The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1864-09-06

Now, tse United States have disposed Of the
prov efty which they have acquired by capture In
slaves taken by them, by giving that right OF pro-
pertY TO the man himself, TO the slave, !. c. by
emsncipaHng him and declaring him free for
ever, so that If We have not mistaken the prnci-
pies Of International law and the laws of war We
have no slaves In the armies Of the United States
All are free men, being made 50 in such manner
as We have chosen to dispose OF our property in
them which we acquired by capture.
Slaves being captured by as, and the right OF
rropcrty i'm them thereby vested in US, thai right
OF property has been disposed Of by us by manu-
mitting them as has always been the aCknOw-
lodged right Of the owner % do to his slave. The
manner In which we dispose of our property
while il is in our possession certainly cannot be
questioned by you.
Nor is the case altered Il the property Is not
actually captured in battle, but comes either
voluntarily or invOluntarily from the belligerent
owner into the possession Of the other beligcrent.
take il no one would doubt the right of the
United States to a drove Of Confederate mules, or
herd of Confederate cattle, which should wan
der or rush across the Confederate lines into the
lines Of the United States army. SO it seems 10
me- treating the negro as property merely, If that
piece Of property passes the Confederate lines,
and comes into the lines Of the United states, that
property is as much lost 70 its owner in the Con-
iCderatc States as would be the mule or OK, the
property OF the resident of the Confederate States,
which should fall into our hands.
If, therefore, the privilege of International law
and the laws Of war used in this discussion are
correctly stated, then IL would seem that the de-
duction logically flows therefrom, in natural
sequence, that the Confederate States can have
no claim upon the negro soldiers captured by
them from the armies of the United States,
because Of the former ownership of them by
their citizens or subjects, and only claim such as
result, under the laws Of war, from their captor
merely.
Do the Confederate authorities claim the right
e reduce to a state of slavery free men, prisoners
OF war captured by them This claim our
fathers fought against under Bainbridge and De-
pff,r rptn caf fY1Fh nv on a.
Northern shore of Africa about the year 1900,
and in 1864 their children will hardly yield il
upon their own soil.
This point will not pursue further, because I
understand you TO repudate the idea that you
will reduce free men to slaves because of capture
in war, aud that you base the claim of the Con-
federate authorities to re-cnsayc our negro sol
dieTs, when captured by you, upon the aus post
hmiRi," or that principle of the law of nations
which inhabilitatCs the former owner with his
property taken byan enemy, when such property
is recovered by the forces of his own country.
Or in other words, you claim that, by the laws
Of nations and of war, when properly of the sub
jccts of one belligerent Power, captured bn the
forces of the other beligercnt, is reCaptured by
| the armies Of the former owner, then such pro
pcTty is to be restored TO is prior pOssessOr, rs il
il bad never been captured and, therefore, under
this principle your authorities propose to restore
| to their masters the slaves which heretofore be-
| longed to them which you may capture from us.
| But this post lminary right under which you
| claim TO act, as understood and defined by all
| writers on national law Is applicable simply to
| mmouable property, and that too, only after the
| complete resubjugation of that portion of the
| country in which the property is situated, upon
which this right fastons itself. BY the Laws and
| customs of war, this right has never been ap-
| piled TO morale property.
| True, it is, | believe, that the Romans at
tempted to apply it to the case Of slaves, but for
| two thousand years no other matte has attempted
to set up this right as ground for treating slaves
| differently from other property.
Ipg,V,, Etl IN
| men captured from opposing bolgerents in a
| civil war, such ours unhappily is.
| Consistently then with any principle OF the law
of nations, treating slaves as property merely, IL
would seem to be impossible for the Government
| Of the United States TO permit the negroes in
their ranks to be re enslaved when captured, or
treated otherwise than as prisoners of war.
l have fOrbome, sir, in this discussiOn 20 argue
the question upon any other or different grounds
Of right than those adopted by your authorities
In claiming the negro rs property, because
understand that your fabric OF opposition 70 the
| Government of the United States has the right of
property in man as its cornerstone. OF course II
would not be profitable in settling question OF
exchange of prisoners Of war to attempt 10 argue
the question Of abandonment of the very corner
| stone of their attempted political edtce. There
| fore have admitted all the considerations which
should apply to the negro soldier as a man, and
dealt with HIM upon the Confederate theory OF
property only.
unite with YOU most cordially, Sir, IN desiring
| q speedy settlement OF al these questions 10 view
of The great suffering endured by our prisoners
in The hands of your authorities, OF which you so
| feelingly speak. Let me ask In view of that sut'
| iering, why you have delayed eight months tC
answer proposition which by no accepting yon
admit to be right, just, and humane, allowing
that suffering 10 continue so long3 One can
not help thinking, even at the risk OF Oeng
deemed unchaTitable, that the benevolent sym
pathies of the Confederate Authorities have
been lately stirred By the depefod condition OF
their aImies. and desire 20 get into the field, e
affect the present campaign, the bale, hearty, auC
well-ted prisoners held by the l. 1ited states IN
exchange for the half-staryed, sick, emaclated
and unserviceable soldiers of the United States
now ianguishing in your prisons. The events o
this war, if we did not know it before, have taugh
us that it is not the Northern portion Of the
American people aone who know how TO drive
sharp bargains.
The wrongs, indgnities, and priyations suffered
| by our soldiers would move 70 consent 4
, anything to procure their chynge, except L
barter away The honor and iath Of the Govern
ment Of the United States, which has been 81
solemuly pledged 10 the co!ored soldiers In IL
| ranks.
Cousisten with national faith aud justice w
- | cannot relnQuish this position. With Your authO
rites it is question OF property merely. IL seem
, | 20 address itself 10 you in this form, vii
! you suilgr your soldier, captured N lighting you
{ | battles, to be in confinement for months rathe
4 | than release him by giving for him that whic
c you call piece OF properly, an which we az
, | willing 10 accept ms IA man:
{ | You certain appear 10 place 'ss value upo
u your soldier than you do upOl your negro.
$ assure Ou, much as we Of the North are accuse
r of loving properly, our Culeu5 would have n
- difficulty in yielding up any piece of propert
u they have in exchange for one ot their brother
C or sog anpuishing in your prisons. Certain
!, there could be no doubt thai they would do S
c were that piece of properly less ia value than iy
thousand dollars iu Confederate money, which
y believed to be the price OF an able-bOdied negr
Is in The iusuuecli0nuTy States.
d Trusting that may receive such a reply {
e HE questions rup)undcd in this note, as wi
n lead TO a sp, edy re.umptiJn %, ne negotiation
y Tor full exchange of a lprisOner' and deliver
Of them 10 their respective anthJritIes, have th
r. honor 10 be, very respectfully, your ObedieI
e servant BESJ. +. BUTLER,
Mnior-Gen- and Commission of Exchange.
!. published Commissioner Onld's answer
y this letter yesterday.-ED. EVENING TELE
n GRAPH
FORTS MORGAN AND GAINES