SPEECH 
 
 HON. LYMAN TRUMBULL, 
 
 OF ILLINOIS, 
 
 ■ON 
 
 AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION 
 TO PROHIBIT SLAVERY. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 28, 1864, 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the following joint resolution, proposed by the 
 €ommittee on the Judiciary for amending the Constitution: 
 
 M Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
 in Congress assembled , (two thirds ot both Houses concurring,) That the following article be 
 proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the 
 United States, which when ratified by three fourths of said Leislatures, shall be valid, to all 
 intents and purposes, as a part of the said Constitution, namely: 
 
 Article XIII. 
 
 Seo 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereoj 
 the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any plaee 
 subject to their jurisdiction 
 
 Sec. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” 
 
 Mr. TRUMBULL said: 
 
 Mr. President: As the organ of the Committee on the Ju¬ 
 diciary which has reported this resolution to the Senate, I 
 desire to present briefly some of the considerations which in¬ 
 duced me, at least, to give it my support. It is a proposition 
 so to amend the Constitution of the United States as forever 
 to prohibit slavery within its jurisdiction, and authorize the 
 Congress of the United States to pass such laws as may be 
 necessary to carry this provision into effect. 
 
 Without stopping to inquire into all the causes of our 
 troubles, and of the distress, desolation, and death which have 
 grown out of this atrocious rebellion, I suppose it will be gen¬ 
 erally admitted that they sprung from slavery. If a large 
 political party in the North attribute these troubles to the 
 impertinent interference of northern philanthopists and fanat¬ 
 ics with an institution in the southern States with which they 
 had no right to interfere, I reply, if there had been no such 
 institution there could have been no such alleged impertinent 
 interference; if there had been no slavery in the South, there 
 could have been no abolitionists in the North to inter¬ 
 fere with it. If, upon the other hand, it be said that this re¬ 
 bellion grew out of the attempt on the part of those in the 
 interest of slavery to govern this country so as to perpetuate 
 and increase the slaveliolding power, and failing in this that 
 
2 
 
 they have endeavored to overthow the Government and set' 
 np an empire of their own, founded upon slavery as its chief 
 corne-stone, I reply, if there had been no slavery there could 
 have been no such foundation on which to build. If the free¬ 
 dom of speech and of the press, so dear to freemen everywhere, 
 and especially cherished in this time of war by a large party 
 in the North who are now opposed to interfering with slavery, 
 has been denied us all our lives in one. half of the States of 
 the Union, it was by reason of slavery. 
 
 If these Halls have resounded from our earliest recollections 
 with the strifes and contests of sections, ending sometimes in 
 blood, it was slavery which almost always occasioned them. 
 No superficial observer, even, of our history North or South, 
 or of any party, can doubt that slavery lies at the bottom of 
 our present troubles. Our fathers who made the Constitution 
 regarded it as an evil, and looked forward to its early extinc¬ 
 tion. They felt the inconsistency of their position, while pro¬ 
 claiming the equal rights of all to life, liberty, and happiness, 
 they denied liberty, happiness, and life itself to a whole race, 
 except in subordination to them. It was impossible, in the 
 nature of things, that a Government based on such antagonis¬ 
 tic principles could permanently and peacefully endure, nor 
 did its founders expect it would. They looked forward to the 
 not distant, nor as they supposed uncertain period when sla¬ 
 very should be abolished, and The Government become in fact, 
 what they made it name, one securing the blessings of liberty 
 to all. The history of the last seventy years has proved that 
 the founders of the Republic were mistaken in their expecta¬ 
 tions ; and slavery, so far from gradually disappearing as they 
 had anticipated, had so strengthened itself that in 1860 its 
 advocates demanded the control of the nation in its interests, 
 failing in which they attempted its overthrow. This attempt 
 brought into hostile collision the slaveholding aristocracy, 
 who made the right to live by the toil of others the chief ar¬ 
 ticle of their faith, and the free laboring masses of the North, 
 who believed in the right of every man to eat the bread his 
 own hands had earned. 
 
 In the earlier stages of the war there was an indisposition 
 to the part of the executive authority to interfere with slavery 
 at all. For a long time slaves who escaped from their rebel 
 owners and came within our lines were driven back. Con¬ 
 gress, however, at an early day took action upon this subject, 
 and at the very first session which met after the rebellion 
 broke out, the special session of July, 1861 , a law was passed 
 declaring free all slaves who were permitted by their masters 
 no take any part in the rebellion. Under the provisions of 
 that act, had it been efficiently executed, a great many slaves 
 must necessarily have obtained their freedom. The constitu¬ 
 tionality of the act would seem to be clear. I do not suppose 
 that even my honorable friend from Kentucky [Mr. Davis] 
 
would deny the proposition that if we captured a slave en¬ 
 gaged, by consent of his master, in constructing rebel works 
 and fortifications, we might set him free. 
 
 This act, however, lias no.t been executed. So far as I am 
 advised not a single slave has been set at liberty under it. 
 Subsequently, at the regular session of Congress which con¬ 
 vened in December, 1861, an act of a more comprehensive 
 character was passed—a law providing for the freedom of ail 
 slaves who should come within the lines of our armies, who 
 should be deserted by their masters, or who should be foufrd 
 in regions of country which had been occupied by rebel troops 
 and afterwards came within our possession, and who belonged 
 to rebel masters. It is under the provisions of this law that 
 most of the slaves made free have been emancipated. This 
 act also authorized the President of the United States to or¬ 
 ganize and employ as many persons of African descent as he 
 should think proper to aid in the suppression of the rebellion. 
 But it was a long time before this law was put in operation. 
 Although it was an act called for by the public sentiment of 
 the country, and although it was the duty of those charged 
 with the execution of the laws to see that it was faithfully ex¬ 
 ecuted, it was more than a year after its enactment before any 
 considerable number of persons of African descent were or¬ 
 ganized and armed; and even at this day a much smaller num¬ 
 ber are in the service than would have been by an efficient 
 execution of the law. It was not until after the passage of 
 this act that our officers, especially in the West, ceased to 
 expel slaves who came within the lines of our army; and so 
 persistently was this practice persevered in that Congress had 
 to interfere by positive enactment, and declare that any officer 
 of the Army or Navy who aided in restoring a slave to his 
 master should be dismissed from the public service, before it 
 could be stopped. 
 
 But, sir, had these laws, all of them, been efficiently exe¬ 
 cuted they would not wholly have extirpated slavery. They 
 were only aimed at the slaves of rebels. Congress never un¬ 
 dertook to free the slaves of royal men ; no act has ever passed 
 for that purpose. 
 
 At a later period, the President by proclamation undertook 
 to free the slaves in certain localities. Notice of this procla¬ 
 mation was given in September, 1862, and it was to become 
 effective in January, 1863. Unlike the acts of Congess, which 
 undertook to free the slaves of rebels only, and of such as 
 came under our control,, the President’s proclamation excepted 
 from its provisions the regions of country subject to our au¬ 
 thority, and declared free the slaves only who were in regions 
 of country from which the authority of the United States was 
 expelled, enjoining upon the persons proposed to be made free 
 to abstain from all violence unless in necessary self-defense, 
 and recommending them in all cases, when allowed, to labor 
 faithfully for reasonable wages. 
 
4 
 
 The force and effect of this proclamation are understood 
 very differently by its advocates and opponents. The former 
 insist, that it is and was within the constitutional power of the 
 President, as Commander-in-Chief, to issue such a proclama¬ 
 tion ; that it is the noblest act of his life or the age; and that 
 by virtue of its provisions all slaves within the localities des¬ 
 ignated become ipso facto free; while others declare that it 
 was issued without competent authority, and has not and can¬ 
 not effect the emancipation of a single slave. These latter 
 insist that the most the President could do, as commander of 
 the armies of the United States, would be, in the absence of 
 legislation, to seize and free the slaves which came within 
 the control of the Army; that the power exercised by a com¬ 
 mander-in-chief, as such, must be a power exercised in fact, 
 and that beyond his lines where his armies cannot go his or¬ 
 ders are mere brutum fulmen, and can neither work a forfeit¬ 
 ure of property nor freedom of slaves; that the power of 
 Fremont and Hunter, commanders-in-chief for a certain time 
 in their departments, who assumed to free the slaves within 
 their respective commands, was just as effective within the 
 boundaries of their commands as that of the commander-in- 
 Chief of all the departments, who as commander could not 
 draw to himself any of his presidential powers; and that nei¬ 
 ther had or could have any force except within the lines and 
 where the Army actually had the power to execute the order; 
 that to that extent the previous acts of Congress would free 
 the slaves of rebels, and if the President’s proclamation had 
 any effect it would only be to free the slaves of loyal men, for 
 which the laws of the land did not provide. I will not un¬ 
 dertake to say which of these opinions is correct, nor is it 
 necessary for my purposes to decide. It is enough for me to 
 show that any and all these laws and proclamations, giving 
 to each the largest effect claimed by its friends, are ineffectual 
 to the destruction of slavery. The laws of Congress if faith¬ 
 fully executed would leave remaining the slaves belonging to 
 loyal masters, which, considering how many are held by chil¬ 
 dren and females not engaged in the rebellion, would be no 
 inconsiderable number, and the President’s proclamation ex¬ 
 cepts from its provisions all of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, 
 Tennessee, Missouri, and a good portion of Louisiana and Vir¬ 
 ginia—almost half the slave States. 
 
 If, then, we are to get rid of the institution, we must have 
 some more efficient way of doing it than by the proclamations 
 that have been issued or the acts of Congress which have been 
 passed. 
 
 Some, however, say that we may pass an act of Congress to 
 abolish slavery altogether, and petitions are sent to Congress 
 asking it to pass such a law. I am as anxious to get rid of 
 slavery as any person ; but has Congress authority to pass such 
 a law abolishing slavery everywhere, freeing the slaves of the 
 loyal, the slaves of the friends of the Government as well as 
 
the slaves of the disloyal and of the enemies of the Govern¬ 
 ment. Why, sir, it has been an admitted axiom from the 
 foundation of this Government, among all parties, that Con¬ 
 gress had no authority to interfere with slavery in the States 
 where it existed. But it is said this was in a time of peace, 
 and we are now at war, and Congress has authority to carry 
 .on war, and carrying on war may free the slaves. Why so ? 
 Because it is necessary; for no other reason. If we can do 
 it by act of Congress, it must be because it is a necessity to 
 the prosecution of the war. We have authority to put down 
 the enemies of the country ; we have the right to slay them in 
 battle; we have authority to confiscate their property ; but, 
 mark you, does that give any authority to slay the friends of 
 the country, to confiscate the property of the friends of the 
 country, or to free the slaves of the friends .of the country ? 
 
 But it is said that freeing slaves would aid us in raising 
 troops; that slaves are unwilling to volunteer and enter the 
 public service unless other slaves are made free, and that we 
 could raise troops better, sooner, and have a more efficient 
 army if slavery were declared abolished. Suppose that were 
 so, is it a necessity? Can we not raise an army without doing 
 this? Has not the Congress of the United States unlimited 
 authority to provide for the raising of armies by draft, by 
 force to put any and every man capable of bearing arms into 
 its service ? Have we not already passed a law compelling 
 men to enter the service of the Government in its defense and 
 for the putting down this rebellion? Then there is no neces¬ 
 sity to free the slaves in order to raise an army. 
 
 But it is a convenience, perhaps some will say. Sir, it is 
 not because a measure would be convenient that Congress has 
 authority to adopt it. The measure must be appropriate and 
 needful to carry into effect some granted power, or we have 
 no authority to adopt it. I can imagine a thousand things that 
 would aid us to raise troops which no one would contend Con¬ 
 gress had authority to do. We now find that it is costing us a 
 large sum of money to carry on this war. There are appre¬ 
 hensions in some quarters that the finances of the country will 
 not be sufficient to prosecute it to the end. A measure that 
 would enable us to carry on the war cheaper would certainly 
 be one in aid or this war power. In consequence of the pros¬ 
 perity which prevails in the country wages at this time are 
 very high. Men are unwilling to enlist without large boun¬ 
 ties and large pay, because they get high wages at home. 
 Suppose we introduce a bill that no man shall be paid in any 
 manufacturing establishment, at any mechanic art, or for his 
 daily labor, more than ten cents a day, and we visit with pen¬ 
 alties and punishment any man who shall give to his employe 
 more than that sum, do you not think that would hold out 
 an additional inducement to volunteer ? But who would con¬ 
 tend that Congress had any such authority ? Manifestly it 
 
 % 
 
6 
 
 has not. jS or can I find the constitutional authority to abolish 
 slavery everywhere by act of Congress as a necessity to prose¬ 
 cuting the war. 
 
 Then, sir, in my judgment, the only effectual way of rid¬ 
 ding the country of slavery, and so that it cannot be resus¬ 
 citated, is by an amendment of the Constitution forever pro¬ 
 hibiting it within the jurisdiction of the United States. This 
 amendment adopted, not only does slavery cease, but it can 
 never be re-established by State authority, or in any other way 
 than by again amending the Constitution. Whereas, if slavery 
 should now be abolished by act of Congress or proclamation 
 of the President, assuming that either has the power to do 
 it, there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent any State 
 from re-establishing it. This change of the Constitution will 
 also relieve us of all difficulty in the restoration to the Union 
 of the rebel States when our brave soldiers shall have reduced 
 them to obedience to the laws. 
 
 To secure its passage requires, in the first instance, a vote 
 of two-thirds in its favor in each branch of Congress, and its 
 ratification subsequently by three-fourths of the States of the 
 Union. Can these majorities be obtained? It is very gene¬ 
 rally conceded, I believe, by men of all political parties, that 
 slavery is wrong ; and that its value to the master is destroyed 
 by the rebellion. What objection, then, can there be on the 
 part of any one, in the present state of public feeling in the 
 country, to giving the people an opportunity to pass upon 
 this question ? I would appeal to Senators upon the opposite 
 side of the Chamber, and ask what objection they have to sub¬ 
 mitting this question to the people and letting them pass upon 
 it ? Do any of you deny that slavery lies at the bottom of this 
 rebellion ? Do you believe that we should have had this ter¬ 
 rible war upon us had there been no slavery in the land ? I 
 trust I do not assume too much when I assume that it will re¬ 
 ceive the requisite vote of two-thirds of each branch of Con¬ 
 
 gress. 
 
 Having obtained that, the question then arises, is it prob¬ 
 able that it can have the ratification of three-fourths of the 
 States ? We have now thirtv-tive States, and bills have passed 
 both branches of Congress and been approved by the Presi¬ 
 dent, for the creation of two more, Colorado and Nevada, 
 which will make thirty-seven. When these States are ad¬ 
 mitted, it will require the concurring vote of twenty-eight 
 States in order to adopt this amendment. 
 
 If Nebraska should be admitted, for the admission of which 
 a bill is now pending, that would make the number of States 
 thirty-eight, and the votes of twenty-nine States would then 
 be requisite to adopt the amendment. But the admission of 
 Nebraska would not probably affect the result, as, if admitted, 
 she would most probably vote for the amendment. 
 
 Of the thirty-seven States, twenty-one are tree States, in- 
 
 \ 7 & 
 
 
 I 
 
1 
 
 eluding Colorado and Nevada, and I assume that all those 
 States would vote tor this constitutional amendment. There 
 are, then, the States of Maryland, West Virginia, Missouri, 
 Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisiana, all of which have taken 
 initiary steps for the abolition of slavery within their borders. 
 Those six added to the twenty-one free States would make 
 twenty-seven. Then there is the State of Delaware, with 
 hardly slaves enough in it to count, which would be left 
 standing alone with free States all around her, and could not 
 long resist a measure which would forever give peace on this 
 question. 
 
 I have assumed that all the free States will adopt the amend¬ 
 ment. It is now very generally conceded that slavery is not 
 a divine institution. The few in the Northern or free States 
 who attempt to uphold it do so on constitutional grounds, 
 denying the authority of the Government to interfere with it; 
 but none of these persons deny or can deny the power of the 
 people to amend the Constitution in the mode prescribed by 
 the instrument itself. If, then, they shall oppose an amend¬ 
 ment for the abolition of slavery, it will not be because to 
 abolish it in that form is unconstitutional, but because it is not 
 right, or if right, not expedient. Who in this enlightened 
 day and age can undertake to maintain the natural and ab¬ 
 stract right of one man to hold another in bondage ; or, who 
 in view of the desolation, suffering, and death slavery has 
 already brought upon the land, can think it expedient longer 
 to continue it? 
 
 I think, then, it is reasonable to suppose that if this pro¬ 
 posed amendment passes Congress, it will within a year re¬ 
 ceive the ratification of the requisite number of States to 
 make it a part of the Constitution. That accomplished, and 
 we are forever treed of this troublesome question. We ac¬ 
 complish then what the statesmen of this country have been 
 struggling to accomplish for years. We take this question 
 entirely away from the.politics of the country. We relieve 
 Congress of sectional strifes, and, what is better than all, we 
 restore to a whole race that freedom which is theirs by the 
 gift of God, but which we for generations have wickedly 
 denied them. 
 
 I know that the passage of this measure will not end this 
 rebellion. I do not claim that for it. There is but one way 
 to do that; and that is by the power of our brave soldiers. 
 We can never have the Union restored, the authoritv of the 
 Constitution recognized, and its laws obeyed and respected, 
 until our armies shall overcome and vanquish the rebel armies. 
 We must look to our soldiers, to our patriotic Army, to put 
 down the rebellion. But, sir, when they shall have accom¬ 
 plished that, this measure will secure to us future peace. That 
 is what I claim for it. I trust that witliiu a year, in less time 
 than it will take to make this constitutional amendment effec- 
 
8 
 
 tive, our armies will have put to flight the rebel armies. I think 
 it ought long ago to have been done ; and I think but for the 
 indecision, the irresolution, the want of plan, and the scatter¬ 
 ing of our forces, it would have been done long ago. Hun¬ 
 dreds of millions of treasure and a hundred thousand lives 
 would have been saved had the power of this Republic been 
 concentrated under one mind and hurled in masses upon the 
 main rebel armies. This is wfliat our patriotic soldiers have 
 wanted, and what I trust is now soon to be done. 
 
 But instead of looking back and mourning over the errors 
 of the past, let us remember them only for the lesson they 
 teach for the future. Forgetting the things which are past, let 
 us press forward to the accomplishment of wfliat is before. 
 We have at last placed at the head of our armies a man in 
 whom the country has confidence, a man who has won victo¬ 
 ries wherever he has been, and I trust that his mind is to be 
 permitted uninterfered with to unite our forces, never before 
 so formidable as to-day, in one or two grand armies and hurl 
 them upon the rebel force. Let him put to flight the main 
 rebel army which has threatened the capital for the last three 
 years, and the small rebel armies will quickly succumb. I 
 look for that result during the coming campaign, and with 
 that result, if we civilians do our duty, we shall have the au¬ 
 thority of the Constitution vindicated, constitutional liberty 
 re-established, the Union restored, and freedom everywhere 
 proclaimed. 
 
 SPEECHES AND DOCUMENTS FOR DISTRIBUTION BY 
 THE UNION CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE. 
 
 Abraham Lincoln—“Slavery and its issues indicated by his Speeches, Letters 
 Messages, and Proclamations.” 
 
 Hon. Isaac N. Arnold—“ Reconstruction ; Liberty the corner stone and Lincoln 
 the architect.” 16 pp.; $2 per 100. 
 
 lion. James F. Wilson—“ A Free Constitution.” 16 pp.; $2 per 100. 
 
 Hon. James A. Garfield—“ Conf scat.ion of Rebel Property.” 8 pp ; $1 per 100. 
 
 Hon. William D. Kelley—“ Freedmen’s Affairs.” 8 pp. ; $1 per 100. 
 
 Hon. Green Cla}' Smith—“ Confiscation of Rebel Property.” S pp.; St per 500; 
 
 Hon. R. C. Schenck—“No Compromise with Treason.” 8 pp.; Si per 100. 
 
 Hon. James Harlan—“Title to Property in Slaves.” 8 pp. ;,$1 per 100. 
 
 Hon. John C. Ten Eyck—“ Reconstruction in the States.” 8 pp.; $1 per 100. 
 
 Hon. Reverdy Johnson—“Amendment to Constitution.” 16 pp. ; $2 per 100. 
 
 Biographical Sketch of Andrew Johnson, candidate for the Vice Presidency. 16 
 
 pp.; $2 per 100. 
 
 Hon. J. D. Defrees—“ The War Commenced by the Rebels.” 16 pp.; $2 per 100. 
 
 Hon. Henry G. Stebbins—“ The ability of the Government to redeem its paper.” 
 8 pp.: $1 per 100. 
 
 Hon. J. R. Doolittle—“The Rebels, and not the Republican Party, have destroyed 
 Slavery.” 8 pp.; §1 per 100. 
 
 Numerous Speeches and Documents not included in the foregoing will be pub¬ 
 lished for distribution, and persons willing to trust the discretion of the Committee, 
 can remit their orders with the money, and have them filled with the utmost 
 promptitude, and with the best judgement as to price and adaptation to the locality 
 where the speeches are to be sent. 
 
 Printed by L. Towers for the Union Congressional Committee.