I believe it is easier to do this without deciding or even considering whether those States have ever been out of the Union.

The States finding themselves once more at home, it would seem immaterial to me to inquire whether they had ever been abroad." The essential difference between the upholders and the opponents of this theory was not shown in the practical treatment proposed for the States which had been in rebellion.

It was in truth a difference only in degree.

The stoutest defenders of the dogma that the States had not been out of the Union did not propose to permit the re-organization of their local governments except upon conditions prescribed by the National authority, and did not assert the rightfulness of their claims to representation in the Senate and House until the prescribed conditions were complied with.

Those who protested against the dogma did not assert the right to keep the States out of the Union, but only claimed an unrestricted power to exact as the prerequisite of re-admission such conditions as might be deemed essential to the public safety--especially such as would most surely prevent another rebellion against National authority.