FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   789   790   791   792   793   794   795   796   797   798   799   800   801   802   803   804   805   806   807   808   809   810   811   812   813  
814   815   816   817   818   819   820   821   822   823   824   825   826   827   828   829   830   831   832   833   834   835   836   837   838   >>   >|  
f slaves is purely political and not within the range of military law or necessity. If a commanding general finds a necessity to seize the farm of a private owner for a pasture, an encampment, or a fortification, he has the right to do so, and to so hold it as long as the necessity lasts; and this is within military law, because within military necessity. But to say the farm shall no longer belong to the owner, or his heirs forever, and this as well when the farm is not needed for military purposes as when it is, is purely political, without the savor of military law about it. And the same is true of slaves. If the general needs them, he can seize them and use them; but when the need is past, it is not for him to fix their permanent future condition. That must be settled according to laws made by law-makers, and not by military proclamations. The proclamation in the point in question is simply "dictatorship." It assumes that the general may do anything he pleases confiscate the lands and free the slaves of loyal people, as well as of disloyal ones. And going the whole figure, I have no doubt, would be more popular with some thoughtless people than that which has been done, But I cannot assume this reckless position, nor allow others to assume it on my responsibility. You speak of it as being the only means of saving the government. On the contrary, it is itself the surrender of the government. Can it be pretended that it is any longer the Government of the United States--any government of constitution and laws wherein a general or a president may make permanent rules of property by proclamation? I do not say Congress might not with propriety pass a law on the point, just such as General Fremont proclaimed. I do not say I might not, as a member of Congress, vote for it. What I object to is, that I, as President, shall expressly or impliedly seize and exercise the permanent legislative functions of the government. So much as to principle. Now as to policy. No doubt the thing was popular in some quarters, and would have been more so if it had been a general declaration of emancipation. The Kentucky Legislature would not budge till that proclamation was modified; and General Anderson telegraphed me that on the news of General Fremont having actually issued deeds of manumission, a whole company of our volunteers threw down their arms and disbanded. I was so assured as to think it probable that the very arms we had furni
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   789   790   791   792   793   794   795   796   797   798   799   800   801   802   803   804   805   806   807   808   809   810   811   812   813  
814   815   816   817   818   819   820   821   822   823   824   825   826   827   828   829   830   831   832   833   834   835   836   837   838   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

military

 

general

 
government
 

necessity

 

General

 

proclamation

 

permanent

 
slaves
 

people

 

assume


Congress

 

Fremont

 

popular

 

purely

 
political
 

longer

 

assured

 

volunteers

 

probable

 

propriety


disbanded

 

property

 
pretended
 
Government
 
surrender
 

contrary

 
United
 

States

 
president
 
constitution

quarters
 

policy

 
telegraphed
 
Legislature
 

Anderson

 

Kentucky

 
declaration
 
emancipation
 

principle

 
manumission

object

 

President

 

modified

 

proclaimed

 

member

 

expressly

 
impliedly
 

issued

 
functions
 

legislative