Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

regard to negro soldiers, without regard even to the States whence they come, if the rebels were to attempt to make that distinction, but so far as you can, if you can secure the exchange of one or one thousand, or of all, to proceed promptly to exchange our white soldiers, and in the name of humanity and justice restore them to their homes, to their country, although their terms of service may be about to expire and they will no longer enter into your armies. This is due to the relationship between such soldiers and their country. It is due to their patriotism. It is due to the manner in which they have braved death in the field and a more horrible death from disease in the camp and the prison. It is due to them, from all these considerations, that this justice should be done to them.

Mr. President, I favor the proposition to send a commissioner to the rebel authorities on the subject involved in this resolution. I am for trying everything short of retaliation which reasonably promises relief, before we resort to that dread remedy. I am for proposing to the rebel authorities a reasonable and just exchange of prisoners. To any and every extent that they are willing to enter upon that exchange, I would accept it. Because they would not exchange negro prisoners I would make it no difficulty in the way of exchanging white prisoners. Because they would not exchange white prisoners of a certain class, I would make it no difficulty to the exchange of white prisoners of every other class. I would snatch every white soldier, every American patriot, whose courage and love of country and of his Government prompted him to go to the battlefield and peril all in defense of the rights of his country, from prison, and especially from such a prison as these men are now in.

Mr. HOWE. Will my friend tolerate me in one more question?

Mr. DAVIS. Certainly.

Mr. HOWE. If the rebels were to say to-day that they would exchange our black soldiers and would not exchange our white soldiers, would the Senator be willing to effect exchanges so far? Mr. DAVIS. I said half an hour ago that I would.

control, shall be made responsible by the loss of his life in any form for the wickedness and crimes of others. But I might be willing to doom to death the officers of the confederacy, the men of influence and power who may be reasonably supposed to exercise some control, some restraining power, over the policy aad measures of the confederation-not death by starvation, but the military death of being shot by a file of soldiers. I would, however, await for the case to arise, and I would adjudge of it in all of its circumstances. I would not retaliate even upon the officer unless there was a reasonable prospect of its resulting in some essential good to our own unfortunate prisoners. If Congress chooses to initiate a proceeding of that character, or if the President does it of his own accord, as I conceive he has the amplest power to do, I will sustain Congress or the President in it with the little feeble support morally or in any other form that I can give to such a humane measure; and when that measure has been reasonably tried, and has been found to fail, then I will judge how far retaliation, even upon officers, is, in my judgment, politic and humane. But that retaliation which violates the moral sentiment of the world and the Christianity of the age, which shocks mankind, and which fills the universal human heart with awe and revulsion, I will never consent to. It would be a greater crime and wickedness than that of the rebels themselves.

I will make a single remark more, and then take my seat. We waged the war of the Revolution, we waged the war of 1812, and there is not a solitary instance of retaliation throughout the whole course of those wars beyond confinement in close prison.

Mr. HOWARD. That is a mistake. Mr. DAVIS. Such is my recollection. Mr. SUMNER. That is the statement of Chancellor Kent.

Mr. HOWARD. He is incorrect in that as in some other things.

Mr. DAVIS, I know there were some English prisoners in the war of 1812 brought to Kentucky and confined in the penitentiary, and that was all the punishment imposed upon them. I know that some of our sailors were taken from off our decks and confined by the British, and in retaliation we imprisoned at Worcester, in the State of Massachusetts, some British sailors whom we had captured and intended to hold as hostages. The Legislature of Massachusetts had pre

Mr. HOWE. I am very glad to hear it. Mr. DAVIS. I said half an hour ago, I said twelve months ago, that I would. I say that it is the right of every man, white or black, who volunteers as a soldier in the United States Army, and who is received by our authorities as a soldier, who is so unfortunate as to be taken a cap-viously passed a law allowing the United States tive, and whose captivity is of the revolting character of that of which we have heard-it is the right of that prisoner, whoever he may be and whatever may be his color, to be delivered from such a captivity at the earliest possible moment in which he can be delivered, and the Government ought to make use of every reasonable exertion in its power to deliver all of them, one of them, or any number of them.

the use of its penitentiaries and jails for the imprisonment of prisoners. But although those English prisoners were held as hostages for the safety of our own citizens who had been dragged from under our flag and from our own decks, and whom the English authorities were threatening to execute as traitors, although those prisoners were held for that purpose, commending itself to the heart and reason and patriotism of every man, the Legislature of Massachusetts at once passed a law directing the prison-keeper to discharge those prisoners, and they were discharged and went into the British provinces. And that Legis

Mr. President, as I said yesterday, I will never give my sanction to starving any man for any offense, upon any imputed crime, to subserve any purpose, the most holy that can be conceived of by the purest of living men. It is utterly abhor-lature, furthermore, passed a law prohibiting the rent to my nature. I am no Christian; I wish to God that I was; but I have been educated in a Christian country, and I hope I have imbibed some of the pure and benevolent teachings of Christianity. Whether or not, it is so abhorrent to my whole nature and soul to starve a man to death that I never would give it any sanction, and wherever I could intervene by feeding a starved criminal, or imputed criminal, at any cost, I would thus minister to him, whether he was black or white, whoever he was, provided he was a man in the shape of a human being.

But, sir, when a proper effort is made by our President alone, or by our President encouraged by Congress, to have proper exchanges made, in whole or in part, or to any extent, and that effort fails, I shall be willing to take steps for retaliation; not retaliation by torture, not retaliation by starving to death any man, officer or private, not retaliation upon the private soldiers, who are mere machines with no volition, who have no mental and ought to have no moral responsibility in the matter, and whose sole and stern and unfortunate duty it is to obey orders. I never will consent that a man thus circumstanced, thus acting by a power and a force over which he can exercise no

use of the prisons of Massachusetts to the General Government for any such purpose, and directed peremptorily, and if I recollect aright, under a penalty, that whenever any such prisoners, taken captive from the English, should be confined by our authorities, civil or military, in Massachusetts prisons, they should be discharged by the prisonkeepers. Now, as to the question of fact, I will read from Chancellor Kent:

"Vattel speaks of retaliation as a sad extremity, and it is frequently threatened without being put in execution, and probably without the intention to do it, and in hopes that fear will operate to restrain the enemy. Instances of resolutions to retaliate on innocent prisoners of war occurred in this country during the revolutionary war as well as during the war of 1812, but there was no instance in which retaliation, beyond the measure of severe confinement, took place in respect to prisoners of war."

To sustain this he refers to the Journals of Congress and various other authorities. The same author says also in regard to war:

"There is a marked difference in the right of war carried on by land and at sea. The object of a maritime war is the destruction of the enemy's commerce and navigation, in order to weaken and destroy the foundations of his naval power. The capture or destruction of private property is essential to that end, and it is allowed in maritime wars by the law and practice of nations. But there are great limitations imposed upon the operations of war by land, though

depredations upon private property and despoiling and plundering the enemy's territory are still too prevalent, especially when the war is assisted by irregulars. Such conduct has been condemned in all ages by the wise and virtuous, and it is usually severely punished by those commanders of disciplined troops who have studied war as a science and are animated by a sense of duty or the love of fame. We may infer the opinion of Xenophon on this subject (and he was a warrior as well as a philosopher) when he states in the Cyropædia that Cyrus of Persia gave orders to his army when marching upon the enemy's borders not to disturb the cultivators of the soil; and there have been such ordinances in modern times for the protection of innocent and pacific pursuits. Vattel condemns very strongly the spoliation of a country without palpable necessity; and he speaks with a just indignation of the burning of the Palatinate by Turenne, under the cruel instructions of Louvois, the war minister of Louis XIV. The genera! usage now is not to touch private property upon land without making compensation, unless in special cases dictated by the necessary operations of war, or when captured in places carried by storm, and which repelled all the overtures for a capitulation. Contributions are sometimes levied upon a conquered country in lieu of confiscation of property, and as some indemnity for the expenses of maintaining order and affording protection. If the conqueror goes beyond these limits wantonly, or when it is not clearly indispensable to the just purposes of war, and seizes private property of pacific persons for the sake of gain, and destroys private dwellings or public edifices devoted to civil purposes only, or makes war upon monuments of art and models of taste, he violates the modern usages of war, and is sure to meet with indignant resentment, and to be held up to the general scorn and detestation of the world."

The laws of war have been gradually growing more humane for centuries, and they are more humane in the present age, in principle and according to the general practice of nations, than they have ever been before. The laws of war, and especially the law of retaliation, as I said yesterday, are ameliorated by the sentiment of this Christian and enlightened age, and it is a noble monument of the advancing enlightened philanthropy and Christianity of this day of the world that the horrors, even of the laws of war, are thus being mitigated. Instead of our Congress repudiating the maxims and the practices of the century, and going back to the bloody code, the barbarous and inhuman practices of more than a century ago, even in this great civil war, it better becomes us to advance further and further in this noble progress that mankind has been making.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, it seems to have been the effort of the Opposition, in the comments which they have made upon the resolution now before the Senate, to make the Administration odious for not having perfected and carried out a system of exchange of prisoners with the rebels, and in that manner to have liberated our countrymen in their hands as prisoners of war. Instead of meeting the question fairly, upon its own merits, and upon the facts clearly in proof in the case, it seems to me they rather attempt to use the occasion as one for the promotion of party purposes, and for the purpose of assailing the Administration.

I do not wish, upon such an occasion as this, to imitate their example. I shall take it for granted that the Administration have done all in their power, all that could be required of them by the laws of war and by their duty to their country, to establish and carry out a system of exchange for the purpose of such liberation. I will not stand here to accuse them of the atrocious crime (for it would be a crime if they had committed it, or if it had been committed,) of permitting our soldiers to remain in the cruel custody of the rebels for some purpose other than the public good, for some purpose not authorized by their duty to their country. I shall presume in this discussion that the executive branch of the Government have at least tried faithfully to do their duty to the country, and that if they have failed in bringing about this exchange and the liberation of our prisoners in rebel hands, they have innocently failed, and failed upon such principles as justify their conduct before their country and before the world.

But, sir, I rose more particularly to pay a moment's attention to some observations made by the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. HENDRICKS,] the other day, upon this subject. The Senator from Indiana, entertaining, as he told us, a very strong doubt as to the weight of the testimony which I took the trouble to lay before the Senate, and denying that the present occasion is one for the exercise of retaliatory measures against the rebels, tells the Senate that the only authority from the books which he has read "condemns what the Senator from Michigan proposes;" that is, what

is proposed in the present resolution. He continues:

"He has not given us a citation of a single authority of force and respectability in this body justifying the high measure which he proposes. I expected to hear it. He is the champion of the measure; he reports it to the body; but instead of referring to accredited authority upon the subject, he gratified the Senate by reading from a pamphlet containing a report of a committee," &c.

The passage alluded to by the Senator from Indiana was from General Halleck, in which, although the general admits the propriety of the principle of retaliation, he declares that where one belligerent resorts to inhuman and barbarous practices in the treatment of prisoners, or in any other mode of carrying on the war, it is not permissible to a civilized nation to imitate his example by way of retaliation; and General Halleck, in support, as it would seem, of this declaration of his, refers to various writers upon the laws of war and the laws of nations. Since the passage has been called to my attention, I have examined the authorities referred to by the general in his text, and I do not find that he is supported by a single one of the distinguished writers to whom he refers and whom he cites in support of his proposition; and I say here in the Senate, with confidence, that there cannot be found in any of the writers commonly accredited as teachers upon the laws of war and the laws of nations any statement or declaration that corroborates and supports that of General Halleck in this regard. Vattel says-and this was the passage referred to by the Senator from Indi

ana

"Retaliation, unjust between private persons, would be a much more unjust practice between nations, because here the punishment would fall with more difficulty upon those who have done the wrong."

This is the passage from Vattel upon which is predicated, I may say with propriety, I think, the whole of the argument against the measure of retaliation which is now proposed. It is asserted that Vattel condemns such retaliatory measures during war, and this passage which I have cited is used in support of that proposition. This passage has been erroneously applied to an existing war, whereas the author is speaking only of retaliation as a means of compelling a nation to do justice before making war upon her. He is speaking of this retaliatory law as one which may or may not be put in practice before the offended nation sees fit to take the remedy into its hands and enters upon a direct prosecution to right her wrongs. As such preliminary means the author condemns the use of it, but he nowhere censures, buteverywhere recognizes, the principle of retaliation. This is obvious enough from the rest of the paragraph which the Senator from Indiana would have done well to read before attempting to cast his censures upon me. The same author uses the following language upon the subject of retaliation in the same paragraph:

"What right have you to cut off the nose or the ears of the embassador of a barbarian who has treated your embassador in like manner? As to those reprisals which in time of war partake of retaliation, they are justified by other principles, and we will speak of them in their place." They are justified by other principles, by the principle, of course, of necessity, of a just selfdefense and a just protection of one's own rights; and whatever may be that necessity, the honorable Senator will find that by the books it is bounded only by the principle of self-preservation, the preservation and defense of the nation and of its interests; and there is no other rule by which this necessity can be bounded or measured. He proceeds:

"All that is true in this idea of the talio is, that, all things being equal, the punishment ought to hold some proportion to the wrong which is to be punished"

This is Vattel's language—

"the end and foundation of punishment requiring it to be thus."-Vatiel, lib. 2, chap. 18, sec. 339.

Mr. Wheaton, treating of the rights of war between enemies, says:

"The law of nature has not precisely determined how far an individual is allowed to make use of force either to defend himself against an attempted injury, or to obtain reparation when refused by the aggressor, or to bring an offender to punishment. We can only collect from this Jaw the general rule that such use of force as is necessary for obtaining these ends is not forbidden." The same principle applies to the conduct of sovereign States existing in a state of natural independence with respect to each other. No use of force is lawful except so far as it is necessary."

Necessity is then the standard by which the

force is to be measured and determined. If you are dealing with an enemy who is not restrained by the ordinary punishments inflicted by civilized nations engaged in war with one another, if you are engaged with a barbarous enemy who does not hesitate to put innocent prisoners to death without necessity and in his own wrong, if you find it absolutely necessary to resort to severer and still severer measures of retaliation, in order to compel your adversary to observe justice, then, sir, upon every principle of common sense and of common law, you are authorized to use that amount of severity which will insure the end at which you aim, which will compel him to abandon his evil courses, and to observe the laws of christianized, civilized war. It is a complete begging of the question to say that you may not by way of retaliation starve a prisoner to death. If your enemy persists in starving your prisoners in his hands to death, after you have notified him, after you have remonstrated with him against it, and it is perfectly apparent that a similar treatment of his own prisoners is the only means by which you can restrain him, I ask you, sir, whether it comports with humanity, with your duty to protect your own soldiers, to omit the employment of such means as will obviously restrain your enemy, and compel him to treat in the ordinary way of civilized warfare the prisoners in his hands?

Mr. McDOUGALL. Will the Senator from Michigan allow me to make an inquiry of him for information?

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. McDOUGALL. We have all read the rules that Vattel and other commentators on the laws of war have laid down on this subject; but I will inquire of the Senator, has it occurred in the history of civilized States to legislate a lex talionis ?

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. McDOUGALL. When and where?

Mr. HOWARD. I will answer my honorable friend from California on that subject so perfectly that I think he will not be inclined to repeat the question before I get through.

Now, sir, upon the general subject of retaliation in the prosecution of a war

Mr. McDOUGALL. If the Senator will allow me, I will state my position more exactly so that he will understand precisely how to answer my question. I understand that the lex talionis is a business of time, carried out by military commanders in the field pending war, not a matter of legislation. I do not remember in all history of anything of legislation on that subject.

Mr. HOWARD. I think I shall show the honorable Senator from California that in that respect he is mistaken also.

Mr. McDOUGALL. I may be.

Mr. HOWARD. I have another authority upon the general law of retaliation, the weight of which I think will hardly be denied or disputed. It is a no less authority than Napoleon himself, who probably was as good and as profound a judge of the rules of war between civilized nations as has ever lived, a man who for twenty-five rights and usages, one to whom they were as years was almost in the daily exercise of those familiar, doubtless, as any other branch of his great profession. History tells us that the Bourbon princes conspired together in London and in other places to assassinate Napoleon while he was First Consul; and so far did the conspirators go with their projects against his individual life as chief of the State, that they employed the "infernal machine," so called, for the purpose of destroying his life while he was passing through the streets of Paris. The historical incident is familiar to us all. By way of retaliation for such repeated attempts upon his life made by persons who were of in the employ of his enemies, and who were, course, to all intents and purposes, his public enemies, he seized one of their number, the Prince d'Enghien, on neutral territory, brought him by force to Paris, subjected him to trial by a military commission, by which he was sentenced to be shot, and the dreadful sentence was carried into execution even without the knowledge of the emperor. For this act of retaliation the emperor has, I believe, been generally condemned by English writers and English historians; but I refer to the incident, not for the purpose of showing that what he did was in itself just and right, but for

the purpose of showing what were his views upon this great subject of retaliation. "Who," he exclaims in his conversations with Las Casas

"Who can blame me for having acted thus? What! blows threatening my existence are aimed at me day after day, from a distance of one hundred and fifty leagues; no power on earth, no tribunal, can afford me redress; and shall I not be allowed to use the right of nature and return war for war? What man unbiased by party feeling, possessing the smallest share of judgment and justice, can take upon himself to condemn me?" "They [the Bourbon princes] could not reasonably pretend to be above the law to destroy others, and claim the benefit of it for their own preservation; the chances must be equal."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

So exclaims the emperor, and so I say, "the chances must be equal." The rebels have no right in justice, or upon any principle, to claim for themselves immunity for atrocities committed against us. The emperor proceeds:

"My great maxim has always been that in war, as well as in politics, every evil action, even if legal, can only be excused in case of absolute necessity; whatever goes beyond that is criminal."-Las Casas, Jour., vol. 4, p. 260, London edition of 1823.

He put the question of retaliation upon the ground of necessity for the purpose of protecting himself, as chief of the State, from the attempts at assassination made against him by his enemies.

Mr. McDOUGALL. I understand the Senator to quote from a rule laid down by an emperor, at that time First Consul, who had acquired power in France.

Mr. HOWARD. I believe he possessed some power at the time he retaliated.

Mr. McDOUGALL. I do not understand that to be a piece of legislation, but the affirmation of a doctrine or a policy of war. Am I right in that? Was not that a policy of war laid down when adversaries were contending with each other? Was it legislation? Was it ever done in council hall by the men who undertake to make laws?

Mr. HOWARD. I am coming to that question directly. If the Senator will exercise his patience a little, I will come to that point in the course of my remarks. I really hope he will endeavor to control his impatience for a moment. I certainly will do as I promised. He need have no anxiety on that subject whatever. Mr. McDOUGALL.

The promise of the Senator is a very good one. I have great respect for

him.

Mr. HOWARD. Now, sir, the honorable Senator from California, with that confidence in his own excellent understanding and well-informed mind which pertains to him, seems to throw a defiance to me to produce any act of legislation by which the principle of retaliation in war has received the sanction of any civilized Government; and I now address myself to that particular question. If the honorable Senator will turn to page 743 of the first volume of the Statutes at Large of the United States, published by Little & Brown, he will find an act, approved March 3, 1799, while the Congress of the United States were in existence, entitled "An act vesting the power of retaliation, in certain cases, in the President of the United States." That act declares:

"That on information being given to the President of the United States proving satisfactorily to him that any citizen of the United States who shall have been or may be found on board any vessel of war of either of the Powers at war with the French republic, and who shall have been impressed or forced by violence or threats to enter on board such vessel, hath suffered death, or hath received other corporal punishment, or shall be imprisoned with unusual severity by order of the executive Directory of the French republic, or of any officer or agent acting under their authority in pursuance of any decree of the said Directory or law of the French republic, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, and he is hereby empowered and required, to cause the most rigorous retaliation to be executed on any such citizens of the French republic as have been, or hereafter may be, captured in pursuance of any of the laws of the United States."

There, sir, is the exercise of the talio by an act of Congress pure and simple, reflecting retaliation, not upon the guilty party who has committed the atrocity or the barbarity, not upon the officer or the soldier who has committed the crime upon American citizens, but upon any citizen or subject of the French republic who shall be captured by the authority of the United States. It will be recollected that at that time the United States were in a quasi state of war with the French republic. That is my first precedent; but I do not stop there.

As recently as 1813 the Congress of the United States passed a similar act, applicable exclusively to acts of the British military authorities during the war of 1812. I think the immediate occasion of the passage of this act was this: at the surrender of General Scott in Canada there were some two dozen British subjects of Irish descent made prisoners by the British army. Scott and his fellow prisoners were put into a prison-ship for the purpose of being transported to Boston and there to be exchanged as prisoners of war; but the British military authorities discovered that among these prisoners were several Irishmen, who were detected to be such from their peculiar accent, their brogue, and the captors, or the guard on board the ship, were carefully selecting out every one of these Irish prisoners, who were told that they were not to be exchanged as prisoners of war under the cartel existing between the two Governments, but that they were to be transported across the Atlantic to England, and there to be tried, convicted, and hanged as traitors against the Government of the country in which they were born. That was the threat at least, that they were to be hanged as British subjects found in arms against their country, under a very ancient principle of the laws of England, that a British subject cannot expatriate himself in such a manner as to throw off his allegiance; he cannot quit his own country and become the subject or citizen of another country to such an extent as to be incapable of committing treason against Great Britain. There was no other remedy left in the hands of our Government except retaliation, and immediately upon General, then Colonel, Scott making his report of these facts to the Secretary of War, the Congress of the United States, then in session, passed the following act:

"An act vesting in the President of the United States the power of retaliation.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all and every case wherein, during the present war between the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, any violations of the laws and usages of war among civilized nations shall be or have been done and perpetrated by those acting under authority of the British Government, on any of the citizens of the United States, or persons in the land or naval service of the United States, the President of the United States is hereby authorized to cause full and ample retaliation to be made, according to the laws and usages of war among civilized nations, for all and every such violation as aforesaid."

There is no notice required to be given to the British authorities of the purpose of Congress to carry out this principle of retaliation. They had not reached that sublimated wisdom which seems to have some influence in this Chamber, and by which, it would seem, we are required upon principles of honor and justice to notify these rebels that we intend to retaliate for violations of the laws and usages of civilized war. Our friends on the other side would have us believe that the innocent, verdant individuals who are at the head of this rebellion know nothing about the laws of war, that they are innocently ignorant of them all, and therefore it is becoming us, as a great and magnanimous people, to condescend to give them notice that we propose to enforce the principles of that code. I take it for granted that they understand the laws of civilized war as well as we do, and that therefore there is no necessity whatever for our giving them notice that we intend to enforce the principles of the code.

Section two of the same act declares, further: "That in all cases where any outrage or act of cruelty or barbarity shall be or has been practiced by any Indian or Indians in alliance with the British Government, or in connection with those acting under the authority of the said Government, on citizens of the United States or those under its protection, the President of the United States is hereby authorized to cause full and ample retaliation to be done and executed on such British subjects, soldiers, seamen, or marines, or Indians in alliance or connection with Great Britain, being prisoners of war, as if the same outrage or act of cruelty or barbarity had been done under the authority of the British Government."

Sir, our predecessors in this body did not believe, it would seem from their legislation, that we are bound to give notice of our intention to carry out retaliatory measures, but they believed it was sufficient to enact, by an act of Congress,that it was a duty which was then incumbent upon the Executive as the Commander-in-Chief of the Army as it is now. They did not hesitate to apply the principle of retaliation and the retaliatory penalty to persons who were as innocent of the charge

committed against us as the angels in heaven. It was then and is now the only mode which is left us to bring home to the hearts and heads of our adversaries a restraining influence which shall induce them to treat our soldiers and prisoners in their hands with more mercy, with more kindness, and with more indulgence. In short, sir, you must, in such a case as this, punish the innocent for the guilty. It is not new in the history of human frailty, it is not new in the history of nations, or in the social history of mankind, for the innocent to be punished for the guilty. I agree that it is abhorrent to our feelings of humanity; but we must remember, at the same time, that we are not at liberty to suffer our prisoners who are in the hands of the enemy to lie there and perish by slow starvation when we have it in our power, by simply subjecting their own countrymen in our hands to the same punishment, to remedy the evil. I say it is the only remedy we have. It is a hard necessity, to be sure. To me it is one of the greatest absurdities to say that the exercise of this retaliatory right brings us upon the same level with the rebels themselves. I was amazed, and am still amazed I must confess, at the language of Professor Lieber, rather ostentatiously quoted by the Senator from Massachusetts in this debate. He says:

"I am decidedly against the retaliation resolutions concerning prisoners of war. The provision that the Southerners in our hands shall be watched over by national soldiers who have been in southern pens is unworthy of any great people or high-minded statesmen."

Certainly the professor could not have written with any feeling of disrespect toward the members of this body who have had the benefit of his letter at the hands of the Senator from Massachusetts; and certainly the Senator from Massachusetts could not have intended anything offensive by introducing a letter in discussion which contains this language. I take no offense at it. I can only say that the language of this learned professor indicates, to my mind, that he is rather a pedant in national law than a practical statesman, or even a practical scholar. But he proceeds: "I am not opposed to retaliation."

Ah! what is retaliation? What is the talio spoken of in all the books upon national law? Is it not returning like for like so far as practicable? Certainly it is. It means that, and means nothing short of that. He adds:

"I am not opposed to retaliation because it strikes those who are not or may not be guilty of the outrage we wish to put an end to. That is the terrible character of almost all retaliation in war. I abhor this revenge on prisoners of war because we would sink thereby to the level of the enemy's shame and dishonor."

Mr.

Potter, Quincy, Reed, Rodman, Sheffy, Stanford, and White. The political character of those who voted in the negative is sufficiently indicated by their names. If there are those who desire to imitate them I certainly can have no objection to their following their own preferences.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of moving that this resolution and all the amendments that have been proposed to it be recommitted to the Committee on Military Affairs. I think that the committee, in the light of this debate, can frame a resolution that we can pass with the general assent of the Senate. This debate has given us an opportunity of understanding the views and wishes of the members of the body. We have the original report. We have the amendment proposed by my colleague. We have the amendment that I have moved to his amendment. We have a proposition made by the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. HENDERSON,] another by the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. CLARK,] and another from the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. WADE,] and there may be others.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. If the Senator from Massachusetts will allow me to interrupt him, as he was not in his seat when the honorable Senator from Michigan read the two acts, one of 1799 and the other of 1813, I should like to have those acts go to the committee, for I am rather of opinion from hearing them read that they are better than any of the propositions that have been offered.

Mr. WILSON. If my motion is sustained by the Senate, the committee will certainly have what has been read by the Senator from Michigan before them. They will have all the laws of the country, and all the facts that we can gather from any quarter. I think that if we recommit this proposition, and the amendments to it, the committee can put the resolution in shape, and therefore I make the motion.

Mr. WADE obtained the floor.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I ask the Senator from Ohio to allow me one moment for an explanation.

Mr. WADE. Certainly.

Mr. HENDRICKS. The Senator from Michigan, in the course of his remarks, stated that I should have read further from General Halleck, and not stopped to censure him. I desire simply to say that in no remark that I submitted to the Senate did I intend any censure upon the Senator from Michigan, and I am not aware that I used any language that admits of that construction. I made such criticism as I thought I was allowed to make upon his argument, and in such language as I thought was courteous; but if I was misled in the haste of debate to use any language which can be regarded as a censure upon the Senator I certainly did not so intend, and would desire to withdraw it. I did not agree with the Senator, and attempted to show the reason why I did not, but intended to express myself with entire respect to that distinguished member of this body.

Mr. HALE. I send to the Chair the 5th rule of the Senate, which I wish might be read.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. POMEROY in the chair.) The reading of the 5th rule is called for, and it will be read.

In the estimation of this writer, it seems, that by inflicting retaliatory punishment upon the rebels who have thus tormented our poor boys to death in southern prisons, we sink to the same level of shame and dishonor with them. President, are we guilty of the shame and dishonor of starving to death innocent and brave men? Are we guilty of crime when we resort to the only means that God and nature have left us of rescuing our countrymen from the hands of these barbarians? Are we chargeable with crime and infamy and dishonor when we say to the rebel authorities, "We will return to you like treatment for like treatment that you may authorize against our prisoners," and when we do this as the only means left us of protecting our prisoners in their hands? I cannot accept of any such doctrine. I cannot believe that the Congress of the United States, in the passage of the resolution now before us, will incur infamy, or dishonor, as imputed to them by Professor Lieber, while I see standing upon the statute-books of the United States an act passed by our predeces-briefly, but as my right to the floor is not recogsors here which is capable, if carried out faithfully, of producing precisely the same results which are specified and individualized only in the resolution now before us.

Sir, who voted for that act of retaliation of 1813? Among the names who voted for it, I find Calhoun, Cheves, Desha, Dinsmore, Grundy, Shaw of Massachusetts, Taliafero of Virginia, and many others who have left a name and fame behind them worthy of our envy. I find that in the House of Representatives there were fifty-six voting in the affirmative, upon the final passage of that bill, and only seventeen against it. Those seventeen were Bigelow, Bingham, Champion, Chittenden, Emmet, Fitch, Grosvenor, Law, Lewis, Mosely,

The Secretary read, as follows:

5. When two members rise at the same time, the President shall name the person to speak; but in all cases the member who shall first rise and address the Chair shall speak first."

Mr. HALE. I merely call the attention of the Senate to the rule because I think the provision of it was grossly violated in my case. I had intended to address the Senate upon this subject

nized by the person occupying the chair, I choose to postpone it until somebody does occupy it who will respect it.

Mr. WADE. Mr. President, I am opposed to this recommitment, because I am fully persuaded that if this resolution be recommitted, that will be the last of it. I do not know that we can carry it through here; but I know that, in the light of all the authorities that have been read, the resolution as proposed to be amended by myself stands precisely upon those authorities. It does not differ from those in the books. The Senator from Wisconsin desires the books to go before the committee to enable them to draw a resolution which he thinks will conform better to the idea of

the Senate than the one now before the Senate; but I assure him that if he will read the resolution in the light of the amendment that is now before the Senate he will find it is precisely in accordance with the authorities that have been read. There is nothing new about it.

I have been astonished since this measure has been introduced to find that among the statesmen and jurists composing the Senate there is such a diversity of opinion on the subject of retaliation. Why, sir, it is among the first things that any statesman reads in any of the books composed by the publicists. It is as common as any other. It is laid down in every book upon international law. There is no respectable author in modern times who has denied the right of retaliation, or who has doubted its importance. There is no respectable nation but has resorted to it in proper cases; and there never was a nation placed under circumstances where this remedy was so loudly and emphatically called for as the United States on the present occasion, because you cannot find any barbarities equal to those that are inflicted upon our poor soldiers in the hands of the enemy.

I do not exactly agree in all that my friend from Michigan has said. He thinks that the Executive Government and Congress have done all upon this subject they ought to have done. I do not believe it. I feel as it were guilty myself that I have delayed so long to bring such a measure before Congress. We have been told on this floor by a gentleman who is not very anxious for the passage of this resolution, that he has had his eye upon this subject until he has no doubt that more than thirty thousand men have been sacrificed by these barbarities of the enemy. Has there been any movement on our part to do away with them? Was there ever a Government that so entirely abandoned its brave men in the hands of a barbarous foe without remonstrance, without a voice raised in their defense?

I know there are gentlemen here who tell us that they have never heard that there was anything wrong in the treatment of our prisoners. I think the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HENDRICKS] told us that he was surprised we should make this accusation, that he had never heard anything about it; and yet, sir, it is more than two years ago since this body sent forth a committee to investigate the barbarities committed by the rebels at Bull Run.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, I am surprised that the Senator from Ohio should make such a statement, as I have said the very opposite twice in the Senate. I have said that I believed there were cruelties inflicted upon our prisoners not justified by the usages of war and shocking in themselves, but I expressed the opinion that they had not gone to the extent that has been stated.

Mr. WADE. The extent to which they have gone is as palpably and as directly proven as that they were committed at all. For more than a year you have had before you a report of a committee of your body who traveled nearly one thousand miles and took nearly one hundred depositions to show the extent of the barbarities that have been committed upon your soldiers. They have told you how after a whole garrison had surrendered they were murdered in cold blood. They have told you how those in hospitals were taken out and murdered. Yea, they have told you more than that. They have told you how men were taken and crucified in the tents in which they lived and those tents set on fire and the men allowed to perish in that way; and yet you have not heard of it and do not believe the extent of the barbarities! The preamble of this resolution does not enter at all upon the extreme barbarities that are revealed in that testimony.

I understood the President to say at Baltimore, the very day that committee started on its mission of investigation, that if these barbarities, as alleged, should be proved, he would adopt the most stringent measures of retaliation. It was printed in the papers that he said so. When the report of that committee came out, when twenty thousand copies of it were called for by the Senate, and when it was spread broadcast over the land, I believed that the President would take some steps, at least, to protest against these horrors. I do not know but that he has done so; but if he has I have not heard a word of it. Certainly I do not charge this more upon the President than upon ourselves. We have all exercised

a forbearance here that is most culpable in my judgment. I take it to be one of the first duties of any nation that compels a soldier into the field to fight a barbarous foe to see that he is protected according to the principles of civilized warfare in modern days. When a barbarous enemy transcends the ordinary principles of war it is the first duty of a nation to see that their soldiers are protected against these barbarities. Am I wrong, sir? Is it a novel principle? Did you never hear of it before? Am I the barbarian that secks retaliation here for the first time? I have been

pointed at here by gentlemen, and reflected upon as though I stood here the advocate of unheardof barbarity! I am naturally as averse to what may be called cruelty upon any mortal man as anybody else, I reckon; but when we are driven to this painful necessity, I say to you, disagreeable as the duty is, we have no right to shuffle it off.

The Senator from Connecticut, [Mr. FOSTER,] yesterday turned round to me and inquired, "Would the gentleman starve a prisoner to death?" Sir, if it becomes my duty to do that, or any other disagreeable duty in the performance of a still higher duty that I owe to the brave defenders of my country, my nerves I think can stand it. His nerves do not seem to be at all shaken over the proved and demonstrated fact that our poor soldiers are subjected to this treatment. That does not seem to disturb him. He knows it is so; he is not willing that it should be continued; he does not want this cruelty inflicted upon our soldiers; but he thinks it would be horrible for us to enter upon a like system for the purpose of rescuing both from the perpetration of such acts. I am amazed that men can look with perfect coolness upon the sufferings of our brave men in the hands of this barbarous foe, and without raising a hand in their defense, and yet shrink with horror from the idea that the miserable traitor who happens to be in our hands shall be reduced to a like condition, when the only object is to rescue both from the necessity.

Sir, do you not know that cruelties are inflicted to-day, not upon one, but upon thousands of our men who are dying by inches in southern prisons? Your own kin, your own friends, your own defenders, are there. Is it any worse if you see in your own hospitals the enemy subjected to the same treatment? It would hardly bring any more misery upon mankind than the other, especially as it is done with the express object of compelling the barbarous foe to reform his course. No nation has found any other remedy. God knows, if any Senator on this floor can devise any other means whereby our soldiers can be rescued from this condition, I shall be the first to go with him. There is no pretense that there is any other. The wisdom of man has never devised any other. The books on international law show you that, as yet, the wisdom of man has found no remedy for grievances like these except in the principle of retaliation.

Sir, how much better are we than our forefathers? They felt none of this mawkish sentimentality that compelled them silently to see their friends tortured to death without an attempt to rescue them. I have no doubt they were as humane as we are. But when the necessity of State was upon them, when their duty as men and members of this legislative body was upon them, when they reflected upon it and saw that there was no other remedy except retaliation, their nerves were sufficient for the purpose. Have the Senate become old women, that we cannot rescue our friends from this condition by the remedy that all civilized nations in war use in such cases? Are the gentlemen from Massachusetts more humane than the Father of his Country was? Do they claim a higher standing in morals or anything else than the good and glorious Washington did? Did he hesitate a moment to apply this principle? Early in the revolutionary war, the very moment he saw that our soldiers and officers were maltreated in the prisons of the enemy, he at once resorted to this remedy in accordance with public law. He did not stand hesitating over it as we do, but he at once said to General Gage, "I understand that our officers and soldiers in your prisons are huddled together; that they are treated with inhumanity and barbarity in a great variety of ways" that he mentions. "Now, sir, the measure you mete out to our men shall be

promptly dealt out to yours." It was no less a man than General Washington that said that. Humane as he was, revolting to him as was this remedy, he would not shrink from his duty be cause it required a little nerve to face it. While I know that I am treading in the footsteps of that great man, that I am only urging upon the American Senate an example that he so promptly set not only once but repeatedly, I feel that I am not to be pointed at here and called a barbarian because I propose the same remedy that the Father of his Country proposed in like cases.

Sir, were our ancestors barbarians? You have heard from the Senator from Michigan, who has thrown a light on this subject that cannot be shut out, what they have done on this subject. Gentlemen may vote against this resolution, they may vote against this principle, but the fact will nevertheless stare you in the face forever that your forefathers resorted to this remedy in a case not a hundredth part as urgent as the present.

But it is said it is dishonorable to do it, it is shameful to do it. Sir, I would rather stand upon the pages of history as the man who stood forth to vindicate our own glorious soldiery in a way that the public law points out than to stand there as the man who shrank from his duty because it was a disagreeable one. I tell you, sir, the honor of this nation is only to be vindicated by protecting the rights of your soldiery in the hands of the enemy. If you think you are going to treasure up honor to this nation by showing yourself too cowardly, too sublimated, to resort to the only remedy that is practical and pointed out by nations, you greatly mistake that meed of honor that nations give to each other for action. Nay, sir, we shall be pointed at as inhuman, as sneaking out of a duty incumbent upon us, that we did not vindicate the honor and dignity of the nation by protecting the poor men whom we had it in our power to protect. The honor of the nation, our honor as men, consists in the performance of this rugged and disagreeable but necessary duty.

I hope, sir, that this resolution will not pass from the consideration of the Senate. I will ask, just at this stage, that it may be read as I propose to amend it, and I ask Senators to listen to it to see if there is anything in it that requires that it should go again before the committee that they may get some further light on the subject.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The reading of the resolution as proposed to be amended by the Senator from Ohio is called for, and it will be read if there be no objection.

Mr. WADE. I will thank Senators to listen to it, because it is the best argument that can be made against many of theirs.

The Secretary read the amendment, which was to strike out all after the word "retaliation" in the seventh line, in the following words:

That in our opinion such retaliation ought to be inflicted upon the insurgent officers now in our hands, or hereafter to fall into our hands as prisoners; that such officers ought to be subjected to like treatment practiced toward our officers or soldiers in the hands of the insurgents, in respect to quantity and quality of food, clothing, fuel, medicine, medical attendance, personal exposure, or other mode of dealing with them; that with a view to the same ends, the insurgent prisoners in our hands ought to be placed under the control and in the keeping of officers and men who have themselves been prisoners in the hands of the insurgents, and have thus acquired a knowledge of their mode of treating Union prisoners; that explicit instructions ought to be given to the forces having the charge of such insurgent prisoners, requiring them to carry out strictly and promptly the principles of this resolution in every case, until the President, having received satisfactory information of the abandonment by the insurgents of such barbarous practices, shall revoke or modify said instructions. Congress do not, however, intend by this resolution to limit or restrict the power of the President to the modes or principles of retaliation herein mentioned, but only to advise a resort to them as demanded by the occasion.

And to insert in lieu thereof:

That the executive and military authorities of the United States are hereby directed to retaliate upon the prisoners of the enemy in such manner and kind as shall be effective in deterring him from the perpetration in future of cruel and barbarous treatment of our soldiers.

So that the joint resolution will read:

Whereas it has come to the knowledge of Congress that great numbers of our soldiers who have fallen as prisoners of war into the hands of the insurgents have been subjected to treatment unexampled for cruelty in the history of civilized war, and finding its parallels only in the conduct of savage tribes; a treatment resulting in the death of multitudes by the slow but designed process of starvation, and by mortal diseases occasioned by insufficient and unhealthy food, by wanton exposure of their persons to the inclemency of the weather, and by deliberate assassination of innocent and unoffending men, and the murder in cold blood

THE OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS, PUBLISHED BY F. & J. RIVES, WASHINGTON, D. C.

THIRTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION.

of prisoners after surrender; and whereas a continuance of these barbarities, in contempt of the laws of war and in disregard of the remonstrances of the national authorities, has presented to us the alternative of allowing our brave soldiers thus to be destroyed or to apply the principle of retaliation for their protection: Therefore,

Resolved, &c., That in the judgment of Congress it has become justifiable and necessary that the President should, in order to prevent the continuance and recurrence of such barbarities, and to insure the observance by the insurgents of the laws of civilized war, resort at once to measures of retaliation; that the executive and military authorities of the United States are hereby directed to retaliate upon the prisoners of the enemy in such manner and kind as shall be effective in deterring him from the perpetration in future of cruel and barbarous treatment of our soldiers.

Mr. WADE. Now, Mr. President, if a Senator is for retaliation, if he is for the principle of it, he cannot have it in a milder form than it is there. It does not prescribe exactly what the retaliation shall consist in. The President is only directed to make it effectual by such means as to him shall appear proper to be used. I would have it much stronger than that. I would pay them in kind. I have no such scruples as induce gentlemen to shrink from retaliation in kind-an eye for an-eye, and a tooth for a tooth, in time of war. That is my doctrine. That was the doctrine of General Washington. That was the doctrine of our predecessors in this body in all our previous wars.

FRIDAY, JANUARY 27, 1865.

sioners there to treat with them." I know the Senator did not intend this; but such is the law of nations and so it will be held by every nation in Europe. In that way our mouths would.be stopped when they recognized the southern confederacy, for they would be able to say, "You yourselves did it first by making a compact with their civil and military authorities."

That is one reason why that proposition should not be adopted; but what would be the probable effect of it as a remedy if it were adopted? You send two commissioners down to Mr. Davis, and I suppose they are to hold up before him this "book of martyrs" containing the testimony taken by the committee, and to tell him, "Here, Mr. Davis, in Libby prison, right under your nose, subject to your observation daily, are the skeletons of men whom you have reduced from manhood to ghosts, whose lives have been sacrificed by your cruelty and exposure; now we come here somehow to argue you out of this." Mr. Davis would say before they could get there, "My friends, you cannot come within twenty miles of Richmond with such a statement on your tongues;" but he would tell them, "You come here as slanderers; we deny that we have treated your prisoners wrong and harshly, but if we have it is not in your mouth to allege it, because we say that you treat our prisoners as badly as we treat yours;" and they say it all over the South. That is all you would get by that.

First of all, then, the effect of such a proposition would be to recognize the independence of the rebels, and secondly it would be like sending Mr. Blair down there. [Laughter.] I hope to God that we have all got sick of that. I hope you will send some other commissioner there, if you will have one there; for I understand that he went and doffed his cap to Mr. Davis and said to him, "I have lost no confidence in you!" That is the way we read it. That man with his soul per

Shall we treat rebels who really have forfeited their lives by their treachery more leniently than our forefathers treated our enemies of other nations in wars which were international wars? Is there anything that pleads in behalf of these rebels that does not apply to independent nations at war? By the admitted law of all mankind, a soldier fighting in a just war does not forfeit his life by being taken prisoner; he must be used according to the custom of civilized nations, which is, not to harm a hair of his head after he has surrendered. That is the principle as applied to independent nations. Do these rebels commend themselves to a milder treatment because they are rebels? When a man has perjured his soul be-jured before God and his hand red with the blood fore God, and committed treason against his country, is that a reason why special limitations should be made in his behalf? I trust not. The same principles apply here that apply in all wars, no more, no less. If we were to apply the principle in such cases strictly, it would be against these rebels, because they are rebels, and have thereby forfeited their lives.

But I ask no other treatment between us and them than as between independent nation and independent nation. I invoke the great principles of international law in protection of our poor soldiers in the hands of a barbarous enemy, and I ask no more. Will you give it, or will you turn your backs coldly on these poor men and say to them, "Our pity is reserved entirely for the enemy; we have none on our own men, for we cannot bear the idea that an accursed rebel shall receive the same meed of justice?" Is there a Senator here who wishes to go out of this body with this condemnation upon his head, that he would not invoke the well-known international law in behalf of our men suffering, as we are told, these horrible barbarities at the hands of this insolent and accursed foe? Shall we fold our arms and abandon the men whom we have compelled into the field to fight our battles, and to defend us against this accursed enemy, to their fate without an effort to rescue them?

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WILSON] offered a remedy here, he offered an amendment to this resolution, which I observed was looked upon with favor by some Senators. It was that two commissioners should be appointed by the President to visit the rebel authorities and there enter into a compact on this subject with some of them; he did not tell us who, in his amendment. If they were to go to the civil authorities there and enter into such a compact, you would thereby acknowledge beyond doubt the independence of the confederate States. Is that what you intend to do? France and England and every Power in Europe would say at once, "You yourselves led the way to the acknowledgment of their independence the moment you sent commis

[ocr errors]

of his countrymen, has not acted so as to diminish the confidence in him of this missionary, and that is no reason why he cannot approach him with the same feeling as before! Thank God, that is not the common sentiment of our people. If you send commissioners I do not know but that you will have to send just such men there, and they are to go and kneel down at the feet of Jeff. Davis's throne and ask him if he will not be kind enough to treat our prisoners better than he has done heretofore!

Sir, if you could get a man ever to go on such a miserable errand, who would be a commissioner to bear these tidings to Jeff. Davis, he would turn right round and say, "You are a slanderer," and he would put him in Libby before he had time hardly to speak, [laughter,] and he ought to do so; I would do it if I were he, and you sent anybody to me on such a foolish mission as that. [Laughter.] What! two commissioners to go and ask Jeff. Davis not to be barbarous to our prisoners! Do you not think his heart would fail him before your commissioners? [Laughter.] In all the negotiations for the exchange of prisoners is it a fact-the proposition to which I am now referring presupposes it to be a fact that not one word has been lisped about these barbarities, and that no attempt has been made to remedy them? It is the inference to be drawn from the proposition, and I fear before God that it is true.

I do not believe you can find in the history of mankind an instance where a great nation having its armies in the field, and having a knowledge for two long years of the inhumanities and barbarities that are grinding them to powder and reducing them to death by inches, has borne such things without any attempt to resent them. Not only were the facts made manifest two years ago, but the prisoners who have been returning continually at intervals ever since bear upon their persons the accursed marks of the martyrdom they have suffered; and those who ought to be the guardians of our brave soldiers, whose first duty is to protect them, have lisped not a word

NEW SERIES.....No. 28.

on the subject. I know of nothing that has gone out either from Congress or the Executive to redress this great wrong. As I have said, I feel deeply that I have not brought the subject before Congress heretofore; but I hoped the Executive would do his duty, as I understood that he promised to do; but when we find that he has not done it, we cannot excuse it to ourselves that we have stood silent so long.

Reflect upon it, Senators; suppose those near and dear to you were in these prisons, and you saw that their lives were ebbing away day by day, and you knew that the horrors of their prisons would soon end their miserable existence unless you interposed in their behalf, would you not do it? I do not believe there is a Senator on this floor who has not been appealed to over and over again by wives and by mothers whose husbands and sons were in this jeopardy. How often have we received communications like this: "I have letters from my poor boy, and death is his certain doom unless he can be rescued in a very short time." Whose soul is not harrowed up with the idea that while the country owes its brave sons this protection, he has to reply to that poor mother, "I have no power to do anything in your behalf; the Government has not lifted its voice even to make a protest in your behalf?" And yet gentlemen think that we have done our full duty to these men who are thus dying in our cause! Sir, we have not done it. These barbarities have been proved so that they cannot be denied. Nobody pretends to deny them. You cannot look with composure now upon the daguerreotypes of those men whose skeletons are before you and have been for more than a year; and yet you go coolly away and fold up your arms and do nothing! The dreadful story of suffering is revealed by every prisoner who returns, by every man who escapes from prison. Every one of them knows precisely the inhumanities that are practiced. There is no dodging the fact, gentlemen, by shutting your eyes, and closing your ears. If you are non-resistants, if you have embraced the new doctrines of Christianity now preached here, that the world as a world never heard of before, we shall know it by the disposition you make of these resolutions.

I want to know if you do not hold that we have a right to make defensive war; if we have no right to protect ourselves against aggression, as was strongly intimated by the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. HENDERSON.] He invokes peculiar doctrines, that, he says, are Christian doctrines, in behalf of this rebellion and as a bar to our doing anything to rescue our brave men. He says you must do good to your enemies; if they smite you on one cheek you must turn the other. This is the way he would rescue our men from these barbarities!

Mr. HENDERSON. I think the Senator from Ohio is doing me a very great injustice. When the question was put by my colleague whether I would not make defensive war, I think I made a positive answer. I have not examined the report this morning of my remarks; I have not seen the report of them; I have not looked over it; but I feel very well satisfied as to the answer that I made. I said that nations as well as individuals, by any code of morals which I had ever seen, had a right of defense; and I further stated that, in my judgment, this was a defensive war upon our part. We certainly did not commence the war; the rebels commenced it. I further said, and the very amendment that I have submitted goes to that extent, that, under certain circumstances, retaliation is right, and ought to be adopted. I neither argued against it nor does my amendment argue against it. I said nothing against it, but I did argue against the retaliation, in kind, proposed by the resolution. That I opposed, upon the ground that I thought it might be interpreted by the nations of the world, and would be interpreted by individuals throughout the country, to be in a spirit of revenge; but I expressly said that I did not charge any vengeance, or desire to visit vengeance, or the part of the committee.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »