Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1863-10-22

Proclamation has fulmined over Alabama without
disturbing slavery in ihe least, but who supposes
that the presence Of army III that State would
be equally innocuous, who supposes that the
army would be able to make any more slaves free
because all the slaves had been ordered and declar-
ed to be free by ediot of the President under date
of January l, 1868 1t is only by such tests that
we can discover when men are arguing in favor of
the proclamation and when they arguing in
favor of military force as disturber Of slavery
Our readers know that since the PRONUNCIATION
of the edict We have never "opposed" it on prac-
teal grounds but have confined all our observa-
tons to the theoretical principles which it seemed
to involve 1t is quite true that We advised against
its utterance for the same reason given by Major
Gen. Dix when he says that he would never have
| advised it, because he "bceved thnt it would
prove practically imperative; that it would only
reach negroes who came within our control, and
they were, by the laws of war, if we choose so to
regard them, free without it" And, moreover,
we believed that it would create discussions among
loyal men and tend greatly to reinforce the ranks
of the insurgents by giving to the Disunion lead
ers just such topic Of adjuration and just such
motive of alarm as would best enable them to ar
ray all classes at the South against the Govern
ment, and thus to provide fresh defences for the
very institution it was sought to assail. But,
while we now suppose ourselves clearly to perceive
that all our original objections to this measure are
more than justified by the events that have follow
ed in its train, we cannot be said to "oppose" the
proclamation simply because we say, as we must
say in all candor, that we cannot see it has ac-
oomplished any of the good results ascribed to it,
and because we show that all the results ascribed
to it in the way of damaging slavery are purely
supposittious, being results which are solely due
to the operation Of military force, and which would
have ensued more rapidly without the proclama
ton than with it, as in the former case there would
have been less resistance to overcome in the ranks
of the insurgents We do not object that any body
should defend the proclamation. Indeed we should
like to see clear analysis OF the things it has
complished, made by one who shall distinguish be-
tween the emancipation edict and the operations of
military force, which acted just as efficiently in de-
stroying slavery before the edct was issued as af
forwards, and which is seen to destroy slavery just
as eectually in those parts of Louisiana where the
proclamation doe, not apply as where it does.
Where such are the elements of the problem we
are aware of no logic by which the relation of cause
and effect can be established between the enamel
patton proclamation and certain results which en-
sue with equal regularity before and after its pro-
mitigation, and which appear with much GER
tanty in places where it docs not appya in places
where it does.
| And, in order that the dalectcians who are
anxiou, to try their hands in substantiatiog the
proposition advanced by Mr.. Chase in behalf of the
efficacy of the proclamation may argue to some de.
oite purpose and not waste their logic on an ire
levsnt issue, growing out of the operations of
military force, we submit to their consideration
| the following theses, which exhaust the coud-
tons of the problem and give precision to the
question:
| Slavery was every where destroyed by tie hos
tile presence of our armies before the proclamation
| was issued;
| Slavery is every where destroyed by the hostile
presence of our armies since the proclamation has
been issued
Required to prove that it is the proclamation
which destroys slavery.
And sgan: ....
| The hostile presence of military force where
the proclamation does not apply Gas in New Or
leans, for instance) produces the destruction of
slavery;
Where the proclamation does apply, but where
there is no hostile presence of our military forces
las in Alabama,) slavery remains undisturbed !.
Required to prove that it is the proclamation
which damages slavery.
| When, from these premises, the desired conclu-
sion shall be reached the critics Of the proclama
ton will be driven from the field in disgrace, but
so long as its defenders suppose themselves to
be arguing in its favor, when in reality they are
simply affirming what nobody denies about the
efficacy of military force as disturber of slavery,
they can expect to make but little progress in de-
monstratng their proposition. And in the mean
time let there be no strife, we pray, between those
who believe in the proclamation Ui military force,
and those who believe in military force pihout the
proclamation for, if the former could only learn
to say what they mean, if the latter could only
learn to understand what the former mean to say,
we are sure there would be little room for practi-
| cal disagreement between them.
PARROTT,S THREE HUNDRED POIINDER GINS