The Portland daily press., 1866-03-12

| recollection, almost from the beginning, we
discussed the question OF reconstructinS the
States. A great many gentlemen in TINS
Chamber and in the other House made elabor-
ate speeches upon the question of reconstruc-
ton. l made none. / did not express an
opinion upon it, for the simple and single rea-
son that we had nothing at that time to recon-
| struct, and thought it better to attend to the
proper business we had in view, to quell the
| rebellion, to overcome the rebelliOus States,
and to put them in a condition to be recon-
| Structed, before we undertook to reconstruct
them. The proper time has now come. We
| are now entitled to consider the question of
| slider it before we did; mean since the over
| throw of the rebellion. He took his own
| course. have had occasion once or twice to
| speak of the course that he took as not en-
| tirely meeting my own views, while did not
| undertake to find the slightest fault with him
for the course he chose to follow.
But sir, with reference to that matter, allow
me to say that think the better way would
have been for him to have kept all those States
under his own power as Commander-in-Ch Chief
OF the Army of the United States, and waited
until Congress came together, to consult with
Congress as to what was the Lest mode OF get
ting them back again into the Union He did
not choose to do that, and had no disposition
to complain, for believe he acted with good
motives and good intentions. He chose, by
virtue of his power as Commander-in-C Chief of
the Army, to appoint provisional governors in
some of these States, and do not know but
in all of them, and to say to the States
that he would aid them in the process of re-
construction by appointing men who should
call conventions, and under which they might
| make constitutions, &c. They proceeded to
do it, and it is within my recollection, and /
think it must be in the recollection of a great
many others, that while that was being done,
and up to very recent period, the Presidents
declaration was that it was only an expert
ment, that if it turned out, from the conduct
OF these States, that they were loyal and could
put themselves in fit position to be admitted
into the Union, then they could be admitted;
but if not, nothing was lost, because they were
in our hands, referring to Congress and the
President. / was content with that, so far as
it went, and I believed that when we came to-
gether as Congress the great question in ref
erence to these matters would be in our hands.
We met. We passed resolution that the two
Houses of Congress would consider it, and it
seems that that resolution gave great offense
in many quarters. But, sir, we have been pro-
ceeding to consider it, and, according to nv
view, as have expressed it here to-day, we
had perfect right, and not only perfect
right but it was our duty to do so. The ques-
ton of reconstruction, then, on our own plan,
according to our own ideas, is before us, and
with reference to that 1 wish to lay down
few very simple propositions. a.a o.. Fl
With regard to what is transpiring before
the committee of fifteen, it will not become
me to say much; nothing in fact as to what
they intend to do. That must be shown by
their actions. But / can state some views as
they occur to me with regard to our powers
and what is expedient. f falfyole ss5l
Mr. President, I think it will not be disputed
by anybody, not even by the Senator from Ma
ryland-and call his attention to it-that
this country has been in state of war, de-
cidedly in state of war, war according to the
books, war in its worst acceptation, war in the
very strongest meaning OF the term, without
any limitation or qualification. If we have
been in state of war, the question arises
and it is a very simple one, and think this
whole thing lies in narrow compass-is there
any dispute as to what are the consequences
of war? What are the consequences of sue
cessful war? Where one nation conquers
another, overcomes it without qualifications,
without terms, without limits, and after Bit
ter contest succeeds in crushing its enemy, oc-
cupying its enemy'S territory, destroying its
posts, what are the consequences? The Sem
ator is perfectly familiar with the writers on
International law. Let him read the chapter
in the book under my hand upon "Acquisi-
lions by War;" Is there anything more GER
tain than that the conqueror has right, if he
chooses, to change the form of government,
that he has right to punish, that he has a
right to take entire control of the nation and
the people, that he he has right to exact Sc
curity for the future, and such security for his
own safety as he may demand; that all these
rights are his, with only the limitation that he
shall not abuse them and conduct them in a
manner contrary to humanity, IN The ordinary
acceptation of the term?
Mr. JOHNSON. What is the book?
Mr. FEssENDEN. Vattel, which is perfect
ly familiar to the Senator as it is to everybody
else who is master of the subject. 1 can take
up the book and read passages to show pre-
cisely what have stated, in the strongest pos
sible terms. I did not think it necessary to
hunt up dozen authors, because the law is
the same in all. There is no dispute about it,
That principle, then, is settled. Those are the
consequences of successful war. We are told
that we did not wage war of conquest. Ger
tainly we did not. Congress said precisely
what it meant at the time that it stated that
this war was not waged for any purpose of
subiugation. 1t was not commenced with any
such idea, but if it follows that subjugation
must come in order to accomplish what we de-
sire to accomplish and what we must accom-
plish, it is not our fault. If subjugation be-
comes necessary, although that was not the
idea with which the war was commenced, who
can complain? Let me ask the honorable
Senator from Maryland question. He has
cited in the course of some speech or speeches
he has made here, that resolution passed by
Congress l.,t.i-.- ,.i .e.. ..r.s na
Mr.. JOHNSON. I never cited it. "a. Id. -
Mr.. FEssENDEN. Then it has been cited
by others. Suppose we made it, and suppose
it is binding upon us. Binding with whom?
Was that compact with the Confederate
States. 1t was a compact with our own peo-
pie. We told them and they told us that the
war was not waged for any such purpose. It
was not promise made for the benefit of the
Confederate States, it was not promise made
for the benefit Of others, but for our own BEN
Eft and the honorable Senator is perfectly IA
miliar with the legal principle that unless the
consideration comes from A, he cannot. avail
himself of promise made from B to G. That,
then, is simply the case here; that is the law
Nobody will dispute it. Those are the conse-
quences of war generally. FtE saf 81 az.
Now, is there any more dispute as to the
next proposition, that the consequences of
civil war are precisely the same? Is there any
writer who does not lay it down distinctly that
where civil war, in the proper sense of the
term, has existed, the consequences of that
civil war; as far as the rights of the parties are
concerned, are precisely the same that they are
in other cases? If compelled to carry on the
contest upon the same principles-as we are
by the law of nations-and to treat in all re-
spects as war between two Independent ma
tions until the war is closed, is there a dis
pute that precisely the same consequences fol-
low, precisely the same rights are obtained as
would be the case in an international war? If
not, let the Senator show me where he finds
distinction drawn between the consequences
| in the two cases. I take it these two PROPOSE
tons are beyond dispute; there can be no diff
| Guilty about them. f frz .gc3u ST.! s!ont
Then the question arises, and it is only "a
! natural one, does our form of government
change in any way the nature and inevitable
legal consequences of civil war? Is a civil
war waged among us, living as we do under a
written Constitution, different in any way so
far as the consequences are concerned, on ac-
count Of that written Constitution, from a
That is question upon which men may pause.