Page images

the eleven States. The slave-holders themselves have been compelled to testify to the presence of virtues in the negro race which were supposed, generally, to belong only to the most cultivated classes of society.

But neither the facts which are thus admitted, nor the admissions themselves, have wrought any change in the relations of the two races. The absence in the white race of the sentiment of gratitude and the sense of justice, is not due to the difference of race, but to the antecedent condition of slave and master. The slave was bound to render everything, while he was incapable of commanding any thing. The master commanded everything, and he was bound to render nothing. Hence the humanity of the negro was accepted by the master as the performance of a duty, whose avoidance would have been a crime.

To the slave-holders the overthrow of slavery was the loss of property, the loss of political power, and the loss of social supremacy. To the northern Democrat the overthrow of slavery was the loss of a political ally for which no substitute could be found. When the country was divided into two parties, upon questions that did not touch slavery, the slave power was a contingent in politics, and ready to perform service for either party, but always upon terms most acceptable to itself. When, however, the Whig party was extinguished, and the Republican party was organized as an anti-slavery party, the slave power was forced into an alliance, or rather into a union with the Democratic party, and under circumstances which precluded all controversy as to terms. The slave power of the South was thus subordinated to the Democratic party of the North. There tofore the slave power had ruled both political parties, but with the organization of the Republican party it became the servant of one of those parties.

This change of parties was fraught with two important consequences. The slave power accepted secession as a means of escaping from a condition of subordination to the Northern democracy, and the Northern democracy demanded "the restoration of the Union as it was," well knowing that slavery was a bond which would hold the South in perpetual alliance with the Democratic party of the North.

Upon the basis of these ideas the policy of the Democratic party was rational and logical. It claimed that the army should be used to aid the return of fugitive slaves to rebel masters; that fugitive slaves should not be employed in forts and arsenals; that negroes

should not be accepted as soldiers; and that inasmuch as the thirtyseventh Congress had declared that the war was prosecuted solely for the restoration of the Union, the abolition of slavery, whether in the District of Columbia or in the States engaged in the Rebellion, was a breach of good faith. Its mottoes were, The Union as it was; "Once a State always a State."



There was a very considerable minority of the Republican party who in the early years of the war either accepted the positions taken by the Democratic party of the North, or hesitated to assert the contrary. Finally, however, the Republican party accepted the responsibility of refusing to return fugitive slaves to rebel masters, of employing fugitive slaves in the forts and arsenals, of enlisting negroes in the army, of abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia and in the States and parts of States engaged in the Rebellion. "The Union as it was was not restored, and the cry, "Once a State always a State," was disregarded.


The primary object of war is the re-establishment of a condition of peace upon a basis more satisfactory to the conquering party. Measures, not inhuman, which tend to the restoration of peace, or measures which tend to render a condition of peace, when peace shall be restored, more stable or more agreeable to the parties, are measures which are justified by the antecedent reasons and by the results. Thus tested, the emancipation of the slaves in the States engaged in the Rebellion is justifiable, and justified as a measure of


The slaves were employed in the cultivation of the soil, by which the families of the soldiers were supported and the armies in the field were supplied with subsistence. They were also employed in the transportation of war material, and in the erection of fortifications, and the construction of roads and bridges. Emancipation was a pledge by the national government to every person held in slavery, that the relation of master and slave should never be re-established. As the old Union had failed, and as in that Union slavery had been the cause of the failure, there could be no reasonable hope of a permanent peace until slavery disappeared. The old Union was an impossibility. Would a system of representation based upon slaves have been again tolerated by the North? Or would fugitives from slavery have been returned to their masters? Thus was the Proclamation of Emancipation justified by the rules of war, and warranted by the then existing exigencies of the public service. In fine, it

made possible the formation of a Union so acceptable that no one is now found to voice a dissent, while from 1789 to 1860 there was never a year when the capacity or the right of the Union to maintain its existence was not a subject of public debate.

The Democratic party demanded the re-establishment of a system of government which had failed under and by its leadership, and resisted the reorganization of the Union upon a basis which guaranteed alike the equality of men and the equality of States. On the issue thus raised the Democratic party was defeated, and its policy is now condemned by experience.

The restoration of the Union and its peaceful perpetuation to other times, depended upon two events, viz.: The prosecution of the war to a successful termination, and the abolition of slavery. The Democratic party, through its leaders, denied the rightfulness of the war, although many members of that party contributed a full share to its success. The Democratic party, as an organization, opposed the abolition of slavery, and not one of its representative men supported the Proclamation of Emancipation.

Thus it appears that if the fortunes of the country had been committed to the Democratic party the war would have been a failure, probably; or if the rebellious States had been subjugated by arms or conciliated by negotiations, the institution of slavery would have been preserved to foster divisions, encourage controversies, all to end finally in a renewal of the war. The Democratic party is thus shown to have been deficient in patriotism and in statesmanship.

Upon a proposition submitted to the House of Representatives, December 15, 1862, which declared that the Proclamation of the 22d of September, 1862, was warranted by the Constitution, and that the policy of emancipation was well adapted to hasten the restoration of peace, was well chosen as a war measure, and an exercise of power having proper regard for the rights of the States and the perpetuity of free government, only two members who were elected as Democrats gave affirmative votes, while seven members who were elected as Republicans, or Union men, as distinguished from Democrats and Republicans, voted in the negative.

During the first two years of the war there was a continuous struggle between the North and the South for supremacy in the border Slave States, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. They were disturbed by the emancipation of the slaves in the District of Columbia, and every act of the President was carefully examined

by the inhabitants of those States. They protested against any step looking to emancipation, even if compensation were guaranteed. In March, 1862, the President recommended the adoption of a resolution in these words, viz.:


Resolved, That the United States ought to co-operate with any State which may adopt gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such State pecuniary aid, to be used by such State in its discretion, to compensate for the inconvenience, public and private, produced by such change of system."

This resolution was supported by four Democrats only in the House of Representatives, and two in the Senate. It was passed by a two-thirds vote in each House, but the proposition was not accepted. This was Mr. Lincoln's first effort at emancipation in the States that had not engaged in the rebellion, and his sagacity and far-seeing statesmanship were never exhibited more conspicuously.

The proposition thus made by the President and approved by Congress could not but weaken the position of the border States in the event of emancipation without compensation, as an incident or result of the war. If, on the other hand, the proposition should be accepted by the loyal Slave States, there would then be no obstacle to compulsory emancipation in the rebel States. Moreover, the proposition qualified, in some degree, the demand made for immediate and unconditional emancipation as a measure of war. It was a preliminary step in a path in which the President was well assured he must walk to the end,—unconditional, universal emancipation. There can be no doubt, however, that the President was sincere in his effort to secure the freedom of the slaves in the loyal States and in aid thereof to compensate the owners.

His proclamation of the 19th of May, 1862, in which the proclamation of Major-General David Hunter, declaring that the persons theretofore held as slaves in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida were forever free, was revoked, contained a passage which showed that he then thought of emancipation as a military necessity. This was his language: "Whether it be competent for me as commanderin-chief of the army and navy to declare the slaves of any State or States free, and whether at any time, in any case, it shall have become a necessity indispensable to the maintenance of the government to exercise such supposed power, are questions which, under my responsibility, I reserve to myself, and which I cannot feel justified in leaving to the decision of commanders in the field."

In July the President sought an interview with the representative men from the border Slave States. In an address to them he urged his plan for emancipation, and expressed his regret that his efforts had not been supported. Again he indicated the peril to which the loyal slave-holders were exposed, by a reference to the effect upon his northern supporters by his repudiation of Gen. Hunter's proclamation. “In repudiating it I gave dissatisfaction, if not offense, to many whose support the country cannot afford to lose. And this is not the end of it. The pressure in this direction is still upon me, and is increasing."

This appeal to the border Slave States was followed by an earnest recommendation to Congress in December, 1862, to initiate amendments to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing compensation to any State that should provide for the emancipation of its slaves at any time before the year one thousand and nine hundred. This recommendation was coupled with the statement that the adoption of the plan would not stay the prosecution of the war, nor interfere with the proceedings under the Proclamation of the 22d of September. The proposition was thus limited in the mind of the President to the Slave States that had not engaged in the Rebellion.

Mr. Lincoln was an anti-slavery man, but his conduct as a citizen, and his policy as President, were guided by the Constitution. It is probable that at the moment when the war became formidable, and the Confederate States were organized as a government, he anticipated that the time would come when the emancipation of the slaves would be justified as a means of subjugating the rebels and restoring the Union. As early as May, 1862, in a letter to a Union man in Louisiana he intimated a purpose to proclaim emancipation rather than lose the government. When Lee crossed the Potomac and invaded Maryland, the President made a resolve that whenever the rebels were driven into Virginia he would issue the proclamation. The battle of Antietam in September, 1862, and the retreat of Lee were the final events in a series which, in the opinion of Mr. Lincoln, required and justified the emancipation of the slaves as a means of ending the war and restoring the Union.

Events then future have vindicated the wisdom of the act.


In his second annual message Mr. Lincoln discussed and defended the emancipation policy. Without slavery," said he, "the Rebellion could never have existed; without slavery it could not continue." This was his first public declaration of these important truths, but

« PreviousContinue »