PROPER DESPATCH OF BUSINESS.

Subsequently Mr. Sumner modified his amendment, by accepting a substitute drawn by Mr. Simmons, of Rhode Island, in behalf of theFinance Committee, who suggested, that “the section, as presented by the Senator from Massachusetts, might leave the slave liable to be sold to pay the tax, and that conflicts about as much with the Senator’s notions as he could well have drawn any provision to do so.” Mr. Sumner had no anxiety on this head, and said at once:—

Perhaps the Senator and myself start from different points. I do not think the United States can own a slave. I cannot doubt, that, if a slave should be seized under process of the United States, he would be taken to Freedom, and not to Slavery, for the simple reason that the nation cannot own a slave. Therefore any special provision for this emergency is superfluous. I rest in the conviction, that, when a slave passes into the hands of the United States, he at once becomes free.

Mr. Sumner added, that the proposition he had presented was “in the plainest form and fewest words,” and on this account had merits of its own.Mr. Collamer hoped Mr. Sumner would accept the substitute, and thought “ten dollars a head on all ages and conditions an unreasonable tax.”The substitute accepted by Mr. Sumner was as follows.“Sec.—And be it further enacted, That an annual tax of five dollars shall be paid by every person or persons, corporation, or society, for and on account of the service or labor of every other person between the ages of ten and sixty-five years, whose service or labor, for a term of years or for life, is claimed to be owned by such first mentioned person or persons, corporation, or society, whether in a fiduciary capacity or otherwise, under and by virtue of the laws or customs of any State; and said annual tax shall be levied and collected of the person or persons, corporation, or society, making such claim, and of their goods, chattels, or lands, as is herein before provided; but in no case shall the person or persons whose service or labor is so claimed, or their service or labor, be sold for the purpose of collecting said tax:Provided, That this tax shall not apply to service due to parents.”[64]Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, took the lead in answer to Mr. Sumner, and in opposition to his amendment. After insisting that slaves are “persons,” and that, if the amendment be adopted, “they will be the only persons taxed under this bill,” he said:—“If the Senator had made his argument yesterday, when we proposed to tax cotton, a production which goes into manufactures, what he has said would apply with great force. Cotton is a production of slave labor solely.… All his arguments apply to cotton as a subject of taxation; but he convinced a majority of the Senate yesterday that it was not expedient to tax cotton; and now he proposes to tax slaves, and how?… With all our immense resources, we cannot now collect it, except from the loyal people who live in the Border States, who now recognize our flag and are subject to our law. I am not willing to select them as the first to bear a heavy and peculiar taxation. I believe that the true course is to insist upon the tax on cotton.”[65]The special points of Mr. Sherman’s opposition appear in Mr. Sumner’s reply.

Mr. Sumner added, that the proposition he had presented was “in the plainest form and fewest words,” and on this account had merits of its own.

Mr. Collamer hoped Mr. Sumner would accept the substitute, and thought “ten dollars a head on all ages and conditions an unreasonable tax.”

The substitute accepted by Mr. Sumner was as follows.

“Sec.—And be it further enacted, That an annual tax of five dollars shall be paid by every person or persons, corporation, or society, for and on account of the service or labor of every other person between the ages of ten and sixty-five years, whose service or labor, for a term of years or for life, is claimed to be owned by such first mentioned person or persons, corporation, or society, whether in a fiduciary capacity or otherwise, under and by virtue of the laws or customs of any State; and said annual tax shall be levied and collected of the person or persons, corporation, or society, making such claim, and of their goods, chattels, or lands, as is herein before provided; but in no case shall the person or persons whose service or labor is so claimed, or their service or labor, be sold for the purpose of collecting said tax:Provided, That this tax shall not apply to service due to parents.”[64]

Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, took the lead in answer to Mr. Sumner, and in opposition to his amendment. After insisting that slaves are “persons,” and that, if the amendment be adopted, “they will be the only persons taxed under this bill,” he said:—

“If the Senator had made his argument yesterday, when we proposed to tax cotton, a production which goes into manufactures, what he has said would apply with great force. Cotton is a production of slave labor solely.… All his arguments apply to cotton as a subject of taxation; but he convinced a majority of the Senate yesterday that it was not expedient to tax cotton; and now he proposes to tax slaves, and how?… With all our immense resources, we cannot now collect it, except from the loyal people who live in the Border States, who now recognize our flag and are subject to our law. I am not willing to select them as the first to bear a heavy and peculiar taxation. I believe that the true course is to insist upon the tax on cotton.”[65]

The special points of Mr. Sherman’s opposition appear in Mr. Sumner’s reply.

Mr. President,—I will make one remark in reply to the Senator from Ohio. He objects to my proposition as in the nature of a direct tax, or poll tax. How is this? Has not the Senator voted to tax auctioneers, lawyers, jugglers, and slaughterers of cattle, all being classes of persons in the community?

Mr. Sherman.To tax their employments.

Mr. Sumner.And I propose to tax the employment of the slave-master,—that is all. It is the business of the slave-master to make the slave work. This is his high vocation. In other words, his business consists in using the service and labor of another. And to this class of persons he belongs. Is it not plain? Can there be any doubt? Look at it. He is an auctioneer of human rights, a broker of human labor, a juggler of human sufferings and human sympathies,—I might say a slaughterer of human hopes; and, Sir, if the Senator from Ohio can tax auctioneer, broker, juggler, or slaughterer of cattle, I am at a loss to understand why he cannot tax the peculiar form of these vocations all concurring in the slave-master. He is swiftto tax the less, but hesitates to tax the greater. He can tax the petty employment, which is not immoral or cruel; but he will not tax the larger multiform employment, in which immorality and cruelty commingle.

But the Senator says it is a capitation or poll tax. Not, Sir, in the sense of the Constitution. On this I stand. It is simply a tax on a productive claim of property, or, to borrow the language of the Senator a moment ago, on an “employment.” It is nothing but that.

The Senator thinks it improper to tax slave-masters, especially when we have cotton for taxation; and he almost chides me, because yesterday I was against the cotton tax, which in his judgment is most proper. Sir, I am at a loss to find the parallel between the two cases implied in supposing that one can be a substitute for the other. They are unlike in every respect. Slaves and cotton belong to the same section of country, precisely as alligators and cotton; and that is all the parallel between them. Cotton is an agricultural product, entering into commerce and manufactures, while the manufactures made from it are important to all classes, but especially the poor. The question of its taxation involves considerations of economy and policy utterly unlike those arising on the motion to tax the claim of the slave-master. It is difficult to see how the two taxes can be confounded. One is a tax on an agricultural product; the other is a tax on an odious claim. The Senator will not say that it is an acceptable claim under the Constitution. Even if there, it is disguised under ambiguous words. Indeed, he knows well that it is offensive and repugnant to the conscience of good people. Shall not such a claim be taxed? Shall such a claim be permitted to go scot-free? Shallwe run about the country, seeking class after class to visit with oppressive taxation, and, under the lead of the Senator, excuse this largest and most offensive class of all? I am at a loss to understand on what ground of principle the Senator can proceed, when he proposes this special immunity. If I use strong terms in describing slave-masters, it is because the very language of the bill suggests them, and they are in essential conformity with truth.

I believe I have answered the two objections made by the Senator from Ohio. If he made any other, it has escaped my recollection.

Mr. Sherman followed Mr. Sumner, beginning with these words:—“I will not reply to that part of the speech of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts in which he denounced slaveholders. My opinions on this subject are well known. I think that slaveholders have certain rights under the Constitution of the United States; and while I never could be one myself, and have as deep a repugnance to any law which authorizes the holding of slaves as any other man, yet, while I am here under oath, I will respect their constitutional rights to the fullest extent. We are bound to legislate for them, and they are entitled to the protection of the Constitution of the United States as fully as if they were here, all of them, to speak for themselves; and especially I do not think it proper or courteous to use such language, applied to a whole class of people, when Senators on this floor are with us, associating with us, who are included by the appellation ‘slaveholder,’ so obnoxious to the Senator from Massachusetts. Certainly I cannot characterize so harshly any one who is a member of the same body with myself.”[66]He then said that he intended “to put the proposition to tax cotton and the proposition to tax slaves against each other,” and that he would “propose to amend the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts by substituting a modified tax on cotton,”—that “they are connected together, and the Senator cannot disconnect them.” He then spoke of slave-masters again.“The slaveholders of the Revolution were men of the highest purity, of the greatest patriotism. At that time Slavery was admitted to be an evil. They were men of gentleness, of courtesy, of kindness, good hearts and goodheads, nearly all of them; and so are the great body of the slaveholders with whom you are brought in contact in the Border States, men of gentleness and kindness and courtesy.… Many of the most gentlemanly, courteous, kind, and patriotic men that I ever met in the world were slaveholders; and I think, that, taken as a class, the slaveholders of the Border States are men who are deserving of our commiseration, of our kindness, rather than of our reproaches.… I do not choose to select that class of men from among all the population of the Southern States and tax them, and then to apply to them opprobrious epithets.”[67]Mr. Sumner felt called to speak again in reply, and said:—

Mr. Sherman followed Mr. Sumner, beginning with these words:—

“I will not reply to that part of the speech of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts in which he denounced slaveholders. My opinions on this subject are well known. I think that slaveholders have certain rights under the Constitution of the United States; and while I never could be one myself, and have as deep a repugnance to any law which authorizes the holding of slaves as any other man, yet, while I am here under oath, I will respect their constitutional rights to the fullest extent. We are bound to legislate for them, and they are entitled to the protection of the Constitution of the United States as fully as if they were here, all of them, to speak for themselves; and especially I do not think it proper or courteous to use such language, applied to a whole class of people, when Senators on this floor are with us, associating with us, who are included by the appellation ‘slaveholder,’ so obnoxious to the Senator from Massachusetts. Certainly I cannot characterize so harshly any one who is a member of the same body with myself.”[66]

He then said that he intended “to put the proposition to tax cotton and the proposition to tax slaves against each other,” and that he would “propose to amend the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts by substituting a modified tax on cotton,”—that “they are connected together, and the Senator cannot disconnect them.” He then spoke of slave-masters again.

“The slaveholders of the Revolution were men of the highest purity, of the greatest patriotism. At that time Slavery was admitted to be an evil. They were men of gentleness, of courtesy, of kindness, good hearts and goodheads, nearly all of them; and so are the great body of the slaveholders with whom you are brought in contact in the Border States, men of gentleness and kindness and courtesy.… Many of the most gentlemanly, courteous, kind, and patriotic men that I ever met in the world were slaveholders; and I think, that, taken as a class, the slaveholders of the Border States are men who are deserving of our commiseration, of our kindness, rather than of our reproaches.… I do not choose to select that class of men from among all the population of the Southern States and tax them, and then to apply to them opprobrious epithets.”[67]

Mr. Sumner felt called to speak again in reply, and said:—

The Senator from Ohio says that I propose a tax on “slaves,” and then carefully reminds me that “slaves” are persons, and therefore not, according to the Constitution, to be taxed, except by a capitation tax. Now, Sir, I have to say, in the first place, that the tax which I propose is not to be regarded as a tax on slaves. If applicable to persons, it is to the masters, and not to the slaves. It is a tax on slave-masters, as I have already said,—precisely like the tax on auctioneers, which is sustained by the Senator. It is a tax on a claim of property made by slave-masters. The Senator may call such a claim property or not, as he pleases. It is at least a claim of property, and as such I propose to tax it. Why not? The Senator admits that at other times slaves have been expressly taxed,—actually taxed in name. In the tax of 1815 there was a tax on “landand slaves.” The Senator does not doubt the constitutionality of such tax. Sir, I am content with this authority, which goes beyond anything that I propose, and I am not troubled by any scruple, lest, in imposing a tax on the claim of the slave-master, I recognize property in man. At most, I recognize a profitable claim, and tax it.

The remarks of the Senator were occupied chieflywith two heads,—first, eulogy of slave-masters, and, secondly, vindication of his proposed tax on cotton. I have little to say of the Senator’s eulogy. There are two authorities on that head, which the Senator will pardon me, if I place above him: I mean Mr. Jefferson and Colonel Mason, both of our early Revolutionary days. Mr. Jefferson assures us that the whole commerce between master and slave is one of boisterous passion, tending to barbarism.[68]Colonel Mason exclaimed, in the Convention to frame the Constitution, that every slave-master is born a petty tyrant.[69]And yet, Sir, in the face of this authentic testimony, from persons who knew Slavery and all its influences, the Senator eulogizes slave-masters, and pleads for their exemption from taxation. Eulogy is for the dead. I would not add to the odium justly belonging to a tyrannical class, but I do insist that justice shall be done to their victims; and when the Senator interposes eulogy, I interpose against him the rights which have been violated. So long as men persist in such outrage, so long as they persevere in maintaining an institution which annuls the parental relation, the conjugal relation, the right to instruction, the right to the fruit of one’s own labor, and does all this merely to make men work without wages, so long as men support this unjust and irrational pretence, they must not expect soft words from me. If the Senator from Ohio finds it in his generosity to plead for slave-masters, he must excuse me, if I decline to follow him. He does not know them as well as I do, nor does he know their victims as well as I do.

The Senator dwells much on the importance of a tax on cotton. The subject was fully canvassed yesterday, and the vote of the Senate was against him. He now seeks a re-hearing out of the ordinary course. Would it not be better, if his proposition were postponed to the next stage of the bill, when it will be strictly in order? Meanwhile, in pursuance of my promise to be brief, I content myself with saying, that the desire of the Senate to tax cotton is no reason why they should refuse to tax the claim of the slave-master. The two are not in any way dependent upon each other. Let the Senator from Ohio carry his cotton tax, if the Senate agree with him. But, Sir, I insist, that, whether cotton is taxed or not, the claim of the slave-master shall not be permitted to escape. I do not say the property, but I say the claim. It ought to be taxed, not only for revenue, but also for the discouragement it will fasten upon an odious pretension, which has been to us the fountain of trouble and war.

Mr. Sherman’s motion to strike out the tax on slave-masters and insert the tax on cotton was then lost,—Yeas 15, Nays 22.Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, then moved to amend the amendment of Mr. Sumner by adding,—“And provided, further, That the tax herein prescribed shall not be levied or collected in any State where a system of gradual emancipation may have been adopted at the time of the collection.”May 29th, this was lost,—Yeas 15, Nays 20.Then, on motion of Mr. Fessenden, Mr. Sumner’s amendment was further modified by substituting a tax of “two” dollars, instead of “five,” on account of each slave. Before the vote was taken, Mr. Sumner assigned the reason for the higher rate.

Mr. Sherman’s motion to strike out the tax on slave-masters and insert the tax on cotton was then lost,—Yeas 15, Nays 22.

Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, then moved to amend the amendment of Mr. Sumner by adding,—

“And provided, further, That the tax herein prescribed shall not be levied or collected in any State where a system of gradual emancipation may have been adopted at the time of the collection.”

May 29th, this was lost,—Yeas 15, Nays 20.

Then, on motion of Mr. Fessenden, Mr. Sumner’s amendment was further modified by substituting a tax of “two” dollars, instead of “five,” on account of each slave. Before the vote was taken, Mr. Sumner assigned the reason for the higher rate.

The Senator from Maine [Mr.Fessenden] said that he had looked simply at the revenue to be obtained bya tax. But, pray, will not a larger revenue be obtained at the rate of five dollars than at the rate of two? There are the slaves,—count them, and tax them. The process is simple, with no chance of evasion. Besides, Sir, I cannot forget, nor can the Senator, that throughout our history we have heard constantly of “incidental protection.” But, if incidental protection is just and expedient, then is incidental discouragement, and the tax I propose may be sustained on this ground. We do not hesitate to tax whiskey and tobacco as luxuries, indulgences, vices. Why should we hesitate to tax the worst luxury, the worst indulgence, the worst vice of all, which is Slavery? Therefore, for a double reason, first, for the sake of revenue, and, secondly, for the sake of discouragement to Slavery, I am for the larger tax.

After further debate, the question was taken on the amendment of Mr. Sumner as modified, and resulted, Yeas 14, Nays 22. So the amendment was lost.June 5th, at the next stage of the bill, Mr. Sumner moved his amendment in the following form:—“And be it further enacted, That every person claiming the service or labor of any other person as a slave shall pay a tax of two dollars on account of every person so claimed: but in no case shall any person so claimed be sold for the purpose of collecting the tax.”The yeas and nays were ordered, and, being taken, resulted, Yeas 19, Nays 16. So the amendment was agreed to.June 6th, Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, who had voted for the tax on slaves, moved a reconsideration, not because he had changed his opinion, but, as he said, at the request of Senators. This was to give an opportunity for another vote.In the debate which ensued the amendment was assailed by Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Browning, Mr. Cowan, and Mr. Hale. The latter quoted the words,—“And if we cannot alter things,Egad, we’ll change their names, Sir,”[70]—and insisted, that, however it might be called, it was a tax on slaves; on which Mr. Wade remarked from his seat, “So much the better.” Mr. Sumner said in reply:—

After further debate, the question was taken on the amendment of Mr. Sumner as modified, and resulted, Yeas 14, Nays 22. So the amendment was lost.

June 5th, at the next stage of the bill, Mr. Sumner moved his amendment in the following form:—

“And be it further enacted, That every person claiming the service or labor of any other person as a slave shall pay a tax of two dollars on account of every person so claimed: but in no case shall any person so claimed be sold for the purpose of collecting the tax.”

The yeas and nays were ordered, and, being taken, resulted, Yeas 19, Nays 16. So the amendment was agreed to.

June 6th, Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, who had voted for the tax on slaves, moved a reconsideration, not because he had changed his opinion, but, as he said, at the request of Senators. This was to give an opportunity for another vote.

In the debate which ensued the amendment was assailed by Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Browning, Mr. Cowan, and Mr. Hale. The latter quoted the words,—

“And if we cannot alter things,Egad, we’ll change their names, Sir,”[70]—

“And if we cannot alter things,

Egad, we’ll change their names, Sir,”[70]—

and insisted, that, however it might be called, it was a tax on slaves; on which Mr. Wade remarked from his seat, “So much the better.” Mr. Sumner said in reply:—

MR. PRESIDENT,—I presume there is no difference among Senators in desire to follow the Constitution. The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr.Hale], on my right, cannot be more desirous to follow it than the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr.Wilmot], on my left. In that respect they are equal. Nor do I believe that the Senator from Illinois [Mr.Browning], over the way, can claim any particular monopoly of such devotion. In that respect, Sir, we are all equal. Our difference is as to the meaning of the Constitution. But it is a poor argument which finds its chief force in asseverations of devotion to the Constitution. Conscious of my obligation to support it, and of my loyalty, I make no such asseverations.

Nor again, Sir, do I believe that the Senator from New Hampshire can take to himself any monopoly of praise for denying the whole offensive pretension of property in man. Is he more earnest in this denial than many other Senators? Is he more earnest than the Senator from Pennsylvania near me? Is he more earnest than myself? Has he denied it oftener in debate or public speech? To me the pretension is absurd as it is wicked. A man may as well claim property in a star as in his fellow-man. And yet, Sir, with this conviction, I cannot forget that I am here, as a Senator,to legislate with regard to existing institutions, and to see things as they are. I cannot be blind to thefact of Slavery. Slavery exists as a monstrous fact, an enormity, if you please, but still it exists; and as a legislator I am to act on its existence. Am I not right? Can I presume on this occasion to be guided by my inner conviction that there is no property in man, when, looking to the Slave States, I am compelled to see the great, unquestionable fact of pretended property? To my mind, it is more practical to recognize the fact, and to proceed accordingly.

The Senator from Illinois insists that this is a capitation tax, and he reads the text of the Constitution. What is a capitation tax? The precise definition in Webster’s Dictionary—if the Senator will excuse me for going to an authority which is not a law book—is “a tax or imposition upon each head or person, a poll tax.” Such is the tax with regard to which the provision of the Constitution read by the Senator was adopted. This provision is not applicable to any other tax, but simply to this special tax.

Already I have reminded the Senator that he has voted to tax auctioneers, to tax jugglers, to tax the slaughterers of cattle, and to tax lawyers. I might add other classes. I now propose that he should tax claimants of slaves, a class offensive to reason and humanity. That is all. If you look at the census of 1850,—that of 1860 is not yet published,—you will find among the different classes of our population the following: mariners, 70,000,—I will not give the hundreds; merchants, 100,000; planters, 27,000; wheelwrights, 30,000; teachers, 29,000; tailors, 52,000; overseers, 18,000; lawyers, 23,000; farmers, 2,363,000; slaveholders, 347,000.

Now, Sir, would any one say that a tax on the business of the mariner was a capitation tax? Would any one say that a tax on the business of merchants, of whom we have one hundred thousand, was a capitation tax? Would any one say that a tax on the business of the planter was a capitation tax? that a tax on the business of the wheelwright was a capitation tax? that a tax on the business of teachers was a capitation tax? that a tax on the business of tailors was a capitation tax? that a tax on the business of overseers of plantations, who apply the lash, of whom there are eighteen thousand, was a capitation tax? that a tax on lawyers, already voted by the Senator from Illinois, was a capitation tax? that a tax on farmers, if you will, of whom, happily, we have two million three hundred and sixty-three thousand, was a capitation tax? And will any one say that a tax on slave-masters, of whom, unhappily, we have three hundred and forty-seven thousand, is a capitation tax? Senators may imagine it a capitation tax, Senators may call it a capitation tax, but no imagination and no energy of assertion can make it so. It is not a capitation tax. It is a tax on the claim of the slave-master in the bones and muscles, the labor and service of his fellow-man, and, so far as the tax can have any influence, it must discredit and discourage such claim. Therefore, Sir, I say confidently that the tax is in every respect constitutional, and it is also a tax well worthy of adoption, because, at a moment when Slavery stands revealed as the very pest of our land, it will operate to discredit and discourage it.

In no other way can you obtain so much revenue so easily and so beneficently. But if you refuse to impose this tax, you concede a special immunity to a most offensivepretension, and leave those who profit by it to gather their profits without any of that burden so freely imposed upon the honest industry of the country, and upon so many classes of our citizens.

The motion to reconsider was carried,—Yeas 22, Nays 18.The question then recurred on the amendment, and it was lost,—Yeas 17, Nays 23.This narrative shows how the effort to tax Slavery finally failed, not on its merits, but from tenderness to slave-masters of the Border States.

The motion to reconsider was carried,—Yeas 22, Nays 18.

The question then recurred on the amendment, and it was lost,—Yeas 17, Nays 23.

This narrative shows how the effort to tax Slavery finally failed, not on its merits, but from tenderness to slave-masters of the Border States.

Remarks in the Senate, on the Order of Business, May 30, 1862.

In the pressure of business before the Senate, it was proposed to sit into the night on the Internal Tax Bill. Mr. Sumner spoke against this proposition.

MR. PRESIDENT,—If I recollect aright, the Tax Bill was considered in the House of Representatives more than three weeks, and it is well known that there are rules for the limit of debate in that body which do not prevail in the Senate.

Mr. Hale.But which ought to prevail here.

Mr. Sumner.They do not prevail here, and we are to take things as they are. Now, Sir, shall we limit debate? Shall we cut it off more or less? In the absence of rules by which it may be done, we are asked to do it by protracting the daily session into the night, in other words, by night sessions, and so hurrying the bill to a final vote. I do not think this advisable. The matters in question are too important for such summary process. Each day has its debate on questions of detail, which multiply as we proceed; but there are two or three questions of principle not yet considered, though already before us, including that opened yesterday by the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr.Anthony], andanother to be presented by the Senator from California [Mr.McDougall], involving a review of different systems of taxation. Is it supposed that such questions can be properly considered in a single day, or in two days, so that then we shall be ready to vote? To my mind it is not possible.

But if possible, I repeat, it is not advisable, and, believe me, Sir, I say this from no disposition to shirk business or duty here. I have not been out of my seat three minutes since this bill was taken up, nor, indeed, have I been out of my seat a half-hour since the session began. Therefore I do not fall under the judgment of the Senator from Maine [Mr.Fessenden] with regard to those who prefer that debate should be allowed to proceed, even at the expense of time. I am ready for work; but I think we shall all do best, if this important measure is considered without haste, if not entirely without rest, according to the customary order of business.

Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, June 2, 1862.

Hon. Edward Stanly was appointed by the President Provisional Governor of North Carolina, and Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee. The former signalized his arrival at his post by an official movement against schools for colored children, as forbidden by “the laws of the State,” meaning the Black Code, before the war.Mr. Vincent Colyer, who had opened a school for colored children at Newbern, came at once to Washington. Arriving at the close of the day, he reported immediately to Mr. Sumner, who without delay hurried to the Executive Mansion, and, not finding the President there, followed him to the War Department. Mr. Sumner related what had occurred, when the President, with an impatience which Mr. Sumner never encountered from him on any other occasion, exclaimed, “Do you take me for a School-Committee-man?” Mr. Sumner replied promptly: “Not at all; I take you for President of the United States; and I come with a case of wrong, in attending to which your predecessor, George Washington, if alive, might add to his renown.” The President changed his tone, and with perfect kindness proceeded to consider the case.Mr. Sumner lost no time in laying it before the Senate.June 2d, he offered the following resolution:—“Resolved, That the Secretary of War be requested to communicate to the Senate copies of any commissions or orders from his Department undertaking to appoint Provisional Governors in Tennessee and North Carolina, with the instructions given to the Governors.”By unanimous consent, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution, when Mr. Sumner said:—

Mr. Vincent Colyer, who had opened a school for colored children at Newbern, came at once to Washington. Arriving at the close of the day, he reported immediately to Mr. Sumner, who without delay hurried to the Executive Mansion, and, not finding the President there, followed him to the War Department. Mr. Sumner related what had occurred, when the President, with an impatience which Mr. Sumner never encountered from him on any other occasion, exclaimed, “Do you take me for a School-Committee-man?” Mr. Sumner replied promptly: “Not at all; I take you for President of the United States; and I come with a case of wrong, in attending to which your predecessor, George Washington, if alive, might add to his renown.” The President changed his tone, and with perfect kindness proceeded to consider the case.

Mr. Sumner lost no time in laying it before the Senate.

June 2d, he offered the following resolution:—

“Resolved, That the Secretary of War be requested to communicate to the Senate copies of any commissions or orders from his Department undertaking to appoint Provisional Governors in Tennessee and North Carolina, with the instructions given to the Governors.”

By unanimous consent, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution, when Mr. Sumner said:—

MR. PRESIDENT,—I shall not stop to consider any question touching the power to appoint Governors of States. My object is different. It is to expose a case of peculiar interest and importance, with regard to which I have a statement worthy of confidence. From this it appears that one of the first acts of Mr. Stanly, on arrival at Newbern, North Carolina, and assuming his responsible duties as Provisional Governor, was to announce that the school there for the education of colored children, recently opened by Northern charity, must be closed, being forbidden by the laws of North Carolina, which he was instructed by the authorities at Washington to maintain. I have here an official report of this extraordinary transaction.

“In a conversation between Governor Stanly and Mr. Colyer, the Governor stated that there was one thing in Mr. C.’s doings, as superintendent of the poor, a question would be raised about,—indeed, it had been already,—and that was his (C.’s) keeping school for the blacks. ‘Of course you are aware,’ said the Governor, ‘that the laws of the State make the opening of such schools a criminal offence. My instructions from Washington were, that I was to carry out the laws of North Carolina precisely as they were administered before the breaking out of this unhappy affair; so, if I were called upon for a decision in the matter of your schools for the blacks, I would have to decide against you; but at the same time I don’t want anything done abruptly. As a man, I might do, perhaps, as you have done; but as a Governor, I must act in my official capacity according to my instructions, and administer the laws as I find them.’“A true copy.“C. H. Mendell,Clerk to Mr. Colyer.“Newbern, May 28, 1862.”

“A true copy.

“C. H. Mendell,Clerk to Mr. Colyer.

“Newbern, May 28, 1862.”

Then follows a further statement.

“Mr. C. C. Leigh, who was with General Saxton in the Oriental, on his way to South Carolina, as confidential agent of the National Freedmen’s Relief Association, and who has just returned, asked Mr. Colyer what he should do. Mr. C. replied: ‘I must close the schools, as I cannot consent to continue to place myself in a situation where I am liable to be punished according to the laws of North Carolina.’“Mr. Leigh is the Chairman of our Home Committee.”

“Mr. Leigh is the Chairman of our Home Committee.”

If any person, in the name of the United States, has undertaken to close a school for little children, whether white or black, it is important that we should know the authority under which he assumes to act. Surely nobody here will be willing to take the responsibility for such an act. It is difficult to conceive that one of the first fruits of national victory and the reëstablishment of national power should be an enormity not easy to characterize in any terms of moderation. Jefferson tells us that in a certain contest there is no attribute of the Almighty “which can take side with us.”[71]And permit me to say, that, if, in the war unhappily existing, the military power of the United States is employed in closing schools, there is no attribute of the Almighty which must not be against us; nor can we expect any true success. Sir, in the name of the Constitution, of humanity, and of common sense, I protest against such impiety under sanction of the United States.

The proper rule of conduct is simple. It is found in the instructions, to which I referred the other day, from the British Commissioner in a conquered province of India. After indicating certain crimes to be treatedwith summary punishment, he proceeds to say: “All other crimes you will investigate according to the forms of justice usual in the country, modified as you may think expedient; and in all cases you will endeavor to enforce the existing laws and customs,unless where they are clearly repugnant to reason and natural equity.”[72]Here is the proper limitation. Anything else is unworthy of a civilized country. Whatever is clearly repugnant to reason and equity must be rejected. Surely such a thing cannot be enforced. But what can be more clearly repugnant to reason and equity than the barbarous law which an officer, in the name of the National Government, has threatened to enforce?

The resolution was agreed to.June 4th, a report from the Secretary of War, in answer to this resolution, contained a letter of appointment, dated May 19, 1862, conferring “all and singular the powers, duties, and functions pertaining to the office of Military Governor, including the power to establish all necessary offices and tribunals, and suspend the writ ofHabeas Corpus.” This was followed, May 20th, by instructions, wherein it is said: “Upon your wisdom and energetic action much will depend.… It is not deemed necessary to give any specific instruction, but rather to confide in your sound discretion to adopt such measures as circumstances may demand. Specific instructions will be given, when requested. You may rely upon the perfect confidence and full support of the Department in the performance of your duties.”[73]

The resolution was agreed to.

June 4th, a report from the Secretary of War, in answer to this resolution, contained a letter of appointment, dated May 19, 1862, conferring “all and singular the powers, duties, and functions pertaining to the office of Military Governor, including the power to establish all necessary offices and tribunals, and suspend the writ ofHabeas Corpus.” This was followed, May 20th, by instructions, wherein it is said: “Upon your wisdom and energetic action much will depend.… It is not deemed necessary to give any specific instruction, but rather to confide in your sound discretion to adopt such measures as circumstances may demand. Specific instructions will be given, when requested. You may rely upon the perfect confidence and full support of the Department in the performance of your duties.”[73]

Letter to ——, June 5, 1862.

This letter, after enjoying an extensive circulation in the newspapers, was preserved as a political document in McPherson’s “Political History of the Rebellion.”[74]It first appeared in theBoston Journal,[75]with the caption, “Senator Sumner and the President,” and with these introductory words:—“We are permitted to publish the following private letter from Hon. Charles Sumner, in reply to a letter addressed to him by a personal friend. Senator Sumner’s hearty indorsement will not be without its influence upon those who are impatient at what they term the Proslavery policy of the President. At the same time there is nothing in this indorsement which should shake the confidence of conservative men in his wisdom and prudence.… It is something to obtain from one who may be regarded as a representative of this class so handsome a tribute to the purity of the President’s motives, and so hearty an indorsement of the correctness of his convictions and sympathies.”

This letter, after enjoying an extensive circulation in the newspapers, was preserved as a political document in McPherson’s “Political History of the Rebellion.”[74]

It first appeared in theBoston Journal,[75]with the caption, “Senator Sumner and the President,” and with these introductory words:—

“We are permitted to publish the following private letter from Hon. Charles Sumner, in reply to a letter addressed to him by a personal friend. Senator Sumner’s hearty indorsement will not be without its influence upon those who are impatient at what they term the Proslavery policy of the President. At the same time there is nothing in this indorsement which should shake the confidence of conservative men in his wisdom and prudence.… It is something to obtain from one who may be regarded as a representative of this class so handsome a tribute to the purity of the President’s motives, and so hearty an indorsement of the correctness of his convictions and sympathies.”

Senate Chamber, June 5, 1862.MY DEAR SIR,—Your criticism of the President is hasty. I am confident, if you knew him as I do, you would not make it.The President cannot be held responsible for the misfeasance of subordinates, unless adopted, or at least tolerated, by him. And I am sure nothing unjust or ungenerous will be tolerated, much less adopted, by him.I am happy to let you know that he has no sympathy with Stanly in his absurd wickedness, closing theschools, nor, again, in his other act of turning our camps into a hunting-ground for slaves. He repudiates both, positively. The latter point has occupied much of his thought, and the newspapers do not go too far in recording his repeated declarations, which I have often heard from his own lips, that slaves finding their way within the national lines are never to be reënslaved. This is his conviction, expressed without reserve.Could you—as has been my privilege often—have seen the President, while considering the great questions on which he has already acted, beginning with the invitation to Emancipation in the States, then Emancipation in the District of Columbia, and the acknowledgment of the Independence of Hayti and Liberia, even your zeal would be satisfied; for you would feel the sincerity of his purpose to do what he can to carry forward the principles of the Declaration of Independence. His whole soul was occupied, especially by the first proposition, so peculiarly his own. In familiar intercourse with him, I remember nothing more touching than the earnestness and completeness with which he embraced this idea. To his mind it was just and beneficent, while it promised the sure end of Slavery. To me, who had already proposed a Bridge of Gold for the retreating Fiend, it was most welcome. Proceeding from the President, it must take its place among the great events of history.If disposed to be impatient at apparent short-comings, think, I pray you, what has been done in a brief period, and from the past discern the sure promise of the future. Knowing something of my convictions, and of the ardor with which I maintain them, you may, perhaps, derive assurance from my confidence. I say toyou, therefore, Stand by the Administration. If need be, help it by word and act; but stand by it, and have faith in it.I wish that you knew the President, and had heard the artless expression of his convictions on those questions which concern you so deeply. You might, perhaps, wish he were less cautious, but you would be grateful that he is so true to all you have at heart. Believe me, therefore, you are wrong; and I regret it the more because of my desire to see all our friends stand firm together.If I write strongly, it is because I feel strongly; for my constant and intimate intercourse with the President, beginning with the fourth of March, not only binds me peculiarly to his Administration, but gives me a personal as well as a political interest in seeing that justice is done him.Believe me, my dear Sir,With much regard,Ever faithfully yours,Charles Sumner.

Senate Chamber, June 5, 1862.

MY DEAR SIR,—Your criticism of the President is hasty. I am confident, if you knew him as I do, you would not make it.

The President cannot be held responsible for the misfeasance of subordinates, unless adopted, or at least tolerated, by him. And I am sure nothing unjust or ungenerous will be tolerated, much less adopted, by him.

I am happy to let you know that he has no sympathy with Stanly in his absurd wickedness, closing theschools, nor, again, in his other act of turning our camps into a hunting-ground for slaves. He repudiates both, positively. The latter point has occupied much of his thought, and the newspapers do not go too far in recording his repeated declarations, which I have often heard from his own lips, that slaves finding their way within the national lines are never to be reënslaved. This is his conviction, expressed without reserve.

Could you—as has been my privilege often—have seen the President, while considering the great questions on which he has already acted, beginning with the invitation to Emancipation in the States, then Emancipation in the District of Columbia, and the acknowledgment of the Independence of Hayti and Liberia, even your zeal would be satisfied; for you would feel the sincerity of his purpose to do what he can to carry forward the principles of the Declaration of Independence. His whole soul was occupied, especially by the first proposition, so peculiarly his own. In familiar intercourse with him, I remember nothing more touching than the earnestness and completeness with which he embraced this idea. To his mind it was just and beneficent, while it promised the sure end of Slavery. To me, who had already proposed a Bridge of Gold for the retreating Fiend, it was most welcome. Proceeding from the President, it must take its place among the great events of history.

If disposed to be impatient at apparent short-comings, think, I pray you, what has been done in a brief period, and from the past discern the sure promise of the future. Knowing something of my convictions, and of the ardor with which I maintain them, you may, perhaps, derive assurance from my confidence. I say toyou, therefore, Stand by the Administration. If need be, help it by word and act; but stand by it, and have faith in it.

I wish that you knew the President, and had heard the artless expression of his convictions on those questions which concern you so deeply. You might, perhaps, wish he were less cautious, but you would be grateful that he is so true to all you have at heart. Believe me, therefore, you are wrong; and I regret it the more because of my desire to see all our friends stand firm together.

If I write strongly, it is because I feel strongly; for my constant and intimate intercourse with the President, beginning with the fourth of March, not only binds me peculiarly to his Administration, but gives me a personal as well as a political interest in seeing that justice is done him.

Believe me, my dear Sir,

With much regard,

Ever faithfully yours,

Charles Sumner.

Resolutions in the Senate, June 6, 1862.

Further report from North Carolina induced Mr. Sumner again to bring the action of Mr. Stanly before the Senate, in the hope especially of reaching the country, and also the Administration.

Whereas Edward Stanly, assuming to act under a letter from the Secretary of War, calling him Military Governor of North Carolina, a post unknown to the Constitution and laws of the Union, has undertaken, by virtue of such military authority, to surrender fugitive slaves, contrary to the intent and meaning of an Act of Congress recently adopted; also to banish an American citizen, in violation of personal rights secured by the Constitution; and also to close and suppress schools maintained by the charity of good men for the education of colored children, in defiance of every principle of morals and religion, and to the discredit of our national character: Therefore,—

1.Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cancel the letter of the Secretary of War under which Edward Stanly now assumes to act.

2.Resolved, That any such letter, assuming to create any person Military Governor of a State, is without sanction in the Constitution and laws, and that its effectis to subordinate the civil to the military authority, contrary to the spirit of our institutions, and in derogation of the powers of Congress, which, where a State Government falls into the hands of traitors, can be the only legitimate authority, except martial law.

Mr. Carlile, of West Virginia, objected to the consideration of the resolutions, and they were postponed.These resolutions presented again the question of the Power of Congress over the Rebel States, first opened by the resolutions of February 11, 1862.[76]

Mr. Carlile, of West Virginia, objected to the consideration of the resolutions, and they were postponed.

These resolutions presented again the question of the Power of Congress over the Rebel States, first opened by the resolutions of February 11, 1862.[76]

Resolution in the Senate, June 9, 1862.

RESOLVED, That the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads be directed to consider the expediency of providing for an air-line railroad between Washington and New York, which shall carry the mails of the United States, and be free from all local impediments.

This resolution was objected to, and so was postponed; but its immediate object was accomplished. The existing roads were stimulated, and the attention of the country was called to the idea of better communication between the two capitals of politics and commerce. A French paper spoke of the proposed road as “atmospheric.”The resolution was renewed at the next session of Congress, December 5, 1862, when it was agreed to.

The resolution was renewed at the next session of Congress, December 5, 1862, when it was agreed to.

Remarks in the Senate, on the Bill for the Admission of West Virginia As a State, June 26, July 1 and 14, 1862.

The facts essential to the comprehension of this case appear in the debate.

MR. PRESIDENT,—The question is on the admission of West Virginia into the Union as a new State, and the following is one of the conditions, namely: “That from and after the fourth day of July, 1863, the children of all slaves born within the limits of said State shall be free.” Here is a condition which you undertake to impose. This is clear.

But, Sir, be good enough to observe that this condition recognizes Slavery during the present generation. Short as life may be, it is too long for Slavery. If it be adopted, and the bill becomes a law, a new Slave State will take its place in our Union,—it may be with but few slaves, and for the present generation only, but nevertheless a new Slave State. That, Sir, is too much.

How often have I said, and how painful that I must now repeat what all know, that it takes but little Slavery to make a Slave State with all the virus of Slavery! Now my vote shall help no new State to take a place in this Union, with Senators in this body, unless purged of this poison. Enough has our nation been disturbed,and enough has the Constitution been perverted. The time has come for the remedy. It is found in the policy of Thomas Jefferson, originally applied to the great Territory of the Northwest. Its application to a portion of his own Virginia, seeking to become a new State, will be politic, just, and conservative.

Mr. Sumner concluded by moving to strike out the words of the condition proposed, and insert an absolute abolition and prohibition, so that it should read, “From and after the fourth day of July, 1863, within the limits of the State there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crime whereof the party shall be duly convicted.”July 1st, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the bill, the pending question being the amendment of Mr. Sumner, who made the following remarks.

July 1st, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the bill, the pending question being the amendment of Mr. Sumner, who made the following remarks.

Time has elapsed since this measure was before the Senate, which meanwhile has been engaged in an important debate. Therefore I shall be pardoned, if, at the expense of repetition, I recall attention to the precise question.

The bill for the admission of West Virginia provides that from and after the 4th of July, 1863, all children born of slaves shall be free, leaving the existing generation in Slavery. From statistics furnished by the honorable Senator from Virginia [Mr.Willey], in his elaborate speech, it appears that in West Virginia twelve thousand human beings are held in Slavery.

Back to Index Next