ing of passports to any other than citizens of the United States, shall be, and is hereby, repealed so far as its prohibition may embrace any class of persons liable to military duty by the laws of the United States."

I move the previous question on the bill. The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time and passed.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

RECONSTRUCTION.

Mr. SPALDING demanded the regular order of business.

The House accordingly resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H. R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, reported from the joint committee on reconstruction.

The motion to recommit the joint resolution had been made by Mr. STEVENS.

The pending question was upon the motion of Mr. GARFIELD to amend the motion to recommit by adding instructions to the committee to report the proposed amendment to the Constitution with the third section stricken out. Upon this question Mr. SMITH was entitled to the floor for one minute; but he was not present.

Mr. BROOMALL. Mr. Speaker, it was to be expected that the measure now before the House would meet the opposition and denunciation of the unrepentant thirty-three of this body. The gentlemen who have voted on all occasions upon the rebel side of all questions that have been before the country for six years could hardly be expected to change their position at this time.

Mr. ROSS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?

Mr. BROOMALL. Allow me at once to say that I have but thirty minutes, and will not yield any of my time to anybody.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that it was not to be expected that those gentlemen would change their front upon short notice at this late day. But it is useless to waste arguments upon them in favor of this measure.

It was also to be expected that the six Johnsonian new converts to Democracy would also oppose and vote against this measure; commencing with the gentleman from New York, [Mr. RAYMOND,] who, I believe, has the disease in the most virulent form, thence down to the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. SMITH,] who preceded me on this question, and who has the mildest and most amiable type of the infection. Upon them, too, arguments are useless.

There must then be thirty-nine votes against the measure, and I want there to be no more. I want every member of this House outside of those thirty-nine to vote for it heartily and earnestly. I want every man to come to the conclusion to which I have come, to vote, if not for that which he wants, for the best that he can get; to vote for the report of the committee if he can get it, just as he would have voted for something better; and if he cannot get the measure reported, then to vote for the next best.

It is not what I wanted. How far short of it! But the necessity is urgent, and we must take what will obtain the votes of two thirds of both Houses of Congress, and the ratification of three fourths of the actual States of this Union, those entitled to a voice upon the question.

We pro

measure, or whose votes are asked for it, voted for this proposition in another shape, in the civil rights bill, shows that it will meet the favor of the House. It may be asked, why should we put a provision in the Constitution which is already contained in an act of Congress? The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] may answer this question. He says the act is unconstitutional. Now, I have the highest respect for his opinions as a lawyer, and for his integrity as a man, and while I differ from him upon the law, yet it is not with that certainty of being right that would justify me in refusing to place the power to enact the law unmistakably in the Constitution. On so vital a point I wish to make assurance doubly sure. I know that the unrepentant Democracy of this body voted against the civil rights bill upon the allegation that it was unconstitutional. And I rather expect to see them exhibit their usual consistency by voting against making it constitutional upon the ground that it is so already.

That measure, however, will meet with no opposition from those on whom the country depends for its safety, because if it is not necessary it is at least harmless. If we are already safe with the civil rights bill, it will do no harm to become the more effectually so, and to prevent a mere majority from repealing the law and thus thwarting the will of the loyal people.

The second proposition is, in short, to limit the representation of the several States as those States themselves shall limit suffrage. That measure has already received the sanction of all who can possibly be expected to vote for the proposition now before the House; because the joint resolution which passed this body by more than two thirds, and was defeated in the Senate, proposed to submit a similar change in the Constitution to the States for ratification. There is, therefore, little necessity for argument upon this point.

But I will ask, why should not the representation of the States be limited as the States themselves limit suffrage? It is said that this is intended to prevent the southern States from having the representation now based upon their black and non-voting population. The terms of the proposed measure do not so limit it. But I will admit that mainly it will operate only on that population, and in the South. And why not? If the negroes of the South are not to be counted as a political element in the gov ernment of the South in the States, why should they be counted as a political element in the government of the country in the Union? If they are not to be counted as against the southern people themselves, why should they be counted as against us? The fact is, the negro of the South does vote, or rather he has his vote cast for him. He is voted by his white and hardly more loyal neighbor-I would say brother only that I might be suspected of having some sly reference to the Democratic bleaching process which so confuses southern genealogies.

If the blacks were permitted to vote instead of being voted, according to the doctrine of chances they would vote right half the times by mere guessing, be they ever so ignorant; and this is greatly more than can be said of their white neighbors for the last half dozen years. I will not say that this is more than can be said of the northern friends of those neighbors for the same period; but I will not risk my reputation for veracity by denying the proposition.

The next proposition proposes to disfranchise until 1870 a certain portion of the southern people. Now, I am sorry to see that opposition to this feature of the measure comes from

yesterday to hear the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] and the gentleman from Maine [Mr. BLAINE] oppose this feature of the joint resolution. I am sure they have not well considered it. Let us see who it is we propose to deprive of suffrage until 1870, and to what extent.

First, we do not propose to do what was done at the close of the Revolution, to disfranchise throughout all time to come the active and willing participants in the mischief, but only until the year 1870, only for the next four years. Again, we do not propose to deprive all the voters of the South of the privilege of voting, but only the willing aiders and abettors.

Look at the words of the proposition: All persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort.

Now, who are they, and how many are there of that class? This is an important inquiry. It has been said broadly, with the air of sincerity, and as if it were susceptible of being demonstrated, that these people number nine tenths of all the voters of the South. This is a grand mistake. The white population of the eleven States not now represented in the Government was in 1860 five million six hundred thousand in round numbers. Counting the voters as one fifth-and that is about the ordinary ratio of voters to population-we have one million one hundred and twenty thousand voters in those eleven States. Do we propose to disfranchise all these? Do we propose to disfranchise nine tenths of them, as has been said here? By no means.

According to the best estimates that can be made upon the subject and all are mere estimates, for we are without the means of obtaining accurate information-there were altgether in the southern army about eight hundred thousand men. How many of them were negroes I do not know. I know that the southern Democrats at first entertained the notion of their northern friends, that the negro would not do for a soldier, but after several years of conscription and draft, both wings of the party began to think he would. Toward the close of the rebellion the South commenced to muster the negro into the service. Suppose there were fifty thousand of them-it is true that is but a guess, there may have been twice as many or half as many-this would leave seven hundred and fifty thousand white men actually participating in the rebellion in the field.

Now, let us bear in mind that the masses of the people in the South rendered aid and comfort to the rebellion only in the field. The great leaders of the Democracy rendered, it is true, aid and comfort in various other ways. But they constituted the few. I speak of the masses of the people only; and I repeat that they rendered aid and comfort, within the meaning of this provision, in the field only. We may therefore take seven hundred and fifty thousand as the number of the individuals in the South who rendered aid and comfort to the enemy, not counting (because the number is so inconsiderable) the comparatively few though powerful leaders who rendered aid and comfort outside of the army.

But, sir, we do not propose to disfranchise even these seven hundred and fifty thousand. Some of them were killed; how many we do not know. We do know that our own dead numbered nearly three hundred thousand; and we have every reason to believe the confederacy suffered to the same extent that we did in that matter. Supposing two hundred and fifty thousand of the rebel army were lost, we have five hundred thousand actual voters in the South to be disfranchised by this measure if they come within the meaning of it. But do they come within the meaning of this provision? Why, sir, it does not embrace the unwilling conscripts; it does not embrace the men who were compelled to serve in the army. How many were there of these? I do not know; but I do know that after the first few months in the war of the rebellion the southern people refused to volunteer, and were required to be forced into the army. How many were there of these so forced? If I were allowed to guess, I would say very nearly all. At least it would be fair to say three hundred thousand of these people belonged to the unwilling class who were forced into the army by rigid conscription laws and the various contrivances of the leading rebels. This will leave two hundred thou

sand; and I say now it is utterly impossible, in my opinion, that the number of people in the South who can be operated upon by this provision should exceed two hundred thousand, if, indeed, it should reach the one half of that number. Is this nine tenths of the voters of the South? Why, it is about one in every twelve.

I am just reminded by my colleague [Mr. WILLIAMS] that the report of the committee shows us that these eleven States furnished forty-two thousand soldiers to the Union Army. I suppose no one on this side the House will pretend that the pending measure will disfranchise them, whatever may be the desire on the other side. These men can take the "test oath." Why can they not fill Federal offices in the South?

portion of this debt held by southern Democratic leaders; and it is to guard against the paying of this that the great necessity exists for putting this provision into the Constitution. It may be that the punishment of our country for its national sius is not yet complete. It may be that in the future an inscrutable Providence intends, for our full punishment, to restore to power for a time the Democratic party. What would be the result then? We know what would be the result. I want to put it out of the power of the Government to pay the rebel debt, that our friends on the other side of the House may not at some time be tempted by their old habit of obedience to the southern task-master. These men who have voted upon that side of all questions can hardly be expected to withhold their votes when their possible It is looked upon, Mr. Speaker, as a mon- future leaders shall demand that the rebel debt strous piece of tyranny that we should ask one be paid as far as they are concerned. The out of twelve of the voters to stand aside for only way to guard against that effectually is to four years, to take a back seat, in the classic put the provision itself in the Constitution prolanguage of the White House, as a part expia-hibiting any portion thereof from ever being tion-if the word is not itself a mockery used paid. in that connection-in part expiation of so enormous a crime. Let it be understood that we do not propose to disfranchise these people for State purposes. They are allowed their own local government, if the people of the States will permit them to vote. They will only not be allowed to control this Government, and they ought not to be allowed to control it. So far as we are concerned, we give them local government to the fullest extent to which we have it ourselves. It is known to every gentleman in this Hall that by far the largest portion of the business of government is done in the States. With respect to this largest portion, we leave it to these States to grant or refuse suffrage, without regard to the condition, the opinions, or the crimes of those claiming it. So much for that.

Now, I know we have it from high authority that in all the southern country there are not enough of men who can take the oath prescribed by the law to hold the Federal offices. I know that is asserted, but I have no belief in it whatever. I am satisfied that it is not true. I do not know why that assertion has been so boldly made unless for the purpose of enabling the Democrats of this body and the new converts to obtain a repeal of the "test oath," and thereby to give seats in Congress to some of their southern political friends. I do not know why otherwise that notion was started, but that it is not true any reflecting man who will read the history of the last five years must see. We know what the truth is. It is this: the manner in which the present Administration has punished treason has made it not odious, but indeed the only popular institution of the South, so that if a man can take the oath he is afraid to let his neighbors know it. Treason has been made popular in the South, and loyalty odious. A man who has always been loyal is compelled by public opinion, forced upon and encouraged in the South by the Administration, compelled, I say, to deny his loyalty, and to simulate treason. Where are the forty-two thousand southern Union soldiers?

The latter branch of the fourth section prohibits the giving of compensation for slaves. Now, a prominent Democratic member of this House, whose name I will not mention without his consent, yesterday told me that when the Democratic party-he did not say "if," but "when," and he did not even blush to say it-when the Democratic party came to be restored to power it would demand payment for emancipated slaves or the repudiation of our national debt, and I confess I believed him.

Can any man doubt what the position of the Democratic members of this body will be with fifty-eight added to their number from the rebel States-fifty-eight Representatives of those whom they have for years obeyed and who will demand this of them?

Mr. LE BLOND. Mr. Speaker, I demand the name.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman declines to be interrupted.

Mr. BROOMALL. If any man hesitates to believe with me, let him look over the files of the Congressional Globe for the last four years, and then if he is not convinced I will concede that he is beyond the reach of conviction.

They say that we offered in 1861 to pay for these slaves. So we did, and if the offer had been accepted we would have gained largely by it. The cost of the war, counted only in dollars, would have largely paid for all the slaves. But the offer was not accepted, and it will never be renewed with the consent of the loyal people. Let our political opponents call the dead to life, let them restore to their homes three hundred thousand murdered American citizens, and then let them pay the debt which we contracted in putting down their rebellion, and we will renew our offer. We will then pay for their slaves and gain largely by the transaction.

Mr. Speaker, this measure has been spoken of as the punishment to be imposed upon the South. Why, is this all that is proposed to be inflicted upon men who have been guilty of crimes so monstrous? Is there to be no further punishment than this? Is treason not to The third of these propositions is to prevent be rendered odious? In fact, this is not a punthe payment of the rebel debt by the United ishment at all. These people have now no States or any of the rebel States, and to pre- rights. They are the conquered, we the convent compensation from ever being made for querors; and the conquered, as everybody slaves. Is there anybody here who has any knows, must look to the conquerors for their objection to that? The former measure has future political and civil position. We proreceived the sanction of the House heretofore pose to grant rights, we propose to give favors, by the requisite two-thirds vote, and might be but we propose to leave out one in every twelve passed by as a thing settled upon. Is there for four years in thus giving the favors. It is any reason why we should guard against the not as punishment, it is as a means of future payment of the rebel debt? It is strange that security, that this provision is asked to be inthere should be necessity for it; but that there corporated in the Constitution. We have is such necessity no one here can doubt. A beaten the enemy in the field. He is at our large portion of this debt is held abroad. The mercy. In a spirit of unparalleled magnanimforeign allies of the Democratic rebellion con- ity, we propose to restore the status ante bellum tributed their money to aid the party here; and as far as is consistent with our future safety. if the Government of the United States does Why, there never were such terms as these not provide irrevocably that they shall lose the offered to any vanquished people by the vicinvestment, it will be false to every duty it owes tors. Look through all history and find its to its citizens. But there is a considerable || parallel. In every other country what has

been the penalty allotted to treason, to rebellion that fails to make itself revolution? Death, banishment, confiscation. Look at England in the Indies and in Jamaica! Yet we propose not even punishment, not even the enforcement of existing laws.

These people have murdered two hundred and ninety thousand of our fellow-citizens. The man Probst, who in Philadelphia has been tried and sentenced to be hanged for murder, killed eight persons. That poor, miserable, petty scoundrel only killed eight; these people have killed two hundred and ninety thousand. He is to be hanged, and Alexander H. Stephens, who was one of the main supporters of the rebellion, is to be allowed a seat in the Senate of the United States. What a mockery of human justice!

Sir, the time will come when the poor, ignorant Dutchman who committed his petty crime will be brought to the same bar with Vice Pres ident Stephens who aided in the murder of so many of the good and the true men of our country, and these things will all be made even. There is a necessity for a future world that the immense inequalities of the present one may be rectified.

Let it offend no Democratic sensibilities that I should contrast Probst and Stephens, the murderous Dutchman and the murderous conspirator. If there is any one man in the South peculiarly responsible to the widows and the orphans of those whose bones lie upon southern battle-fields or are worn as ornaments about the necks of high-born Democratic ladies, that man is Alexander H. Stephens. He sinned against light and knowledge. He was the great champion of the Union in the South. When he was bribed by the love of office into crime, what wonder that the great masses of the South followed him?

Why, even Probst was the pupil of Stephens. Probst was a soldier, serving by accident on the right side. Stephens made his school, inaugu rated the war. Sir, read, if you can read, the miserable man's confession, and then ask yourself whether those horrible details could have been gone through by any one who had not learned the art of human butchery in the school of war.

Both these men "accept the situation;” both acknowledge that they have been defeated in a war upon society; but Stephens appears before a committee of Congress and actually claims rights, like the Pharisee in the temple; while poor Probst can only say, "Lord have mercy upon me a sinner.'

Probably my Democratic friends may not like the comparison. Neither do I. I will not put the ignorant upon a level with the learned in responsibility. I will not apply the same rule to tlie private soldier and to the statesman. I will not compare the murderer of only eight with the murderer of two hundred and ninety thousand. Yet Probst is to be hanged, while the President of the United States and the Democratic members of Congress are at this moment asking exactly such a modification of the "test oath" as will allow Stephens a seat in the United States Senate! Oh, what a mockery of justice in this! Break down your prison doors. Repeal your criminal codes. Let it not be said that in enlightened America we only punish the poor, the ignorant, and the degraded!

To bolster up the pet theory of restoration founded on rebel rights, it is now denied that we have ever been at war. War supposes conquest as one obvious mode of termination, and conquest extinguishes political rights. This would not suit the purposes of those who think the South was right in her demands, but only blundered in the means employed to obtain them. Hence there has been no war, whatever the soldiers and the bereaved ones may think to the contrary.

The President of the United States, in his recent peace proclamation, has given us from a Democratic stand-point the military history of the country for the last five years. He says that in 1861 certain persons in certain States

conspired together to prevent the execution of the laws; that the Government resolved to put down the conspiracy, not in the spirit of conquest, but in that of self-preservation, and that the insurrection has now been suppressed; and this is all. This is the official report of the high Executive to his grand constituency.

From the cold official statement, who that did not feel and know these eventful years could imagine what scenes of human sorrow are embraced within the unwritten history of that period? There was an insurrection, and it has been suppressed. Has sated ambition forgotten the immense cost to the country of the process by which it became what it is? Why, in this brief history there are hundreds of thousands of treasons unpunished. In this the blood of more than a quarter of a million murdered victims cries aloud for retributive justice. And this the President of the United States calls insurrection. Why this history would exhibit great armies, such as the world has rarely seen, devastating whole States, and meeting in grand and terrible conflict-all the machinery of war in its largest possible extent.

But who shall write the details? Who shall tell the instances of individual suffering? Who shall say how many husbands and fathers asked but one day of absence from the Army to bury the wife or child and were of necessity denied? Who shall tell of the tired sentinel, awakened at his post after days and nights of toil, from dreams of home, to answer at the bar of the terrible court-martial for not doing what man could not do? Who shall tell of the secret sorrow of the unpensioned widow and orphan of him who fell from the ranks upon the long and weary march to die the death of the dog by the roadside and be marked upon his country's roll of dishonor as a deserter?

Yet the President of the United States calls the occurrences of the last five years insurrection, and tells us with true official coldness that it is suppressed! Surely sated ambition has overlooked the immense cost of what it feeds

on.

If this is insurrection, in the name of all that is horrible what is war?

America transcends her elder sister in the length of her rivers, in the height of her mountains, and in the tremendous energy of her people. And we are now told that that transcendency extends even to the art of human butchery. When an American insurrection is so like the most devastating of European wars, the imagination shrinks with horror from contemplating what would be an American war. Surely the heart of the Executive is not in sympathy with the millions who made him what he is.

Mr. SHANKLIN. Mr. Speaker, the subject now before the House for its consideration is a matter, perhaps, of as much importance, and involves as many important interests to the American people, as any subject upon which the Congress of the United States can have to pass. Upon its solution may depend the weal or woe of the American people and their descendants. Those institutions, republican and free in their character, reared by the wisdom, the patriotism, and the sufferings of our revolutionary sires, and consecrated by their blood, may depend upon the action of this Congress upon this subject.

It becomes us, then, as the Representatives of a generous and confiding people, who hold these important interests and trusts in our hands, to divest ourselves as far as is possible of every angry passion, to banish every sectional prejudice or partiality, to discard personal interest and considerations, to break the lines of party, and to rise above considerations of that kind to a higher and purer sphere, that we may act for the general good of the whole country now and forever. If we could but do this our labors would be easy, our task would be more than half performed in its very commencement. But if, from the frailty of our natures and our passions, we are unable to assume a position of this sort let us at least approach our task with clean hands, pure hearts, and patriotic intentions.

Mr. Speaker, the subject which has been

submitted to this House for its consideration comes to us clothed with all the power and the commanding influence of a committee of the two Houses of Congress, selected, as charity compels us to suppose, on account of their experience, their wisdom, their justice, and their patriotism; and that which has been submitted to us is the work of five long and tedious months, and represents the views, sentiments, and principles of at least the majority of the House, or the party from which they were selected.

I therefore approach this subject with no ordinary degree of embarrassment and hesitancy; but my own convictions of truth and justice, of right and of duty, must control my action, and I am ready to take whatever responsibility may attach to it.

The joint resolution reported by the committee, and which is now before the House, is as follows:

ARTICLE.

SEC. 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person, within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.

SEC.2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But whenever, in any State, the elective franchise shall be denied to any portion of its male citizens not less than twenty-one years of age, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crimes, the basis of representation in such State shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens not less than twenty-one years of age.

SEC. 3. Until the 4th day of July, 1870, all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from the right to vote for members of Congress, and for electors for President and Vice President of the United States.

SEC. 4. Neither the United States, nor any State, shall assume or pay any debt or obligation already incurred, or which may hereafter be incurred, in aid of insurrection or of war against the United States; or any claim for compensation for loss of involuntary service or labor.

SEC. 5. Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

That joint resolution presupposes and takes as an established fact that those States lately in rebellion are no longer members of the Union; that the ties which bound them to this Government have been severed, and that the people of those States are aliens and foreigners to this Government. That is the position which has been assumed by this committee, and upon that hypothesis this resolution and these measures are based. I do not design now to discuss the question whether these States are in or out of the Union. That question has been ably and elaborately discussed. Our minds are made up upon that subject. The mind of the public is made up upon that subject. But we all remember that at the commencement of this difficulty these States asserted that it was a constitutional right which they had to withdraw from the Union and form independent and separate governments themselves, and in obedience to this claimed right they passed their ordinances of secession. We took the ground, and rightfully too, as I believe, that they had no such right under the Constitution which had been framed by our fathers; that they owed allegiance to the General Government; that they must obey the laws and Constitution of the General Government, and that they could not withdraw from it. The issue was fairly made up. One party contended that they had the right of secession and to sever the ties which bound them to the Union; and the other party, as I think rightfully, took the ground that they had no such right; and the issue was made and submitted to the arbitra

ment of arms.

Mr. Speaker, after four long years of bloody war, the most desolating that the world has ever seen; after the sacrifice of half a million of our Federal soldiers and citizens, and the slaughter, perhaps, of nearly as many more of the confederate people; after the expenditure of more than four thousand million dollars, a debt entailed upon this country, and which will be handed down for years and years to

come, our armies triumphed. These people who asserted this right of secession surrendered it; they said they would give up the contest. They laid down their arms and dispersed; and they then expected to come back into the room and to assume the places which they had occupied before. But they are met at the threshold with, "No, no; you are aliens and foreigners, and you cannot come into this Government unless upon such terms as we may propose to you.'

You went to war to sustain the Constitution of the United States and to enforce all the provisions of that Constitution. We triumphed, and then we turn around and say that all their constitutional rights have been lost. We say to them, "You made war to go out of the Union; you have failed with your armies to accomplish your purpose to get out of the Union; and yet you are out of the Union. We fought to keep you in the Union and we triumphed, yet you are out of the Union." That is the result of this whole proposition, and the logic of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, there are two prominent and distinct ideas contained in this proposition. The first idea is to strike down the reserved rights of the States, those rights which were declared by the framers of the Constitution to belong to the States exclusively and necessary for the protection of the property and liberty of the people. The first section of this proposed amendment to the Constitution is to strike down those State rights and invest all power in the General Government. It is then proposed to disfranchise the people of the southern States who have gone into this rebellion, until the party in power could fasten and rivet the chains of oppression for all time to come, and hedge themselves in power, that they may rule and control those people at will. Those are the two ideas contained in this proposition.

Now, how do you propose to carry out that second idea? Is it by degrading, by humbling, by humiliating these people, and rendering them unworthy of the blessings of liberty or of being recognized as citizens? Do you expect to effect the object in that way? Do you expect, by the terms you propose to impose on those people, to render them willing serfs and slaves to your power? If they will submit to the burdens which you propose, then they ought not to come back into this Union; for they will be unworthy to hold the position of American citizens.

But how are you going to humble and degrade these people? By disfranchising them, by oppressing them with taxes, by denying them representation, by dragging them down to the loyal political and social equality with the servile African race. You may impoverish them, you may exterminate them, but you can never reduce them to the condition when they will kiss the hand that strikes them.

How long do you suppose it would take to bring you to that condition? How long would you struggle against those acts of oppression, those acts of tyranny, before you would bow in submission as slaves and serfs? Do you suppose these people in the southern States are intellectually, morally, or physically your inferiors? Certainly you do not believe that. They may be disloyal in the estimation of some. But I will assert that so far as we know these people from their past history, they are not your inferiors physically, morally, or intellectually.

The people of the southern States and the people of the northern States stood side by side in the great battles of the revolutionary war; they met in the councils of the nation; they were as brave upon the battle-field, the council, and as safe advisers as the people of the northern States. They were the peers and the equals of the people of the North.

as wise in

In the war of 1812 they stood by the Government and they drove back the foreign invader. Were they your inferiors then? Does history establish that to be the fact? They were your equals wherever tried and wherever met. In the war with Mexico, men from South

Carolina and men from Massachusetts and Rhode Island stood side by side on the battlefields upon the plains of Mexico. Were not the men of the South as brave and gallant as the men of the North? Did they shrink from responsibility? They were your equals in every point of view.

From the commencement of this Government down to the commencement of this unfortunate war they met in councils of the nation; they met in judicial forums; they filled executive, judicial, and ministerial offices side by side with men of the northern States, and in every station and position they were the peers and equals of the men of the North.

You have recently met them in this civil war, with five times their population and ten times their resources, and they kept your gallant and brave armies at bay for four long years. Their councils were as wise, their measures were as judicious for prosecuting the war and to effect the objects which they had in view as yours were. They kept you at bay. The cannon of their army were heard as often in this capital as your cannon were heard in their capital at Richmond. Does this prove that they are your inferiors? You overcame them by numbers, not because you were their superiors in wisdom, in gallantry, in bravery. I admit and assert that they erred in this matter. They claimed rights which did not belong to them. Thousands of them, however, believed that they had these rights. They acted upon that belief. But, sir, they have now surrendered all those claims. What policy will you now pursue toward them?

Mr. Speaker, if the doctrine of the party in power is true, that those States are out of the Union, that they have cut loose from their obligations to the Constitution, and taken themselves outside of the pale of that instrument, I ask you what have you gained by this war. We waged a war to prevent their going out; we waged a war for the purpose of enforcing the laws against them. We were successful, as gentlemen say. The people of the South waged a war to go out of the Union. They were unsuccessful. Yet the doctrine of the party in power admits that the rebels succeeded in accomplishing the object for which they fought.

I ask again, what have you gained? Have you kept them in the Union? You say that you have not. Have you maintained and supported and enforced the Constitution? You say that you have not. Then what have you gained by this war which has cost this nation so much blood and treasure? All that you have gained is that you have entailed upon yourselves and upon posterity a debt which bears the nation down, and will continue to bear it down as an incubus. You have freed, it may be said, four million slaves. Yes, you have freed four million slaves, who were productive laborers, who were contented and happy and well provided for, and you have thrown them upon society unprepared for their condition, destitute of that training and education which are necessary to enable them to protect themselves. You have converted one half of them into vagabonds. That is a part of the fruits of this war. You have done more. By the demoralization of these people, and by the policy which you have adopted in regard to them, you have imposed upon the people a debt which I will not attempt to estimate, for the purpose of supporting a pet institution called the Freedmen's Bureau.

Perhaps you have gained another object. You have through that bureau manufactured the materials that have filled the galleries of this Hall during the whole session. Crowds of these negroes have hung over us like a black and threatening cloud, while we were crucifying the Constitution of our fathers and trampling under our feet the rights and liberties of the people in passing the Freedmen's Bureau bill, the civil rights bill, and the indemnity bill. They have joined in the shouts of triumph which have gone up when this House has trampled on the rights of the people and set at naught the provisions of the Constitution.

What more do you propose by this measure?

You deny to the States the right of repudiation. Yet, in the very act of denying that right, you yourselves commit an act of repudiation. You violate the honor of the nation, which is most solemnly pledged to payment for the slaves which were enlisted in the United States Army in loyal slave States. In my State, Kentucky, more than thirty thousand negroes enlisted in the Union Armny. Before that enlistment an act was passed by this Congress, pledging the faith of the nation to payment for the slaves that might be enlisted in the Union Army in loyal slave States, not exceeding $300 apiece. Has such compensation ever been made? It has not. The nation is pledged to the payment of that debt. The nation to-day owes to my State more than $10,000,000 under the provisions of that act. Yet now you propose a constitutional provision denying both to the States and the General Government the right to pay such debts. By this measure you propose to violate the plighted faith of the nation; you propose to practice upon the people || an outrage and a violation of their rights.

But, Mr. Speaker, we are asked by gentlemen here, and asked with an air of great confidence and triumph, "Do you want these rebels to take seats in Congress? Are you willing to admit to participation in the Government rebels who have sacrificed and slaughtered our people?" No, sir.

If these people are not pardoned and acquitted then they have no right, as they have violated the laws of the country, to enjoy all the blessings of the protection of this Government; but if they have been pardoned, if the political sins of which they have been guilty have been wiped out, do you think your garb of loyalty and patriotism is made of such flimsy stuff that association with these men would soil and contaminate it? The mighty host, we are told, that is gathered around the throne of the Most High is composed of pardoned sinners, the associates and companions of angels. But a pardoned rebel must not associate with the political Pharisees of this House!

Where are you going to? You are not willing to associate with pardoned rebels. I understand the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS,] who is ever fruitful in resources in getting you in and out of difficulties, is going to set up a little concern of his own, and you who have been faithful to him in life ought not to desert him in death, and then you will be free from the contamination of pardoned rebels, mercy, and charity. Nor will you be haunted and tormented with the veto messages of Andrew Johnson, the wise patriot and statesman.

Mr. Speaker, there is but one other subject. What ought to be our policy here? Should it be tyrannical and oppressive, or should it be liberal? We are told we cannot trust these people. They have given up the right of secession; they have taken the oath to support the Government and the laws; what are you going to do with them? Are you going to hold them in subjugation? England has tried a policy of that sort toward a noble and generous people, the Irish. What has been the result of that policy? Has it been to conquer them? It has been to implant in the bosom of every Irishman a deep hatred of England. That hatred has descended from sire to son; and I hope it will continue to be transmitted until that noble and generous people will rise in majesty and power and secure their freedom. Russia has pursued a similar policy toward Poland. Has the result been to subjugate the gallant Poles? They are ready at any moment to rise in rebellion. Austria has pursued the same policy. The result has always been the same.

The southern people whom it is proposed to subjugate are a noble, brave people. They may have been deluded, they may have committed a great crime, but they are now anxious to unite with all of our people to sustain the Government. Will you receive them? Will you make them your friends? Will you rather make them your enemies? This question we must solve.

They would be a most invaluable friend. And in my opinion they would, if you would adopt a kind, generous policy toward them, receive them and extend to them equal State and individual rights, and that without delay. By your treatment prove to them that the war you waged against them was not a war of conquest or subjugation or from malice or vengeance, but a war to maintain the Constitution of our fathers and the rights of the Union of the States, as you declared it was when you took up arms and when the strife commenced. Redeem your plighted faith by your acts and your policy, and peace, friendship, and prosperity will once more cover our now distracted country. Then we can bid defiance to the ene. mies of our free institutions. No nation, however proud or domineering she may be, will dare insult our flag or deny our just rights. Generations unborn will rise up to praise and bless your memories.

Let me beseech you in the name and behalf of patriotism, justice, and a downtrodden and oppressed people, to cease your war on the President of your selection and choice, who has exhibited to the world the highest order of wisdom, patriotism, charity, justice, and devotion to the equal rights of man. We will once more see the charred cities and villages that now dot a large portion of our Union rise up in fresh and pure proportions; our desolated fields will again blossom as a garden of roses. But above all, under the wise and just lead of President Johnson, we will see our people gather around our country's altar, and under the flag of a restored nation renew their Vows of obedience and devotion to the Constitution of our fathers. But should you who now hold the power in this House persist in your persecutions and relentless oppression, you may yet live to see the day when you will regret the folly and madness that now hurries you to the overthrow of your power. It may be the overthrow and destruction of the best Government that ever blessed mankind. That your measures of policy will lead to peace or harmony no dispassionate man can for a moment hope. You may discover when it is too late that you have pressed your unequal laws beyond the point from which you can retreat. You may bring down upon your country and Government the condemnation of all enlightened, civilized nations, and you may build up a nation of just enemies in your midst, and this land may again be drenched and deluged with fraternal blood. May we and our children be spared from that terrible ordeal, is the prayer of one who loves his whole country. Discharge your joint committee on reconstruction; abolish your Freedmen's Bureau; repeal your civil rights bill, and admit all the delegates from the seceded States to their seats in Congress, who have been elected according to the laws of the country and possess the constitutional qualification, and all will be well.

[Here the hammer fell.]

PENNSYLVANIA CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE.

The SPEAKER laid before the House papers in the Pennsylvania contested-election case of Koontz vs. Coffroth; which were referred to the Committee of Elections.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a communication from the acting Attorney General, transmitting, in compliance with a reso lution of the House, a list of clerks, &c.; which was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed.

RECONSTRUCTION-AGAIN.

Mr. RAYMOND. Mr. Speaker, I took occasion at an early stage of the session, while making some remarks on the general subject of restoration, to say that, in my judgment, the joint committee to which it had been referred, ought to lay the whole of their plan upon our tables before asking us to act upon any of its specific parts. I congratulate myself, sir, that, although when first made the demand was