HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, February 10, 1865.The House met at 9 o'clock, A. M.
On motion by Mr. BROWN the reading of the journal was dispensed with.
PETITION.
Mr. GREGG presented a memorial with reference to bills now before the Committee on Corporations, and without reading it was referred to that committee.
PUBLICATION OF THE LAWS.
Mr. HIGGINS, from the Committee on Ways and Means, returning Mr. Whiteside's bill [H. R. 145,] for the publication of the acts of the General Assembly is the county newspaper reported adiversely to the proposition on account of the expense, it would involve of more than $2,300 to each newspaper authorized to publish the laws.
Mr. KILGORE, from a majority of the Committee on Elections, reported on the Putnam contested election case, throwing out the returns from Cloverdale township, on the presumption and proof of fraud, and so finding a majority of 33 votes for Higgins Lane over Austin M. Puett, and a majority of one vote for Ambrose E Hamrick over Samuel Colover. The majority of the committee report resolution to the effect, That Higgins Lane and Ambrose E. Hamrick at the last October election were duly elected Representatives for the county of Putnam, and as such are entitled to seats on the floor; and that Austin M. Puett and Sam Colover were not elected at said election, and are not as Representatives entitled to seats on this floor.
Mr. KILGORE asked that the report be taken up and acted on now.
Mr. BROWN was very much surprised at the conclusion to which the majority had come. page: 205[View Page 205] If the sitting members were fraudulently elected they should not have his vote; but he wanted time to investigate the facts and the law in the conclusion that the sitting members were legal Representatives of Putnam county.
Mr. KILGORE. The committee had worked four weeks, and it was not till yesterday evening that they were able to get through. If gentlemen have the time they will ask for, four weeks more will be consumed before we can reach a conclusion. The contestants had been here all the time with their testimony and attorneys, and ample opportunity had been given for examinations; and it was injustice to withhold their seats from them.
Mr. LASSELLE asked for time to make a minority report If he had been apprised that the report would be made this morning, he should have been ready. He submitted considerations which should allow this time. One of the contestants (Mr. Lane) was willing to defer action till Monday 2 o'clock.
Mr. BRANHAM suggested to-morrow 10 o'clock, and made the motion accordingly.
The motion was agreed to, and it was so ordered.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. GREGORY, of Warren, for the committee on Education, returned, Mr. Rhoads' Normal School bill No. 119, with the expression of opinion that the establishment of such an institution would be highly beneficial to the State, and with a recommendation that the bill pass. He also returned Mr. Olleman's Clerks bill No. 154.
Mr. MILLER, of Tippecanoe, for the Committee on Ways and Means returned Mr. Branham's Assessment bill (No. 158,) with a motion that the same be laid on the table and that there be printed 300 copies thereof.
Mr. BRANHAM said 100 copies were intended for the Senate, the report was concurred in, and the printing ordered.
Mr. GREGORY of Warren, from the Committee on Education, returned Mr. Rice's House of Refuge joint resolution, No, 14, reporting that the Constitution provides for a House of Refuge, and recommending its passage, with an amendment, striking out the clause which appoints a commission to visit other States, and making appropriotions to defray his expenses.
He also returned Mr. Shoaff, of Allen's Foreign Language School bill, No. 113, amendatory of the school law of 1855, reporting that the law of 1855 is superceded by the law of 1861, and recommending that the bill do not pass.
He also returned the resolution and instructions by Mr. Miller of Tippecanoe, with reference to the German language in the common schools, reporting the opinion that further legislation on the subject was inexpedient.
Mr. TRUSLER, from the Committee on Military Affairs, returned Mr. Speaker Pettit's Military Claims bill, No. 156, reporting amendments:
- Striking out section 11, and substituting matter to the effect that, if any officer named in the act shall refuse to perform the duty imposed on him, he shall be liable to an action by the claimant party for the damages he may have sustained.
- Filling a blank, and inserting an emergency clause.
And, so amended, the committee recommended the passage of the bill.
Mr. MAJOR from the Committee on Fees and Salaries, returned Mr. Miller of Clinton's bill, No. 56, to repeal the Salary Act of June 6, 1861, reporting the expression of opinion that the repeal of said act is inexpedient, and recommending that the bill be laid on the table.
Mr. BURNES and Mr. STEWART reported from the Committee on Engrossed Bills, finding sundry bills incorrectly engrossed.
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
On motion of Mr. BRANHAM, the House resolved into Committee of the Whole-Mr. Henricks in the Chair-and thereupon on his further motion, the Committee rose, and-
The CHAIRMAN reported the bill-Mr. Whiteside's joint resolution, No. 13--to the House without amendment.
The joint resolution was then ordered to the second reading, and read the second time.
On motion of Mr. BRANHAM, the joint resolution was again referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Whereupon, the House again resolved into Committee of the Whole-Mr. Henricks in the Chair-and took up again the consideration cf the Executive Message communicating proposed amendments of the Constitution of the United States by the Congress thereof, together with Mr. Whiteside's joint resolution, No. 13, for the ratification of said Constitutional amendments.
Mr. HARRISON stated the conclusions of his mind against the passage of the joint resolution. He reasoned against the power of Congress to abolish slavery on the ground of the reserved rights of the State quoting legal expositions of the Constitution, and Mr. Lincoln's opinion confirming his position. He urged his opposition in. conclusions drawn from the Declaration of Rights that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. It was simply the power in this case that gave the right. He had no interest in slavery, neither was he its apologist in any sense. The proposed amendment was not advisable, negatively because it could not bring peace. Neither the confiscation act nor the emancipation proclamation had either brought peace, nor could any or all of these abolish slavery. The fact that neither the confiscation act nor the proclamation had abolished slavery was taken far confessed, in the fact that this proposition is before us. He urged considerations to show the futility of the political dogma, that this Union could not be maintained half free and half slave. This amendment would no more abolish slavery than had Mr. Lincoln's proclamation. The bayonet alone could accomplish the abolition of slavery. He doubted the philanthropy of abolition, and contended that it was disproved in the fact that negro emancipation did not improve their social condition.
And it would injure positive the white race-it would level downward. He replied to the allegation that all traitors and all secret treason political organizations voted the Democratic ticket. His page: 206[View Page 206]county voting 600 majority never had a secret meeting of Democrats.
Mr. Harrison's argument, condensed, was a follows:
- 1st. It is a proposition to change the organic law of the land; by the exercise of a power no delegated by the Constitution to Congress.
- 2d. The Constitution declares that all powers not delegated by the Constitution to Congress, nor prohibited by it to the States, is reserved to the States respectively or to the people.
- 3d. Slavery is a local and domestic institution, and is the creature of local and State laws. At the adoption of the present Constitution slavery existed in twelve of the thirteen original States, and the right to hold slaves was then considered, as it has ever been since, a reserved right in the States, and not a delegated right.
- 4th. All power is inherent in the people, and our government is founded on the theory that it derives all its just powers from the consent of the governed. The slaveholding States are to be governed by this amendment, without being even consulsted, and deprived of their property without compensation.
- 5th. This amendment, if adopted and ratified by three-fourths of the States, is an abandonment of our former position in regard to the conduct of the war, and relates back to that abolition heresy that was uttered and put forth in 1858, that there was an irrepressible conflict going on between freedom and slavery; that this Government cannot exist part slave and part free. Our past history for more than three quarters of a century, is a sufficient answer and refutation to this heresy.
- 6th. Suppose this amendment is ratified by three-fourths of the States, slavery will then have been abolished by law; but will not the rugged issue remain to be solved by force of arms and at the point of the bayonet? The war will then go on for this purpose, and slavery will have to be abolished amid the war of artillery, the rattle of musketry, and the crash of armed hosts.
The present Constitution is adequate for all purposes, of war as well as of peace, amid the earthquake throes of civil strife and the conflicts of a foreign war, in every struggle in which our country has hitherto been engaged, it has borne us triumphantly through. Under it the rebellion can be suppressed and the Union of our fathers restored.
Does this kind of legislation tend to better the condition of the slave? I, for one, have been disposed to doubt the philanthropy of those who profess to be the exclusive friends of the negro. Freedom to the slave under the policy of the Administration leads but to degeneration and the grave.
This amendment can only be justified on the ground of revolution; that it is right to adopt it simply because we have the power to do it. For these and other reasons that I might urge, I shall vote against the proposed amendment.
Mr. BOYD said the opposition to this joint resolution proceeded as though there was no war. He did not discuss the Constitutional question. But the lawyers claimed a right higher than the Constitution-the right of the people. The power of the people to make the Constitution certainly could change it He regarded the war policy of the Administration with favor. The only change in that policy had been brought about by the rebels themselves. The speeches of the opposition here were based on the doctrine of secession. Such was his judgment. The party that elected Mr. Lincoln were not abolitionists; were not disposed to interfere with property in slaves. Mr. Lincoln declared in his inaugural address that he did but quote from his own former speeches, when he declared that he had no disposition either directly or indirectly to interfere with slavery, and that he had no legal right to do so, and then quoted the resolution of similar purport in the Chicago Platform of 1860, which was a law to him. He contended that this policy was changed, for the same reason, that he would have the right to wrest the bludgeon from the hand of a man about to strike him with it.
He showed how the liberation of the slaves of the South was weakening the armies of the South and add them to our own armies, to the relief of our own brave boys, both in the ditches and on the battle-field, and it was but common justice that such should not be returned to slavery. It did not follow that because the blacks were free, they should be invested with all our legal and social rights. But gentlemen of the opposition claimed consideration because the Democratic party have so long administered and controlled the affairs of this country. He read from a pamphlet in bis hand which charged that the Democratic States in the North had violated the provision of the Constitution with reference to the return of fugitive slaves. He did not say that the charge was true, but it was held and often made. He showed that the Democratic party could not compose our difficulties, by reference to the sloth and hesitancy of the Buchanan Administration, which did not know whether to "gee, haw, or jump the stump," Old Jim Buchanan, when this rebellion was in its inception, was like the old farmer plowing with the assistance of his wife. She had started him through several rounds, when at last he came to a stump. "My dear," said he, "shall I gee, haw, or jump the stump?" So it was with old granny Buchanan. He, when the critical time came to act, did not know whether to gee, haw, or jump the stump.
That administration did not dare to act out the war power of the Government. And this gave confidence to the rebels; as did the acts of Democratic conventions in the State of Indiana. He did not believe the body of Democrat in the State were opposed to war, and though the gentleman from Monroe disclaimed opposition to the war, yet he found the Speaker of the House of Representatives at the last session voting against tabling a resolution that there should be given to the support war, no more men, and no more money. He referred to page 59 of the last House journal.
Mr. BUSKIRK rose to an explanation, but it was repressed by cries of "No" from Republicans. He gave notice that he should claim the floor in reply.
page: 207[View Page 207]Mr. BOYD proceeded. He compared the records of the Union, or Republican party, and the Democratic party. The Union party had no Buchanans, or Joseph Lanes. He was proud of the unvaunting and tolerant record of his party. He defended it from the imputation of abolitionism, and showed how the sectional breach was widened by the course, the acts and the votes of the Democratic party. He showed that the conclusions which he held, and which induced him to vote for this amendment, place him in company with Thomas Jefferson. He quoted the Jefferson "wolf-by-the-ears" letter, and concluded if that patriarch were living now, he would be with the Union party on this question.
Mr. B denounced the Cincinnati Enquirer and the Indiana State Sentinel. He held these papers more accountable than any of the rebels themselves. These papers had been read in the South, and their words had gone further to fire the Southern heart than anything which could be uttered among their own people. Uniformly these papers, whether intended or not, had been against the war, against the Government and in sympathy with the rebels. For himself he considered it his duty to stand up for the people of the North. He was willing that these papers, and gentlemen who followed them, might do as they pleased in the regard. He was like the boy whose father, who was very unpopular, was running for Justice of the Peace. The little fellow went through the crowd shouting "Hurrah for daddy!" "Hurrah for the devil," said some old cock in reply. "That's right," said the boy, "let every one hurrah for his own kin folks." So he said with regard to these papers and these gentlemen, but for himself he hurrahed for "daddy;" he hurrahed for the Government of the United States and the Union under a free constitution.
Mr. BECKETT considering the importance of this question, addressed the Committee at the hazard of his personal health. The gentleman last on the floor, claiming to be a Democrat, reminded him of the skunk in the foxes hole-he did not talk, look or smell like a Democrat, Mr. B. took a legal view of the question. He showed that the right of constitutional amendment was limited to the spirit and scope of the Constitution itself, and not in contravention of it. We have a right to change the Constitution in any particular not fundamental. Would any man contend that a, Constitutional amendment, greeting a monarchy at Washington, could compel the acquiescence of the State of Indiana? He also derived an opposing argument drawn from the reserved rights of the States and the people. It was just as reasonable to abolish the negro race, as to propose to abolish slavery. He also compared the political records of partizan leaders, and showed that the rebellious confederation was first induced by abolition agitation and extra-constitutional legislation in the anti-slavery States; and them invited by evincing a disposition to separate and divide the Union. This pending constitutional amendment was striking at State Rights, the reserved rights of the people, the rights of property, and the right of popular sovereignty.
Mr. GROVES rose in reply to the gentleman from Dubois--that Perry and Dubois might be heard together; The day was when it would be dangerous to make an Abolition speech on that border. But gentlemen here seem to speak as though they regarded freedom and Republicanism as incompatible. After the sacrifices for freedom, he would not stop short of universal freedom. He was that sort of a Democrat. He had never been an Abolitionist, though it had often been charged against him. But he was now going to do that which might give their charge the color of truth: he would vote for the amendment to abolish slavery throughout the land ; and he expected to regard it as the proudest act of his life. To those who expected to offer a more vigorous opposition to the war on account of this amendment, he would say, look to your laurels, and take care that the blacks in the army do not outstrip you in patriotism. He proposed compensation for slaves by confiscating enough of rebel property to pay for the slaves of loyal men. He had told the people of Kentucky that rebels forfeited the right of protection. Union men in that State make the same issue that we have here-the Union against slavery.
Mr. SHUEY next took the floor, but gave way after a suggestion that the time ought to be equally divided between the two parties.
Mr. SIM was willing to give advantage to the opposition as to time.
Mr. DUNHAM urged the Chair to restrain demonstrations of applause, and all tendency, on this floor to the disorder of a mere primary meeting.
The CHAIRMAN said all demonstrations of applause or otherwise were out of order, and ought to be restrained. He called the attention of the Doorkeeper to the matter.
Mr. LASSELLE. The questions involved in this debate were too grave and important to admit of partisan considerations. He begged, however, in reply to the allegation of Mr. Miller, of Tippecanoe, that all rebels arose out of the Democratic party, to say, that in the Southern States, out of 856,000 votes cast at the presidential election of 1856, 346,000-nearly one-half-were given against the Democratic candidate. This question over-rides all other questions. This was the first time Indiana had been called upon to make any alteration in the Federal compact. It may never be in our power to recall what we shall do to-day. He should vote against the amendment. It was not a question of party with him. He denied the power to make the amendment. He denied the right and justice thereof. He denied its expediency.
He should vote against the amendment, for a very few reasons. In the first place, involved questions of right, of power and expediency. It would seem on the first blush that we have the power, because there is no prohibition. But he showed that no amendment could be adopted to the Articles of Confederation before the Constitution, without the eon-sent of every State. It was the declaration of the fathers, and a tradition of the people, that no right of a State, nor any right of property, shall be interfered with or disturbed. Prohibitions of change and amendment of the Consti- page: 208[View Page 208] [Consti]tution were in the Constitution itself with regard to the right of States, &c., as, that the equal right of all the States to equal representation in the Senate of the United States, shall not be impaired without the consent of such State. From this, he argued at least the doubtfulness of the power to pass this amendment, because it affected the rights of Scale's and property. He alleged the consideration that this amendment was not right, not only because it was to affect the structure of the Government, but because it infringed the vested rights of property. And he computed the number and value of the slaves, asking if gentlemen could regard it as an equitable thing "to strike down this right to property? ["Yes;" "yes"]
He could not, though admitting, as he did, the intrinsic evil of slavery. And he referred to the fact, that the State of Delaware had but day before yesterday declared by an overwhelming majority, in both branches of the Legislature, that she would not ratify this amendment. There was reason to think also that Kentucky would make the same remonstrance. We had every assurance that Kentucky would reject it. Was it right to force a law on these States, depriving their citizens of their property ? Even rebels. although they had committed the highest of crimes, had some rights under the law. He exhorted gentlemen to be careful against running into extremes. Already we had extremities enough upon us. He was not a sixty day man, but he hoped our difficulties would be terminated in a year or two. Then, as a matter of prudence, as a matter of expediency, would it not be better to await that time, when, perhaps, we might have the endorsement of all the States. He would like to see this provision engrafted upon the Constitution, but he desired to see it done by every State in the Union.
He would have the Committee to be guarded against extreme action. It was difficult for him properly to restrain his own feeling of indignation against this wicked rebellion. And, however, he might desire the destruction ot slavery, he could not vote now for this proposition. It was true, as alleged by Mr. Boyd, that Mr. Jefferson was in favor of emancipation, but not in this way. Mr. Jefferson was in favor of State rights.
Mr. Griffith next took the floor, but gave way for--
Mr. BROWN, on whose motion the Committee rose, and--
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and asked and obtained leave to sit again at 2 o'clock P. M.
The report was concurred in.
On motion of Mr. BROWN an order was adopted for an afternoon session: and then-
The House took a recess till 2 o'clock P. M,
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. BRANHAM gave notice of intention to move an order for an evening session.
And then, on his motion, the House resolved into Committee of the WholeMr. Henricks in the Chair-and the committee again took up the Executive message and Mr. Whiteside's joint resolution No. 13, for the amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, in accordance with the courtesy of the House, I will endeavor in a few remarks to give my views upon the joint resolution amending the Constitution of the United States.
I do not propose to give a legal or constitutional argument, for I am not able so to do neither will I attempt to argue it in a politics party sense, but in what might be considered by some an abolition sense, in other word; upon the merits of the question, upon the moral right thereof.
I may be considered before I get through, a political-abolitionist. I admit, sir, that eve since I had a thought, ever since I knew anything, that I have been a MORAL abolitionist, but a political abolitionist I never have been, until the inauguration of the present rebellion.
Since eighteen hundred and sixty-one a charge has come over the spirit of my dreams, and I have progressed in that respect.
I will take the language of the gentleman from Cass as a sufficient text for my remarks, and will ask, as he did first, is it right to ratify this joint resolution? Secondly, is it expedient so to do?
As to the question of right, the 5th Article of the Constitution of the United States provides that whenever two-thirds of both Houses of Congress shall propose amendments to the Constitution, and the same shall be ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States the same shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution, thus setting the question of right and power to do so.
Then again, the same Article provides that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first clause if the 9th section of the first Article? What is the first clause? It reads as follows:
"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper admit shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax may be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person."
What is the inference to be drawn therefrom. Does not this very language not only look to the abolition of the slave trade but also imply that slavery itself might be also abolished at some future period by the authority of Congress?
Now gentlemen here talk about vested rights; about going contrary tot he provisions of the organic law in passing this measure. I undertake to say that the compromises of the Constitution have all been religiously kept by the Government of the United States.
I say, sir, without fear of contradiction that the party to which I belong, which elevated Abraham Lincoln to power, did keep those compromises, and not until the traitors of the South raised their parricidal hands against the fair fabric which our fathers built, were those compromises weakened or infringed upon.--But, sir, let us go back to first principles, when the Mayflower moored upon the rock-bound shore of Plymouth, bringing those who were fleeing from the despotism of old England to plant here the gem of civil and religious liberty.
page: 209[View Page 209]Let us go back to the immortal Declaration of Independence, wherein are enunciated the principles that all men are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Let us pass down from that to the Ordinance of 1787, which gave this great Northwest to freedom, out of which has been erected three great and glorious States, of which gallant Indiana is one. It is unnecessary for me to tell gentlemen here that the Declaration of Independence and the Ordinance of 1787 preceded the formation of the Constitution of the United States.
Let us return to the consideration of that Constitution. I have carefully examined it,and nothing in it save the clause for the rendition of fugitive slaves upon which gentlemen here can base their talk about vested rights, and their assertions that Congress has no right to interfere ia this matter, or that the Legislature should not ratify this proposed amendment.
I say that, though slavery was tolerated by the Constitution, nevertheless the fathers of the Republic set their faces against it: that they were opposed to the institution, and gave utterance to that opposition prior to the adoption of the Constitution. They found the Colonies with slavery existing in them and tolerated it sanctioned it for the time being, looking to its ultimate extinction.
Notwithstanding twelve of the thirteen original States, as the gentleman from Shelby says, were slaveholding, seven of them long since abolished the institution, thus demonstrating that the moral sentiment of the country was in opposition to this great wrong, this stain upon our national escutcheon.
Gentlemen speak of the irrepressible conflict as if it was the purpose of Abraham Lincoln and those who elected him, to make war upon the institutions of the South. It was but the expression of prophecy.
This irrepressible conflict had been going on from the inception of the Government.
The moral sense of the country was in opposition to the institution of slavery. Truth had been combating error, right had been struggling with wrong, until the power which was based upon slavery had begun to wane, and justice was triumphing. Then the compromise of 1820, upon the admission of Missouri, became necessary to uphold the fading fortunes of slavery, and the country torn by dissention and almost disrupted, rendered, apparently, another compromise necessary in 1860 to satisfy the demands of slavery. Slavery was continually asking for new guarantees to uphold it. The annexation of Texas was for the purpose of complying with that demand, to fortify and uphold a system that had in itself no merit, and which was continually receding before the force of public opinion. Not content with this the slaveholding power was intent upon extending its area, and they farmed the design of making Kansas a slave State, and transferred the irrepressible conflict to the territories. But, thank God, the Border Ruffians of Missouri, who were bent upon this, had to succumb, and instead of making a slave State of Kansas, as they designed, Missouri has become a free State.
But this irrepressible conflict still raged, and farther guarantees were demanded until we sent, in 1861, Peace Commissioners to Washington, and then it was found that these opposing sentiments and influences could no more commingle than oil and water.
One gentleman has alluded to Maryland.--Mr. Chairman, I am a native of that State, and I can say with more than ordinary pride now, in the language of song, ''Maryland, my Maryland," and I feel, sir, that it is a privilege upon this floor to return to her my heartfelt thanks for having emancipated herself from the withering blight of this institution, and assist in wiping this fool blot from our national esutcheon.
I stood upon her soil, sir, last winter; I visited the old school house where I began my education; I looked upon her blue mountains; I said to myself then, sir, that if she would but rid herself from the blight of slavery that I could lay my bones in her soil and repose more quietly in my grave there than upon any other spot of earth in the Universe.
I mingled with her citizens, I talked to her slaveholding population, and the loyal Union men of that State who owned slaves frankly acknowledged that, either the Government rungs perish and slavery survive or slavery perish and the Government continue: both could not.
I may speak more warmly upon this subject than some gentlemen have. I was raised to manhood amongst the pretended beauties of that institution, and when I represent to you Mr. Chairman, how the Union man of the South is willing to part with his slave rather than his Government; when Maryland and Missouri by fores of their own convictions of right have freed themselves from the curse, I do not understand how any man in free Indiana, who knows nothing of the institution, only as he gets it second-handed, can be an apologist for or seek to extenuate its enormities or hesitate to lay violent hands upon the monster and strangle it, by ratifying this amendment. Gentlemen talk about Democracy, let me give them the language of the father of Democracy, Thomas Jefferson. They profess to revere his name and be governed by his principles. Hear him on the slave question:"
The abolition of domestic slavery is the greatest object of desire in these Colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state."
Let them listen to the words of another great Democratic light, James Monroe, upon this subject:
"We have found that this evil (slavery) has preyed upon the very vitals of the Union, and has been prejudicial to all the States in which it has existed."
But better than those, the language of one who was a slaveholder and fully conversant with the institution, of the man who said he would rather be right than be President, whose I like we will not look again upon very soon: the words of Henry Clay of Kentucky:
"So long as God allows the vital current to flow through my veins, I will never, never, never, by word or thought, by mind or will aid in submitting one road of free territory to the everlasting curse of human bondage."
page: 210[View Page 210]Mr. Chairman, these are the testimonies of slaveholders themselves-and I shall not quote that of Northern men upon the subject.
Well, passing down through the history of this irrepressible conflict, we come to the year 1861, and we find the slave power losing its control of the Government, and as their last resort they stab at the vitals of the nation and attempt to tear down this fair temple of civil and religious liberty.
The Government in the exercise of its duty meets them with force of arms; and whenever our soldiers go forward to crush rebellion, they invariably find that they have to fight slavery also, which is used as a means of sustenance to those who are raising a parricidal hand against their country. I cannot, Mr. Chairman appreciate the argument of the gentleman from Cass, who thinks that rebels may have rights so far as this institution is concerned.
Rebels have no rights under the Constitution they have trampled upon, except the right to be tried, convicted and punished for their crimes. Gentlemen talk of right, and of property. Sir, no man has any moral right to hold another in bondage, though I admit that under the compromises of the Constitution prior to the rebellion, the political right of slavery was admitted and observed by my own party. In the language of Cowper:
"They found them slaves, but who the title gave, The God of nature never formed a slave."
Gentlemen talk flippantly against the Emancipation Proclamation. Posterity will place the name of Abraham Lincoln second only to that of George Washington, and posterity will accord to the men of this Legislature who vote for this amendment to the Constitution, a more honorable place in history than for any other vote they can possibly give. I feel it a duty and a privilege to vote for this amendment, and though I may have no influence over my Democratic friends on this floor, I appeal to them to stand with as upon this matter, and at least let us have the satisfaction of knowing that we have followed the golden rule by doing unto others as we would that they should do unto us.
Mr. DUNHAM regretted exceedingly that his physical health would not permit him to do this great subject justice. In his judgment this was the most important question which had ever devolved upon the American people. To solve it, it required all the intellect of eur minds and all the patriotism of our hearts. He had lamented to see, listening to this discussion, personal and malignant strife urged by gentlemen on the other side. They had even charged those who differed with them on this question with rebel sympathizing-with disloyalty. They were charged with this simply because they exercised the God-given liberty of thought, and proposed to act conscientiously as their reason and judgment dictated.
Some had gone so far as to affirm that no man could be loyal and approve this amendment. Should we ignore the dictates of reason and judgment, and crash the freedom of thought? These were the moot distinguished and dignified characteristics of humanity. The freedom of thought and speech was fundamental in our Government. All men stood under this government with a duty on them to exercise in all public transactions, their best judgment and act accordingly. Then let gentlemen wake up to the fact that Democrats are men as you are, and let us hold council together as brothers-not bitter, but sweet counsel-to ascertain and to do our public duty.
Scarcely a single gentleman on the other side who had spoken on. this amendment, but had charged the minority, because they had opposed it, with being advocates of slavery, There was not one word of truth in it. The heart of every member of the minority en this floor was animated with the spirit of liberty.
Born in a free State, all his sympathies were against slavery. Jefferson so felt in his heart and judgment, yet he said he had no right to lay his hand on the tower of free government to compel men to adopt his views. The gentlemen here quoted Jefferson as the devil quotes scripture they leave out what does not suit them. He hoped to hear no more about our standing here as apologists for slavery. The great principle of Human liberty and human dignity was priceless, and should be preserved at any sacrifice. He glanced to the consistency of the gentleman from Jefferson [Mr. Wright] four years ago voting for John C. Breckenridge, and to-day cheek by jowl with Republicans, and while he had not changed. He might see plain enough how that might be, but. he could not see how the devil all those Republicans got along side of him, and he never changing from his position when he voted for Breckenridge. He [Mr. Dunham,] had heard Republicans say that four years ago the gentleman from Jefferson was the most pliant tool Jesse Bright ever had. The gentleman went so far on the Breckinridge side that like a pendulum of a clock he had swung clear to the other side and now voted-this iron clad Democrat-and acted cheek by jowl with Branham.
But gentlemen say that our words here encourage traitors. We oppose this proposition and the present war policy, not that to the rebellion, but because we want to put it down, and want a policy that will put it down. Did gentlemen think Democrats could not appreciate the destiny of this country?--could not take into their minds the great idea, a comment over whose glad plains the two oceans clap their hands in an ecstacy of praise to the Supreme. Talking about loyalty, did gentlemen know what loyalty is? Loyalty is fidelity to the governing power. The officials of this country were with the governing power, and the public officer that grasps at and exercises powers not empowered by the people is a usurper--a traitor--a disloyal man. A clause in the Declaratian of Independence which says "all men are created free and equal,'' was an expression of the determination of our fathers to be rid of all aristocratic domination. Our fathers counted the nigger out.
They did not agree with Ben Butler, when he said the other day that "they are of us." With reference to State Sovereignty, it was a sufficient reply to the sneer of the gentleman from Jefferson (Mr. Wright) against State sovereignty, to say that those attributes of soveriegnty which he enumerated as delegates to the General Government, were delegated by page: 211[View Page 211] sovereign States. The power of amendment of the Constitution was confined in its exercise to the charge of principles not delegated not radical fundamental. The majority now sought to change the Constitution of that Union as our fathers made it you sought to furl and trail the glorious flag under which, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the St. Lawrence to the Darien's isthmus, we had achieved all our glories. God Almighty had formed this country for one people. Look at mountains and its rivers; its praries and its forests! What God had joined together no a could put asunder. Loyalty! That sentiment did not come from our noble Governor. It did not come from Presidents, Congresses, or any magnates. Great God! The Governor was not our master. From the President of the United States down to the lackey that blacked boots, all were servants of the people.
He challenged the learned gentleman that had followed him, to show one syllable of the delegation that power to Congress.
The power of amendment contained in the Constitution extended only to the powers and principles already incorporated in that instrument. He did not care whether you had one tyrant or thirty or a hundred thousand. Liberty was where the whole people promiscuously, through each other, made their own laws and institutions.
Tyranny was where one set of men, not chosen by the other set, made laws for the whole. Therefore, if three-fourths of the States undertook to control the other fourth, it is tyranny. If three-fourths of the States, in regard to this amendment, trampled upon the rights of the other fourth, they not simply violated the Constitution, but they were guilty of absolute tyranny.
He had been of those who had been sanguine of the long existence (quoting from Jefferson) of our federal Union. Now he doubted It much, and saw the event not far distant, This question (of slavery) like a fire bell in the night, had awakened him and filled him with alarm.
New England puritanism had struck this bell, and filled the country with terror, solely for the purpose of obtaining sectional and political power.
He read from Mr. Jefferson's letters, by way of special enlightenment of the gentleman from Lawrence (Mr. Boyd), Jefferson would be rid of slavery "by expatriation.'' Was this the Jeffersonianism of Republicans in this Hall? The President-Father Abraham-it was boasted by a Republican newspaper, took a negro into his carriage, whilst his white servant was riding outside, and Charles Sumner took a negro into the Supreme Court of the United States, and caused him to be admitted as a practicing lawyer, in the place where once stood Daniel Webster ! He further illustrated this Republican Jeffersonianism. He read copiously from a late speech by Major General Butler, closing with a recommendation to make the negro, who is among us and of us, equal with us before the law.
Mr. D. pursued his theme, and demonstrated that it was the purpose of the party advocating this amendment, to elevate the negro to the proud position of an American citizen. How are the mighty fallen, when Sambo gets up and exclaims, " I, too, am an American citizen." Jefferson had said that he was willing to abolish slavery provided he could have expatriation of the African-a separation of the races and the preservation of the proud Caucasian from contamination. Where two races live together, one must be held in subjection, or the inferior must be absorbed by the superior.
Herein, also, was the reason why he opposed this amendment He opposed it, also, because of its certainly damaging effects on the interests of the laborers of the country, which he showed at length. Was the laborer of Indiana willing to start out to make his pathway in life alongside with a negro ? Labor was dignified according to the population that performed it. That labor must be performed, but it should be performed by men who dignified it and made it honorable.
He was not for impairing the old Constitution in any particular. He was for compelling the rebels to come back and live under it. It was for this that he had entered into the war. For this he had made speeches and spent dollars, ten to one made and spent by his republican friends, to raise men for the army. And yet these good looking men insinuated disloyalty against him.
This amendment struck at the loyal slave States-Delaware, Kentucky, Arkansas-as well as the slave States in rebellion.
And, finally, he opposed the amendment because of its effects on the war. When we make a new Constitution we make a new Union, (for the Constitution makes the Union), we lose the dignity of the issue upon which the war was opened. He scouted the taunts against his loyalty and about his sympathy with the rebellion, by his readiness to compare records with the best of his traducers, in speeches for recruits, in money spent for recruits, in acts of devotion to his country, in the privations and loneliness of the tent and on the field of bloody strife. Patriotism was cheap when it could be acceptably vaunted in empty breath by men who staid at home. Its effects on the war would be the reverse of that policy which would build up a Union party in the South. Such would be his war policy, though not a military man. He would build up a Union party there, and lay about the armed forces of the rebellion with all the military power of the country. He animadverted generally on the partizin spirit that denounces disloyalty against a man, because he will think and speak freely; also, on what he had seen of a disposition to deride and laugh at the Union, in the Abolition leaders, from Horace Greeley and Father Giddings and Thadeus Stevens down.
Mr. D. concluded, declaring that although he might disapprove of the policy, he would sustain the administration in all its efforts to maintain the national territorial integrity. The reason he opposed the present policy was because he did not think it the best to restore Union. Every step you take in this slavery question robbed you of moral power and left you only with the physical. He would consent to no dissolution of this Union. But to ac- page: 212[View Page 212] country. He animadverted generally on the partizan spirit that denounces disloyalty against a man, because he will think and speak freely; also, on what he bad seen of a disposition to deride and laugh at the Union, in the Abolition leaders, from Horace Greeley and Father Giddings and Thadeus Stevens down.
Mr. D. concluded, declaring that although he might disapprove of the policy, he would sustain the administration in all its efforts to maintain, the national territorial integrity. The reason he opposed the present policy was because be did not think it the best to restore Union. Every step you take in this slavery question robbed you of moral power and left you only with the physical. He would consent to no dissolution of this Union. But to accomplish union we might let this negro question rest, fix our eyes upon the flag of our country, and bear it forth in the maintenance of the Constitution.
Mr. SHUEY opened with a motion that Mr. Speaker Pettit would address the committee to-night. He responded to admonitions about Republican intolerance, by reference to the denunciations of his party by Mr. Brown-that Democrats were not Constitution-breakers and perjured persons as the Republicans.
Mr. BROWN disclaimed alleging perjury.
Mr. SHUEY explained that a Constitution breaker here was a perjured man. He treated the equity of this question. He magnified the Constitution which gives protection to the property and person of every man that treads the soil- negroes included. He gave-Democratic authority, which gave the full measure of civil right to negroes by way of offsetting the reference to the speech of General Butler.
He was opposed to slavery for its fruits. He-showed that all the Southern lights of the Democracy had lead the rebellion. Their roll of names in the rebel Congress was little beside what might seem the roll of names of a Democratic caucus. He spoke at length of the evils of slavery. To the argument that three-fourths could not carry the amended Constitution-the new Constitution-over the dissenting one-fourth,-he replied, that that fourth had consented to the modification, in the ratification they gave to the original Constitution. He deprecated that Democratic opposition to the policy of the war, which descended, sometimes, beneath the common love of country and loyalty that should animate every American heart,-referring particularly to the declaration of Mr. Ristine, in his letter to Mr. Voorhees, that his "only hope was in the successful resistance of the South. If they do not succeed, woe betide us who have opposed the policy of this Administration." He defined the word loyalty; and thence he showed, that disobedience to the servants of the people appointed to carry out their will was disloyalty.
Opposition to the administration was disloyalty, because the administration was the chosen instrument of the people to carry out their will. To refuse implicit obedience to the Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy was to be not so good a citizen as a man ought to be. He concluded by a catalogue of the outgrowths of treason from the Democratic party.
When he had concluded-
On motion by Mr. WOODS, the committee rose, and-
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and asked and obtained leave to sit again on the same matter, this evening at 7 o'clock.
The report was concurred in.
On motion by Mr. RHOADS, an evening session at 7 o'clock was ordered.
On motion by Mr. SABIN, Mr. Beckett had leave of absence till Tuesday.
On motion of Mr. TRUSLER, the Military Committee was authorised to employ a clerk.
On his farther motion, Mr. Foulke was added to the Military Committee.
On motion of Mr. ABBETT, Mr. Richardson obtained indefinite leave of absence-sick,
And then-at 5.20 P. M.-
On motion of Mr. HOGATE, the House took a recess till 7 o'clock P. M.
NIGHT SESSION.
On motion by Mr. BUSKIRK, the House again resolved into Committee of the Whole-Mr. Henricks in the Chair-and took up again the consideration of Mr. Whiteside's joint resolution, No. 13, for ratification of amendments of the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Congress thereof, and the Executive Message in relation thereto.
Mr. HUMPHREYS proposed to submit the considerations which should govern his vote. The proposition would pass, doubtless, but its friends were welcomed to the credit of it. Hs regarded this as a part of the old issue, which dates back before the war of the Revolution. It was, the opposition to free democratic government in this country. But whenever that party had gained the ascendency their principle and policy of admistration were soon found to bs inimical to her government, and had to give place. He traced the history of those political organizations of various names the friends of a stronger Government and opposers of the Democracy down to the organization of the Republican party in 1856, This was the year when, for the first time, sectional candidates were on for President and Vice President of the United States. He regarded the negro in this issue only the pretext, which had been used adroitly to get this strong Government party in power. And they were now using the war power to strengthen their hands and enlarge the central power. That was immediate effect of this amendment. It a blow at the rights of the States.
Upon just as reasonable a pretext they might amend the Constitution by striking down State Courts and the State Legislatures. He would not discuss the question of slavery in its details. It was but a pretext of the now in the administration of this Government, for the ulterior purpose of establishing as central Government. He argued not the unconstitutionality of the proposition farther than to allege that it was not an amendment in in harmony with the spirit of the original instrument. It was a proposition, looking to a radical change of that fundamental principle, that all just Governments exists by the consent of the governed. The policy of the party in power, had been leading us toward centralization step by page: 213[View Page 213] step until even this radical proposition is received all over the country with demonstrations of popular favor.
Mr. SIM was proud of the opportunity of a making a for himself on this question. Since the war commenced he had cast aside all party ties, and held the lamented Douglas, that in time of war, there could be but two parties-patriots and traitors. He did not say Democrats were traitors. They were all well regarded by him as well for their patriotic sentiments and acts of patriotic devotion, as for their admirable social qualities.- But if he tread on their toes, gentlemen should not have corns. Her regarded slavery as a blight on our institutions. He traced its arrogant demands and encroachments on the administration of the General Government., till its sectional candidate for President was fairly beaten, and then it raised its hand for the destruction of the best Government on earth. Then he with millions of others, forgot their partisan designations, took up arms and made common cause for the defense of the old Government.
But still for two years of the war we dallied with slavery, and kept guard over its interests, whilst the great cause of the Government was even losing ground under the lead of such men as General Halleck, General Buell, and General McClellan. But, thank God, he himself had no hand in this dallying. His heart yearned for the change of policy, which was at last forced upon the country by considerations of what is called military necessity. The knife was the proper remedy for this blight of slavery, and be saw its efficient, and, to him, most wholesome operation in the ratification of the proposed amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. GLAZEBROOK said he was one of the oldest citizens of the State. A native of Kentucky, he had lived in the State of Indiana since 1811. He opposed the principle of this amendment not so much because of his dislike of it per se, but because such a proposition as this was only befitting calmer times. He disclaimed all sympathy and friendliness for slavery. This constitutional amendment would no more liberate the slaves than Mr. Lincoln's proclamation. Neither slavery nor honorable peace could be conquered but by the sword, and by negotiation upon equal and honorable terms. He deprecated the policy of the Republican party, which had stopped up every avenue to peace about the beginning of the conflict. And he charged upon that party and their insidious operations through the churches the responsibility of the war. He charged it upon them in the beginning of their organizations of parties in this country in their subserviency to the deviltries of old England, and in their sectional and fanatical legislation hostile to the fugitive slave law. He charged upon them the responsibility for dividing the North, and for all our political dissensions which, to some extent, had kept recruits out of the army.
Mr. Speaker PETTIT. He accorded heartily the sentiment of the gentleman from Floyd (Mr. Dunham) as to the gravity and importance of the matter under consideration. That subject stripped of its verbiage, was simply not to do violence to any one, but to express the State's ratification of these words of Congress: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be tolerated in the United States nor in any place within its jurisdiction forever." He considered the mode of amendment of the Constitution of the United States presented here by the Constitution. It was a plain, easy, just method of rectifying recurring evils. It was here, simply proposing to us, as representatives to give the assent of the people to this amendment, to make freedom national, not sectional.
This assent was submitted to us by the words of Jefferson himself. The soil of these Northwestern States Were made free by these very words. And he glanced at the civilized and material prosperity of these States, and asked if, in view of this unprecedented prosperity, the representatives of the State of Indiana should refuse the assent of their, constituents to the incorporation of those words in the organic law of the nation. He confessed at an honest surprise that the voice of a singles man should be raised against it. He proceeded to consider the question whether we have the power to make this amendment, and if so, whether it is politic to use it.
Subordinate to these questions, he reviewed the pending debate on this floor, which was opened by the gentleman from Monroe and continued in opposition by the gentleman from Sullivan and the gentleman from Jackson, the gentleman from Floyd and others. To the argument that this amendment would tend to the consolidation of governmental powers, he submitted the question whether it took away any power or any right from a State by her becoming fear? There was no absorption of power by the Congress in this amendment. The Congress was merely preparing an amendment, not giving it vitality. According to the argument of gentlemen, this amendment would be giving-up certain of our reserved rights. He considered the question whether we have the right to do so, submitting affirmative conclusions.
The loose objection that this proposed action is not Constitutional meant, he supposed, was not competent to put into the Constitution by way of amendment what is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. In opposition to this objection, he showed at length, that where there is a general grant of power, with no limitation upon it, it includes every thing under it. Had he stated the objection correctly ?
Mr. BROWN. He put it on the ground that sovereignty begins with the States. Amendments must be subordinate to the delegated powers. Jefferson and Madison held that the Federal Government had no right to interfere with slavery. He had therefore, submitted, that this amendment could not be applied.
Mr. PETTIT. The Constitution unamended does not confer the power.
Mr. BROWN. We can only amend in so far as the Constitution invites amendments. Can we amend the Constitution so as to fasten slavery on the State of Indiana? If not, how can you exclude it from Kentucky by amendment?
page: 214[View Page 214]Mr. PETTIT. Ratifying this amendment then, we simply part with a reserved power We treat with what belongs to us so far, let it be conceded for argument, we add to the powers of the General Government. But he read again from the constitutional provisions for amendment in the 5th and 1st articles. "Except upon those two subjects this clause confers upon Congress plenary power to propose amendments. The very contrary of the gentleman's restriction was in the Constitution; if he would undertake it. He glanced at the significant fact that the word "slave" is not in the Constitution, and quoted the language of Madison thereupon. He went into the convention that framed the Constitution.
He accepted the invitation of the gentleman from Floyd, to find out the meaning of the Constitution by contemporaneous expositions. And he went into these inquiries at some length, reading from the Constitution, the convention debate, the ordinance of 1787, the acts of the first Congress .under the Constitution, the act of Congress, enabling the Territory of Indiana to form a Constitution and State Government-showing fully that Congress has exercised powers affecting the status-the state of citizens of the States-there were continuous instances wherein Congress had asserted its authority over the domestic institutions of the States, South as well as North, down to the time of the famous declaration of Mr. Polk with reference to the Oregon act, in the year 1847. The spirit of Democratic political discussions was false to history on this subject. It was not the Democracy of Jefferson. It was wrong for gentleman to swear by the honored name of Jefferson, whilst they denied his faith. It was not the democracy of Jefferson and Jackson, but the democracy of Secession, built on the name of Jackson.
He traced the sad history of political slavery through the years of political humiliations of the North, beginning with the two-thirds rule in the Democratic Presidential Conventions, and culminating in the fulfilment of the prediction of Jackson, that nullification would seek a pretext in slavery for the dismemberment of the Union. And, there having been an abandonment by this institution of every claim upon our clemency, the time had come for us to stamp it with the most forcible approbation by ratifying the proposed amendment of the Constitution. And beyond this question of policy there rises a higher question of duty.
He spoke at length, giving numerous considerations, which want of tspace excludes farther reports.
When he had concluded-
Mr. BUSKIRK made an ineffectual motion that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again at 9 o'clock to-morrow.
On motion by Mr. BRANHAM, the Committee rose, and-
The CHAIRMAN reported the message and the joint resolution to the House without amendment.
And then-at 10:25 P. M.-
On motion of Mr. BROWN, the House adjourned till to-morrow morning at 9 o'clock.
