Page images

highly desirable that this money should be national in its character, and rest on the faith of the Government as its security.

Another act of importance, passed by Congress at this session, was the admission of Western Virginia into the Union. The Constitution of the United States declares that no new State shall be formed within the jurisdiction of any State without the consent of the Legislature of the State concerned, as well as of the Congress. The main question on which the admission of the new State turned, therefore, was whether that State had been formed with the consent of the Legislature of Virginia. The facts of the case were these: In the winter of 1860-61, the Legislature of Virginia, convened in extra session, had called a convention, to be held on the 14th of February, 1861, at Richmond, to decide on the question of secession. A vote was also to be taken, when the delegates to this convention should be elected, to decide whether an ordinance of secession, if passed by the convention, should be referred back to the people; and this was decided in the affirmative by a majority of nearly 60,000. The convention met, and an ordinance of secession was passed, and referred to the people at an election to be held on the fourth Tuesday of May. Without waiting for this vote, the authorities of the State levied war against the United States, joined the Rebel Confederacy, and invited the Confederate armies to occupy portions of their territory. A convention of nearly five hundred delegates, chosen in Western Virginia under a popular call, met early in May, declared the ordinance of secession null and void, and called another convention of delegates from all the counties of Virginia, to be held at Wheeling, on the 11th of June, in case the secession ordinance should be ratified by the popular vote. It was so ratified and the convention met. It proceeded on the assumption that the officers of the old government of the State had vacated their offices by joining the rebellion: and it accordingly proceeded to fill them, and to reorganize the gov

ernment of the whole State. On the 20th of August the convention passed an ordinance to "provide for the formation of a new State out of a portion of the territory of this State." Under that ordinance, delegates were elected to a convention which met at Wheeling, November 26, and proceeded to draft a Constitution for the State of Western Virginia, as the new State was named, which was submitted to the people of Western Virginia in April, 1862, and by them ratified,—18,862 voting in favor of it, and 514 against it. The Legislature of Virginia, the members of which were elected by authority of the Wheeling convention of June 11th, met in extra session, called by the Governor appointed by that convention, on the 6th of May, 1862, and passed an act giving its consent to the formation of the new State, and making application to Congress for its admission into the Union. The question to be decided by Congress, therefore, was whether the legislature which met at Wheeling on the 11th of June was "the Legisla ture of Virginia," and thus competent to give its consent to the formation of a new State within the State of Virginia. The bill for admitting it, notwithstanding the opposition of several leading and influential Republicans, was passed in the House, ayes 96, noes 55. It passed in the Senate without debate, and was approved by the President on the 31st of December, 1862.

A bill was brought forward in the Senate for discussion on the 29th of January, proposing a grant of money to aid in the abolition of slavery in the State of Missouri. It gave rise to a good deal of debate, some Senators doubting whether Congress had any constitutional right to make such an appropriation, and a marked difference of opinion, moreover, growing up as to the propriety of gradual or immediate emancipation in that State. Mr. Sumner, Mr. Wilson, and several others, insisted that the aid proposed should be granted only on condition that emancipation should be immediate; while the Senators from Missouri thought that the State would be much more


certain to provide for getting rid of slavery if the time were extended to twenty-three years, as the bill proposed, than if she were required to set free all her slaves at once. Senators from the Slave States generally opposed the measure, on the ground that Congress had no authority under the Constitution to appropriate any portion of the public money for such a purpose. The bill was finally passed in the Senate,

but it failed to pass the House.

Two members of Congress from the State of Louisiana were admitted to seats in the House of Representatives under circumstances which made that action of considerable importance. Immediately after the occupation of New Orleans. by the national forces under General Butler, the President had appointed General Shepley military governor of the State of Louisiana. The rebel forces were driven out from the city of New Orleans, and some of the adjoining parishes; and when, during the ensuing summer, the people were invited to resume their allegiance to the Government of the United States, over 60,000 came forward, took the oath of allegiance, and were admitted to their rights as citizens. On the 3d of December General Shepley, acting as military governor of the State, ordered an election for members of Congress in the two districts into which the city of New Orleans is divided—each district embracing also some of the adjoining parishes. In one of these districts B. F. Flanders was elected, receiving 2,370 votes, and all others 273, and in the other Michael Hahn was elected, receiving 2,799 votes out of 5,117, the whole number cast. A committee of the House, to which the application of these gentlemen for admission to their seats had been referred, reported, on the 9th of February, in favor of their claim. It was represented in this report that the requirements of the Constitution of the State of Louisiana had in all respects been complied with, the only question being, whether a military governor, appointed by the President of the United

States, could properly and rightfully perform the functions of the civil governor of the State. The committee held that he could, and cited a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, not only recognizing the power of the President to appoint a military governor, but also recognizing both his civil and military functions as of full validity and binding obligation. On the other hand, it was maintained that representatives can be elected to the Federal Legislature only in pursuance of an act of the State Legislature, or of an act of the Federal Congress. In this case neither of these requirements had been fulfilled. The House, however, admitted both these gentlemen to their seats, by a vote of 92 to 44.

Before adjourning, Congress passed an act, approved on the 3d of March, authorizing the President, "in all domestic and foreign wars," to issue to private armed vessels of the United States, letters of marque and reprisal, said authority to terminate at the end of three years from the date of the act. Resolutions were also adopted, in both Houses, protesting against every proposition of foreign interference, by proffers of mediation or otherwise, as "unreasonable and inadmissible,” and declaring the "unalterable purpose of the United States. to prosecute the war until the rebellion shall be overcome." These resolutions, offered by Mr. Sumner, received in the Senate 31 votes in their favor, while but 5 were cast against them, and in the House 103 were given for their passage, and 28 against it.

Its pro

The session closed on the 4th of March, 1863. ceedings had been marked by the same thorough and fixed determination to carry on the war, by the use of the most vigorous and effective measures for the suppression of the rebellion, and by the same full and prompt support of the President, which had characterized the preceding Congress.

While some members of the Administration party, becoming impatient of the delays which seemed to mark the progress

of the war, were inclined to censure the caution of the President, and to insist upon bolder and more sweeping assaults upon the persons and property of the people of the Rebel States, and especially upon the institution of slavery-and while, on the other hand, its more open opponents denounced every thing like severity, as calculated to exasperate the South and prolong the war, the great body of the members, like the great body of the people, manifested a steady and firm reliance on the patriotic purpose and the calm sagacity evinced by the President in his conduct of public affairs.

« PreviousContinue »