head of the civil and
military power of this great republic--not 'empire;' God forbid that
this country should ever be so designated with applause or even with
toleration--to beat down armed opposition to it, whether it came from
a foreign power or from domestic insurrection. That was the duty of
the President, and he recognized it; and it was not the duty of any
one in this Congress to gainsay it. It was written on the face of the
Constitution that the President was to see that the laws should be
faithfully executed, and the power of this republic maintained, and he
did so.

"The next fact--the fact which seems to me to be the one most
pertinent for consideration now--is that the military power which was
opposed to this Government has been destroyed. It was the duty of the
Executive to see that this was done, and to report to the Congress of
the United States that it has been done. But what then? Then there
comes the third question of fact, intimately connected with the last,
and hardly separable from it, because it requires the immediate action
of the Executive and of Congress. All the power that existed in the
shape of Confederated States behind rebel bayonets and fortifications
has fallen to the earth. The territory which these States in rebellion
occupied was the property of the people of the United States, and
never could be taken from us. I hold it to be a question of public
law, worthy of consideration by the representatives of the American
people, by the President and the Administration generally, to
ascertain what existed in the shape of civil constitutions and laws
behind the military government that has been overthrown. I hesitate
not to say, here or elsewhere, that the Executive of this Government
has done his duty in this matter. All conquering nations, when they
overcome a rebellious people by overthrowing their military power,
look, as did the Government of Great Britain when it had overcome the
mutiny in India, to see what government of a civil kind has existed or
may exist from custom among the people who are conquered. I see no
reason in this view to discriminate between the argument of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania and the argument of the gentleman from New
York. It seems to me, that if they will look at the particular
questions which are now before us, and which require our action, the
differences would be in terms and not in substance."

The people of the predominant party generally acquiesced