CONGRESS, U. S. 



313 



commenced for the purpose of restoring this 

 Union to its original position, and leaving all 

 these States in the possession of the same 

 constitutional power that they possessed before 

 this rebellion. That is the division that exists, 

 and I regret that it has been made and has to 

 be met now. It ought not to have been made 

 now. Those men who want to prosecute this 

 war for the paramount purpose of abolishing 

 slavery, must know, if they know anything, 

 that they cannot attain their end until they 

 annihilate the rebel army that stands between 

 them and the slaves. We, also, who want to 

 prosecute this war for the restoration of the 

 Union, know equally well that we never can 

 attain our end until we annihilate that same 

 army. Thus far we are travelling upon the 

 same road. The same force is to be overcome 

 for the attainment of either end. Why, then, 

 should we not unite all our energies ? Why, 

 then, should we introduce any disturbing ele- 

 ment to divide our councils or distract our 

 aims? Why should we not employ those 

 whole energies in obtaining a victory over this 

 common foe, and when that shall have been 

 attained, then determine what use we will 

 make of that victory? That is the spirit in 

 which I should have been glad that the affairs 

 of this country should have been conducted." 



Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, now took the 

 floor to close the debate. He argued that the 

 salvation of the country demanded the most 

 thorough measures, and said : " The question 

 now again recurs, how can the war be carried 

 on so as to save the Union and constitutional 

 liberty? Prejudice may be shocked, weak 

 minds startled, weak nerves may tremble, but 

 they must hear and adopt it. Those who now 

 furnish the means of war, but who are the 

 natural enemies of slaveholders, must be made 

 our allies. Universal emancipation must be 

 proclaimed to all. If the slaves no longer 

 raised cotton and rice, tobacco and grain for 

 the rebels, this war would cease in six months. 

 It could not be maintained eveu if the liberated 

 slaves should not lift a hand against their 

 masters. Their fields would no longer produce 

 the means by which they sustain the war ; un- 

 conditional submission would be the immediate 

 and necessary result. The sympathizer with 

 treason would raise an outcry about the horrors 

 of a servile insurrection, and would prate 

 learnedly about the Constitution. Which is 

 most to be abhorred, a rebellion of slaves fight- 

 ing for their liberty, or a rebellion of freemen 

 fighting to murder the nation ? Which seems 

 to you the most cruel, calling on bondsmen to 

 quell the insurrection, or shooting down their 

 masters to effect the same object ? You send 

 forth your sons and brothers to shoot and 

 sabre and bayonet the insurgents; but you 

 hesitate to break the bonds of their slaves to 

 reach the same end. What puerile inconsist- 

 ency? 



" But it will be said that the Constitution 

 does not authorize Congress to interfere with 



slavery in the States. That is true so long as 

 the Constitution and the laws are in fact su- 

 preme; as La times of peace, when they can be 

 maintained by the ordinary tribunals of the 

 country. I believe there is no one in this 

 country who would attempt it. But when the 

 Constitution is repudiated and set at defiance 

 by an armed rebellion, too powerful to be 

 quelled by peaceful means, or by any rules 

 provided for the regulation of the land and 

 naval forces, the Constitution itself grants to 

 the President and Congress a supplemental 

 power, which it was impossible to define, be- 

 cause it must go on increasing and varying 

 according to the increasing and varying neces- 

 sities of the nation. The Constitution makes 

 it the duty of the President to see that all the 

 laws be executed. If any unforeseen and un- 

 controllable emergency should arise endanger- 

 ing the existence of the Republic, and there 

 were no legal provision or process by which 

 the danger could be averted, the section of the 

 Constitution which pays that 'the President 

 shall take care that the laws shall be faithfully 

 executed ' creates him, for the time being, as 

 much a dictator as a decree of the Roman 

 senate that the consul ' should take care that 

 the commonwealth should receive no detri- 

 ment' made him a dictator, and gave him all 

 power necessary for the public safety, whether 

 the means were inscribed on their tables or 

 not. Of course such power would be limited 

 by the necessity, and ought to exist only until 

 Congress could be convened. The Romans, I 

 believe, limited theirs to six months. But 

 when Congress would assemble, they would 

 possess the same full powers. They are au- 

 thorized to raise armies and navies ; to prganize 

 and call out the milita ' to suppress insurrec- 

 tion and repel invasion.' Lest these enume- 

 rated acts should prove insufficient, it wisely 

 provides that 



Congress shall have power to make all laws that 

 shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execu- 

 tion the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested 

 by this Constitution in the Government of the United 

 States, or in any department or officer thereof. 



" This Government is empowered to sup- 

 press insurrection; its Executive is enjoined 

 'to see all the laws faithfully executed;' 

 Congress is granted power to pass all laws 

 necessary to that end. If no other means were 

 left to save the Republic from destruction, I 

 believe we have power, under the Constitution 

 and according to its express provision, to declare 

 a dictator, without confining the choice to any 

 officer of the Government. Rather than the 

 nation should perish, I would do it; rather 

 than see the nation dishonored by compromise, 

 concession, and submission ; rather than see the 

 Union dissevered ; nay, rather than see one star 

 stricken from its banner, all other things fail- 

 ing, I would do it now." 



On a subsequent day, Mr. Riddle, of Ohio, 

 urged the same principle, but upon different 

 grounds. He said: "We are told on conclusive 



