"overt act" which should be taken in that direction has been denounced as worthy of death. Such States, it was said, should be "restrained by the bayonet." If, then, to "secede from the Southern Confederacy," where the principle of "secession" is acknowledged as fundamental, and out of which that Confederacy originated, be justly deemed "treason" and "rebellion," then a fortiori, with much stronger reason is it "treason" and "rebellion" for the Southern States to "secede" from the United States, where no such principle is acknowledged. Laying aside then the main and conclusive considerations on which the charge of rebelling against the lawful authority and Government of the United States may be sustained against the Southern States and people, the charge is amply sustained when tried by their own standard.

As the Southern rebellion has taken the form of armed resistance and is making war, the Government assailed has the right to overcome this resistance by the same means, and is making war for this purpose and to maintain its authority. As a right, therefore, a right by the word of God, the Government of the United States is carrying on a lawful war to maintain its lawful authority.

DESTRUCTION OF SLAVERY A LAWFUL MEANS TO THIS

END.

II. Is the Government justified, in order to its success in putting down rebellion, in aiming to destroy slavery?

We of course now speak of slavery in the Rebel States only, and of the action of the Government as confined to its operations in war. As the result of the rebellion, or occasioned by it, we have already stated that Congress undoubtedly will, ultimately, amend the Constitution and prohibit slavery in the whole land forever. By its war measures and war power, the Government are striking at

DESTRUCTION OF SLAVERY.

339

slavery in the whole rebel dominions, and aim to destroy it root and branch. Is this right ?-or, as charged, Is this "to fight against God," a "rebellion against the Lord God Omnipotent who ruleth," and a "conspiracy against the throne and empire of Heaven ?" We sustain the Government in this determination, and will give our reasons.

The grounds of our vindication are these: A nation in a just war may adopt any measures for its success which are deemed necessary, provided they are not inconsistent with the principles of justice, and are sustained by the laws and usages of war among civilized nations. Those laws and usages permit a nation to attack slavery and free the slaves of an enemy, and use them against the enemy, in order to its success in war; and of the necessity of these measures the party adopting them is to be the judge. This applies to war between "nations" proper-to foreign war; much more, on the same authority, may these means be resorted to in putting down rebellion.

The justification or condemnation of such measures, as properly belonging or not to the code of war, cannot be settled by an appeal to Scripture, for the word of God. says nothing whatever on the subject. It is worse than idle, therefore, to arraign the Government before the bar of Revelation, on a matter where Revelation is utterly silent. The only standard by which the case can be determined, is the one already mentioned: the laws of war as illustrated in the usages of civilized nations; and to give the case the fairest chance, we are quite willing to take our examples from those nations of modern times where Christianity has the greatest influence. Taking these principles for our guide, and scanning the facts which the course of the Government has developed, and it will be seen that the Government has not only kept within the limits of its authority, in reference to this simple issue,

as determined by the criterion mentioned, but has conducted with a forbearance toward slavery in the Rebel States which has excited the wonder of other nations, and upon which history will record its judgment for remarkable leniency.

Before citing the authorities to sustain the positions taken, let us note the course which the Government has pursued.

FORBEARANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT WITH SLAVERY.

We have given the proof, and the South universally admit the fact, that their resistance to the Governinent,— their "secession,”- was to establish more securely the institution of slavery, which they imagined to be in peril from the Government. Slavery is thus, in a sense well understood, the cause of the rebellion and the war. The President and the party that put him in power were publicly pledged, previous to his election, and also in his Inaugural Address, not to interfere with slavery where it was lawfully established. The whole South knew of these pledges. They were kept inviolate. The proof of all this we have given. When the rebellion had proceeded so far as actually to fire upon the flag and vessels of the United States in the harbor of Charleston, and when the Government called out forces to put it down, the President and Congress still maintained the principle of non-interference referred to, and uniformly took the ground, and declared by acts, resolutions, and proclamations, the doctrine, that the war was "not waged for any purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of the States [meaning thereby, especially, slavery]; but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union, with all the

FORBEARANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT.

341

dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired."*

It was found at length, that, instead of being an element of weakness, as at first supposed, slavery was an element of great strength to the rebellion; indeed, its vital support, as the rebels themselves declared. It was believed, that, as slavery in the Rebel States was in open conflict with the Government, one or the other must be destroyed in the region over which the rebellion held sway. It was then resolved to strike the rebellion in its most efficient support, and thus save the Government from its most deadly enemy. As the Government was clothed with God's authority to sustain itself and put down the rebellion, it was clothed with God's authority to use all necessary and lawful means to that end. It was, from the nature of the case, constituted, for the time being, the sole judge of the essential means, being responsible to God and the people.t

* These words are from the resolutions passed unanimously by the House of Representatives, July, 1861, offered by Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky.

+ We do not of course entertain any question that may be raised here, as between the simple power of the President, by Proclamation or otherwise, as Commander-inChief of the Army and Navy, and Congress, touching the jurisdiction of the Executive and Legislative branches of the Government over matters of war. It is by no means essential to the sole point in hand. When we speak of the Government in its attitude toward slavery under the laws of war, we speak simply of the authority of the United States to put down rebellion, whether the particular measures of the war are determined by the President, as Commander-in-Chief, or by the Executive and Legislative branches of the Government together. As a fact, however, Congress has substantially sustained, either tacitly or by direct legislation, all the acts of the Executive in regard to slavery. In a speech made in Chicago, July 14, 1864, by the Hon. Isaac N. Arnold, a member of the present Congress, he says: "On the 13th of January, 1864, I introduced the following bill, which has been embodied substantially in another which passed Congress: Be it enacted, &c., That in all the States and parts of States designated in said Proclamation as in rebellion (the Proclamation against slavery, January 1, 1863), the re-enslaving or holding, or attempting to hold in slavery, any person who shall have been declared free by said Proclamation, or any of their descendants, otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the accused shall have been duly convicted, is and shall be forever prohibited, any law of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." The Executive and Legislativo branches of the Government are thus united in support of that measure.

EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION.

When the Government determined to strike at slavery, by the Proclamation of September 22, 1862, the war had been going on for a year and a half with varying success. The measure was deemed a necessity, and was adopted, not for the purpose of interfering with slavery, in itself considered, but to put down the rebellion, and as a means solely to that end; the President stating, in this Proclamation, "that hereafter as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between the United States and the people thereof in those States in which that relation is, or may be, suspended or disturbed." In this Proclamation, one hundred days were allowed to the people of the States in rebellion to lay down their arms and save the institution harmless; and loyal persons in rebel districts were promised compensation "for all losses by acts of the United States, including the loss of slaves;" a promise which any Congress would have felt bound to redeem. On the nonacceptance of these terms, all slaves in rebel districts to be designated on the 1st of January, 1863, were to be declared free. The terms proposed not having been accepted, the President issued a Proclamation of this date, declaring all slaves within such districts "henceforward free." He here states as before, this, "as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing the rebellion." He enjoins "upon the people so declared to be free, to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence," and exhorts them to "labor faithfully for reasonable wages;" declares that "such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the United States ;" and concludes thus: "And upon this, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military ne