E668 
 
 i 
 

 
 
 
 
 1/ ,•/ 
 
 ►^;' 
 
 
 "^0^ 
 
 .-^^^ 
 
 '<> ■'^ 
 
 <P^ * « « o ' <^ 
 
 
 

 
 A 
 
 •-^'\ 
 .<^^ 
 
 
 "'^ 
 
 
SPEECH 
 
 e 9im 
 lis 
 
 HON. RUrUS p. SPALDING, OF OHIO, 
 
 ON THE UNION; 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 5, 186G. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
 
 1866. 
 
•Siz 
 
 MEXCNANfie 
 
SPEECH 
 
 The House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
 Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. Washburne, 
 of Illinois, in the chair,) and proceeded to the con- 
 sideration of the President's annual message. 
 
 Mr. SPALDING said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman : Our republican Government, 
 after being exposed for three fourths of a cen- 
 tury to the derisive doubts of carping critics 
 abroad, and to the more insidious and cruel as- 
 saults of ambitious men at home, has, at length, 
 "by wagfer of battle," vindicated its claim to 
 be ranked as first among the nations in all the 
 elements of stability and power. 
 
 This proud stand-point has not been reached 
 without unparalleled sacrifices of blood and 
 treasure on the part of our loyal fellow-citizens, 
 but as the recuperative energies of the Amer- 
 ican people are known to be adequate to any 
 probable exigencies, it is not so important that 
 we dwell upon the havoc and cost of the war, 
 from which we have so recently emerged, as 
 that we try to profit by the injunction of itoman 
 patriotism, and "take care that the Republic 
 receive no detriment' ' therefrom. 
 
 To the end that we may approach the dis- 
 charge of this duty with a just appreciation of 
 the character of that Government which origi- 
 nated in the wisdom of our fathers, and is now 
 sanctified by the blood of tlieir sons, I pro- 
 pose to examine, in a somewhat cursory man- 
 ner, that dogma of Mr. Calhoun which has been 
 the prolific source of much of our intestine 
 troubles— "that the Government of the United 
 States is the Government of a community of 
 States, and not the Government of a nation." 
 Upon this political heresy hangs the whole 
 claim of the "nullifier" and the "secession- 
 ist," which has plagued our country more than 
 thirty years, and finally resulted in the most 
 devastating war known to the history of man- 
 kind. 
 
 I am not wanting in respect for the tran- 
 
 scendent abilities of the "great Carolinian," 
 
 but it is painful to notice how 
 
 "Wild ambition loves to slide, not stand, 
 And Fortune's ice prefers to Virtue's land." 
 
 I propose to bring this notion of a copartner- 
 ship of States to the touch-stone of the Consti- 
 tution itself, as well as its contemporaneous 
 history, and then leave to impartial minds the 
 just conclusion. 
 
 As early as the 8th of April, 1787, James 
 Madison, then a member of the Congress of the 
 Confederation, sitting in New York, wrote to 
 Governor Randolph, of Virginia, and thus suc- 
 cinctly gave his views in regard to the proper 
 "kction to be taken by the Convention about to 
 assemble in Philadelphia to revise the Articles 
 of Confederation : 
 
 "I hold it for a fundamental point that an indi- 
 vidual independence of the States is utterly irrecon- 
 cilable with the idea of an aggregate sovereignty. 
 I think, at the same time, that acoiwiolidation of the 
 States into one simple republic is not less unattain- 
 &h\e than it would be inexpedient. 
 
 "Let it be tried, then, whether any muldlo ground 
 can be taken which will at once support a due suprem- 
 acy of the national authority and leave in force the 
 local authorities, so far as they can bo subordinately 
 useful." 
 
 This letter of Mr. Madison very truly depicts 
 the .constitutional Government which he after- 
 ward assisted to frame, and which he admin- 
 istered for eight years as the immediate suc- 
 cessor of Thomas Jefferson in the presidential 
 chair. 
 
 The Constitutional Convention was organized 
 at Philadelphia on Friday, the 25th day of 
 May, 1787. On Wednesday, May 30, the Con- 
 vention, while HI Committee of the Whole on 
 the state of the Union, adopted the following 
 significant resolution with but one State (Con- 
 necticut) voting in the negative : 
 
 •'Eesolvd, That it is the opinion of this committee 
 that a national Government ought to be established, 
 consisting of a supreme legislative, judiciary, ana 
 executive." 
 
' This was the first resolution adopted by the 
 Convention, and its author was Edmund Ran- 
 dolph, the gentleman to whom Mr. Madison 
 had written the letter of the 8th of April to 
 which allusion has been made. 
 
 It forms the first of a series of resolutions 
 which were subsequently placed on file in the 
 Department of State by President Washington. 
 
 The distinguished lawyer, Luther Martin, of 
 Maryland, who v^fas a member of the Conven- 
 tion, and who was strongly opposed to the 
 adoption of the Constitution by the people, 
 thus speaks of this resolution in his address to 
 the Legislature of his own "State : 
 
 " Nay, so far were the friends of the system from 
 pretending that they meant it or considered it as a 
 Federal system, that, on the question being proposed 
 'that a union of the States, merely Federal, ought to 
 be the sole object of the exercise of the powers vested 
 in the Convention,' itwas negatived by a majority of 
 the members, and it was resolved, ' that a national 
 Government ought to be formed.' " 
 
 Chief Justice Yates, of New York, in his 
 notes of the secret debates of the Federal Con- 
 vention, says, under date of Tuesday, May 29, 
 1787: 
 
 " His Excellency, Governor Randolph, a member 
 from Virginia, got up, and in a long and elaborate 
 speech showed the defects in the system of the pres- 
 ent Federal Government as totally inadequate to the 
 peace, safety, and security of the Confederation, and 
 the absolute necessity of a more energetic Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 " He closed these remarks with a set of resolutions, 
 fifteen in number, which he proposed to the Con- 
 vention for their adoption, and as leading principles 
 whereon to form a new Government. He candidly 
 confessed that they were not intended for a Federal 
 Government. He meant a strong, consolidated Union, 
 in which the idea of States should be nearly annihi- 
 lated." 
 
 On the following day, and when said reso- 
 lution in respect to a national Government 
 was under consideration, in Committee of the 
 "Whole, "it was asked," says Justice Yates, 
 "whether itwas intended to annihilate State 
 governments?" It was answered, "only so 
 far as the i:)Owers intended to be granted to the 
 new Government should clash with the States, 
 when the latter were to yield." 
 
 Hon. Elbridge Gerry, in a letter to the Legis- 
 lature of Massachusetts, assigning reasons for 
 withholding his signature from the Constitu- 
 tion, says : 
 
 " It has few, if any, Federal features, but is rather 
 a system of national Government." 
 
 Hon. John Jay, in an address to the people of 
 the State of New York, urging the adoption of 
 the Constitution, uses this remarkable language: 
 
 " The Convention concurred in opinion with the peo- 
 ple, that a national Government, competentto every 
 national object, was indispensably necessary." 
 
 I could multiply the declarations of eminent 
 men who were upon the stage of action at the 
 time the Constitution was framed and adopted, 
 all to the same purport, but 1 feel the neces- 
 sity of appropriating some ])ortion of the hour 
 allotted to me to the consideration of the evi- 
 
 dence furnished by that instrument itself. It 
 purports, on its face, to beatransfer of govern- 
 mental power directly from the people to cer- 
 tain constituted authorities, involving the ex- 
 ercise of the higher attributes of sovereignty. 
 It gives " Congress" power "to make war and 
 to make peace; to raise and support armies 
 and navies ; to coin money and regulate the 
 value thereof; to regulate commerce with for- 
 eign nations and among the several States ; to 
 lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and ex- 
 cises." On the other hand, it efl'ectually in- 
 terdicts the exercise of powers, by the States 
 respectively, that shall in anywise interfere with 
 these and other high prerogatives of Congress. 
 For that purpose, it provides that — 
 
 " No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or 
 confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal ; 
 coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but 
 gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; 
 pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law 
 impairing the obligation of contracts." 
 
 Moreover, it provides that — 
 
 "No State shall, without the consent of the Con- 
 gress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports 
 except what may be absolutely necessary for exe- 
 cuting its inspection laws." 
 
 Also, that — ^ 
 
 "No State shall, without the consent of Congress, 
 lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war 
 in time of peace, enter into any agreement or com- 
 pact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or 
 engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such im- 
 minent danger as will not admit of delay." 
 
 And, as if to make "assurance doubly sure," 
 the second clause of the sixth article of the 
 Constitution sjDeaks this language perpetually : 
 
 " This Constitution, and the laws of the United States 
 which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all 
 treaties made, or which shall be made, under the au- 
 thority of the United States, shall be the supreme law 
 of the land; and the judges in every State shall be 
 bouud tliereby, anything in the constitution or laws 
 of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." 
 
 Here I pause, and hail with respectful grati- 
 tude the enunciation made by the President in 
 his annual message : 
 
 "'The sovereignty of the States' is the language of 
 the Confederacy, and not the language of the Consti- 
 tution." 
 
 Thus .far I have attempted to show that the 
 framers of the Constitution contemplated the 
 creation, ' ' by the people of the United States," 
 of a national Government, and not a Confed- 
 eracy of States. 
 
 This national Government was approved and 
 ratified by the people, assembled for the express 
 purpose of considering it, in their respective 
 State conventions. 
 
 I have next attempted to show that the na- 
 tional Government is invested with the exercise 
 of many of the high powers incident to sover- 
 eignty, while the exercise of similar powers is 
 expressly denied to the States. 
 
 It is doubtless true that both governments 
 exercise important functions, and, in their re- 
 spective spheres of action, each is independent 
 of the other. But both are limited, and neither 
 
is "sovereign." If Ibe asked, "Where, then, 
 may sovereignty, in our country, be found to 
 reside?" I answer, unhesitatingly, in the peo- 
 ple. Look where you will, throughout all the 
 ramffications of Government, State and Na- 
 tional, and you will find it, happily, so ordered 
 that all power, executive, legislative, and judi- 
 cial, returns, periodically, to its only true source 
 
 — THE PEOPLE. 
 
 The President of the United States, whose 
 official position is infinitely more dignified than 
 that of any potentate in Europe, is only an agent 
 of the people for a term of years. And so of 
 the Senators_^ and Representatives in Congress ; 
 while the Justices of the Supreme Court are all 
 the time " o/i their good behavior. ' ' I am made 
 strong in this position by calling to my support 
 the highest authority. Chief Justice Jay says 
 in the address to which I have once alluded, as 
 an argument for the adoption of the Constitution: 
 
 "The proposed Government is to be the Government 
 of the people; all its officers are to be their officers, 
 and to exercise no rights but such as the people com- 
 mit to them. The Constitution only serves to point 
 out that partofthepeople'sbusinesswhieh they think 
 proper, by it, to refer to the management of the per- 
 sons therein designated. Those persons are to receive 
 that business to manage, not for themselves and as 
 their own, but as agents and overseers for the people, 
 to whom they are constantly responsible, and by whom 
 only they are to be appointed." 
 
 Hon. James Wilson, of Pennsylvania, too, in 
 addressing the convention of his own State, as- 
 sembled to deliberate on the propriety of adopt- 
 ing that Constitution, to the excellence of which, 
 he had, by his consummate wisdom and virtue, 
 contributed so largely, thus expatiated upon 
 this branch of my subject: 
 
 "There necessarily exists in every Government a 
 power from which there is no appeal; and which, for 
 that reason, may be termed supreme, absolute, and 
 uncontrollable. Where does this power reside ? 
 
 "Perhaps some politician who has not considered 
 with sufficient accuracy our political systems, would 
 answer that in our governments the supreme power 
 was vested in the constitutions. This opinion ap- 
 proaches near to the truth, but does not reach it. The 
 truth is that in our governments the supreme, abso- 
 lute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people. 
 
 " As our constitutions are superior to our Legisla- 
 tures, so the people are superior to our constitutions. 
 Indeed, the superiority in this last instance is much 
 gri'ater, for the people possess over our constitutions 
 control in act as well ns right. In this Constitution, 
 all authority is derived from the people." 
 
 And so the President very justly declares in 
 
 his message : 
 
 " Our Government springs from and was made for 
 the people; not the people for the Government. To 
 them it owes allegiance; from them it must derive its 
 courage, strength, and wisdom." 
 
 It has been claimed, however, that notwith- 
 standingthe General Government, inall national 
 matters, is supreme in its authority, and although 
 the individual States have not the shadow of a 
 right to secede peaceably from the Union, yet, 
 if any one or more States resort to armed force 
 to accomplish that jDurpose, the strong arm of 
 the national Executive is paralyzed ; and for 
 the reason that "the Constitution nowhere dele- ' 
 
 gates to the General Government the power to 
 declare and make war against a State." 
 
 I hold this objection to be puerile in the 
 lowest degree. As well may the citizen of a 
 State, when arraigned at the bar of the court of 
 his county for the commission of a crime, de- 
 mand an exhibition of the war power, on the 
 page of the State constitution, before he can be 
 subjected to punishment for his ofl'ense. The 
 nation does not declare war against its depend- 
 encies ; it, nevertheless, exerts sufficient force 
 to restrain them, when they madly attempt to 
 revolutionize the Government. 
 
 The true theory, however, is that the General 
 Government, like the State government, acts 
 upon the individual citizen, and it may always 
 use the degree of force necessary to secure obe- 
 dience to law, whether resistance be offered by 
 one citizen, or all the citizens of a Sta<te, or the 
 citizens of a dozen States combined. 
 
 It is often said, b}' the friends of the doctrine 
 of "secession," that the Convention refused to 
 insert in the Constitution a clause authorizing 
 the exertion of "the force of the Union against 
 any member of the same, failing to fulfill its duty 
 under the articles thereof. " It is doubtless true 
 that such a resolution was offered in Convention, 
 and that the same was, for wise reasons, indefi- 
 nitely postponed. It is equally true that a pro- 
 viso was offered, in Convention, to the third sec- 
 tion of the third article of the Constitution, 
 which defines the crime of treason. It was in 
 these words : 
 
 "Provided, That no act or acts done by one or more 
 of the States against the United States, or by any citi- 
 zen of any one of the United States, under the avithority 
 of one or more of the said States, shall bedeemed trea- 
 son or punished as such; butin case of war being levied 
 by one or more of the States against the United Stiites, 
 th^conduct of each party toward the other, and their 
 adherents respectively, shall be regulated by theJaws 
 of war and of nations." 
 
 This provision "was not adopted," says Mr. 
 Martin, "and the consequence is that the State, 
 and every one of its citizens who acts under 
 its authority (in making war upon the Govern- 
 ment of the nation) are guilty of a direct act of 
 treason." (Elliot's Delaates, vol. 1, page 382. ) 
 
 I receive this construction of Mr. Martin as 
 a correct exposition of the constitutional jiro- 
 vision in respect to treason, with the under- 
 standing that the word State is used by him as 
 synonymous with the words "all the citizens of 
 a State," which is really the only true signifi- 
 cation of that term when used in connection 
 with moral responsibility. 
 
 This national Government, which it has been 
 my endeavor to elucidate, was in operation sev- 
 enty-two years, bringing "order out of chaos," 
 and changing an impotent " Confederacy" into 
 a great republican empire whose banner, illus- 
 trative of unity — ^^U pluribus itnum" — floated 
 in every breeze, and aftbrded protection to 
 every citizen in every land. Under its 1^-nign 
 influence, the bounds of dominion had been 
 extended to the Pacific ocean, and the country 
 
6 
 
 had increased in wealth and population to an 
 extent unparalleled in the annals of nations. 
 
 Over the heads of its citizens it had shed the 
 blessings of peace and personal security ; and 
 overflowing prosperity was seen everywhere to 
 abound. 
 
 " I look upon this country, with our institu- 
 tions," said Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, in No- 
 vember, 1860, "as the Eden of the world — the 
 Paradise of the universe." It was to break 
 down and destroy this beneficent Government, 
 to blight this earthly paradise, that the serpent 
 of secession entered into the garden of our 
 national i^rosperity. 
 
 On the 20th of December, 1860, an ordinance 
 of secession was adoiDted by the delegates of 
 the people of South Carolina, declaring that the 
 Union then subsisting between that and other 
 States, u^ider the name of the United States 
 of America, was thereby dissolved ; and one of 
 the distinguished actors in the treasonable work, 
 had the impudence to exclaim : 
 
 "We have now pulled a temple clown that has been 
 built three quarters of a century. We must clear the 
 rubbish away to reconstruct another." 
 
 In quick succession five other States followed 
 the example of South Carolina ; and in Febru- 
 ary, 1861, the much- vaunted southern confed- 
 eracy was formed at Montgomer}^, in Alabama. 
 
 On the morning of the 12th of April, under 
 orders from L. P. Walker, confederate secre- 
 tary of war, the rebels at Charleston opened 
 fire upon Fort Sumter, and thus inaugurated a 
 civil war which, in four years, cost the nation 
 half a million lives, and an amount of wealth 
 beyond the measure of reasonable computa- 
 tion. 
 
 The people of eleven States had formally «b- 
 solved themselves from all allegiance to the 
 Government of the United States, and had made 
 use of all their material resources to etfect its 
 full and final overthrow. They had marshaled 
 mighty armies in the field. They had sent armed 
 ships to prey upon the commerce of the country 
 in distant seas. They had sent their emissaries, 
 with torches, to burn the dwellings of loyal citi- 
 zens, and with the seeds of pestilence to destroy 
 their lives. They had resorted to starvation to 
 thin the ranks of captive soldiers. In fine, they 
 had used every means, practiced by civilized or 
 barbarous nations, to break down and destroy 
 the constitutional Government of the United 
 States, and were only prevented from accom- 
 plishing their work by the heroic endurance and 
 patriotic valor of our citizen soldiers. They had 
 refused terms of pacification unless accom- 
 panied by what they claimed as a sine qua non 
 — the acknowledged independence of the south- 
 ern confederacy. 
 
 At length their armies were discomfited in the 
 field and compelled to surrender. Their chief 
 execiitive was captured and thrown into prison ; 
 and their "confederacy" was dissipated "like 
 the baseless fabric of a vision. ' ' The fragment- 
 
 ary population of eleven revolted States, ac- 
 knowledging their defeat in the ordeal of battle, , 
 but showing no signs of regret for their gigantic 
 treason against the best rights of man, noA^un- 
 blushingly claim an immediate restoration to a 
 full participation in the councils of the Repub- 
 lic. Their advocates insist that their ordinances 
 of secession were nullities, and, consequently, 
 "they were never out of the Union." Hence, 
 their Senators and Representatives are entitled 
 to seats in Congress, in an equal degree with those 
 from States whose sons gave their lives to save 
 the nation. 
 
 Another class of politicians claim that the 
 rebellious communities of the South voluntarily 
 abjured all allegiance to the United States, and, 
 having set iip and fought to maintain another 
 and distinct government, they had ceased to 
 exist as States in the American Union. Per- 
 haps a middle ground maybe entered upen, that 
 will reconcile these extreme views without do- 
 ing especial violence to either. There is obvi- 
 ously in our complex system of government a 
 power that governs and a sul^ordinate power 
 that is the subject of government. The States, 
 when in harmony with the Constitution and rep- 
 resented in Congress, may j^roperly be called 
 the governing power of the nation. ^ The Terri- 
 tories and the District of Columbia are no less 
 in "the Union" than the States just mentioned, 
 but they form no part of the governing power of 
 the nation ; they are governed by the Congress. 
 A community may be in the Union in one sense 
 of the word and not in the Union in another 
 and different sense. A State may be in the 
 Union as the subject of government, when, by 
 reason of its misconduct, it has forfeited its 
 privileges as a part of the governing power. In 
 this last sense it is not in the Union. I know 
 not but the President means the same thing 
 when he says — 
 
 "The States attempting to secede placed them- 
 selves in a condition where their vitality was im- 
 paired but not extinguished; their functions sus- 
 pended, but not destroyed." 
 
 Indeed, it would be shocking to our sensibil- 
 ities, to hear it soberly claimed that the rebel 
 States, after abjuring all allegiance to the Gov- 
 ernment of the nation, and carrying on a furi- 
 ous war for its overthrow, had a constitutional 
 right to appear in its halls of legislation, and 
 take part in the enactment of its laws, by sim- 
 ply acknowledging their inability to contend 
 with it in arms. 
 
 If a State once in the Union is always in the 
 Union, as a branch of the governing power, 
 how would it have operated if, while the Thirty- 
 Eighth Congress was striving, in the face of a 
 formidable opposition in its own body, to rixise 
 the necessary supplies to enable General Grant 
 and his patriotic braves to "fight it out on the 
 line" from the Rapidan to Richmond, Sena- 
 .tors and Representatives had appeared from 
 enough of the rebel States to overcome, by their 
 
votes, tlie patriotic majority in Congress? The 
 bare statement of the question shows the utter 
 absurdity of the proposition. 
 
 I now assume, for the sake of argument, that 
 the President is correct when he takes the ground 
 that "the vitality" of the rebellious States "is 
 impaired, but not extinguished ; their func- 
 tions suspended, but not destroyed." Where 
 does the Constitution of the United States 
 lodge the power to prescribe an effective rem- 
 edy for this impaired vitality, and to restore 
 to healthy action these suspended functions? 
 My learned friend from New York [Mr. Rat- 
 won'd] thinks it is lodged in the hands of the 
 "President as Commander-in-Chief of the 
 Army and Navy of the United States." I 
 maintain that it is given to the Congress of the 
 United States by force of the last clause in 
 the eighth section of the first article of the 
 Constitution, which provides that Congress 
 shall. have power — 
 
 "To make all laws which shall be necessary and 
 proper for carrying into execution the foregoing pow- 
 ers [those already granted] and all other powers vested 
 by this Constitution in the Government of the United 
 States, or in any department or officer thereof." 
 
 This clause vests the instrumentality by which 
 all "implied powers" are called into action 
 expressly in Congress, even such as may be 
 necessary to carry into effect those expressly 
 delegated to the President. In time of war, 
 and when the life of the Republic ^^^ iii dan- 
 ger, this high officer of the Government was, 
 at times, necessarily in the exercise of dicta- 
 torial power. In time of peace, he can right- 
 fully exercise no power unless it be expressly 
 vested in him by the Constitution, or by act of 
 Congress. Of this there can be no reasonable 
 doubt. The discretionary powers of the Gov- 
 ernment were intended to be lodged in the mem- 
 bers of Congress, who are responsible to the 
 people of their respective States and districts, 
 and, to them alone, for the manner in which 
 they discharge the solemn trust. 
 
 It is high time, Mr. Chairman, that the peo- 
 ple of the United States should insist that the 
 "ship of State" be overhauled and put in con- 
 stitutional trim. She has been exposed to tem- 
 pestuous gales and angry billows ; but now, 
 having weathered the storm of secession and 
 strife, and' being brought, by skillful pilots and 
 a gallant crew, into a peaceful haven, it will be 
 no more than an ordinary precaution to ' ' sound 
 the pumps." 
 
 I have great confidence in that self-taught 
 statesman who now, to a great extent, wields 
 the destinies of the American Republic ; and I 
 here make my humble protestation against the 
 attempts of any man or set of men, in Con- 
 gress or out of Congress, to place the majority 
 of this House, with whom I feel it an honor to 
 act, in an attitude of hostility to the President 
 so long as he confines himself to the Exercise 
 of his own just prerogaitives. Shall we, for- 
 
 slight causes, distrust him who, not unlike the 
 seraph portrayed by Milton — 
 
 "Faithful found. 
 Among the faithless, faithful only he; 
 Among innumerable false, unmoved, 
 Unshaken, unsoduocd, unterrified, 
 His loyalty he kept, his love, his zeal ?" 
 
 Thus far I do believe he has most conscien- 
 tiously followed in the footsteps of his mar- 
 tyred predecessor. Although I am decidedly 
 of opinion that it would have been right and 
 proper in calling the first legislative bodies 
 into action, in the rebel States, to have used the 
 suffrages of all loyal freemen, without respect 
 to color, and to have rejected the votes of all 
 who had participated in the war against the 
 Government, I do not see but that a contrary 
 precedent was established by Mr. Lincoln in 
 his amnesty proclamation of December, 18G3. 
 So, also, the reconstruction bill passed by Con- 
 gress in 1864, provided for the enrollment of 
 "white male citizens" only, as voters. 
 
 In the matter of appointing provisional gov- 
 ernors, and in advising the conventions of del- 
 egates, by them asseml^led, to abjure slavery 
 and the rebel debt, I find no good cause for 
 complaint. As to the ratification of the amend- 
 ment to the United States Constitution, I am 
 disposed to hold that the action of the so-called 
 Legislatures of the rebel States, did "neither 
 good nor harm." The amendment was fully 
 ratified by three fourths of all the States repre- 
 sented in Congress, and acting in harmony with 
 the Government, at the time the two-thirds vote 
 was given in that body, and no additional sanc- 
 tions were wanted, as none in fact could be 
 given by assemblies of men having no share in 
 the governing power of the nation. I regret 
 exceedingly that the President did not wait for 
 the action of Congress, which was being ma- 
 tured with all due respect to his high privileges 
 as a coordinate branch of the Government, be- 
 fore he dismissed his provisional governors 
 and turned over to men, lately dyed in the blood 
 of our sons, the executive duties of the rebel 
 States. But that is a matter of no vital impor- 
 tance so long as a portion of our Army remains 
 to guard the lives of Union men. 
 
 It remains to be seen whether now, when con- 
 fessedly the time has arrived when the war power 
 is to be laid asid6 and the civil power is to re- 
 sume its functions, the Congress of the United 
 States is to be respected as the depositary of 
 "all legislative powers" granted by the people 
 in the Constitution we have sworn to uphold. 
 It is not only the privilege but the constitutional 
 duty of the President "to give to the Congress 
 information of the state of the Union, and to 
 recommend to their consideration such meas- 
 ures as he shall judge necessary and expedient, 
 from time to time." But the power "to admit 
 new States into this Union;" "to guaranty to 
 every State in this Union a republican form of 
 Government, and to protect each of them against 
 
8 
 
 invasion and domestic violence;" "to dispose 
 of and make all needful rules and regulations 
 respecting the territory or other property be- 
 longing to the United States ; " "to exercise ex- 
 clusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over' ' 
 the District of Columbia ; "to make rules con- 
 cerning captures on land and water;" these, 
 and all similar powers, express or implied, be- 
 long to the Congress exclusively. 
 
 It has been strangely enough suggested that 
 the President would seek to control the action 
 of Congress in this great matter of restoring the 
 revolted States to their original status in the 
 Union, by withholding executive patronage from 
 such Senators and Representatives as could not 
 conscientiously fall in with his favorite policy. 
 I respectfully beg pardon of the President and 
 of the public for stating so scandalous a rumor 
 upon this floor. I pronounce it as false as "se- 
 cession" itself, and I find for the scandal no 
 tangible authority except the following article, 
 which I cut from the Newbern (North Caro- 
 lina) Times of December IG, 1865: 
 
 " Future Hopes.— The hope is expressed with all 
 diffidence, still there is ground for the hope, that our 
 futureprospects for admission into full fellowship with 
 the heretofore loyal States are growing brighter. The 
 stand taken by President Johnson in reference to re- 
 construction is being fully maintained by that patri- 
 otic officer, and not even all the combined forces of 
 radicalism have been able as yet to move him. Like 
 a great rock he has withstood the shock of tho angry 
 waves of opposition, and he stands proudly erect to 
 meet them again. 
 
 " There is evidsnce that tho enemies of the con- 
 quered South are getting a little shaky. A sort of 
 'Stephen Hopkins' tremor is coming over them, for 
 they have counted more upon their own strength than 
 that of the national Executive. They are beginning 
 to remember once more that the President of the 
 United States has the appointing right as well as the 
 veto power, and that the warmest friend of a radical 
 Congressman may lose his li*tle sinecure of an office 
 whenever the President so wills. Patronage is a big 
 thing — a fact fully recognized by theultraists — but in 
 their greed for the full control of it they have over- 
 looked some of the little particles which have a great, 
 deal to do with the grand .aggregate. 
 
 " We repeat there are brighter prospects ahead than 
 events of the past had permitted the South to hope 
 for. It is even possible that conservative influences 
 will so far prevail as to bring about total reconstruc- 
 tion before thefinal adjournment of this Congress." 
 
 Thus the southern traitors, not content with 
 
 ascribing to the President such base motives to 
 action as would bring him beneath the contempt 
 of the loyal masses who elected lii^ most im- 
 pudently and arrogantly attempt to aptpropriate 
 him to their own vile purposes — \ 
 
 " Like gypsies, lest the stolen brat be jinown. 
 Defacing first, then claiming for his^wn." 
 
 I know not if the President has any fixed 
 policy in regard to the guarantees which the loyal 
 people of this country may exact before the 
 States in revolt shall be restored to all the func- 
 tions of governing States in the Union. Sure 
 I am, he can have no desire to throw obstacles 
 in the way of the deliberate and well-matured 
 action of Congress, which may well be presumed 
 to reflect the wishes of a great majority of the 
 people. I have, at this time, no means of de- 
 termining for myself what course will be taken 
 by Congress, but I will venture to say that 
 the substance of the following j^ropositions, if 
 adopted, will be satisfactory to the bulk of my 
 constituents in Ohio : 
 
 1. Extend a qualified right of suffrage to the 
 freedmen in the District of Columbia. 
 
 2. Amend the Constitution of the United 
 States in respect to the apportionment of Rep- 
 resentatives and direct taxes among the several 
 States of the Union, in such manner, that "peo- 
 ple of color" shall not be counted with the 
 population making up the ratio, except it be in 
 States where they are permitted to exercise the 
 elective franchise. 
 
 3. Insert a provision in the Constitution pro- 
 hibiting "nullification" and "secession." 
 
 4. Insert a provision in the Constitution pro- 
 hibiting the repudiation of the national debt, 
 and also prohibiting the assumption by Con- 
 gress of the rebel debt. 
 
 5. Provide in the Constitution that no person, 
 who has, at any time, taken up arms against 
 the United States, shall ever be admitted to a 
 seat in the Senate or House of Representatives 
 in Congress. 
 
 Let these guarantees be given to loyalty, 
 and I will try to forgive— I can never forget 
 — the injuries received by my country from 
 
 TRAITORS. 
 
 H 30Z 
 
 79 
 
"'' <^ 
 
 
 (y c o " o , "<*> 
 
 
 V^^' 
 v^ * 
 
 
 O * o « o ' ,0-^ 
 

 K^' 
 
 
 
 ^^^C,"^'' 
 
 '^ 
 
 N. MANCHESTER,