The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1876-01-20
Amnesty.

/ the voice whereby the bill was rejected
/ it is my intention TO offer my amend
ment. Every time that question of am
nesty has been brought before the House
/ by a gentleman of the other side for thu
last two Congresses, il has been done Will
q certain flourish of magnanimity which
/ is an imputation on this side OF the
| House as though the Republican party
/ which has been in charge of the govern
ment for the last twelve or fourteen
| years, had been bigoted narrow, illiberal
and as though certain few worthy and
/ deserving gentlemen in the Southern
/ States were bound down under greai
/ tyranny and oppression, which the hard
heartedness of Congress could not posi-
bly, be prevailed upon to remove. ] de
sire now to place on record Just what the
Republican party has done in this mat
ter. j want to place it there as an i'm
perishable record of a liberality and
large-mindedness, and magnanimity and
mercy, such as has not been shown in
the worlds history by conquerors to con.
quered. The gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania (Mr. RandalD and myself entered
this Congress i'm the midst of the hot
flames of war; when the Union was rock
ing to its foundation, and no man knew
whether we were to have a country or
not. He would have been surprised,
when he and | were officers i'm the 3Sth
Congress, if he then could have foreseen
that before our mutual service ended, he
should have seen siAly-one gentlemen,
then in arms against the United States
Government, entitled to eqaul privileges
with ourselves in this House, and all by
the grace and magnanimity Of the Repub-
can party. When the war ended, accord.
ing to the universal law of war, the party
in possession of the government, or the
government itself, which was controlled
by the party, had the right to determine
what should be the status of these peo-
pie. Did we inaugurate any measures of
persecution Did we set off on a career
of bloodshed and vengeance? Did we
take property Did we prohibit any
man all his civil rights Did we take
from him the right which he enjoys to-
day, to voter Not at all. But instead
OF a general and sweeping condemnation,
the Republican party placed in the l4th
Amendment only this exclusion. After
considering the whole subject, it ended
in coming down to this That no person
shall be Senator or Representative i'm
Congress, or elector of President or Vice
President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or
under any State, who, having previously
ia Ken the oath as a member of Congress.
or as an officer of the United States, or
as a member OF any State Legislature, or
as an executive, or judiciary, or judicial
officer Of any State, to support the Con-
stitution OF the United States, shall have
been engaged in Instruction or rebellion
against the same, or give aid or comfort
to enemies thereof, but that Congress
may, by vote of two-thirds of each
House, remove such disabilities"
Now, / never have been able to deter
mine from any statistical examination,
exactly how many men in the South that
exception affected.
1t has been variously estimated that,
at the time of its original insertion in the
it included somewhere
from 10000 to 10000 persons; but, as
| can gather from the facts in the case,
it included about $4,000 men in the
South, and it let 60 free every man of
the hundreds of thousands, or of mill
ions if you please, who has been engaged
in an attempt to destroy the govern
ment, and only held those under disa-
bility, who, in addition to a general re-
volt, had violated a special, and peculiar,
tuition of the United States. That disa-
bility was hardly fixed on the South un-
til we began, in this hall and Senate
Chamber, when we had more than two
thirds Republican in both branches, to
remove it, and the very first bill took
the disability off from the citizens of the
South. The next bill took it off from
3,526 gentlemen by wholesale. many of
whom on this floor have come from grace
and amnesty in these two bills specifying
individuals had passed through. small
bills, which | will not further refer to,
were passed. In 1872 the Congress of
the United States, by a vote of two
thirds of both branches (still being two
thirds Republican) passed this general
law that all political disabilisies" i'm
posed under the third section of the
l4th amendment of the Constitution of
the United States, are hereby removed
from all persons, whomsoever except
Senator'S and Representatives. In the
Both and 37th Congress, officers of Judi
ciary, Military, and Naval service OF the
United States, heads of departments,
and Foreign Ministers of the United
States" Since that act passed very
considerable number of gentlemen in
cluded in it have been especially by name
relieved from disability, but | believe in
no one single instance since the act of
May 81, 1872, disabilities have been
taken from any man unless on his re-
spectful petition to Congress that they
should be removed; and ! believe that
in no one instance, except one such petit
ton was refused. l believe that in no
one instance, except one, has there been
any difficulty by the unanimous vote to
pass such bills.
Now / find an equally erroneous vary
ing of judgment in reference to the mum
Der still under disabilities in the South.
have had occasion, by conferences
the Departments of the Navy and War,
and by reference to some other records,
to be able to state to the House, with
more accuracy than has been already
stated, just the number of gentlemen
who are still under disabilities. Those
who were officers OF the United States
army, educated at the expense of the
government at West Point, and who
Joined the rebellion, and are still under
disabilities, are estimated at the War
Department at 325. The number of such
persons in the navy are 29j, and those
coming under other heads, members of
the Both and 3Ith Congresses, Judges,
heads of departments, and Foreign Min
isters. / am not able TO give the number
of persons now under disability i'm the
South is about 80. | very frankly say
that in regard to all these, know of no
reason why amnesty should not be
granted to them as it has been to many
Of the same class. | am not here to argue
against it, since amnesty has already be-
come so general, and | am not going
back to argue that question. | am in
favor of giving it to them, but in absence
of that respectful form of petition which
since the 9th of May, 1872, has become
a sort of common law as a preliminary tc
amnesty, | simply wish to put into law
that the persons shall so before United
States Court, and in open court, with
unlifted hand. swear that they mean {