January 9, 1865 (2)

Well, sir, having been freed by the party in power they will during all time be the friends of the party in power; and when their reconstruction policy comes to be carried out, and State after State is brought back by force, and not willingly, into the Union, how long, I ask you, will it be before this power will enable them to control the General Government and fix the destinies of this Union indefinitely? That may be a strong reason, Mr. Speaker, why they now urge this amendment, i have no doubt that that is their leading motive. And m the name ofGod, isit nota motive for me, and every man who loves the institutions of his country, for every man who wants to see thisagreat free Government, controlled by the white men during all time, to oppose it?

Sir, I am not indulging in a vain supposition when I make this statement. Facts prove that I am right. Already those who claim to be the leaders of the Republican party, who claim to be the guides of its opinions, those who have from the time that that party was incepted, organized and came into power, manipulated, controlled, and educated it to the stand points wherever they thought proper to carry it, have avowed this as their purpose. And they will continue to lead it to the attainment of their purposes and objects in the future.

1 do not know but <4ic gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ashley] contemplated such an end and such a purpose. I do not know that he is not one of the illumnali who are undertaking to educate this whole land in the belief in thedestiny of the negro, which is to place him not only upon an equality with the white man but above him in all respects. Sir, that is the policy of a distinguished gentleman from Missouri, i, (Gratz Brown,) who recently wrote a communication to the Democrat, published m St. Louis, in which this purpose is avowed. That gentleman, the "higher law" leader of that State, one of those who guide the public sentiment of the Umt< d States; one of that radical set, once so odious and now so powerful; and which has compelled the moderate and conservative men of the pat ty to come into their views; that gentleman has avowed this as his purpose. I read that communication not with surprise, but with horror. It was addressed to tUg State of Missouri and to the convention which is to assemble theie. He tells them thatthree things are necessary in order to secure that freedom to the negro which they propose to give. The first is a radical change in the judiciary of Missouri— the putting upon the bench a man who will support him in his view 4 of n gro rights; the second js that the elective fumchiso and freedom must go hand in hand, and the negro who is made free by the action of that convention is to be invested with the right of the elective franchise equally with the white man, and the right and power to hold office; and in the third place, for fear that this potent agency will not enable him to carry out his object of controlling that State, he goes, further and lays down the doctrine that every white man in the State of Missouri who opposes his policy, every one engaged in the rebellion, including not only those actually in rebellion but those who go under the name of rebel sympathizers, must be denied {he right of the elective franchise. This power which he wants to perpetuate in Missouri is to be accomplished by giving the elective franchise to the black man and taking it from the white man And the policy he recommends m .Missouri you propose to carry out in all the slave States in the Union. You intend that no ■State shall deny the freed negro the right of franchise. If it shall be done in any State you will «et aside its action by the Federal power. I -believe you intend to claim the right to prevent it by legislative enactment under that clause of this joint resolution which provides that Congress make the necessary laws to carry out the provisions of this amendment. Is not this your purpose? Will gentlemen deny it? This X aver to he the object of the leading few who control the following many of the party in power.

Mr. Speaker, there is another reason why I do not wish to see this radical revolution in our Government effected at this time and by this body. It is asserted that the next Congress will be able to do it; that two thirds of that body will be in favor Of this constitutional amendment. I admit that it appears to be so. However, may we not calculate that the same agencies which have been brought to bear and operate successfully upon those members who voted against this resolution last Congress to induce them to change their votes now, may be brought to bear with equal success upon the minds of those who are elected to the next Congress, before they shall take action on this subject, to induce them to change their views? Changes may be effected by that time, and therefore I do not want to hurry up this thing now.

Another reason; those who are so anxious now to make us reconsider our action and adopt their views have, by the resolution, referred this amendment to the Legislatures of the various States for ratification. They have, as they have power to do under the Constitution, selected the Legislatures of the several States as the bodies to ratify this amendment. Those Legislatures exist now, and were elected by the people of the various Stales without reference to this great question. It was not a question in the canvass when they were elected. The attention of the people of the various States has never been called to it, as it should be before its adoption. Therefore 1 want the question postponed until those Legislatures are changed and new ones elected upon this very issue. It becomes necessary to refer the question to the Legislatures, or to a convention of the various States. I prefer the latter, and desire that mucH bodies shall be cleaned after a full discussion of this question shall have been had in a canvass. These various considerations justify me m the vote I shall give again, the same vole I gave last session. I reiterate the views I uttered in extenio upon that occasion, and I believe m their solvency as assuredly as 1 believe in my own existence. My colleague said no man committed himself by his vote heie; and I nferied from that that my colleague did not consider himself committed to favor this amendment of the Constitution by voting to refer the question to the people, lie did jiot say whether he would favor the ratification of this amendment or not, but rather intimated that he would not notwithstanding lie would vote to refer the question to the States.

Sir, my colleague is mistaken in supposing that this resolution refers the question to the people of the various States. If it did 1 would not have the same objection to it that I have. If refers this question to the representatives of the people m the Legislatures of the vai ious States, not coming from the people after the people have expressed their views at all upon the question. That, 1 think, should have prevented my colleague from being influenced by the mistaken motives which have operated upon htm, and I trust that when lie comes to reflect that lie is not submitting this question to the people of the States, but to the Legislatureu of the States, packed, fixed, controlled, as many of them are, lie will reconsider his purpose to vote for it. Has my colleague reflected that it is not and cannot be referred to the Legislatures, conventions, or people of nine States at all, and anything like an attempt at a ratification of it by Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, or Texas, would be impossible? it would bo a farce to refer it to the people of Tennessee, Louisiana, and Arkansas j and my colleague knows well enough the condition of Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland, not to feel that those States are not capable of giving a subject like this that peaceful, uninfluenced, deliberate consideration which its importance demands and the Constitution contemplates.

My colleague says that he considers himself free to oppose the ratification of this amendment in Kentucky although he votes for this resolution. Now, I cannot regard the matter in that light. The whole argument of my colleague was addressed to the State of Kentucky to show why she ought to adopt this amendment. The whole scope of his argument was to prove that it is the duty of Kentucky to ratify this amendment; and how, v after having argued and reasoned with the State of Kentucky in favor of its ratification can he consider himself free, when he goes home, to oppose it?

Mr. YEAMAN. My colleague rightly apprehended my position in saying that a man might consistently and conscientiously vote for this resolution here and against the amendment m our State, but I afterward distinctly said that I did not put my vote upon that ground, but that I went boldly forward and justified the amendment.

Mr. MALLORY. I did not hear that saving clause. I heard the first part, and I thought it a position so badly taken that I determined to address myself to it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we are told in addition have had that argument presented to me by my consei vative Republican friends—that if we adopt thisamendmentnow slavery will be extinguished everywhere, and wiped out, and there will be no moi e disturbing or dividing elements, and all conservatives can act together against this radical party, and defeat the purposes by which they really seek to revolutionize this Government. TheU is one argument that has been addressed to me by Republicans why I should vote for this resolution, and it is an aigumentwhich has been addressed to me why I should take every step which the Republican party has taken since the commencement of this revolution, for we are in revolution now. But, sir, how mistaken in their views of human nature are those who expcctany such result as that! In revolutionary times like these, one step m revolutionary movement induces another, and every sut h step you sanction makes it harder to resist the next step. That is the natural law of revolutionary movements. It is tin; law of all movement. The more the movement of a body is accelerated, the more difficult is it to stop it; and besides, I consider this very measure the most radical that has been, or can be proposed—going farther in that direction than all the laws passed by Congress and all the usurpations practiced by the Executive since the party in power commenced to revolutionize the Government. It is not only a step toward the conversion of the Government from a federative to a consolidated one, but it will be the accomplishment of that purpose.

11 my colleague would see this matter in this, its true light, he would not invoke us to sustain this movement} and profess his willingness after that to aid us in our resistance to what he calls the destructive and radical policy of confiscation, and the plans of reconstruction proposed by the President and this House, but he would see in it (as J believe before God there is) more danger to our liberties and to republican form of government than in all the measures that this Congress has or can enact, and in all the usurpations of the present Executive.

No, sir; now is the time for effort to resist the radical party and save our form of government. I invoke my colleague to reconsider his resolution to support this amendment, and instead of promising to aid us in the future to pievent or cure radical and destructive legislation, to aid us now in defeating this measure, the mostiadical and destructive of all. Does not my colleague know that former amendments of the Constitution were adopted to protect and guard the States in their rights and powers, and to enlarge them; and this is the first proposition that has ever been made to restrict those rights and powers, and to aggrandize the General Government? I regard it as a movement toward that centralization so much dreaded by our fathers, and which we will reach, unless gentlemen regain their senses before it is too late. Sir, I do not intend to intrude longer upon the House. I have spoken longer than I intended, and it only remains for me to ask pardon of my Republican friendsandof my Democratic friends who may have changed their views upon this question, for repeating that when the question shall be taken I shall give the same vote as I gave at the last session of Congress.

Mr. VOORHEES. Mr. Speaker, it is my purpose to detain the House but for a few moments, and to confine my remarks to a statement rather than to elaborate them into an argument.

Jt must have occurred to every observer that great indifference has been displayed during this discussion on both sides of the House. Thequestionof amending the American Constitution upon a point of the utmost magnitude has not engrossed the attention usually given to ordinary legislation. Nor is this apparently strange fact any reflection upon the intelligence or zeal of the members of this body. On the contrary, itattests their sound judgment and capacity to discern correctly the eventful scenes through which we are passing and which will soon become history. Every one here by this time perceives that the existence of the institution of slavery does not depend in any degree whateverupon the enactment of this proposed amendment. The fate of the war in which we have so long been engaged has at last assumed complete and final control of that great question. In July last the President, with becoming frankness at least, announced to the American people that no propositions of peace in this unhappy land would be entertained by him until slavery was destroyed. This was plainly stated. 1 do not now recall it in order to arraign the fatal policy which, m my judgment, it involves, but simply to observe that this purpose of the war, thus avowed, obtained a ratification, by means however illegitimate, at the ballot box Four years more of power was thus given to the party which makes the destruction of slavery a condition of peace as well as a condition of union.

Upon the assembling of Congress here a few weeks ago, the Pi evident in his annual message again asserted this condition as the only one on which the war could end. If it is thought that I state tin* conclusion of his message too broadly, it is only necessary to recall his proclamations of freedom to all the slaves in insurrectionary States, and by which he tells us he intends to stand, lie thus commits the blood and treasure of the country to the overthrow of the institution of slavery. There is no escape from this position, and I do not suppose he for a moment desires to evade it. He told the people in advance for what they should bleed and die in the event of his reelection, and he simply reiterates his assertion in the message.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if the arms of the Government triumph throughout the region of rebellion, whose visum is so dull as not to behold the liberation of every slave, without any other change in the Constitution than that which war and usurpations and proclamations have already made? This Government now stands committed to the destruction of slavery by all the means which the people possess, and at the expense of a thirty years' war, if that lapse of time should be necessary to accomplish the result.

But reverse the picture, and suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the rebellion becomes a success and southern independence lifts its head from the desolations of war. Slavery is at once beyond our reach. "We would have amended our Constitution in order to apply the amendment to a foreign Power. But, sir, long before a final result is obtained by arms on either side of this baleful contest I think I foresee the relinquishment of this domestic institution by the action of the South itself. I cannot close my eyes to the events which are there transpiring. General Lee, on whose shoulders rests the en tire cause for which the South drew the sword, asks for negro troops, and they will be raised. Slavery can no longerexistwhen that policy is adopted. An army of liberated slaves is totally inconsistent with the discipline and police regulations by which alone the relation of master and slave hi maintained and rendered mutually advantageous. This fact is understood and appreciated by the public opinion of the South, and while yielding to it as a necessity, in order to raise soldiers and recruit their diminished armies, they will make the consequent and inevitable abolition of slavery a virtue m the eyes of the people of Europe, and seek for recognition and protection on that account. How far they are likely to succeed in thus enhsting the sympathy and aid of foreign Powers is a question well worth the anxious consideration of the ablest statesmen now intrusted with power.

Sir, in view of these facts, which are open to every eye, I hold that the question of slavery is rapidly diminishing in importance. Whether for better or for worse it is passing away. I shall not stop in this connection- to inquire whether such a result is worth the terrible sacrifice which is required to secure it; whether the doubtful blessing which we confer upon four million negroes by setting them free is not too dearly purchased at the expense of the blood and tears and toil which this war has entailed upon the land. My views upon all these and kindred points are well known. I am now simply dealing with facts which all are bound to accept, and which the party that I belong to at least have no power to change. I foresee, it is true, other and most vital issues which will grow out of the destruction of slavery, and which will divide the councils of men in the future. The party now in power will seek to enfranchise the liberated negro, to make him a voter, a juror, and eligible to office. This has already been done in many States in which that party has the ascendancy, and the bill recently introduced by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Ashley,] purporting to be a bill for the reconstruction of the Union, provides for the exercise of these privileges by the emancipated black man throughout all the seceded States when they are once more reduced to obedience. On all these questions, sir, we will meet you at the proper time. I shall do no more than allude to them But, although I regard the act of the House today on this proposed amendment to the Constitution with total indifference, so far as the existence of the institution of slavery is concerned, yet I shall vote against its passage. I shall give my reasons, but not elaborate them. I hold that this is an improper time to amend the fundamental law of the country. Such an act should not be consummated amid the fiery passions and vehement hates engendered by civil war. Itshould be the work of calmness and of peace. It is to last for all time. There is an idea of perpetuity attached to constitutionsand constitutiomilamendments which does not belong to ordinary acts of legislation. They should therefore be the work of unclouded wisdom and not spring from the wrath and smoke of the battle field If we have spent a large portion of our time here since the war commenced in repealing or revising or amending our hasty and crude legislation it should admonish us to refrain from laying a rude and innovating hand on the Constitution itself. When the sky shall again be clear over our heads, a peaceful ousehold sun of illuminating States all at the home land, in harmony and our great once more, then will be the time to consider what changes, if any, this generation desires to make on the work of Washington, Madison, and the revered sages of our antiquity.

I hold also that it is an act of bad faith on the part of those in power to seize this time of patriotic sacrifice on the part of all to carry out and culminate a favorite partisan scheme against which nearly two million voters protested at the late election. But this conduct has grown familiar to us all, and I barely make the suggestion as worthy of consideration in connection with the whole political career which this war has been made to pursue under the dictation of an unhealthy fanaticism. But I hold finally that the Constitution does not authorize an amendment to be made by which any State or citizen shall be divested of acquired rights of property or of established political franchises. The construction which our fathers gave to the Constitution, and to which we have all hitherto adhered, guarantied to the slaveholding States the right of property in slaves. This proposition is too well settled for discussion. It needs only to be stated. It is true that the provision of the Constitution which authorizes its amendment is very broad and contains but one express limitation. But it is always implied as a limitation of power that a well settled principle of public law shall not be violated. To majorities are intrusted great and diversified powers, but among them, however great and numerous, is never granted the power to rob a minority of its vested rights. This amendment, in my judgment, proposes to commit this wrong in regard to every slave State on which it can ever be brought to operate. I deny the power. If it can be exercised on the subject of slavery it can on all others. If the rights of a State and of its citizens on this subject can be destroyed all other rights may perish by similar usurpations of power. A minority would thus be left no resource save that of revolution. I cannot give my sanction to a measure fraught with the entire overthrow of the wholesome doctrine that States have certain reserved sovereign rightswlnch no external power can take away,

I have thus very briefly given the views which control my action on this question and now take leave of it, simply expressing the hope that whatever may be done may advance the happiness of the people.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, when this subject was first brought before the House for its action I thought I would take no partin the discussion, but would content myself with giving a silent vote. But the subject is one of such importance to my State and of such great interest that I think it my duty to my constituents, the freemen whom 1 represent, that I should say something to try to prevent the passage of this resolution. My determination to say something arises from the fact that most of the members who have participated m this discussion have evaded the question now before the House, which in reality and truth only concerns the State of Kentucky. 1 shall endeavor to demonstrate that fact. We see here in this House twenty odd northern States arrayed against one southern State. I conceive that to pass this proposed amendment to the Constitution is in violation of plighted faith made to my State and people, and cannot be evaded without dishonor; it is in violation of faith pledged not only to Kentucky but to the whole country.

Mr. Speaker, in discussing this question I perceive most gentlemen commence their remarks against rebels, and are unttringin theirabuseand denunciation of the rebellious States; the whole burden of their speeches is against the rebellion, when in reality this is a movement, not against the rebellious States, but against a loyal State now in the Union.

The attempt is made to sway men s judgments by a wholesale abuse of the disloyal States, for the purpose of committing an outrage on a loyal State of the Union. I was not present, when this question was discussed and voted upon at the last session of Congress, and did not hear the arguments that were made in its support. But from what I have heard here during this session I discover that the supporters of this measure are desirous of preventing the true issue from coming before the House and the country.

What is the use of this proposed amendment to the Constitution? You contend that by the proclamation of the President slavery is already abolished m all the rebel States. Itisneedless, therefore, to apply the proposed amendment to any of them. You do not intend that they shall ever return to the Union. The honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] has taken the ground here that the rebel States are no longer m the Union, and are, therefore, not entitled to the protection of the Constitution, and the action of Congress in receiving West Virginia in the Union as a State in violation of the Constitution of the United States seems to indorse his sentiments. I read from his speech delivered in the House on the 9th of December, 1862, upon that question:

Now, these rebellious States being a Power by the ac-* knowledgment of European nations, and of our own nation, subject and entitled tobelligerent rights have become subject to all the rules of war. i hold the Constitution ha* no longer the least eft ect upon them."*«** l> Hence I hold that none of the States now in rebellion are entitled to the protection of the Constitution, and I nin grieved when! hear those high in authority sometimes talking ol the constitutional difficulties of enforcing measures against this belligeient Power, and the next moment disregarding every vestige and semblance of the Constitution by acts which alone are arbitrary."-**•*

"Tins talk of restoring the' Union a i it was under the Constitution as it iV is one of the ab uiditics which I have heuid till I have become sick ot it. This Union can never be restored os it was. Timto are many things which render Mieh an event impossible. Tln^ Union shall never, with my consent, bo restored under the Constitution it j i-i, with hluvciy juotuaed by u. -CougresMonul GLolc, vol. '17, part 1, p. 00.

On what, then, is it proposed that the amendment of the Constitution shall, in reality, act? Solely on the State of Kentucky, a State which has always been loyal to the Union. She has not a spot or stain on her escutcheon. She has been always true to the country and the Constitution. Then I ask gentlemen why, y when difficulties are thickening around us, they should strive, at a time like this, to increase those difficulties? It has always been admitted by northern statesmen heretofore that Congress had no right to interfere with any State on the subject of slavery. Daniel Webster, one of theablest men that the North hasproduced, and in his day the greatest constitutional lawyer and statesman in the country, in one of his speeches in opposition to the extension of slavery in the Territories, said: We have slavery already among, us. The Constitution found it among us; it recognized it, and gave it solemn guarantees. To the tul! extent of these guarantees we areall bound in honor, in justice, and by the Constitution." Slavery, as it exists in the States, is beyond the reach of Congress. It is a concern ofthe States themselves; they have rievei submitted it to Congress and Congre p has no rightful power over it. I shall concur, therefore, in no act, no measure, no menace, no indication of purpose, which shall interfere, or threaten to interfere, with the exclusive authority of the several States over the subject ofslavery as it exists within their respective limits." On another occasion, in the Senate, Mr. Webster said:

I have often, Mr. President, expressed the opinion that over slavery as it exists in the States this Government has no control whatever. Jt is entirely and exclusively a State concern. And while it is thus ele ir that Congress has no direct power over the subject it is our duty to take care that the authoi ity ot the Government is not brought to bear upon it by any indirect interference whatever."

And at a still later period, recurring again to the same subject, m a public speech, Mr. Webster said:

I hold that Congress is absolutely precluded from interfering inqpiy manner, director indirect, with this [slavery] as with any other of the institutions of the States." "I say that there is no power, direct or indirect, In Congress, or the General Government, to interfere in the slightest degree with the institutions of the South."

These were the opinions of that great and good man; although born and reared in the North, opposed to slavery, his honest conviction governed him, and Massachusetts s atesmcn would do well to follow his example.

We have been told here, not only by the President of the United States, but by Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, as well as by Congress itself, that neither the people of the non slaveholding States nor Congress has any power over the subject of slavery. In tlu way the State of Kentucky has been led along, step by step, by the pledges you have given her, until she is now, as it were, powerless m your hands, and stands in the attitude of one State pleading- for justice against more .than twenty. 1 do not ask for any favor to Kentucky. I simply ask for justiceforher. Give her what she is entitled to, and no more. I ask no more.

How does the proposition affect Kentucky? Let us look at the interest that she has in this matter. Most of the members of this House have little interest in the question. It is a mere idea with them. They sit here and vote away the property of others, while they themselves have no interestin it. How is it with regard to Kentucky? Her slave property before the war was worth 150 000 000 and would be at this day worth more if it had not been for the action of the Federal Government. You have no right to take away that property unless for the public use, and then only on making justcompensation. I have heard much about" military necessity," but you would have just as much right, under this plea, to go to northern manufactories and take away clothing, boots, and shoes, by force of arms, for the use of the Army, as you would have* to go into Kentucky and take our slave and other property. You would have just as much right to go into your large cities and take money from the banks and other moneyed institutions, on the plea that it was necessary jn order to pay the soldiers to carry on the war. I believe in no such necessity, and such conduct is merely robbing the citizens, contrary to the constitutional laws of the country.

But you say that you intend to make this legal by changing the Constitution; and you ask us to consent that the General Government shall rob one State for the benefit of all the rest if you have a so. You propose to carry the amendment by a two thirds vote in Congress and by three fourths of the States, which you are controlling by your armies. Look at the State of Kentucky. At this time and at the last election the Federal soldiers were scattered all over the State. You could not go to a town or cross road or railroad station without finding it bristling with bayonets. The soldiers were there at the last election, intimidating voters and driving them from thepolls. And yet you propose the mockery of submitting this measure to the people under such circumstances. Let me relate a few incidents that have taken place in Kentucky recently. Nearly every public press in the State of Kentucky, so far as 1 know that does notsustain thepolicyoftheAdministratiori, has been suppressed by military authority. No paper is allowed to appear there that is notbound to advocate their policy. I do not believe there exists a public print m the whole State of Kentucky that is not so controlled. Not by direct military order, but by trade regulations, by which no editor can buy paper and materials for his office, or sell his paper when printed, without suffering great inconvenience; for the in n who does not support the policy of the Administration is denounced as disloyal and not entitled to support. You have your hands upon every man in that country. Your officers say to this man and to that, 1 want this property and that, and I intend to have it; and you who do not vote for Abraham Lincoln shall never receive a cent for your property; while those of you who do vote for him shall be fully paid." Even at this very day, in the State of Kentucky, we are called upon to support this amendment of the Constitution, and to legalize what under the laws of the land has hitherto only been robbery.

1 could enumerate many an outrage that has been committed upon our people. We had an instance in the last election for judges of our supreme court. Our candidate—Judge Duvall— was a man who had served upon the bench, and who was up for reelection. He was allowed to run until two days before the election, when orders went out to strike his name off the pollbooks, and he to be arrested and cast in prison; and the orders were carried out in regard to pollbooks. It was probably thonghtthat there being but two days before the election the people of that district would not have time to nominate another man for the office. But it so happened that some men took an interest in the matter, put up another gentleman—Judge Robertson by telegraph endeavored to spread the intelligence of the nomination all over hedistiict beingtwenty three counties, nevertheless he received more votes than the candidate of the Lincoln party, who had been many weeks a candidate, and probably been all over the district, and known to the whole country. 1 myself have been called a rebel because 1 would not fc w the knee to power, and vote the .ticket according i<> dictation. Never, so help me God, will I vote for anything which I believe to bo wrong; never will I bend the knee before the footstool of power, although" thrift may follow fawning."

In my district, under the pressure of military power, two or three irresponsible men, hardly known in the county, some of whom I confess I did not know, although m my own county where I have lived all my life, were put upon the board of trade, and every man who desired to buy or sell anything, a horse, or cow, or supplies of any kind for his family, was compelled to go to them and get a permit before he moved it.

What more? All the railroads in the State of Kentucky are now in the hands of the Government and Government agents, and throughout the whole State they are taking every negro that comes to She roads and running them off to the borders of the State. For what?• Is it for the benefit of the Government of the United States? Is it to aid in putting down the rebellion? No, sir; many are taken to the North and put. into the Army, that the men of the North may get rid of serving in the Army, and thousands of dollars are made by this stealing of our property by individuals for their own benefit.

Not long ago it seemed that the Government wasaimost getting into difficulty with Great Britain about recruiting in Ireland, contrary to the lawsofthat country, It turned our, if the newspapers tell the ti uth, that Aitt achudutis liuU her agents all through that country, and were shipping men from there to save her own citizens. With the means she had made by her trade with the South, and the profits she had made upon the products of slavery, she was enabled to send her emissaries all through our country, and into Ireland, and buy up reciuits to save her own citizens from going into the Army.

Now, why is this thing done? Why is the Federal Government carrying on this system in Kentucky and other loyal States? If you take away from a man that which he considers to be justly his own, you make him desperate, and he will retaliate upon you. You can never by oppression make a man obey willingly the laws of his country. Act justly toward him; let him see that he has a Government which will protect him, and lie will love that Government. But oppress and rob him, and he will despise and hate As I said before, you made a solemn declaration to the State of Kentucky that you had no legal power to interfere with slavery in the States. The President of the United States said so m his inaugural address. Mr. Seward, by the direction of the President, in his letter to Mr. Adams said that we had no right to interfere with this institution, and that it would remain the same after this war, whether the rebellion succeeded or not. And why? Simply because the. United States Government in its proper province, has no right to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States. To be more accurate, I v i read a passage from that letter, dated April 2S, 1861. He says: "The condition of slavery in the several States will remain just the s atno whether it ("the revolution] succeeds or lails. There is not evui a pit text lor the complaint That the diMiffcM U d Suites arc to he conquered by the United Statey it liie ievolution lail; foi the rigliN of the Stare, and the condition of every human bring in (hem, will icinani subject to exactly the same law?; and lorins of administration whether the revolution shall succeed or whether it shall fail."**** "It is hardly nece ary to add to this moon testable siatenir nt the iuithei fact that the new Pie ud Mit as well as the citizen--? through whose s nt suffrages lie has come into the Administration, lias always repudiated all designs whatever and whenever imputed to him ami Uhuji, ot distil Inn the system ol slavery as it i^ e isiin under the Constitution and laws. The eas e howevei, won hi not be fully pi evented if i were to omit to say that any tnth cfjoiton hn part would be unconstitutional, and at' h a nctio7is i i that direction would ho pi evented hv the judicial i authority, even though they were assented to by Congress and (he people."

Thus in addition to the obligation imposed by the Constitution, you have pledged your sacred honor that you will not do this thing; and if now you commit this act, which you have solemnly declared you had no right to do, and would not do, then you will commit a great outrage on my State, and my State alone, because it is the only State now interested in tins question, the other border States having already taken steps to abolish slavery within their limits.

When you declared that you would not perpetrate this outrage, we believed you—at least i did. When these troubles broke out I declared before my people that you would never mteifeie with the rights guarantied to the States by the Constitution; that you would stand by your pledged honor, your plighted faith. 1 had confidence in your pledges and I endeavored to infuse that feeling of confidence into those of my fellowcitizens with whom 1 had any influence. Sir, when I come again face to face with the men to whom I gave that assurance, many of them having taken opposite ground to that which I maintained, how shall 1 answer them when they say," Did we not tell you that when they got us in their power they would oppress us as they pleased?*'

Mr. Speaker, in the adoption of this amendment you northern men will be merely carrying out to the letter the charges made by your enemies; you will bevenfying the predictions made by disloyal men. You, by your own act, are now justifying every charge and insinuation made against you, and which I repelled with all my power. It is a matter of justice to my State and to my people that you should not perpetrate this flagrant wrong upon them m defiance of all your pledges heretofore made and as further evidence upon the subject, let me read a resolution passed by the Congress uf the United States in February, 18G1: Resolved, That neither the Confess of the United Ptates nor tin* people nor soverninent^ of the non la velioldliiir Sriies itavethe constitutional ii ht to fe Mate upon ut mi nVre with slavery ni any ot the tlavelioldmg SUtcaof UUri Union." 4

That resolution was passed unanimously by the Congress of the United States; and among those who voted for it are many gentlemen, leaders of the Republican party, who are now members of this House. Where will these gentlemen stand today when the vote is taken? Will they so vote that the record will show they proved faithful to their plighted honor and their solemn oaths to support the Constitution; or will they prove that they have been recreant to their duty?

This is not simply a question of policy. By the adoption of this amendment you are also stripping us of our political power; you urcstripping us of our representation in this House. P By the Constitution, our representation m this House depends upon the slave population of the State, and if you carry out this scheme you will deprive us of two members of Congress. -Thus you propose to violate, in a vital particular, the compact into which the States entered.

When the constitutional compact was assailed by armed treason, you called upon us to come forward to assist in the suppression of the resistance to the Constitution and the laws. We responded to that call. We sent forward our men and contributed our means, relying on the pledges which you gave us that those men and means would be used only for the maintenance of the Constitution and the restoration of the Union and that you would not invade any of the constitutional rights of the States nor attempt to interfere with their domestic institutions. But, in spite of this pledge, you now propose to rob us of our property and our political rights. I appeal to the justice of this nation, I appeal to you as honest men, to comply with your constitutional obligations and your promises on this subject. If these outrages are to be perpetrated upon us, let mesay that instead of putting an end to this war you will protract it, and instead of putting an end to these troubles you will multiply them a thousand fold. Then, instead of making friends you will only make enemies, and lose many friends you now have.

1 had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that we would stand together as brothers, that the rights of each State would have been respected, that the Constitution would not have been infringed. But such I am grieved to say has not been the case. It is now proposed to deprive the master of his slave without compensation. It is wrong in every point of view, trie, the master, has the same i right to his slave that he has to any other kind of property whatever. It is protected by the Constitution of the United States as well as by the State laws. And it is no small matter to undertake to deprive the people of Kentucky of all of their slave property. You propose to take all that many of them have in the way of property, and then to call upon them for taxes and for their quota of troops to carry on this war. Kentucky has supplied her share of taxes and troops willingly heretofore, as willingly as any other State of this Union. What will be the necessary result if these proposed outrages be perpetrated upon her citizens? When you have taken all they have, you cannot expect taxes; nor can you expect them willingly to fight a war for the purpose of taking away from them their slave property.

I do not want you, Mr. Speaker, to understand me as advocating the rebel cause. The rebels have had nothing fodo with this question. It is a question between the General Government and a loyal State, and not a re be) State. It is m that light that 1 am discussing it. As between the Government and the rebels I take, as I have done all along, the part of the Government.

Carry out the policy which it is now proposed to be inaugurated, and this will be only the beginning of a series of outrages. The whole frame of the Government will be changed. You will have revolutionized the Government to which you try to compel the rebels to yield submission. You go' to war to restore the Union and yet change the organic, fundamental huvs of the Union. Von whip the rebels back into the Union, and yet when they are whipped back the old Union has departed. Is it not a strange anomaly? I want the Constitution and the Union as they were.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard it contended that there is no such thing as independent States. Let us go back a little. When the thirteen colonies belonged to Great Britain mean the original thirteen—they were independent of each other. They belonged only to Great Britain. When they threw off dependence to the mother country they were free and independent to all intents and purposes, and were so recognized by the world. They formed a Confederacy of States, and that not working well they concluded to establish this Union. What followed? I need not go to the debates of the Convention to show that this is a Union of independent States. The Constitution itself said that whenever it was ratified by nine out of the thirteen States it should be binding, not upon the thirteen, but only upon the nine.

There was no power to be exercised, nor could there be, for forcing the reluctant States into the Union. This is not a consolidated Government, but a confederation of independent States. The Constitution of the United States is the bond of the Union. It is the contract by which the States agreed to form a Government for themselves. It is a limited Government. The Constitution declares that the powers not vested in this Government are reserved to the States and to the people. We have, therefore, none but delegated powers, and when we undertake to go beyond them our acts are null and void. You have 110 more right to change the fundamental law in reference to slavery, being one of the reserved lights of the States, than you have in reference to anything else, and if you do it you do it by force and force alone.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why did this House repeal the fugitive slave law? Had it a beating upon atly other State than Kentucky? Certainly not. Had not Kentucky stood the fast friend of the Union? Was she not loyal and entitled to protection, and does not the Constitution declare that slaves fleeing from one State to another must be delivered up? That is the substance as well as the language of the Constitution the fugitives from labor shall be delivered up to their owners. Have you then dealt fairly with Kentucky? Whystab oneof yoursistorloyal States? You know it was a stab at one of your own loyal States.

And why this great anxiety to overpower Kentucky? Mr. Speaker, this idea of restoring the Union lias gotten out of your head. It has gone. You have departed from all the principles laid down by which you could conduct this thing properly; and now your acts would indicate that plunderand robbery were your mam object. You are confiscating the negroes, as you call it. A military necessity, you say. You are leaving the farmers without any help whatever; and you are putting not all of them into the armies of the United States, but only a few of them. You have the remainder of them limning about the country, paying them high wages, and making the people of the United States clothe and feed them.

And then you are taking others and what are you doing with them? You are running them off into the various other States, there to make servants of them just as they were from whence you took them. And such as nobody will have you are taking them away into camps, because they are not fit for servants, in my State is Cam p Robinson, historic almost, because of its early location. It is built up almost like our cities, and indeed surpasses many of them, and even some of our capitals. It has water works which supply it with water by a steam engine from the 1 river; millions of dollars have been spent there, and you and I are taxed for all these things. Men high in position and receiving large salaries are doing nothing but superintending these camps. This is the way the people s money is squandered, and you legislate upon all these matters as though you had the right to do it.

All your arguments and all your homilies upon slavery I have heard. They are nothing but the distempered imagination of narrow minds, cateringtothepublicopimon ofalowand degraded constituency; nothing else. We ought to give them as much attention as the advice of a pauper picked up in the streets of London would receive m regard to the financial affairs of the Barings or the Rothschilds, who cannot keep a sixpence m his pocket from morning to night.

You talk about slavery, and say you want to do us good by taking our slaves away from us. If you would match your armies into your northern cities, where men live in marble palaces, who make fortunes out of the people, and if you would seize the contents of their banks and distribute it among the poor, you would do more good than you would by letting those nabobs have it who eat their sumptuous dinners and drink their fine wines. If you are going to revolutionize society everywhere and do the greatest good, seize upon that property and divide it among those who are poor and needy.

The remarks of my friend from New York, [Mr. Odell,] which I heard with regret, were a slab directly at the right to hold property. He is arraying the small number of slaveholders against the large number of non slaveholders and would rob the few to please the many.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. KASSON obtained the floor, but yielded.