a somewhat "devious course," as it was
characterized by another Senator, to make remarks upon the subject of
reconstruction. Many questions and remarks were interposed by other
Senators, giving the discussion an exceedingly colloquial style.

At length, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, having obtained the floor, spoke
in favor of the bill. He said: "If I understand correctly the
interpretation given by several Senators to the constitutional
amendment abolishing slavery, it is this: that the sole effect of it
is to cut and sever the mere legal ligament by which the person and
the service of the slave was attached to his master, and that beyond
this particular office the amendment does not go; that it can have no
effect whatever upon the condition of the emancipated black in any
other respect. In other words, they hold that it relieves him from his
so-called legal obligation to render his personal service to his
master without compensation, and there leaves him, totally,
irretrievably, and without any power on the part of Congress to look
after his well-being from the moment of this mockery of emancipation.
Sir, such was not the intention of the friends of this amendment at
the time of its initiation here, and at the time of its adoption; and
I undertake to say that it is not the construction which is given to
it by the bar throughout the country, and much less by the
liberty-loving people.

"But let us look more closely at this narrow construction. Where does
it leave us? We are told that the amendment simply relieves the slave
from the obligation to render service to his master. What is a slave
in contemplation of American law, in contemplation of the laws of all
the slave States? We know full well; the history of two hundred years
teaches us that he had no rights, nor nothing which he could call his
own. He had not the right to become a husband or a father in the eye
of the law; he had no child; he was not at liberty to indulge the
natural affections of the human heart for children, for wife, or even
for friend. He owned no property, because the law prohibited him. He
could not take real or personal estate either by sale, by grant, or by
descent or inheritance. He did not own the bread he earned and ate. He
stood upon the face of the earth completely isolated from the society
in which he happened to be. He was nothing but a chattel, subject to
the will of his owner, and unprotected in his rights by the law of the
State where