inoperative in said State."
Mr. Sherman made a brief speech in explanation of the bill. "All there
is material in the bill," said he, "is in the first two lines of the
preamble and the fifth section, in my judgment. The first two lines
may lay the foundation, by adopting the proclamation issued first to
North Carolina, that the rebellion had swept away all the civil
governments in the Southern States; and the fifth section points out
the mode by which the people of those States, in their own manner,
without any limitations or restrictions by Congress, may get back to
full representation in Congress."
After numerous propositions to amend, and speeches against the bill by
Messrs. Hendricks, Cowan, Buckalew and McDougall, the Senate reached a
vote upon the bill at six o'clock on Sunday morning. Twenty-nine voted
in the affirmative, namely:
Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Cattell, Chandler, Conness, Cragin,
Creswell, Fogg, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Howard, Howe,
Kirkwood, Lane, Morgan, Morrill, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey,
Ross, Sherman, Stewart, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey,
Williams, Wilson, and Yates.
Ten voted in the negative, to-wit:
Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Doolittle, Hendricks,
McDougall, Nesmith, Norton, Patterson, and Saulsbury.
The Senate amended the title of the bill by substituting the word
"rebel" for "insurrectionary." Thus passed in the Senate the great
measure entitled "A bill to provide for the more efficient government
of the rebel States."
On Monday, February 18th, the bill, as amended, came before the House.
Mr. Stevens moved that the amendments of the Senate be non-concurred
in, and that the House ask a Committee of Conference.
Mr. Boutwell opposed the amendment. "If I did not believe," said he,
"that this bill, in the form in which it now comes to us from the
Senate, was fraught with great and permanent danger to the country, I
would not attempt to resist further its passage."
He objected to the bill on the ground that it proposed to reconstruct
the rebel State governments at once, through the agency of disloyal
men, and that it gave additional power to the President when he had
failed to use the vast power which he already possessed in behalf of
loyalty and justice.
Mr. Stokes saw in the bill the principle of universal amnesty and
universal suffrage. "I would rather have nothing," said he, "if these
governments are reconstructed in a way that w
|