A Letter to the Hon. Benjamin R. Curtis, Late Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States
Author: Unknown
Date: 0101-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

Making of America Books Basic | Boolean | Proximity |

Bibliographic | Search History

UMDL Texts home U of M login View bookbag
your bookbag has 0 items

Home Search BrowseHelp

list of all pages | add to bookbag

Title:A letter to the Hon. Benjamin R. Curtis, late judge of the Supreme court of the United States, in review of his recently published pamphlet on the “Emancipation proclamation” of the President. By Charles P. Kirkland, of New-York.

Author:Kirkland, Charles P. (Charles Pinckney), 1830-1904.

Availability:These pages may freely searched and displayed.

Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact umdl-info@umich.edu for more information.

Print Source:A letter to the Hon. Benjamin R. Curtis, late judge of the Supreme court of the United States, in review of his recently published pamphlet on the “Emancipation proclamation” of the President. By Charles P. Kirkland, of New-York.

Kirkland, Charles P. (Charles Pinckney), 1830-1904.

21 p. 22 cm.

New-York,

Latimer bros. & Seymour,

1862.

Page 1 view page image

-Ij _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I t m H 4t :t t :t t :t t -t t-d It ul ‘I, c It GI t It t, t!d 3

Page 2 view page image

ByTro,-is-or i. 122

Page 3 view page image

To the Ilonorable BNJA.MIN R. CURTIS, late Associate Jutstice of the Sttreme Uomtt of the Unrited States. I propose, respectfully, but with perfect fiankless, to review your recently published pamnphlet on the subject of tlhe Presi clent’s “Emancipation Proclamation” of Septemnber 22d, 186). Tlhis wvonld have been done at an earlier day, but it is only very recently that I first saw the pamphlet. It is to be regretted that, regarding as you profess to do this proclamation and that of the 24th of the same month, as fraught with peril to your countrymen, you did not tieat them separately. They differ radically and essentially in sul)ject and in intent. The one is limited in its application to the rebel States, tht other applies equally there and here. Tlhe one in volves ultimate results and consequences of the most importalnt and enduring character; the other is, in its very nature, tem porary. ille one gives rise to considerations of a kind wliolly different firomn, and irrelevant to, the otlher; yet your pamphlet so confilses tihemt togetiher, thlat it is quite difficult, if iot impos sible, to discover whlat, in your view, is the distinguishing fatal error of eaceli. Justice to thle subject, which you declare to be of such momentous import; justice to the IHead of this great nation, whose acts you arraign as bordering on, if not actually amtnounting, to, the crime of usurpation; justice to the elevated position you so recetitly occupied, required that you should at least have pointed out separately, distinctly, and in the most lucid manner, the grounds on which yout base a charge of such magnitude. Instead of tliat, we have here (to use a legal telm with which youI are familiar) a complete “
hotchi-potch.” These different and distinct matters are thrown indiscriminately tc gether; andcl, in mnany ilnstances, no ingenuity can determine whetlher your argument, your illustrations, your depracatory expressions, apply to the one proclamation or to tlhe other. , I ii - /

Page 4 view page image

4 But at present I shall, so far as I can, ascertain from your pal  phlet the specific complaints you make as to the “emancipation proclamation,”

and, if I err in attributing to vou allegations as to this, which you intended solely for the other, ny eriror will, I trust, find all apology in the mode you have adopted of treating the two subjects. Before goinig further, I may be pardoned for imitating your example, and saying a word personal to myself. In soihe essential particulars, I stand in the same position you state yourself to occupy. I, like you, ” am a member of no political party.” ” I withdrew,?” as you did, ” some years ago, from all such connections.” I have generally, however, exercised my privilege as one of the electoral body and at the last presidential election I voted against the present incumbent, and at the last State senatorial election I voted for the democratic candidate inl iny district. I, like you, ” have no occasion to listen to the exhortations now so frequent to divest myself of party ties, and act for my country.” I, too, “hlave nothing but my country for vlwhich to act in public affairs,” and with me, too, ” it is solely because I l)ave that yet remaining, and know not but it may be possible to say something to my countrymen, whiclh may aid tlhemi to torin right conclusions in these dark and dangerous tiunes that I tiow (through you) address thlem,” and make the effort to aid them in “forming right conclusions” as to your views, and the subject of w71ich you treat. Thus, my work, like yours, is purely “a work of love.” It may not be amiss to say, that there are, in fact, but two parties in our country; one that is for the country, the othler that is against the country. To the former belong the vast majority of the Democratic party and the vast majority of the IRepublican party, and the few (alas! so few) Unionists of the South; to the latter belong the fanatical abolitionists in the RPepublican party, the rebel sympathisers in the Democratic party and the Rebels of the South. To the party of my country belong, I say, the great majority of both the Democratic and the Republican parties; in other words, the vast majority of the “People” of the United States-I say so, because I cannot be )persuaded, that that majority, by whatever party name the

Page 5 view page image

5 individuals composing it miay be called, are insensible to thle blessings of the form of government under which they live, unaware, and ignorant of the indispensable importance of the preservation of the Union to their existence as a nation-forgetful, basely, ungratefully forgetful, of the heroic struggles and sacrifices of their Revolutionary fathers-deaf and dead to the earnest, paternal farewell advice and warnings of Washington, lost to all sense of patriotism, and of public virtue. And as to the millions from-other lands, who are now ” of us and with us” who have sought and found shelter and protection, and happiness in our Temple of Liberty, and who with suchl gallantry have recently foulght the battles of “The IJUnited States of Anmerica,” and who individually belong, to tlh Democratic or the Republican parties, I cannot believe that these men, whether as individuals they may be called Democrats or Republicans, will ever consent to the overthrow of that Temple, ol’ to the breaking up of those ” United States.” But notwithstanding this perfect colnvictioni of mine, it is nevertheless, as you say, not out of place foir you or foir me or for any others who choose to undertake the task, to “say something that may aid our countrynieni to form riligt conclusions in these dark alld dangerous” (as you call them)’” times.”’ Tllese words, “dark and dangerous,” in tlhe connetion iln whicl you use them, lead me to say another prelimil)ary word before coming directly to your argument. These words assure me, that you belong to that class of men among us, not large in number but soineti:ies influential in position, who, from natural temperament a,(i disposition, or firom aversion to strife of all kinds, or fi’()m a want of propeo tl-)preeiattion of the’eal c/haracter of this rebellion, (I thlinkl chiefly from the latter cause), lhonestly labor under a fearful distrust or a gloomy foreboding as to the result of the impendimg contest for the preservationi of our glorious government and of our blessed Union. I do not bel7ong to that class of’e. I do not now believe, fear, nor apprelhend, and never for a mnoment have believed, feared, or apprehended thlat a crime, such as this rebellion, a crime against the Almighty and against Ihumniaity, lwhollv withlout a parallel for enormity in the world’s history an,d the iniquity of wh-ichl can scarcely be expressed in any lan Ad

Page 6 view page image

(uage knowvn to us, I do not, I say, believe that such a critne will be pertnitted to be carried to a successflul end, so long, as God sittetli o) thle tlhrone judging right,” nor until Truth shall cease to )prevail over error, reason to tritumph over delusion, -and Right to overcome wrong.*-

On thle contrary, I look with a clear faithl and a cheerful confidence to the termination of this rebellion at no ieinote period, and to suchl a termination as will show to an admiring and approving world that thlis government, c nfessedly tlhe mnost beneficent, is at the sairie tinie the most firln and endcluring, to be found on eartih. To proceed to the examination of your aiirgument: The first observation I have to make is, that tllroughouit yourl pa)per yoi treat the proclamation substantially as if it were a I)roelaination of acbsoltute emancipation in the rebel states; that is, were it szclt a pfroclcmatio2, your arguimient would be’n 8stibscta’ce thle same it now is. Again, in your copy of it you entirely oiiinit tl)e clause in reference to com?.penscitio;; and it will be found that a portion, and no immaterial portion, of your argument, is based on the non existence of tl.e co)d7itional and co;)?,I’ensato2’y parts of the proclamation. It is very cleai, that a proper regard to truth and fairness would have required a conspicuous place in your paper for thlese two distinguishing features. Withl these omitted or practically concealed, you could( by no possibility attain the object you profess, namely, “tile aiding your countrymen in foirming 9’ight conclusions.” A fatal erior undellying your whole a,rgumient is, that in substance and effect you treat and argue this matter I)ecisely as vou would have done lad there been no rebellion and no * In speakling of the cri7)e of this rebellion, the difference in a moral point of viewv between the leacdivy conafpicator?s and the body of the people of the South engaged in it should carefully be kept in view. The formese are to be execrated, the latter to be pitied; and wchile tlhe practical effects of the wickedness of the one and of the delusions of the othler, combined in action as they are, nre the saine, yet we are never to cease to draw the moral distiuction just mentioned. AIny one who desires to know the secriet and rl eal causes of the Rebellion, the motives and ends of the arch-conspirators, who originated it, will be gratified and instructed by a perusal of the article entitled” Slavery and Nobility, os. Democracy,”

in the July number, 1862, of the Continental Monthlly. 6

Page 7 view page image

7 war; had thle country been at peace; had you prepared and published your views in lNovember, 1859, (if a simlilar proclamation had been then issued). You throw tile veil of oblivion over the last two years; you ignore the events, that have occurred during that period and the state of things existing in the country on the 22d of Septemnber, 1862. Thoughi you wholly disregard it in your arfgeqmc(t, yet you forcibly describe the status of the country on the day of its date. You say, “The war in which we are engaged is a jiust a2zd ~e wessary oar. It gnust be prosecuted with the whole,force of this government, till the mzilitary power of the South is broken and they sub,bit themselves to their duty to obey and our right to lhave tlhem obey the Constitution of the United States as the supreme leawN of the land.” You thus affirm that, at the date of that proclamation, we were and now are engaged in a war, ( just and necessary Fwar-a war that nmust be ca)‘ried to a sUitcess-/ul ter2-)inatio by the exercise of the wholeforceC aCes power of the government. You might justly have added, that it is a war infinitely worse, on the part of the rebels who caused It, than a war with any foreign nation could be, in its inception; in the miode of its conduct by the rebels; in the motives of its originators, and the ends sought to be accomplished by itIt was then by necessary consequence a war, in lwhich all the means and i-ore than the means-we might legitimnately resort to iz a foreign war might and ought to be used and rendered available to the utmost practicable extent consistent withl the rules of civilized warfare’ What, thien, if we were at war with a foreign nation iimmediately on our borders, and that nation had within its bosom mnillions of slaves? Can any one, versed in the slightest degree in the principles of the law of nations and the laws of war, for a moment doubt our i~ght to declare and proclaim freedom to those slaves, in case that nation did not discontinue that wai within a prescribed period? It may be asked what would be the utility, the zratie of suchi a proclamation? I answer in your own words, ” I do not propose to discuss the question whether this proclamation canl hlave anypractical effect on the unIa2ppy race to whom it refers, nor wl.at its pyractical consequences would be on themr

Page 8 view page image

8 and on the white population of the United States.” You discuss and I discuss simply the constitutional right and power of the President under existing facts to issue that proclama tion. We, in this discussion, are to assume that, in the contingency stated in it, it will go into actual operation as intended. Then we are to inquire what the practical effect of its thus going into actual operation would be, inot on the black nor the white race, but on the wuar the rebels have declared and are carrying on.

It requires but a very limited knowledge of facts to answer this inquiry.

If any one fact is demonstrated with perfect clearness in this contest thus far, it is, that the slaves in the states in rebellion have furnished to those states means indispensable to them for carrying on and sustaining the contest on their part.* Thousands of illustations of the truth of this statement might be given. Take this one: On the second day of November, 1862, Gov. Brown, of Georgia, “Commander in Chief,” issued this edict: To the Planters of Georyia: Since my late appeal to some of you, I am informed by Brig.-Gen. MERcaER, conmanding at Savannah, that but few hands have been tendered. When the impressments made by Gen. Mercer, some weeks since, were loudly complained of, it was generally said that, while the planters objected to the principle of impressments, they would promptly furnish all the labor needed, if an appeal were made to them. I am informed that Gen. Mercer now has ample authority to make impressments.

If, then, a sufficient supply of labor is not tendered within ten days from this date, he will resort immediately to that means of procuring it with my full sanction, and I doubt not with the sanction of the General Assembly. After you have been repeatedly notified of the absolute necessity for more labor to complete the fortifications adjudged by the military authoritiesiin command to be indispensible to the defence of the key to the State, will you delay action till you are compelled to contribute means for the protection, not only of all your slaves, but of your homes, your firesides and your altars? I will not believe that there was a want of sincerity in your professions of iiberality and patriotism when many of you threatened resistance to impressment upon principle, and not because you were unwilling to aid the cause with your means. I renew the call for negroes to complete the fortifications around Savalnnah, and trust that every planter in Georgia will respond by a prompt tender of one-fifth of all his working men. As stated in my former appeal, the General in command will accept the number actually needed. JOSEPH E BROWN.

The Governor, it will be seen, calls for “one-fifth of all the working (slaves) men.” The slave population in Georgia, in 1860, exceeded 462,000; it is not an exaggerated estimate, that one in six of that population is a “working man;” this onesixth is more than 7,000, and one-fifth of that number is upwards of 15,000. The call is therefore for 15,000 “working men,” and this too in a single State, and for a limited purpose. And yet we have not the right to try to reader unavailable to the “enemy,” this powerful force!

Page 9 view page image

9 Without the agricultural and domestic labor of the slaves, tens of thousands of whites, who have been and now are in the rebel army, could not have been withdrawn fiom the cultivation of the ground, and the various other pursuits requisite to the supply, for that whole region, of the actual necessaries of life. Without the slaves, their numerous and extensive earthworks, fortifications, and the like, their imnmense transportation of military stores and munitions, a vast amount of labor in camps and onI marches (to say nothing of the actual service as soldiers, said in many instances to have been rendered by slaves), could by no possibility have been accomplished. The intent and design of the proclamation, its actual effect, if it hlas its inentfeded operation, is to forever deprive the ” enemy?’ of this vital, absolutely essential, and, as I have just said, indispeensable, means of carrying on the war. In reason, in common sense, in national law, in the law of civilized war, what objection can exist to oiur using our power to attain an end so just, so lawful, and I may say so beneficent, and so humane, as thus depriving our ” enemy” of his iieans of warfare? I do not believe that you, on more mature reflection, will deny the truth of what I have just stated. But you say, ” grant that we have this power and this right, they cannot be exercised by the President,” and for the exer cise of this power, he is charged by you with ” usurpation.” A few considerations will show the fallacy, the manifest unsoundness and error of your views and arguments onil this point I mlay, in the first place, remarkl that the very tite of your pamnplhlet, “‘Executive Power,” is a ” delusion and a snare.” The case does not give rise to the investigation of the Presidenit’s’

executive poweI.” ThIe word ” executive,” manifestly and froiom the whole context of thl)e Constitution, has reference to the civil power of the President, to his -various civil duties as the head of the nation, in “
seeing that the laws are executed “-to his duties in time of peace, though of course the same “executive” duties still continue in time of war; but to themi, in tl1at event, are superadded others, which, in no just or proper sense, can be termed ” executive,” but which pertain to him in, time of war as ” Commander-in-Chief. These latter duties are provided for by the letter and by the spirit of other

Page 10 view page image

10 provisions of the Constitution, by the very nature and necessity of the case, by the first law of nature and of nations, the law of s _tfpreservation. What is tlhe meaning and illtent of thle constitutional direction to the Presicldent, “that he shall preserve, piotect, (and dfentd the Constitutio),,” unless in time of war he can do so in his capacity of ” Commander-in-Chlief,” unless in time of war, he shall have the power to adopt and carry out as to tAe enemy such measures as thle 7aws of war justify, and as he may deemn necessary. Is the Constitution designed to do away these laws, and render them inapplicable to our nation-in other words, is tlie Constitution a felo de se? It cannot be denied, that in tilne of war, at least, the President, while in a civil sense the ” ex ecentive” is at the same time the militarv head of the nation-” the Commnander-in-Chlief”and as such dis 1” command” is necessarily co-extensive witlh the country. I cannot, onl tlhis point, quote anything imore true and more apposite than a parag,ra)h of your own.

“In time of WCr. without any specia6 gegislcttion, the (our) Connmndei’-in,Cltdf is lawfully empowzered by t/,e Constitution, and lasv of the Uizited States to do whatever i.s Neeessary a)d is sanctioned by the laws of wcir to aceompTlis3 thJe lazf it objects of Ihi8 co))2m(tiid.”

This is, undoubtedly, the constitutional law of the landl, and being so, it of necessity upsets acnd overturns all your objections to’the proclam’ttion in question. The ” lawvful object ” of the President at this mioment is to preserve the Constitution by putting an end to this rebellion. In order to do this, it is necessary to deprive the rebels of their means of sustaining the rebellion-one of the most effective and available of those means, as just shown, is their slaves; the intent and object of the proclamation are to deprive tlhnem of those means. The so depriving, them ” is sanctioned by the laws of war,” and, consequently, tlhis act of the President is, within your own doeti-rine, perfectly leg,al and constitutional. The same argument which you make against presidential power was made in Cross v. I-iarrison, 16 Iloward, 1(4, in tlhe Supremie C3ourt of the United States, in a ease occurring during, eud arising out of, our war with Mexico, in the judgment in which case you, as one Cf the Justices of thlat Court, concurred.

Page 11 view page image

11 In that case the Piresident, withiout any specific provision in the Constitution-witlihout any law of Congress pre-existing or adoptedt foib the occasion, created a civil governmient in California, established a war tariff; and (by his agents) collected duties. The Court l,eld tlat these acts (to use their own lan lguage) ” were righltful and constitutional, though Congress had passed no law on the subject;” tflat ” tlhose acts of the President wreie tle exercise of a belligerent iy/It; that they were according to tlhe law of ii’?8s and right onl the general pgeinjcples of Wvctr and peace.” Wlio will allege, that tlhe acts of the President on that occasion w-ele not, to say the least, as unauthorized )y the Constitution and the law as his proclamation in the )present case? And yet you did not dissent from tihe judg eint of tlhe Court, you did not speak of those acts as acts of “LExective ”’ power, for the term would have been there, as it is lhere, whlolly inapplicable; you (lid not then charge the Priesildent with usurpation. The whole case there was, as it is here, a case arising out of belligerent rilghts and duties, out of a stcte of wc,t; and the President’s acts were there, as he”e, not in contradiction to, and disparagement of, the Constitutionl, but consistent therewith, on tlhe great ground thlat tl-he Constitution nowhere repeals, but, oni tle contrary, fromn the necessities of its own existenice and preservation, recognlizes the laws of war in a state of wa7. Similar autliorities in abundance migh,lt be cited, l)nt it would be a work of s,pi)cicrrogation.

Ir nlay not be amiss, however, to refei-n th!is connection to tlhe hlonored name of John Quincy Adams, oi tlle very point inow in question, namely, the constitutional rigliLt cf t}ie President to issue tAis proclam.ation. No citizen of this land will deny to -Ir. Adams as perfect aUi acquaintance with the spirit and nature of our institutions, as mninute a knowledge of the provisions, expressed andci implied, of the constitution, and as ardent a desire to preserve them in tlheir purity, as were ever possessed by any manl living or dead. He was distinguished, too, for the nmost delicate moral sense, the purest integrity, a-nd tlhe deepest conscientiousness. I thllinkl 1no man who has taken an official oath ever felt a more earnest and constant desire on no occasion to violate it. Now, Mlr. Adams, while a inemibei of the IHouse of Representatives, in a

Page 12 view page image

debate in the House, on an important subject, in April, 1842, after stating that slavery was abolished in Columbia, first by the Spanish General Murillo, and secondly by the American Generctl Bolivar, by virtue of a n)ilitary comm,ac2d given at the head of the aren/, and that its abolition continued to this day, declares that “in a state of actual wvar the law8 of **ar take precedence over civil laws and municipal institutions. I lay this down as the law of nations. I say that the military authority takes for the time the place of all municipal institutions, slavery among the rest, and that under that state of things, so far from its being true that the States, where slavery exists, have the exclusive management of thle subject, not only tlhe President of the United States, but the (subordinate) conmmander of the army has tieepowei to order the ernaiciepatiou of the slaves.” This is the ” true saying” of a great constitutional lawyer, a pure patriot, a conscientious man Indeed, I doubt whl)ether any man in this country, whose position entitles his opinions to any consideration, will be found to concur in your views. They are not adopted-indeed, they are repudiated by the most prominent leader of the IDemocratic party. Thus, Mr. John Van BuLren (in a speech before the Dem-nocratic Union Association of the city of New York, on the 10thl of Novetuber, instant) said: “I never said anything in reference to that pro clamationt except that it was a matter of questionable expediency. I have never deemed it ueonzsti,tttioial. I have never even asserted that, as a wactr qzeasu2e it might not lhave been expedient.” It would seemi idle to add more in demonstration of the clear, unquestionable power’ of the President (I may say, of his solemn dvty) “as commander in chief,” in the exercise of a militaiy power,; during a state of war,” to issue the proclamation in question. The ground of objection you most prominently put forth is, indeed, extraordinary, and, without offence I trust I may say, monstroulls. It is no more nor less than this: ” The persons who are the subjects of this proclamation are held to service by the 7aw8 of the States in which they reside, enacted by State authority.” “This proclamation by an executive decree proposes to repeat and annul valid State laws, which iregulate the domestic relations of their people,” and this ” as a punishmenlt against 12

Page 13 view page image

13 the entire people of a State by reason of the criminal conduct of a governing mqjority of its people.” Never was more error, gross, palpable, grievous, found in a single brief paragraph. tarik the existing state of things. These ” States” are each and every of them in rebellion against their country and their Government; they are waging against it the most bloody and relentless war; they totally condemn and repudiate the constitution of their country; they deny that it has any, the least, authoriity over them; they are making almost superhuman efforts to overthrow and destroy it; the people, as individuals, and the States in their corporate, municipal capacities go hand in hand together in this awful work, and yet you claim foi them the protection of that very constitution; you claim the inviolability of their Statg laws under that constitution. You claim that those laws are “valid” and operative, and are to shield arid protect, aid and assist them in their unhallowed attempt to destroy their country!! It is difficult to imagine under what hallucination you were laboring when you gave utterance to those sentiments. The bare statement of the case must carry to every sane mind, North and South, the instant refutation of your propositions. The very rebels themselves, to wlhon you offer the protection of the “
constitution,” would, with wrathful indignation, spurn the offer. You speak of the proclamation as a “threatened penalty ” as “a punishment to the entire people of a state…….. by reason of the criminal conduct of a governing majority of the people.” I lhave already shown, satisfactorily I trust, that the act of the President partakes in no sense of the character of a “pen. alty ” or ” a punishment,” but is simply the exercise of his constitutional power, in a time of war, to devise and adopt anrid carry out against the enemy suchl measures as he may judge to be for the good of his country; for the defeat of that enemy, anrid for the successful and speedy ending of “the war.” You draw a distinction, unheard of, I imagine, till announced by you, a distinction between the “people of a State,” and the “governing majority ” of that people; a distinction, too. which is to operate, in t time war, against the party with whloni that “State” is at war!! I venture to say, that no writer on the law of na

Page 14 view page image

14 tions, no judicial tribunal, no intelligent iani, has up to tlhis lour, believedc or stated that, in the case of fobreign war above supposed, the ” governing nmajority ” was nriot to all legal an(d all practical purposes, “the State.” Were the United States at vwar witli any foreign power-a war sanctioned by the “governing majority,” (as our war of 1812,) but a war whiichl you and others (a minority) wholly disapproved; and that foreign powerl adopted some war mreasure which would operate on ” the entire people,” of the United States, could you and your associates of the minority, or any principle of law, military or civil, of justice, of reason, or of mercy, claim exemption fiom the effects of that measure? The case supposed is precisely the case as it nowv exists between the ” United States of America” on the one hand, and the “Rebel States and people,” on the other. Again), you state as a, serious, if not conclusive objection to tle proclamation, that “it is on the slaves of loyal persons or of tlhose who from their teiider years, or other disability, cannot be either disloyal or otherwise, that the proclamation is to o0)erate.” Have your countrymen at tlhis hour, to learn for the first time, that the ” sun shiines alike on the just and on the unjust,” that storms and whirlwind overwhelm at the sane time thie righteous and the wicked and that the calamities of war, fi-om the very necessity of the case, fall indiscriminately on the innocent and the guilty, the strong and tlhe helpless, on those of mature and those of” tender years?” But as to this last objection, it lacks one material quality, namely, foundation in fact.

That part of the proclamation, whlichl you have so strangely, as observed above, omitted, provides for the case of the very persoIns for whlom your sympathies are excited. It pledges to tlienm compensation. I say “pledges,” for it declares “that tile Executive will in due time recommend that all persons wlho have remained loyal, (of course including in its spirit tlhose who from tender years, or otherwise were incapable of being, disloyal,) shall be comlpensated for all losses by acts of tlhe United States, including the loss ofslaves8.” No future Congress of the United States will be so lost to all sense of honor and obligation as not to pass, and no future President so degraded as not to

Page 15 view page image

15 approve, a bill redeeuingi this solemn and sacred ” pledge” of the Ilead of thle nation. Again, you advert in no part of your argument, to the vital fact that this proclamatioll is not absolute and unconditional, but that it depends even for its existence ])racticilly on the acts and will of the rebels themnselves. If they so elect, it is never to go into opercition, and they have abunldant time to make that election, namely, firom the 22d of September, 1S62, to the 1st day of Janualry, 1863. But your argumtent, in cll its ~sse8ztial particugar, would ihave been just the same as you now address it to your fellowcitizens, if this proclamation had been absolute, had declared universal emancipation, to go into effect on the day of its date, and (as already remarked) had Inot provided compensation to the loyal, and had been issued in a timne of prof(lund peace. You profess, in your argument, siInplvy to examine “the nature and extent, anld the asserted source of the power h)y whicil it is claimed that the issuing of this ploclaination was autihorized;” and it was ” for the purpose of saying sometllil to your countrymen to aid them in foirmintg right coneclusions,” that youl “reluctantly addressed thlem.”

TIhe policy, the expediency, the utility tile practical efl’ects, per se, of the l)roclatmation, youl say, you do not “propose to discuss,” yet you intimcte, that by means of this proclamnation, if executed, ” scenes of bloodsihed and worse thlan bloodshed are to be passed tlilrougil,” and yout express, in no unequivocal manner, a doubt “as to the lawfulness, in any Christian or civilized land, of the use of such mneans (that is, this proclamation) to attain any end.” You intimate, too, that “a servile war is to be invoked to help twenty millions of thie white race to assert the rightful authority of the Constitution and laws of their country.” All these direful forebodings are put forthl in half a dozen lines, certainly not to “aid your fellow citizens in forming right conclusions,” but through their sympathies and their fears to induce the concurrence of their reason in your views as to the power to do the act in question.

These “givings out” of yours require a passing notice. In the first place, whlere is your authority for the allegations as to “scenes of bloodshed and a servile war?” I am not an

Page 16 view page image

16 abolitionist, nor a believer in the social andpolitical equality of the black and white races (thoulgh I have an opinion on the subject of the effect of the institution of slavery on the white man and white woman, who have been nurtured under its influence, and on the question of the compatability of tIhe institution with a republican form of government). I amn even called by some a pro-slavery man. Yet I see no ” scenes of bloodshed,” no “servile war,” in the event of the practical carrying out of this proclamation. This, however, is a miere matter of speculation and opinion, and while I freely concede your right to entertain your own, I claim my right to entertain mine. Our means of forming, our opinions are the same; we both have the same lights, and the result alone can show which of us is right. But, in the next place, assuming the consequences to be just such as you imagine, who is responsible for those consequences?

They cannot come, as you will admit, if the rebels return to thei,r atllegiance; if they cease their unhallowed efforts to overthrow their government; if they become dutiful citizens. If they do not, it is not your fault nor mine, nor that of our fellowcitizens, nor of the President, nor of the government of the United States-it is solely, wholly, unquestionably, their own. Again, you look with evident heartfelt horror at the events which you thus contemplate. Have you no horror, no tears of sympathy, no’ bowels of compassion,” when you reflect on the multitudes, the thousands of valuable loyal lives lost, homes grlief-stricken, parents rendered childless, and children rendered orphans; the desolation and misery of whole neighborhoods, to say nothing of the enormous material destruction caused to citizeus of thle loyal states in this war-a war on our part, as you say, “so just and necessary,” and on the part of the rebels so wicked, so wanton, so utterly causeless, and so wholly unjustifiable. Though no man of humanity could look with other than deep distress on the “scenes of bloodshed,” and the “servile war,” you imagine (should they become realities), surely it cannot be believed, that the amount of distress and suffering, that would thus ensue, would equalit surely cannot surpassthe distress and suffering that have already been endured by

Page 17 view page image

the loyal citizens of this repnublic in consequence of this rebel lion.

You doubt the la\fuil,.iess,” inr this Cliristian and civil ized land, of ~7e use of such lmeans (as this proclamation) to attain,,2zy end. And hIas it cone to thlis, that a distinguished citizen of the repulie doubts, whetlher a proclamation emanci1)patinc tle slaves in those State~s, which shall be in rebellion on 1the first of Jantay-T next, may not be “; used as the means” ” to attaiu the end” (gran’ting tuiat iR may 1hereby be attained) of ending thlis war of rebellion, andI thus of saving our Constitution, our governmeni or e n * sion, and of still preserving for ourselves ancl tf-comingi genei-ations, here and( elsewhere, the onlly renI Tq 1P}- of civil and ielgious liberty in which men ca w olr shi p on earth. You speakl of’ lawfulness” in this cOnnilctiol ratheri n p,zo.,7
tl~,tin in any other sense; the right endI poleOr in Cb 7-,,; i co i,t,titoni seo2 sea, to issue this .proelamat~ ion has.l:_’. e,y b leei -
d iemonstrated. In a docuimntL intended, after study and reflection,” ” to aid the ci,zon, of tlis r epnublic to form a right conclusion” on matte,rs of suriasr si)n magnoiitudcle and solemnity-matters imperilling their.

very ibertie, as yon state, a religious, scrupuloes reg,ard to tiruLth in every material respect, was, of course, to be expected, and departure from truth may consist as well in omission and supipresion as in direct assertion. I have al’eady wentioned th.at you have vwholly omitted, in the statement of the proclamnation, the compensatory part, and that you onit to bring forward, except merely incidentally, another most material Ipart of it, inaon,..y, its conditional, cl7tern(atve character. Whethe.r youLr statemeni: t as to the ” social condition of nine millions of men,” lles reference to both white and black, or to thel white only, it is difficult to determine fromn the context; if it has reference to the white, you commit a very serious error for the vwhlole ite population of thlc rebel states (to wvhichl alone the proclamation and your argumient relate), according to the last census (1860)), dcoes not exceed four and one half nillions. In qtuoting the opinion of ttheC lamented Judge Woodbury, you omit to state that it was a dissenting opinion, concurred in 2C l T, I

Page 18 view page image

is by no other Judge, founded essentially, if not solely, on the fact assumed by him, that at the time, in question in that case, “a state of war ” did not exist ill Rhode Island, where the matter arose. In so grave a paper prepared, as you assert, so deliberately, put forth under an imperative and resistless imr pulse of patriotic apprehension that the liberties of the country were in imminent peril, (not from the rebellion, but from the acts of the President, designed to crtushl the rebellion), in such a paper, I say, it would seem that we ought not to be terrified by “
portentous clouds,” ” gigantic shadows,” the phrase ” usurpation of power,” often repeated, the ” loss of his head by Charles I.” “seven hundred years of struggles against arbitrary power,” and many other similar appeals, by modes of expression, to,mnythiig but.that eoalrb reason which enables us to ” form right conclusions in dark and dangerous times.” Much less in suc. a grave document from such a source, should important stress be laid on the expression, of anl unnamed and irresponsible editor of a newspaper,-c that nobody pretends that this act is constitutional, and nobody cares whether it is or not.” That this editor was at least a very inferior constitutional lawyer, is very clear, and that this text from his paper should have furnished a peg, on which to hang an alarming commentary on the “lawlessness” of the times, is at least extraordinary, and that lawlessness too, not the lawlessness of rebels nor of rebel syi~)cet/i-zers. You ask, in view of the President’s proclamation, ” Who can imagine what is to come out of this great and desperate struggle? The military power of eleven of these states being des, troyed, what then? What is to be their condition? What is to be our condition?” Your questions admit of a ready answer. The Unitel States of Amnerica are to come out of the struggle, a great, a united, a powerful, a free people, purified by the fires of adversity, and taught by their tremendous calamities the lessons of moderation and humility. The people of the rebel 8tates, who choose to remain in theim, are to come out of the struggle as citizens of states forming a part, as heretofore, of the United States, and with them, and as parts of them, they are in future to enjoy the blessings of a well regulated liberty, they having, in the I i

Page 19 view page image

19 mean time been taught a lesson of infinitely greater severity than that by which their brethren of the loyal states have been instructed. Whatever they have necessarily and legitimately lost in material things, by reason of the war they have waged, is, of course, lost to them forever; if their slave property is thus lost, it is lost, and that is all that can be said as to that. Then’ their condition” and’ our condition” is to be in substance just what it was before the rebellion, and what it would have continued to be but for the rebellion, with this only difference, that they and we will hleave learned the priceless value of the Union, and for generations to come treason and rebellion will not raise their horrid heads. Perhaps you may call this the dream of an enthusiast. Rely on it, I speak only the words of ” truth and soberness;” and if you are spared for a brief period, you will be rejoiced, I trust, to witness their full realization. I?joiced, I say, because from your pamphlet, you would have your countrymen infer, and I am bound to presume, that nothing but your intense love of your and their country and your agitating apprehensions that the “principles of liberty” are greviously to suffer (not from the 9ebetlio?b but from the acts of t/Je Presic7ent), has induced you to address them. You say the ” cry of disloyalty” has been raised against any one who should question these executive acts. I know not whlether that epithet has been applied to you; if it has been, I am bound to believe that the imputation was without cause, and that you are a faithful, loyal citizen of the Republic. But the greatest and the best are liable to err, and I may be permitted to say, that, however honestly and sincerely you entertain the sentiments you express, you have selected an inopportune mioment for their expression; and that at this particular period of our country’s history, your ” studies and reflections,” your time and your efforts, would, to say the least, have been more benignly and gracefully employed in presenting to your countrymen a life-like picture of the rec,t character of this rebellion, and in impressing on them with stirring and glowing eloquence the momentous duty it devolved on them You could, with perfect verity) have told them, that this war, inaugurated by the rebel States, was wholly anl absolutely vitl?out caese’ in proof

Page 20 view page image

O20 of that assertion,, you could hlave stated thiree facts, so undeniable that the hardiest rebel, not bereft of reason, would not dispulte tllhem, First.-TlThat on the 1st day of November, 1S60O, no people on the globe were in the more perfect enjovment of civil and religious liberty, of social, personal, anld domnestic security; of mnore entire protection in the poss.essien and use of all their property, of every inc/; and of more-maoterial prosperity, tlhan the people of the eleven rebel States.

Secoi(zc7.-That for all thlese blessiigs, as great as were ever vouchsafed by Godl to man, thlose peo)ple were indebted entirely to that Constitutio and( thlat nIon ii i,1 tei relon -as undertaken to destiroy. .Thirc7.

‘lhat from the cday of the organization of the Government under that Constitution, in the year 1IS9, down to the day when this rebellion began its infao ns and unhlallowed work, there never had been, on tie part of that Government, a single act of hostility, nor eve(n of u:ikindne:,: tow.

rd ti’ese States or their people. You should then hlave pointed out to youtr’ countrymen,,” i, lang,uage more persuasive and emphlatic tlhan I can use, their solemn and imperative duty as patriots, as christians, and as men, in this hour of their country’s suffering and peril and-cl you should have told themi that if these times are, as you say, ” dark and dangerous,” this darkness and this danger have been caused by the wicked acts of th-ese rebellious men. In such ani address to your coulitrymeli, your dedicatio,n would have ben not merely’” To all persons lwho hiave sworn to) supp)ort the Constitution of the JUnited States, and to all citizens twho Yalue tlhe principles of civil liberty which ti]at Constitution embodies, and for the preservation of which it is our only security>” but also, “to all persons who abhlor treason and rebellion against that Constitution, and to all vlwho prize the inestimrable blessings of our hlallowed Union, and to all vwho lHold dear the:farewell words of the Father of his country.;”

Page 21 view page image

21 I had intended, in this letter, to comment on that part of your pamphlet which relates to the President’s proclamation of the 24th of September, 1S62, but this paper is already sufficiently extended. It would, I think, be easy to show that the dreadful dangers you apprehend are, in truth, to use your own te.rms, ”’ portentous clouds” and “
gigantic shadows” of your own creation. At any rate you may rest assured, if you and I and all others of our fellow citizens, outside of the rebel states, shlall make honest, earnest, determined efforts for the putting an effective end to this rebellion (and that such will be the case I, loving my country and knowing the unspeacabge vwue of te stake, have no right nor reason to doubt), those efforts will be crowned with speedy and triumphant success, peace and harmony will be restored to the republic, the “
principles of civil liberty” will not have suffered, and the bugbears of “usurpation,” “arbitrary power,” and other similar chimeras, which excited imaginations and gloomy tempers have evoked, will disappear forever. Hald you been an unknown and obscure citizen, any notice of your pamphlet would have been supererogatory; but because of the influence calculated to be exerted by anything coming firom the pen of one who had but recently been the incumbent of the highest office in the gift of the Government, and who is now in the exalted walks of social and professional life, I have deemed it my duty to present these views of your argument, and thus ” possibly.

to aid imyi countrymen” in forming right conclusions ” as to its merits and the merits of the siubject of which it treats. I hear that others have published answers to your paper Not having seen any of them, I know not but that I may have merely repeated their views; if so, no harm is done; if I have presented any that are new, “possibly” some good may result. \ew Yorlk, l’\ov. 28th, 1862. CHARLES P. IKIRKLAND.

Page 22 view page image

Powered by DLXS

To comment or inquire about content, contact moa-feedback@umich.edu To report errors, contact umdl-help@umich.edu

Reprint Information for this collection