Mr. DOOLITTLE. But, sir, I do not rest here. That statute was passed on the 13th of July, 1861, just about one week before the bat tle of Bull Run. We shall never forget that day 1 Our army, though successful in the morning, became panicstricken in the afternoon, and came back upon Washington in disorder, utterly demorahzed; and members of Cengress, too, who went out exulting with “ On to Rich mond l" upon their lips, to see a great victory, to witness “the races of fleeing rebels, came fleeing home themselves from the field of disaster. Y As soon after that battle as the members of Congress could conveniently assemble, in that hour of deep humiliation to us all, a resolution passed both Houses of Congress, by an almost unanimous vote, declaring our purpose in the prosecution of this war, and especially the determination of Congress in relation to the status and rights of the southern States. In that hour of defeat, when humbled before the nations and before the Supreme Ruler of the world, Congress, almost unanimously in both Houses, declared “That this war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, butto defendandmaintain the supremacy of the constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof, and to reserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, an rights of the several States unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.” This, bear in mind, was after the passage of the Collamer statute, and within 2 weeks after. It is the later, the more solemn, and the more explicit declaration of the intention of congress in carring on the war. The Senfrom Massachusetts says that statute intended to put 11 States out of this Union. Certainly the statute says no such thing. o must infer it. He rests upon inference onl, while this resolution, 12 days afterwar s. in express terms declares the intention of Congress to keep them in the Union, “to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equaity, and rights of the several States unimpaired. By these words, and none can be stronger, Congress in, express terms excludes the possibility of that inference. It does more; it rejects his whole theory of disunion. We expelled Brilit, of Indiana, for writing a letter to Jefferson Shvis, styling him “ President of the Confederate States.” thus, while a Senator, acknowledging the confederacy, and sympa thizin with the secessionists in arms. Ha the Senfrom Massachusetts, on the 25th of July, 1861, when we passed that resolution to which I have referre, as to the status of the southern States and the purpose of congress in prosecuting the war to put down the lnSlllTOClJOn risen in his place iere and declared that the Union was issolved; that congress, by the Collamer statute, had put 11 of the States out of the Union; that the war was to be prosecuted for the purpose, of conguering, holding, and governing those 11 totes, and ten million people, for an indefinite period of time, not as States under the Constitution, but as conquered provinces, and without representation; to be governed by the unlimite power of Congress, or by the sword, as Territories, I do not say that any action would have been taken against him personally, for his rights as a Senator would have been his protection; and, more than that, the sincerity of his motives and his unquestioned patriotism would have shielded him; but I do say that if he had then avowed that doctrine, and been made amenable for the guilt of his theory, he would have been expelled from the Senate as a secessionist, at least a disunionist; for certainly such a theory, announced then, would have given aid and comfort to the rebellion at home, and moral power to its friends abroad. It Will be remembered that resolution was offered in the Senate by Mr. Johnson, the present POTUS, who was then, and for a long time afterward remained, a Senfrom the State of Tennessee, and that, too, long after the Collamer statute, according to the Senators theor, had placed Tennessee outside the Union. Vhatl Tennessee represented in the Union and at the same time out side the Unionl Dead and yet alive! But some may say that resolution passed congress too soon after the battle of Bull Run to be taken as conclusive upon this question. I will refer to other acts of Congress if possible still stronger. The constitution says: “Representativesand direct taxes shall be apportionctl among the several States which may be included within this Union accordingto their respective numbers Under that authority, Congress, alter the passage of the Collanier statute, did bothapportioned both direct taxes and Representatives among the several States, including the southern as we las the northern and western States of this Union. I read from the 8th section of the act of August, 1861: Abife: That a direct tax of 8),00000boe and is hereby, annually laid uplou the U.S., and the sameshall be, and is. eroby, apportioned to the States respectively, and in manner following: To the state of maine . S428, 80206 To the state of NewHampshire. 218, 66} To the State of Vermont. 211, To the State of Massachusetts. "324. 5811} To the State of RhodeIsland. 116, 963btii To the State of Connecticut M214 To the State of NewYork 603, 91866} To the State of new JCT! 450, 13400 To the State of Pennsyli “(3. 71933} To the State of Delaware. 34, 683831 To the state of Maryland“ 436, 82333 To the State of Virginia. 55066 To the State of nCarolina. 46, 19466! To the State of SCarolina. 57066! To the State of Georgia. 36733} To the State of Alabama “L31833} To the State of Mississippi. 13466! To the State of Louisiana. 88666! To the State ofllliio., 0893“ To the State ofKcntu 695till To the State of Tennessu. 49800 To the State of Indiana. 8133} To the Slateof llliuois., 50133} To the State of Missouri. 761, 12783} To the State of Kansas". 71.?43331 To the State of Arkansas. 88600 To the State of Michigan“. 76333} To the State of Florida. 52266! To the State of Texas. 106661 To the State of Iowa. 03300 To the State ofliscon. 688661 To the State oftnliforniai To the State of Minnesota To the State of Oregon $15, 140 Sir, the question I put in the beginning, where are those 11 States? is answered here by Congress; I find them all “ includedwithin this Union, ” to use the language of the constitution, for the purpose of direct taxation. Every one of those 11 are found there and are taxed by name as States within the Union. Virginia as well as NewYork; Arkansas by the side of Michigan; Florida and Texas by the side of Iowa and Wisconsin. Direct taxes and representation go together. Has Congress s oken upon the subject of representation? hfost certainly. y an act approved the 4th of March 1862 which by its terms was not to take efibet till March 4, 1863, Congress apportioned the Reppresentatives upon the basis that those 11 southern States were still States in the Union, with their right to representation unimpaired. By that act, modifying former acts, Congress apportioned Representatives to the several States in this Union as follows! To Alabama. To Arkansas. To Indiana. To Iowa. to Knnsns To Kentucky. To Louisiana To Maine To Maryland. To Massachusetts To Miehigun. To Minnesota To Mississippi To MissouriTo Nevada. To NewHampshire. To NewJersey. To NewYork. “a Smuswwmiiwqiowwmq To Oregon. To Ponnsyh To RhdIsland“ To SCarolina To Tennessee. To “In To W That law is still in force. Under that law the present HoRep was chosen; under that law the present House is organized; under that law those 11 States of the South, have just as much right to representation as the other 25. Whether those States are in a condition to choose representatives, and whether they have chosen rig it Representatives, are questions I will discuss hereafter. I now speak only of the ir right to have representation under the existing law of Congress., Thus, by the action of Congress in apportioning direct taxes and representationthose 2 fundamentals in republican government the status of those 11 States as States included within this Union is declared and acted upon. Once more, by the act of the 7th of June, 1862, amended as late as February, 1863, congress, in the 9th section, provided that the tax commissioners in insurrectionary districts after bidding in for the U.S. landssold for an aid taxes, should, in the name of the U.S., enter upon and take possession of the same, and lease the same “until the said rebellion and insurrection in said State shall be gut down, and the civil authority of the U.S. established, and until the people of said State shall elect a Legislature and State officers, who shall take an oath to support the constitution of the U.S. to be an nounced by the proclamation of the Iresident.” and the 12th section provides “ that the proceeds of the said leases and sales shall be paid into the Treasury of the U.S., one 4th of which shall be aid over to the Governor of said State, ” “ when such insurrection shall be put down, and the people shall elect a Legislature and State officers who shall take an oath to support the constitution of the U.S., and such fact shall be proclaimed by the President, for the purpose of reimbursing the loyal citizens of said State, or for such other purpose as said State may direct.” Congress here declares in these sections, not that the States are outside the Union, not that they have lost their rights in the Union, but recognizing the insurrection in these States, declares 4 things: 1. The intention of congress to put down the I insurrection and ree stablish the civil authority in these States. 2. When the insurrection is put down the) people of these States have the right to elect their Legislature, Governor, and Stats officers. 3. When the people elect them, and they take their oath to support the constitution of the U.S., the President is, by law, required st Virgninia. to issue his proclamation to that effect. After the issue of such proclamation, the SecyTreasury is required to pay over certain moneys to the 7 ties of the State, to be disposed of as the Stars MAY manor. That law isin force now; is still the supreme law of the land. Itslanguage demonstrates with complete certaintya certainty which excludes all doubtthat, in the judgment of Congress, those 11 States are still States in this Union under the constitution. Having shown those"States to be in the Union under the constitution, I now inquire, what is their true situation? What rights have they, and what duties devolve on them? To answer these important questions let us inquire, what constitutes a State? “A Sun, in the meaningof public law, is a completeor selfsufficientbodyof personsunited together a one community for the defenseof their rights. It has affairsand interests; it deliborutes, and becomes a moral person, having understanding and will, and is susceptibleof obligations and laws. All the great writers on public law agree in this. “ In a more limited sensethe word State sometimes oxpresses merely the positive or actual organization of the legislative executive, or judicial powers thus the actual Governmentis designated sometimesby the name of State.” This distinction between what constitutes a State in the meaning of public law, and the word State as sometimes used to designate the form of its government, is just as clear as the distinction between a man and the garment he wears. In the DeclarIndep this great distinction between the State, the body political, which constitutes the State, and the vorm of its government, between “the people” whose right it is “to alter or to abolish their form of government, ” and “institute a new government, ” “organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness, ” is most clearly recognized. The State, the people, the body politic, “institute, alter, or agolish their form of government.” Despotism sometimes treats the body politic, the State, the people, as if the people were made for the government, and conounds the State with its ruling organization. Not so under the Declaration 6f Independence, under our republican system. Here the form of government is but an agency to serve the State. legislatures, judges, and executive officers are servants and not masters. I repeat, under the old despotism the form of government was organize to put all power in the monarch, who sometimes claime to be the State itself. It was Louis XIV who said, ”Etat, am moi!” I am the State. But the people of France, inr., Sure, decapitated this dgspotic assumption in the person of o e of his successors. James I as serted the same absolutism, and the people of England, THE STATE, did the same thing in on it brought Charles I to the block. It proved to be a very sad mistake in those crowne heads thus to ignore this distinction between the State and its accidents, between the bodypoliticitself and a mere form of government, which they, in their absolutisin, assumed themselves to be. This distinction as it seems to me, is some times lost sight of among us, and is the occasion of differences of views on the subject of reconstruction. Imay be ardoued, therefore, if I dwell still longer on this important point. I have shown that in view of public law nothing can be more clear than that a State does not consist of the form of its government. That is one of its accidents. That may be democratic, aristocratic, or theocratic; it may be military; it may be republican, despotic, or Ine uarchical. It may have anyone of these forms, or a mixed one, and yet it is a State. It may change its overument every year, as a tree casts of? its oliage. The State no more consists of its form of government than a man consists of the garment with which he is clothed. Hc may change that every day, he may be stripped of any garment whatever; but still the man remains; and for a State to change its form, or, for the time being, to be stripped of all form of government, no more destroys its existence than is a man destroyed when he takes off one coat to put on another, or is stripped entirely of his garments. Nor is a State destroyed by the declaration of martial law in it. nor by war, unless conquered by a foreign Power, or dismembered by revolution, and made into 2 or more States. To be invaded does not destroy it, if it expel the invader. To be torn by civilWar, “and even drenched in fraternal blood, ” does not destroyit either, unless the final issue of arms shall be against it. Take the case of Mexico: once a part of the Spanish empire; thena republic; then an emppirc; again a republic; and then a military dic tatorship; once more a republic; in danger now of being usurped by an Austrian monarch, under the protectorate of Napoleon. But, under all these different forms of government, despotic, republican, military, or impe rial, it is the same State. Times without nuin or it has been in civilWar, in revolution, almost in anarchy. Its existence as a State, however, still remains; and its rights as a State, among the nations, and especially to choose its own rulers and form of government, remain unimpaired. Let us now inquire what constitutes a State in this Union, under the constitution? I answer, the same things which constitute a State not in this Union, except so far as its rights, powers, and sovereignty are limited by the onstitution of the U.S. Under that, the U.S. has entire and absolute sovereignty over all external affairs; overall relations with foreign Powers. The U.S. has also paramount and absolute sovereignty over all internal affairs committed to itby the constitution. The State has a limited sovereignty over its do mestic affairs and inharests. I say limited sovereignty because an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S., which 3/4ths of all the States on adopt at any time, will still further abridge the rights and powers reserved to the States, and thus give additional powers to the U.S. Subject to these limitations, however, States in this Union have all the essential attributes, rights, and powers of States not in this Union. One of the limitations upon those rights 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 same distinction between a State and its government is clearly recognized in the clause of the constitution which provides that “the U.S shall guaranty to every State in this Union a RFG.” We see by this language a “State in this Union” is one thing: the form of its government another and different thing. Recognizing the right of a State, under the law of nations, to put on o. but off its form of government, it was thong it essential to 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, therefore, when conspiracy and rebellion attempts it, or when usurpation succeeds in doing so, in any Stateiu this Union, the U.S. not only has the right, but is bound to intervene against such usurpation, and restore to the State a republican form of State government and now, what are the facts? 2 radical ideas in the cotton States radically false. however namely, that the States had a right to secede, and that slavery was a blessing, had been so long advocated by the statesmen, press, schools, an clergy of those States, that a large portion of their peole, both men and women, came to believe in thern. These ideas became a part "of their political and religious faith. That alone explains the dos crate valor and obstinacy displayed by them in this struggle. Those ideas, like a contagion, ervaded the cotton States, and took deep root in the States of NCarolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, and Kentuckynot to the same extent, however. From conviction, by persuasion, through sympathy, or tear, or force, many of the peoplenot a majority, howeverof the Gulf States followed the lead of their chief conspirators, and were plunged by them head long into rebellion. Most of the persons exercising the functions of State government, the functionaries from choice, force, or interest, joined it also, and thereby the State governments, as organized, were dominated by the rebellion and made to do its work. It was a usurpation. In that work they went further, and endeav ored to establish a confederation of States, as an independent POWer among the nations of the earth. As all these proceedings were in violation of the constitution, and legally null and void, the U.S. was bound to treat them as such, and maintain the supremacy of the conStitution. The rebellion appealed to the sword. Had the rebellion been successful it would have become a revolution, and whether right or wrong, the separation of those States and teoverthrow of the constitution in those States would have become an accomplished fact. But the rebellion was not successful. To attempt and to succeed is one thing; to attempt and fail is another. In the one case it is supressed insurrection; in the other a successfufrevolution, in which a new Power is born into the family of nations. Like the bonds for the confederate debt, payable only after the U.S shall recognize its intfependeuce, the confedera itself can have no existence until its indepenence is secured. The whole nestion turns on success or failure, victory or efeat. But here arises another and entirely different question: what effect did the rebellion and our overcoming it have upon the functions of the socalled confederacy and of the State governments? The functions of the confederacy, with the confederation itself, were utterly overthrown. It was a complete collapse: Under the constitution it never had any validity. It was alivays null and voidan illegality; more, sir, a crime. It rested not upon its right, but upon its sword. When that was taken it vanished and all that remains to the great conspirators are the disa pointed hopes and hideous dreams, unrealiz, of madness, folly, and ambition. But. what effect did the rebellion have during its existence upon the forms of government. upon the persons exercising the functions of government, and upon the laws themselves existing before the rebellion in these States 3 I answer, generally, the rebellion from the be ginnin was an attein that revolution, to dissolve the allegiance o those States and their people to the constitution of the U.S., and to transfer that alleviance to the new confederation of States; and for the time bein just such changes were made in their form of government and functionaries and laws as would aid that object, and no more. Bear in mind, the rebellion did not contemplate destroying these States or reducing them into Territories at all. The prominent idea was or pretended to be to save to the States greater rights and powers and sovereignty than were conceded to them in the Union under the federal constitution, one of which was this right of State secession. The whole purpose of the rebellion was to transfer the allegiance of those States from the Federal Union to the confederation of the South. Our whole pu so was to prevent that, and save those States in the Union, and compel them and their people to acknowledge their allegiance to it. We strn led to save the States in a more perfect Union under our constitution. They struggled to save the States with greater rights and powers in the confederation. Upon this the war was made by them, and upon that issue it went on until the end. Neither party belligerent sought to destroy, but to save the States. Neither party sought to destroy, but save 1866. 271 a RFG in each of those States. Neither party sought to take from the people of those States the right to choose their over nors and Legislatures, and to have their own judicial officers, nor to take away the right of rercsentation in a national Government. but the real issue was whether these officers would bear allegiance to the Federal Union or to the rebel confederacy. Neither party struggled to take from the people of ose States eir right to govern themselves, under their own State lawswhich, after all, is republican governmentnor to disturb the great body of ose State laws. Except in so far as they aided the Union or the rebel cause, neither sought to make any change, or claimed the right to make any, whatever. tis true that slavery, to defend which was the avowed object of the rebellion, and which becameduring the war the chief support of its armies, was put directly in issue. It was the cornerstone of their confederacy; and when the confederacy fcll its cornerstone was of course buried in its rains. I can affirm, then, that neither the State nor its ovefnment, neither its office of Governor, its eglslature, or its judiciary, were, during the rebellion, sought to be destroyed or changed in any manner y either belligerent part, any further than it bore upon the question o allegiance to the Union upon one side, or to the rebel confedl erac upon the other, and to the existence or the estruction of slavery. But for slavery, and questions growin out of it, and ambitions and ideas fostered y it, there never would have been an rebellion at all. No change was sought in the stalus of the States, in tie forms of their governments, or in their laws, except for or on account of slavery alone. Take the case of Georgia, the empire State of the South. Did the rebellion nttemptto destroy the State of Georgia, as a State? Not at all. It did attempt to dissolve all relations with the U.S., and transfer them to the rebellious confederaey; to throw off allegiance to the Federal constitution, and come under the confederate constitution; in short, to take Georgia as a State out of the Union and put it into another, uni0n, in a new confederation. Had the rebellion succeeded, would the State of Georgia have been destroyed? Itwould certainly have ceased to be a State in this Union, but itwould have still existed as a powerful State, not as a Territory in its new political relations. The great body of) its constitution would remain the same, the great body of its civil and criminal laws the same, as before the rebellion. All the laws on contracts, bargain, sale, and conveyance of real estate; all the laws concerning real or personal estate; the laws of marriage the family relations; and generally all the rights and remedies affecting persons and property and personal liberty, would have remained the same. No effort was made materially to change them. The only effect, in case the rebellion adsuc ceeded, would have been to make Georgia a State outside of this Union, a State in another Union. Now that the rebellion has utterly failed to put the State of Georgia into a new union, did the attempt to do so, and the crushing of that attempt, put Georgia as a State out of this Union? or destroy Georgia as a State in this Union? or reduce Georgia from astate in this Union to be a Territory? This seems to be the view advocated by my colleague in his elaborate and able srpeechupon this resolution. It is due to him an to the important questions involved that I give some further attention to this part of the subject. I shall not go over the ground I have already trod; I will only observe that it is beyond be lief to suppose that the people or the State of Georgia themselves over intended to reduce themselves from the condition of a State to the condition of a Territory.Their ruling idea their intensest wish, was to exalt the State and make its sovereignty paramount. It was with them a assiou. Itbeqame their frenz. The U.S. had no such purpose either. I have already shown you that by all the legislation of Congress, by every proc amation of the President, neither Congress nor the president ever held another language than what was expressed in the last clause of the resolution of July 24, 1861, that our purpose was to maintain the “supremacy of the constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof, and to reserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired.” But to pursue the case of Georgia a little further. bile as I have shown, neither party belligerent sought to destroy, and both sought to save and to hold the State of Georgia, the one as a State in this Union, and the other as a State in the rebel confederation, did the issue of arms, which decided it should not be a State in the confederation, and should remain under the supremacy of the constitution, reduce Georgia to the territorial condition, against her own wish and the avowed purpose of Congress? I have already shown that Georgia was not changed from a State to a Territory by the rebellion. Was it so changed by our crushing the rebellion? I admit that, pending the progress of this great civilWar, the greatest the world ever saw, the growth of military power was such in all those States of the Sout as to almost suspend the civil lawscertainly during the last 2 years of the rebellion; that reel martial law dominated the whole confederncy, and subjected at will the civil law to its dominion. It became for the time being a bloody rebel military des potism. When our armies entered Georgia and over come the rebel army, then what was the effect? The 1st and immediate effect. was to substitute Union martial rule for rebel martial rule. Neither the one nor the other, as we have seen, destroyed the existence of the State. But it did what tvar always does, more or less, suspended for the time being the civil laws and the functions of civil government in the clash of arms. It neither suspended nor destroyed the State, but it cban edp the ruling power in it from the commauder of the rebel army to the commander of the Union army. Just before GenlSherman entered Geor gia, what was the law of Georgia? The will of the rebel general. Just after his surrender, what became the law of Georgia than? The will of GenlSherman , under the Command crinChief, both under the constitution of the U.S. The whole peo10 of Georgia, black and white, bond and free, ecame subject, for the time being, to military rule, subject to military control, under the laws of war. Of all governments the military is mo stdespotic. It is concentrated despotism, despotism without any mixture. He could have wasted every field, burned every dwelling, sacked eve town, pressed every man into service. he did cap ture and set free every slave. I may here so those slaves are our prisoners, captives whic: we have taken from their masters; and by the agencies of the Freedmens Bureau, under the ll or Dept, we are now cudeavoring to make them free in fact, as well as in right. Therewas not a horse or mule he could not have taken; not a man woman, or child he could not. have sent out of the State or employed in any service he might have deemed necessary or useful to put down the rebellion, to put an end to the war, which the law of nations does not forbid; But did GenlSherman destroy orintend to destroy the State of Georgia? Did the president order him to destroy it? By no means. He went to save, not to destroy. Did Congress direct the President to destroy it? No; but it did direct him, in the most solemn form, to prosecute the war to preserve Georgians a State in the Union, with all its “dignity, equality and rights unimpared, ” and that when that object was accomplished the war ought to cease. To that end Congress clothed the President with greater military power than an nation has developed in modern times. An allthis tremen dous power of the President is conferred bylaw of Congress. Nothing, in myjndgment, canbe more certain than that Congresshas bylaw exsressly delegated to the President the power to o all he has done in those States, or it has imposed upon him duties which necessarily involved or implied all the powers be has exercised. By the act of July 22, 1861, the President was authorized to accept 500,000 volunteers for the rpose of suppressing insurrection, ” provided that the services of the volunteers shall be for such time as the President may direct, not exceeding 3 years, nor less than 6 months, and the shall be disbanded at the end of the war.” isbanded by whom? By the President. When disbanded? At the end of the war. Congress by thisand other acts authorizes the President to put into the field nearly 2 million soldiers to put down this rebellion; to use every means on sea and on land known to civilized warfare to put an end to the war; congress expressly directs him to disband the volunteers at the end of the war, and by act of July 29, 1861, to reduce the standing Army to 25,000 within one year after the end of the “existing insurrection and rebellion.” Butwhat shall constitute the end of the war? Congress, by resolution ofJuly 24, unanimously declared the end to be when the supremacy of the constitution is reestablished, an the Union is preserved with the rights. equality, and dig nity of everystate unimpaired. Congress also declares that the reduction of the standing Army shall take place within “one year after the constitutional authority of the Government of the U.S shall be ree stablished, and organized resistance to such authority shall no longer exist” that is, one year after the end of the war. It is not, as the Senfrom Mus sachusetts and my colleague seem to an pose, to end when those 11 States shall e reduced from their position of States in the Union with their “ dignity, equality, and rights unim paired, ” to the condition of Territories, which are mere dependencies, with no dignity, no equality, no rights under the constitution, except to be governed by the absolute will of 1 Congress in which they have no representution, or to be held by the despotism of) the sword. The end of the war was to be the suppression of the rebellion and the maintenance of the union, under the constitution, unbroken. But who isto judge when the constitutional authority of the government is reestablished? Who is to judge when the organized resistance to such authority has ceased 2 Upon whom rests the responsibility of deciding these questions? Congress exressly says the volunteers shall be employee as long as the “President shall direct; that he shall disbnnd them at the end of the war; and reduce the regular Army one year afier constitutional authority shall be reestablished and organized resistance no longer exist. The President alone is made the judge of the time when the insurrection is suppressed and when the Army shall be withdrawn. It is no power and no responsibility assumed by him in derotion oflaw. it is expressly imposed u)o“ him y Congress as a duty. Congress by law authorized and required the President, 1st, to raise the Army. 2nd, to suppress the insurrection, and reestablish the supremacy of the constitution. 3rd, to reserve the Union of the States with their rights in the Union unimpaired. 4th, to judge and determine when these ends are attained. 5th, after those ends shall be attained, to disband the Army, and return the soldiers once more to the pursuits of peace. In short, congress not only empowered, but required, the President to perform a twofold duty: one, to make war; and the other, to stop making war after its end is reached: in other words, to make peace; the 1st, to draw and wield the sword; the 2nd, after making peace, to return it to its scabbard. T he 1st of these great duties, namclv, drawing the sword and wielding 1t, resm mmnty upon President Lincoln. The second, namely, making peace, and then sheathing the sword, rests mainly upon his successor; it though most fortunately, for him, and for the whole people, Mr. Lincoln had already entered upon the great work of reconstruction, of making peace, in or der to be able, after peace had cometo borrow his own beautiful language, after “ peace had come, and come to stay, ” to fulfill that other great duty imposed upon him by; the laws of congress namely, to disband is immense Army on send them home; in sword, to restore a nations peace, in a union of States and people under the constitution, with “their rights unimpaired, ” and, after that eatwork, the end and object of all our struggles and sacrifices, was done, to sheaths the nations sword. While he lived, Mr. Lincoln performed these duties, and performed them well. It is true, there were some mistakes in the beginning; with our inexperience and imtience the wonder is there were not more. ime was necessary to accomplish the great work, to educate the public mind, to prepare the armies, and to find tlfic leaders who were capable of commanding 1; cm. How could Mr. Lincoln know, unless gifted with omniscience, that in the person of a teacher of a mili academy in Louisiana, was to be found that ajor GenlSherman , who, like Gods flaming minister, at the head of his conquering legibns, was to swee through the heart of the rebellion? How could he know that in that quiet, nnostentations citizen of Galena was to be found the great captain of the age, ieu tenant GenlGrant, who knew when, “like Fabius, to be the cloud, and like Scipio, the thunderbolt of war?” Thank Heaven l he found the great commanders at last, which in Gods Own good time brought the final and supreme victory over the rebellion. Thank God! Mr. Lincoln was permitted to live until the 1st at work of crusing the rebellion was almost ifdreie, and the 2nd hardly less important work of reconstruction was already well egun. I have already called your attention to his last public specch just before his assassination, in which, in g adness of heart whose expression could not be restrained for the hope of a righteous and s eedy peace, and in which, also, With apower o logic and clearness of statement, and force of illustration never an passed in the best efforts of that great and goo man, he explained and defended and enforced this policy of reconstruction. It was at such amomeuta moment of most supreme exaltationwhen the prayer ofhis soul was answered; when the long night ofblood and agony and tears was past, an the golden light of the morning of peace dawned upon his vision, he fell by the assassins handhis consciousness suspended in an instant. From the acme of human glory he passed to the glo on high from this mortal to the immortal li ea martyr to the cause of his country, and of liberty to all mankind. It was what the ancient world would call an a otheosis. Thus t ie great office of President providentially fell upon Mr. Johnson, with all its duties and all its responsibilities; and the gravest of them all, now that the armed forces of the rebellion have surrendered is this 2nd great dutyof making eace, and then disbandin the Army. When he took the Presidency there were more than a million men upon the rolls of the Army, ” and many of the rebel armies were still in the field. I now come to the consideration of the most important, and just atthis moment perhaps the most practical, question, namely: what were the Bowers and duties imposed by law upon the resident, in closing the war on making peace, which, of necessity, must precede the disband in of the Army? ow, in the very nature of things, making peace is just as much an executive duty as Wuing war. Iii he can know, but the CommanderinCbief when his adversary yields, when he is destroyed or captured, surrenders, or makes overtures of peace? To whom does the vanquished party cry for quarter and terms of surrender, but to him who wields the sword? I repeat, sir, making eace is an executive duty just as much as maing war. The law of Congress which authorized the war authorized the stop in of the war; the disbanding of the forces which are employed in it, when the president has finished his work and shall think it safe and proper to do so; when he is assured that the war is over, that peace has come, “and come to stay.” If we are engaged in war with a foreign country, when we get through with the war, the President makes peace. Congress has nothing to do with it. The President enters intoa treaty of peace, and that treat is submitted to the Senate for ratification. I 2/3rds of the senate advise and consent, the treaty is ratified and peace is made. Congress may declare war, the do not make peace. Iiow is peace made in case of a civilWar among ourselves? When we overcome armed resistance to our laws and the constitution, which is civilWar, when the insurgents shall, in good faith, submit themselves to the laws an the constitution, peace follows of course. Peace has already come, for obedience to the laws is eace. All the great writers on public law agree that the whole end and purpose of a just war is to obtain a just and righteous peace; and having shown that this duty of making peace has been placed by Congress upon the I resident; having shown that, from the necessities of the case, such a duty is executive, and therefore, in its nature, impossible to be done by Congress except through the Executive, I proceed to inquire with whom, and in what way, is the president to make that peace which was the object of the war on our part and which was a condition recedent to withdrawing the Army? That invo ves this other inquiry, who and what was or is at war against the U.S.? 1st of all, the rebel army. No one can doubt the power of the President to deal with thatto fight it, crush it, capture it, or accept its surrender, With or without conditions. f upon conditions, these conditions bind the good faith not only of the Executive but of the U.S. In the terms of Lees capitulation there was an important condition inserted, binding the good aith of the U.S., namely, that, upon condition of their obedience to the laws, the officers and soldiers of the rebel armies should not be disturbed by the authorities of the U.S. What memberof Congress, what man, in or out of Congress, would propose?a violation, on our part, of that stipulation There is, in the 2nd place, the people of those States, who have been declared in insurrection, who, from giving aid and comfort to the rebellion have incurred the crime of trea son against the U.S., and who are lia ble, upon trial and conviction, to forfeit their procrty, their citizenshi, and even their lives. but power has the resident under the constitution and laws, to deal with these imarmed insurgents? 1st, under the Constitution, he has the power to pardon and restore to citizenship, either before or afterconviction; he has the power of amnesty, upon such terms and conditions as he shall judge most conducive to the peace of the country. If, as many contend, the insurgents are to be treated only in their capacity of individuals, and not in their capacity as States, this power of pardon alone would cover the whole case, and plie could restore all to citizenship. But he had another power over them under the laws of congress; and I now inquire, upon the surrender of the armies, what further power had the President to deal with those persons who, though riot found in arms, were still equall guilty by aiding and abetting the rebellion 7 answer, all the power of CommanderinChief exercising military rule in those States for the time bein. By the Iaw of nations, the commander of a great and conquering army when he enters a State, for the time being subjects all the civil laws to military control; his will becomes the supreme law, and he a temporary dictator. H6 may organize a provisional civil government, as the Supreme Court decided in the case of Cross against Harrison, to preserve order and pievent anarchy. Be end all question, before withdrawing or disbaning hisArmy, he had the power, and it was his imperative duty, to know whether the rebels not found in arms, who, as many insist, were a large majority of the people of those States, had also submitted and surrendered the rebel cause. Had he at once withdrawn the Union Army upon the surrender of the rebel army, who knows but that another rebel army would have been raised at once to fight againstthe Government? It was as much his duty, therefore, under the laws of Congress, for him to make sure of their submission before withdrawing the troops as it was to make sure of the surrender of their armies. Without their submission his work would have been only half done. He therefore had a rightay, sir, it was his imperative dutyto deal directly with the unarmed rebels as well as with their military forces, which he could do both as Military commander, and as holding the power to pardon. But there are some who maintain that the States, as bodies politic, in their State on acity waged this war upon the Government. Vith out admittingor denying this assumption, grant, for the sake of the argument, that to be so, what power and duty would in that view of the case, e imposed upon the iresident by law of congress? I answer, to deal with the States as belligerents. If the States, as such, were in rebellion and waging war against the U.S., then, of course, the law authorizin the President to prosecute the war against the rebellion of necessity authorized the President to prosecute the war against the States; and, as he was not authorized to disband the Army until the war was over, and as the war could not be over until the States submitted to the conditions of peace, the President had the power and it became his duty to deal directly with the States upon the terms and conditions of peace. It was just as much a necessity for him to know that the States submitted and accepted the terms of ace, as that their armies should surrender before he disbanded the Army of the U.S. The object of all legitimate war is to conquer a peace. If the States, as such, were at war against the U.S., the capture ofan army would not end the war so long as they should remain hostile. The Army was to be reduced when “organized resistance” should no longer exist. So orig as organized States are at war against the Government organized resistance does exist, and he could not disbnnd the Army. Had he immediately upon the surrender of the armed forces disbanded our Army, leaving the States still at war, there would be no peace, and could be no once; and once was to be a condition precedent to his disandment of the Army. All the writers on the law of nations concurthat the only lawful purpose ofwar is nee. The president, there ore, beingauthorizedb law tomako peace, was empowered to deal with all the parties at war a ninst the U.S., namely, with the rebe army; with all the rebel insur gents, whether they are to be regarded as neting in their individual capacity, or in their organized political capacity as the people of a State. I now inquire, what must be the terms and conditions of peace in order to put an end to civilWar in these U.S.? I answer, the constitution of the U.S. is the para mount and indissoluble bond of union and relationship and peace among the several States. An attempt to overthrow that is civilWar. submission to that is eace. Therefore, neither the President, nor congress, nor the Supreme Court, nor all put together can make any other treaty of peace or bend o relationship among the States. Nothing short of successful revolution or of a decision of the sovereign people of the U.S. to amend that constitution, can change the relationship between the States l866. 273 one jot or tittle. Though men and parties may change, the constitution as the basis of that relationship in this Union will remain perpetual. What terms had the President a right to demand of these States, or of their people as conditions precedent to peace and the withdrawal of the Arm? 1st, an before all, and as the basis of all, unqualified submission to the constitution of the U.S., and all laws of Congress passed in pursuance thereof. 2nd, the annulling of all acts, laws, and proceedings by which the States made or prosecuted war against the U.S., including the rebel debt. 3rd, acquiescence in the situation which the war has brought upon them, including the ab polition of slavery, for and on account of which they made the war; for the sincerity of such acquiescence, and as the supreme test of its good high, the odetion of the constitutional amendment by which slavery, the cause of the war, is surrendered and made impossible, and liberty made sure, by being placed under the gardianship of Congress in every State and Territory forever. 4th, the practical resumption of their political duties, upon those terms, as States in the Union. These are the conditions, in substance, upon which President Lincoln almost 3 years ago announced to the people of these States the terms of pacification to which he pledged the support of the Executive Government. 1 ese are the substance of the terms otfere by President Johnson. Several of the States, or the people of several States, have acceted them, an offer new to resume all their political duties as States in this Union, and practically enjoy their rights as such. Shall we allow them to do so? If these terms have been accepted by these States, or the peeple of these States, ingood faith, is not the faith of this nation pledged? Just as much ledged as by the terms contained in the surrender of their armies? It is not a sufficient answer to say, this congress is not bound by the acts of preceding congresses, and therefore we can pass laws requiring the President to impose other and new terms of pacification not required by preceding congresses. Technically that may be urged; but it will not do for a eat nation, dealing with a fallen enemy after c has surrendered, to impose new and other terms. Had we been fighting with any foreign Power, the treaty made by the President would have been most scrupu lously kept. As between and among the States, the constitution which is the treaty of peace, and more than a treaty, which forms a perfect Union, and makes the States one famil is certainly to be regarded with equal sacreness and validity on our part, when after a civilWar peace is made, and the offendin citizen or State makes submission in good fait, and seeks to renew allegiance. Nothing is more clear than that we have made no conquest of these States. We hold them only by virtue of our original right as States under the constitution. But the question is sometimes at, by what powerthen, if these States are still in the nion, oes the President appoint these provisional or military governors? That question is important; but to that question the answer, in my judgment, is perfectly clear. The President does not make the appointment of these agents call them by what name you will, provisional governors, military governors, commissioners, agents, heralds of peace, generals, anything on please, nor does he employ these agencies, y virtue of his authority as a civil may istrate. They are not civil appointments. they are in no sense civil otheers, for there is no law under which they are appointed at all. They are mere military agIats of the President, as CommanderinChiei at the Army, who is bound to ascertain the fact, which he must know before he can discharge this duty of mustering the forces out and of withdrawmg the Army. He sends these a cuts into the several States for the purpose o ascertaining whether the rebellion is suppressed; not only whether the people have ceased armed resistance, but intend to submit in good faith and make no more resistance to the authority of the Government. These agents are by him authorized to ascertain that fact; in substance, to put certain questions to the people in these States, no matter in what form they are to be answered, whether by an election, the casting of ballots, or by an oath. The question is, “Are you willing now, in good faith, to submit to and accept the true situation which the warhas brought upon you? Are you ready, as free States, to at on a RFG? anders you determined hereafterto be lawful and lawabiding citizens of the U.S.?” If they answer that they are, what then? “Assure me of that, ” says the President, “and I will withdraw the military power; I will nolonger hold yen as CommanderinChief; I will no longer govern you by martial law; I will withdraw the troops and let the civil laws, which are silent in the midst of arms, once more come into full lay. You may substitute the ballot of the loya citizen for the bayonet of the soldier which I command. I am then safely sheaths the sword and leave you to yourselves and when I can do that there is eace.” his is the substance of it all. You may say there is an air of the civilian, a scent of the civil law and civil authority in the legal forms employed in which to put and answer these questions. What of that? These agents are military agents, although wearing the garb of the civilian. They are called proviSional governors, but in reality they are commissioners to propose terms of peace or to see if eace has come in reality, or whether it is a hollow and deceitful a pearance of peace only. They are not civi governors, but provisional governors. Nomatter what you call them names are of no consequence. If they had been sent out simply as spies, by a commanding general to ascertain the temperof the people; to learn whether they mean to keep the peace, or, soon as the Army is withdrawn, to fight again, for the purse of satisfing the President whether he could safely with raw his military force or not, it is all the same thing. It is, o necessity, a military question, and clearly within the scope and duty of a military commander. It is, therefore, no invasion, no trampling upon the rights of any of those States, to use such agencies. Now, to illustrate this a little more fully. suppose the President had not employed anybody, but had gone himself to do all these things that his agent, his commissioner, provisional governor, or whatever you call him, is authorized by him to do; and suppose he should go around himself among the people, and that all his Cabinet should go along with him, administering oaths of allegiance, and organizing elections by which the people could show their disposition toward the Government, in order that, upon his own knowledge, he could deter mine whether it was his duty still to keep the Army in force or to withdraw it, and say to the people of the State, “Now you can go on; I cave you to yourself; reorganize your civil government, republican in form” what then would become of this objection that the president was assuming power? It would vanish in an instant. But suppose he had done this, which in my judgment would have been the simplest of all; suppose he had authorized the general in command to act for him, to do all this through officars in the Army, to test the loyalty and allegiance of the people of that State toward the Government of the U.S.; to advise them to accept the situation in which the war has placed them; to abolish the institution of slavery; to ratif the amendment to the constitution of the U.S. which abolishes slavery in every State, and thus demonstrate that the have accepted their situation as free States orever as the result of this war? Or go a step further and suppose that he had authorized GenlSherman to make just these propositions to them; suppose they adbeen may e as a part of the term of the surren der of the armies under the express direction of the President, who could ever doubt the Presidents poweias CommanderinChief to make them? Who, then, I ask, can doubt that the President has power to send an agent down into anyone of those States, and by the co operation of the military commander, do precisely the same thing now? Who can doubtit? The reason, probably, why the Administration, instead otpemploying ageneral in command, appointed special agents to do this duty, was twofold: 1st because it was supposed that some person who adpersonal influence among the people, who had not been connected with the Army, might have more influence in prevailing upon that people to accept the situation war had brou t upon them t n one who had passed throng their country in the terrible storm of war, and whose red right hand had been to them like the scourge of God. It was doubtless supposed that a man selected from among their own people, of great influence among them, might be listened to, that his counsels would be more likely to lead them in their very souls to submit, in good faith, to the authority of the Government. We know that, in ancient times, there were certain persons performing substantially the same duties, who were denominated heralds, who were sent out to announce terms of peace upon the termination of the conflict. It does not matter by what names these persons are called. The power exists as one of the necessary incidents o Military authority and military operations, a part of which is to make peace as well as to make war. Another reason, probably, why Mr. Johnson appointed these provisional governors grows out of the fact that his predecessor made similar appointments, and substantially adopted the same policy. As Mr. Johnsons Cabinet is composedpof the same men who constituted the Cabinet of Mr. Lincoln, no doubt their advice has been to him the same which they have to Mr. Lincoln, and which he has accepte as the true policy in restoring civil government in those States. You remember, as I have before stated, that Mr. Johnson himself was appointed military governor of Tennessee. He had experience in that cgmcity in endeavoring to restore civil government in that State. Probably no man in the U.S. was better prepared to judge than AndrewJohnson growing out of the fact of his ability, his perect knowledge of the South and of the people of the South, and his actual experience while he was military governor, as he was called, of Tennessee. Therefore he was likely to follow Mr. Lincoln in the line of policy adopted by him, and which he had himse actually tried and put into operation. But I nowqcome to the question of representation in Congress. Having shown them to be States in this Union, and therefore entitled to representation under the constitution; having shown that Congress, by the same law under which the present House was elected and organized, a portioned the 241 mcmgers just as much among these 11 southern States as among the remaining 25, and that under that law their right to representation is just as certain as the right of any northern State. I now come to consider another and wholly different question. 1st, ” whether they have properly chosen Sens&Reps; and 2nd, whether they have chosen right Representatives. Although a State may have a right to choose Representatives, it may not be in a condition to choose them. A raging pestilence might suspend elections; a foreign invasion might may e them impossible; insurrection and civilWar might do the same thing; the temperof a people might become so diseased or estranged that for a time they would refuse to choose them. While this would not take away the right to have Representatives it would deprive them of Representatives in fact. Again, in exercising the rightto choose, they may select men, incapable, iuoli ible, or unfit to be received in either House o Congress. A friend asked me the other day, shall this Congress admit as Sens&Reps rebels fresh from the battlefield, whose swords are yet drippin with the blood of our sons nndbrothers? Ifo, sir, no; who has ever thought or dreamed of any such thing? The oath required of them makes that impossible and does anyone suppose that this Senate, which expelled Bright or writing a letter to JeffersonDavis, has not the power or the cour age to defend itself against the guilty instigators of this great crime? Have we no confidence in ourselves? 1 Another asked, what security have we th it the South will not rebel again if we admittheir rerosentatives? I answer this estion by an al. er: would there not be tenfoldlmore danger of their rebelling if we do not give them representation than it we do? Who does not know that the most justifiable of all causes for rebellion or revolution is to tax and govern a people without representation? The old 13 re. belled against England forthat, and 4 of those 13 are among the States my colleague would now reduce to the territorial condition. U to this time the South never had any justifiable cause for rebellion. Follow out the policy of the Senfrom Massachusetts and my colleague, and you will give them what all the world will say is a just cause for war. By so doin, we shall change positions with them. We shall place ourselves in the wrong, and give them just cause of complaint, now that they have surrendered. We were right in the beginning; right in every step of our progress in the war; right in authorizing the President to end the war when the supremacy of the constitution was vindicated, and the union of the States, with their rights and equality uuim aired, restored; right intendering to the robe s upon their surrender magnanimous terms of peace, more magnanimous than we would offer to a foreign foe, because they are a part of our people with whom by interest, by necessity, and by the logic of geographical and commercial position, we are forever bound to live and he] the closest relations. If we new direct the President to withdraw the terms of pacifieation he has offered and they have accepted, and above all, if we should in the spirit of this resolution of my colleague, declare them no longer States in this Union, but Territories, subject to the control of Congress as the other Territories of the U.S., we should place ourselves in the wrongz falsify all our professions of devotion to the integriof the nion, and reduce them to be our ependents and vassals., For one moment consider the condition of the Territories. They are not under the constitution at all. Mr. Webster in one of his mas terly efforts, Mr. Benton in his review of Dred Scott, demonstrated that the constitution is for States and not for Territories at all. Territor ries are outside do endencies, and governed by Congress, not undiar its power limited by the constitution, but by its alisolute power. The Supreme Court decided in Centers case, and have often aliirmed the doctrine, that Congress possessed all legislative power over the Territo ries as absolute as in the DistCol. What, in effect, does the Senfrom Massachusetts and my colleague propose? To place Outside of the constitution and to govern with unlimited power 11 States and ten million people, nearly 1/3rd of all the States and people of the U.S., without any Representation and is this the we to pacify a greatl cpuntry and satisfy the wish of a great people e people of the South have been so completely proStrated by this war that they would ear almost any humiliation before rising in arms again. But if there is any mode of proceeding more likely than any other to provoke them to do so it is this proposition thus to reduce them to be our vassals. What effect would it have upon ourselves? It would turn the North into a nation of slave holders, the people of the South being ourslaves. All slave in the end destroys both master and slave. this would very soon make the South not fit to be free, and we ourselves become too much corrupted and demoralized by the exercise of such power to permit them to be free. To hold them thus would require the presence of a large standing army, which, if kept on foot for a long time, is sure in the end to undermine the virtue of republican institutions and preare the way for a concentrated despotism, pera s an empire. t would subject as to inculculablo expense, which the financial situation of the country is in no condition to bear. It would, in my opinion, and in this I feel that I am sustained y the opinion of the present able head of the Treasury, affect our national credit most disastrously at home and abroad. It is well known that upon the reception of the Presidents message at frankfortou theMain our bonds advanced two%. Reverse his policy and treat those States as subject, conquered provinces, and our national credit would sink at once. such a course would incite, if not produce, another civilWar. It would keep the question open, to be the source of everinereasing irritation, until all be e of union would be gone. twould demoralize and dishearten the friends of the Union at the South, and turn their loyalty into hatred.” If, ” said Mr. Lincoln, “we reject and spurn them, we do our utmost to disorganize and disperse them. If, on the contrary, we recognize and sustain them, the converse of all this is made true; we encourage their hearts and nerve their arms to adhere to their work, and argue for it, and roselyte for it, and fight for it, and feed it, and pgrow it, and ripen itinto a complete success.” It would make those who hated the Union during the war and who, upon the surrender of Lee, gave up all hope or thought of further resistance, and were ready to renew their allegiance to the constitution, hate the Union more bitterly than ever. Again, sir, other rave considerations plead to sustain the presients policy. How can we be e that the great mass of the people South will engage earnest] and hopefu y in the production of cotton, the great staple of export, unless the pacifieation of the States is made complete, and in time for the coming crop? Our financial situation, therefore, demands peace, and peace as a reality. such a peace would be impossible if we attempt to reduce those States to the condition of erritories. Some speak of the wealth of our mines. I do not doubt it. But for present resources to meet our engagements they cannot compare withthe cotton elds of the South. Every dollar of gold reduced in Colorado has thus for cost two. Yhen the railroad reaches the mountains, to carry laborers and supplies, that will be reversed; but not till then. But were peace now fully restored the cot ton fields of the South, worked by free labor and free capital, this season would produce all that our necessities require, and all that industry should hope for to those who engage in it. I have just seen a letter from William A. Parker, from Evergreen, Alabama, under the date of January 3, 1866, to the ComrAg, in which he says: “As itmaynot be uninteresting toyou toknow whpt are the agricultural prospectsof the presentyour in this section, I will briefly state the results of my oh servntionsin this and the adjoining countyof Monroe. There is a vigorous and enterprisipg spirit prevalent. The preparntions for the coming crop in the 2 respects of land and labor are more extensive thaprever before.” he freedmrn have shown themselves willing and ready to enter into fair and reasonable contracts to pfe fqrmlabor. Nearly all of them are already emp ". Planters and farmers aresanguine. A bettersiate of thimrsgenerally exists than has been known for a long time in this part of the country. There is less idlenessand more Work on the part of all classes. There is also being exhibited an increassd interest in education. "I have the honor to be, kc.” Sir, everything in our power shall be done to secure the crop of the coming season. Again, sir, how do we stand in relation to foreign Powers? Who does not know that during the rebellion the Emperor of France desired and believed in its success? Because he believed in it he undertook the Mexican intervention; Lord Palmerston sympathized with him, and would, if he could, have committed England to join with him to establish the independence of the southern confederacy. But England saw a few iratical cruisers, built in her ports and mannc by her sailors, under the rebel flag sweeping our commerce from the ocean. She saw at once, that in case of war with us, our cruisers would swarm in every sea and destroy her commerce in return. I ere fore, from interest, she refused to accept Na poleons offer and now, can any man so for blind himself to the situation as not to know that we must close up this civilWar and restore the union of these States in such amanner as to have the right to claim the allegiance of the southern peoplB before we can speak with the voice of a united vpeople, either to England about damages or to rence about intervention in Mexico? There is no great consideration worthy of a statesman in this crisis which does not plead for and insist upon pucification and, in my Judgment, there is no better way than to carry out the LincolnJohnson policy of reconstruction. The war of blood is over. It is now a moral warfare; a warfare with the reasons, hearts, feelings, passions, prejudices, and sentiments of that people and of all the propositions which can be conceived there is none, in my judgment, which will so shock the reason, so deeply wound the sensibilities, and so rouse the passions and prejudices of that people, as this proposition to tax and govern them without representation. I now speak of the great mass of the people in those States. Let no man misunderstand my position. With those guilty leaderswho, in this Senate and elsewhere incited the people of those States to revolt, I have and can have no sympathy. They deserve none. Since the angels rebelled in heaven there has been, in my judgment, no such crime against God or man. Why should I have sympathy for them? Do I not remember that if all the blood they have caused to be shed had been cured out in one vast reservoir, JeffersonDavis, his cabinet, and the whole rebel congress could have swam in it? Do I not remember that our prisoners at andersonville and at other places have been starved to death by thousan s, and that upon the authors of such barbarities no punishment is too great? Ahl can I ever forget, until this heart shall cease to beat, that my eldest son, the pride of my life, has been sacrificed in this war, caused by these guilty conspirators? however strong my indination toward the guilty leaders, I will not a low myself to forget that the great mass of the people of the South were honestly misled by the teachings of Calhoun and his disciples, the press the school, and the clergy, upon the right of secession and the blessings of sllavery. Nor will I blind my eyes to the act, equally true, that now the mass of the thinking men of the South, and especially those who were in the rebel army, have not only surrendered their arms, but have surrende those 2 ideas upon which alone they made the war. Upon this subject the concurrent testimony of Generals Grant and Sherman, and all the great officers of the Army, is conclusive. They have morally surrendered their cause. Toward the mass of the people, then, I do have sympathy. In my judgment it is our dot and our best policy to carry out in good fait the terms of acification tendered by President Lincoln and resident Johnson, and accepted by them. Let us at once recognize them as States in the Union, entitled to representation, and take up for consideration each State by itself and inquire into the election returns and qualifications of those who claim the right. to refpresent them. Let us begin with the State o Tennessee. My colleague assumes to say that he speaks the voice o loyal Wisconsin. Sir, I do not 1866. 275 doubt his sincerity. But I venture to say that, in my opinion, he will find himself greatly mistaken. I know that the late convention of the Union party in that State unanimously resolved that the States of the South were still States of this Union, and that neither by peaceful secession nor by force of arms could theybe taken out of this Union under the constitution. Another resolution adopted by that convention reads as follows: “That the animuswhich caused the late rebellion against the U.S., was born of the pride and ambition of an aristocracy founded upon slavery, which the wnrand the emancipation proclamation of President Lincoln has rightfully destroyed: but we deemit eutial to the regeneration of elateslave, but now free States, that they should, in good faith, accept their new situation as free States, not only by abolishing slavery in their State constitution s, but by the ratification by their legislatures of the mendment to the constitution of the U.S., submilled by Congress and now pending, which forever abolishesslavery in every State, and empowersCon gressto passall laws necessaryto secure iberty to all the people, black and white. By its adoption the cause of the rebellion will he removed, slavery destroyed, and liberty established upon a foundation which neither State nor. President, nor Congress, nor court. nor changeof artics, canshakcas enduring as the globeitself. y its adoptionby the people of those States all the world will now that theyaccept freedom as their situation, and give up slavery and all hope of restoring slavery forever. That through the influence of certain news papers and speeches, there may be some division of sentiment among the members of the Union party nowis possib e. But when my colleague goes before the people of Wisconsin with the proposition to reuce 11 States to the territorial condition; to tax and govern 11 States and ten million people without representation; when he proposes in effect to do what the rebellion could not do, tear the national flag in twain; to take 11 stars from that flag and reduce the number to 25, he will find, in my humble opinion that he has utterly mistaken the people of Wisconsin. If he ha said that they look upon treason as a crime, and that some of the guilty leaders should be tried and convicted; i he had said that they insist that under the constitutional amendment Congress should see that the freedman is protected in his civil rights of life, liberty, an property, if he had said that since the abolition of slavery In the southern States has disturbed the basis of apportionment in the HoRep, a more just upportionment might be made having reference to the voting or taxable population of the several States, I would agree With him. But upon this proposition of his he would find himse f in a minority of less than 1/3rd of the voters of Wisconsin. The loyal Ipeople of Wisconsin, and of all the States, have men fighting for the integrity of the Union and the entirety of the flag; for acification upon the basis of the union of the latex under 1 e Conslitution. If this Congress will not act upon that basis, the next Congress will. That is the cornerstone. “rhosocver shall fallupon that stonc will be broken in pieces; but upon whomsoever it shall fall it will grind him to powder. Men and cliques and parties may oppose and for a time postpone. But as sure as tomorrows sun shall rise, it will come. What soever stands in its way will be trampled in pieces. In conclusion, from the beginning, and from before the beginning, any so oration or destruction of the States, was made impossible. Under the old Confederation, the Union of the States was made “ perpetual.” and the constitution was formed to make a more “perfect Union.” To admit, therefore, either the right of States to secede, or the power of Congress to expel them, would be to admit into our system a principle of selfdestruction wholl at war with a perpetual or perfect Union. he constitution, every part of it, and the spirit which gives it life, are against peaceable secession; and that constitution clothes. the Government which it creates with every human pewer to prevent a separation by force of arms. Those gigantic powers, which had slumbered so long that they were wholly unknown to the world, and bar ly dreamed of by ourselves, have been lately brought into full play. Whatever may be said of the crime of the rebellion, history will record it as one of the most persistent, selllsacrilicing, and tremendous struggles the world ever saw; both on the part of the rebels, and on the part of the loyal people of the U.S. o other people upon earth could have so resisted, and no other people and no other Government could have over come such resistance. But we did Overcome it. We did prevent the separation of these States from the Union by force. Every law of Congress, every act of the President, every blow we struck, every shot we fired, every drop of blood we shed, was not to thrust these States out, nor to open a way for them to go out, nor to reduce them to Territories, but to keep them as States in the Union, and compel them to remain in the Union under the constitution. The flag of our country bears 36 stars, as the emblem of a Union of 36 States. Wherever it floats, over this Capitol, at the head of our armies, in the storm of battle, and in the hour of victory, over the sea as well as over the land, that sacred ensigu, which, next to the God of heaven, we love and reverence as representin the good, the great, and the true, everywhere ears 36 stars, and thereby roclnims to the world the eat, fundamental, national truth, there are 36 States in the Union, under the constitution. 36 States constitute that great Republic which the world calls the U.S.A. Upon “ that line” and under that flag we began the great campaign; upon thatline and under thattlag half:1 milion of our sons and fathers and brothers have laid down their lives; upon that line and under that flag we fought it out to victoz, and now, God helping me, will continue to ght it out on that line and under that flag to the end, whoever else may abandon it. [Ap lause in the galleries, which was checked by the residing Officer.]