March 28, 1864

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the joint resolution S No 16) proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

The joint resolution, as originally introduced by Mr. Hevdhrson, proposed the followingarticles as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which, when adopted by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution:

Art. 1. Slavery oi involuntary servitude, except as a punishment lor ci im<*, shall not exist ni the United States. Art. '1. The\\ lien ever ;i miijotifj of the memhe,* elected to each Hou e shall deem it nece ary may piu Kw amendments to the Constitution, or, on the application of the J Legislatures L f of a majority of the several Suite*, Kluli call a eonvt nixm tor piopoHiig amendments, which in eufioi ease shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of ihu Con Jium ui when ratified by the Legislatures of two thirds j of the several Staff'!?, oi by convention' in two thirds thereof, ns the one or the other mode ot ratification may be proposed by Congress.

The Committee on the Judiciary proposed an amendment to strike out all after the resolving clause and insert the following:

(Two tluuli of both Houses concurring,) That the following article be piopot e i to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three fouitbs of said Legislatures, .<baf! be valid, to all intent* and purposes, as a part ol the said Constitution, namely:

Article XIU.

Sec. 1. Xeithci slavery noi involuntary sei vitude, except a a puni lmn ut for crime, whereof the party shall have bet ii duly convicted, shall exi t within !ne United States, oi Jinv place subject to their jut ^diction.

Skc. 2. Congress shall have power to enlbice this article by appropriate legislation.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President as the organ of the Committee on the Judiciary which has reported this reso.lution to the Senate, I desire to profit nt biiefiysome of the considerations which induced m<, at least, to give it my support. It is a proposuion so to amend the Constitution of the IJ nit* d Stales as forever to prolu bit slavery within its jurisdiction, and authoi ize the Congress of the United States to pass such laws as may be necessary to carry this provision into effect.

Without stopping to inquire into all the causes of our troubles, and of the distress, desolation, and death which have grown outof this atrocious rebellion, I suppose it will be generally admitted that they sprung from slavery. If a large political party in the North attribute these troubles to the impertinent interference of northern philanthropists and fanatics with an institution m the southern States with which they had no right to interfere, 1 reply, if there had been no such institution there could have been no such alleged impertinent interference; if there had been no slavery in the South, there could have been no abolitionists in the North to interfere with it. If, upon the other hand, it be said that this rebellion throws out of the attempt on the part of those in the interest of slavery to govern this country so as to perpetuate and increase the slaveholding power, and failing in this that they have endeavored to overthrow the Government and set up an empire of their own, founded upon slavery as its chief corner-stone, I reply, if there had been no slavery there could have been no such foundation on which to build. If the freedom of speech and of the press, so dear to freemen everywhere, and especially cherished in this time of war by a large party in the North who are now opposed to interfering with slavery, has been denied us all our lives in one half the States of the Union, it was by reason of slavery.

If these Halls have resounded from ourearliest recollections with the strifes and contests of sections, ending sometimes in blood, it was slavery which almost always occasioned them. No superficial observer, even, of our history North or South, or of any party, can doubt that slavery lies at the bottom of our present troubles. Our fathers who made the Constitution regarded it as an evil, and looked forward to its early extinction. They felt the inconsistency of their position, while proclaiming the equal rights of all to life, liberty, and happiness, they domed liberty, happiness, and life itself to a whole race, except in subordination to them. It was impossible, in the nature of things, that a Government based on such antagonistic principles could permanently and peacefully endure, nor did its founders expect it would. They looked forward to the not distant, nor as they supposed uncertain period when slavery should be abolished, and the Government become in fact, what they made it in name, one securing the blessings of liberty toall. The history of the last seventy years has proved that the founders of the Republic were mistaken in their expectations; and slavery, so far from gradually disappearing as they had anticipated, had so strengthened itself that in i860 its advocates demanded the control of the nation in its interests, failing in which they attempted its overthrow. This attempt brought into hostile collision the slaveholding aristocracy, who made the right to live by the toil of others the chief article of their faith, and the free laboring masses of the North, who believed in the right of every man to eat the bread his own hands had earned.

In the earlier stages of the war there was an indisposition on the part of the executive authority to interfere with slavery at all. For a long time slaves who escaped from then- rebel owners and came within our lines were driven back. Congress, however, at an early day took action upon this subject, and at the very first session which met after the rebellion broke out, the special session of July, 1861, a law was passed declaring free all slaves who were permitted by their masters to take any part in the rebellion. Under the provisions of thatact, had it ocen efficiently executed agreat many slaves must necessarily have obtained their freedom. The constitutionality of the act would seem to be clear. I do not suppose that even my honorable friend from Kentucky [Mr. Davis] would deny the piup s tion that s\ e captu td a skue engaged, by concept of his m ti i, m constructing rebel works and fortification?, we might set him free.

That act, however, has not been executed. So far as 1 am advi d not a single slave h^ been s< t at liberty under it. Subsequently, at tlu- regular session of Congress which convened in December, 1861, an act of a more comprehensive character was passed law providing for the freedom of all slaves who should come within the lines of our armies, who should be deserted by their masters, or who should be found in regions of country which had been occupied, by rebel troops and afterwards came within our possession, and who belonged to rebel masters. It is under the provisions of this law that most of the slaves made free have been emancipated. This act also authorized the President of the United States to organize and employ as many persons of African descent as he should think proper to aid in the suppression of the rebellion. But it was a long time before this law was put in operation. Although it was an act called for by the public sentiment of the country, and although it was the duty of those charged with the execution of the laws to see that it was faithfully executed, it was mom than a year after its enactment before any considerable number of persons of African- descent were organized and armed; and even at this day a much smaller number are in the service than would have been by an efficient execution of the law. It was not until after the passage of this act that our officers, especially in the West, ceased to expel slaves who came within the lines of our Army; and so persistently was this practice persevered in that Congress had to interfere by positive enactment, and declare that any officer of the Army or Navy who aided in restoring a slave to his master should be dismissed from the public service, before it could be stopped.

But, sir, had these laws, all of them, been efficiently executed they would not wholly have extirpated slavery. They were only aimed at the slaves of rebels. Congress never undertook to free the slaves of loyal men; no act has ever passed for that purpose.

At a later period, the President by proclamation undertook to free the slaves in certain localities. Notice of this proclamation was given in September, 1862, and it was to become effective m January, 1863. Unlike the acts ofCongiesy, which undertook to free the slaves of rebels only, and of such as came under our control, the President s proclamation excepted from its provisions the regions of country subject to our authority, and declared free the slaves only who were in regions of country from which the authority of the United States was expelled, enjoining upon the persons proposed to be made free to abstain from all violence unless in necessary self defense and recommending them in all cases, when allowed, to labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

The force and effect of this proclamation are understood very differently by its advocates and opponents. The former- insist that it is and was within the constitutional power of the President, as Commander in Chief to issue such a proclamation; that it is the noblest act of his life or the age; and that by virtue of us provisions all slaves within the localities designated become facto free; while others declare that it was issued without competent authority, and has not and cannot effect the emancipation of a single slave. These latter insist that the most the President could do, as commander of the armies of the United States, would be, in the absence of legislation, to x dze and free the slaves which came within the control of the Army; that the power exercised by a commander in chief as such, must be a power exercised in fact, and that beyond his lines where his armies cannot go his orders are mere bruturaJiUmen, and can neither work a forfeiture of propel ty nor freedom of slaves; that the power of Fiemontand Hunter, commanders in chief for a cci tain time in their departments, who assumed to free the slaves within their respective commands. just as effective within the boundaries nf their commands as that of the Commander in Chn f of all the depai tnienuM who as commander could not draw io himself any of his presidential powers; and that neither had U or could have any fol ce except within the lines and where the Army actually had the power to execute the order; that to that extent the previous acts of Congress would free the slaves of rebels, ami if the President s proc-! lamation hud any effect it would only be to free the slaves of loyal men, for which the laws of the land did not provide. I will not undertake to say which of these opinions is correct, nor isit necessary for my purposes to decide. It is enough for me to show that any and all these laws and proclamations, giving to each the largest effectclaimed by its friends, are ineffectual to the destruction of slavery. The laws of Congress if faithfully executed would leave remaining the slaves belonging to loyal masters, which, considering how many are held by children and females not engaged in the rebellion, would be no inconsiderable number, and the President s proclamation excepts from its provisions all of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, and a good portion of Louisiana and Vitginia—almost half the slave States.

If then we are to get rid of the institution, we must have some more efficient way of doing it than by the proclamations that have been issued or the acts of Congress which have been passed. Some, however, say that we may pass an act of Congress to abolish slavery altogether, and petitions are sent to Congress asking it to pass such a law. I am as anxious to get rid of slavery as any person; but has Congress authority to pass a letw abolishing slavery everywhere, freeing the slavesof the loyal, the slaves of the friends of the Government as well as the slaves of the disloyal and of the enemies of the Government? Why, sir, it has been an admitted axiom from the foundation of this Government, among all parties, that Congress had no authority to interfere with slavery m the States where it existed. But it is said this was in a time of peace and we are now at war, and Congress has authority to carry on war, and in ennymgon war we may five the sS ur s Why so? Because it is necessary; for no oiln r reason. If we can do it by act of Congress if must be because u is a necessu y to the prosecution of live war. We have authority to put down the enemies of tlie country; we have the light to a lay them in battle; we have authority to confiscate their properly; but, mat k you, does that give any authority to slay the ft lends of the country, to confiscate the property of the friends of die country, or to free the slavesof the liiends of the eountry?

But it jn said that fre ing slaves would aid us in raising troops; that slaves are unwilling to volunteer and enh r the public ••■ervuv unless oilier slaves are made fiv, unci that we could rnme troops better, sootn r, and have a more ejlieunt army if elavei y were declared ahoh died. Suppose that were ro, is it a neei ssity? ('an w e not raise an army without doing this? I la;, not the Congress of the United S aies unlimited authority to pin vide for the raising of .a niiea by draft, t by force to put any and cm ry man capable of bearing arms into its service.' Have we not already passed a law compelling nam to enter the sei vice of the Govei nment m its defense and for the puitingdovcn this reht llion? Then there is no necessity to fie the slaves in order to wuse an army.

But itis uconvenience, peihapssome will say. Sir, it is not because a measure would be convenient that Congress has authority 'o adopt it. The nl asuu must be appropriate ami nc di ul to carry mto effect aomt granted power, or we have no authority to ad <pt it. I can imagine a thoof tnd thim s that wou d aid us to raise troops wliu h no one would contend Congress had authority to do. We now find that it is costing us large sura of money to carry on this war. Them are apoj ehwi ions in some (puu tf is that the finances of dm country will not be sulfa ient to prosecute if.!■> the cud. A. measure that would enable us to t t y on die war ;:heap *r would ceitainlybe one in aid of this war power. 1 In coh i consequence of th-* jiro spe iiy which prevails ui die country, W '£V", a: ('lis time are very high. Men are unwilling to nU f without large bounties and i uge pay, is# f*:• v-'•* high wages at home. Suppose wt introduce a ',ult tear no ni n shall be paid in nru' ma> ufhcti r nir e Tihnshment at a y meeban o art, o;- {or he* daily L nor more timn t jji i>*<{ :o<! v e v s t v i ii emiities and e V 1 Mli V.! 0 d pl 10 his emph ye a o e .\<n Mi•, .vm:; <.e> ym not think that w >t h ('i euf an additional induct nRnt to volunteer? But who would contend that Congress had any such authority? Manifestly it has not. Nor can I find the constitutional authority to abolish slavery everywhere by actof Congress as a necessity to prosecuting the war.

Then, sir, in my judgment, the only effectual way of ridding the country of slavery, and so that it cannot be resuscitated, is by an amendment of the Constitution forever prohibiting it within the jurisdiction of the United States. This amendment adopted, not only does slavery cease, but it can never be reestablished by State authority, or in any other way than by again amending the Constitution. Whereas, if slavery should now be abolished by act of Congress or proclamation of the President, assuming that either has the power to do it, there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent any State from r< establishing it. This change of the Constitution will also relieve us of all difficulty in the restoration to the Union ot the rebel States when our brave soldiers shall have reduced them to obedience to the laws.

To secure its passage requires, in the first instance, a vote of two thirds in Us fa r m each branch of Congress, and its ratification subseqiK ntly by three fourths of the States of the Union. Can these majorities be obtained? It is very generally conceded, I believe, by men of all political parties, that slavery is gone; tlnU the value of slavery is destroyed by the rebellion. What objection, then, can there be on the part of any one, in the present state of public feeling in the country, to giving the people an opportunity to pass upon this question? I would appeal to Senators upon the opposite side of the Chamber, and ask them—for I expect some of them to support this measure, and I trust all of them will—what objection they have to submitting this question to the people and letting them P«a s upon it? Do any of you deny that slavery lies at the bottom of this rebellion? Do yuii believe that we should have had this terrible war upon us had then- been no; slavery in the land? 1 repeal, then, w by not afford an opportunity to die people to pass upon this amendment? i trust I do not assume too mueh win n J assume that it will i receive the requisite vote of two thirds of each branch of Congress.

1 Having obtained that, tin question then arises, it, probable that it can have tin- ratification of tint e fourths of the States' We have now ihirtyiU e Siatt and bills have pascal both branches of" (ess and been approved by the President for the eieanon of two more, Colorado and Nevada, which will make thirty se en When these States are admitted if u ill require tin* concuu iii vol,- of twenty eight States m order to adopt this amendment.

iN< Nebraska should bo admitted, fbi the admission o( which ti bill now pending, that would make the number of States durty eiyht and the votes of tuenty nme States would then be leqnifateio adopt the amendment. But the admission ot' Nebraska would not probably affect the result, as, if admitted, she would most probably vote for the amendment.

Of the that seven Statt s, twenty one arrt Ihe States, meimbng Colorado and iN evadn and I assume that all those wmid vote for !his cons*!f udonal aim ndment. There are, then, the Stan s of Ma t y land, W< st VjvjrmM, Missouri, Arkansas, Tonne :.>ee, and Louisiana, all ot which have taken j ini'iatoi y steps for the abolition of slavery within tin u- bmdiMs; and i think we might confidently count that they would unite with the free States to pass til s amendment. Those 'dx added to the twenty one free States would make twenty-seven. I Then there is the Stateof Di laware, with hardly slaves enough in it to eomu, which would be b left standing alone with free Stales all around her. Although she has not yet, so far es 1 am aware, taken any legislative «n pj for the pholjuen of ji sl\< ry, though the question is agitated among il her people, 1 e e cannot think she wou d stand alone m such a locality, r< sistiny; a constitutional amendment which would forever give us peace on this question.

I have assumed that all the free States will adopt the amendment. It is now very generally conceded that slavery is not a divine uisttOinon. Ihe few hi the northern or free Suei* who ettt mot to uphold it do so on eons1 itunohai grounds, denying the authority ot the C wvere na /it ,o interfere with it; but none of those peisonxwUmy' r can deny the power of the people to amend the Constitution in the mode prescribed by trie instrument itself. If, then, they shall oj n se an amendment for the abolition of slavery, it ill not be because to abolish u in that form is un o„sti national, but because it is not right, or, u right, not expedient.

I think, then, it is reasonable to suppose that if this proposed amendment passes Congress, it will within a year receive the ratification of the requisite number of States to make it a part of the Constitution. That accomplished, and we are forever freed of this troublesome question. We accomplish then what the statesmen of this country have been struggling to accomplish for years. We take this question entirely away from the politics of the country. We relieve Congress of sectional sti ift s, and, what is better than ah, we restore toaw whole race that freedom which is theirs by the giftof God, but which we for generations have wickedly denied them.

i know that the passage of this measure will not end this rebellion. fdo not claim that for it. There is butone way to do that; and that is by the power of our brave soldiers. We can never have the Union restored, the authority of the Constitution recognized, and its laws obeyed and respected, until our armies shall overcome and vanquish the rebel armies. We must look to our soldiers, to our patriotic Army, to put down the rebellion. But, sir, when they shall have accomplished that, this measure will secure to us future peace. That is what I claim for it. 1 trust that within a year, in less time than it will take to make this constitutional amendment effective, our armies will have put to flight the rebel armies. I think it ought long ago to have been done; and I think but for the indecision, the irresolution, the want of plan, and the scattering of our forces, it would have been done long ago. Hundreds of millions of treasure and a hundred thousand hvrs would have been saved had the power ot this Republic been concentrated under one mind and hurled m masses upon the mam rebel armies. This is what our patriotic soldiers have wanted, and what 1 trust is now soon to be done.

Out instead of looking back and mourning over the errors of the past, let us remember them only for the lessons they teach for the future. Porgeitmo thi things which are past let us press forward II to die accomplishment of what is before. We have at last placed attheheadof our annus a man in whom the country has confidence, a man who has won victories v\ wherever he has been, and trust that his mind is to be permitted uniuterfered with to unite our forces, never before so formidable us to day in one oi two grand armies and hurl them upon the rebel force. Let him put to flight the mam rebel army which has threatened the capital for the lust time years, and the .small tvhd armies' will quickly succumb. I look for that result during theeonuug campaign, and with that result, if v e civilians do our duty, we shall have the authoi Hy of the Constitution v mdn ated, constitutional liberty lecstahiisln d, the Union restored, and tre< (iom everywhere proclaimed.

Mr. SIS KRMA N. Mr. President, I shall support this pro post d a me ml inent to t h<* C> nstttution, Init I have already said all (hut,! mt< nd to say on that subject. My purpose now is to reply to a most remarkable speech made the other clay by the Senator from Minnesota [M r. Wilkinson] while I wits necessarily absent from the Senate Chamber. I could not get access to this speech mm! it was published m the Globe on Friday last. I am told that it was a written speech, piepar d conned over, deliberated on, and pronounct d here in my absence. I shall be able to show that it was not ijiade for the puino se of illustrating the proposition before the Senate. The motive of the St nator I can scarcely conceive, but wi!i allow Senators to form their own conception when 1 call their a t tuioo to it.

H was not ah attack upon a political adversary or to convince a political friend. It vv is made upon a proposition that 1 had already spoken m favor of, and had said 1 intended to vote for, upon which he and 1 did not differ; but still if was a ft attack, personal in its nature, not only intended for mv eif but for several other amideme 1 with whom I am proud to act, and by wbo e ns oeia the> 1 mil honored. Sir, this speech several sta etnents that are i\Ls—i do not wish to use unkind language, because since I have been a member of a legislative body 1 have never willingly violated the rules of the body, and have ni or said an unkind word but in self defense— but this speech contains several statements that are not true; that are grossly false; and neither courtesy nor truth requires me to let them go in silence.

The Senator commences his personal allusions to me by a statement utterlyunfoundcd. Ilesays: The honorable Senator from Ohio, who is not to day in In- seat, [Mr. Sherman.] seemed in life course heretofore to be thoroughly imbued with the idea that under the Constitution tlie humanity of the slave is entirely ignored, and that he can only bo regarded or even spoken of as property, in the sense in which we speak of aiiofse or a mule as propeity."

I say that statement attributed to me is totally false. I never entertained such a sentiment. 1 never uttered such a doctrine. Long before that Senator took his seat in Congress I had occasion frequently in the other House to express my opinions on this subject, and they are now upon record. I have always said, and so insist now, that the Constitution recognizes slaves as persons, and so they are spoken of in several clauses of the Constitution. It is true that by the local law of several States, individuals may have property in their services just as I may have property in the services of a white man; and that debt or service by the local law of these States is regarded as property. it is bought and sold; it is deeded, devised, and transferred, in the Constitution of the United States that relation is recognized as existing in several of the States, but in the Constitution they are spoken of as persons owing service and labor. I say this statement attributed to me therefore is false, and would convey an impression totally unjust and unfounded.

But let nie read another passage to show the animus of this speech. The Senator says:

"ft "But when I listened to the speech of the honorable Pen •ami l could but think. what piogroi s had been made in the publ C sentiment of the country within the ia t two years. liii Ht si huitan« on iy with tlie del very of lin- speech in the Senate tin- New York Herald came to us eonramui" a leading editorial advocating the entire abolition oi slavery t iioij hout the Piattd State";, and that by coiwuuho ia amendment. We cannot be told heicai ier that the world does not move."

The Senator, in the absence of one of his own political associates arraigns him before the Senate m of the United States, classifies him with the New York Herald, andjaftercommcndingcertnjn portions of his speech, he whistles him down the wind by sneeringly saying the world has made great progress, that he and the New York Herald have suddenly changed their opinions, and sneers or f ie motives of both, lb this the proper mode of discussion in the United States Senate? This is only on'' of a doz n extracts which I might read from th s speech !o show the diameter of it. But let us look to the main purpose of his speech. lie mter ds to reply to a speech I made on the 2d of February. What wen. my sitions? 1 sought to prove tint we were ji htifr d by the Constitution i and the law-: and practices of nations in eneitiitand modern t rnes m employing slaves in our military s i vie'"-; that as a neees sary i yident to tin- tmpl yim nt of slaves as soldiers, followed their emancipation ami that of their families, and that it was the duty of Congress as the legislative branch of the Government authorized to raise armies to secure this emancipation by ail act of unquestioned authority; and in this connection, and m this connection only, I expressed my doubts of the power of the President U) secure this result, and that bus efforts in that dir ofion .should be sanctioned by Congress and by an amendment of the Oo nuuum Did 1 h .Senator take issue with me? Did hccuntiovert my position.-:? Did hcapply his mind to the business beioio him? IS of at all. }±t approves what said. He indorses it. He doubtiugly says 1 "made what some would call a rad eal speech 55 and then assails mo for inconsistency. He proceeds to quote at length what 1 said in regard to the President's jfproclamation Does he[ take issue with it? He doubts; to use ins exact language, tk I doubt vmy much whether this severe criticism ia desci /ed." What did I say of the President? Did 1 arraign him m tise usual style of the Senator? Did I follow the example! so often set by that Senator, not only as to his! ft How SenatOiS but as lo the President himself, j of assuuui g phnnsaiccd radicalism and iiuiciin^4 j off other men as less radical and iheiabre less pure than lie? He relieves me from this imputa- tion by saying that I was" courteous in language, it is true, and mild in the expression 5

What is the substance of the extract he read? Why, that I doubted the constitutional power of the President to emancipate slaves beyond his military lines; that a mere proclamation liable at any time to he modified, changed, or revoked, was not a sufficient guarantee to secure to slaves that which we promise them—emancipation. And 1 urged Congress to do its part promptly, to give to that proclamation their legal sanction, and to extend it by an amendment of the Constitution so as to make emancipation universal.

In this the Senator does not differ with me, but he makes a personal issue. He says if this criticism upon the President s proclamation is deserved 1 had no right to pronounce it; to use his precise language, am quite clear fri my opinion that if deserved it should not have been pronounced by the honorable Senator from Ohio." Why not? Is there anything in the position, abilities, or standing of that Senator that entitles him to have a monopoly of criticising the public acts of the President? He says my colleague might have done it; and he proceeds to classify the Union Senators into two divisions, the conservatives and the radicals. He names them. He is a radical. He puts himself at the head of this class, by first extolling how he has" felt and spoken and voted since this rebellion broke out 5 and then he patronizingly confirms and elects a" few others around him on this floor" who have been steady and consistent chosen followers in his radicalism. And he tells us the other class, "more timid have been from the beginning rolling constitutional logs in the way of our armies." It is consistent for the one class to declaim, denounce, arraign, and abuse the President and all in authority, while the other class are estopped by their conservatism from even a manly criticism of public acts. That 1 do not do injustice to his position, 1 will read an extract from his speech;

t have Jiu-* iek and spoken and voted ever since this rebellion broke out. There an"- a w others around me on tin- floor who have, from the rx jrnuung steadily and eon Mentiy acted upon i tie* sum- principle. 'i fie eloquent fcSen ilor uoiii M«issa« hii M U (Mi. um ner tne just O and iiiit o npmuiiM p 'nam, from -Ino who -as e ate 1 me, [Mr. Wade,] the honorable member* bom Iowa, M i IJakhn and rRi Mr and from Michigan, [Messrs. Chandler arid Howard,] j and, on the otiici Maine, or the (Jnamber. tin: honoiubie r enatoi noin M an [Mi Morriii.,] and men Kan a pMi Lanc J have t evei lor one nionient, l e at d or tailored m tfieii d te nuriat on to destroy verv with tl H rebellion since a n assumed its pie ent piopoitioiifc. While othets, inoie famd. have been from the rolling constitutional d m ti C way ot oui aruiK1 liete hononiMe rieuatois have been( If ujni the way for the rapid and triumphant inaieii of oin forces." 5

Upon what moat does this our Caesar feed," that he comes into the Senate of the Unit* d States and class ti Sen t n s of the same political organiza io i into two distinct parties? Tie <b vides Seiiatoi.*; from the same State, some on one side and on the other. He says one class are brave and iio d men v. who have always done theirduty, but the others me timid men, who are throwing constitutional Ivga in the way of our armies to impede their progress. Why, sir, such a uiscuss ion as this i i unworthy of a Senator and of this place. Of what ?m have a I, and the other Senators who agreed With me m the votes to which I shall now refer, been guilty? Tise Senator has had an opportunity to examine my course. He has taken the pains to do so by a careful, elaborate, and long speech, conned over and matured more than a month after I made the speech to which he refers. He has had before him my political life for years in the stormy scenes ot this Capitol; and what is myollense? Why have I not the power and the light to criticise the President as wc !1 as he?

I eajl attention to the specifications of the indictment made against me particularly, but really against all who acted with me, and who are assailed as well as myself. The first and the material point made against me is that I proposed an amendment to a certain mil that was pending, introduced, I believe, by the Senator from IM issaehuseus, [Air. Wilson,] providing for the employment of slaves m the military service. That bill provided that whe e a slave was employed m the rviee of the Unur J States, not in f ne mo- tar1/ s rvie e merely, but in the service ilu L mtid States for any purpose, he, his wife, h s children, and lus mother should be free, i offered an amendment confining the emancipation of slaves under that bill to the slaves of rebels; but I also provided that the slaves of loyal men and rebels alike, all the slaves in the country, might be employed in the service of the United States and render any duty required of them. The Senator takes this amendment offered by me, strips it from the context, brings this vote into the Senate, and arraigns me for it. He says:

This proposition of the honorable Senator was to free only the Midlers themselves who were the slaves of rebels; and as to iho slave soldiers not claimed by rebel masters, alter they should have served in our armies, we were to remand them back to slavery i"

Now, this assertion is false.

He says that upon that vote the line was drawn between the brave and the timid. That is not his language; but he brings that vote, the yeas and nays, before the Senate, and how does it stand? It seems my amendment was adopted. The yeas were

"Messrs. Anthony, Browning, CoiIn mer Cowan Davis Doolittie, Fes enden Foster, Henderson, Howe, Lane of Indiana, Powell, Sherman, Simmons, Ten Eyck, Willey, Wilson ofMibsoim, and Wright."

If I was guilty of any very great wrong I was in very good company. All those Senators are liable to the same criticism.

But, sir, in this connection allow me to say the Senator has quoted a portion of some remarks that I made for the purpose of conveying an erroneous impression. He detached from their context two sentences used by me so as to convey the exactly opposite meaning of what he must have known I said; and here it is on the record. I was astonished when I read it. He quotes this remark that I made in the course of the debate on this amendment:

"Mi. Sherman." "Ifmyamendment shall ht-. adopted to the second section the slaves of hnal pei ous will not be made free by the operation of the act; and the ma t i of those slaves wdi draw the compensation allowed by the Government for their services, and they would i et their slaves back, as a matter ofeourse. If my amendment t<> the r second section be adopted, this nien iue will not affect the loyal master, because he vviil receive the eompen aiion allowed by Invv for the j civic e of his slave, and the slave will be his at the termination of that service Congressional Globe, Thirty Seventh Congress, second session, page 3233.

This extract was introduced for the purpose of showing that I was opposed to the employment of slaves in the military service, and that I had changed my mind on the subject. While I advocated, in the speech to which the Senator was replying, the employment of slaves, he quotes this paragraph to show that I was at one time, only two years ago, opposed to the employment of slaves in the service.

Mr. WILKINSON. If the Senator will permit me one moment—■—

Mi. SHERiMAX I yield.

Mr. WILKINSON. The Senator is mistaken in regard to my purpose in introducing that extract and reading it. My object was to show that the honorable Senator was m favor of employing in the armies of the United States slaves belonging to loyal men, and then advocating the doctrine of remanding them back to slavery again' after the war should be over, and of allowing them to be held as slaves after they had fought for tiie counti y. That was the purpose for which I introduced that extract, and not for the purpose of showing that the honorable Senator was opposed to ernp ovme them in the Auny.

Mr. SHERMAN. That is not the purpose announced in his speech, and no gentleman after reading the apfteh would infer teat as the purpose. I stand here on record, and the record is before me. If that was the idea sought to be conveyed by the Si nr tor then his whole argumentfans, because in the very speech that he commends and extols, my position is that the slaves of my xi masters should not bo taken without com-1 penfutton.! said two years u«ro on that point precisely what I said in my recent speech, that iiiey should not be taken unl ss provision was made for the compensation of the ioj al owners. If the Senator introduced this garbled extract for the purpose he now states, he must have known that my position then was the same that it r new. But, sir, notwithstanding the disclaimer of the Senator, I will cheerfully give way to him ii i nnsmteipret his meaning. Upon the face of this oao T an/ peison would suppose that I had changed my opinions on the subject of the employment of negroes in this war; but 1 will read the short speech from which he took this extract; the whole was very short and might easily have been quoted:

"There is no reason .why the slaves of Joyal men should not be employed j *=t as well as the slaves of disloyal men. Tfw only question is, what compensation should i C made to ihc masters of slaves?"

Then follows the extract he read:

If my amendment shall be adopted to the second section, the slaves of loyal persons will not be made free by the opeiaunn of the act, and the masters of those slaves Will draw the compensation allowed by the Government for their services, and they would get their slaves back as a matter of course."

-5 There i? no flcwire. so far as T hdve heard any expression, Hi affect the right of any loyal master in the United States. It seems to be the general desire, so lards J know to treat him faufv; not to deprive him of what is regarded by tho local law as his property, without fair and just compensation. 1 shall, therefore, vote against tbn amendment to The first section, because c I think all those persons are subject to military dim, and they ought to be allowed to be employed at the discretion of the President. It may be that the slaves ot loyal persons air iho vri_\ un«\< who would desnc employment, whom iho Pt evident vvpnld naturally employ in the first instance, and see no impropriety in leaving them i subject to military duly, ui. they are by the Constitution ofthe Cmted rftatcr?.''

Mr. WILKINSON. What page is that?

Mr. SHERMAN. Page 3 32 The extract read by the Senator is just in the middle of what said. The first paragraph is in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Missouri, proposing to limit the power of the President to the slaves of rebels. I opposed that amendment on the ground that the slaves of loyal men ought to be taken. The Senator takes the middle of what I said, although the whole was but short, and prints that in his speech, leaving out the beginning and the end, which would have shown precisely my position; and for that I am arraigned here nt flit; Senate of the United States in my absence, and the iniptv sf ion sought to be made, that, for some offense or other, myself and other honorable Senators are excluded by our heresies from commenti ng upon the conduct and (lie official acts of the President, of the United States. Why, sir, this whole debate, in w hieh it .seems f took n more active part than I had any idea of, du wa that U. throughout UU I ad nuvocmou advocated the me employment employment o! ot all the slaves in the country, the slaves oi loyal masters and of rebel masters all alike.( noi ic that in the roin o of the debate the Senator from Delaware put to me a question as to whether 1 believed Congress had the power to authorize tliy employment of the slaves of loyal men, and 1 answci ed ilialhietly—this was sonic days lu loie (he quotation of tin. Si imtoi

J have no d mht I'mi it i* within the con .iitutionnl power oi Co i i s m inisnni atimo-. to emoll\\ hue* and blacks, free and .'l.nvi And it is equal!-, rlr u ih it Con Krea* may, wtn n mihr uy mmhcc is letpiucil, .lepme a father Of hi< njjht to tin* labor of his son, and the innaei ul the setvice* ot 1m s lave

Sir, in the whole debate, extending over one hundred pages oft ho Congressional Globe, aeonversational debate, to which that bill was subjected, I uniformly insisted upon the employment of slaves, but m all cases insisted that when the slaves oflo al men should he taken for military service the Government was bound to *<iv*' them reasonable and honorable compensation. I held the, same position then that I hold now, and the same that I uttered the other day. JJut .suppose i that the honorable Senator from Minnesota should eo tvict mo of inconsistency, what then? 1 never saw a man (or whom I had any respect whatever but changed his mind many times in his life. If a man is so stubborn and determined in his opinion twit he v. til not yield to reason, it shows that he has iuh the light of reason to guide him.

Hut in icgard to the ^mploymentof slaves, such has not b. eh my condition. l Vom the very beginning I have favored the employment of these slaves; and in the speech to* lueh l have referred 1 remonstrated with the tmhuiy authorities because they did not treat tlua question right, and insisted that they should have employed slaves long before; and yet the Senator, seizing upon ih: middle of .i little parc ruph uttered by me, disN rtu g it fiom tin: vn t publishes it m lus speech in my c bst mm to siiowto the community ihi-i I iitvc ibrfoifed my right to criticise public oi oclamatjo is by some heresy and schism; and the houoiab e Senators wiio voted with me for iliat amendment are also placed in the position of timid men, who are throwing constitutional blocks in the way or the Government.

Sir, what cl«0 fhi^ sivus ilmii based ur on It seems also that the honorable Senator from Missouri [Mr. Henderson] moved to strike out the words "mother, wife, and children," and that with the same Senators 1 voted with him on that proposition, so as to confine the operation ofthis law to the slaves of rebel masters so far as the question of emancipation was concerned, but to allow the employment of all slaves whether they belonged to rebel or loyal masters. In the same connection I stated that I should be perfectly willing to emancipate the slaves of loyal men. who were actually mustered into the Army, and their wives, their children, and their mothers, if provision was made for the compensation of those loyal men. .That is stated here several times in the courseof thisdebate. The only point on which I differed from any of my political friends was, whether we should strike down the property interests of these loyal men, some of whom were actually servingin ourarmies,fightingforourcause, i without giving them the compensation required by the Constitution of the United States. A majority of the Senate agreed with me that wc should not emancipate the slaves of loyal men unless we provided for a constitutional compensation. That is precisely my position now.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It was according to the lull passed the other day.

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, sir, according to the very proposition made by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mi Wilson J The proposition made by him would cover every position 1 have taken on this subject.

Mr. WILKINSON Will the Senator permit me to ask him a question?

Mr, SHERMAN. I will not allow myself to he int nruptud If I do the Senator injustice he may make any explanation he dcsiies.

Mr. WILKINSON, I wi h to make a single statement in regard to the point on which the Senator has just been speaking, that he was at that time in favor of employing the slaves of loyal master.? and paying for them, if I understood lum correctly. Now, mi', tin- Senator took directly the opposite po Uion and assumed that we could ti(){ iVmn lh„ coni it on of ltn Treasury, pay for {il0 sittVt s of f loyal loyal men. men. Hew• lie .opposed nosed such such a a nron- proposition when offered by the Senat >r from Kansas, [Mr. L \nk,) m ctmneeuon with this same question, on a different day. 'I'iie Senah r from Kansas made a proposition lf> pay for the slaves of loyal masters, and the honorable Senator from Ohio opposed that, proposition, but favored the emplo) nn lit of the s a e s of iovnl masters and then i toin to slavery after the war should be OVei.

Air. SllhMlMAN Mr. President, I yielded to the Senator, which is always a courtesy, to make an explanation of his own position, and lie interrogates me. I will in due time show that his present statement of my position is entirely unfounded.

As far as I am concerned I am willing to defend all my votes. I will in a moment refer to and have marked the very matter to which he now refers; but before coming to that, I wish to call attention to n remarkable statement made by the Sen Uor in his speech, a statement that I would not u11ei in any contingency, ileie is what the Senator states:

So far as I ain concerned I Mtali not stop to mquue whether the employment oi slaves as bohh vrs pj constitutional uneuustauiioual, whether u he legal or illegal." I

:Vir. WILKINSON. Head the whole sentence,

\Mi. SHERMAN. It continues:

"The question with mc is, ami the only question is it nee""--; irv? Doc s the tri Mt law of neccsMtv, that law which the Senator horn Mai\ land .speaks of as, the k higher law,* the low ubo\ e th" Constant ion. leijnue oi ju tu u Look for a moment at this proposition. The Senator tells us that he wiii not stop to inquire whether the employment of slaves in constitutional or unconstitutional, le al or illegal; he will decide the question by the la w of in cessity. Mr. President, did not the Senator take the oath of office prescribed by the Constitution' How can he say this in the face of that oath? Did he not swear before God in the most solemn way by jj which we can appeal to tin: Deity that he would support and maintain the Constitution of the Ump ted States? And yet he tells us that lie will not J even stop to inquire whether the measure is coristiiuftnnal or unconHtiuUional, le al oi illfgal'

Mr. WILKINSON rose.

Mr. SHERMAN,- I cannot yield. The Senator will have plenty of time.

Mr. WILKiNSON. I insist that he shall read the whole paragraph, and not make the statement in the way he does.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator can read what he pleases when he comes to speak.

Mr. WILKINSON. But

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Minnesota will not interrupt the Senator from Ohio in his remarks.

Mr. SHERMAN. Did the Senator read the whole of what I said, when all that 1 said was included in a few lines which are now before me, and when he arraigned me in my absence? lie is present, and will have an opportunity to reply to me. lie says he will be guided by the great law of necessity. Why, sir, who is to judge of the necessity? Our political opponents have attributed to us such a position, and I have denied that wc have ever knowingly violated the Constitutional' the United States. Over and overacain in the campaign last fall we were arraigned as being reckless men, who were willing to disregard our oaths and violate the Constitution of the United States; but I everywhere said that we had not violated the Constitution; tuul I defended our acts as being within the constitutional powersgranted to us in a state of war; and yet here a Senator who arraigns me in my absence says that he does not stop to inquire whether a measure is constitutional or unconstitutional, legal or illegal; and this declaration of his will be rung through this, country in the next presidential campaign.

Mr. President, it is not true. I affirm here on behalf of the great Union party of this country that this declaration is false; that wc never have knowingly violated the Constitution of the United States, and so help me God, I never will, and no wild idea of necessity, no phantasm of the brain will Justify the utterance of so atiocious a sentiment or the practice of it. But yethere it is; and by this same Senator I am arraigned because I will not m violation of the Constitution of the United States seize upon the property of loyal men who are fighting in our armies, deprive them of their light to the services of certain personsin the southern States without compensation, in plain and palpable violation of the Constitution. Sir, as long as this sentiment stands recorded in the speech 1 do not care for the arraignment of the Senator from Minnesota.

Now, Mr. President, 1 come to the paragraph I have marked in regard to the subject of emancipation and the debate that occurred between the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Lane] and myself.

It seems that the Senator from Kansas proposed an amendment to the bill, which authorized the President of the United States to employ slaves either in the rnihtai y ot naval service, or in throwing up bicastworks, oras teamsters, or as agents, or as nmle driveis It required the United States to pay for the slaves so employed, their children, wife, and mother; that is, if a negro, the slave of a loyal master, was employed only for a single hour to carry a message for an oflicer, if he was employed for a single day to drive a mule team, or if he had run away and was practically free, under the proposed amendment of the Senator from Kansas the United States would be required to pay the full value of those slaves, whether they were employed m the military or naval or civil service of the United States, whether their labor was of any value or not Thit was the effect of the amendment. It is line before mo; and the honorable Senator from Kansas, with a frankness for which 1 always give him credit, stated explicitly m the debate that his purpose was to emancipate as many of these slaves as he could. That, no doubt, is his desire, to emancipate the whole 1 race. Xle proposed th uefoie that if a slave was employed for any sen ice, not in the military service alone, but in anysgn jee whatever, t m mere employment should operate as tho emancipation of that slave, his mother, his wife, and his children; and thereupon the United States should pay the full value of all these slaves. When that proposition was made it seems I opposed it on the ground that it would involve a very large expenditure of money; that it was idle and ridiculous to propose it; and I say now that if that identical pioposition was made here I would opnose it now. By it a shovelfull of earth thrown upon a breastwork by a slave, or a message carried for an officer by a slave, or the pitching a tent by a slave, or even the cooking of food for a soldier, would have been construed as an employment in the service of the United States, and have entailed an expense of thousands to pay for the slave and his family.■

Where a slave is employed in the military service of the United States, actually puts on our uniform, and serves with us in the military ranks as a soldier, I am willing to guaranty him his freedom, and have always been so; but where his service is a mere incidental matter, not connected with the military service, so broad a proposition as that of the Senator from Kansas would have been indefensible and unjust. I opposed it on that ground; and here are my remarks on* that subject, and in these very remarks I go on and state distinctly that I did not wish to limit the power of the President to employ slaves for any purpose whatever, that I wanted them employed in the military and naval service, and that I did not wish to extend emancipation to cases where the slaves had not rendered military service. I did not wish to make the putting down of the rebellion a mere pretext to destroy slavery, when the object of the war is not to destroy slavery, but to protect our nationality and maintain the authority of the Government against rebels in arms against it. And, sir, the Senator from Minnesota with discreditable unfairness applies my language against this crude amendment to slaves who actually assume the perils of war by taking their places la our ranks, when he must have known that 1 have uniformly insisted that military service by a slave carried with it, as an inevitable incident, emancipation for himself and family and compensation to a loyal master.