Then I have been reminded very earnestly by Senators that I have used strong language in saying that these governments will be open to the imputation of being born of the bayonet. This is not the first time I have used that language in this Chamber. From the beginning I have protested against Reconstruction by military power. Again and again I have asserted that it is contrary to the genius of republican institutions, and to a just economy of political forces. I have not been hearkened to. Others have pressed the intervention of military power; and now, as I am about to record my vote in favor of the pending proposition, I cannot but express my sincere and unfeigned regret that Congress did not see its way to a generous measure of Reconstruction purely civil in character, having no element of military power. Such you had before you at the last session in the Louisiana Bill, which I sought to press day by day; and when, at the last moment, the Military Bill was passed, I, from my place here, declared that I should deem it my duty at the earliest possible moment in this session to press the Louisiana Bill, or some kindred measure not military in character. I was early tutored in the principles of Jefferson. I cannot forget his Inaugural Address, where he lays down among the cardinal principles, or what he calls “the essential principles of our Government,” and consequently those which ought to shape its administration, “The supremacy of the civil over the military authority.” Imbued with this principle, I hoped that Congress would see the way to establish at once civil governments in all those States, and not subject them to military power, except so far as needed for purposes of protection. This is the true object of the army. It is to protect the country,--not to make constitutions, or to superintend the making of constitutions. At least, so I have read the history of republican institutions, and such are the aspirations that I presume to express for my country. The vote on Mr. Summer’s proposition stood, Yeas 20, Nays 20, being a tie, so that the amendment was lost. Any one Senator changing from the negative would have carried it. The bill passed the Senate,--Yeas 38, Nays 2. On the amendments of the Senate there was a difference between the two Houses, which ended in a committee of conference, whose report was concurred in without a division. March 23d, the bill was vetoed by the President. On the same day it was passed again by the House,--Yeas 114, Nays 25,--and by the Senate,--Yeas 40, Nays 7,--being more than two thirds; so that it became a law, notwithstanding the objections of the President.[100] PROHIBITION OF DIPLOMATIC UNIFORM. SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE UNIFORM OF PERSONS IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 20, 1867.