Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1868-02-05
Remarks of
HON. GLENNI w. SCOFIELD,
OF PENNSYLVANIA,

: a
provide for the more efficient government of
the Rebel States" passed March 2 1867
Mr.. SCHoFIELD. Why is it, Mr. Speak
er, that all reconstruction legislation is re-
! garded by one side Of this House as uncon-
| stltutlonal, revolutionary, and despotic,
while the other side, more mum 2rous, not
less honest, not less patriotic, not less learn
| ed IN the principles of the Constitution, not
less devoted to human liberty nor opposed to
1 every form OF human oppression, look upon
| the same legislation as constitutional, appro-
pirate, and necessary [ impugn the mo-
| tives of neither side, but Il ask for solution
| of this disagreement suppose it is be-
| cause the two sides of the House look at the
subject from different stand-points. One
! side holds that the confederate States are
now, and all the time have been, construct
ed and ready for admission while the 9TH
| er side hold that the regular constitutional
! State governments were destroyed by the
war, and that new ones must be originated
] By somebody to take their place before they
| can elect Senators and Representatives to
| Congress. From these stand points the
| view of either side is correct. LIE was some
what 50 during the war. One party started
/ out with the theory chat it was unconstitu-
! tionai to coerce a sovereign State into sub
mission to the General Government, and of
course from this stand point all war meas
ureS We're unc0nStIsutIOnai while the other
party holding that coercion was cOnstitu-
tional, approved all measures calculated to
accomplish the result.
The difference between as on the question
of reconstruction is mainly a question OF
fact If it be true that the confederate
States have now legal and constitutional
governments all reconstruction is, as is
claimed, unconstitutional, revolutionary, and
despotic; but if they have no such govern
ments it must be admitted thai reconstruc-
ton of some kind Is an absolute necessity
If South Carolina, for instance, has now or
has had since 1861 legal State govern
ment, | will thank some gentleman on the
other side to tell me what it is. Is it the
old government that existed prior to the
war? [ admit that this constitution is prn-
ted in book and laid away in the libraries
of the country, butt deny that it has any
existence outside of books. IF it has any
other existence, where is it 1t has no Gov
errsr, no legislature no Judge. There is
not single person within the limits of the
State who processes allegiance to it, and no
one inquiries what it prohibits or what it
commands 1t Is ike the unsepulchered
skull,
''Sans teeth eyes, taste sans everything"
| know the gentleman from Indiana Mr.
Kerr claimed the other day that the State
government might be revived. Indeed |
think he said it had been revived. But that
would involve the exercise of all the power
that any DO y claims in the legislation which
We are now enacting. To reconstruct and to
revive government that is dead means the
same thing Is it the confederate State
government that exists 10 South Carolina?
1t did exist there, when Congress adjourn
ed IN March, 1868 but when we assembled in
December, 1865, it had disappeared. John
son and his Secretary of State had gone
down there and disposed of it. They had
scutted the hull and sent the confederate
ship, with all it's reasonable machinery, to
the bottom, leaving to the country nothing
but the hateful memory OF its crimes.
But Mr. johnson and Mr.. Seward have |
set up some governments in the late confed !
crate States, and it is said that Congress
should recognize them. Why? Because !
they have been accepted by the people /
there No, sir; they were not submitted to |
the people in any State except North Car !
olina, and in that State a majority voted a |
gainSt it. And in the election of delegates /
to the conventions only about ne-third of /
the white voters participated at all, and +
portion OF those gave their votes against the !
whole scheme. OF course the blacks were
excluded altogether. Shall we accept them /
because they are republican in form? No,
sir. A large portion of the people, in two
of the States, at least more than halt are
excluded from all participation in them.
Shall we accept them because they secure
to those States only fair proportion Of
Federal representation? No, sir; the repre-
sented people in South Carolina and Missis-
sippi secure little more than twice as many
votes in this House and In the Electoral
College as are given to the same number OF
people in Pennsylvania or any
northern State Are we bound to accept
them because they had a lawful origin 2?
W hat article of the Constitution or what
law of Congress authorizes the President
and his Secretary to start in the business of
making State governments or to coerce and
caioe handful of the people to cooperate
with them in such an undertaking DO you
not recollect. Mr. Speaker, that In the sum-
mer of 1865, while Mr.. johnson and Sew
ard were still reconstructing, our political
opponents applied to their work the same
three ugly words that they now apply to
our plan unconstitutional, revolutionary,
and despotic?' Before they discovered
how bad these governments would be, they
taught US the principles upon which they
ought to be rejected We were bound, then,
by no principle of law, equality, or justice to
accept these anti-republican productions of
the President, and Congress rejected them
by majority of nearly threefourths. The
question was submitted to the people at the
elections in the fall 1866, and after four
months debate they indorsed the action of
Congress by an emphatic vote. lnasmuch,
then, as these governments were Illegal -ln
their origin, tour opponents themselves be
ino iudges y in as much as they were never
by any considerable portion OF