June 5, 1866

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H. R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the pending question being on the amendment proposed by Mr. Doolittle, to strike out the second section of the proposed article and insert in lieu of it the following:

After the census to be taken in the year 1870, and each succeeding census, Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to the number in each State of male electors over twenty one years of age qualified by the laws thereof to choose members of the most numerous branch of its Legislature; and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States according to the value of the real and personal taxable property situated in each State not belonging to the State or to the United States.

Mr. POLAND. Mr. President, the few observations which I propose to make are addressed to the general merits of the proposition which is before the Senate, but some of them are addressed to the very point of this pending amendment. I read in a morning paper that it was expected that I would present some important and new views upon the subject. The views that T shall present, Mr. President, may be important in the sense that almost any view that any man may present who has a vote to give on such a subject is important; but that I shall be able to say, after six months' discussion of this subject, anything new is more than I expect."

Mr. President, all the questions involved in the proposed amendments to the Constitution have been so elaborately and ably discussed on former occasions during the present session that I do not feel at liberty to attempt to argue them at length and in detail. I do not propose to do more than to state, in the shortest and plainest manner I am able, some of the reasons for my action upon the propositions submitted to us by the committee.

The clause of the first proposed amendment, that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," secures nothing beyond what was intended by the original provision in the Constitution, that 'the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."

But the radical difference in the social systems of the several States, and the great extent to which the doctrine of State rights or State sovereignty was carried, induced mainly, as I believe, by and for the protection of the peculiar system of the South, led to a practical repudiation of the existing provision on this subject, and it was disregarded in many of the States. State legislation was allowed to override it, and as no express power was by the Constitution granted to Congress to enforce it, it became really a dead letter. The great social and political change in the southern States wrought by the amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery and by the overthrow of the late rebellion render it eminently proper and necessary that Congress should be invested with the power to enforce this provision throughout the country and compel its observance.

Now that slavery is abolished, and the whole people of the nation stand upon the basis of freedom, it seems to me that there can be no valid or reasonable objection to the residue of the first proposed amendment:

Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

It is the very spirit and inspiration of our system of government, the absolute foundation upon which it was established. It is essentially declared in the Declaration of Independence and in all the provisions of the Constitution. Notwithstanding this we know that State laws exist, and some of them of very recent enactment, in direct violation of these principles. Congress has already shown its desire and intention to uproot and destroy all such partial State legislation in the passage of what is called the civil rights bill. The power of Congress to do this has been doubted and denied by persons entitled to high considera- 39th Cong. 1st Sess. —No. 186. tion. It certainly seems desirable that no doubt should be left existing as to the power of Congress to enforce principles lying at the very foundation of all republican government if they be denied or violated by the States, and I cannot doubt but that every Senator will rejoice in aiding to remove all doubt upon this power of Congress.

The second article of the proposed amendments involves many considerations, and opens a much wider field for discussion. I suppose it is the purpose of the Union Republican majority in Congress, when they shall have agreed upon articles of amendment to the Constitution to be proposed for adoption, to say to the southern States which seceded, joined the confederacy, and waged war against the national Government, that as preliminary to their again becommgactingmembers of the national Union by their Senators and Representatives in Congress they must adopt or ratify such amendments. Indeed, one of the bills reported by the committee, accompanying the proposed amendments, proposes this directly, and is a part of the committee s plan of reconstruction. It is objected in the outsetlo this that the States and people who have remained loyal to the Government during the war for the suppression of the rebellion have no right to affix such or any condition whatever to their return; that, having laid down their arms and ceased active hostilities against the nation, and acknowledged their allegiance and willingness to obey the national laws, no reason exists why their representatives should not be immediately admitted to their seats in Congress and participate in the legislation for the nation; and that to refuse this is really to deny to those States their proper constitutional rights.

No public or political question has ever arisen in this country that has excited more ingenious and earnest debate than the legal and political condition of the seceded States after the suppression of the rebellion by the military power of the nation. The discussion began long before the war ended, and before there was occasion for any practical application, and it has continued ever since. I do not purpose to go into this question or to attempt to prove by argument that these States did or did not lose or forfeit their corporate existence as States by their acts of secession and rebellion, or that they are now in or out of the Union. I may say, however, that I was never able to see as clearly as others could anything so illogical and absurd m the doctrine that these States actually forfeited their rights as States and lapsed into the condition of Territories belonging to the Government, requiring reorganization and readmission into the Union as much as if they had never been admitted. Their acts of secession were of course entirely void, and of themselves had no effect; but when the great majority of the people of these States abandoned and forswore all allegiance to the Union, formed themselves into a hostile confederacy, filled every official place in the State with enemies of the Union, and then used all the official machinery of the State, in common with the personal efforts of the great majority of the people, in carrying on for years a bloody war against the nation, it seems to me almost absurd to say that the nation might not, if it so elected, treat them as having forfeited all rights to be considered existing States in the Union, and treat them when subdued as so much unorganized territory.

The difficulty now lying in the way of taking this ground and basing the reconstruction or restoration of the seceding States upon it is that the national Government has hitherto, from the beginning of the rebellion down to the present time, proceeded upon the opposite theory; that is, that the States, as such, still existed; that the corporate life of a State was not lost or destroyed by the passage of ordinances of secession or the prosecution of armed hostility by the majority of its citizens. All departments of the national Government having for so long acted upon this ground, it would be exceedingly embarrassing- to unsay and undo so much that has been said and" done; indeed, it could hardly be done without greatly aggravating and enhancing the difficulties with which the subject of restoration is now beset. Nothing short of absolute necessity could now justify the Government in ignoring State existence in the members of the late confederacy and reducing them to the condition of unorganized territories.

Is it, necessary for the protection and safety of the always loyal part of the nation to do this? May we not without this require such guarantees and conditions from the seceding. States, prior to allowing them to participate in the general direction and government of the nation, as in our judgment the national safety requires?

By the most formal and solemn acts of legislation these States withdrew or attempted to withdrawfromthenationalUnion; they abjured all allegiance to the national Government; they withdrew their Senators and Representatives from the national Legislature; they formed themselves into a separate and hostile confederacy, of which each of these States was a constituent member; and for four years as a separate nation of States, and by the individual action of the great majority of their people, they made most cruel and unrelenting war against the loyal part of the nation.

Now, conceding that all this did not destroy the corporate existence of each or either of these States as a legal essence, it must be admitted that all actual existence of legal relation or connection between those States and the national Union was severed and destroyed. It cannot be claimed that while these States were acting as States in the confederacy and occupying the position of armed and hostile belligerents toward the United States they were at the same time entitled to claim and exercise the rights of States in the Union; to be represented in its Legislature, and participate in its Government. We succeeded by our superior physical power in overthrowing and crushing this hostile confederacy, and compelled them to lay down their arms. Now, bei oie these States can resume their former places in the Union loyal State governments must be instituted and take the place of the disloyal ones that have existed, and then the legal relation and connection between them and the General Government must be restored by some power or department of the General Government.

Now, in what department of the national Government does this power rest to say when the people of the insurgent States have returned to loyalty, whether the State governments set up anew are really and truly loyal, and then to restore the broken and severed legal relations between them and the Union? Clearly, in my judgment, it must rest in and with the law making power of the Government, the representatives of the States and the people, the two Houses of Congress. In the progress of reconstructing or restoring these States to loyalty and their former position in the Union, the executive department of the Government has assumed to dictate terms and conditions to those States, which they complied with. The terms and conditions imposed were wise and just in themselves, and I do not take it upon me now to say they were not rightfully exacted by the Executive. But I do say that, in my judgment, there is far more ground of doubt as to the rightful power of the merely executive branch of the Government to do this than there is as to the power of Congress, the substantial law making power of the nation, to exact the same or other like conditions.

It has been said that unless these States have really forfeited their State existence and are out of the Union, we have no more right to exact or impose conditions to their return than we have to impose similar terms upon New York or Ohio; that a State cannot commit treason or forfeit its existence by the commission of crime. But there cannot well be a State, exercising and performing its functions as such, without people; and the idea of the existence of a State in harmony, wi h nnd yield ing loyalty to the Union, and the people who inhabit it at the same time armed and hostile rebels, is certainly an anomaly.

Now, the people of these States are the same who have been rebels, the same with whom we have been at war for years, and from whom we have just succeeded in wresting their arms. Now, can it be possible that we are at once bound to admit these people to actively participate with us in administering the General Government; that we have no more power or right to test their loyalty or require security for it than we have of the people of a State which has always been loyal and true? It seems to mo to be confounding all distinction between right and wrong, between innocence and crime, between loyalty and treason.•

It is said there is no warrant in the Constitution for such a course, and therefore we cannot do it. The truth is, the framers of the Constitution never contemplated such a state of things and made no provision for it. The Constitution, to be sure, provides for the suppression of insurrections; but evidently this never contemplated an extensive rebellion so formidable as to produce for years a division of the nation and a separate de facto government. The real question is, not whether there is any express warrant in the Constitution for it, but whether there is anything in the letter or spirit of the Constitution that forbids it. In my judgment there is not. It is sanctioned by principles of substantial justice and right, and by the great law of self protection and defense, which is as applicable to communities and nations as to individuals.

I conclude, then, that there is no objection to the exercise by Congress of the power to impose any condition or limitation to the return of these States to participate in the government of the nation, which shall be just in itself, and necessary for the safety and welfare of the nation.

If. as I insist, we have the right to require of these States suitable and sufficient conditions or guarantees, and that, too, by amendments of the fundamental law, then several questions present themselves upon the amendment proposed. Do we need this amendment for our future protection and the peace and safety of the nation? Does this amendment furnish it sufficiently? Is it doing any wrong or injustice to the white people of the South? Is it just to the negro population of the South? This amendment leaves the general basis of representation, as fixed by the Constitution originally, upon numbers or population. In some of the discussions of this subject in this Chamber it has been strenuously insisted that this is not the true and just basis upon which representation should be based, but that it should rest upon the basis of voters. I entirely disagree with those who have argued for this new doctrine, and in my mind it is clear that the existing basis is the only true one, the only one consistent with the true idea of a representative republican government. The question is not; perhaps, directly involved in this amendment. but still it is not wholly aside from my line of argument. AH the people, or all the members of a State or community, are equally entitled to protection: they are all subject to its laws; they must all share its burdens, and they are all interested in its legislation and government.

Notwithstanding this no State or community professing to be republican allows all its people to vote. Every one fixes for itself some rule which, in its judgment, will furnish a body of voters or electors who will most wisely and safely represent the wishes and interests of the whole people. The right or franchise of voting has, probably, been more widely extended in these American States than in any other professed republican Government, but in the most liberal of these it has always been confined to a small minority of the whole people. In none of our States have females, or males under twenty one years of age, ever been allowed to vole. In many of the States the right of voting has been restrained within much narrower limits. Persons coming to this country and establishing their pernmnentresidence here are required to remain five years and then to go through an established process of naturalization before they are allowed the privilege of voting. Yet we all know that many females are far better qualified to vote intelligently and wisely than many men who are allowed to vote; and the same is true of many males under twenty one and of foreigners who have not resided here for the period of five years. The truth is that the whole system of suffrage of any republican State is wholly artificial, founded upon its own ideas of the number and class of persons who will best representthe wishes and interests of the whole people. The right of suffrage is not given to a particular class because they have any greater interest in the Government, or because they have any more natural right to it than others, nor to exercise it for themselves and in their own behalf, but is given to them as fair and proper exponents of the will and interests of the whole community, and to be exercised for the benefit and in the interest of the whole.

The theory is that tlie fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons to whom the right of suffrage is given will in its exercise be as watchful of the rights and interests of their wives, sisters, and children who do not vote as of their own. While the rules of suffrage are different in the different States, the plan of basing representation in the national Legislature upon the number of voters in each would be manifestly unjust; it might with the same propriety be based upon the number of members in the Legislature of each State. But if the rules of suffrage were the same in all the States, the adoption of such arule for national representation would be manifestly unjust. The Union contains many very recently settled States, and by reason of the great extent of unsettled country all still have, such must be the case for many years to come. These new States to a great extent are settled by emigration from the older States, and it has been and will ever continue the case that a much larger proportion of this emigration are males. The consequence is that the newly settled States contain a very much larger proportion of males than the older States, and therefore a much larger ratio of voters.

Can it be justly claimed that five thousand people in Nevada or Colorado should have the same voice in the Government as twenty tliousandpeopleinMassachusettsorNew York, even though the number of males above twenty one were the samein each? I have said more than was necessary upon this particular point. By the existing Constitution the Statesholdingslaves, in addition to their other population, were entitled to have three fifths of their slaves counted in ascertaining their share of representation. By the amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery, which was really one of the results of the war, this entire mass of slave population, counting by millions, were made free, and as the Constitution stands the States where slavery existed would now be entitled to have the remaining two fifths added to their numbers for representation, although no one of them all is allowed to vote.

This very fact, it seems to me, furnishes a very sufficient reason for a readjustment of representation among the States, and an answer to the often repeated question, why amend the Constitution at all? With no amendment on this subject the late slave States come into the lower House of Congress with a much larger representation than ever before. Is it safe to do this, is it just to the loyal portion of the nation who ha e borne such immense burdens to maintain its existence? If not, I hold we are not bound to encounter any such peril. For a long period of years sectional hatred toward the North had been cultivated in the South, in consequence of our dislike and condemnation of their wicked and anti rcpub lican system of human slavery. This feeling was excited and fomented by the arts of ambitious and designing men till it broke out in a gigantic rebellion for the purpose of separating from us and forming a separate government for themselves most terrible and bloody civil war the world has ever seen, lasting for four years; characterized by almost innumerable instances of cruel and barbarous hate on the part of the insurgent States. We finally succeeded in putting down the rebellion, overthrowing the government they had set up, and adding the mortification of total defeat of their cause to their other reasons for hating us and disliking our Government. These people have submitted to the national Government because they have been compelled by force to do so.

But have we any evidence that justifies the belief that they are now ready to yield willing allegiance to the Government and obedience to its laws? All the mass of evidence taken by the reconstruction committee, the tone and sentiment of the almost entire southern press, the information derived from private sources, concur in showing that as yet no such thing exists to any considerable extent, and that the feeling of hostility to the national Government and northern people is as great now as it was while the war was raging, and that the submission to the laws and authority of the Government is the enforced submission to superior power. Does anyone doubt that if an opportunity was now offered for an effectual separation it would not be embraced by a far larger majority of the southern people than that by which their acts of secession were adopted?

Looking at the circumstances we could hardly expect to find it otherwise now, and J respect those people more for the open and undisguised avowal of their sentiments than I should if they hypocritically pretended to acquiesce cheerfully and rejoicingly in their own defeat. We must rely upon time, emigration, the intercourse of business, interchanges of kindness and good will, and especially the beneficent and protecting care and influence of the Government to foster and build up a feeling of attachment to the Union and to allay the bitterness and asperity now existing. In this view it has seemed to me that it was not so desirable as many others have believe] it to be that great haste should be made in their restoration, and that our reunion with them would be much more likely to be harmonious and lasting if done coolly and deliberately than if we rushed to embrace each other.

But the question is, whether in the present state of facts it is safe and just to the nation to admit these States to participate in the government of the nation upon such terms as will incur any hazard of their being able to take the control of it, and if they choose injure or overthrow it? I have heard it asked what harm they could do if admitted to full representation in Congress and were able by political affiliations and alliances to control the legislation of the nation.

I will refer to but one of the many things which might be most disastrous to the people of the loyal States. To carry on the war and suppress the rebellion we have incurred a debt to the enormous amount of 3 000 000 000 The great bulk of this debt is held by the people of the North. Much of it is held by capitalists, but not all, by any means. It has entered into all the transactions of society and business. All public trusts, whether educational, charitable, or religious, are invested in it, as well as nearly all private trusts for widows, minors, or others. The entire currency of the country is composed of it or based upon it. In addition to this it is most extensively held among the people; in my own State I know that almost every man who had any money to invest, whether the amount was great or small, now holds it in Government bonds. Indeed, I thinK I may say that except what is invested in business or in business corporations, the great mass of the money capital of the North is now in the national securities. To pay even the interest on this debt and our immense animal pension list will require taxation for us of unexampled severity for many years to come.

Now, this debt has all been incurred in putting down the southern rebellion; our great pension list is to reward or reimburse those who have suffered on our side in the same cause. The war to a great extent has devastated the South; very many lmve been made poor and destitute; they have lost their slaves, whose value they counted by thousands of .millions; almost every one suffered loss by the bubble of the rebel debt; they have their thousands of maimed and disabled men and their thousands of widows and orphans dependent upon them for support, and for whom no provision can or will be made by the nation. Under these circumstances will they not be restive under our heavy taxation to pay our national debt and our pensioners? Say what we will, say what they will, the truth is that if they can avoid aiding in its payment they will do so, and pretexts enough will be found in some fancied or pretended injustice to them on our part to justify such action on theirs. In saying this 1 do not mean to assert that these people are more faithless or less sensible of obligation than we are, for I have very little doubt that under the same circumstances we should do the same thing. It is hardly in human nature to do otherwise.

It is said we ought to be magnanimous and trustful toward these people; put full faith in their promises and oaths; that we have no right to assume they will not keep them.■ I would certainly extend all magnanimity to them. I would trust all their oaths and promises which I believed they would keep. But I should hardly desire to trust them to fulfill a promise .which under the same circumstances I fear I should myself find some excuse i or breaking. But I do not think we are specially called upon to trust or put faith in official and governmental oaths taken by our southern friends. Can they ever be more solemnly bound to the Government and to yield it their allegiance than they were at the very moment they seceded and violated their oaths? Our faith can hardly be strengthened by our experience.

This class of oaths has not in latter years been found very binding on the individual conscience, and of them we may say, with Hudibras—"

"Oaths are but words, and words but wind,

Too feeble implements to bind.

And hold with deeds proportion so

As shadows to the substance do."

But what have we to fear from them if admitted into Congress with all the representation they would have without any amendment of the Constitution? The North would still greatly outnumber them, and could always vote them down.

It is sneeringly asked, do you not consider yourselves their equals? Are you such cowards and poltroons as to be afraid of being beaten in debate and overthrown by these southern gentlemen with such odds in your favor? it is not hard to answer these questions in fact, but it is hard and humiliating to be compelled to acknowledge where the real danger lies. For many years prior to the rebellion the North had a large numerical superiority over the South, and a much larger delegation in Congress. She was still more largely her superior in wealth, in business, 'and in all material and scientific advancement. But notwithstanding all these advantages to the North, the South ruled the nation. Why? The answer is short: by the aid of her northern allies.

To go back no further than the war of the rebellion: did we not have many men in the North who sympathized with the rebels; who counseled resistance to the draft, and threw every obstacle in the way of the successful prosecution of the war; who rejoiced at our defeats and rebel victories? Did not a large party in a national convention resolve that the war for the suppression of the rebellion was a failure and ought to be stopped? Now, if men could be found who would do this when the nation was in the very mortal agony to preserve its existence, is it uncharitable to suppose that to make a successful political alliance and get, into power, men would not be found who would unite on a platform of repudiation of the national debt? Why, in my part of the country the war cry of a certain party has been "Taxation of the national securities!" which was but a partial repudiation of the contract of the Government.] do not desire to dwell upon this point; it is not a pleasant theme either for reflection or discussion.

Considering the immense pecuniary stake the people of the loyal States have in the national securities, and the universal disaster and calamity which would attend their repudiation, or even any great distrust of them, it behooves us to be cautious and sure that we open no possible door for the entrance of such danger. In my judgment, the admission of the southern representatives without such an amendment of the Constitution as the new and changed condition of southern population requires in order to be just, would subject us to that very peril; indeed, that it would be sure to come. I would prevent it.

Will this amendment, if adopted, furnish the needed protection; or in other words, will the South, even with the aid of northern allies, be able to obtain the control of the Government or of Congress?

If these States refuse to extend the right of suffrage to the colored men their representation will be confined to the white population. This number, especially of males above twentyone years of age, has largely decreased during the war, and this deduction, together with that, to be made for the three fifths of the slave population, would so reduce the congressional representation of 1 he seceding States that no reasonable fear need be entertained that even with the aid of northern allies would they be able to obtain control of the Government. If, to enlarge their political power and representation in Congress, they extend suffrage to all the colored men, such an element of loyalty v would thereby be infused into the ballot-box that, added to the white loyalty existing there, wc might safely count upon a portion of their representation being reliable, true Union men, and thus avoid a solid sectional vote against the interests of that part of the country which has saved it. In my judgment, there is no reasonable ground of fear, whether they do or do not extend suffrage to colored men, that the control of the national Government can be placed in disloyal hands.

Will the adoption of this amendment work any wrong or injustice to the white people of the South?

While slavery existed they were allowed representation upon three fifths of their slaves. It is somewhat difficult to see any principle upon which this basis was adopted. If they stood upon the same footing as the noil voting white population, then they should have had representation for the whole number: while if they were regarded as property merely they should not have been counted at all, as no property qualification was established or allowed in other respects. If any representation at all was allowed, it was proper that its exercise should be given to themasters, as the condition of absolute dependence and submission in which the slaves stood rendered all free and intelligent choice impossible on their part, and if the slaves had any interest to be protected it was the master s and not theirs. The master might possibly be regarded as the head of a family, of which the slaves formed a part, and so their proper representative; but I agree that the analogy is exceedingly faint. But the compromise by which this partial representation was allowed for slaves had probably very little foundation in any just principle of representation, but was one of the arbitrary compromises by which the conflicting interests of the two sections were adjusted. The North consented to so much representation, in consideration that direct taxes should be laid in the same manner. Like all the compromises that have been made, the South had the best of it, as they had a large and constant representation from it, while the direct taxes have been too small and unfrequent to furnish any corresponding advantage to the North.

But slavery is over and ended. The slaves have been made free. The masters can no longer claim to represent them, either on the ground that they are members or dependents of their families or that they own them as their property. The former ruling class in the South say, "These people, now having become free persons, we are entitled to have our representation raised by the enumeration of the whole for that purpose." "Very well," say we," let the same rule of suffrage extend to them as is applied to the white people, and be represented for them all." "By no means," it is answered; "they are too ignorant to know how to protect their own interests in voting, and therefore we will vote for them; and still more, we cannot permit them to vote because it would tend to elevate them socially to something like the elevated plane upon which we stand, which we will not submit to."

Is there any just ground upon which the southern whites can claim that they should represent the negro population, especially those lately held in slavery? Do they stand in the same relation to them that the fathers, husbands, and brothers of a northern community do to their non voting women and children, whose interests are as dear to them as their own? How opposite in theory and in fact is the relation between them. They do not regard them as having a common interest to be supported, but as a hostile element In society to be spurned and crushed.

It seems to me perfectly manifest that upon no just principle should representation be allowed to the whites on account of the negroes. Suppose we test this by the actual choice of the negroes themselves.

If the negroes were allowed to choose representatives themselves, and to choose between their former masters or others like them and men like the senior Senators from Massachusetts and Ohio, which would bo elected? I would be willing to wager well on the success of my friends here. I think it perfectly just for us to say, If you will not let these people vote you shall not alone represent them, but, we will do it jointly. We believe we have their true interests at heart quite as much as you; we believe we understand their wants quite as well, and we are satisfied they will be more content under our joint representation than under yours alone."

Does this amendment do justice to the colored people of the South? Mr. President, I am sorry to feel compelled to say that I do not think it does. I cannot feel satisfied with a scheme of reconstruction of these rebel States which gives no direct and immediate benefit to the only class of loyal people living in them. When I remember how loyal and faithful these people ever proved; how they fed, clothed, concealed, and guided our prisoners who had escaped from rebel prisons and starvation; how faithfully and truly they brought us information and guided our troops; and more than all, how gallantly they fought by the side of our men, and how nobly they yielded their lives to save the nation, I feel that something more direct should be granted to and done for them. I should be much better satisfied if the right of suffrage had been given at once to the more intelligent of them and such as had served in our Army. But it is believed by wiser ones than myself that this amendment will very soon produce some grant of suffrage to them, and that the craving for political power will ere long give them universal suffrage. Such I know to be the opinion of many intelligent Union men of the South with whom. I have conversed. I trust the result may be as they predict, and that the day may come when in all the nation, as in my own free State, the law shall make and know no difference between men on aeeoumt of race or color. Believing that this amendment probably goes as far in favor of suffrage to the negro as is practicable to accomplish now, and hoping it may in the end accomplish all I desire in this respect, I shall vote for its adoption, although I should be glad to go further.

The substitute for the third section, which we have adopted, disables the leaders of the rebellion, both civil and military, from holding office unless restored by act of Congress. Can the South, can the men who are thus disabled, complain of this? Were ever men who had been guilty of armed rebellion against their lawful Government treated with such lenity? The history of the world shows no parallel of mercy like this. Never before was there a rebellion of half the magnitude of this, I might say of a hundredth part the magnitude of this, that the streets did not run with the blood of the offenders. A war without cause, or pretended cause, except that the opposite party had carried the election in a constitutional way, which resulted in killing and disabling probably half a million men on our side, involving us in a debt of §3 000 000 000 to burden us and our children after as, and we exact as a penalty for it, and as a measure of safety for ourselves, that the leaders, instead of being hung, shall not hold office unless Congress shall for their good behavior or other cause remove the restriction. What if they were the subjects of a political delusion? What if they had been taught that a State had the constitutional power to secede? Have not all rebellions had as good a foundation, and those who were hanged for it been as sincere in their belief in the justice of their cause as any man in this rebellion was? This has never been regarded as any answer to the legal liability. If a man or set of men make war against their Government, they do it at the peril of making the war successful or of taking the legal consequences.

If when the rebellion was over we had ?aid to every man engaged in it,■' We will allow you to retain your life and your property, but you shall never par, icipaic in the Government of the country you have attempted to destroy, by voting or holding office,"' it would have been all they could have expected or had any right to expect. This is the basis upon which Maryland, Missouri, and other States have settled it for themselves.

But we leave thegreat mass utterly untouched, and the leaders with their lives, their property, the full enjoyment of all their civil rights and prhilogo?, with the right of voting for all officers, both State and national, with the single restriction they shall not hold office. The disproportion between the cause and the consequence is so great as to almost make it ridiculous. I know it is said that this is a measure so har h and severe that it will not be accepted by the South. But I do not believe so; on the contrary, I believe it will be acceptable to the masses, that they will consider it a very easy atonement, and that if there is anything like punishment in it, it falls where it is deserved. If there be any included in this class (as it is agreed there may be) who were really forced into the rebellion against their will, it will be very easy to procure absolution by making the fact appear to Congress.

The remaining propositions of amendment, declaring the sacred and inviolable character of our national obligations, and the illegality and invalidity of the rebel debt, and of any compensation for the slaves who have been freed, admit of no doubt as sound propositions in themselves. The only question that can be made upon them is the propriety or necessity of incorporating them into the fundamental law. For myself, 1 think that although these may in a certain sense be said to be matters of a temporary character, still they involve interests of such immense magnitude that it is proper they should be settled in the most solemn and enduring mode, and that their incorporation into the Constitution will save disputes and wrangling hereafter.

Mr. President, it has been said that all these proposed amendments, as a whole, as a general plan for the restoration of these States, will not be acceptable to them, and that they will not adopt them, or at least that they will not do it willingly; and if they adopt them at all it will only he under a kind of coercion and because they cannot otherwise obtain what they seek; and that we have no right to secure even l proper amendments in that way.

It seems to me that this plan, as a whole, is characterized by so much moderation and forbearance that it cannot fail to commend itself to the people of these States so that they will readily and freely give it their sanction. But, sir, if it be true that they are not satisfied with it, and will only adopt it to secure their return to share in the national power, I am so well satisfied that this plan contains nothing but what we have the right to insist on, and which justice to the nation requires, that I should feel no hesitation in saying kindly, but firmly, "You must acquiesce in these amendments before we will permit you to take part in the administration of the General Government." There is nothing new in this, either. Did these States accept the amendment abolishing slavery willingly much more important matter to them than anything contained in these propositions? Did they declare their ordinances of secession null and void or declare the rebel debt invalid willingly? We know they did not, but only because the President required it of them. Has any one ever blamed the President or thought he was unjust to the South in these requirements? If the people of the nation, through their representatives, believe that something more should justly be required, they have the equal right and should exercise the right to demand it.

We should not exercise our power to make any unjust demand, but what is just and right to exact we should be wanting in our duty if wo fail to have done.

Mr. President, it is a matter of great satisfaction to me that at last, after so much and so anxious deliberation, it appears so probable that Congress will be able to present a plan upon which the requisite majorities of both Houses will be able to agree, and especially when as a whole this plan commends itself so well to my own judgment of what is right.

It is known that some differences of opinion have existed between Congress and the Executive on this subject.

Great differences have existed among ourselves; many opinions have had to yield to enable us to agree upon a plan. If we are so fortunate, as I trust we shall be, to pass these propositions by the requisite majorities, although they may not in all respects correspond with the views of the President, I believe he will feel it to be his patriotic duty to acquiesce in the plan proposed, and give his powerful influence and support to procure their adoption. We are all aiming at the same grand result, the difference is rather in the choice of modes and means to attain it. We are all, I trust, actuated by the same high motives of patriotism, and all desire to see all these States again acting harmoniously together. In a matter of such grave importance, with no precedents for our action, with no guide in the Constitution but that furnished by its general spirit and purpose, it is not singular that great diversity of ideas should exist. In such case opinions must yield to some extent, or else' nothing could be agreed or settled, and all would be anarchy. 1 will not allow myself to believe that these measures will not, under the circumstances, receive the sincere support of the President, although he may not believe them perfect.

Mr. President, there are men who believe we are now on the verge of ruin, and that we shall never again become a united and harmonious people. But, sir, I believe they are either cowards or croakers, who always see the dark side of the picture. For myself, I see no such cause of alarm. To me everything looks hopeful for the future. We have just gone through the greatest war the world has ever seen. An unparalleled social revolution has taken place in the South—three or' four million people turned from slaves into a free people.

That in so short atimeafterthesegrcatcvcnts so much of order and quietness and obedience to law should exist 1 is astonishing. The world never witnessed i s parallel. We did not expect it ourselves before the close of the war, but now we are impatient and troubled because it is not better. Time alone will smooth and allay the stormy v, waves of excitement and passion caused by such momentous events. To me, sir, a great and glorious future is opening for our country. Slavery, the great blight and curse that has hung upon us, is ended forever. The South, so long retarded by it, will be opened and expanded by the influence of free labor and free institutions. A new agriculture will enrich and beautify her fields. Commerce and manufactures will build up busy towns and carry thrift and wealth along her great rivers. All causes of discord between North and South being over, we shall become a homogeneous nation of free men, dwelling together in peace and unity. United and wholly free, our power would awe the world. I hope to live to see the day when all will agree that this great war which has destroyed slavery, severe and burdensome as it was to this generation, was yet one of those "blessings in disguise" sent by the Great Kuler of all which proved the very salvation of the nation.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. President, as I shall vote for the plan agreed upon among my political friends, it is proper that I should make a brief statement of my reasons. While it is not the plan that I would have adopted, as is well known, still it is the best that I can get, and contains many excellent provisions. It repudiates the rebel debt and affirms the sacred obligation of the nation to pay the debt contracted in preservation of the Union. It does not base representation on voters, which I preferred, but it approximates it more nearly than any other plan presented, and recognizes the principle that a white man in the North is entitled to equal representation with a white man in the South. It declares that all men are entitled to life, liberty, and property, and imposes upon the Government the duty of discharging these solemn obligations, but fails to adopt the easy and direct means for the attainment of the results proposed. It refuses the aid of four million people in maintaining the Government of the people. It involves freedmen s bureaus, civil rights bills, test oaths, and exclusion from office, all supported by military power. I would not object to these, for I recognize the obligation of full protection for all men, if there were no cheaper, easier, and better plan for the attainment of this worthy object. But the reasons why I can support this plan are, that it recognizes the obligations, which I hold sacred, and does not preclude Congress from adopting other means by a two thirds vote, when experience shall have demonstrated, as it certainly will, the necessity for a change of policy. In fact it furnishes a conclusive argument in favor of universal amnesty and impartial suffrage. The longer the North strives to protect the negro and the white loyalists of the South from sure violence at the hands of rebels by military power, supported by grievous taxation, with increasing danger of a consolidated and despotic Government, the more clearly will the necessity appear of returning to first principles, and according the ballot to all men. It is not the first time that the black man s aid has been spurned by this Government, and it will not be the first time that necessity has driven us to avail ourselves of his support. While his labor was added to the power of treason traitors were triumphant: when it 'was subtracted and added to the material resources of the Government the Union forces were victorious. While his political power is ignored or added to disloyalty free government in the South is impossible. When it is withdrawn from rebels and added to the loyal forces the Union and republican institutions will be safe. The utter impossibility of a final solution of the difficulties by the means proposed will cause the North to clamor for suffrage. Test oaths, exclusion from office, and military rule will make the South anxious for amnesty, now so lightly considered, and willing to take suffrage lo avoid certain and greater evils. While the way is left open, as it is in these resolutions, for both mercy and justice, the logic of events will work out the great problem, and satisfy all who are not now satisfied that the march of this country must either be toward consolidated, arbitrary power, supported by enormous taxation, or toward amnesty and •suffrage, union and liberty. If the arguments presented by this plan do not convince at once time will do the work. I will further remark that it is a better plan than I expected could be agreed upon, and I hope much good from it. It may lead to a final settlement, and with that view I shall give it my support.

Mr. HOWE proceeded to address the Senate. Without concluding, he yielded the floor for an executive session. [Ilis speech will be published in full in the Appendix.]

On motion of JSlr. HOWARD, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business: and after some time spent in executive session the doors were reopened, and the Senate adjourned.