January 13, 1865 (2)

Mr. BALDWIN, of Massachusetts, obtained the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. I do not know who has the floor, but I should be glad if I could have, now that I am up, ten minutes of some gentleman s time.

Mr. BALDWIN, of Massachusetts. I will yield the gentleman a few minutes of my time.

Mr. STEVENS. I will detain the House but u few minutes. 1 see, upon looking at the Globe of yesterday, that my distinguished colleague on the Committee of Ways and Means from Ohio, [Mr. Pendleton*,] jf I understand his language atight—and he always speaks with classic accuracy "—has exonerated those in arms in the rebel States from the responsibility of this bloody war and placed it upon the shoulders of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (myself,) and those who act and think with him m this House.

Sir, that is a grave charge, coming especially from a gentleman who seeks one of the highest places in this nation, and who may possibly receive a few votes for it; and it is therefore, I think, proper that my position, and the position of those who act with me, with regard to this question and our responsibility for the cause of this war, should be in a few summary words set forth in connection with this debate.

Mr. PENDLETON. I only desire that the gentleman shall quote the language I used in immediate connection with the interpretation which he is giving it.

Mr. STEVENS. The gentleman said—

Let him be careful, lest when the passions of these times be passed away, and the historian shall go back to discover where was the original infraction of the Constitution, he may find that sin lies at the door of others than the people now in arms."

This was addressed to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens,] to the gentleman from Rhode Island, [Mr. Jenckes,] and others who have acted and thought with me. I infer from this, if I can understand the" classical accuracy" of the gentleman, that he means that we, and not they, were the cause of this war.

Mr. Speaker, that charge, as 1 have stated, is a grave one, and if true ought to induce us, not only to feel great regret, but deep remorse for our conduct. What, then, up to the timeof the breaking out of this rebellion, was the position of" the gentleman from Pennsylvania," and those who acted with him upon the subject of slavery, that caused this war? I beg but a few moments to state it.

From my earliest youth I was taught to read the Declaration of Independence and to revere its sublime principles. As I advanced in life and became somewhat enabled to consult the writings of the great men of antiquity, I found m all their works which have survived the ravages of time and come down to the present generation, one unanimous denunciation of tyranny and of slavery, and eulogy of liberty. Homer, .^Esehyius the great Greek tragedian, Cicero, liesiod, Virgil, Tacitus, and Sallust, in immortal language, all denounced slavery as a thing which took away half the man and degraded human beings, and sang peans in the noblest strains to the goddess of liberty. And my hatred of this infernal institution and my love of liberty were further inflamed as( saw the inspired teachings of Socrates and the divine inspirations of Jesus.

Being fixed in these principles, immovably and immutably, I took my stand among my fellowcitizens, and on all occasions, whether in public or in private, in season and, if there could he such a time, out of season, 1 never hesitated to express those ideas and sentiments, and when I first went into public assemblies, forty years ago, I uttered this language, j have done it amid the pelting and hooting of mobs, but I never quailed before the infernal spirit, and I hope I never shrank from the responsibility of my language.

When, thirty years ago, i entered the Legislature of the State which I now in part represent, I carried with nif the same feeling and the same determination; for this feeling grew with my growth arid strengthened with my strength, but I thank God it has not decayed with enfeebling age. Carrying into that body these same feelings, I there expressed them, and at one time found a unanimous Democratic party to respond to them in the strongest n solution that 1 could draw. The noble Governor, the first that our party elected in those times, Governor Ritner, who is now spending an honored old age in retirement, in the first message that had come since 1780 on that subject, denounced the dark spirit of slavery.

When, fifteen years ago, I was honored with a seatin this body, it was dangerous to talk against this institutional danger which gentlemen now here will never be able to appreciate. Some of us, however, have experienced it; my friend from Illinois on my right [Mr. Wasiitscrne] has. And yet, sir, I did not hesitate, in the midst of bowie knives and levolvers and howling demons upon the other side of the House, to stand heic and denounce this infamous institution in language which possibly now, on looking at it, I might deem intemperate, but which 1 then deemed necessary to rouse the public attention and cast odium upon the worst institution upon earth, one which is a disgrace to man and would be an annoyance to the infernal spirits.

Mr. Speaker, while I thus denounced it and uttered my sentiments in favor of universal freedom everywhere, I found in the Constitution of my country what I construed, whatever others may think as a prohibition from touching slavery where it existed; and through all my course I recognized and bowed to a provision in that Constitution which I always regarded asits only blot; and I challenge the scrutiny of my respected colleague on the Committee of Way a and Means, or any other gentleman, through all the records of utterances in« this House, to find one single motion or one single word which claimed on our part to touch slavery in the States where it existed. We admitted that it was there, protected by that instrument. We claimed that in the Territories we had full power over it and in the District of Columbia, and I, with those who acted with me, could not hesitate as to what our duty required in excluding it from the free soil of the country and confining it to the spots it already polluted. I claimed the right to abolish it in the District of Columbia, as Congress was the only Legislature on earth that could touch it here. I heard the great man of the Westonce say that it was a sin and shame to believe that there was no power on earth that could abolish it over every inch of ground in the world. But, sir, I did not claim early to act upon it here, but I rather, proposed to let it rest until a more propitious moment should arrive before we acted upon it.

Such, sir, was my position, and the position of the party with which I acted in this Hall—not disturbing slavery where the Constitution protected it, but abolishing it wherever we had the constitutional power, and prohibiting its further extension. I claimed the right then, as I claim the right now, to denounce it everywhere, even m foreign lands, so that if such language could an vwhere affect public sentiment it might do so. I claimed the right then, as I claim it now, to hedge it into the smallest space; but no man with whom 1 acted ever proposed to violate the Constitution for the purpose of touching slavery.

So much on that point. One other word, not directly on that. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Pendleton] says that I go on the maxim that "what is broken in one thing is broken in all," and that hence, if there was one infraction of the Constitution it was dissolved. That is the coinage of the gentleman sown fertile brain. I never uttered such a sentiment nor held it. The Constitution may be violated in many parts, and remain intact in all others. The gentleman had, perhaps naturally enough, confounded what I had said with what he finds in a sacred book, where it is said that a violation of the least of the commandments is a violation of all. It was not I that said it, but another much greater.

Ingenious gentlemen argue, and many honest men will delude their consciences in voting, in favor of still sustaining the institution on the ground that the Constitution does not allow an amendment on this point. They goon the ground that the subject of slavery has not been intrusted to us by the States, and that therefore it is reserved. Now, as the Constitution now stands, that is true. But we are not now inquiring whether we have jurisdiction over slavery. We are inquiring whether the States have granted to us the power of amendment. That is the subject—not the subject of slavery, not the subject of religion, not the subject of anythingelse—but, have. the States yielded to Congress the right to amend If t h y have, then the whole question is answered. Not only have they granted that power, but wherever they intended to exceptanything from the power of amendment, they have said so. My learned friend knows that when a statute excepts certain things, every thing else is meant by it. Will the Clerk read the clause of the Constitution?

The Clerk read as follows:

'•The Ooii rc s Hbeitovcr two third? of both Houses shall dcnjn it uecr"> ,irv, shall propose amendments to this Con. htnnoti, <u, on the application of the Lrgu l ittires of twoUnuMit ih'1 several rM nc shall call a convention for ptopnamendment-, which, in oi her ease, shall be valid mn!! intent- m pmpoM v a part uftiiib Constitution, when bv t x L( ri iai m ot three fourths of the several t«Ue oi hy r o lvention m three lourtln thereof, us the one or the other mode of unification may he ptopo ed by the Co ie s pi ovided that no amendment winch may he made pnoi to thy \ear 160d shall in any manner affect the fust ami t niirth e iu t> in the ninth -action of the £rst article; and that no Stale, without its eon sent shall be deprived of its equal ^ullragc in the Senate."

Mr. STEVENS. No lawyer who wishes to understand it can deny that, with the exceptions contained in that proviso, the power to amend the Constitution is unlimited. There is no subject on earth relating to Government that you cannot touch. Nowhere in that original instrument did t ie States grant the right of legislating on the subject of religion; and yet the very first amendment that was made under this power refers to the subject of religion and the freedom of speech, showing the fallacy of the arguments of those who say that you can amend only the subjects granted to Congress.

Perhaps I ought not to occupy so much time, and I will only say one word further. So far as the appeals of the learned gentleman [Mr. Pendleton] are concerned, in lus pathetic winding up, I will be willing to take my chance, when we all molder in the dust, lie may have his epitaph written if it be truly written, Iieio rests the ablest and most pertinacious defender of slavery and opponent of liberty;" and 1 will be satisfied if my epitaph shall be written thus: "Here lies one who never rose to any eminence, and who onlycoutted the low ambition to have it said that lie had striven to ameliorate the condition of the poor, the lowly, the downtrodden of every race and language and color." [Applause.]

I shall be content, with audi a eulogy on his lofty tomb and such an inscription on my humble grave, to trust our memories to the judgment of after ages.

Mr. Jj BALDWIN, of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the House were now ready to sustain a call for the previous question and come to a vote, I would gladly give way to have the vote taken. I shall not undertake an elaborate or extended argument, nor make a long speech. 1 propose only to take some notice of what is said or implied in one or two of the at ^uments that have been urged against the measure now before the House.

1. One argument against the measure assumes that the people of this Republic cannot safely be trusted with control of the form of their national government. It is said that if we admit that the people have rightful authority to amend the Constitution so a s to abolish and prohibit slavery, it will follow that the people have also authority u> .set tip a monarchy, or do anything else that implies unlimited conti ol over the form of their government, therefore such authority mustbe denied. That is if) say, the light of sell government the right of democratic institutions, the right of the people of these States to be the somee and the organizers of political power in the nation, must not be admitted, because it would be dangerous to trust the people with full power to amend the Constitution and decide for themselves how and by v what methods they will be governed.

Certainly it is not paying a high j h compliment to the people of this nation to assume that they would, under any circumstances, set up a mmiaieliy or lianal urn the Republic, into a hideous despotism like that of Dahomey. It represents nothing in the character or the political faith of the met) who framed our Govri nnient. They had faith in the people, and could not tolerate a policy that would place them under guardianship. Doubtless some needy royal prince, some starving monarch out of business, some benevolent and pitiful Maximilian iflighthavo been found to undertake the business of putting the people under discipline and keeping them out of mischief; but the men of the Revolution felt no need of such keepers. Let me add that he who can see, in the endeavor to abolish and prohibit slavery, a disposition to revolutionize the Government and establish a despotism, must have eyes that can see horrid shapes of ugliness where there is nothing but perfect beauty, and be haunted by the blackest night amid the brightest and most transfiguring sunshine. Is it love of freedom and desire to establish justice that subjects nations to despotism He is not sane who believes it.

9. It appears to me that in the discussion of this question of power to amend the Constitution two things have been confounded that should be considered separately. One is, whatcan be done to amend the Constitution within the limits of that instrument, while preserving it and along with it the republican form of government it has Mt d the other is, the right of the people to change 'the form of their government by setting aside the present republican Constitution and putting in its pl ce another constitution entirely different. No man will deny that our national Constitution requires a republican form of government. Nor can it easily be denied that not only the preamble but also the whole intent and spirit of the instrument require all amendments to be in harmony with republican principles. But it does not follow that the people of these States have lost the right to change entirely the form of their government by means of a new Constitution regularly adopted. You may call such a change of the form of government "an amendment of tlie Constitution" if you will, for in securing it the same method must be pursued that is required for the most unimportant change* but you must admit that it is an amendment "in the nature of a substituto."

But let -us consider what is chiefly meant by the representation that the measure before the House "changes the form of the Government." It is quite possible that some gentlemen are not yet emancipated from the notion that slavery itself is the chief thing in our form of government. For years the slave power was persistently put forward as" the Constitution and the laws." Slavery and nothing else is meant now, by some gentlemen, when they put on sad countenances and talk mournfully of" the Constitution as it is and the Union as it was." It is not surprising that such people talk as if the form of our Govei nment would be wrecked and the foundations ol the earth put out of course li slavery should be swept away by such an amendment of the national Constitution. But then astonishing monomania does not change the natui e of th mgs. It cannot ti uniform a devil into a seiaph nor make an outrageous barbarism pass current as Christian civilization.

But, in this discussion the representation that the measure now under consideration" changes the fmm of our Government," has chiefly meant that it denies that theoi y of" State sovereignty" to which secession treason appeals for justification, and which is so pei linaciously urged here by some gentlemen on the other side of the House. They as Mime that this disoiganizin^ theory describes correctly the form of our Government, and, of com so, proceed to talk as if the Government itself would be wrecked if their theory of "State sovereignty should fail to regulate the proceedings of Congress and the people, in thenview" the form of our Government would be changed" by any measure that should spurn this pestilent theory and trample it under foot; a theory that is utterly unwarranted by anything in the national Constitution or m the history of our political institutions.

Our national Union was established by the Declaration of Independence. Previous to that Declaration there were no States; there were only colonies and dependencies of Great 13i itam. The Union and the States came into existence together as a nation. By the Federal Constitution this national Union was organized, consolidated, and made more pel feet. This doctt ine of independent State sovereignty was not tolerated in the constitutional Convention, for the men who contiolli d that Convention and represented the spirit of the country meantthattlus Repubhcshould bea great and inseparable nation. After the national Government was fully organized, and during the administration of John Adams, while the country was agitated by a storm of political excitement, the factious vehemence of the Opposition gave birth to this doctrine, that the national Union is merely a compact, league, or agency of independent State sovereignties. 1 refer, of course, to the noloi ions Kentucky and Virginia evolutions of 171 8—01 1 do not think the men of that time who were concerned in this business undei! tood well what they did. Certainly they d d not mean all that has since been meant by the nullifiers and secessionists.

These resolutions were intended chiefly as partisan devices to break down the Administration. Not until years afterward was it publicly known that Mr. Jefferson had any connection with them. Nevertheless he wrote the resolutions that were adopted by the Kentucky Legislature, it was intended that the same resolutions should be adopted by the Legislature of Virginia, but the Virginians hesitated and turned to Mr. Madison for a milder and more equivocal edition of this gospel of nullification. The political atmosphere being full of insanity, and Mr. Jefferson s influence very pressing, he complied. It was a compliance which he did not afterward remember with satisfaction. The ostensible purpose of these resolutions was to array" State sovereignty" against certain acts of Congress. With all the impressive formalities that seemed desirable they were sent forth to every State m the Union. And what was the result? What judgment did the nation pass upon the doctrines set forth in them? Not another State in the Union would indorse the resolutions. The general judgment was briefly and tersely expressed by the State of Delaware as follows: ii Resolved, hy the Senate and of ReprcsentativesoJ the Stale of Delaware in General Assembly met, That they consider the resolutions from the State of Viiguua as a very ut)jiihUfijl lo mteiforcnee with the General Government and constituted authorities of the [Tinted States and ot dangerous tendency, and therefore not fit subject forfurthei consideration by the General Assembly."

This judgment of the whole nation against the pernicious and destructive doctrine of independent State sovereignty, passed, too, within eight years after the Constitution was adopted, shows conclusively how contrary that doctrine was to the political doctrines and purposes of the men who established the Government. No political party at that time, nor for fifty years afterward, could be induced to indorse those resolutions. Mr. Jefferson himself made no further use of them. In fact, no Administration has interpreted the Constitution more loosely, or shown icss deference to the doctrines of the resolutions of 171 6 and 1799, than Mr. JefTei sou s His aim was accomplished; the old Federal party was overthrown; for the next twenty four years we had for Presidents, first Jefferson next Madison, and then Monroe, all Virginians. The resolutions of 1793 and 1799 were laid away quietly, shielded from much of the infamy that would have been their lot under different circumstances, and henceforth were heard of only now and then when some curious explorer in the dust holes of past political history spoke of them civilly as Virginia abstractions."

Mr. Madison, as 1 have said, was never afterward cpiite etease in regard to these resolutions. When Mr. Calhoun and his followers brought them forth again to justify their attempt to overthrow the Government by means of nullification, Mr. Madison protested, and denied with great earnestness that the Virginia resolutions had any such meaning as the Calhounists found in them. His private correspondence of that date is full of references to this subject. But the letter of the resolutions was evidently against him; and, feeling this, he said in a letter to William C. Rives, dated Mai eh 12, 1833:

A owWi k1 with prophetic irift mighthnve prevented nnn il enot m the glossc* on those proceedings."

Wntmg to Martin Van Buren, March 13 1827 on" the Georgia business," he said: u f it be understood that our political system contains no provisions for deciding questions between the Union and us members but that of negotiation, and, this failing, but that of war, as between separate and independent Powers, no tune ousj U to he lo t in supplying, by some mode or other, the awful omission. What has been called a Government is, on that supposition, a mere league only; a lej nn with too many parties to be uniformly observed or effectively maintained 55

Writing to James Robertson, April 20 1831 he said:

•'That the people of (he United States formed the Constitution will be derm d or affirmed, according to the sfinse m winch the expression us understood. The main question, is whether they have not given to the Charter a .sanction in a eapaeuy and a mode that shuts the door against all such disuniting and nullifying doctrines as those lately advanced."

Writing to William C. Rives, March 12, 1833, Mr. Madison said:

What can be more preposterous than to say that the United State:*, as united, art: in no respect or degree a nation which implies a sovereignty; although acknowledged to bo Mich by all other nation* and sovereigns, and maintaining with then all llie international relations of war and peace, treaties, comnieiee, &e.; and, on the other hand, and at the >:irne tunc, to t say that the States separately are completely nations and sovereigns, although they can separately neither speak nor hearken tp any other nation, nor maimam with if any of the international relations whatever; and would be disowned as nations lfpresentingthemin that clruaeti i

In calling attention to these passages in the private correspondence of Mr. Madison, my aim is to show how completely he, the writer of the Virginia resolutions, repudiated the doctrines of the Calhounists, modern secessionists, and other advocates of independent State sovereignty, who have appealed to those resolutions, the old utterances of partisan monomania, as if they contained a very sacred political gospel. The founders of our Government intended that the great American Republic should be a nation a sovereign Power, with light to defend its own existence by whatever means may be necessary, and to stand forth among the nations of the earth mighty and glorious in the power of free principles and free men, able to crush with irresistible force all enemies domestic or foreign. .Nothing was further from their intention pr their favor than this doctrine of State sovereignty which transforms the national Union into a loose league, with no central authority to enforce allegiance and assert national sovereignty, a mere sham, a structure that may fall to pieces at a word from any of the parties to it.

Mr. Speaker, if we have learned anything from the sad experience of the last three or four years, it is that slavery should be destroyed in this Republic and by an amendment of the national Constitution be' forbidden, and made for evermore impossible wherever the national banner floats as the symbol of our national sovereignty. Why should slavery be so strenuously supported at the present time? It is an outlaw to civilization; and this southern treason has now made it an outlaw to the Government, to patriotism, and to all honest regard for the welfare of the nation. The slave power has bred traitors as naturally as foul vapors breed disease, or as a den of thieves breeds villainy. Any compromise with it would necessarily become to us" tlie mother of woe, and death, and hell." Let it be destroyed, for our republican institutions cannot be safe while it exists! Let it be destroyed that the rights of man may be vindicated and eternal justice satisfied.

Mr. BROWN, of Wisconsin, obtained the floor, but yielded to

Mr. HiGHY, who moved that the House do now adjourn.