YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Gift of B. Selden Bacon Y 1911 THE WORKS CHARLES SUMNER. Veniet fortasse aliud tempus, dignius nostro, quo, debellatis odiis, Veritas trinmpliabit. Hoc mecum opta, lector, et vale. Leibnitz. VOL. VII. BOSTON: LEE AND SHEPARD 1873. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1872, BY CHARLES SUMNERj in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, Univeksity Press: Welch, Bigelow, & Co., Cambridge. CONTENTS OF VOLUME VII. Page Rights of Sovereignty and Rights of War: Two Sources of Power against the Rebellios, Speech in the Senate, on his Bill for the Confiscation of Property and the Liberation of Slaves belonging to Rebels, May 19, 1862 1 No Surrender of Fugitive Slaves in Washington. Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, May 23, 1862 78 Information in regard to Freeing Slaves by our Advanc ing Armies. Resolution in the Senate, May 26, 1862 . . 82 Help from Slaves, with Reciprocal Protection in their Rights as Men Resolution in the Senate, May 26, 1862 . . 83 Tax on Cotton, Speeches in the Senate, May 27 and June 4, 1862 84 Tax on Slave-Masters. Speeches in the Senate, on Amendment to the Internal Tax Bill, May 28 and June 6, 1862 ... 93 Proper Despatch of Business. Remarks in the Senate, on the Order of Business, May 30, 1862 110 Shutting up of Colored Schools by the Provisional Gov ernment OF North Carolina. Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, June 2, 1862 113 Stand by the Administration, Letter to , June 6, 1862 . 116 Power of Congress vs. Military Government op States. Resolutions in the Senate, June 6, 1862 ' 119 Air-Line Railroad between Washington and New York. Resolution in the Senate, June 9, 1862 121 Abolition and Prohibition op Slavfby in West Virginia. Remarks in the Senate, on the Bill for the Admission of West Virginia as a State, June 26, July 1 and 14, 1862 . . .122 IV CONTENTS. Page War Powers of Congress : Confiscation and Liberation. Speech in the Senate, on tlie House Bill for the Confiscation of Property and the Liberation of Slaves belonging to Rebels, June 27, 1862 128 Prize-Money and its Policy. Remarks in the Senate, June 30, 1862 ... 148 The Rank of Admiral, Remarks in the Sen.ate, on the Bill to establish the Grades of Navy Oflicers, July 2, 1862 . . .150 Testimony of Colored Persons in the Courts of the United States, Speeches in the Senate, on an Amendment to two different Bills, one relating to the Judiciary, and the other to the Competency of Witnesses, July 3 and 15, 1862 .... 152 Provisional Governments and Reconstruction. Remarks in the Senate, on a Bill to establish Provisional Governments in cer tain Cases, July 7, 1862 162 Taxes on Knowledge. Remarks in the Senate, on the Duties upon Imported Books and Rags, July 8, 1862 .... 166 Constitutional Quorum of the Senate, Speech in the Senate, on a Resolution declaring the Constitutional Quorum, July 12, 1862 169 Protest against Final Adjournment of Congress. Remarks in the Senate, on a Resolution for the Final Adjournment of the two Houses, July 12, 1862 176 Patriotic Unity and Ebiancipation. Letter to a Public Meeting at New York, July 14, 1862 180 Harmony with the President and Emancipation, Speech in the Senate, on the Joint Resolution explanatory of the Act for Confiscation and Liberation, July 16, 1862 182 Union of Good Citizens for a Final Shttlement. Letter to the Republican State Committee, September 9, 1862 . . . 187 The Proclamation of Emancipation ; its Policy and Neces sity AS A War Measure for the Suppression op the Re bellion, Speech at Faneuil Hall, October 6, 1862. With Appen dix, on the Nomination and Reiilection of Mr, Sumner as Sen.ator 191 The Ejiancipation Proclajiation our Corner-Stone, Letter to Fellow-Citizens at Salem, October 10, 1862 247 CONTENTS. V Page Farmers, their Happiness and Liberal Sentiments, Speech at the Dinner of the Hampshire County Agricultural Society, at Northampton, Jlass., October 14, 1862 248 Ambulance and Hospital Corps. Resolution in the Senate, De cember 8, 1862 .255 Celebration of Ebiancipation, Letter to a Public Meeting of Colored Citizens in Boston, January 1, 1863 .... 256 Prudence in our Foreign Relations, Remarks in the Senate, on Resolutions against French Interference in Mexico, February 3, 1863 " . 257 Employment of Colored Troops. BiU in the Senate, February 9, 1863 .262 Immediate Ejiancipation, and not Gradual. Speech in the Senate, on the Bill providing Aid for Emancipation in Missouri, February 12, 1863 266 Letters of JIarque and Reprisal. Speeches in the Senate, on the Bill to authorize the President, in all Domestic or Foreign Wars, to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal, February 14 and 17, 1863 278 Appointments to the Naval Academy. Remarks in the Senate, on the Bill to regulate the Appointment of Midshipmen to the Naval Academy, February 16, 1863 301 Exemption of Clergymen from Military Conscription, Re marks on the Conscription Law, February 16, 1863 , , 303 Protest against Foreign Intervention, and Declaration of National Purpose, ConcuiTent Resolutions of Congi*ess, re ported in the Senate February 28, 1863 . ... 307 Inexpediency of Letters of Marque, Letter to a Citizen of New York, March 17, 1863 , 313 Unity FOR the sake of Freedom, and Freedom for the sake of Unity. Letter to a Public Meeting at Cleveland, Ohio, May 18, 1863 316 Pacific Railroad. Letter to Messrs, Samuel Hallett & Co,, May 23, 1863 318 Union of the Mississippi and the Lakes by Canal, Letter to a Convention at Chicago, May 27, 1863 320 VI CONTENTS. Page The Issues op the War. Dedication of a New Edition of the Speech on the Barbarism of Slavery, July 4, 1863 . . . 322 Let Colored Men Enlist. Letter to a Convention at Poughkeep- sie. New York, July 13, 1863 325 Our Foreign Relations: showing Present Perils prom Eng land AND France, Nature and Condition of Interven tion BY Mediation and also by Recognition, Impossibil ity OF ANY Recognition op a new Power with Slavery AS A Corner-Stone, and Wrongful Concession op Ocean Belligerence, Speech before the Citizens of New York, at the Cooper Institute, September 10, 1863. With Appendix . . 327 Our Domestic Relations: Power of Congress over the Reb el States. Article in the Atlantic Monthly, October, 1863 493 RIGHTS OF SOVEREIGNTY AND RIGHTS OF WAR : TWO SOUECES OF POWER AGAINST THE EBBBLLION. Speech in the Senate, on his Bill for the Confiscation of Property and the Liberation or Slaves belonging to Rebels, May 19, 1862, Wherefore he deserves to be puni.slied, not only as an enemy, but also na a traitor, both to you and to us. And indeed treason is as much worse than war as it is harder to guard against what is secret than what is open, — and as much more hateful, as with enemies men make treaties again, and put faith in them, but with one who is discovered to be a traitor nobody ever enters into covenant, or trusts him for the future, — Xenophon, Hellenica, Book II. ch, 3, § 29. Except the Tax Bill, no subject occupied so much attention during this session as what were known generally as "Confiscation Bills," all proposing, in different ways, the punishment of Rebels and the weak ening of the Rebellion, by taking property and freeing slaves. In sup porting these bills, Mr, Sumner did not disguise his special anxiety to assert the power of Congress over Slavery. As early as January 15th, Mr, Ti'umbuU reported from the Judiciary Committee a bill to confiscate the property and free the slaves of Reb els, which was considered from time to time and debated at length, many Senators speaking. Amendments were made, among which was one moved by Mr. Sumner, February 25th, requiring, that, whenever any person claimed another as slave, he should, before proceeding with his claim, prove loyalty. ^ Then came motions for reference of the pending bill and all associate propositions to a Select Committee, That of Mr, Clark prevailed. In a speech which will be found in the Oon- gressiorud Glohe,'^ sustaining the reference, Mr, Sumner said : — "Such are the embarrassments in which we are involved, such is the maze into which we have been led by these various motions, that a com mittee is needed to hold the clew. Never was there more occasion for such a committee than now, when we have all these multifarious propositions to be considered, revised, collated, and brought into a constitutional unit, — or, if I may so say, changing the figure, passed through an alembic, to be fused into one bill on which we can all harmonize." Mr, Clark reported from the Select Committee a bill "to suppress Insurrection and punish Treason and Rebellion,'' which, on the 16th of May, was taken up for consideration, Mr, Sumner was among those who thought the bill inadequate, and on the day it was taken up he introduced a substitute in ten sections, which was printed by order of the Senate, The title was, "For the Confiscation of Property and the Liberation of Slaves belonging to Rebels." The sections relating to Liberation were these. " Sec, 6. And he it further enacted. That, if any person within any State or Territory of the United States shall, after the passage of this Act, wilfully 1 See, ante, Vol, VT. p. 379. 2 May 6, 1862, pp, 1957, 1958, 4 EIGHTS OF SOVEREIGNTY engage in armed rebellion against the Government of the United States, or shall wilfully aid or abet such rebellion, or adhere to those engaged in such rebellion, giving them aid or comfort, every such person shall tliereby for feit all claim to the service or labor of any persons commonly known as slaves; and all such slaves are hereby declared free, and forever discharged from such servitude, anything in the laws of the United States, or of any State, to the contrary notwithstanding. And whenever thereafter any per son claiming the labor or service of any such slave shall seek to enforce his claim, it shall be a sufficient defence thereto that the claimant was engaged in the said rebellion, or aided or abetted the same, contrary to the provisions of this Act. " Sec. 7, And be it furtlier enacted. That, whenever any person claiming to be entitled to the service or labor of any other person shall seek to enforce such claim, he shall, in the first instance, and before any order shall be made for the suiTender of the person whose service or labor is claimed, establish not only his claim to such service or labor, but also that such claimant has not in any way aided, assisted, or countenanced the existing Rebellion against the Government of the United States. And no person engaged in the mili tary or nav.al service of the United States shall, under any pretence what ever, assume to decide on the validity of the claim of any person to the service or labor of any other person, or deliver up any such person to the claimant, on pain of being dismissed from the service." May 19th, Mr, Sumner made the following speech, vindicating the powers of Congi-ess, A debate ensued, turning on the inadequacy of the pending bill, in which Jlr, Sumner likened it to a glass of water with a bit of orange- peel, which, according to a character in one of Dickens's novels, by making believe very hard, would be a strong drink, and said : "At u, moment when the life of the Republic is struck at. Senators would proceed by indictment in it criminal court," Mr, Wade said ; "I do not know that we shall get anything ; but if we only get this bill, we shall get next to nothing." In the course of the debate, Mr, Davis departed from the main ques tion to say that he understood the Senators from Massachusetts sympa thized with the mob in Boston, and its resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act, He never knew that Mr. Wilson had appeared "to back the Marshal of the United States in the execution of that law." Then ensued a brief colloquy. " Me, Davis. I never heard that he did, or that either of them did per form or attempt to perform that high, patriotic duty. ' •' Mr, Sumner, 1 was in my seat here. "Mr. Davis. Did yon not give your sympathy to those who resisted the law f AND EIGHTS OF WAE. 0 " Mr, Sumner. My sympathy is always with every slave. "Mr. Davis. That is a frank acknowledgment. His sympathy is with every slave against the Constitution and the execution of the laws of his country ! If that is not a sentiment of treason, I ask what is," i Meanwhile the House of Representatives were considering the same subject, and on the 26th May passed a bill " to confiscate the property of Rebels for the payment of the expenses of the present Rebellion, and for other pui-poses," which, on motion of Mr. Clark, was taken up in the Senate June 23d, when he moved to substitute the pending Senate bill. The debate on the general question was resumed, June 27th, Mr, Sumner made another speech, which will be found in its place, ac cording to date,^ especially in reply to Mr, Browning, who had claimed the War Powers for the President rather than for Congress. June 28th, the substitute moved by Mr, Clark was agreed to. Yeas 19, Nays 17, aud the biU as amended was then passed, Yeas 28, Nays 13. July 3d, the House non-concurred in the Senate amendment. A Conference Committee reported in substance the Senate amendment, which was accepted in the Senate, Yeas 28, Nays 13, and in the House, Yeas 82, Nays 42. July l7th, the bill was signed by the President. The sections of this bill, as it passed, relating to liberation, were these. "Sec. 9, And }>& it further enacted. That all slaves of persons who shall hereafter be engaged in rebellion against the Government of the United States, or who shall in any way give aid or comfort thereto, escaping from such persons and taking refuge within the lines of the army, and all slaves captured from such persons, or deserted by them, and coming under the control of the Government of the United States, and all slaves of such per sons found on [or] being witliin any place occupied by Rebel forces, and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States, shall be deemed captives of war, and shall be forever free of their servitude, and not again held as slaves. "Sec. 10. And he it further enacted. That no slave escaping into any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, from any other State, shall be delivered up, or in any way impeded or hindered of his liberty, except for crime, or some offence against the laws, unless the person claiming said fu gitive shall first make oath that the person to whom the labor or service of such fugitive is alleged to be due is his lawful owner, and has not borne arms against the United States in the present Rebellion, nor in any way 1 Congressional Globe, 37th Cong. 2cl Sess., May 20, 1862, p, 2223, 2 Post, p, 128. b EIGHTS OF SOVEREIGNTY given aid and comfort thereto; and no person engaged in the military or naval service of the United States shall, under any pretence wliatever, as sume to decide on the validity of the claim of any person to the service or labor of any other person, or surrender up any such person to the claimant, on pain of being dismissed from the service," ^ This speech in the Washington pamphlet was entitled " Indemnity for the Past and Security for the Future," which points directly at its object. An edition was printed in New York by the Young Men's Republican Union, with the title, " Rights of Sovereignty and Rights of War, Two Sources of Power against the Rebellion," which describes the way in which this object might be accomplished. It was noticed at the time as removing difficulties which perplexed many with regard to the powers of Congress, In Paris, the Journal des Dibats^ referred to it as explaining the con fiscation proposed in the United States, and quoted passages especially in reply to the Constitutionnel, which had attacked the measure. A few opinions are given, merely to illustrate the tone of comment. Hon. John Jay, afterwards our Minister at Vienna, who sympathized promptly with all that was done to crush the Rebellion, wrote from New York : — " Your Confiscation speech is an admirable exposition of the subject, and will go far to remove any lingering doubts in the public mind in regard to the constitutionality and necessity of the measure." Then again he wrote : — " I have re-read, with thorough satisfaction, your speech on Confiscation and Emancipation in the pamphlet you were good enough to send me. It is admirable in its tone, arrangement, and completeness, and the arguments and illustrations are overwhelming and unanswerable. The necessity of Emancipation is fast forcing itself upon our people by the stern logic of facts, but your speech will remove any lingering doubts." Hon. Amos P, Granger, former Representative in Congress, and a stern patriot, wrote from Syracuse, New York ; — "Your remarks of the 19th, as reported in the Tribune day before yester day, are read in this vicinity with a gi-eat deal of pleasure and appro bation. They are replete with prudence, skill, and wisdom. Such senti ments are rarely heard in Washington. It would seem that thev would be decisive," 1 Sbvtutes at Large, Vol. XII, p, 591, ! 12 Juln, 1862, AND EIGHTS OF WAE. 7 Hon. William L. Marshall, an able Judge of Maryland, wrote from Baltimore : — " You have exhausted the subject, it seems to me, so far as it involves legal questions. I have been greatly pleased and much interested by your argument." L. D. Stickney, of Florida, wrote from Washington : — " I have read your speech on the confiscation of the property of Rebels with the liveliest interest and with entire approbation. Long a citizen of the South, I have nevertheless been a steadfast Republican of the school of Jef ferson and of J. Quincy Adams, — a Republican to elevate men to the proper status of freemen, not to degrade them to slavery. While the unthinking and those of violent prejudices call you fanatical, no man properly qualified to judge of men and events can survey your parUamentary history without acknowledging your claim to the highest plane of statesmanship. I rever ence Sir James Mackintosh as the brightest example of great men whom the world will not willingly let die. Tried by no other standard than your speeches in the Thirty-Seventh Congress alone, you will stand unchallenged by the enlightened judgment of mankind, his co-rival in that fame which makes his name cherished by scholars everywhere, and by all men of good report." While expressing sympathy with this speech, many at this time, like the last writer, referred to the series of efforts by Mr. Sumner during this session. Among these was Hon. Samuel E, Sewall, of Boston, the able lawyer and tried Abolitionist, who repeated the kindly apprecia tion which he had expressed on other occasions. "Your course during the present session has not only delighted your friends, but I think has given great satisfaction to the mass of your con stituents, as well as to all throughout the country whose opinions are of any value. " Any man might think his life well spent, who, in its whole course, had said and done no more in the cause of freedom and justice than you have in the six months past." Hon, Charles W. Upham, the author, and former Representative in Congress, wrote from Salem : — "You have nobly presented and thoroughly exhausted all the subjects you have treated. I rejoice in your success, and cordially indorse your sen timents. May you live to witness the progressive triumphs of the great cause to which you are devoted ! " Lewis Tappan, often quoted already, wrote from New York : — " You have done a great work in the Senate during the last session. I 8 EIGHTS OF SOVEREIGNTY admire your consistency. Every utterance has been instinct with liberty and loyalty, , . . Thanking you again for the speech, and for your other speeches, and thanking God for the brilliancy of your entire Senatorial ca reer . . ." Hon, Asaph Churchill, lawyer and fellow-student, expressed his sympathy, and gave a reminiscence, in a letter from Boston. "Allow me to congratulate you upon the grand success of our country's movement, and no less upon your own career, which has been crowned with such splendid success, during the past season, in the new, important, and delicate questions which you have been called upon to speak and act upon. Certainly your highest ambition ought to be satisfied with that which in sures to you your place in the immortality of history ; and you have had the most abundant opportunity for accomplishing upon the grandest scale that aspiration which I so well remember you gave utterance to at our Law School, when, boy-like, we were all teUing what we most ardently sought to do or to be, that you ' wished to do that which would do the most good to mankind.' " Wendell Phillips, after his return from a lecture-tour, wrote : — " Be of good courage. We all say amen to you. And your diocese, /can testify, extends to the Mississippi." Alfred E. Giles, lawyer, wrote from Boston : — " During your Congressional career, I have so uniformly found my views and feelings on public aflfairs in accordance with those of your speeches, that I now feel myself obliged, for once at least (for I shall not often trouble you), to express my gratitude, and give a word of good cheer to you, who. amid so many discouragements, and under so much obloquy as has been attempted to be thrown upon you, have ever so faithfully and manfuUy stood up for the oppressed and for liberal principles, " It appears to me, on reading your speeches, that I find my own views and principles announced, stated, and clothed with a richness and beauty of style find illustration that I admire, but cannot emulate. " Again, I am much pleased that you always deal fairly with your oppo nents, not using misrepresentation and ad captandum argument but draw ing your weapons from the armoiy of truth and right," Professor Ordronaux, of Columbia College, New York wrote : " Last year, while in England, I had the honor of meeting many gentle men of your acquaintance, .and, amid the many bitter things I was compelled to listen to, it was a source of constant satisfaction and pride to hear them acknowledge the great confidence they reposed in you and the earnest wish they expressed for the success of that nirrus ordo saiclcrrum in the Senate for which we are so much indebted to you. Reading over for the third time AND EIGHTS OF WAE. 9 your famous Kansas speech, of May, 1866,1 this morning, I was struck with the almost prophetic character of its language. The crime against Nature has indeed culminated. It struck you down, and then went dancing like a maniac, all, the while approaching that bottomless abyss into which it is now descending. Can you doubt that Nemesis still wields her sword and flaming torch V " These expressions of sympathy and good- will, overflowing from oppo site quarters, are a proper prelude to other utterances, widely different in tone, aroused against Mr. Sumner by the very persistency of his course. Appearing in their proper place, these will be better compre hended from knowing already the other side. 1 The Crime cgainst Kansas, May 19 and 20, 1856 : anXe, Vol. IV. p. 125. SPEECH MR PRESIDENT,— If I can simplify this discus sion, I shall feel that I have done something to wards establishing the truth. The chief difficulty springs from confusion with regard to different sources of power. This I shall try to remove. There is a saying, often repeated by statesmen and often recorded by publicists, which embodies the direct object of the war we are now unhappily compelled to wage, — an object sometimes avowed in European wars, and more than once made a watchword in our own country : " Indemnity for the past, aud Security for the future." Such should be our comprehensive aim, — nor more, nor less. Without indemnity for the past, this war will have been waged at our cost ; without secu rity for the future, this war will have been waged in vain, treasure and blood will have been lavished for nothing. But indemnity and security are both means to an end, and that end is the National Unity under the Constitution of the United States, It is not enough, if we preserve the Constitution at the expense of the National Unity. Nor is it enough, if we enforce the National Unity at the expense of the Constitution. Both must be maintained. Both will be maintained, if we do not fail to take counsel of that prudent cour- 12 EIGHTS OF SOVEREIGNTY ase which is never so much needed as at a moment like the present. Two things we seek as means to an end : Indemnity for the past, and Security for the future. Two things we seek as the end itself : National Uni ty, under the Constitution of the United States, In these objects all must concur. But how shall they be best accomplished ? The Constitution and International Law are each in volved in this discussion. Even if the question itself were minute, it would be important from such relations. But it concerns vast masses of property, and, what is more than property, it concerns the liberty of men, while it opens for decision the means to be employed in bring ing this great war to a close. In every aspect the ques tion is transcendent ; nor is it easy to pass upon it without the various lights of jurisprudence, of history, and of policy. Sometimes it is called a constitutional question ex clusively. This is a mistake. In every Government bound by written Constitution nothing is done except in conformity with the Constitution, But in the pres ent debate there need be no diflSculty or doubt under the Constitution, Its provisions are plain and explicit, so that they need only to be recited. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr, CowAx] and the Senator from Ver mont [Mr, C(_illamer] have stated them strongly; but I complain less of their statement than of its applica tion. Of course, any proposition really inconsistent with these provisions must be abandoned. But if, on the other hand, it be consistent, then is the way open to its consideration in the lights of history and policy. If there be any difficulty now, it is not from the ques- AND EIGHTS OF WAR. 13 tion, but simply from the facts, — as often in judicial proceedings it is less embarrassing to determine the law than the facts. If things are seen as they really are and not as Senators fancy or desire, if the facts are ad mitted in their natural character, then must the consti tutional power of the Government be admitted also, for this power comes into being on the occurrence of cer tain facts. Only by denying the facts can the power itself be drawn in question. But not even the Sena tor from Pennsylvania or the Senator from Vermont denies the facts. The facts are simple and obvious. They are all ex pressed or embodied in the double idea of Eebellion and War. Both of these are facts patent to common observation and common sense. It would be an insult to the understanding to say that at the present moment there is no Eebellion or that there is no War. What ever the doubts of Senators, or their fine-spun consti tutional theories, nobody questions that we are in the midst of de facto Rebellion and in the midst of de facto War. We are in the midst of each and of both. It is not enough to say that there is Eebellion ; nor is it enougli to say that there is War. The whole truth is not told in either alternative. Our case is double, and you may call it Eebellion or War, as you please, or you may call it both. It is Eebellion swollen to all the proportions of war, and it is War deriving its life from rebellion. It is not less Eebellion because of its present full-blown grandeur, nor is it less War because of the traitorous source whence it draws its life. The Eebellion is manifest, — is it not ? An exten sive territory, once occupied by Governments rejoicing 14 EIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY in allegiance to the Union, and sharing largely in its counsels, has undertaken to overthrow the National Constitution within its borders. Its Senators and Rep resentatives have withdrawn from Congress. The old State Governments, solemnly bound by the oaths of their functionaries to support ' the National Constitu tion, have vanished; and in their place appear pre tended Governments, which, adopting the further pre tension of a Confederacy, have proceeded to issue letters of marque and to levy war against the United States. So far has displacement of the National Government prevailed, that at this moment, throughout this whole territory, tliere are no functionaries acting under the United States, but all are pretending to act under the newly established Usurpation, Instead of the oath to support the Constitution of the United States, required of all officials by the Constitution, another oath is sub stituted, to support the Constitution of the Confederacy ; and thus the Eebellion assumes a completeness of or ganization under the most solemn sanctions. In point of fact, throughout this territory the National Govern ment is ousted, while the old State Governments have ceased to exist, lifeless now from Eebel hands. Call it suicide, if you will, or suspended animation, or abey ance, — they have practically ceased to exist. Such is the plain and palpable fact. If all this is not rebel lion, complete in triumphant treason, then is rebellion nothing but a name. But the War is not less manifest. Assuming all the functions of an independent government, the Confed eracy has undertaken to declare war against the United States. In support of this declaration it has raised ar mies, organized a na^'y, issued letters of marque, bor- AND EIGHTS OF WAR. 15 rowed money, imposed taxes, and otherwise done all that it could in waging war. Its armies are among the largest ever marshalled by a single people, and at different places throughout a wide-spread territory they have encountered the armies of the United States. Bat tles are fought with the varying vicissitudes of war. Sieges are laid. Fortresses and cities are captured. On the sea, ships bearing the commission of the Eebellion, sometimes as privateers and sometimes as ships of the navy, seize, sink, or burn merchant vessels of the Unit ed States ; and only lately an iron-clad steamer, with the flag of the Eebelhon, destroyed two frigates of the United States. On each side prisoners are made, who are treated as prisoners of war, and as such exchanged. Flags of truce pass from camp to camp, and almost daily during the winter this white flag has afforded its bel ligerent protection to communications between Norfolk and Fortress Monroe, while the whole Eebel coast is by proclamation of the President declared in a state of blockade, and ships of foreign countries, as well as of our own, are condemned by courts in Washington, Phil adelphia, New York, and Boston, as prize of war. Thus do all things attest the existence of war, which is mani fest now in the blockade, upheld by judicial tribunals, and now in the bugle, which after night sounds truce, indubitably as in mighty armies face to face on the bat tle-field. It is war in all its criminal eminence, chal lenging all the pains and penalties of war, enlisting all its terrible prerogatives, and awaking all its dormant thunder. Further effort is needless to show that we are in the midst of a Eebellion and in the midst of a War, — or, in yet other words, that unquestionable war is now waged 16 RIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY to put down unquestionable rebeUion. But a single illustration out of many in history wiU exhibit this double character in unmistakable relief The disturb ances which convulsed England in the middle of the seventeenth century were occasioned by the resistance of Parliament to the arbitrary power of the Crown. This resistance, prolonged for years and maintained by force, triumphed at last in the execution of King Charles and the elevat^'^n of Oliver Cromwell, The historian whose classical work was for a long time the chief authority relative to this event styles it "The Eebellion," and under this name it passed into the memory of men. But it was none the less war, with all the incidents of war. The fields of Naseby, Marston Moor, Dunbar, and Worcester, where Cavaliers and Puritans met in bloody shock, attest that it was war. Clarendon called it Ee- beUion, and the title of one of his works makes it " Tlie Grand Eebellion," — how small by the side of ours ! But a greater than Clarendon — John Milton — called it War, when, in unsurpassed verses, after commemorating the victories of Cromwell, he uses words so often quoted without knowing their original application : — " Yet much remains To conquer still : Pence hath her victories No less renowned than War." 1 The death of Cromwell was followed by the restoration of King Charles the Second ; but the royal fugitive from the field of Worcester, where Cromwell triumphed in war, did not fail to put forth the fuU prerogatives of sovereignty in the suppression of rebeUion ; and all who sat in judgment on the king, his father, were saved from the fearful penalties of treason only by exile. IIu"h 1 Sonnet XVL 9-11: To the Lord General Cromwell. AND EIGHTS OF WAR. 17 Peters, the Puritan preacher, and Harry Vane, the Puri tan senator, were executed as traitors for the part they performed in what was at once rebeUion and war, while the body of the great commander who defeated his king in battle, and then sat upon his throne, was hung in chains, as a warning against treason. Other instances might be given to illustrate the double character of present events. But enough is done. My simple object is to exhibit this important point in such light that it will be at once recognized. And I present the Eebelhon and the War as obvious facts. Let them be seen in their true character, and it is easy to apply the law. Because Senators see the facts only imperfectly, they hesitate with regard to the powers we are to em ploy, — or perhaps it is because they insist upon seeing the fact of EebeUion exclusively, and not the fact of War. Let them open their eyes, and they must see both. If I seem to dwell on this point, it is because of its practical importance in the present debate. For myself, I assume it as an undeniable postulate. The persons arrayed for the overthrow of the Govern ment of the United States are unquestionably criminals, subject to aU the penalties of rebellion, which is of course treason under the Constitution of the United States. The same persons arrayed in war against the Govern ment of the United States are unquestionably enemies, exposed to all the incidents of war, with its penal ties, seizures, contributions, confiscations, captures, and prizes. They are criminals, because they set themselves trai torously against the Government of their country. 18 EIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY They are enemies, because their combination assumes the front and proportions of war. It is idle to say that they are not criminals. It is idle to say that they are not enemies. They are both, and they are either ; and it is for the Government of the United States to proceed against them in either character, according to controlling considerations of policy. This right is so obvious, on grounds of reason, that it seems suiierfluous to sustain it by authority. But since its recognition is essential to the complete comprehension of our present position, I shall not hesi tate to iUustrate it by judicial decisions, and also by an earlier voice, A judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States cannot bind the Senate on this question; but it is an important guide, to which we all bow with respect. In the best days of this eminent tribunal, when Marshall was Chief Justice, in a case arising out of the efforts of France to suppress insurrection in the colony of San Domingo, it was affirmed by the Court that in such a case there were two distinct sources of power open to exercise by a government, — one found in the rights of a sovereign, the other in the rights of a beUigerent, or, in other words, one under Municipal Law, and the other under International Law, — and the exercise of one did not prevent the exercise of the other. BeUigerent rights, it was admitted, might be superadded to the rights of sovereignty. Here are the actual words of Chief -Justice MarshaU : " It is not intended to say that belligerent rights may not be superadded to those of sovereignty. But admitting a sovereign, who is endeavoring to reduce his revolted Sub jects to obedience, to possess both sovereign and belfio-erent AND EIGHTS OF WAE, 19 rights, and to be capable of acting in either character, the manner in which he acts must determine the character of the act. If as a legislator he publishes a law ordaining pun ishments for certain offences, which law is to be applied by courts, the nature of the law and of the proceedings under it will decide whether it is an exercise of belligerent rights or exclusively of his sovereign power." ¦' Here are the words of another eminent judge, Mr. Justice Johnson, in the same case : — "But there existed a war between the parent state and her colony. It was not only a fact of the most universal notoriety, but officially notified in- the gazettes of the Unit ed States Here, then, was notice of the existence of war, and an assertion of the rights consequent upon it. The object of the measure was .... solely the reduction of an enemy. It was, therefore, not merely municipal, hid belligerent, in its nature and object.^' ^ Although the conclusion of the Court in this case was afterwards reversed, yet nothing occurred to mod ify the judgment on the principles now in question ; so that the case remains authority for double proceed ings, municipal and belligerent. On a similar state of facts, arising from the efforts of France to suppress the insurrection in San Domingo, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania asserted the same principle; and here we find the eminent Chief- Justice TUghman — one of the best authorities of the Ameri can bench — giving to it the weight of his enlightened judgment. These are his words : — " We are not at liberty to consider the island in any other 1 Rose 9. Himely, 4 Cranch, S. C. R., pp. 272, 273. 2 Ibid., pp. 288, 289. 20 EIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY light than as part of the dominions of the French Kepublic. But supposing it to be so, the EepuUic is possessed of belligerent rights "Although the French Government, from motives of policy, might not choose to make mention of war, yet it does not follow that it might not avail itself of all rights to which by the Law of Nations it was entitled in the exist ing circumstances This was the course pursued by Great Britain in the Revolutionary War with the United States, , . Considering the words of the arrete, and the circumstances under which it was made, it ought not to be understood simply as a municipal regulation, but a munici pal regulation connected with a state of war with revolted subjects," ^ The principle embodied in these cases is accurately stated by a recent text-writer as follows. " A sovereign nation, engaged in the duty of suppressing an insurrection of its citizens, may, with entire consisten cy, act in the twofold capacity of sovereign and belliger ent, according to the several measures resorted to for the accomplishment of its purpose. By inflicting, through its agent, the judiciary, tlie penalty which the law affixes to the capital crimes of treason and piracy, ... it acts in its capacity as a sovereign, and its courts are but enforcing its municipal regulations. By instituting a blockade of the ports of its rebellious subjects, .... the nation is exer cising the right of a belligerent, and its courts, in their adjudications upon the captures made in the enforcement of this measure, are organized as Courts of Prize, governed by and administering the Law of Nations," ^ The same principle has received most authentic decla- 1 Cheriot v. Foussat, 3 Binney, R., pp, 252, 253. Upton, The Law of Nations affecting Commerce during War, pp. 211 212, AND EIGHTS OF WAE. 21 ration in the recent judgment of an able magistrate in a case of Prize for a violation of the blockade, I refer to the case of the Amy Warwick, tried in Boston, where Judge Sprague, of the District Court, expressed himself as foUows. "The United States, as a nation, have full and complete belligerent rights, which are in no degree impaired by the fact that their enemies owe allegiance, and have superadded the guilt of treason to that of unjust war." ^ Among aU the judges called to consider judiciaUy the character of this Eebellion, I know of none whose opin ion is entitled to more consideration. Long experience has increased his original aptitude for such questions, and made him an authority. There is an earlier voice, which, even if aU judicial tribunals had been silent, would be decisive. I refer to Hugo Grotius, who, by his work " De Jure Belli ac Pa ds," became the lawgiver of nations. Original in con ception, vast in plan, various in learning, and humane in sentiment, this effort created the science of Inter national Law, which, since that early day, has been softened and refined, without essential change in the principles then enunciated. His master mind antici pated the true distinction, when, in definition of War, he wrote as foUows, " The first and most necessary partition of war is this : that war is private, public, or mixed. Public war is that which is carried on under the authority of him who has jurisdiction ; private, that which is otherwise ; mixed, that which is public on one side and private on the other." ^ 1 Law Reporter, Vol. XXIV, p. 345, April, 1862. 2 Lib. I. cap. 3, § 1. 22 EIGHTS OF SOVEREIGNTY In these few words of this great authority is found the very discrimination whicli enters into the present discussion. The war in which we are now engaged is not precisely "public," because on one side there is no Government; nor is it "private," because on one side there is a Government ; but it is " mixed," — that is, public on one side and private on the other. On the side of the United States, it is under authority of the Government, and therefore " public " ; on the oth er side, it is without tlie sanction of any recognized Government, and therefore " private," In other words, the Government of the United States may claim for itself aU belligerent rights, while it refuses them to the other side. And Grotius, in his reasoning, sustains his definition by showing that war becomes the essen tial agency, where public justice ends, — that it is the justifiable mode of dealing with those who are not kept in order by judicial proceedings, — and that, as a natural consequence, where war prevails, the Municipal Law is silent. And here, with that largess of quotation. which is one of his peculiarities, he adduces the weighty words of Demosthenes : " Against enemies, who cannot be co erced by our laws, it is proper and necessary to main tain armies, to send out fleets, and to pay taxes ; but against our own citizens,'' a decree, an indictment, the state vessel are suiflcient," ^ But when citizens array themselves in multitudes, they come within the de clared condition of enemies. There is so much intrin sic reason in this distinction that I am ashamed to take time upon it. And yet it has been constantly neglect ed in this debate. Let it be accepted, and the constitu- 1 Oratio de Chersoneso, p, 97 : Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Prolegom. §25. AND EIGHTS OF WAE 23 tional scruples which play such a part will be out of place. Senators seem to feel the importance of being able to treat the Eebels as " alien enemies," on account of penal ties which would then attach. The Senator from Ken tucky [ Mr, Davis], in his biU, proposes to declare them so, and the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Doolittle] has made a similar proposition with regard to a particu lar class. But all this is superfluous. Eebels in arms are " enemies," exposed to aU the penalties of war, as much as if they were aUen enemies. No legislation is required to make them so. They are so in fact. It only remains that they should be treated so, or, accord ing to the Declaration of Independence, that we " hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends." Mark now the stages of the discussion. We have seen, first, that, in point of fact, we are in the midst of rebellion and in the midst of a war, — and, secondly, that, in point of laio, we are at liberty to act under pow ers incident to either or both of these conditions, treat the people engaged against us as criminals, or as ene mies, or, if we please, as both. Pardon me, if I repeat these propositions ; but it is essential that they should not be forgotten. Therefore, Sir, in determining our course, we may banish aU question of power. The power is ample and indubitable, being regulated in the one case by the Constitution, and in the other case by the Eights of War. Treating them as criminals, then are we under the restraints of the Constitution; treating them as enemies, we have aU the latitude sanctioned by the 24 EIGHTS OF SOVEREIGNTY Eights of War; treating them as both, then may we combine our penalties from the double source. What is done against them merely as criminals will naturally be in conformity with the Constitution; but what is done against them as enemies wiU ha^e no limitation except the Eights of War. The difference between these two systems, represent ed by two opposite propositions now pending, may be seen in the motive which is the starting-point of each. Treating those arrayed in arms against us as criminals, we assume sovereignty, and seek to punish for violation of existing law. Treating them as enemies, we assume no sovereignty, but simply employ the means known to war in overcoming an enemy, and in obtaining security against him. In the one case our cause is founded in Municipal Law under the Constitution, and in the other case in the Eights of War under International Law, In the one case our object is simply punish ment; in the other case it is assured victory. Having determined the existence of these two sour ces of power, we are next led to consider the character and extent of each under the National Government: first. Rights against Criminals, founded on sovereignty, with their limitations under the Constitution ; and, sec ondly, Ilights against Enemies, founded on war, which are absolutely without constitutional limitation. Hav ing passed these in review, the way will then be open to consider which class of rights Congress shall exercise. AND EIGHTS OF WAE. 25 I, I BEGIN, of course, with Rights against Criminals, founded on sovereignty, with their limitations under the Constitution, Eebellion is in itself the crime of treason, which is usually called the greatest crime known to the law, containing all other crimes, as the greater contains the less. But neither the magnitude of the crime nor the detestation it inspires can properly move us from duty to the Constitution, Howsoever important it may be to punish rebels, this must not be done at the expense of the Constitution. On that point I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania [ Mr, Cowan], and the Sen ator from Averment [Mr. Collamer] ; nor will I yield to either in determination to uphold the Constitution, which is the shield of the citizen. Show me that any proposition is without support in the Constitution, or that it offends against any constitutional safeguard, and it cannot receive my vote. Sir, I shall not allow Sena tors to be more careful on this head than myself. They shaU not have a monopoly of this proper caution. In proceedings against criminals there are provisions or principles of the Constitution which cannot be dis regarded. I will enumerate them, and endeavor to ex plain their true character, 1. Congress, it is said, has no power under the Constitution over Slavery in the States, This popular principle of Constitutional Law, which is without foun dation in the positive text of the Constitution, is ad duced against aU propositions to free the slaves 'of Eebels. But this is an obvious misapplication of the alleged principle, which simply means that Congress VOL, VII. 2 26 RIGHTS OF SOVEREIGNTY has no direct power over Slavery in the States, so as to abolish or limit it. For no careful person, whose opin ion is of any value, ever attributed to the pretended property in slaves an immunity from forfeiture or con fiscation not accorded to other property ; and this is a complete answer to the argument on this head. Even in prohibiting Sla^'ery, as in the Jeffersonian ordinance, there is a declared exception of the penalty of crime ; and so in upholding SlaAcry in the States, there must be a tacit, but unquestionable, exception of this penalty. 2. There must be no ex post faeto law ; which means that there can be no law against crime retrospective iu its effect. This is clear. 3, There must be no bill of attainder ; which means that there can be no special legislation, where Congress, undertaking the double function of legislature and judge, shall inflict the punishment of death without conviction by due process of law. And there is au thority for assuming that this prohibition includes a bill of pains and penalties, which is a milder form of legislative attainder, where the punishment inflicted is less than death.^ And surely no constitutional princi ple is more worthy of recognition. 4. No person shaU be deprived of life, liberty, or jKoperty, without due process of law ; which means, without presentment, or other judicial proceeding. This provision, borrowed from Magna Charta, constitutes a safeguard for all: nor can it be invoked by the crim inal more than by the slave ; for in our Constitution it is applicable to every "person," without distinction of condition or color. But the criminal is entitled to its protection, 1 story. Commentaries on the Constitution, Vol. II. § 1344. AND RIGHTS OF WAE, 27 5. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shaU enjoy the right to a speedy and pubhc trial, by an impartial jury of the State and District wherein the crime shall have been committed, which District shall have been previously ascertained by law. This is the sixth amendment to the Constitution, and is not to be lost sight of how. The accused, whoever he may be, though his guilt be open as noonday, can be reached criminally only in the way described. When we con sider the deep and wide-spread prejudices which must exist tliroughout the whole Eebel territory, it is diffi cult to suppose that any jury could be found within the State and District where the treason was commit ted who would unite in the necessary verdict of Guilty. For myself, I do not expect it ; and I renounce the idea of justice in this way, Jefferson Davis himself, whose crime has culminated in Virginia, could not be convict ed by a jury of that State. But it is the duty of the' statesman to consider how justice, impossible in one way, may be made possible in another way, 6. No attainder of treason shaU work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. Perhaps no provision of the Constitution, supposed pertinent to the present debate, has been more considered ; nor is there any with regard to which there is greater difference of opinion. Learned la^'s-j'ers in this body insist broadly that it forbids forfeiture of real estate, although not of personal, as a penalty of treason ; while others insist that all the real as well as personal estate belonging to the offender may be for feited. The words of the Constitution are technical, so as to require interpretation; and as they are derived from the Common Law, we must look to this law for 28 EIGHTS OF SOVEEEKiNTY their meaning. By " attainder of treason " is meant judgment of death for treason, — that is, the judgment of court on conviction of treason. " Upon judgment of death for treason or felony," says Blackstone, " a man shall be said to be attainted." ^ Such judgment, which is, of course, a criminal proceeding, cannot, under our Constitution, work corruption of blood ; wliich means that it cannot create obstruction or incapacity in the blood to pre\-ent an innocent heir from tracing title through the criminal, as was cruelly done by the Com mon Law. Nor shall such attainder work " forfeiture except dur ing the 'life of the person attainted," If there be any question, it arises under these words, wliich, it will be observed, are peculiarly technical. As the term " attain der " is confined to "judgment of death," this prohibition is limited precisely to where that judgment is awarded; so that, if the person is not adjudged to death, there is nothing in the Constitution to forbid absolute forfeit- ure. This conclusion is irresistible. If accepted, it disposes of the objection in all cases where there is no judgment of death. Even -where the traitor is adjudged to death, there is good reason to doubt if his estate in fee-simple, which is absolutely his own, and alienable at his mere pleasure, may not be forfeited. It is admitted by Senators that the words of the Constitution do not forbid the forfeit ure of the personal estate, which in the present days of commerce is usually much larger than the real estate, although to an unprofessional mind these words are as applicable to one as to the other ; so that a person at tainted of treason would forfeit aU his personal estate, of 1 Commentaries, Vol, IV. p, 381, AND EIGHTS OF WAE. 29 every name and nature, no matter what its amount, even if he did not forfeit his real estate. But since an estate in fee-simple belongs absolutely to the owner, and is in aU respects subject to his disposition, there seems no reason for its exemption which is not equal ly applicable to personal property. The claim of the family is as strong in one case as in the other. And if we take counsel of analogy, we find ourselves led in the same direction. It is difficult to say, that, in a case of treason, there can be any limitation to the amount of fine imposed; so that in sweeping extent it may take from the criminal all his estate, real and personal. And, sec ondly, it is very clear that the prohibition in the Consti tution, whatever it be, is confined to " attainder of trea son," and not, therefore, applicable to a judgment for felony, which at the Common Law worked forfeiture of all estate, real and personal ; so that under the Consti tution such forfeiture for felony can be now maintained. But assuming the Constitution applicable to treason where there is no judgment of death, it is only reason able to suppose that this prohibition is applicable exclu sively to that posthumous forfeiture depending upon cor ruption ofUood; and here the rule is sustained by in trinsic justice. But all present estate, real as well as persona], actuaUy belonging to the traitor, is forfeited. Not doubting the intrinsic justice of this rule, I am sustained by the authority of Mr, Hallam, who, in a note to his- invaluable History of Literature, after de claring, that, according to the principle of Grotius, the English law of forfeiture in high treason is just, being part of the direct punishment of the guilty, but that of attainder or corruption of blood is unjust, being an infliction on the innocent alone, stops to say : — 30 EIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY " I incline to concur in this distinction, and think it at least plausible, though it was seldom or never taken in the discussions concerning those two laws. Confiscation is no more unjust towards the posterity of an offender than fine, from which, of course, it only differs in degree." ' An opinion from such an authority is entitled to much weight in determining the proper signification of doubt ful words. This interpretation is helped by another suggestion, which supposes the comma in the text of the Constitu tion misplaced, and that, instead of being after " corrup tion of blood," it should be after " forfeiture," separating it from the words " except during the life of the person attainted," and making them refer to the time when the attainder takes place, rather than to the length of time for which the estate is forfeited. Thus does this much debated clause simply operate to forbid forfeiture when not pronounced " during the life of the person attainted." In other words, the forfeiture cannot be pronounced against a dead man, or tlie children of a dead man, and this is all. Amidst the confusion in which this clause is involved, you cannot expect that it wiU be a strong restraint up on any exercise of power under the Constitution which otherwise seems rational and just. But, whatever its signification, it has no bearing on our rights against enemies. Bear this in mind. Criminals only, and not enemies, can take advantage of it. Such, Mr, President, are the provisions or principles of Constitutional Law controlling us in the exercise of 1 Introduction to the Literature of Europe, 3d edit., (London 1847 1 Vol II. p. 568, note. ' ' AND EIGHTS OF WAR, 31 rights against criminals. If any bill or proposition, penal in character, having for its object simply pun ishment, and ancillary to the administration of justice, violates any of these safeguards, it is not constitutional Therefore do I admit that the bill of the Committee, and every other bill now before the Senate, so far as they assume to exercise the Eights of Sovereignty in contra distinction to the Eights of AVar, must be in conformity with these provisions or principles. But the Senator from Vermont [Mr, Collamee], in his ingenious speech, to which we all listened with so much interest, was truly festive in allusion to certain proceedings much discussed in this debate. The Sen ator did not hke proceedings in rem, although I do not know that he positively objected to them as uncon stitutional. It is difficult to imagine any such objec tion. Assuming that criminals cannot be reached to be punished personcdly, or that they have fled, the Senator from Illinois [ Mr. Trumbull], and also the Senator from New York [Mr, Harris], propose to reach them through their property, — or, adopting technical language, in stead of proceedings in personam, which must fail from want of jurisdiction, propose proceedings in rem. Such proceedings may not be of familiar resort, since, happily, an occasion hke the present has never before occurred among us ; but they are strictly in conformity with es tablished precedents, and also with the principles by which these precedents are sustained. Nobody can forget that smuggled goods are liable to confiscation by proceedings in rem. This is a famil iar instance. The calendar of our District Courts is crowded with these cases, where the United States are 32 RIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY plaintiff, and some inanimate thing, an article of prop erty, is defendant. Such, also, are proceedings against a ship engaged in the slave-trade. Of course, by prin ciples of the Common Law, a conviction is necessary to divest the offender's title ; but this rule is never applied to forfeitures created by statute. It is clear that the same sovereignty which creates the forfeiture may de termine the proceedings by which it shall be ascer tained. If, therefore, it be constitutional to direct the forfeiture of rebel property, it is constitutional to au thorize proceedings in rem against it, according to estab lished practice. Such proceedings constitute " due pro cess of law," well known in our courts, famUiar to the English Exchequer, and having the sanction of the ancient Eoman jurisprudence. If any authority were needed for this statement, it is found in the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Pcdmyra, where it is said : — ¦ "Many cases exist where there is both a forfeiture in rem and a personal penalt}'. But in neither class of cases has it ever been decided that the prosecutions were dependent upon each other ; but the practice has been, and so this Court understand the law to be, that the proceeding in rem stands independent of, and wholly unaffected by, any criminal pro ceeding in personam." ' The reason for proceedings in rem is, doubtless, that the thing is in a certain sense an offender, or at least has cooperated with the offender, — as a ship in the slave- trade. But the same reason prevails, although perhaps to less extent, in proceedings against rebel property, which, if not an offender, has at least cooperated with 1 12 Wheaton, R,, 14, 16. and EIGHTS OF WAE. 33 the offender hardly less than the ship in the slave-trade. Through his property the traitor is enabled to devote himself to treason, and to foEo-w its accursed trade, wag ing war against his country ; so that his property may be considered guUty also. But the condemnation of the property cannot be a bar to proceedings against the trai tor himself, should he faU within our power. The two are distinct, although identical in their primary object, which is punishment. Pardon me, Sir, if, dweUing on these things, I feel humbled that the course of the debate imposes such necessity. Standing, as we do, face to face with ene mies striking at the life of the Eepublic, it is painful to find ourselves subjected to aU the embarrassments of a criminal proceeding, as if this war were an indictment, and the army and na-vy of the United States, now mus tered on land and sea, were only a posse comitatus. It should not be so. The Eebels have gone outside of the Constitution to make war upon their country. It is for us to pursue them as enemies outside of the Con stitution, where they wickedly place themselves, and where the Constitution concurs in placing them also. So doing, we simply obey the Constitution, and act in aU respects constitutionaUy. IL And this brings me to the second chief head of in quiry, not less important than the first : What are the Rights against Enemies which Congress may exercise in War? Clearly the United States may exercise all the Eights 2* o 34 EIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY of War which according to International Law belong to independent states. In affirming this proposition, I waive for the present aU question whether these rights are to be exercised by Congress or by the President, It is sufficient that every nation has in this respect per fect equality ; nor can any Eights of War accorded to other nations be denied to the United States, Harsh and repulsive as these rights unquestionably are, they are derived from the overruling, instinctive laws of self- defence, common to nations as to individuals. Every community having the form and character of sovereignty has a right to national life, and in defence of such life may put forth all its energies. Any other principle would leave it the wretched prey of wicked men, abroad or at home. In vain you accord the rights of sover eignty, if you despoil it of other rights without which sovereignty is only a name. " I think, therefore I am," was the sententious utterance by which the first of modern philosophers demonstrated personal existence, '' I am, therefore I have rights," is the declaration of every sovereignty, when its existence is assailed. Pardon me, if I interpose again to remind you of the essential difierence between these rights and those oth ers just considered, Tliough incident to sovereignty, they are not to be confounded with those peaceful rights which are all exhausted in a penal statute with in the limitations of the Constitution. The difference between a judge and a general, between the halter of the executioner and the sword of the soldier, between the open palm and the clenched fist, is not greater than that between these two classes of rights. They are different in origin, different in extent, and different in object. AND EIGHTS OF WAE. 35 I rejoice to beUeve that civilization has already done much to mitigate the Eights of War ; and it is among long cherished visions, which present events cannot make me renounce, that the time is coming when all these rights wiU be further softened to the mood of permanent peace. Though in the lapse of generations changed in many things, especiaUy as regards non-com batants and private property on land, these rights stiU exist under the sanction of the Law of Nations, to be claimed whenever war prevails. It is absurd to accord the right to do a thing without according the means necessary to the end. And since war, which is nothing less than organized force, is permitted, all the means to its effective prosecution are permitted also, tempered always by that humanity which strengthens while it charms. I begin this inquiry by putting aside aU Eights of War against persons. In battle, persons are slain or captured, and, if captured, detained as prisoners till the close of the war, unless previously released by exchange or clemency. But these rights do not enter into the present discussion, which concerns property only, and not persons. From the nature of the case, it is only against property, or what is claimed as such, that con fiscation is directed. Therefore I say nothing of per sons, nor shall I consider any question of personal rights. According to the Eights of War, property, al though inanimate, shares the guilt of its owner. Like him, it is criminal, and may be prosecuted to condem nation in tribunals constituted for the purpose, without any of those immunities claimed by persons accused of crime. It is Rights of War against the property of an enemy which I now consider. 36 EIGHTS OF SO'VEEEIGNTY If we resort to the earlier authorities, not excepting Grotius himself, we find these rights stated most aus terely. I shall not go back to any such statement, but content myself with one of later date. You may find it harsh ; but here it is. " Since this is the very condition of war, that enemies are despoiled of all right and proscribed, it stands to reason that whatever property of an enemy is found in his en emy's country changes its owner and goes to the treasu ry. It is customary, moreover, in almost every declaration of war, to ordain that goods of the enemy, as well those found among us as those taken in war, be confiscated Pursuant to the mere Eight of War, even immovables could be sold and their price turned into the treasury, as is the practice in regard to movables ; but throughout almost all Europe only a register is made of immovables, in order that during the war the treasury may receive their rents and profits, but at the termination of the war the immovables themselves are by treaty restored to the former owners." ¦' These are the words of the eminent Dutch publicist, Bynkershoek, in the first half of the last century. In adducing them now I present them as adopted by Mr. Jefferson, in his remarkable answer to the note of the British minister at Philadelphia on the confiscations of the American Eevolution, There are no words of great er weight in any writer on the Law of Nations. But Mr, Jefferson did not content himself with quotation. In the same state paper he thus declares unquestionable rights : — "It cannot be denied that the state of war strictly permits a nation to seize the property of its enemies found within its 1 Bynkershoek, Questiones Juris Public!, Lib. I. cap. 7. AND EIGHTS OF WAE. 37 oivn limits or taken in war, and in whatever form it exists, whether in action or possession." ^ This sententious statement is under date of 1792, and, when we consider the circumstances which called it forth, may be accepted as American doctrine. But even in our own day, since the beginning of the present war, the same principle has been stated yet more sen- tentiously in another quarter. The Lord Advocate of Scotland, in the British House of Commons, as late as 17th March of the present year, declared: — " The honorable gentleman spoke as if it was no principle of war that private rights should suffer at the hands of the adverse belligerent. But that was the true principle of war. If war was not to be defined — as it very nearly might be — as a denial of the rights o£ private property to the enemy, that denial was certainly one of the essential ingredients in it." 2 In quoting these authorities, which are general in their bearing, I do not stop to consider their modifica tion according to the discretion of the beUigerent power. I accept them as the starting-point in the present in quiry, and assume that by the Eights of War enemy property may be taken. But rights with regard to such property are modified by the locality of the property; and this consideration makes it proper to consider them under two heads : first, rights with regard to enemy property actually within the national jurisdiction ; and, secondly, rights with regard to enemy property actually outside the national jurisdiction. It is easy to see, that, 1 Mr. .Tefferson to Mr. Hammond, May 29, 1792: American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I. p. 201. 2 Speech on International Maritime Law, March 17, 1862; Hansard's Par liamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXV. col, 1608. 38 EIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY in the present war, rights against enemy property actu aUy outside the national jurisdiction must exist a for tiori against such property actuaUy within the jurisdic tion. But, for the sake of clearness, I shall speak of them separately. First. I begin with the Eights of War over enemy property actually within the national jurisdiction. In stating the general rule, I adopt the language of a re cent English authority. "Although there have been so many conventions granting exemption from the liabilities resulting from a state of war, the right to seize the property of enemies found in our terri tory when war breaks out remains indisputable, according to the Law of Nations, wherever 'there is no such special con vention. All jurists, including the most recent, such as De Martens and Kluber, agree in this decision." ^ This statement is general, but unquestionable even in its rigor. For the sake of clearness and accuracy it must be considered in its appHcation to different kinds of property, 1, It is undeniable, that, in generality, the rule must embrace real property, or, as termed by the Eoman Law and the Continental systems of jurisprudence, immov ables ; but so important an authority as Vattel excepts this species of property, for the reason, that, being ac quired by consent of the sovereign, it is as if it Ijelonged to his own subjects,^ But personal property is also under the same safeguard, and yet it is not embraced within the exception. If such, indeed, be the reason for 1 Manning, Commentaries on the Law of Nations, p, 127, 2 Vattel, Book III. ch, 5, sec. 76. AND EIGHTS OF WAE. 39 the exception of real property, it loses all applicability where the property belongs to an enemy loho begun by breaking faith on his side. Surely, whatever the im munity of an ordinary enemy, it is difflcult to see how a rebel enemy, whose hostility is bad faith in arms, can plead any safeguard. Cessante ratione, eessat ct ipisa lex, is an approved maxim of the law ; and since with us the reason of Vattel does not exist, the exception which he propounds need not be recognized, to the disparagement of the general rule. 2, The rule is necessarily applicable to aU personal property, or, as it is otherwise caUed, movables. On this head there is hardly a dissenting voice, while the Su preme Court of the United States, in a case constantly cited in this debate, has solemnly affirmed it, I refer to Brown v. United States} where the broad principle is assumed that war gives to the sovereign full right to confiscate the property of the enemy, wherever found, and that the mitigations of the rule, derived from mod ern civilization, may affect the exercise of the right, but cannot impair the right itself. Goods of the enemy actually in the country, and all vessels and cargoes afloat in our ports, at the commencement of hostilities, were declared liable to confiscation. In England, it is the constant usage, under the name of " Droits of Admi ralty," to seize and condemn property of an enemy in its ports at the breaking out of hostihties,^ But this was not foUowed in the Crimean War, although the claim itself has never been abandoned, 3. The rule, in strictness, also embraces private debts due to an enemy. Although justly obnoxious to the 1 8 Cranch, S. C. E,, 110. 2 Wheaton, Elements of International Law, Part IV. ch, 1, § 11. 40 EIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY charge of harshness, and uncongenial with an age of universal commerce, this application is recognized by the judicial authorities of the United States. Between debts contracted under faith of laws and property ac quired under faith of the same laws reason draws no distinction ; and the right of the sovereign to confiscate debts is precisely the same with the right to confiscate other property within the country on the breaking out of war. Both, it is said, require some special act ex pressing the sovereign wUl, and both depend less on any flexible rule of International Law than on para mount political considerations, which International Law will not control. Of course, just so far as slaves are regarded as property, or as bound to service or labor, they cannot constitute an exception to this rule, while the political considerations entering so largely into its appHcation have with regard to them commanding force. In their case, by natural metamorphosis, confiscation becomes emancipation. Such are recognized Eights of War touching enemy property within the national jurisdiction. Secondly. The same broad rule with which I began may be stated touching enemy property beyond the national jurisdiction, subject, of course, to mitigation from usage, policy, and humanity, but stiU existing, to be employed in the discretion of the beUigerent power. It may be illustrated by different classes of cases, 1. Public property of all kinds belonging to an ene my, ¦ — that is, property of the government or prince, — including lands, forests, fortresses, munitions of war, movables, — is aU subject to seizure and appropriation by the conqueror, who may transfer the same by valid AND EIGHTS OF WAE. 41 title, substituting himself, in this respect, for the dis placed government or prince. It is obvious that in the case of immovables the title is finally assured only by the estabhshment of peace, wliUe in the case of mov ables it is complete from the moment the property comes within the firm possession of the captor so as to be aUenated indefeasibly. In harmony with the mil itary prepossessions of ancient Rome, such title was considered the best to be had, and its symbol was a spear. 2. Private property of an enemy at sea, or afloat in port, is indiscriminately liable to capture and confisca tion ; but the title is assured only by condeionation in a competent court of prize. 3. While private property of an enemy on land, ac cording to modern practice, is exempt from seizure sim ply as private property, yet it is exposed to seizure in certain specified cases. Indeed, it is more correct to say, with the exceUent Manning, that it "is stUl con sidered as liable to seizure," under circumstances consti tuting in themselves a necessity, of which the conqueror is judge,^ It need not be added that this extraordinary power must be so used as not to assume the character of spoliation. It must have an object essential to the conduct of the war. But, with such object, it cannot be questioned. The obvious reason for exemption is, that a private individual is not personally responsible, as the government or prince. But every rebel is personally re sponsible. 4, Private property of an enemy on land may be taken as a penalty for the illegal acts of individuals, or of the community to which they belong. The exer- 1 Law of Nations, p, 136. 42 EIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY cise of this right is vindicated only by peculiar circum stances ; but it is clearly among the recognized agencies of war, and it is easy to imagine that at times it may be important, especially in dealuig with a dishonest re bellion, 5. Private property of an enemy on land may be taken for contributions to support the war. This has been done in times past on a large scale. Napoleon adopted the rule that war should support itself Upon the invasion of Mexico by the armies of the United States, in 184C, the commanding generals were at first instructed to abstain from taking private property with out purchase at a fair price ; but subsequent instructions were of a severer character. It was declared by Mr. Mar cy, at the time Secretary of War, that an invading army had the unquestionable right to draw supplies from the enemy without paying for them, and to require contri butions for its support, and to make the enemy feel the weight of the war,^ Such contributions are sometimes called "requisitions," and a German writer on the Law of Nations says that it was Washington who " invented the expression and the thing." ^ Possibly the expres sion ; but the thing is as old as war. 6, Private propertj^ of an enemy on land may be taken on the field of battle, in operations of siege, or the storming of a place refusing to capitulate. This passes under the offensive name of " booty " or " loot," In the late capture of the imperial palace of Pekin by the allied forces of France and England, this right was iUustrated by the surrender of its contents, including 1 Halleck, International Law, p. 460, 2 " Washington, dans la guerre de I'Am^rique, inventa I'expression et la chose." — KLtJBER, Drmt des Gens Moderne de V Europe (Paris 1831 ) Tom. II. p. 33, sec. 251, note. AND EIGHTS OF WAE, 43 silks, porcelain, and furniture, to the lawless cupidity of an excited soldiery. 7. Pretended property of an enemy in slaves may unquestionably be taken, and, when taken, will of course be at the disposal of the captor. If slaves are regarded as property, then wiU their confiscation come precisely within the rule already stated. But, since slaves are men, there is still another rule of public law applicable to them. It is clear, that, where there is an intestine di-vision in an enemy country, we may take advantage of it, according to HaUeck, in his recent work on International Law, " without scruple," ^ But Slavery is more than an intestine division ; it is a constant state of war. The ancient Scythians said to Alexander : " Be tween the master and slave no friendship exists ; even in peace the Rights of War are stiU preserved." ^ Giv ing freedom to slaves, a nation in war simply takes advantage of the actual condition of things. But there is another vindication of this right, which I prefer to present in the language of Vattel. After declaring that " in conscience and by the laws of equity " we may be obliged to restore "booty" recovered from an enemy who had taken it in unjust war, this humane publicist proceeds as foUows. " The obligation is more certain and more extensive with regard to a people whom our enemy has unjustly oppressed. For a people thus spoiled of their liberty never renounce the hope of recovering it. If they have not voluntarily incor porated themselves with the state by which they have been subdued, if they have not freely aided her in the war against us, we ought certainly so to use our victory as not merely to give 1 Page 410. 2 Q. Curtius, Lib, VII. cap. 8. 44 EIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY them a new master, hut to break their chains. To deliver an oppressed people is a noble fruit of victory ; it is a valuable advantage gained thus to acquire a faithful friend." ¦^ These are not the words of a visionary, or of a specu lator, or of an agitator, but of a pubUcist, an acknowl edged authority on the Law of Nations, Therefore, according to the Eights of War, slaves, if regarded as property, may be declared free ; or if re garded as men, they may be declared free, under two acknowledged rules : first, of self-interest, to procure an ally; and, secondly, of conscience and equity, to do an act of justice ennobling \'ictory. Such, Sir, are acknowledged Eights of War with regard to enemy property, whether within or beyond our territorial jurisdiction, I do Uttle more than state these rights, without stopping to comment. If they seem harsh, it is because war in essential character is harsh. It is sufficient for our present purpose that they exist. Of course, all these rights belong to the United States, There is not one of them which can be denied. They are ours under that great title of Independence by which our place was assured in the Family of Nations. Dormant in peace, they are aroused into activity only by the breath of war, when they aU place themselves at our bidding, to be employed at our own time, in our own way, and according to our own discretion, subject only to that enlightened pubHc opinion which now rules the civilized world. 1 Law of Nations, Book IIL Ch, 13, § 203, AND EIGHTS OF WAE, 45 Belonging to the United States by virtue of Interna tional Law, and being essential to self-defence, they are naturaUy deposited with the sujjreme power, which holds the issues of peace and war. Doubtless there are Eights of War, embracing confiscation, contribution, and liber ation, to be exercised by any commanding general in the field, or to be ordered by the President, according to the exigency. Mr. ]\Iarcy was not ignorant of his duty, when, by instructions from Washington, in the name of the President, he directed the levy of contributions in Mexico. In European countries aU these Eights of War which I have reviewed to-day are deposited with the executive alone, — as in England with the Queen in CouncU, and in France and Eussia with the Emperor ; but in the United States they are deposited with the legislative branch, being the President, Senate, and House of Eepresentatives, whose joint action becomes the supreme law of the land. The Constitution is not sUent on this question. It expressly provides that Congress shall have power, first, "to declare war," and thus set in motion all the Eights of War ; secondly, " to grant letters of marque and reprisal," being two special agencies of war ; thirdly, " to make rules concerning captures on land and water," which power of itself em braces the whole field of confiscation, contribution, and Hberation ; fourthly, " to raise and support armies," which power, of course, comprehends all means for this purpose known to the Eights of War ; fifthly, " to provide and maintain a na-yy," plainly according to the Eights of War ; sixthly, " to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces," another power invol-ving confiscation, contribution, and liberation ; and, seventhly, " to provide for calling forth the mihtia to 46 EIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," a power which again sets in motion all the Eights of War. But, as if to leave nothing un done, the Constitution further empowers Congress " to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers," In pur suance of these powers. Congress has already enacted up wards of one hundred articles of war for the government of the army, one of which provides for the security of public stores taken from the enemy. It has also sanc tioned the blockade of the Eebel ports according to Inter national Law. And only at the present session we have enacted an additional article to regulate the conduct of officers and men towards ,slaves seeking shelter in camp. Proceeding further on the present occasion, it will act in harmony ^vith its own precedents, as well as with its declared powers, according to the very words of the Constitution, Language cannot be broader. Under its comprehensive scope tliere is nothing essential to the prosecution of the war, its conduct, its support, or its success, — yes, Sir, there can be nothing essential to its success, wliich is not positively within the province of CongTess. There is not one of the Eights of War which Congress may not invoke. There is not a single weapon in its terrible arsenal which Congress may not grasp. Such are indubitable powers of Congress. It is not questioned that these may all be employed against a pub lic enemy ; but there are Senators who strangely hesi tate to employ them against that worst enemy of all, wlio to hostility adds treason, and teaches his country " How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is To have a thankless child." AND EIGHTS OF WAE. 47 The rebel in arms is an enemy, and something more ; nor is there any Eight of War which may not be em ployed against him in its extremest rigor. In appealing to war, he has voluntarUy renounced all safeguards of the Constitution, and put himself beyond its pale. In rang ing himself among enemies, he has broken faith so as to lose completely all immunity from the strictest penalties of war. As an enemy, he must be encountered ; nor can our army be delayed in the exercise of the Eights of War by any misapplied questions of ex post facto, biUs of attainder, attainder of treason, due process of law, or exemption from forfeiture. If we may shoot rebel en emies in battle, if we may shut them up in fortresses or prisons, if we may bombard their forts, if we may occupy their fields, if we may appropriate their crops, if we may blockade their ports, if we may seize their vessels, if we may capture their cities, it is vain to say that we may not exercise against them the other associate preroga tives of war. Nor can any technical question of con stitutional rights be interposed in one case more than another. Every prerogative of confiscation, requisition, or liberation known in war may be exercised against rebels in arms precisely as against public enemies. Ours are beUigerent rights to the fuUest extent. Sir, the case is strong. The Eebels are not only crim inals, they are also enemies, whose property is actually within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States ; so that, according to the Supreme Court, it only remains for Congress to declare the Eights of War to be exer cised against them. The case of Brown,i so often cited in this debate, affirms that enemy property actually within our territorial jurisdiction can be seized only by 1 8 Cranch, S. C, E., 110. 48 EIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY virtue of an Act of Congress, and recognizes the complete liability of aU such property, when actually within such territorial jurisdiction. It is therefore, in aU respects, a binding authority, precisely applicable ; so that Senators who would impair its force must deny either that the Eebels are enemies or that their property is actually within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, Assuming that they are enemies, and that their property is actuaUy within our territorial jurisdiction, the power of Congress is complete ; and it is not to be confounded with that of a commanding general in the field, or of the President as commander-in-chief of the armies. Pardon me, if I ll^vell on one point with regard to the property of rebels in arms by which it is distinguish able from the private property of enemies in interna tional war. Every rebel in arms is directly responsible for his conduct, as in international war the government or prince is directly responsible; so that on principle he can claim no exemption from any penalty of war. And since Public Law is founded on reason, it follows that the rule subjecting to seizure and forfeiture all property, real as well as personal, of the hostile gov ernment or prince should be appHed to all property, real and personal, of the rebel in arms. It is im possible for him to claim the immunity conceded gen eraUy to private property of an enemy in international war, and also conceded generally to land of an enemy within our territorial jurisdiction. For the rebel in arms there is no just exemption. When claiming these powers for Congress, it must also be stated that there is a limitation of time with regard to their exercise. Whatever is done against the AND EIGHTS OF WAE. 49 Eebels in our character as belligerents under the Eights of War must be done during war, and not after its close. NaturaUy the Eights of War end with the war, except in those consequences which have become fixed during the war. With the establishment of peace the Eights of Peace resume sway, and aU proceedings are according to the prescribed forms of the Constitution. Instead of laws sUenced by arms, there are arms submissive to laws. Instead of courts martial or military proceedings, there are the ordinary courts of justice with all constitutional safeguards. If this change needed illustration, it would be found in a memorable passage of French history. Marshal Ney, who had deserted Louis the Eighteenth to welcome Napoleon from Elba, was, after the capitula tion of Paris, handed over to a council of war for trial ; bul the council, composed of marshals of France, de clared itself incompetent, since the case involved trea son, and the accused was carried before the Cham ber of Peers, of which he was a member, according to the requirements of the French Charter. His con demnation and execution have been indignantly criti cized, but the form of trial was a homage to the pacifi cation which had been proclaimed. Therefore let it be borne in mind that all proceedings founded on the Eights of War will expire, when the Constitution is again established throughout the country. They are temporary and incidental, in order to secure that blessed peace which we all seek. So completely are these rights distinguished from or dinary municipal proceedings against crime, that they are administered by tribunals constituted for the pur pose, with well-known proceedings of their own. Courts of Prize have a fixed place in the judicial system of the 50 RIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY United States, and their jurisdiction excludes that of municipal tribunals, so that no action can be brought in a court of Common Law on account of a .seizure /Mrr belli. It is their pl¦(^^¦illce to hear aU cases of prize or capture, — in short, every case of property arising under the Eights of ^^'ar ; and although practically these cases are chiefly maritime, yet the jurisdiction of such courts is held to embrace hostile seizures on shore,^ The hearing is by the court alone, without a jury, substantially according to forms derived from the Eoman Law ; and the ordinary judgment is against the tiling captured, or in rem, pro nouncing its condemnation and distribution. In every case of prize or capture, involving a c^uestion of proper ty, and not of crime, these proceedings constitute "due process of law," so as to be completely effective under the (.'onstitution, and, according to acknowledged princi ples, they supersede the jurisdiction of all mere muni cipal tribunals. Among the few cases illustrating this exclusive juris diction in matters of capture and prize on land is one which arose from the exercise of military power in a conquered province in India, and was at last considered and decided by the Pri-vy Council in England, after most elaborate argument by the most eminent barris ters of the time. The facts are few. Upon the con quest of Poonah, in 1817, ^Ir. ^Nlountstuart Elphinstone, perhaps the most finished man, and of completest gen tleness, who ever exercised power in British India, was appointed " sole commissioner for the settlement of the territory conquered, with authority over all the civil and military officers employed in it," In the discharge of 1 Le Caux ». Eden, Douglas, R,, 594; Faith et al, v. Pearson, Holt, N. P. Cases 113. AND EIGHTS OF WAE, 51 his dictatorial functions, he proceeded to appoint a " pro visional collector and magistrate of the city of Poonah and the adjacent country," whom he instructed " to de prive the enemy of his resources, and in this and aU other points to make everything subservient to the conduct of the war," After indicating certain crimes to be treated with summary punishment, he proceeded to confer plenary powers, saying : " All other crimes you wUl investigate according to the forms of justice usual in the country, modified as you may think ex pedient ; and in aU cases you wiU endeavor to enforce the existing laws and customs, unless where they are clearly repitgiiant to reason and natural ecpuity." Under these instructions the provisional coUector seized sev eral bags of gold, in the house of a prominent enemy. In an action before the Supreme Court of Bombay for the value of this treasure, and of a quantity of jewels and shawls taken by the mUitary, judgment was given for the claimant. But this was overruled by the Court of Appeals in England, on the ground, that, in the ac tual state of warfare at that time, there was no juris diction over a question of prize and capture in an ordi nary municipal court. At the bar it was argued : — " No country can ever be thoroughly brought under sub jection, if it is to be held, that, where there has been a con quest and no capitulation, the mere publication of a procla mation, desiring the people to be quiet, and telling them what means would be resorted to, if they were not so, so far reduces the country under the civil rule, that the army loses its control, and the municipal courts acquire altogether ju risdiction, so that every action of the officers in the direc tion of military affairs is liable to their cognizance." ^ ¦" Elphinstone v. Bedreechund, 1 Knapp, Privy Council R., 337. 52 EIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY In giving judgment, Lord Tenterden, at the time Chief Justice of England, stated the conclusion, as foUows. " We think the proper character of the transaction was that of hostile seizure, made, if not flagrante, yet nondum ce.^xdjite hello, regard being had both to the time, the place, and the person, and consequently that the municipal court had no jurisdiction to adjudge upon the subject, but that, if anything was done amiss, recourse could only be had to the Government for redress." -^ This is an important and leading authority, interest ing in all respects ; luit I adduce it now only to show that municipal courts cannot properly take cognizance of questions of property arising under the Eights of War. This established principle testifies to the es sential difference between rights against criminals and rights against enemies. There is a different tribunal for each claim, I have said what I have to say on the law of this matter, brintrintj it to the standard of the Constitution and of International Law, and I have exhibited the powers of Congress in their two fountains. It is for you to determine out of which you wiU draw, or, in deed, if you will not draw from both, Eegarding the Eebels as criminals, you may so pursue and punish them. Eegarding them as enemies, you may blast them with that summary vengeance which is among the dread agencies of war, while, by an act of beneficent justice, you elevate a race, and change this national calamity into a sacred triumph. Or, regarding them both as ' Elphinstone v. Bedreechund, 1 Knapp, Privy Council R., 360, 361. AND EIGHTS OF WAE. 53 criminals and as enemies, you may marshal against them aU the double penalties of rebelHon and war, or, better stiU, the penalties of rebelHon and the tri umphs of war. It now remains to borrow such instruction as we can from the history of kindred measures. And here I am not tempted to depart from that frankness which is with me an instinct and a study. If there be anything in the past to serve as warning, I shall not keep it back, although I ask you to consider carefully the true value of these instances, and how far they are a lesson to us. If there he any course to which I incline, it will be abandoned at once, when shown not to be for the high est good, I have no theories to maintain at the expense of my country or of truth. Confiscation is hardly less ancient than national Hfe. It began with history. It appears in the Scriptures, where Ahab took the vineyard of Naboth, and David gave away the goods of a confederate of Absalom. The Senator from Wisconsin [ Mr, Doolittle] reminded us that it prevaUed among the Persians and Macedonians. In the better days of the Eoman EepubHc it was little known ; but it appeared with the vengeful proscriptions of Sylla; and Cssar himself, always forbearing, yet, whUe striving to mitigate the penalties of the CatUina- rian conspirators, moved a confiscation of aU their prop erty to the pubHc treasury. It flourished under the Emperors, who made it alternately the instrument of tyranny and of cupidity. But there were virtuous Em perors, like Antoninus Pius, under whom the goods of a convict were abandoned to his chUdren, and like Trajan, 54 EIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY under whom confiscation was unknown. Among the reforms of Justinian, in his immortal revision of the law, this penalty disappeared, except in cases of trea- soii.i But these instances iUustrate confiscation only as punishment. Throughout Eoman history it had been inseparable from war. The auction was an incideut of the camp. It was a distribution of bounty lands among the soldiers of Octavius, after the establislmient of his po\\'er, that drove Virgil from his paternal acres to seek imperial favor at Eome. In modern times confiscation became a constant in strument of government, both in piunishment and in war. It was an essential incident to the feudal system, vdiich was in itself a form of government. Euthlessly exercised, sometimes against individuals and sometimes against whole classes, it was converted into an engine of vengeance and robbery, which spared neither gen ius nor numbers. In Florence it was directed against Dante, and in Holland against Grotius, while in early England it was the power by which William of Nor mandy despoiled the Saxons of their lands and parcelled them among his followers. In Germany, during the pe riod of theological conflict wliich darkened that great country, it was often used against Protestants, and was at one time menaced on a gigantic scale. The Papal Nuncio sought notliing less than the confiscation of all the goods of heretics, Spain was not less intolerant than Germany, and the story of the IMoors and the Jews, stripped of their possessions and sent forth as wanderers, protests against such injustice. In early France confiscation was not idle, although in one in stance it received an application which modern criticism 1 Merlin, E^pertoire de Jurisprudence, art. Confiscation, § I. AND EIGHTS OF WAR. 55 wiU not reject, when, by special ordinance, rebels were declared to be enemies, and their property was subjected to confiscation as Prize of War. By the law of England, it -was the inseparable inci dent of treason, flourishing always in Ireland, where re bellion was chronic, and showing itself in Great Brit ain whenever rebelHon occurred. But it was simply as part of punishment, precisely as the traitor was drawn and quartered and his blood corrupted, all ac cording to law. The scaffold turned over to the Gov ernment aU the estate of its victims. But there is an other instance in English history entirely diff'erent in character, where Henry the Eighth, in warfare with the Catholic Church, did not hesitate to despoil the monas teries of their great pjossessions, \vith a clear annual revenue of one hundred and thirty-one thousand six hundred and seven pounds, or, according to Bishop Bur net, ten times that sum " in true value." ^ This prop erty, so enormous in those days, wrested at once from the mortmain of the Church, testifies to the boldness, if not the policy, with which the power was wielded. It is in modern France that confiscation has played its greatest part, and been the most formidable weapon, whether of punishment or of war. At first abolished by the Eevolution, as a relic of royal oppression, it was at length adopted by the Eevolution, Amidst the dan gers menacing the country, this sacrifice was pronounced essential to save it, and successive laws were passed, beginning as early as November, 1789, by -wdiich it was authorized. Never before in history was confiscation so sweeping. It aroused at the time the eloquent indig nation of Burke, and stUl causes a sigh among aU who 1 History of the Reformation (Oxford, 1829), Vol. I. p. ,'^38. 56 EIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY think less of principles than of privileges. From an official report to the First ( !onsul, it appears that be fore 1801 sales were authorized by the Government to the fiibulous amount of two thousand five hundred and fifty-five mUlions of francs, or above five hundred miUions of dollars, while still a large mass, estimated at seven hundred million francs, of confiscated property remained unsold,^ The whole vast possessions of the Church disappeared in this chasm. Cruel as were many of the consequences, this confis cation must 'be judged as part of the Eevolution Avhose temper it shared ; nor is it easy to condemn anything but its excesses, unless you are ready to say that the safety of France, torn by domestic foes and invaded from abroad, was not worth securing, or that equality before the law, which is now the most assured posses sion of that great nation, was not worth obtaining. It was part of the broad scheme of Napoleon, moved by politic generosity, to mitigate as far as possible the operation of this promiscuous spoliation, especially by restraining it, according to the principle of the bill which I have introduced, to the most obnoxious per sons, — although this sharp ruler knew too well what was due to titles once fixed by Government to contem plate any restoration of landed property already alien ated. " There are," he exclaimed, in the Council of State, "above one hundred thousand names on these unhajipy lists : it is enough to turn one's head. , . . The list must le reduced by three fourths of its number, to the names of such as are known to be hostile to the Government!' ^ Hostility to the Government constituted with him suffi- 1 Alison, History of Europe, (5th edit.,) Vol. IV. pp. 708, 709, note. 2 Ibid., p, 705, note. AND EIGHTS OF WAE, 57 cient reason for contmued denial of aU rights of proper ty or citizenship. And so jealous was he on this point, that, when he heard that some who were allowed to enter upon their yet unalienated lands had proceed ed to cut down the forests, partly from necessity and partly to transfer funds abroad, he interfered peremp torily, in words appHcable to our present condition : " We cannot allow the greatest enemies of the Eepublic, the defenders of old prejudices, to recover their fortunes and despoil France." ^ This episode of history, so sug gestive to us, will not be complete, if I do not mention, that, through this poHcy of confiscation, France passed from the hands of dominant proprietors, with extended possessions, into the hands of those small farmers now constituting so important a feature in its social and political Hfe. Nor can I neglect to add, that kindred in character, though involving no loss of property, was the entire obHteration at the same time of the historic Prov inces of France, and the substitution of new divisions into Departments, with new landmarks and new names, so that ancient landmarks and ancient names, quicken ing so many prejudices, no longer served to separate the people. But this story is not. yet ended. Accustomed to confiscation at home, France did not hesitate to exercise it abroad, under the name of contributions ; nor was there anything her strong hand did not appropriate, — sometimes, it might be, the precious treasures of Art, paintings of Eaffaelle, Titian, or Paul Potter, enshrined in foreign museums, and sometimes the ornaments of churches, palaces, and streets. Often in hard money were these contributions levied. For instance, in 1807, 1 Alison, History of Europe, Vol. IV. p. 706, note. 3* 58 EIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY Napoleon exacted from Prussia, with little more than five million inhabitants, a war contribution of more than one hundred and twenty millions of dollars ; and in 1809, the same conqueror exacted from Austria a Hke contribution of about fifty miUions of doUars. In kindred spirit, Davoust, one of his marshals, sta tioned at Hamburg, le\'ied upon that single commer cial city, during the short term of twelve months, contributions amounting to more than fifteen, or, ac cording to other accounts, twenty-fiA'e, millions of dol lars. But the day of reckoning came, when Fiance, humbled at last, was constrained to accept peace from the A'ictorious allies encamped at Paris, The paint ings, the marbles, and the ornaments raA'ished from for eign capitals were aU taken back, Avhile immense sums \\-ere exacted for expenses of the wtir, aud also for spo liations during the licN'olution, amounting in all to three hundred miUion dollars. Such is the lesson of France, And still later, actually in our day, the large posses sions of the late king, Louis Philippe, were confiscated by Louis Napoleon, while every member of the Orleans family was compelled to dispose of his property before the expiration of a year, under jienalty of forfeiture and confiscation. This harsh act had its origin in the as sumed necessities of self-defence, that this powerful family might be excluded from France, not only in per son, but in property also, and have no foothold or influ ence tliere. While it is easy to see that these interesting instan ces are only slightly applicable to our country, yet I do not disown any suggestion of caution or clemency they inculcate. Other instances in our o^\¦n history AND EIGHTS OF WAE, 59 are more appHcable, All are aware that during the Eevolution the property of Tories, loyalists, and refu gees was confiscated ; but I doubt if Senators know the extent to which this was done, or the animosity by which it was impeUed, Out of many Ulustrations, I se lect the early language of the patriot Hawley, of Mas sachusetts, in a letter to Elbridge Gerry, under date of July 17, 1776. " Can we subsist," said this patriot, " did any state ever subsist, without exterminating traitors '? . It is amazingly wonderful, that, having no capital punisliment for our intestine enemies, we have not been utterly ruined before now." ^ The statutes of the time are most authentic testimony. I hold in my hand a list, amounting to eighty-eight in number, which I have arranged according to States. Some are very severe, as may be imagined from the titles, which I proceed to give ; but they show, beyond assertion or argument, how, under the exigencies of war for National Inde pendence, the power of confiscation was recognized and employed. Each title is a witness, 1. New Hampshire. — To confiscate estates of sundry persons therein named. November 28, 1778. 2. Massachusetts. — To prevent the return of certain persons therein named, and others who had left that State, or either of the United States, and joined the enemies thereof 1778. 3. To confiscate the estates of certain notorious con spirators against the government and liberties of the inhabitants of the late Province, now State, of Massachusetts Bay. 1779. 4. For repealing two laws of the State, and for assert ing the rights of that free and sovereign Common- 1 Austin's Life of Elbridge Gerry, Vol. I. p. 207. 60 EIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY wealth to expel such aliens as may be dangerous to the peace and good order of government. March 24, 1784, 5, In addition to an Act made and passed Mai-ch 24, 1784, repealing two laws of this State. Novem ber 10, 1784. 6. Ehode Island. — To confiscate and sequester estates, and banish persons of certain descriptions, Octo ber, 177.5, 7-13. To confiscate and sequester estates, and banish per sons of certain descriptions. February, March, Maj', June, July, August, October, 1776. 14, 15, To confiscate and sequester estates, and banish per sons of certain descriptions. February, October, 1778. 16-20. To confiscate and sequester estates, and banish per sons of certain descriptions. February, May, Au gust, September, October, 1 779. 21-23, To confiscate and sequester estates, and banish per sons of certain descriptions. July, September, Oc- . tober, 1780, 24, 25. To confiscate and sequester estates, and banish per sons of certain descriptions. January, May, 1781. 26-28, To confiscate and sequester estates, and banish per sons of certain descriptions. June, October, No vember, 1782. 29-32. To confiscate and sequester estates, and banish per sons of certain descriptions. February, May, June, October, 1783. 33. To send out of the State N. Spink and John Under wood, who had formerly joined the enemy, and were returned into Rhode Island. May 27, 1783. 34. To send William Young, theretofore banished, out of the State, and forbidden to return at his peril, June 8, 1783. AND EIGHTS OF WAK. 61 35. Allowing William Brenton, late an absentee, to visit his family for one week, then sent away, not to return. June 12, 1783. 36. To banish S. Knowles (whose estate had been for feited), on pain of death, if he return. October, 1783. 37. Connecticut. — Directing certain confiscated estates to be sold. 38. New Torh. — For the forfeiture and sales of the es tates of persons who have adhered to the enemies of the State. October 22, 1779. 39. For the immediate sale of part of the confiscated es tates. March 10, 1780. 40. Approving the Act of Congress relative to the finan ces of the United States, and making provision for redeeming that State's proportion of bills of credit to be emitted. June 15, 1780. 41. To procure a sum in specie, for the purpose of re deeming a portion of the bills emitted, &c. Octo ber 7, 1780. 42. For granting a more effectual relief in cases of cer tain trespasses. March 17, 1783. 43. For suspending the prosecutions therein mentioned. March 21, 1783. 44. To amend and extend certain Acts. May 4, 1784. 45. To preserve the freedom and independence of the State, &c. May 12, 1784. 46. New Jersey. — To punish traitors and disaffected per sons. October 4, 1776. 47. For taking charge of and leasing the real estates, and for forfeiting pei'sonal estates, of certain fugitives and ofi'enders. April 18, 1778. 48. For forfeiting to and vesting in the State the real estates of certain fugitives and offenders. Decem ber 11, 1778. 62 RIGHTS OF SOVEREIGNTY 49. Supplemental to the Act to punish traitors and dis affected persons. October 3, 1782, 50. To appropriate a certain forfeited estate. December 23, 17tS3. 51. Pennsylvania. — For the attainder of divers traitors, and for vesting their estates in the Commonwealth, if they render not themselves by a certain day. March 6, 1778. .'i2. To attaint Henry Gordon, unless he surrender him self by a given day, and the seizure of his estates by the agents of forfeited estates confirmed, Jan uary 31, 1783, 53. Delaware. — Declaring estates of certain persons for feited, and themselves incapable of being elected to any office. February 5, 1778. 54. Maryland. — For calliuf;' out of circulation the quota of the State of the bills of credit issued by Con gress. October, 1780. 55, To seize, confiscate, and appropriate all British prop erty within the State. October, 1780, 56, To appoint commissioners to preserve confiscated British property, October, 1780, 57. To procure a loan, and for the sale of escheat lands ami the confiscated British property therein men tioned. October, 1780. 58, For the benefit of the children of Major Andrew Leitch, June 15, 1782, 59, To vest certain powers in the Governor and Council. November, 1785. 60. To empower the Governor and Council to compound with the discoverers of British property, and for other purposes. November, 1788. 61. Virginia. — For sequestering British property, ena bling those indebted to British subjects to pay off such debts, &c. October, 1777. AND RIGHTS OF WAR. 03 62. Concerning escheats and forfeitures from British sub jects. May,. 1779. 63. For removal of seat of government. May, 1779. 64, 65. To amend the Act concerning escheats and forfeit ures. May, October, 1779. 66. To adjust and regulate pay and accounts of officers of Virginia line. November, 1781. 67. For providing more effectual funds for redemption of certificates. May, 1782. 68. Prohibiting the migration of certain persons to that Commonwealth, &c, October, 1783, 69. To explain, amend, &c,, the several Acts for the ad mission of emigrants to the rights of citizenship, and prohibiting the migration of certain persons to that Commonwealth. October, 1786, 70, North Carolina. — For confiscating the property of all such persons as are inimical to the United States, &c. November, 1777, 71. To carry into eff'ect the last mentioned act. Janu ary, 1779. 72, Directing the sale of confiscated property, October, 1784, 73, To describe and ascertain such persons as owed al legiance to the State, and to impose certain dis qualifications on certain persons therein named. October, 1784, 74, To amend the last mentioned Act. November, 1785. 75. To secure and quiet in their possessions all such as have or may purchase lands, goods, &c., sold or hereafter to be sold by the commissioners of for feited estates. December 29, 1785, 76, Act of pardon and obhvion. April, 1788. 77. South Carolina. — For disposing of certain estates aud banishing certain persons therein mentioned. February 26, 1782. 64 RIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY 78. To amend the last mentioned Act. March 16, 1783, 79. To vest land, late property of James Holmes, in certain persons in trust for the benefit of a public school. August 15, 1783. 80. For restoring to certain persons their estates, and for permitting the said persons to return, &o. starch 26, 1784, 81. For amending and explaining the Confiscation Act. March 26, 17S4. 82. To amend the Confiscation Act, and for other pur poses therein mentioned. March 22, 1786. 83, Georgia. — For inflicting penalties on, and confiscat ing the estates of, such persons as are therein de clared guilty of treason, (fee. Jlay 4, 1782. 84. To point out the mode for the recovery of property unlawfully acquired under the British usurpation, and withheld from the rightful owners, (fee. Feb ruary 17, 1783, 85. Releasing certain persons from their bargains, &c. July 29, 1783. 86, For ascertaining the rights of aliens, and pointing out a mode for the admission of citizens. Febru ary 7, 1785. 87. To authorize the auditor to liquidate the demands of such persons as have claims against the confis cated estates. February 22, 1785. 88. To compel the settlement of public accounts, for in flicting penalties, and for vesting, auditor with cer tain powers. February 10, 1787.-' Such is the array which illustrates the terrible ear nestness of those times. In their struggle for National Independence, our fathers did not hesitate to employ aU the acknowledged Eights of War ; nor did they higgle 1 American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I. pp. 198, 199. AND RIGHTS OF WAE. 65 over questions of form with regard to enemies in arms against them. To this extent, at least, we may be in structed by their example, even if we discard their pre cedents. In the negotiations for the acknowledgment of Na tional Independence these Acts were much considered. It does not appear, however, that their legality was drawn into question, although, as is seen, they ex ercised the double rights of sovereignty and of war. The British Commissioner, Mr, Oswald, expresses him self, under date of November 4, 1782, as foUows. " You may remember, that, from the very first beginning of our negotiation for settling a peace between Great Britain and America, I insisted that you should positively stipulate for the restoration of the property of all those persons, under the denomination of the Loyalists or Refugees, who have taken part -with Great Britain in the present war : or, if the property had been resold, and passed into such a variety of hands as to render the restoration impracticable, (which you asserted to be the case in many instances,) you should stipu late for a compensation or indemnification to those persons adequate to their losses." ¦* The American Commissioners, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay, declared in reply, that " the restoration of such of the estates of the refugees as have been confiscated is impracticable, because they were confiscated by laws of particular States, and in many instances have passed by legal titles through several hands," As to the demand of compensation for these persons, the Commissioners said : " We forbear enu- t Letter to United States Commissioners : American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I. p. 219. 66 EIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY merating our reasons for thinking it iU-founded," ^ In the course of the conference, and by way of reply or set-ofl; gross instances were adduced of outrages by the British troops in " the carrying off of goods from Boston, Pliiladelpliia, and the Carolinas, Georgia, Virginia, &c., and the burning of the towns," Franklin mentioned " the case of PhUadelphia, and the carrying off of effects there, e\-en his own library." Laurens added " the plun ders in Carolina of negroes, plate, &c." ^ In a letter from Franklin to the British Commissioner, under date of No vember 26, 1782, the pretension of the loyalists was finally repeUed in the plainest words, " You may well remember, that, in the beginning of our conferences, before the other Commissioners arrived, on your mentioning to me a retribution for the loyalists whose estates had been forfeited, . . .1 save it as my opinion and advice, honestly and cordially, that, if a reconciliation was intended, no mention should be made in our negotiations of those peo ple ; for, they having done infinite mischief to our properties, by wantonly burning and destroying farm-houses, villages, and towns, if compensation for their losses were insisted on, we should certainly exhibit against it an account of all the ravages they had committed, which would necessarily recall to view scenes of barbarity that must inflame, instead of con ciliating, and tend to perpetuate an enmity that we all pro fess a desire of extinguishing. . . . " Your ministers require that we should receive again into our bosom those who have been our bitterest enemies, and restore their properties who have destroyed ours, — and this while the wounds they have given us are still bleeding. It is many years since your nation expelled thCj Stuarts and 1 American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol, I, p. 219, 2 Extract from Mr. Adams's Journal respecting Peace, November 29, 1782 : Ibid., p. 220. AND EIGHTS OF WAE. 67 their adherents, and confiscated their estates. Much of your resentment against them may by this time be abated ; yet, if we should propose it, and insist on it, as an article of our treaty with you, that that family should be recalled and the forfeited estates of its Mends restored, would you think us serious in our professions of earnestly desiring peace t " I must repeat my opinion, that it is best for you to drop all mention of the refugees." -^ But on this occasion there was a compromise. In stead of positive stipulations in behalf of the loyalists, it was agreed in the treaty, "that the Congress shaU earnestly recommend it to the Legislatures of the respect ive States to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties which have been confiscated, be longing to real British subjects, and also of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in districts in the possession of his Majesty's arms, and who have not borne arms against the said United States.'"^ Thus, while in every other article of the treaty it was agreed that certain things shall he done, here it was only agreed to recommend that they shaU be done ; and even the recom mendation of restitution was confined to what are called "real British subjects," and others "who have not borne arms against the United States," — thus evidently rec ognizing the Habihty of those who did not come within these two exceptions. After the adoption of our Constitution, this article came under discussion between the United States and Great Britain, when Mr, Jefferson, in the most elaborate diplomatic paper of his life, ably vindicated the conduct 1 American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol, I. p. 221. 2 Definitive Treaty of Peace, Art. V.: United States Statutes at Large. Vol. VIIL p. 82. 68 EIGHTS OF SOVEREIGNTY of our Government. It was on this occasion that he quoted the words of Bynkershoek, that "it stands to reason that whatever property of an enemy is found in his enemy's coimtry changes its owner and goes to the treasury, , even immovables, as is the prac tice in regard to movables," ^ And in the course of his argument he distinctly asserts that " an Act of the Legislature confiscating lands stands in place of an of fice found in ordinary cases, — and that, on the passage of the Act, as on the finding of the office, the State stands ip-io faeto possessed of the lands without a for mal entry. The confiscation, then, is complete by the passage of the Act, both the title and possession being divested out of the former proprietor and vested in the State." 2 This is strong language. Not only in our diplomacy, but also in our courts, was the vahdity of these Acts upheld, ]\Ir, Jefferson was sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States in an early case on the con fiscation of British debts by Virginia,^ where it Was de clared that " a State may make what rules it pleases, and those rules must necessarUy have place within itself,"* — that " the right to confiscate the property of enemies during war is derived from a state of -war, and is caUed the Eights of War,"^ — and that "the right acquired by war depends on the power of seizing the enemy's ef fects," ^ The last remark has a subtle significance. But the -^'hole case was stated at the bar by John ilarshaU, 1 American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I. p. 201. ' Ibid., p. 205. 8 Ware v. Hylton et al., 3 Daflas, E., 222. ' Ibid,, p. 282. "¦ Ibid., p. 227. 0 Ibid., p. 264. AND EIGHTS OF WAE. 69 afterw,ards our honored Chief Justice, in words appli cable to our own times. " It h(is been conceded that independent nations have in general the right of confiscation, and that Virginia at the time of passing her law was an independent nation. But it is contended, that, from the peculiar circumstances of the war, the citizens of each of the contending nations having been mehibers of the same government, the general right of confiscation did not apply, and ought not to be exercised. It is not, however, necessary to show a parallel case in his tory, since it is incumbent on those who wish to impair the sovereignty of Virginia to establish on principle or precedent the justice of their exception. That State, being engaged in a war, necessarily possessed the powers of war, and confiscation is one of those powers, weakening ihe party against whom it is employed, and strengthening the party that employs it." ^ In closing what I have to say of the confiscation bills of the Eevolution, I cannot disguise that they have been thought severe in some cases beyond the acknowledged exigencies of the times; but, admitting their severity, they testify none the less to those Eights of War in which they had their origin. Such, Sir, are examples of history, so far as I can gather them, to guide on the present occasion. The embarrassment of Hercules is constantly repeated. There are paths to avoid, as weU as paths to take ; and it is for you to determine, under the lights of the past, how your course shaU be directed. There are considerations of policy, and, I rejoice to beheve, of justice also, which furnish iUumination such 1 Ware v. Hylton et al., 3 Dallas, R., 210. 70 RIGHTS OF SOVEREIGNTY as cannot be found in any other instances of history. If we go astray, it must be from blindness. In determining what powers to exercise, you will be guided to a certain extent by the object you seek to accomplish. Do you seek really to put down the Ee- belHon, and to tread it out forever, or do you seek only the passage of a penal statute ? Do you seek a new and decisive weapon in the war our country is com pelled to wage, or do you seek nothing more than to punish a few rebels ? Or, if the object you seek is simply punishment, do you wish it to be sure and effect ive, or only in name ? Are you in earnest to strike this rebellion with all the force sanctioned by the Eights of AVar, or do you refuse to use anything be yond the peaceful process of Municipal Law ? I put these questions sincerely and kindly. You will answer them by your votes. If you are not in earnest against the rebeUion now arrayed in war, if you are content to seem without acting, to seem without striking, in short, to seem rather than to be, you wiU pass a new penal statute, and nothing more. It is clear that such a statute will be of perfect in efficiency. It wiU not produce even a moderate intim idation, — not so much as a Quaker gun. With the pro- -vision in our Constitution applicable to jury trials in criminal cases, it is obvious that throughout the whole Eebel country there can be no conviction under such statute. Proceedings would fail through the disagree ment of the jury, whUe the efforts of counsel would make every case an occasion of irritation. People talk flippantly of the gallows as the certain doom of the Eebels, This is a mistake. For weal or woe, the gal lows is out of the question. It is not possible as a AND EIGHTS OF WAE. 71 punishment for this rebellion,^ Nor would any for feiture or confiscation whatever be sanctioned by a jury in the Eebel country, I think that in this judg ment I do not err. But if this be correct, surely we should take aU proper steps to avoid such failure of justice. Let Senators see things as they are ; let us not deceive ourselves or deceive others. A new statute against treason will be simply a few more iUusive pages on the statute-book, and that is aU. I cannot doubt that Senators are in earnest, that they mean what they say, and that they intend to do all in their power, by all proper legislation, to bring the war to a final close. But if this be their purpose, they will not hesitate to employ all the acknowledged Eights of War calculated to promote this end. Two transcend ent powers have been exercised without a murmur: first, to raise armies, and, secondly, to raise money. These were essential to the end. But there is another power, without which, I fear, the end will escape us. It is that of confiscation and liberation ; and this power is just as constitutional as the other two. The occasion for its exercise is found in the same terrible necessity. An army is not a posse comitatus; nor is it, when in actual -war, face to face with the enemy, amenable to the ordinary provisions of the Constitution. It takes Hfe without a jury trial, or any other process of law ; and we have already seen, it is by virtue of the same Eight of War that the property of enemies may be taken, and freedom given to their slaves. On the exer cise of these rights there can be no check or limitation in the Constitution. Any such check or limitation 1 How completely this early prophecy has been fulfilled appears in our history. 72 EIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY would be irrational. War cannot be conducted in vin- culis. Seeking to fasten upon it the restraints of the Constitution, you repeat the ancient tyranny which com pelled its victims to fight in chains. Glorious as it is that the citizen is surrounded by the safeguards of the Constitution, yet this rule is superseded by war, bring ing into being other rights which know no master. An Italian publicist has said that there is no right which does not, in some measure, impinge upon some other right. But this is not correct. The Eights of War can never impinge upon any rights under the Constitution, nor can any rights under the Constitution impinge upon the Eights of War, Eights, when properly understood, harmonize with each other. Assuming, then, what is so amply demonstrated, that the Eights of War are ours without abridgment, and assuming also that you wiU not allow the national cause, which has enlisted such mighty energies, to be thwarted through any failure on your part, I ask you to exercise these rights in such way as to insure promptly and surely that permanent peace in which is contained all we desire. But to this end mere victory will not be enough. Tlie EebeUion must be so completely crushed that it cannot again break forth, while its authors have penalties to bear, aU of which may be accomplished on ly by such a bill as I have proposed. The reasons of policy, as weU as of duty, are controlling. But while aU desire to see the Eebellion completely crushed, there may be difference with regard to the Eights of War to be exercised. Some may be for part; others may be for aU. Some may reject the ex amples of the past ; others may insist upon them. It AND EIGHTS OF WAE. 73 is for you to choose ; hut, in making election, you wiU not forget the object in view. At another point I have leaned on the authority of Grotius. Turning now to Vattel, a writer of masculine understanding, who has done much to popularize the Law of Nations, I am influenced by the consideration, that, less austere than others, he seems always inspired by the free air of his native Switzerland, and filled with the desire of doing good, so that what he sanctions cannot be re garded as illiberal or harsh. In grouping the details entering into the object proposed, this benevolent mas ter teaches that we may seek these things : — 1, Possession of what belongs to us ; 2, Expenses and charges of the war, with reparation of damages ; 3. Eeduction of the enemy, so that he shaU be in capable of unjust violence ; 4. Punishment of the enemy.^ And in order to arrive at these resiUts, the Eights of War are ours, to be employed in our discretion. Nor is it to be forgotten that these rights are without any of those limitations which modern times have adopted with regard to the private property of enemies in inter national war, and that, on reason and principle, which are the foundations of all Public Law, every rebel ivho voluntarily becomes an enemy is as eomjjletely responsible in all his property, whether real or personal, as a hostile Government or Prince, whose responsibility to this ex tent is unquestioned. Such in detail is the object that is all contained in the idea of peace. In this work it is needless to say there is no place for any sentiment of hate or any sug- 1 Law of Nations, Book III. ch. 9. vol,, vn. 4 74 EIGHTS OF SOVEEEIGNTY gestion of vengeance. There can be no exaction and no punishment beyond the necessity of the case, — nothing harsh, nothing excessive. Lenity and pardon become the concjueror more even than victory. " Do in time of peace the most good, and in time of war the least evil possible : such is the Law of Nations." Tliese are the admirable words of an eminent French magistrate and statesman.^ In this spirit it is our duty to assuage the calamities of war, and especially to spare an inoft'ensive population. But not so should we deal with conspirators. For those who organized this great crime and let slip the dogs of war tliere can be no penalty too great. They should be not only punished to the e.xtent of our power, but stripped of all means of influence, so that, should their lives be spared, they may be doomed to wear them out in poverty, if not in e.xile. To this end their property must be taken. Their poor deluded followers may be safely pardoned. Left to all the privUeges of citizenship in a regenerated land, they -will unite in judgment of leaders who have been to them such cruel taskmasters. The property of the leaders consists largely of land, owned in extensive plantations. It is just that these should be broken up, so that never again can they be nurseries of conspiracy or disaffection. Partitioned into smaU estates, they will afford homes to many now homeless, while their peculiar and overbearing social influence wiU be destroyed. Poor neighbors, so long dupes and victims, will become independent possessors 1 Count Portalis, at the installation of the Council of Prizes in 1800: Cussy, Phases et Causes C(51ebres du Droit Maritime des Nations, Tom. I, pp, 179, 206, 264, Montesquieu had previously enunciated the same prin ciple, with a limitation : L'Esprit des Lois, Liv, I, ch. 3. AND EIGHTS OF WAE. 75 of the soil. Brave soldiers, who have left their Northern skies to fight the battles of their country, resting at last from theu' victories, and changing their swords for ploughshares, wiU fiU the land with Northern industry and Northern principles. I say Httle of personal property, because, although justly liable to confiscation, yet it is easy to see that it is of much less importance than the land, except so far as slaves are falsely classed under that head, Vattel says that in our day a soldier would not dare to boast of having kUled the enemy's king ; and there seems to be simUar timidity on our part towards Slav ery, which is our enemy's king. If this king were re moved, tranquUHty would reign. Charles the Twelfth, of Sweden, did not hesitate to say that the cannoneers were perfectly right in directing their shots at him ; for the war would instantly end, if they could kiU him ; whereas they would reap little from killing his prin cipal officers. There is no shot in this war so effect ive as one against Slavery, which is king above aU officers; nor is there any better augury of complete success than the wiUingness, at last, to fire upon this wicked Idng, The illusions through which Slavery has become strong must be abandoned. The slaves of Eebels cannot be regarded as property, real or personal. Though claimed as property by their masters, and though too often recognized as such by individuals in the National Government, it is the glo ry of our Constitution that it treats slaves always as " persons," At home, beneath the lash and local law, they may be chattels ; but they are known to our Con stitution only as men. In this simple and indisputable 76 RIGHTS OF SOVEREIGNTY fact there is a distinction, clear as justice itself, between the pretended property in slaves and all other property, real or personal. Being men, they are bound to alle giance, and entitled to reciprocal jirt)tection. It only remains that a proper appeal should be made to their natural and instinctive loyalty. Nor can any pretended ]-iroperty of their masters supersede this claim, I ^\'ill not say of eminent domain, but of eminent power, in- lierent in the National Government, which at all times has a right to the services of all. Declaring the slaves free, you will at once do more than in any other way, whether to conquer, to ]iacify, to punish, or to bless. You \vi]l take from the Eebellion its mainspring of ac tivity and strength ; you will stop its chief source of provisions and suppHes ; you will remove a motive and temptation to prolonged resistance ; and you will de stroy forever that disturbing influence, which, so long as aUowed, will keep this land a volcano ever ready to break forth anew. While accomplishing this work, you will at the same time do an act of wise economy, giving new value to all the lands of Slavery, and opening un told springs of wealth; and you wiU also do an act of justice, destined to raise our national name more than any triumph of war or any skill in peace. God, in His beneficence, offers to nations, as to individuals, oppor tunity, opportumty, OPPORTUNITY, which, of all things, is most to be desired. Never before in history has He offered such as is ours here. Do not fail to seize it. The blow with which we smite an accursed Eebellion will at the same time enrich and bless ; nor is there any prosperity or happiness it will not scatter abun dantly throughout the land. Such an act will be an epoch, marking the change from Barbarism to Civiliza- AND EIGHTS OF WAE. 77 tion. By old Eights of War, stiU prevalent in Africa, freemen were made slaves ; but by the Eights of War which I ask you to exercise slaves will be made free men. Mr, President, if you seek Indemnity for the Past and Security for the Future, if you seek the national unity under the Constitution of the United States, here is the way. Strike down the leaders of the Ee beUion, and Hft up the slaves. " To tame the proud, the fettered slave to free, — These are imperial arts, and worthy thee." Then wiU there be Indemnity for the Past such as no nation ever before was able to win, and there wUl be Security for the Future such as no nation ever before enjoyed, whUe the EepubHc, strengthened and glorified, will be assured forever, one and indivisible. NO SURRENDER OF FUGITIVE SLAVES IN WASHINGTON. Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, Mat 23, 1862. May 23d, the Senate proceeded to consider a resolution offered the preceding day by Mr, Sumner : — " Mesohed, That the Committee on the District of Columbia be directed to consider what legislation, if any, is needed to protect persons of African descent in Washington from unconstitutional seizure as fugitive slaves, or from seizure by disloyal persons," Mr. Sumner said : — ME, PEESIDENT, — The question presented in this resolution lias a practical value to-day, when, here in Washington, we are shocked by efforts of slave- hunters, coming from an adjoining State, to carry off human beings as slaves. This is menaced on a large scale. Whole hecatombs are to be sacrificed. A Phila delphia paper of this morning, " The Press," which I find on my table, contains, under the telegraphic head, an account of certain proceedings instituted by persons called Commissioners, who have undertaken gravely to decide, that, in a case of human freedom, "it was dis cretionary with them to allow cross-examination as to identity and ownership." According to these wise Dan iels, a person may be doomed to Slavery, even without any cross-examination of witnesses against him. The statement of this assumption shows the outrage which NO SUEEENDEE OF FUGITIVE SLAVES. 79 offends justice and common sense, and, I am happy to believe, the Constitution also, even if it be assumed that anybody now can be treated as a slave in the District. The much discussed clause of the Constitution bear ing on this question provides that " no person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping info anotlier, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor." It will be observed that this is limited to escape from one State into another State. Nothing is said of escape into Territories, or into the District of Columbia, If made applicable to Territories or the District, it is only by inference and deduction, and not by virtue of any express words. Notwithstanding this omission in the Constitution, the Act of 1793, providing for the surrender of fugitives from service, was made appHcable to escape into Terri tories, and this questionable precedent was followed in the terrible Act of 1850. But neither of these Acts was made applicable to escape into the District of Columbia, While Slavery prevailed in the District, it was difficult to raise a question with regard to the surrender of fugi tive slaves. But since Freedom has happily become the law here, the case is materiaUy changed. Slaves at last are beginning to have rights. And the question arises, whether, in the absence of express power in the Con stitution, and also in the absence of express words in any statute, commissioners can undertake to surrender men into Slavery. Even if there were express words in the statute, we should be obliged to find express words also in the Constitution, which is the source of the power. But there are no words applicable to this pre tension either in statute or Constitution. 80 NO SUERENDER OF Sir, I have always understood, that, in the interpreta tion of statutes, and especially of the Constitution, every word is to be interpreted in favor of life ;ind liberty, — infavorcm vitcc ac libcrtatis. Indeed, one of the received maxims of the Common Law says strongly, " Impious and cruel is lie to be adjudged who does not favor Lib erty." 1 If tliese maxims are not entirely rejected, it is impossible to find, either in statute or Constitution, any power to gratify the hunters now thronging this Dis trict in quest of human prey. It is casus omissus in our texts leoislative or constitutional, and no commissioner, o in the plenitude of petty power, can undertake to sup ply words which do not appear in statute or Constitu tion, It is for them only to administer the law as it is, and not to make it, especially against Freedom. They are not greater than the Constitution ; and they should know that human freedom, in the estimation of every civilized jurisprudence, is priceless. The question wliich I now raise, if I may employ the language of lawyers, is proper for the courts. A court in Washington, properly inspired, could not hesitate in its conclusion. It would deny any such offensive pre rogative, unless sanctioned by clear and positive words. In the absence of such words, it would rejoice to set aside the whole pretension. It would not hesitate or halt, but it would do it gladly, generously, justly, and make a new precedent by which civilization should be advanced. Yet this is too much to expect from the courts of Washington, wdiose sense of justice has been enfeebled by the atmosphere of Slavery. This pretension is aggravated by the fact that many 1 "Impius et crudelis judicandus est, qui libertati non favet." — Fortes- cue, De Laudibus Legum Anglice, Cap, XLII. FUGITIVE SLAVES IN WASHINGTON. 81 of these hunters are notoriously disloyal. Sir, it is hard that our Constitution should be violated, and men hur ried into Slavery, at the trumpery process of such of fensive characters, I think the Committee wiE find a remedy. On motion of Mr. Grimes, the resolution was amended by substituting the Committee on the Judiciary for the Committee on the District of Coliunhia, and then agreed to. 4* INFORMATION IN REGARD TO FREEING SLAVES BY OUR ADVAWGING ARMIES. Resolution in the Senate, May 26, 1862. Mk, Sumner submitted the following resolution for consideration, RESOLVED, That the Secretary of War be requested to communicate to the Senate co])ies of any in structions to commanding generals, in pursuance of the Act of Congress, approved August 6, 1861, setting free slaves who have been employed by the consent of their masters against the Government and lawful authority of the United States ; and also to inform the Senate if any steps have been taken to make this statute effective, and to insure its due execution by our advancing armies, for the benefit of slaves who have been so employed, June 4th, the resolution was considered and agreed to. July 10th, a report was received from the Secretai-y of War, entitled " Instructions to commanding generals in regard to the freeing of slaves,'' which, besides the instructions, contained communications from General Phelps and General Butler.^ 1 Executive Documents, 37tli Cong, 2d Sess,, Senate, No, 67, HELP FROM SLAVES, WITH RECIPROCAL PRO TECTION IN THEIR RIGHTS AS MEN. Resolution in the Senate, Mat 26, 1862. The following resolution was introduced, as an expression of opin ion, and an appeal to the country. RESOLVED, That, in the prosecution of the present war for the suppression of a wicked EebeUion, the time has come for the Government of the United States to appeal to the loyalty of the whole people everywhere, hut especiaUy in the Eebel districts, and to invite aU, without distinction of color, to make their loyalty mani fest by ceasing to fight or labor for the Eebels, and also by rendering every assistance in their power to the cause of the Constitution and the Union, according to their abihty, whether by arms, or labor, or information, or in any other way ; and since protection and allegiance are reciprocal duties, dependent upon each other, it is the further duty of the Government of the United States to maintain all such loyal people, without distinction of color, in their rights as men, according to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. TAX ON COTTON. Speeches in the Senate, May 27 and June 4, 1862. In the consideration of the Internal Tax Bill Mr, Sumner took an active part, as the Covijvcssiomd Globe attests, M'hcn this bill came from the Mouse of Representatives, it contained a tax of one cent a pound on cotton. The Finance < 'onnnittie of the Scuatr reported against this tax. Mr, Sumner, though never disposed to spare Slavery, Avas unwilling to bear hard on an interest so important as cotton to the whole country, cs[iccially to the South when redeemed, as well as to the manufactures of the North, and therefore exerted him self against the tax. May 27th, he spoke as follows. ME, PEESIDENT, — I am in favor of the proposi tion of the Committee, which seems to me sound in principle and policy. There are reasons against taxing cotton, — first, from the character of the product itself, and, secondly, from the effect of the tax on manufactures. If we look at the character of the product, we find, in the first pVice, that it is agricultural, — peculiar, indeed, to one section of the country, but as much an agricul tural product as grain, hemp, and flax, which are left un touched by this bill. There should be reason for adopt ing the tax in one case and not in the other. No such reasoii exists. But cotton is not only an agricultural product, it is also a leading export. Now I raise no constitutional question on the power to tax exports, although it may TAX ON COTTON. 85 not be entirely easy to reconcUe such tax with the lan guage of the Constitution : " No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State," The object of this clause was to prevent discrimination among States through the taxing power. But not questioning the power in the present case, it seems to me that its exercise is of doubtful policy, according to principles of pohtical economy. I do not think that it is the policy of civUized nations to tax exports, which play an impor tant part, first, in quickening commerce, and, secondly, in furnishing the equivalent of imports. Then there is difficulty arising from the condition of the country. Until the Cotton States are restored to the Union, little or no revenue can be expected from any such tax. But if their representatives were once more here, can anybody suppose it possible to tax this great staple of the South, while the great staples of the West — grain, provisions, and wool — are free ? It seems to me unadvisable to attempt, in the absence of these representatives, what we would not attempt, if they were present, — in other words, to do what is of doubtful equity, simply because we have the votes. Our tax, at best, can be little more than prospective. Is it not better to wait till it may be a reahty ? Even if at another time the tax on cotton seemed poHtic, I doubt if it can be so regarded for some time to come. Considering the peculiar condition of things, there is small doubt that the country for the next five years wiU have greater interest in encouraging the pro duction of cotton than in taxing it. Sometimes it is said, that, if cotton is not taxed, the Cotton States wiU escape taxation, which would be a practical injustice to other parts of the country. But 86 TAX ON COTTON. I am not satisfied that we cannot tax their slaves. Be sides, the .S 200,000,000 of cotton e.xported assures the importation of S 200,000,000 of foreign products, which, with twenty-five per cent duty, gives a revenue of S50,- 000,000 annually. But if cotton must be taxed, it should not be by a specific tax, but by a tax ad valorem, and for obvious reason. Cotton is sold in the market under seven dif ferent grades, varying materially in value. These grades are classified as foUows, beginning with the lowest or least valuable, and ending ^vith the highest or most val uable : (1,) ordinary, (2.) good ordinary, (3.) low mid dling, (4) middUng, (5,) good middhng, (6.) middling fair, (7.) Sea Island, For ten years, from 1850 to 1860, the average price of ordinary cotton was six and five eighths cents a pound, while middling fair, the highest grade except Sea Island, averaged twelve cents a pound, A tax of one cent a pound on ordinary cotton would be over fifteen per cent on its value, while one cent a pound on middling fair cotton would be eight and one third per cent, and the same tax on Sea Island cotton, commanding the highest price of all, would be less than five per cent. The tax on cotton, if any is imposed, ought not to ex ceed five per cent ad vcdnrem. In the natural course of events, without interruption of war, the cotton exported would have amounted in value for a year to S 200,000,- 000. If to this w^e add the value of cotton used in the United States, S 35,000,000, we shall have the sum-total of S 235,000,000, A tax of five per cent ad valorem on this would be S 11,750,000. The proposed tax of one cent a pound is much larger. During the year ending the 30th of June, 1860, the TAX ON COTTON. 87 value of the cotton exported was $ 191,806,555, and the number of pounds exported was 1,767,686,338. A tax of one cent a pound would be S 17,676,863, — a very large sum, which I should be glad to pour into our Treasury. But, assuming the value of this cotton at ten and eight tenths cents a pound, the tax of one cent a pound will be above nine and one fourth per cent, — nearly double what the tax ought to be. Consider now, if you please, the effect of this tax on cotton manufactures. It appears that we manufacture annuaUy about seven hundred thousand bales of cotton, one haU of which is of the three lower grades, and is worked into what is called by manufacturers coarse goods. Of these one pound of cotton wiU make about two and a half yards, worth twenty cents. Now a tax of three per cent on this cloth would be six mills. Add the tax of one cent a pound on cotton, and you have a total of sixteen mills, making a tax of eight per cent on the value of the cloth, — a higher tax than is imposed by the Tax BiU on anything except dogs, whiskey, and tobacco. The rest of the cotton manufactured in our country is worked iuto what are called fine goods, of which one pound wUl make from four to eight yards, valued at thirty to forty cents, or, on an average, thirty-five cents. The tax of three per cent on these goods at thirty-five cents would be ten and a half miUs. Add the tax of one cent on the cotton, which is ten mills, and you have the total of twenty and a half miUs, making a tax on this article of more than five and eight tenths per cent. Of the finest goods, a pound of cotton would make cloth worth seventy -five cents. The tax upon this class would be four and one third per cent. 88 TAX ON COTTON. Thus the cheap goods used by the poorer people will be taxed much higher than the finer goods used by the rich. Are you ready to set up this discrimination ? There is an important export trade of cotton manu factures, which must not be forgotten. But these are entirely of the class known as coarse goods. For in stance, during the year ending June 30, 1860, cotton goods exported amounted to S 10,934,796. This com merce is conducted under difSculties. Necessarily it encounters strong competition in the foreign markets, and must have failed, but for the anomalous opportu nities it enjoyed in China and the East Indies, where these goods were often sent as remittances instead of bUls of exchange, it being cheaper to pay for them in Boston even more than they will bring at their desti nation than to pay the premium of exchange. But this business, having such anomalous support, cannot bear additional burden. It will be annihilated, — at least I am so assured by those who ought to know. The proposed tax upon coarse goods used in our coun try is found, on calculation, equal to seven per cent on the capital invested in their manufacture, and on ex ported goods it is equal to five per cent. If cotton must be taxed, it ought not to be higher than five per cent, and I have already shown that it ought to be ad valo rem. On goods exported there should be a drawback in favor of the manufacturer, not only of the three per cent on the goods, but also of the five per cent on the cotton. If the three jier cent tax on all goods used in this coun try were reduced to one and one half per cent ad vcdo- rem, this, with the five per cent tax on the cotton, would be equal to three and one sixth per cent ad valorem, on coarse goods, and to three and one third per cent on fine TAX ON COTTON. 89 goods. But I prefer the proposition of the Committee, leaving the biU otherwise as it is. In conclusion, I have to say that the cotton cloths manufactured Hi our country are nearly as much a ne cessary as breadstuffs, entering into the daily life of all, whether rich or poor, like daily bread. In the debate which ensued, Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, alluded to Mr, Sumner. " I have been very strongly arrested by the debate to-day, and I very much approve of its spirit and its tenor. I am glad to see gentlemen quit ting visionary subjects " — JlK. Claek. Do not lug them in. — "and coming to questions of legitimate political economy; and especially I am glad that the Senators from Massachusetts have shown a disposition to come to such legitimate ground of legislation." In the same speech the Kentucky Senator indulged in prophecy, "And if the slaves were liberated, if the theory of the gentlemen from Massachusetts and other Senators were carried into operation, I believe, as certainly as I believe that I am now addressing the Senate of the United States, that there would not be one fifth as much cotton raised in any year in the next flve years as has been raised, according to the estimate of the Senator from Rhode Island, for the past year. I do not believe that the man lives, that the child lives, who will ever see, after the universal emancipa tion of the slaves, under any state of labor, or of care, orof application of la bor, either the labor of men or of machinery, that the production of cotton in the United States wiU reach one half of five millions of bags. ' ' 1 1 This prophecy, like so many others with regard to Slavery, has failed, as appears from a Comparatiye Statement of the Cotton Crops of the United States for the three years last preceding the War (which years had the largest crops ever produced), and for the three years last past, prepared by Mr, B, F, Nourse, of Boston, December, 1871, Year, oe Cotton Season. Crop Produced, Aggreg,^to Value at Ports in Gold. Bales. Pounds Gross. 1858-59 . 1859-60 1860-61 , Gold value, three years . 1888-69 . 1859-70 1870-71 . . Gold value, three years 4,019,000 4,861,0003,849,0002,,367,0003,123,0004,352,000 1,876,800,0002„343,000,000 1,886,240,0001,103,957,0001,441,057,0002,021,651,000 § 134 ,225 ,000 207,190,000170,000,000 ,§541,415,000 $201,835,000 242,195,000 236,770,000 $680,800,000 90 TAX ON COTTON. The amendment striking out the tax was adopted,— Yeas 20, Nays 16, June 3d, at the next stage of the bill, the question was presented again, when Mr, Sumner renewed his opposition to the tax. In the course of his remarks the following passages occurred. Mk, Sumnek. Then, Sir, as I had the honor of say ing in the former debate, suppose the vacant seats on the other side of the Chamber were fiUed, suppose Sen ators here from the Cotton States, would you think of imposing a tax on cotton without in the same biU imposing a tax on the agricultural products of the North '( You would not, I am sure ; and. Sir, in their absence, I wUl not do what I would not do, ff I could, were they here, Mr. Grimes. Would you not abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia'! Mr. Sujinek, I would do that, were they here, and pro pose it to their faces, and be too happy in the opportunity. June 4th, the debate was continued, when Mr. Sumner spoke as follows, I AM admonished by my friend, tlie Senator from Maine [ j\Ir, Fessenden], not to say anything, I shall say very little, I am in favor of reducing the tax from one cent to half a cent, and I am also in favor of strik ing out the whole tax. If there must be a tax, I wish the smallest; and if I can have the attention of the Senator from Wisconsin []\Ir, HowTs], whose remarks were so candid, I should like to put him a question. You heard him say that he would not impose any tax which he knew would really be burdensome on the manufacturers. Other Senators have repeated the same thing. TAX ON COTTON. 91 Now, Sir, on whom wUl he rely, in determining whether the tax wUl be burdensome ? I take it that the manufacturers are competent witnesses, if not the best witnesses ; and Senators from manufacturing States, when they express themselves on the question, are to be heard. But it is the clear opinion of the manufacturers that the proposed tax wiU be burdensome, that it wiU almost annihilate a certain branch of trade with China and the East Indies, and that it wiU be most oppress ive on the coarser fabrics at home. The tax on the latter wiU sweU to as much as seven per cent, which is a very large tax, larger than is imposed on anything else in the bUl, unless it be whiskey and dogs. I put it to the Senator from Wisconsin, who so can didly said that he would not impose a tax that he knew to be burdensome, whose testimony will he accept ? On what wiU he rely ? Is it his own knowledge, his own impressions, his own imagination, if you please ? In answer to all these I present the positive testimony of those reaUy famihar with the subject. Here, then, is the question in a nutshell. In impos ing this tax, you have on one side the certainty of un due burden on a special interest ; and what have you on the other side ? An uncertainty. Who here can say that the proposed tax wUl be productive ? Sir, we have not the cotton in our hands. Through the machi nations of wicked men, it has ceased to be within our possession. I remember in my childhood being much amused with a little poem entitled " Oxen in the Skies," which pleasantly described a contest between two senseless persons as to who should own certain imagined oxen in the skies, — that is, a contest about something not within reach. The cotton you propose 92 TAX ON COTTON. to tax is not within reach. I trust that it may soon be. Should we not act on e-x;isting facts, rather than on hopes ? There is a larger view of the question. While you begin to tax the agricultural products of the country, you open the door to that great experiment. If the Senate is ready to march in that direction, I wUl not say whether I am not ready to march also ; but the Senate should not commence the exiieriment without considering wdiere it leads. In this whole bill you do not tax a single agricultural product. Why, therefore, make an exception of cotton ? If you begin with cotton, where will you stop ? ]\Iust you not also tax hemp, flax, and corn ? Why not ? Not that I am in favor of such taxation ; but where in principle are you to stop ? Sir, I put these questions as a warning to Senators. The original proposition from the House of Representatives was amended by substituting "one half cent" a pound, instead of "one cent," — Yeas 30, Nays 10. TAX ON SLAVE-MASTERS. Speeches in the Senate, on Amendment to the Internal Tax Bill, Mat 28 and June 6, 1862. While voting and speaking against a tax on cotton, Mr. Stunner was anxious to tax Slavery, and this he sought to accomplish by a tax on those who pretended to hold slaves. May 28th, he moved the following amendment ,- — " And he it further enacted. That any person who shall claim the service or labor for life of any other person, under the laws of any State, shall pay, on account of such person so claimed, the sum often doUars." And then said : — ME. PEESIDENT, — A tax of ten doUars on ac count of each slave wiU give $40,000,000. And in putting the tax at ten dollars I foUow the precedent of the Constitution, which taxes slaves imported at ten doUars. I do not disguise that on this question I have shared the doubts of others. Of course, no tax would be tolerable which gave any sanction to property in man ; and it has been feared that a tax on slaves might be interpreted into such sanction. This fear is not unnatural to persons shocked by the idea of Slavery. It was early avowed by Eoger Sherman, of Connecticut, whose sensibUity is recorded by Madison in his report of the debates in the Federal Convention. 94 TAX ON SLAVE-MASTERS. " He was opposed to a tax on slaves imported, as making the matter worse, because it implied they were property." ^ Again, a few days later, when the same clause of the Constitution was under discussion, Mr, Sherman re peated his objection, and the foUowing debate occurred, which seems to exhaust the argument on both sides. "Mr. Sherman was against this second part, as acknowl edging men to be property, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves. " Colonel Mason. Not to tax wiU be equivalent to a bounty on the importation of slaves. " Mr. Gorham thought that Mr. Sherman should consider the duty, not as implying that slaves are property, but as a discouragement to the importation of them. " Mr. Gouverneur Morris remarked, that, as the clause now stands, it implies that the Legislature may tax free men imported. " Mr. Sherman, in answer to Mr. Gorham, observed, that the smallness of the duty showed revenue to be the object, not the discouragement of the importation. " Mr, Madison thought it wrong to admit in the Consti tution the idea that there could be property in men. The reason of duties did not hold, as slaves are not, like mer chandise, consumed, &c. " Colonel !Mason, in answer to Mr. Gouverneur Morris. The provision, as it stands, was necessary for the case of convicts, in order to prevent the introduction of them." ^ After this discussion, the clause as found in the Con stitution, laying " a tax or duty on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person," was adopted, nem. con. Thus it appears that Sherman, Morris, Frank- 1 Debates in the Federal Convention, August 22, 1787 : Madison Papers, Vol, III. p. 1396, 2 Debates, August 25 ; Ibid., pp. 1429, 1430. TAX ON SLAVE-MASTERS. 95 Hn, and Gerry, to say nothing of Madison, all known for opposition to Slavery, and determination to give it no sanction, concurred in this proposition. They felt that a tax or duty, thus arranged, was not a sanction' of Slavery. The same question is now presented to us. Clearly there can be no such thing as property in man. The whole idea is offensive and odious. There is no revenue, whatever be its amount, to compensate for this recog nition. Better be poor, better be pinched in means, better forego much needed suppHes, than obtain help through any such sacrifice. But the same considera tions which mduced our fathers, with aU their avowed scruples, to sustain such a tax or duty, may properly influence us. It is the boast of the Constitution that it knows nobody as a slave. All are "persons." But at the same time it does not assume to interfere with a weU- known State institution by which "persons" are de graded to be property. The condition of the slave is anomalous. He is property by local law ; he is a " per son" by the Constitution. But nobody questions the existence of Slavery. It is a monstrous fact, beyond reach in the States, except through the War Power, and yet none the less a fact, which taxation wiU only recognize, and not sanction. It is an intolerable nui sance intrenched in State Hnes ; but we shaU not treat it otherwise than as nuisance, when we tax it. In tax ing it we do not assume its rightfulness ; we only assume its undeniable existence as 2. fact, and nothing else. If our tax were an encouragement, it would be clear ly immoral. But it is a discouragement. Exemption 96 TAX ON SLAVE-MASTERS. from taxation is encouragement. Taxation is discour agement just in proportion to its extent, until, in the progress of events, it becomes destructi^•e, Eegarding the present question in this light, our course is plain. It is not permissilile to encourage Slavery, while every principle of economy aud every sentiment of justice and humanity urge its discouragement. But it is said that the Constitution prohibits a capi tation tax, " unless in proportion to the census," Tlie tax I propose is not a capitation tax, any more than the tax on auctioneers, or lawyers, or jugglers, or ped dlers, or slaughterers of cattle is a capitation tax. According to lexicographers, a capitation tax is a poll tax, a tax on each individual. l>iow this tax makes no pretension to be a poll ta.x, or a tax on each individual. It is a tax on a person who claims the service or labor of anotlier for life, proportioned to the extent of his claim. In other words, it is a tax on a claim of property ; and when I tax this claim, surely I do not recognize its morality, nor do I accord to it any sanction. If it be said, that at one time I insist the slave shall have all the rights of " persons " under the Constitu tion, while I now insist that his master shaU pay a tax on his claim of property, I reply, that there is no in consistency, but perfect harmony. By an unquestion able rule of interpretation, appHcable to the Constitu tion, every word must be construed in favor of Liberty, so as most to promote Liberty, According to this rule, every presumption is in favor of Liberty, But, while insisting upon every such presumption, it does not fol low that the counter claim shall not be taxed. Indeed, the same principle which inclines in favor of the slave TAX ON SLAVE-MASTERS. 97 must incHne also to tax the claim of his master, so long as this claim exists in fact. Freedom is to be enlarged in every way possible, whether by encouraging the slave or discouraging the master. Therefore do I say fearlessly, that the slave, whenever he appears within the national jurisdiction or before national tribunals, is entitled to aU the rights of " persans " ; but the master, who asserts this odious property, cannot claim any im munity for it on this account The indulgence is all for the slave, and not at aU for- the master. For the slave Congress must do everything in its power ; for the mas ter Congress must have nothing but disapprobation and discouragement. These are reasons, that influence me, and I present them now in order to. influence those who hesitate to impose this tax, on the old idea of Eoger Sherman, that it wiU he a recognition of property in man. Of course, where Senators have no such scruple, the argument for this tax is unanswerable. It is easy to levy. It is profitable. And so far as it exerts an influence, it must be a discouragement to an offensive wrong, which is the parent of our present troubles, and the occasion of aU this taxation. It would be strange, if Slavery, after causing our national calamity, should escape from all its consequences. It would be strange, if Slavery, which has played the tyrant thus far in our history, should now, like the tyrant, be so far indulged as to escape burdens of aU kinds. It shaU not be by my vote. Subsequently Mr. Sunmer modified his amendment, by accepting a substitiite drawn fcy Mr, Simmons^ of Rhode Island, in behalf of the vol.. Til. 5 G 98 TAX ON SLAVE-MASTERS. Finance Committee, who suggested, that "the section, as presented by the Senator from Massachusetts, might leave the slave liable to be sold to pay the tax, and that contlicts about as much with the Senator's notions as he could well have drawn any provision to do so." Mr, Sumner had no anxiety on this head, and said at once : — Perhaps the Senator and myself start from different points. I do not think the United States can own a slave, I cannot doubt, that, if a slave should be seized under process of the United States, he would be taken to Freedom, and not to Slavery, for the simple reason that the nation cannot own a slave. Therefore any special provision for this emergency is superfluous, I rest in the conviction, that, when a slave passes into the hands of the United States, he at once becomes free. Mr, Sumner added, that the proposition he had presented was "in the plainest form and fewest words," and on this account had merits of its own. Mr. Collamer hoped Mr. Sumner would accept the substitute, and thought "ten doUars a head on all ages and conditions an unreason able tax." The substitute accepted by Mr. Sumner was as follows. " Sec. — And he it further enacted. That an annual tax of five dollars shall be paid by every person or persons, corporation, or society, for and on account of the service or labor of every other person between the ages of ten and sixty-five years, whose service or labor, for a term of years or for life, is claimed to be owned by such first mentioned person or persons, cor poration, or society, whether in a, fiduciary capacity or otherwise, under and by virtue of the laws or customs of any State; and said annual tax shall be levied and collected of the person or persons, corporation, or society, making such claim, and of their goods, chattels, or lands, as is herein before provided; but in no case shall the person or persons whose service or labor is so claimed, or their service or labor, be sold for the purpose of collecting said tax: Prorided, That this tax shall not apply to service due to parents," t Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, took the lead in answer to Mr, Sumner, and in opposition to his amendment. After insisting that slaves are " per sons, "and that, if the amendment be adopted, ' ' they will be the only persons taxed under this bill," he said ; — 1 Congressional Globe, 37th Cong, 2d Sess,, p, 2403, TAX ON SLAVE-MASTERS. 99 " If the Senator had made his argument yesterday, when we proposed to tax cotton, a production which goes into manufactures, what he has said would apply with great force. Cotton is a production of slave labor solely Ail his arguments apply to cotton as a subject of taxation; but he convinced a majority of the Senate yesterday that it was not expedient to tax cotton; and now he proposes to tax slaves, and how? .... With all our immense resources, we cannot now collect it, except from the loyal people who live in the Border States, who now recognize our flag and are subject to our law. 1 am not willing to select them as the first to bear a heavy and peculiar taxation. I believe that the true course is to insist upon the tax on cotton." 1 The special points of Mr. Sherman's opposition appear in Mr, Sum ner's reply, Mr. President, — I wiU make one remark in reply to the Senator from Ohio. He objects to my proposi tion as in the nature of a direct tax, or poU tax. How is this ? Has not the Senator voted to tax auctioneers, lawyers, jugglers, and slaughterers of cattle, aU being classes of persons in the community ? Mr. Sherman. To tax their employments. Mr. Sumner. And I propose to tax the employment of the slave-master, — that is aU. It is the business of the slave- master to make the slave work. This is his high vocation. In other words, his business consists in using the seiwice and labor of another. And to this class of persons he belongs. Is it not plain ? Can there be any doubt ? Look at it. He is an auc tioneer of human rights, a broker of human labor, a jug gler of human sufferings and human sympathies, — I might say a slaughterer of human hopes; and. Sir, if the Senator from Ohio can tax auctioneer, broker, jug gler, or slaughterer of cattle, I am at a loss to under stand why he cannot tax the peculiar form of these vo cations all concurring in the slave-master. He is swift » CoDgressional Globe, 37th Cong, 2d Sess., p. 2402, 100 TAX ON SLAVE-MASTERS. to tax the less, but hesitates to tax the greater. He can tax the petty employment, which is not immoral or cruel ; but he wUl not tax the larger multiform employ ment, in which immorahty and cruelty commingle. But the Senator says it is a capitation or poll tax. Not, Sir, in the sense of the Constitution, On this I stand. It is simply a tax on a productive claim of prop erty, or, to borrow the language of the Senator a moment ago, on an " employment." It is nothing but that. The Senator thinks it improper to tax slave-masters, especiaUy when we have cotton for taxation; and he almost chides me, because yesterday I was against the cotton tax, which in his judgment is most proper. Sir, I am at a loss to find the parallel between the two cases impHed in supposing that one can be a substi tute for the other. They are unlike in every respect. Slaves and cotton belong to the same section of coun try, precisely as alligators and cotton ; and that is aU the parallel between them. Cotton is an agricultural product, entering into commerce and manufactures, while the manufactures made from it are important to all classes, but especiaUy the poor. The question of its taxation involves considerations of economy and policy utterly unlike those arising on the motion to tax the claim of the slave-master. It is difficult to see how the two taxes can be confounded. One is a tax on an agricultural product ; the other is a tax on an odious claim. The Senator will not say that it is an accept able claim under the Constitution. Even if there, it is disguised under ambiguous words. Indeed, he knows weU that it is offensive and repugnant to the conscience of good people. ShaU not such a claim be taxed ? Shall such a claim be permitted to go scot-free ? ShaU TAX ON SLAVE-MASTERS. 101 we run about the country, seeking class after class to visit with oppressive taxation, and, under the lead of the Senator, excuse this largest and most offensive class of all? I am at a loss to understand on what ground of principle the Senator can proceed, when he proposes this special immunity. If I use strong terms in de scribing slave-masters, it is because the very language of the bUl suggests them, and they are in essential con formity with truth. I believe I have answered the two objections made by the Senator from Ohio. If he made any other, it has escaped my recoUection. Mr. Sherman followed Mr, Sumner, beginning with these words : — "I will not reply to that part of the speech of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts in which he denounced slaveholders. My opinions on this subject are well known. I think that slaveholders have certain rights un der the Constitution of the United States ; and while I never could be one myself, and have as deep a repugnance to any law which authorizes the holding of slaves as any other man, yet, while I am here under oath, I will respect their constitutional rights to the fullest extent. We are bound to legislate for them, and they are entitled to the protection of the Constitution of the United States as fully as if they were here, all of them, to speak for themselves ; and especially I do not think it proper or courteous to use such language, applied to a whole class of people, when Senators on this floor are with us, associating with us, who are included by the appellation ' slave holder,' so obnoxious to the Senator from Massachusetts. Certainly I can not characterize so harshly any one who is a member of the same body with myself." i He then said that he intended "to put the proposition to tax cot ton _and the proposition to tax slaves against each other," and that he would "propose to amend the amendment of the Senator from Massa chusetts hy substituting a modified tax on cotton," — that "they are connected together, and the Senator cannot disconnect them.'' He then spoke of slave-masters again. " The slaveholders of the Revolution were men of the highest purity, of the greatest patriotism. At that time Slavery was admitted to be an evil. They were men of gentleness, of courtesy, of kindness, good hearts and good 1 Congressional Globe, 37th Cong, 2d Sess., p. 2403. 102 TAX ON SLAVE-MASTERS. heads, nearly all of them; and so are the great body of the slaveholders with whom you are brought in contact in the Border States, men of gentleness, and kindness and courtesy Many of the most gentlemanly, courteous, kind, and patriotic men that I ever met in the world were slaveholders; and I think, that, taken as n class, the slaveholders of the Border States are men who are deserving of our commiseration, of our kindness, rather than of our reproaches I do not choose to select that class of men from among all the population of the Southern States and tax them, and then to apply to them opprobrious epithets." 1 M. Sumner felt called to speak again in reply, and said : — The Senator from Ohio says that I propose a tax on " slaves," and then carefully reminds me that " slaves " are persons, and therefore not, according to the Consti tution, to be taxed, except by a capitation tax. Now, Sir, I have to say, in the first place, that the tax which I propose is not to be regarded as a tax on slaves. If applicable to persons, it is to the masters, and not to the slaves. It is a tax on slave-masters, as I have al ready said, — precisely Hke the tax on auctioneers, which is sustained by the Senator, It is a tax on a claim of property made by slave-masters. The Senator may call such a claim property or not, as he pleases. It is at least a claim of property, and as such I pro pose to tax it. Why not ? The Senator admits that at other times slaves have been expressly taxed, — actu ally taxed in name. In the tax of 1815 there was a tax on " land and slaves." The Senator does not doubt the constitutionality of such tax. Sir, I am content with this authority, which goes beyond anything that I propose, and I am not troubled by any scruple, lest, in imposing a tax on the claim of the slave-master, I recognize property in man. At most, I recognize a profitable claim, and tax it. The remarks of the Senator were occupied chiefly 1 Congressional Globe, 37th Cong 2d Sess., p. 2404. TAX ON SLAVE-MASTERS. 103 with two heads, — first, eulogy of slave-masters, and, secondly, vindication of his proposed tax on cotton. I have little to say of the Senator's eulogy. There are two authorities on that head, which the Senator wiU pardon me, if I place above him : I mean Mr. Jefferson and Colonel Mason, both of our early Eevolutionary days. Mr. Jefferson assures us that the whole commerce be tween master and slave is one of boisterous passion, tending to barbarism.^ Colonel Mason exclaimed, in the Convention to frame the Constitution, that every slave-master is born a petty tyrant.^ And yet. Sir, in the face of this authentic testimony, from persoBS who knew Slavery and aU its influences, the Senator eulo gizes slave-masters, and pleads for their exemption from taxation. Eulogy is for the dead. I would not add to the odium justly belonging to a tyrannical class, but I do insist that justice shall be done to their victims ; and when the Senator interposes eulogy, I interpose against him the rights which have been violated. So long as men persist in such outrage, so long as they per severe in maintaining an institution which annuls the parental relation, the conjugal relation, the right to in struction, the right to the fruit of one's own labor, and does aU this merely to make men work without wages, so long as men support this unjust and irrational pre tence, they must not expect soft words from me. If the Senator from Ohio finds it in his generosity to plead for slave-masters, he must excuse me, if I decline to follow him. He does not know them as weU as I do, nor does he know their victims as well as I do. 1 Notes on Virginia, Query XVIII. : Writings, Vol, VIII. p, 403. 2 Debates in the Federal Convention, August 22, 1787: Madison Papers, Vol. III. p, 1391. 104 TAX ON SLAVE-MASTERS. The Senator dwells much on the importance of a tax on cotton. The subject was fully canvassed yesterday, and the vote of the Senate was against him. He now seeks a re-hearing out of the ordinary course. Would it not be better, if his proposition were postponed to the next stage of the bill, when it will be strictly in or der ? Meanwiiile, in pursuance of my promise to be brief, I content myself with saying, that the desire of the Senate to tax cotton is no reason why they should refuse to tax the claim of the slave-master. The two are not in any way dependent upon each other. Let the Senator from Ohio carry his cotton tax, if the Sen ate agree with him. But, Sir, I insist, that, whether cotton is taxed or not, the claim of the slave-master shaU not be permitted to escape, I do not say the property, but I say the claim. It ought to be taxed, not only for revenue, but also for the discouragement it will fasten upon an odious pretension, which has been to us the fountain of trouble and war. Mr. Sherman's motion to strike out the tax on slave-masters and insert the tax on cotton was then lost, — Yeas 15, Nays 22. Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, then moved to amend the amendment of Mr. Sumner by adding, — "And provided, further. That the tax herein prescribed shall not be levied or collected in any State where a system of gradual emancipation may have been adopted at the time of the collection," May 29th, this was lost, — Yeas 15, Nays 20, Then, on motion of Mr. Fessenden, Mr. Sumner's amendment was further modified by substituting a tax of "two" dollars, instead of " five," on account of each slave. Before the vote was taken, Mr. Sum ner assigned the reason for the higher rate. The Senator from Maine [Mr. Fessenden] said that he had looked simply at the revenue to be obtained by TAX ON SLAVE-MASTERS. 105 a tax. But, pray, wUl not a larger revenue be obtained at the rate of five doHars than at the rate of two ? There are the slaves, — count them, and tax them. The pro cess is simple, with no chance of evasion. Besides, Sir, I cannot forget, nor can the Senator, that throughout our history we have heard constantly of " incidental protec tion." But, if incidental protection is just and expe dient, then is incidental discouragement, and the tax I propose may be sustained on this ground. We do not hesitate to tax whiskey and tobacco as luxuries, indul gences, vices. Why should we hesitate to tax the worst luxury, the worst indulgence, the worst vice of all, which is Slavery ? Therefore, for a double reason, first, for the sake of revenue, and, secondly, for the sake of discour agement to Slavery, I am for the larger tax. After further debate, the question was taken on the amendment of Mr. Sumner as modified, and resulted, Yeas 14, Nays 22. So the amend ment was lost. June 5th, at the next stage of the bill, Mr. Sumner moved his amend ment in the following form : — " And be it further enacted, That every person claiming the service or la bor of any other person as a slave shall pay a tax of two dollars on account of every person so claimed : but in no case shall any person so claimed be sold for the purpose of collecting the tax." The yeas and nays were ordered, and, being taken, resulted. Yeas 19, Nays 16. So the amendment was agreed to. June 6th, Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, who had voted for the tax on slaves, moved a reconsideration, not because he had changed his opinion, but, as he said, at the request of Senators, This was to give an opportunity for another vote. In the debate which ensued the amendment was assailed by Mr. Doo little, Mr. Browning, Mr. Cowan, and Mr, Hale. The latter quoted the words, — 5* 106 TAX ON SLAVE-MASTERS. " And if we cannot alter things. Egad, we 'U change their names. Sir," i — and insisted, that, however it might be called, it was a tax on slaves ; on which Mr. Wade remarked from his seat, "So much the better, " Mr. Sumner said in reply : — ME, PEESIDENT, — I presume there is no differ ence among Senators in desire to follow the Con stitution, The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr, Hale], on my right, cannot be more desirous to foUow it than the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr, Wilmot], on my left. In that respect they are equal. Nor do I believe that the Senator from lUinois [ Mr. Browning], over the way, can claim any particular monopoly of such devotion. In that respect. Sir, we are all equal. Our difference is as to the meaning of the Constitution, But it is a poor argument which finds its chief force in asseverations of de^'otion to the Constitution. Con scious of my obligation to support it, and of my loyalty, I make no such asseverations. Nor again. Sir, do I believe that the Senator from New Hampshire can take to himself any monopoly of praise for denying the whole offensive pretension of property in man. Is he more earnest in this denial than many other Senators 1 Is he more earnest than the Senator from Pennsylvania near me ? Is he more earnest than myself? Has he denied it oftener in de bate or public speech ? To me the pretension is absurd as it is wicked. A man may as well claim property in a star as in his fellow-man. And yet. Sir, with this conviction, I cannot forget that I am here, as a Senator, 1 These lines, with a slight alteration, are from a parody, " On the Dis coveries of Captain Lewis," which appeared anonymously in the Monthly Anthology for March, 1807, but attributed to .lohn Quincy Adams, — Duyck- IKCK, Cyclopcedia of American Literature, Vol. I. p. 395. TAX ON SLAVE-MASTERS. 107 to legislate with regard to existing institutions, and to see things as they are. I cannot be blind to the fact of Slavery. Slavery exists as a monstrous fact, an enor mity, if you please, but stUl it exists ; and as a legisla tor I am to act on its existence. Am I not right ? Can I presume on this occasion to be guided by my inner conviction that there is no property in man, when, look ing to the Slave States, I am compeUed to see the great, unquestionable fact of pretended property ? To my mind, it is more practical to recognize the fact, and to proceed accordingly. The Senator from IlHnois insists that this is a capi tation tax, and he reads the text of the Constitution. What is a capitation tax ? The precise definition in Webster's Dictionary — if the Senator wUl excuse me for going to an authority which is not a law book — is " a tax or imposition upon each head or person, a poU tax." Such is the tax with regard to which the provis ion of the Constitution read by the Senator was adopted. This provision is not appHcable to any other tax, but simply to this special tax. Already I have reminded the Senator that he has voted to tax auctioneers, to tax jugglers, to tax the slaughterers of cattle, and to ta.x lawyers. I might add other classes. I now propose that he should tax claim ants of slaves, a class offensive to reason and humanity. That is aU. If you look at the census of 1850, — that of 1860 is not yet pubHshed, — you wiU find among the different classes of our population the following : mari ners, 70,000, — I wiU not give the hundreds ; merchants, 100,000 ; planters, 27,000 ; wheelwrights, 30,000 ; teach ers, 29,000 ; tailors, 52,000 ; overseers, 18,000 ; lawyers, 23,000; farmers, 2,363,000; slaveholders, 347,000. 108 TAX ON SLAVE-MASTERS. Now, Sir, would any one say that a tax on the busi ness of the mariner was a capitation tax ? Would any one say that a tax on the business of merchants, of whom we have one hundred thousand, was a capitation tax ? Would any one say that a tax on the business of the planter was a capitation tax ? that a tax on the business of the wheelwright was a capitation tax ? that a tax on tlie business of teachers was a capitation tax ? that a tax on the business of tailors was a capitation tax ? that a tax on the business of overseers of planta tions, who apply the lash, of whom there are eighteen thousand, was a capitation tax ? that a tax on law yers, already voted by the Senator from Illinois, was a capitation tax ? that a tax on farmers, if you will, of whom, liappUy, we have two million three hundred and sixty-tliree thousand, was a capitation tax ? And will any one say that a tax on slave-masters, of whom, un happily, we have three hundred and forty-seven thousand, is a capitation tax ? Senators may imagine it a capitation tax. Senators may call it a capitation tax, but no imag ination and no energy of assertion can make it so. It is not a capitation tax. It is a tax on the claim of the slave-master in the bones and muscles, the labor and service of his fellow-man, and, so far as the tax can haA-e any influence, it must discredit and discourage such claim. Therefore, Sir, I say confidently that the tax is in every respect constitutional, and it is also a tax well worthy of adoption, because, at a moment when Slavery stands revealed as the very pest of our land, it wiU operate to discredit and discourage it. In no other way can you obtain so much revenue so easUy and so beneficently. But if you refuse to impose this tax, you concede a special immunity to a most of- TAX ON SLAVE-MASTERS. 109 fensive pretension, and leave those who profit by it to gather their profits without any of that burden so freely imposed upon the honest industry of the country, aud upon so many classes of our citizens. The motion to reconsider was carried, — Yeas 22, Nays 18. The question then recurred on the amendment, and it was lost, — Yeas 17, Nays 23. This narrative shows how the effort to tax Slavery finally failed, not on its merits, but from tenderness to slave-masters of the Border States. PROPER DESPATCH OF BUSINESS. Remarks in the Senate, on the Order of Business, May 30, 1862, In the pressure of business before the Senate, it was proposed to sit into the night on the Internal Tax Bill. Mr. Sumner spoke against this proposition. ME. PEESIDENT, — If I recollect aright, the Tax Bill was considered in the House of Eepresenta tives more than three weeks, and it is well known that there are rules for the limit of debate in that body which do not prevail in the Senate. Mr. Hale. But which ought to prevail here. Mb. Sumner, They do not prevail here, and we are to take things as they are. Now, Sir, shall we limit debate ? Shall we cut it off more or less ? In the ab sence of rules by which it may be done, we are asked to do it by protracting the daily session into the night, in other words, by night sessions, and so hurrying the bill to a final vote, I do not think this advisable. The matters in question are too important for such summary process. Each day has its debate on questions of de tail, which multiply as we proceed ; but there are two or three questions of principle not yet considered, though already before us, including that opened yesterday by the Senator from Ehode Island [Mr, Anthony], and PROPER DESPATCH OF BUSINESS. Ill another to be presented by the Senator from California [Mr. McDougall], involving a review of different sys tems of taxation. Is it supposed that such questions can be properly considered in a single day, or in two days, so that then we shaU be ready to vote ? To my mind it is not possible. But if possible, I repeat, it is not advisable, and, be lieve me. Sir, I say this from no disposition to shirk business or duty here I have not been out of my seat three minutes since this bill was taken up, nor, indeed, have I been out of my seat a half-hour since the session began. Therefore I do not faU under the judgment of the Senator from Maine [Mr. Fessenden] with regard to those who prefer that debate should be allowed to proceed, even at the expense of time, I am ready for work; but I think we shaU all do best, if this impor tant measure is considered without haste, if not entirely without rest, according to the customary order of busi ness. SHUTTING UP OP COLOEBD SCHOOLS BY THE PRO VISIONAL GOVERNMENT OP NORTH CAROLINA. Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, June 2, 1862. Hon. Edward Stanly was appointed by the President Provisional Governor of North Carolina, and Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee. The former signalized his arrival at his post hy an official movement against schools for colored children, as forbidden by "the laws of the State," meaning the Black Code, before the war, Mr. Vincent Colyer, who had opened a school for colored children at Newbern, came at once to Washington. An-iving at the close of the day, he reported immediately to Mr, Sumner, who without delay hur ried to the Executive Mansion, and, not finding the President there, followed him to the War Department. Mr, Sumner related what had occurred, when the President, with an impatience which Mr, Sumner never encountered from him on any other occasion, exclaimed, " Do you take me for a School-Committee-man ¦? " Mr. Sumner replied promptly : " Not at all ; I take you for President of the United States ; and I come with a case of wrong, in attending to which your pre decessor, George Washington, if alive, might add to his renown.'' The President changed his tone, and with perfect kindness proceeded to consider the case. Mr. Sumner lost no time in laying it before the Senate. June 2d, he offered the following resolution : — "Resolved, That the Secretary of War be requested to communicate to the Senate copies of any commissions or orders from his Department under taking to appoint Provisional Governors in Tennessee ancf North Carolina, with the instructions given to the Governors." By unanimous consent, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolu tion, when Mr. Sunmer said ; — SHUTTING UP OF COLORED SCHOOLS. 113 ME. PEESIDENT, — I shaU not stop to consider any question touching the power to appoint Gov ernors of States. My object is different. It is to expose a case of peculiar interest and importance, with regard to which I have a statement worthy of confidence. From this it appears that one of the first acts of Mr. Stanly, on arrival at Newbern, North Carolina, and as suming his responsible duties as Provisional Governor, was to announce that the school there for the education of colored children, recently opened by Northern char ity, must be closed, being forbidden by the laws of North CaroHna, which he was instructed by the author ities at Washington to maintain, I have here an offi cial report of this extraordinary transaction. " In a conversation between Governor Stanly and Mr. Colyer, the Governor stated that there was one thing in Mr. C.'s doings, as superintendent of the poor, a question would be raised about, — indeed, it had been already, — and that was his (C.'s) keeping school for the blacks. ' Of course you are aware,' said the Governor, 'that the laws of the State make the opening of such schools a criminal offence. My instructions from Washington were, that I was to carry out the laws of North Carolina precisely as they were admin istered before the breaking out of this unhappy affair ; so, if I were called upon for a decision in the matter of your schools for the blacks, I would have to decide against you ; but at the same time 1 don't want anything done abruptly. As a man, I might do, perhaps, as you have done ; but as a Governor, I must act in my official capacity according to my instructions, and administer the laws as I find them.' "A true copy. "C. H. Mendell, Clerk to Mr. Colyer. " Newbern, May 28, 1862." 114 SHUTTING UP OF COLORED SCHOOLS. Then foUows a further statement. " Mr. C. C. Leigh, who was with General Saxton in the Oriental, on his way to Soutli Carolina, as confidential agent of the National Freedmen's Relief Association, and who has just returned, asked Mr. Colyer what he should do. Mr. C', replied ; ' I must close the schools, as I cannot consent to continue to place myself in a situation wliere I am liable to be punislied according to the laws of North Carolina.' " Mr, Leigh is the Chairman of our Home Committee." If any person, in the name of the United States, has undertaken to close a school for little children, whether white or black, it is important that we should know the authority under which he assumes to act. Surely no body here wiU be wiUing to take the responsibility for such an act. It is difficult to conceive that one of the first fruits of national victory and the reestablishment of national power should be an enormity not easy to characterize in any terms of moderation. Jefferson teUs us that in a certain contest there is no attribute of the Almighty " which can take side with us," ^ And permit me to say, that, if, in the war unhappily existing, the military power of the United States is employed in closing schools, there is no attribute of the Almighty which must not be against us ; nor can we expect any true success. Sir, in the name of the Constitution, of humanity, and of common sense, I protest against such impiety under sanction of the United States, The proper rule of conduct is simple. It is found in the instructions, to which I referred the other day, from the British Commissioner in a conquered province of India. After indicating certain crimes to be treated 1 Notes on Virginia, Query XVIII. : Writings, Vol. VIII. p. 404. IN NORTH CAROLINA. 115 with summary punishment, he proceeds to say : " All other crimes you wiU investigate according to the forms of justice usual in the country, modified &s you may think expedient ; and in all cases you wiU endeavor to enforce the existing laws and customs, tinless where they are clearly repugnant to reason and natioral equity." i Here is the proper limitation. Anything else is un worthy of a civUized country. Whatever is clearly re pugnant to reason and equity must be rejected. Surely such a thing cannot be enforced. But what can be more clearly repugnant to reason and equity than the barbar ous law which an officer, in the name of the National Government, has threatened to enforce ? The resolution was agreed to. June 4th, a report from the Secretary of "War, in answer to this reso lution, contained a letter of appointment, dated May 19, 1862, con ferring " all and singular the powers, duties, and functions pertaining to the office of Military Governor, including the power to establish all necessary offices and tribunals, and suspend the writ oi Habeas Corpus." This was foUowed, May 20th, hy instructions, wherein it is said : ' ' Upon your wisdom and energetic action much mil depend It is not deemed necessary to give any specific instruction, but rather to confide in your sound discretion to adopt such measures as circumstances may demand. Specific instructions will he given, when requested. You may rely upon the perfect confidence and full support of the Depart ment in the performance of your duties." ^ 1 Elphinstone v. Bedreechund, 1 Knapp's Privy Council Rep., 320. See, ante, p, 51. 2 Executive Documents, 37th Cong. 2d Sess,, Senate, Vol. V. No. 54. STAND BY THE ADMINISTRATION. Letter to , June 5, 18G2. This letter, after enjoying an extensive circulation in the newspa pers, was preserved as a political document in llrPherson's "Political History of the licbellion." ^ It first appeared in the Eoslon Jothrnal,'^ with the caption, " Senator Sumner and the President," and with these introdnclory words : — " We are permitted to publish the following private letter from Hon, Charles Sumner, in reply to a letter addressed to him by a personal friend. Senator Sumner's hearty indorsement will not be without its influence upon those who are impatient at what tliey term the Proslavery policy of the President. At the same time there is nothing in this indorsement which should shake the confidence of conservative men in his wisdom and pru dence It is something to obt;un from one wlio may be regarded as a representative of this class so handsome a tribute to the pui-ity of tlie Presi dent's motives, and so hearty an indorsement of the correctness of his con victions and sympathies." Sf.n.ite Chamber, ,June 5, 1862, MY DEAE SIE, — Your criticism of the President is hast)-, I am confident, if you knew him as I do, you would not make it. The President cannot be held responsible for the misfeasance of subordinates, unless adopted, or at least tolerated, by him. And I am sure nothing unjust or ungenerous will be tolerated, much less adopted, by him. I am happy to let you know that he has no sympa thy with Stanly in his absurd wickedness, closing the 1 Page 233. 2 June 1,3, 1862. STAND BY THE ADMINISTRATION. 117 schools, nor, again, in his other act of turning our camps into a hunting-ground for slaves. He repudiates both, positively. The latter point has occupied much of his thought, and the newspapers do not go too far in record ing his repeated declarations, which I have often heard from his own Hps, that slaves finding their way within the national Hues are never to be reenslaved. This is his conviction, expressed without reserve. Could you — as has been my privilege often — have seen the President, while considering the great questions on which he has already acted, beginning with the invi tation to Emancipation in the States, then Emancipation in the District of Columbia, and the acknowledgment of the Independence of Hayti and Liberia, even your zeal would be satisfied; for you would feel the sincerity of his purpose to do what he can to carry forward the principles of the Declaration of Independence, His whole soul was occupied, especiaUy by the first propo sition, so peculiarly his own. In familiar intercourse with him, I remember nothing more touching than the earnestness and completeness with which he embraced this idea. To his mind it was just and beneficent, whUe it promised the sure end of Slavery, To me, who had aheady proposed a Bridge of Gold for the retreating Fiend, it was most welcome. Proceeding from the Pres ident, it must take its place among the great events of history. If disposed to be impatient at apparent short-com ings, think, I pray you, what has been done in a brief period, and from the past discern the sure promise of the future. Knowing something of my convictions, and of the ardor with which I maintain them, you may, perhaps, derive assurance from my confidence. I say to 118 STAND BY THE ADMINISTRATION, you, therefore. Stand by the Administration. If need be, help it by word and act; but stand by it, and have faith in it, I wish that you knew the President, and had heard the artless expression of his convictions on those ques tions which concern you so deeply. You might, per haps, wish he were less cautious, but you would be grateful that he is so true to all you have at heart. Believe me, therefore, you are wrong ; and I regret it the more because of my desire to see all our friends stand firm together. If I write strongly, it is because I feel strongly ; for my constant and intimate intercourse with the Presi dent, beginning with the fourth of March, not only binds me peculiarly to his Administration, but gives me a per sonal as well as a political interest in seeing that justice is done him. Believe me, my dear Sir, With much regard. Ever faithfuUy yours, Charles Sumner. POWER OF CONGRESS VS MILITARY GOVERN MENT OF STATES. Resolutions in the Senate, June 6, 1862. FuETHER report from North Carolina induced Mr. Sumner again to bring the action of Mr. Stanly before the Senate, in the hope especially of reaching the country, and also the Administration, WHEEEAS Edward Stanly, assuming to act un der a letter from the Secretary of War, calling him MiHtary Governor of North Carolina, a post un known to the Constitution and laws of the Union, has undertaken, by virtue of such military authority, to surrender fugitive slaves, contrary to the intent and meaning of an Act of Congress recently adopted ; also to banish an American citizen, in violation of personal rights secured by the Constitution ; and also to close and suppress schools maintained by the charity of good men for the education of colored children, in defiance of every principle of morals and religion, and to the dis credit of our national character : Therefore, — 1. Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cancel the letter of the Secretary of War under which Edward Stanly now assumes to act. 2, Resolved, That any such letter, assuming to cre ate any person MUitary Governor of a State, is without sanction in the Constitution and laws, and that its ef- 120 POWER OF CONGRESS VS. MILITARY GOVERNMENT. feet is to subordinate the civil to the mUitary authority, contrary to the spirit of our institutions, and in deroga tion of the powers of Congress, which, where a State Government faUs into the hands of traitors, can be the only legitimate authority, except martial law. Mr. Carlile, of West Virginia, objected to the consideration of the resolutions, and they were postponed. These resolutions presented again the question of the Power of Con gress over the llcbcl States, first opened hy the resolutions of February, 11, 1862,1 1 Ante, Vol, VI, pp. 301-305. AIR-LINE RAILROAD BETWEEN WASHINGTON AND NEW YORK. Resolution in the Senate, June 9, 1862. RESOLVED, That the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Eoads be directed to consider the ex pediency of providing for an air-Hne railroad between Washington and New York, which shaU carry the mails of the United States, and be free from all local impedi ments. This resolution was objected to, and so was postponed ; but its im mediate object was accomplished. The existing roads were stimulated, and the attention of the country was called to the idea of better com munication between the two capitals of politics and commerce, A French paper spoke of the proposed road as "atmospheric." The resolution was renewed at the next session of Congress, Decem ber 5, 1862, when it was agreed to. ABOLITION AND PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY IN WEST VIRGINIA. Remarks in the Senate, on the Bill for the Admission of West Virginia as a State, June 26, July 1 and 14, 1862. The facts essential to the comprehension of this case appear in the debate. ME. PEESIDENT, — The question is on the admis sion of West Virginia into the Union as a new State, and the foUowing is one of the conditions, name ly : "That from and after the fourth day of July, 1863, the chUdren of aU slaves born within the limits of said State shaU be free," Here is a condition which you undertake to impose. This is clear. But, Sir, be good enough to observe that this condi tion recognizes Slavery during the present generation. Short as Hfe may be, it is too long for Slavery. If it be adopted, and the bUl becomes a law, a new Slave State wiU fake its place in our Union, — it may be with but few slaves, and for the present generation only, but nev ertheless a new Slave State, That, Sir, is too much. How often have I said, and how painful that I must now repeat what aU know, that it takes but Httle Slav ery to make a Slave State with aU the virus of Slavery ! Now my vote shaU help no new State to take a place in this Union, with Senators in this body, unless purged of this poison. Enough has our nation been disturbed. ABOLITION AND PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY. 123 and enough has the Constitution been perverted. The time has come for the remedy. It is found in the policy of Thomas Jefferson, originally applied to the great Territory of the Northwest, Its application to a portion of his own Virginia, seeking to become a new State, wUl be politic, just, and conservative. Mr. Sumner concluded by moving to strike out the words of the con dition proposed, and insert an absolute abolition and prohibition, so that it should read, "From and after the fourth day of July, 1863, within the limits of the State there shall be neither slavery nor invol untary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crime whereof the party shall be duly convicted," July 1st, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the bill, the pending question being the amendment of Mr. Sumner, who made the following remarks. Time has elapsed since this measure was before the Senate, which meanwhile has been engaged in an im portant debate. Therefore I shall be pardoned, if, at the expense of repetition, I recall attention to the pre cise question. The bUl for the admission of West Virginia provides that from and after the 4th of July, 1863, all children born of slaves shaU be free, leaving the existing gen eration in Slavery. From statistics furnished by the honorable Senator from Virginia [Mr. Willey], in his elaborate speech, it appears that in West Virginia twelve thousand human beings are held in Slavery. Me. Willbt. That was in 1860 ; but it is not so now. Mr. Sumner. There may be fewer now : call the number ten thousand. There are ten thousand slaves there, who, according to the bUl, are to remain in bond age during life. Thus, for one whole generation, shall 124 ABOLITION AND PROHIBITION OF we be afflicted by another Slave State, with two slave- holding representatives in this body. I mean to speak of this cxuestion with aU possible re spect for Senators on the other side. I am anxious not to introduce any topic otherwise than agreeable ; but I must discliarge my duty here, I cannot by my vote consent that there shall be two additional slaveholding Senators for another generation. I content myself with this declaration, without argument, ¦ — except what is found in a brief passage by Mv. Webster in this body, I refer to his speech of the 22d of December, 1845, on the admission of Texas, where he used this language : — " In the next place. Sir, I have to say, that, while I hold, with as much integrity, I trust, and faithfulness, as any citi zen of this country, to all the original arrangements and compromises under which the Constitution under which we now live was adopted, I never could, and never can, persuade myself to be in favor of the admission of other States into the Union as Slave States, with the inequalities which were allowed and accorded by the Constitution to the slavehold ing States then in existence. 1 do not think that the Free States ever expected, or could expect, that they would be called on to admit more Slave States, having the unequal advantages arising to them from the mode of apportioning representation under the existing Constitution " It will always be a question, whether the other States have not a right (and I think they have the clearest right) to require that the State coming into the Union should come in upon an equality ; and if the existence of Slavery be an impediment to coming in on an equality, then the State pro posing to come in should be required to remove that in equality by abolishing Slavery, or take the alternative of being excluded." ¦• 1 Works, Vol, V. pp. 56, 67. SLAVERY IN WEST VIRGINIA. 125 Afterwards, in his famous speech of the 7th of March, 1850, he reaffirmed these principles, " It has happened that between 1837 and this time, on various occasions, I have expressed my entire opposition to the admission of Slave States, or the acquisition of new Slave Territories, to be added to the United States. I know, Sir, no change in my own sentiments or my own purposes in that respect." ¦^ I might quote more, but this is sufficient, Mr. Web ster was against new Slave States. I adduce these words as stating strongly at least one important gTound of objection. The admission of West Virginia with a condition recognizing Slavery for a full generation wiU be an extension of the Slave Power and a new sanction of Slavery. I cannot consent to it. Sir ; nor do I see any apology for hesitation. Our control of this matter is clear beyond reasonable doubt, and the present state of our country supplies a new motive for its exercise. In the debate that ensued, Mr. Hale criticized Mr, Sumner, quoting the story of Abraham and his aged idolatrous guest, as given by Dr. Franklin. " ' And God said to Abraham, Have I borne with you [him] these fourscore years, and canst thou not bear with him one night, who art thyself a sinner?' Sir, in exactly the spirit inculcated by that fable I would deal with Slavery; and I would listen to-day as it were to the voice of God, who asks us, Have I borne with this thing so many generations, and cannot you bear with it dying, when it begins on the next Fourth of .luly ? " 2 1 Works, Vol. V. pp, 348, ,349. - Congressional Globe, 37th Cong, 2d Sess., July 1, 1862, p, 3035. Mr, Ilale quotes from memory. The passage in the original, entitled " A Parable against Persecution," is as follows : " And God said, Have I borne with him these hundred ninety and eight years, and nourished him, and clothed him, notwithstanding his rebellion against me, and eouldst not thou, that art thyself a sinner, bear with him one night? " — Frank lin's Works, ed. Sparks, Vol, II. p. 122. 126 ABOLITION AND PROHIBITION OF Mr. Wade, in the same spirit, said : — " My friend from Massachusetts, by his proposition, strikes this institution down at one dash. I should like to see it go ; but I must look a little to see what its effect will be, after all." i Before the vote was taken, Mr. Carlile, of Virginia, remarked : — "Mr, President, it is my sincere belief that this disposition to interfere with the rights of the States, exhibited by this Congress, has prolonged the war, — that, ifpersisted in, the war becomes a war of indefinite duration, and that the Constitutional Union our fathers formed will be lost to us and our posterity forever." '^ July 14th, the question was taken on T\h: Sumner's amendment, which was rejected, — Yeas 11, Nays 24. Mr, Lane, of Kansas, nioved that all slaves in the State, July 4, 1863, and under the age of ten, shall be free when they arrive at the age of twenty-one, and all slaves over ten and under twenty-one shall be free when they arrive at the age of twenty-five ; aud the amendment was adopted, — Yeas 25, Nays 12. The question then occurred on the passage of the bill, when Mr, Sumner remarked : — I RENOUNCE the intention of presenting again the amendment you ha\'e already voted down ; but it is none the less important in my judgment, I do not like to occupy the time of the Senate ; but I cannot doubt that you have acted on the amendment hastily, and without full consideration. ^Vhj, Sir, it is simply the old Jeffersonian ordinance, which, when originally adopted for the great Territory of the Northwest, oper ated upon Slavery already there, and absolutely forbade this wrong from that time forward. In point of fact, slaves were freed by this ordinance. I thought it weU that this institute of Virginia's son should help to redeem Virginia, It has been voted 1 Congressional Globe, 3?th Cong, 2d Sess,, July 1, 1862, p, 3038. 2 Ibid., July 14, p. 3314. SLAVERY IN WEST VIRGINIA. 127 down ; and now the question is presented, whether the Senate wiU recognize a new Slave State. True, Slavery wUl be for a short term only, for twenty-one years, if you please, but that is a long time for Slavery. I can not consent to admit a new State with such a curse for twenty-one years. How little slavery it takes to make a Slave State is iUustrated by Delaware, with less than eighteen hundred slaves, sending two Senators of Slav ery to this Chamber. ShaU we welcome two more from a State newly created by ourselves ? Never, Sir, by my vote ; and as the Senate sees fit to discard the effort I have made, I deem it my duty to vote against the bUl. The hUl was passed, — Yeas 23, Nays 17, — Mr. Sumner voting in the negative. WAR POWERS OF CONGRESS: CONFISCATION AND LIBERATION. Speech in the Senate, on the House Bill foe the Confiscation OF Property and the Liberation of Slaves belongins to Rebels, June 27, 1862. This speech is a supplement to that of May 19th, on the " Rights of Sovereignty and Eights of War," Its occasion is explained in the Introduction to the latter speech,! The New York Independent published it at length, and thus charac terized it ; — " It is the most complete presentation of the question that can be found within the same compass, and, like all Jlr. Sumner's speeches, is distin guished for accuracy of statement, learning, and sound principle. It is a defence of the present position of our Government, as defined by Act of Con gi-ess, to which every citizen owes obedience. In efficacy, that Act will go with our armies, as tliey advance, and will clear up the perplexities of our Generals, and clear their minds of certain political superstitions by which they have been hampered and hindered, to the great injury of our military operations. Let the people of Jlassuchusetts, in particular, exult, as they observe, in regard to this, as well as most other leading measures of Congress, how the views of their gi-eat Senator became, step by step, the recognized and settled policy of the Government ; and let them thank God that the good old Bay State has such a representative, and furnishes such a leader in this great extremity." ME. PEESIDENT,— Too tardily the house of a Eebel General in Virginia ^ has been taken by the Government, and set apart as a miUtary hospital for the reception of our soldiers, wounded and maimed in battle. At least three churches here in Washing- t Ante, p, 5. 2 Arlington, the property of General Lee. CONFISCATION AND LIBERATION. 129 ton have been seized and occupied for the same pur pose. AU applaud these acts, which make the house more historic and the churches more sacred than ever before. But pray. Sir, under what authority is all this ? Not according to any contract or agreement; not ac cording to any " due process of law '' ; not even ac cording to any statute. And yet the language of the Constitution is positive: "No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner ; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." If it be time of peace now, then is the Constitution violated by quartering soldiers in these houses without the consent of the owner. If it be time of war now, then is the Constitution violated by quar tering these soldiers in a manner not prescribed by law, — unless we are ready to admit that the provisions of the Constitution are entirely inapplicable to what is done under the military requirements of self-defence, which is a supreme law, above all other laws or con stitutions devised by men. But if the Constitution, in a case where it is singularly expHcit, can be disre garded without question in the exercise of the Eights of War, it is vain to invoke its provisions in other cases, where it is less explicit, in restraint of the Eights of War. It is true that the Constitution ambiguously provides against certain forfeitures, as incident to an " attainder of treason"; it also positively prohibits "ex post facto laws " ; and it nobly declares that " no person shaU be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due pro cess of law." But nothing in the House bUls for the confiscation of property or the liberation of slaves is obnoxious to either of these provisions. There is no 6* I 130 WAE POWERS OF CONGRESS: attainder of treason, no ex post faeto law, and no taking of property without due process of law ; for the judicial proceedings which these bills institute are competent for the purpose. The House bills are not criminal statutes, nor do they institute criminal proceedings. Therefore do I assert unhesitatingly that these bills are above constitutional objection. They are as constitu tional as the Constitution itself It was once said of a subtile spirit of criticism, that it would find a heresy in the Lord's Prayer ; and such a spirit, permit me to say, is needed to find anything unconstitutional in these bills. Here I assume, as a cardinal principle of Consti tutional Law, that, whatever may be the condition of slaves in the States and under State laws, they are, under the Constitution of the United States, persons, and not jiroperty ; so that, in declaring their emancipa tion. Congress is not constrained by any constitutional requirements with regard to property. Whatever the claims of property, slaves are men ; and I but repeat an unquestionable truth of morals, confirmed by the Declaration of Independence, when I say that there can be no property in men, Mr, Winter Davis,^ of Baltimore, has reminded the country, that Congress, on the motion of ilr. (Jlay, once undertook to declare the freedom of slaves without any " due process of law " ; and the present Congress, by a bill of the last session, setting free slaves actually emiiloyed in the EebeUion,^ lias done the same thing ; so that the principle is com pletely established. 1 Hon, Henry Winter Davis, late Representative in Congress from Marj'- hmd. 2 Acts of 37th Cong, 1st Sess., Ch. LX, sec, 4: .Statutes at Large, Vol. .XII. p, 319. CONFISCATION AND LIBERATION. 131 Even if the bUls seemed obnoxious to certain con stitutional provisions, — as they clearly are not, — this objection and every other objection will disappear, when it is understood that they are war measures, derived from the capacious AVar Powers of Congress, applicable only to public enemies, and limited in duration to the war. Considered in these aspects and with these qual ifications, these bills are only an agency in the prose cution of the war, and the power to enact them is as clear as the power to raise armies or to levy taxes. An ancient historian, in words adopted by the greatest modern publicist, has told us that " war has its laws, no less than peace," -' These words are placed by Grotius at the head of his great work, and they embody a fundamental principle. The Eights of War are not less peculiar than the victories of war, which are so widely different from the victories of peace. Pray, Sir, where in the Constitution is any limita tion of the War Powers ? Let Senators who would limit them mention a single section, Hne, or phrase, which even hints at any limitation. If it be constitu tional to make war, to set armies in the field, to launch navies, to occupy fields and houses, to bombard cities, to kiU in battle, — aU without trial by jury, or any pro cess of law, or judicial proceeding of any kind, — it is equaUy constitutional, as a war measure, to confiscate the property of the enemy and to liberate his slaves. Nor can it be doubted on principle, that, if the lat ter be unconstitutional, then are all other acts of war unconstitutional You may condemn confiscation and Hberation as impoHtic, but you cannot condemn them 1 "Sunt et belli, sicut pacis, jura," — LrvY, Lib. V. c. 27: quoted by Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Prolegom. § 26. 132 WAR POWERS OF CONGRESS: as unconstitutional, unless, in the same breath, you con demn aU other agencies of war, and resolve our present proceeding into the process of a criminal court, guarded at each step by the technicalities of the Common Law. Sir, I speak frankly, according to my convictions, claiming nothing for myself which I do not freely ac cord to others. In this discussion tliere is no need of sharp words or of personal allusions ; nor can anything be gained by misstatement of the position of another. It is easy to say that Senators who insist upon the War Powers of Congress are indifferent to the Constitution ; but I do not admit that any Senator is more anxious for the Constitution than myself The War Powers are derived from the Constitution, but, when once set in motion, are without any restraint from the Constitu tion ; so that what is done in pursuance of them is at the same time under the Constitution and outside the Constitution, It is under the Constitution in its be ginning and origin ; it is outside the Constitution in the latitude with which it is conducted ; but, whether under the Constitution or outside the Constitution, aU that is done in pursuance of the War Powers is consti tutional. It is easy to cry out against it ; it is easy, by misappHcation of the Constitution, to call it in t|ues- tion ; but it is only by such misapplication, or by sense less cry, that its complete constitutionality can for a moment be drawn into doubt. The language of the Constitution is plain and ample. It confers upon Congress aU the specific powers inci dent to war, and then further authorizes it "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carry ing into execution the foregoing powers," Here are the precise words : — CONFISCATION AND LIBERATION. 133 " The Congress shall have power .... to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; to raise and support armies; , . , , to provide and maintain a navy ; to make rules for the gov ernment and regulation of the land and naval forces ; to provide for calling forth the mihtia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; . . . to make all laivs which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other pow ers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Can language be clearer ? Other parts of the Consti tution may be open to question ; but here is no room for question. The text is fuU and unequivocal. The pow ers are enumerated. Without stoj)ping to consider them in detail, it -v'iU be seen that the most important are exclusively incident to a state of war, and not to a state of peace. A declaration of war is of course war, and " all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution '' this declaration are called into being by the war. Eules concerning captures on land and water are from necessity dormant, till aroused by war ; but when aroused, they are, like other War Powers, without check from those constitutional provisions which, just so long as peace prevails, are the boast of the citizen. The War Powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution were well known ; they had been con ferred upon Congress by the earlier Articles of Con federation. The language of the latter was fuU and explicit with regard to captures. "The United States in Congress assembled shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, .... of establishing rules for deciding in 134 WAR POWERS OF CONGRESS: all cases what captures on land or ivater shall he legal, aud in what manner prizes taken by laud or naval forces in the ser vice of the United States shall be divided or appropriated, .... and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures." * The language subsequently employed in the Consti tution is identical in substance. It is evident that the framers of the Constitution had the Articles of Confed eration in mind, when they vested in Congress power to " make rules concerning captures on land and water." The biUs now under consideration are obviously founded on the War Powers, The first section of the first bUl begins as follows, " That all the estate and property, money, stocks, credits, and effects of the persons hereafter named in this section are hereby forfeited to the Govemment of the United States, and are declared lawful subjects of seiznie, and of prize and capture, wherever found, for the indemnity of tlie United States against the expenses of suppressing the 2u'esent Rebellion." The Senator must be very hardy who denies the power of Congress, in the exercise of belligerent rights, to pass such a bill ; and he must be equaUy hardy, when he insists that belligerent rights are impaired by any limitations of the Constitution. If the enemies against whom we now wage war were not our own fellow-citizens, if they were aHens unhappily fastened for the time on our territory, there would be no fine-spun question of constitutional im munity. Such immunities are essentially municipal in character ; but a public enemy can claim nothing mere ly municipal. The immunities he enjoys are such only as are conceded by the Eights of War, — nor more, nor 1 Art. IX. CONFISCATION AND LIBERATION. 135 less. As a pmblic enemy, he seeks to subvert our Gov ernment, its laws and its Constitution ; and in this war fare he proceeds according to the Eights of War, indif ferent to any mere local law. But if the war on our part were in accordance with mere local law, and in subordination to provisions of the Constitution devised for peace, it is evident that the National Government would be unable to cope with its enemy. It would enter into battle with hands tied behind the back. Of course, in warfare with people of another country Sen ators would not require any such self-sacrifice. But the Eights of War are fixed, whether against aHen enemies or against enemies whose hostility is ag gravated by the guilt of rebeUion, with this single dif ference, that against rebel enemies these rights would seem to be more complete and unsparing. Show me any Eight of War which may be employed against alien enemies, and now, in the name of the Constitution, I insist upon its employment against rebels arrayed as enemies. Because enemies are also rebels, they are not on this account any the less enemies. Because rebels are also enemies, they are not on this account any the less rebels. The double character which they bear in creases their liabilities, subjecting them to aU the pen alties of war enhanced by those personal responsibilities which every partaker in rebellion necessarily assumes. And yet. Sir, the Constitution is cited as a limitation upon these rights. As well cite the Constitution on the field of battle to check the bayonet charge of our armies, or at the bombardment of a fortress to stay the fiery rain of shells ; or, to adopt the examples with which I began, as well cite the Constitution to prevent the occu pation of churches here in Wa,shington as hospitals for 136 WAR POWERS OF CONGRESS : our soldiers, or to save the house of General Lee in Vir- sinia from similar dedication. The Constitution is en- tirely inapplicable. Sacred and inviolable, the Consti tution is made for friends who acknowledge it, and not for enemies who disavo^^' it ; aud it is made for a state of peace, and not for the fearful exigencies of war, tread ing down within its sphere all rights except the Eights of War, Born of violence, and looking to ^'iolence for victory, war discards all limitations except sucli as are supplied by the Eights of War, Once begun, war is a law unto itself, — or, in otlier words, it has a law of its own, which is part of itself And just in proportion as you seek to moderate it by constitutional limitations do you take from war something of its efficiency. In vain do you equip our soldiers with the best of weapons, or send into the field the most powerful batteries, the lat est invention of consummate science, if you direct them aU in fuU career to stand still for an indictment, or other '' due process of law," or, at least, for the reading of the Eiot Act. Undertaking to limit the Eights of War by the Constitution, where are you to stop ? If the Constitution can interfere with one, it can interfere with all. If the Constitution can wrest from Govern ment the weapons of confiscation and liberation, there is no other weapon in the whole arsenal of war which it may not take also. Sir, the Constitution is guilty of no such absurdity. It was made by practical men, familiar with public law, who, seeing clearly the difference between peace and war, established powers accordingly. While circum scribing the Peace Powers with constitutional checks, they left untouched the War Powers, They declared, that, in the administration of the Peace Powers, all CONFISCATION AND LIBERATION. 137 should be able to invoke the Constitution as a constant safeguard. But in bestowing upon the Government War Powers without Hmitatioii, they embodied in the Constitution all the Eights of War as completely as if those rights had been severally set down and enu merated ; and among the first of these is the right to disregard the Eights of Peace. In saying this I fail in no sympathy with peace, which I seek and rever ence always, but simply exhibit war in some of its es sential conditions. Sir, an aHen enemy is not admitted even to sue in your courts. There is a saying of Antiquity, already quoted in this debate. Silent leges inter arma, — "The laws are silent in the midst of arms." ^ Handed down from distant ages, and repeated by successive generations, this saying may be accepted as the embodied result and very essence of human experience. Had it not been true, it would have been forgotten, or at least ceased to be repeated. But it declares a truth to which every war practically tes tifies, while it is founded in reason and the nature of things, confirmed by centuries as attesting witnesses. The Constitution itself is only a human law ; nor can it claim to speak in time of war, and within the sphere of war, more than any other human law. How vain, then, to adduce against confiscation and liberation, as war measures, an objection derived from the Constitution ! and how vain, also, to offer a penal statute, under the Peace Powers of the Constitution, as a war measure ! War is war. Better arrest it at once, if it is to he war on the one side and peace on the other, — if our enemies are to employ against us all the Eights of War, while we employ against them only the Eights 1 Cicero, Orat. pro Milone, Cap- iv, § 10. 138 WAR POWERS OF CONGRESS: of Peace. Penal statutes are good for peace, when laws prevaU ; but in the midst of war, and against enemies, when laws are proverbially silent, they are absurd. What enemy now arrayed in arms can be indicted, or, if indicted, convicted, under the most stringent of penal statutes ? Not Jefferson Davis himself Why, then, painfully construct legislative verbiage ? Why new jienalties for treason, wliich, from the nature of the case, cannot be enforced in this hour of need ? Why not see things as they are, and do what the moment requires ? The War Powers of Congress are ample ; but in time of war a mere penal statute against a pubHc enemy is not so much as a pop-gun. There are Senators who claim these vast War Pow ers for the President, and deny them to Congress, The President, it is said, as commander-in-chief, may seize, confiscate, and liberate under the Eights of War, but Congress cannot direct these things to be done. Pray, Sir, where is the limitation upon Congress ? Eead the text of the Constitution, and you will find its powers vast as all the requirements of war. There is nothing that may be done anywhere under the Eights of War, which may not be done by Congress, I do not mean to question the powers of the President in his sphere, or of any mUitary commander within his department ; but I claim for Congress aU that belongs to any Gov ernment in the exercise of the Eights of War. And when I speak of Congress, let it be understood that I mean an Act of Congress, passed, according to the re qukements of the Constitution, by both Houses, and ap proved by the President. It seems strange to claim for the President alone, in the exercise of his single wiU, CONFISCATION AND LIBERATION. 139 War Powers aUeged to be denied to the President in association with Congress. If he can wield these pow ers alone, surely he can wield them in association with Congress ; nor will their efficacy be impaired, when it is known that they proceed from this associate wiU, rather than from his single will alone. The Govern ment of the United States appears most completely in an Act of Congress. Therefore war is declared, armies are raised, rules concerning captures are made, and aU articles of war regulating the conduct of war are estab lished by Act of Congress. It is by Act of Congress that the War Powers are all put in motion. When once put in motion, the President must execute them. But he is only the instrument of Congress, under the Con stitution. It is true, the President is commander-in-chief; but it is for Congress to make aU laws necessary and proper for carr)dng into execution his powers, so that, according to the very words of the Constitution, his powers depend upon Congress, which may Hmit or enlarge them at its own pleasure. Thus, whether you regard Congress or regard the President, you will find that Congress is the arbiter and regulator of the War Powers, Of the pretension that all these enormous powers be long to the President, and not to Congress, I try to speak calmly and within bounds. I mean always to be par liamentary. But a pretension so irrational and uncon stitutional, so absurd and tyrannical, is not entitled to respect. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Wade], in indig nant words worthy of the Senate, has branded it as slav ish, and handed it over to judgment. Born in ignorance, and pernicious in consequences, it ought to be received most sternly, and, just in proportion as it obtains ac- 140 war powers OF CONGRESS : ceptance, with execration. Such a pretension would change the National Government from a government of law to that of a military dictator. It would degrade our proud Constitutional EepubHc, where each department has its appointed place, to one of those short-lived, vulgar despotisms appearing occasionaUy as a warning to man kind. That this pretension should be put forward in the name of the Constitution is only another illustration of the effrontery with which the Constitution is made responsible for the ignorance, the conceit, and the pas sions of men. Sir, in the name of the Constitution, which I have sworn to support, and which, according to my ability, I mean to maintain, I protest against this new-fangled effort to foist into it a pretension abhorrent to liberty, reason, and common sense. At the risk of repetition, but for the sake of clearness, I repeat the propositions on which I confidently rest, 1. Eights of Sovereignty are derived from the Con stitution, and can be exercised only in conformity with the requirements of the Constitution ; so that all penal statutes punishing treason must carefully comply with these requirements. This is the case of the bill in troduced by the Senator from New Hampshire [ Mr. Clark], 2, Eights of War are under the Constitution in their origin, but outside the Constitution in their execution. In other words, the Constitution confers Eights of War, but sets no Hmits to them ; so that statutes to enforce them are not mere penal statutes, restricted by the Con stitution. But these rights belong to a state of war, and necessarily cease with the war. This is the case of the House bUl under discussion. CONFISCATION AND LIBERATION. 141 3, AU rebels are criminals, liable to punishment ac cording to penal statutes ; and in all proceedings against them, as such, they are surrounded by the safeguards of the Constitution. 4. Eebels in arms are public enemies, who can claim no safeguard from the Constitution ; and they may be pursued and conquered according to the Eights of War. 5. Eights of War may be enforced by Act of Congress, which is the highest form of the national will. If these conclusions needed the support of authority, they would find it in John Quincy Adams, His words have been often quoted, without perhaps fully consider ing the great weight to which they are entitled. At an early day, when Minister at London, while Slavery pre vailed in the Government, in the discharge of official duties, under instructions from the President, he claimed compensation for slaves liberated by the British armies, arguing against any such liberation under the Eights of War, In conversation with the British Prime-Minister, as reported by himself, after saying that proclamations inviting slaves to desert from their masters had been issued by British officers, he added : " We considered them as deviations from the usages of war." ^ After wards, as Secretary of State under Mr. Monroe, of Vir ginia, he made a similar statement,^ A fiUl knowledge of his convictions on this occasion might, perhaps, dis close the repugnance, or, to borrow his own words on ' Letter to the Secretary of State, August 22, 1815: American State Pa pers, Foreign Relations, Vol. IV, p. 117. 2 Quoting it in reply to "the authority that has been rung in our ears by the Senator of Massachusetts," Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, said: " This was the utterance of Mr, Adams, before he was tired with that fanatical zeal, before he had that disease of negrnphobia, that for a time dethroned his mighty intellect on that subject," — Congressional Globe, 37th Cong. 2d Sess,, July 15, 1862, p. 3349. 142 WAR POWERS OF CONGRESS: another occasion, " the bitterness of soul," with which he discharged his duty. It is known, by avowals after wards made, that on at least one occasion he acted as Secretary of State contrary to his convictions. " It was utterly against my judgment and \yislies , but I was obliged to submit, and I prepared the rec^uisite de spatches." ^ Such was his open declaration in the House of Eepresentati-\'es with regard to an important negotiation. So that it is easy to see how on this other occasion he may have represented the Government and not himself But, whatever his actions at that time, it is beyond question, that afterwards, in his glorious ca reer as Eepresentative, when larger experience and still maturer years had added to his great authority, and he was called in Congress to express himself on his per sonal responsibility, we find him reconsidering his ear lier diplomatic arguments, and, in the face of the world, defiantly claiming not only for Congress, but for the President, and every military commander within his department, fall power to emancipate slaves under the Eights of War, If these words had been hastily ut tered, or, if once uttered, had been afterwards aban doned, or if they could in any way be associated with the passions or ardors of controversy, as his earlier words were clearly associated with the duties of advo cacy, they might be entitled to less consideration. But they are among the later and most memorable utter ances of our great master of the Law of Nations, made under circumstances of peculiar solemnity, and repeated after intervals of time.^ 1 Congi-essional Globe, 27th Cong, 2d Sess., April 14, 1842, p. 424. 2 The important pjissages introduced here will be found in an earlier speech, "Emancipation our Best Weapon," ante. Vol, VI. pp. 21-23, CONFISCATION AND LIBERATION, 143 The representatives of Slavery broke forth in charac teristic outrage upon the venerable orator, but nobody answered him. And these words have stood ever since as a landmark of public law. You cannot deny the pow er of Congress to liberate the slaves, without removing this landmark. Vain work ! It is not less firm than the Constitution itself Thus do I vindicate for Congress all the Eights of War. If, assuming the powers of Congress, any further question be raised as to the extent of these rights, I reply, briefly, that there is no right, according to re ceived authorities, against a hostile sovereign or prince, embracing, of course, confiscation of property, real as weU as personal, which may not in our discretion be exercised against a rebel enemy ; and the reason is obvious. Whatever the mitigations of the Eights of War introduced by modern civUization, under which private property in certain cases is exempt from con fiscation, this ride does not apply to eases ivhere there is a direct personal responsibility for the war. And here is the precise difference between the responsibility of the sovereign or prince and the responsibility of the private citizen : the private citizen is excused ; but the sovereign or prince is always held responsible to the full extent of his property, real as weU as personal. Now every rebel who has voluntarily become a public enemy has assumed a personal responsibility, for which, according to acknowledged principles of public law, especially if he has taken high office in the rebel gov ernment, he is liable to the full extent of his property, real as well as personal. Every citizen who voluntarily aids in armed rebellion is a hostile sovereign or prince. 144 WAR POWERS OF CONGRESS: A generous lenity may interfere to limit his liability, but on principles of pabHc law he is in the very con dition of Shylock, when his cruelty was arrested by the righteous judge : — " If thou dost shed One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods Are by the laws of Venice confiscate Unto the State of Venice," Such, Sir, is the extent of powers which may be exercised by Congress. Of course, it is for Congress to determine the degree of severity or lenity it will adopt. 111 claiming these powers to the fuU extent, I yield to no Senator in that spirit of clemency which, next to justice, is the grace and ornament of success. Mr. President, these are the principles on which we must act. Announcing them and reducing them to practice, Congress will enlarge its accumulating claims to public gratitude. The present Congress has already done much beyond any other Congress in our history. Measures, which for long years seemed attainable only to the most sanguine hope, have triumphed. Emancipation in the National Capital ; freedom in all the National Territories ; the offer of ransom to help emancipation in the States ; the recognition of Hayti and Liberia ; the treaty with Great Britain for the suppression of the slave-trade ; the prohibition of the return of fugitive slaves by mili tary officers ; homesteads for actual settlers on the public lands ; a Pacific railroad ; endowments of agricultural colleges out of the public lands : such are some of the achievements by whicli the present Congress is already historic. There have been victories of war, won on CONFISCATION AND LIBERATION, 145 hard-fought fields, but none comparable to the vic tories of peace. Besides these measures of unmixed beneficence, the present Congress has created an im mense army and a considerable navy, and has pro vided the means for all our gigantic expenditures l)y a tax, which in itself is an epoch. Tlius, in the prosecution of the war. Congress has ex ercised two great powers, — first, to raise armies, and, secondly, to tax. Both bear directly upon loyal fellow- citizens everywhere throughout tlie country. Sons, brothers, and husbands are taken from happy homes and from the concerns of business, leaving vacant pla ces, never, perhaps, to be filled again, and hurried away to wage a fearful war. But beyond this unequalled draft upon the loyal men of the country, summoning them to the hazards of battle, there is another un equaUed draft upon the loyal property of the country, presenting a combined draft without precedent upon men and upon property. If you would find a parallel to the armies raised, you must go back to the forces marshaUed under Napoleon in the indulgence of un bridled ambition. If you would find a parallel to the tax, you must go further back, to that early day of which the Gospel, in its simple narrative, speaks : "And it came to pass in those days that there «'ent out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that cdl the ivorhl should be taxed." A similar decree is about to go out from you, — not, indeed, to tax all the world, but to tax a large and generous people : vast, it may be, even for the world. There have been taxes here be fore ; and in other countries there have been taxes as enormous : but there has been no such tax here before ; and in no other country has any such tax been VOL. VII. 7 J 146 WAR POWERS OF CONGRESS : levied at once, without the preparation and education of long-continued taxation. Confiscation and liberation are other War Powers of Congress, incident to the general grant of such pow ers, which it remains fiir us to employ. So impor tant are they, that without them I fear all the rest will be in vain. Yes, Sir, in vain do we gather mighty armies, and in vain do we tax our people, unless we are ready to grasp these other means, through which the war can be carried to the homes of the EebeUion : I mean especially the criminal homes of the authors and leaders of all this wickedness. By the confisca tion of property, the large Eebel estates, vdiere treason laid its eggs, will be broken up, while by the liberation of slaves the Eebels will be deprived of an invaluable ally, whether in labor or in battle. But I confess frankly that I look with more hope and confidence to liberation than to confiscation. To give freedom is nobler than to take property, and on this occasion it cannot fail to be more efficacious, for in this way the rear-guard of the Eebellion wUl be channed into the advance-goiard of the Union, There is in confiscation, unless when directed against the criminal authors of the Eebellion, a harshness inconsistent with that mercy which it is always a sacred duty to cultivate, and which shoidd be manifest in proportion to our triumphs, " mightiest in the mightiest," But liberation is not harsh, and it is certain, if properly conducted, to carry with it the smiles of a benignant Providence, The war began in Slavery, and it can end only with the end of Slavery. It was set in motion and organized by the Slave Oligarchy, and it cannot die except with CONFISCATION AND LIBERATION. 147 this accursed Oligarchy. Therefore, for the sake of peace, and to restore the Union, every power should be enlisted by which Slavery, which is the soul of the war, can be reached. Are you in earnest ? Then strike at Slavery, Liberation is usually known as a charity ; but while none the less a charity, compre hending all other charities, it is now, in the course of events, a neecssity of ivar. Through liberation alone can we obtain that complete triumph, bringing with it assured tranquillity, without which the war will stop merely to break forth anew, and peace will be nothing but an uneasy truce. Among all the powers of Con gress incident to our unparalleled condition, there is none so far-reaching, as there is none so beneficent, — there is none so potent to beat down rebellion, as there is none other by which peace can be made truly secure. Powerful and beautiful prerogative 1 The language of Chatham is not misapplied, when I call it the " master feather of the eagle's wing," PRIZE-MONEY AND ITS POLICY. Remarks ix the Senate, June 30, 1862. The pending bill, providing that property taken by the Eebels and then retaken under national authority should be restored to the former loyal owner witliout salvage, was opposed by Mr. Grimes. Mr. Sumner said : — I TAKE it that the policy of prize-money is always open to question. It has been handed down from other generations, but I cannot doubt, that, in proportion as nations advance in civilization and refinement, it is more and more drawn into doubt, 'Sin. Gbijies, I will ask the Senator, whether, under the law as it now exists, our officers and sailors have not certain vested rights 1 This bill is retrospective, as well as prospect ive. Mr. Sitmxer. But these vested rights, according to existing law, are acquired in war with foreign enemies. And here is the precise point of principle. Certain property of fellow-citizens is taken, not by foreign ene mies, but by rebels, and afterwards it is retaken. Sev eral vessels are in this predicament. Even if the recap ture were from a foreign, enemy, English and American statutes treat it as a case of salvage, and not of prize. But the claim now made involves nothing less than the extension of the ancient rule of war to a new class. I PRIZE-MONEY AND ITS POLICY. 149 am against such extension. I would have no amplifica tion of such a rule. I am disposed to go still further, and to reconsider the whole policy of prize-money in any case. Even if not ready for this larger question, the Senate will not hesitate to apply the limitation now proposed. Besides the hardship of prize-money at the expense of our own feUow-citizens, there is the unciviUzed character of the whole system, which should make us pause. The bUl was passed, — Yeas 25, Nays 12. THE RANK OF ADMIRAL Remarks in the Senate, on the Bill to establish the Grades OF Navy Officers, July 2, 1862. The bill under consideration was " to establish and equalize the grades of line officers of the United States Navy." By this bill the rank of Admiral was established in the national navy. Mr. Hale moved to reduce the pay of admirals from live thousand seven hundred aud eighteen to five thousand dollars. Mr. Sumner said : — I HOPE the amendment wUl prevail. For years we have been asked to make admirals. Congress has refused, — partly, perhaps, from motives of economy, and partly, also, from hesitation to create officers with that rank and title. Now, Sir, I am willing, considering the increase of our navy and the exigency of the public service at this time, to create officers with that rank and title. So doino-, we confer honor and consideration, — we bestow what offi cers, military and naval, naturaUy covet, Wlierever they go, they will be addressed as Admiral ; and, with na\'al men, that is much. Sir, I believe it more than money. But, while bestowing rank, I hesitate to increase emolu ment largely, particularly at this moment of our his tory. It costs nothing to confer rank ; but it wiU be most expensive to the Treasury, if we enter upon a new scale of pay. Therefore I follow the Senator from New RANK OF ADMIRAL. 151 Hampshire in his proposition to reduce the salary. Cre ate the admirals, — bestow this new title, this consider ation, this introduction wherever the admiral goes, this equality, if you please, with the admirals of other na tions and other fleets ; but do not undertake to vie with those nations in salaries. To me it seems unwise. The amendment was agreed to. TESTIMONY OP COLORED PERSONS IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. [-Speeches in the Se.n'ate, on an Amendment to two different Bills, one relatini; to the .Tudiciary, and the other to the co.mpetency of witnesses, july 3 and 15, 1862, The Senate having under consideration a bill " relating to the Ju diciary," in which provision was made for proceedings "in the courts of the United States," Mr, Sumner made another attempt to overthrow the rule excluding colored witnesses by the following amendment : — "And there shall be no exclusion of any witness on account of color," This was rejected, — Yeas 14, Nays 21. At the nt.\t stage of the bill, Mr. Sumner said : — ME, PEESIDENT, — This biU relates to the na tional judiciary. The Senate is making rules for the courts of the United States, and now by its vote sanctions the rule that a witness who happens to have a color different from ours is incompetent to testify, he cannot be heard in court. The practical effect of such exclusion is, that any outrage by a wliite man on a col ored person, if no other white person is present, must go unpunished ; and the Senate of the United States refuses to interfere against this cruelty, I must say. Sir, that I lose my interest in the bill, when it is asso ciated with such wickedness, — for such I must call it. If there is any outrage at this moment in the form of law, and actually within our reach, it is what I now hold TESTIMONY OF COLORED PERSONS. 153 up to the indignation of the country and of mankind. It is hard to think that human beings can be placed thus defenceless by Act of Congress, — that masters or overseers, being white, may offer to colored persons any offence, any brutality, and the testimony of the witnesses, merely because they are colored, shall be excluded ab solutely. And yet. Sir, that is what the Senate to-day declares. The Senator from New Hampshire [iVIr, Hale] has voted to sustain this cruelty. Other Senators lia\'e vot ed to sustain it. It is their privilege. Each Senator votes, I know, according to his conscience ; but. Sir, I call attention to the vote, and remind you of what oc curred on anotlier occasion. Formerly, when I moved this proposition, it was opposed on the allegation that it was not pertinent to the bill under consideration. When I moved it, the otlier day, on what was known as the Confiscation Bill, the other Senator from New Hampshire [jNIr, Clark] mildly suggested, that, at a proper occasion, on a proper bill, he would be ready to support it. I know that the motion must have the approbation of that excellent Senator, He is too just and too humane not to be in favor of it. And now. Sir, the time has come. Here is a biU regulating evidence in courts of the United States, — not in courts of the States, but in courts of the United States. The whole subject is directly before you. It is within your prov ince now to decide. Yours the jurisdiction and power. And yet. Sir, you choose to continue the wrong. I shall vote for the bill on its final passage, because in other respects I think it ought to be a law ; but I enter my protest against the conclusion of the Senate. It is niel- anclioly, disastrous, discreditable. 7* 154 TESTIMONY OF COLORED PERSONS Mr. Hale vindicated the vote of the Senate, and insisted that the proper object of attack was the Supreme Court. Mr. Sunmer replied : — The Senator from New Hampshire severely criticizes the Supreme Court, which he reminds us has decided that the rights of citizenship, being rights that white men are bound to respect, and all the rights which make human life worth anything, are dead to colored persons ; aud he then proceeds forthwith to sustain a principle every way as bad. He condemns Chief-Justice Taney for declaring that colored persons are not citizens, and then, with marvellous logic, proceeds to say that he will not interfere to o\erturn the rule by which the testi mony of colored persons is excluded from the national courts. Sir, I do not know ^^•hich is most open to condemnation, the Supreme Court or the Senator, I am against the decision of the Supreme Court. The Senator knows it weU. I am not one whit behind him in condemnation of that judgment, which must forever stand forth among the inhumanities of this generation. But permit me to remind the Senator that the rule he sustains is not less inhuman. There is not a word he can launch against the Court that must not rebound upon himself. To me it is unintelligible as painful that the Senator should interfere to sAxe any such inhumanity. I use strong language, but it is only in this way that I can fitly characterize the doctrines of the Supreme Court and of the Senator. The Supreme Court has erred infinitely and wretchedly, but the Sen ator now errs in the same way. The Senator is entirely mistaken, when he says that the rule which I seek to overturn proceeds from the Supreme Court. It is no such thing ; and if I can IN CODRTS OF THB UNITED STATES. 155 have his attention one moment, I can make him under stand it. The rule against the testimony of colored per sons stands on the local law of the States, and not on any decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, The Court cannot interfere with it one way or the oth er. Congress alone, when legislating for its own courts, can interfere with it ; and I entreat the Senate now, as it is about to legislate for the national courts, to interfere with it. The amendment of the Senator from Connecticut, which I have in my hand, is as follows : — " That the laws of the several States, except where the Con stitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States shall oth erwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decis ion in all trials at Common Law in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply," That is, the laws of the several States shaU be rules of decision in the United States courts. That is what we declare. I simply propose to add, that those laws shall not be rules of decision in the L^nited States courts, so far as they exclude witnesses on account of color. The Senator from New Hampshire opposes this just, humane, and irresistible proposition ; and his argu ment is, that, instead of reaching the result by legisla tion, we must overturn the Supreme Court, Sir, permit me to say, his argument is entirely inapplicable, his whole philippic against the Supreme Court is out of place. Whether I agree with him or not, it is plain that this is not the time for it ; and I must confess that I like to see things in their proper place. The question now is much more simple, more direct. Why enter upon the ample, illimitable debate which the Senator opens ? Why review the Supreme Court and its rela- 156 TESTIMONY OF COLORED PERSONS tions to the countiy, and whether it shaU be overturned, whether it shall be reformed, vdiether it shall be modi fied ? All this has nothing to do with the question, and the Senator, when he introduced it, simply diverted at tention from the business before us. I do not know that he did it purposely. Indeed, I rather suspect the ardor of his nature, which has led him into this strange diversion with its irrelevant amplification. But the Senator says that the cases in which colored persons are interested arise in the State courts, aud not in the United States courts, and that therefore my amendment is entirely inapplicable. The Senator is en tirely mistaken again. The United States courts have jurisdiction of crimes without reference to color. They also have civil jurisdiction in other cases which do not depend upon citizenship. The Senator, as a lawyer, knows this weU; and yet, deliberately, by vote, and now by speech, he upholds the barbarous rule of exclusion on account of color. Sir, T do not know which was worse, the vote or the speech, although the latter was in harmony with the former, I was astonished at the vote, I am now astonished at the speech, which, par don me, is as illogical in argument as bad in principle. Most kindly, but most earnestly, do I dissent from it. Sir, I do not wish to take up time, but the subject is of transcendent importance. You will bear with my frankness, if I add, that sanctioning this exclusion can do no honor to Congress. I am sure it must be recorded in judgment against us, and deservedly too. Civiliza tion wiU blush at the record, God save us ! Mr, Davis, of Kentucky, followed with the remark : — "I do not think, Mr. President, there was any need for sticking the per petual, the all-pervading, the everywhere-to-be-found, the ever-in-tlie-way IN COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 157 negro to this bill. I hope and trust that the Senate and the Congress of the United States will be allowed to mature and perfect some few bills, in which the interests and the business of the white man are involved, without having this ever-present negi'o stuck upon them by tlie Senator from Massachusetts. If he desires to bring up this matter of the negro in connection with the rules of proceeding in the Federal courts, let Uim introduce a distinct bill, and not make everything odoriferous of his friend." Mr. Sumner then renewed his motion in the form of a proviso, and afterwards the Senate adjourned. The bill was never taken up again. But the same question was soon presented on another bill, July 15th, the Senate had under consideration a bill concerning the competency of witnesses in courts of the United States, which pro vided that this should be regulated by " the laws of the State in which the court shall be held." Mr. Sumner offered his amendment again. It was opposed by Mr. Foster, of Connecticut, who had reported the pending bill. In the course of his remarks he said : " It is competent for every State to fix its own rules for itself, and the independence of each State of every other State requires that they should be protected in that right of making their own laws," Mr, Sumner replied : — Mr, Fresident, — It may be well, as the Senate is caUed to enact a new national statute, to glance back at an early landmark, and contemplate the principles de clared by our fathers. I hold in my hand the Declara tion of Independence, with these words at the beginning : " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," &c. Now, Sir, the Senator from Con necticut [ Mr, Foster], representing the Judiciary Com mittee, proposes to establish as a rule of evidence in the national courts that men are not equal. Mr, Foster here interrupted to say that he proposed " no such rule of evidence " ; that he simply proposed " to allow the laws of the several States of this Union to operate as rules to control the courts of the United States sitting within those several States, as it regards the com petency of witnesses : that is all," Mr, Sumner resumed : — I could not intentionally do the Senator injustice. 158 TESTIMONY OF COLORED PERSONS Nor do I find that I did him injustice ; and he wUl therefore pardon me, if I repeat what I said before, — that, representing the Judiciary Committee, the Sena tor conies forward, in defiance of the Declaration of In ¦ dependence, to ingraft into the legislation of the United States the practical principle that all men are not equal. The Senator rises and denies that he is doing any such thing. He simply recognizes local laws in the States, That is aU, — nothing else. But pray. Sir, is not this enough ? Local laws which defy the Declaration of Independence cannot be recognized witliout defying the Declaration ; nor can the Senator escape responsi bility merely by saying that he follows the local laws. Does he not sanction injustice ? The case is 'plain. He asks us to legislate on the competency of witnesses. He proposes to regulate this competency by Act of Congress, where, among other things, we are to provide that in the courts of the United States witnesses shall be incompetent on account of color. The proposition is not made openly, but in the covert words, that the local laws of States shaU in all cases prevail in the national courts. The Senator cannot forget these local laws, how instinct with barbarism they are, nor the shame and scandal they bring upon our country and upon civ ilization itself; and yet he would give them new sanc tion and effect, — not in the courts of the States, within the local jurisdiction, but in the courts of the United States, under the Constitution of the United States, within the national jurisdiction, where you and I, Sir, are responsible for the barbarism. No matter in what form it is put, no matter how subtly the attempt is con cealed, it is the adoption by Congi-ess of an outrageous rule. IN COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 159 Offer any objection you please to the credibility of a witness, show that he is not inteUigent, that he is not worthy of belief, that his character is bad, and make all proper deductions from his testimony on this account, but do not say that he is absolutely incompetent, that he cannot be heard in court, that, no matter how intelli gent, truthful, or respectable, he cannot be admitted to testify, if he happens to be of another color than our selves. Such exclusion is cruel to the witness, degrad ing to courts administering it, and destructive of justice, which seeks evidence from every quarter, I listened closely to the ingenious argument of the Senator, going along with him in what he claimed for the States and for their courts. He said, each State is entitled, within its own jurisdiction, to have its rules of evidence. Granted, He thought it better to leave every State its own rule on this question. Granted again. Sir, so far as the courts of the States are concerned, Mr. Foster. Why allow them barbarism? Mr. Sumner. Because I have no right to interfere with them. Mr. Foster. That answers the two questions, Mr, Sumner, There is the mistake of the Senator. He confounds our duties in the two different cases of national courts, where we are responsible, and of State courts, where we have no responsibility and no right to interfere. In his remarks he said : " It is competent for each State to make these rules for itself" Granted again, — within its own jurisdiction. But he would aUow each State its sovereign will on this question. Sir, where I cannot constitutionally interfere to check a barbarism, of course I do not interfere ; sorrowfully I 160 testimony of colored PERSONS aUow the sovereign will to pre\'ail. But when a bar barism seeks shelter under the jurisdiction of Congress, when it faUs under the direct responsibility of my vote, I cannot be silent. The Senator wUl pardon me, if I add, that he erred, when he tmdertook to transfer the rules of the State courts, without amendment or moditicati(.in, to the Na tional courts. The State courts have their rules of evi dence, — they are beyond our control; but the United States courts are within our controh and the time has come to bring them at last within the pale of civiliza tion. Why, Sir, has the good cause advanced thus far ? to what end is it triumphant on this floor, if, in deter mining rules of evidence in the national courts, we take up and sanction this relic of barbarism ? If the rule is not justly within our reach, pray. Sir, why are we asked to vote on a bill concerning the com petency of witnesses, and with a section expressly reg ulating the whole subject ? Sir, I should feel untrue to myself, untrue to the principles I have at heart, and to the people I have the honor to represent, if I allowed a bill like this, with such a title, with such an object, to pass without earnest endea^'or to exclude from it all support of the vileness which seeks shel ter under its words. Within a few days the Sena tor has voted for a bill to punish the fraudulent counterfeiting of postage stamps ; but su]i]Kise the, coun terfeiter does his work in the presence of colored per sons and nobody else, where, under the proposed rule, will the Senator find the evidence required to carry the law into effect ? As long as Congress undertakes to legislate criminally, as long as it has courts with a na tional jurisdiction in the Slave States, it is due to itself. IN COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 161 and it is due to justice, that it should furnish the evi dence by which such legislation may be made effective, and justice be administered, without a constant act of shame calcidated to bring a blush upon the cheeks. I speak plainly, as is my habit, and perhaps with feeling, but I trust that I have said nothing that I ought not to say. The amendment was rejected, — Yeas li, Nays 23. The next vol ume will show how this efifort of Mr, Sumner at last prevailed. PROVISIONAL GOYERNIENTS AND RECONSTRUCTION. Remarks in the Senate, on a Bill to establish Provisional Governments in certain Cases, July 7, 1862. This was reported from the Judiciary Committee, by Mr, Harris, of New York, with certain amendments, one of which recognized "the laws and institutions " in a State before the Eebellion. On the latter amendment Mr, Sumner remarked : — ME, PEESIDENT,— I cannot consent to the amend ment. Plainly it is going too far. A government organized by Congress and appointed by the President is to enforce laws and institutions, some of which are abhorrent to civilization. Take, for instance, the Ee- vised Code of North Carolina, which I have before me. Here is a provision which the Governor, under this Act, must enforce. I say must enforce. The amendment is, that there shall be " no interference with the laws and institutions existing in such State at the time its authorities assumed to array the same against the Gov ernment of the United States," Therefore they must be enforced. And now, if you please, listen to one of them. " Any free person, who shall teach, or attempt to teach, any slave to read or write, the use of figures excepted, or shall give or sell to such slave any book or pamphlet, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, if a white man or woman, shall be fined not less PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENTS AND RECONSTRUCTION. 163 than one hundred nor more than two hundred dollars, or imprisoned, and if a free person of color, shall be fined, imprisoned, or whipped, not exceeding thirty-nine nor less than twenty lashes." That abomination. Sir, is set forth in the Eevised Code of North CaroHna, chap. 34, sec. 82. But lest it should fail by the employment of slaves as school-teachers, we have the following prohibition. " It shall not be lawful for any slave to teach, or attempt to teach, any other slave or free negro to read or write, the use of figures excepted." * The punishment of slaves for this offence is whip ping, repeated for every act. But, Sir, here is another specimen. " If any person shall wilfully bring into the State, with an intent to circulate, or shall wilfully circulate or publish within the State, or shaU aid or abet the bringing into, or the circulation or publication of within, the State, any written or printed pamphlet or paper, whether written or printed in or out of the State, the evident tendency whereof is to cause slaves to become discontented with the bondage in which they are held by their masters and the laws regu lating the same, and free negroes to be dissatisfied with their social condition and the denial to them of political privileges, and thereby to excite among the said slaves and free negroes a disposition to make conspiracies, insurrec tions, or resistance against the peace and quiet of the public, such person so offending shall be deemed guilty of felony, and on conviction thereof shall, for the first offence, be im prisoned not less than one year, and be put in the pillory and whipped, at the discretion of the court, and for the second offence shall suffer death" ^ t Chap. 107, sec. 31. 2 Chap. 34, sec. 16. 164 PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENTS AND RECONSTRUCTION. Here is yet another. "If any free person of color shall preach or exhort in pub lic, or in any maimer officiate as a preacher or teacher in any prayer meeting, or other association for worship, wliere slaves of difl'ereut families are collected together, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, aud, on conviction, shall, fur each offence, receive not exceeding thirty-nine lashes on his bare back." ' And now one more. " If any person shall wilfully carry or convey any slave, the property of another, without the consent of the owner or the guardian of the owner, with the intent and for the purpose of enabling such slave to escape out of this State, from the service of his owner, or any one having an interest in such slave, present or future, vested or contingent, legal or equitable, or if an}- person shall wilfully conceal any slave, the property of another, with such intent and purpose, the person so offending shall suffer death." '¦^ I have read enough. Sir, These passages show you the statutes to be enforced in the name of the National Union, by its constituted authorities, in courts organized by Congress. And behind aU these is Slavery itself to be enforced also. Sir, such an exhibition is more than sufficient. You cannot consent to any such thing. In organizing these governments, all that we can do is to protect life and property, and generally to provide the machinery of administration. Further we cannot go, and protect in stitutions in themselves an outrage to civilization. In the debate that ensued Mr. Sumner remarked : — 1 Chap. 107, sec. 59. 2 Chap. 34, sec. 11. PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENTS AND RECONSTRUCTION. 165 In this country there is but one " institution," as all the world knows, and the phrase " and institutions," when carefully introduced, means only one institution, which I need not name. Mr. TmmbuU united with Mr. Sumner in criticizing the bill. "I was for it in the Committee; but since I have seen the operation of these laws in the Southern States, and the manner in which persons acting in behalf of tlie United States undertake to execute them, I have changed my opinion in regard to the propriety of such a clause as this, and I agree with the Senator from Massachusetts. I cannot consent by my vote, and I never will consent by my vote, to give sanction to a law that punishes a man for teaching another to read the word of God." The bill was allowed to drop. But this debate had its influence in showing how impossible it was to recognize "institutions'' existing in n. State before the Eebellion. Slavery and the Black Code were not to obtain license under any such terms. Here was a point in Recon struction. TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE. Remarks in the Senate, on the Duties upon Imported Books and Rags, July 8, 1862. ME. PEESIDENT, — I ask a moment's attention to the tax on books, which is raised in this bill from fifteen to twenty per cent. Assuming that this is done to increase the revenue, I have to .say, that, if we place reliance on the evidence before us, it wiU not have such effect The annual importation of books during the last four years shows that a duty of ten per cent is more produc tive than a higher rate. The increased importation is more than compensation for the diminished rate ; but here it is with books as with other things. If there were a tax on the manufacture of books in our country, there might be reason for a corresponding duty ; but there is no such tax. By the experience of the last tariff we are warned. The increase of this duty was disastrous to the book- trade, and I am assured that several booksellers who have imported largely are withdrawing from this branch of busine,ss, because the rate of fifteen per cent renders it unprofitable. And yet you propose to raise the rate to twenty per cent. Nor is there any practical argument founded on pro tection. There are no interests requiring protection TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE. 167 which wiU be promoted by an increased duty, as ap pears in last year's memorial of publishers and import ers, praying a reduction to ten per cent, and also in another and later memorial from New York importers, praying for the same reduction, and setting forth that their business seriously suffers from the existing rate. And now I add, that this increased duty is a tax on knowledge, and as such to be discountenanced and op posed. But I rest my argument on the simple ground, that it wUl not increase the revenue. If at this exact ing moment it would have any such consequence, much as I should regret the necessity, I could not oppose it. But it is easy to show that such wiU not be the conse quence : at least, the statistics point this way. The total value of books imported in 1858, with a duty of eight per cent, amounted to five hundred and thirty thou sand doUars : I do not give the odd figures. The total value in 1859, likewise with a duty of eight per cent, was seven hundred and seventy-seven thousand doUars ; and in 1860, with the same rate, it was seven hundred and thirty-four thousand. In 1861, the total value, with a duty of fifteen per cent, sank as low as three hun dred and forty-six thousand. These figures speak. I do not err, when I infer from them that the high er duty has been an injury to the revenue, and also to the importer. Therefore it is open to a twofold objec tion. With a duty of ten per cent the revenue would gain, and the public with the importer would be bene fited. The case is stated in a few words. An increased duty on books will do nothing for the revenue ; but it will interfere with a useful business, and at the same time impose a tax on knowledge. 168 TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE. Mr, Sumner moved to reduce the tax from twenty to ten per cent, but, at the suggestion of Mr, Fessenden, Chairman of the Finance Com mittee, consented to fifteen per cent, which was adopted. The amend ment failed between the two Houses. The bill as it came from the House had a proviso, "That all im ported cotton and linen rags for the manufacture of paper shall be free of duty," Mr, Sumner made an ineffectual effort to prevent this from being stmck out. In the course of his remarks, he said : — Here is another tax on knowledge. On the face it is a tax on rags ; but rags are imported to make paper ; so that a tax on rags is a tax on paper, and as such is a tax on knowledge. CONSTITUTIONAL QUORUM OF THE SENATE. Speech in the Senate, on a Resolution declaring the Consti tutional Quorum, July 12, 1862. According to long-continued usage, a quorum of the Senate was a majority of the whole number of Senators, assuming each State repre sented by two Senators. After the withdrawal of the Rebel Senators, business was often embarrassed from the failure of what was supposed to be the constitutional quorum. To remove this difficulty, Mr, Sher man, AprU 11th, introduced the following : — "Resolved, That a majority of the Senators duly elected and entitled to seats in this body is a constitutional quorum." July 12th, Mr. Sumner said : — ME. PEESIDENT,— What is a quorum depends upon the Constitution ; but we approach its con sideration with the knowledge that in England, the orig inal home of our institutions, and especially of ParUa mentary Law, the question, for a long period anterior to the National Constitution, was fixed by usage. Indeed, usage is authority for the larger part of the English Constitution. But in this case of a quorum the usage is liable to alteration. In his elaborate work on the Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, the Parlia mentary Law on the subject is thus stated by Mr, Gush ing:— " In the British Parliament, according to the ancient and invariable usage of the two Houses, as evidenced by their VOL, VII, 8 170 CONSTITUTIONAL QUORUM OF THE SENATE, rules, three is the number necessary to constitute a quorum of the Lords, and forty a quorum of the Commons, These numbers, respectively, although established liy and dependent upon usage merely, and within the power of each House to abrogate or change at any time, have, nevertheless, the force of standing orders ; that is, they are equally binding upon every succeeding Parliament until abrogated, and do not require to be specially adopted in order to be in force." ^ It will be observed that the quorum of the Commons, numbering six hundred and fifty-four persons, is only forty, and this number appears to ha\'e been recognized as long ago as 5th January, 1640. At an earlier day more than si.xty was required, aud as late as ]\larch 18, 1801, an attempt was made in the Commons to revive this ancient rule, but it failed. For a short time in 1833 and 1834 the quorum for private busi ness was twenty,^ The quorum of the Lords, numbering four hundred and sixty-five, is only three, A spectator at the law sessions of the Upper House is struck by the appear ance of the Lord Chancellor on the woolsack, in wig and gown, listening to arguments, with two lay lords, like two lay figures, on the side benches, merely to con stitute a quorum so as to legalize the decision of the ChanceUor. The origin of this quorum, having the sanc tion of unbroken usage, is lost in the night of Antiq uity. It is probably founded on the ancient maxim of the Eoman Law, Tres faeiunt collegium, — " Three make a college" — the latter word being equivalent, in some respects, to our word corporation. Thus, according to Earliamentary Law, two things 1 Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, § 248, pp. 95, 96. 2 Ibid,, § 248 and note. CONSTITUTIONAL QUORUM OF THE SENATE. 171 appear : first, the quorum of each House is within the control of the House ; secondly, it is now, and always has been, in each House, much smaller than a majority. With us the quorum, in general terms, is fixed by the Constitution. It is not left to usage, or the control of each House ; but it is reasonable to infer that any ques tion on the meaning of the Constitution, arising from generality of language, may be interpreted in the light of ParUamentary Law. Indeed, this is only according to the rule under whicli aU technical words in the Consti tution are interpreted. For instance, words known to the Common Law or to the English Chancery are inter preted according to the Common Law or the English Chancery. Mr. Wirt, in his admirable argument on the impeachment of Judge Peck, states the rule in these words : — " The Constitution secures the trial by jury. Where do you get the meaning of a trial hy jury 2 Certainly not from the Civil or Canon Law, or the Law of Nations. It is peculiar to the Common Lav> ; and to the Common Law, therefore, the Constitution itself refers you for a description and explana tion of this high privdege, the trial by jury, and the mode of proceeding in those trials, ... I insist, that, the moment that a Court of Common Law or a Court of Equity is estab lished under the authority of the Constitution, its modes uf proceeding and its powers of self-protection arise with it, and that the very name by which it is called into being author izes it to look at once to the English archetypes for it; government in these particulars." ' According to this rule, so clearly enunciated, the words " quorum " and " House," which are derived from Eng- 1 Stansbury's Report of the Trial of James H. Peck, Appendix, p 499, 172 CONSTITUTIONAL QUORUM OF THE SENATE. Hsh ParUamentary Law, may be explained by that law ; so that, in case of doubt, that law is for this pur pose embodied in the Constitution. Now the Constitu tion declares that a majority of each House shall con stitute a (pioruni to do business. The rule, it will be observed, is the same for each House, But the question arises. What is a majority of each House ? or rather, putting aside all question with regard to the House of EeiDresentatives, which is perfectly free to determine for itself, What is a majority of the Senate ? In fixing the quorum at a majority rather than any smaller number, our Constitution followed the law of business corporations, where a majority always prevails, according to an old maxim of the Common Law, — Ubi major j)ars est, ibi est tofiim, — " Where the greater part is, there is the whole." This rule is so reasonable, that it has been vindicated by an eminent authority as founded on the Law of Nature, Here are the words of the great jurist Savigny : — " The will of a corporation is not merely the concurring will of all its members, but even that of the greater number. Therefore the will of a majority of all its existing members is to be regarded as being properly invested with the rights of the corporation. This rule is founded on the Law of Na ture, inasmuch as, if unanimity were demanded, will and action on the part of a corporation would be quite impossi ble. It is also confirmed by the Eoman Law." ^ Thomas Jefferson, a very different person from the German jurist, has also vindicated the rule. " The Lex majoris partis is founded in Common Law as well as common right. It is the natural law of every as- 1 System des heutigen Romischen Rechts, Band II, p. 329, § 97. CONSTITUTIONAL QUORUM OF THE SENATE. 173 sembly of men whose numbers are not fixed by any other law."i But the question stiU occurs. What is the major part of the Senate ? Is it the major part of the abstract or theoretical Senate, or the major part of the real Senate ? In other words, is it the major part of the Senate con templated by the Constitution, with two Senators from each State, or the major part of the actual Senate, count ing only those entitled to vote ? At the present moment there is a wide difference between the two cases. Several clauses of the Constitution are applicable to this question. I group them together. " The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six years.'' "A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business." " The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Consti tution.'' " A quorum for the purpose [the election of Vice-President] shall consist of two thirds of the ivhole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice." Probably "the whole number of Senators '' is equiva lent to the term " House." But what is the " House " ? The Senate de jure consists of two Senators from each State. The Senate de faeto may consist of Senators actually elected and qualified, or of Senators actually elected. Whether the "House" shall be the Senate dejure or 1 Notes on Virginia, Query Xin, : Writings, Vol, VIII. p, 367. 174 CONSTITUTIONAL QUORUM OF THE SENATE. the Senate dc facto is now within our discretion. The question has been raised, and the way is open to adopt either interpretation, according to the meaning of the Constitution as seen in the light of Parliamentary Law, and, I add also, of convenience. According to Parliamentary Law, the whole question is in our hands. According to convenience, the quorum should be founded on the actual Senate, being the Senators ac tuaUy elected and qualified. If e^•er the argument of convenience was strong, peculiarly strong, it is now, when a wicked rebellion has undertaken to withdraw the Senators of eleven States, thus reducing our numbers. It is not necessary to assert that these States should be no longer counted among our stars. It is enough, if we declare that their vacant chairs shall no longer be counted in our quorum. As the language of the Constitution is drawn into de bate, I cannot doubt, that, according to Parliamentary Law, the present question is within the control of the Senate, to be determined by the teachings of reason and convenience, so as to assure the public welfare. Any other interpretation must leave the Senate to all the hazards of disorganization by treason, or, it may b6, by indifference. If the Senate declines to exercise this power, it wiU abandon an essential principle of self- defence. An extreme case might be put, where, through defec tion, the actual Senators are reduced to a mere handful. But the rule is not to be tried by any such extreme case, which can occur only when the Government is broken up. I rest confidently on the double conclusion : first, CONSTITUTIONAL QUORUM OF THE SENATE. 175 that the words of the Constitution with regard to the quorum of the Senate, so far as doubtful, are to be interpreted by ParUamentary Law ; and, secondly, that, by Parliamentary Law, these words are within the control of the Senate, to be interpreted according to its own ample discretion under the exigency of the occasion. PROTEST AGAINST FINAL ADJOURNMENT OP CONGRESS. Remarks in the Senate, on a Resolution for the final Adjourn ment OF the two Houses, July 12, 18G2. July 12th, the question being on the final adjournment for the Session, Mr. Sumner said : — ME, PEESIDENT,— I do not think, in the present state of the country, the Senate ought to adjourn, and for one I enter my protest against it, and I ask for the yeas and nays that I may make it of record. It is essential to proper legislation not only that the Senate should vote, but that it should consider meas ures on which it votes ; and the consideration must be in proportion to their importance, AUusion is made to one measure on which the Senate has not voted, — that in charge of my friend the Senator from Ohio [Mr, Wade], the admission of West Virginia as a new State, Eerhaps no question of greater importance has ever been presented. It concerns the whole question of Slavery ; it concerns the pretension of State Eights ; it concerns also the results of this war. Look at it, therefore, in any aspect you please, it is a great ques tion. And yet the idea of Senators anxious to adjourn is, that it is to be hurried forward without any proper discussion. PROTEST AGAINST FINAL ADJOURNMENT. 177 There is another question, not less important. It is the biU of the Senator from New York [ Mr, Harris], constituting Erovisional Governments for the Eebel States, — a subject of transcendent importance, and I subnut, also, of practical interest at this very moment ; for it invoh'es precisely this inquiry, Wiiether you are to aUow a system of military governments or Con gressional governments. It is a question between the military and the civil power. Then we have the Army Bill, which my colleague has in charge. Few matters of greater importance have ever been laid before the Senate. It involves nothing less than the organization in our country of a system of conscription, so well known on the Continent of Europe, but thus far happily unknown to' us ; and yet. Sir, this great question, also, is to be hurried forward without any adequate discussion. Then we have Executive business, to which I can only allude in a general way, but of vast moment, which cannot be adequately considered without days, and I might say weeks. Then we have also the whole Calendar, to which the Senator from lUinois has referred, that ought to occupy us for weeks. Here are at least five important matters, — West Vir ginia, the Provisional Governments, the Army BUl, Ex ecutive business, and the whole Calendar, — all open to consideration; and yet. Sir, Senators propose to go home, — Senators are weary, — Senators would like to find a retreat, away from these legislative cares. I can enter into that feeUng. Sir, I should be glad to be at home. I suppose the gallant soldiers on the James Eiver, on the Chickahominy, would also be glad to be 8* L 178 PROTEST AGAINST FIXAL ADJOURNMENT. at home. They are not excused, they have not a fur lough, — and yet we Senators talk of our furlough. Now it is known that formerl)', when Congress was paid by the day, it never thought of adjourning at this time. One of the most important bills on your statute book bears date the 18th day of September, 1850 ;i and for some years immediately thereafter Congress did not adjourn until late in August. I think I have sat myself close upon September ; but when I men tioned this fact the other day, the Senator fiom Ohio reminded me that then Congress was paid by the day, whereas now it is paid by the year. Has it come to this, that Congress could sit here content when paid by the da}', and now that it is paid by the year it leaves its important business to be neglected entirely, or to be hurried forward without that discussion which it ought to receive ? Sir, I hope the Senate will not consent to fix any day of adjournment. I hope it will sit here, proceeding regularly with the Inisiness now on its Calendar, and meeting any contingencies which in the present state of the country may arise, A duty is cast upon Congress which ought not to be slighted. It is to see that the EepubHc receives no detriment. Solemnly now this duty addresses itself to all of us. Let us not neglect it. For the sake of the pubHc business, and for the sake of those responsibilities which from their very uncertainty at this crisis are so vast, I ask the Senate to continue here. The resolution, which was originally for adjournment on Monday, July 14th, was amended by substituting Wednesday, July 16th, and then, as amended, adopted, — Yeas 29, Nays 10. 1 The Fugitive Slave Act. PROTEST AGAINST FINAL ADJOURNMENT. 179 July 14th, President Lincoln communicated to Congress the draught of a bill to compensate any State which might abolish Slavery within its lunits, the passage of which as presented he earnestly recommended. On motion of Mr. Sumner, the Message with the accompanying draught was referred to the Committee on Finance. Immediately thereafter he offered the following resolution. "Resolved, That, in order that the two Houses of Congress may have time for the proper consideration of the Message of the President and the ac companying bill for Emancipation in the States, and for the transaction of other public business, the resolution fixing Wednesday, the 16th of July, for adjournment, is hereby rescinded." The consideration of the resolution was objected to. PATRIOTIC UNITY AND EMANCIPATION. Letter to a Public Meeting at New York, July 14, 1862. Washington, July 14, 1862. DEAE SIE, — I welcome and honor your patriotic efforts to arouse the country to a generous, de termined, irresistible unity in support of the National Government ; but the Senate is stiU in session, and my post of duty is here. A Senator cannot leave his post, more than a soldier. But, absent or present, the cause in which the people are to assemble has my God-speed, earnest, devoted, affec tionate, and from the heart. What I can do let me do. There is no work I will not undertake, there is nothing I will not renounce, if so I may serve my country. There must be unity of hands, and of hearts too, that the EepubHc may be elevated to the sublime idea of a true commonwealth, which we are told " ought to be but as one huge Christian personage, one mighty growth and stature of an honest man, as big and compact in virtue as in body." ^ Oh, Sir, if my feeble voice could reach my feUow-countrymen, in workshops, streets, fields, and wherever they meet together, if for one moment I could take to my Ups that silver trumpet with tones to sound and reverberate throughout the land, I would summon aU, forgetting prejudice and turning away from error, to 1 Milton, Of Reformation in England, Book II. : Prose Works, ed. Sym- mons. Vol. I, p. 29. PATRIOTIC UNITY AND EMANCIPATION. 181 help unite, quicken, and invigorate our common country — most beloved now that it is most imperilled — to a compactness and bigness of virtue in just proportion to its extended dominion, so that it should be as one huge Christian personage, one mighty growth and stature of an honest man, instinct with all the concentration of unity. Thus inspired, the gates of Hell cannot prevail against us. To this end the cries of faction must be silenced, and the wickedness of sedition, whether in print or public speech, must be suppressed. These are the Northern aUies of the Eebellion. An aroused and indignant peo ple, with iron heel, must tread them out forever, as men tread out the serpent so that it can neither hiss nor sting. With such concord God will be pleased, and He wiU fight for us. He wUl give quickness to our armies, so that the hosts of the Eebellion will be broken and scattered as by the thunderbolt ; and He will give to our beneficent government that blessed inspiration, bet ter than newly raised levies, by which the EebeUion shall be struck in its single vulnerable part, by which that colossal abomination, its original mainspring and present motive power, shall be overthrown, while the cause of the Union is linked with that divine justice whose weapons are of celestial temper. God bless our country ! and God bless all who now serve it with singleness of heart ! I have the honor to be, dear Sir, Your faithful servant, Charles Sumner. Charles Q-ould, Esq., Secretary of ihe Select Committee. HARMONY WITH THE PRESIDENT AND EMAN CIPATION. Speech in the Senate, on the ,Joint Resolution explanatory of TOE Act for Confiscation and Liberation, July 16, 1862. While the bill providing for Confiscation and Liberation was in the hands of the President, and before its signature, it was understood that he objected to it on certain gi'ounds, one of which was that under it real estate was forfeited beyond life. In point of fact, the President had already drawn up a Message stating his objections to its becoming a law.i In .anticipation of these objections, a joint resolution was adopted, containing the provision, " Nor shall any punishment or pro ceedings under said Act be so construed as to work a forfeiture of the real estate of the offender beyond his natural life."^ Mr. Sumner did not sympathize with the objections, but, in his anxi ety to secure the approval of the Act as a step to Emancipation, he did not hesitate to support the joint resolution. July 16th, he said : — ME. PEESIDENT, — Our country is in peril. This is much to say, but it must be said, and we must all govern ourselves accordingly. More than ever before, the time has come for an earnest, absolute, controlling patriotism. This is the lesson of the day. In presence of such peril, and under the weight of such duties, there is no pride of opinion which I would not freely sacrifice, nor can I stand on any order of proceeding. I ask no 1 Senate Journal, ,Iuly 17, 1862, pp, 872-874. Congressional Globe, 37th Cong, 2d Sess,, p, 3406. 2 Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. p, 627. harmony with the president. 183 questions, and I make no terms. Show me how an important measure can be secured, which I think vital to the country, and I shall spare no effort to secure it. Eules are for protection, for defence, and to facilitate business. If in any way they become an impediment, they cease to perform their natural office, and I can easUy abandon them, especiaUy when my country may suffer. Therefore, Sir, I am only slightly impressed by the argument that our information with regard to the President is informal. It is enough that a measure we aU have at heart as essential to national life may fail to receive his constitutional approval, unless modi fied in advance by supplementary statute. Anxious for this measure, I think how it may be secured, rather than how the opinions of the President have become known to us. Of course. Sir, I cannot share the doubts attributed to the President. To me they seem groundless and fal lacious. Waiving all question of their accuracy as an interpretation of the Constitution, even in criminal pro- ceecHngs, I cannot forbear saying that they proceed on the mistaken idea of a procedure by indictment and not by war, subjecting the country to all the constraint of a criminal trial when the exigency requires the ample lat itude of war. If soldiers are sent forth to battle, if fields are occupied as camps, and houses are occupied as hos pitals, without permission of the owners, it is under the War Powers of Congress, or, in other words, the bellig erent rights of this Government. And it is by virtue of these same belligerent rights that the property of an en emy is taken. Now, if he be an enemy, is there in the Constitution any check upon these rights ? Whether you choose to take property for Hfe or beyond life, the 184 harmony with the president Constitution is indifferent ; for all constitutional limi tations are entirely inapplicable to beUigerent rights. There are express words iirdaining that you must not " abridge the freedom of speech or of the press,' ' or " in fringe the right of the people to keep and hear arms"; nor can you take "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Aud yet, wllere^•er your armies move, and elsewhere too, you do all these very things in the exercise of acknowledged belligerent rights. As plainly, the right of confiscation, vhether for life or beyond life, is also yours. Ihihappily, Sir, our country is engaged in war, — ter rible, relentless, unquestionable war, — and if we would not discard success, it must be prosecuted as war, in the full exercise of belligerent rights. If we were dealing with sporadic eases of treason, with simple sedition, or with a mere outbreak, our pro(jess would be limited by the Constitution ; but with an enemy l^efore us, lashed into fury and led on by " At^ hot from Hell," wliere is the limit to the powers to be employed ? I remem ber that Burke, in his great effort on (.'oneiliation with America, says ; " It looks to me to be narrow and pe dantic to apply the ordinary ideas of criminal justice to this great public contest ; I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against an whole people," ^ But when, on account of a pKj-s'ision in the Constitution obviously intended only for the protection of the riMzen, you refuse to take the property of an enemy in open war, then do you substitute the safeguards of criminal justice for war, thus voluntarily weakening your armies and diminishing your power. I am tempted to say, that, in devotion to the form of the Constitution, you sacrifice 1 Works (London, 1801), Vol. III. p, 69. AND EMANCIPATION. 185 its substance. I might say, that, in misapplying the text of the Constitution, you sacrifice the Constitution itself Pardon me for seeming, even briefly, to argue this question. I do it only because I would not have my vote misunderstood. I shall support the proposition, not because I concur with it, but because its adoption wiU help secure the approval of the bill that has so much occupied the attention of Congress and the hopes of the country, Mr. President, I have never, from the beginning, dis guised my conviction that the most important part of the bill concerns Emancipation, To save this great part, to secure this transcendent ally, to establish this assur ance of victory, and to obtain for my country this lofty crown of prosperity and glory, I willingly abandon all the rest. The navigator is caUed sometimes to save his ship by casting part of the cargo into the sea. But whatever the difference between the Fresident and CongTess, there are two points on which there is no difference. Blacks are to be employed, and slaves are to be freed. In this legislative proclamation the President and Congress wiU unite. Together they will deliver it to the country and to the world. It is an occasion of just congratulation, that the long debates of the session have at last ripened into a meas ure which I do not hesitate to declare more important than any victory achieved by our arms. Thank God, the new levies will be under an inspiration which can not fail. It is the idea of Freedom, which, in spite of all discomfiture, past or present, must give new force to the embattled armies of the Eepublic, making their con flicts her own. 186 harmony with the president. Sir, from this day forward the war ^vill be waged with new hopes and new promises. A new power is enlisted, incalculable in influence, strengthening our armies, weak ening the enemy, a\vakening the sympathies of man kind, and securing the favor of a benevolent God, Tlie infamous Order No, 3, whicli has been such a scandal to the Eepublic, is rescinded. The slave everywhere can hope. Beginning to do justice, we shaU at last deserve success. The original bill and the explanatory joint resolution were returned to the Senate together, with the approval of the President, July 17th, being the last day of the session, and just before its close. UNION OF GOOD CITIZENS FOR A FINAL SETTLEMENT. Letter to the Republican State Committee, September 9, 1862. At the Republican State Convention at Worcester, September 10th,i Mr. Claflin, Chairman of the State Committee, read the following letter from Mr. Sumner, which, according to the report, was received with great applause. Boston, September 9, 1862. MY DEAE SIE, — As a servant of the State, I have always recognized the right of my constituents in State Convention to expect from me such counsels on public affairs as I could offer, and I have accepted with gratitude the invitations with which they have honored me. If now, in these dark days, when danger thickens, I do not take advantage of the opjjortunity you present, believe me, it is not from indifference, nor is it because our- duties at this moment are uncertain. Eagerly do gallant soldiers (God bless them !) rush to the field of death for the sake of their country. Eagerly do good citizens at home (God bless them !) contribute of their abundance, or it may be of their poverty, to smooth the lot of our gallant soldiers. But there is 1 At this Convention Mr, Sumner was nominated for reelection as Sena tor. See, post, pp. 240, 241. 188 UNION OF GOOD CITIZENS another duty, hardly less commanding. It is union, without distinction of party, to uphold the tbi\'ernment, and also to uphold those vdio uphold the Government, Therefore do I recognize the just liberality of the caU for our Con-\'ention, which is addressed not only to EepubHeans, but also to "all who support the present National and State Governments and are in favor of the use of all means necessary for the effectual suppression of the EebeUion." Under such a caU there is no patriot citizen of the Commonwealth who may not claim a place. Is there a patriot citizen who hesitates to support the National Go\-ernment, beleaguered by a rebel en emy ? Is there a patriot citizen who hesitates to support the State Government, now, under the inspiring activity and genius of -lohn A. Andrew, so efficiently sustaining the National Government ? And is there a patriot citizen who is not for the use of all means necessary for the effectual suppression of the Eebellion ? AVere I aide to be at the Convention, according to the invitation with \vhich you honor me, gladly would I appeal to all sucli citizens. This country must be saved ; and among the omens of victory I hail confidently that unanimity of sentiment and trust with which all loyal citizens now look to the National Government, deter mined that nothing of energy or contrilnition or sacri fice shall be wanting, by which its supremacy may be reestablished. Another omen is yet needed. It is that the people, forgetting the past, shall ascend to that plane of justice and truth where is the light of candor, and all shall frown indignantly uy)on the rancors and animosi- FOR A FINAL SETTLEMENT. 189 ties of party, which even now are so disturbing in their influence, shaU silence the senseless prejudices of per sonal hate, and stifle the falsehoods of calumny, so that here among ourselves there may be unity and concord, giving irresistible strength to our patriotic labors. Beyond this appeal from heart to heart, I should re joice to show clearly hoiv to hamstring this Rebellion and to conquer a peace, aU of which I am sure can be done. To this single praetieal pitrp}ose all theories, pre possessions, and aims must yield. So absorbing at the present moment is this question, that nothing is practi cal which does not directly tend to its final settlement. All else is blood-stained vanity. And the citizen sol diers you send forth to battle may justly complain, if you neglect any means by which they may be strength ened. Good Democrats, who have enjoyed the confidence of their party and also public trust, — Daniel S. Dickin son, of New York, and Eobert Dale Owen, of Indiana, — bear their generous testimony. So also does Parson Brownlow, of Tennessee, in a letter which I have just read, where he says that the negroes "must be urged in every possible way to crush out this infernal Ee beUion." Butler bore his testimony, when, by virtue of an outstanding order of the Eebel Governor of Louis iana, he organized a regiment of colored persons in the national service. Banks also symbolized the idea, when, overtaking the Httle slave-girl on her way to Freedom, he lifted her upon the national cannon. In this act — the brightest, most touching, and most suggestive of the whole war, which Art will hereafter rejoice to commem orate — our Massachusetts general gave a lesson to his country. Who can doubt that the country will yefc be saved ? 190 UNION OF GOOD CITIZENS. I hope you wiU excuse me to my feUow-citizens of the Convention, and beUeve me, with much regard. Very faithfuUy yours, Charles Sumner. To Hon. Wm. Claflin, Chairman of State Committee. THE PROCLAMATION OF EMA:NC1P ATION : ITS POLICY AND NECESSITY AS A WAE MEASURE FOE THE SUPPEESSION OP THE EEBELLION. Speech at Faneuil Hall, October 6, 1862. With Appendix, on the Nomination and Reelection of Mr. Sumner as Senator. A patriot's blood, Well spent in such a strife, may earn, indeed, And for a time insure to his loved land. The sweets of Liberty and Equal Laws. CowPEK, The Task, Book V. 714-71?. I assure you, He that has once the Flower of the Sun, The perfect ruby which we call Elixir, Not only can do that, but by its vh-tue Can confer Honor, Love, Respect, Long Life, Give Safety, Valor, — yea, and Victor;', — To whom he will. Ben Jonson, The Alchemist, Act II, Sc. 1, Rendez-les libres, — et plus prfes que vous de la nature, ils vaudront bean- coup mieux que vous. CoHDORCET, Note 109 aux Pensees de Pascal. When a leak is to be stopped, or a fire extinguished, do not all hands co operate without distinction of sect or party? Or if I am fallen into a ditch, shall I not suffer a man to help me out, until I have first examined his creed ? — Bisnop Berkeley, A Word to the Wise, or an Exliortaiion to the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland: Works (London, 1837), p, 360. May Congress not say that every black man must light? Did we not see a little of this last war? .... Have they not power to provide for the gen eral defence and welfare? May the}' not think that these call for the aboli tion of Slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free? And will the.y not be warranted by that power? This is no ambiguous implication or log ical deduction. Tlie paper speaks to the point. .— Patrick Henry. Debates in the Virginia Convention onthe Adoptionof the Federal Constitution: Elliot's Debates, Vol. Ill, p. 590, The natural strength of the country, in point of numbers, appears to me to consist much more in the blacks than in tlie whites. Could they be incor porated and employed for its defence, it would afford you double security. That they would make good soldiers I have not the least doubt. — Majok- Genekal Nathanael Greene, Letter to Governor Rutledge: Johnson's Life of Greene, Vol. II. p. 274. The anxiety which prevailed so extensively was restored by the Proclamation of Emancipation, at last put forth by the President, Sep tember 22, 1862, Besides enjoining obedience to the Acts of Congress already passed against Slavery, it declared : — " That, on the first day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom." i The work was completed by the final proclamation of January 1, 1863,2 There was an echo to these proclamations throughout the country, and also from the Rebel States, The Richmond Whig said of the first : " It is a dash of the pen to destroy four millions of our property, and is as much as a bid for the slaves to rise in insurrection, with the as surance of aid from the whole military and naval power of the United States," In another article, it spoke of "the fiends of the new pro gramme." These feelings, after debate in the Eebel Congress, found vent iu the following terms, "That, in the judgment of Congress, the proclamations of the President of the United States, dated respectively September twenty-second, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and .lanuary flrst, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, and the other measures of the Government of the United States, and of its authorities, commanders, and forces, designed or tending to emancipate slaves in the Confederate States, or to abduct such slaves, or to incite them to insurrection, or to employ negroes in war against tlie Confederate States, or to overthrow the institution of African Slavery and bring on a servile war in these Slates, would, if successful, produce atrocious consequences, and they are inconsistent vvitli the spirit of those usages which in modern war- ' United States Statutes at Large, Vol, XII,, Appendts, p, 1267, 2 The pen with wliich the President signed the final proclamation was given by him to George Livermore, author of the " Historical Research respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic on Negroes as Slaves, as Citizens, and as Soldiers," vol, vii, 9 M 194 THE PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION. fare prevail among civilized nations; they may, therefore, be properly and lawfully repressed by retaliation." ^ The earlier proclamation caused a thrill in Massachusetts, Earnest people, who had longed for it, were rejoiced and comforted. At the in vitation of his fellow-citizens, Mr. Sumner consented to address them at Faneuil Hall, in response to the proclamation. The proceedings at this crowded meeting, which was held at noon, are copied from the newspapers of the day. The meeting was called to order by George S. Hale, Esq., Chairman of the Ward and City Committee, who submitted the following list of names for the officers of the meeting. President, — William Claflin, of Newton. Vice-Presidents, — Francis B, Crowniiishield, Alexander H. Bullock, Julius Eockwell, Peleg W. Chandler, Oakes Ames, John Gardner, Lee Claflin, Eobert W. Hooper, James M, Barnard, Francis B, Fay, Jacob Sleeper, Edward S, Tobey, Stephen H. Phillips, W^aldo Higginson, Samuel May, John Nesmith, William J, Eotch, Eliphalet Trask, Mar tin Brimmer, Henry I, Bowditch, Gerry W. Cochrane, Charle.s H, Par ker, Charles 0, Whitmore, John D. Baldwin, John E. Brewer, John il, S. Williams, James P, Thomdike, Samuel Hall, Artemas Lee, Eob ert B, Storer, Julius A. Palmer, John L. Emmons, William 1. Bowditch, Abel G. Farwell, Alvah Crocker, Otis Norcross, John J, May, Phineas E. Gay, Nathan Gushing, Eobert C. Pitman, Alexander H. Twombly, Warren Sawyer, James Adams, Moses Kimball, Theodore Otis, Alvah A. Burrage, David Snow, Edwin Lamson, John Demeritt, John M. Forbes, AVilliam Washburn, Arba Maynard, Joseph T. Bailey, Osborn Howes, Daniel Farrar, John Chandler, John Q. A. Griffin, Eobert E. Apthorp, William Bellamy, Alexander Wadsworth, Edward Buffinton, Nehemiah Boynton, Phineas J. Stone, William B. Sjiooner, Frederick Nickerson, P, Emory Aldrich, Abijah W. Farrar, William Pope, Charles C. Barry, Timothy W. Hoxie, Avery Plumer, Ephraim Allen, J. War ren Men'ill, Peter B. Brigham, George F. Williams, Pliny Nickerson, John A, Nowell, Arthur W, Tufts, Roland Worthington, John Bertram, Frank B, Fay, J. Ingersoll Bowditch, William Endicott, Jr,, Edward Atkinson, Nathaniel C, Nash, Franklin Snow, J, Wingate Thornton, Samuel Johnson, Edward A. Eaymond, Albert L, Lincoln, Francis E, Parker, Charles 0, Eogers, William Fox Richardson, John G. Webster, Leister M, Clark, Chester Guild, Jr., Estes Howe, William Brigham. Secretaries, — William S Robinson, Delano A. Goddard, Stephen N. 1 Joint Resolution on the Subject of Retaliation, May 1, 1863: Public Laws of the Confederate States of America, 1st Cong. 3d Sess , {Richmond, 1863,) p. 167. THE PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION. 195 Stockwell, William W. Clapp, Jr., Hamlin R. Harding, H, Burr Cran- dall, Henry M. Burt, Ebenezer Nelson, George H. Monroe, Stephen N. Gifford. On taking the chair, Mr. Claflin was received with great applause. He spoke as follows. "Ladies asd Gentlemen, — None of you can be more disappointed at the present time than myself, that I am called upon to occupy this position. " At the last moment we were informed that his Excellency the Gov ernor 1 was compelled by the duties of his position, and his desire ever to do for the interests of those brave men who have gone forth for our defence, to leave the State, and to leave us to-day in your hands. [Applause.'] " Under these circumstances, and at the last moment, by the desire of the Committee of Arrangements, I consented to occupy this position ; but you will, of course, excuse me from making any remarks on this occasion. My heart is in the cause. This is a great era, and this is the time when every man should come up to the work and fight for this nation, doing everything which he can, whether by his purse or his sword, to sustain the Government. [ Cheers.'\ " Thanking you for the honor you have conferred upon me, I now await any motion which may be made." Resolutions sustaining Emancipation were then read by Charles W. Slack, and, amidst cries of "Good!" and great applause, were adopted. The President then said : — "I now introduce to you Massachusetts' — ay, Boston's — honored son. I need not praise him, I need not eulogize him ; but I will simply say, it is Charles Sumner," The enthusiasm that followed Senator Sumner's stepping on the plat form was not surpassed by anything that has been seen in the Hall since Senator Webster took the same place on his return from Wash ington years ago. The air below was dark with waving hats, and along the galleries white with fluttering kerchiefs. When the applause sub sided, a colored man cried out, "God bless Charles Sumner ! " in an earnest, trembling, "tearful" voice, and the applause was renewed. The meeting is described as "of much enthusiasm on the part of the overflowing audience that gathered and tried to gather within the an cient walls," A few sentences from the London Moming Star will show how this effort was recognized at a distance. " The Massachusetts Senator has lately had a meeting with his constitu ents. Fragments and summaries of his speech at Faneuil Hall have found 1 John A. Andrew. 196 THE PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION, their way into most English newspapers. Let the sympathizers with the South produce, if they can, from their side of Mason and Dixon's line, any utter ance to compare with it in all the qualities that should commend human speech to human audience. . , . "This representative of a powerful community addresses to his fellow- citizens considerations upon the conduct of a war in which they and lie are more deeply interested than any English constituency has been in any war which England has waged since the days of Cromwell, It is such a speech as Hampden might have spoken in Buckinghamshire, or Pyni in the Gnild- liall. It treats both of principles and policy, — of the means of success, and of the ends which can alone sanctify the struggle or glorify success. It breathes throughout the spirit of justice and of freedom. "Throughout his public life, Mr. Suinner has held the same doctrines, ex pressed the same spirit He is the leader of a party, as well as the rep resentative of the first Now England State, and Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Congress. Too advanced a thinker and too pure a politician for office in a Cabinet undecided on the Slavery Question, be has pioneered its way and shaped its conclusions. Is he not a man whose name should check the blustering apologists of Slavery and Secession? . . , , The Rebellion is just such a blow at the Union as Preston Brooks struck at Charles Sumner; and yet there are Enghsh hands and voices to applaud the deed, as worthy heroes of patriotism and civilization," In urging Emancipation, Mr, Sumner always felt, that, besides sus taining the cause of justice, he was helping our country with foreign nations. SPEECH. Fellow-Citizens of Massachusetts : — MEETINGS of the people in ancient Athens were opened with these words : " May the gods doom to perdition that man, and all his race, who, on this oc casion, shall speak, act, or contrive anything against the Commonwealth ! " With such an imprecation all were summoned to the duties of the citizen. But duties be come urgent in proportion to perils. If ever there were occasion for these solemn words, it is now, when the country is in danger, when the national capital itself is menaced, when all along the loyal border, from the At lantic Ocean to the Indian Territories west of the Mis sissippi, barbarian hordes, under some Alaric of Slavery, are marshalling forces, and death is knocking at the doors of so many happy homes. If ever there was occa sion when country might claim the best and most self- forgetful efifort of all, it is now. Each in his way must act. Each must do what he can : the youthful and strong by giving themselves to the service ; the weak, if in no other way, by scraping lint. Such is the call of patriotism. The country must be saved. Among omens which I hail with gladness is the union now happily prevailing among good men in sup port of the Government, whether State or National, — 198 THE PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION, forgetting that they were Democrats, forgetting that they were Whigs, and disregarding old party names, to remember only the duties of the citizen. Another sign, not less cheering, is the generous devotion which all among us of foreign birth offer to their adopted coun try. Germans fight as for fatherland, and Irishmen fight as for loved Erin ; nor can our cause be less dear to the latter, now that the spirit of Grattan and O'Connell has entered into it. Surely this is no time for the strife of party. Its jealousies and antipathies are now more than ever ir rational. Its clamors of opposition are now more than ever unpatriotic. Unhappily, there are some to whom its bitter, unforgiving temper has become so controlling, that, even at this moment, they would rather enlist to put down a political opponent than to put down the rebel enemy of tlieir country, — they would rather hang Henry Wilson or John A, Andrew than hang Jeffer son Davis or Robert Toomb.s. Such persons, with all their sweltered venom, are found here in Massachusetts. Assuming the badge of "No Party," they are ready for any party, new or old, by which their prejudices may be gratified, — thus verifying the pungent words of Colonel Benton : " Wherever you will show me a man with the words ' No Party ' in his mouth, I will sliow you a man that figures at the head or dangles at the tail of the most inveterate party that ever existed," Of course, such persons are not expected to take part in a meeting like the present, which seeks to unite rather than divide, while it rallies all to the support of the President, and to that policy of Freedom he has j)roclaiined. THE PROCLAMATION 0¥' EMANCIPATION. 199 Thank God that I live to enjoy this day ! Thank God that my eyes have not closed without seeing this great salvation ! The skies are brighter and the air is purer now that Slavery is handed over to judgment. By the proclamation of the President, all persons held as slaves January 1, 1863, within any State or desig nated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free ; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the mili tary and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom. Beyond these most effective words, which do not go into operation before the new year, are otlier words of immediate operation, constituting a present edict of Emancipation, The President recites the recent Acts of Congress applicable to this question, and calls upon all persons in the military and naval service to observe, obey, and enforce them. But these Acts provide that all slaves of Eebels, taking refuge within the lines of our army, all slaves captured from Eebels or deserted by them, and aU slaves found within any place occupied by Eebel forces and afterwards occupied by forces of the United States, shall be forever free of servitude, and not again held as slaves ; and these Acts further provide, that no person in the military or naval service shall, under any pretence whatever, assume to decide on the validity of any claim to a slave, or surrender any such person to his claimant, on pain of being dismissed from the service : so that by these Acts, now proclaimed by the President, Freedom is practically secured to all who 200 THE PROCLAMATION OF E.MANCIPATION, find shelter within our lines, and the glorious flag of the Union, wherever it floats, becomes the flag of Freedom. Thank God for what is already done, and let us all take heart as we go forward to uphold this great edict I For myself, I accept the Proclamation without note or comment. It is enough for me, that, in the exercise of the War Power, it strikes at the origin and mainspring of this Eebellion ; for I have never concealed the con viction that it matters little where we strike Slavery, provided only that we strike sincerely and in earnest. So is it all connected, that the whole must suffer with every part, and the words of the poet will be verified, that, • — "whatever link you strike. Tenth or ten thousandth, breaks the chain alike." On this most interesting occasion, so proper for grati tude, it is difficult to see anything but the cause ; and yet, appearing before you on the invitation of a Com mittee of the Commonwealth, I must not forget that I owe this privilege to my public character as Senator of Massachusetts, In this character I have often been invited before ; but now the invitation has more than accustomed significance ; for, at the close of a long pe riod of public service, it brings me face to face with my constituents. In a different condition of the coun try, I could not decline the opportunity of reviewing the relations between us, — of showing, at least, how you took me from private station, all untried, and gave me one of your highest trusts, and how this trust was enhanced by the generosity with which you sustained me against obloquy and vindictive assault, especially by your unparalleled indulgence to me THE PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION. 201 throughout a protracted disability, — and perhaps, might I be so bold, of presenting for your consideration some sketch of what I have attempted, conscious, that, if not always successful, I have been at all times faithful to cherished convictions, and faithful also to your inter ests, sparing nothing of time or effort, and making up by industry for any lack of ability, so that, during a ser vice of more than eleven years, I have never once vis ited home while Congress was in session, or been absent for a single day, unless when suffering from that disa bility to which I have referred, and during the session which has just closed, filled with most laborious duties from beginning to end, I was not out of my seat a single hour. But this is no time for such a review. I have no heart for it, while my country is in danger. And yet I shall not lose the occasion to challenge the scrutiny of all, even here in this commercial metropolis, where the interests of business are sometimes placed above all other interests. Frankly and fearlessly I make my ap peal. In all simplicity, I ask you to consider what I have done as your servant, whether in the Senate or out of the Senate, in matters of legislation or of business. If there is any one disposed to criticize or complain, let him be heard. Let the whole record be opened, and let any of the numerous visitors who have sought me on business testify. I know too well the strength of my case to shrink from any inquiry, even though stim ulated by the animosity of political warfare.^ '' In the delivery of the speech Mr. Sumner was interrupted here by re discountenanced and opposed by the sla\e-masters in the distant islands. Whatever the proposition, whether to abridge, to mitigate, or ameliorate, there was always one steady dissent. Put not your trust in slave-mas ters, — do not hearken to their promises, — do not fol low their counsels. Such is the plain lesson of English history, of French history, of Dutch history, of every country wdiicli has dealt with this question, — ay, of Eussian history at this very moment, — and such, also, is the positive caution of English statesmen. On this point we have the concurring testimony of three names, each of wdiich is an authority. It is all embodied in a brief passage of a speech by Lord Brougham, THE PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION, 225 " I entirely concur in the observation of Mr. Burke, re peated aud more happily expressed by Mr. Canning, that the masters of slaves are not to be trusted with making laws upon .Slavery, — that nothing they do is ever found eflfectual, — and that, if by some miracle they ever chance to enact a wholesome regulation, it is always found to want what Mr. Biirke calls the executory principle, — it fails to execute it self" 1 These are emphatic words, and as often as I am re minded of the opinions of Slave-Masters on our present duties, when Slavery is in question, I think of them as a solemn warning, confirmed by all the teachings of ex perience in our own country, early and late, (2.) Another objection is, that officers in our army will fling down their arms. Very well, — let the traitors fling down their arms : the sooner, the better. They are unworthy to bear arms, and should be deEvered up to the hissing and execration of mankind. But I wiE not dishonor officers with the commission of the United States by such imputation on their loyalty and common sense. As officers they must know their duty too well, and as intelligent men they must know that the slaves are calculated to be their best and surest allies. (3.) Another objection is, that Slavery is a "side is sue," not to be touched until the war is ended. But these wise objectors forget that it is precisely in or der to end the war that Slavery is to be touched, and that, when they oppose the effort, they make a " side issue " in its behalf, calculated to weaken the national arm. > Speech in the House ot Lords, on the Immediate Emancipation of the Negro Apprentices, Keijruary 20, 1838; Works, Vol, X. p. 274. 10* O 220 THE PROCL.V.M.VTIOX OF ema:-:cipation. (4.) Another objection has its origin in pity, that the Eebels may be saved from a slave insurrection. God forbid that I should fail in any duty of humanity, or tenderness even ; but I know no principle of war or of reason by which our Eebels should be saved from the natural consequences of their own conduct. When tliey rose against a paternal Government, they set the exam ple of insurrection which has carried death to innumer able firesides. They cannot complain, if their sla\es, with better reason, follow it. According to an old law, bloody inventions return to plague the inventor. But this whole objection proceeds on a mistaken idea of the African slave. The story of San Domingo, so often Cjuoted against him, testifies to his humanity. Only when Napoleon, in an evil hour, sought to reenslave him, did those scenes of blood occur, which exhibit less the cruelty of the slave than the atrocious purjiose of the white man. The African is not cruel, vindicti\'e, or harsh, but gentle, forgiving, and kind. Such is authen- tic history. Nor does it appear, when the slaves left their masters, on the appeal of the British commanders, during our Ee^'olution, that they were guilty of any ex cess. It is true that labor was disorganized, and the whole community weakened ; and this is what we seek to accomplish in the Eebel States, (5.) And yet one more objection is sometimes ad- ^•anced, It is said that an appeal to the slaves wdll make them o\'erflow into the North, wliere they will compete with other labor. This ill-considered and triv ial objection subordinates the suppression of the Eebel lion to a question of labor, and, liy a " side issue," diverts attention from the great object at heart. But it becomes absurd, when you consider, as every candid observer THE PROCL-VMATION OF EMANCIPATION. 227 must admit, that no such objection can arise. There is no danger of any such overflow. It is precisely the pressure of Slavery, and not the license of Freedom, that causes overflow. If Slavery were removed, the Africans would flow back, instead of overflowing here. The South is their natural home, and there they will go when justice at last prevails. Such are the objections of fact, so far as any exist within my knowledge. If any other has been made, I do not know it. I ask you frankly, have I not an swered them ? But, feEow-citizens, I shaE not leave the argument at this stage. It is not enough to show that slaves can render important assistance, by labor, by information, or by arms, and that there is no reasonable objection to calling upon them, with other loyaEsts, in support of the Union. The case is stronger still. Without the aid of the slaves this war cannot be ended successfully. Their alliance is, therefore, a necessity. In making this asser tion I know well the responsibility I assume, nor do I assume it lightly. But the time has come when the truth must be told. Let me be understood. As war is proverbially uncertain, I cannot doubt that fortune will again light upon our arms. The force of the Eebel lion may be broken even without appeal to the slaves. But I am sure that with the slaves our victory will be more prompt, while without them it can never be effec tual completely to crush out the Eebellion, It is not enough to beat armies. Eebel communities, envenomed against the Union, must be restored, and a wide-spread region quieted. This can be done only by removal of the disturbing cause, and the consequent assimilation 228 THE PUOCLAM.VTION OF EM.VNCIP ATION. of the people, so that no man shall call another master. If Sla^'ery be regarded as a disease, it must be extir pated by knife and cautery ; for only in this way can the healthful operations of national life be regained. If regarded as a motive, it must be expelled from the sys tem, that it may no longer exercise its malign influence. S(.) long as Slavery continues, the States in which it ex ists will fly madly from the Union, but with its destruc tion they will lose all such tendency. The Slave States, by the influence of Slavery, are now centrifugal ; but with Slavery out of the system, they will be centripetal. Such is the law of their being. And it should be our present policy to take advantage of this law for the benefit of the Union. Nay, from the necessity of the case, this must be done. A united people cannot be conquered. Defeated on the battle-field, they will remain sullen and revengeful, ready for another rebellion. This is the lesson of his tory. Even Hannibal, after crushing in the field all the armies of Eome, and ranging at will throughout Italy, was obliged to confess the inadequacy of his triumphs, while he appealed for help to the subjects of Eome, ex citing them to insurrection, and arousing them against the Roman power. To this long-cherished plan were directed all the energies be could spare from battle, be- lie\'ing that in this way his enemy could be brought under a double fire. But it is known that the people of the Slave States are not wholly united, and that among them are large numbers ready at call to up hold the Union, From the beginning of the war, we have assumed, as an element of strength, the presence there of large numbers devoted to the Union, ready at THE PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION, 229 the proper moment to cooperate with the national forces. Yet most of these faithful Unionists are not white. The Unionists of the South are black. Let these be rallied, and the Eebellion will be exposed not only to a fire in front, but also to a fire in the rear. The two together are necessary to the operations of war. The Union army thus far is like a single blade of a pair of scis sors, which, though of choicest steel with sharpest edge, must be comparatively useless. Let the other blade be conjoined, and the instrument will be perfect. The scis sors of Fate could not cut more surely. Is not our duty clear ? And is not the President completely vindicated ? By Emancipation we not only hasten the war to a close, but we give it an effective finality, preventing it from breaking forth anew, whicli can be obtained in no otlier way. The heads of the hydra will be extirpated and the monster destroyed, never more to show itself Without Emancipation the whole contest is delivered over to present uncertainty, while the future is left to glare with all the horrors of civil strife unsuppressed. The last chapter of "Easselas" is entitled " The Conclusion, in which Nothing is Con cluded " ; and this will be the proper title for the his tory of this war, if Slavery is aEowed to endure. If you would trample down the Eebellion, you must trample down Slavery ; and, believe me, it must be completely done. Among the terrible pictures in the immortal poem of Dante, where crime on earth is portrayed in so many fearful punishments, is that of Caiaphas, high- priest of the Jews, who, as penalty for his sacrifice of the Saviour, was stretched on the floor of Hell, where all who passed must tread on him. 230 THE PROCLAM.VTION OF E.MANCIPATION. ''Naked athwart this pathway lie must lie, Condemned, as thou pcrceiv'st, to undergo The weiglit of evei^y one who passes by," t Such should be the final fate of Slavery, naked and dis honored, stretched where all may tread upon it. Never can the Eights of War be employed more justly than to create this doom. It was easy to see from the beginning that the Ee bellion had its origin in Slavery, — that without Slavery it never could have broken forth, — that, when begun, it was continued only through Slavery, — that Slavery was at once the curse that pursued, the principle that gov erned, and the power that sustained, — and tlie Oligarchy of slave-masters, three hundred and fifty thousand all told, were the criminals through whom all this direful wickedness was organized and waged. Such is the un questionable diagnosis of the case, which history will recognize, and a wise statesmanship must have seen promptly. Not to see Slavery in this guilty character was a mistake, and grievously have we answered for it. All are agreed now that Buchanan played into Eebel hands, when, declaring that there can be no coercion of a State, he refused to touch the Eebellion. Alas ! alas ! we, too, may play into Eebel hands, when, out of strange and incomprehensible forbearance, we refuse to touch Slavery, which is the very life of the Eebellion. Pardon these allusions, made in no spirit of criticism, but simply that I may accumulate new motives for that Proclama tion which I rejoice to welcome as herald of peace. There are many generals already in the field, — up- 1 Inferno, Canto XXIII, 118 - 120, tr, Brooksbank, THE PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION. 231 wards of thirty major-generals, and two hundred brig adiers ; but, meritorious and brave as they may be, there is a general better than all, whom the President now commissions, — I mean General Emancipation. It is common to speak of God as on the side of the heavy battalions. Whatever the truth of this saying, it does not contain the whole truth. Heavy battalions are something, but they are not everything. Even if pre vailing on the battle-field, which is not always the case, the victory they compel is not final. It is impotent to secure that tranquiEity essential to national life. Mind is above matter, right is more than force, and it is vain to attempt conquest merely by matter or by force. If this can be done in small affairs, it cannot in large ; for these yield only to moral influences. Napoleon was the great master of war, and yet, from his utterances at St. Helena, the legacy of his transcendent experience, comes this confession : " The more I study the world, the more am I convinced of the inability of bride force to create anything durable." And another Frenchman, of sub tile thought and perfect integrity, whose name is linked forever with American institutions, De TocqueviUe, has paid a similar tribute to truth. " Force," says he, " is never more than a transient element of success, A gov ernment only able to crush its enemies on the field of battle would very soon be destroyed." In these author itative words of the warrior and the thinker there is warning not to put trust in batteries or bayonets, while an unconquerable instinct makes us confess that might cannot constitute right. Let the war end on the battle-field alone, and it will be only in appearance that it will end, not in reality. 232 THE PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION, Time will be gained for new efforts, and Slavery will coE itself to spring again. The Eebellion may seem to be vanquished, and yet it will triumph. Tlie Union may seem to conquer, and yet it will succumb. The EepubHc may seem to be saved, and yet it will be lost, — handed over a prey to that injustice which, so long as it exists, must challenge the judgments of a right eous God, Thus, for the sake of peace, which we all desire, do I now plead for Freedom, through which alone peace can be secured. Are you earnest for peace ? then must you be earnest for Freedom also. Would you uphold the Union against treason ? then must you uphold Free dom, without which bloody treason will flourish over us. But Freedom is adopted by Congress and pro claimed by the President as one of the agencies in the prosecution of the war. Therefore it must be main tained with all our souls and all our hearts and all our might. The hour of debate has passed, the hour of action has sounded. In opposing solemn Acts of Congress, which, according to the Constitution, are now the supreme law of the land, passed for the national defence, — in opposing the Proclamation of the Presi dent, — nay, in discouraging Freedom, — you are as bad as if you discouraged enlistments. It is through Freedom, as well as arms, that the war will be waged ; and the same loj^alty that supports the one is now due to the other. The discouragement of enlistments is recognized as seditious and traitorous ; but the dis couragement of this new force, adopted by the Gov ernment for the suppression of the Eebellion, is only anotlier form of seEtion and treason, which an indig- THE PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION. 233 nant patriotism will spurn. Emancipation is now a war measure, to be sustained as you sustain an army in the field. If the instincts of patriotism did not prompt this sup port, I should find a sufficient motive in that duty which we all owe to the Supreme Euler, God Almighty, whose visitations upon our country are now so fearful. Not rashly would I make myself the interpreter of His will ; and yet I am not blind. According to a venerable maxim of jurisprudence, "Whoso would have equity must do equity " ; and God plainly requires equity at our hands. We cannot expect success while setting at nought this requirement, proclaimed in His divine char acter, in the dictates of reason, and in the examples of history, — proclaimed, also, in the events of this pro tracted war. Terrible judgments have fallen upon the country : plagues have been let loose, rivers have been turned into blood, and there is a great cry throughout the land, for there is not a house where there is not one dead ; and at each judgment we seem to hear that terri ble voice which sounded in the ears of Pharaoh : " Thus saith the Lord God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me,'' I know not how others are touched, but I cannot listen to the frequent tidings of calamity descending upon our arms, of a noble soldier lost to his country, of bereavement at the famEy hearth, of a youthful son brought home dead to his mother, without catching the warning, " Let my people go ! " Nay, every wound, every sorrow, every hardship, aE that we are compelled to bear in taxation, in want, in derangement of business, has a voice crying, " Let my people go ! " 234 THE PEOCLAM.VnON OF EMANCIPATION. And now, thank God, the word is spoken ! — greater word was seldom spoken. Emancipation has begun, and our country is already ele^'ated and glorified. The war has not changed in object, but it has changed in charac ter. ' Its object now, as at the beginning, is simply to put down the EebeEiou ; but its character is derived from the new force at length enlisted, stamping itself upon all that is done, and absorbing the whole var to itself \am will it be again to delude European na tions iuto foolish behef that Slavery has nothing to do with the war, that it is a war for empire on one side and independence on the other, and that all generous ideas are on the side of the EebeEion, And vain, also, \\'ill be that other European cry, — whether from an intemper ate press or the cautious lips of statesmen, — that sepa ration is inevitable, and that our Government is doomed to witness the dismemberment of the Eepublic. With this new alliance, such forebodings will be falsified, the wishes of the fathers will be fulfilled, and the rights of human nature, which were the declared object of our Eevolution, vindicated. Thus inspired, the sword of Washington — that sword which, according to his last will and testament, was to be drawn only in self-defence, or in defence of country and its rights — will once more marshal our armies to victory, while the national flag, wherever it floats, wiE give freedom to all beneath its folds, and the proud inscription be at last triumphantly verified : " Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable," But, fellow-citizens, the war we wage is not merely for ourselves, it is for all mankind. Slavery yet lingers in Brazil, and beneath the Spanish flag in those two THE PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION, 235 golden possessions, Cuba and Porto Eico ; but nowhere can it survive extinction here. Therefore we conquer for Liberty everywhere. In ending Slavery here we open its gates aE over the world, and let the oppressed go free. Nor is this aE. In saving the EepubEc we save Civilization. Man throughout his long pilgrimage on earth has been compeEed to suffer much, but Slavery is the heaviest burden he has been called to bear : it is the only burden our country has been called to bear. Let it drop, and this happy Eepublic, with humanity in its train, aE changed in raiment and in countenance, like the Christian Pilgrim, wEl hurry upward to the celestial gate. If thus far our example has faEed, it is simply because of Slavery. Vain to proclaim our unparaEeled prosperity, the comfort diffused among a numerous people, resources without stint, or even the education of our children; the enemies of the Eepub Ec had but to say, " There is Slavery," and our example became powerless. But let Slavery disappear, and the same example will be of irresistible might. Without firing a gun or writing a despatch, it wEl revolutionize the world. Therefore the battle we fight belongs to the grandest events of history. It constitutes one of those epochs from which humanity will date. It is one of the battles of the ages, as when the millions of Persia were hurled back from Greece, or when the Mohammedans, victors in Africa and Spain, were hurled back from France by Charles Martel, and Western Europe was saved to Chris tianity, In such a cause no effort too great, no faith too determined. To die for country is pleasant and honorable. But all who die for country now die also for humanity. Wherever they lie in bloody fields, they will 236 THE PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION. be remembered as heroes through whom the EepubEc was saved aud civilization established forever. But there are duties elsewhere than in bloody conflict. Each of us, in his place at home, by his best efforts, can do something, not only to sustain the soldier in the field, but also t(j uphold that sublime eEct which will be to the soldier both sw(.)rd and buckler, vdiile it gi-\'es to the conflict aE the grandeur of a great idea. In this hour of trial let none fail. Above all, let none go over to the eueiuy, even should his tents for the moment be pitched in Faneuil Hall,^ assured that there can be but two par ties : the party of our country, with the President for its head, and Emancipation its glorious watchword ; and the party of Eebellion, with Jeflerson l)a\is for its head, and no other watchword than Slavery. 1 What was called " The People's Convention " was to meet the next day in Faneuil HaU. See, ^os*. Appendix p. 241. APPENDIX, NOMINATION AND REELECTION OF ME. SUMNER. As this speech was made in the midst of the excitement in Massa chusetts on the nomination of Mr. Sumner as Senator, an account of that contest will not be out of place here. The early and active part taken by Mr, Sumner in favor of Emanci pation, and the urgency of his efforts against Slavery, excited against him an intense opposition, not only in Massachusetts, but throughout the conntry. He was denounced as second only to Jefferson Davis in hostility to the Constitution. But these attacks aroused the friends of Emancipation, who were unwilling to see their rejiresentative sac rificed. There were signs of this contest in the autumn of 1S61, when Mr. Sumner called for Emancipation as our best weapon. ^ Governor An drew saw it coming. In a letter, dated June 9, 1862, with reference to the appointment of officers in the Internal Revenue Bureau, he used the following language. " The Hunkers will make the most strenuous efforts to secure a large rep resentation in this agency, so that, by means of their influence with the people (and in travelling from town to town), they can poison the minds of prominent citizens against you, and accomplish your defeat by securing a Legislature favorable to their purposes. " Depend upon it, that they are calculating largely upon the Tax Bill as an element in their desperate 'strategy' for the fall campaign," The New York Tribune, in a vigorous article, June 24, 1862, enti tled "Mr. Sumner's Seat," set forth reasons "why many earnest Ee- publicans in other States would regret the retirement of Mr. Sumner.'' Here it said : — " Most of our Republican statesmen have a political history antecedent to our existing organizations. Mr. Sumner, nearly alone, is nowhere reg.irded as having Whig or Democratic predilections, but as purely and wholly Re- l See, ante, Vol. VI. pp 1-64. 2:38 THE PROCLAMATION OF EMAXCFI'ATIOX. publican. Other statesmen, however profoundly Republican, rej^ard collat eral questions with an observing mterest: the Tariff, the Currency, the Pa cific Railroad, &c., largely engross their attention. iMr. Sumner profoundly believes it of paramount, absorbing interest that the nation should be just, even to her humblest, mo^t despised children, and that Righteousness is the es.'^cntial condition of material and other prosperity. Novci- inattentive to or neglectful of any public duty, never even accused of sacriticing or oppos ing the interest of iMa-sachusetts in any matter of legislation, lie is yet known to believe that her interests can never be truly promoted by sacrificing tiiosc of Humanity. In an age nf venality and of uncharitable suspicion, he was never even suspected of giving a mercenary or selfish vote; in an atniosphero wdiere every man is supposed to have his price, and to be scheming and striving for self-aggrandizement, no man ever suggested that Charles Sum ner was animated by sinister impulses, or that he would barter or stifle his convictions for the Presidency. The one charge brought against him by his many bitter adversaries imports that he is aj'unatlc, — not that it was ever imagined that he is the special devotee of any fane or sect, but that he sin cerely believes it the end of civil government to hasten the coming of Ood's earthly kingdom by causing His justice lo pervade every act, every relation, and thus making the earth, so far as human imperfection will permit, a vestibule of heaven.'' In warning; against possible combination to defeat his rei^lection, the article said : — *' AU that the Republicans of other States can and do ask is, that no back stairs intrigue, no chimney-corner arrangement, shall send to Boston a Legis lature secretly pledged to oust him, and elected by constituencies profoundly ignorant of any such manipulation All we ask i^, that those who vote at the polls to supersede Mr. Sumner in the Senate shall know for what they vote, and not be duped by professions only made to deceive." The adverse spirit showed itself at a large public meeting in New York, July 1st, wliii'h was entitled by the Herald, '* The Anti-Abo lition and Anti-Secession Movement. — Disunion the Fruit of Aboli tion." Here Plon. "William Duer, of Oswego, seemed to heconu^ the mouthpiece of the excited multitude, '* No emancipation and turning loose upon them hordes of uncivilized and ignorant Afi'icans No tyrant in history has ever made his name exe crated by measures more despicable than such as those proposed liy the Abolitionists for the humiliation and destruction of the South. The South ern people have been deluded by their leaders in the same way as the North ern people, and, in his opinion, the next man who walked up the scaffold nfrer Jefierson Davis should be Charles Sumner. [Loitd and long-continued ap/ilanse, mingled with hooting and groans fur Sumner. Some person in the meeting attempted to saij a word in his favor., hut his voice loas quicHy droicned in load shouts of ' Put him out .' '] " APPENDIX. 239 This is from the Herald. The same incident is thus reported in the Tribune. " And if we came to hanging eveiy traitor in this country in the order of their guilt, the next man who marched upon the scaffold after Jefferson Da- vi> would be Charles Sumner. [Loud applause, the greatest of the ereninfj thus far. Groans for Sumner. Great excitement. Cries of ^ Put him out ! ^ Cries, ' T17(t're is Horace Greeley ? '] " A correspondent of a Boston paper, taking up the strain, echoed it for the beneflt of Massachusetts. " There are now two war-cries in New York, and the great Union mastiff is as ready to pounce upon one of the brutes as upon the other. If there are two parties outside of the doomed radicals, they are those, the most violent of them, who would hang Jeff. Davis and Sumner together, and those who woidd hang Davis first and Sumner afterwards. "If Sumner is reelected to the Senate, he may not find it convenient to pass through this city. That his name is odious, infamous, is not all, — it is cursed and abominable. The blood of thousands sacrificed to his ambi tion and personal revenge cries to Heaven against him, and if a Massachu setts Legislature can still support him by its vote, those who do so will de serve to lose their children at the altar of this Moloch." The JVew York Herald foUowed with a leader, July 16th, entitled, ' ' Senators Wade and Sumner, " wliich, after announcing that the terms of these Senators would expire on the 4th of March next, made the foUowing appeal. " By the foulest means they have succeeded in clogging the wheels of our progress in the war, aud have made another year of battles unavoidable. Had it not been for them and their coadjutors, the war would have been over and the Union restored on the Fourth of July instant. More than any other men they are responsible for the useless sacrifice of blood and treasure in the past, and for the three hundred thousand more men and five hundred millions more doUars which will have to be perilled in the future. Practically, and in the most emphatic sense, they are traitors to the country and enemies of the nation. From them, more than from a thousand Vallandigbams, ,Teff. Davis has received aid and comfort; for they have strengthened his forces by exasperating the South and by dividing and weakening the North, We hope that the loyal men of Massachusetts and Ohio will raise these questions in the coming elections for State legislators, and vote down every man who is pledged or who intends to vote for the reelection of these twin traitors, Sumner and Wade. They have only escaped Fort Lafayette and the gallows because the Govemment has distrusted its own power and misunderstood the sentiments of the loyal people. Let this misunderstanding now end, and let Messrs, Sumner and Wade find, when they return to their homes, that they are held personally and politically responsible for their infamous and treasonable course," 240 THE PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION. The friends of Emancipation in Massachusetts were not inactive. The issue thus presented was accepted by the formal nomination of Mr, Sumner, at the annual KepubUcan State Convention at Worcester, September lOtli. The Convention was organized by the choice of the following offi cers, Pn:siih-nt, — Hon, Alexander H. Bullock of Worcester. Vice-Presidents, — District 1, Nathaniel Coggswell of Yarmouth ; Dis trict 2, J. H, D. Blake of Brtiintree ; District 3, Theodore Otis of Kox- bury ; District 4, Ncheniiah Boynton of (_!helsea ; District 5, Timothy Davis of Gloucester ; District 6, George Foster of Andover ; District 7, Chauncey L, Knapp of Lowell ; District 8, V.alorous Taft of Upton ; District 9, Joel Hayden of Williamsburg ; District 10, George L. Wiiglit of West Springfield. At Liinjc, — John Bertram of Salem, George Mo- rey of Boston, Tappan Wentworth of Lowell, Ensign H. KeUogg of Pittsfield, Cliarles G. Davis of Plymouth, Henry Alexander, Jr., of Springfield. Secretaries, — Stephen N. Stockwell of Boston, Willi.am M. Walker of Pittsfield, Joseph B. Thaxter, Jr,, of Hingham, William T, HoUis of Plymouth, Thomas B. Gardner of Boston, Joel Hayden, Jr., of Wil liamsburg, John A, Andrew was re-nominated for Governor by acclamation, J. Q, A, Griffin, of Charlestown, introduced u, resolution approving the course of the two Senators, and nominating Mr, Sumner for reelection as Senator, and at the same time said : — "Remember, it is our duty not onl}'' to sustain the arms of the Generals in tlie field, but likewise to sustain the President in bis seat, the Cabinet in its counsels, the Governor in his chair, and, ahore all, the fearless legislator in his duty. [Loud applause, and cries of ' Gnml .' '] " i\Ir. Griffin was followed by Frederick Robinson, of Marblehead, who hoped that the resolution would be adopted unanimously, and also an other, expressing the opinion of Massachusetts in favor of Emancipa tion, George F. Hoar, of Worcester, agreed with Mr. Robinson. As to ihe resolution approving Charles Sumner and Henry Wilson, " he liked that," but he wished, also, " an expression of the opinion of this Con vention, that it is the duty of the United States Government, in the further prosecution of the war, to strike the RebeUion where it is weak est." The different propositions were then referred to a committee. -At this .stage the letter of Jlr. Sumner to the Convention was presented and read by Mr, Clafiin.' 1 See, ante, p. 187. APPENDIX. 241 Among the resolutions subsequently reported were the two follow ing, " Resolved, That the most decisive measures for the complete and perma nent suppression of this Rebellion are the most prudent, and that, as the iiiotiiution of Slavery is a principal support of it, that institution shall be exterminated." "Resolved, That we recognize and acknowledge the preeminent merits and services of our Senators in the Congress of the United States, the Hon. Charles Sumner and the Hon, Henry Wilson. In the posts of duty assigned them by the suffrages of their brother Senators, one as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the other as Chairman of the Commit tee on Jlilitary Affairs, they have cordially and unreservedly, and with mas terly ability, supported all governmental measures, and fitly represented the Commonwealth as among the most cheerful and enthusiastic defenders of the Government. And now that the second term of our senior Senator is drawing to a close, we desire to express our warm approbation of his course and appreciation of his services, and to commend him to the suffrages of his fellow-citizens, whom he has served so well, that the Commonwealth may again honor itself by returning to duty at the capital a statesman, a scholar, a patriot, and a man of whom any republic iu any age might be proud." The whole series, as read, was received with intense enthusiasm, espe cially that against Slavery. A motion was made to amend by striking out that part recommending the reelection of Mr. Sumner, which was voted down promptly, and the resolution was unanimously adopted. The action of the Convention presented two distinct issues, — first, the extermination of Slavery, and, secondly, the reelection of Mr. Sum ner. There was at once a counter movement, A call was put forth for what was called a " People's Convention," at Faneuil Hall, October 7th, whose main object was to defeat the action of the Republican Conven tion, and especiaUy the reelection of Mr. Sumner. It was supposed that in this way all the elements of opposition could be united. This plan received an unexpected check by the Proclamation of Emancipation of September 22d. It could no longer be said that the Republican Party of Massachusetts and Mr. Sumner were not in entire harmony with the President. Meanwhile Mr. Sumner addressed his feUow-citizens at Faneuil Hall, October 6th, in vindication of the Proclamation, On the succeeding day the " People's Convention " assembled in the same place and nominated candidates for State offices in opposition to the Republicans. The tone of this Convention appears in a brief extract from the speech of Hon. John 6, Abbott, of Boston. After alluding to the various interests of Massachusetts, he said : — VOL. VII. 11 242 THE PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION, "And I tell you. Gentlemen, — and every heart here responds to it, — every heart out of this hall would respond to it, if the lips would speak the language of the heart, — I tell you. Gentlemen, we want men in the Halls of Congress, in the House of Representatives, and, above and beyond all, in the Senate Chamber, who will attend to those interests, and not be continu ally, as they have been. Sir, attending to mere wild speculations and senti mental theories. [Applause.] Do not the people cry out, ' For God's sake, give us somebody who believes there is something to be attended to in tho wants of a million and a quarter of white men, women, aud children ''i* [Great applause.] " The spirit of this Convention was thus described by the Norfolk County Journal : — " The partisanship of the People's Convention all centres in opposition to Charles Sumner. It is as pure an instance of personal hate on the part of its leaders as was ever exhibited. Tliis animosity comes solely from the fact that he was the earliest and has been the most jjersistent advocate ofwltat is now thepolicy of the nation. They hate Mr. Sumner, not because he is per sonally unamiable, not because there is a flaw in his moral character or a doubt as to the purity of his intentions, not because he has not represented the opinion of Massachusetts, aud faithfully advocated her best interests on every point affecting her material prosperity. They have commenced this personal crusade solely because he has been the most conspicuous and un compromising foe to the encroachments of Southern Slavei-y. And now that the President has ranged himself on Mr. Sumner's side, in opposing him they oppose the Administration." On the next day, the Democratic Convention at Worcester adopted the nominations of the " People's Convention," so that the elements of opposition seemed to be united. The President of the Convention in his remarks announced the common object. " Let me, then, appeal to you to come here with one heart and with kindly feelings towards all, entertaining respect for the opinions of all, so that, when this Convention shall have adjourned, a voice will go forth throughout this Commonwealth, that the day of John A. Andrew and Charle's Sumner is ended. [Prolonged cheers.] " Other speeches followed in the same tone, and insisting upon union " to beat Sumner and Andrew." The issue was thus presented to the people of Massachusetts, and throughout the Commonwealth the election of Senators and Represent atives turned mainly upon it. If the attack was vigorous, so also was the defence. Of the latter a few illustrations will suffice. The first is from Wendell PhiUips, who, in an address at Music Hall, Sunday fore- n.jon, November 2d, said : — APPENDIX. 243 "I say this much, before turning again to my Immediate subject, for our great Senator, who has done justice to the manufacturing interests and the shipping of Massachusetts, as Webster did, and also justice to her conscience aud her thought, as Webster did not. [Applause.'] I do not wish to take one leaf from the laurel of the great Defender of the Constitution; he I'ests at ilarshfield, beneath the honors he fairly earned. But we have put in his place a man far more practical than he was; we have put in his place the hardest worker that Massachusetts ever sent to the Senate of the United States [ap~ plrnise'] ; we have put in his place the Stonewall Jackson of the floor of the Senate, — ^ patient of labor, untiring iu effort, boundless iu resources, terribly in earnest, — the only man who, in civil affairs, is to be compared with the great teiTor of the Union armies, the General of the Virginia forces: both ideologists, both horsed on an idea, and both men whom a year ago the drudges of State Street denounced, or would have denounced, as unpractical and impracticable; but when the war-bugle sounded through the land, both were found to be the only men to whom Carolina and Massachusetts hasted to give the batons of the opposing hosts." John G. Whittier, whose words of flame had done so much in the long Avaifare with Slavery, w^as aroused from his retirement to testify. In the Amesbury Villager^ near his home, he wrote : — "In looking over the speeches and newspapers of his active opponents, it really seems to me, that, if ever a man was hated and condemned for his very virtues, it is this gentleman. Nobody accuses him of making u.se of his high position for his own personal emolument; no shadow of suspicion rests upon the purity of his private or public character; no man can point to an in stance in which he has neglected any duty properly devolving upon him; no interest of his State has been forgotten or overlooked; no citizen has ap pealed to him in vain for kindly offices and courteous hearing and atten tion. As Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Affairs, his industry and ability have never been denied by his bitterest enemies. All admit that he has rendered important service to his Government. What, then, is his crime ? Simply and solely this, that he stands inflexibly by his principles, — -that he is too hearty in his hatred of the monstrous Wrong which initiated and still sustains the present Rebellion, — that in advance of his contemporaries he saw the danger and proclaimed it, — that he heartily sustains the Presi dent in his Proclamation, — that he is in favor of destroying the guilty cause of all our national calamities, that red-handed murderer and traitor against whom the sighs and groans of Massachusetts wives and mothers, weeping m every town and hamlet for dear ones who are not, are rising in swift witness to God. *' This is his crime, his real offence, in the eyes of his leading opponents. I know it has been said that he is too much a man of ideas, and not a states man. That he is not a politician, in the modern sense of tiie word, I admit ; and if indirection, trickery, and the habit of looking upon men, parties, and principles as mere stock in trade and tools of convenience are the qualifica- 244 THE PROCLAM.VTION OF EMANCIPATION, tions of statecraft, then he is not a statesman. But if a thorough compre hension of the great principles of law and political economy, of aU which constitutes the true honor and glory and pro^|H¦rity of a people, — if the will and ability to master every question as it arises, — if entire familiarity with the history, resources, laws, and policy of other nations, derived not merely from the study of books, but from free personal intercourse with the leading minds of Europe, are essential requisites of statesmanship, then i,, Charles Suranor a statesman in the noblest and truest sense, Certahi it is that he is so regarded by the diplomatic representatives of European nations, and that no man in the country has so entirely the confidence and esteem of all who are really our friends in the Old World." Horace Greeley, in au article under his own name in the New \''ork Indcprndeiit, and entitled, "Charles Sumner as a Statesman, " united with the liepublieans of Massachusetts, " For the first time in our political history, a party has been organized and a State ticket nominated for the sole purpose of defeating the reiilection of one who is not a State officer, and never aspired to be. Governor Andrew is regarded with a hostilif>' intensified by the fewness of those who feel it; but the bitterness with which Mr. Sumner is hated insists on the gralifica- tion of a canvass, even tlmugh a hopeless one ; and, since there was no ex isting partv bv which this could be attempted without manifest futility, one was organized for the purpose. And it was best that this should be. Let us have a census of the friends and the enemies of Mr, Sunmer in the State which he has so honored. " I have said, that, while other Senators have shared his convictions, none has seemed so emphatically, so eminently, as he to embody and represent the growing, deepening Antislavery sentiment of the country. None has seemed so invariably to realize that a public wrong is a public danger, that injustice to the humblest and weakest is peril to the well-being of all. Oth ers have seemed to regard the recent developments of disunion and treason with surprise and alarm: he lias esteemed them the bitter, but natural, fruit of the deadly tree we have so long been watering and cherishing. The pro found, yet simple truth, that ' Righteousness exalteth a nation,' — that nothing else is so baleful as injustice, — that the country which gains a large accession of territory or of wealth at the cost of violating the least tittle of the canons of eternal rectitude has therein made a ruinous mistake, — that nothing else can be so important or so profitable as stern uprightness : such is the kev-note of his lofty and beneficent career. May it be vouch safed him to announce from his seat in the Senate the final overthrow of the demon he has so faithfully, so nobly resisted, and that from Greenland to Panama, from the St. John to the Pacific, the sun in his daily course looks down on no master and no slave 1 " A single incident will illustrate the interest excited throughout the Commonwealth. A venerable citizen of New Bedford, seventy-nine APPENDIX. 245 years of age and very feeble, was assisted to the poUs, saying, ' ' Here goes a dying vote for Charles Sumner I " The triumphant result of the election was known at once. It was declared officially on the meeting of the Legislature, January 15, 1863, at twelve o'clock, each branch of the Legislature proceeded, by special assignment, to vote for a Senator to represent Massachusetts for six years from March 4th next ensuing. The vote in each branch was vivd voce, the roll being called and each member pronouncing the name of the candidate he voted for. In the Senate, the vote was, — Charles Sumner, of Boston . , , 33 Josiah G, Abbott, of Boston 6 Charles Francis Adams, of Quincy , . . 1 In the House of Representatives, the vote was, — Charles Sumner , . 194 Josiah G, Abbott 38 Caleb Cushing . . 2 Charles Francis Adams , 1 In the House there were slight manifestations of applause when the result was announced, but they were promptly checked by the Speaker. The result was noticed by the press throughout the country. The venerable National Intelligencer, at Washington, which had been op posed to the principles and policies of Mr, Sunmer, employed the fol lowing generous terms. " This is the third time that this gentleman has been thus honored by the Legislature of Massachusetts. Such repeated tokens of confidence would seem sufficiently to indicate, that, whatever dissent from the views of Jlr. Sumner may elsewhere exist, he is the favorite, as he is admitted by all to be the able, representative of the opinions entertained by a majority of the people of this great and influential State, And these views now predomi nate in the conduct of the present Administration, which may be said to have adopted, reluctantl.v and at a late day, the political and military policy e.arly commended to its favor by Jlr. Sumner. " If we are not able to concur with Mr. Sumner in certain of his opinions on questions of domestic politics, it gives us only the greater pleasure to bear our cheerful and candid testimony to the enlightened judgment ami peculiar qualifications he brings to the discharge of the important duties devolved on him as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate. In this capacity he has deservedly won the confidence of the whole country," Such testimony from ". political opponent attested the change that had occurred in public policy and private feeUng, 246 THE PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION. The Tribune exhibited the change in yet stronger light, "By a vote of nearly six to one, Massachusetts again declares her confi dence in her long-tried Senator, and, on an issue defined with unmistakable clearness, for the third time returns him to his seat, " The contrast between his present position and that which he held on first entering the Senate is instructive. Theu an arrogant Democratic majority with unequalled effrontery declared him outside of any healthy political or ganization, excknled hira from the Committees, denied him p.arliamentary courtesies, and withheld the common civilities of social intercourse and ac quaintance. There were hardly three or four Senators in Congress who were in any degree identified with his opinions. He declared theni none the less boldly, anil his speeches for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, on the Nebraska Bill, and on the Crime against Kansas finally exasperateil the slaveholding oligarchy into personal violence, and for words spoken in orderly debate he was brutally assaulted on the floor of the Senate and seriously injured. This outrage, and the enthusiastic approval with which it was received throughout the South, were largely instrumental in rousing the North to a right estimate of the system and the political power which sought such means of defence." The Liberator, by the pen of its faithful and able editor, William Lloyd Garrison, gave expression to the sentiments of those most en listed against Slavery, " Thus has Jlassachusetts nobl.v vindicated her name and fame as the foremost State of all the world in the cause of free institutions, and tram pled beneath her feet the malignant aspersions cast upon the political repu tation other gifte 1 Senator by the minions of a traitorous Slave Oligarchy, The vote is an overwhelming one, notwithstanding the desperate etforts of Jlr. Sumner's enemies to make his defeat a sure event. Such enemies only serve to prove his personal worth and public usefulness, and their factious and profligate character. " Jlr. Sumner's friends in JVasbington proposed, last week, to give him a serenade in honor of liis reiilection to the Senate; but, hearing of their inten tion, he declared that the compliment was not in accordance with the pres ent condition of public affairs, and intimated that he preferred that the funds subscribed for the music should be donated to the JIassachusetts Soldiers' Relief Association, which was done." In Mr. Sumner's reelection the cause of Emancipation triumphed, and Massachusetts was fixed irrevocably on that side. THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION OUR CORNER-STONE. Letter to Fellow-Citizens at Salem, October 10, 1862, Boston, October 10, 1862, GENTLEMEN, — I feel flattered by your invitation, where I recognize so many excellent names, and shall be happy to take advantage of the opportunity with which you honor me. The Emancipation Proclamation of the President, on which you ask me to speak, is now the corner-stone of our national policy. For the sake of our country, and in loyalty to our Government, it ought to have the best support of every patriot citizen, without hesitation or lukewarmness. Now is the time for earnest men. If agreeable to you, I accept your invitation for Mon day evening, 20th October. Believe me. Gentlemen, with much respect, Faithfully yours, Charles Sumner. FARMERS, THEIR HAPPINESS AND LIBERAL SENTIMENTS. Speech at the Dinner of the Hampshire County AoRicrLTtrHAL Society, at Northampton, Mass,, October li, 1802. At the dinner which followed the cattle-show, Mr, Sumner was in troduced by Hon. Erastus Hopkins, who commenced by alluding to their early days at the Boston Latin School, " Gextlemes;, — It is now full forty years, when at school I had a school mate and a classmate who in point of physical altitude and breadth, Init more especially (I am no flatterer, T only speak historic truth) in point of diligence and scholarship, \\-\s primus inter pares, — first among equals. That boy was father of the man. He now holds the position of Senator in the Senate of the United States, with a relative eminence no less than that of his earlier days. He is the valued servant and the honored Senator of JIassachusetts, whom she has hitherto delighted to honor, and whom, so long as she remains true to her cherished sentiments, to her gushing instincts, and to her memorable bistort', she will ever honor. [Loud applause.] "We were told yesterday by the Rev, Dr. Huntington, in his admira ble address delivered in this hall, that the farmer owed his first duty to his land, — to care for it, to fertilize it, and to beautify it. Recurring to this point, at the close of his address, he reminded the farmer that ' duty to his land' was susceptible of a double meaning: the one referring to the few acres of his own individual and exclusive proprietorship; the other, to that great land, that vast country, which he owned, and to which he owed duty, in common with all his fellow-citizens, " 1 do not know that the honorable Senator owns, or ever did o^m, in sep arate proprietorship, any acres of land, — that he ever held the plough, or ' drove the team a-ficld ' ; I do not know whether he intends to enlighten us with regard to the care .and culture of our homesteads and our farms; but I do know that he understands the farmer's ' duty to his land,' in the secondar}' and higher sense to which allusion has been made, — that, looking over our wide country, our rich heritage, and heritage of our fathers, he has been ever diligent and untiring in his endeavors to remove its deformities, to aug ment its fertility, and to crown it with beauty. FARMERS, THEIR HAPPINESS. 249 " To which department of farming the Senator will direct his remarks I know not ; but, whatever his topic, I submit without fear his words of in struction and of eloquence to the ordeal of your verdict. " I have the honor to introduce to you the Hon. Chakles Su-mnek." Mr, Sumner spoke as follows, Mr. President, Ladies, and Gentlemen : — I CANNOT forget the first time that I looked upon this beautiful valley, where river, meadow, and liill contribute to the charm. It was while a youth in col lege. With several of my classmates I made a pedestrian excursion through Massachusetts. Starting from Cam bridge, we passed, by way of Sterling and Barre, to Am herst, where, arriving weary and footsore, we refreshed ourselves at the evening prayer in the College Chapel. From Amherst we walked to Northampton, and then, as cending Mount Holyoke, saw the valley of the Connec ticut spread out before us, with river of silver winding through meadows of gold. It was a scene of enchant ment, and time has not weakened the impression it made. From Northampton we walked to Deerfield, sleeping near Bloody Brook, and then to Greenfield, where we turned off by Coleraine through dark woods and over hiUs to Bennington in Vermont, The whole excursion was deeply interesting, but no part more so than your valley. Since then I have been a traveller at home aud abroad, but I know no similar scene of greater beauty. I have seen the meadows of Lombardy, and those historic rivers, the Ehine and the Arno, and that stream of Charente, which Henry the Fourth called the most beautiful of France, — also those Scottish rivers so famous in legend and song, and the exquisite fields and sparkling waters of Lower Austria ; but my youth- 11* 250 farmers, their happiness ful joy in the landscape which I witnessed from the neighboring hiU-top has never been surpassed in any kindred scene. Other places are richer in the asso ciations of history ; but you have enough already in what Nature has done, without waiting for any further illustration. It is a saying of Antiquity, often quoted : " Oh, too fortunate husbandmen, if they only knew their bless ings ! " ^ Nowhere are these words more applicable than to this neighborhood, where Nature has done so much, and where all that Nature has done is enhanced by an intelligent and liberal spirit. An eminent French writer, one of the greatest of his country, who wrote in the middle of the last century, when France was a despot ism, Montesquieu, has remarked in his " Spirit of Laws," that " countries are not cultivated in proportion to their fertility, but in proportion to their liberty," ^ A beauti ful truth. But here in this valley are both. Where is there greater fertility ? where is there truer liberty ? If the farmers of our country needed anything to stimulate pride in their vocation, it would be found in the statistics furnished by tlie national census. That of 1860 is not yet prepared, and I go back to that of 1850, Here it appears, that, out of the whole em ployed population of the United States over fifteen years of age, two millions four hundred thousand, or forty-four per cent, were engaged in agricultural pur suits, while the total number engaged in commerce, trade, manufactures, mechanic arts, and mining was only one million six hundred thousand, or about thirty 1 "0 fortunatos nimium, sua si bona norint, Agricolas! " Georgic, Lib. II, 458, 459. 2 De I'Esprit des Lois, Liv, XVIII. ch, 3. and LIBERAL SENTIMENTS. 251 per cent. These figures show an immense predominance of the agricultural interest in the whole country. Of course in Massachusetts the commercial and manufac turing interests are relatively larger than in other parts of the country. But our farmers are numerous. This same census shows, that, in 1850, the four largest staples of our country, ranking them according to their nominal value, were : Indian corn, two hundred and ninety-six million dollars ; wheat, one hundred mil lion dollars ; cotton, ninety-eight million dollars ; hay, ninety-six million doUars. These figures, of course, are famdiar, but they are so instructive that they will bear repetition. Besides illustrating the magnitude of our agricultural interests, they shed new light on the lofty pretensions that have been made for King Cotton. There is no crown for hay, or wheat, or Indian corn, and yet two of these stand above cotton. But the whole table testifies to the power of the farmer. From another quarter are statistics showing how ag ricultural pursuits favor longevity. Out of seventeen hundred persons, the average life .of farmers was forty- five years ; of mercha.nts, thirty-three years ; of mechan ics, twenty-nine years ; and of laborers, twenty-seven years. Thus length of days seems to be an agricultural product. Gratifying as it may be to glance at agriculture in these statistics, which must arouse the pride, if not the content of the farmer, there are other aspects which to my mind are more interesting. In early days agri culture was only an art, most imperfectly developed. The plough of the ancient husbandman was little more than a pole with a stick at the end by which the earth was scratched, and other implements were of like sim- 252 FARMERS, THEIR HAPPINESS plicity. As for the knowdedge employed, it was all of the most superficial character. But agriculture is now not only an art, in a high degree of perfection, it is also a science, with its laws and rules, as much as nav igation or astronomy. There is no knowledge which will not help the farmer ; especially is tliere no branch of science, Geograpliy, geology, meteorology, botany, chemistry, zoology, and animal physiology, all contrib ute. Itegarding agriculture in this light, we cannot fail to give the fanner a high standard of excellence. In the cultivation of the earth he practises an art and pur sues a science. But human character is elevated by the standard which is followed. There is another feature in the life of the farmer which is to me more interesting still. The farmer is patriotic and liberal. Dependent upon Nature, he learns to be independent of Man, If not less than others un der the influence of local prejudices, he is at least re moved from those combinations engendered by the spirit of trade. He thinks for himself, and acts for his country. I do not venture to say that he is nat urally a reformer, but I think the experience of our country attests that he does not set himself against the ideas of the age. Here Mr. Sumner dwelt on that spirit of obstructiveness which is so common, illustrating it by historic instances, and then proceeded. I rejoice to believe that there is no such hide-bound indifference to liberal ideas among our farmers. But, just in proportion as these are numerous, intelligent, powerful, and liberal, do they constitute an arm of strength. Pardon me, if now more than ever I see them in this character. In appealing to them for the AND LIBERAL SENTIMENTS. 253 sake of our country, I make no appeal inconsistent with the proprieties of this occasion. Our country is in peril, and it must be saved. This is enough. Under God, our country will be saved through the united energy, the well-compacted vigor of the people directed by the President of the United States, Our first duty is to stand by the President, and to hold up his hands. There must be no hesitation or timidity. If he calls for troops, he must have them. If, besides calling for troops, he enlist other agencies for the sup pression of the Rebellion, he must be sustained precisely as in caUing for troops. Thus far the main dependence has been troops, to wliich our honored Commonwealth has made generous contributions. No part of the country has suffered more in gaUant officers, youthful, gentle, and exceUent in aU things. This neighborhood has its story of sorrow. Am herst has buried the pure and patriotic Stearns, and only within a few days here in Northampton you have re ceived from the field of death the brave and accom phshed Baker. And now at last a new power is invoked, being noth ing less than that great Proclamation of the President which places Liberty at the head of our columns. Mr. Sumner here explained the immediate and prospective effects of the Proclamation, and then closed as follows. It is sometimes said that this edict is unconstitutional. Some there are with whom the Constitution is a con stant stumbling-block, wherever anything is to be done for Freedom. It cannot be so, I trust, with the liberal farmers of this valley. Of course, the Edict of Eman cipation is to be regarded as a war measure, made in the 254 FARMERS, THEIR HAPPINESS. exercise of the Rights of War. It is as much a war measure as the proclamation calling forth troops, and is entitled to the same support. It is not a measure of Abolition or Antislavery, or of philanthropy, but a war measure, pure aud simple. If there be any person dis posed to discourage it, I warn him that lie dcjmrts from the duties of jjatrwtism hardly less than if he discouraged enlistments. There i,s but one course now before us. The policy of Emancipation, at last adopted as a war meas ure, must be sustained precisely as we sustain an army in the field. With this new and mighty agency I can not doubt the result. The Rebellion will be crushed, and the Republic will be elevated to heights of power and grandeur where it wUl be an example to mankind. It is related of the Emperor Julian, known as the Apos tate, — for he had once embraced Christianity, — that, perishing before he had struck the last blows prepared by hatred to the Church, ho looked at the blood wliich spurted from his side, and then cried, " Galilean, thou hast conquered ! " Whether fable or truth, the story has its meaning. Such a cry will yet be heard from the apostate chiefs in our Eebel States, " Liberty, thou hast conquered ! " — and the echo of this cry will be heard round the globe. Following the usage of your festival, I offer the fol lowing sentiment : — The Valley of the Connecticut. Happy in its fertility, and also in its beauty ; happier still in that inspiration of Liberty which is better than fertility or beauty. AMBULANCE AND HOSPITAL CORPS. Resolution in the Senate, December 3, 1862. The foUowing resolution, offered by Mr. Sumner, was adopted. RESOLVED, That the Committee on MUitary Af fairs and the Militia be directed to consider the expediency of providing by law for the establishment of a corps composed of men especially enlisted for hos pital and ambulance service, with officers commissioned purposely to command them, who shall have the entire charge, under the medical officers, of the hospitals and of the ambulance wagons, so as to enlarge the usefulness of this humane service, and give to it the efficiency derived from organization. CELEBRATION OF EMANCIPATION. Letter to a Poblio Meeting of Colored Citizens in Boston, January 1, 1863. Washington, January 1, 1863. MY DEAR SIR, — Owing to the wretched condition of the mails between New York and Washington, I did not receive your letter of the 27th in season for an answer to be used at the proposed meeting, I am glad that you celebrated the day. It deserved your celebration, your thanksgi^'ing, and your prayers. On that day an angel appeared upon the earth. Accept my best wishes for your association, and be lieve me, dear Sir, Faithfully yours, Charles Sumner. PRUDENCE IN OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. Remarks in the Senate, on Resolutions against French Inter ference IN Mexico, February 3, 1863. Ix the Senate, January 19th, Mr. McDougall, a Democratic Senator from California, introduced the following resolutions, setting forth the duty of the United States to take steps against French interference in Mexico. "Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the present attempt by the Government of France to subject the Republic of Mexico to her authority by anned force is a violation of the established and known rules of International Law, and that it is, moreover, a violation of the faith of France, pledged by the treaty made at London on the 31st day of October, 1861, between the allied Governments of Spain, France, and England, communicated to this Govemment over the signatures of the rep resentatives of the allies, by letter of the 30th day of November, 1861, and particularly and repeatedly assured to this Govemment through its minister resident at the Court of France, " Resolved further. That the attempt to subject the Republic of Mexico to French authority is an act not merely unfriendly to this Republic, but to free institutions everywhere; and that it is regarded by this Republic as not only unfriendly, but as hostile. " Resolved further. That it is the duty of this Republic to require of the Govemment of France that her armed forces.be withdrawn from the territo ries of Mexico, " Resolved further. That it is the duty and proper office of this Republic, now and at all times, to lend such aid to the Republic of Mexico ns is or may be required to prevent the forcible interposition of any of the States of Europe in the political affairs of that Republic. " Resolved further, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be communicated to the Government of Mexico the views now expressed by the two Houses of Congress, and be further requested to cause to be negotiated such treaty or treaties between the two Republics as will best tend to make these views effective." Q 258 PRUDENCE IN OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS, February 3d, Mr, McDougall moved to take them up for consider ation. His motion was opposed by Mr. Sumner, who said, among other things : — BUT, Sir, if the Senate had abundant time, like a mere debating society, and were free to select at will a topic for discussion, I surely should object at this moment to a debate which must be not only usidess, but worse than useless. I forbear from details at present, I wish to avoid them, unless rendered neci.',ssary. I con tent myself with saying that the resolutions either mean something or they mean notliing. If they mean noth ing, surely the Senate will not enter upon their discus sion. If they mean an^ thing, if they are not mere words, they mean war, and this no common war, but war with a great and adventurous nation, powerful in fleets and armies, bound to us by treaties and manifold traditions, and still constant in professions of amity and good-will. Sir, have we not war enough already on our hands, with out needlessly and wantonly provoking another ? For myself, I gi^'e all that I have of inteUectual action, and will, and heart, to the suppression of this Rebellion ; and never, by my consent, shaU the Senate enter upon a discussion the first effect of which wiU be aid and comfort to the Rebellion itself Mr. McDougall, in reply, said : "I tnist the Senate will dare to look the grave question of our foreign relations with France and Mex ico fairly, boldly, and openly in the face. 1 hope the Senate will not take counsel of its fears," Mr, .Sumner followed. Mr, President, — I, too, hope that the Senate wdl dare do everything that is right ; but I hope that it will not dare to embarrass the Government at this moment, and give aid and comfort to the Rebellion. I do not say PRUDENCE IN OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS, 259 that the Senator means to give such aid and comfort, but I do say that the very speech which has just faUen from him, to the extent of its influence, wiU give aid and comfort. Can any Senator doubt that all who sympathize with the Rebellion wUl rejoice to see this Senate discussing the question of peace and war with a great European power ? Can any one doubt that the Rebels over the way will rejoice and clap their hands, when they hear the tidings ? Sir, I wUI not give them any such encouragement. They shall not have it, if vote or voice of mine can prevent. I, too. Sir, am for the freest latitude of debate, but I am for the suppression of the RebeUion above and before, everything else ; and the desires of the Senate must all yield at this moment to the patriotic requirements of the country. There is a time for aU tilings. There is a time to weep, and there is a time to laugh. I do not know, that, in the chapter of national calamities, there may not be a time for further war; but I do say that the duty of states manship here in this Chamber is to set the foot down at once against any such proposition, which, just to the extent of its recognition, must add to present embar rassments. The resolutions were taken up for consideration by a vote of 29 yeas to 16 nays, when Mr. McDougall made an elaborate speech, Mr. Sum ner followed. Mr, President, — At the present moment there is one touchstone to which I am disposed to bring every question, especially in our foreign relations ; and this touchstone is its influence on the suppression of the RebeUion. A measure may in itself be just or expe dient ; but if it would be a present burden, if it would 260 PRUDENCE IN OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. add to our embarrassments and troubles, and especially if it would aggravate our mUitary condition, then, ^^dlat- ever may be its merits, I am against it. To the sup pression of the Rebellion the country offers life and treasure without stint, and it expects that these ener gies shaU not be sacrificed or impaired by the assump tion of any added responsibilities. If I bring these resolutions to this touchstone, they fail. They may be right or wrong in fact and principle, but their influence at this moment, if adopted, must be most prejudicial to the cause of the Union. Assuming the tone of friendship to Mexico, they practicaUy give to the Rebelhon a most powerful ally, for they openly chaUenge war with France, There is madness in the proposition. I do not question the motives of the Sen ator, but it would be difiicult to conceive anything more calcidated to aid and comfort the Rebellion, just in pro portion to its adoption. Sufficient unto the day is the evU thereof The present war is surely enough, without adding war with France, I content myself with this protest, without foUowing the Senator in a discussion which must be unprofitable, if not pernicious. I say nothing of France, whose power cannot be doubt ed, and whose friendship I would carefully cultivate. I say nothing of Mexico, our unhappy neighbor Re public, torn, as we now are, except to declare sympathy and cordial good-will. It is sufficient that the policy of the Senator from Cahfornia, without any certainty of good to Mexico, must excite the hostUity of France, and give to the Rebellion armies and fleets, not to mention that recog nition and foreign intervention which we deprecate. PRUDENCE IN OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. 261 Let US all unite to put down the Rebellion. This is enough for the present. If Senators are sensitive, when they see European monarchies again setting foot on this hemisphere, — entering Mexico with their armies, entering New Gre nada with their influence, and occupying the ancient San Domingo, — let them consider that there is but one way in which this return of empire can be arrested. It is by the suppression of the RebeUion. Let the Rebel lion be overcome, and this whole continent wUl fall nat uraUy, peacefully, and tranquiUy under the irresistible influence of American institutions. Resolutions cannot do this, nor speeches. I therefore move that the resolu tions Ue on the table. The Senate went into Executive Session without a vote. The resolu tions came up again the next day, when, on motion of Mr. Sumner, they were laid on the table, by a vote of yeas 34, nays 10. EMPLOYMENT OF COLORED TROOPS. Bill in the Senate, February 9, 1863. As early as May 26, 1862, Mr, Sumner introduced a resolution de claring that the time had come for the Government "to invite all, \vith- out distinction of color, to make their loyalty manifest by ceasing to fight or labor for the Rebels, and also by rendering every assistance in their power to the cause of the Constitution and the Union, accord ing to their ability, whether by arms, or labor, or information, or in any other way.'' After much debate, an Act was passed to amend the Act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, approved February 28, 1795. The new Act, approved by the President July 17, 1862, contained the fol lowing provision : — "That the President be, and he is hereby, authorized to receive into the service of the United States, for the purpose of constructing intrenchments, or performing camp service or any other labor, or an}' military or naval ser vice for which they may be found competent, persons of African descent; and such persons shall be enrolled and organized under such regulations, not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws, as the President may pre scribe." 1 This was the beginning of colored troops. In his speech at Faneuil Hall, October 6, 1862,^ Mr. Sumner justified an appeal to the slaves. In the Senate, February 9, 1863, he introduced the following bill, providing for the enlistment of slaves and others of African descent, which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Mili tia, and ordered to be printed. 1 statutes at Large, Vol, XII. p. 599, sec 12. 2 Ante, pp 212 seqq. EMPLOYMENT OF COLORED TROOPS, 263 A Bill to raise additional Soldiers for the Service of the United States, T^E it enacted by the Senate and House of Rcpresenta- ~^ tives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled. That each and every able-bodied male person of the age of eighteen years and under forty-live years, made free by the Act of Congress, approved August sixth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, entitled " An Act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary pur poses," or the Act of July seventeenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, entitled "An Act to suppress insurrec tion, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and con fiscate the property of Rebels, and for other purposes," or by Proclamations of the President of the United States, dated September twenty-second, eighteen hun dred and sixty-two, and January first, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, respectively, or by any other legal and competent authority exercised in suppressing the pres ent RebelUon, shaU severaUy be forthwith enrolled as a military force of the United States by the command ing officer within whose department such persons shall be found, and they shall be organized, armed, equipped, and mustered into the service of the United States, to serve during the present war, to a number not exceeding three hundred thousand men. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the said mili tary force shaU be organized according to the regulations of the branch of service in which they may be desig nated to serve, and receive the same rations, clothing, and equipments as volunteers, and a monthly pay of seven doUars, to be paid one half at the end of each month, and the other half when discharged. They shaU 264 EMPLOYMENT OF COLORED TROOPS, be officered by persons appointed and commissioned by the President, and governed by the rules and articles of war, and such other rules and regulations as may be prescribed by la"\v. Each person so serving as a non commissioned officer or private in such military force of the United States shall be entitled to receive, upon his discharge, ten acres of land, and each person so serving as a commissioned officer shall be entitled to receive twenty-fi^'e acres, the same to be located upon any lands confiscated during the present Rebellion, and not reserved by the Government for public use ; the land so located to be occupied only as a homestead by the person entitled to receive the same, and his family. Sec, 3. And be it further enacted, That the President be, and is hereby, authorized to further order the vol untary enlistment or enrolment of each and e^'ery able- bodied free male person of African descent, of the age of eighteen years and under forty-five years, within the I'nited States, for mUitary service, as provided by this Act, except that the monthly pay of such free persons shall be the same as that of the volunteers : Pruviiled, The whole number called into the service of the United States under tlie provisions of this section shaU not exceed one hundred thousand men. There was no action of the Committee on this bill, and it fell with the session. February 10, 1864, more than a year later, the subject was brought forward in the House of Representatives by Mr, Stevens, in an amend ment to the Enrolment Bill then pending, and finally prevailed in the following terms : — "That all able-bodied male colored persons, between the ages of twenty and forty-five years, resident in the United States, shall be enrolled accord- EMPLOYMENT OF COLORED TROOPS. 265 ing to the provisions of this Act and of the Act to which this is an amend ment, and form part of the national forces ; and when a slave of a loyal mas ter shall be drafted and mustered into the service of the United States, his master shall have a certificate thereof, and thereupon such slave shall be firee,"^ 1 statutes at Largo, ToL Xm, p, 11, sec, 24. 12 IIMEDIATE EMANCIPATION, AND NOT GRADUAL. Speech in the Senate, on the Bill providing Aid for Emanci pation IN Missouri, February 12, 1863. The recommendation of President Lincoln to aid the States in Eman cipation, though urged by him, never found great favor in Congress, Among the measures prompted by it was one introduced into the House of Representatives by Mr. Noell, of Missouri, entitled, "A Bill giving aid to the State of Missouri for the purpose of securing the abolishment of Slavery in said State," This provided that the Government of the United States would, upon the passage of a good and valid Act of Emancipation of all the slaves therein, and to be irrepealable, unless by the consent of the United States, apply the sum of ten million dol lars in United States bonds, redeemable in thirty years from date. It passed the House by 73 yeas against 46 nays. In the Senate, this bill was referred to the Committee on the Judi ciary, which reported a substitute, when it was recommitted and another substitute reported, by which it was provided, that, on the adoption of a valid law by Missouri ' ' for the gradual or immediate emancipation of all the slaves therein, and the exclusion of Slavery forever thereafter from said State," twenty million dollars in United States bonds should be applied "to compensate for the inconveniences produced by such change of system," which was to take eff'ect "on some day not later than the fourth day of July, 1876 " ; but the bonds were not to exceed ten 'million dollars, unless there was "full and perfect manumission'' before the fourth day of July, 1865, nor in their aggregate were they to exceed ' ' the sum of three hundred dollars for each slave emancipated." This recognition of the principle of Gradual Emancipation, especially as a war measure, was very disagreeable to Mr. Sumner. February 7th, he moved to strike out " seventy-six " and insert " sixty-four," so that the Act of Emancipation should go into operation on the 4th of July, 1864 ; and here he remarked : — IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION, AND NOT GRADUAL. 267 Mr, President, — This bill, as I understand it, is a bill of peace ;' it is to bring back tranquillity in a dis turbed State, If you ask for authority under the Con stitution, I cannot doubt that it is in the AVar Power. It is in the power to suppress this insurrection, to put down this rebeUion. But most strangely do you seek to put do'svn this rebeUion by the abolition of Slavery twenty years, or even ten years, from now. To my mind the proposition is simply ridiculous, I use strong lan guage, because so it seems to me, and I cannot help saying it. Sir, for the sake of our common country at this criti cal moment, for the sake of Missouri herself, for the sake of every slave-master in Missouri, and- for the sake of every slave, I insist that Abolition shaU be completed at the nearest possible day. History, reason, and com mon sense are uniform in this requirement, and I chal lenge contradiction to their concurring testimony. The measure on its face is double, being in the alter native. It provides a certain sum in the event of Eman cipation taking place within two years, and another sum if it takes place at a certain distant day. Now, Sir, I do not desire any alternative, I trust that what we do will take effect at once. I wish to see the benefit of it, especiaUy to see it felt in the suppression of the Rebel Uon. Mr, "Willey, of "West "Virginia, said, that, in his estimation, ' ' it would be much better for Missouri, and for the slave, if, instead of 1876, it was 1900 " ; and he was followed by Mr, Henderson, of Missouri, on the same side. Mr. Sumner replied briefly. I ASSUME that Senators are in earnest for something to put down the Rebellibn. Our country, I know, is 268 immediate emancipation, and not gradual. rich in resources. It can vote miUions for almost any purpose; but still I doubt if the Senator from [Missouri would urge Congress, at this moment, to appropriate millions, unless he expected ui this way to do sinuething very positive against the Rebellion. I assume that this is his object, and also the object of other Senators urg ing this measure. Is there any other object to justify, at this moment, a ^¦ote for it ? Is there any Senator who will toss twenty or ten mUlions of money to any State, unless he is satisfied that by doing so he can help put an end to the Rebellion ? On this point all must agree. Therefore do I insist on the single ques tion. How shaU we most surely help put an end to the EebeUion ? If this can be best accomplished by imme diate Emancipation, then must we \'ote accordingly. But if it is better to allow Emancipation to drag through twenty or even ten years, with the possibiUty of reac tion, and -with the certainty of controversy during all this period, and, al)o\e aU, without any immediate good, then will Senators vote accordingly. Sir, I am against any such thing, I wish the measure to be effective for the object proposed, and, as I do not beUeve it can be effective, unless immediate, I must vote accordingly. The amendment of Jlr. Sumner was lost, — Yeas 11, Nays 26. In the debate which ensued, Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, taunted Mr. Sumner with desiring the negroes of Missouri to be "freed quickly, so that Governor Andrew can recruit there to fill up the Massachusetts quota,'' Mr. Sumner replied . "I would have a musket put in the hands of every one of these negroes in Missouri." Mr. Sumner moved to amend by striking out "three hundred" and inserting "two hundred" dollars, as the measure of value of a slave. Here he said : — I OBJECT to the enormous valuation. I object to it IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION, AND NOT GRADUAL. 269 in the present bill, and also as a precedent. We shall be bound by it hereafter. The next bill will have this same value of three hundred doUars for each slave. I would begin by putting it at two hundred doUars, and that is my motion. This amendment was adopted, — Yeas 19, Nays 17, Mr. Sumner then moved to strike out the word "gradual," so that the money should be paid only on immediate Emancipation. Here he remarked, that he did not understand a war measure which was to go into effect ten years from now, — that he did not understand a gradual war measure, — that it was an absurdity in terms, and utterly inde fensible. The motion was lost, — Yeas 11, Ways 27. The question then recurred on the adoption of the substitute, when Mr, Sumner spoke as follows. ME, PEESIDENT, — If I speak tardUy in this debate, I hope for the indulgence of the Senate. Had I been able to speak earlier, I should have spoken ; but, though present in the Chamber, and voting when this bUl was under consideration formerly, I was at the time too much of an invalid to take an active part in the debate. In justice to myself and to the great ques tion, I cannot be silent, I have already voted to give Missouri twenty miUion dollars to secure freedom at once for her slaves, and to make her at once a Pree State. I am ready to vote more, if more be needed for this good purpose ; but I will not vote money to be sunk and lost in an uncertain scheme of Prospective Emancipation, where Freedom is a jack-o'-lantern, and the only certainty is the Congres sional appropriation. Eor money paid down. Freedom must be delivered. Notwithstanding aU differences of opinion on this 270 IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION, AND NOT GRADUAL. important question, there is much occasion for congrat ulation in the progress made. Thank God, on one point the Senate is substantiaUy united, A large majority viU vote for Emancipation. This is much, both as a sign of the present and a proph ecy of the future. A large majority, in the name of Congres,g, will off'er pecuniary aid. This is a further sign and projihecy. Such a vote, and such an appropri ation, will constitute an epoch. Only a few sliort years ago the very mention of Slavery in Congress was for bidden, and aU discussion of it was stifled. Now Eman cipation is an accepted watchword, while Slavery is openly denounced as a guilty thing worthy of death, Tt is admitted, that now, under the exigency of war, the United States ought to cooperate with any State in the abolition of Slavery, giving it pecuniary aid ; and it is proposed to apply this principle practically in Mis souri, It was fit that Emancipation, destined to end the Eebellion, should begin in South Carolina, wliere the Eebellion began. It is also fit that the action of Congress in behalf of Emancipation should begin in Missouri, which, through the faint-hearted remissness of Congress, as late as 1820, was opened to Slavery. Had Congress at that time firmly insisted that ]\Iis- souri should enter the Union as a Free State, the vast appropriation now proposed would have been saved, and, better still, this vaster civil war would have been prevented. The whole country is now paying with treasure and blood for that fatal surrender. Alas, that men should forget that God is bound by no compromise, and that, sooner or later. He will insist that justice shall be done ! There is not a dollar spent, and not a life sac rificed, in this calamitous war, which does not plead IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION, AND NOT GRADUAL. 271 against any repetition of that wicked foUy, Palsied be the tongue that speaks of compromise with Slavery ! Though, liappUy, compromise is no longer openly mentioned, yet it insinuates itself in this debate. In former times it took the shape of barefaced concession, as in the admission of Missouri with Slavery, in the annexion of Texas with Slavery, the waiver of the pro hibition of Slavery in the Territories, the atrocious bill for the reenslavement of fugitives, and the opening of Kansas to Slavery, first by the Kansas Bill, and then by the Lecompton Constitution. In each of these cases there was concession to Slavery which history records with shame, and it was by this that your wicked slave- holding conspiracy waxed confident and strong, till at last it became ripe for war. And now it is proposed, as an agency in the suppres sion of the EebeUion, to make an end of Slavery, By proclamation of the President, aU slaves in certain States and designated parts of States are declared free. Of course this proclamation is a war measure, rendered just and necessary by exigencies of war. As such, it is sum mary and instant in operation, not prospective or pro crastinating, A proclamation of Prospective Emancipa tion would have been an absurdity, — like ' a proclama tion of a prospective battle, where not a blow was to be struck or a cannon pointed before 1876, unless, mean while, the enemy desired it. What is done in war must be done promptly, except, perhaps, under the policy of defence. Gradualism is delay, and delay is the betrayal of victory. If you would be triumphant, strike quickly, let your blows be felt at once, without notice or premo nition, and especially without time for resistance or de bate. Time deserts all who do not appreciate its value. 272 IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION, AND NOT GRADUAL. Strike promptly, and time becomes your in^•aluable ally ; strike slowly, gTaduaUy, prospectively, and time goes over to the enemy. But every argument for the instant carrying out of the Proclamation, every consideration in favor of de spatch in war, is especiaUy applicable to whatever is done by CVmgress as a war measure. In a period of peace Congress might fitly consider whether Eman cipation should be immediate or prospective, and we could listen with patience to the instances adduced by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Doolittle] in favor of delay, — to the case of Pennsylvania, and to the case of New York, where slaves were tardily ad mitted to their birthright. Such arguments, though to my judgment of little value at any time, might then be legitimate. But now, when we are consider ing how to put down the Eebellion, they are not even legitimate. There is but one way to put down the EebeUion, and that is instant action; and all that is done, whether in the field, in the Cabinet, or in Con gress, must partake of tliis character. Whatever is postponed for twenty years, or ten years, may seem abstractly politic or wise ; but it is in no sense a war measure, nor can it contribute essentially to the sup pression of the Eebellion. I think I may assume, without contradiction, that the tender of money to Missouri for the sake of Emanci pation is a war measure, to be vindicated as such under the Constitution of the United States, It is also an act of justice to an oppressed race. But it is not in this un questionable character that it is now commended. If it were urged on no other ground, even if every considera tion of philanthropy and of religion pleaded for it with IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION, AND NOT GRADUAL. 273 rarest eloquence, I fear that it would stand but little chance iu either House of Congress. Let us not dis guise the truth. Except as a war measure to aid in put ting down the RebeUion, this proposition could expect little hospitality here. Senators are ready to vote money — as the British Parliament voted subsidies — to sup ply the place of soldiers, or to remove a stronghold of the EebeUion, all of which is done by Emancipation. I do not overstate the case. Slavery is a stronghold, which through Emancipation will be removed, while every slave, if not every slave-master, becomes an ally of the Government, Therefore Emancipation is a war measure, and constitutional as the raising of armies or the occupation of hostile territory. In vindicating Emancipation as a war measure, we must see that it is made under such conditions as to exercise a present, instant influence. It must be imme diate, not prospective. In proposing Prospective Eman cipation, you propose a measure which can have little or no influence on the war. Abstractly Senators may pre fer that Emancipation should be prospective rather than immediate ; but this is not the time for the exercise of any abstract preference. Whatever is done as a war measure must be immediate, or it wiU cease to have this character, whatever you call it. If I am correct in this statement, — and I do not see how it can be questioned, — then is the appropriation for Immediate Emancipation just and proper under the Constitution, while that for Prospective Emancipation is without sanction, except what it finds in the sentiments of justice and humanity. It is proposed to vote ten miUion dollars to promote Emancipation ten years from now. Perhaps I am san- 12* K 274 LMMEDIATE EM.VNCIPATION, AND NOT GRADUAL. guine, but I cannot doubt that before the expiration of that period Slavery wiU die in Missouri under the awak ened judgment of the people, even without the action of Congress, If our resources were infinite, we might tender this large sum by way of experiment ; but with a treasury drained to the bottom, and a debt accumu lating in fabulous proportions, I do not understand how we can vote millions, wliich, in the first place, will be of little or no service in the suppression of the Eebel lion, and, in the second place, will be simply a largess in no way essential to the subversion of Slavery. Whatever is given for Immediate Emancipation is given for the national defence, and for the safety and honor of the Republic, It will be a blow at the Rebel lion. Whatever is given for Prosj^ective Emancipation wUl be a gratuity to slaveholders and a tribute to Slav ery, Pardon me, if I repeat what I have already said on this question : " MiUions for defence, but not a cent for tribute " ; mUlions for defence against peril, from whatever quarter it may come, but not a cent for trib ute in any quarter, — especially not a cent for tribute to the loathsome tyranny of Slavery. I know it is sometimes said that even Prospective Emancipation will help weaken the Eebellion, That it wUl impair the confidence in Slavery, and also its value, I cannot doubt. But it is equally clear that it wiU le.ave Slavery still alive and on its legs; and just so long as this is the case, there must be controversy and debate, with attending weakness, while Reaction perpet ually lifts its crest. Instead of tranquillity, which we all seek for Missouri, we shall have contention. Instead of peace, we shall have prolonged war. Every year's delay, ay. Sir, every week's delay, in dealing death to IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION, AND NOT GRADUAL. 275 Slavery leaves just so much of opportunity to the Re bellion; for so long as Slavery is aUowed to exist in Missouri the Eebellion will stiU struggle, not without hope, for its ancient mastery. But let Slavery cease at once and aU will be changed. There will be no room for controversy or debate, with attending weakness ; nor can Reaction Uft its crest. There wiU be no opportu nity to the Rebellion, which must cease aU effort there, when Missouri can no longer be a Slave State. Freedom wiU become our watchful, generous, and invincible ally, while the well-being, the happiness, the repose, and the reno"wn of Missouri will be estabUshed forever. Thus far. Sir, I have presented the argument on grounds peculiar to this case ; and here I might stop. Having shown, that, as a military necessity, and for the sake of that economy which it is our duty to cultivate, Emancipation must be immediate, I need not go further. But I do not content myself here. The whole ques tion is opened between Immediate Emancipation and Prospective Emancipation, — or, in other words, between doing right at once and doing right at some future, dis tant day. Procrastination is the thief, not only of time, but of virtue itself Yet such is the nature of man that he is disposed always to delay, so that he does nothing to-day which he can put off tUl to-morrow. Perhaps in no single matter is this disposition more apparent than with regard to Slavery. Every consideration of human ity, justice, rehgion, reason, common sense, and history, all demanded the instant cessation of an intolerable wrong, without procrastination or delay. But human nature would not yield, and we have been driven to ar gue the question, whether an outrage, asserting property 276 LMMEDIATE EM.'lNCIP ATION, AND NOT GRADUAL. in man, denying the conjugal relation, annulling the pa rental relation, shutting out human impiovement, and robbing its victim of aU the fruits of his industry, — the whole to compel work without wages, — should be stopyied instantly or gradually. It is only ^vllen we regard Shivery in its essential elements, and look at its unutteralile and unquestionable atrocity, that we fully comprehend the mingled follj^ and wickedness of this question. If it were merely a question of economy, or a question of policy, then the Senate might properly debate whether the change should be instant or gradual ; but con,siderations of economy and policy are all absorbed in the higher claims of justice and humanity. There is no question whether justice and Inimanity sliaU be im mediate or gradual. Men are to cease at once from wrong ; they are to obey the Ten Commandments in stantly, and not gradually. Senators who argue for Prospective Emancipation show themselves insensible to the true character of Slavery, or insensible to the requirements of reason. One or the other of these alternatives must be accepted. Shall property in man be disowned immediately, or only prospecti\'ely ? Reason answers, Immediatelj'', Shall the conjugal relation be maintained immedi ately, or only prospectively ? Reason recoils from the wicked absurdity of the inquiry. Shall the parental relation be recognized immediate ly, or only prospectively ? Reason is indignant at the question. Shall the opportunities of knowledge, including the right to read the Book of Life, be opened immediately or prospectively ? Reason brands the idea of delay as impious. IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION, AND NOT GRADUAL. 27V Shall the fruits of his own industry be given to a fel low-man immediately or prospectively ? Eeason insists that every man shaU have his own without postpone ment. And history, thank God, speaking by examples, tes tifies in conformity with reason. The conclusion is irre sistible. If you would contribute to the strength and honor of the Nation, if you would bless Missouri, if you would benefit the slave-master, if you would elevate the slave, and, still further, if you would afford an example which shall fortify and consecrate the Eepublic, making it at once citadel and temple, do not put off the day of Freedom. In this case, more than in any other, he gives twice who quickly gives. The substitute, containing the provisions for Gradual Emancipation, was then adopted, — Yeas 27, Nays 10, — Mr, Sumner voting in the minority. The final question was on the passage of the bill as amended by the insertion of the substitute, when Mr. Sumner said : — I SHALL vote for this bill on its final passage, but it wiU be because I know it will go back to the House of Eepresentatives, where it can undergo consideration, and where, I trust, a bill wiU be at last matured that will embody the true principle which ought to govern this great question. The bill passed, — Yeas 23, Nays 18, It went back to the House, where it gave way to a new hill, which was lost in the closing hours of the Thirty-Seventh Congress. Aid to States and Compensated Eman cipation soon passed out of sight. LETTEES OP MAEQUE AND EEPEISAL. Speeches in the Senate, on the Bill to authorize the Presi dent, IN ALL Domestic or Foreign Wars, to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal, February 14 and 17, 1863. At the close of the preceding session of Congress, Mr, Grimes intro duced a bill concerning Letters of Marque and Reprisal, but he was unable to secure the action of the Senate upon it. January 7, 1863, he again asked for its consideration, when, on motion of Mr, Sumner, it was referred to the Committee on Naval Aifairs, January 20th, it was reported from the Committee hy Mr. Hale, with amendments, February 14th, Mr. Grimes moved to proceed with its consideration. In opposing this motion, Mr, Sumner said : — Mr. President, — It seems to me that this bUl is in aU respects a misconception. There is nothing now to justify letters of marque and reprisal; and when Senators say that Massachusetts is interested in their issue, I repel the suggestion. Sir, Massachusetts is in terested in putting down the RebeUion. She is also in terested in clearing the sea of pirates. Such is her open and unquestionable interest, and to this end slie is con cerned in the employment of all possible agencies con sistent with the civilization of our day. Massachusetts is interested in the enlargement of the marine, national and private, and I add, also, in the present enUstment of the private marine in the national service ; but this is very different from the issue of letters of marque. LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL. 279 I think the Senator from Iowa is misled by a phrase. He speaks of the mUitia of the sea. It is a captivating phrase, I admit ; but the meaning is not entirely clear. The Senator finds it in privateers, — that is, pri\'ate armed ships, belonging to private individuals, under the com mand of private persons, cruising against private com merce, and paid exclusively by booty. Such is his idea of a sea mihtia. I confess this is not very captivating to me. My idea of a sea mUitia is different. It is all the ships of the country, if the occasion require, under the national flag, in the service of the country as na tional ships, with the character of national ships, enjoy ing everywhere the immunities of national ships, and free from the suspicions always attaching to the priva teer, wherever it appears. An enactment, authorizing the employment of the mercantile marine in the national service as part of the national na"vy, would be practical and reasonable. Such a marine might justly be caUed the militia of the sea ; but I must protest against the deceptive militia of the Senator. The bill was taken up by a vote of 31 yeas and 6 nays ; hut, after ordering the printing of amendments, it was postponed. February 17th, it was taken up again, when Mr. Sumner spoke in reply to Mr. Grimes. MR. PRESIDENT, — The Senator from Iowa [Mr, Grimes], who has just taken his seat, ingeniously and elaborately vindicates a bill which, at least in one feature, is an innovation upon the original policy of our country ; and, strange to say, while doing so, he pleads for what he calls our traditional policy. I, too, plead for our traditional policy, but not the policy of the Senator, And I plead also for a policy which, whether 280 LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL. traditional or not, wUl provide for the national defence according to that best economy which takes counsel of prudence as well as of courage. The Senator, with seeming triumph, asks if we can afford to declare that our whole private marine shall rot at the wharf Clearly not, and nobody proposes to de clare so, although we might as well do this as reckless ly pro^•oke war which must drive our commerce from the ocean, — if in no other way, by the increased rates of insurance, I would secure for our priA-ate marine the amplest opportunity, that it may continue without interruption to plough every sea with its keels, and that, wherever it appears, it may find its accustomed welcome. The pohcy of the Senator has no such promise, AU will concur in any practical measure at this time for the increase of our strength on the ocean. To this end my vote shall not be wanting. But to my mind it is clear to demonstration that the measure proposed is not practical in character, that it promises no result which cannot be reached better in another way, while it is almost sure to bring upon the country additional embarrassment. It may be bold, but I am sure it is not prudent, nor is there in it economy of any kind. This bill is entitled, " Concerning Letters of ]\Iarque, Prizes, and Prize ( roods." The title is borrowed from the two statutes of 1812 and 1813. It is, in plain terms, a biU to authorize Privalcers, — that is, private armed ^'essels Ucensed to cruise against the commerce of an enemy, and looking to booty for support, compensation, and salary. It is by booty that owners, officers, and crews are to be paid. Booty is the motive power and life-spring. Such is this bUl on its face, witliout going LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL, 281 into detail Surely a bill of this character ought not to pass without strong reason. Looking at the biU more closely, it is found to have two distinct features : first, as a new agency against the Rebellion ; secundly, as a provision for privateers in any future war. I regard these two features as distinct. They may be considered separately. One may be right, and the other wrong. One may be adopted, and the other rejected. So far as the bUl promises substantial help in putting down the RebeUion vvithout more than countervailing mischief, it may properly be entertained. But what can it do against the RebeUion ? And where is the policy or necessity on which it is founded ? If Senators think that the bill can do any good now, I am sure they listen to their hopes rather than to the evidence. Why, Sir, the Rebels, against whom you would cruise, are abso lutely without commerce. Pirate ships they have, equipped in England, armed to the teeth, and unleashed upon the sea to prey upon us ; but there is not a single bottom of theirs that can afford the booty which is the pay and incentive of the privateer. It would be hardly more irrational to enlist private armed ships against the King of Dahomey, I know it is said that our navy is too smaU, and that more ships are needed, not only for transportation, but also to increase and strengthen the blockade, or to cruise against pirates. Very well. Hire them, and put them in commission as Government ships, with the immuni ties, the responsibilities, and the character of such ships. There can be no difficulty in this ; and, better still, there wiU be no difficulty afterwards. This is simple and practical. 1'82 LETTERS OF .MARQL'E AND REPRISAL, But, while I see no probable good from launching pri vateers upon the ocean to cruise against a commerce that does not exist, and to be paid by a booty that cannot be found, I see certain evUs which I am anxious to avoid for the sake of my country, especially at this moment. I think that I cannot be mistaken in this anxiety. It is weU known, that, according to ancient usage and the Law of Nations, every pri^•ateer is entitled to bellig erent rights, one of which is that most difficult, delicate, and dangerous right, the much disputed Right of Search, There is no Right of War with regard to wliich nations are more sensitive, — and no nation has been more sen sitive than our own, whUe none has suff'ered more from its exercise. By virtue of this right, every licensed sea- rover is entitled on the ocean to stop and overhaul all merchant vessels under whatever flag. If he cannot capture, he can at least annoy. If he cannot make prize, he can at least make trouble, and leave behind a sting. I know not what course the great neutral pow ers may adopt, nor do I see how they can undertake to set aside this ancient right, even if they smart under its exercise. But when I consider that these powers have already by solemn convention — I refer, of course, to the Congress of Paris in 1856 — renounced the whole system of privateers among themselves, I confess my fears that they will not witness with perfect calmness the annoyance to which their commerce wUl be exposed. And now. Sir, mark my prediction. Every exercise upon neutral commerce of this terrible Right of Search wiU be the fruitful occasion of misunderstanding, bickering, and controversy, at a moment when, if my voice could prevail, there should be nothing to interfere with that LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL. 283 accord, harmony, and sympathy which are due from civilized states to our Republic in its great battle with Barbarism. Even if we are not encouraged to expect these things from Europe, I hope that nothing wiU be done by us to put impediments in their way. Justly sensitive with regard to our own rights, let us respect the sensibUity of others. It is not enough to say that we have an unquestioned right to issue letters of marque. Rights, when exercised out of season or imprudently, may be changed into ¦wrongs. It was a maxim of ancient jurisprudence. Sic utere tua, ut alienum non Iccdas, and I think that this maxim, at least in spiiit, is applicable to the present occasion. Our right may be clear ; but, if its exercise would injure or annoy others, especially without corre sponding advantage to ourselves, we shall do well, if we forbear to exercise it. Thus far I have considered that part of the bUl which provides for privateers against the Rebels ; but I cannot quit this branch of the question without calling atten tion again to the scenes that must ensue, if these pri vateers are let loose. Picture to yourselves the ocean traversed by licensed rovers seeking prey. The Dutch admiral carried a broom at his mast-head as the boastful sign that he swept the seas. The privateer might carry a scourge. Wherever a sail appears, there is chase ; the signal gun is fired, and the merchantman submits to visitation and search. Delay is the least of the conse quences. Contention, irritation, humiliation ensue, all calculated to engender ill-feeling, which, beginning with individuals, may embrace country and government. I do not say that such an act, even harshly exercised upon neutral commerce, will bring upon us further 284 LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL. war, but I would not try the experiment. The speak ing-trumpet of a reckless privateer may contribute to that discord wliich is the herald of bloodshed itself But, Sir, oven if you think it worth while to author ize privateers against the Rebels, to cruise against an imaginary commerce, in quest of an imaginary booty, why not stop there ? The measure would not be wise, but it might find seeming apology in the present condi tion of affairs. The bill of the Committee, and also the amendment of the Senator from Iowa, go much further. It is a general bill, authorizing privateers, not merely against the Rebels, but also against foreign nations in future wars, in the discretion of the President. I quote from the bill of the C(jmmittee, " That, whenever war exists or 1ms been declared between the United States and any other nation, and during the present Kebellion, the President of the United States is hereby authorized to issue to private vessels of the United States commissions or letters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he may think proper.'' Mark the language, " whene^'er war exists," I am not ready to say that these words gi\'e the President power to declare the existence of war without the intervention of Congress ; but I object to the whole clause on ac count of its generality. And the sulistitute of the Sen ator is obnoxious to the same objection. It says : — " That, in all domestic and foreign wars, the President of the United States is authorized to issue to private armed vessels of the United States commissioua or letters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he shall think proper," This is a general provision, by which the President is authorized to issue letters of marque, not only to aid in LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL. 285 putting down the present RebeUion, but also "in all domestic and foreign wars " which may occur hereafter, I wiU not say that any such general, prospective pro vision, although clearly a departure from that tradi tional policy which the Senator professes to uphold, is positively unconstitutional ; but I am sure that it is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, To me it seems ob"vious that the Constitution contemplated the special action of CongTess on every occasion for the exercise of this power. This was the safeguard against excess or blunder. Such a power was not to be exer cised hastily or inconsiderately, but with full and special consideration. It was not to be exercised all at once and in the lump, but as the exigency occuiTed in indi vidual cases. And Congress, which was empowered to declare war, had the further power, in the same way and with similar solemnities, to give the war this addition al feature, if, under the circumstances, it thought best. This great power was not handed over indefinitely to the President, to be wielded at will, but was lodged in Congress. If Congress is not insensible to the spirit of the Constitution, it will never hand it over to the President, as now proposed. Even in England, where the power to declare war is lodged with the sovereign in council, it seems that in point of fact letters of marque are regulated by special Acts of Parliament on the breaking out of war. This is stated by Chitty, in his work on the Prerogatives of the Crown, " By various statutes, enacted during every ivar, the Lord High Admiral, or the Conamissioners of the Admiralty, are empowered to grant commissions, or, as they are also called, letters of marque and reprisals, to the owners of ships, ena- 286 LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL. bling them to attack and take the property of his Jlajesty's enemies, which statutes contain, also, various provisions as to the prizes captured, (See 29 George II. c. 31 ; 19 George III. c. 67 ; 43 George III. c. 160; 45 George III. c. 72,) "i Obviously recognizing this principle, which is so en tirely consistent vitli reason and that wisdom which is the strength of nations, our country thus far in its history has declined to pass any general prospecti^-e law authorizing letters of marque. This is our tradi tional policy, which the Senator seeks to overturn. The statute authorizing letters of marque in 1812 expired with the war. It was not general or prospective. Is there any reason now that we should depart from this policy ? Is there any good to be accomplished by such departure ? It is strange that at this moment, when other nations renounce privateering, we should rush for ward and ostentatiously declare it part of our political system, — I might almost say, an element of our politi cal life. Pray, if this declaration were of such impor tance, why has it been so long postponed ? Generations, jealous guardians of all our national rights, have passed away, leaving the statute-book without any such voice. It did not occur to them that the national defence or the national honor required it. And yet the discovery is suddenly made that this is a mistake, or that our predecessors were all wrong, especially in not announc ing to the world that in the event of war privateers will be let loose. As there is no foreign war in which we are now en gaged, this provision is prospective and minatory, so far as foreign nations are concerned. It is notice to avoid any question with us, under penalty of depredations 1 Chitty's Prerogatives of the Crown, p. 42. LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL. 287 by privateers. If not a menace, it is very like one. I do not know that it wUl be so interpreted by those to whom it is addressed, but I am sure that it can do no good ; and just in proportion as it is so interpreted, it wiU be worse than useless. A menace is as iU-timed between nations as between individuals. I do not dwell now on the irrational character of privateering, but I seize the occasion to declare my deliberate judgment that our country may yet find, to its cost, that this cherished weapon is a two-edged sword. A nation with an extensive commerce cannot aff'ord to invite the hazard of its employment. Thus, in the event of war with a power inferior to ourselves in commerce, as Portugal, or Spain, or France, the increased rates of insurance would make it impossible for us to keep our ships afloat, while aU our profits on the ocean would be appropriated by those nations happily stUl at peace. The very superiority of our commerce would be a disadvantage, inasmuch as we should be more ex posed. For instance, in a war with Portugal or Spain we should stake gold against copper, and even in a war with France it would be gold against silver. If this prospect pleases, then Senators will vote for a measure which may be caUed Privateering made easy ; or, hoiv to do it without Congress. Nor do I discuss the immorality and brutality too naturaUy engendered by a system whose inspiration is booty. Here I content myself with the words of Gen eral HaUeck, in his exceUent summary of International Law. " But, even with these precautions, privateering is usually accompanied by abuses and enormous excesses. The use of privateers, or private armed vessels under letters of marque 288 LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL. and reprisal, has often been discussed by publicists and text- writers on International Law. and has recently been made the subject of diplomatic correspondence and negotiation lie- tvveeu the United States and the principal European powers. The general opinion of text-writers is, that privateering, though contrary to national policy and tlie more enlightened spirit of the present a^e, is, nevertheless, allowafile under the general rules of International Law, It leads in tlie worst ejrresses and crimes, and Ims a most corriijitliir/ injhience ujion rill who evgiaje in it, but cuiniot be punished as a breach of the Law of Nations, Tlie enlightened ojiiitinn of the world is most decidedly in favor of abolishing if, .and recent events lead to tlie hope that all the commercial nations of both hemispheres will unite in no longer resorting, in time of war, to so barbarous a practice." "¦ There is anrither American authority I ought not to omit. I refer to Chancellor Kent, wdio in his much quoted Commentaries has recorded his judgment. If I chose to cross the ocean, I might add indefinitely to this testimony; but I confine myself to our own coun trymen, so that you shall see privateering as judged by Americans, Here are the words of the great jurist. " As a necessary precaution against abuse, the owners of privateers are required, by tlie ordinances of the commercial states, to give adequate security that they will conduct tho cruise according to the laws and usages of war and tho in structions of the Government, and that tlie}- will regard tho rights of neutrals, and bring their prizes iu for adjudication. These checks are essential to the character and safety of maritime nations. Privateering, under all the restrictions which have been adopted, is very liable to abuse. The object is not fame or chivalric warfare, but plunder and profit, 1 Halleck's International Law, pp. 391, 392. LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL. 289 The discipline of the crews is not apt to be of the highest order, and privateers are often guilty of enormous excesses, and become the scourge of neutral commerce. They are sometimes manned and officered by foreigners, having no permanent connection with the country, or interest in its cause. This was a complaint made by the United States, in 1819, in relation to irregularities and acts of atrocity committed by private armed vessels sailing under the flag of Buenos Ayres. Under the best regulations, the business tends strongly to blunt the sense of private right and to nourish a lawless and fierce spirit of rapacity." ' It is well known that these were the sentiments of the founders of our Republic, which, in its early treaty with Prussia, took the lead in denouncing the whole system of privateering. Is it not better to follow this example, until positive, irresistible exigencies of war compel us to depart from it ? If we cannot do this, let us at least keep from affording new facilities to an offensive system. What our country denounced in other days should not now be proclaimed and glorified. Mb. Grimes. The Senator will allow me to inquire when it was that this nation denounced the system of privateering. Mb. Sumneb. By the treaty of 1785. Me. Grimes. The Prussian treaty, I suppose. Mr. Sumner. The Prussian treaty. Mr, Grimes. I should like to know the purport of that denunciation. Was it not a mere stipulation that we should not prey on the commerce of that nation 1 Mr. Sumneb. It was a stipulation to the effect, that, in any war between the United States and Prussia, neither par ty should commission privateers to depredate on the com merce of the other. 1 Kent's Commentaries on American Law, Vol. I. p. 97. VOL. vii, 1.3 g 290 LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL, Mb. Grimes. A stipulation that I suppose this Govem ment could very easily make, because Prussia has no com merce. Mr. Sumner, I wish the treaty had been such as to afford a stronger example; but it must be acce]>ted as the judgment of our country at that time ; and to my mind it is a practical denunciation of privateering, worthy of the illustrious character by whom it was ne gotiated, ^^ ho was none other than Benjamin Franklin, But this treaty is not all, I do not forget how Jefferson wrote to France, " The benevolence of this proposition is worthy of the nation from which it comes, and our sentiments on it have been declared in the treaty to which you are pleased to refer, as well as in some oth ers wliich have been proposed," •* thus testifying to our treaty and to his own sentiments ; and, at a later day, that John Quincy Adams, in his instructions to Mr. Rush, of July 28, 1823, directing him to negotiate a treaty with Great Britain for the abolition of privateer ing, declared that this was " an object which has long been dear to the hearts and ardent in the aspirations of the benevolent and the wise, an object essentially congenial to the true spirit of Christianity " ; and he adopted the earUer declaration of Frankhn, " It is time, it is high time, for the sake of humanity, that a stop were put to this enormity."^ Mr. Gri.mes. I .am speaking now of the declaration which the Senator has seen fit to designate as a national denuncia tion of privateers, made in 1785, though the Constitution, which was made in 1787, expressly reserved to Congress the 1 Letter to M. de Ternant, October 16, 1792: Writings, Vol. Ill, p. 177. 2 Wheaton's Elements of International Law, ed. Lawrence, (Boston, 1863,) p, 631, note. LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL, 291 power to issue letters of marque and reprisal. Taking these two facts, the treaty made in 1785 and the Constitution made in 1787, how can it be asserted that the ancient policy of the Government is against privateering, and that we have nation ally denounced it 1 Mr. Sumner. The Senator will pardon me, if I say that I know no better denunciation than that of a treaty negotiated by Franklin. A treaty is the act of the na tion, and testifies to the sentiments of the nation. If the same denunciation did not find place in more im portant treaties, it is reasonable to suppose that it was not acceptable to the other contracting parties. It is an historic fact, that Franklin sought to embody this de nunciation in the very treaty by which our independence was acknowledged, and thus to associate it with our national being, •¦¦ Indeed, it was a standing offer from our Government to foreign powers.^ Unquestionably the Constitution gives Congress the power to issue let ters of marque, but the reason is obvious : because pri vateering was recognized at that time as a proper agency of war. The framers of the Constitution did not divest the government they created of a power which belonged to other governments according to the existing usage of nations. In recognizing this power, they express no opinion upon its character. For that we must go to the treaty, and to the words and efforts of Franklin, Jeffer son, and John Quincy Adams, speaking and acting offi ciaUy for the nation, — all but Frankhn subsequent to the Constitution. 1 See Letter to Richard Oswald, enclosing propositions to abohsh priva teering, January 14, 1783: Works, ed. Sparks, Vol. IX. pp. 466, 467. 2 See Letter of Franklin to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785: Ibid,, Vol. II. p. 486. 292 LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL. And now. Sir, at the risk of repetition, I enumerate my objections to this bill. 1. It proposes to cruise against a non-existent com merce, for the sake of a non-existent booty, 2, It accords to private individuals the beUigerent right of search, wdiich must be fruitful of trouble in our relations vith the great neutral powers. 3. It gives to the President, in his discretion, the power to issue letters of marque in any future wars, without any further authority of Congress, when this power should always wait for the special authority of Congress on the declaration of war. 4. It is in the nature of a menace to foreign nations, and therefore worse than useless. 5. It vitalizes and legalizes a system which civili zation always accepted with reluctance, and our own country was one of the earliest and most persistent to denounce. 6. It wUl give us a bad name in history. It does aU this wdthout accomphshing any substantial good. If it be said that ships are needed for transpor tation, or for the blockade, or in order to pursue pirates on the sea, then, I repeat, let the Government hire them. The way is easy, and it is also the way of peace. To this end I offer a substitute for the present bill, which will secure to the Government all the aid it can desire, without the disadvantage or shame of a measure which can be justified only by overruling necessity. I wiU read the substitute. " That the Secretary of the Navy be authorized to hire any vessels needed for the national service, and, if he sees fit, to put them in charge of officers commissioned by the United States, and to give them in every respect the char acter of national ships." LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL, 293 If Senators desire a mUitia of the seas, here it is, — a sea militia, precisely Uke the land mUitia, mustered into the service of the United States, under the com mand of the United States, and receiving rations and pay from the United States, instead of sea-rovers, not mustered into the national service, not under national command, and not receiving rations or pay from the nation, but cruising each for himself, according to his own will, without direction, without concert, simply according to the wUd temptation of booty. Such a system on land would be rejected at once. Nobody would caU it a mUitia. Do not sanction it now on the ocean ; or, if you are disposed to sanction it, caU it not a mUitia of the seas. The bill was then amended, on motion of Mr, Sherman, by limiting it to " three years from the passage of this Act." Mr. Sumner then moved to strike out the words ' ' in all domestic and foreign wars,'' and to insert "to aid in putting down the present Rebellion,'' so that it would read, — "That, io aid inputting down the present RebeUion, the President of the United States is authorized to issue to private armed vessels of the United States commissions," &c. On this motion he remarked ; — Mr. President, — The question is now presented pre cisely, whether the Senate wiU confine this bill in oper ation to the war in which we are actually engaged for the suppression of the Rebellion, or make it prospective in character, appUcable to some war in the unknown future, to some country not named, to some exigency not now understood, and therefore, in its nature, a no tice or warning, if not a menace, to all countries. This is the precise question : Shall the bill be confined to our own time, to this day, to this hour, to something 294 LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL. we can see, to what is actually before us ; or shaU it be extended also to the future, to something we cannot see, to what is not actually before us, and with regard to which we can have no knowledge, unless we Usten to our fears ? If the words are introduced as a menace, then are they out of place and irrational. Suppose any such words in the legislation of Great Britain or France at a moment wdien they might be interpreted as applicable to us, ¦who can doubt their injurious effect upon public opinion here ? A brave and intelligent people will not bend before menace, nor can any such attempt affect a weU-considered national policy. All history and reason show that such conduct is more irritating than soothing. Sir, if you are in earnest, as I cannot doubt, to cultivate those relations of peace and good-will with foreign na tions which are in themselves a cheap defence, you must avoid all legislation which can be misinterpreted, espe cially everything which looks like menace, I cannot pretend to foresee the future, I know not that other wars may not be in store for us, that we may not be called to confront other powers, in alliance, per haps, with our Rebels, and to make still greater efforts, AU this may come; but I pray not. If it does come, then let us meet its duties and responsibilities like Sen ators ; but do not rush forward recklessly, like the bully with his bludgeon, ready to strike wherever there is a head. I do not believe in such legislation ; nor do I believe in any legislation providing new facilities for a war, or tending to produce irritation and distrust. Pre pared always for the future, I would not challenge it. Preparation and provocation are widely different. Nor would I do anything out of season. There was charac- LETTEES OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL. 295 teristic wisdom in the remark of the venerable Chief Justice of England, Sir Matthew Hale, when he said that " we must not jump before we get to the stile," It seems to me that Senators who are pressing this bill forget this time-honored injunction, and try to make their country take a jump prematurely. • • • • • • You have just listened to the Senator from California [Air. McDougall], announcing that perhaps before the next meeting of Congress there may be foreign war; and you have not forgotten his elaborate speech only the other day, when, he openly challenged war with France. I ask Senators, if, at this critical moment, they are ready to foUow him in his effort to carry us in that direction. For myself, I protest against it. I am heart and soul for putting down this Rebellion without playing into the hands of Rebels. Now it must be plain to all that every word calculated to draw or drive any foreign government into alliance with the EebeUion does play into the hands of Eebels. Senators may be wiUing to distract the attention of the country from our single object, to impair the national force, and help surrender all to the uncertainties and horrors of accumulating war. Let me not enter into their coun sels. It is not my habit to shrink from responsibility ; personal risks I accept willingly ; but I confess anxiety that my country should not rush abroad in quest of new dangers, whose only effect will be to increase the na tional calamities. The amendment of Mr. Sumner was lost, — Yeas 13, Nays 22. Mr. Sumner then moved to strike out the words authorizing the President to "make all needful rules and regulations," and to insert — " The provisions of the Act of Congi-ess, approved on the 26th day of 296 LETTERS OF MARQUE AXD REPRISAL. June, 1812, entitled ' An Act concerning letters of marque, prizes, and prize goods,' and of the Act of Congress, approved on the 27th day of January, 1813, entitled 'An Act iu addition to tbe Act concerning letters of marque, prizes, and prize goods,' are hereby revived, and shall be in force in rela tion to all that part of the United States where the inhabitants have been declared in a state of insurrection, and the vessels and property to them belonging." Mr, Sumner explained the amendment. It will be observed, that, by the amendment already adopted, the President alone, without the cooperation of Congress, is empowered to make what are called all needful rules and regulations for the government and conduct of these privateers, and for the adjudication and disposal of prizes and salvages made by them. But formerly it was not so ordered. No such large power was ever before vested in the President, By the stat ute of June 26, 1812, a system was provided, in seven teen sections, for the government of letters of marque, prizes, and prize goods. These sections relate to the formalities required from persons applying for letters of marc[ue, tlie bonds to be given, and the sureties, how the captured property shaU be forfeited, the distribution of the prize money, the distribution of sah'age, how the prize shall be brought in for adjudication, regulations concerning prisoners found on board of prize vessels, instructions for the privateers, bounty for destroying the enemy's vessels, instructions to the commanding officers of privateers to keep journals, how owners of privateers are punishable for violating the revenue laws of the United States, how offences on board private armed vessels are punishable ; also the commissions of collectors and consuls upon prize goods, and the uses to which they shall be applied. Here is a statute, in itself a code, containing provisions exclusively applica- LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL, 297 ble to these important matters, aU determined by Con gress in advance; but it is now proposed that Congress shall abdicate, leaving to the President alone this large power. I caU attention to one matter in the statute, namely, " How offences on board private armed vessels shall be punished." It is enacted, " that all offences committed by any officer or seaman on board any such vessel hav ing letters of marque and reprisal, during the present hostilities against Great Britain, shall be tried and pun ished in sucli manner as the like offences are or may be tried and punished, wdien committed by any person belonging to the public ships of war of the United States." 1 I would ask if it is in the power of the President merely by regulation to determine how offences on board pri\'ate armed vessels shall be tried and pun ished ? I take it that Congress must deal directly with this question. I am sure that it is unwise for Congress to renounce a duty belonging to it obviously under the Constitution, and which in former times it exercised. Senators sometimes complain that great powers are as sumed by the President ; but, unless I misread this bill, they are about to confer on him powers large, indeed, beyond precedent. There is, in the first place, the power to declare whether, in case of war with a foreign nation, letters of marque shall be issued, — a high prerogative, in times past reserved exclusively to Congress. But, not content with this, they would confer upon him plenary powers, as legislator, with regard to everything to be done by the letter of marque, and with regard, also, to its possible prizes. As once the French monarch 1 Statutes at Large, Vol, II. p, 763, sec. 16. 13* 298 LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL. exclaimed, " The State, it is I ! " — so, when we have conferred these powers, one after another, on the Presi dent, I think he may make a simUar exclamation. This amendment was also lost. Mr. Sunmer then moved the following substitute for the pending bill ; — " That the Secretary of tbe Navy be authorized to hire any vessels needed for the national service, and, if he see fit, to put them in charge of officers commissioned by the United States, and to give them in every respect the character of national ships." The proposition on which a vote is now asked has aU that is good in the pending measure, without any of the unquestionable disad\-antages. I am unwilling to tres pass upon the Senate, and would hope that I am not too earnest ; but the question, to my mind, is of no common character. The Senator who presses this measure seeks to em ploy private enterprise in all wars, domestic or foreign : I show him how it can be done. He seeks to enlist the private marine of the country in the public service : I show him how it can be done. He seeks to contribute at this moment to the national force : I show him how it can be done. Say not that I am against the employ ment of private enterprise. Nor say that I would allow our private marine to rot at the wdiarf Nor say that I would begrudge anything needed by the national force. To this end the Senate cannot go further than I. All that the Senator would do I would do, but in a way to avoid those embarrassments and difficulties necessarily incident to privateering, and so as to be in harmony with the civilization of our age. Nor shall it be said that I shrink from any of the responsibilities which belong to us with regard to foreign nations ; but I LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL. 299 desire to say, that among the highest responsibUities which any can recognize is that of doing nothing need lessly which shall add to existing troubles or give the country a new burden. In conclusion, let me once more remind you that every pri\'ateer upon the ocean carries the right of search. Wherever he sails, he is authorized to over haul neutral ships in search of contraband, or, it may be, to determine if the voyage is to break the blockade. A right so delicate and grave I would reserve to the Government, to be exercised only by national ships. I cannot err, when I insist that it shall be intrusted to those only whose position, experience, and relations with the Govemment give assurance that it wiU be exercised with wisest discretion. If, in order to secure private enterprise and to enlist all its energies, it were necessary to have privateers, then the argument of the other side might be entitled to weight. But all that you desire can be had without any such resort, and without any drawback or disadvan tage. Let the Secretary of the Navy, hire private ships, wherever he can find them, and put them in commission as national ships, with the rations, pay, officers, and character of national ships. This will be simple and most effective. I am at a loss for any objection to it : I can see none. I may be mistaken. Sir, but I speak in frankness. To my mind the question between the two propositions is too clear for argument. On one side it is irrational, barbarous, and fruitless, except of trouble. On the other side you have practical strength, and the best assurance of that prudence which is the safeguard of peace. Be tween the two let the Senate choose. 300 LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL. This amendment was also lost, — Yeas 8, Nays 28, The bill theu passed the Senate, — Yeas 27, Nays 9, March 2d, it passed the House of Representatives i^dthout a division, and was subse quently approved by the President, Failing in Congress, Mr, Sumner renewed his opposition with Presi dent Lincoln, urging upon him the impolicy of any action under the law. He advised most strenuously that no commissions should be is sued, and that the law should be allowed to remain a dead letter. The President was so much impressed by these representations that he in vited Jlr, Sumner to attend the next meeting of his Cabinet and make them there. When Mr, Sumner doubted the expediency of such a step, as possibly giving rise to comment, the President requested him to see the members of his Cabinet individually, which he did. No commis sions were ever issued, and the attempt soon subsided. This effort to set afloat privateers created anxiety among our friends in England, Mr, Bright wrote : — " I hope the President will remain firm against the letters of marque, so long as peace is preserved. They will do no good, and only tend to war, I was sorry your fight against the bill was in vain." A letter from Mr, Bates, the intelligent American partner in the London house of the Barings, confirmed the President in his determi nation. Another letter from the same source concurs with Mr. Bright in condemning the project. " I am very glad that anything I have written has had any effect in stop ping the issue of letters of marque, for I am convinced that their issue would have led to a war, and would have given those who in this country wish for war an opportunity through the press to make a war popular. It would, further, have been playing into the hands of the Confederates, who are doing all they can to embarrass the relations between this country and the United States. It is the last card the Confederates have to play." The Act of Congress authorizing letters of marque has smce expired by its own limitation. APPOINTMENTS TO THE NAVAL ACADEMY. Re.marks in the Senate, on the Bill to regulate the Ap pointment OF Midshipmen to the Naval Academy, February 16, 1863. The Senate having under consideration the bill to regulate the ap pointment of midshipmen, Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, moved the following amendment : — ".\nd to be selected by the Senators, Representatives, and Delegates on the ground of merit and qualification, to be ascertained by an examination of the candidates, and that the Secretary of the Navy be authorized to make the regulations under which such examinations shall be conducted, not in consistent with the provisions of this Act." Mr. Sunmer sustained the amendment. BECAUSE these appointments are conferred upon youth, or, if you please, upon boys, it seems to me that they are too often regarded as of little moment. In reahty, they are among the most important appoint ments under Government. They are appointments for Ufe ; since, beginning with the youth or boy, they end only at death, it may be as captain, commodore, or ad miral, supported always at the expense of the country, and with increasing emoluments corresponding to in creasing rank. Therefore do I think that the Government cannot be too careful in securing the best youths, and I welcome cordially the proposition of the Senator from Ehode Island. I think it entirely practicable, and also most 302 APPOINTMENTS TO THE NAVAL ACADEMY. impoitant. I hope the Senate will adopt it. I cannot doubt that such places should be gi\-en only to the most worthy, discarding personal or political favoritism ; but there must be a rule by wliich to ascertain the most worthy. The amendment w.as lost, having only 6 yeas against 32 nays. EXEMPTION OF CLERGYMEN FROM MILITARY CONSCRIPTION. Remarks on the Conscription Law, February 16, 1863, The Senate having under consideration the biU for enrolling and calling out the national forces, Mr. Sumner moved as an amendment that clergymen or ministers of the Gospel he exempted from conscrip tion. Then ensued brief comments. Mr. Pomeroy. They will fight. Mr. McDougall. I will ask the Senator from Massachusetts to modify his proposition so as not to include the Methodist clergy, because they are a fighting clergy. Mr. Howard. I think the loyal clergy are among the most fighting por tion of our population, quite as reliable as any other. Mr. Wilson. I do hope we are not to exempt lawyers, or clergymen, or any other class. ^Ir. Fessenden. It is now provided in the bill that those who cannot go may be excused on paying a fine. Mr. Samner foUowed. ME. PEESIDENT, — I would not have this propo sition treated with levity. I do not say that it has been. Suffice it for me that I make it in sincer ity, because I think the exception worthy of place in a permanent statute regulating the military system of our country, I shall not be led into debate, but you wiU let me declare my conviction that the proper duty of the cler gyman, if he joins the army, is as chaplain, ministering to the sick, the wounded, the dying, and teaching the living how to die. At the same time, I can well under 304 EXEMPTION OF CLERGYMEN stand that there may be occasions when another service will be requu-ed, or when an irresistible impulse may change the chaplain into the soldier. An eminent \\riter of our age, tbe late Lord Macau- lay, lias said positively that a clergyman should never fiolit. The motion which I make has no such extent. O It simply proposes that the law shall not req^uire him to fight. In former days bishops have worn coats of mail and led embattled forces, and there are many instances where the chaplain has assumed all the duties of the soldier. At the famous Battle of Fontenoy, where the French, under Marshal Saxe, prevailed over tiie united armies of England, Austria, and Holland, there was a Britisli chaplain, with a name subsequently historic, wlio by military service acquired the title of " The Fighting Chaplain of Fontenoy." This was the renowned Edin burgh professor, Adam Ferguson, autlior of the " Histo ry of the Eoman Eepublic." And only a few days ago I presented a petition for a pension from the widow of Eev. Arthur B, Fuller, chaplain, who fell fighting at Fredericksburg, But these instances are exceptional. Legislation cannot be founded on exceptions. In reply to other Senators, Mr, Sumner spoke again. The Senate is- engaged in maturing a permanent law, — not merely for a year, not only for the present Eebel lion, not for any exigency of the day, but an enduring statute, — and as such it will be a record of the senti ments and the civilization of our time. But I am not disposed to present this question on any ground of sentiment, though such an appeal would be difficult to answer. FROM MILITARY CONSCRIPTION. 305 Time is precious, and I content myseK with another appeal, — I mean to practical experience. I think I do not err, when I say, that, in the history of the Christian world, you will not find a single evidence of a country where clergymen have been compelled to serve as sol diers, — at least I do not recall such instance, — while the most military country of modern times has refused to sanction the compulsion. I have before me the well- considered military statute of France, where everything was matured with the greatest care and consideration, and so as to secure the largest amount of service. No exemption was recognized, except after conscientious debate and for sufficient reason. Therefore this statute is testimony of the highest character. But here I find exemption, not only of the clergy, including aU denom inations recognized by the State, but also of students of divinity preparing to enter the ministry. If not abso lutely indifferent to practical experience, the example of a military people like the French, especially in ex emptions from conscription, cannot be neglected, I doubt if we shall lose by following it. Mr, Wilson then said : — "If they cannot bear arms, if they cannot perform military duty, they at any rate can fumish a substitute, or pay the sum provided for, be that more or less." Mr, Sumner replied : — I DO not understand that our clergy throughout the United States are rich. In some of the larger towns they may be comparatively so, but in the country such is not the case. Goldsmith's village preacher, " passing rich with forty pounds a year," — that is, about two hundred dollars, — was not unhke large numbers of the clergy 306 EXEMPTION OF CLERGYMEN. among us. Now; Sir, to compel persons living on such a small allowance to pay two hundred and fifty dollars for a substitute is really asking too much. I think it unreasonable ; and I think my colleague, who is pressing this bill with so mucli energy, would adapt himself bet ter to the sentiment of tlie country and of civilization, if he admitted this natural and humane exemption iuto his list. The amendment was lost. PROTEST A&AINST FOREIGN INTERVENTION, AND DECLARATION OF NATIONAL PURPOSE. Concurrent Resolutions of Congress, reported in the Senate February 28, 1863. From the beginning of the Rebellion there had been constant anx iety lest foreign powers, especially England and France, should inter vene in some way, by diplomacy, if not by arms. As early as July, 1861, Russia made an offer of its good offices between the contending parties, with warm expressions for the integrity of the Union ; but these were promptly declined,^ In October, 1862, the French Emperor in structed his ambassadors at London and St. Petersburg to propose the cooperation of the three Cabinets in obtaining a suspension of arms for six months, and, if required, to he prolonged further, during which every act of war, direct or indirect, should provisiouaUy cease, on sea and land. The Cabinets of England and St, Petersburg both declined the proposition.^ The French Emperor then proceeded alone. By a despatch of M. Drouyn de Lhuys, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to M, Mercier, the Minister at Washington, dated January 9, 1863, his good offices were tendered to the United States, in the view of facilitating ne gotiations between the contending parties ; but these were declined by Mr. Seward, in a despatch to Mr. Dayton at Paris, February 6, 1863,^ Meanwhile there were suggestions in the English press, and also in Parliament, of intervention in some form. Sometimes it was proposed that the independence of the Rebels should he acknowledged. The proposition from the French Emperor and the reply of Mr. Sew ard, being communicated to the Senate, were, on motion of Mr. Sum ner, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and February 28th he reported the following resolutions. 1 Lawrence, Commentaire sur les Elements du Droit International, etc., de Henry Wheaton, Tom, II. p, 467, Part. II, ch. 1, 2 Ihid., pp. 477-479, 3 Ibid., pp. 482,483. 308 PROTEST AGAINST FOREIGN INTERVENTION, Concurrent Eesoldtions of Congress concerning For eign Intervention in the existing Eebellion. WHEEEAS it appears from the diplomatic corre spondence submitted to Congress, that a propo sition, friendly in form, looking to pacification through foreign mediation, has been made to the United States by the Emperor of the French, and promptly declined by the President ; and ichereas the idea of mediation or inter\'eiition in some shape may be regarded by for eign governments as practicable, and such governments, through this misunderstanding, may be led to proceed ings tending to embarrass the Iriendly relations which now exist between them and the United States ; and whereas, in order to remove for the future all chance of misunderstanding on this subject, and to secure for the United States the full enjoyment of that freedom from foreign interference which is one of the highest rights of independent states, it seems fit that Congress should manifest its convictions thereon : Therefore — Resolved (the House of Pi,eprc sentatives concurring). That, while in times past the United States have sought and accepted the friendly mediation or arbitration of foreign powers for the pacific adjustment of interna tional questions, where the United States were party of the one part and some other sovereign power party of the other part ; and while they are not disposed to misconstrue the natural and humane desire of foreign o powers to aid in arresting domestic troubles, which, wid ening in influence, have afflicted other countries, espe cially in view of the circumstance, deeply regretted by the American people, that the Eebel blow aimed at the AND DECLARATION OF NATIONAL PURPOSE. 309 national life has fallen heavily upon the laboring popu lation of Europe ; yet, notwithstanding these things, Congress cannot hesitate to regard every proposition of foreign interference so far unreasonable and inad- missible, that its only explanation can be found in a misunderstanding of the true state of the question, and of the real character of the war in which the Eepublic is engaged. Resolved, That the United States are grappling with an unprovoked and wicked Eebellion, which is seeking the destruction of the Eepublic, that it may build a new power, whose corner-stone, according to the confession of its chiefs, shall be Slavery ; that for the suppression of this EebeUion, thus saving the Eepublic and prevent ing the establishment of such a power, the National Government is employing armies and fleets, in full faith that the purposes of conspirators and rebels wiU be crushed ; that, while engaged in this struggle, on which so much depends, any proposition from a foreign pow er, whatever form it take, having for object the arrest of these efforts, is, just in proportion to its influence, an encouragement to the Eebellion, and to its declared pretensions, and on this account is calculated to pro long and embitter the conflict, to cause increased ex penditure of blood and treasure, and to postpone the much desired day of peace ; that, with these convic tions, and not doubting that every such proposition, although made with good intent, is injurious to the national interests. Congress will be obliged to look upon any further attempt in the same direction as an unfriendly act, which it earnestly deprecates, to the end that nothing may occur abroad to strengthen the Eebellion, or to weaken those relations of good-will 310 PROTEST AGAINST FOREIGN INTERVENTION, witli foreign powers which the United States are happy to cultivate. Resolved, That the Eebellion, from its beginning, and far back even in the conspiracy wliich preceded its out break, was encouraged by hope of support from foreign powers ; that its chiefs constantly represented the peo ple of Europe as so far dependent upon regular supplies of the great Southern staple, that, sooner or later, their go\'ernments would be constrained to take side with the Eebellion in some effective form, even to the ex tent of forcible intervention, if the milder form did not prevail ; tliat the Eebellion is now sustained by this hope, which every proposition of foreign interference quickens anew, and that without this life-giving sup port it must soon yield to the just and paternal author ity of the National Government ; that, considering these things, which are aggravated by the motive of the re sistance thus encouraged, the United States regret that foreign powers have not frankly told the chiefs of the EebeUion that the work in whicli they are engaged is hateful, and that a new government, such as they seek to found, with Sla\-ery as its acknowledged corner-stone, and with no other declared object of separate existence, is so far shocking to civilization and the moral sense of mankind that it must not expect welcome or recognition in the Commonwealth of Nations, Resolved, That the United States, confident in the justice of their cause, which is the cause of good gov ernment and of human rights everywhere among men, anxious for the speedy restoration of peace, which shall establish tranquillity at home and remove all occasion of complaint abroad, and awaiting with well-assured trust the final suppression of the EebeUion, through AND DECLARATION OF NATIONAL PURPOSE, 311 which all these things, rescued ii'om present perU, wdl be secured forever, and the Eepublic, one and indivisible, triumphant over its enemies, will continue an example to mankind, hereby announce, as their unalterable pur pose, that the war will be vigorously prosecuted, accord ing to the humane principles of Christian nations, until the Eebellion is overcome ; and they reverently invoke upon their cause the blessing of Almighty God. Resolved, That the President be requested to transmit a copy of these resolutions, through the Secretary of State, to the ministers of the United States in foreign countries, that the protest and declaration herein set forth may be communicated by them to the govern ments near wliich they reside, March 3d, on motion of Mr, Sumner, the Senate proceeded to con sider the resolutions. In reply to Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, he re marked . "The resolutions speak for themselves, and I content myself by simply asking for a vote," Then, in reply to Mr. Carlile, of West Virginia, he said : ' ' These resolutions proceed from the spontaneous deliberations of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, without a suggestion or hint from the Secretary of State or from any member of the Administration ; but I am able to state, that, since the resolutions have been reported, they have the entire and cordial approval of the Secretary of State, who has authorized me to say that he takes a spe cial interest in their adoption by Congress. " The resolutions passed the Senate by a vote of 31 yeas to 5 nays. On the same day they passed the House of Representatives, — Yeas 103, Nays 28. Being concurrent resolutions of the two Houses, and not a joint reso lution, they were never submitted to the President for approval ; but, according to the request in the last resolution, they were communicated by the Secretary of State in an official note to our ministers abroad. The reception of these resolutions at the time will appear by an ex tract from the Evening Post of New York. " Mr. Sumner's resolutions, which have so triumphantly passed the N,i- tional Legislature, and which receive at the same time the cordial approval 312 PROTEST AGAINST FOREIGN INTERVENTION. of the President and the Cabinet, will deepen and justify the feeling in our favor. They define our position with a distinctness that has not always been attained in our official acts. They describe boldly and vividly the nature of the Rebellion which has destroyed our peace, tracing it wholly to the ambition and selfishness of the Slaveholders, and warning foreign nntions of the awful crime they commit in lending their aid to such an infamous assault upon all the principles of orderly government, all the rights of hu manity, and all the best interests of Christian civilization. Every reflective mind in Europe will know, after reading them, that whatever encourages the Rebellion will encourage the most odious tyranny that human cupidity ever devised." The speech on Foreign Relations, at New York, September 10, 1863,i was a vindication of these resolutions. 1 Post, p, 327. INEXPEDIENCY OF LETTERS OE MARQUE. Letter to a Citizen of New York, Makoh 17, 1863. The following letter, which appeared in the papers at the time, was written in the hope of preventing any action under the law of Congress authorizing letters ot marque. Washington, March 17, 1863. MY DEAE SIE, — In the freedom of that conver sation which I had with you as we drove to the Capitol recently, allow me for a moment to speak again on the question which interested us then I confess that I am anxious that the issuing of let ters of marque should be avoided, not merely because it will give us a bad name without commensurate good, nor because it will be a departure from the early and often declared policy of our Government, which has not hesitated, by the pen of Benjamin Franklin and John Quincy Adams, to denounce privateering as an " enor mity." but because it does not meet, in a practical way, the precise necessity of this time. People who advocate it are obviously misled by the experience of another generation, when we were at war with a nation whose commerce was a temptation and a reward to private enterprise. The case is so different now that the old agency is entirely inapplicable. The privateer cruises for booty, which is in lieu of rations and pay to officers and men, and of hire and VOL. VII, 14 ol4 INEXPEDIENCY OF LETTERS OF MARQUE. compensation to owners. But if the booty does not exist, or if it is in such inconsiderable quantity as to afford small chance of valuable prize, e\idently you must find some other system of compensation ; as tliis can not he, you must abandon the idea of private enterprise stimulated and sustained by booty. An agency must be found applicable to the present case, precisely as in machinery a force is found best calculated to do the required «'ork. Now our present business is to help the Government capture the Alabama and her piratical comrades, and also to catch blockade-runners. But a letter of marque is not proper for this purpose, nor will the chance of booty be the best way to stimulate and sustain the cruiser, while, on the other hand, it is obvious that such a shiji, invested with the belligerent right of search, in the quest of booty, will be tempted to exer cise it on neutral commerce, and thus become the occa sion of contention and strife with foreign powers. Privateers have never been remarkable for the caution or reserve with which they employ belligerent riglits. I would not exaggerate the troubles that might ensue ; but when I think of these sea-rovers, with license to over haul neutral ships and to inflict upon them visitation and search, I feel how much evil may ensue compared with the good. You would not threaten a whole street ill order to catch a few robbers who had sought shelter in some of its recesses, nor would you burn down your liouse, according to the amusing story of Charles Lamb, in order to roast a pig. It seems to be only according to common prudence, that private enterprise, if enlisted now, should be regu lated by the object in view To this end, it is not neces- INEXPEDIENCY OF LETTERS OF MAEQUE. 315 sary that it should assume a form calculated to awaken solicitude. The way is simple. If citizens are willing to unite in efforts of the Government, let them place their ships at its disposal, to be commissioned as national ships, and let the Government, on its part, offer bounty and prize money, in addition to pay and rations, for the capture of the Alabama and her piratical comrades. The motive power will thus be adapted to the object, while our country will be saved from all chance of additional complication, and also from the stigma of reviving a pol icy which civilization condemns. The argument of economy is sometimes pressed. But it is poor economy to employ an agency which in its very nature is inapplicable. Besides, I doubt if any success reasonably expected from such ships, called by the French corsaires, will be a compensation for the bad name they will give us, and the bad passions they wiU engender. I hope I do not take too great a liberty in sending you this sequel to our conversation. At all events, you will be pleased to accept my best wishes, and believe me, my dear Sir, with much regard. Very faithfully yours, Chakles Sumner. John Austin Stevens, Jr., Esq., &c., &c., &c. UNITY FOR THE SAKE OF FREEDOM, AND FREEDOM FOR THE SAKE OF UNITY. Letter to a Public Meeting at Cleveland, Ohio, May 18, 1863. Washington, May 18, 1863. GENTLEMEN,— It will not be in my power to take part in the generous meeting to assemble at Cleve land, but I pray you to accept my thanks for the cordial invitation with which you have honored me. If it were my privilege to speak on that occasion, I should urge upon my fellow-citizens everywhere the duty of Unity for the sake of Freedom, and also of Free dom for the sake of Unity. The two cannot be sepa rated. They are mutually dependent. Let this people continue united, and Freedom must surely prevail. Let Freedom prevail, and this people cannot cease to be united. With such a cause, there is but one side and one duty. Whoever is for the Unity of the Eepublic must be for Freedom, and whoever is for Freedom must be for the Unity of the Eepublic. It is vain to think that one can be advanced without the other. Whoever is against one is against the other, and whoever is lukewarm for one is lukewarm for the other. We must be fervid and strong for both. This is not the time for doubt or hesitation. We UNITY FOR THE SAKE OF FREEDOM. 317 must act at once and constantly, so that the Eepublic may be saved, while Slavery is scourged from this tem ple consecrated to Freedom. And this wiH be done. Believe me, Gentlemen, Very faithfully yours, Charles Sumnek. PACIFIC RAILROAD. Letter to Messrs. Samuel Hallett & Co., May 23, 1863. Mes.'srs, Hallett & Co. were associated with General Fremont in urging the Pacific Railroad. This letter was extensively circulated, Washington, May 23, 1863, GENTLEMEN,— I have always voted for the Pa cific Eaiiroad, and now that it is authorized by Congress I follow it with hope and confidence. It is a great work, but science has already shown it to be practicable. Let the road be built, and its influence will be incal culable. People wiU wonder that the world lived so long without it. Conjoining the two oceans, it will be an agency of matchless power, not only commercial, but political. It will be a new girder to the Union, a new help to busi ness, and a new charm to life. Perhaps the imagination is most impressed by the thought of travel and mer chandise winding their way from Atlantic to Pacific in one unbroken line ; but I inchne to believe that the commercial advantages will be more apparent in the op portunities the railroad will create and quicken every where on the way. New homes and new towns will spring up, making new demand for labor and supplies. Civilization will be projected into the forest and over PACIFIC RAILKGAD. 319 the plain, while the desert is made to yield its increase. There is no productiveness to compare witli that from the upturned sod which receives the iron rail. In its crop are school-houses and churches, cities and states. In this vast undertaking cooperation of all kinds is needed, and it will be rewarded too. Capitalists, bank ers, merchants, engineers, mechanics, miners, laborers, all must enlist. Perhaps there will be a place also for the freedmen of this tear, although it seems to me that their services can be more effectively bestowed at home, as laborers and soldiers. But I see not why emi grants should not be invited from Europe to take part in this honorable service, and share the prosperity it win surely organize. Let them quit poverty, depend ence, and wretchedness in their own country, for good wages here, with independence, and a piece of ground which each man can call his own. Emigration will hasten the work ; but, with or with out emigration, it must proceed. Everywhere, from sun rise to sunset, the Eail and Wheel, which an eminent English engineer has pronounced " man and wife," will yet be welcomed, sure to become the parents of a mighty progeny. I have the honor to be. Gentlemen, Your faithful servant, Charles Sumner. Messrs. Samuel Hallett & Co. UNION OF THE MISSISSIPPI AND THE LAKES BY CANAL. Letter to a Convention at Chicago, May 27, 1863, The Convention was held June 2d. Washington, May 27, 1863. GENTLEMEN, — I resign most reluctantly the op portunity with which I am favored by your invi tation, and shall try to content myself with reading the report of your powerful and well-organized meeting at Chicago, without taking part in it. The proposition to unite the greatest navigable river of the world with the greatest inland sea is character istic of the West. Each is worthy of the other. The idea of, joining these together strikes the imagination as original. But the higliest beauty is in utility, which wiU not be wanting here. With this union, the Gulf of Mexico will be joined to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the whole continent, from Northern cold to South ern heat, traversed by one generous flood, bearing upon its bosom untold commerce. It is for the West to consider well the conditions of this enterprise, and the advantages it will secure. Let its practicability be demonstrated, and the country will command it to be done, as it has already commanded the opening of the Mississippi. Triumphant over the UNION OF THE MISSISSIPPI AND LAKES BY CANAL. 321 wickedness of an accursed Eebellion, we shall achieve another triumph, to take its place among the victories of Peace, To this magnificent work Science will contribute her myriad resources. But there is something needed even to quicken and inspire science : it is the unconquerable will, which does not yield to difhculties, but presses for ward to overcome them. No word is used with more levity than the word " impossible." A scientific profes sor, in a public address, declared the navigation of the Atlantic by steam " impossible." Within a few weeks it was done. The British Prime-Minister declared the construction of a canal between the Mediterranean and the Eed Sea " impossible." The Pacha of Egypt, with French engineers, is now doing it. Mirabeau was right, when he protested against the use of this word as sim ple stupidity. But I doubt if the word will be found in any Western dictionary. Believe me. Gentlemen, with much respect. Very faithfully yours, Charles Sumner. To Hon. James Robe, I, N, Arnold, and others of the Committee. 14* THE ISSUES OF THE WAR. Dedication of a New Edition of the Speech on the Barbarism OF Slavery,' July 4, 1863, To the Young Men of the United St.^tes I dedicate this new Edition of a Speech on the Barbaris.m of Sla-\-krv, in Token of heartfelt Gratitude to the.m for brave and patriotic Ser vice rendered in the present War for Civilization, IT is now more than three years since I deemed it my duty, in the Senate, to exjiose the Barbarism of Sla\'ery. This phrase, though common now, ^vas new then. The speech was a re-ply, strict and logical, to assumptions of Senators, asserting the " divine origin " of Sla^'ery, its " ennobling " character, and that it was the " black marble keystone " of our national arch. Listening to these assumptions, which were of daily recurrence, 1 felt that they ought to be answered ; and considering their effrontery, it seemed to me that they should be answered frankly and openly, by exhibiting Sla\'ery as it really is, without reserve, — careful that I should " nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in malice," This I did. In that debate was joined the issue still pending in the Trial by Battle, The inordinate assumptions for Slavery naturally ripened in Eebellion and War. If Slavery were in reality all that was claimed by its 1 See, ante, Vol, V. p. 1. THE ISSUES OF 'THE WAR. 323 representatives, they must have failed in duty, if they did not vindicate and advance it. Not easily could they see a thing so " divine " and so " ennobling," con stituting the " black marble keystone " of our national arch, discredited by popidar vote, even if not yet con signed to sacrifice. The election of Mr, Lincoln was a judgment against Slavery, and its representatives were aroused. ^Meanwhile, for more than a generation, an assump tion of Constitutional Law, hardly less baleful, had become rooted side by side with Slavery, so that the two shot up in rank luxuriance together. It was as sumed, that, under the Constitution, a State was privi leged at any time, in the exercise of its own discretion, to withdraw from the Union. This absurdity found httle favor at first, even among the representatives of Slavery, To say that two and two make five could not be more irrational. But custom and constant repetition graduaUy produced an impression, until, at last, all the maddest for Slavery were the maddest also for this dis organizing ally. It was then, conjoined with this constitutional as sumption, that the assumption for Slavery grew into noxious vigor, so that, at last, when Mr. Lincoln was elected, it broke forth in flagrant war ; but the war was declared in the name of State Eights, Therefore there are two cvp-parent rudiments to this war. One is Slavery, and the other is State Eights, But the latter is only a co^-er for the former. If Slav ery were out of the way, there would be no trouble from State Eights. The war, then, is for Slavery, and nothing else. It is an insane attempt by arms to vindicate the lordship 324 THE ISSUES OF THE WAR, asserted in debate. With madcap audacity it seeks to install this Barbarism as the truest Civilization. Slav ery is announced as the " corner-stone " of the new edifice. This is enough. The question is presented between Barbarism and Civilization, — not merely between two diflerent forms of Civilization, but between Barbarism on the one side and Civilization on the other side. Such is the issue, simply stated. On the one side are women and children at the auction-block, families rudely separated, human flesh lacerated and seamed by the bloody scourge, labor extorted without wages ; and all this frightful, many-sided wrong is the declared foundation of a mock Commonwealth. On the other .side is the Union of our fatliers, with the image of Liberty on its coin and the sentiment of Liberty in its Constitution, now arrayed under a patriotic Govern ment, which insists that no such mock Commonwealth, ha\'iiig such declared foundation, shall be permitted on the national territory, purchased ^vith money and blood, to impair the unity of our jurisdiction, and to insult the moral sense of mankind. Therefore tlie battle waged by the Union is for Civ ilization itself, and it must have aid and God-speed from all not openly for Barbarism, Every one must give his best efforts, and especially the young men to whom I now appeal, Charles Sumner. Washington, 4th July, 1863. LET COLORED MEN ENLIST. Letter to a Convention at Poughkeepsie, New York, July 13, 1SG3. Boston, July 13, 1863. DEAE SIE, — It will not be in my power to take part in the proposed meeting at Poughkeepsie. But I am glad it has been called, and I trust it will be successful To me it has been clear from the beginning that the colored men would be needed in this war. I never for a moment doubted that they would render good service. And thus far the evidence in their favor is triumphant. Nobody now questions their bravery or capacity for dis ciphne. All that can be said against them is tliat they are not "white." But they have a special interest in the suppression of the Eebellion, The enemies of the Union are the ene mies of their race. Therefore, in defending the Union, they defend themselves even more than other citizens ; and in saving tlie Union, they save themselves, I doubt if in times past our country could have justly expected from colored men any patriotic service. Such service is the return for protection. But now that pro tection has begun, the service should begin also. Nor should relative rights and duties be weighed with nicety. It is enough that our country, aroused at last to a sense 326 LET COLORED MEN ENLIST, of justice, seeks to enroll colored men among its defend ers. If my counsels could reach such persons, I would say. Enlist at once. Now is the day, and now the fortunate hour. Help to overcome your cruel enemies battling against your country, and in this way you will surely overcome those other enemies, hardly less cruel, here at home, who still seek to degrade you. This is not the time to hesitate or to liiggle. Do your duty to our common ciuintry, and you will set an example of gen erous self-sacrifice which must conquer prejudice and (ipen all hearts. Accept my thanks for the invitation with which you have honored me, and belie^'e me, dear Sir, Very faithfully yours, Chakles Sumnei;. Edward Gilbert, Esq. OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS: PRESENT PERILS FROM ENGLAND AND FRANCE, NATURE AND CONDITION OF DfTER'^'ENTION BY MEDIATION AND ALSO BY RECOGNITION, nn-OSSIBILITY OF ANY RECOGNITION OF A NEW POWER WITH SLAVERY AS A CORNER-STONE, AND WRONG FUL CONCESSION OF OCEAN BELLIGERENCE, Speech before the Citizens of New York, at the Cooper In stitute, September 10, 1863. With Appendix. Marcus. Qusero igitur a te, Quinte, sicut illi solent: Quo si civitas ca reat, ob eam ipsam causam, quod eo careat, pro nihilo habenda sit, id estne numerandum in bonis? QuiNTus. Ac maximis quidem. Marcus. Lege autem carens civitas estne ob id ipsum habenda nuUo loco? (JuiNTus. Dici aliter non potest. JIarcus. Necesse est igitur legem haberi in rebus optimis. QuLNTUS. Prorsus assentior. CiCEKO, De Legibus, Lib. II. cap, 6. I have told, 0 Briton^; ! 0 my brethren ! I have told Most bitter truth, but without bitterness. Nor deem my zeal or factious or mistimed; For never can true courage dwell with them Who, playing tricks with conscience, dare not look At their own vice^. Coleridge, Sibylline Leaves : Fear's in Solitude. 'T is therefore sober aud good men are sad For England's glory, seeing it wax pale And sickly. CowpER, The Tash, Book V. 509-511, The Government condemns in the highest degree the conduct of any of our citizens who may personally engage in committing hostilities at sea against any of the nations parties to the present war, and will exert all the means with which the laws and Constitution have armed them to discover such as offend herein and bring them to condign punishment The practice of commissioning, equipping, and manning vessels in our ports to cruise on any of the belligerent parties is equally and entirely disapproved ; and the Govern ment wdl take effectual measures to prevent a repetition of it. — Jefferson, Letter to Mr. Hammond, May 15, 1793 : Writings, Vol. III. p. 559. One spot remains which oceans cannot wash out. The slavery of the Af rican race, which the North Americans had inherited from the ancient mon archy, was adopted and fondly cherished by the new Republic. . . . The logic of the Constitution declared that all men were free: the pride and avarice of the slave-owners, disowning the image of the Creator and the brotherhood of nature, degraded men of a dark color, and even all the descendants of their sons aud daughters, to a level with oxen and horses. But as oxen and horses never combine, and have no sense of wi'onged in dependence, oxen and horses are better treated than the men and women of African blood But neither the philosophical dogma of the authors of the Constitution, nor the strict pedantry of law, can stifle the cry of out raged humanity, nor still the current of human sympathy, nor arrest forever the decrees of Eternal .lustice. — Lord John Russell, Life and Times of Charles James Fox, Vol. I. pp. 364, 365. To this condition the Constitution of this Confederacy reduces the whole African race; and while declaring these to be its principles, the founders claim the privilege of being admitted into the society of the nations of the earth, — principles worthy only of being conceived and promulgated by the inmates of the infemal regions, and a fit constitution for a confederacy in Pan demonium. Now, as soon as the nature of this Constitution is truly explained and understood, is it possible that the nations of the earth can admit such a Conr- federacy into their society? Can any nation calling itself civilized associate, with any sense of self-respect, with a nation avowing and practising siichpriur- ciples? Will not every civilized nation, when the nature of this Confederacy is understood, come to the side of the United States, and refuse all association with them, as, in truth, they are, hostes humani generis ? For the African is as much entitled to be protected in the rights of humanity as any other por tion of the human race. As to Great Britain, her course is, in ihe nature tf things, already fixed and immutable. She must sooner or later join the United States in this war, or be disgraced throughout all future time ; for the principle of that civilization which this Confederacy repudiates was by her — to her great glory, and with unparalleled sacrifices — introduced into the code of Civilization, and she will prove herself recreant, if she fails to maintain it. — Josiah Quincy, Address before the Union CM of Boston, February 27, 1863. 330 OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. If British merchants look with eagerness to the event of the struggle iu South America, no doubt they do so with the hope of deriving advantage from tliat event. But on what is such hope founded? On the diffusion of beggary, on the maintenance of ignorance, on the confirmation of shivery, on the establishment of tyranny in America? No; tliese arc the expectations of Ferdinand. The British merchant builds his hoiics of trade and profit on the progress of civilization and good government, on the successful assertion of Freedom, — of Freedom, that parent of talent, that pai-ent of heroism, tliat parent of every virtue. The fate of South America can only be accessory to commerce as it becomes accessory to the dignity and the happiness of the rMcc of man. — Sir ,1,v5ies 1M.\cicintosh, Speech in Purliamitit, on the For eign /Enlistment Bill, June 10, 1819. "When a power comparable only to Thugs, buccaneers, and cannibals tries to thrust its hideous head among nations, and claims the protection and priv ileges of International L;uv, — a power which rose against the freest rule on earth for the avowed motive of propagating the worst form of Slavery ever known, having no legitimate complaint, or, if it had, certainly trying no constitutional means of redress, but plunging at once into arms, and that when the arsenals had been emptied and the fortresses seized by the treason of office-holders, — I hold it to be an offence against law, order, and public morality for a statesman whose words carry weight to speak at all of such a power without declaring abhorrence of it, — Professor Francis W, Xe\v- MAN, Letter tu Mr. Gladstone, December 1, 1862. I blame men who are eager to admit into the Family of Nations a state which offers itself to us, based upon il principle, I will undertake to say, more odious and more blasphemous than was ever heretofore dreamed of in Christian or Pagan, in civilized or in savage times. The leaders of this re volt propose this monstrous thing: that over a territory forty times as largo as England the blight and curse of Slavery shall be forever perpetuated, — John Bright, Speech at Bivmingham, December 18, 1862. We are already culpable for a part of this bloody war ; for, better informed or less indifferent, less selfish or more adroit, above all, more wise, more sincerely the friends of what is right, we could, from London and Paris, have thrown into the midst of the combatants this declaration, wliich would have rendered the conflict ephemeral: "Never will either England or France, Christian nations, liberal nation^, recognize the existence of a people seek ing to found Liberty and Independence on Slavery ! " The misfortune of the times, in obscuring our judgment, in dulling our passion for the beautiful ideas of Freedom, has, then, already made us participants, in some respect, in the rebellion of the people of the South, and, in order to mask what was gross and low in our voluntary error, we set up vague i-easons of commer cial policy and general policy at which our fathers would have blushed The trath is, that the revolt of the South is the most impudent and most odious insult that has ever been offered to the ideas of modern Civilization Journal des Economistes, Avril, 1864, Tom. XLII. p. 88. The following speech^ was delivered at the invitation of the New York Young Men's Republican ITnion, at Cooper Institute, on the 10th of September, 1863, The announcement that Mr. Sumner had consented to address the citizens of New Y^ork on a subject so momentous attracted an audience numbering not less than three thousand persons, among whom were most of the acknowledged representatives of the intelligence, wealth, and influence of the metropolis. Long before the hour ap pointed for the delivery of the speech, the entrance-doors were besieged by an impatient and anxious crowd, who, as soon as the gates were opened, filled the seats, aisles, lobbies, and platform of the vast hall, leaving at least an equal number to return home, unable to gain an en trance to the building. Of the following named gentlemen, who were invited to occupy seats , upon the platform, h majority were present, while in the auditorium were hundreds of equally prominent citizens, who preferred to retain seats near the ladies whom they had escorted to the meeting, Francis Lieber, LL,D., George Bancroft, Major-General Dix, Horace Greeley, George Griswold, John E. Williams, W. "W, DeForest, Corne lius Vanderbilt, Abram Wakeman, Eev. Dr. Tyng, Cyrus W. Field, Alexander T. Stewart, Horace Webster, LL.D,, Joseph LawTence, John A. Stevens, Pelatiah Peril, James A. Hamilton, H. B. Claflin, T. L. Thoruell, Colonel William Borden, William Goodell, Rev. Dr, Thomp son, Eev, Dr. Gillette, W^illiam Cullen Bryant, Major-General Fremont, A, A, Low, John Jay, Henry Grinnell, James Gallatin, Cephas Brainerd, WiUiam B, Astor, William H, Aspinwall, Oliver Johnson, W, M. Evarts, William Curtis Noyes, Rev. Dr, Hitchcock, Shepherd Knapp, William H, Webb, James W, Gerard, Anson Livingston, Frank W, Ballard, Isaac H. Bailey, George B. Lincoln, General Harvey Brown, Rev. Dr. .Shedd, Rev. Dr. Durbin, Peter Cooper, Major-General Doubleday, Charles H. Marshall, Marshall 0, Roberts, Judge Bradford, Charles H, Russell, E, Delafield Smith, Hamilton Fish, Robert B, Minturn, Rev. Dr, Cheever, F, B, Cutting, Charles King, LL,D., Rev. Dr, Fer ris, Ex-Governor King, George Folsom, Samuel B, Ruggles, S, B. Chit tenden, Charles T. Rodgers, Mark Hoyt, Lewis Tappan, Rev. Dr. Storrs, Rev. Dr. Adams, Rev. Dr. Vinton, Daniel Drew, Francis Hall, George I This Introduction is copied from the pamphlet edition published ia New York by the Young Men's Republican Union. 332 OUE FOREIGN EELATIONS. William Curtis, Judge Edmonds, Eev. Dr. Asa D. Smith, Truman Smith, William A. Hall, Prosper M. Wetmore, B. F. Manierre, George P. Putnam, E. C. Johnson, Rev. Dr. Osgood, Elliott C. Cow- din, Eev. T. Ealston Smith, J. S. Schultz, M. Armstrong, Jr., D. A. Hawkins, Edgar Ketchum, Joseph Hoxie, Rev, Dr. Bellows, General S, C. Pomeroy, James McKaye, George F, Butman, David Dudley Field, David Dudley Field, Esq., who had been selected by the Committee as Chairman of the meeting, introd uced Mr, Sumner to the audience in the following words. '* Ladies and Gentlemen, — At no former period in the history of the country has the condition of its foreign relations been so important and so critical as it is at this moment. In what agony of mortal struggle this nation has passed the last two years we all know. A rebellion of unparalleled ex tent, of indescribable enormity, without any justifiable cause, without even !i decent pretext, stimulated by the bad passions which a barbarous insti tution had originated, and encouraged by expected and promised aid from false man among ourselves, has filled the land with desolation and mourn ing. During this struggle it has been our misfortune to encounter the evil disposition of the two nations of Western Europe with which we are must closely associated by ties of blood, common history, and mutual commerce. Perhaps I ought to have said the evil disposition of the governments, rather than of the nations ; for in France the people have no voice, and we know only the imperial will and policy, while in England the masses have no powers, the House of Commons being elected by a fraction of the people, and the aristocratic classes being against us from dislike to 'the freedom of our institutions, and the mercantile classes from the most sordid motives of private gain. To what extent this evil disposition has been carried, what causes have stimulated it, in what acts it has manifested itself, and what consequences may be expected to follow from it in future, will be explained by the distinguished orator who is to address you this evening. His posi tion as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has given him an acquaintance with the subject equal, if not superior, to that of any other person in the countrv. He needs no introduction from me. His name is an introduction and a passport in any free community between the Atlan tic and the Pacific seas ; therefore, without saying more, I will give way for Charles Sumneb, of Massachusetts." Amid the most marked demonstrations of satisfaction, expressed fre quently by long-continued applause and hearty cheers, Mr, Sumner proceeded in the delivery of his discourse. The meeting adjourned about an hour before midnight. Three New York newspapers and two in Boston printed the entire speech on the day following its delivery. SPEECH. FELLOW-CTTIZENS, — From the beginning of the war in which we are now engaged, the public in terest has alternated anxiously between the current of events at home and the more distant current abroad. Foreign Piclations have been hardly less absorbing than Domestic Eelations, At times the latter seem to wait upon the former, and a packet from Europe is like a messenger from the seat of war. Kumors of foreign intervention are constant, now in the form of media tion, and then in the form of recognition ; and more than once the country has been summoned to confront the menace of England, and of France, too, in open combi nation with Eebel Slaveniongers battling in the name of Slavery to build an infamous power on the destruction of this Eepublic. It is well for us to turn aside from battle and siege at home, from the blazing lines of Vicksburg, Gettys burg, and Charleston, to glance for a moment at the perils from abroad : of course I mean from England and France ; for these are the only foreign powers thus far moved to intermeddle on the side of Slavery. The sub ject to which I invite attention may want the attraction of waving standards or victorious marches ; but, more than any conflict of arms, it concerns the civilization of the age. If foreign powers can justly interfere against 334 OUR FOKEltiN RELATION'S. human freedom, this EepubKc will not be the only suf ferer. There is always a natural order in unfolding a sub ject, and I shall try to pursue it on this occasion, under the following heads. First. The perils to our country from foreign iio\\'crs, especially foresjiadowed in the unexpected and persist ent conduct of England and France since the outbreak of the war. Secondly. The nature of foreign intervention by me diation, with the principles applicable thereto, illustrated by historic instances, showing esporiallv how England, by conspicuous, wide-spread, and most determined inter vention to promote the extinction of iVfrican Slavery, is ¦irrcrorahh/ ('(iiiniiitted against a iiy act or policy 111 al can e7icoui'ai/e III Is criminal pretension. Thirdly. The nature of foreign intervention by recog nition, with the principles applicable thereto, illustrated by historic instances, showing that by the practice of nations, and especially by the declared sentiments of British statesmen, there can, he no foreign rerngitilion of an insurgent poircr, where llic eonJest for independence is still pe'ial III g. Fourthly. The moral impossibility of foreign recog nition, even if the pretended power be cle faeto inde pendent, where it is composed of Eebel Slavemongers seeking to found a nevj power with Slavery for its declared " corner-stone," Pardon the truthful plainness of the terms I employ, I am to speak not merely of Slaveholders, but of people to whom Slavery is a pas sion and a business, therefore Slavemongers, — now in rebellion for the sake of Slavery, therefore Eebel Slave- mongers. PERILS FEOM FOREIGN POWERS, 335 Fifthly. The absurdity and wrong of conceding ocean belligerence to a pretended power, which, in the first place, is without a Prize Court, so that it cannot be an ocean belligerent in fact, — and, in the second place, even if ocean belligerent in fact, is of such an odious charac ter that its recognition is a moral impossibility. From this review, touching upon the present and the past, leaning upon history and upon law, enlightened always by principles which are an unerring guide, our conclusion will be easy. The perils to our country, foreshadowed in the action of foreign powers since the outbreak of the war, first invite attention. There is something in the tendencies of nations which must not be neglected. Like individuals, nations influ ence each other ; Eke the heavenly bodies, they are dis turbed by each other in their appointed orbits. Apparent even in peace, this becomes more so in the convulsions of war, whether from the withdrawal of customary forces or from their increased momentum. It is the nature of war to enlarge as it continues. Beginning between two nations, it gradually widens its circle, ingulfing other nations in its fiery maelstrom. Such is human history. N"or is it different, if the war be for independence. For eign powers may for a while keep out of the conflict ; but examples of history show how difficult this has been. There was liberty-loving Holland, which, under that illustrious character, William of Orange, predecessor and 336 OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. exemplar of our Washington, rose against the dominion of Spain, upheld by the bigotry of Philip the Second, and the barbarity of his represeiitati\'e, Alva ; but the conflict, though at first limited to the two parties, was not slow to engage Queen Elizabeth, who lent to this war of independence the name of her favorite Leicester and the undying heroism of Sidney, while Sjiain re torted by the Armada. The United Provinces ol Hol land, in their struggle for independence, were the proto type of the United States of America, which I need not remind you drew into their contest the arms of France, Spain, and Holland. In the rising of the Siianish colo nies there was less interposition of other nations, doubt less from the distant and outlying position they occu pied, although not beyond the ambitious reach of the Holy Alliance, whose purposes were so far thwarted by Mr, Canning, backed by the declaration of President Monroe, known as the Monroe doctrine, that the Brit ish statesman felt authorized to boast that he had called a new world into existence to redress the balance of the old. Then came the struggle of Greece, which, after painful years darkened by massacre, but relieved by e.x- alted self-sacrifice, shining with names, like Byron and Bozzaris, that cannot die, challenged the po-\\'erful inter position of England, France, and Itussia, The independ ence of Greece was hardly acknowledged, when Bel gium, renouncing the rule of the Netherlands, claimed hers also, and here again the great powers of Europe were drawn into the contest. Then came the effort of Hungary, inspired by Kossuth, which, when about to prevail, aroused the armies of Eussia, There was also the contemporaneous effort of the Eoman Eepublic, under Mazzini, which, almost successful, evoked the PERILS FEOM FOREIGN POWERS. 337 bayonets of France. We have only recently witnessed the resurrection of Italy, inspired by Garibaldi, and di rected by Cavour; but it was not accomplished, until Louis Napoleon, with well-trained legions, bore the im perial eagles into battle. Such are famous instances, being so many warnings. Ponder them, and you will see the tendency, the temp tation, the irresistible fascination, or the commanding exigency under which foreign nations have been led to participate in conflicts for independence. I do not dwell on the character of these interventions, although mostly in the interest of Human Freedom. It is only as examples to put us on our guard that I adduce them. The footprints all lead one way. Even our war is not without its warning. If thus far in its progress other nations have failed to intervene, they have not succeeded in keeping entirely aloof The foreign trumpet has not sounded yet, but more than once the cry has come that we should soon hear it, while incidents too often occur, exhibiting abnormal A^'atchfulness of our affairs and uncontrollable passion or purpose to intermeddle in them, with signs of un friendly feeling. This is applicable especially, if not exclusively, to England and France. And at the outset, as I am about to speak frankly, I quote the words of an eminent English statesman and orator, who felt it his duty to criticize Spain. From his place in the House of Commons, whence his words flew over Europe, Mr. Canning, Minister of Foreign Affairs, said : — " If, in what I have now further to say, I should bear hard upon the Spanish Government, I beg that it may be observed, that, unjustifiable as I shall show their conduct VOL. vii. 15 V 338 OUE FOREIGN EELATIONS. to have been — contrary to the Law of Nations, contrary to the law of good neighborhood, contrary, I might say, to the laws of God aud man — with respect to Portugal, still I do not mean to preclude a locus pwnitentice, a possibility of re dress and rcpar;ition," ¦' FeUow-citizens, you shall decide, on hearing the story, if we also have not complaints ; but I, too, hope that aU win end well ( 1.) One act of the British Cabinet stands foremost as an omen of peril, — foremost in time, foremost also in the magnitude of its consequences. Though plausible in form, it is none the less injurious or unjustifiable. I refer to that inconsiderate Proclamation, in the name of the Queen, as early as 13th I\Iay, 1861, which, after raising Eebel Slavemongers to equality with the Na tional Government, solemnly declares " neutrality " be tween the two coequal parties : as if the recognition of equahty was not an insult to the National Govern ment, and the declaration of neutrality was not a moral absurdity, offensive to reason and all those precedents which make the glory of the British name. Neutrality is equality ; neutrality is equity. It is both. But is there just eipiality between these two parties ? Can neutrality between such parties, especially at the very outset, be regarded as equity ? Yjven if the Proclamation could be otherwise than improper at any time in such a rebellion, it was worse than a blunder at that early date. The apparent relations between the two powers were more than friendly. Only a few months had passed since the youthful heir to the British throne was wel- 1 Speech on the King's Message relative to the Affairs of Portugal, De cember 12, 1826 : Speeches, Vol. VI. p. 79. PERILS FEOM ENGLAND. 339 corned everywhere, except in Eichmond, as in the land of kinsmen. And yet, at once, after tidings of the Eebel assault on Fort Sumter, before the National Government had begun to put forth its strength, and even without waiting for the arrival of our newly ap pointed minister, who was known to be at Liverpool, on his way to London, the Proclamation was suddenly launched. I doubt if any well-informed person, who reads Mr, Dallas's despatch of 2d May, 1861, recount ing a conversation with the British Secretary, will un dertake to vindicate it iu point of time. " I informed him," the minister reports, " that Mr, Adams had ap prised me of his intention to be on his way hither in the steamship Niagara, which left Boston on the 1st May, and that he would probably arrive in less than two weeks, by the 12th or 15tli instant. His Lordship ac quiesced in the expediency of disregarding mere rumor, and wu iting the full knowledge to be brought by my stteces- sor'' 1 And yet the blow was struck without waiting. The alacrity of this concession was unhappy, for it bore an air of defiance, or at least of heartlessness, towards an ally of kindred blood engaged in the maintenance of its traditional power against an infamous pretension. Alore unhappy still was it that the good genius of Eng land did not save this historic nation, linked with so many triumphs of Freedom, from a fatal step, which, under the guise of " neutrality," was a betrayal of Civ ilization itself. It is difficult to exaggerate the consequences of this precipitate, unfriendly, and immoral concession, which has been, and still is, an overflowing fountain of mischief 1 Papers relating tn Foreign Affairs, 1861, p. 84: Executive Documents, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., Senate, No. 1. 340 OUR FOEEIGN EELATIONS. and bloodshed, — " hoe fonte derivata elades," — first, in what it ^'ouchsafes to Eebel Slavemongers on sea and in British ports, and, secondly, in the removal of impedi ments from British subjects ready to make money out of Slavery, — all of which has been declared by un doubted Britisli authority. Lord Chelmsford, of pro fessional renown as Sir Frederick Thesiger, now an ex- Chancellor, used these words recently in the House of Lords : " If the Southern Confederacy had not been recognized by us as a belligerent jioiver, he agreed with his noble and learned friend [Lord Brougham], that any Englishman aiding them by fitting out a privateer against the Federal Government wotdd be guilty of pi racy'' ^ But this is changed by the Queen's Procla mation, For Eebel Slavery there is recognition; for the British subject opportunity of trade. For Eebel Slavery there is fellowship and equality; for the Brit ish subject a new customer, to whom he may lawful ly sell Armstrong guns, and other warlike munitions of choicest British workmanship, and, as Lord Palmer- ston tells us, even ships of war, to be used in behalf of Slavery.^ What was unlawful is suddenly made lawful, while the ban is taken from an odious felony. It seems superfluous to add, that such concession, thus potent in reach, must have been a direct encouragement and over- t Debate on the Queen's Proclamation, Mny 16, 1661: Hansard's Parlia mentary Debates, 3d Ser,, Vol. CLXII, col, 2084. 2 The cvmical frankness of Earl Eussell reveals the prominence of this consideration. In autobiographical comments, at a later day, he says: " During the discussion of the questions relating to the Alabama and the Shenandoah, it was the great object of the British Government to preserve for the subject the security of Trial by Jury, and for the nation tlie legiti- mnte and lucrative trade of ship-builrlinr/. ' ' — Selections from Speeches of Earl Russell. 1817 to 1841, and from Despatches, 1859 to 1865, with Intro ductions by Earl Russell, Vol. II. p. 266. PEEILS FEOM ENGLAND. 341 ture to the Eebellion, Slavery itself was exalted, when barbarous pretenders, battling to found a new power in its hateful name, without so much as a single port on the ocean where a prize could be carried for condemna tion, were yet, in face of this essential deficiency, swift ly acknowledged as ocean belligerents, while, as conse quence, their pirate ships, cruising for plunder in behalf of Slavery, were acknowledged as national ships, enti tled to equal immunities with the national ships of the United States. This simple statement is enough. It is vain to say that the concession was a " necessity." There may have been strong temptation to it, consti tuting, perhaps, imagined necessity, as with many there is strong temptation to Slavery itself. But such conces sion to Eebels fighting for Slavery can be vindicated only as Slavery is vindicated. As well declare " neu trality" between Eight and Wrong, between Good and EvU, with concession to Evil of belHgerent rights, and then set up the apology of "necessity." If he is an enemy who does what pleases an enemy, according to the rule borrowed by Grotius from the Christian lawyer of the age of Justinian,-' then did Eng land become the enemy of the National Union, for this most fruitful concession rejoiced beyond measure the Eebel enemy. (2.) An act so essentially unfriendly in character, and also in the alacrity with which it was done, too clearly indicated an unfriendly sentiment, easily stimu lated to menace of war. And this menace was not want ing, when, soon afterwards, the two Eebel emissaries on board the Trent were seized by a patriotic, brave com- 1 " Apud Agathiam legimus, hostem esse qui facial quod hosti placet." — Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Lib. III. cap. xvii. § 3, 2. 342 OUE FOEEIGN REL.-VTIONS. mander, whose highest fault was, that, in the absence of instructions from his own Government, he foUowed British precedents only too closely. This accident — for such it was, and nothing else — assumed at once over shadowing proportions. With indefensible exaggeration, it was changed by the British nation, backed by the British Government, into a casus belli, — as if an unau thorized incident, obviously involving no question of self-defence, could justify war between two civilized nations. And yet, in the face of positive declaration from the United States, communicated by our minister at London, that it was an accident, the British Govern ment made preparations to take part with Rebel Slavery, and fitly began such an ignoble proceeding by keeping back from the British people the official despatch of 30th November, 1861, where our Government, after announc ing that Captain Wilkes had acted "without any in structions," expresses a " trust that the British Govern ment would consider the subject in a friendly temper," and promises " the best disposition " on our part.-' It is painful to recall this exhibition. But it belongs to his tory, and we cannot forget the lesson it teaches. (3.) This tendency to espouse the side of Slavery appears in small things as weU as great, becoming more marked in proportion to the inconsistency involved. Thus, where two British subjects, "suspected" of par ticipation in the Eebellion, were detained in a military prison without the benefit of Habeas Corpus, the British minister at Washington was directed to complain of their detention as inconsistent ivith the Constitution of the United States, of wdiich this intermeddling power t Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams: Executive Documents, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., Senate, No. 8, pp. 2, 3. PERILS FROM ENGLAND. 343 assumed to be ¦' expounder '' ; and the case was accord ingly presented on this ground.^ But the British Cabi net, with instinct to mix in our war, if only by diplo matic notes, seemed to have forgotten the British Con stitution, under which, in 1848, with consent of all the party leaders. Brougham and Lansdowne, Peel and Dis- raeU, Habeas Corpus was suspended in Ireland, and the Government authorized to apprehend and detain " such persons as they shall suspect.'' The bUl sanctioning this exercise of power went through all its stages in the House of Commons on one day, and the next day went through all its stages in the House of Lords with out a dissenting vote. It is hard to believe that Lord Eussell, who complains of our detention of " suspected " persons as inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, was the minister who introduced this biU, and on that occasion used these words : " I believe in my conscience that this measure is calculated to pre vent insurrection, to preserve internal peace, to preserve the unity of this empire, and to secure the throne of these realms and the free institutions of this country." ^ (4.) The complaint about Habeas Corjnis was hardly answered, when another was solemnly presented, found ed on the legitimate effort to complete the blockade of Charleston, by sinking at the mouth of its harbor ships laden with stone, usuaUy known as " the stone block ade." Did anybody find fault with the Eussians for sinking their men-of-war in the harbor of Sebastopol ? Nor is the aUegation of permanent damage to the har bor tenable in the present advanced state of engineering ^ Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward, October 14, 1861 : Papers relating to Foreign Affairs, 1861, p. 169: Executive Documents, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., Senate, No. 1. 2 Hansard's ParUamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. C. col. 714. 344 CUE FOREIGN RELATIONS. science. A London journal, not inferior to any other in character and ability, has recently recognized the normal character of such a proceeding by mentioning it as a possible defence for Calcutta against naval force, say ing : " The ascent of the ri\er without pilots is impossi ble ; for the Government can alter all the channels in a night by merely sinking a couple of loaded schooners." •' In common times her Alajesty's Government would shrink from such intermeddling. It could not forget that history, early and late, and especially English his tory, abounds in similar incidents : that, as long ago as 1436, at the siege of Calais by the Duke of Burgundy, and also in 1628, at the memorable siege of Eochelle by Cardinal Eichelieu, ships laden with stone were sunk in the harbor; that, during the war of the Eev olution, in 1779, six vessels were sunk liy the British commander in the Savannah Eiver, not far from this very Charleston, as a protection against the a]3proach of the French naval forces ; that, in 1804, under direc tion of the British Admiralty, there was an attempt, no torious from contemporary jest,^ to choke the entrance into the harbor of Boulogne by sinking stone \'essels ; and that, in 1809, the same blockade of another port was recommended to the Admiralty by no less a person than Lord Dundonald, saying : " Ships fiUed with stones would ruin forever the anchorage of Aix, and some old vessels of the line well loaded would be excellent for 1 Spectator, January 4, 1862, p. 17. 2 Sir Walter Scott, in correspondence with his friend Ellis, undertook to explain how a whole edition of Godwin's Life of Chaucer had vanished, by conjecturing, that, " as the heaviest materials to be come at, they have been sent on the secret expedition, planned by Mr. Phillips and adopted by our sapient Government, for blocking up the mouth of our enemy's harbors." — Letter to George Ellis, Esq, March 19, 1804: Lockhart's Life of Scott, Vol. 1. p. 414. PERILS FROM ENGLAND, 345 the purpose,"^ This complaint by the British Cabinet becomes doubly strange, when it is considered that one of the most conspicuous treaties of modern history con tains solemn exactions from France by England herself, that the harbor of Dunkirk, whose prosperity was re garded with jealousy, should be permanently " filled up," so that it could no longer furnish those hospitalities to commerce for which it was famous. This was the Treaty of Utrecht, in 1713. The Triple Alliance, four years later, compelled France to stipulate again that nothing should be omitted " which Great Britain could think necessary for the entire destruction of the har bor " ; and the latter power was authorized to send com missioners as " ocular witnesses of the execution of the treaty." These humUiating provisions were renewed in successive treaties down to the Peace of VersaiUes, in 1783, when the immunity of that harbor was recog nized with American Independence. And yet it is Great Britain, thus persistent in closing ports and rivers, that now interferes to warn us against a stone blockade in a war to put down Eebel Slavery. ( 5.) The same propensity and the same inconsistency appear in another instance, where an eminent peer, once Foreign Secretary, did not hesitate, from his place in Parliament, to charge the United States with making medicines and surgical instruments contraband, "con trary to all the common laws of war, contrary to all pre cedent, not excluding the most ignorant and barbarous ctejes!''^ Thus exclaims the noble Lord. Now I have nothing to say of the propriety of making these things ^ Letter to Lord Mulgrave Aprils, 1809: Autobiography of a Seaman, Vol. I. pp, 363, 364. 2 Earl of Malmesbury, Speech in the House of Lords, February 5, 1863: Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLIX. col. 63. 15* 346 OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. contraband. My simple object is to exhibit the spirit against which we are to guard. It is difficult to under stand how such a display coiUd be made in face of the historic fact, exposed in the satire of Peter Plymley, that Parliament, in 1808, by large majorities, prohibited the exportation of Peruvian bark into any territory occu pied by France, and that this prohibition was moved by no less a person than the ChanceUor of the Exchequer, Mr, Perceval, who commended it on the ground that " the severest pressure was already felt on the Conti nent from the want of that article," and that " it was of great importance to the armies of the enemy," ^ Such, in an age neither "ignorant" nor " liarbarous," is authentic British precedent, but now ostentatiously forgotten, (6,) The same recklessness, of such evil omen, breaks forth again in a despatch of the Foreign Secretary, where he undertakes to communicate the judgment of the Brit ish Cabinet on the President's Proclamation of Emanci pation, Here, at least, you will say there can be no mis understanding and no criticism ; but you are mistaken. Under any ordinary circumstances, when great pas sions find no vent, such an act, having such an object, and being of such unparalleled importance, would be treated by the minister of a foreign power with supreme caution, if not with sympathy ; but, under the terrible influence of the hour, Earl Eussell, not content with condemning the Proclamation, misrepresents it in the most barefaced manner. This was done in a commu nication to Lord Lyons here in Washington. Gather ing his condemnation into one phrase, he says that it " makes Slavery at once legal and illegal " ^ ; whereas it 1 Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Vol, X. col. 695. 2 Letter of January 17, 1863: Correspondence relating to the Civil War in the United States, pp. 51, 52: Parliamentary Papers, 1863, Vol. LXXII. PERILS FEOM ENGLAND, 347 is obvious to the most careless observer, who looks only at the face of the Proclamation, that, whatever its faults, it is not obnoxious to this criticism, for it makes Slavery legal nowhere, whUe it makes it illegal in an immense territory. An official letter so incomprehensible in mo tive, from a statesman usually liberal, if not cautious, is another iUustration of that irritating tendency which will be checked, at last, when it is fully comprehended. ( 7.) The activity of our navy is only another occasion for criticism in a similar spirit. Nothing can be done anywhere to please our self-constituted monitor. Our naval officers in the ^A'est Indies, acting under instruc tions modeUed on the judgments of the British Admi ralty, are reprehended by Earl EusseU in a formal de- spatch,! ;pjjg judges in our Prize Court are indecently belittled by this same minister, from his place in Parlia- ment,2 when it is notorious that there are several who compare fa-\'orably with any British Admiralty judge since Lord Stowell, not even excepting that noble and upright magistrate, Dr, Lushington. And this same minister has undertaken to throw the British shield over a newly invented contraband trade with the Eebel Slave- mongers vid Matamoras, claiming that it is "a lawful branch of commerce " and " a perfectly legitimate trade.'' The " Dolphin " and " Peterhoff " were two ships elab orately prepared in London for this illicit commerce, and they have been duly condemned as such ; but their seizure was made the occasion of official protest and complaint, with the insinuation of "vexatious capture and arbitrary interference," followed by the menace, 1 Earl Russell to Mr. Stuart, October 10, 1862: Correspondence respecting Instructions given to Naval Officers of the United States in regard to Neu tral Vessels and Hails, p. 5: Parliamentary Papers, 1863, Vol. LXXII. 2 See, post. Appendix, p. 490. 348 OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. that, under such circumstances, " it is obvious that Great Britain must interfere to protect her flag.''^ (8.) This persistent, inexoralile criticism, even at the expense of aU consistency, or of all memory, has broken forth in forms incompatible with that very "neutrality" so early declared. It was bad enough to declare neu trality, \\hen the ([uestion was between a friendly power and an insulting barbarism ; but it is worse, after the declaration, to depart from it, if hi words only. The Court of Eome, at a period when it dictated the usage of nations, instructed its Cardinal Legate, on an impor tant occasion, as a solemn duty, first and above all things, to cultivate " indifference " between the parties, and in this regard he was to be so exact, that not only should no partiality be seen in his conduct, but it should not be remarked even "in the actions and words of his do mestics." ^ If, in that early day, before steam and tele graph, or even the newspaper, neutrality was disturbed by " words," how much more so now, when every word is multiplied indefinitely, and wafted we know not whith er, to begin, wherever it falls, a subtle, wide-spread, and irrepressible influence ' This injunction is in plain har mony ^vith the refined rule of Count Bernstorff, who, in his admirable despatch at the time of the Armed Neu trality, says sententiously : " Neutrality does not exist, when it is not perfect:' ^ It must be clear and above suspicion. Like the reputation of a woman, it is lost 1 Earl Russell to Lord Lyons, April 24, 1863: Correspondence respecting Trade with Matamoras, p. 1 : Parliamentary Papers, 1863, Vol. LXXII. 2 Wicquefnrt, L'Ambassadeur et ses Fonctions, Liv. II, sec, 11, 3 "La neutrality n'existe plus des qu'elle n'est pas parfaite." Reponse du Comte de Bernstorff a M. Hailes, F.nvuye Britannique a Copenkague, le 28 Juillet, 1793: Cussy, Phases et Causes U^lebres du Droit Maritime des Nations, Tom. 11. p. 177, PERILS FROM ENGLAND. 349 when you begin to talk about it. Unhappily, there is too much occasion to talk about the " neutrality " of England. I say nothing of a Parliamentary utterance, that the national cause was " detested by a large majority of the House of Commons " ; nor do I speak of other most unneutral speeches. I confine myself to official decla rations, _ Here the case is plain. Several of the British Cabinet, including the Foreign Secretary and the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, two masters of " words," have allowed themselves in public speech to characterize our present effort to put down Eebel Slavery as " a contest for empire on one side and for independence on the other." Here are "words" which, under a specious form, openly encouraged Eebel Slavery. But they are more specious than true, revealing nothing but the side espoused by the orators. Clearly, on our side it is a contest for national life, involving the liberty of a race. Clearly, on the other side it is a contest for Slavery, in order to secure for this hateful crime new recognition and power; and it began in rebeUion against the sol emn judgment of the Anierican people, declaring, in the election of Abraham Lincoln, that Slavery shall not be extended. Our empire is simply to crush Eebel Slavery. Their independence is but the unrestrained power to whip and sell women and children. If at the beginning the National Government made no declara tion, yet the real character of the war was none the less apparent in the Presidential election, out of which it grew, and in the repeated declarations of the other side, who did not hesitate to assert their purpose to build a new power on Slavery, — as in the Italian campaign of Louis Napoleon against Austria the object was neces- 350 OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. sarUy apparent, even before the Emperor tardily at Milan put forth his life-giving proclamation that Italy should be free from the Alps to the Adriatic, 1 )y which the war liecame, in its a^¦owed purpose, as well as in reality, a war of liberation. That sucli a rebellion should be elevated by tlie unneutral " words " of a foreign Cab inet into respectaliility which it deserves so little is only another sign we have to watch. (9.) These same Cabinet orators, not content with giving us a bad name, allow themselves to pronounce against us on the whole case. They declare that the National Government cannot succeed in crushing Eebel Slavery, and that dismemberment is inevitable. " Jef ferson Davis," says one of them, "has created a nation." Thus do tliese representatives of declared " neutrality " degrade us and exalt Slavery. It is apparent that their utterance, though made in Parliament and repeated at public meetings, A\as founded less on special information from the seat of war — disclosing its secret — than on political theory, if not prejudice. It is true that our elo quent teacher, Edmund Burke, in his famous Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol, argued nicst persuasi\-ely that Great Britain could not succeed in reclaiming the colonies which had declared themselves independent. His rea soning rather than his wisdom enters into and possesses the British statesmen of our day, who do not take the trouble to see how the two cases are so entirely unUke that the example of the one is not applicable to the other, — that the colonies were battling to found a new power on the corner-stone of Liberty, Equality, and Hap piness to All Men, while our Slavemongers are battling to found a new power on the corner-stone of Slavery, The difference becomes a contrast, so that whatever was PERILS FROM ENGLAND. 351 once generously said in favor of American Independence now teUs with unmistakable force against this new fangled pretension. No British statesman saw the past more clearly than Earl Eussell, when, long ago, in striking phrase, he said that Eno-land, in her war against our fathers, " had engaged for the suppression of Liberty " ; ^ but this is precisely what Eebel Slavery is doing. Men change, but principles are the same now as then. Therefore do I say, that every sympathy formerly bestowed upon our fathers now belongs to us their children, striving to up hold their work against bad men, who would not only break it in pieces, but put in its stead a new piratical power, whose declared object is "the suppression of Liberty," And yet British ministers, mounting the prophetic tripod, presume most oracularly to foretell the doom of this EepubEc, Their prophecies do not disturb my confidence. I do not forget how often false prophets have appeared, like the author of the " Oceana," who published a demonstration that mon archy was impossible in England ^ less than six months before Charles the Second was welcomed to London amid salvos of cannon and hurrahs of the people. Nor do I stop to consider how far such prophecies uttered in pubEc places by British ministers are consistent with that British " neutrality " so constantly boasted. Opin ions are allies more potent than subsidies, especially in an age like the present. Prophecies are opinions pro- 1 Speech on the Repeal of the Foreign Enlistment Bill, April 16, 1823: Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 2d Ser., Vol. VIII. col. 1036. 2 The Ways and Means whereby an Equal and Lasting Commonwealth may be suddenly introduced and perfectly founded, with the free Consent and actual Confirmation of the Whole People of England. Feb. 6, 1659. First printed at London 1660. Harrington, Oceana and other Works, (Lon don, 1747,) pp. 539, 540, xlv. 352 OUE FOREIGN RELATIONS. claimed and projected into the future ; and yet these are given freely to Eebel Slavery. Tliere is matter for reflection in this instance, but I adduce it only as an other illustration of the times. Nothing is more clear than that whosoever assumes to play prophet becomes pledged in character and pretension to sustain his proph ecy. The learned Jerome Cardan, professor and doctor, also dabbler in astrology, of great fame in the sixteenth century, undertook to jDredict the day of his death, and he maintained his prophetic character by taking his own life at the appointed time. If British ministers, playing prophet, escape the ordinary influences of this craft, it is from that happy nature wdiich suspends for them human infirmity and human prejudice. But it becomes us to note well the increased difficulties and dangers to which, on this account, the national cause is exposed, ( 1 0.) It is not in " words " only, of speeches, de spatches, or declarations, that our danger Ues. I am sorry to add, that there are acts, also, with which the British Government is too closely associated, I do not refer to the unlimited supply of "munitions of war," so that our army everywhere, whether at Vicksburg or (.'harleston, is compelled to encounter Armstrong guns and Blakely guns, with all proper ammunition, from England ; for the right of British subjects to sell these articles to Eebel Slavemongers was fixed, when the latter, by sudden metamorphosis, were changed from lawless vagrants of the ocean to lawful belligerents. Nor do I refer to the swarms of swift steamers, "a pitchy cloud warping on the eastern wind," always under British flag, with contributions to Eebel Slavery ; for these, too, enjoy kindred immunity. Of course no PEEILS FROM ENGLAND. 353 royal proclamation can change wrong into right, or make such business otherwise than immoral; but the proclamation may take from it the character of felony. Even the royal manifesto gives no sanction to the fitting out in England of a naval expedition against the commerce of the United States. It leaves the Parlia mentary statute, as well as the general Law of Nations, in full efficacy to restrain and punish such offence. ^Vnd yet, in face of this obvious prohibition, standing forth in the text of the law, and founded in reason " ere human statute purged the gentle weal," also exemplified by the National Government, which, from the time of Washington, has always guarded its ports against such outrage, powerful ships are launched, equijDped, fitted out, and manned in England, with arms supplied at sea from another English vessel, and then, assuming that by this insulting hocus poeus all English liability is avoided, they proceed at once to rob and destroy the commerce of the United States, Fngland is the naval base from which are derived the original forces and supplies enabUng them to sail the sea. Several such ships are now depredating on the ocean, like Captain Kidd, under pretended commissions, each in itself a naval expedition. As England is not at war with the United States, these ships can be nothing- else than pirates ; and their conduct is that of pirates. Unable to pro\ide a court for the trial of prizes, they revive for every captured ship the barbarous Ordeal of Fire. Like pirates, they burn what they cannot rob. Paging from sea to sea, they turn the ocean into a fur nace and melting-pot of American commerce. Of these incendiaries, the most famous is the " Alabama," with a picked crew of British seamen, with " trained gunners 354 OUR FOREIGN EELATIONS. out of her Majesty's naval reserve," aU, like those of Queen EUzabeth, described as " good saUors and better pirates," and with everything else from keel to truck British, which, after more than a year of unlawful havoc, is stiU firing the property of our citizens, without once entering a Rebel Slaremonger port, but always keeping the umbilical connection with England, out of whose womb she sprung, and never losing the original nation ality stamped upon her by origin, so that, at this day, she is a British pirate ship, precisely as a native-born Englishman, robbing on the high seas, and never natu ralized abroad, is a British pirate subject. It is bad enough that all this should proceed from England. It is hard to bear. Why is it not stopped at once ? One cruiser might, perhaps, elude a watchful gov ernment. But it is difficult to see how this can occur once, twice, three times, — and the cry is. Still they sail ! Two powerful rams are announced, like stars at a theatre. Will they, also, be allowed to perform ? I wish there were not too much reason to believe that all these performances are sustained by prevailing British sympathy. A Frenchman, accidentally prisoner on the Alabama at the destruction of two American ships, de scribes a British packet in sight whose crowded pas sengers made the sea resound ^dth cheers, as they wit nessed the captured ships handed over to the flames. The words of Lucretius were verified : — " Suave etiam belli certamina magna tueri." i And these same cheers were echoed in Parliament, as the builder of the piratical craft gloried in his deed. The verse which fiUed the ancient theatre with glad ^ De Remm Natura, Lib, II. 6. PEEILS FROM ENGLAND. 355 applause declared sympathy with Humanity ^ ; but Eng lish applause is now given to Slavery and its defend ers : " I am an Englishman, and nothing of Slavery is foreign to me." Accordingly, Slavery is helped by Eng lish arms, English gold, English ships, English speeches, English cheers. And yet, for the honor of England be it known, there are Englishmen who stand firm and unshaken amidst this painful recreancy. Their names cannot be forgotten. And still more for the honor of England be it spoken, the working classes, called to suffer the most, bravely bear their calamity, without joining the enemies of the Eepublic. Their cheers are for Freedom, and not for Slavery, But the cheers of the House of Commons prevail in her Majesty's Government. Municipal Law is violated, while International Law, in its most solemn obligation to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, is treated as the merest nullity. Eminent British func tionaries, in Court and Parliament, vindicate the naval expeditions which in the name of Slavery are unleashed against a friendly power. Taking advantage of an ad mitted principle, that, after the concession of belligerent rights, " munitions of war " may be supplied, the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer tells us that " ships of war" may be suppUed also. Lord Palmerston echoe.; Lord Chief Baron. Each vouches American author ity. But they are mistaken. The steel which they strive to " impel " cannot be feathered from our sides. Since the earliest stage of its existence, the National Govemment has asserted a distinction between the \w(\ cases ; and so has the Supreme Court, although there 1 "Homo sum: humani nihil a mo alienum puto." Tekence, Beaut., Act. I. Sc. i. 26. 356 OUE FOEEIGN RELATIONS. are words of Story latterly quoted to the contrary. The authority of the Supreme Court is positi\e on the two points into ^\hich the British apology is divided. The first is, that, even if a " ship of wa.r " cannot be fur nished, the offence is incomplete until the armament is put alioard, so that, where the ship, though fitted out and equipped in a British port, awaits an armament at sea, she is not liable to arrest. Such apology is an insult to the understanding and to common sense, — as if it were not obvious that the offence begins with the laying of the keel for the hostile ship, knowing it to he such : ^ and in this spirit the Supreme Court has decided that it is not necessary to find that a ship on leaving port was armed, or in a condition to commit hostilities ; for citizens are restrained from such acts as are calculated to involve the country in war.^ The second apology assumes, that, even if the armament were aboard, so that the " ship of war " is complete at aU points, still the expedition would be lawful, if the fiction of a sale were adroitly managed. On this point, the Supreme Court, speaking by Chief-Justice Marshall, has left no doubt of its deliberate and most authoritative judg- 1 The recent British Foreign Enlistment Act, passed August 9, 1870, en titled " An Act to regulate the conduct of her Majesty's subjects during the existence of hostilities between foreign states with which her Majesty is at peace," makes it illegal, if .any person within her Majesty's dominions '' builds, or agrees to build, or causes to be built, any ship, u:ith intent, or hnoirledge, or having reasonable cause to believe that the same shall or will be employed in the military or naval service of any foreign state at war with any friendly st:itc." (Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, transmitted to Congress December 5, 1870, p. 159.) Lord Westbury, an ex-Chancellor, said in the House of Lords, March 27, 1868, " It was not a question whether armed ships had actually left our shores, but it was a question whether ships with a view to war had been built in our ports by one of two belligerents." Han sard's Parliamentary Debates, 8d Ser., Vol. CXCI. col. 346. 2 United States r. Quincy, 6 Peters, S. C. E., 465, 466. PEEILS FEOM ENGLAND. 357 ment. In the case before the Court the armament was aboard, but cleared as cargo ; the men, too, were aboard, but enUsted for a commercial voyage ; the ship, though fitted out to cruise against a nation with which we were at peace, was not commissioned as a privateer, and did not attempt to act as such, until she reached the river La Plata, where a commission loas obtained and the crew reenlisted; yet, in the face of these extenuating circumstances, it was declared by the whole Court, that the neutrahty of the United States had been violated, so that the guUty ship could not afterwards be recog nized as a leoitimate cruiser. AU the disguises were to no purpose. The Court penetrated them every one, say ing, that, if such a ship could lawfully sail, there would be on our part " a fraudulent neutrality, disgraceful to our own Government, and of which no nation would be the dupe." -^ But a " neutrality " worse even than that condemned in advance by our Supreme Court, " of which no nation would be the dupe," is now served out to us, which nothing can explain, short of the fatal war- spirit that has entered into Great Britain. There was a time when the Foreign Secretary of England, truly emi nent as statesman and orator, Mr. Canning, said in the House of Commons : " If a war must come, let it come in the shape of satisfaction to be demanded for injuries, of rights to be asserted, of interests to be protected, of treaties to be fulfilled. Rut, in God's name, let it not come on in the paltry, pettifogging way of fitting out ships in our harbors to cruise for gain. At all events, let the country disdain to he sneaked into a ivar." ^ These noble 1 The Gran Para, 7 Wheaton, R,, 471 ; also four other cases in same volume. 2 Speech on Eepea) of the Foreign Enlistment Bill, April 16, 1823: Speech es, Vol. V. p. 51. 358 OUE FOEEIGN EELATIONS. words were uttered in reply to Lord John EusseU and his associates in 1823, when trying to repeal the Foreign Enlistment Act, and to overturn the statute safeguards of British neutrality. They speak now with greater force even than then. Though it be admitted that "ships of war," like " munitions of war," may be sold to a beUigerent, as is asserted by the British Prinie-]\Iinister, echoing the Lord Chief Baron, it is obvious that it can be only with the distinction already njentioned, that the sale is a coimnerciul transaction, pure and simjjle, and not in any respect a hostile expedition fitted out in England. The ship must be " exported " as an article of commerce, and must continue such until arrival at the beUigerent port, where alone can it be fitted out and commissioned as a " ship of war,'' when its hostile character will com mence. Any attempt in England to impart a hostile character to the ship, or, in one word, to make England its naval base, must be criminal : but this is precisely what has been done. Ships are sent forth, armed and equipped. And, pray, how distinguish a ship armed and equipped from a regiment armed and equipped ? It is not a munition, it is not even an article, but much more ; and here is the distinction not to be overlooked. It is an organized force, and the nation sending it forth makes itself a party to the war, — aU of which England has done. And here are the leonine footprints which point so badly. (11.) Not content with misconstruing the decisions of our Supreme Court, making them a cover for naval expeditions to depredate on our commerce, our whole his tory is forgotten or misrepresented. It is forgotten, that, as early as 1793, under the administration of Wash- PEEILS FROM ENGLAND. 359 ington, before any Act of Congress on the subject, the National Government recognized its liability, under the Law of Nations, for ships fitted out in its ports to dep redate on British commerce; that Washington, in his speech at the opening of Congress, describes such ships as " vessels commissioned or equipped in a warlike form within the limits of the United States," and also as " military expeditions or enterprises " ; ^ and that Jef ferson, vindicating this policy of repression, said, in a letter to the French Minister, that it was " our wish to preserve the morals of our citizens from being vitiat ed by courses of lawless plunder and murder " ; ^ that, on this occasion, the National Government made the distinction between " munitions of war," which a neu tral might supply in the way of commerce to a bel- Ugerent, and " ships of war," which a neutral was not allowed to supply or even to augment with arms ; that Mr, Hammond, the British plenipotentiary at that time, by his letter of Sth May, 1793, after complaining of two French privateers, fitted out at Charleston to cruise against British commerce, expressly declares that "he conceives them to be breaches of that neutrality which the United States profess to observe, and direct contraventions of the proclamation which the President issued," ^ and that very soon there were criminal pro ceedings, at British instigation, on account of these pri vateers, in which it was affirmed by the Court that such ships could not be fitted out in a neutral port without violation of international obligations ; that promptly, on the representation of the British Government, a statute 1 American State Papers, Foreign Relations. Vol. I. p. 22. 2 Mr, Jefferson to M. Ternant, May 15, 1793: Ibid., p. 148. s Wharton's State Trials, p. 50. 360 OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. was enacted by Congress, in harmony with the Law of Nations, for the better maintenance of our neutrality ; ^ that, in 1818, another statute foUowed in the nature of a Foreign EnUstment Act,^ afterwards proposed as an example by Lord Castlereagh, A\hen urging a similar statute upon Parliament ; ^ that, in 1823, the conduct I )f the United States on this whole head was presented as a model by Mr, Canning;* that, in 18,';18, during the rebeUion in Canada, on the appeal of the British Covernment, and to its special satisfaction, as was an nounced in Parliament by Lord Palmerston, at the time Foreign Secretary, our Government promjDtly declared its purpose " to maintain the supremacy of those laws which weie passed to fulfil the obUgations of the United States to all friendly nations who may be unfortunately engaged in foreign or domestic war," and, not satisfied with existing powers, undertook to ask additional legis lation from Congress; that Congress proceeded at once to the enactment of another statute, calculated to meet the immediate exigency, where it is provided that col lectors, marshals, and other officers shaU " seize and de tain any vessel or any arms or munitions of war which may be provided or prepared for any military expxxlition or enterprise against the territory or dominions of any foreign prince or state." ^ It is something to forget these 1 Acts 3d Cong. Ch. 37, .lune 5, 1794: Statutes at Large, Vol. I. p. 381. 2 Acts 15th Cong. 1st Sess. Ch. 88, April 20, 1818: Statutes at Large, Vol. III. p. 447. 8 Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Vol. XL. col. 369, 907, Mav 13 ,Iune 3, 1819. ¦• Ibid., 2d Ser. Vol. VIII. col. 1056, April 16, 1823. 6 Jlr. Forsyth to Mr. Fox, January 5, 1838 : Executive Documents, 25th Cong. 2d Sess., H. of R., No. 74, p. 28. President's Mess.age, .Lanuary 5, 1S38: Ibid,. No, 64, Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser,, Vol, XL. col. 716, February 2, 1838. Acts 25th Cong. 2d Se=s. Ch, 31, March 10 1838: UnUed States Statutes at Large, Vol. V. p. 212. PERILS FROM ENGLAND. 361 things ; but it is convenient to forget still further, that, at the Crimean War, in 1854, the British Governnienf, jointly with France, made another appeal to the United States, that our citizens should " rigorously abstain from taking jiart in armaments of Eussian privateers, or in any other measure opposed to the duties of a strict neu trahty";^ and this appeal, declared by the British Gov ernment to be " in the spirit of just reciprocity," was answered on our part by a sincere and determined vigi lance, so that not a single British or French ship suffered from any cruiser fitted out in our ports. And it is also convenient to forget no less the solemn obUgations of treaty, binding both parties : — "That the subjects and citizens of the t-wo nations shall not do any acts of hostility or violence agai?ist each other, nor accept commissions or instructions so to act from any foreign prince or state, enemies to the other party ; nor shall the enemies of one of the parties be permitted to invite or en deavor to enlist in their military service any of the subjects or citizens of the other party ; and the laws against all such offences and aggressions shall be punctually executed!' ^ At the date of this treaty, in 1794, there was little legislation on the subject in either country ; so that the treaty, in harmony with the practice, testifies to the requirements of the Law of Nations as understood at the time by both powers. And yet, disregarding all these things, which show how faithfuUy the National Government has acted, both in measures of repression and measures of compensation, 1 Mr, Crampton to Mr. Marcy, April 21, 1854; Count de Sartiges to Mr. Marcy, April 28, 1864: Executive Documents, 33d Cong. 1st Sess., H. of R., No. 103, pp. 2, 4. i Treatyofl794, Art. 21: United States Statutes at Large, Vol. VIII p. 127, VOL, VII. 16 362 OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. also how often the British Government asked and re ceived protection at our hands, and how highly our example of neutrality has been appreciated by leading British statesmen, — and disowning, also, that " spirit of just reciprocity," which, besides being the prompting of an honest nature, has been positively promised, ship after ship is permitted to leave British ports to depre date on our commerce ; and when we complain of an outrage so unprecedented and so unjustifiable, all the obligations of International Law are ignored, and we are petulantly told that the evidence against the ships is not sufficient under the statute; and when we propose that the statute shall be rendered efficient for the j)ur- pose, — precisely as in past times the British Govern ment, under circumstances less stringent, projiosed to us, — we are pointedly repelled by the old baronial declaration, that there must be no change in the laws of England, — "nolumus leges Anglice mutari" ; while, to cap this strange insensibility. Lord Palmerston, in a last debate of the late Parliament, brings against us a ground less charge of infidelity to neutral duties during the Ciimean War,-' when the fact is notoriously the reverse, and Earl EusseU, in the same spirit, imagines an equally groundless charge, which he records in one of his diplo matic notes, that we have recently enlisted men in Ire land,^ when notoriously we have done no such thing. Thus are the obligations of reciprocal service and good will openly discarded, whUe our public conduct, as well tn the past as the present, is openly misrepresented, 1 Speech on the Consolidated Fund Bill, July 23 1863: Hansard's Parlia mentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol, CLXXII. col. 1270. 2 Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, April 16, 1863: Correspondence respecting Enlistment of British Subjects in the Federal Army, p. 2: Parliamentary Papers, 1863, Vol. LXXII. PEEILS FEOM ENGLAND. 363 (12.) This flagrant oblivion of history and of duty, which seems the adopted policy of the British Gov ernment, is characteristically followed by flat refusal to pay for the damages to our commerce caused by, the hostile expeditions. The L^nited States, with Wash ington as President, on application of the British Gov ernment, made compensation for damages to British commerce under circumstances much less vexatious, — and, still further, by special treaty, made compensa tion for damages "by vessels originaUy armed" in our ports,-' — which is the present case. Of course it can make no diff'erence, not a pin's difference, if the arma ment is carried out to sea in another vessel from a Brit ish port and there transshipped. Such an elaborate evasion may be effectual against a ParUamentary stat ute, but it must be impotent against a demand upon the British Government, according to the principles of International Law ; for this law looks always at substance, and not/o?'m, and wUl not be diverted by the trick of a pettifogger. Whether the armament be put on board in port or at sea, England is always the naval base, or, according to the language of Sir WiUiam Scott in a mem orable case, the " station " or " vantage-ground," which he declared a neutral country could not be,^ Therefore the early precedent between the United States and Eng land is in every respect completely applicable ; and since this precedent was established not only by the consent of Fngland, but at her motion, it must be accepted on the present occasion as an irreversible declaration of inter national duty. Other nations might differ, but England is bound. And now it is her original interpretation, 1 Treaty of 1794, Art. 7. 2 Twee Gebroeders, 3 Robinson, E., 165. 364 OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS, first made to take compensation from u,s, which is flatly rejected when we ask compensation from her, E\'en if the responsibility for a hostile expedition fitted out in British ports were not plain, there is something in the recent conduct of the British Government calculated to remove all d(iubt. Pirate ships are reported on the stocks ready to be launched, and when the Parliament ary statute is declared insufficient to stop them, the British Government declines to amend it, aud, so doing, openly declines to stop the pirate ships, saying, " If the Parliamentary statute is inadequate, then let them sail." It is not needful to consider the apology. The act of declension is positive, and its conset[uences are no less positix'e, fixing beyond cpicstion the responsibility of the Rritish Government for these eriininal expeditions. Thus fixing the responsibility, we but follow the suggestions of reason and the text of an approved authority, whose words have been adopted in England. " It niu.st he laid down as a maxim, that a sovereign, who, knowing the crimes of his subjects, as, for example, that they practice piracy on strangers, and, being also able and obliged to hinder it, does not hinder it, renders himself crim inal, because he has consented to the had action, the commission of which he has permitt-ed It is presumed that a sov ereign knows what his subjects openly and frequently com mit ; and as to his power of hindering the evil, this likewise is always presumed, unless the want of it be clearly proved." ¦* Such are the words of Burlamaqui, in his work on Political Law, quoted with approbation by Phillimore, in his work on the Law of Nations.^ Unless these 1 Burlamaqui, Principles of Natural and Politic Law, tr. Nugent (Lon don, 1763): Politic Law, Part IV. ch. 3, §§ 21, 22, pp. 255, 266. - Commentaries upon Intemational Law (London, 1854), Vol. I. p. 231. PERILS FEOM ENGLAND. 365 words are discarded as " a maxim," while the early pre cedent of British demand upon us is also rudely rejected, it is difficult to see how the British Government can avoid the consequences of complicity with the pirate ships in all their lawless devastation. I forbear to dwell on this accumulating liability, amounting already to many miUions of doUars, with accumulating exas perations also. My present object is accomplished, if I make you see which way danger lies. (13.) Beyond acts and words, this same British ra5- hia shows itself in the official tone towards the national cause in its unparalleled struggle, especially throughout the correspondence of the British Foreign Office. There is little friendship in any of these letters. Nor is there any sympathy with the national championship against Eebel Slavery, nor even one word of mildest dissent from the miscreant apocalypse preached in its behalf NaturaUy the tone is in harmony with the sentiment. Hard, curt, captious, cynical, it evinces indifference to that kindly intercourse which nations ought to cultivate with each other, and which should be the study of a wise statesmanship. The Malay runs amuck, and such is the British diplomatic style in dealing with us. This is painfully conspicuous in all that concerns the pirate ships. But I can weU understand that a Secretary con ceding belligerent rights to Eebel Slavery so easily, and then so easily permitting its ships to sally forth for pi racy, would be very indifferent to the tone of what he wrote. And yet, even outrage may be soothed or soft ened by gentle words ; but none such come out of Brit ish diplomacy to us. Most deeply do I regret this too suggestive failure. And believe me, fellow-citizens, I say these things with sorrow unspeakable, and only in 366 OUE FOEEIGN EELATIONS. discharge of my duty, when, face to face, I meet you to consider the aspects of our affairs abroad, ( 14.) There is stiU another head of danger, in which all others culminate. I refer to intrusi\'e mediation, or, it may be, recognition of the Sla^¦emonger attempt as an independent nation, — for such movements have been made openly in Parliament and urged constantly by the British press, and, though not yet adopted by her Majesty's Government, have never been repelled on principle, so that they constitute a perpetual cloud threatening to break. It is plain to all who have not forgotten history, that England never can be guilty of such recognition without unpardonable apostasy; nor can she intervene by way of mediation, except in the interests of Freedom. And yet such are the " elective affinities" newly born between England and Slavery, such is the wilful blindness with regard to our coun try, kindred to that which prevailed in the time of George Grenville and Lord North, that her Majesty's Government, instead of repelling the proposition, sim ply adjourn it, adopting meanwhile the attitude of one watching to strike. The British ^Minister at Washing ton, of model prudence, whose individual desire for peace I cannot doubt, tells his Government, in a despatch found in the last Blue Book, that as yet he sees no sign of "a conjuncture at which foreign powers may step in with propriety and effect to put a stop to the effusion of blood." ^ Here is the plain assumption that such con juncture may occur. For the present we are left free to wage the battle against Slavery without any such inter vention in arrest of the national efforts. 1 Lord Lyons to Earl Eussell, January 13, 1863: Correspondence relating to the Civil War in the United States, p. 53: Parliamentary Papers, 1863, Vol. LXXII. PERILS FROM FRANCE. 367 Such are some of the warnings which lower from the English sky arching the graves of Wilberforce and Clarkson, while sounding above these sacred resting- places are heard strange, un-English voices, crying out : " Come unto us, Eebel Slavemongers, whippers of wom en and sellers of children ! — for you are the people of our choice, whom we welcome promptly to ocean rights, with Armstrong guns and naval expicditions equipped in our ports, , and on whom we lavish sympathy always and the prophecy of success ; while for you who uphold the Eepublic and oppose Slavery we have hard words, criticism, rebuke, and the menace of war ! " Crossing the Channel into France, we are not encour aged much. And yet the Emperor, though acting habit uaUy in concert with the British Cabinet, has not inter meddled so Ulogically or displayed a temper of so little intemational amiability. The correspondence under his direction, even at the most critical moments, leaves lit tle to be desired in respect of form. Nor has there been a single blockade-runner under the French flag, nor a single pirate ship from a French port. But, in spite of these things, it is too apparent that the Emperor has taken sides against us in at least four important public acts, positively, plainly, offensively. The Due de Choiseul, Prime-Minister of France, was addressed by Frederick of Prussia as " Coachman of Europe," — a title which belongs now to Louis Napoleon. But he must not try to be " coachman of America." (1.) Following the example of England, Louis Napo leon acknowledges the Eebel Slavemongers as ocean bel ligerents, so that, with the sanction of France, our an cient ally, their pirate ships, although without a single 368 OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. open port which they can call their own, enjoy complete immunity as lawful cruisers, while all who sympathize with them furnish supplies and munitions of war. This fatal concession was aggravated by the concurrence of the two great powers. But, God be praised, their joint act, though capable of giving brief vitality to Slavery on pirate decks, is impotent to confirm the intolerable pretension, (2.) Sinister events are not alone, and this recogni tion of Slavery was foUowed by an expedition of France, in concurrence with England and Spain, against our neighbor Eepublic, Mexico. The two latter powers very soon withdrew, but the Emperor, less wise, did not hes itate at invasion. A French fleet, with an unmatched iron-clad, — the consummate product of French naval art, — is now at A'era Cruz, and the French army, after a protracted siege, has stormed Puebla and entered the famous capital. This far-reaching enterprise was origi nally declared to be nothing more than process, served by a general, for the recovery of outstanding debts due to French citizens. But the Emperor, in a mystic let ter to General Forey, gives it another character. He proposes nothing less than the restoration of the Latin race on this side of the Atlantic, and more than inti mates that the United States must be restrained in power and influence over the Gulf of Mexico and the Antilles. And now the Archduke Maximilian of Aus tria is proclaimed Emperor of Mexico under the pro tection of France, It is obvious that this imperial invasion, though only indirectly against us, would not have been made, if our convulsions had not left the door of the Continent ajar, so that foreign powers may bravely enter in. And it is more obvious that this at- PERILS FROM FRANCE. 369 tempt to plant a throne by our side would "have died before it saw the light," had it not been supposed that Eebel Slavery was about to triumph.^ Plainly the whole transaction is connected with our affairs. But it can be little more than a transient experiment ; for who can doubt that this imperial exotic, planted by foreign care and propped by foreign bayonets, must disappear before the ascending glory of the Eepublic ? (3.) This enterprise of war was foUowed by an en terprise of diplomacy not less hardy. The Emperor, not content with stirring against us the Gulf of Mexico, the Antilles, and the Latin race, entered upon work of a different character. He invited England and Eussia to unite with France in tendering to the two " belliger ents " (such is the equal designation of our Eepublic and the embryo Slavemonger mockery ! ) a joint mediation to procure " an armistice for six months, during which every act of war, direct or indirect, should provisionally cease on sea as well as on land, to be renewed, if neces sary, for a further period." The Cabinets of England and Eussia, better inspired, declined the invitation, which looked to little short of recognition itself Under the proposed armistice, all our vast operations must have 1 M. Pr^vost-Paradol, the eminent writer, and afterwards Minister of France at Washington, justifies this statement. "If the civil war," says he, "had not broken out, or if the French Government had foreseen the final victory of the North and the reconstruction of the American power, never would the idea of founding a throne in Mexico by European arms have en tered into its head The fall of the American Republic was, from the beginning of this great trouble, among the aspirations of the French Govern ment, and its most accredited organs made no mystery of it." Attributing to England the same desire and the same judgment on the probable issue of the war, the distinguished writer says the English Government simply waited events, "in a malevolent neutrality towards the North." — Kera- TRY, L'EUvation et la Chute de I' Empereur Maximilien: Preface de Pr*- vost-Paradol. 16* V 370 OUE FOEEIGN EELATIONS. been suspended, the blockade itself must have ceased, while the Eebel ports were opened on the one side to unlimited supplies and mUitary stores, and on the other to unlimited exports of cotton. Trade, for the time, M-ould have been legalized in these ports, and Slavery would have lifted its grinning front before the civilized world. Xot disheartened by this failure, the Empenu' alone pushed forward his dijiloniatic enterprise against us, as alone he had pushed forward his military enterprise against ilexico, aud ]>resented to our Gov ernment the unsupported mediation of France. His offer was promptly rejected by the President. By sol emn resolutions of both Houses, adopted with singular unanimity, and communicated since to all foreign gov ernments, Congress announced that such a proposition could be attributed only to " a misunderstanding of the true state of the question, and of the real character of the war in which the Eepublic is engaged " ; and that it was in its nature so far injurious to the national inter ests that Congress would be obliged to consider its rep etition an unfriendly act. ^ This strong language frankly states the true position of our country. Any such offer, whate\-er its motive, must be an encouragement to the Eebellion. In an age when ideas prevail and even words become things, the simple declarations of states men are of incalculable importance. But the head of a great nation is more than statesman in such infiuence. The imperial proposition tended directly to the dis memberment of the Eepublic and the substitution of a ghastly Slavemonger nation. Baffled in this effort twice attempted, the Emperor does not yet abandon his polic)'. We are told that it 1 See, ante, p. 309. PERILS FROM FRANCE. 371 is " postponed to a more suitable opportunity " ; so that he, too, waits to strike, if the Gallic cock does not simnd alarm in an opposite quarter. Meanwhile the develop ment of the Mexican expedition shows too clearly the motive of mediation. It was all one transaction. ]\Iex- ico was invaded for empire, and mediation was proposed to help the plot. But the invasion must fail with the diplomacy to which it is allied. (4.) The policy of the French Emperor towards our Eepublic is not left to uncertain inference. For a long time public report has pronounced him unfriendly, and now public report is confirmed by what he does and says. The ambassadorial attorney of Eebel Slavery is received at the Tuileries, members of Parliament on an errand of hostUity to our cause are received at Fon- tainebleau, and the open declaration is made that the Emperor desires to recognize Eebel Slavery as an inde pendent power. This is hard to believe, but it is too true. The French Emperor is against us. In an evil hour, under temptations which should be scouted, he forgets the precious traditions of France, whose blood commingled with ours in a common cause ; he forgets the swords of Lafayette and Eochambeau, flashing side by side with the swords of Washington and the earlii^- Lincoln, while the lilies of the ancient monarchy floated together with the stars of our infant flag; he forgets that early alliance, sealed by Franklin, which gave to the Eepublic the assurance of national life, and made France the partner of her rising glory ; ¦ — " Heu pictas ! heu prisca fides ! Manibus date lilia plenis ! " — and he forgets still more the obligations of his own name, — how the first Napoleon surrendered to us Louisiana and the whole region west of the Mississippi, saying : " This 372 OUR FOEEIGN EELATIONS. accession of territory establishes forever the power of the United States, and gives to England a maritime rival destined to humble her pride" ;^ and he forgets, also, how he himself, when beginning intervention for Italian liberty, boasted proudly that France always stood for an "idea"; and forgetting these things, which man kind cannot forget, he seeks the disjunction of this Ee public, with the spoliation of that very territory whicli came to us with such auspices, while France, always standing for an " idea," stands, under the second Napo leon, for the "idea" of welcome to a new evangel of Slavery, with Mason and SlideU as the evangelists. Thus is imperial influence exerted for Eebel Slave- mongers, The Emperor, for the present, forbears to fling his sword into the scale ; hut he flings his heavy hand, if not his sword. Only recently we have the menace of the sword. The throne of Mexico is offered to an Austrian arch duke. The desire to recognize the independence of Eebel Slavery is openly declared. These two inci dents together are complements of each other. And now we are assured by concurring report, that Mex ico is to be maintained as an empire. The policy of the Holy Alliance, originally organized against the great Napoleon, is adopted by his representative on the throne of France. What its despot authors left undone the present Emperor, nephew of the first, proposes to ac complish. Eeport informs us that Texas also is doomed to the imperial protectorate, thus ravishing a posses sion which belongs to this Eepublic as much as Nor mandy belongs to France.^ The partition of Poland is 1 Barb^-Marbois, Histoire de la Louisiane, p. 335. 2 From a despatch of Mr. Benjamin, the Rebel Secretary of State, it seems PERILS FEOM FRANCK 373 acknowledged to be the great crime of the last century. It was accomplished by three powers, with the silent connivance of the rest, but not without pangs of remorse in one of the spoilers. " I know," said Maria Theresa to the ambassador of Louis the Sixteenth, " that I have brought a deep stain on my reign by what has been done in Poland; but I am sure that I should be for given, if it could be known what repugnance I had to it." 1 Here on this Continent the French Emperor seeks to play the very part which of old caused the contri tion of Maria Theresa; nor could the partition of our broad country — if, in an evil hour, it were accom plished — fail to be the great crime of the present cen tury. Trampler upon the Eepublic in France, trampler upon the Eepublic in Mexico, it remains to be seen if the French Emperor can prevail as trampler upon this EepubUc. I do not think he can ; nor am I anxious on account of this new-found Emperor, who will be another King Canute against the rising tide of the American people. His chair must be withdrawn, or he wUl be overwhelmed.^ Here I bring to an end this unpleasant review, Tt that the French Emperor embraced Texas in his Mexican plot. (La-wrence, Commentaire sur les Elements du Droit International, Tom. II, p. 360, Part. IT. ch, 1.) In I^uropean diplomatic circles it was reported that he had tried to seduce a prince of Portugal by tender of the throne of Mexico with the promise of Texas. 1 Flassan, Histoire de la Diplomatic Francyaise, Tom. VII. p 125. 2 The Mexican crown was voted to the Archduke JIaximilian by the Assembly of Notables, 10th July, 1863, and formally tendered to him at Miramar, 3d October, twenty-three days after this speech, but he did not enter the City of Mexico till 12th June, 1864. The new Empire was acknowledged by all the European powers. The United States refused to acknowledge it. The suppression of our Rebellion was followed by the withdrawal of the French troops, and the execution of Maximilian, who was condemned to death and shot by the Mexicans, 19th June, 1867. 374 OUR FOREIGN EELATIONS. is with Uttle satisfaction, and only in explanation of our relations with foreign powers, that I accumulate these instances, not one of which, small or great, is without its painful lesson, whUe they all testify with a single voice to the perils of our country. IL Anothee branch of the subject is not less important. Considering all these things, and especially how great powers abroad constantly menace intervention, now by criticism and then by proffer of mediation, all tending painfully to something further, it becomes us to see what, according to International Law and the examples of history, will justify foreign intervention, in any of the forms it may take. And here there is one remark to be made at the outset. Nations are equal in the eye of International Law, so that what is right for one is right for all. It follows that no nation can justly exercise any right which it is not bound to concede under like circumstances. Therefore, should our cases be reversed, there is nothing England and France now propose, or may hereafter propose, wdiich it will not be our equal right to propose, when Ireland or India once more re bels, or when France is in the throes of its next revo lution. Generously, and for the sake of that interna tional comity not lightly hazarded, we may reject the precedents they furnish ; but it will be difficult for them to complain, if we foUow their steps. Foreign intervention is, on its face, inconsistent with every idea of national independence, which in itself is the natural and acknowledged right of a nation to rest intervention by mediation. 375 undisturbed so long as it does not disturb others. If nations stood absolutely alone, dissociated from each other, so that what passed in one had little or no in fluence in another, only a tyrannical or intermeddling spirit could fail to recognize this right. But civiliza tion, drawing nations nearer together and into one so ciety, brings them under reciprocal influence, so. that no nation can now act or suffer alone. Out of the relations and suggestions of good neighborhood, involv ing the admitted right of self-defence, springs the only justification or apology to be found for foreign inter vention, which is the general term to signify interposi tion in the affairs of another country, whatever form it may take. Much is done under the name of "good offices,'' whether in the form of mediation or interces sion, — and much also by military power, whether in the declared will of superior force or directly by arms. Eecognition of independence is also another instance. Intervention in any form is interference. If peaceable, it must be judged by its motive and tendency ; if forci ble, it will naturally be resisted by force. Intervention may be between two or more nations, or between the two parties to a civil war; and yet again, it may be where there is no war, foreign or domestic. In each case it is governed by the same principles, ex cept, perhaps, that in the case of civil war there should be more careful consideration, not only of the rights, but of the susceptibilities of a nation so severely tried. Such is the obvious suggestion of humanity. Intervention be tween nations is only a common form of participation in foreign war, but intervention in a civil war is inter meddling in the domestic concerns of another nation. Whoever acts at the joint invitation of belligerent par- 376 our FOEEIGN RELATIONS. ties to compose a bloody strife is entitled to the bless ings which belong to the peacemakers ; but, if unin vited, or acting at the invitation of one party only, he wiU be careful to proceed with reserve and tender ness, in the spirit of peace, and confining action to a proffer of good offices in the form of mediation or inter cession, unless he is ready for war. Such proffer may be declined without offence. But it can never be for gotten, that, where one side is obviously fighting for Bar barism, any intervention, whatever form it takes, — if only by captious criticism, calculated to encourage the wrong side, or to secure for it time or temporary tolera- ation, if not final success, — is plainly immoral. If not contrary to the Law of Nations, it ought to be. Intervention in the spirit of peace and for the sake of peace belongs to the refinements of modern civilization. Intervention in the spirit of war, if not for the sake of war, has filled a large space in history, ancient and modern. But all these instances may be grouped under two heads : first, intervention in external affairs ; and, secondly, intervention in internal affairs. The first is illustrated by the intervention of the Elector Maurice of Saxony against Charles the Fifth, of King William against Louis the Fourteenth, of Eussia and France in the SeA-en Years' War, of Eussia again between France and Austria in 1805, and also between France and Prussia in 1806, and of France, Great Britain, and Sar dinia between Turkey and Eussia in the war of the Crimea. The intervention of Eussia, Austria, and Prussia in the affairs of Poland, of Great Britain among the native provinces of India, and of the Allied Powers in the French Eevolution, under the continued inspiration of INTERVENTION IN EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, 377 the Treaty of Pilnitz, are iUustrations of the second head. Without dwelling on these great examples, I shall call attention to instances showing more especial ly the growth of intervention, first in external, and then in internal affairs. Here I shall conceal nothing. In stances seeming against the principles I have at heart will at least help illustrate the great subject, so that you may see it as it is. ( 1,) First in order, and for the sake of completeness, I speak of inter\-ention in external affairs, where two or more nations are parties. As long ago as 1645, France offered mediation be tween what were then caUed " The Two Crowns of the North," S-s\'eden and Denmark, This was followed, in 1648, by the famous Peace of AVestphalia, the begin ning of our present Law of Nations, negotiated under the joint mediation of the Pope and the Eepublic of Venice, present by nuncio and ambassador. In 1655, the Emperor of Germany offered mediation between Sweden and Poland ; but the old historian records that the Swedes suspected him of seeking to increase rather than to arrange pending difficulties ; and the effort ended by the withdrawal of the imperial envoy into the PoUsh camp. Sweden, though often belliger ent in those days, was not so always, and, in 1672, when war broke forth between France and England on one side and the Dutch Provinces on the other, we find her proffering mediation, which was promptly accepted by England, who justly rejected a similar prof fer most hardily made by the Elector of Brandenburg, ancestor of the kings of Prussia, while marching at the head of his forces to join the Dutch. The English note 378 OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. on this occasion, written in what at the time was called " sufficiently bad French, but in very inteUigible terms," declared that the Electoral proffer, though under the pleasant name of mediation {par le doux nom de me diation), was adjudged to be only arbitration, and that, instead of mediation unarmed and disinterested, it was mediation armed aud pledged to the enemies of Eng- land.i Such are earlier instances, all of which have their lessons for us. There are modern, also. I allude only to the Triple Alliance, between Ci-reat Britain, Prussia, and Holland, which, at the close of the last century, successively intervened, by mediation which could not be resisted, to com])el Denmark, while siding with Eus sia against Sweden, to remain neutral for the rest of the war, — then, in 1791, to dictate terms of peace l)etween Austria and the Porte, — and lastly, in 1792, to constrain Eussia into abandonment of her designs upon the Turk ish Empire by the Peace of Jassy. C)n this occasion, the Eussian Empress, Catharine the Second, peremptorily re fused the mediation of Prussia, and the mediating Alli ance made its approaches through Denmark, by whose good offices the Empress was finally induced to accept the treaty. While thus engaged in professed mediation, England, in a note to the French ambassador, declined to act as mediator between France and the Allied Powers, leaving that world-embracing war to proceed. Not only has England refused to act as mediator, but also refused submission to mediation. This was during the last war with the United States, when Eussia, at that time the ally of England, proffered mediation between the two belligerents, which was promptly accepted by the United I Wicquefort, L'Ambassadeur et ses Fonctions, Liv. II. sec. 11. INTERVENTION IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS. 379 States. Its rejeetion by England, causing the prolonga tion of hostilities, was considered by Sir James Mackin tosh less justifiable, as " a mediator is a common friend, who counsels both parties with a weight proportioned to their beUef in his integrity and their respect for his power; but he is not an arbitrator, to whose decision they submit their diff'erences, and whose award is bind ing on them." ^ The Peace of Ghent was concluded at last under Eussian mediation. But England has not always been beUigerent. When Andrew Jackson men aced letters of marque against France, on account of failure to pay a sum stipulated in a recent treaty with the United States, King William the Fourth proffered mediation ; but happily the whole question was already virtually arranged. It appears, also, that, before our war with Mexico, the good offices of England were tendered to the two parties; but neither was willing to accept them, and war took its course. Such are instances of interference in external affairs ; and since International Law is traced in history, they furnish a guide we cannot now neglect, especially when we regard the actual policy of England and France. ( 2.) Instances of foreign intervention in the internal affairs of a nation are more pertinent. They are numer ous, and not always harmonious, especially if we com pare the new with the old. In the earlier times such intervention was regarded with repugnance. But the principle then declared has been sapped on the one side by the conspiracies of tyranny seeking the suppression of liberal institutions, and on the other by a generous 1 Speech on the Treaty of Peace with America, April 11, 1815: Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Vol. XXX. col. 525. 380 OUE FOEEIGN RELATIONS. sympathy breaking forth from time to time in their support. According to old precedents, most of which are found in the gossipping book of "Wicquefort,^ whence they have been copied by jMr, Wildman, in his " Insti tutes of International Law,"^ even foreign intercession was prohibited. Not e\'eii in the name of charity could one ruler speak to another on the domestic affairs of his government. Peter, King of Aragon, was astonished at a proposed embassy from Alphonso, King of Castile, en treating mercy for rebels. Charles the Ninth of France, a detestable monarch, in reply to ambassadors of the Protestant princes of Germany, pleading for his Prot estant subjects, insolently declared that he required no tutors to teach him how to rule. And yet this same sovereign did not hesitate to ask the Duke of Savoy to recei\e certain subjects " into his benign favor, and to re store and reestablish them in their confiscated estates,"^ In this appeal there was a double inconsistency ; for it was not only interference in the affairs of another prince, but it was in behalf of Protestants, only a few months before the Massacre of St, Bartholomew. Henry the Third, successor of Charles, and another detestable mon arch, in reply to the Protestant ambassadors, announced that he was a sovereign prince, and ordered them to leave his dominions. Louis the Thirteenth was of milder nature, and yet, when the English ambassador, the Earl of Carlisle, presumed to speak in favor of the Hugue nots, he intimated that no interference between the King of France and his subjects could be approved. The Cardinal Eichelieu, who goA^erned France so long, 1 L'Ambassadeur et ses Fonctions, Liv. II. sec. 4, 2 Vol, I. pp. 51-55. 8 Guizot, History of Oliver CromweU (London, 1854), Vol. II. p. 210, INTERVENTION IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS. 381 learning that an attempt was made to procure the in tercession of the Pope, stopped it by a message to his Holiness, that the King would be displeased by any such interference. The Pope himself, on another re corded occasion, admitted that it would be a pernicious precedent for a subject to negotiate terms of accommo dation through a foreign prince. On still another occa sion, when the King of France, forgetting his own rule, interposed in behalf of the Barberini family. Innocent the Tenth declared, that, having no desire to interfere in the affairs of France, he trusted his Majesty would not interfere in his. Queen Christina of Sweden, merely hinting a disposition to proffer good offices for the set tlement of the unhappy divisions in France, was told by the Queen Eegent that she need give herself no trouble about them, and one of her own ministers at Stockholm declared that the overture was properly rejected. Nor were the States General of Holland less sensitive. They even refused audience to the Spanish ambassador seek- incr to congratulate them on the settlement of a domes- tic question ; and when the French ambassador under took to plead for Eoman Catholics, the States, by formal resolution, denounced his conduct as inconsistent with the peace and constitution of the Eepublic, all of which was communicated to him by eight deputies, who add ed in speech whatever the resolution seemed to want in plainness. Nor is England without similar example. Louis the Thirteenth, shortly after the marriage of his sister Hen rietta Maria with Charles the First, consented that the EngUsh ambassadors should interpose for French Prot estants ; but when the French ambassador in England requested the repeal of a law against Eoman Catholics, 382 OUR FOEEIGN EELATIONS. Charles expressed his surprise that the King of France should presume to intermeddle in English affairs. Even as late as 1746, when, after the Battle of CuUoden, the Dutch ambassador in France was induced to address the British Government in behalf of the unfortunate Charles Edward, to the effect, that, if taken, he should not be treated as a rebel, it is recorded that this inter cession was greatly resented by the British Government, which, not content with apology from the unfortunate official, required that he should be rebuked by his own Government also.^ And this is British testimony with regard to intervention in a civil war, even when it took the mUdest form of intercession for the life of a prince. In face of such repulses, all these nations, at different times, practised intervention in every variety of form, — sometimes by intercession or " good offices " only, some times by mediation, and often by arms. Even these in stances attest the intermeddling spirit ; for such inter vention, however received, was at least attempted. Two precedents belonging to the earlier period deserve to stand apart, not only for historic importance, but for applicability to our times. The first was the effort to institute mediation between King Charles the First and his Parliament, attempted by Cardinal Mazarin, that powerful minister, who, during the minority of Louis the Fourteenth, swayed France, The civil war had been waged for years ; good men on each side had fallen, — Falkland fighting for the King, and Hampden fighting for the Parliament, — and other costliest blood been shed on the fields of Edgehill, Newbury, Marston Moor, and Naseby, when the ambitious Cardinal, wish- 1 Martens, Causes C^lfehres (2me ^dit. ), Tom. II. pp. 40 - 61. INTEEVENTION IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS. 383 ing to serve the King, promised, as Clarendon relates, " to press the Parliament so imperiously, and to denounce a war against them, if they refused to yield to what was reasonable." ¦* For this important service he selected the famous Pomponne de Bellievre, of a family tried in public duties, — himself President of the Parliament of Paris and peer of France, — conspicuous in personal qualities as in place, whose beautiful head, preserved by the graver of Nanteuil, is illustrious in Art, and whose dying charity lives still in the great hospital of the Hotel Dieu, at Paris. Arriving at London, the graceful ambassador presented himself to that Long Par liament which knew so well how to guard English rights. At once eA'ery overture was rejected in formal proceed ings, from which I copy these words : " We do declare that we ourselves have been careful to improve all oc casions to compose these unhappy troubles, yet we have not, neither can we, admit of any mediation or interposing hetwixt the King and us by any foreign prince or state. And we desire that his Majesty, the French King, will rest satisfied with this our resolution and answer," ^ On the committee which drew this reply was John Selden, unsurpassed for learning and ability in the whole splen did history of the English bar, in every book of whose Ubrary was written, " Before everything. Liberty," and also that Harry Vane whom Milton, in one of his most inspired sonnets, addresses as " Vane, young in years, but in sage counsel old, Than whom a better Senator ne'er held The helm of Rome, when gowns, not arms, repelled The fierce Epirot and the African bold." 1 History of the Rebellion (Oxford, 1826), Book X, Vol. V. p. 409. 2 Parliamentary History of England, Vol. XV. p. 51 (London, 1763), Jonr- n:ds of the House of Commons, Vol. IV. pp, 622, 623, 624, July 22, 1648. 384 OUR FOREIGN EELATIONS. The answer of such men is a precedent for us, especiaUy should England, taking up the rejected policy of Maza rin, presumptuously send any ambassador to stay the Eepublic in its war with Slavery. The same heart of oak, so strenuous to repel inter vention of France between King and Parliament, was not less strenuous the other way, when intervention could serve the riglits of England or the principles of religious liberty. Such was England when ruled by the great Protector, caUed in his own day "chief of men," No nation so powerful as to be exempt from that irresist ible intercession, where, beneath the garb of peace, was a gleam of arms. From France, even under the rule of Mazarin, he claimed respect for the Protestant name, which he insisted upon making great and glorious. From Spain, on whose extended empire the sun did not cease to shine, he required that no Englishman should be subject to the Inquisition. Eeading to his Council a despatch from Admiral Blake, announcing justice obtained from the Viceroy of Malaga, CromweU said, that " he hoped to make the name of Englishman as great as ever that of Eoman had been." ^ In this same exalted mood he turned to propose mediation between Protestant Sweden and Protestant Bremen, " chiefly bewailing, that, being both his friends, they should so despitefuUy combat one against another," offering his assistance to " a commodious accommodation on both sides," and exhorting them " by no means to refuse any honest conditions of reconciliation," ^ Here was inter vention between nation and nation ; hut it was soon fol- 1 Burnet, History of his Own Time, Vol. I, p. 81. 2 Letters of State, — The Protector to Charles Gustavus, and to the Con- sals and Senators of Breme, October 26, 1654: Milton's Prose Works (ed. Symmons), Vol. IV. pp. 375-377. INTEEVENTION IN INTEENAL AFFAIES. 385 lowed by intervention in the internal affairs of a distant country, which of aU the acts of Cromwell is the most touching and sublime. The French ambassador, while at Whitehall, urging the signature of a treaty, was unex pectedly interrupted by news from a secluded valley of the Alps, far away among mountain torrents, affluents of the Po, that a company of pious Protestants, for cen turies gathered there, keeping the truth pure, " when all our fathers worshipped stocks and stones," were suffer ing terrible persecution from their sovereign, Emanuel of Savoy. Despoiled of all possessions and liberties, brutally driven from their homes, given over to licen tious and infuriate violence, and then turning in self- defence, they had been " slain by the bloody Piemontese, that roUed mother with infant down the rocks " ; and it was reported that French troops took part in the dismal transaction. The Protector heard the story, and his pity flashed into anger. He would not sign the treaty until France united with him in securing justice to these humble sufferers, whom he called the Lord's people. For their reUef he contributed out of his own purse two thousand pounds, and authorized a general collec tion throughout England, which reached a large sum ; but besides money, he set apart a day of humiliation and prayer for them. Nor was this all, " I should be glad," wrote his Secretary, Thurloe, " to have a most particular account of that business, and to know what is become of those poor people, for whom our very souls here do bleed." ^ But a pen mightier than that of any plodding secretary was enlisted in this pious interven tion. It was John Milton, glowing with that indigna- 1 Secretary Thurloe to Mr, Pell, M,ay 11, 1655: Vaughan's Protectorate, Vol I. p, 176. VOL, VII. 17 T 386 OUR FOREIGN EELATIONS, tion which his sonnet " On the Massacre in Piemont " makes immortal in the heart of man, who wrote the magnificent despatches, where the English nation of that day, after declaring itself "linked together" with its distant brethren, " not only by the same tie of hu manity, but by joint communion of the same religion," naturaUy and grandly insisted that " both this edict and \\iiatsoever may be decreed to their disturbance upon the account of the Eeformed Eeligion " should be abro gated, " and that an end be put to their oppressions," ^ Not content with this call ujion the Duke of Savoy, the Protector ajipealed to Louis the Fourteenth and his Cardinal Minister, to the States General of HoUand, the Protestant Cantons of Switzerland, the Kinw of Den- mark, the King of Sweden, and even to the Protestant Eeformed Prince of remote Transyhania, — and always by the pen of Milton, — ralh'ing these princes and powers in joint entreaty and intervention, and, if need were, to " some other course to be speedily taken, that such a numerous multitude of our innocent brethren may not miserably perish for want of siici'-or and as- ¦sistance." ^ The Eegent of Savoy, daughter of Henry the Fourth, professed to be affected by this English charity, and announced for her Protestant subjects a free pardon, and also " such privileges and graces as could not but give the Lord Protector a sufficient evi dence how great a respect they ba.re both to his pierson and mediation." ^ But there was still delay, ileanwhile t Letters of State, — The Protector to the Duke of Savoy, May, 1655: Milton's Prose Works (ed. Symmons), Vol. IV. p. 379. 2 The Protector to Charles Gustavus; Ibi¦ Odyssey, tr. Pope, Book X. 133. Other verses, by Richard Owen Cambridge, the satirist, and contemporary of Dr. Johnson, picture this Slavemonger Govemment: — "Polypheme was a cannibal. And most voracious glutton; Poor shipwrecked tars he smoused for fish. And munched marines for mutton." NO RECOGNITION WHERE SLAVERY IS CORNER-STONE. 445 which, instead of spewing it forth, are already turning it Uke a precious morsel on the tongue. There is yet another ground on which I make this appeal. It is part of the triumphs of Civilization, that no nation can act for itself alone. Whatever it does for good or for evil aff'ects all the rest. Therefore a nation cannot forget its obligations to others. EspeciaUy does International Law, when it declares the absolute equal ity of independent nations, cast upon all the duty of considering well how this privilege shall be bestowed so that the welfare of aU may be best upheld. But the whole FamUy of Nations would be degraded by admitting this new pretension to any toleration, much more to equaUty. There can be no reason for such ad mission ; for it can bring nothing to the general weal. CivU society is created for safety and tranquillity. Na tions come together and fraternize for the common good. But this hateful pretension can do nothing but evil for civU society at home or for nations in their intercourse with each other. It can show no title to recognition, no passport for its travels, no old existence. It is all new. And here I borrow the language of Burke on another occasion : — " It is not a new power of an old kind. It is a new power of a new species. When such a questionable shape is to he admitted for the first time into the brotherhood of Christen dom, it is not a mere matter of idle curiosity to consider how far it is in its nature alliahle with the rest." ^ The greatest of corporations is a nation ; the sublimest of all associations is that composed of nations, independ- -1 Regicide Peace, Second Letter: Works (London, 1801), Vol. 'VIIL p. 161. 440 OUE FOEEIGN RELATIONS. ent and equal, knit together in the bonds of peaceful fraternity as the great Christian Commonwealth. The Slavemongers may be a corporation in fact, but no such corporation can find place in that august Commonwealth. As well admit the Thugs, whose first article of faith is to kill the stranger, — or the Buccaneers, those " broth ers of the coast," who plundered on the sea ; or, better still, re\'ive the old Kingdom of the Assassins, where the king was an assassin, surrounded by counsellors and generals who were assassins, and all his subjects were assassins ; or yet again, better at once and ojDenly rec ognize Antichrist, the supreme and highest impersona tion of the Slave Power. Amidst the general degradation following such obei sance to Slavery, there are two Christian po\vers that would appear in sad and shameful eminence. 1 refer to Great Britain, declared protectress of the African race, and to France, declared champion of " ideas," who, from the very abundance of pledges, are so situated that they cannot desert the good old cause and turn their faces against civilization without criminal tergiversation, whicli no mantle of diplomacy can cover. Where, then, is British de^•otion to the African race, so eloquently proclaimed by the British IMinister ? ^^'here, then, is French devotion to ideas, so ostentatiously announced l)y the French Emperor ? Eemembered only to point a tale and show how nations have fallen. Great Britain knows less than France of national vicissitudes, but such an act of wrong would do something in its infiuence to equalize the conditions of these two nations. Eatlier than do this thing, better for the fast-anchored isle that it should sink beneath the sea, carrying down its ca- NO RECOGNITION WHERE SLAVERY IS CORNER-STONE. 447 thedrals, its castles, its happy homes, its fields of glory, Eunnymede, Westminster Hall, and the tomb of Shake speare. In other days England has valiantly striven against Slavery, winning a truer glory than any achieved by her arms on land or sea ; and now she is wiUing to surrender, at a moment when more can be done than ever before against the monster, wherever it shows its head, — for Slavery e^'ery where has its neck in this Ee beUion. In other days France has valiantly striven for ideas ; and now she, too, proposes surrender, although all that she professes at heart is involved in the doom of Slavery, which a word from her. might hasten beyond recaU. It is in England, where the great victory of Emancipation was first obtained, that now, more even than in France, the strongest sentiment for Eebel Slave- mongers is manifest, constituting a moral mania which menaces a pact and concordat with the Eebellion itself, — as when an early Pope, head of the Christian Church, did not hesitate to execute a piratical convention with a Pagan enemy to the Christian name. It only remains that the new coalition should be signed in order to con summate the unutterable degradation. The contracting parties will be the Queen of England and Jefferson Da vis, once patron of "Eepudiation," now chief of Eebel Slavery. Then must this virtuous lady, whose pride is justice always, bend to receive the author of the Fugi tive Slave BiU as ambassadorial plenipotentiary at her Court. A new power, dedicated to Slavery, will take its seat at the great council-board, to jostle thrones and bench es, while it overshadows humanity. Its foul attorneys, reeking with Slavery, will have their letter of license as ambassadors of Slavery, to rove from court to court. 448 OUE FOEEIGN RELATIONS. over foreign carpets, poisoning the air which has been nobly pronounced too pure for a sla\-e to breathe. Alas for England, vowed a thousand times to the protection of the African race, and by her best renown knit per petually to this sacred loyalty, now plunging into adul terous daUiance with Slavery, recognizing the new and impious Protestantism against Liberty itself, and wick edly becoming Defender of the Faith as now professed by Eebel Shivemongers ' Alas for England's Queen, woman and mother, carried off' from the cause of W^il- berforce and Clarkson to sink into unseemly associa tion with the scourgers of women and the auctioneers of children ! — for a " stain " deeper than that which aroused the anguish of Maria Theresa is settling upon her reign. Alas for that Eoyal Consort, humane and just, whose dying voice was given to assuage the tem per of that ministerial despatch, by which, in an evil hour, England was made to strike hands with Ei-bel Slavery ! — for the counsellor is needed now to save the land he adorned from an act of inexpiable shame. And for all this sickening immorality I hear but one declared apology. It is, that the Union permitted and still permits Slavery, — therefore foreign nations may recognize Eebel Slavery as a new power. Here is the precise error, England is still in diplomatic relations with Spain, and was only a short time ago in diplomatic relations v\'ith Brazil, both permitting Slavery ; but these two powers are not new, they are already established, there is no question of recognition, nor do they pretend to found empire on Slavery. There is no reason in any relations with them why a new power, with Slavery as its declared " corner-stone," whose gospel is Slavery, and whose evangelists are Slavemongers, should be recog- NO EECOGNITION WHEEE SLAVERY IS CORNER-STONE. 449 nized in the FamUy of Nations. If Ireland were in triumphant rebelUon against the British Queen, com plaining of rights denied, it would be our duty to recognize her as an independent power ; but if Ire land rebeUed with the declared object of establishing a new power which should be nothing less than a gi ant felony and a nuisance to the world, then it would be our duty to spurn the infamous pretension, and no triumph of rebellion could change this plain and irre sistible obUgation. And yet, in face of this command ing rule, we are told to expect the recognition of Eebel Slavery. An aroused public opinion, "the world's coUected wUl," and returning reason in England and France, will see to it that Civilization is sa^¦ed from this shock, and the nations themselves from the terrible retribution which sooner or later must surely attend it. No power can afford to stand up before mankind and openly vote a new and untrammelled charter to injustice and cru elty. God is an unsleeping avenger ; nor can armies, fleets, bulwarks, or "towers along the steep" prevail against His mighty anger. To any application for this unholy recognition there is but one word the Christian powers can utter. It is simply and austerely " No," with an emphasis that shall silence argument and extinguish hope itself And this proclamation should go forth swiftly. Every moment of hesitation is a moment of apostasy, casting its lengthening shadow of dishonor. Not to discourage is to encourage ; not to blast is to bless. Let this simple word be uttered, and Slavery will slink away with a mark on its forehead, like Cain, a perpetual vagabond, forever accursed ; and the mal ediction of the Lord shall descend upon it, saying: 450 OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. "Among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neithe'r shaU the sole of thy foot have rest ; but the Lord shall give thee there a trembUng heart and failing of eyes and sorrow of mind ; and thy life shall hang in doubt before thee, and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life ; in the morning thou shalt say. Would God it were even, and at even thou shalt say. Would God it were morning," ^ V. Too much have I spoken for your patience, if not enough for the cause. But there is yet another topic, which I have reserved to the last, because logically it belongs there, or at least can be best considered in the gathered light of the previous discussion. Its immedi ate practical interest is great, I refer to the Concession of Belligerent Rights, being the first stage to independence. Great Britain led the way in acknowledging the embryo government as belUgerent on sea as weU as land, and by proclamation of the Queen declared neutrality be tween the two parties, — thus lifting an embryo, which was nothing else than animate Slavery, to equality on sea as weU as land with its ancient ally, the National 1 Deuteronomy, xxviii, 65-67. See, ante. Vol. V. pp. 304, 305, where the fate of the Flying Dutchman is predicted for our Disunionists. The re markable story of Peter Rugg, always on the road, driving furiously, but unable to find his way to Boston, illustrates the same blasted condition. Chaucer foreshadows a similar doom : — " And breakers of the law, soth to saine, .... after that they been dede. Shall whirle about the world, alway in paine. Till many a world be passed out of drede." The Assembly of Foules, 78-81. NO OCEAN BELLIGERENCE WITHOUT A PRIZE COURT. 451 Government. Here was a blunder, if not a crime, not merely in the alacrity with which it was done, but in doing it at all. It was followed immediately by France, and then by Spain, Holland, and Brazil. The conces sion of beUigerent rights on land was a name and nothing more, therefore I say nothing about it. But the concession of helligerent rights on the ocean is of widely diff'erent character, and the two reasons against the recognition of independence are equally applicable to this concession : first, the embryo government has no maritime or naval belUgerent rights de facto, and, sec ondly, an embryo of Eebel Slavery cannot have the character de facto which would justify the concession of maritime or naval belligerence ; so that, were the concession vindicated on the first ground, it must fail on the second. The concession of ocean belUgerence is a letter of license from consenting powers to every Slavemonger cruiser, or rather it is the countersign of these powers to the commission of every such cruiser. Without such countersign the cruiser would be an outlaw, with no right to enter a foreign port. The declaration of bel ligerence imparts legal competence, and the right to testify by flag and arms. Without such competence there would be no flag and no right to bear arms on the ocean. Burke sententiously describes it as an " in termediate treaty which puts rebels in possession of the Law of Nations with regard to war." ^ And this is plainly true. The magnitude of this concession may be seen in three aspects : first, in the immunities it confers, put- ^ Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol : Works (London, 1801), Vol. III. p. 144. 452 OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. ting an embryo of Eebel Slavery on equality with estab lished governments, making its cruisers lawful instead of piratical, and opening to them boundless facilities at sea and in port, so that they may obtain supplies and hospitality ; secundly, in the degradation it fastens upon the National Government, which is condemned to see its ships treated on equality with the ships of Eebel Slavery, and also the just rule of " neutrality " between belligerent powers invoked to fetter its activity against a giant felony ; and, thirdly, in the disturbance to com merce it sanctions, by letting loose lawless sea-rovers armed with belligerent rights, including the right of search, whose natural recklessness is left unbridled and without remedy even from diplomatic intercourse. The ocean is a common highway ; but it is for the interest of all who traverse it that the highway should not he disturbed by predatory hostilities. Such a concession should be made with the greatest caution, and then only under the necessity of the case, on the overwhelming authority of the fact : for, from beginning to end, it is simply a question of fact, absolutely dependent on those conditions ^and prerequisites without which ocean bel ligerence cannot exist. As a general rule, belligerent rights are conceded only where a rebel government or contending party in a civil war has acquired such form and body, that, for the time being, within certain limits, it is sovereign de faeto, so far at least as to command troops and to administer justice. On this last point I dwell especially. It is the capacity to administer justice which is the criterion, whether on land or ocean. The concession of belligerence is the recognition of such limited sovereignty, which bears the same relation to acknowledged independence as NO OCEAN BELLIGERENCE WITHOUT A PRIZE COURT. 453 gristle bears to bone. It is obvious that such sover eignty may exist de faeto on land without existing de facto on ocean. It may prevail in armies, and yet fail in navies. In short, tlie fact may be one way on land and the other way on ocean. Nor can it be inferred on ocean simply from existence on land. Our Supreme Court has declared that there may be " a Umited, partial war," "a restrained or limited hostility,'' "an imperfect war, or a war as to certain objects and to a certain extent." Thus, on one occasion, hostilities were authorized " on the high seas by certain persons in certain cases," but without authority " to commit hostiUties on land." ^ But by the same rule there may be war on land and not on sea, and this may follow from the necessity of the case. If Eebel Slavery does not come within the conditions of ocean war, then, whatever its belligerence on land, it cannot expect it on the ocean. Since every such concession is adverse to the original government, and is made only under the necessity of the case, it must be limited carefully to the actual fact. Indeed, Mr. Canning, who has shed so much light on these top ics, openly took the ground that " beUigerency is not so much a principle as a fact!' ^ And the question then arises, whether Eebel Slavery has acquired such de faeto sovereignty on the ocean as entitles it to ocean belUgerent rights. There are at least two "facts" patent to all: first, that Eebel Slavery is without a single port into which even legal cruisers can take prizes for adjudication ; and, secondly, that the ships which now presume to 1 Bas V. Tingy, Dallas, E., Vol. IV. pp. 43-45. Chase, J., and Paterson. J. 2 Despatch, October 12, 1825, — qjioted in Speech of Lord ,Tohn Russell, on the Blockade of Southern Ports, Mav 6, 1861 : Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXII. col, 1566. 454 OUE FOEEIGN EELATIONS. exercise ocean beUigerent rights in its name — consti tuting that navy which a member of the British Cabi net announced as " to be created " — were all " created " in England, which is the naval base from which they sally forth on predatory cruise, without once entering a port of their own pretended government. These two " facts " are different in nature. The first attaches absolutely to the pretended power, rendering it incompetent to exercise belligerent jurisdiction, on the ocean. The second attaches to the individual ships, rendering them piratical. These simple and unques tionable " facts " are the key to unlock the present question. From the reason of the case, there can be no ocean belligerent without a port into which it can take prizes. Any other rule is absurd. It is not enough to sail the sea, like the Flying Dutchman ; the ocean belligerent must be able to touch the land, and that land its own. This proceeds on the idea of civilized warfare, that something more than naked force is essential to the completeness of capture. According to the earlier rule, transmutation of property was accomplished by the " pernoctation " of the captured ship within the port of the belUgerent, — or, as it was called, deductio infra prcesidia. As early as 1414, under Henry the Fifth of England, there was an Act of Parliament requiring privateers to bring their prizes into a port of the king dom, and to make a declaration thereof to a proper offi cer, before undertaking to dispose of them!^ The modern rule interposes an additional check upon lawless vio lence, by requiring the condemnation of a competent court. This rule, which is among the most authoritative 1 Statutes at Large, ed. Pickering, Vol, III. p. 20. NO OCEAN BELLIGEEENCE WITHOUT A PEIZE COURT. 455 of the British Admiralty, is found in the famous letter of Sir William Scott and Sir John NichoU, addressed to John Jay, as foUows : " Before the ship or goods can be disposed of hy the captor, there must be a regular judi cial proceeding, wherein both parties may be heard, and condemnation thereupon as prize, in a Court of Admi ralty, judging by the Law of Nations and treaties." ^ This is expUcit, and is plainly necessary for the protec tion of neutral commerce. But this rule is French as well as English. It is part of International Law. A seizure is regarded merely as a preliminary act, which does not divest the property, though it paralyzes the right of the proprietor. A subsequent act of condem nation by a competent tribunal is necessary to deter mine if the seizure is valid. The question is compen diously caUed Prize or No Prize. Where the property of neutrals is involved, this requirement becomes of absolute necessity. In conceding belligerence, aU cus tomary beUigerent rights with regard to neutrals are conceded also, so that neutral rights and interests are put in jeopardy. Here we see at once the wrong done. If nothing is due to Civilization, something is due to neutrals. Without dweUing on this point, I content myself with the authority of two recent French writers. M. HautefeuiUe, in his elaborate work, says: "The cruiser is not recognized as the proprietor of the objects seized, he cannot dispose of them, but it is his duty to present himself before the tribunal and obtain a sen tence declaring them to be prize." ^ A later writer, M, Eugfene Cauchy, whose work has appeared since our war began, says: "A usage which evidently has its 1 American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I. p. 494. •> Des Droits et des Devoirs des Nations Neutres, Tom. III. pp. 299, 323, 352. 456 OUR FOREIGN EELATIONS. source in natural equity requires, that, before proceed ing to divide the booty, there should be an inquiry as to the regularity of the prize. Every prize taken from an enemy should he carried before the judge established by the sovereign of the captor." ^ But if the power calling itself belligerent cannot comply with this condition, — if it has no port into which it can bring the captured ship, and no court, according to the requirement of the British Admiralty, with " a regular judicial proceeding wherein both parties may be heard," — it is clearly not in a situation to dispose of a ship or goods as 'pi'izc. Whatever its force in other respects, it lacks a vital element of ocean beUigerence. In that semt-sovereign- ty which constitutes belUgerence on land there must be provision for the administration of justice, without which there is nothing but a mob. In that same semi- sovereignty on the ocean there must be simUar provis ion. It is not enough that there are ships duly com missioned to take prizes, there must also be courts to try them; and the latter are not less important than the former. Such is the conclusion of reason, in har mony with acknowledged principles. How, then, ac knowledge belligerent rights where this condition is wanting ? Earl Eussell himself, so swift to make this conces sion, is led to confess the necessity of Prize Courts on the part of ocean belligerents, and thus exposes the irra tional character of his own work. In a letter to the Liv erpool Chamber of Commerce, occasioned by the destruc tion of British cargoes, the Minister says : " The owners of any British property, not being contraband of war, on board a Federal vessel captured and destroyed by a 1 Le Droit Maritime Intemational, Tom. I. pp, 65, 66. NO OCEAN BELLIGEEENCE WITHOUT A PEIZE COUET. 457 Confederate vessel of war, may claim in a Confederate Prize Court compensation for destruction of such prop erty."^ Even in the very speech announcing the bellig erent rights of our Eebels, including the right to visit and detain British merchant vessels having enemy's property on board and to confiscate such property. Earl EusseU was compeUed to declare, that "it was neces sarily implied, as a condition of such acknowledgment, that the detention was for the purpose of bringing the vessels detained before an established Court of Prize, and that confiscation did not take place until after con demnation by such competent tribunal." ^ Such was the express condition, obviously to secure justice. If there be no Prize Court, then justice must fail ; and with this faUure tumbles in fact the whole wretched pretension of ocean belUgerence, except in the galvanism of a Queen's proclamation or a Cabinet concession. If a cruiser may at any time burn prizes, it is because of some exceptional exigency in a particular case, and not according to general rule, which practicaUy declares that there can be no right to take a prize, if there be no port into which it may be carried. The right of capture and the right of trial are the complements of each other, through which a harsh prerogative is supposed to be 1 Wheaton's Elements of International Law, ed. Lawrence, p. 1024. 2 Speech in the House of Commons, May 6, 1861: Hansard's Parliament ary Debates, Vol. CLXII. col. 1566. At a later day, in a communication to Mr. Adams, on the seizure of the steamer Georgia by a United States .steamer. Earl Eussell said, that " her Majesty's Government of course ex pects that a -^'essel seized under the British flag and claimed by British owners will be brought, with as little delay as possible, ybr adjudication into the proper Prize Court, in which the claim of one of her Majesty's subjects will be tried according to those recognized principles of International Law which govern the relations of the belligerent toward the neutral." — Fart Russell to Mr. Adams. September 6, 1864 : Papers relating to Foreign Affairs, Part II. p, 298: Executive Documents, 38th Cong. 2d Sess., H. of E., No. 1. VOL. VII. 20 458 OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. rounded into the proper form of civiUzed warfare. There fore every ship and cargo burned by the captors for the reason that they had no port testifies that they are with out that vital sovereignty on the ocean which is needed in the exercise of beUigerent jurisdiction, and that they are not ocean belligerents in fact. Nay, more, all these bonfires of the sea cry out against the power which by precipitate concession furnished the torch. As well invest the rebel rajahs of India, who never tasted salt water, with this ocean prerogative, so that they too may rob and burn ; as well constitute land-locked Poland, now in arms for independence, an ocean belligerent, — or enroll mountain Switzerland iu the same class, — ¦ wide influence in Europe. I thank you, therefore, most he.artily for it. It will aid mightily public sentiment in England, and tend to force the Government of that country, for consistency's sake, at least, to deal more fairly." Parker Pillsbuiy, the earnest Abolitionist, wrote from Concord, N"ew Hampshire : — "When a nation is expressing its admiring gratitude for your recent masterly oration on our Foreign Relations, what place or what need for my feeble utterance remains ? And all the nations will thank you, as they shall read, in present and coming time, this chapter in the new political dis pensation. It is a scripture for the ages." Hon. Amasa Walker, formerly a Representative in Congress, a Vice- President of the American Peace Society, devoted to the cause of pea6e, and a writer on political economy and finance, wrote : — "It is the grandest thing you have yet done, if I am qualified to judge. I think it cannot fail to exert a great influence at home and abroad. I am quite anxious to find out how it is received in England, and am much mis taken, if it does not produce a gi-eat impression. " The friends of our Government wiU be greatly delighted at it, our enemies greatly annoyed by it. " I have the impression that there is no speech of any American statesman, that has ever been printed, that will secure such a lasting reputation, and be so often referred to iu the future, as this." Hon. George E. Russell, of various experience, who had recently returned from Europe, wrote : — "I have often thought of writing you about your speech on our For eign Relations, which I read with much attention, and decided that it was the best that could be said. I met a friend of ours a few evenings since, and he told me that he had said to you that you made a great mistake in assail ing England as you had done. I met him with the rejoinder, that you had hit the nail on the head, that the proofs of change we see dally are in conse quence of your attacks, and that, instead of upbraiding you, we owed you our heartfelt thanks for the good you had done." Brigadier-General Saxton, of the United States army, wrote from his station at Beaufort, South Carolina : — "I can hardly express to you the intense satisfaction and delight with which I read your great oration delivered in New York. In my humble VOL. VII. 2] E E 482 OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. opinion you have rendered a great service to our country and to humanity. The words of truth and wisdom which you have spoken cannot fail to com mand the attention and respect of the statesmen of England as well as of this country." Captain George Ward Nichols, of the United States army, wrote from his station at Milwaukee : — "I hardly know what to say of this eloquent exposition, so full of righteous indignation, terrible denunciation, exhaustive research, unanswerable argu ment, — so abundant, so powerful, and so eloquent in the cause of humanity. It seems to me like a timepiece, which, with unfailing faith, I consult to mark the hour in a stormy day, unmindful of the wondrous art and wit which combine this perfect whole. I thank you more than I can say for this noble speech. It is already a part of the history of this momentous time. It is as much a fact as i.^ Gettysburg or Vicksburg." George Baty Blake, Esq. , a banker of Boston, wrote : — " I have read attentively your speech made in New York, and, let me say, I think it exactly suited to the occasion; and if it finds circulation in Great Britain, it cannot fail to do us much good iu our foreign relations. Plain speech with John Bull, and to the point fr.ankly, is what always proves most effective with him, in my experience." The late James A, Dix, editor of the Boston Journal, declared his sympathies : — " I cannot resist the temptation to express the pleasure which the perasal of your speech on our Foreign Eelations has afforded me. I do not think it extravagant to say that it Is the ablest speech ever delivered in this country. Certainly it is the ablest of any with which It could appropriately be compared. In the number, value, interest, and importance of its histor ical facts and precedents, in the apt use of materials derived from laborious research, and in the lucid treatment of the topics discussed, it is unsur passed." Major B. Perley Poore, for a long period connected with the press, wrote from his country home : — "If human gratitude be among the number of our national virtues, the highest honors should contribute to reward you for your address on Foreign Eelations, so replete with patriotism, learning, and practical knowledge, knowledge of public law and the practice of nations, a thorough acquaint ance with civil government and the great question of Freedom which under lies and overtops everything else. I have read it twice In the smaU type of the JournaV^ Pliny Miles, the writer on Postal AHairs, wrote from London to President Lincoln, who forwarded the letter to Mr. Sumner : APPENDIX. 483 " Mr. Sumner's late speech in New York has arrived here in the journals, and is attracting a great deal of attention. Quotations and extracts are made from it in the leading liberal papers; but really the whole speech ought to be printed here, and circulated In pamphlet form. If sent to all the members of both Houses of Parliament and to the press, I think it would do great good." Daniel R. Goodloe, for a long time connected with the press, then of Washington and afterwards of North Carolina, wrote : — " I regard Lord EusseU's speech at Blairgowrie as a reply to yours; and the country is indebted to you for the important concessions he makes, and for the greatly modified tone in which he speaks of our affairs." Hon. A. C. Barstow, formerly Mayor of Providence, wrote : — " I returned from Washington this morning. Have read your speech with great satisfaction. I think you have touched the public pulse more widely than ever before." The speech had a different reception in England, being criticized by the press, and by Earl Eussell in a public speech. The New York correspondent of the London Standard called JVIr. Sumner "the mouthpiece of the President," and said that the speech "had been carefully examined by the President, and was analyzed by the confidential members of the Cabinet, before being let off to the pub lic in this great city." This was a mistake. Neither the President nor any of his Cabinet had seen a line of the speech. Its delivery was reported by the London Times of September 22d, in a telegraphic despatch from Greencastle, in Ireland : — " He denounced the conduct of the British Govemment In permitting the building of war steamers in British ports for the Confederates and recogniz ing on the part of the South any belligerent rights upon the ocean. He dis believed that either France or England would intervene in favor of a state that based itself upon Negro Slavery, and asserted that aU intervention In the internal affairs of another nation was contrary to law and reason, unless such intervention were obviously on the side of human rights." The Times followed with an elaborate leader, undertaking to correct statements of law and fact, dwelling especially on the allegation, that, without the concession of belligerent rights, the supply of munitions of war to rebels would have been a violation of English law. Here Mr. Sumner had the authority of the English Law Lords in Parliament, openly declaring that without such concession the building of a Rebel ship in England would have been under the penalties of piracy, and it is difficult to see why a corresponding penalty would not have followed 484 OUE FOEEIGN EELATIONS. the supply of munitions of war. In each case the article is supplied for offence against a friendly power. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, remark able for learning and good sense, has said ; "The law of England recog nizes the principle of protecting a foreign govemment by its own mu nicipal regulations " ^ ; and he refers to the trials for libels on fojeign sovereigns, and also to the proceedings in 1858 against Simon Brrn.ard, the Frenchman, indicted for a plot to assassinate the Emperor Louis Napoleon, iu supplying the grenades used by Orsini in his attempt. In the latter case. Lord Chief Justice Campbell said to the jury : "If you believe that he, as there is strong evidence to show, being acquainted with AUsop's views, and knowing that AUsop had got these gi-enades, assisted in having them transp)orted to Brussels, — •(/ you believe tliat lie boiiijlit in this country tlie matericds for making the fulminating powder with which these grenades were charged, — if you belie-\'c, that, living in this country, and owing a temporary allegiance to the sovereign of this country, he sent over tlie revolvers with the view that they should be used in the plot against the Emperor of the French, , ... it will be a fair inference, I think, to draw, that he had a guilty knowledge of that plot," ^ Though this judgment was in the case of a conspiracy to take the life of a foreign sovereign, it is not easy to see why the same prin ciple is not applicable to a conspiracy against a friendly power. To this case may be added the authority of Lord Lyndhurst, who laid it down in debate, with the concurrence of other Law Lords, that a con spiracy in the United Kingdom, either by native subjects or aliens, to do any act, either at home or abroad, tending to embroil the Govem ment with that of any foreign country, is a misdemeanor.^ Is a rebel lion without belligerent rights different from a con,spiracy ? Its nature was changed by the Queen's Proclamation, which not only helped the Rebels, but created a new set of customers. The character of the leader in the Times appears in its conclusion : — " We beUeve our readers have by this time had enough of the logic of Mr. Sumner. It is based neither on law nor on fact, but upon his own sympa thies and antipathies, which he is pleased to assume must also be ours, on the supposition, which we do not admit, that tlie North are obviously in the right, and on the inference, which we refuse to draw, that, even if the North are in the right, we are bound to violate the laws of neutrality in order to assist them." The Daily News, of London, in its first notice, said : — "He spoke under the impression that the English Government was about 1 On Foreign Jurisdiction and the Extradition of Criminals, p. 65. 2 Ibid., pp. 59, 60. a ibid., pp, 66, 73, APPENDIX. 485 to permit the Confederate iron-clads to leave this country, and he inter preted their previous policy by this supposed breach of neutrality. Every candid man will make allowance for words spoken under provocation, and distinguish them from the utterances of settled malevolence, such as we were accustomed to hear from the American statesmen now at Eichmond, and StiU hear from their aUies In the Northern States." In a second article, the same journal criticized the speech at length, saying : — "It is a strange delusion. It makes one wonder whether It is still pos sible that a republican legislator, now blinded by panic and perplexed by jealousy, should even yet recover his sense and temper, and see the case as others see it Instead of using his influence, as the friend of many Englishmen, to bring the two peoples to a clear understanding, and the calm temper which arises out of it, he has nourished and propagated a delusion, and has applied aU his powers of influence and eloquence to raise and kin dle the passions of his countrymen against a nation which, if not accustomed to flatter, is capable of a sound and durable friendship with a people exhib iting such qualities as the citizens of the Free States are manifesting now. The American people have nothing to fear from us, while they treat us justly. We believe that Mr. Sumner knows this as well as we do, however he may be for the hour beguiled into p.assion and error." The Scotsman, of Edinburgh, said : — " The splendid oration which he delivered at New York on the 10th inst., though full of a strange injustice towards ourselves, ought not to lessen our love for the man, and will increase our admiration of the orator and philan thropist; but, if there was any idea that Mr. Sumner could reason clearly as well as feel rightly and speak eloquently, that idea wUl be dissipated. All the multitude of eloquent and burning words which he pours forth against Slavery will here flnd ready echo; and even when he enters on accusa tions against this country, as having 'intermeddled on the side of Slavery,' it will be felt that he speaks in the spirit, not of a mean and jealous enemy, but of a high-minded, though mistaken friend. But no non- American man can fail to perceive that there is a' grand mistake lying at the root of all the complaints he makes against us : he would have Great Britain in her national capacity to deal with American affairs according to moral sentiments as dis tinguished from poUtical rules, and he condemns her for doing what he did himself and is doing still He tries, indeed, to make a difference between the hypothetical Confederate States and all other Slave States, iucluding the Late United States. They will, he says, form a ' new ' Slave Power. He forgets, that, though the Power may be new, the Slavery wUl be old." The Manchester Guardian said : — " We receive by the last steamer from New York the report of a speech recently delivered by a person of great consideration in the councils of the 486 OUE FOREIGN RELATIONS. present Government at Washington, who maintains that the favor already given to the Confederacy by England deserves the execration of humanity, and supplies, if necessary, abundant cause for war. The speaker to whom we allude is Mr. Charles Sumner, the President of the Committee of the Senate on Foreign Affairs. He denounced, we are told, as ' a betrayal of civilization,' England's recognition of the Confederate States as belliger ents, and her proclamation of neutrality. The absurd injustice of this of ten repeated complaint is sufficiently shoum by the simple observation, that, in rLCogiiizing the beUigerent rights of the South, we did exactly what ihe Federal Government itself did, and has continued to do from the commence ment of the war. We did, moreover, what no power could have avoided, without absolutely intending to take a direct part in the subjugation of the seceding States. But Mr. Sumner correctly appreciates the consequences of this course, as adopted by ourselves and France, In perceiving that it in sured to the South the free exercise of all the power of making war from its own resom'ces which an independent state could possess." The Economist, of London, a weekly journal, in an article entitled "Mr. Sumner's Speech at New York," among many remarks of bad temper and doubtful candor, said : — "Mr. Charles Sumner has been delivering a speech before a crowded audience in New York which will cause much pain and disappointment to all friends and well-wishers of the Federal United States. It is weak in argument, unfair and unjust in Its representations, and bitter in tone and temper. Ifmenof Jlr. Sumner's education and position in America really believe the things they say and indulge the feelings to which they give utter ance, it is clearly hopeless to attempt either to enlighten their understanding or to allay their irritation " Two other considerations wiU fully justify us in describing Mr. Sum ner's address as marked by the most distinctly unfair and unfriendly ani mus toward this country. The first is, that he has carefully avoided do ing the slightest justice to the strong Antislavery feeling which prevails among us, and even insinuates a disposition to favor the slave empire of the South " Finally, what construction is to be placed upon the remarkable circum stance, that, throughout his whole address, while endeavoring to rouse the wrath of his countrymen by a vicious enumeration of the supposed offences of Great Britain, he says not a word against France, which has participated in nearly aU, and added others of her own? He charges us with hostile designs, because we recognized beUigerent rights in the Confederates; but he utters no word of complaint against France, who recognized these at the same date and in the same terms." Referring to Mr. Sumner's speech, it will be seen how untrae is the statement that he said " not a word against France " ; nor is it true that he was unjust to "the strong Antislavery feeling" which had APPENDIX. 487 done .so much honor to English history, although he lamented that it was impotent to save England from fatal concession to Rebel Slavery. There was a critical spirit in the provincial press. The Halifax Reporter, in Nova Scotia, said : — " Mr. Sumner, whose judgment is evidently warped by his abhorrence of Slavery, seems to expect that England should look upon the North as wag ing the war on behalf of human liberty. It Is obvious he considers, that, in recognizing the Confederates as belligerents, her statesmen have exhibited a sympathy with slaveholders which is unjustifiable " Mr. Sumner Is peculiarly wrathy that any portion of the British people should have been allowed to give aid and comfort to the Eebels by affording them supplies of various kinds." The Olohe, at Toronto, said ; — "He reviews the whole transactions between England and the United States since the commencement of the civil war with great warmth, begin ning with the proclamation of neutrality and ending with Mr. Laird's rams, and tortures every action of the British Government into a manifestation of unfriendliness towards the Eepublic. We expected from Mr. Sumner more enlightened consideration for the circumstances in which the English people have been placed, and some acknowledgment of the provocation they have received from this side of the Atlantic " There is only one excuse for Mr. Sumner. As an Abolitionist, he has been accustomed to look to England for sympathy and aid, and he is disap pointed to find so many enemies where he supposed he would see none but friends. This feeling should not prevent him, however, from doing justice as a publicist, nor, as a statesman, from pursuing the course most wise and expedient at the moment." In a different tone, the Morning Star, of London, the constant friend of the national cause, said : — "The Hon. Charles Sumner has not belied the confidence inspired by a long and illustrious career. He Is as firmly as ever the friend of peace, and especially of peace between Great Britain and America. The eloquent voice which has so often employed the stores of a richly furnished mind in per suasives to international amity has not, as the telegrams suggested, been inflamed by the heat of domestic conflict to the diffusion of discord between kindred peoples. His speech at New York on the 10th of September is, indeed, heavy with charges against France and England. But it is an appeal for justice, not an incentive to strife. It is a complaint of hopes disappoint ed, of friendship withheld, of errors hastily adopted and obstinately main tained. It is, however, an argument which does honor even to those against whom it is urged, and which aims to establish future relations of the closest 488 OUR FOEEIGN EELATIONS. alliance. Senator Sumner's chief reproach is this, — that wo have acted unworthily of ourselves, unfaithfully to our deepest convictions aud best memories. , . . "There runs through the whole of Mr. Sumner's gigantic oration — far too long to have been spoken as printed, but yet without a word of super fluous argument or declamation — an idea on \vhich we can now only touch. From the first sentence to the last, Slavery is present to his mind. It colors all his reasoning. It inspires him to prodigious eloquence. Not merely as the Senator for JIassachusetts, the honored chieftain of the political jVboIi- tionists, but as Chairmiin of the Committee on Foreign Eelations, he sees everywhere the presence of the Slave Power. Against it he Invokes, in peri ods of classic beauty and of fervid strength, all the moral forces of the mother country. To England he makes a passionate and pathetic appe.il — more for her own sake than that of the slave, more for the sake of the future th.an of present effects — that she withdraw all favor and succor from Rebel slave-owners." The Northern Wh ig, of Belfast, Ireland, noticed especially the state ment on occiiii belligerence : — "One point, however, on which Mr. Sumner dweUs, is of such urgent present importance as to make the reproduction of his remarks, at such length as our space allows, desirable. We refer to his criticism of tho claims of the Confederates to belligerent rights at sea. Whether the ground which Mr. Sumner takes on this question be or be not tenable, whether the author ities and examples by which he supports it really make out his case, is a matter not to be decided summarily. His argument is, beyond dispute, a most masterly one, and deserves the careful attention of the English Gov ernment and its legal advisers, and will, no doubt, engage the ingenuity of writers upon International Law." These expressions of opinion show something of the extent to which Mr. Sumner was sustained, and also the British criticism he encoun tered. To the latter must be added an unexpected episode. Earl Russell was on a visit to Scotland when Mr, Sumner's speech arrived. Being entertained at a public dinner in the Town-Hall of Blairgowrie, September 26th, he took that occasion to review the ques tions of the war, and especially to answer Mr. Sumner, thus making a new precedent. It is not known that any European statesman ever before made a speech criticizing a speech in another country. The part relating to us was approached by the remark, " I am speaking of what has occurred in what a few years ago were the United States of Amer ica " ; and then, towards the end, he says, " The people of what were the United States, whether they are called Federals or Confederates." The folio-wing passages belong to this answer. APPENDIX. 489 " It was impossible to look on the uprising of a community of five million people as a mere petty insurrection ['Bear! hear."], or as not having the rio-hts which at all times are given to those who, by their numbers and importance, or by the extent of the territory they possess, are entitled to these rights. {Cheers.} WeU, it was said we ought not to have done that, because they were a community of SUiA'eliolders. " Gentlemen, I trust that our abhorrence of Slavery is not in the least abated or diminished. [Loud and prolonged cheers.} For my own part, I consider it one of the most horrible crimes that yet disgrace humanity, [Cheei's.} But then, when we are treating of the relations which we bear to a community of men, I doubt whether it would be expedient or useful for humanity that we should introduce that new element of declaring that we will have no relations with a people loho permit Slavery to exist among them. We have never adopted it yet, we have not adopted it in the ease of Spain or Brazil, and I do not believe that the cause of humanity would be served by our adoption of it. [' Hear ! hear ! '] "Well, then it was said that these Confederate States were Rebels, — Rebels against the Union, Perhaps, Gentlemen, I am not so nice as I out^ht to be on the subject. But I recollect that we rebeUed against Charles the First [a laugh}, we rebelled agahist James the Second, and the people of New England, not content with these two rebellions, rebelled against George the Third. \^Hear!' and laughter.} .... Bul, certainly, if I look to the declarations of those New England orators, — and I have been read- lug lately, if not the whole, yet a very great part, of the very long speech by Mr. Sumner on the subject, delivered at New Y'ork, — I own, I cannot but wonder to see these men, the offspring, as it were, of three rebeUIons, as we are the offspring of two rebellions, really speaking, Uke the Czar of Russia, the Sultan of Turkey, or Louis the Fourteenth himself, of the dread ful crime and guilt of rebeUion. {Loud laughter and cheers.} .... " I said, that in America, although there were some of the local courts which had not the authority of such men as Lord StoweU and Sir William Grant, yet there was a Court of Appeal, there was a Supreme Court, in the United States, which contained, and had for many years contained, men as learned and of as high reputation in the law and of as unsullied reputation for integrity as any that have sat in our English courts of justice, and that we ought to wait patiently for the decision of those tribunals. Now what is my surprise to find, and what would be your surprise to find, that Mr. Sumner is so prejudiced that he brings these declnrations of mine against me, saying that I have diminished the reputation of the American Courts, and that I showed myself biased against the Federal States, by the declaration I then made in Parliament! \_A gentleman from the Southern States among the company here ejaculated, ^ He is not to he believed.^} " I will not detain you further on these subjects; but one remark I must make on the general tendency of these speeches and writings in America. The Government of America discusses these matters very fairly with the English Govemment. Sometimes we think them quite in the wrong; some- 21* 490 OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. times they say we are quite in the wrong; but we discuss them fairly, and with regard to the Secretary of State I see no complaint to make. I thinlc he weighs tho disadvantages and difficulties of our situation in a, very fair and equal balance. But there are others, and Mr. Sumner is one of them, his speech being au epitome almost of all that has been contained in the American press, by whom our conduct is very differently judged." In defending the concession of belligerent rights to Rebel Slavery, Earl Rusbcll forgot two things : first, that the Rebels, whatever their numbers, were without ports or Prize Courts, and therefore unable to administer justice on the ocean, which was essential to the protection of neutrals, and, in the nature of things, the condition precedent of any such concession ; and, secondly, he forgot, that, whatever might be the traditional relations with existing nations "permitting Slavery to exist among them," it was now proposed, for the first time in history, to rec ognize a rebel community seeking to found a new nation whose declared corner-stone was Slavery, which Mr, Sumner insisted was contrary to good morals and the .\ntislavery principles so constantly and loftily avowed by England. On another occasion Earl Russell seems to have laid down a rule requiring Prize Courts, as will be seen in Mr. Sumner's speech.^ He insisted that vessels seized should be tried in a Prize Court. If this mle is correct, how vindicate the award of belligerent rights to a com munity without Prize Courts? Another question may also be asked : If Slavery be, as Earl Russell declared, " one of the most horrible crimes that yet disgrace humanity," how could England make any concession to Rebels whose single declared object of separate existence was this very crime ? The answer to Mr, Sumner on Prize Courts wUl be appreciated after reading the report in the London Times, June 16, 1863,^ of what Earl Russell actually said in the House of Lords, " With regard to the decisions in Prize Courts, I must say 1 lament that the Constitution of the United States is such, that, instead of being brought at once before the Court of Admiralty, where generaUy you have a very eminent judge to preside, perfectly well acquainted with the Law of Nations, s^ch cases go in thefrst instance before ihe District Courts, then, I think, be fore a Circuit Court, and it is only after a considerable delay that they come before the Supreme Court of the United States. I say this, because I believe we should all very much respect a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and it Is to be lamented that there should be a considerable delay before the judgment of that tribunal can be obtained." 1 Ante, p. 457. 2 See, also, Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXXI. col. 882, 883. APPENDIX. 491 The compliment to the Supreme Court of the United States, which, like the House of Lords and the Privy Council, is not a court of origi nal jurisdiction in prize cases, will hardly excuse the reflection upon the District Courts, which are the Admiralty Courts of the United States, — especially when it is considered that those at Boston and New York, where the prize cases chiefly occurred, were administered at the time by judges who would compare favorably with the contemporary judge of the English Admiralty. Judge Sprague, of Boston, and Judge Betts, of New York, were "very eminent" and "perfectly well ac quainted with the Law of Nations," although only judges of District Courts, The speech of Earl Russell was noticed by Mr. Adams, in a despatch to Mr. Seward, under date of October 1, 1863 : — "The event of the week has been the speech of Earl Russell at Blairgow rie, evidently drawn forth by the report of Mr. Sumner's address at New York." 1 It was the subject of comment by the press of England and the United States. The sympathetic Morning Star said : — "Mr. Sumner's oration has had an unexpected effect. It has stirred the phlegmatic nature of Earl Russell. The Foreign Secretary has replied from his Scottish retreat to the complaints and reproaches of the New England Senator. Absurdly contemptuous in his personal allusions to the distin guished Senator, Lord Russell confesses the force of his accusations by tak ing the trouble to reply to them "It would also have been well, if our Foreign Secretary had included in his reply some notice of one of the most distinct and gravest of Mr. Sumner's complaints. The defence of our recognition of the Confederates as belliger ents is without novelty. It is a simple repetition of the old statement, that our naval commanders required to be instructed whether they should respect the new flag or treat it as that of a pirate. Lord Russell does not touch the objection raised by Mr. Sumner, that the Confederates had no ocean navy, and could provide one only from neutral ports. Neither does his Lordship explain why the resolution to recognize the Confederates as belligerents was taken in the absence from this country of a Federal minister. " But, notwithstanding these defects, Lord RusseU's speech at Blairgowrie is an immense advance upon his previous utterances on the American Ques tion. It is evident that he begins to perceive the real issue of the conflict, and rightly estimates the direction of British sentiment." The Boston Traveller said : — " Earl Russell has faUen into several grave errors in the course of his re- Papers relatmg to Foreign Affairs, 1852-63, Part I. p. 434. 492 OUR FOREIGN EELATIONS. marks. He has ulteriy misconceived the whole temper of Mr. Sumner's speech, when he says that ' it weighs the difficulties of the English Govern ment in au unequal balance,' aud that it is ' an ejiitome of almost uU that has been contained by the press of America' on the subject of the Ul-fecling against Great Britain and her neutrality, so generally prevalent among us. The feeliuo- evoked by the belligerent articles of the New Y'ork Herald is one of far JiH'erent charactei- from that produced by Mr, Sumner's remarks. Lord Eussell charges hira with injustice to the English people. Had he read the speech to which he professes to reply with more care, there would have been fouud no ground to sustain such a charge." In France the speech of Mr, Sumner was published in an abridged form, under the following title ; — " Les Relations Extt'rieures des Ktafs-Unis. Preface et Traduction abr^g^e par A. JIalespine [of the Opinion Nationale}. Paris, lb63." 31 pp. 8vo. The eminent historian, Henri Martin, writing in the Siicle on Amer ican affairs, alluded to the speech. "We will not close these considerations without recommending to the readers of tlie SVxJe the eloquent appeal addressed to public opinion by one of the greatest citizens of the United States, Charles Sumner, Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations in the American Senate. The French translation of this discourse on the Foreign Relations of the United States has just appeared. He treats here the question of foreign Inteiwention in fact and in right, demonstrates in a victorious manner, according to our opinion, that the South had not the title to be admitted as a belligerent, and considers it impossible that France and England can recognize a politi cal society founded on .Slavery. We think to-day the cause gained. Neither the sons of '89 nor the country of Wilberforce will have this stain on their history." These various testimonies at home and abroad, where criticism is not wanting, show that Mr. Sumner did not speak in vain. Evidently he obtained a hearing for the national cause. OUR DOMESTIC RELATIONS : POWER OF CON GRESS OVER THE REBEL STATES. Article in the Atlantic Monthly, October, 1863. This argument was prepared as a speech on the resolutions of Febru ary 11, 1862, entitled " State Rebellion State Suicide, Emancipation and Reconstruction '' ; but the tardy success of our arms and the press of business caused its postponement, until, during the recess of Con gress, it was thought best to print it as an article in the Atlantic Monthly. It was much discussed. Hon. Montgomery Blair, at the time a member of the Cabinet, in a speech at Eookville, Maryland, October 3d, replied to it at length, insisting that it was ' ' the key note of the revolution," — "the programme of the movement," — pre senting "the issue on which the Abolition party has resolved to rest its hopes of setting up its domination in this country " ; and in oppo sition to this "programme" he placed "that which is presented by President Lincoln," alleging that Mr. Sumner had directly arrayed himself against the President on a question of fundamental policy in the conduct of the war. The National Intelligencer, at Washington, in an elaborate leader, sustained the position of Mr. Blair. From this time forward, the discussion proceeded in the press, in public meetings, and in Congress, followed by the measures of Recon- straction, including especially the requirement by Congress of the col ored suffrage in the reorganization of the Rebels aud in their new Constitutions,! ^11 of which assumed the power of Congress. AT this moment our domestic relations all hinge up on one question, — How to treat the Eebel States. No patriot citizen doubts the triumph of our arms in 1 Act of JIarch 2, 1867: Statutes at Large, Vol, XIV pp. 428, 429. 494 OUR DOMESTIC EELATIONS. the suppression of the Eebellion, Early or late triumph is inevitable,— perhaps by sudden collapse of the bloody imposture, or perhaps by slower and more gradual sur render. For ourselves, we are prepared for either alter native, and shall not be disappointed, if constrained to wait yet a little longer ; but when the day of triumph conies, political duties ^^¦ill take the place of military. The victory won by our soldiers must be assured by wise counsels, so that its hard-earned fruits shall not be lost. The relations of the States to the National Govern ment must be carefully considered, — not too boldly, not too timidly, — that we may understand in what way or by what process the transition from Rebel forms may be most surely aecompi ished. If I do not greatly err, it will be found that the powers of Congress, thus far so effective in raising armies and supplying moneys, will be important, if not essential, in fixing the conditions of perpetual peace. But there is one point on which there can be no question. The dogma and delusion of State Eights, as mischievously interpreted, which did so much for the Eebellion, must not be allowed to neu tralize all that our arms have gained. Already, in a remarkable instance, the Fresident has treated the pretension of State Eights with proper in difference. Quietly and without much discussion, he has constituted military governments in the Eebel States, with governors nominated by himself: all of which tes tifies against the old delusion. Strange will it be, if this extraordinary power, amply conceded to the Fresident, is denied to Congress. Fractically, the whole question is opened here. Therefore to this aspect of it I ask your first attention. CONGEESSIONAL VS. MILITAEY GOVEENMENT. 495 Already four military governors have been appointed : one for Tennessee, one for South Carolina, one for North Carolina, and the other for Louisiana. So far as known, the appointment of each ^s^'as by simple letter from the Secretary of War. But if this can be done in four States, where is the limit ? It may be done in every Eebel State ; and if not in every other State of the Union, it wiU be simply because the existence of a valid State government excludes the exercise of this extraordinary power. As suming, that, as our arms prevail, it will be done in every Eebel State, we shaU then have eleven military govern ors, all deriving authority from one source, ruling a pop ulation amounting to upwards of nine millions. And this imperatorial dominion, indefinite in extent, wiU also be indefinite in duration ; for, if, under the Consti tution and laws, it be proper to constitute such govern ors, it is clear that they may be continued without regard to time, — for years, if you please, as well as for weeks ; and the whole region they are called to sway will be a military empire, with all powers, execu tive, legislative, and even judicial, derived from one man in Washington. Talk of " the one-man power ! " Here it is with a vengeance. Talk of military rule ! Here it is, in the name of a republic. The bare statement of this case may put us on our guard. We may well hesitate to organize a single State under military government, when we see where such step leads. If you approve one, you must approve eleven, and the National Government may crystallize into military despotism. In appointing military governors of States, we follow an approved example in certain cases beyond the juris diction of the National Constitution, — as in CaEfornia 496 OUE DOMESTIC EELATIONS. and .Mexico, after their conquest, and before peace. It is evident that in these cases there was no constraint from the Constitution, and we were perfectly free to act according to the assumed exigency. It may be proper to set up military governors for a conquered country beyond our ci\il jurisdiction, and yet it may be ques tionable if we should undertake to set up such governors in States that we all claim to be within our civil juris diction. At all events, the two cases are different, so that it is not easy to argue from one to the other. In Jefferson's Inaugural Address, where he develops what he calls " the essential principles of our Govern ment, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration," he mentions " the supremacy of the civil over the mditary authordy" as one of these " essential principles," and then says : — " These should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civil instruction, the touchstone by which to try the ser vices of those -\ye trust ; aud should we wander from them iu moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps, and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety." ^ Undertaking to create military governors of States, we reverse the policy of the Eepublic, as solemnly declared by Jefferson, and subject the civil to the military au thority. If this has been done in patriotic ardor, with out due consideration, in a moment of error or alarm, it only remains, that, according to Jefferson, we should "hasten to retrace our steps, and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety." There is nothing new under the sun, and the military 1 Writings, Vol. VIII. p. 5. CONGEESSIONAL VS. MILITAEY GOVEENMENT. 497 governors we are beginning to appoint find a prototype in the Frotectorate of Oliver Cromwell After the exe cution of the King and the establishment of the Com monwealth, the Frotector conceived the idea of parcel- Eng the kingdom into military districts, of which there were eleven, being precisely the number now proposed, under favor of success, among us. Of this system a great authority, Mr. Hallam, speaks thus : — " To govern according to law may sometimes be an usurp er's wish, but can seldom be in his power. The Protector abandoned all thought of it. Dividing the kingdom into districts, he placed at the head of each a major-general, as a sort of military magistrate, responsible for the subjection of his prefecture. These were eleven in number, men bitterly hostile to the royalist party, and insolent towards all civil authority." ^ Carlyle, in his Life of Cromwell, gives a glimpse of this military government. " The beginning of a universal scheme of Major-Generals, the Lord Protector and his Council of State having well con sidered and found it the feasihlest, — ' if not good, yet best.' . 'It is an arbitrary government,' murmur many. Yes, arbitrary, but beneficial. These are pqwers unknown to the English Constitution, I believe; hut they are very necessary for the Puritan English nation at this time!' ^ Perhaps no better words could be found in explana tion of the Cromwellian policy adopted by our Fresi dent. A contemporary republican, Lieutenant-General Lud low, whose " Memoirs " add to the authentic history of 1 Constitutional History of England (London, 1850), Vol. I. p. 668. 2 Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, Part IX. May 28, 1655. F p 498 OUE DOMESTIC EELATIONS. those interesting times, characterizes these military mag istrates as so many " bashaws." Here are some of his words : — " The major-generals carried things with unheard-of in solence in their several precincts, decimating to extremity whom thej pleased, and interrupting the proceedings at law upon petitions of those who pretended themselves aggrieved ; threatening such as would not yield a ready submission to tlieir orders loith transportation, to Jamaica, or some other planta tions in the West Indies." ¦^ Again, says the same contemporary writer, — " There were sometimes bitter reflections cast upon the proceedings of the major-generals by the lawyers and coun try gentlemen, who accused them to have done many things oppressive to the people, in interrupting the course of the law, and threatening such as would not submit to their arbi trary orders with transpcrrtation beyond the seas."^ At last, even Cromwell, at the height of his power, found it necessary to abandon the policy of military governors. He authorized his son-in-law, Mr, Clay- pole, to announce in Farliament, " that he had formerl}'- thought it necessary, in respect to the condition in which the nation had been, that the major-generals should be intrusted with the authority which they had exercised ; but, in the present state of affairs, he con ceived it inconsistent with the laws of England and liberties of the people to continue their power any longer," ^ The conduct of at least one of our military man-is- trates seems to have been a counterpart to that of these 1 Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow (London, 1751), p. 213, 2 Ibid., p, 221. 8 Ibid., pp. 221, 222. CONGRESSIONAL VS. MILITARY GOVERNMENT. 499 " bashaws " of Cromwell ; and there is no argument against that early military despotism which may not be urged against any attempt to revive it in our day. Some of the acts of Governor Stanly in North Carolina are in themselves an argument against the whole sys tem. It is clear that these military magistrates are with out direct sanction in the Constitution or existing laws. They are not even "major-generals," or other military officers, charged with the duty of enforcing martial law, but special creations of the Secretary of War, acting under the Fresident, and charged with universal powers. As governors within the Emits of a State, they obvious ly assume the extinction of the old State governments for which they are substituted, and the President, in ap pointing them, assumes a power over these States kin dred to his acknowledged power over Territories of the Union ; but, in appointing governors for Territories, he acts in pursuance of the Constitution and laws, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. That the Fresident should assume the vacation of the State governments is of itself no argument against the creation of miEtary governors, for it is simply the as sumption of an unquestionable fact ; but if it be true that the State governments have ceased to exist, then the way is prepared for the establishment of provisional governments by Congress. In short, if a new govern ment is to be supplied, it should be by Congress rather than by the Fresident, and it should be according to estabEshed law rather than according to the mere will of any functionary, to the end that ours may be " a gov emment of laws, and not of men," There is no argument for miEtary governors which is 500 OUR DOMESTIC EELATIONS. not equaUy strong for Congressional governments, while the latter have in their favor two controUing consid erations : first, that they proceed from the civU rather than the military power ; and, secondly, that they are created by law. Therefore, in considering whether Con gressional governments should be constituted, I begin by assuming everything in their favor that is already ac corded to the other system. I should not do this, if the system of military dictators were not now recognized; so tliat the question is sharply presented, which of the two to choose. Even if provisional governments by Con gress are unconstitutional, it does not follow that mili tary governments, without the sanction of Congress, can be constitutional. But, on the other hand, I cannot doubt, that, if military governments are constitutional, then surely the provisional governments by Congress must be so also. In truth, there can be no opening for military governments which is not also an opening for Congressional governments, with this great advantage for the latter, that they are in harmony with our insti tutions, which favor the civil rather than the military power. Thus declaring deliberate preference for Congressional governments, I am sustained by obvious reason. But there is positive authority on this identical question. I refer to the recorded opinion of Chancellor Kent. " Though the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, and declares him to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, these powers must necessarily he subordinate to the legislative power in Congress. It wotild appear to me to be the policy or true construction of this simple and general grant of executive power to the President, not to suffer it to interfere with those specific STATE EIGHTS. 501 powers of Congress which are more safely deposited in the legislative department, and that the powers thus assumed hy the President do not belong to him, hut to Congress!' ' Such is the weighty testimony of this esteemed mas ter on the assumption of power by the President, in 1847, over Mexican ports in our possession. It is found in the latest edition of his " Commentaries " that en joyed the supervision of the author. Of course, it is equaUy appEcable to the recent assumptions within our own territory. His judgment is clear in favor of Con gressional governments. In ordinary times, and under ordinary circumstances, neither system of government would be valid. A State in the fuU enjoyment of its rights would spurn a mili tary governor or a Congressional governor. It would insist that its governor should be neither military nor Congressional, but such as its own people chose to elect ; and nobody would question this right. The Fresident does not think of sending a military governor to New York ; nor does Congress think of establishing a provis ional government in that State. It is only with regard to the Eebel States that this question arises. The occa sion, then, for the exercise of this extraordinary power is found in the Eebellion. Without the EebeUion there would be no talk of any governor, whether military or Congressional Here it becomes important to consider the operation of the Eebellion in opening the way to this question. To this end we must understand the relations between the States and the National Government, under the Constitution of the United States. As I approach this 1 Commentaries on American Law (6th edit., 1848), Vol, I, p. 92, note a. 502 OUE DOMESTIC EELATIONS. question of singular deUcacy, let me say on the thresh old, that for all those rights of the States which are consistent with the peace, security, and permanence of the Union, according to the objects grandly announced in the Freamble of the Constitution, I am the strenuous advocate at all times and places. Never, tlirough any word or act of mine, shall those rights be impaired ; nor shall any of those other rights be called in question by which the States are held in harmonious relations as well with each other as with the Union. But, Mdiile thus strenuous for all that justly belongs to the States, I cannot concede to them immunities inconsistent with that Constitution which is the supreme law of the land ; nor can I admit the impeccability of a State. From a period even anterior to the National Con stitution, there has been a perverse pretension of State Eights, which has perpetuaUy interfered witli the unity of our Government, Throughout the Eevolution this pretension was a check upon the powers of Congress, whether in respect to armies or finances, so that it was too often constrained to content itself with the lan guage of advice or persuasion rather than of command. By the Declaration of Independence it was solemnly declared that " these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States" and that, as such, "they have fuU power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent Sta,tes may of right do." Thus, by this original charter, the early Colo nies were changed into independent States, under whose protection the liberties of the country were placed. Early steps were taken to supply the deficiencies of this government, which was effective only through the STATE RIGHTS. 503 generous patriotism of the people. In July, 1778, two years after the Declaration, Articles of Confederation were ratified by nine States, but the assent of all was not obtained till March, 1781. The character of this new government, which assumed the style of " The ITnited States of America," appears in the title of these Articles, which was as follows: "Articles of Confeder ation and Ferpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, IMassachusetts Bay, Ehode-Island and Prov idence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsyh'ania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Car olina, South Carolina, and Georgia." By the second article it was declared that "each State retains its sov ereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Confedera tion expressly delegated to the United States in Con gress assembled." By the third article it was further declared that " the said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare." By another article, a "committee of the States, or any nine of them," was authorized, in the recess, to execute the powers of Con gress. The government thus constituted was a compact between sovereign States, or, according to its precise lan guage, " a firm league of friendship " between these States, administered, in the recess of Congress, by a " committee of the States." Thus did State Eights triumph. But the imbecility of the Confederation, from this pretension, soon became apparent. As early as Decem ber, 1782, a committee of Congress made an elaborate report on the refusal of Ehode Island, one of the States, to confer certain powers on Congress with regard to 504 OUR DOMESTIC RELATIONS. revenue and commerce. In April, 1783, an Address of Congress to the States was put forth, appealing to their justice and pUghted faith, and representing the conse quence of faUure on their part to sustain the Govern ment and provide for its wants. In April, 1784, a sim ilar appeal was made to what were called " the several States," whose Legislatures were recommended to vest " the United States in Congress assembled " with certain powers. In July, 1785, a committee of Congress made another elaborate report on the reason why the States should confer upon Congress powers therein enumer ated, in the course of which it was urged, that, " unless the States act together, there is no plan of policy into which they can separately enter which they will not be separately interested to defeat, and of course all their measures must prove vain and abortiA'c." In February and March, 1786, there were three other reports of com mittees of Congress, exhibiting the failure of the States to comply with the requisitions of Congress, and the necessity for a complete accession of cdl the States to the revenue system. In October, 1786, there was still another report, most earnestly renewing the former ap peals to the States. Nothing could be more urgent. As early as July, 1782, even before the first report to Congress, resolutions were adopted by the State of New York, declaring " that the situation of these States is in a peculiar manner critical," and that " the radical source of most of our embarrassments is the want of sujf cient power in Congress to effectuate that ready and perfect cooperation of the different States on which their immediate safety and future happiness depend." ^ Fi naUy, in September, 1786, at Annapolis, commissioners J Journal of the Assembly of New York, July 21, 1782. STATE RIGHTS. 505 from several States, after declaring " the situation of the United States deUcate and critical, calling for an exer tion of the united virtue and wisdom of aU the members of the Confederacy," recommended the meeting of a Con vention " to devise such furtlier provisions as shall ap pear to them necessary to render the Constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union." In accord with this recommendation, the Con gress of the Confederation proposed a Convention " for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the sev eral Legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shaU, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States, render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union." In pursuance of the caU, delegates to the proposed Convention were duly appointed by the Legislatures of the several States, and the Convention assembled at PhUadelphia in May, 1787. The present Constitu tion was the well-ripened fruit of their deliberations. In transmitting it to Congress, General Washington, who was the Fresident of the Convention, in a letter, bearing date September 17, 1787, uses this instructive language : — ¦ " It is obviously impracticable, in the Federal Government of these States, to secure all riglits of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. In dividuals entering into society must give up a share of lib erty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be VOL. VII, 22 506 OUR DOMESTIC RELATIONS. surrendered and those which may be reserved ; and on the present occasion this diflttculty was increased by a difference among the several States as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests. In all our deliberations on this subject, wo kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, THE con solidation OF our Union, in which is involved our prosper ity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence." These famous words were in harmony with the con stant sentiments of Washington. Here is additional evidence, from a letter to John Jay, during the summer of 1786: — " We have errors to correct. We have probably had too good an opinion of human nature, in forming our Confeder ation. Experience has taught us that men wiU not adopt itnd carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power. I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation without hav ing lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner as the authority of the State governments extends over the several States!' These are the words of Washington ; and he then proceeds : — " To be fearful of investing Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, ap pears to me the very climax of popular absurdity and mad ness."^ The Constitution was duly transmitted by Congress to the several Legislatures, by which it was submitted to Conventions of delegates "chosen in each State by 1 August 1, 1786: Writings of Washington, ed. Sparks, Vol. IX. pp. 187, 188. STATE RIGHTS. 507 the people thereof," who ratified the same. Afterwards, Congress, by resolution, dated September 13, 1788, set ting forth that the Convention had reported " a Consti tution for the people of the United States',' which had been duly ratified, proceeded to authorize the necessary elections under the new government. The Constitution, it wiU be seen, was framed to re move difhculties arising from State Eights. So para mount was this purpose, that, according to the letter of Washington, it was kept steadily in view in all the deUberations of the Convention, which did not hesitate to declare the consolidation of our Union essential to prosperity, feEcity, safety, and perhaps national exist ence. The unity of the Government was expressed in the term " Constitution," instead of " Articles of Confedera tion and Ferpetual Union between the States," and in the idea of " a more perfect union," instead of " a firm league of friendship." It was also announced emphati caUy in the Freamble : — " We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tran quillity, provide for the common defence, promote the gen eral welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Not "we, the States," but "we, the people of the United States." Such is the beginning and origin of our Constitution. Here is no compact or league between States, involving the recognition of State Eights, but a government ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves and their posterity. 508 OUR DOMESTIC RELATIONS. This government is not estabUshed hy the States, nor is it established for the States ; but it is established by the people, for themsel\-es and their posterity. It is true, that, in the organization of the government, the exist ence of the States is recognized, and the original name of " United States " is preserved ; but the sovereignty of the States is absorbed in that more perfect union which was then estabUshed. There is but one sover eignty recognized, and this is the sovereignty of the United States. To the several States is left that specific local control which is essential to the convenience and business of life, while to the United States, as Plural Unit, is aUotted that commanding sovereignty which embraces and holds the whole country within its per petual and irreversible jurisdiction. This obvious character of the Constitution did not pass unobserved at the time of its adoption. Indeed, the Constitution was most strenuously opposed on the ground that the States were absorbed in the Nation. In the debates of the Virginia Convention, Patrick Henry protested against consolidated power. "And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late Federal Conven tion. I am sure they were fully impressed with the neces sity of forming a great consolidated Government, instead of a Confederation. That this is a consolidated Government is demonstrably clear ; and the danger of such a Government is to my mind very striking. I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen ; but, Sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, ' We, the people '?.... Who authorized them to speak the language of ' We, tlie people,' instead of ' We, the States ' ? " ^ 1 Elliot's Debates (2d edit.), Vol. III. p. 22. STATE RIGHTS. 509 And again, at another stage of the debate, the same patriotic opponent of the Constitution declared suc cinctly, — " The question turns. Sir, on that poor little thing, the expression, ' We, the people,' instead of the States, of Amer ica." 1 In the same Convention, another patriotic opponent of the Constitution, George Mason, following Patrick Henry, said : — "Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a National Government, and no longer a Confederation." ^ But against all this opposition, and in face of this exposure, the Constitution was adopted, in the name of the people of the United States. Much, indeed, was left to the States ; but it was no longer in their name that the government was organized, while the miserable pretension of State " sovereignty " was discarded. Even in the discussions of the National Convention 'Mr. Mad ison spoke thus plainly : — " Some contend that States are sovereign, when, in fact, they are only political societies. The States never possessed the essential rights of sovereignty. These were always vested in Congress." * Grave words, especially when we consider the posi tion of their author. They were substantially echoed by Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, afterwards Vice- President, who- said : — ¦" Elliot's Debates (2d edit.). Vol. III. p. 44. 2 Ibid., p. 29. 8 Yates's Minutes, June 29, 1787: Ibid., Vol. I. p. 461. 510 OUR DOMESTIC RELATIONS. " It appears to me that the States never were independ ent. They had only corporate rights." ¦* On another occasion, Mr, Madison said, — " I hold it for a fundamental point, that an individual in dependence of the States is utterly irreconcilable with the idea of an aggregate sovereignty." ^ Better words still fell from Mr, Wilson, of Pennsyl vania, Iciiown afterwards as a learned judge of the Su preme Court, and also for his " Lectures on Law " : — " Will a regard to State Rights justify the sacrifice of the rights of men 1 If we proceed on any other foundation than the last, our building will neither be solid nor lasting." ' The argument was unanswerable then. It is unan swerable now. You cannot elevate the sovereignty of the States over the Constitution of the United States. It would be even more odious than the early pretension of sovereign power over Magna Charta, according to the memorable words of Lord Coke, as recorded by Eush- worth : — " Sovereign power is no Parliamentary word. In my opin ion, it weakens Magna Charta and all our statutes ; for they are absolute, without any saving of sovereign power ; and shall we now add it, we shall weaken the foundation of law, and then the building must needs fall. Take we heed what we yield unto. Magna Charta is such a fellow that he will have no sovereign!' * But the Constitution is our Magna Charta, which can "¦ Yates's Minutes, June 29, 1787: Elliot's Debates (2d edit.). Vol. I. p, 464. 2 Letter to Edmund Eandolph, April 8, 1787: Madison Papers, Vol. II. p. 631. •5 Yates's Minutes, June 30, 1787: Elliot's Debates, Vol. I. p. 467. '' Eushworth's Historical Collections, Vol. I. p. 662, POWEES OF CONGEESS. 511 bear no sovereign but itself, as you wiU see at once, if you consider its character. And this practical truth was recognized at its formation, as may be seen in the writings of our Eushworth : I refer to Nathan Dane, who was a member of Congress under the Confedera tion. He tells us plainly, that the terms "sovereign States," " State sovereignty," " State rights," " rights of States," are " not constitutional expressions." ^ In the exercise of its sovereignty. Congress is intrusted with large and peculiar powers. Take notice of them, and you will see how little of " sovereignty " is left to the States. Their simple enumeration is an argument against this pretension. Congress may " lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States" ; it may " borrow money on the credit of the United States " ; " regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the In dian tribes " ; " establish an uniform rule of naturaliza tion, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States " ; " coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures " ; " provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States " ; " establish post-offices and post-roads " ; " promote the progress of science and useful arts, by se curing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discov eries " ; " constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court " ; " define and punish piracies and felonies com mitted on the high seas, and offences against the Law 1 Abridgment of American Law, Appendix to Vol. IX. p. 10. 512 CUE DOMESTIC EELATIONS. of Nations " ; " declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water " ; " raise and support armies " ; " provide and maintain a navy"; "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces " ; " provide for caUing forth the miUtia to execute the laws of the Un ion, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions " ; " pro vide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the 'militia, and for governing such part of them as may be em ployed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed hy Congress " ; " exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over the seat of the government of the United States, and like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legis lature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buUdings " ; and " make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execu tion the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Such are the ample and diversified powers of Con gress, embracing all those agencies which enter into sovereignty. With this concession to the United States, there seems to be little for the several States. In the power to " declare war " and to " raise and support ar mies " Congress possesses an exclusive power, in itself immense and infinite, over persons and property in the several States, whUe, by the power to " regulate com merce," it may put limits round about the business of the several States ; and even in the case of the militia. POWEES OF CONGRESS. 513 which is the original military organization of the peo ple, nothing is left to the States except " the appoint ment of the officers," and the authority to train it " ac cording to the discipline prescribed by Congress!' Thus these great functions are all intrusted to the United States, while the several States are subordinated to their exercise. Constantly, and in everything, we behold the constitu tional subordination of the States. But there are other provisions by which the States are expressly deprived of important powers. For instance : " No State shall enter into any treaty, aUiance, or confederation ; coin money ; emit bills of credit ; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts." Or, if the States may exercise certain powers, it is only with the consent of Congress. For instance : " No State shaU, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State or with a for eign power." Here is a magistral power accorded to Congress utterly inconsistent with the pretensions of State Eights. Then again : " No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely ne cessary for executing its inspection laws ; and the net produce of all duties and imposts laid by any State on imports or exports shall be for the use of the treas ury of the United States ; and all such laws shall le subject to the revision and control of the Congress." Here, again, is a similar magistral power accorded to Congress ; and 'as if still further to deprive the States of their much vaunted sovereignty, the laws which they make with the consent of Congress are expressly declared to 22 * G y Welch, JBigelow, & Co. 6758 f^'PrWmf i^'-''''^ . • - .^ «ts ' •'>/-S' -k^*^. :-;.4«t#»SZ'^- '»»' jj''* » <1-- -