/ W]/nVH<2A^ E 688 .R26 Copy 1 PEACE AND RESTORATION. SPEECH OF n"" ^/ HON. H. TRAYMOND, OF NEW YORK, IN REPLY TO HON. T. STEVENS, OF PENNSYLVANIA; ^ ♦> DELITEBED IN THE HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES, DEOEMBER 21, 1865. son and , But WASHINGTON: PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 1865. • k N / / y PEACE AND llESTOUATION. The ^ouse having resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole oa the state of the Union, (Mr. Bout- well in the chair,) and proceeded to the consider- ation of the President's annual message — Mr. RAYMOND said: . Mr. Chairman : I should 1)e glad, if it meet the sense of those members who are present, to make some remarks upon the general question now before the House ; but I do not wish to tres- pass at all upon their dis2:)Osition in regard to this matter. 1 do not know, however, that there will be a better opportunity to say what little I have to say than is now offered; and if the House shall indicate no other wish, I will pro- ceed to say it. [''Goon!"] ' I need not say that I have been gratified to hear many things which have fallen from the lips of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. FixcK,] who has just taken his seat. I have no party feeling, nor any other feeling, which would pre- vent me from rejoicing in the indications ap- parent on that side of the House of a purjaose to concur with the loyal people of the country, and with the loyal administration of the Gov- ernment, and with the loyal majorities in both Houses of Congress, in restoring peace and order to our common country. I cannot, per- haps, help wishing, sir, that these indications of an interest in the preservation of our Gov- ernment had come somewhat sooner. I can- not help feeling that such expressions cannot now be of as much service to the country as they might once have been. If we coiild liave had from that side of the House such indica- tions of an interest in the preservation of the .Union, sucli heartfelt sympathy with theefibrts of the Government for the preservation of that Union, such hearty denunciation of those who were seeking its destruction, while the war was raging, I am sure we might have been spared some years of war, some millions of money, and rivers of blood and tears. But, sir, I am not disposed to fight over again battles now happily ended. I feel, and I am rejoiced to find that members on the other side of the House feel, that the grej^t problem now before us is to restore the Union to its old in- tegrity, purified from every thing that' interfered with the full development of the spirit of liberty which it was made to enshrine. I trust that we shall have a general concurrence of the mem- bers of this House and of this Congress in such measures as may be deemed most fit and proper for the accomplishment of that result. I am glad to assume and to believe that there is not a mem- ber of this House, nor a man in this country, who does not wish, from the bottom of his heart, to see the day speedily come when we shall have this nation — the great American Republic — again united, more harmonious in its action than it has ever been, and forever one and indi- visible. We in this Congress are to devise the means to restore its union and its harmony, to perfect its institutions, and to make it in all its parts and in all its action, through all time to come, too strong, too wise, and too free ever to invite or ever to permit the hand of rebellion again to be raised against it. Now, sir, in devising those ways and means to accomplish that great result, the first thing we have to do is to know the point from which we start, to understand the nature of the mate- rial with which we have to work— the condition of the territory and the States with which we are concerned. I had supposed at the outset of this session that it was the purpose of this House to proceed to that work without discus- sion, and to commit it almost exclusively, if not entirely, to the joint committee raised by the two Houses for the consideration of that subject. But, sir, I must say that I was glad when I perceived the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr., Stevens,] himself the chairman on the part of this House of that great committee on reconstruction, lead off in a dis- cussion of this general subject, and thus invite aJ.l the rest of us wlio choose to follow him in the ik'l)atc. In the remarks whieii he made in tliis hoily a few (hiys since, lie laid down, with the clearness and the force which characterize everything he says and does, his i)oint of de- Earture in commencing this great work. I had oped that the ground lie would lay dowirwoiild 1m' such that we could all of us stand upon it and coiiperate with him in our common object. 1 feel constrained to .say, sir — and 1 do it with- out the !*iiglitest disposition to create or to ex- aggerate differences — that tliere were features in liis exposition of the condition of the coun- try with which I cannot concur. I cannot for myself start from jn'ccisely the point which he assumes. In his remarks on that occasion he assumed that the States lately in rebellion were and are (Mit of the Union. Throughout his speech — I will Bot trouble you with reading passages from it — I find himsiicakingof those States as "out- aide of the Union," as "dead States," as hav- ing fo-rfeited all their rights and terminated their State existence. I find expressions still more definite and distinct ; 1 find him stating that they "are and for four years have been out of the" Union for all legal purposes;" as having l>een for four years a "separate power," and •'a separate nation." His position therefore is that these States, having been in rebellion, are now out of the Union, and are simply within the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States as so much territory to be dealt with precisely as the mil of the conqueror, to use his own language, may dictate. Now, sir, if that position is cor- rect, it prescribes for us one line of policy to bo pursued very ditrei'wit from the one that will be proper if it is not correct. His belief is that what wo have to do is to create new States out of this territory at the proper time — many years distant — retaining them meantime in a territorial condition, and subjecting them to precisely such a state of discipline and tutelage as Congress or the Government of the United States may see fit to presccibe. If I believed in the premises which he assumes, possibly, though I do not think probably, I might agree with the conclusion he has reached. But, sir, I cannot believe that this is our con- dition. 1 cannot believe that these States have mev been out of the Union, or that they are now out of the Union. 1 cannot believe that they ever have been, or are now, in any sense a separate Power. If they were, sir, how and when did tliey become so? They were once States of this Union — tlmt every one concedes; bound to the Union and made members of the Union by the Constitution of the United States. If they ever went out of the Union it was at some specific time and by some specific act. I regret* that the gentleman from Pennsyh-'ania [Mr. St^vexs j is not now in his seat. 1 should have been glad to ask him by what specific act, and at what precise time, any one of those States took itself out of the American Union. Was it by the ordinance of secession? 1 think we all agree that an ordinance of secession passed by any State of this Union is simply a nullity, because it encounters in its practical operation the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land. It could have no legal, actual force or validity. It could not operate to effect any actual change in the relations of the State adopting it to the national Government, still less to accomplish the removal of that State 0"om the sovereign jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States. Well, sir, did the resolutions of these States, the declarations of their ofTicials, the speeches of members of their Legislatures, or the utter- ances of their press accomjjlish the result? Certainly not. They could not possibly work any change whatever in the relations of these States to the General Government. All their ordinances and all their resolutions were sim- ply declarations of a purpose to secede. Their secession, if it ever took place, certainly could not date from the time when their intention to secede was first announced. After declaring that intention, they proceeded to carry it into effect. How? By war. By sustaining their purpose by arms against the force which the Uni- ted States brought to bear against it. Did they sustain it? Were their arms victorious? If they were, then their secession was an accom- plished fact. If not, it was nothing more thtvn an abortive attempt — a purpose unfulfilled. This, then, is simply a Cj^uestion of fact, and we all know what the fact is. They did not suc- ceed. They failed to maintain their ground by force of arms — in other words, they failed to secede. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania "[Mr. Stevens] insists that they did secede, and that this fact is not in the least affected by the other fact that the Constitution forbids secession. He says that the law forbids murder, but that murders are nevertheless committed. But there is no analogy between the two cases. If secession had been accomplished, if these States had gone out, and overcome the armies that tried to prevent their going out, then thoprohi- bition ot the Constitution could not have al- tered the fact. In the case of murder the man is killed, and murder is thus committed in spite of the law. The fact of killing is essential to the committal of the crime; and the fact of go- ing out is essential to secession. But in this case there was no such fact. I think I need not argue any further the jiosition that the rebel States have never for one moment, by any or- dinances of secession, or by any successful war, carried themselves beyond the rightful jurisdic- tion of the Constitution of the United States. They have interrupted for a time the practical enforcement and exercise of that jurisdiction ; they rendered it impossible for a time for this Government to enforce obedience to its laws ; but there has never been an hour when this Government, or this Congress, or this House, or the gentleman from Pennsj'lvania himself, ever conceded that those States were beyond the jurisdiction of the Constitution and laws of the United States. During all these four years of war Congress has been making laws for the government of those very States, and the gentleman from Penn- sylvania has voted for them, and voted to raise armies to enforce them. ATliy was this' done if they were a separate nation ? Wliy , if they were not part of the United States? Those laws were made for them as States. Members have. voted for laws imposing upon them direct taxes, which are ajiportioned, according to the Constitution, only "among the several States" according to their population. ^ In a variety of ways — to some of which the gentleman who preceded me has re- ferred — this Congress has by its action assumed and asserted that they were still States in the Union, though in rebellion, and that it was with the rebellion that we were making war, and not with the States themselves as States, and still less as a separate, as a foreign, Power. The gentleman from Pennsylvania cited a variety of legal precedents and declarations of principle, nearly all of them, I believe, drawn from the celebrated decision of the Supreme Court pronounced by Justice Grier, in what are popularly known as the Prize Cases. His citations were all made for the purpose of prov- ing that these States were in a condition of pub- lic war — that they were waging such a war as could only be waged by a separate and independ- ent Power. But a careflil scrutiny of that de- cision will show that it lends not the slightest countenance to such an inference. Gentlemen who hear me will doubtless recollect that the object of the trial in those cases was to decide whether certain vessels, captured in trying to break the blockade, were lawful prize of war or not; and the decision of this point turned on the question whether the war then naging was such a contest as justified a resort to the modes and usages of public war, of which blockade was one. Justice Grier de- cided that it was — that, so far as the purposes and weapons of war were concerned, the two parties were belligerents, and that the Govern- ment might blockade the ports and capture property within the lines of the district in rebellion, precisely as if that district were an independent nation engaged in a public war. But he said not one word which could assert or imply that it was an independent nation — that it had a separate existence, or had gone out of the sovereign jurisdiction of the United States. On the contrary, everything he said — the very passages quoted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania himself — imply and assert pre- cisely the opposite. He speaks of them, not as sovereign, but as claiming to be sovereign ; not as being separate, but as trying to be sepa- rate from the United States. In this paragraph quoted from that decision, for example — "Hence, in orjrnnizing: this rebellion, they have acted as States clainnnfi to be sovereign over all per- sons and property within their respective limits, and asserting a right to absolve their citizens from their allcKiancc to the Federal Government. Several of those States have combined to form a new confed- eracy, cluimina to be acknowledged by the world as a sovereign State. Their ris^t to do so is now being decided by loager of battle" — 'the court asserts precisely the principle which I have already stated — that they were claim- ing independence, and that the validity of their claim would dejiend wholly and entirely upon the decision reached in the field of battle. The same misconstruction is traceable in all the legal citations made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. For example, he says : "Again, the court say, what I have been astonished that any one should donbt: " 'The proclamation of blockade is itself official and conclusive evidence to the court that a state of war existed.' " Now, what was the legal result of such war? " ' The conventions, the treaties, made with a nation, are broken or annulled by a war arising between the contracting parties.'— Fa«e4 372; Halleck, 371, see- tiou 23." A blockade is evidence that a state of war exists ; and a state of war annuls all treatieg between the contending parties. But does thi« warrant the inference that the Constitution of the United States, which is not a treaty, was annulled, or its binding force in the least degree impaired, by the war of rebellion? But I will not go further in examining these citations. All they show is that the Government, as against the rebels, and in waging the war to suppress the rebellion, had the rights of belli- gerents, and that the rules and laws of war might and must be applied to this contest although it was not a war between separate and independ- ent Powers. How, then, can this decision pos- sibly be made to convey the idea that the parties to the war were separate and independent States? It proceeds throughout and in every part upon precisely the opposite idea. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Sth- VENs] spoke of States forfeiting their State ex- istence by the fact of rebellion. "Well, I do not see how there can be any sitch forfeiture involved or implied. The individual citizens of those States went into the rebellion. Thej thereby incurred certain penalties under the laws and Constitution of the United States. What the States did was to endeavor to in- terpose their State authority between the in- dividuals in rebellion and the Government of the United States, which assurued, and which would carry out the assumption, to declare those individuals traitors for their acts. The individuals in the States who were in rebellion, it seems to me, were the only parties who under the Constitution and laws of the United States 6 coulil incur the penalties of treason. I know of no. law, I know of nothing in the Constitu- tion of the United States, I know of nothing in any reeo,irnize(l or ostaVlishod code of interna- tional law, which can punish a State as a State for any act it may perform. It is certain that our Constitution assumes nothing of the kind. It does not deal with States, except in one or two instances, such as elections of members of Congress, and the election of electors of Pres- ident and Vice President. Indeed, the main feature which distinguishes the Union under the Constitution from the old Confederation is this, that whereas the old Con- federation did deal with St.ates directly, making requisitions upon them for supplies and relying Sion them for the execution of its laws, the )nstitution of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, made its laws bind- ing on the individual citizens of the sevei'al States, whether living in one State or in another. Congress, as the legislative branch of this Gov- ernment, enacts a law which shall be operative upon every individual within its jurisdiction. It is binding ujion each individual citizen, and if he resists it by force he is guilty of a crime and is punished accordingly, anything in the con- stitution or laws of his State to the contrary not- withstanding. But the States themselves are npt touched by the laws of the United States or by the Constitution of the United States. A State cannot be indicted; a State cannot be tried : a State cannot l)e hung for treason. The individuals in a State may be so tried and hung, but the State as an organization, as an organic meml;er of the Union, still exists, whether its individual citizens commit treason or not. Mr. KELLEY. "Will the gentleman from New York [Mr. K.vymoxd] yield to me a moment fdr a question ? Mr. iMYMOND. Certainly. Mr. KELLEY. I desire to ask the gentleman this question : by virtue of what does a State exist? Is it by virtue of a constitution, and by virtue of its relations to the Union? That is, does a State of the Union exist, first by virtue of a constitution, and secondly by virtue of its practical relations to the Government of the United States? And further, I would ask whether ttft)£-> States, acting by conventions of the jieople, have not overthrown the constitu- tion which made them parts of the Union, and thereby destroyed or suspended — phrase it as you will — the practical relations which made them parts of the Union? Mr. UAYMONU. I will say, in reply to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Kelley,] tliat it is not the practical relations of a State at any particular moment which make it a State or a part of the Union. Wliat nmkes a State aj)art of the Union is the Constitution of the L nited States ; and the rebel States have not yet destroyed that. Mr. KELLEY. The question I propound is, whether a State does not exist by virtue of a constitution, its constitution, which is a thing which may be modified or overthrown? Mr. PvAYMOND. Certainly. Mr. KELLEY. And whether those rebel- lious constitutions or States have not been overthrown? Mr. IIAYMOXD. A State does not exist by virtue of any particular constitution. It always has a constitution, but it need not have a specific constitution at any specific time. A State has certain practical relations to the Gov- ernment of the United States. But the fact of those relations being practically operative and in actual force at any moment does not consti- tute its relationship to the Government or its menibership of the United States. Its prac- tical operation is one thing. The fact of its existence as an organized community, one of the great national community of States, is quite another thing. Mr. KELLEY. Let me interrupt the gen- tleman one moment longer. I will ask hiiii whether, if the constitution be overthrown or destroyed and its practical relations cease, there be any State left? Mr. RAYMOND. \Yhy, sir, if there be no constitution of any sort in a State, no law, noth- ing but chaos, then that State would no longer exist as an organization. But that ha.s not been the case, it never is the ease in great com- munities, for they always have constitutions and t forms of government. It may not l)e a con- stitution or form of government adapted to its relation to the Government of the United States ; and that would be an evil to be reme- died by. the Government of the United States. That is what we have been trying to do for the last four years. The practical relations of the governments of those States with the Govern- ment of the United States were all wrong — were hostile to that Govcrnjncnt. They denied our jurisdiction, and they denied that they were States of the Union, but their denial did not change the fact: and there was never any time when their organizations as States were de- stroyed. A dead State is a solecism, a contra- diction in terms, an impossibility. These are, I confess, rather metaphysical distinctions, but I did not raise them.' Those who assert that a State is destroyed whenever its constitution is changed, or whenevei; its practical relations with this Government are changed, must be held responsible for whatever metaphysical niceties mhy be necessarily in- volved in the discussion. I do not know, sir, that I have made my views on this jtoint clear to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Jvkllet,] who hns ques- tioned me upon it, and I. am still more doubtful whether, even if they are intelligible, he will concur with me as to their justice. 13ut I re- gard these States as just as truly within the juris- diction of the Constitution, and therefore just as really and truly States of the American Union now as they were before the war. Their prac- tical relations to the Constitution of the United States have been disturbed, and we have been endeavoring, through four years of war, to re- store them and make them what they were before the war. The victory in the field has given us the means of doing this ; we can now reestablish tiie practical relations of those States to the Government. Our actual jurisdiction over them, which they vainly attempted to throw off, is already restored. The conquest we have achieved is a conquest over the rebellion, not a conquest over the States whose authority the .rebellion had for a time subverted. For these reasons I think the \-iews submit- ted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] upon this point are unsound. Let me next cite some of the consequences which, it seems to me, must follow the acceptance of his position. If, as he asserts, we have been waging war with an independent Power, with a separate nation, I cannot see how we can talk of tz-eason in connection with our recent conflict or demand the execution of Davis or anybody else as a traitor. Certainly if we were at war with any other foreign Power we should not talk of the treason of those who were opposed to us in the field. If we were engaged in a war with France and should take as pi-isoner the Emperor Napoleon, certainly we could not talk of him as a traitor or as liable to execution. I think that by adopting any such assumption aS that of the honorable gentleman, we surrender the whole idea of treason and the punishment of t^'aitors. I think, moreover, thatwe accept, \"irtually and ^practically, the doctrine of State sovereignty, the right of a State to withdraw from the Union, and to break up the Union at its own will and pleasure. I do not see how upon those premises we can escape that conclu- sion. If the States that engaged in the late rebellion constituted themselves, by their ordi- nances of secession or by anj' of the acts- with which they followed those ordinances, a sepa- rate and independent Power, I do not see how we can deny the principles on which they pro- fessed to act, or refuse assent to their practical results. I have heard no clearer, no stronger statement of the doctrine of State sovereignty as paramount to the sovereignty of the nation than would be involved in such a- concession. Whether he intended it or not, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevexs] actually as- sents to the extreme doctrines of the advocates of secession. Mr. NIBLACK. I beg leave to inquire of the gentleman whether the theory of the gentle- man from Pennsylvania, which he is combating, would not also, if carried to its legitimate con- sequences, make those who resisted the con- federacy in the insurrectionary States guilty of treason to the confederacy or to those States ? Mr. PtAYMOND. I was just going to remark that another of the consequences of this doc- ti-ine, as it seems to me, would be our inability to talk of loyal men in the South. Loyal to what ? Loyal to a foreign, independent Power, as the United States would become under those circumstances? Certainly not. Simply disloyal to their own Government, and deserters, or whatever you may choose to call' them, from that to which they would owe allegiance to a foreign and independent State. Now, there is another consequence of the doc- trine which I shall not dwell upon, but sjmply suggest. If that confederacy was an independ- ent Power, a separate nation, it had the right to contract debts ; and we, having overthrown and conquered that independent Power, accord- ing to the theory of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania, would become the successors, tlft; in- heritors, of its debts and assets, and we must pay them. . Sir, that is not simply a theory or a claim thrown out in debate here : it is one advanced on behalf of the Government of Great Britain as against us. Every gentleman will remember the case in which cotton belonging to the southern confederacy was claimed in Liverpool, and the decision there was ■ Mr. JENCKES. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. RAYMOND. Certainly. Mr. JENCKES. From what informatioti does the gentleman state that that point was taken by the Government of Great Britain? Mr. RAYMOND. Well, sir, I do not mean to be understood as saying that the point was taken by the Government of Great Britain itself Mr. JENCKES. That is a very essential distinction. Mr. RAYMOND. But that the point was taken on behalf of the claimants in Great Brit- ain, and the Vice Chancellor of England gave a decision which substantially covered that point and asserted the docti-ine I haVe stated. Mr. JENCKES. But which is not law either in England or in any other country recognizing international law. Mr. RAYMOND. That is a matter between the honorable gentleman from Rhode Island and the Vice Chancellor of Great Britain. The point I wish to make is simply this, that our Government has denied from the beginning, and denies now, that the confederacy was ever such a corporation, such an independent body of men as could contract debts, whether we are liable for them or not. The declaration of our Secretary of State in his recent corret^pond- ence on that subject shows that we have always steadily denied that the confederacy was such a corporation as could contract a valid debt, whether we would be made resi)onsible tor it or not. ■ But one thing is very clear, that if we rec- ognize the doctrine that those lately in rebellion against our Government constituted an inde- pendent Power, we must concede their ability to 8 contract debts. Whether we as their successors are to pay them or not is another question, but the chum has been made, and denied only on the ground of the incapacity of the rebel con- federacy to contract debts or binding engage- ments of any sort. Now, sir, I liave dwelt upon these points longer than I intended. I do not think that the doctrine I have l)pen combating is iield by any consid('ral)le number of the people of this coun- try, or, indeed, l)y any considerable number of the nunnbcrs of this lipuse. I certainly do not thirds these States arc to be dealt with by us as provinces — as simply so much territorj' — held to us by no other ties than those of conquest. I think we are to deal with them as States, having State governments, still subject tothe jurisdiction of the Constitution and laws of the United States; still under the constitutional control of the national Government; and that, in our dealings with them we arc to be guided and governed, not simply by our sovereign will and pleasure as conquerors, but by the restric- tions and limitations of the Constitution of the United States — precisely as we are restrained and limited in our dealings with all other States of the American Union. Mr. FAliNSWOllTH. I would like to ask the gentleman from New York whether he is entirely sure we have the right to try Jefferson Davis for treason inasmuch as our Government has given to them belligerent rights, has recog- nized and respected the commissions that he has issued? Mr. RAYMOND. Ihavenodoubfof it; not the slightest. I do not think that the treason of Jeticrson Davis has anj'thiug to do with the fact that we conceded humane treatment to our prisoners of war. I merely alluded to the mat- ter — I might have elaborated it — when I said that because we had granted to these States, as a Power waging war, rights usually accorded to nations at war, we were not therefore concluded from proceeding against them as traitors. The decision of the Supreme Court, to i'hich I have once referred, if I understand it aright, asserts that we have the right to proceed against them as traitors, or rather that we had the right to exercise against them both the powers of sovereignty and of belligerents ; that the one did not exclude the other. It would be an extraordinary circumstance if, because we treated them humanely as prisoners of ^yar, we have not the right to hold them responsible to the laws they have|bi'oken. " /( in (1 proponition never doubted" — says Justice Grier, in the decision so often re- iqerent party who claims to be sover- rcixii both belHacrcnt end soverciiin riiihts. „ ..i other partj' as a bclli?erent, and u.sinf? Jnly the milder modes of coercion which tiie law of nations has introduced to mitigate tlio rieors of war, cnnnot bo a subjeet of complaint, [or of claim,! by the pnrly to whom it it accorded ud a graco or grantod as a necessity." Now, if according to the view I have pre- « scntcd, wo are to deal with those States as States within the Union, the next question that recurs is, hoic are we to deal with them? The gentleman from Ohio [^Ir. Fixck] who pre- ceded me took the ground that they had only to resume their places and their powers in the national Government — that their Kepresent- ativcs have only to come into this Hall and take their seats without question and without conditions of any sort. 1 cannot concur, sir, in this view. 1 do not think these States have any such rights. On the contrary, 1 think we have a full and perfect right to require certain conditions, in the nature of guarantees for th(i future, and that right rests, primarily and tech- nically, on the surrender we may and must re- quire at their hands. The rebellion has been defeated. A defeat always implies a surren- der, and in apolitical sense a surrender im- plies more than the transfer of the arms used on the iield of battle. It implies, in the case of civil war, a surrender of the principles and doctrines, of all the weapons and agencies, by which the war has been carried on. The mil- itary surrender was made on the field of battle, to our generals as the agents and representa- tives of the Commander-in-Chiefof the armies of the United States. But this is not all. They have still to surrender Mr. JENCKES. If the gentleman will al- low me I will ask him a question. Was not the surrender of the rebel arms made to the people of the United States? Mr. RAYMOND. It ought to be, and must be to them through their representatives. . Mr. JENCKES. I made the remark to cor- rect what seemed to be an erroneous impres- sion. Mr. RAYMOND. Well, I do not see any correction in what the gentleman has said, or any error in what I said. The rebels sur- rendered to the generals of our armies, who were commissioned by the President of the United States, himself the representative of the people. Mr. JENCKES. Not to the generals as the agents of the President, but as the representa- tives of the military authority of the people of the United States. Mr. RAYMOND. Why certainly all author- ity belongs to the people. It is a mere distinc- tion of words, and scarcely that. Mr. JENCKES. I beg pardon of the gen- tleman. It seems to rao that it is an essential distinction. Mr. RAYMOND. Well, if it seems impor- tant to the gentleman from Rhode Island or to anybody else, I am quite willing to make the addition to my remark which he suggests. I will say then that in surrendering on the field of battle, they surrendered to the generals who v.crc in command of the armies, as agents of the President of the Unitfed States, who was and 9 is the representative of the people of the United States. If that expUination is satisfactory to the gentleman I am very happy to make it ; and perhaps I am obliged to him for having enabled me to state it a little more specifically and accu- rately than I did at first. Now, there must be at the end of the war a similar surrender on the political field of con- troversy. That surrender is due as an act of justice from the defeated party to the victorious party. It is due also, and we have a right to exact it, as a guarantee for the future. Why do we demand the surrender of their arms by the vanquished in every battle ? We do it that they may not renew the contest. Why do we seek in this and all similar cases a surrender of the principles, for which they fought? It is that they may never again be made the basis of controversy and rebellion against the Govern- ment of the United States. Now, what are those principles which should be thus surrendered? The principle of State sovereignty is one of them. It was the corner- stone of the rebellion — at once its animating spirit, and its fundamental basis. Deeply in- grained as it was in the southern heart, it must be surrendered. The ordinances in which it was embodied must not only be repealed, the principle itself must be abandoned, and the ordinances, so far as this war is concerned, be declared null and void, a,nd that declaration must be embodied in their fundamental consti- tutions. We have a right to insist upon this ; and it must be apparent that so far as that prin- ciple is concerned, this war was a permanent success. Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman will allow me to make the inquiry whether if that were done to-day by South Carolina, and the people of that insurgent State restored to all their powers in this Union, they could not blot it out to-morrow, by every construction that has ever been given to the operation of the Constitution of the United States upon any State maintain- ing its relations to this Government? What guarantee would that be? Mr. EAYMOND. I might as well ask the gentleman whether if this Congress pass a cer- tain law to-day they may not repeal it to-mor- row. I do not know anjrthing that any com- munity can do that they cannot undo at some future time. Mr. BINGHAM. When the gentleman talks of guarantees to the people of the United States, I ask him whether there is not some other method that occurs to him by which these guar- antees can be obtained than to submit simply to the will of the insurgent States? Is it not to be done by putting the guarantee in the Constitu- tion of the whole peofile of the United States, ^nd thus placing it beyond the power of South Carolina to repeal it? Mr. RAYMOND. Well, Mr. Chairman, there have l>een a good many things put in the G^- stitution of the United States which South Car-, olina did not deem beyond her power, and they undertook to prove that fact, but they did not succeed. My own impression is that v\'hatever is now a part of the Constitution and laws of this country is beyond the power of South Car- olina to disturb. I might as well ask the gen- tleman whether, when the enemy surrendered its ordnance in the field, we ought not to refuse to accei:)t it because they might possibly at some future day come and recapture it. Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman will ex- cuse me. He talked of new guarantees. The people of the United States undoubtedly de- mand them. But I wish him to answer intel- ligibly what new guarantee is given by incor- porating in the constitution of South Carolina the mere formula that she by her constitution declares that she has not the right to secede, when she has the power the very next day to strike it out ? Is that a new guarantee? Mr. RAYMOND, Certainly it is. Thathas never been in the constitution of South Caro- lina before. If she puts it there now, it is a new guarantee, is it not ? Whether it is an adequate form of that guarantee or not, is another ques- tion which I have not discussed. South Caro- lina has always hitherto asserted the right of secession, andunder that assertion sheattempted to secede. If she now repudiates or abandons that right, we have certainly that new assurance that she will not renew the attempt. We shall certainly have this tangible admission on her part, that if she does again rebel, it will be in direct repudiation and contempt of her own principles. I will not say that nothing more would be desired or accepted. I am quite willing, if it can be done, to put that acknowl- edgment into the Constitution of the United States. But I think it is there now, and that it always has been there, and that there is no more doubt about it now than if it were stated in express terms. When I read in the Consti- tution of the United States, that "this Consti- tution shall be the supreme law of the land, any- thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding," I deem that to be as plain as any declaration can be against the doctrine of State sovereignty, and I cannot believe that any form of words on our part would be more explicit or more emphatic. But if the gentleman can get any more explicit denial into the Constitution of the United States, he will find me voting for it every time. Mr. BINGHAM. Then the gentleman ad- mits that there is no necessity for any new guar- antee from a State. Mr. RAYMOND. I have made no such ad- mission. I hav6 said that it was in the Consti- tution of the United States before the rebellion, and that it is now in the constitution of the State of South Carolina also, where it never was be- fore ; and that it is certainly a new guarantee, whether worth much or little. 10 Now there is another thing to be surrendered by the defeated rebellion, und that is the obli- gation to pay llie rebel war debt. Mr. SCUEN'CK. Will the gentleman allow me to incjuire whether that guarantee in the con- ptitutioii of South Carolina amounts to anything I'nore than the signature of an indorscr on the back of a note, who may at any time thereafter take his name from the paper? Mr. JiAYMOND. Perhapsnot; perhaps you can get better security. If you can, I cer- tJiinly shall not object. But such as it is, it is at all events something gained, audit is only in that light that I liavc referred to it. Neither of the distinguished gentlemen from Ohio, [Messrs. Bingham andScuENCK,] able lawyers as they are, will deny that we had the right to demand that of South Carolina. And if it was worth while to demand it, it is hardly worth while, having got it, to say that it is of no value nt all. We expose ourselves by so doing to the imputation of trifling in having demanded it at all. Mr. BINGHAM. I have no doubt at all that the people of the United States, those who maintained the integrity of their Constiution, had the right to demand of South Carolina a per- petual guarantee in the future that she should not even claim the color of authority to secede and set up a government against the consti- tutional authority of the Government of the nation. And when they demand that, I take it that the people of the United States are not to be told that South Carolina alone is to have the control and keeping of that guarantee. But the people of the United States are here- after to be the guardians of their own honor, and the protectors of their own nationality, and they, will take into their own keeping those great guarantees that are to secure peace and prosperity to every section of the Union in future, and to secure themselves against this work of secession under the pretense of State sovereignty. Mr. RAYMOND. Will the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bixgham] inform me who has ever pretended that the people of the nation are not to take into their own hands the guarantees of their own security and their own iionor? Mr. BINGHAM. Whoever pretends that future guarantees against the pretension of the right of a State to secede is to rest with the State alone, stands simply and solely on the resolutions of Virginia of 1798, out of the pernicious assumptions of which came all our trouble. Mr. RAYMOND. Will the gentleman say whether I ever took anv such ground? Mr. BINGHAM. I'do not say that the gen- tleman has. But the gentleman says that the guarantee is to remain in the constitution of the State. Mr, RAYMOND. Does that imply thatit is iHjver to be anywhere else? "Mr. BINGHAM. That is the point. Mr. RAYMOND. And I want an answer to that point. The gentleman tries to fasten upon me a position that I have never taken. And it required all his ingenuity to reach the point ai, which he has at last arrived. I .een for a time disturbed and over- thrown. He has done it through agents, ex- orcising a delegated and just authority^acting on his behalf and in his name — ^just as his mil- itary generals prescribed the terms and condi- tions of the rebel surrender in the field ; and the fact that these concessions have been granted, affords at least a fair presumittion that those who make them intend he'reatter in good faith to abide by all the obligations and fulfill all the duties imposed by the Constitution and laws of the United States. It may possibly be wise for us to dismiss all these concessions and all these guarantees given by eight million people, and sanctioned l)y the most solemn forms of legis- lation, as utterly worthless and insincere. But that is a matter upon whicli eaah individual must exercise his own discretion npon his own responsiliility. Mr. SPALDING. The gentleman from New York has stated that it is right and reasonable the demand should be made of the late rebel States that they should.assent to an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting slavery in the Union, and also that it is right and reasonable we should require that they should repudiate all debts contracted in support of the rebellion. Now, I ask Uie gentleman whether there is any limit to the right to make these requisitions ex- cept the good judgment of Congress? Mr. RAYMOND. I think there is. Mr. SPALDING. I ask what limit, so that wo mny understand, and where docs it belong? Who has the power to affix that limit? Mr. RAYMOND. My impression is that these requisitions are made as a ]>art of the terms of surrender which we have a right to demand at the hands of tlie defeated insurgents, and that it belongs, therefore, to the President as ('om- mander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States to make them, and to fix the limit as to wiiat they shall embrace. I\[r. BlNtillAM. In regard to that consti- tutional amendment : without Congress moving first in the matter, and without their action, he would never have had the power at all to de- mand its ratification by any rebel State. Mr. RAY'MOND. Certainly, there are many things which could liot be done by the Presi- dent without theaction of Congress. ]\Ir. BINGHAM. Congress is now making further provision that an amendment shall be made to the Constitution that no State shall pay any part of the rebel debt. Mr. RAY'MOND. The gentleman is aware that it was not Congress but the President who required the rebel States to ratify the constitu- tional amendment as a condition of the i'e.sump- tion of their functions. l\lr. BINGHAM. I beg the gentleman's pardon. This is an important question, and i beg leave to say that he would be a bold man who would dare to say that after the loyal States had maintained the supremacy of their Consti- tution, and more than three fourths of all the loyal States had so amended their Constitution, that their action was void without the consent of the rel)el States, and that after their rebel- lion had been subdued by arms, the States in rebellion might not only repudiate the amend- ment, but of right might come into Congress to resist the enforcement of its humane provisions by just and needful laws. It was not within the power of the President or any other man on this earth rightfully to assert any such authority or power in the rebel States over the action of the loyal people of twenty-two out of the twenty- five loyal States. The President never said so and never meant to say so. Mr. RAYMOND. Well, Mr. Chairman, ae the gentleman concedes that the President has not said it Mr. BINGHAM. No, aftd he could not sav it. Mr. RAY'MOND. I do not; know that he ever proposed or wished to sav it. Mr. BINGHAM. No, but then there wa* nothing in the gentleman's remark. ]Mr. 'RAYMOND. I understand that the Government, through the channel designated by law, the Secretary of State, when it wa« found that three fourths of tlie States had rati- fied the amendment, issued a proclamation to that effect, naming the States which h.id rati- fied it. There was nothing irregular, certainly, about that. 13 Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman will note that the President made the requisition long before three fourths of the States had ratified the amendment- Mr. RAYMOND. The President did it; Congress did not. Mr. BINGHAM. What I meant to say was this: Congress imposed that obligation upon him backed by the power of the people, and they have a right again to impose like obliga*- tions upon him, r l have, a right to assiime that he will cheerLilly and faithfully obey their requirements. Mr. RAYMOND. I am sorry the gentleman seems determined to get up an issue concern- ing the action, past or future, of the President upon this subject. I am not aware that I have given him any provocation for so doing. Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman will ex- cnse me. I am sorry to see the gentleman as- sume that he alone represents the President. I make no issue with the President. ^^ Mr. RAYMOND. I certainly have assrJPlid rsothing of the kind; and I am very much sur- prised to hear the gentleman ascribe to me any- thing of the sort. I said nothing about the ac- tion of the President except to state the facts. I raised no question as to his rights, or as to the power of Congress to impose any action upon him. I do not know that I gave the gen- tleman from Ohio the slightest occasion to assert here, with so much warmth as he has shown, the paramount power of Congress over the President. I raised no question and made no remark on the subject. Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman made the remark here that I was trying to get up an is- sue with the President.. When he said that, I replied, as I might very properly do, that I v/as surprised that tlie gentleman should assume to speak for the President. • Mr. RAYMOND. I did not assuipe, in any way whatever, anything of the kind. Mr. BINGHAM. And I respectfully deny the gentleman's assertion that I seek to make an issue with the President. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. CONKLING. Inasmuch as my col- leegue has been very much interrupted, I ask that by unanimous consent his time be ex- tended, [Cries of ''Agreed!"] No objection was made. Mr. MORRILL. As the gentleman from New York evidently intended to reply to the fentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens,] hope he will be allowed to go on uninter- ruptedly. Mr. RAYMOND. I am very much surprised to find myself involved in such a controversy. I did not rise to create or provoke controversy with any one upon this floor. I rose to express my own dissent from the views propounded here by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and if in anything I said after that, embodying my own opinions, I gave proper warrant for, I will not say attacks upon me, for I do not believe any such thing was'uieant, but for the questions pro- pounded as to my position on this subject, i am very much surprised, but not the less glad of this opportunity of stating and explaining what it is. I cannot assent to the intimations thrown out by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens,] that the President concurred in the views he had expressed, or that he had handed the whole subject of pacifying the States lately in rebellion, and of restoring the States to the practical exercise of their functions as members of the Union, to the hands of Congress. I can find no warrant in his message for believing that he designs thus to abandon duties which ai'e evidently, in his judgment, devolved upon him as the Executive in the Government, and as Commander-in-Chief of the armies of the Uni- ted States. On the contrary, I find him rehears- ing, in clear and explicit language, the steps he has taken to restore the rightful energy of the General Government and the States. ' ' To that end," he says, "Provisional governors havebeen appointed for the States, conventions called, Governors elected, Legisla- tures assembled, and Senators and Representatives chosen to the Congress of the United States. At the same time the courts of the United States, as far as could bo done, have been reopened, so that the laws of the United States may bo enforced through their agency. The blockade has been removed and the cus- tom-houses reestablished in ports of entry, so that the revenue of the United States may be collected. The Post OiBce Department renews its ceaseless aetivity, and the General Government is thereby enabled to communicate promptly with its officers and agents. The courts bring security to persons and property; the opening of the ports invites the restoration of indus- try and commerce; the post office renews the facili- ties of social intercourse and of business." He has exercised his power of pardon ; he has invited the States lately in rebellion to par- ticipate in the ratification of the constitutional amendment securing the perpetual prohibition of slavery. ' ' This done, ' ' he says, "It will remain for the States, whose powers have been so long in abeyance, to resume their places in the two branches of the nationa.1 Legislature, and there- by complete the work of restoration. Ilcve it it for you, fcUow-f.iiir.ena of tlte Senate, and for you, fellow- citizens of the House of Representatives, to judge, each of you for yourselves, of the elections, returns, and qualifications of your own members." All but this has been done in the exercise of his functions and in the performance of his duties, as President of the United States, and as Commander-in-Chief of their armies. The admission of members of Congress, and the restoration of the judicial branch of the civil authority of the Government, are necessarily refex-red to the deliberations and action of Con- gress. Mr. Chairman, I am here to act with those who seek to complete the restoration of the Union, as I have acted with those through the last four years who have sought to maintain its integrity and prevent its destruction. I shall say no word and do no act and give no vote to 14 recognize its division, or to postpone or disturb its rapidly-aiiproaching harmony and peace. I have noright and no disposition to lav down rules by which others shall govern and guide their conduct; but for myself I shall en- deavor to act ui)on this whole question in the broad and liberal temper which its importance demands. We are not conducting a contro- versy in a court of law. We are not seeking to enforce a remedy for private wrongs, nor to revenge or retaliate private griefs. We have great comnmnities of men, permanent interests of great .Stales, to deal with, and we are bound to deal with them in a large and liberal spirit! It may be for the welfare of this nation that we shall cherish toward the millions of our peo- ple lately in rebellion feelings of hatred and distrust ; that we shall nurse the bitterness their infamous treason has natually and justly engen- dered, and make that the basis of our future dealings with them. Possibly we may best teach them the lessons of liberty, by visiting upon them the worst excesses of despotism. Possibly they may best learn to practice justice toward others, to admire and emulate our re- publiotin institutions, by suffering at our hands tiie absolute rule we denounce in others. It may be best for us and for them that we dis- card, in all our dealings with them, all the ob- ligations and requirements of the Constitution, and assert as the only law for them the unre- strained will of conquerors and masters. I confess I do not sympathize with the senti- ments or the opinions which would dictate such acourse. I would exact of them all needed and all just guarantees for their future loyalty to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I would exact from them, or impose upon them through the constitutional legislation of Con- gress, and by enlarging and extending, if neces- sary, the scope and powers of the Frecdmen's Bureau, proper care and protection for the help- less and friendless freedmen, so lately their elaves. I would exercise a rigid scrutiny into the character and loyalty of the men whom they may send to Congress, before I allowed them to participate in the high prerogative of legis- latmg for the nation. But I would seek to allay rather than stimulate the animosities and hatred, however just they may be, to which the war has given rise. But for our own sake as well as ibr theirs I woidd not visit upon them a policy of conliscation which has been discarded in the policy and practical conduct of every civilized nation on the face of the globe. I believe it important for us as well as for them that we should' cultivate friendly relations with them, that we should seek the i)romotion of their interests as part and jfarcel of our own. We have been their enemies in war, in peace let us show ourselves their friends. Now, that slavery has been destroyed — that prolific source of all our alienations, all our hatreds, and all our disasters — there is nothing longer to make us foes. They have the same interests, the same hopes, the same aspirations that we have. They are one with us ; we must share their suf- feiiKS and they will share our advancing pros- perity. They have been punished as no com- munity wasever punished before for the treason they have committed. I trust, sir, the day will come ei'e long when all traces of this great conflict will be efiaced, except those which mark the blessings that follow in its train. I hope and believe we shall soon see the day when the people of the southern States will show us, by evidences that we cannot mistake, that they have returned, in all sincerity and good faith, to their aUcgiauce to the Union ; that they intend to join henceforth with us in l^romoting its prosperity, in defending the ban- ner of its glory, and in fighting the battles ol democratic freedom, not only here, but where ever the issue may be forced upon our accept- ance. I rejoice w^ilh heartfelt satisfaction that we lijp-e in these seats of power — in the execu- tive d^i)artmcnt and in these halls of Congress — men who will coiiperate for the attainment of these great and beneficent ends. I trust they will act with wisdom ; I know they will act from no other motives than those of patriotism and love of their fellow-men. / LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 013 744 757 5 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS I •. 013 744 757 5 pH8^