Mr. ROUSSEAU. So every gentleman on your side says. You all say that you are in favor of the admission of the loyal men from Tennessee, and are anxious for it. And yet, in spite of your anxiety, 7 months have gone by, and I do not see that anything has been done in that direction. Every gentleman in the House says that he is anxious to admit these States at the earliest day possible; but where is the work that you have done toward it? It might be done in 30 minutes. I tell you what it is. When, in 1870, another presidential election shall have passed away, and the majority here shall have secured a new lease of power, then you will let in these men. Your object is not restoration; it is obstruction and procrastination. Your desire, as was said by a Gentfrom Pennsylvania the other day, is to secure the right of the negro to vote in the South so as to counterbalance the votes of the copper heads and rebels. Do any gentlemen suppose they could get the negro vote South? “very muster would vote his negro. You would not get them. Sir, I ask this House if it is wise and just and proper to attempt to enforce upon these States such a condition before we will admit members who are legitimately entitled to seats here? And what would this negro vote amount to? The Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Srsvsss] in his 1st speech of the session on this floor said that by the operation of the infernal laws of slavery the negroes South were kept in such ignorance that they were unable to understand the plainest terms of the simplest contracts. And a little further on in the same speech, that the right of suffrage should be conferred by Concress upon them; thus placing in the hands of people so ignorant the destinies of a country like this. such is the radical doctrine. But what was Mr. Lincoln’s policy of restoration? Why, sir, he never dream of rejecting loyal men legally elected from the insurrectionary States. In the midst of the war he said that he woiild take the fact that insurrectionary States were represented in Congress as conclusive proof that no rebellion existed in those States. He invited representation. In his emancipation proclamation of September, 1862, he said: “The Executive will. on the 1st day of January. 1863d. designate the Statesand partsof States, if any, in which the people thereof respectivelyshall then be in rebellion against the U.S.: and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that do bein good faith representedin the Congress of the IU.S. by members chosenthereto at electionswherein the majority ofqualified voters of such States shall have participate t, shall, in the ab senceof strong: countervailing testimony.be deemed conclusiveevidencethat such State, and the people thereof. are not in rebellion against the U.S.s." Thus we see, sir, that in the midst of the war he told these)BOPlB to send their representatives here, an that he would regard that as conclusive proof that rebellion no longer existed in those States. And yet now, sir, men professing to be his friends, and the friends of his policy, tell these loyal men from the South that it is impossible that even the best and most loyal of them should' be admitted into this Hall. Sir, you have run away from that policy. You tell us that we are untrue to the policy of Abraham Lincoln; you tell us that we have abandoned his position, and are untrue to his policy of restoration. Why, sir, we have been trying every day to carry it out. We, the An drew Johnson men upon this floor, have been endeavoring during this whole session to have these men admitted upon it. But we are in so small a minority, and such a powerful and willful I say it in no offensive sense majority is opposed to us that we are utterly powerless. We have not been able to get a hearing for any thing looking to restoration; and not only that, but the citizens of those States which have been in rebellion, whether loyal or disloyal, are deprived of any right they may have to assert their claims upon the Treasury, or to occupy any position under the Government. My friendfrom Ohio [.Mr. SCHEXCK] some weeks ago offered a resolution by which they are debarred from admission to the WestPoint Academy. The children of these Tennessee soldiers, who have laid down their lives that the nation might live, when they come up and ask places at WestPoint are told that they cannot be allowed admission there. I would like to hear the gentleman’s answer to one of these be s, whose father has fallen in the service of the country and whose mother has paid taxes to support the Government and has contributed to this fund for the support of WestPoint, when he applies for admission to that institution. I should like to know what he could say to such a son of such a father. And yet that resolution would deprive all the people of the insurrectionary States, without regard to whether they are loyal or disloyal, of the right to receive any of the advantages of WestPoint. Now, if that is not frittering away all the results of this war, if that is not rendering null and of no effect all that we have striveu to gain, I do not know what is. Ifanythingworse than that could be done, I cannot imagine what it would be. It is placing the loyal and disloyal on the same footing, insisting that they shall all be disfranchised alike. I have only to say to the men on this floor who choose to turn their backs on the loyal men of the South, who have been true to them and to the cause of their country through this war, that ifI had held out the induceinent s they did and then turned my back on them when the time for the exercise of power came, I would hang my head in shame; I would not look in the face of any gentleman whom I had so inveighed into riveting the shackles upon the limbs ofhis own people. But we will not submit to this. There will be no trouble about it in time. We will have a hearing before the people, and then all this matter will be righted. I do not believe the people of this nation will give u the Government in this way. I do not believe they will allow any man, whether he claims to be loyal or disloyal. to destroy it. I do not believe they will al|0w the Union for which they fought so bravely to be broken up in this manner. We have heard a great deal said about secession, and about its being a crime. I hold it to be as much of a crime as other men do, but did the doctrine of secession originate in the South 7 Not at all; it came from the very men who are now the bitterest and the most proscriptive in this the time of the nation’s trouble. It comes from the State of Massachusetts, from Josiah Quincy and John Quinc Adams, who tau ht secession to the men oft ie South. Low, as long as John Quincy Adams lived I was one of his warmest admirers. When I was a boy I was an “ Adams man, ” and I admire him to this day, although in his latter days he insisted upon the right of secession, as di Josiah Quincy, and taught it to these people of the South. Yet I denounced secession and do now all the same. Let me read you what John Quincy Adams said in 1843 about secession: We hesitate not to saythat annexation of Texas] etTected by any act or proceeding of the Federal government or any of its Depts would beiden our nwatiitohnadlisesoomluptiaoent.itIst oWbjoeucltds bdeesaigvnios, laatniodnthoef rent elementary principles which entered into its ormatzon of a characterso deepand fundamental, and would be an attempt to cternize an institution and power of a nature so unjust in themselves.so linuflflllfl to the interestsand abhorrent to the feelings of the peopleof the free States, as in our opinion not only inevitably to result in adissolution of the Union. at fully to iustify it." That, sir, is from John Quincy Adams, in a document published by him and signed by him and 9 other members of Congress at that time. He insisted upon the right of breaking up the Government if Texas was annexed. Josiah Quincy started the same theory before on a question precisely similar. Anlodng wish to read what he said on that subject. It is as follows: i “ If this bill passes[for the admission of Louisiana] it is my deliberate opinion that it is virtually a dissolution ot the Union. that it will free the States from their moral obligations, and as it will he the right of all. so it will be the duty of some.definitely to propare for a separation, amicably if they can. violently if they must." That is an extract from Gales & Seaton’s Annals of Congress of 1810 and 1811, and, strange to say, Mr. Quincy gives the very same reasons that the secessionists gave when they began this effort to break up this Government, that when a contract was broken by one of the parties to it, of course the other party had a right to repudiate. He gave this reason: "Is there a moral principle of public law better settled or more conformable to the plainest still nestions of reason than that the violation of a contract by one of the parties may be considered as exempting the others from its obligations?" There, sir, is the beginning of the doctrine of secession. A portion of the southern people attempted to carry out this principle. We put it down; but let those who taught the doctrine not insist upon too much castigation of others for well learning what they so well tau lit. ow, sir, I should be ashamed of myself if I should come upon this floor to arraigu the people of Massachusetts, to denounce and abuse them for an opinions which may have been held by the ening men of that State; I should be ashamed of myself as a member of Congress, or as a private man, if I should do so unworthy a thing. But, sir, how often have we had these flings at the State of Kentuck. And where do they come from? I wis, sir, to call the attention of the House to what was said a few days ago by a Senfrom the State of Massachusetts; and I wish, once for all, to denounce this self righteous conceit, let it come whence it may. Senator Winsos', on the floor‘of the Senate, used this language: “I have felt that this struggle.which was a.con ltoegsiteoafl ideas of thoughts of acts and of blood, wnsa and philosopiical contest. It. wasa contest between men trained in the spirit of liberty: that spirit which embracesin itsa actions all the children of men of every clinic and race: that spirit which pulls not the highcstduwn, but lifts the low estup. on the one hand and on the other the dark. malignant spirit of slavery. which shrivels the mind and debasesthe soul. For 200 years the one side had been trained to the love of freedom, justice, and lininnnity, und theother had been trained in the spirit of caste. It was a contest of giants; it was the 'irrepressiblo conflict:' and it cameto blows; and when it did come toblows it rocked the continent with its power. We have triumphed." Now, Mr. Speaker, I protest‘ against any corner of this nation, or any coriSiderable portion of it, assuming to itself the right to give morals and laws to the remainder of the world; and I especially object, sir, when such an attempt is mude by a portion of the country whence came not only the doctrine of secession and revolution, and appeals to resist the measures of Congress, but where was origi nated in this country the system of slavery itself. The 1st place, sir, upon this conti nent to which slaves were ever brought was Boston. I wish to detain the Houses. ine ment in showmg that slavery had its origin on this continent in that portion of the U.S., and that it legally continued there, though virtually abolished, but by law remain inr7until a very late day, a few months ago. I read from Moore’s History of Slavery in Massachusetts: “Slavery having never been formally prohibited by legislation in Massachusetts continued to 'su‘o sist in point of law' until the year 1866.when the grand constitutional amendment terminated it forever throughoutthe limits of the U.S. It would be not the least remarkable of the circumstances connectedwith this strangepnd eventfulhis that although virtually abolished before. the actual prohibition ofslavery in Massachusettsaswell as Kentucky should be accomplishedby the votes of SCarolina and Georgio." Paae242. Now, sir, I insist that it is not for the representatives of such a community to come here asserting that we shall learn our notions of morals or law or liberty from them. Sir, there is no doubt, from the evidence of history, that at an early day the leading men of Massachusetts did enslave their own race; enslaved the Indians: enslaved the negroes. They sold into bondage the children of Quakers, because the latter disagreed with them in reference to religious matters. They sold into slavery the Indians who had surrendered to them on a promise to be treated as prisoners of war. I hold in my hand a book in which these facts are proved by historical and documentary evidence, and I have as yet seen no attempt at a contradiction of these statements in any of the papers of the country, although always alive to matters of this sort. Now, sir, that Senator tells us that for 200 years his people have been “trained to the love of freedom, justice, and humanity.” Sir, I shall proceed to read some extracts from Moore's History of Slavery in Massachusetts. I find on page 207 advertisements published in that State as late as the year 1780, after the DeclarIndep, by which all men were asserted to be free and equal. From the Continental Journal, November 25, 1779: ag"eT.o be sold, likely negro girl, 16 years of for no fault, but want of employ." From the some, December 16, 1799: " To be sold. a strong.likely negrogirl." 520. From the Independent Chronicle, March 9, 17“80: To besold.for want of employment.an exceeding likely negrogirl. aged16." From the same, March 30 and April 6, “ 1780: To besold. very chenpnforno otherreason than want of employ, an exceedingactive negrobemused 15: also a likely negrogirl. aged 17.” 1 groin the Continental Journal, August 17, 7 0: “To be sold. a.likely negroboy." From the same, August 24 and September 7: "To be sold or let for ii. term of years. a strong. hearty, likely negrogirl." From the same, October 26, 1780: “To be sold. a likely negro boy, about 13 years old. well calculated to wait on a gentleman. nquiro of the printer. What do we have immediately after that? "To be sold. a likely youngcow and calf. Inquire of the printer." FLroamugthhteerInjdependent Chronicle, December 14, 21, and 28, 1780: “ A negro child. soon expected.of a good breed may be ownedby any personinclining to take it, an moneywith it.” Mr. Speaker, slavery is a crime. Iknow it, and perhaps as many wrongs have been done in the South as in any country where slavery has been permitted; but never, sir, have I heard that unborn children were sold or promised to be iven away never, sir, have I heard of that in teSouth. We have had great complaints about slavery in the South; we have heard of things which disgrace the South, the separation of mothers from their children, but southern man as Iam, I have never yet heard of a child being sold down there or prgmised to be given away before it was born in order not to lose a day of the services of its mother. Shall we, then, be told by gentlemen who live in this land where all these things have been done that they alone have been true in the cause of liberty, and that all the liberty we are to en'oy shall be taught and secure by them? hall they come to teach us liberty? Are they the men who are fitted to do it? If this be the liberty and if these are the morals which they wish to bring into the South, in God’s name, I say, let them keep them at home i We may be bad enough as it is, but we would be infinitely worse if we followed such teach in s. ItIuch has been said about good, brave old Kentucky in this contest. It has been said she was 1/2 on one side and 1/2 on the other. Unjust flings have been made against her upon this floor. Now, I wish to say that not only secession and slavery were inherited from Massachusetts, but, sir, this doctrine of neutrality also came from there. In 1812 Governor Strong, of Massachusetts, layed exactly the same r610 as did Governor agotfin in 1861. I want to call the attention of the House to the course Massachusetts then pursued. Holland, in the History of Western Massachusetts, volume one, page 326, uses the following language: " The authoritiesof the U.S and the government of Massachusettscame early in collision. Governor Strong wasdis osedtoastrict construction of the Constitution; an as ho. liketho Northamp ton convention, could not see in the occasion any laws of the Union to be executed.insurrectionsto be suppressed or invasions to be repelled. he declined accessionto the requisition madefor Massachusetts arootps, to be placed at the commandof the Presien. Ahl is that the law? Is that the liberty the Senfrom Massachusetts would teach us? Would he teach us to disobey the laws of the land, and skulk when called upon to fight the common enemy? We have no such record as that in Kentucky. When Governor Magoflin was called upon to supply the quota of Kentucky of the 70 5,000 men called out y the President, what did he do? He said that he would not give a man to the cause. He eculd not wait to write it, so he telegraphed it. The people of Massachusetts sustained Governor Strong. It is, therefore, with just pride that I draw a comparison between the euple of Massachusetts and the people of Kentucky. Governor Magoflin refused to furnish men and arms, but what did the people of the State do? They furnished 90,000 men to put down the rebellion. They appointed a military commission over Magoflin’s head. They did not refuse to stand by the Government, as in the case of Massachusetts. There were men who, in spite of the Governor’s proclamation, in spite o the authorities of the State, raised troops in defense of the Government, and when the time came ahgy were there ready to do their duty, and i it. Contrast Kentucky with Massachusetts. contrast her with any State. She was called upon to strike the enemies of the nafion in the late rebellion, and she said, “As our brethren, kindred, and friends are in the rebel army, let us wait a little. Let ushave a little time. Let us not fight until we can talk the matter over. Do not insist that brothers shall plunge the bayonet into each other’s breasts until we can have an opportunity to try other means of settlement.” But how was it with Massachusetts in the war of 1812? Not a man raised his arm against a foreign enemy. They were a law abiding people (2’)and obeyed their authorities, and refused to come to the aid of the country. Kentucky has begged the northern people t stand by the principles upon which we fought. We begged you to recognize the good men of the South so that what was known as the Union party there might exist. But you turned 'our acks coldly upon us; you would not even ear us. When you had few friends there we stood true to you and to the Government. All the denunciations of our enemies could not drive us from the Government and its friends. We were denounced as Hessians, as Yankees, and Lincoln hirelings. Why cannot you have the independence as your friends had there to over come party feeling and stand upon the principlesqot your own platform at the outset of the war. I ask the professed Union men of this House why they have abandoned us and the cause of the Union. It has been the constant habit here to make fiings at my native State. 'I have told you what Massachusetts has been. I do not abuse the masses of that State. As I said be fore, I would be ashamed to hold them responsible for the acts of theirancestors. I only ask that they shall not, like Pharisees, insist that they are better than all other men, or that their State isbetter than all other States of the Union. But a ain, Massachusetts was the 1st State in this nion where treason reared its ugly head. Holland, in his history, alread referred to, gives an account of Shays’s rebellion in Massachusetts. Of all the traitors in that rebellion but one man was punished, and that by being forced to situ on the gallows with the re e about his neck or one hour. Shays him se f, being pardoned b the Governor of Massachusetts, afterward rew a pension from the U.S. Government, or revolutionary services, till the day of his death. such is Massachusetts, who thanks God that she is not like other States, and such is Kentucky, who thanks God that she is no worse than she is. It is an easy thing to so. hard words, to abuse and denounce men an communities; but, sir, of all the States in the Union I say it without fear of contradiction none has done so much, considering her means and resources, as the State of Kentuckyto put down the late rebellion. In 1861, divided asshe was, she took up arms and kept herself in the Union. Missouri and Maryland remained because Kentucky remained, and in my judgment by that saved the Union. know it is said by some northern non-combatants, stay at home patriots that they would have been glad if entuc y had seceded so that they might have whipped her back. I would like to see these persons try it. Why, sir, if you had changed the 250,000 soldiers from the loyal to the rebel side in the States of Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky, do you think you would have conquered the rebellion? As it was, the best men often doubted the result; it was doubted what would be the result; and yet gentlemen who never whipped anybody talk about whippin back Kentuckyl I might to da enounce the leading men who gave us al this trouble, the persistent rebels, such as Wise and Slidcll, according to the feeling of resentment which I entertain for them, if it had not already been done on this floor to such an extent that I am ashamed to add' anything further. We talk otten aboutguarantees. Guarantees for what? Are you afraid of the rebels? They are disarmed, hel less, and prostrate, and unable, if they would, to trouble you any more; and yet you demand uaran tees. Guarantees such as the lion might ask from his victim crushed and overcome. We are strong; we have all the arms and munitions of war, all the armies and all the resources; we have a starving, humiliated, d 'ing people prostrate before us, and yet we talk of guarantecsl [Here the hammer fell.]