Speech on the Proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, delivered in the House of Representatives, January 13, 1865.

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

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 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 Constitution, 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 of 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 of 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 that I shall make will be rather of the nature of a personal explanation than of any elaborate argumentation of this question. At the last 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 reference to the expediency of this measure; and while I do not suppose that what I may say will have the slightest influence in changing the vote of any gentleman upon this floor, I am satisfied with the reasons that 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 that I may entertain or express here, to present

to the House and the country some of the considerations that have induced me to this change.

Mr. Speaker, I entertain the same opinion to-day in regard to the rebellion that I have always entertained. I feel the same animosity, the same hatred, the same abhorrence for it and for those who initiated it now that I did when it was first hatched. Indeed, I may say, sir, that regarding the consequences that it has produced in my own State and throughout the country I am less inclined to-day than ever to look upon it with any degree of forbearance. Regarding it always as without excuse 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 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 desire to blend the two,- war and the olive branch, the olive branch ever in front of the sword, a constant protest to the intelligent public sentiment of the South that it is not the object of the Government to oppress, but that it is 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 that 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, or have stopped this unfortunate war, or have sustained the Government, I am sure that 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 that have 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 army 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 dis

tant 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 leaders. I have seen the effect of this thing around me at my own home, and I know the influence that 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 important and a nobler object to preserve this free Constitution of ours, to preserve our glorious and happy form of government and the Union of these States, than can be any interest connected with the preservation or destruction of African slavery upon this continent. That has been altogether a secondary and subordinate consideration 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 strengthen 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; and if I could save the Constitution and Union of my country by the total destruction of slavery -cutting it up by the roots, extirpating the cancer at once-I most unquestionably would do it; for I regard the preservation of these as paramount, and far higher than any interest 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 that 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 Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the 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 the 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 that 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 done heretofore. When I cast the vote that 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 favor 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 therefore that there would 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 that would have necessarily resulted from a change of adminis

tration, 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 scarcely ever had an opportunity 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 in the leading minds that control minorities than in those that direct majorities, and this from a principle in human nature that we all understand. No, sir; I 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 that 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 as to this House, and especially to 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 should 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 gentleman on either side of the House that 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 that 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 con