Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1866-02-12
THE RESTORATION OF THE
REBEL STATES.
Speech Of thu Hon ] A. Garfield.
OxTaEFREEDMEN's BILL
FEBRUARY l, 1856.

Inc House having under conslderhglon
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 consider and
act upon during the present session and
1 shall, in the time allotted to me, take a
wider range than the provisions Of the
bill itself would warrant, and discuss, IN
connection with it, the general question OF
the restoration of the States lately in re-
| bellion. l shall try to examine the situa-
ton of national affairs resulting from the
war to determine, if possible, 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 citizen. How to reach it is the
great problem we are called upon to solve.
On the main points in the problem l be-
| lieve there is far less difference of senti-
ment in this House than is generally sup
posed.
Men differ far mere in theory than in
practice. 1t would be easy to find ten
mon who perfectly agree in recommend
/ ing a given course of action. 1t would be
difficult to find ten who would give the
same reasons for that recommendation.
If the members of this House could lay
aside t~heirthesries and abstract definitions,
and deliberate on questions of practical
legislation, many apparent differences
would at once disappear. The words and
phrases we use exert a wonderful lnhu-
ence on the opinions we form and the ac-
ton which results.
In inquiring into the legal status OF the
inSurgent States, we are met at the thresn-
hold 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
eession and rebellion they are re-
duced to the condition of Territories, and
that it rests with Congress to determine
whether they shall now or hereafter be
admitted 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 wal upon them,
sthey have, under the Presidents guidance
and action, resumed their functions Of self
government in the Union" and we ought
to accept them.
Mr.. Speaker, 1 am unable fully to agree
with either of these propositions, and L
shall endeavor to point out what seems to
me the error which has led to their aaop-
ton. Two terms made use Of in the de-
bate on this subject seem to me to have
caused much of the diversity of opinion. l
allude to the word Estate" and the phrase
Tin the Union
The word State" as it has been used
by gentlemen in this discussion, has tive
meanings, as perfectly distinct as though
different words had been used to express
them. The confusion arising from ap-
plying the same word to two different
and dissimilar objects has had very much
to do with the diverse conclusions which
gentlemen have reached. They have
given US the definition Of a Estate in the
contemplation of public or international
law, and have at once applied that defni-
ton, and the conclusions based upon 1t, TO
the States of the American Union and the
effects of wal upon them. Let us exam
inc the two meanings of the word, and
endeavor to keep them distinct in their
application to the questions before US.
Phillimore, the great English publicist,
says:
'.For all the purposes of international
law a State demos, e%i0itas, vOtk) may be
defined to be a people permanently occu-
pying a fixed territory, bound together by
common laws, habits, and customs into one
body-politic, exercising, through the me-
dunn of an organized government, indie
pendent sovereignty and control over all
persons and things within its boundaries,
capable of making war and peace, n of
entering into all international relations
with the other communities of the globe.
-PhiIinl0res International LGU, vol. /,
sec. So.
Substantially the same definition may
be found in GrOtius, book one, chapter
one, section fourteen; in Burlamaqui, vol
ume two, part one, chapter four, section
nine; and in Vattel, book one, chapter
The primary point of agreement in
all these authorities is that in contempla-
ton Of international law a State is ALSO
lutely sovereign, acknowledging no SUI
perior on earth. In that sense the United
States is a State, just as Great Britain,
France, and Russia are States.
But what is the meaning of the word
State as applied to Ohio or Alabama? Is
either of them a State in the sense of in
ternational law They lack all the lead
ing requisites of such a State. They are
only the geographical subdivisions of a
State; and though endowed by the people
of the United States with the rights of
local self-government, yet in all their
external relations their sovereignty is
completely destroyed, being merged in
the supreme Federal Government. HAL
leek's International law, sec. l6, p. H.
Ohio cannot make war; cannot conclude
peace; cannot make a treaty with any for
Government, eannot even make a
with her sister States; cannot
commerce.; cannot coin money;
and has no flag. These indispensable
attributes of sovereignty the State of ohio
not possess, ner does any other State
If the Union Wo cal them States for
want of a better name. We call them
States because the original thirteen had
1een 80 designated before the Constitution
formed; but that Constitution de-
all the sovereignty which those
States were ever supposed to possess in
reference to external affairs.
I submit, Mr.. Speaker, that the five
great publicists, Grotius, PuffendOrf,
Burlamaqui, and Vattel,
who AVE been so often quoted in this de-
pate, and all of whom wrote more than a
quarter of q century, and some nearly two
centuries. before our Constitution was
can hardly be quoted as good au- /
horities in regard to the nature and legal t
relationships Of the component States of
he American Union.
Even my colleague from the Columbus
mr.. Shellabarger, in his very {
bic discussion of this question, spoke as
hough a State of this Union was the I
anne as a State in the sense of interna- c
ional law, with certain qualities added. 5
think he must admit that nearly all the
sading attributes of such a State are q
AIKEN from it when it becomes a State Of '
be Union.
s. ~-g1O--~- I5 GL--aOIetv, c
ave quoted the well known doctrine of d
International law, that war annuls all
compacts and treaties between O
ell~igerents;" and they have concluded, a
therefore,, that cur war has broken the Y
'ederal bond and dissolved the Union. a
his would be true, if the rebel States were t
tGtes in the sense of international law il
our Government were not a sovereign Il
alton, but only a league between sover- y
States. e
I oppose to this conclusion the unan- v