Mr. Speaker, I would like to add for the record the support of the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Jackson, and the gentleman from New York, Mr. Bishop of H.…
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add for the record the support of the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Jackson, and the gentleman from New York, Mr. Bishop of H. Res. 196.
I submit the opening statements from the Congressional Globe 1865 House debate on floor consideration of S.J. Res. 16, the proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States by abolishing slavery.
And I also include the House vote on final passage of what would become the 13th Amendment to our Constitution.
Abolition of Slavery
The SPEAKER stated the question in order to be the
consideration of the motion to reconsider the vote by which
the House, on the 14th of last June, rejected Senate joint
resolution No. 16, submitting to the Legislatures of the
several States a proposition to amend the Constitution of the
United States; and that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ashley]
was entitled to the floor.
Mr. ASHLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
McAllister] to have read a brief statement.
Mr. McALLISTER sent to the Clerk's desk and had read the
following: ``When this subject was before this House on a
former occasion I voted against the measure. I have been in
favor of exhausting all means of conciliation to restore the
Union as our fathers made it. I am for the whole Union, and
utterly opposed to secession or dissolution in any shape. The
result of all the peace missions, and especially that of Mr.
Blair has satisfied me that nothing short of the recognition
of their independence will satisfy the southern confederacy.
It must therefore be destroyed; and in voting for the present
measure I cast my vote against the corner-stone of the
southern confederacy, and declare eternal war against the
enemies of my country.''
[Applause from the Republican side of the House.]
Mr. ASHLEY. I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
[Mr. Coffroth].
Mr. COFFROTH. Mr. Speaker, I speak not today for or against
slavery. I am content that this much-agitated question shall
be adjudicated at the proper time by the people. It is my
purpose to state in all candor the reasons which prompt me to
give the vote I shall soon record.
The amending of our Constitution is fraught with so much
importance to the American people that before it is
accomplished the amendments proposed should be scrutinized
with the strictest criticism. No frivolous, vague, or
uncertain experiment should be for a moment tolerated. The
life and existence of this nation is centered in the
observance and faithful execution of the powers conferred by
the Constitution upon the servants of the people.
The joint resolution before us proposes: ``That the
following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the
several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of said
Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as
a part of the said Constitution, namely:
``Art. XIII, Sec. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the
United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Sec. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article
by appropriate legislation.''
The first inquiry is, has Congress this power? I turn to
the Constitution, and find article fifth provides--``The
Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or,
on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the
several States, shall call a convention for proposing
amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all
intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when
ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several
States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the
one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the
Congress.''
It is not claimed that Congress itself can engraft this
amendment into the Constitution without being ratified by
three fourths of the States. Then, sir, under the
Constitution, Congress has no power beyond discriminating
what shall or ought to be submitted to the people. The
members of this House assume no responsibility, they enact no
amendment, but as faithful Representatives they submit to the
people, the source from whence their power comes, the
proposed amendment. ``Governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.''
All political power is invested in the people. At their will
constitutions can be remodeled and laws repealed.
The amending of our Constitution is no new experiment.
Already at three different times amendments have been
submitted to the Legislatures, and by them adopted. The first
amendment was ratified in 1791, the second in 1798, and the
third in 1804. It never was intended by the wise men who
adopted the Constitution that it should remain unchanged. The
growth of the nation, its progress and its advancement, will,
as time passes, demand new articles and additional
provisions. The people are the guardians of the Constitution,
and I am not convinced that any danger is to be anticipated,
as presented in the following illustrations of the gentleman
from Ohio, [Mr. Pendleton,] put with such admirable
compactness and scholastic force:
1. ``I assert that there is another limitation, stronger
even than the letter of the Constitution, and that is to be
found in its intent and spirit and its foundation idea. I put
the question which has been put before in this debate, can
three fourths of the States constitutionally change this
Government, and make it an autocracy? It is not prohibited by
the Constitution.''
2. ``Can three fourths of the States make an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States which shall prohibit
the State of Ohio from having two Houses in its Legislative
Assembly? It is not prohibited in the Constitution.''
3. ``Sir, can three fourths of the States provide an
amendment to the Constitution by which one fourth should bear
all the taxes of this Government? It is not prohibited.''
4. ``Can three fourths of the States, by an amendment to
the Constitution, subvert the State governments of one fourth
and divide their territory among the rest? It is not
forbidden.''
5. ``Can three fourths of the States so amend the
Constitution of the States as to make the northern States of
this Union slaveholding States?''
I do not think there is any power in the Constitution which
would permit three fourths of the States to change the form
of government. The Constitution provides for a republican
form of government, and to establish an autocracy would not
be amending the Constitution, but utterly destroying it, and
establishing upon its ruins a new form of government of self-
derived power.
I would not give one of the new copper two-cent piece for
the insertion into the Constitution of explicit prohibitions
against every other supposition brought forward by the
gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Pendleton:]
``Long before three fourths of the States can become so
debauched and demoralized that they would practice such
monstrous injustice, they must have lost the sense of honor
that would be bound by a compact, and the fear of God that
would keep an oath. When these virtues have died out, no
matter what safeguards a written constitution might contain,
they would be of no more value than so much waste paper.
There are certain things which can never be attempted so long
as there is public virtue enough not to evade, explain away,
or openly violate the Constitution. It is for this reason so
little limitation was put upon the amending power.
``The actual limitations on that power operated against
natural equity, and hence the necessity for their insertion.
One of them restrained Congress from putting an end to the
slave trade prior to 1808, and the practical effect of the
other is to give New England,
which has a smaller population than New York and only a
fraction more than Pennsylvania, twelve Senators, while New
York and Pennsylvania have each only two. The Constitution
presumes that the majority of the people in three fourths of
the States cannot be corrupted; or that, if they should; they
would not afterward respect paper restraints on their
passions. A constitution is no stronger than the sense of the
moral obligation of the parties bound by it. It is futile to
take men's engagements against crimes more heinous than
breaking an engagement. You might as well swear a man not to
commit highway robbery. If he has conscience enough to
respect an oath, it would be needless, and if he has not, an
idle precaution.''
Again, it is argued that this amendment is
unconstitutional; that the Congress of the United States has
no legal authority to propose this amendment, not have the
States in ratifying it the constitutional power to destroy or
interfere with the right of property. Learned gentlemen of
this House differ on this subject. The Constitution itself
provides the remedy by which all these differences of opinion
can be legally adjudicated. Section two of article three
provides:
``The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and
equity arising under this Constitution.''
In my opinion, if any person is injured by this amendment,
he has a judicial remedy before the highest court of the
country.
If the States of the South desire to retain slavery, they
can do so by refusing to ratify this amendment. There are
thirty-five States. In order to adopt this amendment twenty-
seven States must ratify it. Eleven States have seceded from
the Union. This is more than is required to defeat the
amendment. Certainly no one will pretend to argue that this
amendment can be adopted without being submitted to the
eleven seceded States. If it was, these States would not be
considered a part of the Union. In fact it would be, to all
intent and purpose, recognizing them as independent States,
and not being under the control of the Federal Constitution.
If this view is taken, then this amendment can do no harm
to the people of the States in the Union. In June last, my
objection to this amendment was that it was taking away the
property of the people of the States that remained true to
the Union; that the Constitution was made the means to
oppress rather than protect the people. Since that time
Missouri and Maryland have abolished slavery by their own
action, and the Governor of Kentucky in his message
recommends to the Legislature of that State gradual
emancipation. The same objection which was then urged against
this amendment cannot now be urged.
It is argued that new State governments will be formed in
the seceding States under the control of military governors,
and this amendment ratified by them. Whether this amendment
would be binding upon the people of the seceded States thus
ratified will depend entirely upon the results of this war.
If after a long struggle, and each of the contending armies
or Powers will conclude to adopt the wise and humane policy
of a peaceful solution of the difficulties now existing, all
of the acts of the State governments formed by military power
will be invalid, and the old organization of these States
recognized. In this event the ratifications by the new-made
State governments will not be worth the paper upon which they
are written. If the South achieve her independence, then this
amendment will only apply to that which does not exist. If
the people of the South are subjugated and their State lines
obliterated, and they are ever admitted into this Union under
new constitutions, each and every one of the constitutions
will have to come free from slavery before the State will be
admitted.
The South would not remain in the Union under the
Constitution as it now is; they demanded stronger guarantees
for their institution of slavery. Can any intelligent person
believe that after fighting as they have for nearly four
years they will accept that which they rejected before the
war? If they will not come back under the Constitution, why
not abolish slavery; strike from our statute-books every
enactment which protects it; make our Constitution and our
laws free from the subject of slavery? And then, when this
unfortunate, inhuman, barbarous, and bloody war has been
prolonged until every heart shall turn sick with its carnage
and the reports of its wrongs and outrages, and the people
demand a cessation of hostilities until it be ascertained if
glorious peace cannot be accomplished by compromise and
concession, there will be no obstacles in the Constitution to
defeat the accomplishing of a much desired result. We will be
free to give new guarantees or new amendments to protect the
rights and property of every person who shelters himself
under the American Constitution.
Again, I have voted for every peace resolution offered in
this House. My heart yearns for peace. The gentleman on the
other side of this Chamber refused to appoint peace
commissioners, but they tell us this amendment will do more
to secure peace than any resolution proposed in this House.
Although they would not try the remedy we presented, I am
willing to try the one they present; and if by my vote this
amendment is submitted to the States, and it brings this war
to a close, I will ever rejoice at the vote I have given; but
if I am mistaken, I will remember it is not the first time.
Mr. Speaker, I desire above all things that the Democratic
party be again placed in power. The condition of the country
needs the wise counsel of the Democracy. The peace and
prosperity of this once powerful and happy nation require it
to be placed under Democratic rule. The history of the past
demonstrates this. The question of slavery has been a
fruitful theme for the opponents of the Democracy. It has
breathed into existence fanaticism, and feeds it with such
meat as to make it ponderous in growth. It must soon be
strangled or the nation is lost. I propose to do this by
removing from the political arena that which has given it
life and strength. As soon as this is done fanaticism
``Writhes with pain, And dies among its worshipers.''
Then the rays of truth will be unshaded, and once more our
people rejoice in the salvation of their country, and of the
reinstating in power that party which made this country
great, and which has done so much to secure to man civil and
religious liberty.
Many of the honorable gentlemen of this House with whom I
am politically associated may condemn me for my action today.
I assure them I do that only which my conscience sanctions
and my sense of duty to my country demands. I have been a
Democrat all the days of my life. I learned my Democracy from
that being who gave me birth; it was pure; it came from one
who never told me an untruth. All my political life has been
spent in defending and supporting the measures which I
thought were for the good of the party and the country. My
energy, my means, and my time were all given for the success
of the Democratic cause. I am no Democrat by mere profession,
but I have always been a working one. If by my action today I
dig my political grave, I will descend into it without a
murmur, knowing that I am justified in my action by a
conscientious belief I am doing what will ultimately prove to
be a service to my country, and knowing there is one dear,
devoted, and loved being in this wide world who will not
bring tears of bitterness to that grave, but will strew it
with beautiful flowers, for it returns me to that domestic
circle from whence I have been taken for the greater part of
the last two years.
Knowing my duty, I intend to perform it, relying upon the
intelligence and honesty of the people I represent to do me
justice. If this action shall be condemned by my people, I
will go back with pleasure to the enjoyment of private life,
free from the exciting political arena; but no power on earth
will prevent me from quietly depositing my ballot in behalf
of the candidates of the Democratic Party. I hope I will be
granted the pleasure of reading the eloquent speeches made by
my Democratic associates, and admire their rise and onward
march to distinction. This boon I pray you not to take from
me.
If, on the other hand, the course of the Democrats who will
vote for amendment will meet the approbation of the people,
and we are greeted with the plaudit of ``Well done, good and
faithful servants,'' it will be the desire of our hearts to
open our arms for your reception and shelter you as the hen
shelters her brood, satisfied you were honest in your belief
but mistaken in your opinions.
The previous question was seconded, and the main question
ordered; which was on the passage of the joint resolution.
Mr. DAWSON called for the yeas and nays.
