January 13, 1865

Mr. ASHLEY. I move that the further consideration of the special order be postponed after to day until next Tuesday two weeks, after the morning hour.

The motion was agreed" to.

Mr. ASHLEY moved that the vote last taken be reconsidered; and also moved that the motioa to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I demand the regular order of business.

The SPEAKER. The regular order of business is the consideration of the business in whifh the House was engaged at the adjournment yeaier-*« day, being the motion to reconsider the vot«' by. which the House on the 15th of last June rejected a joint resolution (S. No. IG) submitting to the Legislatures of the several States a proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States, on J which the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Rol*■ lins] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. ROLLINS, of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I desire to submita few observations to the House upon the important proposition now pending before the final vote is taken upon it. The remarks which I shall make will be rather in the nature of a personal explanation than any elaborate argumentation of this question. At the last session of Congress when the vote was taken upon this proposition I voted against it. On this occasion when the vote is taken I propose to vote for it. I have changed my views in reference to the expediency of this measure; and while I do not suppose that anything 1 may say will have any influence whatever in changing the vote of any gentleman upon this floor, I am satisfied with the reasons which have induced me to change my opinion and my action; and it is perhaps due to myself, humble as I am, due to those I represent and who take any interest in the opinions which I may entertain or express hew, to present to the House and the country some of the considerations which have induced me to change my action and my vote.

Mr. Speaker, I entertain the same opinion today in regard to the rebellion that 1 have ever done. I feel the same animosity, the same hatred, the same contempt for it now, and for those who initiated it, as I did when it was first put on foot. Indeed, I may say, sir, that, looking at the consequences which it has produced in my own State and throughout the country, I am less inclined to day than ever to look upon it with any degree of forbearance. Regarding it always without excuse or justification 1 am inclined to the opinion to day that there was not even the shadow of a shade of pretextfor putting on foot this infamous and disastrous rebellion.

But, sir, heretofore, and even now, I have acted with that body of men who are disposed to pursue a conciliatory policy with a view to obtain the high object we all had in view, and that was the preservation of the Constitution and the salvation of the Union. When 1 say I have been acting with that class of men who desire to pursueaconciliatory policy, I do not mean to say that I have not ever been in favor of an earnest prosecution of this war; but I mean to say that I desire to blend the two, war and the olive-branch; the olivebranch always m front of the .sword, and a constant appeal to the intelligent public sentiment of the South that it was not the object of the Government to oppress, but that it was the high and noble purpose of the Representatives of the people and of the United States Govci nment to extend and secure to them all the rights which they can rightfully claim under the Constitution of our fathers. It is my firm conviction that we have not enough pursued a conciliatory policy; not enough tried to impress on the public mind of the masses of the South the true objects we all have in view in the prosecution of this war. And while I am not disposed to say to day that a different line of policy would have bi ought about a different result, would have had (he effect of putting down the rebellion, to have stopped this unfortunate war, to have sustained the Government, I am sure such a policy would have done no harm; that the effect would have been good; that at all events it would have resulted in consolidating the Union sentiment in the loyal States of the union, and checked to a great extent the collision of sentiment and consequent diversity of action which has occurred among Union men.

I have been surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the distinguished men who have charge of the Government have not stopped long enough to listen to the suggestions of plain and humble men in regard to this question. Sir, if I had occupied the high position of the President ofthe United States, even now recently, I would have made every soldier in Sherman s army the bearer of a message of peace and good will to the humblest men in the hum blest cabins in the State of Georgia. He then had an opportunity of reaching that distant population. I judge the people from my own experience. I know how the masses of the conv mon people have been deluded and misled by their .traitorous leaders, i have seen the effect of this /thing around me at my own home, and I know I the influence which such appeals, coming from those in authority, have upon the minds of the masses of the common people of the country; and I believe to day that if such a line of policy had been pursued, and if the minds of the people of Georgia could be reached, it would be but a short time before the Administration of this Government would have a stronger and more powerful party among the people of that State than Davis himself!

Mr. Speaker, I have another general observation to make. In all my action as a Representative upon this floor it has neverbeen my purpose to pursue a course either for the preservation or for the destruction of the- institution of slavery. I have had a higher and a nobler object in view, for I regard it a more high and noble object to preserve this free Constitution of ours, to preserve our noble and happy form of government, to preserve the union of these States, than any question connected with the preservation or destruction of African slavery upon this continent. That has been a secondary and subordinate consideration altogether compared with the better purpose which I have just named; and in every vote that I have given, whethertendingto weaken the institution of slavery or to strengthen that institution, it has been cast after considering the question, how far will this or that measure tend to strengthen the Government and to preserve the Constitution and the Union?

To be, or not to be, that is thequestion."

Sir, if 1 could save this Constitution and this Union by preserving the institution of slavery in its present status in the various States I would do it most cheerfully. Perhaps I would go further than many of my friends on the other side of the House: if I could save the Constitution of my country and the union of these States even by extending the institution of slavery, I would do it. And why? Not because I am the especial friend of the institution of slavery, but because I regard as the paramount and most important question of the times the preservation of ourown liberties, of our own Constitution and free Government. And, sir, I accept also the other view of the proposition: if I could save the Constitution and the Union by the partial destruction of slavery 1 would partially destroy it; and if I could save the Constitution and Union of my country by the total destruction of slavery—cutting it up by the roots, cutting out the caucerat once most unquestionably would do it: for 1 regard the preservation of these as paramount to and far higher than any question affecting the freedom or slavery of the African race upon this continent. In other words, i adopt precisely the sentiment so felicitously expressed by the President of the United States in a letter which he addressed to Mr. Greeley more than, two years ago; and, in order to refresh the minds of these gentlemen who are pleased to give me their attention, I desire to read one or two sentences from that letter. It expresses the correct views, as I think, that all men who aim at the preservation of the Government should adhere to. The President said:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and N not either to save ot to destroy slavery. If could «:ivp the Union without frcf .ncj any slave i would do it; and if I could save it by Ireenuj all i Live I would do it; and if i could *ave it by freeing tome ami leaving otheis alone, i would aisp dn that. What I do about slave ly ami the eoioied race, I do bi caus 0 1 believe it helps to save tiu Union; and what f forbear, u 1 foibcat because t do not. believe it would help to save the Union. j shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the eau e

That was the disposition of the President two years ago. That was my position two years ago; t that is my position now. And what I propose to do now m the vote which 1 shall give upon this proposition, is simply because I believe that ultimately it will tend to save the Union; and to do that I am willing to do more now than I have heretofore done. When I cast the vote which I did before upon this proposition, I had no doubt in regard to the power of Congress to submit this amendment to the States; and the vote I gave at that time was given on tiie ground of expediency alone. For at that time, as 1 have stated, I was in favor of pursuing a more conciliatory policy. I believed at that time that by pursuing such a courseand assuring the people ofthe South that our object was to preserve their rights under the Constitution they might be induced to return. And I was willing that they should return with the institution of slavery preserved as it then existed in different States of this Union. And I believe now that if political events had taken a different direction from what they have taken in all probability those States would be invited to return with all their rights, and along with the rest their right to the institution of slavery.

And I will make this further remark, that it was this general leading consideration that induced me to support the distinguished and patriotic man who was nominated for the Presidency in opposition to the present President. It was because I believed the one would offer and be satisfied with more liberal terms than the other, and that there would therefore be in all probability a better chance of preserving the Constitution and the Government under the administration of that man than by a continuance of the administration of Mr. Lincoln. But I confess here to day that when I look at all the changes which would have necessarily resulted from a change of Administration, in its men and its policies, I am inclined to doubt whether, under all the circumstances, the people have not at last acted more wisely than I did. I do not claim to be infallible.

While I do not take the voice of the majority, however large as the sole rule of my action, I am always willing to defer to it, and to treat with respect the opinions of a majority of the people of rny country. It has been intimated here that perhaps there are some gentlemen who incline to change their views and action in reference to this important subject because the current seems to setin that direction. Now, if I believed that I was governed by any such consideration as that I should despise myself. I never have been a man to seek out the direction of the popular current upon which to set sail in my feeble bark. It is the pride of my public life that I have nearly always been in a minority, at home and in the nation. I never had an opportunity hardly to know how a man feels in the majority! And 3 have some pride in regard to it, because I believe that, as a general rule, there is more p blic virtue, more truth, and more honesty with the leading minds that control minorities than with those who direct majorities, and this from a principle in human nature which we all understand. No, sir, I am governed by no such consideration as that. I am governed by the single object of doing something m my humble way that may tend to preserve this Union and continue it after we shall have restored to it the States now in rebellion.

Now, sir, I come to make a few observations in reference to a question which has been very elaborately discussed here during the consideration of this subject; and that is the question of the constitutional power of Congress to do the thing wc aim at to day I know how immodest it may be forme, after the very able and distinguished gentlemen who have discussed this question so elaborately, to say a word upon it. But as i speak for my constituents at home, as well as to this House, and especially those who act with me on this occasion, 1 desire to be clearly understood. If I believed this amendment to be unconstitutional, as a matter of course I would be bound by my oath not to give a vote for it; but believing it to be constitutional, and believing also in the expediency of the measure, I shall vote for the amendment.

Is this amendment constitutional? How are we to get light upon this subject? My answer is, by referring to the instrument itself; and I have yet to meet the first gentleman on either side of the House who will deny the proposition that in accordance with the letter of the Constitution this amendment may be proposed to the States for their adoption or rejection. The provision of the Constitution which confers the power of amendment, and which I do not propose to read, has but two limitations, as has been repeatedly remarked in this discussion. So far as the letter of the Constitution is concerned, except in reference to those two limitations, Congress has the right and the power to propose any amendment to be adopted or rejected by the States themselves. According to the letter of the Constitution we are governed only by the two limitations found in the instrument itself.*

And the next question which presents itself i v whether there are any other limitations in the Constitution except the restrictions found in the article itself, to prevent Congress from proposing this amendment to the States.

Mr. C. A. WHITE. I understood the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Rollins] to say that no person upon this side of the House had advocated the principle that the letter of the Constitution puta limitation upon the power of Congress to pass this amendment. I beg leave to remind him that in the few remarks which I had the honor to submit on "Wednesday last I made that distinct proposition. i contended that the word amendment" was a limitation of itself; that the amendment must relate to some clause or provision already in the Constitution. And that this proposition now under consideration being to insert a separate and distinct clause in the Constitution, having no connection with any grant of power to be found in it, was a supplement to the Constitution and not an amendment; and that the very letter of the Constitution limited the power of Congress over the subject of amendments to the delegation of powers to Congress to amend the Constitution.

Mr. ROLLINS, of Missouri. My answer to the gentleman is, that all the amendments that have been made were open to the same objection. 1 was notso fortunate, Mr. Speaker, as to hear the gentleman s speech, nor have I had time to read it; but in reference to the question of limitation, I think that the best way to obtain light on the subject is to read what the Constitution itself says: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to tin* Constitution, oj, on the application ol the LcjriS laiines of two thirds of the several States, shall call a convention Joi piopo ing amendment*, winch, m either case, shall he valid lo all intents am] pmpOi e i pditof this Constitution, when jutitif d by the Logi lafuroi of three I ouuIk ot the several States, or by conventions m three Amifhs thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed bj the Confess; provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in unv manner affect the first and tmutii clauses in the ninth section of the ijr t article and that no Suue, without it> consent, shall be deprived ot its equal tili iage m the Senate."

The Constitution can only be changed by amendment, and, according to the gentleman s theory, we can add nothing to it, however good or desirable, unless there was already some clause or provision in the Constitution" relating to the subject proposed to be added. This I regard as absurd.

Now, sir, I cannotfor my life see, as my friend from Ohio sees, where there are any other limitations of the power of Congress, according to the letter of the instrument, than those whichVe find in the clause of the Constitution itself. The limitation js there according to the letter, and there alone; and if there is any other limitation in reference to the power of Congress, it must be outside of this article of the Constitution: and Uw next question which I propose to suggest, in older to come to a correct conclusion on this subject, is, is there any other limitation of the power of Congress m proposing amendments to this instrument? I assert ih it there is, and I adoptthe very excellent view suggested in tiie running debate by the gentleman hum Massachusetts, [Mr. BouTWELL,] m answer to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Pendleton;] and that is, that the limitation of amendment to this Constitution is found also iri the vet y preamble to the insti ument itself. I do not believe, sir, with my fiictid from Ohio [Mr. Cox] that we have a right to make any amendment whatever to this Constitution, that there is no limitation except the express limitation contained in the clause which I have just read. There are otliei limitations, and those limitations are found, as 1 conceive, m the preamble preceding the Constitution itself. What is that preamble r u We, the people of the United State--, in order to fonn a more per feet union, eUablUhju luc inwie domestic tranquillity, provideJorlhc c ommundc/eme. promote the general' welfare, am! secure the blesUitgs ofhbeity for oiusel ve and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for; the United States of America."

Now, I do not believe that any ami nd ment can be made to this instrument which has for its object, or whose direct tendency would be, to destroy the very object and purposes for which the Constitution was established. Therefore, sir, any amendment to this Constitution which would destroy "a moie perfect union," which would fail to" establish justice," which would fail to" insure domestic tranquillity," which would fail to "provide for the common defense," or to" promote tho general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," is not an amendment which may be proposed by Congress, or may be adopted and ratified by the States; and every Representative who votes must be a" law unto himself" whether any amendment proposed is in accordance with the Constitution.

Mr. COX. I desire to ask the gentleman a question. Who is to be the judge whether a proposed amendment comes within the scope of the preamble?

Mr. ROLLINS, of Missouri. I will be the judge myself, so far as I may be called upon to vote for or against it.

Mr. COX. 1 would prefer, according to my peculiar logic, to allow the States themselves to be the judges. Therefore I infinitely prefer the gentleman s first proposition—that the power of amendment is not limited except by the terms of the clause of the Constitution on that subject.

Mr. ROLLINS, of Missouri. I will answer the gentleman, that so far as my action and my vote are concerned, my own judgment—and I presume so far as the vote of every other member in the House is concerned, his own judgment—must be the rule in reference to the question whether a proposed amendment comes within the scope of the preamble; and I presume that the States themselves must be the judges when an amendment is submitted for their consideration and action. If three fourths of the States adopt a proposed amendment, it becomes a part of the Constitution. But suppose the other fourth decline to adopt the amendment what then? If it is such an infringement of their rights, such a destruction of their liberties, such an interference with their domestic policy, that they regard themselves justified in raising the standard of revolt and revolution in order to resist the amendment which the other States have adopted,! take it that the State itself would be the better judge as to the course which it would have a right to pursue. lint, sir, it has been urged thatthis amendment, is contra y, although not to the letter, to the spirit of the Constitution. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am a believer, too, in this doctrine that we must be guided by the spirit of the Constitution. J would neither violate its letter nor its spirit. I3ut I confess, sir, that it is difficult for me to define or exactly to understand what is meantby the spiritof the Constitution. Perhaps it is like the passion which young people experience, and which is well described in the language of the young lover:

u what wo lee!, but can t define;

'Tis what we know, but can t express."

We all know that there are amendments which might be proposed, and whu li would be in strict accordance v iih the letter of the instrument, but which we would feel to be violative of its spirit. Sir, )l you proposed an amendment changing entirely the form of our Government, creating a monarchy oi despotism instead of a Republic, I presume, although gentlemen might find an express warrant of law in the Constitution to do this thing, yet it would be against the spiritof that instrument. I presume if an amendment were proposed to require one State to pay a much larger proportion of taxes than in accordance with its repres ntation although you might find a warrant for it, yet it would be against the spirit of the Constitution. I presume if you were to propose an amendment to establish a State religion throughout the land, while the letter of the Constitution mi xht not be against it, yeteveiy man who favored religion-' toleration and who was against an established Church, would feel that the son it of the instrument had been violated.

I believe, then, sir, that this amendment i<; in accordance with the express letter of the Constitution. 1 believe that it is m accordance with the preamble of the Constitution. I believe that it is in accordance with the true spirit, meaning, and intent of that instrument, and the objects and purposes for which it was framed by our fnefath Ts and thatif all the States could bp induced to adopt it it would go far to strengthen the Government, by preventing future dissension and cementing the bonds of the Union, on the preservation of which depends our strength, our security, our safety, our happiness, and the continued existence ot free institutions on the American continent.

The only question left for me to decide, sir, is whether this is a measure which lsexpcdientand which ought to be adopted. I believe in both its expediency and constitutionality.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in making a few remarks on the other branch of the question, I want to put a few interrogatories to gentlemen who differ with me. Does any man in this House, does any intelligent man m any of the loyal States believe that the institution of African slavery will survive this rebellion? If there is such a man I choose to differ from him. I believe, as has often been remarked here, that the existence and continuance of human slavery is wholly and entirely incompatible with a state of civil war in She country. The rebellion, instigated and carried on by slaveholders, has been the death knell of the institution; and, believing this, shall we anyldnger rely upon the President s proclamations, which are doubtful in their policy and character? Shall we rely upon the exercise of those extraordinary powers originating in a time of war? or shall we not, like wise and prudent statesmen, come to the rescue at once, take it up, handle it, discuss it in a statesmanlike way, and adopt the true and only peaceful mode pointed out in the Charter of our liberties for meeting and disposing of questions of this character.

Mr. Speaker, I have another remark to make in regard to the limitation in the fifth article of the Constitution. How did it happen that the framersof thatinstrument only extend the limitation ofpowerto twosubjects? Why did they preserve the representation of the small States from amendment? Why did they allow the African slave trade to remain untouched only prior to 1808? I answer, it was because the great men who laid the foundations of civilgovernmentupon the American continent, according to my reading and understanding, were essentially anti-slavery, North and South, and, looking upon the institution of slavery as an evil, they determined to check its growth; hence in the Constitution they placed a limitation upon the African slave trade, limiting it to the year 1808. So on the other subject of the representation of the small States. The small States represented in that Convention seeingthe greatinequality of authority and power <*iven to them by that clause of the Constitution winch enabled Rhode Island to exercise m the Senate of the United States as much power as New York and the other great States of the Union, and tenacious of the power thus secured to them, insisted, and it was finally yielded to them, that upon that point the Constitution of the United States should remain unamended through all time.

Now, I ask you the question how easy it was, and why the framers of the Constitution did not add to that clause that no amendment should be made changing or modifying the institution of slavery as it exists in any State of the Union? Why was this not ingrafted upon the Constitution? I have an answer satisfactory t myself on that subject. It was because the great men of that day, the men who framed this Charter of human freedom for the American people, were in heart and in principle hostile to the institution of slavery; and although they did not take the responsibility of disposingof it, they accepted H as (hoy found it; and the writings and teachings of the great men of the North and South justify me in claiming that they looked forward to the day when their posterity would finally, in some form or other, dispose of the institution which they themselves regarded as hurtful to the happiness and progress of the country.

Hence i so a little further than my venerable friend from Missouri, [Mr. King,] though he and I are exactly in the same category upon this question. 1 express my belief that the limitation preventing the abolition of slavery in the States by Congress was not placed m the Constitution for the reason of a desire to leave that an open question, and hoping and believing that at a distant day in the history of our country, when there would bo h higher and more Christian like civilization, a better view of this subject, that we, their posterity, might have the power which they gave to us in the instrument itself, to take hold of the question and dispose of it in some fair, n iit and proper way. Such is my belief; whether well founded or not is another thing. 'They regarded the institution as an evil, and no such limitation could have been incorporated into the Constitution by$ the Convention which framed that instrument. They regarded if as an evil one day or other to be disposed of, and they left the door open to those who were to come after them for the express purpose of enabling* them, when a good opportunity offered, to do the very thing which they failed to do themselves.

Mr. Speaker, every man, however humble be may be, 1ms some personal pride in the opinions he may entertain upon a great question of this sort. I am not free from considerations of that kind, and when I hear my friends over the way upon the Republican side of the House—and I know 1 Iftive a great many friends there—intimate that because a man cannot vote with them and I upon this amendment he sympathizes with the rebellion, or is an apologist for the rebellion, 1 confess 1 cannot indorse either the good taste or the propriety of such imputations. Such remarks elsewhere than here have been applied to me, and yet I know they have not fitted my case, because I take this occasion to state my opinion opinion I have entertained for twenty five years—that the institution of African slavery cannot be defended either upon moral or religious grounds, or upon principles of natural right or political economy. 1 ana a believer in the Declaration of Independence wherein it js asserted that "all men are created equal." I believe that when it says "all men*' it means every man who was created in the image of his Maker" and walks on God s footstool, without regard to race, color, or any other accidental circumstances by which he may be surrounded. 1 know that astute politicians, crafty and ambitious men, in various periods of the Republic have tried to draw a distinction between this man and that man because he happens to have a different colored skin; that the Declaration was applicable alone to white men, and not to the black man, the red man, or any other than the while man. That, the word 44 all" meant a part, not "all!" But, sir, I believe that that general clause in the Declaration of Independence was meant, by the immortal man who penned it, and by the immortal men who signed it, and by a large majority of the great men of that day North and South, to assent the great principle, founded in the rights of man, founded in reason, and in strict accordance to the Ihw of morality and of the Divine will, that" all men are created equal," without distinction of race or of color. And although our ancestors failed to apply the principle, although they were derelict in duty in living up to the great enunciation of principles which they made to the world and mankind u is no proof to my mind that they did not mean exactly what I say they meant in the expression to which 1 have referred.

Mr. Speaker, all these considerations are influencing mem the very vote which 1 shall give upon this amendment; but I desire to say ihaf my experience Ujmn the subject of slavery has been quite singular and diversified. An ami slavery man in sentiment, and yet, heretofore a huge owner of slaves myself—not now, however—notexactly with my consent, but with or without my consent. The convention which recently assembled in my State, I learned from a telegram a morning or two ago, had adopted an amendment to our present State constitution for the immediate emancipation of all the slaves in the State. 1 am no longer the owner of a slave, and I thank God for it. Although I think th is subject might have been disposed of in a beitui way, causing less inconvenience to our people, and dom^ in fact the siuveno harm, I make no complaint of the convention for that act; and although (here is no clause of compensation, I very gracefully yield to the public sentiment, and to the action of this distinguished body of men called m mv St<. te to consider its wellare. It the giving up oi my davea without complaint shall be a contribution upon my part to promote th'* public good, to uphold the Constitution of the United 3 uo to restoiepcace and preserve this Union, if I had vi sued a thousand Uaies Ihcy ivould most chctifid y have been given up. I say wuh all my heart, Let them go, but let them not go withouta sense of feeling and a proper regard on my part for the future of themselves tuid their olFspi iug! I say, .Let them go, and let them enjoy all the privileges consistent with sound policy and that freedom which has been vouchsafed to them! Let them go; and, sir, there is no man m this House or in this nation who feels a deeper interest m their comfort, m their happiness, m their elevation than I do, and in the comfort and welfare of their children and their I childrens'children in all time to come! I say again, sir, Let them go, and may the blessing of God rest upon them!

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

Mr. ASHLEY. I ask that the gentleman have leave to continue his remarks.

By unanimous consent the leave was granted.

Mr. ROLLINS, of Missouri. As I have said, my experience in relation to this question of slavery has been singula rand somewhat diversified. Why, sir, I remember that seventeen years ago, when I was a member of that proud, and honorable, and patriotic party, the old "Whig party of the country, and when I was quite a young man, my friends placed me in the responsible position of candidate for the high office ofGovernoi of my State, and that I found as my competitor upon that occasion my venerable and honorable friend who occupies aseaton my left, [Mr. King.] We traversed our great State from one corner to the other; we met time and again upon the hustings; he was a friend of General Cass and I was a Whig, and the friend of General Taylor; and he must pardon me upon this occasion—and especially as we are now together I bring to view a single reminiscence. One of his arguments, I remember, was that the elevation of General Taylor to the office of President and the election of myself to the office of Governor would be dangerous to the institution of slavery! 1, a Kentuckian by birth, supporting a large slaveowner for the Presidency, and myself a slaveowner, combatted that view as well as 1 could in opposition to my venerable friend. I am happy, however, to know that on this occasion we meet, and that hereafter there is to be no further controversy between him and I upon this question.

I remember ah o that as late as 1857 when again my political friends, regarding me far too highly, did me the honor of placing their standard once more in my hai ds as a candidate for the highest olliee m the gift of thnpeopleof my State, 1 found myself confront d by a gentleman who was born in New York, able and talented, and never the owner of a slave, but throughout that entire canvass the burden of his" talk" against me was that it would never do to elect me, and thatif they did, in some way ur other the institution of slavery would suffer at my hands in the State of Missouri; and although 1 think to day that I was legally elected, nfu r the old Democracy had figured some six or eight weeks, the election being over, I they brought out a majority against me of two hundred and thirty!

But this is not the whole of my personal experience upon this subject. When first I had the honor of being a candidate for a seat upon this floor in 18G0, I met as my competitor a very worthy and distinguished gentleman who now occupies a seat at the other end of the Capitol, a man of exalted talent and ability and a high oi der of patriotism, who is my personal friend, and who, 1 am gratil ed to see, fills his place so ably and gracefully; but I remember that it was the same old story with him as with my venerable friend here [Mr. King] and the other gentleman to whom[ have alluded, that it would not do to send me here even, because m some way or other i might be detrimental to the institution of slavery m my State. I am happy, however, to say that that distinguished gentleman and myself will no longer have any controversy upon that point. So far as I know, we are together so far as this amendment is concerned. We take now pretty much the same view of this important question, the only difference being that he has gone far ahead of me m any view I entertain or action I expect to take in the matter It will never do, in the day of civil war and revolution, to be justifying one s self for inconsistency. Men change every day. Read the inaugural address of President Lincoln; read the diplomatic correspondence of the Secretary of State; read your own speeches of two or three years back, and you will see how changes have taken place. Read my speeches and you will find me preaching, a short time ago one doctrine, and now preaching another doctrine. I am proud that a man has the right to .change; I am gratified that I am not too obstinate to change; I am glad that additional light shines upon the darkened intellect to enable us to change our opinions when we find that we are wrong, and hope all of us have sufficient regard for the truth to embraceitwhen weseeit. Change is a law of nature. It is written on our physical organization, on our moral organization, on our mental constitutions. If there were no right to change, change morally especially, what, in the name of God, would become of many of the gentlemen on both sides of this House? [Laughter.] There is an old adage which says," Wise men sometimes change, fools never do." Sir, the peculiar friends of slavery have controlled the Government for much the greater part of the time since its establishment; and but for their own wickedness and folly might have saved the institution and had their full share in its management for many years to come. If they have lost the political control, all are blameless save themselves!

But yesterday, the word of Ctcsar might

Have stood agam n the world now lies he there,

And none fc so poor to do Imn reverence." 5

Mr. Speaker, I wish to state in a very general way some other propositions. Let us dispose of this question now, now. I have signified that I would be willing to dispose of it in another way. If Jefferson Davis Co would come back to this Hall to morrowasd say,** We were wrong; we ask pardon; welaydown our arms; we yet remember the blessings that we have thrown away; we want that free Constitution which we have been destroying; we want to come back to youfor the sake of peace, for the sake of running no more risk in regard to this slave question, I would say "Let them come in," and I would £0 pretty far in making terms with them; much farther than my friends from Missouri over there, [Mr. McClurg and Mr. Loan.] But we cannot have our will on this subject. The president of the so called confederate States, and those who act with him, are not going to put themselves in that position. On the contrary, we have been told by the rebel leaders that if a blank sheet of paper were furnished to them on which to write their own terms, they would not come back. They have told us that they started out for separation, and that they mean to exhaust all the energies and resources of the country in accomplishing that object. On the other hand, we started out for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and Union let that effort lead us where it might; destroy whoever and whatever it might. If we had the moral, the physical and the intellectual power to do the work, we started out for the purpose of putting down this rebellion, and saving this Union and Government from destruction. And while I rejoice at any movement which looks to an honorable peace, and a restored Government, I am for fighting it out" on that line" to day Not until every germ of patriotism shall have withered and rotted in the public heart; not until the public sense of the nation is that the thing cannot be accomplished, am I for abating one jot or tittle of the effous of the nation to subvert the rebellion, restore the supremacy of the Constitution, and preserve the Union of these States, and republican liberty on this continent throughout all time to come.

Mr. Speaker, the American sentiment is decidedly anti-slavery; and that is another consideration why I am willing to vote for this amendment. We never can have an entire peace in this country as long as the institution of slavery remains as one of the recognized institutions of the country. It occurs to me that the surest way to obtain peace is to dispose of the institution now From whatever cause, whether it be from northern intermeddling you so call it; and there has been far too much of this—or from southern arrogance and dictation and agitation, whether from the one cause or the other, or both, slavery will always be a disturbing element! There will be no peace, there will be no perfect Union m this country until some way or other we shall have disposed of ir. You cannot get over moral convictions. And so long as the General Government is connected with slavery or associated with it in any way, the great tide of emigration that will flow into the South, carrying new ideas of human rights, this institution will be a disturbing element, and we will have continued agitation until, in some way or other, this question is disposed of. I have therefore brought myself up to the point. We may as well unsheathe the sword and cut the Gordian knot!

I said, Mr. Speaker, that the American public sentiment is anti-slavery. I say now, from my own experience that the public sentiment of the southern people is anti-slavery. And I assert a proposition which may startle some gentlemen, but which I believe m my heart to be true, that to day the State of South Carolina is anu sla very. I take South Carolina as an example, because she is the most" wayward" of all the" sisters," because she has been hitherto always wrong and never right, and especially on this question. 1 take her because there this institution has left its deepest and keenest impress. 1 believe in regard to the people of that State, that if this question of slavery, in all its bearings, and in all its phases, could be thoroughly discussed and presented m an intelligent and patriotic way; send* ingmy honorable friend from Maryland [Mr. tt. W. Davis] with his giftofargumentand eloquence to combat the proudest intellects of that State believe, as God is my judge, that after twelve months', or even six months dhcussion the majority of the people of South Carolina would vote to rid themselves of this institution of slavery. And as in South Carolina so would it be m other States.

And how do I arrive at this conclusion? 1 look at the history of events in my own State of Missouri. Four years ago, a man who now lias gone to uThe undiscovered country, from whose bourne

No traveler letuuiv' the late treasonable governor of that State, Jackson, was elected by an overwhelming majority upon this very question, and almost upon this question alone, Four years have expired; four years of rebellion, four years of civil war, four yearsofruin and desolation and blood and misery. All these things have occurred, and the people believe, whether correctly or not, that they are nil in some way or another connected with this institution of slavery. And what has been the icsuk? The other day a gentleman, for whom 1 did not vote, but who has my highest respect, and in whose patriotism 1 have every confidence; one who, I tt ust, will be equal to the great occasion before him; a radical man, far more radical than I am or expect fo be, radical tu all his theories growing out of this disturbing question before us; was elected governor of that State by the votes of a larger majority than that which was cast four years ago for Claiborne F. Jackson. What does that prove? I believe that, to some extent, there may have been some intimidation, some military interference. But I tell you that tny conviction is that this change has resulted from the deliberate and earnest con vietion of the honest masses of the people of that State, slaveowneis and non slaveowners, that the institution ofslaveiy is wrong, that it has been to some extent the cause of all out trials, and that they are in favor of disposing of it as early as practicable.

The State convention of Missouri assembled the other day to revise the State constitution. Almost two yeaisago an ordinance of emancipation had been adopted, allowing the institution to stand until the 4th of July, 1870. Yet the people of Missouri were not content with that. They met in convention tin ee days ago, and almost the very fir t act of that convention, after organizing, was, by a vote of 60 to 4, if the telegraph is correct, to wipe out the institution of Alnean slavery from the soil of Missouri.

It is an old adage that" he is a fool who learns nothing from experience, but he is the greatest of fools who will not pioiii by his oven expo iencc." 1 have learned a little; not much; but I am progressing. I never expect, perhaps I am not wise enough, or perhaps I am too timid or too slow; I do not expect to get quite up to the standard of my venerable friend from Pennsylvania [Mr, Stevens] or my eloquent friend from Maryland, [Mr. H. W. Davis.] But I wilicmleavoi to keep pace with my own convictions, having in view always the restoration of the Union the preservation of the Constitution and of republican liberty under hee institutions upon the American continent. Sir, I have a firm conviction that there is such a thing as the" logic of events."

May I say a word oi two to my friends from Kentucky? My life long friend who sits on my left, who addressed the Mouse the other day, [Mr. Clay,] in the remarks that I understood him to make, spoke of the slaves m Kentucky being worth 150 000 000 before the rebellion, and perhaps as much now. Sir, put upon the block today, what would all the slaves in North America now sell for? Does he expect, after all to which I have referred, after what he has seen, does the gentleman expect that the institution of slavery is to remain anywhere safe for any length of time? If he does, if my other friends from Kentucky expect that, I have only to say that upon that one question I am wiser than they, I have passed through this sea of troubles. Thank God, I breathe freer and easier to day in consequence of having got through it, and 1 tell them now, that without some obstacle in the constitution of the State of Kentucky, Ui less than two years from the day that I am making these poor remarks in the American Congress, Kentucky will be a free State without any regard to the views gentlemen may express here on this side of this Hall.

And, sir, if ever a set of people made a mistake on earth, it was the men of Kentucky, by whom I was somewhat governed myself, when, three years ago, they rejected the offer of the President of the United States, who, wiser than we were, seeing the difficulties before us, but seeing the bow of promise set in the sky, and knowing what was to come proposed tons tosweep the institution of slavery from the border States, offering the assistance of the United States to aid in compensating the loyal men of those States for their losses in labor and property. 1 say that the unwisestof all acts, so far as the border States were concerned, was the rejection of this liberal offer on the part of the Executive of the United States. I voted for the proposition at first; and then most unwisely changed my ground, showing the versatility of the man, and would perhaps, if it had come to a final vote, have opposed it, because my constituents were likely to be offended by the passage of such a law. They are now convinced, when their slaves are gone and their pockets are empty, that 1 was right m the first place, and they were wrong. I have read, in the papers of this morning, that the Legislature of Kentucky, after electing that distinguished and able man, James G uthrie, to the Senate of the United States, have passed a resolution in favor of emancipation 4 wtlh, the. consent of the ownerSyandwithcompensation."

But where is compensation to come from? I 'have a right to feel something on this subject, for I am called upon to ask myself where is compensation to come from? Not out of the coffers of the national Treasury. Why, the Government will not even pay for the gallant soldiers which 1 and othci s have furnished for its Army, although the law, as 1 understand, expressly provides for compensation to loyal owners. While 1 have furnished ten soldiers, brave soldiers, (1 hope they are doing good service for the cause,) 1 have never asked for any compensation. i do not urge my claim for compensation; but when Uncle Sam comes along I will consider whether to take it or not. i will ask my friend from Kentucky, [Mr. Clay,] I will not call him" my veneiable ft lend," because lie and 1 sat on the same bench at school when we were boys together—does he think that the people of Kentucky will ever vote to tax themselves to pay him and others for their slaves? Does he not know that the day for compensation is past? Will he have the men of Kentucky go through all the trouble and anxiety which 1 have passed through, simply to preserve that which cannot, in the nature of things, he preserved but a few short years longer? 1 would do my full duty toward my old State; but how else can I do it than by giving her noble and patriotic men the benefit of myown experience? I think that the best way to aid and succor my proud old mother is to adopt this amendment.