D2.53 
 
Class _£^J_0_ 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2010 with funding from 
 ' The Library of Congress 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/confiscationofreOOdavi 
 
CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 ijrdWi ridsfl; Bin*., sfift 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. GARRETT DAVIS, OF KENTUCKY, 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 APRII4 »a AND 23, 186a. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the bill (S. 
 No. 151) to confiscate the property and free the slaves of 
 rebels — 
 
 Mr. DAVIS said: 
 
 Mr. President: In future times the chapter of 
 history that will be read with more of interest, with 
 more of surprise, with deeper condemnation, and 
 I will say even execration, than any that has yet 
 been written, will be. the history of this rebellion, 
 its origin and causes, remote and immediate, its 
 progress, and the stupendous conflict of arms that 
 Jt has produced. 
 
 In ancient times, I have read from heathen my- 
 thology, that in a war, either of rebellion or inter- 
 national, among the heathen gods and demi-gods, 
 there was one of them of gigantic proportions who 
 was overcome and confined under Mount Vesu- 
 vius for his punishment, and the Aible is, further, 
 that whenever he turned over in the bed to which 
 he had been consigned, that mountain would send 
 forth its eruptions of molten lava. That fable is 
 not an unapt illustration of the spirit of secession 
 that has produced our present great difficulties. 
 It is a spirit of gigantic proportions, and in its 
 capacity and disposition for mischief and ruin it 
 comes up to the fabled proportions of the ancient 
 monster. Mr. President, I want that spirit of se- 
 cession encountered, and I want it exterminated, 
 annihilated. It will not do to confine it; it will 
 not do to permit it to live and to give to it the [ 
 power of locomotion, because so long as it does ; 
 jive and has the faculty to move it will be moving 1 
 in the work of mischief and ruin. That spirit, | 
 nowhere in the United States where it has walked I 
 abroad, is yctsubdued. Itexists in my own State, 
 and although it is still and quiet, it has as much 
 latent energy and as much disposition to work 
 mischief as it has had since it made its appear- 
 ance in the United States. I admit that the most 
 effective and propercourseforencounteringit,for 
 making war upon it, and for the subjugation of 
 
 that spirit of secession is by arms in the field. In 
 the depth and truth and sincerity of my desire to 
 have the spirit of secession exterminated, I yield 
 to no man in this nation; but while we are at that 
 work of conquest for the purpose of maintain- 
 ing the Union and the Constitution of the United 
 States, I am utterly opposed to the sacrifice of that 
 Constitution or any one of its principles. The po- 
 sition of my State in tiiis great contest has here- 
 tofore not been wholly satisfactory to me, and it 
 is not now. I would have preferred that my na- 
 tive State had planted herself squarely and fully 
 upon her constitutional duties, and had performed 
 them promptly at the call of the proper authori- 
 ties when this rebellion broke out. From the force 
 of circumstances, the Union men of that State, 
 who are as true to the Union as any men that 
 breathe the breath of life, could not in that man- 
 ner perform their great duty, and they cannot now 
 put the State completely, fully, and squarely on 
 the plain platform of her duty. 
 
 The position of my State and of myself has some- 
 times been referred to in terms of condemnation 
 in this Senate, and out of the Senate, in the pub- 
 lic newspapers, and in private circles. In relation 
 to that matter, I have only to say that, proudly 
 conscious of the rectitude of my position and the 
 position of the Union men I represent on that 
 question, if these imputations or charges against 
 them and myself are of the character that they 
 or I am disloyal, they are basely and utterly false. 
 If they are made in the spirit of envy — I will not 
 say envy, but of resentment, of malevolence, and 
 slander, I scorn and defy them and their authors, 
 whether they are in this Chamber or out of it. 
 If they are made in the heat of passion and for 
 want of correct information, 1 pity and I despise 
 the charge and its authors. I have never hesi- 
 tated, nor intended to hesitate, to give my support 
 and my vote, and, if necessary, my voice, to any 
 constitutional measure to put down this war by 
 
\ 
 
 J"^ f. \ 
 
 :> 
 
 ^-:* 
 
 ^ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 ^53 
 
 force of arms, by the civil legislation within tlie 
 pale of the Constitution. I believe it is the honest 
 and the true purpose of the President so to con- 
 duct the war, and in his conduct of it, so far as 
 that conduct is to be indorsed by Congress, I in- 
 tend to give him my full, unqualified, and hearty 
 support. 
 
 1 know, sir, that in times of war, and especially 
 a war of rebellion, both the President and the 
 armies of the United States have to perform many 
 discretionary acts that are purely political, and 
 that do not and cannot come under the supervis- 
 «ion of the courts, but are referred wholly to the 
 discretion of the functionaries charged with the 
 exercise of those political powers. 1 know that 
 in times of difficulty and great danger, when the 
 life of the nation is imperiled, and when every 
 effort of its true and honest citizens is required 
 to save the nation and the Government, irregular 
 power must necessarily be sometimes assumed. 
 The assumptions of power, in such cases of exi- 
 gence, I do not condemn; on the contrary, I give 
 them my sanction and my ajjproval. But these 
 discretionary powers that thus lead to irregular, if 
 not unauthorized acts, appertain wholly to the 
 President and to the generals and armies in the 
 field; they do not belong to Congress. I have faith 
 and confidence that our armies in the field, in num- 
 ber, in prowess, and in militaryskill,are fully ade- 
 quate to put down the rebellion and to assert the 
 domination of the Constitution and the laws of the 
 United States, and the authority of their officers in 
 all the seceded States; but I do not believe that the 
 contest is by any means over. On the contrary, I 
 think there are now impending two conflicts in 
 arms, the one at Yorktown, the theater where our 
 liberty and independence in the war of the Revo- 
 lution were in fact achieved, and the other on the 
 Tennessee river, upon which hang very largely 
 the continuance of this war. 
 
 Mr. President, I have regretted, and still regret, 
 that in devising measures to carry on this war to 
 a quick and successful issue, there has ever been 
 any manifestation of party organization in either 
 House of Congress. I would that the dominant 
 party now in power had acted upon a different 
 principle, that they had sunk party and partisan- 
 ship in one universal, united, and devoted service 
 by every Union man to the cause of the country, 
 the Union, and the Constitution, and that they 
 had determined deliberately to exclude from the 
 consideration of Congress and all of its proceedings 
 any question calculated to produce the least dis- 
 cordance or difference of opinion or views between 
 the true and devoted Union men of every name 
 and party, until the war was brouglu to a final and 
 successful close. If they had chosen, in the ex- 
 ercise of their discretion and of their duty to their 
 country, to act on that principle, in my humble 
 judgment it would have restricted the continuance 
 of this war months, if not years; it would have 
 saved the loss of the lives of thousands and tens 
 of thousands of our true and gallant men by dis- 
 ease in the camp and by slaughter in the field; and 
 it would have saved the people of the United 
 States the payment of millions and hundreds of 
 millions in the cost of waging the war. 
 
 I, in common with the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. 
 Wade,] who addressed the Senate yesterday, 
 condemn the attempt to reorganize and to place 
 upon its feet again the old Democratic party dur- 
 
 ing the pendency of this great national conflict; 
 but I equally and more condemn the mere party 
 organization of the party in power in calling their 
 exclusive party caucuses and holding their coun- 
 cils secretly, and determining upon the measures 
 by which this war was to be waged and brought 
 to its close. Sir, if one as humble as myself could 
 have been invited to take counsel with the true men 
 for the Union and the Constitution in the Senate 
 for the purpose of putting down this rebellion, Oi 
 chastising its authors, of subjugating the whole 
 military power that has been brought to its sup- 
 port, of compelling unconditional obedience to the 
 Constitution and the laws, and inflicting condign 
 punishment on the authors of this great crime and 
 mischief, upon the principles of the Constitution 
 and for the inviolate preservation of that great ark 
 of American liberty, I would have gone into such 
 a council with as pure a purpose and with as de- 
 voted a heart as any man who calls himself Re- 
 publican. But whenever other questions alien to 
 the war, alien to the rebellion, alien to the honest, 
 truthful, and undivided prosecution of the war for 
 the purposes I have indicated, and for any mere 
 political purposes whatever, had been introduced 
 into the counsels of such a conclave, I would have 
 entered my protest against the intrusion of such 
 subjects, and if they had been persevered in, I 
 would have taken my leave of that council, but at 
 the same time would have maintained my position 
 of unalterable devotion and fidelity to the Union, 
 to my Government, and to my country. 
 
 Mr. President, 1 do not believe that war alone 
 is an adequate and full remedy for the present great 
 disease of the nation. I know it is the chief, the 
 principal, and the mostefficacious remedy, butin 
 addition, and as ancillary to war, the Congress 
 of the United States ought to pass measures to aid 
 in this work of subjugating the rebellion and put- 
 ting down opposition to the authority of theUnited 
 States. In performing this duty, we have a chart 
 and a guide. That chart is the Constitution of 
 the United States. Congress, as the It.'gislative 
 power of the nation, has no right to exercise, and 
 ought not to attempt to exercise, any power but 
 what is specially and by name delegated to it by 
 the Constitution, or is necessary and proper for 
 carrying some express power into execution. Sir, 
 we are all sworn here to support the Constitution 
 of the United States. The President tells us sol- 
 emnly and truthfully that his oath to that effectis 
 registered in heaven, and I suppose the oath of 
 every Senator in Congress has the same inscruta- 
 ble registry. For one, sir, whenever there is a 
 proposition in the form of a bill or joint resolu- 
 tion to become a law presented in this body in 
 times of peace or war, [ intend, according to my 
 judgment and my conscience, to try and test such 
 a measure by the provisions of the Constitution. 
 If, when reduced to that test, 1 come to the con- 
 clusion that any measure whatever is in conflict 
 with that instrument which I am sworn to sup- 
 port, I will oppose it and vote against its adop- 
 tion. I know that such a position and such a line 
 of duty is derided, scoffed at, reprobated, and de- 
 nounced in the Senate and out of the Senate; but 
 I scorn such denunciations. If I were capable of 
 yielding to them against my convictions, I should 
 either be a base knave or a craven coward, in 
 yielding to them, I should stain my soul with the 
 turpitude and the crime of perjury; and any man 
 
who commits consciously any violation of the 
 Constitution commits the same foul offense against 
 his country and his God. 
 
 Having made tliese preliminary remarks, I shall 
 now proceed to the consideration of the measure 
 under discussion; and that I may not be guilty of 
 any injustice to it, or to the distinguished and able 
 Senator who reported it, or the committee by whose 
 order it was reported, I will read the entire bill, 
 with the exception of the seventh section. It is 
 entitled " A bill to confiscate the property and free 
 the slaves of rebels." The amendments which 
 the honorable Ser>atorfrom Illinois has proposed 
 to the measure, according to my recollection and 
 comprehension of them, do not materially change 
 the sense of the bill or its effect, if it should be- 
 come a law. I will therefore read the original 
 bill. 
 
 Mr. TRUMBULL. Here is a copy of the bill, 
 as amended. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I thank the honorable Senator 
 for his courtesy. I will read the bill as it has been 
 amended; 
 
 Be it enacted, ^'c., That the property, real and personal, 
 of every kind vvluttsoever, both corporeal and incorporeal, 
 and including choses in action, and wheresoever situated, 
 within the limits of the United States, bclongiirg to any 
 person or persons beyond the jurisdiction of the same, or to 
 any person or persons in any Stale or district within the 
 United States, now in a state of insurrection and rchcllion 
 against tlie authority thereof, so that in either ease tl>e ordi- 
 nary process of law cannot be served upon them, who shall 
 during the present rebellion be found in arms against the 
 United States, or giving aid and comfort to said rebellion, 
 shall be forfeited and confiscated to the United States; and 
 as to all property which shall be seized and appropriated as 
 hereinafter provided, such forfeiture shall take immediate 
 effect upon the commission of the act of forfeiture, and all 
 right, title, and claim of the person committing such act, 
 together with the right or power to dispose of or alienate 
 his property of any and every description, shall instantly 
 cease and determine, and the same shall at once vest in the 
 United States. 
 
 Sec. 2. ^nd he it further enacted, That every person hav- 
 ing claim to the service or labor of any other person in any 
 State under the laws thereof, who during the present rebel- 
 lion shall take up arms against the United States, or in any 
 manner give aid and comfort to said rebellion, shall thereby 
 forthwith forfeit all claim to such service or labor, and the 
 persons from whom it is claimed to be due, commonly called 
 slaves, shall, ipso facto, on the commission of the act of for- 
 feiture by the party having claim to the service or labor as 
 aforesaid, be disciiarged therefrom, and become forever 
 thereafter free persons, any law of any State or of the Uni 
 ted States to the contrary notwithstanding. And 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 proceeding with the trial ol 
 his claim, satisfactorily prove that he is and has been, during 
 the existing rebellion, loyal to the Government of the Uni- 
 ted States; and no person engaged in the military or naval 
 service of the United States shall, under any pretense what- 
 ever, assume to decide on the validity of tlie claim of any 
 person to the service or labor of any other person, or to sur- 
 render up any such person to the claimant. 
 
 Sec 3. ^nd be it farther enacted, Tliat it shall be the 
 duty of the President of the United States to make provis- 
 ion for the transportation, colonization, and settlement in 
 some tropical country, beyond the litnits of the United 
 States, of such persons of the African race made free by the 
 provisiojis of this act, as may be willing to emigrate, having 
 first obtained the consent of the Government of said coun- 
 try to their protection and settlement within the sanre, with 
 all the rights and privileges of freemen. 
 
 Sec. 4. ^nd be it further enacted. That it shall be the 
 duty of the President "of the United States, as often as in his 
 opinion the military necessities of the Army, or the safety, 
 interest, and welfare of the United Slates in regard to the 
 suppression of the rebellion, shall require, to order the seiz- 
 ure and appropriation, by such officers, military or civil, as 
 he may designate for the purpose, of any and all property 
 confiscated and forfeited under and by virtue of this act, 
 situated and being in any district of the United States be- 
 
 yond the reach of civil process in the ordinary course ol 
 judicial proceedings by reason of such rebellion, and the 
 sale or other disposition of said property, or so much of it 
 as he shall deem advisable. 
 
 Sec 5. uSnd be it further enacted. That it shall be the 
 duty of the officers so designated to make to the President 
 full reports of their proceedings under s\ich oiders, which 
 report shall be filed in the otiice of the Secretary of the 
 Treasury ; and all moneys received on the sale or rent or 
 use of the confiscated property of any person aforesaid shall 
 be deposited in the United Slates Treasury. 
 
 Sec 6. Jind he it further enacted. That for the purpose 
 of enforcing the forfeiture specified in the first section oi 
 this act of property situate and being in loyal States or dis- 
 tricts in which the ordinary course of judicial proceedings 
 is not obstructed by the rebellion, proceedings in rem may 
 be instituted, in the name of the United States, in any dis- 
 trict court of the United States, within which the estate or 
 property so forfeited, or any part thereof, may be found, 
 wliich proceedings sliall conform, as nearly as may be, to 
 proceedings in prize cases, or to eases of forfeiture arising 
 under the revenue laws ; and in all cases the property con- 
 demned, whether real or personal, shall be sold, and the pro- 
 ceeds deposited as provided in the fifth section of this act. 
 
 It will be observed from the reading of the bill 
 that it creates two classes of persons whose prop- 
 erty shall be forfeited. One class is composed of 
 those who are out of the United States, or who 
 are within the States now in rebellion, and in such 
 position that the ordinary process of the courts 
 cannot be served upon them. It then provides by 
 different modes of proceeding for all that class of 
 persons in arms in the rebellion, or giving it aid 
 and comfort, who can be found within the loyal 
 States, or in such position in the United States 
 that the ordinary process of law can be served 
 upon them. The white population of the disloyal 
 States amounts to 5,450,831. The slaves in the 
 same States amount to a fraction above the num- 
 ber of 3,500,000. By the last census, there are 
 3,953,587 slaves in the United States. There are 
 3,500,000 in the disloyal States — in the States that 
 have seceded — and about 450,000 in the States that 
 are yet loyal, including the western portion of the 
 State of Virginia. I assume that there are as many 
 disloyal men in the loyal States as there are loyal 
 men in the seceding States; and I have no doubt 
 that the number of disloyal men in the loyal States 
 is larger than the number of the Union men in the 
 seceding States. The result, then, is, that the bill 
 takes from a number of white people equivalent 
 to the entire white population of the loyal slave 
 States a slave population equivalent to the entire 
 slave population of the disloyal States. It not 
 only takes their slave property, but it takes all the 
 property that they own. What is the aggregate 
 amount of the property of the disloyal States, ac- 
 cording to the census tables? It is 1^6,792,585,742 
 in amount. The property of the loyal slave States 
 amounts to ^1,983,702,055; so that the aggregate 
 amount of property in the southern States that is 
 subject to be acted upon by the provisions of this 
 bill, if it becomes a law, will affect upwards of 
 six millions of people, and will deprive them of 
 property of the value of $4,808,883,687— nearly 
 five thousand millions of dollars. Now, sir, I ask if 
 this measure in its proportions is not as gigantic 
 as the insurrection and the war itself? Was there 
 ever in any country that God's sun ever beamed 
 upon a legislative measure involving such an 
 amount of property, and such numbers of prop- 
 erty holders? 
 
 I will take another view of this subject. The 
 surplus production of the States that have seceded, 
 amounts annually to between five hundred and six 
 hundred millions of dollars. Of ihisjarge surplrs 
 
at least one hundred and fifty millions are distrib- 
 uted to the loyal and free States for cereal grains, 
 for meats, for stock, for mules, horses, and man- 
 ufactured articles of various kinds. My own State 
 of Kentucky finds a market annually in the south- 
 ern States, growing out of tiie productions of their 
 slave labor, to the amount of eight or ten millions 
 of dollars, and the free States in the same market 
 find a sale for their articles of natural or artificial 
 production to the amount of at least one hundred 
 and fifty millions of dollars. Look at tiie great 
 grain-growing regions of the West, the Egypt of ■ 
 America in fertility and production. Where do 
 they find their principal markets for their corn and 
 their meats .' Where do Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, 
 Kentucky, and every other portion of the United 
 States that produces and sells stock find a market 
 for their stock? They find it in the same sunny 
 South, producing cotton and sugar. Where do 
 Chicago, Cincinnati, and the other manufacturing 
 points of plows, agricultural implements, and all 
 the machinery by which crops are produced and 
 harvested, find their market for the sale of their 
 manufactured articles? It is in the South. Where 
 does New England, where does Massachusetts, 
 find the principal market for her boots and her 
 shoes, her coarse woolens, her coarse cottons, and 
 her ice, even ? It is in the South. 
 
 I intend to maintain and shall endeavor to show 
 that this great and enriching market for the loyal 
 and free States will be cut off by this iniquitous 
 measure — for I so denominate it — if it should be- 
 come a law. The great devotees to labor and 
 industrial pursuits in the field of agriculture, and 
 in the workshops, who find their markets and the 
 rewards of their toil and of their labor and of their 
 skill in the South, will rise up in earnest protest 
 against any such measure as this. Their voice 
 will be heard before long in this Chamber. It will 
 be heard resounding throughout this nation; and 
 it will be heard in a majesty and strength that will 
 command obedience to it, and it will repress and 
 put down such wholesale measures of confisca- 
 tion, of injustice, of oppression, and iniquity. 
 
 I shall now proceed to a legal, constitutional 
 examination of the provisions of this bill, and I 
 shall endeavor to do it as clearly, as methodically, 
 and aa succinctly as I can. 
 
 The first question is, has Congress the power, 
 to pass the measure under consideration, and if it 
 has the power, from whatsource does it derive it? 
 I maintain thatfor Congress there is but one source 
 of power, and that is the Constitution of the Uni- 
 ted States; that if Congress has any power to pass 
 this bill it derives it by express delegation, or by 
 necessary and proper implication, from the Con- 
 stitution of the United States; and it can derive it 
 from no other source. If the power is not given 
 there, it is given nowhere; it does not exist; and 
 an attempt to exercise it would be an act of usurp- 
 ation on the part of Congress which any free citi- 
 zen of the United States would have the right to 
 resist by all the means and force which he could 
 command, at his peril, abiding thejudgmentof the 
 courts of the United Stales upon the question of 
 the legality of his position. I assume that the law 
 of nations, even if it was adopted by the express 
 language of the Constitution, or by necessary im- 
 plication, confers upon Congress no power what- 
 ever to pass this bill. I assume, furthermore, 
 that if the body of international law was expressly 
 
 adopted by a clause in the Constitution, or by 
 necessary implication, every one of the principles 
 and provisions of that law that stood in conflict 
 with any written provision of the Constitution 
 would ftill before its paramount power, and in the 
 United States would have no legal effect whatever. 
 I will now read from two approved authors clauses 
 of international law that bear upon the questions 
 arising in this bill. I will read them consecutively: 
 
 " Nations composed of men, and considered as so many 
 free persons living togctlier in a state of nature, are natu- 
 rally eqnal, and inherit from naune the same obligations 
 and rights. Power or weakness d6es not, in this respect, 
 produce any dilierence. A dwarf is as ninch a man as a 
 giant: a small republic is no less asovereign State than the 
 most powerful kingdom. 
 
 " By a necessary consequence of that equality, wliatever 
 is lawful for one nation is equally lawful for all other na- 
 tions, and whatever is unjustifiable in one is equally so in 
 all others." — ValteVs Law of Nations. 
 
 " The wliole international code is founded upon recipro- 
 city. The rules it prescribes are observed by one nation, 
 in confidence that they will be so by others." — WhratonH 
 Elements of National Larr, p. 421. 
 
 Thus reads Wheaton, one of the most recent 
 and approved writersupon international law. The 
 question then arises, is the United States now in 
 a state of war ? It is, in the inost general and uni- 
 versal acceptation of the term. It is engaged in 
 a war to put down insurrection and rebellion at 
 home, but it is not engaged in a war according to 
 the distinction and the understanding of interna- 
 tional law and according to the rights which that 
 code of law assures to belligerents. The mostgen- 
 eral definition of war is, the state of a nation in 
 which it is pursuing its right with force: 
 
 " ./V nation is a unity, an entirety, a consequence of which 
 is, that when its sovereign power declares war against an- 
 other nation, it is understood that the whole nation declares 
 war against that other nation ; for the sovereign power rep- 
 resents the nation, and acts in the name of the whole so- 
 ciety : and it is only as a body, and in her national charac- 
 ter, that one nation has to do witli another. Hence these 
 two nations are enemies, and all the subjects of the one are 
 enemies to all the subjects of the other. In this particular, 
 custom and principles are in accord." — Vattel, p. 391. 
 
 " All the members of the enemy State may lawfully be 
 treated as enemies in apublic war." — JVheaton's Elements 
 of National Law, p. 491. 
 
 '• From the moment one State is at war with another, it 
 has, on general principles, a right to seize on all the ene- 
 my's property, of wlialsoever kind, and whersoever found, 
 and appropriate the property thus taken to its own use, or 
 to the use of the captors." 
 
 But by the modern usages of nations, which 
 have now acquired the force of law — 
 
 '• Temples of religion, public edifices devoted to civil pur- 
 poses, monujnents of art, and repositories »r science, are 
 exempted from the general operations of war. Private prop- 
 erty on land is also exempt from confiscation, with the ex- 
 ception of sucli as may become booty in special cases, 
 when taken from enemies in the field, of in besieged towns, 
 and of military contributions levied upon the inhabitants of 
 the hostile territory. This exemption extends even to the 
 case of an absolute and unqualified conquest of the enemy's 
 country." — Ibid., p. 431. 
 
 "The sovereignty of a nation is external or internal. 
 External sovereignty consists in the independence of one 
 political society in respect to all other political societies. 
 It is by the exercise of this branch of sovereignty that the 
 international relations of one political society are main- 
 tained in peace and in war with all otherpolitical societies. 
 The law by which it is regulated has, therefore, been called 
 external public law — droit public externa — but may more 
 properly be termed international law." — Ibid., p. 29. 
 
 Wheaton says: 
 
 " Sovereignty is acquired by a State either at the origin 
 of the political society of which it is composed or when it 
 separates itself from a community of which it previously 
 formed a part, and on which it was dependent." — P. 30. 
 
 "This principle (sovereignty) applies as well to internal 
 
as to external sovereignty. But an important condition is 
 to be noticed in this respect between tliese two species of 
 sovereignty. Tlie internal sovereignty does not, in any de- 
 gree, depend upon its recognition by other States. A new 
 State springing into existence does not require tlie recog- 
 nition of other States to contirm its internal sovereignty. 
 The existence of the State de facto is sufficient, in this re- 
 epect, to establish its sovereignty dc jure. It is a State l>c- 
 cause it exists." 
 
 But it " must have declared and shown its abil- 
 ity to maintain its independence." 
 
 '• Until the independence of the new State has been ac- 
 knowledged, either by the I'oreign State where hs sover- 
 eignty is brought into question, or by the Government ol 
 tiie country of which it was a province, courts of justice 
 and private individuals are bound to consider the ancient 
 state of things as remaining unaltered."' — Wheaton's Prin- 
 ciples of the Law of Ifations, page 3o, and authorities there 
 cited. 
 
 Vattel says, in treating of civil war: 
 " It is very evident tiiat the common laws of war, those 
 maxims of humanity, moderation . and honor wiiieh we have 
 already detailed in this work, ought to be observed in a civil 
 war." 
 
 And he argues that this is a necessity to prevent 
 retaliation, and to prevent the war from becom- 
 ing cruet and savage. He says further: 
 
 '' When the sovereign has subdued the opposite party, 
 and reduced them to sue for peace, he may except from the 
 amnesty the authors of tlie disturbance, the heads of the 
 party; Ue may bring them to a legal tribunal, and punish 
 them if they be found guilty. He m.ay act in this manner, 
 particularly on occasion of those disturbances in which the 
 interests of the people are not so much the object in view- 
 as tlie private aims of some powerful individuals, and which 
 rather deserve tlie appellation of revolt than of civil war." 
 
 That is particularly the case in the present rebel- 
 lion against our Government: 
 
 '•But when a nation becomes divided into two parties 
 absolutely independent, and no longer acknowledgins a 
 common superior, the State is dissolved, and the war be- 
 tween the two parties stands on the same ground in every 
 respect as a public war between two different nations.'" — 
 Pages 4-35, 4-26, 427. 
 
 These are authorities of the highest reputation, 
 and the principles laid down by them in the pas- 
 sagas which 1 have read are, in substance: all 
 nations are equal, and the same rights and obliga- 
 tions devolve upon them. International laws are 
 those rules which define the rights and obligations 
 and regulate the intercourse and relations of na- 
 tions with each other, and which have their au- 
 thority from the uniform recognition and observ- 
 ance of them by the civilized world. The rights 
 and obligations established by international law 
 are perfectly reciprocal, and whatever is right and 
 lawful or wrong and unlawful, when claimed or 
 done by one nation, is equally so when claimed 
 or done by all other nations. Nations being equal 
 and independent, and there being no corumon arbi- 
 ter or authority to decide their disputes, every 
 nation has a perfect right to go to war to assert its 
 rights or to redress its wrongs, ai;d of the suffi- 
 ciency of the cause each nation for itself is the 
 sole and exclusive judge; and, consequently, the 
 laws of nations do not and cannot make any dis- 
 criminations whatever between just and unjust 
 international wars. 
 
 When national law treats of war generally, and 
 without language defining some other kind of war, 
 it means war between two or more nations. War 
 is the state when one nation is pursuing another 
 nation for its right with force. A nation is a unity, 
 an entirety, and consequently when the war-mak- 
 ing power of one nation declares or wages war 
 against another nation, all the citizens and sub- 
 
 jects of both nations are considered and treated 
 as at war with each other. All the relations of 
 war and peace between one nation and another 
 nation are in their national character, as individ- 
 ual bodies, and they have no rights, obligations, 
 or relations whatever represented by their individ- 
 ual subjects or citizens; and when two nations are 
 at war with each other, all the subjects and citi- 
 zens of both are mutually enemies. Formerly, 
 when two nations went to'war, each had the right 
 to seize immediately all the property of whatso- 
 ever kind and wheresoever found of the other, 
 or its subjects or citizens, and to appropriate it to 
 its own use, or to the use of the captors. But by 
 modern international law, temples of religion, 
 public edifices devoted to civil purposes, monu- 
 ments of art, repositories of science, and private 
 property on land , except in cases of extreme stress 
 and necessity and excepting such as may be taken 
 from enemies in the field or besieged towns and 
 contributions upon the inhabitants of a hostile 
 country, are exempt fijom confiscation, even after 
 the permanent conquest of the country by the 
 enemy. 
 
 These principles were established for and apply 
 only to sovereign and independent States, and 
 never to a nation and any of its rebellious parts 
 or people until they have declared their independ- 
 ence, and demonstrated their ability to maintain 
 it. They then have established their internal sov- 
 ereignty; and being absolutely independent, and 
 having formed a separate government for them- 
 selves, they are a State, or nation, distinct from 
 the oneof which they were previously a part; and 
 all international law applies mutually and equally 
 to them both. But in all the intermediate stages 
 from the first revolt to the consummation of the 
 revolution, although civil war may rage violently 
 and widely between the contending parts, yet they 
 still form but one State; and international law, 
 which applies to nations each as a unity and en- 
 tirely, has no more application to them thanit had 
 before their struggle began. The part which ad- 
 heres to and is represented by the Governitient, 
 has against the other no belligerent international 
 rights. It cannot, under the laws of nations, con- 
 fiscate or forfeit the property of the other, or ac- 
 quire by right of conquest the portion of the coun- 
 try inhabited by it, or pursue toward it any other 
 line of conduct, having its rightfulness and au- 
 tiiority in those laws. Those laws are reciprocal; 
 they devolve the same rights and obligations upon 
 all the parties in any war to which they are appli- 
 cable. They can be applicable only to nations 
 who are independent and equal, and are wholly 
 inappropriate to the Government and the insur- 
 gents in all cases of rebellion. 
 
 In our own case all the rebels are traitors and 
 criminals, and they cannot put in operation or 
 claim a single belligerent right until they shall 
 have demonstrated by the success of their arms, 
 their ability to maintain their independence. Be- 
 fore this is done, however discordant and warring 
 our condition may be, all the people of the Uni- 
 ted States are together bul one nation, and are so 
 to be treated by all others; and the parts or peo- 
 ple in revolt, although they may have declared 
 their independence and formed a separate govern- 
 ment for themselves, cannot be entitled to any 
 rights or privileges from the laws of nations. 
 Hence all the confiscations, forfeitures, and seiz- 
 
6 
 
 ures, made or authorized by the rebels of the 
 southern States, are wrongs and outrages without 
 rigiu, law, or excuse; and all their deprivations 
 of life of human beings, whether by the judgment 
 of pretended civil or military-courts, or in battle, 
 are flngrant murders; and their authors are sub- 
 ject to the same liabilities, pains, and penalties of 
 wrong-doers and murderers generally, with deeper 
 execration for more enormous guilt. 
 
 If these rebels were made responsible by inter- ' 
 national law, they would be entitled to its im- 
 munities by its principle of mutuality and equal- 
 ity among belligerents, and could properly and 
 righttlilly do, against the loyal people of the Uni- 
 ted States, every act for the seizure, confiscation, 
 and a|ipropriation of property or the destruction 
 of life which our Government could lawfully 
 authorize to be done against them. But in carry- 
 ing on the war, both th6y and the United States 
 are suliject to tlie usages and modes of war, which 
 have been established by the principles and prac- 
 tices of civilized and Christian nations, that are 
 alike Applicable to all wars, whether they be in- 
 ternational or civil and domestic. Neither party 
 can murder or enslave prisoners, and both must 
 spare the vanquished when they have laid down 
 their arms. Neither party can use poisoned 
 weapons, or poison water and food; and both 
 musi observe flags of truce, armisticee, cartels for 
 the exchange of prisoners, and all the principles 
 of humanity, honor, and good faith, so far as the 
 pi'actices of nations in modern times have invoked 
 tliem to mitigate the horrors of all war. Dur- 
 ing the pendency of the conflict, the United States 
 are restrained by these principles and practices 
 from all civil or military executions of the rebels 
 for the purpose of obviating bloody retaliations, 
 aiid preventing the war from becoming cruel and 
 ferocious in its character. But when the United 
 States have subjugated the rebels, and freed all 
 loyal men from their powerand revenge, its courts 
 may then bring to trial and punishment such of 
 them as can be arrested, according to the forms 
 and sanction of their laws, and the discretion of 
 their proper authorities. 
 
 But neither the existing rebellion in our coun- 
 try, nor the domestic wars of any other country, 
 are the subjects or the objects of international 
 law or of the rights and duties established by it. 
 Such wars are domestic concerns, appertaining 
 exclusively to each nation afflicted by them, and 
 for which each has the perfect and unquestionable 
 right to prescribe any means, mode, laws, and 
 punishment to quell it, according %o its sovereign 
 will, so that they do not outrage and shock the 
 universal laws of humanity. Congress has never 
 passed any law or the United States courts made 
 any decision in conflict with those principles. The 
 United States have acted upon this general prin- 
 ciple in creating and organizing all the forces and 
 machinery to execute their laws, to suppress in- 
 surrections, to crush treason and punish traitors, 
 and to protect the States against invasion and do- 
 mestic violence; and these forces and this ma- 
 chinery are embodied in the Constitution and laws 
 of Congress, and are distributed among the three 
 departments of the Government. 
 
 Mr. President, the Supreme Court, in the cele- 
 brali-'d case of the Unitf'd States vs. Brnwn, and 
 in the cases of the Sally, and the Rapid, and the 
 Venus, decided that the property proceeded against 
 
 was enemy's property or guasienemy's property; 
 that it did not belong to a citizen or any number 
 of citizens in a state of rebellion or insurrection, 
 but that it was the property of citizens of a foreign 
 and independent nation, and as such was liable to 
 be proceeded against and condemned by the prize 
 and other national law. The particular question 
 decided in the case of Brown was this: after the 
 .declaration of war in 1812, some property belong- 
 ing to a subject of England was brought within 
 the United States, and the most difficult question 
 in theease was, whether it was property still afloat 
 or on land, and the Supreme Court decided this, 
 and this only, that that property was subject to 
 confiscation, but that an act of Congress was ne- 
 cessary to give eflect to the confiscation. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. Will the gentleman suffer 
 me a moment to remind him that in the Brown 
 case the question was, whether property of the 
 enemy, which was in the country when the war 
 was declared, could be seized as prize of war and 
 subject to confiscation ? They decided that it could 
 not be without an act of Congress. That was the 
 question. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. That docs not vary the principle 
 I am contending for. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. Not at all. I only wanted 
 to put the gentleman right as to the true state of 
 the case. That was the question. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. The other question arose inci- 
 dentally, and was argued at great length, whether 
 the property was afloat or on land 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. There being a different rule of 
 law in relation to confiscation of property upon 
 the sea or afloat and property on land. But the 
 |)rinciple there decided, and upon which I rely, 
 is simply this: that the property declared to be 
 subject to confiscation by act of Congress, was 
 the property of an enemy then at war with the 
 United States, and therefore, under international 
 law, was profierly subjected to confiscation by an 
 act of Congress. In the other cases, the principle 
 decided was that if an American citizen is domi- 
 ciled in a foreign country, against which our Gov- 
 ernmentdeclares war, at the time of the declaration 
 of war, and he puts iiimself in motion to return 
 with his [)roperty to his country within reason- 
 able time, his property is exempt from capture 
 and confiscation; but if he puts his property afloat 
 on the ocean for the purjiose of trade, or if he is 
 absent himself from the enemy country and sends 
 to the enemy country to have his property brought 
 to the United States, in both states of the case the 
 Supreme Court decides that the property assumes 
 the character of enemy property, as though it be- 
 longed to the subjects of the nation with which we 
 are at war, and«is just as much subject to capture, 
 prize, and condemnation as if it were in fact and 
 bona fide enemy property. So neither these cases 
 nor any other cases that have been decided by 
 the Supreme Court touch the question now under 
 consideration and involved in the bill. Every act 
 of Congress that lias made provision for capture, 
 for confiscation , for prize, and all the cognate acts, 
 are made in rchirion to a. state of war between the 
 United States and other nations, and in relation 
 to property thai is owned by tlic suljiuMs or citi- 
 zens of oliier nations, or in relaiKui lo property 
 which- is (;i(asi owned by the subji-ct.s or citizens 
 of other nations. The question how far Congress 
 
by law can confiscate the property of a citizen, 
 loyal or disloyal, except in cases of violation of 
 revenue laws, to which I will refer presently, is 
 wholly unacted upon by Congress in the passage 
 of any law or by the United States courts in their 
 decisions,accordin2; to myreadinu; and researches. 
 
 The Governmen't of the United States is more 
 excellent than all others, not only for its free and 
 popular character, but also for its written and 
 stable Constitution, which clearly enumerates, 
 defines, and limits all the primary and principal 
 powers of the Government, but separates them 
 into three departments, and provides for the same 
 number of coordinate and independent bodies of 
 magistracy to execute the powers assigned to each . 
 In this mode, it not only provides against a dan- 
 gerous concentration of power in the same hands, 
 but creates mutual checks and balances to prevent 
 the usurpation or abuse of power. It is the fun- 
 damental law of our Government, and it is the bond 
 of union which binds the States together. It is 
 perpetual, and also immutable, except in the de- 
 liberate and difficult mode which it prescribes for 
 itsown alteration. The American people, aclingby 
 States, ratified and established it, and by its own 
 provisions made it, the laws of Congress, and the 
 treaties of the United States, then, or to be there- 
 after made, the supreme law of the land, and the 
 judges of every Slate to be bound thereby, any thing 
 in their constitutions and laws to the contrary not- 
 withstanding; andrequired the Senators and Rep- 
 resentatives of the United States, the members of 
 the several State Legislatures, and all executive 
 and judicial officers, both of the United States and 
 of the several States, to be bound by oath or affirm- 
 ation to support it. Its authority is not only para- 
 mount, but it is continual, uniform, and uninter- 
 rupted; and there is no power that can suspend 
 or dispense with it, or any part of it, except Con- 
 gress may suspend " the privilege of the writ of 
 habeas corpus, when in' cases of rebellion or inva- 
 sion the public safety may require it." Through- 
 out all the times of war and peace, its stable and 
 fixed authority and operation are withougpause 
 or variableness. Its great founders never intended 
 that it should be thrown into a state of catalepsy 
 by the shock of war, or they would have so writ- 
 ten one of its provisions. They were too wise not 
 to know that its protection was more needed for 
 private right and public liberty in the midst of the 
 license and violence of war than in the passionless 
 'calm and security of peace. They intended that 
 in our country it should refute forever the pusil- 
 lanimous concession of Cicero, which had been 
 so long received by the world as an aphorism, 
 " Leges silent inter arma." It is the bulwark of 
 American civil and religious liberty, and it is only 
 the enemies of both who seek its destruction by 
 open assault or by Machiavelian machinations. 
 When it falls, the liberties of our country will be 
 buried under its ruins. 
 
 This Constitution, in its own provisions, is all 
 the law, or is the source and authority of all the 
 laws which apply to the United States as a nation. 
 Congress may pass laws at large and rn detail, or it 
 may, by general language, adopt other bodies of 
 law, as the common law, the civil law, international 
 law, the maritime law, the mercantile law, and 
 martial law. But whether any or all those bodies 
 of law be adopted by Congress or the Constitu- 
 tion, in their whole or part, each and every prin- 
 
 ciple of the bodies of the law so adopted, in con- 
 flict with any express principle or provision of the 
 Constitution of the United States, would fall before 
 the paramount authority of that Constitution, and 
 be of no validity whatever in the United States. 
 If such conflicting principle or provision of any 
 bodies of law before referred to, was, in totideni 
 verbis, written in an act of Congress, no sensible 
 man would controvert the position that it would 
 be void and of no effect; and it being provided for 
 in general and indefinite language, would add to 
 the force of that truth. Many powers of Govern- 
 ment, arising by implication under the Constitu- 
 tion, upon the principle that they were necessary 
 and proper to carry into execution expressly dol- 
 egated powers, would give rise to a diflference of 
 opiniqn among able and good men. But there can 
 be no sach conflict where any power sought to be 
 implied is expressly negatived by or plainly in- 
 cotisistent with a written provision of the Consti- 
 tution. That the implied right or power mu«t 
 yield to that which is expressed, is the universal 
 rule in giving construction to all written instru- 
 ments; and especially it is so in construing the 
 Constitution, which the sovereign power of this 
 country has declared and established to be " the 
 paramount law of the land." 
 
 The Constitution has provided for its own pro- 
 tection, preservation, and perpetuity, and for that 
 of the Government and the country. The prin- 
 ciples that all laws, State or national, in conflict 
 with it, are of no validity, and that all officers, 
 national or State, shall swear to support it, form 
 one of its great defenses. But it has other guards 
 and protections in otherexpress provisions. They 
 are distributed among the three departments of 
 the Government, so that each body of its magis- 
 tracy has a part of the duty and responsibility of 
 this defense. Our ancestors were too sagacious, 
 too jealous of power, and too true to liberty, to 
 intrust this wholly to one man, or even one body 
 of magistracy. I will read a number of those pro- 
 visions of the Constitution which are most appli- 
 cable to the present condition of the. country, and 
 by authority of which the existing rebellion is to 
 be subdued: 
 
 " The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, 
 duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide 
 for the common defense of the United States;" 
 
 " To borrow money on the credit of the United States ;" 
 
 "To define and punish piracies and felonies committed 
 on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations;" 
 
 " To raise and support armies," &c. ; 
 
 " To provide and maintain a navy ;" 
 
 •" To make rules for thegovernment and regulation of the 
 land «nd naval forces;" 
 
 " To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws 
 of the Umon,sui)pressiusurrections,and repel invasions;" 
 
 '•To provide lor 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," &c. ; 
 
 "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper 
 for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all 
 other powers vested by this Constitution in the Govern- 
 ment of the United States, or in any department or ollicer 
 thereof." 
 
 " The Congress shall have the power to declare the puj^ 
 ishment of treason ; but no attainder of treason shall work; 
 corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during the lile of tU.e 
 person attainted." 
 
 "The United States shall guaranty to every State j&thia 
 Union a republican form of government, and shall pfolect 
 each of them against invasion, and on applicatiou of tlie- 
 Legislature, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature caii-- 
 iiot he convened,) against domestic violence." 
 
 " The I'resident shall be(7ommander-in-Chiefofthe Army 
 and Navy of the United States, and of the uvUitia of the- 
 
8 
 
 several States when called into the service of tlie United 
 States." 
 
 ♦' The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies 
 that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by grant- 
 ing commissions wliich shall expire attheendof tlieir next 
 session." 
 
 " He may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both 
 Housesof Congress, or either of them ;" "he shall take care 
 that the laws be faithfully executed," &c. 
 
 "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested 
 in one Supreme Court, and in such inlerior courts as Con- 
 gress may from time to time ordain and establish." 
 
 " The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and 
 equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the Uni- 
 ted States," &c. 
 
 These clauses of the Constitution embody and 
 confer all the power and authority that is pos- 
 sessed by the Government of the United States to 
 deal with the present rebellion. The duty and 
 power of self-defense are both devolved upon that 
 Government, but that self-defense must be made 
 by the means and in the mode prescribed by the 
 Constitution, as I have read from it, and the laws 
 of Congress in conformity to it. The adoption of 
 any otiier mode or means would be a usurpation 
 of power which every citizen could rightfully re- 
 sist. Congress has power to declare war against 
 foreign nations, but not against any of the States, 
 or any portion of the people of the United States. 
 They form but one nation, and it is the duty of 
 the Government to defend not only all the States, 
 but every part, and every citizen of each of them. 
 If any State should be convulsed by domestic 
 violence, on being invoked by its Legislature or 
 Governor, the Government of the United States is 
 bound to suppress it. The Constitution defines 
 what shall be treason against the United States. 
 Congress has passed a law to punish all persons 
 guilty of that crime with death; and the courts are 
 required to enforce that law against all persons 
 who shall have committed it, according to the 
 forms of judicial proceedings. It is the duty of 
 the President to see that tlie laws are faithfully 
 executed. Courts and marshals are the magis- 
 tracy by which this office is ordinarily performed; 
 but there may be combinations of men so power- 
 ful as to baffle and defeat all their efforts to en- 
 force the law. The President, in cases where it 
 is needful, interposes, and assists them with a 
 portion or with the whole of the military and naval 
 power of the United States, of which he is the 
 s Commander-in-Chief. But the resistance may as- 
 sume the proportions of an insurrection, of a 
 great rebellion, as is now the fact; and the Presi- 
 dent may call forth the militia of the United States 
 to the utmost limit of numbers authorized by the 
 laws of Congress, and combine this military pqvver 
 with the ordinary Army and Navy of the United 
 States, to subdue the insurrection. He may also 
 convene Congress in extraordinary session, and 
 that body may set in the field the whole military 
 population of the United States, sustained by all 
 their moneyed resources, under the President's 
 control as ComiKiander-in-Cliief, to enforce the ex- 
 ecution of the laws, to suppress the insurrection, 
 to crush the present stupendous rebellion. 
 
 But the whole war power of the Government is 
 vested by the Constitution exclusively in Con- 
 gress. It alone can declare war and may authorize 
 general hostilities,asagainstGreat Britain in 1812, 
 or may limit them, as against France in 1798. 
 The President cannot raise and support armies, 
 or impose taxes, or borrow money, or make ap- 
 propriations to support them, or to conduct any 
 
 operation of Government. He cannot call out the 
 militia to execute " the laws of the Union, sup- 
 press insurrections, or repel invasions," except 
 so far as he is authorized by the laws of Congress. 
 He is simply the Commander-in-Chief of the Army 
 and Navy, and of the militia when in the service 
 of the United States; and as such, he is clothed 
 with no more authority, nor can he do any other 
 acts, than the senior general in the service of tlie . 
 United States or any other citizen might, whom 
 the Constitution had designated as such command- 
 er-in-chief. In conducting war against a foreign 
 nation, suppressing domestic insurrections, and 
 repelling invasions, he is but the executive officer 
 of Congress, and always subject to its control. 
 Indeed, the chief power and vigor of the Govern- 
 ment of the United States is not with the Presi- 
 dent but with Congress, and it has placed at his 
 disposition an army numerous as the hosts of 
 Xerxes to quell and reduce to submission to the 
 laws an organization of insurgents not less nu- 
 merous. 
 
 The United States are now at war, not with a 
 foreign or independent nation, where international 
 law and the rights of belligerents would apply and 
 govern, but they have on hand a domestic war to 
 put down the greatest rebellion of which history 
 has made any record, and the authority and law 
 by which it is to be done is found in their Con- 
 stitution and the acts of their Congress. They 
 have power to suppress this insurrection by mak- 
 ing war upon it, to which they may apply all the 
 military and naval power and every resource of 
 the nation that may be put in requisition by laws 
 passed by Congress. But the power of Congress 
 to carry on this war is restricted to the suppres- 
 sion of the insurrection alone, and when that work 
 is done the power of Congress to carry it on also 
 stops. Until then, it and its generals and armies 
 may conduct the war in the modes and with all 
 the' rights appropriate to actual hostilities, for no 
 other end than to bring the insurgents to submit 
 to the Constitution and the laws. The armies of 
 the Un^ed States may pursue and engage in battle, 
 and slay and capture the armies of the insurgents, 
 blockade their ports, besiege and storm their 
 towns, seize and appropriate their arms, munitions, 
 and military stores, and all other property that 
 they bring into theirarmies to be used in aid of the 
 insurrection. But outside of the property used in 
 open and active resistance in fact, by organized 
 forces, to the authority and laws of the United 
 States, our armies have no power, by national 
 law or by the long and uniform usage of all civil- 
 ized nations, to seize, appropriate, or confiscate 
 the property of loyal or disloyal citizens to put 
 down the existing rebellion. All rebellions con- 
 cern the nations alone where they break out, and 
 each one adopts of its own will diflerent and vary- 
 ing measures and means to suppress them. As to 
 such domestic wars there is no national law or 
 uniform custom and usage of nations, except a 
 common resort to force of arms to reduce the 
 rebels, and a seizure of every material used by 
 them as a means to strengthen their hands in their 
 revolt. 
 
 The examples of the confiscation measures 
 adopted by France and England, at different times, 
 and by several of the States during the revolution- 
 ary war, prove nothing in support of the position 
 that Congress may now pass a confiscation or for- 
 
9 
 
 feiture act against the rebels. The Government 
 of England wa6 not limited in this respect by any 
 constitutional provisions, and the power of her 
 Parliament over this and all other subjects is 
 omnipotent; and that of France was a despotism 
 in theory and fact, and botind by no limitations 
 upon this or any other matter. When the States 
 referred to, during our war of the Revolution, 
 passed their separate and diverse acts of confisca- 
 tion they were each sovereign, and were severally 
 possessed of and in the exercise of plenary and un- 
 restricted powers of legislatibn and government. 
 But Congress has no powers but what are con- 
 ferred upon it by the Constitution, and such un- 
 enumerated and incidental powers as may be ne- 
 cessary and proper to carry into execution those 
 expressly vested. Treason and insurrection are 
 cognate subjects and crimes, and the Constitution 
 has expressly provided how both shall be treated; 
 and no different mode for either, by implication, 
 is allowable. 
 
 I have already argued partially of insurrection, 
 and of the remedy which the Constitution has 
 provided for it; but a part of the remedy is the 
 definition it gives of treason, and the punishment 
 which it authorizes Congress to declare for it. 
 Every citizen engaged in an insurrection is guilty 
 of treason, and punishable as a traitor. So far 
 as the Constitution treats of insurrection, eono??i- 
 ine, and authorizes it, which is war, to be put 
 down by military force, by countervailing war, it 
 does not intend or contemplate at all the punish- 
 ment of the insurgents, but only to put an end to 
 the insurrection, the organized and armed resist- 
 ance to the authority and laws of the United States. 
 Tlie punishment of the insurgents is provided for 
 in another clause of the Constitution, and there- 
 fore it is not to be derived or argued from that 
 which authorizes the " calling forth the militia 
 to execute the laws of the Union and to suppress 
 insurrections." The matter of the punishment 
 of the insurgents, of traitors, must be looked for, 
 and learned, from those provisions of the Consti- 
 tution which treat particularly of it, and those 
 others which relate to it and all other punishment 
 for crimes. 1 will here read them: 
 
 " The Congress sliall have power to declare the punish- 
 ment of treason ; but no attainder ot'treasou shall work cor- 
 ruption of" blood or forfeiture except during the life of the 
 person attainted." 
 
 This is the only clause of the Constitution which 
 speaks of the punishment of treason; and it rec- 
 ognizes, what has never been denied, that it may 
 comprehend as well the loss of the property as 
 the life of the traitor. Both are the punishment 
 of the offender, and not of the offense or property 
 forfeited. The idea of punishment being attached 
 to the offense or the offender's properly, is sim- 
 ply absurd and impossible. By the existing law 
 of Congress providing for the punishment of trea- 
 son, forfeiture of property is expressly withheld: 
 it may be made an additional punishment pros- 
 pectively, but for no longer period than the life of 
 the offender. Both branches of this clause of the 
 Constitution are to be considered together. The 
 first confers upon Congress the general poxcer to 
 declare the punishment, but the latter prohibits the 
 attainder or judgment for treason from operating 
 the corruption of the blood, or the forfeiture of the 
 property of the offender for a longer period than 
 
 his life; and necessarily, to that extent, qualifies 
 and restricts the power to declare the punishment 
 of treason. It is not the meaning of this provis- 
 ion, that Congress can pass a law denouncing the 
 corruptioii of the blood, and the forfeiture of the 
 propertyof the traitor, indefinitely and for all time, 
 and yet, that the courts in applying that law, 
 should be required to restrict their judgments of 
 the corruption of the blood and the forfeiture of 
 the property to the life of the offender. The power 
 to declare by Congress the punishment, and the 
 power to pronounce by the courts thejudgment 
 against treason, are harmonious, and both are 
 plainly limited to the life of traitors. This is the 
 construction of the Constitution by Story and 
 every authority that is even respectable. 
 
 The first paragraph of section three, article 
 three, of the Constitution (I have just read and 
 com men ted upon the second paragraph) is in these 
 words: 
 
 " Treason against the United States shall consist only in 
 levying war against ihera, or adhering to their enemies, 
 2iving them aid and comfort. No person fbaW be convicted 
 of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the 
 same overt act, or on confession in open court." 
 
 But there are other clauses of the Constitution 
 which bear materially upon treason and traitors, 
 and all other crimes and criminals under the laws 
 of the United States, which I will also read: 
 
 " No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be 
 passed." 
 
 " The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, 
 shall be by jury, and sucli trial shall be held in the State 
 where the said crimes shall have been committed." 
 
 "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or other- 
 wise infamous crime, unless on an indictment of a grand 
 jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or 
 in the militia when in aatual service in time ofwar or pub- 
 lic danger; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property with- 
 out due process of law; nor shall privateproperty be taken 
 for public use without just compensation." 
 
 "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy 
 the right to a sjieedy and public trial by an impartial jury 
 of the State and district wherein tlie crime shall have been 
 committed, whicli district shall have been previously as- 
 certained by law, and to be informed of the nature and 
 cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the wit- 
 nesses against him," Sac. 
 
 The great principles of liberty declared in these 
 provisions of the Constitution have their origin 
 in the common law of England, were established 
 by the Saxon race a thousand years ago, were in 
 part incorporated in IMagna Charta, which was 
 wrested from a Norman tyrant by the bold barons 
 of that island at Runnymede, and were plainly 
 and deeply graven upon the pillars of our Gov- 
 ernment, for the instruction, guidance, and con- 
 trol of all its functionaries, and as an imperish- 
 able defense of the American people. They are 
 set forth in such plain and concise language in the 
 clauses which I have read that any other state- 
 ment of them would be no improvement. I will, 
 however, here remark, that one of them relates 
 to the trial of all crimes except in cases of impeach- 
 ment; and another to all criminal prosecutions; 
 and it is provided that the trial of both crimes and 
 criminals shall be by jury. _ 
 
 Mr. Justice Blackstone, in treating of the trial 
 by jury and referring to a remark of Montesquieu, 
 says: 
 
 " A celebrated French author, who concludes that, be- 
 cause Rome, Sparta, and Cartilage have lost their liber- 
 ties, therefore those of England in time must perish, should 
 have recollected that Rome, Sparta, and Carthage, at the 
 time when their liberties were lost, were strangers to the 
 trial byjury." 
 
10 
 
 "Where the trial by jury prevails, according to 
 the principles of the common law, there liberty 
 to some considerable extent dwells; but when the 
 trial by jury departs from any cause, civil liberty 
 flies from tliat land forever. 
 
 Every candid and intelligent man will concede 
 that if the bill under debate is in conflict with any 
 one principle established by the clauses of the 
 Constitution to which I have asked the attention 
 of the Senate, should it be passed, it would be 
 void and inoperative. I hold, and will now at- 
 tempt to show, that it is palpably and plainly in 
 conflict with many of them. First, it is in sub- 
 stance and effect a bill of attainder. An act of Con- 
 gress which declares individuals by name, or by 
 description and classes, to be guilty of treason, 
 murder, or other felony, and inflicts upon them the 
 punishmentof death or the forfeiture of property, 
 without the intervention of a court and judicial 
 proceedings, would be a bill of attainder. The 
 flrst section of this bill proposes to forfeit and con- 
 fiscate to the United States the properly " within 
 them of ail pei'sons beyond them, or within any 
 State or district of the United States now in a 
 state of insurrection and rebellion against their 
 authority., so that in either case the ordinary pro- 
 cess of law cannot be served on them, icho shall, 
 during the present rebellion, be found in arms 
 against the United States, or giving aid and com- 
 fort to said rebellion." It also authorizes the 
 President " to designate any civil or military offi- 
 cers to seize the property so confiscated, and sell 
 that so seized, or so much of it as he shall deem 
 advisable, and to pay the proceeds into the Treas- 
 ury of the United States." Courts and judicial 
 proceedings are wholly ignored, and without their 
 agency punisliment, by forfeiture of property, 
 would be inflicted by tlie law upon a class of in- 
 dividuals ascertained only by vague description, 
 and whose numbers would be thousands and hun- 
 dreds of thousands; and the President would be 
 authorized to execute this judgment against myr- 
 iads pronounced only b]j the Imc. 
 
 Another no less conclusive objection against the 
 bill is, that it would be the usurpation and exer- 
 cise of a judicial power by the legislative branch 
 of the Government, when the whole judicial power 
 of the United States is vested exclusively in the 
 courts. To obviate these objections the bill would 
 have merely to define or identify the crime, and 
 declare its punishment, and leave it to courts and 
 juries to try and adjudge whether the law and facts 
 'in the case of each individual established against 
 him his guilt of the crime. From reading this bill, 
 I was in doubt whether it was intended to have 
 both a prospective and retrospective operation, or 
 only the former. I think its verbiage and arrange- 
 ment leave that point in much obscurity, but the 
 able Senator who reported it informs the Senate 
 that it was the intention of the committee by whose 
 order it was reported ,'and of himself also, to make 
 it prospective only ; and that if it is not suflrciently 
 clear on that point it can be made so by amend- 
 ment. But three other objections to this bill arise 
 out of the third section of the third article of the 
 Constitution. 
 
 1. The crime denounced and intended to be 
 punished by it, tiiough notdenominated, yet, from 
 the language used, it is quite clear is meant treason. 
 
 In the definition of treason by that third sec- 
 
 tion the languageisnearly identical with that used 
 by the statute of 25 Edward III, to define treason 
 in England. Her courts and the Supreme Court 
 of the United States have ruled that the words, 
 " adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and 
 comfort, "found both in tlieact of Parliament and 
 our Constitution, mean by the term "enemies," 
 not a portion of the people of either country in a 
 state of insurrection or rebellion, but a. foreign na- 
 tion with which the countries respectively are at 
 war. Wherefore " the giving aid and comfort to 
 the existing rebellion" cannot be made treason 
 by an act of Congress. 
 
 2. " No person shall be convicted of treason unless on 
 the testimony ot two witnesses to the same overt act, or 
 confession in open court." 
 
 This bill does not require the testimony of two 
 witnesses, or one witness, or any confession in 
 open court, orany overtact, or any convictionin 
 the cases comprehended by its first section. It 
 assumes the guilt, without trial and conviction, 
 and without testimony or confession, and without 
 overt act or guilty intention, of an indefinite num- 
 ber of persons, and authorizes oflicers, civil or 
 military, to be designated by the President to 
 brand whom they will as criminals and traitors 
 by seizing their property upon such imputation; 
 and if they seize the slaves of a loyal man in his 
 own possession, to regain them he is required 
 not only to prove his right to his slaves but also 
 his loyalty to the Government of the United States 
 during the whole existence of the rebellion. This 
 view also establishes that the bill, if enacted, would 
 be unconstitutional and void. 
 
 3. The terms " confiscation " and "forfeiture" 
 have the same character of legal significance; but 
 the latter, being of the broader import, includes 
 the former. This third section says: 
 
 " No attainder [judgment] of treason shall work corrup- 
 tion of blood or forfeiture, e.xcept during the life of the per- 
 son attainted." 
 
 The bill declares the forfeiture of property in 
 general language, without restriction as to the 
 time of its continuance and effect. But for this 
 limitation of forfeiture in this provision of the 
 Constitution, under the bill, it would be in per- 
 petuity. Thus another unconstitutional objection 
 to the measure is established. 
 
 In the still remaining doubt whether this bill is 
 not subject to the objection of being ex post facto, 
 I will liere say a word in exposition of that prin- 
 ciple. Any law which makes an act a crime 
 which was not criminal when it was done, or if 
 then a crime, aggravates its enormity or punish- 
 ment, or requires different or less evidence to con- 
 vict an oflender than was requisite when the of- 
 fense was committed, is ea;;)os^/«c<o. Laws which 
 would inflict jiecuniary penalties, or forfeitures 
 of property, or which would increase them after 
 the criminal act, would be subject to the same 
 constitutional objection. (See Story's Commen- 
 taries on Constitution, sec. 1339, and Fletcher vs. 
 Peck, G Cranch, 138.) 
 
 Mr. President, I have not heard any Senator 
 controvert the positions, that where a citizen is 
 under prosecution for treason, or any other crime, 
 and is being tried for the purpose of personal 
 imnishment, that he must first be indicted by a 
 grand jury, be brought publicly to trial in a court 
 within the State and district where the crime is 
 
11 
 
 charged to have been committed, tried by an 
 impartial jury thereof, confronted with the wit- 
 nesses against him, and have the benefit of coun- 
 sel. 
 
 It is often contended that the law may declare 
 the forfeiture of the property of a criminal as a 
 part of his punishment, and the title of his prop- 
 erty may be vested by the law in the United 
 States upon the commission of the offense, and 
 the courts be authorized to jiroceed against the 
 prop_erty in rem, and try, without the intervention 
 of a jury, whether the crime whicli caused the 
 forfeiture had been, in fact, committed, and order 
 the sale or discharge of the property, as it might 
 adjudge that fact; but never, until the present 
 sessi<yi of Congress, have I known the position 
 to be assumed that property, so declared to be for- 
 feited, could be seized and sold, the sale pass the 
 title to the purchaser, and the proceeds to be paid 
 into the Treasury of the United States, and the 
 owner to be thus forever deprived of his property 
 and all compensation for it, without any finding 
 of a jury or judgment of a court. Such a course 
 of procedure is not allowable; it is unconstitu- 
 tional; it is monstrous! I am aware that for a 
 violation of the revenue and other laws of the 
 United States, property connected with such vio- 
 lations is directed by those laws to be seized, and 
 the validity of such seizures has been sustained 
 by all our courts; and that those courts have pro- 
 ceeded, in conformity to the provisions of those 
 acts of Congress, in rem, against the property 
 they declare to be forfeited, and have, by their 
 judgment and decree, ordered itto be sold for the 
 benefit of the United States and private individ- 
 uals connected with its seizure; but so far as I 
 know, or am informed, no court of the United 
 States ever decided that the property of a citizen 
 could be taken from him and sold, and he be di- 
 vested forever of his right to it, and of all com- 
 pensation for it, without the inquiry and judg- 
 ment of a court, whether the state of fact which 
 was to produce the forfeiture had occurred. I 
 believe that Congress has never yet passed an 
 act dispensing with such inquiry and judgment. 
 Even in a state of war with a foreign nation, such 
 a proceeding is required in relationto the enemy's 
 property captured on the high seas. In the case 
 of Gelston vs. Hoyt, (3 Wheaton, 246,) the Su- 
 preme Court decided that: 
 
 " By tho Constitution tlm judicial power of tlie United 
 States extends to ail cases of law and equity, arising under 
 the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, 
 and to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; and 
 by the judiciary act of 17S9 (cliapter 20, section 9,) tlie dis- 
 trict courts are invested with exclusive original jurisdiction 
 of all causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and of 
 all seizures on land or.Avater, and of all suits for penalties 
 and fines under ihe laws of the United Slates; and conse- 
 quently, the rij^lit to decide upon the same, hy the very 
 terms of the statute, exclusively belongs to the proper courts 
 of the United States, and it depends upon the final decree 
 of the court, in rem, whether the seizure is to be adjudged 
 rightful or turtous. If a sentence of condemnation iie pro- 
 nounced, it is conclusive that a forfeiture is incurred ; if a 
 sentence of acquittal, it is equally conclusive against the 
 forfeiture — and in either case the question cannot be liti- 
 gated in any otiier forum." 
 
 Accordant is the case of Slocum vs. Mayberry. 
 (9 Wheaton, 3.) These cases recognize the plain 
 principle, that the question of the forfeiture of 
 property under the laws of Congress, is in every 
 case 0. judicial q\iestion, the decision of which be- 
 
 longs, both by the Constitution and the judicjiary 
 act of 1789, exclusively to the United States courts. 
 Congress has no power to transfer the decision of 
 such questions to any other tribunal, or magis- 
 tracy, or itself, to decide them. 
 
 It will be observed that those cases sustain the 
 validity of laws for the forfeiture and seizure of 
 property, and its condemnation by courts by pro- 
 ceedings in rem, only for infractions of the rev- 
 enue laws, and other laws relating to trade or civil 
 polily. There may be found in other decisions 
 dicta which intimate or even declare that Con- 
 gress may pass laws for the forfeiture, seizure, 
 and sale by courts in proceedings in rem of prop- 
 erty for offenses that are mala in se,as well as for 
 those that are only mala prohibita. But I have not 
 been able to find a case in which the question of 
 a difference between the two classes of cases, in 
 respect to the right of the owner of the property 
 to have the question of the fact of forfeiture to be 
 tried by a jury, was decided, or argued, or made. 
 Indeed, I have notoljserved any casein which that 
 question was directly decided, argued, or made, in 
 relation to the forfeitui'e of property for offenses 
 malaprohibita. I feel a good deal of confidence that 
 as to offenses 7n«/a in se the question is undecided 
 and open, and ought to be decided by a just and 
 true understanding ofthe Constitution and the laws 
 of Congress. 
 
 I maintain that all forfeitures of property are 
 intended, and in factare punishments ofthe oioners 
 of such property for some actual or constructive 
 default or offense of tlie owner or person having 
 the control of such property. The notions im- 
 ported by the phrases "guilty property "and "the 
 punishmentof property, "are absurd and nonsen- 
 sical. Properly, except slaves, is wholly incapa- 
 ble of guilt and impervious to punishment. It is 
 unconscious, insensate, far away both from guilt 
 and punishment. But its forfeiture does punish 
 the owner, and forfeiture of property is often only 
 less grievous punishment than forfeiture of life. 
 When judges and courts use the phrases " enemy 
 property" and " guilty property," it is to express 
 its jiarticular situation without a inultiplicity of 
 words. 
 
 I admit that laws inay be so framed as to pun- 
 ish a criminal by separate proceedings in court, 
 both 7)ersona% and by forfeiture of his property; 
 and that an arrest of the pei-son of the criminal, 
 and his trial and conviction, are not necessary to 
 authorize a yidginent for the forfeiture of his es- 
 tate where the law provides for such separate pro- 
 ceedings. But where the pi-oceedings are separated, 
 to produce a constitutional and valid forfeiture of 
 either life or property, there must be judicial pro- 
 ceedings, and a judgment of a court establishing 
 the facts upon wliich the forfeiture is to ensue. A 
 person guilty of treason may be made to answer 
 for it by two distinct trials in court, and by two 
 kinds of punishment, after the law shall have so 
 provided — the one by the loss of life, and the other 
 by the loss of property. By both modes the com- 
 mission ofthe crime hy him has necessarily to be 
 inquired of and adjudged by the court where either 
 the criine or criminal is tried; in both, the crim- 
 inal is punished; but in neither is there, nor can 
 there be, any punishment of the crime. 
 
 The Constitution asserts that " the trial of all 
 crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be 
 
12 
 
 by jury;" and also that "in all criminal proiecw- 
 tion's the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy 
 and public trial by an impartial ;'urj/,"&c. The 
 first provision is in the original Constitution, and 
 requires " the trial of all crimes to be by jury;" 
 the second is an amendment, and requires "the 
 accused in all (criminal proseculions" to be also tried 
 by a. jury. It is witliin the power of Congress to 
 pass a prospective law attaching the additional 
 punishment , of the forfeiture of his properly for 
 his lifetime to the criminal. The judicial power 
 of the United States courts would extend to all 
 cases arising under such a law, and every case 
 ■would have to be instituted according to tlie forms 
 of judicial proceedings, and is directed by the Con- 
 stitution to be tried by a. jury. Because this bill 
 is arranged so as to evade that mode of trial, also, 
 it is in conflict with that instrument. 
 
 And yet it is liable to another constitutional 
 objection. It provides for the forfeiture of prob- 
 ably millions of slaves, who are scattered all over 
 the fifteen slave States, and declares them all to 
 be immediately free, and leaves them in that con- 
 dition in the States where the law will act upon 
 them to make this change in their condition. Con- 
 gress has no expressly granted or inci(/eri/rt/ power 
 to emancipate these slaves. In relation to each 
 slaveState,lhefVeedomorthralldom of their slaves 
 is a great question of domestic State polity, over 
 which Congress or the United States Government 
 has no jurisdiction. It is a matter of transcendent 
 interest and importance to most of those States, 
 and no conceivable measure, or spoliation, short 
 of stripping them of all their lands, would, for the 
 present or the future, approximate the magnitude 
 of this measure. It would take from the cotton 
 States the bulk of all their worldly wealth, and 
 reduce them to poverty, wretcheclness, and de- 
 spair; and they will neversuccumb to itwhile they 
 can raise an arm to resist i,t. Congress has nei- 
 ,ther the expressly delegated nor implied power to 
 liberate these slaves. The implied powers can 
 only be such as are appropriate to the execution 
 of some express power, and must be merely an- 
 cillary and incidental to such express power. On 
 the pretext of invoking assistance to execute an 
 express power, Congress cannot assume a greater 
 and more extensive one, particularly one so for- 
 midable as to enable it, as to fifteen States, to 
 break down thegreal principleof our complicatpd 
 system — that all the internal affairs of the States 
 are exclusively under their own governments. 
 
 I ask to know wliat enumerated power of the 
 Government is to be executed, or to be assisted 
 in its execution, by Congress seizing upon the 
 power to liberate millions of slaves. It is not 
 necessary to enable the Government to subdue the 
 rebellion. Indeed, it would strengthen the rebel- 
 lion by energizing with despair the rebels, and 
 producing with thousands and tens of thousands 
 of loyal men, in thefreeas well as the slave States, 
 a feeling of alarm, revulsion, and condemnation 
 for an act of usurpation so flagrant and dangerous. 
 Congress could omit all forfeiture of the slaves; 
 but that is the not denied pretext to give a sem- 
 blance of power to free them. To coin money, 
 could Congress seize all the jewelry and plate 
 which is owned by the American people? To 
 carry on the war against the rebellion, could it rob 
 all the banks of the United States.' No Union 
 
 citizen that I have ever heard of has asked that 
 this war be conducted by the United States for the 
 defense of slavery, or objected to slaves being for- 
 feited like other property. All that the Union 
 slaveholders ask for slave property is, that it shall 
 be treated by Congress and the Government and 
 the Army impartially and equally like other prop- 
 erty; and if by such course slavery is to be dam- 
 aged 01- to fall by the war, they will make no 
 complaint; but they do, will forever, protest that 
 the war shall not be made a crusade against sla- 
 very. 
 
 But while we admit the power of Congress to 
 pass laws for the forfeiture of slaves for the life 
 of the owner who has committed treason, upon 
 another ground we deny its power to emancipate 
 them. " Forfeiture"and " confiscation "are tech- 
 nical terms — terms of legal art. They have a pre- 
 cise and well-understood legal meaning, as much 
 so as " bill of attainder," " ex post facto law," 
 writ of" habeas corpus," and other legal phrases 
 embodied in the Constitution. The meaning of 
 these terms was fixed by their adoption in the 
 Constitution, and the meaning of each is just the 
 same now that it was when the Constitution was 
 formed. Congress has no power to change that 
 meaning, for that would be to change, pro tanto, 
 the Constitution. Congress has power to add the 
 forfeiture of property, and make it a part of the 
 punishment for treason. It may do in relation to 
 the property of persons guiUy of treason exactly 
 what is imported by the term forfeiture. Black- 
 stone, and all the authors who treat of it, define 
 it to be — 
 
 " A punishment annexed by In w to some Illegal actor 
 negligence in the owner oflands, tenements, hereditaments, 
 or personalty, whereby he loses all his interest therein, and 
 they go to llie party injured as recompense for the wrong 
 which either lie alone, or the public with him, hath sus- 
 tained." 
 
 The essential feature of forfeiture is not so much 
 to deprive the one party of the forfeited property 
 as it is to appropriate it to the other as compensa- 
 tion. It was once contended in the Supreme Court 
 that the importation of goods into the United Slates 
 was only to bring them into the country, and did 
 not comprehend their after sale; but that court 
 decided that sale was of the essence of importa- 
 tion and a part of it. Appropriation of the for- 
 feited property to the injured party is no less a 
 part, and of the essence of forfeiture; and I chal- 
 lenge my learned friend, the Senator from Mich- 
 igan, to adduce a single instance of forfeiture or 
 confiscation by legislative action, in this or any 
 other country, where the property forfeited was 
 not so appropriated. The acts of forfeiture and 
 confiscation of the States, in the warof the Revolu- 
 tion, to which he referred us, transferred all the 
 forfeited property to the States severally. Three 
 or four of them were slave States, and the prop- 
 erty confiscated by them included slaves, which, 
 alike with all other property, was appropriated to 
 the States. The idea of the forfeiture of property 
 by law, without appropriating it, is one of the 
 mischievous errors of this innovating and reckless 
 age. The provisions of the bill relating to slaves 
 would not come up to the measure of forfeiture, 
 and would be void for incompleteness and imper- 
 fection. 
 
 Mr. President, I should like to speak from half 
 an hour to an hour longer. I have not concluded 
 
13 
 
 my remarks. I have some, of great importance 
 as I deem, yet to make. I feel a good deal ex- 
 hausted, as it is my habit to speak vehemently. 
 I would therefore throw myself upon the courtesy 
 of the Senate, and ask that they proceed now to 
 the consideration of some other business and allow 
 me to conclude iny remarks (which I promise to 
 make as short as I can) to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. If the Senator will give way, 
 I move that tlie Senate proceed to the considera- 
 tion of executive business. That will leave the 
 Senator in possession of the floor. . 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I thank you, sir. 
 
 Wednesday, April 23, 1862. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, I have manifested 
 a great deal of interest in the bill which is under 
 consideration, and I have occupied a considerable 
 portion of time in its discussion. I have done so 
 from my deep convictions of the great importance 
 of the measure. In its extent and in the magnitude 
 of material interests involved by it, in its influence 
 upon the present and the future condition of the 
 whole country, if it should become 'a law and 
 should be carried into effect, and especially upon 
 my own State, in my judgment, it never has had 
 a parallel in any proposition that was ever pre- 
 sented in the Congress of the United States. In 
 the objections to its constitutionality, to its expe- 
 diency and policy, to its justice and practicability, 
 it is also without any parallel. That I have not 
 overstated or conceived too largely the great in- 
 terestof this bill, I will read a concluding sentence 
 of the speech made by the honorable chairman of 
 the Committee on the judiciary, [Mr. Trumbull,] 
 who reported it: 
 
 '•I appral to Senaiors as pliilantliiopists, as patriots, as 
 lovers of the Union and of constilutional liberty, not to let 
 pass this opportunity which a wicked rebellion presents of 
 making it the means of giving freedom to millions of the 
 human race, and thereby destroying to a great extent the 
 source and origin of the rebellion, and the only thing wliich 
 has ever seriou^ly threatened tlie peace of the Union." 
 
 I concluded yesterday, Mr. President, the view 
 of the constitutional objections which 1 conceived 
 to arise against the measure, and I will sum up 
 that argument now in a sentence or two. Con- 
 gress has, by the Constitution, expressly the power 
 to make war. Congress has, by the Constitution, 
 every necessary and proper power to carry that 
 express power to make war into execution. Now, 
 sir, what is the etfect of these two provisions? 
 The whole war-making power, except so far as is 
 involved the responsibility and the action of the 
 Commander-in-Chief of the armies of the United 
 States and of his subordinates, is exclusively with 
 Congress. Congress, as auxiliary to that primary 
 and express power, lias every necessary and in- 
 cidental power to give it full ettect. How are those 
 incidental powers ascertained; how are they put 
 into active operation.' In no other form than by 
 the enactment of laws of Congress 'embodying 
 those powers. The idea of claiming from interna- 
 tional law, or from any other body of law outside 
 of the Constitution and the laws of Congress, an 
 auxiliary power to enable Congress to carry on 
 the war, before that power has been invoked by 
 Congress itself and embodied in the pass;ige of a 
 law, to my mind, is perfectly preposterous and 
 absurd. 
 
 Congress has power to call out the militia of the 
 
 United States to suppress insurrection. That is a 
 primary and express power vested by the Consti- 
 tution in Congress. What powers have Congress 
 in connection with that power and auxiliary to it? 
 It has the power to invoke every other necessary 
 and proper power to carry into complete opera- 
 tion and effect this power to call out the militia to 
 suppress insurrection; but how are those powers 
 to be ascertained and identified? Precisely in the 
 same mode. Nopower, as incidental to.thepower 
 to suppress insurrection, can be available or can 
 be brought to the work of suppressing the in- 
 surrection until it is embodied by Congress in an 
 act as auxiliary to the main power of suppressing 
 the insurrection. I then reject and condemw ass 
 heterodox entirely the principle that woald invoke 
 the general war-making power as recognized by 
 international law, or any other law, to assist Con- 
 gress in suppressing insurrection until Congress 
 itself has adopted that power by the passage of a 
 law for that purpose. Whenever Congress puts 
 itself in that position and asks the agency and the 
 aid of any auxiliary power, the question imme- 
 diately arises, is that au.xiliary power constitu- 
 tional or not? If, upon the examination of that 
 question, it is found to be in conflict with an 
 express provision of the Constitution, or if it is 
 incompatible with any right that is recognized 
 by the language of the Constitution, there is no 
 other conclusion than that such an act of Con- 
 gress would be against the Constitution, the para- 
 mount law of the land, and would therefore be 
 void. 
 
 Mr. President, I will bring to my aid another 
 authority in support of these positions, an author- 
 ity that ought to challeniri' the respect of the abo- 
 lition members of this House at least, and of all 
 the abolition party, in or out of the Senate, in the 
 United States — the authority of Wendell Phillips. 
 I read from the Philadelphia Inquirer: 
 
 '•One of the most powerful arguments ever made to prove 
 that slavery is sanctioned and protected by the Constitution 
 of the United States was made by Wendell Phillips. Jt i^^ 
 because that is the law that, to use his own words, he has 
 advised his followers to 'disavow the Constitution' and 'to 
 trample it under foot;' and it is because he fears that the 
 President, General McClellan, and our brave soldiers are 
 now battling to maintain, and not to subvert, that Constitu- 
 tion and the Union under it, that this itinerant mischief- 
 maker and disunionist is so abusive of the President, Gen- 
 eral McClellan, and the mode in which the war is being 
 conducted. What! say you, did Wendell Phillips ever 
 argue that slavery was legal and constitutional? Yes, good 
 reader, he did, and we mean to ventilate his record of that 
 and of his secession doctrines. 
 
 "In or about 1845, one Lysander Spooner wrote an essay 
 to prove that slavery was unconslitutional; and in 1847, 
 Mr. Phillips took up'the cudgels to belabor poor Spooner 
 and to convince the anti-slavery public that the institution 
 of slavery was as much protected by the Constitution as 
 anything else. His motive we will presently see. We will 
 briefly state Spooner's objections and the replies of Phil- 
 lips. His whole argument was published in the Anti-Sla- 
 very Standard, and republished, in 1847, by Andrews &. 
 Prentiss, No. II Devonshire street, Bofston. 
 
 "SrooNER. Only what is just and right is law; lience 
 slavery, which is neither, is not lawful. 
 
 "Phillips. That is false when applied to municipal 
 law; the latter always means the declared will of tlie na- 
 tion ; hence slavery is lawful, if they have so willed it. 
 
 " Spoonf.r. a judge, or other person holding office under 
 the Constitution, may retain his office, yet treat the Consti- 
 tution as void." 
 
 That is whatGerrit Smith, Greeley, Garrison, 
 and others of that school say: 
 
 " Phillips. Not so. When he takes office he looks over 
 
14 
 
 the catalcijriie of his duties, (namely, the Constitution,) 
 swears tv; will supportit, and thus admits it is moral ; other- 
 wise he would be swearing to do what is immoral. Thus he 
 makes a eoutract with the people, and is perjured if he does 
 not keep it. He should resign his place, and then, i-k a man, 
 itreatthe Irws (namely, the Constitution,) as void!" 
 
 H« has the merit of candor and boldness, if 
 ■nothing else: 
 
 " SpooNER. Each judge may decide for himself what is 
 right and just, and, hence, what is law. 
 
 ■"^'niLi-iPs. Not so. In that case law would be one 
 ithingiij JIaiue and another tiling in Maryland; one thing 
 to-day and another thing to-morrow. Then orthodoxy 
 •would he r,ii/doxy ; and by right reason every one would be 
 willing Tfi mean hisown. Tlien follow his citations of legal 
 .ttuthoritics, and he concludes by affirming ' positive law, 
 then, -caii so establish even slavery that courts must treat it 
 as legaL The only test to which our courts have any right 
 ,to submit the action of the Legislature is, to ask is it con- 
 .9titutio«al?'" 
 
 A sou-nder position was never taken: 
 " ' If so, it is legally binding on them, no matter how un- 
 just or how unreaso«iable it is. Such is the framework of 
 4he Government under which we live.' 
 
 ■"SpoeNBR. But slavery has never actually been estab- 
 Sished byJaw in this country." 
 
 I wish I had had this argument on the occasion 
 of the 'debate in this body on the bill to abolish 
 slavery in the District of Columbia. I think I 
 •could have u.sed it with some point and force, if 
 not wi"th s'.icces.'!, against my honorable friend, the 
 SenatoT liom Minnesota, [Mr. Wilkinson,] and 
 the hoMoinble Senator from Maine, [Mr. Mor- 
 RiLi.,5 who fathered that measure: 
 
 ■"PiHLT.ips. The people who made the Constitution 
 meant il)y it to protect slavery. To argue otherwise Is to 
 attempt ' arguing the nose off one's face.' They meant to 
 protect it by — 1. The three fifths slave basis, and that al- 
 Jows slaves to 1)0 treated as things, and so not as persons. 
 YettSie South lose by that; for, by thet'ormer, the political 
 ■weigJuoftliemaster would be increased by two tilths, which, 
 by tile latter, lie loses ; and so liberty gains. 
 
 " Spoonkr. Tlie slave argument wrongly assumes that 
 the word 'free' in this clause is used as the correlative of 
 ^slavery, and thence it wrongly infers that the words 'all 
 other persons' mean slaves. 
 
 "Phillips. The obvious use of the word 'free' is to 
 ■designate one not a slave; hence the Constitution must be 
 ■confessed to recognize slavery. [Then Phillips proceeded 
 to prove that the true use of that word ' free' is to distin- 
 guish such a person from a slave, and, to prove that, he 
 ■cites authorities from Magna Charta to the Declaration of 
 Independence, both inclusive.] 
 
 " Spoo.ner. The word ' importation,' in the slave-trade 
 ■clause, does not refer to slaves. 
 
 "Phillips. It does refer to slaves. It could not mean 
 free white persons, for that would allow Congress, after 
 1808, to prohibit their arrival altogether — a thing more in- 
 consistent with natural right than the one he (S.) is trying 
 to avoid. 
 
 " Si'ooNEU. The so-called fugitive slave clause does not 
 say slaves, and it does not mean them. 
 
 '• Phillips. It does refer to them. The ordinance of 1787 
 expressly orders the surrender of slaves. 
 
 " Spooner. By 'one held to service or labor' is not 
 Wieant a sUnc. 
 
 "Phillips. That is its true meaning. Johnson's Dic- 
 tionary, 17.>5 : slave, one niancipated (bound) to a master. 
 Roiidman (lijundmn.\\) is the old and usual English word 
 Jbr slave, aiul bondage for slavery. It is so used in the 
 Bible. ' lielil and holden' are still the popular description 
 *)f slavery; for we say slaveAoWer — slave owner. ' Service' 
 is derived from the Latin word for slave, ^sercus.' Joseph, 
 wlio was bought and paid for, was called, in King James's 
 tianslatjon, 1611, a servant. 
 
 *• Spooneii. The clause giving power to suppress insur- 
 rections does not involve an admission of slavery. 
 
 " Phillips. The phrase' domestic insurrections,' is used 
 ill the Declaration of Independence, with reference, it 
 would seem, to slave risings ; if so, this use of it would go 
 far to settle its meaning here. 
 
 •' Spooner. The Government must be republican, but it 
 cannot he a repubjic If it liold slaves. 
 
 " Phillips. The delinitions are not so. Mr. Phillips 
 here cites numerous definitions to contradict Spooner, and 
 then adds: 'The Constitution meant by a republic the 
 State governments as they then existed, and twelve of them 
 then held slaves. In the face of such authority as this, as 
 well as the fact that the mass of men in the old republics, 
 from whence we copy the word, (Athens, Sparta, Rome,) 
 were slaves, and that in Holland and Italy, their modern 
 imitators, not one man in a thousand had any share in the 
 Government — who will undertake to say that this word, 
 either in its general sense or as used in our Constitution, 
 has any necessary inconsistency with slavery.' Hence it 
 must be presumed that the word ''republican," in 1788, did 
 not exclude the idea of slavery. Any other construction 
 makes the public of that day absolute fools.' 
 
 " Spooner. The Constitution made citizens of all the 
 people of the United States living in 1789. No citizen can 
 be a slave; hence, negroes, being citizens, are free. 
 
 "Philljps. It did not make citizens of all the people; 
 not of the Indians. That it was not intended to include 
 slaves under the phrase 'people of the United States,' or 
 to make citizens of them, is evident from the various slave 
 clauses which we liave been considering. The truth is, Mr. 
 Spooner perpetually forgets that the United States Consti- 
 tution has nothing to do with the municipal rights or pri- 
 vate relations of men ; all these are left to be regulated by 
 the States." 
 
 There is not a more important or vital or fun- 
 damental jjlinciple in our whole complicated sys- 
 tem of Government than that enunciated in these 
 clear and strong terms by Wendell Phillips. It 
 will stand as one of the corner stones of the Con- 
 stitution, the temple ofour liberty, until it is rocked 
 and is tottering to its fall. The men who are 
 endeavoring to heave it from the deep founda- 
 tions of our Government are worse than a blind 
 Samson — trying to overturn the temple of liberty 
 and to bring it down in ruins upon themselves 
 and their common country: 
 
 "Spooner. But even if the Constitution could be ap- 
 plied to slavery, yet there was no slavery /e^aUi/ existing in 
 the States in i7!:'9 to which it could be applied, SiC. The 
 coloni;il charters did not authorize it, nor did the ICnglish 
 statutes. If it had iieen tolerated, yet Lord Mansfiild's 
 decision in Sommerset's case put .'in end to it. The Decla- 
 ration of Independence abolished it, and tiie Articles of Con- 
 federation did not recognize it." 
 
 Now let us hear the reply of the powerful logi- 
 cian, Piiillips, to that complication of objections: 
 "Phillips. All these are incorrect. 1. Slave laws are 
 not repugnant to the law of England. When the charters 
 were made, slavery was not illegal. Laws regulating the 
 slave trade were common on the English statute-bor)k till 
 1807. The charters all legalized the slave trade and sla' 
 very, and my friend, William J. Bowditch, Esq., suggests 
 to me that the whole argument on the inconsistency of the 
 slave laws with the charters is unfounded and absurd." 
 
 It is equally so in relation to the Constitution. 
 Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the 
 Constitution was ever intended to embrace slaves 
 nor any of the negro race, nor any of the Indian 
 race, nor foreigners. It has been attempted in 
 this argument to apply the prohibitions of the Con- 
 stitution to foreigners. It no more embraces for- 
 eigners than it does quadrupeds. It no more 
 embraces Indians or slaves, exccjit one or two pro- 
 hibitions that are intended to preserve the human- 
 ity of our Iftws, than it does quadrupeds or wild 
 beasts. The only partners to our political pai'tner- 
 ship were the white men. The negro was no party, 
 and he cannot now conslilulionally be any party 
 to it. He was outside of it at the time the Consti- 
 tution was formed, and will be forever, to this fun- 
 damental law ofour Government: 
 
 "2. The English statutes recognized it. Mr. Phillips then 
 argues the question at length, and cites, to prove his p'osi- 
 tion, the statutes, 5 George II, cap. 7, 6 Statutes at Large, 
 74, which render negroes, houses, lands, &c., subject to 
 
15 
 
 execution (or debts ; and 23 George 11, cap. 31, A. D. 1750, 
 wliicli speaks of ' negroes or other goods.' " 
 
 This is a progressive age. It seeks to change 
 and abolish not only institutions and property, 
 but language — language fixed by fundamental and 
 constitutional law, as much fixed as the language 
 of Holy Writ itself. Why, sir, the United States 
 Government have sold many slaves. They have 
 had debts and recovered judgments against slave- 
 holders in the slave States, and I have no doubt 
 hundreds and hundreds of cases, by an examina- 
 tion of the records of the slave States, could be 
 found where the judgments in favor of the United 
 States themselves have been made by bringing 
 slaves to the block and selling them as other prop- 
 erty. Mr. Phillips continues: 
 
 "The Sommerset case admittedthe validity of slavery in 
 Virginia, whence Sommerset came." 
 
 I wish I had hunted up that famous Sommerset 
 case. The law in England was that slavery was 
 lawful there, and slaves were there held, and were 
 bought and sold as property until the moment that 
 Lord Mansfield delivered that opinion. He him- 
 self made that law, and not the British Parliament. 
 Courts often make laws, and here was one of tiie 
 most important principles made by the dictum of a 
 court. He had no power to render such an opin- 
 ion. It was a judgment of the court against the 
 law of England, and would have been so decided 
 if the number of slaves in that country had been 
 of sufficient magnitude and interest to authorize 
 those who owned that property to controvert the 
 validity of his judgment. 
 
 Mr. SUMNJER. Will the Senator allow me to 
 mention that the number of slaves at that moment 
 in England, it is understood, was thirteen thou- 
 sand.' Thirteen thousand were emancipated by 
 his decision. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. What were thirteen thousand 
 slaves in that island at that time.' I do not re- 
 member ifs population; but I suppose the popu- 
 lation of Great Britain, including Ireland, at that 
 time was twenty millions. What are thirteen 
 thousand slaves to twenty millions of people.' 
 
 "3. The Sommerset casearfma^ed the validity of slavery 
 in Virginia, whence Sommerset came. Mr. Phillips then 
 combats an argument of Dr. Belknap, and adds" — 
 
 These are Phillips's words, not mine — 
 
 " As to the rest, a more truly Yankee notion than pure 
 love of liberty probably secured them freedom, (viz., cer- 
 tain slaves judicially declared to be free,) for Parsons, 
 C.J."— 
 
 One of the ablest lights of the law this country 
 has ever produced, whose decisions shed a broad 
 beam of effulgent light upon every legal question 
 embodied in them — 
 
 " says, (4 Massachusetts Reports, 128, A. D. 1808 :) ' Tlie 
 defense of the master was faintly made, for such was the 
 temper of the times that a restless, discontented slave was 
 worth little; and when his freedom was obtained, in a 
 course of legal proceedings, the master was not holden for 
 Ills future support if he became poor.' This (adds Mr. 
 Phillips) was probably why men went through court to free 
 slaves." 
 
 This war will, to some extent, introduce that 
 consequence in the United States. That is a legit- 
 imate consequence of the war; and let that conse- 
 quence come in all of its full extent, force, and 
 effect, in depriving the master of his property or 
 deteriorating its value. That is one of the legiti- 
 mate effects of this rebellion and of this war. If 
 
 that cause should operate to render worthless the 
 whole slave property of the country, it would be 
 a legitimate result, and the slave owner could not 
 reasonably or properly make any complaint of it. 
 But when Congress travels out of the pale of its 
 powers, tramples upon the Constitution, usurps 
 a power that enables it to absorb the management 
 of the most vital domestic interests of the States 
 for the purpose of striking the manacles from the 
 slaves, to use their vaunting phrase, then the slave 
 owner and every lover of the Constitution has the 
 right to enter his protest again St the exercise of such 
 a usurped power. Mr. Phillips continues: 
 
 " 4. The Declaration of Independence did not abolish 
 slavery. The Declaration had nothing to do with slavery. 
 That paper ' dissolved the political bonds' that bound the 
 colonies to England, and that was all it did or was intended 
 to do. No court has ever held it to be the fundamental law 
 of the land." 
 
 That is his position. It is no law at all. It 
 is a mere paper giving a public and solemn asser- 
 tion of certain liuman rights as those rights were 
 applicable to the white race of the United States, 
 and it ignored wholly the red race and the black 
 race of men that were then in the country. 
 
 " No court has ever held it to be the fundamental law of 
 the land." 
 
 And no court ever will that has any intelligence, 
 judgment, or sense of what the Constitution and 
 laws of Congress are, in contradistinction to the 
 Declaration of Independence, or any other mani- 
 festo that may have been put forth by the Conti- 
 nental Congress. 
 
 " On the contrary, it rs simply a State paper, a political 
 act, changing the form of Government, and having no rela- 
 tion to individual rights." 
 
 It severed the political tie that bound the thir- 
 teen colonies to the mother country. It did not 
 regulate, nor was it intended to regulate property. 
 It had no effect whatever upon the rights of indi- 
 viduals as related to their persons or their prop- 
 erty, whether property in slaves, in land, or any 
 other subject of property. 
 
 " He then cites in proof of that the declaration of John 
 Quincy Adams, and adds: 'Everyone knows, and every 
 page of our history proves, that liie Declaration was nei- 
 ther intended nor supposed to abolish slavery.' " 
 
 A man would have been thought a dreamer, a 
 madman, or an idiot, who would have assumed 
 that position at that tiine. That is one of the vast, 
 monstrous ideas that have loomed up from the 
 distempered imagination of the present and the 
 immediately preceding generation. It is false in 
 principle; it is false in fact; it is false in all its rela- 
 tions and consequences. 
 
 "5. That the Articles of Confederation do not refer to 
 slavery. Mr. Phillips replies: they refer to 'free inhab- 
 itants,' meaning those not enslaved ; and we shall merely 
 remark that any plain reader of them will at once say that 
 they do ' (speak of slaves.) Lastly, ' the Constitution of 
 the United States deals with slavery as afacf " — 
 
 As an existing fact, as a fact that had existed 
 for two hundred years under the national law of 
 the whole civilized world, and every nation of the 
 civilized world engaged in the traffic of buying and 
 selling slaves, and owning them as property — 
 
 " the Constitution of the United States deals with slavery 
 as a fact, and gives it, as such, certain rights." 
 
 The judgment of the Supreme Court of the Uni- 
 ted States in the case of Prigg vs. the Common- 
 
16 
 
 wealUi of Pennsylvania rendered by Justice Story, 
 decided that the owner of a slave had a rip:ht to 
 pursue hint into any State of the United States, 
 even where slavery was proscribed and abolished 
 by the laws of that State, and then and there to 
 seize and reclaim his slave if he could do so with- 
 out a breach of the peace; that he had the same 
 i-ight to rectaplLire his slave that he had to recap- 
 ture his horse or any other property; that he had 
 a right to retake it wherever he found it, and in 
 that way to assert his right and his dominion over 
 it, so as not to make a breach of the peace; and 
 that principle was as legally and legitimately ap- 
 plicable to a slave as to a horse or any other prop- 
 erty. Yet, in this day, at this very session, we 
 have passed laws that throw obstacles in the way 
 and that practically prevent the master of a slave, 
 although he be a loyal man, from exercising that 
 .rightwhich the Supreme Court by the concurrence 
 of all its judges and by the judgment of that en- 
 lightened jurist, himself an anti-slavery man. Jus- 
 tice Story, decided tiie slaveholder had the right to 
 exercise wherever he could in any free Stale, al- 
 though slavery might be prohibited in that State 
 by its constitution and laws. But I will continue 
 the reading of this extract: 
 
 " Such, then, is a very brief but accurate outline of the 
 extraordinary argument of Wendell Phillips in favor of the 
 legality ofslavery, by the coniniom law of England, by the 
 common law and charters of all the colonies recognized by 
 the Articles of Confederation, expressly protected by the 
 Constitution of the United States, and not in the slightest 
 degree impugned by the Declaration of Independence !" 
 
 If those gentlemen, who have their ears, their 
 minds, and their hearts so wide open to receive 
 the mischievous errors, heresies, and dangerous 
 untruths that Wendell Phillips is promulging 
 through tills land, would just open those organs 
 to those great and important truths that he has 
 told with a force that no man can controvert, it 
 would be much better for the peace and the tran- 
 quillity of the country. 
 
 "But why did Wendell Phillips make it? Was It be- 
 cause he loved slavery.' Not at all. Tt was because he 
 hated and determined to destroy the Constitution of the 
 United States." 
 
 And for what purpose.' To effect the destruc- 
 tion ofslavery. He had constituted himself the 
 great advocate and propagandist of tiie freedom of 
 the black race in this country. He boldly and 
 recklessly entered the lists to effect that work, and 
 to bring it to a successful issue. He declared that 
 he was willing to walk over the ruins of the Con- 
 stitution itself to effect that object; and that is 
 what his followers are now attempting to do, not 
 in his bold, courageous, and manly manner, but 
 by skulking under false pi-etenses. 
 
 " But why did Wendell Phillips make it ; was it because 
 he loved slavery .' Not at all. It was because he hated and 
 determined to destroy the Constilidionof the United Slates! 
 He admitted that the Constitution so protected the rights of 
 southern men that they could not be argued away. Hence, 
 in the same essay, he says : ' The people have seldom re- 
 gained their freedom by finding a loose joint in the har- 
 ness of their tyrants. No, it has usually been necessary to 
 trample armor (the Constitution) and armor-wearer in the 
 (ii«<.">— Page 86. 
 
 Yes, sir, he admits that .slaves are property; he 
 admits that the rights of the slaveholder are pro- 
 tected by the Constitution; he admits that the 
 Constitution has no joint or break, no weak place 
 in it that permits slave property to be successfully 
 
 assailed; and the only way by which it can be 
 successfully assailed is by trampling both armor 
 and armor-wearer, the independent and conscien- 
 tious officers of the law sworn to support the Con- 
 stitution, and supporting it in truth, under the feet 
 of the assailants; and there is no other mode of 
 effecting the object. 
 
 Mr. President, I am no advocate of slavery in 
 the abstract. If my will could remove the slaves 
 from the United Stales to-morrow, every one of 
 them should go. If my vi^iU could place in my 
 own Stale in operation a system of gradual envin- 
 cipation that would take about three generations 
 to consummate it, I would not hesitate to adopt 
 it. But this matter of slavery belongs to the States 
 themselves and to their people. The free States 
 have no more right to force the emancipation of 
 slaves upon the slave States than the latter have 
 to enforce slavery upon the North. Suppose, sir, 
 that the men of the South, which was onde the 
 dominating power in this Union and in this Gov- 
 ernment, in the arrogance of their nature, in the 
 intoxication produced by the possession of power, 
 had attempted, by a series of similar measures to 
 those which have been originated at the present 
 session, and have been so perseveringly pushed 
 forward, to force upon Massachusetts and New 
 Hampshire, and all the free Slates, the institution 
 ofslavery; suppose tiiat they had had the power 
 in the two Houses of Congress to pass bills to 
 that effect; would the free, stalwart, brave, and 
 invincible true men of the free Slates ever have 
 submitted to such an interference with their do- 
 mestic concerns, to the exercise.of such an oppres- 
 sive power of the Federal Government, in denial 
 of a right assured to them by every feature and 
 every principle of our Constitution, and of our 
 complicated form of Government.' No, sir; no. 
 
 But Mr. Phillips says again, "the only way 
 their sons," speaking of the framers of the Con- 
 stitution, " can free themselves is to disown their 
 fathers' act, the Constitution itself." 
 
 If gentlemen intend to do that practically, let 
 them do it by open and bold declaration as well 
 as by deed; do not let them do it furtively; do not 
 let them do it by indirection ; let them do it as the 
 reckless Phillips himself proclaimed that he would 
 do it. 
 
 '•The only way their sons can free themselves Is to dis- 
 own their fathers' act, the Constitution itself. The only 
 path to such release is over the Constitution, trampling it 
 under foot, not under it trying to evade its fair meaning." 
 
 Sir, this apostle of negro freedom, in defiance 
 of the Constitution, declares his willingness to 
 overturn that instrument to achieve the result at 
 which he aims. This argument in favor of the 
 constitutional rights of the slaveholders and against 
 the policy and measures that the party now in 
 power have originated in both Houses of Con- 
 gress, none of them can answer successfully. 
 
 But, sir, a change has come over the spirit of 
 Mr. Phillips's dream, and what has produced that 
 change.' He thinks he has found his own party in 
 power, in the possession of the executive and the 
 legislative branches of the Government; or if his 
 own parly are not in power, they have such skill- 
 ful, dexterous, able, and unscrupulous leaders 
 here that they can cajole the simple, moderate, 
 conservative, constitutional Republicans into their 
 extreme measures, and I expect that he relies very 
 
17 
 
 much upon the two Senators now in my eye, one 
 from Massachusetts, [Mr. Sumver,] and one from 
 New Hampshire, [Mr. Hale.] What does he 
 now say.' Mr. Phillips was arguing recently in 
 this city. ['* Did you see him.'"] I hold no fellow- 
 ship with him. i disdain to know any such man. 
 Any man who audaciouslyavows himself a traitor 
 to the Constitution, and is willing to subvert it for 
 the purpose of achieving the emancipation of the 
 slaves, or of dismembering the southern States and 
 establishing a southern confederacy, or for any 
 other purpose under God 's heaven, I condemn and 
 denounce. He is a traitor, and his heart is filled 
 with nothing buttreason and treasonable projects; 
 he ought so to betreated; and when that man Wen- 
 dell Phillips was here in this city lecturing as he 
 did lecture, he ought to have been seized by the 
 President or the Secretary of War and manacled 
 and confined at Fort Warren or Fort Hamilton. 
 He was a much more wicked, mischievous, and 
 dangerous man than many who were so treated. 
 What did he say in his lecture here in Washing- 
 ton? 
 
 " Now, I love the Constitution, though my friend, (Dr. 
 Pierpont,) who sits beside me, has heard me curse it a 
 hundred times, and I shall again, if it does not mean jus- 
 tice." 
 
 Oh, it is to receive a new interpretation! I 
 adhere to the old political bible, and to its inter- 
 pretation by its apostles and the Supreme Court, 
 and I deny and condemn utterly any of your mod- 
 ern Jesuitical interpretations of it. 
 
 " I have labored nineteen years to take nineteen States 
 out of this Union ;"— 
 
 Oh, what a labor! — 
 
 " and if I have spent any nineteen years to the satisfaction 
 of my Puritan conscience, it was those nineteen years." 
 
 May the Lord deliver this country from any 
 such accursed Puritan conscience as that! 
 
 " Unless within twelve months or twenty-four, Maryland 
 Is a free State, Delaware, and half Virginia, would to God 
 that building" — 
 
 referring to the Capitol — 
 
 "with the city of Washington, had been shelled to ashes 
 la.st July." 
 
 What an atrocious sentiment! Suppose a se- 
 cesh was to come into this capital or to go to Cin- 
 cinnati, and was to take such a diabolical position 
 as that, would not the whole world of Black Re- 
 publicanismand of Constitutional Republicanism, 
 and of Unionism of every name or grade or dye, 
 without any exception, have risen in condemna- 
 tion of the miscreant who dared to give utterance 
 to such a sentiment? 
 
 Speaking of the origin of the rebellion, Phillips 
 declares that " it was nobody's fault, but that it 
 is the inevitable results of the seeds our fathers 
 planted seventy years ago." And in another place 
 he says of the fathers of the Republic, " they 
 dared not trust in God." 
 
 Referring to William Lloyd Garrison, the in- 
 veterate disunionist, who kept standing time out 
 of mind at the head of his paper the sentiment 
 that the men who had framed the Constitution 
 had made " an agreement with death and a cove- 
 nant with hell," he characterized him as "a man 
 who had done more in the providence of God to 
 shape the fate of this nation than any other one;" 
 and that he (Phillips) " was proud to sit at his 
 (Garrison's) feet." I wish he was sitting there, 
 
 and would sit there forever, and that they were 
 both in the very central point of the peninsula of 
 Africa. It would be better for the peace of the 
 country that they and all their admirers and prose- 
 lytes occupied that locality. 
 
 Mr. President, I said that I was no advocate 
 for slavery; but I will say a word in relation to 
 slavery and its history. We have a sacred and a 
 profane history running back between three thou- 
 sand five hundred and four thousand years; and in 
 all of that long tract of time up to the present mo- 
 ment, there never has been a day in the history 
 of man that slavery did not exist by the thrall- 
 dom of one man to another. From the time of 
 the father of the faithful, when he took up his pil- 
 grimage from Mesopotamia to the land of Canaan, 
 where he had been directed by the command of 
 his God, up to this day, there never has been a 
 time when slavery did not exist in the world ; and 
 gentlemen cannot disprove that position. When, 
 through the inscrutable mercy and providence of 
 God, His Son visited the earth as a Messiah, what 
 then was the condition of the Roman empire' 
 There were within its broad and ample limits at 
 least fifty millions of slaves. Those slaves were 
 then bowed down by a yoke more weighty and 
 galling than any that now exists. He was in the 
 midstofa slaveholding population, and He taught 
 men in relation to the subjects of sin, crime, and 
 moral duty, and He was followed by His apostles, 
 and His apostles pursued the line of the same 
 teaching under His inscrutable inspiration; and 
 we find the greatest and wis(?st of those apostles, 
 Paul himself, directing and commanding one of 
 his disciples to return a fugitive slave to his mas- 
 ter. My learned and able friend , the Senator from 
 New Hampshire, [Mr. Hale,] is deeply versed 
 in the Scriptures; 1 am not, and I speak it to my 
 shame; I wish it were otherwise; but I challenge 
 him to produce me a word uttered by the Saviour 
 of mankind in His mission upon earth, or by any 
 of His apostles, where He condemned slavery as 
 a crime or a sin by name. On the contrary. He 
 taught the mutual duties of master and slave — 
 humane treatment on the part of the master, and 
 obedience on the part of the slave. 
 
 Why, sir,-after the Norman conqueror won the 
 battle of Hastings, and struck down common-law 
 liberty in England, what became of the Saxon 
 race? Many of them had brass collars put around 
 their necks, with their masters' names written 
 upon them. In the Roman empire the master 
 had not only the power to sell his slave, but to 
 take his life without committing any crime or sub- 
 jecting himself to any punishment. That was the 
 condition of the polity of Rome for a considerable 
 number of years. 
 
 Mr. HALE. The Senator has appealed to me 
 for an answer to a question which he put. I do 
 not pretend to be deeply versed in Scripture, but 
 I have a text in my mind that I think hits his case. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Let us have it. 
 
 Mr. HALE. Itisthis: " And the times of this 
 ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth 
 all men everywhere to repent." 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I hope thatforall the sins against 
 the Constitution and the peace of the country that 
 have been heaping upon the honorable Senator's 
 head for twenty years, the work of repentance in 
 sackcloth and ashes with him will soon commence 
 and produce its fruits; but I believe he is rather a 
 
18 
 
 hardened sinner, and I am afraid his case is hope- 
 less. [Laugliter.] 
 
 Well now, Mr. President, what do these liberal 
 gentlemen propose to do, and how do they talk in 
 relation to slavery and the nngroes after they shall 
 have been emancipated ? An honorable Senator 
 from Delaware [Mr. Saulsbury] proposed that 
 the free States should take all the slaves that they 
 propose to free, and immediately the whole hive 
 was in a buzz, and every man rose up in indig- 
 nant protest against any such atrocious measure. 
 The Senator from New flampsliire, in a speech 
 which he made touching the subject some days 
 ago, probably on the District bill — I do not recol- 
 lect the precise question before the Senate at the 
 time — indulged himself in the expression of vehe- 
 ment indignation because of some remarks that I 
 had made. I had said, and'I say now, that the 
 slaves of the southern States can never be free in 
 their present numbers without producing one of 
 four consequences. One is, that the people of 
 those States would immediately enslave the ne- 
 groes again by their laws; and if any such meas- 
 ure as this were attempted in my own State, al- 
 though I am opposed to slavery, and, in the 
 immortal language of the great statesman of Ash- 
 land, no power on earth should ever induce me to 
 carry slavery into any country where it does not 
 exist, yet believing that slavery would thus be 
 destroyed in my iiative State by the usurpation 
 of an unconstitutional power, I would seek to 
 obviate and neutrally the act by every means and 
 force that I could command. If that consequence 
 did not follow, the slaves would be driven into 
 the free States, or into the country south of the 
 slave States; or if that consequence did not fol- 
 low, there would be a cruel, exterminating, and 
 savage war between the two races, that would 
 result in tlie total destruction of the inferior race. 
 And if that did not follow, the inferior race would 
 obtain the mastery, and they would drive the 
 white population from the country, or the white 
 population would abandon it. 1 was rebuked 
 sternly by an honorable Senator from Massachu- 
 setts [Mr. Wilson] because I took these posi- 
 tions, and he charged me with making threats. 
 I did not intend them as threats. I 'intended to 
 state them as truths. I spoke of a subject of which 
 I have knowledge, because I have lived in its 
 presence all my lifetime, and know all its relations 
 and bearings. If I were to presume to understand 
 the subjects of commerce, of manufactures, of the 
 art of war and military affairs in general, of navi- 
 gation, and of the fisheries, as tlie honorable Sen- 
 ator from Massachusetts and many other gentle- 
 men here do, and were to assume that I had as 
 much knowledge upon those subjects, and as much 
 power and capacity to advise in relation to them 
 as they have, I should regard it as great arrogance 
 on my part. But, sir, I am now speaking of a 
 subject tamiliar to me, which I have been learn- 
 ing from my earliest childhood to the present day, 
 which I have seen in all its phases and in all its 
 relations. If men here who claim to be philan- 
 . thropists and patriots would have the good sense 
 to take counsel and advice, not of me, but of wise 
 and moderate and safe men from the border slave 
 States, in relation to this subject, in all its bear- 
 ings, in my judgment they would act more wisely 
 than they do. The general course of this Senate 
 upon all other subjects I greatly approve. The 
 
 general course of the honorable Senator from New 
 Hampshire, whose acquaintance it has been my 
 good fortune to have had for many years, with 
 the deepest and sincerest personal regard and 
 friendship for him, I approve upon every other 
 subject in the main at the present session. So of 
 the Senators from Massachusetts. 
 
 The author of tlie bill assumes, Mr. President, 
 and truly, that the subject of slavery is the great 
 apple of discord among the American States and 
 people. It gave more trouble to the wise, patri- 
 otic, and good men who framed our Constitution 
 than any and all other subjects; but how then was 
 itadjusted, treated and settled? In a spirit of con- 
 cession and compromise. In no other spirit could 
 the Constitution ever have been adopted or rati- 
 fied. If the Constitution is to be preserved and 
 perpetuated. Congress and the dominant party 
 must again return to that spirit of concession and 
 compromise which animated and inspired our 
 fathers when they gave this immortal system of 
 government not only to our country, but to the 
 human race. 
 
 We understand from all the Senators here, from 
 the unanimous vote by which the proposition of 
 the Senator from Delaware, to which I have re- 
 ferred, was rejected, from the declarations of vari- 
 ous Senators from the free States, from the pro- 
 visions being introduced into the constitutions and 
 laws of the free States for the utter occlusion of 
 negroes from those States, that no free State is 
 willing to have a large number of resident free 
 negroes within its boundaries. If I am allowed 
 to ly.iy it, I will say that I know that the free ne- 
 gro population in theStateof Kentucky is by far 
 the worst population we have. But gentlemen 
 are not allowed to slate positions here embodying 
 their own knowledge of slavery; they are not al- 
 lowed to get up and contend for their legal and 
 constitutional right to their slaves. There is a 
 spirit of denunciation and browbeating on this 
 subject in the Senate which I iiave never seen 
 equaled since I used to witness the ravings of Wise 
 in the House of Representatives. I do not de- 
 nounce or condemn Massachusetts for her free in- 
 stitutions. It is a matter that belongs to her. No 
 slave State that I have any knowledge of has ever 
 meddled or interfered with the domestic institu- 
 tions of the free States. It was not their province 
 to do so. It would have been mischievous and 
 unfraternal intermeddling to have done so. Tiiey 
 were entitled to the same rules of reciprocity and 
 justice from the free States. If those rules of for- 
 bearance, of brotherhood, of reciprocity and jus- 
 tice had been scrupulously practiced by the people 
 of the free States towards the slave States, the 
 present great and overwhelming calamity never, 
 never, in my judgment, would have come upon 
 the country. I believe that that is the true origin 
 of it. But, sir, I will now present a few facts to 
 the honorable Senator from New Hampshire, 
 which I have in a table before me. The States 
 that press the abrogation of slavery and a disre- 
 gard of the interests of the slaveholder most in 
 the Senate are the States of Massachusetts and 
 New Hampshire. 
 
 Mr. HALE. I did not hear that. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I say that the most vigorous and 
 relentless attack upon slavery and the constitu- 
 tional rights of slaveholders in the Senate of the 
 United States, that comes from any quarter comes 
 
19 
 
 from the States of Massachusetts and New Hamp- 
 shire. A few days ago when, in speaking of the 
 number of free negroes in Maryland, the eloquent 
 Senator from that State, who has a stoppage in his 
 speech, but whose ideas flow along in unbroken 
 majesty and truth, was giving utterance to his feel- 
 ings and opinions on this subject, the honorable 
 Senator from New Hampshire got up and chided 
 the people of Maryland for having manumitted 
 their slaves, and thereby having so many free ne- 
 groes among them. [Mr. Hale. Oh, no.] He 
 asked, " was it not their act.'"and he said, " yes 
 it was their act." If he did not condemn that act, 
 why did he chide them for it.' If the act is proper, 
 humane, benevolent, wise, and statesmanlike to 
 emancipate all the slaves, and their emancipa- 
 tion becomes a local burden upon the States where 
 they now reside and where they would be eman- 
 cipated, why are you not willing, all of you, to 
 take your share of that burden .' Now, for a few 
 moments, letus see iiow that would operate. I will 
 begin with the State of California. California has 
 a good many free negroes. I suppose the most of 
 them were taken there as slaves before her consti- 
 tution was made; and when California adopted a 
 constitution excluding slavery, I became perfectly 
 satisfied that there never would or could possibly 
 be another slave State on this side of the cotton 
 region, and I did not lament the conviction to 
 which my mind had come. 
 n In this connection I will say that all this fuss 
 and disturbance about excluding slavery from the 
 Territories of the United States, or permitting the 
 immigration and settlement of slaveholders mto 
 those Territories, has been, in my opinion, the 
 most idle, foolish, and mischievous dispute, short 
 of that which now agitates Congress, that ever 
 did disturb any people. As a pro-slavery man, 
 I would not have given a copper for all the pro- 
 tection which the legislation of Congress or of 
 Territorial Councils or Legislatures could have 
 afforded to slavery or to slaveholders in the Terri- 
 toriea. Those laws would have been brutumful- 
 men; they would have fallen without the least oper- 
 ation; they had been negatived and vetoed by a 
 higher law, the law coming from the etenv^l judg- 
 ment seat that established the climate, soil, and 
 productions of the country. The last Congress 
 might have passed any laws they pleased to ad- 
 mit slavery into Nebraska or Kansas or any of 
 tlie Territories we now have, and such a law 
 would not have been of the least practical conse- 
 quence, because it could have produced no result 
 whatever. 
 
 Is notthatproved by the condition of New Mex- 
 ico .' Her Territorial Legislature adopted a slave 
 code and laws for the protection of slavery stronger 
 and more stringent than those that prevail in my 
 own State; and yet by the authority of tlie able 
 representative we now have at the Court of St. 
 James, in a speed) delivered in the House of Rcp- 
 resentativts, when he was a member of that body, 
 there were only twenty-five slaves in the whole 
 Territory, and fifteen of them, if I recollect aright, 
 belonged to otRcers of the Army who had tempo- 
 rarily tnkcn them there. At the close of the last 
 Congress there was not a foot of the public terri- 
 tory of the United Stales but what was open to the 
 emigration and settlement of slaveholders; and 
 who ever heard of a slaveholder taking his slaves 
 to any of these Territories.' Ifany weresofoolish, 
 
 they took them there, having any sensible purpose, 
 with a view to have their present services, butat no 
 remote time their certain emancipation. Property 
 does not seek hazards except upon the seas. I once 
 heard of a Dutch merchant who — when Holland 
 was the greatest maritime Power upon the earth, 
 when her sails whitened every sea, and she had 
 possession of a great many distant colonies away 
 in Eastern Asia, and her crowding commerce 
 was drawing by their argosies returns from all the 
 ports of the world — an enterprising Holland ship- 
 per — said that he would sail in the pursuit of his 
 commerce even through hell itself, at the risk of 
 scorching his sails. But in relation to slave prop- 
 erty slaveholders are distrustful, they are timid, 
 they never will take them to local positions where 
 their right to their slaves .is liable to be attacked. 
 They never did, and ^ever will. I myself never 
 wanted another slave State short of the cotton re- 
 gion. I do not now. For you men of Congress 
 and of the nation who assumed the position that 
 you would protect the slave States and slave own- 
 ers in their constitutional rights, but that you 
 would give them no more facilitiesand would never 
 consent to the admission of another slave State 
 into the Union, I have no word of condemnation. 
 If you will just act upon that policy now, having 
 achieved emancipation in this District, the coun- 
 try, the mass of the reasonable and intelligent men 
 of the South, would become satisfied to accept your 
 compromise upon such a platform. 
 
 But I will proceed with my table. California has 
 3,816 free negroes. How many would she have 
 to take if all the negroes were liberated and if they 
 were then distributed equally among the States.' 
 Her ratio would be 56,003. She is not prepared, 
 I reckon, for such an importation of free negroes. 
 Connecticut, the land of steady habits, among the 
 noblest of the Old Thirteen, in whose men, in 
 whose statesmanship, in whose love of country, 
 in whose valor, in whose performance of all their 
 duties as men and citizens, with such exceptions 
 only as appertain to all frail men, I have the high- 
 est confidence, what would be her condition .' She 
 has now 8,542 free negroes, and she would have 
 to take 65,733. Illinois now has 7,069. You found 
 that both the Senators from Illinois were a little 
 tender-footed on the subject, and well they might 
 be, for her portion would be 244,536 free negroes. 
 Next I come to Indiana; and what would be her 
 portion.' She has a goodly number now, com- 
 paratively. She has 10,869, and her portion would 
 be 192,991, an increase making nearly 200,000. 
 The young and growing State of Iowa, that has 
 become an empire in the Northwest, and, accord- 
 ing to my information, has more of fertile and 
 productive and less of refuse land than any State 
 in the Union, how many of these slaves would she 
 have to take.' She now has 1,023 free negroes. 
 She would have to take 96,421. Kansas has 623. 
 She would have to take 15,.301. I wish Kanstjs 
 had every one of them. [Laughter.] Maine is 
 pretty strong upon the bit on this slavery ques- 
 tion. My honored friend, the late Governor of 
 that State and now Senator, [Mr. Morrill,] is 
 not in his scat. I am sorry that he is not; but in 
 his presence or absence I never would treat him 
 with the least disrespect. My feelings are too 
 strongly and deeply and sincerely of an opposite 
 character. Maine has 1,195 free negroes. Under 
 this apportion men t, she would have to take 89,753. 
 
20 
 
 Massachusetts has 9,454. She would have to take 
 175,866. I wish she had her full quota; [laugh- 
 ter;] and I believe that, instead of sending them 
 all to Kansas, I would send at least half to Mas- 
 sachusetts, and if the Kansas Senators protested, 
 I would send'the whole of them to Massachusetts. 
 Michigan, the State of my early and honored 
 friend, [Mr. Howard,] has now 6,823. She would 
 have to take 121,301. My friend has a good deal 
 of aversion to the Indians resident in his State; I 
 have no doubt this is a very reasonable and well- 
 founded aversion, but it is not half as well or as 
 deeply founded as our aversion to free negroes in 
 Kentucky. I wish I could excite a little more of 
 sympathy in his generous bosom on what I may 
 call our subject, than he at present feels. 
 
 Mr. HOWARD. Canada is very near us, and 
 affords a fine market for " wool." 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. And I believe they starve and 
 freeze to death there in the long winters. I have 
 received a doleful account of them there. I be- 
 live they form tliem into regiments, and ship them 
 to the West Indies occasionally. Here is Min- 
 nesota one of the youngest sisters. She has only 
 229 free negroes now. She would have to take 
 24,574. That would be considerable increase. 
 New Hampshire has 450. She has not her pro 
 rata of the present free negroes. She would 
 have to take 46,581; and I wish from the bottom 
 of my heart that she had the whole of them this 
 day. New Jersey is very liberal, more so than 
 any of the States except Maryland, in proportion 
 to population. She has 24,947 now; and she 
 would have to add to her numbers until they 
 reached 96,007. Then there is New York, the 
 Empire State, whose broadside once used to de- 
 cide all presidential elections; I believe that the 
 great West are rather dividing that power with 
 her now. What is her number.'' She has now 
 49,005. How many would she have to take? 
 Upwards of 500,000 more than s!ie has— 557,390. 
 Where are the Senators from New York that we 
 cannot make a compact with them just to lead 
 that number of free negroes into the Empire 
 State right at once. Then here is Ohio, the eldest 
 sister of the Northwest, and the strongest one yet. 
 She has 36,225; and she is the Botany Ray for 
 the negroes from Kentucky and Tennessee. Every 
 man there who wants to liberate his slaves takes 
 them to Oliio, buys land there, and settles them 
 on those lands. The reason is that Illinois and 
 Indiana, and the other northwestern States, frown 
 upon that policy; but Ohio still opens her bosom 
 to the reception of tiiat people, and I hope in God 
 she will receive her surfeit before a great while. 
 She now has 36,225. She would have to take 
 334,304. Oregon has 121. She is so distant they 
 will not travel there. They are too indolent to 
 travel that far. She would have to take 7,509. 
 Pennsylvania has 56,376. A good many of them, I 
 believe, were made free by the running of the line 
 between Pennsylvania and Virginia at an early 
 day, a great many people claiming part of Penn- 
 sylvania as part of Virginia, and taking slaves 
 there. She would have to take 423,767. Rhode 
 Island has 3,918; she would have to take 24,717. 
 Vermont has 582. I do not think, with due re- 
 spect to the Chair, she has quite her ;jrora<rt. She 
 would have to take only 45,016. Wisconsin has 
 1,481. She would have to take 112,267. 
 
 Well, now, wjiat may be the effect of thig bill.^ 
 
 I am not against forfeiture. I want the property 
 of incorrigible traitors forfeited, and their lives, 
 too. I want them to pay that expiation to the vio- 
 lated Constitution and laws of their country for 
 this wicked and causeless rebellion; but I want a 
 legal and a constitutional and a humane forfeiture. 
 This forfeiture may operate to the disenthralling 
 of 3,500,000 negroes. It is only necessary to state 
 the proposition that it may strike every man's 
 mind as true, whether he has practical observation 
 and experience on the subject or not, that it is ut- 
 terly impossible, in the cotton States especially, 
 for the negro population and the white population 
 to remain and live together, boih being free. As 
 the honorable Senator from Illinois [Mr. Brown- 
 ing] said, 'it would not only be almost better, but 
 it would be better altogether, if the two races are 
 to remain, that the black race should be in a state 
 of slavery, and that the whites should have the 
 mastery. Why, Mr. President, that great law of 
 society, of mankind, that established slavery in 
 the dawn of history, and that has continued it to 
 the present time, will continue and perpetuate it 
 as long as man lives in a state of society. The 
 present form of slavery may be broken up and 
 may be abolished; it probably will be; but it will 
 spring up as a great social necessity in some other 
 form, especially in the tropical countries. 
 
 And here permit me to make a general remark 
 in relation to tropical countries. As a general 
 rule,alllabor is involuntary. I never knew a man _ 
 in my life, or with very rare exceptions, that 
 would toil and sweat and labor and fatigue him- 
 self in doors and out of doors, in the colds of win- 
 ter and the heats of summer, in storm and in sun- 
 shine, voluntarily. It may be the result of the 
 primal curse of Heaven, "In the svi'eat of thy 
 face shalt thou eat bread." It is the result of )u8 
 organizatioti; and in the South that is especially 
 the law of man, be he the black or the white man; 
 and why is it so.' In the South, many produc- 
 tions that subsist life are spontaneous. Tliereare 
 fruits and vegetables upon which the indolent peo- 
 ple who inhabit the tropics can live without man- 
 ual labor, and so long as they can do it they will 
 never go under a tropical, burning, scorching sun, 
 and enc(funter the heats of noonday and the dews 
 of night and morning, and labor in their fields for 
 the production of tropical products, to any con- 
 siderable extent. Labor in the tropics, to be 
 available and greatly remunerative, must, neces- 
 sarily, be compulsory labori It will never be of 
 any other character; it never has been and never 
 will be. In the island of Cuba there is more pros- 
 perity than in the other islands. Why .' Because 
 involuntary slavery of the negro still exists there. 
 Go to Brazil; it exists in Brazil; and of all the Gov- 
 ernments and countries that were peopled and 
 founded by Portugal or Spain, Brazil, at the 
 present time, is the most flourishing, the most 
 happy; its labor is most productive. 
 
 Thegreat element of national power and of hu- 
 man progress is labor. If there is anything on 
 God's earth which, next to Christianity, truth, 
 and virtue, I admire and revere, it is labor. It is 
 labor that has brought man from the savage state 
 to be, in truth, the image of his Maker, by his 
 present civilization in Christian countries. For 
 the tropics to be productive, they must have labor; 
 that labor must be involuntary, and it must be the 
 involuntary labor of the negro race, for two rea- 
 
21 
 
 sons: first, they are the inferior race; and second, 
 the climate of the tropics and the labor of the field 
 in the tropics are more congenial to the negro con- 
 stitution than they arc to the white. They can en- 
 dure a greater amount of it; they can make it more 
 productive, more remunerative. Those are mere 
 abstract opinions of mine, and I deduce no conclu- 
 sions from them; but I speak of results necessary 
 from the organization of man and his existence in 
 society. If in ourcountry, or any othercountry, 
 there are to be slaves, I, for one, w^ant those slaves 
 to be of the negro rather than the white race. As 
 to the equality of the races and bringing them up 
 to our level in this country, it is all a chimera, a 
 dream. There is Africa, a great part of it populated 
 by the negro race. It has about eighty millions of 
 the true negro race; it has five millions of square 
 miles of territory; it was populated next to Asia 
 in point of time. In that vast peninsular conti- 
 nent, with such a myriad of people, that race has 
 never risen to any considerable degree of civiliza- 
 tion. Why? Itis because by their natural organi- 
 zation they are incapable of marching forward and 
 upward to the point of high civilization. They 
 never have; they never will. I want the coloniza- 
 tion experiment tried ; but if Liberia had not been 
 upheld, protected, and guided by the mind, the 
 energy, and the arms of the white men, all the im- 
 migrants there would have degenerated into bar- 
 barism and would have mingled with the savage 
 * and pagan hordes who surround them. The Brit- 
 ish West India Islands now are not so productive, 
 by from three to five limes, as they were in a state 
 of slavery; but what little eflicienl industry, and 
 what little amount of production they now have is 
 owing to the fact that they are British possessions; 
 that they receive what little knowledge and skill in 
 cultivation they have from the mind of the white 
 man. If the rule of the white man was expelled 
 from those islands, in a few short years they 
 would sink into unproductive barbarism. 
 
 IVIr. President, I do not presume to interpret the 
 will of God, either as spoken through His re- 
 vealed Word or by His vast and wonderful works 
 of creation, upon the subject of slavery. It is far 
 above my ken. I receive it as the Constitution 
 received it, and as I believe the Saviour of the world 
 and His aposiles received it, as an existing fact. 
 It has existed for thirty-seven hundred years. 
 That is some evidence that it is tolerated by the 
 omniscient and gracious Ruler of the universe, 
 who permits not a sparrow to fall without His 
 notice. It has been built up by man; it has ex- 
 isted widely over the face of the earth in all the 
 most civilized countries. It will exist, I will utter 
 as a prediction — and I am rash for making any 
 prediction upon the subject — it will exist in some 
 form or other as long as man lives in a state of 
 society. But, Mr. President, there are some men 
 so conceited, so fool-hardy, so audacious and im- 
 pious, as to claim to penetrate and know the secret 
 will and purposes of the Great Jehovah in rela- 
 tion to this subject, and who daringly utter this 
 profane language, " if the God of heaven and earth 
 tolerates slavery. He is not my God; if His re- 
 vealed word tolerates slavery, if the Bible toler- 
 ates slavery, it is not my Bible." Sir, could there 
 be deeper or more execrable impiety; or do these 
 vain and silly men know all the secret purposes 
 of the Omniscient? Howdare they attempt to pen- 
 etrate His inscrutable and awful arcana? When 
 
 I, in my closet by myself, in the solitude of the 
 night, in the depths of my humility, seek to ob- 
 tain the immediate presence of the Great Jehovah, 
 it is with an amountof revei-ence and wonder and 
 awe that overpowers me; and for these daring 
 and impious men to be seeking impiously to make 
 themselves the interpreters of His will, outside 
 of and beyond His revealed word and His great 
 works of creation , is the greatest amount of wick- 
 edness and audacity, in my judgment, that can be 
 exhibited by man. 
 
 That incomprehensible Being and Power has 
 spread abroad into an infinity of space His won- 
 derful creations. We occupy one of the smallest 
 planets in our system; there is a planet belonging 
 to our system that requires about one hundred 
 years to perform its revolution — a greater time 
 than any of those wretches live on the face of the 
 earth; and yet this is but one of the millions of 
 systems that are upheld by His omnipotent power 
 and wisdom, and that are harmoniously execu- 
 ting their laws, which He enacted, throughout the 
 enduring years of time. That the great Being 
 who created and upholds such vast and incom- 
 prehensible systems permits andknows of the ex- 
 istence of the evil wretches that are thus seeking 
 to interpret His will, in my judgment, is one of 
 the most satisfactory evidences of the omniscience 
 and of the omnipresence of the Great Eternal. 
 That they are not lost in His boundless domin- 
 ion in their utter insignificance, but that He sees 
 them to-day and forever, is to me a convincing 
 evidence of His omniscience and of His omni- 
 presence; and that he permits such wretches, 
 after the utterance of such impious sentiments, 
 to live, is another evidence of His all-pervading 
 mercy and goodness. I repudiate all their teach- 
 ings. I take the revealed Word of God as it is. I 
 take his visible creations as they are. I apply 
 my feeble and dim reason to the interpretation 
 of His will as it is thus spoken, and beyond 
 that I dare not attempt to look into the awful mys- 
 tery. He has tolerated slavery for three thousand 
 seven hundred years. It will always exist in some 
 form or other; and in His own time, when He 
 wills it. He will bring it to its termination. He 
 may close it in its present form speedily. The 
 judgment of the world, I admit, is against slavery 
 in its present form. It is in process of execution. 
 If that execution can go on slowly, gradually, 
 imperceptibly, as all the great processes of nature 
 to be beneficent and productive of good must, I 
 have no objection to its execution. But this rash, 
 empyrical execution that anticipates beforehand 
 the judgment of God, and seek as His chosen in- 
 struments themselves to become the executioners 
 of His judgment, I protest against totally. 
 
 But, Mr. President, it is sufficient to us that, in 
 the language of Phillips, the Constitution and the 
 law have written our right to our slaves. We 
 claim that Constitution as the law that secures 
 our right to that property. 
 
 Sir, I shall detain the Senate only a few minutes 
 longer; but before I close, I will say a word or 
 two more. The President of the United States 
 and the Senate and the House of Representatives 
 have pledged their honor, their faith, and their 
 word upon this subject. I will read the resolu- 
 tion passed in July last: 
 
 "Revived by the House of Representatives of the Coti' 
 great of the United States, That the present deplorable civil 
 
m 
 
 war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists 
 of the southern Slates now in arms against the constitu- 
 tional Government and in arms around the capital;" — 
 
 that is all true, every word of it — 
 
 "that in this national emergency, Congress, banisliing all 
 feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only 
 its duty to the whole country ; that this war is not waged 
 on their part in any spirit of oppression, or for any purpose 
 of conquest or siilijiinntion, or purpose of overthrowing or 
 interfering with the rights or established institutions of those 
 States, but to defend and maintain the sxi,itrcmac\f of the 
 Constitution, and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, 
 equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and 
 that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war 
 ought to cease." — Journal House of Representatives, first 
 session Thirty-Seventh Congress, p. 123. 
 
 That resolution passed the House of Represent- 
 atives with but two dissenting voices. In this 
 body the vote of my friend, the honorable Sena- 
 tor from Illinois, [Mr. Trumbull,] was against it. 
 The vote of one of the Senators from Massacliu- 
 setts was not cast. The vote of the other, the chair- 
 man of the Committee on Military Affairs, [Mr. 
 Wilson,] was in its tavor. All the other Repub- 
 lican Senators who were then jiresent and in this 
 Chamber, stand committed by that solemn pledge 
 of record to abide by the principles of that resolu- 
 tion; and if they do that, the Union men of Ken- 
 tucky and of the border States ask nothing furtlier 
 at their hands. The President in his inaugural 
 address said: 
 
 " I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere 
 with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists." 
 
 There, sir, is the solemn pledge of tlie man who 
 is now the chief executive power of this nation — 
 a man, 1 believe, of good faith. He says further: 
 
 " I believe 1 have no lawful right to do so, and I have no 
 inclination to do so." 
 
 And in his annual message in July last, he said: 
 "Lest there be some uneasiness in the minds of candid 
 men as to what is the course of the Government towards 
 the southern States,afterthe rebellion shall have been sup- 
 pressed, the Executive deems it proper to say it will be his 
 purpose then, as i^ver, to he. guided by the Constitution and 
 the laws; and that he will probably have nodifferent under- 
 standing of the powers and duties of the Federal Govern- 
 ment relating to the rights of the States and the people 
 under the Constitution, than Ihatexpressed in the inaugural 
 address." 
 
 And to the same purpose and in fewer words a 
 resolution was passed in the House of Represent- 
 atives unanimously. When were those resolu- 
 tions passed in the two Houses.' When did the 
 honorable, patriotic men constituting the two 
 Houses of Congress — the most augustand power- 
 ful legislative body upon earth next to the British 
 Parliament, for tiuit claims to be omnipotent — 
 give that solemn pledge .' It was on the t25th day 
 of July, if I recollect aright, three or four days 
 after the disastrous defeat and rout at Bull Run. 
 The Republican party had then been inaugurated 
 in power, but it was in those dark days that it 
 gave that pledge. It was uncertain what position 
 the border States would take; and I say, now, if 
 the programme of measures which has been pre- 
 sented and ])asscd by the present Congress — I 
 speak of these propositions as a whole, an en- 
 tirety, with all their provisions anj all their prin- 
 ciples — had been presented to the consideration of 
 Congress 'before or after the battle of Bull Run, 
 the people of the slave States would have come 
 unanimously to the conclusion that the party 
 lately installed in power — the Republican party — 
 
 did intend to make the war upon slavery. They 
 denied it. Your President denied it. Both Houses 
 of Congress, with unparalleled unanimity, denied 
 it. They denied it after the great disaster to their 
 arms. Your President denied it in his communi- 
 cation to General Fremont. 
 
 Sir, suppose these border States — little Dela- 
 ware, Maryland, Western Virginia, Kentucky, 
 Western Tennessee, and Missouri had all been uni- 
 ted, as were South Carolina and the cotton States, 
 against the Government, and you had made the 
 border States the theater of war, as it would have 
 become the theater of war, what additional force 
 would you have had to oppose the reconstruction 
 of the Government and of the Union .' You would 
 have had fully two hundred and fifty thousand 
 more men in the field — not braver or better or truer 
 men in battle than the northwestern men, but their 
 equals. With such an increase of power to the 
 confederate arms, where, then, would have been 
 your Union.' That was the imposing condition 
 of circuiYistances that brought Congress and the 
 President to these pledges. 
 
 What were those pledges made for ? What were 
 they made by the President for .' What were they 
 made by the two Houses of Congress for? Were 
 they to be kept in good faith, as they should be 
 by honest, true, and patriotic men, or were they 
 made that they might deceive and betray .' Had 
 they any purpose at that time of violating this 
 pledge.' Did they make the pledge to the ear that- 
 they might break it to the hope .' I believe no such 
 monstrous proposition as that. I believe they 
 made it as faithful and true men. I ask them to 
 redeem that pledge in the spirit in which it was 
 given. If they do, all will go well; but if they do 
 not, I tell you, sir, that this war has only begun. 
 The Union never can be restored audit never can 
 continue except upon the great principle of the 
 inviolability of the Constitution and a recognition 
 practically as well as theoretically of the constitu- 
 tional right of the States respectively, and especially 
 of the slave States, to manage their own domes- 
 tic concerns. That is an essential principle of 
 American liberty, and it is as important and as 
 necessary a pillar to sustain the American system 
 as is the supremacy of the General Government 
 itself within the sphere of its powers. The pros- 
 tration of either the constitutional power of the 
 General Government or the reserved rights of the 
 States would be equally fatal to the great Ameri- 
 can system. The people are pledged to its sup- 
 port, and to uphold it. It was so constructed by 
 Washington and his compeers. They have lived 
 under its protection and guidance. Their hearts 
 and their minds are given to it with a devotion 
 second only to their devotion to their religion. 
 They intend to adhere to that Constitution. They 
 will fight all who assail or attack it and threaten 
 its overtiirow, they care not whether they come 
 from the North or the South. 1 speak of the Union 
 men of the border States. They would regard the 
 subjugation of the military power of tlie rebel 
 States as no blessing if it is to be won by the sac- 
 rifice of the Constitution. If they are to transfer 
 directly or by indirection, by questionable inci- 
 dental power, their right, which they nevcrparted 
 with, to have slavery or freedom as they will, and 
 to regulate all of their other domestic policy, if 
 that is to be the condition which this party in 
 power intends to exact from them, they will never 
 
23 
 
 submit to it, and I here avow it as one of their 
 
 representatives. 
 
 If the war is to be made in that form, proclaim 
 it. You may overwhelm us, you may conquer 
 us, but you will never subdue us. But I tell you, 
 sir, that the people of the United Slates and the 
 Army of the United States will never enter upon 
 such a crusade as that. Three fourths of that 
 noble and gallant Army that are novy in the field 
 are as much devoted to the Constitution and to all 
 the rights of American citizens as I am. They will 
 oppose you and all others who attack it stealthily 
 and indirectly. They will overthrow you. You 
 are now like the Assyrian king, reveling in your 
 halls of power, intoxicated by its possession, 
 dreaming of its perpetuity and all the good that it 
 is to bring to you; but before you know it, if you 
 proceed on your present course of policy, your 
 doom will be written upon the wall, as it was 
 against that ancient tyrant. 
 
 I want tills war brought to a close in the field. 
 "We want this work done; we want it done that 
 we may not have two wars upon the Constitution 
 at once. The war of the abolitionists in the Sen- 
 ate and in the House of Representatives and out 
 of Congress upon the Constitution is as much a 
 waras that of Jeff Davis and his confederate hosts. 
 We are equally the enemies of both. We want 
 to dispose of one war, that we may be engaged 
 singly with the other. We want the rebels sub- 
 dued that we may then commence an equally suc- 
 cessful and triumphant war upon the abolition 
 party, who are trying to immolate the Constitu- 
 tion to their theories. 
 
 Mr. President, I have prepared a measure 
 which, if I have a chance — [ do not know that I 
 shall — I will offer as a substitute for this bill. I 
 propose confiscation, and I propose it in a prac- 
 tical form. The honorable Senator from Minne- 
 sota thought I was trying to benefit Kentucky in 
 the proposition I make, and that 1 was somewhat 
 selfish and sectional by making it for the l)enefit 
 of Kentucky and the other border slave States; 
 but the idea did not originate with me. I derived 
 it from a former Senator in this body and a former 
 member of the House of Representatives from 
 Connecticut. He presented me with a bill that 
 restricted its operation entirely to the slave States. 
 1 told him it would not do; the bill was unjust; 
 that it would have to be made more liberal; and I 
 set to work and drew up one, forfeiting all the 
 estate of any person engaged in the rebellion, or 
 who should give aid and comfort to it, making the 
 bill prospective, and allowing thirty days' notice, 
 to give those who are still with the rebels knowl- 
 edge of the passage of such a bill, that they might, 
 if they chose, repent and come back to their duty 
 and their allegiance to the Government. 
 
 I knew — and that was the reason why I intro- 
 duced one feature of it — the conscientious objection 
 of a great many men to the Government selling 
 slaves. With a view of obviating that objection, 1 
 have proposed, as may rightfully be done, that the 
 forfeiture shall not inure to the United States Gov- 
 ernment, but to every person injured by the re- 
 bellion in his person or property. I ]iroposc that 
 where any man falls in battle or dies from disease 
 in this war, he shall be held to have received 
 damage from the 'confederates to the amount of 
 $0,000, and his personal representatives may sue 
 for or assign the claim. It is a very small esti- 
 
 mate to say that when this deplorable war is con- 
 cluded, when blood ceases to flow, and the dove 
 of peace is again in our land, at least fifty thou- 
 sand stalwart men of the free States will have per- 
 ished. My bill would provide $250,000,000 for 
 the class of men who shall have thus died in the 
 service. I then juovide that every man who shall 
 be disabled in the war to any extent, shall have a 
 claim upon this forfeited property of the confed- 
 erates to the amount of his actual damage, to be 
 ascertained by a jury. There will be at least fifty 
 thousand more tliat will be disabled to a greater 
 or less degree. Their damages would amount, 
 upon an average, say to $1,1)00. Thai would be 
 $50,000,000 of additional claims that the true and 
 patriotic men of the free Stales would have on the 
 property of the rebels, the very men who brought 
 this war on the country, and who had been the 
 cause of the infliction of deaih and disability upon 
 them. 
 
 I propose, furthermore, that every man whose 
 debts or property have been seized, confiscated, 
 forfeited, or appropriated by the rebel govern- 
 ment, or any persons under its authority, shall be 
 remunerated fully. These debts due to the North 
 are estimated to amount to $200,000,000. The 
 claims of northern men that are intended to be 
 provided for by this bill will amount at the close 
 of the war to not less than $600,000,000. Sup- 
 pose the property of the rebels should be confis- 
 cated to the United States, and sold as indemnity 
 of the United States for its expenses. Their lands 
 without their slaves would be of but little value. 
 The great amount of their wealth consists of their 
 slaves. These slaves amount to a little over three 
 and a half millions, and before these troubles 
 would have brought $2,100,000,000. That sum 
 would be sufficient to indemnify the United States 
 for probably all tlie expenses of the war. I care 
 not, and my people care not, whether you put the 
 forfeiture in the one form or in the other. With 
 all the faults of my frank and gallant and err- 
 ing State, a mercenary and a mean disposition is 
 not to be charged against her. All that I desired 
 in making this change was to avoid, if I could, 
 the extreme objection that men had that the Uni- 
 ted States Government should be concerned di- 
 rectly or indirectly in the sale of slaves. I think 
 I have achieved that by directing the forfeiture, 
 not to the Government, but to the men injured by 
 the war. Property is often forfeited by laws of 
 Congress to injured men 
 
 Mr. HOWARD. 1 would inquire of my hon- 
 orable friend from Kentucky what benefit would 
 that sort of indemnity be to the representatives 
 of persons residing in the free States who have 
 fallen or been damaged in this war.' How could 
 they possess and enjoy a negro slave in a free 
 State.' 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. If my honorable friend will per- 
 mit me to explain, my bill provides for that. It 
 provides that there shall be a lienjin favor of every 
 man injured in this war in the way I have ex- 
 plained upon all the rebel property of any kind; 
 and all that the representatives of a northern man 
 who has fallen in battle would have to do, would 
 be either to assign his claim — for the bill author- 
 izes the assignment of the claim — or to send and 
 have a suit instituted as under a common mort- 
 gage, jiroceeding in rem, and to have so much of 
 the property thus confiscated, of any description 
 
24 
 
 whatever, sold as would satisfy the claim of the : 
 individual. If confiscation can be executed in 
 any form, this is the form in which it can be exe- 
 cuted, and in whicii it is practicable. Whenever 
 you give a man a private right and the means of 
 asserting that private right, he is going to do it if 
 the claim is of any consideration. 
 
 I do not care about this matter of forfeiture 
 particularly. I want the rebel leaders punished. 
 Those that are impenitent and incorrigible, and 
 continue to be so, I want punished. They cannot 
 live in the same country with Union men. They ' 
 must come back an^ submit to the laws and live 
 as quiet citizens, or they must perish upon the gal- 
 lows or go into exile. If you want to proselyte 
 them and bring them back to the Government and 
 induce them to drop their secession and disunion ' 
 principles, in my opinion the way to do that most 
 effectually is to offer them, on the one side, where 
 they are notvery guilty, immunity, peace, and pro- 
 tection, and on the other, the gallows or exile and 
 the forfeiture of their whole estate. My State 
 wants such a law as that. The Union people of 
 my State want it. I am ready here to vote for it; 
 but not to free their slaves, not to free any slaves, 
 because Congress has no power to do that. I am 
 for Congress passing — and I would be quite as 
 severe and as unrelenting in my feelings and con- 
 duct as most men — any law of punishment, of for- 
 feiture of life or property, to fall upon the guilty, 
 the egregiously guilty, and to spare the ignorant 
 and deluded, and to offer them the hope of immu- 
 nity and pardon. But, sir, I would want such a 
 law as that passed with a condition. I would not 
 want unconditional immunity offered to any man 
 who had left his State to join the rebellion. I do 
 not care what his degree of guiltiness was, I would 
 want him pardoned only on the express condition 
 
 that he should give up his treason, that he should 
 come back, and submit himself quietly, orderly, 
 as a good citizen, to the law, and whenever he 
 showed a disposition to rise in rebellion against 
 the law that he should still be subject to be prose- 
 cuted for his original crime. We cannot havfe 
 harmony, peace, and quiet upon any other condi- 
 tions. 
 
 Mr. President, I have now laid before the Sen- 
 ate, very briefly, the main features cf the measure 
 I have offered. 1 am only sorry it has not received 
 more of the attention of members. It probably 
 has received as much or more than it wes entitled 
 to. But, sir, I want this war to be quick and pow- 
 erful. Our armies are composed of the best ma- 
 terial that ever were put in martial array.- The 
 superiority of soldiership over generalship that 
 has been shown in this war has been most strik- 
 ing. The war itself would have been brought to 
 a successful and triumphant close before this time, 
 if we had had adequate talent and enterprise in 
 our commanders. There is no doubt about it. 
 
 But, sir, no state of the case will ever induce 
 me or the Union men of my State to go into se- 
 cessia. As Hamilcar brought his infant son Han- 
 nibal to the family altar and made him swear eter- 
 nal enmity to the Roman power, so 1 have sworn 
 and will ever maintain eternal enmity to the prin- 
 ciple. of secession and all its adherents. I want 
 my country to put them down in the battle-field; 
 and I want wise, just, and effective lav/s passed 
 by Congress to bring about that great result. I 
 am on the brink of the grave. Its crumbling edge 
 is ready to receive me; but I have children and 
 grandchildren, and I want my country restored 
 to peace, and I want the segis of its Constitution 
 and protection to be extended over my posterity 
 and all my countrymen before I go hence. 
 
 Printed at the office of the Congressional Globe. 
 
I