172 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



territory belonging to them to the condition of 

 a territory subject to be legislated over by force 

 of the territorial clause of the Constitution. If 

 not, why not ? If the honorable member from 

 Massachusetts was not right in proclaiming that 

 the effect of the insurrection and the effect of 

 the ordinances of secession which the States 

 had before passed was to work abdication and 

 forfeiture, and as it was not pretended at that 

 time that there was any other mode by which 

 the States could cease to exist except in con- 

 sequence of the insurrection, then they were 

 still existing. Ifflagrante ~bello the Senate con- 

 sidered them as States, in the name of reason 

 why are they not to consider them as States 

 now that the war is ended ? If although ene- 

 mies in fact, they were friends in law ; foes in 

 fact, but brothers in legal intendment; if they 

 were continuing in existence politically while 

 the war was being waged, by what, I was 

 about to say, sophistry can the human mind be 

 brought to the conclusion that what the war 

 itself while it was being waged could not ac- 

 complish, is the result of a successful prosecu- 

 tion of the war? 



" Now, Mr. President, what is the result if I 

 am right so far ? That they are States. States 

 of what character? States standing in what 

 relation ? If the honorable member from Mas- 

 sachusetts was wrong in saying that they had 

 abdicated or forfeited the character they pos- 

 sessed and the relation in which they stood, and 

 they are States still, they are as much States as 

 they were when the insurrection was inaugu- 

 rated, and their relation to their sister States, 

 and their consequent relation to the Govern- 

 ment of the United States, is the same relation 

 in which they stood to both when the insur- 

 rection was inaugurated. That would seem 

 to follow logically as a necessary result, and 

 if that is a necessary result, does it not also 

 follow that they are entitled to representation 

 in this Chamber ? "Whether they can present 

 persons who can take their seats, because they 

 have individually committed crimes against the 

 United States, is another question ; but I speak 

 novr of the right itself. 



" What provision is there in the Constitution 

 which puts it in the authority of this body to 

 deny to any State of the United States an equal 

 representation with those States that are repre- 

 sented here? Not only is there nothing; but 

 so sedulous were the framers of that great in- 

 strument to guard against the possibility that 

 any State should not be equally represented 

 upon the floor of the Senate with every other 

 State, that they placed that right beyond the 

 power of amendment. The language of the 

 Constitution, as we all know, is, that under the 

 amendment clause of the Constitution, no State 

 shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the 

 Senate of the United States except by its own 

 consent. 



" There are only two rights in the Constitu- 

 tion which were excepted out of the power of 

 amendment ; one of them, the one of which I 



have just spoken, was placed beyond such 

 power absolutely ; the other, in my judgment, 

 was a blot upon the Constitution itself, but it 

 was a blot which the wise men and patriotic 

 men of that day thought it was necessary 

 should exist, because without it. it was evident 

 that a Government such as they desired could 

 not be constituted I mean the power of im- 

 porting slaves for a period of twenty years. 



" It was, therefore, in the view of the frarn- 

 ers of the Constitution, a cardinal principle 

 necessary to the success of the Government, 

 and necessary to the protection of the States, 

 that each State under every possible condition 

 of circumstances should be entitled at all times 

 thereafter, unless she consented to abandon it, 

 to an equal suffrage in the Senate. 



" If, therefore, they are still States and not 

 Territories, if they are as they were when the 

 insurrection commenced, then it would seem to 

 be obvious that they have as much right to be 

 represented in this Chamber as any one of 

 the States that are here represented ; and yet, 

 what are we doing ? I did not understand the 

 honorable member from Maine as denying the 

 right, but only as denying that the time had 

 come when the right should be enjoyed; as 

 only asserting that because of some external 

 circumstances there might be danger to the 

 Government, and that is the only danger that 

 we can recognize. Party danger is not a dan- 

 ger_that we can notice. It is the peril to the 

 nation, if there is any peril, which will justify 

 the exclusion of any State from the enjoyment 

 of that right of suffrage upon which the Senate 

 can rely. And what is there to show that 

 there will be any danger to the public weal ? 

 Have they not thrown down their arms ? We 

 know they have. Have not all their armies 

 been surrendered ? We know they have. Are 

 they not daily supplicants for the clemency of 

 that department of the Government vested with 

 the power to be clement ? We know they are. 

 Do they wish to be represented? Your table 

 is loaded with their credentials. Do you ob- 

 ject to the individual men ? No. Perry, of 

 South Carolina, whose credentials I had tho 

 honor to present yesterday ; Hunt, of Louisi- 

 ana, whose credentials I presented some three 

 or four weeks ago ; Sharkcy, of Mississippi, and 

 others of the same description of men, are now 

 at your door, invoking you as brothers and 

 statesmen, by the memories of the past, to per- 

 mit them to come among you as equals, and 

 claiming it upon the ground that every depart- 

 ment of the Government, except ourselves, and 

 that at this session, has admitted to be true in 

 point of fact -that they are still States of tho 

 Union. | 



" My friend from Maine maintains that I am 

 in error in supposing that the insurrection 

 which prevailed for four years was put down, 

 only by virtue of that clause of the Constitution 

 which gives to Congress the right to use mili-| 

 tary force for the purpose of suppressing insur- : 

 rection." 



