Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate and Cabinet / An Autobiography.

by John Sherman

Among the numerous bills relating to the war, that which became the act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, and to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, excited the greatest interest, giving rise to a long debate. It was founded on the faulty idea that a territorial war, existing between two distinct parts of the country, could be treated as an insurrection. The law of nations treats such a war as a contest between two separate powers, to be governed by the laws of war. Confiscation in such a war is not a measure to be applied to individuals in a revolting section, but if the revolt is subdued, the property of revolting citizens is subject to the will of the conqueror and to the law of conquest. The apparent object of the law referred to was to cripple the power of the Confederate States, by emancipating slaves held in them, whenever such states fell within the power of the federal army. This object was accomplished in a better and more comprehensive way by the proclamation of the President. The confiscation act had but little influence upon the result of the war, except that it gathered at the wake of our armies in the south a multitude of negroes called "contrabands," who willingly performed manual labor, but were often an incumbrance and had to be fed and protected.

The freedom of these "contrabands" was the result of the war, and not of the confiscation act. In the later period of the war, they, in common with the free negroes from the north, were organized into regiments commanded by white men, and rendered valuable service to the Union cause.

When the confiscation bill was pending, on the 23rd of April, 1862, I made a speech in support of an amendment offered by me and in substance adopted. A few extracts of my speech will show my opinions on this subject:

"Confiscation is not only justified by the laws of war, by the practice of many nations, but it is practiced by our enemies in the most obnoxious way. They seize all kinds of property of loyal citizens; they destroy contracts; confiscate debts. All the property of citizens of loyal states which is within a disloyal state is seized without exception, and that whether such citizen has aided the government or not. They also seize the property of all citizens in disloyal states who will not commit an act of treason by aiding them. Yet they profess to be governed by a constitution similar to the constitution of the United States, so far as it relates to the rights of person and property. They draw the distinction between the laws of war and the laws of peace. . . .

"Sir, it is time there was an end of this. We are at war. We must destroy our enemies or they will destroy us. We must subdue their armies and we must confiscate their property. The only question with me is as to the best measure of confiscation. That some one should be enacted, and that speedily, is not only my conviction of duty, but it will be demanded by those who will have to bear the burdens of the war. Now, it is the interest of every citizen in a seceding state to be a rebel. If a patriot, his property is destroyed. If a rebel, his property is protected alike by friend and foe. Now, the burdens of war will fall, by heavy taxation, upon loyal citizens, but rebels are beyond our reach. How long can we conduct such a war? Sir, we have been moderate to excess. War is a horrible remedy, but when we are compelled to resort to it, we should make our enemies feel its severity as well as ourselves. . . .

"If too much is attempted in the way of confiscation, nothing will be accomplished. If nothing is confiscated, you array against you all who wish in a civil war merely to preserve their property and to remain quiet. This is always a large class in every community. If rebellion will secure their property from rebels and not endanger it to the government, they are rebels. Those whose position or character have secured them offices among the rebels can only be conquered by force. Is it not, therefore, possible to frame a bill which will punish the prominent actors in the rebellion, proclaim amnesty to the great mass of citizens in the seceding states, and separate them from their leader? This, in my judgment, can be done by confining confiscation to classes of persons. The amendment I propose embraces five classes of persons."

The confiscation act was more useful as a declaration of policy than as an act to be enforced. It was denounced by the Confederates and by timid men in the north, but the beneficial results it aimed at were accomplished, not by law, but by the proclamation of the President and by the armed forces of the United States.

The several acts providing for enrolling and calling out the national forces gave rise to much debate, partly upon sectional lines. The policy of drafting from the militia of the several states, the employment of substitutes and the payment of bounties, were contested and defended. I insisted that if a special fund for hiring substitutes was raised, it ought to be by a tax upon all wealthy citizens, and not confined to the man who was drafted. These and numerous questions of a similar character occupied much time, and created much feeling. It is now hardly worth while, in view of the results of the war, to revive old controversies. It is sufficient to say that all the laws passed to organize the national forces and call out the militia of the several states in case of emergency contributed to the success of the Union armies. I do not recall any example in history where a peaceful nation, ignorant of military discipline, becoming divided into hostile sections, developed such military power, courage and endurance as did the United States and Confederate States in our Civil War. Vast armies were raised by voluntary enlistments, great battles were fought with fearful losses on both sides, and neither yielded until the Confederates had exhausted all their resources and surrendered to the Union armies without conditions, except such as were dictated by General Grant —to go home and be at peace.

During the entire war Washington was a military camp. Almost every regiment from the north on the way to the army in Virginia stopped for a time in Washington. This was especially the case in 1861. It was usual for every new regiment to march along Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House. Among the early arrivals in the spring of 1861 was a regiment from New Hampshire, much better equipped than our western regiments. My colleague, Ben Wade, and I went to the White House to see this noted regiment pass in review before Mr. Lincoln. As the head of the line turned around the north wing of the treasury department and came in sight, the eyes of Wade fell upon a tall soldier, wearing a gaudy uniform, a very high hat, and a still higher cockade. He carried a baton, which he swung right and left, up and down, with all the authority of a field marshal. Wade, much excited, asked me, pointing to the soldier: "Who is that?" I told him I thought that was the drum major. "Well," he said, "if the people could see him they would make him a general." So little was then known of military array by the wisest among our Senators.

It was quite a habit of Senators and Members, during the war, to call at the camps of soldiers from their respective states. Secretary Chase often did this and several times I accompanied him. The "boys," as they preferred to be called, would gather around their visitors, and very soon some one would cry out "a speech, a speech," and an address would usually be made. I heard very good speeches made in this way, and, in some cases, replied to by a private soldier in a manner fully as effective as that of the visitor.