I** 
 
 
Class ■-- ^ : 
 Rnnk ; 1 ^X 
 
J . o EMANCIPATION IN LOUISIANA. ' 
 
 3:f*e]eioi3; 
 
 ALFEED C. HILLS, 
 
 ( OF ORLEANS PARISH, ) 
 
 COiNSTITUTIOXAL CONYENTION OF LOUISIAM, 
 
 IMI-A-^^ 4tla. .^^IsTlD Stlo. 1SS4. 
 
 NEW ORLEANS: 
 
 PRIXTED AT THE ERA BOOK AND JOB OFFICE 
 
 1864. 
 

 >^ 
 
 
SPEECH OF MR. HILLS. 
 
 Mr. Abell having* offered a Minority Report in opposition to 
 Emancipation, in tlie Constitutional Ccnivention of Louisiana, it 
 was moved that the same be rejected. A discussion ar()se on the 
 question of Shivery, which occupied tlie Convention for several 
 days. On AVednesday, May 4th, Mr. A. C. Hills, delegate from 
 the Second Representative District, Parish of Orleans, addressed 
 the Convention as follows : 
 
 Mr. President : In the National Convention of 1794, a propo- 
 sition was made to abolish slavery in the American colonies belong'- 
 ing to France. A member of that body arose and proceeded to de- 
 fend the principles of universal liberty, whereupon he was inter- 
 rupted by another member, who exclaimed : " President ! do 
 not suffer the Convention to dishonor itself by a protracted discus- 
 sion !" It seems to me that for three days we have been witnesses 
 of a most extraordinary spectacle. A body of men assembled on 
 the avowed principles of universal freedom — elected on a platform 
 of immediate emancipation, accepting seats on this floor under the 
 proclamation which declared the slave laws in Louisiana inopera. 
 five and void, because they did not apply to any class of persons in 
 this State — I say, a body so elected under that proclamation and 
 upon that platform, is compcdled to listen for three days, to one of 
 its members standing up here and defending the accursed system 
 of American slavery as it existed before this war. I said in my 
 previous remarks, we could not do anything to perpetuate slavery 
 without committing perjury before God and man. For that remark 
 
I have been arraigned here as attempting- to menace this Conven- 
 tion by some authority of the Commanding- General. I repel all 
 such insinuations as false and groundless, but "I repeat, that in my 
 opinion, gentlemen, members of this- Convention cannot stand up 
 here and argue in favor of slavery in any form, without committing 
 moral perjury. That is what I said, and to that I shall adhere. 
 (Applause.) 
 
 Mr. President, the gentleman from the Filth District [Mr* 
 Abcll] has seen fit to make a long argument to overthrow my asser- 
 tion that slavery does not exist in the State of Louisiana. I say 
 that assertion is literally true, that there is not a slave in the State 
 of Louisiana to-day. There is no slavery, and can be none without 
 the presence of physical power to enforce theobedience of the slave 
 to his master. That is an indispensable element of slavery, with- 
 out which it cannot exist. I ask the gentleman, where is the force 
 to-day to compel the labor of the slave in this State ? Where is 
 the auction-block ? where is the lash ? where is the power of the 
 master to whip his slave and to enforce his will ? The auction- 
 block has disappeared in the light of the new civilization that has 
 dawned upon us ; the slave marts, where human beings were 
 crowded together like cattle, thank God! is no more among us ; and 
 the lash has been abolished — first by the great law of necessity, 
 and secondly by the proclamation of military power. 
 
 If the gentleman thinks slavery still exists, let him attempt to 
 sell a slave within tlie Federal lines. Suppose he advertises a slave 
 for sale at auction to-morrow. On the way the slave says, "I wish 
 to cross the street." He goes, and the gentleman from the Fifth 
 follows and attempts to seize him by the collar and drag him to the 
 auction ; what is the result ? The gentleman from the Fifth is ar- 
 rested for a breach of the peace, -committed for assault and battery 
 (laughter) and brought into the court, and under the present laws 
 of the State the man he has attempted by force to take to the auc- 
 tion-block stands his equal, as he docs in the sight of that almighty 
 law of justice which has overthrown slavery in this State forever- 
 more. (Applause.) There is no slavery here and never can be. If 
 
all the thunder bolts of Jove could be gathered tog-ether and dis-. 
 charged at once, they could not shake the earth enough to awaken 
 from its eternal sleep the carcass of this miserable institution. 
 The gentleman has attempted to justify slavery from the example 
 of the Egyptians. I admire him for it. It is most fitting and pro- 
 per that the man who stands up in this day and age to justify such 
 a system, should go back to the Egyptians, whose religious altars 
 smoked with human sacrifices, and whose idols were the most 
 gross and obscene of all the pagan nations of wliich we have any 
 historical record. I intend no disrespect to the gentleman. He is 
 much my senior in age, and my superior in learning ; but I say if 
 the gentleman were to die, I should expect to see him embalmed in 
 an Egyptian sarcophagus, with a hieroglyphical inscription upon 
 his tomb, whicli, if 1 were permitted to suggest, would consist of 
 two words: "Old Fogy." (Laughter.) Let him go back to the 
 Egyptians — that is where slavery belongs. Let him go back to 
 the Romans and Greeks — that is where it belongs. It belongs to 
 the rude ages of mankind, before the light of Christianity and civil- 
 ization had fallen upon the human family. Has he forgotten that 
 these very men whom he holds up as models for us to follow and 
 copy, had gladiatorial shows, and tliat under their institutions men 
 were thrown into the arena to be devoured by wild beasts ? He 
 can justify that as well as slavery. He can justify polygamy by 
 the example of the ancient nations, and every other species of vice 
 and crime. But I supposed we had grown up beyond the Greeks, 
 Romans and Eg3'ptians. I thought that we were free-born and en- 
 lightened Americans, living in a time of revolution, to be sure, but 
 still adhering to those great landmarks of freedom that were so 
 dear to our fathers, and which, I believe, are dear to the majority of 
 this Convention. 
 
 Not satisfied with attempting to justify slaveiy by the Egyp- 
 tians, Greeks and Romans, he has attempted to bring to its side the 
 divine Scriptures and the sublime teachings of Christianity. Now, 
 Mr. President, if you go back in tlie ecclesiastical history of the 
 world, yon will find every infamy that has been perpetrated, has 
 
been done in the name of some relig-ion. It is not the first time 
 that men have stolen the lively of heaven to serve the devil in. 
 How many wars and massacres have been committed in the name 
 of Christianity ? Does that prove that Christianity countenances 
 massacre, butchery, robbery and crime? Not at all ; it oiilj/ proves 
 they were done hypocritically in its name. If tlie gentleman 
 wishes to go into an argument in favor of fraud, he might distort 
 some parts of the Scripture to prove it was right. He might take 
 the case of Jacob and Esau, where the former clearly swindled the 
 latter out of his birthright, to prove that swindling is a proper and 
 divine institution, and ought to be incorporated into the Constitu- 
 tion of Louisiana, which we are here to frame to-day. I am 
 ashamed that any man in the latter half of the nineteenth century, 
 with so much learning and ability, should spend time in attempting 
 to make us believe that slavery is in accordance witli the precepts 
 of religion. Sir, that Divine Being, who came down to teach us 
 the right path, gave us one commandment, one precept, which 
 blasts forever the institution of slavery, and human wrong and in- 
 justice of every kind : " All things whatsoever ye would that men 
 should do unto you, do ye even so unto them." I say that in this 
 precept he blasted forever this institution of slaverj^ which is es- 
 sentially unjust in itself, and founded in piracy and robbery — a sys- 
 tem of violence and usurpation from beginning to end. 
 
 Not satisfied with the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans and reli- 
 gion, the gentleman has brought to his aid the illustrious names 
 of American History — those men who founded our institutions. He 
 has told us they were slaveholders, but very judiciously has he re- 
 frained from telling us wliat they tliouglit of slavery itself. He has 
 referred to Washington, but forgot to tell us what was the dearest 
 wish of his heart. Washington said : " This is among the first 
 wishes of my heart, to sec some plan adopted by which slavery in 
 this country may be abolished by law.'' Henry Lawrens, of South 
 Carolina, wrote to his son, in 1776 : "I abhor slavery." Jeflerson 
 has been quoted here. In speaking of tlie slave he says : "We 
 must wait with patience tlio worldngs of an overruling Providence 
 
./■ G' ^2^ 
 
 and hope that it is preparing' the deliverance of these our suiTering 
 brethren." "Brethren" is the word which Thomas Jefierson ap- 
 plied to these men. " When the measure of their tears is full — 
 when their groans shall have enfolded heaven itself in darkness, the 
 God of Justice will awaken to their distresses, and by dift'using 
 light and liberality among their oppressors, or at least by his exter- 
 minating thunder, may manifest to the world that they are not left 
 to the guidance of blind fatuity." 
 
 Mr. President, the exterminating thunder has come ! The ac- 
 cumulated wrongs wliicli this people have heaped upon an unfortu- 
 nate race, brought it down from high Heaven, and it has ob- 
 literated this system in Louisiana, as it has throughout the whole 
 land. (Applause.) 
 
 Now, I propose to let Mr. Abell answer Mr. Abell, by referring 
 to diiferent portions of his speeches. 1 will put the gentleman from 
 the Fifth District against the gentleman from the Fifth District ; 
 and I think it is better so than to answer him myself. 
 
 He tells us with a great deal of flourish that the nature of the 
 negro is idleness, that he will not work unless compelled to under 
 the lash of the driver. In the next breath he tells us he believes if 
 these same lazy, idle, good-for-nothing vagabond negroes are set 
 free, they will come in competition with the white laborers, who 
 will stand no chance at all. There is Mr. Abell against Mr. Abell. 
 (Laughter and applause.) 
 
 In the same stxain he boasted that the American people, being 
 a mixture of all the blood of the world, was the greatest, the most 
 powerful, civilized, and altogether the smartest race ever existing 
 on the face of the earth. He boasted we had whipped England two 
 or three times, and that we could thrash France, and were never 
 whipped ourselves and never could be, in the nature of things. The 
 next moment he says if the slaves are freed in Louisiana they will 
 rise up and imbue their hands in the blood of his posterity. Though 
 not at all afraid of England, France or any other white nation, he 
 is much afraid of the negroes ! 
 
Another iustauce of the gentleman answering- himself is where 
 he says the white never would labor for so small pay as the 
 negroes. Then he asks what we are going to do with the negroes 
 if we set them free. I think he gave a good answer to his own 
 question when he said they would work for less wages than the 
 white man. 
 
 He says again the negroes are perfectly miserable — are in a 
 most degraded condition — entirely incapable of taking care of them- 
 selves. Then he states that slavery is a civilizing and elevating 
 institution. Now I want to know how many centuries it takes to 
 elevate a race so that it is capable of taking care of itself ? This 
 institution which the gentleman would have us believe is so benig- 
 nant and elevating to the blacks, has been in existence in Louisiana 
 from the earliest period of her history down to the moment of re- 
 bellion, and yet, according to the same gentleman, to-day this race 
 has become so degraded that it is utterly unable to take care of 
 itself ! 
 
 Another instance of this logic. He says the bone and sinew of 
 the country would be driven out of the State by the emancipation of 
 the slaves. In the next breath almost, he tells us that negroes, 
 organized under slavery, will work a great deal better than if they 
 are free. Now, then, if the negroes are going to work more in 
 slavery than when they are free, I wish to know how freeing them 
 is to drive the white laboring man out of Louisiana ? If the negro 
 will work better as a slave, I think the white man has less chance 
 of employment under a system of slavery ! 
 
 The gentleman, in the course of his remarks, has seen fit to 
 speak of the people of Louisiana under the Presidential and military 
 authority as an "oppressed" people. If the people of Louisiana are 
 oppressed, as the gentleman would have us believe, I wish him to 
 tell us by whom we are oppressed ? He seems to forget that three 
 years ago the rebellion was forced upon the Country by the slave- 
 holding oligarchy ; that Louisiana was in the full enjoyment of 
 commercial and agricultural prosperity, and that under the protect- 
 ing fegis of the Union her slave-holders were in secure possession 
 
9 
 
 of their slaves ; that it was the rebellion that interrupted this pros- 
 perity, destroyed slavery and plunged the State into the condition 
 in which we now find her. I would like to have him point out in 
 what manner the military authorities have ever oppressed the people 
 of Louisiana — to point out to us how this Convention would have 
 been called together but for these very authorities. 
 
 Mr. President, I could but feel as I have listened to this discus- 
 sion, that we see here at least some of the fruits of the efforts of our 
 noble soldiers who have fallen in the battc-field for their country. 
 Let me ask the gentleman, if I had stood upon this floor, or any 
 other in Louisiana, three years ago, and said what I have said to- 
 day, what course would have been pursued by this slaveholding 
 oligarchy he stands up here to defend ? The halter, sir, was the 
 penalty for free speech in Louisiana then. Does not the gentleman 
 know that intellectual bondage is inseparably connected with slavery 
 everywhere ? Does he not know that as the most gross and loath- 
 some productions of nature flourish only in her darkest recesses, so 
 the loathsome and hideous institution of slavery can grow only 
 where the light of civilization and free speech are carefully excluded? 
 He knows that before the Federal flag came up the river on the 
 flagship of that gallant old tar, Farragut, to stand up in this hall, 
 and speak as I have spoken and as others have spoken, would have 
 been met with the penalty of instant death. Talk to us of oppres- 
 sion ? Let him go back and read the annals of slavery, and see how 
 many murders have been committed in its behalf and under its 
 shield. There is no crime against free speech, free conscience, free 
 opinion, that has not been perpetrated in behalf of this system ; and 
 yet the gentleman stands up and calls the people of Louisiana op- 
 pressed ! How many rights would he enjoy if the Federal flag were 
 not here ? 
 
 He has told us he thought civil government in Louisiana would 
 be detrimental to the people. I ask the gentleman why then he is 
 here ? If the interests of the people are opposed to this Convention, 
 why does he consent to occupy a seat in_ this hall ? If the Federal 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 flag were to be displaced by that bastard banner, the flag of the 
 Confederacy, the gentleman might escape the halter for having so 
 faithfully defended the rebellion here, but even that might not be 
 suflficient to save his neck. 
 
 Mr. Abell, (interrupting.) — I call the gentleman to order. I 
 have not advocated the rebellion on this floor. 
 
 The Chair.— The gentleman from the Second District (Mr. Hills) 
 is in order. 
 
 Mr, Hills. — I assert that for three days the gentleman from the 
 Fifth, (Mr. Abell, ) has defended the rebellion on this floor. 
 
 Mr. Abell. — I call the gentleman to order again, sir. I deny 
 that I have advocated the rebellion. 
 
 The Chair. — The gentleman is in order. 
 
 Mr. Abell. — Then, sir, I respectfully appeal from the decision 
 of the chair. 
 
 The question was then put : " Shall the chair be sustained?' 
 which was carried in the affirmative. 
 
 Mr. Hills — I trust the interruption will not be deducted from 
 my half hour. I asserted, with a full knowledge of the meaning of 
 my words, that for three days the gentleman has defended the rebel- 
 lion on this floor. I will now explain what I meant. I say that 
 any man who stands up and defends slavery defends the rebellion, 
 for they are synonymous terms at this moment. (Applause.) The 
 gentlemen has taken, I suppose, the "ironclad" oath of the President. 
 If so, he has sworn allegiance and obedience to the proclamation of 
 the President, and to all the laws of Congress framed on this sub- 
 ject. The rebellion is the legitimate child of slavery. Slavery 
 was sure to bring on rebellion in this country, and the wisest men 
 in the land foresaw it years ago. The prophetic words of Jefferson, 
 which 1 repeated, foreshadowed it. The framers of our Constitution 
 did not believe that it would long remain in existence in the United 
 States, and carefully avoided all direct allusion to it in the Consti- 
 tution, because they regarded it as a disgrace and a system that 
 ought to be and would be abolished. 
 
11 
 
 If the gentleman will take the trouble to examine the debates 
 on the adoption of the Constitution, lie will find that such is the 
 fact. All the wise men who helped to frame that Constitution be- 
 lieved that slavery was an evil, and would speedily die out. 
 
 He has mentioned some illustrious names. Let me ask him if he 
 knows the opinion of Benjamin Franklin on the subject. I beg- to 
 remind him he was the President of the first Abolition society ever 
 organized in the United States. Does he know the opinion of Judge 
 Jay? Can he bring forward in the annals of our country the name 
 of one great man of the Revolutionary period who said a single 
 word in defence of slavery ? 
 
 The President's hammer came down at the expiration of the 
 half hour. 
 
 Mr. Teert moved that Mr. Hills have leave to conclude his re- 
 marks, which motion was seconded and carried ; but Mr. Hills de- 
 clined to proceed further at present. It was moved that the Con- 
 vention adjourn, and that he have the floor on Thursday morning, 
 which motion was carried. 
 
 Thursday, May 5th, 1864. 
 
 The adjourned order of the previous day having been called, 
 namely, the report of Mr. Abell in opposition to emancipation. 
 
 Mr. Hills said : Mr. President — At the conclusion of my half 
 hour, yesterday, the Convention very kindly voted that I should 
 have leave to continue my remarks. I declined to do so at that 
 time, but understood that I was to have the floor this morning. If any 
 gentleman objects to me proceeding against the rules, I will yield 
 the floor ; but if there is no objection, I should like to make some 
 further observations on this most grave and interesting subject. 
 [Cries of "no objection," and " go on ! "] 
 
 Mr. Hills continued : I intend to speak of principles and not of 
 men. For the gentleman from the Fifth District [Mr. Abell] I have 
 personal respect and esteem, but his principles, as set forth on this 
 floor, 1 hold in utter detestation. At the same time it may be use- 
 ful to have a representative of these heathenish sentiments in the 
 Free State Convention. We have all heard of the temperance lee- 
 
12 
 
 turer who found it useful to take his drunken brother along as a 
 horrible example of intoxication, and as a contrast to the results of 
 total abstinance. And so it may serve to set forth our noble work 
 of emancipation in more glowing colors, if we have constantly with 
 us a champion and defender of the faith delivered unto the Copper- 
 heads. I said yesterday that the gentleman from the Fifth District 
 had for three days advocated rebellion on this floor ; but the gen- 
 tleman's interruption and the stroke of the President's hammer pre- 
 vented me explaining this remark so fully as I desired to explain it. 
 I endeavored to show that the framers of the Constitution of this 
 Eepublic were opposed to slavery as a principle, and only tolerated 
 it because it existed, and because they thought that in a vei-y few 
 years it would be abolished by the progress of fi'cedom aud civiliza- 
 tion. I also stated that in the Constitution which they framed they 
 did not mention the word "slave" or "slavery." While certain 
 provisions of that wise document have evident reference to the sub- 
 ject of slavery, and recognize it as an existing institution, I deny 
 emphatically' that slavery finds any support in the Constitution or 
 laws of the National Legislature. Slavery, sir, is a local institu- 
 tion, founded upon State laws and not upon any national law. The 
 slaveholder of Louisiana, before this war, did not rely on the Con- 
 stitution of the United States for the right to sell his slaves on the 
 auction-block ; he did not rely upon any of the laws of Congress for 
 his autli(n-ity to wield the lash on his plantation, but he derived his 
 ]iower from the BUick Code of Louisiana, and the Acts of the Legis- 
 lature of this State. But we find, sir, that notwithstanding all the 
 framers of the Constitution were opposed to slavery as a principle — 
 believing it to be wrong, cruel, unjust, and opposed to the interests 
 of the country, the new doctrine was promulgated by the slavehold- 
 ing oligarclij' and seemingly gained growth year after year, that 
 slavery was a Divine institution and sanctioned and sanctified by 
 the laws of God and humanity', and that it found secure shelter and 
 perpetual support in the Constitution and laws of the land. I'ear 
 after year the slave power came on apace with its aggressions and 
 demanded this and that surrender on the part of the free States. 
 
13 ^"^ 
 
 Surreudei' after surrender was made, until the people of the free 
 States finally arose in their majesty and said to the slave power, 
 " thus far shalt thou come and no farther — the Territories of the 
 country, the national domain in which all have an equal interest, 
 shall hereafter be free ! " That is what they said when they elected 
 Abraham Lincoln, our worthy Chief Magistrate. They did not pro- 
 pose to strike down the right of slaveholders in Louisiana — they did 
 not propose to interfere with slavery in any of the States. 
 
 I know the falsehood was insidiouslj' circulated by the pro-sla- 
 very press, both North and South, that the Eepublican party was 
 an abolition party. But as one of its members, who had, I believe, 
 a pretty good knowledge of its principles, I tell you that party had 
 no intention of interfering with the institution of slavery in the 
 States where it existed by law. The issue upon which we went to 
 the country was the extension or the non-extension of slavery into 
 the national territories, which we believe were free by the great 
 laws of nature, and ought to remain free forever. But after the 
 election — when the sovereign people had decided that the doctrine 
 of non-extension should prevail, what was the course of the slave- 
 holding oligarchy, for whose rights the gentleman from the Fifth is 
 so solicitous ? Why, sir, they said the will of the people should 
 not be obeyed — that the Constitution and the laws should be 
 set at defiance ; that Abraham Lincoln, although rightfully and 
 legally elected, shruld not be the President of the slaveholding 
 States. Tbe3" revolted, and what was the cause of it ? Slavery, sir, 
 
 The slave power was balked in its purpose to draw to its em- 
 brace the free territories of the nation. The champions and insti- 
 gators of the rebellion told us they .seceded in order to protect their 
 divine institution of human bondage. It was slavery first, 
 last and always ; slavery in the beginning, the middle and the end I 
 The vice President of the so-called Confederacy told us that slavery 
 was the corner stone of that extraordinary fabric. Every slave- 
 holder and every candid pro-slavery newspaper that has spoken on 
 this subject since the outbreak of the war, has told us it was all in 
 the interest of slavery ; and everj^ one who studies the subject 
 candidly and impartially cannot fail to come to the conclusion that 
 
14 
 
 slavery is the great and the sole cause of the rebellion. Therefore 
 it is, I said, the gentlemen has for three days advocated rebellion on 
 this floor ; and I assert, without the fear of logical contradiction, 
 that no man can defend slavery without also defending the rebellion. 
 
 Mr. President, wo have all heard of men who upset their 
 own kettle of fish, and it strikes ine the gentleman from the Fifth 
 has given us aluminous example of this catastrophe. He labored 
 for two long days, all through Monday and Tuesday, to show that 
 slavery was justifiable, not only by the example of the Greeks, Ko- 
 mans and Egyptians, and by the Scriptures, but he would make 
 us believe it was justifiable in itself — right in the abstract, and 
 every way ; that it was beneficent to the slave and the white man. 
 After laboring two days to build up, establish and defend the di- 
 vine right, origin and historical sanctity of this institution, what 
 did he tell us yesterday ? In the very beginning of his speech he 
 says, " I have repeated and again say that I never saw the day, 
 and never expect to see it, Avhen I was in favor of slavery I" So 
 that after spending two days to convince us that it is right, he states 
 on the third day he does not believe in it himself. I ask why he 
 does not believe in it, if it is divine, and sanctioned, and sanctified 
 by the Scriptures and by Almighty God ? If it is the best thing 
 that can possibly happen to the African and the master, I ask him 
 why in God's name he is not in favor of it ? I should be the last 
 man, if I believed in his argument, to say I was not in favor of it. 
 
 The gentleman in his remarks of yesterday tried to convince 
 us that liberating the slaves of this State by Constitutional enact- 
 ment would be a species of wholesale robbery on the part of this 
 Convention, and told us, in substance, Mr. President, that the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States had stolen all the property of the dis- 
 loyal people, and that the Convention now proposes to steal all 
 that is left in the hands of the loyal. Now, Mr. President, if there 
 is no slavery in this State to-day, I want to know who is responsi* 
 ble for it ? If there has been any robbery of slaves in Louisiana, 
 I wish him to explain who are the robbers ? I will tell you who 
 they are. They are the people of Louisiana themselves, who of 
 
/6G 
 
 15 
 
 their own accord, by passing the act of secession, and by inaugur- 
 ating the rebellion, ruined and destroyed their slave property for- 
 ever. If there is any robber, it is the secessionist, not the Union 
 army, who came down to uphold the honor and integrity of the 
 country. This people inaugurated the civil Avar against the United 
 States, and in its progress, as wise men foresaw from its begin- 
 ning, it became a military necessity to emancipate their slaves_ 
 Emancipation came not as an act of robbery, not as an act of vio- 
 lence against the people, but, as 1 have said, as an act of military 
 necessity, and to uphold the integrity and honor of the flag. When 
 a country is at war, its government can tax its resources to the ut- 
 most for its defense. When the national life is at stake, will any 
 body say that the Government has not a right to free slaves, or 
 take any species of property, in any State or any part of the coun- 
 try, to maintain its own existence ? The gentleman might as well 
 say that the Government has no right to demand his time of the 
 soldier. There are thousands and hundreds of thousands of men in 
 the army to-day, who were making more money at home than they 
 possibly can in their present situation. The gentleman might, I 
 say, consider this a species of robbery, thus to make these men de- 
 vote their time and leave their business to join the ranks, and the 
 argument would be as good in one case as in the other. It became 
 necessary to liberate the slaves of rebels, because the Southerners 
 were using them against us- -upon the plantations to raise products 
 while the rebels were fighting us. More than this, they were in the 
 rebel service, employed as teamsters, and in some instances, as 
 there is pretty good reason for believing, even as soldiers. To 
 strike down slavery was then to strike down the strong arm of the 
 rebellion. 
 
 The gentleman has told us that certain parishes are excepted in 
 the President's proclamation. I wish to look at that for one mo- 
 ment. If any one entertains the idea that because Mr. Lincoln ex- 
 empted certain parishes in his proclamation of emancipation, he 
 therefore secured or guaranteed slavery in them, he is very much 
 mistaken. He did not, in that document, guarantee any rights 
 
16 
 
 whatever to slaveholders, but merely said that while the institu- 
 tion was abolished in certain parishes, it was in the others left to 
 take care of itself. 
 
 Mr. President, slavery has not been able to take care of itself in the 
 parish of Orleans or in any of the other excepted ones, because, as 
 I have said , it is the creature of local law, depending upon State 
 legislation for its existence, and by the act of rebellion the State 
 laws were suspended if not abolished, and there are now no opera- 
 tive laws under which slavery can bo supported or upheld in this 
 State. The element of physical, brute force, to compel the obedi- 
 ence of the slave to his master, is wanting, since it does not exist 
 in this parish nor any within our lines. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln, by his proclamation, as I admit, leaves the claim of 
 the slaveholders in the excepted parishes to be adjudicated hereaf- 
 ter. They can bring their claims against Louisiana or the National 
 Government for their property, as they call it, when perhaps they 
 will get compensation and perhaps they will not. Slavery does not 
 exist in any parish for the reason I have already stated, and for 
 another and perhaps a better reason, which is that a large portion 
 of those who formerly were slaves are now soldiers in the ranks of 
 the Union army. (Applause.) Will the gentleman tell us that the 
 men who have imperilled their lives in the defense of the flag of 
 their country, the men who wear the uniform and carry the bayonet 
 of the Union, are ever to be made slaves again ? Mr. President, 
 the ensanguined fields of Port Hudson bear witness to the valor 
 of those men, who, in three successive charges in the very mouth 
 of the enemy's guns, proved the fact that the negro would die for 
 the Union. (Great applause.) Does he tell us that such men, their 
 relatives, wives or children, shall ever wear the shackles of slav- 
 ery again ? It would be a shame, a disgrace, a stain upon the 
 nation which the blood of all our soldiers could never wash out. 
 Mr. President, the earth cannot receive in the same instant the 
 footprint of a soldier and a slave ! (Applause.) 
 
 The gentleman from the Fifth has flaunted in our faces, during 
 a three day's speech, the phantom ("for it is a phantom) of negro 
 
It 
 
 equality. Now, if you go to the free States, you find there is no 
 negro equality there. Is the gentleman afraid that the white race 
 is so much upon a level with the negro that negro equality will 
 prevail, unless we forever subject the blacks to the most foul injus- 
 tice and keep them perpetually under our feet ? I suppose he is 
 one of those who are afraid of amalgamation, or, as it is politely 
 termed in these modern days, miscegenation I I suppose he fears 
 if the slaves are liberated, that all the fair daughters of the land 
 will be seized with a desire to marry negroes, and that the young 
 men will also wish to marry negresses ! Now, Mr. President, ac- 
 cording to my belief, that is a matter of taste. [Laughter.] I have 
 no taste for that sort of equality m3^self, and accordingly have no 
 fear of it. If gentlemen fear any such thing, I cannot undertake to 
 explain their reasons for it. So far as the matter of equality and 
 amalgamation is concerned, I do not see that the Northern or free 
 States have given so luminous an example of it as the slave States, 
 for I have observed, during some four years spent in Maryland, 
 Virginia and Louisiana, that there are a great many so-called ne- 
 groes, with very white faces, and I believe that they were born in 
 a state of slavery ! There must be some practical explanation of 
 this. I have seen more mulattoes, quadroons, and all that sort of 
 persons, in one day in Louisiana, than I ever saw in all my life 
 in any free State ! I am not afraid of negro equality because I be- 
 lieve that the white race is the dominant race in this country, 
 and always will be. I believe it is superior in intelligence and 
 skill, and that the Anglo-Saxon race is destined, in the providence 
 of God, to rule this country forever. The mean fear of this phan- 
 tom of negro equality never has kept me awake for a single mo- 
 ment, and I do not believe it ever will. 
 
 The gentleman tells us that if the slaves are free, we shall have 
 to place a gospel minister upon every street corner and plantation, 
 and that witli all that trouble we cannot keep them straiglit. Well, 
 Mr. President, I agree with the gentleman perfectly, if these gospel 
 ministers are to preach the same kind of gospel that the gentleman 
 has preached on this floor ; I think that that kind of gospel never 
 
18 
 
 would succeed in keeping negroes or anybody else straight, parti- 
 cularly when we consider that gentleman's exposition of the divine 
 precept, " All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto- 
 you, do ye even so unto them." It struck me in listening to the gen- 
 tleman's exposition, that he had a very singular method of applying 
 that commandment, and that it should, according to him, read like 
 this : " All things whatsoever the slaveholder would that slave- 
 holders should do unto him, do ye even so !" He leaves out the 
 slave entirely. Here, let us suppose, k a man with two hundred 
 slaves, and the gentleman says, I will do unt o this man as I would 
 have him do unto me, if I were a slaveholder^ P^^ of the two hun- 
 dred men he says nothing. That is his gospel, b."* ^ believe that 
 the divine command of Christ applies to the African ^® well, ana 
 that we should do unto him as we would that he shonld a^^ ^ ^^' 
 (Applause.) I prefer to take my theology, not from the lips* 
 gentleman from the Fifth District, but from the lips of the Bb.'^®^ 
 Teacher, who said, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least oi 
 these my little ones, ye have done it unto me." The lowest and 
 most degraded being has claims upon us, equal to those of the 
 highest and greatest ; and this divine gospel, which is so distorted 
 to apply to the slaveholder, but not to the slave, I saj applies as much; 
 to the one as to the other. If the gentleman from the Fifth prefers 
 to seek the emblems of his gospel among negro whipping-posts 
 and negro auction-blocks, the lash and insignia of despotic power ; 
 if he wants the instruments of the slaveholder's tortures — the 
 thumb-screw and the heavy irons — to represent his gospel, he is 
 welcome to them ; but these do not represent my gospel. (Applause.) 
 I prefer to take mine from Paul, who tells us that God "hath made 
 of one blood all the nations of men to dwell upon all the face of the 
 earth." I prefer the sublime words of Isaiah, who said : " Is not 
 this the fast that I have chosen, to loose the bands of wickedness, 
 to undo the heavy burdens and let the oppressed go free ?" I don't 
 believe the negro whipping-post is the best emblem of Christianity 
 and civilization ; if the gentleman does, he is welcome to his 
 views. 
 
19 
 
 The g"entlemau from the Fifth District, among the other illus- 
 trious names quoted, to show that slavery is legal and right, has 
 cited that of Judge Taney, of the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, and his decision in the famous Dred Scott case, in which, 
 with disregard for all natural law, and, as I think, for all constitu- 
 tional law, that Judge tells us that the negro has no rights which 
 the white man is bound to respect. Mr. President, I am not much 
 (,)f a lawyer, although I did read Blackstone, Kent and a few such 
 books, when several years younger, but it strikes me there ought to 
 be the principle of justice and common sense in all law. But it 
 would seem, from the gentleman's argument, that he was trying to 
 convince this Convention that the law is utterly devoid of both. I 
 believe there are statutes and codes higher than Constitutions, 
 written in the hearts and affections of men no legislation can oblit- 
 erate. There arc moral obligations resting upon every man which 
 no statute can change. I think we have a good illustration of the 
 instability of Judge Taney's law in the course of events since that 
 decision was promulgated. The slave-holding oligarchy boasted 
 that, by this famous decision, slavery was fixed for ever more — 
 nothing could disturb it in this country. But I think we have found 
 by this time that even Judge Taney's decision was not sufficient to 
 blot out from the human heart those laws, written there by the fin- 
 ger of God, and that the divine laws are stronger than the decisions 
 of any judge. Since that decision was promulgated, slavery, in 
 spite of it, has been swept away by the course of events, and Judge 
 Taney's'decree, and all other laws ever made, or attempted to be 
 made, to uphold it, have proved impotent to circumvent the decrees 
 of Heaven. (Applause.) 
 
 As one of the results of this system of slavery, which the gen- 
 tleman has so ardently advocated, we have heard a great deal of 
 slaveholding chivalry ; we have been told that the sons of slave- 
 holders were particularly noted for heroic and chivalric qualities. 
 If I understand chivalry from some reading of it, as it was prac- 
 ticed in the earlier ages, it is that principle that leads the strong to 
 defend the weak ; wherever innocence, virtue and helplessness pre- 
 
^0 
 
 scntcd itself and was in peril, there the true knight was hound to 
 draw his sword and g-o to its defence. It seems to me this slave- 
 holding chivalry, which has been illustrated at Fort Pillow, is a 
 very different article. I understand upon Eed River it has been il- 
 lustrated in a similar manner, that soldiers — native-born white citi- 
 zens of Louisiana, who have volunteered for the defense of their 
 country and this State against its armed enemies, have been most 
 brutally murdered in cold blood by these sons of chivalry. This is 
 a poor time of day to stand up here and defend this system of slav- 
 ery, that so brutalizes those who wield its power. One of my col- 
 leagues from the Second District [Col. ThorpeJ has already told us 
 wliat an excitement prevails in consequence of the massacre at Fort 
 Pillow. It seems as though the enemies of this country were de- 
 termined this should become a war of extermination — were deter- 
 mined to do everything that may be done to provoke the United 
 States Government to a bloody retaliation. These crimes are all 
 committed in behalf of slavery, and still in a free State Conventfon, 
 elected on the platform of immediate emancipation, called into ex- 
 istence under a proclamation declaring slavery abolished, we have 
 for three days listened to a gentleman advocating it as sanctified 
 by ancient example, and approved by Christianity itself. 
 
 Mr. President : It was my fortune, on Monday, to stand on the 
 consecrated field of Chalmette, now green with the verdure of 
 spring, and eternally green in the memory of patriots as the scene 
 of Jackson's fame — a spot sanctified by the blood of those noble he- 
 roes of the second war, who fought and bled for the honor and in- 
 tegrity of their country. The occasion was the dedication of the 
 ground as a cemetary for Union soldiers, and I was pleased to see 
 on that historic field a great number of the delegates of this Con- 
 vention, and I could not but feel as I walked over that hallowed 
 spot, that the struggle which made it forever historic, was not so 
 important as this which is now going on. The men of that generation 
 periled their lives and fought for the integrity of their country, but 
 the soldiers of this conflict are fighting under the impulses of a new 
 civilization ; there is a new epoch in our history, more glorious for 
 
21 
 
 liberty, and it seems to mo any man whose feet pressed that soil, 
 mnst have come away feeling it is a solemn and momentons dnty 
 we have to perform here — to nphold that same flag, that same honor, 
 that same liberty, for the martyrs of which that burial ground has 
 been set apart. (Great applause.) 
 
 After a protracted discussion, the motion to reject Mr. AbelPs 
 pro-slavery report was carried, by a vote of sixty-six " yeas" and 
 thirteen "nays." 
 
 On Wednesday, May 11th, a day to be hereafter forever memor- 
 able in the history of Louisiana, and one to be commemorated with 
 bonfires and illuminations, the following Ordinance of Emancipation 
 was passed by an almost unanimous vote, only thirteen recording 
 their names in opposition to it : 
 
 " We, the people of the State of Louisiana, in Convention as- 
 sembled, do hereby declare and ordain as follows : 
 
 " Section 1. Slavery and Involuntary Servitude, except as a 
 
 PUNISHMENT FOR CrIME, WHEREOF THE PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY 
 CONVICTED, ARK HEREBY FOREVER ABOLISHED AND PROHIBITED THROUGHOUT 
 
 THE State. 
 
 " Section 2. The Legislature shall make no law recognizing 
 THE Right of Property in Man." 
 
LB D '05 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS