According to historian Eric Foner, however, the difference in pay stemmed from the fact that the legislation envisioned blacks mainly as military laborers freeing up whites for combat.

[3] While regarding the nationwide indecision, Congress had the ultimate power to decide whether people of African descent would participate in the Civil War as laborers and/or soldiers.

Observing the racial discrimination and strong opposition among ranks of military officers, Congress began to fear that black involvement would only prolong the war.

However, in great contradiction, the overwhelming argument from those in support of black involvement was that the contribution of more soldiers was then extremely advantageous to the Army of the Potomac, regardless of their skin color.

Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution empowered Congress "[t]o raise and support armies" and "[t]o provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in their service of the United States.

[7] On the other hand, Republican Representative Jacob Collamer of Vermont reminded the members that in 1792 Congress had "passed an act for organizing the militia, and confined it to white people.

"[11] Whiting insisted that slavery was a military target because it enabled the Confederacy to carry on "war against the Union" and forced "three million of loyal subjects owned by rebel masters to act as if they were traitors.

"[14] After all, affluent Confederates were already taking advantage of their slaves by bringing "body servants" that would prepare food, build trenches, construct shelters and clean clothes at campsites.

[15] Clarifying that only labor-intensive jobs for blacks were acceptable, Senator Garrett Davis of Kentucky shared with the rest of Congress on July 5: "I have heard no objection on the part of any Union man to the employment of Negroes to dig a canal.

[17] For that reason, abolitionist Frederick Douglass strongly urged the President and Congress in 1861 to "[l]et the slaves and free colored people be called into service and formed into a liberating army, to march into the South and raise the banner of Emancipation.

[20] Republican Representative John P. Hale of New Hampshire voiced on July 9 at a Congressional session, "This war ought to be carried on without any regard at all to the subject of slavery or slaves.

[12] For example, Lieutenant Colonel Charles Francis Adams of the Massachusetts's cavalry wrote to his brother in the summer of 1862, sharing his thoughts that "[a]t best [a black man] could perform fatigue duty" because "he has not the mental vigor and energy" to do more.

Observing the racial discrimination and strong opposition among ranks of military officers, Congress began to fear that black involvement would only prolong the war.

Seconding his fellow Senator, Republican James W. Grimes of Iowa, who wished to see blacks fighting, regretfully informed those at the Congressional debate, "I believe for that every good soldier you would get among them, you will lose a white man, who will be driven off by his prejudices.

"[11] And even though Lincoln wished to see slaves free, he said the same thing in the late winter of 1862: "To arm the negroes, would turn 50,000 bayonets from the loyal Border States against us that were for us.

"[22] Furthermore, Professor of History at University of North Carolina Dr. John David Smith contends, "as the war dragged on, Lincoln and most white Northerners slowly came to the same conclusion" that "Americans of African descent would become an invaluable resource.

"[32] Warning that the bill and black involvement were war necessities, Sherman agreed, "The time has arrived that when, in my judgment, the military authorities should be compelled to use all the physical force of this country.

Civil War historian James M. McPherson confirms in one of his books, Battle Cry of Freedom, "Helping blacks to earn citizenship was not the main motive for the push of their enrollment in the upcoming bill.

By the 9th, Republican Grimes proposed the militia act to read: "[t]he President of the United States shall have full power and authority to organize [any male of any race] into battalions, regiments, brigades, and divisions.

"[7] Accepted, the amendment to the act did not specify the roles of African Americans, but at the same time, it did not limit blacks to menial labors or restrict them to stay off the battlefield.

Although by July 14, the bill stated: persons of "African descent, who shall be employed, who are to receive ten dollars per month and one ration", King was proposing to reduce the set rate even more.

[28] James Oakes, author of The Radical and the Republican, alongside Professor John David Smith of University of North Carolina, is in agreement with Matthews.

[17] Outlining their major argument, Smith argues, "framers have assumed- erroneously – that African Americans who joined the army would serve not as soldiers but as laborers.

Section 13 outlined that by stating "any man or boy of African descent" who "shall render such service as is provided for in this act, he, his mother and his wife and children, shall forever thereafter be free.

McPherson's studies show that as the "[n]orthern public opinion was being gradually converted by the pressures of events," members of Congress came to more clearly support the move to use black soldiers.

[26] Professor of History at Yale David W. Blight, too, believes that "throughout the summer of 1862, events rapidly made northern public opinion more favorable to the use of black troops.

"[37] "I have no hesitation," he declared in his message to Congress, "and I am ready to say now, I think it is proper for our military commanders to employ as laborers as many persons of African descent as can be used to advantage.

Perhaps Professor Herman Belz's work, Abraham Lincoln, Constitutionalism, and Equal Rights in the Civil War Era, clarifies the "historical perspective" best by focusing on "the additional exigencies of law, politics, and wartime circumstances.

And be it further enacted, That when any man or boy of African descent, who by the laws of any State shall owe service or labor to any person who, during the present rebellion, has levied war or has borne arms against the United States, or adhered to their enemies by giving them aid and comfort, shall render any such service as is provided for in this act, he, his mother and his wife and children, shall forever thereafter be free, any law, usage, or custom whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding: Provided, That the mother, wife and children of such man or boy of African descent shall not be made free by the operation of this act except where such mother, wife or children owe service or labor to some person who, during the present rebellion, has borne arms against the United States or adhered to their enemies by giving them aid and comfort.

And be it further enacted, That all persons who have been or shall be hereafter enrolled in the service of the United States under this act shall receive the pay and rations now allowed by law to soldiers, according to their respective grades: Provided, That persons of African descent, who under this law shall be employed, shall receive ten dollars per month and one ration, three dollars of which monthly pay may be in clothing.