"Others are of opinion that the President, as Commander-in-chief, may direct that wherever the army goes, and overcomes the power of the rebels, the slaves shall be free; and they construe the proclamation as meaning no more than that; because, so far as the power of the master is not overcome, it is clear that there can be no emancipation. "I have no doubt that where the army carries successful warfare, there martial law- the law of force- is, for the time being, the governing power for all the purposes of the war; and as the liberation of the slaves—so far as that liberation is then and there a practical subversion of the power of the master - may weaken the power of the rebellion, it may be regarded as one of the means of carrying on the war." "Upon the same principle, I do not doubt that the President, as Commander-in-chief, or a commanding general in the field, may, in the lawful exercise of hostilities, for the purpose of weakening the enemy, invite the slaves to come within the lines of the army, and assure them of protection, which may be made effectual by their removal beyond the subsequent operation of the municipal law." * "This is all the emancipation which can be had in the course of the war; and if I could read the proclamation as extending no farther than such emancipation, I should have no controversy with any one who supported it. The opportunity to secure freedom in this way, was, I think, substantially provided for before the proclamation, by orders directing military commanders not to return slaves who came within their lines." * "But those who have so vigorously urged 'the adoption of a policy' and the issue of a 'proclamation of emancipation,' do not consider this the limit of the emancipation which is to be effected by it. I understand that you give it a much broader scope, as I believe you are authorized to do. You say that it threatens the people in each rebel State with the emancipation of all their slaves' and speak of 'the day when every slave under the rebel power shall be (so far as our Government is concerned) irrevocably free;' and it is, doubtless, for this reason that you call it 'the great proclamation.' It is, of course, to give freedom after the return of peace, (if it does not prevent our arms from being victorious,) to slaves who have never been within our power during the war." "It is to operate therefore as a decree or law for the emancipation of probably half, perhaps more, of the slaves in the States designated, not as a punishment of rebels, for it operates on friends also, not because martial law ever reached them, not because there was in fact any subversion of the power and control of the master during the war, and not because such emancipation was necessary to the prosecution and success of the war; for the fact that they remain in slavery until the military operations have ceased, completely negatives any such military necessity." It was upon the last construction, as its obvious intent and meaning, that I contended that it was a usurpation of power, mischievous, unwarrantable, and unconstitutional. Now I have, very recently, been credibly informed, that Mr. Secretary Stanton says not only that the proclamation is a war measure, - a military order,- (that was said in the outset,) but that its effect is merely to give freedom to the slaves who come within the actual power of our army during the war; and that when peace comes those who are not thus set free will remain as slaves. And further, that if the people of a State designated in the proclamation should lay down their arms, submit, and send representatives to Congress, the proclamation would have no effect in the liberation of the slaves there. In other words, the Secretary now gives to it precisely that construction, and measure of emancipation, of which I said, "if I could read the proclamation as extending no farther than such emancipation, I should have no controversy with any one who supported it." How this is, you can probably ascertain by application at head-quarters. Certain it is, that Republicans begin to be quite sure that this is all that was ever intended by the proclamation, and to be very much surprised that any one should construe it otherwise. One thing, which I shall hope to learn from the forthcoming "New Englander," is, whether, if this is to be the official interpretation and construction of this document, you will still regard it as "the great proclamation." If this is all which is meant by it, the axe which was to be laid unto the "root of the rebellion seems to have lost its edge, and to have become no better than any other, poor tool for Abolition purposes. If this is all which is to be accomplished by the proclamation, the great jubilee of emancipation, in Boston, on the first of January, becomes a farce; and a qualifying sup plement must be added to the hallelujahs which ascended about that time, in various quarters (to say nothing of New Bedford) on the allegation that freedom had been bestowed on three millions of slaves. If, on such a construction, you should come to the conclusion, that the proclamation is a very small matter for a proclamation, but a great matter of humbug, and a greater matter for mischief, I may be inclined to agree with you. Yours, &c. CAMBRIDGE, Feb. 16, 1863. |