■Xf7 E 668 .147 Copy 1 SPEECH HON. EBON C. EVGERSOLL. OF ILLINOIS, ON THE GOVERNMENT OF INSURRECTIONARY STATES; DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF KEPKESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 7, 1867. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 1867. > West. Eee. Hist. Boo. ! ■ GOVERNMENT OF INSURRECTIONARY STATES. ^ The Houso resumed the consideration of the follow- ing bill: Whereas the pretended State governments of the late so-called confederate States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Ala- bama, Louisiana, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas were set up without the authority of Congress and without the sanction of the people ; and whereas said pre- tended governments afford no adequate protection for life or property, but countenance and encourage lawlessness and crime; and whereas it is necessary that peace and good order should be enforced in said so-called States until loyal and republican State governments can be legally established : Therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- tives of the United States of America in Congress assem- bled, That said so-called States shall be divided into military districts and made subject to the military authority of the United States as hereinafter pre- scribed; and for that purpose Virginia shall consti- tute the first district. North Carolina and South Car- olina the second district, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida the third district, Mississippi and Arkansas the fourth district, and Louisiana and Texas the fifth district. Sec. 2. Andbe it further enacted. That it shall be the duty of the General of the Army to assign to the com- mand of each of said districts an officer of the regu- lar Army, not below the rank of brigadier general and to detail a sufficient military force to enable such officer to perform his duties and enforce his authority within the district to which he is assigned. Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of each officer assigned as aforesaid to protect all persons in their rights of person and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder, and violence, and to punish or cause to be punished all disturbers of the public peace and criminals, and to this end he may allow civil tribunals to take jurisdiction of and to try offenders, or, when in his judgment it may be neces- sary for the trial of offenders, ho shall have power to organize military commissions or tribunals for that purpose, anything in the constitution and laws of the so-called States to the contrary notwithstanding, and all legislative or judicial proceedings, or processes to prevent or control the proceedings of said military tribunals, and all interference by said pretended State governments with the exercise of military au- thority under this act shall be void and of no effect. Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That courts and judicial officers of the United States shall not issue writs of habeas corpus in behalf of persons in military custody unless some commissioned officer on duty in the district wherein the person is detained shall in- dorse upon said petition a statement certifying upon honor that he has knowledge or information as to the cause and circumstances of the alleged detention, and that hcbelievesthesameto be wrongful; and further, that he believes that the indorsed petition is preferred in good faith, and in furtherance of justice and not to hinder or delay the punishment of erime. All per- sons put under military arrest by virtue of this act shall be tried without unnecessary delay, and no cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted. Sec. 5. And be it further enacted. That no sentence of any military commission or tribunal hereby au- thorized, affecting the life or liberty of any person, shall be executed until it is approved by the officer in command of the district, and tho laws and regula- tions for the government of the Army shall not be affected by this act, except in so far as they conflict with its provisions. Mr. INGERSOLL said : Mr. Speaker : In the view of this case which I shall present I shall discuss the propositions of the gentlemen who have preceded me, who claim that the States have never lost their status in the Union, and that as States within the Union they have all their original rights, among which is the right of representation in Congress. I shall also discuss the proposition advanced by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Bingham,] that they are still States, but with certain limitations and qualifications. Now, sir, I hold that there are but two sides to this question, that they are either States for all purposes and the equals of the other States, or else they are no States at all ; I mean polit- ical States known to the Constitution. There are geographical States and political States. The southern States lately in rebellion have not changed their geographical character by the rebellion in which they engaged, but their ] olitic'al character only, and they are no longer States of this Union within the meaning of Constitution. What constitutes a State? I answer an organized community governed by law and having certain geographical limits. A State under the Constitution must not only be an organized community governed by law and Laving certain geographical limits, but it must, 1'liiion to this, be recognized as a State of the Union by the law-making power of the General Government Now, sir, as regards the law, the logic, or the facts of this question, I deny that there is any middle ground to occupy. They are cither es for all purposes or they are not States for any purposes under our Government. All the domain belonging to the United States or within its jurisdiction assumes one of two characters, namely, that of a State or that of a Territory. No other condition was ever known- I hold that the rebel States by rebel- 1. hi destroyed all civil government within their 'Hiaries, and destroyed their political organ- izations known to the Constitution of the Uni- 1 States, and consequently they ceased to be States of this Union; and by the operation of the act of secession, culminating in armed rebellion, they became the territory of the Uni- States, when we by our successes on the battle-fi< Id made a conquest of their armies. ntiemen in the argument of this question . to fQrget the history of tin: rebellion. m to forget that the rebellion organ? facta government; that the S: ■ Mi repudiated bya solemn aei hi ooavention the art by which they rating tattoo of tin- i 'iiit<->l State*) thereby tning members of the Federal Govern- Gentlemen seem t" forget that they • .ii,H '1 ;i government which from the trerj aer i ptized by our ament a a ./. y. /.■/.< government. By laws of war ami by all international 'aw ... re bound to reoogniae them as abolliger' powefi a., a ■•'. /./ / < government! v>V %\ ,. Not only u> re i by us, hut by mosl of the i io- dized Powers of the world as a de facto gov- ernment, authorized to issue letters of marque and reprisal, to make captures on the high seas, and one whose flag protected those sailing under it. But for that recognition the charac- ter of their cruisers would have been changed to that of piratical crafts. They were expressly recognized as a de facto t government by the Roman Government in an official communica- tion addressed " to the President of the con- federate States of America." As evidence of like recognition by our Government, I refer to an act of Congress, passed in the early part of the rebellion, which interdicted all commer- cial intercourse between the inhabitants of the United States and the inhabitants of the so- * called confederate States. That act made no r exception on account of the loyalty of any per- son residing in the confederate States. It re- garded them all as public enemies. It would have been as much a violation of that act for one of our people to have had a commercial transac- tion with a loyal as with a disloyal person within the jurisdiction of the confederate government. This was an exercise of one of the war powers of the Government. No express authority for this act is found in the Constitution. The Con- stitution gives to Congress the power to "reg- ulate commerce among the several States," but not to interdict it. Now, sir, having said this much by way of premise, let me call attention to the position assumed by the gentleman from^Ohio, [Mr. Finck.] He seemed to view it as a matter of surprise that Congress should attempt to con- trol tin ■la; i' rebel States as proposed in this bill, and he challenged history to produce a single- instance where a Government had made a con- -1' its own territory. Assuming it to be triir thai a < lovernraent cannot make a conquest of its own territory, beheld that as a necessary consequence Congress possessed no constitu- tional power to pass the hill under discussion. ^ % Now, sir, let me answer the gentleman; is it fair to assume that because history furnishes DO example of a nation making a conquest of ii territory that it is impossible under tiny eitvuiii ■ <: i\ nation ever to make such conquest '.' I say it is not. I ohaileage him to produce from the pages of history the record of any such rebellion as _» — ■ that we have suppressed. Under what civil- ized Government was there ever a rebellion that rose to the power and the dignity of a de facto government? Was there ever a re- bellion that made such head against the estab- lished Government as to create a new Govern- ment, occupying and controlling absolutely one third of the territory of the entire coun- try? Was there ever before a rebellion that was recognized as a belligerent power by the civilized Governments of the world? Never, sir. You will search history in vain to pro- duce such an illustration. There never has been before this in any country a rebellion which was recognized as a de facto govern- ment by the Government it was contending against, or recognized by the civilized govern- ments of the world as entitled to belligerent rights. But in this case the recognition was complete at home and abroad. The rebel gov- ernment was recognized as a de facto govern- ment, entitled to belligerent rights and pro- tected in those rights under the law of nations. Mr. Speaker, let me call your attention and the attention of the House to this question : whether the Government of the United States did make a conquest of the confederacy, and whether it did acquire the rights of a conqueror over the vanquished rebel power. Let it be remembered that the rebellion, or the confed- erate government, first made a conquest of a portion of the original territory of the United States, and erected upon it a government and maintained that government, exercising juris- diction over the territory thus acquired for five years, and thus became to all intents and purposes a foreign Government, making war upon the Government of the United States, but by the success of our arms we made a conquest of the confederate government, made a conquest of its people and its territory after years of the most sanguinary and desolat- ing war of modern times, and by international law we have a right to exercise over this con- quered belligerent power, over this territory wrested by the power of arms from this con- federate government, all the rights pertaining to the conqueror, one of which is to control the territory thus conquered, the people thus sub- jugated by military power. Hence arises our right to dispose of the property, real and personal, of the rebel government as well as to exercise control over its people. I hold, sir, that in the prosecution of the war against the rebellion the laws of war in the main controlled us, and not alone the written law. Where did you get the power to declare green- backs a legal tender? Where did you get the power to pass a confiscation law? Where did you get the power to do many of the acts neces- sary for the preservation of the Government in the prosecution of the war against the rebel- lion? Did you rely solely upon the letter of the Constitution for the power, or did you rely upon the inherent right of the Government to preserve its own life? I hold, sir, that the Government of the United States possesses as much inherent power and may exercise any power necessary to self- preservation that any Government on earth can exercise. We are as powerful in war, and may in war legally and rightfully do what the Czar of Russia could do, what the Emperor of France could do, or any other monarchical Government. We possess the inherent right of self-defense, and under that right we may do any act recognized under the laws of war necessary to self-preservation. Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. The gen- tleman will allow me to ask $iim a question, and I propose to take him back to the "green- back " question. I want to know whether the gentleman thinks the "greenbacks" were de- clared legal tender in the exercise of any war power? Does he admit there was no constitu- tional right to declare them a legal tender ? Mr. 1NGERSOLL. I hold, if there had been no war, no exigency in the affairs of the Government rendering it necessary, it would have been unconstitutional. I may be wrong, but this is my opinion. I find no power con- ferred on Congress in the Constitution relating to money except the power "to coin money and to regulate the value thereof;" and I do not believe the Congress of the United States in ordinary and peaceful times has the right to make paper money a legal tender. To make " greenbacks" is not in my judgment to "coin money." But it did have the right to make " greenbacks" a legal tender, in order to pre- serve the Government from destruction and for the successful prosecution of the war. 6 Mr. LE BLOND. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? Mr. INGERSOLL. I cannot yield now. I cannot yield to have immaterial issues brought in here ; but if I had the time I would yield with pleasure for any pertinent question. 1 want some gentleman here to tell me the difference between a conquest of the rebel - tea by the war power of the Government and a conquest of Canada supposing we had had a war with Great Britain. Had we been in war with Great Britain instead of the south- ern confederacy, and had we made a conquest of the Canadas, would we have the right under the law of nations to establish military Gov- ernments there? I answer most assuredly. Would we be compelled to withdraw the mil- itary forces as soon as they had surrendered? By no means. We would continue our mil- itary forces in the Canadas until peace had been declared and until the new order of things should be adjusted according to the spirit of our institutions and in harmony with our Constitution. Now, sir, let us look into history and see if we cannot get some light on this subject. It is but a few years since we invaded Mexican soil. After many sanguinary contests our armies marched victoriously to the capital of that country. We made a conquest of their whole territory. Now, on the theory of gentlemen here who oppose this bill, the Mexican people should have protested, as the people of the I Stah a have protested, against the occu- pation of their territory by the military forces, on the ground thai they had surrendered their and were willing to yield to the situation. What are the facts concerning the occupation of Mexico'.' We held it until the treaty of . .! ape Hidalgo was agreed upon, and we maintained our military force there until we bod Secured all the objeel of tic war. After the ratification of the treaty the troops withdrawn, hut not till then. ;■■ the States lately in rebellion there lia^ been no ratification of a treaty of 'I here ha been no pi ace 6V claw l. Had ' D declared what would ha\c been the effect 7 Tbi n bellioo would bare been restored to the Union* The E&epre- .'ive , from tic .aid have been admitted into Congress on the same terms as Representatives from the loyal States. That would be the highest evidence of the restora- tion of those States to the Union. The admis- sion of their Representatives to seats here would itself be the most satisfactory evidence that peace had been restored and the highest evidence of the restoration of those States to all their rights under the Constitution. We have had no declaration of peace, and we have had no peace in fact. We conquered the rebellion. We now have possession of their territory as conquerors, and when did we cease to have the character of conquerors? When did we lay aside that character ? Never. We have suspended active hostilities, but we have never given up our occupation of that country by the military forces. To be sure we have not lately controlled it to any consid- erable extent by military authority, but we have not given up military occupation of those so-called States ; neither do we intend to until the rights of the enfranchised and loyal people of such States shall be secured and the peace and safety of the Republic shall be no longer endangered by disloyal rule. Congress, under the Constitution, has power "to make rules and regulations concerning captures on land and water." Now, sir, dur- ing the progress of the war, under the rules and regulations of the Army as prescribed by acts of Congress, which rules and regulations were changed from time to time, our forces captured property id' all description's, personal and real, and disposed of the same, putting the proceeds into the Treasury of the United States. We captured their officers and soldiers and held them as prisoners of war. We cap- tured State alter Slate lYoin the confederate government, and at last we captured all its Stales; BO that when the rebel Ha:,' went down we had captured as trophic^ of the war (he entire rebel confederacy, thus making a conquest of that goyernmenl and a conquest of its people and of its territory. The gentleman from cky v. ho Last ail. d I hi l Eouse [ Mr. Hi i i desired some reference to the clause of the Constitution which gives us authority tO ate and control the southern Suites lately in rebellion. I point him to thai clause which declares that"* hall have power to make rules and regulations concerning cap- tures on land and water." But some gentle- men urge that this clause in the Constitution applies only to personal property. I answer that the Constitution makes no distinction as to the character of the property, and the reason- able inference is that it includes everything which is the legitimate subject of capture. We capture towns, cities, and States, as well as personal property, and under this clause in the Constitution Congress has a right to make rules and regulations concerning such captures, and we have the right to dispose of the terri- tory thus captured from the confederacy by sale, if we desire to, or in any other manner. It is absolutely at the disposal of the conqueror. Under the law it belongs to the conqueror, and the conqueror necessarily has the right to dis- pose of that which belongs to him in any man- ner he may think best. "We propose by this bill to control the subju- gated people in this conquered territory by the military power temporarily until such* times as loyal civil government can be established there and maintained without the aid of the military power. But in order to find authority in Con- gress to pass this bill I am not compelled to go so far with the argument based upon this ^ clause of the Constitution as to even inquire whether it authorizes any disposition to be made of the territory captured or wrested from the confederate government. This clause in the Constitution relates to "captures," and it cannot be denied but that we have authority to make rules and regulations concerning such captures. This bill only proposes to regulate the captured rebels ; it does not interfere with property. But I am not driven to rest the right of Congress to pass this bill upon this clause alone. I call the attention of the House to another clause of the Constitution. It is this : " The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the • territory or other property belonging to the United States." The late rebel States are to all intents and purposes as much territories of the United States, subject to the exclusive control of Con- gress, as are the Territories of Utah, New Mexico, Montana, or any other Territory be- longing to the Government. Congress has not yet vested the people of these so-called States with authority to establish local governments, but has so far retained the right to exercise all legislative authority for them, and in the exer- cise of that authority we propose to establish temporarily military governments in these so- called States for the security of life, liberty, and property. This is not, strictly speaking, a meas- ure of reconstruction, but a measure looking simply to the enforcement of order. It seems to me clear, then, that, not only under the laws of war and under the law of nations, but under the express authority of the Constitution itself, Congress possesses the rightful authority to establish military governments, as proposed by the bill under consideration. And here I ask the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] this question: if these late rebel States are States in the Union, are they not of right entitled to a vote upon any resolu- tion proposing an amendment to the Constitu- tion? I believe the gentleman himself holds that the constitutional amendment when rat- ified by three fourths of the adhering loyal States will be binding. Mr. BINGHAM. If the gentleman will permit me, I will save him all trouble on that point. I stated that no State can exercise the local functions of a State without having com- plied with the conditions-precedent set out in the Constitution of the United States, which I recited ; and these States having broken down their legal State governments have ceased to be capable of exercising these functions. While, therefore, they do remain States for Federal purposes, they have no voice in the matter. Mr. INGERSOLL. Certainly, for local State purposes they have no existence. Mr. BINGHAM. Nor for political purposes. Mr. INGERSOLL. Well, sir, if that is true they are not States enough to "hurt." [Laughter.] Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman fqrgets one thing : unless they do remain States, with the boundaries of States according to the original law of the State, where is the bound- ary of this jurisdiction that touches life and property by this bill? I maintain that every thing remains intact, as though no rebellion had happened as to the Federal Government. 8 Unless they are held to be States for Federal purposes there must be a general jail delivery. Mr. INGERSOLL. This in my judgment does not necessarily follow ; but as the propo- sition of the gentleman is all on our side I do not propose to combat it. They are States for our purposes, but not for their own, [laughter;] bo he says. That they are States in the legal sense of the term I deny ; they are Territories, nothing more, and as such are subject to the control of Congress, the law-making power of the Government. But this question I have no desire to debate further with the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Bingham,] for he lays down the proposition that these are States for Federal purposes, and that it is at our option whether we will recog- nize them or not as States as regards local legislation or State government. Now, I do not know how I could go further than that. Who could go further ? When a State govern- ment destroys its civil and political organiza- tion surely it ceases to be a State. But let this pass. The President of the United States, in his proclamation to Governor Holden, declared that the State of North Carolina by the rebel- lion had become "deprived of all civil gov- ernment," and by just inference had ceased to be B State. It is by and through its political organization that a State lives, moves, and has a being. When the State government becomes aefunel thete is nothing Left but a dead hulk. Thus much I have said in regard to the status of . these so-called States, and I think I have ■ ! the fact to the satisfaction of rea» ble and intelligent men that they are but territories of the United states, and subject rightfully to the exclusive control of Congress. And now, sir, a few words with regard to this particular bill. Whether it be the wisest and measure that can lie conceived I will not . : what will be the effect of it should it ben le & law I will not attempt to describe; what hindrances will be thrown in the way of its operation by the President of the United Btate 1 can hardly imagine; what power be may to delay, hinder, and trammel the operations of the law I can bardly Hut before I go farther upon this point, I '1 ! your attention to the fed that this is a measure looking to the pacifica- tion of the rebel States and not to their recon- struction. Now, suppose we lay aside, for the moment, the "rebel States" and talk about the reconstruction of the people of those States. The people, not the States, have been making war upon our Government. Then let us deal with the people, and when we have succeeded in reconstructing them, the States, it may then be said, are reconstructed. Whenever you can throw around the loyal people of the southern States the protection of law, enforced, if needs be, by military power, you will form a nucleus around which we can rally all the Union senti- ment of this now suffering and outraged people, and it will grow and expand into a power that + will reconstruct those territories upon a loyal ; basis and restore them to the Union regener- ated and redeemed from treason. But, sir, I will not dwell upon this subject. The labor of the last Congress and of this Congress, so far in the work of reconstruction, has been labor lost. What real progress has been made? The President has tried for nearly two years his policy, and Congress has at- tempted from time to time to put in operation some plan of reconstruction, but by reason of the opposition of the President and his friends they have all been defeated. The President's policy has not proved to be a success. It is a miserable failure. The joint Committee on Reconstruction have reported this bill to the House and recommend its passage, and I am sure that no member need hesitate to vote for it, for if it become alaw it cannot make matters worse than they nnw are, and it may make them better. Something should be done, and done at once. The condition of things there has been growing worse from day tO day since the day of their surrender. Crime is holding a high carnival there: industry is in a great meas- ure paralyzed ; the Congress is repudiated and denounced as BO unconstitutional body, and the laws ofCongressare continually pronounced unconstitutional by the courts of these States, and all that stands in the way of the restoration of the rebel aristocracy to power is crushed out by violence or by the decision of their courts. Gentlemen object to this bill because it pro- to place the people of those States under military authority; but we must remember that 9 these are rugged times, and that to remedy the state of things that exist rugged measures must be resorted to. The resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution was submitted to them in good faith in the hope that it might be ratified and form an equitable basis for the reconstruction of those States. But so far as those States have acted upon it they have rejected it. The exercise of civil power under the Pres- ident's policy has been tried and proved un- availing. Shall this condition of things last always, or shall we try some more stringent measure in the hope that it will result in the restoration of harmony and of peace? This bill may not, possibly, effect the object desired, but it will have this effect if no other : it will topple over these spurious governments set up by the power of presidential usurpation ; it will teach those people that they must look to Congress and not to the President for the terms of peace and reunion. It will teach the President that the law-making power does not intend to yield its right to pass upon the valid- ity of any government that may be formed in these States ; it will inform him that he is not the law-making power of the government, but simply the Executive to execute the will of the loyal people as expressed by their Represent- atives in Congress. But more than this I will not say it will ac- complish, for I am satisfied that the President will do all in his power to defeat the object sought to be attained in this bill. Judging from what he has done in the past I have a right to anticipate his action in the future. This bill purposely withholds from the Pres- ident the power, to assign the generals who are to command the various districts, and vests that power in General Grant. This is one of the best features in the bill. The loyal people ' know that they can trust General Grant. He has been weighed in the balance and not found wanting. This in itself guaranties a fearless, honest, and faithful execution of the powers contained in the bill. I have no fear in vesting this power in the General of our armies, for I believe he will exercise it wisely, prudently, and firmly, as he has exereised all the other powers that have been conferred upon him, and he will appoint judicious and able generals to command these districts. In judging of the fitness, capacity, and qualifications of an officer he has probably no superior in the world. But I am met by the objection that the Pres- ident is Commander-in-Chief of the Army, and that he may rescind any order that General Grant may make under the provisions of this bill. I reply that the President by virtue of his being Commander-in-Chief of the armies may rescind any order that the General in his discretion may make. The President is made by the Constitution for the time he exercises the functions of that office the superior officer of General Grant, and as such superior officer he may possess the power to supervise, change, or rescind an order of the General, but the question is, will he have the temerity to do it in the face of and in violation of this law ? If this bill becomes a law it is not assuming too much to say that General Grant will promulgate the necessary orders to carry it into execution. He will as- sign the various generals selected by himself to the command of these several districts. I am asked in case he does, what is there to prevent the President from rescinding such orders at once? I answer, perhaps nothing except a wholesome fear as to the consequences of the act. As a mere question of power I admit that the Pres- ident would have the power to rescind any order which General Grant might make in as- signing generals under this bill to their various commands. But I ask again, will he dare to assume the responsibility of interfering in such manner? I am asked again, if the President has the power to rescind orders of General Grant why pass this bill ? I respond, pass the bill and place the responsibility of any in- terference in its operations with the President. Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. INGERSOLL. I will. Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. As this bill was originally drawn up I understand that it contained the words "by the President of the United States." Can the gentleman tell why these words were stricken out and the words "by the General of the Army" inserted in their stead? Mr. INGERSOLL. I can give you myopin- 10 ion if you desire it, and it is this : that the change was made because we fear to trust the President with this power, for I do not believe if the duty of assigning these generals to the command of the proposed district was left to the President that he would appoint such gen- erals as Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, Howard, or Eleintzelman, but that he would appoint such generals, if he could find them, who would be willing to yield a ready and pliant subserviency to his wishes and to promote his interests and his policy. We are not without instruction upon this point. "To be fore- warned is to be forearmed." It is time it was settled who is master of the question of reconstruction of the rebel States, the President or Congress. We have been deceived once by the President. That was his fault. If we allow him to deceive us again it will be our fault. Now we know him ; then we did not Mr. HISE. If the gentleman will allow me a moment, I desire to ask him a question. Mr. INGERSOLL. Certainly. Mr. HISE. If you are afraid to trust the dent with the power you have proposed to be conferred by this bill upon the General of the armies, and you are still of the opinion the President has the lawful authority under the Constitution of the United States to re- scind General Grant's orders and take the whole control of the matter in his own hands, then why pass this bill at all? Mr. JM.ERSOLL. The President, under the form of this bill, might still have the con- stitutional authority to rescind the order of the General in a ugning the generals to their is commands) yet he would not have the authority to "take the whole control of tin- matter into his own hands." I answer further that I would pass this bill because I believe it is a measure demanded by the COndil OB of things in the Smith: and in tin.- second place, 1 doubl whether the P dent has the pluck to rescind whatever orders may be made by the Gi oeral under this bill; and further, if the Presidenl Bhould corruptly ■ i- of the Gem ral or reft itc the law it would form a good ground for his impeaohment G tin' right to look behind the mere act of the Pre ident, although the act in itself might be warranted by the Constitution, and to inquire into the purposes of the President for doing it. The President has no right to do an act lawful in itself for corrupt ends ; so that it would bring the question before Congress for decision whether the President, in rescinding the order of the General, acted corruptly or not, and if so found it would be good ground for his impeachment. Mr. STROUSE. That will be the only ground you will ever have. Mr. INGERSOLL. I do not know that I wish I did. And here I will say that I be- lieve we might as well stop the considera- tion of the question of the reconstruction of the southern States or of the southern people, and turn our attention to the reconstruction of the President. I say this in no offensive sense, and I may be permitted to add that if we have wisdom and sagacity enough to frame laws which will keep him within the exercise of the legitimate powers which are conferred upon him by the Constitution, which will keep him within the pale of loyal and patriotic action, I am not certain but we will be serving our country with more honor and more credit, and with the hope of better results than in endeav- oring to reconstruct the rebel States while the President is thrusting so many obstacles in our way. I cannot now say what law should be passed to hedge in and control the President; but any law that could be constitutionally passed that would have that effect I would most gladly vote for. 1 n my opinion the President has broken loose from his moorings under the Constitution, and I feel it incumbent upon me, as one of the Representatives of the people, to do everything in my power to bring him back. I say this out of no feeling of disrespect to the President. I conscientiously believe that on these great vital . questions he is wrong. I will not now say he is intentionally wrong, but the effect of his acts • UpOO the country are just the same without ace to his intentions. Bui htusdoonr duty without anticipating what the action of the President may be. I advocate the passage of this bill out of no feeling of rindictivenera toward the people of the late confederacy. I . ■■ that it will result in their y^ood; that it 11 will promote aud perhaps secure the restoration of law and order, the necessary foundation of all well-organized society. I do not believe the officers selected by General Grant would abuse the powers reposed in them, but I do believe that they would lend the aid of the military power of the Government for the res- toration of civil authority. The fact that I fear the President, stimulated as he will be by those who cluster around him, will interfere with the military execution of this bill will not deter me from voting for it. The President will be held responsible for his action by the people and by Congress, who are the direct representatives of the people and charged with the execution of their will, sub- ject only to the Constitution. It may be per- tinent to inquire here how long this war forced upon Congress by the President shall continue ; how much longer shall we submit to it. It might be well for Congress to settle the ques- tion now whether we are to continue under the present condition of things for and during the remainder of the term of the President, which expires on the 4th of March, 18G9, or whether the President has been guilty of any crime or misdemeanor for which he deserves to be im- peached or removed from his high office, and thus remove this paramount obstruction which stands in the way of the reconstruction by Con- gress of the late rebel States. Mr. TRIMBLE. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment? Mr. INGERSOLL. For what purpose ? Mr. TRIMBLE. To ask a question.' Mr. INGERSOLL. I will. Mr. TRIMBLE. As the gentleman con- cedes that the President, by the Constitution, is Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, I desire to know whether the President would not have the power to revoke any order made by any officer of the Army under this bill ? Mr. INGERSOLL. So far as the ques- tion of power is concerned I have conceded that. Mr. TRIMBLE. I mean constitutional power. Mr. INGERSOLL. Well, for the sake of argument I will concede that also. Mr. TRIMBLE. I wish to ask further whether it would be a ground for impeachment if he exercised that power in a constitutional way? Mr. INGERSOLL. I think I have already answered the gentleman's question in a former portion of my remarks, but for his satisfac- tion I will endeavor to answer it again. I say that it might be a ground of impeachment in this way: if he should use that power for cor- rupt purposes he would undoubtedly be liable to impeachment, and Congress would have the right to inquire into the motives and objects of the President in rescinding such on order, and if it should appear that he rescinded such order for corrupt purposes Congress would not only have the power to impeach him, but ought to impeach him. The President has no right to exercise even constitutional powers for corrupt ends. Mr. TRIMBLE. The gentleman will per- mit me to ask him one further question. The President takes an oath to support the Consti- tution of the United States ; we take a similar oath. Have we the right under the solemnity of our oaths to pass a bill which overrides the Constitution and attempts to deprive the Pres- ident of the power which he constitutionally possesses? Mr. INGERSOLL. I answer that we have not the power to pass a bill which overrides the Constitution and attempts to deprive the President of the power which he constitutionally possesses ; but such is not the case in the bill before us. The gentleman assumes that the bill under consideration "overrides the Con- stitution," but his assumption in my opinion is unfounded. If he refers to any other bill it will be time enough to answer it when such bill is under consideration. This bill I hold to be strictly within the constitutional powers of Congress. Mr. TRIMBLE. The point which I make is this : the gentleman admits that the Presi- dent, by virtue of the Constitution, is Com- mander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy. Mr. INGERSOLL. That is true. Mr. TRIMBLE. That being conceded, I ask the gentleman whether Congress has the right to deprive the President of his power as Commander-in-Chief and place it in the hands of some one else? Mr. INGERSOLL. The gentleman will 12 permit me to say that he is mistaken if he understands this bill as attempting any such thing. This bill leaves the power of the Pres- ident just where the Constitution leaves it. It neither diminishes nor augments it. It simply directs the General of the Army to assign to the command of certain districts created by the bill such generals as he may in his dis- cretion select, and this does not interfere with the powers of the President as Commander-in- Chief of the Army and Navy. The character of this legislation is not new. The same tiling was done many times before, and its constitutionality was never questioned until now. By an act of Congress the office of Provost Marshal General Jvas created, and the duties of that officer were specified in the act. By acts of Congress officers of the Army and Navy by name have been assigned to special duty heretofore, and we propose to do nothing more than that by this bill. Mr. Speaker, I will now return to the con- sideration of the subject, the discussion of which I had commenced when I was inter- rupted by the gentleman from Kentucky. I Was speaking in reference to the impeachment of the President and the necessity of determin- ing without unnecessary delay as to whether the President has been guilty of any crimes or misdemeanors for which he should be im- peached and removed ("nun his high office. If he i- iii sent ii is due to him and to the coun- try that the agitation of this question should . for it must be apparent to all that while this question remains undetermined the coun- try i- necessarily agitated on this subject, the commercial and financial interests of the couri- trv are disturbed by it, and the prosperity of the country is affected seriously, and the sooner the question is settled the better for all parties and interests concerned. I ■ ri rnai h I intend no reflection upon the honorable committee that has charge of thi abject : but thai this inquiry ought to b • Once and without delay is most evi- dent, rf the President has been guilty of for which he should be impeached, let us not shrink from tin- responsibility which properly belongs to as. Ifhe la guiltless he should no! be unnecessarily haunted with the specter of Impeachment If he ii to be tried, and when tried found guiltless, we must then submit, to the rule of the President to the end of his con- stitutional term and suffer him to pursue his ./< vious way. If he is to remain in that office for the coming two years we might as well abandon the question of the reconstruction of the States lately in rebellion by legislative en- actment, and at onco proceed to fortify ourselves against any further encroachments on the part of the Executive, and content ourselves with such legislation as shall be necessary to pre- vent the Representatives from the President's "pocket States" from occupying seats on this floor until after another presidential election shall have given us a President true to liberty, true to justice, true to the best interests of the ^ whole country. Then harmony will be restored » between the executive and the legislative depart- ments of the Government, then the work of reconstruction can again be resumed and pros- ecuted to a speedy restoration of these States upon a basis in accordance with the principles of the Constitution. We can certainly endure the present condition of things if the southern States can. It is of more importance to them to have representation than it is to us that they should have it. If they prefer to continue in tlK'ir obstinacy rather than yield to the just ami humane de- sires of Congress, I say compel them to bear their equal share of the burdens of the Govern- ment and withhold from them the blessings which result from a condition of restoration to the Union and to representation in Congress until such time as they are willing to do justice. Let the responsibility rest with them, it will not belong to us. They have rejected the consti- tutional amendment proposed at the hurt ses- sion of G * ■■:■' i i: perhaps they will like this measure better. The gentleman from Ohio. [Mr. I.r Bi.ovn.] in his remarks to-day, seemed to be somewhat excited over an anticipated war if we passed this bill. I desire to ask the gentleman where • hit - ildien to make war upon the < Government and the Congress of the United States? IOU "ill hardly find them in the rebol States. They have had enough of war ; they have been thoroughly whipped, and do not flat- ■ he whipped again, You will not get them from the loyal people of the northern or 13 southern States. If you get any at all you may drum up a few recruits from the Democratic ranks, but in the present weak and shattered condition of that party you would hardly be able to raise a very formidable army, and I tell the gentleman if the party decreases in the same ratio in the coming year as it has in the last, the whole party together would not form a re- spectable corps oV arm€e. A Member. How about the bread-and-but- ter brigade? w Mr. INGERSOLL. Pardon me ; I did not think of that heroic and patriotic band, but I do not apprehend much danger from that source; it would be a bloodless conflict ; we would have no use either for the sword or the musket ; all that would be necessary to make a conquest over them would be found in the commissary department. Order out the bread and butter and peace would be restored. I ask the gentleman, who is going to com- mand your army in case you make war upon the Government? Do you believe that Gen- erals Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, or Howard will command and lead your armies against Congress and the loyal people of the United States? Are they going to make war upon those who have been their friends through- out the long and bloody struggle for the sup- pression of the rebellion? Are they going to make war upon those without whose aid they would not now wear upon their brows the re- splendent laurels of victory which they won ? You will find no Grant, no Sherman, no Sheri- dan, no Thomas, no Howard, to command you, except to command you to disperse. You will not find one heroic soldier who fought to main- tain the honor of his country' s flag, for the pres- ervation of his country's life, for the suppres- sion of the rebellion, for the destruction of slavery, that will join your army. No, not one. For one I anticipate no war, and if the Pres- ident would only lend his ready cooperation to the measures matured and passed by Congress for the restoration of permanent peace the most timorous would not even dream of war, knowing that if such was the fact, harmony and prosperity would be restored without de- lay. The people of the South would not for a moment stand in the way of congressional reconstruction but for the encouragement held out to them under the presidential policy. Under that policy they see in anticipation restoration to power — yea, augmented power, more power than they had previous to their rebellion. Under the reconstruction policy of Congress they see a diminution of their power unless they enlarge their ideas of justice, lib- erty, and the rights of man. Should they do this, then their political power would be equal to ours in the ratio of their population. But until they consent to stand upon the platform we stand upon, and in their fundamental laws grant liberty and equality to all men, they will find the heroic people of the North at the bal- lot-box and here in Congress battling them in the future as they have in the past. We have laid aside the musket and we hope to be able to complete our work with the bal- lot. We must gather the fruits of our victo- ries. It has been so decreed by the people, and in this Government the people are supreme. Let us hear no more of a war upon the loyal people and their Representatives. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Le Blond] and his colleague [Mr. Finck] denounced with considerable vehemence the action of the majority here as tending to monarchy ; that we favored despotism ; that we ignore the rights of the southern people ; that we are going to fasten upon them governments unsupportable by reason of their tyranny. How, Mr. Speaker, can any man without blushing make the charge against the Repub- lican Union party that it is despotic ; that it is attempting to destroy the liberties of the peo- ple ; that it is seeking to establish monarchy or an oligarchy ; that it is seeking to place the powers of the Government in the hands of the few to the exclusion of the many ? Sir, I have but to point with becoming pride to the record of the Republican party to refute this charge. Has it not enlarged and extended the area of liberty? Has it not taken by the hand the lowly, the poor, the oppressed, and the downtrodden and lifted them up to a polit- ' ical level with itself? Has it not, in opposi- tion to the falsely called Democratic party, stricken the corroding shackles from four mil- lion slaves, which the hand of tyranny and despotism fastened upon them, and which the 14 Democratic party kept upon them during three generations ? The shackles and that party are going to dust together. This, sir, is the fruit gathered from the seed planted by the old abolition party many years ago in the free soil of the North. Slavery and oligarchy — the worst features of despotism — were cherished and strengthened by the party calling itself Democratic. When the abolition party came into power it struck a giant blow, and Moloch and his worshipers fell to rise no more. To whom are we indebted for the repeal of the odious fugitive slave law? To the Repub- lican party that is in power to-day. In its hatred of despotism it struck that hideous law out of existence. To whom is the world indebted for the grand lessons of liberty and equal justice that have been taught and enforced within the past few years? To the abolition party. To whom are the colored people of this District indebted for the recognition of their manhood and their rights as citizens? To that same Abolition- Republican party in Congress here. Standing loyal and true to its professions it was the first party to give the country an illustra- tion of the principles it professed in favor of universal liberty. It voted for the abolition of slavery at the seat of your Government and carried it over your opposition. It conferred throughout the length and breadth of this land the character and rights of citizens upon the emancipated blacks in the face of the opposi- tion of }'our party and over the veto of your President 1'ecognizing the right of the black man to liberty it placed in his hands the ballot to protect thai liberty. I roice is again heard in opposition to the admission of new States with the word " white" in their constitutions. It is against the recog- nition of the inequality of man ; and here again your party is on the side of despotism and oligarchy. The Republican party has ever been the party "f liberty, of equality, and justice. Tliut party ifl BOW most gloriously ful- filling the bopet of the good men who fonnded and established this Republic by carrying into practical effect the immutable principle of the Declaration of Independence, "that all men are created equal." For the first time in the history of the Government has this divine prin- ciple been recognized by its law-making power and carried into execution. Instead of war the day of jubilee is coming, and this Repub- lican party is going to usher it in. Are we in favor of monarchy and despotism? Are you afraid that the Republican Union party will fasten upon any portion of the people the chains of slavery or any form of despotic gov- ernment? Have we not in the face of the fiercest oppo» sition enlarged the area of freedom and made it coextensive with theJiepublic itself? The Republican party has done all this and more ; all for the amelioration and elevation of man- kind. Language fails me to portray its glori- ous deeds in behalf of liberty and justice. I am proud of that party. It has done more to aggrandize free institutions than any and all other parties that ever existed on the face of the earth. A portion of its fame belongs to me. It will descend to my children. The influence of its glorious deeds are not confined alone to the limits of our own country. It has extended across the seas, and is to-day under- mining and threatening with destruction the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World. It questions the divine right of kings and their thrones are less secure, and its influence will not cease to be felt and move the hearts of men until the world is redeemed from the thralldom of despotism. Now, sir, with that Sublime record of the past do you suppose it possible for the Republican party to do an act inconsistent with that record, an act that will dim the luster of its immortal fame? No, sir, never. We are making a grand advance. Clothed in the panoply of justice, supported by the unconquerable will .if a lib- erty-loving pi ople, we are ttwtnctble. Tin' day is coming, it is not far distant, when justice will be satisfied and the blessings of liberty secured to all. and then a grand and majestic Republic will have risen upon the ruins of the present. \ -^ I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 013 744 480 A £ pH8J