pressure from our reverses at Richmond." It is, he added, "a practical act of emancipation. It was only in this respect that I valued it. The Western men were earnest for reaching the property of the rebels. To this I was indifferent except so far as it was necessary to break up the stronghold of slavery."2 That "the Confiscation Act was more useful as a declaration of policy than as an act to be enforced" is the mature judgment of John Sherman, who in the Senate took an active part in the discussion of the measure. Yet the clause which affirmed the death penalty for treason was no empty form of words, for many Republicans, Unionists, and Democrats at this time thought that the "leaders of the rebellion" ought to be hanged, and that such in the end would be their fate.1

The Confiscation bill agreed upon in conference was enacted by the House July 11, and by the Senate one day later. It now became bruited abroad that the President would veto the bill, and many legislators were anxious lest Congress and

1 On the sentiment of Ohio and Illinois, see Wade's and Trumbull's remarks, Senate, June 28, Globe, pp. 3001, 3005.

2 To Bright, Aug. 5, Pierce's Sumner, p. 82. Cf. Senate debate of June 28 with that of July 8 and 12; on the latter day the bill was passed; see N. Y. Eve. Post, July 18.

Recollections, vol. i. p. 316; see Alex. Johnston in Lalor's Cyclopædia, vol. iii. p. 933; Whiting, War Powers of the Constitution, p. 409.

4 See Willey's and Preston King's remarks in the Senate, Globe, pp. 945, 3375. At a meeting of the Conservative members of Congress in Washington, June 28, Richardson, of Illinois, who since the death of Douglas was the leader of the Democrats of that State, said that he "was in favor of applying the halter to the leaders of the rebellion," and William Allen, of Ohio, made a similar declaration. One of the resolutions adopted spoke of inflicting such punishment "on the guilty leaders as will satisfy public justice."— Washington corr. N. Y. Herald, June 28. Sumner had previously in the Senate made a manly protest against this sentiment. "People talk," said he, flippantly of the gallows as the certain doom of the rebels. This is a mistake. For weal or woe, the gallows is out of the question. It is not possible as a punishment for this rebellion."- Pierce's Sumner, vol. iv. p. 77.

66

In addition to authorities quoted, see on the Confiscation Act, Cong. Globe, 2d sess., 37th Cong. passim; Sumner's Works, vol. vii. p. 3 et seq.; Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress, vol. i. p. 373; Julian's speech on Confiscation and Liberation, May 23; S. S. Cox, Three Decades, p. 249.

CH. XVII.]

CONFISCATION ACT

63

perhaps the people should come into collision with the Executive. To ascertain in view of the many dangers thickening about the country, if this might not be avoided, Senator Fessenden and another gentleman had a consultation with the President. They found the rumor to be true. Lincoln's chief objection arose from his interpretation of the act to mean that offenders might be forever divested of their title to real estate. Confiscation to this extent was, in his view, clearly opposed to the explicit assertion of the Constitution, "No attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." So strenuous was his opposition to this feature that he had decided to veto the bill, and had prepared a message pointing out his objections, and ending with, "I return the bill to the House in which it originated." Many regarded this measure of confiscation as one of the highest importance. Trumbull declared: 66 "I believe that the passage of the bill and its fair execution is worth more towards crushing the rebellion than would be the capture of Richmond and the destruction of the whole rebel army that is around it to-day." Wade spoke of it as "the most useful of all bills, one that lies deeper in the hearts of the people than anything we have done during the session or can do. If it should fail to meet the approbation of the President of the United States, I can tell him it will be the saddest announcement that ever went out from the Capitol." 1 The tone of some of the radical senators toward the President in the debate of July 16 was bitter,2 and by the veto of the bill the suppressed opposition to him in his own party would undoubtedly have been forced to an open rupture. This misfortune was obviated by Congress passing, the day previous to its adjournment, an explanatory joint resolution which removed Lincoln's main objection and was signed by him at the same time with the Confiscation Act itself. His draft of the proposed veto message which he sent to the House with the

1 July 16, Globe, pp. 3375, 3380.

That may also be said of the debate of July 14.

announcement of his approval of the bill and the joint resolution showed that his construction of the act was different from that of the radical senators, and that its execution in his hands might be attended with a greater regard for the forms of law and the letter of the Constitution than, according to their view, ought to obtain in this time of real danger to the Republic.1

The disaster to McClellan's army increased the criticism of the radical Republicans, who did not believe that the President was conducting the war with vigor. They found fault with him chiefly because he did not remove McClellan from command and because he did not strike at slavery. That they were restive at the President's encroachment on the powers of Congress and his failure to exercise his authority by some measure of liberation, had already become apparent in the Senate. Inasmuch as Congress had been called upon by the explanatory joint resolution to shape its action in ac

1 See the debate in the Senate, July 16. In the Appendix to the Cong. Globe are printed the act and the joint resolution. The resolution touched other points than the one objected to by the President. The draft of the veto message is printed in the Globe, p. 3406, and in Lincoln, Complete Works, vol. ii. p. 209; see also editorials of N. Y. Herald, July 28, and N. Y. Tribune, Aug. 5.

2 Adams S. Hill, Washington correspondent N. Y. Tribune, at about this time wrote to Sydney Howard Gay, managing editor: "Ten minutes' talk last night with Gen. Wadsworth. The result this. He is cheerful in view of military prospects, but thinks political signs gloomy. I value his testimony because he has, as he says, been with the President and Stanton every day at the War Department-frequently for five or six hours. during several months. He says that the President is not with us; has no Antislavery instincts. He never heard him speak of Anti-slavery men, otherwise than as 'radicals,' 'abolitionists,' and of the 'nigger question,' he frequently speaks. Talking against McClellan with Blair, in Lincoln's presence, Wadsworth was met by Blair with the remark, 'He'd have been all right if he'd stolen a couple of niggers.' A general laugh, in which Lincoln laughed, as if it were an argument. W. believes that if emancipation comes at all it will be from the rebels, or in consequence of their protracting the war."-A. S. Hill Papers, MS. In this manner I shall indicate the private correspondence which has been kindly placed at my disposal by Professor Hill.

8 For example, Grimes, May 20, Globe, p. 2226; Sumner, June 27, Works, vol. vii. p. 381.

CH. XVII.]

HUNTER'S ORDER

65

cordance with the wish of the Executive conveyed in a channel unknown to the Constitution, the feeling broke out, in the debate of July 16, that the President had magnified his office. Sherman intimated that they were acting under "duress," while Lane, of Indiana, further declared that the duress was the "threat of a veto from the President." Preston King, of New York, and Trumbull thought that Congress was coerced by this mode of proceeding; and Wade sneered at the practice of learning the "royal pleasure" before they could pass a bill. When Congress adjourned the next day, some of the radical senators and representatives went home with a feeling of hostility to Lincoln, and of despair for the Republic.2

They misjudged him, but not unnaturally, for although he was thinking about slavery as earnestly as any of them, the indiscretion of a general had obliged him to take a position which seemed to them to indicate a reactionary policy. Hunter, who commanded the Department of the South, issued an order, May 9, declaring free all the slaves in South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia. The first knowledge of this came to Lincoln through the newspapers one week later. Chase urged him to let the order stand. "No commanding general shall do such a thing upon my responsibility without consulting me," was the President's reply.3 May 19 he declared Hunter's order void, and in his proclamation appealed to the people of the border slave States to adopt some measure for the gradual abolishment of slavery, and accept the compensation for their slaves proffered them by the President and by Congress. "I do not argue," he said, "I beseech you to make arguments for yourselves. You cannot, if you would, be blind to the signs of the times. I beg of you a calm and enlarged consideration of them, ranging, if it may be, far above personal and partisan politics. This proposal makes

1 Globe, p. 3375 et seq.

2 Julian, Recollections, p. 220; Washington despatch to N. Y. Herald, July 17, also editorials of July 17, 18.

3 Warden, p. 433.

See vol. iii. p. 631.

common cause for a common object, casting no reproaches upon any. It acts not the Pharisee. The change it contemplates would come gently as the dews of heaven, not rending or wrecking anything. Will you not embrace it? So much good has not been done by one effort in all past time, as in the providence of God it is now your high privilege to do. May the vast future not have to lament that you have neglected it." This fervent and reasonable appeal did not convince those to whom it was addressed, but it showed the people of the North that the President desired to rid the nation of slavery if it could be done in a constitutional manner. In spite of the muttering at Washington, the declaration that Hunter's emancipation order was void received general approval throughout the country, since many Republicans, who were eager to see blows struck at slavery from any quarter, felt that they must yield to Lincoln, who had the power and responsibility.2

Two events happening previously to this indicated that the administration was keeping step with the march of human freedom. The first man in our history to suffer death for violating the laws against the foreign slave trade was hanged at New York in February. In April Secretary Seward con

1 Lincoln, Complete Works, vol. ii. p. 156.

2 N. Y. Herald, May 17, 20, Tribune, May 19, 20. R. H. Dana wrote Sumner, June 7: "If two papers were opened -one for Hunter's proclamation and the other for the President's present position on that point-to be signed only by voters, the latter would have three to one in Massachusetts." - Pierce-Sumner Papers, MS. But see Governor Andrew's opinion in his letter to Stanton, May 19, Schouler's Mass. in the Civil War, p. 333. Chase, urging the President to let Hunter's order stand, had written: "It will be cordially approved, I am sure, by more than nine-tenths of the people on whom you must rely for support of your administration." – Warden, p. 434. Senator Grimes wrote his wife: The President has to-day rescinded Hunter's proclamation. The result will be a general row in the country. All the radical Republicans are indignant but me, and I am not, because I have expected it and was ready for it. . . . But the end must come, protracted by the obstinacy and stupidity of rulers it may be, but come it will nevertheless."-Salter, p. 196.

66

3 Sumner's Works, vol. vi. p. 474; DuBois, Suppression of the Slave Trade p. 191. On the subject generally of the coastwise slave-trade and