that the people can alter their fundamental, organic form of government, and so can the people change entirely their Government. That is the doctrine which the southern people assert. But, sir, that is not this proposition. This is a proposition to change the form of government, a form adopted with certain theories, with certain principles, for certain objects; and I contend that while we may amend the Constitution in the mode provided by that instrument, we can amend it only to reach and cover those subjects or powers which were delegated originally to the General Government. The Federal Government was made by the States; the people collectively were never called to act upon it; and while the Constitution provides for its own amendment, so as to enable the General Government to carry out the objects originally delegated to it, still all the reserved rights are reserved to the States. If we can amend the Constitution in this respect, we can amend it so as to reach to the marital relations and all other matters of a domestic character.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to repeat what I said at the last session upon this question. I should be glad to know that I was wrong; but having formed those opinions after careful study, having deliberately and carefully and, as I think, without partisan bias, reached that conclusion, with all due deference to the President of the United States I am of the same opinion now.

But, sir, we are nearly a year later in the unfortunate and calamitous present history of this country than we were at the time this question was discussed at the last session. Events of moment have transpired since then, and therefore I have taken the floor for the purpose of offering for the consideration of this House a few practical remarks as to the policy of passing this resolution; as to the effect if finally adopted by the necessary number of States; and whether, even if the effect shall be to free the slaves, we shall have given to that unfortunate race any amelioration of their condition, any social or political elevation of their status, or have advantaged them in any regard whatever.

Sir, the President tells us in his annual message at the commencement of this session that he hopes we will now pass this resolution. He refers to the action of the people at the late election, and tells us that if we fail to pass it the next Congress will, and that as the next Congress will, why, forsooth, we ought to pass it.

Well, sir, that is very strange reasoning for that functionary. We all know that death is certain, and yet should we anticipate it? Because any evil that is hanging over the country or over us as individuals is inevitable, shall we forsooth meet it hurriedly and in advance? Sir, I cannot agree to the President's reasoning, that because this is inevitable we should stultify ourselves, and go counter to our principles and our honest convictions in voting for a proposition which we utterly deplore and condemn. I am not sure that the President's premises are correct. The next Congress may hold a different opinion upon this question. Slavery, as it now exists, may cease altogether before the next Congress of the United States assembles. The whole condition of our country may be altered, North and South, before the assembling of the next Congress. But assume this should not be, and the next Congress does recommend this alteration of the Constitution, do we not have Legislatures elected between now and that time? Will not the people be called upon then to act for the first time on this question? Will not Legislatures be voted for and elected on this question? Because, sir, although, as stated by the gentleman from lowa, this was an issue of the presidential election, according to the Baltimore platform, it was no issue in the elections for members of the Legislatures; and before the Legislatures can be called upon to act new questions may intervene for their consideration and new reasons why they should not accede may prevent their doing so.

But, sir, we will assume that Congress passes this resolution; we will assume that the Legislatures of the States carry out the recommendation of Congress and agree to this amendment; what then? Will any man contend that it will free one slave? Did the President's emancipation proclamation free one slave? Was it not, in his own expressive language," like the Pope's bull against the comet?" This also would be a mere

South; we may lay waste their lands and destroy their property; we may free their slaves. But there is one thing we cannot do: we cannot violate with impunity or alter the laws of God.

The Almighty has fixed the distinction of the races; the Almighty has made the black man inferior, and, sir, by no legislation, by no partisan success, by no revolution, by no military power, can you wipe out this distinction. You may make the black man free, but when you have done that what have you done? Have you elevated his condition? Have you advantaged him physically, socially, morally, or intellectually? I asserted here at the last session, I now repeat the assertion, that the condition of domestic servitude as existing in the southern States is the highest condition of which the African race is capable, and when compared with their original condition on the continent from which they came is superior in all the elements of civilization, philanthropy, and humanity. Sir, look at the African in his native

brutum fulmen so far as the States in rebellion are concerned. If they continue in rebellion as they are now no action of this Congress can affect the status of slavery within these States. They disregard the action of this Congress; they will disregard any action that we may take in an amendment of the Constitution. In those States slavery will continue, except in the triumphant path of our armies. Therefore the practical effect of this amendment will really be nothing. Without we hold their territory by military power it will free no slaves; where our armies march, where their tread is felt, there slavery ceases; but it ceases only so long as our armies occupy slave territory; and when you withdraw that, slavery will again exist if the confederate power so wills it. But I go further, because I desire upon this occasion to discuss this question freely and frankly. And what I say I say for myself, individually. I know the popular error is that it is politic for men to go for the abolition of slavery. I know the politicians of the North, looking for political pre-condition, where he is supposed to be not only ferment and the success of partisan power, run with this popular current of the day. And the man is looked upon as a fool who is honest and frankly and boldly expresses his convictions to the contrary. But whether it be right or wrong, politic or impolitic, so far as I am concerned, I will, as I have always done in this House, and since the commencement of my public life, frankly and freely express my honest sentiments.

Now, sir, we will assume that by an amendment to the Constitution you abolish slavery: what then? Why have you abolished it? The gentleman from lowa [Mr. KASSON] has to-day attempted to tell you of some of the evils which surround this institution. He calls it a social evil; others call it a political evil. All the evil acts of the rebels are attributed to the fact that slavery exists there. And it is assumed that this rebellion never would have existed, that it could not have been begun, that it could not be prosecuted or sustained, except that slavery existed within those States.

I will not stop to answer these fallacies. Our revolutionary fathers went into a rebellion and were successful. The institution of slavery was not any hinderance to their success. When they threw down the gauntlet to their masters upon the other side of the Atlantic the colonies all held slaves, and yet they prosecuted a seven years' war successfully, during which we lost all our large cities. They all held slaves, yet no one among our enemies in England declared slavery as among the evils of our rebellion, or that in consequence of its existence we were prosecuting a bad cause for a wicked and bad purpose.

Well, sir, we will assume that we have abolished slavery. What then? The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. MALLORY] asked you yesterday what do you propose to do with these people when you have freed them? Deport them? As the gentleman told you, it would add $4,000,000,000 to your debt, but that, in his own expressive language, would not deter gentlemen upon the other side of the House. The scheme of colonization has been abandoned; that scheme had for its supporters such men as Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. Our new lights have gone against that. They desire to keep these negroes here for home consumption. First, to use them as instruments by which to obtain political power. Secondly, to retain the power thus obtained. Thirdly, to gratify vengeance against the slaveholder. Fourthly, as an excuse for continuing the war, and thus to continue the army of Government officials, and finally, if possible, to elevate the negro to the condition of the white man and give him suffrage, and by that means to create a power which will forever rule and control this country.

Sir, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. MALLORY] thus presented a question which must be considered and decided. Wendell Phillips, in New York recently, more fully developed the design. He boldly announces the doctrine. He sustained it, asserting that a crossing of the white and black races would create the most superior race that has yet existed. And in reply to an inquiry, the distinguished gentleman to whom I refer boldly admitted that the object was to make the highest and most glorious specimen of human nature that the world has ever seen. Mr. Speaker, we may amend the Constitution; we may by superior military force overrun and conquer the

free, but "monarch of all he surveys." I will ask the Clerk to read an extract from the volume of Captain Carnot, published by the Appletons, in 1854, describing what he saw in Africa, and the condition of the negro in his native wilds.

The Clerk read, as follows:

"In my wanderings in African forests, I have often seen the tiger pounce upon its prey, and with instinctive thirst satiate its appetite for blood, and abandon the drained corpse; but these African negresses were neither as decent nor as merciful as the beast of the wilderness. Their malignant pleasure seemed to consist in the invention of tortures that would agonize, but not slay. There was a devilish speil in the tragic scene that fascinated my eyes to the spot. A slow, lingering, tormenting mutilation was practiced on the living as well as on the dead; and, in every instance, the brutality of the women exceeded that of the men. cannot picture the hellish joy with which they passed from body to body, digging out eyes, wrenching off lips, tearing the ears, and slicing the flesh from the quivering hones; while the queen of the harpies crept amid the butchery, gathering the brains from each several skull as a bonne bouché for the approaching feast!

"After the last victim yielded his life, it did not require long to kindle a fire, produce the requisite utensils, and fill the air with the odor of human flesh. Yet, before the various masses were half broiled, every mouth was tearing the dainty morsels with shouts of joy, denoting the combined satisfaction of revenge and appetite! In the midst of this appalling scene I heard a fresh cry of exultation, as a pole was borne into the apartment, on which was impaled the living body of the conquered chieftain's wife. A hole was quickly dug, the stave planted, and faggots supplied; but before a fire could be kindled the wretched woman was dead, so that the barbarians were defeated in their bellish scheme of burning her alive.

"I do not know how long these brutalities lasted, for I remember very little after this last attempt, except that the bushmen packed in plantain leaves wliatever flesh was left from the orgie, to be conveyed to their friends in the forest. This was the first time it had been my lot to behold the most savage development of African nature under the stimulus of war. The butchery made me sick, dizzy, paralyzed. I gank on the earth benumbed with stupor; nor was I aroused till nightfall, when my Kroomen bore me to the conqueror's town and negotiated our redemption for the value of twenty slaves."

Mr. FERNANDO WOOD. Mr. Speaker, I presume it will not be contended that the condition of the native African is, in any regard, equal to that of the American slave. Sir, the Africans live in their native wilds as slaves. The Africans are sold into slavery by themselves. I contend that their condition in this country is in every regard improved. From barbarians they become civilized Christians; from slaves they become freemen. Admitting all the sins with which slavery is charged, it cannot be denied that it has been an instrument in the hands of God by which to confer a benefit upon that unfortunate race.

Now, sir, I contend that, if we desire to be philanthropic if we desire to confer a benefit upon that people-let us afford every amelioration of their condition that we can under the law; but, sir, let us not forget that, evil though slavery be, there is yet a greater evil for this unfortunate country, and that is its destruction, the disunion, the consummation of the ruin now before us.

The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. VOORHEES] said yesterday we may be anticipated in our beneficent desires-that, in his opinion, the confederates themselves are preparing to abolish slavery. I know that it has recently been stated in the South that, rather than yield to the North, they would make terms with England and France, on the condition of the recognition of their independence, with the abolition of slavery to follow as a consequence. Sir, that may be; but in my judgment, it will not be. Neither England nor France will interfere in this question upon con

ditions of that kind; nor do I believe that the confederate government would accept the recognition of their independence by any European Power, if based upon the abolition of slavery without the consent of the States and the people thereof.

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that at this session of Congress there would exist a condition of public affairs that would bring about certain peace and Union; that these measures of aggression against the southern States would no longer have necessity or palliation. I had hoped that this Government would entertain propositions which have been made for a cessation of hostilities and the restoration of this Union upon the basis of the existing Constitution.

But, sir, I have been disappointed. There is no disposition to heal this quarrel at all. There is no disposition on the part of the party in power to restore the Union upon the basis of the old order of things.

I can only say further, Mr. Speaker, that I shall vote against this resolution. I shall vote against it because it is not within the power of Congress to pass it. I shall vote against it because it is unwise, impolitic at this time, if we could pass it legally. I shall vote against it because it is another step toward the eternal separation of the two sections. I shall vote against it because it would be no advantage to the negro if successful. I shall vote against it because it is an improper intermeddling with the domestic affairs of others. I shall vote against it because I want to remove every obstacle to the peaceful solution of this great question; I want to alleviate the condition of the South as well as the North; I want to discontinue these controversies and struggles now pending between men who but yesterday were fellow-citizens of the same great country, with the same constitutional rights and privileges. 1 shall vote against it because I would leave to every State and every political community the entire control of their own domestic affairs. I shall vote against it because I want to preserve the essence of our constitutional liberties.

I want to continue this as a Republic. I want to disseminate power from this central point instead of concentrating it here. I want to preserve the limitations of the Constitution and of the Government, as originally constructed, in theory as well as in letter and spirit, that we shall not interfere with the relation of master and slave any more than between husband and wife.

I want to allay this excitement. I do not believe slavery has had anything to do with it. I know that at the North slavery is obnoxious to the people. I know that the sentiment there is against the existence of slavery upon the continent of America. But there are evils at the North which I should like to see exterminated. There

are evils everywhere, among every people in every part of the world; and before we assume the right to do away with the evils of our neighbors we ought to do that which is right ourselves.

We are in a war, a terrible civil conflict. Those who believe that it is near its termination are in error, because after you have abolished the armies of the rebels there is power of resistance left among the people inhabiting that vast territory which will make it necessary to have a standing army upon every square mile to retain it. You will have not only to conquer, but keep conquered. It is not only necessary to conquer their armies, to deprive them of the power of resistance, but, in order to preserve the essence of our Government, you must conquer their hearts. You must get their assent or you must hold them in subjugation, and when you do that we will have ceased to have a republican form of government.

I want to restore this Union. Under no circumstances I repeat, would I consent to disunion. But, sir, to restore the Union you must accompany the Army with the olive-branch. You must learn from General Sherman, who has done more to conquer the people of Georgia by kindness than ten thousand triumphant armies marching through that State could do. It is only by conciliation and kindness that we can conquer the rebels. Reverse the picture: suppose we were in rebellion against them, how long would we resist an attempt to subjugate us and control our domestic relations? They are as brave a people, as generous a people, and as noble a people as ourselves, and as such it is wisdom to treat them.

The Republican position for forcible abolition is illogical, because when their slaves are freed by this mode you have enslaved the master. One follows as the consequence of the other. I say you must hold them in bondage before you can accomplish your purpose in this way. What is the distinction? a distinction without a difference.

I should be loth to say here that forcible emancipation is the result of wickedness alone, but I will say it is a combination of wickedness and folly. We want the Union; we want these States back again; we want to see these men represented upon this floor; we want them to obey the laws and the Constitution; admitting they have committed a wicked foily in attempting to rebel.

"To err is human: to forgive, divine;" and it is only, in my judgment, by conciliation, by affording them every guarantee of the Constitution and every privilege under the Constitution, that we can bring that people back again with us to live under one common Government, recognizing one common Constitution, one common head, and one common flag.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I have not designed to make a speech upon this resolution, and I do not expect to do so now. All I shall say will be little more, perhaps, than a statement of some of the reasons why I cannot support this resolution.

The Government of the United States is one of limited and defined powers. It possesses the powers, and only the powers, granted to it through the Federal Constitution. All other governmental powers, all the powers not enumerated, are reserved to the States or the people thereof. I have not been satisfied, I am not convinced by any of the arguments made upon this question, that the power has been conferred upon the General Government, or that it can be by the proposed amendment, to control, regulate, or interfere with the internal and domestic affairs of the States. I cannot believe that the framers of our Constitution intended to or did place a minority of one fourth of the States of this Union in a position to be stripped of all their rights of property at the pleasure of the other three fourths. The power of amendment as conferred through the Constitution can, as it seems to me, extend only to matters in which the States have a common interest. It is one of the reserved rights of the States under their own State constitutions to regulate, control, and manage their local and peculiar interests in their own way.

This, it seems to me, was so understood by the party now urging the passage of the resolu

tion under consideration. At the time of Mr. Lincoln's nomination, the convention nominating him unanimously, I believe, adopted this resolution:

"Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend."

The rights of the States and each State to control its domestic institutions is essential to the balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend. Would not this amendment destroy that balance of power? Do not the endurance and perfection of the Republic depend as much upon the preservation of that balance of power now as it did when at his inauguration Mr. Lincoln "reiterated" the sentiments of that resolution, and claimed that it was a law for himself and his party?

But, sir, I could not myself at this time vote for this resolution if I did not doubt the power to amend the Constitution in the particular proposed. I do not "deem it necessary" or wise in an hour like this to change so essentially and radically our Constitution of government. However gentlemen may entertain sentiments of revenge toward voluntary rebels, it is not now pretended by any that all of the people of the rebellious States are guilty of rebellion. It is unjust and cruel to the innocent and true men in those States. It is taking advantage of a state of things whien neither they nor we can prevent to overthrow without the consent or coöperation of those to be affected by it most, one of their constitutional and cherished institutions. It is verifying one of the first and most powerful arguments for secession, that the northern States were only waiting for the

power and opportunity to destroy all their rights of property and person. Sir, it will furnish the rebel leaders another argument by which to win the doubting and to arouse the lukewarm; it will aid them in raising other armies to fight against the Union; it will enable them to prolong this bloody and terrible war by embittering and intensifying the hatred of these people against the abolitionized North; it will destroy the confidence of the Union men in those States in the good faith and candor of those who pledged them that the only purpose and desire of the party in power was to restore the Union and reestablish the supremacy of the Constitution of our fathers; it will demand the blood of thousands more of the young men of this country and pile upon ourselves and our children a still weightier burden of debt and taxation. Finally, it will, in my judg ment, if that be possible, put in greater danger the ultimate restoration of peace and the Union, and weaken, if it does not destroy, all faith in the safety and stability of republican constitutional govern

ment.

Sir, I have no sympathy with the institution of slavery, powerful as it may have been in the past; between Jeff. Dayis struggling to save his neck and Mr. Lincoln to build his empire, it seems to be doomed. At all events, the vast Army and Navy of the United States are pledged by their Commander-in-Chief to its overthrow. Every. day the conflict of war is trenching in upon its dominion, and if it were to fall in a legitimate struggle to put down rebellion and restore the Union, I shall not be one of its mourners. I have not lost my reverence for the Constitution. I remember it still as the handiwork of Washington and his compatriots. I cannot forget the solema awe and earnest solicitude with which they approached, considered, and perfected that immortal monument of human wisdom. I cannot forbear to warn this House that the spirit and tempor which pervaded that august body should fill the minds and hearts of those who attempt or dure to remodel it. Whenever that sacred instrument must be altered, let it be done in the spirit of kindness and in fraternal love to every portion of our country and toward all the people who are to live under it. Let peace once more come to this bleeding, mourning country, and then with the love that animated the great heart of Washington invite all who can be forgiven the part they have taken in this most unfortunate struggle to join in amending, if necessary, the law which all must reverence and love who can endure to live under

it. But I conjure you to let the wail of the dead and dying pass, let the smoke of battle clear away, let peace and the Union be restored, let reason again assume her dominion before another revolution shall be inaugurated. Tear not the work of our fathers asunder in passion, stain not the charter of our Union and liberties, framed by them, with their children's hands reeking with their children's blood.

de

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, in contemplating the rise, the progress, and rapid development of the grandest system of government ever yet vised, I am led to reflect upon its present condition, and, if possible, to raise myself for a moment above the raging elements now threatening its existence, and to see if there is anything in the future which can be done, and which has not been done, to allay these elements of strife, and once more restore to reinvigorated life the Union of these States.

For my part I aver, as I have ever averred, that if anything has been left undone which might now be done, which shall restore to us the unity of power, the blessings of peace, and the glorious promises of future we once enjoyed, then that needful thing I am prepared now to do.

In considering the subject now before the House, recognize in it the fruition of the disturbances of the last thirty years. By these amendments the promised fruits of the abolition of slavery are sought to be realized. If the union of the States is to be maintained thereby; if thereby peace and prosperity are to be restored to the land of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Jackson; if sectional animosities are to be allayed; if thereby treason is to be foiled or punished; if the cause of human progress is to be promoted; if, in a word, all the best interests of our common country are to be promoted by these amendments, I am prepared new, as I have ever

been prepared, to make any and every sacrifice, personal to myself, which shall accomplish objects so great and desirable. I do so the more readily because I recognize in the manner of presenting these amendments one of the modes pointed out by the Constitution for submitting to the States, or rather the people of the States, propositions for its amendment.

I am not unmindful, Mr. Speaker, that for many years there have been those in the land who were dissatisfied with the Union because its Constitution contained the provisions and compromises by which slavery and its safety were secured from violent or political assault. I have never others wise than thought that this class of persons contributed in no small degree to the breeding of those successive and increasing irritations upon the slavery question, which were finally seized upon by the southern rebel leaders as sufficient pretext for civil war, and which they have so powerfully used as the incitement for consolidating and wielding the southern mind in four years of gigantic war against the Government of their fathers.

But, Mr. Speaker, I, the Representative of a slaveholding constituency, aver now, as I have averred, when a prisoner in the rebel guard-house, and as I have, amid all the scenes of woe and desolation, that rebellious war has wrought in my district and in my State, that the evils and dangers which were complained of were not so grievous or threatening, nor could they be, as to justify a resort to armed rebellion. I had ever been of the firm conviction that, prior to this internecine war, there was no effective power which could have successfully arrayed itself against the constitutional rights of each and every part of our common country. And in reference to the disturbing causes which brought on the war, and superinduced the necessity for these amendments, if the South had planted herself upon her constitutional rights, and stood shoulder to shoulder with the men of the North disposed to regard them, then there could have been no cause for the one nor necessity for the other.

But, Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the history of the last thirty years it is impossible not to perceive that while there has been a party who have furnished irritating pretexts, irritating to the pride and nature of men, there has also been a party who have as eagerly seized upon these subterfuges for the sole purpose of inflaming and controlling the southern mind. They have used this power, not more with the view of defending slavery than for the purpose of carrying out a long-determined, deliberate, and wicked aim of setting up an independent power upon this continent for selfish and inglorious ends; and if in the end those using slavery for this nefarious purpose shall find that the people, by the adoption of these amendments, destroy slavery, then it can but be evident to them that they have been the architects of their own fortunes.

Without any arguments, Mr. Speaker, as to the good or ills of slavery as a primary question, and as it has all along existed under the sanction of the laws of our ancestors, nevertheless it has transpired during the course of this war that this institution was the chief lever by which the rebel leaders have wielded the southern mind; and for that reason it has lost nearly all the sympathy and Bupport it once maintained. And to such extent has it become a source of irritation that it seems at length necessary, in order to secure the great blessings of peace and union once more, that the great question of its further existence or non-exstence shall be submitted to the people for their decision.

And here I am reminded by the arguments of gentlemen upon this floor of our want of constitutional power to pass this amendment. 1 aver that if I had a doubt as to the right of Congress upon this subject of proposing and passing this amendment by two thirds of this House, and the Senate as at present organized, I unquestionably would vote against this amendment. I believe in the existence of the power; and while I say that I indorse the wisdom of that provision of the Constitution which declares that all power not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people. It has served as a guide and a landmark heretofore, and I trust it will long remain there as a landmark in the future; and it is not at all in conflict with that provision of the

Constitution which authorizes amendments to be made to this Constitution.

Some gentlemen argue that we have no right to do it because slavery was one of the reserved rights of the States. I see nothing in the Constitution which reserves that right to the States, but I see from the proceedings which took place prior to the adoption of the Constitution, and especially in the provisions which are in the Constitution itself, that the Convention to frame the Constitution did take cognizance of this question of slavery. In the ninth section of the first articleand that is what is declared as one of the sentiments of the great Dred Scott decision-all the States were allowed, for twenty years after the adoption of this Constitution, to buy, sell, trade, and traffic in slaves in any manner they might please. And they might have done so, so far as any prohibition in the Constitution is concerned, up to 1864. But after the lapse of twenty years power was given to Congress to prohibit it in the future; and they did so at a subsequent period. Suppose we had here a proposed amendment to abrogate that ninth section, giving Congress that power after the expiration of twenty years, and to say that Congress should have no such power in the future, would gentlemen then quote the very language of the ninth section giving to all the States the power to trade and traffic in such property? Gentlemen would not have the power to do that.

There is another provision which allows Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution. And the last provision is that Congress shall have no power to propose amendments by which States are deprived of their equal right of representation in the Senate. Now I maintain that this House has no right to propose an amendment to deprive a State of its equal representation in the Senate, because all our powers to propose amendments are derived from the Constitution. That is really the only existing prohibition that I know of in the Constitution. Can it be said that, under that restriction declaring the powers of the General Government, and the powers reserved to the States, Congress has no right to propose any amendment to the Constitution at all? Legitimately and logically, the argument would come to that. And yet, on a moment's reflection, no gentleman would take such a position.

Some gentlemen argue that we have no right to make any amendment, unless it be in reference to something already in the Constitution. The answer to that is that the very first session of Congress after the adoption of the Constitution a number of amendments were adopted on the suggestion of States to which the Constitution had been submitted for ratification, some of which had no sort of reference to anything in the Constitution as originally drafted. The most important of these grew out of principles which had cost the people of England occans of blood-out of principles which were asserted in the Revolution. There cannot be any doubt of this; but if any gentleman should still have a doubt on the subject, let us see how this Constitution was to be adopted.

In the very last article of the Constitution it is declared that the ratification by the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of the Constitution between the States so ratifying the same. Eleven of the States ratified the Constitution at once. Nine would have been enough to create and constitute a Government, not only de facto but de jure. The States of North Carolina and Rhode Island did not agree to it for several years afterwards; and according to my view of it they were not parties to the Constitution. The Convention originated with the delegates from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia, and perhaps some other States, who recommended that delegates should meet in Philadelphia on the second Monday in May, 1787-to do what? In order to amend and revise the Articles of Confederation. That was all the power they had. But who will say that after these delegates assembled in Convention they had not plenary power? They exercised it, and nobody has ever objected to it.

But the article of the Constitution which gives Congress power to propose amendments is that which declares that Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall find it necessary, shall propose amendments to the Constitution, and if

adopted by three fourths of the States they become a part of the Constitution; or, on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, and that these amendments, when adopted by three fourths of the States, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution.

There are thus two modes provided for amending the Constitution. If the proposed amendments come from the Legislatures of two thirds of the States, they are to be referred to a convention. But if they come from Congress, I ask whether Congress has not plenary powers to the extent of the authority given in the Constitution to propose any amendment it pleases, which is not expressly prohibited to it, or reserved to the States in the Constitution itself. Certainly it has. But I have heard the suggestion that it cannot be done because, says one gentleman, there are eleven States that are not represented here. Why are they not here? Is it our fault that they are not? We cannot coerce States to send members here. That is one of the powers of coercion which I deny. It is a personal privilege guarantied to the States, and if they fail to avail themselves of it, it is their own fault.

This House and the Senate, as at present or ganized, constitute Congress, and we have a right to propose amendments to the Constitution. I do not suppose that the framers of the Constitution ever contemplated that eleven States, or any other number of States, should, upon any proposition which did not suit them, absent themselves. But it is a plain proposition that Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, may propose amendments to the Constitution. If we have not the power to do so because the Representatives of eleven States are absent, then all our acts are void. They are not what they purport to be on their face, acts passed by the Congress of the United States. That is one argument. Then, sir, the adoption of the Constitution required the consent of all the States, or, in other words, the States that did not agree to it were not to be bound by it, because in article seven of the Constitution it is expressly declared that all the States agreeing to it should be bound by it. But that is not the rule when these amendments are proposed. Three fourths of the Legislatures of the States, on the recommendation of two thirds of Congress, can propose and ratify amendments. Now, if the constitutional provision was that an amendment should receive the assent of all the States, just as that was required in the original adoption of the Constitution, I admit that the question might be raised whether or not we could proceed in this matter without the assent of those States that are nowabsent; many gentlemen here believing them yet in the Union, although they have thrown themselves outside of its pale for the time being. But that is not the constitutional provision.

To my mind this proposition is so plain that I had never studied much on this subject until I heard the arguments of gentlemen here, but the longer and more closely I look at it the more I become satisfied that that clause in the Constitution amounts to nothing if such objections are to be raised.

Why, sir, upon this subjest of slavery, I know that Alexander Hamilton went home to New York from the Convention which framed the Constitution and told the people there that if they had not compromised on this subject there could have been no Union. I know that other men said so. That goes to satisfy my mind that if the North had held out there would, perhaps, have been no Union. On the other hand, if southern men had not demanded these compromises, in all probability a different Constitution would have been presented to the American people.

I now leave the constitutional question. I have endeavored to satisfy my own mind upon the subject, for to me it would be a stumbling-block if my mind was not clear upon it.

And now, Mr. Speaker, I ask the indulgence of the House while I recur briefly to some of the prominent facts connected with the history of this agitation. Chief among those, to my mind, appears the long-fixed purpose of the rebel leaders to overthrow the Government without regard to slavery, and, in fact, regardless of everything which stood in the way of their own selfish aggrandizement.