Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-01-19
,NUMB;:ElRlssIl7 \ j ] j r / l72,I. | J ,,

VI StiihiuH QOWtl' Jilt ItDuUIlCd1i IOTm OF
government without contest In which the
States, three out of four, are to be consult
ed for ratification, and two out Of three
members of both Houses Of Congress shall
inaugurate the measure. Am Unanswered
that 1t is undemocratic to allow this power? /
answer, 1t Is only undemOcratic to disailow
It, All the States cOncede 1t, and the State
rights man is content. ALI the people in
the several States pass upon It, and the
Democrat is content. Democracy places
its trust In the intelligence of the people
and the sovereignty of the States and thus
trusting, even in the valley of the shadow
of national humiliation, It fears no evil, ss,t
While, then, concede the power, dol
fear that the amendment may pass and be-
come law In spite of all the guards thrown
around it?,' do not fear any open march
toward monarchy or despotism. ! fear in
time of war and the passionate strife 1t be-
gets that this amendment may radically
| change the Government; that it may by
| force, fraud, by indirection, and by an 1n-
! fair count of States, be made to change our
polity. Because such amendments, inter-
fering in home affairs by the Federal power,
tend toward consolidation, / am against
them. My colleague Mr.. Pendletonl HIM
self will admit that an amendment may be
made even to the very system Of govern
ment, legitimate in its operation, which
may do this. You can amend the Constitu-
tion as to the distribution of its powers SO
( as to place the judiciary and the legislature
/ In the hands of the Executive. Thus you
compound power. When these depart
| ments are made one-whether that one be
legislative, executive, or judicial-as they
! may be by amendment, it is Jeffersons de-
| hnition of tyranny. Who will doubt the
power of amendment to do this I? And yet
who so base as to propose IL here, or, u pro-
posed, to ratity it? 1t is by these delusive
moral radical reforms, reaching into home
affairs by the Federal power, that fear
most the destruction of our Government.
Hence / am Jealous of the exercise Of the
power to amend, and especially in this in
stance. But if the people Of the States even
choose to abuse their power to amend and
destroy their Government, who can say
them nay? If they are foolish enough to
call in king, or connect religion with
State, or declare polygamy the cornerstone
of public liberty, who shall deny them pro-
vided they follow the mode they themselves
have ordained to make the organic law?
gentleman Mr.. Kassonl thought con-
ceded away the argument against this
amendment when l admitted the power
He argued that, the power admitted, there
was nothing left but to send itto the States.
If the power exists, am not, as one of the
( two-thirds of Congress. to consider the wis
dom of its submission? Thus only COM
ply with the Constitution. Why require
Congress to pass on it if am to yield my
judgment in proposing, to the Judgment Of
the ratitying power? Do we come here to
play the puppet? / will pursue strictly the
power given, and If think best, let the
elector in the State or the member of the
Legislature judge. Congress chooses; we
are sent here for that purpose by the peo-
pie; and they would account us faithless not
to Judge of the proposition In the first in
stance before we sent it to the State for APP
proval.
When efforts were being made in the win
ter of 1861 to avert secession and war, /
had definite idea Of the inexpediency of
abolishing slavery in the States. So had
the Republican members. The whole House,
on the 11th of February, 1861, on the mo-
tion of Mr.. Sherman, ''resolved that neither
the Congress of the United States nor the
people or governments of the non-slaye-
holding States have the constitutional right
to legislate upon or interfere with slavery
in any of the slaveholding States" This
was reaffirmation of the Republican plat
form of 1850. All agreed that it would be
wise to let it alone, as the Constitution gave
no right over it. But the power to amend
the Constitution was notquestioned them
The graceless inexpediency and suicidal
unwisdom of congressional action only was
affirmed by the resolution. The unconsti-
tutionality of such action was declared
Upon that we upon this side have stood in
denying all power over the subject by
emancipation and confiscation, either by
the military or civil power, by the execu-
tive or the legislative. We trace to the
breach of this resolution, reaffirmed in the
Crittenden resolve in July, 1861, the pro-
longation of the war by the division Of the
North and the union of the South. The
amendment now proposed is the culmina-
tion of this suicidal policy. If the steps to
it are unsound what can be said of the con-
| summation? '4
While, therefore, Mr.. Speaker, Ihave diff
fered with great diffidence from myeolleague
Mr.. Pendleton] as to the power of amends
| ment, and have pursued thus far differ
ent path from his, 1 shall reach the same
end; or rather, my humble way leads into
the highway in which we shall travel to-
gether on the inexpediency and anarchical
character of this amendment. join with
him, natives as we are both of the free State
of Ohio, in repelling with honest scorn the
imputation that because we disfavor this
amendment we favor slavery or rebellion.
We are not unused to such irrelevant and
contemplate insinuations. Together, in
1856, we came to these Halls. We are all
that is left of the Democratic members of
the Thirty Fifth Congress. 2 "
Z Mr.. Pendleton--And we are not left. -
Mr.. Cox-True; like stormy petrels, toss
| ing upon the angry waves Of sectional agi-
| tation, we are at last overwhelmed In the
| flood of fanaticism. We are the last roses OF
the Democratic summer. laughter But
Mr. Speaker, although we may not be upon
the same branch, we are still together upon
the same rose-tree. Laughter, IL would
lily become us, In the close OF our career
here, to differ upon anything except upon
the most vital urgency. In one thing we
have never differed, and do not now we
have neither discussed slavery nor en-.
Icouraged rebellion. Certainly we have
never favored slavery OF its agitation. 81 q
Speaking for myself slavery Is to me the
most repugnant OF all human institutions.
No man alive should hold ME In slavery;
and IL it Is my business, no, man, with my
consent, shall hold another. Thus voted
! in 1851, in Ohio, with my party, which
made the new Constitution Of my own
State. 1 have never defended slavery; nor
has my party, Members have defendedit
as the gentleman from New % ork, MT,
Fernando Wood j others have attacked IT.
as the other member Mr.. 0deil ion my left;
but neither Of these have confbrmed to
Democratic practice and precedent. When
/ say this but, speak the tenets Of the
Democracy assembled In convention for the
States and for the Union. sfa dead
LIST answered that the gentlennafl from
New York MIR, Brooks has this session de.
Tended the institution? That gentleman
did not pretend to speak for the Democratic
I party. Indeed he does not profess To speak
\ for TX b,it rather as An Old-liue Wli0. I1v@