Page images
PDF
EPUB

of representation, the character of the people represented, their condition, and their relationship to this Government. No man can be a Representative here without a constituency; and the character of that constituency is the prime element in the investigation of a question of this kind.

Mr. Speaker, if every Representative in this Hall who professes to be a Union in this speak of those Representatives who have acted together on this side of the House during the Thirty-Seventh and Thirty-Eighth Congresses, and are acting together now, and those of the same class at the other end of the Capitol-would upon this question take a distinct and definite position on the side of the great principle which I have indicated, acting upon it and sustaining it with all their powers of mind and heart, there would be no difficulty about this question of reconstruction. The great mass of the loyal people of this Union are ready to sustain their Representatives upon this proposition. There is no other way to settle the question.

It is the decree of the providence of God that those men who have been in rebellion shall be offensive to the instincts of every loyal man; and it is His will that keeps alive in our hearts and our memories their true condition, which renders them unfit to be represented in these Halls. Why, sir, if we can read the acts of a Being superior to ourselves, it may be reasonable to suppose that the object of the divine pur pose is to hold us back from the work of hasty reconstruction and to delay that work until the prejudices of members in these Halls shall be so far removed as to enable them to act justly upon this great question, when they do act, and settle it upon a basis of equal justice to all and of permanent peace and prosperity to the country.

I am

Sir, some people talk about a "policy" of reconstruction. It is said that there is a policy with one branch of the Government. glad, sir, to be able to say that there is no distinct policy with Congress. I declare, sir, that it is not within the wisdom of man to devise a plain, definite policy by which all these questions are to be settled. The question a to the proper course to be pursued with reference to those men who have been in rebellion is decidedly the most troublesome question with which legislators were ever called to deal. But, sir, we cannot dispose of that question until we place ourselves upon the principle that they who are loyal to this Government shall, without distinction of race or color, participate in the administration of it. When we are ready to act upon that principle we shall then the more readily and easily undertake the solution of the other great question, which is always bound to be far more difficult until we take the right position upon the first.

A "policy!" Why, sir, there is one policy, if it can be called such, which is easy to understand and easy to act upon. It is to trample right and justice under foot. It is to receive into our breasts the poison whose fatal influence has been so fully demonstrated. It is to inoculate upon our Government a branch from that foul Upas which has in the days of the past cast its deadly blight upon this nation. Sir, it would be a very easy thing to incorporate again into the Government the evils under which we have suffered in the past, and which did so much to bring upon us the horrors of the recent rebellion.

Sir, in the healing art there are two classes of physicians. Those of the one class are able to heal the outward symptoms of a wound, to give it a healthy surface, and remove the corruption which meets the eye, while the virulent and deep-seated disease still lingers in a latent form to break forth soon again with increased severity. But, sir, a physician of the other class, with the skill of the wisest surgery cuts deeply and eradicates the festering mass, and thus by a merciful severity restores lasting

health.

Mr. Speaker, when we are ready to act on principles right and just we will then find we will have far less difficulty in the way. A

policy will in time begin to shape itself sufficient for all practical purposes. We will then finally settle a question the like of which we have never before had in our history, and the like of which I think the history of no nation on earth has ever exhibited. It was impossible for man alone to grapple with the condition of things all through the rebellion. di There did seem to be a superior Power that was directing all things, and that same Power will lead us on, if we move with care, wisdom, and justice, to a right and a proper conclusion.

RESTORATION OF THE UNION.

Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, for more than four years past it has been my settled conviction, and I so declared in a speech in this House as early as December, 1861, and again in January, 1863, that there were two rebellions, one in the North as well as one in the South; and though seeming to differ widely on some points, yet in reality "leagued together and unitedly warring" to overthrow the Constitution and dissolve the Union. The only hope, therefore, of saving the Government and restoring the Union rested on the Conservatives and Democrats standing equally opposed to both extremes. The Herculean task that devolved on them was not merely to suppress and control one, but two rebellious; because the success of either was the destruction of the Government.

President Johnson, in a speech delivered in the Senate in February 1861, uttered a great truth when he said

[ocr errors]

*

*

[ocr errors]

There are two parties in this country that want to break up the Government. Who are they? The nullifiers proper of the South, the secessionists, or disunionists, for I use them all as synonymous terms.' # "Who else is for breaking up the Government? I refer to some bad men.in the North. There is a set of men called abolitionists, and they want to break up the Government. They are disunionists; they are secessionists; they are nullifiers." Whose allies are the abolitionists of the North, if they are not the allies of the secessionists and disunionists of the South? Are they not all laboring and toiling to accomplish the same great end, the overthrow of this great nation of ours? Their object is the same." "We find first the run-mad abolitionists of the North-they are secessionists: they are for disunion: they are for dissolution. When we turn to the South, we see the redhot disunionists and secessionists at the same work."

[ocr errors]

**

Mr. Speaker, the people of the South have abandoned and repudiated secession. They have returned to their allegiance, yield obedience to the Constitution and laws, and anxiously desire the restoration of the Union. The war is over. The southern rebellion is wholly suppressed. But, sir, the northern rebellion is still rampant and defiant, and there is no hope of the restoration of the Union until that rebellion is also subdued, or at least reduced to a controllable minority. We had four years of terrible and exhausting war to keep eleven States of the South from going out of the Union. And now we have had four months, and are threatened with four years of political and congressional war, to drive these eleven States out, and prevent the restoration of the Union.

These northern disunionists, the better to disguise their real object and deceive the loyal people of the North, have at different times assumed different names. First they are known as Radical Abolitionists, and then Republicans; next they claim to be Unionists, and then to belong to the Unconditional Union party. Now, their friends in Congress claim to be Reconstructionists, and have their reconstruction committee, composed of master workmen, deeply skilled in the art of breaking up the old Union, clearing away the rubbish, and building a new one. There can be no such thing as rebuilding or reconstructing the Union unless it has been broken up and dissolved. The basis, therefore, and central idea of this revolutionary movement, called reconstruction, is disunion. It rests on the assumption that the Union has been dissolved. It has no other foundation or support. They claim that the

eleven States of the South are out of the Union.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] has repeatedly declared in speeches in

this House that the war between the North and the South has

[ocr errors]

Severed their original compacts, and broke all the ties that bound them together. The future condition of the conquered Power depends on the will of the conqueror. They must come in as new States or remain as conquered provinces."

That gentleman also said

"I cannot doubt that the late confederate States are out of the Union to all intents and purposes for which the conqueror may choose so to consider them.'

And again, the same gentleman said in regard to the late confederate States:

"To prove that they are and for four years have been out of the Union for all legal purposes, and being now conquered, subject to the absolute disposal of Congress, I will suggest a few ideas and adduce a few authorities."

That gentleman clearly saw the logical neces sity of boldly assuming that these States are out of the Union. He knew that upon any other theory it was impossible to frame even a plausible defense of the action of his party in regard to the southern States. Some of his followers, with more timidity, but with less clearness of perception than himself, have ventured to dispute his premises, while they agree with him in his conclusions and action. But all such in volve themselves in a web of contradictions. Some of that party say these States "are neither in the Union nor exactly out of it, the territory at least is in the Union." That is, the people of the South are out of the Union, but the lands on which they live are in it. Others say "these States are out of the Union for practical purposes.' That is, for all the purposes of self-government and representation in Congress they are out of the Union. But for the purpose of obeying laws enacted by others, and paying taxes, they are in the Union. All this is absurd. They are either in or out of the Union. There is no middle ground.

[ocr errors]

66

Mr. Speaker, if the States of the South are out of the Union, how did they get out? Certainly it must have been either by secession or by revolution; no other answer has been or can be given. Will any one at this day contend that the Constitution of the United States gives any countenance to the doctrine of secession? Does the Constitution provide for its own destruction? Does it arm each separate State with the power of withdrawing at pleasure, thus rising above the Constitution, dissolving the Union, and at once bringing to an end the Government formed by that very Constitution? No, sir, no; the great men who formed that Constitution furnished it with ample powers of self-preservation. They intended and provided for its perpetuity; so that, in the language of President Johnson's message, no room is allowed even for the thought of a possibility of its coming to an end. If, then, as all admit, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, every ordinance of secession in the South being opposed to the Constitution and seeking its overthrow of necessity must have been absolutely null and void; and being void must be regarded as wholly inoperative, and therefore could not work any change in the constitutional relations of the States to the Federal Government. But, sir, it is not necessary to argue this question at length. It is well known that during the whole period of the war, President Lincoln, with all the supporters of his Administration, scouted the idea that any resolution or ordinance of secession could take any State out of the Union, and even the men who now show themselves to be practical secessionists then professed to hold that opinion.

[ocr errors]

Let us next inquire whether the revolution -the war-took these States out of the Union. The States, as such, could not commit treason, could not be indicted and prosecuted. There is no authority in the Constitution, and none has been claimed, to make war upon the States, as such; and there has been no war against them. A portion of the people in all the southern States remained loyal and true to the Union during the war. They were not guilty of treason and incurred no forfeiture of any kind. All the proclamations of the President in regard to insurrection applied not to the States,

nor to the loyal people, but to that portion only of the inhabitants of the States who were in armed rebellion against the Federal Government. The insurgents in the South made war for the purpose of taking their States out of the Union, and establishing a separate and independent government over thein. That was the issue tendered by them; that was the issue accepted by the Federal Government, On the 22d of July, 1861, both Houses of Congress passed a resolution by almost unanimous votes in which they declared that the war was not waged on our part―

"For any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose ofoverthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of the States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired.'

The Federal arms were triumphantly successful. No one will have the hardihood to deny that every issue involved in the war thus waged was gained to the Federal Government by the successful result of the war. This alone would seem sufficient to close all debate on this question.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] says the States of the South are out of the Union. But we answer, the war was waged to keep them from going out, and the war was successful. That gentleman holds that the war between the North and the South "severed all compacts and broke all ties that bound them together." But the answer is, the Constitution was the tie that bound them together. The war was waged on our part "to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution," and the war was successful.

He holds that the people of the South have been subjugated, conquered, and are subject to the will of the conqueror, 66 or to the absolute disposal of Congress." But nothing of the kind could possibly result from the war,. because we have seen that the war was not waged for any purpose of conquest or subjugation."

That gentleman, and others of the same party, contend that the war has destroyed the States of the South and reduced them to mere Territories or conquered provinces. But the war on the part of the Federal Government was waged, as we have seen, not to destroy or overthrow, but to "preserve the States with all their dignity, equality, and rights unimpaired," and the war was successful. How preposterous it is for gentlemen to claim, as the result of successful war on our part, exactly what would have resulted if the South had been successful on their part.

The war waged by the insurgents in the South to take their States out of the Union was a failure, yet gentlemen say these States are out. The war on our part to keep these States in the Union was a success, yet gentleinen say they are out of the Union. That is saying that the success of the Federal Government was its failure; and the failure of the southern rebellion was its success. This important discovery has been made by the superior wisdom of the northern rebellion. It was wholly unknown in the South.

Mr. Speaker, what has been the public sentiment of the country on this question? When the confederate armies all surrendered, and the war closed, the whole country throughout the northern States was filled with bonfires, illuminations, and public rejoicings. Was it because the war had severed all ties between the North and the South, and separated eleven States from the rest? Did the people rejoice over a dissevered Union? If so, then was the nation drunk. Instead of demonstrations of joy there was the deepest cause of sorrow; the whole country should have been draped in mourning, while all the bells in the land sounded the knell of the Union. But no, sir, the people were not drunk, they rejoiced in the full assurance that all the States were saved, the supremacy of the Constitution maintained, and the Union preserved.

Mr. Speaker, during the whole period of the war Congress, by its action, declared the States

of the South were still in the Union. The Constitution provides that

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers."

Under that provision of the Constitution Congress, by law passed during the war, imposed direct taxes upon each of the States in the South as sites the Union. Under the same clause of the Constitution Congress also apportioned to each of the States in the South as well as to those of the North its proper number of Representatives in Congress. And in fact nearly every law of a general character passed during the war extended to and included the States of the South as States in the Union. Members of Congress from Tennessee and Louisiana, representing portions of those States, were received and acted and voted in Congress during the war; and at no period of the war has there been less than three members of Congress here acting with us representing the western portion of Virginia. Congress has thus, by its recorded action, treated, acknowledged, and recognized those States as States in the Union, and is now estopped to deny its own record. The action of the other departments of the Government has been to the same effect.

The late proclamation of President Johnson declares the war ended, and those States restored to the constitutional rights, now withheld from them by Congress. By the proclamations of President Lincoln, and of President Johnson, and indeed by the action generally of the executive branch of the Government, those States have been recognized as States in the Union at all times during and since the war. The Supreme Court of the United States ordered that causes brought up from the southern States should be docketed, regularly called, and tried; thus, in effect, deciding that those States are still in the Union. So that at every period of the war, and by every department of the Government, legislative, executive, and judicial, there has been the fullest recognition of the fact that those States are still in the Union.

Mr. Speaker, suppose it to be true, as gentlemen contend, that the eleven States of the South are out of the Union, what is the consequence? What does it mean? If it be true that all ties between the North and the South were broken, that the States of the South "now are and for four years past have been out of the Union," a separate and foreign Power, then the moment that separation took place the allegiance of the people of those States was transferred to their own confederate government. They could no longer claim protection from the Government of the United States, because they did not belong to it, and for the same reason owed no allegiance to it. They could claim protection from the confederate government, they were citizens of it, and therefore owed allegiance to it. It follows, therefore, that after the separation those called Union men in the South, who took up arms in favor of the United States, then a foreign Government to them, were deserters and traitors, and guilty of treason against the confederate government, to which alone their allegiance was due. But for the same reason all in the South who fought against the United States and to sustain the confederate government, were heroes and patriots. It follows, moreover, that during the same period, neither Jef ferson Davis, nor any officer or soldier who fought under him, could possibly have been guilty of treason against the Government of the United States; it was to them a foreign Government, and they owed no allegiance to it. Upon these principles, is not the long incarceration of Jefferson Davis in prison, after the war is over, an act of cruelty that admits of no justification?

and subjugation. Who will justify for such a purpose the millions of treasure expended and the rivers of blood that has been shed? And, sir, was it not a base and criminal fraud for gentlemen holding such sentiments to induce thousands of soldiers to join the Army and pour out their blood to keep States in the Union that were already out, as such gentlemen knew, or at least believed? How will such gentlemen an answer to the thousands of bereaved widows and stricken orphans all over the land who have been thus robbed of husbands and fathers? And will not the blood of slaughtered thousands rise in judgment and call for vengeance on those who deceived and betrayed them?

Mr. Speaker, the Union was formed by the Constitution, and so long as it continues the Union of the States must continue. The Constitution, like a band of iron, encircles, binds, and holds the States together. It is not possi ble for any State to get out of the Union while the Constitution lasts. If it be true, then, as gentlemen contend, that the States of the South are out of the Union, then the Constitution is overthrown, and the States of the North are also out of the Union; the Constitution holds * all or none. If the logic of the gentleman from Pennsylvania proves South Carolina or Georgia to be out of the Union, it must of necessity prove that Pennsylvania is also out of the Union; and then it follows that the Constitution is overthrown and the Union dissolved; and this being the case, Congress has no authority, all its action is usurpation, an unlawful assembly, and the sooner broken up and dispersed the better. All the consequences I have mentioned, and more, necessarily result from the assumption that the States of the South are out of the Union. The theory of the reconstruction party means disunion and revolution, and it means nothing else.

Mr. Speaker, when we discard the pestilent heresies of northern disunionists, and turn to the sound constitutional theory held by loyal men, that, by the successful result of the war the rebellion in the South has been subdued, the supremacy of the Constitution maintained, and the Union with all the constitutional rights of the States preserved, we find not the shadow of a legal or constitutional difficulty in the way of complete restoration, harmony, and peace. When the rebellion in the South was subdued, and the insurgents yielded obedience to the Constitution and laws, then the States were in law restored to all their constitutional rights in the Union. And they would have been in fact restored months ago, and the whole machinery of national and State governments moving in harmony, but for the fact that the northern rebellion has thrown itself like a lion across the pathway of restoration, and arrested every movement in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, if the Constitution and the Union have been preserved, and the States of the South are in the Union, as I think has been fully proved, then it necessarily follows that the States of the North and of the South are coequals in regard to all the constitutional rights of States in the Union. This is a selfevident proposition, its truth cannot be disputed, because the Constitution knows no dif ference, it allows no difference, but places all the States on the ground of perfect equality. And for men to attempt to enforce a difference in regard to the admission of members of Con gress, or any other right, is to turn revolu tionists and trample under foot the Constitution they have sworn to support. In view of the Constitution, what becomes, sir, of all we have heard in these Halls from week to week about guarantees, guarantees, and bonds to keep the peace? The Representatives of part of the States in the Union, with magisterial air turning to other States in the Union and demanding guarantees, dictating the terms upon which they will graciously deign to allow their RepAnd again, sir, upon this theory, it follows resentatives seats on this floor, assuming to that after the separation "and for four years inquire into the political and moral history of past," the war on our part was not to keep the Representatives sent here by States in the States of the South in the Union, for they were Union! If the Representative is found loyal already out; but was a war for mere conquestccording to their standard, inquire whether

the State that sent him is loyal, but if so, then demand guarantees that the State will remain loyal for all time to come. Sir, this is the senseless jargon we have heard here ringing in these Halls until the true friends of the country are weary of it.

loyalty to the Constitution, and show it engaged in revolution to overthrow it.

The Constitution defines, limits, and fixes the qualifications of members of Congress. As to this House the Representative must be twenty: five years of age; must have been seven years Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylva- a citizen of the United States; and when elected nia [Mr. STEVENS] is always consistent, though, an inhabitant of the State in which he is chosen. as I think, always wrong in regard to the status Everything else is left to the judgment and disof the southern States; still he seldom, if ever, cretion of the people who elect him. If the reaches a conclusion at war with his premises. Representative sent here has the age, citizenBut this is far from being true as to others who ship, and residence I have mentioned, then act with him. Some weeks ago the gentleman the Constitution declares him qualified. Confrom New York [Mr. RAYMOND] favored us gress has no power to add to or take from these with a speech in reply to the gentleman from qualifications. To do so would be to change Pennsylvania. The first part of that speech the Constitution. Congress can judge of but was a successful attack upon the position of cannot fix or make qualifications. It is plain, the gentleman from Pennsylvania" that the therefore, what is meant by that other clause southern States were out of the Union, con- of the Constitution, which says "each House quered provinces, and subject to the will of shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and Congress." The gentleman from New York || qualifications of its own members." Now, established the reverse of that proposition; when a Representative from a State presents and he went on to say: himself here, this House has power under that clause of the Constitution to judge of what, of his character, of his loyalty, of the loyalty of his constituents? No, of none of these; but only whether he has the qualifications fixed by the Constitution as to age, citizenship, and residence, and whether the election and returns are according to law. This is all that is meant by that clause of the Constitution; and with the gentleman from Pennsylvania I say, "It seems amazing that any man of legal education could give it any larger meaning.'

"I regard these States as just as truly within the jurisdiction of the Constitution, and therefore just as really and truly States of the American Union as they were before the war."

In regard to our action or dealings with those States the gentleman said:

"We are to be guided and governed, not simply by our own sovereign will and pleasure as conquerors, but by the restrictions and limitations of the Constitution of the United States, precisely as we are restrained and limited in our dealings with all other States of the American Union."

We listened with great interest and pleasure to these sound constitutional views so ably presented and defended by that gentleman. But it was with pain that we heard the gentleman in the latter part of the same speech declare, that before allowing their Representatives seats in Congress, he would require of these States "certain conditions in the nature of guarantees for the future." They must repudiate their war debt; abandon and renounce the principle of State sovereignty; guaranty the proper treatment of the freedmen; "he would exact of them all needed and all just guarantees for their future loyalty to the Constitution and laws of the United States." And he further said:

"I would exercise a rigid scrutiny into the character and loyalty of the men whom they may send to Congress before I allowed them to participate in the high prerogative of legislating for the nation."

It seems strange that the gentleman from New York, starting out from premises exactly the reverse, should nevertheless be found in his conclusions hand in hand with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, ready to vote and act with him in holding the States of the South "subject to the absolute will and disposal of Congress." Possibly that gentleman, after assaulting and carrying the outer works and strongholds of his adversary, became panicstricken, and when victory was within his reach surrendered to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. It would have been cruelty if the Pennsylvanian had imposed harder terms, for the surrender was unconditional.

[ocr errors]

Now, sir, it is plain that if Congress can require of a State in the Union any guarantee any condition not provided for in the Constitution, as the ground upon which the State shall be allowed representation in Congress, then any number or kind of guarantees and conditions may be required; so that the right of the State to representation is made to depend wholly on the sovereign will and pleasure of Congress, and therefore the State may be excluded from representation altogether if Congress shall think proper to do so. Sir, it is seen at a glance that all the guarantees and conditions mentioned by the gentleman from New York are in utter contempt of the restrictions and limitations of the Constitution. No one here would for a moment think of saying to a State of the North, "Give us guarantees that you will remain loyal in future and we will allow your Representatives seats with us, but not otherwise." Such a demand by Congress would be the highest evidence of its own dis

Mr. Speaker, when it is earnestly insisted here that the plain provisions of the Constitution should alone control this House in admitting Representatives into this body, whether sent from the South or from the North, the Constitution as to both being the same, gentlemen seem alarmed, and say, "The South may, send here men who were leaders in the rebel army." And in holy horror they exclaim, "Are we to take by the hand and welcome to seats here rebels whose hands have been stained with loyal blood?" But in reply it might be asked, "Will you, then, stain your souls with perjury by violating the plain provisions of the Constitution you have sworn to support, and thereby make yourselves as guilty and criminal as you say they are?" But let us not be too much alarmed, but examine the question a moment. There would be more reason to believe gentlemen sincere in the alarm they express if they had not refused seats to Representatives sent here from the South who are men of acknowledged loyalty, men who were in the Union Army and periled their lives in defense of its flag. If the South should send a man here guilty of treason or other high crime, who had neither been tried, punished, nor pardoned, any one of you could have him arrested and sent off for trial, and so avoid his presence. Possibly, sir, a similar case might arise in the North, and what then would be the action of those gentlemen? We all know that for many years before the war there were large numbers in the North of open and avowed disunionists and traitors, laboring from year to year to dissolve the Union. Take a single example. Some time before the war a society of these disunionists met in Boston, Massachusetts, and passed this resolution:

"Resolved, That the one great issue before the country is the dissolution of the Union, in comparison with which all other issues with the slave power are as dust in the balance; therefore we give ourselves to the work of annulling this covenant with death as essential to our own innocence and the speedy and everlasting overthrow of the slave system." In support of the resolution Wendell Phillips said:

"I entirely accord with the sentiments of that last resolution. I think all we have to do is to prepare the public mind by the daily and hourly presentation of the doctrine of disunion. Events which, fortunately for us, the Government itself and other parties are producing with unexampled rapidity, are our best aid."

And even during the war, Phillips, in a speech in this city, boasted that he had spent nineteen years to take nineteen States out of the Union; and there are many such men in the North.

||

Now, suppose the people of Massachusetts should elect and send here Wendell Phillips as their Representative, a man who has been steeped in treason for twenty years; and yet who doubts that the very men who are alarmed at the idea of seeing a southern rebel here, would nevertheless take by the hand this great rebel leader of the northern rebellion, and welcome him to a seat by their side in this House? But at the same time their loyal nerves would be shocked if a southern rebel were in the

House. How righteous these political saints are; almost as righteous as were the Scribes and Pharisees!

Mr. Speaker, when a Congress like this, representing only part of the country, arrogates to itself the power to ignore the Constitution and fix its own rules for the admission of members from other parts of the country, it is manifest that Congress, and not the people, choose the Representative, because unless he will suit their wishes and strengthen their party the door of Congress is closed against him. There can be no plainer act of revolution to overthrow republican government than this. And yet, sir, that is precisely what has been going on here for more than four months of this session. This body of Representatives from the northern and middle States have, in fact, for the time being, nullified the Constitution and seceded from the other States of the Union; and are now, as to the legislative branch, carrying on a separate government to the exclusion of the other States, based on this act of secession. They have what they call "a reconstruction committee." This committee matures plaus and adopts rules for the larger body; it answers all the purposes and more nearly resembles one of the secession conventions of the South than anything else seen in this country since 1861. Sir, was not President Johnson right when he charged, in the Senate in February, 1861, that the abolitionists of the North "were nullifiers and secessionists?" They are now demonstrating the truth of the charge, though acting under another name.

But certain gentlemen say if the Representatives from the South are allowed to come into Congress there is danger that laws may be repealed which they desire to perpetuate, and other measures distasteful to them enacted. Well, suppose it should be so, what do you propose to do about it? You answer, you "intend to provide against it," you "do not intend to submit to it." Then you do not intend to have a government controlled by a majority of the people of the whole country. You intend to establish an oligarchy on the ruins of republican government. You are now seeking to accomplish your purpose by civil revolution, but you are preparing the elements that may bring on a fearful and bloody conflict. Of one thing rest assured: the people of this country will never long submit to a government of any form that does not allow the voice of the whole people to be heard in its management.

Mr. Speaker, the northern rebellion, or disunion party of the North, at every period and under all its assumed names, has been, and now is, substantially the same. Always too busy with the sins of others to repent of its own; always aggressive and intolerant; always moved by a rapacious lust of power; its vital principle of action, its motive power, is native, inbred, political depravity. To gain political power it assumed the garb of philanthropy, shed hypocritical tears over the negro, and struck for the abolition of slavery. Its ceaseless agitation of the slavery question from year to year culminated in a war between the North and the South, the most desolating and sanguinary the world ever saw. Taking advantage of the war thus brought on, it accomplished the abolition of slavery.

And here, sir, passing by that enormous public debt that has doomed the white race to the grinding and oppressive slavery of taxation for generations to come; forgetting the million of brave white men that have fallen and perished in camp and battle-field; passing by their maimed survivors, with the multiplied

thousands of widows and orphans that fill and sadden the land; passing by all this, let us pause and consider for a moment what abolitionism has done for the black race. Four million slaves, by nature far inferior to the white race, never accustomed to think or provide for themselves, depending wholly on their masters for homes, support, and protection, a large portion of them aged and infirm men and women and helpless children; all of them are suddenly robbed of food, clothing, home, and protection, and turned out naked, homeless, and penniless to struggle for existence as best they can with a superior and highly cultivated white race. As must have been foreseen by all bus blind fanatics, already many thousands of them have perished and died from disease, exposure, cold, and hunger. Thousands more all over the country are now perishing, starving, and dying. Even here in this city, the voice of suffering and hunger appeals to us from all the abolition pens, where hundreds of them are huddled together in rags and fifth, perishing and starving. Only a few days ago you appropriated $25,000 to save from starvation, a few days longer, the miserable inmates of these abolition pens in this city. And you call these wretched victims of your policy "freedmen." And the act by which you placed them in this condition, you call "emancipation." But "the iron pen of history will record it as the most monstrous act of cruelty that ever darkened the annals of any of the nations of the earth." Sir, the country begins to see now that abolitionism and not the Constitution is indeed "a covenant with death" to the negro.

Not content with the ruin they have wrought, these pestilent agitators seize on the fact that slavery is abolished, and make that the basis of a new conflict. They are now everywhere striking for negro equality, warring against the laws of nature, seeking to blot out all distinctions, and crush down the white race to political and social equality with the blacks; all for the purpose of gaining a new recruit of negro voters to aid them in ruling and governing the white people in the South and border States. The natural tendency of this movement will be to engender a bitterness of feeling and burning antagonism between the whites and blacks that may break out in a war of races, resulting in the extermination of the whole remnant of the negro race in this country. But taking for their motto "Better reign in hell than serve in heaven," these mad, restless spirits rush on to another conflict, reckless of all consequences, determined to rule or ruin. Sir, the country will see after awhile, begins to see now, that abolitionism, not slavery, was the "sum of all villainies" and the poor deluded negro will find too late that his master was his best and kindest friend, and the abolitionist his worst and most cruel enemy.

Mr. Speaker, the rebellion in the South can plead in extenuation much provocation long and patiently borne, but the northern rebellion can urge no such plea. Radicalism in the North was the source and origin of all the terrible convulsions and bloody horrors this country has suffered. The South, with all its errors, made no aggressions on the rights of the North. It never intermeddled with, nor sought to control, the domestic institutions of the States in the North. The South claimed only to exercise that control over its own domestic affairs it freely conceded to the North, and which was secured to both by a common Constitution. But the radicals of the North, without the hope of benefiting that section, and with no temptation save the gratification of a fallen, depraved, and malignant spirit, denounced the Constitution as "a league with death and a covenant with hell," and made lawless and unprovoked aggressions from year to year on the constitutional rights of the South. This led to the formation of two bitter sectional parties, one in the North and one in the South. And, as foretold by the Father of his Country, these sectional parties soon brought on a horrid conflict that reddened the

land with kindred blood, and blasted the country with desolation, as if smitten by the lightnings of heaven.

By their fruits you shall know them." Radicalism in the North sowed and cultivated the seed, and the fruit was a harvest of blood. To conceal its horrid visage, radicalism put on the robe of philanthropy, and four millions of the black race are robbed of home and protection, and doomed to extermination, while the whole race of free white laborers throughout the whole country are sold into the galling slavery of taxation, cut off even from the hope that their children after them will be emancipated. Thus has the sun-dial of prosperity and happiness of this great country been set back half a century. And now, sir, the same party, under another name, and with the cry of liberty on its tongue, is earnestly striving to subvert the foundations of republican government, laboring to centralize, consolidate, and build up a frightful Federal despotism, under whose dark and deadly shadow self-government and all State rights would utterly sink and perish.

Sir, the people have been too long deceived by the hypocritical professions and fair names assumed by the northern disunionists. They should remember that under the mask of the best names the worst crimes have been committed. In the name of "liberty and equality" France was deluged in blood, while all law and all liberty lay prostrate beneath the iron tread of tyranny. And in other days, in the outraged name of religion, martyr fires were kindled, and men of whom the world was not worthy" consumed at the stake.

66

Sir, the times are alarming. The horizon is full of dark and ominous clouds. Let the true friends of the country, of every name, unite around and sustain the President in his patriwith the Democratic hosts of the North, rally otic and noble stand for the liberty of the people; and the northern rebellion will be crushed and subdued, our blood-bought heritage of constitutional liberty wrested from its deadly grasp, and the Constitution with the Union restored and preserved.

THE NATION AND ITS LABOR.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, in rising to discuss the duty the Government owes to the Labor of the country, I do not wish to be understood as seeking to avoid the consideration of other duties that devolve upon this Congress, in connection with the restoration of the national authority over the lately rebellious States. These latter are of the highest magnitude. None higher have ever devolved upon any body of legislators; and none of equal importance have rested upon an American Congress since the close of the session of the body which placed the Government in operation. The patience and patriotism, the wisdom and prudence, the skill and courage of those fathers of the Republic have been vindicated in the growth, glory, and strength of the nation. An equal meed of praise will be ours if, like them, we do our duty faithfully, wisely, and well.

To this end we want not haste. On the other hand, cautious watchfulness should precede every step. We want not rashness. On the other hand, the most thorough self-possession should guaranty the soundness of every link of policy. We want not cowardice. On the other hand, a manly courage should impel us to see our dangers and should nerve us to meet and surmount them. On these points I have very few theories. I do not distract myself over the many perplexing suggestions which this great debate has elicited on every hand. To me it is comparatively unimportant which line of argument may ultimately be established. I content myself with knowing that the rebellion has been triumphantly suppressed, chat the flag of the Union has been vindicated, and that the nation is not to be severed. I know, further, that it is a duty we owe both to the dead and the living to require from those whom we have overcome on the bloody fields of battle some guarantees for the future. If we do not demand indemnity for the past we must

have security for the future. Those lately in rebellion are now clamorous to become again a part of the governing power of the nation; to help mold our policy; to help enact our laws, Five years since they scornfully abdicated the seats they held in these high places, and insulted us who remained true to our allegiance with declarations of a purpose never again to share with us in a common Government. They left of their own will and against ours. They must return in accordance with our will and upon our terms. The victory won by our brave soldiers and sailors must bear its fruits, and the vanquished must relinquish all the causes of the war. They must not only abandon slavery, but the principle of slavery, and must secure the rights of freemen to all the freedmen within their borders. This is the natural and inevitable result of the war, and from it there is no escape. They must repudiate the rebel debt, renounce the claimed right of secession, and be willing to accept as the true theory of our Constitution that which the war has settled in conformity with the purposes of its framers. They must cultivate a spirit of loyalty to the Union, and prove it by their works. To do less is but to mock the nation's heroes who fought and died for us.

This much I am prepared to require, and I know in doing so I will be carrying out the views of the constituency who sent me here, and who in disaster and danger never wearied of showing how tenderly their hearts and how closely their fortunes were intertwined with the destinies of the Republic.

THE NATIONAL DEBT.

This war has entailed upon us a debt of nearly three thousand million dollars, with an gation. It is due chiefly to our own citizens, annually accruing interest of at least one hundred and fifty millions. This is a sacred obliwho, with a spontaneous liberality beyond all example, opened their coffers at the invitation of their Government in its hours of darkness and distress. No honest man will countenance the thought of repudiation in whole or in part. The debt must be paid to the last dollar. It will be so paid, and one more will thus be added to the long list of unfulfilled prophecies which croakers during the war spread throughout the land.

But the payment of the interest, the payment of the ordinary expenses of the Govern ment, and the creation of a fund for the gradual extinction of the debt, involves a system of taxation which, in all its ramifications, opens a wide field for the exercise of the highest qualities of statesmanship, the great purpose being to harmonize this duty with the development of the resources of the country, the encouragement of its labor, and the improvement of the condition of the people.

DISTRIBUTION OF THE PUBLIC BURDENS AND THE NECESSITY OF PROTECTION.

Some advantages lighten this task. The enormous extent of our soil, embracing every variety of climate and production, the fertility of the land, its wealth of timber and minerals, its abundant water-power, its facilities of intercommunication by rail and river, and the substantial homogeneousness of the people are elements of great consequence; and their coexistence will enable us, by diffusing the public burdens among our vast and varied interests, to make them rest lightly on every

one.

One thing, however, is indispensable, namely, that we have the amount of labor necessary to reach these resources, combine them into products, and form within ourselves the chain of production and consumption which, in its inevitable and constant round, casts its blessings upon all classes and pursuits.

Europe is sending us the bone and muscle of her population. Emigration is adding almost incalculably to our wealth. Each season we receive not less than one hundred thousand hale and hearty emigrants, worth more to us, in my opinion, than the importation of $100,000,000 in gold. Each laborer, as he digs in the mines, or works in the mills, at the fur

nace, the plow, the loom, the anvil, adds to the nation's wealth by increasing the market value of the article upon which he is engaged or preparing for production from the soil. This labor at once becomes part of the nation's capital, and enters into the computation of the nation's revenue.

The more constant its employment the more constant and important its results. If unexerted, it is lost forever, both to the laborer and to the nation. Thus the interest of every part of the people is the interest of the whole; and the duty of the laborer to work has its counterpart in the duty of the nation to help him work. The two are interdependent. The man cannot maintain himself without it. The State cannot be prosperous unless its "bone and sinew" be employed and prosperous. So we find the unanswerable argument for protection in the very necessities of our nature, which we dare not disregard, and which we must respect if we would live and thrive.

INTERFERENCE OF FOREIGN INTERESTS..

Interested parties seek to drive the American Congress from the discharge of this plain duty to its people; and, as formerly, the impulse now comes from over the water." I have just received, Mr. Speaker, from a constituent, this circular, which has been extensively distributed throughout the western States, I learn. It is so instructive upon this point that I insert it entire:

[Confidential.]

NEW YORK, March 19, 1866.

DEAR SIR: We the undersigned iron merchants in New York, representing, we believe, the entire foreign trade in railroad iron, and also a portion of that of our own country, beg respectfully, but earnestly, to call your attention to the efforts being made by the iron-masters of Pennsylvania, through their Representatives in Congress, to procure an addition to the already excessive duty on rails. With the cost of freight, insurance, and incidental charges added to the present duty, there is a discrimination of at least seventy per cent. upon the manufacturers' price of rails in favor of the American iron-master. It strikes us this should be quite enough to secure him a profit. But it does appear strange that with a decline in gold, labor, and the cost of living, an attempt should be made, aided by a political money influence, so powerful as to warrant a fair chance of success, to advance the price of rails, under the name of protection to home industry, to a price which would prevent the development of new enterprises and materially interfere with the repairs and reconstruction of the railroads of the South and West. It would appear as if the entire railroad, commercial, and agricultural interests of the country were to give way to the advancement of the one interest in Pennsylvania, which has under the present tariff increased its capacity for production so considerably, and yet claims legislation to almost make its business a monopoly. We commend this matter to your careful consideration, and beg that you will use your influence with your Representative in Congress, and endeavor to give them full information on this subject, and ask them which will produce the most revenue to the Government, one mile of railroad, or the duty on one ton of rails.

J. BOORMAN JOHNSON & CO.,
DEHON, CLARK & BRIDGES,
M. K. JESUP & CO.,

G. T. M. DAVIS,

JAMES TINKER,

NAYLOR & CO.,

DABNEY, MORGAN & CO.,

R. & J. MAKIN,

PERKINS. LIVINGSTON & POST,
And others.

ANSWERS TO THE CIRCULAR.

per.

The gentlemen who signed and sent out this circular frankly state that they represent the entire foreign trade in railroad iron. No son, then, need be mistaken as to the objects they propose. They desire to build up the foreign iron trade, out of which they live, and to break down the domestic iron trade, by

ble contest which resulted in the passage of the free-trade tariff of 1846.

They charge, further, that with the cost of freight, insurance, and incidental charges added to the present duty, there is a discrimination of at least seventy per cent. upon the manufacturers' price of rails in favor of the American manufacturer. This can be easily refuted. The foreign rail bears no share of the indirect burdens levied by Government, and pays only the import duty. The English and Welsh ironworkers receive at this time an average of about fifty cents per day, making the net cost of a ton of rails about twenty dollars. The net cost of a ton of rails may be fairly computed at forty days' labor. Including the miner, millmen, mechanic, clerk, and manager, the average rate of wages paid to men engaged in this country is two dollars per day, making the cost of the rails eighty dollars per ton. Four fifths. of this are expended in living as soon as earned. On which the subjoined calculation, which has been verified and may be accepted as substantially correct, shows the amount of tax received by Government, which, be it remembered, receives nothing of this upon the foreign rail: Table showing the indirect tax paid by labor on a ton of rails.

Articles Taxed.

[blocks in formation]

Value. Tax. $2.00

2.4

30

[blocks in formation]

50

1 50

8

6

1 50

00

50

60

50

2.00

125

15

[blocks in formation]

Chewing tobacco, 1 lb. Cigars

[blocks in formation]

Checks, &c.......

Calico and ginghams...

Cloths, cassinettes, and flannels.
Manufactured clothing.
Boots and shoes.....

Beef, pork, and other meats..
Taxes, stamps, &c..........
Whisky, 1 gallon...

Beer, I gallon....

Smoking tobacco, 1 lb.

Sundries....

[blocks in formation]

which thousands of American working-men Tax on income, stamps, licenses, oil, steel, brass

earn their bread and maintain their families. They charge that a "political money influ ence" is at work to achieve protection to home interests. It is upon the records of the nation that the last victory of the foreign trade, won in 1846, was with the aid of British gold, and it is at least as probable that the same interests are now using the same means as that those in the home trade are. I make no charge, for I have no facts, but it is mere impertinence in these foreign agents to attempt to cast an imputation in view of the ascertained expenditure made by their own friends in the memora

39TH CONG. 1ST SESS.-No. 142.

3.60

90

8.40

5 83

[blocks in formation]

See, besides, the incidental benefit derived from the presence in this country, rather than in Great Britain, of manufacturing establishments. The Cambria Iron-Works at Johnstown, Pennsylvania, paid their employés, in 1864, the enormous sum of $1,399,899 82; and in 1865, the still larger sum of $1,535,380 24. The population maintained by this establishment consumes annually, 2,000 head of beef cattle, 3,000 head of sheep, the product of not less than 4,000 hogs, and 20,000 barrels of wheat flour from the States of Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, and other parts of the great Northwest.

An iron-works, to produce from the ore 10,000 tons per annum, employs the labor of 1,800 men, which supports a population of 6,500 of all ages and both sexes, who, by the ascertained rate of political economists, consume fifty dollars per head in agricultural products. The rail-mills of the country in 1865 produced 353,017 tons. If we make the liberal deduction of 123,015 tons for rails rerolled, and throw all the labor employed in rerolling out of the calculation, we have 230,000 tons as the amount of production, sustaining a population of 150,000, who consume annually in farm products alone, $7,475,000. This is the special branch of the iron business which the 66 foreign trade in railroad iron" desire Congress to sacrifice for their benefit, on the pretext, also, that a few hundred miles of railroad, to be constructed this year or the next, may be spared from borrowing a thousand dollars or so more per mile than might be required if they succeed in their design of destroying it.

But the circular seeks to create a jealousy by alleging that it is the manufacturers of Pennsylvania who are making this effort. Why single out the Keystone State for special mention? In 1865, the total production of railroad iron in the United States was 353,017 tons, of which 189,123, or more than one half, were made in other States; and of the thirtyseven mills in the United States, about two thirds are in other States than Pennsylvania, as appears from the following table:

States. Massachusetts

New York.....

New Jersey.
Pennsylvania.
Maryland.
West Virginia.
Ohio.......
Kentucky..

Indiana..
Illinois.
Michigan....
Tennessee..

[blocks in formation]

Pennsylvania contains but a portion of the great bituminous coal-fields of the Union. She has less than Illinois or Ohio, and not more than several others of the States; and New York, Michigan, Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia have each of them more, and some of them far better, iron ore than Pennsylvania. Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Arkansas, and probably Alabama, have excellent ores, and either coal or wood on the spot, or easily accessible for all future requirements. The same fact is stated of Utah and Montana, and is probably true of other Territories. In the face of the truth, then, that eleven States besides Pennsylvania are already manufacturing railroad iron, and at least six others, beside the Territories, have within them the leading materials in abundance for its manufacture, the assumption of the circular that this is solely a Pennsylvania interest, as against the rest of the country, is simply absurd.

How strongly the true interests of some of the western and southern States are linked to this iron question may be further indicated. Some of them have resources in iron superior to Pennsylvania, or to all those at the command of Great Britain. Some of the largest iron-works in western Pennsylvania transport the ore from which their product is made from northern Michigan and southern Missouri. A rail-mill in Pittsburg gets its ore from Lake Superior. One of the largest mills in the State,

« PreviousContinue »