Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

rally considered inimical to the highest moral and intellectual development, there is as little cause to blush for the progress of the nation

SCHLOSSER, FRIEDRICH CHRISTOPHE, a German historian, born in Jever, Nov. 17, 1776, died in Heidelberg, Sept. 23, 1861. He was educated at Göttingen, and after completing his university course, was for some years a private tutor. In 1808 he became associate rector of the school at Jever, but retained the position only a year, removing in 1809 to Frankfort-am-Main, that he might enjoy greater facilities for his historical studies. In 1812 he accepted a professorship in the New Lyceum at Frankfort, in 1814 was appointed city librarian, and in 1817 professor of history at Heidelberg. This professorship he retained till his death. His greatest and most widely known work was "History of the Eighteenth Century, and of the Nineteenth to the Overthrow of the French Empire," 8 vols., published at Heidelberg in 8 vols., (1823-46,) and translated by D. Davison and republished in England in 8 vols., (1843-52.) His other principal works were: "Lives of Beza and Peter Martyr," Heidelberg, 1809; "History of the Iconoclastic Cæsars of the Eastern Empire," Frankfort, 1812; "General View of the History of the Ancient World, and its Civilization," 3 vols., Frankfort, 1826-34; "The History of the World, in Consecutive Narration," 9 vols., 1817-24.

SCRIBE, EUGENE, a French dramatic writer, born at Paris, Dec. 24, 1791, died in the same city Feb. 20, 1861, of apoplexy. He was originally intended for the legal profession, but his guardian, the advocate Bennet, found his dramatic tastes so strong that he advised him to abandon the bar for the stage. His first drama, produced in 1811, and in which he was aided by his schoolfellow, De la Vigue, was highly successful, and his whole career as a dramatic writer has been crowned by equal success. He was the author of an immense number of dramas of very unequal merit, but all exhibiting a correct conception and great power of vigorous delineation of the life of the lower and middle classes. A selection of his dramas (translated) in seven volumes, was published in England in 1845, and many of them have been reproduced on the American as well as the English stage. "Fra Diavolo," "Robert le Diable," "Les Diamans de la Couronne," "The Finest Day of my Life," &c., are among those which will be most readily recognized.

SEWELL'S POINT is the projection of land on the right shore, where the Elizabeth River turns from a north to an easterly course, becoming then what is called Hampton Roads. It is on this river that Norfolk in Virginia is situated. The point was fortified immediately after the secession of Virginia. The battery placed here by her troops was the exterior of the line

S

since the commencement of the present century as can be found in the history of any nation of Europe for the same period.

of batteries intended to guard the Elizabeth River, through which Norfolk is approached. This line of batteries consisted of seven, the heaviest of which was at Craney Island, mounting about thirty guns. Two batteries further inland mounted about twelve and fifteen guns respectively. The other batteries mounted from seven to ten guns. The battery at Sewell's Point commanded the vessels blockading James River, and if the guns were sufficiently heavy and effective, it could cause them to remove. A party being observed perfecting the earthworks, the gunboat Star opened fire upon them with two ten-inch guns and shell. Subsequently the Freeborn, Capt. Ward, arrived, and, taking a position near the shore, drove the defenders out of the works, and disabled the battery.

The Star was struck by five shots of smail calibre, all of which took effect. One ball, a six-pounder, penetrated the hull on the larboard bow, a few inches above the water line. Two of her crew were injured, and one of them, a boy, seriously. This was the first skirmish between the floating batteries of the North and land batteries of the South. On the other side, Vice-President Stephens, in an address at Atlanta, Ga., on the 23d of May, spoke of the affair as resulting in "the vessel being repulsed and disabled."

SHAW, LEMUEL, LL. D., late Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, born at Barnstable, Mass., January, 1781, died at Boston, Mass., March 30, 1861. He was s graduate of Harvard College, and the following year was assistant teacher in one of the Boston public schools, and assistant editor of the "Boston Gazette." He studied law with David Everett, Esq., and was admitted to the bar in New Hampshire, Sept. 1804, and two months after, commenced practice in Boston, remaining in practice until his appointment as Chief-Jastice. In 1816 he was elected a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, in which he was continued by reelection for seven years, and was subsequently for four years a member of the Senate. In 1820 he was a member of the Convention for revising the Constitution. In Sept. 1830 he was appointed Chief-Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, which office he held thirty years. He was an overseer of Harvard College about fifteen years, and thirty years in the Corporation. While in the Legislature he drew up an elaborate report concerning the lands of the United States, advocating their distribution to the old as well as to the new States, for the purposes of education. He was considered an able jurist, and his legal opinions were regarded as possessing great weight.

[ocr errors]

SLAVES. This species of property, as it is known at the South, and this "class of persons held to service and labor," as it is designated at the North, was the occasion of much perplexity to the Government in the conduct of hostilities against the seceded States. The Constitution of the United States gives no authority, either express or implied, to the Federal Government to interfere with, control, or regulate the relations of master and slave in any State in which this social condition exists. On this point the people are almost unanimous in their opinion. But when a number of the slaveholding States seceded, and a civil war ensued between them and the Federal Government, how were the relations of that Government to the slaves affected? The Government took the position that each State was a part of the Union, and that "insurgents or "rebels" had undertaken to wrest its authority in certain States. Therefore the Constitution continued in full force over all the States, as between the Federal Government and its loyal citizens, and the arm of the Government was thereby stayed from interference with slaves of loyal citizens. In Western Virginia, which refused to become a part of the Confederate States, the relations of master and slaves were unaltered; so like wise in Kentucky, in Missouri, in Maryland and Delaware. But how was this state of servitude in its relations to the Government affected among disloyal citizens, those whose hands were raised to destroy the Government over themcould they claim the forbearance of the military power organized under the Constitution, when they were striving to destroy the Constitution itself? The development which this question received in the progress of events, is the answer which it is the province of history to give.

immediately notified the War Department of these proceedings.

Soon after, embarrassed by the rush of "contrabands" to his camp, General Butler writes again to the Secretary:

"Since I wrote my last, the question in regard to slave property is becoming one of very serious magnitude. The inhabitants of Virginia are using their negroes in the batteries, and are preparing to send their women and children South. The escapes from them are very numerous, and a squad has come in this morning, (May 27,) and my pickets are bringing their women and children. Of course these cannot be dealt with upon the theory on which I designed to treat the service of able-bodied men and women who might come within my lines, and of which I gave you a detailed account in my last despatch.

"I am in the utmost doubt what to do with this species of property. Up to this time I have had come within my lines men and women, with their children-entire families—each family belonging to the same owner. I have, therefore, determined to employ, as I can do very profitably, the able-bodied persons in the party, issuing proper food for the support of all, and charging against their services the expense of care and sustenance of the non-laborers, keeping a strict and accurate account as well of the services as of the expenditures, having the worth of the services and the cost of the expenditure determined by a board of survey hereafter to be detailed. I know of no other manner in which to dispose of this subject and the questions connected therewith. As a matter of property to the insurgents, it will be of very great moment-the number that I now have amounting, as I am informed, to what in good times would be of the value of sixty thousand dollars."

The Secretary of War immediately, on the 30th of May, replied, conveying the views of the Government at that time:

The slaves were first called contrabands. This term, as used in law, has been almost entirely confined to property. Military or naval persons in the service of the enemy, his ambassadors and ministers sent to solicit assistance, comprise nearly the entire class hereto- "Your action in respect to the negroes who fore known as such. But in those novel rela- came within your lines from the service of the tions which exist in the conflict between the rebels, is approved. The Department is sensiNorth and the South, a new class, composed of ble of the embarrassments which must surslaves, has appeared, to whom it has been ap- round officers conducting military operations in plied. Even here it has its limitations. It a State by the laws of which slavery is sancshould strictly embrace those who had been tioned. The Government cannot recognize the employed upon fortifications and other works rejection by any State of the Federal obligaof an enemy, and who come within the Union tions, nor can it refuse the performance of the lines. The term was first given to certain able- Federal obligations resting upon itself. Among bodied men who came within the lines of Gen- these Federal obligations, however, none can eral Butler's camp, at Fortress Monroe. Upon be more important than that of suppressing and the demand for their surrender, made by the dispersing armed combinations formed for the officer of a Confederate force in the neighbor- purpose of overthrowing its whole constitutionhood, he replied that they were contraband of al authority. While, therefore, you will permit war, and as such would not be given up. He no interference, by the persons under your command, with the relations of persons held to service under the laws of any State, you will, on the other hand, so long as any State within which your military operations are conducted is under the control of such armed combinations, refrain from surrendering to alleged mas

* On the 11th of February, the House of Representatives In Congress passed the following resolution-yeas, 161; Resolved, That neither Congress, nor the people or Govern

nays, none:

ments of the non-slaveholding States, have a constitutional right to legislate upon or interfere with slavery in any slaveholding State of the Union.

ters any persons who may come within your lines. You will employ such persons in the services to which they may be best adapted, keeping an account of the labor by them performed, of the value of it, and the expenses of their maintenance. The question of their final disposition will be reserved for future determination."

On the 11th of July, the United States Marshal of Kansas writes to the Attorney-General, asking whether he should give his official services in the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law.

In reply, the Attorney-General says: "It is the President's constitutional duty to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' That means all the laws. He has no right to discriminate-no right to execute the laws he likes, and leave unexecuted those he dislikes. And of course you and I, his subordinates, can have no wider latitude of discretion than he has. Missouri is a State in the Union. The insurrectionary disorders in Missouri are but individual crimes, and do not change the legal status of the State, nor change its rights and obligations as a member of the Union.

"A refusal, by a ministerial officer, to execute any law which properly belongs to his office, is an official misdemeanor, of which I do not doubt the President would take notice."

At the extra session of Congress, a bill known as the Confiscation Act was passed, containing the following section:

And be it further enacted, That whenever hereafter, during the present insurrection against the Government of the United States, any person claimed to be held to labor or service under the law of any State shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due, or by the lawful_agent of such person, to take up arms against the United States, or shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due, or his lawful agent, to work or to be employed in or upon any fort, navy yard, dock, armory, ship, intrenchment, or in any military or naval service whatsoever, against the Government and lawful authority of the United States, then, and in every such case, the person

to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due

shall forfeit his claim to such labor, any law of the State or of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding. And whenever thereafter the person claiming such labor or service shall seek to enforce his claim, it shall be a full and sufficient answer to such claim that the person whose service or labor is claimed had been employed in hostile service against the Government of the United States, contrary to the provisions of this act. This was finally approved by the President on the 6th of August. On the 8th, the Secretary of War again writes to General Butler, giving very fully the views of the Government. The conclusion adopted was such as to convince citizens acknowledging the sovereignty of the United States Government that the principle laid down in the Constitution, that "private property shall not be taken for public uses without just compensation," was to be strictly observed, and the command to the troops against interference with the servants of peaceful citizens, "in house or field," was all

that could be claimed of a just Government called to cope with a great enemy.

The Secretary thus proceeds: "It is the desire of the President that all existing rights, in all the States, be fully respected and maintained. The war now prosecuted on the part of the Federal Government is a war for the Union, and for the preservation of all constitutional rights of States and the citizens of the States in the Union. Hence no question can arise as to fugitives from service within the States and Territories in which the authority of the Union is fully acknowledged. The ordinary forms of judicial proceeding, which must be respected by military and civil authorities alike, will suffice for the enforcement of all legal claims. But in States wholly or partially under insurrectionary control, where the laws of the United States are so far opposed and resist ed that they cannot be effectually enforced, it is obvious that rights dependent on the execu tion of those laws must temporarily fail; and it is equally obvious that rights dependent on the laws of the States within which military operations are conducted, must be necessarily subordinated to the military exigencies created by the insurrection, if not wholly forfeited by the treasonable conduct of parties claiming them. To this general rule rights to services can form no exception.

"The act of Congress approved August 6th, 1861, declares that if persons held to service shall be employed in hostility to the United States, the right to their services shall be for feited, and such persons shall be discharged therefrom. It follows of necessity that no claim can be recognized by the military author ities of the Union to the services of such per sons when fugitives.

"A more difficult question is presented in respect to persons escaping from the service of loyal masters. It is quite apparent that the laws of the State, under which only the ser vices of such fugitives can be claimed, must needs be wholly, or almost wholly suspended, as to remedies, by the insurrection and the military measures necessitated by it, and it is equally apparent that the substitution of mili tary for judicial measures, for the enforcement of such claims, must be attended by great inconveniences, embarrassments, and injuries.

"Under these circumstances it seems quite clear that the substantial rights of loyal masters will be best protected by receiving such fugi tives, as well as fugitives from disloyal masters, into the service of the United States, and en ploying them under such organizations and in such occupations as circumstances may suggest or require. Of course a record should be kept, showing the name and description of the fugi tives, the name and the character, as loyal or disloyal, of the master, and such facts as may be necessary to a correct understanding of the cir cumstances of each case after tranquillity shall have been restored. Upon the return of peace, Congress will doubtless properly provide for all

the persons thus received into the service of the Union, and for just compensation to loyal masters. In this way only, it would seem, can the duty and safety of the Government and the just rights of all be fully reconciled and harmonized.

"You will therefore consider yourself as instructed to govern your future action, in respect to fugitives from service, by the principles herein stated, and will report from time to time, and at least twice in each month, your action in the premises to this Department. You will, however, neither authorize nor permit any interference, by the troops under your command, with the servants of peaceful citizens, in house or field, nor will you, in any way, encourage such servants to leave the lawful service of their masters; nor will you, except in cases where the public safety may seem to require it, prevent the voluntary return of any fugitive to the service from which he may have escaped."

It will be seen that these instructions are in harmony with the act of Congress above mentioned, and equally remote from emancipation by proclamation and heedless inaction in regard to such an important matter.

The leading principle of the instructions is that the existing war had no direct relation to slavery. It was a war for the restoration of the Union under the existing Constitution. National success would establish each State of the restored Union in full enjoyment of all those rights which it possessed prior to secession, except so far as they may have been inevitably damaged by it.

The whole subject of slavery in loyal States was to be left to the civil authorities. No action was contemplated in relation to it by military force or direction. No hindrance would be opposed to the exercise of the lawful authority of masters within or without the lines of the army.

In seceded States the military authorities were directed to refrain from all interference with servants lawfully employed in peaceful pursuits. But where servants were abandoned by their masters, or escape from them, the instructions did not allow the troops employed in suppressing the insurrection to be diverted from their legitimate duties for the purpose of determining claims to service, or of restoring slaves to masters. They simply directed that those who came within the lines and offered their services to the Government be received and employed, and that care be taken to preserve a record which would enable loyal masters, after the end of the war, to obtain indemnity from Congress for the loss of servants so received and employed.

Thus the rights of loyal masters were to be secured, and all interference with the internal institutions of a State avoided, as far as practicable; at the same time the Government would avail itself to a legitimate extent of the services of that portion of the servile population not otherwise lawfully employed. În using their

services, the Federal Government followed the example of the Confederate authorities. Slaves and free negroes were pressed into service, organized into squads and companies, and compelled to labor on fortifications and in other employments. It was further argued, that if the blacks who resorted to the lines of the army, were repelled, they would either organize themselves as irregular partisans, or become hostile, and be employed against the Federal troops. If they were received, and organized and employed during the war, they would be under control and discipline, and all excesses, and all violent interference with peaceful industry or existing institutions, could be restrained and prevented.

On the 16th of August, the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Caleb Smith, in an address to the citizens of Providence, Rhode Island, at a social festival, thus declared what was the position of the Government: "The minds of the people of the South have been deceived by the artful representations of demagogues, who have assured them that the people of the North were determined to bring the power of this Government to bear upon them for the purpose of crushing out this institution of slavery. I ask you, is there any truth in this charge? Has the Government of the United States, in any single instance, by any one solitary act, interfered with the institutions of the South? No, not one. The theory of this Government is, that the States are sovereign_within_their proper sphere. The Government of the United States has no more right to interfere with the institution of slavery in South Carolina, than it has to interfere with the peculiar institution of Rhode Island, whose benefits I have enjoyed."

On the 31st of August, Major-General Fremont, commanding the Western Department, which embraced Missouri and the portion of Kentucky west of the Cumberland River, issued a proclamation, (see MISSOURI,) of which the following are extracts:

Circumstances, in my judgment, of sufficient urgency, render it necessary that the Commanding General of this Department should assume the administrative powers of the State.

*

*

*

*

*

In order, therefore, to suppress disorders, to maintain, as far as now practicable, the public peace, and to give security and protection to the persons and property of loyal citizens, I do hereby extend and declare established martial law throughout the State of Missouri. The lines of the army of occupation in this State are for the present declared to extend from Leavenworth, by way of the posts of Jefferson City, Rolla, and Ironton, to Cape Girardeau, on the Mississippi River.

All persons who shall be taken with arms in their hands within these lines shall be tried by court martial, and if found guilty, will be shot. The property, real and personal, of all persons in the State of Missouri who shall take up arms against the United States, or who shall be directly proven to have taken active part with their enemies in the field, is declared to be confiscated to the public use, and their slaves, if any they have, are hereby declared free men.

Emancipation of the slaves as proclaimed herein, attracted the immediate attention of the

Government. A correspondence ensued between the President and Gen. Fremont, which is explained in the following letter from the former to the latter:

WASHINGTON, D. C., September 11, 1861. MAJOR-GENERAL JOHN C. FREMONT:

SIR: Yours of the 8th, in answer to mine of the 2d inst., was just received. Assured that you upon the ground could better judge of the necessities of your position than I could at this distance, on seeing your proclamation of August 30, I perceived no general objection to it; the particular clause, however, in relation to the confiscation of property and the liberation of slaves appeared to me to be objectionable in its nonconformity to the act of Congress, passed the 6th of last August, upon the same subjects, and hence I wrote you expressing my wish that that clause should be modified accordingly. Your answer just received expresses the preference on your part that I should make an open order for the modification, which I very cheerfully do. It is therefore ordered that the said clause of said proclamation be so modified, held and construed as to conform with, and not to transcend, the provisions on the same subject contained in the act of Congress entitled "An act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes," approved August 6, 1861, and the said act be published at length with this order. Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN.

The views of the Government were still further enforced by a letter of instructions from the Secretary of War to General T. W. Sherman, commanding the expedition against Port Royal, South Carolina. This letter is dated October 14th, and thus proceeds:

"In conducting military operations within States declared by the proclamation of the President to be in a state of insurrection, you will govern yourself, so far as persons held to service under the laws of such States are concerned, by the principles of the letters addressed by me to Major-General Butler on the 30th of May and the 8th of August, copies of which are herewith furnished to you. As special directions, adapted to special circumstances, cannot be given, much must be referred to your own discretion, as Commanding General of the expedition. You will, however, in general avail yourself of any persons, whether fugitives from labor or not, who may offer themselves to the National Government; you will employ such persons in such services as they may be fitted for, either as ordinary employees, or, if special circumstances seem to require it, in any other capacity, with such organization, in squads, companies, or otherwise, as you may deem most beneficial to the service. This, however, not to mean a general arming of them for military service. You will assure all loyal masters that Congress will provide just compensation to them for the loss of the services of the persons so employed. It is believed that the course thus indicated will best secure the substantial rights of loyal masters, and the benefits to the United States of the services of all disposed to support the Government, while it avoids all interference with the social systems of local institutions of every State, beyond that which insurrection makes unavoidable, and which a restoration of peaceful relations to the Union,

under the Constitution, will immediately re move."

In a proclamation to the inhabitants of South Carolina, issued on the 8th of November, after landing his force at Port Royal, the General thus described his purpose so far as related to the slaves: "We have come among you with no feelings of personal animosity, no desire to harm your citizens, destroy your property, or interfere with any of your lawful laws, rights, or your social and local institutions, beyond what the causes herein briefly alluded to may render unavoidable."

Again he says: "We have come among you as loyal men, fully impressed with our constitutional obligations to the citizens of your State. Those obligations shall be performed as far as in our power; but be not deceived: the obligation of suppressing armed combinations against the constitutional authorities, is paramount to all others. If, in the performance of this duty, other minor but important obligations should be in any way neglected, it must be attributed to the necessities of the case, because rights dependent on the laws of the State must be necessarily subordinate to military exigencies created by insurrection and rebellion."

Again, on the 17th of November, the General commanding at Baltimore, John A. Dix, being about to send a force into the counties of Accomac and Northampton, Virginia, issued a proclamation to the inhabitants, in which he thus states the instructions to the troops: "Special directions have been given not to interfere with the condition of any persons held to domestic service, and in order that there may be no ground for mistake or pretext for misrepresentation, commanders of regiments and corps have been instructed not to permit any such persons to come within their lines."

In the Western Department of the army, after the retirement of Gen. Fremont, an order was issued by the commanding officer, General Halleck, prohibiting fugitives from entering the lines of the camps of the army. This order was strictly enforced.

The views expressed in the letter of the President to Gen. Fremont, in the letters of the Secretary of War, and in the proclamations of the Generals, must be regarded as explaining the position of the Government relative to this class of persons held to service or labor. This position was based upon the section of the Confiscation Act of Congress, passed August 6th. Although called a "Confiscation Act," it cer tainly has not that effect on slaves. Confisca tion is the forfeiture of property for the benefit of the public treasury. But no such intention is disclosed in this act. The slave is described in constitutional language as "a person claimed to be held to labor or service under the law of any State"; and it is declared that when he is permitted, by the person making this claim, to be employed in any military or naval service, the claim shall be forfeited. The claim is not forfeited to the Government, nor does it pass

« PředchozíPokračovat »