Year: 1866

us for a moment to consider what those
terms were. General Sherman anxious,
as he said, to pacifcate the country,
agreed with General Johnson that, If he
would surrender, the people of the Con-
| federate States should be restored to all
their rights, civil and political, which
they enjoyed before the war. That was
one of the principal terms of the surrend-
er. When that surrender was known at
Washington, and the capitulation consid-
cred, it was at once repudiated by every
loyal man. What was it we had been
fighting for? What had we gained if
those terms were allowed? Andrew John
son issued an order requiring these terms
of surrender should be set aside. Why?
Because it restored these rebels to those
rights which lead to part in the Govern
ment of the United States, and thus rem
dered nugatory the war in which we have
been engaged. Mark this because we
want to see if, after all, the present poll
cy of the Philadelphia Convention is to
be carried out, we have not enacted the
same terms of surrender. The Govern
ment of the United States had the right
to name the terms upon which the South
should be readmitted into the Union, and


they would have been instantly and ca
gerly subscribed to, had they been never
SO hard or severe. President johnson
takes a power for which there is no war
rant in the Constitution, that no State
shall come back until it passed the con-
stitutional amendment abolishing slave
ry, and until it agreed to annula and make
void its ordinances of secession. If those
States, as is now claimed, had all their
rights in the Union; that is to say, if
South Carolina had the same right as
Massachusetts,, and if in exhibiting that
right-if Massachusetts, men and South
Carolina men were bound to march arm
in arm for an exhibition any where-why
did the President undertake to put
condition upon the Southern States of
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and other
rebellious States?


was saying that if at the moment that
President johnson issued his order that
these States should not be allowed to
have any other than military government
until they passed certain acts-one of and
another to adopt the constitutional
amendment abolishing slavery-if at that
time it was competent for me to make
that order, should put il that these
States had been in rebellion-their rights
had been captured, and it was for the
United States to say upon what terms
they would take them back. No where
in the constitutional can safely chal-
lenge any constitutional lawyer in the
country to put his finger upon passage
any where which gives the President a
right to say to State in the Union: Do
this or do that, or, don't do this or do
that; adopt this proposition or that prop
osition. President johnson gave them
orders as their Chief Executive because
he recognized that those States that had
rebelled had different position in the
country from the loyal States. Let me
repeat this because upon this hangs the
whole question. agree if these revolt
ed, rebellious Confederate States have
never lost any of their rights by the war,


or their past acts, if they have the same
rights that they had before the war, then
no man has a right to keep out their rep
resentatives or to impose any condition
upon them, and therefore when gentle
men say to me Congress has no right to
say what Massachusetts, shall do", l
agree, neither Congress nor the Presi-
dent has any right to say what Massachu-
setts shall do, or Pennsylvania, or New
York-or omit to do. But when Massa-
ehusetts rebels against the government
and takes arms, and after four years or
four months is subdued, after she has to
surrender because she can not fight long
er, and lies bound hand and foot before
the power of the United States,-I will
say that Massachusetts, then has lost her
rights, and that she has to come under
the law of the conqueror, and can come
back into the Union only when in the
Judgment of the loyal States it shall be
for the benefit of the whole country to
receive her back. - -


Congress came together in December,
and for the first time the President enun-
ciated the doctrine that these States had
a right to representation by loyal repre-
sentatiyes. Italways seemed to me that
there was fallacy in that statement,
that ii was sophistry, and l have seen
very many good, honest, loyal men that
were stumbled by this argument, "Why
won't Congress admit the loyal represen-
tatives in the Union; is it not wrong for
Congress to keep out loyal menW Sup
pose the South is disloysl and sends loyal
representatives, why sho I'D not they be
admitted?" Suppose, my friend, you
have doubtupon this question-suppose
the loyal States should send disloyal men
to the Congress of the United States p
Will YOU admit the disloyal representa-
tives? No; because he misrepresents his
constituency, and he ought not to be ad-
mitted Suppose a disloysl constituency
sends a loyal representative, should he
be admitted No. Why? Because he
misrepresents his constituency. Is it
not perfectly an answer-a perfect one,
i - - Io hrro On aPtTflna-
that the right of representation isnot the
right of the Representatives, but of the
constituency. If the constituency is 10y
al, then it will hardly do to inquire into
the constituency of the representative,
and, therefore, we all applaud the answer
of John Randolph, when asked If
he was old enough to come to Congress
he said: "Ask my constituents" There
fore we are brought back to this-h the
constituency in the first instance is loyal
they have a right to be representative
not by rebels-and if justice was done
them they would not have a man of the
rebels left to represent them. Applause.


But if they are disloyal it is no matter
whom they send to represent them, be-
cause this year they will send loyal men,
and having got established, next year
they will send disloyal men, saying: you
have recognized our right to represeMrR-
ton and you must admit these men,
Have the people of the South such a love
of the Union, love of country, as to be
entitled to take part in the government
of the country? That is the question. |
assume that President johnson believed
that they were loyal and that they had
surrendered in good faith. What Is sur
rendering in good faithi / suppose that
horse thief when he gets in State prison
surrenders the right of horse stealing in
good faith. He does not mean to steal
any more until he gets out. daughter }
They surrendered, not because they
wanted to, but because they were oblg-
ed to; not for love of country, but from
fear; they surrendered because they were
whipped and soundly whipped, too: |
think 1 do no discredit to President
johnson to say that 1 think he was mis-
taken.