January 28, 1865

The old Government, as Curtis has said, was destitute of the essence of political sovereignty,"

but the new possesses the essence, and exercise® the functions, of a sovereignty. To it has been given the rigid, through its Supreme Court, to define and limit itsown powers, and it is made, by virtue of its being the direct legislation of the people in their original and united capacity, the supreme law of the land, the whole land, State laws, of every description, and however enacted, to the, contrary notwithstanding." If a number of political societies," says Story," enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed." No evidence can be more conclusive upon this point than the records of the Convention. It will be recollected that three leading systems of government were propounded federal system, by Patterson, of New Jersey; a mixed system, by Randolph, of Virginia, and a purely national system, by Hamilton, of New York. That finally adopted was a mixed system, in which the national element largely predominated." Can we, as representatives of independent States," says Patterson," annihilate the essential powersof independence?" After arguing the question* he continues:

It therefore follows that a national government, upon the present plan is unjust, and destructive of the common principles of reciprocity."

How different from this is the language of Hamilton:

"I have well considered the subject, and am convinced that no amendment of the Confederation can answer the purpose of a good government so long the State sovereignties do, in any shape, exist."

He even doubted the efficiency of the Vfl inia system. But it was finally adopted by a decided majority, and Mr. Randolph spoke, as follows: "The resolutions from Virginia must have been adopted on the supposition that a federal government was impracticable, ami it i<= saul that power is wanting to institute such a government; but when our all is aUtake I Will consent to any mode that will preserve us."

In view of such evidence can there be a doubt that the Convention that framed and the conventions that adopted the Constitution regarded it as the charter of a government mainly national in its character? Where, then, does this vagrant, transcendental sovereignty of which gentlemen speak with bated breath and trembling reverence reside? By what authority does it utter its dicta against the supremacy of the people, which underlies the entire framework of government? Does not the same right that authorized the people to legislate the organic law into existence reside with them still to amend or abrogate that law by such methods as they themselves have designated?

Sir, there is but one conclusion which can be logically reached on this question. If our Government were purely confederate, the consent of each party to the contract would be necessary to an amendment of the Constitution. If it were purely national, a major vote of the whole people would make it binding upon all, though the unanimous vote of entire sections were against it, for the organic law is their legislation. But being u mixture of both, the people have made it the law that the major votes of three fourths of the States, however given to any amendment, shall be binding upon all. That is the Constitution, and New Hampshire, and Kentucky, and every other State must be bound by an amendment so ratified, though the unanimous votes of the State should be cast against it. And the right of Congress to recommend amendments by prescribed methods is as broad as the right of amendment itself. i do not deny that a State, under these circumstances, may repudiate the plighted faith of the fathers, and elect a revolution rather than submission. But, sir, when any one of the old sisterhood of thirteen, or any daughter since born into the family of States and reared into a vigorous and prosperous maturity by the fostering care of the Government, shall thus prove recreant to the original bond, let her notcomplain if she is forced to drink the cunof blood and desolation to its very dregs, and let the unhallowed footsteps of no man desecrate these Halls consecrated to liberty who would justify oi palliate "the deep damnation of her taking off."

And now, sir, are there any limitations except those specified in the Constitution to the right of amendment? One gentleman asserts that limitations are" to be found in its intent, and its spirit, fend its foundation idea." Another tells us we are to look for limitations in the preamble to the Constitution. But as the preamble is only a general expression of the intent, and spirit, and underlying idea of the instrument itself, the difference between the honorable gentlemen is one of definitions, and not of ideas. Justice, tranquillity, defense, the general welfare, and liberty are the ends of government; but the English definition of justice and liberty in the twelfth century is not the definition of the nineteenth. Ourinterpretation of these terms in the future of our history will vary with education and local prejudices. The means which we should feel authorized to employ for the public defense and general welfare might have been deemed extravagant, and possibly revolutionary in the piping days of peace. To say that this power is limited by the idea of the Constitution, however or wherever expressed or implied, is as indefinite as to say that extension is limited by space. Who, sir, is to determine the intent of the organic law, and the proper means by which its objects are to be secured but the people themselves? And will not their ideas advance and change with the progress of civilization? That there are moral limitations to legislation and to popular sovereignty, I should be the last to deny. This constitutes the higher law, •which when violated either by legislative assemblies or by popular majorities justifies nay sanctifies the exercise of the right of revolution. But our fathers were not guilty of the extreme folly of attempting the impossible task of enumerating all possible applications of the divine law of limitations.

Tha gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Pendleton] says in the course of his remarks:

I am discussing the question which is put forth go ostentatiously by the other sude of the House, that under the Constitution, not by the right of revolution, under its claiihos mid provisions, there exists u the power to make this amendment."

Now, sir, if I understand the implication of this sentence, it is a denial of a right to the people to make any amendment to the Constitution which shall enlarge the powers of the Government by trenching upon the reserved powers of the States, even though for the public welfare. Is not that an assumption? Or if it rests upon any reasoning, would not the same logic deny to a State the right to modify its constitution so as to interfere with the rights of the inhabitants of a town, even "when public health and public morals demanded it? State constitutions are adopted by as many separate votes as there are towns m a State, but the State does not thereby become a compact and lose the right to amend its fundamental law, except by a majority vote in every town.

The right to change the limitation of State powers must reside m the constitutional majority to "whom, by a vote of the people of all the States, the paramount interests of the nation were confided at the first. There probably never was a more delicate and difficult task confided to the judgment of statesmen than the division and proper adjustment of powers between the General and State Governments by the Constitutional Convention. All the past of our colonial and revolutionary life centered there. All the great interests of our moral, social, and political future hung upon it. The proper balancing of these governmental forces could only be hoped for through the teachings of experience. The Convention understood perfectly well the difficult nature of the work devolved upon it. "Would it not therefore be a reflection either upon the wisdom of the fathers or our own sanity to suppose they did not make provision in the Constitution for such a readjustment of powers or elimination of adverse elements as the future should prove to be necessary to harmonize the action or perpetuate the existence of free institutions?

I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution, "says Hamilton," will never concur with its enemies in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness."

I go still further, sir, and claim that the right of gradual and peaceful revolution was purposely framed into the groundwork and superstructure of our institutions so as to obviate forever the BQcesskyforviolentand bloodyrevolutions, The most terrific struggles which history records have been between old forms of civilization, intrenched in the unyielding framework of government, and the resistless energies of a more advanced intellectual and moral life striving to realize itself m better institutions. Marathon and Runnymede wereefforts to throw ofFan effete absolutism which hung as a clog upon the progress of ideas. The history of the common law, and of the English Government, is a record of revolutions by which the people have advanced through successive stages to their present condition of freedom and enlightenment.

The past was notlostupon the men who framed our Government. The right of amendment and the system of representation, by which men familiar with public opinion and the wants and prejudices of the masses are brought to the work of legislation, enable us to mold and adapt our Government and laws by peaceful methods to the progressive changes of society. This was not accident, but a wise provision of political sagacity. Again it is claimed that the passage of this resolution would interfere with the rights of property, and is therefore unconstitutional. I might reply that the municipal act upon which the right to property in man is predicated is in contravention to the law of natural justice, and cannot establish a claim which" white men are bound to respect." Theft and robbery, though sanctioned by legislative authority, cannotabsolve man from his allegiance to that law which is supreme and infallible. The enactment which reduces an accountable being, however humble and degraded, to the condition of a chattel, that subjects him to unrequited toil and hopeless ignorance, that multiplies men for the market, oblivious of domestic ties, and presses the cup of mixed and measureless woe to the lips of helpless women and innocent children without pity and without remorse, has no force as law, I diffidently, but fearlessly, deny, upon this floor, that any assembly of human law makers ever possessed the power to create a right of property in man which we, as men, or citizens of the Republic are bound to respect. Why sir the humblest daughter of sorrow that ever crouched beneath the lash of the task master lifting her fervent prayer to that Judge "that no king can corrupt," appeals to a tribunal before which the trembling slave stands the peer of her proud master, whose pleasure is the price of her shame, and who eats bread m the sweat of her brow.

But, sir, allowing this claim of property in black men, will it not be pertinent to the argument to call to the remembrance of this House the direct interference of the framers of the Government with this prescuptive right, by laying a constitutional prohibition upon the commerce in men? Will it not be germane to the question to remind gentlemen that the eloquent Henry, in the convention of Virginia, opposed the adoption of the Constitution on the plea that, if made the fundamental law by the adoption of the people, it would give, not to the nation through the right of amendment, but to Congress directly, the power to abolish slavery. Patrick Homy did not stand alone in that interpretation. Similar views were entertained in the conventions of other States. Now, 1 claim that the fears ofthosegentlemen of what they supposed had been done were an admission of what might be done. I have yet to learn that the statesmen of that day argued the incompetency of the people, directly by a constitutional provision or indirectly by an act of Congress based on a grant of power in the Constitution, to abolish what all admitted to be a moral wrong and a political evil. Their opposition was based on the plea of political policy and social necessity, both of which have been reversed in this grander revolution of our time. The memorable words of Randolph in reply to Henry, "1 hope that there is none here who, considering the subject in the calm light of philosophy, will advance an objection dishonorable to Virginia; that at the moment they are securing the rights of their citizens, an objection is started that there is a sparkof hope thattheseunfortunate men now held in bondage may, bythe operation of the General Government be made free," are worthy to be inscribed in imperishable characters upon the dome of the Capitol, and God grant that their spirit may inspire us in the discharge of our solemn duties in this hour of regeneration to the Republic. It cannot, sir, have faded from the recollection of the students of political history that violent and sectional opposition to the Constitution was overcome and all the States brought to its adoption by pressing home upon the recusants in the conventions the assurance that the instrument would be open to subsequent amendment on all the vital interests of the State.

And now shall we, whose industry is sustaining a financial burden that would stagger an Atlas, and whose eyes are riveted upon the grassless trenches where hundredsofthousands of our brave and glorified children sleep in their blood stained coats of war, in this hour of our great peril forego this essential privilege through a morbid pity and a suspicious regard for the constitutional right® of men who have forsworn the Constitution forfeited every right under the Government* and who can claim nothing at the hand of justice but the penalty of treason? Sir, it would be& shame? and a reproach.

In seeking to purge our institutions of the mortal taint of slavery, in seeking to rescue our liberties by an organic change from the fatal imperium in imperio, it is not necessary to fix the ethnological position of the African or to prove his equality with the while races. Remembering that the descendants of the sons of Israel are now a by j word and a hissing among the Gentiles; that thebarbarian whom the proud old Greek de pised has become his master in all the arts and virtues of a Christian civilization; that the offspring or the half civilized and bloody men whom the Roman historian located in the forests of Germany and Britain are now giving literature and science*, liberty and law, to the nations, let us deferentially leave to the African, who since the building of the monuments of Egypt has borne the burdens of the world, to solve the vexed problem, and under Providence, to determine for himself hisappointed place in the social scale. If the poets and orators, of the sable race, whose light has fallen w porv our horizon, are the morning stars of a- brighter day that is to dawn upon that benighted family of men, let not us who have grown mh upon their docile labor and long suffering be found fighting against the counsels of Him who should u work within us both to will and to do of His own good pleasure."

Nor need we be frightened with the horrors of miscegenation which have been drawn with such artistic skill by my learned friend from Ohio. This deadly Upas is only the product of a night, which has grown without roots and lost its promise of political fruits in the rhetoric of flowers. The African, sir, has been driven North by the force of slavery. Let him be free, and he gravitates to the tropics as naturally and as certainly as the winged people of the air migrate at the approach of winter. The laws of nature will not accommodate themselves to the policy of party politics.

Some gentlemen, too, seem to fear a fair competition between ft ee white and black labor. Now, if; the black man belongs Jo a more intellectual and: vigorous race than we, then he ought to triumph inthe conflict, and will. But if the white man has a larger brain, stronger and more enduring muscles, and a more active temperament than the black, then he will conquer in this legitimate conflict, and will gradually pi sh the weaker race from the continent, leaving this heritage of liberties to our children after us to the latest generation. Can any man doubtthe result? Why, sir, the present servile condition of fo r millions of this people is a prophecy of the future. I et the negro be free, and if he had no Africa to Hee to as a refuge from therestlessand insatiable Saxon, he would repeat the sad history of the proud but fading people that once played upon these waters and ruled with a native majesty of power where we now sit in council and sway the destinies of a great empire. I doubt not, sir, they will wander to other f shores; but like iEneas and his companions they will carry with them the elements of a civilization in which other lands and future ages will rejoice. Emancipation, like mercy, will bless him that gives and him that receives. Why is it that the mineral treasures of the South sleep in her mountains and valleys as at the dawn of creation? Why have not the primitive oaks upon her sunny plains been trans formed into masts, and her hemp manufactured- into sails by her own population-? Why have not the Eesfcsof a rich and civilizing commerce filled the safe harbors which the creative hand hollowed out upon her extended coast? It is because her own brave people 1 have foregone their privileges and given over their fair and rich inheritance to the ignorant arid thriftless labor of bondmen. And can they, sir, who have thus spurned the hand of Providence complain if the Master gives to another that which they have neglected to improve for a century? When this thriftless system shall have been supplanted by an educated and enterprising population of free labores, the measureless wealth of her mines and soil will pass into productive capital or be transformed into the material comforts and moral forces of an advancing ■civilization. Let peace once more return to our land, bearing in her hands the broken chains of a dismthralled people as the emblems of victory, and the industrial energies of an intelligent population, regenerated by the spirit of liberty 111 its last bloody struggle with the fiend of slavery, will sweep debt from the land and cover every acre of it with the glad tokens ef plenty, prosperity, and power.

The amendment of the Constitution by the people, to which the passage of this resolution looks, will effect an immediate good. It will give an •easy and ready solution to the difficult questions arising under the proclamation of emancipation and bills of reconstruction.

Sir, we can afford to exercise the largest charity and a magnanimous generosity in restoring the dissevered States and bringing back a disloyal people to their allegiance, but this institution of ■slavery, which has sown dragons' teeth in our legislation, embittered the intercourse of social life, and at last forced upon us the horrors of civil war, must now perish. A land

1C Willi all iho i H that heaven ami earth impart,

The ^utiles ot nature and the charms of ait,

While proud oppii BSion in tici vallej s leigns,

Anil tyiaimy uainpft her happy plains,"

is not a worthy exemplar of the work of civil liberty. The Constitution was not designed to defeat itself by limiting action when the public security and social progress demand it. That instrument is itself the result of amendments to the Articles of Confederation, sufficiently radical and extensive to change the nature of government, and was adopted by a method not justified by those Articles, and therefore revolutionary. This was the work of men whose names are to be spoken without reproach, and justified on the plea of public necessity in a time of profound peace. And shall we hesitate to do what the national salvation demands in a time of war and public calamity on account of imaginary obstacles? Posterity will comprehend the import and grandeur of this great struggle between the antagonistic forces of freedom and slavery as we can not, and will be amazed and humbled as they read the record of our higgling and flimsy pretexts for delay over this great question. The voices of our murdered heroes sleeping on a thousand victorious battle fields in rebellious States, and still other voices from the dim but glorious hereafter of our history, call upon us for immediate and decisive action. We must meet our responsibilities like men, for we are not engaged in a holiday pageant. This is revolution—solemn, earnest, terrible revolution.'

Salus populi suprema est lex,"

must be the shibboleth of the friends of the Republic.

Mr. MORRIS, of New York. Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to make a political speech 011 this occasion', but only to discuss the question of the power of" the Congress" over amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Whatever power" the Congress" may have in this behalf is derived from article five, section one, of the Constitution, which provides—

The L onijie whenever two thirds of both Houses phall deem it necessary, shall propose amendment* to this CniisHiuluin, 01, on the application of the Legislatures of two IhinU nl the several Slates, shall call a convention lor Dioiio ni amendments, which, in either case, shall he valid allien I and p O p es as part of this Constitution, when rallied bv the Lenislatutes of three fourths of the several Srue- or hv conventions in three fourths thereof, as one or the olher mode ol lalilication may be proposed by the Uonmm lied that no amendment which maybe made lo i In eat Itwsiial! in any inanni i atleet the fiistand ninth clauses ol the ninth seetion ot tlm th t article; and that no Slate, without il s consent, shall be deprived of equal sullrase in the Senate.''

If this language is to receive ordinary interpretation I cannot well see how legal minds can differ in its construction. It expressly provides for an amendment of this instrument, and it clearly defines the mode of procedure.

There are but three restrictions upon the action of Congress in the letter of this instrument, one pf which relates to the migration of persons prior to the year 1808, and the others to taxation and equal suffrage in the Senate. As far, then as the question under consideration is concerned, it is precisely the same as if there were no limitations whatever in the Constitution." The Congress," thus empowered, as defined by the Constitution, "shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." This body is now in session, and it proposes to exercise one of its supposed powers.

But it is claimed by one who is recognized as a leader of the other side of this House [Mr. Pendleton] that" three fourths of the States do not possess constitutional power to pass this amendment." Others admit this power exists, but they deny the expediency of its exercise.

I shall speak of these propositions in their order.

The framers of the Constitution, as I claim, clothed" the Congress" with power to propose and three fourths of the several States with power to ratify amendments thereto. The language of this instrument is so explicit that in my judgment it will not admit of two interpretations. That the framers of this instrument so understood it is evident from their contemporaneous sayings and writings. At page 402 of the Federalist we find the following:

It appears to me susceptible of complete demonstration, that it will be lat more e e y to obtain sub equent than previous amendments to the Constitution. The moment an alteration is made in the present plan, it becomes, lo the pill pose ol adoption, a new one, and mu t undergo a new decision of eaon State. To its complete establishment thioii hoiit the Union it will llicrelorc ie ture the concurrence nl thirteen States. II, on the cimliaiy, the Constitution should be ratified by all Hie States as it stands, alterations may at any time in; effected bi nine States. In this view alone the chances are as thirteen to nine (it should he ten) ill favor of subsequent amendments, ralliei than of original adoption ot an entire system."

Thus one who participated in the duties of framing this instrument clearly recognizes this power, and he urges the adoption of the Constitution as it was then written, even if it were imperfect insisting that such imperfections could be more readily removed by suliKequeutamemlments than by original action. This subject was publicly discussed, and then the Constitution was adopted by the suffrages of those who well understood the force of its provisions. That no one doubted the power of Congiessaud ol the States uvei this subject at that time is evident from the fact that Congress, at a session thereof held in the city of New York in the year 1789, proposed twelve amendments to the Constitution, then but recently adopted, and submitted the same to the several States, ten of which amendments were adopted, and they are now as valid as any portion of the original instrument. "The Congress" of 1789 derived its power in this behalf from the same article by virtue of which" the Congress' of 18G5 proposes to act. The powers and the restrictions, as far forth as this question is concerned, were the same then as now. This was a practical interpretation of this instrument by Its founders. Here I might rest this case; but inasmuch as there is a conflict of views upon this subject among the honorable members of this House, 1 am constrained to devote a few moments to the arguments of the opponents of this measure.

The honorable gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rogers] says:

'•The Democratic party, the oldWIiii; party, and the Republican party, until lately, always claimed and held that this institution of slavery was peculiarly under the province ot the individual States, and when the states entered into this confederated Government, the powers that they did not d< legate to the Government were expressly reserved to the States; that no power not delegated to the General Government could by tin. forccofany anicmhuotil of the Constitution be taken away from the States, because tlicv had oillv confederated themselves together for the purposes laid down m the organic act, and because It would beau aLtofthe creature not given by its creatorHere is a strange mixture of truth and error. The great political parties of which the honorable gentleman speaks only mooted the rights of the respective Stales, in ret en nce to enactments appertaining to their own internal matters; the question before tins House is, what power has the Congress" over amendments to this organic act? The propositions are unlike.

Again, the honorable gentleman says: u The States entered into this confederated Government." I much fearthe gentleman a reading, as wqII as his rendering of the Constitution, is at fault. He must have confounded the old obsolete Articles of Confederation and the present Constitution. The former was a confederation of States, as appears from its preamble:

"Article of confederation and perpetual union between tiie States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Hand, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia."

This confederacy was dissolved in the year 3787, and it gave place to a confederacy of the people. This new Confederacy, as evidence of its intention, adopted a preamble to its Constitution which is remarkably expressive. It reads:

We, the people of the United States, in order to forma more peiieet union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure tiie blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."

Here are no political divisions, no geographical boundaries. This is a Union of an entire people. States and State lines are entirely ignored. Therefore, when the gentleman speaks of the present, he should use language suited to the age in which we live. Such a confederacy as he describes once existed, but it has passed away. I do not mean by this that there are no corporate States with certain independent and sovereign powers, but 1 do mean that through and by virtue of this Constitution, ordained by the people of the United States, it subordinated each State, so far as the letter and spirit of this instrument are concerned. This was not an act of the separate States, as such, but it was the act of the sovereign power in this Government. Indeed, no Government can exist without sovereignty. Sovereignty is its life and its motive power. This sovereignty in the Government of the United States rests not m corporate States, but in the people. From this source all municipal power is derived.

The honorable gentleman in his remarks, mistakes the issue. The question is not one of slavery, but of the power of Congress over another subject. It is purely a legal not apolitical prop- m proposition. The question is the same as though slavery were unknown. We are to shut out every consideration except the power of Congress over amendments, without reference to the subjects of them. The power of Congress is one thing, and the expediency of the exercise of this power is another. It is important to distinguish between them.

One word more, and I have done with the argument of the honorable gentleman from NewJersey. He says:

"No power not delegated to the General Government could, by tiie force of any amendment of the Constitution, be taken from tiie States."

The States have delegated nothing to the General Government. The General Government is not the creature of the States, but of an entire people. The people established a Constitution, and provided therein for amendments thereto. Tiie people delegated nothing. They clothed the Congress" with the power to initiate and reserved the right of final decision. The creator of tli is Government and its organic law (the people) clothed its creature(" the Congress") with certain express powers, but it never delegated any power to change any portion of this organic 1 repeat, the question under consideration is not one of a domestic, or any other, institution, excepting incidentally. If any system, no matter what, shall be found in any State which conflicts with the foundation purposes of the General Government, as expressed in the letter or in the spirit of the Constitution, it furnishes a reason for the exercise of the power with which" the Congress" is clothed by its creator.

This is in no sense an interference with such system; on the contrary, such system, by reason of its own acts, renders an otherwise dormant poweroperative and hence itcompels this action. We erect penitentiaries, but except men transgress they are tenantless. We grant powers to legislative bodies, but their exercise depends upon the circumstances of each case. A given act, or the practical wtfi lcing ctf a system, domestic or otherwise, may be the occasion of legislation, and yet by no means the object of it. So in the case in hand: slavery, of its own act, constrains the exercise of a power in "the Congress" which otherwise might have remained dormant for ages. As well may the felon complain of the enactments in a criminal statute, as slavery to complain in the case in hand. But it does not follow that the existence of this power authorizes its possessors to exercise it at will.

The honorable gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cox] claims in substance that three fourths of the several States may abolish this Government, and that it may then" elect the king of Dahomey to be theirautocrat." lfthehonorable gentleman means that three fourths of the States have the physical power to do this as a man has the muscular power to commit murder, he may be right. But if he means that three fourths of the several States may do this by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, I beg leave to differ with him. Such an act would be no amendment, but an actual and wanton subversion of the Constitution. It would be an unhallowed revolution. I discriminate between physical force and constitutional power. There isusubstratum to the Constitution. There is a foundation power to this instrument. It is the law of nature. It existed before the world was; and before the adoption of this instrument its authors announced certain fundamental truths which were borrowed from this law, and they antedate all human Governments. Among these truths are the following: all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights*, that to secure these Governments are instituted, and such Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed.

It was in view of these truths, and for the purpose of enjoying their advantages, that our fathers ordained and established the Constitution now sought to be amended. This law, which antedates human Governments, is what I denominate the" higher law." it is a law recognized by all elementary writers, and is engraven upon the hearts of all men. It is the doctrine which teaches that any human law that conflicts with the laws of God should bepronouncod of no binding force by our courts. This law, among other things, declares," Thou shall not steal." Who will insist that any enactment which should command the commission of larceny could be enforced in any of our courts? YetourConstitution is silent upon this subject; therefore I say to the honorable gentleman, three fourths of the States of this Union may do nothing which infracts or tends to defeat the objects for which our national charter was established.

I am happy to say in letter (but I fear not in spirit) i am sustained in this view by the honorable gentleman from Ohio, who was recently a candidate for a high office, [Mr. Pendleton.] He says:

"1 assert that then? is another limitation [to amendments of iho Constitution] stronger than the Inter of the Constitution, and that is touud in us intent, and its spirit, and its foundation idea."

This "intent" and "foundation idea" is embodied in the expressive preamble of our Constitution. I commend it to the gentleman and invoke of him a careful perusal. From it, we shall learn that one of the primary objects of this Constitution was to" establish justice." If this object has failed, whence is it, and why? Is it in consequence of any system within any portion of our Government? Is slavery unjust m all of its workings? Is it at war with the "foundation idea" of our Constitution? If it is, then is this system the occasion, not theobjectof the amendment.

Another purpose of this instrument was to msuredomestic tranquillity." Has slavery contributed to this object, or has it engendered discord and finally embroiled the nation in a civil war? "Who will answer? If the answer is affirmative, then has this system defeated the purpose of the Constitution.

A further purpose of this Constitution was to promote the general welfare." How strangely has slavery aided in this work. Look at our newmade graves, our maimed citizens, our impoverished Treasury, and our widows and orphans, as evidence of its doings. Humanity weeps over its deeds of horror and of crime. Should it have perpetuity? 9

But above all, this Constitution was framed to secure the blessings of "liberty" to those who ordained it, and also to their" posterity." Has it accomplished this? What hindered it? Let the trembling victims in our slave pensand the bondmen and bondwomen at the auction stand be heard. Consult the pages of the recordingangel, and then compute the sorrows of the millions who have been deprived of "liberty" under aConstitution ordained expressly to secure these blessings to its subjects. Yet the honorable gentleman says" the States have no power to amend this organic act." This amendmentdoes not propose to infract the letter, the spirit, nor the intent of this instrument; it only proposes to conform it in letter to the explicitly avowed objects for which it was ordained and established. Is it wicked to do this? Is it unconstitutional to provide absolutely for the establishment of justice, domestic tranquillity, the promotion of the general welfare, and the blessings of liberty? This is what is sought for.

I have supposed that a nation asan individual, always had the right to reform. The converse would perpetuate errorandgivepermanenceeven to a despotism. This doctrine practically carried out would bar all improvementand forever crush the hopes of the oppressed in every land. To the proper exercise of this reformatory power minor ities must submit. This is not oppression, but one of the highest types of constitutional freedom. Constitutions are framed for the general interests of their subjects. They are checks upon majorities; to minorities they are safeguards. They are binding upon each, and each should respect and obey their commands. Disobedience upon the part of either is alike ruinous and unjustifiable.

The intent of the Constitution is particularly manifest from its expressive preamble; and being manifest, what is the duty of" the Congress?" Clearly to heed its utterances as absolutely as though it were so written in the body of the instrument. Hence I hold" the Congress" has the power, and it is its duty to submit, and the several States have power to ratify, any amendment which comes within the averments of this preamble. This is not because it is so written therein, but it results from the high consideration that this preamble announces the true objects of government, proclaims primeval truth, and being in consonance with the divine will as read in nature and in revelation, human laws may not infractor abrogate any of its provisions; but on the contrary they should conform the letter of the Constitution to its requirements. This is a doctrine which has" its home in the human heart." These last words are the language of the honorable gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Pendleton,] used in vindication of the right of revolution. I use them in vindication of the eternal principles which, unobstructed would render revolutions unnecessary. The same honorable gentleman, warming with his subject, exclaims," Can three fourths of the States make fin amendment to the Constitution of the United States which shall prohibit the State of Ohio from having two Houses in its Legislative Assembly?" He adds," It is not forbidden in the Constitution, the letterof the Constitution is not against it. Why is it," continues he," this change cannotbe made? I will tell why," he concludes;" it is because republicanism lies at the very foundation of our system of government." Is this the true reason? I submit in this illustration the honorable gentleman does equal injustice to his reading as also to his logic. He ought to know that no one claims the power to make wanton or useless amendments to this instrument. Indeed, the clause authorizing amendments to the Constitution expressly limits" the Congress" to amendments which it shall deem necessary. Necessary for what? Clearly for the general good. He also knows that no law ever enacted can be justified upon any other pretense; that the organization of society is a necessity, and that the simplest law and the mildest form of government are infractions of natural liberty, and are permitted only from the necessities of man. Hence all statesmen agree that the fewer laws, the least restraint upon personal rights in carrying on Government compatible with executive force and perpetuity, the nearer such Government approaches perfection. The justice and the necessity of the case is the true test under all circumstances, whether a law or a provision in a constitution is essential. By this rule I would try each case.

Hence I apprehend it does not follow that because" three fourths of the States" may not do an unnecessary and foolish thing, that therefore they may not do a necessary and wise act. 1 would reply to the honorable gentleman s illustration, the reason why three fourths of the States may not so amend the Constitution as to prohibit the Legislature of Ohio from having two Houses is because it is unnecessary for the promotion of any general good. Suppose it could be demonstrated that the existence of two separate Houses in the Legislature of Ohio, in its practical and legitimate working, proved destructive of the rights, liberties, tranquillity, and prosperity of the honorable gentleman s constituents, and subversive of the foundations of the General Government, what would the honorable gentleman then say? Then the cases were parallel. No one pretends that it is enough to warrant an amendment to the Constitution that it does not conflict with its express letter. There must be some great necessity for it. The other illustrations given by the honorable gentleman upon this point are equally irrelevant and frivolous. Were the matter in court, upon proper application, they would be stricken out as such.

I conclude, therefore, that" the Congress has the power under the Constitution to propose amendments thereto when two thirds thereof shall deem it necessary, and that three fourths of the several States may approve of or reject such propositions at will. This being so, the necessity or expediency of the measure remains.

A few words upon these points and I have done. Were it not for certain erroneous adjudications of our State and Federal courts, I apprehend the proposed amendment were wholly unnecessary. I am firm in the faith that the Constitution of the United States, properly interpreted, would tolerate no slave within its jurisdiction. Slavery and our cumulated woes have grown out of an erroneous construction of the provisions of this instrument. There is no law by virtue of which man can be held as property. Were such laws enacted, being in direct conflict with the foundation idea ufour Constitution, they would be void. In this I am sustained by the honorable gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Pendleton,] who says," Congress can no more make a slave than it can make a king." His object, however, was to show, if Congress cannot make a slave, therefore it cannot unmake one. But if Congress "cannot make a slave," pray how can a State? Has Congress as much legislative power as has a State Legislature? Nay; the honorable gentleman is right in his assertion; and I will affirm that no legislative power under the jurisdiction of our Constitution can make a slave. If this is true, the necessity of this amendment arises from the erroneous adjudications of our courts. They, notwithstanding the great doctrines of the Constitution, have recognized property in man. Hence the necessity of a provision positively inhibiting slavery in any of the United States. Sir, it is sometimes alleged that the framers of the Constitution entered into a compromise upon the subject of slavery prior to its adoption. This I deny. This compromise was not between freedom and slavery, but it was a compromise solely between the majority and the minority of the people of the United States. Had there beenacompromise between freedom and slavery, the representatives of the latter would have demanded the insertion of a clause in the Constitution similar to the amendment proposed by Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, m 1861, which the honorable gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Pendleton] voted "for. It reads as follows:

"No amendment shall hp made to the Constitution which will authnrizp or ijivo to the power to abolish or interfere within am State with the. domestic institutions thereof, including that ol persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

The majority agreed never to insert any new provision into the organic act unless two thirds of the Congress should deem it necessary, and then three fourths of the States should approve of it before it should be valid. Thus guarded the minority undertook and provided that they would yield obedience to all and any changes thus inaugurated and approved; provided always they did not conflict with the letter or the spirit of this organic act.

In view, therefore, of the erroneous adjudications of our courts, to which I have alluded, and in consequence of a perverted public sentiment induced therefrom, prudence dictates that our safety in the present as well as in tho future requires the insertion of an express clause m the Constitution forever prohibiting slavery in any State of the Union. I say the present and the future safety of our country requires this, for under our Constitution as it is now written man has been held as property, his civil rights have been wantonly trampled under foot, God s law openly violated, and our country has been brought to the verge of ruin.

One question remains. Is this amendment expedient? 1 will not insult this House or the country with an argument upon this point. I should as soon expect a hearing in the demonstration of a self evident proposition; forjf it is expedient to do right, if slavery is wrong, if" righteousness exalteth a nation," if" sin is a reproach to any people," if obedience to the commands of God is a duty, if national prosperity and the unity and the perpetuity of our Government are desired, then is this measure expedient. lis adoption involves all of these, and its rejection imperils all. There is nothing partisan in this measure; it will serve all interests. Hence, why honorable gentlemen will oppose it, and thus invoke the judgments of God, and defy the will of the people as recently expressed, and dig for themselves ignominious graves, is beyond my comprehension.

The honorable gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Holman] says" the Democratic party were always opposed to slavery." I will not, I have no inclination, to controvert this at a time when such mighty interests are involved. But I will say, that true Democracy never had and never can have any sympathy with human bondage; and if the Democratic party is now opposed to slavery, as the honorable gentleman avers, the country may take heart, for all parties now harmonize upon this question, which has heretofore divided and distracted the councils of the nation. I cannot see why any one who believes slavery to be wrong can wish to perpetuate it. May we not do in fact what the universal judgment of all men approves? The honorable gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Voorhees] says" slavery is dead." So said my colleague from New York, [Mr. Brooks.] If this is true, and who will dispute their veracity, can any one complain if we clinch the nails that hold the lid of it* coffin?

Therefore I hope to see the Democrats unite with the Union men in this act, which will forever prohibit an institution which all deplore and condemn. The fruits of this act are not partisan but they are national.

Mr. Speaker, I apprehend there are very few of those who are actively participating in the great national drama now being acted who realize the importance of the part they are severally performing. There are times when" words are things." The events as well as the utterances of the last four years shall have a future. They will be scrutinized by those who shall come after us, and their influence will affect the destinies of the Governments of the world. The United States, the respective corporate members thereof, and the several citizens of each, are making history. A record will be kept for future reference, and" woe betide the man who neglects to improve the present. The legislator who only contemplates the present moment is strangely remiss. He who provides solely for the necessities of the immediate now is criminally negligent. Such a man would hesitate to plant a tree lest he might not gather of its fi uit, or to build a house fearing he miyht not enjoy its continuous shelter. The sordidly selfish live not in the future. The benedictions of posterity never greet their ears or gladden their hearts. They are conservatives extreme.

Had Genoa s navigator acted upon this principle we were without a western continent, and civil liberty without a soil m which to germinate and mature. Had the Pilgrims only considered their own privations and perils, Plymouth Rock were without its immortality, and our representative Government without a place among the nations. Our ancestors had learned that Christianity was more than a ceremonial, and their descendants have demonstrated that democracy (I mean democracy in its generic sense) is more than a name. They are principles, handmaids, coworkers, integral and essential parts of a free Government. They are known by their works. From the hour the morning stars first hymned their song of praise they have harmonized in plan and in purpose; and when they shall finally triumph, as triumph they will, then may we expect the blessings for which my colleague [Mr Brooks] so devoutly and earnestly prays, "Peace on earth and good will to men." Till then he need not hope. And allow me to assure him that a democracy that does not harmonize with true Christianity and freedom is essentially false. Had the patriots of 1776 considered the sacrifices only which would follow their acts, we were yet dependents and vassals of the British Crown. Had their descendants in 1861 looked only to their personal case, we were now a permanently despised and a degraded nation.

I cite these instances, not to lecture, but to admonish those who are actors in the present drama. The past has its lessons, the present its duties, and the future its application of the teachings of history and experience. There is a tide in the affairs of nations as well as in men, which, when taken atitsflood, leads to prosperity. Be it ours to watch its ebbing. The Puritan as he stood on the bleak shores of New England, saw a wilderness give place to cultivated fields, rude dwellings to comfortable mansions and populous cities, and savage life to civilized joys and culture. They saw the outlines of a Government which, when matured,'* like the dews of heaven," would shower its blessings alike upon all. They saw the stone cut out of the mountain of freedom increase till it filled the entire earth. The vision inspired their hearts and nerved them to sacrifice and suffering. Shall we who enjoy the fruit of their privations and toil do less? 1 believe before God the hour has come in which, if we would avert the judgments of Heaven and save our nation from ruin, we must render our organic law explicitly affirmative on the great question of human slavery. This being done, we may hope for that peace for which the friends on the other side of this House so agonize and pray.

Mr. PIKE. Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to take part in this discussion. A question so thoroughly argued before the country for a generation, and one on which political parties have pivoted so long, did not seem to me to need further elucidation. And 1 do not rise now, sir, so much to discuss and argue as to express my gratification at the prospect of the early and final settlement of all questions pertaining to slavery by the entire destruction of the system.

When, something more than a quarter of a century ago, just commencing active life,! made myself conspicuous in a limited sphere by attacking slavery, I had no expectation of taking part here and now in the grand consummation of its utter demolition.

I had no idea then, sir, that it would live so long. As it could be demonstrated to be wrong, contrary to natural right, and tending always to the practice of cruelties and barbarisms of revolting character, I thought it would die and the country be rid of it speedily.

But I was mistaken. Argument and demonstration had apparently but little effect upon it. Allying itself to the political parties of the country, it grew strong and rich and flourished vigorously in the face of opposition. It dictated terms of adjustment of political differences, and everywhere was felt as the most powerful element of government in the country.

Starting out with friends who apologized for its existence as one of the necessary evils of society, something to be tolerated for a time only, it soon came to assume the bolder position of light. It left off accusing the English of fastening the system upon their colonies at a time when they could not resist, and thus placing the descendants of involuntary slaveholders in the condition Mr. Jefferson described as having the wolf by the ears and able neither to hold him or let him go.

The pro slavery men threw away supplication. They asked no consideration on account of their history. They no longer deprecated the existence of slavery. Mr. Ililliard, of Alabama, and other frank and intelligent advocates, stated distinctly that their grounds of supporting the system had changed, Tfeev now advocated it because they believed it to be right. For the same reason they wished it more widely diffused. It was a proper relation between the two races, and where ever there were white men and black men there should be slavery.

But the extension of the system required the consent of the General Legislature. The establishment of new territorial governments and the admission of new States must be done by ConShould this consent be given?

Upon this question parties were arrayed. The discussion became general. Political conventions declared themselves on the one side and the other. Few side issues were tolerated. The main question involved interests, social, religious, pecuniary, political, greater than were ever submitted to a popular election before.

It was decided against slavery. But the decision was simply that it was not such a blessing as should be extended. Very mild, surely! The organization which prevailed took great care to say that it would not object to the retention of existing slavery. It knew the extreme sensitiveness of the friends of the system, and would do nothing and say nothing that indicated a purpose to interfere with local authorities. Mr. Lincoln, as its organ, declared this with great emphasis in his inaugural address.

But this would not answer. The decision of the popular election, however softened in terms, was against the new pretensions of slavery. The people of the country had said, in accordance with the proper forms of law, that slavery was not one of the institutions to be cultivated, cherished, and boasted of.

And slavery accepted the decision as final. The discussion had gone on for a generation with great activity and been attended with much acrimony. The effort at repressing it with violence had failed. Opposing argument had failed. What, then, the use of another trial r No new evidence could be adduced in its favor. No law of God or man could be cited that was not already familiar. No new threat could be held high in menace over the action of the people in their primitive assemblages, or of the Representatives in their official character.

Slavery had failed in argument, failed in menace, failed in the popular vote.

But it would not yield. It did not believe in popular majorities. It had been contending against then! for years. When it saw the coming decision it proclaimed long in advance that it deemed it invalid.

The only other resort left was that of violence. The ultima ratio of kings must be tried. It would establish itself as a Government, and would depend upon war to vindicate its right to be recognized among the Governments of men.

We all know the result. It had an infernal strength greater than any of us supposed. It has destroyed hundreds of thousands of the best and noblest of our youth. It has rendered desolate homes in every village and hamlet in the land. It has loaded our labor with burdens that it shall carry so long as the Government has an existence. It has subjected us to insult from abroad that we have been unable to repel. It has encouraged foreign nations to prey upon our commerce, and we have been unable to prevent the wrong or retaliate in kind. Stunned, blinded by the blows that it received in the contest, it thought, like Samson, if it must die, it would lay hold of the pillars of our temple of liberty and mustering all its gigantic strength, it would perish m the common ruin. But, thank God, we come out of the fierce contest victors. Bruised, bleeding, carrying wounds which shall be visible for centuries on the bodypolitic, as they now are in our streets on the persons of thousands and tens of thousands of noble men who had the patriotism and devotion to country which impelled them to the contest where the fight raged fiercest, still gloriously victorious, we may say with Isaiah 44The terrible one is brought to naught and the scorner is consumed!"

And now, what shall be done with the demon that, after a career of lust and wrong unexampled in Christian countries, has added to the crimes growing out of its nature the wide spread desolation which has been expeiicncedevery where m all the States of this Union?

Does any one hesitate to say let it die? Has it not deserved death and damnation for Hs crimes? But it is said that the organic law intervenes and prevents the infliction of that just punishment; that somehow we have made a bargain that, come •what will, we will not be allowed to rid the Government of slavery. If this be so, it is a gross defect in our organization. It makes slavery the "unpardonable sin" which no repentance can avail to rid ourselves of.

But how is this? Slavery is eminently a creature of law. No jurist maintains that it exists ex proprio vigore. No advocate of the system would rest it in anything short of well defined law. Without the aid of positive enactments it dies. I know that nowhere in this country has it been established in terms. No statute in any State has said that hereafter slavery shall exist here; but it has done what is equivalent. It has gone into the detail of management, sale, conveyance, and descent of property in slaves. It has made a body of laws which have been dependent upon slavery as the central fact. Abolish them, and you abolish slavery. I say, then, slavery iseverywhere the creature of positive law.

How is it, then, that the supreme law cannot reach so important a detail in local law?

The States gave certain rights to the General Government, and upon this the General Government started as a stock m trade. They stipulated in the original instrument that whenever, upon proper preliminary proceedings, three fourths of their number should agree to a further grant of power, then the General Government should have that pov er

But it is said there are limits. Of course there are. Hut what? Are any to be found in the instrument itself? None.

It is suggested that they are to be found in the preamble. But can anybody examine the preamble and say that practically it lias any limits? It says:

We, tlie people of the United States, in order to form a in«rc prrlrct if iion r raldi h ju tier insure donif ue tranquillity* provide for tin.- common delouse, piomoio tin; general wcltaic. ami sreuii: [In- blessing* of liberty lo ourselves and our po tetuy do otd un and tahli li iim> Constitution for the United Status of America."

But what Government known among Christian nations might not adopttho same preamble, and, with show of reason, J latn its standpoint, adopt the stum1 declaration?

It is so general as not even to specify the form of government which itintended to be established. Should the people of England, Ireland, and Scotland choose to reduce their constitution to writing, "what would prevent the adoption of this preamble?

But the understanding, it is said, among the original contractors should govern. Can this rule prevail against positive enactment? 1 will not attempt to go into the history of the formation of this instrument. That lms already been well done by able gentlemen who have preceded me. IJut I invoke the well known rule ofcom construction in ordinary contracts, that when the wiuteri a r vo no it is not dubious, all previous debate, is niched in it, and must be excluded from consideiation in forming a judgment upon it.

Is the provision for amendment at all doubtful in its import? No one pretends that it 13. The language speaks as plainly as language can, that any amendment which shall be made in accordance with its provisms shall become ,part of the instrument. Hero is the provision:

The Congress, when ever two thnd ofboth Houses hr ll deem it ncee Miy shall pioptM4 amendments tofhif ConfeUUU on or on tilt; application ot the LeaMiitjnea of two thirdh of the M ver i State.-, call a convention torpropohinw 'imoiidmcntSj vvtneli, in eithei e e e li il be valid to all intents and purpo e a-* p irtor itu Con thurion when ratified by three amahs ot the l et iatuie of tliescvot il States or by conventions in tince touulis thereof, the one or the oilier mode of taiitic Uam may be piopo ed by the Connies*.; piovuied that no aineudwnt nineh may ho Hindi"- prior to tin; year IHOR diatl in any nirinnei affect the ftr t and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the lir t article; and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of ltd equal suffrage m the Senate."

Except, then, the cases excepted in the provision I have read, and the power of amendment is unlimited in its terms.

And still there i« a limit. What is it? It k the limit of J1 tmM n law. All publicists a ree that there is a limit to human law, no matter what may be the form of government. The nations religion must necessarily control its written law. The best English writers upon law say this, and we .need not their authority or anybody s authority to establish the proposition. Everyman s religion is his sense of ultimate right. With us the thing goes up in regular gradation. The town is subordinate to the State. The State acknowledges the General Government to be superior. The General Government is inferior in law, as in everything else to the great Ruler of events.

Higher law doctrine, I know; but who does not acknowledge it? Whatman takes the other position, that his highest notions of morality are in the statutes? Would not honest men do well to play shy of such a man? Whoever knew a man who acted in accordance with the rule that he would deal with others no better than the law obliges him to do and did not pronounce him a scoundrel? Have we not all seen such men, and do they not oppress their neighbors by "getting the law of them" as they call it?

Nor is this the fault of the law. Every human law is necessarily imperfect. It cannot provide for all imaginable cases. And ingenious scoundrels will find opportunity to inflict wrong while actir g within its provisions.

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Pendleton] who argued this question the other day put specified cases where it was manifest the General Government ought not to interfere with the States. But logically the force of those illustrations was derived from this higher law. In the instances put the General Government should not act, because it would be unjust. Neither he nor any other gentleman has put a case, within the proper limit of human law, which the power of an amended Constitution may not reach.

Men of science recognize the same rule of higher law. Some years since the corps of the Coast Survey came into my county in pursuance of its duties along our coast. They made a base line. The object was to find two points exactly six miles apart. To do this was the work of months. The most elaborate instruments were obtained. The expansion and contraction of metals was thoroughly considered. And after all the preparation, that experience and science could suggest was exhausted ample time was taken in the measurement. All this being done, the nioat exact result possible was obtained. And the line got w is just six miles long, no more and no less. Thousands of dollars expended and months of time had produced this precise thing. From this sprang triangulation along the coast, and measurements by instruments the most perfect known to man. One would think these intelligent gentlemen would have rested satisfied with this. But no; all this was fallible like every other human fll ort They appealed to the higher law for corlectioli.

Their work was submitted to the law that governs the stars. The heavens were explored and ultimate accuracy was only obtained when Uwas ascertained that the work done on the face of the earth m ieetl with the deductions to be drawn from the com sing of the stai s m the heavens; for these wise men well knew that the celestial orbs moved with unerring accuracy, knowing no variableness since thoCreatorofall threw them into space with the mandate:

Roll on in your beauty, ye youthful spheic*,

And weave the dance that measures the years."

Adopting this rule, certainly there can be no objection to the proposed amendment to the Constitution. The higher law not only sanctions, it demands in thunder tones that the system shall be eradicated without delay, and no vestige be left, to annoy God or curse man.

Let it then be done, and let slavery be destroyed. And hereafter the only contest upon the subject will be who did the most to bring about this consummation so devoutly wished for by all good men. The earlier anti-slavery men shall have their full meed of praise. They did well. They brought the wrongs inherent in the institution to the attention of the people of the country. They would not be put down at the bidding of the imperious advocates of the system. But the system flourished under their attacks. Itgrew rich and strong, it waxed fat. How long it would have lived God only knows, if it had not injured itself. But it was not content. It destroyed itself. Our Davids were not powerful enough to inflict a mortal blow upon this modern Gohah, and Heaven would have it that the giant wrong of the age should commit suicide.

And when the genius of history shall write its epitaph on the walls of the great Hereafter, specifying the date of its death, short stay will it make in describing its virtues; but after cataloguing a portion of the great crimes it hits committed against mankind, it will add," Dead, dead not of Lloyd Garrison and Wendell Pliilhps, but dead of Jefferson Davis and the Montgomery constitution."

God speed the day of its burial, for with it as the creator ends this war of its creation, and liberty and peace shall come hand in hand and bless the continent with their presence.

Mr. ASHLEY obtained the floor.

And then, on motion of Mr. THAYER, (at three o clock p. m.,) the House adjourned.