CONGKESS, U. 8. 



219 



but this is an indirect attempt to strike at 

 States which claim to have seceded from the 

 Union. That is the sole purpose of it ; and 

 why, therefore, shall we undertake to employ 

 terms to deceive the public and mislead hon- 

 orable citizens, with reference to the real pur- 

 poses that we have in view ? " 



Mr. Mason, uf Virginia, opposed the bill, 

 saying: " Mr. President, if the bill passes the 

 Senate in this form, it will be as the deliberate 

 sense of Congress that there is no independent 

 government consisting of States that formerly 

 belonged to this Government ; that there is no 

 such filing as a new empire under the title 

 which they have recently assumed ; that there 

 is no part of that which once constituted the 

 United States that is no longer a part of the 

 United States. It assumes that the Federal 

 Government is just as potential within the 

 limits of those States as it was twelve months 

 ago. It assumes that the whole machinery of 

 this Government is in operation within the 

 limits of those States now, and competent to 

 execute and to enforce the laws. It assumes, 

 in other words, as facts upon which legislation 

 is to rest, those which have no existence but in 

 the chimerical brain of the visionary. Sir, there 

 are no Federal laws I mean laws of the United 

 States now in operation in one of those States. 

 There are no Federal officers there not one. 

 The Post-office Department, as I understand, 

 occupies a very equivocal relation, adopted for 

 the convenience of those States that have aban- 

 doned the Union ; and so far, without any act 

 disaffirming it on the part of those States a 

 mere temporary arrangement until some other 

 is made ; but there is no Federal law under the 

 sanction of any power here now existing in one 

 of those States. Yet. this bill assumes, as the 

 existing relation between the two separate 

 countries, that the people of one are in a state 

 of insurrection or rebellion." 



Again, he said : " When it is determined as 

 the fixed purpose of this Government to treat 

 these States as in insurrection and rebellion, 

 with all the consequences that must enter, let 

 it be done as a deliberate act, and not as a mere 

 recital in a post-office bill ; and then, God de- 

 fend the right ! " 



Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, alluding to the op- 

 position to the bill, replied, generally : " Sir, 

 what is the secret of all this ? The secret is 

 found in the proposition of the Senator from 

 Texas, [Mr. Hemphill.] Gentlemen want us to 

 acknowledge, and to force us to an acknowl- 

 edgment, on this side of the chamber, that se- 

 cession is lawful and has been carried into effect. 

 They are perfectly willing to agree to this prt>p- 

 osition if we will acknowledge that ; and gen- 

 tlemen here, acting as Senators of the United 

 States, wish to compel the Congress of the 

 United States to make that acknowledgment 

 before they will even pass a measure of peace, 

 before they will even allow the President to 

 suspend the operation and the enforcement of 

 the laws. It seems, from their action, they 



would rather force the President into the use 

 of force than pass a measure of this sort with- 

 out compelling this side of the chamber and 

 Congress to consent and assent to the idea that 

 secession is of itself proper and constitutional, 

 and has been carried into effect, and that we 

 have no right to interfere. They will not let 

 us have a measure of peace, unless we shall 

 give up our opinions on this subject. That is 

 simply the truth about it ; and the question is, 

 whether it is to be carried out." 



Mr. Douglas later in the day thus expressed 

 his opinion : " Sir, I must say, in all frankness, 

 that I regard no man as friendly to this Union 

 who is unwilling to enter upon such a system 

 of pacification and compromise as will preserve 

 it. In my opinion, there is a deliberate plot to 

 break up this Union, under pretence of preserv- 

 ing it. In my opinion, there are as many dis- 

 unionists on this floor and on the floor of the other 

 branch of Congress, from the North as from the 

 South, men who have reasoned themselves into 

 the belief that it is wiser and better to drive the 

 sections into collision, to force disunion, and to 

 get up a war, to have bloodshed, and render 

 .reunion impossible, and then make a treaty of 

 peace. I hope I am mistaken in this. I have 

 too much respect for the intelligence of the 

 Senators to believe for one moment that they 

 hope to preserve this Union by military force. 

 They know that the use of military force, pro- 

 ducing collision and bloodshed, must result in a 

 civil war between fifteen States on one side, 

 and the remainder of the States of the Union 

 on the other. How can you avoid that result ? 

 Yon must do one of two things. Either settle 

 the difficulty amicably, or by the sword. An 

 amicable settlement is a perpetuation of the 

 Union. The use of the sword is war, disunion, 

 and separation, now and forever." 



Mr. Hemphill, of Texas, in opposing the bill 

 said: "I intended to say there was but one 

 issue in this case; and that is, whether the 

 laws of the United States are in force in those 

 States that have seceded, or not. There is no 

 other issue whatever. It is impossible to evade 

 or dodge the issue in any way. The only objec- 

 tion I had to the amendment of the Senator 

 from Delaware was, that it contained the words 

 ' till the same can be safely restored.' If that 

 clause was stricken out, I should have no objec- 

 tion to the amendment ; but any words or sen- 

 tence, or any provision whatsoever which in 

 any way whatever intimated that the laws of 

 the United States were still in force in those 

 States, I object to. They are not in force. 

 They have no power whatever there. That is 

 the only and sole issue in this case, as stated 

 by the Senator from Maine [Mr. Fessenden] the 

 other day." 



Mr. Nicholson, of Tennessee, took the same 

 view. li I concur with the Senator from Texas, 

 that there is really but one question here ; and 

 that is, whether the laws of the United States 

 are in force or not in the States that have se- 

 ceded ? I do not propose to discuss the ques- 



