CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



150 



around us, and I declare it solemnly to be ray 

 opinion that by granting universal amnesty we 

 should come short of our duty to ourselves, to 

 our children, and to those who are to come 

 after us. 



" If any man believes that we are to have no 

 future trouble in this country, that this rebel- 

 lion was the last, that opinion is contradicted 

 by the history of every nation. Troubles may 

 occur from decade to decade. We shall not 

 have a rebellion hereafter on account of sla- 

 very ; that has passed away ; but we may have 

 it for a thousand other causes. There may be 

 local dissatisfactions; troubles may arise in 

 one section or the other ; questions of disagree- 

 ment and heart-burning and estrangement 

 may arise of which we now have no concep- 

 tion and cannot even imagine; and are we 

 prepared to say that the worst rebellion in 

 history, one than which there can never be 

 another more wicked, involved no criminality, 

 and that the very authors of it shall be al- 

 lowed to return to power just as if nothing 

 had been done ? If we shall say that in re- 

 gard to the great rebellion, what will be the 

 opinion in regard to future troubles that may 

 arise? They will say 'There is no danger; 

 there is no responsibility except the danger 

 that may arise during the time of the actual 

 conflict ; there is to be no responsibility in 

 history.' Then, sir, it is the lesson of history 

 that is involved. 



" Sir, I want peace in the South ; I want it 

 as earnestly as any man ; but I want peace in 

 the South upon correct principles. I am not 

 willing to purchase peace by conceding that 

 they were right, and that we were wrong. 

 They must regard universal amnesty in that 

 light ; history must regard it in that light. 

 Only the other day we had an argument from 

 the Senator from Maryland, not now in his 

 seat (Mr. Vickers), to the effect that the doc- 

 trine of State rights, of State sovereignty, was 

 generally accepted in the South; that they 

 were acting upon it; they believed they had 

 the right to secede; they were honest, and 

 therefore, as soon as the war was over, there 

 should have been universal amnesty, and 

 every thing should have been passed over and 

 forgotten. If he was right in his premises, 

 then there should be universal amnesty ; if he 

 was wrong, there should not be. If we grant 

 universal amnesty, we concede that he was 

 right ; that those people were in the exercise 

 of what they believed to be a constitutional 

 right ; that they were guilty of nothing wrong, 

 and therefore, as soon as the war was over, 

 we should let by-gones be by-gones, and re- 

 store them to their place in the Government. 



" Mr. President, when we come to that con- 

 clusion, other conclusions will follow inevi- 

 tably. If it is true that they were really hon- 

 est upon both sides, that there was no crimi- 

 nality involved, and that the leaders of the re- 

 bellion ought to be allowed to return to their 

 places of power, what else follows ? 



Mr. Ilamlin : " We should pay their ex- 

 penses." 



Mr. Morton : " The Senator says ' pay their 

 expenses.' Yes, we should pay the debts on 

 both sides. That is the inevitable and irre- 

 sistible conclusion. What is the philosophy 

 of universal amnesty ? If the authors of the 

 rebellion ought to be allowed to hold office 

 just as if nothing had occurred; if they 

 should be allowed to come in afterward and 

 become the law-makers and governors of this 

 country while they are the great criminals, I 

 ask if you ought to make any difference in the 

 payment of pensions because a man fought on 

 the one side or the other ? 



"Grant universal amnesty, and the next 

 step that will be taken and it is a philosophi- 

 cal step, and one that cannot be resisted 

 will be to pension the rebel soldiers and put 

 them on the same footing with the loyal sol- 

 diers of this country. Every argument in 

 favor of amnesty would be tenfold stronger in 

 favor of that measure, and why ? Because pen- 

 sioning rebel soldiers would do more in the 

 way of conciliating the South and of attaching 

 them to the Government than any measure of 

 amnesty could do. If you grant amnesty to 

 conciliate the South, and if that is your object, 

 then I tell you that pensioning the rebel sol- 

 diers will go much further than granting am- 

 nesty, and it is a legitimate consequence of the 

 same argument. Will you say that Davis, or 

 Toombs, or Breckinridge, should be admitted 

 into this Senate to make laws for the loyal 

 men of this country, while the rebel soldiers 

 should be excluded from the pension-roll? 

 There would be no sense in that. If you are 

 to admit those authors of the rebellion into 

 this Chamber, I ask if you should not bring 

 their dead and bury them in Arlington along- 

 side of the Federal dead ? If the authors of 

 the rebellion are to become your companions 

 on this floor, shall not the Confederate dead, 

 comparatively their innocent victims, become 

 the companions of your soldiers in Arlington 

 and other national cemeteries ? 



"Mr. President, there are other conse- 

 quences to follow, other legitimate deductions 

 from the logic of universal amnesty, not only 

 the pensioning of rebel soldiers, but the pay- 

 ment of rebels for their property taken by our 

 army during the war. I ask now, I might 

 ask the Democratic Senators on this floor, if 

 the Democratic party is not now committed in 

 principle to the payment of the Confederates 

 for their property taken by our army for sup- 

 plies ? Why, sir, we had a bill before the Sen- 

 ate which was in effect to authorize loyal per- 

 sons in the Southern States to sue in the 

 Court of Claims. While that bill was under 

 consideration, the Senator from California, not 

 now in his seat (Mr. Casserly), offered an 

 amendment to extend the same right to per- 

 sons who had been pardoned by the President, 

 or whose disabilities had been removed or 

 might thereafter be removed. The principle 



