which I would have voted was that in which he declares that what are
called the slave States have the exclusive right of consultation on
the subject of slavery. For that resolution I never would vote,
because I believe that it is not just, and does not contain
constitutional doctrine. I believe that, so long as the slave States
are able to sustain their institutions without going abroad or
calling upon other parts of the Union to aid them or act on the
subject, so long I will consent never to interfere. I have said this,
and I repeat it; but if they come to the free States, and say to
them, you must help us to keep down our slaves, you must aid us in an
insurrection and a civil war, then I say that with that call comes a
full and plenary power to this House and to the Senate over the whole
subject. It is a war power. I say it is a war power, and when your
country is actually in war, whether it be a war of invasion or a war
of insurrection, Congress has power to carry on the war, and must
carry it on, according to the laws of war; and by the laws of war, an
invaded country has all its laws and municipal institutions swept by
the board, and martial law takes the place of them. This power in
Congress has, perhaps, never been called into exercise under the
present Constitution of the United States. But when the laws of war
are in force, what, I ask, is one of those laws? It is this: that
when a country is invaded, and two hostile armies are set in martial
array, the commanders of both armies have power to emancipate all the
slaves in the invaded territory. Nor is this a mere theoretic
statement. The history of South America shows that the doctrine has
been carried into practical execution within the last thirty years.
Slavery was abolished in Columbia, first, by the Spanish General
Morillo, and, secondly, by the American General Bolivar. It was
abolished by virtue of a military command given at the head of the
army, and its abolition continues to be law to this day. It was