The American Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events of the Year, 1861-1865, vols. 1-5. New York: Appleton & Co., 1868.

Congress of the United States, 1861 - Part 4

In the House, on the 8th, Mr. Loomis, of Connecticut, offered the following resolution, which was adopted:

Page 227

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be, and they are hereby, instructed to prepare and report to this House a bill for a public act to confiscate the property of all persons holding any office whatsoever, either civil or military, under the government of any State of the United States or the so-called Confederate States of America, who have taken up arms, or shall hereafter take up arms, against the Government of the United States.

On the next day Mr. Lovejoy, of Illinois, offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That, in the judgment of this House, it is no part of the duty of the soldiers of the United States to capture and return fugitive slaves.

It was objected to as being out of order, and not a part of the business to which the extra session was confined. This was overruled by the Speaker, and the resolution adopted. Ayes, 93; noes, 56.

In the Senate, on the 10th, the following joint resolution was offered to approve and confirm the acts of the President previous to the commencement of the session:

Whereas, since the adjournment of Congress, on the 4th day of March last, a formidable insurrection in certain States of this Union has arrived itself in armed hostility to the Government of the United States, constitutionally administered; and whereas the President of the United States did, under the extraordinary exigencies thus presented, exercise certain powers and adopt certain measures for the preservation of this Government—that is to sav: First. He did, on the loth day of April last, issue his proclamation calling upon the several States for seventy-five thousand men to suppress such insurrectionary combinations, and to cause the laws to be faithfully executed. Secondly. He did, on the 19th day of April last, issue a proclamation setting on foot a blockade of the ports within the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Thirdly. He did, on the 27tli day of April last, issue a proclamation establishing a blockade of the ports within the States of Virginia and North Carolina. Fourthly. He did, by order of the 27th day of April last, addressed to the commanding general of the army of the United States, authorize that officer to suspend the writ of habeas corpus nt any point on or in the vicinity of any military line between the city of Philadelphia and the city of Washington. Fifthly. He did, on the 3d day of May last, issue a proclamation calling into the service of the United States forty-two thousand and thirty-four volunteers, increasing the regular army by the addition of twenty-two thousand seven hundred and fourteen men, and the navy by an addition of eighteen thousand seamen. Sixthly. He did, on the loth day of May last, issue a proclamation authorizing the commander of the forces of the United States on the coast of Florida to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, if necessary. All of which proclamations and orders have been submitted to this Congress. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all of the extraordinary acts, proclamations, and orders, hereinbefore mentioned, be. and the same are hereby, approved and declared to be in all respects legal and valid, to the same intent, and with the same effect, as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.

Mr. King, of New York, offered the following amendment:

Provided, That within six months after the constitutional authority of the United States Government shall be re-established, and organized resistance to such authority shall no longer exist, the standing army shall be reduced in its organization (o the footing in rank and numbers authorized by law on the let day of July, 1861.

Mr. Latham, of California, said: "So far as the exigencies of the country were concerned, making it necessary to order out the military, he believed that the volunteer force of the country would have been sufficient and ample for such exigencies. So far as the proclamation suspending the writ of habeas corpus between the city of Philadelphia and Washington city is concerned, he had as yet heard no reason for that extraordinary measure. He was not prepared to indorse blindfold every thing the Government might do."

Mr. Hale, from New Hampshire, hoped the amendment would be adopted. '"There was no single feature of the great movement that had taken place in the loyal States that had given him greater and more unalloyed satisfaction than the generous rallying of the people, with blood and treasure, at a moment's call; demonstrating the great truth upon which every republican Government must rest now and forever, that there was no great necessity for standing armies here."

Mr. Kennedy, of Maryland, said: "While I am prepared to sustain the Administration in all just and constitutional measures for the maintenance of the Union and for the restoration of peace, I cannot go quite so far as to indorse all the propositions laid down in this joint resolution. I allude especially to the fourth proposition in regard to the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in the State of Maryland. As one of the Representatives of that State, I desire to say in all sincerity to the Senate that, to day, I am not informed of the reasons upon which this writ has been suspended in any particular case in the State of Maryland. In my judgment, there was no immediate necessity for it. The State of Maryland is to-day, and was before the military occupation of that State, entirely within the control of the civil authorities of the State. Wo are here to-day with a representation in Congress for the maintenance of the Union and the preservation of peace, elected by a larger majority than has ever been given heretofore in that State. Six Representatives in the other House have been elected by a vote very nearly approaching to twenty thousand majority out of seventy thousand votes cast. The Executive of that State, holding the power of the State entirely in his hands, was fully able at all times to suppress any insurrectionary movement without the aid of the military power of the Government; and yet all this was done without his ever being called upon. I now say to the Senate and the country, in entering my protest against the action of the Executive of the nation in that particular point, that I conceive it to have been without any necessity whatever, and without the warrant of law itself. If we are to maintain the Government intact; if we are to maintain the principles of the Government Page 228 which has carried ns so far on the highway of greatness and of national renown, we must take care not to violate the Constitution when we claim to maintain the Constitution and to enforce the laws. In enforcing the laws we must have a scrupulous regard to the maintenance of the Constitution in all its parts."

Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, continued the discussion by saying, "that everybody knows that these acts of the Administration were forced upon it by the condition of the country. The Administration felt that it must exercise all the powers within the Constitution to save the Union. The legislation of the country hail not provided the necessary means, and the President took the responsibility, and in doing it he was then sustained by the voice of the loyal portion of the country; and he was sorry now, when those acts had saved the capital and the Government, that there should be any doubt or any hesitation in legalizing by their votes the action of the Government of the country, extorted from it in an emergency."

Mr. King, of New York, said: "My opinion has constantly been, that everywhere, as fast as insurrection assembled, it should be reached, and dispersed as rapidly as it could be; and that the idea of conciliation to men in arms against the country should be entertained with great care and deliberation. If there was on any side of a straight line a doubt in reference to what was wisest and best, I would concede and it is clearly my opinion that forbearance would be the side to err upon; for, bad as these men are behaving, they are our countrymen. I would therefore prefer to forbear more than I should to be severe; but my judgment is, that mercy to them, as well as to the whole country, will be best promoted by vigorous and efficient measures against them."

Mr. Lane, of Indiana, regarded the proclamation of the President of the United States for the organization of eleven additional regiments to the regular army as contemplating a permanent addition to the regular army. The amendment of the honorable Senator from New York, as he understood it, contemplated simply a temporary addition to the regular army during the war.

He said: "I believe that this increase of the regular army is necessary. I believe if we had had a standing army of forty thousand true men last January, the present disastrous condition which has overtaken the country never would have befallen it. I think, from the manner in which these new regiments are officered, and the increase to the regular army is proposed to be made, that hereafter we shall have no defection in the regular army, and may rely with confidence upon it.

"One remark fell from the honorable Senator from Maryland, to which I must at this moment enter my dissent; and that was, if I understood him correctly, that he believed that coercion was the means most calculated to bring about a destruction of the Union and the Government. I believe it is the only means by which the Union and the Government can be supported and maintained. I would use all the power of the regular army and the volunteer force until this rebellion was crushed out. I would contemplate no peace which involved the loss of one single acre of the national territories, or would change the map of the United States. I will sanction no peace which does not imply death to the armed traitors who are leading this rebellion, and not simply a death under the steel of the soldier, but the felon's death with the halter is the fate I would reserve for every single leader in this conspiracy; and I would march your troops freely wheresoever it is necessary to march them in putting down this rebellion."

Mr. Kennedy, in reply, said that he was more persuaded now than he had ever been before, that force applied by armies of hundreds of thousands upon either side was not the way to secure and to maintain the union of these States. "I am as persuaded now as I am of any thing on the face of the earth, that you may fight for twenty years and you cannot restore this country to the position in which it was before the rebellion, as you call it, broke out. I call it a revolution. Whether it is right or wrong, I do not now mean to discuss; but it is my solemn conviction that you will never reconstruct the Union by the sword. There was a time, I admit, when peace could have been restored to the country without a compromise of honor upon the part of the majority portion of this Senate. I think now that things have gone so far that little is left to the country to hope for from this course of coercion which is now being pursued. I should be glad, to-day, to accept any measure of conciliation. I am willing to make any concession to bring this country back to the point where we stood one year ago; but I do not believe we shall ever get back to it by the force of arras.

"May I ask the honorable Senator if he is apprised of any necessity for, or of any reasons that require or justify, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in the State of Maryland? If so, I should like to know them."

Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, in reply, said: "If the Senator wishes an answer, I will say that I think the existence of a band of conspirators in the city of Baltimore, men who organized murder and shot down in the streets of that city brave men who were rallying at the call of their country to defend the capital of the nation and uphold the cause of the Republic, is a full, complete justification of the President in authorizing General Scott to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in and about that city."

Mr. Baker, of Oregon, approved as a personal and political friend of the President of every measure of his administration in relation to the troubles of the country. "I propose," he said, "to ratify whatever needs ratification. I propose to render my clear and distinct approval Page 229 not only of the measure but of the motive which prompted it. I propose to lend the whole power of the country—arms, men, money, and place them in his hands, with authority almost unlimited, until the conclusion of this struggle. He has asked for $400,000,000. We propose to give him $500,000,000. He has asked for four hundred thousand men. We propose to give him half a million; and for my part, if, as I do not apprehend, the emergency should be still greater, I will cheerfully add a cipher to either of these figures.

"But, sir, while I do that, I desire, by my word and my vote, to have it clearly understood that I do that as a measure of war. As I had occasion to say, in a very early discussion of this question, I want sudden, bold, forward, determined war; I do not think anybody can conduct war of that kind as well as a dictator. But, as a Senator, I deem it my duty to look forward to returning peace. I do not believe it will be longer than next February

                        'Till danger's troubled night Is o'er,

                        And the star of peace returns.’

Whether that peace shall be conquered at Richmond, or Montgomery, or New Orleans, or in the wilds of Texas, I do not presume to say; but I do know, if I may use so bold a word, that the determined aggregated power of the whole people of this country—all its treasure, all its arms, all its blood, all its enthusiasm, kindled, concentrated, poured out in one mass of living valor upon any foe—will conquer.

"I believe with most gentlemen that the Union sentiment will yet prevail in the Southern States. Bayonets are sharp remedies, but they are very powerful. I am one of those who believe that there may be reverses. I am not quite confident that we shall overrun the Southern States, as we shall have to overrun them, without severe trials of our courage and our patience. I believe they are a brave, determined people, filled with their enthusiasm, false in its purposes, as I think, but still one which animates almost all classes of their population. But, however that may be, it may be that instead of finding, within a year, loyal States sending members to Congress, and replacing their Senators upon this floor, we may have to reduce them to the condition of territories, and send from Massachusetts or from Illinois Governors to control them. It may be; and, sir, if need come, I am one of those who would be willing to do it. I would do that. I would risk even the stigma of being despotic and oppressive, rather than risk the perpetuity of the Union of these States. I repeat, and with that repetition I close: Fight the war through; accomplish a peace; make it so perfect and so permanent that a boy may preserve it; and when you have done that, you have no more need for a standing army."

Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, proposed to modify the amendment by adding to the resolution simply the words "provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed as authorizing a permanent increase of the army or navy."

This was approved, and the question came up on the passage of the resolution.

Mr. Polk, of Missouri, argued against the resolution, saying: "I am one of those who look upon the action of the President of the United States in this matter as of a character so grave, and, I will add, so perilous, that I cannot, by my vote on this resolution or ou any bill or resolution that may be offered, consent to say that he has done right in suspending the writ of habeas corpus, or authorizing it to be suspended, or that that writ ought to be suspended, or can properly be suspended, under any state of circumstances that can exist in the country. As far as I know, Merryman is still incarcerated in Fort McHenry. If he has been released I have never known it. The Senator from Maryland (Mr. Kennedy) says he has not been released. If he has been I have never known it. The liberties of that man, as I believe, are trodden down in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

"This Constitution, Mr. President, was adopted without a bill of rights. It was supposed probably by the convention of wise and patriotic men and heroes who adopted it, that no such thing was necessary, because, by the Constitution there was no authority vested in the Government that it created, except that which was expressly delegated. But so jealous were the constituencies of those wise and patriotic men on this point that they were not willing that the Constitution should be adopted or become the permanent basis of Government without recommending amendments, which should constitute a bill of rights; and I call the attention of the Senate and the country to the fourth of these amendments:

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, und effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.'

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons.' I have called attention to the case of Merryman. We have only to look at that case, as it is stated by the Chief Justice in delivering his opinion, to see that this guarantee of the right of the security of the person of that man was trodden down without any authority of law. On the mere intimation of a military general, I believe up in Pennsylvania, he is seized, without any warrant, in the night time, and taken from his family, and put in prison in Fort McHenry; and that in the teeth of a constitutional provision which says that the right of the people to be secure in their persons shall not be violated. Sir, I undertake to say that in the history of England, in the times of the Tudors and the Plantagenets, a case more flagrant than this cannot be found; and this is not a single case. It has occurred here in Maryland repeatedly. It has occurred Page 230 in other places. It has occurred in my own State of Missouri, and, if newspapers are to be believed, it has very recently, occurred in the case of my former colleague, (Mr. Green.)

"So, also, Mr. President, this other guarantee for papers and effects has been disregarded. I think I am not wrong when I say—if I am wrong, I have been misled by the public prints on the subject—that, under orders from the President of the United States, telegraphic despatches have been seized in different parts of the country. No, those despatches were the private property either of the offices or the authors; and yet they have been seized, when the Constitution says that the people shall be safe in their papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The seizure has been made without any warrant of law whatever.

"The fifth amendment to this Constitution provides that no person shall be ' deprived of his life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' This constitutional guarantee has also been trampled upon in the cases which I have referred to. In those cases both the fourth and fifth amendments of the Constitution have been violated. They are twofold violations of this sacred charter of the liberties of the citizen.

"Now, Mr. President, has the President any right to regulate commerce between the States or with foreign countries? Clearly not. And yet the commerce of the United States has boon regulated since the 15th of April; and, in some instances, restricted, so that it has been well-nigh destroyed between the States of the Union. Claiming that the whole of the States are still in the Union, yet this power of regulating commerce ha3 been exerted by the President for the purpose of crippling, restraining, and almost destroying commerce between the States that were unquestionably loyal and those that claim to have seceded. Now, sir, the claim that they have seceded does not mitigate the crime of the President; because he has done these acts, and at the same time has said that those States are still in the Union. If they have seceded legally, then they are foreign States, and by the same clause of the Constitution to which I have just now referred, the President has no right to regulate commerce between the United States and foreign Governments. If their secession be illegal, then the Constitution is still violated.

"I say, then, Mr. President, while the Constitution of the United States provides that 'the Congress shall have power' 'to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States,' and has given that power to Congress only, the President, notwithstanding this constitutional provision, has undertaken to regulate commerce between the States.

"The Constitution of the United States again says that Congress shall have power to declare war. The President of the United States has involved the country in a war, notwithstanding this provision of the Constitution. The Constitution says that Congress shall have the power 'to raise and support armies.' The President of the United States has raised armies. The Constitution says that Congress shall have the power 'to provide and maintain a navy.' The President of the United States has attempted to provide a navy. It also says that 'the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it,' and that not even by the Congress of the United States. Yet the President has suspended the writ of habeas corpus. It says that 'no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another.' The President has by his own act, and without any regulation of Congress, blockaded ports, and not merely given a preference to some ports over others, but has actually suspended the commerce of certain ports entirely. The President of the United States has rendered 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' a nullity, by infringing those rights without the warrant of law; and citizens have been deprived of liberty and property without due process of law.

"These are instances of violation of the Constitution in which the President has assumed power to himself. The Constitution tended to limit the power of the President. It has put strict and stringent limitations upon that power, but these acts have had a tendency to increase that power.

"This joint resolution, Mr. President, proposes to approve and legalize these acts. I cannot, as an American Senator, give my consent to approve and legalize them. I cannot do it, especially under the circumstances in which these acts have been done. I am one of those who believe that there was no occasion for them."

Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, in opposition to the resolution, took occasion to charge upon the Republican side of the Senate the responsibility for the existing state of affairs, thus: "I verily believe that those who propose to maintain the Union of those States by arms are disunionists. They may not wish to destroy the Union; but the very means to which they resort for the purpose of saving it, will most assuredly accomplish its destruction. Hence I have been from the beginning opposed to war, and I am now opposed to it. I think that, in this age, as a Christian, enlightened people, we should settle these difficulties without a resort to arms. If Senators on the other side of the chamber last winter had cooperated with Senators on this side, and we could have had a corresponding action in the other House, I have no doubt all these difficulties could have been settled. It is well known that propositions to amend the Constitution were introduced here, and that everybody on tins side of the chamber approved them, and Page 231 was ready to go for them; and why were they not passed? It was because the whole Republican side of the Senate put their faces against them. With the exception, perhaps, of the distinguished Senator from Oregon, I do not believe they got a vote from that side of the Senate. My friend from Connecticut [Mr. Bison] I know made a gallant and patriotic speech, but I do not remember that he voted for one of those resolutions, though I will do him the justice to say that I believe, if he thought they would have passed, he would have done so. Wo did every tiling in our power, by proposing constitutional amendments, to avert the difficulty, and to restore harmony to a distracted country. Why was it not done?

"Senators, you on that side of the chamber are responsible for it; and when the passions of men shall have abated, and this wild fanaticism, this warlike spirit that now sweeps over the land, shall have subsided, the people of this country will calmly and dispassionately look into the history of these times, and if it shall be, as I fear it will be, that this Union is forever destroyed, that this mighty fabric of our fathers is torn, this great Government overthrown, history, impartial history, will hold you responsible for it; for you could have settled the controversy; you could have settled it peaceably; you could have settled it without impairing any rights of any man or any State in the North, by granting proper guarantees to the South which would have done you, your property, or your States, no harm. You declined to do it; the responsibility is with you."

Mr. Breckinridge on a subsequent day resumed the debate. lie said that Congress, by a joint resolution, had no more right to make valid a violation of the Constitution and the laws by the President, than the President would have by an entry upon the executive journal to make valid a usurpation of the executive power by the legislative department. Congress had no more right to make valid an unconstitutional act of the President, than the President would have to make valid an act of the Supreme Court of the United States encroaching upon executive power; or than the Supreme Court would have the right to make valid an act of the Executive encroaching upon the judicial power.

To say that Congress, by joint resolution, might indemnify the President against a breach of the Constitution, is substantially to declare that Congress may alter the Constitution in a manner not provided by the instrument; may add to it or take from it. If a bare majority of the two Houses of Congress can, by resolution, make that constitutional and valid which was unconstitutional, by the same authority it may confer upon the President in the future powers not granted by the Constitution; so that, sir, in whatever aspect the subject may be viewed, it appears to mo the principles involved in this joint resolution are utterly subversive of the Constitution, and contain the very essence of a government without limitation of powers. He had supposed that those general principles were  too clear and too well recognized in this country to need statement or illustration.

He then proceeded: "What is the excuse; what is the justification; what is the plea? Necessity. Necessity? I answer, first, there was no necessity. Was it necessary to preserve the visible emblems of Federal authority here, that the Southern coast should have been blockaded? Did not the same necessity exist when Congress, at its last session, refused to pass the force bill, that existed at the time the President assumed these powers? As Congress refused to do it, and adjudged that there was no necessity at that time, what was the additional necessity afterwards? Was it necessary, until Congress should meet, to the existence of the union of these States, and of its Constitution, that powers not conferred by the instrument should be assumed? Was there any necessity for overrunning the State of Missouri? Was there a necessity for raising the largest armies ever assembled upon the American continent, and fitting out the largest fleets ever seen in an American harbor?

"But, Mr. President, I deny this doctrine of necessity. I deny that the President of the United States may violate the Constitution upon the ground of necessity. The doctrine is utterly subversive of the Constitution; it is utterly subversive of all written limitations of government; and it substitutes, especially where you make him the ultimate judge of that necessity, and his decision not to be appealed from, the will of one man for a written constitution. Mr. President, the Government of the United States, which draws its life from the Constitution, and which was made by that instrument, does not rest, as does the Constitution in many other countries, upon usage or upon implied consent. It rests upon express written consent. The Government of the United States may exercise such powers, and such only, as are given in this written form of government and bond which unites the States; none others. The people of the States conferred upon this agent of theirs just such powers as they deemed necessary, and no more; all others they retained. That Constitution was made for all contingencies; for peace and for war. They conferred all the powers they deemed necessary, and more cannot be assumed, to carry on the Government. They intended to provide for all contingencies that they thought ought to be provided for, and they retained to the States nil the powers not granted by the instrument. If in any instance it may be supposed that the powers conferred are not sufficient, still none others were granted, and none others can be exercised. Will this be denied, sir? Or is the doctrine to be advanced that all constitutional questions are to be made entirely subordinate to the opinions and ideas that may prevail at the hour in reference to Page 232 political unity and association? It has been held heretofore—I thought it was axiomatic, and received everywhere—that the terms of the Constitution of the United States were the measure of power on one side, and of obedience on the other."

Mr. Lane, of Indiana, replied by saying: ""What is it that the President has done since the last meeting of Congress? First, he has declared a blockade of the Southern ports; and gentlemen tell us there is no constitutional authority for that. It is the first duty of the President to see that the laws are faithfully executed. "We have a tariff law imposing duties upon foreign importations. That has been disregarded by the seceding States; they have assumed to pass a tariff act different from ours. That law of Congress cannot be enforced by the ordinary course of procedure under your collections of revenue at the proper ports established by law. There is no higher power in the Constitution of the United States delegated to the President than the power to 'take cans that the laws be faithfully executed.' These high and extraordinary powers, although not perhaps technically granted in the Constitution, result as an incident to the war power, which is invoked, and constitutionally invoked, under that provision of the Constitution which authorizes the President to use force to suppress insurrection and to put down rebellion. I sanction, then, the proclamation establishing a blockade.

"The next objection is to the declaration of martial law, by which the writ of habeas corpus was suspended. I only regret that when the writ was suspended, the corpus of Baltimore treason was not' suspended' too. It is necessary to the enforcement of the laws and to the preservation of the Union that this writ of habeas corpus should be suspended; and the Constitution of the United States says, in express terms, it may be suspended in case of rebellion and insurrection. Then the whole question comes to this: Who is to judge? "Where is the discretion lodged? Clearly with the President of the United States; and it can be safely lodged nowhere else.

"One word, before I forget it, on the subject of this war, and the object of the war. There is no war levied against any State, or against any State institutions. The President has called out troops to suppress insurrection, and put down rebellion. These are the objects for which your troops have been called into the field. The abolition of slavery is no object contemplated for which this war is to be prosecuted. But let me tell gentlemen, that although the abolition of slavery is not an object of the war, they may, in their madness and folly and treason, make the abolition of slavery one of the results of this war. That is what I understand to be precisely the position of the Administration upon the subject of this war."

On a subsequent day Mr. Latham, of California, said that he held the line of demarcation in indorsing the conduct of the Executive to be this: whatever imperious necessity required him to do to support the Government, to enforce the laws, and secure obedience to the constituted authorities, it was right and proper he should do, even though in the doing he may have committed a technical infraction of the authority delegated to him. Wherever there was not that imperious necessity, he did not justify him. So far as the violation of the writ of habeas corpus in the State of Maryland was concerned, he refused to give him his sanction for that act. He refused it because that State had shown, by the return of her delegates to the other House, her allegiance to the Government of the United States; and though there might be many citizens in her midst who sympathized with the disloyal spirit of the Southern States; though there may have been disgraceful mobs and riots in the city of Baltimore; unless there was clear evidence that the judiciary of that State were tainted with that disloyalty, and were unwilling to do their duty, under the Constitution, in acting upon these writs of habeas corpus, he would not justify any officer in the suspension of that sacred privilege. No Senator for one moment doubted the loyalty of the Chief Justice of the United States, who issued the writ; or, if he did, he had never made it known upon this floor. His character is pure, spotless, and untainted; his life has been one of devotion to his country and the enforcement of its laws; and now, in his honored old age, he could scarcely stigmatize a long list of years of service by refusing to obey those laws and those principles of justice which he has sworn to carry out. Hence he regarded the act of the President of the United States in suspending the writ of habeas corpus, as this joint resolution says, "between the city of Philadelphia and the city of Washington," as an unnecessary violation of the powers possessed by him under the Constitution; and, as a conscientious guardian of the liberties of the people, he refused him his indorsement for that act.

So, too, as to the increase of the regular standing army of the country. The purposes for which he was striving could have been as easily accomplished by the volunteer force of the country; and therefore the exercise of power in increasing the regular standing army was not warranted by the exigencies. He declined, therefore, his indorsement for this act also. But, sir, as to the other acts of the Government—ordering the blockade; calling out the volunteers of the country; suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in Florida, it being in open rebellion to your Government; and all the other acts enumerated in this joint resolution—he had his hearty approval; and "I now say, as the representative of a sovereign State and a loyal people, that if he had not exercised those powers, I would have voted to impeach him as unworthy the place he occupies, and most derelict in his duties to the Government."

On the 2d of August, the debate on the resolution was resumed in the Senate. The motion was made by Mr. Wilson of Massachusetts to postpone the unfinished business and take up this joint resolution.

Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, objected, saying: "I hope not I hope we shall go on with the unfinished business of yesterday. That is germane to this same question. Let us get through with the bill which is the unfinished business, and then we shall be prepared to vote on that joint resolution. I would like to have the bill finished, and get rid of it. I hope the Senator from Massachusetts will not insist on taking up the joint resolution. The debate will go on upon that, and we shall gain nothing by it."

The question was put, and it appeared there was no quorum voting. A quorum soon appearing, the yeas and nays were ordered on the question of taking up the resolution.

Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, then took the floor in order to state briefly his objection. The resolution was germane to the bill which was the unfinished business. It proposed to declare legal the acts which have been done by the President in the recess of Congress. Would our declaration make them legal if they were not legal? Would it make them so if they were unconstitutional and void? Now there was a bill pending, proposing to confer certain powers upon the executive authority, which related to this subject. He was disposed to give the necessary power to the Administration to suppress this rebellion; but he was not disposed to say that the Administration had unlimited power and could do what it pleases, after Congress meets. He was willing to excuse It for all it had done, and to sustain it in all it had done; but if you propose to pass a resolution approving the exercise of powers for which you may be unable to find in strict law the warrant, and then refuse to grant by law the authority to do what is necessary to be done, it seemed to him it would be a very strange proceeding. He thought they had better let this resolution lie until they disposed of the bill, and then he should be prepared to sanction what the Administration had done and provide for the future, so that the necessary power might be in the President's hands.

Mr. Morrill, of Maine, said: "I am inclined to concur with the gentleman from Illinois, and believe that we had better go on with the unfinished business. It is agreed on all hands that the bill which was under consideration yesterday is an important bill; that it is important to give efficiency to the measures of the Administration, and for that reason, I think we ought to attend to it now; and I am in favor of it, as against the resolution proposed to be taken up by the motion of the Senator from Massachusetts, upon the ground that I do not consider that resolution important. I do not agree with the Senator in attaching very much importance to the resolution that was offered in the early part of the session, to render legal and valid the doings of the President. I believe they are valid. I believe what he has done is constitutional, and can be demonstrated to be so. It does not need to be ratified. It does not need to be rendered valid by a resolution of Congress. I know it has been said from the first day of the session until now, iterated and reiterated, that the President has trampled upon the Constitution of his country; that we had conceded as much, in that we had uttered a resolution here to render his acts legal and valid."

Mr. Polk of Missouri rose to ask the Senator if, at an early day of the session, he did not vote against the motion made by the Senator from Kentucky to postpone the consideration of this resolution for one day, which motion was made for his convenience?

Mr. Morrill replied that he had no distinct recollection upon the subject. Very likely he did; and if it were up now, he should vote in favor of instant action upon it. lie did not perceive any inconsistency between his argument now and his vote then.

Mr. Polk in answer said: "It seems to me a marvellous change has come over the opinions of some Senators in regard to this resolution. It was about the first business that was called up in order before the Senate at the present session; the question was on its passage; and it was upon the very point of being put upon its passage, when I rose, stating that I had some views that I desired to express, and that I wished indulgence for one day. If my recollection does not fail me, the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Powell] then made a motion to postpone the resolution for one day; but his motion was voted down almost unanimously by the Senate. I believe almost every gentleman on the other side voted against the postponement, as I supposed, acting contrary to what had always been the courtesies of the Senate under all similar circumstances.

"Now, when the Senator from Massachusetts moves to take up this resolution for the purpose of having action upon it, it is to be postponed again. The Senator from Maine thinks it does not deserve, does not need, does not require, any action at all. At the beginning, it was so important to be acted on at once, that it could not be postponed for a single day to enable a Senator to address the Senate properly upon the subject; but he was forced into the debate precipitately."

On a division the resolution was ordered to be taken up. Ayes, 28; noes, 11.

The question then being on its passage, Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, moved to refer it to the Committee on the Judiciary, as it was too late to move a reconsideration for the purpose of amendment.

Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, opposed the motion, saying: "I do not like to resist this motion, but I must confess my surprise at it. Day after day this question has been laid aside to accommodate Senators. It is a plain and simple proposition; Page 234 there is no ambiguity about it; it is as clear as sunlight, as simple as any thing can be, to the comprehension of the Senator from Wisconsin, or any other Senator. I shall vote against the reference; but if the Senate chooses to recommit it, very well; they can take the responsibility.".

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, said: "The only gratification that I derive from the motion of the Senator from Wisconsin is, the confirmation it affords to what I had the honor to remark a short time ago, that the Senate does not intend to pass the resolution. I am glad it does not; but it does not seem disposed to vote directly, but will consign it to the dungeons of a committee-room."

The question of reference was then taken and lost. Ayes, 17; noes, 23.

Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, thus expressed his views of the acts of the President: "The first three acts enumerated in the preamble of this resolution, I would vote heartily to approve. I believe they were right and proper—strictly legal, and strictly constitutional. I believe that the President had the right, and that it was hi3 duty, to issue the proclamation of April last. I believe he had a right—it wa3 a part of the power of suppressing an insurrection—to blockade the ports of the United States, or any of them. I do not believe the President of the United States has the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, because that power is expressly given to Congress, and to Congress alone. I do not believe the President of the United States has the power to increase the regular army, because that power is expressly given by the Constitution to Congress alone; and therefore I cannot vote for either of the last three propositions—the fourth, the fifth, or the sixth. Still I approve of the action of the President. I believe the President did right. He did precisely what I would have done if I had been in his place—no more, no less; but I cannot here, in my place, as a Senator, under oath, declare that what he did do was legal. I may say it was proper, and wa3 justified by the necessity of the case; but I cannot here in my place, under oath, declare that it was strictly legal, and in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution. I shall therefore be compelled to vote against the resolution." The bill was further debated, and finally, on the 6th of August, taken up for consideration and laid aside for Executive business. The object of the resolution was secured by making it a clause in one of the other hills passed at this session.

On the 11th of July Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, offered the following resolution: Whereas a conspiracy has been formed against the peace, union, and liberties of the people and Government of the United States; and in furtherance of such conspiracy a portion of the people of the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Texas, have attempted to withdraw those States from the Union, and arc now in arms against the Government; and whereas James M. Mason and Robert M. T. Hunter, Senators from Virginia; Thomas L. Clingman and Thomas Bragg, Senators from North Carolina; James Chesnut, jr., a Senator from South Carolina; A. 0. P. Nicholson, a Senator from Tennessee; William K. Sebastian and Charles B. Mitchell, Senators from Arkansas; and John Hemphill and Louis T. Wigfall, Senators from Texas, have failed to appear in their seats in the Senate and to aid the Government in this important crisis; and it is apparent to the Senate that said Senators are engaged m said conspiracy for the destruction of the Union and Government, or, with full knowledge of such conspiracy, have failed to advise the Government of its progress or aid in its suppression: Therefore, Resolved, That the said Mason, Hunter, Clingman, Bragg, Chesnut, Nicholson, Sebastian, Mitchel, Hemphill, and Wigfall be, and they hereby are, each and all of them, expelled from the Senate of the United States.

Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, opposed the resolution, saying: "I can see no reason why we should depart from the determination of the Senate at the last session, in declaring the scats vacant, and adopt now the rule of expulsion. I know of no conspiracy on the part of the Senators named in the resolution. 1 cannot say that it has not existed, but I know the general fact, that, claiming the right of secession for their States (though I differed from them in that) as a right under the Constitution, they have acted openly with their States. Their States have chosen to leave this Union. Whether they have the authority or not, is questioned. They consider it a legitimate exercise of reserved rights under the Constitution. I consider the act as revolutionary. There is the difference. Shall I exercise the power of expulsion against a Senator on the ground of conspiracy, because he may be erroneous in point of law as to the effect of the action of his State? Am I to condemn him individually for the action of his State?"

Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, in reply declared: "I dare say the Senator would be glad that these seats should be declared vacant, and that the question should be left in abeyance whether they have the right to go out; but I want to deny here, on the floor of the Senate, the right of any State to secede; and when a Senator accedes to that action of his State, or the people of the State, I want to declare that he pats himself in a hostile attitude to this Government, and deserves expulsion from the councils of the nation. I hope that no such tame measure as declaring these seats vacant will be adopted by the Senate. I want the Senate to proclaim to the nation that we will not have these men in our councils, and that they shall go out. We let certain Senators withdraw at the last session—no, sir, we did not let them withdraw; they withdrew themselves, and left their seats vacant, and we declared them vacant by that act of virtual resignation. But n6w, sir, this revolution has gone on; it has made rapid progress; they have taken up arms against the Government; they have not only seized your arms, but they have assaulted your fortifications; their guns are now within sound of your capital; and shall we sit here in the Page 235 Senate and deliberate and doubt whether we shall turn out of this Senate the very men who are ready to explode those guns against your capital? No, Mr. President; let the judgment of the Senate be as summary, as decisive, and as signal, as their revolution has been rapid; and let them be ejected from the councils of the nation."

Mr. Latham, of California, continued the debate by saying: "I shall not vote for this resolution as it stands. I will vote to strike the names of these gentlemen from the roll, and to declare their seats vacant. I will not vote to expel them, because I think, as to some Senators named, that that would be unjust and improper. Expulsion implies turpitude. It is a reflection upon the personal character of the individual; it is a stain. Now I know myself that some Senators—two in particular—named in that resolution, did not indorse the right of secession. They disapproved of it; they never sanctioned it; and they did not think they could occupy a seat on this floor after their State had seceded."

Mr. MacDougal, of California, on the contrary, wished to soy that he did not vote for the expulsion of these members upon the ground that their States have declared themselves out of the Union. The expulsion is for personal cause. It is, that they have espoused the controversy made against the Republic, evidenced by one circumstance—perhaps sufficient, independent of what history has already reported of them— that they are not here. Now, there may be no turpitude in this act of theirs, or in their espousing the adversary cause. Treason was always a gentlemanly crime, and in ancient times a man who committed it was entitled to the axe instead of the halter.

The resolution was agreed to. Ayes, 82; noes, 10.

“On the 13th of July Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee, presented the credentials of W. T. Willey and J. S. Carlisle, elected Senators by the Legislature of Western Virginia, acting as the Legislature of the entire State.

Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, protested against administering the oath to them, saying: "I think these credentials ought to be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. They involve very grave questions. You are undertaking to recognize a government of the State of Virginia, which is not the regular State government, even though that State government may be in what you call a state of rebellion. You are bound to take notice of the fact that Mr. Letcher is Governor of Virginia, and that his term of office, under the constitution and laws of Virginia, has not yet expired. If you say he is in rebellion, that does not authorize a portion of the people of Virginia to form a Legislature for the purpose of electing Senators to take seats in this body. You have no authority to create a new State out of a part of an existing State. I think the questions are very grave."

Mr. Johnson replied: "I hope the motion of the Senator from Delaware will not prevail. These certificates from the Commonwealth of Virginia afford prima facie evidence that the election has taken place regularly, and that these gentlemen have been regularly certified here as the Senators from that Commonwealth. Is there any proof before this body, presented in any way, that the election has not taken place regularly, according to the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Virginia? The certificates themselves furnish prima facie evidence that these gentlemen are the Senators elect from the Commonwealth of Virginia. The other great fact is equally clear, without regard to what the Senate did yesterday, that these vacancies did exist on the 9th of the month, when this election took place. That fact is known to this body; it is known to the country. The late Senators from Virginia were not here. The vacancies did in fact exist when this election took place.

"These are facts within the cognizance of this body. They are known to every member here. Here are the certificates of election of these gentlemen, and there is not a single scintilla of proof from any quarter that they are not the Senators, and have not been properly and regularly elected. There is no one else claiming the seats, no one making a contest for them. There is not a particle of evidence from any quarter that these gentlemen are not the Senators elect according to the forms of law and the Constitution."

Mr. Bayard replied: "In my judgment, it is an utter abandonment of the whole form of your Government; it is, by the action of the Senate, recognizing insurrection in a State, for the purpose of overthrowing the government of the State, by a very small minority of its people."

Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, replied to Mr. Bayard by saying: "He says that the recognition of these gentlemen under the commission that they bear, will be recognizing insurrection in a State. I deny it, sir; I deny it utterly. I say that a greater perversion of terms never could be used. It is because we will not recognize insurrection in a State, that we admit these gentlemen. The part of the State to which the Senator alludes are themselves in a state of insurrection, and it becomes this Government to recognize the loyal and the true men that still cling to the Union and support the Constitution, and call upon this Government to maintain its constitutional obligations and put down insurrection. Talk about precedents, sir! "Why, the whole thing is new. These States have parted so far as they could, or the men under whose control they are, have parted from their constitutional obligations. There is no precedent, because the world never saw such a state of things.

"I hope that the Senate will not hesitate. Sir, this is no question of form, no question of ceremony; it is a question of life or death with this Republic, and with this Government. The Page 236 men that are in arms against you are in arms against your very existence. The idea of your national life a day after you yield to their position, is absurd and inconsistent. Sir, this Government had borne and forborne until your forbearance was construed into pusillanimity; and (luring the last session of Congress the most insulting language that ever fell from human lips was uttered in reference to this very General Government."

Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, spoke in answer, expressing his views thus: "My friend from New Hampshire tells us that this is a contest between despotism and constitutional liberty. Sir, so far as I have witnessed the action of the Executive, and, I regret to say, some of the acts of this body, it does not seem to me that the Constitution is much regarded. This proceeding is, in my judgment, an overthrow of the Constitution and the forms of our Government. As I said the other day, we have but little left save the Constitution, and I invoke Senators to preserve that."

The debate was continued for some time, when a division was taken on the motion to refer, and it was lost. Ayes, 5; noes, 35.

In the Senate the Army bill being under consideration on the 18th of July, Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, moved to amend it by adding the following section:

And be it further enacted, That no part of the army or navy of the United States shall be employed or used in subjecting or holding us a conquered province any sovereign State now or lately one of the United States, or in abolishing or interfering with African slavery in any of the States.

Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, immediately took the floor saying: “I shall vote against the amendment, as a matter of course, because it is out of place, and ought not to be offered here, in my judgment; but I wish it distinctly understood that in voting against it, I do not assent to the proposition, or the imputation, that this is a war for the purpose of subjugating any State or freeing any slave. If I understand the purpose of this war, it is to maintain the national honor, to defend the national property, to uphold the national flag everywhere wherever by right it floats, whether it be in South Carolina, or Florida, or Louisiana; but I say here, as I have said elsewhere, that there is no purpose in conducting this war to subjugate a State, to free a slave, or to interfere with the social or domestic institutions of any State or of any people. The purpose of the war, as I understand it, is to preserve this Union; to maintain the Constitution as it is in all its clauses, in all its guarantees, without change or limitation."

Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, replied: "I am pleased to hear the conservative sentiments uttered by the Senator from Ohio; but the Senator, I think, was unnecessarily surprised in his astonishment at the idea of any Senator supposing the result of this war would be probably the emancipation of the slaves, or the overthrow of State sovereignty. Does not the Senator from Ohio know that more than one of those who have been heretofore considered the most conservative Senators on the other side of this Chamber have declared that if the necessity existed, they were for emancipating the slaves in the southern States? It was so announced by the Senator from Connecticut, (Mr. Dixon.) It was affirmed by the Senator from Michigan, (Mr. Bingham.) The Senator from Kansas (Mr. Pomeroy) introduced a bill into the Senate, which is now before the Judiciary Committee, and has been printed, for the purpose of abolishing slavery in all the seceded States. When we witness all this, should the Senator from Ohio be surprised that the representatives of the slaveholding States fear that it may be and is the purpose of those in power to use the Army for the purpose of abolishing the institution of slavery and overthrowing the States? Did not the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Baker) the other day declare that if it were necessary, he would vote to reduce the seceded States to provinces, and send Governors there from other States to govern them as Territories? When we hear all these declarations, I think the Senator should not be surprised at the fear which I have expressed."

Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, next rose, saying: "What I said was this: that if the war should be persisted in, and be long protracted on the part of the South, and in the course of its progress it should turn out that either this Government or slavery must be destroyed, then the people of the North—the conservative people of the North—would say, rather than let the Government perish, let slavery perish. That is what I said, and say it now, and shall continue at all times to say the same; not by any means as a threat, but as a warning and an admonition."

Mr. Lane, of Kansas, followed, saying: "We would have stood by the compromises of the Constitution, and permitted slavery to exist in the States where it was planted; would not, by word or act, have disturbed it; but they have forced upon us this struggle, and I, for one, am willing that it shall be followed to its logical conclusion.

"I do believe, Mr. President, that the institution of slavery will not survive, in any State of this Union, the march of the Union armies, and I thank God that it is so. It is an institution that has been the curse of the country ever since my recollection; these Halls have" been accursed with it; the people of the States where it exists have been accursed with it, and the people of the free Sates have been accursed with it."

Mr. Carlile, from Western Virginia, did not intend to vote for the resolution. But this was no war of subjugation. There was no power in this Government to carry on such a war; no constitutional, no physical power, to carry it on. This was a war for the maintenance of the existence of the Constitution, and the Union under it; and it was a war in which the hearts Page 237 of the loyal people of the so-called seceded States are as much enlisted as are the hearts of the constituency which the honorable Senator from Connecticut represented. He did not understand him to say that he desired that this war should be prosecuted to the extermination of the institution of slavery. He merely understood him to say that those who have inaugurated this rebellion, who seem determined to push it to its extremities, may by their act, and by their act alone, effect the destruction which the Abolitionists never could have accomplished. "I believe this a war constitutionally waged for the perpetuity of the Government, in which are bound up all our hopes, the hopes of posterity, and the hopes of the civilized world."

Mr. Browning, of Illinois, explicitly said: "Mr. President, I am not prepared to admit, as some gentlemen take pains to explain, that this is not a war of subjugation. If it is not a war of subjugation, what is it? What was it set on foot for, if it is not for the sole identical purpose of subjugating the atrocious rebellion that now exists in the country?"

Mr. Sherman: "My friend misunderstood my language. I said distinctly that it was not the purpose of this war to subjugate a State, a political community; but I will go as far as he or any other living man to uphold the Government against all rebellious citizens, whether there be one or many of them in a State. If nine-tenths of the people of any State rebel against the authority of this Government, the physical power of this Government should be brought to reduce those citizens to subjection; the State survives."

Mr. Browning: "I will not stop to deal with technicalities; I care not whether you call it the subjugation of the people or the subjugation of the State. Where all the authorities of a State, where all the officers, who are the embodiment of the power of the State, who speak for the State, who represent the government of the State, where they are all disloyal and banded in treasonable confederation against this Government, I, for one, am for subjugating them, and you" may call it the subjugation of the State or of the people, just as you please. I am for subjugation, and you may apply the term subjugation to the State or the people. I want this rebellion put down, this wicked and causeless treason punished, and an example given to the world that will teach them that there is a power in the freemen of this continent to maintain a constitutional Government."

Relative to the abolition or destruction of slavery, lie expressed these views: "But, sir, let us understand another thing. As I have already said, the power to terminate this war now is not with us. The power is with us, but not to terminate it instantly. We will terminate it, if it is not terminated, as it should bo, by those who began it. But, sir, I say for one —I speak for myself and myself only, but I believe in so speaking I utter the sentiment,1) which will burst from every free heart in all the northern States of the Confederacy—that if our brethren of the South do force upon us the distinct issue, shall this Government be overthrown, and it and all the hopes of civil liberty, all the hopes for the oppressed and down-trodden of all the despotisms of the earth go down in one dark, dreary night of hopelessness and despair—if they force upon us the issue, whether the Government shall go down to maintain the institutions of slavery, or whether slavery shall be obliterated to sustain the Constitution and the Government for which our fathers fought and bled, and the principles that were concentrated in their blood—I say, sir, when the issue comes, if they force it upon us, that one or the other is to be overthrown, then I am for the Government and against slavery, and my voice and my vote shall be for sweeping the last vestige of barbarism from the face of the continent. I trust that necessity may not be forced on us; but when it is forced upon us, let us meet it like men, and not shrink from the high, and holy, and sacred duties that are laid upon us, as the conservators not only of Government, but as the conservators of the eternal principles of justice and freedom for the whole human family."

Mr. Carlile replied: "I desired to be understood as saying that the institution of slavery did not, of necessity, produce this rebellion; and, therefore, gentlemen had no right, in justice, to level all their artillery against the rights of the people of one section of the Union, to the property which is tolerated and acknowledged by their laws. Because a conspiracy has been inaugurated to overthrow and destroy the Government, are you to overthrow and destroy the rights of property in one-half of the States of this Union? Did gentlemen attempt to destroy commerce in 1832, because the tariff was made the pretext for the rebellion that was attempted to be inaugurated then? Does it follow that commerce is an evil, because resistance to tariff's, growing out of commerce, was made the pretext by South Carolina, in 1832, for an attempt to throw off her allegiance to this Government and to disconnect her people from it? As well should you have made a war upon commerce then, as to attempt now to make war upon an institution existing in one-half of the States of this Union; and in the very breath that you speak when you advocate such a war, you say that you are waging it—for what? For the maintenance of the Constitution! And do you not violate the Constitution in any effort that you may make to destroy an institution known to the laws of the States of the Union? What right have you, sir, as a Senator upon this floor, to go into my State and to thrust yourself between me and my property, and to say that I shall not own it and dispose of it in accordance with the laws of my State? What would the Government be, that would be preserved after conduct like that?" Page 238

Mr. Lane, of Kansas: "I desire to ask the Senator a question. Should the armies of the Union march into the slave States, and the slaves themselves should get up an insurrection, as I believe will be the case, and flee to the armies of the Union, or march out by the roads that the Union armies march in, will the Senator, under such circumstances, expect the people of the North, or the armies of the North, to become the servants of the traitors, and return those slaves to their traitorous masters?"

Mr. Carlile: "The gentleman is putting a question to me entirely foreign to the subject; but I will answer him in the language of the proclamation of the gallant general, issued to the people of Virginia when his army entered upon our soil: 'We come not among you, "Virginians, to interfere with your rights of property; and should an insurrection be gotten up in your midst, the iron heel of this army will be yours to suppress it.' Sir, that is the language of a man who loves his country, and who is disposed to obey its laws and be at the head of the army of deliverance—as I trust in God the armies of the Government of the Union will be everywhere—to deliver the people of the States that have been silenced and intimidated; many of them driven from their homes; and those who are left behind terrified by the conduct of disloyal men in their midst. That should be the name—' the army of deliverance' —that should be given to the forces of the United States everywhere, to protect us in our rights in the Union of every and any description."

Mr. Lane, of Kansas: "While I think that policy might be a correct one, so far as returning slaves to the Union men is concerned, I 6hould think it highly impolitic, and in a military sense highly improper, so far as the traitors are concerned."

Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, asked: "What would be thought if you were to march an army against New York or against any of the northern States, and to despoil their people of their houses, their goods, their chattels, and their lands? Would not the whole world look upon it, and justly, too, as an overthrow of the constitutional liberties of those people? And yet yon propose to do that in the name of the Constitution! Professedly executing the laws and maintaining the Constitution, you will destroy the Constitution, you will set the laws at defiance, and you will commit acts revolting to men and to God."

The question being taken on this amendment, it was rejected and the bill passed.

On the bill to authorize the President to accept the services of volunteers, to the number of live hundred thousand, being under consideration, Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, moved to amend by striking out "five" and inserting "two." He said: "As I remarked early in the last session of Congress, my State having been the first to adopt the Constitution and to enter the Union, she would and will be the last to abandon it, so I repeat now, however trite it may be. We have not a handful of secessionists or disunionists in the State of Delaware. But, sir, we have a people, and, as I believe, a majority of our people are honestly in favor of a peaceful settlement of this question, and they do believe that if opportunity is allowed to the people of this country, that there is love of country enough, that there is patriotism enough, that there is intelligence enough in the people of this country, both North and South, to settle this question without the bloody scenes which have been portrayed here to-day by the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Baker) and others. Sir, if we are invited to enter upon such scenes, if there is to be a war of subjugation, if fire and sword are to sweep over this land, if there are to be hundreds and thousands and millions of fatherless children, and of widows, then I say that the sentiment of my State is against such a policy.

"Mr. President, I do not profess to know as much in reference to the state of the country as many other gentlemen; but I do say, that I as firmly believe, as I believe that the sun shines in heaven, that if this Congress would adopt those propositions, maintain the integrity of the Union as it now exists, and turn the Richmond Government, or the Montgomery Government, over to its own people, in less than four years that old glorious flag which has been so eloquently alluded to here to-day would float in peace over every acre of American soil."

The amendment was then rejected and the bill passed. Ayes, 34; noes, 4.

_____

On the 11th of July, the bill making additional appropriations for the support of the army was taken up, and an animated debate ensued, which brought out the views of the House on the conduct of the war.

Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, regarded the increase of the army at this time as very necessary. It was not known how long the war might continue. The importance of having old disciplined troops as a nucleus for all new troops to rally around was so obvious that it hardly required any other argument. If this army be found too large after this rebellion is suppressed, it is very easy for Congress to repeal that law and reduce the army to a peace standard. This is the war standard of the army. This is the standard which in the present time, having a vast country to subdue, it is necessary to have. "When peace is upon us, I shall, if I happen to be here, go as far as any others to reduce the expenses by reducing the army to the peace standard. But I do not think fifty thousand men too large a standing army as a war standard. Hence I hope this bill will pass as it has been reported."

Mr. McClernand, of Illinois, said: "All who are in favor of a vigorous and successful prosecution of this war until rebellion and treason shall be crushed out; all who are in favor of this—and I am one of them; all such persons—Page 239 and they are overwhelmingly in the majority —are in favor of an increase of the military force, in such form and proportions as will insure this most important and desirable result.

"But, sir, what of this clamor about the increase of the regular army, and a standing army? Has it been too large? Will the proposed addition make it too large? I assert, sir, that it has been too small for ten or fifteen years—ever since the close of the Mexican war; and I think that must be the judgment of all intelligent men who have carefully reflected upon the subject. Had our standing army, after the close of that war, been raised to the standard required by the new order of things, many Indian forays might have been averted, and much human blood saved from being shed upon the borders of Texas, and our dependent Territories, by the savage tomahawk and butcher knife.

"Again, sir, what was the state of the case at the time this unholy rebellion broke out? The regular army had been dispersed all over the country in small bodies. If the purpose had been to place them out of the way, so as to enable premeditated rebellion to make head against the Government, it could not have been more effectually accomplished. And even had they been concentrated, so limited as their numbers were, could they have arrested the progress and development of a conspiracy which included the rulers of several States?

"Circumstances have changed. We are no longer an infant and small nation. We have come to be a great empire—a Republic of thirty-four States, and some thirty or more million people; and an Army of fourteen or fifteen thousand men is not a sufficient military police to preserve order everywhere within our extended dominions, and to restrain Indian hostilities along our extended and exposed borders. It appears to me that every gentleman must see this." Mr. Burnett, of Kentucky replied, that he had thought, not like the honorable gentleman from Illinois, that this was not a great empire, but a confederacy of sovereign and co-equal States. He had thought that this was a government resting for its support upon the affections and the consent of the governed; that it did not require a standing army to keep the people in order; that it did not require even fourteen or fifteen thousand men as a police to keep the people of this country in order.

Mr. McClernand desired to ask the member from Kentucky one question: "Will he vote for a volunteer force to put down this rebellion?"

Mr. Burnett in reply said: "Not for one man. I am not willing to vote for them for I do not believe you can hold this Government together at the point of the bayonet, or at the cannon's mouth, any more than you can hold the lightnings of heaven, or gather the winds in the hollow of your hands.

"No, sir; I say to the gentleman now, and I say it in the fulness of my heart, that five hundred thousand men and §500,000,000, if raised by this House for the subjugation of a portion of this country, will not accomplish that purpose. They may desolate the country; they may lay waste cities and towns; but when they meet here again on the first Monday in December next, they will find their $500,000,000 gone; they will find their five hundred thousand soldiers still in the field; but no nearer a peace than now.

"This much, sir, I desire to say, and these are the reasons why I will not vote for men or money. I have, from the commencement, been for a peaceful solution of this struggle, and I am for it now. I have been published to the country as a secessionist; but, sir, in the last speech which I had the honor to make upon this floor, I announced my opinion that there was no warrant in the Constitution for the doctrine of secession.

"Sir, I do not believe in it, as a constitutional doctrine; I believe it is the theory of our Government that it rests for its support upon the affections and the consent of the governed. I do regard, as one of the citizens of this country, and one of the representatives of the people, that the resort to armies and navies and the horrors of war will sound the death-knell of the Republic; and for that reason I enter my solemn protest against this whole measure."

Mr. McClernand, in answer, continued: "It is important that I should notice what has fallen from the gentleman from Kentucky. He very candidly informs the House, and, through the House, the country, that not one dollar will he vote to put down, either by regular or volunteer force, this rebellion against the country. Sir, when he took his seat upon this floor, he took upon himself a solemn obligation, sanctioned by an oath in the sight of the country and before God, that he would support the Constitution. Can he do so by folding his arms while the batteries of rebellion are levelled at the capital? Is that the way he proposes to discharge his obligation? I leave it for all impartial men to decide whether it is the proper way.

"The gentleman assumes—he must assume as the basis of his assertion—that all of the seceded States are disloyal. I respectfully deny the correctness of the assumption. On the contrary, I assert, and with entire confidence, that just as the Federal flag advances towards the heart of this rebellion, thousands and tens of thousands of loyal men in the seceded States will be found rallying around it, ready to uphold it. I also deny, sir, that this is a war of conquest. Far from it. It is a war to put down rebels and rebellion, and to guarantee security of person and property to the Union men of those States; it is a war waged in behalf of the Constitution and laws. This is its purpose and mission; and it will fulfil it, with the blessing of God. Nor is there one of those States in which there are not ample numbers of Union men to maintain a State government after the rebellion shall have been put down."

Mr. Hickman, of Pennsylvania, followed:— "If it be asserted with any degree of authority by the gentleman from Kentucky, that five hundred thousand men will not be able to subdue the rebellion in the southern disloyal States, then I am for employing twice five hundred thousand men, and the eighteen States of the North are in favor of doing the same thing. "We intend that the Constitution and the Union shall be maintained; and we intend that rebellion, come in what shape it may, and backed by what numbers it may be, shall not be enabled to destroy either the one or the other. I trust in God that the gentleman from Kentucky does not speak even the sentiment of his own section, much less the sentiment of his State; but, whether so does or does not, permit me to say to him here, very frankly, that it matters not to those who are engaged in this work of preservation whether he does or not; for, no matter what their opinion may be, this Government will be preserved, and the gallows will eventually perform its office."

Mr. Burnett, in answer, said: "I tell gentlemen now, carry out the picture painted in full; carry on this war; drench this country in blood; have your armed five hundred thousand men in the field; desolate the fair fields of both sections of the country; let the streams run with blood; let all that the gentleman from Pennsylvania can desire be accomplished; and then tell me, will you, what your country is worth when the finale comes? Tell me, will you, what will your Government be worth when you have accomplished all that you ask shall be done? Sir, when the pen of the historian shall come to write the history of the times in which we live, I tell gentlemen upon this floor now, there will be a fearful accountability for some of us to render. Sir, when the gentleman tells me that this war must be prosecuted, I say, go on; you have the power; I prefer peace to war, but I am powerless here. Let me remind him that when my venerable colleague (Mr. Crittenden) and other southern men in this House, and at the other end of the Capitol, were begging you, at the last session of Congress, on bended knees, and with tears in our eyes, to give us something to restore peace and fraternity to our common country, und to stay this revolution, all those appeals and entreaties were not only resisted, but treated with silent contempt and indignant scorn; and all propositions looking to that end were voted down; and now, by the act of the President of the United States, without authority of law, and in violation of the Constitution, war has been inaugurated; and here, as one of the people's representatives, I boldly enter my solemn protest against it."

Mr. Lovejoy, of Illinois, said it was not a question whether this war, or this suppression of rebellion, shall be carried on till the Stars and Stripes float in every place where they have a right to float. "The question is, who is to do it?

The question is, shall it be done by the increase of the regular army, or whether you will take these patriotic volunteers, who have flocked here in thousands and thousands, and let the citizen soldier accomplish this, his appropriate work? That is the question, and I will not allow the issue to be changed. Take your men, in God's name. You can have half a million or a million of them; you can have four or five hundred million dollars. The people are pressing, the bit like a restive horse to put down this rebellion. I am willing to carry on this war until, if it is necessary, some future historian shall write of us as Tacitus wrote of the Romans: Solitudinem faciant et pacem appellant. Aye, sir, if there is no other way to quell this rebellion, we will make a solitude, and call it peace. And I tell the gentleman from Kentucky that he need not make any appeals to us about peace; he need not talk to us about the shedding of blood and the burning of houses, and villages, and cities. 'There is no peace to the wicked, saith my God;' there is no peace to these rebels and traitors, who have raised their hands against the Government. We will carry on this war; the people will carry it on; the citizen soldier will fight this battle. He is impatient to do it now; but we do not want—certainly not now —to increase the regular army'."

Mr. Pendleton, of Ohio, desired to vote for all measures asked for to enable the Government to maintain its honor and dignity, which might be sanctioned by the Constitution, and by any reasonable view of the necessity of the case. He would heartily, zealously, gladly support any honest effort to maintain the Union, and reinvigorate the ties which bind these States together. But he was not willing to vote for more men or more money than the Administration asks; more than it can fairly use: more than General Scott, who advised and controlled the Administration, tells us he thinks necessary.

Mr. Blair, of Missouri, was of the opinion that if more men should be needed after Congress had adjourned, it was proper to put it in the power of the President to call for them.

Mr. Diven, of New York, would give the President a million if half a million of men were not sufficient to put down this rebellion.

Mr. Hickman again alluded to the question of subjugation of the South, and said: "I entertain the opinion now, and I have long entertained it, that one hundred thousand men will be entirely sufficient to accomplish the restoration of the Constitution in the seceded States; but the smaller the number of men employed, the greater will be the length of time necessary to accomplish the object in view. I do not see, myself, that increasing the number of men will necessarily increase the hazard of subjugating the South. I do not myself know whether it is contemplated to subjugate the South. I do know, however, that it is fully contemplated to force the South into submission. There can be. no loyalty without submission; and these men Page 241 are to be taught by a strong hand that they are to pay the same regard to the Constitution and laws as commoner people are forced to render to them. These men believe that they have a right to declare themselves out of the pale of legitimate Government whenever it shall suit their interests to do so, or whenever it shall be in accordance with the lead of their passions to do so. We, the people of the North, of the loyal States, and all who act with the North, intend to educate these men in a different doctrine; and if we shall eventually be forced to bring them into subjection—abject subjection to the Constitution of the United States—it will be their fault, and not ours.

"Now, sir, an army will be needed upon the southern coast. Every foot of the southern coast will have to be threatened; and perhaps every foot of the southern coast will eventually have to be invaded. An army will have to be started upon the nearest southern frontier here, and it will have to be marched until it shall meet the army threatening the coast; and perhaps it will be necessary—it is well for gentlemen from the southern States to consider whether it may not be necessary—to leave the track of the chariot wheels of war so deep on the southern soil that a century may not obliterate it. I am not willing to stint the Government either in men or money. I am determined, so far as my influence, and my voice, and my vote, will go, to make this war an effectual one—a terror to evil-doers for all time to come; so that, when the Constitution and Union shall be reestablished, they shall have a permanence which shall satisfy all true lovers of liberty."

Mr. Burnett, of Kentucky, said that the member from Pennsylvania did not conceal his purpose; he tells the country that it is the purpose of the eighteen northern States to reduce the southern States to abject submission.

Mr. Hickman replied: "I believe my remark was—at least I intended that it should be —this: that our intentions are to bring the disloyal to submission or acquiescence. I understand that to mean submission to the binding obligation of the laws. That is what I mean. Whether it shall be necessary to go further than that, is for the gentlemen who occupy the position of rebellion to determine."

Mr. Vallandigham, of Ohio, offered the following proviso:

Provided, further, That before the President shall have the right to call out any more volunteers than are already in the service, he shall appoint seven commissioners, whose mission shall be to accompany the army on its march, to receive and consider such propositions, if any, as may at any time be submitted from the Executive of the so-called Confederate States, or of any one of them, looking to a suspension of hostilities and the return of said States, or any one of them, to the Union, and to obedience to the Federal Constitution and authority.

On a division, there were only twenty-one votes in its favor: In the Senate, on the 26th of July, Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee, offered the following resolution :—

Resolved, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feeling of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose or overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof, and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.

Mr. Polk, of Missouri, proposed to amend it so as to read:

That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern and the Northern States; that in this national emergency, &c, &c.

This was voted down by ayes, 4; noes, 33.

Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, thus expressed his views of the object of the war: "I trust this war is prosecuted for the purpose of subjugating all rebels and traitors who are in arms against the Government. What do you mean by ' subjugation?' I know that persons in the southern States have sought to make this a controversy between States and the Federal Government, and have talked about coercing States and subjugating States; but, sir, it has never been proposed, so far as I know, on the part of the Union people of the United States, to subjugate States or coerce States. It is proposed, however, to subjugate citizens who are standing out in defiance of the laws of the Union, and to coerce them into obedience to the laws of the Union. I dislike that word in this connection. In its broadest sense I am opposed to it. If it means the war is not for the purpose of the subjugation of traitors and rebels into obedience to the laws, then I am opposed to it. I trust the war is prosecuted for that very purpose."

Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee, explained the resolution in these words: "The resolution, simply states that we are not waging a war for the subjugation of States. If the Constitution is maintained and the laws carried out, the States take their places and all rebel citizens must submit. That is the whole of it."

Mr. Collamer, of Vermont, declared that he was for subjugation, in the sense in which that word was ordinarily received. He did not mean its classic meaning. He knew its literal, classic meaning was to pass under the yoke, tub juga. He proposed to pass nobody under the yoke; but in the ordinary and popular acceptation of that term he used it, that is, that all the people of the United States shall submit to the laws and Constitution of the United States everywhere.

Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, said: "I do not Page 242 want to carry on this war for the purpose of subjugating the people of any State, in any shape or form; and it is a false idea gotten up by bad men for bad purposes that it ever has been the purpose of any portion of the people of this country. I am willing, therefore, to meet them face to face, and say I never had that purpose, and have it not now. But we say, notwithstanding we have not that purpose, and distinctly avow it, we have a purpose, and that is to defend the Constitution and the laws of the country, and to put down this revolt at whatever hazard; and it is for them to say whether it is necessary for us in the course of accomplishing a legitimate and proper object to subjugate them in order to do it. I hope not; and if it is necessary and we could do it, I should want to keep them subjugated no longer than was necessary to secure that purpose. That far it must go, and no further. To that it must go at all events and hazards. As to the word, sir, I would as soon take that as any other. It expresses the idea clearly, and I am satisfied with it."

Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, regarded the resolution as an act not altogether legislative in its character, but as a declaration of the purpose of the Government. It was a deed in that sense, which is to have its effect upon the American people, and he desired that it should be passed in the language in which it had been presented.

Mr. Willey, of "Western Virginia, stated the views of the people of the Old Dominion on the war. He said: "There is a fear among many, there is a prejudice wide extended in the public sentiment of Virginia, that the design of this war is subjugation; that the design of this war is to reduce the Old Dominion into a province; that the design of this war, literally, in the language of the honorable Senator from Vermont, is to pass our people under the yoke.

"Sir, I do not understand such to be the purpose of this war. The Legislature of the State which I represent does not understand such to be the purpose of this war. My constituency are for the preservation of the Union, the vindication of the Constitution, and the execution of the laws. We believe that in the success of this war, in carrying out these legitimate purposes, is involved the great question of constitutional liberty itself now and forever among our people, and among all people; and I here, from the Old Dominion, as an humble member on this floor, am instructed by my Legislature, and am prepared to vote for every necessary measure, and for every necessary man, without stint, lot, or hinderance, to carry on the war until all resistance to lawful authority is put down ; until the Constitution is vindicated, and restored to all its legitimate supremacy; and until the Union is reestablished on a basis never to be overthrown.

"But, sir, candor constrains me to say, that if any different purpose shall be avowed, if it shall ever be intimated or declared that this is to be a war upon the domestic institutions of the South, and upon the rights of private property, every loyal arm on the soil of the Old Dominion will be instantly paralyzed. Sir, pass this resolution in the language in which it is printed, and you give muscle and vigor to every loyal arm in the Old Dominion, and yon will multiply the friends of the Union by thousands whenever our people are disimbued of the prejudices that exist in their minds."

Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, stated that he had repeatedly, as long as he had been in Congress, and before that, avowed his sentiment to be that the Government had no more right, no more legal or constitutional authority to interfere with slavery in the States than they had to interfere with the condition of the serfs in Russia, or with the rights and wrongs of the laboring classes in England. "I said that when I acted—I was going to say with the party out of power; but when I acted out of power, without a party—when I acted as the soldier did, fighting on his own hook. That has always been my sentiment. I have always proclaimed it, whenever I had occasion to speak upon it; and, acting with the party that is in power today, I am willing to stand by the profession that I made when I was out of power. I believe that the General Government have no power upon this subject at all, and that they cannot have under the Constitution."

Mr. Kennedy, of Maryland, thus expressed his views: "I indicated by my vote a few minutes ago that my opinion is that this deplorable civil war has been forced on the country by the disunionists of the Southern and Northern States. I wanted to go no further, but merely to express that idea. I am not prepared to admit that it was brought on exclusively by the Southern States, because it will be very well recollected by gentlemen here that there were propositions of peace offered at the last session of Congress, in the very closing days of that session, which, if they had been accepted at that time by the minority party in the Senate, would have avoided the war which is upon ns to-day.

"It was the refusal in part of the majority party to accept of measures of conciliation and peace before Congress adjourned last spring. It is also perfectly true that if the members of the Southern States who vacated these seats long before Congress adjourned, had remained here, there would not have been war. I believe that if the majority party had pursued a different course before Congress adjourned than the one that they elected in rejecting every overture and every proposition for peace, we should have been today without the sad calamity that has befallen us."

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, could not vote for the resolution, because he did not agree with the statement of facts contained in it. Ho said: "I do not intend to go into the antecedents of this unhappy difficulty. My own opinion is, that there have been errors upon Page 243 both sides; my own opinion is, that these sectional Federal difficulties might have been settled last winter; my opinion is, that the present condition of affairs is due, principally, to the absolute refusal of the majority in this Chamber to agree to any proposition of adjustment, as I have taken occasion to state, and tried to show heretofore; and I think to that persistent and obstinate refusal, more than to any other cause, is due the present condition of public affairs.

"I think, sir, that this war is prosecuted, according to the purposes of a majority of those who are managing the legislation that leads to its prosecution, for objects of subjugation. I believe that, unless those States which have seceded from the Federal Union, lay down their arms and surrender at discretion, the majority in Congress will hear to no terms of settlement, and that those who may attempt to mediate will speak to the winds. I believe, therefore, that the war, in the sense and spirit entertained by these gentlemen, is a war of subjugation. The eminent Senator from Ohio, (Mr. Sherman,) not less conservative than a majority of the organization with which he is connected, went so far, in the warmth of his feelings, the other day, as to declare that, unless the people of certain States in the South yielded willing obedience, he would depopulate them and people them over again. That I call not only a war of subjugation, but a war of extermination.

"On the day before yesterday, I think, sir, an amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Trumbull) to one of the general bills before the Senate, received the vote of an overwhelming majority of this body, which declares that any person held to service or labor, who should be employed to aid the rebellion in any form, should be discharged from service and labor. These were the general vague terms of that proposition. I think I have the very words.

"I consider that amendment passed by a vote of the Senate, so far as the vote of this Senate can go, a general act of emancipation. I should like to know if those held to service or labor, who are employed as agricultural laborers in the South in raising cotton, in raising corn and other products which are used by the mass of the population, cannot readily be considered by a rampant and fanatic spirit as being employed in aiding the rebellion. Certainly as readily as every means of subsistence can be cut off from that whole country by the act of the Executive, approved by the legislative department of the Government."

Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, followed, saying:— "The Senator from Kentucky and the disunionists of the Southern States have no right to come to me and say, 'you have involved your country in civil war because you would not do as we wanted you to do.' Because we would not change the Constitution, because we would not ingraft new provisions in it that were unknown to it; especially because we will not disregard the popular voice at the last election, we are charged with involving our country in civil war. It is idle to answer this kind of argument.

"Mr. President, the disunionists of the Southern States are traitors to their country; they must, and I repeat they will, be subdued. This war is prosecuted for the purpose of subduing those men, and compelling them to obey the laws, just as you, sir, and I, are bound to do; to make them just as loyal subjects as you and I now are. Because this purpose is announced and declared by the resolution introduced by the honorable Senator from Tennessee, we are to have clamor about subjugation. I am a subject; you are a subject; there is not a Senator within the sound of my voice who is not a subject. The Lieutenant-General is a subject, the President of the United States is a subject, just precisely in the same sense that we intend to make all these people in the Southern States subjects to the Constitution. All this clap-trap about subjugation, it seems to me, ought to be dismissed from the Senate. These men must be subjugated to obedience to the Constitution; and when that is accomplished, then this resolution declares our purpose to be to give them all the rights conferred upon them by the Constitution, and that the very moment the object is accomplished the war shall cease.

"In regard to the proposition offered by the Senator from Illinois, (Mr. Trumbull,) I have but this to say: if a slave is used by his master in the actual prosecution of this war, that slave ought to be freed; the master ought to forfeit all right to him. Does the Senator deny this? If a slave is used by his master to accomplish the work of treason—I mean actively, according to the language of that bill— ought that master still to own the labor of that slave? Certainly not; and yet it seems to me, in declaring this principle, we do not interfere at all in the slightest degree with the relations of master and slave, except where the master uses that slave as an instrument to erect barricades—to accomplish treason. As a matter of course, then, he ought to lose his right to the slave—all claim, ownership, or control over him. There is no objection to this doctrine."

The debate was continued by Mr. Breckinridge, to whom Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, replied: "The Senator charges upon the majority, or those representing the majority upon this floor, the responsibility of involving the country in civil war. He charges that last winter, if the majority had yielded to the demands of the minority, the country would now be at peace. Sir, what were those demands made by the minority? Not to support the Constitution; not to stand by the Constitution as it is; but to make anew Constitution, and a new Constitution by the provisions of which the institution of slavery should be carried into all the territories we now have south of 36° 30', and all the territories we can ever acquire, Page 244  even to Cape Horn. Sir, not only did they make the demand of a new Constitution, but they demanded it with arms in their hands. Do you suppose, when a demand like this was made, with arms in the hands of a minority, threatening to overturn the Government, that such a demand would be acquiesced in by the representatives of a majority of the American people?

"Does that honorable Senator, when defeated in the election, suppose that the majority, under the Constitution, would yield to the minority, who were already in arms to prevent the inauguration of their candidate? That because the majority refused to submit to this humiliating demand of a minority, as a condition precedent, the majority are responsible for this war? Behold those gentle advocates of peace seizing our forts, firing upon our flag, at the mouths of their cannon demanding a new Constitution, or that the old one should be overthrown! Worse than all, Mr. President, when the question was put to the representatives of this minority in the peace congress, 'If we yield to your demand, if we now agree that the Constitution shall be changed so that the institution of slavery, by virtue of the Constitution, shall be carried into all the territories we now have south of 86°"30', and all we may over acquire' in Mexico, Central and Southern America, will you then give up your doctrine of secession and stand by the Union?' the answer was, 'Not at all.' Sir, we could have no Union worth having on any terms whatever."

_____

On a division, the resolution was adopted. Ayes, 80; noes, 5.

On the 15th of July, Mr. "Wood, of New York, uttered the following resolution:

Resolved, That this Congress recommend the Governors of the several States to convene their Legislatures for the purpose of calling an election to select two delegates from each congressional district, to meet in general convention at Louisville, in Kentucky, on the first Monday in September next; the purpose of the said convention to be to devise measures for the restoration of peace to our country.

This was laid on the table. Ayes, 92; noes, 51.

On the same day, Mr. Allen, of Ohio, offered the following resolutions:

Resolved, That whenever the States now in rebellion against the General Government shall cease their rebellion and become loyal to the Union, it is the duty of the Government to suspend the further prosecution of the present war.

Resolved, That it is no part of the object of the present war against the rebellious States to interfere with the institution of slavery therein. These were ruled out of order, ns in conflict with the resolution prescribing the business of the extra session.

On the same day, Mr. McClernand offered the following preamble and resolution:

Whereas, a portion of the people of the United States, in violation of their constitutional obligations, have taken up arms against the national Government, and are now striving, by aggressive and iniquitous war, to overthrow it, and break up the Union of these States: Therefore,

Resolved, That this House hereby pledges itself a vote for any amount of money and any number of men which may be necessary to insure a speedy and effectual suppression of such rebellion, and the permanent restoration of the Federal authority everywhere within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States. This was adopted. Ayes, 121; noes, 5.

On the 22d of July, Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, offered in the House the following resolution:

Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States, now in arms against the constitutional Government, and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency, Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged on their part in any spirit of oppression, or for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, or purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.

The resolution was decided to be divisible, and the first part of it, to wit:

Resolved by the Home of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government, and in arms around the capital—

was adopted. Yeas, 121; nays, 2.

The remainder of the resolution was then adopted. Yeas, 117; nays, 2.

In the House, on the 24th of July, a bill was reported to appropriate $100,000 in payment of the police force organized by the United States in the city of Baltimore.

Mr. Burnett, of Kentucky, in opposing the bill, said: "I tell you, gentlemen, that you may carry on these acts, for there is no one hero with power enough to prevent them; but you will be held responsible for all that has been done here. You are writing, by indorsing and ratifying the illegal acts of this Administration, one of the saddest, blackest pages in the history of this country."

Mr. Richardson, of Illinois, in reply, took occasion to make some statements, which, although not applicable to the subject under debate, yet belong to the facts of history. Ho said: "I have desired, during this entire session of Congress, to say a word or two to my friend from Kentucky, [Mr. Burnett.*] More than any other man in this house he is responsible this day for the condition in which the country now finds itself. "When he aided, by his counsel, advice, and cooperation, the division of the Democratic party at Charleston

____________________________________

* Mr. Burnett returned to Kentucky at the close of this session of Congress, and subsequently become, during that year, a member if the Confederate Congress from Kentucky, and took a seat in that body at Richmond Page 245 and Baltimore, he brought the existing sad calamity upon the Union. Sir, I have no regard for your position. You have stood with the Republicans, and have aided them in elevating Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency, by dividing the Democratic party; and now, sir, you make that the pretext for breaking up this Government. I stand here and declare that fact in the face of the nation. It is true, sir. I understand it as well as any man in this house or in this country." Mr. Burnett:

"Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question?" Mr. Richardson:

"Certainly, sir."

Mr. Burnett: "Then, when the gentleman states that at Charleston—and I do not mean to go into a discussion of the matter—I was engaged in plotting to break up the Democratic party, he states that of which he knows nothing, for, sir, I had no agency or hand in it; and, if he will permit me to say one more word, I will tell him that, when State delegations went out of the Charleston convention, I was the only man, I believe, from any of the slave States, who went into the hall and made a speech appealing to them to come back."

Mr. Richardson: "I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, in the position I assume. I found the gentleman there in association and cooperation with those who created distraction in that convention, and who did all that was done to destroy it. I stand here and say that; and for what I say I am responsible.

"Mr. Speaker, I have spoken of this conspiracy to break up the Democratic party and the country, and I have said that the gentleman from Kentucky was in it. I know the fact, and I will not permit him to shrink from it."

Mr. Burnett: "Let me tell the gentleman from Illinois, once for all—"

Mr. Richardson: "I know you were in it, and that is enough."

The Speaker: "Does the gentleman yield to the gentleman from Kentucky?"

Mr. Richardson: "I do not yield. I have one more word to say, and I want to say it to the other side of this House. This organization of the Breckinridge party was for the purpose of destroying the Government. That was its purpose and its object. What do we see? Without the aid and cooperation of the men of the North, that party was powerless. The men from the Northern States, who aided and encouraged this organization which is in rebellion, are at the head to-day of our army. Butler of Massachusetts, Dix of New York, and Patterson of Pennsylvania, and Cadwalader—all of them in this movement to break down and disorganize the Democratic party and the country. Why is it? This Douglas party furnished you one half of your entire army. Where is your general—where is your man in command to-day who belongs to that party? Why is this? Have you Republicans sympathized with this Breckinridge party? Are you sympathizing with them, and lending your aid to the men who lead our armies into misfortune and disgrace? I ask you to look. "I stand here to-day for the purpose of saying one word more. I have spoken with some feeling. I have spoken with feeling because I feel, and feel deeply. You have at the head of your army a man who carried your bag through the war of 1812, and through the war with Mexico, with a strategy unequalled. You have sought to disgrace him, and you have sought to impair the public confidence in him. He fought this battle over here,* which was disastrous to our army, against his judgment. Who caused it? You have forced it upon him. I tell you that, unless you rally around him, this great fighting army at the North, which is Democratic, will not support you. I have no sympathy with General Scott's political opinions— not a particle. When he was a candidate for the Presidency, I fought against and resisted his election with all my power. I would vote against him for the Presidency to-morrow; but I tell you that, when you look over the list of all the military men of the earth, he is the greatest of them all. He fought the battle of Sunday last against his plan. The strategy of General Scott was the finest ever seen. If he had not been forced to precipitate our army, he would have won a victory without fighting a battle. Again I say, you have forced this battle upon General Scott, and it has been lost because you have forced it upon him; and I declare before God to-day, as my solemn conviction, that if this thing is to be permitted to continue, you destroy this Government forever. I stand hero in my place and make the declaration that, if General Scott cannot conduct this war, we have nobody that can. If he cannot, by strategy, skill, and courage, save this Government, it is impossible to save it. On this matter I have said all I desire to say."

Mr. Blair, of Missouri, followed: "The gentleman alleges that General Scott was driven into this battle the other day by some of the persons upon this side of the House, as I understood him. Now, there has been nothing said of General Scott here so derogatory to him as that which the gentleman himself has uttered. Is he fit to command the army of the United States if he can be forced into a battle when he is not prepared for it, and against his own best judgment, by the outcries of outsiders, as the gentleman has characterized them? No one here has attempted to traduce or say aught against General Scott, except the gentleman himself, and he has levelled at him a charge which is derogatory to him in the very highest degree."

Mr. Richardson: "Well, I take it back if I have."

Mr. Blair: "If he takes it back, I have nothing further to say upon the matter."

Mr. Richardson: "I believe the gentleman from Missouri has taken issue with me upon the 

_____________________________________

*Bull Run.

_____________________________________

Page 246 fact that, General Scott was forced to fight this battle. I will tell the gentleman what occurred yesterday morning in the presence of my friends McClernand, Logan, and Washburne, of Illinois, and also in the presence of the President of the United States and the Secretary of War. I will try and repeat what was said. General Scott said: 'Sir, I am the greatest coward in America.' I ro3Q from my seat immediately. 'Stop, sir,' said he, 'I will prove it; I have fought this battle, sir, against my judgment; I think the President of the United States ought to remove me to-day for doing it. As God is my judge, after my superiors had determined to fight it, I did all in my power to make the army efficient. I deserve removal because I did not stand up, when my army was not in condition for fighting, and resist it to the last.' If the gentleman controverts what I say, I furnish the evidence, the proof. Here are the gentlemen present who hoard this conversation. There is your Secretary of War and your President. He said that he ought to be removed because he had fought the battle against his judgment. I stand here to vindicate him.

"I am indebted to the gentleman from Missouri for the compliment which he has passed upon me. I desire to say for myself that I stand here the remains of three generations that have fallen in battle. The bones of my father and grandfather bleach upon the battlefields where they fell beneath the flag of my country. I have stood beneath its folds at home and abroad in the storm of battle, and, with God's blessing, I will stand beneath it to the end, and defend it with my life against foreign or domestic foe."

Mr. Washburne: "As my colleague has referred to that conversation, I hope he will state to the House what the President said to General Scott."

Mr. Richardson: "I will state it. The President said: ' Your conversation seems to imply that I forced you to fight this battle.' General Scott then said: 'I have never served a President who has been kinder to me than you have been.' But, sir, he did not relieve the Cabinet from the imputation of having forced him to fight this battle. He paid a compliment to President Lincoln personally; and, Mr. Speaker, standing here in my place, I desire to say of Abraham Lincoln—and I have known him from boyhood's hour till now—if you let him alone, he is an honest man; but I am afraid he has not the will to stand up against the wily politicians who surround him and knead him to their purposes."

On a subsequent day this subject came np again in the House, when Mr. Richardson said in explanation, he did not intend to charge that General Scott, even by implication, declared that President Lincoln had contributed to force him into the battle of Bull Run.

Mr. Blair, of Missouri, replied: "I allude to this matter for a double purpose. I find that the gentleman is reported as stating that General Scott intended to pay a personal compliment to Mr. Lincoln; but that he did not exonerate the Cabinet.

"I say that all that has been said on that occasion goes to show that General Scott did intend to exonerate the President from the allegation that he had forced him into a fight. I undertake to say that such is the fact, and I want it to go upon the record."

Mr. Richardson: "Let us have no misunderstanding about this matter. My colleagues understood that I gave the language as near as I could. Whether I have been correctly reported or not, I do not know. If I did not then make the correct statement, let me do it now.

"I did not understand General Scott, nor did I mean so to be understood, as implying that the President had forced him to fight that battle."

Mr. Blair: "That is the very essence of this matter. But I go further, in reference to what occurred prior to that battle, and say that the President, after he had information that General Johnston had escaped through the hands of General Patterson, and had joined General Beauregard on Friday evening, went to General Scott and suggested the propriety of waiting until Patterson's corps could come up and reinforce the army that was then before Manassas; but so firmly fixed was General Scott's determination to attack the enemy then and there, that the President's suggestion was disregarded. The Secretary of war also returned from the field before the battle, and endeavored to induce General Scott to send forward reinforcements; he urged it again and again; and finally succeeded in having five regiments sent, two of which reached Centreville before the retreat commenced. I make these statements, and I make them for the purpose of preventing General Scott from being exhibited to the country, as has been attempted to be done by his friends, as assailing the President and his Administration. This conversation, as reported in the speech of the gentleman from Illinois—and that speech has other marks indicating a design to attack the Administration—holds out General Scott as assailing the President and the Cabinet.

"But I have another purpose far more important; and that is, that the President shall retain the confidence of the people of this country—of all who are in favor of preserving the Union; but as long as he is held out as interposing and forcing the Commanding General to fight a battle against his will, he cannot command that confidence. When the country knows the truth, as they will know, that the President did not take the responsibility to order a battle before our troops were prepared for it, he will retain, as he deserves, the confidence of the people of this country in the war."

The Senate bill "to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes" was reported back by the Judiciary Committee with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. It

Page 247 provided that whenever hereafter, during the existence of the present insurrection against the Government of the United States, any person held to labor or service under the laws of any State shall be required or permitted, by the person to whom such labor or service is due, or his legal agent, to take up arms against the United States, or to work or be employed in or about any fort, navy-yard, armory, dock-yard, ship, or in any military or naval service, against the Government of the United States, or as the servant of any person engaged in active hostilities against the United States, then the person to whom such labor is due shall forfeit all claim to such service or labor, any law of any State, or of the United States, to the contrary notwithstanding; and, in case of a claim for such labor, such facts shall be a full and sufficient answer.

Mr. Wickliffe, of Kentucky, said: "I desire to ask the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary whether it is the design of this bill to confiscate the property of citizens in persons described there where they may be found at labor of any description which can be connected with war, except the carrying of arms? Suppose my negroes—I being a national man and a Union man—are taken without my leave and against my consent, to drive teams and carry provender to the rebel army: are my negroes to be confiscated?"

Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, answered: "I will state in reply to the inquiry of the gentleman from Kentucky, that this bill is drafted—the original bill as well as the substitute—in such a manner as expressly to preclude such a construction; because both the original bill and the substitute limit the penalties prescribed to such persons as are engaged in this rebellion by their own act"

Mr. Burnett, of Kentucky, said: "Now, let me ask the gentleman from Ohio whether the Senate bill does not apply to all slaves who may be owned by persons now in this rebellion, and to their services in any wise used in aiding this rebellion, without limitation?"

Mr. Bingham: "I state, unhesitatingly, that the Senate bill does no such thing, for it has limitation—that such services must be by the direct act of the owner himself; by the direct act of the owner, or by the act of his agent or employee."

The substitute was rejected by the House, and the question recurred on the Senate bill. To this Mr. Bingham offered an amendment, "limiting the operation of the bill to the present insurrection."

The fourth section of the Senate bill was then read as called for. It was as follows:

Whenever (my person claiming to be entitled to the service or labor of any other person, under the laws of any State, shall employ such person in aiding or promoting any insurrection, or in resisting the laws of the United States, or shall permit him to be so employed, he shall forfeit ail right to such service or labor, and the person whose labor or service is thus claimed shall be thenceforth discharged therefrom, any law to the contrary notwithstanding.

Mr. Burnett: "The use of a slave, by authority of the owner, in any mode which will tend to aid or promote this insurrection, will entitle that slave to his freedom."

Mr. Bingham: "Certainly it will."

Mr. Burnett: "Now we understand each other. I ask the gentleman whether this bill is not to be construed by the executive authorities of the Government ?"

Mr. Bingham: "No, sir; I undertake to say that this provision is like many others now standing upon our statute-books subject to judicial decision. It is simply an act which may become the subject of adjudication in the courts as between the owner of a person so employed and the person so claimed."

Mr. Burnett: "That is what the gentleman fays, but does it not mislead the House? On a certain state of facts to be assumed, and they are to a certain extent set out in the bill, then the contingency occurs upon which the slave is entitled to his freedom. 'Whenever that question is settled by judicial procedure hereafter, the slave sets up the fact that he was used in any way"

Mr. Bingham: "By his master."

Mr. Burnett: "Or with his consent, or the consent of his agent, in any mode whatever, then that negro is entitled to his freedom."

Mr. Bingham: "Yes, sir."

Mr. Burnett: "Then, that amounts to a wholesale emancipation of the slaves in the seceding or rebellious States."

Mr. Bingham replied: "I undertake to say that no just court in America will ever construe this fourth section, if it becomes a law, to the effect that, because it happens that citizens of the United States residing in a seceding State hold slaves, this law amounts to an emancipation of their slaves. I deny that that was the intention of the law, or that it will bear any such construction by a court of justice. I assert, further, that the very words of the statute eschew any such construction. By the express words of the act it is limited in its effect to those persons who themselves, by their own direct acts, for the purpose of overturning the powers of the Government, employ, or consent that others shall employ, the services of their slaves to that end. Does the gentleman complain that the Congress of the United States shall provide by law that any person owning slaves within his own State of Kentucky, who shall feloniously employ them in insurrection within his own State against the combined authority of the United States and of the State of Kentucky, for the destruction of his own life, or the lives of his kindred and friends, shall be so tenderly cared for, that he shall not forfeit his control over his slaves? I aver that a traitor should not only forfeit his slave, but he should forfeit his life as well. A traitor justly forfeits both life and property."

Mr. Burnett followed: "The gentleman propounds to me the question whether I am willing that the slaves shall be used against the Page 248 authority of the United States? This is what I object to: that when you pass a law in reference to property, you should take one species of property and put it upon a different footing from another. This Congress has no power, and the power exists nowhere in this Government, to set at liberty the slaves now held in bondage in the slave States; and when Congress undertakes to confiscate slave property, that species of property should be put upon the very same basis as all other property confiscated by the General Government. Let me state a case to the gentleman, and ask him a question.

"I am a citizen of the State of Tennessee, which is now one of the rebellious States; I own slaves; I use those slaves upon my farm in the culture of tobacco, wheat, and the usual products of that State; they make corn and wheat and hay; and I take those things, the products of slave labor, and sell them to that rebel army. Now, the gentleman is a lawyer, and will he say that, by the provisions of this bill, my slaves are not entitled to their freedom?"

Mr. Bingham: "I think, when the gentleman sells his produce to the rebels, he ought to forfeit all he has."

Mr. Burnett: "Exactly; and that is this bill."

Mr. Crittenden: "Mr. Speaker, it has been conceded in all time, I believe, that the Federal Government, the Congress of the United States, has no power to legislate upon the subject of slavery within the States. It has been conceded that that was a subject for State legislation only. Does war change the powers of Congress in this respect? It is the absence of all power upon the subject which has prevented your legislation. Absence of all power of legislation in time of peace must be the absence of the same power at all times. The constitutional power of this House does not come and go with a change of circumstances. That is a fixed rule of Congress, permanent, immutable, and made to govern Congress. Now, sir, if you can legislate in regard to slavery in this instance, and if you can, upon certain conditions in time of war, destroy the right of the master to his slave, why cannot you, upon conditions, in time of peace do the same thing? You do it here because the slave is employed to aid the master in the commission of a great crime, that is, the uniting in a civil war. Could you not apply the principle to times of peace, and make the conditions then? If a master uses his slave to aid in the commission of a trespass, or it may be a murder, can you declare that to be sufficient cause for the liberation of the slave? Why can you not? Because you have no power by your Constitution to touch slavery at all."

Mr. Kellogg, of Illinois: "I wish to make this suggestion: while we concede that there is no power to interfere with the right to hold slaves in Kentucky, I suggest to him whether it is not competent to forfeit the claim that a man has to his slaves for treason in the master, in the same way that he would forfeit his claim to his horse, and yet not at all in conflict with, or abrogate the law that authorizes the holding of slaves? I deny any disposition on my own part to interfere with the laws of the States in reference to holding slaves, but I insist upon our power to make a forfeiture of the right to service or labor of a person or the title to a horse, when the master of one, or the owner of the other, has become a traitor to his country, and uses that property or right for the destruction of the Government. I wish the gentleman to make a distinction between the right a master has, and the idea of abrogating the State law of Kentucky, for instance, allowing him to hold slaves; and that is the point to which I wish to call his attention."

Mr. Crittenden: "I answer the gentleman in the same general terms in which he argues his case. If you have no power, there the question ends. Well, have you a power to legislate concerning a slave in Kentucky, as to his rights present or future? Have you a right to impose any terms or conditions on the master, in time of peace, on which the slave shall he entitled to his liberty?"

Mr. Kellogg, of Illinois: "My idea on that point is simply this: that the citizen of Kentucky, like the citizen of any State, by an infraction of law—of the highest law of the country—is liable to penalties and forfeitures. It operates on the person to forfeit his right by his own crime, and does not at all attack or invalidate the right to hold slaves or abolish slavery in Kentucky. It operates as a forfeiture on the person for his crime in precisely the same way as it operates as a forfeiture on other kinds of property."

Mr. Crittenden: "I say, if you have no power directly, no matter what the advantages of the exercise of that power would be, no matter how just, no matter how necessary to the preservation of the Union, you cannot legislate about it for want of power. That is my point. You cannot make a general law that shall regulate slavery, that shall regulate the rights of the master or the rights of the servant, in a State of this Union, in time of peace. That will be admitted, I think. You cannot punish any crime in the State; that is for the State. It is a part of its interior police. It is the law, and you were willing to put it in the Constitution as a thing never denied. Now, I ask my friend if this bill is not getting around that, making use of a state of war, of a state of things that highly excites us all?"

Mr. Kellogg, of Illinois: "I repeat that we have no more power to legislate on the subject of slavery in time of war than we have in time of peace. If a citizen of the United States commits high treason, or any other great crime known to the law, it is competent for the United States Legislature, if the crime be within its cognizance, (and treason is,) to provide for the forfeiture and confiscation of the offender's property. And it is because he is a criminal before the law that I propose that his horses, Page 249 his houses, his lands, his mules, his cannon, yea, his right to service in another, shall be confiscated; not annulling the law by which he holds it: for that is a matter which neither in war nor in peace can we reach. But because of the crime, we may either in war or peace impose the penalty of the confiscation of the offender's right to hold property, or of the right to the service and labor of another. This bill is put on the ground of confiscation, on the ground of forfeiture."

Mr. Crittenden: "Mr. Speaker, it is the crime against which we are legislating 'that irritates and provokes us to extremity in our legislation on this subject. We have a power in all cases within our jurisdiction to try persons in our courts for the crime alleged against them; and all the consequences which the law annexes under the Constitution follow the judgment.

"Now, in reference to treason, which is the crime here. The Constitution defines what it is, and provides for its punishment. It declares that treason against the United States shall consist in levying war against them; and that no person shall be convicted of treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on his confession in open court. It declares that Congress shall have the power to declare the punishment of treason; but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the offender.

"Now, sir, the crime declared by this bill, and for which this forfeiture is to take place, is treason—treason by its very definition. It is so considered in this bill. It is so considered by my friend from Illinois. This law undertakes to deprive the owner of slaves of his entire property, and to give complete freedom to the slave. The Constitution says that even on conviction of treason, there shall be no forfeiture of property, of any description, beyond the lifetime of the offender.

"Now, I ask my friends everywhere if it is not a plain breach of the Constitution that a man shall forfeit his slave?? Whatsoever of property he employs, or permits to be employed in a certain way in aid of treasonable purposes, he shall forfeit it absolutely, says this bill; and especially shall he forfeit his slaves forever. That is the language of the bill. The language of the Constitution is, that no title of his property shall be forfeited for longer than his life. In this, however else we may differ, there is an apparent unconstitutionality in this bill.

"Gentlemen, for the sake of our country, I ask you not to enter upon such an experiment. Your laws already declare what is treason; they define what shall be the penalties of that crime. They are sufficient, and I hope there will be no further action, such as this bill contemplates.

"Let us act our part like men; let us look above these little means of penal laws which, give me leave to say, will furnish those in arms against the Government a pretext for misrepresenting the purposes and objects of this war. We have declared that this war is not for the subjugation of the South, not for the overthrow of slavery, nor for the overthrow of their social institutions, but simply for the noble purpose of restoring our country and preserving the Union. That is our object. Let the means with which we pursue that object be as noble and elevated as the object itself. Let us raise ourselves to that high level. But what will be the effect of these penal laws? Does any man suppose they will assist you in gaining u single battle? When we have before us the noble purpose of uniting our countrymen under a common Government, and of restoring the supremacy of the Constitution, is it necessary to rake in the dust for these small, petty means of annoyance, the effect of which will only he to render those now in arms against the Government more bitter against us?"

Mr. Diven, of New York, asked: "Is there any man who thinks that the passage of a law authorizing the confiscation of property can promote the success of our army? Why, then, do not other nations think so? When we were prosecuting our war against Mexico we respected the property of the enemy. 'When Garibaldi was prosecuting the war of independence in Italy, he respected the property of the Italians, without regard to what army they were giving their sympathies to. Have not the stern rigors of ancient law been relaxed in favor of justice? Why have we protested against indiscriminate piracy on the seas? Why has the custom been abandoned of giving up cities that had been besieged to the sack of the soldiery, as was once the universal usage of war? Did the sacking of cities promote the success of the besiegers? On the contrary, it stimulated the besieged to a more obstinate and determined resistance. If any man doubts it, let him read the wars of the Peninsula, where women, rather than undergo the rigors of such a code, fought and perished, till the streets reeked with their putrid bodies. No, sir. The attaching of such rigors and penalties to warfare only stimulates the resistance of the enemy. Let it be understood that all these Southern States, which may be regarded as in rebellion against the Government, are to have their property all confiscated if we are successful in the war, and do you not see that they will fight the battle to the bitter end? Do you not see that there is no hope for them, no home, no hearthstone; and that they may as well conclude to die on the field of battle as to surrender?"

Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, replied: "Mr. Speaker, I thought the time had come when the laws of war were to govern our action; when constitutions, if they stood in the way of the laws of war in dealing with the enemy, had no right to intervene. Who pleads the Constitution against our proposed action? Who says the Constitution must come in, in bar of our action? It is the advocates of rebels, of rebels who have sought to overthrow the Constitution and trample it in the dust—who repudiate the Page 250 Constitution. Sir, these rebels, who have disregarded and set at defiance that instrument, are, by every rule of municipal and international law, estopped from pleading it against our action. Who, then, is it that comes to us and says, 'you cannot do this thing, because your Constitution doe3 not permit it?' The Constitution! Our Constitution, which you repudiate and trample under foot, forbids it? Sir, it is an absurdity. There must be a party in court to plead it, and that party, to be entitled to plead it in court, must first acknowledge its supremacy, or he has no business to be in court at all. I repeat, then, that those who bring in this plea here, in bar of our action, are the advocates of rebels. They are nothing else, whatever they intend. I mean it, of course, in a legal sense. I mean they are acting in the capacity of counsellors-at-law for the rebels; they are speaking for them, and not for us, who are the plaintiffs in this transaction. I deny that they have any right to plead at all. I deny that they have any standing in court. I deny that they have any right to invoke this Constitution, which they deny has any authority over them, which they set at defiance and trample under foot. I deny that they can be permitted to come here and tell us we must be loyal to the Constitution."

The bill was re-committed to the Judiciary Committee, and on a subsequent day reported back with a recommendation to strike out the fourth section, and insert the following:

That whenever hereafter, during the present insurrection against the Government of the United States, any person claimed to be held to labor or service, under the laws of any State, shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due, or by the lawful agent of such person, to take up arms against the United States, or shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such service or labor is claimed to be due, or his lawful agent, to work or to be employed in or upon any fort, nary-yard, dock, armory, snip, or intrenchment, or in any military or naval service whatever, against the Government and lawful authority of the United States, then, and in every such case, the person to whom such service is claimed to be due, shall forfeit his claim to such labor, any law of the State, or of the United States, to the contrary notwithstanding; and whenever thereafter the person claiming such labor or service shall seek to enforce his claim, it shall be a full and sufficient answer to such claim that the person whose service or labor is claimed had been employed in hostile service against the Government of the United States, contrary to the provisions of this act.

This was adopted, and the bill passed. Ayes, 60; noes, 43.

______

This extra session of Congress was closed August 6th. Called at the time when the President's proclamation was issued summoning an armed force to the aid of the Government, its business was primarily to provide ways and means for efficiently carrying on the military operations thus commenced. This object was met in a most liberal manner. Duties on certain imports were increased; a loan of two hundred and fifty millions was authorized; the issue of fifty millions of Treasury notes, reissuable as often as they might return to the Treasury, was also granted; taxes collectable at a future day were also laid, with a guarantee that they would be collected if needed.

The repeal of the specie clause of the Subtreasury act, this departure from the established policy of the Government in time of peace, made the paper currency of the country at once available for the uses of the Government, and relieved the banks from the restraint which had been held upon over-issues of their circulation. The army was increased to almost any extent the President might require. One bill alone authorized the enlistment of five hundred thousand volunteers. In short, every thing in the power of Congress was done to give strength to the arm of the Government. The spirit and opinions of the people expressed through their representatives in Congress, as shown in the preceding sketches, were of the most patriotic and harmonious character, creating sanguine anticipations of a bright, and prosperous, and united future to the whole country.

The position taken by the members from the Southern States, that their constituents regarded the election of Mr. Lincoln as a proof that the people of the North had become so abolitionized as to intend the destruction of their domestic institutions, remained to be proved. At the extra session, when the entire control of Congress was placed in the hands of the North, no decisive expression of Northern sentiment on this point was manifested. (The American Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1861, vol. 1. New York: Appleton & Co., 1868, pp. 166-250.)


Source: The American Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events of the Year, 1861-1865, vols. 1-5. New York: Appleton & Co., 1868.