In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

non-issued lincoln veto to second confiscAtion, July 12, 1862 edward mcPherson, The Political History of the United States of America, During the Great Rebellion (Washington, D.C.: Philp & Solomons, 1865), 197– 98; Abraham lincoln to Congress (July 17, 1862, Draft of Veto message). Transcribed and annotated by the lincoln Studies Center, Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois. Available at Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress , manuscripts Division (Washington, D.C.: American memory Project, [2000–2001]), http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/alhtml In this often overlooked Abraham lincoln document (probably because of its legalistic nature), President lincoln explained his opposition to the proposed Second Confiscation Act. Four sections of the act could be construed as constituting a bill of attainder , and the Constitution prohibited such attainders. But, Congress passed a supplement to the act the same day as they passed the Second Confiscation Act; lincoln signed both the act and the supplement and did not issue this veto. July 17—The President sent this message to Congress: Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives: Considering the bill for “An act to suppress treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, and for other purposes,” and the joint resolution explanatory of said act, as being substantially one, I have approved and signed both. Before I was informed of the resolution, I had prepared the draft of a message , stating objections to the bill becoming a law, a copy of which draft is herewith submitted. Abraham lincoln. July 12, 1862. [Copy] Fellow-Citizens of the House of Representatives: I herewith return to your honorable body, in which it originated, the bill for an act entitled, “An act to suppress treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate Documentary History of the American Civil War era 86 the property of rebels, and for other purposes,” together with my objections to its becoming a law. There is much in the bill to which I perceive no objection. It is wholly perspective ; and it touches neither person or property of any loyal citizen, in which particular it is just and proper. The first and second sections provide for the conviction and punishment of persons who shall be guilty of treason, and persons who shall “incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the united States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in or give aid and comfort to any such existing rebellion or insurrection.” By fair construction, persons within those sections are not punished without regular trials in duly constituted courts under the forms and all the substantial provisions of law and the Constitution applicable to their several cases. To this I perceive no objection; especially as such persons would be within the general pardoning power, and also the special provision for pardon and amnesty contained in the act. It is also provided that the slaves of persons convicted under these sections shall be free. I think there is an unfortunate form of expression, rather than a substantial objection, in this. It is startling to say that Congress can free a slave within a State, and yet if it were said the ownership of the slave had first been transferred to the nation, and Congress had then liberated him, the difficulty would at once vanish. And this is the real case. The traitor against the General Government forfeits his slave at least as justly as he does any other property; and he forfeits both to the Government against which he offends. The Government, so far as there can be ownership, thus owns the forfeited slaves, and the question for Congress in regards to them is, “shall they be made free or sold to new masters ?” I perceive no objection to Congress deciding in advance that they shall be free. To the high honor of Kentucky, as I am informed, she is the owner of some slaves by escheat, and has sold none, but liberated all. I hope the same is true of some other States. Indeed, I do not believe it will be physically possible for the General Government to return persons so circumstanced to actual slavery. I believe there would be physical resistance to it, which could neither be turned aside by argument nor driven away by force. In this view I have no objection to this feature of the bill. Another matter involved in these two sections and running through other parts of...

Share