At the beginning of the year 1862 we were physically strong but financially weak. Therefore, I repeat, the problem of this contest was not as to whether we could muster men, but whether we could raise money. There was great wealth in the country but how could it be promptly utilized? To that question the diligent attention of Congress was applied. The banks which had aided us with money were crippled and had suspended coin payments. The Secretary of the Treasury was begging at the doors of both Houses for means to meet the most pressing demands. On the 15th of January, 1862, the London "Post," the organ of Lord Palmerston, said:
"The monetary intelligence from America is of the most important kind. National bankruptcy is not an agreeable prospect, but it is the only one presented by the existing state of American finance. What a strange tale does not the history of the United States for the past twelve months unfold? What a striking moral does it not point? Never before was the world dazzled by a career of more reckless extravagance. Never before did a flourishing and prosperous state make such gigantic strides towards effecting its own ruin."
The legal tender act, with its provision for coin receipts to pay interest on bonds, whatever may be said to the contrary by theorists, was the only measure that could have enabled the government to carry on successfully the vast operations of the war. Our annual expenditures at that time were four times the amount of our currency; were three times the aggregate coin of the country; were greater than any ever borne by any nation in ancient or in modern times. The highest expenditure of Great Britain during her war with Napoleon, at a time when her currency was inflated, when she made the Bank of England notes a legal tender, was but £100,000,000.
Anticipating these enormous expenditures I introduced a bill which became a law on the 31st of July, 1861, which provided for a commission to examine and report as to the compensation of all offices for the government, the commission to be composed of two Members of the Senate, three Members of the House of Representatives, one officer of the navy, and one officer of the army, who were directed to examine and report, as soon as practicable, a fair and just compensation for each officer of the government, and such regulations as would secure a more economical collection of the revenue. When this bill was pending I stated its purpose and my hope to accomplish a reduction of the expenditures of the government, or, at least, an equalization of the salaries then paid to the different officers. We sought economy by the reduction of expenses. I was chairman of this commission, and Senator Clark, of New Hampshire, was my associate. The commission collected a mass of information, and upon it based several bills introduced in the second session of the 37th Congress. Some of these were made nugatory by the rise of prices, measured in most cases by the fall in value of our currency, but many of their provisions were ingrafted into other bills that became laws.
The organization of national banks, authorized to issue circulating notes, is so intimately connected with legal tender United States notes that I think it proper to consider them in connection, though the banking law did not pass until 1863. The two forms of currency, one issued directly by the government as lawful money of the United States and a legal tender, and the other issued by private corporations, but secured by bonds of the United States, constitute a system of national currency which, organized in the midst of war, was an important aid to the government in its great struggle, and when placed at par with coin by the resumption act has proven to be the best paper money created by legislation in this or any other country.
The issue of circulating notes by state banks had been the fruitful cause of loss, contention and bankruptcy, not only of the banks issuing them, but of all business men depending upon them for financial aid. Inflation and apparent prosperity were often followed by the closing of one bank and distrust of all others. The notes of a broken bank were rarely paid, the assets of such bank being generally applied to the payment of other liabilities, leaving the loss to fall on the holders of the notes, mostly innocent persons of limited means. This led to the adoption in 1846 of the sub- treasury system, by which all payments to the treasury were required to be in coin, to be held until required for disbursements on government account. This protected the United States, but it did not save the people from loss, as, from necessity, they were compelled to use bank bills authorized by the several states, varying in value and security, and chiefly limited in circulation to the state in which issued. With a narrow view of the powers of the national government, Congress had repeatedly refused to authorize a national bank, a policy I heartily approve, not from a doubt of the power of Congress to grant such a charter, but from the danger of intrusting so vast a power in a single corporation, with or without security. This objection did not lie against the organization of a system of national banks extending over the country, which required every dollar of notes issued to be secured by a larger amount of bonds of the United States, to be deposited in the treasury of the United States, thus saving the note holder from all possibility of loss.
Secretary Chase, in his report of December 9, 1861, recommended that a tax be imposed upon notes issued by state banks and also that Congress should exercise its authority to establish a system of national banks, with proper safeguards and limitations. A bill was introduced for the latter purpose in the House of Representatives in 1861, but, owing to the urgency for legislation on war measures, it was not acted upon.
Long before I became a Member of Congress I had carefully studied the banking laws of the several states. The State of Ohio adopted, in 1846, an improved system of banking. My study and experience as a lawyer in Ohio convinced me that the whole system of state banks, however carefully guarded, was both unconstitutional and inexpedient and that it ought to be overthrown. When I entered Congress I was entirely prepared, not only to tax the circulation of state banks, but to tax such banks out of existence. But, while this feeling prevailed in the west, the opposite feeling prevailed in the New England and Middle States, where their banking system had been so improved that bank failures were rare, and bank bills were protected by mutual guaranties.
The Secretary of the Treasury had, in two annual messages, proposed a tax on the circulation of bank bills. He believed that the existing bank circulation prevented or embarrassed the process of funding, by which alone the bonds of the United States could be absorbed. He was forbidden by law to receive bank bills in exchange for bonds or for any purpose, so that the current money of the people was not available for the purchase of bonds. This was an additional argument for taxing the state banks out of existence. I introduced a measure for this purpose as an amendment to the revenue bill, but it was postponed to save it from defeat.
I introduced a bill in January, 1863, containing two sections, the first to levy a tax of two per cent. per annum on the circulation of all bank bills, and the second to provide for a tax of ten per cent. on all fractional currency under one dollar issued by corporations or individuals. Upon this bill I made a carefully prepared speech, not only defending the proposed tax, but declaring my purpose to urge a gradual increase of the tax until all state bank bills were excluded from circulation. As the reversal of this policy is threatened I feel justified in briefly restating the argument that induced Congress to deprive all state banks of the power to issue their bills as money.
I drew the distinction between the ordinary powers of banking and the issue of bank bills. I said that the business of banking proper consisted in loaning money, discounting bills, facilitating exchanges of productions by the agency of commercial paper, and in receiving and disbursing the deposits of individuals. The issue of bank bills was an exclusive privilege conferred only on a few corporations. It was a privilege that an individual could not enjoy. No person could issue his bills in the form of paper money without a corporate franchise granted him and his associates, either by a general banking law, or by an act of incorporation. All the business of banking might be exercised by private individuals except this franchise. There was no reason why any one individual or a partnership might not carry on all the business incident to banking except this one of issuing bills to circulate as money. The largest banking houses in the world did not exercise the privilege of issuing bills. The strongest banks in the United States, such as the Bank of Commerce of New York, had but little or no circulation, while the weakest banks supported themselves and made profit by issuing the largest quantity of bills authorized. The law then existing taxed heavily the business of banking proper. All commercial paper—checks, drafts, orders, bills of exchange, protests, bonds —every instrument that was used in the ordinary process of banking —was heavily taxed, while bank bills were not taxed at all. A private banker doing business had to pay a license of $100, but a bank of circulation was expressly exempted from the necessity of procuring a license. The tax law, as it stood, had this significant provision: "But not to include incorporated banks legally authorized to issue notes as circulation." Every commercial instrument was required to pay a stamp tax, but this did not attach to a bank bill. Bank notes issued for circulation were expressly excepted. The only tax levied upon banks of circulation was a tax of three per cent. on the net income. This tax could be deducted from the dividend of the stockholders. The discrimination in favor of banks of circulation ran through all the tax laws, while other corporations, such as railroad companies, insurance companies and the like, were subject to heavy taxes.
The profits of banking were then very great. The average profits of the banks of New York were twelve and one half per cent. per annum. The burdens imposed upon the banks by their charters were lessened by the suspension of specie payments. When the banks had to keep in their vaults coin to the amount of one-third of their circulation, and were liable to be called upon any day for the redemption of their notes in gold and silver, they might claim exemption from taxes on their circulating notes. But during the suspension of coin payment there ws no such liability. Whether right or wrong the banks suspended specie payments, and increased their currency without paying either principal of it or interest, or tax on it, though in direct violation of law in some states.
I referred in my speech to an interview which was sought by the banks of our chief commercial cities with the Secretary of the Treasury, to which they invited the financial committees of the two Houses to hear their propositions for carrying on the financial operations of the government. We all went to the office of the Secretary of the Treasury, and the proposition was there made that the United States should issue no paper money whatever, that the specie clause, as it is called, of the sub-treasury act should be repealed, and that we should carry on the war upon the basis of the paper money of the banks, legalizing the suspension of specie payments, and that the government should issue no paper except upon an interest of six per cent., or higher if the money markets of the world demanded more. That was their plan of finance, the plan substantially adopted in the War of 1812, and which had been condemned by every statesman since that time, a plan of carrying on the operations of our government by an association of banks over which Congress had no control, and which could issue money without limit so far as national laws affected it. That was the scheme presented to us by very intelligent gentlemen engaged in the banking business. They were honest and in earnest, but it appeared to me as pretentious and even ludicrous.
It was claimed that a tax on banks interfered with vested rights. I said that all taxes that were levied by the government were to maintain vested rights, liberty and life. All these corporate franchises were held subject to the power of taxation in Congress, which was sometimes necessary to be exercised in the most potent manner in order to maintain the government. The state could not, by an act of incorporation, place their property beyond the power of Congress. The only question was what rate of taxation ought to be adopted. The rate proposed—two per cent.—I insisted was not too high, because it was only one-third of the profit derived from the issue of paper money without interest, the principal of which was not paid in coin. I stated distinctly that the purpose of the bill was not merely to levy a reasonable tax on the banks, but also to induce them to withdraw their paper, in order to substitute for it a national currency. I then reviewed in considerable detail the history of our currency legislation, from the act chartering the first bank of the United States to the beginning of our Civil War, showing the view taken by the most eminent statesmen of our country in favor of the establishment of uniform national currency as the highest object of legislation. Mr. Madison said in his message:
"It is, however, essential to every modification of the finances that the benefits of a uniform national currency should be restored to the community. The absence of the precious metals will, it is believed, be a temporary evil; but, until they can again be rendered the general medium of exchange, it devolves on the wisdom of Congress to provide a substitute which shall equally engage the confidence and accommodate the wants of the citizens throughout the Union."
I said that when coin, the best of currency, was driven out of circulation, by the existence of war or extraneous circumstances, it was the duty of Congress to provide a substitute. In 1816 Congress did this by establishing the Bank of the United States. Most of the state banks shortly afterward exploded, and almost their entire issue outstanding at the time fell as a loss to the people of the United States. The Bank of the United States did furnish for a while a stable currency. After its charter expired in 1836, the controversy was between gold and silver, and paper money as a currency. Nearly all the statesmen of that time believed it was necessary to have a national currency in some form, but there was a part in the country that believed the only true national currency was gold and silver coin. After a controversy that I would not review, the sub-treasury system was finally adopted. The government had then no occasion to borrow money. Its debt was paid off and there was a large surplus in the treasury, which was distributed among the states. The agency of a United States bank was no longer necessary to sustain the public credit. The object then was to secure a safe deposit and custody of the public revenues. The state banks failed to furnish a safe redeemable currency. In 1837 their notes were in the hands of the people, depreciated and dishonored, if not entirely worthless. Therefore, I thought wisely, the sub-treasury system was adopted, by which gold and silver coin was the only money received or paid out by the government. I believed that such was a true policy in the absence of national banks. I also stated that if peace were restored to our country, we ought, as soon as possible, to go back to the basis of gold and silver coin, but, in the meantime, we must meet the exigencies of the hour. Paper money was then a necessity. Gold and silver were hoarded. War always had led, and always would lead, to the hoarding of the precious metals. Gold and silver flee from a state of war. All nations in the midst of great wars have been compelled to resort to paper money. It was resorted to by our fathers during the Revolution. It was only by the use of paper money that England maintained her wars with Napoleon. At several periods during these wars gold and silver were at a greater premium in England than they were in this country.
I then proceeded to discuss the power of Congress to issue paper money. I quoted an extract from the report of Mr. Dallas, in December, 1815, in which he stated:
"By the constitution of the United States, Congress is expressly vested with the power to coin money, to regulate the value of domestic and foreign coin in circulation, and (as a necessary implication from positive provisions) to emit bills of credit; while it is declared by the same instrument that 'no state shall coin money, or emit bills of credit.' The constitutional authority to emit bills of credit has also been exercised in a qualified and limited manner. . . .
"The constitutional and legal foundation of the monetary system of the United States is thus distinctly seen; and the power of the federal government to institute and regulate it, whether the circulating medium consist of coin or of bills of credit, must, in its general policy, as well as in the terms of its investment, be deemed an exclusive power."
These extracts from a document of great ability, state the whole question in a few words. Congress has the power to regulate commerce; Congress has the power to borrow money, which involves the power to emit bills of credit; Congress has the power to regulate the value of coin. These powers are exclusive. When, by the force of circumstances beyond our control, the national coin disappears, either because of war or of other circumstances, Congress alone must furnish the substitute. No state has the power to interfere with this exclusive authority in Congress to regulate the national currency, or, in other words, to provide a substitute for the national coin.
I next stated the objections to local banks. The first was the great number and diversity of bank charters. There were 1,642 banks in the United States, established by the laws of twenty-eight different states, and these laws were as diverse, I might say, as the human countenance. We had the state bank system with its branches. We had the independent system, sometimes secured by local bonds, sometimes by state bonds, sometimes by real estate, sometimes by a mixture of these. We had every diversity of the bank system in this country that has been devised by the wit of man, and all these banks had the power to issue paper money. With this multiplicity of banks, depending upon different organizations, it was impossible to have a uniform national currency, for its value was constantly affected by their issues. There was no common regulator; they were dependent on different systems. The clearing house system adopted in the city of New York applied only to that city. There was no check or control over these banks. There was a want of harmony and concert among them. Whenever a failure occurred, such as that of the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company, it operated like a panic in a disorganized army; all of the banks closed their doors at once and suspended specie payments.
Another objection to these local banks was that of their unequal distribution among the states. In New England the circulation of the banks was about $50,000,000, while in Ohio, a state with three- fourths of the population of all New England, it was but $9,000,000. The contrast, if made with other states, was still more marked. I called attention to the fact that the circulation of banks in the eastern states had then reached about $130,000,000, and of that amount, $40,000,000 was circulating in the west. If these notes were driven out of circulation and the United States notes substituted, a contribution would be made to the treasury of the United States of $2,400,000 a year, for the mere interest of a currency which the west did not prefer, but was compelled to use.
I called attention to the loss to the people by counterfeiting, which could not be avoided when we had such a multitude of banks. It then required experts to detect counterfeits. It was impossible to prevent counterfeiting. An expert could save the banks, but the loss fell upon the people. By the substitution of national currency we substantially could lose nothing by counterfeiting. The notes would be few in kind, only three or four of them, all issued by the United States, all of a uniform character, that could not be counterfeited. I described, with some detail, the loss to the people of the United States by bills of broken banks, computed them to be equivalent to five per cent. per annum of all the bills issued. On an average, every twenty years the entire bank circulation ceased to exist or deteriorated.
The loss of exchange from the west to the east on local currency was one per cent. This loss was usually made a gain to themselves by the bankers and "shavers." Under the most favorable state of trade between the east and west an exchange of one per cent. was demanded from drafts and bills of exchange. With a national currency, uniform and equal throughout the country, this cost for exchange would not exist or would be greatly reduced. I called attention to the then increasing volume of local currency in the United States. When the United States had issued $250,000,000 of notes, the banks had largely increased their circulation. This tended to depreciate both United States and bank notes.
I discussed at similar length the proposition that, as the states were forbidden by the constitution to authorize the issue of bills of credit, they were equally forbidden to authorize corporations to issue circulating notes, which were bills of credit. Upon this point it seemed to me that the authorities were absolutely conclusive. That position was taken by the most eminent members of the constitutional convention, by Joseph Story in his "Commentaries," by Daniel Webster, and other great leaders of both parties since that time. It was in reference to these bills that Mr. Webster used the language often quoted:
"A disordered currency is one of the greatest of political evils. It undermines the virtues necessary for the support of the social system, and encourages propensities destructive of its happiness. It wars against industry, frugality, and economy; and it fosters the evil spirits of extravagance and speculation. Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation, these bear lightly on the happiness of the mass of the community, compared with a fraudulent currency, and the robberies committed by depreciated paper."
In speaking of the bank circulation then afloat in the country, he further said:
"It is further to be observed that the states cannot issue bills of credit; not that they cannot make them a legal tender, but that they cannot issue them at all. Is not this a clear indication of the intent of the constitution to restrain the states, as well from establishing a paper circulation as from interfering with the metallic circulation? Banks have been created by states with no capital whatever, their notes being put into circulation simply on the credit of the state or the state law. What are the issues of such banks but bills of credit issued by the state? I confess, Mr. president, that the more I reflect on this subject, the more clearly does my mind approach the conclusion that the creation of state banks, for the purpose and with the power of circulating paper, is not consistent with the grants and prohibitions of the constitution."
I insisted that if there was no money in this country but United States notes, the process of funding would be going on day by day. Whenever there was too great an accumulation of these notes they would be converted into bonds; the operation would go on quietly and silently. I quoted the authority of Secretary Chase that it was his deliberate judgment, after watching this process with all his conceded ability, that but for the influence of this local bank paper he would be able to carry on the war without the issue of more paper money, that the currency then outstanding and that which by law he was authorized to issue would be sufficient to carry it on. Such a currency would lead to the conversion of the notes into bonds, and by this process the people would absorb the national loan and enable him to carry on the government without any sacrifice to them.
It was not strange that Mr. Jefferson, near the close of the War of 1812, stated more clearly than I could do the conflict between local bank paper and United States notes. He, who during his whole life was so mindful of the rights of the states, and so jealous of paper money, in brief and terse language designated the only way in which our country could carry on war. In his letter to Mr. Cooper, dated September 10, 1814, just at the close of the war, he said:
"The banks have discontinued themselves. We are now without any medium, and necessity, as well as patriotism and confidence, will make us all eager to receive treasury notes, if founded on specific taxes.
"Congress may now borrow of the public, and without interest, all the money they may want, to the amount of a competent circulation, by merely issuing their own promissory notes of proper denominations for the larger purposes of circulation, but not for the small. Leave that door open for the entrance of metallic money. . . . Providence seems, indeed, by a special dispensation, to have put down for us, without a struggle, that very paper enemy which the interest of our citizens long since required ourselves to put down, at whatever risk.
"The work is done. The moment is pregnant with futurity, and if not seized at once by Congress, I know not on what shoal our bark is next to be stranded. The state legislatures should be immediately urged to relinquish the right of establishing banks of discount. Most of them will comply, on patriotic principles, under the convictions of the moment, and the non-complying may be crowded into concurrence by legitimate devices."
I also quoted another extract to show that this matter filled the mind of Mr. Jefferson. He said:
"Put down the banks, and if this country could not be carried through the longest war, against her most powerful enemy, without ever knowing the want of a dollar, without dependence on the traitorous classes of her citizens, without bearing hard on the resources of the people, or loading the public with an indefinite burthen of debt, I know nothing of my countrymen. Not by any novel project, not by any charlatanry, but by ordinary and well-experienced means; by the total prohibition of all paper at all times, by reasonable taxes in war, aided by the necessary emissions of public paper of circulating size, this bottomed on special taxes, redeemable annually as this special tax comes in, and finally within a moderate period—even with the flood of private paper by which we were deluged—would the treasury have ventured its credit in bills of circulating size, as of five or ten dollars, etc., they would have been greedily received by the people in preference to bank paper."
On the 26th of January, 1863, I introduced in the Senate a bill to "provide a national currency, secured by a pledge of United States stocks, and for the circulation and redemption thereof." This bill took the usual course, was referred to the committee on finance, was reported favorably with a number of amendments, and was fully debated in the Senate. On the 9th of February, 1863, a cursory debate occurred between Mr. Collamer, of Vermont, and myself, which indicated a very strong opposition to the passage of the banking bill. Various amendments were proposed and some adopted. I became satisfied that if a strong effort was not made the bill would either be defeated or postponed. I then, without preparation, made a long, and as I think, a comprehensive, speech covering the general subject and its principal details. It was the only speech of considerable length that was made in favor of the bill in the Senate. There seemed to be a hesitancy in passing a measure so radical in its character and so destructive to the existing system of state banks.
I said the importance of the subject under consideration demanded a fuller statement than had as yet been made of the principle and object of the bill. It was the misfortune of war that we were compelled to act upon matters of grave importance without that mature deliberation that would be secured in peaceful times. The measure affected the property of every citizen of the United States, and yet our action for good or evil must be concluded within a few days or weeks of that session. We were to choose between a permanent system designed to establish a uniform national currency based on the public credit, limited in amount, and guarded by all the restraints which the experience of men had proved necessary, and a system of paper money without limit as to amount, except for the growing necessities of war.
I narrated the history of the bill, of its introduction in December, 1861, its urgent recommendation by the Secretary of the Treasury in two annual reports, and the conditions that then demanded immediate action upon it. I stated the then financial condition of the country. Gold was at a premium of between fifty and sixty per cent. and was substantially banished from circulation. We were in the midst of war, when the necessities of the government required us to have large sums of money. We could not choose as to the mode in which we should get that money. If we pursued the ordinary course, the course that had been sufficient in times of peace to raise money, of putting our bonds into the market and selling them for what they would bring, it would be at a great sacrifice. We knew this from the history of other nations and from our own experience. We therefore must look for some system of finance that would give us all the aid possible, either in the form of paper money or by the agencies of associated banks. We knew very well that after the war was over the government would still be largely in need of money.
I then reviewed the various financial measures since the commencement of the war. We were then in the peculiar condition of a nation involved in a war without any currency whatever which by law could be used in the ordinary transactions of public business. Gold was withdrawn by the suspension of specie payments. The money of the banks could not be used because the laws of the United States forbade it, and we were without any currency whatever. Under these circumstances, Congress had authorized the issue of $400,000,000 of United States notes. That this measure was wise but few would controvert. We were compelled, by a necessity as urgent as could be imposed upon any legislature, to issue these notes. To the extent to which they were issued they were useful; they were a loan by the public and without interest; they were eagerly sought by our people; they were taken by our enemies in the south, by our friends in the north; they were taken in the east and the west. They furnished the best substitute for gold and silver that could then be devised, and if we could limit United States notes to the amount then authorized by law they would form a suitable and valuable currency.
We had but four expedients from which to choose. First, to repeal the sub-treasury act and use the paper of local banks as a currency; second, to increase largely the issue of United States notes; third, to organize a system of national banking, and fourth, to sell the bonds of the United States in the open market. I discussed each of these expedients in considerable detail. The practical objection to the further issue of United States notes was that there was no mode of redemption; they were safe; they were of uniform value, but there was no mode pointed out by which they were to be redeemed. No one was bound to redeem them. They were receivable but not convertible. They were debts of the United States but could not be presented anywhere for redemption. No man could present them except for the purpose fo funding them into the bonds of the United States. They were not convertible into coin. They lacked that essential element in currency.
Another objection was that they were made the basis of state bank issues. Under the operation of the act declaring United States notes to be a legal tender, the state bank circulation had increased from $120,000,000 to $167,000,000. The banks sold their gold at a large premium, and placed in their vaults United States notes with which to redeem their own notes. While the government had been issuing its paper money some of the banks were inflating the currency, by issuing paper money on the basis of United States money. Illustrations of this inflation were given of existing banks, showing enormous issues based upon a comparatively small amount of legal tender notes. The issue of United States notes by the government, and the making them a legal tender, was made the basis of an inflated bank circulation in the country, and there was no way to check this except by uniting the interest of the government, the banks, and the people, together, by one uniform common system.
I said that during war local banks were the natural enemies of a national currency. They were in the War of 1812. Whenever specie payment was suspended, the power to issue a bank note was the same as the power to coin money. The power granted to the Bank of France and the Bank of England to issue circulating notes was greatly abused during the period of war. It was a power that ought never to be exercised except by the government, and only when the state was in danger. It was the power to coin money, because when a bank issued its bill without the restraint of specie payments, it substantially coined money and false money. This was a privilege that no nation could safely surrender to individuals or banks. Upon this point I cited a number of authorities, not only in our own country, but in Europe. While I believed that no system of paper money should depend upon banks, I was far from objecting to their agency. They were useful and necessary mediums of exchange, indispensable in all commercial countries. The only power they derived from corporation not granted to all citizens was to issue notes as money, and this power was not necessary to their business or essential to their profit. Their business connected them with the currency, and whether it should be gold or paper they were deeply interested in its credit and value. Was it not then possible to preserve to the government the exclusive right to issue paper money, and yet not injuriously affect the local banks? This was the object of that bill.
But, it was asked, why look at all to the interest of the banks, why not directly issue the notes of the government, and thus save to the people the interest on the debt represented by the notes in circulation? The only answer to this was that history taught us that the public faith of a nation alone is not sufficient to maintain a paper currency. There must be a combination between the interests of private individuals and the government. Our revolutionary currency, continental money, depreciated until it became worthless. The assignats of France, issued during her revolutionary period, shared the same fate. Other European countries which relied upon government money alone had a similar experience. An excessive issue of paper money by the government would produce bankruptcy and repudiation, not only of the notes abroad, but of bonds also. The government of the United States had in circulation nearly $400,000,000 United States notes. We had a bank circulation of $160,000,000. If we increased our circulation, as was then proposed, it would create an inflation that would evidently lead to the derangement of all business affairs in the country. Whatever might be the hazards, we had to check this over expansion and over issue. If a further issue of United States notes were authorized, it would be at once followed by the issue of more bank paper, and then we would have the wildest speculation. Hitherto the inflation had not extended to many articles. Real estate had not been much affected by it.
The question then occurred whether the bank bill proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and introduced by me into the Senate, would tend to secure a national currency beyond the danger of inflation. This, the principal question involved, was discussed at length. I contended that the notes issued would be convertible into United States notes while the war lasted, and afterwards into coin; that the currency would be uniform, of universal credit in every part of the United States, while the bank bills, which it would supersede, were current only in the states in which they were issued. It would furnish a market for our bonds by requiring them to be held as the security for bank notes, and thus advance the value of the bonds. The state bank bills would be withdrawn, and the state banks would be converted into national banks with severe restrictions as to the amount of notes issued, and these only issued to them by the general government upon ample security. The similarity of notes all over the United States would give them a wider circulation. I insisted that the passage of the bill would promote a sentiment of nationality.
The policy of this country ought to be to make everything national as far as possible. If we were dependent on the United States for a currency and a medium of exchange, we would have a broader and more prosperous nationality. The want of such nationality, I then declared, was one of the great evils of the times; and it was that principle of state rights, that bad sentiment that had elevated state authority above the great national authority, that had been the main instrument by which our government was sought to be overthrown. Another important advantage the banks would derive from this system, I urged, would be that their notes would be guarded against all frauds and all alterations. There would be but five or six kinds of notes in the United States, instead of the great diversity there was then. In 1862 the number of banks existing was 1,500, and the number whose notes were not counterfeited was 253. The number of kinds of "imitations" was 1,861. The number of kinds of "alterations" was 3,039. The number of kinds of "spurious" was 1,685. This was the kind of currency that was proposed to be superseded. Under the new system, the banks would be relieved from all this difficulty.
Other advantages to the banks would be that they might become depositaries of the public money, that their notes, being amply secured, would be received in all payments due to or from the United States, while the notes of state banks could not be so received, as they were dishonored and disgraced from the beginning, being refused by the national government.
This is an imperfect view of the question as it was then presented to my mind. I knew the vote upon the passage of the bill would be doubtful. The New England Senators, as a rule, voted for the bill, but Senators Collamer and Foote had taken decided grounds against it, and it was believed that Mr. Anthony and his colleague would do likewise. I informed Secretary Chase of my doubt as to the passage of the bill, and especially whether Mr. Anthony would vote for it; without his vote I did not think it would pass. Mr. Chase called at the Senate and had an interview with Mr. Anthony, in my presence, in which he urged him strongly, on national grounds, to vote for the bill, without regard to local interests in his own state. His remarks made an impression upon Mr. Anthony who finally exclaimed that he believed it to be his duty to vote for the bill, although it would be the end of his political career. When the vote was taken his name was the first recorded in favor of the bill. It passed by a vote of 23 yeas and 21 nays, so that I was entirely correct that if he had voted against the bill it would have been defeated by a tie vote.
These two measures, the absorption of the state banks, and the establishment of the system of national banks, taken in connection with the legal tender act, were the most important financial measures of the war, and, tested by time, have fully realized the anticipations and confident assurance of their authors.
This system of national banks has furnished to the people of the United States a currency combining the national faith with the private stock and private credit of individuals. They have a currency that is safe, uniform, and convertible. Not one dollar of the notes issued by national banks has been lost to any person through the failure of a bank. We have a currency limited in amount, restrained and governed by law, checked by the power of visitation and by the limitation of liabilities, safe, uniform, and convertible in every part of the country. Every one of these conditions prophesied by me has been literally realized.
Next in importance to a national currency was the problem of the public debt. The issue of $50,000,000, demand notes, authorized in 1861, was a forced expedient to meet immediate demands. A prudent man, engaged in business, would not borrow money payable on call unless he had securities which he could immediately convert into money. Such liabilities are proper in a stock exchange or in a gambling operation, to be settled by the receipt or payment of balances on the rise or fall in the market of stocks or produce. These demand notes gave Secretary Chase more trouble than any other security, and they were finally absorbed in the payment of customs duties.
On the 17th of July, 1861, Congress authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to borrow, on the credit of the United States, within twelve months, $250,000,000, for which he was authorized to issue bonds, coupon or registered, or treasury notes, the bonds to bear interest not exceeding seven per cent., payable semi-annually, irredeemable for twenty years. The treasury notes were to be of any denominations fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury, not less than fifty dollars, and to be payable three years after date, with interest at the rate of seven and three-tenths per cent. per annum, payable semi-annually. He was also authorized to issue, in exchange for coin, as a part of the loan of $250,000,000, treasury notes payable on demand, already referred to, or treasury notes bearing interest at the rate of three and sixty-five hundredths per cent. per annum, and payable in one year from date and exchangeable at any time for treasury notes of fifty dollars and upwards. These forms of security were the most burdensome that were issued by the government during the war. The terms of these securities were somewhat altered by the act approved August 5, 1861.
These laws were superseded by the act of February 28, 1862, which may be regarded as the most important loan law passed during the war. It authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to issue, on the credit of the United States, $150,000,000 of United States notes, commonly called greenbacks, already described. Of these, $50,000,000 were to be in lieu of the demand treasury notes authorized to be issued by the act of July, 1861, above referred to. It also authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to issue $500,000,000 of coupon, or registered, bonds, redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after five years, and payable twenty years from date, bearing interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum, payable semi-annually. These are what were known as the 5-20 bonds. In reference to these securities, Secretary Chase, in his report of December 4, 1862, said:
"These measures have worked well. Their results more than fulfilled the anticipations of the secretary. The rapid sale of the bonds, aided by the issue of United States notes, furnished the means necessary for the conduct of the war during that year."
On the 3rd of March, 1863, the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to borrow, from time to time, on the credit of the United States, a sum not exceeding $300,000,000 for the current fiscal year, and $600,000,000 for the next fiscal year, payable in coin, at the pleasure of the government, after such periods as may be fixed by the secretary, not less than ten, or more than forty, years from date. These bonds, known as the 10-40's, bearing five per cent. interest, were exempt from taxation by or under state or municipal authority. This act also provided for the issue of a large increase of non-interest bearing treasury notes, which were made lawful money and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public or private, within the United States, except for duties on imported goods and interest on the public debt. Additional 10-40 bonds were authorized by the act of June 30, 1864. But it may be said that the 5-20 and 10-40 bonds became the well-known, recognized securities of the United States, the sale of which at par, in connection with the treasury notes of different forms, furnished the United States the money to carry on the war. In the sale of these securities the secretary was actively assisted by the banks and bankers of the United States, and especially by Jay Cooke, who was the most effective agent of the government in the sale of 5-20 bonds.
Secretary Chase, in his report of December 10, 1863, discussed at length the objects to be kept studiously in view in the creation of debt by negotiations of loans or otherwise: First, moderate interest; second, general distribution; third, future controllability; and, fourth, incidental utility.
The first loans were made upon the extravagant rate of interest of seven and three-tenths per cent. The reason for this was the fact that there was no currency the secretary could receive in exchange for bonds. As already stated, specie payments were suspended by the banks December 31, 1861. He was forbidden by law to receive bank bills, and he knew that Congress would not and ought not to repeal this law. After such suspension coin was scarce and difficult to obtain. Afterwards, when the legal tender notes were authorized and issued, he sold his bonds bearing six per cent. interest at par for notes, but these notes had already largely depreciated compared with coin. Still, they were money, readily taken for all supplies, and enabled him to sell securities running a shorter period. A diversity of securities maturing at different times were exchanged for notes, and finally he was able to sell five per cent. bonds at par, so that, on the 30th of September, 1863, two months previous to his report, securities and notes then outstanding amounted to $1,222,113,559. The fist bonds were irredeemable for twenty years. The second bonds were redeemable in five, but payable in twenty, years. The third bonds, bearing five per cent. interest, were redeemable after ten years. It will be perceived that under this arrangement the rate of interest on securities issued was constantly reduced. The notes received in payment of bonds depreciated or advanced in sympathy with the progress of our armies and the prospects of success. The general purpose was to secure as low a rate of interest as possible, to distribute the securities among the largest number of persons possible, to provide the best mode, time and terms for redemption, and to put the securities in such form as to be used as a currency. No one can question the wisdom of the management of the public debt by Secretary Chase.
The origin and development of the present system of internal taxes must be interesting to every student of finance. The policy of the government had been to confine, as far as possible, national taxes to duties on imports, and, in ordinary times, this source of revenue, exclusively vested in the United States, together with the proceeds of the sale of public lands, was ample to defray the current expenses of the government. During and shortly after the War of 1812 resort was had to direct taxes apportioned among the states respectively, and to internal taxes authorized by the constitution under the name of excises, but the necessities of the treasury becoming more urgent, and the reliance on the public credit becoming more hazardous, Congress, at the special session which convened in May, 1813, determined to lay the foundations of a system of internal revenue, selecting in particular those subjects of taxation which would be least burdensome. These taxes were at first limited to one year, but were extended from time to time, so that they acquired the name of "war taxes." A direct tax of $3,500,000 was laid upon the United States, and apportioned among the states respectively for the year 1814. Taxes were imposed on sugar refined in the United States, on carriages, on licenses to distillers of spirituous liquors, and other forms of internal production. It was estimated that the internal taxes and the direct tax would yield $3,500,000. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1815, internal taxes yielded $5,963,000. In 1816 they yielded $4,396,000. In 1817 they yielded $2,676,000, after which there was no revenue from internal taxes except from the collection of arrears, amounting in 1818 to $947,946, the law providing for such taxes having expired by limitation. A comparison between the receipts from this source then and the receipts subsequently derived from internal revenue, is a significant indication of the difference in population and wealth between 1812 and 1862.
When the Civil War commenced and the necessity of a large increase of revenue became apparent, Secretary Chase, in his report to Congress of the date of July 4, 1861, called attention to the necessity of provision for a gradual increase in the revenue to maintain the public credit, and to meet the current demands. His recommendation as to internal taxes has already been referred to. The act of August 5, 1861, previously mentioned, levied a direct tax of $20,000,000 and an income tax. This act proved to be a crude and imperfect measure, and it was modified or superseded by the act of July 1, 1862. This act, carefully framed, was the basis of the present system of internal revenue. It created a new office in the treasury department, to be called the office of commissioner of internal revenue. No less than thirteen acts of Congress were passed prior to August 1, 1866, enlarging and defining the duties of the office, and prescribing the taxes imposed by these several laws. When this act was first framed we anticipated much greater difficulties in the collection of the tax than actually occurred. We had doubts whether the taxation imposed by this law would be patiently submitted to by our constituents, but these misgivings soon disappeared and the taxes imposed by that act were cheerfully and promptly paid. I gave to the study and consideration of this act, and the various amendatory acts, a large portion of my time. At the end of the war internal taxes were cheerfully paid by the people, and yielded far more revenue to the government than the customs duties and all other sources of revenue combined.
The receipts from internal revenue for the first four years under this law were as follows;
For the year ending June 30, 1863 . . . . $37,640,787For the year ending June 30, 1864 . . . . 117,145,748For the year ending June 30, 1865 . . . . 211,129,529For the year ending June 30, 1866 . . . . 310,906,984
These taxes were mainly upon spirits, tobacco and beer, but they also included stamp taxes of various kinds, special taxes on particular industries, and income taxes, so that practically nearly all forms of domestic manufactures were subject to a greater or less tax, according to the nature of the article. So sweeping were the provisions that it was frequently a matter of joke as well as comment.
Some one remarked to Senator Collamer that everything was taxed except coffins. He rejoined: "Don't say that to Sherman or he will have them on the tax list before night!"
The general prosperity that existed during the war under such a burden of taxation was frequently a matter of surprise. The truth is that all productive industries were active because of the enormous demand made by the army for supplies of all kinds, and everyone who was willing to work could find plenty of employment. The depreciation of the currency caused by the war did not embarrass anyone, as the interest on securities was promptly paid in coin, and greenbacks were the favorite currency of the people. The people did not stop to inquire the causes of the nominal advance in prices; they only knew that the United States note was cheerfully received in every part of the United States as the current money of the country. At the beginning the tax on whisky was 20 cents per gallon, but it was gradually increased until it reached $2 a gallon, when frauds and illicit distilling became serious evils. The tax was then reduced to 90 cents a gallon.
When I became Secretary of the Treasury, I was impressed with the magnitude of illicit distilling, even after the rate was reduced. At that time several hundred men, mostly in the mountain regions of North Carolina and Tennessee, were under arrest for violation of the laws against illicit distilling. A delegation of them, accompanied by Senator Ransom, appeared before me, and I heard their apologies for distilling, and their complaints against the officers. We entered into a formal engagement by which they agreed to stop illicit distilling upon condition that they should be relieved of punishment for their past acts, and, so far as I could learn, they substantially observed their obligation. As a rule, they were rough mountaineers who regarded whisky as a prime necessity of life, and thought they ought to be allowed to convert their grain into something better.
As the necessity for excessive taxation diminished after the war was over, taxes on various articles were gradually repealed, until, in 1894, they consisted of practically four items, spirits, tobacco, fermented liquors, and oleomargarine. These are the figures for two years:
Receipts during fiscal yearsObjects of Taxation. ended June 30—1893. 1894.Spirits . . . . . . $94,720,260.55 $85,259,252.25Tobacco . . . . . . 31,889,711.74 28,617,898.62Fermented Liquors . 32,548,983.07 31,414,788.04Oleomargarine . . . 1,670,643.50 1,723,479.90
In respect to these taxes, that on oleomargarine was not intended as, nor is it, a very material revenue tax. The purpose was especially to prevent the fraudulent imitation of butter by using an extract of beef. The tax on spirits, tobacco and beer ought to be retained as the best objects of taxation either of domestic or imported goods. Neither of these is an article of necessity, but all are used purely to gratify an appetite, in many cases indulged to excess.
All civilized nations have come to regard these articles as the best subjects of taxation. To the extent that whisky is used as a beverage it is hurtful in its influence upon the individual and upon society at large. It is the cause of innumerable crimes, of poverty and distress in the family and home. Still, it is an appetite that will be gratified, however severe may be the laws against its use, and while this habit exists the tax upon whisky, by limiting the quantity consumed, is beneficial to society at large. It is true that alcohol, the base of whisky, is useful in the arts and in the preparation of medicines and vinegar. If some feasible plan could be prescribed by which alcohol or spirits thus used could be freed from tax, it would be right to exempt it, but no such plan has been found that includes security against frauds being practiced to evade the tax on whisky. The tax on tobacco and cigars is a moderate one, but the consumption of them is far less dangerous than that of spirits in their influence upon society. The tax on the cheaper form of tobacco and cigars is comparatively small and does not add materially to the cost of tobacco in any of its forms. No complaint is made of it. Its consumption is so general that the tax is fairly distributed and falls mainly on the richer classes, as the tax is increased in proportion to the value of the tobacco. Beer, a beverage of almost universal use, yields the large sum of $30,000,000 a year, at the rate of one dollar a barrel. This does not cause a perceptible increase of the cost to the consumer, but rather tends to maintain the good quality of beer by the surveillance of the officers of internal revenue. No general complaint has been made of this tax. All internal taxes are collected at less cost than any other form of taxation devised, and should be maintained as long as the expenses growing out of the war shall remain unpaid.
The patience and even cheerfulness with which the people of the United States submitted to this severe taxation on their domestic productions, was a matter of surprise, not only among our own people, but in European countries. In 1867, accompanied by Mr. Adams, our minister to England, I had the pleasure of breakfasting with Mr. Gladstone at his official residence, and he referred to the ease with which we collected, without complaint, taxes so burdensome as ours then were. He asked me if it was true that we had collected $1,600,000 annually from a tax on matches. I told him that we not only did so but that I had never heard a word of complaint, and the quality of matches was vastly improved while their price was actually reduced. He threw up his hands and said that the people of England would not submit to such tax and if any ministry would propose it, it would soon be out of power. Strange to say an administration of which Mr. Gladstone was at the head did subsequently propose such a tax, but it was so severely arraigned that it was at once abandoned.
The income tax, varied somewhat in terms from year to year, continued in force until 1870, when it was proposed to repeal it as no longer necessary. By the terms of the then existing law it expired in 1872. I urged as strongly as I could its retention at least until the time expired, but it was repealed. I then believed, and now believe, that a moderate income tax, levied on all incomes above the sum of $1,000, or above a sum that will supply the ordinary wants of an average family in the United States with the necessaries of life, should be levied, according to the exigencies of the public service. In the present condition of affairs, I doubt the expediency of such a tax, especially in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States recently rendered.
The distinction made by that court between incomes from the rent of land and other incomes seems narrow and technical. A tax upon the value of land is a direct tax, and must be apportioned among the states according to population, but it does not follow that a tax on incomes from land is a direct tax. An income means that gain which results from business, or property, of any kind, from the proceeds of a farm, the profits derived from trade and commerce, and from any occupation or investment. In common language the word income applies to money received from any source. It may be qualified as gross income and net income. It may be limited by words defining the source of the income, as, from land, merchandise or banking, but, in its general sense, it means gross savings from all sources. When received in money it is an income and not until then. An income tax was paid, and cheerfully paid, by American citizens during and since the war, in vast sums, and it did not occur to citizen, lawyer or judge that the constitution of the United States made a distinction between incomes from rents and income from notes or bonds. The states tax both land and bonds. Why may not the United States tax income from each alike? Many of the largest incomes in the United States are derived from rents. To except them by technical reasoning from a general tax on incomes will tend to disparage the Supreme Court among "plain people." If incomes from rents must be excepted, then no income tax ought to be assessed. This decision, if adhered to, may cripple the government in times of emergency. If made when the income tax was first imposed, it would have reduced the national revenue $347,000,000, for no income tax would have been enacted if rents were excluded from taxable incomes.
I do not propose to narrate the numerous internal revenue laws, which have been enacted and modified at every session of Congress since 1861, or the innumerable objects of taxation embraced in them, for such a narrative would fill too much space. The discussion of these laws occupied a large portion of the time of Congress. The articles or productions subject to taxation included for a time nearly everything for the use of man. I trust the time is far distant when such sweeping internal taxation will be required again, but if it should come, the Congress of that day can find in our experience resources more bountiful than Aladdin's lamp.
Direct taxes, to be apportioned among the states, are not likely to be again assessed after the experience we had as to the last direct tax. Besides the difficulty of collecting it, there is the palpable objection that it is an unequal, and therefore an unjust, tax. New states, and especially agricultural states, have not the same ability to pay direct taxes as older commercial and manufacturing states, having within them great cities with accumulated wealth, in the form of stocks, bonds and patents.
The office of commissioner of internal revenue has fortunately been filled, as a rule, by gentlemen of standing and character of a high order of intelligence, and their work has been of great service to the United States. This important bureau ought to be, and no doubt will be, retained as a part of the organized machinery of the government, and the taxes collected by it will be necessary as long as our public debt remains, and until the list of pensioners will be obliterated by the hand of time.
Another question of grave political significance was presented to the 37th Congress early in this session, that of the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. I had from the beginning declared my opposition to any interference with slavery in the District, but the changed condition of the country demanded a change of public policy in this respect. Slavery was made the pretext for, and, I believe, was, the real cause of the war. It had a foothold in the District of Columbia, but it existed there in its mildest form. By the census of 1860 there were, in the District of Columbia, 11,107 free negroes, 3,181 slaves, and 60,785 white people. It was considered the paradise of free negroes, where they were almost exclusively employed as laborers in household service.
When the war broke out a considerable number of slaves ran away from disloyal masters in Virginia and Maryland, seeking safety within our lines and finding employment in the District of Columbia. As the war approached, most of the slaves in the District were carried away by their owners into Virginia, and other southern states, so that in 1862 it was estimated there were not more than 1,500, and probably not 1,000, slaves in the District, while the number of free negroes increased to 15,000. As a matter of course, when Virginia seceded no attempt was made to recapture runaway slaves from that state, and they became practically free. It was known that there was at that time a strong disposition in Maryland to try the experiment of emancipation, and it was believed that after the war was over Virginia would adopt the same policy. Little doubt was felt as to the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District, should such a course be deemed expedient. By the constitution Congress was invested with express "power to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States." This power had been recognized by the most eminent statesmen of our country, and also by the Supreme Court of the United States. Until Mr. Calhoun doubted or denied the power it was not questioned by any considerable number. The real question was whether that was the time for emancipation. I endeavored to give to the subject careful consideration, and came to the conclusion that it was expedient then to emancipate the very few slaves in the District, fewer than there had been at any time within forty years, and fewer than would likely be in case the war should end. I believed also that the social influence of Washington, and the wealth and property controlled and owned in a great measure by slaveholding residents there, had been always against the government of the United States and in favor of the Rebellion. While slavery existed it was a constant source of annoyance and irritation. The great mass of our constituents were opposed to slavery, morally, socially and politically. They felt it was wrong and would not change their opinion. As long as slavery existed in the District, where Congress had the power to abolish it, agitation and excitement would be ceaseless. The great body of the people of the northern states were opposed to the institution theoretically, as were very many of the most intelligent people of the southern states. I felt that now was the time when this moral conviction should be heard and heeded by the national legislature. I felt that we were bound to consult the material interest of the people of the District, and that emancipation would add to the value of their property and also add to the population of the city. The abolition of slavery would bring to the city intelligent mechanics and laboring men who would never compete with the labor of slaves, and who, finding none there but freemen, would develop the great advantages of the city. In a speech I made upon the subject I enlarged upon this consideration and said:
"I see no reason why Washington, with a free population and as a free city, situated here at the head of the Potomac, with remarkable facilities of navigation, with great conveniences of communication, reaching to the west by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, the political capital of the country, might not be a great free city, illustrating by its progress the operation of free institutions. But it can only be done by the active, interested labor of free people. Simply as a municipal regulation it would be wise to abolish slavery in this district, because slavery is opposed to the moral convictions of the great mass of the people of this country, and the existence of slavery here keeps out of this District an active, loyal, true, manly, generous body of laborers, who will never compete in their labor with the labor of slaves."
There was another reason why the experiment of emancipation could be best tried in the District of Columbia. Emancipation was evidently the ultimate end of this question. We had the power to try the experiment. It would be an example likely to be followed at the close of the war by many of the border states. I therefore made up my mind in favor of the measure, made a long speech for the bill and voted for it. It became a law on April 10, 1862.
At that early day, I believed that it was the duty of Congress to confiscate the slaves in the seceding states as the natural result of the war. These states had placed themselves in a position by rebellion where they had no constitutional rights which we were bound to observe. The war being open and flagrant to break up the Union, they were not entitled to the benefit of any stipulation made in their favor as states in the Union. I also favored the granting of aid to any policy of emancipation that might be adopted in the border states of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, but Congress was indisposed to extend the provisions of the then pending measure beyond the District of Columbia.
The President of the United States, on September 22, 1862, issued his proclamation containing the following declaration:
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any state of designated part of a state, the people whereof shall be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever, free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."
This was carried out in a subsequent proclamation of January 1, 1863, in which the President declared:
"And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves, within said designated states and parts of states, are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons."
This was the beginning of the end of slavery.
In following the important financial measures of the 37th Congress, I have purposely passed by, in their order of time, other measures of vital interest that were acted upon in that Congress. The military measures adopted were on the same grand scale as the financial measures I have referred to. In 1861 the United States contained a population of 32,000,000 people, of whom about 10,000,000 were in the seceding states, some of whom were opposed to secession, but a greater number living in states that did not secede were in hearty sympathy with the rebellion. No preparation for war had been made in any of the loyal states, while in the disloyal states preparations had been made by the distribution of arms through the treachery of Secretary Floyd. When the seceding states organized a confederate government, the executive branch of the general government was under the management and control of those who favored the rebellion, or were so feeble or indifferent that they offered no resistance whatever to such organization. The President of the United States declared, in an executive message, that the general government had no power to coerce a state. On the accession of President Lincoln, the confederate government was better organized for resistance than the Union was for coercion. When war actually commenced, the capital at Washington was practically blockaded, and in the power of the Confederates.
The response of the loyal states to the call of Lincoln was perhaps the most remarkable uprising of a great people in the history of mankind. Within a few days the road to Washington was 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 the war, except that it gathered at the wake of our armies in the south a multitude of negroes called "contrabands," who willingly performed manual labor, but were often an incumbrance and had to be fed and protected.
The freedom of these "contrabands" was the result of the war, and not of the confiscation act. In the later period of the war, they, in common with the free negroes from the north, were organized into regiments commanded by white men, and rendered valuable service to the Union cause.
When the confiscation bill was pending, on the 23rd of April, 1862, I made a speech in support of an amendment offered by me and in substance adopted. A few extracts of my speech will show my opinions on this subject: