In
the following speech, Representative William Finck (D-Ohio) argues
that the Federal Government is violating the constitution and the
principles of free government by attempting to impose its version of
Reconstruction the Southern states. Finck is opposed to the Radical
Republicans in Congress and refers to the Committee on Reconstruction
as a "maelstrom committee, which swallows up everything that is
goodand gives out everything that is evil".
If
I understood the gentleman correctly, he claims the power to pass
this bill under the law of nations and upon the doctrine of the right
of the conquerors to take possession of and control conquered
territory and its inhabitants in such a manner as may suit the
purposes of the conqueror. This is the ground upon which the measure
is defended. Certainly no man will insult the intelligence of the
American people by defending it upon any other principle. It is at
war with the Constitution; it is at war with every principle of free
government. And I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it cannot be successfully
defended on the ground upon which it is placed by the chairman of the
committee.He
places it upon the ground that we, as conquerors, have a right to
dictate to the people of these ten States their governments and by
the strong arm of military power hold and treat them as a conquered
people. I deny most emphatically both the premises and conclusions of
the learned gentleman.I
can understand very well how when two distinct and foreign nations
are engaged in war, the result of that war may be a conquest of the
territory and of the inhabitants of the belligerents. That result has
been achieved more than once in the history of the nations of the
earth. But, sir, that condition of things could not result from the
late war for the suppression of the rebellion. What was that war, Mr.
Speaker? It was not a war between distinct and separate nations. It
was a war upon the part of the Federal Government, to do what? Not to
make a conquest of territory. Not a war for subjugation. No, sir; it
was a war on the part of the Federal Government to enforce its laws
throughout the jurisdiction of the United States. It was a war on the
part of the Federal Government to remove all armed opposition to the
execution the laws and maintain the supremacy of the Government; to
preserve the union of these States and to to suppress all opposition
to the just execution of the laws of the United States.Need
I say that in such a war as that, confined within the limits of the
Republic, there could not be any conquest of territory or the people
of any State belonging to the Union? I put the question to to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS:] what
did you conquer? You conquered a peace; but did you conquer a single
inch of territory over which the United States did not exercise
jurisdiction before the war commenced? Not a single inch, sir.
Neither did you acquire by the results of the war jurisdiction over a
single man, woman, or child over whom you would not not have had
jurisdiction if the war had not taken place? No, sir; you merely
reestablished firmly the jurisdiction of the United States, not over
any new territory, not over territory conquered from a foreign enemy,
but we reestablished the jurisdiction of the United States over what
had been and what continued to be during the war; a part of the
territory comprised within the boundaries of the United States. We
are not to-day exercising jurisdiction over these ten States
rightfully by the laws of nations, and can only exercise over them
the jurisdiction and authority which was authorized before the war
commenced, and which is regulated by the Constitution of the United
States.