of 1787. That it was action both radical and summary, for which it was difficult to find provision or precedent either in the Constitution or in previous legislation, is unquestionably true. Nor would it be possible, any more than it is needful, to show that it did not by so doing infringe upon what had been deemed the vested rights of property which, under the "manageable times" of peace, had been recognized and defended by the Federal government. It was only the execution of one of the war powers of the government, placed in its hands and rendered legitimate by the higher law of the nation's safety, before which laws or the enactments of ordinary legislation must remain silent. It was only a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence. Slavery had assaulted the nation, and they were in deadly grapple. One or the other must die. The nation wisely and rightly decided that it must be slavery. There were captious and carping criticisms made during the debate both in and out of Congress, as there have been since, appeals to the Constitution and to the rulings of courts in opposition to the bill; and yet there were border-State Unionists even then who admitted the necessities of the case, and attributed the destruction of slavery to the real and guilty cause, the crime of the conspirators in seeking the nation's life. Referring to them, said a Baltimore paper, which was quoted in the debate: "But now at length comes the reckoning. They have aroused a thousand enemies to slavery where it had but one before; and their course has been especially fatal to the States that were to serve as their 'bulwark.' They dared to make the issue; they eagerly threw down the gauntlet, and the loyal portion of the nation, called upon to repel their aggressions, has taken it up. And now, after the monstrous crimes of which the cotton States have been guilty, after shrouding the whole land in mourning, and almost burying it under a load of debt, they dare to insult heaven and earth with their indignant cries, because retribution threatens that institution which they avowed should dominate the continent under the lead of Toombs and Stephens and the Rhetts." CHAPTER XXV. EMANCIPATION OF THE SLAVES OF REBELS. - Simple question. Mr. Pomeroy's resolution. - Mr. Trumbull's bill. - Long and earnest debate. — Great divergence of views. — Speeches of Morrill, Howard, Wilmot. Strong opposition. - Davis, Powell, Willey, and Saulsbury. — Henderson, Cowan. Responses of Mr. Hale and Wade. - Hale's constitutional scruples. Differences among friends of the measure. - Hale, Wilson, Wade, Sumner, Clark. Committee's report. - Debate. House. Eliot's bill and speech. - Harding, Conway. - Various propositions. - Reports. — Select committee. - Report and debate. - Division of sentiment. Southern views. Crittenden, Mallory. - Northern opposition. Cox, Law, Thomas. -Noell, Loomis, Julian, Beaman, Rice. - Southern utterances. - Menzies, Senate. Committee of Con Price. Eliot's speech and substitute passed. ference. Bill becomes a law. THOUGH Congress had adopted antislavery measures and passed several acts offensive to slavemasters, and in derogation of what had hitherto been regarded their rights, it had never grappled squarely with the single question, free from all complications, Shall treason, pure and simple, work the forfeiture of all slaveholding rights under the Constitution? In the measures hitherto adopted or under debate, there had been special reasons, side issues, which afforded of themselves considerations why such action should be taken, and which were urged as arguments in vindication of their adoption. It was, however, inevitable that this question would present itself, to be met, considered, and answered. Indeed, the right answer and a definite and accepted policy upon this one single issue had become a necessity, and it could not but simplify matters much in regard to these other subordinate and more complicated inquiries to give that answer. Accordingly, in the special session and soon after Congress came together, Mr. Pomeroy of Kansas introduced into the Senate a bill for the abolition of slavery, as a military necessity, "in any of the States that claim to have seceded from the government." It was, however, only read twice, and referred, but never acted on. But immediately on the assembling of that body at its regular session in December, Mr. Trumbull of Illinois introduced a bill, providing that the slaves of all who had taken up arms against the United States should "become forever thereafter free, any law to the contrary notwithstanding." In his speech, on introducing his bill, Mr. Trumbull set forth with great clearness and force the reasons why it should become a law. Saying that the right to take slaves as "property," as they were professedly held, by the rules of war was undoubted, he spoke of it 66 as one of the most efficient means for attaining the end for which the armies of the Union had been called forth, the right to restore to them the God-given liberty of which they had been unjustly deprived." It was, he said, only a question of "policy"; and of that he had no doubt. He spoke of the mistaken "leniency" with which they had treated treason, as if it were a "trivial offence," which could be atoned for by "a promise to do so no more." On the 25th of February it came up for general debate, which was very extended, and partook largely of both a discussion of the principles involved, and criticisms on matters of detail contained in the separate sections. Mr. Pomeroy hav ing taken exception to the third section, for what appeared to him an implied indorsement of the Fugitive Slave Act in the case of loyal slaveholders, Mr. Sumner expressed his concurrence, saying, "I have never called that a law, or even an act. I regard it simply as a bill; still, a bill having no authority under the Constitution of the United States." He moved an amendment, which Mr. Trumbull promptly accepted. Thus was opened a discussion which continued for nearly five months, before the final vote was reached. In it were revealed, by the motions, amendments, and substitutes offered, and in the speeches made, the intrinsic difficulties of the measure and the wide diversity of opinion that obtained thereon. Even at the great crisis and momentous juncture - in the history of the Republic, and among those who regarded it as the opportune moment to strike for freedom, to vindicate the primal truths of human rights, the foundation principles of free institutions, and to break the chains that bound the slave, and the nation as well, did this diversity appear. Mr. Trumbull spoke again in its behalf, defending it from the assaults that had been made upon it. He spoke of "the opportunity to strike a blow for freedom" which a wicked Rebellion presented, "thereby destroying to a great extent its source and origin, and the only thing which has ever seriously threatened the peace of the Union." Mr. Morrill of Maine, who had offered a joint resolution to confiscate the property of Rebels, and to satisfy the just claims of loyal persons, involving the emancipation of slaves, contended, when slavery made war on the nation, that its right was "lost in its audacious revolt and armed assault on the government," and that any cry "to be let alone" amid the cannonading of Sumter was "a shallow pretence to conceal a wicked purpose.' Mr. Howard of Michigan spoke with great force of thought and expression in favor of the bill, finding arguments therefor in the deleterious influence which the slaveholding interest had always exerted upon the Federal government. He spoke of the "traitorous eloquence" of those who had lost "the balance of power" through their "incautious haste in forcing the Northern Democracy to adopt obnoxious measures that had united the Northern people to resist the further attempts of their ambition." He said that "God's innocent air was loaded with execrations against a government which had never harmed a hair of their heads, and whose only fault was that it had loved them, not wisely, but too well." Mr. Wilson said he did not expect to realize any large amount of property from any confiscation bill," for he presumed, after the war was over and the "din of battle had ceased," that they should “deal gently with the masses of the people engaged in the Rebellion." The emancipation of the slaves of Rebels he confessed to be his "chief object of solicitude." "Slavery," he said, "is the great rebel, the giant criminal, the murderer striving with bloody hands to throttle our government, and destroy our country, the great rebel with hands dripping with the blood of my murdered countrymen. I give the criminal no quarter." Were he to do that, he added, "I should feel that I was a traítor to my native land, and deserved a traitor's doom." He said that if they were unwise enough to keep slavery, "to hold fast to the chains that bind three millions of men in bondage," they would have an enemy always ready to seize on all fit opportunities to raise their disloyal hands against the perpetuity of the Republic." "Nothing," he said, "but the prejudices of association on the one hand, or timidity on the other, can hold us back from doing the duty we owe to our country in this crisis." "Amidst the sacrifices of this hour," asked Mr. Wilmot of Pennsylvania, "this universal wreck of interests, shall the slaveholding traitor grasp securely his human chattel?" race. The bill, however, encountered strong opposition from both Southern and Northern men. Differing widely in sentiment and in the reasons for their course, they agreed in their condemnation of the proposed measure. Among the loudest, if not the most potent, voices raised against it was that of Garrett Davis of Kentucky, announcing the most extreme opinions, and advocating, in most offensive terms, the theory of the "white man's government." He declared that neither the Declaration nor the Constitution embraced slaves or the negro The latter, he said, "no more embraces Indians or slaves than it does quadrupeds or wild beasts. The only partners to our political partnership were the white men. The negro was not, and he cannot now constitutionally be, any party to it." Mr. Powell of the same State denounced with great severity the antislavery policy of the government. Mr. Willey of Virginia did not so much object to the confiscation of slaves as & war measure, if it could be coupled with colonization, but his opposition to emancipation without the removal of the freedmen was determined and deadly. Virginia, he contended, would not allow it, but would be driven to the policy of reenslavement, not only of the manumitted, but of "the sixty thousand free negroes already there." He predicted that the same consequences would follow in all the slave States. |