Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the subject which I propose to discuss in the 1st in. stance is, what is the condition of the States in which the insurrection has heretofore prevailed? Upon a former and a comparatively recent occasion, I stated to the Senate that, in my opinion, they were as much States of the Union and in the Union Es they were before the insurrection Commenced; and I endeav ored to maintain that proposition by such argumeuts as occurred to me. I should have cft the proposition itself, as far as I was concerned.to stand upon the force of the reasons whichl presented to the Senate, but for the different opinion pronounced by the honorablemember from Maine, [Mr. Fsssnsnnxj and the speech by which he attempted to make good that opinion. In common with every member of the Senate, I always feel grave doubts as to the correctnesss of my own opinions when I find myself in COllIllCl; with the member to whom I allude upon any questiou, and especiall upon questions of the c aracter of the one who I am about to examine. I therefore listened to him almost with the expectation that I should be satisfied that the view which I originally entertained was erro neous; but such was not the result. He will pardon me, I know, for saying for it is said with all respect that so far from feclin less confidence in the opinion which I originally maintained, in consequence of the speech to which I have alluded, I have felt, upon further reflection since that speech was delivered, still more confirmed in its correctness. I need not say and certainly not to the honorable member thatin what I am about to do, in combatting the reasons upon which be relied in support of the view which he entertained, I shall do it with the respect which from the 1st of our acquaintance to the present hour I have sincerely entertained. The question is: what is the present condition of the States in which the rebellion prevailed? I suppose all will agree that the rebellion or the insurrection or (if m friend will have it so) the war, as contra istinguished from rebellion and insurrection, has terminated. There is no hostile force now to be found in anyone of the States in which the rebellion or the insurrection or the civilWar existed. There is no Opposition found anywhere in those States, by act, to the authority of the Government of the Union. The paramount obligation due to that authority is practically conceded every where, and a willingness to abide by that par amount authority is manifested ever where, so far as my information extends. I owever it may be in relation to individuals or classes of individuals to be found in those States, there does not exist now in anyone of them any purpose or any wish to resist the authority of the General Government. 0n the contrary, so far from wishin to resistthat authority, their ardent desire is to have it exercised over them, and to be protected by all the securities which the Constitution throwsaround individuals orStates in the exercise of that authority. If the fact be as I have stated, and I repeat that I know of no evidence in contradiction of it, then it would seem strange that any Dept of this Government, while extending to them the authority of the Government, enforcing as against them the allegiance due by them to the Government, legislating in relation to them by virtue of authority, legislating in every form of legislation which Congress has a right to adopt, taxing them under the taxing power, both by the imosition of duties upon imports in their severaFports and by the imposition of taxes by your internalrevenue law, should be unwilling to give them the same security, the same guarantee that the Constitution secures to you and to all of us and our respective States in the execution of the same authority upon us and our States. With these reliminary remarks, I deem it necessary fort e purpose I have in view very briefly to call the attention of the Senate to the character of the Government under which we live. My friendfrom Maine, and to a greater extent the member from Massachusetts, [M 1108 Sustxna] and even to a greater extent in that l particular the Senator who spoke yesterday from Nevada, [Mr. NYE] have discussed the question which I am about to examine as if we were living under but one Government, owing but one allegianee, aGovernment not only paramount within any prescribed limits, but para mount everywhere without limitation, capable of doin everywhere what any Government, nations? in point of character, can do within its domains. Is that trde, Mr. President? When the 13 colonies determined to resist what the considered the tyrannical usurations O v and and declared themselves flies and independent, and succeeded in achieving that independence, each for itself became as absolutely a nation as it is possible for any people to be. They professed to have no superior; they claimed perfect and absolute nationality as separate and distinct cople, competent to do in peace or inv war what any people under any form of government, was competent to do in that condition. Finding it necessary, however, to have some form of general government, they adopted forthat upose the Articles of confederation, and in those articles not only did not devolve upon that Government any powers inconsistent with their absolute sovereignty, but cautiously guarded against a possibility of an inference of that kind by saying that all the powers not expressly granted to the government created by the Articles of Confederation were still to be considered as remaining in the several States; and they did more. The farm of government, if government it could be called, which those articles created was in one sense no government at all, It constituted but a compact; it amounted but to a league; and all the powers, whatever they were, conferred upon itwere powers to be exerted not upon the individual citizen anywhere directly, but upon the individual through the State governments. The capital vice of such a government, as experience soon demonstrated, was that it was unable to perform the functions for which governments are created; and the men of that day becoming convinced of that fact, recommended to the American people the Constitution under which we now we which, for the execution of its own powers, looks to no State interference, to no State assistance, but to the direct responsibility of each individual citizen, to the Government within the limit of the powers conferred u n the Government: But it did not pass by e States altogether. It not only did not design to impair in any manner, except to the extent of the powers expressly delegated or existing by implication from those expressly delegated, the sovereignty of the States, but in order to place the contin uin existence of that sovereignty beyond all dou it, and exempt it from the hazard of a possible implication that there might be found in some clause in the Constitution a feature which in the future might be construed to impair the sovereignty of the States, they, by an amendment soon after adopted, declar that all they were not conferred were reserved to the States or the people and in the clause relied on by the onorable member from Massausetts, which gives to Congress the authority to pass all laws that may be necessary and proper, that poweris limited to such laws only as may be found necessary and proper to carry out the exiress or implied powers. Now, Mr. President, is the Government created by that Constitution 11.national government? Not if the men of the day when it was adopted knew what its character was. It was partly national and partly Federal. It! adoption, the very act of its adoption, the very manner provided for its adoption, demon strates that in the judgment of the men of that day it was not a national Government. Its a prowl or rejection was submitted to the people of the several States respectively. The effect of the concurrence of the people of each of the States in a number necessary according to the psovisions of the Constitution to give it actualing in another matter; but as far as relates tothoact of adopting the Constitution, the people of the States considered and judged separately. It was not adopted by a majority of the people of the U.S. It might have been adopted by the reaired number of States, and yet not have met the a proval of a majority of the people of the U.S. he Senate will tin upon refreshing their memories on the subject that the character of the government is stated with his accustomed perspi cuity by Mr Madison, the author of the 39th number of the Federalist. l forbear to read many of the passages which relate to the particular question, and will content myself with reading the paragraph at the close of the number: “ The proposed constitution, therefore.evenwhen testedby the rules laid down by its antagonists, is. in strictntss, neither a national nor a Federal Constitution. but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is Federal, not national; in the sourcesfromwhich the ordinary powersof the Government are drawn it is partly Federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers it is national, not Federal: in the extent oft tem.again. it is Federal, not national; and finally, in the authoritative modeof introducing amendments. it is neither wholly Federal norwholly national." That is obvious from this consideration: that the machinery of the Government, that without which it cannot continue at all, involves the existence of States. This body cannot be convened, and without it there can be no congress, except by the votes of States. That is very clear. The provision is express that senators are to be chosen by the States throu their Legislatures; and no provision is may c for any other mode under any possible state of circumstances by which they can be chosen. States, therefore, are absolutely necessa to the very existence of the Government. rTon can no more administer the Government without States than you wouldjbe able to administer the Government without people; and therefore, he who seeks to blot out of existence a State, strikes a blow at the ver life of the govornment. It may live, althoug one bestriekeu out of existence; it may live though 11 be stricken out of existence; but the blow at the Government, although not absolutely fatal, according to the hypothesis of fact which I have supposed, is no less a fatal blow. If the men by whom that Constitution was framed had been asked if they contemplated as possible a cOntingeney when any of the existing States should cease to exist, they would have said no, because the continuing, wholesome existence of the Government depends upon the continuing existence of the States. The General government is infinitely more dependent 11ion the States than the States are upon the enerul Government. Why do I say so? Honorable members who have been engaged in this debate seem to suppose that all the political questions which can possibly arise, allt e measures which it may be necessary to adopt in order to secure the prosperity and freedom of the people, are with Congress. That is not so. Not only is there a large mass of power necessary to be exerted in order to secure prosperity and peace and protection to the individual citizen, secured to the States, but the far larger mass of power belongs to the States. The whole subject of contracts as between man and man, the mode of disposing of personal property, the mode of disosing of real estate, the mode of devising rea and personal estate, the law of marriage, the judicial jurisdiction over these several subjects of intimate concern to the interest of individuals, is with the States. Not only is the power of the Government limited as fur as regards its legislative Dept, but it is equally limited in relation to its judicial Dept, and we should in vain search in that Dept of the Government for any authority to adjudicate upon the infinite variety of transactions which take place as between man and man in the States. 1 to government deals with external affairs, with matters involving the interests of the States infer se, with contracts entered into by the individuals of the several States, and It confers all measures of that description, and all udicial power over controversies arising out meas ares of that description, it on this Government, but there it stops. Jurist iction of all cases in law and equity I cite the lan e literally, certainly substantially arising under the constitution and laws of the U.S and treaties madeiu pursuance of their authority is conferred upon the judicial Dept of the Government; but nothing clse. Then what is to become of the interest of the people of the several States if they have no government of their own? Anarchy, unless (a proposition which I propose to examine) as far as the particular crisis in which we now are is concerned, those States are reduced to the condition of Territories; but assuming that they are now States as contradictinguished from Territories, then it follows that to the extent. of the powers remaining in the States, if they have no lot in their execution, and you have no authority to provide for them, they are in a condition of anarchy. To use a favorite comparisonof my friendfrom Massachusetts, that is as plain as the multiplication table. If that be lain, what would seem to be the consequencel) That the Constitution never contemplated that the States should cease to exist, and it above all never could have contemplated that the Government of the U.S., under any or all the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution, was intended to possess under any state of circumstances the power to put an end to a State; and ct if they are now ended, if they have cease to and are to be treated as Territories, theeyxisz did provide that the Congress of the U.S or the Government of the U.S., shoal have the authority to assume over the people of those States the right to legislate, and the right to adjudicate upon matters expressly reserved to the States and the people of the States, although such was not the apparent purpose, and although so far from being the apparent purpose it was expressly disavowed, an assume to themselves the authority to convert this Government into a national, as contradistinguished from a Federal Government. I do not understand my friendfrom Maine to go to the extent of denyin that they are to be considered as States now, at simply that their relations as States to the Government have terminated. The honorable member from Massachusetts goes a step further, and he maintains, and did as far back as 1862, that the cifect of the rebellion as it then existed was to reduce the States where it prevailed to a territorial condition. My memory, owing to age or some other cause, is not as good as it should be, and if I am wrong the honorable member from Massachusetts and the honorable member from Maine will set me right; but I think when the honorable member from. Massachusetts announced that proposition, it was said on the floor of the Senate that perhaps he was the only member of the body who would be found to support it; and ct, as the Senate will see in a moment, it is, if understand the position taken by most of the Senators who have spoken on the other side of the Chamber, the very ground now assumed. It is said that war existed and the consequences of war followed, and as one of the consequences of war was to putthe enemy in the hands of the conqueror it necessarily follows that the people of the South and the States of the South are now at the footstool of the conqueror, bound to take whatever condition he may think proper to impose, bound by an legislation he may think proper to adopt. what was the doctrine of the honorable member. from Massachusetts not only announced once, but over and over again reted and maintained with all the learning for which he is remarkable? On the 11th of February, 1862, that. honorable member submitted to the Senate resolutions “declaratory of the relations between the U.S and the territory once occupied by certain States, and now usurped by pretended governments without constitutional or legal right.” The preamble to those resolutions was in these words: not; cctive governments wipkedly undertukopttoob urn all those duties by which their connection Will] O Union was maintained: to renounce all allegiance to the Constitution: to levy war upon the national Government, and for the consummation of this treason have nucmistitutionally and unlawfully confederated together with the declared purpose of putting on and by force to the supremacy of the Constitution within their respectivelimits; and whereasthis conditiun of insurrection. organized by pretended governments.openly exists in SCarolina Georizia, Florida. Alabama. Mississippi, Louisiana. Texas.Ar kansns. Tennessee and Virginia, except in Eastern Tennessee and Western Virginia, and has been de clared by the POTUS in a proclamation duly mule in conformity with an act of Congress.to exist throughout this territory. With the exceptions already named; and whereas the extensive territory thus usurped by these pretendedizov ornmoats and organized into ahostiluconfedoration, film“ to the U.S. as an inseparablepart creof, under the sanctions of the Constitution, to be held in trust for theinhabitants in the presentand future generations and is so completely nterllnkod with the Union that it is forever depeu ient thoro linen: and whereas the Constitution. which is the supreme law of the land. cannot be displacedinits “rightful operationwithin this territory. but mustover continue the supreme law thereof. notwithstanding the doings of any pretendedgovernment acting singly or in confederation.in order to put an end to its supremacy.". His 1st resolution was: “1. ltemlced. That any vote of secessionor other not by which any State may undertake to put an end to the supremacyof the Constitution within its territory is ine perative and void against the Constitution and when sustained by force it becomes a practical abdication by the State of all rights under the constitution, while the treason which it involves still further works an instant forfeiture of all those functions and powers essential to the continued existenceof the State as u body politic; so that from that time forward the territory falls under the exclusive juris dietion of Congressas other territory and the State being. according to the languageof the law, fclo doIs, ceasesto exist." Ainl right or am I wrong in saying that when that resolution was submitted to the judg vment of this body it was said in debate that it was exceedingl doubtful whether it could receive the vote of any member of the body except the mover? I am not sure that he was not himself so well satisfied of it. that he did nothing more than have it referred, and there it slept. Then, at. that time, whatever may be the judment of Senators now, it could not. be asserted of these States that either by abdication or forfeiture they had reduced the territory belonging to them to the condition of a torri tory subject to be legislated over by force of the territorial clause of the Constitution. If not, why not? If the honorable member from Massachusetts was not right in proclaiming that the effect of the insurrection and the effect of the ordinances of secession which the States.had before passed was to work abdication and forfeiture, and as it was not pretended at that time that there was any other mode by which the States could cease to exist except in consequence of the insurrection, then they were sti 1 existing. Ifflagrante bello the Senate considered them as States, in the name of reason why are they not to consider them as States now that the war is ended? If although one mies in fact, they were friends in law; foes in fact, but brothers in legalintendinent; if they, were continuing in existence politically while the war was being waged, by what, I was about to say, sophistry can the human mind be brought to the conclusion that what the war itself while it was being waged could not accomplish is the result of a successful prosecution of the war? I do not wish to be interrupted, and I make the suggestion because I think my friend before me [Mr. Mr. HOWE] is somewhat inclined to suggest a question. [Laughter] Now, Mr. President, what is the result if I am right so far? That they are States. States of what character? States standing in what relation? If the honorable member from Massachusetts was wrong in saying that they had abdicated or forfeited the character they possessed and the relation in which they stood, and they are States still, they are as much States as they were when the insurrection was inaugurated, and their relation to their sister States, and their consequent relation to the Government of the U.S., is the some relation in which they stood to both when the insurrection was inaugurated. That would seem to follow logically as a necessary result, and if i that is a necessary result, does it. not also follow that. they are entitled to representation in this Chamber? Whether theyean presentpersons who can take their seats, because they have individually committed crimes against the U.S. is another question; butI speak now of the right itself. What provision is there in the Constitution which puts it in the authority of this body to deny to any State of the U.S. an equal representation with those States that are Represented here? Not only is there nothing; but, so sedulous were the framers of that rent in strument to guard against the possibdity that any State should not. be equally represented upon the floor of the Senate with every other State, that they placed that right beyond the power of amendment. The language of the constitution, as we all know is, that under the amendment clause of the Constitution, no State shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate of the U.S. except by its own consent. There are only 2 rights in the Constitution which were excepted out of the power of amendment; one of them, the one of which I have just spoken, was placed beyond such power absolutely; the other, in my judgment, was a blot upon the Constitution itself, but it was a blot which the wise men and patriotic men of that day thought it was ecessary should exist, because without it it was evident that a Government such as they desired could not be constituted I mean the power of imIhc concluding part of the 5th article, which contains the provision for an amendment of the Constitution, is in these words: “ Provided, That no amendment which may be made prior to the yearlSOS shallin an munner utfect, the 1st and 4th clausesin the nint section of the 1st article" They related to slaves. “ and that no State. without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal sulircgoin the Senate" at any time; not until 1808, but throughout the entire existence of the Government. It was, therefore, in the view of the framers of the Constitution, a cardinal principle necessary to the success of the Government, and necessary to the protection of the States. that each State under every possible condition of circumstances should be entitled at all times there after, unless she consented to abandon it,teen 9 ul sutlrnge in the Senate. f, therefore, they are still States and not Territories, if they are as they were when the insurrection commenced, then it would seem to be obvious that. they have as much right to be represented in this Chamber as anyone of the States that are here represented; and yet, what are we doing? I did not understand the honorable member from Maine as denying the right, but only as denying that the time had come when the right should be enjoyed; as only asserting that because of some external circumstances there might be, danger to the Government, and that is the only danger that we can recognize. Party danger is not.:1 danger that we can notice. It is the peril to the nation, if there is any peril, which will justify the exclusion of any State from the enjoyment of that right. of an e upon which the Senate can rely and what is there to show that there will be any danger to the public weal? Have they not thrown down their arms? We know they have. Have not all their armies been surrendered? IVe know they have. Are they not daily supplicants for the clemency of that Dept of the Government vested with the power to be clement? We know they are. Do they wish to be represented? Your table is loaded with their credentials. Do you object to the individual men? No. Perry, of SCarolina, whose credentials I had the honor to present yesterday; Hunt, of Louisiana, whose credentials I presented some 3 or 4 weeks ago; Sharkey, of Mississippi, and others of the some description of men, are now at your door, invoking you as brothers and statesmen, by the memories of the past, to permit them to come r porting slaves for a period of 20 years. among you as equals, and claiming it upon the ground that every Dept of the government, except ourselves, and that at this session, has admitted to be true in point of fact that they are still States of the Union.