_Fellow-Citizens of the House of Representatives_:
I herewith return to your honorable body, in which it originated, the
bill for an act entitled "An act to suppress treason and rebellion, to
seize and confiscate the property of rebels, and for other purposes,"
together with my objections to its becoming a law.
There is much in the bill to which I perceive no objection. It is wholly
prospective, and touches neither person nor property of any loyal
citizen, in which particulars it is just and proper. The first and
second sections provide for the conviction and punishment of persons who
shall be guilty of treason and persons who shall "incite, set on foot,
assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority
of the United States or the laws thereof, or shall give aid and comfort
thereto, or shall engage in or give aid and comfort to any such existing
rebellion or insurrection." By fair construction persons within these
sections are not to be punished without regular trials in duly
constituted courts, under the forms and all the substantial provisions
of law and of the Constitution applicable to their several cases. To
this I perceive no objection, especially as such persons would be within
the general pardoning power and also the special provision for pardon
and amnesty contained in this act.
It is also provided that the slaves of persons convicted under these
sections shall be free. I think there is an unfortunate form of
expression rather than a substantial objection in this. It is startling
to say that Congress can free a slave within a State, and yet if it were
said the ownership of the slave had first been transferred to the nation
and that Congress had then liberated him the difficulty would at once
vanish. And this is the real case. The traitor against the General
Government forfeits his slave at least as justly as he does any other
property, and he forfeits both to the Government against which he
offends. The Government, so far as there can be ownership, thus owns the
forfeited slaves, and the question for Congress in regard to them is,
"Shall they be made free or be sold to new masters?" I perceive no
objection to Congress deciding in advance that they shall be free. To
the high honor of Kentucky, as I am informed, she has been the owner of
some slaves by escheat and has sold none, but liberated all. I hope the
same is true of some other States. Indeed I do not believe it would be
physically possible for the General Government to return persons so
circumstanced to actual slavery. I believe there would be physical
resistance to it which could neither be turned aside by argument nor
driven away by force. In this view I have no objection to this feature
of the bill. Another matter involved in these two sections, and running
through other parts of the act, will be noticed hereafter.