~-Ij
_                                                                                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
t
m
H
4t
:t
t
:t
t
:t
t
-t
t-d
It
ul
'I, 
c
It
GI
t
It
t,
t!d
3 
ByTro,-is-or
i. 122 
To the Ilonorable BNJA.MIN R. CURTIS, late Associate Jutstice of
the Sttreme Uomtt of the Unrited States.
I propose, respectfully, but with perfect fiankless, to review
your recently published pamnphlet on the subject of tlhe Presi  clent's "Emancipation Proclamation" of Septemnber 22d, 186).
Tlhis wvonld have been done at an earlier day, but it is only
very recently that I first saw the pamphlet.
It is to be regretted that, regarding —as you profess to do  this proclamation and that of the 24th of the same month, as
fraught with peril to your countrymen, you did not tieat them
separately.  They differ radically and essentially in sul)ject and
in intent.  The one is limited in its application to the rebel
States, tht other applies equally there and  here.  Tlhe one in  volves ultimate results and consequences of the most importalnt
and enduring character; the other is, in its very nature, tem  porary.  ille one gives rise to considerations of a kind wliolly
different firomn, and irrelevant to, the otlher; yet your pamphlet
so confilses tihemt  togetiher, thlat it is quite difficult, if iot impos  sible, to discover whlat, in your view, is the distinguishing fatal
error of eaceli.  Justice to thle subject, which you declare to be
of such momentous import; justice to the IHead of this great
nation, whose acts you arraign as bordering on, if not actually
amtnounting, to, the crime of usurpation; justice to the elevated
position you so recetitly occupied, required that you should at
least have pointed out separately, distinctly, and in the most
lucid manner, the grounds on which yout base a charge of such
magnitude.  Instead of tliat, we have here (to use a legal telm
with which youI are familiar) a complete " hotchi-potch."  These
different and distinct matters are thrown indiscriminately tc gether; andcl, in mnany ilnstances, no ingenuity can determine
whetlher your argument, your illustrations, your depracatory
expressions, apply to the one proclamation or to tlhe other.
, I
ii -  / 
4
But at present I shall, so far as I can, ascertain from your pal —
phlet the specific complaints you make as to the "emancipation proclamation," and, if I err in attributing to vou allegations
as to this, which you intended solely for the other, ny eriror
will, I trust, find all apology in the mode you have adopted of
treating the two subjects.
Before goinig further, I may be pardoned for imitating your
example, and saying a word personal to myself.  In soihe essential particulars, I stand in the same position you state yourself
to occupy.  I, like you, " am a member of no political party."
" I withdrew,?" as you did, " some years ago, from all such connections."  I have generally, however, exercised my privilege
as one of the electoral body  and at the last presidential election I voted against the present incumbent, and at the last
State senatorial election I voted for the democratic candidate inl
iny district.
I, like you, " have no occasion to listen to the exhortations
now so frequent to divest myself of party ties, and act for my
country."  I, too, "hlave nothing but my country for vlwhich to
act in public affairs," and with me, too, " it is solely because
I l)ave that yet remaining, and know not but it may be possible
to say something to my countrymen, whiclh may aid tlhemi to
torin right conclusions in these dark and dangerous tiunes that
I tiow (through you) address thlem," and make the effort to aid
them in "forming right conclusions" as to your views, and the
subject of w71ich you treat.  Thus, my  work, like yours, is
purely "a work of love."
It may not be amiss to say, that there are, in fact, but two
parties in our country; one that is for the country, the othler
that is against the country. To the former belong the vast
majority of the Democratic party and the vast majority of the
IRepublican party, and the few (alas! so few) Unionists of
the South; to the latter belong the fanatical abolitionists in the
RPepublican party, the rebel sympathisers in the Democratic
party and the Rebels of the South.  To the party of my country
belong, I say, the great majority of both the Democratic and
the Republican parties; in other words, the vast majority of
the "People" of the United States-I say so, because I cannot
be )persuaded, that that majority, by whatever party name the 
5
individuals composing it miay be called, are insensible to thle
blessings of the form of gove-rnment under which they live, unaware, and ignorant of the indispensable importance of the preservation of the Union to their existence as a nation-forgetful,
basely, ungratefully forgetful, of the heroic struggles and sacrifices of their Revolutionary fathers-deaf and dead to the earnest,
paternal farewell advice and warnings of Washington, lost to all
sense of patriotism, and of public virtue.  And as to the millions
from- other lands, who are now " of us and with us" who have
sought and found shelter and protection, and happiness in our
Temple of Liberty, and who with suchl gallantry have recently
foulght the battles of "The IJUnited States of Anmerica," and who
individually belong, to tlh Democratic or the Republican parties, I cannot believe that these men, whether as individuals
they may be called Democrats or Republicans, will ever consent to the overthrow of that Temple, ol' to the breaking up of
those " United States."  But notwithstanding this perfect colnvictioni of mine, it is nevertheless, as you say, not out of place
foir you or foir me  or for any others who choose to undertake
the task, to "say something that may aid our countrynieni to
form riligt conclusions in these dark alld dangerous" (as you
call them)'" times."'
Tllese words, "dark and dangerous," in tlhe connetion iln
whicl you use them, lead me to say another prelimil)ary word
before coming directly to your argument.
These words assure me, that you belong to that class of men
among  us, not large in number but soineti:ies influential in
position, who, from natural temperament a,(i disposition, or
firom aversion to strife of all kinds, or fi'()m a want of propeo
tl-)preeiattion of the'eal c/haracter of this rebellion, (I thlinkl
chiefly from the latter cause), lhonestly labor under a fearful
distrust or a gloomy foreboding as to the result of the impendimg contest for the preservationi of our glorious government and
of our blessed Union.  I do not bel7ong to that class of'e.   I
do not now believe, fear, nor apprelhend, and never for a mnoment
have believed, feared, or apprehended thlat a crime, such as this
rebellion, a crime against the Almighty and against Ihumniaity,
lwhollv withlout a parallel for enormity in the world's history
an,d the iniquity of wh-ichl can scarcely be expressed in any lan
Ad 
(uage knowvn to us, I do not, I say, believe that such a critne
will be pertnitted to be carried to a successflul end, so long, as
God sittetli o) thle tlhrone judging right," nor until Truth shall
cease to )prevail over error, reason to tritumph over delusion,
-and Right to overcome wrong.*- On thle contrary, I look with a
clear faithl and a cheerful confidence to the termination of this
rebellion at no ieinote period, and to suchl a termination as will
show to an admiring and approving world that thlis government,
c nfessedly tlhe mnost beneficent, is at the sairie tinie the most
firln and endcluring, to be found on eartih.
To proceed to the examination of your aiirgument:
The first observation I have to make is, that tllroughouit yourl
pa)per yoi treat the proclamation substantially as if it were a
I)roelaination of acbsoltute emancipation in the rebel states; that
is, were it szclt a pfroclcmatio2, your arguimient would be'n
8stibscta'ce thle same it now is.
Again, in your copy  of it you entirely oiiinit tl)e clause in
reference to com?.penscitio;; and it will be found that a portion,
and no immaterial portion, of your argument, is based on the
non existence of tl.e co)d7itional and co;)?,I'ensato2'y parts of the
proclamation.   It is very  cleai, that a proper regard to truth
and fairness would have required a conspicuous place in your
paper for thlese two distinguishing features.
Withl these omitted or practically concealed, you could( by no
possibility attain the object you profess, namely, "tile aiding
your countrymen in foirming 9'ight conclusions."
A  fatal erior undellying your whole a,rgumient is, that in
substance and effect you treat and argue this matter I)ecisely
as vou would have done lad there been  no rebellion and no
* In speakling of the cri7)e of this rebellion, the difference in a moral point of
viewv between the leacdivy conafpicator?s and the body of the people of the South engaged in it should carefully be kept in view.  The  formese are to be execrated, the
latter to be pitied; and wchile tlhe practical effects of  the wickedness  of the one
and of the delusions of the othler, combined in action as they are, nre the saine,
yet we are never to cease to draw the moral distiuction just mentioned.   AIny one
who desires to know the secriet and rl eal causes of the Rebellion, the motives and
ends of the arch-conspirators, who originated it, will be gratified and instructed by
a perusal of the article entitled" Slavery and Nobility, os. Democracy," in the July
number, 1862, of the Continental Monthlly.
6 
7
war; had thle country been at peace; had you prepared and
published your views in lNovember, 1859, (if a simlilar proclamation had been then issued). You throw tile veil of oblivion
over the last two years; you ignore the events, that have
occurred during that period and the state of things existing in
the country on the 22d of Septemnber, 1862.
Thoughi you wholly disregard it in your arfgeqmc(t, yet you
forcibly describe the status of the country on the day of its date.
You say, "The war in which we are engaged is a jiust a2zd
~e wessary oar.  It gnust be prosecuted with the whole,force of
this government, till the mzilitary power of the South is broken
and they sub,bit themselves to their duty to obey and our right
to lhave tlhem obey the Constitution of the United States as the
supreme leawN of the land."  You thus affirm that, at the date of
that proclamation, we were and now are engaged in a war, (
just and necessary Fwar-a  war  that nmust be ca)'ried to a
sUitcess-/ul ter2-)inatio  by the exercise of the wholeforceC aCes
power of the government.  You might justly have added, that
it is a war infinitely worse, on the part of the rebels who caused
It, than a war with any foreign nation could be, in its inception; in the miode of its conduct by the rebels; in the motives
of its originators, and the ends sought to be accomplished by itIt was then by necessary consequence a war, in lwhich all the
means —and i-ore than the means-we might legitimnately resort to iz a foreign   war might and ought to be used and rendered available to the utmost practicable extent consistent withl
the rules of civilized warfare'
What, thien, if we were at war with a foreign nation iimmediately on our borders, and that nation had within its bosom mnillions of slaves?  Can any one, versed in the slightest degree in
the principles of the law of nations and the laws of war, for a
moment doubt our i~ght to declare and proclaim freedom to
those slaves, in case that nation did not discontinue that wai
within a prescribed period?
It may be asked what would be the utility, the zratie
of suchi a proclamation?  I answer in your  own words, " I do
not propose to discuss the question whether this proclamation
canl hlave anypractical effect on the unIa2ppy race to whom it
refers, nor wl.at its pyractical consequences would  be on themr 
8
and on the white population of the United States."  You discuss and I discuss simply the constitutional right and power
of the President under existing facts to issue that proclama
tion.
We, in this discussion, are to assume that, in the contingency
stated in it, it will go into actual operation as intended. Then
we are to inquire what the practical effect of its thus going into
actual operation would be, inot on the black nor the white race,
but on the wuar the rebels have declared and are carrying on.
It requires but a very limited knowledge of facts to answer this
inquiry. If any one fact is demonstrated with perfect clearness in this contest thus far, it is, that the slaves in the states in
rebellion have furnished to those states means indispensable to
them for carrying on and sustaining the contest on their part.*
Thousands of illustations of the truth of this statement might be given. Take
this one: On the second day of November, 1862, Gov. Brown, of Georgia, "Commander in Chief," issued this edict:
To the Planters of Georyia:
Since my late appeal to some of you, I am informed by Brig.-Gen. MERcaER, conmanding at Savannah, that but few hands have been tendered. When the impressments made  by Gen. Mercer, some  weeks since, were  loudly  complained of, it
was generally said that, while the planters objected to the principle of impressments, they would promptly furnish all the labor needed, if an appeal were made
to them. I am informed that Gen. Mercer now has ample authority to make impressments. If, then, a sufficient supply of labor is not tendered within ten days
from this date, he will resort immediately to that means of procuring it with my
full sanction, and I doubt not with the sanction of the General Assembly.
After you have been repeatedly notified of the absolute necessity for more labor
to complete the fortifications adjudged by the military authoritiesiin command to
be indispensible to the defence of the key to the State, will you delay action till
you are compelled to contribute means for the protection, not only of all your
slaves, but of your homes, your firesides and your altars?
I will not believe that there was a want of sincerity in your professions of iiberality and patriotism when many of you threatened resistance to impressment upon
principle, and not because you were unwilling to aid the cause with your means.
I renew the call for negroes to complete the fortifications around Savalnnah, and
trust that every planter in Georgia will respond by a prompt tender of one-fifth
of all his working men.
As stated in my former appeal, the General in command will accept the number
actually needed.
JOSEPH E BROWN.
The  Governor, it will be seen, calls for "one-fifth of all the working (slaves)
men." The slave population in Georgia, in 1860, exceeded 462,000; it is not an exaggerated estimate, that one in six of that population is a "working man;" this onesixth is more than 7,000, and one-fifth of that number is upwards of 15,000. The
call is therefore for 15,000 "working men," and this too in a single State, and for
a limited purpose. And yet we have not the right to try to reader unavailable to
the "enemy," this powerful force! 
9
Without the agricultural and domestic labor of the slaves, tens
of thousands of whites, who have been and now are in the
rebel army, could not have been withdrawn fiom  the cultivation of the ground, and the various other pursuits requisite to
the supply, for that whole region, of the actual necessaries of
life. Without the slaves, their numerous  and extensive earthworks, fortifications, and the like, their imnmense transportation
of military stores and munitions, a vast amount of labor in
camps and onI marches (to say nothing of the actual service as
soldiers, said in many instances to  have been rendered  by
slaves), could by no possibility have been accomplished.
The intent and design of the proclamation, its actual effect,
if it hlas its inentfeded operation, is to forever deprive the " enemy?' of this vital, absolutely essential, and, as I have just said,
indispeensable, means  of carrying on  the war.  In reason, in
common sense, in national law, in the law of civilized war,
what objection can exist to oiur using  our power to attain an
end so just, so lawful, and I may say so beneficent, and so humane, as thus depriving our " enemy" of his iieans of warfare?
I do not believe that you, on more mature reflection, will deny
the truth of what I have just stated.
But you say, " grant that we have this power and this right,
they cannot be exercised by the President," and for the exer
cise of this power, he is charged by you with " usurpation."
A few considerations will show the fallacy, the manifest unsoundness and error of your views and arguments onil this point
I mlay, in the first place, remarkl that the very tite of your
pamnplhlet, "'Executive Power," is a " delusion and a snare."
The case does not give rise to the investigation of the Presidenit's' executive poweI."  ThIe word " executive," manifestly
and froiom the whole context of thl)e Constitution, has reference
to the civil power of the President, to his -various civil duties
as the head of the nation, in " seeing that the laws are executed "-to his duties in time of peace, though of course the
same "executive" duties still continue in time of war; but
to themi, in tl1at event, are superadded others, which, in no just
or proper sense, can be termed " executive," but which pertain
to him in, time of war as " Commander-in-Chief.  These latter
duties are provided for by the letter and by the spirit of other 
10
provisions of the Constitution, by the very nature and necessity
of the case, by the first law of nature and of nations, the law of
s _tfpreservation.  What is tlhe meaning and illtent of thle constitutional direction to the Presicldent, "that he shall preserve,
piotect, (and dfentd the Const-itutio),," unless in time of war he
can do so in his capacity of " Commander-in-Chlief," unless in
time of war, he shall have the power to adopt and carry out as
to tAe enemy such measures as thle 7aws of war  justify, and
as he  may  deemn  necessary.   Is  the Constitution designed
to do away these laws, and render them inapplicable to our
nation-in other words, is tlie Constitution a felo  de se? It
cannot be denied, that in tilne of war, at least, the President,
while in a civil sense the " ex ecentive" is at the same time the
militarv head of the nation-" the  Commnander-in-Chlief"and as such  dis 1" command" is necessarily co-extensive witlh the
country.
I cannot, onl tlhis point, quote anything imore true and more
apposite than a parag,ra)h of your own.  "In  time of WCr.
without any specia6  gegislcttion, the (our) Connmndei'-in,Cltdf
is lawfully empowzered by t/,e Constitution, and lasv  of the
Uizited States to do whatever i.s Neeessary a)d is sanctioned by
the laws of wcir to aceompTlis3 thJe lazf it objects of Ihi8 co))2m(tiid."
This is, undoubtedly, the constitutional law of the landl, and
being so, it of necessity upsets acnd overturns all your objections
to'the proclam'ttion in question.  The " lawvful object " of the
President at this mioment  is to preserve the Constitution by
putting an end to this rebellion.   In order to do this, it is
necessary to deprive the rebels of their means of sustaining the
rebellion-one of the most effective and available of those
means, as just shown, is their slaves; the intent and object of
the proclamation are to deprive tlhnem of those means.  The so
depriving, them  " is sanctioned by the laws of war," and, consequently, tlhis act of the President is, within your own  doeti-rine, perfectly leg,al and constitutional.
The same argument which you make  against presidential
power was made in Cross v. I-iarrison, 16 Iloward, 1(4, in tlhe
Supremie C3ourt of the United States, in a ease occurring during,
eud arising out of, our war with Mexico, in the judgment in
which case you, as one Cf the Justices of thlat Court, concurred. 
11
In that case the Piresident, withiout any specific provision in the
Constitution-witlihout  any  law  of  Congress  pre-existing or
adoptedt foib the occasion, created a civil governmient in California, established a war tariff; and (by his agents) collected
duties.  The Court l,eld tlat these acts (to use their own lan
lguage) " were righltful and constitutional, though Congress had
passed no law on the subject;" tflat " tlhose acts of the President wreie tle exercise of a belligerent iy/It; that they were according to tlhe law of ii'?8s and right onl the general pgeinjcples
of Wvctr and peace."  Wlio will allege, that tlhe acts of the President on that occasion w-ele not, to say the least, as unauthorized  )y the Constitution  and the law as his proclamation in
the )present case?  And yet you did not dissent from tihe judg
eint of tlhe Court, you did not speak of those acts as acts of
"LExective "' power, for the term would have been there, as it
is lhere, whlolly inapplicable; you (lid not then charge the Priesildent with usurpation.  The whole case there was, as it is
here, a case arising out of belligerent rilghts and duties, out of a
stcte of wc,t; and the President's acts were there, as he"e, not
in contradiction to, and disparagement of, the Constitutionl, but
consistent therewith, on tlhe great ground thlat tl-he Constitution
nowhere repeals, but, oni tle contrary, fromn the necessities of
its own existenice and preservation, recognlizes the laws of war
in a state of wa7.  Similar autliorities in abundance migh,lt be
cited, l)nt it would be a work of s,pi)cicrrogation.
Ir nlay not be amiss, however, to refei- n th!is connection to
tlhe hlonored name of John Quincy Adams, oi tlle very point
inow in question, namely, the constitutional rigliLt cf t}ie President to issue tAis proclam.ation.
No citizen of this land will deny to -Ir. Adams as perfect aUi
acquaintance with the spirit and nature of our institutions, as
mninute a knowledge of the provisions, expressed andci implied, of
the constitution, and as ardent a desire to preserve them in
tlheir purity, as were ever possessed by any manl living or dead.
He was distinguished, too, for the nmost delicate moral sense,
the purest integrity, a-nd tlhe deepest conscientiousness. I thllinkl
1no man who has taken an official oath ever felt a more earnest
and constant desire on no occasion to violate it.  Now,  Mlr.
Adams, while a inemibei of the IHouse of Representatives, in a 
debate in the House, on an important subject, in April, 1842,
after stating that slavery was abolished in Columbia, first by
the Spanish General  Murillo, and secondly by the American
Generctl Bolivar, by virtue of a n)ilitary comm,ac2d given at the
head of the aren/, and that its abolition continued to this day,
declares that "in a state of actual  wvar the law8 of **ar take
precedence over civil laws and municipal institutions. I lay
this down  as the law of nations.  I say that the military
authority takes for the time the place of all municipal institutions, slavery among the rest, and that under that state of things,
so far from its being true that the States, where slavery exists,
have the exclusive management of thle subject, not only tlhe
President of the United States, but the (subordinate) conmmander of the army has tieepowei to order the ernaiciepatiou of
the slaves."  This is the " true saying" of a great constitutional
lawyer, a pure patriot, a conscientious man —Indeed, I doubt
whl)ether any man in this country, whose position entitles his
opinions to any consideration, will be found to concur in your
views.  They are not adopted-indeed, they are repudiated by
the most prominent leader of the IDemocratic party. Thus, Mr.
John Van BuLren (in a speech  before the Dem-nocratic Union
Association of the city of New York, on the 10thl of Novetuber,
instant) said:  "I never said anything in reference to that pro
clamationt except that it was a matter of questionable expediency.  I have never deemed it ueonzsti,tttioial.  I have never
even asserted that, as a wactr qzeasu2e it might not lhave been
expedient."  It would seemi idle to add more in demonstration
of the clear, unquestionable power' of the President (I may say,
of his solemn dvty) "as commander in chief," in the exercise
of a militaiy power,; during a state of war," to issue the proclamation in question.
The ground of objection you most prominently put forth is,
indeed, extraordinary, and, without offence I trust I may say,
monstroulls.  It is no more nor less than this: " The persons who
are the subjects of this proclamation are held to service by the
7aw8 of the States in which they reside, enacted by State authority."  "This proclamation by an executive decree proposes to
repeat and annul valid State laws, which iregulate the domestic
relations of their people," and this " as a punishmenlt against
12 
13
the entire people of a State by reason of the criminal conduct
of a governing mqjority of its people."  Never was more error,
gross, palpable, grievous, found in a single brief paragraph.
tarik the existing state of things.  These " States" are each
and every of them in rebellion against their country and their
Government; they are waging against it the most bloody and
relentless war; they totally condemn  and  repudiate the constitution of their country; they deny that it has any, the least,
authoriity over them; they are making almost superhuman
efforts to overthrow and destroy it; the people, as individuals,
and the States in their corporate, municipal capacities go hand
in hand together in this awful work, and yet you claim foi
them the protection of that very constitution; you claim the
inviolability of their Statg laws under that constitution.  You
claim that those laws are "valid" and operative, and are to
shield arid protect, aid and assist them  in their unhallowed
attempt to destroy their country!!  It is difficult to imagine
under what hallucination you were laboring when you gave
utterance to those sentiments.  The bare statement of the case
must carry to every sane mind, North  and South, the instant
refutation of your propositions.  The very rebels themselves,
to wlhon you offer the protection of the " constitution," would,
with wrathful indignation, spurn the offer.
You speak of the proclamation as a "threatened penalty "
as "a punishment to the entire people of a state........    by
reason of the criminal conduct of a governing majority of the
people."
I lhave already shown, satisfactorily I trust, that the act of
the President partakes in no sense of the character of a "pen.
alty " or " a punishment," but is simply the exercise of his constitutional power, in a time of war, to devise and adopt anrid carry
out against the enemy suchl measures as he may judge to be for
the good of his country; for the defeat of that enemy, anrid for
the successful and speedy ending of "the war."  You draw a
distinction, unheard of, I imagine, till announced by you, a distinction between the "people of a State," and the "governing
majority " of that people; a distinction, too. which is to operate,
in t   time war, against the party with whloni that "State"
is at war!! I venture to say, that no writer on the law of na 
14
tions, no judicial tribunal, no intelligent  iani, has up to tlhis
lour, believedc or stated that, in the case of fobreign war above
supposed, the " governing  nmajority " was nriot to all legal an(d
all practical purposes, "the State."  Were the United States at
vwar witli any foreign power-a war sanctioned by the "governing majority," (as our war of 1812,) but a war whiichl  you
and others (a minority) wholly disapproved; and that foreign
powerl adopted some war mreasure which would operate on " the
entire people," of the United States, could you and your associates of the minority, or any principle of law, military or civil,
of justice, of reason, or of mercy, claim exemption fiom  the
effects of that measure?  The case supposed is precisely the
case as it nowv exists between the " United States of America"
on the one hand, and the "Rebel States and people," on  the
other.
Again), you state as a, serious, if not conclusive objection to
tle proclamation, that "it is on the slaves of loyal persons or of
tlhose who from their teiider years, or other disability, cannot
be either disloyal or otherwise, that the proclamation is to o0)erate."  Have your countrymen at tlhis hour, to learn for the
first time, that the " sun shiines alike on the just and on the unjust," that storms and whirlwind overwhelm at the sane time
thie righteous and the wicked and that the calamities of war,
fi-om the very necessity of the case, fall indiscriminately on the
innocent and the guilty, the strong and tlhe helpless, on those
of mature and those of" tender years?"  But as to this last objection, it lacks one material quality, namely, foundation in fact.
That part of the proclamation, whlichl you have so strangely, as
observed above, omitted, provides for the case of the very persoIns for whlom your sympathies are excited. It pledges to tlienm
compensation.  I say "pledges," for it declares "that tile Executive will in due time recommend that all persons wlho have
remained loyal, (of course including in its spirit tlhose who
from tender years, or otherwise were incapable of being, disloyal,) shall be comlpensated for all losses by acts of tlhe United
States, including the loss ofslaves8."  No future Congress of the
United States will be so lost to all sense of honor and obligation
as not to pass, and no future President so degraded as not to 
15
approve, a bill redeeuingi this solemn and sacred " pledge" of
the Ilead of thle nation.
Again, you advert in no part of your argument, to the vital
fact that this proclamatioll is not absolute and unconditional,
but that it depends even for its existence ])racticilly on the acts
and will of the rebels themnselves.  If they so elect, it is never
to go into opercition, and they have abunldant time to make
that election, namely, firom the 22d of September, 1S62, to the
1st day of Janualry, 1863.  But your argumtent, in cll its ~sse8ztial particugar, would ihave been just the same as you now
address it to your fellow-citizens, if this proclamation had been
absolute, had declared universal emancipation, to go into effect
on the day of its date, and (as already remarked) had Inot provided compensation to the loyal, and had been issued in a timne
of prof(lund peace.
You profess, in your argument, siInplvy to examine "the nature and extent, anld the asserted source of the power h)y whicil
it is claimed that the issuing of this ploclaination was autihorized;" and it was " for the purpose of saying sometllil  to your
countrymen to aid them in foirmintg right coneclusions," that youl
"reluctantly addressed thlem."  TIhe policy, the expediency,
the utility tile practical efl'ects, per se, of the l)roclatmation, youl
say, you do not "propose to discuss," yet you intimcte, that by
means of this proclamnation, if executed, " scenes of bloodsihed
and worse thlan bloodshed are to be passed tlilrougil," and yout
express, in no unequivocal manner, a doubt "as to the lawfulness, in any Christian or civilized land, of the use of such mneans
(that is, this proclamation) to attain any end."  You intimate,
too, that "a servile war is to be invoked to help twenty millions
of thie white race to assert the rightful authority of the Constitution and laws of their country."  All these direful forebodings are put forthl in half a dozen lines, certainly not to "aid
your fellow citizens in forming right conclusions," but through
their sympathies and their fears to induce the concurrence of
their reason in your views as to the power to do the act in
question.  These "givings  out" of yours  require  a passing
notice.
In the first place, whlere is your authority for the allegations
as to "scenes of bloodshed and  a servile war?"  I am not an 
16
abolitionist, nor a believer in the social andpolitical equality
of the black and white races (thoulgh I have an opinion on the
subject of the effect of the institution of slavery on the white
man and white woman, who  have been  nurtured  under  its
influence, and on the question of the compatability of tIhe
institution with a republican form of government). I amn even
called by some a pro-slavery man.  Yet I see no " scenes of
bloodshed," no "servile war," in the event of the practical
carrying out of this proclamation.  This, however, is a miere
matter of speculation and opinion, and while I freely concede
your right to entertain your own, I claim my right to entertain
mine.  Our means of forming, our opinions are the same; we
both have the same lights, and the result alone can show which
of us is right.
But, in the next place, assuming the consequences to be just
such as you imagine, who is responsible for those consequences?
They cannot come, as you will admit, if the rebels return to
thei,r atllegiance; if they cease their unhallowed efforts to overthrow their government; if they become dutiful citizens. If
they do not, it is not your fault nor mine, nor that of our fellowcitizens, nor of the President, nor of the government of the
United States-it is solely, wholly, unquestionably, their own.
Again, you look with evident heartfelt horror at the events
which you thus contemplate. Have you no horror, no tears of
sympathy, no' bowels of compassion," when you reflect on the
multitudes, the thousands of valuable loyal lives lost, homes
grlief-stricken, parents rendered childless, and children rendered
orphans; the desolation and misery of whole neighborhoods, to
say nothing of the enormous material destruction caused to citizeus of thle loyal states in this war-a war on our part, as you
say, "so just and necessary," and on the part of the rebels so
wicked, so wanton, so utterly causeless, and so wholly unjustifiable. Though no man of humanity could look with other
than deep distress on the "scenes of bloodshed," and the "servile war," you imagine (should they become realities), surely it
cannot be believed, that the amount of distress and suffering,
that would thus ensue, would equal-it surely cannot surpassthe distress and suffering that have already been endured by 
the loyal citizens of this repnublic in consequence of this rebel lion.
You  doubt the   la\fuil,.iess," inr this Cliristian and  civil ized land, of ~7e use of such lmeans (as this proclamation) to
attain,,2zy end.  And hIas it cone to thlis, that a distinguished
citizen of the repulie doubts, whetlher a proclamation  emanci1)patinc tle slaves in those State~s, which shall be in rebellion on
1the first of Jantay-T next, may not be "; used as the means" " to
attaiu the end" (gran'ting tuiat iR may  1hereby be attained) of
ending thlis war of rebellion, andI thus of saving our Constitution, our governmeni  or e      n * sion, and of still preserving  for
ourselves  ancl tf- comingi genei-ations, here and( elsewhere, the
onlly renI Tq 1P}-    of civil and  ielgious liberty in which  men
ca w  olr shi p on  earth.  You speakl  of' lawfulness" in  this
cOnnilctiol  ratheri n p,zo.,7 tl~,tin in any other sense; the right
endI poleOr in Cb 7-,,;    i   co   i,t,titoni   seo2 sea, to issue this
.proelamat~ ion  has.l:_'.   e,y b leei - d iemonstrated.
In a docuimntL intended,    after study and  reflection," " to
aid the ci,zon, of tlis r epnublic to form a right conclusion" on
matte,rs  of suriasr si)n     magnoiitudcle and solemnity-matters imperilling their. very  ibertie, as yon state, a religious, scrupuloes reg,ard to tiruLth in every material respect,  was, of course,
to be expected, and departure from  truth may consist as well
in omission and supipresion as in direct assertion.   I have al'eady wentioned   th.at you have  vwholly omitted, in the statement of the proclamnation, the compensatory part, and that you
onit to bring forward, except merely incidentally, another most
material Ipart of it, inaon,..y, its conditional,  cl7tern(atve character.
Whethe.r youLr statemeni: t as to the " social condition of nine
millions of men," lles reference to both white and black, or to
thel white only, it is difficult to  determine fromn the context; if
it has reference to the white, you commit a very serious error
for the vwhlole    ite population  of thlc rebel states (to wvhichl
alone the proclamation and your argumient relate), according to
the last census  (1860)), dcoes not exceed  four and one half
nillions.
In qtuoting the opinion of ttheC lamented  Judge Woodbury,
you omit to state that it was a dissenting opinion, concurred in
2C
l
T,
I 
is
by no other Judge, founded essentially, if not solely, on the
fact assumed by him, that at the time, in question in that case,
"a state of war " did not exist ill Rhode Island, where the
matter arose.  In so grave a paper prepared, as you assert, so
deliberately, put forth under an imperative  and resistless imr
pulse of patriotic apprehension that the liberties of the country
were in imminent peril, (not from the rebellion, but from the
acts of the President, designed to crtushl the rebellion), in such
a paper, I say, it would seem that we ought not to be terrified
by  " portentous clouds,"  " gigantic  shadows,"  the phrase
" usurpation of power," often repeated, the " loss of his head
by Charles I." "seven hundred years of struggles against arbitrary power," and many other similar appeals, by modes of expression, to,mnythiig but.that eoalrb reason  which enables us to
" form right conclusions in dark and dangerous times."  Much
less in suc. a grave document from such a source, should important stress be laid on the expression, of anl unnamed and
irresponsible editor of a newspaper,-c that nobody pretends
that this act is constitutional, and nobody cares whether it is or
not." That this editor was at least a very inferior constitutional lawyer, is very clear, and that this text from his paper
should have furnished a peg, on which to hang an alarming
commentary on the "lawlessness" of the times, is at least extraordinary, and that lawlessness too, not the lawlessness of
rebels nor of rebel syi~)cet/i-zers.
You ask, in view of the President's proclamation, " Who can
imagine what is to come out of this great and desperate struggle?  The military power of eleven of these states being des,
troyed, what then?  What  is to be their condition? What is
to be our condition?"
Your questions admit of a ready answer. The Unitel States of
Amnerica are to come out of the struggle, a great, a united, a
powerful, a free people, purified by the fires of adversity, and
taught by their tremendous calamities the lessons of moderation and humility. The people of the rebel 8tates, who choose to
remain in theim, are to come out of the struggle as citizens of
states forming a part, as heretofore, of the United States, and
with them, and as parts of them, they are in future to enjoy
the blessings of a well regulated liberty, they having, in the
I
i 
19
mean time been taught a lesson of infinitely greater severity
than that by which their brethren of the loyal states have been
instructed.  Whatever they have necessarily and legitimately
lost in material things, by reason of the war they have waged,
is, of course, lost to them forever; if their slave property is
thus lost, it is lost, and that is all that can be said as to that.
Then' their condition" and' our condition" is to be in substance just what it was before the rebellion, and what it would
have continued to be but for the rebellion, with this only difference, that they and we will hleave learned the priceless value of
the Union, and for generations to come treason and rebellion
will not raise their horrid heads.
Perhaps you may call this the dream of an enthusiast. Rely
on it, I speak only the words of " truth and soberness;" and if
you are spared for a brief period, you will be rejoiced, I trust,
to witness their full realization.  I?joiced, I say, because from
your pamphlet, you would have your countrymen infer, and I
am bound to presume, that nothing but your intense love of
your and their country and your agitating apprehensions that
the "principles of liberty" are greviously to suffer (not from the
9ebetlio?b but from the acts of t/Je Presic7ent), has induced you
to address them.
You say the " cry of disloyalty" has been raised against any
one who should question these executive acts.  I know not
whlether that epithet has been applied to you; if it has been, I
am bound to believe that the imputation was without cause,
and that you are a faithful, loyal citizen of the Republic.  But
the greatest and the best are liable to err, and I may be permitted to say, that, however honestly and sincerely you entertain
the sentiments you express, you have selected an inopportune
mioment for their expression; and that at this particular period
of our country's history, your " studies and reflections," your
time and your efforts, would, to say the least, have been more
benignly and gracefully employed in presenting to your countrymen a life-like picture of the rec,t character of this rebellion,
and in impressing on them with stirring and glowing eloquence
the momentous duty it devolved on them   You could, with
perfect verity) have told them, that this war, inaugurated by the
rebel States, was wholly anl absolutely  vitl?out caese'    in proof 
O20
of that assertion,, you could hlave stated thiree facts, so undeniable that the hardiest rebel, not bereft of reason, would not dispulte tllhem,
First.-TlThat on the 1st day of November, 1S60O, no people on
the globe were in the more perfect enjovment of civil and religious liberty, of social, personal, anld domnestic security; of
mnore entire protection in the poss.essien and use of all their
property, of every inc/; and of more- maoterial prosperity, tlhan
the people of the eleven rebel States.
Secoi(zc7.-That for all thlese blessiigs, as great as were ever
vouchsafed by Godl to man, thlose peo)ple were indebted entirely
to that Constitutio  and( thlat  nIon ii   i,1 tei  relon  -as
undertaken to destiroy.
.Thirc7. —'lhat from the cday of the organization of the Government under that Constitution, in the year 1IS9, down to the day
when this rebellion began its infao ns and unhlallowed work,
there never had been, on tie part of that Government, a single
act of hostility, nor eve(n of u:ikindne:,: tow. rd ti'ese States or
their people.
You should then hlave pointed out to youtr' countrymen,," i,
lang,uage more persuasive and emphlatic tlhan I can use, their
solemn and imperative duty as patriots, as christians, and as
men, in this hour of their country's suffering and peril  and-cl you
should have told themi that if these times are, as you say, " dark
and dangerous," this darkness and this danger have been caused
by the wicked acts of th-ese rebellious men. In such ani address
to your coulitrymeli, your dedicatio,n would have  ben  not
merely'" To all persons lwho hiave sworn to) supp)ort the Constitution of the JUnited States, and to all citizens twho Yalue tlhe
principles of civil liberty which ti]at Constitution embodies, and
for the preservation of which it is our only security>" but also,
"to all persons who abhlor treason and rebellion against that
Constitution, and to all vlwho prize the inestimrable blessings of
our hlallowed Union, and to all vwho lHold dear the:farewell
words of the Father of his country.;" 
21
I had intended, in this letter, to comment on that part of
your pamphlet which relates to the President's proclamation of
the 24th of September, 1S62, but this paper is already sufficiently extended. It would, I think, be easy to show that the
dreadful dangers you apprehend are, in truth, to use your own
te.rms, "' portentous clouds" and " gigantic shadows" of your
own creation.  At any rate you may rest assured, if you and I
and all others of our fellow citizens, outside of the rebel states,
shlall make honest, earnest, determined efforts for the putting
an effective end to this rebellion (and that such will be the case
I, loving my country and knowing the unspeacabge vwue of te
stake, have no right nor reason to doubt), those efforts will be
crowned with speedy and triumphant success, peace and harmony will be restored to the republic, the " principles of civil
liberty" will not have suffered, and the bugbears of "usurpation," "arbitrary power," and other similar chimeras, which
excited imaginations and gloomy tempers have evoked, will disappear forever.
Hald you been an unknown and obscure citizen, any notice
of your pamphlet would have been supererogatory; but because of the influence calculated to be exerted by anything
coming firom the pen of one who had but recently been the
incumbent of the highest office in the gift of the Government,
and who is now in the exalted walks of social and professional
life, I have deemed it my duty to present these views of your
argument, and thus " possibly. to aid imyi  countrymen" in
forming right conclusions " as to its merits and the merits of
the siubject of which it treats.
I hear that others have published answers to your paper
Not having seen any of them, I know not but that I may have
merely repeated their views; if so, no harm is done; if I have
presented any that are new, "possibly" some good may result.
\ew Yorlk, l'\ov. 28th, 1862.
CHARLES P. IKIRKLAND.