Mr. FESSENDEI. My answer to that is simply this: the Constitution has not specifically provided for the case of civilWar; it never contemplated civilWar; it would not contemplate civi war, but it provided the means to quell it by giving power to Congress to raise and support armies without stating for what objects those armies might be used; and it gave power to do everything in fact that is necessary to be done in order to preserve and support the Government. But it s eaks of insurrection. What is an insurrection Is it civilWar? The Senator will hardly contend that they are syn onymous terms. An insurrection, such as ismentioned and referred to in the Constitution, is not civilWar; it is something far less. The Senator will remember that Vattel—for I go no further so far as this argument is concerned— caks of a tumult as one thing that may take place, that is, when there is a tumultuous as semblage and the laws are violated; and when that tumult assumes form and becomes a resistance to the law and to the governing authority; it is an insurrection; and when it assumes a greater form, and the laws are successfully re sisted, and the sovereign power is defied by armed force, then it becomes a civilwar. s that condition of things what was meant, and all that was meant, by the clause of the Constitution giving power to call forth the militia to suppress insurrection? If the Senator is right in his construction, there is no such thing as civilWar under this GOvernment, and can be no such thing; the Constitution does not provide for it; it speaks simply of “insurrection;" nd there can be none of the consequences O civilWar, there can be none of the rules up licable to civilWar, because the Constitution as not provided for it. Sir, this clause is of the narrowest possible lim itation, and refers only to ordinary tumults car ried to such an extent as to make insurrections that are perfectl familiar to us all, and the very revision of the constitution which the Senator has quoted shows that was the understanding. The truth is, it has reference simply to the militia. It is a power— “ To provide for calling forth themllitin to execute mtheslliaawvs of the “Umon suppressinsurrection: and Not that Congress shall have authority to suppress insurrections, as the Senator would have read it, and repel invasions; but it may use the militia force for the purpose of suppressing insurrections and repelling invasions, meaning simply that on a sudden emergency, when there is an insurrection or invasion, Con— Tea may call upon the militia temporarily for the purpose of e ecting the object. That is all. Now, then, sir, understanding that war has existsd, and that its consequences are such as I have stated, and that civilWar is attended by all the consequences of other wars, even among us under the Constitution,l say that, in my judment, a State may be utterly extinguished an swept out of existence by civilWar. It is a necessary consequence if the law of nations exists among us and we are bound by its pro visions. A State may forfeit its status. The Government may say that it has forfeited i, status, if it pleases to say so. It may impose upon such a State punishment: it may protect itself against the future and if, in order to pro tect itself a inst the uture, the Government finds it absolutely necessary to prevent it from resuming its original position, it has the perfect power to do so. It isance cssary consequence of the principle. It has been said, men have been fond of say ing, “Once a State, always a State." That is not true of States in general. It is not true as a matter of fact. States may live and States may die. I do not hold that these States are dead but I hold that States may die and have died heretofore. But not being true of States in general, it is not true of these States. Once a State, it does not follow that they are always necessarily States, in the sense that we use! a term. They may continue to be States, they may continue to be organizations, but it is a very different question whether, as such organizations, they are States of the Union and in the Union. Thatdependsupon other considerations. I ask the Senator if something is not necessary besides geographical extent and political organization as a State in order to be a State of the Union? Must there not be a constitution of the State? Must there not be a government so constituted that it has relations, and fittin relations, to the Government of the U.S.? Must it not be in a position to perform its duties? Has it not obligations to be performed toward the U.S., as well as to insist on the performance of duties to be received from the Government of the U.S.? Can there be a State of this Union without a constitution which makes and shows its form of government and places it in relations with the Government of the U.S.? Can it be a State of this Union without any provision through which and by which it can perform the obligations which it is under to the U.S., to the Government of the whole? certainly not. Therefore it is not true that although aState may exist in some particulars, it exists in all relations to the Government of the U.S., and is a State in the Union, because it has an organization. The result does not necessarily follow. In order to constitute a State of the Union there should be a republican government; that government must e acknowledged by congress, and that government must have the requisite provisions to connect it with the Union. When that government is destroyed, when the ligature is broken, when there are no provisions whatever that connect it with the U.S., it ceases to be a State of the Union from necessity. I do not say that its people pass out from under the jurisdiction of the Government; it belongs to the Union and its people are under the authority of the Union; but as a State having rights in the Union—rights, for instance, in this Congress—when it has ceased to connect itself with the Government by its own act orin any way, it is at an end for the time being, because something more is necessary than a bare organized existence. That is the position that I assume, and I have not been able to see but that it is correct. Now, will the Senator deny, will anyone deny, that there has been a period and a long period during which th re was no connection between these coufederate States and the Government of the U.S.? Have not years elapsed during which no such connection existed 2 Was not the form of government which bound them to the Union entirely destroyed? Was not the connection obliterated? Were not all their people in rebellion? Was there anything by which any of those States could connect itself with the Government with which it had been formerl connected, and if not what is necessary in order to bring it back? Is it not necessary that it should be recognized by this Government? Is it not necessary that it should have a constitution which does connect it with this Government? Is it not necessary that it should place itself in a position to discharge its duties toward this Government? and when it has done that, mustit not apply to the Governmentnt for admission, for reinstatement in the Union? This question has been argued, and argued by authority, as if we had nothing to say about it; as if these people were back again simply because they had made State constitutions. How do we know it? What proof have we? I want an answer.