UNION AND REBEL LOSSES AT CORINTH. 38 231 bridge and crossed next day; con- | with 2,248 prisoners." He estimated tinuing the pursuit to Ripley, fol- their loss in wounded at 5,692. He lowed by Rosecrans with most of his says the prisoners represented 53 regiarmy, gathering up deserters and ments of infantry, 16 of cavalry, 13 stragglers by the way. Rosecrans batteries, and 7 battalions; and that was anxiously eager to continue the their numbers engaged were nearly pursuit, and telegraphed to Grant for double his own," which he makes less permission to do so," believing the than 20,000 in all." Among his troRebel army utterly demoralized and phies were 14 flags, 2 guns, 3,300 incapable of resistance; but he was small arms, &c. ; while the Rebels, in directed to desist and return to their retreat, blew up many ammuCorinth. Nine days after his return, nition and other wagons, and left the he was relieved from his command at ground strewn with tents, accouterCorinth, and ordered to report at ments, &c. Among our killed were Cincinnati; where he found a dis- Gen. Pleasant A. Hackleman, Col. patch directing him to supersede Thomas Kilby Smith, 43d Ohio, and Gen. Buell in command of the Army Cols. Thrush, Baker, and Miles; of the Ohio and Department of the while Gen. Richard J. Oglesby,* Cumberland, including all of Tennes- Adjt.-Gen. Clark, of Rosecrans's see east of the Tennessee river. staff, and Col. Mower, 11th Missouri, were among the severely wounded. On the Rebel side, Acting Brigadiers Rogers, Johnston, and Martin were killed, and Cols. Pritchard, Daily, and McClain were wounded. Gen. Rosecrans reports his total loss at Corinth and in the pursuit at 2,359-315 killed, 1,812 wounded, and 232 missing; and says that the Rebel loss in killed alone was 1,423, 38 Oct. 6. 39 He gives these reasons for his eagerness, in his testimony before the Committee on the Conduct of the War: แ Mississippi was in our hands. The enemy had concentrated all his available force for an offensive movement, had been thoroughly beaten at Corinth, and had then retreated, blowing up his ammunition wagons and caissons; their men throwing away their camp and garrison equipage in the flight. The weather was cool; the roads were dry, and likely to be so for a month to come. Corn was ripe, and, as yet, untouched. We had 3,000,000 of rations in Corinth, and ammunition for six months. There was but one bridge injured on the Mobile and Ohio road; and it could be put in running order by a regiment in half a day. The enemy were so alarmed that, when Hamilton sent a reconnoissance to Black land, they vacated Tupelo, burning even the bacon which they could not take away on the first train. I had eighty wagon-loads of assorted rations which had reached me that night at Ripley, and had ordered the 30,000 from Chewalla to Hurlbut." 43 44 40 Pollard-who rarely or never finds the Rebel losses the greater says: "Our loss in all the three days' engagements was probably quite double that of the enemy. In killed and wounded, it exceeded 3,000; and it was estimated, beside, that we had left more than 1,500 prisoners in the hands of the enemy." 41 He says, in his official report: "We fought the combined Rebel force of Mississippi, commanded by Van Dorn, Price, Lovell, Villipigue, and Rust in person; numbering, according to their own authority, 38,000 men." XI. SLAVERY IN THE WAR-EMANCIPATION. THE Federal Constitution was the prohibition. Hence, when the framed in General Convention, and State Conventions were assembled to carried in the several State Conven- ratify or reject it, with such eminent tions, by the aid of adroit and politic Revolutionary patriots as Patrick evasions and reserves on the part of Henry, John Hancock, Samuel its framers and champions. The Adams, George Clinton, and Luther existing necessity for a stronger cen- Martin, leading in the opposition, tral authority, which had been devel- the clauses affecting Slavery were oped during the painful experiences vigilantly, and not unsuccessfully, of our preceding years of indepen- scrutinized for grounds of attackdence, were most keenly felt by the the provision concerning the African mercantile and mechanical or manu-Slave-Trade being assailed in some facturing classes, who were conse- States from the side of Slavery, in quently zealous advocates of a "more others from that of anti-Slavery, with perfect Union." The rural districts, vigor and effect. In the North, on the other hand, were far less these assaults were parried by pointseriously affected by commercial em-ing to the power conferred on Conbarrassment and currency dilapidation, and were naturally jealous of a distant and unfamiliar power. Hence the reticence, if not ambiguity, of the text with regard to what has recently been termed "coercion," or the right of the Federal Government to subdue by arms the forcible resistance of a State, or of several States, to its legitimate authority-a reticence which was imitated by the most prominent advocates of ratification, whether in The Federalist or in the several State Conventions. So with regard to Slavery as well. It is plain that the General Convention would have utterly and instantly prohibited the Foreign Slave-Trade, but for the proelaimed fact that this would insure the rejection of their handiwork by the still slave-hungry States of South Carolina and Georgia, if not of North Carolina also; though Virginia was among the most earnest advocates of gress to abolish the traffic after twenty years, as so much clear gain: to reject the Constitution would not arrest the traffic now, but would destroy the power to prohibit it hereafter. On the other hand, the Federalists in the Southern Conventions met their adversaries by pointing to the privilege secured to the slaveholders of hunting their fugitive chattels in other States than their own-a privilege hitherto non-existent-and asked them what was to be gained by rejecting that. In fact, the Constitution was essentially a matter of compromise and mutual concession-a proceeding wherein Thrift is apt to gain at the cost of Principle. Perhaps the majority in no State obtained exactly what they wanted, but were satisfied that, on the whole, they were better with the Constitution than without it. Patrick Henry alone, in opposing * as a VIEWS OF PATRICK HENRY AND J. Q. ADAMS. ratification, assailed the Constitution measure of thorough, undisguised, all-absorbing consolidation, and, though himself a professed contemner of Slavery, sought to arouse the fears of the Virginia slaveholders as follows: Among ten thousand implied powers which they may assume, they may, if we be engaged in war, liberate every one of your slaves, if they please; and this must and will be done by men, a majority of whom have not a common interest with you. They will, therefore, havo no feeling of your interests. It has been repeatedly said here, that the great object of a National Government was national defense. That power, which is said to be intended for security and safety, may be rendered detestable and oppressive. If they give power to the General Government to provide for the general defense, the means must be commensurate to the end. All the means in the possession of the people must be given to the Government which is intrusted with the public defense. In this State, there are 236,000 Blacks; and there are many in several other States: but there are few or none in the Northern States; and yet, if the Northern States shall be of opinion that our slaves are numberless, they may call forth every national resource. May Congress not say that every Black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make eman cipation general; but acts of Assembly passed, that every slaro who would go to the army should be free. Another thing will contribute to bring this event about: Slavery is detested; we feel its fatal effects; we deplore it with all the pity of humanity Let all these considerations, at some future period, press with full force on the minds of Congress let that urbanity, which I trust will distinguish America, and the necessity of national defenso-let all these things operate on their minds: they will search that paper, and see if they have the power of manumission. And have they not, Sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defense and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of Slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free! and will they not be warranted In closing the argument in favor of ratifying the Federal Constitution, Mr. Zachariah Johnson said: "They tell us that they see a progressive danger of bringing about emancipation. The principle has begun since the Revolution. Let 233 by that power? There is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point. They have the power, in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it. As much as I deplore Slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition. I deny that the General Government ought to set them free, because a decided majority of the States have not the ties of sympathy and fellow-feeling for those whose interest would be affected by their emancipation. The majority of Congress is to the North, and the slaves are to the South." Gor. Edmund Randolph-who became Washington's Attorney-General-answered Mr. Henry: denying most strenuously that there is any power of abolition given to Congress by the Constitution; but not alluding to what Henry had urged with regard to the War power and the right of Congress to summon every slave to the military defense of the country. Nor does this view of the subjeet appear to have attracted much attention elsewhere-at least, it does not appear to have been anywhere controverted.' In 1886, Mr. John Quincy Adams, having been required to vote Yea or Nay, in the House, on a proposition reported by Mr. H. L. Pinckney, of South Carolina, in these words constitutional power to interfere in any way Resolved, That Congress possesses no with the institution of Slavery in any of the States of this confederacy" voted Nay, in company with but eight others; and, obtaining the floor in Committee soon afterward, on a proposition that rations be distributed from the public stores to citizens of Georgia and Alabama who have been driven from their homes by Indian Slar us do what we will, it will come around. * May 25. depredations, proceeded to show that such distribution (which he advocated) was justifiable only under the constitutional power of Congress "to] mote the general welfare," which founders of the Constitution of the United | to interfere with the institution of Slavery the importation of slaves into the United in the States. The existing law prohibiting States from foreign countries is itself an interference with the institution of Slavery in the States. It was so considered by the o pro Southern statesmen habitually repudiated, or under the still more sweep ing War power. In the course of his argument, he said: States, in which it was stipulated that Con- During the war with Great Britain, the military and naval commanders of that nation issued proclamations inviting the slaves "Sir, in the authority given to Congress by to repair to their standard, with promises the Constitution of the United States to de- of freedom and of settlement in some of the clare war, all the powers incidental to war British colonial establishments. This, sureare, by necessary implication, conferred upon ly, was an interference with the institution the Government of the United States. Now, of Slavery in the States. By the treaty of the powers incidental to war are derived, peace, Great Britain stipulated to evacuate not from their internal municipal source, all the forts and places in the United States, but from the laws and usages of nations. without carrying away any slaves. If the * * * There are, then, Mr. Chairman, Government of the United States had no in the authority of Congress and of the power to interfere, in any way, with the Executive, two classes of powers, altogether institution of Slavery in the States, they different in their nature, and often incom- would not have had the authority to require patible with each other-the War power this stipulation. It is well known that this and the Peace power. The Peace power is engagement was not fulfilled by the British limited by regulations, and restricted by nával and military commanders; that, on provisions, prescribed within the Constitu- the contrary, they did carry away all the tion itself. The War power is limited only slaves whom they had induced to join them; by the laws and usages of nations. This and that the British Government inflexibly power is tremendous; it is strictly constitu- refused to restore any of them to their mastional; but it breaks down every barrier so ters; that a claim of indemnity was conseanxiously erected for the protection of lib- quently instituted in behalf of the owners erty, of property, and of life. This, Sir, is of the slaves, and was successfully mainthe power which authorizes you to pass the tained. All that series of transactions was resolution now before you; and, in my opin- an interference by Congress with the instiion, there is no other. * * * There are, tution of Slavery in the States in one way indeed, powers of Peace conferred upon Con--in the way of protection and support. It gress which also come within the scope and jurisdiction of the laws of nations; such as the negotiation of treaties of amity and commerce; the interchange of public ministers and consuls; and all the personal and social intercourse between the individual inhabitants of the United States and foreign nations, and the Indian tribes, which require the interposition of any law. But the powers of War are all regulated by the laws of nations, and are subject to no other limitation. * * * It was upon this principle that I voted against the resolution reported by the Slavery Committee, 'that Congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere, in any way, with the institution of Slavery in any of the States of this confederacy;' to which resolution most of those with whom I usually concur, and even my own colleagues in this House, gave their assent. I do not admit that there is, even among the Peace powers of Congress, no such authority; but in war, there are many ways by which Congress not only have the authority, but are bound, was by the institution of Slavery alone that the restitution of slaves, enticed by proclamations into the British service, could be claimed as property. But for the institution of Slavery, the British commanders could neither have allured them to their standard, nor restored them, otherwise than as liberated prisoners of war. But for the institution of Slavery, there could have been no stipulation that they should not be carried away as property, nor any claim of indemnity for the violation of that engagement. "But the War power of Congress over the institution of Slavery in the States is yet far more extensive. Suppose the case of a servile war, complicated, to some extent-as it is even now-with an Indian war; suppose Congress were called to raise armies, to supply money from the whole Union to suppress a servile insurrection: would they have no authority to interfere with the institution of Slavery? The issue of a servile war may be disastrous; it may become necessary for the master of the slave to recognize his emancipation by a MR. ADAMS ON SLAVERY IN WAR. treaty of peace: can it, for an instant, be pretended that Congress, in such a contingency, would have no authority to interfere with the institution of Slavery, in any way, in the States? Why, it would be equivalent to saying that Congress has no constitutional authority to make peace.' Mr. Adams proceeded to show that Texas was then [prior to her annexation] the arena of a war concerning Slavery a war based on an effort to rëestablish Slavery where it had been abolished by Mexico; and that our country was powerfully incited to take part directly therein, on the side of Slavery; and might yet be impelled to do so. In view of this probability, he asked "Do you imagine that while, in the very nature of things, your own Southern and South-western States must be the battle-field upon which the last great conflict must be fought between Slavery and Emancipation do you imagine that your Congress will have no constitutional authority to interfere with the institution of Slavery in any way, in the States of this confederacy? Sir, they must and will interfere with it-perhaps to sustain it by war; perhaps to abolish it by treaties of peace: and they will not only possess the constitutional power so to interfere, but they will be bound in duty to do it, by the express provisions of the Constitution itself. From the instant that your slaveholding States become the theater of war-civil, servile, or foreign-from that instant, the War powers of Congress extend to interference with the institution of Slavery in every way by which it can be interfered with, from a claim of indemnity for slaves taken or destroyed, to the cession of the State burdened with Slavery to a foriegn power.' 3 In 1842, when the prospective annexation of Texas, and a consequent war with Mexico, first loomed above the horizon, Mr. Adams returned to the subject; and, with reference to certain anti-Slavery resolves recently offered by Mr Giddings, of Ohio, and the action of the House thereupon, said: 235 aware that it is touching upon a sore place; and I would gladly get over it if I could. It has been my effort, so far as was in my power, to avoid any allusion whatever to that question which the gentleman from Virginia tells us that the most lamb-like disposition in the South never can approach without anger and indignation. Sir, that is my sorrow. I admit that the fact is so. We can not touch that subject without raising, throughout the whole South, a mass of violence and passion, with which one might as well reason as with a hurricane. That, I know, is the fact in the South; and that is the fact in this House. And it is the reason why members coming from a Free State are silenced as soon as they rise on this floor; why they are pronounced out of order; made to sit down; and, if they proceed, are censured and expelled. But in behalf of the South and of Southern institutions, a man may get up in this House and expatiate for weeks together. On this point, I do complain; and I must say I have been rather disappointed that I have not been put down already, as speaking out of order. What I say is involuntary, because the subject has been brought into the House from another quarter, as the gentleman himself admits. I would leave that institution to the exclusive consideration and management of the States more peculiarly interested in it, just so long as they can keep it within their own bounds. So far, I admit that Gongress has no power to meddle with it. So long as they do not step out of their own bounds, and do not put the question to the people of the United States, whose peace, welfare, and happiness, are all at stake, so long I will agree to leave them to themselves. But when a member from a Free State brings forward certain resolutions, for which, instead of reasoning to disprove his positions, you vote a censure upon him—and that without hearing-it is quite another affair. At the time this was done, I said that, so far as I could understand the resolutions proposed by the gentleman from them for which I was ready to vote, and Ohio [Mr. Giddings], there were some of some which I must vote against; and I will now tell this House, my constituents, and the world of mankind, that the resolution against which I would have voted was that in which he declares that what are called the Slave States have the exclusive right of consultation on the subject of Slavery. For that resolution, I never would vote; because I believe that it is not just, and does not contain constitutional doctrine. I believe that, so long as the Slave States are able to sustain their institutions, without going abroad or calling upon other parts of April 15. "What I am now to say, I say with great reluctance and with great pain. I am well 3 |