Of those who were slaves at the beginning of the rebellion full 100,000 are now in the United States military service, about one-half of which number actually bear arms in the ranks, thus giving the double advantage of taking so much labor from the insurgent cause and supplying the places which otherwise must be filled with so many white men.  So far as tested, it is difficult to say they are not as good soldiers as any.  No servile insurrection or tendency to violence or cruelty has marked the measures of emancipation and arming the blacks.  These measures have been much discussed in foreign countries, and, contemporary with such discussion, the tone of public sentiment there is much improved.  At home the same measures have been fully discussed, supported, criticised, and denounced, and the annual elections following are highly encouraging to those whose official duty it is to bear the country through this great trial.  Thus we have the new reckoning.  The crisis which threatened to divide the friends of the Union is past.

Looking now to the present and future, and with reference to a resumption of the national authority within the States wherein that authority has been suspended, I have thought fit to issue a proclamation, a copy of which is herewith transmitted.[10] On examination of this proclamation it will appear, as is believed, that nothing will be attempted beyond what is amply justified by the Constitution.  True, the form of an oath is given, but no man is coerced to take it.  The man is only promised a pardon in case he voluntarily takes the oath.  The Constitution authorizes the Executive to grant or withhold the pardon at his own absolute discretion, and this includes the power to grant on terms, as is fully established by judicial and other authorities.

[Footnote 10:  See proclamation dated December 8, 1863, pp. 213-215.]

It is also proffered that if in any of the States named a State government shall be in the mode prescribed set up, such government shall be recognized and guaranteed by the United States, and that under it the State shall, on the constitutional conditions, be protected against invasion and domestic violence.  The constitutional obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government and to protect the State in the cases stated is explicit and full.  But why tender the benefits of this provision only to a State government set up in this particular way?  This section of the Constitution contemplates a case wherein the element within a State favorable to republican government in the Union may be too feeble for an opposite and hostile element external to or even within the State, and such are precisely the cases with which we are now dealing.

An attempt to guarantee and protect a revived State government, constructed in whole or in preponderating part from the very element against whose hostility and violence it is to be protected, is simply absurd.  There must be a test by which to separate the opposing elements, so as to build only from the sound; and that test is a sufficiently liberal one which accepts as sound whoever will make a sworn recantation of his former unsoundness.