Mr. TRIMBLE addressed the House upon the subject of restoring to the States lately in insurrection their full political rights. [His remarks will be found in the Appendix] Reconstruction. SPEECH OFHoN. L. S. TRIMBLE, OF KENTUCKY, January 21, 1867. The House having under consideration the bill (H.R.No. 543) to provide for restoring to the States lately in insurrection their full political rights. Mr. TRIMBLE said: Mr. SpeakER: Hf know the feelings of my own heart, I entertain a sincere and honest desire to see a thorough restoration of all the States to all their rights under the Constitution. I am in favor of peace, and wish to see every interest of the country prosper. I believe “Peace hath her victories No less renowned than war.” More glorious because they are bloodless, deriving their highest luster from the numbers saved instead of slain. Hence I am not in favor of the passage of the bill now under consideration or the substitute of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEvens;] for I believe under them we cannot have peace, that under them every right of the States and every right of the citizens of those States embraced by their provisions will be trampled under foot. The bill declares, in the 1st place, that the ten States of the South are out of the Union, denies them representation upon this floor or a voice in their State governments, and proposes to establish in lieu of the governments now in those States governments to be set up and put in operation by Congress, through the agency of commissioners and military despots with no responsibility to the people, disfran chising a large portion of the people of that section. The most intelligent and best citizens are to be reduced to serfs. I ask where is the authority, where is the power, under the constitution of the U.S. to so treat these people? The people of the South attempted to get out of the Union by and through secession; did they succeed?, Was secession triumphant, and did they, by the act of secession, dissolve the Union? If they did not, then will this congress, and by this very act break up the Union and place the people of the South where they. } not place themselves by secession or by revolution? The illegal and unconstitutional acts of the northern States, with the attempt on the part of the southern States to establish a government of their own, did not and cannot dissolve the v Union. This unnecessary and cruel war cost this Government 6,000 millions at least of treasure and an amount of blood unparalleled in the history of human warfare. But that did not take them out of the Union. But, sir, if this bill shall become a law, in my opinion it will bring upon the country another civilWar with all its direful consequences; and I fear it may costus as much blood and treasure as the late unfortunate struggle, ending in a total disruption of the Union and loss of the liberties of the people. I ask members to pause and reflect before passing this act. The step once taken it may never be in your power to recall it, and I appeal to you to stay your hands, do as you. have others do unto you, and give to these people the rights you claim for yourselves, to which they are equally entitled under the Constitution. Now, sir, under what authority, under what clause in the Constitution, do you find any war rant for this bill? Not even under the constitutional amendment that is now pending and unaccepted as yet by the people—neither can it be, giving it the votes of all the northern States—can you find a shadow of authority or justice for the monstrous provisions contained in this bill. In the 1st place it puts upon trial ten States of this Union, arraigns them at the bar of Congress, adjudges them guilty of high crime, and denies them all rights, including those that are inalienable. They are not heard; they have no representation here; they have not the benefit of counsel, no one to plead their cause. By this act you dissolve their con; nection with the Government of the U.S., blot them out of existence as free men, and degrade them to the condition of negro Commonwealths. The war did not destroy the States. It was carried on by the Government, as you solemnly declared, for the avowed purpose of maintaining the Union and preventing disunion, to preserve, the national authority throughout the entire country, to enforce obedience on the part of the revolted States to the Constitution and the laws passed in pursuance thereof. It was so declared in the cele brated Crittenden resolution; it was so declared by Congress again and again; it was so declared by President Lincoln and Secretary Seward. It was expressly declared and reiter ated by every speaker in the land who advo cated the war that the sole purpose and object of the war was to maintain the Union, not to dissolve and break it up and by it to crucify the States and State constitutions. Without that declared purpose I do not believe the support that was given to it could have been wielded in the manner that it was. Besides, Congress has recognized these States as States from the beginning of the struggle up to the present hour. The very bill that I have before me, and the substitute of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, characterizes them as. States. Congress by the act of the 4th of Mareh, 1862, so recognized them, and today this House recognizes that act, as follows: “That from andafterthe 3d day of March, 1863t, he number of membersof the HoRep of the congressof the U.S shall be200 and 41, and the 8 additional members shall be assignedone each to Connecticut, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Vermont, and RhdIsland, approved March 4, 1862.” Fixing 241 as the number of members of this House, only 191 hold seats here. Thus admitting by the law, as it now stands, that SCarolina is entitled to 4 Representatives, NCarolina to7, Virginia to 8, Mississippi to 5, Alabama to7, Arkansas to. Louisiana to 5, Florida to one, Georgia to7, and Texas to 3; but by your action overriding this law and the great constitutional right of representation. This act declares that the lower House of congress shall consist of 241 members; we have upon this floor today less than that number by 50. Besides this, you were fearful the President would not send this amendment to the southern States, and you passed a resolution instructing the POTUS or your clerk to send to each of the States of this Union the proposed amendment to the Constitution for their approval. No one has ever yet declared here, so far as the action of the southern States is concerned, any objection to their ratifying amendments that suit the purposes and objects of the party in power. If I recollect, during the last session of this Congress in the midst of a Speech ofsome gentleman, (I believe the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, who was arguing at that time these States were dead,) he was stopped while a tele gram was read from the Governor of Alabama announcing the pleasing intelligence to the majority here that that State had passed the constitutional amendment and desired to be counted as the 27th State. That was received by members all over the House with plaudits and cheers, thus recognizing the right of the State of Alabama to pass upon this question. And the same doctrine was enunciated to the country upon the adoption of that amendment by the State of Alabama. So all the time throughout the discussion and excitement upon this question, the southern States have been recognized as States. Why Louisiana, Tennessee, and other States had Representatives upon this floor long after the outbreak of the war; and the distinguished gentleman who now occupies the White House was a Senfrom the State of Tennessee, and was nominated by the party in power as VEEP while the war was in progress. If those States are out now, Tennessee was certainly out then. You are committed, in my judgment, to the doctrine that these States have never been out of the Union. And I defy your power to put them out in the manner proposed. I take it that if there is any constitutional authority or power anywhere to pass this bill it is to be found in the Constitution itself, and not in the last amendment proposed that is now pending; because I suppose no one will claim or assert here that that amendment as it now stands has passed. It is defeated as it stands before the people of the U.S. today. To ratify it requires the vote of 3/4ths of the State Legislatures. It has been submitted to all the States. The existence of the southern States as members of this Union has been recognized by the Executive and by Congress, and cannot be denied successfully before the SCOTUS, or any other tribunal in the U.S., in my opinion. It has not received the sanc.tion of enough States to entitle it to become the organic law of the land. If it had, this bill would be in plain and direct violation of that amendment itself, because that amendment declares that “all persons born or natur alized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the U.S and of the States wherein they reside, ” and that “no State shall make or enforce any. law which shall abridge the privileges or immu nities of any citizen of the U.S., ” &c. That is the amendment; but this bill proposes to disfranchise 3/4ths of all the white people of the South and degrade them to the position of slaves, denying them a voice in the affairs of their States or to be represented in the councils of the nation. I say that this bill is a plain violation of that amendment of the Constitution, because under this bill all persons are disfranchised who come within the provisions which I will now read. It is as fol OWs: SEC.6. Abife:, That all persons whoon the4thdayof March, 1861w, ereof full are who held office, either civil or military, under the government called the “confederate States of America, ” or who swore allegiance to said government, are hereby declared to have forfeited their citizenship and to have renouncedallegiance to the U.S., and shall not be entitled to exercise the elective franchise, or hold office, until 5 years after they shall have filed their intention or desire to be reinvested with the right of citizenship, and shall swear allegiance to the U.S and renounce allegiance to all other Governments or pretendedgovernments. Who, I ask, can vote under this clause? Can any honest native of the South 2 The object and purpose of this last constitutional amendment was to prevent the disfranchisement of the black race or to endow them with the right of suffrage. But the object and purpose of this bill is to give the right of suffrage to the blacks and to disfranchise the whites. Now, if that amendment to the Constitution is the law for the party in power, and it was the party.cry upon. you went to the country at the last election, why, I ask, do you come here now and seek by the provisions of this bill to disfranchise 3/4ths or 4 5ths of the white population of the South 2 Is not that making a discrimination between races? But I suppose that that is all right if the discrimination is against white men, in the estimation of the majority here. What else do we find? We find that this is a bill of attainder and an expostfacto law. By its provisions you try these people, condemn, and execute them in their absence. It not only destroys them as States, but it ruins them as individuals and deprives them of their rights as free men. The constitutional amendment says: lib“eNrtoyr, shall any State deprive any person of life or property, without due processof law.” Now, if a State has not the power to do this, to deprive a citizen of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, where is there authority in d. Federal Government to thus deprive the people of the South of the dearest right of free men, the right of suffrage? Sir, you may take my land; you may take my slaves and everything else I possess; but all that dwindles into insignificance when compared with this monstrous outrage, depriving me of the inalienable right of the American citizen, the right of suffrage. In God's name leave me a freeman not a slave! What does this bill do further? It fixes the conduct of elections in the hands of the military and of commissioners appointed by congress. It overrides that provision of the constitution of the U.S. which declares that — “The HoRepshall be composed of memberschosen every 2nd year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifiacations requisite for the most numerous branch of the General Assembly.” The right of the people to manage their own affairs by means of State organizations is one of the rights which in my judgment never was surrendered to the Federal Government. And the only power possessed by Congress or by the executive dept is the power expressly delegated by the Constitution itself. The Constitution says: “All powersnot delegated by the States to the U.S.by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.” When did the States of Virginia, NCarolina, SCarolina, and Georgia, 4 of the original 13 States, surrender, by constitutional amendment or otherwise, to the Fed. eral Government the right to say who shall be entitled to the right of suffrage in those States? They never did surrender that right; and congress has no such power under the Constitution of the U.S. To do so will be usur pation and despotism. Sir, is this the sort of government contemplated by the Constitution of the U.S., which declares that it shall be the duty of the Federal Government to protect and defend the States in the exercise of a RFG? Is it republican to deprive these people of the right of suffrage, of any voice in their local affairs? I ask you further, if it is just, and proper that the people of the South shall be disfranchised as it is proposed to do by the provisions of this bill, while the millions of recently emancipated slaves in that country should be.with the highest title of sovereignty 2 Is it fair and right to bestow this right upon them and deny it to the descendants of Lafayette and Kosciusko who may come to this country until they shall have been here 5 years? Is the freedman better qualified to manage the affairs of this country than the intelligent foreigner? If not, then why make the foreigner go through a schooling or training of 5 years before he is endowed with the right of suffrage, or why should that right be denied to the free born white citizen of the U.S.? I have ever believed that the perpetuity, the very existence of this Government depends upon the intelligence and patriotism of those upon which the duty falls of controlling its destiny through the ballot box. If you would preserve the Government in all its purity and integrity, you should preserve the elective franchise, and place it in the hands of those cometent to wield it to. the honor and safety and of the Government. Have we any evidence going to show that we should continue to prosper under the state of affairs proposed by this bill, with the ruling classes heretofore now made subservient to their former slaves, and the slaves placed in power over them? I tremble for my country when I contemplate the possibility of this proposition being carried into execution. As I already have said, I appeal to members here to pause before they commit this fatal mistake, E. they make this stab at the very existence of our Government as ordained by our fathers. I desire to see it protected and perpetuated for all time in all its justice and purity. What else do we. in this bill? We find that according to the provisions of this bill when this Union shall have been restored its continuance will depend upon the whim and caprice of any State. According to this bill should its provisions be violated by any State that State is to be sent back to the condition which it now occupies, the condition of.; virtually out of the Union—taxed, but denie equality and representation. Now, is that constitutional, is that in accordance with the ideas of those great men who ushered into being this great and glorious Government of ours under the Constitution? Did they ever suppose that the right of any State in this, Union, and especially of any of the States that made the Constitution itself, would ever thus be put in jeopardy? I do not believe it; no sane man or, jurist ever did believe it heretofore. Nor do I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if this bill ever becomes the law of the land it will be allowed to remain upon the statute book for 12 months. Whenever reason shall have resumed its sway, the people who are now so anxious, for the passage of this bill, will see the workings of it, and will with their own hands obliterate it from the statute book with the seal of their condemnation and that of every friend of law and of order. What further do we find in this bill? An amendment was offered by Ohio, [Mr. the Gentfrom SPALDING] and accepted by . the from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEvNs.] That amendment is as follows: Abife: That from and after the B.o. of this act, and until the saidStates inion shall rebel be admitted to representation in Congress as aforesaid, the provisions of the writ of g: habeascor shall be suspended in Virginia, NCarolina, LoouuitshiaCnaar, olMiniass, isGseipoprgi, iaa, nFdloArridkaan, sTaes;xaasn, dAslaabidamdias., tricts of country are hereby placed under martial law for and during the whole term aforesaid. Just think of it. This country is to be again placed under martial law, and that, too, at a time when there is profound peace, when the laws are being executed from one end of this country to the other, and as well executed in the southern States, I have no doubt, as in any other portion of the country. And that is to be done in plain violation of the Consti.tution of the U.S., which each one of us upon this floor has sworn to support. You object to governments and officers elected while martial law prevailed in the South. The opposite side of the House are estopped from objections on that ground: after giving their countenance and aid to elections in my State, held by the military in 1863, electing members to Congress, without whose votes you could not have passed the 1st amendment, in oand known violation of the will of the legal voters of that State. The Constitution declares that — “The privilege of the writ of habeascorpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Why, sir, this very bill speaks of those States as “States lately in rebellion.” No man as serts, because the facts will not warrant him in doing so; that those States are in rebellion to day. 18 months or more have passed since the last armed confederate laid down his arms. Peace has prevailed from one end of this country to the other. Yet, in the face of this fact, we have this monstrous proposition—to declare martial law in ten States of this Union; and in making this declaration we, in my judg ment, step upon the mangled ruins of the constitution; for the Constitution plainly gives this power neither to the executive nor the legislative dept of the Government. In this position I am sustained by the highest tribunal in this land. Let me read 2 short extracts from the opinion of the SCOTUS in the celebrated case of exparte Milligan and others. co“uNrto, graver question was ever consideredby this nor onewhich more nearly concernstherights of the whole people:, for it is the birthright of every American citizen, when charged with crime, to be tried and punished according to law. The power of punishment is alone through the means which the laws have provided for that purpose; and if they are ineffectual, there is an immunity from punishment, no matter how great an offenderthe individual may be, or how much his crimes may have shocked the sense of justice of the country or derangedits safety. By the protection of the law human rights are so cured; withdraw that protection, and they are at the of wicked rulers or the clamor of an pe op}le. excited has proved the discernmentof ourances tors, for eyen theseprovisions, [referring to the provisions of the Constitution designed to protect the personal liberties of the people] expressed in plain English such wordsthat it would seemtheingenuity of man could notevadethem, are now, after the lapse of more than 70 years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise when rulers and people would be comerestive under restraint, and seekby sharp and decisive measures to accomplishendsdeemedjust and proper; and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril unless establishedby irrepeal able law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The Constitution of the U.S. is a law for rulers and people equally in war and in peace, and coverswith the shield of its protection all classesof men at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequenceswas ever invented by the with of man than that any of its provisions can be suspendedduring any of the great exigencies of Government. such a doctrine leadsdirectly to anarchy or dospotism; but the theory of necessityon which it is based is false or the Government within the Constitution has aii the powersgranted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence, as has been happily proved by the result. of the great effort to authority.” to: off its just I am admonished why read from the Constitution or decisions of the highest tribunal in the land to a body whose voice can make and overthrow constitutions, executives, and the courts. Under the Constitution the people of the South have the right, if they are accused of any crime against the Government of the U.S., to be tried by a jury; for the constitution declares that — “The trial, of all crimes, except in cases of Ho: im shall be by jury; and such trial shall be eld in the State where the said crimes shall have beencommitted; but when not committedwithin any Setoantgertehsesmtraiayl bsyhall bent such mine r places as the law have directed.” With the same regard for the rights of the citizen when accused of crime, the Constitution provides that — “No person shall be held to answerfor a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment 9r indictinent of a grand jury, except in casesarising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service, in time of war or public danger: nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice out in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witnessagainst himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” These constitutional provisions are the shield behind which the humblest citizen of the South can stand, and, in my humble judgment, protect himself from the operation of the provisions of this bill. I believe that this protection will be given by the courts under the Consti stution. Much complaint has been made because the Legislatures of the southern States have not adopted the constitutional amendment submit ted by Congress at the last session. I think myself that the southern States have already adopted one amendment too many. I trust that they will not adopt another. Why has anyone the right to complain because those States refuse to adopt a proposed constitutional amendment? Why is an amendment submit ted to those States unless it is expected that they shall exercise their free choice in regard to its ratification or rejection? If it is fore ordained that a particular proposition for amendment shall become the law of the land, why go through the mockery of submitting to the people of the South a proposition upon which they are to exercise no freedom of choice? Why should not the southern States exercise the right to determine such questions in the manner which they deem to be demanded by their interests or self respect? I would not ask Massachusetts to accept an amendment changing the organic law of the land unless that old Commonwealth believed that the adoption of that amendment would conduce to her interests and promote the welfare of the entire country. Nor would I ask the people of the South to accept an amendment which, in my judgment, barters away the rights and liberties of the best, the most intelligent portion of that entire country. In my view there can be no doubt that this bill in its present shape comes within the definition of a bill of attainder and expostfacto law. It proposes to make criminal retrospect ively acts which were not criminal at the time of their commission. It proposes to inflict punishment upon those whose guilt, whatever it may have been, has been wiped out, by the pardoning power of the POTUS. 3/4ths or more of the people of the southern States have been, under the amnesty proclamation of the POTUS, (about whose power in the premises there can be no question,) relieved Yom all the pains and penalties to which they were liable by reason of their participation in the late rebellion. Attainder is the stain or corruption of blood which arises from being condemned for any crime. When and where, by what court and jury, were these people tried by law and found guilty? You have not tried JeffersonDavis nor convicted him, neither do I believe you can under the Constitution and laws. They are free from that offense so far as the Constitution of the U.S and the par doning power can free them; and that frees them to all intents and purposes, in my judg ment, as any man could be freed from any past offense. If that be so, I ask, then, if this bill is not a bill of attainder, and expostfactoAnd the only authority that exists, in my judgment, either in the national Government or in these States, to deprive any free born white citizen of Texas or of SCarolina of any of the constitutional rights I have enumer ated is by trial and conviction by a jury of that State for the commission of some offense the penalty for which has been fixed, by law prior to its commission. By the Constitution certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which implied their continued existence as States. But to remove all doubt an amendment was added which declared that the powers not del egated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The reserved rights of the States are treated by this bill as nullities, not worth the paper on which they were written. I have ever believed and sincerely believe today that the only way or hope to save this Union and preserve the life of the nation will be to preserve inviolate the Constitution. Tell me not that you can preserve my life after you have torn out my heart; it is as idle to talk of preserving this nation by overthrowing her Constitution. Under no circumstance conceiv able by the human mind have I or would I ever consent to violate that Constitution for any purpose. I will cling to it as the last hope of freedom, as the bond of unity in the past, as the only practical bond of union in the future, the only land lifted above the waters to which the ark of the Union can be moorcd. From that ark alone will go out the dove, which shall return bringing the olive branch of peace and the guarantee of constitutional liberty. I am for peace, for the Constitution and laws passed in pursuance thereof. It may be a crime; if so I confess it. Already have our quarrels filled the country with mourning, with widows and with orphans that today appeal to Heaven for aid and sympathy. Why pursue these unfortunate differences? Let by gones be by gones; let us act for the living, with charity to all and malice to none, upon living issues, issues upon which we are to be saved or lost as a nation. I entreat you to pause in your career of madness and folly, of unequal and unconstitutional legislation. Repeal your Freedmen's Bureau bill, your civil rights bill, your test oath; grant a general amnesty; make good your Crittenden resolution; declare to the South and to the world that this is a republican Government in the true sense of that term, that we derive our just powers from the consent of the governed. Mr. Speaker, ". stars from that flag now waving over your chair. Desecrate not that flag, I entreat you, by mutilation or by tearing from its folds ten or one single star; let it continue to greet the breezes of heaven as the ensign of 36 coequal States united by a iii.; just Government, its blessings upon all like the dews of heaven. Let there be one refuge secure from tyranny and oppression; let that glorious refuge be here in the o.States of America. The spirit now dominant in this House and rampant throughout the North not only mock this act you blot out ten. at gray hairs and tramples on the lessons of experience, but regards with impatience and ill disguised contempt every appeal in behalf of the rights of States or the guarantees of that Constitution you have all sworn to support. Stop! stop! says the extreme loyalist. We have had a terrible rebellion, we are fresh from the scenes of carnage and of war where our brothers have been slain. Can this be plead to extenuate or relieve you from your oath and duty to the Constitution of our fathers? No, never. Sir, the fierce bay of the bloodhound on the warm track of his prey devours the calm voice of reason and the soft pleadings of humanity. Who that realizes the moral account ability of nations can doubt that we have fallen upon evil days? In this great crisis, oh! that some great and good voice that never counseled aught to dishonor or injure this Union would rise, as if from the grave, and expose the specious pretexts on which a further prosecution of this war is now being waged upon a brave and van’ quished people. Sir, they are our brothers. To what end do you further persecute them? Born a few miles south of us, from a commonancestry with a common inheritance, who indeed formed the Union of these States. I am frank to say I do not believe that the people who for 4 long years held at bay and often drove back nearly one million Federal troops can be reduced to subjection (by uncon: stitutional laws) and the negroes established as the dominant race. If so they have degenerated from their nobleancestors who drove back the British at King's mountain and upon the plains of NewOrleans. Sir, if you do not intend to have a Union under the Constitution upon terms of equality you had better at once let the South go in peace, for no brave people ever did or ever will submit long to such taxes and laws as now proposed—virtually slaves without representation. Our forefathers fought for representation. They established the principle by the offering of their lives and their blood that representation and taxation should go together. Is that principle less dear to American free men today? . sir; it will continue to glow and burn until again enshrined in the hearts of every true American in this land, and woe to the man or party that stands in the way of this inalienablee right. From recent indications the last citadel of liberty, the Supreme Court, must bow to the behests of party. God forbid! Save us from such humiliation! Be it said to the honor of the courts in all ages of the world they were the last to forsake the rights of the citizen. In our own they have not been the instruments used to take the lives and liberties of innocent men and women. May that august tribunal continue with all its power and dignity under the Constitution as the shield and protector of the weak and the innocent through all time.