Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1866-02-21
RESTORATION OF The REBEL STATES
s p EE Q Fl
OF THE
HON. J. A. GARFIELD,
ON THE
FreedmeRS'S Bureau Bill,
FEBRUARY /, 1866

the bill to enlarge the powers of the
Freedmen's Bureau
Mr.. GARFIELD said:
Mr.. SPEAKER: The bill now before the
House is one of a series of measures
which it is the duty of this House to con,
slider and act upon during the present
session; and snail, in the time allotted
to me, take wider range than the pro-
visions of the bill itself would warrant
and discuss, in connection with it, the
question of the restoration of the States
lately IN rebellion. l shall try to exam.
inc the situation of national affairs resul-
ting from the war; to determine, if pos
sible, what ought to be done to bring the
Republic back, by the surest, safest and
shortest path, to the full prosperity of
liberty and peace. This is the result
earnestly desired by every patriotic citi.
zen. How to reach it is the great prob
lem we are called upon to solve. On the
main points in the problem l believe
there is far less difference of sentiment
insthis House than is generally supposed.
Men differ far more in theory than in
practice. 1t would be easy to find ten
men who perfectly agree in recommend
ing given course of action. 1t would
be difficult to find ten who would give the
same reason for that recommendation
If the members of this House could lay
aside their theories and abstract defni-
tions, and deliberate on qeustlons of prac-
tical legislation, many apparent difficult
ties would at once disappear. The words
and phrases we use exert wonderful in
fuence on the opinions we form and the
action which results.
In inquiring into the legal status of the
insurgent States, we are met at the
threshold by three distinct theories, each
of which has its advocates in this House.
l. That these States are now and have
never ceased to be in the Union, with all
their rights unimpaired.
2. That they are out of the Union in
fact and in law; that by their acts of Sc
cession and rebellion they are reduced to
the condition of Territories, and that it
rests with Congress to determine wheth-
er they shall now or hereafter be admit
ted into the Union.
3. As held by the gentleman from New
York Mr.. Raymond in his speech of
day before yesterday, that whatever may
have been the effect of the war upon
them, ''they have, under the Presidents
guidance and action, resumed their func-
tions OF sef-government in the Union"
and we ought to accept them.
MIR. Speaker, l am unable fully to agree
with either of these propositions, and
shall endeavor to point out what seems
to me the error which has led to their
adoption. Two terms made use of in the
debate on this subject seem to me to have
caused much of the diversity of opinion.
allude 10 the word "State," and the
phrase 50 in the Union"
The word "State," as it has been used
BY gentlemen in this discussion, has two
meanings, as perfectly distinct as though
different words had been used to express
HEM. The confusion arising from apply :
ng the same word to two different and |
1issimilar objects has had very much to |
10 with the diverse conclusions which J
gentlemen have reached. They have I
given US the definition of state " in !
he contemplation of public or interna- I.
'ional law, and have at once applied that
definition and the conclusions based up
IN it, to the States of the American Un-
on and the effects of war upon them
Let us examine the two meanings of tie !
word, and endeavor to keep them dis
inct in their application to the questions
before u.s.
Phillimore, the great English publicist, /
ays:
" For all the purposes of international /
aw, State (denaOs, eiUitas, vOlk. may be
letned to be a people permanently oc-
upying fixed territory, bound together
" common laws, habits and customs into
me body-politic, exercising, through the
Medium of an organized government, in
dependent sovereignty and control over
II persons and things within its bounda-
les, capable of making war and peace,
nd of entering into all international re-
atoms with other communities Of the
lobe. e."-PhiLlinlOre's International Lao,
ol, l, sec. Is.
Substantially the same definition may I
e found in Grotius, book one, chapter
ne, section fourteen in Burlamaqui,
olume two, part one, chapter four, sec. 9,
nd IN Vattel, book one, chapter ONE
he primary point of agreement in all
hese authorities is that in contemplation
f international law state is absolute
overeign, acknowledging no superior on
arth. In that sense the United States
J State, just as Great Britain, France. !,
nd Russia are States.
But what is the meaning of the word
tate as applied to Ohio or Alabama? Is
ither of them State in the sense of in
ernational law? They lack all the lead
ng requisites of such State. They are
My the geographical sub bdivisions of a
tate; and though endowed by the peo-
lie of the United States with the rights
f local self-government, yet in all their
xternal relations, their sovereignty is
destroyed. being merged in
he supreme Federal Government. HAL
sck's international law, section Is, page
L.
Ohio cannot make war; cannot con-
lude peace cannot make treaty with
ny foreign government, cannot even
lake a compact with her sister States IL
annot regulate commerce cannot coin
L, !