LOW Speech. JX 321 L8 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY R. LOW. ON The Right of Congress to Determine the Qualification of its Members and to Determine when the Public Safety will Permit the Admission of Representatives from the States Lately in Rebellion, AND In Senate, March 14, 1866. ALBANY: VTEBD, PARSONS AND COMPANY, PRINTERS. I860. LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BAHBARA 1 SPEECH The Senate took up the special order being the resolutions on National Affairs reported by Mr. FOLGER from the Select Committee. Mr. LOW said : Mr. President : If the resolutions which have been presented, and which are now under dis- cussion, came up in my opinion fully to the spirit of those which should be presented and adopted, I would content myself and feel that I had discharged my duty, with casting a silent rote in their favor. But believing that while the resolutions, so far as they go, are right, they yet do not fully meet and represent the great sentiment of the country, I cannot consent to maintain a position of even apparent indiffer- ence to that fact. I see my duty the more clearly because of the remarks which fell from the lips of the Senator from the Twentieth, on a recent evening. The time has come when we should speak plainly, in the declaration of some clear and unmistakable line of policy, and when no hesitation or equivocation will do. It is not, indeed, a time when we should indulge in crimination or recrimination, or when we should say or do anything calculat- ed to prolong or intensify the memories of the great struggle ; bat a time when we should meet and look squarely in the face the important issue which that struggle forced upon us and has transmitted to us. Because while it may not be prudent to adopt a policy in reference to any matters whioh do not affect the great funda- mental principles of our government, it is mani- fest that we must have a care for all that does bear upon these principles, if we hope to con- tinue our existence as a nation. What we must do, therefore, is to adopt a policy. And when I say " we," I mean those who represent the great patriotic and union loving sentiment of the north. This policy upon which we are to decide, and our action in reference to which is to affect the life of the nation not only in the present, but for genera- tions to come, relates to what is popularly known as reconstruction, or to the terms upon which we will admit back to their privileges in the Union, the people, or any portion of the people, who have lately been in armed rebellion against it, and engaged in seeking its overthrow. It is the most important problem that has ever agitated the people of this country, I may say, with truth, of any country on the face of the globe. Growing out of the war, and directly associated with the interests that then appealed so closely to our hearts, it must, in its discus- sion and settlement, attract the attention of the world. The question, sir, is this : Shall tee surrender this nation aad all its sacred interests, and all the advantages of our position to its tuemiet f I do not think I am mistaken in my judgment as to how the people feel upon this subject. We have fought too long and suffered too much, to now yield up the fruits of the victory which we have achieved. And this is the great and over- shadowing danger of the hour. In my judgment, the policy whioh is in some measure supported here, and which is sought to be forced upon the country, will deprive us in a great degree of tte advantages which have resulted from the struggle. Let us look over the field and strive to arrive at our conclusions as sensible men, reasoning from fixed standpoints. What is the case pre- sented to our observation ? We find in eleven States there ia practically no government. We find that those States have passed through the terrific trials of a civil war initiated by their people. This war has destroyed what were their existing political institutions and changed their relations to the Union. It has left them in a condition in which it becomes the duty of the Executive and Congress, acting under the plain provisions of the Constitution, to guarantee to their people Republican forms of Government ; in other words, in a condition which demands that they shall be brought back to the relation- ships that were severed by the war. No matter how you may talk about one side issue and an- other, this is the real and vital matter upon which the Nation is now called to pass. Now coming down to the practical question we find that there are two great and opposing principles antagonistic to each other upon which parties must divide. One or the other must triumph, and as a necessary consequence, one or the other must surrender its views, or be de- feated in the effort to maintain them. It is im- portant, therefore, that we loo"k over the subject very carefully, and decide deliberately which is right and which wrong. What is sought to be obtained is this : One party aims to put the Government of these States into the hands of loyal men ; of men who were faithful daricg the war ; of men who can be trusted now to carry oat the great principles of the Constitution. The other course will have the effect if it shall be established, to put this great Government into the hands of traitors ; of men who con- spired to its overthrow; of men who are even now unreconciled to it. Disguise the disagreeable fact as we may, this is the policy toward which we are tending, if the views of the Democracy are adopted. This policy that is attempted to be adopted here the policy that has the sympathy of a very large class of persons at the North that would bring the Rebels back into power is that of pretended conciliation of the immediate admission of the rebel representatives to Congress. That policy says to Congress, Yoa should no longer close your doors against these men who are knocking at them and seeking ad- mission. It assumes that the States which, have been engaged in revolt are not only in the Union, bat are in all their full, practical relations to the Government, as if the Rebellion had never ex- isted, and are, therefore, competent to exercise every right that the loyal States are qualified to enjoy, prescribing only one condition. That ondition is, present ostensible loyalty. And this loyalty is demanded, not of the people of the State, but of the individual. If the representative himself is loyal, we must recognize him, and Congress must admit him to a sear, and to the exercise of his powers as a member, without reference to anything else without proceeding to inquire what is the char- acter of the constituency he claims the right to represent. This is one plan. The other policy which is being urged, is an adoption of that wise, just and discriminating course which Con- gress, in the legitimate discharge. of its duties, has marked oat. This policy requires that the condition of the communities which are made up of the people or inhabitants of the State shall first be inquired into that Congress shall determine whether such State or community is entitled to representation ! and that until that determination is arrived at, no individual senator or representative shall be admitted into either House. This is the issue. There is no middle ground. One of these roads we must take and follow to its legitimate termination. We are in danger ef being deceived by the apparent fairness of the argument, that if a loyal representative comes from a disloyal State, he should not himself be deprived of rights be- cause of the character of the community behind him. These gentlemen will say, there is noble Horace Majnard of Tennessee, and his colleague Colonel Stokes and brave General Johnson, who have been loyal all through the war ; why should you deprive them of the rights of citizenship? I say there is an apparent fairness in this argument. Unless the people scrutinize it closely, there is danger that it may lead them to the adoption of views that are not warranted by the fapts. And if they do adopt it, no one can predict the evil consequences that will re- sult to the nation. If you establish this theory of opening the door to loyal men from disloyal States, you pave the way for a restoration of power to the rebels. Is it asked why? The first reason is this: So long as a district is rebel in feeling, you cannot expect anything else in the character of those whom it shall select to embody its views. Take the Third district of Louisiana for instance. How are you to get loyal representatives from a section whose people are so intensely and virulently treason- able ? They might, under the pressure of fed- eral bayonets, and with the accessories of mar- tial law, by chance or even by design send a loyal man. But federal bayonets are not to remain there ; martial law is not to be contin- ued. Abandon these safeguards, and what guarantee can you have, that the very next year you will not find the loyal man removed, and another man substituted, who will more trnly represent the sentiments of those who elected him ? Persons who are elected to office must always represent controlling popular sen- timents. As well might you suppose that you could send a rebel, whose hands are stained with the blood of Union soldiers, frojn some loyal district of the North, as to expect that those subdued but unconverted Rebels in the South would send loyal men to represent them, any longes than they were absolutely compelled so to do. WHAT IS LOYALTY. Again ; you are met with another difficulty the moment you attempt to adopt this rule, which has been so strongly urged ; the ques- tion at once arises, if loyalty in a representative is to be the only test, what is loyalty 1 What standard is to be the one that in this regard shall determine recognition or exclusion 1 No matter what standard you may fix to-day, what it shall be in future will depend, under such a plan, upon what the men are who are then in Con- gress. I do not know a man in the North, who does not claim to be loyal not only loyal now, but loyal at all times. I do not know a party in the North, which, whatever the position it assumed towards the Government, does not claim to have been loyal during the war. How then, are you to determine your basis t The effect is going to be this if yon pursue the plan thus marked out : every one will be deemed loyal who can take the constitutional oath. There is probably no better evidence of the inevitable tendency of such a view, than that which is given by the President. He says that a man is to be presumed loyal when he will take the oath to support the Constitution. He does not eveii say anything about test oaths, but leaves it to be inferred that he would favor their amendment. I deny that a man ia loyal because he can take the oath. If you adopt that rule alone of admit- ting the individual member before his State shall be declared entitled to representation, you will fill your halls of Congress with the worst class of rebels in the South, What do the large class of Southern men who begun the rebellion, and who have been engaged in its prosecution, care about an obligation to support the Constitution f What did they care about it a few years ago t They had sworn to maintain the Constitution of the Union then ; but when the test came, they said that the duties they owed to their States were superior to those they owed their country. Where is the evidence, if any can be produced, that this feeling has changed ? And I will go further. I do not know that even the stringent test oath, if it should be maintained, would be of any use. I sometimes think the President is right, and that the test oath will be taken only by the worst classes of men because nearly all have been in rebellion, and honorable, high-minded men will not swear that they have not Are you, then, to get good representatives solely through this obligation, or any other applied to the individual ? Look at Garret Davis, of Kentucky. He can take any oath that has been prescribed, and makes no refusal to do so yet he is a great deal worse and more dangerous than Alexander H. Ste- phens far less liberal, and less in sympathy with the objects of the Government. Here is a man a great deal worse than many who were among the leaders of the rebellion, who can take the obligation. The oath is of no avail, and the country is virtually left without protec- tion, if you break down the barriers which con- gress proposes to establish. There is another reason why this policy will not answer. From one district in a state, you will have a representative man whom you consider to be loyal, and to whom you therefore concede a right of admission. From the next district on each side, yon will refuse to admit members because they are not loyal. Thus you propose to create & divided character, a State which is one-half in the Union and one-half out of it. So the Senate will admit one class of men, while another class will be recognized, and an- other state of qualifications will be demanded in the House. There would be no defined principle of government, but a series of conflicting ideas struggling to be incorporated upon it, and tend- ing inevitably to anarchy. The evil would be less if you were to admit all at once, than if yon attempt this unsatisfactory, half way sort of leg- islation. 6 DANGER IN THE " CONCILIATION " DOCTEINE. There is another danger. It has been argued by the senator from the Twentieth that you should admit these men back to Congress, be- cause yon should be forgiving, because you should be charitable, because you should adopt and exhibit a spirit of Christian magnanimity. Permit me to say that I am actuated by no vin- dictive spirit. I do not desire to see any ex- traordinary course of revenge pursued towards the rebels. I do not wish their lives might be taken, except in a few cases. I do not wish to see their property confiscated. But I hold that it is far from public duty, far from enlight- ened charity, far from that broad spirit of Chris- tianity which embraces all things in its scope, that we should admit these red-handed rebels back to all their privileges because they have been beaten and are subdued before us. I believe, sir, it is a right and wise maxim in politics, that we should be just before we are generous. I believe that it is oftentimes true that mercy to the individual is cruelty to the State. If the matter ended with the individual, I could perhaps go as far as the gentleman in his plea for mercy and for- bearance has gone. But I cannot disguise from myself the palpable fact that it reaches beyond the individual to the State. You might, with as much justice and propriety argue that rob- bers and murderers should be forgiven ; that you should open the doors and let them out into the light of day, because they have been van- quished; because the instruments with which they attempted their crimes have been taken from them. Tou do not say so even if they re- pent. You do say that there is a duty to the State which is higher and broader than the claim of mercy to individuals, and therefore yon keep them in prison still. Just so in this instance. A great crime has been committed. Its perpe- trators have been tried and convicted. No par- don has been issued to them. It is not even in evidence that they have repented. And now it is asked, not only that they shall be relieved from their disabilities, but also that you shall surrender the destinies of this great nation into their hands ! I repeat that this sen- timent is anything but Christian. It is anything but right. We owe this duty to the nation, to humanity, to the future, that some sort of punishment shall ba inflicted ; that the rebels shall not es- cape the consequences of their flagrant treason ; that they shall be put under ban, as the proper and legitimate consequence of their own infamous act*. I have spoken of the plan of Congress, which is to allow the States to come back as States. I have endeavored to show what would be the con- sequences of giving them readmission by dis- tricts. Let me ask the indulgence of the Senate while we review the POSITION OF CONGRESS. The right of Congress to provide conditions and guarantees for the rebel States before their relations to the Government shall again be re- sumed, depends, of course, upon the actual con- dition of these States and th e relation they bear to the General Government. That a State has no right, under the Constitu- tion, to secede from the Union and* break or destroy its relations to the Federal Government, is a proposition which no sane man in the North will now attempt to deny. . The compact made when she sought and had granted to her the ad- vantages of the Union, could only be rightfully dissolved by the consent of both contracting parties. But that a State may wrongfully but actually break that compact and impair or destroy those relations to the General Government, so far as the people of the State itself is concerned, is a- proposition which the dullest intellect must concede. It matters not that it be not done rightfully, so long as the fact remains that it is done. No State can rightfully or under the Constitu- tion enter into any " alliance or confederation," yet eleven states actually did enter into " an alliance and confederation." The Constitution denies a state the right to grant letters of reprisal to coin money, to emit bills of credit, to lay duties, to keep troops or make war, yet the rebel states did coin money grant letters of reprisal, emit bills of credit, keep troops and make war. It is a great mis- take to suppose that because an act is an illegal act it is no act ; it is illegal to commit murder, yet when shot or stabbed to the heart by the highwayman, the individual is no less dead than when executed by the sentence of the law. So- here, though the act is illegal, and does not bind, the government, yet it is no less an act accom. plished on the part of the state, and the people of the State are subject to all the consequences prescribed by international law and the conse- quences that would have resulted had the rela- tion been in law severed. In other words, the general government is not bound by what the State unlawfully did, pro- viding it has the power to compel obedience to the compact, but in exacting or compelling such obedience, it may do so without regard to the rights or guarantees to which the State was entitled, but which it willfully and wickedly forfeited and set at nought. This will be more apparent when we see pre- cisely what it is that makes the State (under our constitution). The making of a State is nothing more than a great and sacred contract between the general government and a certain number of people outside its boundaries, living and in- habiting a certain area of territory. These peo- ple come to the government and say that they want the benefits and franchises of a State. The government, through its agents, agree that they will grant these benefits and franchises upon the condition that those people will do certain acts and make certain stipulations on their part, required and enjoined by the consti- tution. The government will agree that each state shall have a certain number of senators and rep- resentatives in Congress; that they shall vote for President and Vice President ; that they shall have a state government republican in form ; shall be defended in their persons and property ; shall have post-offices and mails, and other advantages and guarantees, upon the condition, however, that the people seeking ad- mission as a state shall acknowledge supreme allegiance to the laws and constitution of the United States ; that their officers shall take an oath to support the constitution ; that the citi- zens of each state shall be entitled to all the im- munities of citizens in the several states ; that they shall commit no treason, levy no war, make no treaty, nor do any act forbidden by the constitution of the United States. To this the people assent. Congress ratifies the compact, and the people and this territory becomes a State. Now to hold that this com- pact cannot be broken ; that this new relation which the people of this territory bear to the government cannot be suspended or impaired, Is, in my judgment, contrary to reason and law. Either party may break this relation so far as the offending party is concerned, and it could only be resumed upon such terms as the party offended against should prescribe. Suppose that after this State is admitted, the other States composing the government should destroy the Constitution, overthrow the govern- ment by violence, and establish a monarchy, would any one pretend that the new State would not be absolved from the compact 1 Mr. H. C. MURPHY I would like to ask the gentleman whether he regards the Southern States as States of the Union ? Mr. LOW I will answer that directly in the ine of my argument. The State which throws off its allegiance and makes war upon the Government, destroys its re- lations to it ; but when beaten back we are told that no penalty can be exacted because it is a State under the Constitution. Take the individ- ual citizen of the State, he is entitled to his liberty and b is life so long as he keeps the compact which every man is under to be a law-abiding citizen ; but let him shoot or rob his neighbor, and the State forfeits his life or liberty, but that forfeits none of the claims or obligations which the State has upon him, and if restored to his orig- inal status, the State prescribes the conditions upon which he lives. Here the State commits the crime and breaks the compact ; the laws of nations fix the penalty and define the forfeit. But when, it will be asked, does the State lose or forfeit these rights so secured ? And I have heard the question asked if the city of New York lost hers when the mob set the authorities at defiance ? Or did Massachusetts or Pennsyl- vania lose theirs at the time of Shay's or the- Whiskey rebellion T The answer to this is upon the lips of every lawyer who has become fami- liar with the laws of nations. Not certainly for light or transient causes. A mob or riot or transient insurrection furnishes no grounds for the forfeiture of the franchises of a State. But where the State or a number of the States acting in their capacity of States, through their Legislatures o.- conventions, deliberately throw off and renounce all allegiance to the general government, break the compact and levy war and maintain their hostile attitude for any con- siderable period of time with nearly balanced power, they then become belligerents, and the contest a civil war. Now what do the laws of nations say upon this subject T As I wish to assert nothing in this regard but what is fortified by the most convinc- ing proofs, says Bello : " When a faction is formed in a State, which takes up arms against the sovereign, in order to wrest from him the supreme power, or impose conditions on him ; or when a republic is divid- ed into two parties which mutually treat each other as enemies, this war is called a civil war, which means war between fellow-citizens. Civil wars frequently commence by popular tumults which in nowise concern foreign nations ; but when one faction or party obtains dominion over an extensive territory, gives laws to it, establishes a government in it, administers jus- tice, and in a word, exercises acts of sovereignty, it is a person in the law of nations ; and the foreign powers which desire to maintain their neutrality ought to consider both as two States, independent as respects one another and other States, and who recognize no judge of their differences." Says another great writer : " When a part of the State takes up arms against the Government, if it is sufficiently strong to resist its action, and to constitute two parties of equally balanced forces, the existence of civil war is thenceforward determined. If the con- spirators against the government have not the means of assuming this position, their movement does not pass beyond a rebellion. As true civil war breaks the bonds of society, by dividing it in fact into two independent societies, it is for this consideration that we treat of it in interna- tional law, since each party forming as it were a separate nation, both should be regarded as sub- ject to the laws of war. This subjection to the law of nations is the more necessary in civil wars, since these, by nourishing more hatred and resentments than foreign wars, require more the corrective of the law of nations in order to moderate their ravages." Hear what Vattel says upon the effect of a civil war : "A civil war breaks the bands of society and government, or at least suspends their force and effect ; it produces in the nation two indepen- dent parties, who consider each other as ene- mies, and acknowledge no common judge These two parties, therefore, must necessarily be considered as constituting, at least for a time, two distinct societies." Says Grotius : "That a civil war between members of the same society is a mixed war, public on the side of the Government, but private on the part of the people resisting authority ; yet such a war entitles both belligerent parties to full belliger- ent rights." Now, what has been the nature of the strug- gle which we have carried on for the last five years? It has been no mere insurrection , no riot. It has been a most tremendous, bloody and terrible civil war, deliberately organized and commenced by States acting in their capa- city of States as States they formerly repudi ated the compact and seceded from the Union, so far as was in their power. Banded together into a hostile confederacy, seized the United States fortifications, navy yards, and other property within their limits, formed a govern- ment, elected a president and congress, made and executed laws, sent their ministers to foreign governments, coined- money, levied taxes, seized and confiscated property of citizens of the United States government, raised mighty armies, seized and held an immense territory and for five long years defended their territory and maintained and carried on a war against the government on a scale without a parallel in the history of nations, a war which sent one million of men to their graves, which cost or destroyed more than one-third of the whole property of the country, which was so monstrous in its hor- rors, so inhuman in its barbarities as to shock and appal the civilization of the world. If ever a conflict within a nation approached the magnitude and importance of a civil war, surely this was one. All the civilized nations regarded and treated it as such. Our own government, President and Congress uniformly acted upon the same theory, and the Supreme Court, in the celebrated "prize cases," expressly so decided, and then declared that all within the hostile territory " are public enemies, and liable to be treated as such, and that the United States may exercise full bellige- rent rights, and that to the antagonistic parties all the legal liabilities and consequences of war attach." Mr. H. C. MURPHY Will the Senator allow me to ask him one other question : how could those States, being out of the Union, give any force and validity to what is called The Great Amendment to the Constitution ? Mr. LOW I do not know that they could. Mr. MURPHY You do not think that they could 1 Mr. LOW I do not know that they could. I am not to decide, or even to pass an opin- ion upon the question. It is not within the limit of my present argument. Now what were the " legal consequences and liabilities " that attached to the defeated party when their armies were overthrown ? Here again comes in the law of nations, and defines with clearness and accuracy precisely what they were. Not only were their rights under the constitution and their political relations to the government lost and destroyed, but the traitors had become public enemies, and their property and lives were forfeited to the government, and that government could impose just such condi upon them as in its discretion should seem and constitutions, their State officials old and new disregarded all rules which they had laws adopted and all rights and constitutions had which former secured and best. " But you don't believe in State suicide" "that a State can secede from the Union. "Hav'nt we been fighting five years to keep them in 1" I hear asked with an air of triumph by an impatient listener at my side. No, in one sense I don't believe that a State can go out 01 the Union or commit "suicide." Her territory is still there within the ancient bounds of the Union, and within our military lines her in- habitants are there and their property or what is left of it, is also there ; but I do say, and the law of nations does declare, that the political re- lations which the people of this state did bear to the Union and government are lost and destroy- ed, on the part of the State, and can only be revived by a new compact with that govern- ment, upon conditions then made. THE DKXOCBATS AND PBB8IDBXT JOHN805 DIS- AGREE. I know that our Democratic friends insist, that the moment the military power of the Confederates action of the rebel their former rights was broken, and the government arrested, all were revived and their former relations restored by their own volition, without any action or consent on the part of the Government. Now if this be true, the President has been guilty of the grossest usurpations. He never in practice carried out the theory at all, but on the contrary, acted upon the prin- ciples which are declared by the laws of nations and governed the subjugated foe as tbe con- queror dom the conquered. Upon that theory, he should have imme- given. Then by his individual will h,e arrested their governors, threw them into prison, and sent governors of his own to rule them ; he set aside their statutes and governed them by mili- tary decrees ; he arrested their citizens, set aside their elections, suppressed their officers, dis- franchised their voters, shut up their newspaper offices, ordered them to abolish slavery, repudi- ate their debt, make new statutes as to evidencei and in fact exercised powers more despotic than any emperor or monarch. All branches of the Government have agreed in this regard, that some power must exercise these extraordinary prerogatives, but here comes the question of difference, shall this question of reconstruction be settled by the President or by Congress? The Democracy say the President shall determine this. Mr. H. C. MURPHY The Democracy do not hold any such doctrine. The Democracy do say, that the rebellion being closed, the States are ipso facto in the Union, and cannot be excluded ; and that they are entitled to all their rights and privileges as States. That is to be decided neither by the President nor Congress. It is in the Constitution, and is therefore the fundamen- tal law of the land. Mr. LOW The position of the Democracy is very unfortunate for them, because it conflicts with the law of nations. It is strange to me to hear gentlemen abusing ongress for usurping powers, when all the usurpations, if any have occurred, have been upon the other side. What do you find in the Constitution in- rusted to Congress this great body of men, who represent the people, whom they approach more nearly than do any other branches of the Government? What do you find as to their powers ? Almost one-third of the Constitution taken up with definitions of the rights and duties of Congress. They shall make wan grant letters of marque, establish reprisals, fix tariffs, levy taxes, and so on with a great variety of duties, among which is one, that they should guarantee to every state a republican form of government. A bill which makes any appropri- diately recognized the State governments, constitutions and laws as they existed ! ation of money, must originate in Congress, before the war. He did nothing of the kind Not only is this true, but so jealous were our but on the contrary, he set aside their law, forefathers of prerogative*, that they ordained 10 that such bills should originate in the lower 1 House, that being the most numerous body and the one most nearly approaching the people. The Supreme Court decided, years ago, in the case of Luther v. Burden, that it is for Congress to decide upon what the particular form of a State government may be. And yet gentlemen im- pugn Congress because it assumes to have some- thing to say, as if it were a body of usurpers engaged in the attempt to force a despotism upon the country. The power of the President is circumscribed, and his duties are clearly defined. Except as Commander-in-chief, he could do no act without authority of Congress. In Congress is all the power vested that pertains to the legislation of the country. Yet the President has assumed to save Con- gress all trouble on this subject. He has made new State governments, without regard to former laws or constitution ; and asks Congress to take them without inquiry or investigation, for "bet- ter or for worse." HOW THB DETBBMTWATIOX OF THIS QUESTION IS TO AFFECT THE C00NTKT. When you examine it you will find that this question comes down to every hearthstone in the land. It is not merely a question whether Horace Maynard or Colonel Stokes shall be ad- mitted to Congress, but whether these rebel com- munities shall immediately send their rebel rep- resentatives to Congress, and shape and deter- mine our future policy. Upon the solution of this problem the whole future of the govern- ment depends. Let us for a moment examine the present posi- tion of affairs. What is the condition of the coun- try? All has been changed in a few years. War has upturned the foundations. At the South, the old aristocracy is for the most part broken or humiliated by the result of the strife those who did not die in it ; a new system of industry is about to be inaugurated ; the slaves have been liberated ; a new direction of public policy is to be taken. It is true that war has left these States impoverished and weak, and it is equally trua that they musi be strengthened to build up again. Our own Northern part of the country must also be changed. We are laboring under an immense debt a debt of three thousand millions incurred in prosecut- i ng the war and saving the Union. We have on every hand widows and orphans whose hus- bands and parents died in battle, and we are under a solemn obligation to protect them from want. The maimed and crippled soldiers from our armies are also to be cared for. In view of these facts and these duties, what will be the immediate effects of an adoption of the policy of receiving rebels back on their oath, and without inquiring into the condition of their constituencies 1 Look at the wrong by reason of their increased representation, let us examine it for a moment! The representation which the South will bring back in the lower house, consists of sixty-two members. It will also be entitled, by the libera- tion of the slaves to thirteen more ; making seven- ty-five in all. These men would come to Washing- ton, most of them imbued with the temper of unyielding and desperate rebels. This is what must happen under the policy which the Sen- ator from the Third pronounces to be the sound policy the Republican principle. That prin- ciple will admit seventy-five rebels into Con- giess. Now turn to the basis of representation and you will find that the 'Northern states are now entitled to 156 in the lower house, of this num- ber they will Jose 13 which the South will gain by the liberation of the slaves, leaving 143. The border states and the late slave states will bring back 98. Suppose these to vote in a body, and all you have to gain from the northern states is 21 members who sympathize with the south and yon put the House of Representatives in their hands. Yon could hardly fail in any election of getting a larger number. Do you want such a result ? I would resist it by every constitutional means, I would never consent to put the government in the hands of these red handed rebels who for five years have sought ita destruction. But worse than that is the manner of electing them. Of the whole number of rep- resentatives from the Southern and border States, 31, or nearly one-half, are given under the amended Constitution, upon a basis formed by the blacks. What is the fact, under the arguments advanced? You will admit these States back, and you will elect the 31 representatives which tie blacks entitle them to, bj white votes 1 There are several States of the South in which each Rebel inhabitant would balance by his vote two loyal 11 white men of the North. This is what is sought; and for what purpose t To build up new par- ties, new hopes, and new candidates for the Presidency. Go to the Senate chamber, and in reference to this particular danger, you are even worse off there. You have twenty-two Senators from the eleven insurgent States. You would have now seventy Senators in all, if the whole number was full. A majority is thirty-six You admit twenty-two from Rebel States, and they have only to get possession of fourteen more, to take control of the body. These twenty-two men would, of course, rep- resent Rebel sympathies the sentiment of those who elected them. All the interests of this great country would be in their hands. We would be as badly off as when the Rebellion began yes, and a great deal worse. The only mistake the Rebels made at the outset of the war was made when they left the Senate. They might have remained there, and held the North bound hand and foot. Gentlemen will argue that this presentation is not fair ; that they are not intending to re-estab- lish the old order of things ; that only loyal men will be admitted. But the great difficulty will be, that when you once open the door, you re- cognize the sovereignty of the States and sur- render the oversight .of Congress, and you will thenceforward have no > ight to interfere. Carry this same principle into the Electoral College for it must be made up on the same basis as the representation in Congress. There you will find that they hold in their hands the election of a President, and of course they would be grateful to the man who had made them, who had called them back and liberated them from the consequences of their own high misdemeanors. Then yon would have the whole three branches of your Gov- ernment in the hands of such men these men who have been its armed enemies, and who are ita enemies in sentiment, and so far as they dare to be, in action, to-day Were this policy adopted I should fear to-day, that if General Lee were opposed to General Grant in a run for the Presidency, he would be the successful candidate. I do not say that such would be the result. I say, that the slate of feeling, both North and South, would give us apprehensions npon the subject. Do we want to run such risks T I repeat, that if wo had no remedy but revolution, I would submit, however reluctantly, and would never advocate a policy of resistance. But our reme- dy lies in the Constitution. We now have it in our own keeping and are asked to throw it away. THE EFFECT OF THIS POLICY TJPOH CSIOH MEX AT THE SOUTH. What will be the effect upon the Union men of the South, if such a feeling as is professed and seriously advocated here and elsewhere pre- vails ? What will become of the men who left their own country and sought your Northern armies, to fight in the ranks for the Union ? the men who were hunted, and persecuted and wronged all through the war T They will be obliged to take " back seats," while their enemies and the enemies of the country bear away all the honors. I tell you, Senators, that it is not the Union men of the South that ask for the admission of representatives from these States. It is the rebel who displays such eager- ness to be recognized as part of the government he has assailed. Why, I am appealed to by gen- tlemen who ask me if I want to keep out of the national fold the staunch patriot, Horace May - nard, and the brave Colonel Stokes, and the sturdy champion of loyalty, Parson Brownlow T I will open my arms to them with rejoicing whenever I can do so without endangering the country. But, 1 repeat, they are not the men who ask you to do this thing. From the whole unbroken South, 'the voice comes up in thunder tones from the Union men, that you must not admit those rebel representatives, and so crush them. They point to Horace Maynard. Did not Horace May iiard say, in a letter from him, recent- ly written and published, that they are not true friends of the President who advise this course T And did not Col. Stokes, his peer and colleague, urge upon Congress to take time, and settle the preliminaries well, before giving admission to Southern representatives ; and declare that the radicals in congress were the true friends of the South? Read the following from Maynard's letter to the Nashville meeting : 11 Tht condition of tht loyal Union ptoplt it littlf belter than undor the dctpotum of tht Southern Confederacy. What that was, go ask our friends in Hast Tennest-e. East Tonnesee, illustrious in her sorrow and the blood of her martyrs. Go to the prison cull*, where hundreds pined in wretchudneation of the negroes ; that while they expressed i willingness to submit to principles of the Emancipation Proclamation they always coupled with it the determination to regulate their own affairs in that respect, stating that they would lave an organised system of negro labor which they would construct for themselves ; over and over again in conversation in New Orleans I :ieard them sayiug that they could make a con- dition of affairs better for themselves than it was t>efore ; they said that Government had freed the negroes and should be made to take care of the cripples and those who were not able to work, while they wo\ild regulate and control the labor of the able bodied." EFFECTS OF THE DEMOCRATIC THEORY CPOS LAWS PASSED DURING THE REBELLION. There are some who undertake to say that the States have always been entitled to re- presentation in Congress. But if you as- sume that, then a very large proportion of the laws enacted since the war began, and, for aught I know, the law upon which your federal bonds are issued, must be unconstitutional and void. Mr. H. C. MURPHY I would like to ask the gentleman whether, in his opinion, the acts of Andrew Johnson, as Senator of Tennessee, after the opening of the rebellion, were or were not constitutional acts f Mr. LOW It is a question how far or when a state can, by her own recusancy, deprive her loyal citizens of rights. My own opinion Is that Andrew Johnson having been invested with his rights as Senator, and becoming a part of the government, he could not be deprived of them by a rebellion in which he did not participate. That i*, while Tenneesee might, by revolt, change its own relations to the Federal Govern- ment, she could not change her obligations, nor annul any action already and rightfully had under the Constitution. 14 Mr. MURPHY Then, if one Senator can have these rights, why may not other Senators possess them also ? Mr. LOW That is not the point embodied in my response, Andrew Johnson was elected senator while Tennessee was a loyal state. Mr. MURPHY The question is a fair one. Were United State Senators elected from other states after the rebellion began, legitimately qualified ? Mr. LOW After the contest had assumed the magnitude of a civil war, no Representa*ives from rebel states could be elected to the United States Congress. Mr. MURPHY Still another question. I de- sire to know whether iu the opinion of the Sena- tor, the Constitution does not act upon the indi- vidual in view of his obligations as a citizen of the State, and judge him as such ? Mr. LOW The Constitution acts upon the individual and the State both, and judges both with equal force and directness. Mr. MURPHY If the Constitution acts di- rectly upon individuals, can they be deprived of their prerogatives under it 1 Mr. LOW What I hold is, that the State does not get out of the Union in the sense of losing its obligations, which it owes to the government but that the citizens of the State, forming its existing political organization, did forfeit their rights under the Constitution. Under the well-known principle that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong, they cannot now plead their prerogatives under the Constitution, in mitigation of their offense. But the Senator has diverted me from my point. That is, that under his theory, every law enacted by Congress and signed by the Pres- ident, during the period when the Southern States were without representatives upon the floor, is void, for the want of what he would call a constitutional quorum. What did the government do when these States absented them- selves from the national council ? It made a rule that a majority of the loyal States should constitute a quorum, and that the business of the country should be done by them. Admit them upon this theory, say to them that hey are now and always have been entitled to representation, and they would declare your laws invalid at once. And if the theory of the Senator is correct, they would do so with entire jright, and you would be powerless to find a remedy, and without a reasonable ground of complaint. WOULD THKT REPUDIATE THE NATIONAL DEBT ? I have been asked whether I believed that they would repudiate the National debt. I am not prepared to say that I think they would do so at once. But they would by covert and unfriendly legislation practically repu- diate ; they would make a special move- ment with a view to legalizing the Rebel debt. Only the other day a Democratic member of Congress, from New Jersey, proclaimed that there was no authority or power in Congress to force a repudiation of the rebel debt. The thing seems monstrous now, but these Demo- crats say so ; the " reconstructed" traitors say now that they do not intend to pay this debt and who is bold enough to say that they would never attempt to legalize the rebel debt ? They would not at first demand it as a right. They would approach you through the avenue indi- cated by the gentleman from the Twentieth the other night. They would seek it as a measure of harmony, of forgiveness, of conciliation. They would say that " you simply got into a family quarrel." That is the new way of phrasing the late great struggle " a family quarrel." And " now let UB compromise as brothers and pay them both." Why tax cotton to pay the Union debt, and refuse to let the rebels meet their own ? The argument will be irresis- tible to that class of men who at present are so careful of the rights of our " mi?guided Southern brethren." How long, with a power of control in Congress, do you believe they would tolerate this tax upon cotton, the tax upon incomes, the productive tariff. The spirit of the South gives reason to apprehend dan- ger from this source. Such is the testimony of those who have been through the States, and have become familiar with their spirit. Such is the almost unanimous testimony of your Union Generals, like General Thomas and others. THE DANGER IS NOT TET OVER. It is five long years since this great battle for free government was inaugurated by the call to arms. Costly have been the sacrifices and terrible the srtain upon the faith and courage of our people. More than once have our noble armies been borne back, broken and bloody from disastrous 15 fields, and the bulletins have told of thousands and tens of thousands of brave men fallen for their country, carrying lamentation and woe to every hamlet in the land. Again and again has l he cry come to our ears that " "Washington was in danger," and our sons have rushed to the rescue. We have had our Bull Run, our Gaines Mills, our Fredricksburgh, our Chancellorsville and our Chickamauga, each appalling in their sacrifices and threatening dark disaster and danger to pur cause. And the peril is not yet over ; the shadow of a great danger hangs over the land to-night. True it is that no rebel army with frowning cannon and serried bayonets threatens your towns, or seeks the overthrow of your government, but what the rebel army failed to do with bayonet and cannon, is now sought to be accomplished under the specious guise of restoring the Union and reconstructing the ttatet ; the same wicked and treasonable elements are again at work, and the same dangerous league of the foes of free republican government, which but one year ago sought your ruin by rebellion and civil war ; have again conspired to effect it by lying intrigue and deceptive friendship. They tempt your eminent statesmen and public men by appealing to their pride and ambition, and hold- ing up to their view as the price of their recre- ancy, expectant honors and rewards, and while with their arm around your neck they call you brother, they drive the stiletto to your heart. It were better that Washington had fallen, that no stone of its marble pillars should be left upon another than that you now turn over the vast and sacred interests of the government into the hands of unrepentant rebels, and be guilty of black ingratitude to the loyalists and freedmen of the south. Who are the men who now denounce your Congress, and hbout their praises of rejoicing over the supposed policy of the President The same who a few months ago commanded the rebel armies, guided rebel bayonets and pointed the rebel cannon ; the same who shot down your sons upon the bloody field and starved and murdered them at Andorsonville and Libby Prison, who hunted them wiih blood- hounds and made "ornaments of their boues,'' who fired your cities, robbed your frontier towns, burued your ships, poisoned you by infected clothing, and filially culminated their giaut crimes by the deliberate and cold-blooded as- sassination of your President. The same men at .he North who cheered and aided the rebellion all through the war, who never voted " a man or a dollar," who pronounced your currency 'rags" and your soldiers "hirelings," who saddened at our victories and rejoiced over our defeats, who resisted your marshals and shot down those who enforced the laws, who burned our orphan asylums and beat to death little children in your streets. All that is despotic and cruel and vicious in the land, join hands and unite in praising the policy of surrendering to traitors, and in de- nouncing, with the coarsest insult and most .hreatening menaces, your Congress elected by your votes and representing your will. WHAT OF COJfGEESS? And what is this congress, so vilified by rebel* at the South and rebel sympathizers at the JJorth ? Were a stranger to land upon our shores, he would suppose that they were an aggregation of tyrants, a self constituted bond of despots who had overturned the Government and were ruling the country by the strong baud of arbitrary power. Could unbridled insolence go farther than this T No nobler, purer or more patriotic body of men ever assembled in your legislative halls, embracing fifteen general officers from the Union army, and composed largely of the same men who, by their wisdom in the forum, and by their bravery in the field, carried our country through its terrible and bloody struggle of rebel- lion and civil war. They are the men who, when treason assailed the Union, stood between it and them, and saved the Constitution. They have assumed the right ground. I trust in God they will stay there, regardless who may go to the right hand or the left. Congress is right, and the nation will sustain its action. What ground exists for all this complaint? Point me to a single usurpation accomplished or attempted. Show me a single letter of the Constitution violated. Why, then, this abuse ? Why this denunciation T I tell you, the real reason is because Congress has been true because it has refused to forfeit its claim upon our confidence by abandoning its post of duty because it stands like a bulwark, firm and impregnable against every sort of at- tempted wrong. I hare no doubt that Congreu will continue to be true, and that it will defend and carry out 16 to the last, the objects with which it is entrusted. But whether it did or not, we should still have no recourse but to stand by our principles. There are some who tell us that if we do so we will ruin the party. I have no fears of that. You can never break a party which was founded upon principles so noble, and which has en- dured all the shocks of a tremendous civil war, upon a MAU or a LEADER. So long as we are right on principle, so long as we do not surren- der any of the ideas which have carried us forward so successfully in the past, there is no reason to fear any danger. You will break the party, if at all, when you desert principle and become untrue to the obligations of duty. You have not broken it in New Hampshire where the issue was clearly and boldly drawn ; where both the Senators and all the Members of Con- gress were united in giving expression to- the determination of the Union majority at the North. And you will not break it in any State where the representatives of the party stand up man- fully for its principles. WHAT OF THE PBESIDEKT 1 It is well that we should speak very plainly and frankly our views upon this subject that if we do not think the action cf the President was wise and right, we should say so. I know there are some gentlemen who are very chary of expressing the feelings that are in them, because of an apprehension that they will hurt somebody. I believe that the Presi- dent will much more respect those who frankly tell him the truth, than those who deceive him, mislead him, and induce him to think he is supported loj the unanimous sentiment of the country, until he finds to his regret and his cost, that the fact is otherwise. I for one am unwilling to say to the President that I believe he is right and should be supported, when I feel that he is wrong. We cannot mistake the fact that the veto message was received with profound astonish- ment, and regret by a very large majority of the loyal people of the North. But that was not the temper displayed by the Rebels of the South. They hailed it as a victory for the South as a practical subjugation of the Union party of the free States as the greatest victory that had been achieved for them and for their ideas, since the days when Beauregard triumphed over the defenders of the Union The President may have done that which by virtue of his office he has no right to do. It does not involve a separation from him to say so, fully and frankly that is not an attack upon him in his legitimate position, and in the exer- cise of his undoubted powers. So far as he has attempted legislative powers, he has made a very grave mistake. H had great power under the military authority vested in him by the Constitution, to mould and direct the work of reconstruction, and this power, it was perfectly proper that he should exercise. But it was not proper for him to go beyond this, and under- take to conduct in his own person the legisla- tion of the country. He should have recognized the emergency and called Congress together to accomplish the great work of reorganizing the States. It is my deliberate judgment that when he failed to call Congress together after the assassination of our noble manyr President Abraham Lincoln, and the surrender of the armies of Lee and Johnston, he committed a grave blunder ; the evil effect of which we will fel for many years to come. At that time, the rebels were confounded and disheartened. Congress could have prescribed any eoncessions it deemed essential to secure the welfare of the country, andlhey would have accepted them at once, and gladly, as a condition of being al- lowed to exist and have any public rights whatever. That was our golden oppor- tunity our opportunity to fix the penal- ties of those traitors who deserved condign punishment, to disfranchise them from office, to confiscate their property, to prescribe the terms upon which the large body of the people might return to the privileges of citizenship. This was, I say, our golden opportunity. The Presi- dent threw it away ; in this he erred most grievously. We should not hesitate to declare so. I am told, whenever I approach this subject in a spirit of frankness, that I " must not irri- tate the President." I am sorry to hear that sort of argument employed. In my judgment, it is not creditable to the President, nor to the high office he fills. " Irritate the President ! " Why, who ever heard of " irritating " Abraham Lincoln, or Thomas Jefferson, or George Wash- ington, or either of ihose great predecessors of the present incumbent, whose names have shed a lustre of glory upon American history ? Or who really believes that Andrew Johnson, with his firm convictions, his high sense of personal independence and his deter- mined resolution, will become irritated by what is said concerning him among the people, or by the acts which Congress feels called upon to perform in Ihe exercise of its legislative functions ? I say, it is belittling to the office, and uncomplimentary to the man. He will not thank you for that sort of policy or for that line of defence. The only support he can derive from the American people is that which is founded upon a high conviction of the straight- forwardness of the course he is pursuing. He acts from convictions, and I would be the last one to say that he does not intend, fully and conscientiously, to perform his duty. Bat he is human, and it is possible for him to be mistaken. If he goes wrong, we should not favor him, and sacrifice the interests of the country from fear that we may wound his feel- ings. If he goes right, we should give him an earnest and cordial support. But we should, in any case, speak what we think, earnestly, can- didly and truthfully, entirely regardless of men and their ambition. TAKE TIME. Why are our democratic friends so anxious to have the rebels back in the councils of the nation. To hear them talk about it, you would thiuk the matter waa one upon whose immedi- ate decision depended the issues of life and death. They cannot stand it another month, hardly another day. Why this haste in admit- ting them back to power, what wrong are they suffering by a reasonable delay to ascertain their condition and their wants T for five years of bloody strife, they have refused to acknowledge allegiance to the government, and sought the destruction of our liberties and our lives ; the blood of murdered martyrs still cling to their garments and stain their hands. I want the blood washed from their garments, and the stain* cleansed from their hands before they are thrust into Congress, to make laws for the men they sought to kill. only absolution to the traitors but honors and rewards; and doom the suffering loyalist to ignominy and disgrace t You began by the declaration that " treason should be made odious and traitors should be punished for their crimes." You end by exalt- ing treason into a virtue and elevating traitors to positions of trust and honor. For it is a con- ceded fact proved by the testimony of our gen- eral officers that in nearly all the states recon- structed under the President's policy the largest portion of the office holders under the State government as reconstructed are unrepentant rebels. Many of them freah from the battle fields of the rebellion. This dangerous and wicked policy must be arrested. We have for five years struggled through fire and blood for the vindication of our jrinciples and the salvation of the country. We supposed we had conquered and that triumph lad crowned our arms. True we have triumph- ed on the field, but the conflict is not jet closed; The weapons only are changed and the theater of the contest. The bullet has been changed to the ballot, and the fight from the camp and the fortress to the forum and legislative halls. But I still have confidence in the spirit of the North. Their energy has not abated nor has their vigilance gone to rest. Their treasure has been poured out like water and their bravest and their best gone down in blood, but they hare not faltered; and will not now, cowards may go over to the enemy, and the timid fall out of the ranks, but with steady tread and firm array they are " marching on " to the great con- summation of their mission, and to ultimate vic- tory and triumph. With ETERNAL JUSTICE for their motto, the old flag for their banner, with the true loyalty of the country for their support, the right will triumph and the wrong be forever crushed. "God changes his workmen but the work goes on." OHUtITT, rOROIVKHBSB. Nothing can be lost by delay and caution but in my judgment everything may and will be lost if this attempt to precipitate action by brow- beating and bullying Congress, shall prevail. What will be the effect of such a course of action npon the future, will It not encourage future rebellions when yon thus promise not KXPLAJTATOBT ROTE. My position in regard to the question of secession of the right of a State to break away from the Union is greatly misunderstood even by the State paper (for they would not inten- tionally misrepresent me), perhaps my language was not well chosen to express the idea. I will again briefly state the argument. I utterly deny all right on the part of a State to withdraw from the Union. There is no shadow of foundation for such claim in the organic law, but I aver that nevertheless a State may wrongfully, by violence and revolution, break away from the Union if it has the power to do so, establish and maintain a separate existence. This though a wrongful separation is still an actual existing fact against which all the powers of logic and argument are unavailing. Suppose that the Union army had been captured at Gettysburgh and destroyed at Vicksburgh, and the Confederate Government had become a fixed fact, permanently established, and the United States had withdrawn from the contest, does any one doubt ttat there would have been an actual breaking away from the General Government, not, it is true, accom- plished by virtue of rights derived under the Constitution, but wrongfully done by cannon and bayonet and superior physical force. There was no constitutional or legal right on the part of Texas to secede from the Mexican Republic, yet she did, by force and violence, secede and break away from the parent state. Galileo was forced by torture to acknowledge that the earth stood still, but when his tormentors had stepped away, he still muttered "the earth does move." This brings us to our next propo- sition. The states not only had no right to break away under the Constitution, but in this case they did not succeed in doing so by force. The government was too strong for them and they were defeated in their attempt, so that the con- elusion follows that neither rightfully nor wrong- fully did they get out of, or break away from the Union. All this I grant and agree that the State as a State did not secede or get out of the Union, but here comes the point which I make and which is misunderstood and confouuded with the ques- tion of " State suicide." That is, that although the State failed in its wrongful endeavor to break away from the Union, yet the people and inhabitants living therein in this attempt com- mitted a GREAT CEIME, A MONSTROUS WRONG, for which they are tried by the WORLD'S TRIBUNAL, the laws of war and nations, and are adjudged as individuals and communities to have forfeited their former relations to the parent government and lost the prerogatives and immunities to which they were entitled before their crime was committed. In this -wrongful and wicked effort to do by violence that which they could not claim as a right they have been guilty of all the horrors on he calendar of crimes, the victims of their mur- der lie buried in every vale and on every hill- side in our land. Murder on the field of carn- age with bayonet and bullet, murder in the >rison pens with slow and lingering torments, and murder in the peaceful town, where men and women were aroused from sleep to fall by the assassin's knife, while robbery and arson and assassination and treason are all recorded in udgment against them. These communities did not lose their rights and immunities under the Constitution, or for- feit their relations to the Government by virtue of an accomplished secession from the Union (for in that they failed), but by reason of the crimes they committed in the attempt to secede. If the rime had been committed by an individual, he would forthwith have been hung ; but you can- not hang whole communities, you forfeit the prerogatives and rights to which they were be- fore entitled, and impose upon them such terms of punishment, more or less severe, as shall make good the wrong to the injured party, as shall prove a warning to future agitators, and as shall best reform the offenders. It was not necessary that they should have actually seceded to have become liable to these penalties ; it was sufficient that they attempted it by violence and wrong, and in so doing com- mitted great crimes. It may be likened to the case of the indi- vidual who attempts to take your life ; he may fail in the attempt, but he is sentenced and imprisoned in the State prison for an " attempt to kill." So though in attempting to shoot yon he had killed your son, he would be punished by death, not for the crime he intended to com- mit, but for one which resulted indirectly from the first wrong. The same principle runs through all your laws in relation both to wrongs and contracts. If one party to a contract wrongfully breaks itt the other party may compel the offender to per- form his part, and in addition pay the damages and costs which have resulted from his- wrongful act. In the case of the individual, this is done by the judgment of the court having jurisdiction of the case in the county or State. In the case of a community composing the people of a State or nation, the adjudication is made by the great tribunal of nations, the laws of nations and war. We do not claim that States are out of the 19 Union. The Government has lost no right or claim upon the community composing the state. We mean to hold the State to its obligations. and the people to the contract. We only ask that they shall pay the damages and cottt to which the world's jury says we are entitled. H y I Santa Barbara THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW. A 001071001 o