The only question left for me to decide, sir, is whether this is a measure which is expedient and which ought to be adopted. I believe in both its expediency and constitutionality.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in making a few remarks on the other branch of the question, I want to put a few interrogatories to gentlemen who differ with me. Does any man in this House, does any intelligent man in any of the loyal States believe that the institution of African slavery will survive this rebellion? If there is such a man I choose to differ with him. I believe, as has often been remarked here, that the existence and continuance of human slavery is wholly and entirely incompatible with a state of civil war in the country. The rebellion, instigated and carried on by slaveholders, has been the death-knell of the institution; and, believing this, shall we any longer rely upon the President's proclamations, which are doubtful in their policy and character? Shall we rely upon the exercise of those extraordinary powers originating in a time of war or shall we not, like wise and prudent statesmen, come to the rescue at once, take it up, handle it, discuss it in a statesmanlike way, and adopt the true and only peaceful mode pointed out in the Charter of our liberties for meeting and disposing of questions of this character.

Mr. Speaker, I have another remark to make in regard to the limitation in the fifth article of the Constitution. How did it happen that the framers of that instrument only extend the limitation of power to two subjects! Why did they preserve the representation of the small States from amendment? Why did they allow the African slave trade to remain untouched only prior to 1808? I answer, it was because the great men who laid the foundations of civil government upon the American continent, according to my reading and understanding were essentially anti-slavery, North and South, and, looking upon the institution of slavery as an evil, they determined to check its growth; hence in the Constitution they placed a limitation upon the African slave trade, limiting it to the year 1808. So on the other subject of the representation of the small States. The small States represented in that Convention seeing the great inequality of authority and power given to them by that clause of the Constitution which enabled Rhode Island to exercise in the Senate of the United States as much power as New York and the other great States of the Union, and tenacious of the power thus secured to them, insisted, and it was finally yielded to them, that upon that point the Constitution of the United States should remain unamended throughout all time.

Now, I ask you the question how easy it was, and why the framers of the Constitution did not add to that clause that no amendment should be made changing or modifying the institution of slavery as it exists in any State of the Union? Why was this not ingrafted upon the Constitution! I have an answer satisfactory to myself on that subject. It was becanse the great men of that day, the men who framed this Charter of human freedom for the American people, were in heart and in principle hostile to the institution of slavery; and although they did not take the responsibility of disposing of it, they accepted it as they found it; and the writings and teachings of the great men of the North and South justify me in claiming that they looked forward to the day when their posterity would finally, in some form or other, dispose of the institution which they themselves regarded as hurtful to the happiness and progress of the country.

Hence I go a little further than my venerable friend from Missouri, (Mr. KING,) though he and I are exactly in the same category upon this question. I express my belief that the limitation preventing the abolition of slavery in the States by Congress was not placed in the Constitution for the reason of a desire to leave that an open question; but hoping and believing that at a distant day in the history of our country, when there would be a higher and more Christian-like civilization, a better view of this subject, that we, their posterity, might have the power which they gave to us in the instrument itself, to take hold of the question and dispose of it in some fair, right, and proper way. Such is my belief; whether well-founded or not is another thing. They regarded the institution as an evil, and no such limitation could have been incorporated into the Constitution by the Convention which framed that instrument. They regarded it as an evil one day or other to be disposed of, and they left the door open to those who were to come after them, for the express purpose of enabling them, when a good opportunity offered, to do the very thing which they failed to do themselves.

And this accords precisely with the opinion of the Hon. A. H. Stephens of Georgia, Vice President of the Confederate States; in his celebrated speech made after the adoption of the Montgomery Constitution, he says: African Slavery as it exists among us, was the immediate cause of the late rupture, and present revolution. The prevailing ideas entertained by most of the leading statesmen, at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the

laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.
was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of
that day, was that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would
be evanescent, and pass away. This idea though not incorporated in the constitution,
was the prevailing idea at thr time."

Mr. Speaker, every man, however humble he may be, has some personal pride in the opinions he may entertain upon a great question of this sort. I am not free from considerations of that kind, and when I hear my friends over the way, upon the Republican side of the House-and I know I have a great many friends there-intimate that because a man cannot vote with them and me upon this amendment, he sympathizes with the rebellion, or is an apologist for the rebellion, or for slavery. I confess that I cannot endorse either the good taste or the propriety of such imputstions. Such remarks, elsewhere than here, have been applied to me, and yet I know they have not fitted my case, because I take this occasion to state my opinion-an opinion I have entertained for twenty-five years-that the institution of African slavery cannot be defended either upon moral or religious grounds, or upon principles of natural right or political economy,

I am a believer in the Declaration of Independence wherein it is asserted that "all men are created equal." I believe that when it says "all men" it means every man who was created in the "image of his Maker," and walks on God's footstool, without regard to race, color, or any other accidental circumstances by which he may be surrounded. I know that astute politicians, crafty and ambitious men, in various periods of the Republic have tried to draw a distinction between this man and that man because he happened to have a aifferent colored skin; that the Decla ration was applicable alone to white men, and not to the black man, the red man or any other than the white man. That the word "all" meant a part, not "all!" But, sir, I believe that that general clause in the Declaration of Independence was meant, by the immortal man who penned it, and by the immortal men who signed it, and by a large majority of the great men of that day North and South, to assert the great principle, founded in the rights of man, founded in reason, and in strict accordance with the law of morality and of the Divine will, that "all men are created equal," without distinction of race or of color. And although our ancestors failed to apply the principle, although they were derelict in duty in living up to the great enunciation of principles which they made to the world and mankind, it is no proof to my mind that they did not mean exactly what I say they meant, in the expression to which I have referred.

Mr. Speaker, all these considerations are influencing me in the very vote which
I shall give upon this amendment; but I desire to say that my experience upon
the subject of slavery has been quite singular and diversified. An anti-slavery
man in sentiment, and yet, heretofore a large owner of slaves myself-not now,
however not exactly with my consent, but with or without my consent, I learned
from a telegram a morning or two ago, that the Convention which recently as
sembled in my State, had adopted an amendment to our present State constitution
for the immediate emancipation of all the slaves in the State. I am no longer the
owner of a slave, and I thank God for it. Although I think this subject might
have been disposed of in a better way, causing less inconvenience to our people,
and doing in fact the slave no harm, I make no complaint of the convention for
that act; and although there is no clause of compensation, I very gracefully yield
to the public sentiment, and to the action of this distinguished body of men called
in my State to consider its welfare. If the giving up of my slaves without com.
plaint shall be a contribution upon my part to promote the public good, to uphold
the Constitution of the United States, to restore peace and preserve this Union, if
I had owned a thousand slaves they would most cheerfully have been given up. I say
with all my heart, let them go, but let them not go without a sense of feeling and
a proper regard on my part for the future of themselves and their offspring! I
say, let them go, and let them enjoy all the privileges consistent with sound policy
and that freedom which has been vouchsafed to them! Let them go; and, sir,
there is no man in this House or in this nation who feels a deeper interest in their
comfort, in their happiness, in their elevation than I do, and in the comfort and
welfare of their children and their childrens' children in all time to come!' I say
again, sir, let them go, and may the blessing of God rest upon them!
[Here the hammer fell, the hour having expired.]

Mr. ASHLEY. I ask that the gentleman have leave to continue his remarks.
By unanimous consent the leave was granted.

Mr. ROLLINS, of Missouri. As I have said my experience in relation to this question of slavery has been singular and somewhat diversified. Why, sir, I reLember that seventeen years ago, when I was a member of that proud, honor

able, and patriotic party, the old Whig party of the country, and when I was quite a young man, my friends placed me in the responsible position of candidate for the high office of Governor of my State, and that I found as my competitor upon that occasion my venerable and honorable friend who occupies a seat on my left, (Mr. KING.) We traversed our great State from one corner to the other; we met time and again upon the hustings; he was a friend of General Cass and I was a Whig, and the friend of General Taylor; and he must pardon me upon this occasion-and especially as we are now together-if I bring to view a single reminiscence. One of his arguments, I remember, was that the elevation of General Taylor to the office of President and the election of myself to the office of Governor would be dangerous to the institution of slavery. I, a Kentuckian by birth, supporting a large slaveowner for the Presidency, and myself a large slave owner, combatted that view as best i could in opposition to my venerable friend. I am happy, however, to know that on this occasion we meet, and that hereafter there is to be no further controversy between him and me upon this question.

I remember, also, that as late as 1857, when again my political friends, regarding me far too highly, did me the honor of placing their standard once more in my hands as a candidate for the highest office in the gift of the people of my State, I found myself confronted by a gentleman who was born in New York, able and talented, and never the owner of a slave, but throughout that entire canvass the burden of his "talk" against me was that it would never do to elect me, and that if they did, in some way or other the institution of slavery would suffer at my hands in the State of Missouri; and although I think to day, that I was legally elected, after the old Democracy had figured some six or eight weeks, the election being over, they brought out a majority against me of two hundred and thirty on a vote of 100,000 cast!

But this is not the whole of my personal experience upon this subject. When first I had the honor of being a candidate for a seat upon this floor in 1860, I met as my competitor a very worthy and distinguished gentleman who now occupies a seat in the other end of the Capitol, a man of exalted talent and ability and a high order of patriotism, who is my personal friend, and who, I am gratified to see, fills his place so ably and gracefully; but I remember that it was the same old story with him as with my venerable friend here (Mr. KING) and the other gentleman to whom I have alluded, that it would not do to send me here even, because in some way or other I might be detrimental to the institution of slavery in my State. I am happy, however, to say that that distinguished gentleman and myself will no longer have any controversy upon that point.

I

We are together so far as this amendment is concerned. We take now much the same view of this important question, the only difference being that he has gone far ahead of me in any view I entertain or action I expect to take in the matter. It will never do, in the day of civil war and revolution, to be justifying one's self for inconsistency. Men change every day. Read the inaugurral address of President Lincoln; read the diplomatic correspondence of the distinguished Secretary of State; read your own speeches of two or three years back, and you will see how changes have taken place. Read my speeches and you will find me preaching a short time ago one doctrine, and now preaching another. am proud that a man has the right to change; I am gratified that I am not too obstinate to change; I am glad that additional light shines upon the darkened intellect to enable us to change our opinions when we find that we are wrong, and hope all of us have sufficient regard for the truth to embrace it when we see it Change is a law of nature. It is written on our physical organization, on our moral organization, on our mental constitutions. If there were no right to change, change morally especially, what, in the name of God, would become of many of the gentlemen on both sides of this House? (Laughter.) There is an old adage which says, "Wise men sometimes change, fools never do." Sir, the peculiar friends of slavery have controlled the Government for much the greater part of the time since its establishment; and but for their own wickedness and folly might have saved the institution and had their full share in its management for many years to come. If they have lost the political control, all are blameless save themselves!

"But yesterday, the word of Cæser might
Have stood against the world: now lies he there,
And none so poor to do him reverence."

Mr. Speaker, I wish to state in a very general way, some other propositions. Let us dispose of this question now, now. I have signified that I would be willing to dispose of it in another way. If Jefferson Davis & Co., would come back to this Hall to-morrow and say, We were wrong; we ask purdon; we lay down our

arms; we yet remember the blessings that we have thrown away; we want that free Constitution which we have been destroying; we want to come back to you;" for the sake of peace, for the sake of running no more risk in regard to this slave question, I would say "Let them come in," and I would go far in making terms with them; much farther than my friends from Missouri over there, (Mr. MCCLURG and Mr. LOAN.) But we cannot have our will on this subject. The President of the so-called confederate States, and those who act with him, are not going to put themselves in that position. On the contrary, we have been told by the rebel leaders, that if a blank sheet of paper were furnished to them on which to write their own terms, they would not come back. They have told us that they started out for separation, and that they mean to exhaust all the energies and resources of the country if necessary, to accomplish that object. On the other hand, we started out for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Union, let that effort lead us where it might; destroy whoever and whatever it might; if we had the moral, the physical and the intellectual power to do the work, of putting down this rebellion, and saving this Union and Government from destruction. And while I rejoice at any movement which looks to an honorable peace, and a restored Government, I am for fighting it out "on that line" to-day. Not until every germ of patriotism shall have withered and rotted in the public heart; not until the public sense of the nation is, that the thing cannot be accomplished, am I for abating one jot or tittle of the efforts of the nation to annihilate the rebellion, restore the supremacy of the Constitution, and preserve the Union of these States, and republican liberty on this continent through all time to come.

Mr. Speaker, the American sentiment is decidedly anti-slavery; and that is another consideration why I am willing to vote for this amendment. We never can have an entire peace in this country as long as the institution of slavery remains as one of the recognized institutions of the country. It occurs to me that the surest way to obtain peace is to dispose of the institution now. From whatever cause whether it is from northern intermeddling-if you so call it; and there has been far too much of that-or from southern arrogance and dictation and agitation, whether from the one cause or the other, or both, slavery will always be a disturbing element! There will be no peace, there will be no perfect Union in this country until, some way or other, we shall have disposed of it. You cannot smother moral convictions. And so long as the General Governmant is connected with slavery or associated with it in any way, the great tide of emigration that will flow into the South carrying new ideas of human rights, this institution will be a disturbing element, and we will have continued agitation until, in some manner, this question is disposed of. I have therefore brought myself up to the point. We may as well unsheathe the sword and cut the Gordian knot?

I said, Mr. Speaker, that the American public sentiment is anti-slavery. I say now, from my own experience that the public sentiment of the southern people is anti-slavery. And I assert a proposition which may startle some gentlemen, but which I believe in my heart to be true, that to day the State of South Carolina is anti-slavery. I take South Carolina as an example, because she is the most "wayward" of all the "sisters," because she has been hitherto always wrong and never right, and especially on this question: I take her, because there this institution has left its deepest and keenest impress. I believe in regard to the people of that State, that if this question of slavery, in all its bearings, and in all its phases, could be thoroughly discussed and presented in an intelligent and patriotic way; sending my honorable friend from Maryland (Mr. H. W. DAVIS) with his gift of argument and eloquence to combat the proudest intellects of that State-I believe, as God is my judge, that after twelve months', or even six months' discussion, the majority of the people of South Carolina would vote to rid themselves of this institution of slavery. And as in South Carolina so would it be in other States. And how do I arrive at this conclusion? I look at the history of events in my own State of Missouri. Four years ago, a man who now has gone to

"The undiscovered country, from whose bourne

No traveler returns,"

the late treasonable governor of that State, Jackson, was elected by an overwhelming majority upon this very question, and almost upon this question alone. Four years have expired; four years of rebellion, four years of civil war, four years of ruin and desolation and blood and misery. All these things have occurred, and the people believe, whether correctly or not, that they are all in some way or another connected with this institution of slavery. And what has been the result? The other day a gentleman, for whom I did not vote, but who has my highest respect, and in whose patriotism I have every confidence; one who, I trust, will be equal to the great occasion before him; a radical man, far more

radical than I am or expect to be, radical in all his theories growing out of this disturbing question before us; was elected governor of that State by the votes of a larger majority than that which was cast four years ago for Claiborne F. Jackвод. What does that prove? I believe that, to some extent, there may have been some intimidation, some military interference. But I tell you, sir, that my con viction is that this change has resulted from the deliberate and earnest conviction of the honest masses of the people of that State, slave-owners and non-slaveowners,“ that the institution of slavery is wrong, that it has been to some extent the causeof all our trials, and that they are in favor of disposing of it as early as practicable.

The State convention of Missouri assembled a few days since to revise the State constitution. More than two years ago an ordinance of emancipation had been adopted, allowing the institution to stand until the 4th of July, 1870, and which in my view ought to have been satisfactory. Yet the people of Missouri were not content with that. They met in convention three days ago, and almost the very' first act of that convention, after organizing, was, by a vote of 60 to 4, if the telegraph is correct, to wipe out the institution of African slavery from the soil of Missouri.

ས་

It is an old adage "that he is a fool who learns nothing from experience, but he s is the greatest of fools who will not profit by his own experience." I have learned a little; not much; but I am progressing. I never expect-perhaps I am not wise enough, or perhaps I am too tímid or too slow-I do not expect to get quite up to 3 the standard of my venerable friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. STEVENS) or my elequent friend from Maryland, (Mr. H. W. DAVIS.) But I will endeavor to keepto pace with my own convictions, having in view always the restoration of the Union, the preservation of the Constitution and of republican liberty under free › institutions upon the American continent. Sir, I have a firm conviction that there is such a thing as the "logic of events."

May I say a word or two to my friends from Kentucky! My life long friend who sits on my left, who addressed the house the other day, (Mr. CLAY,) in the remarks that I understood him to make, spoke of the slaves in Kentucky being worth $150,000,000 before the rebellion, and perhaps as much now. Sir, put upon the block-to-day, what would all the slaves in North America sell for? Does he expect, after all to which I have referred, after what he has seen, does the gentleman expect that the institution of slavery is to remain anywhere safe for any length of time? If he does. if my other friends from Kentucky expect that, I have only to say that upon that one question I am wiser than they, I have passed through this sea of troubles. Thank God I breathe freer and easier to day in consequence of having got through it, and I tell them now, that without some obstacle in the constitution of the State of Kentucky, in less than two years from the day that I am making these poor remarks in the American Congress, Kentucky will be a free State without any regard to the viewe gentlemen may express here on this side of this Hall.

And, sir, if ever a set of people made a mistake on earth, it was the men of Kentucky, by whom I was somewhat governed myself, when, three years ago, they rejected the offer of the President of the United States, who, wiser than we were, seeing the difficulties before us, but seeing the bow of promise set in the sky, and knowing what was to come, proposed to us to sweep the institution of slavery from the border States, offering the assistance of the United States to aid in compensating the loyal men of those States for their losses in labor and property. I say that the unwisest of all acts, so far as the border States were concerned, was the rejection of this liberal offer by the Executive of the United States. I voted for the proposition at first then unwisely changed my ground, showing the versatility of man, and would, perhaps if it had come to a final vote, have opposed it, because my constituents were likely to be offended by the passage of such a law. They are now convinced, when their slaves are gone and their pockets are empty. that I was right in the first place, and they were wrong. I have read, in the papers of this morning, that the Legislature of Kentucky, after electing that distinguished and able man, James Guthrie, to the Senate of the United States, have passed a resolution in favor of emancipa tion, "with the consent of the owners, and with compensation.”

But where is compensation to come from? I have a right to feel something on this subject, for I am called upon to ask myself where is compensation to come from? Not out of the coffers of the national Treasury. Why, the Government will not even pay for the gallant soldiers which I and others have furnished for its Army, although the law, as I understand, expressly provides for compensation to loyal owners. While I have furnished ten soldiers, brave soldiers, (I hope they are doing good service for the cause,) I have never asked for any compensation. I do not urge my claim for compensation; but when Uncle Sam comes along I will consider whether