In addition to the objections already stated, the fifth section of the bill proposes to take away land from its former owners without any legal proceedings being first had, contrary to that provision of the Constitution which declares that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” It does not appear that a part of the lands to which this section refers may not be owned by minors or persons of unsound mind, or by those who have been faithful to all their obligations as citizens of the United States. If any portion of the land is held by such persons, it is not competent for any authority to deprive them of it. If, on the other hand, it be found that the property is liable to confiscation, even then it can not be appropriated to public purposes until by due process of law it shall have been declared forfeited to the Government.
There is still further objection to the bill, on grounds seriously affecting the class of persons to whom it is designed to bring relief. It will tend to keep the mind of the freedman in a state of uncertain expectation and restlessness, while to those among whom he lives it will be a source of constant and vague apprehension.
Undoubtedly the freedman should be protected, but he should be protected by the civil authorities, especially by the exercise of all the constitutional powers of the courts of the United States and of the States. His condition is not so exposed as may at first be imagined. He is in a portion of the country where his labor can not well be spared. Competition for his services from planters, from those who are constructing or repairing railroads, and from capitalists in his vicinage or from other States will enable him to command almost his own terms. He also possesses a perfect right to change his place of abode, and if, therefore, he does not find in one community or State a mode of life suited to his desires or proper remuneration for his labor, he can move to another where that labor is more esteemed and better rewarded. In truth, however, each State, induced by its own wants and interests, will do what is necessary and proper to retain within its borders all the labor that is needed for the development of its resources. The laws that regulate supply and demand will maintain their force, and the wages of the laborer will be regulated thereby. There is no danger that the exceedingly great demand for labor will not operate in favor of the laborer.
Neither is sufficient consideration given to the ability of the freedmen to protect and take care of themselves. It is no more than justice to them to believe that as they have received their freedom with moderation and forbearance, so they will distinguish themselves by their industry and thrift, and soon show the world that in a condition of freedom they are self-sustaining, capable of selecting their own employment and their own places of abode, of insisting for themselves on a proper remuneration, and of establishing and maintaining their own asylums and schools. It is earnestly hoped that instead of wasting away they will by their own efforts establish for themselves a condition of respectability and prosperity. It is certain that they can attain to that condition only through their own merits and exertions.
In this connection the query presents itself whether the system proposed by the bill will not, when put into complete operation, practically transfer the entire care, support, and control of 4,000,000 emancipated slaves to agents, overseers, or taskmasters, who, appointed at Washington, are to be located in every county and parish throughout the United States containing freedmen and refugees. Such a system would inevitably tend to a concentration of power in the Executive which would enable him, if so disposed, to control the action of this numerous class and use them for the attainment of his own political ends.
I can not but add another very grave objection to this bill. The Constitution imperatively declares, in connection with taxation, that each State shall have at least one Representative, and fixes the rule for the number to which, in future times, each State shall be entitled. It also provides that the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, and adds with peculiar force “that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.” The original act was necessarily passed in the absence of the States chiefly to be affected, because their people were then contumaciously engaged in the rebellion. Now the case is changed, and some, at least, of those States are attending Congress by loyal representatives, soliciting the allowance of the constitutional right for representation. At the time, however, of the consideration and the passing of this bill there was no Senator or Representative in Congress from the eleven States which are to be mainly affected by its provisions. The very fact that reports were and are made against the good disposition of the people of that portion of the country is an additional reason why they need and should have representatives of their own in Congress to explain their condition, reply to accusations, and assist by their local knowledge in the perfecting of measures immediately affecting themselves. While the liberty of deliberation would then be free and Congress would have full power to decide according to its judgment, there could be no objection urged that the States most interested had not been permitted to be heard. The principle is firmly fixed in the minds of the American people that there should be no taxation without representation. Great burdens have now to be borne by all the country, and we may best demand that they shall be borne without murmur when they are voted by a majority of the representatives of all the people. I would not interfere with the unquestionable right of Congress to judge, each House for itself, “of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members;” but that authority can not be construed as including the right to shut out in time of peace any State from the representation to which it is entitled by the Constitution. At present all the people of eleven States are excluded—those who were most faithful during the war not less than others. The State of Tennessee, for instance, whose authorities engaged in rebellion, was restored to all her constitutional relations to the Union by the patriotism and energy of her injured and betrayed people. Before the war was brought to a termination they had placed themselves in relations with the General Government, had established a State government of their own, and, as they were not included in the emancipation proclamation, they by their own act had amended their constitution so as to abolish slavery within the limits of their State. I know no reason why the State of Tennessee, for example, should not fully enjoy “all her constitutional relations to the United States.”
The President of the United States stands toward the country in a somewhat different attitude from that of any member of Congress. Each member of Congress is chosen from a single district or State; the President is chosen by the people of all the States. As eleven States are not at this time represented in either branch of Congress, it would seem to be his duty on all proper occasions to present their just claims to Congress. There always will be differences of opinion in the community, and individuals may be guilty of transgressions of the law, but these do not constitute valid objections against the right of a State to representation. I would in no wise interfere with the discretion of Congress with regard to the qualifications of members; but I hold it my duty to recommend to you, in the interests of peace and the interests of union, the admission of every State to its share in public legislation when, however insubordinate, insurgent, or rebellious its people may have been, it presents itself, not only in an attitude of loyalty and harmony, but in the persons of representatives whose loyalty can not be questioned under any existing constitutional or legal test. It is plain that an indefinite or permanent exclusion of any part of the country from representation must be attended by a spirit of disquiet and complaint. It is unwise and dangerous to pursue a course of measures which will unite a very large section of the country against another section of the country, however much the latter may preponderate. The course of emigration, the development of industry and business, and natural causes will raise up at the South men as devoted to the Union as those of any other part of the land; but if they are all excluded from Congress, if in a permanent statute they are declared not to be in full con
stitutional relations to the country, they may think they have cause to become a unit in feeling and sentiment against the Government. Under the political education of the American people the idea is inherent and ineradicable that the consent of the majority of the whole people is necessary to secure a willing acquiescence in legislation.
The bill under consideration refers to certain of the States as though they had not “been fully restored in all their constitutional relations to the United States.” If they have not, let us at once act together to secure that desirable end at the earliest possible moment. It is hardly necessary for me to inform Congress that in my own judgment most of those States, so far, at least, as depends upon their own action, have already been fully restored, and are to be deemed as entitled to enjoy their constitutional rights as members of the Union. Reasoning from the Constitution itself and from the actual situation of the country, I feel not only entitled but bound to assume that with the Federal courts restored and those of the several States in the full exercise of their functions the rights and interests of all classes of people will, with the aid of the military in cases of resistance to the laws, be essentially protected against unconstitutional infringement or violation. Should this expectation unhappily fail, which I do not anticipate, then the Executive is already fully armed with the powers conferred by the act of March, 1865, establishing the Freedmen’s Bureau, and hereafter, as heretofore, he can employ the land and naval forces of the country to suppress insurrection or to overcome obstructions to the laws.
In accordance with the Constitution, I return the bill to the Senate, in the earnest hope that a measure involving questions and interests so important to the country will not become a law, unless upon deliberate consideration by the people it shall receive the sanction of an enlightened public judgment.
ANDREW JOHNSON.
WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 1866
Andrew Johnson:
Speech on Washington’s Birthday
Washington, Thursday, Feb. 22.
Fellow-citizens:
For I presume I have a right to address you as such, I come to tender to you my sincere thanks for the approbation expressed by your Committee in their personal address, and in the resolutions submitted by them, as having been adopted by the meeting which has been held in this city to-day. These resolutions, as I understand them, are complementary to the policy which has been adopted by the Administration, and which has been steadily pursued since it came into power. I am free to say to you on this occasion, that it is extremely gratifying to me to know that so large a portion of my fellow-citizens approve and indorse the policy which has been adopted, and which it is my intention shall be carried out. [Great applause.] That policy is one which is intended to restore all the States to their original relations to the Federal Government of the United States. [Renewed applause.] This seems to be a day peculiarly appropriate for such a manifestation. It is the day that gave birth to that man who, more perhaps, than any other, founded this Government. It is the day that gave birth to the Father of our Country. It is the day that gave birth to him who presided over that body which framed the Constitution under which all the States entered, and to this glorious Confederacy such a day is peculiarly appropriate for the indorsement of a policy whose object is the restoration of the union of the States as it was designed by the Father of his Country. [Applause.] WASHINGTON, whose name this city bears, is emblemed in the hearts of all who love free government. WASHINGTON, in the language of his eulogist, was first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen. No people can claim him, no nation can appropriate him. His reputation is commensurate with the civilized world, and his name is the common property of all those who love free government. To-day I had the pleasure of a visit from those persons who have been devoting their efforts to the completion of the monument which is being erected to his name. I was proud to meet them, and, so far as I could, to give them my influence and countenance in aid of the work they have undertaken. That monument, which is being erected to him whom I may say founded the Government, is almost within a stone’s throw of the spot from which I address you. Let it be completed. [Applause.] Let those various blocks which the States and individuals and associations and corporations have put in that monument as pledges of their love for this Union be preserved, and let the work be accomplished. In this connection let me refer to the block from my own State, God bless her! [applause] which has struggled for the preservation of this Union, in the field and in the councils of the nation, and which is now struggling to renew her relations with this Government that were interrupted by a fearful rebellion. She is now struggling to renew these relations, and to take her stand where she had ever stood since 1796 until this rebellion broke out. [Great applause.] Let me repeat the sentiment that that State has inscribed upon the stone which she has deposited in that monument of freedom which is being raised in commemoration of Washington. She is struggling to get back into the Union, and to stand by the sentiment which is thereon inscribed, and she is willing to sustain it.
What is it? It is the sentiment which was enunciated by her distinguished son, the immortal, the illustrious JACKSON, “The Federal Union—it must be preserved.” [Great applause.] If it were possible for that old man, whose statue stands before me and whose portrait is behind me, in the Executive Mansion, and whose sentiment is thus preserved in that monument in your vicinity to be called forth from the grave; or if it were possible to communicate with the spirit of the illustrious dead, and make him understand the progress of faction and of rebellion and treason, he would turn over in his coffin, and shaking off the habiliments of the tomb, would again stand erect, and reiterate that sentiment originally expressed by him on a memorable occasion, “The Federal Union, it must be preserved.” [Great applause.] We have witnessed what has transpired since his day. In 1833, when treason and treachery, and infidelity to the Government and the Constitution of the United States, stalked forth in the land, it was his power and influence that crushed the serpent in its incipiency. The movement was then stopped, but only for a time. The same spirit of disaffection continued. There were men disaffected to the Government both in the North and in the South. There was in a portion of the Union a peculiar institution of which some complained, and to which others were attached. One portion of our countrymen in the South sustained that institution, while another portion in the North opposed it. The result was the formation of extreme parties, one especially in the South which reached a point at which it was prepared to dissolve the union of the States for the purpose, as was said, of securing and preserving that peculiar institution. There was another portion of our countrymen who were opposed to it, and who went to such an extreme that they were willing to break up the Government in order to get rid of that institution which was peculiar to the South. I say these things because I desire to talk plainly and in familiar phraseology. I assume nothing here to-day beyond the position of a citizen—one who has been pleading for his country and the preservation of the Constitution. [Immense cheering.] These two portions were arrayed against each other, and I stand here before you for the Union to-day, as I stood in the Senate of the United States for the Union in 1860 and 1861. I met there those who were making war upon the Constitution—those who wanted to break and destroy the Government—and I denounced them in my place, then and there, and exposed their true character. I said that these men who were engaged in the work of breaking up the Government, were traitors. I have never ceased on all proper occasions to repeat that sentiment, and, as far as my efforts could go, I have endeavored to carry it out. [Great applause.] I have just remarked that there were two parties, one of which was for destroying the Government and separating the Union in order to preserve Slavery and the other for breaking up the Government in order to destroy Slavery. True, the objects which they sought to accomplish were different, so far as Slavery was concerned, but they agreed in the desire to break up the Government, the thing to which I have always been opposed, and whether disunio
nists come from the South or from the North, I stand now, as I did then, vindicating the union of the States and the Constitution of my country. [Tremendous applause.] When rebellion and treason manifested themselves in the South I stood by the Government. I said then that I was for the Union with Slavery—or I was for the Union without Slavery. In either alternative I was for my Government and its Constitution. The Government has stretched forth its strong arm, and with its physical power it has put down treason in the field. The section of the country which then arrayed itself against the National Government has been put down by the strong arm. What did we say when this treason originated? We said, “No compromise.” You yourselves in the South can settle this question in eight and forty hours. I said again and again, and I repeat it now—disband your armies in the South, acknowledge the supremacy of the Constitution of the United States, acknowledge the duty of obedience to the laws, and the whole question is settled. [Great applause.] What has been done since their armies have been disbanded, and they come forward now in a proper spirit and say, “We were mistaken; we made an effort to carry out the doctrine of secession and to dissolve this Union, and we have failed. We have carried this doctrine to its logical results, and we find that we were mistaken. We acknowledge the flag of our country, and are willing to obey the Constitution and to yield to the supremacy of the laws.” [Great applause.] Coming in that spirit I say to them “When you have complied with the requirements of the Constitution, when you have yielded to the law, when you have acknowledged your allegiance to the Constitution, I will, so far as I can, open the door of the Union to those who had erred and strayed from the fold of their fathers for a time.” [Great applause.] Who has suffered more by the rebellion than I have? I shall not repeat the story of the wrongs and sufferings inflicted upon me; but the spirit of revenge is not the spirit in which to deal with a whole people. I know there has been a great deal said about the exercise of the pardoning power. So far as your Executive is concerned there is no one who has labored with more earnestness than myself to have the principal, intelligent and conscious traitors brought to justice, the law vindicated, and the great fact judicially established that treason is a crime. [Applause.] But while anxious that leading and intelligent traitors should be punished, should whole communities and States and people be made to submit to the penalty of death? No, no. I have perhaps as much asperity and as much resentment in my nature as men ought to have; but we must reason in great matters of government about man as he is. We must conform our actions and our conduct to the example of Him who founded our holy religion. Not that I would make such a comparison on this occasion in any personal aspect. I came into this place under the Constitution of the country and by the approbation of the people, and what did I find? I found eight millions of people who were in fact condemned under the law, and the penalty was death. Was I to yield to the spirit of revenge and resentment, and declare that they should all be annihilated and destroyed? How different would this have been from the example set by the holy founder of our religion, the extreme points of whose divine arch rests upon the horizon, and whose span embraces the universe;—he who founded this great scheme came into the world and found man condemned under the law, and his sentence was death. What was his example? Instead of condemning the world or even a nation to death, he died upon the cross, attesting by his wounds and his blood that he died that mankind might live? Let those who have erred repent—let them acknowledge their allegiance—let them become loyal, willing supporters and defenders of our glorious stripes and stars, and of the Constitution of our country—let the leaders, the conscious, intelligent traitors, be punished and subjected to the penalties of the law; [applause;] but to the great mass, who have been forced into this rebellion, in many instances, and in others have been misled, I say extend leniency, kindness, trust and confidence. [Great applause.] My countrymen, when I look back over the history of the rebellion, I trust I am not vain when I ask you if I have not given as much evidence of my devotion to the Union as some who croak a great deal about it. When I look back over the battle-fields of the rebellion, I think of the many brave men in whose company I was. I cannot but recollect that I was some times in places where the contest was most difficult and the result most doubtful. But almost before the smoke has passed away, almost before the blood that has been shed has sunk into the earth—before the bodies of the slain have passed to their native dust—what do we now find? The rebellion has been put down by the strong arm of the Government in the field, but is that the only way in which you can have rebellion? One struggle was against an attempt to dissever the Union; but almost before the smoke of the battle-field has passed away—before our brave men have all returned to their homes, and renewed the ties of affection and love to their wives and their children, we find almost another rebellion inaugurated. We put down the former rebellion in order to prevent the separation of the States, to prevent them from flying off, and thereby changing the character of our Government and weakening its power. But when that struggle on our part has been successful, and that attempt has been put down, we find now an effort to concentrate all power in the hands of a few at the Federal head, and thereby bring about a consolidation of the Government, which is equally objectionable with a separation. [Vociferous applause.] We find that powers are assumed and attempted to be exercised of a most extraordinary character. It seems that Governments may be revolutionized—Governments at least may be changed without going through the strife of battle. I believe it is a fact attested in history that sometimes revolutions most disastrous to a people are effected without the shedding of blood. The substance of your Government may be taken away while the form and the shadow remain to you. What is now being proposed? We find that in point of fact nearly all the powers of the Government are assumed by an irresponsible central directory, which does not even consult the legislative or the executive departments of the Government. By resolutions reported from a committee in whom it seems that practically the legislative power of the Government is now vested, that great principle of the Constitution which authorizes and empowers each branch of the legislative department, the Senate and the House of Representatives, to judge for itself of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, has been virtually taken away from the two branches of the legislative department of the Government, and conferred upon a joint committee, who must report before either House can act under the Constitution as to accepting the members who are to take their seats as component parts of the respective bodies. By this rule it is assumed that there must be laws passed recognizing a State as being in the Union; or its practical relations to the Union as restored, before the respective Houses under the Constitution can judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of their own members. What a position is that! You struggled for four years to put down a rebellion. You denied in the beginning of the struggle that any State could go out of the Union. You said that it had neither the right nor the power to do so. The issue was made and it has been settled that the States had neither the right nor the power to go out of the Union. With what consistency, after it has been settled by the military arm of the Government and by the public judgment that the States had no right to go out of the Union, can any one now turn round and assume that they are out, and that they shall not come in? I am free to say to you as your Executive that I am not prepared to take any such position. [Great applause.] I said in the Senate in the very inception of this rebellion that the States had no right to go out. I asserted, too, that they had no power to go out. That question has been settled, and it being settled, I cannot turn around now and give the lie direct to all that I have professed, and all I have done for the last five years. [Applause.] When those who rebelled comply with the Constitution, when they give sufficient evidence of loyalty, when they show that they can be trusted, when they yield obedience to the law that you and I acknowledge, I say extend to them the right hand of fellowship, and let peace and union be restored. [Tremendous applause.] I fought traitors and treason
in the South; I opposed the Davises, the Toombses, the Slidells, and a long list of others, which you can readily fill without my repeating the names. Now, when I turn round and at the other end of the line find men—I care not by what name you call them—who still stand opposed to the restoration of the Union of these States, I am free to say to you that I am still in the field. [Great applause.] I am still for the preservation of the Union. I am still in favor of this great Government of ours going on and filling out its destiny. [Great applause.]
Reconstruction Page 24
