Doc. 152.

DEBATE IN THE U. S. SENATE

ON THE BILL FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF INSUR

RECTION, AUGUST 1, 1861.

THE bill to suppress insurrection and sedition being taken up:

Mr. Cowan (of Pa.) moved that it be postponed till December.

Mr. Bayard (Del.) thought that was the best disposition that could be made of the bill. He thought it unconstitutional.

Mr. Harris (N. Y.) also spoke in favor of its postponement, and thought it very important. The bill was too important to be matured this session in the temper of the Senate and the temperature of the place. He was inclined to think that necessities of a case give a military commander all the power needed.

clares that this conflict must be carried on under the rules of war, and admits that some things must be done contrary to the Constitution. I desire that the country should know the fact that constitutional limitations are no longer to be regarded, and let the people once get the idea that this is a war, not under the principles of the Constitution, but a conflict in which two great people are against each other, for whom the Constitution is not, but for whom the laws of war are, and I venture to say that the brave words we hear now about subjuga tion and conquest, treason and traitors, will be glibly altered the next time the Representatives of States meet under the dome of the Capitol. Then if the Constitution is really to be put aside, and the laws of war are to govern, why not act upon it practically. I do not hold that the clause of the Constitution which authorizes Congress to declare war applies to Mr. Breckinridge (Ky.) said he should vote any internal difficulties; nor do I believe that for its postponement. He was glad to see the the Constitution of the United States ever conSenate at last pause before one bill. He templated the preservation of the Union by wished it were published in every newspaper one-half of the States warring on the other in the country. He thought it would meet half. It provides for putting down insurrecwith universal condemnation. He thought this tion, but it does not provide for the raising of would abolish all State Government and destroy armies by one-half of two political communities the last vestige of political and personal liberty. of this Confederacy for the purpose of subjuMr. Trumbull, of Illinois, contended that gating the other half. If this is a case of war, some bill of the kind was necessary from the why not treat it like war? Practically it is exigencies of the times. The Constitution is in treated so. The prisoners are not hung as danger, and we have voted men and money to rebels. It is a war, and, in my opinion, not carry on the war to save the Constitution, and only an unhappy war, but an unconstitutional how can we justify ourselves without maturing war. Why, then, does the Administration rea bill so much needed? Give the bill the go- fuse to send or receive a flag of truce, and all by, and let the Constitution be violated every those acts which might at least ameliorate the day because we would not pass it, but leave the unhappy condition in which we are placed? military to do as they please without restriction. So much, then, we know. We know that adMr. Breckinridge (Ky.) said the drama was mitted violations of the Constitution have been beginning to open, and the Senators who are made, and are justified, and are, by legislation, urging on the war are quarrelling among them- proposed still further to confer the authority to selves. The Senate had already passed a Gen-do acts not authorized or warranted by the eral Confiscation bill, and also a General Emancipation bill. The Police Commissioners of Baltimore were arrested without any law, and carried off to an unknown place, and the President refused to tell the House what they were arrested for and what had been done with them. Yet they call this liberty and law!

Gentlemen mistake when they talk about the Union. The Union is only a means of preserving the principles of political liberty. The great principles of liberty existed long before the Union was formed. They may survive it. Let gentlemen take care that they do not sever all that remains of the Federal Government. These eternal principles of liberty, which lived long before the Union, will live forever somewhere. They must be respected. They cannot with impunity be overthrown, and if you force the people to the issue between any form of government and these priceless principles of liberty, that form of government will go down. The people will tear it asunder as the irrepressible forces of nature rend asunder all that opposes them. The Senator from Vermont de

Constitution. We have it openly avowed that the Constitution, which is a bond at least between those States that adhere to it, is no longer to be regarded as that bond of Union. It is not enough to tell me that it has been violated by seceded States. It has not been violated by those States that have not seceded, and if the Constitution is thus to be put aside, these States may pause to inquire what is to become of their liberties. Mr. President, we are on the wrong track, and we have been from the beginning, and the people are beginning to see it. We have been hurling hundreds to death. The blood of Americans has been shed by their own hands, and for what? They have shown their prowess and bravery alike, and for what? It has been to carry out principles that three-fourths of them abhor. For the princi ples contained in this bill, and continually avowed on the floor of this Senate, are not shared, I will venture to say, by three-fourths of your army. I said, sir, we have been on the wrong track. Nothing but utter ruin to the North, to the South, to the East, and to the

I would propose, with my habitual respect for him, (for nobody is more courteous and more gentlemanly,) to ask him if he will be kind enough to tell me what single particular provision there is in this bill which is in violation of | the Constitution of the United States, which I have sworn to support-one distinct, single proposition in the bill.

Mr. Baker-Pick out that one which is in your judgment most clearly so.

Mr. Breckinridge-They are all, in my opinion, so equally atrocious that I dislike to discriminate. I will send the Senator the bill, and I tell him that every section except the last, in my opinion, violates the Constitution of the United States; and of that last section I express no opinion.

Mr. Baker-I had hoped that that respectful suggestion to the Senator would enable him to point out to me one, in his judgment, most clearly so, for they are not all alike—they are not equally atrocious.

West will follow the prosecution of this contest. You may look forward to innumerable armies and countless treasure to be spent for the purpose of carrying on this contest, but it will end in leaving us just where we are now; for, if the forces of the Union are successful, what on earth will be done with them after they are conquered? Are not gentlemen perfectly satisfied that they have mistaken a people for a fac- Mr. Breckinridge-I will state, in general tion? Have they not become satisfied that it terms, that every one of them is, in my opinis necessary to subjugate, conquer, even to ex-ion, flagrantly so, unless it may be the last. terminate a people? Don't you know it? I will send the Senator the bill, and he may Don't everybody know it? Does not the world comment on the sections. know it? Let us pause, then, and let the Congress of the United States respond to the uprising feeling all over this land in favor of peace. War is separation, in the language of an eminent Senator, now no more. It is disunion,-eternal, final disunion. We have separation now, and it is only much worse by war, and the utter extinction of all those sentiments which might lead to reunion. But let the war go on, and soon in addition to the moans of the widows and orphans all over this land, you will hear the cry of distress from those who want for food, and the comforts of life. The people will be unable to pay the grinding taxes which a fanatical spirit will attempt to impose upon them. Let the war go on, and the Pacific slope, now doubtless devoted to the Union, when they find the burden of separate conditions, then they will separate. Let it go on, until they see the beautiful pictures of the Confederacy beaten out of all shape and coneliness by the war, and they will turn aside in disgust. Fight for twelve months, and this feeling will develop itself. Fight for twelve months more, and you will have three Confederacies instead of two. Fight for twelve months more, and we will have four. But I will not enlarge upon this. I am quite aware that what I say will be received with sneers of disgust by gentlemen from the North-west and the East, but the future will determine who is right and who is wrong. We are making a record here. I am met by the sneers of nearly all those who surround me. I state my opinions with no approving voices, and surrounded by scowls; but the time will come when history will put her private seal upon these proceedings, and I am perfectly willing to abide her final judgment.

Mr. Baker-Mr. President, it has not been my fortune to participate in at any length, indeed, not to hear very much of the discussion which has been going on-more I think in the hands of the Senator from Kentucky than anybody else upon all the propositions connected with this war; and, as I really feel as sincerely as he can an earnest desire to preserve the Constitution of the United States for everybody, South as well as North, I have listened for some little time past to what he has said, with an earnest desire to apprehend the point of his objection to this particular bill. And nowwaiving what I think is the elegant but loose declamation in which he chooses to indulge

Mr. Breckinridge-Very nearly. There are ten of them. The Senator can select which he pleases.

Mr. Baker-Let me try then, if I must generalize as the Senator does, to see if I can get the scope and meaning of this bill. It is a bill providing that the President of the United States may declare, by proclamation, in a certain given state of fact, certain territory within the United States to be in a condition of insurrection and war; which proclamation shall be extensively published within the district to which it relates. That is the first proposition. I ask him if that is unconstitutional? That is a plain question. Is it unconstitutional to give power to the President to declare a portion of the territory of the United States in a state of insurrection or rebellion? He will not dare to say it is.

Mr. Breckinridge-Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon is a very adroit debater, and he discovers, of course, the great advantage he would have if I were to allow him, occupying the floor, to ask me a series of questions, and then have his own criticisms made on them. When he has closed his speech, if I deem it necessary, I may make some reply. At present, however, I will answer that question. The State of Illinois, I believe, is a military district; the State of Kentucky is a military district. In my judgment, the President has no authority, and, in my judgment, Congress has no right to confer upon the President authority, to declare a State in a condition of insurrection or rebellion.

Mr. Baker-In the first place, the bill does not say a word about States. That is the first answer.

Mr. Breckinridge-Does not the Senator

know, in fact, that those States compose mili- | It is our duty to advance, if we can; to suptary districts? It might as well have said press insurrection; to put down rebellion; to dis"States as to describe what is a State. 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- lations. 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 sub-vide that spies shall be hung. Is it unconstitumit 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.

tional to hang 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 Constitution 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 regulate the conquered district-who but the military commander? As the Senator from Illinois has well said, shall it be done by regulation or 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 willing, 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

true to the Union to the last of her blood and her treasure. There may be there some disaffected; 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 Calideavor 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, sometimes for the middle States, sometimes for the North-east, and then wandering away in airy 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 sentiment, false in fact, and false in loyalty. The Senator from Kentucky is mistaken in them all. Five hundred million dollars! What then? Great Britain gave more than two thousand millions in the great battle for constitutional liberty which she led at one time almost single-handed against the world. Five hundred thousand men! What then? We have them; they are ours; they are the children of the country. They belong to the whole country; they are our sons; our kins

never said, any more. If it be slavery that 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 about the North-east. I appeal to Senators from the North-east, is there a man in all your States who advances upon the South with any other idea but to restore the Constitution of the United States in its spirit and its unity? I never heard that one. I believe no man indulges in any dream of inflicting there any wrong to public liberty; and I respectfully tell 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 value. 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-a Illinois, now worthily representing one of the degraded, defeated, emasculated people, frightStates 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