opened, but
the men who answered the call were not soldiers, but citizens,
badly armed, and without drill or discipline. The history of their
rapid conversion into real soldiers, and of the measures adopted
by Congress to organize, arm and equip them, does not fall within
my province. The battles fought, the victories won, and the defeats
suffered, have been recorded in the hundred or more volumes of "The
Records of the Rebellion," published by the United States. The
principal events of the war have been told in the history of Abraham
Lincoln by Nicolay and Hay, and perhaps more graphically by General
Grant, General Sherman, General Sheridan, Alexander H. Stephens,
Fitz Hugh Lee, and many others who actively participated in the
war, and told what they saw and knew of it.

The military committees of the two Houses, under the advice of
accomplished officers, formulated the laws passed by Congress for
the enlistment, equipment and organization of the Union armies.
Henry Wilson, of Massachusetts, was chairman of the committee on
military affairs of the Senate, and he is entitled to much of the
praise due for the numerous laws required to fit the Union citizen
soldiers for military duty. His position was a difficult one, but
he filled it with hearty sympathy for the Union soldiers, and with
a just regard for both officers and men.

Among the numerous bills relating to the war, that which became
the act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion,
and to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, excited the
greatest interest, giving rise to a long debate. It was founded
on the faulty idea that a territorial war, existing between two
distinct parts of the country, could be treated as an insurrection.
The law of nations treats such a war as a contest between two
separate powers, to be governed by the laws of war. Confiscation
in such a war is not a measure to be applied to individuals in a
revolting section, but if the revolt is subdued, the property of
revolting citizens is subject to the will of the conqueror and to
the law of conquest. The apparent object of the law referred to
was to cripple the power of the Confederate States, by emancipating
slaves held in them, whenever such states fell within the power of
the federal army. This object was accomplished in a better and
more comprehensive way by the proclamation of the President. The
confiscation act had but little influence upon the result of