OONGEESS, U. S. 



297 



proclamation does. It adds nothing to its le- 

 gality, nothing to its force. 



" By the bill we propose to preclude the 

 judicial question by the solution of a political 

 question. How so ? By the paramount power 

 of Congress to reorganize governments in those 

 States, to impose such conditions as it thinks 

 necessary to secure the permanence of repub- 

 lican government, to refuse to recognize any 

 governments there which do not prohibit sla- 

 very forever. Ay, gentlemen take the respon- 

 sibility to say, in the face of those who clamor 

 for speedy recognition of governments tolerat- 

 ing slavery, that the safety of the people of the 

 United States is the supreme law ; that their 

 will is the supreme rule of law, and that we 

 are authorized to pronounce their will on this 

 subject. Take the responsibility to say that 

 we will revise the judgments of our ancestors; 

 that we have experience written in blood which 

 they had not ; that we find now, what they 

 darkly doubted, that slavery is really, radically 

 inconsistent with the permanence of republican 

 governments ; and that being charged by the 

 supreme law of the land on our conscience and 

 judgment to guarantee, that is, to continue, 

 maintain, and enforce, if it exists, to institute 

 and restore when overthrown, republican gov- 

 ernments throughout the broad limits of the 

 Republic, we will weed out every element of 

 their policy which we think incompatible Avith 

 its permanence and endurance. The pui'pose of 

 the bill is to preclude the judicial question of 

 the validity and effect of the President's proc- 

 lamation by the decision of the political 

 authority in reorganizing the State govern- 

 ments. It makes the rule of decision the pro- 

 visions of the State constitution, which, when 

 recognized by Congress, can be questioned in 

 no court ; and it adds to the authority of the 

 proclamation the sanction of Congress. If 

 gentlemen say that the Constitution does not 

 bear that construction, we Avill go before the 

 people of the United States on that question, 

 and by their judgment AVC will abide." 



An extended debate ensued. Mr. Pendleton, 

 of Ohio, on May 4th, opposed the bill, saying : 

 " The gentleman maintains two propositions, 

 Avhich lie at the very basis of his VICAVS on this 

 subject. He has explained them to the House, 

 and enforced them on other occasions. He 

 maintains that, by reason of their secession, 

 the seceded States and their citizens ' have not 

 ceased to be citizens and States of the United 

 States, though incapable of exercising political 

 privileges under the Constitution, but that 

 Congress is charged with a high political 

 power by the Constitution to guarantee repub- 

 lican government in the States, and that this 

 is the proper time and the proper mode of 

 exercising it.' This act of revolution on the 

 part of the States has evoked the most extra- 

 ordinary theories upon the relation of the 

 States to the Federal Government. This the- 

 ory of the gentleman is one of them. The rat- 

 ification of the Constitution by Virginia estab- 



lished the relation between herself and the Fed- 

 eral Government ; it created the link between 

 her and all the States ; it announced her as- 

 sumption of the duties, her title to the rights 

 of the confederating States ; it proclaimed her 

 interest in, her power over, her obedience to 

 the common agent of all the States. If Vir- 

 ginia had never ordained that ratification she 

 would have been an independent State ; the 

 Constitution would have been as perfect and 

 the union between the ratifying States would 

 have been as complete as they now are. Vir- 

 ginia repeals that ordinance of ratification, an- 

 nuls that bond of union, breaks that link of 

 confederation. She repeals but a single law, 

 repeals it by the action of a sovereign conven- 

 tion ; leaves her constitution, her laws, her 

 political and social polity untouched. And 

 the gentleman from Maryland tells us that the 

 effect of this repeal is not to destroy the vigor 

 of that law, but is to subvert the State govern- 

 ment, and to render the citizens ' incapable of 

 exercising political privileges ; ' that the Union 

 remains, but that one party to it has thereby 

 lost its corporate existence, and the other has 

 advanced to the control and government of it. 



" Sir, this cannot be. Gentlemen must not 

 palter in a double sense. These acts of seces- 

 sion are either valid or they are invalid. If 

 they are valid, they separated the State from 

 the Union. If they are invalid they are void ; 

 they have no effect ; the State officers who 

 act upon them are rebels to the Federal Gov- 

 ernment ; the States are not destroyed ; their 

 constitutions are not abrogated ; their officers 

 are committing illegal acts, for which they are 

 liable to punishment; the States have never 

 left the Union, but so soon as their officers 

 shall perform their duties or other officers 

 shall assume their places, Avill again perform 

 the duties imposed, and enjoy the privileges 

 conferred by the Federal compact, and this not 

 by virtue of a new ratification of the Constitu- 

 tion, nor a new admission by the Federal Gov- 

 ernment, but by virtue of the original ratifica- 

 tion, and the constant, uninterrupted mainten- 

 ance of position in the Federal Union since 

 that date. 



"Acts of secession are not invalid to destroy 

 the Union, and valid to destroy the State gov- 

 ernments and the political privileges of their 

 citizens. We have heard much of the two-fold 

 relation which citizens of the seceded States 

 may hold to the Federal Government that 

 they may be at once belligerents and rebellious 

 citizens. I believe there are some judicial deci- 

 sions to that effect. Sir, it is impossible. The 

 Federal Government may possibly have the 

 right to elect in which relation it will deal 

 with them ; it cannot deal with them at one 

 and the same time in inconsistent relations. 

 Belligerents being captured are entitled to be 

 treated as prisoners of Avar; rebellious citizens 

 are liable to be hanged. The private property 

 of belligerents, according to the rules of mod- 

 ern Avar, shall not be taken without compensa- 



