“In this work it is needless to say _there is no place for any sentiment of hate or any suggestion of vengeance_. There can be no exaction and no punishment beyond the necessity of the case,--nothing harsh, nothing excessive. Lenity and pardon become the conqueror more even than victory. ‘Do in time of peace the most good, and in time of war the least evil possible: such is the Law of Nations.’ These are the admirable words of an eminent French magistrate and statesman. In this spirit it is our duty to assuage the calamities of war, and especially to spare an inoffensive population.”[204] Shortly afterwards, June 27th, while the same subject was under consideration, I returned to it again:-- “But I confess frankly that I look with more hope and confidence to Liberation than to Confiscation. To give freedom is nobler than to take property, and on this occasion it cannot fail to be more efficacious, for in this way the rear-guard of the Rebellion will be changed into the advance-guard of the Union. There is in Confiscation, unless when directed against the criminal authors of the Rebellion, a harshness inconsistent with that mercy which it is always a sacred duty to cultivate, and which should be manifest in proportion to our triumphs, ‘mightiest in the mightiest.’ _But Liberation is not harsh; and it is certain, if properly conducted, to carry with it the smiles of a benignant Providence._”[205] At last the country was gladdened by the Proclamation of Emancipation, which here in Faneuil Hall, October 6, 1862, I vindicated as a measure of peace; and then I said:-- “In the old war between King and Parliament, which rent England, the generous Falkland cried from his soul, _Peace! Peace!_--and History gratefully records his words. Never did he utter this cry with more earnestness than I do now. But how shall the blessing be secured?”[206] _By Emancipation_, was my answer. Then came the bill creating the Freedmen’s Bureau. In opening the debate on this interesting subject, June 8, 1864, I said:-- “It is for the Senate to determine, under the circumstances, what it will do. My earnest hope is that it will do something. The opportunity must not be lost of helping so many persons now helpless, and _of aiding the cause of Reconciliation, without which peace cannot be assured_.”[207] Here again Reconciliation is announced as an ever-present object. In the same spirit, I deemed it my duty to oppose the efforts made in the winter of 1865 to authorize Retaliation, differing from valued friends. The proposition for Retaliation was met by the following declaration, moved by me, January 24th:--