while the legal and constitutional jurisdiction and authority of the national government over the people and territory remain unimpaired; that these several communities can be organized into States only by the will of the loyal people, expressed freely and in the absence of all coercion; that States so organized can become States of the American Union only when they shall have applied for admission, and their admission shall have been authorized by the existing national government; that, when a people have organized a State upon the basis of allegiance to the Union and applied for admission, the character of the institutions of such proposed State may constitute a sufficient justification for granting or rejecting such application; and, inasmuch as experience has shown that the existence of human slavery is incompatible with a republican form of government in the several States or in the United States, and inconsistent with the peace, prosperity, and unity of the nation, it is the duty of the people, and of all men in authority, to resist the admission of slave States wherever organized within the jurisdiction of the national government."

330

THE ENROLMENT OF TROOPS AND THE PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION.

DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JUNE 25, 1864.

MR.

R. BOUTWELL. My chief purpose in desiring to obtain the floor is to state to the House the reasons by which I have been controlled thus far in refusing to vote for the proposition to repeal the commutation clause of the Enrolment Act. In the first place, I have given the vote in deference to what I suppose to be the public sentiment of the country. I understand that substantially—not exactly, perhaps, but substantially—the calls for troops by the President have been met. I thought, to be sure, from the observations of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Garfield], made this morning, that he supposed that because the Representatives on this floor from Massachusetts had refused to support the repeal of the commutation clause, as recommended by the Military Committee, they were prepared to indorse the observation which that gentleman made on the previous day, when this subject was under discussion, an observation which I thought unfortunate; an observation which I thought calculated to alarm the country; an observation which I thought calculated to give strength, courage, and confidence to its enemies; an observation which, if my memory served me, to the very last words and the very last

letter used, I would not repeat here or elsewhere, even in the way of quotation. I thought, also, when he was referring to Massachusetts, that he supposed, inasmuch as we took the responsibility of differing from the judgment of the Military Committee, that therefore we were prepared to abandon this war, to sacrifice the country, and to involve it in irretrievable ruin. If it was his intention to suggest to the House and the country, that Massachusetts, or a man of hers who has a right to speak on her behalf, here or elsewhere, had come to any such conclusion, then he misunderstood, if he did not intentionally misrepresent, that State.

Mr. GARFIELD.-Do the gentleman's remarks apply to me?

Mr. BOUTWELL. To no other man upon this floor.

Mr. GARFIELD. I wish to say that I have made no reference whatever to Massachusetts; have never in my life intimated, by any word I have uttered, that Massachusetts was derelict of duty, for, if I love any State in the Union better than my own, it is Massachusetts; and I trust the gentleman from Massachusetts will not do me the wrong of intimating that I intentionally or unintentionally said any thing upon this floor disrespectful to that State. What I said in my closing remarks before the House, when this subject was last up, and which have been referred to this morning and criticised, I believe to be true. The same thing has been declared in higher places than mine, and we have got to meet it. It is courageous to meet it, and cowardly not to meet it.

Mr. BOUTWELL. — I judge no man, but I was able to connect the observations made upon one occasion with those made upon another. The gentleman recollects the remark made the previous day, which was an expression of his opinion of the effect of a certain vote given, in which vote the delegation from Massachusetts participated; and I recollect that today he called the special attention of this House and of the country to the previous history of Massachusetts, and to her Conscription Act of 1693. I may have erred in the inference to be drawn from those remarks; and, if I have so erred, I have done injustice to the gentleman; if not, the remark I made is but just.

Now, sir, the position of Massachusetts, as I understand it, is this: she does not desire a rigid conscription either of her own citizens or of the people of the country, so long as the war can be prosecuted vigorously and with reasonable hope of success by other means. What we say, and what we present to the House and the country, is the great fact, that thus far we have substantially complied with the requisitions of the President for men and money. If there has been no failure under such circumstances as to indicate, as a consequence of that failure, our inability to prosecute the war, then we ought not to inaugurate a policy which gives offence even to one man. Not merely should we hesitate to inaugurate the policy proposed, in deference to opinion upon this side of the House, but we are bound to consider the sentiments even of those who differ with us upon matters of public policy, but who are in favor of prosecuting the war. When

the country is no longer able to carry on the war without a rigid conscription, we shall not hesitate to accept the necessity as the means of restoring the Union and preserving the national life. But, at the same time, I say here, what I have already said to many of my constituents, and it is a declaration by which I mean to be bound so long as I have a voice either as a citizen or a representative, that nothing in men or money or means shall be withheld from the government: all shall be yielded according to the necessity existing.

Sir, if the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Garfield] had read the whole history of Massachusetts, he would have known that, in the Indian war of 1675 and 1676, we sacrificed one-twentieth of our inhabitants, and that every twentieth building in the colonies of New Plymouth and Massachusetts was laid in ashes. Be it ever remembered that that war ended without a treaty of peace. It is the only war on this continent that was ever brought to a conclusion without such a treaty. The children of the men who made these sacrifices for the defence of their homes will make equal sacrifices for the defence of the nationality of the country, looking to a termination of this war when there shall be no treaty of peace. When I say there shall be no treaty of peace, I do not wish to be understood that this is a war of extermination either of the blacks or whites. I believe that only one thing is necessary on the part of the Southern people, and that is that they shall abandon the institution of slavery. When they shall have laid down their arms and abandoned that institution, which, as I believe, was the source and is