April 8, 1864

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Foot.)" The special order of the day, which in the joint resolution (S. No. 16) proposmgamendments to the Constitution of the United States, is now before the Senate, and the question is on concurring in the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole. That amendment is in the form of a substitute for the original resolution, and is open to amendment before the question of concurrence is taken. After the Senate shall have concurred, if they do concur, in that amendment, the text of the joint resolution, the amendment itself being in the form of a substitute, will not be open to amendment. Amendments then can only be offered in the form of provisos or additional sections to the amendment. The Chair deems it proper to make this announcement in advance, that no misapprehension may be entertained.

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, if an angel from the skies or a stranger from another planet were permitted to visit this earth and to examine its surface, who can doubt that his eyes would rest with astonishment upon the outstretched extent and exhaustless resources of this Republic of the New "World, young in years but already rooted beyond any dynasty in history? In proportion as he considered and understood all those things among us which enter into and constitute the national life, his astonishment would increase, for he would find a numerous people, powerful beyond precedent, without a king or a noble, but with the schoolmaster instead. And yet the astonishment which he confessed, asall these things appeared before him, would swell into marvel as he learned that in this Republic, which had arrested his admiration, where there was neither king nor noble, but the schoolmaster instead, there were four million human beings in abject bondage, degraded to be chattels, under the pretense of propei ty in man, driven by the lash like beasts, despoiled of all lights, even the right to knowledge and the sacred n°ht of family; so that the relation of husband and wife was impossible and no parent could claim his own child; while all were condemned to brutish ignorance. Startled by what he beheld, the stranger would naturally inquire by what authority, under what sanction, and through what terms of law or Constitution, this fearful inconsistency, so shocking to human nature itself, continued to be upheld. But his growing astonishment would know no bounds, when he was pointed to the Constitution of the United States, as the final guardian and conservator of this peculiar and many headed wickedness. "And is it true," the st anger would exclaim, that, in laying the foundations of this Republic, dedicated to human rights, all the se wrongs have been positively established'" lie would oyk to see that Constitution and to know the fatal words by which the sacrifice was commanded. The trembling with which he began its perusal would be succeeded by joy as he finished ii; for he would find nothing in that golden text, not a single sentence, phrase or word, even, to serve as origin, authority, or apology for the outrage. And then his astonishment, already knowing no bounds, would break forth anew, as he exclaimed Shameful and irrational as is slavery, it is not more shameful or it rational than that unsuppoii d interpretation which undertakes to make your Constitution the final guardian and conservator of this terrible and unpardonable denial of human rights."

Such a strangrras I have described, coming from afar, \v with eyes \v which no local bias had disiot fed and with undcistanding which no local custom had disturbed, would naturally see the Constitution precisely as it is in its actual text, and he would interpret it in its true sense, without piepossession or prejudice. Of course he would know, what all jurisprudence teaches and all reason confirms, that human rights cannot be taken away by any indiiection or by any vain imagining of something that was intended but was not said, and, as a natural consequence, that slavery can exist t—if existit can atall—only by virtue of a positive text, and that what is true of slavery is true also of all its incidents; raid the enlightened stranger would insist that, in all interpretation of the Constitution, that cardinal principle must never for a moment be out of mind, but must be kept ever forward as guide and master, that slavery cannot stand on inference, nor can any support of slavery stand on inference. Thus informed, and .in the light of a petvasive principle,

How far that little candle throws his hcauis!"

he would peruse the Constitution from beginning to end, from its opening preamble to its final amendment, and then the joyful opinion would be given.

Yhcte are three things which he would observe: first and foremost, that the dismal words "slave" and" "slavery" do not appear in the Constitution; so that if the unnatural pretension of property in man lurk anywhere m that text, it is under a feigned name or an alias, which of itself is cause of suspicion, while an imperative rule renders its recognition impossible. Next, he would consider the preamble, which is the key to open the whole succeeding instrument; but here no single word" can be found which does not open the Constitution to freedom and close it to slavery. The object of the Constitution is announced to be "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general wtUaiu, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity;" ail of which, in every particular, is absolutely inconsistent with slavery. And thhdly, lie would observe those time honored, most efficacious, chain breaking words in the Amendments:" No person shallhe deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Scorning all false interpretations and glosses which may have been fastened upon the Constitution as a support of slavery, and with these three things before him, he would naturally declare that there was nothing in the original text on which this hideous wrong could be founded anywhere within the sphere of its operation. With astonishment he would ask again by what strange delusion or hallucination the reason had been so far overcome as to recognize slavery in the Constitution, when plainly it is not there, and cannot be there? The answer is humiliating, but it is easy.

People naturally find in texts of Scripture the support of their own religious opinions or prejudices; and, in the same way, they naturally find in texts of the Constitution the support of their own political opinions or prejudices. And this may not be in either case because Scripture or Constitution, when truly interpreted, supports these opinions or prejudices; but because people are apt to find in texts simply a reflection of themselves. Most clearly and indubitably, whoever finds any support of slavery in the Constitution of the United States has first found such support in himself; not that he will hesitate, perhaps, to condemn slavery in woids of approved gentleness, but because from unhappy education or more unhappy insensibility to tins wrong he has already ■conceded to it a certain traditional foothold of immunity, which he straightway transfers from himself to the Constitution. In dealing with this subject, it has not been the Constitution, so much as human nature itself, which has been at fault. Let the people change, and the Constitution will change also; for the Constitution is but the shadow, while the people are the substance.

But under the mltuencesof the piescntstiuggle for national hie, and in obedience to its incessant exigencies, the people have already changed, and in nothing so much as slavery. Old opinions and prejudices have dissolved, and that traditional foothold which slavery once possessed has been gradually weakened until now it scarcely exists. Naturally this change must sooner or later show itself in the interpretationof the Constitution. But it is already visible even there, in the concession of pnvcts over slavery which were formerly denied. The time, then, has come when the Constitution, which has been so long interpreted for slavery, may be interpreted for freedom. This is em stage of triumph. Universal emancipation, which isat hand, can be won only by complete emancipation of the Constitution itself, which has been degraded to wear chains so long that its real character is scarcely known.

Sometimes the concession is made on the ground of military necessity. The capacious war powers of the Constitution are invoked, and itis said that in their legitimate exercise slavery may be destroyed. There is much in this concession; more even than 13 imagined by many from whom it proceeds. It is war, say they, which puts these powers in motion; but they forget that wherever slavery exists there is perpetual war—that slavery uselt is a state of war between two races, where one is for the moment victor—pictured accurately by Jefferson when he described it as" permitting one hull" of (he citizens to trample on the rights of the other, transforming those into enemies and these into despots." Therefore, wherever slavery exists, even m seeming peace, the war power may be invoked to put an cud to a condition which is internecine, and to overthrow pretensions which are hostile to every attribute of the Almighty.

But it is not on military necessity alone that the concession is made. There are many who, as they read the Constitution now, see its powers over slavery more clearly than before. The old cuiper ution is abandoned; and they join with Patrick Henry when, in the Virginia convention, he declared that the power of manumission was given to Congress. He did not hesitate to argue against the adoption of the Constitutionbecauseit gave this power. And shall we be less perspicacious for freedom than this Virginia statesman was for slavery? Discerning this power he confessed his dismay; but let us confess our joy.

We have already seen that slavery can find no support in the Constitution. Glance now at the positive provisions by which it is brought completely under the control of Congress.

1. First among the powers of Congress, and associated with the power to lay and collect taxes, is that" to provide for the common defense and general welfare." It has been questioned whether this is a substantive power, or simply incident to that with which it is associated. But it seems difficult, if not absurd, to insist that Congress should not have this substantive power. Shall it not provide for the common defense? Shall it not provide for the general welfare? If it cannot do these things it had better abdicate. In the discussions on the Constitution in the Virginia convention, Mr. George Mason, one of its most decided opponents, said," That Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant."

('2 Eliot s Debates, 327.) But the language of Patrick Henry, to which allusion has been already made, was still more explicit. He foresaw that this power would be naturally directed against slavery, and he said:

Slavery is detested. We feel its fatal effects. We deplore it with all the pity of humanity. Let all these considerations, at some future period, pi ess with lull force on the minds of Congress Let that uibamty which, I trust, will distinguish Americans, and the necessity of national defense— let all tlie> e things operate on their minds; they willseaich that paper [the Constitution] find see it they have the power ot manumission. And have they not, sir? Have they not the power to piovidefor the general defense aiid welfare? May they not think that they call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free? And will they not he warranted by that power? This is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The ■paper speaks to the point. They have ihepower in clear and unequivocal uncq, tetvis, and viU clearly nrly< and certainly exeicise it 1— lot s Debutes, vol. p. 590, 5'

Language could not be more positive. To all who ask for the power of Congress over slavery, here is a sufficient answer; and remember that this is not my speech, but the speech of Patrick Henry, who says that the Constitution "speaks to the point."

Next comes the clause," Congress shall have power .to declare war; to raise and support armies; to provide and maintain a navy." A power like this is from its very nature unlimited. In raising and supporting an army, m providing and maintaining a navy, Congress is not restrained to any particular class or color. It may call upon all and authorize that contract which the Government makes with an enlisted soldier. But such a contract would be in itself airactof manumission; for a slave cannot make a contract. And it the contract be followed by actual sen ice, who can deny its completest efficacy in enfranchising the soldier slave and his whole family? Shakspeare, immortal teacher, gives expression to an instinctive sentiment when he makes Henry V, on the eve of the battle of Agmcourt, encourage his men by promising,

'v Foi he to day that <3liecl« his blood with me,

Shall be my hiothet; be he ne a so j lie,

This day shall gentle tus condition

3. There is still another clause: "The United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government." There again is a plain duty. But the question recurs, what is a republican form of government? John Adams, in the correspondence of his old age, says:

The customary meanings of the 01 ds republic and con 1- thoiiwcalth have been infinite. They have been applied to every Government under heaven; thatot Turkey and that oi Spain, as v\ eii as that of Athens and ot Rome, ot Geneva and San Maimo 5 —John Jldam s l oiks vol. 10, p. 3 8 But the guarantee of a republican form of government must have a meaning congenial with the purposes of the Constitution. If a Government like that of Turkey, or even like that of Venice, could come within the scope of this guarantee, it would be of little value. It would be words and nothing more. Evidently it must be construed so as to uphold the Constitution according to all the promises of its preamble, and Mr. Madison has left a record, first published to the Senate by the distinguished Senator from Vermont, [Mr. Collamer,] the chairman of the Committee on the Library, showing that this clause was originally suggested in part by the fear of slavery. The record is important, disclosing the real intention of thisguarantee. But no American need be at a loss to designate some of the distinctive elements of a republic according to the idea of American institutions. These will be found, first, in the Declaration of Independence, by which it is solemnly announced" that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And they will be found, secondly, in that other guarantee and prohibition of the Constitution, in harmony with the Declaration oflndependcnce;" no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Such are some of the essential elements of a" republican form of government,-" which cannot *be disowned by us without disowning the very muniments of our liberties; and it is these which the United States are bound to guaranty. But all these make slavery impossible. It is idle to say that this result was not anticipated. It would be, then, onlyanother illustration thatour fathers "builded wiser than they knew."

4. But, independentof the clause of guarantee, there is the clause just quoted, which in itself is a source of power: "noperson shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." This was a part of the amendments to the Constitution proposed by the First Congress, under the popular demand for a Bill of Rights. Brief as it is, it is m itself alone a whole Bill of Rights. Liberty can be lost only by" due process of law," words borrowed from the old liberty loving common law, illustrated by our master in law, Lord Coke, but best explained by the late Mr. Justice Bronson, of New York, in a judicial opinion where he says:

"The meaning of the section then seems to be, that 710 member of the State shall be disfranchised or deprived of any oj his rights or privileges unless the matter shall lie. adjudgnd against him upon trial had according to the course of common law. The words due process of law' in this place cannot mean less b than a prosecution or suit inmtuK d and conducted according to the pie serihed forms and solemnities for ascertaining guilt or determining the title to propeity —4 IIiWs liepoili} 14G.

Such is the protection which is thrown by the Constitution over every "person," without distinction of race or color, class or condition. There can be no doubt about the universality of this protection. All, without exception, come within its scope. Its natural meaning is plain; but there is an incident of history which makes it plainer still, excluding all possibility of misconception. A clause of this character was originally recommended as an amendment by two slave States, North Carolina and Virginia, but it was restrained by them to freemen, thus:" No freeman ou ht to be deprived of his life, liberty, or property but by the laic of the land." But when th e recommendntiun came before Congress the word "person" was substituted for "freeman," and the more searching phrase" due process of law" was substituted for" the law of the land." In making this change, rejecting the recommendation of two slave States, the authors of this amendment revealed their purpose, that no person wearing the human form should be deprived of liberty without due process of law; and the proposition was adopted by the votesof Congress and then of the States as a part of the Constitution. Cleat ly on us face it is an express guarantee of personal liberty and an express prohibition against its invasion anywhere.

In the face of this guarantee and prohibition— for it is both—how can any "person" be held as a slave? But it is sometimes said that this provision must be restrained to places within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national Government. Let me say frankly thatsuch formerly svagmy own impression, often avowed in this Chamber; but I never doubted its complete efficacy torendei slavery unconsitutional in all such places, so that" no person" could be held as a slave at the national capital or "in any national territory. Constitutionally slavery has always been an outlaw where ever that provision of the Constitution was applicable. Nobody doubted that it was binding on the national courts, and yet it was left unexecuted—a dead letter, killed by the predominant influence of slavery, until at last Congress was obliged by legislative act to do what the courts had failed to do, and to put an end to slavery in the national capital and national territories.

But there are no words in this guarantee and prohibition by which they are restrained to any exclusive jurisdiction. They are broad and general as the Constitution itself; and since they are in support of human lights they cannot be restrained by any interpretation. There is no limitation in them, and nobody now can supply any such limitation, without encountering; the venerable maxim of law, Impius ac crudelis qui libertati nonfavet—" Impious and cruel is he who does not favorliberty." Long enough courts and Congress have merited this condemnation. The time has come when they should merit it no longer. The Constitution should become a living letter under the predominant influence of freedom. It is this conviction which has brought petitioners to Congress, during the present session, asking that the Constitution shall be simply executed against slavery and not altered. Ah 1 sir itwould beagladsight to see that Constitution, which we have all sworn to support, interpreted generously, nobly, gloiiously for freedom, so that everywhere within its influence the chains should drop from the slave. If it be said that this was not anticipated at the adoption of the Constitution, I remind you of the words of Patrick Henry at the time when he said, 44 the paper speaks to the point." No doubt. It does speak to the point. Cic cro preferred to err with Plato rather than to think right with other men. And pardon me if, on this occasion, when my country is in peril from slavery, and when human rights are to be rescued, I prefer to err with Patrick Henry, the contemporary of the Constitution, rather than to think right with Senators who hesitate against slavery.

Mr. President, thus standstke case. There is nothing in the Constitution on which slavery can rest, or find any the least support. Even on the face of that instrument jt is an outlaw; but if we look further at its provisions we lindat least four distinct sources of power, which, if executed, must render slavery impossible, while the preamble makes them all vital for freedom: first, the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare; secondly, the power to raise armies and maintain navies; thirdly the powertoguaranty tocvery State a republican foi n of government; and fourthly, the power to secure liberty to every person restrained without due process of law. Entail those provisions are something more than powers; they are duties also. And yet we are constantly and painfully reminded in this Chamber that pending measures against slavery are unconstitutional. Sir, this is an immense mistake. Nothing against slavery can be unconstitutional. It is only hesitation which is unconstitutional.

And yet slavery still exists defiance of all these requirements of the Constitution; nay, more, in defiance of reason and justice, which can never be disobeyed with impunity exists, the perpetual spoiler of human rights and disturber of the public peace, degrading master as well as slave, corrupting society, weakening Government, impoverishing the very soil itself, and impairing the natural resources of the country. Such an outrage, so offensive in every respect, not only to the Constitution, but also to the whole system of order by which the universe is governed, is plainly a national nuisance, which, for the general welfare and in the name of justice, ought to be abated. But at this moment, when it menaces the national life, it will not be enough to treat slavery merely as a nuisance; for it is much more, itisa publicencmy and traitor wherever it shows itself, to be subdued, in the discharge ofsolernn guarantees of Government and of personal rights, and in the exercise of unquestionable and indefeasible rights of self defense All now admit that in the rebel States it is a public enemy and traitor, so that the rebellion may be seen in slavery, and slavery may be seen in the rebellion. But slavery throughout the country, everywhere within the national limits, is a living unit, one and indivisible— so that even outside the rebel States it is the same public enemy and traitor, lending succor to the rebellion, and holding out "blue lights" to encourage and direct its operations. But whether regarded as national nuisance or as public enemy and traitor, it is obnoxious to the same judgment, and must be abolished.

If, in abolishing slavery, any injury were done to the just interests of any human being or to any rights of any kind, there might be something" to give us pause," even against these irresistible requirements. But nothing of the kind can ensue. No just interests and no rights can suffer. It is the rare felicity of such an act, as well outside as inside the rebel States, that, while striking a blow at the rebellion, and assuring future tranquillity, so that the Republic shall no longer bea house divided against itself, it will add at once to the value of the whole fee simple wherever slavery exists, will secure individual rights, and will advance civilization itself.

There is another motive to abolish slavery at this time, Embattled armies now stand face to face, on the one side fighting; for slavery. The gauntletthathas been flungdown wehave yettaken uponly in part. In abolishing slavery entirely we take up the gauntlet entirely. Then can we look with confidence to the blessings of Almighty God upon our arms. So long as we sustain slavery, so long as we hesitate to strike at it, the heavy battalions of our armies will fail in power. Sir Giles Overreach found his sword, as he attempted to draw it," glued with orphans tears Let not our soldiers find their swords" glued" with the tears of the slave.

There is one question and only one which rises in our path; and this only because the national representatives have so long been drugged and drenched with slavery, which they have taken in all forms, whether of dose or douche, that, like a long suffering patient, they are not yet emancipated from its influence. I refer, of course, to the question of compensation under the shameful assumption that there can be property in man. Sir, there was a moment when I was willing to pay money largely, or at least to any reasonable amount, for emancipation; but it was as ransom, and neveras compensation. ThankGod! thattime has now passed, never to return; and simply because money is no longer needed for the purpose. Our fathers under Washington never paid the A 1 gennes for the emancipation of our enslaved fellow citizens except as ransom, and they ceased all such tribute when emancipation could be had without it. Such must be our rule now. Any other rule would be to impoverish the Treasury for nothing. The time has come for the old tocsin to sound, "Millions for defense, not a cent for tribute." Ay sir; millions of dollars—with millions of strong arms also—to defend our country against slave masters but not a cent for tribute to slave masters

But if money is to be paid as compensation, clearly it cannot go to the master, who for generations has robbed the slave of his toil and all its fruits, so that, in justice, he may be regarded now as the trustee of accumulated earnings with interest which he has never paid over. Any money paid as compensation must belong every dollar of it to the slave. if the ease were audited in Heaven s chancery, there must be another allowance for the denial of inestimable rights. The loss of wages may be estimated, but where is the tariff or price current by which those other losses which have been the lot of every slave shall be determined? Mortal arithmetic is impotent to assess the fearful sum total. In presence of this infinite responsibility the whole question must be referred to that other tribunal where master and .slave will be equal, while infinite wisdom tempers justice with mercy.

But the proposition of compensation is founded on the intolerable assumption of property in man, an idea which often intrudes into these debates, sometimes from its open vindicators and sometimes from others who reluctantly recognize it, but allow it to influence their conduct which is thus sicklied o er with slavery. Sir parliamentary law must be observed; but if an outburst of indignant hisses were ever justifiable in a parliamentary assembly itought to break forth at every mention of this proposition, whateverform it may take—whether of daring assumption, or the mildest suggestion, or equivocation even. Impious toward God and insulting toward man, it is disowned alike by the conscience and the reason; nor is there any softness of phrase or argument by which its essential wickedness can be disguised. The fool hath said in his heart that there is no God; but it is kindred folly to say that there is no man. The first is atheism, and the second is! like unto the fiist.

Foremost of all persons in history who have vindicated human liberty, and associated their names with it forcvcrmore, stands John Milton,■ the secretary of Oliver Cromwell and the author of Paradise Lost. Cradled under a lawless royalty, he helped to found and support the English■ Commonwealth, while in all that he wrote he pleaded for human rights, now in defense of the English people, who had beheaded their king, and now in immortal poems which show how wisely and well he loved the cause which he had made his o Sn Nowhere has this assumption of property in mati been encountered more complete!^ than m the conversation between the archangel and Adam, after the former had pictured a hunter whose game was" men, not beasts;"

O execrable son! so to aspire

Above his brethren, to hin elf assuming

Authority usurped, fiom God not given!

He gave us only over beast, lKa, fowl,

Dominion absolute; that light we hold.

13 By III"? donation; but man over men

He made not lord, such title to Himself

Reserving, human left from human free."

Paradise Loi t Book Twelve—64 73

But every asserter of property m man puts himself in the very place of this hunter of" men, not bens s who is described as "execrable son so to aspire." The language is strong; but not too strong." Execrable" is the assumption; "execrable" wherever made;" execrable" in all its forms;" execrable" in all i s consequences; especially" execrable" as an apology for hesitation against slavery. The assumption, where ever it shows itself, must, like Satan himself, in whom it has its origin, be beaten down under our feet.

Again, we are brought by learned Senators to the Constitution, which requires that there shall be "just compensation" where" private property" is taken for public use. But plainly on the present occasion the requirement of the Constitution is absolutely inapplicable, for there is no "private property" to take. Slavery is but a bundle of barbarous pretensions, from which certain persons are to be released. At what piico shall these pretensions be estimated? How much shall be paid for the controlling pretension of property in man? How much shall be allowed for that other pretension to shut the gates of knowledge and keep the victim fmm the book of life? Plow much shall be expended to redeem the pretension to rob a human being of all the fruits of his toil? And, sir, what" just compensation" shall be voted for the renunciation of that Heavcn defymg pretension, too disgusting to picture in its details, which despoils the .slave of wife and child, and hands them over to lust or avarice? Let these pretension* be renounced, and slavery ceases to exist; but there can be no" just compensation" for any such renunciation. "The human heart, reason, religion, the Constitution itself, rise in judgment against it. As well vote "just compensation" to the hardened offender who renounces his disobedience to the Ten Commandments and promises that he will cease to steal, that he will cease to commit adultery, and that lie will cease to covet his neighbor s wife. Ay, sir, there is nothing in the Constitution to sanction any such outrage. Such an appropriation would be unconstitutional.

Putting aside, then, all objections that have been interposed, whether proceeding from open opposition or from lukewarm support, the great question recurs, that question which dominates this whole debate, How shall slavery be ovet thrown? The answer is threefold: first, by the courts, declaring and applying the true piinciplesof the Constitution; secondly, by Congress, in the exercise of the powers which belong to it; and, thirdly, by the people, through an amendment to the Constitution. Courts, Congress, people, all may b& invoked, and the occasion will justify the appeal.

1. Let the appeal be made to the courts. But alas! one of the saddest chapters in our history has been the conduct of judges, who have lent .themselves to the support of slavery. Injunctions of the Constitution, guarantees of personal liberty, and prohibitions against its invasion, have all been forgotten. Courts which should have been asylums of liberty have been changed into barracoons, and the Supreme Court of the United States, by a final decision of sui passing infamy, became the greatest fcarracooii of all. It has been part of the calamity of the times, that, under the influence of slavery, justice, like Asa sea of old, had fled. But now at last, in a regenerated Republic, with the powerof slavery waning and t4ie people rising in judgment against it, let us hope that the judgments of courts may be reconsidered, and that the powers of the Constitution in behalf of liberty may be fully exercised, so that the blessed condition shaii be fulfilled when "Ancient frauds ^Imtl fail,

Returning justice lift aloft her sc ile

Sir, no court can afford to do an act of wrong. Its business is justice and when under any apology it ceases to do justice it loses those titles to reverence which otherwise are so willingly bestowed. There are instances of great magistrates who have openly declared their disobedience to laws" against common ri ht and reason," and their names are mentioned with gratitude m the history of jiu isprudcnce. There are other instances of men holding the balance and the sword, whose names have been gathered into a volume, as" atrocious judges." lfour judges, who have cruelly interpreted the Constitution in favor of slavery, do not come into the latter class, they clearly can claim no place, among those others who have stood for justice, like the rock on which the sea breaks in idle spray. Doubtless the model decision of the American bench, destined to be quoted hereafter with the most honor, because the boldest in its conformity with the great principles of humanity and social order, was that of the Vermont judge, who refused to surrender a fugitive slave until his pretended master should show a titledeed from the Almighty.

But the courts have no longer any occasion for such boldness. They need not step outside the Constitution. It is only needed that they should follow just principles in its interpretation. Let them be guided by a teacher like Edmund Burke, who spoke as follows:

Men cannot covenant themselves out of their rights and their duties; li ir by any other means can iirlutraiy power be conveyed to any man. Those who gue to others such rig its perform acts that are toul as they are i it en.** "Tlio«o who give and those p w hu receive arbitrary power are alike criminal, andihi ip i< no man ImtK bound to resist it to tile best of his power, wliciever it shall -lioiv Us face in the world. It is a en me to bear it where it can be rationally shaken oS. —Speech on Impeachment of Warren Hastings.

Or let them be guided by that other teacher, Lord Chatham, when he said:

With respect to the decisions of the conns of justice I am far ('mm denying their due vveielit and authority; yet plaeinp them in the mostrei respectable view, I will consider them, not at. law, but as an evidence of she law; and before they can arrive even at that degree, of autliontv. it mait appear thatthey ato founded in, and confirmed by reason; that lln j are Mippuiteil by precedents, taken trorn good and moderate times; that they do not contradict any positive law; that tlii y ucMitanmeil tI1 wu OU jlilt taiu e by the people; that tliej are uiHpte tione by the lcgislatuie, (which is equivalent to a tacit confirmation;) anil what m my judgment is hi far the most impntnnt, th l they do not violate the mit of the constitution —Speech of Lord Chatham in 17 i0 u ilh reguii to the proceeding on the Muldlesex rlrction.

If courts were thus inspired, it is easy to see that slavery would disappearundortheirrighteous judgments. i2. But unhappily the courts will not perform the duty of the hour, and we must look elsewhere. An appeal must be made to Congress; and here, as has been fully developed, the powers are ample, unless in their interpretation you surrender in advance to slavery. By a single brief statute, Congress may sweep slavery out of existence. I it rick H nry saw that in the maintenance of" the general welfare" and under the influence of a growing detestation of slavery this could bodone, even without resort to those capacious war powers which proclaim trumpet tongued that it can be done.

Ol course we encounter here again the "execrable' pretension of property in man, and the claim of "just compensation" for the renunciation of Heaven defying wrongs. But this pretension ib no more applicable to abolition by act of Congress than to abolition by an amendment of the Constitution; no that if the pretension of "just compensation" can be discarded in one case it can be in the other. But the votes that have already been taken in the Senate on the latter proposition testify that it is discarded. Sir, lot the "execrable" pretension ncveragam be named, except for condemnation, no matter how or when it appears or what the foun it may take.

But even if Congress be not prepared for that single decisive measure which shall promptly put an end to tins whole question and strike slavr ry to death, there are other measures by which this end may be hastened. The towering TJpas may begirdled e en if it may not be felled at once to the earth.

The fugitive slave bill, conceived in iniquity and imposed upon the North as a badge of subjugation, m iy be repealed.

The coastwise slave trade may be deprived of all support in the statute book

The traffic in human beings, as an article of "commerce among States," may be extirpated.

And, above all, that odious rule of evidence, so injurious to justice and discreditable to the country, excluding the testimony of colored persons in national courts, may be abolished.

Let these things be done. In themselves they will be much. But they will be more cis the assurance of the overthrow sure to follow.

3. But all these will not be enough. The people must be summoned to confirm the whole work, ft is for them to put the cap stone upon the sublime structure. An amendment of the Constitution may do what courts and Congress decline to do, or, even should they act, it may cover their action with its panoply. Such an amendment in any event will give completeness and permanence to emancipation, and bring the Constitution into avowed harmony with th i Declaration of Independence. Happy day, long wished for, destined to gladden those bealifi> d spirits who have labored on earth to this end, but died without the sight. And yet let us not indiscreetly take counsel of our hopes. From the nature of the case such an amendment cannot be consummated at once. Time must intervene, with opportunities of opposition. It can pass Congress only by a vote of two thirds of both branches. And when it has passed both branches of Congress it must he adopted by the Legislatures of three quarters of the States. Even under the most favorable circumstances it is impossible to say when it can become a part of the Constitution, Too tardily, I fear, for all the good that is sought. Therefore I am not content with this measure alone. If postpones till to-morrow what ought to be done to day and I much fear that it may he made an apology for indifference to other measures.

To "To-morrow, ai rl to motiow and to nioirow

<'reep9 in Ujh petty pace from day to d ij

To Use last u syllable of recorded time;

And all <>ut y« Jt rd iys have lighted fools

The way to du ty death."

For myself let me confess that, in presence of the mighty events of the day, I feel how insignificant is any individual, whetheroitizen or Senator; and yet, humbly longing to do my part, I cannot consent to put off till to-morrow what ought to be done to day Beyond my general desire to see an act of universal emancipation that shall at once and forever settle thingreat question, so that it may no longer be the occasion of strife between us, there are two other ideas which are ever present to my mind as a practical legislator: first, to strike at slavery wherever I can hit it; and secondly, to clean the statute book of all existing supports of slavery, so that it may find nothing there to which it may cling for life. To do loss than this at the present moment, when slavery is still menacing, would be on abandonment of duty.

So long as a single slave continues anywhere beneath the flag of the Republic am unwilling to rest. Too well I know the vitality of slavery with its infinite capacity of propagation, and how little slavery it takes to make a slave State with all the cruel pretensions of slavery. The down of a single thistle is full of all possible thistles, and a single fish is said to contain two hundred million of ova, so that the whole sea might be stocked from Us womb.

The founder of political science in modern times, writer as well as statesman, Machiavelli, in his most instructive work, the Discourses on Livy, has a chapter entitled, "To have long life in a republic, it is necessary to draw it back often to its origin;" and in the chapter 1h> shows how the original virtue in which a republic was■ founded becomes so far corrupted, that, m the process of time, the body politic must be destroyed; as in the case of the natural body, where, according to the doctors of medicine, there is something added daily which perpetually requires: cure, quod quotUlie aggrcgatur aliquid, quod quandoque indiget cvralionc. He teaches under this head that republics are brought back to their onI gin,and the principles in which they were founded,! by pressure without or prudence within, and he affirms that the destruction of Rome by the Gauls was necessary that the republic might have a new birth, and thus acquire new life and new virtue, all of which ensued when the barbarians had been driven back. The illustration, perhaps, is fanciful, but there is wisdom in the counsel, and now the time has come for its application The Gauls are upon us not however, from a distance, but domestic Gauls, and we, too, may profit by the occasion to secure for the Republic a new birth, that it may acquire a new life and new virtue. Happily, in our case the way is easy, for it is only necessary to carry the Republic back to its baptismal vows, and the declared sentiments of its origin. There is the Declaration of Independence: let its solemn promises be redeemed. There is the Constitution: let it speak according to the promises of the Declaration.

But the immediate question now before us is on the proposition to prohibit slavery by constitutional amendment; and here 1 hope to beindulged for a moment with regard to the form which it should take. A new text of the Constitution cannot be considered too carefully even in this respect, especially when itembodies a new article of freedom. Here for a moment we are performing something of that duty which belongs to the conditores imperii, placed foremost by Lord Bacon among the actors in human affairs. From the magnitude of the task we may naturally borrow circumspection, and 1 approach this part of the question with suggestion rather than argument. Let me say frankly that I should prefer a form of expression different from that which has the sanction of the committee. They have selected what was intended for the old Jeffersonian ordinance, sacred in our history, although, let me add, they have not imitated it closely. But I must be pardoned if I venture to doubt the expediency of perpetuating in the Constitution language which, if it have any signification, seems toiniply that "slavery or involuntary servitude" may be provided "for the punishrnentof crime," There was a reason for that language when it was first employed, but that reason no longer exists. If my desires could prevail, I would put aside the ordinance on this occasion, and find another form. I know nothing better than these words:

All pei ons are equal before the law, so that no poison can hold another us a slave; and the Coiigie>->- shall have power to make all laws riece aiy and proper to carry tin? declaration into effect everywhere within the United States and the jurisdiction thereof.

The words in the latter part supersede all questions as to the applicability of the declaration to States. But the distinctive words in this clause assert the equality of all persons before the late. The language may be new in our country, but it is already well known in history. And here let me show how it has grown to its present place of authority. We must repair for a moment to France.

The first constitution adopted by France, September, 1791, in the throes of revolution, was preceded by a Declaration of Rights, which, after setting forth that "ignorance, forgetfulncss, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole causes of public evils and of the corruption of Governments," undertakes to announce "the natural rights of man, inalienable and sacred, to the end that this Declaration, constantly present to all the members of the social system, may without cessation recall their rights and duties; to the end that the acts of the legislative power and those of the executive power capable at each instant of being compared with the object of every political institution, may be more respected; to the end that the claims of citizens, founded on simple and incontestable principles, may turn always to the maintenance of the constitution, and thehappiness of all 35 After this too elaborate preamble the Declaration begins with the following article:

"Art. 1. Men aie born and continue free and equal in rights."

Here is a generality of expression not unlike that of our own Declaration of Independence.

Next came the constitution of June, 1793, which, after a preamble, sets forth a series of articles, beginning with three, as follows:

"Art. 1. The object of vocu ty xa the common happiness. Government ib instituted to guaranty to iiiairthoeujoyment ot his natural and nnpresenpubtc uvius.

•'•2. These lights are equality hbeny «eeut itv, property. "3. J I men are equal by nature and before th? i n j

Here this declaration begins to show itself.

This same constitution concludes with what is called a guarantee of rights, in the following article;

"Art. 1 22 The Constitution guaranties to all Frenchmen equality, liberty, >ec«jniy, property, the public debt, the free exeici e of worship, common instruction, public assistance, the indefinite Itfwmy of the press, the iigiit of petition, the njjht to alembic iu public meetings, the enjoyment of all tiie rights of men."

Then came the constitutional charter of June, 1814, following the restoration of the Bourbons, which begins with the following article:

Art. 1. Frenchmen u e equal lefoiethe htw} whatever may be otheiwi e their title and ranks."

This is followed by another, as follows:

"Art. 4 Their individual liberty is equally guarantied, so that nobody can be pio eeuted or arrested, except m ca es provided for by the law, and mthe t onn which it preThe constitutional charter of August, 183D, at the installation of Louis Philippe as king, with La Fayette by his side, contains the articles already quoted from that of I Louis XVIII, in the same words, placing the declaration of equality before the law in the front.

And this article has been adopted in the charters of Belgium, Italy, Greece; so that it is now a well known expression of a commanding principle of human rights.

It will be felt at once that this expression, equality before the law," gives precision to that idea of human rights which is enunciated in our Declat atioti of Independence. The sophistries of Calhoun, founded on the obvious inequalities of body and 'mind, are all overthrown by this simple statement, which, though borrowed latterly from France, is older than French history. The curious student will find imthe ancient Greek of Herodotus a single word which supplies the place of this phrase, when lie tells usthat" the go vei n- ment of the many has the most beau iful name of teovofxia," or equality before the iuii\ (Book 3, p. 80.) Thefathei of history was right. The name is most beautiful; but it is not a little singular that, in an age when equality before the laiv was practically unknown, the Greek language, so remarkable for its flexibility and comprehensiveness, supplied a single word, not to be found in modern tongues, to express an idea which has been authoritatively recognized only in modern times. Such a wu d in our own language to express that equality of rights which is claimed for all mankind might have superseded some of the criticism to which this Declaration has been exposed.

Enough has been said to explain the origin of the words which are now proposed. It will be for the Senate to determine if it will adopt them. Should the Senate not incline to this form, there is still another which I would suggest, as follows: Slavery Miali not exist :mywhere u itimi the United States or tl!<> jut iMh ti ti tin toot and the Uon ie s thall liavo power to male all laws neee 3 4ry and proper to carry this prohibition into chert.

This is simple, and avoids all language which is open to question. The word'• slavery" is explicit, and describes precisely what it is proposed to blast.

But if the Senate is determined toadluicto the Jefferson ian ordinance, then I prefer that it should be the ordinance actually, and not as reported by the committee. And I would complete tiie work by expelling from the Constitution all those woi ds which have been the apology for slavery, by an amendment as follows:

There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude an> where in the United State?., or within the juti d etion thereof, otherwise wj e than in the pnnKhniPnt oi ci nnCc whei oof the party thai! have been duly convicted; and the Congress may make all laws which Miali be neoe aiy and proper to enfoice thi*< piohibiuon.

"Out while desirous of seeing the great rule of freedom which we are about to ordain embodied in a text wh ch shall be like th" pieuou>; casket to the more pr Cious treasure, yc t I confess that I feel humbled by my own eiulcavois. And whatever may be the jud tmnt of the Senate, i uni eonsoled by the thought that, the most homely text containing such a rule will be more beautiful iar than any words of poetry or eloquence, and that n will endure to be read with gratitude when the ri ung dome of this Capitol, with the .statue of Liberty which Gin mounts it, has crumbled to dust.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on concurring in the amendment which was made as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. SUMNER. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the words of the proposed article, and inserting the following:

All persons- are equal before the law, so that no person can hold another as a slave; and the Congress may make all laws necessary and proper to carry this article into effect everywhere within the United States and tiie jurisdiction thereof.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. President, it was not my purpose a day or two ago to make any remarks upon the main question; but I beg leave now fo trespass on the Senate for a short time while I reply very briefly to some of the remarks that have fallen from three honorable Senators from New England, two from New Hampshire, and one from Massachusetts, who has just taken his seat.

I do not believe it was ever designed by the founders of our Government that the Constitution of the United States should be so amended as to destroy property. I do not believe it is the province of the Federal Government to say what is or whatis not property. Its province is to guard, protect, ami secure, rather than to destroy. If you admit the principle contended for by the gentlemen who urge this amendment, logic would lead them to the conclusion that the General Government could, by an amendment to its Constitution, regulate every domestic matter in the States. If it, by constitutional amendment, can regulate the relation of master and servant, it certainly can, on the same principle, make regulations concerning the relation of parent and child, husband and wife, and guardian and ward. If it has the right to strike down property in slaves, it certainly would have a right to strike down property in hor es to make a partition of the land, and to say that none shall hold land in any State in the Union in fee simple. It is not my purpose, however, to discuss the question in that light, for it has been elaborately discussed before.

I do not think, Mr. President, that those who are now mging this constitutional amendment have acted m good faith toward the adhering slave States. If you will trace their history from the very beginning in connection with this whole subject of slavery in the States, I think you will find that they have not acted with that directness and candor that should characterize bold, honest, and feat less men. Why, sir, do you suppose, that such propositions would have been proposed heretofore.' Not at all. We were told by the Government in every form in which it could speak, at the beginning of this revolution, that whatever might be the result, t«he institutions of the States would remain as they were. The President, in his inaugural address, announced that he had no constitutional power to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States. Tiie Secretary of State announced it in a communication which i he sent abroad. Congress, by a resolution, announced virtually the same thing when they declared that the object of the war was to restore the Union as it was and to maintain the Constitution as it is. All these measures and promises have been utterly repudiated by the party m power. It seems as if their sole object was to deceive m order to obtain power, and the moment they obtain power they exercise it. We are surrounded by circumstances that cause these valiant knights to think they can do thn-> with impunity, and at once they go to work. Heretofore they have said that not only they had not the power, but whatever might be the result of the present contest, the status of this institution would remain as it was. I do not mean to say that they said they had no power to pass a constitutional amendment; but this portion of my remarks is directed to other policies that have been advocated and other laws that have been passed or are now proposed in this Chamber. I think it must be admitu d by all candid men that the border States have been dealt with in bad faith. The Government has not kept faith with them. All candid, all truthful, all honest men must know it and must adIllit It.

But, sir, they tell us that slavery is the cause of all our difficulties; and the honorable Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Clark] read an awful indictment against slavery. He said it was the. cause of all our woes; that there was no ill in the land but must be attributed to slavery; and hence, lie said, it mustdie. With great deference to the learned Senator, I do not think slavery has been the cause of all our difficulties. In my judgment the want of faith that has been exhibited toward the border and adhering slave States anil the bad faith in not executing and carrying out the laws of the country is the source of our ills, if those who now act with that Senator had carried out in good faith the Constitution and the Jaws made in pursuance thereof on this subject, we never should have been engaged in this most unfortunate and cruel and disastrous civil war. The bad faith of the abolitionists has done more to bring this war about than all the efforts of the fire eaters of the South. I admit that those men in the South acted unwisely and foolishly; but I do not think the one could well have produced such results without the other. There were fanatics at both extremes, and those miserable factions have brought this once great and glorious country to its present unfortunate condition. Historians in after times will give that as the cause of our troubles, it was the eternal intermeddling with this institution that aroused the spirits of the southern men, and they in turn committed the greatest indiscretions and follies. Had there been no abolitionists North there never would have been a fire eater South.

But it is said slavery is the cause of the war, and because it is the cause of the war it must die. If that is the kind of logic on which honorable Senators act they would destroy almost everything that is pure, good, and holy in the world. The blessed religion of our Saviour has been the pretext of more wars perhaps thanany othersubject. Why not strike down the Christian religion because it has been the subject matter about which throats have been cut, cities sacked and empires overthrown? There have been furious wars about territory and territorial boundaries, and there will continue to be such wars as long as the cupidity of man prompts him to make conquests. Why not destroy all tenure in land? Ferocious wars have been waged about women. In Homeric verse we have the historic record of a ten years' contest for frail Helen. Why not destroy the loveliest of God s handiwork? Why, sir, the proposition of the Senator to destroy slavery because it is the cause of the war (which I utterly deny) if carried out logically would destroy everything that is grand, beautiful, lovely, and great in the world. I will not dwell upon that proposition. It is so illogical, so irrational, that I do not think it can influence the judgment of any sane I oppose the proposition now pending before the Senate, in the first place, because 1 do not think we should enter into any such legislation at this time for the reasons that I have briefly stated, in the second place, I oppose itfoecause I desire the Union to be restored, restored as it was with the Constitution as it is; and I verily believe that if you pass this amendment to the Constitution it will be the most effective disunion measure that could be passed by Congress. As a lover of the Union 1 oppose it. Adopt this amendment, say to the people of the southern States that they are to be deprived of their property and the earnings of their labor, that their whole domestic policy is to be overthrown, and four million of miserable blacks turned loose among them, if you please, and do you think they will yield while they have arms to strike? Never, sir; and in my honest judgment (I always speak plainly what I think) those fanatical gentlemen on the other side of the House who desire the passage of this measure, intend to do one of two things—either to destroy the institution of slavery or to destroy the Union. If they can make the preservation of this Union a pretext by which they can be enabled to strike down slavery, they will do so. If they find that they cannot, in my judgment they will be willing to recognize the South. Their whole policy indicates that to my mind. Pass this amendment and you make an impassable chasm, as if you were to put a lake of burning fire between the adhering States and those who are out. You will then have to make it a war of conquest and extermination before you can ever bring them back under the fhg of the Government. There is no doubt about that proposition. j Why, sir, suppose you were to propose and pass an amendment to the Constitution laying your hand upon the property interest in New England, I will not say equal but half equal to the property interests of the southernStates which you now propose to strike down; does any man believe that all New England would not be in revolution to morrow Yes, sir, one half of the violation of their property rights by an attempted amendment of the Constitution of the United States inflicted upon them would put all New England in revolt to-morrow. I do not stand here to denounce our Yankee brethren of the North, but everybody knows that cupidity and love of gain is their strongest characteristic. That is •known over the whole world and acknowledged by themselves

Knowing that this will be the best disunion measure that was ever adopted, and desiringas I do a restoration of the Union as it was with the Constitution as it is, I oppose it, and shall oppose it here and everywhere, with all the power that 1 have. Those who favor it do not wish the Union to be restored asitwas. They are willing,! suppose, to let the southern States come in as conquered provinces, bereft of all their property and all their rights, social and political.

The honorable Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Clark] has left us no doubt upon that point. In the very eloquent speech that he made the other day he scouted the idea of the Union as it was and the Constitution as it is. He did not want that Union, and he had the manhood to tell us so in his place m the Senate. Would the Senator have said that three years ago? 1 very much doubt it. I do want the Union as it was and the Constitution as it is, and in that I differ from the honorable Senator. He wants the Union, he says, without slavery. I want the Union witlrall the institutions that our fathers ordained; and I desire to leave to each State the control of its own domestic policy, and the choice and management of its domestic institutions; and that was, until very recently at least, the doctrine of the party to which the honorable Senator belongs. That was in their Chicago platform; but platforms with everything else are overturned now. That platform in very many particulars was very offensive to me; but such as H was, the party in power used it merely as a scaffold by which to mount to power, and when they had attained the summit they threw it to the ground and trampled upon it. It is m keeping with the bad faith they have exhibited to the border States during this controversy.

The Senator from New Harnpshiie is now zealous for a constitutional amendment. The time was when the Senator was fired with no such holy zeal. When the propositions offered by my then venerable colleague, Mr. Crittenden, were before the Senate, the Senator from New Hampshire thought no amendment of the Constitution necessary. All that was wanted, in his opinion, was the execution of the Constitution we had. That Senator was then the most active agent in preventing constitutional amendments, when the whole world knew that if those constitutional amendments were carried out, it would have avoided this miserable war and saved the country as a whole. But it did not suit the ideas of the Senator to favor constitutional amendments then, and hence he proposed his celebrated resolution as a substitute for the Crittenden amendment. Then, sir, when those amendments <>f the Constitution, which it was avowed on all hands, even by Davis mid Toombs ,and the whole .of the southern leaders, would save the Union, were under consideration, no Republican Senator came forward and voted for them. Then, when patriotic men thioughout the whole land desired to avert tiie impending storm that has resulted so disastiously to the country, morally, religiously, politically, and in every other respect; the gentleman who are now such hot zealots for constitutional amendments were opposed to thcQi. They, withheld amendments, and the mad people of the, South went off; but now, when this war is upon; us and has well nigh ruined the country, constitutional amendments are their last specific.

Would it not be better that those m power should execute the Constitution as it is before they seek to amend it? Every vital provision of the Constitution as it is is violated, and you complain not; and now you ptopose to amend it solely for the miserable negro, after rejecting every amendment proposed that was calculated to secure the liberties of the white man.

When 1 proposed amendment to confine the office of the Pusidout to one term, and thus to terminate the infamous spoils system, it was voted down. When another amendment was proposed to prevent the kicking out of office at the incoming of every Administration of the sub officials in the Executive Departments, no one said it was not a good amendment; and Senators voted it down. Every other amendment that is calculated to give perpetuity and virtue to the Government you discard. You seem to care for nothing but the negro. That seems to be your sole desire. You seem to be inspired by no other wish than to elevate the negro to equality, and give him liberty. I have offered various amendments to this proposition, butthey haveail been rejected. I have offered them because i thought that while we were at this work we might do something for the while man, for I believe this Government was made by while men and for white men; and if it is ever preserved it must be preserved by white men. I have never made a speech in this body on the subject of the negro; 1 have alluded to him incidentally only; but 1 would ask Senators who are so zealous for the negro to point me to a place on the earth where he has been so civilized, so humanized so christianized, so well cared for as he is in a state of slavery in the United States of America. He has existed, I suppose, as long as the other peoples of the earth; but if you were to day to strike from existence everythingthat the woolly headed negro has given to art, to science, to the mechanic arts, to literature, or to any of the industrial pursuits, the world would not miss it. He is an inferior man in his capacity, and no fanaticism can raise him to the level of the Caucasian race. The white man is his superior, and will be so whether you call him a slave or an equal. It has ever been so, and I can see no reason why the history of all the past should be reversed.

But the negro absorbs your every thought. For him you will destroy the country; for him you will allow the liberties of the white man to be stricken down and every sacred guarantee of liberty m the Constitution put under foot without a whimper or a censure. That is a lamentable fact which has exhibited itself during this war.

Not contented with proposing legislation to equalize and to elevate the negro, and with failing to censure even in the mildest and most diluted form those who overthrow the liberties of the white man, you step out of the way to assault in every conceivable manner the slaveholding States. The border slave States are kicked and cuffed here with as little ceremony as if they were disloyal criminals or outcasts. The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Clark] undertook the other day to run a parallel between the State I have the honor in part to represent here and one of the New England States, in which he doubted the patriotism of Kentuckians and elevated that of the Green Mountain State of Vermont. Sir, I will not so far degrade Kentucky as to contrast her in military achievements with any of the New England States. Wo have had wars before this. We had a war with a mighty Power across the water in 1812, when Kentucky was a young and comparatively a feeble State; butdid she ever refuse when the country called to give the blood of her sons to carry that flag in the midst of the enemy? No, sir. In that war of 1812she furnished more men than were demanded; no draft was ever executed m tlu t proud old Commonwealth; she never went abroad with money bags to hire men to fill her quota.

After the battle of the River Raisin, when the heroic Governor of Kentucky, her first Governor, Governor Shelby, the hero of King s Mountain, called for volunteers, more flocked to his standard than he could take, and the youngmen went back home weeping because they could not be allowed to go in the army against Proctor, Tecumseh, and their cruel hosts. She protected all the Northwest from the tomahawk and the scaiping knifo of the ferocious savage, and the equally ferocious Briton, when our soil was invaded.

Since then we have had a war with Mexico. What was the condition of Kentucky then? She sent more men to the Mexican war than all New England put together; more of the gallant sons of that proud old Commonwealth of Kentucky went to that war than of all New England; and yet the Senator twits Kentucky about her patriotism and her devotion to the country! Allow me to tell the Senator that in the war with Mexico no draft was ever executed in Kentucky, and the i rolls in the adjutant general s office at her capital now show that over fifty regiments volunteered more than were wanted, and they were not allowed to go; and but for that news getting out among the people, twice fifty regiments would have been ready to strike for their country in a foreign war. The Senator has glorified the patriotism of Now England during the presentcontest. I admit that New England has been rampant in the Senate Chamber for this war; but 1 deny, and 1 deny most emphatically and most truthfully, that she has exhibited that spirit at home. No draft has been executed in Kentucky; she has heretofore furnished her quota; she has filled it under, every call, and I believe that will be made manifest in a few days. We have the misfortune to be divided in this strife; we have perhaps thirty thousand of our young men in the rebel army; but notwithstanding that we have promptly filled our quota so far, and we have to day one half of the fighting population of our State under the Union flag; and it is a matter of gratulation to every son of Kentucky, though he may regret that her people have gone South, that no regiment from that proud old State on any field, whether m the rebel or the Union service, has ever shown the l( white feather." They fight like tiuesons of a proud mother, and that they will ever do, for Kentucky is not the land that breeds recreants and cowards. How is it with Now England in this war? They sometimes call it a New England war. It is the first war since the war of the Revolution that has had the cordial cooperation of New England. We have had wars with Great Britain; we have had a war with Mexico; but New England then came up coldly to the work; she had no stomach ffir those fights. How is it now? In the Senate Hall and the pulpit, wherever there is a New England fanatic, he is talkingabout war, blood, carnage; but do their sons respond and fill up the ranks? I admit that in one or two of the New England States it is so. 1 believe it is so in the State of Vermont; but how is it I to-day with Massachusetts —and Massachusetts sometimes has the audacious impudence to call ita Massachusetts war—do they give their sons to the battle field Has Connecticut done it?" Their representatives try to pass laws through here almost every day to allow them to go with their money bags down South and the world over to buy substitutes to fight in a war that they proclaim is a New England war.

But the other day there was an officer from Connecticut offering high bounties to negroes in the gallant State of Indiana, within ten miles of my home, a State so ably represented by my friends, [Mr. Hendricks and Mr. Lane,] and I understand that Governor Morton ordered the Yankee to pack up and clear out. Yes, sir, they aregoingabout with their money to buy the bones of the western people to fill up their ranks in the Army; they are so unpatriotic as not to go in themselves. I was very glad that my neighbor s State through its officials ordered that man away. How is it with Indiana, with Illinois, and the other western States? Those gallant States of the West in the main have filled their quota. They do not go abroad with money to hire a negro there or a foreigner yonder. They do not send abroad to import men to be put into their ranks. No, sir; western courage is far above that. But through the instrumentality of the most iniquitous tarifflaws that were ever on the statutebook of any free and honest people, you fill your coffers with the wealth drawn from the haul products of honest industry in the great valley of the Mississippi, and with that you go into their midst and try to buy the muscle and bones of their people to fill your quotas in the Army that you have not got the patriotism and the courage to fill yourselves. That is the truth. No man can deny it. You are attempting almostevcry day to slip some law of that kind through. The chairman of the Military Committee has tried it twice, and I was delighted when the Senator from Illinois exposed and defeated ita few days since If you are really for the war as you say you are, give your people to the strife; do not send out your money lugs your ill gotten gains wrung from the hard labor of the western people, for the purpose of buying that people to do your fighting. I want to see the regiments of Massachusetts and of Connecticut filled with Massachusetts and Connecticut men, not with South Carolina negroes, or Germans, or Irish. Kentucky has filled her quota from her own sons. We have no hoards of wealth which hi rh protective laws have wrung from the labor of other people. We have given so far our children to the strife. So has my gallant neighbor, Indiana. So have Ohio, Illinois, and the whole Wisi; but New England men come here and talk against the patriotism of other States and about their divided allegiance! I scorn that kind of interest in a war that will not send men to the field.

By this kind of clap trap here you may lead tli^ world to believe that you are the great custodians ot the country; but brave and honestmen will look to the muster rolls to see how many are in the ranks from your States, and how many yoa bought over the Canada line and in neighboring States, and how many you are getting from tlie rice iiekU ofLouisiana. The world will not believe that you are in earnest until you come up to the work. 1 hope Congress will not pass a law to allow Yankee cupidity to buy western patriotism or southern slaves to fill up their ranks. There are few States, to their honor be it said* that have not filled up their quotas.

The other Senator from 3NTew Hampshire, the facetious and witty, and I may add eloquent Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. Hall:,] made, I think, the most remarkable speech I ever heard. I had thought that distinguished Senator was filled with humanity, with kindness, with charity; but lie talked as flippantly about blood and thunder, and cutting off heads, as a child would about his toys, lie advised the Democratic party to submit quietly and gracefully, as did the royal monarch to the severing of his head from his body, lie said the decree had gone forth, the Commons had decreed that pulleys be placed about his royal person in case he resisted, to pull him to the block. Ah! and he advised us like that king to come up and gracefully put our heads on the block; and 1 suppose the Senator would glory m being the executioner. Allow me to tell him that he was most unfortunate in his simile. Charles I was beheaded because of encroachments upon the constitution and laws of the country over which he reigned. The illustration of his case cannot apply to a party who are feeble in numbers in this Chamber and weak m the other House, though stronger there than here, who stand forth manfully resisting the encroachments of tyranny, and battling against the usurpations of those in power. If he had instanced the ease of the first Charles to tell the wicked men in executive office that they had better lie down and have their heads severed because of their ruthless overthrow of the Constitution of the country as in the ease of that king, the simile would have been apposite.

The Senator from New Hampshire thinks that king was rightfully beheaded. I will not enter into that controversy. In history it id a vexed question. That he committed many grievous wrongs, I admit, but 1 am gentle and kind in my nature, and I think that perhaps it would have been better if his judges had decreed some milder punishment. The Senator from New Hampshire does not think so; he thinks Charles was rightfully executed; he has told us so more than once, i undertake in this Chamber to declare to the Senator from New Hampshire that if lie will take up the hisioiy of that unfortunate, and I will say guilty king, for he did commit violent infractions of the constitution of the Bi itish empire, and if he will state the infractions committed by Charles of the constitution and law s of England, I pledge myself as a gentleman and a man of honor to give him two for one, and those more flagrant infractions, committed by Abialmm Lincoln upon the Constitution and laws ot the United States of A men en, and I defy that Senator or any other Senator who choosesto enter the lists to run the historical parallel. Let him present well authenticated historical infractions by Cliaiies i of the constitution and laws of the British nation, and I pledge mysf It to furnish two instances for one of violations of our Constitution and laws committed by the present Executive; and I venture to say that no Senator will attempt to run the parallel between the two cases. But, sir,[ .shall not talk of putting pulleys upon the President, for really! whih- I think the Pn sident has committed great infractions of the Constitution nf the country, while I honestly believe he uu hi to be impeached and turned out of office, I have no such bloodthirsty feeling as to want to see the poor man s head chopped off.