April 7, 1864

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution (S. No. 16) proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States is now before the Senate, and the question is on concurring, in the Senate, with the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, as I said to the Senate yesterday evening, I do not intend to occupy the attention of the body but forafew moments; and I would not have been induced to say one word of a political character except for the suggestions made by the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Hale] in his speech yesterday afternoon. He took occasion in arguing thesubject before the Senate, to make a very grave charge against the Administration ofMr. Buchanan, and to say that during that Administration the war commenced, or at least eleven States were lost to the Union. Sir, 1 am no extravagant admirer of Mr. Buchanan. I think lie departed from the principles upon which he was elected President of the United States; and that departure brought great loss upon the Democratic party, and perhaps some evil upon the country; but I am not willing m the Senate to hear so grave a charge made against him and make no reply, when I think the charge cannot bo well maintained.

In the first place, the Senator was mistaken as to the number of States that seceded during the Administration of Mr. Buchanan, During the last few months of that Administration seven States seceded; the States of South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. After the incoming of the present Administration four more States seceded, to wit: Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina. There is a very serious mistake made by the Senator upon the question of fact.

'But, although not making the charge directly, he allowed it to be inferred from what he said that the Administration of Mr. Buchanan was responsible to a very considerable extent for the commeneomeut of hostilities. I do not agree with the Senator. What had the Administration of Mr. Buchanan to do with the commencement of hostilities? Mr. Holt and Mr. Stanton were both members of his Cabinet during the last months of that Administration, and one of them is now a member of the present Cabinet and the other holds a high office, and both are regarded as very potential claim for in the the present Democratic Administration. party that it But, did sir, all that it could do to avoid the commencement of thesehostilities. I shall not go over that subject in detail, for it is well understood by the Senate, except to call the attention of the Senator from New Hampshire to the fact that during the session of Congress immediately preceding the commencement of the present Administration, the Democrats in this body and in the other House did all in their power to adjust the differences between the North and the South, and to avoid the calamitous war that has come upon the country. Can the Senator from New Hampshire say so much for his party?

It was stated by Senator Douglas in the presence of the Senator, that if the Republican party of this body, and of the other branch of Congress, would do as much as the Democrats would do in the way of adjustment and compromise, there need be no trouble—the conflict of the sections might be avoided; and the Senator did not deny the allegation of that distinguished Senator. It stands as a statement thenundisputed in this body, that if the Republican portion of the Senate and of the House of Representatives had been willing to do as much as the Democrats would do, we could have adjusted the questions in dispute between the two sections, and have avoided this calamitous war. When the proposition of adjustment and compromise came to a vote in this body, I believe every Democrat then occupying a seat here voted for it, while every gentleman in this body belonging to the other party voted again st it. The same is substantially true of the history of that proposition in the other branch of Congress.

Then, sir, I think the Senator cannot well say that Mr. Buchanan s Administration or the Democratic party, at that time, were responsible for the failure of the effoits to adjust the questions in dispute between the two sections. I will not say that the South had cause for the course they pursued. Secession had not justification in the fact that a northern party succeeded and that a sectional President had been elected. But will the Senator deny that if a sectional party had not succeeded, and a sectional President had not been elected, this trouble would not have come upon the country? While I do not justify the course that has been pursued by the South, but utterly condemn and repudiate it, I say that if a sectional policy had nor been pursued on the part of the North, encouraged and participated in on the part of the leaders in the South, we need not have had the present troubles, which are so calamitous to the country.

The Senator also said that the Democrats were indulging the delusion that if their party could succeed they might bring peace and prosperity again to the country. Sir, 1 do indulge such a hope, and I think it is not adelusion. itisahope ba.sed upon the experience of the past. lam not ashamed of that party. I believe the Senator himself once did honorto that party by advocating its principles and fighting for its organization. I may be mistaken, but! think that was the case. I am not ashamed of the history of that party. It fought for the Constitution and the doctrines of the fathers. It resisted sectional organizations and the triumph of sectional sentiments, and while that Democratic party was in power in this country we had no sectional troubles that could not easily and speedily be adjusted.

The Senator referred to the few Democratic Senators in this body, and said that when they spoke it was 44 like the voice of one crying in the wilderness." 1 thank the Senator for the illustration. That voice was the voice of John the Baptist. His voice was to prepare the way of the Lord in the wilderness, and to make straight a highway in the desert. If it should be the fortune of the few Democrats who are in this body and of the Democrats in the country to prepare a highway in which the people may again walk in prosperity and union and in harmony, I shall rejoice in such a result.

The Senator also referred to the taking off the head of Charles I, and he said that the Democrats might as well good naturedly place their heads under the ax and let them fall. The Senator did not do well to depart from his first figure. He ought to have stood by his first illustration. John the Baptist, who raised his voice in the wilderness, lost his head, and why did not the Senator adhere to that illustration? Why was he beheaded? Because John the Baptist denounced incest in the palace of the king. "Why shall Democrats lose their heads? Because they denounce the evils of the times? Because they denounce the corruption that is found in high places? Because they denounce the departures from the Constitution and the teachings of the fathers? Ofwhat sin has the Democratic party been guilty that it should lose its head? Has it not stood by the Constitution? Has it not appealed to the people to stand by the teachings of the fathers? Was it not fought for the institutions of our country as they are based upon the Constitution, the basis that our fathers established for them? Why, then, should we lose our heads? Ay, if it is to gratify a king upon the petition of a dancing girl in his presence, let the head be taken if we have done sin; but if we have but fought forthe right, if we have but contended for the doctrines which have brought such prosperity and greatness to our country, I think we shall not lose our heads.

The gentleman ridiculed and jeered at the possibility of a Democratic triumph in the future. I am not going to discuss the possibility or impossibility of such a result. I pray for it. The condition of the country cannot be worse than it is now. If the Democrats succeed in securing an election, they can but fail in their efforts to restore the Union upon the basis of the Constitution. We can try, and it is certain thatany change is better than the present condition of affairs. Liberty cannot be less secure, our institutions cannot be less permanent under some other Administration than under the present.

The Senator, I thought rather unguardedly, said that this was the day he had long desired, the day he had long prayed for. I have heard that sentiment from pulpits and seen itinthe columns of fanatical newspapers, but I had not before heard it in the Senate of the United States, a body in which men are expected to express well matured and considered opinions. What does the Senator find in the present condition of his country at which he should rejoice? Is it in the fact that we are engaged in a war upon the most stupendous scale that the eye of man has ever witnessed? Is it the fact that we have called into the field above two million men from the North andthat in proportion to their population, a larger force has been called into the field in the South? Is it in the fact that one tenth of the people of the North have been called from the pursuits of industry to the pursuits of war, from the business of producing to the business of consuming and destroying? Is it in the fact that instead of producing and adding to the wealth of the country we are consuming and destroying it? Is it in the fact that of these two million two hundred thousand men that have been called into the field from the North during the past three years more perhaps than two hundred and fifty thousand of them occupy the green graves along the border? Is it m the fact that in two hundred and fifty thousand homes there is mourning and sadness instead of joy and rejoicing? Is it in the fact that instead of the mothers and wives of the land being happy and rejoicing they are clothed in the weeds of mourning? Is it in the fact that we see upon every side of us our returned brothers and friends, one with an arm gone, another with another limb gone, health destroyed, and happiness departed from them? Are these the sources of gratification to the Senator and the party he represents? Is it in the fact that during the past three years and the year that is to come we have imposed upon the people of the United States adebt of 4 000 000 000? The Secretary s report will not show so much, but I think it is known to Senators that when this war is closed, if it be closed within the coming year, our national debt must be nearly 4 000 000 000 What is the proportion of that debt to the property of the country? I turned my eye this morning to the fact as stated in the late census:

"The marshals of the United States were directed to obtain from the records of the States and Temtories respectively, an account of the value of real and person il estate ai d for taxation. Instruction* were £tveu lliesse officers to add the proper amount to the assessment, so that the return should represent as well the true or intrinsic value a£ the inadequate sum generally attached to probity £>r tax* able purposes. The result of thU return by all the census takers will be found in table No. 34, whereby it will appear that the value of individual property m the States and Territories exceeds the sum ol sixteen thousand million dollars, reptt seuting an increase of one hundred and twentysix ami a half per cent. in ten years in value m the aggregate, and an increase of sixty eight per cent- per capita of the free population."

Then the value of the personal and real property of the people of the United States, North and South, is stated in the census to be 16 000 000 000, and our debt at the end of another year will be 4 000 000 000 being one fourth the entire property of the people of the United States, North and South; and there is to be added to this the enormous debt incurred by States, by counties, by cities, by towns, and by townships. What they will add to the burdens of the people of the United States I shall not undertake to estimate. Perhaps 1 might say one half of the general debt of the United States. Then, sir against the property of the people of the United States, North and South, of 16 000 000 000 we have an indebtedness by the General Government, by the States, by the cities, by the counties, and townships, of 6 000 000 000 more than one third of the property of the United States. Does the Senator contemplate with pleasure, that upon the people of the United States there will bo at the end of the corning year a burden of debt such as is not borne in comparison to their property by any people upon earth?

I suppose the gratification of the Senator arises not from the effects of this calamitous war upon the people of his own race. He knows there is no happiness, no prosperity to come to them from that. He knows that there is but misery, death, destruction, embarrassment, debt, bankruptcy to the men, women, and children of his own race. But I suppose he is gratified when he contemplates the effect upon the four million negroes in the South. Is the Senator right sure that it is going to add to the happiness and prosperity of those people in the South? Is he sure that the four millions who, at the commencement of this war, had masters to take care of them, if turned loose and made dependent upon their own efforts for their subsistence and their prosperity, will be happier after that state of things than they were when they were taken care of by their masters in the South? I am not sure that it is going to be so.

The Senator contemplates that they will be free, that they will go when and where they please; but when they come into the northern States among a people not accustomed to them, and commence to crowd the free white labor ot the North, these unfortunate people will come in contact with a northern prejudice that will be hard upon them and upon their prosperity. But, sir, with all the calamities and misfortunes that have befallen twenty six million white people, the Senator is gratified when he contemplates the happiness that may possibly by chance come upon four million negroes.

Does the history of the last year and a half justify the Senator s exultation and joy? Let him go along the Mississippi, and instead of finding the negroes there happy and industrious, he will find them without protection, and, as the reports are, without provision and almost without clothing, and a large number of them prematurely dead. The Senator from Kentucky [Mr, Davis] suggests to me that at least two hundred thousand of them have already perished piematurely. And yet with this state of facts before the Senator he expects a good time for these unfortunate people yet to come!

Are they to remain among us? I can say to the Senator that they never will associate with the white people of this country upon terms of equality. It may be preached; it may be legislated for; it may be prayed for; but there is that difference between the two races that renders it impossible. I f they are among us as a free people, they are among us as an inferior people. The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Saulsbury] most happily expressed it, that this difference between the races is not chargeable upon us; it is not chargeable upon our institutions; it is not chargeable upon the condition in which these people have been kept for many generations past; it was the pleasure of God to mark that difference upon the races; a difference in intellect, in tastes, in all the qualities that enable a race to go upward and onward, which God himself has made and impressed upon them.

I will ask the Senator if he can refer to the negro in any land, in any age, m which his condition was better, in which his physical comforts were secured to a higher degree, m which his intellectual and moral elevation was promoted in a higher degree, than in his connection with the white, people of the United States since he was brought to America. What was his condition before he was brought here? Had he any rights then that were respected even by the rulers of his own race? He was brought here a slave, a barbarian knowing no rights to himself enjoying no rights, ignorant of that religion which has been taught him in this country. lie has been elevated, so far as he could be elevated, by his contact with the white man. I do not believe in this notion that the negro is going to elevate himself if the influence of the white man is removed from him. His tendency has been downward when not in contact with our superior race. Then, sir, I find nothing in the past history of this race, their history in Africa, their history in the islands near by our own coast, their history in the free States, their history in the southei n States, to encourage the sentiment that gratifies the Senator so much, that they are to be so much blessed and elevated by the change that is to be made in their condition.

Mr. President, I will not vote for the resolution that is before the body. I do not intend to discuss the merits or demerits of the proposition of general emancipation. That question has been sufficiently discussed, perhaps, by other Senators. In the first place, 1 will not vote for the resolution because I think the times are not auspicious. It is not a favorable tune for us to lay our hand upon the work of the fathers. Our Constitution was made after the war of the Revolution was closed, when peace had returned, when there was but little party prejudice and strife in the country time most favorable for laying the foundations of government. Our fathers were statesmen, taught in the scenes of the Revolution. They laid the foundations of government; and, for myself, I am not willing to disturb them in these times of excitement and strife.

Ought not the people deliberately to consider any proposition for an amendment of the Constitution? Ought it not to be considered more deliberately than any ordinary measure of government or of administration? Sir, what is our condition? We are in a state of war. The mmds of the people aw greatly excited. They come to conclusions now not so much upon reflection and argument and reason as they do upon the passions of the hour. I ask Senators whether a time like this is favorable to consider amendments of the organic law?

Besides that, there are many of the States that are especially in no condition to consider amendments to the Constitution. Three fourths of the States must agree by their Legislatures or by conventions to this amendment beforeitshall become a part of the organic, law. Let me ask the atten-■ lion of Senators to the condition of a few of the States that must assent to it before this measure can become a part of the Constitution. It may be that twenty one States could deliberately consider this question. It maybe that California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, N w Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Western Virginia may be in something of a condition to consider the proposed amendment of the Constitution. Those are twenty one States, not two thirds, much less three fourths. I ask Senators, then, in what condition are Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia to consider amendments to the Constitution? Is this to be their Constitution as well as ours? Is this to be a Constitution for Louisiana as well as Indiana, for Florida as well as New Hampshire? Then, sir, if it is to be their great law, to which they will owe allegiance and render obedience, shall they not be in a condition to consider so important an amendment before it is proposed to them?

Mr. HOWARD. Will the Senator from Indiana allow me to ask him a question on this particular point?

Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOWARD. If those States to which he refers are not in a condition to participate in the amendment of the Constitution, as is contemplated by this joint resolution, whose fault will it be? Can a party in that attitude take advantage of his own fault, of his own wrong?

Mr. HENDRICKS. I will ask the Senator before 1 answer his question, whether H be a fault or no fault, can this Constitution he amended unless three fourths of the thirty five States agieeto it? Three fourths of the thirty five States must agree to it, and it is not a matter of so much importance when we come to the question I am now discussing whose fault it is. 1 have said whose fault it was. I have said that these States had ho just and sufficient cause for secession. I repudiate the act. I am against it, and from the first have condemned it. But I ask the Senator, is it not to be their Constitution as well as ours, and must not this amendment be considered by them and acted upon by them, so as to secure three fourths of the thirty«five States, before it becomes a part of the Constitution?

Mr. HOWARD. I will answer the Senator. It is their duty to take it into consideration when submitted to them; but if, in violation of that constitutional duty, they have placed themselves in such an attitude that they will not participate in it, it is their fault and not the fault of the other States. They have an opportunity to day the same opportunity possessed by other States, and may with just as much ease as other States participate in the amendment of the Constitution. Nothing but their own stubborn wills, nothing but their own rebellious spirits, nothing but their open treason prevents them from doing so, if it can be said that those causes prevent them, which I deny.

Mr. HENDRICKS. 1 shall now insist upon the Senator answering my question. The question which I asked him is, can this proposed amendment become a part of the Constitution of th** United States unless asmuch as three fourths of the States agree to it?

Mr. HOWARD. Of course, I suppose, there must be a concurrence of the constitutional numberofStates which number would be three fourths of the States of the Union, or, m the language of the Constitution, in the Union.

Mr. COLLAiVIER, Will the gentleman indulge me with a .single suggestion on that point?

Mr. HENDRICKS. Certainly.

Mr. COLL AM ER. I f those States were voting and were in favor of the amendment, they would vote for it and would be satisfied with it, if it were adopted, and if they were opposed to itthey would vote against it. Now, in counting the thirty five States so as to get three fourths to agree to it, those States that have not voted at all are counted the same precisely as if they had voted against it.

Mr. HENDERSON. Without reflecting upon the proposition of the Senator, I should think he is right, if I understand him correctly. His proposition is that if twenty States vote in favor of the proposed amendment and fifteen States fail to vote at all, the fifteen States shall be counted as voting against it.

Mr. COLLAMER. If they did not vote at all, in counting up, as we must have three quarters of all the States, they are to be counted the same as if they voted against it.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Precisely so. The Senator, 1 believe, docs not question that three fourths of the States must vote affirmatively in favor of the amendment.

Mr. COLLAMER. I believe they will.

Mr. HENDRICKS. The Senator sayshe believes they will. It is possible they may.

Mr. WILLEY. "With the leave of the Senator, as that is an interesting point, I desire to know whether if they are not prepared to vote this year, they may not be next year? Will not the time come when they will be in a condition to vote? If within ten years from this date, for instance, those States that are in the condition to which the Senator alludes should, as I hope they will, be placed in a condition fairly and peaceably to express their opinion on the subject, would it not be competent for them to do so, and thereby adopt the proposed amendment of the Constitution?

Mr. HENDRICKS. I cannot undertake to answer the Senator, because it is not a question that I have considered. Theamendmeiu is proposed to the Legislatures of the States at the present session of Congress, it goes before them all. There are sessions of the different Legislatures. Someartnpon it and somedo not. If say twenty of them have adopted it, does it remain an open question for action by the other Legislatures for ten years following, or twenty or thirty years? I; am not prepared without further reflection to say that the question would remain open, as the Senator suggests.

But, an, take the old State of Virginia, that contributed so much to the formation of the Constitution as we now have it; the State that passed the resolution in her Legislature which called together first five States, and those five States appealed to the other States to meet them m convention and in pursuance of thatappeala convention was held; Virginia, that had so much to do with the deliberations of the body; Virginia, that has contributed so much to the construction of the Constitution by the expositions made by her great and learned men—shall Vngima haveno full and free voice in the amendment of this Constitution? It may be said that Virginia is a State m the Union, and that .she lias her Legislating meeting at Alexatulua. Will Senators say that that Legislature m such sense represents the people of Virginia us that it ought to control that State m agreeing to an amendment of the Constitution r

But take Ai kansas. That State is now claimed to be almost within the Union again. It is said Arkansas is taicmg steps urno r the President s proclamation to come back again. She may elect a Legislature pei haps; but how? Under the proposition of the President, that one tenth of the people may elect a Stategovernment, may elect a Legislature, may make laws, and may agi ee to an amendment of the Constitution. Will Senators say that that is such an approval by the people! of a State as ought to be regarded as sufficient to adopt an amendment to the Constitution? Surely not, sir. Our talheis were vei y paitieular on this subject. They required that two thirds of this body, and two thuds of the other House of Congress, should agree tu the proposed amendment before it should go before the people, and then that three fourths of the States should agree to the amendment before it should become apart of the Constitution, contemplating the fullest consideration of the subject and the laigest approval of the amendment "before it should become a part jj ol the organic law. Are we U> say that this plan ol the President shall be sufficient not only to make a new State government, but that it shall be sufficient to agree to a change of the Constitution; that one tenth of the people of a State, according b to the presidential proelamation, may not only•' change their own constitution, but may agree to li a change ofthe Constitution of the United States, when this Constitution contemplates that all the ij people ofthe country should take part in thetfc- jj deliberations upon that subject.'

Take Louisiana also, m which an effort is now being made to form a fiee State, if the people ij of Louisiana, acting through a convention prop- II erly selected, shall make that State a free State, J f 5 shall be v« ry happy to hear it If the people of any State see fit to change their constitution so as to make their State free instead of .slave, i shall be vciy glad of the result. Then itispropeily done. But, sir, I am not willing to see our institutions come to that condition which would be upon us if one tenth of the people ofa State could control not only the State constitution but the modification of the Constitution of the United States.

Can there be in the States that I have mentioned, or in any considerable number of them, that deliberation which is necessary when we propose to change the organic law? Take the State of Kentucky, so ably represented in this body: is Kentucky m a condition to day to say whether she wants her Federal Constitution changed or Kentucky, that one week is invaded by rebel troops and the next week under the control of Federal tioops—Kentucky, that can lay no claim to a free election? Take Maryland, that has no free election; or Delaware, that is controlled, as was illustrated m the able speech of her Senator [Mr. Saulsbury] the other day, by provost marshals appointed the Sunday night before the elec e tion. Is this the condition in which this country ought to be when we propose to change our Federal Constitution? 1 say not, sir; and without reference to the merits of the proposed amendment, I say we are not in a condition in any of the States, and especially in the States to which i have referred, because of the excitement caused by the condition of the country and the state of war, for a deliberate consideration of the questions involved on the part of the people.

One moic suggestion, sir, and I have said all that I desire on this subject. I am not satisfied that this proposed amendment is one that can be made to the Constitution. The institution of slavery is a domestic institution. It exists, not by virtue ofthe Federal Constitution, not by virtue of any law passed pursuant to the Constitution ofthe United States, but it had its existence before the formation of the Federal compact, before the establishment of the Federal Constitution. it was an institution of the colonies. I will not discuss with tin" honorable Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harlan] the question whether the slaveholder has a good title to his property. It is enough to know that this institution existed before the Revolution in the colonies; that it continued during the Revolution; that it came with the colonies into their state of independence and separate sovereignty; and when the colonies came, into the Federal compact they did not submit that institution, oi their otlu r domestic institutions, to the control of the Federal Government. The Federal Government has had nothing to do with the institution' of slavery, except so far as by compromise it was protected and respected. It was a basis of representation m the other House; it is a basis of taxation m a certain contingency; and a fugitive escaping fi om one State to another shall be returned without respect to the law of the State into which he escapes.

These aie the connections ofthe Federal Government with the institution of slavery, but no State in the formation of the Federal compact agreed to lay that institution or any other lnsti-! tution of a domestic sort at the foot of Federal authority. I am not satisfied (although i have not examined that subject as maturely as I would desire if I intended to discuss it at length) that] this is an amendment which it is competent to make short of the agreement of all the States of the Union; and then that amendment thusagieed| to would have its force not because it was a part of the Constitution, but because each State for itself had agreed to abolish slavery. When each State agrees to it, it is settled. All of our great men and jurists have held that this institution exists by a virtue of State law. That State law may be the common law of the State, the usage of the State, or it may be that system of statutes which recognizes and regulates the institution; and i take n that it is a very grave question whether three fourths of the States can take hold of an institution in the remaining fourth, without the consent of those dissenting States, which those States never agreed in the original compact should be under the control in any way of the Federal Government.

But, sir, my main objection to the adoption of this measure now is that the people are not in a condition to consider proposed amendments to the Constitution. This year we are to have the excitement of a presidential contest, perhaps a very bitter one. Men wiU take their titles according to party relations. I .submit to Senators whether a time like this, when the mind of the people is wrought as the sea is by the storm, is a suitable time to lay our hands upon the fundamental law of the Government, and to change the foundation stones of that Government; whether we had not better let these times pass by, and when peace shall come, as it was m 1787 and 1789, when our fathers considered the original Constitution, then consider the* proposed amendments, if the people of the United States shall then decide to abolish slavery, and it is found that itisa question that may be controlled by three fourths of the States, I shall have no objection to it. 1? slavery passes away 1 shall not be found regretting it.

I suppose I have less personal knowledge of the institution of slavery than almost any Senator in this body. I have never spent a whole day scarcely in my life upon slave soil. My life has been spent among the free people ofthe State of Indiana. I have no attachments to the institution; but I have an attachment to the compacts and agreements of our fathers. I was taught as a part of my politics and morality to stand by what was agreed to. The moral question of slavery I have never discussed before the people. I do not intend to discuss it here, because with the moral question of slavery the Federal Government lias nothing to do. That is a question for the consideration ofthe States that regulate the institution, the States that allow it, the States by whose authority it exists; and by no other authority does it or can it exist.

Although I voted with my friend from Kentucky [Mr. Powell] in favor of his three amendments, still if it had come to a final vote, separate from the amendment now before the Senate, whether we should submit those three propositions, which I should like to see m the Constitution, I should, upon the final vote, have voted "no," for the reason thatatthis time I would not submit any proposed amendment to the people. 1 would agi ee as aSenator to submit an amendment of the Constitution to the people for but one reason, if I could become satisfied that a proposed amendment to the Constitution would put an end to these hostilities, would restore this Union, and bring peace again to the country, i would vote for any amendment that was consistent with the right and honor. If Senators could satisfy me that the adoption of this amendment was right and within the power of three fourths ofthe States, and that it would promote an adjustment and settlementof the difficulties between the sections, I should vote for it, but for no other consideration. On the contrary, sir, I believe that this amendment if adopted will be in the way of final adjustment and the restoration of this Union. What good can it do? Just the same good precisely that the President s proclamation did. The President by his proclamation said, "We have set yournegroes free; weleavoyouno inducement to come back to live under the Constitution as your fathers agreed to it; we cutoff hope; we give you an incentive to fight to desperation." And now the Senate pioposeto &ny to the people of the South, "You cannot come back upon the basis of the Constitution as it was; you cannot come back and enjoy your institutions as they were. If you do come, back, we leave in your midst in many localities of the South a majority of the population black; we make it impossible foryou to reside there." Therefore this proposition says to the people ofthe South 51 Fight on; give up never; never hear a proposition of adjustment; but resist until you can resist no longer;" and that is one objection I have had to this Administration. It has gone upon that polity. Instead of holding out those motives that ordinarily influence men, this Administration has said to the South," We intend to subjugate you, and we will listen to no terms, we will offer no terms." Gentlemen can easily see the result of such a course of policy. Now we are going to make it impossible that they shall come back and stand upon the Constitution as it was. We are going now, if this proposition can carry, to say to the people of the South," We will take away from you this property for which you commenced this stiuggle,"

Again, I say this is in violation of the plighted faith of the Senate. Did not -the Senate, three years ago, in July, 1861, by their resolution and did not the other Hoi sesay that this war was not for the pwpose of subjugation, not foi the purpose of disturbing the institutions of any of the States, Imi simply and solely for the purpose of restoring the Union and the authority of the Constitution? Can 11 be pretended that this is a war measure 5 You must conquer the South before this can have force there; and when you have conquered the South, of what service is it as a war measure? It is like the Piesident s proclamation in that respect. Can you send a proclamation in advance of the troops? Can you send the amendment of the Constitution in advance of the Army, and make an impression on the people in that way? No sir you have got to overcome the people, and establish your amendment of the Constitution as you would establish the other portions of the Constitution. "It is a war measure after the war is over! And while the war is continuing it is a hinderance to an adjustment and the restoration of peace.

These, in a few words, are the objections that I have to the measure before the Senate.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. President, I dislike very much at present, to undertake to argue the question that is now before the. body, for the simple reason that Senators must he tired of its discussion. At one time 1 thought it might possibly be necessary for me to say something in behalf of the measure, inasmuch as I was perhaps one of the earliest who introduced a proposition of this '-character; but now, at a period when Senators expect and i easonably expect, that the discussion ought to close ami the* vote be taken, I dislike \ei y much to obtrude any remarks upon the Senate; and 1 should not do so but for the fact that 1 in part represonton this floor one of the borderStates of the Union, and I deem it my duty to say something in older that gentlemen from the non sluvc holdmg States, hke my honorable friend from Indiana who lias just spoken, [Mr. Hendricks,] may better understand the position that we of the border slaveholding States now occupy.

I do not desire to get outside of the question before the body: I desire to keep myselfclost ly to it and to occupy as little of the time of theSenate as may be necessary to enable me to state what I deem it proper to urge in favor of the passage of the measure; and in order to save time and to keep myself within proper bounds, j have committed to writing the most of what I shall say. I know that this is a practice of which older Senators do not approve, and perhaps I ought not to resort to it; but i do not feci that I have the right upon all occasions to inflict upon this body remarks without thought.

i have already intimated that the Union men in the slaveholding States have pretty much made up their minds as to what course they intend to pursue in regard to the institution of slavery. Whatever may have been their opinions at a pi e- vious date, those opinions have undergone important changes. This proposition is to mailt an epoch in the history of our country if it shall be adopted, and I take occasion now to expre.ss my sincere wish that it may become a part of the Constitution of the United States. The State which I in part represent had in 18G0 one hundred and fifteen thousand slaves, and it may be supposed that that State is deeply interested in the proposition now pending before the Senate; but, sir, our great interest, as lovers ofthe Union, is in the preservation and perpetuation of the Union; and what I shall say to day will be chiefly duelled to northern men.

This war has wrought o wonderful change in the opinions of Union men in the slaveholding States. Heretofore a majority of the people of the North have been opposed to interfering with the institution of slavery where itexisted. They opposed it because they believed the South desired to retain the institution that seems to be the opinion of my fiiend from Indiana—and so long as this desire lasted they propeily held it to be a breach of faith to disturb it. So strong was this fet lnig that even after the commencement of practical secession northern Representatives, anti slavei y m their sentiments, with almost entire unanimity m both branches of Congress adopted and presented for acceptance by theSiates a constitutional amendment, irrepealabie in its character, whereby the powcrof interference was to be forever removed. By it no State could be deprived of the piivilege of slaveholding except with its own consent. In January, February, and Maich, 1861, such an amendment to the oi-, game law would have received the sanction of perhaps every non slaveholding State in the Union. The South would not accept it.

The only great idea of an anti-slavery character that triumphed, if anything anti-slavery triumphed atall, in the canvass of I860, wnsfounded on the purpose to exclude slavery from the Territories, and this exclusion was only to last while they were Territories. It did not deny the rightof the people, after their Territoi y had been admitted as a State, to adopt the institution ofslavery. The corruptions of Mr. Buchanan s administration gave success to the Republican party. The opposition to slavery, even at the outbreak of the rebellion, had not become so radical as to deny that a slaveholding State might be republican in its form of government. It was admitted that a Statemighteither institute orabolish slavery that whatever might be the true boundary line between State rights and Federal authority this subject was one of local control, and Congress could not legitimately interfere. To what extent this disinclination to meddle with the ms uution yet pervades the non slavehoiding States, I, of course, do not know. It cannot be doubted by any rational and reflecting mind that our forefathers, m the adoption ofthe Constitution, whatever may have been their individual opinions, determined to leave the subject of slavery with the several States. They found it then as we have ever found it since, a dangerous and impracticable question. The impoitaiueof union was then paramount. Union could not be secured except by remitting the whole subject to State authority, Congress retaining only the power to enforce the surrender of slaves escaping from one State to another.

This view of the Constitution, though not conceded to be correct by what has been called the abolition party, was accepted, however, by a large majority of the people in the* North. Ilemembeung the compiomisesof the Constitution, they remembered their duty under them, and wished to comply with the bond. Whatever their individual convictions as to the immorality and impolicy of slavery, they have generally discarded the dogma that the obligations of moral law were superior to those of the municipal law, or that the whisperings of conscience could excuse the violation of the statute. 1 care not what may now be the prejudices against this institution ot slavery or how ignoble this former obedience to law on the part of the not them people may appear at a time when our passions are aroused by the war that party ambition, in the name of slavery, is watrinii eiramst us, the cooler judgment of the more peaceful future, whenever it conies, will again approve their conduct as essentially patriotic. Governments are not moral codes. They cannot be such. Each individual upon entering into society must agree to yield something of his own opinions to the opinions of others. if any one man s opinions be tin.' law, the Government is a mo iari by; if the opinions of a few shall govern, it is an ai istucracy or oluj u ehy; if the opinion of each is a law unto himself, it cannot be other than anarchy. 1 Hence the mass of opinion, in a Government republican in form, must control That opinion, expressed according to the forms of law, must be the rule of action. He that yields to that expression and obeys the law, so long as it stands uniepealed, is not only the best citizen but the most effective piomoter of public moialsand also the best teacher of pi i ate virtue. A simple adherence to this principle would have prevented the prt sent rebellion; indeed, it must eventually dme out every heresy m government and establish the light. To deny this proposition is to deny the virtue of self government. I human s avei y be wrong, human reason, under the operation of this principle, is left free to combat it, and slavery must die so soon as reason can obtain expression under the forms of law. It cannot die sooner, for the achiev> ments of the sword, if against reason, lastgeneially no longer than while the sword is drawn. When it issheathed, reason takes the place of force. Ideas jj of private interest and considerations of public good combined with convictions of leligiousduty,'! unintimidated by fear, are left free again to shape Ij governmental policy.|]

The people of the non slaveholding States gen- ji generally vveie wiihngto trust the solution of slavery to peaceful tunes. They, hke the founders of the Republic, generally hoped for its ultimate extinction. They did not hciicve that, the desolations of war would ever be required to show its injustice, or that war should be waged for its extermination. They had found it within certain limits, and there they left it. It was local, and they who lived in its midst were left to its enjoyment and held responsible for its existence. They felt it to be their duty to leave it alone. They would aid us to rid ourselves ofthe blighting influences when we might wish to remove it, but until then we must keep it, with all its good, if any it had, and all its evil. This, sir, was right, and under similar circumstances their conduct should be the same as heretofore. But things have now materially changed.

A few words only in reference to the causes and effects of that change. For three quarters of a century this feeling of comity, this reverence of the letter and spirit of the organic law, this overpowenng desire to preserve the national unity, had, notwithstanding the existence of slavery, given us peace and prosperity, both public and private, unparalleled in the growth of nations. The genius and industry of the North gave value to the great southern production in the discovery of the cotton gin and the erection of improved machinery to convert this production into useful fabrics. The northerners were early thrown upon Uieir own exertions, and, taught to rely upon those exertions, they became an active, industrious, inquiring, intelligent people. The southerners, I mean the more favored, enjoying a monopoly in the cotton culture, and finding that slave labor not only brought them large profit but that exemption from tod which, however coveted by men, never fails to corrupt them soon abandoned themselves to pleasure and the lighteraccompliahments of life. These frivolous accomplishments obtained in preference, because easily obtained, to the more solid acquirements, combined with this exemption from labor, soon created a feeling of superiority. They imagined themselves rich and powerful, and like all people under similar circumstances, they became first proud of themselves and then proud of their ancestry. They invested their Cavalier fatheis with the same heroic vii tues and nobility of soul that Virgil in (he palmy days of Roman greatness ascribed to the founders of the imperial city. In both cases perhaps much unreal greatness was thrust upon the dead that the pride of the living might be exalted. The first difficulty that presented iiself to the southern people was to satisfy themselves that slavery is morally right; and the second was to satisfy the people of the North that they could not legally interfere with jr except in their own States, and further that the Constitution imposed on them the duty to protect the South in the enjoyment of it. It was southern statesmen who in l he earlier periods of our history had most fie reel y assailed the institution, it was Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Marshall, Mason, Martin, Williamson, and others in their own land who had stamped slavery with the most decided disapprobation. But a change was to be wrought m some way. These denunciations of the insntut ion were to be put aside and a new dispensation proclaimed. Through the influence of South Carolina and Georgia alone, slavery had secured a footing in the compromises of the Constitution, and upon these compromises the South relied for legal protection. To ca m the conscience, religious denominations i«usacked the Scriptures, and finding the institution upheld under the Jewish theocracy, and not assailed by Christ and His nposiies under the Christian dispensation, this was readily accepted as sufficient. Tiie Senator from Delaware thinks it sufficient even yet. As the production of cotton increased, the conviction of the morality of slavery increased in the same ratio. Its divine character was inculcated in religion, in politics, and in morals. The justice of slavery, its economy, and harmony with republican institutions, were tin1 first impressions stamped upon the youthful mind. The southern people are not the only people who are blind to ti ut h because of the pi ejudiet s of early education. To accomplish the other end, that is, to quiet northern men on the ,subject, to satisfy them that lhey, not being responsible for its existence, could not legally interfere with it, and ought to protect the South in its enjoyment, required much argument, But southern men attempted to furnish it. They had nothing else to do. While the slaves produced cotton their masters discussed politics. The whole South was tamed into a debating society. Every man was a politician. Every court house and cross roads became an arena for political gladiators. The alpha and omega of every discussion was slavery, and everybody was on the same side. If some old fogy, some believer in the doctrines of the past, happened to express doubts of the sacredness of the institution, suddenly many voices were joined to greet him as Paul was greeted at Ephesus. While the northern people built manufactories, railroads, bridges, and canals, erected cities, opened farms, constructed ships, and founded institutions of learning, the South was discussing the negro question. As in all attempts to vindicate error, they fell into the most glaring contradictions, seen by everybody except themselves. They claimed to be fiercely democratic. Holding one half of the population of their States in abject .slavery, they clamored loudly for the largest liberty. The privilege of the writ of habeas coi pus denied to every man held by them in bondage, they insisted that republican government would be instantly lost if the writ were suspended for a moment in the case of a white man. Claiming that the institution was local, deriving its vitality from the States, and that Congress could exercise no power over it at all, they yet insisted that Congress should plant it upon all the national domain. Adopting a false theory of State rights, originally designed for the protection of slavery, which rendered the Constitution poweilesson all other subjects, they yet found authority within its grants of power to establish and perpetuate slavery against the will of the local government. Looking only to the preservation of that one institution, they adopted any and every theory that seemed available for the purpose. They advocated the Missouri Compromise, and afterwards ostracized as abolitionists all who did not favor its repeal. They opened the Temtoi ies to popular sovereignty, and so soon as it failed to bring a .slave Stare into the Union the doctrine was discarded, and he who did not at once repudiate it became unto them as the heathen and the publican. In the mean time the northern people, thoroughly convinced of the immorality and inutility of slavery, began to take its denunciations into the pulpit and the schooi u om At this point the diveigence between the North and the South commenced. Congregations of Christians who had formerly wot shiped at the same altar met and quarreled ami separated. Then commenced this idea of two distinct civilizations, this notion thatthe two races, the one inhabiting the North, the other the South, were not the same; thatthey were different in ot igm, different in manners, different m pursuits, and different in ideas of government. Extreme imm on both sides urged these reasons in favor of political separation and the establishment of separate governments. The one extreme said (he Union could not, must not subsist with slavery; with the other slavery was the sine qu« non of Union. Politicians at once seized upon tliih state of feeling, and, instead of pouring oil on the troubled waters, for selfish purposes they added to the agitation. They who became the representatives of the people seemed to look rather to the promotion of party interests than to the substantial welfare of the country. In other words, too many of our statesmen became demagogues. Falsehood was admitted and acted upon simply because the pioneers in reformation are seldom honored; they scarcely ever get to Congress. The country finally became divided into two great parties. The true cause of division, with a majority on each side is to be found, nodoubt, in the construction given by them respectively to the Constitution, the one confining the powersof Congress to expressly delegated grants, leaving the .States sovereign in all other respects; the other finding in the instrument warrant for the cxeiTiMs of powers deemed necessary "for the common defense andgeneivf welfare" of theUniteij State*,

The southern people being an agricultural people, looking chf fly to a foreign nuuket for the sale of their surplus productions, not engaged in the carrying track*, bWitving free trade to be beneficial to their interests, and not feeling the same necessity with the people of the North for irn* proving the lakes, rivers, and haibors of the South, very generally accepted the limited, or what has always been termed the strict, construction of the Constitution. From precisely the opposite considerations sprang the party of liberal or latitudinarian construction. It is plain to sec that the pro slavery men of the South would naturally fall into the ranks of the former party, because the theory of strict construction furnished the best protection for the institution, if Congress could not attack it, it might, in thenopinion, retreat from State to State, if attacked by local authority, and thus gain time to fortify its defenses. For the opposite reason again the zealous anti-slavery men of the North joined the other pai ty. In the latitude of construction, their assaults upon the institution might he made effective; from State action they had no hope.

As it has always been—and it is as much so now perhaps as ever—extreme men on either side gave tone to party action. The more moderate were controlled by them. They seemed to have no power of resistance. They drifted like floats upon the current. They knew what is right, but they had not the moral coui age to pursue the right. In a short time, par y platforms became a mere suing of dogmas on thesubjectof slavery. A foreigner seeing them would naturally suppose that we had no other interests in this country than slavery.

But why is it that the extreme men in this case, as they have done m others, succeeded in controlling their respective parties? I ascribe it to the fact that extreme men generally start with an undeniable truth. They boldly challenge refutation of that truth. They seek controversy, and controversy gives them strength. Truth needs but be repeated, and the assent of reason is finally given. The anti-slavery men asserted the proposition that slavery is wi ong; that it is condemned in morals, and anti-republican in itsvery nature; that u is unjust to the slave and prejudicial to his master; that it is corrupting m its social relations, and deeply injurious to the economical interests of the country. This proposition could not be denied. To oppose it but established it the more firmly. The history of the country itself brought new arguments to its support. The great disparity in the material development of the two sections as time passed on gradually strengthened the convictions of anti-slavery men, and struck down the arguments of their opponents. The earnest men of the anti-slavery party who stuck to the one idea of their faith, and demanded its recognition m political platforms as well as in religious creeds, though branded as zealots, abolitionists, disturbers of the public peace, yet stood upon the one truth, and challenged its denial. Jf this truth had been acknowledged and acted on by the other side we should have had no war. While they were obtaining the almost universal recognition of this truth, however, in the northern States, and its partial recognition in the South, the fiery conflict through which they were passing unfortunately aroused the fiercest passions. Religion and politics brought their influences to inflame. Many of them became maddened as with frenzy, and st ruck at slavery without skill as the wounded gladiator strikes at his adversary.

The arguments used to satisfy others that slavery is wrong had satisfied themselves that no law, human oi divine, standing in the way of its destruction, was obligatory on the citizen. The extremist uf the South, too, was not without his truth—an equally undeniable truth—for the erection of his party. His truth was the one to which I have already alluded. It was that, however indefensible slavery might be as an abstract proposition, the very bond of Union, the Constitution, left it under the exclusive control of the States interested; that Congress could notabohsh it; and that every act of interference with it where it existed was without authority. He e claimed, and truthfully, too, that unless its existence had been left free from congressional legislation no Union could have been formed. This became his controlling idea. It was his strong point, his fortress; and to it he retreated when the moral question was urged. He must have it inserted m every platform of principle. Those of the South who looked forward to the final extinction of slavery soon lost courage to assertthe truth which lay behind this, and were constantly driven to the assertion of political tenets that stood in the way of such consummation.

Upon this truth sophistry built a thousand errors. Threats of interference by northern extremists helped to stimulate southern pride, in which the injustice of slavery was to be forgotten From this vantage ground taken by pro slavery men of the South, and resolutely adhered to, they gradually put forward and developed the principles of that new faith which asserted the divinity of slavery, taught the doctrine of State supremacy, and enforced the heresy of nullification and secession.

The northern Democracy never believed in these heresies. Theyadopted the strict construction theory of the Government without reference to slavery. If the application of what was thought to be a sound principle of construction inured to the protection of the institution, they yet would not abandon the principle. They did not believe slavery to be ordained of God or productive of human good; indeed, they believe it a curse. They acted with the southern Democracy for two reasons: first, they condemned what they termed the fanatical heresies of the abolitionists, who, they thought, in their pursuit of a moral principle would rush to anarchy; and secondly, their respect for the great constitutional truth to which I have alluded dominated their moral convictions against the institution. Hence, when secession came, the northern Democracy were found on the side of the Government. They have given their blood and their treasure to the prosecution of war, intended for therestoration of the Union. At this point it may be suggested that the difficulty of amending the Constitution added seriously, in my judgment, to our troubles. Why was the power of amendment inserted at all? It was to utilize the experience of the future, to correct error in the Government. The Senator from Indiana is very much mistaken when he says that the Constitution cannot be constitutionally amended in reference to slavery. It is provided that it shall not be amendable in only one particular, and that is," that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.'* In no other respect is there now any limitation whatever upon the power of amendment. Up to 1808 there were two other clauses in the Constitution that could not be amended, the one in regard to the importation of Africans into this country, and the other in regard to capitation or other direct taxes. The power to amend was a part of the contract; it was a part of the bond of each State when we entered into the Union; and we have clearly and indisputably the power to amend it in reference to slavery.

As I have said, the power to amend was inserted to enable us to utilize the experience of the future and correct error. It was designed to let deliberate and matured convictions of public policy take a place in the organic law. It was to be the safety valve of our institutions. Ours was to be a Government of the people. Their opinions are the motive power When I speak of opinions I mean the satisfied judgment, not the mere sentiment or passion of the hour. If these opinions, rarefied and expanded by the heat of truth, are confined, explosion comes. It had become the settled conviction of three fourths of the people that slavery is wrong. That conviction could find no place in legislation, because it would conflict with the Constitution. It could not find place in the Constitution, because the ratification of three fourths of the States could not be obtained. With thirty five States in the Union it requires twentyseven to carry this amendment. It matters riot what may be their population, one tenth or one twentieth of the whole, the remaining eight may exclude it. This may be a wise provision, but I have been led to doubt it, and hence my proposition as introduced originally was to lemovea part of this difficulty in future cases, to facilitate amendments to the Constitution. I am aware of the danger on the other side, but the recent expe rience of our own and that of the English Government for centuries, inclines me to think that the greater danger lies in damming up public sentiment until it gathers force to break away its bar•' riers and desolate the country. Indeed, if ministers would leave their posts in our Government when public opinion condemns them, the change would be for the better. The Judiciary Committee, however, have disagreed to this proposition, and to their better judgment I submit.

But I was saying that the northern Democracy are now acting against those with whom they recently acted. Why do they thus wage war upon those with whom so recently they acted politically? It cannot be because the South is defending slavery against actual aggression, for under the Constitution they had a right to defend it if attacked. Shall I be answered that the South made the war before the institution was attacked, and that their only wrong consists in this? The South declares that the rebellion was inaugurated to protect slavery against northern aggression. Then the northern Democracy at the least must admit that such is the character and influence of the institution that jf drove the southern people into unnecessary war before it was jeopardized by the action of Government. They mustadmitthat the groundless fears of those whom they have defended in the enjoyment of slavery heretofore, not upon principles of eternal justice, but because it was thought to be the hard conditions of the contract, have brought upon us the innumerable miseries of this strife. If such be the character of slavery, let us examine the propriety of retaining it.