Mr. Chase called and took me this evening for a two hours'
ride. We went past Kalorama north, crossed Rock Creek near the Stone Mill,
thence over the hills to Tenallytown, and returned through Georgetown. The
principal topic of conversation, and the obvious purpose of this drive was a
consultation on the slavery question, and what in common parlance is called the
reconstruction of the Union with the incidents. After sounding me without
getting definite and satisfactory answers, he frankly avowed his own policy and
determination. It is unconditional and immediate emancipation in all the Rebel
States, no retrograde from the Proclamation of Emancipation, no recognition of
a Rebel State as a part of the Union, or any terms with it except on the
extinction, wholly, at once, and forever, of slavery.
I neither adopted nor rejected his emphatic tests, for such
he evidently meant them. The questions are of vast magnitude, and have great
attending difficulties. The reestablishment of the Union is a practical and
important question, and it may come up in a way and form which we cannot now
anticipate, and not improbably set aside any hypothetical case which may at
this time be presented. I consider slavery, as it heretofore existed, has
terminated in all the States, and am not for intruding speculative political
theories in advance to embarrass official action.
North Carolinians are just now beginning to discuss the
subject of disconnecting their State from the Confederacy. I asked Chase if he
believed Congress would refuse to recognize her and the government attempt to
exclude her from the Union if she came forward and proposed to resume her
place, with slavery, like Maryland and the other Border States. He said much
would depend on the President, — all in fact, for were the President to
acquiesce in her return it could not be prevented, but on the other hand, if he
planted himself firmly, and with Jacksonian will on the Proclamation, he had no
doubt North Carolina would be excluded or refused her original place in the
Union, unless she modified her constitution and abolished slavery. He was
confident if the Government persisted in emancipation the State would
ultimately yield.
“That,” said I, “brings up other questions touching the
powers and limitations of the Federal Government. Where is the authority for
Congress, or a fraction of Congress, to exclude a State, or to prescribe new
conditions to one of the original States, on which one of the original
commonwealths which founded and established the government shall hereafter
compose a part of the Federal Union? Where is the authority for the President
or Congress to deprive her of rights reserved and guaranteed to all, — to
dictate her local policy, — these restrictive conditions being new, not a part
of the Federal compact or known to the Constitution. The States must have equal
political rights or the government cannot stand on the basis of 1789.”
He replied that those States had severed their connection
with the Union without cause, had broken faith and made war on the government.
They had forfeited their rights. They no longer retained the position they once
had. They were to be subjugated, conquered. In order to be restored to the
Union they must be required to put away the cause of disturbance, the source of
rebellion, disunion, and strife. The welfare of the nation, the security and
perpetuity of the Union demanded this. To admit them now to a full and equal
participation with ourselves, without extinguishing slavery, would be with the
aid of their sympathizing friends to place the government in the hands of the
slaveholders.
That there may be something to be apprehended, were all the
Rebels and their old party associates in the Free States to reunite and act in
concert, I admit may be true, but this is not a supposable case. The Rebels
will not all come back at once, were pardon and general amnesty extended to
them. There is also, bear in mind, deep and wide hostility to the Confederate
proceedings through almost the whole South, and the old party associates of
Davis and others in the North are broken up and pretty thoroughly alienated.
The reestablishment of the Union and harmony will be a slow process, requiring
forbearance and nursing rather than force and coercion. The bitter enmities
which have been sown, the hate which has been generated, the blood which has
been spilled, the treasure, public and private, which has been wasted, and,
last and saddest of all, the lives which have been sacrificed, cannot be
forgotten and smoothed over in a day; we can hardly expect it in a generation.
By forbearance and forgiveness, by wise and judicious management, the States
may be restored to their place and the people to their duty, but let us not
begin by harsh assumptions, for even with gentle treatment the work of
reconciliation and fraternity will be slow. Let us be magnanimous. Ought we not
to act on individuals and through them on the States?
This inquiry seemed to strike him favorably, and I
elaborated it somewhat, bringing up old political doctrines and principles
which we had cherished in other days. I reminded him that to have a cordial
union of the States they must be equal in political rights, and that arbitrary
measures did not conduce to good feeling and were not promotive of freedom and
good will. As regards individuals who have made war on the government and
resisted its laws, they had forfeited their rights and could be punished and
even deprived of life, but I knew not how we could punish States as
commonwealths except through their people. A State could not be struck
out of existence like an individual or corporation.
Besides, it must be remembered, we should be classing the
innocent with the guilty, punishing our true friends who had already suffered
greatly in the Union cause as severely as the worst Rebels. We could have no ex
post facto enactments, could not go beyond existing laws to punish Rebels;
we should not do this with our friends, and punish them for wrongs committed by
others. We could now exact of Rebels the oath of allegiance before pardon, and
could perhaps grant conditional or limited pardons, denying those who had been
active in taking up arms the right to vote or hold office for a period. Such as
came in on the terms granted would build up loyal communities.
In these general outlines we pretty much agreed, but there
is, I apprehend, a radical difference between us as regards the status of the
States, and their position in and relation to the general government. I know
not that I clearly comprehend the views of Chase, and am not sure that he has
fully considered and matured the subject himself. He says he makes it a point
to see the President daily and converse on this subject; that he thinks the
President is becoming firm and more decided in his opinions, and he wants me to
second him. Stanton he says is all right, but is not a man of firm and reliable
opinions. Seward and Blair he considers opponents. Bates he says is of no
account and has no influence. Usher he classes with himself, though he
considers him of no more scope than Bates. Seward he says is unreliable and
untruthful. The President he compliments for honesty of intentions, good common
sense, more sagacity than he has credit for, but [he thinks he] is greatly
wanting in will and decision, in comprehensiveness, in self-reliance, and
clear, well-defined purpose.
The reëstablishment
of the Union is beset with difficulties. One great embarrassment, the principal
one, is the intrusion of partyism. Chase, I see, is warped by this. It is not
strange that he should be, for he has aspirations which are likely to be
affected by these issues. Others are in like manner influenced. I believe I
have no personal ambition to gratify, no expectations. There is no office that
I want or would accept in prospect, but my heart is in again beholding us once
more United States and a united people.
It appears to me Mr. Chase starts out on an error. The
Federal Government has no warrant to impose conditions on any of the States to
which all are not subjected, or to prescribe new terms which conflict with
those on which our fundamental law is based. In these tempestuous days, when to
maintain its existence the Federal Government is compelled to exercise
extraordinary powers, statesmen and patriots should take care that it does not
transcend its authority and subvert the system. We are testing the strength and
inviolability of a written constitution. To impose conditions on the States
which are in rebellion is allowable on no other premise than that they actually
seceded and left the Union. Now, while it is admitted and we all know that a
majority of the people in certain States have rebelled and made war on the
central government, none of us recognize or admit the right or principle of
secession. People — individuals — have rebelled but the States are
sovereignties, not corporations, and they still belong to and are a part of the
Union. We can imprison, punish, hang the Rebels by law and constitutional
warrant, but where is the authority or power to chastise a State, or to change
its political status, deprive it of political rights and sovereignty which
other States possess?
To acknowledge that the States have seceded — that the Union
is dissolved — would be to concede more than I am prepared for. It is the error
into which Mr. Seward plunged at the beginning, when he insisted that a
blockade authorized by international law should be established instead of a
closure of the ports by national law, and that the Rebels should be recognized
as belligerents. The States have not seceded; they cannot secede, nor can they
be expelled. Secession is synonymous with disunion. Whenever it takes place, we
shall belong to different countries.
Slavery has received its death-blow. The seeds which have
been sown by this war will germinate. Were peace restored to-morrow and the
States reunited with the rotten institution in each of them, chattel slavery
would expire. What is to be the ultimate effect of the Proclamation, and what
will be the exact status of the slaves and the slave-owners, were the States
now to resume their position, I am not prepared to say. The courts would
adjudicate the questions; there would be legislative action in Congress and in
the States also; there would be sense and practical wisdom on the part of
intelligent and candid men who are not carried away by prejudice, fanaticism,
and wild theories. No slave who has left a Rebel master and come within our
lines, or has served under the flag, can ever be forced into involuntary
servitude.
The constitutional relations of the States have not been
changed by the Rebellion, but the personal condition of every Rebel is
affected. The two are not identical. The rights of the States are unimpaired;
the rights of those who have participated in the Rebellion may have been forfeited.
This subject should not become mixed with partyism, but yet
it can scarcely be avoided. Chase gathers it into the coming Presidential
election; feels that the measure of emancipation which was decided without
first consulting him has placed the President in advance of him on a path which
was his specialty.
SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles,
Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30,
1864, p. 410-5
