January 12, 1865

In order to have a full and clear conception of our institutions it will he pioper to remark that there is, in our extern, a striking contract between government and soveieignty. The separate governments, of ihesftvmil States are vested in their legislative, executive, and judicial dep uiinents while the sovereignty iodides in the people of the several State-* who eu ttod it; hut by an expietj proVision oi' the Constitution it may be amended or changed by three ibuuh* oi the States, and thus each Slate, by assenting to tin; Confutation with this piovi ion hu> modified its original ugh: a- a sovereign, of making its individual consent ncees saiy to any change in it^ political condition; and by becoming a nin member oi this Union has placed till* important power m the hands or' ilnee fourth t> oi the States, in whom the highest power known to the Constitution resides."

This extract is only strengthened by the context. I call on my friends of the State rights school not to outdo their master, but if they would save the most valuable and most abused principle of our Government, not to strain its intent, and thus destroy it altogether.

I am sustained in my view, by the history of the Convention which framed the Constitution. Was this question considered by the Convention? It was. In Elliot s Debates, volume five page 357, it appears that General Pinckney" reminded the Convention that if the committee should fail to insert some security to the southern States against an emancipation of slaves and taxes on imports he should be bound by his duty to his State to vote against their report." Again, when the report was made, this clause of amendment came in on the 15th of September. It was discussed by Sherman, Morris, Gerry, Mason, and Madison. Mr. Sherman did not like the mode proposed, for fear it would, by three fourths of the States, do things fatal to particular States, as abolishing them altogether, or depriving them of their equality. Colonel Mason thought it dangerous and exceptionable. Mr. Madison defended the present clause. Mr. Sherman moved to annex to the end of the article a further proviso, 44 that no State shall, without its consent, be affected in its internal police, or deprived of its internal police, or deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." Mr. Madison opposed it. It was lost—three to eight. Then Mr. Sherman moved to strike out the fifth article altogether. That too failed. The article was then fin ther amended by the existing clause, that" no State shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." (Elliot, volume 5, page 352.) Thus it passed.

The argument from contemporary history is therefore conclusive. The intention of the creator is the best criterion as to the character of the creature. Here we have it, not only implied by the absence of an exception, but by the positive disallowance of it by the Convention. That intention was to limit the amending clause only in two particulars. This one before the House in neither of the two.

My opinion on this matter of construction is drawn from unexceptionable teaching; not alone from Judge Story; not alone from Calhoun. No man can teach me a different lesson until I forget the history of the Constitution. The platform of my party, and the philosophy of Us founders, teach me the same thing. In the language of that platform of many years, adopted last at Cincinnati tuid Baltimore, I" maintain before the world this great moral element in a form of government, springing from and upheld by the popular will, which seeks not to palsy the will of the constituent;" and that is, that the Federal Government is one of limited power, derived solely from the Constitution and the grants of power made therein; that its powers ought to be strictly construed; and if upon such construction found therein, to be strictly pursued, with all the vigor of their constitutional sanctions.

Finding this clause of amendment in the Constitution, with no doubt upon its features, I must bow to its supremacy. Even though I may regard it as clear and unquestionable, and admit the power in its fullest expression, I may yet claim that its exercise is dangerous and inexpedient, if it were a doubtful power I would not think of exercising it, but since it is clearly granted I shall consult my own judgment upon the merits of the proposed amendment.

If then it be an exercise of an admitted power, why not confine the discussion to proving the unwisdom of its exercise? For two reasons:

I. I believe that the argument from lack of power to amend is weaker than the argument against its expediency. It is a settled rule of logic that a fallacy, used in a good cause, gives your opponent the advantage of apparent success in the conclusion of the argument. I do not propose to give this advantage to the advocates of this measure. Believing that the power exists, 1 am bound to follow the example of my colleague [Mr. Pendleton] and place my vote upon the reasons which weigh most in my judgment.

I find that the learned commentator, Judge Story, regards this power of amendment as both useful anil important. His reasons are radical. He says, page 678:

It is nbvioiv i that no human Government can ever be pei feet; and that itiMinposMble to foresee or guard against all the exigencies winch may, in difieient ages, require diffVient adaptations and modifications of powers to suit the v uious necessities of the people. A Government forever changing and changeable, u indeed in a state bordering upon anarchy and confusion. A Government which, m its own organization, provides no means of change, but assumes to he fixed and unalterable, mu t after a while become wholly intuited to the circumstances of the nation; and it will either degenerate into a despotism, or by the pressure of its inequalities bring on a revolution. It is wise, therefore, In every Government, and especially in a republic, to provide means for altering and improving the fabric of Government as time and experience or the new phases of human affairs may render proper, in order to promote the happiness and safety of the people. The great principle to be sought is to make the changes practicable, but not too easy y to secure due deliberation and caution; and to follow experience rather than to open a way for expel unents suggested by mere speculation or theory."

Upon this philosophy he considers this power of amendment; finds in its mode of exercise sufficient checks against its abuse; but even if abused he finds that it is better as a measure of safety than if the powers were limited. In his judgment there are no limitations upon its exercise except those specified; and the claim to abolish the internal policy of a State is not an exception.

These reasons for the clause of amendment are the reasons why the power is so extensive. The mode of amendment was thought to be so guarded as to prevent any unrepublican or monarchical amendments which would substantially change the genius and scope of the Federal system of delegated powers. It is, nevertheless, unlimited, except in the two particulars specified.

This power of unlimited amendment is an element of democracy. It has been the characteristic of our democratic institutions that our ancestry, however prudent and wise, did not tie the hands of the children nor shackle their liberties by laws so irrevocable that no mode of change was allowed. In our State constitutions this power of amendment has been and is being exercised almost every decade. Why? On the principle of Jeremy Bentham, (Benthammna, page 220,) that at each point of time the sovereign for the time possesses such means as the nature of the case affords for making himseli acquainted with the exigencies of hisown time. With reference to the future he has no such means. He thus argues against the transfer of the Government from those who possess the best means to those, who possess the least means of information. Shall the past century rule the present? No, not unless they are better informed or feel more interest in the future generation than in their own. Why should we of the nineteenth century tie up the hands of the twentieth? Why should the dead forever rule the living? Is a tyranny inexorable because it is established in the past? Is a law immutable because made by the fathers? If the law be despotic who then shall reverse it? Fiorn these general principles he deduces the reason why I choose to argue this amendment rather upon its unwisdom than upon the lack of power to make it." It is only," he says," when the law is mischievous that an argument of this stamp will be employed to suppoi t it. Suppose a law a good one it will be supported, not by absurdity and deception, butfiom its own excellency. A declaration that this or that law is immutable, so far from being a proper argument to enforce Us permanency, is rather a presumption that such a law has some mischievous tendency."

Now, Mr. Speaker, if our polity, which leaves all domestic questions to the State, be wise, as I think it is—eminently wise—not because it was made in 17d7, but because it is suited to 1865, and our condition now as well as then, why weaken the argument for its continuance by discussing its irrevocable nature? Why not build its defense on its intrinsic excellency? Why not then from this fortification thunder your rifled artillery? Why, if it be so wise, exhaust your fulminations in trying to prove that we have no power to change it in the mode prescribed?

it is in the light of these democratic truths that I read the fifth article of the Constitution. I construct my argument upon the perennial beauty exquisite symmetry, and enduring perfection of that system which reserves to the local communities their local interests, the very genius of all permanency, the very element which secures us against that homogeneity so dreaded by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Brooks,] the happy accord of diverse interests, E plaribus ununi, many as the waves in variety but one as the sea in unity, stars upon one constellated ensign, each differing in glory, but upon the field of blue all emblematic of the harmony of the Federal system springing out of the" brotherly dissimilitudes'* of the mingled States! It is upon this foundation that I would seek, by reason and not by authority, to erect the argument for its preservation against radical change.

Does it follow, as my friend from Iowa suggestedjthat I weaken my argument against the amendment because I argue its demerits while acknowledging the power to amend? I may object to an alteration m my house, especially if it disturbs the foundation and general plan; but must I change it fundamentally because I am the proprietor and have the power? If it be true that a denial of the power is apt to be regarded as ati apology for a mischief, do I not strengthen the argument by discussing the mischief? The mischief to be apprehended in this instance is not the abolition of slavery. It is the abolition by this amendment of our peculiar form and structure of. Government. The argument which I desired to hear and meet should be directed to this point. Who cares, sir, whether slavery die or live, when the question is," Shall the form and substance of our Government perish?" Show me that the Government will perish or be imperiled if this amendment is not carried, and I will vote it though all the devils in the South and North should confront me with their wrath! Show me that by voting against it I facilitate the recstablishment of the Government in all its integrity, and my vote shall be against it.

Mr. KASSON. I rise in order to ask the gentlemen if at this point, as well as anywhere in his argument, he will permit me to call his attention to a suggestion he made before, and which seems to have been touched upon by his last point more clearly than elsewhere; and that is the charge that the tendency of this amendment is the destruction of the form and substance of our Government. The form of government we all understand; and even he will not contend that this amendment changes the form.

Touching its change of substance, I presume he alludes to the charge he made the other day of its effect being a centralization of power. Am 1 right?

Then I wish to ask him upon this point—that we may not be misled by a misapplication of terms—to explain what he means by such centralization. 1 will say what 1 understand by it. When I read, the other day, an extract from a letter of the original Convention which formed the Constitution, and unanimously adopted by them, this phrase occurred in it," Consolidation of the Union," as the great object of the fiameia of that system of government. Objection was taken to it by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Voorhees,") but I uke it in its length and breadth; and 1 call the attention of the gentleman from Ohio to the distinction between" consolidation" of the Union and the "centralization" of the Government. Centralization means when you take the power from the State and give it to the United States. But when you take it both from the States and from the United States there is not a particle of centralization of power. That is what this amendment does.

Mr. COX. Before I get through I will meet the statement of the gentleman. I believe this amendment, if carried out, will have a tendency toward consolidating power in the Federal head. Whatever it may be termed, I am opposed to compounding powers in the Federal Government. Whether the powers of the Federal Government be united in onfi department, or consolidated in the Union, I would decentralize such powers, take them from the Federal center, and distribute them among the States and the people. If you consolidate or centralize powers here, you endanger by the excess ofpowerthe substance and form itself of our Government. The form will soon change to conform to the substance. But I will make that clear as I progress.

II. Another reason for discussing the question of power is, that it is the most valuable gift from the States to the Federal Government, if it be not an express reservation of power in the States. Perhaps, as both Federal and State Governments take part in the amendment of the Constitution, the power to amend is both a reserved and a delegated power. Whatever it is, it is so valuable that 1 cannot surrender it. Not now. If ever peace comes, it will be through its exercise, upon this very question of slavery. I regard that Government with a constitution which has not the liberty of amendment as lacking the means of its own conservation. Such anamendmentis a safetyvalve, or governor, upon the engine of State. A State without it is in perpetual danger of violent revolution. Such an amendment is a peaceful, legal, and salutary revolution. It is the beauty of our system of written constitutions that, like machines, with a principle of compensation belonging to them, any irregularity may be corrected without breaking the machine or impairing the movement. Such powers of change save the State from such terrible red handed revolution as that now upon us. Rufus Choate once described, as if he foresaw it, the present revolution" as a great sea lifting itself, with darkened sky, and not very imitable thunder; a tempest which overturns and successfully resists the existing public authority, arrests the exercise of supreme power, introduces by force, or by resort to a primary right of nature, a new, paramount authority into the rule of the State." Had this bloodless and legal revolution by amendment of out; Constitution been wisely exercised upon this very subject of slavery, as Crittenden, Douglas, ay, even Toombs and Davis, insisted in 1860, we would not be fulfilling so sadly the magnificent picture which Choate painted of tempestuous and fratricidal strife!

Sir, when the statesmen of 1860 sought to exercise this power upon this subject of slavery, I gave my voice and vote for it. I know nothing now, but the fear of being misjudged by partial friends about me, that should deter me from again asserting the power which, with my colleague, [Mr. Pendleton,] 1 then assumed. Hr* bravely resists the popular current to defy its exercise now, i humbly do the same. But this I will not do, discard my own wordsand throw aside a once cherished principle of government because its present exercise may be an outrage upon the sense and patriotism of the country.

When I first came to this Congress with my colleague wo came under the odium ofli pio slu very;" we came defondingthe position of Douglas, that Congress had no right to interfere with slavery, under the Constitution, in States and Territories. We claimed non intervention as both wise and constitutional. Again and again, when anti-slavery and pro slavery zealots demanded congressional action, we said, "No, no; there is no power under the Constitution to abolish it or protect it. It is local, not Federal; State, not national. If you would touch it, either to extend or limit, abrogate or institute it, first change the ConstitutionAgain, when discussing questions connected with the power of a State over the subject of black immigration, I luxvedenied all power to Congress, to the President, to the Army, to interfere with this subject, because it was not so written in the Constitution. I said, "Amend that instrument first if you would thus break down the incontestable rights of the State under the Constitution in such matters." Denying ever the propriety of its exercise, I have never heard the power denied. Am I to ignore the power because foolish fanatics may rule in its exercise? Mr. Buchanan, in his message of December 4, I860, proposed to save us from war by slavery amendments, which he called peaceful and conslitutional remedies. Who objected to theexerciseofsueh remedies for wantof power? No one except gentlemen opposite, who declared it to be monstrous and illegal, against the laws ©f God and man, fundamental and irreversible.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. I desire to ask the gentleman from Ohio a single question at this point. He refers to the message of President Buchanan. 1 desire to ask him whether the recommendation of Mr. Buchanan did not apply to the question of slavery in the Territories, and not at all to the question of slavery in the States?

Mr. COX. The recommendation of Mr. Buchanan, which I hold in my hand, applies to both, But even if it is only applied to slavery in the Territories, the question of slavery was the subject matter of the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. If I recollect aright, at the time, the question of the disturbance of slavery in the States was not agitated at all. It was denied by the Republican party that they intended in any way whatever ever to interfere with the question of slavery in the States; and it was only the question of slavery in the Territories and beyond the limits of the States which was agitated in Congress at that time. It is since the inauguration of this Administration that the question of the abolition of slavery within the States has grown up in the country.

Mr. COX. That will do for the gentleman; because I have the recommendation of Mr. Buchanan upon that subject here. It is more authentic than even his good memory. It is as follows:

"An express recognition of the rights of property in slaves in the States where it now exists or may hereafter exist." As my valued friend will perceive, this was not aquestion of the abolishment of slavery. It was, however, a question which touched, through a constitutional amendment, the institution of slavery in the States. The gentleman says the recommendation was confined to slavery in the Territories, and did not reach that in the States. He will perceive his mistake. I am not anxious to raise a discussion with my friends upon this side of the Chamber, but I am entitled to be consistent with the record I have made for eight years here. I have always claimed the right to pass upon the slavery question by an amendment in pursuance of the fifth article of the Constitution. I have sought only to make its exercise judicious.

The abolitionists only declared in I860 against any express recognition of the right of property in man in the States where it now exists or may hereafter exist." Then the abolitionist made the argument of my colleagues, [Messrs. Ashley and Pendleton.] They denied the power, it was and is so easy to argue against the power to do a thing which we do not like.

When Mr. Buchanan, referring to the amendment clause, proposed to extend as operation to protect this right in the Territories until admitted as States, and a like recognition of the right of the master to his escaped slave, who objected? Who? Not my colleague [Mr. Pendleton] and myself. For though we might have agreed with the decision of the Supreme Court in Dred Scott s case, we desired such principles established in the fundamental law. Why? Because it was recommended, to use the language of that day, "as an explanatory amendment which would forever terminate the existing dissensions and restore peace and harmony among the States." Those who desired not to terminate our troubles, or to keep peace and avert war, denied the power to enslave or to recognize slavery. This side of the House labored, 0 how nobly, but how vainly, to have the compromises of that dark hour written with a pencil of light on the organic law, by the unimpeached power of amendment, that North and South might dwell in accord forever.

Again, on the 28th of February, 1SG1, in the hope of allaying the fears of northern men, a joint resolution was passed with my colleague s '[Mr. Pendleton s sanction and vote—yeas 133 to 6 5 nays—providing for an amendment in the mode prescribed by the present joint resolution, as follows: u Airr. hi No amendnifMit shall he made to the Constitution wlueh h til authorize or jnvo to Oongiess the power to aholMi or iutcifen: within <m> State with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of person* held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

This was voted for by South and North—Douglas, Crittenden, Pugh, Bocock, and Hunter. What did it mean? I do not ask what was its intention as a remedial measure; as a bill to quiet title; as a peace measure. It did two things: first, it assumed to speak by amendment on a domestic question; secondly, in the very substance and body of it, it recognized, without dissent from a single voice, the power to amend by abolishing slavery in States, and it sought to checkmate that power by adding it to the exceptions of the fifth article. It was as if it said," Congress, by the mode prescribed, may propose amendments which shall be valid as a part of this Constitution, provided no amendment shall be made as to the. abolition of and interference with slavery." Truly my colleague was right m requiring, as a peace measure, such an expression as an exception to the general power of amendment. lie know the old maxim of construction, "the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another." As the Constitution had excluded two subjects from amendment, and had failed to exclude the abolition of slavery as sacredly unamendable, it follows that the power to abolish was given in the general grant. But the argument drawn from my colleague s former vote or opinion is not conclusive, except upon him, and only upon him upon the frailest of all arguments, that, once in favor of a thing, he should always be in favor of it. I shall be the last to press the ad hominem upon I need not recall to the House the propositions of Mr. Crittenden or their tenor. In the preamble their object is stated. They were intended to allay" dissensions concerning the rights and security of the rights of the slaveholding States." They proposed to do this by constitutional provisions. Above the latitude of 36° 30' slavery was prohibited; south it was recognized and protected. They denied to Congress the right to abolish in the District and in the States where the United States had jurisdiction. They proposed to protect members of Congress and other Federal officers in bringing their slaves here, to protect the inter State slave trade, and to pay for fugitive slaves in certain cases. As if this were not enough to show the power over this subject by amendment, and because these statesmen of 1860 knew the power existed to abolish slavery in the States, they provided:

<c No future amendment of the Constitution shall affect the five preceding articles; nor the third paragraph of tho second section of the first article of the Constitution; nor the third paragraph of the second section ot the fourth article of said Constitution; and no amendment shall he mndo to the Constitution which shall authorize or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with slavery in any of the Stales by whose iawa it is, or may be, allowed or peinutU d

Thus they strove to make the lines of slavery irrevocable by amendment; to forever preserve the three fifths representation of slaves and the provision for the return of fugitive slaves. Who questioned the power then? Not my colleague. Not a man on this side in Congress then or now. Oh! it was then to be used for a patriotic purpose; for salvation, and not for destruction. But is it less a power? Am i to give up the sweet shine of the sun because it may breed malaria? Am I to surrender the benignant element of fire because it may consume as well as comfort? Am I to be driven by the accidentsof warorthe vicissitudes of time to change my opinion of the Constitution and its powers? Jlbusus non tollit usitm. 1 will cling to the power and make my argument, when 1 choose to make it, against its abuse.

Again, the peace convention sent its proposition to Congress, inhibiting any amendment of the Constitution on most of the subjects connected with slavery above recited. They were offered in the House on the 1st of March, 1861. I remember well that I was detained from the House by illness. I was not here to vote for them with my colleague, [Mr. Pendleton,] but his nameis enough. I find it there, asserting these powers under the amendment clause—which he now denies—while you, Mr. Speaker, together with my colleague, [Mr. Ashley,] along with the secessionists, treated them as unworthy of your sano tion. Why? Because you were not actuated by the genuine patriotism of my colleague before me, whose love of the whole country led him to defy the taunts of secessionists and the jeers of abolitionists, and to march boldly up to the exercise of the power now asserted by my colleague [Mr. Ashley] in one case and denied by my other colleague [Mr. Pendleton] in the other.

Gentlemen have heard of the committee of thirteen. it consisted of men of every shade of political opinion: Messrs. Powell, Seward, Col lamer, Bigler, Hunter, Toombs, Davis, Rice, Crittenden, Douglas, Wade, Doolittle, and Grimes. They agreed upon no plan. But many plans were proposed, and all under the amendment clause. Do gentlemen tell me that these propositions were unconstitutional? Were they usurpations of power never conceded? Strange thatMr. Hunter, the biographer of Calhoun, and Mr. Davis, his follower and disciple, did not discover it! Strange that Mr. Hunter should have proposed that Congress should pass no law in relation to slavery, except by the consent of a majority of the Senators and Representatives of the slaveholding and nori slaveholding States, thus yielding the power, with qualifications! Can this be yielded and yet the power over slavery in the States be above all amendment? Or must my colleague take refuge, as he did, in a higher law? Strange that Douglas should have proposed to punish conspiracies against slaveholders and their property I Strange that Davis should have proposed, by amendment of the Constitution, to recognize slavery as property in transit or sojourn!

But why weary the House wuh these recitals. They prove this, that the strictest sect of southern statesmen acknowledged the power by amendment over this subject and sought to exercise it, and sought further by amendment to prevent its exercise when it might impair or destroy their institution! Is my colleague a better State rights man than Jefferson Davis? Or, to drop to the other extreme, does he, nunc pro June, join my other colleague, [Mr. Ashley,] who then denied and yet denies the power by amendment to establish slavery as unrepublican? It was with some amusementthat I listened to my two colleagues [Messrs. Pendleton and Ashley] yesterday. Howadroitly the Democratic member thought to catch the Republican! How he plied him to admit the power to establish slavery! How shrewdly my colleague over there evaded! On the other hand, members on the other side sought to entangle my colleague [Mr. Pendleton] with some of his former votes! How both shirked the issues presented in their former positions! while the humble member who now addresses you, sir sat complacently consistent amid the melodramatic performance, ready to admit the power of amendment unlimited to change the fundamental law, under the guards and modes prescribed, even to the establishment of slavery or a monarchy entire freedom or entire democracy. Both of my friends deny this as extreme and heterodox; the one because he would have nothing but limited republicanism as the form of our Government. That is my Democratic colleague who is so republican. The other because he would have nothing but sweeping democracy as the basis of ourConstitution. That is my Republican colleague who is so democratic. The wishes of each color their present arguments as to the power. When slavery is to be guarantied, my colleague from Cincinnati believes with me in the power to amend, and my colleague from Toledo denies it. When it is to beabol-* abolished my colleague from Toledo believes with me in the power to amend, and the other denies it. Both deny the power when slavery is to be affected, and both admit it when slavery is to be affected. I have them both on either sideand each on both sides and both with me. I accept the power in either case as they claim it, but go beyond them both; for I stand on a principle. They are enamored of the power only when one case is absent. Like the fond lover of two maidens, they love the one" when the other dear charmer s away." [Laughter.] Yet they are unfaithful to both because they are so attached to either—unfaithful because they are not upon the principle.( can extend to them, (as a member from New York used to say here in olden times,) from the serene Olympian heights of my cerulean consistency, the eternal principle of republicanism and democracy which will reconcile them both to duty and the Constitution. [Laughter.]

Both my colleagues hold that to concede the power and exercise it in certain cases is to subvert the Constitution. If slavery is to be protected, the member from Toledo bolievesthe Government destroyed. His only appeal is to the sword of revolution. Never would he consent that the power to amend should include the power to establish slavery in Ohio; never. He would sound the tocsin of inevitable resistance. If slavery is to be abolished by the same power, the other member blows the trumpet and beats the drum to revolutionary defiance. Both march to the same discordant music, when if they would take Calhoun, Story, or their own practice and principles, only changing the time of their application, they would find m the granted power to amend, an unlimited authority as to the matter and only limited as to the mode. I follow no such counsels." You can change, but cannot subvert, by amendment," says my friend before me. Ah! pray who is to judge of what is subversion and what is change? If I leave the question to my colleagues, one will regard the guarantee and the other the abolition of slavery as subversion and not merely change. My colleague [Mr. Pendleton] derives, unconsciously, his language from the South Carolina declaration of independence of December 24, 1860. It says:

Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has foaiul vvulun that article, establishing the executive department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself."

Again:

"The sectional combination for the subversion of the Constitution has been aided by the elevation of the blacks." The other member [Mr. Ashley] regards the denial by South Carolina of President Lincoln as the legal President as the very essence of subversion, and the denial of franchise to the blacks as subversive of republicanism. He therefore strikes out the word white in his reconstruction bills. Where gentlemen so eminent disagree as to what is subversion and what is change or amendment, where is the tribunal to decide? I answer, in Congress by two thirds of both Houses and in the States by three fourths of the Legislatures, and in the intelligent sovereignty of the people of each State who have, in limine, consented to this mode of amendment.

Believing in the power of amendment, I am willing to judge of the wisdom of the propositions before i vote to submit them. This discretion is a part of the discretion of the Congress. It is one of the checks which the minority have against the passion and malice of the majority. Nay, more, the checks against the exercise of this power unwisely are threefold: first, two thirds of both Houses must agree to propose amendments; or second, two thirds of the Legislatures must propose a convention; and third, after all that, the Legislatures or conventions of three fourths of the States must ratify. Judge Story elaborates this argument, and makes jt unanswerable as against the dangerous abuse of the power.

Thus restricted the power of amendment is unlimited. No danger of monarchy; no danger of the King of Dahomey, which startled gentlemen when I used his majesty to illustrate my extreme position; no danger of striking down the republican form of government without a contest m which the States, three out of* four, are to be consulted for ratification, and two out of three members of both Houses ofCongress shall inaugurate the measure. Am I answered that it is undemocratic to allow this power? 1 answer, it is only undemocratic to disallow it. All the States concede it, and the State rights man is content. All the people in the several States pass upon it, and the Democrat is content. Democracy places its trust in the intelligence of the people and the sovereignty of the States; and thus trusting, even in the valley of the shadow of national humiliation it fears no evil.

While, then, I concede the power, do I fear that the amendment may pass and become a law in spite of all the guards thrown around it? 1 do not fear any open march toward monarchy or despotism. I fear m time of warand the passion, ate strife it begets that this amendment may radically change the Government; that it may by force, fraud, by indirection, and by an unfair count of States, be made to change our polity. Because such amendments, interfering in home affairs by the Federal power, tend toward consolidation, I am against them. My colleague [Mr. Pendleton] himself will admit that an amendment may be made even to the very system of government, legitimate m its operation, which may do this. You can amend the Constitution as to the distribution of its powers so as to place the judiciary and the legislature in the hands of the Executive. Thus you compound power. When these departments are made one—whether that one be legislative, executive, or judicial they may bebyamendment, it is Jeflerson s definition of tyranny. Who will doubt the power of amendment to do this? And yet who so base as to propose it here, or, if proposed, to ratify it? It is by these delusive moral radical reforms, reaching into home affairs by the Federal power, that i fear most the destruction of ourGovernment. Hence I am jealous of the exercise of the power to amend, and especially in this instance. But if the people of the States even choose to abuse their power to amend and destroy their Government, who cart say them nay? If they are foolish enough to call in a king, or connect religion with State, or <3e<- clare polygamy the comer stone of public liberty, who shall deny them, provided they follow the mode they themselves have ordained to make the organic law?

A gentleman [Mr. Kasson] thought conceded away the argument against this amendment when I admitted the power. He argued that, the power admitted, there was nothing left but to send it to the States. If the power exists, am I not, as one of the two thirds of Congress, to consider the wisdom of its submission? Thus only I comply with the Constitution. Why require Congress to pass on it if 1 am to yield my judgment in proposing, to the judgment of the ratifying power? Do we come here to play the puppet? I will pursue strictly the powergiven andif I think best let the elector in the State or the member of the Legislature judge. Congress chooses; we are sent here for that purpose by the people; and they would account us faithless not to judge of the proposition in the first instance before we sent it to the State for approval.

When efforts were being made in the winter of 1861 to avert secession and war, I had a definite idea of the inexpediency of abolishing slavery in. the States. So had the Republican members. The whole House, on the 11th of February, 18G1, on the motion of Mr. Sherman," resolved that neither the Congress of the United States nor the people or governments of the non slaveholding States have the constitutional right to legislate upon or interfere with slavery in any of the slaveholding States." This was a reaffirmation of the Republican platform of 1800. All agreed that it would be wise to let it alone as the Constitution gave no right over it. But the power to amend the Constitution was not questioned then. The graceless inexpediency and suicidal unwisdom of congressional action only was affirmed by the resolution. The unconstitutionality of such action was declared. Upon that we upon this side have stood in denying all power over the subject by emancipation and confiscation, either by the military or civil power, by the executive or the legislative. We trace to the breach of this resolution, reaffirmed m the Crittenden resolve in July, 1861, the prolongation of the war by the division of the North and the union of the South. The amendment now proposed is the culmination of this suicidal policy. If the steps to it are unsound what can be said of the consummation?

While, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have differed with greatdiffidence from my colleague [Mr. Pendleton] as to the power of amendment, and have pursued thus far a different path from his, I shall reach the sumo end; or rather, my humble way leads into the highway in which we shall travel together on the inexpediency and anarchical characterof thisamendment. I join with him, natives as we are both of the free State of Ohio, in repelling with honest scorn the imputation that because we ^favor this amendment we favor slavery or rebellion. We are not unused to such irrelevant and contemptible insinuations. Together, in 1856, we came to these Halls. We are all that is left of the Democratic members of the Thirty Fiftli Congress.

Mr. PENDLETON. And we are not left.

Mr. COX. True; like stormy petrels, tossing upon the angry waves of sectional agitation, we at e atlast overwhelmed m the flood of fanaticism. We are the last roses of the Democratic summer. [Laughter.] But, Mr. Speaker, although we may not be upon the same branch, we are still together upon the same rose tree. [Laughter.] It would illy become us, in the close of our career here, to differ upon anything except upon the most vital urgency: In one thing we have never differed, and do not now; we have neither discussed siavery nor encouraged rebellion. Certainly we have never favored slavery or its agitation.

Speaking for myself, slavery is to me the most repugnant of all human institutions. No man alive should hold me in slavery; and if it is my business no man, with my consent, shall hold another. Thus I voted in 1851, in Ohio, with my party, which made the new constitution of my own State. I have never defended slavery; nor has my party. Members have defended it, as the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Fernando Wood;] others have attacked it, as the other member [Mr. Odell] on my left; but neither of these have conformed to Democratic practice and precedent. When I say this I but speak the tenets of the Democracy assembled in convention for the States and for the Union.

Is it answered that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks] has this session defended the institution? That gentleman did not pretend to speak for the Democratic party. Indeed he does not profess to speak for it, but rather as an oldline Whig, having now his views independentof all machines of party. The last session he held that slavery was dead. Gentleman should not object to his eulogizing the deceased, but by so doing he does not intend, nor does he if he intends, commit any Democrat to his moral convictions.

What I desire is, not that gentlemen should debate thequestion of slavery or anti-slavery, butof the power we have over u, and of the propriety of its exercise either now or at any time.

The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Morrill] asks," Do you gentlemen from the free North intend to battle for slavery after the South is ready to abandon it?" We answer," Principiis obsta Mr. Davis and his coadjutors may do as they please; we do not battle forslavery nor against it. We cling to the system of our Government" as the bond of unity in the past, as the only bond of union in the future, the only land lifted above the waters on which the ark of Union can be moored. From that ark alone will go out the dove blessed of the Spirit, which shall return, bringing in us mouth the olive-branch of peace." Not for Jefferson Davis; not for Virginia; but for our own States, our own Government, do we stand on the principle of self government over State affairs, and against the use of the power of amendment to change that principle. My doctrine is better stated than I can state it, m the speech of judge Thomas, of Massachusetts, from which i quote, when he says: u Whoever else may falter, 1 must stand by the Constitution. I am not wise enough to build a better. I am not radii enough to experiment on a nation s lite. There is to me no hope of our country hut in this system of many States and one nation, worktop in their respective ^pheies, as if lite divine hftud had molded them imd sot them in motion. To fhls system <ho integrity of the States is as esfeuhai as that ot the central power. Their hie is one lie. A consolidated Government lor this vast country would be es entiall adc poiie Government, deinoeiattc to name, but kept buoyant by corruption and etheient bv the sword. Devlin:; ilie extinction of d slavery with my whole mind and heart, I watch the \vm Icinijnl events with devout gratitude ami patience. By no ta h act of onr^, nmehle tny radical change in the Constitution, shall we hasten the desired result. If tit the pursuit of objects, however humane; it' beguiled by the flattei ies of hope or of shallow sell conceit if Impelled by our hatred of treason and de ite of vengeance or retribution il reduced by the 4 insidious wiles of foreign Influence,' we yield to such change, we shall destroy the be t hope of ficcman ami slave and the best hope of humanity this side the grave."

The Federal system, unamended, embraces three classes of functions: first, those concerning the relations of the United States to foreign nations; second, those concerning the relations between the States and their citizens respectively; and third, certain powers which, though belonging to the same departments of Government, to be useful and effective must be general and uniform in their operation throughout the country. In hone of these functions do we find this power over domestic slavery. The effort is now to make its abolition a function of the national Government. If you begin upon this domain where is the limit to the exercise of this plenary amendatory power in domestic affiits? Should we amend the Constitution so as to change the relation of parentand child, guardian ami ward, husband and wife, the laws of inheritance, the laws of legitimacy? Because we have the power must we seize it? Where ivili it end, when once begun? Is it, then, aques- .ion of slavery, or is it a question of home freedom in home affairs; a State question in State affairs; a police question, concerning municipal and not Federal institutions? If we may change the relation of the blacks to the whites m one respect, may we not m another? May we not change the Constitution to give them suffrage in States in spite of all State laws to the contrary? Must we not amend the Constitution to allow the importation of freed blacks into States like Illinois and Indiana? Must we not declare all State laws based on their political inequality with the white races null and void? If you begin with this amendment, what laws are to be passed to carry it out? Do you not break down, by this amendment, the distinction between the spheres of the State and national Governments, which is characteristic of our system, as old as our Union? If so, are we not asked to change the system, rather than to abolish slavery?

Hence11 do not place my suggestions about this measure on any ground of the immutability of the Constitution, or of our peculiar system. I place my vote against it, because the system it would change is a good one, made in wisdom and to be perpetuated for the future happiness of the people. If the system of internal police over State matters is not of value, discard it altogether. Deny to Ohio her right to declare who are born in wedlock, and who may inherit estates; deny to us the right to have our home courts for home justice; centralize all power here, in one head, and make the federation a despotic tyranny, and thus you will have the "gospel of anarchy, the philosophy of dissolution 5 I may admit the wrong of slavery. It may be heinous m sight of God and man. I may admit the power by amendment to abolish it. I am a radical Democrat and believe in amendments of all organic laws in pursuance of the mode prescribed. I may admit that such an amendment would impair only for a brief tune the checks and balances, the very substance and essence of our federative system, and yet I ask you, on the other side, whether, if 1 believed that this amendment would place an impediment, insuperable to the restoration of the Union, I ought to vote for it? If I believed that the rebel authorities would not meet us in convention, and would stand out against the Union on their independence, 1 might consider anew what 1 ou htto do. 1 have no authentic information m that regard. So long as there is a faint hope of a returning Union I will not place obstacles in the path. I will rather illuminate, cheer, and clear the pathway to the old homestead. If I believed, Mr. Speaker, that peace could be restored with the Union by the abolition of slavery, I would vote for it. All I do and all 1 forbear to do is to save our imperiled Government, and restore our priceless Union. Show me that that will be the result, and 1 will vote for your amendment. But, as it stands to day I believe that this amendment is an obstacle to the rehabilitation of the States. So believing, I cannot give my vote for it, nor would any honest patriot ask me to give a vote for a measure which 1 believe would bring about an eternal separation of the States of the Union. But ifit is determined in the South as H seems to be, that rather than fail in independence, slavery shall go, I for one, as a Democrat, shall be ready to reconsider my resolution. The party to which I belong loves the Union asdeatly as the South loves slavery. If they can let slavery go for independence, the Democracy can for the sake of the Union. If the South refuses to meet us in convention and abide by its arbitrament, then there is no hope for slavery. If the South obtain independence it will be by freedom to the slaves atid their enrollment as soldiers. If they do not obtain their independence, between the collisions of the belligerents the institution will be gone, and then it matters little what becomes of this amendment, so far as its own peculiar subject is concerned. So faras the Union slaveholding States are concerned, they are rendering this amendment useless. Missouri yesterday almost unanimously voted to abolish slavery. Maryland has already done it, whether by force or freedom it is not now my purpose to inquire. Kentucky will be enfoiced to do the same. What remains? Little Delaware. She had in I860 eighteen hundred slaves, and theenlistingagents have mostly sold them out to this humanitarian Government for soldiers, costing $150 apiece in Delaware, and selling for 1 000 in New York! Surely Delaware will soon be free!

It may, with some propriety, be urged that slavery is already dead It has the seeds of speedy dissolution. The blows of war are breaking down its panting, exhausted body.

If, then, as it is said by the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. Morrill,] slavery is dead, what is the object of this amendment? That distinguished gentleman told us the other day that, like Pharaoh and his hosts, the South had rushed with slavery into the Red sea of war, and that slavery was destroyed. Well, if that be the case, if slavery is dead, where is the necessity for invoking this extraordinary power of amendment? My friend from New York [Mr. Odell] who also spoke so well in defense of his views, said that although it was dead he wished to give it a constitutional burial. I am not much of a biblical scholar, but I believe that we have no authentic record of the fact that after Pharaoh and his hosts were destroyed in the Red sea the children of Israel, after their destruction, met together upon its shores, in grand convocation anil, after listening to Aaron and the other orators, passed resolutions somewhat like this amendment, to wit:

Resolved, That neither Pharaoh nor his hosts, except as a punishment for crime whereof they liaH have beenduiy convicted, shall hereafter exist within the jurisdiction of the cluldtcn of is iaei [Laughter.]

What would be thoughtof the children of Israel for passing such a resolution after the decease of Pharaoh? My friend from NewYork [Mr. Odell] belongs to the new and kind dispensation, and would give the deceased slavery a constitutional burial. What would have been thought of the children of Israel, after they had fished out Phalaoh s dead body, if they had proceeded solemnly to give to it a constitutional burial? [Laughter.] Hence this amend merit, according to the argument of gentlemen on the other side, amounts to nothing. It is a mere brutumfulmai. It is only the register, in other words, of what the war power with its blows is accomplishing, day by day. If gentlemen opposite really believed that slavery was dead they would not bring in this amendment. They do not believe it. But there are men on that side of the Chamber who will not favor a restoration of the States until this amendment shall have become tin organic law. Therefore it is they that pcitinaciously press this matter, even while negotiations are going on for the return of the States to a national convention, and for the return of peace and fraternity among the States.

Is it said that this amendment is needed to anticipate the South, and thus secure the smiles of civilized Europe? I trim my votes for no such delusive gales. The Powers of Europe will not be less eager to dissever our Republic in the event of abolition by us than now. The philanthropy of Europe is very problematical. Let us take care of ourselves. Let us preserve the form and functions, and thus the strength, of our Government; and the unity of our States will be as hard to break as the ridges of our everlasting mountains!

Our Union is river, lake, ocean, and sky;

Man breaks, not the medal when God cuts the die!"