know, in fact, that those States compose military districts? It might as well have said "States as to describe what is a State.

It is our duty to advance, if we can; to suppress insurrection; to put down rebellion; to dis sipate the rising; to scatter the enemy; and when Mr. Baker-I do; and that is the reason we have done so, to preserve in the terms of the why I suggest to the honorable Senator that bill, the liberty, lives, and property of the peothis criticism about States does not mean any ple of the country, by just and fair police reguthing at all. That is the very point. The ob- latious. I ask the Senator from Indiana, (Mr. jection certainly ought not to be that he can Lane,) when we took Monterey, did we not do declare a part of a State in insurrection and it there? When we took Mexico, did we not not the whole of it. In point of fact the Con- do it there? Is it not a part, a necessary and stitution of the United States, and the Congress indispensable part, of war itself, that there shall of the United States acting upon it, are not be military regulations over the country contreating of States, but of the territory com- quered and held? Is that unconstitutional! prising the United States; and I submit once I think it was a mere play of words that the more to his better judgment that it cannot be Senator indulged in when he attempted to anunconstitutional to allow the President to de-swer the Senator from New York. I did not clare a county, or a part of a county, or a understand the Senator from New York to town, or a part of a town, or a part of a State, mean any thing else substantially but this, that or the whole of a State, or two States, or five the Constitution deals generally with a state of States, in a condition of insurrection, if, in his peace, and that when war is declared, it leaves judgment, that be the fact. That is not wrong. the condition of public affairs to be determined In the next place, it provides that that being by the law of war, in the country where the so, the military commander in that district war exists. It is true that the Constitution of may make and publish such police rules and the United States does adopt the law of war as regulations as he may deem necessary to sup- a part of the instrument itself, during the conpress the rebellion and restore order and pre-tinuance of war. The Constitution does not proserve the lives and property of citizens. I submit to him, if the President of the United States has power, or ought to have power, to suppress insurrection and rebellion, is there any better way to do it, or is there any other? The gentleman says, do it by the civil power. Look at the fact. The civil power is utterly overwhelmed; the courts are closed; the judges banished. Is the President not to execute the law? Is he to do it in person or by his military commanders? Are they to do it with regulation or without it? That is the only question. Mr. President, the honorable Senator says there is a state of war. The Senator from Vermont agrees with him; or rather, he agrees with the Senator from Vermont in that. What then? There is a state of public war; none the less war because it is urged from the other side; not the less war because it is unjust; not the less war because it is a war of insurrection and rebellion. It is still war; and I am willing to say it is public war-public, as contra-distinguished from private war. What then? Shall we carry that war on? Is it his duty as a Senator to carry it on? If so, how? By armies under command; by military or ganization and authority, advancing to suppress insurrection and rebellion. Is that wrong? Is that unconstitutional? Are we not bound to do with whoever levies war against us as we would do if he was a foreigner? There is no distinction as to the mode of carrying on war; we carry on war against an advancing army just the same, whether it be from Russia or from South Carolina. Will the honorable Senator tell me it is our duty to stay here, within fifteen miles of the enemy, seeking to advance upon us every hour, and talk about nice questions of constitutional construction as to whether it is war. or merely insurrection? No, sir.

vide that spies shall be hung. Is it unconstitu tional to liang a spy? There is no provision for it in terms in the Constitution; but nobody denies the right, the power, the justice. Why? Because it is part of the law of war. The Con stitution does not provide for the exchange of prisoners; yet it may be done under the law of war. Indeed the Constitution does not provide that a prisoner may be taken at all; yet his captivity is perfectly just and constitutional It seems to me that the Senator does not, will not, take that view of the subject. Again, sir, when a military commander advances, as I trust, if there are no more unexpected great reverses, he will advance, through Virginia and occupies the country, there, perhaps as here, the civil law may be silent; there perhaps the civil officers may flee as ours have been compelled to flee. What then? If the civil law is silent, who shall control and rezalate the conquered district-who but the military commander? As the Senator from Illinois has well said, shall it be done by regulation of without regulation? Shall the general, or the colonel, or the captain, be supreme, or shall he be regulated and ordered by the President of the United States? That is the sole question. The Senator has put it well. I agree that we ought to do all we can to limit, to restrain, to fetter the abuse of military power. Bayonets are at best illogical arguments. I am not will ing, except as a case of sheerest necessity, ever to permit a military commander to exercise authority over life, liberty, and property. But, sir, it is part of the law of war; you cannot carry in the rear of your army your courts; you cannot organize juries; you cannot have trials accorded to the forms and ceremonial of the common law amid the clangor of arms, and somebody must enforce police regulations in a

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Anthony in the chair)—Order!

conquered or occupied district. I ask the Senator from Kentucky again respectfully, is that unconstitutional; or, if in the nature of war it Mr. Baker-What would have been thought must exist, even if there be no law passed by if, in another Capitol, in another Republic, in a us to allow it, is it unconstitutional to regulate yet more martial age, a Senator as grave, not it? That is the question, to which I do not more eloquent or dignified than the Senator think he will make a clear and distinct reply. from Kentucky, yet with the Roman purple Now, sir, I have shown him two sections of flying over his shoulders, had risen in his place, the bill, which I do not think he will repeat surrounded by all the illustrations of Roman earnestly are unconstitutional. I do not think glory, and declared that advancing Hannibal that he will seriously deny that it is perfectly was just, and that Carthage ought to be dealt constitutional to limit, to regulate, to con- with in terms of peace? What would have trol, at the same time to confer and restrain been thought if, after the battle of Cannæ, a authority in the hands of military commanders. Senator there had risen in his place and deI think it is wise and judicious to regulate it nounced every levy of the Roman people, every by virtue of powers to be placed in the hands expenditure of its treasury, and every appeal to of the President by law. Now, a few words, the old recollections and the old glories? Sir, and a few only, as to the Senator's predictions. | a Senator, himself learned far more than myself The Senator from Kentucky stands up here in in such lore, tells me, in a voice that I am glad a manly way in opposition to what he sees is is audible, that he would have been hurled the overwhelming sentiment of the Senate, and from the Tarpeian rock. It is a grand comutters reproof, malediction, and prediction mentary upon the American Constitution that combined. Well, sir, it is not every prediction we permit these words to be uttered. I ask that is prophecy. It is the easiest thing in the the Senator to recollect, too, what, save to world to do; there is nothing easier, except to send aid and comfort to the enemy, do these be mistaken when we have predicted. I con- predictions of his amount to? Every word fess. Mr. President, that I would not have pre- thus uttered falls as a note of inspiration upon dicted three weeks ago the disasters which every Confederate ear. Every sound thus uthave overtaken our arms; and I do not think tered is a word (and, falling from his lips, a if I were to predict now) that six months mighty word) of kindling and triumph to a foe hence the Senator will indulge in the same that determines to advance. For me, I have tone of prediction which is his favorite key no such word as a Senator to utter. For me, now. I would ask him, what would you have amid temporary defeat, disaster, disgrace, it us do now-a Confederate army within twenty seems that my duty calls me to utter another miles of us, advancing or threatening to ad- word, and that word is, bold, sudden, forward, vance to overwhelm your Government; to determined war, according to the laws of war, shake the pillars of the Union; to bring it by armies, by military commanders clothed around your head, if you stay here, in ruins? with full power, advancing with all the past Are we to stop and talk about an uprising sen- glories of the Republic urging them on to contiment in the North against the war? Are we quest. I do not stop to consider whether it is to predict evil, and retire from what we pre-subjugation or not. It is compulsory obelict? Is not the manly part to go on as we have begun, to raise money, and levy armies, to organize them, to prepare to advance; when we do advance, to regulate that advance by all the laws and regulations that civilization and humanity will allow in time of battle? Can we do any thing more? To talk to us about stopping is idle; we will never stop. Will the Senator yield to rebellion? Will he shrink from armed insurrection? Will his State justify it? Will its better public opinion allow it? Shall we send a flag of truce? What would he have? Or would he conduct this war so feebly, that the whole world would smile at us in derision? What would he have? These speeches of his, sown broadcast over the land what clear, distinct meaning have they? Are they not intended for disorganization in our very midst? Are they not intended to dull our weapons? Are they not intended to destroy our zeal? Are they not intended to animate our enemies? Sir, are they not words of brilliant, polished treason, even in the very Capitol of the Confederacy? [Manifestations of applause in the galleries.]

dience-not to my will; not to yours, sir; not to the will of any one man; not to the will of any one State; but compulsory obedience to the Constitution of the whole country. The Senator chose the other day again and again to animadvert on a single expression in a little speech which I delivered before the Senate, in which I took occasion to say that if the people of the rebellious States would not govern theinselves as States, they ought to be governed as Territories. The Senator knew full well then, for I explained it twice-he knows full well now-that on this side of the Chamber; nay, in this whole Chamber; nay, in this whole North and West; nay, in all the loyal States in all their breadth, there is not a man among us all who dreams of causing any man in the South to submit to any rule, either as to life, liberty, or property, that we ourselves do not willingly agree to yield to. Did he ever think of that? Subjugation for what? When we subjugate South Carolina, what shall we do? We shall compel its obedience to the Constitution of the United States; that is all. Why play upon words? We do not mean, we have

her treasure. There may be there some dis affected; there may be some few men there who would "rather rule in hell than serve in heaven." There are such men everywhere. There are a few men there who have left the South for the good of the South; who are perverse, violent, destructive, revolutionary, and opposed to social order. A few, but a very few, thus formed and thus nurtured, in Cali

deavor to create and maintain mischief; but the great portion of our population are loyal to the core and in every chord of their hearts They are offering through me-more to their own Senators, every day from California, and indeed, from Oregon-to add to the legions of this country by the hundred and the thousand. They are willing to come thousands of miles with their arms on their shoulders, at their own expense, to share with the best offering of their heart's blood in the great struggle of Constitutional liberty. I tell the Senator that his predictions, sometimes for the South, some times for the middle States, sometimes for the North-east, and then wandering away in siry visions out to the far Pacific, about the dread of our people, as for loss of blood and treasure provoking them to disloyalty, are false in sen timent, false in fact, and false in loyalty. The Senator from Kentucky is mistaken in the all.

never said, any more. If it be slavery that I true to the Union to the last of her blood and men should obey the Constitution their fathers fought for, let it be so. If it be freedom, it is freedom equally for them and for us. We propose to subjugate rebellion into loyalty; we propose to subjugate insurrection into peace; we propose to subjugate confederate anarchy into Constitutional Union liberty. The Senator well knows that we propose no more. I ask him, I appeal to his better judgment, now, what does he imagine we intend to do, if for-fornia and in Oregon, both persistently entunately we conquer Tennessee or South Carolina-call it "conquer," if you will, sir-what do we propose to do? They will have their courts still, they will have their ballot-boxes still, they will have their elections still, they will have their representatives upon this floor still, they will have taxation and representation still, they will have the writ of habeas corpus still, they will have every privilege they ever had and all we desire. When the Confederate armies are scattered, when their leaders are banished from power, when the people return to a late repentant sense of the wrong they have done to a Government they never felt but in benignancy and blessing, then the Constitution made for all will be felt by all, like the descending rains from heaven which bless all alike. Is that subjugation? To restore what was, as it was, for the benefit of the whole country and of the whole human race, is all we desire and all we can have. Gentlemen talk Five hundred million dollars! What about the North-east. I appeal to Senators then? Great Britain gave more than two from the North-east, is there a man in all your thousand millions in the great battle for cor States who advances upon the South with any stitutional liberty which she led at one time other idea but to restore the Constitution of almost single-handed against the world. Five the United States in its spirit and its unity? I hundred thousand men! What then? We never heard that one. I believe no man in- have them; they are ours; they are the childulges in any dream of inflicting there any dren of the country. They belong to the wrong to public liberty; and I respectfully tell whole country; they are our sons; our kins the Senator from Kentucky that he persistent- men; and there are many of us who will give ly, earnestly I will not say wilfully-mis. them all up before we abate one word of our represents the sentiment of the North and just demand, or will retreat one inch from the West when he attempts to teach these doc-line which divides right from wrong. Sir, it trines to the Confederates of the South. Sir, is not a question of men or money in that while I am predicting, I will tell you another sense. All the men, all the money, are, in our thing. This threat about money and men judgment, well bestowed in such a cause. amounts to nothing. Some of the States which When we give them we know their valua have been named in that connection, I know Knowing their value well, we give them with well. I know, as my friend from Illinois will the more pride and the more joy. Sir, how bear me witness, his own State very well. I can we retreat? Sir, how can we make peace! am sure that no temporary defeat, no momen- Who shall treat? What commissioners? Who tary disaster, will swerve that State either would go? Upon what terms? Where is to from its allegiance to the Union, or from its be your boundary line? Where the end of the determination to preserve it. It is not with us principles we shall have to give up? What a question of money or of blood; it is a ques- will become of constitutional government! tion involving considerations higher than these. What will become of public liberty? What When the Senator from Kentucky speaks of the of past glories? What of future hopes? Shall Pacific, I see another distinguished friend from we sink into the insignificance of the grave-s Illinois, now worthily representing one of the degraded, defeated, emasculated people, fright States on the Pacific, (Mr. McDougall,) who will ened by the results of one battle, and scared bear me witness that I know that State too, at the visions raised by the imagination of the well. I take the liberty-I know I but utter Senator from Kentucky upon this floor? No, his sentiments in advance-joining with him, sir; a thousand times, no, sir! We will rally to say that that State, quoting from the pas--if, indeed, our words be necessary-we will sage the gentleman himself has quoted, will be rally the people, the loyal people, of the whole

ntry. They will pour forth their treasure, | authority in executing the laws; and when the ir money, their men, without stint, without question assumes the magnitude and takes the sure. The most peaceable man in this form of a great political severance, and nearly y may stamp his foot upon this Senate half the members of the Confederacy withdraw imber floor, as of old a warrior and Senator themselves from it, what then? I have never and from that single tramp there will spring held that one State or a number of States have harmed legions. Shall one battle determine a right without cause to break the compact of fate of empire, or a dozen? the loss of one the Constitution. But what I mean to say is, usand men or twenty thousand, of one hun- that you cannot then undertake to make war in 1 million dollars, or five hundred millions? the name of the Constitution. In my opinion a year's peace, in ten years at most, of they are out. You may conquer them; but ceful progress, we can restore them all. do not attempt to do it under what I consider re will be some graves reeking with blood, false political pretences. However, sir, I will ered by the tears of affection. There will not enlarge upon that. I have developed these some privation; there will be some loss of ideas again and again, and I do not care to rery; there will be somewhat more need for argue them. Hence the Senator and I start or to procure the necessaries of life. When from entirely different stand-points, and his is said, all is said. If we have the coun- pretended replies are no replies at all. The the whole country, the Union, the Consti- Senator asks me, "What would you have us on-free government-with these will re- do?" I have already intimated what I would all the blessings of well-ordered civiliza- have us do. I would have us stop the war. ; the path of the country will be a career We can do it. I have tried to show that there reatness and of glory such as, in the olden is none of that inexorable necessity to continue , our fathers saw in the dim visions of this war which the Senator seems to suppose. s yet to come, and such as would have I do not hold that constitutional liberty on this ours now, to-day, if it had not been for continent is bound up in this fratricidal, devastreason for which the Senator too often tating, horrible contest. Upon the contrary, I s to apologize. fear it will find its grave in it. The Senator is mistaken in supposing that we can reunite these States by war. He is mistaken in supposing that eighteen or twenty millions upon the one side can subjugate ten or twelve millions upon the other; or, if they do subjugate them, that you can restore Constitutional Government as our fathers made it. You will have to govern them as territories, as suggested by the Senator, if ever they are reduced to the dominion of the United States, or, as the Senator from Vermont called them, "those rebellious provinces of this Union," in his speech today. Sir, I would prefer to see these States all reunited upon true constitutional principles to any other object that could be offered me in life; and to restore, upon the principles of our fathers, the union of these States, to me the sacrifice of one unimportant life would be nothing, nothing, sir. But I infinitely prefer to see a peaceful separation of these States, than to see endless, aimless, devastating war, at the end of which I see the grave of public liberty and of personal freedom.

r. Breckinridge-I shall detain the Senate, out a few moments in answer to one or two rvations that fell from the Senator from fornia

r. Baker-Oregon.

r. Breckinridge-The Senator seems to charge of the whole Pacific coast, though not mean to intimate that the Senators California are not entirely able and willing ake care of their own State. They are. Senator from Oregon, then. Mr. PresiI have tried on more than one occasion he Senate, in parliamentary and respectful age, to express my opinions in regard to character of our Federal system, the relaof the States to the Federal Government, e Constitution, the bond of the Federal ical system. They differed utterly from entertained by the Senator from Oregon, ently, by his line of argument, he regards is an original, not a delegated Government, he regards it as clothed with all those ers which belong to an original nation, nly with those powers which are delegaty the different political communities that ose it, and limited by the written Constin that forms the bond of union. I have to show that, in the view that I take of overnment, this war is an unconstitutionr. I do not think the Senator from Orehas answered my argument. He asks, must we do? As we progress southand invade the country, must we not, ne, carry with us all the laws of war? I I not progress southward, and invade the The President of the United States, gain repeat, in my judgment, only has the to call out the military to assist the civil

ry.

The Senator asked if a Senator of Rome had uttered these things in the war between Carthage and that power, how would he have been treated? Sir, the war between Carthage and Rome was altogether different from the war now waged between the United States and the Confederate States. I would have said-rather than avow the principle that one or the other must be subjugated, or perhaps both destroyed

let Carthage live and let Rome live, each pursuing its own course of policy and civilization. The Senator says that these opinions which I thus expressed, and have heretofore expressed, are but brilliant treason; and that it is a tribute to the character of our institutions