' E 
 74-5 
 
 jffrff'.?jT^.'!i<"!ii. 
 
Class X_G^i_i_ 
 Book T4B 
 
I 
 
CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT 
 
 PRINCIPLES AGAINST POLICY. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 [on. John L. Thomas, jr., of Maryland, 
 
 Oif 
 
 RECONSTKUCTION; 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 21, 1866. 
 
 
 % 
 
 ■^^X'. WASHINGTON: 
 PRINTED A^'THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
 
 f 1866. 
 
tN EXCHANtE 
 
 
RECONSTRUCTION. 
 
 The Iloase, as in Committee of tho Whole on the 
 state of tho Union, having under consideration the 
 President's annual message — 
 
 m. J. L. THOMAS said: 
 
 Mr. Speaker: The great question of recon- 
 struction and the collateral issues properly be- 
 longing to it have been agitating this country 
 in some form or another since the first session 
 of the Thirty-Eighth Congress. 
 
 The rebellion which has been so gloriously 
 crushed out has devolved upon us the solemn 
 duty of dealing with its results in such a man- 
 ner as that a permanent peace shall be secured 
 and a lasting adjustment of all the irritating 
 causes that produced it, shall be forever put at 
 rest. I, for one, have made up my mind what 
 course I shall pursue, and "with malice to- 
 ward none, with charity for all, with determi- 
 nation to do the right as God giveth me to see 
 the right" — to advocate and support such prin- 
 ciples as will reconstruct the States lately in 
 rebellion on a sure and loyal foundation,' and 
 that treason will never again lift its bloody 
 hand to strike down the bulwarks of the Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 Differences have arisen among us as to 
 how this can best be done. Loyal, patriotic, 
 honest men have spoken on the subject, and 
 whii?, some of them differ as to the details, 
 and others as to mere abstract questions and 
 theoretic views of "State suicide," we all 
 agree on one point, and that is, that no rebel- 
 lious State shall be represented on this floor 
 until her people show such unmistakable proofs 
 of repentance and loyalty for the future as will 
 
 warrant us in believing that "the Republic 
 can receive no detriment" at the hands of its 
 former assailants. 
 
 The committee on reconstruction, to whom 
 this House, by the unanimous vote of the ma- 
 jority, intrusted the investigation of the con- 
 dition of the rebel States, have not as yet 
 reported that any of them are in a condition 
 to be represented here, with the exception of 
 the State of Tennessee. That committee, com- 
 posed as it is of some of the best and most 
 patriotic members of this body, is entitled to our 
 highest consideration and respect, and would 
 not, I am sure abuse the trust that has been 
 placed in their hands. The fact that they have 
 not yet reported that any of these States, except 
 the State of Tennessee, are in a condition to 
 be represented is a strong argument to my 
 mind why we should not be precipitate in our 
 action. And however much that committee 
 may have been abused by the whole copper- 
 head press of the country, and arraigned by 
 the President as an "irresponsible directory," 
 I can see nothing cither in the material of 
 which it is formed or the duties which have 
 been assigned them by the Senate and the 
 House that detracts either from the conclusions 
 at which they arrive or the right they have in 
 exercising the powers allotted to them. Act- 
 ing on behalf of the Senate and the House, 
 they act as any other committee, clothed with 
 such powers only as the Senate and the House 
 see fit to give them. Their conclusions, and 
 the facts upon which their judgment is based, 
 must be submitted to the Congress for its rati 
 
4 
 
 fication or rejection. How it can be looked 
 upon or called "irresponsible," when it must 
 render an account to the country for its con- 
 duct, is hard for me to comprehend. That it 
 can be likened to a "directory," when it has 
 no power of its own, and when its resolutions 
 are feeble and lifeless except they receive the 
 assent of Congress, is still more difficult for me 
 to understand. 
 
 Thejoint resolution empowering that commit- 
 tee to act was passed on the 4th day of Decem- 
 ber last, and received the support and the vote 
 of some of the very men whom we find to-day 
 denouncing it as a usurpation. When it went 
 out to the world no one saw in it anything but 
 a legitimate exercise of the powers of Con- 
 gress, and the President himself, so far as I 
 am aware, did not say a word in opposition 
 to it. 
 
 The Constitution says that "each House 
 shall be the judge of the election, qualification, 
 and returns of its own members. ' ' It nowhere 
 says that each House shall separately, for itself, 
 do this, nor that it shall not be done by the 
 concurrent action of each House. Each House 
 can act separately for itself, and in all ques- 
 tions touching the elections, &c., of the mem- 
 bers of each House, the practice heretofore 
 in ordinary cases has been for each House to 
 act without the concurrence of the other. 
 
 But the question involved in the admission 
 of the Senators and Representatives of the 
 lately rebellious States was and is not a mere 
 question of qualification, election, and return 
 of its members, but goes to the fundamental 
 principles of the status and organization of the 
 people and the State governments of the States 
 asking fer the admission of their Senators and 
 Representatives. 
 
 The Constitution says that "each House 
 may determine the rules of ifes own proceed- 
 ings." (Article one, section five.) Does this 
 prevent the Congress from making joint rules, 
 to be binding on both? On the cohtrary, has 
 it not been the practice for each House, by 
 concurrent action, to make joint rules, not only 
 to facilitate public business, but to make their 
 action uniform and harmonious ? And if there 
 ever was a case presented where neither House 
 should act without the concurrence of the other 
 it is in the mode and manner of dealing with 
 
 the representation from these States. If eac 
 
 House should act for itself we might have th 
 
 strange anomaly of the people being repr( 
 
 sented in one branch and the States unrepr( 
 
 sented in another, or vice versa. 
 
 Again, the Constitution says that — 
 
 "Tho House of Representatives shall be compose 
 of members chosen every second year by the people c 
 the several States, and the electors in each State sha 
 have tho qualifications requisite for the electors c 
 the most numerous branch. of the State Legisli 
 ture." — Art. 1, Sec. 2. 
 
 Will any one tell me that the House has nc 
 the power to inquire and ascertain whether 
 man sent here to represent the people was i 
 fact elected by the electors having the qualii 
 cations requisite for the most numerous branc 
 of the State Legislatures ? Suppose a ma 
 should present himself with his credentlah 
 bearing the broad seal of his State, certifyin 
 that he was duly elected, and it should tur 
 out that he was not elected by the qualifie 
 electors of the most numerous branch of tli 
 State Legislature, but by a portion of the peC 
 pie not qualified as such an elector — a negr 
 population, for example — will any one affiri 
 that we would not have the power to ascertai 
 who and what these electors were ; and if the 
 were not what the Constitution says they sha 
 be, to refuse to admit them? And the sam 
 may be said as to the power of the Senate i 
 relation to the States. 
 
 And yet when Congress passes a joint res( 
 lution appointing a joint committee whos 
 duty is to inquire into the condition of eleve 
 States, the majority of whose people have fc 
 the past four years been in armed and wicke 
 rebellion against the Government, and to repo: 
 whether any of these States are entitled to t 
 represented because of their treason, it 
 denounced as a crime, and held up to the worl 
 as a monstrous outrage and a vile usurpatioi 
 
 Sir, if it be an outrage for me to refuse t 
 admit to my house a man coming from a loca 
 ity infected with some loathsome, contagioi 
 disease until I am satisfied I can do it withoi 
 running any risks or hazards of my life, c 
 to the life of the inmates of my house, then 
 is monstrous in me to refuse men admissio 
 here, coming from disloyal constituenciei 
 until I am satisfied their admission will n( 
 endanger the life of the Republic. This ut 
 seemly haste on the part of these States < 
 
 jm I > <— » "4 »^ 
 
come back into Congress on their terms is 
 only equalled by their preciiaitate action in 
 leaving these Halls in 18G1 to join in breaking 
 up by force of arms what they would tear down 
 to-morrow by political trickery if you but give 
 them the opportunity and the power. 
 
 While I am as desirous as any man that the 
 States unrepresented should have their dele- 
 gates participate with us in our deliberations, 
 I am at the same time sensible of a duty that 
 I owe to my country and to such of the loyal 
 masses of the South as stood true to the Union 
 in its hour of peril, that is paramount to any 
 courtesy that I might be willing to extend to 
 them. 
 
 Sir, the smoke of the great revolution 
 througli which we have just emerged hag not 
 yet sulliciently passed away to allow us to dis- 
 cern clearly the prosi^ects or hopes of the 
 future. For myself, as I never entertained a 
 doubt during the long and dreary night that 
 for nearly five years hung like a death-pall over 
 our country, that the rebellion would be finally 
 crushed out, and traitors made to feel the 
 enormity of their guilt, so to-day, if I feel a 
 sad disappointment that they have not met 
 that doom that their treason entitled them to 
 receive, I have an abiding confidence in the 
 devotion and patriotism of the loyal masses of 
 the people that they will never allow these 
 rebels, who have forfeited everything by their 
 rebellion, to dictate the terms upon which they 
 shall resume their relationship to the Govern- 
 ment. They are either to be consulted as to 
 what conditions will .best please them, or we 
 are to make known to them upon what terms 
 we please to receive them. We are eitlier to 
 consent that such men as they select shall be 
 our peers in this House, or we are to tell them 
 what character of peers they shall send here. 
 We are either to exact no guarantees for future 
 security, or we are to impose such guarantees 
 as Congress in its wisdom may deem best for 
 the pul)llc good, 
 
 I hold that treason is the same, whether it 
 be committed by an aggregate of individuals, 
 or by but one individual. It is levying war 
 against the United States ; giving aid and com- 
 fort to its enemies. When an aggregate of 
 individuals commit treason, they are as liable 
 to pay its penalty as any single individual would 
 
 be. If any person in a State commits treason, 
 and you have the power to prescribe the con- 
 ditions upon which he shall be pardoned, (which 
 the President has done, both by his amnesty 
 proclamation and the thousands of pardons 
 he has granted,) then you have the power as a 
 Congress to say to these same men, " Before you 
 shall be allowed to exercise your functions as 
 States, you shall first comply, with certain con- 
 ditions, which we deem to be necessary before 
 we can allow you to resume all your rightis as 
 members of a State." 
 
 The Constitution says the United States shall 
 guaranty to each State a republican form of 
 government. At the end of the rebellion we 
 found that the insurgents had erected insur- 
 rectionary governments that were in the hands 
 of traitors, and that were not only not repub- 
 lican, but that were usurpations and tyrannies. 
 We found that the rebels in arms had seized 
 hold of the political machinery of the States, 
 and had not only carried them into rebellion, 
 but had linked their fortunes to a pretended 
 and revolutionary confederacy, which they 
 acknowledged, and to which they had all sworn 
 allegiance. 
 
 We found that men who were true in their 
 loyalty to this Govemiment were hunted down 
 like dogs and treated like beasts ; their property 
 confiscated, their homesteads desolated, their 
 wives and children forced away from them be- 
 cause of their loyalty. We found all this, and 
 more which I shall not stop to recount, and 
 which history will blush to record. 
 
 This being the case, the question is, not 
 whether the States that went into rebellion 
 were ever out of the Union, not whether by 
 their ordinances of secession they succeeded in 
 doing what their ordinances proclaimed to the 
 world, but whether the State governments we 
 found in existence at the time the combined 
 armies of the confederacy surrendered to Grant 
 were the legitimate State governments recog- 
 nized by the Con.stitution, and republican in 
 form, or were usurpations, presided over by 
 traitors to their country. 
 
 It cannot be contended for a moment that 
 the State governments found in existence in 
 April, 1865, were the same State governments 
 that existed prior to 1861. Not only is thia not 
 so, ia relation to the functionaries representing 
 
6 
 
 these State governments, such as Governors, 
 judges, and members of the Legislature, but in 
 many, if not all of them, their State constitu- 
 tions had been changed in order to meet the 
 new obligations which they had contracted in 
 attaching themselves to the rebel usurpation. 
 Were these State governments legal or illegal ; 
 were they constitutional or unconstitutional ; 
 were they republican or anti-republican? If 
 they are legal, constitutional, and republican, 
 then were their ordinances of secession legal, 
 constitutional, and republican? If, on the 
 other hand, their ordinances of secession are 
 and were void, then their State governments 
 made under their ordinances of secession are 
 void. The one follows as the necessary con- 
 sequence of the other. This being the case, 
 their secession ordinances being void, and all 
 their State governments in existence during 
 the rebellion being in like manner void and 
 usurpations, we are forced to come to one of 
 two conclusions, either that the State gov- 
 ernments in existence in 1861 and prior to the 
 rebellion, are in existence now, unchanged, 
 with all of their rights and immunities, in as 
 full and ample a manner as they possessed them 
 at that time, or the rebel usurpations which 
 continued in these States for four years, and 
 which have been overthrown by force of arms, 
 are still in existence, or the new State gov- 
 ernments, created by provisional governors 
 appointed by the President, are in existence. 
 
 If the first be the case — that is, if these State 
 Governments have had an existence all through 
 the rebellion just as though no rebellion had 
 happened — then there is no obligation, no con- 
 dition that either Congress or the Executive, 
 eitlier as a war measure or in any other respect, 
 can impose upon these States. Then neither 
 Congress nor the Executive have any right to 
 say, you shall first adopt the amendment to 
 abolish slavery, and repudiate the doctrine of 
 secession, and as a condition-precedent before 
 their admission to representation in Congress. 
 Then neither the President nor Congress has 
 any right to say that before any of their Rep- 
 resentatives shall be admitted here they shall 
 first be loyal, and then take an oath of loyalty. 
 
 If this be true, then neither Mr. Lincoln nor 
 Mr. Johnson had any right to appoint provis- 
 ional governors of States whose machinery of 
 
 government was already in existence, and 
 which the rebellion did not and could nol 
 destroy. Then all the acts done by these pro- 
 visional governors are illegal and void, and 
 without warrant of law, either under the Con- 
 stitution or the laws of nations. 
 
 It appears to me, sir, that a strange confu' 
 sion of ideas has taken place in the discussior 
 of this question. A State is confounded wit! 
 the government of the State. A State cannoi 
 go out of the Union unless by successful revo- 
 lution it succeeds in a separate, independen' 
 nationality, acknowledged as such by the world 
 Secession ordinances cannot carry a State oui 
 of the Union, because if they could, every State 
 that attempted to secede would to-day be ou 
 of the Union. But the government of a Statt 
 can become usurped and so utterly destroyec 
 as to require not only remodeling but an entirt 
 new frame work. 
 
 Suppose, sir, for illustration, that the rebels 
 in my own State had succeeded in 1861 in pasS' 
 ing an ordinance of secession and forcing th( 
 loyal Governor of Maryland either to leave th( 
 State or to vacate the functions of his office 
 suppose, in place of the State government ther 
 in existence, they had elected another Governor 
 Legislature, and judiciary — all of them sworr 
 to support the upstart and usurping confed 
 eracy; suppose this State government so or 
 ganized had waged war against the Unitec 
 States for four years, and at the end of tha' 
 time was compelled by force of arms to submi 
 to the power against whom it had rebelled, ii 
 what condition would my State have been, anc 
 what would have been the duty and the obliga 
 tions of this Government to the loyal Unior 
 men of Maryland who refused to take part ii 
 the usurpation, and who never yielded a vol 
 untary support to the confederacy? 
 
 To be sure the boundaries of the State woulc 
 have remained the same as they do now. Its 
 geography would not have been changed, anc 
 possibly its name would have been allowed tc 
 exist. But suppose one portion of the people 
 acting under the constitution of the State as i' 
 existed prior to 1861, had elected Representa 
 tives and Senators, and suppose another portior 
 of the people had elected Senators and Repre 
 sentatives in accordance with the laws made 
 during the four years it was in rebellion, anc 
 
that still another portion had elected Senators 
 and Representatives in uccordance with a con- 
 stitution and laws made and enacted under and 
 by virtue of a convention called into being by 
 a provisional governor appointed by the Pres- 
 ident as Commander-in-Chief of the Army, 
 which State government would you recognize, 
 and which set of Representatives would you 
 admit, and where would the power reside as to 
 which was the State government and who its 
 Representatives? If you sayyou would recog- 
 nize the State governments in existance prior 
 to 18G1, then how can you reconcile the fact 
 that the State governments organized in all of 
 the lately rebellious States are to-day the creat- 
 ures and creations of the conjoint action of the 
 President of the United States by the appoint- 
 ment of provisional governors, on the one part, 
 and the people of these States, acting by per- 
 mission of the provisional governors, on the 
 other. 
 
 If it be said that this cannot.be done, that 
 the State governments as they existed in 1860 
 were usurped, then I want to know if you 
 intend to acknowledge the rebel usurpations 
 carried on for over four years in spite of the 
 Constitution, and in spite of the armies and the 
 Navy of the UnitedStates which finally ground 
 tliem to powder. If you will not, as you can- 
 not and dare not, acknowledge the rebel usur- 
 pations, then the question is presented, are 
 the State governments as at present organized 
 in the lately rebellious States, so organized on 
 such principles of justice and loyalty as to war- 
 rant the people of the United States to reinvest 
 them with all the rights and privileges of States 
 in as full and ample a manner as they were 
 possessed by them prior to the time when they 
 went into rebellion? 
 
 In the discussion of this question, Mr. Speaker, 
 I do not intend to allow myself to be drawn 
 into a consideration of abstract questions, which 
 when fully exhausted and finally answered bring 
 us no nearer to the point we are trying to reach 
 than when we started. 
 
 For this reason I do not intend to assume, as 
 many liave who have preceded me, either the 
 right of a State to secede, or whether the rebel 
 States did secede, or whether they have ever 
 been out of the Union, or whether they are Ter- 
 
 ritories. It is enough for me to know that they 
 have' been in rebellion ; that during that rebel- 
 lion their State governments ceased to have 
 any relations (except as enemies) with the peo- 
 ple of the United States ; that certain conse- 
 quences followed from their rebellion — one the 
 subversion or overthrow of their State govern- 
 ments, the other a suspension of the represen- 
 tation in Congress. 
 
 • I claim, sir, that it is for Congress to decide 
 not only whether these State governments 
 having been once subverted, have been again 
 reconstructed, but to examine and see how 
 they have been reconstructed, and whether they 
 have been so reconstructed as to entitle them 
 to representation here. In the language of the 
 lamented Lincoln — 
 
 "Let us all join in doing the acts necessary to re- 
 storing the proper practical relations between these 
 States and the Union, and each forever after inno- 
 cently indulge hi.s own opinion whether, in doingth* 
 acts, he brought the States from without into the 
 Union, or only gave them proper assistance, they 
 never having been out of it." 
 
 That we are all desirous of doing this I am 
 satisfied. That it ought to be done quickly, 
 but with a view to secure future peace and 
 security, both to th'em and to us, I am per- 
 suaded. So far as the constitutional power of 
 Congress over this whole matter is concerned, 
 I am convinced it is ample and exclusive. 
 
 The President, as Commander-in-Chief of 
 the Army and the Navy, has the power to erect 
 military provisional governments as temporary 
 expedients for peace and quiet. But these pro- 
 visional governments only proved two things: 
 first, that the old State governments had been 
 subverted or destroyed ; and second, that having 
 been destroyed , some expedient must be resorted 
 to to make a new one. The power of Congress 
 commenced where that of the President ceased. 
 His power ceased when he withdrew his pro- 
 visional governors. The power of Congress 
 commenced when culled upon to recognize the 
 Senators and Representatives of the newly- 
 reconstructed State governments. 
 
 That this power is in Congress, and exclu- 
 sively in Congress, I shall read a short passage 
 from the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
 United States in the case of Luther vs. Borden, 
 reported in 7 Howard's Supreme Court Reports, 
 at page 10. Say the court : 
 
 " Thefourth section of the fourth article of the Con- 
 
8 
 
 stitiition of the United States provides that Congress 
 shall guaranty to every State in the Union a repub- 
 lican form of government." * * * * 
 
 " Under this article of the Constitution it rests with 
 Congress to decide what government is the established 
 one in a State. For as the United States guaranty 
 to every State a republican government, Congress 
 must necessarily decide what government is estab- 
 lished in a State before it can determine whether it 
 is republican or not. 
 
 " And when the Senators and Representatives of 
 a State are admitted" — 
 
 I desire gentlemen to pay their particular 
 attention to this— • 
 
 " into the councils of the Union, the authority of the 
 government under which they are appointed, as w611 
 as its republican character, is recognized by the proper 
 constitutional authority." 
 
 What stronger authority could you have, as 
 to the meaning of the guarantee clause and 
 of the duties and powers of Congress under it 
 than this? And what better vindication could 
 we desire, as to our refusal to admit these Sen- 
 ators and Representatives from the rebel States 
 until their condition has been inquired into and 
 the form of government they have made has 
 been ascertained, than the announcement made 
 in this case, that when the Senators and Rep- 
 resentatives are admitted into the councils of 
 the Union the authority under which they are 
 appointed is not only recognized, but the repub- 
 lican character of their State governments is 
 at once and forever acknowledged? 
 
 Acting on this theory, at the first session of 
 the Thirty-Eighth Congress a joint resolution 
 was passed declaring that no State declared to 
 be in rebellion by the proclamation of the Pres- 
 ident shall be entitled to appoint electors for 
 President and Vice President until both Houses 
 of Congress by concurrent action shall have 
 recognized a State government in such State. 
 
 This theory of reconstruction is not there- 
 fore a new one, made by this Congress to keep 
 the rebellious States from participating in legis- 
 lation, but has been solemnly decided by the 
 Supreme Court of the United State as a power 
 vested exclusively in Congress, and one that no 
 coordinate branch of this Government has the 
 right to interfere with. 
 
 And, sir, the world will be surprised to know 
 that both Mr. Seward and the President held 
 to this doctrine;, and so instructed some of the 
 proTisiorial governors of the so-called recon- 
 structed States. 
 
 In answer to a letter from Governor Marvin, 
 
 provisional govei-nor of Florida, Mr. Seward, 
 on the 12th of September, 1865, thus speaks : 
 
 Department op State. 
 Wasuington, September 12, 1865. 
 Sir: Your Excellency's letter of the 29th ultimo, 
 with the accompanying proclamation, has been re- 
 ceived and submitted to the President. The steps to 
 which it refers toward reorganizing the government 
 of Floridascem to be in the main judicious, a»id good 
 results from them may be hoped for. The presump- 
 tion to which the proclamation refers, however, in 
 favor of insurgents who may wish to vote and who 
 may have applied for but not received their pardons, 
 is not exactly approved. All applications for par- 
 don will bo duly considered and will be disposed of 
 as soon as may be practicable. It must, however, be 
 distinctly understood that the restoration to which 
 your proclamation refers will be subject to the decis- 
 ion of Congress. 
 
 I have the honor t* be your Excellency's obedient 
 servant, 
 
 WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
 His Excellency William Marvin, Provisional Gov- 
 ernor of the State of Florida, Tallahassee. 
 
 What did the Secretary mean, when he said 
 that the restoration to which the Governor's 
 proclamation referred " will be subject to the 
 decision of Congress," if it was not that to 
 Congress attached the duty, the power, and the 
 responsibility of deciding how and when that 
 restoration was complete, final, and satisfac- 
 tory? 
 
 Again, in a dispatch dated July 24, 1865, 
 Mr. Seward, by order of the President, sends 
 the following telegram to Governor Sharkey, 
 of Mississippi: 
 
 Washington, July 24, 1865. 
 W. L. Sharkey, ProutsionaZ Governor of Mississippi : 
 
 Your telegram of the 21st has been received. The 
 President sees no reason to interfere with General 
 Slocum's proceedings. The government of the State 
 will be provisional only until the civil authorities 
 shall be restored with the approval of Congress. 
 Meanwhile military authority cannot be withdrawn. 
 WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
 
 Has Congress said any more ? Could Con- 
 gress say any more ? Which of the civil au- 
 thorities of any of these States has been restored 
 with the approval of Congress ? And yet Mr. 
 Seward undertakes to unite with those who 
 denounce the action of Congress as revolu- 
 tionary because Congress assumes to do what 
 he says cannot be done except with the ap- 
 proval of Congress. If Congress has not the 
 constitutional power to inquire into and deter- 
 mine the fact whether the governments of these 
 States lately in rebellion have been properly 
 reorganized, I want to know who has that power ? 
 Has the President? If he has, where does he 
 find his power? It is clearly not in the Con- 
 stitution, and it is equally as clear that it is not 
 
9 
 
 to be found either in the laws of Congress or 
 in any military power that he possesses as Com- 
 mander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy. Has 
 the Supreme Court the pcfwer to determine this 
 question? It certainly cannot have, since all 
 of its powers are well defined, and, as I have 
 before stated, that tribunal has decided that 
 Congress has the power. 
 
 We are driven, then, to one of two conclu- 
 sions : that there is no power anywhere, in any 
 of the coordinate branches of this Government 
 to judge of or determine upon the reconstruction 
 of these States, or that power belongs to and 
 resides in the Congress of the United States. 
 By assuming the first, the States that went 
 in,to rebellion would have the right to build up 
 any kind of a government as a State organiza- 
 tion, and provided it owed allegiance to the 
 Constitution of the United States it would be 
 entitled to be recognized as such and to have 
 its representation in this House. More than 
 this, the States that went into rebellion not 
 only did not need any provisional or military 
 governments to aid them in building up new 
 governments after the fall of the confederacy, 
 but by simply surrendering, after they were 
 compelled to surrender, and yielding obedience 
 to the laws of the United States, after they 
 were forced to do so, they had the right eo 
 instanti to resume their former position in the 
 Union, and to have all the original rights ex- 
 ercised by them before they went into rebeL 
 lion, 
 
 I, for one, cannot agree to any such a doc- 
 trine, but hold to the only safe rule for the 
 reconstruction of these States, that the power 
 is in Congress to determine when these States 
 shall be entitled to exercise all their proper 
 functions in the Union, and how and on what 
 terms it shall be done. Ay, sir, and that 
 until these terms are complied with they shall 
 remain where they have remained for the 
 last four years, in the Union to be sure, be- 
 cause they had not the power to get out of it ; 
 but in the Union, divested of their represen- 
 tation in Congress until the Union masses of 
 this land have so hedged them in by proper 
 guarantees and safeguards for future protec- 
 tdon as that they can be safely invested -with 
 all the powers- of loyal States. 
 
 The question then occurs, have the State 
 governments of any of the rebellious States 
 been reconstructed in such a manner as to 
 entitle them to be not only represented in Con- 
 gress, but to receive-all the powers and priv- 
 ileges of loyal States? 
 
 In answering this question we should con- 
 sider, first, the status of the people of these 
 States as to their loyalty to the Government ; 
 and second, the nature or kind of State gov- 
 ernments they have organized, and which we 
 are called upon to recognize. 
 
 I take it that no true, devoted friend of his 
 country could wish that any of these States 
 should again aid in controlling the destinies of 
 this nation until the people of the States have 
 shown themselves to be loyal to the Govern- 
 ment which they are in part to control. When 
 I use the word loyal in this connection, I do 
 not mean that sturdy, bold, and defiant patriot 
 who, through four years of blood and slaughter, 
 maintained that no State had the right to rebel, 
 and who refused to give a voluntary support to 
 the rebel usurpation ; but I take it in its new 
 and amended sense, as a man who did go into 
 rebellion, but who, having taken the amnesty 
 oath, means in good faith to keep it. 
 
 In this latter sense I am constrained to sav 
 that I do not believe that the vast majority of 
 those who have taken the oath arc loyal, be- 
 cause I do not believe, in the language of our 
 patriotic President, that you "trust" them. 
 
 That my opinion is not formed from any 
 prejudice, but that it is a conviction based on 
 swbrn and legal testimony, I beg leave to refer 
 to the testimony of Hon. John Covode. In one 
 part of it, in answer to a question put to him 
 by the committee, ho says: 
 
 "I conversed with loyal men from other State*— 
 Mississipiii. Alal)ama, <i:c.— who were then iu New- 
 Orleans. They expressed a deep interest in having a 
 correct policy inaugurated in Louisiana on account 
 of thc_ effect it would haveon theirown States. They 
 said that if Louisiana was directed iu the right course 
 at the start, froiu her position and relations to other 
 States, it would go far to produce the best results in 
 several other States. I will here state that many truly 
 loyal men whom I met in New Orleans seemed to Itek 
 confidence in their being ultimately protected and 
 supported by the Government; and I was frequently 
 asked, if I became satb^fied or convinced that they 
 were to be abandoned to the rule of the rebel ele- 
 ment, to notify them in time to enable them to jret 
 away, more especially if the troops of the United 
 States were to bo withdrawn. They said that if th« 
 troops were withdrawn they could not live there. T 
 know many citizens of Louisiana who remained 
 
10 
 
 within reach of the military because they did not 
 dare to venture to return to their former homes." 
 
 In another part of his testimony the follow- 
 ing significant facts are developed : 
 
 "Question. Have you a copy of your report to the 
 President? 
 
 "Answer. I have not a copy of that report. I have 
 at home the rough draft from which the report was 
 made, but not the accompanying papers, as I had no 
 copies made of them. Notbeing aware that I should 
 bo called before this committee to testify I did not 
 bring that rough draft with me to the city. 
 
 "Question. Can you state from recollection the sub- 
 stance of the conclusions in your report to the Presi- 
 dent which you state you made to him ? 
 
 "Answer. I might be able to state the substance of 
 the conclusions. One of them I recollect distinctly 
 was to this effect: 'That if the rebel element was 
 allowed to vote in the South every member who would 
 be returned to Congress would be hostile to the policy 
 of the Federal Government, not only as regards pay- 
 ment of the national debt, but in reference to the 
 emancipation of the negroes; that while they ex- 
 pressed a willingness to accede to the principles of 
 the emancipation proclamation, they always coupled 
 with it a determination to regulate their own affairs in 
 that respect, stating that they would have an organ- 
 ized system of negro labor which they would control 
 for themselves. Over and over again, in conversa- 
 tion in New Orleans. I heard them saying that they 
 could make the condition of affairs better for them- 
 selves than it was before. They said that Govern- 
 ment had freed the negroes and should be made to 
 take care of cripples and those who were not able to 
 work, while they would regulate and control the labor 
 of able-bodied men. 
 
 "'I would here state that while many in the South 
 would say that Government must pay the rebel debt 
 as well as Federal debt, the better and more intelli- 
 gent class of them did not speak inthis way ; but they 
 told me distinctly that I could not expect that they 
 would help to pay our debt or pension our soldier.s 
 for whipping them; that they would have power in 
 the Government some day, with their increased rep- 
 resentation, and would be able to defeat the payment 
 of the interest on the debt or in some other way 
 destroy public credit. I asked them where they ex- 
 pected to get help for that purpose, and they would 
 generally say that there were portions of the North 
 where they had no interest in Government securities 
 — the West, for instance. I found that to be the feel- 
 ing among the best men who had been in the rebel- 
 lion that I met at the South. They seemed to take 
 it for granted that we could not expect them, when 
 they should again attain power, lo help pay our 
 debts.'" 
 
 Now, this is the testimony of one of the men 
 sent by the President to ascertain the amount 
 and kind of loyalty there is in the South. 
 
 Carl Schurz, also sent by the President to 
 ascertain the feeling of the South, gives the 
 following as his estimate of loyalty: 
 
 "I may sum up all I have said in a few words. If 
 nothing were necessary but to restore the machinery 
 of government in the States lately in rebellion in 
 point of form, the movements made to that end by 
 the people of the South might be considered satisfac- 
 tory. But if it is required that the southern people 
 should also accommodate themselves to the results 
 of the war in point of spirit, those movements fall far 
 short of what must be insisted upon. 
 
 " The loyalty of the masses and most of the leaders 
 of the southern people consists in submission to ne- 
 cessity. There is, except in individual instances, an 
 entire absence of that national spirit which forms the 
 basis of true loyalty and patriotism." 
 
 He also recommends the President to — 
 
 "Advise Congress to send one or more 'investigat- 
 ing committees' into the southern States to inquire 
 for themselves into the actual condition of things 
 before final action is taken upon the readmission of 
 such States to their representation in the legislative 
 branch of the Government and the withdrawal of the 
 national control from that section of the country." 
 
 Generals Terry and Turner and Colonel 
 
 Brown — 
 
 "Concur in representing the sentiments of the peo- 
 ple of Virginiain relation to the Government as unim- 
 proved, and as rather having become embittered 
 since Lee's surrender. They say that at that time 
 the people were humble, sick of war, longing tor peace 
 on any terms, and ready to accept gratefully the par- 
 don of the Government, and to submit to any condi- 
 tions that might be imposed, while now they aro 
 arrogant, exacting, and intolerant. Most witnesses 
 of that class express a decided opinion that the with- 
 drawal of the Federal troops and of the Freedmen'3 
 Bureau would be followed by an unrelenting pro- 
 scription of white Unionists and persecution and 
 remission to slavery of the colored people. The 
 change of feeling is very generally ascribed by these 
 witnesses to the President's liberal policy. In regard 
 to tho'Federal.debt, the people of Virginia are rep- 
 resented as in favor of its repudiation, or at least of 
 combiningwithitthe confederatedebt. The witnesses 
 who have been connected with the confederacy, how- 
 ever, deny this, and represent the people as willing 
 to pay their share of the Federal debt by taxation. 
 On this subject General Lee's opinion is that they 
 are willing to pay both, and opposed to a repudiation 
 of either." 
 
 General Swayne thus testifies before the 
 
 committee on reconstruction of the amount 
 
 and kind of loyalty in Alabama. He says : 
 
 "After the surrender of Lee a kindly feeling was 
 generally expressed toward the United States, since 
 which a great increase of bitterness has taken place, 
 displaying itself in a sort of social ostracism toward 
 Union men, northern emigrants, and Army officers. 
 There is a general desire on the part of the people to 
 see the bureau removed. The Governor would like 
 to see it removed, but while it remains extends to it 
 Ardial cooperation. The city of Mobile appears to 
 be largely under the dominion of rowdyism, and actu- 
 ated throughout by a feeling of hostility to the freed- 
 men. During the past six months four colored 
 churches have been burned in consequence of an 
 attempt to establish colored schools in tliem." 
 
 Dr. James P. Hambleton, an ex-rebel sur- 
 geon, thus testifies as to the feeling in Georgia: 
 
 " The people there expect payment for their slaves 
 and for the destruction of property by the war when 
 the passions of the hour shall have subsided. They 
 expect that at some future day there will be a sort 
 of compromise by which the southern States will be 
 relieved of their share of the rebel debt as a compen- 
 sation for their losses. The people hold the same 
 opinions as to State sovereignty as before the war, 
 but having accepted the situation cannot, as honor- 
 able men, again resort to secession." 
 
 Talk about the loyalty of the South ! Loy- 
 alty to whom and to what? Loyalty to the 
 Government and people of the United States 
 who have made them submit by force to the 
 Constitution and laws they fought so long and 
 desperately to destroy? Is it natural that the 
 
11 
 
 hearts of these people could so soon be changed 
 from one of intense, bitter, deadly hate to that 
 of devotion and attacliment to the Govern- 
 ment? And if their loyalty is not one of de- 
 votion and attachment, what kind of loyalty is 
 it? Do you propose to have two kinds of loy- 
 alty, one for the North and the other for the 
 South ? If you do, what is to be the nature of 
 the one and the character of the other ? If 
 northern loyalty is shown by the thousands of 
 lives that have been lost and the millions of 
 money that has been spent to preserve the na- 
 tion, is southern loyalty to be proven by an 
 utter contempt for the brave heroes who put 
 down the rebellion, by a shameful recital of 
 their high-handed outrages in desolating loyal 
 States, or by making demigods of their trai- 
 torous leaders, to whom even now they pro- 
 pose to erect monuments as enduring evidence 
 of'their new-born love to the Government? Is 
 this the kind of loyalty you want? Is this the 
 kind of men you trust with the destinies of this 
 nation ? If it is, then, in my judgment, you 
 need no joint committee to hunt it up. You 
 will find it broadcast from Virginia to Texas. 
 If it is not, then you must wait, and wait pa- 
 tiently, until the people in that region learn- 
 what you mean by loyalty, and set earnestly to 
 work to obtain it. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I am not an alarmist, but I 
 cannot close my eyes to what is going on around 
 me, nor fail to note the "signs of the times." 
 We have barely emerged from one of the great- 
 est and most bloody conflicts known to the 
 annals of history. Millions of treasure has 
 been .spent, hundredsof thousands of lives have 
 been sacrificed, and whole States have been 
 desolated by the ravages of war to put down 
 treason and to maintain and uphold the Con- 
 stitution and the Union. Sir, if I mistake not, 
 we are on the eve of a revolution that portends 
 as momentous consequences to the untold mil- 
 lions of the future as the conflict through which 
 we have passed brought upon us. 
 
 I cannot close ray eyes to the fact that tlie 
 very men who brought on this war of rebellion, 
 and who strove through blood and persecution 
 to overthrow tliis Republic, are striving to-day 
 to get back into the places they ignominiously 
 deserted, and are endeavoring once more to 
 control the Government they impiously tried 
 
 to subvert. I cannot overlook the fact that in 
 none of the States where treason was the most 
 violent and vindictive, and where traitors were 
 the most wicked and defiant, has there been a 
 single State government established, but that 
 men whose records were the blackest for treason 
 to the country have been elevated to the high- 
 est oflSces by the people; while on the other 
 hand, men who were true to the country, and 
 who suflTered persecutions and confiscation, and 
 were at all times the stanch aiid unwavering 
 supporters of the Union, are set aside and 
 laughed at and mocked for their loyalty. I 
 have yet to see wherein treason has been looked 
 upon as a crime, or to find where any traitor 
 has been made odious. On the contrary, the 
 tens of thousands of men who with devilish 
 hate .sought the life of the nation are as com- 
 placent at the sad wreck they have made, and 
 as jubilant at the easy penalties they have 
 incurred, as though they had been doing God's 
 work, and were receiving a crown of glory for 
 their valor and devotion to the cause of treason. 
 
 After the surrender of Lee to Grant these 
 men were ready to agree to any terms. They 
 thought that treason was a crime, and that' 
 there was a law in existence to punish it as 
 such. They would have been willing at that 
 time to concede any condition for future good 
 behavior and security in order to save their 
 lives and their property. But when the Presi- 
 dent, from the goodness of his heart it may be, 
 but certainly with mistaken clemency, gave 
 them a pardon for past offenses, and they found 
 themselves far Ijeyond the reach of the law, 
 they began to think that treason was not so 
 great an off'ense after all, that it was only a po- 
 litical mistake, and not a crime. And to-day, 
 instead of being humble and penitent, we find 
 them open, bold, and defiant. They talk now 
 of their rights in the Union, just as they used 
 to prate of their ' ' divine institution," and insist 
 that we have no power to impose any terms 
 upon them, and that all who do insist on terms 
 are traitors and disunlonists. I am inclined to 
 think, sir, that if we were traitors we would 
 have a better chance of easy times for the future 
 than by standing forth as the advocates of our 
 country's right, to be branded by such as they 
 as revolutionists. 
 
 The President, in my judgment, made a 
 
12 
 
 great, a sad, and I fear a fatal mistake in the 
 indiscriminate manner with which he granted 
 pardon. 
 
 I am satisfied he did it for the best, think- 
 ing that after these n;ien said they had lost all, 
 and that the Government, in its great clemency 
 forgave them all, they would become penitent 
 and be moved by the tender cords of love to 
 the side of the country. But, sir, the Presi- 
 dent has been mistaken. He has been made 
 the victim of misplaced confidence, and in- 
 stead of their becoming, penitent, they are as 
 defiant to-day as they were when Jeff. Davis 
 ruled at Richmond as the great high-priest 
 of the confederacy. Treason is still as deep 
 and as damning in their bosorns as the day 
 the great southern heart was inflamed by the 
 attack on Sumter. They will strive to make 
 the President think otherwise, to induce him 
 to stand by them, and after he has stood by 
 them and they have once more got back the 
 power they lost, they will turn on him to sting 
 him as surely as the viper turned to sting the 
 farmer after he had warmed life into it. 
 
 It was but the other day that Alexander II. 
 
 .Stephens, the vice president of the exploded 
 
 confederacy, gave his testimony before the 
 
 committee on reconstruction, and what does 
 
 he say : 
 
 "But the people of that State, (Georgi*,) asl have 
 said, would not willingly, I think, do more than they 
 have done for restoration. The only view in their opin- 
 ion that could possiblyjustify the war which wascar- 
 ried on by the Federal Government against them was 
 the ukMoftheindissolubleness of the Union; that those 
 who held the administration for the time werebound 
 to enforce the execution of the laws and the mainten- 
 ance of the integrity of the country under the Con- 
 stitution ; and since that war was accomplished, since 
 lihose who had assumed the contrary principle — the 
 right of secession and the reserved sovereignty of the 
 States — had abandoned their cause, and the Adminis- 
 tration here was sucoessfulin maintaining the idea 
 upon which war was proclaimed and waged, and the 
 only view in which they supposed it could be justi- 
 fied at all; when that was accomplished, I say, the 
 people of Georgia supposed their State was immedi- 
 ately entitled to all her rights under tlie Constitu- 
 tion. That is my opinion of the sentiment of the 
 people of Georgia, and I do not think they would be 
 willing to do anything further as a condition-prece- 
 dent to their being permitted to enjoy the full meas- 
 ure of their constitutional rights. I only give my 
 opinion of the sentiment of the people at this time. 
 They expected that as soon as the confederate cause 
 was abandoned that immediately the States would be 
 brought back into their practical relations with the 
 Government as previously constituted. 
 
 " That is what they looked to. They expected that 
 the State would immediately have their representa- 
 tives in the Senate and in the House, and they ex- 
 pected in good lath, as loyal men, as the term is fre- 
 quently used — I mean by it loyal to law, order, and 
 the Constitution— to support the Government under 
 the Censtittition. That was their fe«ling. They did 
 
 what they did believing it was best for the protec- 
 tion of constitutional liberty. Toward tho Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, as they construed it, tho 
 great mass of our people were as much devoted in 
 their feelings as any people ever were toward any 
 cause. This is my opinion. As I remarked before, 
 they resorted to secession with aview of maintaining 
 more securely these principles. And when they found 
 they were not successful in their object, in perfect 
 good faith, as far as I can judge from meeting with 
 them and conversing with them, looking to the fu- 
 ture developments of their country in its material 
 resources, as well as its moral and intellectual prog- 
 ress, their earnest desire and expectation "was to 
 allow the past struggle, lamentable as it was in its 
 results, to pass by, and to cooperate with the true 
 friends of the Constitution, with those of all sections 
 who earnestly desire the preservation of constitu- 
 tional liberty and the perpetuation of the Govern- 
 ment in its purity. They have been a little disap-^- 
 pointed in this, and arc so now. They are patiently 
 waiting, however, and believing that when tho pas- 
 sions of the hour have passed away this delay in res- 
 toration will cease. They think they have done every- 
 thingthatwas essential and proper, and my judgment 
 is, that they would not bo willing to do anything fur-* 
 ther as a condition-precedent. They would sinaply 
 remain quiet and passive." 
 
 What will the loyal men of this country say 
 to such reasoning as this? After carrying on 
 a war of four years to break up the Govern- . 
 ment, and after having been conquered and 
 compelled to yield to a superior force, we are 
 coolly told by these reconstructed patriots that 
 they expected their representatives to be ad- 
 mitted "as loyal men," and that when they 
 went into rebellion the people thought it was 
 best for constitutional liberty, and that they will 
 not agree to any conditions that the American 
 people impose upon them, and says with the 
 most supreme impudence that the South ought 
 to refuse all conditions, and in case conditions 
 are demanded and refused, he says: 
 
 "Should such an offer be made and declined, and 
 these States should thus continue to be excluded and 
 kept out, a singular spectacle would be presented. 
 A complete reversal of positions would be presented. 
 In 18G1 thef^e States thought they could not remain 
 safely in the Union without new guarantees, and 
 now, when they agree to resume their former practi- 
 cal relations in the Union under tlie Constitutisn aa 
 it is, the other States turn upon them and say they 
 cannot permit them to do so, safely to their interest, 
 without new guarantees on their part. The southern 
 States would thus present themselves as willing for 
 immediate union under the Constitution, while it 
 would be the northern States opposed to it. The for- 
 mer disunionists would thereby become Unionists, 
 and the former Unionists the practical disunionists." 
 
 Surely, Mr. Stephens has been taking lessens 
 
 from the President, or the President has been 
 
 learning from him. He says further on this 
 
 subject: 
 
 "I think, as the Congress of the United States did 
 not consent to the withdrawal of the seceding States-, 
 it was a continuous right under the Constitution 
 of the United States, to be exercised so soon as 
 the seceding States respectively made known their 
 readiness to resume their former practical relar 
 ti»ns with the Federal Government, under tho CoQ>- 
 
13 
 
 titution of tho United States. As tho General Gov- ; 
 Gnniiciit denied the right of .seocs.sion, I do not 
 think any of the States attempting to exercise it | 
 tiiL-rcby lo.t any of their rights undef tiic Constitu- 
 tion as States when their iieoplc abandoned that 
 attempt." 
 
 Is it any wonder that these red-handed 
 traitors are such friends of the "President's 
 policy," when they see and know that "his 
 policy," and his alone, is to give back to them 
 all their rights as fully and place them in 
 possession of the Government as completely 
 as before they went into rebellion? And if 
 this "policy" be carried out, what penalty is 
 there, or can there be, for treason? And what 
 inducements -will be held out for loyalty? 'On 
 the contrary, will not a premium be offered 
 for disloyalty, and treason made respectable ? 
 
 The President's policy, in my judgment, has 
 done more to make treason respected and trai- 
 tors heroes than the establishment and inde- 
 pendence of the confederacy could have done; 
 because, if the President's policy is fully car- 
 ried out, it not only places the eleven seceding 
 or rebellious States in the hands of the rebels, 
 but by giving them once more a voice in the 
 Government, the time will not be long before 
 these same rebels will have the complete con- 
 trol of the Government in all its departments. 
 No wonder, then, every rebel, from Davis to 
 the merest subaltern in the confederate army, 
 including bushwhackers, jayhawkers, and guer- 
 rillas, copperheads, and whilom peace men, 
 are the earnest and devoted admirers of the 
 ' ' President' s policy. " It is just the ' ' policy' ' 
 for them, because they plainly see that it is the 
 only one that they can live by and one which, 
 through their newspaper press, they profess to 
 die by. The President may continue to be 
 deluded ; but I warn the American people 
 to-day not to look with indifference at what is 
 going on about them, not to imagine, because 
 we have put down the war of rebellion, there 
 is still no danger to the Republic. I say there 
 is danger ; and unless the people of the North, 
 tlie East, and the West arise once more in their 
 might and proclaim to the South, you shall not 
 be again invested with all the rights of loyal 
 States until fundamental guarantees are given 
 for future peace and security, you will see this 
 Government, in less than ten years, in the 
 hands of the very men who for the past four 
 years have been trying to destroy it. 
 
 But it is said the President has the advantage 
 of Congress, because he has "a policy," and 
 Congress has none. It is a good thing for this • 
 country and the world that Congress has no 
 "policy." The day of "policy" has, I trust, 
 passed away, never to return. It was "policy" 
 that brought on this rebellion, and that was 
 near making the rebellion a success. 
 
 So long tvs Congress and the Executive actecj 
 on* "policy" in the prosecution of the war,* 
 defeat after defeat was the result. But so soon 
 as " policy" was thrown aside, and principles, 
 eternal and unchangeable, were pursued in- 
 stead, victory after victory perched upon the 
 banners of the Republic, until at last principle 
 was made triumphant over policy in the total 
 and utter overthrow of treason. 
 
 It was " policy" that induced the framers of 
 the Constitution to recognize the existence of 
 slavery. It was "policy" that made the Mis- 
 souri compromise of 1820, and that led to its 
 repeal. It was " policy" that made the fugi- 
 tive slave law of 1850, and it is " policy'' that 
 would to-day yield to the spirit of slavery, and 
 give back to it more than it possessed w^en 
 four million human beings were held in bondage. 
 No, sir; I want no policy ; I have done with 
 it. I want principles — principles that will live 
 when you and I are dead, and that our children 
 can live by and bless us for when they come in 
 possession of the trust repbsed in us. 
 
 This war has already decided one principle. 
 It has decided that hereafter, in this land of 
 liberty, there shall be no such thing as a slave, 
 and the American people have made this prin- 
 ciple a part of the organiclaw of the land. ■ Mr.' 
 Alexander Stephens, however, does not think 
 that the American people had the right or the 
 power to make this a part of the Constitution, 
 although he says it was one of the results of 
 the war. 
 
 Hear the logic of this ex-vice president of 
 the confederacy : 
 
 "Question. Do you mean to be understood in your 
 last answer that there is no constitutional power in 
 the Government, as at present organized, to exact 
 conditions-precedent to tho restoration of political 
 power to the eleven States that have been in rebel- 
 lion? 
 "Antwrr. Yes, sir; that is my opinion. 
 " Queatinn. Do you entertain the same opinion in 
 reference to the amendments to the Constitution abol- 
 ishing slavery? 
 
 " Anstver. I do. I think the States, however, abol- 
 ished slavery in cood faith as oncof the results of the 
 war. Their ratification of the constitutional amend- 
 
14 
 
 
 ment folio wnd as a consequence. I do not think there 
 is any con.'titutional power onthepartof the Govern- 
 ment to have exacted it as a condition-precedent to 
 their restoration under the Constitution, or to the 
 resumption of their places as members of the Union." 
 
 Congress has decided another principle which 
 
 it had the power to do under the constitutional 
 
 amendment abolishing slavery, and that is that 
 
 all freemen should have the common rights of 
 
 humanity — to sue, testify, and hold property ; 
 
 thus, for the first time in the history of tjiis 
 
 Government, making good the averment in the 
 
 Declaration of Independence that — 
 
 " All inen are endowed by their Creator with cer- 
 tain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, 
 and the pursuit of happiness." 
 
 I propose that now, since slavery is no longer 
 in existence, that the clause in the Constitution 
 of the United States put there by "policy" in 
 the interests of slavery shall be stricken out, 
 and that hereafter the southern States, instead 
 of having a representation here based on the 
 negro population, shall be represented accord- 
 ing to their white population alone or accord- 
 ing to their voting population. 
 
 I have heretofore given my reasons for this 
 and»do not propose to repeat them, but until a 
 constitutional amendment of this kind is passed 
 by Congress and ratified by the States I cannot 
 vote to admit them to representation. 
 
 Desiring that "treason should be made odi- 
 ous," and knowing that it would be unsafe to 
 again trust political power to such as engaged 
 in rebellion against the Government ; feeling 
 that I cannot safely trust such men in making 
 laws for me, I wanta constitutional amendment 
 proclaiming in effect that no person who has 
 ■entered or shall hereafter enter into rebellion 
 against the United States shall ever be eligi- 
 ble for President, Vice President, or member 
 of the Cabinet, or as a Senator or Represent- 
 ative in Congress. 
 
 I know you have a law on your statute-book, 
 commonly called the " test oath," that excludes 
 such persons from being Senators or Repre- 
 sentatives; but once allow the southern States 
 to participate in legislation, and in conjunc- 
 tion with the men who serenaded the Presi- 
 dent on the 22d of February last, and who pre- 
 sented him with a set of resolutions in which 
 this test oath is denounced, you will find that it 
 is but a "rope of sand," and that it will be 
 repealed as unconstitutional. I prefer, there- 
 
 fore, to make this a part of the organic law, so 
 as to place it beyond the reach of any "policy" 
 that may hereafter desire to repeal it. 
 
 I know it will be hard for the southern 
 people, who have engaged in this rebellion, 
 to be taxed to pay off any public debt con- 
 tracted in subduing them, and that it will be 
 desirable, and even a point of honor with 
 them, to tax her people to pay off the debt 
 incurred by the rebel States in waging war 
 against the United States. 
 
 In order, therefore, to protect the hundreds 
 of thousands of men and women who loaned 
 their hard earnings to the Government to carry 
 on the war, and who received bonds in return, 
 on the express condition that they should be 
 promptly and faithfully met, as well as to pro- 
 tect thousands of poor Union men in the South 
 who do not want to be taxed to pay off the 
 rebel debt, I desire a constitutional amend- 
 ment that neither Congress nor any State shall 
 pass any law whereby any part or portion of 
 the debt contracted in putting down rebellion 
 shall ever be repudiated, or whereby any part 
 or portion of the debt, State or confederate, 
 contracted in aid of the rebellion, shall ever be 
 paid or assumed. 
 
 I am aware that all the lately rebellious States 
 have either passed laws or have inserted clauses 
 in their constitutions, looking to the same result, 
 but I am at the same time impressed with the 
 conviction that "policy" might lead these men 
 hereafter to repeal their laws or alter their con- 
 stitutions, and I prefer that the American peo- 
 ple should place a prohibition in the Constitu- 
 tion that would be so high that ambition would 
 never soar to reach it or cupidity dare to touch 
 it. Besides, since they were so willing to put 
 this clause in their State constitution, they 
 could not object to aid us in placing it in the 
 Constitution of the United States. 
 
 As our soldiers and sailors should be our 
 peculiarcare — especially since the Presidenthas 
 said that he intends to rely upon them ex- 
 pressly — I think we owe it to the sacrifices they 
 have made and the sufferings they have en- 
 dured, that there should be a constitutional 
 provision denying to Congress the right to 
 hereafter pass any law by which any pension, 
 bounty, or gratuity shall be given to any per- 
 son who served in the confederate army, or 
 
15 
 
 ■who went iuto rebellion against the Govern- 
 ment. I know there is no fear of this or the 
 next Congress passing any such law ; but if 
 reconstructed traitors ever get into power, and 
 tlio Valhindigham Democracy should be within 
 reach to aid them, I am disposed to think that 
 tlu>y would refuse to give any pension, bounty, 
 or ]iay to our soldiers and sailors, unless you 
 would agree to give the same to theirs. Why 
 not? They think, in the language of the rebel 
 ex- vice president, that when they took up arms 
 to tear down the Government they were aid- 
 ing "to rescue, preserve, and perpetuate the 
 principlcR of the Constitution ;" and inasmuch 
 ns that is just what our soldiers and sailors 
 thought they had periled so much to save, they 
 (the rebel soldiers) will claim as much of the 
 honor and gratitude as our own. 
 
 These, Mr. Speaker, are the principles I would 
 advocate, to be made a part and portion of our 
 organic law. With them I think the country 
 will be safe; without them you might as well 
 prepare yourself at once to see this Govern- 
 ment in the hands of the men who have been 
 seeking to destroy it. 
 
 Congress owes it to the country to pass 
 upon the propositions that I have named — and 
 which I do not pretend to claim to be my own — 
 and to submit them to the States for ratifica- 
 tion. Instead of being several, they can be 
 embraced in one proposition. So soon as they 
 are ratified by any or all of the eleven States, 
 I would admit such of them to representation 
 as adopt them. Such as do not adopt them 
 I would exclude from representation until 
 three fourths of the States have ratified them, 
 ao as to make them binding upon all. 
 
 In this way, and in this alone, in my judg- 
 ment, can the honor, the safety, or the perpe- 
 tuity of the Republic be established. 
 
 I know there are some who do not appre- 
 hend any evil consequences from allowing these 
 States to be represented now without any con- 
 ditions and without any changes in our funda- 
 hiental law. 1 wish I could think with them, 
 and could place that confidence in the honor 
 and loyalty of the men who went into rebellion 
 a^ would warrant me in trusting them without 
 
 any guarantees. But, sir, I cannot believe 
 that men who conspired so long and secretly 
 to bring on the rebellion, who fought so des- 
 perately and wickedly to make it a success, 
 who starved and tortured so many thousands 
 of our brave and heroic defenders in prison- 
 pens and in dungeons, wlio have taken so many 
 oaths, and have violated them, and become 
 perjurers before God and man, and who since 
 they have been vanquislied and compelled to 
 cease their strife, are as open and defiant as 
 they should be modest and humble — I cannot 
 believe, I say, sir, that such men are safe to be 
 trusted with the destinies of a great nation and 
 of an injured and magnanimous people. 
 
 I may be mistaken. It is possible, barely 
 possible, that they are sincere, and that they do 
 not contemplate in the future to act in any 
 other way than for 'the glory and honor and 
 success of this mighty nation. If I have made 
 a mistake in not believing them to be thoroughly 
 loyal, it is one made on the side of my country 
 and in behalf of her safety. The loyalty of 
 men who have been engaged for over four years 
 in breaking up the Government is at least 
 doubtful. In doubtful cases it is better to give 
 •the benefit of the doubt to the side of the per- 
 manency of your country than against it. If 
 these men are at once taken in full fellowship 
 and granted equal rights and powers without 
 any guarantees, and it should afterward turn 
 out that they were not true and sincere in their 
 loyalty, the consequences wiU,be terrible, and 
 nothing but the interposition of the all-power- 
 ful arm of God could stay the anarchy that 
 would be its legitimate results. 
 
 Let us allj then, unite in Insisting on snch 
 guarantees as will secure a peace that is lasting 
 and that will make the Constitution and the 
 Union as impregnable from treason within as 
 it is invincible from foes beyond its borders; 
 and whether our course be indorsed to-day or 
 not we shall have the consciousness of acting 
 honestly and with a sole view of perpetuating 
 our institutions, and unnumbered millions yet 
 unborn will justify our action and honor us for 
 standing firmly and unflinchingly by the ark of 
 our safety.