174 COMPENSATION FOR SLAVES. Yet every member knew that the Federal Government had asked him to take the oath to support the acts of Congress and the proclamations of the President, as to emancipation, and it was by these that slavery had been abolished.1 Was it not better to act in the spirit of this oath, when explaining the means by which the institution was abolished? If it were true that the General Government had abolished slavery, ought it not to make compensation for the slaves it had emancipated ?2 The President's proclamation indicated that, notwithstanding the acts of secession and of war, Mississippi was still a State of the Union. No conditions unauthorized by the national Constitution should be imposed upon her, as to the admission of her Senators and Representatives to Congress.3 The general government had no authority to impose special test oaths of loyalty upon her people, or her representatives; and, if the intentions of the President were correctly understood, he was willing to admit the Mississippi delegation with the State constitution just as it stood. Had he not said recently, in an interview with a delegation from South Carolina, that he would advise making slavery "legally and constitutionally dead" and that this was the conditions of restoration to Federal relations ?4 Evidently all that need be done was to adopt a free State constitution, and ratify the proposed Thirteenth Amendment.5 The President had not advised the people of Mississippi in any official form; but his reported opinions strongly hinted at this procedure. True, there was a party at ABOLITION CONDITIONAL. 175 the North, and strong in Congress, who would insist upon imposing illegal restrictions upon the State. One of these was immediately by State action to raise the late slave population to the position and dignity of equals with the whites. Here lay the danger. The State, by adopting an abolition amendment for the purpose of securing admission to its delegates to Congress, must not yield too much; otherwise, further aggression would be invited. Undoubtedly, if the State establish a perfect equality between the two races, its delegation would be received; but no conservative man would approve such a course.1 To advocate negro equality was political suicide for the white men of the State. If the party in power imposed the condition of free suffrage, it could not be avoided.2 If the adoption of a free State constitution was to lead to the removal of United States troops from the State, why had not those been removed from Tennessee, in which slavery had been abolished over a year? Evidently, the military would not cease to interfere in the domestic affairs of the State until its courts recognized that the black man had the rights of the white. But was this the true policy of the State? Was it not enough if it passed all laws and regulations to secure the negroes protection and justice, to regulate their labor, and to prevent idleness, pauperism and crime among them? It would be well to remember that the admission of the negro to equality with the white man would have a disastrous effect upon the request for compensation for slaves. The mass of the population of the State were innocent parties in the late war, and, in many instances the owners of slave property were helpless women and orphans. They had not been implicated in the rebellion. No argument could be raised to relieve 176 COMPENSATION FOR SLAVES. the Federal Government from making compensation to this class; but, if an abolition ordinance was adopted, who could not see that Congress would respond to the appeals for compensation by saying, "Whatever may have been the legal effect of the proclamations and laws of Congress regarding emancipation, one thing is sure the State of Mississippi has adopted a valid ordinance abolishing slavery; and, whether or not these slaves were freed by an act of Congress, or by Presidential proclamation, they are freed by a sovereign State. We will not stop to discuss the question, but say to the petitioners, 'Go back to your State, look to your State constitution, and apply to the authorities for such compensation as they may deem proper.' The whole conduct of the General Government toward slaves had been as toward property. Had not President Lincoln, in his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, urged upon Congress the duty of making compensation to loyal men in the South, for property lost by reason of the war? Had not the Government, in abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, awarded compensation to the owners? And had not both Houses of Congress, during the war, declared it the duty of the Government whenever any State adopted a policy of gradual emancipation, to give pecuniary aid ?2 Clearly it was the duty of the United States to compensate slave-owners in Mississippi. Let it say to the people of the State, that it would relieve them from taxation for a series of years. It would be a present relief and ten thousand-fold more effective than it could have been in 1862. A mere pittance of what was righteously due, on account of emancipation, would be very much to an impoverished people.3 REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS. 177 In adopting an abolition amendment to the constitution it would be well to make it, and all legislation based upon it, inoperative, until the Representatives and Senators of the State should have been admitted to their seats in Congress. Their admission should be duly declared by the governor, but should not be construed to prejudice any right of compensation by the United States for the loss of slaves. Mississippi, it should be remembered, was a State, not a Territory. The convention was exercising a sovereign authority. What right had the President or the provisional governor to determine what the State should do? Would they hold it in duress, and extort a policy from its people, by force and organic law, which neither they nor the Constitution of the United States required? Surely, the President did not get authority from the Constitution to call a convention of the people of any State. He claimed to speak only as an advisor. The convention recognized no overseer or dictator.2 Therefore, simply repeal the old provision in the State constitution prohibiting the introduction of slaves and emancipation ;3 this would accomplish all that was necessary to comply with the advice of the President.* Had not President Lincoln, in his first inaugural, declared that he neither had the intention nor the power to abolish slavery? That the United States had no such power, Mr. Seward had since assured the French government. Though slavery in the State was abolished in fact, it was not abolished in law; slaves were not surrendered with the Confederate army. So far as negroes were actu ally captured and held by that army, they, and no others, 1 Id., 71. 2 Id., 73. * Mississippi Constitution, 1832, Article VII, Section 1, "Slaves." 4 Journal, 74. 178 MISSISSIPPI NEVER OUT OF THE UNION. were freed by the laws of war. If this were not so, there was no longer a government of the people.1 The fate of States that had abolished the institution should be remembered. In Maryland and Tennessee, and both had abolished slavery,-Federal troops were more numerous than in Mississippi. Let the State make the concession, but make its effect and operation dependent upon the conduct of Congress: that it admit the Representatives of the State to their seats. The condition should not be interpreted as dictation or as a threat, but as an extraordinary concession,-a sacrifice to attest devotion to the Union, in thus parting forever with all the labor and wealth of generations. Many feared that the State would not enjoy its rights and privileges until it ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, conferred upon Congress the right to legislate for the negro, and itself enfranchised him. The Mississippi Senators and Congressmen ought not to be required to take any oath other than that prescribed by the Constitution of the United States. The President's amnesty oath of the twenty-ninth of May, if strictly applied, would exclude nearly every man in the State; for who was there who did not sympathize with the Confederacy? Throw upon Massachusetts, Maine and New England the final responsibility for the operation of the Thirteenth Amendment.2 Mississippi had never been out of the Union; there was no such thing as reunion or reconstruction. The ordinance of secession was a nullity, and did not put the State out of the Union. Its people had failed to fight themselves out of the Union, and the federal government had no legal power to expel the State from the Union. 1 Id., 75. 2 Journal, 78. * Compare the decision in Texas vs. White (1868), 7 Wallace, |