Oyf^ 
 
RESTORATION OK THE REBELLIOUS STATES, 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. WILLIAM A. NEWELL, OF NEW JERSEY, 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 4, 1867. 
 
 The House being in the Committee of the Whole 
 on the state of the Union, and having under con- 
 sideration the President's annual message — 
 
 Mr. NEWELL said: 
 
 Mr. Ch.virmax: I propose to submit a few 
 remarks for the consideration of the House 
 upon the annual message of the President of 
 the United States. 
 
 In doing so allow me to call attention to the 
 importance of the issues decided in the great 
 political contest which agitated and almost 
 convulsed the northern States during the recess 
 of the present Congress. Tho.^e issues were 
 not less momentous than the war itself. That, 
 indeed, decided a question of mere physical 
 superiority ; those decided questions of politi- 
 cal principle, which are to be the bases of our 
 future prosperitj'. Whatever we may say of 
 the prowess and perseverance of our people 
 during the war, (and they were such as to attract 
 the admiration of the world to our gallant 
 armies,) we must admit that their conduct all 
 through the late trying political campaign was 
 so admirable as to extract unwilling praises 
 even from the enemies of the country. That 
 political contest was the most trying test ever 
 imposed upon the principle of self-government ; 
 and so well did the people endure it that the 
 most devoted worshipers of monarchical or 
 despotic systems of government have been com- 
 pelled to acknowledge that the strain was not 
 too much for our institutions. Indeed, one of 
 these gentlemen, on a visit to this country, in 
 a speech delivered in this city a few weeks 
 since, is reported to have put off the trying 
 period of our institutions for at least a century. 
 We tliank him for his long respite, and only 
 hope his descendants will do us a similar favor, 
 and as graciously, when they find his promised 
 period of dissolution is as far off as ever. 
 
 The military contest. I remarked, only de- 
 cided a question of military superiority or in- 
 feriocity ; but ike political, a qu«8ti«a «f social 
 
 and material well-being. Consequently the 
 importance of the latter cannot be overrated. 
 Let me call attention to a few points bearing 
 upon that importance. 
 
 Previous to the late war and the political 
 contest just terminated, questions regarding 
 rights of the States as opposed to those of the 
 General Government were constant sources of 
 dispute, which time and again threatened the 
 existence of the Government. Those contests 
 continued from the formation of the Gov- 
 ernment to the present day. Their results 
 were as generally unfavorable to the continu- 
 ance of such a degree of authority in the cen- 
 tral Government as was compatible with its 
 existence in case of the secession of one or 
 more of the States. The gentleman who 
 occupied the executive seat at the outbreak of 
 the rebellion even questioned- the right of the 
 General Government to provide for its own 
 safety in case of such secession. In this view 
 he was sustained by many able men in his own 
 party, who subsequently took part with the 
 Union in the armed conflict, and by nearly all 
 that party in both sections of the country. So < 
 far as political force availed, the victory at that J 
 dark and doubtful period was with the enemies ' 
 of the General Government and in favor of the 
 so-called rights of the States. Many leaders 
 of both political parties wavered. The politi- 
 cians apparently had been so indoctrinated 
 with the prevailing heresy of State rights that 
 it became a question with them whether we 
 really were a nation or a mere confederacy of 
 States, liable to be dissolved at any moment 
 through the ambition of some powerful sec- 
 tional politician acting upon the prejudices of 
 the people under his immediate influence. 
 
 We were almost in that condition which 
 marked the period of the dissolution of all 
 republics, ana indeed of all nations. We were 
 about to be resolved into our original elements. 
 Then wkat saveil an frsia such a frightful catax- 
 
 \ 
 
trophe ? Simply the instinctof national preser- 
 vation in the great heart of the American peo- 
 ple. That instinct was superior to the situa- 
 tion. It rose above the doubts and fears of 
 politicians ; as if the will of the Almighty him- 
 self was behind it urging it on to save the 
 country from destruction it rushed to the res- 
 cue of the Government. It not only appalled 
 the enemy but it strengthened the friends of 
 the Union. In the darkest hour of disaster 
 it never once flinched from its original pur- 
 pose. It was the people that saved the Gov- 
 ernment during the war. It was the people 
 also that saved it during the late political con- 
 test. As they determined by the war that this 
 country should be a nation, so they determined 
 by the late political contest that no party 
 chicanery, that no dictation of men in power, 
 even supposed to be originally for the Union 
 could snatch the fruits of the war from their 
 hands. 
 
 This much was so emphatically decided that 
 he must be a madman or a traitor who doubts 
 it. Look at the influences brought to bear 
 against the people in the late contest ! The 
 whole executive power and patronage of the 
 Government, now swelled to appalling propor- 
 tions, were thrown into the hands of the enemy, 
 so lately humbled and subdued on the field of 
 battle. Every artifice that a long acquaintance 
 with political management and an unscrupu- 
 lous use of political corrupting influences could 
 bring to bear to swerve the people from their 
 pui'i^ose was resorted to. The Executive him- 
 self, with unblushing effrontery and a total dis- 
 regard of the amenities and requirements of 
 his high station, descended into the political 
 arena and sought to bully the masses of the 
 people into suljmission to his autocratic will. 
 Such an exhibition of political violence as 
 was displayed in that pretended monumental 
 tour never before disgraced the country, and 
 for the honor of human nature and the credit 
 of republican institutions I pray God never 
 will again. In the mean time, in every depart- 
 ment of the Government the political ax was 
 descending tipon the heads of men too honest 
 to be corrupted and too patriotic to sell their 
 principles for place. A reign of political ter- 
 ror swept the land from one end to the other, 
 in the midst of which the Executive, by his 
 free pardons to rebels and more by promises 
 of what he would do in the future, was paving 
 the way for the return of the lately defeated 
 rebels to all the political power and to a higher 
 than the political status they had so lately for- 
 feited. 
 
 But in the midst of all this the people pro- 
 ceeded quietly to discharge their duties as citi- 
 zens who were determined to preserve to them- 
 selves a country ; and. as during the late war 
 they proved their prowess upon tlie battle-field 
 by the bayonet, so in the late political contest 
 they asserted their supremacy by the mightier 
 
 weapon of the ballot. By the bayonet they 
 saved us a nation on many a bloody battle- 
 field ; by the ballot, in one great and glorious 
 political contest, they preserved that nation for 
 themselves and their posterity forever. Amer- 
 ican nationality was the all-important question 
 decided by the people in the late contest for 
 political power. The period of that contest 
 will mark the time when the United States 
 entered into the great family of nations, with 
 power equal to if not greater than any other 
 of them all, to make herself feared and respected 
 both at home and abroad. In that contest the 
 Congress of the United States submitted to 
 the people certain propositions for their accept- 
 ance, which propositions it considered essential 
 to the future welfare, if not the very existence, 
 of the Republic. After a contest to which, as 
 I have stated, the annals of our political history 
 afford no parallel, the people accepted these 
 propositions, while the opponents of them re- 
 tired ignominiously from the field. The Execu- 
 tive may yet make a show of resistance to 
 them ; but he must now see (and if he does 
 not it is time he should) that such resistance 
 betokens not only a spirit of factious opposi- 
 tion, but a desire to cater to the prejudices and 
 passions of a section of the country- whose 
 patriotism must at least for some years to come 
 be looked upon with a considerable degree of 
 distrust. After such a political verdict as that 
 lately rendered by the people, opposition to it 
 takes the form of opposition to the country 
 itself. If any belief remains in the hearts of 
 the opponents of the loyal masses of the ability 
 of the people to govern themselves, they must 
 surely see that in the late elections a higher 
 authority than that of any human law asserted 
 itself — the will of God speaking through His 
 chosen instrument— the voice of the jieople. 
 Let those in power heed it ere it be too late. 
 
 As to the terms of the propositions submitted 
 to and indorsed by the people, they are such 
 as the lately rebellious States should be glad 
 to accept. They are magnanimous on the part 
 of the victors and not humiliating to the van- 
 quished. They deprive but a few leading spirits 
 of the rebellion of their rights, and in their 
 cases the deprivation is confined to rights more 
 nearly approaching the character of privileges 
 than any other enjoyed in a republican form of 
 government. In fact, these terms thus ofiered 
 to rebels lately in arms tend to elevate rather 
 than depress the people of that section of the 
 country ; as they open a way for the gradual 
 incorporation into its body-politic of a class 
 of persons who, under proper instruction and 
 encouragement, may become hereafter as polit- 
 ically as they liave heretolbre been socially and 
 materially useful. But even iii this instance no 
 force is used. The elevation of the subject- 
 class of the South to political rights is virtually 
 left in the hands of those who at present wield 
 sovereign sway. It is left for the latter to say 
 
whether they are ready to admit the former to 
 association with them. All the loyal people 
 of the country ask for is security for the future. 
 And is it too much to expect this? In treaties 
 with foreign Powers at the close of the war 
 the victors in all cases ask not only for se- 
 curity for the future, but for indemnity for the 
 past. 
 
 The loyal people of the United States mag- 
 nanimously concede the indemnity ; but let 
 not the late rebels be mistaken, for as magnan- 
 imously as they concede it so as religiously 
 and determinately will they exact the security. 
 There can be no alternative. If the security 
 is not obtained in the way indicated in the 
 amendments as proposed by Congress, it will 
 be obtained in anotner, and I am free to say 
 one more in accordance with my own individ- 
 ual ideas of justice and propriety. That other 
 I indicated as long since as the loth o*f Febru- 
 ary, 18G6, and consists in the assumption ot 
 the right by Congress, by a declaratory act, to 
 pronounce citizenship and suffrage synony- 
 mous ; in other words, to assert the axiom that 
 every man born on American soil is an Amer- 
 icancitizen, and as such heir to all the rights, 
 privileges, and immunities of all other Ameri- 
 can citizens. So that if the rebel States are 
 not willing to concede to the loyal people of 
 the. country the least measure of justice to 
 which the latter are entitled, that is, security for 
 the future, the loyal people themselves will 
 seize that security by simply declaring that 
 universal suffrage shall henceforth be the shib- 
 boleth of American political brotherhood. 
 
 Let these men, then, who by their causeless 
 rebellion have forfeited all their rights of citi- 
 zenship choose whom they will serve, for there 
 are and can be but few alternatives open to 
 them. These alternatives are, the acceptance 
 of the constitutional amendments, the cre- 
 ation of provisional governments, or the ac- 
 knowledgment of the God-given right of all 
 men to govern themselves according to the 
 dictates of their own consciences, uncontrolled 
 by any external inlhiences whatever. Either 
 one of these is eminently just. Indeed, if a 
 preference is to be given on the score of justice. 
 It is to that one which is founded on the prin- 
 ciples which are the corner-stoqe of our polit- 
 ical edifice. That edifice was erected by the 
 people for the people and their posterity ; not 
 by a portion oi the people for the benefit of 
 themselves exclusivelj'. Read every word of 
 the Declaration of Independence, and every 
 article of the Constitution, and you will find 
 no distinction or reservation as to the applica- 
 tion of the rights there secured to any portion 
 of the people. And this was at a time even 
 when nearly every State held a certain class 
 of its people in bondage. 
 
 That fact was ignored to the extent that even 
 when these people were no longer slaves in 
 several of the States they became entitled to 
 
 the suffrage ; they were elevated in all respects, 
 civil and political, to the status of the people 
 among whom they resided. It was only when 
 ■ Judge Taney invented the dogma that by the 
 universal consent and practice of the world at 
 the time the Constitution was formed these 
 per.sons had no rights that white men were 
 bound to respect, that it was discovered, 
 (because of the exi.stence of slavery in several 
 of the States and for the sake of its security,) 
 it was necessary that these people should be 
 declared citizens Ijy a change in the organic 
 act itself. But that change has been effected,' 
 and now there are no sui)jccts in these United 
 States. All are sovereigns, and entitled to 
 sovereign rights. If this were not so, where 
 is the article or articles in the Constitution 
 which provides for the creation of sovereign 
 rights in any person heretofore a subject? 
 There is no such provision. And why? Sim- 
 ply because the Constitution recognizes every 
 man born in the United States as already pos- 
 sessing the rights of sovereignty. There is, 
 to be sure, a provision for naturalization ; but 
 that is wholly in the case of subjects or sov- 
 ereigns of other nationalities. It has no ap- 
 plication to our own people. Judge Taney m 
 the Dred Scott decision says: 
 
 "The Constitution upon its adoption obviously took 
 from the States all power by any subsequent legisla- 
 tion to introduce as a citizen into the political t'ain- 
 iiy of the United States any one, no matter where he 
 was born or what might bo his character or condi- 
 tion." 
 
 Now, then, if the States have no power to 
 elevate any man to citizenship, and Congress 
 has no power to do so except exclusively in 
 the case of aliens, does it not follow that citi- 
 zenship is the natural, inherent right of every 
 man born on the soil, and that to deprive him 
 o.f it would be, not only to violate his inherent 
 rights of humanity, but to sap the foundations 
 of the Government itself? Citizenship in the 
 United States is a right, not a privilege. In 
 monarchical or despotic countries it may be 
 the latter, because the king or the emperor 
 claims to rule by divine right, and thus to dis- 
 pense laws by favor of his gracious will. But 
 in this country all are sovereigns; all are sup- 
 posed to be governed by laws founded on the 
 principles of eternal justice. Xo man can give 
 to another any right as by favor. No man can 
 receive from another any privilege as by right. 
 The moment he does, the nature of the Gov- 
 ernment becomes perverted and the principles 
 of the Constitution violated. 
 
 In the extract above quoted. Judge Taney 
 speaks of the •'political family of the United 
 States.'' Note, he does not say the civil fam- 
 ily. It is the political family to which he 
 alludes. His position would not be tenable 
 in any other sense. Now, the question arises, 
 what constitutes that family? The answer is, 
 those born on the soil: those who are taxed 
 for the support of the Government; those who 
 
are liable to be called upon to bear arms in its 
 defense ; in fine, those who, in every material, 
 moral, and religious sense, are its constituent 
 parts — the units of its aggregate manhood. 
 Every man, then, who is not an alien and who 
 thus refuses allegiance to the Government on 
 the sole ground that he owes it to another, 
 comes within the above category. To deny to 
 him altogether, or to abridge his rights of citi- 
 zenship, is to violate the Constitution of the 
 United States in its most sacred and solemn 
 characteristics. 
 
 "But," say the State-rights interpreters of 
 the Constitution, '"a State can make or un- 
 make a citizen of the United States; can limit 
 his rights, privileges, or immunities, or deny 
 them altogether."' I deny this assumption wi 
 ioto. A State has no right to deprive a citizen 
 of the United States of any rights he enjoys 
 as such. On the contrary, it is expressly pro- 
 vided in the Constitution that the citizens of 
 every State are entitled to the rights, privi- 
 leges, and immunities of the citizens of all the 
 States. Hear what Judge Taney says upon 
 this important point in the decision from which 
 I have heretofore quoted : 
 
 "And if persons of the African race are citizens of 
 a State and of tlie United States they would be en- 
 titledto all those privileses and immunities in every 
 State, and the State could not restrict them, for they 
 would hold these privileges and immunities under 
 the paramount authority of the Federal Government ; 
 and itscourts would be bound to maintain and enforce 
 them, the constitution and the laws of the State to the 
 contrary notwithstandinpr. And if the States could 
 limit or restrict them, or place the party in an inferior 
 grade, this clause of the Constitution would be un- 
 meaning, and could have no operation, and would 
 five no rights to the citizen when in another State, 
 le would have none but what the State itself chose 
 to allow him." 
 
 Now, let us look at the Constitution itself. 
 After reciting in the preamble that, "we, the 
 people for ourselves and our posterity" enact 
 certain provisions of law, the first article reads : 
 
 "The House of Representatives shall be elected 
 by the people of the several States." 
 
 Let our strict constructionists ponder upon 
 this. Can the question of suffrage be delegated 
 to the several States in face of such a posi- 
 tive provision as this? But let us see who are 
 the people of the United States. And here I 
 must again refer my Democratic friends to the 
 Dred Scott decision, in which Judge Taney 
 says: 
 
 "The words 'people of the United States,' and 'cit- 
 izens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same 
 thing." 
 
 But I have already shown that a citizen is not 
 made by Congress nor by the States, but is such 
 by his own inherent right of manhood. I have 
 also shown by the Dred Scott decision, and by 
 the Constitution itself, that the citizen of each 
 State cannot lie deprived of any right, privilege, 
 or immunity inhering in him in his capacity of 
 citizen of the United States. How, then, can 
 a State limit him in those rights, much less 
 deprive him of them altogether? It can only 
 
 be done by a misconception and misinterpreta- 
 tion of the organic act, superinduced by devo- 
 tion to slavery and fostered by monarchical 
 and despotic ideas and prejudices. 
 
 But some persons may answer that suffrage 
 is not a right. If it is not a right, I ask what 
 it is? I have shown that there are really no 
 privileges in the United States ; but, as if to 
 cover the whole ground and deprive the oppo- 
 nents of the sovereign power of the central 
 Government of all ability to cavil, Judge Taney 
 declares not only that a State has no right to 
 deprive a citizen of the United States of any 
 rights inhering in him as such, but that it has no 
 right to de_prive him of any of the privileges or 
 immunities of a citizen. What can be broader 
 than this language ? Does it not cover every 
 ground? Does it not stamp in ineffaceable char- 
 acters as treason to the Constitution any attempt 
 of any State to deprive a single citizen of the 
 United States of any rights, privileges, and 
 immunities inhering in him as such. 
 
 The first article of the Constitution expressly 
 says that the House of Representatives shall 
 be elected by the people of the several States. 
 Now, if a State can step in and say that one 
 of the people within its jurisdiction shall not 
 vote for members of the House of Represent- 
 atives it has power to say that many or all of 
 them shall not so vote ; it has power to say 
 that a citizen shall not vote unless he is worth 
 $1,000 or 810,000 ; that he shall not vote unless 
 he owns a certain quantity of real estate ; that 
 he shall not vote unless he owns a certain 
 amount of railroad stock ; that he shall not 
 vote unless he can read or write ; that he shall 
 not vote unless he can speak French or Span- 
 ish or German ; that he shall not vote unless 
 he is a Protestant; that he shall not vote be- 
 cause he is a Jew or a Catholic; that he shall 
 not vote because he is black ; that he shall not 
 vote because he is white ; in fine that he shall 
 not vote on account of any negative or positive 
 characteristic it may be in the power of the 
 State Legislature to enact to be a bar to the 
 exercise of the franchise. How would such 
 legislation comport with the first article of the 
 Constitution? Would it not virtually nullify, 
 if not expunge it from the organic act? Would 
 it not place this House at the mercy of State 
 Legislatures, who at any time might desire to 
 limit its powers or to confine its jurisdiction to 
 such legislation as the said Legislatures, and 
 they alone, might deem to come within the scope 
 of its authority? 
 
 But, on the other hand, what is the obvious 
 meaning of the first article of the Constitution? 
 Is it not that the House of Representatives 
 shall be a body entirely independent of the 
 State Legislatures, not deriving any authority 
 from them, nor acknowledging any jurisdic- 
 tion of them over either its acts or the rights 
 of the people in selecting its members? Con- 
 gress has no right itself to prescribe the quali- 
 
ficalions of those whom it represents. The 
 Constitution docs this. Surely it is not the 
 intent of the Constitution to code away that 
 right to Legishitures elected for mere local and 
 State purposes ; to foreign bodies having no 
 authority over its deliberations, and even no 
 right (except the right of enjoying in common 
 \vith each individual citizen) to question its 
 acts. I contend that State Legislatures have 
 • no right to limit the jurisdiction or scope of 
 Congress. Who will contend that they have? 
 But would not the power to limit its constitu- 
 ency or to ol)struct it by laws depriving it of 
 any rights enjoyed by that constituency have 
 this effect? It most undoubtedly would. Con- 
 sequently, admitting the right of the States to 
 limit or virtually to annihilate our constituency, 
 and we admit their right to wipe us out of ex- 
 istence or to narrow down our constituency to 
 limits which would make us the representa- 
 tives of a mere oligarchy or aristocracy — an 
 oligarchy founded upon race or color, or an 
 aristocracy founded upon wealth or intelli- 
 gence. 
 
 Supposing one of our great railroad monop- 
 olies were to obtain control of one of the States, 
 not an impossible case, could not its organic 
 act be so altered as to prescribe qualifica- 
 tions for out constituents which would make 
 it impossible to have the great mass of that 
 particular State fairly represented on this lloor? 
 In the same manner, suppose other great cor- 
 porations should combine in other States, and 
 steal away the rights of the people, what would 
 be the result? Why, that this body would be 
 turned into an assembly not representing the 
 people of the United States, but a compara- 
 tively few privileged persons, who would be 
 able, for all time to come, to ride booted and 
 spurred upon the backs of the late sovereign 
 people. Js this the consummation that my 
 Democratic friends so ardently desire to see 
 brought about? 
 
 The truth is, every nation, every political 
 family has a right in its organic act to fix the 
 status of its component units in a free Govern- 
 ment ; indeed, this status is fixed by the irre- 
 versible laws of justice and right, and cannot 
 be changed. It was regarded as so fixed by 
 tli.e framers of the Constitution. It would have 
 continued to be so regarded by their posterity 
 but for the pestilent heresy of State rights, 
 through which it was sought to enslave a por- 
 tion of the body-politic for the special benefit of 
 another portion. 
 
 In what article of the Constitution is con- 
 ceded the right of any particular State to limit 
 or abridge the suffrage as respects the constit-. 
 uency of Congress, the people? In no one. 
 On the contrary, the Constitution provides that 
 that suffrage shall be placed on the very broad- 
 est basis ; nor does it anywhere deny to Con- 
 gress the right to regulate the manner of the 
 expression of that suffrage within the bounds 
 
 of the Constitution itself, of conrso, but totally 
 regardless of the laws of the several States. 
 The States are not represented here but the 
 people ; therefore it is to the people under the 
 United States Constitution, not to the States 
 under their constitutions, that wo are responsible 
 for our acts. What justice would there then 
 be in handing over the control of the expres- 
 sion of llie will of the people whom we here 
 represent to State Legislatures which are cre- 
 ated for- altogether local and State purposes 
 and necessarily limited in their jurisdiction and 
 prescribed in their action ? There would be 
 noj^ whatever. On the contrary, in so acting 
 •WMTould constitute our system of government 
 an anomaly, leaving no foundation in reason 
 or experience, and so obstructive of necessary 
 legislation as to render it incapable of success- 
 ful working. 
 
 It is clearly the province of a State Legisla- 
 ture, in my judgment, merely to determine the 
 time, place, and manner of exercising the pre- 
 rogative of suffrage; to guard and defend it; 
 to preserve its purity; to elevate and dignify it; 
 \ to prevent any infringement upon this sacred 
 right of the people by all necessary legislation ; 
 but 7iecer to confer nor to withhold it. 
 
 I have shown that no State can restrict the 
 rights, privileges, and immunities of a citizen 
 of the United States. Suffrage, instead of 
 being the least, is the mo.st important of these ; 
 and why? Because it guards and protects all 
 the rest. It is in fact the covering that over- 
 shadows like the wings of the angels of the 
 covenant all other rights. Take it away, and 
 in no despotic Government is a man so bereft 
 of right as in that republic which thus deprives 
 its citizens of the only means by which they can 
 render their servants accountable for their 
 actions. In fact such deprivation reduces the 
 citizen to the necessity of taking up arms in 
 order to reinsert his manhood. Thus you 
 prepare the way for revolution hereafter; and 
 revolution which we ourselves have always 
 justified in other nations, on the ground that 
 the fact of their having no voice in their Gov- 
 ernments gave them the right to resort to that 
 ultima ratio of nations and men which has 
 decided so many political contests, but not 
 without an appalling loss of both blood and 
 treasure. Indeed, the ground of our own rev- 
 olution was that we were denied a voice in 
 making our own laws ; we were compelled to 
 submit to taxation without representation. 
 Can we compel peaceably on the part of others 
 that which we resisted to the shedding of blood 
 ourselves? 
 
 But some may say that it is dangerous to 
 extend the suffrage to a race illy prepared to 
 exercise it. Is not the foreigner who comes 
 to our shores totally unacquainted with our 
 manners and customs, our political and so- 
 cial characteristics, after a short probation 
 admitted into full fellowship with tne polili- 
 
cal family? Will my colleague, Mr. Eogers, 
 the leader of the Democratic side of the House, 
 who is very ready to pronounce a particu- 
 lar race as unfit to exercise the rights of 
 freemen, dare pronounce the same ban upon 
 the foreigner? But this ability to exercise 
 the suffrage on the part of this large class of 
 persons must be looked upon in the light of 
 expediency if we once drop down from the 
 position of equal and exact justice to all men. 
 And what will expediency teach us on the sub- 
 ject? Simply that though there may be great 
 evils in extending the suffrage to the lately 
 enslaved race there may be still greater in 
 excluding them altogether and for all time ^m 
 it. By so doing you raise up a class of per- 
 sons alien and foreign to the Commonwealth; 
 you create a governing and a governed class 
 in the United States ; you give the power of 
 life and death to the former over the latter ; 
 you place the property and liberty of one man 
 at the control of another ; you create castes 
 and distinctions in society ; you raise up a 
 class of tyrannical task-masters to reign over 
 a mass of outcasts, and between both you place 
 a gulf over which no man can pass. Think 
 you that under such a condition of things 
 republicanism would be possible? Think you 
 that the evils of an extended suffrage would 
 not be altogether less than the evils of a con- 
 dition of society, for a parallel to which we 
 must only look to misgoverned Ireland or to 
 the oppressed and exhausted Provinces of the 
 British empire of India? 
 
 Yes, gentlemen, suffrage is a delusion and a 
 snare if it cannot be extended to every man 
 created in the image and likeness of his Maker, 
 then is our whole system of government an 
 error of such gigantic proportions as to involve 
 our country in ruin and destruction. For good 
 or evil we are committed to the doctrine of 
 equal rights to all men. For gogd or evil we 
 are bound to follow it to its legitimate conclu- 
 sions. Where it may lead us no human eye 
 may be able to see, ])ut where the opposite 
 principle would ultimately leave us, a stranded 
 and hopeless wreck upon the shores of time, any 
 ordinary mind can foresee. But we know that 
 while following the lead of universal suffrage 
 we are carrying out the principles of justice 
 and humanity, which are the eternal verities 
 of God himself; and where these point it is 
 certainly more safe to presume is the path most 
 likely to conduct us to unity, peace, and pros- 
 perity. 
 
 Some pers®ns indeed favor universal suffrage, 
 but couple it with a general amnesty. By this 
 they propose to set off justice to a wronged 
 and oppressed race against an act of unmerited 
 mercy to their oppressors, who have been at 
 the same time rebels against national authority. 
 I am opposed to any such bartering of right 
 for wrong; of justice for mistaken mercy. 1 
 look upon such a bargain as jeopardizing the 
 
 safety of the nation, which has already cost 
 such fearful sacrifices of life and treasure. 
 Sahis populi suprema est lex is my motto in 
 this and every case relating to public affairs. 
 And I religiously believe that the safety of the 
 Republic requires that the leading spirits of the 
 late rebellion should be deprived of the power, 
 by simple exclusion from office, of again ex- 
 perimenting upon the life of the nation. At 
 the South public sentiment more than at the 
 North is created by the governing class. This 
 arises from the absence of wide-spread educa- 
 tional facilities ; from the fact that political dis- 
 cussions take the form rather of oral communi- 
 cations in mass-meetings than of printed argu- 
 ments in the press. .Consequently the leaders 
 of the South always speak from their hearts to 
 the hearts of the masses. In the North, on 
 the other hand, the leaders more generally 
 speak to the reason. Thus at the South, while 
 the leaders have almost supreme at the North 
 they have but a limited control over the 
 masses, the effect of which is easily set aside 
 by argument and discussion. To give these 
 southern leaders, then, during the present 
 generation another opportunity to "tire the 
 southern heart" is a scheme to which I am 
 unalterably opposed. And especially am I 
 opposed to it when it is linked with a propo- 
 sition to do that which the Constitution makes 
 it peremptory on us to perform ; that is. to 
 render equal and exact justice to every member 
 of the political family of these United States. 
 
 I have spoken in strong terms of the course 
 of the Executive in the late politietil' contest. 
 I was for a long time loth to believe that he 
 had really and for good or evil linked himself 
 with the political enemies of his country. But 
 the fact was forced upon me at length by re- 
 peated acts of usurpation on his part, which 
 have called down upon his head the indignation 
 of a deceived and outraged people. It is now 
 evident that the Executive, almost immediately 
 upon the death of the late lamented President, 
 linked himself with that party which had all 
 through the war, by every means short of 
 actual aid in the field, allied itself with the 
 enemies of the country. Upon his accession 
 to his present place he and that party inaugu- 
 rated a plan of restoration designed to bring 
 back the rebels to power, and when thus brought 
 back in alliance with the Democracy they were 
 again to rule the country in the interests of the 
 South and its institutions. The doctine of 
 State rights was once more to become the rul- 
 ing policy of the country. The States were to 
 be restored to that commanding position which 
 made them the arbiters of the fate of the Gen- 
 eral Government; rebel debts were to be 
 acknowledged ; rebel claims were to be paid. 
 
 It is patent to all that Mr. Johnson lent 
 himself to all the schemes of the most violent 
 partisan Democratic and rebel ])oliticians. 
 They loudly boasted that he was with them, 
 
and that what he did to-day was but a foretaste 
 of vvliiit ho would do to-morrow when the pub- 
 lic luind had been properly prepared for some 
 new outrage or usurpation. Instead of allying 
 himself with Union men in Congress, he con- 
 sorted and counseled with rebels, traitors, and 
 bitter partisan Democrats. Every act of his 
 administration has been inspired by the counsels 
 of sueli perons. livery attack upon the Govern- 
 ment was applauded by their claquers. In line, if 
 the late president of the so-called confederacy 
 had been in the Executive chair, he could not 
 more zealously have espoused the cause of liis 
 late associates than has Mr. Johnson. The only 
 difiference would be that he would have carried 
 on his crusade against the people of the North 
 with more tact and discretion because of his 
 greater ability, superior educational advan- 
 tages, and more extensive acquaintance with 
 the courtesies and amenities of civilized life. 
 No wonder that the public clamor for his 
 impeachment when they reflect on the long 
 list of offenses he has committed against the 
 party and the principles which placed him in 
 power. What are a few of these offenses? 
 
 We find him immediately upon entering upon 
 the duties of his oUice, without consultation 
 with the law-making power, legislating for the 
 southern States in the most autocratic manner. 
 We find him assuming powers which Con- 
 gress only can exercise. 
 
 IrWe find him laying down laws for whole 
 sections of the country ; in fact, making and 
 unmaking statutes for the people of the United 
 States. 
 
 We find him assuming to decide who are 
 and who are not citizens of the United States. 
 We find him excluding loyal men from the 
 right of suffrage. 
 
 We find him authorizing unpardoned rebels 
 to exercise the same right. 
 
 We find him thus handing over the rebel 
 States to disloyal men, and putting the loyal 
 under their tyrannical sway. 
 
 We find him thus elevating rebels who had 
 fought to destroy the Union, and putting down 
 loyal men who had fought to preserve it. 
 
 We find him appointing men governors of 
 States whose hands wereyet red with the blood 
 of slaughtered Union citizens and soldiers. 
 
 We find him letting loose the rebel blood- 
 hounds in New Orleans upon a legal and peace- 
 able assembly of lovul men. The result was 
 a massacre such as froze the heart of the North 
 with horror and dismay, and caused every loyal 
 southern heart to utterly despair of his country. 
 We find him afterward shaking the bloody 
 hands of those murderers in the reception-room 
 of the Presidential Mansion, while he compli- 
 mented them upon the manner in which they 
 had executed his programme for crushing out 
 loyalty at the South. 
 
 We find him denouncing this body as an 
 usurpation. 
 
 We find him threatening that the " next re- 
 bellion to be put down will be at the North," 
 thereby intiTualing that armed force would be 
 used to enforce his policy. 
 
 We find him not satisfied with exciting the 
 passions of the mob against the lawful author- 
 ity of Congress through the press by the ful- 
 minations of himself and satellites, but de- 
 scending to the arena of stuinp oratory in this 
 and other cities, and delivering iiarangues calcu- 
 lated not only to excite a breach of the peace, 
 but a revolution of tho fiovernment itself 
 
 We (ind him, on pretense of laying the cor- 
 ner-stone of a monument to a deceased states- 
 m^Brepeating those harangues at every point 
 on^rs route, the only object of which was to 
 bring the Congress of the United States into 
 contempt and derision. 
 
 We find him thus encouraging the South to 
 resist all attempts at adjustment inconsistent 
 with his ''policy," which makes him really 
 responsible for the present unsettled and dis- 
 tracted Condition of the country. 
 
 Such a catalogue of high crimes and mis- 
 demeanors was never before presented against 
 any executive officer in the whole range of 
 history as can be presented by the present 
 Congress against Andrew Johnson, President 
 of these United States. 
 
 In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me again 
 impress upon the House the importance of the 
 questions decided in the late political contest. 
 They cannot, indeed, be overrated. But that 
 one which is really the most important of all, 
 and which includes all tho others in the scope 
 and bearing of its almost measureless infiu- 
 ences, is that once and forever the United 
 States is a nation, not a simple confederacy of 
 States. From that day the country takes a 
 new departure in its progress toward its final 
 destiny. From that day it stands forth a 
 nation in the family of nations, and has a 
 mission to fuffiU which was impossible before 
 the war. 
 
 Why, sir, who cannot see that the American 
 continent was created to be the abode of one 
 people, and that the artificial incidents of its 
 settlement by its present inhabitants intensify 
 and make more self-evident tho original destiny 
 of the country. There are on the North Ameri- 
 can continent no great national barriers between 
 the diff"erent parts of the country. The only 
 really gigantic barrier, the Kocky mountain 
 chain, running north and south, is easily pierced 
 by the artificial highways essential to modern 
 civilization. In a few short years the whistle of 
 the locomotive will wake the echoes of its snow- 
 capped peaks, and the Atlantic and Pacific will 
 be indissolubly united by those iron bands which 
 will be as hooksof steel binding East and West 
 in eternal amity. The slopes of the continent, 
 from north to south and from west to east, are 
 gradual and almost unbroken. Its rivers are 
 1 navigable for great distances inward. Its pro- 
 
8 
 
 ductions — mineral, vegetable, and animal — are 
 almost similar in character and species, save 
 the natural characteristic features created by 
 isothermal distinctions, which are, however, 
 gradual and not abrupt, as is the case in other 
 continents. As to artificial causes that create 
 and foster similarity, our people are of one lan- 
 guage ; and if there are varieties of race these 
 latter are so blended and harmonized by contact 
 and accretion that the marked features of dis- 
 tinction which characterize other quarters of the 
 globe are in this, if not wholly absent, almost 
 entirely erased. 
 
 In fine, while Europe presents the asp^^of 
 variety in unity, both as regards natura^ftid 
 artificial features, America presents the a^ect 
 of unity with little variety. And this is one 
 great reason that great revolutionary move- 
 ments in politics, literature, and religion appear 
 to sweep over the country from ols end to the 
 other with a resistless power and effect which 
 are often even appalling by the very ^rce and 
 depth of their movement. Such a revolution 
 was our late war and such the late political 
 contest which succeeded it. Let us ponder 
 upon their consequences and effects ; but above 
 all let us not forget that both settled the ques- 
 tion of America's nationality in spite of the 
 opposition of not only the rebels in the field 
 and their sympathizers at the ballot-box, but 
 of the President bringing to bear all the power 
 and patronage of the Government to thwart 
 the will of the people. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, it is a source of extreme mor- 
 tification and regret that my congressional dis- 
 trict cannot claim a full share of the honor 
 achieved in the contest from which we have 
 just emerged, but it must not be inferred that 
 any portion of my Republican constituents have 
 deserted their principles. The result was effected 
 by a combination of influences mainly foreign to 
 the great issue, by the aid of corporations and 
 lavish expenditure of money, which it was 
 impossible successfully to combat. The fullest 
 force of the Federal Administration was turned 
 against me ; secret circulars containing unscru- 
 pulous misrepresentations of my acts and sen- 
 timents, supposititious extracts from a speech, 
 not one word of which did I ever utter ; garbled 
 extracts from my public papers, a base and 
 ungenerous appeal to the passions and preju- 
 dices of a large class of voters, by misrepresent- 
 ing my motives and action in the discharge of a 
 solemn and painful executive duty years gone 
 by, were circulated without limit. In a district 
 of uncertain political character, ofttimes Dem- 
 ocratic, these and other less important causes, 
 together with an unfounded confidence in our 
 success, have conspired to deprive us of an ad- 
 ditional Representative. But, whilst an indi- 
 vidual has fallen, and his ripple will soon sub- 
 side, our lofty and sacred principles are imper- 
 ishable and will never fade away. It rejoices 
 me to remember that I have been their early 
 and earnest advocate, and I shall never cease 
 to cherish and defend them. 
 
 Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 744 751 4 
 
 peRmalTpe* 
 pH8J