Contrast these concluding words of the Emancipation-Proclamation-Constitution with these other words of the genuine document, Sec. 2, Art. 2: "The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into active service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principle officers in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject, relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachments." Without the omission of one word, one syllable or one letter, we have here every power conferred by the Constitution upon the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. We search in vain for "the power in me vested" to emancipate slaves in all the States or in the Territories. This section verifies the truth of his inaugural assertion, "I have no right to do so." And the words, "I have no right to do so," is exclusive of all right whatever-even the right claimed "by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual rebellion against the authority and Government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion." How self-contradictory! How Constitutionally contradictory! Withal, how unconstitutional for an Executive who took the following oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Is the Constitution of the United States of such a peculiar nature that it is "preserved, protected and defended" by its most evident violation? If violation of the Constitution is not revolution, what is it?

OTHER FACTS CONNECTED WITH

EMANCIPATION.

Too much light cannot be thrown on the history of the Emancipation Proclamation. That it was without Constitutional, or legal authority, cannot be denied. Clearly, therefore, it was a usurpation of authority. Yet all the honors bestowed upon Lincoln as Chief Magistrate of the United States center in this proclamation. It was Lincoln's pet. All his hopes of a cherished immortality gathered about it. He said to Sumner, "I know very well that the name which is connected with this act will never be forgotten." (Tarbel, Vol. 1, page 98). We have already referred to the fact that it was so regarded by his Cabinet. Sumner himself called it "our best weapon;" while its supporters, in general, regarded it as "an attack on the enemy's rear."

It was an amazing violation of the Constitution because of its stupendous results. It was this astonishing feature that so completely captivated the mind of Lincoln. To him the great distinction and honor of having struck the shackles from the limbs. of nearly 4,000,000 slaves, would more than counterbalance the sin of having violated the Constitution. To him it was a greater issue than the Constitution itself; greater than all the wrongs that the violation of his oath brought to the South and the country at large. At first the violation of the Constitution troubled him, for Wells, in his diary, says, "He had been prompt and emphatic in denouncing any interference by the Government with the institution." But finally "the dark days" came, when victory rested on the Confederate arms, when "compulsory service" was the imperative resort, when the States, lacking in interest, attempted to avoid their quota of soldiers, and when partisanship was charged against the Administration (Hapgood p. 293). These were arguments within themselves both potent and urgent. When coupled with that of the deep and abiding conviction, "that the name which is connected with this act will never be forgotten," it became an argument irresistable in force.

It triumphed over all compunction of conscience as to its legality. Having once resolved to "cross the Rubicon" by abandoning the Constitution, Lincoln immediately set about preparing the public mind for its favorable reception. No emergency was ever too great for his acuteness-his ingenuity. Carl Schurz, Minister to Spain, had written him it was absolutely necessary to "satisfy Europe and that speedily, that the war was to end in the destruction of slavery;" otherwise, "there was great danger of the Southern Confederacy's being recognized by France and England." This was an additional argument for emancipation.

Lincoln immediately wrote Carl Schurz to come at once to this country. He promptly obeyed, arriving in January, 1862. "The President gave undivided attention to his argument, and was inclined to accept his view, but 'was not sure the public sentiment of the country was ripe for such a policy. It had to be educated up to it. Would not Mr. Schurz go to New York and talk the matter over with their friends, some of whom he named?"

A few days later Mr. Schurz reported to Mr. Lincoln "that the organization of an Emancipation Society for the purpose of agitating the idea had been started in New York, and that a public meeting would be held at the Cooper Institute on the 6th of March."

Mr. Lincoln replied: "That's it; that is the very thing. You must make a speech at the meeting. Go home and prepare it. When you have got it outlined bring it to me, and I will see what you are going to say."

In a few days Mr. Schurz submitted to Mr. Lincoln the skeleton of his argument on "Emancipation as a Peace Measure." After reading it the President declared: "That is the right thing, and remember you may hear from me on the same day."

"On the 6th of March, the speech was delivered, as had been arranged, before an audience which packed Cooper Union." Just as Mr. Schurz took his seat he was handed a copy of the President's "message given that afternoon to Congress. Mr. Schurz at once read it to the audience, which, already thoroughly aroused, now broke out again into a tremendous burst of applause." (Tarbel p. 100).

This very adroit plot to "agitate," deceive, inflame and educate the minds of the people finds its equal only in the plot to compel the Confederates to fire on Fort Sumter. Friendly newspapers were in the plot. They were there to tell of "the repeated cheers," and "the applause that shook the hall.” A specimen of their exaggeration may be seen in the comment of "Harper's Weekly:' "The cannon shot against Fort Sumter, effaced three-fourths of our political lines; the President's message has wiped out the other fourth." Both were the result of plotting of intrigue.

They

Thus the masses were tricked-"educated up to it." were not instructed in the Constitution, in the fundamental principles of Government, the only safe political education. They were beguiled into the adoption of Lincoln's policy. The very plot, having for its object the deceiving, exciting and inflaming minds of the people, declares an avowed acknowledgement on the part of Lincoln and Schurz and the newspapers, that the emancipation proclamation was unconstitutional. For shrewd cunning, if Fort Sumter does not furnish a parallel, where in all political history can it be found? And this is the logic-the logic of deception that bestows upon the South the appellation of rebels!

To show that "Harper's Weekly" did not speak the truth, but simply indulged in exaggeration, is not difficult. Hear what one of Lincoln's own historians says: "But to Mr. Lincoln's keen disappointment the Border States representatives in Congress let the proposition pass in silence. He saw one after another of them, but not a word did they say of the message. The President stood this for four days, then he summoned them to the White House to explain his position.

To them he said, "The wrong of slavery was not the question they had to deal with. Slavery existed, and that, too, as well by the act of the North as of the South; in any scheme to get rid of it the North as well as the South was bound to do its full and equal share. He thought the institution wrong, and ought never to have existed, yet he recognized the rights of property which had grown out of it, and would respect those rights as fully as similar rights in any other property; that property (in slaves) can exist and does legally exist. He thought

such a law wrong, but the rights of property resulting must be respected; he would get rid of the law, not by violating it, but by encouraging the proposition, and offering inducements to give it up."

These representatives rejected his proposition. Perhaps they compared these soft expressions, kindred creations of the Cooper Institute plot, with the oft-repeated assertion of Lincoln that there could be "no property in slaves." Doubtless, too, they could not reconcile the assertion, "slavery existed and that, too, as well by the act of the North as by the South," with the stern and terrible realization that the North was then waging war on the South, because, for reasons beyond her control, the institution still existed in the South. Then, too, they must have realized that their fellow citizens, thousands of them, were then fighting in the Union Army because assured that slavery was not to be interfered with. They also realized that the sole purpose of the war was to free the slaves and that they, as a part of the South, were "bound to do" their "full and equal share of the work." They realized, too, that their State Governments were completely in the hands of the military authorities of the United States Government by reason of intrigue and deception. They well knew also that all they could now do was to say, "We will consider it," and then fold their hands in silent submission.

These Border State representatives were not all by any means who contradicted the exaggerated fiction of "Harper's Weekly." A most prominent citizen of Ohio, a man high in the councils of the Nation, Vanlandingham, was a prominent example of those who believed the Constitution was best preserved by complying with its terms. He so expressed himself in a number of speeches. He was arrested by Gen. Burnside, whose headquarters were in Cincinnati; was tried and convicted by a mili tary tribunal. Gen. Burnside approved the finding, and threw him into prison. All efforts to be released on habeas corpus failed. "There was an immense outcry all over the North. Governor Seymour of New York denounced the arrest as dishonorable despotism. He said: "The action of the Administration will determine in the minds of more than one-half of the