s proposed that Congress shall
organise governments in these States, which are absolutely without loyal
governments, we are met by the objection founded on State Rights. The
same disastrous voice which from the beginning of our history has
sounded in our ears still makes itself heard; but, alas! it is now on
the lips of our friends. Of course, just in proportion as it prevails
will it be impossible to establish the Constitution again throughout the
Rebel States. State Rights are madly triumphant, if, first, in their
name Rebel governments can be organized, and then, again, in their name
Congressional governments to displace the Rebel governments can be
resisted. If they can be employed, first to sever the States from the
Union, and then to prevent the Union from extending its power over them,
State Rights are at once a sword and buckler to the Rebellion. It was
through the imbecility of Mr. Buchanan that the States were allowed to
use the sword. God forbid that now, through any similar imbecility of
Congress, they shall be allowed to use the buckler!

SHALL CONGRESS ASSUME JURISDICTION OF THE REBEL STATES?

And now, in this discussion, we are brought to the practical question
which is destined to occupy so much of public attention. It is proposed
to bring the action of Congress to bear directly upon the Rebel States.
This may be by the establishment of provisional governments under the
authority of Congress, or simply by making the admission or recognition
of the States depend upon the action of Congress. The essential feature
of this proposition is, _that Congress shall assume jurisdiction of the
Rebel States_. A bill authorizing provisional governments in these
States was introduced into the Senate by Mr. Harris of the State of New
York, and was afterwards reported from the Judiciary Committee of that
body; but it was left with the unfinished business, when the late
Congress expired on the fourth of March. The opposition to this
proposition, so far as I understand it, assumes two forms: first, that
these States are always to be regarded as States, with State rights, and
therefore cannot be governed by Congress; and, secondly, that, if any
government is to be established over them, it must be simply a military
government, with a military governor, appointed by the President, as is
the case with Tennessee and North Carolina. But State rights are as much
disturbed by a military government as by a Congressional governme