April 7, 1864

The war is upon us. The Union is severed in the name of slavery. The civilized world regards slavery as the remote or proximate cause of the war. I discard the question of who is responsible for it—whether the North or the South. I look at things as they are, and ask what is now our duty? Nine tenths, perhaps, of the loyal men of the country conscientiously believe that slavery is morally wrong and an evil in government. If they were to day constructing a new Government, they would prohibit slavery. This I assume to be an admitted proposition. The rebels on the other hand assert its morality, and have established a government whose foundation stone is slavery. In the interest of slavery they claimed the right to sever the Union. They have done so, to the extent of their power. We have denied this assumed right, and the issue is involved in the pending war. The rebels declare thatslavery cannot longer exist under our Government; that the two things, slavery and the Federal Union, have become incompatible. In this alleged belief was found the motive for secession, and in it today consists the strength of secession.

But while so large a majority of our people believe slavery to be wrong, perhaps but a small number, comparatively, believe that Congress possesses the power to abolish it. In other words, they confess that the moral law condemns it but that the Constitution tolerates it. As an original proposition they think it should never have existed, but being in existence when the Government was framed, they think our forefathers may have adopted the wisest policy in regard to it, if its adoption had been followed by peace.

The sum total of our present position is that a great wrong, in a moral and social point of view, was admitted into the organic law, under a supposed necessity for union. Those opposed to slavery were willing to bear its evils in consideration of the blessings to be derived from a union of the States. If those evils had continued to be compensated by the blessings of peace, prosperity, and repose, which union would have given, the same reasons that influenced the framers of the Government originally might now be urged in its defense with some show of propriety.

But the friends of slavery in its name have destroyed our peace and given us war; they have taken away our prosperity and given us debt and taxes; they have broken our repose and given us the calamities of a civil strife; in fine, they have rudely severed the bond that bound them to the Union, and now defiantly mock the faith that once gave them protection.

Mr. Piesident, all will admit that if slavery be responsible for our condition, there are but few circumstances of mitigation to be urged in its favor. With bloody hands and devilish visage it craves no mercy yet, but points to new fields of carnage and destruction. Its friends have been appalled at its wickedness. The predictions of its enemies have been verified as fully as were the prophecies of Elisha in regard to the future cruelties of the Persian minister.

Then we all admit that slavery is wrong, and that its friends have driven the country to unnecessary war. If they made war once, they may make it again. We cannot remove anti-slavery convictions. Therefore the restoration of slavery is a restoration of political strife. History will ij repeat itself. New wars will come. The innocent will suffer again. Shall we then leave slavery to fester again in the public vitals? Even its foolish fears have well nigh ruined the nation. They have sent to untimely graves thousands of men, yea, hundreds of thousands. They have clothed the country in the weeds of mourning, and inflicted burdens under which far distant generations must toil and groan. If slavery has committed this great iniquity once, what guarantee can it give of future forbearance and peace? It has none to give; and if it had a thousand guarantees, it would not give one. The friends of slavery staked its existence upon the result of this rebellion. If rebellion fails, the most sanguine of those friends expect slavery to cease. They do not thank their old Democratic associates of the North for this clamor which demands" the Union as it was, the Constitution as it is." They would not have either, if so, why this rebellion? They had them both before it commenced. They might have had them to day but they cast them aside, making a constitution and a union for themselves, differing from the old only in that it builded on slavery. In support of their position they have staked their lives, and never have they asked for peace on any terms that do not involve a dissolution of the Union.

The following cornmentof the Richmond Whig on the recent speech of Mr. Voorhees, of Indiana, in the other House of Congress, 1 know to be the sentiments of the secessionists without exception. I desire to read it for the benefit of my northern Democratic friends:

"Yet Mr. Voorhees, iepre enting tho e who claim to he tin*' peace part)' of the North, the old Democracy, the peculiar friends ot' the South, warns us, with a delighilut .simplicity, not to look foivvaid to «ep tr uion and independence. lie commences l by sajinathat a nation which once in os its liberty never leaauis n. lie proves that the Yank) es have <t then hbrity, and then a sthat the next presidential election will put an end to war and death, and bring a constitutional union of the States. He f ajsthat the Constitution overthrown; that justice, is annihilated; th it the gtiatunteo ol public* liberty are disregarded that the Government is lumfd and bankrupt; its civil agents eonvjpt and wicked, and it*< military agents brutal and infamous. And he amiably invites the South to p n u< participate in these unequal* d and uopurnlh led bit *s- mgs. fie beckons us on to this deiiyhtlul enteiiaminent, allium? us that m the cooperation ot thi eons..! vative men of the North we have a ban1? ot perfect security for our rights and institution^. It would really seem to be tune that these 4 consei vative men' had abandon! d all Mich puerile delusions, and admitted the indisputable iaet that the South 15 fighting for mdep< ndenoe of th< Yankee Union, and that what they call our lights in the Union are precisely what we do not want. His time the} understood that we have wa d three years ot bitter waitare, that we have fought a hundred battle^, gi\ en up our sons and our brothers to the i-latitrhtei, and submitted to the de olation o! our homes, tiie devastation ol our fields, and the bom b uduii m of our cities, not bj .my means that the end of all should be a new alliance with the northern Democracy, a recutiettee to the lunitrue-? and corruptions of the old Union, it is time that they saw clearly that we wish neither a repetition of the humiliating p uti an alliances and conflicts ot the past nor paiticipation in the Yankee fclaveij, ol the pi( sent. We have got happily i rid of the one, and we are deieniiuu d never to f submit to the oth< iV

That is the sentiment to day of evei y secessionist in the South. Whether we shall conquer them or not is another question; we shall not, I fear, unless we unite, if they intended this war in defense of sacred rights violated by us, and no other redress was available, they are justified by the teachings of human liberty in this work of revolution, and the Democracy me recreant to every principle of their faith so long as they refuse them recognition. If the Democracy vote money and men to continue this war against rebellion, they either admit the war on our part to be just, or jj themselves to be hypocrites and knaves. If the South be right, every blow we give is a blow against the right, and we are but burdening ourselves with debt to incur the contempt of posterii ity. if the South be wrong, the wrong springs as they say from slavery. They themselves give no other cause for their withdrawal. If slavery be not antagonistic to our institutions, why was it not safe under the Constitution? If not safe before the war it cannot be safe hereafter. If mere Ij apprehension of attack was sufficient in times of profound peace and prosperity to drive its friends to war upon their Government, the now quickened prejudices against it will render them still more restless and uneasy in ease the Union with slavery be restored. If the moral conflict proved ij to be unceasing before the war, it will be truly irresistible hereafter if slavery remains. Opposition to slavery will die when slavery itself dies. It will not die sooner, for, slavery being a wrong, the tnotal sentiments are in constant revoltagainst it. It is prejudicial to the public interests, and therefore considerations of public good condemn it. A majority of the people, whatever may be the fact, believe it is responsible for the sufferings of the present war, and the desire to punish it as the chief architect of ruin is natural enough. In all its relations, it heretofore conflicted with our ideas of justice. It now stands associated with barbarity and all uncharitableness. Therefore, humanity and reason and instinct tell ua to reject it.

It is sometimes said the Republican party is dead, and the Democracy can restore peace to the country by bringing back the old regime. As aft organization the Republican party mery be dead, but the principle of anti-slavery is not dead. A. deep conviction of the injustice and impolicy of slavery yet lives. That conviction is now stronger than ever. It has been made so by the many crimes recently committed in the name of the institution. In my honest judgment, Mr. President, slavery and rebellion, by the action of parties, by the course of events which none of us can now control, have become so closely and intimately allied that they must share the same fate. If the rebellion succeeds, slavery for many years may be a cherished institution in the South. If it fails, the rebels themselves will be found too honorable to ask its continuance. If my positions, then, be correct, the following propositions are true: first, slavery, being detrimental to public and private interests, anti republicun m its tendencies, and subversive of good government, should now he abolished; second, the Constitution as it now stands confers upon Congress no power to abolish it; and third, to attain the ends which are essential to the estabhshmentand maintenance of peace, a change in the Constitution, the peaceful and effective modeof governmental reform wisely provided by our ancestors for throwing off such evils as now afflict us and for utilizing the experience of history as developed in national progress, should at once be made.

Our ancestors acknowledged the truth when they proclaimed the inalienable right of liberty unto all men. That declaration gave them liberty. It fired the world and enlisted the sympathies of civilization. So soon as they obtained it for themselves, however, the false counsels of expediency came to refuse it to others. When the test of practical government was to be applied, they were content to declare in the preamble of the Constitution one of its objects to be" to secure the blessings of liberty" to themselves and their posterity. In the body of the instrumentthe liberty of the African is not secured. His return to slavery is enjoined. In this contradiction is the element of strife. Truth and error cannot be reconciled. Right and wrong cannot dwell together in peace. This effort to reconcile antagonisms was vain. It first brought political convulsions; it then brought war. In the kingdom of nature, volcanic disturbances follow the union of fire and combustible material. From various causes the disturbances may he unfelt for many years, but eventually they return, and cease not till the material is consumed. This thing of slavery is a heresy. The fire of truth is upon it, and the moral world will be convulsed until it is consumed. The strong desire for peace may induce some new concession in its favor. This might srqpther the flames for a few years. Such peace would not be permanent. In process of time our cities would again be blasted by its upheavmgs; our fields again scorched by its burning lava.

Mr. President, the country may not yet be prepared for the announcement, but I am free to saybut two alternatives in this matter present themselves to my mind. There are but two sides to thequestion. The one is Union without slavery; the other is the immediate and unconditional acknowledgment of the southern confederacy. To this end must it come at last. For the expression of this sentiment I shall be called a fanatic. I cannot help it; it is my opinion, and it is my duty to say it. if it be fanaticism, U is only that species of fanaticism that springs from conviction. It results not from any sudden abhorrence of slavery, for I have been in its midst all nny life. It does not spring from hatred of slaveholders, for, whether in honor or shame, I am a slaveholder to day

It may be said that the expression of such sentiments tends to weaken the Union cause. Such is not my opinion. If men can be made disloyal by the overthrow of slavery let them take their position at once. If they intend to defend the institution in preference to the Union, let it be known. The alternative will come and such men will yet carry reinforcements to the enemy before the war closes. The alternative cannot be avoided. We cannot save the institution if we would. We ought not if we could. Therefore let the elements of opposition at once combine so that the friends of the Union may determine upon the best course to secure peace. If those elements are too strong to be subdued except at the expense of our own liberties and the loss of every good for which the Government was established, the sooner we know the fact and act upon it the better. If northern men wish any longer to stand as sentinels and guards for this institution of slavery, and intend to oppose the Government unless it be protected, let us know it. If it become evident that the friends of slavery are strong enough in this country to resist all reasonableefforts to subdue them, shall act upon it. lam notprepaied to ruin the country in a vain effort to do what cannot be done. Shall this wargoon foiever? Is this common cry of" the last man and the last dollar" poetry, patriotism, or braggadocio? Should the war so on until the public debt equals the entire wealth of the country? Should the whole capital of the people be forced into Federal securities, and these securities made the basis of an irredeemable paper circulation? Should it go on until misery broods over the whole land; until the civil authorities shall become impotent, and all rights of person and property stand at the mercy of military power? Should it go on until the members of the Senate and House of Representatives shall owe their places here to the bayonet instead of the ballot box until they become as contemptible as the Rump Parliament that so long enacted the bidding of military usurpation to the overthrow of the English constitution, to be finally expelled from place by the power they had so basely served? Should it go on until corruption and fraud, the necessity concomitants of civil war, shall have crept into high places and puton the garb of patriotism; until officers become so numerous that official patronage may quaiterone half of the people upon the other half, and give them the means of perpetuating their own power? Should it continue until, exhausted, the nation would welcome the coming of a Cromwell or u Bonaparte; until provost marshals with military police shall be stationed at every village in the northern States, displacing the civil authority, issuing orders for governing people heretofore supposed to he able to govern themselves, teaching how God shall be wor.shiped, prescribing new and strange offenses, and punishing them by courts martial Should it continue until financial rum brings misery and misery rushes into anarchy, when no hope but despotism is left?

Mr. President, a few years more of civil war, and the outlines of this picture will be seen. It cannot be otherwise, It is tin: necessary result of a long civil strife. Peace parties will spring up; the war party will denounce them as traitors; the publication of newspapers will be suppressed, andfieedomot speech denied; mobs will retaliate; the blunders as well as the corruptions of the war' party will tend to strengthen the convictions of the peace party the period being one of violence each party appeals to violence, the one to hold the other to obtain power; the ballot box becomes a mockery, a cheat; instead of proclaiming the voice ot a free people it speaks the subdued language of base subserviency or the bold tones of military despotism.

Such is history. We are not exempt from the passions and frailties that wove this web of history for others. Party pride, blinded vanity, may think so. These have duven many nations from the enjoyment of liberty to the profoundest depths of tyranny. To prevent this state of things we are all interested; one party not more than another, for when it comes, all parties will suffer alike. When the Roman legions had subdued Carthage, the enemies of Hannibal, who in party blindness had compassed his defeat, shared the same fate with his friends. Party revenge may be satisfied when political enemies come to grief, tat this in no compensation for a ruined country. When anarchy comes we are overwhelmed alike. The Girondist and the Jacobin followed, each other in rapid succession to the guillotine. The Royalistaud the Republican, the Piesbyterian and the Levcler suffered alike when party divisions sacrificed the blessings of the revolution, and established a despotism for England more loathsome than Charles had ever proposed.

In this moment of danger let all parties abandon the prejudices of the past, and resolve to follow the dictates of right. Whatever establishes justice tends to restore the Union. Whatever perpetuates wrong will continue to disturb our peace. Let us unite to restore the Union, and if that be impracticable, let us abandon the war. The Democratic party in its better days was strong. It was irresistible, because the principles it professed were right. It advocated the largest liberty. It was a party of progress. If our Government should ever again be restored to be permanent, the principles that gave existence originally to that party cannot be disregarded—I mean the principles of Jefferson and jackson, and not those accursed heresiesbrought into itby renegadeWhigs, apostatized Know Nothings and southern slavery fanatics of the Yancey school When they came into it they cha nged its whole character as thoroughly as the Goths and Vandals changed the face of southern Europe. It was they who brought feudalism into the party. Then it lost its language, and soon forgot the rituals of itsancientworship. During the administration of Mr. Buchanan itbecume too corrupt to live longer. Upon its dissolution, those favored leaders who had fattened upon public plunder during the last daysof its success knew their conduct had so far disgraced the party as to prevent its eaily regeneration, and, like all selfish and unprincipled men, they determined to look after their own supposed interests without regard to the public good. If the Union were dissolved, and a new Government established after years of bloodshed, their deeds, deserving eternal infamy, would necessarily become hallowed by the success of the revolution. Without rebellion sustained by force of arms the acts of Floyd would have been without defenders. He who has violated the law has but to overthrow the law in order to avoid punishment. He that has become infamous has only to induce others to indorse the deeds that led to his infamy, and suddenly the stain is removed.

The tendency of our Government now is to centralize power, to destroy the powers of the States and make a nation supreme in all things. This may do in war, but if tried in peace it will bring war again. On this subject the Democratic party is right, and when it shall cease to be the advocate of African slavery its zeal in behalf of the liberty of the white man and the true principles of Government will be properly appreciated. So long as it comes to minister with unclean hands the people will not credit the sincerity of its devotions. Condemning four million blacks to eternal servitude, in which the alphabet, the Bible, and the wages of labor are denied them, the Democracy will be without favor and shorn of all power for good.

The plan now proposed to get rid of slavery should be without objection to that party. It surely is not unconstitutional to amend the Constitution. If adopted by the requisite number of States every good citizen must receive it as the law. The larger proportion of the Union men in the border States are for it. Those who are opposed to it will at once acquiesce because it is law. The Union men in the seceded States will be rejoiced, for it is only upon an anti-slavery platform that they hope for ascendency m the State governments. It will save the people of those States years of political excitement and party feuds that would end in emancipation nt last. The freedom of the slave is "the logic of events," and no party can withstand its irresistible force. No party ought to be able to with-! stand it.

Mr. President, the party in power should remember the past. The responsibility of the present occasion is momentous. Will they be able to save the Union, and if so, will they save anything else that is desirable? These arc plain questions, and they ought to be discussed in all candor. I have never doubted that the rebellion could be crushed if the proper course of policy were pursued. But I have always feared that when the southern leaders, who had so long domineered over the minority, left these Halls, the political pendulum would sweep too far to the other side. Every wrong had been previously committed in the defense of slavery. It was but reasonable that thereafter some wrongs might be committed in the name of anti-slavery. In the days of Louis XV the French people had been oppressed in the name of the Church. When oppression had been thrown off, they not only sought and worshiped the ashes of Voltaire, but mocked the emblems of the true religion.

I once before stated, and I now repeat the opinion, that if the people of the seceded States were all united as men are united when inspired by a just cause, when urged on by convictions of duty to self, to country, and to God, they could never be conquered. History furnishes no example of such athing, and I saw nospecial reason why the general current of experience should be broken in this case. I thought, however, they could be conquered, because 1 did not believe they were united. The aid of the slaves might save them, but to secure that aid they must free them, and I did not think the leaders would adopt it. Many of the southern people thought that slavery was wrong and wanted it removed; many were indifferent as to the fate of slavery but had a passionate regard for the Union; while others attached to slavery loved the Union better than slavery*, and would sacrifice it if demanded. No one of them brought complaint of wrong against the Government itself. The violent had armed themselves, and the peaceful had to submit. In the beginning it was only necessary for us to have armed the Union men, slaveholders and non slaveholders. To do so, it was necessary to march armies into the seceded States. Instead of doing so, we have undertaken to surround the rebellion with a long and attenuated line of troops which an active foe has often cut and will as often cut again. The Union element, protected against violence, would have snatched their State organizations from rebel control and the Union would have been restored. The armies of the loyal States might have returned home and left the loyal men in the seceded States to crush slavery and treason together. This plan was notadopted. Whether it ever will be or not I cannot say. It. would succeed even yet. For twelve months I once labored to get u adopted in Arkansas, and nearly ruined my political hop s in doing so. The success, however, of the movement will be my vindication.

Mr. President, we have expended two thousand millions of treasure; we daily expend three millions more. The daily destination of property well nigh equals the daily expenditure, thereby decreasing our means of payment in the same ratio in which the burdens of indebtcdncssere increased. The border States have been ravaged, desolated, and now their population is flying to the wilderness Territories of the West to usenpe the curses of what we call American civilization, They seek peace, in order that when all else has been lost the future rewards of labor may he preserved for the comfort and support of their fumi^ lies. To the holy purpose of restoring the Union we have given a million of lives, and a halfmilhou brave soldiers now stand ready to add their blood to the sanguine lake that knows no ftlhag. Rebellion is confronting us yet. Is it weaker than it was? Public opinion says yes. Take the newspaper press of our country and add up for yourselves the reported desertions of i rebel troops for the last two years, and it equals the oiigmai militia strength of thcSouth. The sameauthonty tells us that the rebel armies are in a state of starvation, and in the same column reports the destruction of commissary stores on the outskirts of icbeldom sufficient to subsist their armies for three months. We are told by the reports of chief engineers and major generals in command that forts have been leveled by our artillery* have become a mass of shapeless ruins and unavailable for defense. These forts, for six months thereafter, have held in security confederate garrisons, and they yet frown defiance at our ironclad navies.

For three years the armies of the rebellion have defied our power. In April, 18GI, the Executive and his advisers thought that seventy five thousand men could suppress the outbreak in three months. In July, 1861, the Co ngresa supposed that five hundred thousand men would soon complete the work. With an army of many hundreds of thousands now in the field, the same authorities regard it necessary to add seven hundred thousand more to our present force.

Who is the man that thinks the rebellion weaker to day than it was one, two, or three years ago? It is easy to say we think it weaker. Indeed, it may not be so strong; but our actions give no evidence that such is our opinion. If deceiving others be excusable, it is scarcely so to deceive ourselves.

In the mean time Congress keeps up the old theme, devising ways and means to cripple slavery. We act as though a presidential proclamation against slavery would end the rebellion. A diseased and morbid sentiment on the subject lias spread abroad. Wo want something done, after which no doubt remains that slavery is dead. This restlessness leads us into many errors. Some o£ us measure the capacity of officers in the field, not so much by successful strategy against the enemy as hy their activity in freeing slaves. In our eagerness to accomplish an end we lay a precedent which under change of circumstances may place our own rights at the mercy of military power. An illegal proclamation against slavery comes like a mantle of charity to cover a multitude offaults. It is as (he waters of the Joidun, washing out the taint of leprosy. IIo who is known to bo anti-slavery mayduveten thousand men to unavailing slaughter. The country laments the dead, but honoi s the hero. Why not? Caesar lost Dyrachium; Hannibal lost Zama; Napoleon lostLeipsicand Wateiloo. The country may bleed, but the heart of ourhero is right. He that is thought to be doubtful upon this allabsorbing question is under constant suspicion. Ten nor twenty successful battles can save him. The tale of an idiot against him is believed. We suspect his patriotism, and il Trifles light as air,

Aie, to the jealous, eontirmiiuoiis strong

As proofs 01 holy vvnt."

When pio slavery men had power they urged• in defense of slaveholding that the negro could not take care of himself; that he needed aguaidian to direct his steps. This argument was made in face of the fact that for two hundred years the negro had not only supported himself but his master s family. Anti-slavery men then insisted that the shackles of slavery being removed the negro would secure his own competency. Nothing was asked but his freedom, that he might become the as uficer of his own fut tune. That freedom is now given to thousands at a period when the mereabihty to labor is riches. He who will labor now seldom needs the help of charity. But many of our anti-slavery fi lends have forgotten the good sense of the past, and demand that a depleted Treasury sii ill fut nish rations to the "poor contrabands." General Banks adopted a system of labor by which the freedom ot the negro might be recognized, his wants supplied by his reasonable labor and the Treasury sa\ ed from a burden which would soon drive Mr. Chose to the desperation of M. Nicker in the management of French finances. Suddenly General Banks ischarged with apostasy to the cause of freedom. If he had fed the negroes from the public commissariat he had not lost his reputation. The laudable exertions of General Steele recently made to revive Union sentiment in Arkansas met with thechaige of disloyalty until the result of his conduct placed its wisdom beyond dispute. Party spirit is relentless. It has always been so. It cannotnow be exactingexcept at the expense of the country. Let this amendment be adopted, and thereafter let the negro be treated as a freeman. 1 insist that the poor white man may he treated with the same consideration. When the amendment has been adopted this docti me of State suicide and territorial reorganization may be safely abandoned. The motive for such legislation is 10 be found in the great desire to which I have alluded get rid of slavery. This determination to abolish slavery in some way constitutes the strongest reason for abolishing it legally and without violence to other' rights, lfit were a blessing I, for one, would be for defending it to the last. ltisacurse and not a blessing. Therefore let it go. Some onti sla very men have been so much accustomed to rely upon territorial exclusion for the ultimate overthrow of slavery that they naturally resort to it! now. The difficulty is to territorialize the States. That difficulty may be removed as the House of Commons in England once removed the House ofLoids as apart of the Government—declaie the thing done, and then act upon it. They say that the ordinances of secession are void, but invest them with sufficient validity to destroy the State. They claim that our Government is a Government of the people; that it is national, and not Federal, each individual being responsible for his own treason, and yet they hold the State in some way responsible for the acts of the conspirators. They call the rebels traitors, and hold the loyal men as public enemies because of the company they are forced to keep. The argument admits that slavery cannot be abolished by Congress m a State, but insists that it can be in a Tei ritory. The trouble is over when the State is destroyed. Let us see the absurdity of this position.

New Jersey, I see, is putting herself in the way of the public good by confining corporate franchises to but few railroad companies within her limits. The Camden and Amboy road is a monopoly. Whether Congress, under the power to regulate commerce between the States, can charter new road companies in a State nidy be questioned, but the end may be easily accomplished in another way. If she obstinately persists in sin, let others build a i ad and Congress will call it a military road. Once a military road, always a military road. I f New Jersey complains, she may be tenltoriahzcd. Why not? she is nothing but a disloyal State, anyhow. Who, then, will deny to Congress the power to charter a road over the public domain? Such things are now said.

Mr. TEN EYCK. I desire to say m one word that the declaration that New Jersey is" a disloyal State anyhow," is founded in error and not in ti uth.

Mr. H ANDERSON. The gentleman will understand that[ am only quoting; my language is not declaratory of the fact, but I am using it to point an argument.

Mr. TEN EYCK. Il was hardly necessary for the purpose of the Senator s argument that he should either infeientially or m any other way slander the fair fame of a State which has acted during this icbelllun as- nobly as any other State m the Umoit, however much that other State may boast of us ioynlt v.

Mr. HENDERSON. I hope my friend will take back that woi d" slander," because really my intention was to declare that, in my opinion, New Jersey is a loyal State. He certainly does not understand what I am about. I believe New Jersey is a loyal State. I cannot believe otherwise when she sends the Senator who has just taken his soot her< to represent her.

Mr. TEN EYOlv. Of course 1 wtthdiaw the obs« rvation that I nuide, on the disclaimer of the Senator, but J understood him distinctly to declare that New Jersey was a disloyal State.

Mr. HENDERSON. The S« nator misapprehended me. Let us see more of this absurdity. Sir, when slavery has been put aside the West will trdce control of the Government. The cotton States once had it; the East now has it. When the time comes, why not pass such laws as will make out institutions and our labor sy temshat momousr Repeal the tariff, and make war with England and France. There is no trouble in this, for we can ce tamly whip the world. Our newspaper press assures us it can be easily dime. Our politicians tell us that it will act as a stimulant in putting down the lebellhm. The sooner then we declare the war the belter.

We have to assert the Monroe doctrine, too. Our character as a nation depends upon it. In 18 23 Mr. Monroe said that the "American rontments, by the free and independent position which they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered subjects for future colonization by any European Power." A President of ours said this, and the American people must suppoi t their Presidents. To prevent France fioin stealing Texas, we stole it omsclves, and now France has a much better chance for stealing it than ever. Texas is willing to be stolen. We knew in 1 46 that same foreign Power would invade Mexico from the previous mysterious movements of France in regard to Texas. To prevent European colonization we asserted the American prerogative, and colonized a large poi tion of Mexico ourselves. We took more territory, however, than we could colonize, and like a practical people we quarreled over the ptivdege of taking stolen men into what 1 was about to call a stolen wilderness, into which no sane man would have ever taken them, until we lost eleven States by secession, four of them being of the original thirteen. This reminds me that we are quarreling over reconstruction before the States are conquered. France finding this a favorable opportunity, comes again to" attach sufficient real estate to satisfy a debt of 99 000 000 To this must be added the costs of suit. Mexico is, therefore, swallowed up, for it never was worth half the money. But money, wc all know, never was a consideration with the American people; llvey always act from principle. We cannot allow our Mexican cousins to be sold out in this way. We must expel the French and reinstate Juarez or Santa Anna. While we are doing this we shall not lose exceeding eight or ten more of our prosentStates, and that is a small matter when weighed against our duty to principle. Among these eight or ten States finding cause of complaint from a long and destructive war we shall likely find Now England. The war of 1S12 drove her into the Hartford Convention, if two years of war following the embargo and non intercourse acts were sufficient to shake her loyalty, ten years of this new war to be waged for glory alone will drive her back to Hartford. How easy, then, to territonahze these six little States, send up a military governor fiom Arkansas or Louisiana, and, so soon as the people may be safely trusted, leadmil the Territory as two States under a proposition which will be most cheei fully prepared by the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. Davis.] If Kentucky however preferring to have Louisville, Maysville, and Lexington treated as Paducah was recently treated, and her loyal men expelled rather than he defended by negroes, shall secede, the Senator from Delaware will scarcely fail to see the importance of such division.

But, Mr. President, m all seriousness I do protest against this indirect way of accomplishing an object which in itself may be good. Ever since I have been in the Senate wc have acted upon the idea that the States ate all in the Union. We have cm t led this to such an extent that we refuse to do business without the presence of thirty six Senators, a majority of all if the Senate were full.

Again, I insist that if the seceded States be out of the Union, the very proposition we are now considering may be proposed hy two thirds uf a bare majority of the membeis elected to the two Houses of Congress, and may be ratified by eighteen States, which is barely a majority of the whole. Thus the Constitution would be amended without consulting a State in the Union to be affected by it or the citizen of any such State. Jf they are in the Union and the slavery question shall be settled by constitutional amendment receiving the sanction of twenty seven States, the question will he settled beyond all judicial cavil. The public mind will rest iu the eouwctiou that slavery is abolished. To abolish it in any other way must he attended with doubts of its legality. The Democratic party, numbering nearly half of the northern people, do not believe m the validity of the Piesident s proclamation. The plan of ten itonalizmg the States would meet with no better fate. To consider the seceded States out of the Union and take the sanction of three fourths of the ruuamdei will be attacked for unconstitutionality.

i am not prepared to say that the Stale governnn nts m the seceded Stales have ceas< d to exist, for such is not the fact. It may not be correct to say they have ceased to be republican in form, simply because the State officers are not sworn to support the Constitution of the United States. That there aie State governments, existing governments whose acts must have validity now and herer ftcr admits of no doubt in my mind. If the Union should be restored, shall we declare all rights accrued dm ing the lebolhon in those States foi felted? Will the Feck lal cutu ts reject the probate of a will because it was proved and recorded under a law enacted after secession and before restoration? Will the laws of descent enacted by Legislatures rejecting allegiance to the Union be disregarded and the rights of inheritance lost? But to make the case stronger, will notcontracts made under such legislation be uphe d by our courts? Shall banking companies and railroad corporations lose their franchises and take nonsuits in cases involving their rights, simply because the acts of incorporation may have been passed by a Legislature assembled under the Richmond government? Will notall local legislation passed by the law making powers of the respective States in rebellion be suffered to remain on their statutebooks, and even be recognized by us, unless it should be found to contravene the Constitution of the United States? The same would be true, indeed, ifthe States had never seceded. However loyal they might be, their legislation in conflict with the Federal Constitution would be void.

In my view of the subject the act of secession is void. It is void only because it conflicts with the Constitution. Acts of a subsequent date are likewise void if subject to the same objection; if not unconstitutional they are valid. One unconstitutional act cannot destroy a government for local purposes. -Every act, I admit, passed by the State with a view to promote the interests of the southern confederacy, to compel the citizen to give it aid and support, is certainly invalid. We should give it no countenance. But I am not prepared to say in such cases that rights of third persons already acquired m the enforcement of such legislation should be disregarded after the restoration of peace. So far as the legislative power of the State may have been exercised during the rebellion for local purposes within the bounds of its limited sovereignty the Federal courts will have no jurisdiction to interfere with it. Congress cannot repeal it, because no such power is given in the Constitution. Any executive mteifeience with such legislation would be simply usurpation. It is idle, then, to declare the State dead, for it not only lives, but lives beyond our control. It is true that the Constitution directs that the officers of the State government shall be sworn to support that instrument. Itmaybe urged that this provision was intended to add the obligations of an oath to the duties of the citizen, to insure official action m harmony with the Constitution; that the failure thus to be sworn should no more destroy the State government than the pa s a£e of nn act of secession by a legislative body that had been sworn. In either case it would be but a violation of the Constitution. The latter of itself is much worse than the former, for in that case there is an act inflicting an injury; m the other Case there (night he awolation or disregard of the Constitution without injury. For instance, the legislative body, though not sworn, may pass no act in conflict with the supreme law. Their duty as citizens may be sufficient to constrain compliance with the law. Suppose the nextadmmistiation of State officers in New Yoikshould neglect to take this oath, but proceed in the discharge of their duties, the Legislature enacting no law m conflict with the Constitution; would that constitute a reason for interference by the Federal authorities with legislation purely of a local cluu U ler

But it is argued that the United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form ofgovernment. That is true; but I hope thiswai may not be justified under this provision. The definition of this provision may he that the State government shall be one in which, in form at least, the power shall be lodged in the people; a government not monarchical nor aristocratic, but a democracy t iiherpureor representative in character. 11 then1 me two governments in a State, Congress may recognize either as the true government. Both migiii be republican in form, and the intei furcnce would not be to change the one or the other, hm could only ariseunderother provisions of the Constitution. If one were republican in foi m, and the other were not the former should be recognized.

If the form of government in the seceded States were republican before secession, it is so yet. Their constitutions, J believe, are generally unchanged, even under the usurpation. If there be any change it is to be found in the ordinances of secession, which, being void, could work novalid change, it is true that the revolutionists, for the time being, have silenced the loyal sentiment, and transfurird the allegiance of the seceded States to the rebel government at Richmond. Even that government whatever may be its ultimate designs, is modeled after our own. The people elect their rulers in the same manner as prescribed in our Government.

When rebellion shall have been suppressed in the respective States, the constitutions and laws stand ready made for the loyal element to act. They can elect the members of Congress who will come toWashington instead ofgoing to Richmond. The members of their General Assemblies will elect Senators who will come and take their seats in this Hall. The whole machinery of government will go on as before. The Federal Government will protect the loyal element, and punish the disturbers of the public peace by taking from them political power.

On the score of expediency I cannot but accept the wisdom of this policy. There is a natural pride of Statewhich we all entertain exhibitions of which we daily sec in Congress and elsewhere. To retain the old State lines and the State governments as far as possible will naturally stimulate that pride. The opposite course would necessarily wound it. Again, the power of the Federal Government has been excluded from the seceded States for three years. During that time some sort of government was a necessity, and great changes have taken place in property rights. Many men who are now sincerely for the Union, if any doubts existed as to the stability of those rights, would hesitate long before taking action. To return to the Union would unsettle rather than confirm rights. It might produce anarchy where there is now some order at least. To accept the present condition of things, as far as can be done without jeopardizing future peace, to disturb as little as possible the status brought about even in the absence of Federal authority, will, in my judgment, smooth the road to restoration.

But 1 am at once answered that by this plan rebels may take part m the elections and vote the Stale out again. 1 answer, by no means, if Congress will do its duty. The question of citizenship of the United States is a question in the discretion of Congress. The power of naturalization is in our hands. If one is not a citizen, the terms of his citizenship may be prescribed by Congress. The rebels were citizens of the United States. The question is, can Congress, in the proper exercise of its powers, take away that citizenship; in other words, "denationalize" the subject? Whatever doubts may have formerly existed in regard to the right of "expatriation," jurists everywhere now concede the right with the consent of the sovereign. The American doctrine always conceded the light. If then by expatriation, the sovereign and the subject both conseti4in r the rights of citizenship may be relinquished, why with the same consent can he not be" denationalized?" in the one case he leaves the country, in the other he remains in it. In both cases he elects to withdraw his allegiance from the United States and transfers it to another power. That expressed wish on the part of the ciiUen, coupled with the consent of the sovereign, is sufficient, whether he remain in the country or leave it, and by similar reasoning it will not matter whether lie elects to transfer his allegiance to a government de jure or de facto.

Many of the States, perhaps all of them, have on their statute books laws which practically denationalize" the citizen, so far as concerns his rights under those States. These are generally laws punishing felony, which the citizen voluntarily commits. Congress has passed similar law s. Our statute of treason disqualifies from holding office.

Now, it is a fact known to us all that at the outbreak of the rebellion the constitution of each seceded State required that the voter should not only be a citizen of the State, but also of the United States. If this provision has been changed by ordinance.-! of secession, or by subsequent attempts to amend the constitution, it amounts to nothing, for such acts in aid of the rebellion, I have already said, are void. Then the State remains there. This thing we call the State I apprehend does not consist of votersalone. It may be viewed in a civil as well as a political sense. The women and children of Massachusetts are a part of the State, though they are not voters. Massachusetts may further restrict the elective franchise, attaching a property qualification, and those excluded would oe a part, of the State, entitled to representation in Congress, but without political influence.

Now, cannot Congress under these principles legally and constitutionally remove all difficulties in the way of reconstruction? A portion of the people of the South have thrown off their allegiance, They have elected to withdraw their rights as citizens under the United States. Why can we not consent to that forfeiture? They certainly •will have no right to complain. It is their own choice. It will be observed that we have not yet given that consent. We have not undertaken to separate the traitor from the loyal man. The President from mere necessity has undertaken it, but he certainly has no power to'* denationalize," and hence those conflicts at the polls between the citizens and the military. Those conflicts will go on until Congress shall separate the true citizens from the inhabitants, the mere denizens or denationalized traitors. He who has voluntarily taken up arms against the Federal Government, and persists in withholding his allegiance, asserting that it is legally transferred to another power, should not exercise the right of voting. He should be stripped of the privileges of citizenship under our Government. This is but just, and the rebel himself will so recognize it. He ought to be denationalized, and so remain until Congress shall see fit to enfranchise him, in other words to naturalize him. It is the supremest folly to assert the right to put down rebellion in a State, whatever be the numbers engaged in it, if we allow the traitors to usurp the civil government.

If these positions be correct, why cannot Congress apply the needed remedy? If we can consent to this forfeiture of citizenship on the part of the rebels, we can adopt the measures necessary to ascertain who they are. Then why not pass a registration law requiring all persons in the seceded States within a given period (the time may be different, as circumstances demand, in the respective States) to come forward and file with commissioners an oath of allegiance or loyalty to the United States? Those who do so, and who are voters under the State constitutions as they existed when secession took place, are the political power of the State. They who refuse may be" denationalized s They lose their citizenship at their own instance. They have asked to withdraw their allegiance. The Government consents. The State constitution under which they live requires that they shall be citizens of the United States before exercising the elective franchise. They therefore cease to be voters. The adoption of this simple rule would have saved all election trouble in Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky. It will save much blood in the future. The satisfactory settlement of the coming presidential election may depend upon this action of Congress.

But at this point it will be objected that these rebel States in this manner will get back into the Union with full political power in Congress and in the selection of a President. It is already urged that this plan of reconstruction is anti-republican, that it enables the few in the State to control the many. Has not this always been the case in the States? New York has a population of near four millions. We say suffrage there is unrestricted. How many voters are there? A little over half a million. Missouri hasapopulation of one million one hundred thousand. „Its voting population has never exceeded one hundred and sixtyfive thousand. Of the others some are citizens, some are not. New York may adopt a property qualification which will disfranchise half of her present voters. So may Massachusetts. So may Rhode Island. Can Congress object? Their doing so would not lessen their political power here Representation is not based on the voting population, not on political strength, but on the strength of the society," on their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons." What matters it to us if the voting strength bo great or small? The numbers are there. We can tax those numbers. We can make them bear arms in defense of the country. They are an element of strength in every other respect except in the use of political power. In that they have been an element of weakness to us. This power being legally taken away, the State remains in its full vigor, retaining its political influence m the Federal Government, as Massachusetts would retain hers after limiting the political power to one fourth of her present voting population.

Bull have not time nor inclinationto pursue this subject further, I have perhaps said enough. Let this amendment be adopted, and let slavery agitation, with all its errors and its consequent curses to the country, cease. That agitation has brought upon us untold miseries. It has given us a war which we cannot bear to have repeated. It may be that the money to be expended by us must equal the amount wrung ft om the sinews of the slave; it may be that the anguish and tears of this war must equal the anguish and tears of the African in his long captivity. If the measure of our iniquity was full, let us hope the measure of our retribution is also full. Let the iniquity be cast away. The cup of misery may be at once withdrawn. It can be no worse. I confess I see no probability of restoring the Union with the institution of slavery remaining. I wish the Union restored, but I confess also I do not desire the perpetuation of slavery. I will notbeintimidated by the fears of negro equality. The negro may possess mental qualities entitling him ton position beyond our present belief, [f so, I shall put no obstacle in the way of his elevation. There is nothing in me that despises merit or envies its rewards. Whether lie shall be a citizen of any one of the States is a question for that State to determine. If New York or Massachusetts or Louisiana shall confer on turn the elective franchise, it is a matter uf policy with which I have nothing to do. The qualification of voters for members o f Congress is a question under the exclusive control of the respective States. Whatever qualifications are prescribed by the States for electors of the lovvei branch of the State Legislatures, the same are constitutionally prescribed for electors of members of Congress. Senators are chosen by the State Legislatures, and the people of each State determine the qualifications of voters for both branches of the Legislature. The manner of choosing presidential electors is left to the Legislatures of the States. So in passing this amendment we do not confer upon the negro the right to vote. Wegive him no right except his freedom, and leave the rest to the States. I will not he deterred from doing an act of simple justice from fear of the consequences. )t is impossible thatgreatevil should spring from such acts of justice. We may not be able now to solve the many problems that universal emancipation may present. No more can we solve the very difficult one presented by slavery in this war. The evils of amalgamation and consequent deterioration of race are often presented as insuperable objections to the proposed amendment. Such evils may be great, but unless it he certain that the freedom of the slave will increase these evils, no such objection can be well sustained; but if that fact were certain, it must yet be settled that these evils will be greater than those of this causeless and bloody rebellion. When the miscegen race shall bring civil war of three years duration upon the country, I for one shall be willing to prohibit amalgamation by law or constitutional amendment. Until then I shall disregard any such objections.

Hoping, Mr. President, thatthis measure may, in the providenceof God, bring? about the speedy reunion of a dissevered and bleeding country; that it may lay the foundations of a lasting peace, upon which national freedom may be built in national strength; and that it may prove to be the era in our history from which to date the beginning of a" more perfect Union" —a Union cemented in the affections of the people leave it with Congress and the States.

Mr. WILSON. It is nearly four o clock and I think it desirable to have an executive session to night

Mr. SUMNER. Before my colleague moves that the Senate go into executive session, I should like to say a word. It will be remembered by the Senate that I have made more than one proposition bearing on this subject, which are now on the table of the Senate. I had no purpose at first to take any part in the debate more than simply to move the amendments of which I have already given notice; but as the debate has gone on, its interest has increased, and I confess <i desire to be heard upon it before it closes. I would rather not go on this afternoon, and, as I understand my colleague has business which he wishes to call up in executive session, I content myself with expressing my personal desire to go on to-morrow at one o clock

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Under ordinary circumstances I should not object to the honorable Senator having another day in which to take part in this discussion; but we all know that on the fruitful topic which has been discussed upon this joint resolution, it is very easy for a gentleman who has a speech that he desires to deliver to deliver it on some other occasion. The occasion will not be lost. I feel, for one, after all that has occurred in the Senate on this subject and the part taken by the friends of this measure—and in that I believe my honorable friend from Massachusetts joined—that it is wiser for us to close this matter to night

Mr. WILSON. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Before that motion is put, I wish to say that individually 1 should certainly be very glad to accommodate the Senator from Massachusetts personally, but I shall be governed by the vote of the Senate. In the position which 1 occupy, having pressed this matter on the Senate, I cannot myself vote to lay it over in this way from day to day. If, however, the Senate think proper to do so, I must acquiesce in it.

Mr. SUMNER. There is nothing to prevent a vote to-morrow, so far as I can see.

Mr. TRUMBULL. There is nothing so far as the Senator from Massachusetts knows. There was nothing to prevent a vote the day before yesterday so far as I knew. There was nothing yesterday to prevent our getting a vote that I knew of; but still, when the evening came, some •one desired to speak. I was not aware the day before yesterday that the Senator from Massachusetts desired to speak, and it seems he did not

Mr. SUMNER. I did not.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Probably his speech may draw out others to-morrow; I do not know. I have no personal feeling about the matter. If the Senate think proper to suffer the resolution to go over, very well.

Mr. SAULSBURY. Will the Senator from Massachusetts, who makes this motion, allow me to offer a resolution which I shall desire to call up to-morrow morning? I do not wish to say a word on it now, but to offer it and give notice that 1 will call it up in the morning for consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It requires unanimous consent to receive a resolution now.

Mr. WILSON. I understand objection is made to taking up anything else until we settle the point of going into executive session, and then it will be easy enough for the Senator to offer his resolution.

The question being put on Mr. Wilson s motion, tlieie were, on a division—ayes 16, noes 13; no quorum voting.

Mr. DOOLITTLE and Mr. FESSENDEN called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered.

Mr. HOWARD. I hope we shall extend to the Senator from Massachusetts the usual courtesy of availing himself ot this occasion to express his views on this most important measure. I confess I do not see any necessity for pressing this matter so warmly through the Senate. It will certainly pass, I have no doubt and for one, I confess, 1 am anxious to hear all that call be said and all that gentlemen desire to say on this most important subject. 1 hope the utmost liberty of debate will therefore be granted. I know very well that the Senator from Massachusetts has had many important engagements on his hands during the last few days, and it is probable that, like many of the test of us, he has not had time thus far sufficiently to prepare himself to address the Senate on this subject. I hope the Senate will extend him this courtesy.

Mr. SHERMAN. I should like simply to understand from the Senator from Massachusetts wh ther he is prepared to go on now.

Mr. SUMNER. I do not like to throw myself 01) the Senate; but I should not have made the suggestion if, upon the whole, I had felt that it would be convenient for tne to ^o on to night

Mi. SHERMAN. 1 think that if the Senator desires to speak generally on the proposition, he will have an opportunity at some convenient tune undoubtedly to speak on this or a kindred measure when be can discuss the general subject. It is very important, as the Senator from Maine properly said the other day, that certain bills now pending should be acted on. If we postpone this subject, it will come up again to-morrow, and perhaps not be concluded to-morrow. The Senator had the floor this morning, I think, at one o clock

Mr. SUMNER. I beg the Senator s pardon: the floor belonged to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I feel for one that on our side of the Chamber, with those who favor this measure, there has been expressed on several occasions a strong disposition to bring the question to a close and to a vote, and I think that when those who favor the measure have so earnestly pressed it, as it has been pressed by this side of the Chamber, and pressed particularly on those who oppose the measure, with the expectation and determination of bringing it to a vote, those who favor the measure ought not to ask to have it further postponed for the purpose of speechmaking. Yesterday I consented for one that it should then be postponed and not brought to a vote yesterday, because the Senator from Missouri, who introduced the original proposition which was referred to the committee, and which was reported upon by the committee, had been sick and confined to his room for several days, and therefore it was impossible for him to go on yesterday. But my honorable friend from Massachusetts, who is almost always ready to speak on these important occasions, can certainly express his views upon the great question of slavery on various other measures that are pending, and I do not feel that 1 am wanting in courtesy to him when' I say that for one I feel as if we ought to come to a vote on this question to night

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 28, nays 12; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Btiekalew, Collamer, C oiiness Cowan. Davis. Dixon, Foot, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Ilemlncks, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Morgan, I ome roy, Powell, Ramsey, Riddle, Saiilshnry, Sprague, Sumner, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey, and Wilson—

NAYS—Messrs.. Clai k, Doolittle, Foster, Grimes, Harding, Henderson, I Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, NesHHth, Sherman, Ten Eyck, and Trumbull

So he motion was agreed to.