Mr. NYE. Mr. President, in strikingaring, hit it where we may, we strike it in the center. It is thus with the manifold questions before the country. They are so blended, so interwoven with each other by inseparable connection, that hazard may be incurred by giving too much prominence in one direction, more especially if we fail to comprehend at the same time what is of equal importance in an other. We are fallen on times and emergencies that have complicated questions beyond all past precedent. If ever there was a time that required rational deliberation, that time is now. need not say there will be much and wide disparity of opinion; for it is unavoid able. Allow me to venture the suggestion, sir, that in the midst of our manifol embarrassments and difficulties there is and can be but one rule of conduct that will carry us safely throuwh; and that is, a firm adherence to simple principlo. In approachinv the subject or questions be: fore the Senate I5 will not attempt to travel anew Over the battle fields where loyalty has success“ fully combatted treason. Though we cannot avord the tearful memory of our oung nicu, sacrificed in defense of the nations. ty, or more inhumanly murdered in confederate isons duty requires us to act, not from the area O resentment for the past, but security for the future. We cannot fo t, nor should we, that we are now contemplating the cause of a conflict that has filled the land with widows and orphans; nor, Mr. President, whatever the ins clination, will we be allowed to forget the vast accumulation of public debt that will hang for years like an incubus on the toil and industry of the country. It is no time now to gloss over or attempt to palliute the motivesin which the rebellion originated. It is now necessary that we should take these motives int o strict account, not only for the purpose. of dealing with the present, but also for the purpose of nnder standing the better how to guar the future. It has been said by a prominent Unionist of the South that “the motives of the treason should be stamped on the future history of the war.” With that sentiment Iconcur. If ours has been the cause of justice defending itself against the machinations of inustice; if ours was the cause of humanity defending itself against brutality; if ours was the causeof Chris tian civilization defending itself against urem nant of burbarism transmitted from a pagan age; and ifthere has also mingled in the conflict a contention over the fun ameotal principles of government, it is well that the world should know it. If Richard Cobden, of England, truthfully characterized the revolt when be pronounced it “ an aristocratic rebellion against a democratic Government, ” it is essentinl that our whole people should be made to comprehend the nature of the conflict. If it has thus far been a battle between the principles of aristocracy on the one hoapnpdosainng democracy on the other, then, sir, I will as sume that the settlement should be made and a finality enforced in accordance with the exact issue on which the battle has thus far been fought. A southern Unionist, who watched the prog ress of treason and analyzed its motives from an inside view, has given the theory of the rebellion in these wor s: “Scparatio from the North; the abrogation of the democratic principle in southern politics; the institution of governmentthrough a privileged class, making such government the agency to perpetuate slavery." Our countrymen will be slow to believe that such atrocity as this was embraced in the rebel programme. To induce such belief would proquire that irrefragablo evidence which left no room to doubt. To make the indictment for such political crime as this would almost surpass clief. To prove it true, nothing less than the declarations of the rebels themselves will answer; we must, therefore, allow them who the expositors of their own meaning. Much of the evidence I shall adduce has been captured as prisoner of war. I will brin to the attention of the Senate a letter of Mr. Garnett, of Virginia, to Mr. Trcscott, of SCarolina, written in 1861. This letter was captured by General Hunter in the early part of the war at. the residence of Mr. Trescott, on Barnwells Island. It is as follows: Mi” Viacom Cousin 10s. May 3. 1851. MY Dwsn Sin: You misunderstood mylast letter it you supposedthat I intended to vun tSCarolina this spring. I am exceedingly obliged to you for your kind invitations, and it would ndordmethe highedt pleasnro to Interchange, in person. sentiments with a friend whosemanner of thinking so closely agrees with my own. But my engagementshero closely confine me to this city, and denymesuch a gratification. I would be especially glad to be in Charleston next; week, and witnessyour convoption of delegatesfrom the Southern RlBllh! Associations. the CDDtllltOfl O thinmin your State deeply interestsmc; herwlle fore sight and manly independence haveplacedher at the bond of the South. to whom aluno truc hourted men can look with any hope or pleas Jr. Momentous uro the consequences which do end upon your action. Which party will prevail: t:0 Hawaiian; recession i ort osew oars opposot}?sewarata State act! alt is time? or my part, orboar to form a wu "1 o, Were I a Carolinian. it would be very diferent: but when I consider the serious effects the decision may have on you future weal or wo e.lfeel that a of a Statewhich has citizen actedas Virginia. hasno right to interfere. even by a wish. If the General Government allowsyou peaceably and freely to secede.neither Virgipia nor any other southern State would. in myo inion. follow you at present. But what would be the effect upon South Eucliua? Someof our best friends here supposed that it would put elf Charlestonfrom the great western trade which she is now striking for and would retard verygreatly the progressof yourState. I cop fcssthat I think differently. I believethoroughly in our own theories and that if Charleston did notgrow quite so fast in her trade withother States.yet the relief from Federal taxation would vastly stimulate your lprosperity. If so the prestige of the Union would be destroyed.and.you won! be the nucleus (or a southern confederationat no distant day. But I do not doubt. from all I have been able to learn. that.the Federal Governmentwould, useforce. beginning with the form most embarrassingto you and least calculated to excite sympathy I mean a val blockade. In that event.could you withstand he reaction feeling which the sufljertn commerce of Charleston would probably manifest Wo uldyou not lose that in which your strength consists. the union of our people? I do not mean toiui ly an opinion. only ask the question. If you could force this blockade and bring the Government to direct force, the feeling in Virginia would be v ery great. I trust in God it would bring her to your aid. But it will bewrong in me to deceive you by speak iIn certainly. I cannotexpress the decpmortification have felt at her coursethis winter, But 1 do not believe the courseof the Legislature is afair expression of the popular feeling. In the east.at least.the great majority believe in the right of secession and eel the deepest sympathy with Carolina ine pposition to measures which cy regard asshedoes. at the west.western Virginia. there is the rub! Only 60,000 slaves to 494,000 whitesl When I considerthisfact and the kind of argumentwhich we haveheard in this body.I cannot but regardwith the greatestfe arthe question whether Virginia would assist Carolina in such an I e. must acknowledge. my dear sir that I look the futurewith almostasmuchapprehension as hop. You will object to the term Democrat. Democracy. in its original philosophical sense.is indeed incompatible with slavery and the whole systemof southern society. Yet, if we look back, what changewill on find made in any of our State constitutions or n our legislation in its general coursefor the last 50 years, which wasnot in the directionof de mocracy? Do not its principles undtheones become daily more fixed in our practicel Ihad almostsaid in the opinions of our people.did I not remember with pleasure the great improvement of opinion in to the abstrnct questionofslave and ifsuch Is the case.what have we to he O for the future? I not hesitateto so that if the questiouis raised otweenCarolina an the Federal government and the latter prevails, the last hope of republican governm ent and fear of southern civilization is gone. Russia will then be a better Government than ours. whI icfheaIrwthriatet mthaeychoanvfeusmioandeand interruption under letter. Do you visit the North this natrhaether rambling summer! shIoualmd bme haacppoy btoligweed!ctoomyocuyof ourttoh tehe of Old Dominion. to send me H menus eulogy on Calhoun; but I am indebted to go out herfor a copy., lth eswemand fnendship myihurstru H. chasm. Winniui H. Tarsco rr. Esq. To explain the full meaning of this letter I must connect its date with the Nashville convention held a few months previous. It is now known that at that convention, in 1850 the project of secession was agreed upon. There existed in the convention 2 parties, one in favor of the separate action of the States, and the other of caing a general convention of the slave States and seesing in a body. This letter pllainly alludes to that division of parties as to the manner of acceding. It corroborates what has been said of the determination at that early day to secede. It indicates leaving the time to such opportunity as preparation should make propitious. This, however, is not the most important part of the letter. “ Democ racy in its original philosophical sense, is in dee incompatible with slavery and the whole system of southern society.” Never, Mr. president, was a graver truth uttered than this. It was equally true that this sentiment was the very animus of the rebellion. It was this sea timent that stimulated the rebel lenders into the fixed belief that slavery could not be perpetuated under a democratic form of government. It was this sentiment that led to the ponclusirin that slavery could be perpetuated in no other manner than by overthrowing de mocracy and building up government through a privileged class. as he republicanism spoken of in this letter was unmistakably the republicanismof Greece.in the Vicksburg secession convention of 1869 or Rome a priviieged order of nobility on the one hand and ) a mass of slaves on the other. American democracy was the antagonism of this. Mr. Garnetts conclusion was truthful wherein he asserted that “Iu our State constitutions and in our legislation initsgeneriil coursefor the last 50 years the change had beenin the dircction of democracy.” To Mr. Garnctt s mind this was a most alarming feature in American politics. It was this that so much troubled the pro slavery sensibil ities and made the advocates of the system politically frantic. This was the reason why gMr. Gnrnctt so much desired that when matters were broughtto the phase of civilWar Virginia might e bgought to the aid of SCarolina. The letter of Mr. Garnett was evidently writ the in reply to a treasonable letter from Mr. Trescott, in which the latter had objected to the term “Democrat.” That these 2 Gentlemen entertained the sameviews and the same repugnance to the democratic principle in government is evidenced by the following extract from an address delivered by the latter before the Historical Society of SCarolina, in 1855. He says: “The institutionof slavery, which with the men of former times was an experiment. has becomethe coriier stone of their social and political life; and yetthereare some men in SCarolina whowould eradicatethe old State pride. destroy the conservative character in our Statelpolitics. strip us hare of the glorious achievement so the past and drive us. destitute and dishonored. into a fit companionship of a vagaboud and demoralized democracy.” I have alluded to the expressed sentiments of these prominent concocters and leaders of the rebelion for the reason that they were the t pes and representatives of the class to which they belonged. The spirit and reasoning that controlled them originated and controlled the rebellion from its inception to its final result. Not less explicit was Mr. Spratt, of SCarolina, the leading secessionist of that State after the death of Mr. Calhoun. In his address he became more emphatic than any of his comeers in the expression of the sentiment that democracy was the deadly antagonism of slavery. To this argument e gave paint in the following manner: “While our population has advanced. there has beenno proortionato advancement in the number of slaves. he widening West has made demand of slaves upon the older States the older States have been compelled toyield to such exactiou. With every transportation there was hireling labor road to supply its place; with hireling lnher camethe form and spirit of democracy. It made its way across the border; it overspread the States of Delaware and Maryland; it extendedin the States of Kentucky. Missouri and Virginia: it entered into southern cities: it glided intos choolsand pulpits: iterept about the halls of legislation; and so it is that we are not alone in the contestwith the North. which bears the bannersof democracy.but with the democracy itself within the States.the cities, and the institutions of the South." The speakerassumed that ifthisdemoc racy oonldlnot be otrid of. "the separation from the North would mere y adjourn the contest;” that "as thissouthern democracy grapples slavery in its homes and onits hearth stones. Slavery was like the thracian horsethat bore its rider from the field, and that. escaping enemies abroad. it would he forcedto wagea still more deadly contest with its enemiesat home." Mr. President and Senators, let us now put the emphatic inquiry: who were these enemies at home? Phey were not the influences that originated the personal liberty bills of Massachusetts, Vermont, or other States. They were not the political force that voted for Fremont in 1856 or for Mr. Lincoln in 1860. They were not the friends of freedom who resisted the atro cities in Kansas committed by the rutfianism that invaded that State. No, Sir; these “ eu emies at home” were none otherthan the native born white children of the South. They were the mass of nou slaveholders, rown to man hood and womanhood under the dispuraing disability of a pro slavery policy a po icy that viewed with conteni tuous distrust every element in society that did not belong, to its peculiar class. These enemies at home composed the class alluded to by Mr. lrescott as the “ vagabond and demoralized democracy.” Without new to comment further upon this paragrap, I wi lgrou with it the sentiments and principles of one or advocate of “southern rights.” Imust draw from that oracle and depository of southern political literature, De Bows Review. In a proposition to go back to th“e feudal system, the author says: 41no: Ilhereal civilisation of a country is in its aristcc racy. The massesare molded into soldiers and arti sansby HILCHQCI.)UStas matterand the elements of nature are madeinto telegraphsand steam engines. The poor who labor all day are too tired at night to study books. If you make them learned. they soon forget all that is necessaryin the commontans actions of life. To make an aristocrat inv the future we must sacrifice 1,000 paupers. lot we would by all means make them. make them permanent. too. by laws of entiiil and primogengturc. The right to govern residesin a verysinall minority: the duty to obey is inherent in the greatmassesofmankind. All Ronernment beginsWith usurpation and is continued by force. There is nothing to which the South entertains so great I. dislike as univemal suffrage. Where everforeigners settle together in largenumbers, there universalsuffragewill exist." In contemplating these ostulates and propositions I am at a use to now how it was, or why it was, that such political atrocity had been encouraged into the boldness of undisguised declaration. Was it owing to the supposed fact that the manhood of the southern masses had been crushed out? Was it owin to the supposed pusillanimityof the General government that had seemed to dispense with its powers of resistence to pro slavery domination? Was it owing to the palsied subservieney of the highest judicial tribunal of the nation; or did the encouragement spring from the partial debauch ment of that part of the northern political forces that seemed to have forgotten that principle was longer to be maintained? I know not, sir, whether the intended atrocity sprang from one or all these encouragements in the aggregate; but, sir, I do know that the present century has not disclosed a contemplated policy more at variance with our ideas of republican institutions than that put forth by these southern advocates of “State rights.” John Milton was a poet of fertile imaginution and great powers of description. Had e wished to improve on the features of diabolism he needed only to have lived in our day. By contemplating the project of crushing“ the enemies at home ” and " making permanent aristrocrats” by sacrificing poor people, he could have improved upon his infer;nalietures by substituting reality for fanc. I have not done with the evidences by which I propose to establish the truth of my indictment. After the confederaey was so iposed to be established with certainty, the lea ers threw off all disguises as to the motives that moved in the undercurrent of the rebellion. The following extract from De Bows Review is a complete elucidation of the form of government to which the leaders aspired: it}:.5“ "Those pestilent and pernicious d "the greatest good of the greatestnumber: the majority shall raid arc. in their ruetical application. the frihtful source of disorers never to be quieted. philosophies the most false and passions the most wild. destructive, and ungovernable. In America. by reason of the operation of causes wholly extraneous to the considerationsof governmentand society.tho republican experiment has been prolonged beyond reed recedent: but. painful asthercflection must beto alfsueh assubscribedto the Utopian philosophy and have an abidin faith in the capacityof man for enlightened self ru c. it must heconfessedthat the experiment of the democratic Republic of America has failed." 7,, The author concludes thus:., rsrffiii "I lieinstitutionof an hereditary Senate and Ir ecutive is the political form bestsuitedto the gem“ and must expressive of the ideas, of the South." I must now, Mr. President, digress, in or“! to call the attention of the Senate to the corresponding responses to this declaration b, the governing classes of Europe. Scurcely ha the assertion of “the failure of republicnii government in America” been run e on this side before it was caught up in a spirit of derisivo malice by the Tory press of England. The principles of American Government were de nounced as an ignisfatuus. The“ great Republic, " on the authority of the London Times, “washio more!” “ mocrncy was a rope of sand.” “It lacked the cohesive power to maintainan empireof such magnitude.” “ Disintegration was an accomplished fact." “ No power existed in America to reunite the fragments of the dissolved Republic.” In this exultauon was mingled aeoireependingmalica against the European advocates of liberal government. The champions of opular rights were arraigned as a set of “ foolish dreamers, ” whose obstinate theorizing must now give way under the failure of the American example. Nor, Mr. President, was this the most significant part played by European influences. The French emperor ventured upon the declaration that “France was not interested in this that the U.S. should absorb Mexico, dom inate thence the Antilles, and thus become mistress of the commerce of the world." We may trace the machinations of the French emperor through the combinations of Roman Jes uitisui in Europe, in the U.S., and in Mexico; through the insidious appeal to the iLatin races;" through the mysterious conact of an ambitious American prelnte, going out as a loyal emissary and returning from Europe with a distrusted and doubtful fidelity. lVe may tracethe French monarch through his intrigues with England and S sin, and the foul coalition against the Liberalism of Mexico. Concurrent with this the naval workshops of England were preparing the means of sweeping American commerce from the ocean. Never beforihas so broad and foula conspirac against the p nciples of popular government been entered into, and never have the principles of popular government suffered such an ordeal. ith a consolidated military organization in the South, adequate in a civilWarto have over turned the strongest dynasty in Europe; with English allies des offing our commerce on the ocean; with a haldebauehed political force in the North of questionable loyally, never before had the patriotic forces O any nation been brought to a more imminent verge of desperation. Futher looked father in the face with anxious look and clenched hand as he sent his son to the battle. Anxious mothers looked upon the contest with tearful solicitude, knowing that the welfare of offspring depended upon the result of the conflict. Never shall we for get that voice of the people which came through the gloom in response to the call of our vener ated President: " We are coming, Father Abraham, 600,000 more.” That response settled the question of foreign intervention. It dissolved the S anish Anglo French coalition; the one sneaEing out on a piratical platform, content to abet the contin quance of depredations on our commerce; another retiring to experiment on StDomin o and the South American republics; and e other theetiousl setting up a surplus scion of the House of Hapsburg as a moc insignia of proall. in Mexico. it out alluding further to the prophesied failure of republican government, I come back to the closing postulate of the quotation, “An hereditary Senate and Executive is the political form best suited to the genius, and most expressive of the ideas, of the South." If this is intended to embrace the conspirators only, I have no doubt of the truth of the declaration. If by the word “South” the nbn slaveholders and colored people are embraced, I must believe that there are ten millions of this population, who, ifuudeceived, and left to the irown volition, would be advocates of republicaii government, and precisely of that kin of government which was intended to be guarantied in the Constitution. 1. To proceed further with the evidences, I must call as a witness the Southern Literary messenger. This is no ordinary witness. It is subnaed from the highest life of the confederacy. 0st popular with the leaders, most authentic as their oracle, and vmost approved in their policy, I trust that its testimony will be deemed conclusive. In the middle age of the confederaey, when rebel hope was buoyant, and in dependence a supposed certainty, this print indulged in the luxury of contemplating and recommending the future political programme. In an article entitled “The great danger of the confederacy, ” the author discourses thus: "That benign institution of slavery, which it isnow pride and slew of the South toascribeto theson O caption of divinit, and which th iswar has provon ! to be, next to the ovotedpatriotism and undaunted resolution of her sons.the great element of power in confoderacy, will prove, in preventing too heavy aninflux from foreign shoresof that class of  population devoted to menial pursuits, unotharbu wark against the eneroachmeutsof those tendenciesto de ine cracywhieh have been the Pandoras box of dislDleBflltlOlland ruin to all republics." Again, speaking of democracy, it says “Disgraced by the crimes of bar votaries in the northern States.humbled by her humiliatin defeat ilngmtehne destruction of her chosenempire t a late and abs shodby the proud triumph o constitutional liberty in the successof the youngconfederacy democracymayvail the featuresof her prophet and seek in humility and retirement from the theater of activaconflict to effect;the blood stained record of her crimes." and again: “ Let us seekat once to eradicate every vestigeof radical democracy. every feature tending to make ours a popular Government. making it subject only to the intelligent and virtuous, and those who are interested in its successfuladmriiistration.” and again: " Wc would not be understood as uniting in the belief of the impossibility of a successful republic, that we cry out for Ahare establishment of royalty in this free country, whosenoble sonsdaily attest their detestation oft runny in allits forms, by those terrible libations which it is the habit of liberty to exact from her votaries. We have no special objections to royalty, when restrained by constitutions barriers." That the evidence of conspiracy against the principles of republican government may not a pear to come from one side alone, we will a low the southern Unionists to speak. I cite from the letter of the Democratic League to John Bright, of England, written in August, 1862: “In order to udfip with accuracy, it is necessary to understand what roughtslnveholdersto the des perateresort of attempt revolution. The doctrine waslong since promulgatedby them that “a govern. ment O majorities must.be abrogated; that slavery and democrac were inconipatiblei thatunder the operation of t a democratic principle, and the laws of population and subsistence, slaveryiniut soon loseits matureand go down before the enfranchised masses. What was to be done? Here was a process of reasoning, foundedon foresight of the future, that no argument could turn same. Statesman in the North and South concurred in the sameconclusion, but Wlih thl8 dlf lel0no0t1he one insisting that the democratic pflDEIDlP must be subvertedin order to maintain slavery unimpaired; the othor iuailtinlr that the democratic principle in government must be maintained though it involved the extinction of sin very. We have now the desperateconflict of arms founded upon the issue thus made." This letter was drawn by the pen of a southern Unionist; by one who had long watched the progress of the secession project, and who had analyzed With scrutiny its ulterior objects. The accuracy of its statement few, I think, will quIestion. call 2 otherWitnesses ofequal note: Hamilton and anderson, both refugees from Texas; the former now returned as provisional governor of that State, and the latter recently governor of Ohio. These gentlemen, in their published speeches, both conciirin the same conclusion as to the rebel intent of abrogating popular government in the South. Both parties have labored to warn their countrymen of the nature of the southern conspiracy, and to urge the issue as a conflict between the democratic and antidemocratic forces of the nation. But, Mr. President, if official prestige can add to the weight of testimony, I have still higher witnesses. Mr. Lincoln, in his annual message of December, 1861, thus throws out the warning voice to Congress and the country: "It continues to develop that the insurrection is lar ely, lfnot exclusively. a war upon the 1st princip esof popular government, the rights of the people. Conclusive evidenceof this is foundm the most grave and maturely considered public documents.as well as in the Generaltonoot thoinsurgents. In those documents we find the abridgment of the existing right of suffrage boldly advocated, with labored argumentsto prove that lame control of the people in governmentis the source of all political evil. on archyitself is sometimeshintedat asupossiblorefuge from the power of the people. “In mylpresent position I could scarcelybe justified were to omit raising a warning voice against this approach of retiiriiinir despotism. Even at this early day, studied as the concealment of t more atrocious part of the programme had been, the omine us sound of conspiracy against the principles of free government had reached the ear of the executive Chief Magistrate, and in that convincing form which impelled him to bring the subject to the attention of Congress. Not less explicit has been the voice of the present Chief Magistrate in declaring his convictions as to the motives and objects that ani mated the rebel leaders. Time and again has he repeated the declaration, in effect, that the contest was a battle between aristocracy and democracy; that it arose out of these antago nistic principles in government. Thus we have it in e testimony of all. There is no disa greement of witnesses. The Tories of England and the Liberalists of E land have regarded the conflict in the samendight, the one sympathizing with and aidi the rebellion; the other 5 mpathizing withn the Union cause, and hopefu ly, regarding the stability of the rent Republic as the harbinger of political isin thrallment for the masses of are e. The Unionists of the South have concurr with the treason of the South in the precise statement of the issue; and it is not the least distinctive or significant fact, that upon this issue 300,000 troops of southern extraction have joined the Union Army a force, in point of numbers, nearly equaling the whole number of slaveliolders in 1860. Mr. President, I have sometimes heard the northern apologists of treason assert that the rebellion of the South was analo ous in principle to the struggle of our forefathers for independence. By what stran e erversion of intel ect such a parallel should attempted surpasses my comprehension. I will concede, sir, that we have had the same battle, and the same issue that animated ourfathers on the one side, and the Government of GreatBritain on the other. But I shall not be disputed when I maintain that this Government has fought the same side of the issue that our revolutionary fathers fought and have struggled successfully to maintain what they established. Our fore fathers were made to chafe under monarchical insult and imposition. They learned to know by experience that common protection would never be awarded by privileged class. They entered into the contest in defense of their natural and inalienable rights, and made the cause of popular justice the strength and ennobling feature of the conflict. In the recent attempt at revolution the intended pe tuity of human bondage, added to the inteued monopoly of wealth and political power, were the main springs of the rebellion. These were the aspirations that controlled the leaders of secession. A beneficent Government, most noted of all Governments for its principles of encouragement and protection, was attacked; not for the purpose of diffusing additional justice into the relationship s of society, but for overturning all justice. the animus of the rebellion said, “ I am mighty; I will make of this people hewers of wood and drawers of water; and they shall be my bondmen and bondwomen forever.” The world has again witnessed the fulfillment of the declaration that “ pride goeth before destruction, and a ha hty spirit before a fall.” It appears to me, resident, that it has. been most unfortunate for the country that the true nature of the issue was not more widely and more definitely understood. It has been trul said that " the rebellion was inaugurated on alse retenses, and that it lived on its by poerisy. Could it have been known through out the Union, and distinctly knownhthat it involved a conspiracy against the principles of popular government, how few of the Ameriean people would have had a heart to sympathize with its objects. I believe, sir, could the ul terior objects of the attempted revolution have been definitely known to all, 9 10ths of the aggregated population of the Union would have repudiated with scorn and indignation the whole project of secession. Every one now knows that the masses of the South were wickedly imposed upon, wickedly deceived, and that much of the political force in the North has been drawn into contumacy against the national Government, and against the party seeking to uphold it, by the same kind of gecepfion. adit not been or this deception in the South the rebellion could never have been named into i owtli. Had not the same deception existed in the North, the basis of northern sympathy would have been taken away. Had it not been for this wide spread deception nearly the whole country would have been a unit, and such unity would have been on the side of free popular gOvernment. Having endeavored to elucidate the causes and objects of the attempted revolution, I come to the question of the political status of the acceded States. I shall not.argue the question, whether technically or theoretically they are States or Territories in the Union, or States out of the Union. It is sutheient for me to know, air, that these States in a seeming political form repudiated the Constitution of the U.S.; that they had dissolved all connection with the Union Government; that they had set up government in form in opposition to it; that, through force or persuasion, the bulk of the population of these States had been induced or compelled to forswear allegiance to the Union Government, and swear allegiance to the opposition government. Without going further into specifications. this was the attitude of the sece ded States when the result of arms decided that these States or Territories, and the people thereon. belonged to the U.S., and were to be dealt with precisely as the exigencies of the case demanr ed. That these States had demolished and broken dowu their old State governments; that they had superseded the State fundamental law is technically, the oretically, and practically true; for it will not be contended that State govern merits can exist. within the boundaries of the U.S. in disconnection with the Constitution,or in opposition to it: in short, State government cannot exist that does not accord with the Constitution, and which is not in subordination to this supreme law of the land. Neither the President, nor Congress. nor any dept of the Government has yet assumed hat the seceded States could reinstitute State government under their old constitutions; They have been told by the President that new constitutions must be made. They have been told the same by Congress. The people of these States are well aware that the old fundamental law was overthrown; that the pretended new governments, set up in the places of the old, have been de molished; an that the condition of citizenship has been immensely altered. I do not think, air, that anyone Wlil contend that these old State governments can be revived by scirefucias; for we have neither precedent nor authority for any such political writ; besides. there has been such a change of parties that it would render such a process entirely inexpedicnt. If I mistake not, sir, we are thrown back on the constitution for power to deal with these States as States, or as Territories, and it matters not, to my mind, what their technical condition may he. he President has told us by imlication that there is a superintending powero control over these States. In the preamble of his proclamations, appointing the provisional governors, he has cited that clause in the Constitution which provides that “the U.S shall guaranty to every State in the Union a RFG.” It seems to be admitted that there is outside of those States a controlling power and that the emergency has arisen that calls such power into requisition. it is important to know precisely where this power is lodged. These questions are new tons. They hove no precedent. The public mind is in confusion, and perhaps the several Depts of the Government equally so. While it may be excusable to be in error as to the lodgment of this superintendini7 power, it is of pecnliarim portance that it siould be exercised only by the Dept of the Government in w do the Constitution has placed it. In construing the above clause we have the assistance of Mr. Madisons opinion as to its meaning: "It maypossibly be asked, what need there could be for inch a precaution, and whether it may not ooomea retextlor alterations in the Statq governmentu wl out the concurrence of the Staten themsclves? These questions adinlt ofready answers. If stitution of certain rights should not be contheinterposition of the General Government should not.be needed.the provisionfor such an eventwould 1 he a harmless superfluity only in thn Constitution. But 1 who can say what experiments may be [intthiiprlby 1 the cam iceof particular States. by the ambition of Powers? I will assume, sir, without the aid of Mr. Madisons opinion, that. this an icrintending power is lodged in the General over nnient. Tassert that the Constitution itself, in plain terms, makes it a self evident proposition. By grouping the provisional clause With the lodgment of power, and following it with the final clause as to what shall be the supreme law, it reads thus: “The U.S shall guaranty to every State i"n the Union a RFG." Congress shall have power to make all laws which may be necessary and propler for carrying into execution this power and all t a other powersvested by this Constitution in the Government of.the U.S or in any dept or officer tlhercof; and this Constitution, and the laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the suprcme law of the land, and the judgesin everystateshall bebound thereby, uny thing in the constitution or laws of ab)?State to the contrary notwithstanding.” As I have said elsewhere, it makes no difference whether the seced in States are called States or Territories; whether they are techni cally onc or the other. The Constitution deals with States as States; it is the sovereign of 50v ereignties, and allows of no political institution or power in contumacy With its provisions. It interdicts the grantin of any title of nob. It inhibits the establisment of any antirepublican government through privileged class. It seeks to establish and enforce the maintenance of suffrage government; and no other. In addition to the form of the Government the enu meration of personal rights in the Constitution to be protected, prescribes the kind and quality of the governments that are to be established and maintained in the States. It has been said that “ a State cannot commit treason, ” and that consequently “ the General Government has no power to coerce a State." I deny both propositions. In case a State through its political organization nts itselfin opposition to the Constitution an the laws made in pursuance of it, and in addition thereto resorts to force to obstruct the execution of such laws, the State asa State commits treason, and every individual engaged is liable to be indicted, convicted, and hanged: nor is this all, air. The State as a State, in case the contumacy is general enough to impose the necessity, can be politically punished. lts State government can be taken away, and the State governed by such laws and reulations as congress may prescribe. It can e held in political duress by a military nard. It can e restrained and coustraine and held in an iron grasp for such time as is necessary to bring the population to acquiesce in a political arrangement that accords with the Constitution. More than that; when the time arrives to go anew into State organization, Congress can prescribe the conditions; the revisions in its fundamental law; its rule O suffrage, or anything else to bring it into compliance with the supreme law. There are those who seem to believe that our Constitution was framed for the purpose of otional disintegration instead of compulsory nion. Our fathers prescribed no such programme. They knew what they were about. instead of believing with the English Reviews, that our national domain waslarge enough for “eight republics, ” they said “there shall be but one.” Judging from the scenes that have transpired during the last 5 years, I conclude that the bulk of their descendants have not yet apostatized from their doctrine., In the enumeration of natural and personal rights to be protected, the framers of the constitution apparentlyr specified everything they could think of lile, " “liberty, ” “ property, ” “freedom of speech, " reedom of the press, ” “freedom in the exercise of religio i, ” “sccnrityofperson, ” 8m; and then. lestsome thing essential in the specifications should have been overlooked, it was provided in the 9th. 1 to be invaded or iin aired h enterprising leaders, or by the intrigues of foreign l p hog amendment that, “the enumeration in the construed to deny or disparage other rights not enumerated.” This amendment comp eted the document. it left no personal or natural right construction. All these rights are estublish by the fundamental law. Congress has no power to invade them; but it has power “to make all laWs necessary and proper” to give them effective Operation, and to restrain the respective States from infracting them. Will it be contended, sir, at this day, that any State has the power to subvert or impair the natural and personal rights of the citizen? Will it be contended that the doctrine of “ Stat e sovereignty” has so far survived the wreck of its progenitor, slavery, that we are yet kept aloof from the true construction of the constitution? I am aware, sir, that the political disease called “State sovereignty” With some minds has become chronic. With the invention of the cotton gin, the spinning jenny, and the power loom, slavery became profitable. It grew to be “the great cornerstone.” Stimu lated by these auxiliaries it swelled into a “divinity.” Ncarly contemporaneous with the rapid growth of slave profits commenc the perversion of the resolutions of 1798. ver since there has been a restless ghost wandering about called “State rights.” It haunted the White House for 40 years. It filled places in the Depts. it took its seat in the Senate and in the House. It became speaker and presiding officer in southern State Legislatures. The secession interpretation of the resolutions of 1798 was its political scripture; It seemed so ubiquitous and pertinacious in the propagation of its doctrines, that a stranger, coming from a foreign land, WOuld have mistaken the perversion of these resolutions for the fundamental law of the nation. I confess, Mr. President, thatI lived to be 45 years of age before I learned the whole meaning of the doctrine of “ State sovereignty.” I never. knew until the lZ Rhday of April, 1861, when this omnipresent ghost of “ State rights" went down to Charleston and superintended the artillery that opened on Sumter. While slavery existed as a political power, it was not possible to adopt a true construction of the fun amental law. It was not possible to assert with success or vindicate the power of Congress. For one, sir, I now propose to go down to the “ hard pan” of the Constitution. This is nce essary in order to lay the foundation for the restructure of southern State government; and, sir, if“hardan” is not solid enough for stable foundation, am ready to join the Senfrom Massachusetts and go down to granite. I stand here to vindicate the Constitution and the power of Congress under it. This Constitution is not a dangerous instrument. It has no attribute of oppression. The power of Congress is not a dangerous power, for it is only a power of protection. It is all arrayed on the si e of right and justice, and the more of it there is, when properly exercised, the better. As a iower, with attributes to maintain the nationaity, we have just learned that it is a terrible power. Instead of its being “a rope of sand, as supposed by Europeans and secessionists, it is found to be a cable of strength. As a power of protection, it is imperious and overs iadowing. The proudest State must bow in deference to its belicsts, for its secpter is the golden rule. None but petty tyrants need fear it, for it interferes not with the just. I assume, Mr. President, that Congress, under the Constitution, has a controlling power to enforce the principlo of protection on all the States. Congress is the tribunal of States; and this tribunal of States is the umpire in judging of what is protective republican government in the several States, and what is not; what the form of the State government should be, and what it should not be; what the distribution of power or degree of enfranchisement in order to guard against the despotism of class; and what the machinery to be adopted or tolerated so as to make the State government cffeolivo on the side of protection. O State government that does not accord in spirit and form with the principles or the Constitution is legitimate; nor can it e made legitimate by Congress. Local State despotism is outside of the Constitution and illegitimate. It never can be made otherwise. It never was anything else than the off spring of the political heretic, State sovereignty. It has ever been a child of mischief and agent of evil. It has been trying ever since it was born to overthrow the principles embraced in the DeclarIndep. It has sought with great pertinacity and success to regulate pu lie opinion by mobs. It broke down the manly spirit in political communities, and produced pusillanimity instead of independent manhood. It inculcated a jealous. clannish hatred between sections, and broke down comity between the States; Whenever nerthern people went to reside within the realm of its dominion, to use a southern phrase, it made them “eat dirt.” It was the greatest of sophists and falsifiers, and on the same principle that all political hucksters, who controvert the golden rule in politics, are falsifiers and hypocrites. IVe have had enough of thispolitical perversity, and enough of its consequences. it is high time that the whole nation, from its center to its circumference, should be politically taught that we have a beneficent Constitution and a power in Congress under it that is adequate to apply the corrective. We are told, sir, that if Congress is persistent in imposing terms, conditions, and guarantees we shall offend the South; that they are a proud and sensitive people. Iam aware of this,sir; but at the same time I am not disposed to give up the Constitution on that account. What right would the Empire State, with its 4 million peOple, its vast commerce, its almost unemmpled enterprise, have to set up any authority or exercise of power that did not comport with the Constitution? I love the State of NewYork for the good that is in it, while I am pained in reflecting upon the vices Itnhat have been exhibited within its jurisdiction. years gone by, when the little band of lin manitarian philOSOplletS who advocated natu ral rights were beset by mobs, the conduct was not creditable. At a later day, when the attempt was inade to murder 40 or 50 unof feudiiifr colored men in a tobacco factory in Brook ya, it was not an effort to be commended. At a still later day, when the riot ous mob, sympathizing with secession, inur dered the colored people in the streets of NewYork, burned the colored orphan asylum, and committed other atrocities ofan infamous character, it was nothing to be proud of and when again, sir, it was necessary to abstract 24,000 men from the army of the Potomac to save the city of NewYork, and Lee taking advantage of the circumstance was enabled suddenly to reenforce Bragg with 32,000 men, which led to the disaster of the brave army of the Cumberland at Chickamauga, it. becomes painful to reflect upon it. NewYork has as much to be proud of, and her people as much to be road of, as any other State. That consists, iowever, of her liberalized policy, her true statesmanship, her enterprise, her hospitality and amenities to the peOple of other States, her care for the education of her children, and her labor and care to promote a truly Christian civilization. These are things to be proud of, foythese things harmonize with the Constitution and exem lity the beauties of republican government. I iope the time may come, if it is not alread the case, that southern pride may have its oundation permanentlylaid on what is right and while upon this subject, I will express the hope that the young State of Nevada, which I have the honor in part to represent, which has cher ished me, and which I love, will lay all its foundations of future greatness upon the immutable principles of common justice. I trust that is what the future of the State shall have reason to be proud of. " THE WAR OF RACES. We are told again and again, Mr. President, that in case equal rights and the means of maintaining those rights are awarded to the colored population in the South, “it will lead to a war of races." There has always been a ClaSS of men ready to adopt the idea that the peace of society can be iest maintained by thwarting justice. I am a slow believer in this doctrine. I have formed my opinions from very different postulates and premises. In my simple method of reasoning, the o posite of this rule is true. I must. be permitted to maintainthat in my opinion strict and impartial justice is the only basis of stable and permanent peace in society. I think history furnishes no evidence to the contrary. If this hypothesis cannot be maintained, then, indeed, is the moral world in a poor condition. I have an example, sir, that comes from a portion of the history of the colored race that may not be unprofitable to present to the Senate. Mr. President Jhe world has heard much of the horrors of sandomingo. It has been prophesied that in case the slaves of the South were set free, we should again witness the horrors of sandomingo. The horrors of sandomingo has been made the oblin story to teach the children of the South the necessity of riveting the chains upon the slave so firmly as to allow no escape. The horrors of sandomingo were the ver logic of slavery; almost as much so as the esiguiiw perverSion of truth about the productions of jamaica. I now propose to give a succinct account of these horrors, and also, what is infinitely of more importance to the Senate, the true cause of them. It was not until recently that the records of authentic French history, relating to the troubles in this island, became knownto the reading public. During the political troubles in France this island was neglected. England and Spain undertook to appropriate it. The negroes organizad under colored leaders of talent and drove out the English and Spanish forces, conquered the whole island, and declared and established their freedom. The bravery and conduct of the negroes was commended and applauded by the French Government. The population that had performed all this had been slaves. They offered to restore the island to France on the cendition that they should not be reienslaved. After a series of negotiations, Napoleon, in an evil hour, resolved on the subjugation of the island, in connection with the project of reen slaving the black population. It was through the inlluence of the old slaveholders that this measure was resolved on. An army of 80,000 was sent cut under Le Clerc, brot ier in law of Bonaparte, to accomplish the object. it is not necessaryto go through the detailofhy pocritical negotiation on the part of the French commander; suflice it to say, the blacks firml resolved to maintain their freedom. The Frenc general thought that by severity of example he could intimidate them into submission. He treacherously got some of the leaders into his power, and cruelly executed them. The atrocity was retaliated. Itgrew to be awarfare ofatrocity and counter atrocity that spared no enemy that fell into the power of the opposing belligerents. Humanity has never witnessed a more sickening picture of brutality than what wasin reality the orrorsof sandomingo. At the end of this contest, when Pauline returned to France awidow, Napoleon said to her, “I gave you an army of 80,000 veterans you return to tell me the story of its destruction." It may be profitable, sir, t6 contemplate the history of Vrench atrocity in this island, for we may yet live to see a similar policy undertaken in our own country. It may be equally profit able to learn, that though the blacks, as a race, are naturally peacable, they are capable of being goaded into exasperation; I will now at the question, had the ruling powers of france been just to the blacks of this island, how much better would it have been made for all parties? I do not deem it impossible, sir, thatwe may get have something similar to the horrors of an Domingo in this country; for the spirit of slavery is the same everywhere. I do not deem it impossible, for it is said that fmen learn little except through the teachings of calamity." We have gone on, sir, wisely or unwiscly, converting the colored population into beings of power through military discipline. We have taught 160,000 of them in the part of killing. We have, to some extent, instructed them in the rudiments of military organization. As citizens of the U.S. the have equal right to protection, and to keep an bear arms for selfdefense. They have long cherished the idea of liberty, and the nation has awarded it. More than that, sir, the colored man canfpoint to his honorable scars or to the grave O his companion in arms, and say, “We, too, have assisted in defending the Government." It must be a poor observer of human nature who does not realize that the colored people South can be goadod into desperation. It is a more obtuse observer still who does not comprehend the settled determination of the present forces, now coming into the political foreground of the South, to establish some species of local despotisni whereby the colored mans condition s iall be kept perpetually disparaged. In this probable cause of collision ies the danger; and, sir, in my humble opinion it is the chief danger tobe guarded against. Mr. President, while we are on this subject of the “ war of races” it may be well, perhaps, to ventilate it more fully. I assert, sir. that nearly all the troubles that have ever existed in this Union since the adoptionof the Federal Constitution have sprung irectly or indirectly from the war of race upon race. Slavery itself is nothing else, never can be made anything else, than a warfare of one race or class upon another. The process of subjectingone race or class to the arbitrar will of another; to own it as goods and chatte s; to subject it to involuntary servitude; to deny it all natural and right, t on seek by all possible means, regard ess of any other consideration, to perpetuate such bondage, amounts in the opinion of the world to a warfare of “race upon race." It has been fitly denominated “the sum of all iniquities." When we come to trace this war of race upon race in its consequences, direct and collateral, the definition of Vesley will be established as the true one. In an economic point O view we can trace its blighting influence an aralyzinr effect on the industries of States. et the advocate of human bondage tell us what it is that have to each man, woman, and child in Massac usetu an average product of $166 peryear, while the percapita in SCarolina was 856. What made the difference between $166 in RhdIsland and $65 in Louisiana; 8164 in connecticut and $61 in Georgia; $117 in NewHampshire itnd $56 in Alabama; $112in NewYork and $59 in Virginia; $99 in Pennsylvania and $49 in NCarolina; $120 in NewJersey and $67 in Mississippi; $96 in Vermont and $55 in Florida? I fiave cited from the tables prepared by the Senfrom Kentucky Pin Gurnnis] in his report on the fins noes or 1856 and 1857, at.the time he was SecyTreasury. I hav c drawn the comparisen between States contiguous to market With sea port advantages. I do not think I shall incur the hazard of denial when I assert that this wide disparity springs directly from the war of race upon race. This question ofiucome from industry is an important one. It goes directly to the subject of comfortable houses to live in comely raiment for the body, palatable foo for the table, and education for the children. I will now invite the Senfrom Kentucky, [Mr. DAVIS] who has dwelt so much on Ja maica, to turn his attention to the subject nearer home", When he shall have prepared himself by calculation I hope he will be able to inform the Senate how much the slave States have lost in the last 50 years by their “ war fare against race.” Mr. President, I come to another subject of nearly, perhaps of quite equal importance. recurring to the census statistics O 1850, and the educational condition of the several States as there exhibited, we find that in Maine nearly beengiven its diploma of freedom. 1/3rd of the aggregate population of the I State was in school, receiving instruction, and being fitted for the duties of manhood and womanhood. In NewHampshire, Vermont, Michigan, and Ohio. between 1/3rd and one 4th of the aggregate population was in school. In NewYork, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, RhdIsland, Connecticut, Indiana, and Illinois, the ratio, owing to the influx of foreign poulation. was less, and amounted to a fraction lless than one 4th. In the slave States, including the white population only, it stood thus: Florida one 10th, Louisiana one 8th, Texas one eighth, Virginia one 8th, Alabama one 7 t, Arkansas one 7th, Georgia one 7th, Maryland one 7th, SCarolina one 7th, Mississippi one in 6 and a half, Kentucky one 6th, and missourione 6th. I maybe mistaken, sir, but in my simple comprehension this wide disparity, this descent from intelligence to ignorance, this step from civilization to barbartsm is the result of warfare upon race. I must refer another matter to the Senfrom Kcntuck. He will pardon me for reling on his arithmetical calculations, especially where the investment in colored people is concerned. I would not trouble him were Mem minver present, but as we have not the principa herewewillbe oblired to relyou 2ndary authority. There mustzbe flouting about some 3 or 4000 millions of the confederate War debt, incurred in the process of transferring the investment in colored people from the Union to the cenfederacy. lhis precaution. adopted for greater security, cost much money. If the honorable Senator will estimate the depreciation of this confederate debt, and inform us what the depreciation amounts to I will willingly set it down in my account oft. e expense of the warfare of race against race. a the investment, whereby manhood was changed to chattelhood, I have merely alluded “to some of the incidental sacrifices and expenses. Without going back to the original outla incurred in the exease of kidna ping, I willy come directly to tfie ultimate, in erent value of the investment itself. It had grown to be very large. It had absorbed southern surpluses, taking the necessary capital from southern commercefiouthern mechanism, leaving the South without diversified industries, and consequently, the bulk of its white population without skilled labor and profitable employment. 2000 millions, some say more, had been absorbed in what was once called “ negro property.” It grew and grew to be “ corner stone, ” from “ corner stone” to “ divingity.” This was as high as it could go. When it reached this point it began to stand up in the image of its maker. The rebellion opened its eyes. The colored people saw that they had natural rights, which some old fashioned states men of the Revolution had renounced “in alienable." They saw somct iing else. They. discovered that each one had 2 legs to run away on, and 2 hands each to fight the wayl from bondage to freedom. They soon discovered that the had privileges the privilege of freedom an selfefense. In time another privilege was addedb the rebellion; and that was, to look at the ol master through the sights of a gun barrel. It was in this way the whole institution graduated after a 4 years training in the military sghool of the rebellion. It has It has been incorporated into the family of American citizenship. Sir, I will not set down this change as loss to any State, or to the nation. I believe it, to be highly beneficial to both. But to those.who advocate human bondage, and have indulged in a false political economy, I may well put the question, “In this warfare upon natural right and upon race, how much svu you made by the operation f” Again, Mr. President, the picture saddens as.we progress with the drawing. The predetermination to perpetuate this war upon race and to hold in bondage 4 million people do and their increase for all future time. was tocause of the rebellion against the Constitution and the Union The war against the nationality and againsl the principles of republican government has merely been a branch of the warfare against race. It was the concomitant of the warfare against race. 300,000, taken from the flower of northern free industry, have been sacrificed, and nearly the same number from the South. The destruction of life, the widowhood and orphanage, the destruction of property, the vast accumulation of public debt, and all other distresses consequent on war, have sprung from this southern warfare on race. Sir, if I understand the duty of the executive Chief Magistrate, and the great purpose for which he was elected, it is his duty to interpose the executive power to sto this warfare “on race. If I untferstand my dirty and the duty of this Congress, it is the 1st, highest, and most imperative of all duties to sto this war fare on race. If I understand the duty of the people, distressed by calamity as they have cen, and afflicted by burdens as theyaro, they will insist that an end shall be putto this war fare on race. Mr. President, I understand well the slave holders logic. It is no new thing. It was once alarming, and very effective on the side of wrong and injustice; but the nation has got used to it and began to be brave from necessity. It consists of this: “ If you do not let as war on this race we will visit on the country some great calamity. If you will not allow us to control it as we please, and under such laws as we please, we will exterminate it. You mustallow us to dominate this population under unequal laws or it must be removed from the country.” This is the essence of the arment that is poured into the executive ear. e has as many evil counselors as Napoleon had when persuaded to attempt reenslaving the colored people of sandomingo. Not a member of on gress but who has had thrust upon him this argument. It is the logic of petty tyrants. lt has neither principle nor patriotism.It springs alone from those selfis, mercenary aims that have no regard for any interest in the country except that of its own class. N6true states manship can be founded on this kind of logic. It is destructive of all that deserves the name of statesmanship. As againstits machinations, I it has been all that the statesmanship of the country could do to save the nation. I think the time has come when neither Congress nor the people will be frightened out of their sense of propriety by the repetition of this logic. ltfinay be well, sir, for Senators to estimate the expense in the aggregate resulting from the warfare upon race. If we take into account the expense of kidnapping; the vast absorption of southern surpluses in negro property; the yearly sacrifices by deficiency of southern production which slavery imposed; the amount of the rebel war debt; the Union war debt and interest and the vast destruction of property and collateral sacrifices consequent on war, the amount will appear starth ng. If we add to this the loss of life, estimating the value ofeach man sacrificed at the market value of slaves before the war, it will swell into an amountequal to the aggregate value of the property of the nion in 18110. I speak now on this subject from a financial point of view. I speak to those who profess to be so “practical" in worldly affairs as to forget that there is an inexorable law of the moral universe that can neither be evaded nor overthrown by the cunning devices of man. It seems to me as thourh the voice of Omnipo tence was sayingto us, I gave you understanding and you have perverted;it I sent my Son unto the children of men to teach them humanity, and to reveal and proclaim to them the rule for human condnct; I have commanded you to be just and righteous that other thin 5 might be added unto you. You have foolish y undertaken to fill your households and your land with plenty by overthrowin my statutes. Know, then, that the Lord Go omnipotent Pilgneth l” have grown to believe, sir, that equal protection has become a matter of imperative national necessity. So far as the experiment has been tried in an o osite direction we have but a poor account. taccount, sir, tallies. with and accords with all history. The war of race upon race, or class upon class, is certain to lead to the destruction O patriotism in any nation. Nothing can sprin from it but social and political discontent. this the origin of convulsions, rebellions, and revolutions. I will maintainthat no people has yet existed that did not find its causes of national decay and national dissolution in the warfare of class upon class. We have as yet held our nation together. The stem repubhcanism in the northern States; its intelligence and power of comprehension; its firm attachment to free popular government; its unbending determination to maintain such government, assisted by the white and colored loyalty found in the South, has carried us through the rugged part of the great shock. We know the cause of our difficulties, and we may know, if we will, that there is but one remed for the future. That remedy lies in eqi lize protection under equal laws; and if that involy as the necessity of equal suffrage, then, air, in my opinion it becomes the stern duty of the nation to enforce it. Ifiu the warfare of race upon race, or class upon class, unequal suffrage can be made an instrument of oppression, I insist on the right and power of the nation to make equal suffrage the agency of defense. Mr. President, the cutest of all absurdities that ever perverted to human understanding is the assumption that any State or nation claiming to be civilized, can be best governed by unequal laws. This is the oppressors logic in all countries. In this politica workshop the whole oppressive machine of governments has been manufactured. r(gar fathers started with a new doctrine and a new theory. The threw aside the postulates of aristocracy, an started out on the plan of instituting government to protect natural and personal rights. In approving their theory I trust I will not be accused of too much “rhetoric.” I do not design any. I am content to allow their simple idea of “ inalienable rights ” to stand as my creed and the creed of the great Unionparty. Mr. President, it has been a persistent ena tom in proslavery society to slander and dia parage tequalities and capacity of the colored man. It has been said that he would not fight. The exhibition of his bravery in our revoluItionury struggle, in the contest with the French veterans in sandomingo, and more recently in our own civilWar, as taught us better. It has been said that he cannot understand and comprehend his relation and duty to his government in such degree as to make him a safe voter. If loyalty and fidelity to the Government are a test of capacity to appreciate, then most certainly has the colored man at least one of the highest and best of all qualifications. It has been said, again, that the colored man will not work without compulsion. Here again hat; the colored mans practical conduct exploded the white mans 5 under. In the winter of 1861 a bill was introduced into the SCarolina Legislature providing for the sale of the free negroes of the State int.) slave. It was referred to a committee of which. Haralson Road was chairman. I extract the following from the report of that committee: “Apart from the consideration that many of the class are good citizens. patterns of industry sobn qty, and irreproachablo conduct. there are difficultiesof a practical character in the way of thosewho advocate the bill. The free colored ovulation of Charleston alone pay taxes on $1.60.870Wflrlh of property, and the aggregatetaxes reach 9.7.20918 Vhat will becomeof the one and a half niillionsof property which belong to them in Charleston plane. to say nothing of their property elsewhere in the State? Can it enter into the mind of any Carolina Legislature to confiscatethis property on put it Hi the treasury? We forbear to consider anything so full of injustice and trickednees. Whilo wo arest than for our rights, liberties and Institutionacau we expect the smilesand countenanceof the Arbiter of all eventswhen we make war on the impotent and unprotected, enslave them against all Qustice, and rob them of the property acquiredbytheir own honest toil and industry under your former protection and senseofiustico? Divide this property by the number of free colored people in harleston in 1860, 4000 in number, and it gives to eachporson $390; to each family of 6 persons $2, 240; much higher than the average of the non-slave holders South, and within a fraction of being as high as the northern population averages. am credibly informed that the pecuniar condition of the free colored population of NewOrleans, before the war, was still better. Sir, the present is an interesting epoch for the colored population of the Union. It is as important as it is interesting. We cannot touch upon this subject without involving a collateral inquiry. It is not the colored family alone that is to be affected. The one cannot be dragged down and degraded without debauching and degrading the other. We cannot oppress the colored man or suffer him to be oppressed without endangering the peace of southern society. As he stands now, the colored man is a eaceful citizen. He has been bredto toil. He s acquired patience in performing industry. The main prosperity of the South has here tofore rested on his labor. He is loyal and attached to the Government and, properly I treated, no persuasion can shake his fidelity to the power to which he is now lookin for protection and enconra ement. Need say, air, that the colored faini y of the Union is capable of being manafled into a useful and most importantfree industrial force; into an important and reliable element of national strength; or mismanaged, into a turbulent, discontented, an most dangerous class. If ever there wasa time when unjust prejudice should be displaced by right reason, and political philosophy should be deliberate and truthful, that time is now. lmow of no other safe rule than to try to do that which is right in the sight. of God and man. I come to another question: the propriety or expediency of admitting into Congress Sens&Reps from the seceding States. We are told by the apologists of these men who are being clect d on their merits as rebels to the exclusionof Union men, that “we must not expect too much of them;” that “ it is not expected that they could be fully converted in so short a time;" that “ their disappointments have been grievous;” that “they have become Union men now, and if we do not spurn them they will in time grow to be reconciled to the national Government." I fully accede to the idea that we must not expect too much of these men. A class that during its whole political life has aimed at a monopoly of wealth, a.mo nopoly of labor, and a monopoly of political power; that engaged in the attempt at revolution in order to establish more fully and to per petuate such monopoly; that, failing in this, has ecorne more bitter by disa )pointment, should have time; and, sir, I am cidedly in favor of giving them all the time necessary for the most substantial improvement. I would say to these men, “ Go home! go back and labor as industriously to disabuse the minds ofyour constituencies as ou labored to mislead an impose upon them. lell them that the Union Government always was and never can be anything else than a just Government. Tellthem that the Constitution has become the acknowledged sovereign, and that itpresides in both Houses of Congress. Inform them while you are about it, that the rebel sympathizers and apologists in the North can do them no good, that they are acting as much out of time and propriety now as they did in the time of the war, when their encouragement only prolonged the conflict and added to aqutherh disaster. You may say to your constitnencies, that the majority in Congress is very tenacious on the subject of the Union war debt; that it is determined to keep faith with the national creditors; that it is bent on adoptin and throwing around it all the safeguards an pre cautions possible; and that your admission just now and our alliance with northern sympathizers would not be propitious in raising the value of our public securities. While you are unfor ring with your constituents, you may as well reeat to them the common political axiom, that representatives are elected to represent their constituents, and that it is not believed at the seat. of Government that a disloyal constituency would make such a mistake as to send loyal as well as North, and as much important work tr Representatives to Congress. In short, you may as well say to your people, that, as congress represents the lo city of the nation, South. on hand, some of it requiring a 2/3rds majority, it is not deemed wholly prudent to part with that majority out of mere comity to men, from whom no assistance could be expected. 1 Finally, by way of closing the suggestiveinstructions ou may give your constituents to understan that, as you went out of congress rebel end foremost, you will not probab y get into those vabant seats over onder, except that you come back Unionen foremost.” It is made a ground of argument that “taxation and representation should go together.” This as a general rule is true, but there are conditions and excetions to this rule which sometimes forbid its being followed. The ver case under consideration more strongly eluci dates both the conditions and exceptions than any other historic case. 11 States of the South by an attempt at revolution imposed on the General Government the necessity of subjugating them. These people do not et seem to be in a frtne of mind )to send into congress representatives that would be of any assistance to the public questions; notwithstandin", they should be taxed. They are now standing in the incipient position following the result of war wherein subjugation and taxation bear companionship. The 2nd degree will be that of allegiance and protection. The 3rd. when heartfelt loyalty is prepared to elect the representative. will be “taxation and representation." Should it he insisted that the rule of “taxation and representation should apply at once to the truy loyal white and colored people South, and, were it practicable to adopt the rule in the present mixed state of affairs, I should throw no obstacles in the way. Mr. President, I have now gone through with the principal topics I intended to discuss. I have endeavored to trace the animus and ul terior objects of the rebellion. I have endeav ored to prove its antirepublican designs, and that it involved a conspiracy against the nationality; aconspiracyagainstthenaturalrights of the colored man; a conspiracy against the political rights of the masses of southern white men, as well as a conspiracy against the dem ocratic or republican principle in government. I have endeavored to prove that the exigency has arisen that calls upon the Government for the exercise of its extreme powers, or those powers lodged in Congress to meet extraOi did nary emergencies. I would lay down the following as an epitome of the protective character of the Constitution, its prohibition upon the infraction of natural and pporsonal rights, and the powerof Congress to maiiitaln them: 1. The exclusive power of conrcss over the subject of citizenship and naturalization. 2. The power of Congress to give effect b the enactment and enforcement of laws to afl the protective provisions of the Constitution, and to make the principle of protection practically coextensive with citizenship. 3. The positive constitutional interdict upon the power of Congresm and upon the Legislatures of the respective States to subvert or impair the natural or personal rights enumer ated or implied in the Constitution. 4. The power of Congress to compel the enforcement and maintenance of republican government in every State, making the enumeration of personal and natural rig its and the protective features of the Constitution the definition and test of what is republican government; and further, in order to estublish and maintain such local republican government in every State, to prescribe, in case of necessity, the rule of suffrage or qualification of voters. I Would here close my remarks but for some paragraphs contained in the elaborate speeches of the Senators from Wisconsin and Oregon. l Speaking of the limitations upon the rights of the States, the Senfrom Wisconsin [Mr. Doonrrrufl says: “ One of the limitations upon those riqhts is that it shall have no power to organize any State government not republican in form, while it may adopt.any form of republican government and the some distinction betweena Stateand its government is clearly recognizedin tho clause of the Constitution which provides thattho U.S shall guaranty to very Statein this Union a RFG. We seeby thislanguago a stateiii this Union is one thins: the form of its government nnutherand different thing. Recognising the right of a State. under the law of nations, tu put on or put ogf ils form of goVernment, it wns thought essentialto the more perfect union of these States under the constitution to restrict this power of the State over its form of government so far as to deny its right to put on any other than a republican one and fliercforc, when conspiracy and rebellion attempts it, or when usurpation sut ccedsin doing so, in any State in the Union, thoU.S. not only has the right. but is bound to intervene against such usurpation, and restoreto the State a republican form of State government." With the latter part of this paragraph I on tirely agree. I have said elsewhere that the Constitution deals with States as States, and the honorable Senator has spoken to the purpose on this point; but the question whether the power “to intervene against usurpation, ” and to establish or restore republican State government” is lodged exclusively in the President, or, as Mr. Madison says, in the General government, I do not deem worthy of discussion. I regret exceedingly that the honorable Senator should have placed the President so awk wardly, when, in speaking of the “Lincoln Jolinson policy, ” he made the President. by implication, little else than a iisurper. When the Senator assumed that all power was lodged in the President and as a result, none in congress, I question his warrant of attorney from the President so to speak. I will endeavor to discuss the 1st postulate of this paragraph. It is a most important position. When scrutinized, it will he found the exact e itome of the secession doctrine, origi iiating in the heresy of State sovereignty. I repeat its language: "Ono oftho limitations upon those rights is that it Sllflll have no power to organize any Stategovernment not republican in form. while it may adopt any form of republican government." These words, Mr. President, “any form of republicangovernment” uttered at this time, and in connection with the questions of establishing governments in the southern States, become words of most portentous meaning. It is the old idea of the secossionists: has been repeated by them for the last 40 years; is precisely in conjunction and rapport with their expressed ideas of State sovereignty; and means with these men of the South the right to adopt such republicnnism as Mr. Gariiett in his letter to lrcscott alluded to, and which was in opposition to democratic or suffrage government. “ Rome wasnrepublic, ” says the SCarolinian, and the features of that government and the organization of society under it is the beau ideal of the controlling influences of the Palmetto State. The Amphictyonic Leavue or Council has been called a republican podit ical organization; and, judging it by its mixed medley of contradictions, it amounted in its diversified phases, using the language of the Senator by way of description, to about “ any form of republican government.” Venice was a republic, described as such in all history, and won d be embraced in the Senators category of “any form of republican government.” I will not stop to describe its political organization, its machinery of oppression, but will content myself by saying, that to adopt its principles would lead us over a more “ sorrowful bridge of sighs" than that which led from the Venetian palace to the prison of death. “A republic, " says the English lexicographer, “ may be either a democracy or an aristocracy.” It has been this mischievous latitudinarian construction of the term republican government, in connection with the assumed right to adopt any form of republican government, ” that has created the political divergence between SCarolina and Vermont, or between mississi iand Ohio. All that these southern seces 8l0IllSlS, now thrusting themselves in the fore ground, have ever claimed, or could possibl desire, would be the permission to establish this “any form of republican govornme nt according to their latitudinarian construction. I suppose that when the SenatOr talks about State rights and State sovereignty, in connection With this “any form of republican government, ” he means such degree of “State sovereignty” as shall allow, not the people, but a privileged class in the seceded States, to establish just such republican government as they please. I have no disposition to play upon words. Time and again, since the commencementofthis session, have I heard the same phrase made use of. I understand its meaning well. Had the Senfrom Wisconsin been alone in the use of this phrase, “an form of republican government, ” I would have attributed it to inad vertence; but when it is made a sort of political axiom bv secessionists and secession sympathizers, and gravely repeated in this body, I shall endeavor to hold the Senfrom Vis eousin political] responsible for the utterance of the exhume heresy. Had the honorable Senator said, in general terms, “ the States of the South may adopt such republican or suffrage government as accords with the spirit of our institutions and is implied in the fundamental law and with such practical organization as shall ive the best possible protection to the nature and rsonal rights enumerated and implied in the instrument, ” I would have wholly agreed with him. But if the Senator should be dispoyed to take issue with one jet or tittle of this proposition, I rouounec him outside of the Constitution, and just so far at war with its principles. The labored speech of the Senfrom Wisconsin has greatly puzzled me. Though I do not accuse him of an attempt at imitation, it reminds me of a certain philosopher who gave his pupils instruction in the part of “popular persuasion." “If you have occasion to urge an unsound proposition, " said he, “ you must not urge it directly. You must 1st command the confidence and the eredulity by a preface of self evident propositions; and when you have effectually one this, you must pop in the sophistry on your audience unnwares.” I quote from the Senatorsspeech the following extract: " I now inquire. what must be the terms and conditions of peace in order to put an end to civilWarin these U.S.? I answer, the Constitution of the U.S. is the paramount and indissoluble bond of union and relationship and co among the several States. An attemptto overt row that incivilWar. Submissionto that is pence. Therefore.neither the President. nor Congress, nor the Suprcmo Court. nor all put together, can make any ot or treaty of peaceor bond ofrelationship ntnona theStates. Nothing short of sucee. sfurlevolution or of a decision of the sovereigiipeopleof the U.S. to amend that Constitution. cati change the relationship between the Statesonojot or tittle. Though men and parties maychange, the Constitution as the basis of th“at relationshipin this Union will remainperpetual. What termshad the President a.right to demand of theseStates, or of their people. as conditions prece“dehiiirtstto, apnedaceand the withdrawal of the Army? beforeall and us the basis of till, unqualified submissionto the Constitution of the U.S., and all laws of Congress passed in pursuancethereof. "2nd. the annulling of all acts.laws, and proceedings by which the States made or prosecuted go; against the U.S., including the rebel c t. "3rd. acquiescencein the situation which the war has brought upon them, including the abolition of slavery for and on account of which they made the war; or the sincerity of such acquiescence and as the supremetest.of its good faith the adoption of the constitutional amendment by which slavery. the causeof the war, is surrendered and made impossible, and liberty made sure. by being placed under the guardianship of Congress in every State and Territory forever. 4th, the practical resumtion of their politi cl l duties.upon their terms.as tatesin the union. those nre the conditions, in substance upon which President Lincoln almost 3 yearsago announced to the people of those States the terms of pacification to which he pledged the support of the executive Goycrnment. These are the substanceof the terms of foredby President Johnson." Sir, I cavil with none of this preface. It is the followmg conclusion that I take exception to. “Several of the States or the people of several states. have acccpted theman. d O or now to resume all their political duties lL"States in this Union and practically euJoy their rights assuch. Shall weallow them to do so? If those terms have been acceptedby those states, of the people of those states in RODtlfaith is not the find of t iis nation pled, net as much pledged as by the terms contained in the surrender of their armies?" In these extracts we have the Senators pref ace and his conclusions as to the duty of congress to recognize their organization, and admit their Sens&Reps. Let us now inquire, Mr. President, whether the controlling influences in these States havementally, morally, nnreservedly, and in good faith given in their adhesion to the rineiples of the Constitution; whether, in t ejr State organizations, they declared and recognized as citizens, the whole native born population on the basis of“ equality before the law; whether, and if so, what provision they have made for maintaining and pprotecting the natural and personal rights enumerated and implied in the Constitution. It seems to me, sir, that if they have done all this it would supersede the necessity of congressionallegislation in establishing the Freedmens Bureau, its vast and expensive machinery, and, if not imeratively required, itsmostobjectionablepowe. If theSenntorsaf fectionate confidence in these cont lling forces in the South is so well founded, why is it that the President. his generals, and the War Dept are debating the question asto whether we shall keep on foot an Army of 50, 75, or 100,000 men to hold them in subjection? Certainly these establishments are most expensive, most embarrassing to the national finances, and all of us alike de glore their necessity. It seems to me, sir, the Senators peace is astraiige kind of peace; and whether it is a peace upon a war basis, or a war on a peace basis, Itrusg the Senator willin due time inform us. Mr. President, after enumerating reasons why loyalty alone should take seat in the Halls of Congress, there is one test and touch stone of the kind of loyalty that should be required. It is that kind of loyalty which cherishes the names and brave deeds of the nations defenders by land and water. If the offered representative should bear hatred or malice, or feel indifference or coldness toward this class of our citizens, or be barren in affectionate veneration to the memories of those who have fallen, or wanting in a disosition to nounsh and suntain the widow an orphan made such in the defense of the natioqlality, I would spurn him as a political vi or that was not to he fellow ship ed, tolerate. We know the political ideas on principles which these brave men defended, and the leaders of the rebellion know it as well as we. We know and understand the animus and spirit with which the southertgcon spiraey was entered upon, and these galvanized rebels know it as well as we. There can be neither peace nor security to the country until this contumacious spirit of the southern leaders is annihilated. lhere is no necessity of giving it encourareement, and I regard it as a criminal neglect o duty to palter to its hu mors. There is not a State in the South but which has tit men, and an abundance of fit men, according to the highest standard of qualification for representatives. They have men who have stood through peril for the Union; men of character, and men whose talents would adorn the Halls of congress. These men alone are entitled to appear ere, for they would be an assisting force. They are the only kind of representatives that any section can constitutionally claim. lf we would not inaugurate anew the old rebel brawl in congress, we shall wait until reliable and true inen in loin the South shall be permitted to come and take seats by the side of loyalty. Most unfortunately for the Senators position, we have it from reliable authority that the unconditional loyalists, except in few localitips cannot be elected to ofice; that men if clecte at all, must be elected on the strength of their notoriety as rebels; that in the organizatidn of the social circle Union people are excluded, and amenities awarded to the disloyal only; that every arrangement is undertaken and carried out that can by possibility make Unionism unpopular and odious, and treason popular and respectable. Addedto this, Senators and members are flooded With letters from southern Union men, begging and llllfllOfillg that congress may not leave them in the hands of these hilistines, unprotected, by withdrawing the Army. The provmional governor of Texas is a truly loyal man, and the information comes from a high authority that it is doubtful whether he could stay a day behind the withdrawal of the troops in safety. Governor Brownlow, of Tennessee, is another of the trul loyal governors of the South. On the hit of the last month he wrote to the Speaker of the HoRep as follows: "If the removal of the Federal troopsfrom Tennessee must necessarilyfollow upon the admissionofour conressionaldelegation to their sents. why, then and in t int once.the loyal men of Tennesseebe; to be without representativesin Congress. But.our members can be admitted and a military force retained suflielent to governand control the rebeltious. I tell you and through you all whom it may concern. that without a law to disfranchiac rebels, and Alforce to carry out the provisions of that law. this State will passinto the hands oftho rebels, and a terrible state of nffnirs is bound to follow. Union menwill be driven from the State.forcedtosacrificewhat theyhave and seek homes elsewhere and yct Tennessee is in a much bettercondition than any of theother revolted St“at a and affords a stronger loyal population. hosewho supposethe South is reconstructed, and that her people cheerfully accept the results ol the war are fearfully deceiv l The whole South is full of the spirit of rebellion and th people are now in: more bit ternndinsolt never iy. The rebel newpapers are springiir ipa loveit c South and speaking out in terms of dntterness and reproach against the Government of the U.S. These page" load the people, and at the some time reflect cit sentiments and feelings. Of lhc 21 paper! Tennessee. 15 are decidedly rebel outspoken and undisulsed, some of them pretendingto acquiescein the pxistlng state of affairs. In all the vacanciesoecurrin in our Legislature. even with our franchise lnwin orcc, robrls are invariably returned and in some instances rebel oernlimping from wounds received in battle fighting against the U.S. forcesl and yet. I tell you that Tennessee is in a better condition than any other revolted State. “Others will give y0u a morefavorable account. I cannot in justice to myself and the truth. I think I kyneaorws}in otshoeu Southn opfcoc looi.ce, Innhdavtweolivaetd the fift o retih hotf necessity." Mr. President, there is a logic in this statement of Governor Brownlow that seems to me undeniable. It is a logic founded on practical experience. It is the same that led tot ie policy adopted in Missouriin disfranchising disloyalty, and which has given us a delegation from that State, ingrained in its loyalty, and firm and useful in establishing a just national policy. A class that started the rebellion into growth and attempted a reVolution upon the idea that “ republican government was a failure;” that “the real civilization of a country is in its aristoc racy, which should be made permanent by laws of entail and primogeniture;” that regards popular government a s“ the mistaken civilization of the aoef that would institute in the place of republican government “on hereditary Senate and Executive" is neither fit to represent orto be represented in any political body, State or national, within the bounds of this Union. After having done and attempted what it has, there is but one right. left to it, and even that is a matter of political grace, awarded put by justice, but by mercy. That right consists of bare permission to exist, but on the condition of peaceful conduct, and on strict forbearance to do their country or countrymen any further injury. I I have no doubt, sir, the Senfrom Wisconsin might travel South.s eech in hand, and be favorally received. If e would consent to denounce the majority in Congress as radical fanatics and enemies of the Southahe would be “ wined, dined, and feted;” secessmn ladies would smile on him; hisjourney be made acou tinued ovation; and the Senator eve where the hero of the banquet. But should he go Without his recent prestige, and talk as e talked to the people of Wisconsin when he induced them to send him here, I have no doubt he would come back with about the same opinions exrcssed by Governor Brownlow. Mr. President, there is a strange idiosyn crasy in some minds, amountinf to on almost perverse tendency to delusion. t springs from a too great generosity of nature; a generosity that confides too far in doubtful sources of information. Mr. Lincoln, in the earlier part of the war, was surrounded and beset by rebels in disguise and rebel sympathizers of ever grade. Most of his hesitating policy, so mac complained of, was ascribed to this cause. if our present Executive is not more than human he cannot be whollyimpervious to the stream of hypocrisy that for some months has been continually poured upon him. A rebel at the White House seeking a ardon, or claiming to be a rercsentative in congress, is a very different ting from a rebel teachiu his neigh bors or constituents that treason is a thing to be commended, and disloyalty to the Union Government a peculiar merit. For myself, sir. I have seldom been deceived by the statements of Union men. I have never known a man to rely on the statements of disunionists, where there was a possible motive to disguise the truth, but who was deceived. If loyalty and truthfulness do not go together, and if treason and hypocrisy are not concomitants, then, indeed, have m observations been at random. Senators wi I excuse me for adopting the homely adage, “ If he cheat me once, the fault is in the cheater; if he cheat me twice, I make the fault my own." I refer to rely on the statements coming from the 10yalty of the South. Mr. President, if it were the case that a compliance with the terms and spirit of the Constitution imposed any hardship on the South, or any class in the South, I might have scruples as to the course to be nrsued. As no hardship or injustice is possible I shall now insist to the last extent thatalle iance and protection must go together. If he contumacy in the South continues I shall not consent to call it peace. If protection cannot be enforced except by congressional legislation, Freedmen s Bureaus, and standin armies, there is a way, I think, to bring this reellion to a close. “Without further paltering, [announce myself ready to join in the proposed measure of laying contributiops upon the seeeded States to pay every dollar of the expenses which conturnacy adds to the Government. If treason has not alreadyliad sufficient luxury out of rebellion, then let its cup be filled. I shall object to imposing these enormous expenses upon the honest, peaceful industry of the country., I eel impelled, Mr. President, to review the position of the Senfrom Oregon [Mr. N iss 1nm.] He assumes to deny “all power in Congress or the President, or in both combined, to make a State constitution or to dictate an prevision which shall be contained in it.” Hi assumes “that a constitution must be wholly mnde by the people over whom it is established, and can be made or amended byno otherpersons whatever." This, sir, is the doctrine of “State sovereignty” with a vengeance. It is the ultimatum of all that was ever claimed by the secessionists. It was the precise doctrine to which they attached their sliding scale perversion of the phrase, " Governments can be in stituted only by the consent of the governed.” It was from this “half we. house” that. the secessionists started on their journey through the political wilderness of the confederacy. The Public Functionary at the White House said, You have no right to secede, but if you do secede, the General Government has no power to restrain you." With the commencement of the war commenced the construction of the Constitution and the powers of the general Government under it. We had generals in command who construed and interpreted the Constitution as Mr. Buchanan did, and who fought in precise accordance with their interpretations. We had other generals who interpreted differently and fought differently. We admen in Congress who agreed with Mr. Buchanan, and who talked and acted like him, and others who thought, talked and acted differently. We had a tfemoralized political part that agreed with its old leader, while the bul of the people said, “ This will never do.” For 4 years we were engaged in construing the Constitution under the arbitrament of the sword. As the result of the conflict necessity compelled the rebels to lay down their arms. The terms of the surrender were “ obedience in all things to the Constitution.” This involved the surrender of the doctrine of “ State sovereignty, " the right to secede, and all other political here sies that had involved the nation in civilWar. We have paroled the rebels, but.we have not released them from any oblivation to the Union. Theirpoliticai heresies we have never released or paroled. We hold these heresies today as prisoner of war. The have not in any manner been amnestied, an it has become the duty of Congress to determine what shall be done with them. In dealing with these heresies, I am at no loss for power in Congress, foriread the constitution t ins: “Whereas we, the people of the U.S.,and we, the people of the several States acting through the State authorities, for the purpose of securing a more perfect Union, and for the purpose of avoiding any tendency to disintegration by reason of State governments dissimilar in principle, do hereby ordain and agree that the U.S shall guaranty and make secure to every State in this Union, and every State that may come into the Union, a RFG; which term RFG shall be construed to mean popular suifrage government, and no other. it is further ordained and agreed that the natural and personal rights enumerated and implied in the Constitution are and shall remain inviolate, and that neither the U.S., nor any State government or authority shall subvert or impair them and it is further ordained and agreed that the General government, acting for and in behalf of all the States, and of each State, shall have both a restraining and constraining power over every State, and such power as the exigency demands, to bring every Stateinto compliance and accord with the principles of this Constitution and it is further avrccd, ordained, and established that the Constitution of the U.S., and all the provisions thereof, though not written in the rate constitutions, shall, nevertheless, be and remain a art of the constitution of each State, and shall form the common fundamental law of every State, and shall be and remain the supreme law in all the States; providednevertheless, that each and every State shall haveihc right and power to adoptand establish such otJico provisions in its fun amental law as accords with and does not in any manner conflict with said common fundamental law ofallthe States.” Mr. President, how does it hop on that men in looking at. the governmental ramework of the whole country overlook the fact that the Constitution of the U.S. forms a part of the constitution of each State, and what is more, the vital, sovereign, and controllin part of the fundamental law of every State? ome times a part of the Union Constitution is writ ten out and ingraited in form on a State constitution by what is called a “ bill of rights." This adds nothin" to the binding character of the provisions. repetition of these fundamental provisions, us applicable to a locality, is merely incorporating what before, if I may use the expression, was the politically omniscient and omnipresent sovereignty, the national fundamental law. No State can adopt anything in a State constitution in conflict. When it is assumed that Congress cannot dictate to a State what its fundamental law shall be. I an swer, the Constitution dictates; the Constitution makes the mandate on all the States; and the same Constitution commands Congress, as the tribunal of States, to carry that mandate into execution. This power of Congress to superintend and control the governmental frame Worlr of all the States, given, not only in express terms. but by all implications arising from political necessity, not only controls the political organization of States, but the legisation of every State. Let Senators cast about and see whether human ingenuity can suggest a natural or personal right that is not established rand provied for in the Constitution. LetSen ators again cast about and seewhether humaningenuity can devise or invent any governmental machinery that could make transgression on these rights legitimate. These natural and personal rights are State rights, and all the legitimate sovereignty the States have or can have, is to protect them under equal laws. It is thus, Mr. President, that i rea and construe the Constitution and the power of Congress under it; and it is thus I propose to deal with the doctrine of State sovereignty and the reserved powers of the States. If, in the restructure of southern State government, with its altered condition of citizen shi, "neitherthe President, nor Congress, nor bot together, had any power to dictate any revision which should be contained in the State constitutions, " I should be at a less to account for the conduct of the President. The Exccutive most certainly has assumed to die State, or the people are very much misinformed. The Presidenthas said, " You mustdo so, ” and You must do so, ” and “ You must do so and so, or your work will not be accepted or ratified."]he President, itsecms. has practically agreed with Mr. Madison, who, in commenting on this provision guarantying republican government, says: “ In a confederacyfouiided on republican principles, and composedof republican mcmbers.the superintending novernmcotonnhtclcarly to possess the authority to defend the system." This great statesman, who is said to have drawn the provision, had no scruple in declaring that the superintending government, in case of necessity, “had the power to alter State governments without e concurrence of the States themselves.” It seems to me, sir, that as soon as a State is outside of the Constitution and in contumacy with it, the restraining and constraining powerof the General Government attaches; that if the centumacy is persistent, it calls into requisition the military power of the nation: that if determined resistance follows, it mayin the end call for the lastdegree of rig orous war. After having practiced for 4 years on this platform of right and power, we are now told in effect that the arm of the government is paralyzed, and that it cannot comsummate the workwhich the rebellion has imposed. Sir, I believe in no such doctrine. Mr. President, I am no consolidationist in the objectionable sense in which that word has been employed. i am for the largest exercise of power by the States, and all the power that compoi ts with the Constitution of the Union. I am a believer in the doctrine that such power properly and "rightfully belongs to the States, and that the nature and design of the whole governmental framework was to permit local administration in all matters that were not of necessity thrown upon the General Government for strictly national purposes. I would be opposed to taking from toStates any power they could rightfully claim and no one regrets more than myselftiic painful necessity of congressional legislation to effect under circumstances now existing. what cannot at present be otherwise accomplished. Not a man in congress, I presume, but would rejoice to see accomplished through local State legislation and State administration all that Congress can do, directly or indirectly. by restraint or constraint, in carrying out the principies of the Constitution. What I am contening for, is the power of Congress to force local State government into compliance with the sovereign law. 1 his I claim in the most enlarged and liberal sense, and I should he unwarranted in consenting to yield one “jot or tittle” of that power; for experience new tells us that we know not when nor under what circumstances it may he needed, nor how imperiously its exercise may he demanded. In standing here to vindicate the principles of the Constitution and the power oi the General Government under it, trust I shall not be accused of fanaticism. If it is urged that I am radical, I reply that I intend to be just as radical as the Constitution. It has often been said by unthinking men that the 1st ctiective bond of Union. clause in the DeclarIndep was a mere rhetorical flourish without any practical meaning. It may be said bathe same class that the clause in the Conatiution that guaranties republicaurfovernment also has no practical meaning. but assertion, however, Will be of little avail with a people who have suffered so much and who have so many safe guards to provide for the future." This provision has grown to be one of the most important provisions of the fundamental law. It is the restraining and constraining power that keeps the parts confined to their spheres and takes away the causes of jarring dissensions. It was designed to keep all political authority restricted to the protective principle. However expanded the nationality or jurisdiction might. become, it was intended that exansion should carry with it the highest and liest system of protective government. This was known by our fathers to be, as we know it to be, the only On the protective principle must we build the foundations of republican government, for that is strength, that alone is peace, that is progress. Iaui of the opinion, sir. that when the power of Congress. as it exists under the Constitution, is fully and widely comrchcnded by the people, and acknowledged 3 and recognized by the people, it will do much to hasten the settlement of all difficulties. The very prestige of this power will have the spine effect to keep the peace. burdens with internally as the prestigeof national power has in keeping the peace with other nations. Mr. President, it has been said, and repeat edlyinsinuated in political circles, that the Republican party has performed its mission; that the rent Union part of more recent formation has ended its war; that the rebellion has been put down, and that the party that has car ried tenation through its perils thus far is not adopted to the consummation of a conciliatory peace. If such a peace is meant as would compromise with the proslavery spirit, as would aim at the reestab ishment or continuance of local despotism in the South; that would deny protection to the natural and personal rights of citizenship; thatwould bringt e enemies of the Government South into effective alliance with the forces of doubtful loyalty in the North; then, sir, I trust that the great Union party is not in the frame of mind to negotiate or establish any such peace. The balance of the mission of this party is. very different. It finds manifold difficulties of the same nature of those which t oubled our fathers at the close of the Revolu ion. It finds these difficulties multi plied by a many times multiplied defection of politica forces; by a vast national debtwhich these forces would illegitimate claims against the Government, that, if allowed, woulld destroy our national securities and prostrate the nation in finance; and added to this, the desperate efforts that will be made to undermine the political mo rality of the legislative and Deptal powers of the Government. Our public affairs are, and will continue to be, in a critical situation for years to come. The (Inn er does not lie with the loyal people of the nion, for they who have stood by their own great cause will not forsake it unless they are paralyzed by a betra al here here, at the seat of Government. It will be here, in the Halls of Congress and in the Depts of the Government, if betrayal comes at all. Were it competent for me to send forth sword of admenition to the people, I would say to them: “Stand to your own great cause with continued fidelity. Let us bear our atience and our riefs with for titude. seninto the Halls of congress none but such as you know you can trust. while the pledge is given here that none will be permitted to enter, with the assent of Congress, who would betray your cause.” Mr. President, I stand here no less the friend of the South than the friend of the North. I yield to no man in honest desire to do that which is best. We have allbeen instructed by common calamity, and if I have dealt plainly With the causes that led to iIt, have neither repudiate; by a basis for l spoken in malice nor intentionally ste ped be yond the bounds ofajust propriety. 1ft O South choose to liberalize ier policy, to put its industrial forces into requisition on the principle of a just mutuality, to invite capital, enter rise, and skill by amenity, to make the South ourish as it is capable of flourishing. its people socially and politically contented hyimprovementin the condition of its society, no one will rejoice more than myself, and no one wili labor more can nestly to promote by any possible means such condition. I will assume, sir, that Ispeak the sentiment of the Imajority in this congress when I express the desire that the seceded States shall be restored at the earliest possible day consistent with the public security. That time will depend on the greatly altered frame of mind that must come over the people of those States. I hope the time may soon come when the South can say with pride, “The strength of the North is my strength, ” and that the North cansay with confidence, “The strength of the South is my strength.” I trust that all the States will be enabled ere long to say, “We have built our governments, State and national, on the immutable principles of justice. On this platform must we all stand, assured that such only can be made the foun dution of stable government." I assume this to be the ultimatum of the majority in congress and the voice of the Union party that elected it. While I am no advocate for the centralization of powers that could by possibility prove dangerous, I am the advocate of such central power as may operate with effect against local despotism; be adequate to diffuse simple jus tice, and make it extend to every political community, however remote from the center. This is all I claim; and this much, I think, is.made more and more apparent the more we study the nature and design of our Government. To the student of political philose by our Government will hereafter appear td have no feature or power of oppression, aggressive or permissive. Vhen this is practically realized, and practically ncknowle ged, if such things be permitted to those beyond the grave, the 5 great men who stood up before the continental congress and proclaimed a new political theory may look down and say, “ It is accomplishedl it is accomplishedl”