communications were not intended to discourage them in their efforts. The conclusion is irresistible, that he went to Richmond hoping to elicit from the Confederate chiefs some proffer, overture, or assent, looking to reünion on their own terms, but had been utterly disappointed and rebuffed. He closed as follows:

"Mr. Speaker, all the crime, all the treason of this act, rests on me, and me alone; and I am content, in the sight of high Heaven, to take it and press it to my heart."

Mr. Francis Thomas, of Maryland, replied ably and thoroughly to Mr. May's assaults on the Administration and its policy of 'coërcion;' pointing to the recent vote of the People of Maryland (44,000 "Union" to 24,000 "Peace") as their verdict on the issues whereon the President was arraigned by his colleague. He said :

"The apportionment of representatives in the Legislature was made in old colonial times. It has been modified; but, up to this day and hour, the majority of the people of Maryland have no voice in the choice of their Legislature. Under our new Constitution, however, the majority, by a general ticket, elect a Governor; and, at the last election, they elected one responsive to the sentiment that beats warmly in the hearts of the people of Maryland. But the Legislature of Maryland, elected two years ago, not with a view to this issue, have been engaged in embarrassing the Governor in all his measures of policy. One of those measures, which Gov. Hicks thought a very prudent measure under the existing state of things in Maryland, was to collect the arms held by private citizens, without distinction of party. This the Legislature prevented from being carried into execution, and passed a law which goes very far to secure arms in the hands of individuals. Why? If the citizens of Maryland are for warring against the Government, they should not be permitted to have arms. they are for peace, they do not need them; for the arm of the United States protects them, and the banner of the confederacy floats over them. Why, then, have the Legislature interposed obstructions, by law, to the collection of arms? Do they think it prudent to leave them in the hands of private holders, to be concealed where they cannot be found? It could not be for the pur

If

pose of upholding the laws of the Union. It could not be to uphold the statutes of Maryland. The President of the United States is faithful to his duty; and the people of Maryland are faithful to theirs."

The bill providing for the reörganization of the Army being this day before the Senate, Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, proposed to add to it the following:

“And be it further enacted, That no part of the Army or Navy of the United States shall be employed or used in subjecting or holding as a conquered province any sove

reign State now or lately one of the United

States."

Mr. J. H. Lane, of Kansas, moved to amend this, by adding,

"Unless a military necessity shall exist in enforcing the laws and maintaining the Constitution of the Union."

A very able and earnest debate arose hereon, wherein Messrs. Powell, Polk, and Bright, on the one hand, and Messrs. Sherman, of Ohio, Browning, of Illinois, Lane, of Kansas, Fessenden, of Maine, etc., on the other, took part. Mr. Lane's amendment was rejected by Yeas 11 (all Republicans) to

NAYS-Messrs. Breckinridge, Bright, Browning, Carlile, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harris, Howe, JohnLatham, McDougall, Morrill, Nesmith, Polk, son, of Tenn., Johnson, of Mo., Kennedy, Powell, Saulsbury, Sherman, Ten Eyck, and Willey-24.

Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, now moved the following as a substitute for Mr. Powell's proposition:

"And be it further enacted, That the purposes of the military establishment provided for in this act are to preserve the Union, to defend the property, and to maintain the constitutional authority, of the Government."

This was adopted, after debate; Yeas 33; Nays 4. [Breckinridge and Powell, of Ky., Johnson and Polk, of Missouri.]

As Mr. Powell's amendment was thus superseded, Mr. Breckinridge

YEAS-Messrs. Breckinridge, Bright, W. P. Johnson, of Mo., Kennedy, Latham, Nesmith, Polk, Powell, and Saulsbury—9.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Bingham, Browning, Carlile, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Cowan, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Howe, Johnson, of Tenn., King, Lane, of Ind., Lane, of Kansas, McDougall, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sherman, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Wade, Willey, and Wilson-30.

The original amendment was then rejected, so as to strike out all these declaratory propositions, and leave the bill as it came from the Committee of the Whole; when it was engrossed, read a third time, and passed. Bearing in mind that this debate occurred three days before the battle of Bull Run, that it was initiated by a pro-Slavery Democrat from Kentucky, and that it occurred when loyal men still generally and confidently expected that the Rebellion would soon be suppressed, leaving Slavery intact, it may be well to note some of the significant intimations which it elicited from the more conservative Republicans; as follows:

Mr. DIXON (of Conn.) "Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Powell] has alluded to remarks of mine, and has said that I have declared on this floor, that, if it were necessary to abolish Slavery in order to save the Union, Slavery should be abolished. Mr. President, I have said no such thing. What I said was this: that, if the war should be persisted in, and be long protracted, on the part of the South, and, in the course of its progress, it should turn out that either this Government or Slavery must be destroyed, then the people of the Norththe conservative people of the North-would say, Rather than let the Government perish, let Slavery perish.' That is what I

|

565

said; and I say it now, and shall continue at all threat, but as a warning and an admonition." times to say the same; not, by any means, as a

Mr. BROWNING (of Ill.) "Mr. President, I cannot say, in common with the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Carlile], that I regret that this amendment has been proposed to the Senate. I shall certainly vote against it; it does not meet my views, nor receive my

approbation; but it may still be well that it has been offered; as it affords us an opportunity of comparing notes, understanding the opinions of each other, and giving the country at large a distinct understanding of what the purpose and intentions of the Congress of the United States are. I speak only for one; I intend to speak very briefly, but very plainly, my sentiments on this subject.

"I differ, furthermore, from the Senator from Virginia, in the supposition that the institution of Slavery has had nothing to do in involving the country in the calamities which now press upon it. Had it not been for the sentiments and opinions which are engendered, fostered, and cherished by the institution of Slavery, I cannot persuade myself to believe that there ever would have been found a disloyal heart to the American Constitution upon the American continent. I believe that the whole trouble

has grown out of the institution of Slavery, and its presence among us; and (as I reit necessarily engenders, fosters, and chermarked) the sentiments and opinions which ishes. The war, it is true, is not a war for the extermination of Slavery. With the institution of Slavery where it exists, the General Government has nothing, as a Government, to do; nor has the General Government ever assumed the power of, in any shape or manner, controlling the institution of Slavery, or its management, in the States where it exists. The General Government has never been aggressive either upon the Slave States or upon the institution of Slavery. These troubles have all grown out of precisely the opposite-not the aggressions of the General Government, or of the Free States--but out of the aggressions of Slavery itself, and its continual struggles for expansion and extension to countries where it had no right to go, and where our fathers never intended it should go. If Slavery had been content to remain where the Constitution placed it-if it had been content with the privileges and immunities which the Constitution guaranteed to it-the Free States and the Slave States of this Union could have lived together in a perpetual bond of fraternity.

"Mr. President, History gives no instance, in my judgment, of such long-suffering and forbearance as there has been, not by the people of the Slave States, but as there has been exhibited by the people of the Free

States of this Union, in the endurance of outrages, wrongs, and oppressions, that they have suffered at the hands of that institution, and those who maintain the institution, and have suffered from their strong and enduring devotion to the General Government-to the institutions that our fathers achieved for us, and transmitted to us. I think I should not be at all mistaken in asserting that, for every slave that has ever been seduced from the service of his owner, by the interference of citizens of the Free States with the institution where it exists, more than ten free white men of the Free States of this Union have been outraged every privilege of freedom trodden upon-every right of person violated - by lawless mobs in the Slave States. We have borne all this uncomplainingly; we have borne it without a murmur, because we were willing to bear it-willing to make the sacrifice, for the sake of the glorious institutions that were the common property and common blessing of us all.

"Mr. President, we have not invited this war: the people of the loyal States of the Union are in no degree responsible for the calamities that are now upon the country: we gave no occasion for them. There is, in the history of man, no instance of so stupendous a conspiracy, so atrocious a treason, so causeless a rebellion, as that which now exists in this country; and for what purpose? What wrong had we ever done to the Slave States, or to the institution of Slavery? I have heard, in all the assaults that have been made on this Administration, no single specification of one injustice that they had ever suffered at the hands of the General Government, or at the hands of the Free States, or of the people of the Free States.

"Mr. President, I am not prepared to admit, either—as some gentlemen take pains to explain that this is not a war of subjugation. If it is not a war of subjugation, what is it? What was it set on foot for, if it is not for the sole, identical purpose of subjugating the atrocious Rebellion that exists in the country?"

Mr. SHERMAN. "My friend will allow me?" Mr. BROWNING. Certainly."

Mr. SHERMAN. "My friend misunderstood my language. I said distinctly that it was not the purpose of this war to subjugate a State, a political community; but I will go as far as he or any other living man to uphold the Government against all rebellious citizens, whether there be one or many of them in a State. If nine-tenths of the people of any State rebel against the authority of this Government, the physical power of this Government should be brought to reduce those citizens to subjection. The State survives; and, I have no doubt, the State of South Carolina, and the State of Florida,

|

and the State of Virginia, will be represented on this floor long after the honorable Senator and I have filled the mission allotted to us."

Mr. BROWNING. "I trust so. I will not stop to deal with technicalities; I care not whether you call it the subjugation of the people or the subjugation of the State, where all the authorities of a State, where all the officers, who are the embodiment of the power of the State, who speak for the State, who represent the government of the State, where they are all disloyal and banded in treasonable confederation against this Government, I, for one, am for subjugating them; and you may call it the subjugation of the State, or of the people, just as you please. I want this Rebellion put down, this wicked and causeless treason punished, and an example given to the world that will teach them that there is a power in the freemen of this continent to maintain a constitutional government.

'Why, Mr. President, it is just a struggle to-day-the whole of this fight is about that, and nothing else-whether there shall be any longer any such thing as government on this continent or not; and the very moment that the doctrine of Secession, the very moment that the astounding heresy of Secession, is admitted, in any sense or in any degree, government is overthrown; because, if there be any such thing as a right existing in a State to secede at any time at her will causelessly to dismember this Union and overthrow this Governmentthere is an end to all constitutions and all laws; and it is a struggle to-day for the life of the nation. They have assailed that life: we have not done it; and all that the Government has done, and all that the Administration proposes to do, is in necessary selfdefense against assaults that are made upon the very life of the nation. *** Now,

Mr. President, one thing more. It is better that people everywhere should understand precisely what is going on, what has happened, and what is to happen. For one,

I should rejoice to see all the States in rebellion return to their allegiance; and, if they return, if they lay down the arms of their rebellion, and come back to their duty and their obligations, they will be as fully protected now, and at all times hereafter, as they have ever been before, in all their rights, including the ownership, use, and management of slaves. Let them return to their allegiance; and I, for one, am now for giving to the Slave States as fully and completely all the protection of the Constitution and laws as they have ever enjoyed in any past hour of our existence.

But, sir, let us understand another thing. As I have already said, the power

is no way of conquering South Carolina, for | instance, except by emancipating her slaves, I say, Emancipate her slaves and conquer her rebellious citizens; and, if they have not people there enough to elect members of Congress and Senators, we will send people there. Let there be no misunderstanding my position; I wish it distinctly understood; but, at the same time, I utterly disclaim that

Wis., and Riddle, of Ohio-(Republicans.) Mr. Burnett declined to vote.

It is worthy of record that on this sad day, while Washington, crowded with fugitives from the routed Union Grand Army, seemed to lie at the mercy of the Rebels, Congress legis

out; and the House, on motion of Mr. Vandever, of Iowa, unanimously

Mr. John J. Crittenden, of Ky., on the 19th, submitted to the House the following:

"Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the Disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government, and in arms around the capital; that, in this national emergency, Congress, banishing all feeling of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged, on our part, in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States; but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights, of the several States unimpaired; and, as soon as these objects are accomplished, the war ought to cease.

Mr. Stevens, of Pa., objecting, The resolution could not be considered forthwith; but it was taken up on Monday, and, on motion of Mr. Burnett, of Ky., divided-the vote being first taken on so much of the resolution as precedes and includes the word "capital," which was adopted by Yeas 121; Nays-Messrs. Burnett and Reid (Rebels :) when the remainder was likewise adopted: Yeas 117; Nays-Messrs. Potter, of

"Resolved, That the maintenance of the Constitution, the preservation of the Union, and the enforcement of the laws, are sacred trusts which must be executed; that no disaster shall discourage us from the most ample performance of this high duty; and that we pledge to the country and the world the employment of every resource, national and individual, for the suppression, overthrow, and punishment of Rebels in arms."

Mr. Andrew Johnson, of Tenn., on the 24th, moved in the Senate a resolution identical with that of Mr. Crittenden, so recently adopted by the House; which was zealously opposed by Messrs. Polk and Breckinridge, and, on special grounds, by Mr. Trumbull, who said:

"As that resolution contains a statement

which, in my opinion, is untrue, that this capital is surrounded by armed men, who started this revolt, I cannot vote for it. I shall say 'Nay.'

"I wish to add one word. The revolt was occasioned, in my opinion, by people who are not here nor in this vicinity. It was started in South Carolina. I think the resolution limits it to a class of persons who were not the originators of this Rebellion."

But the resolution was nevertheless adopted, by the following vote :

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chandler, Clark, Cowan, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Harlan, Harris, Howe, Johnson, of Tenn., Kennedy, King, Lane, of Ind., Lane, of Kansas, Latham, Morrill, Nesmith, Pomeroy, Saulsbury, Sherman, Ten Eyck, Wade, Wilkinson, Willey:

and Wilson-30.

NAYS-Messrs. Breckinridge, Johnson, of Mo., Polk, Powell, Trumbull-5.

This day, the Senate considered a bill to confiscate property used for