stitution, these war powers subvert all constitutional principle. Pretending to be the instruments of republicanism, they turn the Government into a military despotism. Assuming to be an agency of a free government, their exercise at once puts an end to all constitutional liberty. Professing to be brought into action for the purpose of emancipating three millions of slaves, they consign to political slavery twenty millions of freemen.

I cannot acquiese in the alleged duty to give a universal and blind support to all the measures, adopted by men in office, even in time of war, when I have a most absolute and perfect conviction that those measures are not warranted by the Constitution, and that the alleged powers under which they are adopted, are utterly subversive of constitutional liberty. I assert a right of judgment and condemnation, through and by means of legal constitutional argument; with no fears of that kind of rabid denunciation which attempts to stigmatize all persons who do not swear by the dogmas of party leaders as disloyal, and the friends of slavery. My opinions in relation to slavery are, I trust, too fully known to admit of an accusation of any favor to it, of any description; and my sentiments respecting the atrocity of the rebellion, and the necessity of suppressing it, have been so uniformly and fully expressed, that there is no room for any material misapprehension.

If the vanity of a supposition that I am known at all in this community, may be supposed to exist, it must be because of an unwavering support of constitutional rights, and of the principles of free government; - and I hope to be equally well known, however limited the extent, for an uncompromising opposition to all attempts to legalize arbitrary power, except so far as war introduces martial law in the districts and places which are the theatre of active warlike operations. Even there the power is not, strictly speaking, arbitrary. It ought to be exercised with a sound discretion, for the purposes of justice.

I propose to show that there is no sound foundation on which to rest any such extreme "War Powers" as are claimed for Congress, and for the President.

There is nothing in the language of the Constitution

which sustains the assumption of any such power. There is nothing in the situation of the country which renders the exercise of any such power necessary or proper as an incident to the powers granted in the Constitution. There is nothing in the history of Great Britain, since the revolution there in 1688, which justifies the supposition that such power can be derived from the common law, even if that law were resorted to as a means by which to interpret the language of the Constitution. There is nothing in the colonial or revolutionary history, or in the history of the adoption of the State constitutions, or in the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, which can for a moment sustain the assumption of any such war powers, either by Congress or by the President. And there is nothing material to the suppression of the rebellion, which may not be accomplished without the assumption of such a construction of the Constitution.

I am not aware who is entitled to be regarded as the original discoverer or inventor of these war powers; but improvements and specifications have been set forth in an elaborate pamphlet, by a gentleman of the Bar in Massachusetts, somewhat celebrated for his advocacy of patent cases, who has "gone to his reward" in a solicitorship in the War Office, created at first, without law, and afterwards by law, and, thus filled, it is understood in consequence of his improvements in this branch of constitutional law. As the powers are claimed as constitutional powers, the arguments which attempt to maintain them, may perhaps, under such circumstances, not inaptly be designated as PatentWar-Office-Constitutional law.*

I propose to examine some of the principal positions upon this subject, attempted to be maintained in this pamphlet. The course of argument in the introductory part of it, designed to prepare the way for the succeeding matter, on the suggestion that slavery is the cause of the war, and must itself be terminated, may as well serve to prove almost anything else. The principal points of this introduction may

"The War Powers of the President, and the Legislative Powers of Congress, in Relation to Rebellion, Treason, and Slavery." By William Whiting.

be summed up in this wise. The Constitution was established to form a more perfect Union. A handful of slavemasters have broken up that Union, and attempted to establish an aristocratic government founded upon slavery. It is the conviction of many thoughtful persons that slavery has become practically irreconcilable with republican institutions, that it constitutes the chief obstacle to the restoration of the Union. Slaveholding communities constitute the only privileged class. The spinning-jenny and the cotton-gin have created an unlimited demand for cotton, and slavery has increased. In other countries it has been abolished. However harmless it may have been in 1788, it is believed by many that slave-masters of the present day will not conduct themselves peaceably in the Union. And the conspiracies of traitors, their abhorrence of republican institutions, their causeless rebellion, their bitter hatred of the people of the Free States, have produced a general conviction that slavery, which has alone caused these revolts, must itself be terminated, and the privileged class be abolished, otherwise the Government must be overthrown, and constitutional liberty be abandoned.

With a very slight variation, it may be proved with equal cogency, that cotton is the cause of the rebellion, and that cotton-growing must be abolished. As for instance: The Constitution was established to form a more perfect Union. A handful of cotton-growers have broken up that Union, and attempted to establish an aristocratic government founded upon the notion that "cotton is king." It is the conviction of many thoughtful persons that the cultivation of cotton has become practically irreconcilable with republican institutions, that it constitutes the chief obstacle to the restoration of the Union, having been the means of enticing Englishmen to violate the blockade, and to supply the Confederates with munitions of war, and other merchandise. Cotton growing communities constitute the only privileged class. The spinning-jenny and the cotton-gin have created an unlimited demand for cotton, and its cultivation has increased. In many other countries it is not grown. However harmless it may have been in 1788, and in 1792 when a protective duty was laid to encourage its cultivation, it is believed by many that cotton-growers of the present day will not conduct

themselves peaceably in the Union. And the conspiracies of traitors, their abhorrence of republican institutions, their causeless rebellion, - their bitter hatred of the people of the Free States, - have produced a general conviction that cotton-growing, which alone has caused these revolts, as without cotton there would have been no rebellion, must itself be terminated, and the privileged class abolished; otherwise the Government must be overthrown, and constitutional liberty abandoned.

You perceive that with the substitution of cotton-growing for slavery, and the addition of very few words, much the stronger case is made against cotton, as the origin and support of the rebellion. And if, with a little more of alteration, you please to substitute instead of either, the inordinate ambition of unscrupulous politicians, as the cause of the insurrection, you may make out another and a still stronger case. If we could effectually "strike at" that "root" of evil, we might terminate the war in a very short time."

The introductory chapter of the pamphlet proceeds with these questions:

"Is the Union so organized that the means of involving the whole country in ruin must be left in the hands of a small privileged class, to be used at their discretion? Must the blessing of peace and good government be dependent upon the sovereign will and pleasure of a handful of treasonable and unprincipled slave-masters? Has the Constitution bound together the peacable citizen with the insane assassin, so that his murderous knife cannot lawfully be wrenched from his grasp, even in self-defence?"

* It is of some importance to note the fallacy of this notion that slavery is the cause of the rebellion, because much of the argument, in favor of the power to proclaim a general emancipation, has been made to depend upon that as its basis. Slavery has been the pretext, rather than the cause, of the war. The attempt to maintain a constitutional right to introduce it into the Territories, was more for the purpose of securing political power, than for any purpose, having a natural connection with slavery itself. Remotely, slavery may have had an agency in producing the rebellion, by fostering the ambition, which was the immediate cause of it. But that kind of ambition may be found where there is no slavery of the negro. Had not General Jackson occupied the Presidential chair in 1833, we might have had a rebellion, on the alleged inequality of the tariff. Should we in that case have declared that the tariff was the cause of the rebellion, and that "we must strike at that, as the root of it"?

"If the destruction of slavery be necessary to save the country from defeat, disgrace, and ruin, — and if, at the same time, the Constitution guaranties the perpetuity of slavery, whether the country is saved or lost, it is time that the friends of the Government should awake, and realize their awful destiny."

This mode of putting the argument, as if there was, on the part of somebody, favor towards slave-holders, and a denial to the Government of power to save itself, as if some party was contending that the Constitution guarantied the perpetuity of slavery, whether the country was saved or lost,

as if the success of the war was dependent upon its being waged by proclamations against slavery, instead of being carried on energetically by shot and shell against the instigators and abettors of the rebellion, — ought not to deceive any one respecting the true issue involved in the denial of unlimited power on the part of Congress and the President; but it is significant of what we are to expect in the mode and manner of the subsequent discussion.

It is the favorite mode of argument of those who seek to exercise despotic power for the purpose of effecting their great project of emancipation, irrespective of constitutional right, and regardless of the final salvation of the Union; and who would rather have the rebellion succeed, and the country dismembered, than to have the rebellion crushed unless slavery is crushed with it.

With these questions as the basis, put in this spirit, we ought not perhaps to be surprised to find an assertion following, that,

66

They," [the people] "mean to uphold a Union, under the Constitution, interpreted by common sense; a government able to attain results worthy of a great and free people, and for which it was founded; a republic, representing the sovereign majesty of the whole nation, clothed with ample powers to maintain its supremacy forever."

Which is all well enough with a proper application. Nor should we be astonished to find a little farther on the suggestion that the Constitution is,—

"Only a frame of government, a plan-in-outline for regulating the affairs of an enterprising and progressive nation;" then the assertion that,