/ 
 
 HOLUNGER 
 pH8.5 
 
 MILL RUN F3-1343 
 
f 668 
 :D33 
 3opy 1 
 
 1 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 \fe/ 
 
 J 
 
 J X«jr-.- 
 
 THE POLITICAL CONDITION OF THE STATES UTELY IN REBELLION; 
 
 DiiLITERED 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 10, 1860. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
 
 1866. 
 

RECONSTRUCTION. 
 
 The House having under consideration the Pres- 
 ident's message, as in Committee of the Whole on 
 the state of the Union — 
 
 Mr. DELANO said: 
 
 Mr. Speaker: I propose to examine the fol- 
 lowing quesffon : what is the political condition 
 of the States lately in rebellion ? 
 
 Fonr years and more of war has produced great 
 changes in the social condition of the insurrec- 
 tionary States, and has materially affected the 
 political relations heretofore existing between 
 them and other States of the Union. These 
 mighty changes cast uj^on us the momentous 
 question which I propose to consider. The im- 
 portance of this question has never been equaled 
 by any subject presented to an American Con- 
 gress since the formation of our Government. 
 In my opinion, upon its proper solution depends 
 not only the peace and prosperity, but the ex- 
 istence of our country. Differences of opinion 
 in regard to the condition of these States and 
 as to the bestmanner of restoring them to their 
 normal condition in the Union, must be ex- 
 pected. These differences are not merely nat- 
 ural, but necessary. Our forefathers in form- 
 ing this Government, and in framing the great 
 fundamental law for its control, encountered 
 like differences of sentiment hi regard to the 
 great organic law which they had undertaken 
 to make ; but with a proper respect for the 
 judgment of each other, and in a spirit of con- 
 cession and conciliation, they entered upon 
 their work, and accomplished itharmoniously. 
 Let a like spirit animate this Congress. Let 
 a proper apjireciation for honest differences 
 among each other, or between ourselves and 
 other departments of this Government, prevail 
 Let us all be forbearing toward those from 
 whom we ask a like exercise of charity, and I 
 sincerely believe we shall be able to adjust the 
 great measures before us, for the l^est interest 
 and with the appi-obation of our common con- 
 stituents, in such a manner as to juake solid 
 the foundations of our Government. Thus the 
 
 present threatening clouds will pass away, and 
 universal peace and harmony be restored. 
 
 I propose to analyze the condition of public 
 opinion upon this question as it seems to pre- 
 sent itself in this House. 
 
 First, there is a class of persons who insist 
 that the insurrectionary States are not only in 
 the LTnion, but that they are States in the full- 
 est sense of the term, having a right to demand 
 representation on this floor. I do not know 
 whether this cla'ss is willing to admit Repre- 
 sentatives still seething in treason and rebel- 
 lion, whose hands are red withthelJloodof our 
 slaughtered countrymen, who are yet unv/illing 
 to yield submissively to the great decisions of 
 the war ; but whether or not they are so willing 
 I do not belong to this class of politicians. 1 
 believe these States are in the Union and that 
 they possess the right of local and domestic 
 legislation ; that their proper relation with other 
 States has been so interrupted and changed as 
 to deprive them of the absolute right to demand 
 the admission of members to this floor without 
 conditions and jjroper qualifications for mem- 
 bership. 
 
 Secondly, it is insisted by another class that 
 these States are dead, in the condition of con- 
 quered provinces, subject to be governed by 
 Congress in all respects as any other Territory. 
 I have no faith in this theory. I do not believe 
 the States have been destroyed, nor that they 
 may be held a§ conquered Territories, and I 
 propose to lay before this House and the coun- 
 try, briefly as possible, myreasons for opposing 
 this theory. 
 
 The distinguished gentleman from Pennsyl- 
 vania, [Mr. Stevexs,] in opening the debate 
 upon this subject, announced the startling prop- 
 osition that these States are dead! It was put 
 forth, manifestly, as the theory which was to 
 guide the majority of this House in their delib- 
 erations and legislation in the important ques,- 
 tions of reconstruction. The sagacity and in- 
 fluence of the honorable gentleman wlio made 
 
4 
 
 this announcement are acknowledged and felt 
 in this House and throughout the country. His 
 capacity to understand the remote consequences 
 of any position he assumes, and to trace those 
 conseeiuenccs to their full extent and inHuonoe 
 no one appreciates more fally than myself. 
 I was, therefore, naturally and necessarily 
 alarmed to see this proposition coming from an 
 acknowledged leader of the House at the open- 
 ing of this debate, under circumstances justi- 
 fying the apprehension that it was to guide and 
 lead this House to its final conclusion upon the 
 subject. 
 
 1 niakethese observations to justify myself in 
 giving so much attention, as I shall give, in 
 these remarks, to what has been said by the gen- 
 tleman from Pennsylvania. That I may do the 
 gentleman no injustice, I make the following 
 quotations from his speech of December 18, 
 1865. Of the States lately in rebellion, he says : 
 
 "They have torn their constitutional States into 
 atoms:, and built on their foundations fabrics of a 
 totally ilifl'crcnt character. Dead men cannot raise 
 themselves; dead States cannot restore their own 
 existence as it was." 
 
 Then, referring to the Constitution, he quotes 
 from the third section of the fourth article the 
 following: 
 
 "New States may be admitted by the Congress into 
 this Union." 
 
 And proceeds thus : 
 
 "In my judgment this is the controlling provision 
 in this case. Unless the law of nations is a dead letter, 
 the late war between the two acknowledged belliger- 
 ents severed their original compacts, and broke all 
 the ties which bound them together. The future con- 
 dition of the conquered power depends upon the will 
 of the conquerors. They must come in as new States, 
 or remain as conquered provinces." 
 
 In another place in the same speech he says: 
 
 " To prove that they are and for four years have 
 been out of the Union, for all legal purposes, and 
 being now conquered, subject to the absolute dispo- 
 sal of Congress, I will suggest a few ideas and adduce 
 a few authorities." 
 
 The learned gentleman then proceeds to show 
 that the confederate States, during the war, 
 were an independent belligerent, and were so 
 acknowledged by the United States and by 
 Europe, and were, therefore, precisely in the 
 condition of a foreign nation with whom we 
 were at war ; citing, in support of this position, 
 several writers on the law of nations andthe 
 decisions of the Supreme Court of the United 
 States. Further references seem needless to 
 show the position of the gentleman on this 
 subject. 
 
 The gentleman from Pennsylvania was soon 
 followed by my honorable colleague [Mr. SiiEi.- 
 labauoer] in an able and elaborate speech which 
 appears tosastain,su))stantially,lhcsamc views. 
 Tiaat 1 may do my colleague no injustice, I will 
 quote a passage from his speech, showing that 
 
 he considers the insurgent States as having lost 
 the rights. and powers of government, and that 
 the United States may and ought to assume and 
 exercise these lost powers. Here, I may re- 
 mark that I might quote many other passages 
 to the same effect, but the one I am about to 
 produce seems sufficient. 
 
 My colleague asks, what is before Congress? 
 And answers it thus : 
 
 " It is, under our Constitution, possible to, and the . 
 late rebel! ion did in fact so, overthrow and usurp in the 
 insurrectionary States the loyal State governments as 
 that during such usurpation, such States and their 
 people ceased to have any of the rights and powers of 
 government as States of this Union. And this loss of 
 the rights and powers of government was such thatr^- 
 the United States may and ought to assume and exer- 
 cise local powers of the lost State governments." 
 
 Mr. SHELLABARGER. Mr. Speal^er,^! 
 certainly would not interrupt my colleague but 
 for the remark that he made prefatory to that 
 one in which he introduced an allusion to my- 
 self. 1'hat prefatory remark compels me either j 
 to arise for' the purpose of explanation or else 
 to acquiesce in what is a mistaken interpreta- 
 tion of what I said. 
 
 Now, had he completed the sente.ice, apart 
 of which he read, he would have found that in 
 attributing to me the position which I under- 
 stood him to attribute to me, he does me unin- 
 tended injustice. I will complete the sentence, 
 only adding that which is material for the ex- 
 planation that I desire now to make. I must 
 read the whole sentence so as to introduce and 
 give the effect of the part omitted. It reads : 
 
 "It is under our Constitution possible to, and the 
 late rebellion did in fact so, overthrow and usurp in 
 the insurrectionary States the loyal State governments 
 as that, during such usurpation, suph States and their 
 people ceased to have any of the rights or powers of 
 govcrnmeat as States of this Union" — i 
 
 Notice thati say ' •' during such usurpation" — 
 
 " and this loss of the rights and powers of govern- 
 ment was such that the United States may and ought 
 to assume and exercise local powers of the lost State 
 governments, and may control the readmission of 
 such States to their powers of government in this 
 Union" — 
 
 Now, here Is the part of the sentence to which 
 I desire to call attention — 
 
 "subject to and in accordance with the obligation to 
 guaranty to each State a republican form of govern- 
 ment.'" 
 
 Now, sir, my proposition is that it was the 
 governing capacity or property alone that was 
 overthrown, and that that state of things has 
 intervened and occurred to make it the duty of i 
 the Government of the United States, not to I 
 hold these people as conquered Territories, but | 
 to restore to them republican governments, and I 
 that we cannot hold them, therefore, as con- j 
 quered Territories, but that that holding is sulj- 
 ject to that guarantee to which 1 alluded in the 
 
last part of the sentence. 1 know my distin- 
 guished colleague will do me the justice to give 
 me the benefit of the last and important part 
 of the sentence. 
 
 Mr. DELANO. Now, Mr. Speaker, before 
 noticing the gentleman's remarks any further, 
 J. will ask him — because that will settle the 
 question without attempting to interpret what 
 he has said heretofore— whether he believes 
 that Congress has a right, under any provision 
 of the Constitution, to exercise power over these 
 States as Territories, or, in his own language, 
 "to exercise local powers of the lost State gov- 
 ernments'' under the present state of facts, and 
 asthings now exist? This question, if answered 
 directly, will bring the gentleman to an issue, 
 and I shall understand him. 
 
 Mr. SHELLABARGER. Mr. Speaker, I 
 reply to the gentleman's inquiry by saying that 
 I do hold, as I stated in that sentence, that 
 there has occurred in the rebel States that state 
 of things in which they have lost their "prac- 
 tical relations to the Governmentof the United 
 States," if I may be permitted to adopt the 
 language of our late and lamented President. 
 I care not Avhether you call that being in the 
 Union or out of the Union. 
 
 There is no need of our falling out here 
 about mere. dialectics. 
 
 My proposition is that, where a loyal State 
 government by rebellion has been utterly swept 
 av/ay, there does revert to the United States 
 during that hiatus in the State government (if 
 you will pardcBi the cxprc^ssion) such amount of 
 "local control over the States as will enable the 
 United States to render efl'ectual the provision 
 of the guarantee? clause of the Constitution, and 
 such as.will enable the United States first, to 
 take care of the people during that interim, 
 and next, and as speedily as practicable, to 
 restore and reestablish a local State govern- 
 ment, republican in form, within the State, 
 which was never destroyed, and cannot be until 
 the Constitution is overthrown. 
 
 Mr. DELANO. . T thought, Mr. Speaker, 
 that I did not misunderstand my colleague ; I 
 still think so. 
 
 I once had an acquaintance, the president of a 
 railroad company, of whom it was said that he 
 had a peculiar faculty of deciding against those 
 whom Jie wanted to decide against by " letting 
 them down easy." Adopting that illustration, 
 I feel that my friend does come to the very con- 
 sequences of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
 although I admit he does not step off the preci- 
 pice into the abyss by one single leap, but, as 
 lie explains himself here to-day, he "comes 
 down easy." 
 
 He is, i-hen, in favor of this Congress exer- 
 cisinglocal powers oflegislation for these States. 
 He does believe (and that is the whole theory 
 of his speech) that the powers of these States 
 are overthrown and lost. If he is correct, then 
 the gentleman from Pennsylvania is right, and 
 
 1 he States as pol i tical organizations are ' 'dead. ' ' 
 They are without law, and chaos reigns, until 
 Congress shall establish law for them. 
 
 This places them in the power of Congress, 
 subject to be governed as Territories and insid- 
 iously opens the door to rule and govern, con- 
 fiscate and destroy, as effectually as the gentle- 
 man from Pennsylvania can desire. 
 
 Mr. SHELLABAUGEU. May I ask ray 
 colleague a single question? 
 
 Vir. DI5LAN0. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. SHELLABAilGEil. lam permitted, 
 Mr. Speaker, through the courtesy of my most 
 excellent colleague, to ask him a question, for 
 which privilege 1 am obliged to him. 
 
 I wish to ask the gentleman whether he holds 
 that in that very condition of things, which by 
 sad history we know has existed in those States, 
 during which loyal State goverments have not 
 in fadtbeen in existence, the United States can 
 exercise no control locally for the purposes ot 
 protecting the loyal people there and restoring 
 State governments as soon as possible ? 
 
 Mr. DELANO. If the gentleman Avill be 
 patient I shall answer this question fully, it be- 
 ing one of the questions I propose to examine 
 during my remarks. That 1 may not seem to 
 evade it, however, I will say here, while pass- 
 ing, that in their present condition 1 do not 
 believe they are so destitute of the powers of 
 government as to authorize the United States 
 to ' ' exercise local powers of the lost State gov- 
 ernments," as my colleague exjjresses it. 
 
 This theory of dead Slates was-rested by the 
 gentleman from Pennsylvania upon the propo- 
 sition that during the war Vv'e granted to the 
 States in rebellion belligerent rights ; that we 
 thereby acknowledged them to be foreign ter- 
 ritory and a foreign Power, whereby we sub- 
 jected them to the laws of conquest; that, hav- 
 ing conquered them, they are now held as 
 provinces, suljjectto our will -and pleasure. No 
 respectable author upon the law of nations 
 maintains the doctrine that the acknowledg- 
 ment of belligerent rights during a civil war 
 converts the insurgents into a foreign nation. 
 Vattel says, page 424 : 
 
 " When a party is formed in a State who no longer 
 obey the sovereign, and arc pOi<sessed of sufficient 
 strength to oppose him ; or when in a republic the 
 nation is divided into two opposite factions, and both 
 sides take up arms, this is called civil war." * * 
 * * "The sovereign, indeed, never fails to be- 
 stow the appellation of rebels on all such of his sub- 
 jects as openly resist him; but when the latter have 
 acquired sufficient strength to give him effectual op- 
 opsition, and oblige him to carry on the war according 
 to the established rules, he must necessarily submit 
 to the use of the term civil war." 
 
 On page 425 he further observes: 
 
 "This being the case, it is very evident that the com- 
 mon lav7s of war, those maxims of humanity, modera- 
 tion, and honor already detailed in this work, ought 
 to be observed by both parties in every civil war." 
 
6 
 
 Following this argument, the Supreme Court 
 of the United States, in the jirize cases, says : 
 
 "The laws of war, as established amons nations, 
 have their foundation in reason, and all tend to miti- 
 gate the cruelties and misci'y produced by the scourge 
 of war; hence the i)arties to a civil war usually con- 
 cede to each other belligerent rights; they exchange 
 prisoners, and adopt other courtesies and rules com- 
 mon to public or national wars." 
 
 Further authorities are needless to show that 
 granting belligerent rights to the insurgents did 
 not convert them into a foreign nation, nor their 
 territory into foreign States. The insurrection 
 •was gigantic, requiring great numbers and large 
 means to subdue it. Its dui-ation and vicissi- 
 tudes during its progress required flags of truce, 
 exchange of prisoners, and "other courtesies 
 and rules coiiimonHo national wars."' To this 
 extent the rebels were treated as a belligerent 
 Power, and to this extent only. They were 
 thus treated because humanity and the law of 
 nations demanded it, in mitigation of the cruel- 
 ties and evils produced by the scourge of war. 
 Oui' extensive coast bordering the States in in- 
 surrection would have furnished tl:e insurgents 
 a foreign intercourse so valuable in sustaining 
 the rebellion had it not been subjected to a 
 blockade as to render such a measure for the 
 time being a necessity. Is it legitimate, then, 
 to conclude that these necessary measures dic- 
 tated by humanity, and resorted to in obedi- 
 ence to the laws of nations in order to mitigate 
 the cruelties of the insurrection and shorten 
 its duration, converted the insurgent territory 
 into a foreign nation? Clearly not. This pro- 
 cess of reasoning has been answered by the 
 following inquiry, if correct, what becomes 
 of the right and power of the Government to 
 punish treason? For traitors are transformed 
 into foreign foes, and the treason of insur- 
 gents is converted into legitimate war of an 
 alien enemy hy this rapid logic of belligerent 
 rights. 
 
 Seeing the gentleman thus hard pressed, my 
 esteemed colleague, [Mr. Shellabarger,] imi- 
 tating A.chilles when the Greeks were in distress, 
 comes into the conflict, if not with new armor, 
 at least with new arguments, and suggests that 
 the Supreme Court has decided that "it is a 
 proposition never doubted that the belligerent 
 l)arty who claims to be sovereign may exercise 
 both belligerent and sovereign rights,'" and he 
 proceeds to assert as conclusions fi'om the de- 
 cision of the Supreme Court, first, that the rebel 
 States acted as States in organizing the rebellion ; 
 secondly, that all their citizens were thereby 
 made enemies; thirdly, that though enemies they 
 did not become foreign States, so that when we 
 take them back we must pay their debts ; fourth- 
 ly, that the United States may exercise over 
 these people both belligerent and sovereign 
 rights. Before referring to what my colleague 
 said on this point, I call the attention of the 
 House to the following additional remarks of 
 
 the court in the prize cases, from which he';' 
 has quoted : 
 
 "All persons residing within this territory are to 
 be treated as enemies, though not foreigners. 
 
 "But in defining the meaning of the term 'ene- 
 mies' property,' we will be led into error if we refer 
 to Flcta or Lord Coke. It is a technical phrase, pe- 
 culiar to prize courts, and depends upon principles 
 of public policy as distinguished from the common 
 law." — Prize Ccwes, 674. 
 
 Thus it will appear, b}" the authorities in- 
 troduced by my colleague in order to relieve 
 the gentleman from Pennsylvania from the dif- 
 ficulty growing out of his assertion that the in- 
 sui'gent district had become a foreign nation, 
 that the revolting States did not convert their 
 people into foreign enemies, in the common- 
 law definition of the term, and lience by their 
 overthrow we do not inherit their debts. My 
 proposition is therefore established that tl^e 
 granting of belligerent rights as an act of hu- 
 manity did not place the parties at war in the 
 same relations as nations foreign to each other. 
 Thus are tirn up, root and branch, the prem- 
 ises and the conclusions of the gentleman from 
 Pennsylvania. And thus also is established 
 the power of the United States to grant bel- 
 ligerent rights and maintain sovereign author- 
 ity, whereby she was enabled to crush the in- 
 surrection, to save the Union, to guaranty re- 
 publican governments in the insurgent States, 
 and prevent these States from becoming foreign 
 territory with alien enemies as inhabitants. 
 
 The fearful consequences resulting from this 
 theory that the States are dead must not be 
 overlooked. Several months ago I heard the 
 key-note of this policy coming from the gentle- 
 man from Pennsylvania, in a speech delivered 
 in Lancaster county. It was then proposed, 
 according to my recollection, to confiscate the 
 property of the late confederate States, and dis- 
 pose of it, in part for the payment of the public 
 debt, in part for the settlement of the emanci- 
 pated blacks, and in part to increase the pen- 
 sions of those who suffered in the late war. I 
 was shocked at this scheme of universal con- 
 fiscation, and felt as if America would lose her 
 reputation before the nations of the eailh if we 
 should adopt it. It rests on the theory of • ' dead 
 States and conquered provinces." I have a 
 profound respect for the ability and the patriot- 
 ism of the gentleman from Pennsj-lvania, and 
 I will not say that it is his purpose to push his 
 theory to all the terrible consequences which 
 appear to me to be its natural and inevitable 
 fruits. Should it be carried to this terrible ex- 
 tent, lean imagine nothing which this Congress 
 has the power to do that would be fraught with 
 sb much danger to the country or be likely to 
 bring so much reproach upon our good name. 
 Why, sir, the Duke of Alva executed the de- 
 crees of a Ijigoted and lanital master while ruling 
 in the Netherlands, and thus carried misery and 
 suffering among an oppressed and downtrodden 
 
l)eople. But this gigantic scheme of plunder, if 
 carried out to its full extent, as T understand it, 
 would far outstrip the desolation and ravage 
 caused by the cruelties which I have referred 
 to, and would make the ghost of the noble Duke 
 biush at his own tiraidit}' and confess that he 
 was not a plunderer lit to provide for the re- 
 construction of the ri'hel States of America ! 
 Crossing the English Channel and contemplat- 
 ing Cromwell's famous settlement of Ireland, 
 you behold an extensive scale of plunder and 
 devastation which shocks the sense of justice 
 and fires with indignation the bosom of evfery 
 honest and philantliropic man; and yet, Mr. 
 Speaker, all that fearful ravage fades into insig- 
 niticance before the scheme proposed for our 
 adoption in these States lately in rebellion. 
 'i'ou say they are dead ! And already, I fear, 
 you have excited the appetite of that class of 
 (■ creation who desire to feed on their remains. 
 They hear the watchword and swell the chorus, 
 ' ' dead States and conquered provinces. ' ' There 
 are birds of prey which wing their way through 
 the blue sky seeking the remains of something 
 dead. There are quadrupeds who delight to 
 least their appetites on the carcasses of the 
 <lead, and if you solemnly declare the annihi- 
 lation of these States, rendering it necessary 
 to govern them Ijy your own action, the new 
 patronage thereby created, the innumerable 
 appointments to governorships, judgeships, and 
 other profitable places for the gratification of 
 ambition and avarice, will, I fear, fill the land 
 with political cormorants eager to satisfy their 
 appetites on the remains of dead States. I can- 
 not therefore sanction this policy. If I stand 
 solitary and alone, I will never, no never, sanc- 
 tion it. I will not attempt to govern these 
 States on the ground that they have lost "their 
 local powers." 
 
 Mr. STEVENS said he was absent from the 
 Hall when the gentleman made allusion to him, 
 and he wished now to observe that he never 
 held the doctrine that the southern States were 
 dead, but had ai-gued that it made no difference 
 whether they were in or outof the Union as to 
 the question of reconstruction. He held that 
 those States were organized, but organized 
 under another Government besides our own, 
 Init still States. The gentleman mistook his 
 position as to confiscation. He did not advo- 
 cate a general sweep, but that the lands of a 
 large number of the rebels ought to be confis- 
 cated, in order to meet the expenses incurred 
 by putting doAvn the rebellion and to increase 
 the pensions of soldiers. 
 
 Mr. DELANO. My recollection is that the 
 gentleman, in his speech at Lancaster, said that 
 four thousand millions of money might be made 
 out of confiscation, and the money distributed 
 in the way stated. But I am now glad to know 
 that the gentleman has abandoned, if he ever 
 held to, the theory of "dead States and con- 
 quered provinces, "and that he rejects the policy 
 
 of a "general sweep" in confiscation. If 
 we must have any confiscation, the less we 
 have the better shall I be pleased. It is a 
 relief to learn that a "general sweep" is not 
 demanded. 
 
 In the course of my argument, hereafter, I 
 Avill endeavor to define Avhat a State is, as we 
 understand it in the United States, not what it is 
 as defined by Vattel or Grotius or other writers 
 on the law of nations; for, in my judgment, 
 there is a material difference though not an 
 entire dissimilarity in the cases. Then, sir, I 
 will endeavor to show that the late insurrection 
 devolved upon the General Government the 
 duty of preserving' the State governments in the 
 insurrectionary districts. I will further attempt, 
 to show that the Federal Government accepted 
 this duty and has performed it, thus fulfilling 
 her constitutional engagement. 
 
 Then, sir, I will insist that the legislation of 
 Congress, the acts of the Executive, and of the 
 Executive Departments, under the laws of Con- 
 gress, have uniformly, from the commencement 
 to the close of the war, recognized the conflict 
 as a war to save the States, not to destroy them. 
 And I will attempt to prove that these acts of 
 recognition are final and conclusive in favor of 
 the existence of the States, according to the 
 decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, in the case of Luther vs. Borden. T 
 Howard. 
 
 WHAT IS A STATK? 
 
 In our complex system, and while speaking 
 of a member of the Federal Union, I will ven- 
 ture to define it thus : a political organization, 
 proceeding from the people, having a written 
 constitution defining its powers, created for the 
 purpose of establishing law and order within 
 certain fixed territorial limits, and having also 
 a fixed and constitutional relation with other 
 like States, whereby the Federal Union is es- 
 tablished. 
 
 Here, mark it, the State appears in a two- 
 fold capacity. First, as a political organization 
 for local government. Second, as an integral 
 part of that greater Government, the United 
 States, which vras created by our fathers in 
 order to "establish justice, insure domestic 
 tranquillity, provide for the common defense, 
 promote the general welfare, and secure the 
 blessings of liberty." Each of these qualities 
 or characteristics ought to be kept prominently 
 before our minds in this discussion, because 
 they must each be dealt with, each having been 
 brought under the influence of the insi;rrection. 
 We shall see, I think, that one of these cpaali- 
 ties or characteristics may be assailed, and may 
 suffer without necessarily destroying the exist- 
 ence of the other ; because it is a rule of hu- 
 manity, pervading all Christian civilization, that 
 destruction shall stop when the necessity for it 
 ceases. 
 
 Having thus defined a State, and attempted, 
 very briefly, to exhibit its twofold nature, I ask 
 
8 
 
 what duty, if any, did the late insurrection 
 devolve upon the Federal Government? 
 
 WHAT WAS THK nUTY OF TUK UNITED STATKS AKTEIl THE 
 IXSUURECTION COMMENCED ? 
 
 The fourth section of the fourth article of the 
 Constitution of the United States i^rovides that — 
 
 "The United States shall guaranty to every State 
 in this Union a rcpublioan form of government, and 
 shall protect each of them against invasion," &c. 
 
 It is proposed by the gentleman from Penn- 
 ;*ylvania, under this clause, to find authority 
 for governing "dead States,'' now no longer 
 States, but Territories. Nothijig to my mind 
 seems more illogical, notto say absurd. If dead, 
 they are not States, and have no governments 
 to be guarantied. If Territories, held by con- 
 quest, at the will and mercy (forgive the word) 
 of the conqueror, and you desire to convert 
 rhem into States, then observe the third sec- 
 tion of the fourth article, and you will find ex- 
 plicit and undouljted authority to proceed— 
 
 " New States may be admitted by the Congress into 
 the Union." 
 
 Very slight attention to the history of the 
 fourth section of the fourth article will, I think, 
 sustain my view of the section. The framers 
 of the Constitution intended to guard against 
 the return of any State to an aristocratical, mo- 
 narchical, or any other form of government not 
 republican. They also designed to guard the 
 States against invasion and domestic violence. 
 
 When it is reraembei-ed that at the close of 
 !.he Revolution there were not wanting persons 
 who thought republics insecure, unstable, and 
 liable to degenerate into anarchy, it may be 
 seen at a glance why the wisdom of those great 
 men who devised our Constitution made it the 
 duty of the Federal Government to guaranty, 
 to secure, to each State a "republican form of 
 governraxint.'' All the States were interested 
 in having each State rest upon republican prin- 
 ciples. Mr. ]\Iadison, in the forty-third number 
 of the Federalist, while explaining this clause, 
 holds the following language : 
 
 "In !i confederacy founded on republican princi- 
 ples, and composed of republican members, the super- 
 intending Government ought clearly to possess au- 
 tbority to defend the system against aristocratic or 
 monarchical innovations. The more intimate the 
 nature of such a union may be the greater interest 
 liavcthe members in the political institutions of each 
 other, and the greater right to insist that the forms 
 <if Government under which the compact was entered 
 into sliould be substantially maintained." 
 
 Pursuing this subject, in the same letter, Mr. 
 Madison says; 
 
 " Where else could the remedy be deposited than 
 wli.To it is deposited by the Constitution?" 
 
 And. then, after answering some objections 
 that might be urged against giving the General 
 Government this right and power of guarantee, 
 he uses the following language, which indicates 
 
 the. 
 
 cnt ^ 
 
 that his mind was inspired with a vision of the 
 emergencies and calamities through which the 
 nation has passed. He says : 
 
 "If the interposition of the General Goverum 
 should not be needed, the provision forsuch an event 
 will be a harmless superfluity ouly. But who causay 
 what experiments maybe produced by the caprice of 
 particular States, by the ambition of enterprising 
 leaders, or by the intrigues and influence of foreign 
 Powers?" 
 
 Upon this clause in the Constitution guaran- 
 tj«ing to each State a republican form of gov- 
 ernment I am willing to rest all the power.-^ 
 exercised by the United States in crushingthe 
 late insurrection. The confederate States had. 
 prior to the rebellion, governments republican 
 in form. These governments had been recog- 
 nized l)y the General Government and they had 
 received the sanction of the people. The in-, 
 surrection sought to change these governments 
 in their relations to the Union and to consoli- 
 date the insurgent States into a confederacy 
 resting upon an aristocracy, odious in princi- 
 ple, repugnant to liberty, and shocking to hu- 
 manity ! It was the duty of the Federal Gov- 
 ernment to resist, and, if possible, to prevent 
 the consummation of this nefarious, anti-repub- 
 lican scheme. She accepted this duty. She 
 accepted it in behalf of the loyal and non- 
 revolting States ; but more than this, she ac- 
 cepted it in behalf of the loyal minorities that 
 still remained in the insurgent States. The par- 
 ent Government was not deaf to the cry of this 
 minority, nor could she be, so long as she ac- 
 knowledged the great duty imposed by the Con- 
 stitution. I am not without authority on this 
 point, which, in certain quarters, commands 
 more respect than it does from me. I there- 
 fore refer to the one hundred and twenty-ninth 
 section of volume one, Bishop's Criminal Law. 
 which saj's: 
 
 " "When for any reason, as for instance when a State 
 has passed what is termed in these days an ordinance 
 of secession, there ceases to be within the State a gov- 
 ernment under the Constitution of the United States, 
 the 'guarantee' mentioned iu this section of the 
 Constitution attaches, and the 'United States' bo- 
 comes obligated to give the State a republican form 
 of government." 
 
 This opinion fully supports my construction 
 of the clause in the Constitution under consid- 
 eration, and hence I have quoted it, because f 
 agree that it is right, except in so far as it as- 
 serts that by an ordinance of secession "there 
 ceases to bo a government within the State 
 under the Constitution of the United States.'' 
 This assertion is a fallacy, and I doubt if there 
 can be found a lawyer in this House who will 
 attempt to sustain it. Can an illegal and voiil 
 ordinance carry a State out of the Union".' And 
 what if this ordinance be followed by the organ- 
 ization of another government within such 
 State? This new government is illegal, uncon- 
 stitutional, and void, and the simple duty of 
 
9 
 
 the General Government in such cases is to 
 sustain and guaranty the old, the legal, the re- 
 publican government previously existing and 
 constitutionally created. Why, sir, there were 
 once two contlicting governments in Rhode 
 Island — the Dorr government, and the old and 
 legal government, or one created under and 
 by the old charter government, and the Uni- 
 ted States, recognizing her power and duty 
 under the Constitution, interposed, and guar- 
 antied the rightful and legal government of 
 Rhode Island ; and this was done by the^ct of 
 the President of the United States, who, acting 
 under powers conferred on him bj^ an act of 
 Congress, dated February 28, 1795, recognized 
 the constitutional government, and took meas- 
 ures to call out the militia to sujjport the law- 
 ful authority of the State. 
 
 This act of the President was held by the 
 Supreme Court as settling the question, which 
 was the lawful government in the State; and 
 thus was fulfilled, in that case, by the United 
 States, the duty of guai-antyingto Rhode Island 
 her rightful government. I may refer to this 
 case again before closing, to exhibit its bear- 
 ing upon another branch of the subject. 
 
 I have already shown that Mr. Bishop ad- 
 mits the duty of the United States to guaranty 
 to each State a republican form of government. 
 Now, let us follow him a little further, and ob- 
 serve, understaudingly, what he says. In sec- 
 tion one hundred and thirty-two, volume one, 
 he remarks : 
 
 "Except, therefore, for the clause guarantying re- 
 publican governments to the States, the United States 
 might, if it chose, after a State has committed what is 
 called an act of secession," * * ■•' * "legis- 
 late for it forever to the exclusion of any subsequent 
 State legislation. But the clause under consideration 
 provides that the United States shall guaranty to the 
 State a republican form of government. Therefore, 
 as soon as the guarantee is executed, the right of 
 legislation which the United States received from 
 the defunct State government flows out to the new 
 State government." 
 
 All this I find, sir, in Bishop, side by side 
 with the passages from this author referred to 
 by my honorable and leqrned colleague, [Mr. 
 SHELLAB.\RGEn.] Here, sir, I find my theory 
 fully sustained. First, that when the States 
 seceded and set up new governments it was the 
 constitutional duty of the United States to put 
 down the insurrection, restore the rightful au- 
 thority, and thus guarantj^ their republican gov- 
 ernments. This the Federal Government has 
 done. She has fe.lly completed the work, thanks 
 to our skillful generals and our brave volun- 
 teers ; and whatever may have been the condi- 
 tion of the insurgent States during the rebellion, 
 nov/ that it is crushed and the guarantee per- 
 formed, according to Mr. Bishop the right of 
 legislation which the United States received 
 from the defunct States during the insurrection 
 ilows into the new State governments. There, 
 sir, it remains, reanimating, energizing that 
 
 which had been suspended, not destroyed. 
 There let it remain, giving power, authority, 
 supremacy, within constitutional limits, until 
 tlie sunlight, as well as the gentle dews and 
 genial rains, shall cease to warm and render 
 fruitful our mother earth. 
 
 I must again refer to Mr. Madison to show 
 what might and ought to l)e done under this 
 clause of the Constitution in behalf of minori- 
 ties when efforts shall be made to destroy law- 
 ful State governments. He was answering 
 supposed objections to the clause under con- 
 sideration. See No. 43 of the Federalist. He 
 said : 
 
 "At first view, it might seem not to square with the 
 
 republican theory to suppose either that a majority 
 
 I have not the rigiit or that a minority will have the 
 
 h force to subvert a government. But theoretic reason - 
 
 li ing in this, as in most other cases, must be qualified 
 
 I i by the lessons of practice. Why may not illicit com- 
 
 liinations be formed as well by a majority of a State, 
 
 especially a small State, as by a majority of,a county 
 
 or a district of the same State? And if the authority 
 
 of the State ought, in the latter ease, to protect the 
 
 local magistracy, ought not the Federal authority in 
 
 the former to support the State authority?" 
 
 And the author adds these significant words. 
 that deserve to be remembered : 
 
 "Besides, there are certain parts of the State con- 
 stitutions which are so interwoven with the Federal 
 Constitution that a violent blow cannot be given to the 
 one without communicating the wound to the other." 
 
 It is clear that when the lawful State govern- 
 ments are assailed the duty of the United States 
 is to interpose, and thus perform her obligation 
 set down in the Constitution to '"guaranty" to 
 each State a republican form of government. 
 Slie may interpose to put down a small rebel- 
 lion, a local sedition about whisky in Pennsyl- 
 vania, or she may interpose in behalf of a small 
 minority, and against a wide-spread, gigantic 
 combination and conspiracy which, expanding 
 in its proportions, spreads ti-cason into half the 
 Union and evokes an insurrection which, em- 
 bracing half the States, threatens with alarming 
 danger the nation's life, and calls for war, dis- 
 tinct, open Avar, to crush it. In either case the 
 object is the same — to guaranty to each State it.* 
 true rei^ublican government. 
 
 DID THE UNITED STATES ACCEPT THE DUTY OF GUAK- 
 AXTYINO THE STATE GOVERNMENTS IN THE INSUR- 
 RECTIONARY DISTRICT, AND HAS SHE PERFORMED IT ? 
 
 The entire action of the Government is an 
 affirmative answer to this question. But there 
 is one prominent and important fact standing 
 out in such bold relief in behalf of this propo- 
 sition that I am compelled to direct the atten- 
 tion of the committee to it for a moment. 
 
 On the 22d of .Inly, 18G1, the House of Rep- 
 resentatives adopted what is called the Crit- 
 tenden resolution. This resolution declared — 
 
 "That the present deplorable war h,as been forced 
 upon the country by thedisunionists of the southern 
 States now in revolt against the constitutional Gov- 
 
10 
 
 eminent, and in arms around the capital; that in this 
 national emergency Congress, banishing all feeling of 
 mere passion or resentment, will recollect only it.sduty 
 to the whole country; that this war is not waged on 
 our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any pur- 
 pose of comiuest or subjugation, nor for the purpose 
 of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or es- 
 tablished institutions of those States; but to defend 
 and maintain the supremacy of tho Constitution, and 
 to preserve tho Union with all the dignify, cciuality, 
 and rights of the several States unimpaired; that as 
 soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought 
 to cease." 
 
 This resolution passed the House by the un- 
 usual majority of one liTindrcdand twenty-two 
 against two ; and two days later the same reso- 
 lution, offered in the Senate by the now Presi- 
 dent of the United States, passed that body by 
 a vote of thirty against live. This resolution 
 is the solemn assertion of the United States, 
 by both branches of its Legislature, that the 
 ■war was prosecuted, not to oppress, not to con- 
 quer, nor to subjugate, nor to overthrow, nor to 
 interfere with the rights of the States, but to 
 defend, maintain, andpi'eserve the Union with 
 all the dignity, equality, and rights of the sev- 
 eral States. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, can anything be clearer than 
 the truth of my proposition? Did not Congress 
 hereby and herein declare that we accepted the 
 war in order to make good the duty of guaran- 
 tying the State governments with all their dig- 
 nity, equality, and rights unimpaired? Was 
 this resolution a deliberate falsehood? "Was it 
 a solemn farce? Was it a legislative lie? Or 
 ■was it a high and national manifesto to the 
 w^orld and to the insurgent peopTe as to the pur- 
 pose, object, and end for which the nation en- 
 gaged in war? I shall blush for my country if 
 she -now renounces her solemn opinion, thus 
 expressed, and crucifies State institutions which 
 she undertook to save. I observe, sir, with no 
 little astonishment that my honorable colleague 
 [Mr. Shellabauger] voted for this resolution. 
 I will not pursue this proposition, but will ap- 
 ply, for a moment, principles to facts. 
 
 The seceding States joassed ordinances of 
 secession. These were null. They formed 
 new political organizations, which not being 
 recognized by the United States were illegal 
 and void. Then they rose to arms and sub- 
 mitted tho issue to the God of battles. 
 
 The Federal Government, recognizing her 
 rightful power and assuming her constitutional 
 duty, accepted the challenge, girded on her 
 armor, and went out in behalf of laws, consti- 
 tutions, and the downtrodden minorit}^ in the 
 insurgent States. The result of this fearful, 
 long, and bloody arbitration is before the world. 
 It is now history. And, sir, what is the ver- 
 dict of history thus written in blood ? It is that 
 the Union is saved ; that the States are saved ; 
 and that we are to-day, as we ever have been, 
 one, one nation, unsevered, undivided. This 
 verdict, sir, has been vouchsafed us as a people 
 
 by the power and mercy of Him who holds the 
 stars in His palm, and who causes the wind to 
 blow where it listeth. This verdict has been 
 sealed by the blood of three hundred thousand 
 martyrs "for liberty. It has been prayed_ for 
 by many mothers whose last sou has been given 
 to secure this blessing, and by many widows 
 whose cheeks were furrowed by tears while 
 ofl'cring up the prayer. 
 
 And shall we now, sir, deny the result? Is 
 the flag of our country to be desecrated by 
 taking from its folds eleven stars? I pray 
 God, ihe breezes of heaven may never, never 
 unfurl before my eyes the banner of my coun- 
 try with a single emblem of entire and perfect 
 unity wanting upon its folds. 
 
 Pause, then, and consider well before you 
 say that any State is dead, and is no longer an 
 integral part of this Union. It is a terrible 
 conclusion, and dangerous to reach. It leads 
 to fearful consequences. 
 
 Sir, if the authors of this theory do not con- 
 template these harsh results, certain it is, if we 
 adopt their reasoning, we start upon a road that 
 leads to the end I have pictured, and then, I 
 fear, it will be too late to interrupt our course. 
 
 Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I desire to ask the 
 gentleman a question, with his permission. 
 
 Mr. DELANO. The gentleman may pro- 
 pound his question. I will not say vrhether I 
 will answer it or not. 
 
 Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. My colleague has 
 defined very clearly what he conceives to be a 
 State. He admits the right of the majority of 
 the people in each State to change its form df 
 government, and also the right and duty of the 
 national Government to guaranty to each State 
 a republican form of government. I wish to 
 know whether he*intends us to understand that 
 when our armies marched into the South, we 
 were, on the fall of the rebellion, to maintain the ■ 
 governments we found established by the people 
 in each of said States, which were not, as I con- 
 ceive, constitutional State governments ; or were 
 we to maintain the old governments, which the 
 people by their own act had abolished? 
 
 Mr. DELANO. Mr. Speaker, I do notclaim 
 to be a very clear-headed man ; I do not make 
 any such pretension. But if I have been so 
 muddy as to lead anybody to believe that I was 
 arguing that this Government should guaranty 
 the authorities that the rebellion set up in the 
 States, I am very sorry for m.y ignorance and 
 for_ my incapacity to express myself. I was 
 trying to show that the United States Govern- 
 ment was bound to guaranty, as the Constitu- 
 tion requires, the old governments which had 
 been admitted to be republican in form ; that 
 the Government went out there to take off this 
 cursed incubus of secession, to lift it from the 
 minorities, to allow those loyal minorities to 
 rise up and become the power of the country, 
 under the old governments and the old consti- 
 tutions. 
 
11 
 
 Mr. SPALDING. Will my colleague allow 
 me to ask him a question ? 
 
 Mr. DELANO. I will yield for a question. 
 
 Mr. SPALDING. My colleague has quoted 
 Bishop. I would ask him if he has seen an 
 essay by this same Mr. Bishop, recently pub- 
 lished in the papers, and called "The Right 
 Way?" 
 
 Mr. DELANO. I think that sometimes he 
 is in the wrong way. 
 
 Mr. SPALDING. Has my colleague seen 
 that essay ? 
 
 Mr. DELANO. I have seen it, but do' not 
 read it always. As for Mr. Bishop, I think a 
 great deal of him as a criminal lawyer. As a 
 constitutional lawyer I do not think so much of 
 him. I have quoted him only JDecause he has 
 been referred to by others as authority. 
 
 Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I would like to ask 
 } my colleague another question. 
 
 Mr. DELANO. Vervwell. 
 
 Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. If these eleven 
 States had merely changed their form of gov- 
 ernments, according to the lorescribed rules of 
 their constitutions, in such a way as to amount 
 to practical secession, and the great body of 
 the people had acqwiesced in that change with- 
 out making war upon the nation, how, under 
 his theory, are we to guaranty the minority a 
 republican form of government in said States, 
 if the minoritv do not petition for it? 
 
 Mr. DELANO. If the rebellion had sue- 
 ceeded? 
 
 Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. No, sir ; if they 
 had not fired a gun. 
 
 Mr. DELANO. I do not know that I un- 
 derstand the gentleman. 
 
 Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. If the majority of 
 the people in the eleven rebel States had, in 
 pursuance of their organic State law, changed 
 the forms of their State government, and the 
 great body of the people had acquiesced in that 
 change, and no war had been made by them, 
 no gun fired, how, under the theory of my col- 
 league, could the Government guaranty to those 
 States a republican form of government? 
 
 Mr. DELANO. If they had attempted such 
 a thing as that without war, it would have been 
 the duty of the national Government to do just 
 what they have done in this instance ; not to 
 recognize those illegal acts, but to guaranty 
 the old governments, as they did in the case of 
 - the State of FJiode Island. That would have 
 been our duty, as J undei-stand it, 
 
 Mr. ASHLEY^ of Ohio. But if there is no 
 minority petitioning for redress, no one claim- 
 ing the existence of a constitutional State gov- 
 ernment and the interference of the national 
 Government for their protection, under his 
 theory, how is a repuljlican form of govern- 
 ment to be guarantied, how is the authority of 
 this nation to be maintained over its own ter- 
 ritory ? 
 
 Mr. DELANO. The House will see that I 
 
 have no time in ray hour to discuss mere ab- 
 stractions, mere hypothetical cases, that never 
 had an existence. I am now endeavoring to 
 deal with facts as they are, with things as they 
 have transpired, and not with hypothetical 
 cases, cases which have not arisen. And in 
 ansv/er to my friend from Ohio [Mr. Ashley] 
 he will allow me to quote the text, "Sufficient 
 unto the day is the evil thereof" 
 
 [Here the hammer fell.] 
 _ Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I move that the 
 time of my colleague be extended for fifteen 
 minutes, or until he concludes his remarks. 
 
 No objection was made. 
 
 Mr. DELANO. I tender my sincere thanks 
 to the House for this extension of my time, and 
 for its courtesy to me. 
 
 WHAT HAS CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE DONE DtTR- 
 ING THE PROGRESS OF THE REBELLION TOWARD 
 RECOGNIZING THE INSURGENTS AS STATES? 
 
 _ Here, allow me to ask, v/hen did the rebel- 
 ling State expire? I sliould be glad to learn 
 when the vital spark became extinct, so that 
 the attending physician might say "Dead!" 
 Prepare for the funeral ; henceforth we have 
 Territories ! At what time, sir ? If the hour 
 of the day has not been noted, pray give me 
 the month or the year of their departure to the 
 tourb of Territories. 
 
 I find, sir, by reference to your statutes, that 
 on the 5th of August, 1861, Congress assessed 
 a direct tax of $20,000,000 annually upon the 
 land of the United States, and apportioned the 
 payment to the seceding States, as follows : 
 
 Virginia $937,550 661 
 
 North Carolina 676.19-1 66 
 
 South Carolina 363,570 66 
 
 Georgia 534,367 33 
 
 Alabama 529,313 33 
 
 Mississippi 413,084 66 
 
 Louisiana 385,886 66 
 
 Tennessee 669,498 00 
 
 Arkansas 261,886 00 
 
 Florida 77,522 66 
 
 Texas 355,166 66 
 
 Total- $5,154,541 281 
 
 By the ninth section of this act the President 
 was authorized to divide each State into con- 
 venient collection districts. The fifty-third sec- 
 tion provides that each State may collect and 
 pay its quota in its own way. The forty-sixth 
 section provides that if any State therein named, 
 after assuming to pay its proportion of such 
 tax, shall fail to do so, the Secretary of the 
 Treasury may proceed to collect the same under 
 certain rules, and regulations. 
 
 Again, sir, by an act of Congress approved 
 June 30, 1864, about one year, sir, before the 
 total overthrow and destruction of the insur- 
 rection, this act of 1861 is recognized, the first 
 annual assessment is enforced ; but further 
 assessments are suspended until another law, 
 demanding the same, is enacted. 
 
12 
 
 Yet, apain, by the act of July 1, 1862, to 
 proviJo internal revenue, the President is au- 
 thorized to divide the States respectively into 
 collection districts, and to appoint revenue offi- 
 cers for the same. And, acting under this law, 
 the President has proceeded, and as I under- 
 stand is now proceeding, to collect revenue in 
 these States, treating them as States under your 
 legislation smd by your authority. And, sir, as 
 if to leave no room for doubt, this act of July 
 1, 18ti2, was amended but still left so as to 
 regard the insurgent States as States, by an act 
 passed March 7, 1864. Has Congress, indeed, 
 power to decide this question? Then she has 
 decided it by a series of unbroken, uninter- 
 rupted legislative recognition of the eleven con- 
 federate States, so called, as real, legitimate, 
 existing States in the Union. 
 
 I ask my learned colleague to review his 
 theory of " destroyed States," or, in his milder 
 language, of States that have "lost their pow- 
 ers." He is too sound a lawyer and too can- 
 did, also, in view of all these facts, to assert the 
 death and destruction of eleven members of 
 this Union. 
 
 But, Mr. Speaker, the evidence does not close 
 here in reference to the recognition of these 
 States as members of the Union, as States in 
 the Union. By an act of Congress, passed 
 April 20, 1818, "provision is made for the pub- 
 lication of the laws of the United States, and 
 for other parpo.ses. The second section of the 
 act referred to provides that when the State 
 Department shall have been officially notified 
 thatany amendment which heretofore has beeii 
 or hereai'ter may be proposed to the Consti- 
 tution has been adopted, according to the pro- 
 ^'isions of that instrument — 
 
 " It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, forth- 
 with, to cause the said amendment to be published," 
 * * - * "specifying the States by which 
 the same may have been adopted, and that the same 
 has become valid." 
 
 Now, sir, I ask the members of this House, 
 what duty is here devolved upon the State 
 Department? Is it not to determine when the 
 amend\nent is ratified, and by whom ratified? 
 Must he not, does he not, necessarily, by the 
 powers conferred upon him, recognize as States 
 in the Union those members of the confederacy 
 whose ratification is relied upon as adopting the 
 amendment in conformity to the provisions of 
 the Constitution? 
 
 In the case in 7 Howard, before referred to, 
 it is said that when Congress empowered the 
 President to call out the militiatosupju-ess in- 
 surrection, it thereby authorized him to decide 
 which was the rightful government, and that 
 Lis decision recognizing one or the other of two 
 conflicting governments was conclusive. How, 
 then, can it be denied that here is a power con- 
 ferred Tipon the State Department to recognize 
 these governments in the States where, for a 
 time, government was simply suppressed, not 
 
 destroyed; where it was obstructed in its func- 
 tions, not overthrown in its existence? And 
 now, that the power suppressing it is removed, 
 removed, too, by the General Govcrnm ent in the 
 discharge of her great constitutional duty, tlir 
 State governments rise again, and their powers 
 are resumed ; and as they become once more 
 potential they speak, and among the first utter- 
 ances are words which delight every patriot and 
 philanthropist, for they say that ''neither sla- 
 very nor involuntary servitude shall longer exist 
 exceptforcrime." These noble words, officially 
 declared, spoken in a sovereign manner and as 
 a sovereign State should speak, arelieai-d. offi- 
 cially heard, and the seal of emancipation and 
 universal liberty is fixed. 
 
 Mr. Speaker,'J trust we have no dead States. 
 no conquered Territories, but that all are liv- 
 ing powers, sovereign within their respective 
 spheres but obedient hereafter and forever to 
 that higher and greater sovereign, the Union, 
 whose love embraces all her children, whose 
 heart is so lai-ge and whose arm so strong that 
 she can cherish, defend, or punish. In order 
 that there be left no room for doubt as to the 
 power of Congress to recognize these rebel 
 States as States, and to confer such power on 
 the President or Secretary of State, I here refer 
 to the case of Luther vs. Borden, 7 Howard's 
 Reports, where, while discussing the fourth sec- 
 tion of the fourth article of the Constitution, 
 Chief Justice Taney says : 
 
 "Under this article" * * *■ * "it 
 rests with Congress to decide what government is the 
 established one in a State. For, as the United States 
 guaranty to each State a republican government, 
 Congress must necessarily decide wliat government is 
 established in a State before it can determine whether 
 it is republican or not." 
 
 Then, referring to the chrase relating to 
 domestic violence, the Chief Justice adds: 
 
 " So, too, as relates to the clause in +he above men- 
 tioned article of the Constitution providing for cases 
 of domestic violence. It rested with Congress to de- 
 termine the means proper to be adopted to fulfill this 
 guarantee. They might,if they had deemed it most ad- 
 visable to do so, have placed it in the power of a court 
 to decide when tlie contingency had happened which 
 required the Federal Government to interfere. Bat 
 Congress thought otherwise, and, no doubt, wisely; 
 and by the act of February 28, 1795, provided that 
 'in case of an insurrection in any State against the 
 government thereof it shall be lawful for the Presi- 
 dent of the United States to call forth such numbers 
 of the militia of any State or States as may be 
 applied for as he may judge sufficient to suppress the 
 insurrection.' By this act the power of deciding 
 whether the e.xigenoy had arisen upon which the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States is bound to interfere is 
 givou to the President." * * ■•■ * "If 
 there is an armed conflict" * '■■ * * "it 
 is a ea-se of domestic violence, and one of the parties 
 must be in insurrection against the lawful Govern- 
 ment. And the President must of necessity decide 
 * which is the government and which party is unlaw- 
 
13 
 
 fully arrayed against it bcfcro ho can perform the 
 duty imposed on him by Congress." 
 
 Thus the court came to the very clear, logi- 
 cal, and satisfactory' opinion that the action of 
 the President, under the act of Congress before 
 mentioned, by which the government of Khode 
 Island, adverse to the Dorr government, so 
 called, was recognized, was a final and con- 
 clusive decision in favor of that government, 
 and such a decision as could not be reviewed 
 or reversed by any authority whatever. 
 
 What, sir, is so much needed at this hour as 
 to rebuild and reanimate the desolate South? 
 Her towns in ruins! her fields lying waste! 
 her resources destroyed ! her labor' paraly^d ! 
 She needs peace, rest, and the fostering arm 
 of a friendly Federal Government. Much, I 
 know, she has sinned, and much, too much, of 
 error and wickedness, at least of anger and 
 bitterness, yet remains. But time, patience, 
 charity, and forbearance will soon bring her to 
 see, 1 trust, that justice toward her emanci- 
 pated blacks and loyalty to the Union are 
 necessary to happiness and prosperity in the 
 future. We must develop the resources of 
 the South. Her cotton crop of five million 
 bales, in 1800. is estimated at one million for 
 the next year, and her sugar crop in similar 
 proportions. We need, sir, and we must have, 
 a productive, prosperous South, for it will 
 strengthen our finances, give stability to our 
 public credit, aid us in paying our national 
 debt and sustaining our national faith. Hence, 
 I repudiate all theories that tend to keep down 
 her industry, her resources, and her hopes. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I do not often reason from my 
 fears, but during this debate our fears have 
 been appealed to in order to influence our judg- 
 ment; and this has been done by the gentle- 
 man from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens.] He 
 presumes that a return of members from the 
 late confederate States will place the power of 
 this House in the hands of copperheads. Then 
 he imagines repudiation of the national debt, 
 assumption of the rebel debt, &c. Sir, I have 
 no toleration for those who have persistently 
 opposed the Government these long years of 
 strife, sacrifice, and danger. I am not here, 
 to-day, to assert their cause. God forbid ! I 
 am considering questions which may, when 
 settled, have a lasting influence upon the des- 
 tinies of my country. I will not turn aside from 
 my honest judgment upon this question to strike 
 an enemy or to rewaid a friend. But, sir, let 
 me suggest an argument for the fears of the 
 gentleman from Pennsylvania, if, indeed, "his 
 name is liable to fear." Suppose you estab- 
 lish, so fer as this House can settle the ques- 
 tion, that the insurgent States are dead and are 
 to be governed indefinitely as Territories. Do 
 you expect a united Republican party upon that 
 decision? If you do, your hopes are as delu- 
 sive " as the baseless fabric of a 'vision." You 
 will find, sir, a united South, a united "cop- 
 
 perhead" party, and a divided CTnion party. 
 You will go into the next presidential canvass, 
 possibly, in this condition. And it requires no 
 great stretcii of innigination to see liy the united . 
 southern vote and a divided northein vttte that 
 a presidential candidate of the so-called Dem- 
 ocratic part}' may have a majority of the Elect- 
 oral College, counting the Territories, the eleven 
 seceding States. What ibllows, sir? You deny 
 the right of these southern Territories to vote. 
 but they assert their right to do so ; and take 
 care that the majority in some of the northern 
 States does not also assert it. And then comes 
 a strife for the executive chair. How will it 
 end? In civil war again; more blood, more 
 gi-aves! More widows, more taxation! More 
 anarchy, more dead States ! God only knows 
 where, or in what, such a conflict might end. 
 Such a result "is precisely what the dissatisfied 
 alienated people of your Territories may desire 
 if treated with cruelty and injustice, and, al- 
 though I do not predict it, yet I see in an ultra 
 and extravagant treatment of this question, 
 danger of such a result. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, those who have followed the 
 thread of my remarks, will have observed that 
 I claim the war to have been waged on the part 
 of the United States for the purpose of saving 
 the States as political organizations. Hence, 
 during the entire conflict, the Government, by 
 her acts of legislation, by her presidential proc- 
 lamations, by her acts of executive administra- 
 tion, has treated the insurgents as States; and 
 thus has been fulfilled the duty of guarantying 
 to the people a republican form of government 
 where revolt and anarchy for a time existed. 
 The insurrection being subdued, order returns; 
 and, under the advice of the Executive, the 
 people have submitted to a new state of things, 
 resulting from the war, by amending their for- 
 mer constitutions so as to conform to univer- 
 sal emancipation. These things having been 
 accomplished, the States resume their natural 
 functions, so far as they are within the first 
 branch of my definition of an Americaii State. 
 That is, sir, they establish law and order vinthin 
 their prescribed territorial limits, they exercise 
 local powers of their State governments. Im- 
 mediately their connection with the General 
 Government is in part resumed ; and certain 
 relations naturally and necessarily spring into 
 life by your acts of Congress between these par- 
 tially restored States and the United States? 
 
 What are these relations? Why, sir, your 
 post-office laws, your courts of justice, your 
 whole revenue system is now in full and com- 
 plete force, and generally in active operation 
 over and in these States as States. And these 
 things have been done ; Sir, they are the ne- 
 cessary and direct fruits of the laws passed by 
 Congress. By denying to them now the cajja- 
 city of States, we reverse our v.'hole history ; 
 we repeal our past policy ; and really, sir, we 
 subject ourselves to deserved reproach for in- 
 
14 
 
 sincerit}' and injustice, if not for cruelty and 
 inhumanity. 
 
 What, then, remaJns to be done? The ad- 
 mission of those States to a representation in 
 Congress, it seems to me, is about all that re- 
 mains to a perfect restoration of the Union. 
 Now, sir, no one will deny, who reflects calmly 
 and speaks candidly, that the perfect restora- 
 tion of these States to their natural condition, 
 so that once more it may be truly said that 
 every planet in our political system revolves 
 in its proper orbit, is a consummation to be 
 desired by all. ^Ye shall never be what we 
 should be until this end is reached. But, sir, 
 desirable as it is, Ave must not rush to its attain- 
 ment with mad zeal and unadvised haste". That 
 which remaius to be done, in my view of this 
 subject, is exclusively with Congress — placed 
 there by the Constitution. Are we bound to 
 admit here to membership, without conditions, 
 without inquiry, whomsoever and whatsoever 
 is sent here by one of these States that has, of 
 her own accord, for four years, withdrawn her 
 representation and denied lier connection with 
 the Federal Government? Clearly not, sir. 
 And is there any absurdity in the idea of alegit- 
 imate'State in the Union and yet having no rep- 
 resentation in Congress? I am notable to see 
 any. Ohio may withdraw her representation 
 here and refuse to send another for years. Is 
 she thereby a dead State? Would such an 
 act deprive her of her own constitution and 
 laws, rob her of a Legislature for domestic 
 purposes, or prevent her, as a State, from the 
 operation of all proper Federal legislation? 
 Clearly not. 
 
 Hence, when one of those States comes back 
 and asks admission to this floor for her Rep- 
 resentatives, I do not ask myself, is this a Ter- 
 ritory? because I think I have power to say to 
 this State, by your own act you severed this 
 relation; j'ou did it without cause, and daring 
 your absence, and while you have been endeav- 
 oring to destroy this Union, great clianges 
 have occurred, and I shall require of you two 
 things before I shall vote to restore you to rep- 
 resentation here. First, you must send loyal 
 Representatives and show your obedience to 
 the Constitution and laws. And secondly, 
 some proper assurance that in your capacity 
 as a State for local and domestic purposes you 
 will conform to those great principles of jus- 
 tice which lie at the basis of our Government, 
 and which require that all men shall be secure 
 in their lives, their liberties, and in their pur- 
 suit of happiness. I am now, sir, speaking of 
 principles secured to all, because 1 feel that 
 the results of this war have cast upon this nation 
 a great duty toward the emancipated race ; and 
 humanity requires of us the performance of this 
 duty — not rashly, nor in a spirit of revenge under 
 the impulse of past injuries, but under that 
 higher and noljler feeling which calls for jus- 
 tice to all men. 
 
 PLAN FOR REORGANIZATION. 
 
 Resting upon the principles which I have at- 
 tempted to sustain during these remarks, I pro- 
 pose to inquire, is any State now ready to have 
 her representation admitted into this Congress, 
 and thus become fully restored to her natural 
 position and relations in the Union? I answer 
 yes, Tennessee; loyal, long-suffering, but ever- 
 laithful Tennessee. She has, by her legisla- 
 tion, guarantied to the emancipated race every 
 right enjoyed by the white man except the right 
 of suffrage. The right to testify in courts, to 
 sue and be sued, to marry, to acquire and con- 
 vey, property, have, as I understand, been se- 
 cured to the black race. She has disfranchised 
 rebels who sought to overthrow the Govern- 
 ment. She has sent here, as Representatives, 
 loyal men who are ready to take the oath re- 
 quired before admission. These men, I under- 
 stand, have, during the rebellion, either been 
 refugees from their homes, ^o avoid death at 
 the hands of traitors, or they have been fighting 
 in the Union armies for the life of the na- 
 tion. Some of them bear honorable scars from 
 wounds in battle, while defending our common 
 country. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, let this House consider these 
 things. Let it be remembered how nobly Ten- 
 nessee has struggled to preserve the Iieritage of 
 a free people. Do not forget — for this nation 
 will not — how gloriously Tennessee has acted 
 during these long years of desolating war. She 
 has, in her geographical position, stood upon the 
 frontier of rebellion. There, sir, she has re- 
 mained, faithful, brave, and loyal to the last. 
 Beset with foes from within and without, she 
 stood, like a wall of granite, between the in- 
 surgent and loyal States, receiving and hurling 
 back the bloody surges of rebellion. 
 
 And that noble son of Tennessee, the Pres- 
 ident of the United States, who has endured 
 more, suffered more than it is in the power of 
 man to express, whose conduct during this fear- 
 ful struggle has been the theme of praise from 
 every loyal tongue in the Union, shall he be 
 longer regarded as an alien and a foreigner? 
 
 Shall we not, sir, in view of all these things, 
 open the doors of the Union and receive with 
 joy and thanksgiving, back to the family man- 
 sion, these men from Tennessee? I hope so. 
 and I think so, for, sir, it seems to me that 
 justice as well as the voice of the country de- 
 mands it. Let it be .done, and let it be done 
 quickly. Thus we shall give an example to 
 tlie otlier States, particularly, of our desire to 
 commence the work of rebuilding and read- 
 justing this Government. 
 
 In my judgment, Arkansas is likewise pre- 
 pared to be received, and we can safely bid her 
 Representatives welcome. This much accom- 
 plished, we could safely delay the other States 
 for a more complete preparation, keeping there 
 all the military power necessary to preserve 
 order. I would further provide," by all neces- 
 
15 
 
 sary legislation within constitutional limits, 
 
 for the security and protection of the colored 
 
 race. 
 Thus we shall say to the other States, come ; 
 
 come and be welcome ; but before you come 
 submit to the laws and obey them cheerfully ; 
 provide for the emancipated race, and do it 
 willingly. Elect and return loyal men as Rep- 
 resentatives — men who desire to support and 
 who will not betray their country. Come to 
 us as Tennessee comes, with loyal hearts, de- 
 termined to obey the laws, and our arms are 
 open to receive you. On this basis, sir, we can 
 restore in due time our native land to the glo- 
 rious position which of right belongs to her. 
 
 I believe that a calm, resolute, and patriotic 
 
 effort on this basis will soon bring all jaarts of 
 
 I this great empire into harmonious and pros- 
 
 perous relations. Then, sir, we shall have set 
 out anew upon the great mission of civilization 
 that the Almighty has commissioned us to un- 
 dertake. Our progress in physical, moral, and 
 intellectual development will he accelerated be- 
 yond all past history in any part of the world. 
 We shall become an example of the beneficence 
 and power of self-government that will be felt 
 and acknowledged by all civilized peoples on 
 the globe ; and if wo prudently adhere to the 
 maxim of our fathers, and do not attempt to 
 propagate our institutions except as their excel- 
 lence shall commend them to a voluntary adop- 
 tion by other nations, we shall do such a work 
 on earth as no nation has ever accomplished 
 before, leaving for the world a history that will 
 light the pathway to those who come after us 
 seeking to realize the blessings of liberty. 
 
LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 744 521 ?. 
 
 (!) 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 I'lllllil! 
 
 013 744 521 9