``Such organization is now in successful progress. . . .
``Considering these facts, it seems to me that it would be best to omit from the Proclamation all reference to the military employment of the enfranchised population, leaving it to the natural course of things already well begun; or to state distinctly that in order to secure the suppression of the rebellion without servile insurrection or licentious marauding, such numbers of the population declared free as may be found convenient will be employed in the military and naval service of the United States. . . .
``Finally, I respectfully suggest that on an occasion of such interest, there can be no just imputation of affectation against a solemn recognition of responsibility before men and before God; and that some such close as follows will be proper:---
`` `And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice warranted by the Constitution, and of duty demanded by the circumstances of the country, I invoke the considerate judgment of Mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.' ''
Bates' suggestions (undated but either December 31 or January 1) are as follows:
``I respectfully suggest that
``1. The President issues the proclamation `by virtue of the power in him vested, as commander in chief of the army & navy of the United States, in time of actual, armed rebellion' &c---`and as a proper & necessary war measure, for suppressing said rebellion---' Date January 1863.
``2. It is done in accordance with the first proclamation---of Sept 22nd 1862.
``3. It distinguishes between States & parts of States, and designates those States & parts of States, `in which the people thereof, respectively, ARE THIS DAY, (Jan 1, 1863) in rebellion against the United States.'
``These three propositions being true, I think they ought to be followed out, without excess or diminution, by action, not by the declaration of a principle nor the establishment of a law, for the future guidance of others. It is a war measure by the President---a matter of fact---not a law by the legislature.
``And as to what is proposed to be done in the future, the least said the better. Better leave yourself free to act in the emergencies, as they arise, with as few embarrassing committals as possible.
``Whether a particular State or part of a State, is or is not in actual rebellion, on the 1st. Jany 1863, is a simple matter of fact, which the President, in the first proclamation, has promised to declare in the second. Of course, it must be truly declared: It is no longer open, to be determined, as a matter of policy or prudence, independently of the fact.
``And this applies, with particular force, to Virginia. The Eastern shore of Virginia & the region round about Norfolk, are now (Dec. 31, 1862) more free from actual rebellion than are several of the 48 Counties spoken of as West Virginia.
``If the latter be exempt from the proclamation, so also ought the former. And so, in all the States that are considered in parts.
``The last paragraph of the draft, I consider wholly useless, and probably injurious---being a needless pledge of future action---which may be quite as well done without as with the pledge.''
Blair's suggestions (undated but either December 31 or January 1) and Seward's (December 30) are given in the succeeding footnotes appended to the particular passages affected.