RESTORATION AND THE UNION PARTY. 
 
 /^I^C- 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 
 Hon. Henry J, RayxMond, 
 
 OF NEW YORK, 
 
 ON THE CONDITIONAL ADMISSION OF THE STATES LATELY IN 
 REBELLION TO REPREaENTATION IN CONGRESS. 
 
 Delivered in the House of Representatives, June 18, 1866. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 BAKEB & GODWIN, PRINTERS, 
 
 FJMNTING-HOUSE SQUARE. 
 
 1866. 
 

i? RESTORATION AND THE UNION PARTY. 
 4^ 
 
 Mr. Raymond— Mr. Speaker, I regard the ac- 
 tion which this House may take upon the bill 
 now before it as of very great importance. The 
 bill embodies principles which touch very nearly 
 the fundamental principles of our Government ; 
 and it proposes measures which must affect m a 
 very serious manner the peace and welfare of 
 the country. I ventiire to hope, Sir, that every 
 member of this House will bring to its consid- 
 eration a mind unbiased by prejudice and unin- 
 fluenced by passion, and that he will act upon it 
 with sole and exclusive reference to its probable 
 efiect upon the prosperity and welfare of our 
 common country. I know how difficult it is to 
 withstand the influence of habit and association, 
 personal and political, upon our action here ; 
 but if there ever was an occasion when it was in- 
 cumbent upon each one of us to do all in our 
 power thus to emancipate ourselves from undue 
 and improper influences, I think. Sir, that occa- 
 sion is offered by the bill which now awaits oiu: 
 action. 
 
 When this Congress met, Sir, now seven 
 months ago, the war against the rebellion had 
 been closed for half a year. The President of 
 the United States, exercising what he beUeved 
 to be his rightful authority as the chief Execu- 
 tive of the nation and Commander-in-Chief of 
 its armies, had set in motion the machinery of 
 government in the States where it had been sus- 
 pended by rebellion. He had appointed Provis- 
 ional Governors, by whom, under his authority. 
 Conventions and Legislatures were summoned, 
 and elections were held ; and those Governors, 
 Legislatures and Conventions,took steps to bring 
 the States back to theii- normal condition, so far 
 as exercising the power of self-government v.'..d 
 concerned. When we met in December last but 
 little remained to be done to complete the work 
 of restoration. The temper of the people in the 
 Southern States was that of submissive and 
 loyal acquiescence in the results of the war. AH 
 that remained was to heal the wounds the 
 war had made, and embody in proper form 
 the principles it had established. At an 
 early day of the session, as early as 
 
 was proper and convenient, I stated, in the 
 course of some remarks on the general sub- 
 ject, what I thought Congress ought to do— tho 
 specific action it ought to take, to complete the 
 work of restoration ; and, with the leave of the 
 House, as it is very brief, I will read the para- 
 graph in which that statement was embodied : 
 
 " In the Urst place, I think we ought to accept the 
 present status of the Southern States, and regard 
 them as having resinned, under the President's guid- 
 ance and action, their functions of self-government in 
 the Union. 
 
 In the second place, I think this House should decide 
 on the admission of Representatives by districts, ad- 
 mitting none but loyal men, who can take the oath we 
 may prescribe, and holding all others as disqualified, 
 the Senate acting, at its discretion, in the same way 
 in regard to representatives of States. 
 
 I think, in the third place, we should provide by law 
 for giving to the freedmen of the South all the rights 
 of citizens in courts of law and elsewhere. 
 
 In the fourth place, I would exclude from Federal 
 office the leading actors in the conspiracy which led 
 to the rebellion in every State. 
 
 In the fifth place, I would make such amendments 
 to tho Constitution as may seem wise to Congress and 
 the States, acting freely and without coercion. 
 
 And sixUi, I would take such measures and precau- 
 tions by the disposition of military forces as will pre ■ 
 serve order and prevent the overthrow, by usurpa- 
 tion or otherwise, in any State, of its republican form 
 of government." 
 
 Nearly all of these points have been covered 
 by the action which Congress has already taken. 
 The status of the Southern States has been sub- 
 stantially recognized by both Houses in their 
 action and their recommendations. No one in 
 either House proposes to change or disturb it. 
 We have provided, not only by law, but by an 
 amendment ol the Constitution, for giving to 
 the freedman of the South all the rights of citi- 
 zens in the Courts of law and elsewhere, and for 
 protecting him in their enjoyment. We have 
 also provided by an amendment of the Constitu- 
 tion for excluding from office the leading actors 
 in the rebellion. We have adopted such other 
 
amendmenta to the Constitution as seemed to us 
 wise and essential, and we have now just passed 
 a resolution directing them to he submitted to 
 the several States for their ratification. 
 
 Congress adopted those amendments because 
 it beUeved they ought to form a part of the 
 Constitution, and I voted for them for that rea- 
 son, and for that reason alone. I discussed them 
 on their merits. I dechne to discuss them other- 
 wise. I voted for them on their merits, and not 
 ae part and parcel of any scheme of reconstruc- 
 tion or restoration, except to this extent : that 
 I beheved their adoption here would promote the 
 tranquiUity of the country, and that their em- 
 bodiment in the Constitution would restore har- 
 mony to the Union and aid in securing the fu- 
 ture safe y of the Eepubhc. Those amend- 
 ments have now gone to the several States, and 
 if adopted by three-fourths of all the States— by 
 three-fourths of the thirty-six States that com- 
 pose this Union— they will become vaUd to all m- 
 tents and purposes as a part of the Constitution 
 of the United States. I deem it highly import- 
 ant that these amendments should be acted upon 
 in all the States, by Legislatures chosen by 
 the people with reference to this very sub- 
 ject. I do not hold that this is necessary to 
 their vahdity ; but I do thiak that justice to the 
 people, justice to the country, and a true and 
 wise regard for the requirements and spirit ot 
 the Constitution demand that it should be sub- 
 mitted to Legislatures not elected without refer- 
 ence to it, but to Legislatures chosen by the 
 people for the express purpose of acting upon it. 
 We must remember that we who have voted 
 upon these amendments were elected to Congress 
 without the shghtest reference to the important 
 question upon which we were thus called to act. 
 The question of amending the Constitution was 
 not then before the pubUc, and has never been 
 pubUcly discussed. The people have had no 
 opportunity to act upon it, either directly or in- 
 directly. It does not seem just that important 
 amendments to the Constitution should be pro- 
 posed by a Congress and ratified by Legislatures 
 while not a member of either was elecbed with 
 any reference whatever to that subject. Cer- 
 tainly, great moral force would be given to the 
 amendment if it were adopted by members 
 chosen by the people with special rreference to 
 this point. 
 
 But, Sir, in my previous remarks, from which 
 I have already quoted, I insisted that the States, 
 in voting upon these amendments, should " act 
 freely and loUhoiU coercion." I regard that, Sir, 
 as of vital importance. Amendments to the 
 Constitution forced upon an unwilling people 
 will never command the respect essential to their 
 full validity. They will always be regarded as 
 badges of injustice, as permanent and indelible 
 
 marks of inferiority ; and whatever acquiescence 
 they may command will be reluctant and con- 
 strained, not the cheerful obedience which a free 
 people will always yield to constitutions and laws 
 they have freely made. This bUl, Sir, violates 
 that fundamental condition. It seeks to coerce 
 the States lately in rebeUion into the ratification 
 of these amendments. It denies them represen- 
 tation unless they do ratify them. The first sec- 
 tion of the bill, after reciting the amendments 
 adopted by Congress, enacts : 
 
 " That whenever the above-recited amendment shall 
 have become part of the Constitution of the United 
 States, and any State lately in insurrection shall have 
 ratified the same, and shall have modified its Consti- 
 tution and laws in conformity therewith, the Senators 
 and Eepresentatives from such States, if found duly 
 elected and qualified, may, after having taken the 
 required oaths of ofiice, be admitted into Congress as 
 such." 
 
 Here are three things required as conditions 
 without which no Southern State shall be admit- 
 ted to representation in Congress : First, the 
 above-recited amendment must first "have be- 
 come part of the Constitution of the United 
 States" — that is to say it must fii'st have been 
 ratified by three-fourths of all the States ; sec- 
 ond, it must be ratified by each of the States 
 lately in rebeUion seeking representation ; and 
 third, that State must have " modified its Con- 
 stitution and laws in conformity therewith." 
 Now, Sir, the fin'st of these conditions is not 
 within control of the States upon which they 
 are imposed. Suppose every Southern State 
 should ratify these amendments and enough 
 Northern States should refuse to ratify them to 
 secure their defeat ; must Southern States be 
 denied representation for the default of others ? 
 This provision, Sir, puts it in the power of the 
 New-England States with three others to ex- 
 clude the Southern States from representation 
 forever ; I am sure Congress can never sanction 
 so gross a wrong. 
 
 But my objection to this bill goes further than 
 this. I hold that we have no right, no power, 
 under the Constitution of the United States, to 
 impose such conditions of representation at all. 
 We sit here as a Congress to exercise, not im- 
 limited powers, but only such powers as are 
 delegated to us by the Constitution of the United 
 States. We have none of the sovereignty, the 
 omnipotence, that is claimed by the Parliament 
 of England. It is one of the distinctive features 
 of our Qovemment that we hve under a written 
 Constitution, by which the powers conferred 
 upon the Government and upon each of its de- 
 partments are expressly defined. All the power 
 we have comes by express grant ; it is conferred 
 upon us by the Constitution. The Constitution 
 ' says Congress shall have power to do certain 
 
5 
 
 things, which are enumerated and distinctly set 
 forth, and then it is expressly declared that the 
 powers not delegated are "reserved to the States 
 or to the people thereof." We can, therefore, 
 do nothing which the Constitution does not em- 
 power us to do, either in express terms or by 
 necessary imphcation from the terms employed. 
 
 Now, if I am right in this, I ask anyone here 
 to point me to the clause of the Constitution 
 which confers upon Congress a right to say that 
 Eepresentatives from any State shall not be re- 
 ceived into Congress until that State shall per- 
 form certain acts, mate certain laws, or do cer- 
 tain things which we may dictate. Where is it in 
 the Constitution ? Is it embodied in any Article ? 
 Is it implied in any clause, either directly or in- 
 directly? I cannot find it. On the contrary, 
 I find an express declaration in the Article which 
 empowers Congress to propose amendments to 
 the Constitution, an expUcit provision that "no 
 State shall be deprived of its equal su&rage in 
 the Senate without its own consent," even by 
 an amendment of the Constitution. This biU 
 proposes to deprive States of such equal suf- 
 frage by a law. It proposes to do by enacting a 
 l.iw what Congress and the States together can- 
 not do by amending the Constitution. I must 
 maintain, until I am shown to the contrary, that 
 we have no power under the Constitution of the 
 United States to pass such a bill as this, or to 
 enforce its provisions if it should become a law. 
 
 I am told, however, that the law of conquest 
 is higher than the Constitution, and that we 
 may, under that law, exercise over these States 
 the right of conquerers and dictate to them such 
 terms as we plea^. I have at previous stages of 
 this discussion, or of the discussion of this gen- 
 eral subject, so fully expressed my opinion upon 
 this point, and my reasons for it, thati will no t 
 enter into that argument again. In my judg- 
 ment the war just closed was a war against re- 
 bellion. I hold that while it crushed the rebel- 
 hon it did not impair, to any degree or extent, 
 the validity, force or binding authority of the 
 Constitution of the United States, or the rights, 
 duties, or obligations of the States under that 
 Constitution. On the contrary, it reaffirmed and 
 reestablished the authority of the Constitution 
 in all its fullness over all the States and over 
 every department of the Government of the 
 United States. That Constitution is to-day for 
 us, for Congress, for the President, for every 
 State, and for every Legislature, and for every 
 court in every State, the " supreme law of the 
 land." We have crushed the rebellion which 
 disputed its sovereign authority, but we thereby 
 only confirmed and reestabUshed its supremacy. 
 We have achieved no conquest over that, and no 
 law of conquest touches that in any particular. 
 We are bound by its provisions, we are restrict- 
 
 ed by its prohibitions, now precisely as we were 
 before the war. 
 
 I am told, furthermore, that the law of neces- 
 sity requires us to impose these conditions upon 
 the admission of representatives from the States 
 lately in insurrection, and that the law of neces- 
 sity supersedes all other laws. Certainly not the 
 law of military necessity. No one pretends that 
 any mUitary necessity now exists. I am not pre- 
 pared to concede that we have ever set aside the 
 Constitution of the United States, even under 
 the nuhtary necessity which the war was sup- 
 posed to create. In my judgment the Constitu- 
 tion furnished us with power to carry the coun- 
 try through the war, and we have not violated 
 its provisions ; we have exercised no power not 
 included within its permissions, even m the con- 
 test from which we have just emerged. But the 
 war is over. Mihtary necessity no longer exists. 
 Is it, then, a matter of poUtical necessity that we 
 should exercise the power asserted in this bill ? 
 I am told that unless we do so the South will 
 gain by votes what it lost by arms. The joint 
 Committee of Fifteen, in their report, assert 
 that if members from the Southern States be ad- 
 mitted into Congress the rebels will gain by 
 votes on its floor, by legislative action, by taking 
 part in the Government, what they lost on the 
 field of battle. 
 
 Now, Sir, I will not stop to remind Congress of 
 what Congress seems much disposed to forget, 
 that this is a Government of the people ; that 
 the people of the whole country and ail the 
 States of the Union are not only entitled but are 
 bound by solemn obligations to take part in that 
 Government ; and that whatever the people gain 
 by votes they gain legitimately and in accord- 
 ance both with the Constitution and the princi- 
 ples that lie at the foundation of our Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 ALLEGED DANQEBS FBOM BEADMriTING THE 
 SOUTH TO BEPEESENTATION. 
 
 But, not dwelling upon this point, I deny the 
 existence of any such danger. The apprehen- 
 sion is plausible perhaps. Judging from the 
 past we may naturally fear that the poUtical 
 actoin of the South may again be hostile to the 
 Government, but a very little reflection wiU show 
 how small is the peril which is thus involved. 
 There was a time when there was reason to fear 
 the ascendency of the South in the Government 
 of the nation. There was a time when the 
 South, as a separate section, with institutiona 
 hostile to the general good, seemed likely to 
 grasp the sovereignty of the nation and 
 wield it with exclusive regard to its own am- 
 bition and its own interest. That time of real 
 danger was when the Missouri Compromise 
 was repealed, and Kansas was likely to come 
 
into the Union as a Slave State. If she had thus 
 come in the number of Free and Slave States 
 would have been equal. But then the South had 
 elements of political power which made her 
 formidable. She had wealth. She monopoUzcd 
 the best cotton of the world. Her cotton, sugar, 
 rice and tobacco swelled the vast volume of our 
 commerce, and regulated our exchanges with 
 Europe. She had for poUtical leaders men of 
 great intellects, of ii'on will, of towering ambi- 
 tion, men fit to stiniggle for empu'e, and able to 
 infuse their own bold and audacious tempers in- 
 to the great mass of the Southern people, over 
 whom their influence was absolute and unbound- 
 ed. She had a niunerous population, active, as- 
 piring and bold — a generation of young men 
 trained in the school of Calhoun and McDuffie, 
 nursed in the doctrine of State rights and State 
 sovereignty, taught to beUeve in the right of 
 Secession, and educated in the faith that the 
 South was the victim of Northern tyranny. 
 The South had the institution of Slavery, an 
 institution powerful beyond conception, as a 
 bond of union to the Southern States. Menaced 
 and assailed by the North, threatened with de- 
 Btruction from every quarter, obnoxious to the 
 moral sentiment of the civilized world. Slavery 
 gave the South, as a pohtical power, unity of 
 action, compactness, force, energy and influ- 
 ence in the National councils such as no other 
 single instrumentaUty ever gave to any section 
 of this country from the beginning of its history. 
 It gave her, too, an alliance with the Democratic 
 Party of the Northern States, a party powerful al- 
 ways by its traditions audits popular sjonpathies ; 
 powerful by the great men who had distinguished 
 and controlled it ; by what it had done and by 
 what it had attempted. Slavery enabled the 
 South to make an aUiance ofifensive and defen- 
 sive with this Democratic Party of the Northern 
 States, and the two together wielded the power 
 of the nation for a long series of years, and but 
 for the overweening ambition of Slavery would 
 have continued to wield it for many years to 
 come. Then, indeed, the Southern States, 
 as a political power, were formidable ; then 
 we had reason to fear their permanent 
 ascendency. The country felt the danger, 
 and the people came to the rescue. It 
 was then, when that danger became imminent, 
 when it pressed itself upon the feeUngs, atten- 
 tion and fears of the whole nation— it was then 
 the Eepubhcan Party was formed, and checked 
 this aggression upon the freedom and liberties 
 of the Republic. That party was fonned in 1856, 
 and it fulfilled its mission ; it triumphed and 
 checked the aggression of Slavery. It turned 
 back in its career of triumph, not only the insti- 
 tation of Slavery, but the Democratic Party, 
 which had become its ally. It relieved the na- 
 
 tion from the exacting sway which had been 
 fastened upon it, and restored our country to the 
 position where it could again exercise the rights 
 of a free and independent people. 
 
 How is it at the present time ? Has the South 
 this power now ? Suppose we assume that the 
 old division still exists, that there are still two 
 poUtical sections in our country, one slave, the 
 other free, stUl strugghng for ascendency ; what 
 ' are their relative numbers and strength ? The 
 , South has been diminishing, while the North 
 has been increasing. New States have been 
 added to the North year by year, until now, 
 while the Southern States — while the Slave 
 States, if you choose so to designate them still — 
 the former Slave States, even counting among 
 them Maryland, Kentucky, and Delaware, num- 
 ber hut fourteen, the Free States number Iwerdy- 
 tioo. In 1850, after Cahfomia had been admit- 
 ted, the Free States were sixteen and the Slave 
 States fifteen in number. Even ii this old divis- 
 ion still existed, the Slave States would have 
 twenty-eight members of the United States Sen- 
 ate while we of the North would have forty-four. 
 In this House they would have seventy-three, 
 while we should have one hundred and sixty-nine. 
 Thus we should have more than two to one in 
 this branch of the national Legislatm-e. But I 
 am told the South is to have an augmented 
 strength here m consequence of an in- 
 creased representation growing out of the 
 emancipation of the slaves in the Southern 
 States. Well, Sir, this is worth consideration. I 
 am very glad that we have adopted a Constitu- 
 tional Amendment which will remedy that in- 
 equality ; for it is unquestionably an inequality, 
 though it is one that has existed from the very 
 foundation of our Government. But, Sir, the 
 Southern States previous to the war had four mil- 
 lion slaves, three-fifths of whom were represent- 
 ed on this floor ; that is to say, they were en- 
 titled to the full representation of their white 
 population and of two nulUon four hundred 
 thousand more. The slaves of the South thus 
 gave the South ticenty additional members, tak- 
 ing one hundred and twenty thousand as the 
 ratio of representation. How is it now ? I take 
 it to be universally admitted that the war has 
 proved far more fatal to the colored population 
 of the Southern States than to the whites. The 
 testimony of all who are familiar with the statis- 
 tics of mortality duiing the war is to the effect 
 that at least one-fifth of the negroes of the 
 Southern States have perished during the rebel- 
 lion. Many of those most famiUar with the sub- 
 ject estimate the ratio at a still higher figure. 
 Gen. Geant, I believe, thinks that one-fourth of 
 all the negroes who were in the South at the 
 opening of the war have perished. Gov» 
 Aiken, of South Carolina, testifies. 
 
flrom his personal knowledge, that of 
 his own slaves, who were probably as well 
 treated and as mucti protected as any portion of 
 the Southern people', more than one-foiu'th have 
 perished during the struggle from which the na- 
 tion has just emerged ; and Jeitekson Davis, 1 
 see from the pubhc prints, concedes that one 
 miUion of the slaves, one-fourth of the whole, 
 have probably disappeared. I think it, there- 
 fore, a reasonable estimate to assume that one- 
 fifth of the four miUion slaves who were in the 
 South when the war broke out are there no 
 longer. This would leave three miUion two 
 hundred thousand as the present aggregate of 
 the freed slaves of the Southern States, and 
 they are to be represented man for man if this 
 amendment to the Constitution be not adopted. 
 That will give them, at the same ratio of repre- 
 sentation, as any gentleman wiH ascertain by 
 making the calculation, twenty-six members, 
 where they before had twenty. The number of 
 their Representatives, therefore, from this single 
 source of power, is to be increased by the addi- 
 tion of precisely six. They will have six more 
 members on this floor than they would have had 
 if all their slaves had lived, and the three-fifths 
 ratio of representation had been preserved. 
 
 I do not think, Sir, that this is very formid- 
 able. I do not think we need apprehend that by 
 the addition of those six members, the Southern 
 States will gain by votes what they have lost by 
 arms. We must consider, too, that they have 
 lost, by deaths among their white population, 
 almost as largely as among the blacks 
 — far more largely in proportion than 
 the North. Their wealth has disappeared. 
 They are utterly without resources. There is 
 not a dollar in their treasuries. They have not 
 a gun nor a bayonet nor a round of ammunition 
 from one extremity of their land to the other. 
 They have none of the elements of aggression. 
 They have no power to make themselves formid- 
 able. They have lost all political influence and 
 standing. Their leaders, who gave direction and 
 power to their poUtical councils, have disappear- 
 j ed before the breath of the terrible whirlwind 
 which they themselves evoked. Their young 
 men, who, trained in the school of secession, 
 ■were ready and ripe for the contest, Ue beneath 
 the soil which they deluged with blood. Slavery, 
 the great bond which kept them together, 
 has disappeared before the same dreadfiil tem- 
 pest. They have no longer that great bond and 
 pledge of united action. Their industrv is utterly 
 disorganized; their lands he waste and untilled; 
 iheir railroads are torn up; the waters of their 
 nvers overflow their lands and destroy the crops 
 which alone can give them even the means of 
 Ihing. There is no longer reason or justice in 
 Bpeakiog of the South as a section: as having 
 
 separate interests or separate aspirations or (he 
 power to act as a unit for any special end. 
 That which gave it power to act compactly haa 
 disappeared. It has lost, too, the power of ally- 
 ing itself with any party in the Northern States, 
 for in losing its unity it has lost everything 
 that made such an alhance desirable or possible. 
 And even if it should attempt such a union for 
 purposes hostile to the general good, no party 
 in the North would dare for a moment to give it 
 countenance or support; for the moment that 
 any party of the North should unite with those 
 of the South who should aim at such a thing, 
 that party would go down before the wrath of 
 the Northern people, as every party has done 
 hitherto that lent its aid to designs hostile to 
 the hberties of the Kepubhc. 
 
 Now, Sir, while they in that section are thus 
 losing power constantly, having no resources 
 from which to supply it, we of the North, on the 
 contrary, are constantly augmenting our power 
 by the growth of population ; by immigration 
 from the countries of the Old World ; by aug- 
 menting wealth ; by increasing activity and en- 
 terprise ; by advancing culture ; by everything 
 that gives dignity and force and power to great 
 communities of men. State after State comes 
 into this Union, every one free, and associated 
 in sentiment, sympathy and interest with the 
 northern section of this great nation. Shall toe, 
 tJien, to-day fear the South? We have never 
 feared it before. We did not fear it in the days 
 of its power. We met it when the danger was 
 imminent and apparent. We beat it here on 
 this floor when it was ten times as powerful as it 
 can be again within the next fifty years. And 
 when, full of rage and unholy ambition, it 
 fled discomfited from this hall and rushed 
 to the field of battle, we beat it there. 
 Yet gentlemen stand here to-day, saying 
 that unless we have " guarantees," the ex- 
 istence of the nation will again be imperiled 
 and the traitors and rebels of the South will 
 "gain by votes what they failed to secure by 
 arms I" Sir, I cannot help feeling that this ap- 
 peal to the fears of the nation savors somewhat 
 of pusillanimity. I would far rather. Sir, look in 
 other quarters for the motives that are to guide 
 my action. I sympathize rather with John 
 QtTiNCT Adams, when years ago he rephed to 
 appeals of a kindred nature : " The Government 
 of the United States never takes counsel of its 
 fears ; it consults only its courage and its hopes." 
 Why may we not to-day take the same high 
 ground ; do what we deem to be wise and just, 
 and for the good of the nation, without being 
 deterred by the paltry appeals — 1 will not oaU 
 them paltry, for their motive may be good — ^by 
 the unjust, the unfounded appeals which are 
 made to our apprehensions lest we should loeO' 
 
8 
 
 that authority and control which we have never 
 foiled to hold when it was a question of votes, 
 and which we have gathered again to ourselves, 
 and fastened here forever by the final appeal 
 of differing nations, the field of battle. 
 The South " gain what it has lost by arms !" 
 What did it seek by its appeal to arms ? Its 
 independence. It sought to overthrow the su- 
 premacy of the Government. Is it seeking that 
 now ? Is there any reason to suppose that the 
 Southern people dream of seeking it again ? And 
 is there the faintest shadow of discernible danger 
 that, if they should seek it, they could ever under 
 any circumstances accomphsh it? Does any 
 man here or elsewhere beheve they can ever 
 again make an appeal to arms, that they can 
 ever again attempt to overthrow this Govern- 
 ment under circumstances one half as favoraole 
 as those which surrounded the trial which has 
 iust been closed? They grow in strength, you ' 
 say ; they increase in wealth and population. 
 Ay, sir, and for every step they take in that di- 
 rection we stride leagues ahead of them. 
 
 THE ADMISSION OF EEBELS TO CONGEESS— THE TEST 
 OATH — THE PBESIDENT AND THE DEMOCKATS. 
 
 Moreover, Sir, this fear, this appeal to appre- 
 hension, rests wholly upon the assumption that if 
 theii' Representatives do come again into 
 these Halls they will come as rebels. 
 We are constantly told that " the rebels" are 
 seeking admission to Congress, and there is very 
 great danger of their getting admission here, 
 and then, by alliance with other parties, seizing 
 the power of the nation and wielding it against 
 the pubUc good ; and the only way to prevent this 
 catastrophe is to pass this bill for their exclu- 
 sion. But, Sir, the remedy is as futile as the 
 apprehension is unfounded. Every one knows 
 that Congress can exclude them without this bill 
 just as well as with it. This bill, if it becomes a 
 law, can have no vaMdity, no binding force. The 
 Constitution gives to this House the right— ab- 
 solute, imqualified— to admit all members whom 
 it may judge to be duly elected, returned and 
 qualified. Pass this bOl to-day, you may to-mor- 
 row, in spite of it, admit representatives from 
 every Southern State if you see fit. The next 
 Congress may repeal it as soon as it gets here. 
 It mbruiumfulmen. No man on this floor will 
 contend that it will interfere with or obstruct 
 the action of Congress one hour beyond the 
 wish and wiU of Congress upon the subject of 
 admitting members to seats upon this floor. 
 Then what good can it possibly accomplish ? 
 Another thing. Sir. I know of none, except 
 possibly the gentlemen who sit on the other 
 pohtical side of this House, who desire 
 or would be willing to admit to seats here men 
 who have been engaged in the rebeUion. I do 
 
 not know that our pohtical opponents would 
 desire this, though there is perhaps some reason 
 for supposing that they hold the opinion that 
 men should not be questioned as to their past 
 conduct, but that they should be admitted to 
 seats if they are loyal now. But whether this be 
 so or not, I know no one else — I know no one 
 who professes to belong to the Union party —I 
 know no member of the pohtical majority upon 
 this floor who is in favor of admitting to a share 
 of legislation here any man from any State who 
 cannot take the test oath we have prescribed. 
 That certainly is our position. And just as cer- 
 tainly IS it the position ot the President of the 
 United States. It is common to attribute to him 
 opinions on this point which seem to me wholly 
 unwarranted. Both on this floor and through 
 the pubUc press it is asserted that his poUcy is 
 to admit members from the Southern States 
 whether they can take the test oath we have pre- 
 scribed or not. The President has neither said 
 nor done anything to give a shadow or warrant 
 for such assumptions. In all the language he has 
 used he has always held that it was the absolute 
 right of each House of Congress to judge of the 
 qualifications of its members, to adopt such 
 tests of loyalty as it chooses, and to exclude 
 from its dehberations every man who cannot 
 stand that test, as prescribed. 
 
 Mr. WiNFTELD — My colleague will allow me to 
 ask him a question. 
 
 Mr. Eaymond — Certainly. 
 
 Mr. WiNFiELD — I ask my colleague whether he 
 says there is any desire on this side of the House 
 to introduce rebels upon this floor. 
 
 Mr. Raymond — I made no such assertion. 
 
 Mr. WmFiELD — I understood the gentleman to 
 say that there are some reasons why he suspect- 
 ed a design of that kind. I had hoped that my 
 colleague would go off the floor without a fling 
 at this side. 
 
 Mr. Raymond— I did not intend to make any 
 " fling," nor to attribute any improper designs 
 to the opposite side of the House. I inferred 
 that they might be less rigid than this side in 
 judging of qualifications as based on past acts, 
 because I was under the impression that they 
 were not m favor of the test oath. Unless I am 
 very much mistaken, gentlemen on the other 
 side voted against it, and some of them, I 
 am sure, favor its abolition. Does not that 
 warrant me in saying or suspecting that 
 they hold to the right of those States to 
 be represented by any men they may send 
 here ? I am sure I did not travel beyond the 
 record in what I said, nor did I mean to indulge 
 in any sneer or fling. I trust I can discuss quea 
 tions of this sort without descending to appeals 
 of that kind ; but if gentlemen on the other side 
 who are authorized to speak for the Democratic 
 
Party, whether it be the gentleman from Mary- 
 land, (Mr, Habkis,) or the gentleman from 
 Ohio, (air, Lk Blond,) or the gentleman from 
 Wisconsin, (Blr, Eldkidge,) or any other, will 
 say that they are in favor of maintainmg the 
 principle of that test oath, and of excluding from 
 tliis House every one who took any part volun- 
 tarily in the rebelhon, I shall hsten to them with 
 very great pleasm-e, 
 
 Sir, Eldkidge— Mr, Speaker, does the gentle- 
 man from New-Yoi'k hold that because 
 
 Mr. Ray]\iond — I yield only for an answer — not 
 
 for the purpose of being catechised. 
 
 Ml'. Eldbidge — I did not intend to catechise. 
 
 Mr. Eaymond — If the gentleman has anything 
 
 to say pertinent to the question I have put I will 
 
 yield. 
 
 Mr. Eldeidge — I desii'e simply to say this : 
 that because a person may be opposed to the 
 test oath is not a reason in itself that he desires 
 to have rebels on this floor. Supposing the Su- 
 preme Court, as it is intimated they have, should 
 have come to the conclusion that the test oath, 
 as it is c lied, is unconstitutional and void ; is 
 that evidence to this House or to the country, or 
 to the gentleman ft'om New- York, that they de- 
 sire to admit rebels on the floor of Congress ? If 
 that oath is in violation of the Constitution, and 
 gentlemen on this side or that side see fit to op- 
 pose it on that ground, is that of itseK any evi- 
 dence that they desire to have rebels admitted to 
 the floor of Congress ? It seems to me not, and 
 I therefore think the gentleman's argument is 
 not sound or just, that even if individuals here 
 are opposed to the test oath upon constitutional 
 or other grounds, it is any evidence that the y 
 are in alliance with rebels, or desire to ally them- 
 selves with them upon this floor or anywhere 
 else. 
 
 Mr. Raymond. — I have listened with attention 
 to the argument of the gentleman. I shall allow 
 it to pass without any attempt at reply, because 
 I am not engaged in that particular discussion 
 now. But I wish to ask him a question pertinent 
 to the issue he has made, and shall be obliged if 
 he will answer it. Is he personally, and so far as 
 he knows are the members of the party with 
 which he acts, in favor of admitting members 
 who may come here from the States lately in in- 
 surrection, who voluntarily took part in the re- 
 bellion ; or would ho or they consider that fact 
 as a disqualification for holding seats here ? 
 
 Mr. Eldeldge — I am not authorized to speak 
 for those around me on this side of the House, 
 but I have been wLUing to act with that gentle- 
 man, and I believe a maj ority of the Democrats 
 here have been willing to act with him, in admits 
 ting the representatives from the States by dis- 
 tricts, considering their character as they pre- 
 sent themselves and the character of their con- 
 
 stituency. I believe that to be the feeling and 
 opinion on this side of the House, so far as I 
 have heard it expressed. In regard to the test- 
 oath, I frankly admit that I am as an individual 
 in favor of its repeal, believing it to be imconsti- 
 tutional and void. 
 
 Mr. Raymond — The gentleman has given 
 quite as explicit an answer as I expected from 
 him. 
 
 Mr. Maeshall— If the gentleman will jaeld 
 
 Mr. Raymond— I do not yield at present. 
 Mr. Maksh.\ll— I appeal to him to jield. 
 Mr. Raymond— Not yet. The gentleman ll-om 
 Wisconsin says that he is wiUing to act with me; 
 but the question is, how fai' ? I know that up 
 to a certain point he is. For example, ho is will- 
 ing to act with mo in favor of admitting Repre- 
 sentatives by districts. Now, I want to knov,' 
 this — suppose a man presents himsclt here from 
 a district in Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi or 
 South Carolina, and is tested by this House as 
 to his quaUfloations, and he is asked the ques- 
 tion, under oath, " Did you take part in the re- 
 bellion ; did you extend aid and comfort to it ; 
 did you make yourself, by yom- voluntary action, 
 a responsible party to the rebellion?" and he 
 says, " Yes, I did;" now, I would like to know 
 if, assuming that in all otlier respects he is qual- 
 ified to be a member here, the gentleman would 
 vote for his admission or for his exclusion ? 
 
 Mr. Eldeidge — I will say for myself— and I 
 hold no other man responsible for what I do say 
 — that if any gentleman comes here elected by 
 the people of any district ol any Southern State, 
 and has the requisite personal constitutional 
 qualifications, I shall vote for his admission if I 
 have the opportunity. 
 
 Mr. Raymond- Well, Sir, the gentleman will 
 excuse me for saying that that is an enth-e evasion 
 of my question. 
 
 Mr. Eldeidge — Will the gentleman allow me 
 to ask him if he would vote for the admission of 
 any one coming from the Southern States who 
 has not the constitutional qualifications as a 
 member of Congress ? 
 Mr. Raymond— I would not, 
 Mr. Eldeidge— Then I would say to the gen- 
 tleman more exphcitly, that I would not either ; 
 but should any one come here having the quali- 
 fications which are requii-ed by the Constitution 
 of the United States, (and I know no other test 
 and would apply none other,) I would vote for 
 his admission. 
 
 Mr. Raymond- Tlie gentleman has not at all 
 answered my question, and he is aware, I think, 
 of that fact. Perliaps he did not intend or wish 
 to answer it. If so I will not press it. But 
 assummg that ho has been trying to answer it, 
 and has been unfortunate m his attemi^ts, I 
 agam request him to say whether he would vote 
 
10 
 
 for the admiatiion or exclusion of a member who 
 had taken part in the rebellion, but who was in 
 all other respects qualified. 
 
 Mr. Eldjridoe — I think I have answered the 
 gentleman in the only manner it is possible. I 
 can go on and state what qualifications a mem- 
 ber should have. They are those prescribed in 
 the Constitution and laws of the coimtry. That 
 test I would apply and none other. 
 
 Mr. Kaymonu— The question is not what quali- 
 fications a man must have, but what, in the 
 judgment of the gentleman, would disqitaitfy a 
 man ft-oni admission ; whether the fact of hav- 
 ing volunfarily participated in the rebelhon 
 would or would not, in his judgment, disquaUfy 
 such a man from becomnig a member of this 
 Congress. 
 
 Mr. Eldiudge— If there is any constitutional 
 autliority to exclude him, tVien I would vote 
 against his admission. If he has violated the 
 laws of the country or the Constitution of the 
 United States so far as to unfit him to be a Re)jrc- 
 sentative according to the Constitution and 
 laws of the United States, then I would vote 
 against him. 
 
 Mr. Raymond— Will the gentleman allow me to 
 proceed a little further ? Does the gentleman, 
 or does he not, hold that voluntary participation 
 in the rebellion is such a violation of the Consti- 
 tution of the United States as would disqualify 
 a man from membership ? 
 
 Mr. Eldkidge — I believe when a man has be- 
 come infamous by the ccjnviction of crime, that 
 tliat does disquahfy him, unless he should have 
 been fully ai\d unconditionally pardoned. 
 
 Mr. Raymond— Then unless a man has been 
 convicted by a court and jury of particii)ation in 
 the rebellion, the gentleman would not hold him 
 disqualified, is that his position ? 
 
 Mr. Eldkidge— I do not answer in that way. 
 I answer that would be goed evidence that he 
 was unfit. 
 
 Mr. Raymond — His conviction ? 
 
 Mr. Eldridwe— Yes, Sir. 
 
 Mr. Raymond — Suppose he was not convicted, 
 but was kno\yu to the gentleman to have been a 
 rebel. 
 
 Ml". Eldmdge — If it was testified to by some 
 of the men on this floor, with the malignant 
 spirit they have manifested here, I would not 
 Ijelieve it. I thinlc it should be properly proved 
 to the House. 
 
 Mr. Raymond — Well, Sir, as tho c^ntlemau 
 evidently evades the question, I waive it. It is, 
 perh;ips, of httle consequence. My own posi- 
 tion upon that point— I will not say it is the 
 opinion ot the majority of this House, because I 
 believe there ia a dift'erenco of opinion among 
 them upon that subject— but my own position 
 and tho position of the President, as I know 
 
 from his pubUc declaration, ia this : that each 
 House of Congress has the right to judge of the 
 quahficationa of the men who present them- 
 selves for seats as members. I do not mean that 
 it has the right to dictate what thode qualifica- 
 tions shall be ; but it has tho right to judge 
 whether those men have the qualifications 
 which are required by the Constitution of the 
 United States. That right is absolute and ex- 
 clusive, and ia expressly conferred upon thia 
 House by the Constitution of the United States. 
 Now, Sir, one of the qualifications absolutely 
 requisite is loyalty ; loyalty is an mdispensable 
 qualification to membership in this House. It is 
 competent, nay, it is n,ecessary for this House, 
 therefore, to inquire whether a man is loyal or 
 not before it admits him to membership. And 
 it may inquire in any way that it sees fit, by 
 prescribing a test oath or by taking testimony 
 as to the fact. Now, Sir, I hold that when a 
 man jjiesents himself here, submitting to that 
 test, and is found qualified by that investiga- 
 tion — if he can take the oath we have prescribed, 
 [f he can abide any test of loyalty we may im- 
 pose — then it ia our duty to admit him if dul.v 
 elected and returned to his seat in Congress. 
 We have no right to say that his State, assuming 
 that State to be in a loyal attitude, shall not 
 have representation, and therefore to exclude 
 him. We have no right to say that his State, 
 though in a loyal attitude, though sustaning re- 
 lations of true allegiance to the General Govern- 
 ment, shall not be represented in the General 
 Goverumout, except upon certp-in conditions, un- 
 less and until she yiasses certain laws and per- 
 forms certain acts which We x^rescribe, and on tliat 
 account to exclude him. We must exclude him, 
 if we exclude lihn at all, because we deem him 
 "disquahfled." And while this is our duty, I 
 hold it also to be lor our interest, the interest of 
 Congresa and of tho country. I believe it to bo 
 the true way to deal with this whole question, for 
 by so doing wo shall draw a line of clear and 
 marked distinction between the loyal and disloyal 
 men of the Southern States ; and we shall give 
 an example, moreover, to those who remain 
 disloyal as to what they must do obtain admis- 
 sion here. 
 
 Mr. Maushall— Mr. Speaker, tlie gentleman — 
 
 Mr. Raymond— 1 decline to yield at present. I 
 hold that it is not only our duty but our interest 
 to admit loyal members from the Southern 
 States. 
 
 Mr, Maeshall— Mr. Speaker 
 
 Mr. Raymond — I decline to yield. 
 
 Mr. Mabshall — I wish to say that the course 
 of the gentleman ia unfair to thia side of the 
 House. 
 
 Mr. Eaytmond — I submit to the gentleman 
 from Illinoia (Mr. Mabshall) that it is a matter 
 
11 
 
 of personal discom'tesy to persist in breaking in 
 upon the argument of a member upon the floor 
 when he has distinctly declared that he does not 
 desire to bo interrupted. 
 
 Mr. Marshall— Well, I repeat that the course 
 of the gentleman 
 
 [Cries of "Order I order!"] 
 
 Mr. PiAYMOND— I hold that it is our diaty to sot 
 an example in this resi^ect ; to admit those who 
 are quahfied, if any, and to refuse to admit 
 those who aro discpiahficd, if any such present 
 themselves. Suppose, for example, that two 
 men present tliemselves here for admission, the 
 one from Tennessee the other fro a Georgia. I 
 name those States merely for iUustration. One 
 ca7i take the oath wo prescribe, the other cmi- 
 not ; the one presents himself from a State which 
 stands in a loyal attitude and holds loyal rela- ; 
 tions to the Government, the other does not. 
 Now, if we admit the one and exclude the other, 
 we tliereby declare what our purpose is and the 
 principle upon which we act much more loudly 
 and emphaticaUy than wo can possibly do in 
 any other way. Now that, I think, is what we 
 should do. I have held from the beginniug of 
 the session that we should admit the members 
 from Tennessee, because they are entirely loyal 
 and can abide our test. They have had nothing to 
 do with the rebelhon, but have been thoroughly 
 and actively loyal from the beginning of the war. 
 And the testimony submitted to this House by 
 the Committee on Keconstruction on the subject 
 of Tennessee sustains the position I have taken 
 as to the effect of such action. I will not detain 
 the House by reading it, bub I will state as the 
 fact, which I can verify if desired by reference 
 to the testimony, that every single witness who 
 was examined by that Committee, on being asked 
 what in his opinion would be the cflect of ad- 
 mitting members who were qualified and could 
 take the oath, answered without hesitation that 
 it would have a good effect, that it would encom-- 
 age loyalty and discomage disloyalty, not only 
 hi Tennessee, but throughout the Southern 
 Stal es. I tliink we ought to do that now ; I 
 think we ought to have done it at the beginning 
 of the session, and the sooner we can repair om* 
 fault the better. Now that I have finished 
 what I had to say upon that particular point, I 
 will, with great pleasure, listen to the gentleman 
 from nUnois (Mr. Marshall.) 
 
 Mr. Marshall.— I certainly intended no dis- 
 courtesy to the gentleman from New- York (Mr. 
 Raymond) when I interrupted bun a few mo- 
 ments since. A short time befcu-o that he had 
 intimated that he had reason to lieliove that 
 members on this side of the House were in 
 favor of admitting rebels to seats on this floor 
 as members of the House ; and he said he would 
 permit any gentleman on this side to make his 
 
 own statement upon that point. It was only in 
 reply to that that I wished to call his attention, 
 and tliat of tlie House, to the fact that some 
 time ago, in a colloquy between one of my col- 
 leagues (Mr. Kuykendall) and myself, I said 
 that I would not under any circumstances 
 vote to admit any man to a seat on this floor 
 whom I knew to be disloyal to the Govern- 
 ment and to the Constitution ; that I would 
 not, for instance, vote to admit such 
 men as Jefferson Davis, John C. Breck- 
 inridge, or any man who had dohber- 
 ately aided in precipitating oui- county into 
 all the horrors of civil war. I do not think that 
 such men have rightfully any place here. I do 
 not think that there is any gentleman on this 
 side of the House who tliinks or has been dis- 
 posed to urge that any one should be admitted 
 here at this time except those who can come 
 here and conseieutiounly take the oath prescribed 
 by the law as it now stands. We expect, of 
 course, all to be governed by that as long as it 
 remains on the statute-book as part ot the law 
 of the land. 
 
 We have held it to be an outrage to exclude 
 men who were loyal to the Government, have 
 risked their lives and all that is dear to them in 
 the cause of the Union, and can take the oath 
 prescribed by law, from scats upon this floor 
 when they come here with evidence that they are 
 elected as fuU and complete as that of any gen- 
 tleman who has a seat here. 
 
 Now, in regard to the other point presented 
 by the gentleman, I wish to say this : I do think, 
 whether this test oath is held to be unconstitu- 
 tional or not, that at some future time, and I 
 hope ?t an early day, it will be proper, if not 
 entirely to repeal, at least to modify that oath 
 m such manner that if men who have been 
 drawn into the rebeUion, as thousands have 
 been, but are now clearly shown to be true and 
 honest men, faithful to the Union, loyal to the 
 Constitution, and desiring and working for its 
 preservation and perpetuity, when such men 
 come here representing constituencies which 
 are loyal, whatever may have been their errors 
 in the past, if they come now with clean hands 
 and loyal hearts, that they may be admitted to 
 seats upon this floor. And I do not think tl nit 
 we shoidd commit ourselves to the eternal dis- 
 franchisement of such men. It would be viola- 
 tive of every principle of sound statesmanship 
 to do so. That, Sir, is my position. I give it 
 for no one else. I do not insist, nor do I thinlc 
 any member on this side of the House insists at 
 this time, that any one has the right to come 
 here and demand admission as members of this 
 House who does not come according to the l;>w 
 as it stands ujion the statute book. Wiien tlwy 
 do so come, with all the qual Vatious prescribed 
 
12 
 
 by law, I aay it is an outrage upon their rights 
 and a violation of every principle of justice and 
 of the Constitution we have sworn to support 
 to exclude them from seats upon this floor, to 
 which, as I believe, they are as much entitled as 
 the gentleman from New-York or myself. 
 
 Mr. Raymond— I have nothing to say against 
 that position. I ehare the gentleman's hopes 
 and to a considerable extent the opinions he has 
 just expressed. I have at all times been ready 
 and willing to admit the fact, and I have consid- 
 ered it a matter upon which we may congratu- 
 late the country, that a considerable portion, at 
 at all events, of those who act with the Demo- 
 cratic party, have shown a disposition to be just 
 and fair in their action upon this question. I 
 will not enter upon any consideration of excep- 
 tions to this if any could be found. I am glad to 
 see members of the Democratic Party upon this 
 floor and elsewhere giving the Administration 
 their support in what I believe to be a just and 
 proper way of healing the wounds of war and 
 adjusting the difficulties which still divide one 
 section in sentiment and in poUtical action from 
 the other. 
 
 I desire now to resume the line of my argu- 
 ment ; and 1 advertise gentlemen in season, so 
 that they may reflect upon the propriety of 
 granting or refusing my request, that I shall be 
 under the necessity of asking for an extension 
 of my time. My opposition to this bill rests 
 mainly upon this fact, that it prescribes condi- 
 tions-precedent tcrthe admission of representa- 
 tives here which we have no right to prescribe 
 under the Constitution of the United States. The 
 bill asserts, as the principle on which it rests— it 
 estabhshes as a principle and precedent tliis posi- 
 tion— that Congress may, in its discfellon, ex- 
 clude any State frmn being represented, for a 
 longer or shorter time, until Chat State shall comply 
 with such condHions as Congress itself may dictate. 
 That, Sir, perhaps, may be deemed a broad state- 
 ment of the general principle involved in this bill, 
 but I see not how it can be narrowed in justice to 
 the bill itself. We say to these States lately in 
 insurrection, not, "you must resume your atti- 
 tude of loyalty ;" not, "you must obey the laws 
 and support the Constitution of the United 
 States;" not, "you must send men here who 
 IjavQ not been traitors ;" no, Sir, we say to tnose 
 States, recognizing them all the time as States, 
 " you shall not have Eepresentatives upon this 
 floor until you pass certain acts, until you do cer- 
 tain things, until you ratify certain amendments 
 to the Constitution and embody the principles 
 of those amendments in your own constitutions 
 and laws." Now, Sir, we are not acting in this 
 matter for ourselves alone ; we are not acting 
 with especial reference to this particular year 
 of our history ; we are acting for posterity ; we 
 
 are laying down principles of which our suc- 
 cessors may hereafter avail themselves. We 
 prescribe certain conditions, dictate certain acts 
 as the conditions precedent of representation. 
 If we may prescribe these, we may prescribe 
 others. We assert our own disa'etion as the only 
 rule of our action in this respect. Now, assume 
 for a moment that yom* fears prove just, and 
 that rebels and rebel sympathizers take posses- 
 sion of Congress within one, three or five years 
 from the present time. I say the very principle 
 you estabhsh by the enactment of this bill may 
 be cited by them as a precedent, if they wish to 
 take such action, for declaring to Massachusetts, 
 Vermont and New- York that their representa- 
 tives shall not be admitted until, those States 
 shall pass acts which that Congress may pre- 
 scribe. 
 
 Mr. BouTWELL — Does the gentleman from 
 New-York mean to say that South Carolina and 
 New-York stand on the same footing in this 
 respect ? 
 
 Mr. Raymond— I see no difi'erence in princi- 
 ple, none at all. You deny to South Carolina to- 
 day the right to representation on this floor be- 
 cause she has been in rebellion. What is to hin- 
 der the next Congress, if it should be of a differ- 
 ent complexion, from denjdng the right to Mas- 
 sachusetts because she has not been in rebel- 
 lion? 
 
 Mr. Boutwell— Allow me a word. 
 
 IVIr. Raymond — Excuse me a moment. If the 
 House is willing to extend my time I will yield 
 cheerfully, otherwise I must proceed. 
 
 Several Members — Oh, we will extend your 
 time. 
 
 Mr. Raymond— Then I yield to the gentleman. 
 
 Ml-. BotTTWELL — I merely want to say that 
 there are some things so apparent that they do 
 not need argument, and one of them is the dif- 
 ference between a State that has been in rebel- 
 hon and a State that has not been in rebellion. 
 No argument is required to show that the judg- 
 ment of the country may wisely take precautions 
 against people who have been in rebcUion. It 
 would be a monstrous usurpation, which nobody 
 could support, for those who have been in re- 
 bellion to undertake to exercise the same rights 
 as those who had not been in rebeUion. 
 
 [Here the hammer fell.] 
 
 Mr. Bingham obtained the floor and said: I 
 have no desire to cut off the gentleman from 
 New- York from an opportunity of concluding his 
 speech. I hope it wiU be the pleasure of the 
 House to extend his time, and I ask that it be 
 oxte::cled. 
 
 Mr. Wentworth— If he will only make the gen- 
 tleman on the opposite side of the House speak 
 out, he shall have the whole afternoon. 
 
13 
 
 There being no objection mado, Mr. Raymond's 
 
 time was extended. 
 
 Rlr. Eaymond — I am indebted to the House for 
 its courtesy, though I am very much afraid I 
 shall abuse it. 
 
 The gentleman from Massachusetts endeavors 
 to escape from the specific pomt I made by tak- 
 ing refuge in general sentiments and declara- 
 tions. He says there is such a difference between 
 a State that has been and one that has not been 
 in rebelhon as to preclude aU argument on the 
 subject. He would draw the inference that we 
 have a right to do with the one what we please, 
 whUe with the other we can do only what the 
 Constitution prescribes. I say that, while wide 
 differences do unquestionably exist between them 
 in very many most important respects, in their 
 relations to the Constitution and in our relations 
 to them under the Constitution, they stand on 
 exactly the same footing. I say that the powers 
 conferred upon us under the Constitution with 
 reference to one State must be exercised with 
 regard to any other State, and that no other 
 powers can be exercised rightfully, justly, and m 
 accordance with the Constitution of the United 
 States. I take issue, though I do not care to 
 argue the question, with those who take refuge 
 in the fact that a State has done wrong, has been 
 in rebelhon, has waged war upon the Govern- 
 ment, as an excuse or as a reason for violating 
 the Constitution themselves in dealing with that 
 State. We are acting under an oath to obey, de- 
 fend, and protect the Constitution of the United 
 States. I will not judge the consciences of 
 other men ; but I do not feel at Mberty to do 
 anything toward South Carohna and Georgia 
 which the Constitution does not authorize me to 
 do toward other States in the Union — I mean by 
 denying them rights in the Government which 
 the Constitution in express terms confers upon 
 them. I admit that we have a right to take pre- 
 cautions, and to secure ourselves against future 
 rebelhon ; but we must do it in accordance with 
 the Constitution. We cannot claim unMmited 
 discretion. And my great objection to this bill 
 is, that it establishes a principle, so far as our 
 action can estabhsh a principle, of which those 
 holding secession principles, or principles oppo- 
 site to us, may avail themselves to deal with us 
 as we now propose to deal with them. There 
 have been times in the history of the country 
 when, if such a principle as this had been estab- 
 hshed by the previous action of Congress, the 
 men in power would have apphed it to Massa- 
 chusetts, and you would have found men here, 
 with aU the power of the Government at their 
 conamand, ready to deprive Massachusetts of 
 representation upon this floor because that State 
 did not and would not enforce the Fugitive Slave 
 Law. 
 
 Mr. BouTWELL — The difference between the 
 gentleman from New- York and myseh un- 
 doubtedly is that I do not admit that these 
 eleven once States are for the present purposes 
 of government to bo recognized as States. The 
 gentleman fi'om New- York, in all his argument, 
 proceeds upon the idea that they are States 
 clothed with full powers. Now, then, I ask him 
 how he is to reconcile to himself, to liis country, 
 and to posterity the policy which he has sup- 
 ported, and which the President has inaugurated 
 and maintained for the last twelve months, of 
 dictating to South Carolina and other States 
 terms and conditions precedent to their admis- 
 sion or to his recognition of their right to take 
 part in the government of the country. I say that 
 it would be the duty of the gentleman from New- 
 York— a duty from which I myself would not 
 shrink, if I beUeved that South Carohna and Flor- 
 ida were States of this Union, with all the same 
 powers as Massachusetts and New-York— to ar- 
 raign the President of the Umted States for 
 sending to those States such letters and tele- 
 grams as he has dispatched from time to time, 
 I can excuse him only on the groimd that they 
 were not States of the Union with full powers, 
 and that he dealt with them, outside of the Con- 
 stitution, to bo sure, but in the extraordinary 
 circumstances the country was placed, according 
 to his own judgment, and that so far as he went 
 in dictating to them terms and conditions, he 
 did it; and that is aU that Congress proposes to 
 do. The power to be exercised is to be exer- 
 cised not by the executive and judicial depart- 
 ments of the Government, but by the political 
 department of the Government, Congress and 
 the Executive combined. 
 
 Now, if it was right for the President twelve 
 months ago to say that South Carolina and 
 Florida would not be recognized by him unless 
 they subjected themselves to certain rules and 
 conditions prescribed by him, it is now right 
 and proper for Congress and the President to 
 prescribe other conditions. 
 
 Mr. Raymond— The gentleman from Massa- 
 chusetts is a skiUful strategist ; he attempted to 
 escape the point of my remarks first by taking 
 refuge in generahties. Failing in that, he now 
 seeks to divert my attention and that of the 
 House from the point in issue by an attack upon 
 the President. 
 
 Mr. BouTWELL— I made no attack upon the 
 President. 
 
 Mr. Raymond— Well, by raising an issue as to 
 the pohcy of the President. I do not propose to 
 follow him in that hne of remark. It is not at 
 aU germane to this point. I should not hesitate, 
 at the proper time, however, to assert that, in 
 my opinion, the action of the President has been 
 juat and within the exercise w^ia constitutional 
 
14 
 
 authority from the beginning to the end, and to 
 maintain that opinion by such arguments as I 
 might. But at present I waive that. 1 thmk 
 the gentleman states coi-rectly the difl'ercnce be- 
 tween himsell: and me. He says that I consider 
 these States as States of the Union— as under 
 the Constitution, entitled to the protection whicli 
 it secm-es, and bound by all the obligations and 
 duties wliich are imposed and guaranteed by its 
 provisions. In that he is quite correct. I do so 
 hold. He says he does not. Well, Sir, I do not 
 propose, at present, to argue the issue thus 
 raised. I have argued it heretofore at greatev 
 length, I am afraid, than the f»aticnce of the 
 House warranted mo in doing. But I will merely 
 say that the gentleman by this position comes in 
 direct collision with the biU before the House. 
 
 Mr. BouTWELL — I do not support the biU. 
 
 Mr. Raymond — Then, Sir, I cannot press him 
 upon that point. The gentleman is consistent. 
 The bill recognizes these as States; it siDoaks of 
 them in the title and in every section as " the 
 States lately in insurrection." However, as the 
 gentleman says he is not going to support the 
 bill, I cannot hold him to that, and we must be 
 content to differ. I believe these to be States in 
 the Union. I behove that we have no right to 
 treat them otherwise than as the Constitution 
 warrants and authorizes ns to treat them. In 
 my judgment, it does not wan-ant us in saying 
 to them, " You must do certain things whif^h we 
 lirescribo ; you must ratify certain amendments 
 to the Constitution and pass certain laws which 
 we desire you to pass, or your Representatives 
 sliall not be admitted to this floor." I believe that 
 pi-inciplc strikes at the very foundation of our 
 Government. For if there is anything fimdamen- 
 tal in our Government it is the right, the absolute 
 right of representation. Directly or indirectly 
 it belongs to every State, and to all the people 
 of every State. I cannot find any shadow ot 
 right for denjdng it, or for making it conditional, 
 dejjendent ujjon their compliance with terms 
 which wo prescribe. Wliy, Sir, it was out of the 
 denial of that right that our independence grew. 
 The great men who in the English Parliament 
 vindicated the position of this country, and 
 claimed in Parliament that we were right in our 
 rebellion, based that opinion expressly upon the 
 ground that the right of representation was de- 
 nied to us, while wo were subject to laws in the 
 making of which we liad no share. Mr. Bdeke 
 declared this right to be the characteristic mark 
 and badge of British freedom, and on the night 
 when Parliament recognized our independence 
 the liarl of Sheleukne proclaimed that it had 
 been won in vindication of a right which no free 
 nation ever denied — the right of representation 
 iu the maldng of laws wo are required to obey. 
 
 THE AMBITION TO " EECONSTRUCT " THE GOVERN- 
 MENT — AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THEOKISTS. 
 
 I think these general principles will be admit- 
 ted by nearly every one. I know that men are 
 apt to think these i^rinciples may be waived or 
 relaxed a little to suit particular emergencies. 
 Surely, they are apt to say, no harm will come 
 from a slight irregularity of action. True, the 
 Constitution does not warrant this. But this is 
 a peculiar state of things. The people are ex- 
 pecting something, and we must give them some- 
 thing of this kind. Now, I have never yet seen 
 the time when 1 behoved the people expected 
 anything that was not just and right, or that 
 they were ever inclined to exact any action not 
 in consonance with the Constitution of the 
 United States. But so many men have favorite^ 
 theories of their o^vn. Every man has some pe- 
 culiar ideas of what a Government should be, 
 and he thinks that the political chaos which suc- 
 ceeds the war afibrds an opportunity for getting 
 his ideas embodied in the Constitution, and 
 thus make this the model Government he would 
 have it. 
 
 I have never heard this general aspiration 
 expressed more tersely or more frankly than 
 it was by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
 (Mr. Stevens,) not now in his seat, in the re- 
 marks ho made t'le other day in concluding the 
 debate upon the proposed amendment to the 
 Constitution. He then used the following lan- 
 guage : 
 
 "In my youtli, in my manhood, in my oUl age, I 
 had fondly dreamed that when any forluiiatc chance 
 should have hrokcn up for awhile, the foundation of our 
 institutions, and released us from obligations the most ty- 
 rannical Viat ever man imposed in the name of freedom, 
 that the intelligent, pure and just men of this Eepub- 
 lic, true to their professions and their con sciences, 
 would have so remodeled aU our institutions as to 
 have freed them from every vestige of human oppres- 
 sion, of inequality of rights, of the recogniz id degra- 
 dation of the poor and the superior caste of the rich. 
 In short, that no distinction would be tolerated in this 
 purified Republic but what arose from merit and con- 
 duct. This bright dre;im has vanished, ' Uke the base- 
 less fabric of a vision.' I find that we shall be obliged 
 to be content with patchiug up the worst portions of 
 the auciout edifice, and leaving it, in many of its 
 parts, to be swept ihroughby the tempests, the frosts 
 and the storms of despotism." 
 
 Now, Sir, I take it there is scarcely a member 
 on this floor who has not at some time or other 
 indulged in dreams as high and hopeful as those 
 expressed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
 (Mr. Stevens.) But I do not think that 
 many of us, or that many of the people 
 of this country, would concur with him in recog- 
 nizing in the war through which we have just 
 passed that " fortunate chance" which he seems 
 
15 
 
 to consider it, fortunate because it "broke up 
 the foundations of our Government" and gave 
 theorists an opportunity to try theii" experiments 
 upon it. No, Sir, the people of this country look 
 upon this war aa a calamity, one of 
 the direst and most dreadful that God 
 in his providence could send upon any 
 nation ; not unattended vrith compensations, 
 it IS tme, for that same Providence that presides 
 over the dostiniea of the human race, "out of 
 evil still educing good," has given us many com- 
 pensations for the terrible evils with which this 
 war lias been accompanied. It has given us, 
 above all things, the opportunity which, per- 
 haps, nothing else could ever have given us, of 
 pm-if.\-ing this Republic from what was always 
 the chief blot upon its escutcheon, and always 
 poisoned its sources of Uberty and power— the 
 system of Human Slavery. But still the war it- 
 self was a calamity, a dire disaster, and, if it 
 had rcaUy broken uj) the foundations of our 
 Government, if it had shaken m the least that 
 grand temple of liberty which oiu- fathers 
 reared, it would have been tenfold the disaster 
 that it really was. But, Su", it did not. That 
 temple still stands in all its grand and splendid 
 beauty. We have not to "patch up the worst 
 portions of the ancient edifice ;" it was only 
 those parts of the structure, its original defects, 
 that were shaken and shattered by the storm. Not 
 one of its comer-stones has been displaced. Not a 
 single one of the grand arches has been in the 
 least disturbed. Its towers still stand firm as the 
 foundations of human freedom on which they 
 rest. Nor, Sir, will the people of this land agree 
 with the gentleman in denouncing the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States for imposing " obliga- 
 tions the most tyranmcal that overman imposed 
 in the name of freedom." The Constitution was 
 the work of the noblest, purest patriot that ever 
 adorned the annals of any age. It has done 
 more to establish free government, to preserve 
 and pepetuate the principles ol human freedom, 
 than any instrument ever framed, or any form 
 of Government ever established by the hand of 
 man. Those who framed it did not attempt im- 
 possibihties. They did not sacrifice real good 
 within their reach to dreams of distant perfec- 
 tion that was beyond their reach. Doubtless 
 they, lilce other men of lofty spirit and noble as- 
 piration, had their visions — their high ideals of 
 a pure and perfect commonwealth — but they 
 were too wise and too practical in their wisdom 
 to yield themselves to such false though fair il- 
 lusions. Alas ! Sir, how often have such dreams 
 as have beguiled the gentleman from Pennsylva- 
 nia, filled the hearts and disappointed the hopes 
 of noble spu-its in aU ages of the world I Every 
 nation has had experience of their futility. Crom- 
 well, in England, aimed to establish a model 
 
 Eepublic, and under liis mighty sway the grand 
 soul of the sightless Milton beheld, in lofty 
 vision a Commonwealth arise wliich shoidd more 
 than realize the hopes and aspirations of the 
 noblest spirits of the ancient and the modem 
 world. With mircstricted power he forced re- 
 forms beyond the hne where they could com- 
 mand the sympathy of the nation, and a reaction 
 followed which, when Ceomwell's head was be- 
 neath the sod, swept away the model Republic 
 which he had foiuided, and gave place to corrup- 
 tion such as England, in all her history, had 
 never seen before. The leaders of the French 
 Revolution aspired to estabhsh a model Rcpubhc. 
 They, too, had theu* visions and their dreams, 
 bx-ighter, brighter far, than the New Atlantic of 
 Bacon or the Uptopia of Sir Thomas More. No- 
 where, Sir, on the page of history or hterature will 
 you find nobler sentiments, higher aspirations, 
 grander reaches after poHtical perfection, than 
 you will find in the writings of RoBEsriEKRE, of 
 St. Just, of Camille Desmoulins, and others 
 among tho great leading spirits of the Frencli 
 Revolution. They, too, aimed at tlie loftiest 
 ideas of political perfection. Perfect justice, 
 perfect tinith, nothing short of absolute and en- 
 tire perfection, was to boar unrestricted sway in 
 the realm of then- creation. luequahty of rights 
 and of condition, all distinctions of rich and 
 poor, were to disappear forever, and nothing 
 was to have toleration for an hour but what 
 arose from merit and conduct. But, alas I Sir, 
 that bright di'eam, too, vanished like the "base- 
 less fabric of a vision." That reinibhc sank in a 
 sea of blood, and out of that sea rose the red 
 right hand of remorseless power which clutctied 
 all the rights of the people in its grasji, and 
 plunged France into a tyrrany ten-fold worse 
 than she had ever felt before. 
 
 This, Su", is too often the sad consummation 
 of attem]3ts to enforce reforms uj)on an age and 
 a people that are not ready for them. Model 
 repubUcs, noble and perfect commonwealths, 
 where no wrong shall find toleration and no man 
 lack justice, are the object of all good men's de- 
 sires. But they are not let do\vu by miracle 
 from the vault of heaven. They spring not un 
 like the prophet's goiu'd, in a single night, or if 
 they do, Uke that prophet's gourd, they wither 
 and die with the first touch of tho morning sim. 
 They come not on tho heels of war. They can 
 never be the birth of passion, they can only be 
 the steady growth of time and the patient 
 efforts of the wise and good. War may 
 sweep away obstacles that obstruct their 
 growth, as war with us has swojit away hu- 
 man slavery, which is always and every- 
 where the foe of everything in character and 
 society that is noble, just and wise. And war 
 may warm the soil swept by its bloody breath, 
 
16 
 
 BO that seeds of reform shaU the sooner sprmg 
 up and ripen to maturity. We hear much said in 
 glorification of men who are, in ideas and aspi- 
 rations, in advance of their age. They are con- 
 sidered the prophets and the leaders of humanity; 
 and so they are. But they are not the states- 
 men, the workmen, the leaders of their immedi- 
 ate time. They are not the practical men who 
 hring to pass the glories they predict. I have 
 found. Sir, in my experience and observation, 
 that, so far as practical results are concerned, it 
 is just about as unwise for a man to be ahead of 
 the ago in which he lives as to bo behind it. 
 It 13 like a General inarching a mile ahead of 
 the brigade or the corps that he commands. 
 He might just as well be a mile in its rear. 
 No, Sir ; to be useful to our age we must live 
 with it, walk by its side, sympathize with its 
 wants, feel its necessities, bear its bm-dens, 
 share its prejudices, or at least tolerate them, 
 use the elements of power that belong to it, and 
 not live in the bright ideals of the future or 
 d-svell solely on tQie glories of the far advance. 
 Work with the men of your dav, and you will 
 work to their best advantage, and will do all that 
 man can do to secure and hasten the advent of 
 that brighter time which is the goal and the 
 guerdon of all our hopes. These reforms are 
 growths, not mechanical creations. You can- 
 not make a perfect Government as you would 
 malce a machine. Political institutions obey the 
 laws of growth, and cannot be forced to follow 
 any other laws. You must plant the seed, and 
 await its gradual ripening to matiu'ity — " first 
 the blade, then the ear ; after that the full corn 
 in the ear." Let not the gentleman from Penn- 
 sylvania, then, despau' of the advancement, the 
 purification and perfection of our BepubUc. 
 Ho has borne his part in the grand 
 strife by which its advent is made pos- 
 sible. His eyes, now dimmed with hon- 
 orable age, and with long watching for the 
 day which he so longs to see, may not witness 
 its full meridian; but they have seen its dawn- 
 ing ; and he may rest assured that the work he 
 has so well commenced will not be left undone. 
 But let him not be too impatient to force it 
 on, or he may turn the dial backward and ruin 
 all. As to the specific reforms of which we 
 are speaking, I believe the day will soon come 
 when tliere will be no distinction of rights, 
 civil or political, on the ground of color. That 
 distinction grew out of Slavery. In the early 
 days of the Republic, before Slavery had be- 
 come the gigantic power it afterward grew to 
 be, there was no such distinction of color so 
 far as suffrage was concerned. It was the fruit 
 of Slavery, and it received its death-blow when 
 Slavery perished. The abohtion of Slavery 
 swept away the very foundation of that cruel 
 
 prejudice, and just as soon aa the public mind, 
 the mind and thought of those most directly 
 concerned in the solution of this question, 
 cornea to realize this fact and is loft free to 
 weigh its meaning, just so soon will the great 
 reform begin. I have no doubt that the people 
 of the Southern States will find it to be greatly 
 to their interest in due time — in a very short time 
 unless diverted from its consideration by hostile 
 pressure from without— to establish political suf- 
 frage and civil rights on other foundations than 
 those of color, and to do all we think necessary 
 to perfect our republican institutions. But by 
 pressing such reforms before the summer has 
 prepared the soil, we simply insure their being 
 nipped by untimely frosts. By forcing them 
 upon the people of other States, in advance of 
 that public sentiment by which alone they can 
 be sustained, we provoke hostihties which will 
 outlive then* cause and postpone for years, per- 
 haps for generations, the very reforms we seek 
 to promote. They must spring from another 
 soil and bo cherished by other cultui'e. 
 They must como from culture of the pubUc 
 conscience, from education, from experience 
 of life, and that vnse regard for the rights of 
 others which the full and free enjoyment of our 
 own never fails to teach. It is, and always must 
 be, for the interest, the peace, the comfort, the 
 prosperity, the safety, even, of the people in the 
 Southern States to give to all who live in the 
 midst of their society aU the rights and privi- 
 leges to which, by virtue of their common hu- 
 manity, they are entitled. We may safely trust 
 to the influence of this aU-porvadmg, ever-work- 
 ing pripciple for the reforms which the South 
 may need. The less we meddle with the opera- 
 tion of this law of social and pohtical growth the 
 more rapidly will it work out its own results. 
 We may aid its development and stimulate its 
 growth by promoting harmony of interest and 
 of feeling between the two races thus brought 
 face to face. But if wo take such steps as shall 
 tend to plant distrust between them and array 
 them in hostihty to each other, we shall only 
 postpone, and perhaps defeat altogether, the 
 consummation we so much desire. 
 
 But, Sir, I will not follow this train of thought 
 any further. I deem it unwise in policy, as weU 
 as unjustified by any just theories of the status 
 of the Southern States, or of the effect of the 
 rebellion, to attempt the " reconstruction " of om- 
 Government from its foundations. I believe the 
 President takes a far wiser view of our interests 
 and necessities when he seeks the " restoration " 
 of our Union to its old integrity, and of our Gov- 
 ernment to its ancient normal operation under 
 the Constitution of the United States. Our 
 fathers laid the conier-sfcone of our institutions 
 on the great principle of self-government. They 
 
t 
 
 17 
 
 held that all who are subjects of law should have 
 a voice, directly or indirectly, in making the law. 
 They held that the consent of the governed was 
 the only just source of the power of rulers — not 
 under some circumstances, but under all. They 
 did not behave Great Britain had a right to im- 
 pose taxes upon two million subjects who wore 
 not represented in her Parliament, and they re- 
 belled because they were thus ruled. They held 
 that rebeUion to be just. They earned praise 
 and eternal fame, and won their independence 
 and a national existence by that rebelhon. Do 
 you beUeve, Sir, they would have deemed it 
 right for the Government of the United States 
 to make laws for eight miUions of their people 
 who were to obey those laws and have no voice 
 in making them ? Is that in harmony without 
 system ? Is it not an open, flagrant repudiation 
 of the only principle on which our Government 
 rests ? You tell me it is temporary, conditional. 
 I care not. It asserts a right which cannot exist 
 an hour without violating the fundamental prin- 
 ciple of our institutions. You tell me these 
 eight millions have forfeited their rights ; that 
 they have ceased to be States ; that they are 
 conquered provinces, subject only to the laws of 
 war. I do not believe a word of it. The theory 
 has no warrant in our Constitution or in the 
 theory of our Government. 
 
 THE BEST METHOD OF ENCOUKAGING AND STRENGTH- 
 ENING LOYALTY IN THE SOUTH. 
 
 But I waive all that. If I were to grant it all 
 it would make no dilference in my action on this 
 question. If we had the power asserted in all 
 its plenitude I would not use it, because I do not 
 beheve it would be for the interest of the coun- 
 try that it should be used, I say with Edmund 
 BuEKE, in his great speech in the English Par- 
 liament in 1775, on "conciliation with America " 
 — which, by the way, I think is better adapted 
 to the state of our public aflairs at the present 
 moment than nine-tenths of those made on this 
 floor, my own included — " It is not what a lawyer 
 tells me I may do ; it is what hum,anity, justice 
 and reason teils me I oxight to do. The question is 
 not with me whether we have the right to make 
 our people miserable, but whether it is not our 
 interest to make them happy." We are not seek- 
 ing the settlement of a case in a county court ; 
 we are seeking the tranquillity of an imperial 
 repubhc. We are aiming at the loftiest and 
 highest results which it is pennitted to man to 
 aspire to anywhere or at any time — the peace, 
 order, strength, prosperity and power of Ameri- 
 ca and the welfare of the human race. So that 
 be wisely and conscientiously sought, I care not 
 for technicahties. I say that, in my judgment, 
 the interest of this nation, the interest of every 
 State in this Union, the interest of every man in 
 
 every State of this Union demands that we shall 
 consider this question upon a different basis, a 
 different footing altogether. That interest de- 
 mands we shall treat this question as we have 
 treated all others hitherto, on the basis of the 
 principles which he at the foundation of our 
 Government, with a wise regard to the impulses 
 and weaknesses of human nature and a steady 
 reference to the circumstances and general char- 
 acter and condition of those with whom we have 
 to deal. You teU me these men are not fit to share 
 in the Government ; that tney are sullen, resent- 
 ful, defiant; that they still cling to the right of se- 
 cession. Grant it. How are we to make them 
 better fitted? Will coercion, will exclusion 
 do it? Will thfey change their opinions 
 because we refuse ijaem representation ? 
 Will they love us with all their hearts 
 because we deny them all participation 
 in our and their affairs ? Will they become con- 
 verts to our principles because we deny their 
 right to hold others ? Will they deem us models 
 ot courage because we brand their dead sons 
 who perished in their cause as cowards, and de- 
 nounce as felons the weeping women who strew 
 flowers on the graves of their heroic dead ? We 
 can know httle of human nature if we dream of 
 such results. 
 
 You admit that dm'ing the first six months 
 after their surrender their demeanor was unim- 
 peachable. You say they have changed and be- 
 come defiant, and you attribute this change to 
 the leniency they received at the hands of the 
 President. Ai'e you quite sure you have hit the 
 light reason? Is it not barely possible that 
 your own action may have had something to do 
 with this alleged change of the pubhc mind in 
 the Southern States? I think I shall not be 
 contradicted in point of fact when I say that 
 during the Summer of last year, from the 
 time the rebels laid down their arms 
 until the meeting of Congress, the feehng ot 
 the Southern States toward the National Gov- 
 ernment was one of submission, of acquiescence, 
 and of readmess to renew, in sincerity and in 
 truth, their allegiance to the Constitution and 
 Government of the United States. Now, what. 
 Sir, has changed that temper, so far as it has 
 been changed at all ? I think, there is fair rea- 
 son for behoving that when Congress assumed a 
 hostile attitude, when it began to declare that 
 the people of the South were not fit to take part 
 in the Government, that they had forfeited all 
 their right, and could not be admitted to repre- 
 sentation, that they were conquered subjects, 
 and fellow-citizens no longer ; when we began to 
 give currency to hostUe and mischievous reports 
 from the South, magnifying every instance of 
 violence and of crime, charging them wholly to 
 poUtical causes, and on the strength of those 
 
18 
 
 allegations, entering npon hostile legislation, 
 I think it not at all impossible that the effect 
 of this action upon the Southern mind was first 
 to arrest its loyal tendencies, and then to make 
 it sullen, defiant and hostile. I think I have 
 some warrant for this opinion in a knowledge of 
 what would take place in my own or in the mind 
 of every one of us under similar chcumstances. 
 Is there any man here, I care not what may be 
 his opinion on the general subject, who does 
 not feel in his heart that hostihty and distrust 
 toward him from others would engender hostihty 
 in his own mind toward them ? Is there any- 
 thing in hximan nature to controvert this general 
 statement? Can any man point me to an in- 
 stance in history in which any society or nation, 
 great or small, was ever coerced into sympathy 
 of sentiment with the 3ominant power by meas- 
 ures of force ? I have hitherto so often referred 
 to historical precedents on this subject that I am 
 unwilling to refer to them agam ; and yet they 
 cannot be cited too often. Did coercion bring 
 Hungary to sympathize with Austria, to acknowl- 
 edge Austrian rule, or yield prompt and cheertul 
 obedience to Austrian decrees ? For fifteen years 
 under this discipline, Hungary was defiant, and 
 maintained a haughty and sullen independence ; 
 and Austria, feehng more and more the need of 
 her sympathy and aid, was finally forced to con- 
 cede everything that Hungary had claimed, an 
 independent Parliament and the right to crown 
 her own kings. Has the hostile feehng of Ire- 
 land been assuaged by the treatment she has ex- 
 perienced at the hands of England ? Has Poland 
 become less hostile by reason of her treatment 
 by Russia ? The greatest example ever afforded 
 in the history of the world of the attempt on 
 the part of a ruling power to coerce opinion and 
 make men think like their oppressors is furnish- 
 ed by the Inquisition. Force was never apphed 
 so directly and so sharply upon the object sought 
 to be accompUshed, and what was the result ? 
 We are not using the machinery of the Inquisi- 
 tion, it is true ; we are not employing "Luke's 
 iron boot or Damien's bed of steel ;" but we are 
 acting upon the identical principles which were 
 then avowed. Now, Sir, nations are like men. 
 Communities are but aggregations of individu- 
 als. If you treat them kindly you make them 
 friends. If you treat them with hostihty inevi- 
 tably and by a natui-al law they become enemies. 
 In my judgment. Sir, if there is anything es- 
 tablished by the law of human nature, by what 
 we know of the elements of influence on socie- 
 ties and States and by the experience of nations 
 in all ages, it is that the people of these States 
 can never be made more loyal, more heartily 
 attached to our Government and better fitted to 
 share its councils by exdudmg them all, loyal 
 and disloyal alike, from all participation in them. 
 
 Every year of such exclusion will only make 
 them worse. I do not say we have not the 
 physical power to enforce obedience upon them, 
 to govern them by force and not by consent, 
 but I do say that if we continue that system 
 three, five or seven years longer we must quad- 
 ruple our armies and double the taxes we impose 
 upon the people to-day. ^ 
 
 THE NATUEE OF THE TTNION PARTY — THE DEMO- 
 CEATIO PABTY DURING THE WAS. 
 
 And now. Sir, before I close my remarks, al- 
 ready much too long, I desire to say a few words 
 upon the relation of the action we may take here 
 to the Union Party — that party which is to-day 
 in possession of all departments of the Govern- 
 ment, and which is responsible for the conduct 
 of public affairs. I speak not of party in any 
 narrow sense, nor as an agency for procuring 
 patronage, place and power for selfish reasons or 
 for selfish ends, but as an agent of pohtical 
 reform, as a means of promoting the public good. 
 The Union Party has carried this country 
 through the war. The gentleman from Wiscon- 
 sin (Mr. Eldridge) made the remark the other 
 day that "we have saved the Union," and, as at 
 that moment the discussion was of a somewhat 
 partisan character, I, perhaps rather hastily, drew 
 the inference that he intended to say that the 
 Democratic Party had saved the Union. A 
 little reflection, however, satisfied me that this 
 was a misapprehension of his meaning ; because 
 neither he nor anybody else will deny, I think, 
 that what is known as the Union Party has 
 carried the coimtry through the war by which 
 the rebellion has been quelled. That party 
 grew out of the necessities which the rebeUion 
 created. The party in opposition to the Demo- 
 cratic Party at the commencement of the war 
 was the Kepubhcan Party. That was formed for 
 the purpose of checking the aggressions of Slav- 
 ery. It had done that effectually. But its suc- 
 cess furnished the occasion and the pretext for 
 the rebelhon, and out of the necessity of crush- 
 ing the rebellion grew up the Union Party, com- 
 posed of the bulk of the Eepublican Party, and 
 of accessions— large accessions, I am proud to 
 say — from what had been known as the Demo- 
 cratic Party of the Northern and Western States. 
 There were to be found in the Union Party thou- 
 sands of men who, the moment the country was 
 in danger, abandoned party organizations, and 
 joined those who sustained the Administration 
 upon which devolved the duty of suppressing 
 the rebeUion. The Democratic Party, as an or- 
 ganization, did not assume that position. Its 
 attitude was one of continued opposition. The 
 Union Party was then left to carry the coimtry 
 through the war, and its labors were crowned 
 with success, and it gained what any party which 
 
19 
 
 renders great services ■will always gain, a strong, 
 powerful hold upon the sympathy, the attach- 
 ment, the confidence and the gratitude of the 
 people of the United States. 
 
 Mr. NiBLACK — I desire to inquire if the gentle- 
 man from New-York intends to create the im- 
 pressiqh that the Union Party has done all the 
 work as a party, and to exclude the idea that 
 men of all parties have contributed to the work 
 in their humble way. 
 
 Ml". Raymond — By no means. I know and have 
 already said that men of all parties contributed 
 their aid ; but I repeat that, as an organization, 
 the Democratic Party did not sustain or aid the 
 Government in prosecuting the war by which 
 the rebellion was quelled. 
 
 Mr. NiBLACK — I concede that the Union Party 
 appointed the Generals, held the ofHces, and 
 controlled the poUtical power of the country, but 
 I insist that, in proportion to numbers, the 
 Democratic Party did quite as much in fm-nish- 
 ing men and means to carry on the war. It is 
 untrue — I say it in no offensive sense — that the 
 Union Party is entitled to aU the credit. It was 
 the work of the people, although they had to do 
 the work under men of the Union Party, under 
 the Admmistration that happened to be in 
 power as their representative for the time being. 
 We had no representatives in power, and we 
 had, therefore, to work under the banner of 
 that party. But I repudiate the idea 
 that the great portion of the people en- 
 gaged in the work had any connection what- 
 ever with the Union Party. The appeal made 
 to the countiy was that in this matter there 
 was no party ; that we must come forward as a 
 people and sustain the Government, and sustain 
 the Administration as a matter of course ; and, 
 that when the war was over, we could again re- 
 solve ourselves in our original elements, and 
 go back to our party. I say, therefore, that all 
 this talk about the Union Party being entitled to 
 all the credit is unfair and ilhberal, and in vio- 
 lation of the published speeches and pledges 
 made to the country during the war by men of 
 the Union or RepubUcan Party. It is calculated 
 to make an unfair impression on the country, 
 and if it goes into history, it will be unfair and 
 untrue in history. I regret that the gentleman, 
 in arguing this question, should indulge in 
 these partisan and iUiberal remarks, which, with 
 all respect to him, I say are unworthy of his 
 position. 
 
 Mr. Raymond — The gentleman seems to be 
 under the impression, or seeks to convey the 
 idea, that the suppression of the rebeUion was a 
 voluntary work on the part of the people, acting 
 as mdividuals, and in that sense he claims, and 
 perhaps justly, that members of the Democratic 
 
 Party did quite as much as members of the 
 Union Party. 
 
 Mr. NiBLACK — I say that m proportion to our 
 numbers we did quite as much as the Union 
 Party. 
 
 Mr. Raymond — I wish to state one respect in 
 which they did not do as much. I acknowledge 
 that the voluntaiy cilorts of individuals entered 
 largely into the suppression of the rebeUion. 
 . Mr. NiBLACK — I claim that in the section of 
 country from whence I come the Democratic 
 Party did more than any other party in that re- 
 spect. And that is the case with many others 
 on this side of the House. It was held that it 
 was the work of the people, and neither the 
 Democratic party nor any other party should 
 claim the entire credit for it now. 
 
 Mr. Raymond — If the gentleman is done, I hope 
 he will not again interrupt me when I begin to 
 reply to his remarks. 
 
 Mr. NiBLACK — I beg the gentleman's pardon ; 
 I did not intend to interrupt him in an improper 
 manner. 
 
 Mr. Raymond— I say again that I wish to point 
 out one respect in which the Democratic Party, 
 as an organization, did not do as touch as the 
 Union Party did toward suppressing the rebel- 
 lion. I concede that to a great extent the efforts 
 of individuals, in contributions of money, in vol- 
 unteering for the army, and other things of that 
 sorti contributed very largely indeed to the sup- 
 pression of the rebellion. I am not prepared, 
 and I am certainly not disposed, to deny that 
 members of the Democratic Party in that way 
 did their fuU share. But this was a pubhc war ; 
 it was a war waged by the Government against 
 a rebeUion seeking its overthrow. Of course the 
 war was earned on by the Government, and it 
 could have been carried on in no other way. 
 The Government organized war upon the rebel- 
 lion, raised the money by which that war was 
 carried on, and thus incuiTed a debt of three or 
 four thousand miUion doUars. It passed such 
 laws as the necessities of the case required. 
 Without those laws, without those measures 
 which gave vigor, force and effect to the opera- 
 tions of the Government, the rebeUion would 
 have been a success ; and if the Gov- 
 ernment had not been supported by 
 votes, by pubUc confidence, and by acts 
 of Congress in carrying on that war, the 
 rebelUon would have triumphed, and the Gov- 
 ernment would have been overthrown. Now, I 
 say that instead of supporting the Government 
 in carrying on the war, the Democratic Party, 
 as an orgamzation, opposed and resisted U from 
 first to last. That statement I believe to be 
 hteraUy correct. Its votes in this House were 
 hostile to the Government. It did not vote for 
 men; it did not vote for money; it did notsus- 
 
20 
 
 tain the Administration by ite confidence or its 
 aid ; it opposed its measnres, and sought to vin- 
 dicate its action by denouncing the war as unjust, 
 or by claiming that if just, it could not succeed 
 in what it had undertaken to do, namely, to re- 
 store the Union ; and the last act of the Demo- 
 cratic Party, as it was dragging itseli' slowly and 
 painfully . o its grave, was to declare in a Nation- 
 al Convention that so far as restoring the Union 
 was concerned, the war was a failure. 
 
 Mr. Johnson — Will the gentleman from New- 
 York (Mr. Eaymond) allow me to say a few words 
 in response to the sentiment he has just ut- 
 tered? 
 
 Mr. Rasnoni)— Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Johnson — I have not troubled the House 
 much during this session on account of sickness, 
 which nas confined me to my room. But when 
 the gentleman who comes here this session, and 
 after the war is over, while I have served here 
 from the time of the commencement of the war 
 to this hour, when he undertakes to assert here 
 that there was a Democratic Party on the floor 
 of this House which steadily opposed the war 
 during that time, I tell him to examine the record 
 and he will find his statement to be false. When 
 Congress met here on the 4th day of July, 1861, 
 under the call of Mr. Lincoln, that gentleman 
 ought to know that his own party cry was, "A 
 truce to all parties." He ought to know that the 
 Democrats met here and made no nomination 
 for any office of this House whatever. Not 
 till last December did they attempt to indicate 
 a party nomination. He ought to know, fur- 
 ther, that while the Government, or the Ad- 
 ministration if he will, was carrying on the war 
 in the field, it also carried on a war against the 
 people. It knew no man for any office within 
 its gift unless he voted for Mr. Lincoln and Mr. 
 Hamlin in 1860. Go through your whole list of 
 offices. Look at your foreign ministers ; look at 
 the men in the offices around here ; look at the 
 offices created by the very necessities of the 
 war ; look at the post-offices ; look at the posi- 
 tions in the field. Where is the Democrat who 
 was appointed to a single ofilce, even a cross- 
 roads post-office ? Yet the gentleman from New- 
 York admits that, in furnishing material for the 
 field, in furmshing money and men, the Demo- 
 crats did their duty and their whole duty. I ask 
 him, in God's name, what was it that crushed 
 the rebelhon, if it was not men and money ? We 
 are talking now about crushing the rebellion. 
 Yet the gentleman says now that the Demo- 
 cratic Party, in its dying agonies, declared that 
 the war had failed to restore the Union. I ask 
 him whether he says that the war has restored 
 the Union to-day? Where is your restored 
 Union? It is in the hands of your Committee 
 of Reconstruction. Does the gentleman accept 
 
 the word "reconBtmction " for his platform? 
 Does he not understand the difference between 
 " reconstmction " and "restoration?" Had the 
 war restored the Union on the 29th day of Au- 
 gust, 1864, when the Chicago Convention sat ? 
 flas it restored it now? It has crushed the re- 
 beUion. The army m the field has done its duty. 
 The Commander-in-Chief of the army and every 
 subordinate under him have done their duty. 
 They crushed the rebellion a year ago. But is 
 there not a pohtical party here in Congress to- 
 day that refuses to restore the Union — a party 
 that seeks not its restoration ? The gentleman 
 from New- York plays between the two. He is 
 opposed to reconstruction, and does not standby 
 restoration. Now, Sir, I say that it comes with 
 an ill grace from the gentleman, who knows so 
 well what the history of the country has been 
 dm'ing the war, to make this general and sweep- 
 ing charge. I know it has been re- 
 peated from time to time. I will tell 
 the gentleman where the Hne was di'awn. 
 As to all the party measm-es brought up in 
 this House, the Democrats voted against 
 them as they had a right to vote, even if they 
 were not particularly conscientious about the 
 matter, if they were party measures and noth- 
 ing more. Upon those we divided. But look 
 at your appropriation bills? Wno were the men 
 that voted against them ? Who were the men 
 that called the yeas and nays ? Even Mr, Val- 
 LANDiGHAM ucvcr votod against the appropria- 
 tion of a single man or a single dollar. [Cries of 
 "Ohl" "Oh I"] Gentlemen may say "Oh!" 
 "Oh I "but Mr. Vallandigham and I sat near 
 to each other, and I know that he did not vote 
 either way. [Laughter.] I challenge gentle- 
 men to the record. They are able to read ; let 
 them read it for themselves. What I say is that 
 there was no Democratic organization here in 
 this House. Gentlemen ought to know that. 
 
 Mr. Raymond — I am a little surprised to hear 
 the gentlemen say that there was no Democrat- 
 ic organization through the war. Did I undw- 
 stand him to say that there was no Democratic 
 organization, no attempts of the Democratic 
 Party to maintain an organization during the 
 war? 
 
 Mr. Johnson — There was no Democratic or- 
 ganization in this House. I was speaking of 
 this House. 
 
 Mr. Raymond — I was not in this House at that 
 time ; and as the gentleman was he ought to 
 know its history better than myself. But if the 
 votes of members as they stand on the record, 
 with which record I was at the time somewhat 
 famihar, indicated anything, they indicated a 
 purpose to maintain that organization, and to 
 vote against the Government at every point 
 where they could do so without being held 
 
21 
 
 to a rigid and troublesome responsibility by 
 the country. I certainly did not know that 
 that party disbanded as a party. I was under 
 the impression that, in the different 
 Congressional districts, it ran ca^Jdidates 
 against the Administration Party ; that in the 
 different States it ran candidates for Governor 
 against the Administration Party. I know that 
 this was so in my own State ; and I know the 
 grounds which that party took in that State. It 
 took ground against the Administration, against 
 the conduct of the war, and against the principles 
 on which the war was waged. I know that the 
 Democratic Governor in our State proclaimed 
 that the real enemy of the hberties of the coun- 
 try was the Administration which was can-ymg 
 on the war ; that its overthrow was even more 
 important than the defeat of the rebels in the 
 field ; that certainly led me to believe then, as I 
 believe now, that the Democratic Party main- 
 tained its organization throughout the country 
 all through the war, and that, as a party, while 
 many individual members of it acted otherwise, 
 it resisted the Administration, opposed its meas- 
 ures, denounced its poHcy, and threw the whole 
 weight of its action and influence against 
 the efforts it was makiiag to quell the rebellioH. I 
 think the country regards this as having been 
 the attitude of that party through the war, 
 though I am glad to know the gentleman from 
 Pennsylvania is not now by any means the only 
 member of that party who would disavow and 
 escape the responsibility of its action. The 
 gentleman asks me if the Union was restored 
 when the Chicago Convention met. Certainly 
 not ; but that Convention pronounced against 
 the only means by which its restoration was 
 possible — the queUing of the rebeUion by force. 
 It demanded a cessation of hostilities and the 
 abandonment of the war. Suppose the Demo- 
 cratic Party had succeeded in that demand, 
 would the restoration of the Union have been 
 as near as it is now ? The gentleman asks me 
 if the Union is restored to-day. I am sorry to 
 say it is not ; but it is certainly nearer a just 
 and safe restoration than it would have been if 
 the Democratic Party had succeeded in the last 
 election. It is in the hands of those who will 
 restore it, as I trust and beheve, on just princi- 
 ples and on the basis of the Constitution. I beg 
 gentlemen not to misunderstand me. I do not 
 denounce the mass, the individual members of 
 the Democratic Party as disloval or as having 
 opposed the war. While I render full tribute to 
 the mass of that party and acknowledge the aid 
 they gave the war, I must still insist that the 
 action of the party as an organization was not in 
 support of the Government or m aiding the 
 prosecution of the war. It complained then, as 
 the gentleman complains now, that it did not get 
 
 its share of patronage or of office. Yet it had 
 two members of the Cabinet ; it had, I beheve, a 
 majority of the officers of highest grades in the 
 field, and a far greater share ol other official 
 places than under ordinary circumstances is 
 ever given by any Administration to its op- 
 ponents. 
 
 Mr. Johnson — I ask the gentleman to yield tr> 
 me for a moment. 
 
 Mr. Raymond— Yes, Sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson — The gentleman understands' 
 very well the position which I occupy and which. 
 I maintain. 
 
 Ml". Raymond— I beg the gentleman to under- 
 stand I do not speak of him individually. I do 
 not speak personally of any one. I speak of the 
 organization. 
 
 Mr. Johnson— From the position which the 
 gentleman has assumed, from the fact that the 
 Democratic Party existed in the country, does 
 he tell me and this House that the organization 
 of the Democratic Party in a time of war is 
 deleterious to the purpose of carrying on that 
 war? 
 
 Mr. Raymond— That depends on its action. 
 
 Mr. Johnson— The gentleman assumed that 
 the Democratic Party existed here as an organi- 
 zation. I say, speaking of the Representatives 
 on this floor, that they were not here, as the 
 gentleman alleges, opposing the Administration 
 in " crushing out " the rebellioo. I say, so far 
 as "crushing out" the lebeUion is concerned, 
 the members of the Democratic Party did not 
 stand together as a party. There was no Demo- 
 cratic Party on that point. The Democracy of 
 the country in the organization took the position 
 of " crushing out" the rebellion. But there is 
 one thing which the gentleman himself is now 
 voting for which places obstacles, now that the 
 war is over, in the way of restoring the Union 
 untU the great abolition maw of the country 
 may be filled and satiated ; and that one thing 
 is the proposition to postpone the restoration of 
 the Union until 1870. The gentleman will recol- 
 lect the Crittenden resolution of July 22, 1861, 
 declaring that when the rebellion was crushed 
 the war should end. 
 
 Mr. Raymond— The gentleman must excuse me. 
 
 Mr. Johnson— My distinguished colleague 
 from Lancaster (Mr. Stevens) voted " no " on 
 that proposition. 
 
 Mr. Raymond— I desire to finish what I have 
 to say some time to-day, and I shall not be able 
 to do so if I yield the floor for a general discus- 
 sion of past party relations to gentlemen on the 
 other side of the house. 
 
 Mr. Johnson — I want the gentleman to answer " 
 me whether the Union is restored to-day, and 
 whether it can ever be restored until all the peo- 
 
 X 
 
22 
 
 pie are represented in the law-making power of 
 the Government? 
 
 Mr. Raymond— Mr. Speaker, I do not know 
 whether 
 
 Mr. NiBLAOK— Will the gentleman yield one 
 moment? 
 
 Mr. Raymond — Just for a question. 
 
 Mr. NiBLACK — I desire to inquire whether or 
 no the great majority of the party to which the 
 gentleman belongs does not oppose the present 
 Administration, and whether in doing so they 
 are disloyal to the Government or not. 
 
 Mr. Raymond— Mr. Speaker, I do not propose 
 to enter into a discussion of all the new issues 
 which the gentlemen on the other side seek to 
 spring upon me just now. The present Admin- 
 istration, so far as I am aware, is not conduct- 
 ing a war, nor is it seeking to quell a rebellion ; 
 therefore opposition to that Administration,how- 
 ever unw'so and injurious it may be, cannot be 
 confounded with disloyalty to the Government. 
 I repeat what I said before, in spite of aU that 
 has been urged against it, that the Democratic 
 organization as such did not aid the Ad- 
 ministration in carrying the countrv through 
 the war. The Administration, I repeat, had the 
 conduct of the war. It did not exclude members 
 of the Democratic Parly from participation in its 
 councils, but admitted them and invited their 
 cooperation. It strove in every possible way to 
 get them to act with it, or in any way so as to 
 give vigor to the war. It took its members into 
 its Cabinet and placed eminent Democrats m the 
 field. And yet I beheve that wherever a promi- 
 nent Democrat anyv/here undertook to sustaiji 
 the Administration in the prosecution of the war, 
 that man was read out of its organizationjust as 
 soon as they could reach him. I might cite in- 
 dividual instances to prove this, but it is not 
 worth while to prolong this discussion. 
 
 BESTORATION — NECESSITY OF NATIONALIZING THE 
 UNION PABTY. 
 
 Now, Sir, as to restoring the Union, we are on 
 the way to it. We ought to have done it sooner, 
 I admit. The gentlemen on the opposite side 
 will admit, as gentlemen on my side will 
 allege against n^e, that I have done aU in my 
 power to complete that work. It is not my fault 
 that loyal men who have been sent from the 
 Southern States lately in rebellion are not in their 
 seats here to-day. I have been ready at any time 
 to act upon the question of their admission fi'om 
 the day I entered Congress till the present time. 
 I deny the assertion of the gentleman from 
 Pennsylvania that I have thrown obstacles in 
 the way of their admission or of the complete 
 restoration of the Union. I have striven for both 
 — steadily, consistently, and upon principles 
 which I avowed at the outset, and to which I 
 
 have sought in every possible way to give ef- 
 fect. And I intend to do so still. The gentle- 
 man asks me when the Union will be restored. 
 If it depended upon me, Sir, it would he re- 
 stored this day, so far as the admrssion 
 of loyal members from loyal States to 
 Confess could restore it. I hope it will be 
 restored soon — the sooner tbe better — by the 
 action of the Union Party which holds all the 
 departilients of the Government, and is especial- 
 ly responsible for the action of Congress. As 
 I said, when this interruption occurred, that 
 party has established a strong hold on the 
 confidence of the country by carrying the coun- 
 try through the war and queUing the rebeUion 
 which threatened its existence. It owes it to 
 the nation to complete the work so well begun ; 
 to build on the foundation so nobly and so suc- 
 cessfully laid; and not to forfeit by unwise 
 poUtical action the confidence it has earned 
 by its conduct of the wai. It is just as much 
 the duty of the Union Party to-day to complete 
 the restoration of the Union, to restore every 
 State to its just rights and relations under the 
 Constitution, as it was five years ago, and every 
 day thereafter, to wage vigorous and successful 
 war upon the rebellion which threatened the 
 nation's Ufe. And the first great duty it has 
 to perform in the accomplishment of this end 
 is so to extend Us organization and so liberalize its 
 spirit as to become a national instead of a section- 
 al parly, as events have compelled it to be 
 hitherto. In 1852 the last national convention 
 of the party opposed to the aggressions of Slav- 
 ery was held. From that time to this we have 
 been compelled to wage a sectional warfare. But 
 now that necessity no longer exists. There is 
 no further need, no longer an excuse for a sec- 
 tional organization, and the duty of the Union 
 party to-day is to extend itself into every South- 
 ern State, and become a national party in or- 
 ganization as it is in interest, and as it should be 
 in its principles, its purpose, and its sympathies. 
 The great obstacle to national political action. 
 Slavery, has disappeared. We encounter no 
 longer in the Southern States that great power 
 which bound them to each other and divided 
 them from all the world beside. Their interests 
 are no longer hostile to ours. They are no 
 longer closed against friendly counsels, friendly 
 svmpathies, and friendly efiorts -On the part of 
 the North. Thoy have the same interest in the 
 Constitution that we have, and there is nothing 
 that can make the South again a compact unit 
 in its poUtical action hereafter but hostility on 
 our part toward it. 
 
 Sir, I long to see the day when the Union Party 
 shall take ground that will command the sym- 
 pathies of the Union-loving men all over this 
 broad RepubUc, and give it that base of liberaU- 
 
23 
 
 tj, generosity and constitutional freedom to 
 which by its organization, by its prin- 
 ciples, and by its history, it is entitled. When 
 it shall have done that, it will hold a position 
 from which nothing can drive it. I repeat, Sir, 
 that the great political necessity of the day is 
 to nationalize the party that has saved the 
 nation. And all that is needed to accomplish 
 this result is for the Union Party to stand upon 
 its own ground, to avoid all its needless issues, 
 to await the developements of time and public 
 discussions before rushing into contests upon 
 new questions, and to resist resolutely every 
 endeavor to force upon it principles and meas- 
 ures which it has never espoused. Let it 
 plant itself upon national ground, discard all 
 sectional feeling, extend its organization into 
 every State, make the interests, rights, honor, 
 welfare of all sections its own, and it will stand 
 forever! In such a position and with such 
 principles it has every department of the Gov- 
 ernment at its command. All the patronage 
 and power of the Executive would give weight 
 and effect to its pohcy. Thousands of patriotic 
 and disinterested Democrats will swell its ranks 
 and give weight to its councils, and we shall see 
 an end of the long, weary strife of sections, 
 which once had a reason, a necessity, and an ob- 
 ject, but which, now that Slavery is dead, has 
 them no longer. It is the hope of such a result 
 that has prompted my action on this floor during 
 the present session. It is that which has led me 
 to seek so strongly and so steadily to maintain 
 harmony of action between the President and 
 the majority of Congress, for I knew then, as I 
 know now, that in all the essential principles of 
 
 their poUtical action both were united. They 
 differ only upon new points, points never hith- 
 erto discussed or decided in the councils of the 
 Union Party. They may differ, as members 
 differ among themselves on this floor, and as 
 men must always difier elsewhere. I believe 
 the nation demands the speedy restoration of 
 peace and harmony to the Union, It demands 
 that the poUtical relations of the States to each 
 other and to the General Government shall be 
 promptly restored upon the principles of the 
 Constitution. In some way, by some means, 
 through one agency or another, the people will 
 require all this to be accompUshed. We shall 
 have a ijational parly, and that party will have 
 control of the Government. Why should we, 
 the Union men of the land, those who saved the 
 nation in the most perilous crisis it has ever 
 known, from any mere resentments or mis- 
 takes, allow that great work to fall into other 
 hands ? It requires no sacrifice which wise and 
 prudenb men may not easily make. We need re- 
 linquish no principle. We need only to forbear, 
 to be patient, to court the aid and agency of 
 time, to be tolerant of differences and tenacious 
 of principles and objects in which we all agree. 
 I rejoice to see in the action of Congress evi- 
 dence that time and reflection are given weight 
 to these considerations ; and I indulge the hope 
 that when we adjourn, standing upon ground 
 which we hold m common and referring to the 
 judgment of the people the decision of questions 
 on which we differ, we shall go to the country 
 united in purpose, and having the cooperation 
 of the President whom we placed in power. 
 
LIBRftRV OF CONGRESS 
 
 llllll Hill III''""'' ., -t'jn A 
 
 01' i^4 720 ^ 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 744 720 4 % 
 
 pennulipe*