The British General Election of 2017 1st

ed. Edition Philip Cowley

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-british-general-election-of-2017-1st-ed-edition-phi
lip-cowley/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The British General Election of 2019 Robert Ford

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-british-general-election-
of-2019-robert-ford/

The Future of Election Administration 1st ed. Edition

Mitchell Brown

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-future-of-election-
administration-1st-ed-edition-mitchell-brown/

Japan Decides 2021: The Japanese General Election

Robert J. Pekkanen

https://ebookmass.com/product/japan-decides-2021-the-japanese-
general-election-robert-j-pekkanen/

Political Communication in Britain: Campaigning, Media

and Polling in the 2019 General Election 1st Edition
Dominic Wring

https://ebookmass.com/product/political-communication-in-britain-
campaigning-media-and-polling-in-the-2019-general-election-1st-
edition-dominic-wring/
British Terrorist Novels of the 1970s 1st ed. Edition
Joseph Darlington

https://ebookmass.com/product/british-terrorist-novels-of-
the-1970s-1st-ed-edition-joseph-darlington/

Media and the Government of Populations: Communication,

Technology, Power 1st ed. Edition Philip Dearman

https://ebookmass.com/product/media-and-the-government-of-
populations-communication-technology-power-1st-ed-edition-philip-
dearman/

Street Art of Resistance 1st ed. 2017 Edition Sarah H.

Awad (Editor)

https://ebookmass.com/product/street-art-of-resistance-1st-
ed-2017-edition-sarah-h-awad-editor/

The Impact of the First World War on British

Universities 1st ed. Edition John Taylor

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-impact-of-the-first-world-war-
on-british-universities-1st-ed-edition-john-taylor/

Narratives of Community in the Black British Short

Story 1st ed. Edition Bettina Jansen

https://ebookmass.com/product/narratives-of-community-in-the-
black-british-short-story-1st-ed-edition-bettina-jansen/
‘...THE BIBLE OF GENERAL ELECTIONS.’
— David Dimbleby
Praise for previous editions

‘The Bible of General Elections’ —David Dimbleby, BBC

‘It’s popular academic writing at its best, combining a clear narrative

(using anecdotes and quotes garnered from more than 300 background
interviews) with lots of solid, meaty number-crunching’ —The Guardian

‘Dennis Kavanagh and Philip Cowley have penned a political thriller

… The book is distinguished by the quality of its sources: the ministers,
aides and strategists who open up to these academics in a way they might
not to journalists’ —The Observer

‘Indispensable’ —Matthew d’Ancona, Daily Telegraph

‘If you want real insight into the last election, Kavanagh and Cowley look
like they’re on the money’ —London Evening Standard

‘The quality of the analysis is as sharp as ever’ —Fabian Review

‘… a riveting read … this is easily the best political book of the year’
—PoliticalBetting.com

‘The studies have become by now almost part of our democratic fabric’
—The Listener

‘The best series anywhere on national elections’ —Annals of American

Academy of Political and Social Science
Other books in this series

THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF 1945

R. B. McCallum and Alison Readman
THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF 1950
H. G. Nicholas
THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF 1951
David Butler
THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF 1955
David Butler
THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF 1959
David Butler and Richard Rose
THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF 1964
David Butler and Anthony King
THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF 1966
David Butler and Anthony King
THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF 1970
David Butler and Michael Pinto-Duschinsky
THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF FEBRUARY 1974
David Butler and Dennis Kavanagh
THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF OCTOBER 1974
David Butler and Dennis Kavanagh
THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF 1979
David Butler and Dennis Kavanagh
THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF 1983
David Butler and Dennis Kavanagh
THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF 1987
David Butler and Dennis Kavanagh
THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF 1992
David Butler and Dennis Kavanagh
THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF 1997
David Butler and Dennis Kavanagh
THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF 2001
David Butler and Dennis Kavanagh
THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF 2005
Dennis Kavanagh and David Butler
THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF 2010
Dennis Kavanagh and Philip Cowley
THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF 2015
Philip Cowley and Dennis Kavanagh
Philip Cowley • Dennis Kavanagh

The British General

Election of 2017
Philip Cowley Dennis Kavanagh
Queen Mary University of London University of Liverpool
London, UK Liverpool, UK

ISBN 978-3-319-95935-1    ISBN 978-3-319-95936-8 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95936-8

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018952784

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institu-
tional affiliations.

Front cover credit: Bloomberg / Contributor

Back cover credit: Ian Forsyth / Stringer

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Preface

This volume is the twentieth in a series of books which originated in

1945 in Nuffield College, Oxford. The first volume in the series was the
result of Ronald McCallum’s frustration with what he saw as the constant
misinterpretation of the 1918 election; he wanted to place on record the
events of the 1945 contest before similar myths took root. It began what
is now the longest-running national election series in the world. This is the
third volume in the series where neither of the authors is based at Nuffield,
but our aim remains the same: to create an accurate and, as far as possible,
impartial account and explanation of the general election.
In the introduction to the 1945 volume, McCallum and his co-author
Alison Readman began with the Duke of Wellington’s observation that
you could no more describe a battle than you could describe a ballroom.
‘Still less’, they remarked, ‘can you describe a general election.’ The only
thing they said that was certain about a general election was: ‘It is not
simple.’ Their comments certainly apply to the 2017 contest, which was
a particularly difficult election to write about. Once an election is over
and it is possible to talk openly with the participants, it is usually the case
that for all the complexity in any election, there is a broad consensus
about what happened. For the most part, Labour staffers and politicians
agree with their rival counterparts about why one campaign struggled
and why the other succeeded. There are nuances and differences—some-
times genuine, and a result of the different perspectives of participants,
sometimes driven by self-interest or partisanship—but these are often
quite marginal. When it comes to the fundamentals, there is normally
little disagreement.

v
vi PREFACE

This was not true this time. Once we move beyond the merely descrip-
tive—that is, the Conservatives had a huge opinion poll lead, which they
proceeded to lose—there is little consensus about what happened in the
2017 general election or, at least, why it happened. Perhaps most striking
of all, there is no intra-party consensus on these questions. There are at
least two versions of the Labour campaign, both passionately believed,
along with a similar number of views of the Conservative campaign.
During interviews, the phrases used by insiders about supposed comrades
or colleagues were often much cruder, and more industrial, than those
about their supposed opponents.
Much remains contested. For example, below, we report the claim that
at various points during his leadership, Jeremy Corbyn ‘wobbled’. Any
wobbles would have been understandable. Leadership was not a position
he had ever expected to hold. He had faced repeated—and often brutal—
criticism. (Which of us, under similar conditions, would not have won-
dered whether this was the game for us?) Some of these accounts have
Corbyn in tears, with members of his family telling him that it is not worth
it, while some of his aides tell him that he must hang on for the good of
the left. Yet members of his key team vehemently deny that any of this ever
happened. Something similar applies to Theresa May on the night of the
election, once the result of the election became clear. Did she wobble?
Again, it would be understandable. She had called an election, run on a
hugely personalised campaign, in which she had been front and centre,
and squandered an enormous opinion poll lead. (Which of us, under simi-
lar conditions, would not have considered throwing in the towel?) There
are multiple claims that she came close to resigning on the night of the
election—although these claims vary hugely depending on who is recount-
ing them—but again the official line remains that she did not do so. Similar
differences, more trivial perhaps but just as frustrating for those attempt-
ing to chronicle the contest, attach to many key moments in the
campaign.
As will become clear, in what follows, the snap nature of the contest
presented problems for all of the parties (ironically, perhaps, the
Conservatives most of all) but it also made life harder for us as authors.
Normally with a book like this, much of the preparation—drafting, data
collection, background interviews and so on—is carried out in the run-up
to the election. After the Prime Minister’s shock announcement on 18
April 2017, we started with a blank page. The same goes for our contribu-
tors, all of whom did not expect to be spending much of 2017 writing
 PREFACE
   vii

about a ­general election. We owe them a huge debt for meeting demanding
deadlines and repeated editorial requests. In addition to writing Appendix
1, John Curtice, Stephen Fisher, Robert Ford and Patrick English also sup-
plied the data from which Appendix 2 has been compiled.
Yet despite all the hard work, it was a fascinating election to write about.
Both the decision to call the 2017 election and the eventual outcome can
fairly be described as surprises, but then they were merely the latest sur-
prises to hit British politics. Since the 2015 contest (the result of which
was itself a surprise), Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader, Britain voted
to leave the European Union, the Prime Minister resigned after a year in
office as head of a majority government, and a year later his successor—
having repeatedly declared she would not do so—called another general
election in search of a bigger majority of seats, which she then failed to
achieve, despite seemingly being on course for a landslide.
The dramatis personae of the 2017 election were very different from
those of 2015. In our last volume, Jeremy Corbyn did not feature—other
than, at the end of the book, to note his election as Labour leader. John
McDonnell did not feature at all. The pair might, perhaps, have been
worth a mention for their promise to make life difficult for an incoming
Miliband government from the backbenches. But this all seemed too triv-
ial, the pair too far removed from power. Yet within months, they were
transforming the Labour Party. Even Theresa May received only a handful
of passing mentions in the 2015 volume; she may have been Home
Secretary, but when it came to the election, she was a bit player at most.
Corbyn’s elevation to the Labour leadership tested many well-­
established assumptions about British political parties. Could a party in
Parliament have a leader who had so little support among his MPs? Could
a party thrive when there was such a gap between the views of the mass
membership and its MPs? Could a leader survive a decisive vote of no
confidence by his colleagues? And, when the election was called, could a
party do well in a general election fighting on a left-of-centre manifesto?
The answers were more positive than many would have thought.
In writing this book, we were helped, as always, by the very generous
support of many of the participants. We spoke to hundreds of people from
the different parties and we are very grateful for the time they gave us. We
deliberately do not list them here, as many spoke to us on the condition of
strict confidentiality, but we hope they will recognise the picture we
paint—although we know that not all will agree with our conclusions.
Unsourced information or quotations in the following text are taken from
viii PREFACE

these interviews, unless otherwise indicated. Many also agreed to look at

draft chapters, helping to suggest improvements and challenging our
judgements, and again we are very grateful, as we are to the many friends
and colleagues who also read early drafts of the book or helped with que-
ries. These include Caitlin Milazzo, Chris Prosser, Jon Mellon, Paula
Surridge, Ross Hawkins, David Cowling, Monica Poletti, Ben Worthy,
Jane Green, Peter Kellner, Colin Rallings, Richard McKay, Alia Middleton,
Peter Geoghegan, Matthew Shaddick, Richard Kelly, Justin Fisher, Will
Jennings, Mark Pickup, Matthew Bailey, Mark Byrne, Roger Scully, Mark
Stuart, Tim Bale, Jon Tonge, Joe Twyman, Paul Webb and Roger
Mortimore. We are especially indebted to Wes Ball, who worked as a
researcher, as well as co-writing Chapter 8. Lizzy Adam and Mercy Muroki
also provided research assistance. The British Academy generously pro-
vided funding (BA Special Project 2017/1).
We were aided by the excellent volumes already published on, or which
covered, the election. These included Tim Shipman’s Fall Out, Tim Ross
and Tom McTague’s Betting the House and Jon Tonge et al.’s edited col-
lection Britain Votes 2017. We differ from them in interpretation in some
places and very occasionally in matters of fact. Responsibility for any
remaining errors rests with us alone.
We are indebted to all those who supplied or allowed us to reproduce
material. The political parties all generously allowed us to reproduce cam-
paign posters or images. Martin Rowson, Steve Bell, Ben Jennings and the
Telegraph Media Group (for Adams, Matt and Bob) and News UK (for
Peter Brookes, Morten Morland and Steve Bright) granted us permission
to print their excellent cartoons. The majority of photos in the plates come
courtesy of either Getty or Alamy, although other pictures, some of them
thanks to the now-ubiquitous camera phone, come from Bruce Cutts/
The After Alice Project, Ned Simons, Iain McNicol, Richard Cracknell,
Tori Cowley and Freida Moore. The picture of the Lib Debate rehearsal
on p. 210 comes from someone who would prefer to remain anonymous.
The Polling Observatory team allowed us to reproduce the graphs in
chapters 1 and 16. We are grateful to all of them.
This book follows the broad structure of the previous volumes in the
series, but each election is different, so we have included separate chapters
specifically on Brexit and the decision to call the election. The long cam-
paign—the longest and most consequential of modern British politics—
has resulted in three chapters. Like most of its predecessors, our story ends
 PREFACE
   ix

with the announcement of the result, and only briefly covers the process
of formation of the government.
The team at Palgrave Macmillan have been supportive and encourag-
ing, and have allowed us to tell what we think is a fascinating story.

London, UK Philip Cowley

Liverpool, UK  Dennis Kavanagh
May 2018
 Contents

1 Not Going According to Plan   1

2 Brexit  21
Jack Glynn and Anand Menon

3 From Stockbroker’s Son to Vicar’s Daughter:

The Conservatives  41

4 From Miliband to Corbyn: Labour  67

5 The Liberal Democrats and Others  99

6 Still Different, Only Slightly Less So: Scotland 125

Gerry Hassan

7 Towards a Landslide 149

8 Everything Changes 177
With Wes Ball

xi
xii Contents

9 Horrors and Hopes 203

10 Election Night and Its Aftermath 231

11 Wrong-Footed Again: The Polls 259

12 Targeted (and Untargeted) Local Campaigning 285

13 Campaign Coverage and Editorial Judgements:

Broadcasting 323
Stephen Cushion and Charlie Beckett

14 A Bad Press: Newspapers 347

Dominic Wring and David Deacon

15 Political Recruitment Under Pressure: MPs

and Candidates 385
Rosie Campbell and Jennifer Hudson

16 The Election in Retrospect 409

Appendix 1: The Results Analysed 449

John Curtice, Stephen Fisher, Robert Ford and Patrick English

Appendix 2: The Voting Statistics  496

Appendix 3: Select Political Chronology 2015–17  537

Index 549
 List of Figures and Box

Figure 1.1 Estimated party vote intention, May 2015–April 2017  15

Figure 11.1 Estimated party vote intention, May 2015–June 2017 263
Figure A1.1 Change in UKIP share of the vote in England and Wales,
2015–17, by UKIP share of the vote, 2015 473
Figure A1.2 Change in Green share of the vote in England and Wales,
2015–17, by Green share of the vote, 2015 (excluding
Brighton Pavilion) 476

Box 1.1 Plan B  13

xiii
 List of Tables

Table 6.1 Yes and No supporters by party vote 2015–2017 134

Table 6.2 Do you think Nicola Sturgeon is doing well or badly as First
Minister?139
Table 6.3 Do you think Ruth Davidson is doing well or badly as leader
of the Scottish Conservative Party? 140
Table 11.1 Final polls by BPC companies 270
Table 11.2 Record of exit poll seat predictions 2005–2017 272
Table 12.1 Types of voter contact during the campaign 301
Table 12.2 Political activities by voters during the campaign 313
Table 13.1 Proportion of news about the 2015 and 2017 general
election campaigns 325
Table 13.2 Proportion of lead election news items in the 2015 and 2017
general election campaigns 325
Table 13.3 Top ten subjects in election news 326
Table 13.4 Proportion of policy versus process news in the 2017
election campaign 328
Table 13.5 Level of policy information in the 2017 election coverage 329
Table 13.6 The main televised leaders’ debates/election programmes
during the 2017 general election campaign 331
Table 13.7 The questions asked in the main televised leaders’ debates/
election programmes during the 2017 UK general election
campaign336
Table 13.8 Share of party political airtime on UK television news
evening bulletins 337
Table 13.9 Share of party leaders’ airtime on UK television news 339

xv
xvi List of Tables

Table 14.1 Daily newspapers’ partisanship and circulation 349

Table 14.2 Sunday newspapers’ partisanship and circulation 351
Table 14.3 Front-page lead stories, 19 April–8 June 352
Table 14.4 Campaign issues: top ten in the press 375
Table 15.1 The number (and percentage) of women elected by party in
2015 and 2017 395
Table 15.2 2017 MPs by year first elected and party 397
Table 15.3 MPs’ ages by party 398
Table 15.4 Candidates’ school type 399
Table 15.5 Candidates’ highest educational qualification 400
Table 15.6 2017 MPs’ occupation immediately prior to the election 401
Table 16.1 Stories the public noticed 412
Table 16.2 The most capable Prime Minister 413
Table 16.3 How Britain voted in 2017 420
Table 16.4 Preferred party on issues 424
Table 16.5 Alternative projections of the 2017 election 440
Table A1.1 Measures of change since 2015 451
Table A1.2 Change in Conservative and Labour share of the vote
2015–17 by 2016 Leave vote 453
Table A1.3 Change in Conservative and Labour share of the vote
2015–17 by 2016 Leave vote and drop in UKIP vote 2015–17 455
Table A1.4 Change in Conservative and Labour support 2015–17 by
percentage without any educational qualifications and
percentage aged 18–24 457
Table A1.5 Change in Liberal Democrat share of the vote 2015–17 by
proportion of graduates and EU referendum vote 462
Table A1.6 Change in Liberal Democrat share of the vote 2015–17 by
status of Liberal Democrat candidate and the Liberal
Democrats’ principal challenger 464
Table A1.7 Mean change in parties’ share of the vote 2015–17 by status
of Liberal Democrat candidate and the Liberal Democrats’
principal challenger 465
Table A1.8 UKIP share of the vote in England and Wales, 2010, 2015
and 2017 by Leave vote 2016, winning party 2010,
proportion with no qualifications and proportion in routine
manual occupations 474
Table A1.9 Relationship between votes and seats following the 2017
election487
Table A2.1 Votes and seats, 1945–2017 496
Table A2.2 Party performance (UK) 498
 List of Tables 
   xvii

Table A2.3 Party performance (Northern Ireland) 499

Table A2.4 National and regional results 500
Table A2.5 Constituency results 503
Table A2.6 Seats changing hands 528
Table A2.7 Exceptional results 529
Table A2.8 By-election results, 2015–17 535
 Lists of Illustrations

Photographs

The press reaction, 19 April. Credit: Lenscap/Alamy Stock Photo 2

Liberal Democrat manifesto launch podium. Credit: Ned Simons 194
Liberal Democrat debate rehearsal, Ministry of Sound, 29 May 210
Polling station sign, London. Credit: Richard Cracknell 234
#dogsatpollingstations. Credit: Freida Moore 236
Labour Gains board, Southside. Credit: Iain McNicol 238

Party Advertisements

Strong and stable leadership [Conservative Party] 6

REVEALED: Tories admit they DON’T care about immigration numbers
[UKIP]107
A Green MP will never support a Tory government [Green] 112
The not so secret life of 5 year old politicians [Green] 114
There’s only one Leader you can really trust [Plaid Cymru] 115
Dis May [SNP] 132
Conservative attack ads [Conservative Party] 156
Labour policy ads [Labour] 181
Cross here [Liberal Democrat] 192
Breakfast clearly doesn’t mean breakfast [Liberal Democrat] 211
Because your children deserve worse [Momentum] 289

xix
xx Lists of Illustrations

Cartoons

‘We have to stop meeting like this’ [Matt, Daily Telegraph, 19 April 2017]
© Matt/Telegraph Media Group Ltd 8
‘Bring it on!’ [Peter Brookes, The Times, 20 April 2017]
© News UK/News Licensing 11
Tug of war [Morten Morland, The Times, 15 June 2016]
© News UK/News Licensing 28
‘Let’s never ask the public for their views ever again’ [Matt, Daily
Telegraph, 26 June 2016]
© Matt/Telegraph Media Group Ltd 32
EU Referendum 2016 [Steve Bell, The Guardian, 3 February 2016]
© Steve Bell 43
Red Carpet Treatment… [Peter Brookes, The Times, 12 July 2016]
© News UK/News Licensing 46
‘Thank you for resigning from the shadow cabinet…’ [Matt, Daily
Telegraph, 28 June 2016]
© Matt/Telegraph Media Group Ltd 82
When the punchbag is victorious [Moran, Daily Telegraph,
25 September 2016]
© Bob Moran/Telegraph Media Group Ltd 86
‘Don’t go all wobbly on me, Tim!’ [Peter Brookes, The Times, 26 April 2017]
© News UK/News Licensing 101
‘The party is divided. The loonies may split from the fruitcakes’
[Matt, Daily Telegraph, 17 September 2016]
© Matt/Telegraph Media Group Ltd 110
‘Don’t just hope for a scottier Scotland, vote for one’
[Steve Bell, The Guardian, 3 May 2016]
© Steve Bell 127
‘Having a referendum to leave the union would be divisive…’ [Adams,
Daily Telegraph, 28 March 2017]
© Adams/Telegraph Media Group Ltd 129
‘The tortoise always wins!’ [Moran, Daily Telegraph, 22 April 2017]
© Bob Moran/Telegraph Media Group Ltd 150
‘Bring it on’ [Adams, Daily Telegraph, 19 April 2017]
© Adams/Telegraph Media Group Ltd 153
After ‘Being John Malkovich’ [Ben Jennings, The Guardian, 30 May 2017]
© Ben Jennings 178
In the Victory Bunker [Martin Rowson, The Guardian, 21 May 2017]
© Martin Rowson 186
‘If…’ [Steve Bell, The Guardian, 8 June 2017]
© Steve Bell 187
 Lists of Illustrations 
   xxi

‘Bah!’ [Ben Jennings, i, 27 May 2017]

© Ben Jennings 204
‘She can’t meet anyone…’ [Martin Rowson, Daily Mirror, 15 May 2017]
© Martin Rowson 207
Behind the sofa [Peter Brookes, The Times, 1 June 2017]
© News UK/News Licensing 213
Winner’s Rostrum [Martin Rowson, Chartist Magazine, 25 June 2017]
© Martin Rowson 239
‘My Dad’s an opinion pollster…’ [Matt, Daily Telegraph, 8 June 2017]
© Matt/Telegraph Media Group Ltd 260
‘He spent 20 minutes…’ [Matt, Daily Telegraph, 23 April 2017]
© Matt/Telegraph Media Group Ltd 286
‘Un10able!’ [Steve Bright, Sun, 12 June 2017]
© News UK/News Licensing 410
‘Jeremy Corbyn… will find himself…’ [Steve Bell, The Guardian,
31 May 2017]
© Steve Bell 414
‘It turns out the voters are bloody difficult as well’ [Matt, Daily Telegraph,
9 June 2017]
© Matt/Telegraph Media Group Ltd 418
Theresa May announces the election outside Number 10, 18 April. © Xinhua/
Alamy Stock Photo

Jeremy Corbyn campaigning in Cardiff. © Andrew Bartlett/Alamy Stock Photo

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Third Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress.

Excluding Colored Persons from Cars.

In Senate—1863, February 27—Pending a supplement to the
charter of the Washington and Alexandria Railroad Company, Mr.
Sumner offered this proviso to the first section:
That no person shall be excluded from the cars on account of color.
Which was agreed to—yeas 19, nays 18, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Arnold, Chandler, Clark, Fessenden, Foot, Grimes,
Harris, Howard, King, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sumner,
Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilmot, Wilson, of
Massachusetts—19.
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Carlile, Cowan, Davis,
Henderson, Hicks, Howe, Kennedy, Lane of Indiana, Latham,
McDougall, Powell, Richardson, Saulsbury, Turpie, Willey, Wilson
of Missouri—18.
March 2.—The House concurred in the amendment without
debate, under the previous question.
 First Session, Thirty-Eighth Congress.

In Senate—1864, February 10—Mr. Sumner offered the following:

Resolved, That the Committee on the District of Columbia be
directed to consider the expediency of further providing by law
against the exclusion of colored persons from the equal enjoyment of
all railroad privileges in the District of Columbia.
Which was agreed to—yeas 30, nays 10.
February 24—Mr. Willey, from the Committee on the District of
Columbia, made this report, and the committee were discharged.
The Committee on the District of Columbia, who were required by
resolution of the Senate, passed February 8, 1864, “to consider the
expediency of further providing by law against the exclusion of
colored persons from the equal enjoyment of all railroad privileges in
the District of Columbia,” have had the matter thus referred to them
under consideration, and beg leave to report:
The act entitled “An act to incorporate the Washington and
Georgetown Railroad Company,” approved May 17, 1862, makes no
distinction as to passengers over said road on account of the color of
the passengers, and that in the opinion of the committee colored
persons are entitled to all the privileges of said road which other
persons have, and to all remedies for any denial or breach of such
privileges which belongs to any person.
The committee therefore ask to be discharged from the further
consideration of the premises.
March 17—The Senate considered the bill to incorporate the
Metropolitan Railroad Company, in the District of Columbia, the
pending question being an amendment, offered by Mr. Sumner, to
add to the fourteenth section the words:
Provided, That there shall be no regulation excluding any person
from any car on account of color.
 Which was agreed to—yeas 19, nays 17, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Clark, Conness, Fessenden, Foot,
Foster, Grimes, Harlan, Howe, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill,
Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sumner, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilson—19.
Nays—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Davis, Doolittle, Harding,
Harris, Hendricks, Johnson, Lane of Indiana, Powell, Riddle,
Saulsbury, Sherman, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey—17.
The bill then passed the Senate.
June 19—The House refused to strike out the proviso last adopted
in the Senate—yeas 60, nays 76.
And the bill passed the House and was approved by the President.
 Second Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress.

Colored Persons as Witnesses.

In Senate—Pending the confiscation bill, June 28, 1862.
Mr. Sumner moved these words as an addition to the 14th section:
And in all the proceedings under this act there shall be no
exclusion of any witness on account of color.
Which was rejected—yeas 14, nays 25, as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Chandler, Grimes, Harlan, Howard, King, Lane of
Kansas, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson,
Wilmot—14.
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Carlile, Clark, Collamer,
Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Harris,
Henderson, Lane of Indiana, Nesmith, Pearce, Powell, Sherman,
Simmons, Stark, Ten Eyck, Willey, Wilson of Missouri, Wright—25.
Pending the consideration of the supplement to the emancipation
bill for the District of Columbia,
1862, July 7—Mr. Sumner moved a new section:
That in all the judicial proceedings in the District of Columbia
there shall be no exclusion of any witness on account of color.
Which was adopted—yeas 25, nays 11.
The bill then passed—yeas 29, nays 6; (Messrs. Carlile, Davis,
Kennedy, Powell, Wilson, of Missouri, Wright.)
July 9—The bill passed the House—yeas 69, nays 36. There was no
separate vote on the above proposition.
Pending the consideration in the Senate of the House bill in
relation to the competency of witnesses in trials of equity and
admiralty,
1862, July 15—Mr. Sumner offered this proviso to the first section:
 Provided, That there shall be no exclusion of any witness on
account of color. Which was rejected—yeas 14, nays 23.
 First Session, Thirty-Eighth Congress.

1864, June 25—Pending the civil appropriation bill, in Committee

of the Whole, Mr. Sumner offered this proviso:
Provided, That in the courts of the United States there shall be no
exclusion of any witness on account of color.
Mr. Buckalew moved to add:
Nor in civil actions because he is a party to or interested in the
issue tried.
Which was agreed to; and the amendment as amended was agreed
to—yeas 22, nays 16.
The Senate subsequently concurred in this amendment—yeas 29,
nays 10.

IN HOUSE.

June 29—The question being on agreeing to the amendment,

Mr. Mallory moved to add this proviso to the section amended in
the Senate:
Provided, That negro testimony shall only be taken in the United
States courts in those States the laws of which authorize such
testimony.
Which was rejected—yeas 47, nays 66.
The amendment of the Senate was then agreed to—yeas 67, nays
48.

COLORED SCHOOLS.
 June 8.—The House passed a bill to provide for the public
instruction of youth in Washington city, with an amendment
providing for separate schools for the colored children, by setting
apart such a proportion of the entire school fund as the number of
colored children between the ages of six and seventeen bear to the
whole number of children in the District. The bill, with amendments,
passed both Houses without a division.
On all of these questions of color, the Democrats invariably, on test
votes, were found against any concession of rights to the negro.
These were frequently aided by some Republicans, more
conservative than their colleagues, or representing closer districts
where political prejudices would affect their return to their seats. It
will be observed that on nearly all these questions Senator Charles
Sumner took the lead. He was at that time pre-eminently the Moses
of the colored man, and led him from one right to another through
Senatorial difficulties, which by the way, were never as strong as that
in the House, where Thaddeus Stevens was the boldest champion of
“the rights of the black man.” In the field, rather in the direction of
what should be done with the “contrabands” and escaped slaves, the
Secretary of War, General Cameron, was their most radical friend,
and his instructions were so outspoken that Lincoln had to modify
them. As early as December 1, 1861, General Cameron wrote:
“While it is plain that the slave property of the South is justly
subjected to all the consequences of this rebellious war, and that the
Government would be untrue to its trust in not employing all the
rights and powers of war to bring it to a speedy close, the details of
the plan for doing so, like all other military measures, must, in a
great degree, be left to be determined by particular exigencies. The
disposition of other property belonging to the rebels that becomes
subject to our arms is governed by the circumstances of the case. The
Government has no power to hold slaves, none to restrain a slave of
his liberty, or to exact his service. It has a right, however, to use the
voluntary service of slaves liberated by war from their rebel masters,
like any other property of the rebels, in whatever mode may be most
efficient for the defence of the Government, the prosecution of the
war, and the suppression of rebellion. It is clearly a right of the
government to arm slaves when it may become necessary as it is to
take gunpowder from the enemy. Whether it is expedient to do so is
purely a military question. The right is unquestionable by the laws of
war. The expediency must be determined by circumstances, keeping
in view the great object of overcoming the rebels, re-establishing the
laws, and restoring peace to the nation.
“It is vain and idle for the Government to carry on this war, or
hope to maintain its existence against rebellious force, without
enjoying all the rights and powers of war. As has been said, the right
to deprive the rebels of their property in slaves and slave labor is as
clear and absolute as the right to take forage from the field, or cotton
from the warehouse, or powder and arms from the magazine. To
leave the enemy in the possession of such property as forage and
cotton and military stores, and the means of constantly reproducing
them, would be madness. It is, therefore, equal madness to leave
them in peaceful and secure possession of slave property, more
valuable and efficient to them for war than forage, cotton and
military stores. Such policy would be national suicide. What to do
with that species of property is a question that time and
circumstances will solve, and need not be anticipated further than to
repeat that they cannot be held by the Government as slaves. It
would be useless to keep them as prisoners of war; and self-
preservation, the highest duty of a Government, or of individuals,
demands that they should be disposed of or employed in the most
effective manner that will tend most speedily to suppress the
insurrection and restore the authority of the Government. If it shall
be found that the men who have been held by the rebels as slaves are
capable of bearing arms and performing efficient military service, it
is the right, and may become the duty, of this Government to arm
and equip them, and employ their services against the rebels, under
proper military regulations, discipline and command.
“But in whatever manner they may be used by the Government, it
is plain that, once liberated by the rebellious act of their masters,
they should never again be restored to bondage. By the master’s
treason and rebellion he forfeits all right to the labor and service of
his slave; and the slave of the rebellious master, by his service to the
Government, becomes justly entitled to freedom and protection.
“The disposition to be made of the slaves of rebels, after the close
of the war, can be safely left to the wisdom and patriotism of
Congress. The representatives of the people will unquestionably
secure to the loyal slaveholders every right to which they are entitled
under the Constitution of the country.”
[Subsequent events proved the wisdom of this policy, and it was
eventually adopted by an Administration which proclaimed its policy
“to move not ahead but with the people.”]
President Lincoln and his Cabinet modified the above language so
as to make it read:
“It is already a grave question what shall be done with those slaves
who were abandoned by their owners on the advance of our troops
into southern territory, as at Beaufort district, in South Carolina. The
number left within our control at that point is very considerable, and
similar cases will probably occur. What shall be done with them? Can
we afford to send them forward to their masters, to be by them
armed against us, or used in producing supplies to sustain the
rebellion? Their labor may be useful to us; withheld from the enemy
it lessens his military resources, and withholding them has no
tendency to induce the horrors of insurrection, even in the rebel
communities. They constitute a military resource, and, being such,
that they should not be turned over to the enemy is too plain to
discuss. Why deprive him of supplies by a blockade, and voluntarily
give him men to produce them?
“The disposition to be made of the slaves of rebels, after the close
of the war, can be safely left to the wisdom and patriotism of
Congress. The Representatives of the people will unquestionably
secure to the loyal slaveholders every right to which they are entitled
under the Constitution of the country.”
Secretary Cameron was at all times in favor of “carrying the war
into Africa” and it was this stern view of the situation which
eventually led him to sanction measures which brought him into
plainer differences with the Administration. Lincoln took offense at
the printing of his report before submitting it to him. As a result he
resigned and went to Russia as Minister, on his return being again
elected to the United States Senate—a place which he filled until the
winter of 1877, when he resigned, and his son, J. Donald Cameron,
was elected to the vacancy, and re-elected for the term ending in
1885. General B. F. Butler was the author of the “contraband” idea. A
year later the views of the Administration became more radical on
questions of color, and July 22, 1862, Secretary Stanton ordered all
Generals in command “to seize and use any property, real or
personal, which may be necessary or convenient for their several
commands, for supplies, or for other military purposes; and that
while property may be destroyed for proper military objects, none
shall be destroyed in wantonness or malice.
“Second. That military and naval commanders shall employ as
laborers, within and from said States, so many persons of African
descent as can be advantageously used for military or naval
purposes, giving them reasonable wages for their labor.
“Third. That, as to both property, and persons of African descent,
accounts shall be kept sufficiently accurate and in detail to show
quantities and amounts, and from whom both property and such
persons shall have come, as a basis upon which compensation can be
made in proper cases; and the several departments of this
Government shall attend to and perform their appropriate parts
towards the execution of these orders.”
The manner and language employed by General McClellan in
promulgating this order to the Army of the Potomac, led to his
political differences with the Administration, and in the end caused
him to be the Democratic candidate for President in 1864, against
Lincoln. His language is peculiar and some of it worthy of
presentation as of political importance. He said:
“Inhabitants, especially women and children, remaining peaceably
at their homes, must not be molested; and wherever commanding
officers find families peculiarly exposed in their persons or property
to marauding from this army, they will, as heretofore, so far as they
can do with safety and without detriment to the service, post guards
for their protection.
“In protecting private property, no reference is intended to
persons held to service or labor by reason of African descent. Such
persons will be regarded by this army, as they heretofore have been,
as occupying simply a peculiar legal status under State laws, which
condition the military authorities of the United States are not
required to regard at all in districts where military operations are
made necessary by the rebellious action of the State governments.
“Persons subject to suspicion of hostile purposes, residing or being
near our forces, will be, as heretofore, subject to arrest and
detention, until the cause or necessity is removed. All such arrested
parties will be sent, as usual, to the Provost Marshal General, with a
statement of the facts in each case.
“The general commanding takes this occasion to remind the
officers and soldiers of this army that we are engaged in supporting
the Constitution and the laws of the United States and suppressing
rebellion against their authority; that we are not engaged in a war of
rapine, revenge, or subjugation; that this is not a contest against
populations, but against armed forces and political organizations;
that it is a struggle carried on with the United States, and should be
conducted by us upon the highest principles known to Christian
civilization.”
At this time such were the prejudices of Union soldiers against
negroes, because of growing political agitation in the North, that
many would loudly jeer them when seen within the lines. The feeling
was even greater in the ranks of civilians, and yet Congress moved
along, step by step. The 37th abolished slavery in the District of
Columbia; prohibited it in all the territories; confirmed the freedom
of the slaves owned by those in arms against the government;
authorized the employment of colored men in fortifications, their
enlistment, etc.; and enacted an additional article of war, which
prohibited any officer from returning or aiding the return of any
fugitive slave. These were rapid strides, but not as rapid as were
demanded by the more radical wing of the Republican party. We
have shown that most of them were opposed by the Democrats, not
solidly sure where they were plainly political, but this party became
less solid as the war advanced.
Senator Wilson was the author of the bill to abolish slavery in the
District of Columbia. It excited much debate, and the range of the
speeches covered the entire question of slavery. Those from the
Border States opposed it (a few Republicans and all Democrats) but
some of the Democrats of the North supported it. The vote in the
Senate was 29 for to 6 against. In the House Frank P. Blair, Jr.,
advocated colonization in connection with the bill, but his idea met
with little favor. Crittenden, Wickliffe and Vallandigham were
prominent in opposition. Its most prominent advocates were Stevens
of Pennsylvania, and Bingham of Ohio. The vote was 92 for to 38
against.
 The bill of Arnold, of Illinois, “to render freedom national and
slavery sectional,” the leading idea in the platform of the convention
which nominated Lincoln, prohibited slavery in “all the Territories of
the United States then existing, or thereafter to be formed or
acquired in any way.” It was vehemently opposed, but passed with
some modifications by 58 ayes to 50 noes, and it also passed the
Senate.
In the Spring of 1862 General David Hunter brought the question
of the enlistment of colored troops to a direct issue by raising a
regiment of them. On the 9th of June following, Mr. Wickliffe of
Kentucky, succeeded in getting the House to adopt a resolution of
inquiry. Correspondence followed with General Hunter. He
confessed the fact, stated that “he found his authority in the
instructions of Secretary Cameron, and said that he hoped by fall to
enroll about fifty thousand of these hardy and devoted soldiers.”
When this reply was read in the House it was greeted with shouts of
laughter from the Republicans, and signs of anger from the others. A
great debate followed on the amendment to the bill providing for the
calling out of the militia, clothing the President with full power to
enlist colored troops, and to proclaim “he, his mother, and wife and
children forever free,” after such enlistment. Preston King, of New
York, was the author of this amendment. Davis, of Kentucky, and
Carlisle of West Virginia, were prominent Senators in opposition;
while Ten Eyck, of New Jersey, Sherman of Ohio, and Browning of
Illinois sought to modify it. Garrett Davis said in opposition:
“Do you expect us to give our sanction and approval to these
things? No, no! We would regard their authors as our worst enemies;
and there is no foreign despotism that could come to our rescue, that
we would not fondly embrace, before we would submit to any such
condition of things.”
Senator Fessenden of Maine, in advocacy of the amendment, said:
“I tell the President from my place here as a Senator, and I tell the
generals of our army, they must reverse their practices and course of
proceeding on this subject. * * * Treat your enemies as enemies, as
the worst of enemies, and avail yourselves like men of every power
which God has placed in your hands, to accomplish your purpose,
within the rules of civilized warfare.”
 The bill passed, so modified, as to give freedom to all who should
perform military service, but restricting liberty to the families of such
only as belonged to rebel masters. It passed the House July 16th,
1862, and received the sanction of the President, who said:—“And
the promise made must be kept!” General Hunter for his part in
beginning colored enlistments, was outlawed by the Confederate
Congress. Hunter followed with an order freeing the slaves in South
Carolina.
In January, 1863, pursuant to a suggestion in the annual report of
Secretary Stanton, who was by this time as radical as his predecessor
in office, the House passed a bill authorizing the President to enroll
into the land and naval service such number of volunteers of African
descent as he might deem useful to suppress the rebellion, and for
such term as he might prescribe, not exceeding five years. The slaves
of loyal citizens in the Border States were excluded from the
provisions of this bill. In the Senate an adverse report was made on
the ground that the resident already possessed these powers.
In January, 1863, Senator Wilson, who was by this time chairman
of the Military Committee of the Senate, secured the passage of a bill
which authorized a draft for the National forces from the ranks of all
male citizens, and those of foreign birth who had declared their
intentions, etc. The bill contained the usual exemptions.

CONFEDERATE USE OF COLORED MEN.

In June, 1861, the rebel Legislature of Tennessee passed this

enlistment bill, which became a law:
Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of
Tennessee, That from and after the passage of this act the Governor
shall be, and he is hereby, authorized, at his discretion, to receive
into the military service of the State all male free persons of color
between the ages of fifteen and fifty, or such numbers as may be
necessary, who may be sound in mind and body, and capable of
actual service.
2. That such free persons of color shall receive, each, eight dollars
per month, as pay, and such persons shall be entitled to draw, each,
one ration per day, and shall be entitled to a yearly allowance each
for clothing.
3. That, in order to carry out the provisions of this act, it shall be
the duty of the sheriffs of the several counties in this State to collect
accurate information as to the number and condition, with the
names of free persons of color, subject to the provisions of this act,
and shall, as it is practicable, report the same in writing to the
Governor.
4. That a failure or refusal of the sheriffs, or any one or more of
them, to perform the duties required, shall be deemed an offence,
and on conviction thereof shall be punished as a misdemeanor.
5. That in the event a sufficient number of free persons of color to
meet the wants of the State shall not tender their services, the
Governor is empowered, through the sheriffs of the different
counties, to press such persons until the requisite number is
obtained.
6. That when any mess of volunteers shall keep a servant to wait
on the members of the mess, each servant shall be allowed one
ration.
This act to take effect from and after its passage.
 W. C. Whitthorne,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

B. L. Stovall,
Speaker of the Senate.

Passed June 28, 1861.

1862, November 2—Governor Joseph E. Brown, of Georgia, issued
a call announcing that if a sufficient supply of negroes be not
tendered within ten days, General Mercer will, in pursuance of
authority given him, proceed to impress, and asking of every planter
of Georgia a tender of one fifth of his negroes to complete the
fortifications around Savannah. This one-fifth is estimated at 15,000.
1863. The Governor of South Carolina in July, issued a
proclamation for 3,000 negroes to work on the fortifications, “the
need for them being pressing.”

THE CHANGING SENTIMENT OF CONGRESS.

In the Rebel House of Representatives, December 29th, Mr.

Dargan, of Alabama, introduced a bill to receive into the military
service all that portion of population in Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana, and Florida, known as “Creoles.”
Mr. Dargan supported the bill in some remarks. He said the
Creoles were a mixed-blooded race. Under the treaty of Paris in
1803, and the treaty of Spain in 1810, they were recognized as
freemen. Many of them owned large estates, and were intelligent
men. They were as much devoted to our cause as any class of men in
the South, and were even anxious to go into service. They had
applied to him to be received into service, and he had applied to Mr.
Randolph, then Secretary of War. Mr. Randolph decided against the
application, on the ground that it might furnish to the enemy a
pretext of arming our slaves against us. Some time after this he was
again applied to by them, and he went to the present Secretary of
War, Mr. Seddon, and laid the matter before him. Mr. Seddon
refused to entertain the proposition, on the ground that it did not
come up before him through the military authorities. To obviate this
objection, Gen. Maury, at Mobile, soon afterwards represented their
wishes to the War Department. Mr. Seddon refused the offer of their
services, on the ground that it would be incompatible with the
position we occupied before the world; that it could not be done.
Mr. Dargan said he differed with the Secretary of War. He cared
not for “the world.” He cared no more for their opinions than they
did for ours. He was anxious to bring into service every free man, be
he who he may, willing to strike for our cause. He saw no objection to
employing Creoles; they would form a potent element in our army. In
his district alone a brigade of them could be raised. The crisis had
been brought upon us by the enemy, and he believed the time would
yet come when the question would not be the Union or no Union, but
whether Southern men should be permitted to live at all. In resisting
subjugation by such a barbarous foe he was for employing all our
available force. He would go further and say that he was for arming
and putting the slaves into military service. He was in favor even of
employing them as a military arm in the defence of the country.
1864. The Mayor of Charleston, Charles Macbeth, summons all
slaveholders within the city to furnish to the military authorities
forthwith, one-fourth of all their male slaves between the ages of
fifteen and fifty, to labor upon the fortifications. The penalty
announced, in case of failure to comply with this requisition is a fine
of $200 for every slave not forthcoming. Compensation is allowed at
the rate of $400 a year.
All free male persons of color between the ages of fifteen and fifty
are required to give themselves up for the same purpose. Those not
complying will be imprisoned, and set to work upon the fortifications
along the coast. To free negroes no other compensation than rations
is allowed.

NEGROES IN THE ARMY.

The Richmond press publish the official copy of “An act to increase
the efficiency of the army by the employment of free negroes and
slaves in certain capacities,” lately passed by the Rebel Congress. The
negroes are to perform “such duties as the Secretary of War or
Commanding General may prescribe.” The first section is as follows:
The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That
all male free negroes, and other free persons of color, not including
those who are free under the treaty of Paris, of 1803, or under the
treaty of Spain, of 1819, resident in the Confederate States, between
the ages of eighteen and fifty years, shall be held liable to perform
such duties with the army, or in connection with the military
defences of the country, in the way of work upon the fortifications, or
in government works for the production or preparation of materials
of war, or in military hospitals, as the Secretary of War or the
Commanding General of the Trans-Mississippi Department may,
from time to time, prescribe; and while engaged in the performances
of such duties shall receive rations and clothing and compensation at
the rate of eleven dollars a month, under such rules and regulations
as the said Secretary may establish: Provided, That the Secretary of
War or the Commanding General of the Trans-Mississippi
Department, with the approval of the President, may exempt from
the operations of this act such free negroes as the interests of the
country may require should be exempted, or such as he may think
proper to exempt on the ground of justice, equity or necessity.
The third section provides that when the Secretary of War shall be
unable to procure the services of slaves in any military department,
then he is authorized to impress the services of as many male slaves,
not to exceed twenty thousand, as may be required, from time to
time, to discharge the duties indicated in the first section of the act.
The owner of the slave is to be paid for his services; or, if he be
killed or “escape to the enemy,” the owner shall receive his full value.
Governor Smith, of Virginia, has made a call for five thousand
male slaves to work on the batteries, to be drawn from fifty counties.
The call for this force has been made by the President under a
resolution of Congress.

“CONFEDERATE” LEGISLATION UPON NEGRO

PRISONERS AND THEIR WHITE OFFICERS WHEN
CAPTURED.[27]
 1863, May 1—An act was approved declaring that the
commissioned officers of the enemy ought not to be delivered to the
authorities of the respective States, (as suggested in Davis’s
message;) but all captives taken by the Confederate forces ought to
be dealt with and disposed of by the Confederate Government.
President Lincoln’s emancipation proclamations of September 22,
1862, and January 1, 1863, were resolved to be inconsistent with the
usages of war among civilized nations, and should be repressed by
retaliation; and the President is authorized to cause full and
complete retaliation for every such violation, in such manner and to
such extent as he may think proper.
Every white commissioned officer commanding negroes or
mulattoes in arms against the Confederate States shall be deemed as
inciting servile insurrection, and shall, if captured, be put to death,
or be otherwise punished, at the discretion of the court.
Every person charged with an offence made punishable under the
act shall be tried by the military court of the army or corps of troops
capturing him; and, after conviction, the President may commute
the punishment in such manner and on such terms as he may deem
proper.
All negroes and mulattoes who shall be engaged in war or taken in
arms against the Confederate States, or shall give aid or comfort to
the enemies of the Confederate States, shall, when captured in the
Confederate States, be delivered to the authorities of the State or
States in which they shall be captured, to be dealt with according to
the present or future laws of such State or States.
 Passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.

The first amendment to the Constitution growing out of the war,

and one of its direct results, was that of abolishing slavery. It was
first introduced to the House December 14th, 1863, by James M.
Ashley of Ohio. Similar measures were introduced by James M.
Wilson, Senators Henderson, Sumner and others. On the 10th of
February, Senator Trumbull reported Henderson’s joint resolution
amended as follows:
“That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the
several States, as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures,
shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the said
Constitution, namely:
“Art. 13, Sec. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except as
a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to
their jurisdiction.
“Sec. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.”
The Senate began the consideration of the question March 28th,
Senator Trumbull opening the debate in favor of the amendment. He
predicted that within a year the necessary number of States would
ratify it. Wilson of Massachusetts made a long and able speech in
favor. Davis of Kentucky and Saulsbury of Delaware led the
opposition, but Reverdy Johnson, an independent Democratic
Senator from Maryland, surprised all by his bold support of the
measure. Among other things he said:
“I think history will bear me out in the statement, that if the men
by whom that Constitution was framed, and the people by whom it
was adopted, had anticipated the times in which we live, they would
have provided by constitutional enactment, that that evil and that sin
should in some comparatively unremote day be removed. Without
recurring to authority, the writings public or private of the men of
that day, it is sufficient for my purpose to state what the facts will
justify me in saying, that every man of them who largely participated
in the deliberations of the Convention by which the Constitution was
adopted, earnestly desired, not only upon grounds of political
economy, not only upon reasons material in their character, but
upon grounds of morality and religion, that sooner or later the
institution should terminate.”
Senator McDougall of California, opposed the amendment. Harlan
of Iowa, Hale of New Hampshire, and Sumner, made characteristic
speeches in favor. Saulsbury advocated the divine right of slavery. It
passed April 8th, by 38 ayes to 6 noes, the latter comprising Davis
and Powell of Kentucky; McDougall of California; Hendricks of
Indiana; Saulsbury and Riddle of Delaware.
Arnold of Illinois, was the first to secure the adoption in the House
(Feb. 15, 1864,) of a resolution to abolish slavery; but the
Constitutional amendment required a two-thirds vote, and this it was
difficult to obtain, though all the power of the Administration was
bent to that purpose. The discussion began May 31st; the vote was
reached June 15th, but it then failed of the required two-thirds—93
for to 65 against, 23 not voting. Its more pronounced advocates were
Arnold, Ashley, Broomall, Stevens, and Kelly of Pennsylvania;
Farnsworth and Ingersoll of Illinois, and many others. Its ablest
opponents were Holman, Wood, Mallory, Cox and Pendleton—the
latter rallying nearly all of the Democrats against it. Its Democratic
friends were McAllister and Bailey of Pennsylvania; Cobb of
Wisconsin; Griswold and Odell of New York. Before the vote was
announced Ashley changed his vote so as to move a reconsideration
and keep control of the question. At the next session it was passed,
receiving every Republican and 16 Democratic votes, 8 Democrats
purposely refraining, so that it would surely pass.