318 



CONGRESS, U. S. 



ture in Missouri. With all these facts before 

 us, is it not just and proper, before we pass a 

 law giving $20,000,000 of the public money to 

 the State of Missouri for the purpose of eman- 

 cipating the slaves in that State, that it should 

 be accompanied by some condition to take the 

 sense of the people of that State as to whether 

 they desired this institution to be abolished or 

 not?" 



Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, urged that the 

 emancipation should be made immediate, say- 

 ing: " Mr. President, I assume that senators 

 are in earnest in their desire to do something 

 to put down this rebellion. Our country, I 

 know, is rich in its resources. It can vote mil- 

 lions of money for almost any purpose that it 

 sees fit to vote them for ; but still I doubt if the 

 senator from Missouri would now come before 

 Congress and ask for an appropriation of mil- 

 lions of money, unless he thought, through that 

 appropriation, he could do something in order 

 to bring this rebellion to an end. I assume that 

 that is his object. I assume that that is the 

 object of senators in voting for this bill. Is 

 there any object that will justify, at this mo- 

 ment, a vote for the bill ? Is there any sena- 

 tor here who will say that he will toss ten or 

 twenty millions of money to any State in this 

 Union, unless he thinks that by doing it he can 

 help to put an end to this rebellion? I assume 

 that there can be no doubt on that question. 

 We must all be agreed on that point. There- 

 fore do I say that, in voting on the proposition 

 now before you, you are to consider simply 

 this question : How shall I best put an end to 

 the rebellion ? If that can be best accom- 

 plished through a proposition of immediate 

 emancipation, then must you vote for imme- 

 diate emancipation. If that can be best accom- 

 plished by allowing the subject to draggle along 

 through ten years, through twenty years, with 

 the possibility of reaction, with the certainty 

 that the discussion and the controversy will 

 continue all that time, then senators will yote 

 that the question shall be allowed to draggle 

 along ten or twenty years, or indefinitely, if 

 they see fit. Sir, I am against any such thing. 

 I wish this bill to be effective for the object 

 which is proposed ; and as I do not believe it 

 can be really effective, except in one way, I 

 shall vote for that amendment which shall give 

 to it that effectiveness." 



Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, in reply, said : " Mr. 

 President, we have at length an avowal from 

 the learned and able senator from Massachu- 

 setts that this measure of emancipation is un- 

 der the war power. What is the war power 

 of this Government, and where is it lodged ? 

 I take issue with him upon his proposition that 

 one iota of the war power is vested in the 

 President. The whole and entire war power 

 of this Government, as it !s organized by the 

 Constitution, is vested in Congress, and in Con- 

 gress alone. I do not mean the power to 

 manage and control armies; but I mean the 

 power to declare war, to raise men and money 



to carry on that war, whether it is a war 

 against a foreign power or to put down insur- 

 rection. The power to adopt every measure, 

 every line of policy upon which and by which 

 the war is to be prosecuted, centres in Con- 

 gress, and in Congress alone ; and the President 

 has no more right to wield any portion of this 

 war power, or adopt measures of policy for the 

 mode of conducting the war, than any colonel 

 in the army. 



" Some gentlemen adopt the policy that this 

 insurrection is to be put down by proclama- 

 tions. I thought we had a surfeit of such non- 

 sense. It is not by proclamations, by words, 

 by high-sounding manifestoes, that this rebel- 

 lion is to be put down. It is to be put down, as 

 was said by the senator from Illinois (3Jr. Rich- 

 ardson) by the power of the bayonet and the 

 cannon ; and you must have that power in the 

 hands of a willing, a united, and an enthusias- 

 tic people. When you divide the people and 

 carry questions of policy into the camps, and 

 the soldiers take sides for and against a parti- 

 cular line of policy, you destroy the vigor, tbo 

 unity, and the efficiency of your arms ; and as 

 that honorable senator invoked gentlemen, so 

 I say the only way now to regain that unity is 

 to come back to the constitutional basis upon 

 which you declared at the extra session of Con- 

 gress that you intended to carry on this war. 

 Yes, sir, you must let the negro alone; you 

 must drop him ; you must revoke your procla- 

 mations of the 22d and 24th of September, and 

 you must revoke your proclamation of the 1st 

 of January." 



Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, thus presented the 

 constitutional question: "Senators, have you 

 the power under the Constitution of the United 

 States to give $20,000,000 to establish slavery 

 in the State of Massachusetts ? I put that ques- 

 tion to you. Perhaps you would all answer 

 no. You have just as much right to establish 

 slavery in Massachusetts by giving $20,000,000 

 to aid in that scheme, as you have to abolish 

 slavery in Missouri by giving $20,000,000 to 

 effect that purpose. If you have the one power 

 you have the other. If you have the power to 

 give money for the purpose of abolishing this 

 institution in one State, you have the power to 

 give money for the purpose of establishing it 

 in another. You have no power to do either." 



Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, argued fully 

 against the constitutionality of the bill: "Mr. 

 President, even were it constitutional, there are 

 grave considerations of policy and expediency 

 which would render the adoption of the meas- 

 ure now before the Senate unwise. Before I 

 consider those questions, however, let me invite 

 the attention of the Senate for a moment to 

 its unconstitutionally. What is the first pro- 

 vision of this bill which renders it unconstitu- 

 tional? In my judgment, it is unconstitutiomJ 

 because it attempts to do that which is solemn- 

 ly prohibited by the Federal Constitutioa in di- 

 rect and express terms. It proposes to create 

 a compact between the State of Missouri and 



