Mr. INGERSOLL resumed the floor, and addressed the House. [His remarks will be published in the Appendix] Speech entitled Government of Insurrectionary States February 7, 1867. The House having under consideration the bill (H.R.No. 1143) to provide for the moreeffectual government of the insurrectionary States Mr. INGERSOLL said: Mr. SpeakER: In the view of this case which I shall present I shall discuss the propositions of the gentlemen who have preceded me, who claim that the States have never lost their status in the Union, and that as States within the Union they have all their original rights, among which is the right of representation in Congress. I shall also discuss the proposition advanced by the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. BINGHAM] that they are still States, but with certain ualifications. Now, sir, I hold that there are but 2 sides to this question, that they are either States for all purposes and the equals of the other States, or else they are no States at all; I mean political States known to the Constitution. There are geographical States and political States. The southern States lately in rebellion have not changed their geographical character by the rebellion in which they engaged, but their olit.ical character only, and they are no longer of this Union within the meaning of the Constitution. What constitutes a State? I answer an organized community governed b law and having certain geographical limits. X State under the Constitution must not only be an organized community governed by law and having certain geographical limits, but it must in addition to this, be recognized as a State o the Union by the lawmaking power of the General Government. Now, sir, as regards the law, the logic, or the facts of this question, I deny that there is any middle ground to occupy. They are either States for i purposes or they are not States for any purposes under our Government. All the domain belonging to the U.S or within its jurisdiction assumes one of 2 characters, namely, that of a State or that of a Territory. No other condition was ever known. I hold that the rebel States by rebellion destroyed all civil government within their boundaries, and destroyed their political organizations known to the Constitution of the U.S., and consequentl o ceased to be States of this Union; and by the operation of the act of secession, culminating in armed rebellion, they became the territory of the U.S., when we by our successes on the battlefield maica conquest of their armies. Gentlemen in the argument of this question seem to forget the history of the rebellion. They seem to forget that the rebellion organized a defacto government; that the States that went into secession repudiated by a solomn act in convention the act by which they ratified the Constitution of the U.S., thereby becoming members of the Federal Government. gentlemen seem to forget that they formed a government which from the very necessities of the case was recognized by our Government as a defacto government. By the laws of war and by all international law we were bound to recognize them as a belligerent power, as a defacto government. We did do it for over 4 years. Not only were they recognized by us, bat by most of the civilized Powers of the world as a defacto government, authorized to issue letters of marque and reprisal, to make captures on the high seas, and one whose flag protected those sailing under it. But for that recognition the character of their cruisers would have been changed to that of piratical crafts. They were expressly recognized as a defacto government by the Roman Government in an official communication addressed “to the President of the confederate States of America.” As evidence of like recognition by our Government, I refer to an act of Congress, passed in the early part of the rebellion, which interdicted all commercial intercourse between the inhabitants of the U.S and the inhabitants of the socalled confederate States. That act made no exception on account of the loyalty of any person residing in the confederate States. It re them all as public enemies. It would have been as much a violation of that act for one of our people to have had a commercial transaction with a loyal as with a disloyal person within the jurisdiction of the confederate government. This was an exercise of one of the war powers of the Government. No express authority for this actis found in the Constitution. The constitution gives to Congress the power to “reg ulate commerce among the several States, ” but not to interdict it. Now, sir, having said this much by way of. premise, let me call attention to the position assumed by the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. FINck.] He seemed to view it as a matter of surprise that Congress should attempt to control the late rebel States as proposed in this bill, and he challenged history to produce a single instance where a Government had made a conquest of its own territory. Assuming it to be true that a Government cannot make a conquest of its own territory, he held that as a necessary consequence Congress possessed no constitutional power to pass the bill under discussion. Now, sir, let me answer the gentleman: is it fair to assume that because history furnishes no example of a nation making a conquest of its own territory that it is impossible under any circumstances for a nation ever to make such conquest? I say it is not. I challenge him to produce from the pages of history the record of any such rebellion as that we have suppressed. Under what civilized Government was there ever a rebellion that rose to the power and the dignity of a defacto government? Was there ever a rebellion that made such head against the established Government as to create a new Government, occupying and controlling absolutely 1/3rd of the territory of the entire country?. Was there ever before a rebellion that was recognized as a belligerent power by the civilized Governments of the world? Never, sir. You will search history in vain to produce such an illustration. There never has been before this in any country a rebellion which was recognized as a defacto government by the Government, it was contending against, or recognized by the civilized governments of the world as entitled to belligerent rights. But in this case the recognition was complete at home and abroad. The rebel government was recognized as a defacto government, entitled to belligerent rights and protected in those rights under the law of nations. Mr. Speaker, let me call your attention and the attention of the House to this question: whether the Government of the U.S. did make a conquest of the confederacy, and whether it did acquire the rights of a conqueror over the vanquished rebel power. Let it be remembered that the rebellion, or the confederate government, 1st made a conquest of a portion of the original territory of the U.S., and erected upon it a government and maintained that government, exercising juris. diction over the territory thus acquired for 5 years, and thu; became to all intents and purposes a foreign Government, making war upon the Government of the U.S., but by the success of our arms we made a conquest of the confederate government, made a conquest of its people and its territory after years of the most sanguinary and desolating war of modern times, and by international law we have a right to exercise over this conquered belligerent power, over this territory backs a legal tender? wrested by the power of arms from this confederate government, all the rights pertaining to the conqueror, one of which is to control the territory thus conquered, the people thus subjugated by military power. H. arises our right to dispose of the property, real and personal, of the rebel government as well as to exercise control over its people. I hold, sir, that in the prosecution of the war against the rebellion the laws of war in the main controlled us, and not alone the written law. Where did you get the power to declare green Where did you get the power to pass a confiscation law? Where did you get the power to do many of the acts necessary for the preservation of the Government in the prosecution of the war against the rebellion? Did you rely solely upon the letter of the Constitution for the power, or did you rely upon the inherent right of the Government to preserve its own life? I hold, sir, that the Government of the U.S. possesses as much inherent power and may exercise any power necessary to self preservation that any Government on earth can exercise. We are as powerful in war, and may in war legally and rightfully do what the Czar of Russia could do, what the Emperor of France could do, or any other monarchical Government. We possess the inherent right of self defense, and under that right we may do any act recognized under the laws of war necessary to self preservation.