'As to the first one, in regard to the Fugitive-Slave Law, I have never hesitated to say, and I do not now hesitate to say, that I think, under the Constitution of the United States, the people of the Southern States are entitled to a congressional slave law. Having said that, I have had nothing to say in regard to the existing Fugitive-Slave Law, further than that I think it should have been framed so as to be free from some of the objections that pertain to it, without lessening its efficiency. And inasmuch as we are not now in an agitation in regard to an alteration or modification of that law, I would not be the man to introduce it as a new subject of agitation upon the general question of slavery.

"In regard to the other question, of whether I am pledged to the admission of any more slave States into the Union, I state to you very frankly that I would be exceedingly sorry ever to be put in a position of having to pass upon that question. I should be exceedingly glad to know that there would never be another slave State admitted into the Union; but I must add, that if slavery shall be kept out of the territories during the territorial existence of any one given territory, and then the people shall, having a fair chance and a clear field, when they come to adopt the constitution, do such an extraordinary thing as to adopt a slave constitution, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the institution among them, I see no alternative, if we own the country, but to admit them into the Union. [Applause.]

"The third interrogatory is answered by the answer to the second, it being, as I conceive, the same as the second.

"The fourth one is in regard to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In relation to that I have my mind very distinctly made up. I should be exceedingly glad to see slavery abolished in the District of Columbia. I believe that Congress possesses the constitutional power to abolish it. Yet, as a member of Congress, I should not, with my present views, be in favor of endeavoring to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, unless it would be upon these conditions: First, that the abolition should be gradual; second, that it should be on a vote of the majority of qualified voters in the district; and, third, that compensation should be made to unwilling owners. With these three conditions I confess I would be exceedingly glad to see Congress abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and, in the language of Henry Clay, 'sweep from our capital that foul blot upon our nation.'

66

"In regard to the fifth interrogatory, I must say here that, as to the question of the abolition of the slave-trade between the different States, I can truly answer, as I have, that I am pledged to nothing about it. It is a subject to which I have not given that mature consideration that would make me feel authorized to state a position so as to hold myself entirely bound by it. In other words, that question has never been

prominently enough before me to induce me to investigate whether we really have the constitutional power to do it. I could investigate it, if I had sufficient time, to bring myself to a conclusion upon that subject; but I have not done so, and I say so frankly to you here, and to Judge Douglass. I must say, however, that if I should be of opinion that Congress does possess the constitutional power to abolish slave-trading" among the different States, I should still not be in favor of the exercise of that power unless upon some conservative principle as I conceive it, akin to what I have said in relation to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.

"My answer as to whether I desire that slavery should be prohibited in all territories of the United States, is full and explicit within itself, and cannot be made clearer by any comments of mine. So, I suppose, in regard to the question whether I am opposed to the acquisition of any more territory unless slavery is first prohibited therein, my answer is such that I could add nothing by way of illustration, or making myself better understood, than the answer which I have placed in writing.

"Now, in all this the judge has me, and he has me on the record. I suppose he had flattered himself that I was really entertaining one set of opinions for one place, and another set for another place that I was afraid to say at one place what I uttered at another. What I am saying here I suppose I say to a vast audience as strongly tending to abolitionism as any audience in the State of Illinois, and I believe I am saying that which, if it would be offensive to any persons and render them enemies to myself, would be offensive to persons in this audience."

Here, then, is the position of Mr. Lincoln set forth with deliberation and care. He was opposed to any coercive measures in settling the slavery question; he was for gradual emancipation; and for admitting States into the Union with a slave constitution. Within twenty-four months, without a change of views, he was nominated for and elected to the Presidency of the United States.

With no disposition to interfere with the institution of slavery, Mr. Lincoln found himself chief magistrate of a great nation in the midst of a great rebellion. And in his inaugural address on the 4th of March, 1861, he referred to the question of slavery again in a manner too clear to admit of misconception, affirming his previous views :

1 Barrett, pp. 177-180.

"There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives. from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

"No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.'

"It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law.

"All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution to this provision as well as any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause 'shall be delivered up,' their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not, with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?

"There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by National or by State, authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done; and should any one, in any case, be content that this oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?"

So the issues were joined in war. The South aggressively, offensively sought the extension and perpetuation of slavery. The North passively, defensively stood ready to protect her free territory, but not to interfere with slavery. And there was no day during the first two years of the war when the North would not have cheerfully granted the slave institution an indefinite lease of legal existence upon the condition that the war should

cease.

CHAPTER XV.

"A WHITE MAN'S WAR."

THE FIRST CALL FOR TROOPS. RENDITION OF FUGITIVE SLAVES BY THE ARMY. COL. TYLER'S ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF VIRGINIA. -GENERAL ISAAC R. SHERWOOD's ACCOUNT OF AN ATTEMPT TO secure a Fugitive Slave IN HIS CHARGE. COL. STEEDMAN REFUSES TO HAVE HIS CAMP SEARCHED FOR FUGITIVE SLAVES, BY ORDER FROM GEN. FRY. LETTER from Gen. BUELL IN Defence of tHE REBELS IN THE SOUTH. -Orders issUED BY GENERALS HOOKER, WILLIAMS, AND OTHERS, IN REGARD TO HARBORING FUGITIVE SLAVES IN UNION CAMPS. OBSERVATION CONCERNING SLAVERY FROM THE "ARMY OF THE POTOMAC."-GEN. BUTLER'S LETTER TO GEN. WINFIELD SCOTT.-IT IS ANSWERED BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR.-HORACE GREELEY'S LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT. — PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S REPLY. GEN. JOHN C. FREMONT, COMMANDER OF THE UNION ARMY IN MISSOURI, ISSUES A PROCLAMATION EMANCIPATING SLAVES IN HIS DISTRICT. IT IS DISAPPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT. EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION BY GEN. HUNTER. IT IS RESCINDED BY THE PRESIDENT. — -SLAVERY AND UNION JOINED IN A DESPERATE Struggle.

W

HEN the war clouds broke over the country and hostilities began, the North counted the Negro on the outside of the issue. The Federal Government planted itself upon the policy of the "defence of the free States,"-pursued a defensive rather than an offensive policy. And, whenever the Negro was mentioned, the leaders of the political parties and the Union army declared that it was "a white man's war."

The first call for three months' troops indicated that the authorities at Washington felt confident that the "trouble" would not last long. The call was issued on the 15th of April, 1861, and provided for the raising of 75,000 troops. It was charged by the President that certain States had been guilty of forming "combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings," and then he proceeded to state:

"The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department. I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government, and to redress wrongs already long enough endured. I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth, will probably be to repossess the forts, places,

and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference. with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens of any part of the country; and I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid, to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date."'

There was scarcely a city in the North, from New York to San Francisco, whose Colored residents did not speedily offer their services to the States to aid in suppressing the Rebellion. But everywhere as promptly were their services declined. The Colored people of the Northern States were patriotic and enthusiastic; but their interest was declared insolence. And being

often rebuked for their loyalty, they subsided into silence to bide a change of public sentiment.

The almost unanimous voice of the press and pulpit was against a recognition of the Negro as the cause of the war. Like a man in the last stages of consumption who insists that he has only a bad cold, so the entire North urged that slavery was not the cause of the war: it was a little local misunderstanding. But the death of the gallant Col. Elmer E. Elsworth palsied the tongues of mere talkers; and in the tragic silence that followed, great, brave, and true men began to think.

Not a pulpit in all the land had spoken a word for the slave. The clergy stood dumb before the dreadful issue. But one man was found, like David of old, who, gathering his smooth pebble of fact from the brook of God's eternal truth, boldly met the boastful and erroneous public sentiment of the hour. That man was the Rev. Justin D. Fulton, a Baptist minister of Albany, New York. He was chosen to preach the funeral sermon of Col. Elsworth, and performed that duty on Sunday, May 26, 1861. Speaking of slavery, the reverend gentleman said:

66

Shall this magazine of danger be permitted to remain? We must answer this question. If we say no, it is no! Slavery is a curse to the North. It impoverishes the South, and demoralizes both. It is the parent of treason, the seedling of tyranny, and the fountain-source of all the ills that have infected our life as a people, being the central cause of all our conflicts of the past and the war of to-day. What

'Rebellion Recs., vol. i. Doc., p. 63.