us who choose to follow him in the debate. In the remarks which he made
in this body a few days since, he laid down, with the clearness and
the force which characterize everything he says and does, his point of
departure in commencing this great work. I had hoped that the ground he
would lay down would be such that we could all of us stand upon it and
co-operate with him in our common object. I feel constrained to say,
sir--and do it without the slightest disposition to create or to
exaggerate differences--that there were features in his exposition of
the condition of the country with which I cannot concur. I cannot for
myself start from precisely the point which he assumes.

In his remarks on that occasion he assumed that the States lately in
rebellion were and are out of the Union. Throughout his speech--I will
not trouble you with reading passages from it--I find him speaking of
those States as "outside of the Union," as "dead States," as having
forfeited all their rights and terminated their State existence. I find
expressions still more definite and distinct; I find him stating that
they "are and for four years have been out of the Union for all legal
purposes"; as having been for four years a "separate power," and "a
separate nation."

His position therefore is that these States, having been in rebellion,
are now out of the Union, and are simply within the jurisdiction of the
Constitution of the United States as so much territory to be dealt with
precisely as the will of the conqueror, to use his own language, may
dictate. Now, sir, if that position is correct, it prescribes for us one
line of policy to be pursued very different from the one that will be
proper if it is not correct. His belief is that what we have to do is to
create new States out of this territory at the proper time--many
years distant--retaining them meantime in a territorial condition, and