Horace Greeley, The American Conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-65: its Causes, Incidents, and Results: Intended to exhibit especially its moral and political phases with the drift and progress of American opinion respecting human slavery from 1776 to the close of the War for the Union. Volume II.

[262] forever, in all the Territories of the United States now existing, or hereafter to be formed or acquired in any way.

No measure of the session was more vehemently opposed, not only by the Democrats without exception, but by the Border-State Unionists with equal zeal and unanimity; even Mr. Fisher, of Del., denouncing it, though he did not vote on the final passage. Mr. Cox, of Ohio, stigmatized it in debate as “a bill for the benefit of Secession and Jeff. Davis.” Mr. Crisfield, of Md., characterized it as “a palpable violation of the rights of the States, and an unwarrantable interference with private property — a fraud upon the States which have made cessions of land to this Government, a violation of the Constitution, and a breach of the pledges which brought the dominant [Republican] party into power” --“a usurpation” --“destructive of the good of the country,” &c., &c. Judge Thomas, of Mass., held that Congress could not warrantably pass this act without providing compensation for slaveholders in the Territories. Messrs. Bingham, of Ohio, Stevens and Kelley, of Pa., R. Conkling and Diven, of N. Y., Arnold and Lovejoy, of 111., and others, defended the bill, and it passed,¹ under the Previous Question: Yeas,85 (all Republicans but Sheffield, of R. I., and Judge Thomas, of Mass.--to meet whose objections the original bill had been modified): Nays, 50: composed of all the Democrats and Border-State Unionists who voted, including Messrs. Calvert, Crisfield, Leary, Francis Thomas, and Webster, of Md., J. B. Blair, Wm. G. Brown, and Segar, of Va., Casey, Crittenden, Dunlap, Grider, Harding, Mallory, Menzies, Wadsworth, and Wickliffe, of Ky., Clements and Maynard, of Tenn., Hall, Noell, and J. S. Phelps, of Mo.--22 of the 50 from Border Slave States.

The bill having reached the Senate, it was reported² by Mr. Browning, of Illinois, substituting for the terns above cited the following:

That, from and after the passage of this act, there shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the Territories of the United States now existing, or which may at any time hereafter be formed or acquired by the United States, otherwise than in punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

In this shape it passed :³ Yeas 28 (all Republicans); Nays 10 (all Opposition); and the House concurred⁴ in the Senate's amendment — Yeas 72; Nays 38--and the bill, being approved⁵ by the President, became henceforth and evermore the law of the land.

The policy of confiscating or emancipating the slaves of those engaged in the Rebellion was very cautiously and timidly approached at the first⁶ or extra session of this Congress. Very early in the ensuing session, it was again suggested in the Senate by Mr. Trumbull,⁷ of Illinois, and in the House by Mr. Eliot,⁸ of Mass.

At the former session, Congress had ventured only to direct the confiscation of the right or property of masters in such slaves as those masters permitted or directed to labor on fortifications or other works designed to aid the Rebellion; but now, a bolder and more sweeping measure was deemed requisite. Mr. Eliot's joint resolve-after disclaiming all right to interfere with the internal affairs and institutions of loyal States in peace-affirmed that the existing