assumed to set the negro soldier free, they may justly assume to set free the family of the negro soldier. That, Mr. President, is a mode of argument that never satisfies my mind; because a thing has been assumed to be done, therefore it has rightly been assumed. What I would like is for some friend of this measure, before it passes this body, to show me upon what principle the Congress of the United States have the authority to pass the measure, where they derive that authority. Do not tell me that it is absolutely necessary, because there are as many and perhaps more men in this country who believe that it is not necessary as there are who believe it is. Do not tell me that humanity demands it, because, perhaps, there are more men in this country who believe that your policy is injurious and ruinous to the negro race than believe it to be advantageous. I deny, Mr. President, that the Congress of the United States has the power to give freedom either to the negro soldier or to the family of the negro soldier. I say that we have not the power, and no nation has the power, as an act of war, to capture slaves. If they do capture them, and put their own uniform upon them, I deny that it is a rightful capture, or that the right is sustained by international law. Upon this subject we have a record, and it may be well to see what that record is. I know that there is an example in history where the attempt was made. I know it was fruitless then; I do not believe that it will be very availing for any practical or useful purpose now. I know that there is an example for it which has been recorded, by Mr. Bancroft in his History of the United States. Mr. Bancroft thus refers to the proceedings, in 1775, of the last royal Governor of Virginia: "Encouraged by the most trifling success, Dunmore raised the king's flag and, publishing a proclamation which he had signed on the 7th of November, he established martial law, required every person capable of bearing arms to resort to his standard under penalty of forfeiture of life and property, and declared freedom to all indented servants, negroes, or others appertaining to rebels' if they 'would join for the reducing the colony to a proper sense of its duty." The effect of this invitation to convicts and slaves to rise against their masters was not limited to their ability to serve in the army. 'I hope,' said Dunmore, it will oblige the rebels to disperse, to take care of their families and property.' At Dunmore's proclamation a thrill of indignation ran through Virginia, effacing all differences of party, and rousing one strong, impassioned purpose to drive away the insolent power by which it had been put forth." Mr. President, has it not proved the fact that since the Federal Executive and the Congress of the United States have adopted the policy which now seems to govern them, you abolished all distinction of party among the people with whom you are at war? Have you not united them? Has not the practical result of your policy been the same as the practical result of Lord Dunmore's? "But in truth the cry of Dunmore did not arouse among the Africans a passion for freedom. For the bondage in Virginia was not a lower condition of being than their former one; they had no regrets for ancient privileges lost; their memories prompted no demand for political changes; no struggling aspirations of their own had invited Dunmore's interposition; no memorial of these grievances had preceded his offers. None combined to join him from a longing for an improved condition or even from ill will to their masters."-Bancroft's History of the United States, vol. 8, page 223. While, therefore, there has been an example for measures of this kind and even in our own history, it was an example without profit, an example which has met with the condemnation of, I think I can safely say, every historian the country has produced, and until a very recent date met with the condemnation of every man, woman, and child acquainted with the example within the limits of the country. But, Mr. President, while the example as a fact exists, I deny that, as a matter of law, you can give freedom to the families of these negroes, or even to the negro soldier himself. I deny that you have any right to capture and to carry away the negro slaves, and especially in States where they are being carried off which have never revolted. I refer to the opinion of John Quincy Adams upon this subject; and as much of the doctrine that we have nowadays comes from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it is wellenough to see what were the opinions of one of Massachusetts' ablest statesmen. I quote from Wheaton's Law of Nations, by Lawrence, pages 495, 496: "In the discussions, however, leading to the reference, as well as before the arbiter, the principle was maintained by the United States that the 'emancipation of enemy's slaves is not among the acts of legitimate warfare.' (Mr. Adams to Mr. Rush, at London, July 7, 1820.) And in the instructions from the same Secretary of State to Mr. Middleton, at St. Petersburg, October 18, 1820, it is said, 'the British have broadly asserted the right of emancipating slaves, private property, as a legitimate right of war. No such right is acknowledged as a law of war by writers who admit any limitation. The right of putting to death all prisoners in cold blood, and without special cause, might as well be pretended to be a law of war, or the right to use poisoned weapons, or to assassinate."-MS. Papers of J. Q. Adams cited in Law Reporter, June, 1862, page 485. That was the law in 1820, as understood by Mr. Adams in his instructions to our ministers at foreign courts. It was the law as understood by the Federal Administration at that time, and it meets the question boldly and distinctly, and denies that one nation being at war with another has any right to capture negroes, private property. A demand was made upon the British Government for compensation, and allowed, adjudged to us by the arbitrator, the Emperor of Russia. The same doctrine is found on page 611 of the same author: "And as it has sometimes been attempted to impeach the authority of these State papers, by their supposed repugnance to opinion subsequently expressed in debate by Mr. Adams, while a Representative in Congress, (Congressional Globe, 1841-42, volume two, page 429,) it may not be irrelevant to refer to his dispatches from London, the spirit of which fully accords with the instructions to Mr. Middle ton. In one to the Secretary of State, dated August 22, 1815, speaking of the conferences at Ghent, he says: "Our object was the restoration of all property, including slaves, which by the usages of war among civilized nations ought not to have been taken. We considered the proclamations issued by British officers as deviations from the usages of war. We believed that the British Government itself would, when the hostile passions arising from the state of war should subside, consider them in the same light, and that Great Britain would then be willing to restore the property, or to indemnify the sufferers for its loss.' (American State Papers, volume four, page 117, folio edition. See also note to Lord Castlereagh, August 9, 1815, ibid., page 115.) Forthermore, not only was the slave indemnity convention of November 13, 1826, negotiated in the Presidency of Mr. J. Q. Adams, but instructions to propose to Great Britain a convention for the surrender of fugitive slaves were given by his Secretary of State, Mr. Clay, successively to Mr. Gallatin, and to Mr. Barbour." I cite these authorities to show what were the opinion of these great men, not only in reference to the authority of Congress under the Constitution, but in reference to the rights pertaining to a state of war. But, Mr. President, we have even earlier authority than that which I have cited, to show what was the judgment of the founders of the Republic in reference to a state of war, and in reference to the power which one belligerent had as against another to take away slaves or private property. On page 1017 of the fourth part of Lawrence's Wheaton, I find this: "A report was made to the old Congress by Mr. Jay, as Secretary for Foreign Affairs, February 28, 1786, in reference to the violation or non-fulfillment by Great Britain of the treaty of 1783. Among the matters specially enumerated is the carrying off of negroes. While he fails to contend for including in the terms of the treaty such as were in the course of the war captured and disposed of as booty, acts which Mr. J. Q. Adams regarded as contrary to the usages of war among civilized nations, he insists on the validity of our claim, not only as to such negroes as remained with and belonged to American inhabitants within the British lines, but also as to those who, confiding in proclamations and promises of freedom and protection, fled from their masters without, and were received and protected within the British camps and lines. The latter, he thinks, are clearly comprehended in the article, because they remained as much as ever the property of their masters. They could not,' he said, by merely flying or eloping, extinguish the right or title of their masters, nor was that title destroyed by their coming into the enemy's possession, for they were received, not taken by the enemy; they were received not as slaves, but as friends and freemen; by no act, therefore, either of their own or of their friends, was the right of their masters taken away; so that being the property of American inhabitants, it was an infraction of the seventh article of the treaty to carry them away."" It will be observed, Mr. President, that I oppose this measure, both on grounds of policy and humanity, and as repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the laws of war. The policy which we have adopted in reference to this class of people was repudiated by one of the greatest generals that ever lived. I invite the attention of the Senate to the remark of Napoleon as to what was his policy when he entered Russia; I quote from Lawrence's Wheaton, part four, page 1018: "In the answer of the emperor to the address of the Senate, on his return from Russia, December, 1812, the very wise policy of not embittering the quarrel with Alexander was visibly manifested. The war which I carry on,' said Napoleon, is a political war. I have undertaken it without animosity, and I would have wished to spare to Russia the evils which she has brought upon herself. I could have armed against her a part of her population by proclaiming the liberty of the serfs. A great number of villages asked it of me, but I refused to avail myself of a measure wlrich would have devoted to death thousands of families.'"Thiers, Histoire du Consulat et de l'Empire, tome 15, p. 168. Sir, in this day of much-boasted enlightenment, in the nineteenth century, and among the people of the United States, a policy which was abhorrent to the feelings of the great military chieftain of Europe has been adopted. But it may not be improper to cite in this connection the opinion of another great military chieftain, for whom the people of this whole country express and entertain a most profound respect. I have called for the authority for the passage of this measure. I shall be answered, if answered at all, that humanity demands it, and that necessity demands it. These are doctrines of modern origin, however. Although not a very old man, I am too old to recognize them. I would rather have authority than have conjecture. General Scott, who has lately published his autobiography, has expressed his opinion as to the authority of Congress to interfere with slaves in the States. He adds no limitations, no qualifications. He does not consider the question whether humanity demands it, or whether absolute necessity demands it, but he expresses his opinion clearly and boldly in reference to the constitutional authority, and here it is. On page 372 of the second volume of Scott's Autobiography I find this: "I suppose I scarcely need say that, in my opinion, Congress has no color of authority, under the Constitution, for touching the relation of master and slave within a State." I should not feel it necessary to support opinions so clear by references to military authority, when we have expositors of the Constitution of the United States and judicial decisions to tell us what that instrument means, was it not for the fact that "military necessity" is invoked for this measure as well as for every kindred measure. Then presuming that the ablest as well as the oldest general in the country, notwithstanding what he is said to have written on the fly leaf of a copy of his own autobiography, knew as much about" military necessity" as any of us, I have taken the liberty of referring to his opinions very recently expressed by himself. Mr. President, I shall not pursue this question. I have very clearly-defined opinions as to the policy of this species of legislation. I have very clearly-defined opinions as to the constitutional authority of Congress to pass it. Not subscribing to the doctrine that I derive my authority as a legislator from a consideration of what I may deem absolutely necessary, and believing that I do not derive that authority from any supposed principle of humanity, but am bound in my action to be governed by the Constitution of the country, which is the bond of union, the bond by the preservation of which only can the Union be restored, if it shall ever be restored, I could not allow this measure to pass without the brief presentation of views which I have made. I believe, sir, that my when the future historian shall calmly and coolly survey the history of the great struggle between opposing sections of the country, and shall assign for the consideration of those who are to come after us the most embarrassing cause operating against the restoration of the Federal Union, he will say it is this species of legislation. It is a species of legislation which in the early days of this contest scarcely any member of this body avowed himself to be in favor of. It is a species of legislation which the President of the United States himself in his inaugural message did not dare to announce his approval of. One suggestion further. I will state, not discuss it. Suppose you attract by your specious but false promises a slave in any seceded State to your standard; suppose he enters your Army under the promise that he and his wife and children shall forever be free, and is recaptured: what is his legal status and condition? By the jus postliminii he is a slave, the slave of his former master. Your promise of absolute freedom is a delusion. Be honest. Awaken not hopes that you know must be disappointed. I hope that, though the fires of civil war are still blazing, it is not too late now for us to retrace to some extent the steps we have taken in our legislative policy, and that in future, knowing that that policy has failed to subserve any great practical or beneficial result heretofore, we shall feel disposed to try a different policy. That hope I fortable support to those helpless beings who are sincerely entertain, because I believe that if this The wife and children, if any he have, of any person who may be hereafter mustered into the military or naval service of the United States, shall, from and after the passage of this act, be forever free. I regard the resolution as unconstitutional, and that it will be utterly null and void if passed. In my opinion, it will not be worth the paper upon which it is printed. I do not hesitate to express my opinion that any court of any intelligence or independence of principle and action would declare it unconstitutional and inoperative; nevertheless I propose this amendment that the resolution may be in harmony with its professed object. That object is to promote enlistments. Of course, to make it operate on enlistments that have heretofore taken place cannot give it any effect to promote enlistments. I propose, therefore, by the amendment which I offer, to confine its operation to the future, to make it prospective, and to give it that degree of vitality and efficacy which those who support it profess to have in view in offering it. I shall vote for the amendment; but whether the amendment be adopted or not, believing as I believe that the main proposition is a most flagrant violation of the Constitution of the United States, I shall not hesitate to vote against it. Mr. CLARK. I hope the amendment-offered by the Senator from Kentucky will not be agreed to. I do not propose to detain the Senate for more than a moment; but it is well known that we now have in our Army many of these soldiers, black men who were slaves, who have been brought into the armies of the United States, and who have proved themselves very efficient soldiers generally. These men are annoyed continually by the reports and by the knowledge that they have left their wives and children at home slaves subject to the control of masters. If we set free the wives and children of these soldiers, as is proposed by this resolution, we leave them more free to fight the battles of the country, and without much concern for their wives and children they have left behind them. The resolution is for the purpose of promoting the efficiency of the Army, not entirely for bringing new soldiers into the Army, but for the purpose of promoting the efficiency of the soldiers already in the Army. Hence I hope that the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky will not be agreed to, and that we shall not only set free the wives and children of soldiers who may hereafter be enlisted, but the wives and children of those who have already gone into the service of the country. ure, they would urge me to offer amendments to it; Sir, this is the first time I have ever ventured to troduced by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. BROWN] could be brought before the Senate instead of this. That Senator, at the last session, introduced a bill which strikes at the root of this poison-tree which has sent its shadows over the country. If that measure could be brought before the Senate instead of this we should not have to begin by lopping off branches; we should not have to begin with bills like this abolishing slavery inch by inch. The measure of the Senator from Missouri, if it could be substituted for this, would put an end, in my opinion, to our temporizing policy and to the abolition of slavery in one district after another by piecemeal. I much prefer his measure to this, but I shall vote for this. Mr. BROWN. I will state in response to the remark of the Senator from Kansas that I purpose bringing up the measure introduced by me at the last session, for a vote at this session at a subsequent time, but I do not desire to antagonize it at the present time with the measure that has been introduced by the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. WILSON.] That is the only reason why I prefer to take a separate vote on the separate propositions. I believe with the Senator from Kansas that the proper mode of dealing with this question would be to deal with it radically and cover the whole case; but I shall be very glad, even if I cannot obtain that, to obtain the relief which is contained in the measure introduced by the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, perhaps it is proper that I should very briefly state the reasons which will govern my vote on this measure. I do not consider a vote against it to be a vote in favor of slavery or the interests of the slaveholder. I presume that if the father and husband be taken into the military service of the United States it will be a relief to the slaveholder to take from him the obligation to provide for the family that is left at home. Public sentiment, as well as municipal law would require the master, while the relation subsisted, to make provision for them. But if Congress declares them free, that obligation, if the law of Congress have constitutional force and validity, is removed from the master. Therefore I am not able to see that a vote against this measure is a vote for the slave owner. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] the other day said to the Senate that he was going to give constitutional grounds upon which members might stand in supporting this measure, and I had hoped that he would refer us to some provision of the Constitution that would justify the vote; but after listening to him with great attention, I was unable to observe that in any single argument he presented he referred to the Constitution at all. I believe he read none of its provisions, referred to none of its language which justified the measure. He did say that at the last session of Congress, by law we had declared the slave taken into the Army of the United States to be free, and that the constitutional power to free the slave taken Mr. POMEROY. I am very willing to vote on this question, and would be glad to vote now. I do not intend to occupy the time of the Senate, for I desire very much to have an opportunity of reaching the vote at some time, and I hope it will be taken as early as possible, I only rise now to say that I have noticed that men who are arguing in the interest of slavery always resist emancipation until the very last moment, and then when the moment comes they say it would be a great relief to the owners of this property to get rid of it, that it cannot take care of itself, and humanity comes in and pleads that some appropriation may be made to support this class of individuals, who are so helpless and so inefficient and so worthless. I remember that when the proposition to free the slaves in this District was before the Senate some three years ago, it was then urged that if we abol-into the service would support the constitutionality ished slavery in the District we should have to erect large poor-houses or places where they could be gathered in and supported at public expense. The bill was passed, however; the District became free; and I have not been called upon-I do not know if any one has been-to vote for any appropriation to pay for any increased number of paupers that has resulted from emancipation in the District. I think these individuals can take care of themselves measurably in the States as they have done in the District. The class of persons in the slave States who are helpless are the poor whites, who have suffered the loss of all things excepting, perhaps, their personal freedom and liberty; and if such a measure as has been suggested by the Senator from Kentucky could be brought in for their relief it might be well to consider it. But I have seen the effect of abolish Mr. DAVIS. If this measure shall prevail, it ought to be added to in this respect: those who pass such a measure should in all humanity and justice make provision for the support of the beings that it will emancipate. Take the case of a slave who has already enlisted in the military service of the United States, having a wife and five or six helpless children. By the laws of the States in which that wife and those children are held as property, the owners of those slaves are bound to support them; it is their legal obligation and duty, and there are remedial legal measures by which they may be made to perform that duty of justice and humanity. What, however, will be the effect of this measure if it be passed? It will wrest from the owners of the slaves these helpless wives and children, and of course relieve their owners from the obligation to support them. What, then, is to become of the negro wife for whom this mock sympathy is expressed? What,ing slavery in this District, and on the borders of then, is to become of the helpiess children who are too young and altogether unable to support themselves? Sir, to support a negro woman and three or four children is a matter of considerable cost and expense. Any man who owns that sort of property knows it. I know it. Notwithstanding the charge it is upon the owners, they feel the obligation of humanity and justice to those who occupy that relationship to them, to make a com Missouri where I live, and I have not yet seen of this measure. Sir, I am not able to see that, The Senator stated it simply, he did not illustrate his proposition so as to make it plain to myself, at least. Upon what ground was the measure of the last session supported? Upon the ground that Congress has power to free the slaves of the States? No, sir. It could be supported on one of two grounds. First, if the master do not have prop erty in his slave, but slavery be a mere relation, and if the slave be regarded as a person, then his personal service may be taken by the Government, and in that case no compensation, perhaps, need be made to the master. There is in the northern States the relation of parent and child, and the relation of master and apprentice; and yet no one questions that either relation for the time being may be disturbed; the power of the parent over the child may be withdrawn, and the control of the master over the apprentice may be withdrawn for the time being, and the minor child or the apprentice taken into the service of the United States without compensation to the parent or to the master. The relation is disturbed for the time being, and the minor child or the apprentice taken into the service of the United States without compensation to the parent or to the mas ter. The relation is disturbed for the time being, but certainly if the child is restored to the neigh THE OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS, PUBLISHED BY F. & J. RIVES, WASHINGTON, D. C. THIRTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION. borhood again during his minority, or if the apprentice is restored to the neighborhood and to his master again during his minority, and before the expiration of the term of his apprenticeship, the relation is restored. On the other hand, if we regard the slave as the property of the master, that property, like any other property in the country, may be taken by the Government and appropriated to public use, due compensation being made therefor. When Congress passed the bill at the last session this was the view taken. The slave was regarded by that act of Congress as the property of the master, and therefore, under the language of the Constitution, compensation was provided to be made to the master. I will call the attention of Senators to the provision of that law found on the 11th page of the Acts of the last session: "When a slave of a loyal master shall be drafted and mustered into the service of the United States, his master shall have a certificate thereof, and thereupon such slave shall be free; and the bounty of $100, now payable by law for each drafted man, shall be paid to the person to whom such drafted person was owing service or labor at the time of his muster into the service of the United States." That is one compensation to the master; the $100 bounty goes to the master instead of to the drafted slave. Again, the act provides: "The Secretary of War shall appoint a commission in each of the slave States represented in Congress, charged to award to each loyal person to whom a colored volunteer may owe service a just compensation, not exceeding $300 for each such colored volunteer, payable out of the fund derived from commutations, and every such colored volunteer, on being mustered into the service, shall be free." In the enactment of the law which I have just read, Congress contemplated the slave as the property of the master, and the property as being taken for public use, and compensation to be made for that property under the Constitution of the United States. Now, sir, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts if the same reason applies to the family of the slave who is thus taken? The wife is not taken for public use; the children are not taken for public use. In no way are they valuable to the public service. This measure is entitled a joint resolution to encourage enlistments and to promote the military service-I believe that is the substance of the title. I ask the Senator, then, if the freeing of the family of the negro who has been taken into the service is an appropriation of that family to public use? If so, the argument of the Senator is good; otherwise it is not. The Senator also said that it was mean to take the service for the public use of the head of the family and to leave the residue of the family in slavery. That is his judgment on the subject. What standard governs his judgment I cannot say. My judgment is that it cannot be mean to obey the Constitution of my country while it is in force. I do not believe that Congress has the power to abrogate the laws of the States which regulate the relations of individuals there. From the earliest times of the Government this relation has been recognized; a relation established by the laws of the States; a relation that Congress could not interfere with; laws of the States which Congress could not disturb. Now, sir, how is it that we can go outside of an appropriation of property for public use and free those slaves who are not thus used for public purposes? I am not able to see it. I need not refer to the provisions of the Constitution that recognize the relation of master and servant, and not only recognize that relation but impose upon Congress the duty to protect it. That provision of the Constitution which requires that the fugitive slave shall be returned to his master recognizes the relation as existing under State laws, State laws that cannot be disturbed by Congress. Are the wife and children of a slave who has become a volunteer or is conscripted to be made free, and how? If they are slaves, they are such by force of the laws of the State. Can Congress disturb those laws; can Congress disturb that relation when the persons are not required for the public service? I am not able to see it; and because I think we have not the con TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1865. stitutional power to do this thing I shall vote against this measure. Mr. WADE. Mr. President, I do not rise for the purpose of entering into any extended argument on this subject at the present time, because to my mind the proposition is so plain, in connection with what we have already done, that I do not conceive that any argument could make it plainer. I think we were greatly at fault when we first enabled the Government to conscript slaves, or to enlist them into our armies, in not passing a bill like the one before us. I think the failure to do so is a reproach to Congress. It appears to me, as it did to the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER,] that it is an act of meanness in us to conscript or enlist the father and leave his wife and children in the hands of the master, subject to all his resentment, consequent on the fact that he has been deprived of that which he calls his property. It is unnecessary, I think, at this stage of our proceedings, to argue in the Senate the constitutional question, because we have already passed upon our right to conscript and enlist the slave. We have already passed laws on that subject, and I suppose no one proposes now to back out of them. What gave us the right to do so, unless it was a military necessity? I believe we placed it on that ground, and I think it will stand upon that in a great revolution like this, and stand the test of the judgment of the world. Of course there was no Senator here, and there was no individual anywhere in the States that I ever knew anything about, who claimed that in time of peace the General Government had a right to manumit slaves in the States. I know very well that the party with whom I have long acted were charged with such designs, but it was always denied, and any such notion was never attempted to be carried out, was never pretended to be acted upon. But, sir, all that is changed in time of war when the Government itself is put in jeopardy. When that is the case, and we are endeavoring to defend the Government from dissolution and destruction, the necessity of the case, in my judgment, must be the measure of our constitutional right to proceed. The expediency of this measure, conceding that we have the right to pass it, must be obvious to everybody. Do gentlemen suppose that you can enlist in the service of the United States negroes who are slaves that have any regard for their wives and their children, when they leave those wives and children in the hands of their infuriated masters to wreak on them their vengeance and cruelty? Sir, they will not do it. I know the fact, for I have been down in that country where we are endeavoring to enlist this class of soldiers, and the great objection everywhere is that the negro will not enlist unless you free his wife and children; he will not consent to leave them in this predicament. But, sir, I did not rise so much to argue the question as to present and have read, in connection with this debate, an affidavit which I have in my possession, and which I think will throw some light upon the matter as a practical question. I send the affidavit to the desk, and ask to have it read as part and parcel of my remarks. The Secretary read, as follows: CAMP NELSON, KENTUCKY, November 26, 1864. Personally appeared before me, Edward B. W. Restieaux, captain and assistant quartermaster, Joseph Miller, a man of color, who being duly sworn, upon oath says: "I was the slave of Geore Miller, Lincoln county, Kentucky. I have always resided in Kentucky, and am now a soldier in the service of the United States. I belong to company I, 124th regiment United States colored infantry, now stationed at Camp Nelson, Kentucky. When I came to camp for the purpose of enlisting, about the middle of October, 1864, my wife and children came with me, because my master said that if I enlisted he would not maintain them, and I knew they would be abused by him when I left. I had then four children, aged respectively ten, nine, seven, and four years. On my presenting myself as a reeruit, I was told by the lieutenant in cominand to take my family into a tent within the limits of the camp. My wife and family occupied this tent by the express permission of the aforementioned officer, and never received any notice to leave until Tuesday, November 22, when a mounted guard gave my wife notice that she and her children must NEW SERIES.....No. 11. leave camp before early morning. This was about six o'clock at night. My little boy about seven years of age had been very sick, and was then slowly recovering. My wife had no place to go, and so remained until morning. About eight o'clock on Wednesday morning, November 23, a mounted guard came to my tent and ordered my wife and children out of the camp. The morning bitter cold. It was freezing hard. I was certain that it would kill my sick child to take him out in the cold. I told the man in charge of the guard that it would be the death of my boy. I told him that my wife and children had no place to go. I told him that I was a soldier of the United States. He told me that it did not make any difference, he had orders to take all out of camp. He told my wife and family that if they did not get up in the wagon which he had he would shoot the last one of them. On being thus threatened, my wife and children went into the wagon. My wife carried her sick child in her arms. When they left the tent the wind was blowing hard and cold, and having had to leave much of our clothing when we left our master, my wife with her little ones was poorly clad. I followed them as far as the lines. I had no knowledge where they were taking them. At night I went in search of my family; I found them in Nicholasville, about six miles from camp; they were in an old meeting-house belonging to the colored people; the building was very cold, having only one fire. My wife and children could not get near the fire because of the number of colored people huddled together by the soldiers. I found my wife and family shivering with cold and famished with hunger; they had not received a morsel of food during the whole day; my boy was dead; he died directly after getting down from the wagon; I know he was killed by exposure to the inclement weather. I had to return to camp that night, so I left my family in the meeting-house and walked back. I had walked there. I traveled in all twelve miles. Next morning I walked to Nicholasville. I dug a grave myself and buried my own child. I left my family in the meeting-house, where they still remain." And further this deponent saith not. Mr. WADE. I have also the statement of the commanding officer there, Captain Paul, corroborating that statement, and some other documents to the same effect. I do not know that it is necessary to read them. These people were driven out. They were slaves. They could not go back to their master again without subjecting themselves to worse treatment than they received at the hands of our officers there. The husband of this wife and the father of this family was compelled to travel in search of them, who had no place to go to, in cold, inclement weather, twelve miles, after performing all the duties of a soldier in the camp, and there he found, as he had predicted, that his child had died in consequence of this hard, harsh treatment. He could not go back to his master, I say again, because he had enlisted in the Army, and had incurred his resentment. That is shown by these papers. In this way enlistments are discouraged. These colored men will not enlist while these things are allowed. They have the same feelings toward their wives and children that white men have, as near as I can ascertain; and where is the white man who would enlist in the Army of the United States and leave his wife and children subject to the taunts, the insults, and the ignominy of a master who had been accustomed to treat them as slaves, and who was fired with indignation and animosity because the father of the family, his slave, had left him? I will state in connection with this subject that I visited this Camp Nelson last summer. General Burbridge was the commanding officer. I rode there with General Burbridge from Lexington in order to see a review that was about to take place there, and a sight greeted me such as I never beheld in the world, and hope I never shall again. As soon I had arrived in the camp we had scarcely alighted from the carriage before a colored woman, whom I should suppose to be thirty years of age, appeared before us, all bruised to pieces. Her face was all whipped to a jelly. She had a child with her which she said was twelve years old; one of whose eyes had been gouged out, and the other attempted to be, as they stated, by their mistress, the father being in the Army. Her head was all cut to pieces by what appeared to be a sharp instrument; her skull was laid bare almost, and her back perfectly mangled by the torture to which she had been subjected. All this was done, as we were informed, because her husband had enlisted in the Army of the United States, and she and her child werecompelled to flee to this camp the best way they could, in that condition. And yet gentlemen stand up here and talk about constitutional law in exculpation of such infernal acts as these! Sir, I tell you that slavery is an organized rebel, and you can have no peace as long as that relation exists in the United States; and, as God is my judge, I hope you will have no peace until you abolish it. I ask for no peace until slavery is extinct in these United States. We hear men sometimes talk about the object for which this war is prosecuted. They higgle over the idea that it was to defend the United States against the aggressions of the South. That was the fact. It was, in its commencement, a strictly defensive war; but war was commenced, and thank God, I think I see that it cannot end until that which gave rise to it shall have ended, and I hope it will not. If it continues thirty years and bankrupts the whole nation, I hope to God there will be no peace until we can say there is not a slave in this land. That is the way I view the subject. I have ever viewed it so. I have never higgled about the cause of the war, although I know it was a defensive war in its commencement, and is so even now, because I know you can have no lasting peace until this accursed institution is prostrated to rise no more. I say again, I ask no peace until that is done. I am glad of the stubbornness with which the South hold out. I hope they will hold out in their blindness until they provoke us to do that which the occasion demands, without which being done you ought to have no peace, and you can have no peace. Sir, I say it is a shame and a reproach to us to invoke the aid of the slave to assist us in working out our own liberty and putting down this rebellion while we deny his right to have his wife and children emancipated. We ought to have emancipated them before; but it is never too late to do right. Let us free all who will enlist into our armies, or who shall be conscripted, and all who stand in any relation to them, and not leave them to be mangled and tortured and murdered by those whose resentment is enkindled at the fact that they have gone into the armies of the United States. It is horridly cruel; it is barbarous; it is as impolitic as it is cruel and barbarous. I hope, sir, that the resolution will pass. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, my constituents are slaveholders; I am a slaveholder myself; and I have my rights guarantied by the constitution and laws of my State, and by the Constitution and laws of Congress, until those laws are repealed. Here and everywhere I shall stand up in support of the rights of my constituency and of myself under the Constitution of our common country and of our State, and our laws. Gentlemen cannot force me from the occupation of that position by a denunciation of the property and institution that is guarantied by these constitutions and these laws, a description of property which their own States once cherished, which they established, and which their people did more to disseminate and to sustain by their laws and polity for its protection than any other States. Mr. President, there is now a crusade against slavery, and it is about as unjust, as fanatical, and as irrational as all the other crusades that have heretofore taken place in the world. I have, time and again, expressed my sentiments upon this subject; I do not intend to repeat them; but there are one or two features of this measure to which I will again ask the attention of the Senate; and my views are sustained by the facts of the case brought up by the honorable Senator from Ohio. That case shows that these women and children, when deprived of the protection and the support of their masters, and their husbands are enlisted in the service, although it be in the neighborhood of the residence of the wife and children, are not able to protect and to secure their proper support. If I understand the case that has been cited, the husband enlisted in the Army. He was informed by the owner of the wife and children that he would no longer support them if he should enlist. IIe went to camp. The wife and children followed him to camp, and had the most perfect liberty, if I understand the case, to make provision for their own support. Did they make that provision? No, sir; they fell into that state of destitution, want, disease, and death that is so vividly expressed in that affidavit. The Senator says, and no doubt truly, that these people were abandoned by their owner. In that abandonment he violated the laws of humanity and he acted a cruel and an ungenerous part toward those who had occupied the relation of slaves to him. Sir, in my own county there have been enlisted into the service of the United States, according to the best estimates we have been able to make, about six hundred slave men. I do not know, nor have 1 heard, of but one solitary case of abuse, of cruel treatment, or of mistreatment whatever to any of the wives or children of the men who enlisted in the Army. A man owned a slave man. He also owned the wife and children. The husband enlisted; and the master drove, or threatened to drive, the helpless wife and children from his home. He was a Lincoln man, and voted for the reëlection of Lincoln. I know of but that solitary case in the county of Bourbon, where there have been an enlistment of at least six hundred slaves, where there has been any threatened mistreatment, none positive and none negative whatever. But, sir, the position I set out with was this: that there were many cases of slave families where, if the husband was taken from the owner, and in many where he had been taken from the owner, if the wife and children were free, if the relation between the master and these slaves were severed, the wife and children would not be able to support themselves, and would come to that miserable condition of destitution, penury, disease, and death which is described in the affidavit that the honorable Senator from Ohio sent to the desk to be read. validity or effect in it; but the premises, as well as the conclusion, are utterly false. Whenever the principle is decided by a competent and independent court, it will thus be settled, that neither husband, nor wife, nor children can be taken, even to make the husband a soldier in the Army, until his reasonable value is paid or secured to the owner. That is an invulnerable constitutional and legal truth, and it can be sustained by the decisions of the highest courts of every State in the United States. But, waiving that question, the principle and the provision of the Constitution which authorizes private property to be taken for public use has no application whatever, as was shown by the Senator from Indiana, and as has been shown a hundred times in this body. Mr. President, I did not rise to add as many words as I have, but merely to protest against the passage of this resolution in its present form, and to remind its friends, and to insist, in the name of humanity and of a degraded and humble race, that if they will throw them upon the world, they shall not throw them utterly helpless and incapable of getting their bread and their raiment; that while the husband and father is carried to the camp, and is away hundreds of miles from the wife and children, the wife and children shall not be thrown suddenly upon the world without any intellectual or physical capacity to support themselves, there to be left to perish from want and disease; but that the humane philanthropists who are commending this measure to the nation and to the world shall make a reasonable provision for the support of this helpless class of beings. Mr. JOHNSON. The remark made by yourself, sir, [Mr. POMEROY in the chair,] speaking to this resolution, has no application to me. I am not and never have been an advocate of slavery; and as you and the Senate know, I gave my support very cheerfully, and as efficiently as I was able, to the proposed amendment to the Constitution abolishing the institution throughout the United States. Why I supposed such an amendment should be adopted, and why I supposed we had the authority to adopt it, I do not propose now to discuss. I have already presented to the it was expedient and was constitutional. · Sir, [Mr. POMEROY in the chair,] you chose to give us some of your experience and some of your instruction in relation to this matter-à matter about which you know nothing at all practi-Senate the reasons which led me to conclude that cally. We understand the subject. It is in our midst. We have seen it every day of our lives. We know it by daily observation and experience. There is not a man living who has this kind of information but what knows this fact well: that in the State of Kentucky there are thousands and tens of thousands of instances of slave mothers and children where, if the mothers and children were freed at once and thrown upon their own resources, they could not make a support, but must come to that state of misery, destitution, and death which the family we have just heard read about came to. My position was that the effect of this measure, if it is passed, will be to place many families in that position, in that state of destitution, and that it would be cruel and inhuman legislation on the part of Congress so to leave those destitute families. If they have the power, and will exercise it, to free those families, they ought to make a provision that such families as are unable to support themselves should receive the necessary aid from the Government for the purpose of having a comfortable support. Why, sir, there is not a man who ever lived in a slave State but what knows that there are almost unnumbered cases of slave women and slave children who are too helpless and too young to pay for their present support. The consideration that induces the owner to keep them, and to pay the expenses of their support, is the increased age, the growing strength and capacity of the children to work and become valuable to him in after years. If it was not for that consideration, I have no doubt that the interests and inhumanity of men would throw many of these families out upon the world without a proper support at all. Our laws are framed upon that principle of human nature, and for that reason the laws make it the legal obligation of the owners of slaves to support them, to support them in their infancy, in their age, and in their helplessness, whether the result of infancy or of age. It has been argued again and again that because the husband is liberated therefore Congress has the power to liberate the wife and the children. There is no logic in that conclusion; there is no legal || I voted the other day against referring the resolution before the Senate to the Committee on the Judiciary, not because I was in favor of it, but because I was exceedingly anxious that the subject itself should be disposed of at the earliest possible moment. From good motives, I have no doubt, those members of the Senate who feel toward this institution perhaps more strongly than I do thought it their duty to occupy the greater portion of the deliberations of this body during the last session by that topic; and I was satisfied that the questions involved in this resolution had been sufficiently brought before the Senate to enable every Senator to make up his mind as to the vote which he might give. There was no need, therefore, under that impression, of sending it to the Committee on the Judiciary. But I rise now very briefly to state why it is that I am unable to vote for this resolution. It is not because-perhaps no member of the Senate feels more strongly in that regard than I do-it is not because I desire to see the wives and children, where there are wives and children, of the black men who have enlisted in the Army remain in the condition of slavery, but because I am fuily under the impression (and an impression so strongly felt that I am sure no argument will be sufficient to induce me to change it) that we have no authority to pass a resolution of this nature. The honorable member from Massachusetts, in his speech a day or two ago, placed it upon the ground of necessity. The rebellion, he said, was to be suppressed. In that, I believe, we are all agreed. It became necessary for that purpose to call into the armies of the United States the negroes. As to the power to call them into the military service of the United States I never had any doubt; and I endeavored to lay before the Senate on a former occasion the reason why I supposed there existed no doubt of the authority of Congress to use those men as a means of warfare. But I found it in the authority to raise armies, and in the double character in which, under the Constitution, the negro slave, or the negro man who is not a slave, stands toward the United States. According to my view, whether he was slave or free, he held the relation of citizen, owing an allegiance to the United States; and, owing an allegiance to the United States, was subject to the call of the United States when the United States should think proper to call him to their defense, either in time of foreign war or in time of civil war; that in relation to the negro slave, although he stood in the condition of property, and was, in the view of the Constitution of the United States and of the States where the institution exists, property, to the extent that it was made property by the laws of the State in which he might be, yet he also stood in the relation of person, and was liable to be called upon to constitute a part of the Army of the United States. The honorable member from Massachusetts, however, said that we were all agreed in thinking that when a negro slave was called into the service of the United States he became thereby free. If he is under the impression that I concur in that opinion he is mistaken. What I said was that, having called him into the service of the United States, as I supposed we had a right to do, it would become the duty of the United States to have him free, but to have him free in a constitutional and legal way; to pay for him whatever his services might be worth; to pay for him for those services to the master, or to pass an amendment to the Constitution declaring him free. || Mr. CLARK. If the honorable Senator will pardon me for a moment, I wish that such a law should be passed that when those men have exhibited that gallantry, and have bared their bosoms, their limbs, and their lives in defense of the country, they shall not be stung by the thought that at home their wives and children are the subjects of abuse by their masters. Mr. JOHNSON. I agree in that; but that is sentiment altogether. I understood the honorable member to urge the adoption of this resolution upon two grounds: the first was that it would encourage enlistments; the other was that it would increase the efficiency of the Army. Mr. CLARK. I think the Senator is a little mistaken. I made the remark that it would make the Army more efficient entirely in reference to the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, which related to those persons already in the Army. Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly. Then they have been efficient, as I understood my friend to admit, and I am not here to deny it. I do not know what the fact is. I believe there are differences of opinion on the question; but how the fact is I am unadvised. They are now efficient, and you are now getting just as many as you want, just as many as you can provide for; and if it be true that you have as many as you can employ, and that those you have are efficient, upon what ground can you place the measure before us that it is demanded because of the necessity of adding to the enlistments, and of increasing the efficiency of the enlisted? the enunciation of their principles in their conven- institution became a subject of party politics, I But even if it was true, Mr. President, that the power under the Constitution exists to make a negro slave a free man by calling him into the armies of the United States, it would be a very illogical inference, in my view, to suppose that thereby his wife and his children became free, or Now, Mr. President, if there was anything that thereby his wife and his children could be settled when the Constitution was adopted, if anydeclared free by a simple act of Congress; and I thing has been settled since by judicial authority, was about to say I was a little amused, consid-if anything has been settled by political parties in ering what we have heard in the past, at the grounds upon which the opposite view is placed by some of the Senators of the other side. One of them says, and the resolution upon its face goes to that extent in part, that it will encourage enlistments. Another, the honorable member from New Hampshire, has told us that it will wonderfully increase the efficiency of this description of force. Now, in relation to the first, I think I cannot be mistaken in saying that those who advocated the bringing into the military service the negro slave said, that once authorize it, and not only would all the slaves be willing to come to the standard of the United States, but that thousands and thousands and hundreds of thousands of white men in the eastern States would be seen flocking the highways, rushing to the capital of the United States for that purpose. In the language of an editor who possesses, and justly possesses, as I think, such a controlling influence over the party to which he belongs, three hundred thousand men would at once be seen coming to the standard of the United States, and the rebellion would at once be put down. But I have not heard from the War Department, the Senate certainly has not heard officially, that there has been any difficulty in getting black soldiers. Certainly there was none in my State. There was none in my State because two modes were resorted to. I will not stop to inquire whether both were constitutional or legal. The one was voluntary enlistment, and as that was supposed to fail to a certain extent, it was virtually compulsory enlistment; and they got just as many as they wanted. There is hardly a black man now who was a slave at the breaking out of this war, who was living in Maryland at the time when you authorized the enlistment of black soldiers, capable of bearing arms, who has not been placed in the Army of the United States either by voluntary enlistment or by compulsory enlistment. Then, as to their efficiency, I have heard some of my friends on this floor say-I hoped then that they were right, and I hope still that they are right, and the whole press that has been advocating the employment of this class of persons in the Army of the United States have said the same thing-that among the most gallant in the Army during the battles in which they were engaged were black soldiers; and yet their wives and their children were not free by any law then passed. Does my honorable friend from New Hampshire wish to make them more gallant than gallant, more efficient than efficient? Does he want to make them more gallant and efficient than the white soldiers? My friend from Ohio, [Mr. WADE,] whose sincerity no one questions, whose uniform course in relation to this subject is known to all, tells us that he wants this war continued until the institution shall be abolished. He wants battle after battle to occur, and thousands and thousands of the men of the loyal States as well as the men of the rebel States to be slaughtered, and will have those scenes of slaughter continued during a period of thirty years rather than terminate the strife, if it is to be terminated without the abolition of slavery everywhere throughout the United States. That is not my opinion. I dislike the institution just as much as he does or can. I think it is attended with the most dire of evils; that it is disadvantageous to the master, and keeps the slave in a condition in which no man should be placed, demoralizes him, renders him incapable of knowing what moral duty is, debars him of the privilege of ascertaining what Christian duty is, closes the Bible to him, and closes every variety of knowledge from necessity. I know all that; but I am not for continuing the war until the institution shall be abolished if we can terminate the war now: first, because we have no authority, according to my view, under the Constitution, and we are sworn to support it; secondly, because as in the retributive justice of Heaven the institution is mortally wounded now, if there were peace to-morrow it would have no permanent existence, and would be stripped of all political influence. The South must have seen what an element of weakness it is in war. They must have seen that with such an institution as that in their midst, if they ever get again into a civil strife with the loyal States, disaster and defeat, and, if necessary, subjugation must be the result. And what are we now told, and, I believe, truly told? Their papers proclaim it in Richmond: "If it becomes necessary we will abolish the institution; we will call the negroes into our own service first, and see if with their aid and with the aid of the white men of the South we can make successful resistance to the war upon the part of the loyal States; but, that failing, we will emancipate all; provided," for they attach a provision to it now, "provided we can make an alliance offensive and defensive with England and France.' And, as I understand, they have good reasons for believing that if they do abolish the institution they will be recognized by both Governments, and perhaps both will come at once to their aid. Suppose that should be done; that the institution should be abolished by them they have the same power to do it that we have -will my honorable friend from Ohio want to continue the war then? I suppose he will say not. Then what is the result? The Union dissevered; the work of our fathers gone; our former glory never again to be repeated; and (as is certain to be the result) every ten or fifteen or twenty years a war between the conterminous countries. But, Mr. President, I am glad to believe, as I think I see, that the President of the United States is not of the opinion entertained by the honorable Senator from Ohio. As I read his last message, he thinks, and I think with him, with due deference to the honorable member from Ohio, that if the men in arms against the United States throw down their arms the war not only should not be waged, but that there would be no authority to wage it. As we know, during the late political canvass, in a paper that became notorious, and will be notorious hereafter, entited "To whom it may concern," the President stated, or was understood to have stated, that there were two conditions upon which alone the war could be made to terminate: the one was the continuing existence of the Union, and the other the abolition of slavery. I know that, as far as the last reason was concerned, it made some of his warmest and most zealous supporters exceedingly unhappy; and it was explained away. The majority of the people who voted for him considered the explanation satisfactory. It was said that he did not mean what he apparently said; and such became the fixed opinion of those who disapproved of what they supposed to have been the meaning of what he had stated in that address of his "To whom it may concern." I am glad to see that the friends who saved him from the possible fatal result of such a declaration, or what they thought would be the fatal result of such a declaration, did not misunderstand him; for in his message he says: "Between him" That is, Jefferson Davis "and us the issue is distinct, simple, and inflexible. It * * * That is, the loyal people of the South, if there are any there. "Some of them we know already desire peace and reunion. The number of such may increase. They can"- I ask the honorable member from Ohio to listen to these words, and see what they mean: "They can at any moment have peace simply by laying down their arms and submitting to the national authority under the Constitution. After so much”— That is, after laying down their arms and submitting "After so much, the Government could not, if it would, maintain war against them. The loyal people would not sustain or allow it." He is speaking of the honorable member from Ohio as among the loyal. Not satisfied with announcing that opinion in the plain words in which it is given in the part of the message that I have quoted, he deems it necessary to conclude his message by reiterating the same views. He says in conclusion: "In presenting the abandonment of armed resistance to the national authority on the part of the insurgents as the only indispensable condition to ending the war on the part of the Government, I retract nothing heretofore said as to slavery. I repeat the declaration made a year ago?--Not the declaration supposed to be contained in this paper, "To whom it may concern, in a previous message. "but "that while I remain in my present position I shall not attempt to retract or modify the emancipation proclamation, nor shall I return to slavery any person who is free by the terms of proclamation, or by any of the acts of Congress."" I agree with him as to the last. That is a quotation from the former message: "In stating a single condition of peace" Submission "I mean simply to say that the war will cease on the part of the Government whenever it shall have ceased on the part of those who began it." I think I am not mistaken in saying that the view taken by the honorable member from Ohio goes a good deal further than that. "I hope," |