Year: 1867

A Plea for the Life of the Republic.
In the United States Senate, on the 10th
ult., Mr.. DooLITTLE of this State having
the floor, made speech vindicating him
self from the aspersions eest upon him by
the Wisconsin Legislature and made sn
able and complete defense Of his principles
and his votes. We regret that want of
space forbids our giving the whole speech
to our readers, but we make room for that
part in which he pleads for the ''life of the
Republic" Upon reference to the militia
ry reconstruction bill and the constitutional
amendment bill, be said:


Sir, let us look into the measures how
pending. No such measures were ever be-
fore presented in the American Congress
What are they? Call them by what name
you will, they are, in substance, declara-
ton Of war against ten States of the Union.
They are nothing more they are nothing
less. We know that the rebellion has been
suppressed We know that every armed
soldier of the rebellion from the Potomac TO
the Rio Grande has surrendered his arms
and pledged anew his allegiance to the
Constitution, the Uniun, and the flag We
know that there is not an armed soldier
against this Republic throughout the whole
Of its vast domain. We know that in these
ten states civil governments in form, and in
fact, have been re-established by the voice
Of their people, and that, with all the ma
chinery of civil governments, they are in
full operation. We know that peace has
been proclaimed by the authorities of the
Republic, pursuant to the acts of Congress
comforting that power. In all the States of
the Union peace has come.


But, sir, what do these bills propose :?
They propose open, direct war on every
| form OF civil government within these
states. They propose to supersede and an
null them all, and take from the people, and
| all the people, in these states, all voice in
| the power which is to govern them. The
bayonet, and the bayonct alone, in the
hands of the soldier is to be the law of these
ten states. All resistance is to be over
come; the states are to be taken into mill
tary possession and all civil authority sub
iected to the bayonet That is war. Sup
pose we should propose to do that to the
neIghborlng territories of Canada that by
act of Congress, We should send our troops
| there's take the judge from the bench, the
jury froth the box, remove all civil officers,
disrobe them of all authority, OF subject
them to martial LAWN one word, should
we make the batonet in Canada the only
law upon which life, liberty, and property
can doubt that would be war nothing more
or less than war. These propositions now
pending, by whatever specidus name they
may be called, are declarations of war and
subiugation against all of ten states and
eight million people.


Now, MIR. President, upon what ground
is war thus to be declared on these ten
States and On these eight million people
The first ground is because they have not
accepted the constitutional amendment
which was submitted for their reception or
rejection by Congress at the last session.
Let us look for one moment at the logic of
this proposition. You haye submitted to
them for their ratification an amendment to
the constitution of the United States which
you say-and that is probably true, at least
OF several Of these states that have taken
ectlon-they have rejected and therefore
you have a right to make war What is
implied id submitting constitutional
amendment to those states for ratification or
rejection? 1t implies that they have the
power to ratify or reject it. How can that
power be exercised? BY their legislatures.
1t cannot be exercised Iii afiy other FAY un-
der the act Of Congress which submitted
the amendment, because in 50 many
words, it submits this proposition to the
legislatures 0fthe several states. And yet,
gentlemen now say they have no legisla.
lures, they are not states at all, they are
merely disorganized provinces, conquered
territory, subjugated, overthrown. And
yet the very. constitutional amendment
which you submit to them, and for reject
ing which you propose to declare wal
against them, implies of necessity that they
are states, and chat they have the power
either to reject it or to accept it. If they
have NO power to reject, why 60 to wat with
them because they have rejected it? Wha
logic is there in that? If you admit thai
they have the power to accept, they of ne
cesslty have the power to reject. And il
they have legislatures capable of accepting
or rejecting they have valid state govern
ments, and Congr has no more power tc
impose or force constitutional amendment
upon them than upon the state of New


York.