution; and that I believe, as I believe I stand here to day

Mr. JENCKES. Name the men.

Mr. PENDLETON. I could do so, but I did not say that the sin of this rebellion might be laid at the door of other people; I said to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens,] and if the gentleman from Rhode Island stands beside him he too may regard it—I said to him, let him beware how he pushed the doctrine that a compact broken in one part is broken in all, lest it might be found that in the p? st the compact of confederation has been broken elsewhere than in the South.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment?,

Mr. PENDLETON. I must decline for the present. I should have concluded what I had to say but for these interruptions.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Just one moment.

Mr. PENDLETON. Well, I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I find in the Congressional Globe of 1800—61 a proposition, made, I think, from the committee of thirty three to amend the Constitution by interposing this article:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic im tltlltions thereof, including tliatot persons licld to labor or service by the laws of said State."

On looking over the yeas and nays upon that amendment I find that the gentleman from Ohio voted for the amendment.

I wish to inquire of him, if in the winter of 18C0 and 1861 it was necessary to amend the Constitution by putting into it an article thereafter prohibiting such an amendment of the Constitution as would interfere with slavery, why it is that we cannot now adopt an amendment prohibiting slavery?

Mr. PENDLETON. The gentleman ought to know too well the history of that period in which he was an actor to ask me that question, lie was, as I, a member of this House at that time, and he knows that charges were made upon the Republican party that they designed to do what their history has shown that they have done, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States, and that proposition of amendment was offered, I think, by a gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams) to test the good faith of the Republican party.

Several Members. Oh, no; youare mistaken.

Mr. PENDLETON. Was it not offered by Mr. Adams? Well, it was offered at all events to test the good faith of the Republican party.

[Hero the hammer fell, the hour having expired.]

Mr. ASHLEY. I move that the gentleman have leave to proceed.

Mr. PENDLETON. I desire but five minutes more.

By unanimous consent the leave was granted.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment? [Cries of "Oh no."]

Mr. PENDLETON. Well, not if it is to press the point, which I have already answered.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I do not think the gentleman from Ohio has answered the point.

Mr. PENDLETON. Sir, I will hear the gentleman.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I understand that at that time the power to amend the Constitution so as to interfere with slavery was not denied. I find that the vote of the gentleman from Ohio for this amendment of the Constitution which should prohibit and prevent further amend men tofit alio wing us to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the States was an admission by him of the power of Congress and of the people to so amend the Constitution. if it was not, why did he vote for the amendment

Mr. PENDLETON. As I said before, the gentleman ought to know, if ho does not know, that the power of amendment in this particular was not then admitted by anybody who agreed with me. Some gentlemen claimed it; quite a large body of men claimed it; but I will venture to say that he will not find in the debates that preceded the vote on that amendment the admission of any member who sat upon this side of the Chamber or of a dozen men who sat upon that side of the Chamber, that the power resided in three fourths of the States to make this amendment. They denied that the prohibition was necessary; but, admitting that there was no power, they did agree, inasmuch as it was not expressly stated in the Constitution, to vote for that amendment in order that in all future time it might be the subject of no question whatever.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Nobody at that time, I think, denied the power of Congress and the people to amend the Constitution in this regard.

Mr. PENDLETON. Upon that pointwe differ entirely. The gentleman sat here and so did I. We had our own views of public policy, as we have no w It may be that we understood differently the positions which various gentlemen and parties occupied at that time.

Mr. COX. 1 will simply say in answer to what has fallen from my colleague, that at the time those resolutions were pending this question ol power was discussed, and for one, I held then as 1 hold to day that we had the power under this amendatory clause to reach slavery pro or con, and the only question is whether we shall use that power as then for the benefit of the country or abuse it as now it is sought to be abused.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. The gentleman is correct in regard to that, and, as I said before, nobody denied the power. The slaveholders upon the floor of Congress at that time themselves admitted the power, and were constantly charging that we intended toexercise that power. For the purpose of quieting their fears in that regard, the committee of thirty three was raised, who reported this article, and it was passed through the House by the requisite two thirds vote. It was done for the purpose of quieting the fears of the slaveholders who were then threatening to dissolve the Union because they charged us with the intention of interfering with slavery by an amendment of the Constitution, which they all admitted we had the power to do.

Mr. PENDLETON. I dissent entirely from the proposition of my colleague, as well as from that of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Farnswortii.] The gentleman and I differ about it. We cannot settle it. I say, and I am prepared to show by the debates that took place at that time, that the same claim was made then which I make to day It was because it was believed that that opinion was not assented to by the extreme gentlemen who had just then come into the administration of the Government, that it was deemed necessary by themselves to put forth this declaration confirmatory of the absence of power on the part of three fourths of the States.

But my colleague from Ohio, [Mr. Ashley,] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens,] and the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. Morrill,] differing on many particulars, agree in this, that the power of their logic is such that nohonestman can dissent from their conclusions, and that those who do not intend to vote with them for this amendment are actuated either by sympathy with slavery or by sympathy with the rebellion. Sir, 1 repel with indignation the insinuation; I repel it with that honest warmth which is consistent with the personal respect which those gentlemen know I feel personally for them. I say it is unworthy of them; that it is unworthy their high character, unworthy of their position in this House. It is the art of the demagogue to ascribe unworthy motives to an act which may in itself be honest.

This Constitution demands the highest admiration of my intellect. It has received the profound homage of my heart. The oath which I have taken commands me to perform that duty which my intellect and my heart impose upon me; and I intend, through evil and through good report, through whatever storm of popular disfavor, to stand by it, as I understand it, even to the end. I love my whole country South as wellay North; and it is because I love it that no act of mine shall retard the restoration of peace or the reconstruction of that Union which made itall my country. I am a northern man; I have* their prejudices; I love my section; I love its people; I love its institutions; I am jealous of its honor; and no act of mine shall stain the luster of the fame of its good faith. I am a citizen of Ohio. It was the home of my fathers, as it is the home of my children; and I will stand by this Constitution because I wish to preserve forever the rights and dignities of my State, and maintain forever the liberties of its citizens.

'I am not influenced, therefore, by any peculiar love for the people of the South; by any peculiar regard for their institutions. I stand unmoved by the considerations which have been addressed to us. It is nothing to me that gentlemen from slaveholding States approve this amendment; it is nothing to me that the tide of the popular sentiment runs in favor of it; it is nothing to me that we of the northern States who believe as 1 do stand alone, if alone we must stand. I intend to do my duty as I understand it, and I am prepared for the consequences be they what they But, Mr. Speaker, if I were influenced by the motives which gentlemen on the other side attribute to me, it would be easy for me to full into the current of public opinion which is carryingthem so rapidly away. It is because I am not that I occupy the position I do to day The time is fast passing away when under the influence of your policy and ycfcir legislation the southern States or people will have the least interest in your laws. Your legislation has turned to ashes the golden fruits of your military success. Your policy has verified the alleged causes of secession. Gentlemen must not be misled by the syren voices that come up to them from captured cities of the South. They woo you but to ruin. If you misunderstand them they will lead you as willing victims upon quicksands and rocks.

if you drive the southern people by your military power to the last extremity, and superadd, as the majority of this House desire, emancipation of slaves, confiscation of property, destruction of local governments, destruction of State constitutions, division of territory that be your policy, they will liberate their slaves, they will arm their negroes, they will break down the only barrier that separates them from the sympathies of all Europe, and, aided by the moral force, if not the material power of Europe, they will establish their independence, and your Union President will sign the treaty of dissolution. And then, in exchange for free Maryland with her slaves enfranchised and her white citizens enslaved; in exchange for free Missouri with her slaves enfranchised and her white citizens decimated by the vengeance of the guerrillas, we will have given up this Union with all its benefits, and have subverted a form of government the fairest and freest, the most bountiful in blessings in the past and the most hopeful of blessings in the future, that God in His mercy ever vouchsafed to

Mr. JENCKES, Mr. Speaker, I am not sorry to have heard, in this House of Representatives of the American people, as a finality, as I believe, of the controversy which has divided and distracted our land, the proposition stated by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Pendleton.] He has improved upon the school of his master. lie looked upon a dissevered and divided Union, a compact of States. We have now a phrase by which this nation is designated by one who expected to have been one of its chief executive officers as" a- compact of confederation." For the first time, I believe, in the history of this country has that phrase been used with reference to this form of government. And I am astonished that he, a citizen of Ohio, a State sovereign and independent, as I understood him to say, should have used a phrase like that in defining his position when departing from the councils of the nation. Well is it for the nation that those of that school should not be retained in its councils. If we are not a nation, what are we?" A compactof confederation?" I doubt, if the gentleman had weighed the meaning of those words, whether he would have used that phrase.

But let me make the point upon him which I did in the question that I put. I ask him, and askall who may follow him on the same side, to answer my question. I do not agree with what he says in reference to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr Stevens "broken in one thing broken in all," referring to the Constitution. I arraign before the American people the gentleman from Ohio and all who are of his school of politics, and I ask him or them to frame an indictment against u man, a State, or a party in this whole country that has committed, I will not say a fracture of the Constitution, because that would be a matter of fact, but that has done anything to break the Constitution. Let us hear what it is, here and now. While we are attempting to amend the Constitution let them place it upon record. Time and time again we have asked them for it. Now we have that accusation from the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Pendleton.] Let him put it upon record in such phrase as he chooses. He knows well how to do it; no one better. Let him answer it now, or let him and all who are with him stand mute.

But the question now before the House seems to be simply this: can we amend the Constitution in the way in which the Constitution itself says it may be amended? Whatever it may be called, written compact between the State®, a declaration of the rights of the people, a convenient expression of what the people meant to be their rights forever thereafter; describe it in whatever phrase you please, can any one say that it cannot be amended in the precise way in which those who framed it intended it should be amended? What answer have we to that? Why, sir, the answer of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cox] is that that power is to be used but not abused. Abused! abused! to amend the Constitution in this manner? 1 say to that gentleman, and all who are with him, not only before this House and this country, but before the world, that it is a misuse of language in this age of the world to charge us with abuse of power when we place ourselves in the direct line of the eternal forces acting out God s justice upon this earth.

Again, 1 say to gentlemen when I say it I simply mean to raise the points that they may be answered and that the answers may be placed upon record if any one chooses to give them— why, as a matter of expediency, should this not be done? I heard the venerable gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Clay] say, the other day, with lamentations, almost with tears, that the result of this thing was to use those enfranchised people as a political power in the States. Has not slavery been an element of power ever since it had a recognized existence in this country, ever since it was first tolerated by this Government? And shall it be objected to by the friends of freedom that the freedmen, the enfranchised men, will be an element of power in a republican Government? Strange language is that, it seems to me.

But in this contest slavery commenced the fight; it chose its own battle field it has fought its battle, and it is dead. In the course of our victorious march that battle field lias come into our possession, and the corpse of our dead enemy is upon it. Let us bury it quickly, and with as little ceremony as possible, that the foul odor of its rotting carcass may no longer offend us and the world.

Mr. SMITH obtained the floor, and then, (at twenty minutes past four o clock p. m.,) on motion of Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, the House adjourned.