conduct of the war was not vigorous enough in one direction, it seemed to be a little too vigorous for them in another. They complained that the war was carried on by our Government with illegitimate means, and that, therefore, they could not support the Administration. And what did the use of illegitimate means on the part of our Government consist in? In this, that we used the enemy's property for our advantage. Could they blame the Government for a thing which is done the world over, and which is justified as a perfectly legitimate means of warfare by the law of nations? Yes, they did so, and I will prove it; and in order to prove it, I shall place myself exactly upon the same ground which you, Democrats, have occupied for years.
Your leaders tell you that negro slaves are property just in the same measure and manner as horses and cattle and provisions are property. Granted for argument's sake. As our armies penetrated into the enemy's country, a large quantity of that negro property fell into their hands. What were we to do with the captured negroes? Send then back to their masters? or keep them, feed them, clothe them for the purpose of returning them at some future time? We captured also cavalry horses and beeves. Who would have thought of sending them back to their owners, or of feeding and grooming without using them? The captured cattle property was butchered and distributed in the shape of rations; upon the captured horse property we mounted our cavalrymen; why, then, in the name of common sense, should we not put the captured negro property to such use as it was capable of? Do you see how absurd it would be to object to this? And mark you well, Democrats, this property theory is yours, and I have abstained from discussing the matter from the stand-point of my own principles.
But the principal thing against which your leaders
