January 6, 1865

American rebels and their Canadian confederates have for months past been arming and preparing for armed invasion of our northern border, have lately crossed that border, seized American vessels 011 the lakes, invaded our soil and robbed and murdered our citizens.

President Monroe, m his seventh annual message to Congress, in speaking of the Governments on this and the European continent, uses this emphatic language:

"In the wars of the Euiopcr n Power®, in matter? relating to th< msclvf!.., we h ive never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our nglUs are invaded ot -orioiHy menaced that we resent iiijiincs m make preparation lbi our defense. With the movements m tlu^ hein pheie we are of necessity more intimately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to aii enlightened and impartial d obM ivem The political s yctem ol the allied Povvei-. iv essentially different in this i e pect from that of America. Tins difference proceed* liom that v\ hich exists "i their le vctive Governments. And to the df ten e ot our own, which has been achieved b> the of t-o much blood and tieaMire, and matured by the vvit dom of their mo t enhjrnienecl citizens, and under which we have enjoy d unexampled iekcity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, iheretore, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those Powers, to declare tiiat we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety."

This enunciation, made more than forty years ago, with the general concurrence of our people, and acquiesced in by the world for that length of time, has become the settled, firm, fixed policy of this Government. When made it was regarded as eminently wise and proper, and forty years of experience has but strengthened and confirmed the views thus entertained. While we have diligently maintained a strict neutrality in all the affairs of Europe, abstaining from" entangling alliances," we have ever regarded it our duty to vindicate on this continent a similar neutrality on the part of the Governments of Europe. So long as the United States lived together in peace, devoted to the noble work of building up a great Republic, we feared no insidious foreign intervention, and dreaded no danger. But on the first outbreak of hostilities Europe thought her hour had come, when our trouble^ at home would place it out of our power to vindicate our policy and our dignity.

Napoleon III, seized with the Quixotic idea that it was his mission on earth to be the chosen protector of the Latin races, with all their bigotry and superstition, and to extend them wheresoever the French eagle would enable him to accomplish his desires, introduced French intrigue, French diplomacy, French arms into the neighboring republic of Mexico for the purpose of subverting her Government, destroying the rights of her people, and inaugurating on this continent a political systemantagonisticto ourown, and which should sooner or later threaten to destroy our peace or endanger our safety.

He has partially succeeded in his designs, and we are now witnessing (with varied success) the efforts of a free people engaged in the heroic attemptof saving themselves and theircountry frorti subjugation by an "imported emperor," sustained and assisted by the power of the French army and navy.

But for our domestic troubles these audacious efforts to crush a sister republic, and to build up monarchical institutions upon her ruins, would never have been undertaken, and m the first glimmering of success to our arms the minds of our people are instinctively turned to Mexico, with a firm resolve that we cannot now or at any time hereafter consent to any" attempt on the part" of Europe" to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere," and among the first of our duties growing out of this rebellion will be to declare, and to enforce the declaration, that Maximilian is but a temporary emperor, and that the people of Mexico are entitled to and shall have republican institutions, and if need be she shall have these institutions, with the consent of her people, under the folds of our flag and under the protection of our Constitution.

Looking at these multiplied and increasing instances of foreign intervention in our affairs, we may well ask the question, can indignity and outrage go any further? And shall there not be a day of reckoning? Shall we longer submit to these humiliations and indignities without a murmur or word of complaint? God forbid! A man who does not vindicate his own self respect is unworthy the respect of his associates; and precisely so with a nation.' The primal duty of a nation is to vindicate its dignity and to suffer no wrong at the hands of any of its neighbors; for "nature has established a perfect equality of rights among independent nations, and none can naturally lay any chum to superior prerogative."

Will it be said that in the midst of our present troubles we are too weak to assert our rights, or too effeminate to maintain them? Sir let me say to this House that wc are not strong enough much longer to refuse a vindication of our national honor. We cannot afford to exist (if we were craven enough to desire it) by the sympathy or forbearance of any other Power, and i trust we shall never be prepared, whatever fate may have in reserve for us, to solicit the protection of any other Government. While we exist as n nation letus maintain our national lights and defend our national dignity* and if in so noble a struggle we must fail; if in the exercise of this God given right we must go down, let us at least secure for ourselves the memory of an honorable name, and leave to history an example worthy of imitation. But, sir, we shall not fail. Let us in all our transactions be just, and fear not. Let us faithfully discharge these and other duties as they arise, and it needs not the spirit of prophecy to foretell what, under the providence of God, is to be our nation s destiny.

There is light beyond—

And dove like peace with gentle wing descends j

See, as she comes, the hideous bird of death

Flaps his dark plumage, shrieking as he flies

From fields whereon he looked for future prey.

Brethren, united as in former days,

Consult together for the common weal

Chastened in spirit, more forbearing they,

Loving God better for their punishment—

Columbia s genius, smiling, looks abroad,

And cries, exultant, All, at last, is safe."

This war is shaking North and South, East and West, to their centers, and the influences that will be fully developed in years to come are to us now scarcely perceptible. Antiquated ideas are being laid aside, and mental vigor no longer pursues the ancient channels. Theories and principles which heretofore received our homage forno better reason than that they had received the homage of our fathers, are wasting away beneath the touch of new thought and a new experience. The sordid are becoming liberal, the selfish profuse, the brave heroic. Age is rejuvenated, and youthand manhood possess increased vitality and energy, while the "old fogy" has become an antique relic, and lives only in the unforgotten past. The immense demands of our struggle are bringing our people up to the requisite standard. They are proving themselves equal to the occasion and exemplifying their capacity in every sphere in which they are called to act. The nation is being born again, and from the fire and smoke of battle, from its death groans of agony, from the patient suffering in the hospital, from the victorious shout of the conqueror, from every avenue of industry, quickened into new life, the American Republic will emerge wiser, better, purer, and more powerful. We are called upon to carry up higher and higher the work of the fathers. We are to develop, to mature, to protect every energy, every sentiment, every aspiration in man s nature, to secure to him every natural light, to demonstrate to the world his capacity for civil, social, religious, mental and physical enjoyment. Our Government based upon these principles, and sustained for their preservation, is to be a guide for the nations, and to stand in every noble attribute toward them as the Alps stand toward their surrounding hills. With our immense population, its rapid augmentation, its peculiar characteristics, having in its veins the blood of all other nationalities—with our climates, soils, productions, mineral wealth, who is there to say to us Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther; and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?" We are planted on the North American continent, and the three oceans and theGulf can alone limit our territorial expansion. The lines which you riowseeon the map of North America as dividing one national possession e sponged from out by another our people, will disappear, and our they children will will see, if we do not live to see, the American flag floating over every foot of this continent, and the American Constitution protecting every human being on its soil.

Mr. SCOFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make some observations in reply to the very remarkable criticism pronounced by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks] on the anti-slavery portion of the President s message.

If the war should end now without a division of the Union, what would be the status of slavery? It has been abolished in Maryland by the new constitution; but it is said that the soldiers had no right to vote, and without their votes the constitution was not adopted. West Virginia has provided for gradual emancipation; but that State, it is alleged, has no legal existence, and therefore its action is null and void'. In the State of Virginia a new constitution prohibiting slavery has been adopted by the loyal people within the Union lines; but the constitutionality of this action has been much questioned, even by anti slavery men. Missouri has partially abolished slavery, and the convention, soon to assemble there, it is supposed, will dispose of what is left. In Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana, slavery has been prohibited by conventions representing the Union people of those States; but i t is said that theso conventions were irregularly called, and their action is therefore void. In Kentucky such slaves as enter the United States Army are freed by act of Congress; but it is alleged that the act is unconstitutional. Congress has abolished slavery in the District of Columbia, and prohibited it in all the Territories; but it is said the first act is void, without the assent of Maryland and Virginia, and the latter is in conflict with the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Dred Scott. In all the remainder of the States the slaves were liberated by the President s proclamation; but that, instrument, it is said, is too just to be legal. Under these several enactments, however, the slaves, without waiting to test their validity, are leaving their old masters, forming new associations, seeking education, earning new homes learning selfreliance, and thus erecting barriers to the revival of slavery stronger than legislation itself.

It is apparent from this statement that if the confederacy should suddenly collapse, liberating our Union fellow-citizens that are believed to exist in large numbers within its picket lines, we would still have the slavery question, out of which the whole trouble grew, to be settled and disposed of. It ought to be equally apparent to all observing persons that there is but one way to end the strife. Slavery in the end must die. It has cost the country too much suffering and too much patriotic blood, and is in theory an institution too monstrous, to be permitted to live. The only question is, shall it die now, by a constitutional amendment single stroke of the ax—or shall it linger in party warfare through a quarter or half a century of acrimonious debate, patchwork legislation, and conflicting adjudication? The people were consulted upon this question lastfall and they have responded in favor of emancipation. I respect their opinion, not because I am a politician, the motive hinted at in the message but because experience has taught me to rely upon the judgment of the unambitious classes. 1 am reminded that there was a large minority. True, but the suffering consequent upon this terrible war, and not love of slavery, made the minority so large. The people suffered from the draft, from taxation, and from a depreciated currency, and untruthful men told them that their own Government imposed these hardships, not from the necessities created by the rebellion, but from mere love of despotic cruelty. Consult your Democratic constituency and you will find they are not so much infatuated with slavery as many suppose. I think I would not misrepresent the largest portion of the Democrats in my own district if I say that however much they may have condemned anti-slavery agitation prior to the rebellion, they would now be glad to have the institution buried out of their sight forever. Two classes alone would object: those who are so poorly endowed as to be jealous of negro competition, and those who, being more happily born, apprehend that their pride and importance might in some way be compromised if the distance between themselves and any portion of the laboring classes were lessened.

The President, in obedience to the advice of the people and the dictates of his own kind heart and unimpassioned judgment, has recommended that we should submit this amendment to the action of the States. Why should it not be done?

Because, says the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Brooks,] we should not amend the Constitution in the midst of civil war. Why, then, did he, in the close of his speech, propose to amend it through the medium of a convention, so as to give slavery an increased representation in this House and a protraction of its mischievous life, and, further, to amend, in pursuit of some State sovereignty vagary so as to sink the Government of the United States into a mere agency for the collection of customs? Do not take the medicine now, says the tender nurse to the sick man, wait till you are well and able to bear it. If the gentleman will examine his own heart he will probably find that it is the character of the amendment that is offensive to him, and not its untimely presentation.

Again, says the gentleman, some of the States are not represented here. He seems to forget that Congress does not make amendments to the Constitution, but only proposes them. They must be accepted by three fourths of all the States in the Union before they become part of the fundamental law. If Congress cannot even propose amendments before the seceded States come in, how can the gentleman call his convention? for that must be done by Congress. If these States are not represented here the fault is theirs, not ours. Must all legislation be stayed until they choose to return? and if not, why this more than other important acts? If that rule should be adopted we would always be in the power of a few members who chose to place themselves beyond the reach of the Sergeant at Arms The gentleman trifles with the gravity of the question and the good sense of the House when he raises these objections, but still proposes to waive them in favor of a convention to consider his own amendments.

Why not tolerate slavery, continues the honorable gentleman, and thus make the slaveholders contented with the Union? What evidence is there that toleration would content them? They separated from the Union, and organized an independent government in February, 1861. When, prior to that, had the institution for whose prolonged cruelty the gentleman pleads so earnestly lacked toleration? I submit that it had always been tolerated; nay, more, it had always had its will and its way in this Republic trust I will not offend any member s sensibilities if I say its oppressive will and its unchristian way. Whatever was asked was granted. When it asked new markets to raise the price of men and women, and to create a demand for the surplus children of the institution, the request was granted. Louisiana and Florida Territories were purchased in part for this purpose. For this purpose Texas was smuggled into the Union, and a war unecessary for any other purpose secured the northern provinces of Mexico. When it demanded that white laborers should go further north, and surrender mild climated Missouri to slave labor, the surrender was made. When from motives of policy it demanded the passage of the Missouri compromise, it was passed. When it demanded its repeal it was repealed. It bade us vote down the Wilmotproviso, and we obeyed. It demanded that escaped bondmen should be caught and returned, free of cost, and we gave them the despotic law. Again it demanded exemption from the criticism to which all things else in a republic are exposed, and we granted the immunity. To this end we submitted to a censorship of the mails, and authorized the burning of all offensive papers and letters, in the vain hope to destroy eternal ideas. To this end it demanded silence in this House and in the Senate, and we adopted the "Atherton gag." To this end it demanded silence in the North, and every city raised its proslavery mob to demolish presses and murder editors and lecturers. The hand of slavery has ever been against everybody, giving the Republic no rest day nor night. All day long these Halls and the country resounded with its insolent demands. Now the West must be Africanized, now the East must be crushed, now Cuba must be stolen, and now Africa unbarred to the pirates, and it wolte us up at night with its fierce clamors for escaped negroes. No, sir, slavery rebelled not because it was not tolerated, but because it would not tolerate anything else; I may say because it could not afford to tolerate anything else. It would not tolerate the Declaration of Independence, because that instrument proclaimed the freedom and equality of the human race. It would not tolerate the literature of the English language, nor the Christianity of the American churches, nor the civilization of the nineteenth century, because their spirit was opposed to human bondage. It could not tolerate New England, because her education, her industry, her sobriety, her justice, and her unboasting courage was an implied censure upon slavery. And last of all, slavery refused to tolerate the great principle upon which this Republic is founded— upon which all republics must be founded; the will of the majority constitutionally expressed. It was not only intolerant, but belligerent. It could not be otherwise. I t recognized a natural though undeclared foe in every good cause, word, and work, and in its efforts to destroy these has destroyed itself. Conscious of its own inherent wrong it began its defense before it was assailed, and, like the glass fortress, it has fallen not by the assaults of its enemies, but by the concussion of its own guns. It is pierced by its own poisoned arrow.

So the struck eagle, stretched upon the plain,

No more through rolling clouds to soar again,

Viewed his own fuatheis on tlie fatal dart,

And winged the shaft that quivered in his heart."

We can hardly claim the honor of aiding even in its taking off. Like FalstafiT s victim, it was quite dead before we dared to strike. But tolerate it, cries the gentleman, and pacify the madmen of tlie South. If New York were afflicted 'with hydrophobia, the gentleman would advise his constituents to tolerate mad dogs. Do not muzzle them, he would tenderly exclaim, do not chain them do not kill them, but tolerate, conciliate, cherish them until this terrible disease disappears from the city. But if slavery is prohibited the country will become homogeneous, and, in his opinion, homogeneity is not desirable. Neither the ancient nor modern nations of Europe, he informs us, were homogeneous. They had many systems of worship, and many kinds of languages and races of men; but unfortunately for his argument, in another part of his speech, and for a different purpose, lie confesses that these same nations were afflicted with long and frequent civil wars originating in that lack of homogeneity which he so much commends. But if this diversity of character is as desirable as represented, certainly we have enough of it without trying to reinstate slavery. Religion is nowhere more free than in thiseountry. Every man selects his own altar. And as for races and languages, what quarter of the many tongued earth has not contributed to our population? No thanks, however, to the honorable gentleman for this. As the leader and organ editor of the American party, he could not tolerate these foreign born races, nor the adherents of the Catholic church, and becomes here now and asks us to be more intolerant even than that, lie asks us to proscribe a whole race, not only to the extent to which he proscribed foreign born races, but to go further and proscribe them from the human family and rank them with the brute creation. And he asks us to do this in the name of toleration." Strange that a man s mouth can run on thus."

It has been often said of late that history repeats itself. Of course it cannot be literally true; but tlie gentleman cites it, and then proceeds to search for the prototype of the terrible drama now being enacted on this continent, and affects to find it in the Revolutionof 1776. Having settled this point to his own satisfaction, he proceeds to assign to the living actors their historic parts. The rebels take the position of the colonial levolutionists, the Government of the United States reenacis the partof George III and his ministers, while for himself and the Opposition debaters of this House he selects the honorable ole of Chatham, Fox, Burke, and other champions of colonial rights in the British Parliament. Let us examine this, it is true that the colonists rebelled against the Government of Great Britain, and the slaveholders rebelled against the Government of the United States; but here the likeness ends. Between the circumstances that might provoke or justify rebellion in the two cases there is no resemblance. The Government from which the colonies separated was three thousand miles beyond the seas. They could not even communicate with it in those days in less than two or three months. In that Government they had no representation, and their wants anci wishes no authoritative voice. Nor was it the form of government most acceptable to the colonists. They preferred arepubhe. The rapidly increasing population and the geographical extent and position of the colonies demanded nationality. Sooner or later it must come. The tea tax and other trifling grievances only hurried on an event that was sure to occur from the influences of geography and population alone. How is it inthe e respects with the present rebellion? The Government against which the slaveholders rebelled was not a foreign one; it was as much theirs as ours. They were fully represented in it. There was scarcely a law, indeed I think there was not a single law, upon the statute book to which they had not given their assent. It was the Government they helped to make, and it was made as they wanted it. They had ever had their share of control and patronage in it, and more than their share, for they boasted with much truth that cotton was king. Nor is there any geographical reasons in their favor. It is conceded even by the rebels themselves that a division of the territory lying compactly between the Lakes and Gulf, tlie Atlantic and the Mississippi, into two nations would be a great misfortune to both. If it were the Pacific States demanding separation, bad as that would be, there would be some sense in it; but for this territory you canot even find a dividing line. When you attempt to run one the rivers and mountains cross your purpose. Both the land and the water oppose division. There is no disunion outside the wicked hearts of these disloyal men. I can see no resemblance, then, between our patriot fathers, who toiled through a seven years' war to establish this beneficent Government and the traitors who drench theland in blood in an attempt trust in God a vain one— to destroy it.

Again, sir, in what respect do the apologists of the present rebellion in this House resemble the advocates of our great Revolution in the British Parliament? Conceding they are their equals in statesmanship leanfmg eloquence and wit, I submit that they fall far below them m the merit of their respective causes. Chatham defended the cause of the colonists as set forth in the Declaration of Independence" that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with cei tain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness —the honorable gentleman from New York pleads for slavery, the auction block, the coffle, the lash. With slavery he cures all national troubles. He begs for harmony among ourselves. How shall we be united?" Restore slavery, "says he. He is opposed to war. IIow then shall rebels in arms be subdued? "Revive tlie traffic in blood." He is opposed to taxes. How then shall our exhausted Treasury be replenished?" Raise more children for the market." Slavery more slavery, still more slavery, is the only jre ciiption of the Opposition doctors. lfwc are to look for the representatives of these great men on this side of the Atlantic I would not select them from among those who, born and raised in the free States, with all their moral and educational advantages, had not yet quite virtue enough when the struggle came to he patriots, nor quite courage enough to be rebels, but 1 would rather select them from such men as Johnson, of Tennessee, or Davis, of Maryland, who, born and educated amid the intluences of slavery, still stood up for the Union cause at first almost alone. But, sir, the representatives of these men are to be found now as they were then oil the other side of the Atlantic, the leaders of the Liberal party in the British Parliament.

Tilde is another party that figures largely in the history of the revolutionary struggle that the gentleman entirely omitted to name. He gave them no place in his cast of parts. The omission may be attributed to either modesty or forgetfulness. Prior to the Revolution the members of this party had filled all the places of honor and profit in the colonies, and when the war came they heat tily espoused the cause of the king, though they did not generally join his armies. Their principal business was to magnify disaster deprecate success, denounce the currency, complain of the taxes, and denounce and dodge arbitrary arrests. To the patriot cause they were ever piopliets of evil. Failure was their word. The past was a failure, the future would be. In the beginning of the war this party was in the majority in some of the colonies, and constituted a large minority in all, but as the war progressed their numbers constantly diminished. Pvlany of the leaders were from time to time sent beyond the" lines" and theirestates confiscated. Most of these settled ill New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, right handy to the place where the gentleman informs us he was born. This party was called Tory, and if this war is but a repetition of the war of the Revolution, as the gentleman intimates, where are their present representatives?

Again exclaims the gentleman," You cannot subjugate eight million people." I know not* which most to condemn in this expression, (I speak it of course without personal application,) its insinuation of falsehood or its confession of cowardice. The United States does not propose to subjugate any portion of its people but only to exact obedience to law from all. It is this misrepresentation of the purpose of the Government that still keeps alive the dying flames of the rebellion. I can go further with perfect truth, and say it was this misrepresentation that lighted those flames at the first. The slaveholders were told that it was the purpose of this Administration to destroy their personal and political rights; next they were reminded that they were proud, brave, chivalric men, and then tauntingly asked if they were going to submit. They were thus fairly coaxed and goaded into rebellion. Except for this misrepresentation the Union people would have been in a large majority in all the slave States, and despite it they are in a majority in more than half of them to day if they could ba heard. But they are gagged, bound hand and foot by a despotism so cruel and so mean, so thorough and so efficient, that even the gentleman from New York has no fault to find with it. The country is too much engaged now with the immediate actors in the drama to look behind the screens for the authorsand prompters of the play. But when tlieseactors have disappeared from thestage gone down to graves never to be honored, or wandering among strangers never to be loved; in the peaceful future, when inquisition shall be made for the contrivers, instigators, aiders, and abettors of this great crime, the two classes so often coupled in denunciation in this Hall, the abolitionists of the North and the fire eaters of the South, will be scarcely noticed, but the quiet historian will" point his slow, unmoving finger" at those northern leaders who for fifteen years have deceived the South and betrayed theNoith. They will stand alone. The large minority that now gathers around them, moved thereto more in hopes to escape the severe hardships of the war than from any love of them or their position, will have melted away from their support like dissolving ice beneath their feet, and well will it be for their posterity if they can manage then, like Byron s wrecks, to sink into the Depths with bubbling groan, Without a grave, unknelled, uncothned, ami unknown 11 Subjugate the South! No, sir; it is the purpose lis it is the duty of the Government to liberate the South, to drive out the usurpers, and to restore to the deluded and betrayed masses the blessings of a fiee Republic.

But the gentleman not only misrepresents the purpose of the Government to inflame the insurgents, but also misrepresents the extent of the rebellion to discourage the people in their efforts to subdue it. Where does he find his ei ht million hostile people? Allowing for West Virginia and East Tennessee, the whole white population of the eleven States that pretended lo secede does not much exceed one half that number. A large portion of these, are now within the Union lines, professing no more hostility to the Government than the gentleman himself. Of those that remain under the power of the usurper a considerable number in some localities more than half, do not desire a separate Government, but would gladly accept the protection and pi ivileges of the Uniti d States if sure that they were beyond the reach of their present oppressors. Where then, 1 ask again, does the gentleman find his eight million people? Does he mean to include the colored population of those States? I suppose not; they are to be tolerated only as brutes. He would not of course include them under the head of people. 1 do not suppose lie intended to include any portion of his own party. I have a right to conclude, then, that this number was only a slashing estimate to make out a bad case. With half the white and all the black population m these seceded States, it would be very strange if the Government were not strong enough to compel submission from the rest. The gentleman himself gives some little encouragement. The little State of Maine (in which he tells us just in this connection he was born) is a match for England, France, and Russia, and he finally adds for all Europe combined.

Now, sir, if this little State which had only the honor of rocking his cradle, that claimed him only in long frocks and petticoats, could withstand all Europe single handed is it notreasonable to suppose that, combined with the State of his adoption, the great State of New York, that possesses him in all the glory of pantalooned manhood, it could flog the woildand the i( restof mankind," in which I suppose the rebels would be included? Maine can be relied upon for the contest, so can New York, since no perfidious hand now holds the helm, and the gentleman himselfgives some hope that he may be goaded into the support of his struggling, suffering country. There is a point, he tells us, beyond which his forbearance will not go. It was not reached when the rebels seized our forts, navy yards arsenals, ships of war mint, and custom houses mails and post offices. It was not reached when they fired upon Sumter. It was not reached when they raised an army, hoisted a traitor flag, and laid siege to the capital. It was not reached when they put pirates on the ocean to seize, rob, and burn the peaceful merchant vessels from his own city. It was not reached when they raised the black flag and shot down our patriot soldiers after surrender and then burned the hospitals over the heads of the sick and wounded. It was not reached when they muidered women and children and unarmed men, and burned the villages on the border without military motive. It was not reached when by the slow torture of hunger and cold they murdered by the thousand our dear brave boys, prisoners of war in their hands. But he has an ultimatum notwithstanding. He announces it from his place in this Hall, and boldly flings it in the teeth of the rebels, and has the courage to hope that they may hear him. They must not go too far nor presume too much upon his forbearance. He will not stand everything. The insults and crimes 1 have named he can endure, forgive, forget; but if they dare to inspect his baggage as he travels South, he" will not submit; never, never," he repeats. "Will you fight them?" inquires the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. Wilson.] Mark now the pluck of his answer. 14 When the day and hour come 1 will be ready to mark out the course I will pursue." Cambronne alone can answer that, h is fortunate for the rebels that the honorable gentleman has not yet learned that the privilege so highly prized has been denied him for three years anci a half.

Again, centralization, the absorption of all local and municipal authority by the Federal Government, is another lion in the way of emancipation. What possible connection is there between centralization and emancipation? Why should one follow the other? Emancipation has been going on quite rapidly for two or three years; has the gentleman s city lost any of its municipal rights in consequence? Is it not still ruled by the" Five Points" majority, with nothing to fear but its own mobs? Does it not still elect corrupt men for judges, and thieves to the councils? Let the gentleman look at home with his fears. It is his own city that is centralizing, centralizing all the disloyalty and depravity of the North, and here he should begin his labors.

Mr. BROOKS. I can stand any amount of personal abuse toward myself, and fail to reply to it; but when he speaks thus of the city which I in part represent, I am bound to say that an effort was made by the Federal Government dui ing the pendency of the late presidential election to°control the city of New York by sending there a bold robber, in the person of a major general of the United States. Robber as lie was of the public Treasury, and major general of the United States as he was, he dared not exercise the power given to him to attempt to control the actions of those whom the gentleman calls thieves and robbers in ray own city. Thieves and robbers!——

Mr. SCOFIELD. Mr, Speaker, I decline to yield to a speech from thegentleman, because he has had his time. [Cries of" Ah! Ah!" from the Democratic side of the House. Counter cries of "Let him go on!" from the Republican side of the House.] If the gentleman has any question to put to me 1 will hear him.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I stand any amount of personal attack on myself, but when my own constituents are called thieves and robbers, and when thieves and robbers are said to govern the metropolis of this country, I put it to the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania if, after making such imputations, it is propriety, it is decency, to refuse to give me here an opportunity, in the midst of a speech like that, to defend the million of people whom I represent from that imputation against them as thieves and robbers.

Mr. SCOFIELD. Mr. Speaker, the only assault that I made on the city of New York was merely to repeat the allegations of its own papers.

Mr. WARD. Will the gentleman yield tome for a moment?

Mr. SCOFIELD. If the gentleman desires merely to ask me a question I will yield to him; but if he wishes to makea speechl must decline.

Mr. WARD. The attack was most infamous and outrageous.

Mr. SCOFIELD. If I have made any attack upon the constituents of the gentleman, [Mr. Brooks,] I have learned what I am stating from the gentleman s own paper, which has denounced again and again the election of certain persons to the councils of New York, and branded them as thieves.

I was going on to say, sir, that slavery has always been a centralizing power in this country. Of Ifte years the Government itself has been subsidiary to it. It is said that a railroad corporation in New York, with a capital of only a few million dollars, controls the State. It selects its agents in all the counties, and works unseen for their promotion. If in this way it fails to secure a majority, the deficiency is made up by appliances to the wants and weaknesses of its opponents.

Mr. PRUYN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? [Laughter.]

Mr. SCOFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I am very nearly through; and I would be glad if the gentleman would let me conclude.

The SPEAKER, Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield, or decline to yield, to the gentleman from New York?

Mr. SCOFIELD. If it be only for a question, I shall yield.

Mr. PRUYN. I should like to know to what corporation the gentleman refers.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I refer the gentleman to the New York Express. [Laughter.]

Mr. PRUYN. That is not a regular corporation.

Air. SCOFIELD. I only alluded to the railroad for the sake of illustration. Slavery had a capital of at least 2 000 000 000 as much under the control of a few men as if it were a corporation with a president and directors. It was this investment, thus centralized, that has been so appropriately arid expressively, but to some people very offensively, called the "slave power.'* Its control over the finances, trade, and politics of the country was almost supreme. It controlled the slave States by community of interest; by this agency it then selected the President of the United States, and through his patronage controlled the free States. Jtmay be said without exaggeration that it owned the South, used the Government, and hired the North. Emancipation will rid the country of this centralizing power, and if the gentleman is really opposed to centralization he ought to vote for it.

The gentleman closes his remarks with an appeal to the friends of the Administration to stop the war but save the Union. If our armies are withdrawn from the territory claimed by the rebel leaders the war will be stopped undoubtedly, but the Union will be divided. South of the Ohio and Potomac there will be another Government, practically recognized by us and formally acknowledged by all other nations. But on the other hand, ifthe rebels can be induced to disband theirarmies the war will cease and the Union be preserved. Now, sir, in imitation of the honorable gentleman, I will close my remarks with an appeal to him and his political associates to aid in the accomplishment of this latter result. Do you inquire what you can do? Go and proclaim to the deluded supporters of Jefferson Davis two simple truths. First, that the United States does not now and never did seek their subjugation, but only their submission to law. Tell them that the first election of Mr. Lincoln did not involve any interference with slavery in the States where it then existed, and that subsequent emancipation originated not in the virtue of the Government but in the necessities created by their own misconduct. If slavery was their motive for separation, the removal of that motive by the removal of slavery was our necessity. Whatever has been constitutionally done in that direction by congressional, State, or executive action must remain unless it ia undone by authority equally constitutional. That they must submit to the Constitution in all its parts, including that which authorizes its own amendment. Second, tell them that while the United States asks nothing more from them than submission to law, it will accept of nothing less; and above all, it will not consent to its own dismemberment and the creation of two Governments between the Gulf and the Lakes. Tell them that the people have the will and the power to sustain this purpose of the Government. Though they are accustomed to spend their money with economy and do not wantonly shed their blood, they have made up their minds, from high convictions of duty, to bear with patience whatever loss and sufferings the execution of this purpose may entail. Tell them that while the Government and people are thus determined, they are not vindictive. They do not raise the black flag, but constantly tender to the deluded masses pardon anil protection. Go tell these two facts to the insurgent people, hitherto misinformed and misled by your untruthful allegations, and you will see them begin to drop away from their reckless leaders, and with the blossoms of the coming spring will come the sweeter blessings of peace.

Mr. CHANLER. I do not presume, Mr. Speaker, to reply at this time to the remarks of the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvnma in the fullness of his argument. So far as he adhered to the legitimate subject of the debate, I listened to him with pleasure; and I may say that it was one of the few occasions in debate on this floor when the subject under discussion has been handled ably and wittily. But when the gentleman left the legitimate subject of debate to enter into a low slander of my constituents, and finds an excuse for that slander in some words uttered by my colleague, [Mr. Brooks,] I do not know whether to condemn most the cowardice of the act or the meannesss of the insinuation. The taking refuge from the consequences of his own slanderous charge behind some words uttered by a Representative of New Yoik, is indeed a depth of human cringing which is lamentable to witness, and shows that the slander uttered by himself is a burden too heavy forhim to bear.

Sir, the people of the city of New York require no defense at my hands at any time, and still less from the attack of the gentleman, [Mr. Scofield.] That gentleman is himself a son of the State of New York, and comes here by the suffiages of those among whom, as a wanderer, he was forced to seek a home. It is, indeed, a poor resource for him to attempt to strengthen his aigumenton national questions by stabbing his native State and defaming his fellow-citizens. What is the constituency of the city of New York compared with any other in this country, that it should be singled out for attack? Is the Golconda of America so poor that she can find no fi lends here? The treasures that have been poured from her vaults, earned by the enterprise of her cittzens, and the arms of her citizen soldiery and well organized system of police which protect that treasure, her volunteei s in your armies, and her sailors in your navies, some of whom come from the dregs of the people, if you please, and live many of them 111 Five Points perhaps, but who bear your banners to victory; these form the nucleus of a power equal to the famous maritime republics of old, and which in modern times is looked on with pride as the emblem of the success of our institutions, as the unanswerable proof of the strength of the American Government, and above all of the capacity of the American people to rule themselves. And nowhere else on this continent ia found so noble an example of self government nowhere else is there a city of interests so various, of proportions so vast, and of population so dense, consisting of every language, nation, and race; nowhere else is self government so essential, and nowhere else was it more nobly won and more firmly maintained.

Sir, I do not undertake the advocacy of New York; she needs no voice to proclaim her glory, h r greatness, and her goodness. I do not wish to assail the motives of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I leave it to my colleague, [Mr. Brooks,] whom he has personally assailed, to answer him on these points of defamation which he, a son of the State of New York, has been willing to heap upon his native State.

If the gentleman wishes to find an instance of toleration, which he so ably advocates in behalf of the slave, extended to all mankind, he will find it in the crowded population of the city of New York. All creeds meet there in harmony. No collision between numerous and opposing sects mars the sacred Sabbath day when all go up to worship. The marts of business, crowded with all the evidences of thrift and industry, witness no disturbance from those who he declares rule us. And on election day, year after year, I defy any testimony to show that the power which rules the city of New York deserves any but the highest congratulation, the noblest and most earnest praise from every man who appreciates the lesson of self government taught by a crowded and tumultuous city.

And the allusion made by my colleague, [Mr. Brooks,] in regard to the most uncalled for interference by the Federal Government at the time of the last general election, is in itself a proof that no such class as the gentleman alluded to holds dominion there. Insulted by a fleet of the United States riding in her harbors, ready to send its soldiery to trample down our rights and interfere with our franchises, even that was borne patiently and calmly by our people, confident that they were capable of self government and believing— and I had hoped that they had a trust which would be realized—that the Representatives of the people of the United States at large in Congress assembled would appreciate their noble forbearance and deprecate the outrage committed against them.

It is to the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Scofield] that we have to look for a response. No sympathy, but abuse and scorn are the first tokens that come from this House and this Administration; and, if we may judge from the spirit he has evinced, it is a deep seated feeling of hostility to the community which has dared for the sake of principle, in the face of the overwhelming power of this Government, steadfastly to oppose the encroachments of the ruling power here, while they generously gave their best blood and their means to carry on the war.

But I will yield to my colleague, [Mr. Brooks,] if he desires to answer this matter further. 1 leave this subject with him.

Mr. BLISS. Mr. Speaker-

Mr. CHANLER. 1 have not yielded the floor.

The SPEAKER. The Chair understood the gentleman to yield the floor.

Mr. CHANLER. I yielded the floor to my colleague, [Mr. Brooks,] at his request.

Mr. BROOKS. There is nothing which I more deprecate than these personalities of debate. I have ever endeavored, and shall ever endeavor, to avoid them. But the labored essay of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Scofield] imposes upon me the necessity of replying, if not for my own defense, which I should have been willing to leave to the House, at least to other parts of his essay, which seem to call for some immediate notice on my part.

The honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Scofield] closes his essay, with an appeal to me, in reply to my appeal to the President," Go yourself to the South, and assure that South that they are not to be subjugated by the people of the North; that such is not the intention of the people of the United States Now I will ask the honorable gentleman how it is possible for me to go to the South. I will say to him that if to morrow he could afford me an opportunity to go to the South with theassentof the President of the United States, there is nothing that would so much delight and gladden my heart as to go, there, ami to repeat to them what I think would be useful to induce the people of the South again to come back into this Union.

I would preach to them the utter hopelessness of their contest; I would preach to them that if they desired or intended any of that sort of independence which would close to us the rivers and harbors of the South and make them to us as a foreign nation, it never, never would be submitted to by the people of the North. I would try, in the message 1 might carry them from the President or authorities of the United States, directly or indirectly, to assure them that even large portions of the Republican party, in my judgment, would be glad to receive them back into this Union upon the basis of State rights and self government under the Constitution, recognizing only the supreme authority of that instrument, and even without the abolition of slavery.

I think that if the South and North can again be brought to reason together and hear men of opposite and conflicting opinions, this Union might be restored without a further contest of arms or the shedding of more blood. I do not believe that that party which had only about four hundred thousand majority the last election in a poll of about four million votes has not patriotic men enough in it to join with us in declaring that the South may come back into this Union again, and come back as they left it, if they will come back, in obedience to the Constitution of the United States, their Constitution as well asours and if possible, more the handiwork of their fathers than of ours.

But how am I logo South to carry the message of the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania? How am I to reach the southern people? "How am I to be heard beyond the Potomac at all? The laws of the land forbid any intercourse between the North and the South; the military authorities interpose an insuperable barrier. It isimpossible to pass the lines of our armies. Not only is this forbidden to myself and others of my own party, for fear we would preach peace, buteven members of the dominant party cannot undertake anything of thatkind without interference on the part of the authorities of the United States to prevent it. Two honorablegentlomen whose names are well known in the history of this country—names recognized as identified with the best days of the Jacksonian Democratic party—gentlemen who later were Fremont men and friends of Mr. Lincoln too, one of them late aCabinetofficer wentbuttheotherday apparently with an olive-branch in their hands, into the army of General Grant, by the permission, if not by the sanction, of the President of the United States; and, if the newspapers be correct in their reports, a telegram was sent by the Secretary of War forbidding their entrance into the rebel dominions, even with that olive-branch which they were supposed to bear in their hands. If, then, men high in the confidence of the Administration party are not permitted by the Secretary of War to go to the South and reason with the southern people, how can such an humble individual as I ever be expected to go and to remove any delusions there?

l do not believe that the great mass of the northern people desire the continuance of this war only for the abolition of slavery. Am I right, or am I wrong? Is the abolition of slavery the only object for which this war is hereafter to be prosecuted, or is now prosecuted? I do not believe it. I believe that large masses even of the Republican party would consent to receive back the southern States into this Union, with or without slavery, upon the single condition of their obedience to the Constitution of the United States. If I might be permitted to proclaim that fact in the southern country, and the southern people would hear me—if I might be permitted to proclaim it from the Potomac to the Rio Grande, with the sanction of the President of the United States, I have no doubt that the very promulgation of that fact would do more toward bringing about a cessation of hostilities upon the pui t of the rebels than any armies that we are likely to bring against them for twenty years to come.

But, sir, the honorable gentleman in the course of his essay stepped far out of his way to read New York a lecture for her sins, her iniquities, her crimes. The last of all places from which a lecture to New York should ever come is the State of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania rebuking New York! Satan rebuking sin! The records of Pennsylvania, in the lobby and out of the lobby, will bear no investigation here or elsewhere. And though New York State may not be a paradise, and though New York city is far from being a perfect city, yet the very stews of corruption and iniquity in the city of New York are virtue itself in comparison wit h the Legislature of Pennsylvania. [Laughter.]

Mr. A. MYERS. Mr. Speaker•

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from New York yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Myers?]

Mr. BROOKS, l want no interlude here.

Mr. A. MYERS. I only want to ask the gentleman a question.

Mr BROOKS I want no interlude here. I desire at the present time to deal only with the gentleman s colleague, [Mr. Scofield.]

Pennsylvania rebuking New York! The very proposition of itself is absurd and ridiculous! Why, whenever any of the mere Pennsylvania politicians go to New York the first place they visit, the cradle in which they are rocked, is the classic spotdescribed by the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania as the" Five Points" of the city of New York. [Laughter. J It is the great Mecca where Pennsylvania pilgrims go. It is the source of their inspirations, and too often of their action. And if the records of the New York police were searched they would in many instances exhibit a record by no means creditable to too many of Uiecitizensof Pennsylvania. Sir, New York is not without its sin, is not without its crime. But it is the refuge place of the whole country, and, first and foremost of them all, of that State contiguous to it—the honorable State of Pennsylvania.

Sir, I deprecate this species of discussion; but when my own State is denounced as subject to the New York Central railroad, and when it is asserted that thieves and robbers govern the million of people of the city of New York, there is no language sufficiently strong, sufficiently denunciator y to hurl back upon those who make such charges; and those who do it should have spotless characters, should come from a spotless State, and least of all from the State of Pennsylvania. There is not an enterprise of any kind or character in Pennsylvania which does not come to New York to be cradled and nursed up—coal, iron, c c That great interest which the honorable gentleman himself represents, the interestof petroleum, has its representation in the city of New York. If there be a farm for sale m the gentleman s district which may or may not have petroleum in it, and especially if it have not, it is bought by himself or some other for 1 000 and is then valued in New York at one or two millions, and represented as being worth more than the gold mines of Montana or California or Nevada.

But, Mr. Speaker, let that pass. Letit all pass. I will not enter intoany labored eulogium to vindicate New York from undeserved assaults. My colleague [Mr. Chanler] has set that all right. The empire city, sir, best speaks for itself. The spires of its hundreds of churches that point to heaven are not more numerous than its charities on earth. There is no place from the arctic to the antarctic where the poor and humble are so well taken care of as in the city of New York. There are no more noble and well directed charities in London, or Paris, or elsewhere, than are in thegreatcity of New York. A beggar need never walk its streets in suffering or affliction, for if he applies to the proper authorities there are even palaces to which he will be sent.

Then what has New York, calumniated New York, unpatriotic, copperhead New York, done in this war? What, sir, is its history? When the Administration has been most in need of money where has it gone but to the great city of New York? Where did it receive its first contributions? Where has been its last resource? Who are the largest shareholders in the public loans? Whose money has been poured forth so liberally as that of the great capitalists of the city of New York? In the earliest period of this war how were our troops put into the field but by the contributions of the city of New York? And when this Capitol was imperiled a regiment of that city, composed of the sons of the wealthiest citizens, men of wealth, often worth from one to two hundred thousand dollars, aa common sol- *diers in the seventh regiment, among them my own colleague from New York, [Mr. Chanler,] they left their homes, palaces I will say, generously came here and encamped upon the heights around about, to drive back the enemy that then threatened. There were not only such citizens of New York in that distinguished regiment, but the Irish born citizens, men from the stews and bagnios, of whom the gentleman so sneeringly spoke. Yes, sir, the Irish regiments of the city of New York, and the German regiments of New York, men who were here hardly long enough to comprehend the English language, in the ebullition of patriotism, as the trumpet call came from Washington, poured forth, regiment after regiment in thousands ofthousands of men, until the Secretary of War, Mr. Cameron, said to that metropolitan city," We have more regiments of soldiers than are necessary for the protection of the capital." Sir New York city has responded to every call of the President to arms; even that New York which cast nearly thirty eight thousand majority against his politics and his policy, and which would have increased that vote to fortytwo or forty three thousand if the short days of November had not excluded thousands of its honest voters from the polis.

Yet the honorable gentleman indulges in his imputations against the patriotism of the city of New York. Sir, if any honorable gentleman chooses ever to indulge in any such flings or sarcasms, last of all should outcry come from him, a Representative from Pennsylvania. Pending the invasion of the rebels before the battle of Antietam, when even Penns ylvanians could not be aroused to the defense of their own State, when her citizens fled back, when the legions of the enemy surrounded Washington and came down through the mountains of Pennsylvania, the soldiers of New York hastened from all parts, from their houses and homes, to help with the gallant men of the Army to drive back the enemy, liut for the gallant regiments from the city of New York, and from the State of New York, whose Governor [Seymour] the gentleman has so slanderously traduced to day who knows but that Lee would have engulfed the capital of Pennsylvania, and captured and sacked the city of Philadelphia itself? Least of all should lie speak against the noble State which saved Pennsylvania. The foot of the enemy, sir, has never trod upon 'the soil of New York. Itia a virgin soil, and during this whole war will continue to be a virgin sod. I cannot say the same of the State from which the honorable gentleman comes, whose soil has been degraded by the rebel army again and again; whose cities have been plundered and burned by the rebel army. Yet the honorable gentleman has here, this day, denounced as unpatriotic, as ignoble, as thieves and robbers, the gallant soldiers as well a.? the citizens of the Empire State, which I have the honor in part to represent.

Put let that pass also. I deprecate these personalities. 1 mourn the occasion that tempts me to enter into them, i wish the report of the debate could be suppressed and not entered upon the congressional records of the country. What I have said has been only in defense of my own city and State. I indulge in no unkind feelings toward Pennsylvania. Nay, I am sure the honorable gentleman only represents himself in his denunciation of New York, and when I speak, as I do speak, I speak only to him, and to no other Pennsylvaniun upon the floor.

Let that pass while 1 refer to another matter of history. The honorable gentleman, m the course of his essay, alleged that from the formation of the Government the South has domineered and controlled in the Halls of Congress and throughout the country.

Mr. SCOF1ELD. Will the gentleman allow me to correct him? I did not say the "South;** I referred all through the debate to the institution of slavery.

Mr. BROOKS. The institution of slavery represented by tile southern men upon the floor of this House—accept the words yet the institution never was here upon the floor of the House. They were the southern representatives of the institution.

Sir, that course of remark has been so often indulged in that 1 am inclined to believe the great: body of the members on that side of the House,! and those they represent, now believe that we northern born men, we Yankee men, have been controlled and domineered over by an oligarchy or an aristocracy of the South. It is not true; from beginning to end the declaration is not true, and it is an ignoble confession upon the part of those who make it. Northern men followers even of southern men; controlled and domineered over by them upon the floor of this House! We, an inferior race; they, a superior race of men, born to govern! Never, never; there is no such record in the history of our country.

The South has had one great advantage over the North here, and that is by its continuous representation upon the floor of this House. Under our northern miserable system of representation, every two or four years, after a man has been educated to a place in this body after he has come to know its rules, and understand his duties, after he has become trained and educated as a statesman, then at that hour the political wheel rolls him out, and a green man comes here to meet the Representatives of the South who have been here ten, twenty, thirty, and even forty years; men not born superior to us, but superior to us in their training and education, and always therefore exercising that power and authority over the House of Representatives and over Congress which superiority of training and education always have given, and ever will give, as well to northern as to southern men.

Whenever our northern men have been kept here as long as John Gluincy Adams was—and I name but one name ot a representative man for that side of the House; whenever such men have been kept in Congress or in public life, year after year they have had no superior m the South, and seldom if ever their equal either in this Hall or in the other House of Congress. But if green men are brought here every two years to act against the trained veterans of the South, the South will have larger influence and authority over this country than northern men and be given the offices as the best fitted men.

But even with all this disadvantage the statement is not Hue, for northern policy, northern measures, northern commerce, northern trade, banking, and money making have governed this country from the foundation of the Government. Ourtarilfs have been imposed upon the South for the protection of our manufactures and the development of our internal improvements. We have made money out of the South at will. We have been their commission merchants, their factors, their freighters, their manufacturers, and they have been but our overseers to use their negroes to work for our benefit. We have fattened by our political policy upon that labor; and we have built up our cities and our country by the use we have made of the South, and in that way we have governed the southern country. If their men have been longer m public life, and held more public places, it is the fault of our political system, but wherever a dollar was to be made, wherever a law was to be enacted for the benefit of commerce, of trade, or of manufactures, the North has almost always governed and the South has almost always obeyed. The North has made the money under the Government, if more than a fanproportion of southern men have administered that Government.

Nor has the South here in this House, and upon this floor, always had its way, even with its able men. I was here in the great struggle of 1850, when the ablest men of the South were upon the floor of the adjoining Hall exercising all their power to bring California into the Union as a slave State, and to extend slavery to the Pacific; and in that they failed. I recollect their arguments. 1 myself was engaged in a warm debate on that subject with Mr. Toombs, of Georgia; and in the course of the argument, when he was claiming that California should be open to the representatives and institutions of Georgia and South Carolina, as well as to those of New York, he asked me a question which i found it easier to evade than to answer. Did not, he asked, a regiment from New York city and a regiment from South Carolina, in the march from Vera Cruz to Mexico, at Chapultepec, I think he said, fight side by side and shoulder to shoulder to conquer the Mexicans; and when the victory was won and the treaty made and the common territory acquired for which these soldiers of New York and South Carolina had fought and the country had paid for in common, was it, he asked, just and right and equitable that the son of the South Carolina soldier, or that soldier himself, should be forbidden to emigrate, carrying his institutions with him, into California and the rest of the territory thus acquired, side by side w th the citizen of New York? I evaded the que non I must confess. I found it difficult to answer. I answered if to the best of my ability, although not altogether satisfactorily to myself.

I mention this incident, which was but one of the many incidents of that great and prolonged debate, during which the men of the North stood together, I think, for six months upon the floor of the House of Representatives, contending and with great success for the exclusion of slavery from California and from all the Pacific coast, and then the South was fully and ably represented here never moreablyrepresented than then. The North and I among the northern Representatives, stood up shoulder to shoulder, and successfully, too, for we excluded slavery from California by its admission as a free State. Slavery was forbidden by the compromise of 1850 to enter any of the territory which we acquired from Mexico on the Pacific coast.

How untrue is it, then, how anti historical ia the declaration, that upon the floor of the House of Representatives the South has always governed and always had the control.

Sir, when Florida was annexed to this Union, that annexation of which the honorable gentleman seems to complain, Florida, though a slaveholding State, was annexed more for the benefit of the shipping and commerce of the North than for the South. The Gulf of Mexico

Mr, HIGBY. I would like to ask the gentleman from New York a question.

Mr. BROOKS. 1 am occupied with the gentleman from Pennsylvania now.

Mr, HlGBY. My question is in relation to California, to which the gentleman has referred.

Mr. BROOKS. 1 must decline to yield.

Mr. HIGBY again addressed the Chair.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York declines to yield, and is entitled to proceed without interruption.

Mr. HIGBY. I do not like to hear any falsehoods stated about my own State.

Mr. BROOKS. Sir, when Louisiana wasadded to this Union, what was Louisiana? A slaveholding French State. Slavery was the binding law of that vast territory. The Louisiana of that day was not the little State upon the Gulf and on the Mississippi, but it was Arkansas, it was Missouri; it was all that vast territory which stretches from the Mississippi to the Pacific ocean; and yet in our contest with the South in the compromise of 1820, when that territory was divided, we left to the South only Arkansas and Missouri, while as free territory we have planted the flag of the North upon all that vast region which now comprises Territories and States too numerous to mention. Tell me not, then, that the South has governed the North. Tell me not that the North has ever been controlled by the South. It is not true. It is dishonorable to confess it and not less dishonorable to declare it on the floor of the House. The greatfreeStates ot Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, the free gift of slaveholding Virginia to the North, deny it. The North has always had its lights, here and elsewhere, whenever it has thought it worth the while to claim them.

The South was abolishing slavery when the abolition war commer ccd upon it thirty years ago, and in due time, by the operation of natural causes, slavery would have passed away from the face of the earth without any of this civil war. Civil war lias interposed and created a catastrophe, and, perhaps, hastened the abolition of slavery, butamid how much of bloodshed and carnage ami with what irrepaiable damage to all the fiee institutions of the North. Sir, we luiveabo ishcd the slavery of the South, but in so doing we have become the slaves, the thralls, the bondmen of the capitalist of the North. We are mortgaged to them lor life, ours and the coming generation, ourchildren and our children s children. Our farms are mortgaged, our labor is mortgaged. We are" held to service" for life to earn enough to pay the interest upon the principal of the great debt. The capitalists own us as much as capitalists in England own the people of England. For the emancipation of the negroes of the South we have enslaved the white people of the North to everlasting debt. And this is our destiny because we have attempted to hasten the order of time which God s providence would have at length brought about. Repeat not, then, to make an impression on the country, statements that are not true, not historical, not borne out by the record.

But, Mr. Speaker, if, as alleged, I have erred in an ardent desire for peace, if I am too credulous in the belief that there ought to be peace, or that the South would yield peace with a restoration of the Constitution and the Union, it is a credulity of which I am not ashamed, and for which the Prince of Peace will forgive me. It is a divine and Christian aspiration, now and hereafter, thus ever to hope for "peace on earth and good will toward men." And however I may be calumniated as a copperhead or a traitor, despite all these or harsher words that may be fulminated against mc, as Ion®; as I have life and power to speak, so long will I repeat the declaration of Scripture," Peace on earth and good will toward

Mr. BLISS obtained the floor.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Will the gentleman from Ohio yield for a motion to adjourn?

Mr. BLISS. I wilPyield the floor for that purpose.