I know not how we can use his right arm and ask him to shed his blood in our defence, and then hand over his wife and child to bondage.

For all that he has, as well as all that he is, even wife and child, belong to another.

Surely this unrighteous pretension will not be made the apology for a denial of rights.

As men cannot take advantage of their own wrong, so slave-masters cannot take advantage of Slavery.

Concede that the soldier may be enfranchised, and then by the same constitutional power his family may be admitted to an equal liberty.

Any other conclusion would be illogical as inhuman, discreditable alike to head and heart.

There is no argument, whether of reason or humanity, for the enfranchisement of the soldier, which does not plead equally for that of his family.

Nay, more,--I know not how we can expect a blessing on our arms while we fail to perform this duty.

I cannot close without declaring again my opinion, that Congress at this moment is complete master of the whole subject of Slavery everywhere in the United States, even without any Constitutional Amendment.

It can sweep all out of existence, precisely as it can remove any other obstruction to the national defence, and all this by virtue of a power as indisputable as the power to raise armies or to suspend the Habeas Corpus.

Here is an exceptional crime,--one of the most atrocious in the history of any country.

Let us vote upon it, put it on its passage, speed it on its way; for only by doing so can we wash our hands of this blood.

For our own security, and that our precedents may conform to just principles, we now propose by formal Act of Congress to throw over this notice of the President the shield of Congressional sanction; and the question is, Can this be done?

Can Congress, by an act of ratification, impart to the original notice of the President that power and character which, without subsequent ratification, it would not have?

The first is the reason of the case, its common sense; for without this power I can imagine difficulties or embarrassments in the administration of government.

I say the power must exist in Congress of ratifying, if it sees fit, certain executive acts.

Now, Sir, I believe that the Senate will not venture, in this age of Christian light, under any inducement, under any provocation, to counsel the Executive Government to enter into such open competition with barbarism.

We cannot be cruel, or barbarous, or savage, because the Rebels we now meet in warfare are cruel, barbarous, and savage.

Retaliation should be limited to such punishments as may be requisite for our own safety and the good of society; beyond this it cannot be justified.

I am confident that no authentic record can be shown where such savage treatment has been imitated in retaliation by a Christian power.

That question strikes at the heart of this whole subject.

What right have you to adopt any barbarous conduct because the barbarous enemy with whom you deal has set the example?

And for the same reason it is unlawful for us to adopt starvation, to adopt all that cruel system of treatment so emphatically set forth in the preamble to this resolution.

The retaliation now proposed is useless, for it can have no practical result; and it is not in harmony with the usages of civilized nations.

Yet civilized nations acknowledge retaliation as the sternest feature of war.