Part 7.

THE NEGRO IN THE WAR FOR THE UNION.

CHAPTER XIV.
DEFINITION OF THE WAR ISSUE.

Return to Table of Contents

IN 1860 there were, in the fifteen slave-holding States, 12,240,000 souls, of whom 8,039,000 were whites, 251,000 free persons of color, and 3,950,000 were slaves. The gain of the entire population of the slave-holding States, from 1850-1860, was 2,627,000, equal to 27.33 per cent. The slave population had increased 749,931, or 23.44 per cent., not including the slaves in the District of Columbia, where they had lost 502 slaves during the decade. The nineteen non-slave-holding States and the seven territories, including the District of Columbia, contained 19,203,008 souls, of whom 18,920,771 were whites, 237,283 free persons of color, and 41,725 civilized Indians. The actual increase of this population was 5,624,101, or 41.24 per cent. During the same period—1850-1860—the total population of free persons of color in the United States increased from 434,449 to 487,970, or at the rate of 12.33 per cent., annual increase of above 1 per cent. In 1850 the Mulattoes were 11.15 per cent., regarding the United States as one aggregate, and in 1860 were 13.25 per cent., of the entire Colored population.

TOTAL COLORED POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES.

So, in ten years, from 1850-1860, the increase of blacks above the current deaths was 620,421, or more than one half of a million, while the corresponding increase of Mulattoes was 182,601. Estimating the deaths to have been 22.4 per cent. during the same period, or one in 40 annually, the total births of Blacks in ten years was about 1,345,000, and the total births of Mulattoes about 273,000. Thus it appears, in the prevailing order, that of every 100 births of Colored, about 17 were Mulattoes, and 83 Blacks, indicating a ratio of nearly 1 to 5.

There were:

There were 400,000 slaves in the towns and cities of the South, and 2,804,313 in the country. The products of slave labor in 1850 were as follows:

SLAVE LABOR PRODUCTS IN 1850.

There were 347,525 slave-holders against 5,873,893 non-slave-holders in the slave States. The representation in Congress was as follows:

The South owned 16,652 churches, valued at $22,142,085; the North owned 21,357 churches, valued at $65,167,586. The South printed annually 92,165,919 copies of papers and periodicals; the North printed annually 334,146,081 copies of papers and periodicals. The South owned, other than private, 722 libraries, containing 742,794 volumes; the North owned, other than private, 14,902 libraries, containing 3,882,217 volumes.

In sentiment, motive, and civilization the two "Sections" were as far apart as the poles. New England, Puritan, Roundhead civilization could not fellowship the Cavaliers of the South. There were not only two sections and two political parties in the United States;—there were two antagonistic governmental ideas. John C. Calhoun and Alexander H. Stephens, of the South, represented the idea of the separate and individual sovereignty of each of the States; while William H. Seward and Abraham Lincoln, of the North, represented the idea of the centralization of governmental authority, so far as it was necessary to secure uniformity of the laws, and the supremacy of the Federal Constitution. On the 25th of October, 1858, in a speech delivered in Rochester, N. Y., William H. Seward said:

"Our country is a theatre which exhibits, in full operation, two radically different political systems: the one resting on the basis of servile or slave labor; the other on the basis of voluntary labor of freemen.

. . . . . . . . .

"The two systems are at once perceived to be incongruous. They never have permanently existed together in one country, and they never can.

... "These antagonistic systems are continually coming in closer contact, and collision ensues.

"Shall I tell you what this collision means? It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the United States must, and will, sooner or later, become entirely a slave-holding nation, or entirely a free labor nation. Either the cotton and rice fields of South Carolina, and the sugar plantations of Louisiana, will ultimately be tilled by free-labor, and Charleston and New Orleans become marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else the rye fields and wheat fields of Massachusetts and New York must again be surrendered by their farmers to the slave culture and to the production of slaves, and Boston and New York become once more markets for trade in the bodies and souls of men."

Upon the eve of the great Rebellion, Mr. Seward said in the United States Senate:

"A free Republican government like this, notwithstanding all its constitutional checks, cannot long resist and counteract the progress of society.

"Free labor has at last apprehended its rights and its destiny, and is organizing itself to assume the government of the Republic. It will henceforth meet you boldly and resolutely here (Washington); it will meet you everywhere, in the territories and out of them, where-ever you may go to extend slavery. It has driven you back in California and in Kansas; it will invade you soon in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Missouri, and Texas. It will meet you in Arizona, in Central America, and even in Cuba.

. . . . . . . . .

"You may, indeed, get a start under or near the tropics, and seem safe for a time, but it will be only a short time. Even there you will found States only for free labor, or to maintain and occupy. The interest of the whole race demands the ultimate emancipation of all men. Whether that consummation shall be allowed to take effect, with needful and wise precautions against sudden change and disaster, or be hurried on by violence, is all that remains for you to decide. The white man needs this continent to labor upon. His head is clear, his arm is strong, and his necessities are fixed.

. . . . . . . . .

"It is for yourselves, and not for us, to decide how long and through what further mortifications and disasters the contest shall be protracted before Freedom shall enjoy her already assured triumph.

"You may refuse to yield it now, and for a short period, but your refusal will only animate the friends of freedom with the courage and the resolution, and produce the union among them, which alone is necessary on their part to attain the position itself, simultaneously with the impending overthrow of the existing Federal Administration and the constitution of a new and more independent Congress."

Mr. Lincoln said during a discussion of the impending crisis:

"I believe this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect that it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South.

"I have always hated slavery as much as any Abolitionist. I have always been an old-line Whig. I have always hated it, and I always believed it in a course of ultimate extinction. If I were in Congress, and a vote should come up on a question whether slavery should be prohibited in a new territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision I would vote that it should."

Notwithstanding the confident tone of Mr. Lincoln's statement that he did "not expect the house to fall," it did fall, and great was the fall thereof!

On Saturday, 9th of February, 1861, six seceding States met at Montgomery, Alabama, and organized an independent government. The ordinances of secession were passed by the States as follows:

The following delegates presented their credentials and were admitted and represented their respective States:

Alabama.—R. W. Walker, R. H. Smith, J. L. M. Curry, W. P. Chilton, S. F. Hale Colon, J. McRae, John Gill Shorter, David P. Lewis, Thomas Fearn.

Florida.—James B. Owens, J. Patten Anderson, Jackson Morton (not present).

Georgia.—Robert Toombs, Howell Cobb, F. S. Bartow, M. J. Crawford, E. A. Nisbet, B. H. Hill, A. R. Wright, Thomas R. Cobb, A. H. Kenan, A. H. Stephens.

Louisiana.—John Perkins, Jr., A. Declonet, Charles M. Conrad, D. F. Kenner, G. E. Sparrow, Henry Marshall.

Mississippi.—W. P. Harris, Walter Brooke, N. S. Wilson, A. M. Clayton, W. S. Barry, J. T. Harrison.

South Carolina.—R. B. Rhett, R. W. Barnwell, L. M. Keitt, James Chestnut, Jr., C. G. Memminger, W. Porcher Miles, Thomas J. Withers, W. W. Boyce.

A president and vice-president were chosen by unanimous vote. President—Honorable Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi. Vice-President—Honorable Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia. The following gentlemen composed the Cabinet:

Secretary of State, Robert Toombs; Secretary of Treasury, C. G. Memminger; Secretary of Interior (Vacancy); Secretary of War, L. P. Walker; Secretary of Navy, John Perkins, Jr.; Postmaster-General, H. T. Ebett; Attorney-General, J. P. Benjamin.

The Constitution of the Confederate Government did not differ so very radically from the Federal Constitution. The following were the chief points:

"1. The importation of African negroes from any foreign country other than the slave-holding States of the Confederate States is hereby forbidden, and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

"2. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of this Confederacy.

"The Congress shall have power:

"1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, for revenue necessary to pay the debts and carry on the government of the Confederacy, and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederacy.

"A slave in one State escaping to another shall be delivered, upon the claim of the party to whom said slave may belong, by the Executive authority of the State in which such slave may be found; and in any case of abduction or forcible rescue, full compensation, including the value of slave, and all costs and expense, shall be made to the party by the State in which such abduction or rescue shall take place.

"2. The government hereby instituted shall take immediate step's for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it and their late confederates of the United States in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them; these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that Union, upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith."

At first blush it would appear that the new government had not been erected upon the slave question; that it had gone as far as the Federal Government to suppress the foreign slave-trade; and that nobler and sublimer ideas and motives had inspired and animated the Southern people in their movement for a new government. But the men who wrote the Confederate platform knew what they were about. They knew that to avoid the charge that would certainly be made against them, of having seceded in order to make slavery a national institution, they must be careful not to exhibit such intentions in their Constitution. But that the South seceded on account of the slavery question, there can be no historical doubt whatever. Jefferson Davis, President, so-called, of the Confederate Government, said in his Message, April 29, 1861:

"When the several States delegated certain powers to the United States Congress, a large portion of the laboring population consisted of African slaves, imported into the colonies by the mother-country. In twelve out of the thirteen States, negro slavery existed; and the right of property in slaves was protected by law. This property was recognized in the Constitution; and provision was made against its loss by the escape of the slave.

"The increase in the number of slaves by further importation from Africa was also secured by a clause forbidding Congress to prohibit the slave-trade anterior to a certain date; and in no clause can there be found any delegation of power to the Congress, authorizing it in any manner to legislate to the prejudice, detriment, or discouragement of the owners of that species of property, or excluding it from the protection of the Government.

"The climate and soil of the Northern States soon proved unpropitious to the continuance of slave labor; whilst the converse was the case at the South. Under the unrestricted free intercourse between the two sections, the Northern States consulted their own interest, by selling their slaves to the South, and prohibiting slavery within their limits. The South were willing purchasers of a property suitable to their wants, and paid the price of the acquisition without harboring a suspicion that their quiet possession was to be disturbed by those who were inhibited not only by want of constitutional authority, but by good faith as vendors, from disquieting a title emanating from themselves.

"As soon, however, as the Northern States that prohibited African slavery within their limits had reached a number sufficient to give their representation a controlling voice in the Congress, a persistent and organized system of hostile measures against the rights of the owners of slaves in the Southern States was inaugurated, and gradually extended. A continuous series of measures was devised and prosecuted for the purpose of rendering insecure the tenure of property in slaves.

. . . . . . . . .

"With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperilled, the people of the Southern States were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avoid the danger with which they were openly menaced. With this view, the Legislatures of the several States invited the people to select delegates to conventions to be held for the purpose of determining for themselves what measures were best adapted to meet so alarming a crisis in their history."[72]

Alexander H. Stephens, Vice-President, as he was called, said, in a speech delivered at Savannah, Georgia, 21st of March, 1861:

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution,—African slavery as it exists amongst us, the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that great rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution, were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent, and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last; and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation; and the idea of a government built upon it,—when the 'storm came and the wind blew, it fell.'

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas. Its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day."[73]

Now, then, what was the real issue between the Confederate States and the United States? Why, it was extension of slavery by the former, and the restriction of slavery by the latter. To put the issue as it was understood by Northern men—in poetic language, it was "The Union as it is." While the South, at length, through its leaders, acknowledged that slavery was their issue, the North, standing upon the last analysis of the Free-Soil idea of resistance to the further inoculation of free territory with the virus of slavery, refused to recognize slavery as an issue. But what did the battle cry of the loyal North, "The Union as it is," mean? A Union half free and half slave; a dual government, if not in fact, certainly in the brains and hearts of the people; two civilizations at eternal and inevitable war with each other; a Union with the canker-worm of slavery in it, impairing its strength every year and threatening its life; a Union in which two hostile ideas of political economy were at work, and where unpaid slave labor was inimical to the interests of the free workingmen. And it should not be forgotten that the Republican party acknowledged the right of Southerns to hunt slaves in the free States, and to return such slaves, under the fugitive-slave law, to their masters. Mr. Lincoln was not an Abolitionist, as many people think. His position on the question was clearly stated in the answers he gave to a number of questions put to him by Judge Douglass in the latter part of the summer of 1858. Mr. Lincoln said:

"Having said this much, I will take up the judge's interrogatories as I find them printed in the Chicago 'Times,' and answer them seriatim. In order that there may be no mistake about it, I have copied the interrogatories in writing, and also my answers to them. The first one of these interrogatories is in these words:

"Question 1. 'I desire to know whether Lincoln to-day stands, as he did in 1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive-Slave Law?'

"Answer. I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive-Slave Law.

"Q. 2. 'I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day, as he did in 1854, against the admission of any more slave States into the Union, even if the people want them?'

"A. I do not now, nor ever did, stand pledged against the admission of any more slave States into the Union.

"Q. 3. 'I want to know whether he stands pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union with such a constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make.'

"Q. 4. 'I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia?'

"A. I do not stand to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.

"Q. 5. 'I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the prohibition of the slave-trade between the different States?'

"A. I do not stand pledged to the prohibition of the slave-trade between the different States.

"Q. 6. 'I desire to know whether he stands pledged to prohibit slavery in all the territories of the United States, north as well as south of the Missouri Compromise line?'

"A. I am impliedly, if not expressly, pledged to a belief in the right and duty of Congress to prohibit slavery in all the United States territories. [Great applause.]

"Q. 7. 'I desire him to answer whether he is opposed to the acquisition of any new territory unless slavery is first prohibited therein?'

"A. I am not generally opposed to honest acquisition of territory; and, in any given case, I would or would not oppose such acquisition, accordingly as I might think such acquisition would or would not agitate the slavery question among ourselves.

"Now, my friends, it will be perceived upon an examination of these questions and answers, that so far I have only answered that I was not pledged to this, that, or the other. The judge has not framed his interrogatories to ask me any thing more than this, and I have answered in strict accordance with the interrogatories, and have answered truly that I am not pledged at all upon any of the points to which I have answered. But I am not disposed to hang upon the exact form of his interrogatories. I am rather disposed to take up at least some of these questions, and state what I really think upon them.

"As to the first one, in regard to the Fugitive-Slave Law, I have never hesitated to say, and I do not now hesitate to say, that I think, under the Constitution of the United States, the people of the Southern States are entitled to a congressional slave law. Having said that, I have had nothing to say in regard to the existing Fugitive-Slave Law, further than that I think it should have been framed so as to be free from some of the objections that pertain to it, without lessening its efficiency. And inasmuch as we are not now in an agitation in regard to an alteration or modification of that law, I would not be the man to introduce it as a new subject of agitation upon the general question of slavery.

"In regard to the other question, of whether I am pledged to the admission of any more slave States into the Union, I state to you very frankly that I would be exceedingly sorry ever to be put in a position of having to pass upon that question. I should be exceedingly glad to know that there would never be another slave State admitted into the Union; but I must add, that if slavery shall be kept out of the territories during the territorial existence of any one given territory, and then the people shall, having a fair chance and a clear field, when they come to adopt the constitution, do such an extraordinary thing as to adopt a slave constitution, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the institution among them, I see no alternative, if we own the country, but to admit them into the Union. [Applause.]

"The third interrogatory is answered by the answer to the second, it being, as I conceive, the same as the second.

"The fourth one is in regard to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In relation to that I have my mind very distinctly made up. I should be exceedingly glad to see slavery abolished in the District of Columbia. I believe that Congress possesses the constitutional power to abolish it. Yet, as a member of Congress, I should not, with my present views, be in favor of endeavoring to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, unless it would be upon these conditions: First, that the abolition should be gradual; second, that it should be on a vote of the majority of qualified voters in the district; and, third, that compensation should be made to unwilling owners. With these three conditions I confess I would be exceedingly glad to see Congress abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; and, in the language of Henry Clay, 'sweep from our capital that foul blot upon our nation.'

"In regard to the fifth interrogatory, I must say here that, as to the question of the abolition of the slave-trade between the different States, I can truly answer, as I have, that I am pledged to nothing about it. It is a subject to which I have not given that mature consideration that would make me feel authorized to state a position so as to hold myself entirely bound by it. In other words, that question has never been prominently enough before me to induce me to investigate whether we really have the constitutional power to do it. I could investigate it, if I had sufficient time, to bring myself to a conclusion upon that subject; but I have not done so, and I say so frankly to you here, and to Judge Douglass. I must say, however, that if I should be of opinion that Congress does possess the constitutional power to abolish slave-trading among the different States, I should still not be in favor of the exercise of that power unless upon some conservative principle as I conceive it, akin to what I have said in relation to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.

"My answer as to whether I desire that slavery should be prohibited in all territories of the United States, is full and explicit within itself, and cannot be made clearer by any comments of mine. So, I suppose, in regard to the question whether I am opposed to the acquisition of any more territory unless slavery is first prohibited therein, my answer is such that I could add nothing by way of illustration, or making myself better understood, than the answer which I have placed in writing.

"Now, in all this the judge has me, and he has me on the record. I suppose he had flattered himself that I was really entertaining one set of opinions for one place, and another set for another place—that I was afraid to say at one place what I uttered at another. What I am saying here I suppose I say to a vast audience as strongly tending to abolitionism as any audience in the State of Illinois, and I believe I am saying that which, if it would be offensive to any persons and render them enemies to myself, would be offensive to persons in this audience."[74]

Here, then, is the position of Mr. Lincoln set forth with deliberation and care. He was opposed to any coercive measures in settling the slavery question; he was for gradual emancipation; and for admitting States into the Union with a slave constitution. Within twenty-four months, without a change of views, he was nominated for and elected to the Presidency of the United States.

With no disposition to interfere with the institution of slavery, Mr. Lincoln found himself chief magistrate of a great nation in the midst of a great rebellion. And in his inaugural address on the 4th of March, 1861, he referred to the question of slavery again in a manner too clear to admit of misconception, affirming his previous views:

"There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

"'No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.'

"It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law.

"All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as well as any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause 'shall be delivered up,' their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not, with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?

"There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by National or by State authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done; and should any one, in any case, be content that this oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?"

So the issues were joined in war. The South aggressively, offensively sought the extension and perpetuation of slavery. The North passively, defensively stood ready to protect her free territory, but not to interfere with slavery. And there was no day during the first two years of the war when the North would not have cheerfully granted the slave institution an indefinite lease of legal existence upon the condition that the war should cease.

CHAPTER XV.
"A WHITE MAN'S WAR."

Return to Table of Contents

WHEN the war clouds broke over the country and hostilities began, the North counted the Negro on the outside of the issue. The Federal Government planted itself upon the policy of the "defence of the free States,"—pursued a defensive rather than an offensive policy. And, whenever the Negro was mentioned, the leaders of the political parties and the Union army declared that it was "a white mans war."

The first call for three months' troops indicated that the authorities at Washington felt confident that the "trouble" would not last long. The call was issued on the 15th of April, 1861, and provided for the raising of 75,000 troops. It was charged by the President that certain States had been guilty of forming "combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings," and then he proceeded to state:

"The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department. I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government, and to redress wrongs already long enough endured. I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth, will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens of any part of the country; and I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid, to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date."[75]

There was scarcely a city in the North, from New York to San Francisco, whose Colored residents did not speedily offer their services to the States to aid in suppressing the Rebellion. But everywhere as promptly were their services declined. The Colored people of the Northern States were patriotic and enthusiastic; but their interest was declared insolence. And being often rebuked for their loyalty, they subsided into silence to bide a change of public sentiment.

The almost unanimous voice of the press and pulpit was against a recognition of the Negro as the cause of the war. Like a man in the last stages of consumption who insists that he has only a bad cold, so the entire North urged that slavery was not the cause of the war: it was a little local misunderstanding. But the death of the gallant Col. Elmer E. Elsworth palsied the tongues of mere talkers; and in the tragic silence that followed, great, brave, and true men began to think.

Not a pulpit in all the land had spoken a word for the slave. The clergy stood dumb before the dreadful issue. But one man was found, like David of old, who, gathering his smooth pebble of fact from the brook of God's eternal truth, boldly met the boastful and erroneous public sentiment of the hour. That man was the Rev. Justin D. Fulton, a Baptist minister of Albany, New York. He was chosen to preach the funeral sermon of Col. Elsworth, and performed that duty on Sunday, May 26, 1861. Speaking of slavery, the reverend gentleman said:

"Shall this magazine of danger be permitted to remain? We must answer this question. If we say no, it is no! Slavery is a curse to the North. It impoverishes the South, and demoralizes both. It is the parent of treason, the seedling of tyranny, and the fountain-source of all the ills that have infected our life as a people, being the central cause of all our conflicts of the past and the war of to-day. What reason have we for permitting it to remain? God does not want it, for His truth gives freedom. The South does not need it, for it is the chain fastened to her limb that fetters her progress. Morality, patriotism, and humanity alike protest against it.

"The South fights for slavery, for the despotism which it represents, for the ignoring the rights of labor, and for reducing to slavery or to serfdom all whose hands are hardened by toil.

"Why not make the issue at once, which shall inspire every man that shoulders his musket with a noble purpose? Our soldiers need to be reminded that this government was consecrated to freedom by those who first built here the altars of worship, and planted on the shore of the Western Continent the tree of liberty, whose fruit to-day fills the garners of national hope.... I would not forget that I am a messenger of the Prince of Peace. My motives for throwing out these suggestions are three-fold: 1. Because I believe God wants us to be actuated by motives not one whit less philanthropic than the giving of freedom to four million of people. 2. I confess to a sympathy for and faith in the slave, and cherish the belief that if freed, the war would become comparatively bloodless, and that as a people we should enter on the discharge of higher duties and a more enlarged prosperity. 3. The war would hasten to a close, and the end secured would then form a brilliant dawn to a career of prosperity unsurpassed in the annals of mankind."[76]

Brave, prophetic words! But a thousand vituperative editors sprang at Mr. Fulton's utterances, and as snapping curs, growled at and shook every sentence. He stood his ground. He took no step backward. When notice was kindly sent him that a committee would wait on him to treat him to a coat of tar and feathers, against the entreaties of anxious friends, he sent word that he would give them a warm reception. When the best citizens of Albany said the draft could not be enforced without bloody resistance, the Rev. Mr. Fulton exclaimed: "If the floodgates of blood are to be opened, we will not shoot down the poor and ignorant, but the swaggering and insolent men whose hearts are not in this war!"

The "Atlas and Argus," in an editorial on Ill-Timed Pulpit Abolitionism, denounced Rev. Mr. Fulton in bitterest terms; while the "Evening Standard" and "Journal" both declared that the views of the preacher were as a fire-brand thrown into the magazine of public sentiment.

Everywhere throughout the North the Negro was counted as on the outside. Everywhere it was merely "a war for the Union," which was half free and half slave.

When the Union army got into the field at the South it was confronted by a difficult question. What should be done with the Negroes who sought the Union lines for protection from their masters? The sentiment of the press, Congress, and the people of the North generally, was against interference with the slave, either by the civil or military authorities. And during the first years of the war the army became a band of slave-catchers. Slave-holders and sheriffs from the Southern States were permitted to hunt fugitive slaves under the Union flag and within the lines of Federal camps. On the 22d of June, 1861, the following paragraph appeared in the "Baltimore American":

"Two free negroes, belonging to Frederick, Md., who concealed themselves in the cars which conveyed the Rhode Island regiment to Washington from this city, were returned that morning by command of Colonel Burnside, who supposed them to be slaves. The negroes were accompanied by a sergeant of the regiment, who lodged them in jail."

On the 4th of July, 1861, Col. Tyler, of the 7th Ohio regiment, delivered an address to the people of Virginia; a portion of which is sufficient to show the feeling that prevailed among army officers on the slavery question:

"To you, fellow-citizens of West Virginia—many of whom I have so long and favorably known,—I come to aid and protect. [The grammar is defective.]

"I have no selfish ambition to gratify, no personal motives to actuate. I am here to protect you in person and property—to aid you in the execution of the law, in the maintenance of peace and order, in the defence of the Constitution and the Union, and in the extermination of our common foe. As our enemies have belied our mission, and represented us as a band of Abolitionists, I desire to assure you that the relation of master and servant as recognized in your State shall be respected. Your authority over that species of property shall not in the least be interfered with. To this end I assure you that those under my command have peremptory orders to take up and hold any negroes found running about the camp without passes from their masters."

When a few copies had been struck off, a lieutenant in Captain G. W. Shurtleff's company handed him one. He waited upon the colonel, and told him that it was not true that the troops had been ordered to arrest fugitive slaves. The colonel threatened to place Captain Shurtleff in arrest, when he exclaimed: "I'll never be a slave-catcher, so help me God!" There were few men in the army at this time who sympathized with such a noble declaration, and, therefore, Captain Shurtleff found himself in a very small minority.

The following account of an attempt to secure a fugitive slave from General Isaac R. Sherwood has its historical value. General Sherwood was as noble a man as he was a brave and intelligent soldier. He obeyed the still small voice in his soul and won a victory for humanity:

"In the February and March of 1863, I was a major in command of 111th O. V. I regiment. I had a servant, as indicated by army regulations, in charge of my private horse. He was from Frankfort, Ky., the property of a Baptist clergyman. When the troops passed through Frankfort, in the fall of 1862, he left his master, and followed the army. He came to me at Bowling Green, and I hired him to take care of my horse. He was a lad about fifteen years old, named Alfred Jackson.

"At this time, Brig.-Gen. Boyle, or Boyd (I think Boyle), was in command of the District of Kentucky, and had issued his general order, that fugitive slaves should be delivered up. Brig.-Gen. H. M. Judah was in command of Post of Bowling Green, also of our brigade, there stationed.

"The owner of Alfred Jackson found out his whereabouts, and sent a U. S. marshal to Bowling Green to get him. Said marshal came to my headquarters under a pretence to see my very fine saddle-horse, but really to identify Alfred Jackson. The horse was brought out by Alfred Jackson. The marshal went to Brig.-Gen. Judah's headquarters and got a written order addressed to me, describing the lad and ordering me to deliver the boy. This order was delivered to me by Col. Sterling, of Gen. Judah's staff, in person. I refused to obey it. I sent word to Gen. Judah that he could have my sword, but while I commanded that regiment no fugitive slave should ever be delivered to his master. The officer made my compliments to Gen. Judah as aforesaid, and I was placed under arrest for disobedience to orders, and my sword taken from me.

"In a few days the command was ordered to move to Glasgow, Ky., and Gen. Judah, not desiring to trust the regiment in command of a captain, I was temporarily restored to command, pending the meeting of a court-martial to try my case. When the command moved I took Alfred Jackson along. After we reached Glasgow, Ky., Gen. Judah sent for me, and said if I would then deliver up Alfred Jackson he would restore me to command. The United States marshal was present. This I again refused to do.

"The same day, I sent an ambulance out of the lines, with Alfred Jackson tucked under the seat, in charge of a man going North, and I gave him money to get to Hillsdale, Michigan, where he went, and where he resided and grew up to be a good man and a citizen. I called the attention of Hon. James M. Ashley (then Member of Congress) to the matter, and under instructions from Secretary Stanton, Gen. Boyle's order was revoked, and I never delivered a fugitive, nor was I ever tried."

In Mississippi, in 1862, Col. James B. Steedman (afterward major-general) refused to honor an order of Gen. Fry, delivered by the man who wanted the slave in Steedman's camp. Col. Steedman read the order and told the bearer that he was a rebel; that he could not search his camp; and that he would give him just ten minutes to get out of the camp, or he would riddle him with bullets. When Gen. Fry asked for an explanation of his refusal to allow his camp to be searched, Col. Steedman said he would never consent to have his camp searched by a rebel; that he would use every bayonet in his regiment to protect the Negro slave who had come to him for protection; and that he was sustained by the Articles of War, which had been amended about that time.

Again, in the late summer of 1863, at Tuscumbia, Tennessee, Gen. Fry rode into Col. Steedman's camp to secure the return of the slaves of an old lady whom he had known before the war. Col. Steedman said he did not know that any slaves were in his camp; and that if they were there they should not be taken except they were willing to go. Gen. Fry was a Christian gentleman of a high Southern type, and combined with his loyalty to the Union an abiding faith in "the sacredness of slave property." Whether he ever recovered from the malady, history saith not.

The great majority of regular army officers were in sympathy with the idea of protecting slave property. Gen. T. W. Sherman, occupying the defences of Port Royal, in October, 1861, issued the following proclamation to the people of South Carolina:

"In obedience to the orders of the President of these United States of America, I have landed on your shores with a small force of National troops. The dictates of a duty which, under the Constitution, I owe to a great sovereign State, and to a proud and hospitable people, among whom I have passed some of the pleasantest days of my life, prompt me to proclaim that 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 rights, or your social and local institutions, beyond what the causes herein briefly alluded to may render unavoidable."[77]

This proclamation sounds as if the general were a firm believer in State sovereignty; and that he was possessed with a feeling that he had landed in some strange land, among a people of different civilization and peculiar institutions.

On the 13th of November, 1861, Major-Gen. John A. Dix, upon taking possession of the counties of Accomac and Northampton, Va., issued the following proclamation:

"The military forces of the United States are about to enter your counties as a part of the Union. They will go among you as friends, and with the earnest hope that they may not, by your own acts, be compelled to become your enemies. They will invade no right of person or property. On the contrary, your laws, your institutions, your usages, will be scrupulously respected. There need be no fear that the quietude of any fireside will be disturbed, unless the disturbance is caused by yourselves.

"Special directions have been given not to interfere with the condition of any person held to domestic servitude; and, in order that there may be no ground for mistake or pretext for misrepresentation, commanders of regiments or corps have been instructed not to permit such persons to come within their lines."[78]

Gen. Halleck, while in command of the Union forces in Missouri, issued his "Order No. 3." as follows:

"It has been represented that important information, respecting the number and condition of our forces, is conveyed to the enemy by means of fugitive slaves who are admitted within our lines. In order to remedy this evil, it is directed that no such person be hereafter permitted to enter the lines of any camp, or of any forces on the march, and that any now within such lines be immediately excluded therefrom."

On the 23d of February, 1862, in "Order No. 13," he referred to the slave question as follows:

"It does not belong to the military to decide upon the relation of master and slave. Such questions must be settled by the civil courts. No fugitive slaves will, therefore, be admitted within our lines or camps, except when specially ordered by the general commanding."

On the 18th of February, 1862, Major-Gen. A. E. Burnside issued a proclamation in which he said to the people:

"The Government asks only that its authority may be recognized; and we repeat, in no manner or way does it desire to interfere with your laws, constitutionally established, your institutions of any kind whatever, your property of any sort, or your usages in any respect."

The following letter from Gen. Buell shows how deeply attached he was to the "constitutional guaranties" accorded to the rebels of the South:

"Headquarters Department of the Ohio, }
"Nashville, March 6, 1862. }

"Dear Sir: I have the honor to receive your communication of the 1st instant, on the subject of fugitive slaves in the camps of the army.

"It has come to my knowledge that slaves sometimes make their way improperly into our lines; and in some instances they may be enticed there; but I think the number has been magnified by report. Several applications have been made to me by persons whose servants have been found in our camps; and in every instance that I know of the master has recovered his servant and taken him away.

"I need hardly remind you that there will always be found some lawless and mischievous person in every army; but I assure you that the mass of this army is law-abiding, and that it is neither its disposition nor its policy to violate law or the rights of individuals in any particular. With great respect, your obedient servant,

"D. C. Buell,
"Brig.-Gen. Commanding Department.

"Hon. J. R. Underwood, Chairman Military Committee,
"Frankfort, Ky."

So "in every instance" the master had recovered his slave when found in Gen. Buell's camp!

On the 26th of March, 1862, Gen. Joseph Hooker, commanding the "Upper Potomac," issued the following order:

"To Brigade and Regimental Commanders of this Division:

"Messrs. Nally, Gray, Dunnington, Dent, Adams, Speake, Price, Posey, and Cobey, citizens of Maryland, have negroes supposed to be with some of the regiments of this division. The brigadier-general commanding directs that they be permitted to visit all the camps of his command, in search of their property; and if found, that they be allowed to take possession of the same, without any interference whatever. Should any obstacle be thrown in their way by any officer or soldier in the division, he will be at once reported by the regimental commander to these headquarters."

In the spring of 1862, Gen. Thos. Williams, in the Department of the Gulf, issued the following order[79]:

"In consequence of the demoralizing and disorganizing tendencies to the troops of harboring runaway negroes, it is hereby ordered that the respective commanders of the camps and garrisons of the several regiments, 2d brigade, turn all such fugitives in their camps or garrisons out beyond the limits of their respective guards and sentinels.

"By order of

"Brig.-Gen. T. WILLIAMS."[80]

In a letter dated "Headquarters Army of the Potomac, July 7, 1862," Major-Gen. Geo. B. McClellan made the following observations concerning slavery:

"This Rebellion has assumed the character of a war; as such it should be regarded; and it should be conducted upon the highest principles known to Christian civilization. It should not be a war looking to the subjugation of the people of any State, in any event. It should not be at all a war upon populations, but against armed forces and political organizations. Neither confiscation of property, political executions of persons, territorial organization of States, nor forcible abolition of slavery should be contemplated for a moment."

But the drift of the sentiment of the army was in the direction of compromise with the slavery question. Nearly every statesman at Washington—in the White House and in the Congress—and nearly every officer in the army regarded the Negro question as purely political and not military. That it was a problem hard of solution no one could doubt. Hundreds of loyal Negroes, upon the orders of general officers, were turned away from the Union lines, while those who had gotten on the inside were driven forth to the cruel vengeance of rebel masters. Who could solve the problem? Major-Gen. Benjamin F. Butler banished the politician, and became the loyal, patriotic soldier! In the month of May, 1861, during the time Gen. Butler commanded the Union forces at Fortress Monroe, three slaves made good their escape into his lines. They stated that they were owned by Col. Mallory, of the Confederate forces in the front; that he was about to send them to the North Carolina seaboard to work on rebel fortifications; and that the fortifications were intended to bar that coast against the Union arms. Having heard this statement, Gen. Butler, viewing the matter from a purely military stand-point, exclaimed: "These men are contraband of war; set them at work." Here was a solution of the entire problem; here was a blow delivered at the backbone of the Rebellion. He claimed no right to act as a politician, but acting as a loyal-hearted, clear-headed soldier, he coined a word and hurled a shaft at the enemy that struck him in a part as vulnerable as the heel of Achilles. In his letter to the Lieut.-Gen. of the Army, Winfield Scott, 27th of May, 1861, he said:

"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, and my pickets are bringing in their women and children. Of course these can not be dealt with upon the theory on which I designed to treat the services of able-bodied men and women who might come within my lines, and of which I gave you a detailed account in my last dispatch.

"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; 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 expenditures 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 $60,000.

"Twelve of these negroes, I am informed, have escaped from the erection of the batteries on Sewell's Point, which fired upon my expedition as it passed by out of range. As a means of offense, therefore, in the enemy's hands, these negroes, when able-bodied, are of great importance. Without them the batteries could not have been erected; at least, for many weeks. As a military question it would seem to be a measure of necessity, and deprives their masters of their services.

"How can this be done? As a political question, and a question of humanity, can I receive the services of a father and a mother and not take the children? Of the humanitarian aspect, I have no doubt; of the political one, I have no right to judge. I therefore submit all this to your better judgment, and, as these questions have a political aspect, I have ventured—and I trust I am not wrong in so doing—to duplicate the parts of my dispatch relating to this subject, and forward them to the Secretary of War.

"Your obedient servant,

"Benj. F. Butler.

"Lt.-General Scott."[81]

The letter of Gen. Butler was laid before the Secretary of War, who answered it as follows:

"Sir: Your action in respect to the negroes who came within your lines, from the service of the rebels, is approved. The Department is sensible of the embarrassments which must surround officers conducting military operations in a State, by the laws of which slavery is sanctioned. The Government can not recognize the rejection by any State of its Federal obligations, resting upon itself. Among these Federal obligations, however, no one can be more important than that of suppressing and dispersing any combination of the former for the purpose of overthrowing its whole constitutional authority. While, therefore, you will permit no interference, by 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 remains under the control of such armed combinations, refrain from surrendering to alleged masters any persons who come within your lines. You will employ such persons in the services to which they will 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.

"Simon Cameron, Secretary of War.

"To Maj.-Gen. Butler.

In an account of the life and services of Capt. Grier Talmadge, the "Times" correspondent says:

"To the deceased, who was conservative in his views and actions, belongs the credit of first enunciating the 'contraband' idea as subsequently applied in the practical treatment of the slaves of rebels, Early in the spring of 1861, Flag-Officer Pendergrast, in command of the frigate 'Cumberland,' then the vessel blockading the Roads, restored to their owners certain slaves that had escaped from Norfolk. Shortly after, the Flag-Officer, Gen. Butler, Capt. Talmadge, and the writer chanced to meet in the ramparts of the fortress, when Capt. T. took occasion, warmly, but respectfully, to dissent from the policy of the act, and proceeded to advance some arguments in support of his views. Turning to Gen. Butler, who had just assumed command of this department, he said: 'General, it is a question you will have to decide, and that, too, very soon; for in less than twenty-four hours deserting slaves will commence swarming to your lines. The rebels are employing their slaves in thousands in constructing batteries all around us. And, in my judgment, in view of this fact, not only slaves who take refuge within our lines are contrabands, but I hold it as much our duty to seize and capture those employed, or intended to be employed, in constructing batteries, as it is to destroy the arsenals or any other war-making element of the rebels, or to capture and destroy the batteries themselves.' Within two days after this conversation, Gen. Butler has the question practically presented to him, as predicted, and he solved it by applying the views advanced by the deceased."[82]

The conservative policy of Congress, the cringing attitude of the Government at Washington, the reverses on the Potomac, the disaster of Bull Run, the apologetic tone of the Northern press, the expulsion of slaves from the Union lines, and the conduct of "Copperheads" in the North—who crawled upon their stomachs, snapping and biting at the heels of Union men and Union measures,—bred a spirit of unrest and mob violence. It was not enough that the service of free Negroes was declined; they were now hunted out and persecuted by mobs and other agents of the disloyal element at the North. Like a man sick unto death the Government insisted that it only had a slight cold, and that it would be better soon. The President was no better informed as to the nature of the war than other conservative Republicans. On the 19th of August, 1862, Horace Greeley addressed an open letter to the President, known as "The Prayer of Twenty Millions," of which the following are specimen passages:

"On the face of this wide earth, Mr. President, there is not one disinterested, determined, intelligent champion of the Union cause who does not feel that all attempts to put down the Rebellion, and at the same time uphold its inciting cause, are preposterous and futile—that the Rebellion, if crushed out to-morrow, would be renewed within a year if slavery were left in full vigor—that army officers, who remain to this day devoted to slavery, can at best be but half-way loyal to the Union—and that every hour of deference to slavery is an hour of added and deepened peril to the Union. I appeal to the testimony of your Embassadors in Europe. It is freely at your service, not mine. Ask them to tell you candidly whether the seeming subserviency of your policy to the slave-holding, slavery-upholding interest, is not the perplexity, the despair, of statesmen of all parties; and be admonished by the general answer!

"I close, as I began, with the statement that what an immense majority of the loyal millions of your countrymen require of you is a frank, declared, unqualified, ungrudging execution of the laws of the land, more especially of the Confiscation Act. That Act gives freedom to the slaves of rebels coming within our lines, or whom those lines may at any time inclose,—we ask you to render it due obedience by publicly requiring all your subordinates to recognize and obey it. The rebels are everywhere using the late anti-negro riots in the North—as they have long used your officers' treatment of negroes in the South—to convince the slaves that they have nothing to hope from a Union success—that we mean in that case to sell them into a bitter bondage to defray the cost of the war. Let them impress this as a truth on the great mass of their ignorant and credulous bondmen, and the Union will never be restored—never. We can not conquer ten millions of people united in solid phalanx against us, powerfully aided by Northern sympathizers and European allies. We must have scouts, guides, spies, cooks, teamsters, diggers, and choppers, from the blacks of the South—whether we allow them to fight for us or not—or we shall be baffled and repelled. As one of the millions who would gladly have avoided this struggle at any sacrifice but that of principle and honor, but who now feel that the triumph of the Union is indispensable not only to the existence of our country, but to the well-being of mankind, I entreat you to render a hearty and unequivocal obedience to the law of the land.

"Yours,

"Horace Greeley."[83]

It was an open letter. Mr. Greeley had evidently lost sight of his economic theories as applied to slavery in the abstract, and now, as a practical philosopher, caught hold of the question by the handle. Mr. Lincoln replied within a few days, but was still joined to his abstract theories of constitutional law. He loved the Union, and all he should do for the slave should be done to help the Union, not the slave. He was not desirous of saving or destroying slavery. But certainly he had spoken more wisely than he knew when he had asserted, a few years before, that "a nation half free and half slave, could not long exist." That was an indestructible truth. Had he adhered to that doctrine the way would have been easier. In every thing he consulted the Constitution. His letter is interesting reading.

"Executive Mansion, Washington,}
"August 22, 1862.}

"Hon. Horace Greeley:

"Dear Sir: I have just read yours of the 19th instant, addressed to myself through the New York Tribune.

"If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them.

"If there be any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them.

"If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

"As to the policy 'I seem to be pursuing,' as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. I would save the Union. I would save it in the shortest way under the Constitution.

"The sooner the national authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be the Union as it was.

"If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them.

"If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them.

"My paramount object is to save the Union, and not either to save or destroy slavery.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.

"What I do about slavery and the Colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

"I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause; and I shall do more whenever I believe doing more will help the cause.

"I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

"I have here stated my purpose according to my views of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

"Yours,

"A. Lincoln."[84]