.3 C76 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 012 028 964 peunuliffe* pH8J I=> E E C I^ .T. .T. C () C) M i^^ip,^L;sq,^. DELIVKRKD IT TUK TnIoN I-HAOUE RKADIVrjtOjJiM. WttSnilidTSjN,^!))^ TUKSDAY KVKNINO, SKl'TKMlW J. /* ^' Mk. President and Fellow-Citizens: As our victorious nrmii-s and our invincible navy continnc to press upon the rebellious territory in all directions, by land and by sea — as the strongholds of the enemy begin to totter and full, and their iniqui- tous cause becomes niore and more desperate, from day to day, we begin to receive evidences that the Union sentiment is not wholly ex- tinct in the revolted States. If we can believe the reports which come to us from the front, that sentiment still has a lodgment in the hearts of men in some localities where we least expected to find it. In the good old State of North Carolina the friends of the old flag are begin- ning to take ground in favor of a " reconstruction of the Union," and to denounce the authors of their ruin, with a boldness which shows no small degree of conlidence in their own strength. In view of the probability that in .some of the so-called seceded States, Union men, or ''reconstructioni.sts," may ere long regain the political ascendancy, and the States l)e knocking at the doors of the Union for practical readmission, the question as to the terms upon which they shall be received becomes one of absorbing interest, and challenges the profound consideration of every reflecting Union man. It is important, not only that the loyal Union men of the country shall take ground in favor of a policy that is in it.self right and just, and one which will tend to secure the perpetuity of the Union, as well as to practically restore it — but it is especially important that they shall commit themselves to no policy, however high or holy its objects, which will not meet the approbation of a majority of the legal voters of the loyal States. This is a practical consideration which it will be criminal to ignore, unless we can satisfy our consciences with having entertained good intentions, regardless of practical results. Within a little more than a year from this time, the people of the loyal States will choose a Chief Magistrate to administer the Govern- ment for the ensuing four years. Within the same time most of the loyal States will elect members of the Congress which will come into power simultaneously with that Administration. In these elections there will be but two jmrties to the contest. On the one side will be arrayed the thorough Union men of the country ; on the other, men who, if not disunionists ;)erhead." A true Union man is one who abhors and detests this accursed re- bellion, its authors, aiders and abettors, and is in. favor of suppressing it by force of arms. To that end he would have the Government put forth all its energies and constitutional powers, in a vigorous prosecu- tion of the war, so long as there is a hostile squadron in the field. He /" • -■„ £^S^ 2 .2 knows that the war for the supptession of the rebellion can only be carried on through the agency oi the general Government, and the public functionaries who administer it. He knows that the present Administration is honestly endeavoring to put the rebellion down, and that to oppose it in these endeavors, is to give aid and comfort to traitors and rebels in arms. Hence he is necessarily a hearty supporter of the present Administration, though he may doubt the wisdom or expediency, or even the constitutionality, of some of its measures. — For even if he conceives that the Administration has sometimes tran- scended the limits of the Constitution for the purpose of saving it, that is to him no good reason for turning against the Administration, and lending his sympathies to those who have taiceu up arms for the avowed purpose of utterly destroying the Constitution. A "Copperhead" is one opposed to putting down the rebellion by force of arms ; and, consequently, opposed to all the war measures of the Administration. He may talk loudly in favor of " the Union as it was, and the Constitution as it is," yet so long as he is unwilling to oppose by force those who are by open war striving to destroy both the Constitution and the Union, he practically gives the lie to all such professions. He sees nothing to approve in any of the measures of the Administration tending to the suppression of the rebellion, and very little to condemn in the rebellion itself. He is a man of nice consti- tutional scruples, as to all measures for the defence of the Constitution, but can look with complacency on an effort to utterly destroy it by force and arms. He cries "peace ! peace!" when he knows there can be no peace, except upon the condition of assenting to the final disrup- tion of the.Ujiion. It is bet^veen tJiese parties that the contest will be in the next Presiden- tial and Cqngressional elections. During the term of the Administra- tion and the Congress then to be chosen, in all probability, the princi- ples .upon which the Union shall be practically restored, or finally dissevered, will k{ive to be settled. If the " Copperheads" shall suc- ceed in electing a president and a majority of the members of the next Congress, their first eflbrt will be to effect a compromise with the rebels. Their avowed programme is, first to suspend the war, and then negotiate for a compromise. The very proposition to compro- mise gives the lie to their professions in favor of maintaining the " Constitution as it is." To effect that, it is only necessary to put down the rebellion. What obstructs the enforcement of the Constitution " as it is," at this moment? Nothing but armed resistance. It re- quires no compromise to remove that obstruction. It requires hard knocks and heavy blows to overcome and batter down the resistance — nothing more — nothing less. Under existing circumstances, a propo- sition to compromise with the rebels is a proposition to change the Constitution. They took up arms to destroy it, because they were unwilling to abide by it "as it is." The proposition to compromise ■with them, therefore, implies that the Constitution is to be so modified as to render it more acceptable to them : that new guaranties are to be given for the protection and perpetuation of their " peculiar institu- tion ;" or, perhaps, for an increase of their political power in the Union. A moment's reflection will show that any such compromise is im- possible. In the first place, it is idle to dream that the requisite ma- jority of States would ever concur in such amendments of the Consti- tution as would make it any more acceptable to tliose now in rebellion. In tlie second place, a modification of the CiMUititution is not what they are contending for. They arc fighting for a final separation ; for ab- solute independence; and nothing sh(;rt of superior force opposed to them can prevent them from accomplishing that object. They will voluntarily enter into no compromise which docs not secure that end ; and as the " Copju^rheads" are ojiposed to carrying on the war against them, a lbrce(l fompromisc would be out of the (juestion. If there is any thing that the "Copperheads" are fairly committed to, it is to stop the war. The leader whom they now most delight to honor glories in the fact that in (,'ongress (of which he has been a member since the war commenced) he has never voted a man nor a dollar f«^r the prose- cution of the war. For this, and his bitter opposition to every war measure, in and out of Congress, they are now striving to elect him Governor of Ohio. They will go to the rebels, therefore, proposing a compromise, but telling them, at the same time, that they intend to stop the war, at all events. To stop the war is to let the rebels have every thing their own way. It is to acquiesce in a final separation of the Union, and the independence of the "Confederate States." Why, then, should the rebels compromise on any but their own terms, if the war is to be no longer prosecuted against them ? To maintain the " Union as it was," therefore, or even to " reconstruct" it, by compro- mise, is entirely out of the question : even if the " Copperheads" come into power. The only other alternative, under their policy, has already been mentioned. It is a final separation of the Union, and the estab- lishment of the independence of the " Confederate :^tates." It is of the first importance, therefore, that the true Union men of the country shall construct for themselves no platform on which a majority of the voters of the loyal States will hesitate to take an un- yielding stand. Our first object should be success in the elections ; to keep the Copperheadi out of power. Unless we first secure this object, all our plans for preserving or "reconstructing" the Union will amount to nothing. Our platform, therefore, musf. not only be based on good motives and good intentions, but it must be invulner- able to the assaults of our enemies. We must give them no plausible pretext for charging us with advocating measures in conflict with the Constitution. A party in power is a hundred times more vulnerable before the people than a party out of power. The party out of power acts wholly on the offensive, having nothing to defend. If the people can be made to believe that the party in power is pursuing a policy in conflict with the Constitution, or detrimental to the public welfare, they resolve to go for a change, without stopping to inquire whether the party to take their place may not prove but "a more hungry swarm of flies." Remember the Fall elections of 1862. The war at that time was not progressing in a manner very satisfactory to the Union men of the country. The Seymours and the Vallandighams went before the people denouncing the party in power for a want of energy in the prosecution of the war, and thereby actually seduced them to vote for men opposed to prosecuting it at all. With a view to success in the elections, if for no other reason, we should commit ourselves to no policy which we caunot successfully defend before the people, when assailed on constitutional grounds. For the same reason, we should shun a platform radically inconsistent with the past action of the Government and the theories it has uni- formly maintained, in respect to the rebellion and its eftects upon States and citizens. If we go before the people on a platform which repudiates the cardinal theory upon which the present Administration and the last Congress have unilormly acted, will they not be very likely to say, " if it has taken you all this time to -find out that you have been acting under a radical mistake, it is time for us to transfer the powers of the Government to a party that will at least understand its own position ?" Nothing is so fatal to a party in power as to stul- tify itself, by adopting a platform which utterly condemns its past acts. With these preliminary remarks, I come to the consideration of a question which, in my judgment, is beginning to assume a very im- portant aspect before the country. That question relates to the terms upon which the Union shall be practically reinstated, when the rebel- lion is put down. I wish it to be understood, that whenever I speak of the "reconstruction" or "restoration" of the Union, I mean its practical reconstruction or restoration, not intending to admit that in law it has ever been dissolved. And whenever I use the term " sece- ded States," I simply mean those States which have assumed to secede. That the institution of Slavery is the remote as well as the immedi- ate cause of the existing rebellion, is a notorious and undeniable fact. The feeling is undoubtedly gaining ground in the loyal States, that human Slavery is so inconsistent with the spirit and genius of our Republican institutions, that the two cannot permanently exist to- gether; and that any practical "reconstruction" of the Union which shall leave the institution of Slavery intact, will be scarcely worth striving for : That any union of the States, so long as a portion of them shall tolerate Slavery, will necessarily contain within itself the seeds of its own dissolution, and consequently have but an ephemeral existence. Hence it is beginning to hQ regarded by many as a sine qua non to any practical reconstruction of the Union, that Slavery shall be utterly abolished throughout its borders. Gentlemen occu- pying prominent positions before the country are beginning to advo- cate the doctrine, that no rebellious State should be permitted to prac- tically resume her former relations to the Union, except on condition of abolishing a local institution deemed so dangerous to its perpetuity. As a life-long anti-slavery man, always regarding the institution of Slavery as a national curse and disgrace, founded upon principles of the most flagrant injustice and inhumanity, I should rejoice to see the Union of all the States practically restored, without a vestige of slavery remaining within its borders. Yet, when the loyal people of any rebellious State shall have regained the political ascendancy therein, and the State shall ofler to resume her former relations to the Union, I cannot see on what sound principle she can be prevented from so doing, until she complies with conditions not prescribed by the Constitution " as it is." If we conceded the riglit of secession, under the Constitution, or the fact that the rebellious States had actually succeeded in establishing their independence, and in instituting a legitimate Government for- ei.G^n to that.of the Unitd States, tlio proposition, to my minfl. would present no diiru-ultios. For I do not doiiht the rigit to anu-x condi- tions, in respect to Slavery, to tlic admission of now Stat«js ; anle would be re-instated in their rights, a.s belore the insurrection. Why will not the same consequences follow the suppression of that great insurrectionary mob, which for more than two years has held an usurped supremacy throughout the rebellious States ? If there are any loyal peijple in those States, who have not forfeited their rights by voluntary acts of treason, why will not all their j)olitical rights re- vert to them, when this obstruction .shall be removed ? It is well known that in some of the j-cbellious States the majority of the people were ojiposed to the rebellion at its inception, and to the attempted act of secession. But, being unjirepared for the emergency, they were compelled to succumb to the pressure of an active, organized, armed and insolent minority, thoroughly pre{)ared to carry their point by a cot/p de main. It is believed that many of these people have remain- ed loyal at heart, giving no more countenance or support to the rebel- lion than has been extorted from them by force and fear. If these peo- ple have failed, since the rebellion broke out, to perform their duties, as citizens of the United States, towards the Federal Government, it is because they have been prevented by irresistible power. During all this time the Federal Government has been as powerless to perform its duties towards them, as they to perform their duties towards the Government. That they liave submitted to a power which neither they nor the Government which owed them protection were for the time being able to resist, is no crime, and ought not to subject thera to the forfeiture of any of their rights. It ought to be remembered tliat the Federal Government is in no slight degree responsible for the state of things which exists in the rebellious States. Of course I do not allude to the Government aa administered since the fourth of March, 1861. But under the prece- ding Administration, the incipient rebellion was not only winked at by the President, but received its strongest nourishment from the foster- ing hands of members of his Cabinet. The probability is. that the loyal citizens of the great city of New York would to-day have been 2s completely under the Jomiuation of can insurrectionary mob as the oyal people of North Carolina are, if this Administration had done no more for their protection than the late Administration did for the pro- tection of the loyal people of the Southern States, in the incipiency of the rebellion. When the insurrection first showed its head in South Carolina, tw'ent}' thousand Federal troops would have been sufficient to suppress it, and to nip the rebellion in the bud. The loyal people of the South were entitled to that protection, which was with- held from them. It is true the}- did not ask for it; few of them, at that time, believed they stood induced of it. They did not know the extent of the conspiracy against their rights and liberties, nor the im- minent peril which was impending over them, Tlie Federal Government, uid'-r the Administration r,f Jaiiics BucJianan, can plead no such ignorance. To see how this proposition of annexing conditions to the return of the seceded States to the Union would work, in practice, let us sup- pose a case : Let us suppose that the people of North Carolina shall elect a majority of Union men to both branches of her State Legisla- ture, and that this body shall repeal every act passed since the pre- tended act of secession, tending to impair the normal relations of that State to the Union, and re-enact every law which has been repealed during the same time. Let us sujipose, further, that the same Legis- lature shall call a Constitutional Convention, which Convention shall restore the State Constitution precisely as it existed prior to the rebel- lion. And then let us suppose that, under such restored Constitution and laws, members are duly elected to the Senate and House of Rep- resentatives of the United iStates, who are not disqualified by any acts of personal participation in the rebellion, and that said members come forward and claim their seats in Congress. Could their claims be re- sisted, consistently with the Constitution, or with the theory which our Government has uniformly maintained, as to the eftect of the re- bellion upon the political status of the seceded States, and of the loyal citizens thereof? Could Congress require, as a condition precedent to their admission as members, that North Carolina should first abolish Slavery ? Could ^Congress impose any otlier conditions as to their admission, than such as could have been imposed before the rebellion, as to the admission of members from that State? If, when the rebellion shall have been put down, and the loyal peo- ple of the rebellious States shall have regained the political ascend- ancy therein, those States cannot resume their former relations to the Union on the terms prescribed by the present Constitution of the Uni- ted States, then they can only practically come back by virtue of an actual reconstruction of the Union, in law as well asin/ac7; that is to say, under a neiv or modified Constitution, And by what authority shall the Constitution be amended, to accomplish this end ? Surely, we cannot consistently claim that it can be amended without the con- currence of the Le^Msiatures of three-fourths of all the States, includ- ing those now in rebellion. And as the rebellious States constitute more than one-fourth of the entire number, I do not see how it is practicable to amend the Constitution at all, so long as they remain in rebellion, until we shall have either acknowledged their independence or admitted so many new States that wc can outnumber them three to one. Our Government is, and has been ever since this rebellion has ex- isted, daily doinj^; u^ts which recognize, in tiie in(.)st uue(|uiv()cal man- ner, the rebellious States as still being members of the Federal Union. We accord to the loyal citizens of those States all the rights, privi- leges, franchises and immunities, of citizens of the United State?. We appoint them to oiVices which none but citizens of the United States are eligible to fill. We accord to them other rights, which none but citizriis (if a S/((t'\ in l/ic Union, are entitled to under the Constitution; among wnich is the right of rcprrscntalion in Cnn'jn'ss, whenever, and wherever they find themselves able to exercise that right, by electing members. If they are still, in law, States of this Union, then it is im- possible for the remaining States to modify the Constitution, except in an unconstitutional way — and that would be simply revolution. Two theories have been put forth by gcntleinen occupying promi- nent positions before the country, upon which the right to annex terms and conditions to the practical return of the rebellious States to the Union is attempted to be maintained. Both of them are utterly inconsistent with the theory upon which the Government, in all its departments, has hitherto acted. Both of them assume that the rebel- lious States have ceased to be members of the Federal Union ; yet neither of them admits that they have succeeded in establishing their independence. The first of these theories which I shall notice, is this : That the States in rebellion have ceased to exist (w Stales : but the. territory be- ing still within the rightful jurisdiction of the Federal Government, the inhabitants remain citizens of the United States; but "are in the condition of the inhabitants of unorganized territories belonging to the United States." And, " having forfeited their rights, they can never be restored to their former position, except by the consent of the Fed- eral Government. This consent may be given by admitting them as new States, or restoring them as old — the Government having the right in either case to annex terms and conditions." This definition I take almost literally from a well written article in the " Atlantic Monthly" for August, in support of this theory. It will be seen that the argument assumes that the rebellion has been so far successful, that it has actually dissolved the political connection of the rebellious States with the Union ; but has not wrested from the United States the right of eminent domain over the territory, nor ab- solved the inhabitants from their allegiance to the Federal Govern- ment. Now, I insist that, according to the true theory of the Union, it is impossible for rebels and traitors to dissolve the connection of any State with the Union, except in one way — and that is, by a successful revolutinyi — one which shall completely oust the Federal Government of all jurisdiction over the territory, and absolve the people from their former allegiance. These are necessary efYects of a successful revolu- tion. That any success of an attempted revolution short of this can destroy, in law as well as in/a'7, the legitimate relations of a State to the Union, is, to my mind, a palpable fallacy. But how is this theory to be reconciled with the past acts of the Government? If the rebellious States are reduced to the condition of " unorganized territories," then the inhabitants are entitled only to such political rights as the people of such territories enjoy. The pec- 8 pie of our " unorganized territories" have no right to be represented in Congress, even by non-voting delegates. But we admit members — ■ voting members from the so-called seceded States, to hold seats in Con- gress, whenever elected thereto by loyal voters in their respective dis- tricts. At no time, since said States pretended to secede, have less than three of them been represented, in part, by voting members, in the House of Representatives. The President, in his Emancipation Proclamation, (of September 22d, 1862,) invited the people of those States, or of portions of them, to send Representatives to Congress, holding out strong inducements for them to do so. If they had ceased to be States of the Union, the President committed a great blunder in thus inviting them to send members to Congress ; and the House of Representatives committed a still greater blunder in receiving them. For my part, I am not prepared to accept a theory which brands both the Executive and Legislative branches of the Government with such consummate ignorance and stupidity. The other theorj' difters from this, only in going one long step fur- ther. It assumes that not only have the rebellious States ceased to have any legal existence, as States of this Union, but that all the in- habitants of those States have become p7(bb'c tncmies to the United States, whether they have aided or opposed the rebellion. This theory has lately been distinctly put forth by a gentleman holding a high position in one of the Executive Departments of the Government, [Mr. WiiiTiXG, Solicitor of the War Department,] in a published letter, in which he lays down the following propositions: " Whenever two nations are at war, ever}- subject of one belligerent nation is a public enemy of the other. An individual may be a per- sonal friend and at the same time a public enemy to the United States. The law of war defines international relations. When the civil war in America became a territorial war, every citizen residing in the belligerent districts became a public enemy, irrespective of his pri- vate sentiments, whether loyal or disloyal, friendly or hostile, Union- ist or Secessionist, guilty or innocent." The learned writer relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the prize cases of last term, (the case of the Hia- watha and others,) as establishing the proposition, that when this civil war became territorial, every citizen residing in the belligerent dis- tricts became a public enemy. He says that all the Judges concurred in the opinion, that the war became territorial on the passage of the act of July 13, 1861, commonly called the non-intercourse act; the majority holding that it became so at an earlier date, that is to say. as soon as general hostilities existed. From this he draws the deduc- tion, that all the Judges concurred in holding, lha( since the said I'dth day of July, 1861, tvcry citizen residing in t/ic beUigei-ent territory, " whether loyal or disloyal, friendly or limtile, Unionist or Secessionist, guilty or innocent,'''' has been a public enemy to the United States, and sub- ject to all the consequences of that relation to this Government which tcould attach to the citizen of an imlependent foreign nation at war tvith the Uni- ted Slates. No one will deny that this is a perfectly fair statement of his position. He lays it down and repeats it in various forms of lan- guage, all intended to show, that a loyal citizen of the belligerent ter- ritory has lost all political rights in the Union, by becoming a " pub- 9 lie enem}'- ;" and tJiat this is a legitimate deduct ion from the decision of the Sapreme Court in the case referred to. In order to maintain this position, he attributes langujifj^e to the Court which is nowhere to be found in the decision from which he professes to quote. What the learned Judge delivering the opinion of the Court did say on this point, was in these words : " It [the rebellion] is no loose, unorganized insurrection, liaving no definite boundary or possession. It has a boundary marked by lines of bayonets, and which can be crossed only by force. South of this line is enemies' territory, because it is claimed and hehl in possession by an organized, hostile and belligerent power. All j)ersons residing within this territory wiiose pro|)crty may be used to increase the rev- enues of the hostile power, are, in this contest, liabk to be treated (is enemies, though not foreigners.'' To understand the force and effect of this language, it is necessary to know what questions were before the Court. In the language of the Court, they were as follows : " 1st. Had the President a right to institute a blockade of ports in possession of persons in armed rebellion against the Government, on the principles of international law, as known and acknowledged among civilized States? "2d. Was the property of persons domiciled and residing within these States a proper subject of capture on the sea as " enemies' pro- perty ?" These were the questions, and the only questions, Jiriihd. The learned Judge delivering the decision, in support of it reasoned thus: When a civil war becomes territorial, the Government may enforce certain belligerent rights against the tert-itonj, to cripple the resources of the enemy, by acts which are territorial in t/wir ojjtration and ejj'ect ; among which is the right of blockade. As to the enforcement of such rights, " all persons residing within the hostile territory" are '' liable to be treated as enemies,'''' because " their proixrtij man ^'' "•"'^'^ ^^ increase the revenues of the hostile poiver." The learned Judge might have given another reason why they are liable to be so treated, that is to say, be- cause in resorting to belligerent acts which are territorial in their ope- ration and effects, it is impossible to discriminate between friends and foes, in the territory assailed. Loyal persons residing in the hostile territory are liable to be treated as enemies — not because they are such in fact or in law, but because belligerent acts against the terri- tory necessarily operate upon all the inhabitants alike. This is one of the many misfortunes incident to their unhappy situation and sur- roundings. It is impossible that the Court could have intended to afTirm any such principle as the learned writer deduces from their decision. If his deduction is legitimate, it puts one, if not two of the Judges, in the rediculous position of deciding that he himself was a public enemy to the Government whose highest judicial functions he was then admin- istering. Two of the Supreme .ludges are citizens, and in law resi- dents of rev ohing States. One of them lives in a State [Tennessee] excepted by the President, in his Proclamation of January 1st, 1863 ; and the writer seems to entertain the opinion that somehow or other this would save him from becoming a public enemy — or rather, would 10 take him out of that category, which, according to his theory, he cer- tuinly must have been in prior to the Prochimation. But the other has no such chance of escajie. Xo portion of his State [Georgia] is excepted by the Proclamation. It is probably true that he has not been jifrsonallij within the limits of that State since the rebellion broke out; but he has never renounced his citizenship, nor abandoned his residence there. He is in the condition of thousands of loyal refugees, who have temporarily fled from the rebellious territory, intending to return to their estates and homes as soon as the rebellion is put down. They are still, in law, citizens and residents of their respective States. No principle of law is better settled than that a man does not lose his residence by leaving it for a temporary purpose, with the intention to return when that temporary purpose is accomplished ; even though he may remain absent for years. So long as the animus revrt'.ndi ex- ists, his legal domicil remains unchanged. The loyal citizen of a re- bellious State, who, being absent from the rebellious territory when the war broke out, has remained away with the intention of return- ing to his home when the rebellion shall be suppressed, is in no dif- ferent condition from the loyal refugee who has fled and remained away from his home with the same intention ; and neither of them is, or ought to be, in any better condition than the loyal citizen who has remained at home, because he could not get away. They are all in the same boat : If one has lost his political rights in the Union by becoming a public enemy to his Government, all have. Suppose it was a foreign enemy that held complete military posses- sion of the seceded States, maintaining a boundary line of bayonets, which could only be crossed by force ; utterly suppressing all the constituted authorities within that boundary, and reducing the inhabi- tants to unconditional submission to military rule. Would not the General Government, under these circumstances, have a right to treat the war as territorial, by instituting a blockade to cripple the resources of the enemy? If not, then a foreign enemy would have immunities when invading our territory, that he could not claim when occupying his own. And if, under such circumstances, the war did become ter- ritorial, would all the inhabitants of the territory, " whether loyal or disloj^al, friendly or hostile," become public enemies to the United States ? If the loyal people of the rebellious States have actually become public enemies, and occupy the same relation towards the United States as if they were citizens of an independent hostile nation, then, indeed, are they not only deprived of their political rights, but of their private rights also. They can neither acquire nor hold property in the United States, enter into valid contracts with the citizens thereof, nor sue in our courts. But instead of all this, how have they actually been treated by our Government ? We find them filling offices of trust and profit, occupying seats in Congress, and settling grave Constitutional ques- tions on the bench of our highest judicial tribunal. I admit that it is a well settled principle of the law of nations, that a legitimate Government has power to fix the relations of its own sub- jects towards other Governments, even against the will of the subject. My Government can make me a public enemy to Great Britain, by declaring war against that power, whether I will it or not. But I ut- 11 terly deny tliat a mere band of insurgents and traitors, liowcver nu- merous or powerful, can put mc in that position towurds my own Gov- ernment against my will — unless it miglit be by forcing m'e into their military service. Will you apply tlii.s doctrine to the loyal peDple of Eastern Tennessee ? W ill you admit that Jefl". Davis and all his rebel crew have had power to convert into public enemies of this (jovern- ment those noble men who have adhereil to their allegiance and the old flag, with a heroism that commands our highest admiration, through long years of unrelenting jiersecution ? — who, rather than submit to his bogus Government, have tied to the wilderness, dwelt in the caves of the mountains, or lingered and languished in loathsome prisons? The proposition is a monstrous one. The learned writer referred to has fallen into one rather ludicrou.s inconsistency. While laying down the proposition broadly, that when the war became territorial, " every citizen," or, as he says in another place, "each person" residing in the belligerent territory became a public enemy to the United States, he wholly loses sight of the condi- tion in which this would place the colored population of the rebellious States. For, in a subsequent paragraph, he expresses the earnest hope that "we may be saved the unfathomable infamy of breaking the na- tion's faith with Europe, and with colored cilizens and slaves in (he Union" This criticism, however, is not mine. It has an editorial paternity. I have spent more time than I intended in reviewing these crude and inconsistent theories. But as they are the only theories I have seen advanced, upon which the right of annexing terms and conditions to the practical return of the so-called seceded States to he Union has been attempted to be maintained, I have deemed it my duty to expose some of their weak p(jints. I have said nothing about the President's Emancipation Proclama- tion, because it has nothing to do with the question under considera- tion. If the Union shall be practically restored under the Constitu- tion " as it is," the effect of the Proclamation upon slave propertv in the rebellious States will necessarily become a judicial question. If it shall be held by the judiciary to have liberated all the slaves, well and good. It will have accomplished a great work. There is, however, even among the strongest advocates of the Proclamation, a very gene- ral want of conlidence in its elBciency to liberate any slaves except those upon whom it may practically act during the prosecution of the war. It depends, for its validity, solely upon the fact that it is a " war measure" — an act which will tend to weaken the enemv, by crippling his resources. Hence, it is argued by many, it can have no legal effect in liberating slaves, except in so far as it may be actualh' enforced bv military power and authorit}-, during the progress of the war. This is the view of the subject which the writer in the " Atlan- tic Monthly," to whom I have referred, seems to favor. Hence those who, like him, think the abolition of slavery ought to be made a sine qua non to an}' practical reconstruction of the Union, are getting up new theories for the more sure accomplishment of that object. I by no means intend to depreciate the effects of the Proclamation, as a " war measure," in annoying and weakening the enemy, during the progress of the war. As such it has doubtless been, and will continue to be, a powerful auxiliary to our arms. 12 I now call your attention, fellow-citizens, to a new proposition, which I shall present in few words. I propose to show that if, on the sup- pression of the rebellion, the extirpation of slavery shall be deemed essential to the perpetuity of the Union thus practically restored, there is a feasible way of substantially elYccting that object, in ])ursuance of existing laws, without resorting to any measure of doubtful constitu- tionality, or in any wise inconsistent with the past acts and theories of the Government. Before proceeding to do this, however, let me put to rest some groundless apprehensions which are entertained, as to the etieets of renewing our fellowshij) with the seceded Slates, without some kind of restraining conditions. It is said we shall have Jeff. Davis and Toombs, and Keitt, and Pryor, back in the Senate and House of Kepresenta- tives, domineering over Northern men, and forming new coalitions with Northern "Copperheads" to again control the policy of the nation in the interest of slavery. Let me quiet these fears, by calling your attention to the ample safeguards which have been provided against this danger. By the third section of the act of Congress of July 17, 1862, com- monly called tlie " Conliscation Act," it is provided, that ever}'- person who shall have been guilty of treason against the United States, or of inciting, assisting, or engaging in, or giving aid and comfort to, any existing rebellion agaiust the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, subsequent to the date of said act, " shal/ he forever inca- pahl- and (liHtjualijiml to ],nJd arnj office nmlr t/ie Unitf(l Stat'.'sy This disqualification is not made to depend upon a conviction of the offender, in a criminal prosecution. It is a question of fact, Avhich, in case of a claim to a seat in either House of Congress, would be tri- able by the Senate or House of Representatives, as the case might be, on evidence to be adduced before them ; precisely as would be the question of alienage, or any other question touching the qualification of the claimant. In addition to this, the member elect, before taking his seat, is by an act of Congress, of July 2, 18t32, required to take a most searching oath, that he " has not voluntarily borne arras against the United States, or given aid, countenance, counsel or encouragement to per- sons engaged in armed hostility thereto, or sought or accepted or at- tempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States." And it is expressly provided, that "any person who shall falsely take said oath, shall be guilty of perjury, and on conviction, in addi- tion to the penalties now prescribed for that offence, shall be deprived of his oflice and rendered incapable forever after of holding any office or place under the United States." In case of a member of either House of Congress, he would be indicted here, in the District of Co- lumbia, and tried by a jury of the District. If Jeff. Davis, or any other traitor, should come here claiming a seat in Congress, and that body should be so remiss in its duty as to admit him, it will be in your power, fellow-citizens of the District, to transfer him to a cell in the penitentiary. But let me return to the proposition in hand. By the first section of the "Confiscation Act," just referred to, IS every person guilty of treason against tlic United States, incurs the penalty ol' death, or, (at the discretion of the Court) of a lieavy fine and long imprisonment; and, in addition to either, of having "all his slaves, if any, Ucclarril and made free. ''"' By the second section, any person guilty of inciting, assisting, or engaging in, or giving aid and comfort to, any existing rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, subsequent to the date of said act. incurs the penalty of fine or imprisonment, or both, (at the discretion of the Court,) and in ad- dition thereto, that of "the 'ib'iirrshij> in and to his slaves. If any one shall refuse to comply with these terms, he will do so at the peril of being tried and convicted, and compelled to sufler all the other severe penalties incurred by his crime, in addition to the liberation of his slaves. Of two such evils, would not every sane man choose the lesser ? The views which I have been presenting to you this evening I have u lately laid before the public, more briefly, in two anonymous publica- tions in a city newspaper, [TT'cf Cla-onick.] It has been said by the Editor of that paper, that by asserting the constitutionality and legal ity of this mode of administering a death blow to Slavery in the re bellious States, I weaken the force of my argument against the con stitutionality of the proposed measure of annexing terms and condi tions to the return of the revolted States to the Union. I must con fess, I " can't see it !" My proposition is this : Every slave owner who has voluntarily participated in the rebellion since the passage of the " Confiscation Act" has legally incurred the penalty, under exist- ing laws, of the " liberation of all his slaves," and in addition there o that of death, or oi a heavy fine and imprisonment. The President is authorized to remit these penalties, in whole or in part, " on such coalitions as he may de^m expedient for the public welfare." Now, if the President shall "deem it expedient for the public welfare" to remit (with proper exce])tions as to persons,) all of said penalties save that of the lil eration of the slaves of the offender, he is authorized to do so on condition that every one receiving the benefit of his clemen- cy shall voluntarily submit to the excepted penalty, and make his submission thereto effectual, by solemnly renouncing all title and in- terest in and to his slaves, by a formal deed of manumission. This is a very different proposition from that of making it a condition to the practical return of any State to the Union, that she shall first abolish Slavery. The former proposition acts upon indivi'luah, holding them to one only of several penalties which they have already incurred un- der existing laws. The latter acts upon Stati-s, subjecting them to dis- abilities which are not imposed by the Constitution. It has also bean objectel to my plan for extirpating slavery, that it could not be carried into effect if sympathizers with secession should get the control of the Federal Government. My answer to this is — no more could any of your plans. Again, it has been objected, that this plan will not free all the slaves in the rebellious States — that it does not reach the slaves of loyal Uniou men. This is true. But when the slaves uf all the rebels in those States are liberated, it will be a light job to sweep away the little vestige of slavery that would remain. Those slaves not liberated would be worth little or nothing, surrounded as they would be by a large population of free blacks. Tlie few Union men who own slaves generally profess a willingness to give them up, if by so doing they can contribute to the salvation of the Union and the restoration of peace. They would certainly give them up for a moderate compensa- tion, to be paid by the Federal Government. It is said, however, that the state of public sentiment in the rebel- lious States will render it impracticable to convict anyone there of the crime of participating in the rebellion, even after the Union shall have been practically restored. Hence it is argued, that the " Confiscation Act" will have no terrors, and that any amnesty which the President may offer will be .so lightly valued, that few slave-holders would ac- cept it on the conditions mentioned. Is not this danger exaggerated? It should be remembered, that no State can be practically restored to the Uni(m until the friends of the Union shall have regained the as- cendency therein. Is it to be assumed that they will have much sym- patliy for the authors of all their misery and ruin? It should be re- membered, also, that all prosecutions of persons charged with the crime of participating in the rebellion will be cimducted in the United States Courts, whose Judges will be apjiointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. And said Judges, by the second section of an act of Congress passed J\ine 17, 1S62, are au- thorized to require every Grand and Petit Jurijr, serving in said Courts, to take a most solemn and seareliing oath, that he has never, without duress or constraint, taken up or borne arms against the Uni- ted States in this rebellion, nor in any way, directly or indirectly, vol- untarily given aid or comfort to the rebellion, or any one Engaged or about to engage in it. Is it to be assumed, that in Courts who.se Judges are appointed by the President and Senate, with juries who could take this searching oath, notorious rebels and traitors would go scot free ? I respectfully submit, fellow-citizens, that the plan I have here pre- sented for breaking down the institution of slavery, is wot only free from constitutional objections, and perfectly consistent with the past action and theory of the Government, but i.s, withal, quite as «flectual as any other which has been proposed. It raises no preliminary issues relating to the practical reconstruction of the Union, to distract and divide the country. It leaves all truly loyal and innocent citizens of the rebellious States perfectly free to resume all their rights in the Union, untrammeled by terms or- conditions. To the guilty participa- tors in the rebellion it says : Whenever you will lay down your arms and return to your allegiance, you shall be reinstated in all your rights, as heretofore enjoyed in the Union, except such as you have for/ cited by your criminal in/ractions of existin;/ penal laws ; and as to the rights so forfeited, you must take your cliances of having them restored, in whole or in part, by such an exercise of the pardoning power as may be deemed " most expedient for the public welfare." Even to them it proposes no terms but those of unconditional submission to the Con- stitution and laws, as they now exist. It ])roposes no ex jj<)sl facto pen- alties, forfeitures, or disabilities. It may be, and undoubtedly is, true, that if the rebellion were to be completely put down to-morrow, there would not be found, in certain of the revolting States, a sutficieut number of Union men to re-institute and maintain a State Government under the Constitution. This is not true, however, of all of said States. When such is found to be the case, there will be no alternative but to hold the State under military sub* jection, until a loyal population shall appear, by immigration or other- wise. Fellow-citizens, I earnestly hope, and trust, and believe, that this war, under Divine Providence, will prove a death-blow to slavery in this country. I sheuld extend these remarks (already too protracted) beyond all reasonable limits, if I should undertake to give my views as to the probable way in which the problem may be worked out. It will not be, however, b}- any such empirical theories of " reconstruction" as those which I have been reviewing. It will not be by denouncing all Union men of the South as public enemies, divested of all political and private rights under this Government. It will be elYected, if at all, through the instrumentality or powerful aid of an anti-slavery party 16 on Southern soil. Citizens " to the manor born" must take hold of the work. They must be encouraged to do so, and not denounced and proscribed as outlaws, " whether loyal or disloyal, friendly or hostile, guilty or innocent." The non-slave-holding masses, who are guilty in an inferior ilegree, or not at all, must be treated leniently, and encour- aged to adopt a policy which will elevate them in the scale of human- ity, and promote their highest interests. The guilty authors of the re- bellion, consisting, mainly, of the slave-holding aristocracy, must be dealt with more severely. We must hang some, and permit others to save their necks by emigrating. And as to those who remain, they must be stripped of their badges of superiority, and reduced to the ranks of society. I have shown how the President may shear the locks in which their greatest power lies, if he shall " deem it expedient for the public welfare." But my main reliance is upon the tuiancipated toJiit'is of the South to do the work. For, rest assured, this war, if prosecuted to its hoped for and legitimate results, will emancipate as many white'men as negroes, and from a thraldom little less degrading. There is no natural reason why the " poor whites" of the South should love antl revere their oppressors; but many why they should hate them. liitherto they have been held enslaved to other men's ideas, by extreme ignorance, and a tyranny which denied them any leaders — men who would court their influence by appealing to them as a dis- tinct class, having rights and interests in direct antagonism to those of the slave-holding aristocracy. Ignorant men can do nothing, politi- cally, without leaders. When the rebellion shall be put down these leaders will appear. The sceptre will have departed from the hand of the oppressor, and the intellect of the masses will be set free. Ambi- tious men — demagogues, if you please, will not be slow to appreciate the change, and to discover the road that will lead to popular favor at home, and political preferment at Washington. In my judgment, when this rebellion shall be successfully put down, a rapidly increasing anti- slavery sentiment in the rebellious States will be inevitable. It cannot be otherwise. To put down the rebellion is the great object to which we should direct all our energies. And to do this, it is all-important that sym- pathizers with the rebels should be kept out of power. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, eschew all new issues in relation to the " reconstruction of the t'nion," and join in a hearty support of the Administration, and all its measures for carrying on a vigorous prosecution of the war, V till the last armed foe expires." This is the great work which Provi- dence has noiv entrusted to our hands. Let us perform this task llrst, and we shall then see more clearly what it will be our duty to attempt afterwards. LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 012 028 964 I H. POLKINHOB^N, PIUXXER, D STREET, BBTWEEST QtU. AND 7tH. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 012 028 964