peace compromise, has ever come to my knowledge or belief.  All charges and insinuations to the contrary are deceptive and groundless.  And I promise you that if any such proposition shall hereafter come, it shall not be rejected and kept a secret from you.  I freely acknowledge myself the servant of the people, according to the bond of service,—­the United States Constitution,—­and that, as such, I am responsible to them.

But to be plain.  You are dissatisfied with me about the negro.  Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject.  I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose you do not.  Yet I have neither adopted nor proposed any measure which is not consistent with even your views, provided you are for the Union.  I suggested compensated emancipation, to which you replied, you wished not to be taxed to buy negroes.  But I had not asked you to be taxed to buy negroes, except in such way as to save you from greater taxation to save the Union exclusively by other means.

You dislike the Emancipation Proclamation, and perhaps would have it retracted.  You say it is unconstitutional.  I think differently.  I think the Constitution invests its commander-in-chief with the law of war in time of war.  The most that can be said—­if so much—­is that slaves are property.  Is there, has there ever been, any question that, by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed?  And is it not needed whenever taking it helps us or hurts the enemy?  Armies the world over destroy enemies’ property when they cannot use it, and even destroy their own to keep it from the enemy.  Civilized belligerents do all in their power to help themselves or hurt the enemy, except a few things regarded as barbarous or cruel.  Among the exceptions are the massacre of vanquished foes and non-combatants, male and female.

But the proclamation, as law, either is valid or is not valid.  If it is not valid, it needs no retraction.  If it is valid, it cannot be retracted any more than the dead can be brought to life.  Some of you profess to think its retraction would operate favourably for the Union.  Why better after the retraction than before the issue?  There was more than a year and a half of trial to suppress the rebellion before the proclamation issued, the last one hundred days of which passed under an explicit notice that it was coming, unless averted by those in revolt returning to their allegiance.  The war has certainly progressed as favourably for us since the issue of the proclamation as before.  I know, as fully as one can know the opinions of others, that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us our most important successes, believe the emancipation policy and the use of coloured troops constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to the rebellion, and that at least one of these important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers.  Among the commanders holding these views are some who have never had any affinity with what is called Abolitionism or with Republican party politics, but who hold them purely as military opinions.  I submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections often urged, that emancipation and arming the blacks are unwise as military measures, and were not adopted as such in good faith.