and they are overwhelmingly in the majority -are in favor of an increase of the military force, in such form and proportions as will insure this most important and desirable result. "But, sir, what of this clamor about the increase of the regular army, and a standing army? Has it been too large? Will the proposed addition make it too large? I assert, sir, that it has been too small for ten or fifteen years ever since the close of the Mexican war; and I think that must be the judgment of all intelligent men who have carefully reflected upon the subject. Had our standing army, after the close of that war, been raised to the standard required by the new order of things, many Indian forays might have been averted, and much human blood saved from being shed upon the borders of Texas, and our dependent Territories, by the savage tomahawk and butcher knife.

"Again, sir, what was the state of the case at the time this unholy rebellion broke out? The regular army had been dispersed all over the country in small bodies. If the purpose had been to place them out of the way, so as to enable premeditated rebellion to make head against the Government, it could not have been more effectually accomplished. And even had they been concentrated, so limited as their numbers were, could they have arrested the progress and development of a conspiracy which included the rulers of several States?

"Circumsances have changed. We are no longer an infant and small nation. We have come to be a great empire-a Republic of thirtyfour States, and some thirty or more million people; and an Army of fourteen or fifteen thousand men is not a sufficient military police to preserve order everywhere within our extended dominions, and to restrain Indian hostilities along our extended and exposed borders. It appears to me that every gentleman must see this." Mr. Burnett, of Kentucky replied, that he had thought, not like the honorable gentleman from, Ilinois, that this was not a great empire, but a confederacy of sovereign and co-equal States. He had thought that this was a government resting for its support upon the affections and the consent of the governed; that it did not require a standing army to keep the people in order; that it did not require even fourteen or fifteen thousand men as a police to keep the people of this country in order.

Mr. McClernand desired to ask the member from Kentucky one question: "Will he vote for a volunteer force to put down this rebellion?"

Mr. Burnett in reply said: "Not for one man. I am not willing to vote for them for I do not believe you can hold this Government together at the point of the bayonet, or at the cannon's mouth, any more than you can hold the lightnings of heaven, or gather the winds in the hollow of your hands.

"No, sir; I say to the gentleman now, and I say it in the fulness of my heart, that five hundred thousand men and $500,000,000, if raised

by this House for the subjugation of a portion of this country, will not accomplish that purpose. They may desolate the country; they may lay waste cities and towns; but when they meet here again on the first Monday in December next, they will find their $500,000,000 gone; they will find their five hundred thousand soldiers still in the field; but no nearer a peace than now.

"This much, sir, I desire to say, and these are the reasons why I will not vote for men or money. I have, from the commencement, been for a peaceful solution of this struggle, and I am for it now. I have been published to the country as a secessionist; but, sir, in the last speech which I had the honor to make upon this floor, I announced my opinion that there was no warrant in the Constitution for the doctrine of secession.

"Sir, I do not believe in it, as a constitutional doctrine; I believe it is the theory of our Government that it rests for its support upon the affections and the consent of the governed. I do regard, as one of the citizens of this country, and one of the representatives of the people, that the resort to armies and navies and the horrors of war will sound the death-knell of the Republic; and for that reason I enter my solemn protest against this whole measure."

Mr. McClernand, in answer, continued: "It is important that I should notice what has fallen from the gentleman from Kentucky. He very candidly informs the House, and, through the House, the country, that not one dollar will he vote to put down, either by regular or volunteer force, this rebellion against the country. Sir, when he took his seat upon this floor, he took upon himself a solemn obligation, sanctioned by an oath in the sight of the country and before God, that he would support the Constitution. Can he do so by folding his arms while the batteries of rebellion are levelled at the capital? Is that the way he proposes to discharge his obligation? I leave it for all impartial men to decide whether it is the proper way.

"The gentleman assumes-he must assume as the basis of his assertion-that all of the seceded States are disloyal. I respectfully deny the correctness of the assumption. On the contrary, I assert, and with entire confidence, that just as the Federal flag advances towards the heart of this rebellion, thousands and tens of thousands of loyal men in the seceded States will be found rallying around it, ready to uphold it. I also deny, sir, that this is a war of conquest. Far from it. It is a war to put down rebels and rebellion, and to guarantee security of person and property to the Union men of those States; it is a war waged in behalf of the Constitution and laws. This is its purpose and mission; and it will fulfil it, with the blessing of God. Nor is there one of those States in which there are not ample numbers of Union men to maintain a State government after the rebellion shall have been put down."

are to be taught by a strong hand that they are to pay the same regard to the Constitution and laws as commoner people are forced to render to them. These men believe that they have a right to declare themselves out of the pale of legitimate Government whenever it shall suit their interests to do so, or whenever it shall be in accordance with the lead of their passions to do so. We, the people of the North, of the loyal States, and all who act with the North, intend to educate these men in a different doctrine; and if we shall eventually be forced to bring them into subjection-abject subjection to the Constitution of the United States-it will be their fault, and not ours.

"Now, sir, an army will be needed upon the southern coast. Every foot of the southern coast will have to be threatened; and perhaps every foot of the southern coast will eventually have to be invaded. An army will have to be started upon the nearest southern frontier here, and it will have to be marched until it shall meet the army threatening the coast; and perhaps it will be necessary-it is well for gentlemen from the southern States to consider whether it may not be necessary-to leave the track of the chariot wheels of war so deep on the southern soil that a century may not obliterate it. I am not willing to stint the Government either in men or money. I am deter mined, so far as my influence, and my voice, and my vote, will go, to make this war an effectual one-a terror to evil-doers for all time to come; so that, when the Constitution and Union shall be reestablished, they shall have a permanence which shall satisfy all true lovers of liberty."

Mr. Burnett, of Kentucky, said that the member from Pennsylvania did not conceal his purpose; he tells the country that it is the purpose of the eighteen northern States to reduce the southern States to abject submission.

Mr. Hickman replied: "I believe my remark was-at least I intended that it should be -this: that our intentions are to bring the disloyal to submission or acquiescence. I understand that to mean submission to the binding obligation of the laws. That is what I mean. Whether it shall be necessary to go further than that, is for the gentlemen who occupy the position of rebellion to determine."

Mr. Vallandigham, of Ohio, offered the following proviso:

Provided, further, That before the President shall have the right to call out any more volunteers than are already in the service, he shall appoint seven commissioners, whose mission shall be to accompany the army on its march, to receive and consider such propositions, if any, as may at any time be submitted from the Executive of the so-called Confederate States, or of any one of them, looking to a suspension of hostilities and the return of said States, or any one of them, to the Union, and to obedience to the Federal Constitution and authority.

On a division, there were only twenty-one votes in its favor:

In the Senate, on the 26th of July, Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee, offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing only its duty to the whole country; that this war is all feeling of mere passion or resentment, will recollect not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Conthe rights or established institutions of those States, stitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof, and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.

Mr. Polk, of Missouri, proposed to amend it so as to read:

That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern and the Northern States; that in this national emergency, &c., &c.

This was voted down by ayes, 4; noes, 33.

Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, thus expressed his views of the object of the war: "I trust this war is prosecuted for the purpose of subjugating all rebels and traitors who are in arms against the Government. What do you mean by subjugation?' I know that persons in the southern States have sought to make this a controversy between States and the Federal Government, and have talked about coercing States and subjugating States; but, sir, it has never been proposed, so far as I know, on the part of the Union people of the United States, to subjugate States or coerce States. It is proposed, however, to subjugate citizens who are standing out in defiance of the laws of the Union, and to coerce them into obedience to the laws of the Union. I dislike that word in this connection. In its broadest sense I am opposed to it. If it means the war is not for the purpose of the subjugation of traitors and rebels into obedience to the laws, then I am opposed to it. I trust the war is prosecuted for that very purpose."

Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee, explained the resolution in these words: "The resolution simply states that we are not waging a war for the subjugation of States. If the Constitution is maintained and the laws carried out, the States take their places and all rebel citizens must submit. That is the whole of it."

Mr. Collamer, of Vermont, declared that he was for subjugation, in the sense in which that word was ordinarily received. He did not mean its classic meaning. He knew its literal, classic meaning was to pass under the yoke, sub juga. He proposed to pass nobody under the yoke; but in the ordinary and popular acceptation of that term he used it, that is, that all the people of the United States shall submit to the laws and Constitution of the United States everywhere.

Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, said: "I do not

want to carry on this war for the purpose of subjugating the people of any State, in any shape or form; and it is a false idea gotten up by bad men for bad purposes that it ever has been the purpose of any portion of the people of this country. I am willing, therefore, to meet them face to face, and say I never had that purpose, and have it not now. But we say, notwithstanding we have not that purpose, and distinctly avow it, we have a purpose, and that is to defend the Constitution and the laws of the country, and to put down this revolt at whatever hazard; and it is for them to say whether it is necessary for us in the course of accomplishing a legitimate and proper object to subjugate them in order to do it. I hope not; and if it is necessary and we could do it, I should want to keep them subjugated no longer than was necessary to secure that purpose. That far it must go, and no further. To that it must go at all events and hazards. As to the word, sir, I would as soon take that as any other. It expresses the idea clearly, and I am satisfied with it."

Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, regarded the resolution as an act not altogether legislative in its character, but as a declaration of the purpose of the Government. It was a deed in that sense, which is to have its effect upon the American people, and he desired that it should be passed in the language in which it had been presented.

Mr. Willey, of Western Virginia, stated the views of the people of the Old Dominion on the war. He said: "There is a fear among many, there is a prejudice wide extended in the public sentiment of Virginia, that the design of this war is subjugation; that the design of this war is to reduce the Old Dominion into a province; that the design of this war, literally, in the language of the honorable Senator from Vermont, is to pass our people under the yoke.

"Sir, I do not understand such to be the purpose of this war. The Legislature of the State which I represent does not understand such to be the purpose of this war. My constituency are for the preservation of the Union, the vindication of the Constitution, and the execution of the laws. We believe that in the success of this war, in carrying out these legitimate purposes, is involved the great question of constitutional liberty itself now and forever among our people, and among all people; and I here, from the Old Dominion, as an humble member on this floor, am instructed by my Legislature, and am prepared to vote for every necessary measure, and for every necessary man, without stint, let, or hinderance, to carry on the war until all resistance to lawful authority is put down; until the Constitution is vindicated, and restored to all its legitimate supremacy; and until the Union is reëstablished on a basis never to be overthrown.

"But, sir, candor constrains me to say, that if any different purpose shall be avowed, if it shall ever be intimated or declared that this is

to be a war upon the domestic institutions of the South, and upon the rights of private property, every loyal arm on the soil of the Old Dominion will be instantly paralyzed. Sir, pass this resolution in the language in which it is printed, and you give muscle and vigor to every loyal arm in the Old Dominion, and you will multiply the friends of the Union by thousands whenever our people are disimbued of the prejudices that exist in their minds."

Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, stated that he had repeatedly, as long as he had been in Congress, and before that, avowed his sentiment to be that the Government had no more right, no more legal or constitutional authority to interfere with slavery in the States than they had to interfere with the condition of the serfs in Russia, or with the rights and wrongs of the laboring classes in England. "I said that when I acted-I was going to say with the party out of power; but when I acted out of power, without a party-when I acted as the soldier did, fighting on his own hook. That has always been my sentiment. I have always proclaimed it, whenever I had occasion to speak upon it; and, acting with the party that is in power today, I am willing to stand by the profession that I made when I was out of power. I be lieve that the General Government have no power upon this subject at all, and that they cannot have under the Constitution."

Mr. Kennedy, of Maryland, thus expressed his views: "I indicated by my vote a few minutes ago that my opinion is that this deplorable civil war has been forced on the country by the disunionists of the Southern and Northern States. I wanted to go no further, but merely to express that idea. I am not prepared to admit that it was brought on exclusively by the Southern States, because it will be very well recollected by gentlemen here that there were propositions of peace offered at the last session of Congress, in the very closing days of that session, which, if they had been accepted at that time by the majority party in the Senate, would have avoided the war which is upon us to-day.

"It was the refusal in part of the majority party to accept of measures of conciliation and peace before Congress adjourned last spring. It is also perfectly true that if the members of the Southern States who vacated these seats long before Congress adjourned, had remained here, there would not have been war. I believe that if the majority party had pursued a different course before Congress adjourned than the one that they elected in rejecting every overture and every proposition for peace, we should have been to-day without the sad calamity that has befallen us."

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, could not vote for the resolution, because he did not agree with the statement of facts contained in it. He said: "I do not intend to go into the antecedents of this unhappy difficulty. My own opinion is, that there have been errors upon

both sides; my own opinion is, that these sectional Federal difficulties might have been settled last winter; my opinion is, that the present condition of affairs is due, principally, to the absolute refusal of the majority in this Chamber to agree to any proposition of adjustment, as I have taken occasion to state, and tried to show heretofore; and I think to that persistent and obstinate refusal, more than to any other cause, is due the present condition of public affairs.

"I think, sir, that this war is prosecuted, according to the purposes of a majority of those who are managing the legislation that leads to its prosecution, for objects of subjugation. I believe that, unless those States which have seceded from the Federal Union, lay down their arms and surrender at discretion, the majority in Congress will hear to no terms of settlement, and that those who may attempt to mediate will speak to the winds. I believe, therefore, that the war, in the sense and spirit entertained by these gentlemen, is a war of subjugation. The eminent Senator from Ohio, (Mr. Sherman,) not less conservative than a majority of the organization with which he is connected, went so far, in the warmth of his feelings, the other day, as to declare that, unless the people of certain States in the South yielded willing obedience, he would depopulate them and people them over again. That I call not only a war of subjugation, but a war of extermination.

"On the day before yesterday, I think, sir, an amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Trumbull) to one of the general bills before the Senate, received the vote of an overwhelming majority of this body, which declares that any person held to service or labor, who should be employed to aid the rebellion in any form, should be discharged from service and labor. These were the general vague terms of that proposition. I think I have the very words.

"I consider that amendment passed by a vote of the Senate, so far as the vote of this Senate can go, a general act of emancipation. I should like to know if those held to service or labor, who are employed as agricultural laborers in the South in raising cotton, in raising corn and other products which are used by the mass of the population, cannot readily be considered by a rampant and fanatic spirit as being employed in aiding the rebellion. Certainly as readily as every means of subsistence can be cut off from that whole country by the act of the Executive, approved by the legislative department of the Government."

Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, followed, saying:"The Senator from Kentucky and the disunionists of the Southern States have no right to come to me and say, 'you have involved your country in civil war because you would not do as we wanted you to do.' Because we would not change the Constitution, because we would not ingraft new provisions in it that were un

known to it; especially because we will not disregard the popular voice at the last election, we are charged with involving our country in civil war. It is idle to answer this kind of argument.

“Mr. President, the disunionists of the Southern States are traitors to their country; they must, and I repeat they will, be subdued. This war is prosecuted for the purpose of subduing those men, and compelling them to obey the laws, just as you, sir, and I, are bound to do; to make them just as loyal subjects as you and I now are. Because this purpose is announced and declared by the resolution introduced by the honorable Senator from Tennessee, we are to have clamor about subjugation. I am a subject; you are a subject; there is not a Senator within the sound of my voice who is not a subject. The Lieutenant-General is a subject, the President of the United States is a subject, just precisely in the same sense that we intend to make all these people in the Southern States subjects to the Constitution. All this clap-trap about subjugation, it seems to me, ought to be dismissed from the Senate. These men must be subjugated to obedience to the Constitution; and when that is accomplished, then this resolution declares our purpose to be to give them all the rights conferred upon them by the Constitution, and that the very moment the object is accomplished the war shall cease.

"In regard to the proposition offered by the Senator from Illinois, (Mr. Trumbull,) I have but this to say: if a slave is used by his master in the actual prosecution of this war, that slave ought to be freed; the master ought to forfeit all right to him. Does the Senator deny this? If a slave is used by his master to accomplish the work of treason-I mean actively, according to the language of that billought that master still to own the labor of that slave? Certainly not; and yet it seems to me, in declaring this principle, we do not interfere at all in the slightest degree with the relations of master and slave, except where the master uses that slave as an instrument to erect barricades-to accomplish treason. As a matter of course, then, he ought to lose his right to the slave-all claim, ownership, or control over him. There is no objection to this doctrine."

The debate was continued by Mr. Breckinridge, to whom Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, replied: "The Senator charges upon the majority, or those representing the majority upon this floor, the responsibility of involving the country in civil war. He charges that last winter, if the majority had yielded to the demands of the minority, the country would now be at peace. Sir, what were those demands made by the minority? Not to support the Constitution; not to stand by the Constitution as it is; but to make a new Constitution, and a new Constitution by the provisions of which the institution of slavery should be carried into all the territories we now have south of 36° 30', and all the territories we can ever acquire,