Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1871-03-10
SENATOR MoRTON,s SPEECH.
On the Joint Resolution OF the state
OF indiana Declaring the Rat
thcation OF Ihe Flneenth
Amendment by that state
r. Null and Void.

. ResolCed, further, by the authority aforesaid
Ihat Conguss has no lawful power, derived nom
the Constitution Of the United States, nor nom
any other source whatever, to require any state
OF the Union to ratlfy an amendment to the
constitution OF the United States as condition
precedent to representation in Congress; that all
such acts Of ratification null and void, and the
votes obtained ought not to be counted to affect
Union; and that the state Of Indiana protests and
eolemply declares that the so-called Fifteenth
amendment is not this day, nor never has been In
States. 81,
In the United States Senate, February
10, Mrs Morton, of Indiana, said:
This resolution declares that the ratif-
cation of the Fifteenth Amendment by
the Legislature of Indiana was null and
void because of the absence of constitu-
tional quorum, and that the amendment
has not been adopted because Virginia,
Mississippi, Texas and Georgia ratified it
under the provisions of acts of Congress
making such ratification a condition pre-
cedent TO their representation in Congress.
The last objection would be equally fatal
to the Fourteenth Amendment, but was
not urged against it, for the reason, per-
haps, that the honorable gentleman pro-
posing the resolution had advocated the
Fourteenth Amendment and indorsed its
adoption as complete. But every argu-
ment to prove that the Fifteenth Amend
ment has not been adopted is equally ap-
placible to the Fourteenth, and both must
stand or fall together.
1t is insisted that by making the ratif-
cation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments by the late rebel States
condition of their restoration to represent
alton in Congress, their several acts of
ratification were made under coercion and
duress, and were null and void, and that
the amendments not having been ratified
by three fourth of the States not count
ing the late rebel States, have not been
adopted and are not part of the Constitu-
ton of the United States. This PROPOSE
tion proceeds upon the hypothesis that
the people of the rebel States lost no
political rights by going into the rebel
lion that as they had been overcome upon
the field of battle they were entitled,
SpsO fdctO, to resume their representation in
Congress just as if nothing had occurred,
and that by overcoming them in arms we
merely conquered them back into the en-
joyment of full political rights.
1t further assumes that when the people
of certain States had inaugurated and pro-
secuted for years bloody rebellion, which
had only been overcome by a vast eXpendi-
ture of blood and treasure, the people of
the other States, who had remained loyal,
and borne the heat and burden of the con-
tlict, had no right to ask guarantees for the
future good conduct of their late enemies
to the enjoyment of political power.
These doctrines, so abhoTent to common
sense, are the foundation upon which is
placed the right to nullify the amendments.
The position taken by the friends of the
government was that treason was crime,
and carried with it the forfeiture of politi-
cal rights; that when the people of the
rebel States withdrew their Senators and
Representatives from Congress, formally
declared their severance from the Union,
and attempted to form new and hostile
government, they forfeited their right to
representation in Congress, and could not
resume it merely because they had been
defeated in battle, but only by the per-
mission and upon the conditions prescribed
by those who had remained true to their
country, acting through the Government
of the United States.
The whole trouble with the Democratic
party is that it fails to perceive the wrong
fulness of the rebellion. That fact once
admitted, all the consequences which we
claim, forfeiture upon the one side, rights
and powers upon the other, follow inevi-
tably. Need argue that the peoele who
remained true to the government had O
right to protect themselves against future
rebellion? Need l argue that when re-
bellion has been suppressed rebels have
not an equal right with loyal men to pre-
scribe the terms of peace? If there be
any difference between right and wrong,
between loyalty and treason, need not
argue these questions.
Assuming, therefore, the wrongfulnes;
of the rebellion, and that treason was q
crime which carried with it the forfeiture
of political rights, and that the loyal peo
pie of the United States, acting through
the government had right to exact
guarantees for their future peace and safe
ty, 1 come TO the question how those guar
antees were to be obtained, and how tha
security could be taken. Is it not obviou!
that those guarantees should be placed il
law as nearly as possible irreversible
that the security to be valuable must bC
written down in the Constitution of thu
United States, and placed beyond the reacl
of those fluctuations in parties which oc
cur SO frequently in government likt
ours?
This conslueion, so reasonable, was a
once adopted and the guarantees wer'
proposed in the form of amendments Il
the constitution, and the restoration o
the late rebel States to representation il
Congress made dependent upon their rat
ification.
ACSOIhluB W tllCOly VI ulS
tingushed statesmen these amendment
could be adopted without the consent o
any of the rebel States, They held tina
those States by going into the rebellion
had ceased to be States, and were held al
conquered provinces to be disposed o
like other territories, and that the ratitica
ton of the amendments by three -fOurth
of the remaining States was sufficient
The other theory was that the rebel State
were still to be counted as States in tn,
Union, but having forfeited their right Il
representation by going into the rebellion
were entitled to have it restored only upol
such conditions as were compatible will
the future safety of the nation and not in
consistent with the Constitution of tn
United States.
This latter theory seems to have beer
the one adopted by Congress in proposing
the amendments and in the enactment o
the reconstruction laws.
By the reconstruction acts of 1867, tn,
ratification of the Fourteenth Amendmen
by the late rebel States was made con
dition to their final restoration to politica
rights. Afterward, and before Virginia
Mississippi, Texas and Georgia had com
piled with the conditions, the Fifteenth
Amendment became manifest necessity
to the peace and safety of the nation, ant
Congress required these four States, il
addition to the terms prescribed in tn
acts offset, to ratify the Fifteenth Amend
ment before final restoration.
Now the argument is that this condition
was unconstitutional; that the people o
those States had right to representation
already, and had such a right from tn
very moment they laid down their arms.
If the rebel States forfeited no rights b,
going into the rebellion, then their ratif
cation of the amendments was as valid a
if made after being restored to represen
tation, for they were States vested will
original powers to ratify amendments be
fore as well as after
If they were still to be counted a
States, but regarded as having lost thei
right to representation by having willfull,
abandoned it, and engaging in the re
l.nlIi.... e.. O..