160 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



tions until the war is closed, is there a dispute 

 that precisely the same consequences follow, 

 precisely the same rights are obtained as would 

 be the case in an international war? If not, 

 let the Senator show me where he finds a dis- 

 tinction drawn between the consequences in 

 the two cases. I take it these two propositions 

 are beyond dispute ; there can be no difficulty 

 about them. 



" Then the question arises, and it is only a 

 natural one, Does our form of government 

 change in any way the nature and inevitable 

 legal consequences of a civil war ? Is a civil 

 war waged among us, living as we do under a 

 written Constitution, different in any way so 

 far as the consequences are concerned, on ac- 

 count of that written Constitution, from a civil 

 war in any other nation in the world ? That is 

 a question upon which men may pause. It is 

 very manifest to me that there can be no differ- 

 ence at all. And here I come to consider for 

 a moment the- argument of the honorable Sen- 

 ator from Maryland, because that is what I 

 wanted to address myself to. He says that 

 Congress can do no more than quell an insur- 

 rection ; our Constitution speaks only of insur- 

 rections; and when an insurrection has existed 

 in a State, the moment that insurrection is over 

 the State returns to its former position ; and he 

 reads, I believe, from that clause of the Consti- 

 tution which says that Congress may provide 

 for calling forth the militia to execute the laws 

 of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel 

 invasions. Now, does the Senator undertake 

 to say in any way that that is all our Constitu- 

 tion gives power to do? If I understand the 

 argument of the honorable Senator, it is this : 

 here are State governments, and as there are 

 State governments, and as we are living under 

 a written Constitution, and Congress by the 

 particular terms of that Constitution has power 

 to provide for calling out the militia to sup- 

 press insurrections and repel invasions, there- 

 fore every thing that takes place in the way of 

 a fight in this country, no matter what its ex- 

 tent, is to be considered an insurrection within 

 the meaning of that clause. Do I understand 

 the Senator to take that ground ? " 



Mr. Johnson : "I said that Congress had no 

 authority to carry on war against a State." 



Mr. Fessenden : "My answer to that is sim- 

 ply this : the Constitution has not specifically 

 provided for the case of civil war; it never 

 contemplated civil war ; it would not contem- 

 plate civil war ; but it provided the means to 

 quell it by giving power to Congress to raise 

 and support armies without stating for what 

 objects those armies might be used; and it 

 gave power to do every thing in fact that is 

 necessary to be done in order to preserve and 

 support the Government. But it speaks of in- 

 surrection. "What is an insurrection? It is 

 civil war. The Senator will hardly contend 

 that they are synonymous terms. An insurrec- 

 tion, such as is mentioned and referred to in the 

 Constitution, is not civil war ; it is something 



far less. The Senator will remember that Vat- 

 tel for I go no further so far as this argument 

 is concerned speaks of a tumult as one thing 

 that may take place, that is, when there is a 

 tumultuous assemblage and the laws are vio- 

 lated ; and when that tumult assumes form and 

 becomes a resistance to the law and to the gov- 

 erning authority, it is an insurrection; and 

 when it assumes a greater form, and the laws 

 are successfully resisted, and the sovereign 

 power is defied by armed force, then it becomes 

 a civil war. Is that condition of things what 

 was meant, and all that was meant, by the 

 clause of the Constitution giving power to call 

 forth the militia to suppress insurrection ? 



" If the Senator is right in his construction, 

 there is no such thing as civil war under this 

 Government, and can be no such thing; the 

 Constitution does not provide for it ; it speaks 

 simply of ' insurrection ; ' and there can be 

 none of the consequences of civil war, there 

 can be none of the rules applicable to civil war, 

 because the Constitution has not provided for 

 it. Sir, this clause is of the narrowest possible 

 limitation, and refers only to ordinary tumults 

 carried to such an extent as to make insurrec- 

 tions that are perfectly familiar to us all, and 

 the very provision of the Constitution which 

 the Senator has quoted shows that was the un- 

 derstanding. The truth is, it has reference 

 simply to the militia. It is a power 



To provide for calling forth the militia to execute 

 the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and 

 repel invasions. 



" Not that Congress shall have authority to 

 suppress insurrections, as the Senator would 

 have read it, and repel invasions ; but it may 

 use the militia force for the purpose of sup- 

 pressing insurrections and repelling invasions, 

 meaning simply that on a sudden emergency, 

 when there is an insurrection or invasion, Con- 

 gress may call upon the militia temporarily for 

 the purpose of effecting the object. That is all. 

 Now, then, sir, understanding that war has ex- 

 isted, and that its consequences are such as I 

 have stated, and that civil war is attended by 

 all the consequences of other wars, even among 

 us under the Constitution, I say that, in my 

 judgment, a State may be utterly extinguished 

 and swept out of existence by civil war. It is 

 a necessary consequence if the law of nation.? 

 exists among us and we are bound by its pro- 

 visions. A State may forfeit its status. The 

 Government may say that it has forfeited its 

 status, if it pleases to say so. It may imposo 

 upon such a State punishment ; it may protect 

 itself against the future; and if, in order to 

 protect itself against the future, the Govern- 

 ment finds it absolutely necessary to prevent 

 it from resuming its original position, it has the 

 perfect power to do so. It is a necessary con- 

 sequence of the principle. 



" In order to constitute a State of the Union 

 there should be a republican government ; that 

 government must be acknowledged by Con- 

 gress, and that government must have the re- 



