CONGRESS, U. S. 



271 



necessary for me briefly to refer to, and that is 

 whether there is any thing in the Constitution 

 of the United States that forbids us from em- 

 ploying free negroes or slaves. On that point 

 there can be no doubt. The only restraint 

 upon the law of war contained in the Constitu- 

 tion is in article three of the Amendments, 

 which provides that ' no soldiers shall in time 

 of peace be quartered in any house without the 

 consent of the owner, nor in time of war but 

 in a manner to be prescribed by law.' "With 

 this exception, all the practices of civilized na- 

 tions may be used in this war. 



" On the subject of emancipation, I am ready 

 now to go as far as any one. Like all others, 

 I hesitated at first, because I could not see the 

 effect of the general project of emancipation. 

 I think the time has now arrived when we 

 must meet this question of emancipation boldly 

 and fearlessly. There is no other way. Slavery 

 is destroyed, not by your act, sir, or mine, but 

 by the act of this rebellion. I think, therefore, 

 the better way would be to wipe out all that is 

 left of the whole trouble ; the dead and buried 

 and wounded of this system of slavery. It is 

 obnoxious to every manly and generous senti- 

 ment. The idea that one man may hold prop- 

 erty in the life of another, may sell him like 

 cattle, is obnoxious to the common sentiment 

 of all. Now, when the power is in our hands, 

 when these rebels have broken down the bar- 

 riers of the Constitution, when they must be 

 treated by the laws of war, when we dictate 

 those laws, not the President, let us by law 

 meet this question of emancipation boldly and 

 fearlessly. I am prepared to do it, and to vote 

 to-day, to-morrow, or any day for a broad 

 and general system of emancipation. Then, 

 sir, I would couple with that idea, fair, honest 

 compensation to those loyal men who, in the 

 adhering States, own this class of property. 

 The amount paid to them would be insignifi- 

 cant compared to the cost of this war." 



Mr. Carlile, of Virginia, followed, saying: 

 " Let me state as I understand them the posi- 

 tions assumed by the Senator from Ohio in his 

 speech to which I have referred. They are 

 these : That the struggle in which we are en- 

 gaged is with States as such united under a 

 common Government, and not with individ- 

 uals ; that we are not engaged in suppressing 

 an insurrection or rebellion, but in open, fla- 

 grant war with a belligerent Power, which we 

 have recognized as such; that, being engaged 

 in civil war, we are only bound by the laws of 

 public war, and are not restrained by the Con- 

 stitution of the United States in the means we 

 employ, the measures we adopt, or the manner 

 in which we conduct the war ; that Congress 

 is not authorized by the Constitution to eman- 

 cipate "slaves, but in time of civil war Congress 

 derives the power to emancipate from the laws 

 of war. 



" To prove that such power is conferred 

 upon Congress, the Senator cites the clause au- 

 thorizing Congress to raise armies. He denies 



that the President possesses the j tower under 

 the Constitution. He denies that his emanci- 

 pation proclamation can have any effect upon 

 slaves who are not brought within its operation 

 during actual hostilities. Now, sir, granting 

 that we have the constitutional power, where 

 can any law that we may enact on this subject 

 have any effect during the existence of this re- 

 bellion beyond our military lines ? If you can 

 derive the power to emancipate slaves from 

 the power to raise armies, it seems to me it 

 would be a less stretch of the imagination to 

 suppose that the President possessed the power 

 when he was sworn to preserve, protect, and 

 defend the Constitution. 



"In opposition to the authority of the Sen- 

 ator on this subject, that we derive any legisla- 

 tive power from the laws of war, I will quote 

 the opinions of Mr. John Quincy Adams. In 

 a speech made by him in New York, in 1839, 

 in speaking of the powers of Government as 

 divided between the different departments, he 

 said : 



The legislative powers of Congress are, therefore, 

 limited to specific grants contained in the Constitu- 

 tion itself, all restricted on one side by the power of 

 internal legislation within the separate States, and 

 on the other by the laws of nations, otherwise and 

 more properly called the rights of war and peace, 

 consisting of all the rules of intercourse between in- 

 dependent nations. These 



" That is, the laws of war 

 are not subject to the legislative authority- of any 

 one nation, and they are, therefore, not included 

 within the powers of Congress. 



"But the very nature of the Government, 

 being one of limited and delegated powers, be- 

 ing a compact between the people of the sev- 

 eral States in their separate and distinct char- 

 acter of States, is conclusive as to the power 

 of Congress to legislate beyond the grants con- 

 tained in the instrument which creates Con- 

 gress itself. The very first section of the very 

 first article of the Constitution declares that 

 All legislative powers herein granted shall be rest- 

 ed in a Congress of the United States, which shall 

 consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. 



" To the Constitution, then, not to the laws 

 of war, we must look for all power which we 

 can rightfully exercise as the legislative branch 

 of this Government. All powers not granted 

 were not reserved to the people in the aggre- 

 gate, but were reserved to the States respect- 

 ively, and to the people thereof; clearly show- 

 ing that the Government of the United States 

 is the result of compact between the States, 

 and that the Union created by the Constitution 

 is a Union only to the extent of the powers 

 granted, and no further. To attempt, there- 

 fore, to make war against the States as such, 

 is, in my judgment, and in the view which I have 

 presented of the power of the Federal Govern- 

 ment, an unwarrantable and arbitrary assump- 

 tion of power which the States as such would 

 be justified before the civilized world in resist- 

 ing. To assume such a position is to give to the 

 rebellion, which we have been engaged for 



