The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1864-09-12

mistaken the principles 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 so in snch a manner as We
have chosen to dispose of our property In
them which we acquired by capture.
Slaves being cabtured by US, and the right
| OF property In them thereby vested in us
that right of property has been disposed oI
| by us by manumitting them, as has ALWAYS
been the acknowledged right Of the owner to
do to his slave. The manner In which we
dispose OF our property while it is yet In our
possession cannot be questioned by you.
Nor Is the case altered If the property Is
NOT actually captured In battle, but comes
either voluntarily or involuntarily from the
beiligerent owner into the possession Of the
other belligerent. @
take it no one would doubt the right of
the United States to q drove of Confederate
mules, or q herd OF Confederate cattle, which
should wander or rush across the Confederate
lines into the lines Of the United States army.
90 II seems TO me, treating the negro as prop
erty merely, II that piece Of property passes
the Confederate lines, and comes into the
lines of the United States, that property is as
much lost to its owner in the Confederate
States as would be the mule or OK, the proper
~ OF the resident of the Confederate States,
which should fall into our hands.
Ii, therefore, the principles OF International
law and the laws of war used in this discus
sion are correctly stated, then 1t would seem
that the deduction logically flows therefrom,
in natural sequence, that the Confederate
States can have no claim upon the negro SOL
diers captured by them from the armies of
the United States, because of the former
ownership of them by their citizens or sub
!ects, and only claim such as result, under the
laws OF war, from their captor merely.
DO the Canfadorata .uthor;t;n. 1T. A..
right to reduce to state of slavery free men,
prisoners OF war captured by them? This
claim our fathers fought against under Balm
bridge and Decatur, when set up by the Bar
oary powers on the northern shore of Africa,
about the year 1900, and in 1854 their chill
dIen will hardly yield it upon their own soil.
This point will not pursue further, because
understand you TO repudiate the idea that
you will reduce free men TO slaves because Of
capture In war, and that you claim that by the
laws OF nations aud OF war, when property
OF the subjects Of one belligerent power.
captured by the forces of the other belllger-
ent, Is recaptured by the armies of the for
mer owner, then such property is to be re-
stored 70 It's prior possessor, as III it had new
er been captured, and, therefore, under this
principle your authorities propose to restore
TO their masters the slaves which heretofore
belonged TO them which you may capture
from US.
But this post luminary right under which
you claim to act, as understood and defined
oy all writers on national law, is applicable
simply 70 lmmovaoa 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 fastens ii.
self. by the laws and customs OF war this
right has never been applied to movable
True, it Is, believe, that the Romans at
tempted to apply it TO the case of slaves. but
for 1000 years no other nation has attempted
TO set up this right as ground for treating
slaves differently from other property.
But the Romans even refused TO re slave
men captured from opposing belligerents in
civl war, such As ours unhappily is.
Consistently, then, with any principle of the
law OF nations, treating slaves As property
merely, 1t 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,
have forhorne, sir, In this discussion, 10
argue the question upon any other or differ
ent grounds OF right than those adopted by
your authorities In claiming the negro as
property, because l understand that your IA I
oric Oh opposition 70 The government Of the
-s-~N- O~>tN~ ..--@ s4-1 VI III
man IS its cornerstone. or course il would
not be profitable In settling question OF ex-
change Ut prisoners Of war 10 attempt to ar
que the question Of abandonment OF the very
cornerstone OF their attempted political edi- I
ice. Therefore have admitted all the con-
siderstions which should apply TO the negro
soldier as man, and dealt with him upon the
Confederate theory Of property ouiy.
unite with you cordially, sir, In desiring
AwT .f
view OF the great sulfering endured by our
prisoners In the hands Of your authorities, Of
which you 90 feelingly speak. Let me ask, In
view OF that suffering, why you have delayed
eight months 70 answer q proposition which
by now accepting you admit TO he right, just
and humane, allowing thai suffering TO con-
tinue so longf One cannot help thinking,
even at the risk If being deemed uncharitabie,
that the benevolent sympathies OF the Con-
fcderate authorities have been lately stirred
BY the depleted condition OF their armies, aud
desire TO get into the field 10 aaec, tae pres
ent campaign, the hs,e, hearty aud well-fed
prisoners held w t2e United States in ex-
change for the half-siaryed, sick. emanciated
and unserviceahie soldiers Of the United States
now languishing In your prisons. The events
OF this war, II we did not know il before,
have taught us that 1t is not the northern por-
ton OF the American people alone who know
how TO drive sharp bargains,
The wrongs, indignities and privations suf-
fered BY our soldiers would move me to con-
sent to anything to procure their exchange,
except TO barter away the honor and faith of
the government Of the United States, which
has been so solemnly pledged TO the colored
soldiers In its ranks.
Consistently with national faith and Justice
we cannot relinquish this position. With
your authorities it is question of property
merely. 1t seems to address itself to you 10
this form, Will you suffer your soldier, cap
tured 10 lighting your battles, to be In con-
hnement for months, rather than release him
by giving him for that which you call piece
OF property, and which we are willing TO ac-
cept IS man?
You certainly appear to place less value up
on your soldier than you do upon your negro.
assure you, much as We of the North are ac-
cused Of loving property, our citizens would
have no difficulty in yielding up any piece Of
property they have in exchange for one of
their brothers or sons lsnguishing in prisons.
Certainly there could be no doubt that they
would do so were that piece Of property less
In value than five thousand dollars in Confed-
crate money which Is believed to be the price
Of an able-bodied negro in the insurrectionary
states.