PEACE AND RE-UNION. E 668 .0628 S P E E C.H Copy 1 HON. JAMES DIXON, (OF CONNECTICUT,) mxmKSD or tss SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBKXJA-Rlir 37. ISeC?, WASHINGTON, D. C: HENRY POLKINHORN & SON, BOOK AND JOB PRINTERS, 375 and 377 D street, near 7tli. 1866. e^JU^ (,TIIL>1T:. irvr m ax' i50» S P E E C E-T The Senate resumed the con?icIeration of the following resolution from the House of Representatives : " Resolved hij the Honae of Rppresenfatives, ("the Senate concnrrinfr,^ That in ordfu- to "close agitation iipon a question which seems likely to disturb tlici action of tlie Gov- " ernmniit, as well as to quiet the uncertainty which is ajjitating the mindsof the *' people of the eleven States which have been declared to hi-? in insurrection, no Senator " or Kepresentative shall he admitted into either brancli of Congress from any of said "States until Congress shall have declared such State entitled to such representation." Mr. DIXON. Mr. Presidt-nt, the Senate has been addressed since the reception of the veto message by the Senator from lUiuois, [Mr. Teu-mbull,] the Senator from Maine, [Mr. Fessenden, ] and the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Suekman,] in speeches which, as specimens of parliamentary debating, are seldom surpassed in this Chamber. With many of the opinions expressed by the Senator from Ohio I entirely agree ; and while I shall differ somewhat from the other Senators, I admired in common witli tliH entire Senate the spirit and tone, not less thnn the abilitj', which they brought to the discussion. It was interesting to notice how the emotions which excited the minds of both these Sen- tors, suppressed and subdued, yet not entirely concealed, added new vigor to their lan- guage, a fresher coloring to their ideas, and the energy and ardor of controlled and sub- jected passion to their mannt^r, reminding us of the volcanic (ires pent up and smotlnred in the breast of the mountain, which stimulate and invigorate the luxuriant growth on the surface. Both these Senators were deeply excited by the position taken by the Presi- dent. They are not men quietly to brook opposition, yet they both spoke of him in measured terms of respect. The Senator ^-om Maine, in particular, used language which I gladly quote : "I believe that the President is a friend of his country. I believe that he is n, pat- "riotic, devoted citizen; that he would do nothing to injure any of its institutions "under any circumstance if he was aware, while doing it, of what he was doing." Yet, when I heard these words from the lips of the Senator, I confess that I felt that they were not much for him to say. I thought it was not much for that Senator to siiy of him who, when the rebellion broke out — then a member of tliis body — stood alone of all his southern colleagues faithful among the faithless ; who, without any possible hope of otlier reward than the approval of his own conscience, turned away fjom all the temptations which beset and overpowered almost every other Union man in the South, who, when the war raged in Tennessee, left these seats where we lecliued at ease, and, in the midst of rebels and murderers, suii'ered for his country in mind and in body, by himself and in his family, all that man could suffer and yet live ; I say I thought it was not much for the Senator to say that such a man was a friend of hia country, that he was "a patriotic, devoted citizen" "who would do nothing to injure any of its institutions while aware of what he was doing." No, sir, it did not, when I heard it, seem much for the Senator to say. Yet when I considered when and where it was said, the time, the circumstances, I acknowledged it was much. When [ i-eflected that it was said, when a leader, made such by his party, in another place, was declar- ing that the veto, the constitutional return of the freedmen's bill with the President's objections thereto was an act of usurpation ; when I remembered that leading journalists were denouncing the President as a deliberate and dishonored traitor ; when I recalled the fact that a distinguished Senator had, in consequence of the veto, thought it his duty to introduce a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States rendering the President ineligiljle to a second term of office, 1 felt that it was very much for the Senator to say, contrasting, aa I did, his caUuness and candor with the unbridled passion elsewhere exhibited. In view of this expression of confidence by the Senator from Maine in the President, in which I most fully share, I desire to say a few words on the subject of the resolution now before us ; but beiore I do so I wish to imitate the example of the Senator from Maine in expressing my sentiments on another subject. He took occasion, while dis- cussing tliis resolution," to allude to the veto messa-e itself. I :-haU say a few words upon that qiu-stiou ; and p.-rmit me to remark that 1 ft^lt very much in regard to the Freedmi-n's Bureau bill as the Senator from Maine said he felt. I voted for that measure, but 1 voted lor it with some degree of reluctance. I thought it liable to objections ; but 1 yielded my objections as I have often been in the habit of doing, and probably again shall be in the habit of doing, to those in whose judgment I have more confidence than I have in my own. But, sir, I never looked upon that measure as a principle. ■ I looked upon it merely as a measure of detail, a mode of doing a cer- tain thing desirable to be done. When I voted lor it I did not suppose myself voting for any principle; 1 thought 1 was saying that as a measure it was proper to be adopted. Bat when I lound that the President of the United States, who wss to execute that law, had himself such objections to it tliat he could not sign it, I was willing to yield myjudt^ment to what I thought might be his better judgment. I had, sir, another reason which I will frankly state. It is my belief— right or wrong— that wliat is known as the policy of the President for the restoration of the late se«eded States in this Government is the correct policy— I believe it is the only safe policy. ,. • Mr. WADE. I hope the Senator will tell us exactly wh-*t that pohcy is. Mr'. DIXON. Beiore 1 conclude 1 shall state what I understand to be that policy. If the Senator will permit me I will state it in that part of my remarks to which 1 have in mv own mind assigned it. Now, sir, I may be wrong ; I think I may say that over-confidence in my own judg- ment is not among my faults ; but I believe, as religiously and sincerely as I ever believed in any doctrine, that the only mode of saving this country from the perils that now surronnd it, is that mode which the President of the United States is iuchned to follow. Believing that, I am willing, for tlie sake of supporting that policy, to drop all questions of detail. I will not differ M'ith him upon questions of detail, if I think that by so doing I shall impair his influence in the great work in which I believe he is engaged. The Senator from Ohio has asked me what is the President's policy. I have not yet come to that point : but I desire to say that with regard to myself upon this subject, I occupy no new ground. It is said by some that thc-re are those who are following the Pn'Sident, who desire to court executive favor. It is hard to beheve that there is any Senator here who would give up his own convictions of duty for the sake of executive smiles. I trust I should not do it. But, fir, 1 had the honor, more than three years ago, of taking in the Senate of the United States the same position which I now occu- py ; for some reason, I know not what, I anticipattd this discussion. I supposed when our Army was before Richmond, in 1S(J2, that in a very short time Richmond would fall, an^ the confederacy would fall with it. It was only a question of time. What I thought would take three weeks took three years ; but, sir, the fall of Richmond and the fall of the confederacy came, and with it has come the question which I thought then would come in a very short time. 1 took the liberty to offer in the Senate a resolu- tion which I AviU read, o'f course I do not quote it, nor anything I said on that occasion, as having the slightest authoiity, but I quote it to justify and defend myself bvfore my constituents, and before this body, and to show that the position which I now take was not taken for this occasion, and because the President of the United States happened to take it, but because I believed it to be right, and for that reason 1 now siistaiu it. I olTered the following resolution a few days previous to the 25th of June, 1862: " liesolvcil, That all acts or ordinances of secession alleged to have been adopted by " any Legislature or convention of the people of any State are, as to the Federal Union, " absolutely null and void ; and that while such acts may and do subject the individual " actors therein to forfeitures and penalties, they do not in any degiee effect the rela- ""tioDS of the States, wherein they purport to have been adopted, to the (Jovcrnment " of the Unit(!d States, but are, as to such Government, acts of ndiellion, insurrection, " and hostility on the part of the in.iividuals engaged therein or giving assent tliereto ; " and that .such Stales arc, notwithstanding sncli acts and ordinances, members of the "Kedeial Union, and as smh are subje.l to all tlu' obligations and duties imposed " ujKJn liic-m by llie t;onstiiuti()n of tlie United States ; and the loyal citizens of such " States are entitled to all the rights and privileges thereby guarantied or conferred." That resolution was offered by me, and wliile it was under consideration I took occa- •ion on the 25th of June, 18ti2,"to make some remarks upon it. I will read very briefly from those remarks ; ami T desire to apolo::;izf> to thn Senate for reading what I then said. Of course, I do not read it as autlioritv, but as a defeuse oi my own action now. I said : "And here I wish to say that, although the importance of the subject would have "justified me in so doing, I have not initiated this discussion. The lesolution which "1 oli'ered in the Senate, declaring, as I believe it does, trutlis of immense iuiportauoo " to the nation at this ciisis, was not offered by me until the Senator from Massachu- " setls [Mr. Sumnek] had proposed a series of resolutions declaring an ojjposite doc- *' trine, which I consider I'atal 'o our form of Governmewt, destruitive of our Feiiernl "system, and utterly' incompatible with a restor'tion of harmonious ndations between "the States in which the rt-bellion now prevails and the United States." "In our present struggle to support and maintain the (Tovernment of the United "States, we are tempted to forget that the time may come when the just preroga.tives "of State authority may require defence. The arm of the central (xovernment, when "once its control is re-established throughout all our domain, will be more powerful " than ever. Strengthened by the exercise of its vast and irresistible energies, its im- " peiial mandates will evei-ywhere witiiin its jurisdiction command respect and obe- "dience. What encroachments it may be tempted by pou-er aad opportunity to make " on the proper sphere of State authority, we cannot foresee ; but it is certain that for " a long period after th- rebellion is suppressed and until its memory shall have in some "measure faded from the minds of men, the popular inclination will be to strengthen " the Federal at the expense of the State governments. The power which their arms, "their treasure, and their blood will have rescued from destruction, will he the favorite "power of the people. Its encroachments will be viewed, not as before, with watchful '•jealousy, but with favor or indifference, while State authority will be viewed as that "dangerous and usurping influence that once attempted to overthrow the Government " of the Union. This is a censideration which ought not to be forgotten by the people " of the smaller States ; and it may be well for them to remember that in the genera- " tions to come, through which our Federal system is to endure, their posterity may "find in the just rights of the State governments, their surrst protection against a cen- "tral despotism. ********* "Perplexing as is the question of the conduct of the war, thereis another, which, to " thoughtful minds, is not less difficiilt and embarrassing. It is this: when armed re- "sistence to the authority of the Federal (iovernment shall cease, and active rebellion "and insurrection no longer exist, what will be ■ ur condition and our policy? Will " the Government of the United States be re-e-tablished throughoirt thirty-four States "united under that Government, or will a portion of these States, having shot madly " from their spheres, have ceased to be States in the Union, and have become provin- " ces — teriitorial possessions— to be governed as such by the central power? " This is the questicm of the day. On this the people of the United States are to act ; " on this parties are to be formed. On one or the other side of this question the in- " telligent, thinking people of the United States are to range themselves. Ihewar " has now brought them virtually together. On the question of its prosecution, there "has been, and is at this moment, really no division of opinion worthy of notice in the "loyal States ; but when the war shall cease, the question which I have proposed will "deaaud their decision, and the diversity of opinion which will exist may be easily " foreseen from that already manifested here and elsewhere. What the liual decision "of the people will be, in my mind, does not admit of a doubt. It may be given in "the terse, expressive, prophetic laiiguage of Andrew Jackson : ' The Federal Uxiox : " IT MUST BE PllESEKVED.' " I attempted by such reasoning as I could command and such illustrations as I could offer to show that my resolution was correct in principle ; and, among other things, I made these remarks : "Let us see whether even in point of fact, tliis is true. Take the case of Tennessee. "She has attempted to pass an ordinance of secession, which has been followed by "open rebellion and armed resistance to the General Gi)vernment. For a long period "no loyal citizen could live in peace in that State. Those who held to tht-ir allegiance "to the General Government were banished. The family of one distinguished patriot, " a citizen of Tennessee and a member of this body, were driven from their Lome, and "he was himself exiled." He is now President of the United States. " All that was required for the complete dismemberment of Tennessee from the " Union had taken place iu that State ; and if it were possible for auy State, b/ hor 6 " OTvn act, or the acts of her people, to cease to be a State in the Union, Tennessee " ceased to be such. Yet, how did the Senate treat the fact ? No matter what maybe " the hiw, the fact, it is said, is the test of tlie true condition of tlie Ftate ; and what " was the fact in the opinion of tlie Senate ? Every day the name of Andrew Johnson " was called by our Secretary, and as a memb-T of the Senate of the United States he *' answered to his name as a Senatoi' from Tennessee. Was he a Senator ? Was he as " such entitled to his seat ? Was Tennessee entitled to be represented in the Senate ? "If so, was she not a State in the Union notwithstanding the prevalent rebellion by *' which she was overrun and devastated?" It may be said in reply to that, that Mr. Johnson, then a Senator here, being once a Senator was always a Senator. That is not so. If Tennessee had become a portion of a foreif^n country, a poi tiou of Great Britain, for instance, and was engaged in war with us, would she be represented in this body ? Should we not have exchided him ? Have we not the power of self-defense ? I beg Senators to tell me if that is so, whether pvery State among the seceding States could not have held its representation in this b jdv, because a man once a Senator is always a Senator ? Would the Senate have ad- mitted the right ? Not for a moment. They would have said self-defense requires us to exclude a Senator in such a case. I made the same supposition with regard to Virginia. I made the supposition of a more extreme case : tliat Messrs. Hammond and Cuesnut, then Senators here from Sou li Carolina, had thought it their duty, to remain here in spite qf the act of seces- sion passed by that State, and perform their sworn duty to the Government ; and I asked the yenate if they could not have remained here ; and furthermore, I asked the Senate if it was not their duty to remain, and if every loyal citizen of South Carolina had not a right to demand of them to remain in this body as Senators from South Carolina, although nine-tenths of their people were engaged in rebellion ; and there was no Senator here a*, that time prepared to say that my position was not correct. I of course do not say tliat this was conclusive. The subject then was not fully considered. But, sir, on that very day a debate sprang up, and the subject was'thoroughly discussed. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Howard] and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Wade] both spoke on the subject ; and the position which I took, although it excited some doubt in their minds, excited no horror. I was not looked upon as a heretic because I took this position. It was considered that there was some doubt with regard to it. The Senator from Michigan said he thought there was a difficulty, and r;u]ier intimated that he differed from mii ; bathe did not take the ground tbat my position was either heretical or unpatriotic. Throughout the country at that time, wherever this jiosition was noticed, the loyal press of the country, especially in vny own State, defended that resolution. Almost every newspaper in the Statt^ declared it to lie the true doctrine ; and the Legislature of the State, then in session, adopted, I think, resolutions of a similar cliaracter. I trust I shall be panloned for having thus allued to remarks of my own. I went on further in that speech and attempted to show what I believed to be the true policy and tlie true theory on the subject. Of course I shall not wenry the Senate with read- ing what even then, when it was freshly said, wiis not perhaps worthy of attracting much attention. That was the position that I then took ; and am I now, when the President of the United St tes takes tlie same position, to turn upon him ? Am I to say tliat he is wrong ? Am I to be denounced because I hold to the same position now which I then held, notwithstanding the President of the United States occupies it? I believed then that the doctrine was correct. It has been fully argued sim.e ; able B] eeches have been mad<> upon it ; immense talent in this body and in the other House Las been exhausted upon this subject; and yet I have never been able to see tliat my posiiion then taken has been successfully controverted. I believe it to be correct. I though it right then; I think it right now. If I am wrong now, I was wrong then, and have bo-n utterly and entirely wrong ever since. Under this state of things, a bill was before us establishing a Froedmen's Bureau. As I said, I voted for it, not without doubt, not without hesitation ; and I had occasion fjr reasons I have given to change my vote; and wln-n the President's veto came in I voted to sustain the vc^to and against the bill. I thought the bill most decidedly ob- jectionaDe. I desire to refer to a fi^w remarks made by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Tkumhitll) in his defense of the bill against the veto, and for a reason which I shall soon state, I shall not have occasion to dwell long on that portion of the subject, nor upon the remarks of the Senator from Illinois. I will refer to only one or two of the poi 'its mnde by him. He said that the President's objm^tion tliat the bill established the Freedmon's Bureau as u part of the pernianeiit legislation of the Government was not correct, that it was not a permanent act ; and what reason did the Senator give for saying that it was not a permanent act ? He said it conld be repealed ; that the act provided that it Rhonld continue in operation until by law it was provided otherwise. Is not that the case with every law ? Can you make a permanent act in this Government ? Is it possible to pass an act that cannot be repealed? Suppose you had said in that bill that it should continue in force for fifty years, would it hare been permanent in consequence of that ? Would not the next Congress have the power to repeal it ? It was as permanent as any law enacted by the United States can possibly be made. There should have been a limitation of time in it, and in the first Freedman's Bureau bill there was such a limi- tation. It was limited to one year after the commencement of peace. In this bill there was no limitation ; it was to continue in force until repealed, and therefore was as per- manent as it was possible for the Congress of the United States, by any legislation, to make any act whatever. The Senator then said that the President's objection to military jurisdiction was not a good objection, because the President had been up to this time exercising the same jurisdiction. Does it follow that because the President of the United States has ex- ercised military jurisdiction up to this time, therefore in a permanent act of legislation you should authorize him to do that for an indefinite period ? That was the point that the President made : this is a permanent act ; you authorize permanent military juris- diction in civil cases; and because I exercised it last week, shall I be empowered to exercise it next year? I think there was a vast difference between the two cases. Then the Senator 'alluded to the intimation that this was a bill for the advan- tage of black men, rather then of white men. I desire to say that if that were the case it is not the slightest objection to my mind. I think it was made for black men in point of fact, and because it was made for black men was no objection to me. I am not one of those who could ever understand why because a man is called con- servative he should hate the colored population, or why because he supports the principles of this Government he should have an aversion or prejudice toward that population. If there are those who have that feeling, I am thankful that I am free from it. It was no objection to my mind that the bill was intended for the benefit of black men. The fa'it cannot be denied that it was so intended. Was it not called a Freedmen's Bureau ? Are white men freedmeu ? Was it not to feed and support the wards of the nation ? Are white men wards of the nation ? I voted for it with that understanding that it was for the benefit of black men ; and I am ready now, by my vote here and elsewhere, and so are my constituents, to do anything, as much as any other people will do, to pay their money as freely and exert themselves as earnestly for the benefit of black men as for the benefit of white men. I place them on the same ground. I know no distinction in my feelings, in my sympathies, in my charities, be- tween black men and white men. I have no preferences in that respect. There may be subjects on which I have pi-eferences, but in the matter of kindness, of doing them a favor, of saving them from sutfering, I should never ask whether the suffering man was a black man or a white man. It is enough for me to know that he is a man. But, sir, I will not follow the Senator from Illinois further, and for a reason which I shall now proceed to give. His speech was one of ability, and we had the points that he made given at full length in the papers the next day. He gave sixteen reasons for opposing the President's veto and supporting his bill. But, sir, I am not called upon to answer those reasons ; the Senator from Maine [Mr. Fessenden] has relieved me of that labor. He has answered them for me. What did the honorable Senator say here in his place ? I will quote his exact language. He said : " I will say in regard to that message that I had no very particular attachment to "the bill which was thus vetoed." Neither had I. I felt very much as he did. The Senator continued, as follows : "In some particulars it did not meet my approval. I think some of the reasons " which the Presidimt gives for not approving it are such as would commend them- " selves to public consideration. It is a bill upon the provisions of which there might " be a very considerable difl'erence of opinion. I yieldeii, however, the objections I had, "and one of them was very^uch like that stated by my honorable friend from West "Virginia [Mr. Willey] to the sixth section of the bill, becaus:- I thought, on consido- '• ration, that the power did exist, and it was especially necessary to exercise it, and " the bill therefore received my v.-.te. If the President had confined himst^lf in the ob- "jections which he stated to a criticism of the bill itself, it is very jjossibie that I "might have been quite willing to waive my own feelings aud opinion in regard to the " bill as it passed, and to sustain his veto." J 8 I think it was perhaps a misfortnne to the public that the President, in view of that declaration, di'i not stop at the point where the !:enator from Maine was satisfied with the Veto. I conlil almost wish tliat the I'lesident had nnt given that last leason after having given fifteen good reasons wliicli the Senator from Illinois attempted to answer and with wiiK-h the Senator fiom Maine was satisfied. What moral power would have been added to the President's position and ihe position ot those of us wlio voted to sustain the Presidei.t, if the distinguished Senator Irom Maine had voted with us. 1 could wish that the President when he had given filteen good reasons for rejecting this bill had not given that additional reason which does not satisfy the mind of the Senator from Maine. It is not lor me to comment on the action of any Senator in this body but I may say that it struck me as somewhat remarkable that the Senator, finding a bad bill here and a veto .•sustained by good reasons, should refuse to sustain the veto and impicss liis condemnation upon the bill because one bad reason was given for its disapproval by the executive. Sir, if we all aeted on that principle, I do not know what would be the result. I have voted for many measnies for which good speeches have been made and for which some bad ones have been made, for which some good reasons and for which some un- satisfactory reasons have been offered. I never felt that I was ju.-tified in voting against a bill because some of the reasons given for it were unsatisfactory. But the Senator says, and 1 wish to do him no injustice, that he voted for the bill and against the veto because the principle involved in the bad reason was such that his vote would seem to sustain the principle ; and he went on to say that in his judgment he could not vote otherwise than he did with self-respect. Perhaps if we had thought as he did, we would have done so. Fortunately, we did not think so. We did not consider a principle involved in it. therefore I lor one did not violate my self- respect by voting for a measure which the Senator himself declared very objectionable, and which might have received his negative vote if one reason had not been given which was unsatisfactory to his mind. But the Senator says that the reason involved a principle. I confess I have not yet been able to see that the principle wkich he said was involved in that reason was really involved in it. The Senator says in the first place that the President gave this as a rea- son f r the Veto, and when that was denied by the Senator from Wi^consin, [Mr. Doo- LiTLK, ] the Senator from Maine with soxie degree, as I thought, of severity insisted upon his assertion. True it was a reason. It was stated as a grave objection to the bill; but does not the Senator's own experience show him that a Senator may have grave ob- jections to a bill and still vote for it? It is possible that the President of the United States, notwithstanding this grave objection to the bill, might have sent it back with his signature but for the other reasons which be gives us, and which the Senator him- self is not prepared to say are not good and sufficient. I think, therefore, that it does not follow that the President would have vetoed this bill in consetjuence of the last reason given by him. But suppose he had ; suppose that had been sufluient in his mind. The Senator goes on to say that the President takes the ground that not only that bill must be vetoed, but every other bill relating to the States formerly in rebellion, if that doct'ine is correct. 1 think this inference fol- lows still less than the other. It does not follow in my mind at all. In point of fact what h:is the President done ? He lias already signed one bill at least — and I do not know but on inquiry at tlie Secratary's table I should find more, relating wholly to the southern States, notwithstanding they are not represented — and that was the bill for paying the expenses of this very joint committee. Tiie Senator says that the President takes the ground that taxation and representa- tion must go together, and therefore he infers that the President believes you cannot tax those States un!e;-s they are repre.sented. Sir, the President takes no such ground, lie knows full well that ta.\;dion must exist. Tiie Constitution of the United States provides that duties upon imports shall be the same in nil parts of the country. We must therefore have taxation. The President ot the United States in one of liis pro- clamations extended tijo internal revenue .system over the wliole South. Taxation exists there, therefore, by Ills own act; and yet the Senator says tliai the President claims that taxation cannot exist unless representation also exists. What tl'.e I'resident said was, not tiiat taxation should cease, but tlint representation should begin. He is not argnin/ against taxitioii, but for repn sentation; and lie says that inasmuch as we must ta;^ tlie.-e States, they ought, in a maniur wliieh i shall soon indicate, lobe repri;- Bented. I think, tlieretore, tliat those; Senators who voted to sustain the President's veto and against tlie bid. may ft-el that they havn not violated their self respect, as the Beiiatoi' intinuitiMl. ThN. In point of time it is very indefinite. It is definite enough in its char- acter, but the time wh«n those States can be rejiresented is the question. Here is an- other indication. I find certain resolutions oflered and adopted by a public meeting at Gettysburg on the 'Ml day of October, iHll,'), I»y Hon Tiiaddicits Stuvkns, a man of great distinction and ability, a leader I may say in the other l)ranch of Congress. His talents entitle him to tiie post. These are the resolutions wliich he oft'ered : " RcsolrptI, That in our jiid}.',nieut tlie best way to cfTi-ct that [rciconstruction] is to " treat tlie so-ualhtd 'conletierute States' as htibject to all tiie liabilities whicli they " claimed fiir themselves as a belligeront independent de facto alien to the Coiistitu- "tion ; and cntlUcd to claim no protecliou under il. 19 "Resolved, That having conquered this hostile belligerent, they shall be held as a " conquered enemy, -and the laws which are to govern them shall be referred to Con- *' gress, to which, as our State convention has well resolved, it properly lielongs. " Resolrecl, Tliat, until Congress shall have acted, none of the 'confederate States' " is entitled to be represented in Congress, but shall be held and treated as Territories " until again admitted into the Union. " Riisolved, Tliat we demand, on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania, that Congress " shall c^eclare as forfeited and vested in the Government all the real estate of such of "the enemy as were rebels, whose estate at the beginning of the war was worth tea "thousand dolhars, or more, as our State convention resolved, though we woiild have " preferred a lower sum ; and who were the owners of more than two hundred acres of " arable land. ''Resolved, That we desire that the forfeited land shall be divided into convenient "farms; and after assigning a just portion to the freedmen, the balance should be " sold, at convenient periods, to the highest bidder ; and the proceeds to be applied as " follows : "1. Invest 8300,000,000 in six per cent. Government bonds, and add the interest " semi-annually to tlie pensions of tliose who have become pt-nsiouers by the casualties " of this ntamous war. " 2. Appropriate .'^200,000,000 to pay the damages done by the rebels to loyal citi- " zens wliether North or South. "3. Pay the balance into the United States Treasury, toward the payment of he "national debt." Five hundred million dollars to be received by confiscation and sale of the property of the wliole pouth, and the balance of the price to go to pay the national debt. That is the proposition of the honorable chairman of this joint committee. Tliis shoclced the Senator from Massachusetts, and I may say that in the way of radicalism anything that shocks him must be sufficiently shocking. [Lauglxter.] He did not favor it. He was shocked by this monstrous proposition. vv liat is it ? The confiscation of the property of the whole people, the actual turning out to starvation of an entire popula- tion, and until tliat is done no representation shall be admitti-^d into Congress. That is one of the things whicli Congress is to do. That is one mode of reconstruction ! And still the Senator from Illinois says, in that convincing manner of his, tliat there is no human lieiug, to his knowlt^lge, who proposes any indelinite fXelusion in point of time. Will it not tak<-^ some little time to accomplish tiiis, 1 ask that Senator? Is not tlie honorable member who introduced these resolutions at Gettysburg a man to whom that Senator looks as one who has the right to give opinions 1 I do not say that he always follows his lead, but he said that he knew no man who proposed an indeliaite exclusion. Sir, that gentleman is the chairman on the part of the House of this joint committee. To him you have committed this question of reconstruction. Our friend and colleague from Maine is powerless in that committee ; he has, 1 think, six members on the part of the Senate. 'J'he other chairman of the committee has nine. What can our dis- tinguished friend do in tliat body ? It is a question of foi ce, a question of physical po;ver, a question of numbers, it is not a question of intellect. If ii, were a question of intellect, I think the two chairmen would be pretty fairly pitted against each other. I would say of the contest between these two men, the honorable member from Penusylvahia and the honorable Senator from Maine, as the poet said of the battle of Talavera : "A glorious sight to see ' For him who had no friend or brother there." [Laughter.] Now, sir, I have spoken of the policy of those who differ from me, .and, as I suppose, from tile President, on this subject. I might allude to other distinguished imMi. I have spoken of the gentleman from Pennsylvania; I have speken of the Sena' or from Wisconsin. I will allude now to anotlier gentleman of high position in the House of Representatives. I have re.id his speech in the Globe. I suppose in that official papor I may comment on it with propriety — a speech of great force, perhaps unsurpassed by any speech made on this subject. I allude to a speech published in the Globe as tho speech of Mr. Siiellabakger, of Ohio. What does he say ? He Las a policy cf recon- struction ; and he says : "Mr. Chairman, let this noble utterance — 'irreversible guarantees for the rights " of American citizens of every race and condition — be written with pen of iron and "point of dinmond in your Constitution. Let it thus be made 'irreversible' indeed, " by the. action of the State, in the only way it can be made irreveraibln ; and tlien to " establish this and every other guarantee of the Constitution upon the only sure fouji- i 20 " dation of a free republic — the equality of the people and of the. States — make, by the "same organic law, every elector iu the Union absolutely equal in his right of repre- " sentation in that renovated Union, and I am content. "Let the revolted States base their republican State governments upon a general "and sincere loyalty of thi-^ people, and come to us under the guarantees of this "renewed Union, and we hail their coming and the hour that brings them. " If you ask again, 'Suppose such general loyalty should never reappear, shall they " be dependencies forever i" * " Sir, convince me that the case is supposable, then with deepest sorrow I answer — "Forever !" Is not this indefini'e iu point of time ? No, he limits it to forever. Unless he can get these guarantees, this Union must remain dissevered forever. Now, sir, is it sur- prising that some gentlemen on tliis floor think it is time for them to assert their indi- vidual sentiments against these opinions of men of eminent talent and ability iu both Houses of Cougress .' I come to another example, and one of still more power, probably, in the estimation of the Senate. I come to the opinions of the honorable Senator from Massacliusetts, £.\Ir. SuMNEK. ] He, presiding at the call of the people of Massachusetts at a great State convention held in that noble State in the month of September last, laid down his ideas of the true policy of recoustruciiou. So radical is his plan of reconsti'uction that he cannot go for the resolution reported by the joint committee of fifteen for the amendment of tiie Constitution. That does not go deep enough for him. His is a sub- soil plow. He thinks it may require thirty years to accomplish his purpose. Am I mistaken ? Mr. SUMNER. Read the passage. Mr. DlXoN. Here is the speech, "The national security and the national faith," a splendid and raagniiicent eli'ort, like all that comes from him. Before thu assembled Republicans of the Slate of Massacliusetts, a body over which he presided, of which I may say that probably it has never beeu surpassed by any simil .r body on the face of the globe for intelligence and for character, the Senator himself giving the people of Massacluietts solemnly his oijinions and laying down his manifesto, announced his project which was ratilied b^ the convention. He says : " There must bo no precipitation. Time is the gentlest but most powerful revolu- " tionist. Time is is the surest reformer. Time is the peace-maker. Time is neces- " sary to growth, and it is an element of change. For thirty years and more this wicked- "ness was maturing. Who can say that the same time will not be needed now to ma- " tare the conditions of permanent peace ?" The Senator does not say it will take thirty years, but he says no man can say that it will not. I agree with him, no man can say it will iu)t. Mr. SUMNER. Finish the passage. Mr. DIXON. Yes, it is w^orlh reading : "Who can say that a generation must not elapse before the rebel communities have " been so far changed as to become safe associati-s in a common government ? Plainly, " this cannot be done at once. Wellington exclaimed at Waterloo. ' Would that night "or Blucher had come?' Time alone was a sub.^titute for a powerful ally. It was "more through time tlian battle that La Vendee was changed into loyalty. Time, " therelore, we jiiust have. Through time all other guarantees may be obtained ; but "time itself is a guarantee." Is that indellnite in point of time ? I do not think all this can l)e accomplished short of a generation. I desire wliile that jnoicss is going on, while that generatum is grow- ing up, that the peopb; of this country shall 1 e reunited, that tln'V shall be repie- Siiit<.d by loyal men trom loyal States ard districts in this boily and in the otncr House, whili! the Senator is liuishing tlie remainder of his uselul career on earth in bringing that great work to accomplishment. Its completion will bring liim to mwre than the allotttfd term of human lite- , Is not this indellnite ? But, sir, it is said — the Senator from Ohio will excuse me for not yet coming to the policy of the President — that the Piesidiuit's lecent speech is an obstacle in the way of the President's policy. Tin; Senator from Ohio [.Mr. Siieumax] saw fit to bring l>efore this body a s]ieec]i recently made by the President of the United States or I should not myself have alluded to it. 1 have but a few words to say upon it. 'Tht^'e are certain matters of juiblie policy which when avowed by the Pri'si(h>nt iuteiudl mu somewhat deeply. Peculiar modus of expressiuudo not very tuuuh interest 21 me, I confess. "Whether he states his views in a speech from the White House or in a message is to ine soixewhat immaterial. What he says is material upon groat iiuestions of pul)lic policy. We know that when General Washington was President of the Uniteil Stales he introduced, as was comphiined in those days, a somewhat regal and imperial mode of conducting the public business. It was as difficult to get access to him as to a monarch. When Mr. Lincoln came into the executive chair he was as ac- cessible as he was in his office at iSpringfield. General Washington had one mode of transacting public busin(-ss ; Mr. Lincoln had another. I am not hereto condemn or to justily eiilier of those modes. I may have my preferences, i'ossibly if I could ex- press my wish, it would be that the Washingtonian mode was in some respects revived and renewed. But does anybody suppose that great questions of public policy in the minds of the people are to be ali'ected for a single instant by a question of taste ? Does that allect the question of policy ? It is not for us to inquire what is the President's mode of life or action, provided it is pure and virtuous. That we have a right to ask, and that is ail we have a right to ask. Great questions of pobcy we have a right to consider, and the people of this whole country are looking with ewger eyes upon the policy of the President, not upon his modes of expressing this policy. To suppose that at tliis time, when the ocean of public opinion is heaving in multitu- dinous waver, the p-ople of this countjy are to avert their gaze for a single moment from the question of policy in order that they may consider tlie question whether a particular mode of expression or action is in good taste or not, is to suppose what I think does not exist. What the people ask is, what is the policy ot the administration ? And 1 am now pr(;pared to tell the Senator from Ohio what that policy is. Mr. WADE. Let me ask the Senator whether he derives the evidence of that policy from the speech of the President made on the 22d of February. If so, I suppose he knew nolhiiig about it, before. Let us have it, then, from that source. Mr. DIXON. I shall take authenuc and written declarations of his .opinion. When this I ongress met there was, I understand, no difi'ereuce of opinion between the Presi- dent and Congress. Was ever a message submitted to a more approving Congress ? Was there ever a President's message read by a more«admiring public ? I need not re- fer to what followed in either House of Congress. Nearly three months have elapsed. It is said there is a diflerence of opinion at this time betweeu the President aiid certain men in this body. * What is the diffefence of opinion existing betweon the President of the United States and those who are hostile to his reconstruction policy in the two Houses of Congress ? I certainly disclaim, of course, any right to slate what are his opinions, except as they are given to us in authentic public documents. From these alone I obtain his views. That these are misrepresented, intentionally or otherwise, should not perhaps sur- prise those who consider how seldom a candid statement of the true question at issue is made by the advocates of conflicting doctrines and opinions. It would seem impos- sible, in view of the frank and explicit utterances which the President has often made of his opinions, to create in the public mind a misapprehension of his views. Yet this, to a certain extent, has been done. He is supposed by many to' urge the admission of disloyal men from the rebel States to the two Houses of Congress. He is charged with a purpose to bring into their former places in this body bloody-handed rebels. He is said to wish to "throw wide open" the doors of Congress and till those seats with trai- tors fresh from the battle-fields of the rebellion. What is his true position ? I might refer to the publish-d statement of his views in his remarks to a delegation of Virginians the other day, in which he explicitly declared his opinion that only loyal men should be appointed to office ; but I prefer to take his latest authentic written declarations. I shall read from his veto message. I find in that document the following : " I hold it my duty to commend to you, in the interests of peace and in the interests " of the Union, the admission of every State to its share in public legislation, when, " however insubordinate, insurgent, or rebellious its people moy have been, it presents "itself, not only in an attitude of loyalty and harmony, but in the persons of represen- "tatives whose loyalty cannot be questioned under any existing constitutional or legal " tests. Such is the language of the President in his veto message. Can it be misunderstood ? Can it be misrepresented? What are existing constitutional and legal tests but the oath required by the Con.titution and the still stronger test oath prescribed by law ? Having stated what he recommends, the President then states what he is opposed to, as follows : " It is plain that an indefinite or permanent exclusion of any part of the country from *' representation must be attended by a spirit of disquiet and complaint. It is unwise and / iiip PPV n " clangerous to pursue a course of measures which will unite a very large section of the " country, against another section of the country, however much the latter may pre- " ponderate. The course of emigration, the development of industry and business, and "natural causes will raise up at the South men as devoted to tlie Union as those of any " other part of the land. But if they are all excluded from Congress ; if, in a perma- "nent statute, they are declared not to be in full constitutional relations to the country, " they may think they have cause to become a unit in feeling and sentiment against "the Government. This is what the President is opposed to. We have, thi-refore, what he recommends and what he disapproves. He recommends the admission to Congress of loyal men who can take the required oaths, provided they come from States which present themselves in an attitude of harmonj' and loyalty. He disapproves of a permanent or indefinite exclusion of all representation, regardless of the lo^-alty of the representative or the people. Here, then, the issue is fairly presented. How could he state it more distinctly? Yet we are daily told that the President desires to throw wide open the doors of Congress to blood-handed rebels. Go where you will — in the halls of representation as well as in the public press — you will find the opponents of his policy stating the qttestion in this form. I have attempted to state the vague, indistinct, indefinite, undecided, and uncertain policy of those who dissent fiom the President's policy. It is not my fault that it has that character. I have read from their various opinions. If they are uncertain and indistinct and difficult to define, certainly it is not the fault of the opponents of those opinions. Mr. Pres'dent, what then are the two great systems of policy with regard to recon- struction and reunion on which the minds of the people of this country are to-day di- vided ? One of these systems, known, by way of distinction, as that of the President, is indicated in the words which I have cited from his veto message. It contemplates a careful, cautious, discriminating admission of a loyal representation from loyal States and districts in the appropriate Houie of Congress, by the separate action of each, every case to be considered by itself and decided on its own merits. It recog- nizes the right of every loyal State and district to be represented by loyal men in Con- gress. It draws the true line of distinction between traitors and true men. It furnishes to the States lately in rebellion the strongest possible inducement to loyalty and fideli- ty to the Government. It "makes treason odious." by showing that while the traitor and the rebel are excluded from Congress, the loyal and the faithful are cordially re- ceived. It recognizes and rewards loyalty wherever it is found, and distinguishes, as it ought, between a Horace Maynard and a Jefl'erson Davis. What is the other policy ? It contemplates the entire exclusion of representation in either House of Congress from any State lately in rebellion, irrespective of its present loyalty or the character of its people, until the adoption of certain measures not defi- nitely stated, whose advocates agree neither as to the measures proposed nor in the reasons given for their support — this exclusion to continue for an indefinite and un- limited period of time,*declared by some to be for five years, by some thisty years, and by some in a certain contingency forever ; the entire region comprised within the eleven seceding States, including Tennessee, to be held "meanwhile as conquered territory, and to be governed as sul)ject provinces by the central power, and the people thereof to be ruled as vassals, liable and subject necessarily at all times to taxation, while thus wholly deprived of representation and of every right of self-government. And now, to render certain this ]iolicy — or at least in view of it — it is proposed by tlu' resolution now under consideration to enact, so far as such a resolution can enact, that neither House of Congress shall admit a member from any one of the States lately in rebellion, whatever may be his own past or present character or conduct, and how- ever true and loyal may be the people by whom he is elected, until consent is given, by an act of Congress, passed by both Houses and signed by the President, in tlie face of the express piovision of the Constitution, that " each House shall be the judge of the elections, qualifications, and returns of its own members." These, Mr. President, are the two systems of policy now presented for the considera- tion of this country. One or the other must be adopted by tlie Government. All minor issues, and all intermediate views and opinions, must gravitate toward and be absorbed by one or the other of tliesc great coinmauding systems of policy ; and all (jiiestions of local interest or of minor details in the work of reconstruction become therefore unim- portant, and may be left out of consideration. I have stated wlial I l)elieve to be the true issue in the briefest possible form of words. Hore, in my Judgment, is tiie wlioio of this vast question which is to agitate the publiu miad of thid country, and the deoLiiuu of which ia to shape and control its X 23 governmental policy for a long period of years. All points of mere detail in regard to it will be lost siglitof and forgotten in view of the vast and overwhelming idea of the permanent and fraternal reunion of the people of every one of those States under a common tiag and a common representative Government. It is impossible, in the nature of things, that the public mind should be occupied by any other political question. Until this is decided, finally and forever, no personal or party consideration can divert the eager attention of the people from the exclusive investigation of this question. Nor can any thoughtful mind doubt as to the final decision. Before the war the love of the Union was the passion of the loyal national heart, and now that the war is over its passion will be reunion. For a brief period the dissevered sections of our country may be held apart by the main force of party and of faction, but every day the mutual attraction of the separated parts is growing stronger and more irresistible. If there are any who attempt to hold them asunder their fate will be that of Milo : "The Roman, when he rent the oak, Dreamed not of the rebound." They may be crushed, but the Union will be restored under a Constitution amended and purified, by which slavery is forever abolished, and freedom, with all its incidents, forever guarantied. Believing the first-named policy to be that of President Lincoln, as has been con- clusively proved by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. Doolittle,] and that in adopting it President Johnson has but followed in the path of his predecessor ; and believing also that this policy is but a continuation of the great struggle in defense of the noble cause of the Union, for which President Lincoln and all his martyred brethren died, I declare mj' confident trust that the people will support and uphold Andrew Johnson in its advocacy and defense, as in the darkest days of the war they supported and upheld Abraham Lincoln. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 014 040 845 1 \ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS nil' II"' ll'lHllr III!' Ilir III ||i|<<|ii Mr, 014 040 845 1 p6Rnulip6» TT O *