The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1864-05-14
10 He Kaavs .r--tne othsr rhiass

4uO IOCeot 1OoS0 s0SsSS - 1t~1VeS
Liacoln compared with some Of his for.
asr sayinss ON the sa=:e subject matter,
place him in suoh position Of incensist>
eney and preva, icatisn, Is to be renasrk>
able for man Of his supposed shrswd-
ness and cunning. Mr.. Hodges is editor
of the Frankfort, ny, Commonwealth; asd
had accompanied Gov Bramletts On his
recent visit to Washington. The PRESS
dent made to them q speech, with which
Mr. Hodges protested to be so greatly
pleased that he begged the President to
give it to him in writing, which he accord
ingly did in what is now known ~ the
Hodges letter. Fl.
Gov. Bramlette, as is knows, went to
Washington to implore the President to
step stealing negroes in Kentucky by fore.
ing them into the army, and the Presi-
dent, to excuse himself for engaging In
the business, says: =. -. :
"Whsn, early in the war, Gen Fremont
attempted military emancipation, I for
bade it, because did not then think it
an indispensable necessity When, still
later, Gen. Hunter ATTEMPTED military
emancipation, again forbade it, because
did not yet think the indispensable
necessity had come When, in March and
May, and July, 1862, | made earasst and
successive appeals to the Border States TO
favor compensated emancipation. be-
lisved the indispensable necessity for mil.
itary emancipation, and arHiing the blacks,
al h, hat
sure. They declined the proposition ssd
was, in my best Judgment. driven to
the alternative of either surrendering the
Union, and with it the Contribution, or Of
laying strong hand upon the co!ored Gle
ment. l chose the latter.
The President thus virtually says that
when he proposed to the border states the
adoption of his scheme of compensated
emancipation he warned them tina. if
they rejected it, he would be obliged to
clay strong hand upon the colored ele>
ment." that is, take their negroes by mil
itary power, whether they consented or
not
Now TO show how true and honest this
is, lie: us see what the President actually
did say to The border state members that
waited on him, but few months before
he issued hi. emancipation proclamation:
Mr. CRlsrIELp, of Maryland, asked ,ciot
,couh Be the et7e1 Of tie refusal o. the States
10 accept his proposal, and desired 10 Inon il
the President looked to any poies upon tie &C
ceptance or rejection Of las scheme.
The PRESIDENT rsphei that lie had no de-
signs Jeyoad the action of the States on tbs
p -rtcular SUBJECT lie shout lament Meir re-
fusai 10 accept 1t, bath had no designs beyOnd
their refusal Of ii
"MsNziEs, OF Kentucky, inquired il the
President thought there was any power
except in the States themselves to carry
out his scheme oil emancipation.
The President replied he thought there
was not, and, according to the structure
OF our Government, there could not be
He then went Off into a course OF remark
not qualifying the foregoing declaration,
nor u ateral TO be repeated 10 a just un.
der standing Of his meaning
This report of the Interview between
the President and the border state men.
bers is verified By John j. CritteDdeu aud
SOME 90 other members.
Was there ever anything more dishon-
est, in view of it, than the pretehce
now set up by the President that the bor>
der states had fair warning?
But suppsss they had warning, how
could the, accept the Presidents propo.
sition Before they could accept 1t, Con
gress must first pass bill making an
offer Of compensation to the border states,
and it 10 notorious congress never passed
anything of the sort They treated the
Presidents proposition with silent COM
tempt. So The President justi6es himself
in new punishIng the border states for net
accepting tender which was never made
them
There is another curious fssture in this
Hodges letter. In his interview with the
border state men the President says fatty
he thought there was no power except
in the states themselves to carry out any
scheme Of emancipation" Now, however,
he says, ~ understand my oath to preserve
the Constitution IL poses upon me the duty
of preserving, by every indispensable
means that Goyernment-that nation Of
which that Constitution was the organic
law. Was it possible to lose the Nation
and yet preserve the Constitution ?. BY
general law, life and limb must BE- protect
ed yet often limb must be amputated
to save life, but life is never wisely Civ
en- to save limb. felt. that measures
otherwise unconstitutional might become
lawful BY becoming indispensable to the
prese walton of the Constitution through
the preservation Of the Nation.
According to this, the consttutioaality
Of militrry emancipation became a que.-
tioa depending simply upon the physical
aspect Of our struggle with theinsurgents.
As long as it was probable We could sue
coed without destroying slavery, military
emancipation was Unconstitutional -
When it became probable that we could
not succeed without destroying slavery,
military emancipation was Constitution.
al" Accordingly. the military abolition
Of slavery became prospectively ''const,tu>
tlonal' in his opinion on the 22d of Sep
tember, 1852, when he issued his prslim.
mary proclamation of emancit . ion. 1t
became actually constitutions" on the
Ist Of January, 1868, when he consummat-
ed::Lis policy under this head.
1t would be difficult to conceive a::mers
perfect specimen Of chop logic. than this
How the Proclamation of Freedom and
the Amnesty Proclamation have broken
down the rebellion, is admirably illustrat,