Download the full version of the ebook now at ebooksecure.

com

Health Psychology 5ce 5th CDN Edition Shelley

Taylor - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/health-
psychology-5ce-ebook-pdf/

Explore and download more ebook at https://ebooksecure.com

 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

Health Psychology 9th Edition by Shelley E Taylor

https://ebooksecure.com/product/health-psychology-9th-edition-by-
shelley-e-taylor/

ebooksecure.com

Health Psychology 11th Edition Shelley E. Taylor - eBook

PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/health-psychology-ebook-pdf/

ebooksecure.com

Promoting Health: The Primary Health Care Approach 7th

Edition Jane Taylor - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/promoting-health-the-primary-health-
care-approach-ebook-pdf/

ebooksecure.com

(eBook PDF) Medicine for Consumers 1st Edition

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-medicine-for-consumers-1st-
edition/

ebooksecure.com
Fundamentals of Management 6th Asia-Pacific Edition
Edition Danny Samson - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/fundamentals-of-management-ebook-pdf/

ebooksecure.com

(eBook PDF) Business Accounting 3rd Edition

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-business-accounting-3rd-
edition/

ebooksecure.com

(eBook PDF) Econometric Analysis of Panel Data 5th Edition

by Badi H. Baltagi

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-econometric-analysis-of-
panel-data-5th-edition-by-badi-h-baltagi/

ebooksecure.com

(eBook PDF) Statistics for Economics, Accounting and

Business Studies 7th Edition

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-statistics-for-economics-
accounting-and-business-studies-7th-edition/

ebooksecure.com

(eBook PDF) Substance Abuse Treatment: A Companion to the

American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Substance
Abuse Treatment 5 Stgth Edition
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-substance-abuse-treatment-a-
companion-to-the-american-psychiatric-publishing-textbook-of-
substance-abuse-treatment-5-stgth-edition/
ebooksecure.com
(eBook PDF) Communication in Everyday Life: Personal and
Professional Contexts

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-communication-in-everyday-
life-personal-and-professional-contexts-2/

ebooksecure.com
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
 Third Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress.

Excluding Colored Persons from Cars.

In Senate—1863, February 27—Pending a supplement to the
charter of the Washington and Alexandria Railroad Company, Mr.
Sumner offered this proviso to the first section:
That no person shall be excluded from the cars on account of color.
Which was agreed to—yeas 19, nays 18, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Arnold, Chandler, Clark, Fessenden, Foot, Grimes,
Harris, Howard, King, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sumner,
Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilmot, Wilson, of
Massachusetts—19.
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Carlile, Cowan, Davis,
Henderson, Hicks, Howe, Kennedy, Lane of Indiana, Latham,
McDougall, Powell, Richardson, Saulsbury, Turpie, Willey, Wilson
of Missouri—18.
March 2.—The House concurred in the amendment without
debate, under the previous question.
 First Session, Thirty-Eighth Congress.

In Senate—1864, February 10—Mr. Sumner offered the following:

Resolved, That the Committee on the District of Columbia be
directed to consider the expediency of further providing by law
against the exclusion of colored persons from the equal enjoyment of
all railroad privileges in the District of Columbia.
Which was agreed to—yeas 30, nays 10.
February 24—Mr. Willey, from the Committee on the District of
Columbia, made this report, and the committee were discharged.
The Committee on the District of Columbia, who were required by
resolution of the Senate, passed February 8, 1864, “to consider the
expediency of further providing by law against the exclusion of
colored persons from the equal enjoyment of all railroad privileges in
the District of Columbia,” have had the matter thus referred to them
under consideration, and beg leave to report:
The act entitled “An act to incorporate the Washington and
Georgetown Railroad Company,” approved May 17, 1862, makes no
distinction as to passengers over said road on account of the color of
the passengers, and that in the opinion of the committee colored
persons are entitled to all the privileges of said road which other
persons have, and to all remedies for any denial or breach of such
privileges which belongs to any person.
The committee therefore ask to be discharged from the further
consideration of the premises.
March 17—The Senate considered the bill to incorporate the
Metropolitan Railroad Company, in the District of Columbia, the
pending question being an amendment, offered by Mr. Sumner, to
add to the fourteenth section the words:
Provided, That there shall be no regulation excluding any person
from any car on account of color.
 Which was agreed to—yeas 19, nays 17, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Clark, Conness, Fessenden, Foot,
Foster, Grimes, Harlan, Howe, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill,
Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sumner, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilson—19.
Nays—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Davis, Doolittle, Harding,
Harris, Hendricks, Johnson, Lane of Indiana, Powell, Riddle,
Saulsbury, Sherman, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey—17.
The bill then passed the Senate.
June 19—The House refused to strike out the proviso last adopted
in the Senate—yeas 60, nays 76.
And the bill passed the House and was approved by the President.
 Second Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress.

Colored Persons as Witnesses.

In Senate—Pending the confiscation bill, June 28, 1862.
Mr. Sumner moved these words as an addition to the 14th section:
And in all the proceedings under this act there shall be no
exclusion of any witness on account of color.
Which was rejected—yeas 14, nays 25, as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Chandler, Grimes, Harlan, Howard, King, Lane of
Kansas, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson,
Wilmot—14.
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Carlile, Clark, Collamer,
Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Harris,
Henderson, Lane of Indiana, Nesmith, Pearce, Powell, Sherman,
Simmons, Stark, Ten Eyck, Willey, Wilson of Missouri, Wright—25.
Pending the consideration of the supplement to the emancipation
bill for the District of Columbia,
1862, July 7—Mr. Sumner moved a new section:
That in all the judicial proceedings in the District of Columbia
there shall be no exclusion of any witness on account of color.
Which was adopted—yeas 25, nays 11.
The bill then passed—yeas 29, nays 6; (Messrs. Carlile, Davis,
Kennedy, Powell, Wilson, of Missouri, Wright.)
July 9—The bill passed the House—yeas 69, nays 36. There was no
separate vote on the above proposition.
Pending the consideration in the Senate of the House bill in
relation to the competency of witnesses in trials of equity and
admiralty,
1862, July 15—Mr. Sumner offered this proviso to the first section:
 Provided, That there shall be no exclusion of any witness on
account of color. Which was rejected—yeas 14, nays 23.
 First Session, Thirty-Eighth Congress.

1864, June 25—Pending the civil appropriation bill, in Committee

of the Whole, Mr. Sumner offered this proviso:
Provided, That in the courts of the United States there shall be no
exclusion of any witness on account of color.
Mr. Buckalew moved to add:
Nor in civil actions because he is a party to or interested in the
issue tried.
Which was agreed to; and the amendment as amended was agreed
to—yeas 22, nays 16.
The Senate subsequently concurred in this amendment—yeas 29,
nays 10.

IN HOUSE.

June 29—The question being on agreeing to the amendment,

Mr. Mallory moved to add this proviso to the section amended in
the Senate:
Provided, That negro testimony shall only be taken in the United
States courts in those States the laws of which authorize such
testimony.
Which was rejected—yeas 47, nays 66.
The amendment of the Senate was then agreed to—yeas 67, nays
48.

COLORED SCHOOLS.
 June 8.—The House passed a bill to provide for the public
instruction of youth in Washington city, with an amendment
providing for separate schools for the colored children, by setting
apart such a proportion of the entire school fund as the number of
colored children between the ages of six and seventeen bear to the
whole number of children in the District. The bill, with amendments,
passed both Houses without a division.
On all of these questions of color, the Democrats invariably, on test
votes, were found against any concession of rights to the negro.
These were frequently aided by some Republicans, more
conservative than their colleagues, or representing closer districts
where political prejudices would affect their return to their seats. It
will be observed that on nearly all these questions Senator Charles
Sumner took the lead. He was at that time pre-eminently the Moses
of the colored man, and led him from one right to another through
Senatorial difficulties, which by the way, were never as strong as that
in the House, where Thaddeus Stevens was the boldest champion of
“the rights of the black man.” In the field, rather in the direction of
what should be done with the “contrabands” and escaped slaves, the
Secretary of War, General Cameron, was their most radical friend,
and his instructions were so outspoken that Lincoln had to modify
them. As early as December 1, 1861, General Cameron wrote:
“While it is plain that the slave property of the South is justly
subjected to all the consequences of this rebellious war, and that the
Government would be untrue to its trust in not employing all the
rights and powers of war to bring it to a speedy close, the details of
the plan for doing so, like all other military measures, must, in a
great degree, be left to be determined by particular exigencies. The
disposition of other property belonging to the rebels that becomes
subject to our arms is governed by the circumstances of the case. The
Government has no power to hold slaves, none to restrain a slave of
his liberty, or to exact his service. It has a right, however, to use the
voluntary service of slaves liberated by war from their rebel masters,
like any other property of the rebels, in whatever mode may be most
efficient for the defence of the Government, the prosecution of the
war, and the suppression of rebellion. It is clearly a right of the
government to arm slaves when it may become necessary as it is to
take gunpowder from the enemy. Whether it is expedient to do so is
purely a military question. The right is unquestionable by the laws of
war. The expediency must be determined by circumstances, keeping
in view the great object of overcoming the rebels, re-establishing the
laws, and restoring peace to the nation.
“It is vain and idle for the Government to carry on this war, or
hope to maintain its existence against rebellious force, without
enjoying all the rights and powers of war. As has been said, the right
to deprive the rebels of their property in slaves and slave labor is as
clear and absolute as the right to take forage from the field, or cotton
from the warehouse, or powder and arms from the magazine. To
leave the enemy in the possession of such property as forage and
cotton and military stores, and the means of constantly reproducing
them, would be madness. It is, therefore, equal madness to leave
them in peaceful and secure possession of slave property, more
valuable and efficient to them for war than forage, cotton and
military stores. Such policy would be national suicide. What to do
with that species of property is a question that time and
circumstances will solve, and need not be anticipated further than to
repeat that they cannot be held by the Government as slaves. It
would be useless to keep them as prisoners of war; and self-
preservation, the highest duty of a Government, or of individuals,
demands that they should be disposed of or employed in the most
effective manner that will tend most speedily to suppress the
insurrection and restore the authority of the Government. If it shall
be found that the men who have been held by the rebels as slaves are
capable of bearing arms and performing efficient military service, it
is the right, and may become the duty, of this Government to arm
and equip them, and employ their services against the rebels, under
proper military regulations, discipline and command.
“But in whatever manner they may be used by the Government, it
is plain that, once liberated by the rebellious act of their masters,
they should never again be restored to bondage. By the master’s
treason and rebellion he forfeits all right to the labor and service of
his slave; and the slave of the rebellious master, by his service to the
Government, becomes justly entitled to freedom and protection.
“The disposition to be made of the slaves of rebels, after the close
of the war, can be safely left to the wisdom and patriotism of
Congress. The representatives of the people will unquestionably
secure to the loyal slaveholders every right to which they are entitled
under the Constitution of the country.”
[Subsequent events proved the wisdom of this policy, and it was
eventually adopted by an Administration which proclaimed its policy
“to move not ahead but with the people.”]
President Lincoln and his Cabinet modified the above language so
as to make it read:
“It is already a grave question what shall be done with those slaves
who were abandoned by their owners on the advance of our troops
into southern territory, as at Beaufort district, in South Carolina. The
number left within our control at that point is very considerable, and
similar cases will probably occur. What shall be done with them? Can
we afford to send them forward to their masters, to be by them
armed against us, or used in producing supplies to sustain the
rebellion? Their labor may be useful to us; withheld from the enemy
it lessens his military resources, and withholding them has no
tendency to induce the horrors of insurrection, even in the rebel
communities. They constitute a military resource, and, being such,
that they should not be turned over to the enemy is too plain to
discuss. Why deprive him of supplies by a blockade, and voluntarily
give him men to produce them?
“The disposition to be made of the slaves of rebels, after the close
of the war, can be safely left to the wisdom and patriotism of
Congress. The Representatives of the people will unquestionably
secure to the loyal slaveholders every right to which they are entitled
under the Constitution of the country.”
Secretary Cameron was at all times in favor of “carrying the war
into Africa” and it was this stern view of the situation which
eventually led him to sanction measures which brought him into
plainer differences with the Administration. Lincoln took offense at
the printing of his report before submitting it to him. As a result he
resigned and went to Russia as Minister, on his return being again
elected to the United States Senate—a place which he filled until the
winter of 1877, when he resigned, and his son, J. Donald Cameron,
was elected to the vacancy, and re-elected for the term ending in
1885. General B. F. Butler was the author of the “contraband” idea. A
year later the views of the Administration became more radical on
questions of color, and July 22, 1862, Secretary Stanton ordered all
Generals in command “to seize and use any property, real or
personal, which may be necessary or convenient for their several
commands, for supplies, or for other military purposes; and that
while property may be destroyed for proper military objects, none
shall be destroyed in wantonness or malice.
“Second. That military and naval commanders shall employ as
laborers, within and from said States, so many persons of African
descent as can be advantageously used for military or naval
purposes, giving them reasonable wages for their labor.
“Third. That, as to both property, and persons of African descent,
accounts shall be kept sufficiently accurate and in detail to show
quantities and amounts, and from whom both property and such
persons shall have come, as a basis upon which compensation can be
made in proper cases; and the several departments of this
Government shall attend to and perform their appropriate parts
towards the execution of these orders.”
The manner and language employed by General McClellan in
promulgating this order to the Army of the Potomac, led to his
political differences with the Administration, and in the end caused
him to be the Democratic candidate for President in 1864, against
Lincoln. His language is peculiar and some of it worthy of
presentation as of political importance. He said:
“Inhabitants, especially women and children, remaining peaceably
at their homes, must not be molested; and wherever commanding
officers find families peculiarly exposed in their persons or property
to marauding from this army, they will, as heretofore, so far as they
can do with safety and without detriment to the service, post guards
for their protection.
“In protecting private property, no reference is intended to
persons held to service or labor by reason of African descent. Such
persons will be regarded by this army, as they heretofore have been,
as occupying simply a peculiar legal status under State laws, which
condition the military authorities of the United States are not
required to regard at all in districts where military operations are
made necessary by the rebellious action of the State governments.
“Persons subject to suspicion of hostile purposes, residing or being
near our forces, will be, as heretofore, subject to arrest and
detention, until the cause or necessity is removed. All such arrested
parties will be sent, as usual, to the Provost Marshal General, with a
statement of the facts in each case.
“The general commanding takes this occasion to remind the
officers and soldiers of this army that we are engaged in supporting
the Constitution and the laws of the United States and suppressing
rebellion against their authority; that we are not engaged in a war of
rapine, revenge, or subjugation; that this is not a contest against
populations, but against armed forces and political organizations;
that it is a struggle carried on with the United States, and should be
conducted by us upon the highest principles known to Christian
civilization.”
At this time such were the prejudices of Union soldiers against
negroes, because of growing political agitation in the North, that
many would loudly jeer them when seen within the lines. The feeling
was even greater in the ranks of civilians, and yet Congress moved
along, step by step. The 37th abolished slavery in the District of
Columbia; prohibited it in all the territories; confirmed the freedom
of the slaves owned by those in arms against the government;
authorized the employment of colored men in fortifications, their
enlistment, etc.; and enacted an additional article of war, which
prohibited any officer from returning or aiding the return of any
fugitive slave. These were rapid strides, but not as rapid as were
demanded by the more radical wing of the Republican party. We
have shown that most of them were opposed by the Democrats, not
solidly sure where they were plainly political, but this party became
less solid as the war advanced.
Senator Wilson was the author of the bill to abolish slavery in the
District of Columbia. It excited much debate, and the range of the
speeches covered the entire question of slavery. Those from the
Border States opposed it (a few Republicans and all Democrats) but
some of the Democrats of the North supported it. The vote in the
Senate was 29 for to 6 against. In the House Frank P. Blair, Jr.,
advocated colonization in connection with the bill, but his idea met
with little favor. Crittenden, Wickliffe and Vallandigham were
prominent in opposition. Its most prominent advocates were Stevens
of Pennsylvania, and Bingham of Ohio. The vote was 92 for to 38
against.
 The bill of Arnold, of Illinois, “to render freedom national and
slavery sectional,” the leading idea in the platform of the convention
which nominated Lincoln, prohibited slavery in “all the Territories of
the United States then existing, or thereafter to be formed or
acquired in any way.” It was vehemently opposed, but passed with
some modifications by 58 ayes to 50 noes, and it also passed the
Senate.
In the Spring of 1862 General David Hunter brought the question
of the enlistment of colored troops to a direct issue by raising a
regiment of them. On the 9th of June following, Mr. Wickliffe of
Kentucky, succeeded in getting the House to adopt a resolution of
inquiry. Correspondence followed with General Hunter. He
confessed the fact, stated that “he found his authority in the
instructions of Secretary Cameron, and said that he hoped by fall to
enroll about fifty thousand of these hardy and devoted soldiers.”
When this reply was read in the House it was greeted with shouts of
laughter from the Republicans, and signs of anger from the others. A
great debate followed on the amendment to the bill providing for the
calling out of the militia, clothing the President with full power to
enlist colored troops, and to proclaim “he, his mother, and wife and
children forever free,” after such enlistment. Preston King, of New
York, was the author of this amendment. Davis, of Kentucky, and
Carlisle of West Virginia, were prominent Senators in opposition;
while Ten Eyck, of New Jersey, Sherman of Ohio, and Browning of
Illinois sought to modify it. Garrett Davis said in opposition:
“Do you expect us to give our sanction and approval to these
things? No, no! We would regard their authors as our worst enemies;
and there is no foreign despotism that could come to our rescue, that
we would not fondly embrace, before we would submit to any such
condition of things.”
Senator Fessenden of Maine, in advocacy of the amendment, said:
“I tell the President from my place here as a Senator, and I tell the
generals of our army, they must reverse their practices and course of
proceeding on this subject. * * * Treat your enemies as enemies, as
the worst of enemies, and avail yourselves like men of every power
which God has placed in your hands, to accomplish your purpose,
within the rules of civilized warfare.”
 The bill passed, so modified, as to give freedom to all who should
perform military service, but restricting liberty to the families of such
only as belonged to rebel masters. It passed the House July 16th,
1862, and received the sanction of the President, who said:—“And
the promise made must be kept!” General Hunter for his part in
beginning colored enlistments, was outlawed by the Confederate
Congress. Hunter followed with an order freeing the slaves in South
Carolina.
In January, 1863, pursuant to a suggestion in the annual report of
Secretary Stanton, who was by this time as radical as his predecessor
in office, the House passed a bill authorizing the President to enroll
into the land and naval service such number of volunteers of African
descent as he might deem useful to suppress the rebellion, and for
such term as he might prescribe, not exceeding five years. The slaves
of loyal citizens in the Border States were excluded from the
provisions of this bill. In the Senate an adverse report was made on
the ground that the resident already possessed these powers.
In January, 1863, Senator Wilson, who was by this time chairman
of the Military Committee of the Senate, secured the passage of a bill
which authorized a draft for the National forces from the ranks of all
male citizens, and those of foreign birth who had declared their
intentions, etc. The bill contained the usual exemptions.

CONFEDERATE USE OF COLORED MEN.

In June, 1861, the rebel Legislature of Tennessee passed this

enlistment bill, which became a law:
Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of
Tennessee, That from and after the passage of this act the Governor
shall be, and he is hereby, authorized, at his discretion, to receive
into the military service of the State all male free persons of color
between the ages of fifteen and fifty, or such numbers as may be
necessary, who may be sound in mind and body, and capable of
actual service.
2. That such free persons of color shall receive, each, eight dollars
per month, as pay, and such persons shall be entitled to draw, each,
one ration per day, and shall be entitled to a yearly allowance each
for clothing.
3. That, in order to carry out the provisions of this act, it shall be
the duty of the sheriffs of the several counties in this State to collect
accurate information as to the number and condition, with the
names of free persons of color, subject to the provisions of this act,
and shall, as it is practicable, report the same in writing to the
Governor.
4. That a failure or refusal of the sheriffs, or any one or more of
them, to perform the duties required, shall be deemed an offence,
and on conviction thereof shall be punished as a misdemeanor.
5. That in the event a sufficient number of free persons of color to
meet the wants of the State shall not tender their services, the
Governor is empowered, through the sheriffs of the different
counties, to press such persons until the requisite number is
obtained.
6. That when any mess of volunteers shall keep a servant to wait
on the members of the mess, each servant shall be allowed one
ration.
This act to take effect from and after its passage.
 W. C. Whitthorne,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

B. L. Stovall,
Speaker of the Senate.

Passed June 28, 1861.

1862, November 2—Governor Joseph E. Brown, of Georgia, issued
a call announcing that if a sufficient supply of negroes be not
tendered within ten days, General Mercer will, in pursuance of
authority given him, proceed to impress, and asking of every planter
of Georgia a tender of one fifth of his negroes to complete the
fortifications around Savannah. This one-fifth is estimated at 15,000.
1863. The Governor of South Carolina in July, issued a
proclamation for 3,000 negroes to work on the fortifications, “the
need for them being pressing.”

THE CHANGING SENTIMENT OF CONGRESS.

In the Rebel House of Representatives, December 29th, Mr.

Dargan, of Alabama, introduced a bill to receive into the military
service all that portion of population in Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana, and Florida, known as “Creoles.”
Mr. Dargan supported the bill in some remarks. He said the
Creoles were a mixed-blooded race. Under the treaty of Paris in
1803, and the treaty of Spain in 1810, they were recognized as
freemen. Many of them owned large estates, and were intelligent
men. They were as much devoted to our cause as any class of men in
the South, and were even anxious to go into service. They had
applied to him to be received into service, and he had applied to Mr.
Randolph, then Secretary of War. Mr. Randolph decided against the
application, on the ground that it might furnish to the enemy a
pretext of arming our slaves against us. Some time after this he was
again applied to by them, and he went to the present Secretary of
War, Mr. Seddon, and laid the matter before him. Mr. Seddon
refused to entertain the proposition, on the ground that it did not
come up before him through the military authorities. To obviate this
objection, Gen. Maury, at Mobile, soon afterwards represented their
wishes to the War Department. Mr. Seddon refused the offer of their
services, on the ground that it would be incompatible with the
position we occupied before the world; that it could not be done.
Mr. Dargan said he differed with the Secretary of War. He cared
not for “the world.” He cared no more for their opinions than they
did for ours. He was anxious to bring into service every free man, be
he who he may, willing to strike for our cause. He saw no objection to
employing Creoles; they would form a potent element in our army. In
his district alone a brigade of them could be raised. The crisis had
been brought upon us by the enemy, and he believed the time would
yet come when the question would not be the Union or no Union, but
whether Southern men should be permitted to live at all. In resisting
subjugation by such a barbarous foe he was for employing all our
available force. He would go further and say that he was for arming
and putting the slaves into military service. He was in favor even of
employing them as a military arm in the defence of the country.
1864. The Mayor of Charleston, Charles Macbeth, summons all
slaveholders within the city to furnish to the military authorities
forthwith, one-fourth of all their male slaves between the ages of
fifteen and fifty, to labor upon the fortifications. The penalty
announced, in case of failure to comply with this requisition is a fine
of $200 for every slave not forthcoming. Compensation is allowed at
the rate of $400 a year.
All free male persons of color between the ages of fifteen and fifty
are required to give themselves up for the same purpose. Those not
complying will be imprisoned, and set to work upon the fortifications
along the coast. To free negroes no other compensation than rations
is allowed.

NEGROES IN THE ARMY.

The Richmond press publish the official copy of “An act to increase
the efficiency of the army by the employment of free negroes and
slaves in certain capacities,” lately passed by the Rebel Congress. The
negroes are to perform “such duties as the Secretary of War or
Commanding General may prescribe.” The first section is as follows:
The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That
all male free negroes, and other free persons of color, not including
those who are free under the treaty of Paris, of 1803, or under the
treaty of Spain, of 1819, resident in the Confederate States, between
the ages of eighteen and fifty years, shall be held liable to perform
such duties with the army, or in connection with the military
defences of the country, in the way of work upon the fortifications, or
in government works for the production or preparation of materials
of war, or in military hospitals, as the Secretary of War or the
Commanding General of the Trans-Mississippi Department may,
from time to time, prescribe; and while engaged in the performances
of such duties shall receive rations and clothing and compensation at
the rate of eleven dollars a month, under such rules and regulations
as the said Secretary may establish: Provided, That the Secretary of
War or the Commanding General of the Trans-Mississippi
Department, with the approval of the President, may exempt from
the operations of this act such free negroes as the interests of the
country may require should be exempted, or such as he may think
proper to exempt on the ground of justice, equity or necessity.
The third section provides that when the Secretary of War shall be
unable to procure the services of slaves in any military department,
then he is authorized to impress the services of as many male slaves,
not to exceed twenty thousand, as may be required, from time to
time, to discharge the duties indicated in the first section of the act.
The owner of the slave is to be paid for his services; or, if he be
killed or “escape to the enemy,” the owner shall receive his full value.
Governor Smith, of Virginia, has made a call for five thousand
male slaves to work on the batteries, to be drawn from fifty counties.
The call for this force has been made by the President under a
resolution of Congress.

“CONFEDERATE” LEGISLATION UPON NEGRO

PRISONERS AND THEIR WHITE OFFICERS WHEN
CAPTURED.[27]
 1863, May 1—An act was approved declaring that the
commissioned officers of the enemy ought not to be delivered to the
authorities of the respective States, (as suggested in Davis’s
message;) but all captives taken by the Confederate forces ought to
be dealt with and disposed of by the Confederate Government.
President Lincoln’s emancipation proclamations of September 22,
1862, and January 1, 1863, were resolved to be inconsistent with the
usages of war among civilized nations, and should be repressed by
retaliation; and the President is authorized to cause full and
complete retaliation for every such violation, in such manner and to
such extent as he may think proper.
Every white commissioned officer commanding negroes or
mulattoes in arms against the Confederate States shall be deemed as
inciting servile insurrection, and shall, if captured, be put to death,
or be otherwise punished, at the discretion of the court.
Every person charged with an offence made punishable under the
act shall be tried by the military court of the army or corps of troops
capturing him; and, after conviction, the President may commute
the punishment in such manner and on such terms as he may deem
proper.
All negroes and mulattoes who shall be engaged in war or taken in
arms against the Confederate States, or shall give aid or comfort to
the enemies of the Confederate States, shall, when captured in the
Confederate States, be delivered to the authorities of the State or
States in which they shall be captured, to be dealt with according to
the present or future laws of such State or States.
 Passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.

The first amendment to the Constitution growing out of the war,

and one of its direct results, was that of abolishing slavery. It was
first introduced to the House December 14th, 1863, by James M.
Ashley of Ohio. Similar measures were introduced by James M.
Wilson, Senators Henderson, Sumner and others. On the 10th of
February, Senator Trumbull reported Henderson’s joint resolution
amended as follows:
“That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the
several States, as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures,
shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the said
Constitution, namely:
“Art. 13, Sec. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except as
a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to
their jurisdiction.
“Sec. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.”
The Senate began the consideration of the question March 28th,
Senator Trumbull opening the debate in favor of the amendment. He
predicted that within a year the necessary number of States would
ratify it. Wilson of Massachusetts made a long and able speech in
favor. Davis of Kentucky and Saulsbury of Delaware led the
opposition, but Reverdy Johnson, an independent Democratic
Senator from Maryland, surprised all by his bold support of the
measure. Among other things he said:
“I think history will bear me out in the statement, that if the men
by whom that Constitution was framed, and the people by whom it
was adopted, had anticipated the times in which we live, they would
have provided by constitutional enactment, that that evil and that sin
should in some comparatively unremote day be removed. Without
recurring to authority, the writings public or private of the men of
that day, it is sufficient for my purpose to state what the facts will
justify me in saying, that every man of them who largely participated
in the deliberations of the Convention by which the Constitution was
adopted, earnestly desired, not only upon grounds of political
economy, not only upon reasons material in their character, but
upon grounds of morality and religion, that sooner or later the
institution should terminate.”
Senator McDougall of California, opposed the amendment. Harlan
of Iowa, Hale of New Hampshire, and Sumner, made characteristic
speeches in favor. Saulsbury advocated the divine right of slavery. It
passed April 8th, by 38 ayes to 6 noes, the latter comprising Davis
and Powell of Kentucky; McDougall of California; Hendricks of
Indiana; Saulsbury and Riddle of Delaware.
Arnold of Illinois, was the first to secure the adoption in the House
(Feb. 15, 1864,) of a resolution to abolish slavery; but the
Constitutional amendment required a two-thirds vote, and this it was
difficult to obtain, though all the power of the Administration was
bent to that purpose. The discussion began May 31st; the vote was
reached June 15th, but it then failed of the required two-thirds—93
for to 65 against, 23 not voting. Its more pronounced advocates were
Arnold, Ashley, Broomall, Stevens, and Kelly of Pennsylvania;
Farnsworth and Ingersoll of Illinois, and many others. Its ablest
opponents were Holman, Wood, Mallory, Cox and Pendleton—the
latter rallying nearly all of the Democrats against it. Its Democratic
friends were McAllister and Bailey of Pennsylvania; Cobb of
Wisconsin; Griswold and Odell of New York. Before the vote was
announced Ashley changed his vote so as to move a reconsideration
and keep control of the question. At the next session it was passed,
receiving every Republican and 16 Democratic votes, 8 Democrats
purposely refraining, so that it would surely pass.