January 31, 1865

The SPEAKER stated the question in order to be the consideration of the motion to reconsider the vote by which the House, on the 14th oflast June, rejected Senate joint resolution No. 16, submitting to the Legislatures of the several States a proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States; arid that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ashley] was entitled to the floor.

Mr. ASHLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McAllister] to have read a brief statement.

Mr. McAllister sent to the Clerk s desk and had read the following:

When this subject was before this House on a former occasion 1 voted against the measure. I have been in favor ol exhausting all means of conciliation to restore the Union as our fathers made it. I am for the whole Union, and utterly opposed to secession or dissolution in any shape. The result of all the peace missions, and especially tlmtof Mr. Blair, has satisfied me that nothing short of the reco iniuon of their independence will satisfy the southern conlederney. It must therefore be destroyed; and in voting for the moment measure I cast my vote ug unst the eornei stone of the southern confederacy, and declare eternal war again the enemies ot my country.

[Applause from the Republican side of the House.]

Mr. ASHLEY. I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Coffroth.]

Mr. COFFROTH. Mr. Speaker, 1 speak not to day for or against slavery. 1 am content that this much agitated question shall be adjudicated at the proper time by the people. It is my purpose to state in all candor the reasons which prompt me to give the vote I shall soon record. The amending of our Constitution is fraughtwith so much importance to the American people that before it is accomplished the amendments proposed should be scrutinized with the strictest criticism. No frivolous, vague, or uncertain experiment should be for a moment tolerated. The life and existence of this nation is centered in the observance and faithful execution of the powers conferred by the Constitution upon the servants of the people.

The joint resolution before us proposes:

That the following article be pi oposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intent* and purpose® ivi a part of the said Constitution, namely:

Art. XHI Sec 1. Neithei slavery nor involuntary servitude except as a puni hmciit for crime, whereof the party shall' have been duly convicted, h ill exist within the United States, or any place ^abject to their jurisdiction.

Sec. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The first inquiry is, has Congress this power? I turn to the Constitution, and find article fifth provides— u The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses &hal! deem it necessary, r shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the Leahdatmos or two thirds of the several States, shall call aconvention for propostngamtMidaieuts, which, in cither ca c shall bo valid to ait intent s and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when iauM by the Legislatures of three iouiths ot the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress."

It is not claimed that Congress itself can engraft this amendment into the Constitution without being ratified by three fourths of the States. Then, sir, under the Constitution, Congress has no power beyond discriminating what shall or ought to be submitted to the people. The members of thisHoufte assume no responsibility, they enact no amendment, but as faithful Representatives they submit to the people, the source from whence their power comes, the proposed amendment." Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed." All political power is invested in the people. At their will constitutions can be remodeled and laws repealed.

The amending of our Constitution is no new experiment. Already at three different times amendments have been submitted to the Legislatures, and by them adopted. The first amendment was ratified in 1791, the second in 1798, and the third in 1804. It never was intended by the wise men who adopted the Constitution that it should remain unchanged. The growth of the nation, its progress and its advancement, will as time passes, demand new articles and additional provisions. The people are the guardians of the Constitution, and I am not convinced that any danger is to be anticipated, as presented in the following illustrations of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Pendleton,] put with such admirable compactness and scholastic force:

1. "1 a«ert that there is another limitation, stronger even than the letter of the Constitution, ami that i* to he found in its intent and spirit and its foundation idea. I put the question which has been put hejoro in this debate, can three fourths of the States coustitutioiiaHyehauge this Government, and make it an autocracy? It is not prohibited by the Constitution.'"

"Can three louiihs of the States make an amendment to the Constitution of the United States which shall prohibit the State ot Ohio iiom having two Uou es m its Legislative Assembly? It is not piohibned in the Com li tutiou."

tf." Sir, can three fourths of the States provide an amendment to the Constitution by which one fourth should bear all the taxes of this Government? It is not piohilnled/'

4." Can three fourths of the States, by an amendment to the Constitution, subvert the State governments of one fourth and divide their tcrutoiy among the re t It is not forbidden."

5.'* Ciin three fourths of the States so amend the Constitution of the States us to make the northern States of this Union slaveholding States

I do not think there is any power in the Constitution which would permit three fourths of the States to change the form of government. The Constitution provides for a republican form of government, and to establish an autocracy would not be amending the Constitution, but utterly destroying it, and establishing upon its ruins anew form of government of self derived power.

I would not give one of the new copper twocent pieces for the insertion into the Constitution of explicit prohibitions against every other supposition brought forward by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Pendleton:]-

"Long before three fouithsof the States can become so debauched and demoralized that they would piaetfee such monstrous* injustice, they must have lost the sense of honor that would lie bound by a compact, and the fear of God that would keep an oath. When tiie e virtues have died out, no matter what ►•niepunrds a written constitution might contain, they would be of no more value than to much waste paper." Theroarceertain things which can neverbe attempted so Ion-,' as there is public virtue enough nor to evade, explain away, ot openly violate the Constitution. It is toi this reason so little limitation was put upon the amending power.

"Theactual limitations on that power operated against natural equity, and hence the necessity loi their insertion. One of them n restrained Congress from putting an end to the slave trade prior to 1608, and the practical effect ot the other is to give New England, which has a smaller population than New York and only a naetiori more than Pennsylvania. twelve Senators, while New Voile and Pennsylvania have each only two. The Constitution pieMiinos that the majority of the people in three joint lis of the States cannot be corrupted; or that, if they should, they would not afterward respect paper restraints on their pas ion A constitution is no stronger than the ten e of the moral obligation ot the parties bound hvit. It is funic to take metfs engagements against crimes more heinous than breaking au emrairemenf You might as well swear «i man not to commit highway robb ry It no icis conscience enough to respect an oath, it would be needless, and it he lias not an idle precaution."

Again, it is argued that this amendment is unconstitutional; that the Congress of the United States has no legal authority to propose this amendment, nor have the States in ratifying it the constitutional power to destroy or interfere with the right of property. Learned gentlemen of this House differ on this subject. The Constitution itself provides the remedy by which all these differences of opinion can be legally adjudicated. Section two of article three provides:

Tht judicial power sliali extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution."

In my opinion, if any person is injured by this amendment, he has a judicial remedy before the highest court of the country.

If the States of the South desire to retain slavery, they can do so by refusing to ratify this amendment. There are thirty five States. In order to adopt this amendment twenty seven States must ratify it. Eleven States have seceded from the Union. This is more than is required to defeat the amendment. Certainly no one will pretend to argue that this amendment can be adopted without being submitted to the eleven seceded States. Jf it was, these States would not be considered a part of the Union. In fact it would be, to all intent and purpose recognizing them as independent States, and not being under the control of the Federal Constitution.

If this view is taken, then this amendment enn do no harm to the people of the States in the Union. In Junelastmy objection to this amendment was that it was taking away the property of the people of the States that remained true to the Union; that the Constitution was made the means to oppress rather than protect the people. Since that time Missouri and Maryland have abolished slavery by their own action, and the Governor of Kentucky in his message recommends to the Legislature of that State gradual emancipation. The same objection which was then urged against this amendment cannot now be urged.

Jt is argued that new State governments will be formed in the seceding States under the control of military governors, and this amendment ratified by them. Whetherthisamendment would be binding upon the people of the seceded States thus ratified will depend entirely upon the result of this war. If afler a long struggle, and each of the contending armies or Powers will conclude to adopt the wise and humane policy of a peaceful solution of the difficulties now existing, all of the acts of the State governments formed by military power will be invalid, and the old organization of these States recognized. In this event the ratifications by the new made State governments will not be worth the paper upon which they are written. If the South achieve her independence, then this amendment will only apply to that which does not exist. If the people of the South are subjugated and their State lines obliterated, and they are ever admitted into this Union under new constitutions, each and every one of the constitutions will have to come free from slavery before the State will be admitted.

The South would not remain in the Union under the Constitution as it now is; they demanded stronger guarantees for their institution of slavery. Can any intelligent person believe that after fighting as they have for nearly four years they will accept that which they rejected before the war? If they will not come back under the Constitution, why not abolish slavery; sinks fromourstatutcbooks every enactment which protects it; make our Constitution and our laws free from the subject of slavery? And then, when this unfortunate, inhuman, barbarous, and bloody war has been prolonged until every heart shall turn sick with its carnage and the reports of its wrongs and outrages, and the people demand a cessation of hostilities until it be ascertained if glorious peace cannot be accomplished by compromise and concession, there will be no obstacles in the Constitution to defeat the accomplishing of a much desired result. We will be free to give new guarantees or new amendments to protect the rights and property of every person who shelters himself under the American Constitution.

Again, I have voted for every peace resolution offered in this House. My heart yearns for peace. The gentlemen on the other side of this Chamber refused toappoint peace commissioners, but they tell us this amendment will do more to secure peace than any resolution proposed in this House. Although they would not try the remedy we presented, I am willing to try the one they present; and if by my vote this amendment is submitted to the States, and it brings this war J to a close, I will ever rejoice at the vote I have given; but if I am mistaken, I will remember it is not the first time.

Mr. Speaker, 1 desire above all things that the Democratic party be again placed in power. The condition of the country needs the wise counsel of the Democracy. The peace and prosperity of this once powerful and happy nation require it to be placed under Democratic rule. The history of the past demonstrates this. The question of slavery has been a fruitful theme for the op ponents of the Democracy. It has breathed into existence fanaticism, and feeds it with such meat as to make it ponderous ingrowth, it must soon be strangled or the nation is lost. 1 propose to do this by removing from the political menu that which has given it life and strength. As soon as this is done fanaticism

Writhes with pain,

And dies among us worsJnpeis."

Then the rays of truth will be unshaded, and once more our people will rejoice in the salvation of their country, and of the reinstating in power that, party which made this country great, and which has done so much to secure to man civil ami religious liberty.

Many of the honorable gentlemen of this House with whom I am politically associated may condemn me for my action to day I assure them I do that only which my conscience sanctions and ray sense ot duty to my country demands. 1 have been a Democrat, all the days of my life. 1 learned my Democracy from that being who gave me birth; it was pure; it came from one who never told me an unti nth. All my political life has boon spent in defending and supporting the measures which i thought were for ihr good of the party and the country. My energy, my means, and my tune were all given for the success of the Democratic cause. 1 am no Democrat by mere profession, but 1 have always been a working one. If by my action to day 1 dig my political grave, 1 will descend into it without a murmur, knowing that I n in justified in my action by a conscientious-) belief 1 am doing what will ultimately prove to be a service to my country, and knowing there is one dear, devoted, antl loved being in this wide world who will not bring tears of bitterness to that grave, but will strew it with beau (i f'u I fiowei s, for it re tin ns me to that domestic circle from whence 1 have been taken for the gie iter part of the hist two years.

Knowing my duty I intend to perform it, relying upon the intelligence and honesty of the people 1 repie M nt to do mo justice. If this action fcihall be condemned by my people I will go back with pleasure to the enjoyment of private life, fire liom the exciting pohtienl arena; but no power on earth will prevent me from quietly depositing my ballot in behalfof the candidates of the Democratic party. 1 hope 1 will he granted the pleasure of reading the eloquent sp erhes made by my Democratic associates, and admire their rise and onward niaich to distinction. This boon I pray you not to take from me.

If, on the oiln r hand, the course of the Democrat.* who will vote for this amendment will meet tiie pjii mi of <>t Urn people, and we are greeted (I \i ;;h the plaudit of" Well done, good and laitli- 1 ui sr i servants," it, will be the desire of our hearts to open our arms for your reception and slicker you as the hen sln lfeis in r brood, satisfied you \v ie honest in your belief but mistaken m your opinions.

Mr. ASHLEY, I now yield the remainder of my tune to the gentleman hum New York, [Mr. ilciiuics.]

Air. HARDING 1 ask the gentleman to yield to mo for a moment.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. M r. Speaker, this js miliar an arbitrary proceeding. One gentleman occupies the floor and farms it out to whoever he pleases. We have a Presiding Oiiicer, and 1 prefer he shall assign the floor.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the rule on the subject.

The Clerk lead, as follows: i( Vvris e a memher i? occupy mi; the floor lie niny yield it to anoiiK( lot explanation ut the pending measuie u> wdl ;u for pei oiril explanation.'>

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. Can these be callcd explanations rtiaUve to membeis?

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks that these are explanations of the pending measure.

Mr. ASHLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

JVIr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. I ask for five minutes of the time of the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HERRICK. I have no objection to give the gentleman five minutes of my time.

Mr. MILLER, ofPennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that I would be permitted to close my short career upon this floor without claiming any of the time or attention of the House; but i feel that I owe it to more than two hundred and sixty thousand lovers of the country, friends of the" Constitution as it is," in the State of Pennsylvania, to repudiate the sentiments and position of gentlemen, [Messrs. McAllister and Coffroth,] my colleagues here, who have been heard this morning.

I came here, sir, with no ambition save to do what I conceived to be my duty in the service of my constituents and the preservation of a pure and consistent record.

But 1 prefer to go back to my home, I choose to meet those who sent mo here, and say that i have tried to do that, at least, which was exacted of me when I took the oath entitling me to a seat upon this floor, that I would, to the extent of my ability, preserve inviolate the Constitution of the United States, in word and letter, as those who made it gave it to us. I feel that I have not been derehctin the dischaigeof duty; that I have not forgotten what was due to myself and what was due to them. I have no argument to make in regard to what I conceive to be the merits of the question before us. That ground has been fully and ably covered by those who have preceded me. 1 stand here to day to indorse the sentiments and arguments of my friend from Ohio, [Mr. Pendleton.] 1 stand with him as to the power of this House to pass this measure. IJis able and eloquent arguments have not been answered—nor, in my judgment, can they be—by the ablest of those on the other side of the House. Now, sir, it strikes me that much as this matter has been discussed, no member has yet satisfactorily met the great question at the bottom of this proposition. Abolish slavery, and no man among them has pretended to show what we are to do with the freedmen, except that, as good Christians, it will become our duty to feed and clothe them. The true philanthropists and tax payers of the country are equally interested m knowing what is to be done with the elephant when we get him. We should not pull down the old house until we have built the new one. I say to my friends on the other side of the House that for them to discuss the constitutionality of a proposed amendment is a broad farce. They propose to amend that, the body of which, in every essential, vital feature they have consistently violated in the action of the President of the United States, this House, and every subordinate depai t- mt D and employe known to this Administration. It v ou d have been more creditable to the fairness of the dominant party if they had proposed to blot out the sovereignty of the States, and declared that there are no reservt d rights in the Constitution which Congress and the President cannot ignore with impunity.

If, Mr. Speaker, 3 could be induced to vote for any amendatory [imposition to the orgatuclaw of thioland I would not do it at a time like this, when all is chaos.

Tim SPEAKER. The five minutes allotted to the gentleman have expired.

M r. M) LLER, of Pennsylvania. I rose simply for the purposeof repudiating the sentiments and the positions assumed upon this floor by two of my colleagues liom Pennse Ivania, and have only to i •■quest my colleague [Mr. Coffroth] to make his acknowledgments to my other veneiable colleague [Mr. Baily] to whose Quaker knocks he isdoub ie indebted for his wonderful conversion. Mr. IlERRiCK. Mr. Speaker, the joint resolution now before the House submitting to the Legislatures of the several States an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, comes before us under circumstances widely different from those existing when at the last session of Congress the same resolution failed to receive the requisite two thirds vote of this body.

The eventful year which has elapsed has wrought great changes in the situation of the country affecting this important question, and I approach its discussion at this time with quite altered views, as to its expediency, from those which governed me when i last addressed the House upon the same subject. The brilliant successes that have rewarded the gallant efforts of the military and naval forces of the nation, and the result of the presidential election, which has since transpired, have necessarily exercised an important influence over the public mind in both the loyal and the insurgent States; and this question has assumed a very different aspect from that which it bore at the last session of Congress. The rejection by the people at the polls of the proclaimed policy ot the Democratic party has closed many avenues to reconciliation which then remained open, and the waning strength of the rebellion has brought its leaders to the verge of desperation. Perils which then seemed imminent have faded away, and others of quite different tenor menace us m the future.

In such a period of transition, when tremendous events succeed one another with almost inconceivable rapidity, it is impossible for the legislator to remain unaffected by the mighty changes that meet him on every side, it is weak, Mr. Speaker, it is criminal for him, from alalse pride in preserving an imaginary consistency, to remain stationary when all the lest of the world is moving forward, and to regulate his words and actions by what he has said or done in the past. Change is the universal law of nature, pervading the world of mind as well as the woihi of matter. Ordinarily it t if cts its operation by almost imperceptible gradations, and their results only become visible at long intervals. l But every generation sees further and more clearly than its predecessor that the radicalism of one century becomes the conservatism ofthe next, while steadily through the ages the eternal march of human advancement sweeps on. In such a period, however, as that in which our lot is cast and in such anisis as that now resting upon the country, when the whole fabric, of society is convulsed by the fierce struggle between contending opinions, upon the issue of which depends the continued existence of the American Republic, if not, indeed, the fate of constitutional liberty throughout the world, this progiessgoes on with marvelous celerity, and the changes of a century are sometimes condensed into a single year.

Mr. Speaker, at the last session of Congress I voted against this resolution from a solemn conviction of duty. And as I shall now vote for it from a similar conviction, it becomes me to explain to the House and the country what considerations prompt me to assume a new attitude upon the question before us. Events which will now govern my action have superseded the arguments which influenced the vote J recorded last year. The considerations which then rendered the amendment proposed impolitic, in my view, have ceased to operate, and reasons of great force, which were not then in existence, have austn fo make it now expedient, and to warrant me m rcvcising my former action.

In my humble judgment the rejection of this measure at that time was demanded by the best interests of the country, which now, on the contrary, seem to call forits adoption. Mr. Speaker, circumstances have changed, and I shall now vote for the resolution, as I torineily voted against it, because I think such action on my part is best calculated to assist in the maintenance of the Government, the preservation of the Union, and the perpetuation ofthe bee institutions which we inhented from our fathers. These aie the greaf objects for which the loyal people of this cop" ti y have struggled dm ing the last four years with a courage and self de otion to which history affords no parallel, and poured c d forth their blood and treasure with an unhesitating patriotism that has astonished the world. So long as a Representative seeks these objects, regardless of partisan or political prejudices, he cannot be rightfully charged with inconsistency, no matter how widely the means he may find it necessary to employ atone time or another, to adapt himself to ever varying circumstances, may differ. J believe this is the only consistency that is truly desirable. It is certainly the only one to which I make any pretensions.

I have no doubt of the power to make this amendment to the Constitution in the manner proposed. It is altogether immaterial, for the purposes of this discussion, whether the power of three fourths of the States to alter the organic law is altogether unlimited, except by the reservation in the amending clause of the Constitution. It may well be doubted whether the people do not possess certain inalienable rights, of which a minority, however small, cannot be divested by a majority, however large. But the States formed the Federal Government by a grant to it of their sovereignty over certain specified subjects, and it mustsecm to follow that they can also confer upon it any other rights or powers which they themselves possess, in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself. By the adoption of that Constitution the States transferred to three fourths of their number their entire sovereignty, which can beat any time exerted to augment or diminish the functions of the General Government, save in the two particulars excepted by special limitation. Three fourths of the States can, by an amendment of tjie Constitution, exercise throughout the United States any power that a State individual! y can exercise within its own limits.

The institution of slavery is purely a creation of law, and completely under the control of the State in which it may exist, at whose pleasure it may be modified or abolished. What the State may do, the higher power to which by the adoption of tlie Constitution the State voluntarily ceded its whole sovereignty, except in two particulars, is certainly competent to do, whenever itchooses to assert its authority. In amending the Constitution, three fourths of the States actually represent the whole; and the agent is invested with all the powers that belong to his principal.

That this was the view entertained by the founders of our Government is conclusively established by the fact that a proviso, declaring that no State shall, without its consent, be afi ected in its internal police," was defeated in the Convention which framed the Constitution by a decisive majority. The power thus acknowledged was never disputed from that day until the abolition of slavery by a constitutional amendment became a practical question in the politics of the country. 1 have never entertained udoubtofthe existence of this power, and I am now convineed that the time has arrived when it is expedient to exercise it in consummating the amendment proposed in the resolution now underconsideration. Mr. Speaker, I never had any love for the institution of slavery. I always regarded it as a moral, social, and political evil, and afiuitful curse to any community in which it might exist. In this sentiment I believe that 1 fairly represent the views of the great bulk of the Democratic party of the northern States. That party has never been either pro slavery or anti-slavery; but it has ever been devoted to the Union and the Constitution, and always consistent in the position that the Federal Government had no right to interfere either for or against the institution, except to fulfill the duty in regard to the return of fugitive slaves imposed upon it by the Constitution. Democrats of the school in which I was educated believed, and believe now, that under the Constitution as it exists, every State has the exclusive control of the subject within its limits, and that, the Federal power can neither abolish it in a State nor prohibit it in a Territory. The contrary doctrine we regard as repugnant to the very theory of the Government and inimical to its peace and safety; and Democratic statesmen clearly foresaw and predicted that the ascendency of an anti-slavery party in the North and in the Government would provoke an aimed collision between the northern and southern States of the Union. The Democracy cared nothing for slavery. Its preservation or destruction was with them a subordinate consideration in comparison with the stability of the Government, the supremacy of the Constitution, and the integrity of the Union; and they accordingly exerted their utmost power to keep the irritating subject out of party politics, and thus to avoid the tumble catastrophe which its agitation has brought upon the country. As a party they did all they could to prevent the war in which we are nowengaged, and no portion of the responsibility for it rests upon the shoulders of the northern Democracy. They warmly supported the" Crittenden compromise," and were perfectly willing to give to the South any additional constitutional guarantees that might be requisite for the future security of their u peculiar institution."

For the sake of the Union the Democratic party of the North would have cheerfully acquiesced in amendments to the Constitution explicitly acknowledging the right of citizens of the slaveholding States to carry their slaves into the Territories and hold them there until the new States, upon their admission to the Union, should declare for themselves whether they would have the institution or not. Forthesakeof peace and the Union they would gladly have voted for the then proposed amendment providing that the Constitution should never be changed so as to destroy or weaken slavery in the States where it then existed. Had their views prevailed and governed the action of the Administration, all the blood that has been shed and all the money that has been expended, North and South, during the last four years, would have been saved, and the country would have gone on uninterruptedly in her marvelous career of prosperity and power. But the voice of Democratic wisdom was disregarded; men of extreme opinions controlled both sections, and a civil war ensued, of which the end is not yet—the South fighting for secession and consequently the perpetuation of slavery and the North for the Union, and incidentally for the abolition of slavery.

The Democratic party, while sustaining the Government, believed that the interests of the country, of humanity, and of the cause of liberty would be best consulted in a peace, in which both parties must give up something for the sake of agreement. They believed that there was no impassable gulf between the North and the South which should prevent them from coming together again under the same Government, and that the issue of slavery might be of the greatest importance in any negotiation which might be undertaken to restore peace and reestablish a perfect Union. They thought that both of the combatants, weary of the carnage and devastation that were desolating the land, and taught by dearlybought experience to respect the bravery and determination of each other, would gladly consent to a peace upon the basis of mutual concession— the South surrendering its project of a separate nationality and the North its hostility to the institution of negro slavery.

These were the views which prevailed in the Democratic party a year ago, and made it then practically a unit in opposition to the measure now before the House proposing the abolition of slavery by an amendment of the Constitution, in accordance with its own provisions. As a lifelong member of that time honored political organization, whose history is the history of the Government in its proudest days, and whose policy, carried out by along line of wise and patriotic statesmen, made this country what it was four years ago, I raised my voice and recorded my vote as a member of this House against the joint resolution now under consideration.

The tone of the public mind at that time seemed to me, as it no doubt seemed to all who agreed in opinion with me, to foreshadow a change of Administration and the accession to power of the Democratic party, which we believed would be able to check the red tide of war and induce the South to return to the Union, by showing a conciliatory spirit and giving it the fullest assurance that all its rights and privileges under the Constitution, as it exists, should be preset ved, and their continued enjoyment of them for the future guarantied by such constitutional changesas might be requisite to effect that object. The two parties into which the people were divided prepared for the presidential election with a distinctly understood issue. The party of the Administration incorporated this amendmentin the platform ofprinciples upon which they entered the canvass. The Opposition boldly declared for a cessation of hostilities and a national convention to redress all grievances, settle all difficulties, and makean honorable and lasting peace by a satisfactory compromise. It was well understood that the principal business of this contemplate! national convention, should it ever assemble, would be to put at rest, at once and forever, by the agency of amendments to the Constitution, the vexed question of slavery, which has disturbed the harmony of the country ever since us agitation was commenced, when Missouri applied for admission into the Union. There was therefore no conflict of opinion between the two parties as to the power to amend the Constitution in regard to the institution of slavery. Stripped of all side issues the main question presented to the people for their decision was whether slavery should be abolished and the seceded States coerced into allegiance to the Constitution, as it is now proposed to amend it, or whether the war should be speedily terminated and the eegis of the Constitution thrown around the social system of the South. The people by a large majority sustained the fir t proposition' and fully indorsed the policy of the Administration on the slavery issue, and I am now disposed to bow in submission to that popular decree.

I have no doubt, however, that if the popular verdict upon this momentous question had been different from what it was, we should now be in sight of the blessed haven of peace, for I am fully persuaded that the olive-branch held out in the election of the distinguished and patriotic citizen and soldier who was nominated at Chicago, and the indorsement by the northern people of the principles enunciated by the Democratic party, would have been hailed with joy by our fellowcountrymen of the South as the harbinger of an honorable and a lasting peace. The ablest men of the whole country would have come together in a spirit of mutual concession and compromise and resettled the foundations of the Government so firmly that the superstructure might defy the wind and the storm for ages yet unborn.

But this was not to be. The anti-slavery sentiment proved predominant. The candidates of the Democratic party for President and Vice President were defeated, and a Congress elected which is certain to adopt the resolution now underconsideration unless we anticipate then* action. The question is settled by a popular verdict, which I am not disposed to further resist. So far as the national Government is concerned, slavery is no longer a political issue. We cannot influence its fate, which now depends upon the action of the States in their individual capacity. And released from all party ties which formerly bound them to it, but which now belong to a past state of things, the Representatives of the Democratic party in this House are left free to act upon the question pending as in their estimation, individually, will best promote the restoration of the Union, and preserve our free Government. For my part, I shall vote for the resolution, because, under existing circumstances, I think its immediate adoption will in a great degree tend to secure those objects nearer than all others to every patriotic heart.

Now, and for the next two years at least, the Democratic, party is, and must be, powerless in the nation. It may embarrass, but it cannot change, the policy of the Administration. For good or for evil, the Administration now in power will wield the functions and control the destinies of the Government. Jt nai end the war and restore the Union. At all events its opponents cannot. Such being the case, I am unable to reconcile it to my ideas of duty to stand between it and the people. The Administration desires now to submit this amendment to the States, and, in my judgment, a Democrat may consent to this submission simply from a desire to allow its policy a fair opportunity with the people, while holding himself at perfect liberty to advocate or oppose the amendment in his own State as circumstances may seem to require. Sir, if this were an absolute enactment to abolish slavery by legislation, in defiance of the constitutional provision that the States shall have exclusive control of their local institutions, a widely differentquestion would ho presented from that which is involved in the measure now pending. As, however, it is but a preliminary measure to enable the people to practically reach and legally pass judgment upon an importantissue which has agitated the country ever since the formation of the Union, I am unable to discover any violation of the great principles of the political party with which 1 have been identified through all my past life, in recording my vote in favor of its passage. I am willing to accord to my constituents the privilege I enjoy, as their Representative, of personally passing upon this measure. Jt may be, sir, that the adoption of this resolution at this particular time, will be productive of beneficial results to the national cause, while it can certainly do no harm, since, in the event of its failure in this Congress, it is sure to be passed by our successors in these seats, who are already elected by the people, with a full understanding that they are to consummate this movement, and thus provide for the complete extermination of slavery in the Union. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask my Democratic colleagues upon this floor, of what possible advantage will the defeat of this measure be to our party at this time, in full view of the fact that our political opponents have the power to pass it immediately upon our adjournment in spite of us, and boldly proclaim their intention to do so at an extra session of the Thirty Ninth Congress, to be convened immediately after the 4th of March?

Looking at the subject as a party man, from a party point of view, as one who hopes soon to see the Democratic party again in power, this proposition seems to present a desirable opportunity for the Democracy to rid itself at once and forever of the incubus of slavery, and to banishits perplexing issues beyond the pale of party politics, no longer to distract our counsel and disturb the harmony of ourmovements. It has been our seeming adherence to slavery, in maintaining the principle of State rights, that has, year by year, depleted our party ranks until our once powerful organization has trailed its standard in the dust and sunk into a hopeless minority in nearly every State of the Union; and every year and every day we are growing weaker and weaker in popular favor, while our opponents are strengthening, because we will not venture to cut loose from the dead carcass of negro slavery. The institution of slavery was cruelly murdered in the house of its friends when they raised the standard of rebellion against the constitutional Government which had ever protected it from the popular disfavor that always attached to it in the North. When the Representatives of the slaveholding States, with base ingratitude, deserted the Democracy, which had always sustained their rights, and left their seats in Congress, while, with our cooperation, they had ample power to protect slavery even from such a measure as that now before the House, they not only gave a death stab to the institution, but forever absolved the Democratic party, which had always protected it, from any further obligations to breast the storm of popular sentiment which will continue to rage against it in all the northern States until its prohibition, as contemplated in the resolution now before the House, shall have been incorporated into the Constitution. It is plain enough to my mind that if the Democratic party would regain its supremacy in the Government of the nation it must now let slavery" slide."

Why, Mr. Speaker, when the chosen Representatives of the border States upon this door stand up and advocate this measure in the eloquent and persuasive tones which we have heard from the gentlemen from Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, who have spoken in this debate; why, I ask, should the Representatives of the Democracy of the free States any longer contend against an inevitable result, cs^- cialiy when no advantage from such contention is to accrue to either our party or the country? Two gentlemen from Missouri, a State whose people have voluntarily abolished slavery since this House adjourned last July, [Messrs. Rollins and King,] who, at the last session voted with me against this resolution, both of them being slaveholders, have spoken at this session in favor of it. They, who are far better qualified than I am to judge of the justice and piopricty of this measure, have become convinced by the events of last year that the best interests of the country will bo promoted by the passage of this resolution by the present Congress. I agree with them, Mr. Speaker, and I have become likewise convinced that the best good of the old Democratic party will be enhanced by its adoption. Upon the consummation of this measure a new organization of parties will be inevitable and the slavery question being forever disposed of, other issues connected with the future interests and policy of the Government will divide the people*, and it needs no prophet to foretell the speedy triumph of the true Democracy with the gieat principles inscribed upon its banner by Jefferson, Jackson, and other patriots and sages who have borne it aloft through the great political struggles of the past.

Suppose, Mr. Speaker, this House should fail to respond to the popular sentiment in passing this resolution, and the President should call an extra session of the next Congress, at which it should pass, as it undoubtedly will, so as to become an issue in our State elections next fall. In the light of past experience I would ask my friends on this side of the House if we could reasonably expect to successfully meet the prominent question that would be forced upon our party. All candidates for the Legislature would be confronted with this measure, and all our elections would necessarily be conducted with special reference to it. In the State of New York, if this negro question .should be put out of our politics by the adoption of this resolution in season for the Legislature now in session to pass upon it, the Democracy, I doubt not, will elect a majority of both Houses of the next Legislature and reclaim fall possession of the government of the Empire State upon the expiration of Governor Fenton s term. But if this question remains in issue I do not hesitate to express my opinion that outside of the cities of New York and Brooklyn scarcely a Senator or Assemblyman could be elected next November in the State. If my Democratic colleagues from the noble State of New York desire to see it redeemed from the Republican misrule which now prevails at Albany, I am confident that the most direct way of approaching that rcsultwill be found in the adoption of the resolution now before the House. Xt will dispose of the inevitable negro question and open an easy path to victoryand the triumph of our party, in the popular vindication of the great principles which underlie its foundation. The passage of this resolution by Congress, in season to be finally disposed of by the present Legislature at Albany, will be more disastrous to our opponents in the State of New York than was the capture of Fort Fisher to the rebels. It will explode their chief magazine and spiketheir heaviestordnance. The way will then be clear, and union and harmony being restored to our ranks, the political power of the State must inevitably come into our hands.

Then again, Mr. Speaker, m a national point of view, it is barely possible that the misguided people of the insurgent States, hopeless of establishing their independence, and nearly exhausted by the unequal struggle they have so long maintained, may be willing to return to theirallegiance, even under the present Administration, for the sake of preserving the remains of slavery that still exist. The adoption of this resolution will open a way for the restoration of the southern States without subjecting them to what they would doubtless consider the humiliation of making any terms with the present Administration in regard to their peculiar institution. After they shall have laid down their arms, Mr. Speaker, under a general amnesty, and again taken their places as equal and sovereign States in the Union, they could vote upon this amendment, and the other States would come to the consideration of the subject with far different and more friendly feelings than those which may actuate them now. Perhaps?, sir, in this way the South may, through the generosity of the loyal States, happy to welcome their 44 wayward sisters" back to the family of the Union, yet save slavery from the doom which certainly awaits it in any other contingency. I have, however, little hope of such a result. All indications go now to show that the rebel leaders, undaunted by the disasters and undeterred by the sufferings of the people whom they rule with despotic power, are stubbornly determined to fight on to the bitter end. They appear, since the presidential election, to have thrown aside all ideas of reconciliation which they may have before entertained I believe that a reconciliation could have been effected had that election resulted differently—and will now accept no alternative but recognition or subjugation. Making every other consideration subordinate to their hatred of the Union, and satisfied that slavery must die, they have no doubt resolved to sacrifice to that passion even the institution for the protection of which they first raised their parricidal hands against the Government. No rational man can doubt that they are now ready to abolish slavery by their own action, if that will secure their recognition abroad, or the intervention of foreign Powers in their behalf. And it is not at all impossible that if they gained the former the latter would soon follow. 1, forone, think there is imminent danger of such recognition and such intervention, because I feel convinced that the monarchies of Europe, and especially the Governments of France and England, regard it for their interest that a permanent separation between the North and the South shall take place, and a balance of power be established on this continent. The division of the United States into two distinct and unfriendly nations, both obliged to support large military and naval forces, weighed down with immense debts, and subject to all the burdens which depress the communities of Europe, would at once rob republicanism of many of the attractions with which our example has hitherto clothed it, protect the colonies of England on the north, and the nominally Mexican but really French empire on the south, from the" manifest destiny" with which the reintegration of the Union threatens them, and give to England and France, through the exclusive control of the cotton trade and the command of the transit routes in Mexico and Central America, the commercial supremacy of the world.

Fully satisfied that these consequences would flow from the success of the rebellion and the admission of the southern confederacy into the family of nations, I have always believed that France and England would never allow the restoration of the union of these States if it was possible for them to prevent it. Their interference was not to be feared when the rebellion was vigorous and defiant, but the danger increases in proportion as the rebellion shows signs of weakness and yielding. One great obstacle, Mr. Speaker, has always stood in the way of foreign intervention: the invincible hostility of the people of England and France to the institution of slavery. That obstacle the insurgent leaders are ready to remove, in order to claim the sympathies of the world as a people fighting only for the right of self government and abolishing slavery in order to secure their own liberty. We, in this country, know how utterly false such representations are. We know that they began the war for the protection of slavery, that they have carried on the war for four years for the preservation of slavery, and that they only consent now to abolish it because they know its abolition is inevitable. We know all these things, Mr. Speaker, but the people of France and England do not know them, and there is really great danger that the diplomacy of the rebels may excite a popular sentiment in those countries that will give their Governments the moral support without which they dare not venture to recognize the southern confederacy, or actively intervene in its behalf. I deem it of the utmost importance that our Government should checkmate these designs of the southern traitors. To enable it to do this, the adoption by us of the resolution now under consideration is indispensable. So it seems to me. By such action we will show the world that the South has abolished slavery only because it could not save it, and that we are not clinging to an effete institution after those whom it most concerns have given it up. We shall appear in our true light, as a resolute and patriotic people, contending for the life of the nation against traitors who rose in rebellion for the sake of slavery, and now seek to destroy the Government in revenge for the destruction of slavery. With the perfect apprehension of these facts which the adoption of this resolution will give to the people of foreign countries, 1 do not believe that their rulers will dare to lend either moral or material aid to our domestic foes; and this, Mr. Speaker, has been a consideration of great weight with me in arriving at a determination to vote for the resolution under consideration.

Such, Mr. Speaker, are the views and opinions, somewhat incongruous, I confess, which have brought me at last, after long deliberation, to a conclusion, the stronger in that it has not been lightly or carelessly formed. I feel it to be my duty now to vote for this resolution, and I shall do so whatever may be the consequences to me, politically or otherwise. I may incur the censure of some of my party friends on this floor, and perhaps displease some of my respected constituents; but to me the country of my birth and the Government under whose benign protection I have enjoyed all the blessings of liberty, and under which, restored to more than all its original splendor, and strengthened and purified by the trials through which it has passed, I expect my children and my children s children to enjoy the same blessings, long after my mortal frame shall have moldered into dust, is dearer to me than friends or party or political position. Firm 111 the consciousness of right, 1 know that posterity will do me justice, and feel that no descendant of mine will ever blush at the sight of the page on which my vote is recorded in favor of country, Government, liberty, and progress.

Mr. BROWN, of Wisconsin. It is not my intention to discuss the measure now pending before the House, but simply to give a resume of the reasons which must determine my own course. This, upon a matter of so great importance and involving differences of opinion so wide, is due both to myself and to my constituents.

The amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery can be made effective in the rebellious States only by arms. But the President has already by proclamation declared those slaves free, and asserted his intention to use our armies to enforce it. The President has four years in which to try this experiment, with the unlimited control of the resources of the nation during that period; the amendment could not hasten military operations or take from the power of his master a single slave. It is therefore, for the purpose of abolishing slavery, without practical effect unless the President should recede from his declared intention of enforcing his proclamation.

It is mischievous in so far as it would tie the hands of the President in so regulating the mode of abolishing slavery as not to precipitate upon the country three million ignorant and debased negroes, without the slightest preparation for liberty, or power on the part of Government, by a system of apprenticeship or otherwise, to require them to labor.

It removes all inducementon the part of southerners to resist in the last instance the proposition of Davis to free and arm the southern slaves and turn them against our northern armies and people.

With that proposition slavery is a weapon in our hands and for our benefit. The slaveholders, between the hostile action of the two opposing pauies, will be glad to save any portion of their rights; they will, when Davis undertakes to enforce his desperate policy, be only too willing to assent to an abolition as rapid as the interests either of the country at large or of the negroes themselves will permit.

It reserves no power, in case experience should demonstrate great evils in the intermixture of large masses of the black and white races, to guard by colonization against such evils.

It utterly ignores the greatest evil of slavery; extends through generations its effect in completely debasing the subject of it and making him unfit either to be a good citizen or a good man.

It violates that good faith which all civilized Governments have hitherto observed, by destroying valuable rights hitherto acknowledgedaspropeity, and yet refusing compensation.

England, in emancipating the slaves on her islands, not only established a system of apprenticeship, but compensated those who lost. It is no answer that slavery is immoral; individuals, upon the faith of laws which recognized rights in negro labor, have invested their property in such rights. When the Government sees fit to change its policy and destroy the rights, it owes compensation. Of course compensation is due only to loyal owners.

It is a dangerous abuse of the power of amendment conferred by the Constitution.

I agree with neither of the gentlemen who have argued the constitutional effect of such an amendment. I draw a distinction between the right to make such an amendment and thepower to make it. The right affects the consciences of those authorized to act, the power the consequences of the act when complete. In most of our States, by constitutional enactment, no person can twice be put in jeopardy for the same offense; the verdict of a jury, therefore, acquitting a criminal is not susceptible of a review; no matter how corrupt or how much in violation of law, it is final and conclusive. They have, therefore, power to disregard the instructions of the judge on points of law and acquit an acknowledged criminal, but they have no such right, and it would be a violation of conscience and of their highest duty. Amendments proposed by two thirds of Congress and ratified by three fourths of the (States become part of the Constitution. The power of determining what is or is not an amendment rests with Congress and three fourths of the States; they, on their consciences and oaths, say that any provision is an amendment, and nowhere is there a power, except by revolution, which can hold that determination wrong. The Supreme Court cannot, because the very existence of that court is, beyond question, within the power of amendment. Congress and the three fourths of the States are therefore the final judges as well of what is an amendment, or the removal of a defect, as of the propriety of making it a part of the Constitution. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cox] is therefore right in saying that thepoioer of amendment extends even to creating a king. But this is only because our decision, supported by three fourths of the States, is final, and if we are false to our oaths there is no review. But I hold that if, upon a desert island where there is no civil government, one man kills another, he is not the less a muidcrer because there is no power to punish. And in our case, the fact that we are toact as judges as well as legislators only increases the responsibility of observing strictly the spirit and object of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of the United States, in sustaining the validity of the United States Bank, put their decision on the ground that the decision of Congress in declaring it necessary as a fiscal agent of Government could not be reviewed. It was true, as a part of the current history of the period, that its fiscal agency had little influence upon its creation, and that its general financial power and the regulation of exchanges were the chief objects it accomplished; but Congress decided otherwise, and an institution at war with the real spirit of our Government was preserved. Our present banking law, if (as I do not believe) it should finally be sustained by the highest tribunals, must be sustained on the ground of the decision of Congress that it was the fiscal agent of Government, or necessary as a part of its financial system, although the majority of us, and doubtless the courts themselves, believe that it was a scheme to enable overgrown moneyed capitalists to increase their gains from the necessities of the country, and to escape from their share of State taxation, (necessary to sustain the war,) and throw the whole burden upon the poorer classes, real estate owners, laboring and business men. It is therefore as judges that we are to say that the proposition before the House is an amendment within the spirit of the. Constitution. An amendment implies the removal of a defect or an improvement upon the Constitution; it is necessarily consistent with and not destructive of the Constitution in its true spirit. It is to the fabric of government very nearly what 4< repair" is to a building. There is probably no lawyer in this House who has not been employed in cases involving the distinction between a new erection and repairs. It is almost impossible to give any general definition by which, in every case, the distinction between the two can be determined; but almost every one in ordinary cases can feel that distinction. The power given 13 to amend, and an amendment must be consistent with the fabric, improving portions of it. Here again 1 must illustrate, by reference to ordinary life, another distinction.