January 28, 1865

The House then proceeded to the consideration of the motion to reconsider the vote by which the House, at its last session, rejected the joint resolution (S. No. 16) submitting to the Legislatures of the several States a proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States so as to prohibit slavery in the several States; upon which Mr. Brown, of Wisconsin, was entitled to the floor.

Mr. BROWN, of Wisconsin. When I obtained the floor upon the close of the debate when this subject was last under consideration, it was with the expectation of opening the discussion on Tuesday next, to which day this subject had been postponed. I desire to ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow the speaker who may close the discussion to day and be entitled to the floor when the consideration of this subject shall be resumed on Tuesday next.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Brown] asks permission to waive his right to the floor to day and that he shall be considered entitled to it on Tuesday next. Is there any objection?

Mr. ASHLEY. How long will the gentleman desire on Tuesday?

Mr. BROWN. Probably not more than fifteen or twenty minutes.

Mr. ASHLEY. I have no objection to the gentleman having twenty or twenty five minutes on Tuesday, instead of addressing the House to-

Mr. BROWN, of Wisconsin. I shall not occupy more time than that.

Mr. STILES. I would ask the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Ashley,] if he proposes to press the question to a vote on Tuesday next.

Mr. ASHLEY. That is my present intention.

Mr. HIGBY. I had supposed that I should immediately follow the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Brown] in this debate. That was one reason why, on the day that he obtained the floor, I moved the adjournment; in order that he might have a full opportunity to be heard when the question should come up again, and that I might immediately follow him. But he has obtained leave, by unanimous consent, to speak on Tuesday next, the day when the question is to come up again.

Mr. STEVENS. When was that unanimous consent granted?,

Mr. HIGBY. Just a few moments ago.

Mr. STEVENS. 1 was not present when that was done, or 1 should have objected. I would ask if that unanimous consent could properly be given to day or if anything can be done to day but speaking.

The SPEAKER. The Chair would have doubted that the arrangement could properly be made, had any gentleman objected. But it was a mere question as to the time when the gentleman should speak, he being already entitled to the floor. Still the arrangement required unanimous consent.

Mr. STEVENS. I had supposed that the vote was to be taken on Tuesday next. I must object to any speaking that will carry the subject beyond that day.

Mr. ASHLEY. I do not think we should disregard the agreement of the House that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Brown-] shall be allowed to occupy twenty minutes on next Tuesday. I understand that is all the time he desires.

The SPEAKER. Although no entry will bo made on the Journal, the Chair wilt fee! bound to recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Brown] as entitled to the floor, if he claims it on Tuesday next, after the one who shall have obtained it at the time of the adjournment to day shall have concluded his remarks.

Mr. HIGBY. Mr. Speaker, amid the long debate that has occurred upon this question, not only at the last session but also at this session, three classes of objections principally have been raised upon the other side of the House. One of them is that the Constitution of the United States contains no provision by which we can make an amendment of the character proposed in the resolution now before the House; another, joined with the objection I have just named, is that it is inexpedient at this time to make this amendment; and the third objection is, that slavery is the true condition of the African race.

Mr. Speaker, objections of this kind are the only ones which at this time men could possibly raise to the passage of this resolution. The first of these statements savors of the argument which has been used for scores of years, that the States were complete sovereignties when they organized the General Government. The proposition is very simple, very direct. It is a matter of fact m history that the States never were separate and independent. As dependent colonies, they united together for the purpose of gaining their independence and securing a separation from the mother country. They were dependent colonies at that time, but through their union and their united action independence was obtained. And having obtained their independence, the very first action on their part was to establish a constitution for a General Government over all.

They established a Government under the Articles of Confederation, which, for the sake of distinction from the present Constitution, I will designate as the former Constitution. When they had established that Government, there was no State government that could exist for any time except by virtue of the Confederation. When they had continued under thatform of government until they found that it would not accomplish its ends and objects, they established the present Conslitution; and it was established for the purpose of common defense, for the purpose of giving to the States under that General Government such local powers as the General Government saw fit to give; and they could not exist as separate and independent Slates except by virtue of the General Government which the people established. Under that Government, the States could have no separate, independent sovereignty.

Now, sir, two of the Articles of Confederation explain the object of the establishment of that form of government. The third article contains virtually the preamble; it declares the objects and the purposes of establishing; that Constitution. It reads thus:

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assisteaeh othei against all fnjee offeied to orattacU made upon them or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."

In this article is embraced a declaration of the objects and purposes for which this Government was established; and it was under this as the Government of the United States that each State had whatever local government it could possess secured to it.

But, sir, in order to understand the full object and intent of that form of government, it is necessary to read the last or thirteenth article:

"Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled on all questions which by this Confederation is submitted to them; and the Articles of this Confederation shall be mviolablyobseived by every Stare, and the Union shall he perpetual nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made m any of them, unless .such alteration be agreed to m a Congress of the United .State*, and be afterward confirmed by the Legislatures of every State."

It will be observed, Mr. Speaker, that this article corresponds with one portion of what we find in the preamble of the present Constitution: "The Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed b) every State, and the Union shall be perpetual." Now, sir, the third article which I have read and this last one embrace all the objects and purposes for which this first Constitution was established," for their common defense, the security of their liberties," and to make a Union that should be perpetual.

This instrument was used for a few years as the one through which the General Government was operated. But, sir, it was found to be weak and imbecile; it was found that there was not power enough at the center, and that the vitality at the extremities was so great that the danger was the breaking up of the Union and the defeat of the objects for which the Government was organized. A convention was called, delegates being sentfrom various States of the Union; and the resultof the work of that convention was to give us the present Constitution under which we are operating our Government. Now, sir, let us see how long the rule which was prescribed for the amendment of the Articles of Confederation was regarded by the men who established that form of government when it had been found that it did not secure the great objects for which it was created, and how long a constitution was allowed to stand in the way of preserving the Union and securing the liberties of the people.

The result of that convention was the Constitution which we now have, with the exception of the twelve articles which have since been added as amendments. What is very singular, is that the last article of the present Constitution reads thus:

'•'The ratification of th* conventions of nine States shall he snfueient foi the establishment of this Constitution between the States, so ratitjmg the same."

That article of the Constitution is in complete violation of the last article of the first Constitution, which required that any amendment should be sanctioned by every State in the Union before it became a part of the Constitution; but under this article of the present Constitution, when nine States had ratified it, it should be established as the Government of those nine States.

What was the object of establishing this new Constitution? JNTow, sir, there is something a little singular, something marked, something that is worthy of attention, that had reference to the Articles of Confederation. The States united in making them, while the preamble to the present Constitution declares that—-

Wc, the people of Uie United States, in Older to form a more perfect union, &c., do ordain and establish this Constitution for tlnvUnited States of America."

The Articles of Confederation declared that the Union should be perpetual, but when they who established it found that it would not answer, they framed another Constitution, and announced their purpose in the preamble. The preamble declared that t£ We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It was to establish a more perfect union than the original one. The Articles of Confederation could not stand in the way of the accomplishment of these declared purposes. The old frame of government was swept away, and another was substituted in its place. That was in entire violation of the original instrument. The liberties of the people made it necessary, and the matter could not be referred to the people except by pursuing such a course.

It is said, sir, in this House that the Constitution cannot be amended m the manner proposed in this resolution and m regard to the subject matter embraced, notwithstanding the Constitution provides the mode and method by which it may be amended. There is but one method provided for amendment. It is the mode attempted by this joint resolution. The Constitution provides that a two thuds vote of both branches of Congress shall be required to pass a proposition for amendment; and it is further provided that it must be ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the States before it shall become a part of the Constitution of the United States. It is the method now adopted in the proposed amendment.

I lay down this proposition, sir, that when the States ratified the Constitution they yielded and subscribed to all the provisions of that instrument, among which provisions is the method by which the Constitution could be amended. What does a State subscribe to when it ratifies the Constitution? It subscribes to the objects and purposes declared in the preamble. Itsubscribes to what is contained in the first article. It subscribes to every article in that instrument, and among others H subscribes to the one which provides for an amendment to the Constitution. There is no exception. I say that whenever the States finally ratified the Constitution they subscribed to the provision by which that Constitution could be amended.

But, sir, the objection is raised that certain articles of the Constitution pi escribe the powers that are granted to the General Government and the rights reserved to the States, and which are not granted to the General Government. I ask the gentlemen who raise this objection where in the Constitution they find it. They do not find it anywhere in the first seven articles of the Constitution adopted by the Convention and ratified by the States. They do riot find it there, but they say that we will find it among the amendments. I turn to them and find certain rights are reserved— articles nine and ten are the ones they refer to.

Article nine provides that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" and article ten provides that" the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Here is where they find ground for their argument. Mr. Speaker, until these amendments were added to the Constitution there were no rights reserved to the States. I do not think that will be disputed.

Now, sir, where did these amendments originate? If they have not come to the Constitution by virtue of this power of amendment they do not belong to it. Tf any rights have been reserved to the States they have been reserved by these express words of the Constitution, and these express words are given to the Constitution by a two third vote of the House and Senate, and by the ratification of the Legislatures of three fourths of the States, and these are simple amendments of the Constitution by the method which the Constitution proposes, and by pursuing precisely the same process we are trying to pursue in order to make this amendment.

Again, sir, is it pretended that anywhere in the Constitution it has been expressed that it requires the assent of every State to an amendment, or that we are required to pursue any other course than the one that is prescribed and expressed? These amendments have been made by this same process; and in those amendments it is not declared that to take away any one of these lights will require the assent of every State of the Union. These amendments have not attempted to amend that portion of the Constitution which instructs us how amendments shall be made, but simply express and declare the reservation of those rights to the States or peoples of the States not enumerated in the powers granted; and, sir, whatever a two third vote in Congress has proposed, and the ratification of the Legislatures of three fourths of the States have added to the Constitution, a twothird vote of Congress and a ratification of three fourths of the States can take away. And will it be pretended that there is not the same power, and by precisely the same process, to remove from the Constitution articles nine and ten?

And if that be true it is in the power of Congress and of these States, by precisely the same process, indirectly to reach any question which might be the annihilation of any portion of the Constitution, under the same process. I will, Mr. Speaker, suppose for a moment, for the sake of argument, that we have no power under the Constitution to propose in this body, to be ratified by three fourths of the States, an amendment taking from the States any one of the rights reserved. I suppose that for the sake of the argument, and for the purpose of presenting another point, and under that supposition I will submit to members this question: what are rights reserved? The preamble of the Constitution declares certain purposes for which the Government is established. The States and the people of the States have given in their adhesion to that instrument, and they have united together for that purpose. Now, sir, what are rights reserved? Are they rights to establish institutions or to do anything by their local governments that should destroy the force and effect of the powers granted? Or are the rights reserved those only which would aid to carry out the objects and purposes of the General Governmcntitself? Why, sir, the commander of an army who divides his forces and sends a portion of them against the enemy does not keep his reserves back to war against those he has sent in advance. They all go to the aid and support of the portion sent in advance provided the enemy is too much for those in front, and when the commander, with practiced eye, observes that it is necessary for the reserves to go forward, they go forward to the same kind of work that those are engaged in in advance. Those in advance and the reserve both cowork and do battle together for one common object, the conquest of their common enemy.

Rights reserved! Why, just look at these amendments which have already been made, and you will find that they were all for the purpose of securing liberties to the people, and not for the purpose of giving to them power of oppression and despotism. Rights were reserved, fearing that the General Government might be too strong or too weak; if too strong, thatit might trample under foot the liberties of the people, might establish despotism; rights were reserved, if it proved too weak, for the purpose of keeping vitality in the General Government, that Jtshould be administered for the purpose of securing liberties to the people, insuring domestic tranquillity, providing for the co T mor defense, and promoting the general welfare. Reserved rights! Were any rights reserved that any State should nourish within itself institutions of any character which should create turmoil, tumult, war, and bloodshed throughout the whole land? Why, sir, one of the very objects for which this Constitution was established is being violated by an institution cherished by State governments. It has been the sole cause of -the four years' rebellion and war, and we are told that we have no power to amend the Constitution, to aid in getting rid of the evil.

if such was the case we might as well surrender and say that we have no Government at all, because this institution which we are taking steps according to the Constitution to remove is the very one which lies at the foundation of the whole struggle, bloodshed, distress, and desolation, which have prevailed all over the land for the last four years. We have a practical illustration. When the Constitution is turned to for the purpose of showing a limitation of time within which certain subjects should not be interfered with, we find that up to 1808 it was claimed that the States could employ themselves in the slave trade; but after that time Congress could legislate, without any amendment of the Constitution, and prohibit it. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that it was believed by the framers of the Constitution that when Congress could reach the question it would put an effectual stop to the slave trade, and that that would be the end of the institution itself

The slave trade was a constant feeder of the institution until that time. It was supposed that it must have this great source of supply or it would become exhausted and wear itself out; and no doubt such was thelogicthat influenced the minds of the men who framed the Constitution, that when Congress could reach it by its power after the year 1808, it would deal an effectual blow to slavery, and that it would finally become extinct. But with the great experience that they had, there has been the experience of years since, and such ari experience as shows that instead of its wasting away, even with the checks that this Government could put upon that trade, slavery has been increasing with great rapidity, and slaves have increased in number faster in proportion than the white population of the country. That, therefore, would destroy the proposition they advocated and the conclusion to which they came. I have no doubt if they could only have looked into the future and seen the results as time has developed them, they would have made a provision in that instrument by which Congress could have exercised control over the institution of slavery forits ultimate extinction.

To my mind there Is no question, not the least, in relation to our power. We have the power. This cannot be a right reserved to the States. When we see the evil which it generates, when we see its effect upon the welfare of the country, when we sec how much of internal commotion and turmoil it has occasioned, we must see at once that it is a disturbing, a destructive element everywhere; not only in the States where it exists, but in the States where it does not exist. It affects the general interests of the entire country and the nation. There is no domestic tranquillity now, and there never will be while this institution remains in the land.

This question of expediency it seems to mo is but a mountain of frost which an hour s sun will entirely annihilate. There never was a time when the expediency was so great. Expediency or inexpediency does not enter into this question for a moment. Now is the time, this session of Congress, as speedily as we can act, for us to pass this measure, and then State after State will take it up and act upon and ratify it.

And in conclusion, for J do not propose to occupy the time of the House much longer, 1 will venture the assertion that if this resolution passes this body by a two thirds vote, some State that either now has, or within the Inst four years had, this institution of slavery within its borders, will be one of the first and the swiftest to ratify this amendment to the Constitution, and if their Legislatures can meet we will find State after State doing the same, and if those in rebellion should lay down their arms, and ask to be allowed to come back into the Union, they will come with constitutions remodeled, and with this amendment ratified along with their constitutions. Ami we would get more than a three fourths vote, even in the fifteen slave States. The revolution in public sentiment is going forward, and as those States come, one after another, and knock at the door of Congress and ask that their Representatives be again admitted upon this floor, they will come with free constitutions, and will accept this proposition as it goes from Congress, and will cheerfully ratify it. They will accept the terms joyfully, as contributing to their domestic happiness und prosperity, as well as to the national welfare. We find the most strenuous opposition to this measure coming from free States. The Representatives from free States are the most urgent and vehement m their opposition to this proposition. What a sad picture is thus presented. While the great mass of those who come here from the slave States arc asking that this great boon be given them, and that they may be enabled to get rid of an institution which pfesses upon them directly, and indirectly upon every State in the Union, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fernando Wood] is taking still stronger ground, arid in advance of others who oppose this proposition. His position, among others, is that the true condition of the African race is slavery. He is one of the Representatives of a State that has over four million inhabitants.

Now, let us see what his State has to say against the proposition that he lays down here. 1 read from the constitution of the State of New York —mark the language. Section one of article two of that constitution is as follows:

"Every male citizen of the age of twenty one years, who shall have been a citizen for ten days, and an inhabitant of tin? State one year next preceding an election, and for the la t four months a. resident ol" the county whcie he may offet to vote, shall be entitled to vote at bitch election, in the election district of which he shall at that time be a resident, and not elsewhere, for all officers that now are, or hereafter may be elective by the people; but such citizen shall have been for thirty days next pieeeding the election a re iderit of the district lioin which the officer is to be chosen for whom lie ofleis 10 vote. l iu no man of color, unless he shall have been for three years a citizen of tin* State and for one year next preceding any election Miali have been seized and possessed of a liceiiold estate of the value of ,$£350, over and above all debts and inoinnbianees charged thereon, and shall have been actually rated and paid a tax thereon, shall be entitled to vote at sneh election, ami no person of color shall be subject to direct taxation unless he shall be seized and poasubjied of i ueh leai stale as atorcsaid."

Now, if the true condition of the African race is slavery, the great population of New York, in its sentiment and in its action, in the establishment of its organic law, must have been insane, for they provided by their constitution that the colored man of the age of twenty one and possessed of a freehold estate of the value of $250 over and above all indebtedness, and who should have been a resident of the State for three years, shall be entitled to a vote.

Will that gentleman or any other say that a slave ought to go to the polls and vote? Will he pretend to say that the true condition of that man who does go to the polls and vote is slavery? If he does, he stands alone in his declaration; and all 1 can admire m the man is his boldness and firmness in supporting a proposition that so palpably outrages humanity.

Mr. Speaker, but one wish possesses me in regard to this subject: ltis that this resolution may pass. I hope that the obstacles which have been uused by members upon the other side of the House will in their own minds melt away, and that they will realize the true condition of the country and see that the only way to restore the peace that the country needs is to pass this resolution and submit it to the action of the Legislatures of the several States. I have no doubt as to the conclusion at which the States will arrive. 1 feel confident that we shall have the ratification of at least three fourths, if not more, and thus settle fotovera question that has caused so much painful anxiety to every lover of his country.

Mr. CRAVENS. Mr. Speaker, I have been requested by my colleague, Mr. Voouiiees, to say that he is still detained from his seat by the sickness of his wife, who has been dangerously ill.

Mr. COX. 1 desire to announce that my colleague, Mr. McKinwey, is detained at home by a death in his family.

Mr. FINCK. Mr. Speaker, the resolution under consideration has been discussed so fully that 1 shalloon tent my selfwith stating very briefly some of the reasons why 1 shall vote against its passage. I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to enter into any discussion with regard to the power of Congress to pass this resolution, or of lluee foui ths of the States to ratify it as an amendment to the Constitution. Sir, there are considerations outside of trie rnero question of power which will control my action. It seems to me that gentlemen have mistaken the true issue involved when they argue that opposition to this resolution is to favor slavery. Sir, I know that for myself 1 am not the fi icnd or advocate ofslavery. 1 know that the Democratic party of the North is not now and has never been a pro slavery party. In a speech which 1 delivered on this floor at the last session, I took occasion to say that" I do not defend slavery. I am not its advocate or friend. 1 have no interest whatever in the institution. If it must die, as the legitimate result of the organization of the rebellion, let it perish." I repeat that to dav

This is not a question whether slavery is right or wrong. It is not a question whether slavery oughtto be continued orabolished; but it involves the question whether we are willing to surrender to the Federal Government the power to interfere with and regulate the domestic affairs of the States. I will not consent to aggregate new powers in the hands of the Federal Government at the sacrifice of the States. This proposition rises to such importance, that in n my judgment, if in a time of profound peace it was adopted, and attempted to be enforced by three fourths oi the States against the protest of the remaining one fourth, it would produce war; and if this be true, how unwise is it now, when we are engaged in this most unfortunate war growing out of sectional rivalries and prejudices, to add this new element of discord to the strife.

Sir, the commotions always attendant on civil war and revolution are not adapted to that calm and deliberate thoughtand investigation so necessary in making changes in the fundamental laws of a nation. In times like these, unfortunately, men are more apt to take counsel of their passions than of the true glory and welfare of the Republic. I believe the adoption of this amendmant will postpone peace, and obstruct the return of the States to the Union. It will intensify the strife, and add new troubles to the adjustment of questions, which sooner or later must be committed to the hands of peaceful negotiation.

There was no question discussed in the Convention which framed the Constitution more carefully considered than that of the divison of powers between the States and the Federal Government. It was upon thisgreatquestion that parties in the Convention were organized, and the plans proposed in that Convention, giving to the General Government the power to supervise and control the legislation of the States, were rejected by a large majority. The Convention was firmly opposed to a strong national Government, and m favor of a Government with limited and well defined, specific powers, with a reservation to the States an d people of all the powers not delegated. And an examination of the proceedings of the several conventions of the States called to ratify the Constitution, will show how anxious the people were to guard the reserved powers of the States from any invasion by the Federal Government, and that they insisted on an amendment which declares that—

"The powers not delegated to the United State* by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are lcsei ved lo the State* respectively, or to the people.

Gentlemen in this discussion have seen proper to denounce what is denominated" State rights." I do not precisely understand what they mean by this course of argument. If it is meant that the States have no right to secede and destroy the Union, I will agree with them in that, because I deny the existence of any such right. But if it is meant that the States do not possess certain welldefined and understood reserved powers, which are sovereign in their character, and which cannot be invaded or subordinated by the Federal Government, then I take issue with them. The United States, under the powers delegated to it by the Constitution, is supreme m the exercise of all powers thus delegated. The Constitution is the life of the Federal Government; it cannot exist without it, and outside of that instrument enjoys no powers. Within the powers delegated to it by the Constitution it is supreme; but the States are also supreme in all their reserved powers. Both the Federal and State Go ernmcnts are supreme each in their own respective and constitutional sphere. Does any gentleman controvert this proposition? Even Alexander Hamilton, the ablest and strongest advocate of centralized power, admits this much. In a speech which he delivered m the New York convention he said:

"The, Jaws of the United States are supreme as K> all then proper constitutional object*. The laws oi the States are nupiem? in the same vvav. Pnppobo both Governments lay a tax of a penny on an article; had not each an unconttoilable power to coiiectiu own tax? The meaning or the maxim, tncie cannot be two supremes, is simply tins two powers cannot be supreme over each other."

And, speaking further oil the same subject, he says:

11[ maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this, that the Constitution, and luvvs made in purcHUince thereof, cannot be controlled 01 defeated bv anyothei law. The acts of the United States, thoieioie, will he absolutely obligatory as to all proper objects and powers of the General Government. The States, as well as individuals, are bound hy these laws; but the laws of Congress are restricted to aceitam sphere, and when they depart from this sphere they are no longer supreme or binding. Tn the same manner the States have certain independent powers in ■which their laws are supreme. For example, m fc ie making and executing laws concerning the punishment of certain ciune?, such a^ murder, theft, &e., the States cannot be controlled. With respect to certain other object 15 the powers ot the two Governments are concurrent and yet supreme,

I understood my colleague [Mr. Garfield] to say, in his speech on this subject, that the sovereignty of the American people came down in regular succession from the British Crown, and lie gave its "genealogy" thus:

First the Crown and Paihamentof Great Britain; second tin.- revolutiomuy Congio s thud the Atlieic-. of Confederation; and. fourth and now, the Constitution of the "United States."

I have been taught a different doctrine. I have ibeen taught that sovereignty in the temporal order is derived through and ascends from the people.

Mr. GARFIELD. Will my friend allow me iiO interrupt him?

Mr. FINCK. Certainly, with great pleasure.

Mr. GARFIELD. I think I understood my friend to charge me with having traced sovereignty down from the Crown to the people. I said that the people withdrew their sovereignty ■from the Crown to themselves, and then lodged it in the revolutionary Congress, I maintained all the while, in my argument, that the people were the source of power.

M-. FINCK. I am very glad to know that my friend and colleague has explained this matter, I understood from his speech that he assumed a different position, I am glad that he concurs with me in the principle that sovereignty inheres in the people.

Our fathers believed the division of powers which they provided between the States and the Federal Government to be essential to our free system of government. 1 concur in that opinion, and am therefore unwilling to invest the Federal Government with an additional power, to liable it to control the internal and domestic concern*-? of the Status i am opposed, sn*, to the centralization of power in the hands ot the Federal Govei nnient. This is oi e of the dangers which now Ufi threatens to ■disturb, if not overthrow, our system of government. I would not make this invasion either to establish or abolish slavery. These are questions peculiarly and exclusively belonging to the States, and we may rest assured that they will dispose of them to suit themselves. Maryland has already done so; Missouri has done the same thing, and .Kentucky is about to organize a plan for the accomplishment of the same object. Cut, sir, as a citizen of Ohio, arid a Representative from that State on this floor, I have no desire to interfere with the action of the people of Kentucky m disposing of the question of slavery to suit themselves. All candid men must admit that State action will b e the most satisfactory plan of settling the question, and cannot disturb the amicable relations which should exist between the several States, while the effect of adding the proposed amendment to the Constitution, will tend to disturb the harmony of the States, and embitter and •further prolong this unfortunate war.

Is it possible that this amendment can aid in •subduing the rebellion and restoring the Union? 1 cannot agree with gentlemen who have argued that it will. Gentlemen, instead of adhering to the original declarations made at the commencement of this war, hax e entirely changed their purposes* and row propose plans of reconstruction and read mission of Stc tes on such terms and conditions as can only result in protracting the struggle. Sir, I am glad to know that one of the ablest generals of the age, one who has so recently add d new luster to our arms in his victorious and triumphant march through Georgia, and m the capture of Savannah, has enunciated to the people of that State some views which seem to me eminently proper and patriotic. In a letter written by General Sherman on the 8th instant, he says: Georgia ip not out of the Union, and therefore the talk of reconstruction appears to me inappropriate. Some of the people have been and still are m astute of revolution, and a;-* long as they remain aimed and organized, the United States mint pursue them with armies and deal with them according to military law. But as soon as they break up their armed organizations and return to their hornet-, f take it they will be dealt with by the civil courts. Home of the rebels in CeoigM, in my judgment, deceive death, because they have committed murder and other crimes which are punished with death by all civilized Governments on eaitlj."****'* Whenever the people ot Georgia quit rebelling against their tio\ eminent and elect member* of Congress and Senators, and the ogo and take then* seat?, thenthe Suite ot G eoigiawill Intve resumed her functions m the Union 55

Sir, if this Administration had borne high in the face of heaven and the American people the broad banner of the Constitution, inscribed upon it," The Constitution and the Union, these must be preserved at all hazards; these are our terms of peace; we ask no other;" this war, in my humble judgment, would have long since terminated. But other pi mciplcs and another policy have prevailed, and still prevail, which add new obstacles to the suppression of the rebellion, and tend to prolong the war. We started out on the theory of compelling those who had combined to break up the Union to obey the constitutional authority of the United States. We had the right to do that, and our strength was in adhering to that single purpose, to require obedience to the Constitution by the people of every section of the country.

In this hour, when our arms have been victorious in Georgia, in Tennessee, and in North Carolina; when the victory of General Sherman is followed up by him by such prudent conduct as to arouse and strengthen the Union sentiment of the people of Georgia, it becomes us to adopt a wise and patriotic policy, and endeavor by honorable conciliation to aid our armies in convincing the people of the insurgent States that only under the old Constitution, which was the work of their fathers as well as ours, can they be secure, and that such security cannot bo had under Jefferson Davis. It seems to me that in this period of our history, at this very time, we need the highest order of «tuiesnuvn hip—a statesmanship that shall not be controlled by the mad passions of the hour, but one which shall employ every powei coinsistent with the true honor and interests of the country, to stay the further effusion of blood, and restore peace to our beloved land.

Mr. Speaker, in my judgment the policy of this Administration has failed very much in coming up to the true rpquirementsof thetime3. Itseems unfortunate for the interests of the country that the Republican party is so organized I do not wish to say this in any partisan or unkind feeling—that it is not adapted to the administration ot a great Government like ours. Iin tead of endeavoring to conform and harmonize itself and its doctrines to the Constitution of the country, it sc uis only capable of working out its destiny by making the Constitution conform to its sectional and unwise policy. It has shown itself utterly incapable of administering a Governnn nt like this, composed of States with different local institutions, and therefore, in order to perpetuate its own existence, it has determined to obtain the power to regulate the domestic concerns of the States, and to mold them to suit itp own pvu poses. I beseech gentlemen not to be controlled hy mere sentiment, but looking back over the history of the great and good men who framed our Government, and remembering the happy adjustment of powers which they provided, to unite with us m preserving this Constitution as it came to us from the hands of the fathers.

I do not think it would be inappropriate here to refer to the opinions of a statesman who has been honored by the American people; who was formerly a member of this House, and then of the Senate; who held distinguished positions m this country and abroad in Europe. I refer to Edward Everett, whose death the country has been called on so recently to deplore. Speaking on the subject of amending the Constitution, he has uttered words which seem, to me words of wisdom. I trust that both sides of the House will give attention while I read a few extracts from his speech made in the House of Representatives in March, 18S26. He says:

In my judgment the very worst possible remedy for Any evil not positively intolerable in this country is an amendment to the Constitution, 't is an acknowledged maxim of political prudence that frequent changes of the laws, even m matters of ordinary legislation, are pernicious. It is the opinion of every sound statesman that it is far better lo hear with any evil that is not absolutely intolerable than to render the great interests ol the country insecure by indecisive and fluctuating legislation."

Further on, in speaking of the Constitution he says:

Sir, I do not think it perfect; but it is good enough for inc. 1 have lived under other political institutions; nearly a third of my life since I came to years of discretion has been pa edumlerothei fotuisof government, and I haveleamed enough ot the Mate of foreign societies, and enough of the political condition of the great majority of this race of man, to be well contented with what Providence has given us in ihe Constitution of the United States. I am contented to live by it, contented when I die to leave my children in in safe iuaid and J would sooner lay down this right ham! to be cut oil than I would hold it up to vote for any essential change in this form ot guv eminent."

It has been said during this debate that slavery will perish as one of the results of this war, and that it would do so without congressional action, i do not propose to controvert this proposition; but, sir, to hasten its destruction I am unwilling to aggregate new powers m tl c hand of the Federal Government.

There is one thing which should not be forgotten, and which is beyond controversy. It is that the framers of the Constitution would not confer on Congress, the power to regulate the internal and domestic policy of the States.

Another significant fact should also be remcm-^ bored—that all the amendments which have been' made to the Constitution are amendments which further limit the powers of the Federal Government, or more clearly define them. No amendment has, in the whole history of the Constitution, been made which increased the powers of the Federal Government, m derogation of the rights of the States; am! I trust we shall not be the first to depart from this wise policy.

.Mr. speaker, let the questions of amendment be postponed until tin* rebellion is suppressed and the Union restored; and then, when peace shall once more bless the American people, if it shall be found necessary to make amendments, it will ho time to propose and consider them; but, for the present, let your propositions of amendment and schemes of reconstruction be delayed.

I therefore, Mr. Speaker, oppose this resolution, because it will not tend to suppress the rebellion and restore the Union, but will protract the war. 1 oppose it because it is m conflict with the settled policy of our system of government, and the uninterrupted and uniform sanction of tho American people, which has recognized the light of each State to regulate its own internal and domestic policy; and because I am unwilling to disturb the wise division of powers which our fathers adjusted between the States and the Federal Government.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Ido notpropose, Mr. .Speaker, to make any speech upon the subject before the House. 1 have no occasion to define my position on that question or questions kindred to it. But in connection with the remarks which have just fallen from the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. F inck m opposition to the passage of this constitutional amendment, I desire to say that he differs radically from distinguished gentlemen of my State of his own party. The Legislature of Illinois is now m session and resolutions iiavo just been before it instructing our Senators and lequestmg our members of Congress to vote for the passage of this constitutional amendment, in the Senate there was a very able and elaborate discussion upon the subject, and out of eleven of the Democratic members of that body only five voted against the resolutions of instruction. Three of these Democratic Senators made speeches in favor of the resolutions of instruction. Hon. Murray McConnell, of the Morgan district, one of the oldest and ablest Democrats in the State, and known as the" war horse of Democracy of Illinois," made a bold and able speech in favor of the resolutions— a speech which will be considered as the crowning act of a long and eventful life, nearly all of which has been spent in Illinois, for 1 believe he has resided in the State ever since it became a State; and he has ever been one of the firmest and strictest Democrats we ever had in the State. The other Democrats who madespeeches for the resolutions of instruction were Messrs. Scofield, of Hancock county, a brotherof thedistinguished member of our House of that name, but different politics, and Mr. Lindsey, of Peoria county, in the congressional district of my colleague, Mr. Ingersoll. A tribute of respect is due to all these Democratic gentlemen in our Legislature who declared by speech or vote their determination to permit the people of the United States to amend the Constitution, to wipe out the institution of slavery, so wicked and infernal in itself, and which has broughtsuch untold horrors upon the nation.

Mr. COLE, of California. Mr. Speaker, the dominion of force is giving way to reason. The rightful relations of men to each other are being understood and acknowledged. Mutual reliance is a law of civil society, and there is no such thing as absolute independenceamong men. Whatever is beneficial to a portion, says the political philosopher, is beneficial to the whole community; and whatever isinjurious toa portion is injurious to th£ whole. Every individual is therefore interested in the welfare of every other individual, and this without limitation or qualification. The obligation to render justice is as wide as the universe, and neither nation nor individual can override it with impunity. This rule has been recognized by the more enlightened Governments in their action upon the subject of slavery. Much has been done within the last century to destroy this acknowledgedevil and the United States has not lagged behind in the work. She was the first to discard distinctions of blood, which all history proves to have been fruitful of oppression. She was the first to proclaim to the world the inalienable character of the right to liberty, and this in the face of powerful opposing inti rests. She was the first, also, to pronounce the trade in slaves upon the high seas to be piracy. Boldly taking the lead of older nations, and while yet in her infancy, like Hercules, she strangled white slavery in the Barbary States. She planted colonies on the coast of Africa in the very paths of slavery and the slave trade. The example she has presented of popular government has shaken the foundation of every throne in existence. She has done far more than other nations to undermine oppression everywhere, and is doing more to day than all of them combined. She had greater obstacles to overcome in the performance of this high duty, but she hesitated not to grapple with tyranny in all its Protean shapes; and, by the favor of God, single handed and alone, if need be, she will utterly destroy it from the face of the earth. Whatever other nations may have done against slavery has been done under the constraintof the example set them by the United States of America, The grand old monarchies of Europe have followed, not led, in this matter. Their course in our present, and it is to be hoped final, struggle shows that their sympathies are with the oppressor. But justice will triumph, freedom prevail and liberty exalted m this proud capital, will exert its proper sway over the whole world and forall time.

Other views of this question have been fully and ably discussed already. I only wished to vindicate our national reputation In this regard against the too often repeated aspersions of foreigners. 1 am done.

Mr. STARR. Mr. Speaker, after the lengthy and thorough discussion of the question before the House by the many able gentlemen who have preceded me, an humble individual like myself cannot hope to say much with reference thereto that will be new, neither can i expect to influence the opinions of any gentleman upon the floor of this House upon this important subject. It is therefore with neither of these expectations that I shall occupy the time of the House, but rather that I may, in as brief a manner as possible, set forth some of the reasons that influence me in the vote I shall cast when the question is put to the members of this House for their decision.

In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say that I shall not attempt to discuss the constitutionality of the proposed measure of amending the Constitution. That, in my judgment, has been most ably and thoroughlydiscussed already, and it would indeed be a great presumption for me to attempt it. I am, however, quite willing to say, that if the people of the United States have the power to amend the Constitution as proposed, then we are proceeding in the proper manner to enable them to exercise that power if they choose to do so; that they should have the opportunity to determine for themselves whether or not they desire such amendment, and that I envy not the man who, professing to represent a free people, is at the same time unwilling to accept their judgment upon the institutions of the Government.

And just here, Mr. Speaker, allow me to say, that in my judgment it is not a question of vital importance, in considering the adoption of these resolutions, whether or not the people have the right to amend the Constitution as proposed; That is a question to be settled by the Supreme Court of the United States—rather let us, therefore, submit the proposed amendments to the people for their action, and then the friends of slavery can have that issue tried before the only tribunal that can authoritatively determine it. And there also can they try that other point upon which my colleague [Mr. Rogers] seemed to lay so much stress when he said—

"You must remember that it is proposed by this amendmenttli itthe States in which slavery exists shall have no vote, because they are not in a position to exercise the lisjht to vote upon this question. But it is proposed that three fourths of the States—State* wherein slavery does not exi «t States which have no interest in that species of pioperty—shall get together, and by the action of three louithsof them deprive of their property the citizens of the loyal border States."

Now, sir, by this statement of the intention of the movers ofthese proposedamendments, which, though not entirely correct, yet is perhaps as near so as he could make it; and by his objections thereto, I understand my colleague to assert that the power to amend requires the concurrence, not only of three fourths of the States represented in the Government at the present time, but three fourths of the entire number of States which composed this Governmental the time of the breaking out of the rebellion. This issue can also be tried at the same time by the Supreme Court and a decision rendered upon both. And yet, Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss to discover any disadvantage in this particular respect my colleague, or rather those rebellious States for whose rights and interests he displays so much anxiety, wiilexperience by their not being in a condition to exercise their right to vote," us he calls it, but which really means bring in rebellion; even though it should be decided by the Supreme Court that they must be included in estimating the number required for approval of amendments, inasmuch as their participation m the vote upon the amendments could make no difference in the result, unless some of them voted in favor thereof, and consequently aided in doing that thing my colleague deprecates so much, "depriving the citizens of the loyal border States of their property —property in slaves act which, by the way, these loyal border State men themselves seem very intent upon doing, and thus anticipating our action in reference thereto. Perhaps they do this out of regard for the feelings of my colleague; perhaps the fear that, owing to the opposition to the measure in this House, we shall not be able to secure the abolition of slavery throughout the nation may have induced these loyal border State men to abolish the institution m their States for themselves. I am, however, inclined to believe that they did it because they had realized the evil as well as the wrong of slavery; and that they determined to get rid of the institution and its inseparable evils at the earliest practicable moment. Bur, sir, it is not necessary for me to attempt to explain why they have done this; it is done, and in nothing more than m this is exposed the false philanthropy of these northern conservators of slavery. These Pietists who, claiming that slavery is a divine institution piotected by the Constitution, and best suited to the temporal and spiritual interests of both races, are told by these experienced men of the border States that it is a curse alike to whites and negroes, and that they will have it no more.

But, Mr. Speaker, there is one point in my colleague s remarks with which I can agree, and that is the patriotism of the loyal men of the border States; and in my judgment it shines out the brightest and best in this great tribute they have just paid to the cause of human liberty; for we see them, while suffering from the devastating effects of the war upon the soil of their States, setting us an example of sacrifice and duty that will be recorded in history with undying honor. There is, however another point in the remarks of my colleague, in which, if I understand him aright, we can never agree, and that is, that the States in rebellion, while in rebellion, must be included in estimating the number of States required for approval of amendments to the Constitution; that those States that have rebelled, separated themselves from, and attempted to destroy this Government, do nevertheless still hold within this Government, under the Constitution thereof, a controlling power with reference to making amendments thereto; that they, taking up the sword and bidding defiance to the Government and its military forces, do at the same time hold such rights underand within the Government they are seeking to destroy as to prevent the people of the United States, during the willful and determined absence of these rebels, and without their consent making any change in the Constitution itself. This, sir, is so gross a perversion of reason that I can never agree to it, and I therefore desire to submit it to the judgment of the people of the United States, and their courts, in order that right here, at this time, when this monstrous claim of the right of rebels to control, through the provisions of the Constitution, the legislation and courts of the Government they are seeking to destroy, may be met at once and settled forever.

And now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief reference to the speech made by the gentleman from New York city, [Mr. Fernando Wood.] in his defense of the institution of slavery he cited the cruelties of the negro race in their native wilds as a justification for enslaving, or rather continuing the enslavement, of that portion of the same race who are living under the influences of Christianity and civilization. Now, I do not propose to discuss that proposition, it is too absurd for serious discussion, but I refer to it to commend to his enlightened wisdom and philanthropy the consideration of the disposition to bo made of that people who so recently, in a locality with which he is so familiar, a locality claiming and possessing a high degree of Christianity and civilization, enacted scenes of cruelty and barbarism upon a civilized Christian people that rivaled anything he can liixl in stones of African travel.

Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Speaker, while I yield my convictions to the more experienced, judgment of other gentlemen upon this floor with, great deference upon most questions, I must be permitted still to entertain the opinion that debate upon the resolution before the House was, in the outset, injudicious. For it necessarily kindled party prejudices and feelings by fanning the embers of old issues destined soon to be buried beneath the ashes of civil war. But while i think it would have been better to have "given our thoughts no tongue," but simply a vote, yet, being in," we must so conduct the discussion that our acts may not shame our words, if our Government were purely national, a majority of the people could amend the Constitution; if purely federal, it would require a concurrence of each State of the Union; but being a combination of both, a majority of the votes of the Legislatures or conventions of three fourths of the States was. i fixed upon by the framers of the Government as a compromise method of amendment. Here, I apprehend, is the cause of our divergence upon this overshadowing question. We take the one side or the other according as our reading and habits of thought have led us to give prominence to the federal or national element.

The bold and impressive speech of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Pendleton,] made a little time since, filled my mind with mingled regret and admiration. His treatment of the subject evinced not only unusual discipline and acqu«sitions, but extraordinary logical power. Clearly, sir, 1 e has sat at the feet of the great South Carolinian till he lias himself become a master, prepared not only to teach but to originate new refinements and tn enlarge the body of subtle sophisms in that torrid and pestilent school of political philosophy. Admit the gentleman s premises, and you will reject his conclusions with difficulty. If our Union is simply a confederation of independent and sovereign States, and not a Government de facto; if it is only the agent of State governments, exercising for their convenience and advantage certain powers delegated by themselves, for specified ends, then clearly no change in the instrument into which such powers are framed can constitutionally be made as will enlarge or limit the legitimate scope and functions of the General Government by encroachments upon the reserved powers of the States. The high contracting parties would never have consented to conditions by which their agent might gradually absorb all their reserved rights and transform the confederacyintoacentralizedunity of Government. They would authorize amendments to the Constitution looking to the realization of the original purposes of the Government, but would notauthonzeany powerto trench upon the reserved rights of an independent State. If ttie Union is wholly a compact, the gentleman is right, for the creature cannot claim of the creator or wrest from his grasp new powers by virtue of the limited powers which have been bestowed upon it; for if this were possible, it might by gradual encroachments, through factious combinations, ultimately absorb all power into itself and annihilate the very sources of its being.

Assuming that the States had an independent existence and an unlimited sovereignty previous to the foundation of theGeneral Government and that the General Government rests upon certain powers voluntarily surrendered for the purpose of securing the objects specified in the preamble to the Constitution, it will follow as an unavoidable sequence that neither three fourths nor any number of States can constitutionally take from a State any part of the independence and sovereignty not voluntarily surrendered up. if, on this theory the right to amend the Constitution given to three fourths of the States covers that reserve of powers, then it follows that three fourths of the States have the right to establish slavery, an autocracy, or idolatry in New Hampshire, against the will and the moral convictions of every citizen of the State, and in violation of her sovereignty.

If the gentleman s theory is correct, there can be no treason of individuals against the General Government, for States only and not individuals owe allegiance to that Government; andasStates cannot be imprisoned or executed, not only does the language of the Constitution become meaningless and absurd, but the fatal crime itself shirks the retribution which the voice of humanity and outraged justice demand.

Davis and Lee, et omne genus, are not traitors, but patriots, fulfilling the highest and most sacred duty of loyalty to the only government to which, as citizens, their allegiance is due, and we are constrained to pay them, not only a meed of praise, but a tribute of heaitfelt respect, for the dangers they have encountered and the sacrifices they have made m the terrible struggle through which they are passing for the defense of the rights of sovereign States. In a word sir in the masterly sectional debates which for a quarter of a century rang out from these halls ot national council, in the great political struggles of the past and in the present bloody arbitrament ot arms, the South have been right and the North wrong. If the Government is a league of sovereignties, subordinate to the States, and holding in trust at their will a few delegated powers, secession is a right, and the Union but a gilded bow upon the political atmosphere, without substance or reality, and ready to perish in our gaze on the slightest movement of insensible forces; and we who sit here are clothed with none of the attributes of nationality, but represent independent Governments, whose interests are liable to fall into an irreconcilable antagonism, with no regnant head to harmonize the discordant elements.

Sir, 1 commend the gentleman s logic. I admire his feailess advocacy of his principles. I am touched by the pathos and classic beauty of his eloquence, but I utterly repudiate his political creed as destitute of anyhistoue basis, and destructive of good government and civil liberty.

Our national Government was revolutionary in its origin, and drew its powers, not from the States, but from the people, the original source, under God, of all political power. The States were never supreme and unlimited in their sovereignty, never possessed as political organizations, and therefore could never delegate, the privileges which belong to the national Government. On the contrary, they received their existence as States independent of the British Government by an act of the national Congress of 1776. The people created and exercised the functions of a national Government before they severed the dependent colonial governments from their allegiance to the Crown, and made them independent in, their internal and local affairs. The sovereignty of the people is the fountain of political prerogatives, and the right to make war and peace, to make treaties, and to emit bills of credit, to raise armies and regulate trade, and other kindred powers, were never in the possession of the colonies or the States to delegate to another. But the habits of thought and the political predilections springing from their antecedent colonial condition, and the apprehended danger of suffering the revolutionary government to exercise undefined and discretionary powers for a period of years amid the hazards and temptations of war, led to the establishment of the Confederacy. That, in its practical operation, if not in theory, was a pure political agency shorn of all the attributes and powers of a national Government, by being made dependent in its legislative, judicial, and executive action upon the opinion and will of the States, jealous of each other and of their independent sovereignty. Legislation was not allowed to lay its authority upon individuals, but terminated wall the States, and could only be executed by military force. And here, too, it was powerless; for it could raise neither men nor money, except at the discretion of the States, which, by combination, could defy its authority. Any attempt to enforce its acts against a recusant State would have been a perilous revolution.

Why, sir, the fatal policy had hardly been planted ere us legitimate harvest of ruin had been garnered in the very spung time of our national existence.

The earnest remonstrances and solemn warnings of Washington were constantly interposed to sustain the courage and harmonize the efforts of the people in their unequal struggle, yet the system which some gentlemen still cling to with the devotion and blindness of an eastern devotee engendered such confusion of counsel and inefficiency of administration that the national energies were paralyzed, and union and liberty rescued from an impending catastrophe only by the help of foreign troops and foreign money.

The political anarchy and utter prostration of every material interest that followed the peace of 1783 have been drawn with such matchless power by him whose comprehensive and philosophic genius has rendered his name peerless on theioll of statesmen who adorned that splendid era, that for us to linger upon it would be vain as an effort to add darkness to night or luster to the sun. Now, sir, it was while the nation lay powcilrss in that Serbonian bog, that the Convention of 17b7 met "to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote thegeneial welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity." Would they attempt this, sir, by repeating the folly of a league of States, the essential defects of which they had learned by a bitter experience, and the inevitable results of which Madison, one of their own number, has depicted with surpassing skill and illustrated by familiar examples stretching along the path of history from the Amphictyonic Council to the confederacy of the United Nethei lands? They did no such thing. They were engaged in reconstructing their political institutions for the express purpose of establishing a Government which should not be obliged to act through State interposition, and the Constitution which they framed, when adopted became the paramount expression of the popular will.