Skip to main content

The War and How to End It: An Address Delivered in Rochester, New York, on March 25, 1862


Douglass' Monthly, 4 : 624—26 (April I862).
On Tuesday evening, 25 March 1862, Douglass appeared at Corinthian Hall in Rochester to deliver a lecture designed to pressure President Lincoln into
adopting the emancipation of slaves as a Union war aim.
I stand here to-night to advocate in my humble way, the unrestricted and complete Emancipation of every slave in the United States, whether claimed by loyal or disloyal masters. This is the lesson of the hour.
Through the certain operation of the changeless laws of the universe, Emancipation, which has long been a great and solemn national duty, pressing heavily on the national conscience has at last become a great and all commanding national necessity.


I choose not to insist upon these comprehensive propositions as a colored man to-night nor as one having special reasons for hating slavery, although, upon these grounds I might well base a claim to be heard, but my ground is taken as an American citizen, feeling with all others a deep and living interest in the welfare of the whole country.
In the tremendous conflict through which we are passing, all events steadily conspire, to make the cause of the slave and the cause of the country identical. He who to-day fights for Emancipation, fights for his country and free Institutions. and he who fights for slavery, fights against his country and in favor of a slaveholding oligarchy.
This was always so, though only abolitionists perceived the fact. The difference between them and others is this: They got an earlier glimpse at the black heart of slavery—than others did. They saw in times of seeming peace, for the peace we have had, was only seeming—what we can only see in times of open war. They saw that a nation like ours, containing two such opposite forces as liberty and slavery, could not enjoy permanent peace, and they said so and got mobbed for saying so. But let that pass.
Before I proceed to discuss the subject announced for my lecture this evening, allow me to make a few remarks on the mighty events which have marked and are marking the progress of the war. It requires a large share of wisdom and coolness, to properly weigh and measure the great facts which have already passed into history; but it requires a much larger share of these qualities, to enable man to discriminate between, and to determine the proper relations and bearings of the great living facts, transpiring before our eyes.
The obvious reason is this: important events often succeed each other so rapidly, and take the place of each other so quickly, that it becomes almost impossible to give to any one of them, that measure of reflection, which is necessary to form an intelligent judgement.
We are an intelligent people, apt scholars, but I think that few of us fully appreciate the solemn events that are now passing before our eyes.
It is known that we are at war, at war among ourselves, civil war the worst of all wars, but the real scope and significance of this war is but imperfectly understood by millions of the American people.
The very air is filled with conflicting statements in respect to the cause of this war, and naturally enough, it is also filled with contradictory theories as to the manner of restoring the country to peace.
I shall not stay here to discuss the long train of events, and the certain action of social forces which have finally culminated in this rebellion. The limits of the occasion will not permit any such lengthy discussion. The


most that I can do, is to point out a few of the leading features of the contest, and enforce the lesson which 1 think they plainly teach and the path of duty they mark out for our feet.
The first enquiry which concerned the loyal north upon the sudden outburst of this stupendous rebellion, naturally related to the strength of the rebels, and the amount of force and skill required for their speedy suppression. Even at this vital point we blundered. We misconceived the real state of the case, and misread the facts then passing before us. We were quite incredulous of the tremendous strength and vigor of the foe against whom we were called upon to battle.
We are a charitable people, and in excess of charity were disposed to put the very best construction upon the strange behavior of our southern brethren. We admitted that South Carolina might secede. It was like her to do so. She had talked extravagantly about going out of the union, and she must do something extravagant and startling to save a show of consistency. Georgia too, we thought might possibly go out, but we were quite sure that these twin rebel States, would stand alone in their infamy, and that they would soon tire of their isolation, repent of their folly, and come back to the union. Traitors fled the Cabinet, the House and the Senate, and hastened away to fan the flames of treason at home. Still we doubted that any thing very serious would come of it. We treated it as a bubble on the wave, a nine day’s wonder. Calm and thoughtful men ourselves, we relied on the sober second thought of others. Even a shot at one of our ships, an insult offered to our flag,1On 9 January 1861, the merchant vessel Star of the West, carrying supplies and 250 troops, attempted to enter the harbor at Charleston, South Carolina, to reinforce the garrison at Fort Sumter. An artillery battery manned by troops of the three-week-old “independent state" of South Carolina fired on the Union ship. Although struck only once, the Star of the West retreated from the harbor and returned to New York City. Long, Civil War Day by Day, 22-24; Nevins, Emergence of Lincoln, 2: 379—80. caused only a momentary feeling of indignation and resentment, such as a mother might feel toward a naughty child who had thrown away his bread and stamped defiance at her authority. It was not until Beauregard 2A scion of a distinguished Louisiana Creole family, Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard (1818—93) graduated second in his West Point class of l838. Over the next twenty-five years Beauregard served as an engineer officer on various military construction projects and on General Winfield Scott’s staff during the Mexican War. He joined the Confederate army when the South seceded and was placed in command of the forces around Charleston. South Carolina. On 12-13 April 1861 Beauregard directed the bombardment of Fort Sumter that forced the surrender of its Union defenders. He was second-in-command of the Confederate troops at both the First Battle of Bull Run and the Battle of Shiloh. ln 1863 he led the successful resistance of Charleston against Union assaults. The next year,
Beauregard participated in the defense of Richmond and Petersburg, Virginia. After the Civil War he became president of the New Orleans, Jackson &, Mississippi Railroad and director of the Louisiana State Lottery Company. T. Harry Williams, P. G. T. Beauregard: Napoleon in Gray (Baton Rouge, 1955); ACAB, 1: 210—11; NCAB, 4: 178-79.
opened his slave built batteries upon the starving garrison in


Charleston harbor, that the confiding North, like a sleeping lion, was roused from his lair, and shook his thundering main [mane] in wrath. We were slow to wake, but we did awake. Still we were scarcely conscious of the skill, power and resources of the enemy. We still hoped that wiser and better counsels would ultimately prevail. We could not believe but that a powerful union sentiment still existed at the South, and that a strong reaction would yet take place there in favor of the union. To the very last we continued to believe in the border States. We could not believe that those States would plunge madly into the bloody vortex of rebellion. It required the assaults of a blood thirsty mob spilling the blood of loyal soldiers to convince us of Baltimore treason.
I need not tell you, how in all this study of passing events, we have been grossly mistaken. Every hope based upon the sanity, loyalty, and good disposition of the South has been woefully disappointed. While armies were forming, and the most formidable preparations were making, we continued to dream of peace, and even after the war was fairly begun, we thought to put down the rebellion by a show of force rather than by an exercise of force. We showed our teeth but did not wish to use them. We preferred to fight with dollars rather than daggers. The fewer battles the better was the motto, popular at Washington, and peace in sixty days trembled along the wires. We now see what we could not at first comprehend. We are astonished at the strength and vigor of the foe. Treason had shot its poisonous roots deeper, and has spread them farther than our calculations had allowed for. Now I have a reason for calling attention to this unwillingness on our part to know the worst. It has already caused much trouble, and l have reason to apprehend that it will cause us much more. We need warnings a thousand times repeated. A hint to the wise is enough for the wise, and although we are wise and can take a hint, the trouble is we don’t heed it unless it comes in the shape of a rifled cannon ball battering against the walls of our forts, or an iron clad ram, sinking our navy and threatening our whole Atlantic Coast.3When secessionist forces in Virginia moved to occupy the U.S. Navy Yard at Norfolk in April 1861, Federal authorities scuttled the frigate Merrimack to prevent its capture. The Confederates, however, salvaged the Merrimack and converted it into an armored warship capable of challenging Union naval control of the lower Chesapeake Bay. On 8 March 1862, the Merrimack, rechristened Virginia, sortied out from Norfolk against the Union fleet in Hampton Roads and sank two wooden warships and damaged a third. When the Virginia returned the next day to resume its attack, it was met by the Monitor, a Union ironclad warship, which had arrived from New York City during the night. The two ships battled throughout the day with neither vessel able to damage the other seriously. A stalemate continued in Hampton Roads until the Union army forced the Confederates to evacuate Norfolk on 11 May 1862. The Virginia’s deep draft rendered it incapable of withdrawing up the James River and the vessel was destroyed by its own crew. In spite of Northern fears, the Virginia was insufficiently seaworthy to venture into the Atlantic and threaten Federal ports. Harrison A. Trexler, The Confederate Ironclad “Virginia” (“Merrimac”) (Chicago, 1938); William N. Still, Jr., Iron Afloat: The Story of the Confederate Ironclads (Nashville, 1971), 18—40; Maurice Melton, The Confederate Ironclads (New York, 1968), 25—58. Let me under score this


point of weakness and as I think blindness on our part for it still lingers with us.
Even now, you need not go far to find newspapers clinging still to the delusion that there is a strong union sentiment at the South. While the rebels are waging a barbarous war, of unparalleled ferocity, marshalling the savage Indian to the slaughter of your sons, and poisoning the wells in their retreats, we are still speaking of them as our erring brothers, to be won back to the union by fondling, rather than fighting. This has been our great error. We failed to comprehend the vital force of the rebellion. First, because we were dazzled and bewildered by the wild rapidity of the strange events, which burst upon us, and secondly because of our habitual leniency to the South and to slaveholders grimly confronting us at the outset.
I have said that the first question was how to whip the rebels. That was the bitter problem. We were sadly unprepared to fight. Treason had become the warp and woof of the army and navy. Floyd had stolen all the arms,4The son of Virginia governor John Floyd, John Buchanan Floyd (1807—63) practiced law after graduating from the College of South Carolina. The younger Floyd entered politics as a states'-rights Democrat and served in the Virginia legislature before himself becoming governor (1849-52). In 1857 President Buchanan selected Floyd to be his secretary of war. During the secession crisis he resigned when Buchanan refused to order the Federal garrison at Charleston, South Carolina, to evacuate Fort Sumter and return to the less defensible Fort Moultrie. In February 1861 Floyd was accused of having transferred large quantities of arms and ammunition from northern to southern arsenals in anticipation of secession. He returned to Washington, testified before a House of Representatives committee investigating the charges, and eventually was exonerated of any treasonous intentions. Floyd served as a Confederate brigadier general but was removed from all commands after his precipitate surrender of Fort Donelson, Tennessee, in February 1862. Smith, Presidency of James Buchanan, 99, 179—80, 186; Klein, President James Buchanan, 377—80, 412, 418; ACAB, 2: 487-88; NCAB, 7: 7; DAB, 6 :482—83. and Cobb had stolen all the money.5Douglass alludes to the widely circulated accusation that Howell Cobb. while serving as Buchanan's secretary of the treasury, deliberately bankrupted the federal government‘s finances in anticipation of southern secession and civil war. Actually, Cobb's tenure in the Treasury Department corresponded with the major business panic of 1857 and the subsequent slow economic recovery. Declining tariff revenues forced the Buchanan administration to resort to deficit financing by means of short-term borrowing. In December 1860 Cobb resigned from Buchanan's cabinet and later became a Confederate general. When the Republicans assumed office in March I861. the Treasury’s debt was approximately $70 million and the national credit very weak. Cobb and Buchanan strongly denied any treasonable motives behind their policies, and no solid evidence has been discovered to substantiate the partisan charges against them. Robert T. Patterson, “Government Finance on the Eve of the Civil War," Journal of Economic History , 12: 43-44 (Winter 1952); Moore, Works of James Buchanan, 11: 242-43; Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer, Jay Cooke: Financier of the Civil War (Philadelphia, 1907), 120—27. The nation was at the mercy of the merciless. How to procure arms, and brave men to use them, was


naturally first in order. Like the rod of Moses it swallowed all others.6Actually, the rod of Aaron, the brother of Moses. Exod. 7: 10-12. It even hushed the voice of abolitionists and wheeled them into line with its imperative demands.
It was the great physical question. Men of muscle understood it as well as men of mind. But now there is another and a mightier question destined to try men’s souls more severely than the first.
For not that which is spiritual is first. but that which is natural; after that, that which is spiritual. The physical part of this tremendous conflict is at last in a hopeful way. The great armies of the North are in motion. Baltimore is at the mercy of McHenry,7Fort McHenry, guarding the harbor of Baltimore, Maryland, gained national fame in 1814 for its garrison‘s resistance to an attack by a combined land and sea force of British invaders. At the beginning of the Civil War, Fort McHenry was an active military post with a small garrison. The fort was reinforced following the pro-Confederate rioting in Baltimore in April 1861 and became the headquarters for the Maryland Military District. During the war. Fort McHenry was also used as a temporary detention camp to house prisoners of war and suspected Confederate sympathizers. Harold R. Manakee, Maryland in the Civil War (Baltimore, 1961), 43, 50, 84—88; Sprague, Freedom under Lincoln, 13, 37—39, 208. Western Virginia clings to the union,8Pro-Union elements in western Virginia began organizing as soon as the state approved a secession ordinance on 23 May 1861. By mid-June a “Restored Government of Virginia" was established at Wheeling. Union victories later in that year at Philippi and Cheat Mountain secured most of the western portion of the state from further Confederate attempts to establish jurisdiction. Boyd B. Stutler, West Virginia in the Civil War (Charleston, 1966), 1—15; John Marshall Hagans, Brief Sketch of the Erection and Formation of the State of West Virginia From the Territory of Virginia (Charleston, 1891), 45—52, 55—68. Kentucky is no longer neutral, Missouri has gone to Arkansas.9A Union offensive conducted by General Samuel Curtis drove Confederate forces out of southwestern Missouri and decisively defeated them at the Battle of Pea Ridge, Arkansas, on 7—8 March 1862. The Union‘s capture of New Madrid in southeastern Missouri on 14 March 1862 effectively ended Confederate authority in any portion of the state. A state government in exile was conducted from Arkansas by pro-Confederate Missourians during the rest of the war. Parrish, Turbulent Partnership, 90; John McElroy, The Struggle for Missouri (Washington, D.C., 1913), 173, 192, 262—64, 284.


North Carolina is invaded,10The Union invasion of North Carolina actually commenced in August 1861 with the capture of Hatteras Inlet. Douglass probably alludes to the activities of Federal forces under General Ambrose E. Burnside that ousted the Confederates from Roanoke Island in February 1862 and then invaded mainland North Carolina at New Bern in March. Reed, Combined Operations, 11-15, 39—43; Long, Civil War Day by Day, 112, 168, 184—85. Florida has followed the fortunes of Bragg,11The son of a building contractor from Warrenton, North Carolina, Braxton Bragg (1817 -76) graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1837. During the Mexican War he fought with distinction under General Zachary Taylor, especially at the Battle of Buena Vista. Bragg resigned from the army in 1856 to operate a plantation in Louisiana and to serve as a commissioner of that state's public works board. Following Southern secession, Bragg was appointed commander of Confederate troops at Pensacola, Florida, where he failed to remove Union forces from Fort Pickens. After directing a corps in the Battle of Shiloh, he became commander of the Confederate Army of Tennessee. Over the next year and a half Bragg's indecisiveness and incessant quarrels with subordinates hampered his army's performance. After fighting inconclusive battles at Perryville. Kentucky, and Murfreesboro, Tennessee, he finally defeated his Union opponents at Chickamauga, Georgia, and besieged them in Chattanooga, Tennessee. In November 1863, however, Union reinforcements under General Grant raised this siege and completely routed Bragg's army. For the rest of the war Bragg served in several minor commands and as a personal military advisor to President Davis. Returning to civilian life following the Confederate surrender, Bragg worked as a civil engineer in Louisiana, Alabama, and Texas. Grady McWhiney, Braxton Bragg and Confederate Defeat (New York, 1969); Jon I. Wakelyn, Biographical Dictionary of the Confederacy (Westport, Conn., 1977), 105-06; ACAB, 1: 355—56; NCAB, 2 : 218. and Tennessee is under Foote.12One of the Union's most successful naval officers in the Civil War, Andrew Hall Foote (1806—63) was the son of Samuel Augustus Foote, a senator and governor of Connecticut. He entered West Point in 1822 but transferred to the navy before the end of his first year. Foote slowly rose through the officer ranks of the peacetime navy while serving on U.S. ships in all parts of the world. When the Civil War broke out, he was charged with constructing and commanding a flotilla of gunboats on the upper Mississippi River. In February 1862 Foote's flotilla cooperated with General Ulysses S. Grant's army in the capture of Forts Henry and Donelson in Tennessee. These victories permitted Foote to send naval reconnaissance expeditions far up the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers in western and central Tennessee. The following April, Foote's ships played a key role in the capture of the Confederate fortifications on Island No. 1O in the Mississippi River. Wounds received in combat at Fort Donelson forced Foote to give up his command of the western flotilla in June I862 and contributed to his death the following year. James Mason Hoppin, Life of Andrew Hall Foote, Rear-Admiral, United States Navy (New York, I874); Reed, Combined Operations, 78—90, 204—08; ACAB, 2: 496-97; NCAB, 5: 10—11; DAB, 6: 499—500.
Brave hearts and strong hands, have met and disposed of the first question. I knew they would from the first. The slaveholding rebels have fought, and have fought well, and will do so again. They are proud, brave and desperate, but proud, brave and desperate as they are, I tell no secret when I say, they can run as well as fight.
General McClellan in his recent address to his army—takes pains to compliment these traitors. He is “sad” at the thought of striking them. The traitors themselves show no such weakness. The language of their Generals


is altogether of another character. There is no epithet too vile for them, by which to characterize our army. But McClellan, is careful to tell us that the Southern army is composed of foemen worthy of our steel. I do not like this. It looks bad. Instead of being foemen worthy of our steel, they are rebels and traitors worthy of our hemp.13Before embarking on the Peninsula campaign, General George McClellan issued a public proclamation to his Army of the Potomac. After apologizing for the long inactivity of the army, McClellan concluded by declaring: “God smiles upon us—victory attends us. Yet I would not have you think that our aim is to be obtained without a manly struggle. I will not disguise it from you, that you have brave foes to encounter—foemen well worthy of the steel that you will use so well. I shall demand of you great, heroic exertions, rapid and long marches, desperate combats, privations, perhaps. We will share all these together, and when this sad war is over, we will all return to our homes, and feel that we can ask no higher honor than the proud consciousness that we belonged to the Army of the Potomac." New York Times, 16 March 1862; New York Daily Tribune, 17 March 1862.
I do not wonder that all the haters of Impartial Liberty at the North are especially devoted to this “sad” reluctant General, who instead of portraying the baseness of the traitors takes pains to compliment them. It is seriously doubted if he will ever try his steel upon them. Thus far he has entirely failed to do any thing of the sort. But, whether McClellan ever overtakes the rebels or not, the army of the Potomac has moved, and brave men sweep both the Eastern and Western border of the rebellion. So that I look upon the first question, the question as to how to break down the military power of the rebels as in good hands and the public mind is happily relieved at that point.
But now a higher and more important problem presses for consideration. It is a problem for statesmen rather than Generals. Soldiers can capture a State, but statesmen must govern a State. It is sometimes hard to pull down a house but it is always harder to build one up.
This is the question now to be decided, having broken down the rebel power in the seceded States, how shall we extend the Constitution and the Union over them? We know how to make war, we know how to conquer, but the question is do we know how to make peace? We can whip the South, but can we make the South loyal? Baltimore is in our hands, but her parlors and drawing rooms are full of Traitors. The army is at Nashville but the people have fled.14Grant's victory at Fort Donelson forced the Confederates to abandon Nashville, Tennessee, without a struggle. Before units of General Don Carlos Buell's Army of the Ohio occupied Nashville on 25 February 1862, many frightened civilians had joined the Confederate retreat from the city. Long, Civil War Day by Day, 171—75; Stanley F. Horn, Tennessee's War, 1861—1865 (Nashville, 1965), 60—70. General Sherman15Thomas West Sherman. writes loving epistles to erring


rebels, but no one will carry them to the rebels. nor will the rebels touch them. The fact is the South hates the north. It hates the Union. The feeling is genuine and all-pervading. Whence comes this hate? This is an imperative inquiry for statesmen, who would place the peace of this government on an immovable foundation. You are of the same race, the same language, the same sacred historic memories. Why do they hate you? Certainly no because you have been in any manner ungenerous or unjust to them. Why do they hate you? Is it because they are naturally worse than other men? Not at all. I hold that the slaveholder is just as good as his slave system will allow him to be. If I were a slaveholder, and was determined to remain such, I would equal the worst, both in cruelty to the slave and in hatred to the north. I should hate the declaration of Independence, hate the Constitution, hate the Golden rule. hate free schools. free speech, free press, and every other form of freedom. Because in them all, I should see an enemy to my claim of property in man. I should see that the whole North is a point blank and killing condemnation of all my pretensions. The real root of bitterness, that which has generated this intense Southern hate toward the North, is Slavery. Here is the stone of stumbling and the rock of offence. Once I felt it necessary to argue this point. The time for such argument has past. Slavery stands confessed as the grand cause of the war. It has drilled every rebel soldier, loaded, primed, aimed and fired every rebel cannon since the war began. No other interest, commercial, manufacturing or political, could have wrought such a social earthquake amongst us. It has within itself that which begets a character in all around it favorable to its own continuance. It makes slaves of the negroes. vassals of the poor whites and tyrants of the masters. Pride, injustice, ingratitude, lust of dominion, cruelty, scorn, and contempt are the qualities of this rebellion, and slavery breeds them all. The tyrant wants no law above his own will, no associates but men of his own stamp of baseness. He is willing to administer the laws when he can bend them to his will, but he will break them when he can no longer bend them. Where labor is performed under the lash, justice will be administered under the bowie knife. The south is in this respect just what slavery has made her. She has been breeding thieves, rebels and traitors, and this stupendous conflict is the result. She could not do otherwise and cherish slavery in the midst of her.
Now the great question is what shall be the conditions of peace? What shall be done with slavery? We have gradually drifted to this vital question. Slavery is the pivot on which turns all the machinery of this tremendous war, and upon it will depend the character of the future of our peace or want of it.


It is really wonderful how we have been led along towards this grand issue, and how all efforts to evade, postpone, and prevent its coming, have been mocked and defied by the stupendous sweep of events.
It was oracularly given out from Washington many months ago, that whether this rebellion should succeed or fail, the status of no man in the country would be changed by the result.16Douglass may allude either to Lincoln's first inaugural address or to one of two similar congressional resolutions passed soon after the First Battle of Bull Run. In the former, Lincoln reassured the nation that he had “no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it now exists.” The House resolution, introduced by John Crittenden, declared: “This war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease." The Senate version had slightly different wording. Congressional Globe, 37th Cong., 1st sess., 32, 222—23, 258—60; Basler, Collected Works of Lincoln, 4: 263. You know what that meant. Europe knew what that meant. It was an assurance given to the world in general, and the slaveholding states in particular, that no harm should come to slavery in the prosecution of the war for the Union. It was a last bid for a compromise with the rebels. But despite of diplomatic disclaimers, despite border State influence, despite the earlier proclamation of the President himself, the grand question of Emancipation now compels attention and the most thoughtful consideration of men in high places of the nation.
By the events of this war, Washington has become to the nation what Syracuse was to the State of New York after the rescue of Jerry, the grand centre for abolition meetings. A new Congress has assembled there.17The second session of the Thirty-seventh Congress convened in Washington, DC, on 2 December 186l and adjourned sine die on 17 July 1862. Congressional Globe, 37th Cong., 2d sess., 1, 3407.
Dr. Cheever,18George B. Cheever. Ralph Waldo Emerson, Gerrit Smith, Wendell Phillips, William Goodell and William Lloyd Garrison may now utter in safety their opinions on slavery in the national capital. 19More than twenty antislavery lectures were delivered in the hall of the Smithsonian Institution during the winter of 1861—62 under the sponsorship of the Washington Lecture Association, an organization of Republican officeholders. Such veteran abolitionists as Wendell Phillips, William Goodell, and George Cheever spoke in this series and before other groups in the national capital during that period. President Lincoln and many Republican congressmen frequently attended these lectures, leading abolitionists to believe they were a valuable influence on the direction of the government's Policy regarding slavery. McPherson, Struggle for Equality, 80—81, 83—86. Meanwhile Congress has a bill before it for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.20The bill that ultimately abolished slavery in the District of Columbia was introduced in Congress by Senator Henry Wilson of Massachusetts on 10 December 1861. The measure was reported out of committee in February, debated throughout March, and passed by the Senate on 3 April 1862. The bill quickly won approval in the House of Representatives and was signed into law by Lincoln on 16 April 1862. Congressional Globe, 37th Cong. 2d sess., 89, 183, 1516-26, 1629; Quarles, Negro in the Civil War, 138, 146. Kill


slavery at the heart of the nation, and it will certainly die at the extremities. Down with it there, and it is the brick knocked down at the end of the row by which the whole line is prostrate.
More and better, the infernal business of slave catching by our army in Missouri and on the Potomac, is at last peremptorily forbidden under penalty of dismissal from the service.21On 13 March 1862 President Lincoln signed a bill forbidding the military from participating in the return of runaway slaves. The key portion of this legislative addition to the Articles of War declared: “All officers or persons in the military or naval service of the United States are prohibited from employing any of the forces under their respective commands for the purpose of returning fugitives from service or labor. who may have escaped from any persons to whom such service or labor is claimed to be due. and any officer who shall be found guilty by a court-martial of violating this article shall be dismissed from the service." Congressional Globe, 37th Cong., 2d sess., 955—59, 1142-43, Appendix, 340. This looks small, but is not so. It is a giant stride toward the grand result.
I thank all the powers of earth and sky, that I am permitted to be a witness to this day’s events. That slavery could always live and flourish in this country I have always known to be a foul and guilty heresy. That the vile system must eventually go down I have never doubted, even in the darkest days of my life in slavery. But that I should live to see the President of the United States deliberately advocating Emancipation was more than I ever ventured to hope.22On 6 March 1862 Lincoln sent a message to Congress requesting the adoption of the following joint resolution: “Resolved, that the United States ought to cooperate with any State which may adopt a gradual abolishment of Slavery, giving to such State pecuniary aid, to be used by such State in its discretion, to compensate for the inconveniences, public and private, produced by such change of system." New York Times, 7 March 1862; New York Daily Tribune, 7 March 1862; McPherson, Struggle for Equality, 96—97.
It is true that the President lays down his propositions with many qualifications some of which to my thinking. are unnecessary, unjust and wholly unwise. There are spots on the Sun. A blind man can see where the President’s heart is. I read the spaces as well as the lines of that message, I see in them a brave man trying against great odds, to do right. An honest patriot endeavoring to save his country in its day of peril. It is the first utterance, and first utterances are not according to Carlyle23Thomas Carlyle (1795—1881), Scottish essayist and historian. DNB, 3: 1020—36. the most articulate and perfect. Time and practice will improve the President as they


improve other men. He is tall and strong but he is not done growing, he grows as the nation grows. He has managed to say one good word, and to say it so distinctly that all the world may hear. He has dared to say that the highest interest of the country will be promoted by the abolition of slavery. And this, bear in mind, is not said in the bitterness of defeat, but when every morning brought news of glorious victories over the slaveholding rebels. The message comes at the call of no desperation. The time selected for sending it to Congress and the nation must be read with the document itself in order to appreciate its true significance.
Right upon the heels of the message comes the appointment of John C. Frémont, a man whose name thrills the young heart of America with every sentiment of honor, patriotism, and bravery. John C. Frémont carries his department in his name. He goes to free the mountains of rebels and traitors and the good wishes of all but traitors will go with him. Here is a new chapter of the war:
Frémont’s proclamation, was revised and modified by the President; Frémont was removed from his post when in the act of striking the foe. Calumny did its worst upon Frémont. But he was brave and calm, with Jessie24The wife of John C. Frémont, Jessie Benton Frémont (1824—1902) was the daughter of longtime Missouri senator Thomas Hart Benton. Born in Lexington, Virginia, she was educated at home and at boarding schools in Washington, D.C., and St. Louis, Missouri. She married Frémont when she was eighteen. During Frémont's long absences on exploring expeditions of the West, Jessie returned to her father‘s home in the capital and acted as his hostess. Her writing skills greatly aided Frémont‘s preparation of his Reports of his western expeditions. During the Civil War she began a career as a writer of travel accounts. children's stories. and historical sketches that were first published in periodicals and later in collected volumes. Catherine Coffin Phillips, Jessie Benton Frémont: A Woman Who Made History (San Francisco, 1935); Edward T. James et al., ed., Notable American Women, 1670-1950: A Biographical Dictionary, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass, 1971), 1: 668—71; NCAB, 4: 399; DAB, 7: 18-119. by his side he could not well be otherwise. and though strong himself without that pride of American women to support him, he must have fallen. I saw them as they passed eastward, after the chief had fallen. One glance at the young General and his noble wife told me that Fremont would rise again. He has risen. The rebels will hear it. His war horse is already pawing on all their mountains! But what shall be the conditions of peace? How shall the Union be reconstructed? To my mind complete Emancipation is the only basis of permanent peace. Any other basis will place us just at the point from which we started. To leave slavery standing in the rebel States, is to leave the eggs of treason in the nest from whence we shall have to meet a larger brood of traitors, and rebels at another time;


it is to transmit to posterity the question that ought to be settled to-day. Leave slavery where it is, and you leave the same generator of hate towards the north which has already cost us rivers of blood and millions of treasure. Leave slavery in the south and it will be as dangerous for a Northern man to travel in the south, as for a man to enter a powder magazine with fire. Despots are suspicious, and every slaveholder is an unmitigated despot, a natural foe to every form of freedom. Leave slavery in the south, and you will fill the north with a full fledged breed of servile panderers to slavery, baser than all their predecessors.
Leave slavery where it is and you will hereafter, as heretofore, see in politics a divided, fettered, north, and an united south. You will see the statesmen of the country facing both ways, speaking two languages, assenting to the principles of freedom in the north, and bowing to the malign spirit and practices of slavery at the South. You will see all the pro-slavery elements of the country attracted to the south, giving that section ascendancy again in the counsels of the nation and making them masters of the destinies of the Republic. Restore slavery to its old status in the Union and the same elements of demoralization which have plunged this country into this tremendous war will begin again to dig the grave of free Institutions.
It is the boast of the South that her Institutions are peculiar and homogeneous, and so they are. Her statesmen have had the wit to see that contact with the free North must either make the North like herself, or that she herself must become like the North. They are right. The South must put off the yoke of slavery or the North must prepare her neck for that yoke, provided the union is restored. There is a middle path—We have pursued that middle path. It is compromise and by it we have reached the point of civil war with all its horrid consequences. The question is shall we start anew in the same old path?
Who wants a repetition of the same event thro’ which we are passing? Who wants to see the nation taxed to keep a standing army in the South to maintain respect for the Federal Government and protect the rights of citizens of the United States? To such a man I say, leave slavery still dominant at the South and you shall have all your wants supplied.
On the other hand abolish slavery and the now disjointed nation like kindred drops would speedily mingle into one. Abolish slavery and the last hinderance to a solid nationality is abolished. Abolish slavery and you give conscience a chance to grow, and you will win the respect and admiration of mankind. Abolish slavery and you put an end to all sectional politics founded upon conflicting sectional interests, and imparting strife and bitterness


to all our general elections, and to the debates on the floor of Congress. Abolish slavery and the citizens of each state will be regarded and treated as equal citizens of the United States, and may travel unchallenged and unmolested in all the states of the Union. Abolish slavery and you put an end to sectional religion and morals, and establish free speech and liberty of conscience throughout your common country. Abolish slavery and rational, law abiding Liberty will fill the whole land with peace, joy, and permanent safety now and forever.


Douglass, Frederick, 1818-1895


March 25, 1862


Yale University Press 1985



Publication Status