It was noticed at the time as removing difficulties which perplexed many with regard to the powers of Congress.
In Paris, the Journal des Débats[6] referred to it as explaining the confiscation proposed in the United States, and quoted passages especially in reply to the Constitutionnel, which had attacked the measure.
A few opinions are given, merely to illustrate the tone of comment.
Hon. John Jay, afterwards our Minister at Vienna, who sympathized promptly with all that was done to crush the Rebellion, wrote from New York:—
“Your Confiscation speech is an admirable exposition of the subject, and will go far to remove any lingering doubts in the public mind in regard to the constitutionality and necessity of the measure.”
Then again he wrote:—
“I have re-read, with thorough satisfaction, your speech on Confiscation and Emancipation in the pamphlet you were good enough to send me. It is admirable in its tone, arrangement, and completeness, and the arguments and illustrations are overwhelming and unanswerable. The necessity of Emancipation is fast forcing itself upon our people by the stern logic of facts, but your speech will remove any lingering doubts.”
Hon. Amos P. Granger, former Representative in Congress, and a stern patriot, wrote from Syracuse, New York:—
“Your remarks of the 19th, as reported in the Tribune day before yesterday, are read in this vicinity with a great deal of pleasure and approbation. They are replete with prudence, skill, and wisdom. Such sentiments are rarely heard in Washington. It would seem that they would be decisive.”