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, 1862 - Part 2

It has been stated that the legislation of Congress assumed an entirely new aspect at this session. Much time was spent during the first half of the session, in discussing resolutions, which, although of no unusual importance, yet served to develop the views of individual members, to incite the ardent, to push forward the timid, and secure the cooperation of a majority for those strong measures which finally prevailed. As is usual in a revolution or civil commotion, while the vigor of a country is unimpaired, the extreme champions of the movement are at first successful. But when the exhaustion of the country intervenes, they are supplanted by those hitherto regarded as timid Page 29 conservatives. The first class now proceed to triumph in this session of Congress.

In the Senate on the 19th of December, Mr. Willey, of Virginia, offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the existing war, forced upon the country by the instigators of the rebellion without justifiable cause or provocation, was, and is, designed by them to destroy the Union and the Constitution; and their purpose, moreover, was at first, and is now, to disavow and repudiate the fundamental principles of republican government on which our fathers established the Union and the Constitution.

Mr. Willey proceeded to address the Senate, and to show that there had been at the South no just cause of dissatisfaction with the Government. It had most successfully accomplished the end of its institution in securing "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " for the citizen, and in "promoting the general welfare." The policy of the Government had always been controlled by the South, and at the time of the outbreak the administration of the Government was completely within the power of the South and its friends. Slavery and the rights of slaveholders were secure from any successful aggression by the Republican party or the General Government. No dread of the Abolitionists precipitated secession. He then presented his view of the primary inciting cause of secession. He said:

"But what was the primary inciting cause of this rebellion? I answer—dissatisfaction with the principles and operation of democratic government. It was hostility to the simplicity and equality of republican institutions. We may not find any direct and unequivocal avowal of this fact on the part of the conspirators. It would be strange if we should. Satan ever approaches his victims as an angel of light. Liberty has always been destroyed in the name of liberty. Despotism is strategic. It fights with masked batteries. All history will attest that encroachments on human rights have generally been made in the guise of freedom and friendship.

"Mr. President, I am not before you either as the defender or the denouncer of slavery. Its friends, however, claim that it is necessary to the perfection of any high degree of civilization; that, by exempting those who possess slaves from those menial and servile offices inseparably incident to the economy of any condition of society, it affords leisure and means for superior mental and social improvement, and imparts a dignity of character and polish of manners unattainable where slavery does not exist. If this assumption be confined in its application to the slaveholder, it may, to some extent, be true; but how small a proportion of the people of the South own slaves!

"Sir, I dare not say, with George Mason, of Virginia, that every master of a slave is born a petty tyrant,' for I am a slaveholder. I despise the vituperation so indiscriminately heaped upon slaveholders by the madness of fanatic abolitionists. They are the worst enemies of the slave in the world. They have already injured him much; and if their policy were carried out it would degrade the slave still below his present position, and entail miseries upon him exceeding the horrors of the slave ship. It would beggar both master and slave, and demoralize the whole country. Let us leave slavery where the Constitution and laws have placed it, and await the progressive influences of that blessed Christianity, which, in God's own time, shall redeem and regenerate the human race.

"But, sir, it may nevertheless be so that slavery does tend to foster in the feelings and mind of the slaveholder sentiments averse to the perfect level of natural and political equality upon which the system of American republican institutions is based. Labor is not so reputable in slaveholding as it is in non-slaveholding communities; and although the laws do not create or tolerate any distinctions predicated upon this fact, we find them existing with a power and influence as inexorable as if they were a part of the Constitution. I remember the startling effect of a passage in the speech which the eloquent Preston, sent as a commissioner from South Carolina to the late Virginia convention at Richmond, mode before that body. Said he:

Southern civilization cannot exist without slavery. None but an equal race can labor at the South. Destroy involuntary labor, and the Anglo-Saxon civilization must be remitted to the latitudes from which it sprung.

" Sir, how I did wish that these remarkable sentences could have reached the ears of the five million laboring inhabitants in the South who own no slaves! Whatever may be the cause of this aristocratic sentiment in the South, and especially in the Gulf States, I shall leave the further discussion of it to philosophers and statesmen. It is the fact that I am at present considering; and that the fact exists is, I think, indisputable. It will not be denied that Judge Pratt, of South Carolina, is an eminently able man, and may justly claim to be considered an authoritative exponent of the views of a large portion of the people of his section. In a late elaborate article animadverting upon the temporizing measures of the confederate States, he says:

The contest is not between the North and South as geographical sections, for between such sections merely there can be no contest; nor between the people of the North and the people of the South, for our relations have been pleasant, and on neutral grounds there is still nothing to estrange us. We eat together, trade together, and practise, yet, in intercourse, with great respect, the courtesies of common life. But the real contest is between the two forms of society which have become established—the one at the North and the other at the South. Society is essentially different from government—as different as is the nut from the bur, or the nervous body of the shell fish from the bony structure which surrounds it; and within this Government two societies had become developed as variant in structure and distinct in form as any two beings in animated nature. The one is a society composed of one race, the Page 296 other of two races. The one is bound together but by the two great social relations of husband and wife and parent and child; the other by the three relations of husband and wife, and parent and child, and master and slave. The one embodies in its political structure the principle that equality is the right of man; the other that it is the right of equals only. The one, embodying the principle that equality is the right of man, expands upon the horizontal plane of pure democracy; the other, embodying the principle that it is not the right of man but of equals only, has taken to itself the rounded form of a social aristocracy. In the one there is hireling labor—in the other slave labor; in the one, therefore, in theory, at least, labor is voluntary; in the other, involuntary; in the labor of the one there is the elective franchise, in the other there is not; and, as labor is always in excess of direction, in the one the power of government is only with the lower classes; in the other, the upper. In the one, therefore, the reins of Government come from the heels, in the other from the head of the society; in the one it is guided by the worst, in the other by the best, intelligence; in the one it is from those who have the least, in the other from those who have the greatest, stake in the continuance of existing order.

"Mr. President, Judge Pratt is by no means singular in his repudiation of the cardinal principle of democratic institutions—the right of the  majority to govern. The constitution of his State confines the political power, in fact, to a comparatively small number; and the fundamental laws of several of the other Southern States, including my own, have denied that population or suffrage is the true basis of political power, bnt secure to property a representation in the Legislature.

"Mr. President, Mr. Jefferson enunciated the axiom that 'absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the minjority was the vital principle of republics.' Thus he summed up the argument in favor of adhering to the General Government and preserving it:

The preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor is the sheet-anchor of our pence nt home and safety abroad; a jealous cure of the right of election by the people—a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; and absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the minorily —the vital principle of republics, from which there is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.

"But, sir, Mr. Preston, the South Carolina commissioner, to whom I have already referred, delivered a very different message to us last spring, in the Virginia convention. He declared to us:

In the Free States, the simple, isolated, exclusive, sole political principle is a pure democracy of mere numbers, save a scarcely discernible modification, by a vague and undefined form of representation. In these States there can be no departure from this principle in its extremest intensity. The admission of the slightest adverse element is forbidden by the whole genius of the people and their institutions." It is as delicate in its sensitiveness as personal right in England, or slavery in Carolina; it is the vitalizing principle, the breath of the life of Northern socialism. The almighty power of numbers is the basis of all social agreement in the Northern States. A fearful illustration of this is at this moment, exhibiting its results in the Government under which you are consenting to live. That Government was " instituted and appointed" to protect end secure equally the interest of the parts. By the agency of mere numbers, one section has been restricted and another expanded in territory; one section has been unduly and oppressively taxed, and one section has been brought to imminent peril; and in this hour the people of the North are consulting whether they can subjugate the people of the South by the right of number. 

The " government by the people" is equally the rale of the South, but the modification of the "rule of numbers" is so essential in the Slave States, that it cannot coexist with the same principle in its unrestricted form. In the South it is controlled, perhaps made absolutely subject, by the fact that .the recognition of a specific property is essential to the virilization of the social and political organisms. If, then, you attempt to institute the rule of cither form into the organism of the other, you instantly destroy the section you invade. To proclaim to the North that numbers shall not be absolute, would be as offensive as to proclaim the extinction of slavery in the South. The clement of property would neutralize the entire political system at the North ; its exclusion would subvert the whole organism of the South.

"This is not the opinion of isolated individuals. It is wide spread in the South. It is already incorporated, in some form or other, in the organic laws of several of the States; and other States are seeking to give it constitutional authority. Thus, in the constitutional convention of Virginia, recently in session, Mr. Stuart, formerly Secretary of the Interior, as chairman of the committee having the subject in charge, made a report, from which I read the following extracts:

Governments are instituted for the protection of the rights of persons and property; and any system must be radically defective which does not give ample security to both. The great interests of every community may be classed under the heads of labor and capital, and it is essential to the well being of society that the proper equilibrium should be established between these important elements. The undue predominance of either must, eventually, prove destructive of the social system. Capital belongs to the few—labor to the many, in those systems in which capital has the ascendency, the government must, to some extent, partake of the character of oligarchy ; whilst in those in which labor is predominant, the tendency is to what Mr. John Randolph graphically described as "the despotism of king numbers.

In the opinion of your committee no system of government can afford permanent and effectual security to life, liberty, and property, which rests on the basis of unlimited suffrage, mid the election of officers of every department of the government by the direct vote of the people.

"Sir, great astonishment has been expressed nt the hostility of Southern statesmen to popular education. But, sir, we ought not to be surprised at it. Knowledge is power; and to keep the masses in ignorance is a necessary precaution to keep them in subjection. To maintain the oligarchy of the few owning the capital, it is necessary to hind down with the slavish chains of ignorance the many who perform the labor. Hence Mr. Stuart connects with the recommendations which I have just read, the following:

This tendency to a conflict between labor and capital has already manifested itself in many forms, comparatively harmless, it is true, but nevertheless clearly indicative of a spirit of licentiousness which must, in the end. ripen into agrarianism. It may be seen in the system of free schools, by which the children of the poor are educated at the expense of the rich.

"Sir, the true reason of this hostility to popular education is hostility to democratic institutions. I need not remind many of the members of this body with what pertinacity Mr. Calhoun resisted the application of the majority principle to our system of national government, as subversive of the rights of the States. He warred upon this great principle from the time of his Fort Hill address, and before that time, down to the day of his death, in the Senate, in popular addresses, and in labored volumes of essays. Nor need I advert to the mighty influence which this great man exerted on Southern opinion. Sir, there is a widespread hostility all through the Gulf States, more especially, to the great fundamental political right of the majority to rule.

"It will be remembered, moreover, that the headspring of this rebellion was in the very State where, in the war of the Revolution, the attachment of the people to the aristocratic institutions of the mother country was the hardest to subdue. This attachment was never wholly extinguished. Flashes of the old aristocratic flame have often gleamed out from the revolutionary ashes, as they did recently, when Mr. Russell was assured by many there that they longed to renew their allegiance to some descendant of the royal family of England. Sir, there is a wonderful hankering' in South Carolina after the 'fleshpots of Egypt.' By referring to the January (1850) number of the Democratic Review, I find an elaborately written article, from which I have taken the following extract: 

The formation of the cotton States, with Cuba, into a jrreat cotton, tobacco, sugar and coffee-producing Union, calling forth the boundless fertility of Cuba, and renovating the West India Islands with the labor of the blacks of the Southern States, in those hands in which their labor and numbers have thriven so well, and this empire annexed to Britain, by treaties of perfect reciprocity, giving the latter the command of the eastern commerce by way of Nicaragua, and all the benefits of possession, without the responsibility of slave ownership, would be a magnificent exchange for the useless province of Canada.

"And, sir, I find the following in the newspapers of the day, giving some most significant antecedents of the present distinguished Secretary of the Treasury of the so-called Confederate Government:

I was very much surprised, Mr. Chairman, at the honorable member's speech from Charleston (Colonel Memminger), who said he had rather South Carolina was attached to the Government of Great Britain, as she was previous to the Revolutionary war, than to remain a member of this Union. Such an expression neither becomes an American nor a Carolinian, and must have been uttered in the heat of argument and declamation, without due consideration.—B.F. Perry, in tin South, Carolina Legislature for 1850-51.

"In an address which this gentleman made before the Virginia Legislature a year or two ago, he uttered sentiments as little in accord with the spirit and genius of our American democracy.

"I recently cut from the ‘National Intelligencer '—a paper which, by its wise, conservative, and patriotic course through a long series of years, has placed the friends of constitutional liberty under the most lasting obligations—the following short article:

A NASCENT NOBILITY.—In the number of De Bow's Review for July, 1860, is an elaborate article from the pen of George Fitzhugh, Esq., author of " Sociology for the South," and long a prominent advocate of disunion. In the article designated he gives expression to the following aspiration:

"England has once tried to dispense with nobility, and France twice, but each experiment was a failure. In America we have the aristocracy of wealth and talents, and that aristocracy is somewhat hereditary. The landed aristocracy of the South, who own slaves, approach somewhat to the English nobility. Time must determine whether the quasi aristocracy of the South has sufficient power, permanence, and privilege to give stability, durability, and good order to society. It is sufficiently patriotic and conservative in its feelings, but, we fear, wants the powers, privileges, and prerogatives that the experience of all other countries has shown to be necessary."

If such was Mr. Fitzhugh's fear while the South remained in the Union and under the Constitution, we presume his hopes have considerably risen since the outbreak of the present war, for in the same article he avows a preference for a military government, as being the " most perfect" known to man, and imputes it as a fault to the Republican party that the more advanced of its number were averse to wars. Mr. Fitzhugh's language under this head is as follows: [It will be seen that he finds the perfection of military government in the fact that it allows " the least liberty " to its subjects.] "The most perfect system of government is to be found in armies, because in them there is least of liberty, and most of order, subordination, and obedience."

"It is but a short time since Governor Brown, of Georgia, charged upon the leaders of the secession movement in that State a design to establish

a strong central government, probably preferring, if they did not fear to risk an avowal of their sentiments, a limited monarchy, similar to that of Great Britain, or other form of government that will accomplish the same thing under a different name.

"Only two or three days before the victory of our fleet at Port Royal, Governor Pickens, of South Carolina, closed his message to the Legislature of that State with the following significant intimations:

As far as the Northern States are concerned, their Government is hopelessly gone; and if we fail, with all our conservative elements to save us, then, indeed, there will be no hope for an independent and free Republic on this continent, and the public mind will despondingly turn to the stronger and more fixed forms of the Old World.

In this point of view I most respectfully urge that you increase the power and dignity of the State, through all her administrative offices, and adhere firmly to all the conservative principles of our constitution.

"It were easy to multiply the evidence of hostility among the instigators of secession to what Judge Pratt calls the 'horizontal piano of pure democracy.' The columns of most of the leading journals in the interest of the rebellion teem with assaults, direct or indirect, upon the great principles of political equality on which our republican institutions are based. I shall not weary the Senate by any detailed reference to them. I will give an extract from Page 298 one as an example of many. I have taken the following extract from the Richmond Whig, of June 14, 1861. Speaking of the Southern States:

This vast region, inhabited by a people who are bred from childhood to horsemanship and the use of arms, and who know what liberty is, and love and adore it, is portioned out for subjugation by the disgusting Yankee race, who don't know how to load a gun, and look contemptible on horseback. That they may be drilled into respectable military machines by the Virginian, who commands them, is likely enough; but without disjointing the eternal fitness of things and dislocating the order of nature, that they should become capable of empire, is simply absurd. Grant that mere brute force should enable thein to overrun the land like a cloud of Eastern locusts, their reign would pass with themselves. They possess not one quality that fits them for command. Since their beginning as a nation, and out of all their seething population, they have never yet produced a general or a statesman. That is an effort beyond their ability. But for organizing hotels, working machinery, and other base mechanical contrivances, they are without equals in the world. And the very law of nature which invests them with excellence in those inferior departments of humanity, condemns them to inferiority in those of a nobler and more exulted strain.

"Senator Hammond is by no means alone in his conception of the dignity of labor. There are hundreds of thousands who concur in his estimate of laboring men as the mere 'mudsills' of society, on which there should be erected an aristocracy, controlling the political power of the State.

"Do you ask me, do the masses of the people of the South understand the purpose of the advocates of this subversion of democratic government? Sir, I admit the proportion of the Southern people holding these views was, and perhaps still is, greatly in the minority. They consist mostly of slaveholders and their immediate dependants. The number of actual slaveowners in the Southern States does not, perhaps, exceed four hundred thousand, and the number of dependants and expectants in interest will not amount to above one million five hundred thousand more. But then it must be considered that these slaveholders are the principal men of wealth, education, intelligence, and social influence. Besides, sir, as I have already said, the aggressions of the few upon the rights of the many are always accomplished under false pretenses. The cry of 'Southern rights,'1 Southern rights,'' Southern rights,' has been rung in the ears of the people with such ceaseless, vehement importunity, as to create an honest impression on the public mind that grievous and outrageous wrong has been done to Southern rights already, and that still further and greater outrages are imminent. Especially has the opinion been propagated that slavery is everywhere to be abolished in defiance of constitutional guarantees, and the rights of the States are to be sacrificed to the caprices of Northern fanaticism. Thus has the 'Southern heart been fired.' Still it may be asked, how could such a meagre minority precipitate such a rebellion as now exists if the masses were not cooperating? I ask, what had the people to do in seceding the States out of the Union, and in the organization of the Provisional Confederate Government? "What had the people in my own once honored State to do in attaching Virginia to the Southern Confederacy? Nothing, sir. Nothing. They knew not when it was done. They knew not that it was in contemplation till after it was done. In secret session, with doors barred against the popular ear, with hearts steeled against the expressed will of the people, the conspirators at Richmond not only withdrew my State from the Union, but transferred her arms and her finances and her liberties to the self-constituted authorities at Montgomery; and before the people knew of the dark, infernal deed, the tread of armed legions from the Gulf States was shaking the plains of Virginia, eager to transfer the horrors of war to the Potomac and Ohio—eager to involve my neighbors and friends and kinsmen in the carnage and desolation which they ought to suffer themselves."

Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Secretary of War be directed to furnish the Senate with a copy of the proclamation of Brigadier General J. W. Phelps, "to the loyal citizens of the Southwest;" and also to inform the Senate whether said proclamation was made by order of the Secretary of War, or with his knowledge or consent, and by what authority said proclamation was made.

He said: "All I want is for the people of the country to know authoritatively and positively that it is not an act of the Administration; that the Administration and this Government are not prosecuting this war' for such purposes as are announced in that proclamation of Brigadier General Phelps. I think, sir, that that is important. I think that good will result to the country, that good will result in the prosecution of this war, by the disavowal, distinct and positive, of the Administration of any knowledge, consent, or authority to that proclamation which announces principles, wild, fanatical, and unworthy of any general in the army."

Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, replied: "Mr. President, it seems to me the Senator from Delaware perhaps has accomplished his purpose by introducing this resolution and calling the attention of the Senate to the proclamation in question. I presume there is no person here who assents to that proclamation, and there is no person who does not regard it as an indiscretion. At the same time, I am free to say that I consider it, to a certain extent, as an offset to the proclamation of General Sherman and the military orders of General Halleck. I do not know which is the worst. Ono errs on the side of the Constitution and of human liberty; the other errs on the side of human slavery. That is the difference between these two classes of documents. The fact that there is that difference is an argument that Congress should undertake to settle the whole question, Page 299 be as to give unity to the military power, so that when our army march they may march with a well-decided principle in advance. If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle? But the trumpet will give an uncertain sound just so long as we have these various discordant proclamations."

The views of members respecting slavery as the cause of the war, had now become ripe, and all future legislation on the subject was aimed to discourage and suppress it.

_____

In the House, on the 20th of December, Mr. Shanks, of Indiana, offered the following resolution, which was laid over and agreed to on a subsequent day.

Resolved, That the constitutional power to return fugitives slaves to their masters rests solely with the civil departments of the Government; and that the order of the Secretary of War, under date of December 6, 1961, to General Wool, for the delivery of a slave to Mr. Jessup, of Maryland, as well as all other military orders for the return of slaves, are assumptions of the military power over the civil law and the rights of the slave.

Mr. Julian, of Indiana, offered the following:

Resolved, That the Judiciary Committee be instructed to report a bill, so amending the fugitive slave law enacted in 1850 as to forbid the recapture or return of any fugitive from labor without satisfactory proof first made that the claimant of such fugitive is loyal to the Government.

This was adopted: ayes, 78; noes, 34. Mr.

Wilson, of Iowa, offered the following:

Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs be requested to report a bill to this House for the enactment of an additional article of war, whereby all officers in the military service of the United States shall be prohibited from using any portion of the forces under their respective commands for the purpose of returning fugitives from service or labor, and provide for the punishment of such officers as may violate said article by dismissal from the service.

It was adopted on a subsequent day.

_____

Disloyalty was a most annoying offence in the eyes of Congress, and no efforts were spared to extinguish it. Of course, no, greater crime could be committed against a government struggling for its existence. But this disloyalty showed itself in perfectly loyal communities, and consisted in almost every conceivable act which could be regarded as not supporting the Administration with "all the heart and soul," &c. The views of members were as follows:

In the House, on the 30th of December, Mr. Potter, of Wisconsin, offered the following resolution, which was adopted.

Resolved, That the. Secretary of the Treasury be, and is hereby, requested' to furnish, without any unnecessary delay, to the Committee of Investigation on the disloyalty of persons in the employment of the Government, the information asked for by letter of Decembers, 1861, addressed by the chairman of said committee to the Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. Potter, in explanation, said: "I have a similar resolution, which I desire to offer, calling for information from the Secretary of the Interior. Before doing so, however, with the consent of the House I will state that, on the 8d day of December, I was instructed by the Committee of Investigation to call upon the heads of the Executive Departments of the Government for certain information—information which it is necessary to have in the possession of the committee before they will be .able to prepare their report and present it to the House. The committee received prompt replies from the heads of all the departments except the Treasury and Interior, but nothing from them; and on the 24th of December, I addressed notes to the Secretaries of the Treasury and Interior, calling attention to my letter as chairman of the committee of the 3d instant. Nothing has been heard from these departments in reply to either of the letters addressed to them by the committee, and we are compelled, therefore, to come to the House in order to obtain this information."

Mr. Wickliffe, of Kentucky, rose to make a request. He said: "I would like the honorable gentleman from Wisconsin to furnish the House with a copy of the letter which contains the facts or information which he desires to obtain, so that we may know what it is we are calling for."

Both letters mentioned by Mr. Potter were sent to the Clerk and read, as follows:

                      WASHINGTON CITY, December 8. 1861.

Sir: I had the honor to receive from you a communication, bearing date the 18th of July, in which you furnish the committee authorized to inquire into the loyalty of persons in office with a list of those holding positions under you. I have now to request a further statement of the removals which have been made, designating the individuals, since your communication of the above date.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully,

                                                         JOHN F. POTTER,

                                                             Chairman of Committee.

The Hon. Secretary of the—.

                         WASHINGTON CITY, December 24,1861.

SIR: On the 3d day of the present month, I had the honor to address you a communication on behalf of the Committee of Investigation of the House of Representatives, asking for certain information in relation to the removal of clerks in your department. I have received no reply to that communication. As it is important that the information asked for should be imparted to the committee before their report is made to the House, I will thank you to furnish it with os little delay as possible.

      Respectfully,

                                          JOHN F. POTTER,

                                                  Chairman of Committee.

      HON. SECRETARY OF —.

Mr. Olin, of New York, said: "I wish to propound this interrogatory. Perhaps it is improper to inquire into the proceedings of this committee; but, if proper, I wish to learn from the gentleman from Wisconsin whether, in those cases where testimony has been taken before his committee implicating any one in the employment of any of the various departments of the Government, the gentlemen thus apparently implicated have been notified of the charges or representations or insinuations made in reference to them, and have had an opportunity to adduce such testimony as they saw fit in answer to or in explanation of the Page 300 charge? I have learned incidentally that such is not the fact."

Mr. Wickliffe, of Kentucky, opposed the resolution, saying: "Sir, I do not approve of this exercise of power which does not legitimately reside in this House. The Secretary of the Treasury has the power of appointing clerks, and the power of removal, and if he has not got sense enough to exercise that power with discretion, I say let him be removed and somebody appointed who has. Let us not divert the great and legitimate powers of this House into an inquisition to find out something against the character of these poor dependent clerks."

Mr. Potter, in reply, stated as follows: "The committee was appointed at the July session of Congress. It has been at work during the period which has intervened; and in reply to the inquiry of the gentleman from New York as to whether we have permitted to come or have called before us clerks charged with being disloyal, I frankly say to him that we have not. The reason why the committee adopted the resolution to send the charges which had been made before them, with the evidence, as to the disloyalty of certain clerks to the heads of departments, was for the purpose of enabling the clerks so charged to have the opportunity of going before their respective heads of departments, who have the whole control of the matter, and vindicate themselves against the charges, if it was in their power to do so. The committee has no power and has claimed the exercise of no power of dismissal. They have merely sent the evidence taken by them to the departments, where the character of the clerks could be properly further investigated, and where the clerks could be heard in their own defence,

"The gentleman from New York asks why these poor, persecuted men were not permitted to appear before us in their own defence. Because such men who are properly charged with disloyalty have no right to ask to come before the committee; they have no right to ask to be retained in any position under this Government. I say that in these times no man should be retained in the employ of the Government against whom there is a reasonable suspicion as to his loyalty. I say that in times like these no head of department has the right to require from a committee of investigation, or from any other source, evidence against an employed under him strong enough to hang him for treason before he will dismiss him. Yet that seems to be the position taken by the heads of some of the departments."

______

In the Senate, on the 6th of January, the credentials of Benjamin Stark, a Senator from Oregon, appointed by the Governor to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of Edward D. Baker, were presented and read, and it was asked that the oath of office be administered to him.

Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, moved that the oath of office be not administered, but that the credentials with certain papers be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, he said:

"The papers which I have in my hand are well attested—as well as they can be. They are in the shape of affidavits and written representations, most of them sworn to, and certified beyond all question to be from a large number of the most respectable inhabitants of the city of Portland, where Mr. Stark resides. They state in the most unqualified terms facts which, if true, in my judgment, go to show that Mr. Start should not be admitted to a seat in this chamber. They state that Mr. Stark is understood by everybody in his vicinity to be an open and avowed supporter of secession; that he has openly defended the course of the South in seceding, and has given utterance to sentiments totally at war with the institutions and preservation of our country, such as approving the attack on Fort Sumter; making declarations to the effect that in the event of a civil war, which, in fact, had then already commenced, he would sell his property in Oregon and go South and join the rebels; that they were right; that Sir. Davis's government was the only government left; that there was, in fact, no government of the Union at all. Numerous declarations of that kind are sworn to by persons who are certified and proved to my satisfaction to be persons perfectly reliable. Under these circumstances, as they have been made known to the Senate in such an authentic form as they are, I think it grossly improper that the oath of office should be administered to Mr. Stark, and he he permitted to take a seat on this floor before an investigation has been had."

Mr. Bright, of Indiana, opposed the motion, saying: "I think, sir, there is no precedent for a motion of that kind. I have never known a case where the Senate refused to allow a Senator to take his seat when his credentials were properly authenticated, and he applied for admission upon this floor. I have a very accurate recollection of what took place in my own case, and in the case of my colleague, Dr. Fitch, when our right to seats on this floor was denied. I think there was a general admission on both sides of the chamber that a Senator presenting a. prima facie case had a right to be sworn in, and that the Senate would, after the administration of the oath, take cognizance of any papers that might be presented questioning his right to a seat. I think there would be great propriety, in allowing the Senator to be sworn, that he may be heard in his own defence. The fact that these papers are certified, and the fact that statements are made derogatory to the loyalty of the Senator who claims his seat, furnish no evidence to my mind of their truth. Never have baser falsehoods been put on record against any man than have been sent to the Senate against me since I took my seat at this session."

Mr. Fessenden replied by avowing his disinterestedness Page 301 and his sense of duty, and said:

"The question raised here is all about the precedents. As I said before, the times are those when we are compelled to make precedents— not to be bound by mere forms of proceeding,, precedents in the body which go only to ordinary transactions, but, if necessary, to make them."

Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, followed and expressed a desire that the matter might be postponed for a day, until he could look over the papers. Alluding to the point of precedents, he said: "I differ greatly from the honorable Senator from Maine in his general principle. If there is any period of time in which there is a necessity of adhering to forms it is in times of high excitement. The mind is apt to become biased and prejudiced, and there can be no protection unless you adhere to forms under such circumstances. Apices juris sunt jura is a principle which the honorable Senator must know well must often be applied; that which may seem but form is really the protection of the rights of the party."

Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, denied that credentials had not been referred before parties had been sworn in, in the Senate. Usually, where the credentials wore fair upon their face, the person claiming a seat had been sworn in as a member; but the practice had not been uniform, he stated the cases of James Lanman, of Connecticut, in 1825, and Stanley Griswold, of Ohio, in 1809.

Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, said: "I desire, Mr. President, to make one single remark. It is said that the proposition now before the Senate is without a precedent. New occasions teach new duties; new precedents are to be made when the occasion requires. Never before in the history of our Government has any person appeared to take a seat in this body whose previous conduct and declarations, as presented to the attention of the Senate, gave reasonable ground to distrust his loyalty. That case, sir, is without a precedent. It belongs, therefore, to the Senate to make a precedent, in order to deal with aa unprecedented case. The Senate is at this moment engaged in considering the loyalty of certain members of this body, and it seems to me it would poorly do its duty if it admitted, among its members one with regard to whom, as he came forward to take the oath, there was a reasonable suspicion."

Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, responded: "This is not a new state of things as regards the question of precedent, founded on mere matter of opinion. Sir, in the war of 1812 there were men sitting in the Senate of the United States, and men admitted into the Senate of the United States, that were opposed to the war and opposed to the whole action of the Government. That was a war with a foreign enemy; a war with a domestic enemy is no worse. During the conspiracy of Burr there were men in the Senate of the United States that were believed to sympathize with it, as this gentleman is believed to sympathize with those opposed to our Government. I do not know him; to me he is a stranger. I neither know his opinions nor the evidence in relation to them; but I say there were gentlemen who were generally reputed to have sanctioned Burr's conspiracy who were Senators of the United States. The cases may not be exactly parallel to any existing at present; but condemnation for mere opinion, apart from acts, never can be justice under any circumstances."

Mr. Lane, of Indiana, urged the right and the duty of the Senate to make an investigation of the matter. In reference to precedents, he said: "A word in regard to the allegation of the want of a precedent in a case like this. I suppose there is no precedent, and I trust in God there may be no occasion hereafter for any similar precedent. There is no precedent for much of our action in reference to this rebellion; there is no warrant in the Constitution for much of it, and why? Simply because no Government provides for its own dissolution; hence no precedents will reach this case."

The subject was then laid over until the 10th of January, when it was again taken up on the question of reference.

Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, said: "Now, sir, what is the state of facts? The gentleman's credentials are presented here by a Senator of the United States. According to the Constitution, each State—it is the right of the State —is entitled to two Senators; and if it happens that at any time a seat becomes vacant, and a term Is broken by the death or resignation of a member of the body, the Executive of the State, in the recess of the Legislature, has the right of appointment vested in him. In this case, the credentials are presented, showing an authority, under the great seal of the State, appointing Mr. Stark a Senator of the United States until the next meeting of the Legislature of Oregon. The authority is unquestioned; no one has objected to it. Next comes the clause of the Constitution which prescribes the qualification of a Senator, and under that clause no one doubts that authority is given to a majority of this body to decide upon those qualifications. No one doubts that a majority decides on 'the returns,'—meaning the credentials— and 'tho qualifications' of the member. That authority is vested by the Constitution in a majority of either House; and, therefore, when an individual applies to be sworn in as a Senator, if objection is made either to the authority to appoint him, or to the mode of appointment, or to his qualifications, beyond all question it is competent fo# the Senate, by a majority, judicially to decide that question, and that is what they always do. There may have been erroneous decisions made; but the presumption is, that every Senator feels that he is acting judicially in deciding, under the Constitution and on the credentials, whether the party is entitled to a seat.

"Among the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution yon can find no ground for interposing an objection to a party being sworn in who is properly appointed, no matter how debased his moral character may be, no matter though he lie under the stigma of an indictment and conviction for crime. Your remedy is not by rejecting him, if the proper authority of his State chooses to appoint him, because that power is not vested in the majority of this body; but you are protected, as I will show you, by a subsequent clause, from anything of that kind. The question is left to the appointing power in the State as regards a Senator or Representative, the people or the people's agents in the State, to determine whether or not the individual is fit morally to represent them; and I suppose loyalty comes under the designation of moral character as well as under anything else. Even if there were a conviction for crime, forgery if you please, it would afford no ground, it would give no warrant to the Senate of the United States in rejecting by n majority a person who presented himself as a Senator, legally appointed by the proper authority in his own State. The Constitution prescribes the qualifications, and it has not touched any question of that kind relating to the capacity or the morality of the party. If he was an idiot you could not reject him. If he was a man destitute of all moral character, such that you would feel disgraced by associating with him, you could not by a majority of this body reject him when his State chose to send him here by the properly constituted authority. You have some authority over the subject, to be sure, as I admit; but you are violating the Constitution if, under the power which is given to you to decide by a majority on the returns and qualifications of a member, you undertake to usurp the power of adding qualifications which the Constitution has not prescribed.

"I submit, therefore, that Mr. Stark has a right to be sworn in. I speak now utterly irrespective of any opinion of what these papers may prima facie establish, or what would be the result of an investigation, or whether the facts stated (for they are mere declarations, not acts) would be sufficient for action in another form or not. All that is beside the question. There is no prescription by which you can make so indefinite a term as loyalty a qualification under the Constitution, which you have a right by a majority to decide is a qualification for a member."

Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, rose in opposition. He said: "If I understood the argument of the Senator, it was that the question of loyalty did not enter, under the Constitution of the United States, into the qualifications of a Senator, and that therefore at this moment on this threshold of the discussion the Senate was not in condition to entertain the question of loyalty raised with reference to the present applicant for a seat in this body. To that I have two precise answers: one of reason, and one of precedent. The first answer that I submit to the candor of the honorable Senator is one of reason.

"The Senator gays the Senate should not at this time consider the loyalty of an applicant for an office here, for the reason that under the Constitution loyalty is not a qualification. Sir, why is an applicant that comes to this body to take a seat to go to your chair and take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, if it is not to give the most open testimony before the country, and before God, of his loyalty to the Union and to the Constitution? And yet, sir, the Senator tells us, in the face of evidence now lying on that table, leading us to doubt the loyalty of the applicant, leading us to doubt the very oath which he is to take, we cannot go into every consideration of the question of loyalty; that in short, the loyalty of a Senator under the Constitution of the United States is no part of his qualifications. I believe I do not do injustice to the argument of the Senator, and I believe I answer it on grounds of reason completely.

"And now, sir, I answer in the second place on grounds of precedent." The precedent urged by Mr. Sumner was that of Philip Barton Key in 1808, in the House of Representatives. He was charged with being a pensioner of the British Government.

Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, in reply, set aside the force of the precedent by saying: "The House made no decision that the ground of loyalty was necessary to the qualification of the party." He thus replied to the question of loyalty: "The question of loyalty is too indeterminate in itself. It rests in opinion. What one man may say is disloyal, another may not think disloyal. It may be that many members of the Senate now may think it would be disloyal to believe that it would be wiser and better for this country, if they could, to adjust amicably by national convention, or in any other mode, the existing differences, than to carry on the war. Is that disloyalty? Is a man disloyal because he entertains the opinion that the interests of his whole country, North and South, would be benefited by one course of things? Again, there are others who think, because the Administration is in power during war, that any opposition to the course and policy of that Administration would be disloyal. Many men would think so honestly. Others would say, no; it is no evidence of disloyalty at all. What definition, then, can there be put to the term to make it a qualification of a party for a seat in the Senate of the United States in the face of the Constitution of the United States? There is no certainty about it. It depends and rests upon opinion altogether; and that opinion may be as variable as it can be. Nay, sir, there is, as we all know, a difference in this body, as well as in the other House, as to the mode and policy on which this war should be carried on. Some tell us it ought to be carried on for the purpose of extinguishing Page 303 slavery altogether, and entire emancipation. Others tell us, no; that would be the destruction of the Union if you attempt to do it. Which is loyal? Which is disloyal? It depends upon opinion. Each may be equally conscientious; and it follows not that either one or the other is disloyal to the Government because he may differ as to the means or the propriety of the mode in which this war ought to be carried on.

"I mention these facts to show how dangerous it would be to introduce, as a qualification not prescribed by the Constitution, the question of loyalty."

Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, followed in reply, saying: "The Senator from Delaware takes the broad ground that in no case where a person presents himself here with credentials regular upon their face, can the Senate refuse to admit him to be sworn as a member of the body; and he goes go far as to say that if he were a convicted felon, still he must be sworn in as a member of the body. If then in any conceivable case it were possible that a man could be so degraded or so disloyal that he ought not to be admitted to a seat here, if he were a negro even with credentials, on the principle laid down by the Senator from Delaware, he should be sworn in as a member of this body."

Mr. Bayard: "No, sir; not on my principle. He must be a citizen of the United States to be sworn in as a member of this body."

Mr. Trumbull: "That is a matter of fact I suppose you will inquire into that. Will you determine that by inspection?"

Mr. Bayard: "That is a matter of qualification."

Mr. Trumbull: "Ah! then you will decide, will you? You will look beyond the credentials to find out whether he is a black man. That is the very point to which I wish to bring the Senator from Delaware. Well, sir, suppose Jeff. Davis is commissioned by the Governor of Mississippi to-day as a Senator. The Senator from Delaware will swear him in as a member, and go into an investigation whether he will expel him afterward; and Beauregard and Johnson and all the confederate traitors now in arms against the Government, and ready to blow up the Capitol of the country—yes, sir, a spy sent here to blow up the building in which you sit, and you knew it, and bringing credentials from a traitor who is acting as Governor of Mississippi—is to be admitted to a seat here to set fire to the powder that is to blow up the Capitol! Such a monstrous doctrine, it seems to me, was never advocated in any deliberate body. Have we no power to protect ourselves; no power to preserve the Government? Why, sir, under this doctrine, traitor Governors may send a third of the members of this body here, and how will you expel them then?"

Mr. Bayard, in reply, said: "It is a very easy matter to refute the argument of an opponent if you choose to misstate his position, whether it is done intentionally or unintentionally. I never pretended to say, where the credentials alone were regular, that in all cases the party was admitted. I said that, unless the objection went to the authority to appoint or the credentials, that the party was always admitted.

"Now, the honorable Senator said: Would you, if a man came here, a convicted felon, with a regular appointment by the proper authority, and with the record of conviction before you, admit him? My answer is: Yes. The Constitution of the United States, not for him, but from respect to his State and its appointing power, authorizes him to be sworn in; but the next moment that protection which the body is entitled to against infamous members, to my mind, would justify me in turning round and expelling him from a seat in the body. I would admit him because it is not left to you to decide in the first instance who shall be elected or sworn in. You have a right to supervision over your members afterward in every respect; but you must pay that much respect to the appointing power, the State which he represents, as to suppose they would not elect a disloyal, improper, or infamous man to a seat in this body. You therefore admit him, and yon admit him because the majority has no right to guard against that, for the Constitution leaves it in the States."

The credentials were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, by the following vote, and after much debate on subsequent days on a report of the committee, Mr. Stark took his seat.

YEAS.—Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chandler, Collamer, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Howe, Johnson, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sherman, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade. Wilkinson, and Wilson—29.

NAYS—Messrs. Bayard, Bright, Carlile, Kennedy, Latham, Nesmith, Pearce, Powell, Rice, Saulsbury, and Thomson—11.

_____

The purpose of conducting the war in such a manner as to destroy slavery, was brought out in the following debates, and was followed, at a later period of the session, by active measures for its abolition, and the emancipation of slaves.

In the House, January 6, Mr. Conkling, of New York, offered the following resolution:

Whereas, on the second day of the session, this House adopted a resolution, of which the following is a copy:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of War be requested, if not incompatible with the public interest, to report to this House whether any, and if any what, measures have been taken to ascertain who is responsible for the disastrous movement of our troops at Ball's Bluff;"

And whereas, on the 16th of December, the Secretary of War returned an answer, whereof the following is a copy 

                                    WAR DEPARTMENT, December 12,1861.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a resolution of the House of Representatives calling for certain information with regard to the disastrous Page 304 movement of our troops at Ball's Bluff, and to transmit to you a report of the Adjutant General of the United States Army, from which you will perceive that a compliance with the resolution, at this time, would,

in the opinion of the General-in-Chief, be injurious to the public service.          Very respectfully,

                                        SIMEON CAMERON,     

                                                    Secretary of War.

           Hon. G. A. Grow,

                   Speaker of the House of Representatives.

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,

                     ADJUTANT GENERAL’S OFFICE,

                              WASHINGTON, December11, 1861.

SIR: In compliance with your instructions I have the honor to report, in reference to the resolution of the honorable the House of Representatives, received the 3d instant, "that the Secretary of War be requested, if not incompatible with the public interest, to report to this House whether any, and if any what, measures have been taken to ascertain who is responsible for the disastrous movement of our troops at Ball's Bluff;" that the General-in-Chief of the Army is of opinion an inquiry on the subject of the resolution would, at this time, be injurious to the public service. The resolution is herewith respectfully returned. Respectfully submitted,

                                                  L. THOMAS.

                                                Adjutant General.

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR, Washington:

Therefore,

Resolved, That the said answer is not responsive, nor satisfactory to the House, and that the Secretary be directed to return a further answer.

Mr. Conkling, on introducing the resolution, entered into a description of the scenes at Ball's Bluff, on the day of the battle, and a statement of his conclusions relative to that conflict, and concluded by saying, that his particular object was to learn whether the military authorities had in any manner looked into the proceedings on October 21.

Mr. Richardson, of Illinois, followed, saying: "After the experiences of this House, it becomes its dignity to inquire whether we have the right and power to apply correctives to what we find wrong. On the first day of this session gentlemen, without consideration, without consultation, without the deliberation of the House, pledged themselves to do certain things in relation to the arrest of Mason and Slidell. The authorities, who in this Government had control of the matter, have not backed you up in it. What position do you occupy? Is your dignity vindicated? Have we maintained our own self-respect? If not, why? We have interfered with matters which did not belong to us, and over which we have no control.

"What does the gentleman from New York propose to do now? He proposes to investigate the disaster at Ball's Bluff. Suppose you find that somebody now living is at fault: what are you going to do next? Discuss it before a town meeting? Is that the way you conduct armies, fight battles, and carry on wars? It is unheard of in our legislation. We must trust something to the other departments of the Government.  

"This House may subject the matter to an investigation of a committee; it may determine that certain persons are responsible, but the Commanding General, the War Department, the officers to whom we must trust the management of our armies, may differ with the House of Representatives."

Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, opposed the resolution and said: "The general question is this: Will the House interfere in the conduct of the war and the management of the army by the investigation of transactions through its committees, which transactions are in their nature and character purely military? Have you the power to do so? Congress has power to declare war, to raise armies. What further power in the matter does the Constitution give to it? What power over the command and management of these armies has Congress? The President is the Commander-in-Chief. When you have declared war, announced its object, and raised armies, those armies pass under the command of the President of the United States, for the execution of the purpose of Congress."

Mr. Crittenden then proceeded to speak of the consequences of such interference upon the army and its officers.

Mr. Vallandigham, of Ohio, dissented from the view of the previous speaker, and said: "But I rose, sir, not merely to explain my vote, but suggest a second time, as I did the other day, that hereafter all resolutions of a similar import should be made to conform to the rule of this House, and that the responsibility which these Executive Departments owe to this House shall be rigidly enforced. Let us yield not an inch, especially at a time when executive power in its most dangerous form—the military— threatens the civil authorities with utter subordination, if not permanent overthrow. I dissent, very respectfully but totally, from the unconstitutional and dangerous doctrines of the gentleman from Kentucky; and I congratulate the country also, that gentlemen of the majority are beginning already, no matter from what motives, to fall back upon the very principles for maintaining which I have for months past been falsely and impudently denounced as an enemy to my county."

Mr. Lovejoy, of Illinois, protested also against the doctrine of the member from Kentucky, on the ground that there was a clause in the Constitution, which provided that the military should be subject to the civil authority, and then proceeded to remark upon the conduct of the war. He said: "I do not think that the want of success in our military operations is owing so much to this general or that general, to the want of military skill in this officer or that officer, as to other cause's. Although, by the way, the gentleman deprecates transforming civilians into military men, and military men into civilians, I will say that we have been familiar with such transformations ever since we have been a nation. The two leading generals in our army were civilians when this war broke out—one in California, and one in Illinois; and a large proportion of the officers of the Page 305 army now wore civilians when the war commenced. This must, of necessity, be so; and I believe, on the whole, that the civilians are the best officers, and will prove to be the best officers; and that the men who have received a military education are more in the way of the success of our arms than anything else. That is my conviction, though I do not wish to blame any one, or to discuss personal merits or demerits. The truth is, if I understand it, our want of success in this war is owing to the theory adopted by this Government in regard to its prosecution. The Government is holding the army in a state of inactivity—for what reason? Not because the officers are not skilful and brave; not because the soldiers are not brave and efficient; but they are holding this whole army in this stand-still position, and literally making it a Handing army, upon the same principle that a simpleton mentioned, I think, in Grecian fable, stood upon the banks of a stream waiting for it to flow by, that he might pass over dryshod. We are waiting in the hope—in my opinion, a vain and fruitless hope—that this rebellion will put itself down; that if we do not hurt them, these rebels will return to their allegiance, and that, too, before a great while.

"But, Mr. Speaker, to return to that which I wanted chiefly to say, and that is this: I care very little about investigating these incidental facts. The great trouble is that this nation has failed, and is yet failing, rightly to interpret the providences of God. Although a reference to any higher law or providence may be received here with a smile and a jeer, yet the truth is that God is holding this nation, and refusing to allow us to achieve any victories because we are not just; because we are not true to the principles of justice, and truth, and human equality which we proclaimed in the original structure of our Government. We lire failing to proclaim liberty throughout all the land to all the inhabitants thereof. I believe before God—and if it be fanaticism now, it will not be fanaticism when the muse of history traces the events of the day—that the reason why. we have had Ball's Bluff, Bull Run, and other defeats and disasters, is that God in his providence means to arraign us before this great question of human freedom and make us to take the right position. Where are we now, sir? Just where a certain crew were, on a vessel whose history is found in the sacred writings. These ancient mariners put out from the shore and a storm overtook them, like that which came down upon the Trojans. The billows, foaming and raging, threatened the destruction of vessel and crew. Affrighted, they called upon their respective deities, inquiring what had brought upon them the divine displeasure, and found a certain refugee on board who had proved derelict to sacred obligations. They cast lots about the matter, referring it immediately to a divine solution, and the lot fell on the guilty person. What then? Why, the culprit himself said he must be thrown overboard. The sailors, with characteristic generosity, tried to save him, but could not, and cast him forth, and so saved their vessel and the lives of those on board.

"Now, sir, when we cast this accursed slavery overboard, God will give us success, and will crown our arms with victory—for that is just, that is right. But no: this slaveholding Jonah has paid his fare, has got some sort of constitutional, guaranteed right, and prays and whips Christianity into its tortured catechumen: and we are here to-day, with this old national vessel drifting wildly amid the maddened waves, every spar bowing, every joint creaking, and every plank bending, while the angry ocean shivers its crested waves charged with divine wrath against its sides: and still men say, "For God's sake, do not touch this old slaveholding Jonah !" We must do it, sir. It must go to the depths, or we must: and when it is cast into the sea, God will save the nation. Then it will be a nation worth saving.

"Here is the trouble, sir. It is not in Stone, nor McClellan, nor in Halleck altogether. God uses these poor instruments to punish us, and when we take the right position He will bring us the right men and we shall be saved, but not otherwise. To this complexion it will come at last. It is written in the unfolding leaves of that hook chained to the throne. This Jonah must go down into the depths of the ocean, to the foundation of the hills. We have refused to vote for the negro, we have refused to care for the negro, we have refused to sympathize with the negro, and now God has set us to fighting about the negro; and the man is blind or an atheist who does not see the hand of God in it all. History will tell you that.

"Now, Mr. Speaker, the people are determined to put down this rebellion, and I tell the Government, without the least ripple or shadow of unkindly feeling toward a single gentleman —for if I had, it would be groundless and ungrateful—intrusted with the administration of affairs, and without believing for a moment that they are not true and loyal and earnest, although, as I think, acting on mistaken theories; I tell them that the people mean to put down this rebellion, and do not mean to stand with the rope round their necks always. This rebellion must be put down by the Government or without it. I know how the people feel, and I know that the slaveholding interest of one or two border slave States will not be allowed to control the destinies of this Republic"

Mr. Wickliffe. "Will the gentleman from Illinois allow me to ask him a question?"

Mr. Lovejoy. "Yes, sir."

Mr. Wickliffe. "I see, sir, that this House passed at a former session the following resolutions:

Resolved, That neither the Federal Government nor the people or governments of the non-slaveholding Page 306 States have a purpose or a constitutional right to legislate upon or interfere with slavery in any of the States of the Union.

Resolved, That those persons in the North, who do not subscribe to the foregoing proposition, are too insignificant in numbers and influence to excite the serious attention or alarm of any portion of the people of the Republic, and that the increase of their numbers and influence docs not keep pace with the increase of the aggregate population of the Union.

"In favor of the passage of the resolutions I see a gentleman's name, 'Owes Lovejoy.' Are you the man?"

Mr. Lovejoy. "I am that man. I thank the gentleman for that word. Before replying to it, however, I want to say, in pursuance of the line of thought which I was upon, that the people have determined, as I believe, to carry on this war so as to put down the rebellion in the speediest and most effectual way, and I have no doubt that the Government will gracefully yield to the popular sentiment.

"Now, if I understand the resolution read by the gentleman from Kentucky—and my attention was diverted from the reading of it for the moment—it asserted that we had no right to interfere with slavery in the States.

"Yes, sir; you will always find my vote in the affirmative upon any such resolution as that. But that was when these States were all loyal to the Federal Government; that was before slavery had broken out into rebellion; that was before these States had seceded, and cast off: their allegiance to the Government, to all its claims, and all its obligations, and of course to all right to protection and immunity.

"Now, Mr. Speaker, it is one thing, as I understand it, for two combatants to get together in a duel, for instance, in the ancient sword practice, and contend according to rule, according to the code. If they get together even as prize-fighters, they have requirements that will not allow the combatants to strike certain parts of the body; but here is a man who is playing foul, and who is striving to take your life by any and all means: are you bound by the rules, then? Has not the Constitution the right of self-preservation?"

Mr. Richardson. "I desire to ask my colleague what was the condition of South Carolina at the time when he voted for that resolution?"

Mr. Lovejoy. "I do not remember the date of it."

Mr. Richardson. "It was in February last."

Mr. Lovejoy. "It is well understood that when this resolution passed no state of war existed, no rebellion had broken out in arms."

Mr. Richardson. "I ask my colleague whether the Star of the "West had not been fired into."

Mr. Lovejoy. "I think it was subsequent to that, but no matter as to particular dates; I am talking about a state of war and rebellion as contrasted with a state of peace. Now, I suppose the gentleman from Kentucky, as well as others, will admit that the Constitution and laws require us to do a thousand things in the present state of the country that they would not allow us to do in an ordinary condition of peace. There is no question about that. My simple point is this: I have said it once before, but as the charge is persistently made upon me, and upon those who advocate the policy which I advocate, that we are for making "this an abolition war, an anti-slavery war, I again take occasion to say that that is not our purpose as an original, ultimate purpose, but only as a necessary incidental measure in the suppression of the rebellion. "Now, I want to ask the gentleman from Kentucky a question. Does the gentleman prefer that slavery should be preserved and perpetuated rather than that the Union should be preserved and maintained?"

Mr. 'Wickliffe. "I will answer the question. I am for preserving this Union under the Constitution, regarding its obligations imposed upon every citizen, every section, and every State of this Union. I am not for violating the Constitution when it is not essential for the safety of the Union. The gentleman asks whether I am for preserving this Union in preference to preserving slavery. If that issue is to be raised, when it is presented I shall be ready to meet it. I believe we shall preserve the Union and slavery under it. I am for the principles as declared by the gentleman himself in voting for the resolution I have read, as declared by the President in his inaugural address and in his two Messages to this House. If these principles are observed, I have no fear that the Union and the Constitution will not be preserved."

Mr. Lovejoy. "Now the question I presented to the gentleman respectfully was, supposing it is impossible to preserve them both, suppose it becomes as apparent to all as it is apparent to some of us, as we think, that one or the other must go into the ocean—the vessel or Jonah—which shall go overboard? That is the question I propounded."

Mr. Wickliffe. "I would prefer throwing the abolitionists overboard."

Mr. Lovejoy: "I do not doubt it, and that is tantamount to saying that the gentleman prefers seeing the Union go by the board rather than slavery; for in the sense in which he uses the term he makes them identical. Those gentlemen who advocate this policy which seems now to control the army, and apparently the Administration, prefer the preservation of slavery to the preservation of the Union, provided both cannot be preserved."

Mr. Mallory, of Kentucky, said: "I will say in response to the question propounded to my colleague (Mr. Wickliffe), that so far as I understand the feelings of the people of that State—that if they ever come to regard the institution of slavery as standing in the way of this Union, or of constitutional liberty, they will not hesitate to wipe out that institution."

Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, obtained the floor for the purpose, as he stated, "of trying Page 307 to put a stop to the debate." He said: "I agree with the gentleman from New York, that the reply sent to us is not an answer to the resolution of the House. I do not believe there was any intention to evade an answer, but I believe the reply was made through inadvertence; and I believe further, that the House owes it to itself to get a direct answer, and that is all the resolution proposes. I do not see upon what ground any man can vote against that. The resolution asks nothing that is improper.

“But suppose the purpose of the resolution was to get at facts for the purpose of investigation, are we to believe in the horrible and abominable doctrine of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Crittenden), which was nothing else than that this House dare not inquire into the manner in which this war is conducted, and dare not inquire whether our officers are doing their duty or are traitors? Has it come to that, that this body is a mere automaton to register the decrees of another power, and that we have nothing to do but to find men and money?

"I solemnly protest against that doctrine as having no shadow of foundation in the genius of our institutions or in the Constitution itself. These arguments will be profitable. Much eloquence has been displayed hero. Some things have been said which strike sadness to my heart. I have seen what I have sometimes suspected, that at last many distinguished men of the border States would rather see the Constitution and the Union go down than to see slavery abolished, if it came to that alternative. Sir, we have just given twenty thousand men to defend Kentucky, and to support slavery, I suppose, in preference to the Union, if that alternative is presented. I do not wonder that gentlemen hold that doctrine. They have a perfect right to hold that doctrine. It is my right, however, to repudiate it."

Mr. Mallory, of Kentucky, demanded: "What gentleman from Kentucky has avowed the doctrine the gentleman speaks of?"

Mr. Stevens: "I could put no other construction upon the reply of the gentleman from Kentucky over the way (Mr. Wickliffe), to the question of the gentleman from Illinois. I do not wonder that those inhabiting the border States hold such a doctrine with their attachment to slavery; I do not wonder that gentlemen across the lines in the Free States hold very much the same doctrine."

Mr. Dunn, of Indiana, immediately rose and asked: "Does the gentleman impute to me any such doctrine?"

Mr. Stevens said: "I thought from what the gentleman said he had a tenderness for the negro."

Mr. Dunn replied: "The gentleman from Pennsylvania imputes certain sentiments to one of the Representatives on this floor, from the State of Kentucky (Mr. Wickliffe), saying, as I understand him, that that gentleman preferred the preservation of slavery to the preservation of the Constitution and the Union. He then intimates that I, living also on the border, sympathize with the gentleman from Kentucky in that feeling. I am glad of the opportunity of saying to that gentleman that I do not exalt slavery above our Constitution; that I would make no sacrifice of our Constitution to preserve slavery, and that I regard the preservation of the Union and the perpetuation of our' present form of Government as far more important to me, to the people of my day, and to the generations yet to come, than the preservation of slavery. But I do not believe this Government is to be perpetuated, or that these institutions can be handed down to posterity, if, instead of adhering to that policy which we proclaimed to the world at the commencement of this controversy, we now cut loose from our moorings, and, instead of struggling for the preservation of the Government, make this a war upon slavery. I tell you that if the general emancipation of slaves is to be our policy, our Union is forever gone, and there is no redemption for it."

The vote was then taken on the resolution, and it was adopted: ayes, 79; noes. 54.

The reply of the Secretary of War to the resolution, was as follows:

                                       WAR DEPARTMENT, January 9,1862.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the resolution adopted by the House of Representatives, on the 6th instant, to the effect that the answer of this Department to the resolution adopted by the House on the second day of the session " is not responsive nor satisfactory to "the House, and that the Secretary be directed to return a further answer."

In reply, I have respectfully to state that "measures have been taken to ascertain who is responsible for the disastrous movement of our troops at Ball's Bluff;" but that it is not deemed compatible with the public interest to make known those measures ut the present lime.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

                              SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War.

             HON. GALUSHA A. GROW,

               Speaker House of Representatives.

The state of the Union was a subject which presented a broad field for the discussion of the measures which should be adopted to put an end to the institution of slavery, and save the life of the nation. It became a subject of discussion incidentally, and as a part of various questions which came before the House at this time.

On the 15th of January Mr. Corning, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported the following joint resolution:

Resolved, etc. That in order to pay the ordinary expenses of the Government, the interest on the national loans, and have an ample sinking fund for the ultimate liquidation of the public debt, a tax shall be imposed which shall, with the tariff on imports, secure an annual revenue of not less than $150,000,000.

Mr. Vallandigham, of Ohio, urging the importance of preparing immediately a proper financial system for the Government, said: "The war must come to an end sooner or later, and in one way or another our foreign complications Page 308 will be adjusted, with or without a war, which could not last long; but the errors or crimes of financial contrivances and embarrassments of to-day, and their results, will endure to the third and fourth generation of those who shall come after us.

"While, then, we ought to begin this work nt once, let us not hurry over it. For twenty-six years the pestilent and execrable question of slavery, in every form, has been debated in this House for months in succession. Abolition petitions, the Wilmot proviso, the compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the Kansas troubles, and the Lecompton Constitution, each in turn consumed the time of the House for weeks together. And even now, with a public debt already of some seven hundred millions of dollars, increasing, too, at the rate of $2,000,000 a day; with every source of revenue nearly dried up, and even that last resource of the inevitable bankrupt—borrowing —cutoff; with all these things staring us full in the face, nevertheless the objects of the war, the conduct of the war, emancipation, confiscation, Ball's Bluff, the Trent affair, Government contracts, the Cooly trade, the Coast Survey, the franking privilege, or whatever else may happen to be the particular 'goose question ' of the hour—(I beg pardon, sir, but is not that now a classic phrase?)—all of them highly important, certainly, and worthy of due consideration—are debated for days at a time, and even the best abused man in the House finds no difficulty in obtaining an audience.

"Let us prepare then at once for the great questions of finance which are before us."

Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, followed. He took the position that the war power of the Government was under no limitation. " He said: "Sir, in all that I have said, or may say, touching your unlimited power to legislate 'for the common defence,' I do not mean to ignore that highest law, whose voice is the harmony of the world, and whose seat is the bosom of God —the law, not of material, but of human life; that life which is more than breath, or the quick round of blood; that life which is a great spirit and a busy heart, which is thought incarnate, mind precipitated, and which we designate by the strong word man—by whom is made the great living world of human thought, and human feeling, and human action. Nor when I speak of your unlimited power to legislate for the general welfare, do I mean that you may rightfully legislate to the hurt of the general welfare, or in wanton disregard of those rights of human nature, to protect which all good government is ordained. I admit, sir, that civil government, with all its complex machinery of civil polity, is but a means for the attainment of a more important end—the protection of individual man, the development of his deathless faculties, of his generous affections, of the immortal sentiments, hopes, and aspirations of his being.

"But, sir, it is a part of the essential economy of good government, that individual interests and individual rights must observe, at whatever cost, the public good. No man lives for himself alone, but each for all. Some must die that the state may live; individuals are but for to-day; the commonwealth is for all time.

"I reaffirm my proposition that you are intrusted by the people with the unlimited sovereign power to make all laws just and needful 'for the common defence.' What limitation is there but the public necessity upon your power to lay and collect taxes in the mariner prescribed, to contract debts and borrow money, to declare war, raise armies and navies, and make rules for their government. The limitations of the Constitution may be cited.

"From all this it must be apparent that while unnecessary or wanton cruelty to the public enemy is forbidden by the law of nations, as well also by the Constitution; all else essential, however destructive of their lives and property, is justifiable—a right and a duty. If these rebels in arms against the Constitution and laws were alien, not citizen enemies, the Government of the United States, by authority of Congress, could visit upon them all these dread penalties of war, the destruction of their lives, and the confiscation of their property, so far as necessary to the vindication of the nation's rights. That they are citizen enemies does not relieve them from such penalties, or in any wise mitigate their guilt. But what is forbidden by the law of nations toward alien enemies waging war against us by the authority of their sovereign, is expressly allowed by the Constitution of our country toward these rebels. Every one of them taken in the overt act of rebellion, inasmuch as he is a citizen of the United States, and owes allegiance to the Government of the United States, may be treated as a traitor, and upon trial and conviction, may justly be subjected to the punishment prescribed by the statute upon those guilty of the crime of treason, and be subjected to such other penalties for his rebellion as may be prescribed by law. No State in the Union can legalize treason, or absolve any of its citizens from his allegiance to the Federal Government.

"The Government is invested with the right of self-defence and self-preservation, and, to that end, with the power to provide by law for the maintenance of its authority by force against all conspiracies, however sanctioned by State statutes, or State constitutions, or State ordinances of secession."

Such being the rights and powers of the Government, he next proceeded to inquire respecting its duties.

"Is it not the duty of the legislative department to provide by law at once for the employment of all justifiable force against the persons and property of these rebels, to the end not merely that the avenging arm of an insulted people may fall upon them, but that the nation may live, that justice may be established, that

Page 309 domestic tranquillity may be restored, that the general welfare may be promoted, that personal security and the blessings of liberty may be forever insured. For these ends the Constitution was ordained by the people; not without suffering and martyrdom and the sacrifice of blood. Let not these ends fail of realization by any act of ours. The sacred trust of providing for the common defence is in our hands; let us not fail, so far as in us lies, to execute it."

After stating the laws which had been passed by Congress to preserve the Government, he proceeded to show that the most needed of all was an act to liberate the slaves. He continued: "Pass your laws liberating the 4,000,000 slaves held by the rebel*, and thereby break every unjust yoke in that rebel region; and let the  oppressed go free, in obedience to that command which comes to us as a voice out of heaven, I proclaim liberty throughout all the land, to all the inhabitants thereof.' Do you say this is fanaticism? Do you say God was a fanatic when He commanded it, and that the fathers of the Republic were fanatics when they adopted it as the sign under which they should conquer, and burned it with fire into the very bell whose iron tongue summoned them to the stern work of resistance? "

And do you say we have not the constitutional power to enact such a law? Why not? Because, you say, the slave is the rebel's property. 1 cannot admit that; but, conceding it for the moment, has he not forfeited his property, as well as his life, to the Government? Have you not by your law authorized the taking of his life, both by the sword and the gallows? Is his right to his slave, which came by wrong, more sacred than his right to his life, which is the gift of God? Has the rebel special rights and immunities of property in his slave which you do not accord to the loyal citizen? Are you not about to assert your power to take the property of the true and loyal citizen by taxation, to the extent needed for the public defence? Do you stop with a law demanding the property of the loyal citizen? Do you not demand his life as well, mid the life of the first-born of his house? Why, sir, the loyal citizen has no right or immunity which must not yield to the paramount claims and wants of an imperilled country. Even his house and home, the most sacred possession of man on this side of the grave, must, by the very terms of your Constitution, be yielded up for the common defence:

No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of its owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law 3, Amendments to the Constitution.

"You may thus in war exercise a power which in time of peace, even under the constitution of monarchy, is denied to the sceptre and the throne. The words of the great commoner of England will live forever:

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the powers of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the king dare not enter—all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.

"By your law this Inviolable sanctity of the hearthstone, whence comes the nation's strength, may be swept away, and yet you cannot confiscate the property or liberate the slaves of rebels in arms. Believe it not, sir, though one rose from the dead to proclaim it." The previous question was then called for, and the resolution passed: ayes, 134; noes, 5.

Subsequently, on the same day, the House went into Committee of the Whole upon the appropriation for certain fortifications. Mr. Wadsworth, of Kentucky, improved the opportunity to reply to Mr. Bingham, as follows: "A resolution, the most important, I undertake to say, yet introduced into this House, was brought in here, and a speech in interpretation of the purposes for which it was introduced, and as a commentary upon its text, from the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Bingham), is delivered, and then the previous question is sprung and sustained by the majority, and gentlemen are asked to vote at once under that commentary and under that previous question, and without any answer to the most remarkable speech, considering the source from which it came, that was ever heard upon this floor. I am never startled when the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lovejoy), who sits yonder, rises, upon that subject so near his heart, to teach us his construction of the Constitution, the will of the Lord, and the duty of the nation in this rebellion. Nor am I astonished when the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Stevens), and who gives mo the honor of his attention, rises and unfolds his views upon this question.

"But I was astonished in more respects than one when my neighbor from the State of Ohio delivered his views of the policy of the Government, and laid down the boundaries—the no boundaries, rather—of the power of Congress to provide for the common defence and the public welfare—astonished in more than one respect. A gentleman for whom I had the highest esteem, and whose course, ns I had observed it hero, gave me the impression of a patriotic man and a learned lawyer, rises here and tells the Representatives of the people that there are no boundaries to that power, and that Congress is omnipotent to provide for the common defence, and that, under that general phrase of the Constitution, all other limitations of the Constitution are swept away as chaff, and that we may do anything in the world not forbidden by 'natural right.' Sir, is not the limitation itself absurd?

"The argumentation by which so startling a proposition as that was supported was equally surprising. It was asserted that trial by jury, indictment, presentment, all the guards thrown around the rights of the citizens of this country, were swept away, because alien enemies had no Page 310 such rights. It was argued that the power to take life without due process of law, and without trial by jury, was implied because we could take life by court-martial—bring a man to the drum-head, condemn him to death, and execute him. It was argued that the power 'to make rules concerning captures on land and water' implies the power to take the property of citizens without making compensation therefor, and without due process of law. With fervid declamation and with an utterance thickened by intense feeling, the gentleman rushed into these extremes, and pointed out what he would do under these supposed powers to my constituents as well as the constituents of other gentlemen upon this floor. Now, sir, I do not give in to any such interpretation of the Constitution as that. Not one dollar will I vote, not one man will I grant for any such purpose, or to sustain any such interpretation. Nay, more, sir, I will give all that my people have, their cattle on a thousand hills, their slaves, their lands and tenements, their lives, even to the last one of them, to resist any attempt to enforce such a construction of the Constitution as that to the ruin of the people of this country.

"And, sir, I am not one of those who prefer slavery to the integrity and glory and perpetuity of my country. I prefer its renown and its integrity above all property and to my own poor life, and have proven it. All that my people have they are willing to give for the defence if the Constitution and the Union. The glory and renown and preservation of their country is higher than any other earthly consideration. Kentucky has gone into this war to extinguish rebellion by the sword, and she never will lay down that sword while the war is waged in the spirit of the Constitution till that great purpose has been accomplished, and the audacious men who have precipitated this ruin upon the country—the leaders and controllers in the council and in the field—have been brought to the halter.

"Is it necessary that I should attempt to answer a constitutional argument, such as that to which I have referred—that Congress has power for the common defence to do anything that can be done that is not forbidden by natural rights? No, sir. I maintain that the Federal Government is not sovereign. I declare that sovereignty does not reside in the States, and that there is no such thing as sovereignty in this country except the sovereignty of the mass. The Federal Government itself is not sovereign, but limited in many and important particulars. The State Governments are not sovereign. The Federal Government can do nothing that is not permitted to it in that instrument which brought it into being, and upon the preservation of which its existence depends. Yet it is argued that all which is not forbidden by natural right may be done for the common defence. That to preserve the cation we may break open the temple of the Constitution, and steal thence the life of the building.' Sir, it is not contrary to natural right to establish a monarchy in this country; it is not contrary to natural right to pass ex post facto laws; it is not contrary to natural right to unite Church and State; it is not contrary to natural right to found orders of nobility; and yet can all these monstrous things be done to provide for the general welfare and the common defence, whether you base the argument upon the preamble of the Constitution or upon the eighth section of article one—to which, I suppose, the gentleman refers—which declares that' the Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States?' Can it be contended for a moment that such vast and illimitable powers belong to Congress? No, sir; Congress can provide for the common defence only in the manner that the Constitution points out, and by the exercise of the powers granted by that instrument. Congress can exercise all those great powers which are conferred upon it by this Constitution for the common defence; it cannot exercise one solitary power not granted by this instrument, or necessarily inferable from its language. It overthrows our whole theory of government to say that Congress can exercise any power not expressly granted by the Constitution or necessarily implied from the language of that instrument; all other powers are unnecessary, so determined by that great work.

"There are two dangers which threaten the Union. One is a foreign war; and the other, dissension among the friends of the Union. "We might outlive the storm of foreign war.

"But, sir, dissension among the friends of the Union would have a far wider result. From the passage of an act of emancipation, the lines of the rebellion would advance; it would receive a fresh impulse; its original pretence would be justified as truth. Some of you propose to emancipate the slaves of loyal masters as well as those of rebel masters. Some of the gentlemen say the loyal man has no more right to hold slaves than the rebel; and with their view of the institution, they are right; of course, if slavery is a sin, no man has a moral right to hold slaves. A virtuous man should not commit sin. Then, I say the first attempt to emancipate slaves will necessarily result in the enlargement of the boundaries of the rebellion. Millions in the revolted States, now faithful, awaiting in silence and grief the coming of the banner of their country, with one heart would join the foe. That instant the people of Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland would resist the execution of such an act; that instant the loyal men of these States, with many of the men from the free States in arms for the maintenance of the Union, but who have not gone into the war for the purpose of freeing slaves, or to accomplish the Africanization Page 311 of our society, will disband. Yes, sir; justice, honesty, and humanity, everything that is honorable in the human character, would compel them that instant to throw down their arms. They would revolt at the idea of having been drawn into a war under the pretence of sustaining the Union, but in fact for the purpose of forcing emancipation upon the States of the South.

"Then how would you fight your battles, already sufficiently arduous? I see the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania leading the charges upon the cohorts of rebellion and storming the batteries armed by treason and theft. I think I see the meek-faced gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Julian), who read his printed composition to the committee the other day upon 'the sum of all human villanies,' I think I see him heading a charge against the regiments of rebellion. Yes, sir, the war would be brought to a speedy conclusion with men like these to fight it. They are not the fighting men; they belong to what is known as the school of humanitarians; they deprecate the shedding of blood, and do not like the smell of villanous saltpetre. Unless you bring emancipation into the war they will not vote another man, another dollar, to carry on the war. They will permit the rebellion not only to profane with storm and slaughter this capital, bearing the honored name of Washington, but they will permit it to burn Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York, to overwhelm the nation in its progress rather than vote a man or a dollar, unless you, the representatives of the people, will give an anti-slavery turn 'and vigor' to the war. Who does not know the objects of these things? These men belong to the peace party; they and their policy aim at disgraceful peace, and a dissolution on the slave line.

"Mr. Chairman, we, who are from the States most nearly concerned, have sat here for weeks and weeks, and suffered this question to be brought forward and debated in the most intemperate and offensive manner. We have heard them talk about the slaveholder as if he were not their peer, and of the same race as themselves. Yet, for the sake of securing the great measures necessary to accomplish a successful termination of this war and the preservation of our torn country, we have sat still and endured it. No forbearance moves their ' stern, inexorable hearts.' The consideration of these topics has been forced upon us by the peace party in this House, who believe that if this question of emancipation is forced into the war there will be fifteen States in the rebellion instead of eleven; and that peace and dissolution follows.

"They may be disappointed in this. As for ourselves, we do not intend to quit this Union —we will never give up our lot and part in it. We will find ways and means and friends and safety for all our rights in the Union. We will never commit the mighty sin, the mightier blunder, which the seceded States have committed, of going out of the Union. Every acre of all the lands from Atlantic shores to Pacific seas forms a part of our inheritance, and our country, and we will never surrender one grain of all their sands. If you commit the great blunder of making this a war for emancipation, then let me tell you that we will stand by the Constitution that your fathers and our fathers gave to us; we will seek beneath its ample shield protection from the horrors of servile insurrection, and the preservation of liberty and equality, our inalienable birthright. The cotton States cut themselves off from the sympathy of the conservative men in the halls of legislation, as well as from their support upon the field of battle. We of Kentucky will not break away from this Union and enter into the same folly of rebellion. No, sir; we have sworn by the blood that cemented it; we have sworn by the great men who founded it, and our own great departed Teacher; we have sworn by every tie of affection and honor eternal fidelity to it, and we will defend ourselves and our rights in the Union, not out of it, to the last gasp. And in that contest we expect to see worthy patriots from all the States rallying to our aid in Congress, or as we now see them, upon the tented field. We expect, too, patriot Presidents, rulers of the whole people, to interpose to shield us from oppression. The result cannot be doubted. The Union and the Constitution, the cause of right and justice, will prevail, and abolition and rebellion meet a common fate."

On the close of Mr. Wadsworth's remarks the House adjourned.

The subject was again considered on the 20th, in committee, when Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, took the floor and summarily expressed his views thus: "Mr. Chairman, possibly we may ultimately be successful in this war without taking such measures bb shall result in the abolition of slavery. Possibly we may be strong enough to do this, and leave slavery in the slave States in status quo ante helium. I do not believe, however, that we are sufficiently powerful to accomplish this object, if it be our object, because I cannot disbelieve that God has good still in store for us. But possibly, I say, we may have this power, as many have the will. But in this event, we return from victory, as did the Thracian horse, still bearing a master on his back."

Mr. Steele, of New York, followed, on the other side. He said: "It is my firm belief that if abolitionism should rule the day, this war would become one of extermination and death all over the country; that 'tho blackness of darkness' would overshadow the land, and the sun of liberty go down in blood, thereby extinguishing the hopes of freemen for a republican government, and obliterating all reasonable grounds for expecting the permanent sovereignty of the people."

Mr. Wright, of Pennsylvania, then commenced Page 312 some remarks upon the objects of the war and the just and proper mode of carrying it on. He said: "What was the policy of the war? I refer yon, I refer the committee to that proclamation of the President of the United States, issued on the 15th day of April last, calling out seventy-five thousand men, in response to which six hundred thousand men are to-day marshalled in the field. And I want gentlemen on the other side to bear with me while I refer to a paragraph from that proclamation, which went out from the White House on that day. I want the attention of gentlemen calling themselves Republicans upon this floor, because it was enunciated as a part of their policy, because it has been carried out by the man whom they placed in power. I want them to adhere to that policy; for it is to them I am talking to-day. I now ask the Clerk to read from that proclamation the paragraph I have indicated."

    The Clerk read as follows:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested bv the Constitution and the laws, nave thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed.

The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.

I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our national Union, and the perpetuity of popular government, and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.

I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of or interference with properly, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.

"There, Mr. Chairman, is the first summons that went out from the American Government in regard to the objects and design of this war when the first demand for troops was made. I wish Republican gentlemen of this House to tell mo what the President means by this language:

In every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.

"What did the President mean by alleging, when he called a military force into the field, that there should be no interference whatever with property of any kind? Sir, if he meant anything, he meant that this question of slavery agitation should be lot alone; or, in his own language, that there should be no interference with property. If you adopt the doctrines advanced by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Bingham), in his place a few days since, and declare that four millions of slaves shall be manumitted and set free, you do interfere with the rights of property, and you do oppose the Executive proclamation.

"Mr. Chairman, the next thing that was done in the process of time, defining the object of the war, was the adoption of the resolutions offered in this House by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Crittenden), upon the 4th of July last.

"Up that point, then, there had been no change of policy in reference to the prosecution of the war. Those resolutions embodied the principle upon which the war was inaugurated, to wit: to put down rebellion, and not to manumit slaves, and to set them loose upon the community—four millions of illiterate, and I may almost say half barbarous people, without any means of support, leaving the Government to take care of them, or the people to guard themselves against their inroads. Yes, sir, the adoption of the principle contended for by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Bingham) would lay waste the fair State of Kentucky. Its adoption would strike from the charter of our liberties Maryland and Western Virginia, and the State of Missouri. Why, then, will gentlemen contend for carrying out an idea which strikes at the homes and hearthstones of as loyal men as exist in the Union this very day ? Let it be the policy of the Government to carry out the Crittenden resolutions, and I firmly believe, Mr. Chairman, that the Union is cafe; but if you make this a war of slave emancipation, ns God is my judge, 1 believe that the Government is irretrievably gone. This is no war for slave emancipation; it is to put down rebellion and treason; to save a great and mighty republic from overthrow and ruin."

Mr. Diven, of New York, followed, saying: "Mr. Chairman, I suppose I need not state to this House that since the assemblage of this Congress at the extra session a principle has been gathering strength that has divided the councils of this House, and that has divided the sentiments of this country. One side of the question has been strongly represented upon this floor. If the other side has remained quiet, I apprehend it has not been because they have not been as firmly rooted in their principles as the side that has been more active. If we were to judge from the debates which have occurred in this House, it might be supposed that the Executive of this country had no support from the party that elevated him to power. All the attacks which have been made upon the Administration have come from the Republican side of this House, and all the replies which have been made to those attacks have come either from the Democratic side of the House, which opposed his elevation to power, or from those who represent the border States, and who really were neither for nor against him in the election.

"There is another set of men here, among whom I rank myself, who are in favor of prosecuting this war in the spirit in which it was Page 31 commenced—for the purpose of restoring this Union to its original position, and leaving all these States in the possession of the same constitutional power that they possessed before this rebellion. That is the division that exists, and I regret that it has been made and has to be met now. It ought not to have been made now. Those men who want to prosecute this war for the paramount purpose of abolishing slavery, must know, if they know anything, that they cannot attain their end until they annihilate the rebel army that stands between them and the slaves. We, also, who want to prosecute this war for the restoration of the Union, know equally well that we never can attain our end until we annihilate that same army. Thus far we are travelling upon the same road. The same force is to be overcome fur the attainment of either end. "Why, then, should we not unite all our energies? Why, then, should we introduce any disturbing element to divide our councils or distract our aims? Why should we not employ those whole energies in obtaining a victory over this common foe, and when that shall have been attained, then determine what use we will make of that victory? That is the spirit in which I should have been glad that the affairs of this country should have been conducted."

Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, now took the floor to close the debate. He argued that the salvation of the country demanded the most thorough measures, and said: "The question now again recurs, how can the war be carried on so as to save the Union and constitutional liberty? Prejudice may be shocked, weak minds startled, weak nerves may tremble, but they must hear and adopt it. Those who now furnish the means of war, but who are the natural enemies of slaveholders, must be made our allies. Universal emancipation must be proclaimed to all. If the slaves no longer raised cotton and rice, tobacco and grain for the rebels, this war would cease in six months. It could not be maintained even if the liberated slaves should not lift a hand against their masters. Their fields would no longer produce the means by which they sustain the war; unconditional submission would be the immediate and necessary result. The sympathizer with treason would raise an outcry about the horrors of a servile insurrection, and would prate learnedly about the Constitution. Which is most to be abhorred, a rebellion of slaves fighting for their liberty, or a rebellion of freemen fighting to murder the nation? Which seems to you the most cruel, calling on bondsmen to quell the insurrection, or shooting down their masters to effect the same object? You send forth your sons and brothers to shoot and sabre and bayonet the insurgents; but you hesitate to break the bonds of their slaves to reach the same end. What puerile inconsistency?

“But it will be said that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to interfere with slavery in the States. That is true so long as the Constitution and the laws are in fact supreme; as in times of peace, when they can be maintained by the ordinary tribunals of the country. I believe there is no one in this country who would attempt it. But when the Constitution is repudiated and set at defiance by an armed rebellion, too powerful to be quelled by peaceful means, or by any rule3 provided for the regulation of. the land and naval forces, the Constitution itself grants to the President and Congress a supplemental power, which it was impossible to define, because it must go on increasing and varying according to the increasing and varying necessities of the nation. The Constitution makes it the duty of the President to see that all the laws be executed. If any unforeseen and uncontrollable emergency should arise endangering the existence of the Republic, and there were no legal provision or process by which the danger could be averted, the section of the Constitution which pays that 'the President shall take care that the laws shall be faithfully executed' creates him, for the time being, as much a dictator as a decree of the Roman senate that the consul should take care that the commonwealth should receive no detriment' made him a dictator, and gave him all power necessary for the public safety, whether the means were inscribed on their tables or not. Of course such power would be limited by the necessity, and ought to exist only until Congress could be convened. The Romans, I believe, limited theirs to six months. But when Congress would assemble, they would possess the same full powers. They are authorized to raise armies and navies; to organize and call out the militia to suppress insurrection and repel invasion.' Lest these enumerated acts should prove insufficient, it wisely provides that

Congress shall have power to make all laws that shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

"This Government is empowered to suppress insurrection; its Executive is enjoined 'to see all the laws faithfully executed;” Congress is granted power to pass all laws necessary to that end. If no other means were left to save the Republic from destruction, I believe we have power, under the Constitution and according to its express provision, to declare a dictator, without confining the choice to any officer of the Government. Rather than the nation should perish, I would do it; rather than see the nation dishonored by compromise, concession, and submission; rather than see the Union dissevered; nay, rather than see one star stricken from its banner, all other things failing, I would do it now."

On a subsequent day, Mr. Riddle, of Ohio urged the same principle, but upon different grounds. He said; "We are told on conclusive Page 314 grounds that this rebellion has opened a vast and limitless source of law, that lies sealed up during the periods of peace, but -which springs forth a sceptered king at the first footfall of an armed foe. It is called the war power; and without definition or outline it comes to the find of a beleaguered nation. It is said that this extraordinary agency can fulminate its edicts alone through the voice of a commander-in-chief at the head of his armies; and that in no form can or does it attach itself to the ordinary legislature. This I deny. We are the legislative power—the proclamation of a rule that changes existing relations is the enactment of a law, simple and pure; and the Constitution confers no semblance of legislative power elsewhere. If a new fountain of law-making power is opened up, it naturally flows to us, and we may and should embody so much of it as we deem necessary into the ordinary forms of statutes. This power—undefined, vague, and shadowy—can nowhere else be so safely exercised as by us; and rather than permit an Executive to be clothed with it, without limit or definition, and thus make him an irresponsible despot, I would deny its existence and resist its exercise. "With us it is safe; even a usurpation on our part that did not impinge upon a coordinate branch of the Government may be comparatively harmless.

"I hold, then, that this war power, whatever it may be, or whence its source, is our special property; and it may be well to inquire whether we have not already permitted its exercise by the Executive to an extent trenching upon danger. On broader grounds yet may the power to deal with this matter be most securely rested. Nations, like individuals, possess inalienable rights; and for the same reasons. An individual sustains certain relations, and is under consequent obligations from which he cannot be discharged—to the God who created him, to his fellows about him, and to himself. To insure a performance of these, he possesses certain rights and privileges that cannot be taken from him, and with which he cannot part by any act of his own; and if such a pretended alienation has taken place, enforced or voluntary, he may at any moment and under all circumstances, resume them. For the same reason and to the same extent, a nation must possess these rights, which pertain to it simply because it is a nation; and without them it cannot discharge the paramount obligations of protection to its subjects, and self-defence.

"In the application of our power, however derived, to the subject under consideration, I would adopt the principles of that proclamation to the language of which the oppressed and laboring heart of the nation rose up as to the voice of God—the property of all the rebels should be confiscated, and their slaves' are hereby declared free.' My convictions and judgment might carry me further, but there are checking considerations that at this time, to we, render this inexpedient. I know that our amazing policy in this gasping, strangling contest for the breath of life is thus far the reverse of this; we even reject with scorn the aid of one entire and powerful class of our subjects; that race, too, for whose destiny and our own the war is; and yet we will perish rather than aid shall come from them. Nay, we will perish rather than seek to withdraw them from striking with our mortal foes. Was ever fatuity so sublime? "What can be the solution of this prodigious folly? Is it indeed true that slavery is the one holy thing, so sacred that even in this struggle we are to remain the enemies of our own allies, and the allies of our enemies against ourselves? There never was a war conducted so lambent and so lamb-like, where the persons of your enemies are too sacred to be smitten by any save a pure white; and where you so carefully guard their feelings against the mortification of being beaten in the field by the kindred of their own bondmen. Never, until we can shuffle off these sickly and sickening sentimentalisms, and confront this great, catastrophe with all the means that he within our grasp in our hands, shall we be equal to its fearful demands. Gentlemen may turn their pallid faces loathingly away, and hold their weak stomachs, but I say to them that they and their policy must go to the rear—the front of this battle is for other hands."


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