E 668 
 .H483 
 Copy 1 
 
 ./^/<f5 
 

 
 laan 
 
SPEECH 
 
 CLEVELAND, Oof 
 
 ^< 
 
 '^;?;^^oC\^l^ 
 
 
 ON. J. B. HENDERSON 
 
 OF MISSOURI. 
 
 6k 
 
 THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE COUNTRY AND THE REMEDY FOR EXISTING EVILS; 
 
 DELrVTlKED 
 
 IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, FEBRUARY 13 AND 14, 18G6. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
 
 1SG6. 
 
^'''^v 
 
 ^ ;\\'^^^ 
 
 'i 
 
 r 
 \ 
 
APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 
 
 The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, having 
 under consideration the joint resolution (H. R. No. 
 51) proposing an amendmentlto the Constitution of 
 the United States — 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON said : 
 
 Mr. President: I shall certainly have to 
 ask the pardon of the Senate on this occasion 
 '£or attemj^ting to speak on a question of so 
 much importance without the preparation that 
 it is entitled to ; but I feel, in regard to the con- 
 stitutional amendments now pending before 
 the body, that if we do anything at all we ought 
 to act speedily. It is not well to postpone ac- 
 tion upon this matter for a great length of time. 
 A large number, I believe twenty-two, of the 
 State Legislatures are now in session, and if 
 we are seriously in earnest about amending the 
 Constitution of the United States we ought to 
 send the amendment out to those State Legis- 
 latures as early as we can. 
 
 I believe it was Sir Jacob Astley who, just 
 after the last battle between Charles and the 
 Parliament, when he fell into the hands of the 
 Parliament troops as a prisoner, remarked to 
 ^e commanders of the Parliament forces — 
 Cromwell and his party — " Now, gentlemen, 
 you have the game in your own hands, and can 
 act as you choose unless you fall out among 
 yourselves." I have thought during this ses- 
 sion of Congress that we were likely to get into 
 a condition similar to that immediately suc- 
 ceeding the overthrow of the troops of Charles. 
 Ourpresentcondition is bad enough — notworse 
 perhaps, than two years ago, but bad enough 
 to accept the plainest talk. 
 
 I said I have made no preparation, or scarcely 
 any whatever, for the remarks I intend to sub- 
 mit. Perhaps it is better that I have made 
 none, for when gentlemen write what they have 
 to say they sometimes are quite guarded, so 
 careful as not to express what they teel. I hope 
 on this occasion that I shall say exactly what I 
 do feel, regardless of the consequences, intend- 
 
 ing, however, to be disrespectful to no one. 
 What is said may not be connected. It may 
 want in succinctness of statement, in logical 
 sequence, and oflFend the delicate ear of the fin- 
 ished scholar. It may require patience to 
 listen, and possibly not be listened to, but, 
 struggling against all difficulties, I shall stagger 
 onto the end. 
 
 I do not know in what particular political 
 classification I may be ranked. Nor does it 
 naatter. I think I know something of the con- 
 dition of the country; and I believe I know 
 somewhat of the things necessary to remedy 
 the difficulties now upon us. However, about 
 that I may be mistaken ; and I have some rea- 
 son to doubt, since the honorable Senator from 
 Illinois [Mr. Trdmbull] — I regret he is not 
 now in his seat — took occasion, a few days since, 
 to compare me with old Dr. Townsend, of sar- 
 saparilla notoriety. I have since been discuss- 
 ing in my own mind whether the old doctor 
 was not at last something more than a quack ; 
 whether he was not as good physician as many 
 others who assume a little more dignity, and 
 pass as the most eminent men with far less 
 merit. Perhaps I sometimes express opinions 
 with too much zeal. It is to be regretted if in 
 the expression of views I wound the feelings ot 
 anybody. Nothing of the sort is intended. I 
 said I did not know to what classification I may 
 be assigned. I do not know whether I am to 
 be termed a Radical, a Conservative, or a Dem- 
 ocrat. I am willing to occupy any designation 
 to which the expression of views, honestly en- 
 tertained, may assign me. Those views may 
 not accord entirely with the views of any of the 
 leading parties. 
 
 Speaking of parties, Mr. President, I see that 
 in a conversation which the President of the 
 United States had with some gentlemen from 
 Virginia a day or twoago, he gave expression 
 to sentiments indicating most clearly that he 
 entertains fears of some real or imaginary ex- 
 
treme party in the loyal States. I take it that 
 he means the radical party as now known. That 
 party may be dangerous, but it is not so bad as 
 the President seems to think. Its instincts are 
 generally good. Its dangers rest chieliy in timid 
 minds. Let me preface what I may say with 
 the remark that honestly and sincerely, since 
 the present Executive took his seat as Presi- 
 dent of the United States after the death of our 
 lamented Lincoln, I have supported his Admin- 
 istration. I did not concur in some points of 
 his reconstruction jjolicy, but trusting in his 
 fidelity and better means of information I was 
 willing to waive all differences and give him an 
 earnest support. My object and jDurpose have 
 been to restore, if possible, and at the earliest 
 day practicable, the Union of these States. He 
 seemed to aim at the same end. It may be re- 
 membered, if Senators take any interest in the 
 little I do or say on any subject here, that on 
 the 24th of last February I advocated the ad- 
 mission of the Louisiana and Arkansas Sena- 
 tors, not that I believed Mr. Lincoln had au- 
 thority to do much that was done preparatory 
 to the election of those Senators, not that I 
 believed the military authorities possessed the 
 power to do many things they did preparatory 
 to that election, but I waived the want of for- 
 mality and was willing to accept them as the 
 representatives of loyal organizations. The 
 war was then flagrant, and it was our policy, I 
 thought, to segregate the loyal from the disloyal. 
 It was deemed best to encourage Union men to 
 create and rally around State organizations as 
 the most efficient agency for suppressing rebel- 
 lion in the respective States. My hope was that 
 the President had assurances that true and 
 genuine loyalty would enter into the govern- 
 ments of the States to be reorganized under his 
 proclamation; that the rebel element would 
 abstain from participation in restoring civil 
 relations, to break which they had waged four 
 years of bloody and savage war. 
 
 The Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Wade,] some 
 days since — and I now refer to it in all kindness 
 — said that Mr. Johnson's proposition for the 
 restoration of these States was far preferable 
 to the plan of Mr. Lincoln, but he was opposed 
 to both. I care nothing about plans, Mr. Pres- 
 ident. It is best to look to results. I will not 
 wrangle with the Senator about the relative 
 merit of the two plans. He should remember, 
 however, that those men who participated in 
 the reorganization of Louisiana and Arkansas 
 were Union men. They of necessity were Union 
 men ; because the war was then going on, and 
 none other than bold and earnest Union men 
 dared participate in the reorganization of those 
 States while confederate soldiers were yetunder 
 arms 
 
 Mr. WADE. I believe the Senator has not 
 exactly got my words. I think I did not say 
 "preferable." I think that I said he went 
 much further in requiring guarantees thun 
 
 Mr. Lincoln had done ; and I do not know but 
 that that might be considered preferable. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I did not design to 
 misstate the position of the Senator from Ohio. 
 It matters not what may be the merit of the 
 two plans. If the circumstances be considered, 
 Lincoln's plan was preferable, for the circum- 
 stances were then such that none but loyal men 
 would participate. Under Johnson's plan the 
 circumstances were such that disloyal men 
 could and did participate. •, 
 
 Mr. WADE. If the Senator will oppose then /, 
 that is all I ask. [Laughter.] "^ 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I said nothing about 
 opposing them nor accepting them. The ques- 
 tion raised by the Senator was one of compara- 
 tive merit between the plans. The plans might 
 have been substantially the same, and yet the- 
 results be essentially different. As vegetation is 
 varied by climate, so are the. consequences of 
 human action varied by surrounding circum- 
 stances. Congress was not obliged to accept 
 Mr. Lincoln's plan. It could accept or reject. 
 It has the same discretion with Mr. Johnson's 
 plan. If accepting the organizations would tend 
 to restore Union and harmony they ought to be 
 accepted. If those organizations are in rebel 
 hands their recognition must complicate our 
 troubles. 
 
 The men who presented themselves here at the 
 last session of Congress, underthe Lincoln plan, 
 were elected by Union men in their respective M 
 States. Do we not know perfectly well that no T! 
 confederate soldier took part in the reorganiza- 
 tion of the State governments of Louisiana and 
 Arkansas ? Do we not know that rebel soldiers 
 would have broken up those organizations if 
 they could ? Do we not know that almost every 
 man in those States who segregated himself from 
 the rebel army because of his Unionism did par- 
 ticipate in their reorganization ? 
 
 Mr. Lincoln, it is true, prescribed an oath as 
 a condition of the amnesty which he offered; J 
 Mr. Johnson prescribed a similar oath : but look * 
 at the change of circumstances. When waj^ 
 Louisiana reorganized ? During the pendencj/ 
 of hostilities. When was Arkansas reorgan- 
 ized? In the midst of rebellion, when rebels 
 had the highest hopes of success. Those men 
 who were secessionists were opposed to the re- 
 organization, and constituted the party of oppo- 
 sition. Those who advocated restoration were 
 men tried in the fires of war and the persecu- 
 tions of political hatred. But last spring the 
 confederate armies surrendered, and the war 
 was over. Lee' s army surrendered in the early 
 part of April, just before Lincoln' s death ; John- 
 ston' s army surrendered about the liJth of April, 
 and Kirby Smith' s army some time near the mid- 
 dle of May. On the 29th of May Mr. Johnson 
 issued his proclamation of amnesty. I will read 
 a portion of that proclamation in order to show 
 exactly what condition of afi'airs, legally and in 
 fact, followed its issuance. 
 
The President's object, of course, was to 
 begin the work of restoration. He sought a 
 basis to begin on, and honestly, no doubt, sought 
 a loyal basis. He so says in his late message. 
 He evidently designed that all men receiving 
 the benefit of his pardon might, if they chose, 
 participate in reorganizing the respective State 
 
 fovernments. He thought they would be loyal, 
 n other words, they who were pardoned, re- 
 gardless of their former crimes in the great 
 -^ drama of rebellion, and regardless of their pres- 
 'ent feelings toward the General Government, 
 were to become participants in the work of re- 
 creating loyal State governments. The Presi- 
 dent says : 
 
 " To the end, therefore, that the authority of the 
 Government of the United States may be restored, 
 and that peace, order, and freedom may be estab- 
 lished, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United 
 States, do proclaim and declare that I hereby grant 
 to all persons who have, directly or indirectly, par- 
 ticipated in the existing rebellion, except as herein- 
 after excepted, amnesty and pardon, with restoration 
 of all rights of property except as to slaves and except 
 in cases where legal proceedings under the laws of 
 the United States providing for the confiscation of 
 property of persons engaged in rebellion have been 
 instituted; but upon the condition, nevertheless, that 
 every such person shall take and subscribe the fol- 
 lowing oath, (or atfirmation,) and thenceforward keep 
 and maintain said oath inviolate ; and which oath 
 shall be registered for permanent preservation, and 
 shall be of the tenor and effect following, to wit: 
 
 "I, , do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) in pres- 
 ence of Almighty God, that I will henceforth faith- 
 fully support, protect, and defend the Constitution of 
 the United States and the Union of the States there- 
 under; that I will in like manner abide by and faith- 
 fully support all laws and proclamations which have 
 been made during the existing rebellion with refer- 
 ence to the emancipation of slaves. So help me God." 
 
 It will be observed that the oath is entirely 
 prospective. It did not propose to purge the 
 conscience on the subject of voluntary and pre- 
 meditated treason, to draw a line of distinction 
 between the rebel officer and the unwilling 
 conscript soldier. It asked only future obedi- 
 ence to the Constitution, which stern necessity 
 had already enforced. It asked only a recog- 
 nition of freedom to the slave, a fact already 
 ^^established without the aid of rebel oaths. 
 i Senators will remember that there were vari- 
 ous exceptions, numbering fourteen different 
 classes, named in this proclamation. The Con- 
 stitution of the United States gives to the Pres- 
 ident the power to grant reprieves and pardons, 
 but it may be considered, I submit, by Senators 
 who are familiar with the common law on the 
 subject of pardon, and I presume all are, whether 
 the President of the United States would have 
 Iiad any authority to issue this general amnesty 
 or general pardon except by virtue of an act of 
 Congress. I do not deny that in any single 
 case, by virtue alone of the constitutional pro- 
 vision, the President may grant a certificate of 
 pardon. I do not doubt that he can grant it 
 before conviction, as well as after conviction. 
 He cannot give a license or indulgence to com- 
 mit crime ; but after a crime is committed, all 
 he has to do in his certificate is to specify par- 
 
 ticularly the crime that has been committed 
 and for which the pardon is granted. But it 
 may well be denied that but for the act of Con- 
 gress of July 17, 1862, of which my friend from 
 New Hampshire before me [Mr. Clark] was 
 perhaps the chief draughtsman, the President 
 would have any authority to grant a general 
 pardon or amnesty. I must admit that that act 
 is quite full. Let me refer to it. The thirteenth 
 section is in these words : 
 
 "Sec. 13. And be it further enacted. That the Presi- 
 dent is hereby authorized, at any time hereafter, by 
 proclamation, to extend to persons who may have 
 participated in the existing rebellion in any State or 
 part thereof, pardon and amnesty, with such excep- 
 tions and at such time and on such conditions as he 
 may deem expedient for the public welfare." 
 
 It will not be disputed that by virtue of that 
 authority the President had power to issue his 
 proclamation of general amnesty. But disputes 
 may arise on other questions connected with 
 this proclamation. What was the condition upon 
 which the pardon was to inure to the benefit of 
 the party pardoned? It was first that he should 
 file the oath named and in the manner to be 
 prescribed. But this is not of itself sufficient. 
 There is something more necessary that the 
 benefits of the pardon should inure. 
 
 According to the common law, and when we 
 undertake to construe our Constitution we must 
 construe it with reference to that law which ex- 
 isted among us at the time and with which our 
 forefathers were perfectly familiar, perhaps the 
 best system of law devised for the administra- 
 tion of justice among men, it is not only neces- 
 sary that the party shall have filed this oath, 
 but it is necessary that he shall have kept the 
 oath. The President provides, in the close of 
 the proclamation, that "the Secretary of State 
 will establish rules and regulations for admin- 
 istering and recording said amnesty oath, so as 
 to insure its benefit to the people and guard the 
 Government against fraud. ' ' I believe the Sec- 
 retary of State i^rovided those rules and regu- 
 lations under which parties who intended to 
 take the benefit of this amnesty could take it. 
 The taking of the oath is the technical accept- 
 ance of the pardon. The actual performance 
 of thg things, sworn to be done, is the condition 
 of the pardon. If the condition be broken the 
 pardon is void. The oath is that the party tak- 
 ing it will henceforward "faithfully support, 
 protect, and defend the Constitution of the Uni- 
 ted States and the Union of the States there- 
 under," and that he will "in like manner abide 
 by and fixithfully support all laws and procla- 
 mations which have been made during the ex- 
 isting rebellion with reference to the emancipa- 
 tion of slaves." 
 
 First, then, if one has failed to take the oath 
 prescribed, and in the manner prescribed, the 
 pardon does not attach, and second, although 
 he may have taken the oath, unless he has com- 
 plied with it, that is, unless he has faithfully 
 supported ' ' all laws and proclamations which 
 
6 
 
 have been made during the existing rebellion 
 with reference to the emancipation of slaves," 
 the pardon as to him is void and its benefits 
 are forfeited. 
 
 I have looked to some of the authorities on the 
 subject of pardon, and refer to this point for the 
 purpose of obtaining, if possible, a legal solution 
 of existing difficulties. Those difficulties are 
 great, but the powers of the Government must 
 be large enough to secure its own existence, to 
 perpetuate the principles of liberty which lie 
 at its foundation, as well as to vouchsafe the 
 happiness of the people. The Union may be 
 restored in truth and in fact, without violating a 
 principle of that instrument, and indeed with- 
 out rejecting the unwritten traditions of the 
 fathers. I-i^ropose, in a moment, to examine the 
 condition of the people in the seceded States, 
 the character of the organizations before us, and 
 what the powers and duties of Congress are. 
 
 It will then be proper to incpure, how far this 
 act of amnesty by the President relieved these 
 parties in the seceding States? What rights it 
 legally conferred? What the President under- 
 took to relieve them of? How far he was ad- 
 vised of the precise character of their offenses? 
 Whether he had any jjower independent of the 
 act of Congress already cited to pardon gen- 
 erally? If not, then the extent of that general 
 pardon under said act ? How far it has been 
 accepted and to what extent its benefits have 
 been forfeited? And lastly, as I have said, the 
 powers of Congress in the j^remises? I do not 
 propose to elaborate these points, but suggest 
 them for the solution of abler men, who have 
 more immediate charge of reconstruction. The 
 President says — 
 
 "I hereby grant to all persons who have, directly 
 or indirectly, participated in the existing rebellion, 
 except as hereinafter excepted, amnesty and pardon, 
 with restoration of all rights of property, except as to 
 slaves, and except in cases where legal proceedings 
 under the laws of the United States providing for the 
 confiscation of property of persons engaged in rebel- 
 lion have been instituted." 
 
 Of what does he relieve them? Of anything 
 except the penalty prescribed in the act of July 
 17, 18G2? Does the pardon restore the person 
 accepting it to full rights of citizenship? In 
 other words, did the voluntary rebel forfeit any 
 political right by his rebellion ? He forfeited 
 his life and property under the act named. 
 The President's pardon did not assume to do 
 more than restore to him his life and prop- 
 erty. Is there not a political cpiestion behind 
 this, that belongs to Congress and which does 
 not come within the power of the President 
 either under the clause of the Constitution or 
 the law named? But assuming that the force 
 of the pardon was sufficient to restore both 
 civil and political rights forfeited, then has the 
 condition of the pardon been kept? 
 
 On the subject of conditional pardons, the 
 case of Wells ex i^nrte, 18 Howard's Reports, 
 where the whole question of pardon was dis- 
 cussed ably and learnedly, may be referred to. 
 
 Wells was convicted of murder in the District 
 of Columbia, and President Fillmore pardoned 
 him, on the condition, however, that he should 
 take, in lieu of capital punishment, imprison- 
 mentinthepenitentiaryof the District of Colum- 
 bia for and during his life. On the next day, I 
 believe, he applied for a writ of habeas corpus, 
 his counsel taking the ground that the condition 
 was void, because no man could sell his liberty, 
 and that the pardon attached and was perfect 
 and complete. The Supreme Court decided ,A 
 that the condition might be legally attached, ■ ' ' 
 and that the party instead of selling himself 
 into slavery, preserved his life, which was al- 
 ready forfeited to the law in consequence of 
 his crime, that he had no body which was his 
 to sell into slavery, and that really he saved his 
 life by the acceptance. This subject of con- ^^ 
 ditional j^ardons, the extent of executive au- 
 thority, and the forfeiture of the benefits arising 
 from pardon, have received consideration in 
 numerous cases. See Cathcarti^s. Robinson, 5 
 Pet. R., 204-280; 8 Watts and Serg., 197; 7 
 Pet. , 150 ; 1 Bailey S. C' 283 ; New York Legal 
 Observer, 177. 
 
 I believe in the State of my distinguished 
 friend from New York [Mr. Harris] it was 
 decided that where a pardon had been granted 
 upon condition that the party should perma- .- 
 nently leave the country and he failed to go, or 
 having gone, returned, he could be remanded 
 into custody for the execution of the judgment 
 and sentence of the court. Then if there be a 
 political forfeiture in the crime of rebellion 
 which has not been pardoned, the jurisdiction 
 of Congress may properly attach and new or- 
 ganizations provided for, in which the rebel 
 element may be excluded. But even if the 
 President's pardon be valid to make the of- 
 fender a new man, civilly and politically, yet if 
 he has violated the condition of the pardon the 
 pardon becomes inoperative, and if a majority 
 in the seceding States have violated it. are the 
 rebel States not legally as they were before the 
 attemjited restoration? * 
 
 I have no feeling of malice whatever against ♦ ' 
 the people of the southern States. I Mas born 
 in the South myself, and ask nothing but what 
 I think would be best for them and the entire 
 country. My friend from Illinois [Mr. Trum- 
 bull] seemed to think the other day that I was 
 actuated by some new zeal, having been once 
 a slaveholder. I said that I was a slaveholder 
 at the beginning of this war. I am glad that 
 the Senator is in his seat now. I was a slave- 
 holder partly by inheritance. That I could not 
 help, any more than the Senator from Illinois 
 can help his disposition eternally to criticise me. 
 [Laughter. ] He got his disposition by inherit- 
 ance, and I received a slave by inheritance. I 
 forgive him: will he forgive me? [3Ir. Trum- 
 bull. Certfiinly.] I got them partly by pur- 
 chase, not for purposes of profit, but at their ^i 
 own request, to keep them from being sold to " 
 
others. I never got a dollar of their wages from 
 the day I purchased them until the dny they 
 ■were emancipated. I paid from my hard earn- 
 ings the money for their purchase and turned 
 them loose, and they have received from that 
 day to this the rewards of their own toil. 
 
 I know that it is very easy to say, * ' You have 
 been a slaveholder, and therefore a wicked 
 man." Slaveholding is now, of course, un- 
 popular. We must look to men's surround- 
 
 . mgs in order to judge fairly of their acts. I 
 :)ught not to speak of myself in connection 
 with many who have been slaveholders, but I 
 must be allowed to speak now, in my own de- 
 fense, the simple truths of history. George 
 Washington was a slaveholder, James Madison 
 was a slaveholder, James Monroe was a slave- 
 holder, Thomas Jefferson, the apostle of free- 
 dom and the advocate at all times of emanci- 
 pation, the man who looked down the long 
 
 - vista of the then future and saw with prophetic 
 ken the war of the last four years, was a slave- 
 holder up to the day of his death. I do not 
 know but I have sinned in being a slave-owner. 
 If so, better men than I have sinned — not bet- 
 ter than the Senator from Illinois, but better 
 men than I have sinned, all over the South. 
 The Senator from Illinois cannot realize the 
 
 ^(fact, perhaps, that if he had been in a slave 
 State when slavery existed, he might have be- 
 come a slaveholder himself, even against his 
 will. A negro for whom he might have had 
 regard, one who had been kind to him, is put 
 upon the block for sale ; a purchaser is present 
 to whom the slave is unwilling to be sold ; the 
 slave begs him to buy. Would he not become 
 a slaveholder under these circumstances if he 
 had money enough to do it ? 
 
 Mr. TRUMBULL. I hope my friend from 
 Missouri did not understand me as saying that 
 he had l^een a slaveholder, by way of reproach. 
 Certainly, I meant no such thing. 
 
 Mr.HJ3NDERS0N. I was afraid such might 
 be the inference from the remarks of the Sena- 
 
 . tor. 
 
 '\ Mr. TRUMBULL. I did not so intend. 
 Mr.HENDERSON. I am glad of it. I can say 
 that so far as my former slaves are concerned, 
 they will need no bounty from the Freed- 
 men's Bureau. I have made some of them 
 land-owners. My means are not large, but I 
 have done something in the way of charity or 
 justice, whichever it may be. To some I have 
 given homes, and, if I live much longer enjoy- 
 ing good health and my present vigor of con- 
 stitution, I hope to be able to make them all 
 land-holders. That is not all. Within the lim- 
 ited sphere of my influence I have done some- 
 thing toward purchasing churches and school- 
 houses for the moral and intellectual culture, 
 not only of the few formerly belonging to me, 
 but of the many belonging to others. I have said 
 to them, "Go and educate yourselves; pre- 
 pare to become citizens of this country, as you 
 
 must inevitably be in the future. ' ' If they be- 
 come able to reimburse me, they will do so. 
 If not, the loss is light, if this be sin, then 
 have I sinned, and many slaveholders, how- 
 ever odious now, have sinned likewise. For 
 emancipation 1 have claimed no credit. If it 
 be a great good, and I hope it is, others take 
 the praise. But emancipation being an accom- 
 plished fact, we cannot overlook the condition 
 of near five million people, nor lightly scoff at 
 their claims for civil and political rights. I 
 said no more than this, and this simple fact, I 
 thought, might be recognized by all. 1 atn 
 glad to know, fur the sake of the honorable 
 Senator himself, that he was not insensible to 
 the importance of the question itself I can 
 assure him that if my zeal be new, it is only 
 because the circumstances themselves are new. 
 At least, the zeal springs from no selfish aims of 
 mine. If I consulted ambition alone, its ends 
 might be better secured, perhaps, by bending 
 the knee yet longer to a senseless prejudice. 
 
 I have said to the people of my State, and 
 now repeat, that when my present term expires 
 I shall ask in the way of reelection, no indorse- 
 ment of the past and no expression of confi- 
 dence for the future. I might not obtain it, 
 if I wanted it. Not desiring it, however, I can 
 well afford to disregard all suggestions except 
 those of duty. If I can see the Union restored 
 in such manner as to assure the largest free- 
 dom to the people, if I can see the principle 
 find practical application in our Constitution 
 and laws, that you cannot tax a man without 
 representation, that you have no right to put 
 the burden of the law upon him who has no 
 voice in its passage, I shall be fully satisfied. 
 I ask no honor beyond that of being instru- 
 mental in accomplishing acts of justice in the 
 discharge of duty. It is pleasant, to be sure, 
 to be associated with gentlemen of such dis- 
 tinguished abilities, and of patriotism no less 
 distinguished, but yet one may well prefer the 
 quiet of an humble home to the cares and re- 
 sponsibilities which too often bring to the most 
 conscientious incumbent of public position 
 more of denunciation than of applause, more 
 of misguided hatred than of deserved honor. 
 
 But, at least, if honor comes from public life, 
 it is bitter fruit, unless the conscience approve 
 the deeds which 'bear it; it is an empty bubble 
 unless posterity has reason to feel indebted to 
 its possessor. 
 
 But if the Senate will excuse me for this 
 digression I will return to the subject. My 
 object is not to devise ways and means to keep 
 the revolted States away, but to find a safe 
 bridge for their return. If they come back in 
 the spirit of haughty defiance, with hands un- 
 washed of their country's blood, with no work 
 of penitence to commend them, with hearts 
 yet filled with hatred, and without conviction 
 of the enormity of their crimes, things will be 
 made worse by their return. I have said things 
 
8 
 
 are now bad enough. They should not be made 
 worse. I am aware that some persons, many 
 of them loyal and good men, ask the immedi- 
 ate recognition of the new governments. It 
 was to restore the Union, say they, that the 
 war was waged. It was to bring these States 
 back that the rich man gave his treasure, the 
 poor man his mite, the wise man his thought, 
 and the soldier his blood. Now, it is asked, 
 why not restore it? 
 
 ^Ir. President, if the simple recognition by 
 Congress and the admission of members now 
 at our doors would restore the Union, Congress 
 would not hesitate a moment. If I could speak 
 the word of reunion, it should be spoken, but 
 no controversy between the President and Con- 
 gress will help the matter. That controversy 
 may come. It cannot now come through the 
 fault of Congress. The President in his an- 
 nual message informed us what he had done 
 in tlie premises, and then said : 
 
 "Here it is for you, fellow-citizens of the Senate, 
 and for you, fellow-citizen.s of the House of Kepre- 
 sentatives, to judge, each of you, for yourselves, of 
 the elections, returns, and qualifications of your own 
 members." > 
 
 If Congress, in the exercise of this admitted 
 right, a right no better established because of 
 the President's admission, believes that the or- 
 ganizations from which these members come as 
 Representatives are in disloyal hands, and that 
 to receive the members would complicate our 
 difficulties, can the President complain, ought 
 the President complain, that we stop to inquire 
 into facts ? The President has not told us that 
 in his opinion the Legislature of a single recon- 
 structed State is loyal. If he thinks so, why 
 has he so often interfered with their legislation? 
 Why is martial law continued in each one of 
 them, when its existence depends on his will 
 alone ? Why did he say to the Georgia conven- 
 tion that Georgia should not pay a certain debt? 
 Why to the North Carolina convention that the 
 ordinance of secession must be declared null 
 and void, and not simply repealed? And why, I 
 ask, if these States are loyal and entitled to the 
 dignity of States, does the President almost 
 daily set aside, by the orders of military men, 
 holding place at his will and discretion, the sol- 
 emn acts of their Legislatures ? The President 
 made it a condition that the reconstructed 
 States should abolish slavery themselves, and 
 adopt the constitutional amendment abolishing 
 it iVirothers. Ilcthought hchad thepower, but 
 whether he had it or not, he assumed and exer- 
 cised it. But now that slavery is abolished, 
 why are military officers throughout the South 
 extending military protection to the negroes 
 against the laws of the whites? They set aside 
 entire codes of laws, and yet hold their places 
 subject to executive approbation. 
 
 i^ty purpose is not to condemn the Executive. 
 All he has done may be necessary. I mean 
 only to say, if these things are necessary, his 
 plan of reconstruction is a failure, and Congress 
 
 is not to be reproached for its short delay. If 
 these organizations shall be recognized, is mar- 
 tial law yet to prevail? Arc newspapers yet to 
 be suppressed ? Are negroes yet to be protected 
 by the bayonet? Will these States still reject 
 the fact of freedom and deny the freedman the 
 right to hold and enjoy property ? And if they 
 so legislate, are judges and jurors and marshals 
 who execute the State law, backed Ijy State 
 militia, to be arrested and tried before Federal 
 soldiers, under martial law, for offenses against 
 national authority ? Will the President continue; , 
 this work, and yet call these organizations inde- 
 pendent and equal States of the American 
 Union? Or does the President ask that Con- 
 gress shall recognize the reconstruction, that he 
 may be relieved of this unpleasant but neces- 
 sary duty? For surely, these violations of the 
 republican principle, in the late seceded States, 
 would not be tolerated by the President if the 
 conviction of overpowering necessity did not 
 force him to commit them. But if the Presi- 
 dent has been driven to these great things, 
 which close the doors against the iidmission of 
 his own theory, will not he or Congress have to 
 continue them even after admission ? Congress 
 ought to be excused from this work. 
 
 If these organizations are loyal, why is not 
 their legislation all on the side of lo3'alty? T'j ^ 
 their legislation is right, why does the Presi-^, 
 dent set it aside and have the military daily 
 triumph over the civil power? If the organi- 
 zations are disloyal, neither the President nor 
 his friends should ask their recognition, much 
 less should they denounce Congress for its refu- 
 sal. For if disloyal, the President is certainly 
 responsible for the fact. Congress is guiltless, 
 for Congress has had nothing to do with it. 
 The President acted without our advice. He 
 might have acted worse if he had taken it. But 
 whatever the responsibility, the honor, or shame 
 of reconstruction, it is his. If disloyal organ- 
 izations have resulted, I acquit the President of 
 all design to bring about such result. But if 
 he sees that such is the fact, no pride of opin- 
 ion or false sense of humiliation should standJ>^ 
 in the way of its acknowledgment. It will re- 
 quire the wisdom of both the executive and 
 legislative departments of the Government to 
 give us peace. Let us have that wisdom com- 
 bined. Let the President reject the counsels 
 of false friends, and let Congress learn to trust 
 his integrity. 
 
 I have expressed no distrust of the Presi- 
 dent's fidelity to principle. I express none be- 
 cause I feel none. He felt it his duty to give civil 
 government at once to the revolted States. 
 That was the natural desire of every good man. 
 He attempted it, l)ut has not yet removed mar- 
 tial law from a single State. I do not blame 
 him, for it is evide"t he cannot. He said his 
 object was to '"en ' le the loyal people of the 
 State to restore the State to its constitutional 
 relations to the Federal Government, and to 
 
9 
 
 present such a republican form of government 
 as will entitle the State to the guarantee and 
 protection of the United States." Did he put 
 the power in loyal hands, and if so, have they 
 presented such a form of government as he 
 desired? If they have done so, military law 
 should wither and die, and the civil power of 
 those States is too sacred a thing to be touched 
 by the rude hand of the soldier. 
 
 The misfortune is, that, however sanguine the 
 ^President in his hopes of securing a loyal basis, 
 he failed. He had snatched from the shoulder 
 of the disloyalist the deadly musket, and vainly 
 thought that acts of unmerited generosity in 
 the moment of his defeat would molt his stub- 
 born heart to repentance. The pardon was so 
 sudden, and made so general, that its motive 
 seems to have been misapprehended. There 
 may have l^een, there probably was, a tempo- 
 rary feeling of gratitude in the first moment of 
 helpless confusion, but it was soon thought to be 
 more of a favor to the victor than to the A'an- 
 quished. For a short time it may have been 
 asked in suppliant spirit. It was soon de- 
 manded as a right. The musket, it is true, was 
 gone ; but that which was even far more potent 
 in their hands had been substituted. The mus- 
 ket had been seized to perpetuate slavery. The 
 'musket could not save it. The ballot had once 
 done so. The ballot might yet save the sub- 
 stance and traditions of slavery, though the 
 musket could not save its form. For all this 
 I have said Congress is not responsible. The 
 President selected his own classes for pardon 
 and for exception. He put his own construc- 
 tion on the act of Congress, and assumed that 
 pardon for treason gave back the ballot to the 
 y traitor. 
 
 After issuing the amnesty proclamation ho 
 proceeded, as I have said, to issue another on 
 the same day providing for the reorganization of 
 North Carolina, which was followed bj' a procla- 
 mation of a similar character for each one of the 
 seceded States, leaving out Louisiana, Tennes- 
 -'vee and Arkansas, which had been reorgan- 
 ized under Mr. Lincoln. 
 
 The first part of it declares it to be the duty 
 of the United States to see that each State has 
 a republican form of government, and then 
 proceeds : 
 
 "Now, therefore, in obedience to tlie hisrh andsol- 
 — emn fluties imposed upon me by the Constitution of 
 the United States, and for the purpose of enabling 
 the loyal people of said State to ort^anizeaStategrov- 
 ernment, whereby justice may be established, domes- 
 tic tranquillity insured, and loyal citizens protected 
 in all their rights of life, liberty, and property, I, 
 Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, and 
 Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the 
 United States, do hereby appoint William W. Holden 
 provisional governor of the State of North Carolina, 
 whose duty it shall be, at the earliest practicable 
 period, to prescribe such rules and regulations as may 
 be necessary and proper for convening a convention, 
 composed of delegates to be chosen by that portion of 
 the people of said State who are loyal to the United 
 States, and no others, for the purpose of altering or 
 amending the constitution thereof; and with author- 
 
 ity to exercise, within the limits of said State, ,all the 
 powers necessary and proper to enable sucli loyal 
 people of the State of North Carolina to restore said 
 State to its constitutional relations to the Federal 
 Government, and present such republican form of 
 Stat^ government aswillcntitletheStatc to thcguar- 
 antco of the United States therefor, and its i)eople to 
 protection by the United States against invasion, in- 
 surrection, and domestic violence." 
 
 That is all well enough ; I have no objection 
 to it; but what comes next? 
 
 "Provide'/, That in any election th.at may bo here- 
 after held for choosing delegates to .any Stnto con- 
 vention as aforesaid, no person shall bo riualiticd aa 
 an elector, or shall be eligible as a member of such 
 convention, unless he shall have i)reviously taken and 
 subscribed the oath of amnesty, as set fortli in the 
 President's prnc!ani:ition of Mny 2!'. A. D. ISOo. and is 
 a voter QualiliiMl and pri'scribid by the constitution 
 and laws of the Statu ol North Ctirolina, in force im- 
 mediately Ijelore the 2Uth day ot :\lay, 18(jl, thedateof 
 theso-called ordinaneeof secession ; and thesaidcon- 
 vention, when convened; or the Legislature thnt may 
 be thereafter assembled, will prescribe the Qualitica- 
 tion of electors, and the eligibility of persons to liold 
 otfice under the constitution and laws of the State — 
 a power the people of the several States comi>osing 
 the Federal Union have rightfully exercised from the 
 origin of the Government to the present time." 
 
 It will be observed that in the former portion 
 of the extract I have read, the proclamation of 
 the President confines the reorganization of 
 the State, in words, to the loyal men of North 
 Carolina — such I am satisfied was the Presi- 
 dent's intention ; but under the proviso, in my 
 judgment, he commits the error. He says that 
 everybody is a voter, who will take the amnesty 
 oath, and who was a voter under the constitu- 
 tion as it existed May 20, 18G1, the day of 
 secession. The conquered rebel who saw the 
 musket fall from his hands, however criminal 
 with the blood of his fellow-men, had only to 
 acknowledge the futility of further efforts in 
 armed rebellion. No matter what his past 
 deeds, they were pardoned, and the assumption 
 made that such pardon was sufficient again to 
 clothe him with the ballqt, that sacred right of 
 an American citizen. He was not required to 
 say that State law, or even considerations of 
 personal safety, liad induced him to wage a 
 bloody and relentless war against his country. 
 Although he had voted for secession and will- 
 ingly given his treasure and influence to fur- 
 ther the cause, though he had brought terror 
 upon unwilling neighbors and driven them from 
 the support of a slandered and injured Guvern- 
 ment, or compelled them to take refuge in 
 mountain caverns, while their property was 
 seized and turned into the cofl'ers of treason, 
 that man coujd vote on a simple pledge for the 
 future, regardless of the past. 
 
 The faithful negro, for whose degradatiori and 
 misery these deeds of blood have been done, 
 was again forgotten. The State constitution, 
 made by his owners while he was a slave, of 
 course denied him the suffrage. I have not 
 complained of the President that the negro v/as 
 denied the suffrage. Ihave not compK'ned of 
 anything. I do not now complain, much less 
 do I design to censure. But it seems to me 
 
10 
 
 that if the State constitutions of Mississippi and 
 Texas must be barriers in the way of negro suf- 
 frage, those other clauses denying suffrage to 
 any but '• citizens of the United States" should 
 have presented barriers against the whitefcien, 
 who had abjured allegiance to our Government, 
 sworn allegiance to a hostile de facto govern- 
 nu'ut, and for four years had staked their lives 
 npon the success of the one and the total over- 
 throw of the other. After these deeds they 
 may be citizens of the United States ; but if 
 so, I know not how the right of citizenship may 
 be forfeited. The President' s pardon may have 
 restored the right of citizenship, if lost. That 
 may have been the President's view. If so, I 
 have already expressed my dissent. The Pres- 
 ident's pardon went to the life and property, 
 relieved the penalty named in the act giving 
 him the power to offer amnesty, but went no 
 further. If citizenship is forfeited. Congress 
 alone can restore it. It is a political right, 'be- 
 longing to the legislative authority of the coun- 
 try, and which the Executive can neither give 
 nor take away. 
 
 But, now, giving the pardon its full force, 
 has it not been forfeited, and is Congress not 
 justified in assuming a forfeiture, at least so far 
 as it may be necessary to secure the guarantee 
 of truly republican forms of government? 
 
 So far as the life and property of the rebels 
 are concerned, I do not ask that anything be 
 abated from presidential pardon. Their blood 
 I do not want. The cause of the country does 
 not demand it. Humanity, indeed, shrinks 
 back from the thought of justice. Justice now 
 would be cruelty, in the eyes of history. Lives 
 enough have been taken. Malice and revenge 
 may claim many piore. National policy rejects 
 the claim. The war itself has confiscated 
 enough. Confiscation will give our coffers noth- 
 ing. It may gratify personal avarice, but this 
 is a poor return for loss of national honor. For 
 me, the rebels are welcome to life and property. 
 I would not add one to the tears that moisten 
 the cheeks of sorrow. I would so make our 
 Government, however, that the heaviest penalty 
 for treason would be the traitor's remorse. To 
 dry up one tear, we are told, brings larger fame 
 than to shed oceans of blood. But while I 
 would extend mercy to the conquered rebel in 
 my power, I must remember the simple dic- 
 .tates of justice in behalf of him who pleads for 
 mercy, and pleads in vain at the hands of that 
 rebel. That generosity, which ceases to flow 
 beyond the limits of our own race, is partial and 
 unworthy of man. While I would forgive the 
 rebel, I wcuild elevate him whom the rebel has 
 oppressed for ages. I would teach each man 
 to abandon his prejudices and seek his own 
 happiness in the haiipiness of his fellow-men, 
 where alone he can find it. 
 
 For many long years, indeed from the origin 
 of our history as a nation, slavery and its inci- 
 dents have constituted the weapons of political 
 
 wai'fare. Party power, the lust of office, the 
 whisperings of ambition, the hopes of individ- 
 ual preferment, the ties of political association, 
 too often united with the promptings of avarice, 
 conspired to uphold the institution. The same 
 considerations, with many on the other side, it 
 is too true, may have added to the intensity of 
 the struggle ; but chiefly the abuses of slavery 
 on the one side, feeding, as it were, on increase 
 of appetite, and the strong moral conviction of 
 its injustice on the other, its wrong to the blacr / 
 and its injury to the white race, urged our peo- 
 ple on to the gigantic struggle now just closed. 
 But is it closed? The boom of the cannon is 
 not heard, the crash of musketry has ceased, 
 and the saber has been returned to its scabbard, 
 but the nation seems yet in doubt. The air is 
 tainted with suspicion that all is not right. The 
 war was waged by rebels that injustice might 
 yet live. Within the Union it was thought it 
 could not live ; hence it would go beyond the 
 nation' s jurisdiction. Justice is strong because 
 it is the weapon of Omnipotence. Slavery in 
 form has died. Let it die now, in fact and in 
 truth, and the national life is assured. It was 
 a feeling of conscious right that gave us suc- 
 cess in the recent struggle. Now that success 
 has come, we propose again to reject the truth, , 
 to turn our faces in shame from an honest con-* 
 viction and barter once more eternal justice 
 for expediency. 
 
 The President undertook to reconstruct on 
 the white basis. The negro is again forgotten. 
 A few negroes voted in the reorganization of 
 Louisiana under Mr. Lincoln, and last March, 
 every Democrat in Congress voted against ad- 
 mitting her Representatives under that organi- 
 zation. The other States are now reorganized, ^ 
 under what we are told is the same plan, and 
 every Democrat here now clamors for imme- 
 diate admission. Why is this? Is it because 
 the negro has been excluded or because the for- 
 mer rebel has voted? Our Democratic friends 
 here certainly have no interest in common with 
 rebellion, and hence their present enthusiastijl^ 
 support, of what they call the President' s recon- 
 struction policy, must spring from the fact that 
 the negro has been excluded. They see, in this, 
 a white man' s Government. The President hav- 
 ing excluded him in the first work of reorganiza- 
 tion, his hopes are, perhaps, gone forever. If 
 loyal Avhites only had been admitted by the 
 President to the ballot-box, those who opposed 
 secession until treason had overwhelmed them, 
 they perhaps would have constructed the organic 
 law of those States in such manner as to leave 
 hope for the negro's enfranchisement hereafter. 
 But who expected to find favor for the black 
 man from the returning soldiers of Lee and 
 Johnston's armies? With the political power 
 in the hands of such men, the future is easily 
 divined. 
 
 Do not understand me. Mi'. President, as 
 complaining that the negro was not permitted 
 
11 
 
 to vote. I only urge that his right was at least 
 equal to that of rebels. If rebels must vote, 
 the uegro ought to vote also. I will make no 
 offensive comparisons ; but to those men who 
 have carried mourning into every household in 
 the land, who rejected all counsel and heed- 
 lessly rushed on to the country's ruin, who must 
 be remembered in the long future when pov- 
 erty parts with its hard earnings to pay the pub- 
 lic debt, who would murder a whole section to 
 secure the privilege of robbing a race, I owe 
 nothing. The loyal Democrats owe them noth- 
 ing. My friend from Indiana, [Mr. Hexdricks,] 
 who sits before me, and whom they defeated for 
 Governor of Indiana in I860, owes them noth- 
 ing — except mercy, and with him I go to grant 
 them mercy. Let him go with me for justice 
 in behalf of others. 
 
 I know it is often said that unless pardoned 
 rebels could vote, the President would have had 
 no white basis or population to reconstruct upon. 
 This, Mr. President, is a mistake. Thousands 
 were forced into active measures against the 
 Government. Many loyal men in the begin- 
 ning, I know, afterward becam_e disloyal, but 
 had an oath been prescribed l)y the President 
 for white voters, formerly qualified under their 
 respective State constitutions, which would have 
 excluded the active and willing disloyalist, who 
 not only went into i-ebellion himself, but forced 
 his neighbor in, we would now have organiza- 
 tions of a different character in the southern 
 States, and such as would have given the Pres- 
 ident but little trouble. It may not be that such 
 governments as would suit every man in Con- 
 gress, or even a majority, would have resulted 
 From any system whatever, but I contend that 
 a more loyal basis might have been secured 
 among the whites. 
 
 The white population of the eleven seceding 
 States in 1860 was 5,449,4(33, the free colored 
 population was 132,760, and the slave popula- 
 tion was 3,521,110, making a total population 
 of 9,103,338, three fifths being white and two 
 fifths colored. I look now to the vote of 1860 
 •for President. Of course I cannot give the 
 vote of South Carolina, because the presiden- 
 tial electors in that State have always been 
 chosen by the Legislature. But in the other 
 States the vote for Mr. Breckinridge was 416, 592, 
 the vote for Mr. Bell 345,919, and the vote for 
 Mr. Douglas 57,723, making an entire vote of 
 820,234. He who lived in the slaveholding 
 States at the beginning of this rebellion knows 
 perfectly well that those who voted for Bell and 
 those who voted for Douglas were LTnion men. 
 
 I know it perfectly well. There is not a Sen- 
 ator within the hearing of my voice, who lives 
 in a border State, that does not at once recog- 
 nize the fact. Four hundred and sixteen thou- 
 sand men in the South then voted for Mr. Breck- 
 inridge, and 403,000 of them voted for Bell and 
 Douglas. Then nearly half the people of those 
 States were Union men. 
 
 An oath reaching the past conduct of these 
 men, a j^ardon, if you please, on the condition 
 that the active^ blatant rebel of 1860 and 1861 
 should refrain from participating in amending 
 that which he wished to destroy, and which he 
 would now as gladly destroy as ever, would have 
 given us liberal reorganization, institutions of 
 vitality, filled with the spirit of the age, devoid 
 of prejudice, and opening up the brightest hopes 
 for the melioration of the poor, whether white 
 or black. 
 
 But we have to take things as they are. The 
 President has acted, and his governments are 
 before us. I asked him during the progress of 
 reconstruction but one thing, and that was, if 
 he reconstructed on the rebel vote to recon- 
 struct on the negro vote also. It may have 
 been wront; to do so, but if he had included it, 
 his governments may have worked more har- 
 moniously than they do. This is all I ever 
 asked, all I now ask. There is nothing that I 
 crave for self or friends at the hands of mortal 
 man. So much, 1 thought, could be demanded 
 of justice, so much be craved in the mercy of 
 God. [Applause in the galleries.] 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Foot in 
 the chair.) Order! 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. But if the active rebel 
 vote had been excluded, I was willing to respect 
 the constitutions of those States as they existed 
 before the rebellion, and trust to Union men to 
 so fix the franchise — and they would have done 
 so— as to secure fidelity to the LTnion and peace 
 to themselves. If to secure these ends the negro 
 vote had become essential, it would have been 
 granted. The Senate tvill pardon me if I refer 
 to some remarks made by me at the last session 
 of Congress on this subject of reconstruction. 
 I read from volume two. Congressional Globe, 
 second session, Thirty-Eighth Congress, page 
 1070 i 
 
 " When citizens of a State rebel and take up arms 
 against the General Government they lose their rights 
 as citizens of the United States, and they necessarily 
 forfeit those rights and franchises in their respective 
 States which depend on United States citizenship," 
 
 The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sum- 
 ner] interrupted me during the speech, and in 
 reply to a question put by him, I said : 
 
 "I have already explained my positions on these 
 subjects. I am in favor of the loyal men g-overniug the 
 State. If that be the government of the few, it results 
 from the voluntary disloyalty of the many. They, of 
 their own will, relinquish the right to govern them- 
 selves under the Constitution, and as they have no 
 legal right to gavern otherwise they cannot govern at 
 all. I can nomorecompelthemtogovern themselves 
 according to the Constitution than I can compel a loyal 
 man to vote who refuses to do so. As to the oligarchy 
 of skin or color, I can tell the Senator again that the 
 question of suffrage is with the States. If they confer 
 the franchise on the negro, I surely do not object. 
 
 "Mr. President, Isay that the only way to crush out 
 disloyalty and bring back peace in this country is to 
 let theloyalmen of the seceded States form Stategov- 
 ernments, and let us uphold them. That is the means 
 upon which we must sooner or later rely to reestablish 
 peace and restore union." 
 
 I do not think that it is necessary to the re- 
 
12 
 
 publican principle that tlie majority, althougli 
 rebels, should govern, and therefore I took issue 
 with the distinguished Senator from Ohio [Mr. 
 Wadk] at the last session. If a majority of the 
 people of a State become disloyal, why cannot 
 the minority rule? 
 
 I want State governments, indeed they must 
 exist or the national Government is incomplete. 
 Without a State Legislature no State can be 
 represented in this body. Without a Governor 
 or Legislature no State can ask for protection 
 against domestic violence. But if a majority 
 of qualified voters in a State are disloyal and 
 are resolved to overthrow the national Govern- 
 ment, you must destroy their power for mis- 
 chief. Do you destroy their power by leaving 
 them in possession of the State government, 
 where they may levy taxes on the loyal men and 
 use their money in waging war? You do not 
 deny the right of the nation to expel from 
 office, the State officials, whom these men have 
 put in power to accomplish the objects of their 
 treason. You do not deny the right of the na- 
 tion to shoot and kill this majority when it op- 
 poses your power. You do not hesitate to step 
 in with military power to protect the loyal mi- 
 nority against this majority. You admit the 
 power to remedy. Then why is there no power 
 to prevent ? We have been told that * ' an ounce 
 of prevention is better than a pound of cure." 
 Our Constitution, it seems, is made on no such 
 idea. 
 
 Mr. WADE. Will the Senator permit me to 
 ask him a question ? 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. Certainly; I am seek- 
 ing light. 
 
 Mr. WADE. How, practically, can one tenth 
 of the peo23le of a State rule that State on re- 
 publican principles ? 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I am not speaking about 
 the theoretical idea of republicanism. I am 
 speaking of republicanism accoi'ding to the Con- 
 stitution of the United States, and 1 know of no 
 other republicanism in a legal point of view ; 
 that is, in all my conduct here I must be guided 
 by that Constitution. lamsworntobesoguided. 
 If a majority in a State, opposed to the Federal 
 Government, have a right to rule, they can se- 
 cede legally. I admit the theory that all men 
 should vote in the State if it can be carried out. 
 But even on the subject of republicanism in a 
 State does the Senator not know that for a 
 number of years, the majority of the people of 
 South Carolina have been slayes, who had 
 no part, lot, or share in the Government? Does 
 he not know that a majority of the people of 
 South Carolina and Mississippi — I mean the 
 slaves — were always debarred of any right in 
 the Government, either national or State? I 
 am considering the Constitution as it is, not as 
 he and I would have it. 
 
 Mr. WADE. I said upon republican princi- 
 ples, not aristocratical principles, for I know that 
 one man couldgovernaState on those principles. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. South Carolina was one 
 of the original thirteen. Let me ask the Sen- 
 ator if South Carolina had not a republican con- 
 stitution, in the eye of the supreme law, the 
 Constitution of the United States ? 
 
 Mr. WADE. No ; she never had. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. Then was there an 
 error in the understanding of our forefathers ; 
 they certainly must have deceived themselves 
 when they made the instrument. 
 
 Mr. WADE. They were mistaken. ,, 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. Thatmaybe. Our fore- '/ 
 fathers may have made many mistakes. I have 
 no doubt they did. One of them I would cor- 
 rect, and that is what we are considering. They 
 made a mistake in leaving slavery to exist at 
 all. But they did leave it, and it brought war. 
 I think if we leave wrong to fester, again, some- 
 time in the future, we shall have another war. 
 
 Mr. WADE. J am with you there. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I hope you will be with 
 me in many things. But all this is outside of 
 the question. I submit to the Senator, have the 
 disloyal men in a State the right to govern, if 
 they are in a majority? 
 
 Mr. WADF. In my judgment they have not. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. Then have not the loyal 
 minority the right to erect a State government? 
 
 Mr. WADE. My opinion is that where only ^ 
 one tenth of the population of any State are 
 loyal, that that State is in such a condition that 
 it cannot govern itself upon republican princi- 
 ples. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. Suppose there are five 
 hundred only, less than half in the State of Ten- 
 nessee or the State of North Carolina, who are 
 loyal ; will the Senator govern that State for 
 all time by military authority as a province of 
 the Government of the United States leather 
 than let the loyal minority make a State gov- 
 ernment for themselves ? If we were to do that, 
 we might pervert and overturn our whole re- 
 publican system. We cannot afford to keep 
 large standing armies for such a purpose, unless 
 we intend to destroy our own liberties. Then 
 let us permit the loyal minority to govern. In • 
 Missouri one third, if not more, of our entire 
 population, has been disfranchised by the new 
 constitution of the State, and some say that a 
 majority have been disfranchised by it if en- 
 forced. Will he turn away Missouri from rep- 
 resentation here, if it be ascertained that a ma- 
 jority of her people are disfranchised? The 
 people have voted on it and have made it the 
 law of the State ; and any man who cannot take 
 the oath prescribed in it, of course cannot vote ; 
 and if it should turn out that a majority of the 
 people have been disfranchised, the Senator 
 trom Ohio must drive me from the Senate 
 because Missouri is not a republican State. 
 
 Mr. WADE. I apprehend that the rebels 
 will try to drive you out. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. It is the duty of the 
 Government of the United States to recognize 
 
13 
 
 the loyal people of a State ; 1^ them form a 
 constitution, and when that i? done, admit them 
 here, and when you have admitted thorn, pro- 
 tect them, if necessary, by the military authority 
 of the country. Did you not protect Rhode 
 Island a few years ago in the very same way ? 
 There is no doubt that a majority of the people 
 of Rhode Island were in favor of the Dorr gov- 
 ernment. Nobody doubted it, and yet this 
 Government maintained the minority there, 
 ' ])ecause it was the established government. 
 Mr. FESSENDEN. Let me ask the Senator 
 whether a military force would not be necessary 
 in order to protect and sustain the government 
 of a minority? 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I have felt the diffi- 
 culty that the Senator presents : I have thought 
 of this question much ; I might answer him by 
 saying that when a majority are disloyal and the 
 minority are without State government, you 
 need a much larger army. For all then is an- 
 archy. If you have a State government, you 
 have civil rules at least, and machinery to dis- 
 pense justice. Hence you have order. If in 
 the one case you have to use an army, in the 
 other your army may be smaller, because the 
 civil power gives its assistance. Again, the 
 State may soon furnish its own police. It is 
 much better for the people of each State to have 
 their own police than for us to send an army 
 among them. Military power is dangerous in 
 peace. If it has to be used let it be in aid of 
 law. If the rebel majority make the law you 
 cannot aid it, and you have not only to over- 
 throw the State law, but you must enforce an 
 adverse policy. That, too, must be done by 
 courts-martial and not by courts-civil. That is 
 the very difficulty the President now has with 
 his new organizations. They are not animated 
 by the spirit of the loyal minority, but by the 
 rebel majority. This is the mistake, and the 
 great mistake. 
 
 The country wants the Union restored. Many 
 
 food mbn are astonished everywhere that the 
 Representatives are not admitted. The Pres- 
 "v'dent committed himself to his plan of recon- 
 struction, and his pride demands that he should 
 succeed. The country is greatly indebted to 
 the President for the much he has done in se- 
 curing, at least, outward manifestations of loy- 
 alty by the people of the South. It will be 
 remembered that almost every act of conven- 
 tion or Legislature, overthrowing the traditions 
 and heresies of treason, have been secured by 
 the direct interference of the President. The 
 abolishment of slavery, the adoption of the 
 constitutional amendment, the repudiation of 
 the rebel debt, nullifying the ordinances of se- 
 cession, and giving civil rights to thefrcedmen, 
 may all be traced to that interference. If none 
 but loyal men had been i-eprosented in those 
 conventions, these and many other proper 
 things might have been done without that dic- 
 tation by the President, which upsets the entire 
 
 theory of his plan. The President has entire 
 confidence in these organizations, because, per- 
 haps, the,y have done all he asked them to do, 
 and promise to do more if he demands it. He 
 does not ask them to give suffrage to the negro, 
 and although it is and ever will be against their 
 own interest to deny it, yet, as they have ever 
 done, they consult prejudice rather than right 
 or interest, and promise all except that. They 
 would give that, if tlie President had asked it. 
 But he was personally, perhaps, opposed to it, 
 and at once the Constitution rose up in his way, 
 and though he could attach any condition to 
 pardon, and require other things in the judg- 
 ment of some men much worse, though he could 
 dictate other measures and did dictate, yet this 
 would be a dangerous usurpation of power. If 
 three and a half million men were disfranchised 
 and robbed of all political power, there was no 
 usurpation in that, no tyranny, no danger to 
 the re^^ublican principle. 
 
 Some members of Congress are afraid that 
 these organizations are a kind of Grecian horse ; 
 that they are full of armed men, and when once 
 in the citadel they may rush forth and open the 
 gates to the returning Democracy. Whether 
 there are any armed men in them or not, the 
 Democrats think so, and they demand imme- 
 diate recognition. They have stimulated the 
 President's pride, and he interprets these very 
 reasonable fears of his friends as a reflection 
 upon his loyalty and integrity. All that now 
 exists between the President and Congress 
 comes from this simple statement. The Pres- 
 ident is willing to trust them now. Congress 
 asks time to look in and see if there is any dan- 
 ger. The President admits that Congress has 
 a right to do so, but those who opposed his elec- 
 tion and who liave opposed his policy up to this 
 moment tell him that this is an attack on his 
 Administration. 
 
 Finally, the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. 
 Sumner,] always doing some imprudent thing, 
 I cannot always be near him to tell him better, 
 [laughter, ] makes his whitewashing speech, and 
 then the President sees a consj^iracy against his 
 policy. Parties are busy attempting to widen 
 the breach, and on last Saturday a deputation 
 comes up from the Virginia Legislature bring- 
 ing to the President resolutions of that body, 
 indorsing his reconstruction policy, but saying 
 nothing about fealty to the Constitution or loy- 
 alty to the Government. Mr. Baldwin, the 
 spokesman of the delegation, in presenting the 
 resolutions, said : 
 
 "The people of Virginia and their representatives 
 accept the result and abide by the consequences of 
 the late contest." 
 
 "Accept" and "abide by!" "Chief among 
 the results," he said — 
 
 " is the universal conviction that the Union of thwe 
 States is an established fact. We recognize this Gov- 
 ernment as our Government, its Constitution and the 
 rights which it promises as our rights." 
 
14 
 
 It was their Government in 18G1. Tlie Con- 
 stitution, save and excepting slavery, was then 
 as it now is, and the rights it secured are no 
 more sacred than in 1861, when the Gosport 
 navy-yard was destroyed and Harper's Ferry 
 was surrendered to rebel soldiers. If those 
 rights are more sacred, it is simply because the 
 negro is now entitled to freedom. But Mr. 
 Baldwin says, further: 
 
 "Another great result is the final overthrow of sla- 
 very. This has been concluded by constitutional 
 amendment. The General Assembly of the State of 
 Virginiais engaged earnestly in consideration of these 
 subjects, and wc can only say that whatever policy 
 may be adopted will be for the moral culture and im- 
 provement of the condition of the freedmen; and to 
 treat them with harshness and injustice is against our 
 feelings." 
 
 Mr. Baldwin says that great results have 
 flowed from the war, and one of the greatest is 
 the overthrow of slaverj'. Virginia accepts this 
 result and recognizes the Government as her 
 Government, and the Constitution thus changed 
 as her Constitution. We are here assured that 
 Virginia has gone to work to secure the "moral 
 culture"' of the negro and to "improve" his 
 condition. If this be so, it is a little strange 
 that General Terry interferes by military order 
 to set aside a solemn act of that Legislature, 
 designed, as he says, to sell all the negroes into 
 slavery again under the pretext of vagrancy. 
 But if the Virginia Legislature, in the process 
 of reorganization, can busy itself in matters per- 
 taining to the moral culture of the negro and 
 the improvement of his condition as a citizen 
 of the country, why is it that the national Le- 
 gislature, through which, against the bloody 
 protest of Virginia, the negro has become free, 
 cannot aid and assist the reconstructed Virginia 
 Legislature, in this humane and commendable 
 work, without l)eing held up all over the coun- 
 try as radicals, Jacobins, and Red Republicans ? 
 If Mr. Baldwin can accept the freedom of the 
 slave, why cannot he accept that which will keep 
 him free ? I say nothing of the antecedents of 
 Mr. Baldwin and those who came with him. 
 
 Mr. WILSON. Allow me to ask the Senator 
 if this Mr. Baldwin is the Mr. Baldwin who was 
 a member of the confederate congress. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I think so. Of course 
 it is the same. 
 
 Mr. WILSON. I should like to know if it 
 is the same Mr. Baldwin who nominated Gen- 
 eral Lee the other day, as the next Governor of 
 that State, in the Virginia Legislature. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. The same man, Ithink. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. And he has been addressing 
 the President of the United States ! 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I do not object to his 
 addressing the President of the United States. 
 That is not my complaint. Senators run ahead 
 of me and break up the connection of my 
 thought. I cannot think so much as others, nor 
 so fast. I was going to say that my objection 
 consists not in the appearance of Mr. Baldwin 
 
 and his associates. I would have them come, 
 and come often. I like to hear expressions in 
 favor of the Constitution as it now is. I like 
 to be assured of a returning sense of loyalty. 
 Congress only asks to be assured of the sincer- 
 ity of the professions. The President seems 
 to be satisfied. He commenced, however, with 
 the work of reconstruction last May. Congress 
 commenced only in December. When Con- 
 gress shall have been engaged at the work as^ 
 long as the President, it may be equally satii/ 
 tied. One should scarcely be upbraided for a 
 want of belief in any proposition, unless he has 
 neglected the opportunities for information. 
 Conviction in the human mind comes from the 
 evidences adduced. Before we believe any 
 proposition, and especially such a proposition 
 as the sudden conversion of the people of the 
 seceded States to unaffected and sincere loy- 
 alty, we should be excused for demanding the 
 proofs necessary to establish it. I complain 
 that the President himself being satisfied takes 
 it for granted that Congress ought to be satis- 
 fied, and in reply to Mr. Baldwin uses some 
 expressions that tend to no good. There is no 
 use of controversy between the Executive and 
 Congress. I profess to be, and am a friend of 
 the President's, and shall use no language, even i 
 in expressing differences with him, that maj^ 
 tend to excite the country against him. His 
 language in this reply will be interpreted as an 
 attack upon certain members of Congress, at 
 the least, and possibly upon Congress itself, 
 should a difference hereafter spring up between 
 them. 
 
 He says, in effect, that one rebellion has been 
 put down against the southern men, and now 
 he intends, if necessary, to put down a rebel- 
 lion against somebody else. Of course I am 
 not included in this new conspiracy or rebel- 
 lion. My friend from Kentucky, [Mr. Guth- 
 rie,] the other day, in a moment of excitement, 
 almost threatened the dissolution of the Union 
 again. This is not oil on the troubled waters. 
 The President says, in his reply to the Virginiji^, 
 delegation, as follows: 
 
 "The Government, in the assertion of its powers, 
 and in the maintenance of the principles of the Con- 
 stitution, has taken hold of one extreme, and with the 
 strong arm of ])hysical power has put down the rebel- 
 lion. Now, as we swing around the circle of the Union 
 with a fixed and unalterable determination to stand 
 h^M, if wctind the counterpart or the duplicate of 
 the same spirit that played to this feeling and these 
 persons in the South, this other extreme which stands 
 in the way must get out of it, and the Government 
 must stand unshaken and unmoved on its basis. The 
 Government must be preserved." 
 
 The Senator can now understand. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. What is the meaning of 
 that? I do not understand it. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I do not know that I 
 understand it, but if I do, it means the rebels 
 and the radicals have played see-saw, and he 
 intends to stop it. That is the whole of it. I 
 want to be plain. I will read the former sen- 
 
15 
 
 tence, however, and then jDcrhaps the Senator 
 can understand it for himself. The President 
 says: 
 
 " I do not intend to ?ay anythinpr personal, but you 
 know as well as I do that at tho beginning, and, in- 
 deed, before the beginning of tho recent gigantic 
 struggle between the different sections of the coun- 
 try, there were extreme men South, and there were 
 extreme men North." 
 
 The Senator is one of the extremest I ever 
 knew ; but the President proceeds : 
 
 "I might make use of a homely figure (which is 
 sometimes as good as any other, even in tho illustra- 
 tion of great and important questions) and say that it 
 has been hammer at one end of tho line and anvil at 
 the other; and this great Government, the best the 
 world ever saw, was kept upon the anvil and ham- 
 mered before therebcllion, and ithas been hammered 
 since the rebellion; and there seems to be a disposi- 
 tion to continue the hammering until the Go vernment 
 shall bedestroy ed. I have opposed that system always, 
 and I oppose it now." 
 
 The Senator will now understand that he is 
 hammering at the other end of the line, and he 
 may get hammered soon. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. I do not understand any 
 such thing. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON._ The Senator is slow 
 to understand. I hope it comes from conscious 
 innocence. But, Mr. President, to be serious. 
 I deprecate this language, it tends to no good. 
 It comes, I fear, more from feeling than from 
 judgment formed on a proper consideration of 
 the case. Great interests are at stake, and they 
 who now wield the power of this nation, both 
 in the executive and legislative departments, 
 have a grave responsibility on their shoulders. 
 If mistakes werejieretofore made in the organi- 
 zation of the Government, now is the time to 
 correct them. Our forefathers were wise men, 
 perhaps the wisest that any age has given us. 
 No one doubts their integrity, their unselfish 
 devotion to true republican principles. If they 
 had carried out their own repeatedly expressed 
 convictions on the subject of slavery, this war 
 of the rebellion would not have come. We all 
 know that considerations of an early union, the 
 necessity for protection against foreign Powers, 
 as well as the supposed immediate demands of 
 trade and commerce, added to an indisposition 
 or absolute fear to grapple with the avarice and 
 prejudice connected with slavery, induced them 
 in the formation of the Government to ignore 
 the condition of the African slave. 
 
 They mournfully contented themselves with 
 keeping the word "slave" out of the Consti- 
 tution. They scorned to sanction, by direct 
 words, its existence, but yet provided, under 
 another name, that the nation's power should 
 , be used to mend, when broken, the chain of 
 human bondage. They excused themselves 
 and the Government they made, by putting the 
 responsibility on the States. They hoped, in- 
 deed they expressed the hope, that the States 
 would soon emancipate, and they framed a 
 Constitution admirably suited to that condition 
 
 of things. Slavery was inconsistent with the 
 very principle on which they built. To save 
 the pain of cutting, they consented to leave one 
 fiber of the cancer, hoping that nature would 
 soon heal it. Nature did not heal it, but the 
 cancer grew from year to year until the whole 
 body-politic became diseased. The last five 
 years have been spent in a grand surgical op- 
 eration to save the life of the patient. The 
 cancer has been cut to its roots. The patient 
 is suffering, but he is stronger than when the 
 operation commenced. Who is the timid sur- 
 geon that would now hesitate to remove the 
 last particle of disease? If there be one, that 
 man will be responsible hereafter for much 
 suffering. Some say, leave it with the States : 
 they will cure themselves. The State govern- 
 ments are a necessary part of the national Gov- 
 ernment. The President tells us one cannot 
 exist without the other. They are the limbs of 
 the human body. Would you partially remove 
 disease from the arm and then tell the arm to 
 cure itself? Would you half cure the heel and 
 foolishly trust to nature for the balance simply 
 because the heel is so far from the seat of life ? 
 A limb sick, makes the body sick, and he who 
 would preserve health and vitality must ward 
 off disease at every point. 
 
 I have been led to these remarks by looking 
 at the present condition of the southern States. 
 Is there no symptom of disease there? All 
 over the country Congress is denounced be- 
 cause it does not accept the President's healing 
 or restoration of those States as a perfect cure. 
 Is the old disease eradicated? If so. Congress 
 ought to admit their Representatives, and it 
 deserves the denunciation of the country in 
 default of speedy action. Does the President 
 himself believe that the cure is pertiict? If we 
 admit them they must henceforth he treated as 
 loyal States. We must give them the exercise 
 of all local and municipal power not granted to 
 Congress. In that case we should at once re- 
 move martial law. The privilege of the writ of 
 habeas corpus should be restored. It is now 
 suspended by the will of the President. When 
 once admitted, thecondition of thefreedmanand 
 the poor white, must be left to them. The suf- 
 frage cannot then be changed without their free 
 consent, uninfluenced by any considerations. If 
 admitted, and they are strong enough to repu- 
 diate the public debt, withdraw the pensions 
 from the wounded veterans, or deny the claim 
 of loyal States for expenses and loyal men for 
 damages, the country must accept it, and ac- 
 cept it in peace. I do not fear many of these 
 things, but the President himself seems to fear 
 much. If hfe is satisfied with these organiza- 
 tions, why does he not treat them better? 
 
 During the session of the Georgia convention 
 Mr. Seward telegraphed to the provisional gov- 
 ernor, as follows : 
 
 " Your several telegrams have been received. The 
 President of the United States cannot recognize the 
 
16 
 
 the people of any State havinp resumed relations of 
 loyalty to the Union that admits as lepral obligations 
 contracted or debts created in that name to promote 
 the war of the rebellion. 
 
 "WM. II. SEWARD." 
 
 Why? Was not Georgia an independent State? 
 The President said it was. Did not Georgia 
 h.ave a right to assume and pay any debts she 
 pleased? What right had Air. Seward to tele- 
 graph to the convention of Georgia that Geor- 
 gia should not pay a debt? And yet my Demo- 
 cratic friends say the President's policy must 
 be sustained. What policy ? Is it the policy 
 of letting the President do as he pleases, reor- 
 ganize a State government, and wherever it 
 runs counter to his views to stop it in its legis- 
 lation afid say, " Thus far shall thou go and no 
 further. ' ' But if Congress undertakes to inter- 
 fere, not interfere, but hesitate, to sanction these 
 asperfect and legitimate Sta'te governments, they 
 are a set of Jacobins, ' ' French revolutionists, ' ' 
 "dangerous men," who ought to be turned out 
 at the point of the bayonet. The President 
 calls it ' ' hammering at the other end of the 
 Hne." 
 
 The State of Tennessee has been reorganized. 
 How reorganized ? The President himself was 
 the beginner and the originator of it, as the mili- 
 tary governor of Mr. Lincoln. The Tennessee 
 members are here seeking admission. But the 
 Presiderft has put General Thomas at Nashville. 
 The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Trdmbull] the 
 other day presented his proposition here, put- 
 ting judicial powers in the hands of the military, 
 for certain purposes in the seceding States. It 
 was to protect negroes, when discriminated 
 against in their civil rights, by State legislation 
 in those States. The press all over the country 
 opposed to these so-called Jacobins announced 
 the fact that the Senator from Illinois, the great 
 leader of the new revolution, had introduced 
 a most dangerous proposition, carrying military 
 men down .South to usui-p the entire political 
 power of the revolted States and to administer 
 mock justice at the point of the bayonet. I did 
 not like it myself. I am afraid of even the ap- 
 pearance of military rule. But let us go on 
 with the case of Tennessee. The President 
 usurps these powers, I should say uses them, 
 and the President is right, but the Jacobins are 
 wrong. Will you tell me the difference ? Is 
 not General Thomas put in command in Ten- 
 nessee by the President himself? Yes. Is he 
 not kept there by the President? Yes. Did 
 not General Thomas under the President's or- 
 ders arrest a bishop of the diocese of Alabama, 
 the other day, and imprison him? Some said 
 it was only because the bishop would not pray 
 for the President. And yet General Thomas 
 is not dismissed. But suppose Congress should 
 undertake to interfere with the worship of tlie 
 Christian religion down South, what would be 
 said about it? Let me read an order issued by 
 General Thomas a few days ago. It is a letter 
 
 addressed to Messrs. Guild & Smith, at'^orneys- 
 at-law, at Nashville : 
 
 Headquarters Division of the Tennessee, 
 Nashville, Tenn., Jnniianj 17, 1866. 
 
 SiEs: It has been reported to Major General Thomaa 
 that you, as counsel for one John Allen, of Smith 
 county, have instituted suit against James S. Bur- 
 ham, of Sumner county, late captain first Tennessee 
 mounted iulantry, for rent for the said Allen's farm 
 while the said farm was under the control of the 
 United States as abandoned property. 
 
 This is clearly a violation of General Orders, No. 
 29, from these headquarters, often published in the^ t 
 newspapers of the State, and must have been seen by'/ 
 you. lie directs me to say to you that you will at 
 once cause said suit to be discontinued and dismissed 
 forever, failing in which you, John Allen, and the 
 circuit court clerk of Sumner county will be arrested 
 and brought to trial before a military commission. 
 
 By command of Major General Thomas : 
 
 R. W. JOHNSON, 
 Brevet Brigadier General, U. S, A, 
 Messrs. Guild & Smith, Attorney s-at-law. 
 
 Mr. HENDRICKS. How do you like it? 
 Mr. HENDERSON. No, the proper ques- 
 tion is, how do you like it ? Why, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, if this is not hammering on one end of 
 the line, or the middle of the line, I do not 
 know what it is. These attorneys bring a suit 
 under a State law, and the military otiicer in 
 chief command, under the direction of the 
 President, announces in a letter to them that 
 they will be arrested and imprisoned and tried 'r 
 before a military commission if they go on with 
 the suit; the clerk of the court is notified that if 
 he issues process he will be seized. Of course 
 the letter does not include the judge, because 
 the judge cannot take cognizance or jurisdic- 
 tion of the case until the writ of summons has 
 been returned ; but if the clerk should happen 
 to issue process, and it should be served, I 
 suppose General Thomas would go further, and 
 if the judge should undertake to render judg- 
 ment in the case, the judge himself would be 
 seized and hammered, under the judgment of 
 a military court. 
 
 Mr. President, I have said this whole sup- 
 posed controversy between the President and 
 Congress is perfectly ridiculous to me. Why 
 is the country convulsed from one end to the /- 
 other now about the return of these States? 
 Did they not go out voluntarily ? Did we not 
 beg them to stay? Was not the life of every 
 man in this land endangered by their conduct? 
 Have they not given us untold sorrows and 
 afflictions in defiance of almost base entreaty 
 and much gratuitous, but scorned advice? I 
 told them these difhculties would come. They 
 went. And now, because I do not vote them 
 back the very moment they present themselves 
 — before the President himself will abide by 
 their laws, indeed while he feels bound daily 
 to set them aside — I am a Jacobin, a leveller, 
 a maniac on the subject of negro rights. Some 
 of these gentlemen around me may be danger- 
 ous men ; I do not know but they are ; I am 
 not. I claim to be conservative. I have al- 
 ways been conservative. If entitled to the 
 
17 
 
 designation of radical at all, it must be a con- 
 servative radical. Nov/, sir, here is General 
 Terry, of Fort Fisher notoriety 
 
 Mr. WADE. Fame. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I beg pardon, it is 
 fame, and not notoriety. What does he say in 
 regard to a law of the State of Virginia? He 
 is in command at Richmond. Was he not put 
 there by the President of the United States, and 
 can he not be removed by him to-day? Cer- 
 tainly. What has he done? Tlie State of Vir- 
 ginia a short time ago passed a vagrant act. 
 Here is a general order issued by General 
 Terry, dated Richmond, January 24, 1866 : 
 
 "By astatiife passed at the present gossion of the 
 Lofishiture o!' Viri'inia, entitled 'A bill providing 
 for tlio punishmout of vagrants,' it is enacted, among 
 other thing?, that any justice of the peace, upon the 
 complaint of any of certain officers therein named, 
 may issue his warrant for the apprehension of any 
 person alleged to be a vagrant and causesueh iierson 
 to be api>rchendcd and brought before him; andthat 
 if upon due examination said.iustice of the peace shall 
 find that such person is a vagrant within the defini- 
 tion of vagrancy contained in said statute, he shall 
 issue his warrant directing such person to be employed 
 for a term not exceeding three months, and by any 
 constable of the county wherein the prooeedings are 
 had be hired out for the best wages which can be 
 
 grocured. his wages to be applied to the support of 
 imself and his family," &c. 
 
 This act applies to white people too. The 
 Senator from Illinois will notice that it does not 
 apply to the negro alone ; it applies to all per- 
 sons ; and yet General Terry says that it is 
 made a mere pretense for selling negroes into 
 slavery, and his order concludes as follows : 
 
 " It is therofore ordered that no magistrate, civil 
 officer, or other person shall in any way or manner 
 apply or attempt to apply the provisions of said stat- 
 ute to any colored person in this department." 
 
 They may sell white men, since this order, into 
 slavery and the negroes may buy them, but Gen- 
 eral Terry says they shall not sell a negro into 
 slavery ; the white people may soon tind them- 
 selves sold out in the Old Dominion to the blacks 
 and the sale enforced Ijy military law, and yet 
 the President sustains all this. The President 
 placed General Terry there and may remove 
 him or overrule his orders. The President sus- 
 tains him, however. But because we hesitate 
 to regard the State of Virginia as fully reor- 
 ganized, and now devotedly attached to the 
 Union and resolved to sustain the Constitution 
 directly m the teeth of these acts, the President 
 strongly thinks we are "hammering atone end 
 of the line." t 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. Allow me to ask my friend if 
 the President did not probably refer to the Dem- 
 ocrats as hammering at the other end of the line. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. My impression is from 
 all 1;he circumstances surrounding the case, that 
 the Senator from Massachusetts is one of the 
 men alluded to. I think I can say to him as 
 Nathan said unto David, "Thou art the man." 
 [Laughter.] The Senator certainly did make 
 an imprudent speech when the report on the con- 
 dition of the southern States came in. The 
 
 President should know that the Senator from 
 Massachusetts makes many imprudent speeches. 
 It is utterly impossible to keep him straiglit un- 
 less some more conservative man, like myself, 
 can whisper him right. [Laughter.] If I could 
 have reached him in time, I am satisfied, he 
 would never have used the term "white wash- 
 ing." [Laughter.] I am fearful the President 
 attaches too much importance to this impru- 
 dent speech. We pay no attention to it here. 
 
 Again, has not General Sickles issued an 
 order at Charleston, with twenty-three sections, 
 making up an entire civil code for the govern- 
 ment of South Carolina, the Legislature being 
 in session? 
 
 Mr. WILSON. The most comprehensive 
 ever made. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. Certainly, taking al- 
 most the entire government of South Carolina 
 under military control and military power. The 
 President can do this thing — I say the Presi- 
 dent, because Generals Terry, Sickles, and 
 Thomas, and all these men act through the 
 President only — the President of the United 
 States can do all these things, and Congress, 
 cannot help him. Congress never saw business 
 of this sort going on, that it did not want a hand 
 in it, and I think we have a right to have some 
 hand in it. The President admitted the right, 
 and he is now estopped from denying it. 
 
 General Grant issued an order, some time 
 ago, right here in the city of AVashington, im- 
 mediately under the President's eye, and he 
 certainly must have known all about it, which 
 is general, and applies to all the eleven seceded 
 States. It is as follows : 
 
 [General Orders, No. 3.] 
 
 War Department, •» 
 
 Adjutant General's Office, 
 Washington, January 12, 1866. 
 
 To protect persons against improper civil suits and 
 penalties in late rebellious States: 
 
 Military division and department commanders, 
 whose commands embrace or are composed of any of 
 the late rebellious States, and who have not already 
 done so, will at once issue and enforce orders protect- 
 ing from prosecution or suits in the State or muni- 
 cipal courts of such State, all officers and soldiers of 
 the armies ofthe United States, and all persons thereto 
 attached, or in anywise thereto belonging, subject to 
 military authority, charged with offenses for acts done 
 in their military capacity, or pursuant to orders from 
 proper military authority : and to protect from suit 
 or i)rosecutiou all loyal citizens, or persons charged 
 with offenses done against the rebel forces, directly 
 or indirectly, during the existence of the rebellion; 
 and all persons, their agents and employes, charged 
 with the occupancy of abandoned lands or planta- 
 tions, orthe possession orcustody of any kind of prop- 
 erty whatever, who occupied, used, possessed, or con- 
 trolled the same pursuant to the order of the Presi- 
 dent, or any of the civil or military departments of 
 the Government, and to protect them from any pen- 
 alties or damages that may have been or may be pro- 
 nounced or adjudged in said courts in any of such 
 cases; and also protecting colore.l persons from pros- 
 ecutions in any of said States charged with offenses 
 for which white persons are not prosecuted or pun- 
 ished in the same manner and degree. 
 
 By command of Lieutenant General Grant: 
 
 E. D. TOWNSEND, 
 AnsiMant Adjutant General. 
 
 >r^it^*.\ 
 
18 
 
 That order is substantially the bill of the hon- 
 orable Senator from Illinois, the. bill that this 
 Congress has passed, called the Freedincn's 
 J3ureau bill, and which it is understood all over 
 the country the President will veto. Why veto ? 
 Did not General (xraut issue this order with the 
 con.sentof the President of the United States? 
 Can there be any doubt about it? 
 
 Now. sir. is jiot all this controversy perfectly 
 ridiculous? It seems to me so. But for its 
 serious importance, the apparent earnestness 
 of persons and parties in this maze of incon- 
 sistency and palpable contradiction would be 
 amusing. 
 
 Mr. HENDRICKS. If the Senator will allow 
 me, I should like to ask him one question : 
 whether he reads these orders of the military 
 commanders for the purpose of approving them, 
 or for the purpose of condemning them, or 
 simplv for the information of the Senate? 
 
 iMr." HENDERSON. I do not know that the 
 Senator has any right to catechise me as to the 
 purpose with which I read a paper to the Sen- 
 ate. But he certainly cannot misunderstand 
 my object. 
 
 Mr. HENDRICKS. I disclaim the right; 
 but when so able a Senator is addressing the 
 body, of course we would like to know what 
 he means by the evidences that he brings be- 
 fore us. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. The Senator address- 
 ing the body is not so able, but it is a little 
 strange he has not already indicated to the ever 
 quick and ready mind of the Senator from In- 
 diana what his purpose is. Certainly he has dis- 
 played no ability whatever if he has failed to 
 make himself understood by that Senator. I 
 ^haveno objection, however, to making the state- 
 ment in answer to the question so plain, " that 
 he may run, thatreadeth it." 
 
 The idea has gone abroad, and it is most care- 
 fully urged, that Congress has resolved to gov- 
 ern the southern States as provinces, that the 
 committee of fifteen was organized to carry out 
 this purpose. The party that opjjosed Mr. J ohn- 
 son's election take this opportunity to announce 
 their devotion to the Union, and clamor for im- 
 mediate restoration. Of course military rule 
 is denounced. This is a strong card. I dis- 
 like military law as much as any man. The 
 whole country dislikes it. Even the soldier, 
 reared under our institutions, who enforces it, 
 dislikes it. Congress is arraigned for taxing the 
 southern people without representation. This 
 is another powerful argument, an argument that 
 could not be answered, if the very organizations 
 now presenting themselves did not propose to 
 tax half their people, for all time to come, with- 
 out any voice or representation now, and with- 
 out hope of it in the future. 
 
 Again, we are charged with being disunion- 
 ists. We are so designated in the columns of 
 leading papers. And why is it? The people 
 are taught to believe that harmony and peace 
 
 and good-will reign supreme in the southern 
 States; that they have loyal governments or- 
 ganized, administering justice without delay, 
 sale, or denial, and protecting all their inhabit- 
 ants ; that the spirit of rebellion is far removed 
 from them, and thej' only need an opportunity 
 now to show their old i)roverbial love and at- 
 tachment for the Union. The war was waged 
 for the Union, and the people long to see it 
 restored. This natural desire is seized upon to 
 array hostility to Congress. The President is 
 praised ; his reconstruction policy indorsed in 
 the strongest terms. Lincoln's reconstruction 
 policy, in form the same, but ditfering only in 
 that it brought Union men to Congress and 
 secured another State to the Union in case of 
 confederate success, was denounced by the same 
 men. Congress is arraigned for the Freedmen' s 
 Bureau bill. I do not like it myself, and only 
 supported it as a means of getting what is right. 
 I had nothing to do with the committee of fif- 
 teen, and I hold now that the House of Repre- 
 sentatives cannot control my vote, against my 
 will, in the admission of a Senator from one 
 of the seceding Staes. No law of Congress can 
 control it. The States are in the Union, but 
 in the Prevsident's view they are not yet out of 
 rebellion. The Attorney General says they are 
 not, and the President treats them worse than 
 provinces. If the reljellion is over and the cause 
 of it removed, why these proceedings which I 
 have enumerated? 
 
 Mr. President, I think I have shown that the 
 Executive is estopped from complaining of Con- 
 gress. Political parties cannot consistently ap- 
 plaud the President and then say one word 
 against Congress. Does the President design 
 continuing this military rule after the Repre- 
 sentatives are admitted? If necessary now, 
 will it be less so after admission ? My friend 
 from Indiana, however, with all his instincts 
 against these things is no doubt ready to join in 
 the general cry and say, great is the President 
 and accursed be the Jacobins. v 
 
 Mr. HENDRICKS. I have not said that. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I am glad of it. Many 
 others have said it and do now daily say it. 
 
 Mr. HENDRICKS. My position with re- 
 spect to the President of the United States is 
 just this : I am not under that sort of obliga- 
 tion which is known as party obligation. I 
 expect to indorse and approve in his conduct 
 everything that my judgment and conscience 
 approve. The Senator would not ask me to 
 do less, and I think he would not ask me to do 
 more. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. Certainlv not. 
 
 Mr. HENDRICKS. My modesty wotld 
 prevent my appearing before this body as the 
 peculiar champion of the President. I did 
 not help to make him President ; Init what is 
 right in his Administration I shall support, 
 and I think I may say now that perhaps ] 
 will find something in his conduct to approve 
 
19 
 
 whicli some of the Senators about me may 
 disapprove. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I was aware of the 
 modest}' of my friend. [Laughter.]. And I am 
 aware of another thing ; I am aware of his dis- 
 tinguished ability and his sagacity in seizing 
 upon anything, anything fair and legitimate, of 
 course, that may l^e necessary to build up the 
 ^ party with which he thinks the best interests 
 ) of tiie country are connected. His modesty 
 will also prevent his telling us whether he 
 approves these acts of the President or not. 
 
 Mr. President, I now repeat mj' regrets that 
 the President has seen fit to exact at the hands 
 of Congress a strict compliance with his policy' 
 on the subject of reconstruction. I say com- 
 pliance, for I cannot interpret his speech to the 
 Virginia delegation in any other way. I regret 
 it, becaiTse this is no time for party excitement. 
 The best interests of this great country cannot 
 now be safely connected with party success. 
 To solve our difliculties needs true patriotism, 
 and true patriotism is too often choked out 
 by the rank selfishness of party politics. 
 
 Mr. ^VILSON. _ Will the Senator allow me 
 to ask him a question? 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. WILSON. I want to ask him, as he is 
 giving his opinions pretty freely, if he has any 
 anxiety whatever in regard to the opinions of 
 this Mr. Baldwin, or any man of that class, or 
 any men in the country who sjmipathize with 
 them, that they will be able to influence affairs 
 iu any of the States that in 18fJ4 voted for ]Mr. 
 Lincoln for President. I ask him if he does 
 not believe that those States, bj' a most deci- 
 sive majority, a majority larger than they gave 
 in 1864, are to-day opposed to the admission of 
 any of the States that have been in rel:)ellion 
 into these Chambers until they are so adjusted 
 as to give proper security for the future? 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I have answered so 
 many questions that I have scarcely been able 
 to keep the true question in view. Injustice 
 and wrong often triumph. Our only consola- 
 tion is, that such triumphs cannot be perma- 
 nent. I do not know how far the people will 
 be deceived, nor how long the deception will 
 last. The Union must be restored and this 
 Congress must do it. It must be cemented in 
 the everlasting principles of justice, but I want 
 it cemented immediately. 
 
 Mr. WILSON. So do L 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. We cannot stand still. 
 Work is to be done, and if we do not go for- 
 ward we shall fall back. It is a crisis in our 
 affairs, and a crisis as important as that of 186L 
 I am not mistaken in what I say. The rebel- 
 lion is now suppressed. The rebels are rest- 
 less and discontented. Some loyal men have 
 become frightened at what they term the dan- 
 gerous extremes of radicalism, and, after having 
 been the most radical of all radicals, they are 
 ready to fly to the arms of rebels and seek 
 
 safety in their conservatism. It is an epoch in 
 our hi'tory from whicli will date new political 
 organizations. New schemes of personal am- 
 bition will soon be developed. The pride of 
 our military chieftains will be appealed to, and 
 cunning plans laid to secure their favor. This 
 period is similar to that in English history, 
 when Charles I became a prisoner in the hands 
 of those who fought for the rights of man against 
 the unlimited prerogative of the Crown. It is 
 the condition of France when Louis XVI was 
 a prisoner, and the combined enemies of the 
 republic had melted away in the blaze of re- 
 publican ardor. Let us avoid the excesses of 
 the conquerors in those cases, but let us be 
 firm in securing the legitimate results of the 
 victory. Those results may be known to all 
 who know the causes of the war. The war was 
 another contest of prerogative with inalienable 
 right, an effort to perpetuate privileges of the 
 few, at the expense of tlietoil and tears of mil- 
 lions. It was to sanctify, by human law, what 
 was condemned in the law of God. It was, in 
 fine, to ignore the very existence of millions of 
 people in the government and laws of a coun- 
 tiy, that claims the highest civilization, the 
 largest freedom and the broadest charity for 
 mankind. 
 
 In the judgment of Congress these danger- 
 ous and anti-republican notions have again 
 crept into and are likely to be conserved in the 
 new organizations, and Congress will likely de- 
 mand that they be eradicated before admission. 
 It is quite certain that Congress is not satisfied 
 with the present condition of things, and if We 
 determine not to accept them, the decision 
 should be made at once. 
 
 Some say we cannot go behind the action of 
 the President. He has pardoned the rebels, 
 and that pardon restored them to all the rights 
 of citizenshiij, and among those rights is the 
 right to vote. As the Constitution now stands, 
 the regulation of the franchise belongs to the 
 States. But surely Congress has entire control 
 over the question of United States citizen- 
 ship. Congress may make a citizen of the Uni- 
 ted States. It made many, by joint resolution, 
 in the admission of Texas. Congress made 
 citizens of the Stockbridge and other Indians 
 by law, and recently it has declared, by bill 
 already passed, the entire African race to be 
 citizens of the United States. It seems to me 
 that this power exists in Congress, as a great 
 political right, irrespective of the crime of re- 
 bellion or other offertse committed by the citi- 
 zen himself. If this lie true, then Congress 
 may provide for an enrollment of all its citizens 
 in the seceded States, and require an oath, or 
 proof if you please, of original loyalty in any 
 form to be prescribed, and iu default of such 
 oath or proof, or both, if thought necessary, 
 the party so neglecting or refusing might be 
 declared decitizenized. If this can be done 
 much difficulty may be avoided, for Congress 
 
20 
 
 may at once provide for the erection of State 
 governments in those States by the loyal me'n 
 only. In this way the entire question of negro 
 suflrage may be avoided. As those State gov- 
 ernments existed at the date of secession, the 
 negro could not vote, but at the same time, it 
 was likewise provided, in nearly all of them, 
 that none but citizens of the United States 
 should vote. For instance, the constitution of 
 Mississippi is in the following words : 
 
 " Every free white male person of the age of twenty- 
 cue years or upward, who t;hall be a citizen of the 
 United States, and shall have resided in this State 
 one year next preceding an election, and the last four 
 months within the county, city, or town, in which he 
 olJers to vote shall be deemed a qualified elector." 
 
 Under the constitution of Texas, ' ' every free 
 male person who shall have attained the age of 
 twenty-one years, and who shall be a citizen 
 of the United States, &c., (Indians not taxed 
 and Africans and the descendants of Africans 
 excepted,") .shall be entitled to vote. The 
 constitution of Arkansas provides that — 
 
 "Every free white male citizen of the United 
 States who shall have attained the age of twenty- 
 one years,"' &c. 
 
 Shall vote. The qualifications in Florida, Ala- 
 bama, Tennessee, and Louisiana are the same. 
 The right has been exercised, I know, but ma}' 
 be seriously questioned, whether any but citizens 
 of the United States may properly be permitted 
 to vote in any State. But however that may 
 be, the constitutions to which I have referred 
 required this test for the elector ; and if Con- 
 gress can take away citizenship, the State has 
 already taken away suffrage, and reconstruc- 
 tion on the basis of purel}' loyal men, few or 
 many, white or black, will give State govern- 
 ments, with which the President would iind no 
 cause, in my judgment, to interfere by military 
 power. 
 
 The usual answer to the exercise of this 
 power by Congress is that it is an ex jjont facto 
 law, and therefore prohibited by the Constitu- 
 tion, which declares that — 
 
 " No bill of attainder or ex poet facto law shall be 
 passed." 
 
 But is it in any sense an ex post facto law ? 
 
 Mr. HENDRICKS. Yts. it is. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. The Senator says it is. 
 An ex pod facAo law is one that prescribes a 
 punishment, for the commission or doing of an 
 act, to which no penalty or forfcitui'C was at- 
 tached at the time of doing it, or which increases 
 the punishment after the commission of the 
 offense. The question which I aimed to put, 
 is, can Congress, in the exercise of its power for 
 the safetyof the nation, the preservation of the 
 l)ublic welfare, take away the rights of citizen- 
 ship for any cause whatever? We have before 
 us a question now, the decision of which will 
 involve the solution of this. Congress hereto- 
 fore gave the right of sullrage to the people of 
 this District in their own municipal govern- 
 ment. Can Congress pass an act to take away 
 
 that right of suffrage and put the city or Dis- 
 trict government here in the hands of a board 
 of commissioners, to be appointed by the Pres- 
 ident or by Congress ? 
 
 ^ Mr. HENDIUCKS. The Constitution of the 
 United States places the government of the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia entirely under the control of 
 Congress, and therefore we may do for the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia, I presume, whatever a legis- 
 lative bq^y may properly do for the people un- 
 der its jurisdiction. But, with the permission 
 of the Sen.ator, I wish to suggest further, that 
 if the President of the United States, as we all 
 know he has done, has pardoned a very large 
 portion of the people of the South upon a con- 
 aition with which they have complied, they then, 
 in my judgment, so far as the penalty of the law 
 stands, are free from its penalties, and that to 
 take avv'ay the right of citizenship is a penalty 
 which we cannot impose as a punishment after 
 the President has pardoned the parties. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. The Senator persists 
 in misunderstanding me. , I am not speaking 
 now of crimes, nor the effect of the pardon. 1 
 have answered many questions, and, perhaps, 
 not very satisfactorily. The Senator will per- 
 mit me to ask him one question, as it may con- 
 vey to him the best possible answer to the ques- 
 tion he has asked me. In the State of Indiana, 
 to-day, the uneducated are entitled to the right 
 of suffrage. Does the Senator believe that a 
 constitutional convention of the State of In- 
 diana, if now in session, could deprive every 
 man in that State who cannot read and write 
 of the right of su^rage ? 
 
 Mr. HENDRICKS. I have no doubt that 
 the constitution of the State might be so amended 
 as to limit the right of suffrage according to tlie 
 pleasure of the convention, if that action .should 
 be approved by the people. But, sir, the ques- 
 tion I suggested to the Senator was this: can 
 you, aftcF an act is done, impose a penalty not 
 known to the law at the time the act was done? 
 Can we, according to the sentiments which gov- 
 ern legislative bodies in these modern times, 
 enact an ex post facto law, and punish a party 
 for an act done in a manner not provided for 
 by the law at the time the act was done, and 
 especially after the President, or any other 
 party having the power to pardon, has exer- 
 cised that ]iower. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. The Senator will re- 
 member the Federal Constitution provides that 
 no State '• shall pass any bill of attainder, ex 
 post facto law, or law impairing the obliga- 
 tions of contracts." He says that the State of 
 Indiana may pass such a law, and it will not be 
 subject to the objection that it is ex jjost facto. 
 How, then, is it that a similar act passed by 
 Congress conflicts with a ])rovision in the same 
 words? The limitation is no stronger upon 
 Congress than upon the States. The Senator 
 might deny that th(^ power claimed is a dele- 
 gated power, but his admission estops him from 
 
21 
 
 calling such a law an ex post facto law. But I 
 will discuss this subject no further. T refer to 
 it as a way or means of k'^gally securing loyal 
 governments, provided the present organiza- 
 tions in the seceding States be rejected by Con- 
 gress. 
 
 Mr. CLARK. If the Senator from Missouri 
 will pardon me one moment, 1 wish to ask the 
 Senator from Indiana a question. 
 ' Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not care a-bout 
 being drawn into this debate. 
 
 Mr. CLARK. I do not wish to draw the 
 Senator from Indiana into the debate, but I 
 desire to put this question : whether, if a State 
 finds it is necessary for its own protection — not 
 for the punishment of rebels, but to guard itself, 
 and for its own protection — may it not exclude 
 these men from voting ? Would that be an ex 
 post facto law ? 
 
 Mr. HENDRICKS._ That is not the ques- 
 tion that I was discussing with the Senator from 
 Missouri. I have no doubt of the entire con- 
 trol of the States over the question of the right 
 of suffrage, and it may be exei-cised according 
 to the pleasure of the State. The Senator from 
 Missoui-i is advocating now, as a punishment 
 upon the pardoned rebels, the withdrawal of 
 the right and character of citizenship. As a 
 penalty, as a punishment, I do not think it can 
 be imposed after the President has pardoned. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. The Senator assigns 
 me a position, the least defensible he can find, 
 and then makes his attack. I try to explain, 
 but he will not accept the explanation. 1 have 
 not disputed, and for purposes of the argument 
 I will not dispute, that the pardon of the Pres- 
 ident relieves these parties of the penalties of 
 their crimes, provided the conditions of the 
 pardon have been kept ; but this is a separate 
 and distinct question. I asked the Senator, 
 even had there been no rebellion, if it is within 
 the jurisdiction of Congress to pass an act de- 
 claring that any portion of the inhabitants of 
 the United Stiites are no longer citizens of the 
 United States ? Is this a political power that 
 the body politic enjoy for their own protection 
 and for their own purposes ? That is the ques- 
 tion. If the State of Indiana has the perfect 
 right to enfranchise or disfranchise any portion 
 of its population, is it not within the jurisdic- 
 tion and competency of Congress to declare 
 that certain parties are no longer citizens of 
 the United States, even if there never had been 
 any rebellion ? 
 
 The honorable Senator from Indiana, instead 
 of answering the question as put both by my- 
 self and by the Senator from New Hampshire, 
 refers with apparent pleasure to the fact that 
 the pardon having been exercised by the Presi- 
 dent, the rebels are made i^ew men, that not 
 only penalties are removed, but privileges, if 
 ever lost, are fully restored. I am not disposed 
 to be technical in the premises, but if 1 were, 
 it strikes me that the conduct of the President 
 
 toward these organizations, since their estab- 
 lishment, furnishes strong evidence of the exist- 
 ence of a fact at the time of granting the pardon 
 which would render it void. At the common 
 law, to render a p;irdon valid, it must express 
 with accuracy the crime intended to be forgiven. 
 Hence, in the case of the United States vs. 
 Steller, decided in the United States circuit 
 court at Philadelphia, the court say that gen- 
 eral pardons are not granted by the Crown but 
 by Parliament, and that though our constitu- 
 tion may possibly confer the right, yet the right, 
 if it exists, has never been exercised. In that 
 case, the defendant had been indicted for ' 'coun- 
 terfeiting and uttering counterfeit coin," and 
 there was a general verdict of guilty. In the 
 President's certificate of pardon it was recited 
 that the defendant had been convicted of coun- 
 terfeiting, and thereupon a full and unconditional 
 pardon was granted. The court refused to ex- 
 tend the pardon beyond its express terms, and 
 hence the party was left subject to the disabili- 
 ties imposed by the conviction and sentence. 
 Another principle necessarily resulting from 
 this was, that whenever it may be reasonably 
 supposed that the King, when he grants a par- 
 don, is not fully apprised of thoheinousnessor 
 wickedness of the crime, or that he has been 
 imposed upon by c'oncealment or false repre- 
 sentations of the party to be benefited, the 
 imrdon is void. But a more familiar principle 
 sSll is the one previously alluded to, that if a 
 pardon be granted on conditions and the con- 
 ditions be not complied with the pardon is void. 
 
 It may be that the President was fully advised 
 of the character and extent of the crimes of the 
 rebels when he issued his proclamation. It may 
 be that no imposition was practiced on him to 
 secure the amnesty, but if it be so. it surely can- 
 not be that they have kept the conditions of the 
 pardon, at least the President cannot think so. 
 The pardon was general, and included the en- 
 tire community with certain exceptions. Those 
 exceptions could not participate in reorganiza- 
 tion. The community jiardoned did participate. 
 In ascertaining whether there has been a com- 
 pliance with the conditions, we must not, we 
 cannot, look to isolated or individual cases. We 
 must look to the community, the body-politic, 
 and hold all responsible for the action of that 
 pardoned community. The condition was that 
 the pardoned, that is, the masses, with certain- 
 named exceptions, should " faithfully support 
 all laws and proclamations which have been 
 made during the existing rebellion with refer- 
 ence to the emancipation of slaves." 
 
 Nobody doubts now that freedom is legally se- 
 cured to the negro, and nobody d-oubts that full 
 civil rights attach to that condition, yet Missis- 
 sippi has passed a law denying the right of the 
 negro to hold real or personal property. The 
 same is true, I believe, of South Carolina, and 
 hence the order of General Sickles, to which I 
 have referred. The President himself, through 
 
24 
 
 He discovered that in 1860 the entire popu- 
 lation of California was 379,994, and that out 
 of that number, 273,337 wore males and only 
 10C),t)o7 were females. He discovered, also, 
 that Illinois had 808,941 white males and only 
 805,350 females, an excess of 93,591, enough 
 to give Illinois an additional member of Con- 
 gress under the contemplated rule. He dis- 
 covered also that Louisiana had an excess of 
 males over females of 22.000, Kansas 11,000, 
 Iowa 34,000, Indiana 48,000, Missouri 03,000, 
 and other western and southwestern States in 
 like proportion, while Connecticut, New Hamp- 
 shire, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, 
 and the Atlantic States generally have a large 
 excess of females over males. Hence while 
 this rule might coerce the southern States to 
 adopt negro suffrage, it would at the same time 
 weaken the representative power of the East ; 
 in other words, while it might coerce the South 
 to admit negro suffrage, it might drive the North 
 and the East to woman suffrage, for which they 
 ■were not prepared. The very moment Mr. 
 Bl.vine made some figures on this subject and 
 laid them before the House of Representatives, 
 that proposition was dead forever. Perhaps it 
 ought to have died. But if so, it should have 
 died of another reason. You cannot enfran- 
 chise everybody in the States, and it may be 
 asked with great power, why should not the 
 civil, instead of the political society, be repre- 
 sented In Congress? 
 
 Mr. SHERMAN. What was the date of that 
 speech ? 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. Sometime in the early 
 ])art of January, the precise date I do not re- 
 member. The figures I use are taken from the 
 census, and I may not state the objections just as 
 Mr. Blaixe stated them. I do substantially, for I 
 happened to hear his remarks against the meas- 
 ure which had the approbation of many west- 
 ern members, and which yet is thought by them 
 to be the best. The real objection to it in my 
 mind consists in cheapening the franchise to 
 obtain political power. 
 
 As I have said, however, the proposition died 
 so soon as it was found that the East was to 
 lose by it. I do not blame these Eastern gen- 
 tlemen. They want the privilege to exclude 
 their women and minors from the suffrage, yet 
 they want them counted in the basis of repre- 
 sentation in the Federal Government. At least, 
 they object to any jienalty being imposed on 
 them for their exclusion. But 1 hasten on. Some- 
 thing was to be done. The negro must he en- 
 fi'.'inchised, but the difficulty consisted in choos- 
 ing words that would place the penalty for 
 denying suffrage on the South, and yet let the 
 North i),nd East deny it with impuuily. The 
 next dilliculfy was to select words, that would 
 act as a penalty on the South, without incur- 
 ring the prejudice against negro suffrage in the 
 North and East. Mr. I^laink finally obtained 
 the happy words, and these hajjpy words are 
 
 now embodied in the proposition of the com- 
 mittee, which I have read. 
 
 The first inquiry of t^e country will be, what 
 object is contemplated by this amendment ? 
 What is to be effected? After six or seven 
 thousand million dollars have been expended, 
 after mourning has been brought to almost 
 every house in the land, after blood enough has 
 been spilled to float our heaviest monitors, after 
 the deepest interest has fixed itself in the pub- i, ' 
 lie heart and intense anxiety is depicted on 
 every face, it is simply contemptible to trifle 
 with the sad earnestness of an intelligent peo- 
 ple by the use of ambiguous language. They 
 have a right to know our meaning, the purport 
 
 of our measures, and they will be satisfied with 
 
 nothing less. This resolution is now before us, 
 and many earnest Union men think it must bf> 
 adopted — that its defeat will be attended with 
 great danger to the best interests of the coun- 
 try. Hence, many will not stop to inquire what 
 results may flow from it. I read it again : 
 
 Representatives shall be apportioned anions; the 
 several States which may be included within this 
 Union according to their respective numbers, count- 
 ing the whole number of persons in each State, ex- 
 cluding Indians not taxed: Provided, That wlicnever 
 the elective franchise shall be denied or abridged in 
 any State on account of race or color, all persons ,| 
 therein of such race or color shall be excluded from 
 the basis of representation. 
 
 It will be observed that after the word ' ' Rep- 
 resentatives," the first word in the resolution, 
 the committee have seen fit to drop the three 
 words which follow in the text of the Consti- 
 tution as it now stands, to wit, "and direct 
 taxes." So if the amendment should pass, 
 representation may be fixed on one basis and 
 direct taxation on another. So jealous were 
 our forefathers on this subject that they never 
 thought for a moment of separating taxation 
 and representation. In their judgment, such 
 separation was tyranny. It was so declared 
 throughout the revolutionar}' struggle, and at 
 the time of the adoption of the Constitution a 
 proposition like this, under which, a people / , 
 paying full taxes, should have but half repre- 
 sentation, would have received no favor what- 
 ever. A direct tax would operate harshly 
 against my State. It is a tax levied in pro- 
 portion to the numbers of the people. The 
 people in the newly settled States are gener- 
 ^ly poor, and a tax on each person of an equal 
 amount may be paid easily by the rkh men of 
 the old settled States, while it woula drive to 
 poverty the people of the new. if the rich 
 States of the Atlantic sea-board, now having 
 the power in consequence of the wicked ab- 
 sence and rebellion of the South, should be 
 able to adopt a basis of representation under 
 which they could pay the public dcljt by direct 
 taxation, the West and South might be impov- 
 erished, while the people of New England and 
 the middle "States would grow yet richer. 
 
 I shall watch rebel influence and keep It out 
 of the ebuncils of the nation. The North will 
 
25 
 
 be forced to join me in this, but in foolish fear 
 of rebel influence I will not consent to run into 
 this danger. My State is as much interested in 
 this proposition, as the East is in having their 
 women and minors represented in Congress. 
 The loyal men of the South, robbed of their 
 substance by rebel tyranny, will join Missouri 
 loyalists in having this great del)t paid, as far 
 as possible, from the wealth of the country, and 
 not wrung almost entirely from the sweat of 
 ^Tjoor men. The poor men go from the East to the 
 vXVest. The rich stay where they can enjoy the 
 comforts of an older civilization. I see no reason 
 to run in base fear from anti-negro aristocratic 
 rebel influence into the hands of a moneyed 
 aristocracy. But whence comes this eternal 
 specter of rebel power, in Congress, to frighten 
 
 -" us from all propriety ? I thought we had deter- 
 mined to reject all rebel organizations in the 
 southern States, and to tolerate and recognize 
 none but loyal Governments. If we do so, 
 where is this rebel specter? It is, like many 
 other ghosts, used for a purpose. I am not 
 afraid of such ghosts. The people of this coun- 
 tiy will never suffer any but loyal men to gov- 
 ern these southern States, and the sooner, the 
 disloyal there know it, the better for them. I 
 know they may give us trouble, and a great 
 //deal of it. But the loyal men will possess the 
 country at all times. If I am right, then, this 
 proposition is not so efficient, as a means of 
 weakening rebel influences, as to place, in the 
 hands of the more wealthy States the power, to 
 tax unjustly the loyal and disloyal white and 
 black of the poorer States South and West. I 
 acquit gentlemen, of course, of any such ihten- 
 tion, but such may be the result. 
 
 The answer comes back to me, all this maybe 
 avoided by the simple act of justice to be per- 
 formed by the States, the enfranchisement of 
 the blacks. Well, is it right to enfranchise 
 them? Do you say so? You do not so de- 
 clare, but you expressly declare the right to 
 disfranchise. You admit that a good reason 
 may exist for the disfranchisement, and invite 
 - 'i it by implication. Suppose the white southern 
 landlords agree to accept your proposition. 
 Suppose that they take diminished representa- 
 tion and unjust taxes by Congress, both upon 
 themselves and the negroes, in lieu of the right 
 which you propose to give them, the right to 
 deny the negro representation in the State or- 
 
 — ganizations and the privilege to fleece him from 
 year to year of his hard earnings by unjust State 
 laws? Has Missourino interest in this bargain? 
 Remember, if the negro is represented in Con- 
 gress, his interest is the same as that of my con- 
 stituents. Our forefathers gave him a three- 
 fifths representation as a slave, and a full rep- 
 resentation when free. This proposition offers 
 a bargain by which the southern white may rob 
 thenegro. providedhe, forhimselfandthenegro, 
 will consent to be robbed at the discretion of 
 others. Massachusetts and South Carolina 
 
 made a bargain once before — T mean the bar- 
 gain by which piracy was legalized and man 
 stealing carried on by law until America was 
 filled with slaves. Other people suffered by 
 this thing. My State luid others are likely to 
 suffer by this new compact, and I think it best 
 to have nothing to do with it. 
 
 But I have said the people will ask what 
 this amendment means. It can mean but one 
 of two things. First, it is intended to deny 
 representation to a non-voting population ; or, 
 second, it is intended to secure sufifrage to the 
 negro. 
 
 If the committee intend to secure the first 
 object, it must be because of the existence of a 
 correct, living, vital principle in our Govern- 
 ment, that a non-voting population in one of the 
 States ought not to be represented in the Federal 
 Government. If this be the design, I should 
 like to ask on what princijjle the women, mi- 
 nors, and aliens are to be retained in the basis 
 of representation ? If any principle be involved, 
 these, too, must be excluded from the euumera- 
 tion in each State because they do not vote. If 
 it be said that no principle is involved, but that 
 it is a mere matter of temporary expediency, I 
 answer that I will never give my sanction to a 
 constitutional provision on any such consider- 
 ations. If there be no principle involved, then 
 the amendment should not be made. But 
 whence comes this idea, I have already asked, 
 that a non-voting free population shall npt be 
 represented in Congress? Every tradition of 
 our fathers; every utterance by those who 
 builded our institutions; every principle on 
 which they are founded, utterly reject and con- 
 demn the idea as false and mischievous. Our 
 fathers left the suffrage with the States. Suf- 
 frage at that day was much more limited than 
 it now is. In some States only freeholders voted ; 
 in some the heads of families ; in all a property 
 qualification was necessary ; in some the free 
 negroes voted, in others they did not. Mr. 
 Madison said : 
 
 "The definitionof the right of suffrage is very justly 
 regarded as a fundamental article of republican gov- 
 ernment." 
 
 And he says further: 
 
 " To have reduced the different qualifications in the 
 different States to one uniform rule would i)robably 
 have Ijeen as dissatisfactory to some of the States as 
 it would have been to the Convention." 
 
 Hence the Convention left the suffrage ques- 
 tion to the States, believing, in the language of 
 Mr; Madison, that it could not be "feared that 
 the people of the States will alter this part of 
 their constitution in such a manner as to abridge 
 the rights secured to them by the Federal Con- 
 stitution." In this Mr. Madison and the good 
 men of his day were deceived. The States in many 
 instances, itis true, enlarged the right of suffrage 
 to the whites, but as slavery became profitable, 
 the rights of the free negroes were gradually 
 "abridged," until all, except some of the New 
 England States, denied them the suffrage. I 
 
26 
 
 infer from this language of Mr. Madison, if the 
 Convention could have foreseen this revolution 
 in sentiment, the child of avarice in the white 
 man, and not the result of discovered incai)a- 
 city in the Wack for the duties of citizenship, 
 some provision would have been made to pi'e- 
 vent tJtiis abridgment of the suffrage. I am 
 left to infer us much from what he says, in the 
 thirty-ninth number of the Federalist, in deiln- 
 ing a republic. He says : 
 
 " It is essential to such a Government that it be de- 
 rived from the great body of tlio society, not from an 
 inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; 
 otherwise, a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising 
 their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, 
 might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim 
 for their Uovernment the honorable title of republic." 
 
 These things were not provided against be- 
 cause they were not anticipated. They have 
 now come upon us, and it behooves us to rem- 
 edy the evil, not by saying the evil may con- 
 tinue, and if it does, we will add another evil 
 to it, but by making our State governments truly 
 republican. 
 
 Representation was purposely made unequal 
 in the Senate, but in the lower House it was 
 purposely placed where the States could not 
 alter it if they would. It was based, not on 
 voters, but on the masses of people, old and 
 young, black and white, sane and insane, ex- 
 cluding Indians not taxed and including three 
 fifths of the slaves. There was a contest as to 
 whether slaves should be represented in the 
 Federal basis. There never was any contest 
 as to free persons. All admitted the justice of 
 including them in the ratio. In the fifty- fourth 
 number of the Federalist, Mr. Madison says : 
 
 "It is not contended that the number of people in 
 each State ought not to be the standard for regulat- 
 ing the proportion of those who are to represent the 
 people of each State." 
 
 He says further, in that connection, that — 
 
 " The establishment of the same rule for the ap- 
 portionment of taxes will probably be as little con- 
 tested." 
 
 Though he insists the rule in the latter case is 
 not founded on the same principle. This is 
 true. Nobody can doubt that representation 
 should be based on population. Taxes may 
 properly be based on wealth ; but is it not 
 monstrous that a proposition should be urged, 
 at this day of experience in the science of gov- 
 ernment, proposing that representation should 
 be substantially confined to voters, while taxa- 
 tion is purposely left to be apportioned on nnm- 
 ijers? Missouri has now a greater population than 
 Massachusetts. Massachusetts has three times 
 her wealth. Under this rule Missouri will pay 
 larger taxes than Massachusetts and have less 
 power in Congress. Mr. Madison said that 
 representation should be based on population 
 because "the rule is understood to refer to the 
 personal rights of the people, with which it has 
 a natural and universal connection." In the 
 case of taxation, he said "the rule is in no 
 case a precise measure and in ordinary cases a 
 
 very unfit one." The less wealthy States had 
 to accept the rule in the case of taxation. It 
 was then, and is now, hard enough. 
 
 But when I am asked to give up political power, 
 that the practical application of an always un- 
 just rule in taxation, now to be made odious, 
 may be enforced against me, I cannot, I will 
 not, consent. It is no answer to say that you 
 mean well. If so, why not do well? The ne- 
 groes of the South must be included in the 
 ratio of Federal representation or we are no 
 better than those who exclude them from th; 
 suffrage. You give their former owners the 
 right to drive them from the ballot-box, and 
 the only punishment you propose is to rob both 
 the oppressor and the oppressed of their money. 
 It is a compromise that the whites may govern 
 the blacks in the State governments of the 
 South and wring from them sweat and teai-s, 
 provided the northern and eastern States are 
 permitted to control the national Government. 
 This is a Government of the entire people. 
 Women and minors have an interest in it. 
 Your legislation acts upon them. It gathers 
 taxes of them without asking them if their 
 respective States permit them to vote. Why 
 should they not be represented here,_ even 
 though they are not permitted to vote in the 
 States? The Constitution provides that — <. 
 
 "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect 
 taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts 
 and provide for the common defense and general wel- 
 fare of the United States." 
 
 If the negroes now in the State of Louisiana 
 continue to live there with the whites, their pur- 
 suits will be of the same character as those of 
 the whites. Whatever may be existing preju- 
 dices between the whites and the blacks, the 
 future will develop an identity of interests. 
 What is favorable to one will be favorable to 
 the other. What is injurious to one will be 
 injurious to the other. If the white man grows 
 sugar-cane and makes sugar in Louisiana, the 
 negro will do the same. If, in Alabama, the old 
 planter or Yankee adventurer who will go down 
 there, undertakes to grow cotton, the negro will 
 grow cotton also, and the interests of the planter 
 and the Yankee adventurer and the negro are 
 identically the same. You cannot separate them. 
 Have the women of Maine and Massachusetts 
 no interest in the legislation of Congress? Do 
 you dare say that they are not interested as 
 much as the men? Do they not pay taxes? 
 The Senator from Massachusetts told us the 
 other day that James Otis said that taxation 
 without representation is tyranny. The Sena- 
 tor from Maryland [Mr. Joiixsox] replied that 
 this referred only to representation in the Eng- 
 lish Parliament, where we had none. But if 
 the principle be true only as applied in that 
 case, how dare you make partial representa- 
 tion? If it be odious and tyrannical to deny 
 representation entirely, the least diminution of 
 it opens the door to wrong. Lead us not into 
 temptation. Power is dangerous, when prop- 
 
27 
 
 ^ 
 
 erly obtained. When unjustly obtained, it can- 
 not exist, except in the corrupt elements which 
 gave it birth. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. I will remind the Senator 
 that Otis claimed representation for each indi- 
 vidual. He did not claim it merely for the 
 communilv. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I did not know that 
 he went to that extent in the speech alluded to. 
 It only malves the case stronger. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. He did, as I shall show at 
 the proper time. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I was very well satis- 
 fied, without examining his views, that the prin- 
 ciple he laid down must go to that extent. Half 
 representation is half as bad as no representa- 
 tion. If it be tyranny to deny it entirely, it is 
 half tyranny to deny the half, and half tyranny 
 is equally a violation of the great principle of 
 right. It is only a difference in degi'ee ; it is 
 onlj' modified tyranny, but it is tyranny at last. 
 
 Now, sir, Congress is constantly revising our 
 impost duties ; and equally often we revise our 
 stamp, income, and excise taxes ; and if you 
 will give the distinguished Senator from Maine. 
 [Mr. Fessexdex,] the chairman of the Com- 
 mittee on Finance, the power to regulate im- 
 post and excise duties according to his will and 
 pleasure, it is quite certain that he can build 
 up the jaeople of the State of Maine, or the 
 people of all New England if he choose, and 
 make them rich while other sections may be 
 dragged down to poverty. Look at the varied 
 products of this country and think how taxes 
 may be adjusted. You do not raise cotton in 
 Maine, nor in Massachusetts, nor in any other 
 New England State. But you manufacture 
 the article in large quantities. Cotton is the 
 chief production of a great many of the south- 
 ern States. Suppose you increase your tariff 
 on cotton goods and levy an excise tax upon 
 the growth of cotton in the southern States, 
 giving a drawback for the tax on the raw ma- 
 terial, as you proposed at the last session of 
 Congress to the manufacturer, but denying it 
 to the producer, thereby levying in effect an 
 export tax and paying bounties to the manu- 
 facturer, how long before New England would 
 be filled with the stream of wealth that had its 
 source in the sweat of southern laborers? 
 
 Is not the negro interested in this? He may 
 have no ballot in Alabama. But this should 
 excite your sympathy and not tempt you to 
 rob him. The same may be said of the sugar 
 interests of Louisiana, the tobacco and grape 
 interests of Missouri, the turpentine interests 
 of North Carolina, the pork interests of Ohio, 
 and the whisky interests of Illinois and Indiana. 
 
 It is useless to spend time in enumerating the 
 many evils to spring from unequal and unfair 
 representation. They meet us at every step. 
 When representation in the lower House be- 
 comes unequal, the salt of the Constitution is 
 gone. This looks like an effort to give the 
 
 power in the lower House, by another compro- 
 mise, to the same section of country to which 
 an undue power was given in the Senate. If it 
 must be done, let it be done in another name 
 than mercy to the Ijlack man. 
 
 Again, the Constitution provides: 
 
 " The Congress shall have power to regulate com- 
 merce with foreign nations, and among the several 
 States, and with the Indian tribes." 
 
 In the formation of the Constitution this 
 power was considered by the commercial States 
 of such great importance to them that in con- 
 sideration thereof they bartered away the lib- 
 erties of a race. With unequal representation 
 in the hands of the commercial section, what 
 injuries might not be inflicted on the agricul- 
 tural portions of the community? 
 
 Are not the negroes interested in the exercise 
 of this power by Congress? For many years 
 they must look to agriculture for support. 
 Laws, oppressive to them and ruinous to their 
 pursuits, may be passed under this and other 
 clauses of -the Constitution. The interests of 
 the negro deserve consideration ■■ ■' ether he 
 enjoys the franchise or not. 
 
 Again, Congress has the power "to declare 
 war,"' "to raise and support armies," "to pro- 
 vide and maintain a na^^'." The mercantile 
 interests of our nation are now in no kind mood 
 toward England. I do not propose to speak of 
 the action of England during our late war, or 
 to condemn or indorse the denunciations of her 
 conduct toward us. I simply refer to our pres- 
 ent attitude to that Power to show the injustice 
 of the pending proposition. Is M'ar to be de- 
 clared? Some persons desire it to be done, and 
 thousands of our people might grow rich with 
 "letters of marque and reprisal." The mercan- 
 tile interests might be rejoiced at an opportunity 
 to retaliate for real or imaginary wrongs. How- 
 ever such a war might gratify indi\'idual or sec- 
 tional feeling, however it might add to our 
 national glory, j'ct it would be a war of vast 
 projiortions, destroying the material interests of 
 the nation, plunging us into almost hopeless 
 bankruptcy, and bringing poverty and misery 
 to all classes. If a minority of the people, in- 
 habiting the Atlantic 'itates, had the power and 
 the will to declare such a war, and to impress 
 the majority into the armies of the nation to 
 maintain it, what sort of a Government would 
 ours be ? Can it be said that the negro of the 
 southern States, struggling in poverty to support 
 himself and family, has no interest in preventing 
 this war, simply because he has no ballot? 
 What difference does that make to us? The 
 women of New England who did not vote de- 
 nounced the war of 1812, and rightly held theii 
 places, in the basis of congressional representa- 
 tion, to force an early peace after an ilnprofit- 
 able and unavailing war. The women and men 
 of New England denounced the war of 184C 
 with Mexico. Had the women and minors been 
 excluded from the basis of their representation. 
 
28 
 
 and war then declared against the voice of New 
 England voters, another war than the Mexican 
 war might have come. In such event, who would 
 have said that the women and minors had no 
 interest in the matter and therefore no right 
 to complain, because thej could not vote iu their 
 respective States ? 
 
 I might continue this course of remark, but I 
 dismiss it ■and look for a moment to the popu- 
 lation South and some of the effects to be pro- 
 duced. 
 
 If these States shall deny the suffrage, then 
 by this rule you exclude from representation, 
 in the single State of Virginia, 548,907 human 
 beings, largely more than the white population 
 of Kansas, Delaware, Minnesota, Oregon, and 
 Florida, under the census of 18G0. Think of 
 it, Mr. President. These five States are enti- 
 tled to six Representatives and ten Senators in 
 Congress, with a white population of 499,117, 
 •which is 40,790 less than the negro population 
 of the single State of Virginia. You have six 
 Senators and ten Representatives in Congress, 
 representing a white population in these States 
 less than the negro population of the single 
 State of Virginia. Do your excise laws not 
 reach these negroes? Do not your tariff laws 
 reach them? Will they not have to buy im- 
 ported goods, and pay like others your excise 
 and income taxes? I am answered, "If the 
 States want justice done to the negroes and 
 themselves, let them admit the negroes to the 
 right of suffrage." That is not satisfactory. 
 Suppose, as I have said, the whites of these 
 States resolve to accept the compromise or 
 bargain you tender them? Suppose they take 
 the chances of unjust legislation for the priv- 
 ilege of robljing the negro by local law ? 
 
 But I proceed. The five States named have 
 a representative population, as the Constitu- 
 tion now stands, of only 559,017, which is but 
 10,110 more than the negro population of Vir- 
 ginia. The negro population of Georgia ex- 
 ceeds the white population of Rhode Island, 
 Kansas, Delaware, and Oregon, by 45,525. The 
 negro population of Mississippi exceeds the 
 white population of the States last named by 
 upwards of 17,000. These States have five Rep- 
 resentatives and eight Senators in Congress. 
 
 The negro population of Georgia and South 
 Carolina is 878,018, largely more than the en- 
 tire white population of New Hampshire, Ver- 
 mont, and Rhode Island, it being only 810,636. 
 These States have six Senators and eight Rep- 
 resentatives, but this vast population of nearly 
 a million souls will go unrepresented. Add the 
 negro population of Virginia to that of Georgia 
 and South Carolina, and it almost equals the 
 white poiiulation of Maine, New Hampshire, 
 Vermont, and Rhode Island. 
 
 The proposed amendment does not declare 
 that this population shall go unrepresented, 
 but it implies that a good reason may exist for 
 their local disfranchisement in tlie States, and 
 
 if the States do regard them as brutes, and not 
 persons, they can do so. I, for one, am totally 
 unwilling to permit them to do it. I append a 
 comparative table showing the population white 
 and black in 18G0 in fifteen States, the number 
 of Representatives they now have, the number 
 to which they would be entitled under the Con- 
 stitution as it is, the number to which they 
 would be entitled under the committee's plan, 
 in case the negroes are excluded, the propor- 
 tion of direct tax allotted to each under the ac( 
 of 18G1, levying a tax of $20,000,000, andthe 
 proportion each of said States would be required 
 to pay of a twenty million tax under that 
 Constitution as it now stands, and as the commit- 
 tee proposes to leave it, their slaves being free: 
 
 o o o -"S= cr» a So « p 2 r 
 
 o 
 
 05WCOO-JtOI-'0005CO>b.l003miO 
 CO I— ' t.0 h*^ ^T •:0 ^T lO CO en en Ol lO O t■:' 
 l— * rf.- Cjl ^^ 4- 1— » C5 C^^ CO H-'j-J Cj^ H-* 
 'h-*COCn'^V7COClVlo''oCnO^OOf4* 
 O 00 ^r (— ' H- OO Cj OD <3 O to l-O CJi OD S5 
 
 O OO *~^^O0^1 1—* pD OO^ CO O 
 
 "ht*^Tkt*.oV-»'cr;''«DCOrfa-^TG"vOi cocnci 
 O O iX) tf.. ^T h-i c;i o to ^^ to ^f- to o o 
 CO to *»• to I— ' (f.. ^s o 00 CO -J -J -J o to 
 
 *- CO it- 
 CO CO ctj 
 
 to , en , C5 , <-' , 
 
 g fe ;a 
 
 0< 03 CO 
 
 SS.B" 
 
 
 2 w o 
 
 Boo 
 
 
 to o o o --T ro oi *■ ^ _ 
 
 tO*0*»-.<t-*OtOCO&04*-^JCC^JOOto 
 
 JCO 01 Ci 
 
 DOto^rtocoo 
 
 OCOCOCn^T^I-*»— 'CO--T**-^7CSOtO 
 CC^^tOf^^TO^IOCncOC-OtOC-'iCO 
 
 J0jlnC;C5jyiC0_^OO^_ppc GOj-1^ 
 
 <r. o o CO co'^1 ex oott-^-o'^— '*— lolo'o 
 
 tOO^II— 'OOOtOOIOOi-O-ICCCji 
 
 looocoOOi-'OOOH-'Oocn-^tococr.ci 
 
 ^-P So 
 ? ■^ p &•£, 
 
 13 o -a 
 
 °§. 
 
 
 &.3 
 
 ~7 CO CO H-" 0» *»• to 00 h-" en lb. Or Oi -J O 
 
 K 
 
 o 
 
 fo 
 
 rf' 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 o. 
 
 
 oot5CotoOJ4ni-«tooa>p<>-mcnooo 
 
 ffi *> "^ o" 
 
 B » » a 
 
 o'l'p 2 9 
 p o '::-^ 
 
29 
 
 
 '3: 
 6 : W ■ 
 
 5^i b:; 
 
 f 
 
 vT 
 
 C5 05 49 eD -a W tS M tS W l(k M «> tn H- 
 
 --I toi rCC>tOit5iC0lU>lMl 
 
 g p 5 P ^ 
 
 C-3 fflp^ 
 
 S 3 B T 
 
 CLin 
 
 
 ^C' .;^ OD olc ^-' 30 CO cn 
 
 ,C>CO-JGCHJ0Ot>0— TOO 
 
 OOOiOOOtCWCOOT-^»^OC5*:iKJ 
 
 <ocio:yTOo^joco- 
 
 OJ tsO bO O *>■ >^ I-* --T 00 en bS !f^ 05 Oi ^I 
 
 H-'ooic;ij:^j<rH-*cnGoo5too^tc t>o 
 
 05*.c*-1:clo'-*^0^*0*OOQc"ts3C:i'tOCn^'cO 
 OOOCCTtCiCJICn^o^iaiCnOOOOiCOl 
 ^ltCtCQCOCO00Cnts«OWt£>i;n05~I 
 
 JjXJ ►! >< 2 
 
 g g o o^ 
 
 
 To sliow the monstrous injustice, however, 
 that may result from the proposed amendment, 
 I may state that should it be adopted and 
 a direct tax of $20,000,000 be levied, the ap- 
 portionment to Virginia would be $1,015,258. 
 The representation of Virginia in the lower 
 branch of Congress would be nine members. 
 •T'he State of Illinois, with sixteen mem- 
 bers in Congress, would pay but $1,088,800. 
 Kansas, with one member, would pay $68, 183. 
 Oregon, with one member, would pay $83,367. 
 Minnesota, with two members, would pay 
 $109,470. Delaware, with one member, would 
 pay $71,369. New Hampshire, with three 
 members, would pay $206,382. Vermont, 
 with three members, would pay $200,402. And 
 Maine, with six members, would pay $399,585. 
 Hence, these eight States, headed by the great 
 State of Illinois, and including three of the 
 New England Sta.tes, would altogether pay 
 $2,177,556. The State of Virginia would have 
 to pay over one million, or nearly half this sum. 
 Virginia would be represented by two Senators 
 and nine Representati%'es, while the States I 
 have named would be represented by sixteen 
 Senators and thirty-three Representatives. Un- 
 der such circumstances the peculiar interests of 
 Virginia industry might possibly be protected 
 
 by these Representatives from States having 
 diverse interests, but to believe it requires a 
 belief in the improvement of man's moral na- 
 ture far beyond what it promises to be in our 
 day. If a vast public debt is to be paid, the 
 representatives of peculiar interests will likely 
 forget the plodding negro in the South, in their 
 efforts to protect those interests and commend 
 themselves to their own constituents. It mat- 
 ters not by whom the Virginia Representative 
 may be elected, if when here his votes shall 
 be cast in favor of the negro's interest. If he 
 represents the whites he cannot fail to repre- 
 sent the negroes, for their pursuits are regulated 
 by soil and climate and productions. Their 
 pursuits are necessarily similar and their inter- 
 ests cannot be divided. 
 
 If, then, the object of the committee be to 
 deny representation to citizens of the United 
 States merely because the States see fit to deny 
 them the suffrage, I think I have shown it to be 
 politically wrong, leading to acts of injustice 
 and oppression on the one side, and to poverty 
 and humiliation on the other. I thank the Sen- 
 ator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sttmxer] for his 
 amendment to perfect this proposition. It de- 
 clares that if the negro is to be excluded from 
 the basis of representation, he must be excluded 
 likewise from the basis of taxation. That is 
 fair, and argues a mind fully imbued with the 
 foundation principles of civil liberty. But if 
 this amendment, which is but the repetition of 
 the highest tribute we have ever paid our Re- 
 public, should be adopted, the amendment itself, 
 I suspect, would be abandoned. You leave it 
 to the States to exclude the negro from suffrage. 
 If the States do so, you accept the action and 
 at once proceed to say he is a brute, a thing 
 that cannot enter into the basis of Federal rep- 
 resentation. If, in your judgment, the negro 
 be a person, how shall he be excluded from rep- 
 resentation? This rule, in Mr. Madison' s opin- 
 ion, is the true one and proper to protect "'per- 
 sonal rights." The whole Convention of 1787, 
 a body of pure and upright and wise men, be- 
 lieved with him. If they were right, you cannot 
 deny the negro representation without ignoring 
 every profession of the Republican party and a 
 most impoi'tant principle of republican theory. 
 But if he be a thing, and unworthy of represen- 
 tation, how is it that he is more than a thing 
 for purposes of taxation ? If he is a drone, un- 
 fit to vote, and therefore should have no more 
 voice in Congress than a stone or a stick, why 
 should he be required to pay money for Gov- 
 ernment purposes ? If he be an unreasoning 
 animal, it is enough that he provide himself 
 with the means of life. If he is without capa- 
 city, white men should scorn to take from him 
 the little he may accumulate. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. Allow me to remind my 
 friend that the argument of Otis and of our rev- 
 olutionary fathers was. that there should be no 
 taxation, director indirect, where there was no 
 representation. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. That is certainly the 
 
32 
 
 to arrive at them cannot receive my sanction. 
 I coultl not vote for his bill two years .ago to 
 abolish slavery ; I cannot vote for his bill to 
 secure political rights now. I desired emanci- 
 pation then, but took a different road to arrive 
 at it. I desire that no State law hereafter shall 
 be permitted to set up the senseless test of color 
 in hxing the qualifications of voters. But I am 
 not now ready to take away from the States the 
 long-enjoyed right of prescribing the qualifica- 
 tions of electors in their own limits. Congress 
 is not now prepared to take and exercise prop- 
 erly this power. Local reasons may exist, and do 
 often exist, for excluding certain persons from 
 the ballot. The people of each State can better 
 judge of these reasons than Congress or the 
 people in other States. But the United States 
 is certainly interested in maintaining a repub- 
 lican form of government — republican both in 
 theory and in jiractice. 
 
 No State can vitally wound the true repub- 
 lican principle that ' ' all men are created equal, ' ' 
 and that when government is to be established, 
 its just powers must come from ''the consent 
 of the governed," without causing injury and 
 bringing disease into the entire system. If 
 wrong be done in one of the States, it is event- 
 ually felt by the nation. If a State becomes 
 an oligarchy, the deleterious influences are not 
 alone confined to the limits of the State. They 
 cannot be so confined, because the few elect- 
 ors who control State policy are the same who 
 Send IJepresentatives to Congress. The mem- 
 bersof the Legislature, chosen by those electors, 
 select the Senators who sit with us here. If 
 the fountain be muddy, the stream is not clear. 
 If the electors be aristocrats, the representa- 
 tives will rarely be republicans. The right 
 of suffrage," said Mr. Madison, "is a funda- 
 mental article in republican constitutions." 
 "The regulation of it," he further said, "is at 
 the same time a task of peculiar delicacy. ' ' He 
 said, in another paper: 
 
 "It would be happy if a state of society could be 
 founil or tramed in which an equal voice in making 
 the laws might be allowed to every individual bound 
 to obey them. 13ut this is a theory which, like most 
 tlicories, confessedly requires limitations and modi- 
 fications.'" — Madison Papers, Appendix, vol. 3, p. 15. 
 
 We all feel the force of these simple words, 
 " Suffrage is a fundamental article of repub- 
 lican constitutions." How true! But yet Mr. 
 Madison and the fathers were content, accord- 
 ing to my reading, to leave the whole subject 
 with the States, under the hope that the people 
 thereof would not "abridge the rights secured 
 to them." That the States have abridged the 
 rights of suffrage and have violated the funda- 
 mental rule of republicanism, as then under- 
 stood in theory, we cannot doubt. An impor- 
 tant question, however, to be considered is, 
 were the theoretical views of republicanism 
 entertained at that day ingrafted on the Con- 
 stitution? I think not. They made a written 
 Constitution, and when they speak of repub- 
 Hcafi forms of government in the instrument 
 itself, they mean simply a conformity with that 
 Constitution. Our fathers did not sanction or 
 
 approve of, slavery, but they left it existing in 
 what they called republican forms. The time 
 has now come, foreseen by Mr. Madison, (see 
 No. 43 Federalist, ) when a " minority of citizens 
 in some of the States" has become a " majority 
 of persons," when, indeed, a majority of per- 
 sons is found in that ' ' unhappy species of popu- 
 lation abounding in some of the States who, 
 during the calm of regular government, are 
 sunk below the level of man." Truly those-. 
 men have now "emerged into the human^ 
 character," and unless they have the suffrage, 
 the republican system will become diseased. 
 Violence and revolution must follow a denial 
 of suffrage to a majority of free persons in a 
 State, especially when that majority are the 
 subjects, not only of prejudice, but hatred. - 
 But, on the other hand, as this Is a practical 
 question, and must be dealt with In a practical 
 way, I am free to say that I would not to- day open 
 the polls in the seceded States, were It in my 
 power, tothe entire population, white and black. 
 When there is a way to effect a great good 
 without any evil, that way should be adopted. 
 Good is often accomplished through blood, but 
 when It conies in peace, accepted by all, how 
 much better it is ! What would be the result of 
 indiscriminate suffrage now in the South? The ^ 
 whites for two hundred years have taken the ' 
 labor of the black without further comi:)ensa- 
 tion than a scanty support. Perhaps that was 
 all their labor was worth. I do not pass judg- 
 ment on that question now. The negro is ig- 
 norant and brutalized by this long period of 
 slavery. Perhaps the white man would be no 
 better under similar circumstances. I doubt if 
 he would. The negro is poor ; the white man 
 has something left, but not much. The little 
 he has, the negro thinks belongs or ought to 
 belong, in part at least, to him. The belief 
 may be well founded In justice. I will not pass 
 judgment here either. The white is offended 
 that his grasp has been violently loosed from his 
 slave, and like all angry mortals must wreak 
 his vengeance on somebody. He has not power ^V 
 to harm the conqueror; he harms the innocent 
 object of the conqueror's kindness. Like other 
 disappointed men, he would destroy that which 
 he can use no longer. The feelings of the ig- 
 norant and degraded negro may well be im- 
 agined, and I leave to the Senator from Massa- 
 chusetts to imagine the consequences of an 
 open, full, and unlimited ballot m those States 
 now, and especially where the negroes have the 
 numerical majority. Perhaps their excesses, 
 following the ignorant, unskilled use of power, 
 would set back, for years, this great reform. I 
 have no time for further comment on the con- 
 sequences of such conduct. 
 
 It is. In my judgment, yet proper to leave 
 the qualifications of electors with the States, 
 but not to the extent of allowing them to in- 
 troduce disease and death into the body-poli- 
 tic, by denying In their own organizations the 
 elementary principles of republicanism. Mis- 
 souri has an Interest In the State governments of 
 Virginia, Louisiana, and Texas. If these gov- 
 
33 
 
 emments become diseased, the whole body suf- 
 fers, for the States are but limbs of that body. 
 Our governments must be truly republican. 
 The present Constitution tolerates something 
 else. Let us amend it. The preamble of the 
 honorable Senator's resolution indicates that 
 the power to jiass it is claimed, first, in the 
 guarantee clause, and second, in the constitu- 
 tionrlamendmen! aljolishing slavery. It seems 
 admitted that the i^owcr must be derived from 
 these provisions of the Constitution or it does 
 *faot exist at all. 
 
 ■^ Mr. YATES. Will the Senator allow me to 
 interrupt him? 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. YATES. I hope that I am not inter- 
 jecting what I have to say in a wrong place in 
 ,^, the Senator's speech, but I wish to ask him 
 a question. The constitutional amendment, 
 which has recently been adopted, abolishes 
 slavery in all the States ; in other words, it 
 secures freedom to the freedmen. It is not a 
 latitudinarian construction to say that it secures 
 full freedom to the freedraan. Can ^ill free- 
 dom be conferred upon the freedman without 
 conferring upon him all his rights, natural, civil, 
 and political? The second clause of the con- 
 stitutional amendment says that Congress shall 
 g have power to enforce it; that is, to confer 
 i full freedom upon the freedmen, for to abolish 
 slavery means to confer freedom. 
 
 Another point. Congress, before the adop- 
 tion of the amendment, could not make a citi- 
 zen, and a State could not make a citizen. 
 " We, the people of the United States," "do 
 ordain and establish this Constitution." The 
 people made the Constitution, not the Consti- 
 tution the people. But the Dred Scott decis- 
 ion declared that because a slave might be 
 bought and sold when the Constitution was 
 made, because at that time he was not recog- 
 nized as a member of the society, because he 
 had no rights which a white man was bound 
 to respect, therefore he was not one of the peo- 
 ple, not one of the sovereignty. By the con- 
 * stitutional amendment abolishing slavery, the 
 freedman becomes what? He becomes one of 
 the sovereigns, he is emancipated into the peo- 
 ple of the United States ; and Congress having 
 no power before to make a citizen, except to 
 naturalize a foreigner, and the States having 
 no right whatever to malce a citizen, althougla 
 they may regulate and make the rules by which 
 he may vote, the freedman, the moment the act 
 of emancipation was proclaimed, became one 
 of the people of the United States. " We, the 
 people of the United States," "do ordain and 
 establish this Constitution." 
 
 Well, sir, the question which I wish to pro- 
 pound to the Senator fi-om Missouri, for whose 
 opinions I have great respect, is, why there is 
 any necessity for constitutional amendments 
 when we have the power under the amendment 
 to the Constitution already adopted now to 
 secure not only in South Carolina or Georgia, 
 
 \t in every State of the American Union, 
 i. aedom, full freedom, civil and political eman- 
 
 cipation to every man who comes within that 
 provision of the Constitution. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. President- 
 Mr. YATES. I am trespassing ujiou tlie 
 gentleman's time. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I think I understand 
 the Senator, and I only rose to ask him a ques- 
 tion which I think will furnish an answer to all 
 of his questions, for they all bear on the same 
 point. I ask him if there is any slavery or in- 
 voluntary servitude in the State of Illinois? Is 
 it not a free State? 
 
 Mr. YATES. There is not at the present 
 time any slavery there, and cannot be, I believe. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. Was there slavery or 
 involuntary servitude in that State before the 
 constitutional amendment abolishing slavery? 
 
 Mr. YATES. There cannot be slavery un- 
 der the amendment of the Constitution. It is 
 impossible. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. There is, then, no 
 slavery now — and there was no slavery before 
 the amendment. I so understand the Senator ; 
 he assents to the proposition. Now, how is it 
 that Illinois does not permit her negroes to vote? 
 She did not before, and does not now, allow 
 them to vote. Then Illinois is not a free State. 
 
 Mr. YATES. That is the reason that I pro- 
 pose by a bill which shall apply to every State,_ 
 not only to Missouri but to Illinois, to declare' 
 that these men shall have the rights secured to 
 them by the amendment of the Constitution. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSpN. I am left to infer, then, 
 that slavery exists where the ballot does not 
 exist? I will ask the Senator another question. 
 Are the women of Illinois free or slave ? 
 
 Mr. YATES. I notice that when gentlemen 
 are driven to the point and to the wall upon 
 this question, they invariably ask, why do you 
 not let women vote? 
 
 _ Mr. HENDERSON. Not at all. The ques- 
 tion of woman suffrage is not before us. My 
 remark springs naturally from the Senator's 
 position. I have neither condemned nor ap- 
 proved such suffrage. The Senator says slavery 
 has been abolished, and to abolish slavery is to 
 confer the suffrage ; in other words, he assumes 
 that the denial of suffrage is slavery. I thought 
 not. The suffrage may be the best means to 
 pi-eserve freedom ; I think it is. But if the 
 person denied the suffrage, in one of the States 
 is a slave, then slavery exists in all the States, 
 for women and minors do not vote in any one 
 of them, I would perpetuate the negro's free- 
 dom ; but I would do it in such manner as to 
 be effectual. 
 
 Mr. YATES. I will answer that at the 
 proper time. 
 
 Mr. PIENDERSON. I am only discussing 
 a question of power. The Senator seems to 
 think I am combatting his desires. I am not 
 disputing his proposition that the negro ought 
 to have the siL^frage. but I am speaking of the 
 way in which it may lie legally done and the 
 extent to which the ballot may be safely carried. 
 The Senator from Massachusetts proposes to 
 do by an act of Congress what I think can only 
 
34 
 
 be done by a constitutional amendment. That 
 is the difference now between the Senator from 
 Illinois and m3^self. I think the amendment 
 can be adopted. Indeed, I feel confident of it. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. What amendment? 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. _ An ainendm_ent_ to 
 the Constitution preventing any di.scrimination 
 against the negro in the right of suffrage because 
 of color. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. It cannot. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I thought, in the bright 
 lexicon of the Senator from Massachusetts 
 there was no such word as "fail." 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. I thought the Senator meant 
 that this proposition of the reconstruction com- 
 mittee could be adopted. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. Oh no, I never thought 
 that. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. I believe that the Senator' s 
 proposition can be adopted, gratefully adopted 
 by the country, but the other cannot be. 
 
 Mr. YATES. I only put my question for 
 the purpose of showing that under the Consti- 
 tution as it now is, under the new Constitution, 
 so far as the freedmen are concerned, all dis- 
 tinctions on account of color are abolished, 
 and all that it requires is appropriate legislation 
 to carry into effect that provision of the Con- 
 •stitution. It is made our duty to do it ; it is 
 thrown into our hands by the people. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I was .speaking of the 
 power to pass this bill under the guarantee 
 clause, and not of the power under the consti- 
 tutional amendment abolishing slavery, at the 
 particular moment when the Senator inter- 
 rupted me, for which interruption I am quite 
 frateful, because I am always glad to hear him. 
 was speaking of the guarantee clause and was 
 resisting the position assumed by the Senator 
 from Massachusetts, [Mi-. Sumner,] in claim- 
 ing the power to pass his bill under the guar- 
 antee clause. Now the Senator from Illinois 
 thinks that the constitutional amendment and 
 not the guarantee clause gives the power. I 
 understand him to say that the guarantee clause 
 does not give it; that is, he admits that before 
 the adoption of the constitutional amendment 
 there was no power in Congress to compel a 
 State to admit its negroes to the right of suf- 
 frage. 
 
 Mr. YATES._ I will explain. I think that 
 under the decisions of the Supreme Court, be- 
 fore the adoption of the constitutional amend- 
 ment, a State had the right to exclude the col- 
 ored man from voting, because he was consid- 
 ered a slave, and not one of the sovereign 
 people. But now the case is altered under the 
 amended Constitution ; he is one of the peo- 
 ple. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. The decision did not 
 adjudge, I hope, a free negro to be a slave. 
 The Drcd Scott case did not deny that a State 
 could give the franchise to a free negro. Nations, 
 as well as individuals, Mr. President, some- 
 times backslide. There may be such a thing 
 as a national fall from grace. Communities 
 sometimes retrograde. The cases of individual 
 
 reaction are numerous. "We are yet doomed 
 to see many more. Let individuals fall back 
 if they see tit, but let our action here be such 
 as to insure rational and steady progress. The 
 English Parliament and people traveled far 
 along the road of human progress in their con- 
 tests with Charles I. They fell back, however, 
 and for many long years the milestone then 
 planted by them was lost to their vision. The 
 French Revolution, that most sublime convul- 
 sion of human j^assion and human aspiratioDj 
 struck the shackles from twenty-five million 
 people, who, rising from the degradation and 
 misery produced by ages of misrule and opj^res- 
 sion, proclaimed liberty, fraternity, equality to 
 all men. Yet they soon fell back from their 
 advanced position. Their own excesses, their 
 divisions, and irrational measures paved the 
 way for a new dynasty. Louis XVI went to the 
 guillotine, and Napoleon came to the throne. 
 
 This is a most important e^joch in our his- 
 tory. We now have seven or eight million 
 dissatisfied, discontented, maddened whites. 
 They art to be restored to the body-politic and 
 made contented. The nation can be generous. 
 It must be generous. But charity must not be 
 converted into weakness. Four million ne- 
 groes commingled with a hostile population, 
 scarcely knowing whether they are slave or free, 
 uneducated, immersed in poverty, ready for any 
 scheme to benefit themselves, and yet too igno- 
 rantto select the best means, they must bo cared 
 for, and a way be provided to give them con- 
 tentment and knowledge and security for the 
 future. They demand our sympathy, but that 
 must be the sympathy of reasoning men, and 
 not the fruitless simpering of children. If we 
 make mistakes now it will be many years be- 
 fore we can recover. Let none be made. But 
 I may dismiss all questions affecting the policy 
 of this bill, for it is enough that it is unconsti- 
 tutional. 
 
 To return to the point from which I digressed, 
 I repeat, that, for all purposes connected with 
 this bill, in determining what is a republican 
 form of government, we must look to the Con- 
 stitution itself, we must be controlled by facts 
 and not b}' theories. Theory is good to induce 
 a change of organic law, but it is not good to 
 authorize legislation in the face of that law. 
 Our forefathers, in fact, admitted the republic- 
 anism of Virginia with two hundred and ninety- 
 three thousand slaves ; the republicanism of 
 Maryland with one hundred and three thousand 
 .slaves ; that of North Carolina with one hun- 
 dred thousand, and South Carolina with one 
 hundred and seven thousand. If these States 
 could be republican in form with so large a 
 number of their people in slavery, surely the 
 denial of suffrage alone could not, liy any an- 
 alogy, take from them the character of repub- 
 licanism. I would be glad to think otherwise, 
 but I cannot force my mind to believe what 
 contradicts the history of the time. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. Do I understand my friend 
 as insisting that the denial of the franchise is 
 consistent with a republican government ? For 
 
35 
 
 instance, take the State of South Carolina, which 
 denies the franchise to more than half its pop- 
 ulation. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. In theory it is not. 
 Under the Constitution it was regarded as a 
 republican State at the time of the adoption 
 of the instrument. 
 
 Mr. S CJMNER. It did not deny the fran- 
 chise to more than half its citizens then ; they 
 were slaves. 
 
 xMr. HENDERSON. It then had only one 
 ht.ndred and forty thousand whites, and had 
 one hundred and seven thousand slaves. It also 
 had eighteen hundred free negroes. I think it 
 more nearly a republican State now than then. 
 Practically, the question of suffrage was left to 
 
 the States 
 
 ~* Mr. SUMNER. But that is the question, 
 whether they were left to deny the suffrage to 
 any freeman on account of color. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. If that be the ques- 
 tion, then the point is against my friend, for 
 both South Carolina and Virginia did deny the 
 suffrage to the free negroes on account of color 
 only, at the time when the Constitution was 
 made, and when it was adopted. Virginia had 
 upward of twelve thousand free negroes thus 
 denied. 
 
 i/Mv. SUMNER. But the question is— I can- 
 not anticipate my friend's conclusion on that 
 point 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. My conclusion is, that 
 a mistake was made in recognizing a constitu- 
 tion as rei^ublican that permitted slavery. I 
 knew of no way to get rid of it except by con- 
 stitutional amendment. I think another mis- 
 take was committed in leaving each State to so 
 far abridge the right of suffi-age as to change, 
 in theory, the republican form. But such is. the 
 Constitution and you cannot change it by act 
 of Congress. That is my conclusion. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. You are wrong; it is a 
 question of theory, and I say that our fathers 
 so held. 
 
 ^ Mr. HENDERSON. But our fathers did 
 'lot deal with it in the Constitution as a question 
 of theory, but as a question of fact. Whatever 
 may have been their theories, I mean only to 
 say that the text of the Constitution does not 
 carry them out 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. Now, the practical point 
 is, did our fathers concede to any State the 
 power of disfranchising citizens on account of 
 color ? I utterly deny it, and I challenge my 
 friend to show any authority for it. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. Why, Mr. President, 
 if I have already failed to show it, I must fail 
 in the future. I have shown that the suffrage 
 was left to the States, and that they did exclude 
 their negroes ; that they held in slavery in 
 Virginia almost half of their population, and 
 that Virginia was called a republican State. 
 Indeed, she was most prominent in making 
 the very provisions we are discussing. She 
 excluded the slaves and 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. Ah! slaves. That is an- 
 other thing. The question is whether you are 
 
 allowed to disfranchise freemen on account of 
 
 color, whether you are allowed to deny them 
 their rights as citizens. That I utterly deny. 
 The exception was with regard to slaves who 
 were not regarded as members of the body-pol- 
 itic. They were in that respect treated as mi- 
 nors or as women, represented by their masters ; 
 but every freeman, no matter what his color 
 was, was recognized as entitled to all the priv- 
 ileges of citizenship. He was one of the 
 sovereigns. The proposition cannot be met, 
 if my friend will consult the history of his 
 country. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. It was not slaves only 
 that were disfranchised, but I have shown that 
 free negroes were also disfranchised. But I 
 have no controversy with the Senator in what 
 we mutually aim at. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. I know that, and I concede 
 to my excellent friend, of course, all that I claim 
 for myself. We are in search of the best that 
 can be done on this occasion. I applaud his 
 zeal and thank him for his courtesy. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I am certainly very 
 much obliged to the Senator from Massachu- 
 setts. I feel now ten times better than I did 
 before. [Laughter.] 
 
 I cannot longer detain the Senate in pre- 
 senting objections to the exercise of legislative 
 power under the guarantee clause. It is suffi- 
 cient to control my own action, that I believe 
 by the letter, and even spirit of the Constitution, 
 the suffrage was placed exclusively under the 
 control of State action. I think that the error 
 of so placing it is as clear as the error made in 
 tolerating slavery. To rid ourselves of the evil, 
 however, we must amend the Constitution. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. Do I understand my friend 
 to say that a State might adopt a rule, for in- 
 stance, founded on the color of the hair, so that 
 all men with light hair should be excluded from 
 the right of suffrage ? I insist that a State is not, 
 under the Constitution of the United States, 
 authorized to make any exclusion on account 
 of color. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. It ought not to be, you 
 mean. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. No ; it cannot be. Color 
 cannot be a qualification. There may be a quali- 
 fication founded on age or residence or knowl- 
 edge or crime. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. You are now coming 
 in conflict with the committee of fifteen, who 
 declare by their resolution that the States now 
 have the power, and may yet exclude everybody 
 of a particular race or color. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. I understand that the com- 
 mittee propose to place that in the Constitution 
 of the United States, and that is one reason why 
 I object to their report. I say that they pro- 
 pose to do what our fathers never did. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. The Senator from Mas- 
 sachusetts is in theory perhaps correct. He 
 is speaking, however, of an ideal constitution. 
 The true republican principle requires that as 
 large a portion of the people, as is consistent 
 with the public good, shall be permitted to vote. 
 
38 
 
 crimination between tlie races in political rights 
 and privileges. This would give the ballot and 
 an equal right to hold ofSce. The position of 
 the Senator is au advanced one, and merits 
 approbation. He prefers for himself, I take 
 it, the simplified proposition I offer, to the com- 
 mittee's measure, wliich is duplex and evasive. 
 
 Mr. FESSENDEN. I would have the Sen- 
 ator not misapprehend me. He speaks as if I 
 disapproved uf the action of the committee. 
 
 Mr. HEXUERSON. That is an inference 
 of mine from the course of the Senator's speech 
 to which I listened with pleasure. 
 
 Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not disapprove it 
 in any shape or form. ^A'hile 1 took the liberty 
 to state what I preferred if it could be had, I 
 did not undertake to say that under the circum- 
 stances it would be wise to do it. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I understand the Sen- 
 ator. Ele admits the correctness of my views, 
 but thinks them inexpedient. 
 
 Mr. FESSENDEN. I spoke of my own par- 
 ticular views in relation to that matter ; but a 
 man cannot always press his views against what 
 may be his sense of propriety or i^rospect of suc- 
 cess. A legislator must legislate for something 
 that he can accomplish. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. When I remarked that 
 "the Senator admits the correctness of my 
 views,'" I regarded his views, as expressed in 
 the proviso I have read, and my own views, as 
 almost identical. At least they are substan- 
 tially so. And I cannot be mistaken that the 
 distinguished Senator's speech clearly indi- 
 cated a preference by him for a plain, positive 
 statement that the suffrage should be granted, 
 over one permitting the States to exclude whole 
 races of men in defiance of every principle of 
 republican theory. 
 
 Mr. KlRlvWOOD. Will the Senator from 
 Missouri allow me to ask him a question? I 
 want to understand him if I can. Do I under- 
 stand him to say that Congress by this amend- 
 ment confers on the States a power that they 
 do not now have? 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. Certainly not. I did 
 not say so. 
 
 Mr. KIRKWOOD. I understood him to 
 argue as if it was so. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I see what the Sena- 
 tor is aiming at, I think. He intrenches him- 
 self behind the provisions of the present Con- 
 stitution when he needs its shelter. It is good 
 when it answers the purpose of his argument, 
 but bad when it does not. He asks me if the 
 States cannot now exclude the negro from the 
 ballot. I answer, yes. But I thought we were 
 amending the Constitution. Iowa refuses ne- 
 gro suffrage, and can do so after this commit- 
 tee amendment shall have been adopted with- 
 out losing a member in Congress. No southern 
 State can do so. The Senator seems more 
 anxious to destroy the political power of cer- 
 tain States than to do justice to an oppressed 
 race. It is true, under the Constitution as it 
 now is, the States may exclude the negro from 
 eufixaige, but they may exclude him without 
 
 loss of political power in Congress. He is 
 willing to let the States continue to exclude 
 the negro because, forsooth, it is the present 
 Constitution. If so, why not stand by the 
 Constitution throughout, and still let them 
 retain their representation? If the existing 
 Constitution is good against my argument, it is 
 good against his. 
 
 Mr. KIRKWOOD. That is not the question. 
 _ Mr. HENDERSON. But that is the ques 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. KIRKWOOD. Not according to myj' 
 view. I understand the Senator to argue thai ' 
 we are about conferring on these States a priv 
 ilege they have not had before. I do not sc 
 regard it. If the Senator argues that under 
 the Constitution there is no such power now, 
 but that we are granting them a power, he is 
 correct; but if they have that power, we are 
 simply not interfering with that provision of the 
 Constitution. That is all. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I appreciate the Sen- 
 ator's position, and am glad to have his views, 
 but I wish to confine myself to the neighbor- 
 hood, at least, of my subject. 
 
 So soon as the rebellion had been put down 
 by military force, means ought to have been 
 taken to remove forever the causes that pro- 
 voked it. The South made the issue boldly in 
 the Montgomery confederation. It was not 
 slavery especially that induced the separation. 
 Slavery was but the incident. It was the infe- 
 riority of the black man and his unfitness for 
 political association with the white man that 
 constituted the corner-stone of the confederate 
 fabric. When the fabric was torn down and 
 scattered to the winds, the false political teach- 
 ings, that entered into its construction, were 
 abandoned by the builders. The South not 
 only recognized the destruction of slavery on 
 the downfall of the rebellion, but they were 
 ready to abandon all the dogmas upon which 
 slavery was founded. Slavery of white men, 
 equals, was not justified by any portion of our 
 people. It could only be justified as a guard- 
 ianshljj or patriarchal government over an . 
 inferior race. If the inferiority were admitted, 
 slavery had its defense in some sort of reason. 
 But the experiences of the war attacked and 
 destroyed this defense, long known to the South 
 itself to be utterly untenable. Hence, on sub- 
 mitting to the national authority, they equally 
 yielded to the logic of events on the negro ques- 
 tion. They were ready to give up, in practice 
 anyhow, the idea of the negro's inferiority. 
 Mr. Calhoun, and other prominent men In the 
 South, always held that If the negro were made 
 free it was tantamount to a declaration of his 
 equality, and his enfranchisement must follow. 
 
 If President Johnson had said in his procla- 
 mation of amnesty, "Whereas the people of 
 the seceded States organized a rebellion and 
 fought for four years against the Govei'ument 
 of the United States in an unholy attempt to 
 perpetuate the slavery of an entire race, on the 
 false ground of the inferiority of that race ; and 
 whereas their rebellion has been overthrown, 
 
39 
 
 now I, Andrew Johnson, desiring to see slavery 
 and its attendant evils removed, and that jus- 
 tice be established throughout the land, North 
 and South, do proclaim that all persons taking 
 part in said rebellion shall be pardoned upon 
 the express condition that slavery and all its 
 pretensions shall be abolished, ' and that all 
 distinctions of race and color in civil and polit- 
 ical rights shall henceforth cease," would they 
 not have accepted it? Would they not have 
 > keen glad to accept it? No doubt about it; 
 And then this angry controversy, just beginning 
 to mold new political organizations, would have 
 been unknown. 
 
 Mr. CONNESS. The President tells you 
 that he is afraid that would bring about a war 
 of races. 
 * Mr. HENDERSON. Simple justice never 
 made war. To show that I am not mistaken in the 
 expectations of the country, North and South, 
 on this subject, I refer first to the testimony of 
 Mr. Reagan, of Texas, who was the postmaster 
 general under the rebel government, and was 
 one of the most active and persistent of rebel 
 chiefs. His testimony is but the expression of 
 a then fixed public sentiment at the South. 
 He says, in a letter addressed to the people of 
 Texas, just after the fall of the confederacy : 
 
 t "I have no doubt you can adopt a plan which will 
 f&lly meet the demands of justice and fairness, and 
 satisfy the northern mind and the requirements of 
 tho Government, without endangering good govern- 
 ment and the repose of society. This can be done by 
 
 "First, extending the privileges and protection of 
 the laws over negroes as they are over the whites, and 
 allowing them to testify in the courts on the same 
 conditions; leaving their testimony subject to the 
 rules relating to its credibility ; but not objecting to 
 its admissibility. And in this you will conform with 
 the wise current of legislation, and the tendency of 
 all judicial decisions in all enlightened countries. 
 
 "And second, by fixing an intellectual, moral, and, 
 if thought necessary, a property test for the admission 
 of all persons to the exercise of the elective franchise, 
 without reference to race or color, which would secure 
 its intelligent exercise." 
 
 In enumerating the advantages of these sug- 
 gestions, he says : 
 
 r "First. It would remove all just grounds of antag- 
 'i onlsm and hostility between the white and black 
 races. Unless this is done endless strife and bitter- 
 ness of feeling must characterize their relations, and, 
 as all history and human experience teach us, must 
 sooner or later result in a war of races. We now 
 know from sad experience what war is between 
 equals and enlightened people. But of all wars a 
 social war of races is the most relentless and cruel, 
 the extermination or expulsion from the country or 
 enslavement of one or the other being the inevitable 
 end where they are left to themselves, or the loss of 
 liberty to both races where they are both sirioject to 
 the control of a superior power, which would be our 
 situation. I speak, of course, of the legal rights and 
 status of the two races. Their social relations are 
 matters of taste and choice, and not subject to legis- 
 lative regulation. * 
 
 "Second. This course would disarm and put an end 
 to inter-State sectional political agitation, on this 
 subj ect at least, which has been the special curse of our 
 country fm- so many years, and which was the cause 
 of the unnumbered woes wo have recently experi- 
 enced and still suffer; by depriving the agitators of 
 a subject on which to keep up such an agitation, and 
 of the means of producing jealousy, animosity, and 
 hatred between the ditierent races. And this would 
 do much toward the renewal of the ancient rela- 
 tions of national harmony and fraternal good will 
 between all parts of the country." 
 
 The President of the United States, who is 
 now supposed to be so utterly opposed to negro 
 suffrage, oven as late as October last, author- 
 ized a publication by one Major Stearns, giving 
 his opinion most decidedly in its favor. The 
 President said : 
 
 "My positiou here is different from what it would 
 be if I were in Tennessee. 
 
 "There I should try to introduce negro suffrage grad- 
 ually; first, those who had served in the Army; those 
 who could read and write, and perhaps a iiroperty 
 qualification for others, say two hundred or two hun- 
 dred and fifty dollars." 
 
 In the early days of last October, I had a con- 
 versation myself with tho President, in which 
 I expressed some fears of the loyalty of the new 
 organizations, and took occasion to suggest the 
 hope that he would insist on some sort of modi- 
 fied negro suffrage in those States, as a means 
 of taking the question forever out of politics, 
 and further, of removing, as far as possible, 
 the false sentiments that originated and gave 
 strength to the rebellion. The result of the 
 conversation was that I was authorized to give 
 publicity to his views, which I did in a speech 
 of October 21, in my State, from which I read 
 an extract: 
 
 " Taking his stand-point that theStates are still in 
 the Union, he does not think he can consistently in- 
 terfere with the franchisQ in those States or in any 
 other; that is, that he can confer it upon persons not 
 enjoying it under the respective State constitutions, 
 as they existed before the rebellion; but as an indi- 
 vidual hedesiresthatthe negro shall be enfranchised 
 and would be gratified to see the several State con- 
 ventions extend the franchise to all persons of color 
 who can read the Constitution of the United States 
 in English and write their names, and also to all per- 
 sons of color who own real estate valued at not less 
 than S250, and who pay taxes thereon." 
 
 I again repeat that these words were uttered 
 to me by the President of the United States in 
 the early days of October last, and now it is 
 given out that the President is opposed to 
 negro suffrage, not only in the States, but in 
 the District of Columbia, where the power of 
 Congress is not disputed. On the 10th of last 
 October, the President addressed a regiment of 
 negro soldiers, returning from service, in which 
 he said : 
 
 "This is your country as well as anybody else's 
 country. This is the country in which you expect to 
 live and in which you expect to do something by your 
 example in civil life, as you have done in the field. 
 This country is founded on the principle of equality." 
 
 Again : 
 
 "It is for you to establish the great fact that you 
 are fit and qualified to be free." 
 
 And again : 
 
 "He is the most exalted that is the mos* meritori- 
 ous, without regard to color." 
 
 But it seems now the question of the negro's 
 capacity to govern himself is not to be judged 
 from his conduct. It is to be settled against 
 him without trial. Merit is to be put out of 
 the question. His inferiority is to be assumed, 
 and the results of injustice to him, ignorance, 
 poverty, degradation, are to be forever the 
 quoted evidences of that inferiority. The ques- 
 tion of human slavery entered into party poli- 
 tics, and justice was slow. The question of 
 human right, involved in enfranchisement, is 
 
40 
 
 now given to party politics. Justice may be 
 slow, but come, it must. 
 
 Against this measure but three arguments 
 are urged : 
 
 1. That it produces social equality. This 
 objection is totally unfounded. Is each voter 
 the equal of another? Does my friend from 
 Wisconsin [Mr. Doolittle] regard every man, 
 native and foreign, naturalized and unnatural- 
 ized, who is entitled to the ballot iu that State, 
 as his social equal ? 
 
 2. It is urged that the negro is of another 
 and an inferior race. Admit his race to be 
 different from ours, does he not belong to the 
 family of man? Is he not actuated by the same 
 motives, possessed of the same feelings, and 
 animated by the same hopes? He may not 
 belong to the same race, but he belongs to the 
 family of man, and the proudest boast of our 
 free country to-day, is, that it is the home and 
 asylum of man. If his race be inferior in intel- 
 lectual power, that constitutes the strongest 
 reason for guarding his rights against the as- 
 saults of the more vigorous and crafty. Are 
 all men now entitled to the franchise equal 
 in intellectual power? Are they all equal in 
 sagacity and knowledge? Is the unlettered 
 Irishman, shut out year after year from the 
 light of the sun, in the coal mines of Peunsjd- 
 vania, equally qualified to cast an intelligent 
 vote with the distinguished members of the 
 Federal judiciary now dispensing justice in this 
 Capitol? But I ask. Senators, will you deny 
 suffrage to the coal-digger? Or will you give 
 another ballot to the eminent judge? Natural 
 inferiority amounts to nothing. The question is, 
 are the negroes capable of such moral training 
 as to give them love of social order, and such 
 intellectual training as to have them know and 
 appreciate their rights and duties in the com- 
 munity ? If they are incapable of such training, 
 the States may yet deny them the franchise, 
 after my amendment has been adopted. If the 
 alleged inferiority prove unfounded, the wor- 
 
 ship of prejudice must cease, and the image of 
 this unjust god be broken into dust. Can the 
 experiment do any harm? Let us try it. 
 
 3. It is said that qualified, educated, intelli- 
 gent negro suffrage will bring a war of races. 
 XVhy so? Are white men so unjust that rather 
 than suffer simple justice to be done to their 
 fellow-men, rather than see the true republican 
 principle vindicated in government, they will 
 imbrue their hands in the negro's blood? I 
 believe no such thing, and if I did believe it, I 
 could scarcely hope for the success of my fel- 
 low white men in this war against humanity. 
 If it be desirable to prevent a war of races, it 
 can be done by simple justice to both races. If 
 one race be taxed without representation, fol- 
 lowed by the usual abuses of such power, and 
 followed, too, by the prejudice and contempt 
 of the ruling class, will not war of races come 
 sooner? It must, it will come. It can be pre- 
 vented now. Let it be done. 
 
 The reasons in favor of my proposition are 
 inseparably connected with all I have said. I 
 need not repeat them. Every consideration of 
 peace demands it. It must be done to remove 
 the relics of the rebellion. It must be done 
 to pluck out political disease from the body- 
 politic, and restore the elementary principles 
 of our Government. It must be done to pre- 
 serve peace iu the States and harmony in our 
 Federal system. It must be doue to assure the 
 happiness and prosperity of the southern people 
 themselves. It must be done to establish in our 
 institutions the principles of universal justice. 
 It must be done to.secure the strongest .possible 
 guarantees against future wars. It must be 
 done in obedience to that golden rule, which 
 insists upon doing to others what we wovjld that 
 others should do unto us. It must be done if 
 we would obey the moral law that teaches us to 
 love our neighbors as ourselves. In fine, it 
 must be done to purify, strengthen, and per- 
 petuate a Government, in which are now fondly 
 centered, the best hopes of mankind. 
 
LIBRf 
 
 0J 
 
 r 
 
013 744 498 7 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRES; 
 
 013 744 498 7 
 
 penmalipe 
 pHS.S