"When your country is actually in war, whether it be a war of invasion or a war of insurrection, Congress has power to carry on the war, and must carry it on according to the laws of war; and by the laws of war an invaded country has all its laws and municipal institutions swept by the board, and martial law takes the place of them. This power in Congress has perhaps never been called into exercise under the present Constitution of the United States. But when the laws of war are in force, what, I ask, is one of those laws? It is this: that when a country is invaded, and two hostile armies are set in martial array, the commanders of both armies have power to emancipate all the slaves in the invaded territory. Nor is this a mere theoretic statement. The history of South America shows. that the doctrine has been carried into practical execution within the last thirty years. Slavery was abolished in Colombia, first by the Spanish General Morillo, and secondly by the American General Bolivar. It was abolished by virtue of a military command given at the head of the army, and its abolition continues to be law to this day. It was abolished by the laws of war, and not by municipal

enactments.

* * *

I might furnish a thousand proofs to show that the pretensions of gentlemen to the sanctity of their municipal institutions, under a state of actual invasion and of actual war, whether servile, civil, or foreign, are wholly unfounded, and that the laws of war do, in all such cases, take the précedence. I lay this down as the law of nations. I say that the military authority takes, for the time, the place of all municipal institutions, Slavery among the rest. Under that state of things, so far from its being true that the States where Slavery exists have the exclusive management of the subject, not only the President of the United States, but the Commander of the Army, has power to order the universal emancipation of the slaves."

Nor did this doctrine originate with Mr. Adams. In the Virginia Convention which ratified the Constitution, Patrick Henry opposed the ratification on the ground that it gave to Congress the power, under certain circumstances, to abolish Slavery. He said:

"One of the great objects of Government is the national

defense. The Constitution gives power to the General Government to provide for the general defense, and the means must be commensurate to the end. All the means in the possession of the people must be given to the Government which is intrusted with the public defense. May Congress not say every black man must fight? In the war of the Revolution, Virginia passed an act of Assembly, that every slave who would join the army should be free. At some future time, Congress will search the Constitution to see if they have not the power of manumission. And have they not, sir? Have they not the power to provide for the general defense and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free? and will they not be warranted by that power? The paper speaks to the point; they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it."

In the latter part of September, a meeting of the Governors of the loyal States was held at Altoona, Pa., to consult on the interests of the nation. About one half of them were present, and some of those absent were represented by men of their choice. They united in a memorial approving the President's Emancipation Proclamation, and resolved, by every proper and lawful means, to strengthen the hands of the Government in the struggle against the Rebellion.

Congress assembled on the 1st of December, 1862. The President, in his Message, recommended to Congress a plan of Emancipation, to be embodied in articles, and proposed to the State Legislatures or to State Conventions for ratification. The propositions were substantially as follows:

1. Any State abolishing Slavery prior to the 1st of January, 1900, should receive for each slave emancipated a certain compensation.

2. Slaves having "enjoyed freedom by the chances of the war," to be forever free; loyal owners to be compensated.

3. Congress might provide for colonizing free colored. persons, with their own consent, beyond the limits of the United States.

These propositions of the President were by some erroneously considered as inconsistent with, or an abandonment of, his Emancipation policy. The project embodied in the Message, however, had respect to loyal States and those which should become such, and was designed as a measure of conciliation and peace. The Proclamation was a war measure, and intended to operate only on Rebels, to weaken their power.

The first of January, 1863, was approaching, and a deep interest was felt in regard to the promised Proclamation of the President. The opinion had been expressed that he would recede from the position he had taken in the Proclamation of September, which declared that all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, henceforth, and FOREVER

FREE."

In the last Proclamation, he designates, as being in rebellion, all the seceded States, except Tennessee, (which is not named,) the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and seven counties, including the Cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth, in the Eastern part of Virginia; and thirteen parishes; (counties,) including the City of New Orleans, in Louisiana. The State and the parts of States exempted from the effect of the Proclamation, were considered as having been recovered to the Union. The people declared free are enjoined to abstain from all violence; and advised to labor faithfully for reasonable wages; and they are informed that they will be received into the armed service of the United States. The repugnance to the employment of colored men in the army, which long prevailed, has been nearly overcome; and about 25,000 of these former aiders of the Rebellion have already been added to the force of the Union.

About the time, of the issuing of this last Proclamation, West Virginia was, by an act of Congress, admitted into the Union. The measure had met with much opposition both in and out of Congress, but was carried by heavy votes. The President was said to have taken the written opinions of all the members of his Cabinet before he gave the bill his signature.

CHAPTER XI.

Present Parties contrasted. The Democratic Party the Party of the Rebellion.

ALTHOUGH there are in the Free States few who in express terms justify the Rebellion, no fact is more clear than that a majority of those who now compose the Democratic party, either sympathize with those who are in arms against the Government, or palliate the treason. In almost every official document relating to the subject, in the proceedings of party Conventions, in speeches, and in private conversation, Democrats have charged those who have opposed the extension of Slavery, with being the criminal authors of our present national troubles. On the other hand, scarcely a sentiment uttered, or an act performed, or a public measure demanded, by the slaveholders, in favor of Slavery, has been condemned or opposed by the mass of that party. Certain it is, that many of the most flagitious outrages upon individual rights, murder not excepted, have been palliated or tacitly approved, and not one has been generally and heartily condemned. Some facts sustaining these assertions have been given in preceding Chapters; to these others will be added. It is designed also to defend the opponents of the Pro-Slavery Democracy against the slanders and censures of their adversaries, and vindicate their principles and their policy. They entertain or propagate no new sentiments on the subject of Slavery--none that were not avowed and inculcated by the Fathers long before and long after the organization of the Government. Their first and leading principle is that self-evident truth asserted in the Declaration of Independence-the political equality of mankind. Modern Democrats, North as well as South, deny that Jefferson and his compatriots meant to include in the words, "all men," the African race. This is a wanton slander upon their reputation-a modern invention. To prove it such,

we have only to show that they condemned Slavery. The enslavement of the African race is sought to be justified on the ground that they are naturally incapable of taking care of or governing themselves, and consequently were designed by the Creator to be the chattels of the more highly endowed races. Our Fathers condemned Slavery, and advocated the manumission of the slaves. This they could not consistently do if they had not believed them entitled to the "inalienable rights" which they claimed for themselves. Hear what they said on this subject :

It is shocking to human nature that any race of mankind and their posterity should be sentenced to perpetual Slavery; nor in justice can we think otherwise of it, than that they are thrown amongst us to be our scourge one day or other for our sins; and as freedom must be as dear to them as to us, what a scene of horror must it bring about! And the longer it is unexecuted, the bloody scene must be the greater."-Memorial of Citizens of New Inverness, Georgia, to Gen. Oglethorpe, 1739.

"There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it, (Slavery ;) but there is only one proper and effectual mode in which it can be accomplished, and that is by legislative authority; and this so far as my suffrage will go, shall never be wanting."-Washington to Robert Morris.

"I never mean, unless some particular circumstance should compel me to it, to possess another slave by purchase, it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which Slavery in this country may be abolished by law."- Same tv John F. Mercer.

Jefferson, supposing the case of the slaves rising some day for freedom, said: "The Almighty has no attribute which can take sides with us in such a contest."-Notes on Virginia.

*

"The whole commerce between master and slave is a continual exercise of the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on the other." * "With what execration should the statesman be loaded who, permitting one half of the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots, and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part, and the amor patria of the other! Can the liberties of the nation be