Year: 1864

A correspondent Of our esteemed contemporary


the Nashville (Tenn) Press, in some comments on
" the Presidents plan Of restoration" under the
signature of "Nemo," makes the following refer
enoe to this journal:


"There in the articles OF the press singular want
clear and full apprehension Of the force and effect Of


the Presidents proclamation This want of an accurate


understanding OF that important document even finds


place in the articles of the candid and enlightened editors


of the National Intelligencer We yesterday stated


says that Journal in its comments the message that


by remtng the fnaty OF the emancipation edct to the
decision Of Congress- of the Supreme Court the Pes


dent could not have done any thing more even by reyo


cation of the proclamation for whether the proclamation
be revoked maintained by him. the question ofs legal
effect would equally up for final adjudication by the
Federal Judiciary the only difference being that in the
one the question would be, whether despite the re-


vocation the slaves of the insurgent States were not
actually emancpated by it and in the other case whether


competent for the President in the exercise of bis
ahrnaaA recognising slavery


mo question Of the power OF the
the laws of State recognising slavery could arise
under the Presidents proclamation whether revoked or
sustained by him, because it event abrOgate the


law of any State upon the subject of slavery The rights
of State as State are in this matter to declare define
and settle what shall and what shall not be property
within the State and to prescribe the rules for its enjoy
ment and transmission by gift sale, or succession. To
emancpate every existing slave in State does not abro
gate the laws of that State by which slavery established
recognised because that act does not abogate abo


sh the right of the very whose slaves freed
citizens of that State by gift SALE succession to acquire
| and hold as niany or more other slaves"


We apprehend that :" the want of an accurate
understanding" in this matter will be found to lie
at the doors of our critic rather than our own,
though it may have resulted more from our mis-
fortune in not making our views sufficiently per-
spicuous than from his fault in misconceivng their
bearing. We contemplated no question with re-
gard to the assumed power of the President to
abrogate, by virtue of hi, emancipation edict, the
laws of State recognising slavery, except such
must necessarily arise, after the is an end


in the of slaves should there be any who have
not been actually freed, but who have been "order-
ed and declared by the President "to be now,
henceforth, and forever free" In regard to all
such persons the question would arise whether the
proclamation of the President could avail to abro.
gate the laws Of the Slavehodng States impress
ing on them the status of slavery, and all persons
in this category might equally claim their freedom
under this proclamation of the President, whether
the said proclamation should be revoked by him
or not If the proclamation of January lst, 1868,
was constitutional and proper at the time of its
PRONUNCIATION, there is slave legally held to-day
in the State of Alabama, though in point Of fact
and in contemplation of the laws Of that State the
status of slavery is still recognised with regard Be-
large part of its nooTed population IN . word.
if the proclamation of the President % ordering snd
declaring" all slaves in Alabama to be free is good
and valid law, there is a conflict of laws between
that proclamation and the regulations of the State
and the question must necessarily arise-not in
deed whether the President has the power to abro-
gate the saoe system, considered organic
institution, respecting which we have never affirmed
any thing because no such question is presented
by the terms of the procamation-but whether he
has power, by proclamation, to abrogate the law
of slavery with regard to slaves who have not
been actually freed by military force, that all
such slaves would be entitled to their freedom
under the mere terms of the proclamation. And
this question could be settled in the affirmative
only by assuming that cit is competent for the
President, in the exercise of his war powers rs
commander-in-ohief of the army and navy, to abb
rogate the laws Of State recognising slavery"
To this extent the proclamation assumes to 90,
auu bhC ioi ohC iCNo 10 buoioioio
not accurate when he says that ono question of
the power of the President to abrogate the laws of
State recognising slavery could ever arise under the
Presidents proclamation, whether revoked or sus-
tanned by him, because it can in no event abrogate
the laws of any State upon the subject of slavery"
In so saying he begs the very point in dispute, so
far as any point is presented by the proclamation
with regard to slaves not actually freed by our
arms, and all questions of this kind be avoided
only by supposng that at the end of the war there
shall be no slave left who has not some better title
to his freedom than that which he can find in the
terms Of the proclamation when be shall claim that it
abrogated in his behoof the law of the State recog
nsing him as a slave. The President, it is true
never assumed to abrogate the laws of the insur-
gent States recognising slavery, that no future
slaves could be held in these States under those
laws but be has assumed to abrogate those laws with
regard to all the existing slaves in such States with
the enumerated exceptions. And to this extent, as
we have said, questions Of q right to freedom un-
der the proclamation must in the case of slaves
not otherwise freed, depend for their decision on
the assumed right Of the President to abrogate,
with regard to all existing slaves, the laws of the
States recognising slavery.


We alluded to this subject originally and have
adverted to it again to-day only for the purpose of