Belief 2 - Reading 16 of 17, The Reconstruction Convention

Use the links above to navigate this simulation.

Belief 2 - Reading 16 of 17

Navigate within this Belief: Reading 15 << >> Reading 17

Additional Beliefs: Belief 1 Belief 2 Belief 3 Belief 4 Belief 5 Belief 6 Belief 7 Belief 8

THE ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE

Harper's Weekly, November 18, 1865, page 722 (Editorial)

The next vital point of public interest is the organization of the House of Representatives. Is the Clerk of the House bound to place upon the roll the names of the representatives who may appear from the unorganized States, and may they take part in deciding the question whether they are entitled to seats?

To state the point would seem to settle it. But the law happily coincides with the suggestion of common sense. The Statutes at Large provide that the clerk "shall make a roll, and place thereon the names of all persons, and of such persons only, whose credentials show that they were regularly elected in accordance with the laws of their States respectively, or the laws of the United States."

Now as there is no government in the unorganized States which has been recognized by the United States; as their present acts are purely provisional and experimental, and are entirely dependent for validity upon the approval of Congress, it is clear that until Congress has approved the Constitution under which the representatives are elected there are, in the eye of the law, no representatives. For suppose that the names of the claimants from South Carolina, for instance, should be enrolled; suppose that they should be able to affect the choice of Speaker and the organization of the House: they would then be also in a position to determine whether Congress should approve the Constitutions under which they were elected. In other words, the late rebels and their Northern allies would determine upon what terms the unorganized States should resume their relations in the Union; and they would also be strong enough to repudiate the National debt!

This preposterous proceeding is gravely urged as the only lawful one—by whom? By the late rebels and their friends at the North. The Government has been saved against a desperate rebellion, and—according to these gentlemen—it can be now lawfully intrusted only to those who made war upon it and their allies who cheered them on! The Constitution was always pleaded by the rebels and their friends against a war to suppress the rebellion, and it is now pleaded against the natural and legitimate action of the country in securing the fruit of its triumph. Thus it appears that the Constitution, as interpreted both by its open and its disguised enemies, is only valid to embarrass the country in saving the Government first from the arms and then from the intrigues of its enemies.

Before the representatives from any lately rebellious State can take part in the proceedings of Congress, Congress must determine whether that State is duly organized for its normal functions in the Union. When, for instance, the Provisional Governor of South Carolina has forwarded to the President the proceedings of the Provisional Convention, and the acts of the people and of the Legislature in accordance with them, and these have been laid by the President before Congress and approved by it, then, and not before, can the representatives regularly elected under the law of such States be admitted to Congress. Until then a representative from South Carolina has no more right to a seat or a voice in Congress than one from Canada or Guatemala.

The conditions upon which the whole work of provisional reorganization proceeds were imposed by the President. He authorized some of the people of the States named to take certain steps in order "to present such a republican form of State government as will entitle the State to the guaranty of the United States therefor." The United States, of course, will decide whether the State shall have that guaranty; but the State itself will have no voice whatever in the decision. If the President had taken no steps, and the States named had, under Constitutions which had for four years repudiated the national authority, sent representatives to Congress, would any body but Mr. Vallandigham or Horatio Seymour claim that they ought to be admitted equally with the representatives from New York and Ohio?

If the late rebel States are in the Union as New York or Ohio are, then the action of the President is not only an impertinence, but lays him liable to impeachment: and their representatives may come without question, like those of Massachusetts—as Provisional Governor Perry contends. But if the action of the President was constitutional and necessary as a measure of public safety, and this is the view of all loyal men, then the representatives must wait until the United States in Congress bid them enter.

Harper's Weekly, November 18, 1865, page 722 (Editorial)

This site is brought to you by…