pHS3 
 
E 668 
 .C868 
 Copy 1 
 
 u/ 
 
 HON. S. S. COX 
 
 ON 
 
 AMHESTY FOR ALL. 
 
 " Let all bitterness aud wrath and anger and clamor and evil speaking be put 
 away from you, with all malice ; and be ye kind one to another, tender hearted, 
 forgiving one another. ****** Redeeming the time, because 
 the days are evil."— St. Paul to the Ephesians. 
 
 e^ 
 
Amnesty and tlie Jeforson Davis Amendment. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 HOl^. SAMUEL S. COX. 
 
 OP NEW YORK, 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 187G. 
 
 " Humor not the iujustice of revcnse."— Siu Thomas Broavxe. 
 
 • The auodyne dranglit of oblivion thus dragged is well calculated to preserve 
 a galling wakefulness, and to feed tlie living ulcer of a corroding memory. Thus 
 to administer the opiate portion of a mnesty, powdered with all the ingredients of 
 scorn and contempt, is to hold to the lips the cup of human misery fall tu the brim, 
 and to force it to the dregs."— Ed:iuxd Bukke. 
 
 I 
 ■\^ 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 GOVE li X :\I E X T P R I X T i X G OFFICE. 
 1 8 7 G . 
 
 UK 
 

^ 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. SAMUEL S. COX, 
 
 The House ha^^ng niider consideration the bill (H.R. K^o. 914) to remove the dia- 
 aliiiities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of the amendments 
 of the Constitution of the United States, the j)ending question being on the motion 
 of Mr. Blaine to reconsider the motion by which the bill was rejected — 
 
 Mr. COX said : 
 
 Mr. Speaker : The Lonorable gentleman from Maine, who under 
 some dispensation of Providence or of the people is no longer our 
 Speaker, has seen proper at the beginning of this centennial year to 
 tear away the plasters of prndence over the green and bloody wounds 
 of our ci\al contlict. He has seen proper to justify his conduct in 
 the light of history. I venture to say that there is no precedent in 
 history and no canon in political philosophy which the party in the 
 minority on this floor have not outraged. 
 
 The annals of American amnesty furnish a record of republican 
 wrong. Our civil conflict came out of sectional animosity. Our 
 mutual grievances might have been assuaged by the spirit of concilia- 
 tion. That spirit was wanting, and the red storm was upon us. 
 During those long and bloody years the radical party sought with 
 tigerish appetite not for peace and union so much as for revenge and 
 conquest. It, even sought by unconstitutional confiscation to despoil 
 the innocent children of the South of their ii3heritance for the deeds 
 of their sires. At that time I was compelled to appeal to a higher 
 law for the vindication of constitutional humanity. In January, 1864, 
 to answer the proscriptive nature of the radical argument, I said : 
 
 Tn^ly, sir, we have fallen on evil times, when, to bolster up a bill of penalty lilce 
 this, upon the children of the guilty, the beautiful and sacred relations of the 
 family are to be disrupted. 1 am shocked, that in this age, and in this country, and 
 in this House — and after England, following our example, has reformed her old and 
 barbarous law forfeiting estates in fee — 1 am required to stand up before the 
 American people, and, as a matter of pure jihilanthrophy and common decency, 
 portest agamst the cruel and remorseless character of bills of this kind, and to 
 defend the rights of those who have committed no crime, but upon whom it is pro- 
 posed to visit, after the death of the parent, the crimes of the ancestor. I protest 
 against such bills as contrary to the gentle and loving spirit of the Savior, who, 
 while upon His trancendent mission to this attainted and corrupted world, shielded 
 in His arms the little ones of Judea. His words have a tender and sweet signifi- 
 cance which it would not be unbecoming us as Christian legislators to heed : " Inas- 
 much as ye have done it unto the least of these, ye have done it unto Mo." "Would 
 that these words were graven upon our memories and hearts when we come to voto 
 upon this harsh and vengeful measure against the little children of the South! 
 Such words interpret the Coiistilutidn hj a liberal canon of kindness — more po- 
 tent than ever Grotius. Yaitel, or istory conceived or expressed, or than ever 
 modem xjhilanthropy practiced ! 
 
 Instead of lenity, radicalism broke codes and established tyranny. 
 Instead of building the Eomau bridge of gold for the returning recu- 
 sant, it made the rickety bridge of reconstruction. 
 
Ten years after tlie teriiiiuation of the war it proposed tbe bad rule 
 of force and the bravado of brigadiers to coerce States and upturn 
 established iDstitutious. During the hnig period since the war it has 
 often babbled of concord. It has made festive speeches about cen- 
 tennial and fraternal feeling, only to return to the low instincts ol 
 party advantage and discordant legislation. 
 
 At last the people of all sections by an immense majority rose against 
 these policies. They would no longer worship the Nemesis of repub- 
 licanism; they had read the promise that "good tidings should bind 
 uj) the broken-hearted, and to them that mourn there should be given 
 beauty for ashes." They felt as they hoped, that the old wastes 
 should be rebuilded and the former desolations be raised up; and 
 they cast up a highway and lifted up a standard for the people! 
 They have sent us here to restore and bless with a grace tiiat knows- 
 no grudging, and with a general and generous law that makes no invid- 
 ious exception, and which will leave no bitterness in its execution. 
 
 How have wo been met by the other side ? By insectiverons at- 
 tempts to foster fresh hate, about a few Union soldiers here, and that, 
 too, without a foundation of truth or a spark of human generosity 
 toward their sixty peers from the South, who sit courteously and 
 quietly in our midst, intent on the same sentiment of patriotic devo- 
 tion. 
 
 When, therefore, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Raxdall] 
 proposes again the bill which was passed by this branch in the last 
 Congress and defeated by the Senate, we may well understand how it 
 is met by the same spirit of reluctance. Priding itself on some 
 suiierior virtue and patriotism, it cannot allow the mercy of amnesty 
 to go through without party spite. It forgives, but hopes in some 
 way still to punish by fixing a Ijrand on the leader of the revolt. It 
 forgets the grand spirit of Sir Thomas Browne. That spirit teaches 
 that partial forgiveness was not oblivion ; that the curtain of night 
 should be shut upon injmies ; that they should be as if they had not 
 been, and that reserved forgiveness is not to forgive at all. 
 
 Let this sentiment be set in gold for all nations, races, and ages : 
 
 Let not the sun in Capricorn go down on our ■wrath. Let us wiit« our wrongs in, 
 ashes ; draw the curtain of night upon injuries ; shut them up in the tower of 
 oblivion, and let them be as though they had not been. To forgivf and yet hope 
 that God will punish our enemies is not to forgive enough. To forgive and not 
 pi ay God to forgive, is a partial piece of charity. Forgive thine enemies totally, 
 and without any reserve. 
 
 The wisest men have advised not to answer in wrath nor on the 
 spm- of furj' ; not to be prodigal in revenges. The old adage of an 
 eye for an eye is not the maxim of generous natures. It is the soft 
 tongite, the heaping of coals of fire on the enemy's head, and tho 
 charm of conquest by kindness that makes retaliation grateful and 
 leaves no hatred after it. The sagacious thinkers among men, who 
 have redeemed iucivism and made order out of chaos, teach that our 
 wrongs should not be written on marble, but in water. 
 
 It is reserved for the gentleman to impress upon his party the in- 
 glorious and unreasoning policies of hate. To him the " dead enemy 
 smells well," and he finds musk and amber in revenge. His amend- 
 ment, couched in the spirit of partial amnesty, is designed to re-iu- 
 spiro wrath and capture the ear of his willing partisans. He would 
 rake over the dead embers of hate to relight the fires of jjersecution 
 and punishment. 
 
 The gentleman has referred to the Duke of Alva. He is ro doubt 
 familiar, and his party since the war, at least, have ))eeu familiar witk 
 that history. Tlie history of the Netherlands under the Duke of Alva is. 
 
tlie history of the radicalism, spoUation, muvfler, death, and tyranny 
 in the South since 1865. The gentleman says there isuo precedent in 
 history for "eneral amnesty. There is a precedent two thousand years 
 ago, and all history is filled with precedents to the point that nations 
 should not make luonuments to vengeance ; that nations should not 
 build monuments except to foreign conquest— never monuments to 
 domestic calamity. This was the advice of Tiberius to the Roman 
 senate when that'body begged Tiberius to erect a monument to venge- 
 ance,to commemorate the death of one who fell in civil strife. It has 
 been reserved to the gentleman from Maine to tiy in the face of all his- 
 tory, pagan history, Hebraic history, Christian history, and Christian 
 doctrine. Now, in this year of grace and jubilee, he issues his anathe- 
 ma marau-atha agaiust'^the South. What is his peculiar purpose? 
 
 It is not for one member to challenge the motives of another on 
 this floor. Whatever may be the intention of the gentleman, whether 
 led like Macbeth by the dangerous vision of the crown or the hope 
 of reviving the life and vigor of his party ; whether this, like other 
 political devices, is meant to divert the public scrutiny from malad- 
 ministration and whelm in sectional emotion the better feelings of 
 our people, which has sent this majority here ; whether he fears 
 that the approaching era of national revolutionary memories may run 
 counter to the naiTow ostracism of his limited politics, it is sure that 
 the gentleman has himself not only i-oceived new light upon this sub- 
 ject, but that this light leads astray, and is not the light of heaven. 
 I take issue with the honorable gentleman from Maine when he 
 says that his party is clement and amnestical. It is not true. It was 
 not true during the war. It has not been true since. It is not true 
 to-day. And whenever his party has tried to seem clement, it has 
 been sure to spoil the clemency by a small, partisan policy. 
 
 The history of amnesty is not long ; nor is it a fresh theme of mine. 
 My first pleading'for it was during the war. Out of its spirit sprang 
 the joint resolution which I offered and which was passed for the ex- 
 change of prisoners. It was a partial truce, to soften the horrors of 
 war. 
 
 How did the party of the gentleman even then act upon this pecu- 
 liar question ? Is the administration record all right as to the ex- 
 change of prisonei-s during the war ? I say on the authority of sixty 
 and odd gentlemen here, inany of them having been in the service of 
 the confederacy during the war, that no order was issued at any time 
 in the South relative to prisoners who were taken by the South as to 
 rations or clothing that did not apply equally to their own soldiers ; and 
 any ex parte statements taken by that humbug committee from which 
 the gentleman has quoted, all that can be raked and scraped together 
 in the shape of these miserable ex jmrte affidavits, cannot controvert 
 the facts of history which will be determined on a fair issue made. 
 So far as the southern government was concerned, whatever may 
 have been the bad conduct of certain persons under them, their orders 
 at least were couched in the spirit of fairness and humanity. 
 
 But the gentleman from Maine goes further. He defends the 
 action of the republican party during and since the war because it 
 was so magnanimous, so grand. Why, it allowed you gentlemen of 
 the South to come back here to the American Congress ! God bless us 
 all ! [Laughter.] The republican party, by the grace of the gentle- 
 man from Maine and others, elected you men of the South by removing 
 your disabilities. Down on your knees, gentlemen of the South, before 
 ills majesty of Maine ! [Laughter.] _ 
 
 In the spirit of generosity, and with a view to the restoration of 
 
G 
 
 peace aud imioii, I have pleaded here for the laws of natural justice ; 
 I pleaded for it ou sea, to stop predatory and barbarous practices, to 
 enable combatants to make peace, unimbittered by cruelties to help- 
 less women and children, to non-combatants, and to men of produc- 
 tive industry aud peaceful occupations in i)rivate life ; in fine, to make 
 laws for war, and to make them respected and not silent amid the 
 very clangor of conflict. I protested against illegal seizures of prop- 
 erty aud person, and against punishing and desolating the regions 
 invaded. The very number of the delinquents who fail in patriot- 
 ism has been held by Vattel and other publicists as the incentive 
 to clemency. Where there are two distinct societies or bodies, aud 
 where rebellion rises into civil war, and the insurgency is suppressed, 
 the duty toward the conquered is that of the conquering nation 
 toward its equal in national independence and autonomy. For a 
 strouger reason, those who are engaged in lacerating their common 
 country, the laws of war and the maxims of moderatiou and humanity 
 obtain. Is it fair to pillage the home of the widow and the herit- 
 age of the orphan ? Is it just to fire the hospital and the library ? 
 Is it human to hang prisoners or i^oison wells ? Then and in such 
 cases, to suppress rebellion, you only intensify and re-invigorate, and 
 you close the door to conciliation. 
 
 Any movement looking to the consorting affections of the people, 
 and which decks the sword with the olive, is of the highest states- 
 manship. Is it not patriotism also ? Does it not bring forth the idea 
 or sentiment of oneness in a nation ? Does it not blaze out a path in 
 the wilderness of battle to the roof -tree of home ? When, therefore,, 
 it was sought, in the fell spirit of this amendment, to inspire more 
 hate, by the confiscation of the estates of the iimoceut, was I not 
 right in interpreting our Coustitution by the canons of kindness ? 
 And by a parity of reasoning, when it is sought again and now to 
 perpetuate hate by the continued proscription of the chief of the in- 
 surgency, may I not again appeal to the spirit of Him who, when He 
 spake to little children and bade them come to Him, also stood upon 
 the nameless mountain and gave us thb great lessons of forgiveness 
 to one another, even to the love of our enemies and persecutors. 
 
 When the war was drawing to its close, and States were rescued 
 and reconstruction with the military was proposed by one-tenth of 
 the population of such States by legislation here, it became my duty 
 again to warn against that mistake so often fatal to governments, 
 which confounds the pervading taint of disaffection with mere local 
 isolation. At that time President Lincoln had begun to show that 
 magnanimity which aided our conquering armies. He proposed am- 
 nesty. It was the first adventure beyond the line of force into the 
 field of conciliation. 
 
 ■\Mien the amnesty of Mr. Lincoln was proposed — proposed in a 
 spirit O, how different from that exhibited by the gentleman from 
 Maine! — he said that he was actuated by malice toward none and 
 charity toward all, Jefferson Davis included. There was no exception, 
 no restriction, no odious test-oaths, which are the odium of history and 
 the derision of all governments — such oaths as we have had — the iron- 
 clad and others. Why, sir, the gentleman from Maine could not have 
 been raised in a Christian church, or in any church which teaches the 
 gospel of Him that "spake as never man spake." I cannot tell — the 
 nation does not know, in what church he was raised, [laughter;] but 
 one thing I do know, that if he had read the spirit of the Sermon ou 
 the Mount aright, ho never would have made the vindictive speech 
 which came from him to-day. " Forgive your enemies. Bless those 
 who persecute you." [Ironical laughter on the republican side.] 
 
The bugles of President Liucolu sounded a truce, though ever so 
 remotely and faintly, but its echoes were as undying as his motto for 
 charity and against malice. He had endeavored to reform the Union, 
 but his fatal error was that his republicanism was based upon the 
 small apex of his political pyramid. It was held that the States were 
 destroyed; only a tabula rasa remained to write the fufciire codes of 
 the many by the sword. The equal dignity of the States was de- 
 stroyed, and no persuasive measures followed on which to construct 
 anew. The cry was that the " penitentiary of hell" was the prison for 
 the recusants. What followed we know. Cessation of hostilities 
 after the surrender to Sherman on honorable terms ; the old ties re- 
 newed; a common feeling of fellowship in the Union on the part of 
 the South. What on the part of the North f Moral treason and social 
 anarchy; political proscription and adventurous rapacity; a licen- 
 tious, uucivic soldiery, and revengeful appetite for pillage? The 
 enchantments of the old associations, almost renewed, were torn to 
 pieces. Poison, not oil, was poured into the unhealed wounds of war. 
 It was the Saturnian revel, in which the father devoured his own 
 offspring. Contentment fled before ignorance and spoliation. An- 
 archy, secret societies, undisciplined ravage, and reprisals of fraud 
 were followed by rancor and unrest. The friends of the radicals 
 talked extermination, and the better angels of our nature fled aghast 
 from the spectacle. 
 
 When a great scholar wrote to the conquering Charlemagne how to 
 treat the subjugated Huns, what was his advice ? First. Send gentle- 
 mannered men among them. Second. Do not require the tithe. Better 
 lose the tithe than prejudice the people. "Mortal! Treat mortals 
 with kindness. One sacred streams flows for us all." But when the 
 Congress sent its decrees South and the emissaries of discord to execute 
 them, it was a question which was the worst curse, the agents of the 
 Government or the fraudulent taxes ! No forgiveness to the enemy ; 
 no hope to the desponding ; no protection to the oppressed : no meas- 
 ures of moderation. We neither fortified our strength with liberality 
 nor gave courage to despair. Discontent grew, and with it provoca- 
 tions to revolt. But the South remained patient, forbearing, waiting, 
 like the soul of the Psalmist, " more than they that watch for the 
 morning." Did that morning dawn ! Ah ! how slowly to the weary 
 watcher. 
 
 Then came juggling pretenses of amnesty ; now and then, for 
 treachery and party service, individual disabilities were removed; 
 now and then some generous impulse would cross the popular mind, 
 led by the better men of the Republican party, only to be suppressed 
 by the iron hand of revenge. When Mr. Siunner proposed to erase 
 the names of victories fi-om the battle-flags, Massachusetts di'ew 
 black lines around his honored name. When Horace Greeley pro- 
 posed to reconcile all by amnesty, and even proposed to bail Jefferson 
 Davis and enlarge him from Fortress Monroe, he was hunted as the 
 tiger hunts the lamb. When Chase, and Trumbull, and men of their 
 large mold proposed honorable and responsible governments for the 
 South and peace through all our borders the counter-cry went up, 
 even from this Hall, for funerals, outlawries, and all other schemes 
 of vulgar despotism. When States were smitten, as Georgia, Ala- 
 bama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana; when usiu-patiou went 
 hand in hand with the greedy minions of fraud and the supple tools 
 of force, the cry grew louder for an unrelenting subjugation ! 
 
 During this decade of wrong, outraging every lesson of history and 
 every tenet of political i^hilosopliy, every code of humane law and 
 
every attribute of divine mercy, most of the leailing men of the 
 stricken South remained disabled. If they received their ability, it 
 was with niggard acquiescence, without an element of graciousness. 
 
 I will proceed to give you the amnesty which was proposed. Per- 
 haps there will not be so many thorns crackling under the pot, which 
 is called the laughter of a certain class, [laughter,] and which I have 
 just heard from the other side of the House. Many particular and 
 liartial amnesties were engineered and carried through the House by 
 these republican gentlemen. What for? In a spirit of gracious 
 Christian kindness ? No. They were the rewards which you paid 
 for partisan services and base treachery to recruit your failing ranks. 
 
 Mr. BLAINE. How did the gentlemen on the other side of the 
 House get here ? 
 
 Mr. COX. I will tell you that directly. 
 
 Mr. BLAINE. Did they betray their cause? 
 
 Mr. COX. I will come to that dir*^ctly. They came here because 
 the South wanted honest representatives, and your representatives 
 from the South were not honest. [Ajiplause on the floor and in the 
 galleries.] 
 
 Mr. BLAINE. Will the gentleman tell us how they got amnesty ? 
 
 Mr. COX. They got amnesty by force of a popular sentiment 
 which enabled a few good men on your side to join the good men on 
 this side and compel amnesty. I will show you whei'e that comes in 
 directly. [Kenewed applause.] 
 
 Scarcely a general schome for amnesty was entertained by the party 
 in power until 18(39. Many particular cases were passed for special 
 partisan reasons. But in 1869-'70 I oftered- a resolution for general 
 and unexceptional amnasty. Every eifort was made to conceal the 
 record on that subject. I'he gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Ran- 
 dall] at last, to get an open vote, moved to lay it on the table, voting 
 against his own motion. The motion was lost — yeas 84, nays 87. 
 Some twenty republicans joined the democrats in" this liberal vote, 
 and along with them many colored members, for on that (Viy the col- 
 ored troops fought nobly. [Laughter.] This is a pretty coriimentary 
 on the white side of that part of the House. [Laughter.] But the 
 body of your iiarty at once referred it to the vsepulcher called a com- 
 mittee on reconstruction, with only 56 negative votes, where it slept 
 the sleej) that knows no waking. [Laughter.] 
 
 Then an emergency arose, and at the last session of the Forty-first 
 Congress, on December 15, 1870, General Butlers bill was introduced. 
 A curious bill it was. I thi nk the gentleman fi-om Maine [ Mr. Blaine ] 
 must have modeled his bill a little on that, for Butler's bill was mod- 
 eled on a bill of the English Parliajnent agai)ist the Pretender's friends 
 in Scotland. In that long bill of General Butler there was one con- 
 spicuous exception, the Rob Roy McGregor. And the gentleman frwm 
 Maine has picked out his Rob Roy McGregor so as to imitate the per- 
 secuting spirit of England toward Scotland two hundred years ago. 
 
 That bill was entitled ' ' A bill for full and general grace, amnesty, and 
 oblivion of all wrongful acts, doings, and omissions of all persons 
 engaged in the war of the late rebellion." It was the first step out- 
 side of particular jiersonal amnesty. It was outside of partial re- 
 jtrieval. That bill was a measure of proscription in the guise of 
 clemency. Its mercy was as meager as its title was misnamed. It 
 was almost a joke and a solecism. The exceptions gave memory 
 to oblivion and punishment in pardon. It was Lethe, all alive 
 and rushing like a western river in a freshet. [Laughter.] It was a 
 plan of salvation l)asecl oa a scheme of damnation, it eternized hate. 
 
) 
 
 It made healing impossible. What was its design ? It quieted notli- 
 ing. It was a bill of pains, penalties, and litigation. But it had an 
 iusidions object. It was an act of oblivion for the agents and officers 
 of the United States engaged in reconstruction ! 
 
 What a commentary ! This kind of mercy was not strained. It 
 di'opped like the gentle dew of heaven upon the tools and parasites 
 who had harassed and oppressed a conquered people. 
 
 What had they been doing, your sweetly-scented agents of recon- 
 struction, that you should have amnestied them ? Had they been 
 stealing ? Had they been tyrannizing ? 'Had they been upturning 
 Legislatures ? Had they been runuing riot among a'helpless and con- 
 quered people ? The unconscionable scoundi'els, who were sxmk in the 
 sloughs of a general degradation, were allowed vitally to bubble from 
 their Lethe ! 
 
 That is one chapter of your amnesty. I wonder the gentleman from 
 Maine [Mr. Blaine] did not have that section inserted with his other 
 exceptions in his amendment to this bill. That bill, however, was 
 too bad to pass. Even this House could not stand it, and they sent 
 it to a committee ; they j)08tponed it on a certain day, on the 11th 
 of January, 1871. It came back, however, in March, 1871, on a mo- 
 tion to reconsider, and it finally passed as amended on motion of 
 Judge Poland, of Vermont. But then the amendment was full of ex- 
 ceptions as to Army and naval officers and those who had voted for 
 ordinances of secession. WTien that bill passed by 120 to 82, it went 
 to the Senate, and there also it was choked to death like all the otbei-s. 
 
 Then came the Forty-third Congress ; then came the lifting up of 
 the voice of the people. Then you found that the people were de- 
 manding that a highway should l>e cast up and a standard be lifted 
 for them ! Then came the moral power of the i^eople. And, although 
 we had kukluxes, and investigations, and all sorts of provocations, 
 and troubles, and atrocities, and recriminations, and threats, yet one 
 day, all at once, to the astonishment of my honored colleague who 
 sits before me, on the Committee on Rules, [Mr. Randall,] and my- 
 self, it was proposed in the presence of a full committee (and I know 
 where they met) to introduce a general amnesty bill. 
 
 This bill was unincumbered with litigations and punishments. It 
 was couched in the language of liberality. It had the grace of all 
 religions and the philosophy of all political eras. It was the ijroduct 
 of goodness ! 
 
 I do not think the House ever instructed the Committee on Rules 
 on that subject. But no matter for that. There was something 
 going on that I could not understand nor did my colleague, [Mr. Ran- 
 dall. ] It was found out that your policy was arousing hate and losing 
 you what little respect you had in the South. You proposed in that 
 committee to bring in a bill of general amnesty. It was proposed 
 that Mr. Maynard should draw up that bill without any exceptions. 
 I do not say the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Bl^une] proposed it, 
 but it was proposed, and he was present and made no objection to it. 
 And if you appeal here to your God, I appeal to my colleague and to 
 my God and to the Record. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. BLAINE. I observe that the gentleman, following the exam- 
 ple of Dogberry, puts his colleague first. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. COX. I will give you enough of the dog before I get through. 
 [Renewed laughter.] Then I would appeal not merely to Provi- 
 dence, nor to my colleague, but I will appeal to the Record to show 
 that a bill almost identical with the one now opposed by the honor- 
 
10 
 
 able and distm*?uiifliea geutleman from Maine [Mr. Blaixe] then re- 
 ceived his acquiescence. I read from the Eecord : 
 
 Mr. Maitcard. I am instrocted by the Committee on Eules, acting upon a leso- 
 lutioii submitted to them the other day- 
 There was a resolution — 
 To report the bill which I send to the desk. 
 
 Now that shows that there was some solemn concord among our 
 republican brethren to brifig this general amnesty about at that time 
 for some i)urpose. 
 
 This bill which I now send to the desk has met the unanimous approval of the 
 Committee on Rules. 
 
 Who constituted that committer at that time ? James G. Blaine, 
 Speaker, and, ex officio, chairman of the Committee on Rules. James 
 A. Garfield. He still stands out nobly, as I am told, for an unexcep- 
 tional amnesty. I see it in his benignant smile. [Laughter.] Horace 
 Maynard, Samuel J. Randall, and another, who perhaps is not so 
 good as some of the others of the committee. 
 
 How can I picture the scene of the new transfiguration ! I was 
 rejoiced in my heart of hearts. It looked like the good old times 
 again. I wanted something of that kind. My heart had been yearn- 
 ino- for these men who had been erring, i wanted them back in the 
 tr^k of the Government. "VNTien Mr. Maynard made the proposi- 
 tion his swart features and tall figure shone as it were with a supernal 
 light. The other geutleman [Mr. Garfield, of Ohio] seemed to have 
 an aureole around his brow. [Laughter.] And as for the gentleman 
 from Pennsylvania, my colleague, why he was illumined with a sort 
 of centennial halo. [Great laughter.] As for the geutleman from 
 Maine, I can recall how he looked on that occasion. Instinct with 
 some patriotic light, he reminded me of the Apocalyptic angel, which 
 shone so bright and beautiful it was impossible to look upon him. 
 [Great laughter.] 
 
 Alas! alas! I was afraid then that there was some parfy emer- 
 gency, and that it would pass away as the bill passed 'to tbe Senate. 
 Alas! alas ! that the grace with which my colleague [Mr. Eakdall] 
 and myself yielded the direction and management of this democratic 
 bill to'our republican colleagues should have been so little appre- 
 ciated. Ah, then I knew that the honorable member from Mame had 
 been perusing history. He had read of Claverhouse and his merry 
 men of blood, and of Hoche and his conciliation of La Vendue. He had 
 read of Ireland, Poland, and what not of woes to conquered people. 
 
 That Maynard bill was reported to the House. What then ? Where 
 was my friend, the Ex-Speaker, then ? In the chair? At home ? No; 
 he sent down to a member to do something that he did not want to 
 do himself. Why, I am surprised and mortified at the gentleman from 
 Maine sending down to another member — a colored member, too, I 
 believe it was — to do what he had not the courage to do himself ; 
 and that was to have Jefi'ersou Davis excluded fi-om the operation of 
 that bill. Is that the statement ? Is that correct ? 
 
 Mr. BLAINE. As the gentleman puts the question to me, I desire 
 to make a little explanatiou for just a moment. Will the gentleman 
 allow me ? 
 
 Mr. COX. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. BLAINE. What the gentleman states is in the main correct. 
 I can state it more fully. Mr. Maynard was especially anxious to 
 report the amnesty bill. He had certain reasons which I do not fully 
 know, and if I did I should not feel at liberty to disclose them. He 
 
11 
 
 asked me personally in committee not to urge my objections to it. I 
 had great respect and friendship for him, and I was willing- that he 
 might report it. Bat I had a conversation with several gentlemen ou 
 the floor in regard to the inexpediency of allowing it to pass. But 
 there was at that time — and I know the gentleman will thank me fhv 
 this piece of information 
 
 Mr. COX. We are always thankful for anything from you. 
 
 Mr. BLAINE. I found there was an expectathm ou our side that 
 the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] and his associates would 
 he very kindly disposed toward the civil-rights bill if general amnesty 
 should he passed. I asked the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
 Rainey] to otter the ammendmeut referred to ; and he will oblige me 
 by stating whether his recollection agrees with mine as to his reply. 
 
 Mr. EAINEY. I remember the circumstances perfectly well. I 
 declined, for fear that my motives might be misrepresented in the 
 South. 
 
 Mr. BLAINE. He said he would not like to do it for many reasons, 
 and among other things because it might prejudice the civil-rights 
 bill, in which he felt aVery deep interest. I thought then, as I have 
 already stated, that the bill in such a form as to include Mr. Davis 
 ought not to have gone through. I was in the chair ; I could not 
 myself object to the bill ; and it took the course which the gentleman 
 himself has indicated. Now will the gentleman please state to me 
 whether there wiis any little understanding that he and his colleagues 
 would be lenient toward the civil-rights bill, and whether they kept 
 faith on that point ? 
 
 Mr. EANDALL. There was no such understanding ; none in the 
 world. 
 
 Mr. COX. Never ! never ! never ! 
 
 Mr. EANDALL. And my subsequent conduct when the bill was 
 under consideration gives a contradiction to it. 
 
 Mr. BLAINE. I do not accuse the gentleman of violating such an 
 understanding. The subsequent conduct of that side of the House 
 showed very plainly that if there had been such an understanding 
 they did not observe it. 
 
 Mr. COX. Now, I think the gentleman from Maine has only made 
 the matter worse. He has said that he had one object in committee 
 and another outside of the committee. He had some secret political 
 purpose. Is that the statesmanship that aspires to the Presidency ? 
 [Laughter. ] That is to say, while he was ready to acquiesce from 
 personal regard for our present minister to Constantinople, Mr. May- 
 nard ; while he would not make trouble in the committee ; yet when 
 he is outside of the committee, he seeks a colored member and through 
 him tries to make an objection. Yet, sir, the gentleman sat here 
 then in this House as the guardian of honor and honesty. And while 
 Mr. Maynard says "I am authorized to report this bill unanimously," 
 the gentleman from Maine was as dumb as an oyster. 
 
 Mr. BLAINE. The gentleman confuses all distinctions. I was 
 perfectly willing that the bill should come before the House ; and I 
 have moved to reconsider the vote on this bill in order to bring it 
 before the House. 
 
 Mr. EANDALL. Did the gentleman ever offer in committee any 
 amendment to except Jefferson Davis ? 
 
 Mr. BLAINE. No, sir, I tlid not ; but 
 
 Mr. COX. That is enough. 
 
 Mr. BLAINE. But I was willing to bring the bill before the House, 
 as I am willing to bring this bill before the House. 
 
12 
 
 Mr. COX. Now I ^Yant to give the gentleman a little more of this. 
 If he would not undertake to interrupt me quite so much, he would 
 feel a good deal better. He is somewhat like the little boy do-mj in 
 Memphis who undertook to take a twist with a mule's tail ; his 
 f a-ther said to him afterward, " You don't look so pretty as you did, 
 my boy, but you have learned something." [Great laughter.] 
 
 Mr. BLAINE. Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] rep- 
 resent the mule in that illustration ? [Renewed laughter.] 
 
 Mr. COX. Now, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the last remark of the 
 gentleman from Maine, but I suppose it was one of the soft and yield- 
 ing speeches which he is capable of making. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. ELAINE. Does the gentleman want me to repeat it 'i [Laugh- 
 ter.] 
 
 Mr. COX. O, no! I have the floor. [Laughter.] 
 
 Then Mr. Mayuard rose. There never was such an opportunity 
 (and I would seize it if I were not a little merciful and did not feel 
 amnestically) in which to run a knife quietly into the gentleman 
 from Maine and turn it round. But I am inclined to deal gently 
 with him. [Laughter.] This is an amnestic^il occasion. 
 
 Mr. IMaynard then arose and moved the previous question. Mr. 
 Laweence inquired, would not that admit Jeiierson Davis to a seat 
 upon this floor. I remember that Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. [Langh- 
 ter.] No wonder he got alarmed when he found that the whole com- 
 mittee were unanimous, including the gentleman from Maine. Mr. 
 Lawrence said : " I object to it." Mr. Hoar then made an inquiry 
 and a point of order. Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts, insisted on the 
 point of order. Mr. Mayuard said : 
 
 I move to suspend tho rules, so as to allow the committee to report this bill and 
 to pass it. And in answer to tho question projwunded by tlio gentleman from 
 Ohio, [Mr. Lawrence,] I tell him frankly that tliis bill will, if enacted, admit the 
 president of the southern confederacy, iust as tho Ti<;e-])ie,sident ha.s been already 
 admitted, to a seat in either House ot Conj^'esa, pro\'idod the people where he lives 
 shall think proper to send him here. It is general amnesty as recommended, by 
 the President. 
 
 Mr. Cox. Is there any objection to passing it unanimously ? The President rec- 
 ommends amnesty ; and let us unanimously wind up this foolish business of taking 
 the test-oath. 
 
 There was no question then, no clamor then to adopting the amend- 
 ment from that side. Gentlemen perfectly understood that Jefferson 
 Davis was in the bill. 
 
 What magic had worked this wondrous change? The thought of 
 it affected my sensibilities. At once, my mind received a re)ralsion. 
 I was ashamed of my own poor political intolerance. All my life I 
 had been a partisan. Democracy to me had been a delusive glory. I 
 was almost pei-suaded that my service ia Congress had been a mis- 
 take. I shovild have been a republican. That after all the.kuklux- 
 ism, not to speak of the rebellion and all the recriminations against 
 the prescriptive party, including the soldierly Garfield and the bel- 
 ligerent Blaine, to ti.ud them, them in a moment — as it were, in the 
 twinkling of an eye — and out of some great patriotic purpose, yield- 
 ing so sv/eetly to the claims of clemency, w'th such magniflcent mag- 
 nanimity — this was much. But when the tall, gaunt form of May- 
 nard seemed to my new vision like one of the " better angels of our 
 nature," it was for a moment too, too much for me. Catching the con- 
 tagion of kindness, thus illustrated by this committee, we authorized 
 the noble Maynard to take our united thought and crystallize it into 
 the form of this l)ill of my colleague, [Mr. Randall.] We allowed him 
 to present it to the House. The proceedings when this was done are 
 
beautiful to read. They are foniul immortiilized on page 91 of the 
 llECORD of the lirst session of the Forty-third Congress, December 
 8, 1873. It was, he said, " the unanimous report of the committee." I 
 think I see his tall form now as he is calling the previous question. 
 With a pinch of snuff between his thumb .and forefinger, extended 
 into the glowing light shed through these escutcheons of our inde- 
 pendent States, he is about to say that President Grant favored the 
 general amnesty, when the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Lawrence] 
 iuquii-ed "if the bill admits Jetf. Davis to a seat on this floor." Did 
 Mr. Maynard shrink from such terrihc inquisition ? He did not. The 
 bill passed— ayes 141, noes 29. Was there no Speaker, to spring from 
 his exalted seat, to scream out, like a Robespierrean, "Jeiferson Davis 
 a la lantenie f " Was there no stentorian voice from the gentleman 
 from Maine, "Down, down forever, with the toad-spotted traitor?" 
 Justice compels me to say there was not. Silently acquiescing with 
 di"-nity and pride in the action of his committee, the bill passed, from 
 the House to the Senate, where ruthless proscription killed it to keep 
 alive the saddest of memories and the very embers of despair ! 
 
 Now what a change have we here to-day, and for what pm-pose ? 
 Why do you oppose now your own measure ? Why make excep- 
 tion? Why not breathe the old spirit of Sir Thomas Browne, which 
 I once quoted here : "You should draw the curtain for the purpose 
 of hidino- injury." No partial pardon, for that is no pardon at all. 
 Gentlemen will find that out, if not in this world, in the other. 
 [Lauo-hter.] Why give a partial amnesty 1 It is not amnesty if n 
 is partial. It is exceptional, and therefore not in any sense clemency. 
 
 It is not diflicult to attribute motives to gentlemen on this floor, 
 but I will not do it. The gentleman from Maine is known to lie a 
 candidate for the presidency, but that is no reason why he should be 
 a mean man. [Laughter.] He is not ; but, on the contrary, a kind- 
 hearted, generous, noble citizen of Pennsylvania and of the State of 
 Maine, representing, as I do here sometimes, two States all at once. 
 [Laughter.] He is the last man to whom I would attribute any bad 
 
 motives. . -, -r. • t ^ /-< 4. 
 
 But one thing is curious, that he has antagonized President Grant 
 on this subject. I do not like the look of that. [Laughter.] I call 
 upon the republican gentlemen, especially that godly little knot of 
 colored people who voted so nobly for the third term, to vote down 
 this exceptionally obnoxious proposition of the gentleman from 
 Maine. For di d not the President of the United States in his message 
 of December, 1873, say this : 
 
 I will renew my previous recommendation to Consresa for general amnesty. 
 The number engaged in tlie rebellion still laboring under disabilities is very small, 
 but enough to keep up a constant irritation. No possible danger can accrue lO tho 
 Government by restoring them to eligibility to hold office. 
 
 This was o-eneral amnesty. Why General Grant even did not favor 
 any exception ! He was a soldier. He was not a "scurvy politician." 
 General Grant fought in the war. and made a report in I860 that you 
 southern men were all right then, contented, acquiescent in the Gov- 
 ernment. He never believed in this revengeful system. True, he has 
 made some Uttle trouble down South in Arkansas and Louisiana and 
 other places, despoiled a few States with his bayonets, and made a 
 good deal of trouble with these gentlemen here around me But he 
 never proposed this exceptional, partial amnesty. ^q. , • 
 
 Must we of the opposition, av ho are observing the coming conflict m 
 the republican party, conclude from this and other signs that this 
 amnestical expression of the President has driven his competitor from 
 
14 
 
 Maine iuto the arms of Jefter.son Davis ? Must vre iufer that, to raise 
 aspirit against Ctesar,he is compelled to give Jetierson Davis the crown 
 of martyrdom ? Is it here that we find the solution ? Tlie generous 
 pursuitof arms has made our Caesar tender to the South. Must we 
 compare the politician with the soldier? Both are ambitious; the 
 one is as obdurate as the rock-bound coasts of Maine to the claims 
 of mercy ; while we are told that — 
 
 The warrior's heart, when tonchnd by her, 
 
 Can as downy, soft, and yieWiuu bo 
 
 As his own white pbime. that high amid death 
 
 Through the field hath shone, j'et moveth with a breath. 
 
 How .shall I contrast the conduct of the honoraltle gentleman from 
 Maine with that of General Grant without giving my views on the 
 presidential que,stion ? [Laughter. ] 
 
 Now, in conclusion, I wish to recall one thought to the gentleman 
 from Maine and to this House. We have come together here by some 
 tidal wave ; these gentlemen from the South have been sitting here 
 taking your little contemptible insults about our organization and our 
 conduct when you knew or you might have knov.'u that, in the or- 
 ganization of this House, more maimed Union soldiers have been ap- 
 pointed under democratic administration here this winter according 
 to the number of tliose appointed than were appointed by your radical 
 Mr. Buxton in the last Congress. [Applause. ] And yet you have sent 
 your slanders all over the country. To do what? To prejudice this 
 hody of men here, who have quietly taken your taunts and your in- 
 sults. If you want the facts on that subject, go to Colonel Fitzhugh, 
 our Doorkeeper. You will find that, according to the number ap- 
 pointed, in proportion to the service, fewer Union soldiers were ap- 
 pointed by you than we have this year. There is no reason why you 
 should send out to the country the cry this is the "ex-confederate 
 congress." Many of you will be " ex's " yourselves before you get 
 through with this business. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I like to speak of amnesty. It is a favorite theme. 
 I was delighted at the idea of getting a majority of 3 five years ago. 
 But here, after ten years of struggle, after ten years of contempt, after 
 every faithliil expression possible from southern gentlemen and states- 
 men, including Jefferson Davis ; after all that can lie said by them of 
 their adherence to the sentiments of patriotism and union, we have, 
 in this year of jubilee, 1876, the distinguished member from Maine 
 raking up again the embers of dead hates for soine bad purpose — I 
 may as well tell all I think about it, [laughter,] — a bad, mischievous, 
 malicious irarpose, which will never elect him to the Presidency if he 
 lives a thousand years. [Applause.] Idonotask anybody to applaud 
 these sentiments. They will speak for themselves without applause. 
 But I remember, and the gentleman from Maine may recall the fact, 
 when a member of t])is House, a distinguished gentleman fi'om Penn- 
 sylvania, now deceased. Judge Woodward, once sent to my desk to 
 1)0 read the one hundred and twenty-sixth Psalm. I think I will 
 read it for the benefit of the gentleman. It was after Cyrus had re- 
 lieved the Hebrews fi'om captivity. The Psalmist touched his harp, 
 and broke forth in the IjTic loftiness of gratulation : 
 
 1. "WTien the Lord turned ag ain the captivity of Zion, we were like them that 
 dream. 
 
 2. Then was onr month filled with lanshter, and our tongue with sinQ,ing: then 
 said they among the heathen, The Loid hath done great things for them. 
 
 3. The Lord hath done great things for ns ; whereof we are glad. 
 
 4. Turn again our cai)tivity, O Lord, as the streams in the south. 
 
15 
 
 There is ;ni annotation by Dr.Clarke to fcliis psalin wliicli in connec- 
 tion with it may very well be pondei-ed. It recites that once wlieu 
 the Roman general had overcome Philip of Macedon and conquered 
 Greece, and had put all the cities of Greece under taxation and tyranny, 
 there was a gathering of the people in the circus at tlie Isthmian 
 games, and without the previous knowledge of any one except the 
 general in command of the city, theherald, as he proclaimed the games, 
 was authorized to proclaim in behalf of the Roman senate and the gen- 
 eral of the army to the citizens that their taxes should remain forever 
 abolished, and that no record or rule should remain of the tyranny 
 which had been exercised by the Romans over the Greeks. All the 
 people listened as if it had been an illusion. They wei'e in a dream, 
 like the Jews when relies-ed from captivity. They turned one to an- 
 other, and said: " What means this; what did the herald say after he 
 blew the trumpet? Have we been given our liberty?" One said to 
 the other, "Did you hear what was said?" And they went to tlie 
 herald, and cried, " Repeat to us what you have said ; " and he repeated 
 it, and their hearts were foil of gladness. Says Livy, " They lifted 
 up their hearts and rejoiced, for the year of their deliverance had 
 come." It was the year of Grecian jubilee. Aud now, when our jubi- 
 lee has come in this" year of 1876, I would like to have a herald from 
 Philadelphia, or from this Capital, to sound the trumpet and proclaim 
 deliverance to the South from republican exactions, froin bad rule, 
 aud the establishment of autonomy all through the Soirth. Then a 
 glorious, blessed light coming from above — the white radiance of eter- 
 nity itself — w'll shine upon a,rchitrave, pillar, and dome of the temple 
 of our American freedom ! [Applause.] 
 
 Mr. KELLEY obtained the floor. 
 
 Mr. BLAIi''E. Will the gentlcinan from Pennsylvania allow me to 
 ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] one question ? 
 
 Mr. KELLEY. I will yield for a moment for that purpose. 
 
 Mr. BLAINE. The gentleman from New York said something iu 
 the course of his remarks about his having spoken here against the 
 policy of poisoning wells, and other things of that kind. 
 
 Mr. COX. I was trying to illustrate the moderation and humanity 
 of the law as it should obtain among civilized countries. 
 
 Mr. BLAINE. Then the gentlemlin did not mean to imply in so 
 speaking that the Government had pursued any such xiolicy I 
 
 Mr. COX. I was speaking of the rules prevailing among civilized 
 nations. 
 
 Mr. BLAINE. Did the gentleman mean to imply by the remotest 
 implication that the Government of the United States was resorting 
 to any such measures as that ? 
 
 Mr. COX. I never had such an idea in my life, and I wiU correct 
 it in the Congressionai. Record if I expressed myself wrongly. 
 
LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 inilllllllllHiiiiii III noil' • a 
 
 013 744 533 5 ^ 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 744 533 5