January 13, 1865

II it were done, when 'tis done, then 'twcie well

It were done quickly."

Sir, she and her people rank in my affections next to my own proud adopted Commonwealth. There is not a State in this Union, nor any people of the Union, for whom I would make greater sacrifices than I would for the State of Kentucky. Especially do I sympathize with my friend to whom 1 have referred, because he and I were educated in the same social and political school, and have in many respects kindred sympathies. 1 have the highest confidence in his loyalty, in his honor, and in his patriotism, however much we may differ on some questions, i wi.sh that I could aid him and men similarly situated. But I cannot. This is not because of any hostility to Kentucky, or any hostility to the institution of slavery. It is because I am compelled to act thus in view of the great results which, in myopinion, are to spring from the adoption of this amendment. I shall vote for it in order to help, the old State of Kentucky, to help the South, but above all to help all the States of the Union in arriving at a final adjustment of the terrible agitation and conflict now prevailing.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the action of our ancestors in reference to slavery inflicted this evil upon us. And when I speak of our ancestors, I mean those of Plymouth rock and those of James river. And while in this House and in the other end of this Capitol, I have heard attacks on the pilgrim fathers, and while I saw lately a disreputable statement concerning the early settlers of Virginia, yet i have no sympathy with the spirit which prompts such efforts. Doubtless there were bad men as well as honest and good men among the original settlers of both the northern and the southern sections of our country. Through the promptings of cupidity and avarice, slavery was first established in this country. Could our ancestors who countenanced this institution in its establishment witness the scenes of the present time, they would doubtless feel that they committed an unpardonable sin. And for this sin the North and the South are equally responsible. The people of both sections were engaged in this infamous traffic, and we are this day gathering the fruits of their iniquity. And it is thus that

Even handed justice

Commends the ingredients of our poisoned chalice

To our own lips or, as the same great master expresses it—

That we but teach

Bloody instruction*. which, being taught return

To plague the mveimn."

The gentleman from New York [Mr. Fernando Wood] said the other day that slavery was a blessing to the slave. I admit that it has turned outto be so, yet by accident alone. The Africans were brought from their native wilds in violation of every law of! God and humanity; but when I compare the present condition of the negro in this country with his situation m his native land, I am compelled to admit that the institution of slavery has had a beneficial influence upon his moral, intellectual, and physical condition. I think that the negro of the United States is a higher order of humanity than the barbarian of Africa. Thus out of a great wrong has resulted a great good—the elevation and advancement of this huge and unfortunate class. The consoling reflection will over be, that this downtrodden race, tornby violence from their native country for the sake ofgam after passing for centuries through a weary pilgrimage of bondage are at last admitted into the temple of freedom, with a fair prospect of enjoying all the blessings which education, true religion and civilization confers upon man; and through them it may be at last that these blessings may be sent back to Africa, and that contineutover which the dark cloud of ignorance and superstition has so long hovered, be illumined by tlie same bright sun which has thrown its effulgent rays over other portions of the habitable globe. And in all this, through the eye of faith, we may discern the hand of an all wise and inset utable Providence; for there is a

Div n y that shape* our ends ttongii liew them how we will."

Mr. Speaker, when the framers of the American Constitution in 1787 formed that instrument they committed a great mistake in not disposing finally and forever of the institution of slavery. If the venerable man whose "counterfeit presentment" [pointing to the portrait of Washington] stands before us upon the walls of this Representative Chamber could come from the sacred spot of Mount Vernon, which holds his ashes, and the question was put to him "Would you asPiesident of that Convention, and the noble men who composed that body, now disjiosegradually arid directly of the institution of slavery upon this continent 5 is there a man who hears my voice who would doubt what would be the answer of the Father of his country? ft was not because they wcie not anti-slavery, but because they were afraid to deal with it. They had other delicate and important questions to deal with which prevented them from disposing of the institution of slavery. They were planting deeply upon this continent the foundations of a temple which was to last forever; a temple of liberty which was to shield not only themselves but their posterity, and that men in all time to come should take refuge there. And they did not wish, as I have said I did not wish, to endanger that structure, to do anything that would cause it to totter and fall. They did not wish to fail in the grand object that they had in view. Hence they let the minor subject of slavery go over to other times and other men. It has therefore now come down to us. Mr. Speaker, 1 look ahead into our history for fifty years to crime, and I ask the question, suppose the institution of slavery is to remain interwoven in our mechanism of government, and our country is again on account of it to pass through the bloody trials which now cover our land in mourning and in sorrow, and have piled upon us a debt which will tax the energies and wring the sinov s of our posterity to pay; suppose you, sir, that our children will not censure and charge upon us as a mistake that wc did not during the revolution of these times wipe out forever this disturbing and dangerous element in our political system?

I again, Mr. Speaker, refer to the State of Kentucky. She was admitted into the Union in 1799. She is the oldest daughter in the family of States. She was the first that was admitted after the adoption of the Federal Constitution. The great men of Kentucky of that day, proud and venerable names, advocated the propriety of a system of gradual emancipation. Will my friend from the May «villc district, [Mr. Wadswortu,] will my friend from the Louisville d is ti iet Mr AlALLOuy will any of my friends who oppose this amendment declare it would not have been a great boon if the original constitution of Kentucky had disposed of slavery forever? Will my very excellent friend [Mr. Clay] say that it would not have been better for his distinguished and venerable father, who was a member of the convention which framed the fhstconstitution of Kentucky, would it not have been better for his immediate ancestors, to have met firmly the question at that day, and thus relieved the State from slavery, and the people of that noble Commonwealth of the terrible sorrows which have since fallen upon them?

f come now to speak a word in inference to my own State of Missouri. She came mm the Union as it were in the mtdrf of a revolution. For the purpose only of having a few thousand slaves there the whole continent shook with the agitation of this Missouri question. We were fighting for the prtvilcge of holding a few slaves in bondage in that great State. We forgot the paramount good m thh miserable struggle. Does ray friend [Mr. Hall] from the di uru uuljoming (he one that I represent, does any man upon this floor, tell me (hat it would not have been better for Missouri at once in JS 20 to have passed an ordinance for the gradual or immediate enuun ipution of her slave;--, duvmg the institution beyond her bouiuhu les? j f ihei e is Mi« h a. man he is not as enlightened on the subject to day a s 1 am; he has not learned as much us I have done.

Why, sir, what is Missouri to day and what would she have been if there had been incorporated at that time with her organic law an ordinance declaring the institution of slaveiy forever abolished within her limits? We would have been as Ohio and Illinois and Iowa. We would have been rid of this curse which is ever reappearing, tin eur se of slavery, this raw head and bloody bones, and we would have been clear of all of these troubles. We would have had no bands of guerrillas watering the soil of our State with the blood of our peaceful citizens. We would haVe had no armed bodies of men stationed in all our borders to keep the peace. Look at Illinois just across the father of waters. She cone into the Union in 1818, two years before Missouri, and with less population, fewer mineral resources, not so many rivers nor better facilities for commerce, yet she has four thousand miles of railroad while Missouri has only twelve hundred. Illinois has a prosperous, happy, and peaceful population of two million, while we have only half this number, and our people are leaving in every direction seeking homes in the Territories, in the distant mountains, m South America, in Mexico, in Illinois, flying; away from the horrible specter of this infernal rebellion. Why is this? I know of but one real, substantial, specific reason, and that is that the 'ramus of the Missouri constitution allowed slavery to remain, while Illinois was made forever free by the Ordinance of 1787, penned by Thomas Jefferson, a son of Virginia, and by which Virginia ceded an empire within itself the Northwest Territory) to the United States.

I have been looking up for light from above, and I begin to see it streaking along the horizon, however it may be with other gentlemen in this Hall.

A word or two more and 1 will relieve the attention of the House. If this were a time of profound peace, and this amendment was proposed, I would not vote for it, and on the score of expediency. Why? Because if we had remained in a state of profound peace, the very proposal to submit this amendment to the States would have disturbed the public tranquillity, and therefore I would let it alone. But now I vote for it in order to restore the public tranquillity, believing that this rebellion having been set on foot, and civil war raging in the country, you cannot have entire tranquillity without a removal of the cause of the disturbance. Now, one gentleman intimated yesterday that if we pass this amendment it will induce emancipation on the part of the southern States themselves. But I ask him are they likely to be governed by any disposition we may make of this question in this House? Notatall. Whenever they are pressed to the wall, whenever our armies shall have planted our standard in every one of their States, when their principal cities shall have been taken, when they are" in articulo mortis," it may be, as a dernier ressort, that they may strike the shackles from the limbs of the slaves they now hold. But they will never be governed by any action we may take upon this or any other question. Never. Whenever they find it for their interest to do it, they will do it, and not before.

One other remark. Missouri has in advance adopted this amendment. Now, allow me, although not much given to prophecy, being neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, to make one other prediction upon this door to day Itys this: if t his constitutional amendment be adopted by this House, or whether it he adopted by this House or not it will be adopted by the Congress which is immediately to succeed this, in less than ninety days from the time of our adjournment; it will become the prevailing sentiment, and will be adopted not alone by the North, but by every southern State. I do not. doubt it. How? By the masses of the people, as the masses of the people of Missouri have adopted it there. How? When the poor and humble farmers and mechanics of the .States of Alabama and Mississippi shall have left the bloody trials m which they are now engaged to tear down this temple of human liberty; when they will return perhaps to their desolated homes; when they shall look once more upon and hug to their bosoms the wives and children whom they love, in poverty and in rags; when they will gOjpeihaps without an arm, or without an eye or without a leg, and in poverty to those who are dependent upon them for support in life, taught by experience, as 1 have been taught by experience, they will ask the question of themselves," W by all this? What have we been fighting for?" They will bring to mind the sweet memories of other days. They will remember the peaceful and happy home that they were induced to leave and which they enjoyed under the benign influences of wholesome and liberal laws passed here, and they will inquire," By what sophistry, by what appeal, by what force, by what maddening influence is it that we have been induced to enter into this terrible rebellion? Not to promote any interest of wife and children, but to destroy all the blessings vouchsafed to us and to them by a free Government and equitable laws;" and they will further ask," Who has been the author of my misfortunes, and the ruin of my family, my all?" Sir, they will point to those who hold the power at Richmond; they will direct their vengeance against them; and Davis and his traitorous crew, as I have said upon a foi mer occasion, will, like Actccon of old, be in the end destroyed by their own friends.

I do not doubt this at all. The masses of the peopleof the South have no special interestin, nor sympathy with, the institution of slavery. They never had. The comparative number of slaveholder is small, and whenever you begin todnve in the wedge and exemplify the dividing line between those whose moral convictions say that slavery is right, and who are, as a property interest, identified and associated with it, and that great volume of humanity who, upon the other side of the question, deny the moral right of slavery and have no interest whatever in it, 1 tell you the result will be nine to oneagainst the institution. Andit is in this way that in Georgia, in Arkansas, and in South Carolina, even, at last, the very amendment we propose to adopt here to day will receive the sanction of the good judgment of the people of those States. I judge from what I have seen in my own State; I judge from the fact that only a few years ago men who owned no slaves, but, controlled by that power, were nearly crazy upon the subject for fear I would do something to set my own slaves free! And now they are equally offended with me because I happen to be found m the unfortunate category of being the owner of slaves 1 Southern public sentiment, northern public sentiment, American public sentiment, and, I may add, the sentiment of the civilized world, now, as from the beginning, from the very day of the adoption and ratification of the Constitution, is against the humanity, the Christianity, and the expediency of the longer continuance of the institution of slavery among us. What has Great Britain done? What has France done? What has Russia done? Everywhere, even in the despotic Governments of the Old World, we find them getting rid of and abolishing the institution of slavery. And shall free America lag in a contest, and hesitate now, when the question is that of liberty, and when it may be reached according to all the forms of law under our Constitution? There is a tide in the affairs of men.

Which, taken at the flood, lead-* en to fortune;

Omitted, all the voyage of tlx u life

Is bound in shallows, and m miM iic And this is equally true of nations.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one moio reflection and I am done. Gentlemen seem to think that the adoption of this amendment is going to lead to some other and dangerous measures. Sir, I rely upon the conservative balance wheel of my fi lend from Vermont [Mr. Morrill] and others like him to keep his party friends fu m going too far. iMy friend from theLouisviilc dist net [Mr. Mallory] tells us that when a movement is once started it is difficult to stop it. I do not anticipate the evils which some gentlemen upon this side of the House seem to fear. I rely upon the good sense and sound judgment of the people of all the States, i believe, as much as I believe anything, that the permanent and continued existence of our free institutions is dependent upon the preservation of that beautiful harmony which exists between the powers of the States and of the General Government. 1 want to see no mtrenchment further than is absolute)/ necessary to preserve the whole machine, nt! er by the General Government upon the rightful, constitutional powers of the States, or upon the pai t of the States on the rightful points of constitutional power to the General Government. Not only the harmony and beauty, but the very strength of our political system consists in the preservation of both; r and i do not believe, although it is frequently ascribed to gentlemen upon the other side of the House, that it is their purpose to use these vast centralized powers of agreat consolidated Government with a view of oppressing the people of any one of the States. Any oppression which the people of the South now undergo is the effect of their own false teaching and conduct; and whether that oppression shall continue, whether their country shall be still further desolated, whether their towns and cities r shall be still further sacked and burned, whether their property shall be still further taken, depends, not upon not upon the General Government, but it depends upon the people of the southern States themselves.£ would rely ever on the libu aluy the sound judgment, and the good faith of my friend from Ohio, [Mr. Ashley.] Let these men who have rebelled without cause and without excuse come back and rely upon him and the gentleman from Vermont to do them full and ample justice, and to treat them liberally and in the spirit of broad and general philanthropy.

One word more (for the field still opens) to my Democratic friends. 1 have the i good or the bad fortune of being rather unite middle .«f the i House, and not exactly identified in my theories with anybody. 1 have been a party by myself pretty much all the time I have been here; but, thank God! 1 have the good opinion of myself to believe that I have been a patriot all the time, that I have had my eye upon the main question, and that I have been working to the great point of saving my country and its free institutions from wreck. As to partisan considerations, does any man ever expect to make anything further politically out of the slavery question? Sir, 1 have heard hardly an argument upon this side of the House which not contained this remarkable expression, while, Mr. Speaker, I am not an apologist for the institution of slavery;" and if I were to take a vote to day on this side of the House, with the exception of half a dozen, headed by the honorable gentleman from New York, [Mr. Fernando Wood,] I believe that every one of you would indorse the general anti-slavery remarks which 1 have made here to day I believe that the very eloquent and distinguished gentleman from the Cincinnati district, [Mr. Pendleton,] for whose personal character I have the highest respect, and also for his patriotism and his loyalty, is against the institution of slavery; he would not plant it in my State if it was not there; he would not plant it in Ohio; he would not plant it on this continent; he does not regard it as an institution just in itself and productive of good results; and 1 believe that is the opinion of nine tenths of the gentlemen upon this side of the House.

Why not, then, leave the matter to the good sense and patriotism of the American people— the people of all the States? Why not cut this Gordian knot? Why not dispose at once of this distracting question? We never can have tranquillity and peace so long as it remains in the form in which it now exists.

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

Mr. ASHLEY. 1 ask that the time of the gentleman from Missouri be stilifurther extended. There was no objection.

Mr. ROLLINS, of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I have but one other thought to express, and I pledge the House that 1 will then conclude these remarks, not, however, without thanking everybody here for the great and unusual courtesy which has been extended to me, as well as for the attentive hearing which I have received alike from the House and from these crowded galleries. Mr. Speaker, if we can get through this rebellion completely and satisfactorily, if we can steer safely between Charybdis on the one side tmd Scylla on the other of the passage through which we are now steering, if we survive the storm and strife, if we can march safely through the dark and dreary wilderness of rebellion and civil war, and if we can come out of it with the American Union as formed by Washington and his compatriots, if we can come out of it with our free and matchless Constitution maintained substantially in all its parts, if we can come out of it and still boast of our American nationality, if we c m come out of it with the further boast that though we have passed through those trials wc have not only saved our Constitution and Union, but we have caused the sun of freedom to shine on an additional lour million of human beings, and if the old ship can once more be lighted and set sail on calmer seas, smooth and tranquil, where is the man who feels a just pride of country and who cannot bring himself up to the standard of realizing the great influence which the American Republic, with free r institutions and a broader Christian civilization, shall exert on downtrodden humanity m every land and beyond every sea? Ay, sir, let ours be the chost n land, ogr^ be the land where the w nry wanderer !-4mII direct his footsteps, and wh ie lie can enjoy im- bies?5- ings of peace and of freedom. Let ours bG the bright particular Mar" next to the star that led the shepheids to liethh hom v ineh shall lead th<; downtrodden and opr iessed of all the world in;,<> a harbor of peace, occui ity, and happiiies s A od lu us, kneeling .-round the altar, all thank God that although we have had our trials, we have saved our counli y; that although we have Leu guilty of sins v.. have wip d them out, and that we at length stand up a gieat and powerful pie, honored by all theeaiih," ledeeim d 11-;, erated, and di itUhralled by the genius of universal emancipation." [Load applause on the floor and in the galleries, which was checked by the Speaker.]

Mr. GARFIELD. Mr. Speaker, we shall never know why slavery dies so hard in this Republic and in this Hall till we know why sin outlives disaster, and Satan is immortal. Its marvelous tenacity of existence has outlived the expectations of its friends and the hopes of its enemies. It has been declared here and elsewhere to be in all the several stages of moitality, wounded, moribund, dead. "The question was raised by my colleague [Mr. Cox] yesterday, whether it was indeed dead, or in a troubled sleep. 1 know of no better illustration of its condition than is found in Sallust s admirable history of the great conspirator, Catiline, who, when his final battle was fought and lost, his army broken and scattered, was found far in advance of his own troops, lying among the dead enemies of Rome, yet breathing a little, but exhibiting in his countenance all that ferocity of spirit which had characterized his life. So, sir, this body of slavery lies before us among the dead enemies of the Republic, mortally wounded, impotent in its fiendish wickedness, but with its old ferocity in its looks, bearing the unmistakable marks of its infernal origin.

Who does not remember that thirty years ago, a short period in the life of a nation, but little could be said with impunity in these Halls on the subject of slavery? How well do gentlemen here remember the history of that distinguished predecessor of mine, Joshua R. Giddings, lately gone to his rest, who with his forlorn hope of faithful men took his life m his hands, and in the name of justice protested against the great crime, and who stood bravely in his place until his white locks, like the plume of Henry of Navarre, marked where the battle for freedom raged fiercest. We can hardly realize that this is the same people, and these the same Halls, where now scarcely a man can be found who will venture to do more than falter out anapulogy for slavery, protesting at the same time that he has no love for the dying tyrant. None, I believe, but that man of more than supernal boldness from the city of New York [Mr. Fernando Wood] has ventured this session to raise his voice in favor of slavery for its own sake. He still sees in its features the reflection of divinity and beauty, and only he." How art thou fallen from heaven, 0 Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations 1" Many mighty men have been slain by thee; many proud ones have humbled themselves at thy feet! All along, the coast of the political sea they lie like stranded wrecks, broken on the headlands of freedom. How lately did its advocates with impious boldness maintain it as God s own, to be venerated and cherished as divine. It was another and higher form of civilization. It was the holy evangel of America dispensing its blessings to a benighted race, destined to bear its blessings to the \v wilderness of the West. In its mad arrogance it lifted its hand to strike down the fabric of the Union, and since that fatal day it has been a" fugitive and a vagabond upon the earth;" like the spirit that Jesus cast out it has since then been seekmcr rest and finding none." It has sought in all the corners of the Republic to find some hiding place in which to shelteritself from the death it has so richly earned. It sought an asylum in the untrodden Territories of the West, but, with a whip of seoipions, indignant freedom drove it thence. I do not believe a loyal man can now be found who would consent that it should again enter them. It has no hope of harbor there. It found no protection or favor in the hearts or consciences of the freemen of the Republic, and has fled for its last hope of safety to the shield of the Constitution. We propose to follow it there, and hurl it as Satan was exiled from heaven. But now m the hour of its mortal agony it has found a defender.

My gallant colleague, [Mr. Pendlp ton for I recognize him as a gallant and able man, plants himself at the door of his darling, and bids defiance to all assailants. Ho has followed slavery m its flight, until at Inst he has reached the gn at temple where liberty is enshrined Constitution u of t}.>■ United St Uos— and there, m that: List ivtieut, no hand shall strike it. h reminds me oi that celebrated passage in the great L itin poet, in which the serpents of the Ionian sea, when they had destroyed Laocoon and his sons, fled to the heights of the Trojan citadel and coiled their slimy lengths around the feet of the tutelar goddess, and were covered by the orb of her shield* So, under the guidance of my colleague [Mr. Pendleton] slavery has found its way upward and upward, until it has reached the high citadel of American nationalty, and coiled itself, as he believes, securely around the feet of the statue of justice and under the shield of the Constitution of the United States. We desire to follow it even there and kill it beside the very altar of liberty. Its blood can nevermake atonement forits crimes. But the gentleman hasgone further.- He is not content that the snaky sorceress shall be merely under the protection of the Constitution. In his hands, by a strange metamorphosis, slavery becomes an invisible essence and takes up its abode in the very grain and fiber of the Constitution, and when we go to strike it he says," I cannot point out any express form that prohibits you from striking slavery; but I find it in the intent and meaning of the Constitution. 1 go into the very grain of the Constitution, underthe surface, out of sight, into the very spirit and genius of it, and in that invisible domain slavery is enshrined, and there is no power in the Republic to drive it thence." In order that I may ao no injustice to my friend, I will read from his speech of yesterday the passage to which I have referred:

"My colleague from the Toledo district, in the speech which he made the other day, told us with reference to this point:

'"If I lead the Constitution aright and understand the force of language, the section which I have just quoted ia to davfiee from all limitations and conditions save two, oneof which provides that the suffrage of the several States ill the Senate shall he equal, and that no State shall lose this equality hv any amendment of the Constitution without its consent; the oilier relates to taxation. These are the only conditions and limitations.'

"I deny it. I assert that there is another limitation stronger even than the letter of the Constitution and that is to be found in its intent and its spirit and it* foundation idea. I put the question which has been putbefoiein this debate, can three fourths of the States constitutionally change this Government, and make it an autocracy? It is not prohibited by the letter of the Constitution."

Jt does not come within the two classes of limitations and conditions asset ted by my colleague. Why is it that thischangecannotbemade? 1 will tell you why. Itisbeeausc republicanism lies at the very foundation of our system of government, and to overthrow that idea is not to amend, but to subvert the Constitution ot the United States; and 1 say Unit if three fourths of the States should undertake to pa-* an amendment of that kind, and Rhode Island alone di ented she would have the right to resist by force. It would be her duty to resist by force; and her cause would be sacred in the eyes of just men, and sanctified in the eyes of a just God."

He goes behind the words and phrases of the Constitution and finds a refuge for slavery in it^ intent; and he says that with that intent we have no right to deal in the way of amendment. He has gone even beyond thatsublimeideaof protection, and has announced a discovery to which I am sure no other statesman ever laid claim, and can be no more reached by the power of law than Satan by the sword of Michael. He finds the highest warrant, the completestimmunity, for slavery, not only behind the Constitution but even behind the governments of the States themselves. For ho says, in answer to a question from my friend from Iowa, [Mr. Wilson:] u I will not be drawn now into a discussion with the gentleman as to the origin of slavery, nor to the law which he* behind the Constitution ot the United States, and behind the government of the States, by which these people are held in slavery."

I say that the gentleman has gone even deeper than the spirit of the Constitution. Not finding anything in the words and phrases of the, Constitution to forbid an amendment abolishing slavery he goes behind the Constitution of the United States and behind all constitutions, and refers to some law that overshadows States, nations, and constitutions and forms, as space envelops the universe and far away in the eternal equities, he finds what he believes to be the law by which one man can hold another in slavery. Surely human ingenuity has never gone further to shield a malefactor.

Let me for a few moments call the attention of the House to what seems to me to be the origin of the gentleman s argument. He has given us what i believe to be the key to his legal opinions in the four words which thegentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Jenckes] commented upon last evening. The whole theory upon which he proceeds is found in that short utterance," the compact of confederation," and you need not go beyond that to find the whole strength of his argument. If I understand the gentleman, he holds that each State is sovereign; that in their sovereign and independent capacity the States, each for itself, granted to the Convention that framed the Constitution the power to form a Constitution of government, and that the States, as such, were the source and fountain of that power. What they did not grant they reserved. They did not grant the right to control the subject of slavery. Hence that question was reserved to the States, and no amendment by the modes pointed out in the Constitution can reach it. This, I believe, js ei succinct and just statement of his argument. The whole question turns upon the sovereignty and independence of the States. Are they sovereign and independent now? Were they ever so? 1 shall endeavor to answer.

I appeal to the facts of history, and to bring them clearly before us, 1 affirm:

I. That prior to the 4th day of July, 1776, these colonies were neither free nor independent. Their sovereignty was lodged in the Crown of Great Britain. 1 believe no man will deny this. Itwas admitted even ill the first declaration of right by the revolutionary Congress that assembled in 1774 to pray for a redress of grievances. That body expressly admitted that the sovereignty of those colonies lodged in the Crown of Great Britain. It has been taught by Jay and Story, and has been so decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. (See Chisholm us. State of Georgia, 2 Dallas, 240.)

II. 1 affirm that no colony declared itself free and independent. Neither Virginia, New Yoilc, or Massachusetts declared itself free end independent of the Crown of GreatBritain. The declaration was made, not even by the whole of the colonies as colonies; but the declaration was made in the name of" the good people of the colonies," as a people.

In the following paragraph the sovereignty and its maintenance were transferred from the Crown ofGreat Britain to the whole people of the colonies: We, therefore, the rfpicsoiiuuives of the United fc tn te a Of Allium'.!, Ill Geneial (Jollies-, IKseilltlteit, ippe ilm to the .Supreme .finite ot the world for theiroiittule oi mn intentions do in the name and hy the atuimniv of tin: good people ot these colonies solemnly publish anil declare that these United Colonies are, and ot right ought to he, fice and independent State*; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the HntishUiown, and th it all political connection between them and the Bute ot Great Britain i a d ou ht to be, totally dissolved*, and that as ire< and independent States they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent, Stated may of t ht do. And for tiie support ot t hit, declaration, with a Yum h reliance on the protection of divine 1 Providence, we mutually pledge U> each othei our lives, our toilune?, and our sieiea honor." In vindication of this view i road from the 197th page of tiiu first volume of Justice Story s Commentaries:

"The colonies did no|, severally act for themselves and proclaim their own independence, (t is true that «uin' of the States had previously loaned incipient i ovej mucins lor themselves, but it was done m compliance wall the recommendations of Con ics j

'•But the declaration of the independence of all the colonies was the united act of all. It was (a declaration by ih( representatives of the United rirate.-, of Ame) tea in (Jongre^ assembled by the delegates appointed hy the good people of the colonies,' as in «i prior declaration of rights they were called. It was not an act done by the tftute govcimncnts then organized; nor by puMnus chosen by them. It wasemphatieally the. ict of the whole people ot the United Colonies, by the instrumentality of then representatives, chosen for that, among other put poses*. i t was an act not competent to the State £oveiument s 01 any of thorn as organized under their charter, to adopt. Tho e charters neither contemplated the case c not provided for it. it was an tictofoiiginalj inherent sovereignty hy the people themselves, resulting from theirri bt toeh mire the j onn ofgovernment, and to institute a new government whenever necessary for their safety arid happiness So the Declaration of Independence Heats it. No State had pi canned of itself to form a new Government, or to provide for tlie exigencies of the times, without consulting Congress on the subject; and when they acted, It was m pursuance of the recommendation of Congio w It was, therefoie, the achievement of the whole for the benefit of the whole. The people of the United Colonies made the United Colonies free arid independent States, and absolved them from all allegiance to the British Crown. The Declaration ot Independence has accoidingly always been treated as an actot paramount and sovereign authority, complete and perfect, per se and ipso facto working an entire dissolution of all political connection with and allegiance to Great Britain. And this, not merely as a practical fact, hut in a legal and constitutional view of the matter by courts of justice.

When these people of the colonies became free, having withdrawn the sovereignty from the Crown ofGreat Britain, where did they lodge it? Not in the States; but so far as they delegated it at all, they lodged it in the revolutionary Congress then sitting at Philadelphia. My colleague dissents. I ask his attention again to the language of this distinguished commentator on page 200, volume In the next place, we have seen that the power to do this act was not derived from the State governments, nor was it done generally with their cooperation. TJic question naturally presents itself, if it is to he considered as a national act. in what manner did the colonies become a nation, and in what manner did Congress become posse s«cd of this national power? The true answer must be that as soon as Congiet s assumed to pass measures which were m their nature national, to that extent the people, from whose acquiescence and consent they took effect, miis t be considered as agreeing to form a nation."

Mr. PENDLETON. I desire to ask my colleague from what power the delegates vrlio sat in that Congress derived their authority to make that declaration; whether they did not derive Jt from the colonies, or the States, if the gentleman prefers that word, and whether each delegate did not speak m the Congress for the State government which authorized him to speak there?

Mr. GAlvFlELD. I say, in answer to the point the gentleman makes, as I have already said and in thelunguage of this distinguished commentator, that the moment the revolutionary Congress assumed national prerogatives, and the people by their silence consented, that, moment the people of the colonies were constituted anation and that revolutionary Congress was the authorized Government of that nation. But the declaration was made by the authority of the good people," and hence it was their declaration.

Mr. PENDLETON. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him whether from that moment they became the representatives of the nation, or whether they still retained their position as representatives of the States?

Mr. GARFIELD. They were both. They were still representatives of the States; but the additional function was added of their being national representatives as well as State. They then took upon them that which now belongs to the gentleman, the twofold quality of State citizenship and national citizenship. The gentleman is twice a citizen, subject to two jurisdictions; and so were they.*

III. The sovereignty of this people, then, was first lodged in the revolutionary Congress; and it continued there until the 1st day of March, 1781, when they lodged it in the Articles of Confederation. They established then a confederacy, properly so called; and even that confederacy was declared to establish a "perpetual Union." Even it, with all its loose phrases and provisions, left small ground for the doctrine of secession.

IV. On the 21st day of June, 1788, a new lodgment of this sovereignty of the American people was made, it was then lodged in this Constitution of the United States under which we now act— lodged there by the action of the people, in each of these successive steps the people have altered and amended the fundamental law of the land as it has pleased them. In each change they have made a stronger and safer Government.

if the gentleman looks then, for a kind of political" apostolicsuccession" of American sovereignty, he will find it m this order, and this would be the genealogy: first, the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain; second, the revolutionary Congress; third, the Articles of Confederation; and fourth and now, the Constitution of the United States.

Well, now, if no one of these colonies was sovereign and independent, when and how did any of the States become so? The gentleman must show us by whose act it was done and read us the record. I think i have shown that the gentleman s position has no foundation in history. But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that up to the day of the adoption of our present Constitution the colonies were separately sovereign and independent. Who made the Constitution an authoritative instrument? It tells its own story best." We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, &c., do ordain and establish this Constitution —not we the sovereign States, do enter a league, or form a compact of confederation." in that great initial action of the people what limits or restrictions confined them? Absolutely no human power, no barriers of sovereignty. There was nothing to restrain them but the laws of nature and the laws of God as they understood them. Over that limitless expanse they ranged at will, and out of such material as their wisdom selected they built the fabric of our Constitution.

And now I askmy colleague [Mr. Pendleton] by what means the will of this nation reaches me with its obligations? i answer, only asthatwfli is revealed to me m the logical and grammatical meaning of the words and phrases of the written Constitution. Beyond this there is, there can be, no legal force or potency. If the amending power granted in the Constitution beinany way abridged or restricted, such restriction must be found in the just meaning of the instrument itself. Any other doctrine would overthrow the whole fabric of jurisprudence. What are the limitations of the amending power? Plainly and only these:

"That no amendment which may he made prior to the year 1808 shall m any manner afiWu the thst ami fourth clauses in the ninth section ot the fli t article; and that no State, without its consent, shall b<* deprived of its equal feuiliage in the Senate —Article V.

The first being only restricted to the year 1808, is of course functus officio, and no longer operative; the last is still binding. The gentleman [Mr. Pendleton] does not claim that any other sentence is restrictive; but there issornethingnot written down, a terilum quid, a kind of exhalation rising out of the depths of the Constitution, that has the power of itself to stay the hand uf the people of this great Republic in their attempt to put away an evil that is deleterious to the nation s life. He would lead us in pursuit of these intangible shadows, would place us in the dominion of vague, invisible powers that exhale, like odors, from the Constitution butare more potent than the Constitution itself. Such an ignis fatwus lam not disposed to follow, especially when it leads to a hopeful future for human slavery. it is therefore evident to me that wo are not limited in the power of amendment beyond what is fairly written down as a prohibition.

The able and distinguished gentlemen from Massachusetts [Mr. Boutwell] failed to convince me in the point he made yesterday that the preamble could not be amended. ask him to consider this: could our forefathers have adopted a different preamble when they were making the original Constitution; could they have put it in other words, or could they have declared other objects as the basis of their Constitution? If they could have made a different preamble, declaring other and different objects, so can we now declare other objects in our amendments. The preamble is itself amendable just as is every clause of the Constitution, excepting only the ones already referred to.

The gentleman [Mr. Pendleton] puts another case which I wish to notice. He says that nme of the thirteen original colonies adopted the Constitution, and by the very terms of it it was binding only on the nine. So if three fourths of the States should pass this amendment it would not bind the other fourth. in commentmgupon this clause Judge Tucker, of Virginia, in his appendix to Blackstone, says that if the four colonies had not adopted the Constitution they would have been a foreign people. The writers of the Federalist hold a diffeient doctrine, and fall back upon the original right of the nation to preserve itself, and say that the nine States would have had the right to compel the other four to comejn. But the question is unimportant from the fact that they did come in and adopt the Constitution. The contract once ratified, and obligations once taken, they became an integral part of an indivisible nation, as indivisible as a State. I therefore agree in full with my colleague from the Columbus district, [Mr. Cox,] that with the exception of the two cases of limitation, two thirds of Congress and three fourths of the States can do anything in the way of amendment, being bounded only by their patriotism and sense of duty. The field is therefore open to us, completely and fully opened. I ask now what those gentlemen propose by delaying the death day of slavery? 1 wish they might become so jealous of their betrothed that they would say of her even out of the depths of their love as did Othello the Moor:

Yet she must die, else she ll betray more men."

Has she not betrayed and slain men enough? Are they not strewn over a thousand battle fields Is not this Moloch of slavery gorged with the bloody feast? Gentlemen, you know the day of its death is fast approaching. Nothing can stay it. The States are freeing themselves one by one; and you know that in a few weeks at furthest another Congress will strike the blow if *you do not. We ask you, then, in the name of justice, in the name of the Republic, hold not back the uplifted sword now drawn to strike the final blow; strike down; grant no reprieve to the bloodiest of malefactors.

I did not intend, Mr. Speaker, ever to address this House upon the subject of slavery. I had almost promised myself that I might turn my thoughts to other and larger fields soon to open before us; but when I saw the institution maintained again and again in this House I could not resist my inclination to strike one blow in hope of hastening its doom.