Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1861-12-02

Persons well informed say the Cabinet
stands four to three against freeing the
slaves, and putting arms in their hands to
put down the rebellion. General Cameron
and Secretaries Chase aud Welles favor it,
and Seward, Bates, Blair and Smith oppose
it, Philadelphia Inquirer.
Why this seeming persistent disposition
to connect with ''freeing the slaves the idea
of "putting arms in their hands2" Is it
purposely done to make the idea Of con-
fscsting or liberating the slaves of rebels
more odious and revolving to the feelings
and prejudices of the Northern people7
What necessary connection is there between
freeing the slaves and putting arms in their
hands? Does it follow that if the Govern
ment emancipates by confscation the slaves
of rebels it must also arm them and turn
them loose against their former masters and
the people of the South generally? By no
means. This thing of arming slaves and
making Union soldiers of them, is an entirely
different question. 1t does not follow
that if the slaves of rebels shall be
confscated, along with their other property,
and thus made free, they must have arms put
into their hands. This may be done, to some
extent, and, under certain circumstances as
suggested in Secretary Cameron's instruc-
tions to General Sherman; but it has no
necessary connection with the factor idea of
freeing the slaves, either of rebels or of the
entire South. And this fact should be kept
in mind. The confscation or freeing" of
the slaves of active rebels, is one thing, and
the "putting arms in their hands," is quite
another.
General Fremont, in his proclamation, pro-
posed only to set free the slaves of active,
armed rebels. Colonel Cochrane, indorsed
by the Secretary of War, and it would seem
by a number of prominent, leading Demo-
Gratis, such as Edwin Oroswell, formerly edi-
tor of the Albany Argus, Daniel S. Dickin-
son, and others, is in favor, in certain con.
tipgencies, of going much further, and of
arming equipping and drilling them, and
giving them an opportunity to 'fght for
free government and the liberty of the hu-
man race"
We believe Fremont was right, and that
the Government will yet have to adopt the
same or a similar policy, viz: the confsca-
tion of the property of active rebels, includ-
ing "slave property" but we should be op-
posed to arming the slaves thus confscated.
We do not need them in that capacity. II
would, in our opinion, be a mischievous, il
not adangerous, experiment; and until.we do
need them as soldiers, or until some great
emergency shall arise, clearly demanding
e,ch a rasort tba axnaripnanf abouId not he
ventured upon, nor even advocated. If Eng
land should become involved in this war; on
the side of the rebellion, or if the rebels
should resort to the enlistiDg and arming
their negroes to fight against the Govern
ment then it may be well enough, if not abb
solutely rightand proper, for the Government
10 resort TO such measure. 1t should only
be used as last resort.
ha'her than that the rebellion shall sue
ceed OF that England shall break the block
ade and get cotton, or that the shareholders
OF the South shall triumph over the armies
of the Union by the aid of armed slavas as
allies, we will do it. But until some great
emergency OF this kind shall arise, let US be-
content TO demand only that slavery shall
take the chances in this war; that our sol
diers shall not be degraded, and the public
sentiment Of the loyal States insultsd, b!
compelling our armies to protect slavery AM
return fugitive slaves and that when
comes to "coDfscating" the property Of rebel
and traitOrs, 'siave property" shall be pu
upon an equal footing and treated the sam
as other property. If either is needed, US
1t; If the one is "cor6scRted," let the othe
b Als0.