ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 18, 1865.

с

JOINT RESOLUTION SUBMITTING TO THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES A PROPOSITION TO AMEND THE

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STAETS.

Resolved by the Senate and House of epresentatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, (two thirds of both Houses concurring,) 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 said Conetitution, namely:

ARTICLE 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 aforegoing resolution having been under consideration by the House of Representatives of the United States, the House proceeded to vote on the adoption thereof on the 15th June, 1864, and the same was lost by 94 ayes to 64 nays, (not two thirds) Mr Ashley before the result was announced, changed his vote to the negative, and entered a motion to reconsider-pending which, on the 13th of January, 1865, the House being in Committee on the whole, Mr. ROLLINS, said:

MR. CHAIRMAN: I desire to submit a few observations to the House upon the important proposition now pending, before the final vote is taken upon it. The remarks which I shall make will be rather of the nature of a personal explanation" than of any elaborate argumentation of this question. At the les session of Congress, when the vote was taken upon this proposition I opposed it. When the vote is again taken I shall favor it. I have changed my views in refer en to the expediency of this measure; and while I do not suppose that what I n ay ay will have the slightest influence in changing the vote of any gentleman upon this floor, I am satisfied with the reasons which have induced me to change my opinion and my action; and it is perhaps due to myself, humble as I am, as well as to those I represent, and who take any interest in the opinions which I may entertain or express here, to present to the House and the country some of the considerations which have induced me to this change.

Mr. Speaker, I entertain the same opinion to day in regard to the rebellion that I always have. I feel the same animosity, the same hatred, the same contempt for it, and for those who initiated it, now, that I did when it was first hatched. Indeed, I may say, sir, that looking at the consequences which it has produced in my own State and throughout the country, that I am less inclined to-day than ever to look upon it with any degree of forbearance. Regarding it always without

xcuse or justification I am to-day inclined to the opinion that there was not even the shadow of a shade of pretext for commencing this infamous and disastrous rebellion.

But, sir, heretofore, and even now, I have acted with that body of men who are disposed to pursue a conciliatory policy with a view to obtain the high object we all had in view, and that was the preservation of the Constitution and the salvation of the Union. When I say I have been acting with that class of men who desire to pursue a conciliatory policy, I do not mean to say that I have not always been in favor of an earnest prosecution of this war; but I mean to say that I de sire to blend the two, war and the olive branch; the olive branch ever in front of the sword, and a constant appeal to the intelligent public sentiment of the South that it was not the object of the Government to oppress, but that it was the high and noble purpose of the representatives of the people and of the United States Government to extend and secure to them all the rights which they can rightfully claim under the Constitution of our fathers. It is my firm conviction that we have not sufficiently pursued a conciliatory policy; not sufficiently tried to impress on the public mind of the masses of the South the true objects we all have in view in the prosecution of this war. And while I am not now disposed to say that a different line of policy would have brought about a different result, would have had the effect of putting down the rebellion, to have stopped this unfortunate war, to have sustained the Government, I am sure such a policy would have done no harm; that the effect would have been good; that, at all events, it would have resulted in consolidating the Union sentiment in the loyal States of the Union, and checked, to a great extent, the collision of sentiment and consequent diversity of action which has occurred among Union men.

I have been surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the distinguished men who have charge of the Government have not stopped long enough to listen to the suggestions of plain and humble men in regard to this question. Sir, if I had occupied the high position of the President of the United States, even recently, I would have made every soldier in Sherman's ariny the bearer of a message of peace and good-will to the humblest men in the humblest cabins in the State of Georgia. He then had an opportunity of reaching that distant population. I judge the people from my own experience. I know how the masses of the common people have been deluded and misled by their traitorous leaders. I have seen the effect of this thing around me at my own home, and I know the influence which such appeals, coming from those in authority, have upon the minds of the masses of the common people of the country; and I to-day believe that if such a line of policy had been pursued, and the minds of the people of Georgia could be reached, it would be but a short time before the Administration of this Government would have a stronger and more faithful party among the people of that State than Davis himself!

Mr. Speaker, I have another general observation to make. In my action, as a representative upon this floor, it has never been my purpose to pursue a course either for the preservation or for the destruction of the institution of slavery. I have had a more important and a nobler object in view, for I regard it a more impor tant and nobler object to preserve this free Constitution of ours, to preserve our noble and happy form of government, and that of the Union of these States, than can be any question connected with the preservation or destruction of African slavery upon this continent That has been a secondary and subordinate consideration altogether compared with the better purpose which I have just named; and in every vote that I have given, whether tending to weaken the institution of slavery or to streng then it, that vote has been cast, after considering the question, how far will this or that measure tend to strengthen the Government and to preserve the Constitution and the Union?

"To be, or not to be, that is the question."

Sir, if I could save this Constitution and this Union by preserving the institution of slavery in its present status in the various States I would do it most cheerfully. Perhaps I would go further than many of my friends on the other side of the House: if I could save the Constitution of my country and the Union of these States even by extending the institution of slavery, I would do it. Why! Not because I am the especial friend of the institution of slavery, but because I regard as the paramount and most important question of the times the preservation of our own liberties, of our own Constitution and free Government. And, sir, I accept also the other view of the proposition: if I could save the Constitution and the Union by the partial destruction of slavery I would partially destroy it; if I could save the Constitution and Union of my country by the total destruction af slavery-cutting it up by the roots, extirpating the cancer at once-I most

and

unquestionably would do it; for I regard the preservation of these as paramount to and far higher than any question affecting the freedom or slavery of the African race upon this continent. In other words, I adopt precisely the sentiment so felicitously expressed by the President of the United States in a letter that he addressed to Mr. Greeley more than two years ago; and, in order to refresh the minds of these gentlemen who are pleased to give me their attention, I desire to read one or two sentences from that letter. it expresses the correct views, to which as I think all men, who aim at the preservation of the Government, should adhere. The President said:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Uion without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the

cause."

That was the disposition of the President two years ago. That was my position then and it has not altered since. What I propose to do now in the vote which I shall give upon this proposition, I do simply because, I believe that ultimately it will tend to save the Union; and to effect that I am willing to do more now than I have heretofore. When I cast the vote which I did before, upon this proposition, I had no doubt in regard to the power of Congress to submit this amendment to the States; and the vote I then gave was given on the ground of expediency alone. For at that time, as I have stated, I was in for of pursuing a more conciliatory policy. I believed that by pursuing such a course and assuring the people of the South that our object was to preserve their rights under the Constitution they might be induced to return. And I was willing that they should return with the institution of slavery, preserved as it then existed in different States of this Union. And I believe now that if political events had taken a different direction from what they have taken, in all probability those States would have been invited to return with all their rights, and along with the rest, their right to the institution of slavery.

And I will make this further remark, that it was this general leading consideration that induced me to support the distinguished and patriotic man who was nominated for the Presidency in opposition to the present President. It was because I believed the one would offer and be satisfied with more liberal terms than the other, and that there would therefore be in all probability a better chance of preserving the Constitution and the Government under the administration of that man than by a continuance of the administration of Mr. Lincoln. But I confess here to day, that when I look at all the changes which would have necessarily resulted from a change of administration, in its men and its policies, I am inclined to doubt whether, under all the circumstances, the people have not at last acted more wisely than I did. I do not claim to be infallible.

While I do not take the voice of the majority, however large, as the sole rule of my action, I am always willing to defer to it, and to treat with respect the opinions of a majority of the people of my country. It has been intimated here that perhaps there are some gentlemen who incline to change their views and action in reference to this important subject, because the current seems to set in that direction. Now, if I believed that I was governed by any such consideration as that I should despise myself. I never have been a man to seek out the direction of the popular current upon which to set sail in my feeble bark. It is the pride of my public life that I have nearly always been in a minority, at home and in the nation. I never had an opportunity scarcely to know how a man feels in the majority! And I have some pride in regard to it, because I believe that, as a general rule, there is more public virtue, more truth, and more honesty with the leading minds that control minorities than with those who direct majorities, and this from a principle in human nature which we all understand. No, sir, Í am governed by no such consideration as that. I am governed by the single object of doing something in my humble way that may tend to preserve this Union and continue it after we shall have restored to it the States now in rebellion.

Now, sir, I come to make a few observations in reference to a question which has been very elaborately discussed here during the consideration of this subject; and that is the question of the constitutional power of Congress to do the thing we aim at to day. I know how immodest it may be for me, after the very able and distinguished gentlemen who have discussed this question so elaborately, to say a word upon it. But as I speak for my constituents at home, as well is 60

this House, and especially those who act with me on this occasion, I desire to be clearly understood. If I believed this amendment to be unconstitutional, as a matter of course I would be bound by my oath not to give a vote for it; but believing it to be constitutional, and believing also in the expediency of the measure, I shall

vote for the amendment.

Is this amendment constitutional? How are we to get light upon this subject? My answer is, by referring to the instrument itself; and I have yet to meet the first gentlemen on either side of the House who will deny the proposition that in accordance with the letter of the Constitution this amendment may be proposed to the States for their adoption or rejection. The provision of the Constitution which confers the power of amendment, and which I do not propose to read, has but two limitations, as has been repeatedly remarked in this discussion. So far as the letter of the Constitution is concerned, except in reference to those two limitations, Congress has the right and the power to propose any amendment to be adopted or rejected by the States themselves. According to the letter of the Constitution we are governed only by the two limitations found in the instrument itself.

And the next question which presents itself, is whether there are any other limitations, in the Constitution, except the restrictions found in the article itself, to prevent Congress from proposing this amendment to the States.

Mr. C. A. WHITE. I understood the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. ROLLINS) to say that no person upon this side of the House had advocated the principle that the letter of the Constitution put a limitation upon the power of Congress to pass this amendment. I beg leave to remind him that in the few remarks which I had the honor to submit, on Wednesday, last I made that distinct proposition. I contended that the word "amendment' was a limitation of itself; that the amendment must relate to some clause or provision already in the Constitution. And that this proposition, now under consideration, being to insert a separate and distinct clause in the Constitution, having no connection with any grant of power to be found in it, was a supplement to the Constitution and not an amendment; and that the very letter of the Constitution limited the power of Congress over the subject of amendments to the delegation of powers to Congress to amend the Constitution.

Mr. ROLLINS, of Missouri. My answer to the gentleman is, that all the amendments that have been made were open to the same objection. I was not so fortunate, Mr. Speaker, as to hear the gentleman's speech, nor have I had time to read it; but in reference to the question of limitation, I think that the best way to obtain light on the subject is to read what the Constitution itself says:

"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 the 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; provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808, shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The Constitution can only be changed by amendment, and, according to the gentleman's theory, we can add nothing to it, however good or desirable, unless there was already "some clause or provision in the Constitution " relating to the subject proposed to be added. This I regard as absurd.

Now, sir, I cannot for my life see, as my friend from Ohio sees, where there are any other limitations of the power of Congresss, according to the letter of the instrument, than those which we find in the clause of the Constitution itself. The limitation is there according to the letter, and there alone; and if there is any other limitation in reference to the power of Congress, it must be outside of this article of the Constitution; and the next question which I propose to suggest, in order to come to a correct conclusion on this subject is, is there any other limitation of the power of Congress in proposing amendments to this instrument! I assert that there is; and I adopt the very excellent view suggested in the running debate by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. BOUTWELL,) in answer to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. PENDLETON,) and that is, that the limitation of amendment to this Constitution is found also in the very preamble to the instrument itself. I do not believe, sir, with my friend from Ohio (Mr. Cox) that we have a right to make any amendment whatever to this Constitution, that there is no limitation except the express limitation contained in the clause which I have just read. There are other limitations, and those limitations are found, as I conceive, in the preamble preceding the Constitution itself. What is the preamble?

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and

secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Ocnstitution for the United States of America."

Now, I do not believe that any amendment can be made to this instrument which has for its object, or whose direct tendency would be, to destroy the very object and purposes for which the Constitution was established. Therefore, sir, any amendment to this Constitution which would destroy "a more perfect union," which would fail to "establish justice," which would fail to "insure domestic tranquility," which would fail to "provide for the common defense," or to promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," is not an amendment which may be proposed by Congress, or may be adopted and ratified by the States; and every Representative who votes must be a "law unto himself" whether any amendment proposed is in accordance with the Constitution.

Mr. COX. I desire to ask the gentleman a question. Who is to be the judge whether a proposed amendment comes within the scope of the preamble?

Mr. ROLLINS, of Missouri. I will be the judge myself, so far as I may be called upon to vote for or against it.

Mr. COX. I would prefer, according to my peculiar logic, to allow the States themselves to be the judges. Therefore, I infinitely prefer the gentleman's first proposition that the power of amendment is not limited except by the terms of the clause of the Constitution on that subject.

Mr. ROLLINS, of Missouri. I will answer the gentleman, that so far as my action and my vote are concerned, my own judgment-and I presume so far as the vote of every other member in the House is concerned, his own judgment-must be the rule in reference to the question whether a proposed amendment comes within the scope of the preamble: and I presume that the States themselves must be the judges when an amendment is submitted for their consideration and action. If three fourths of the States adopt a proposed amendment, it becomes a part of the Constitution. But suppose the other fourth decline to adopt the amendment, what then? If it is such an infringement of their rights, such a destruction of their liberties, such an interferance with their domestic policy, that they regard themselves justified in raising the standard of revolt and revolution in order to resist the amendment which the other States have adopted, I take it that the State itself would be the better judge as to the course which it would have a right to pursue.

1

But, sir, it has been urged that this amendment is contrary, although not to the letter, to the spirit of the Constitution. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am a believer, too, in this doctrine that we must be guided by the spirit of the Constitution. I would neither violate its letter nor its spirit. But I confess, sir, that it is difficult for me to define or exactly to understand what is meant by the spirit of the Constitution. Perhaps it is like the passion which young people experience, and which is well described in the language of the young lover:

"Tis what we feel, but can't define,

'Tis what we know, but can't express."

We all know that there are amendments which might be proposed, and which would be in strict accordance with the letter of that insirument, but which we would feel to be violative of its spirit.

Sir, if you propose an amendment changing entirely the form of our Government, creating a monarchy or despotism instead of a Republic, I presume, although gentlemen might find an express warrant of law in the Constitution, to do this thing, yet it would be against the spirit of that instrument. I presume if an amendment were proposed to require one State to pay a much larger proportion of taxes than in accordance with its representation, although you might find a warrant for it, yet it would be against the spirit of the Constitution. I presume if you were to propose an amendment to establish a State religion throughout the land, while the letter of the Constitution might not be against it, yet every man who favored religious toleration and who was against an established Church, would feel that the spirit of the instrument had been violated.

I believe, then, sir, that this amendment is an accordance with the express letter of the Constitution. I believe that it is in accordance with the preamble of the Constitution. I believe that it is in accordance with the true spirit, meaning, and intent of that instrument, and the objects and purposes for which it was framed by our forefathers, and that if all the States could be induced to adopt it, it would go far to strengthen the Government, by preventing future dissension and cementing the bonds of the Union, in the preservation of which depends our strength, our security, our safety, our happiness, and the continued existence of free institutions On the American continent.