Part 14

There is at least one precedent. Ten years ago witnessed an industrial exhibition in London, which attracted the attention of the civilized world. There was no provision in advance by the Government of the United States for any representation there; but patriotic citizens came forward at the last moment, volunteered money and representation, and through their activity we became honorably known there,--so, indeed, I think I may say, as to gain renown for our industrial products. I would not exaggerate; but nobody can forget the triumph of the American reaper or the American mower. I believe I state what cannot be denied, when I say, that, through the representation of American industry at that exhibition, we gained not only fame abroad, but new fields of activity for our industry, and new markets for our homely, but most useful products.

Now there is to be another exhibition, and the question is, whether our country shall be represented. An appropriation is needed for this purpose. The Committee, after most careful deliberation, not acting, I assure you, hastily, came to the conclusion that our country should be represented there, and they recommended the appropriation of the modest sum of $35,000. Persons interested in the subject desired a larger appropriation. The Committee concluded in favor of $35,000, as the utmost they would ask from Congress at the present time. Accordingly they have made that recommendation, believing it for the general welfare.

I do not know the objection of my friend from New Hampshire. Perhaps he is against any representation. If so, I can understand that he should oppose the appropriation. But is his objection founded on grounds of economy peculiar to the present moment, or is it because he is against such appearance at any time? If founded on grounds of economy peculiar to the present moment, I must say I cannot enter into his idea. Nobody more completely than myself can appreciate the importance of bending every corporal and intellectual agent to the work of putting down the Rebellion; but I am unwilling that meanwhile all the glorious and beneficent arts of peace should slumber. Nor would I, even while pushing this war to victory, cease to watch with guardian care the industrial interests of my country. Those interests, I am sure, will be advanced, if we allow them to be represented at this great centre of industry; and so will all the national resources increase and multiply. And this is not simply because the exhibition is in London, or because it may open a market in London, but because through London we approach all the great markets of the world; and while making our products known in the great metropolis, we make them known wherever civilization extends. The exhibition will be an immense fair, to which exhibitors can have access only through their respective governments. I am unwilling to deprive American citizens of this opportunity.

I assume, therefore, that my friend cannot be against contributing to this exhibition simply on grounds peculiar to this moment. It must be on some other broader, more general ground. I must say that I cannot enter into that idea, either. If it was good for us to be represented ten years ago,--and I believe all, after the exhibition, were satisfied that it was good for us,--I believe it better now. Surely, all this my friend has at heart. I hope he will not forget that the interests of farmers, the interests of inventors, the interests of mechanics, the interests of all who toil and of all who produce,--in one word, the great diversified interests of the people, cannot fail to be promoted by this opportunity. And here is reason enough for the small outlay.

In the brief debate that ensued, Mr. Lane, of Indiana, said:--

“The sword and the cannon are the reapers now, and the Rebels are the harvest; and to that purpose and to those reapers I shall devote my attention.”

The joint resolution was lost,--yeas 17, nays 22; so that at the London Exhibition the United States had no representation.

ORDER IN BUSINESS: EACH QUESTION BY ITSELF.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 6, 1862.

The Senate had under discussion an Army Bill, when Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, moved an amendment reducing and regulating the mileage of Members of Congress. The remarks of Mr. Sumner were not addressed to the merits of the question, but to the impropriety of dealing with it in the pending bill.

MR. PRESIDENT,--It seems clear that the discussion in which we are launched is a departure from the question before the Senate. The pending bill is “to define the pay and emoluments of certain officers of the army, and for other purposes,” and an amendment is moved to reduce and regulate Congressional mileage. By what process of association the two are brought together it is not easy to see. Certainly nobody looking for light on Congressional mileage would think of exploring our army legislation.

* * * * *

My experience teaches me the advantage, not to say the beauty of order, in the business of legislation, as in all other business. There is a proper place for everything, and everything should be in its proper place. Especially should things plainly incongruous be kept apart, and without commixture. But what more unreasonable than the commixture proposed? Each measure may be good in itself, but the two do not go together. They are without natural or logical connection. One is not the incident of the other, nor in any respect germane to the other. They should be in separate bills, and be discussed separately.

Here we are in high debate on the Army Bill, and all at once the subject is changed, although the original bill is still before the Senate. But Congressional mileage is enough by itself. Already it has occupied the attention of the country, has been discussed in the newspapers, and especially in the other House. It is a Serbonian bog, not indeed “where armies whole have sunk,” but only Members of Congress. Are you ready, while considering another question, to revive this debate, making it the accident of another, with which it has nothing to do? Is it advisable? Is it according to the natural order of business?

The Mileage Amendment was adopted, but the bill failed between the two Houses.

STATE REBELLION, STATE SUICIDE; EMANCIPATION AND RECONSTRUCTION.

RESOLUTIONS IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 11, 1862. WITH APPENDIX.

Mr. Sumner sent to the Chair a series of resolutions, which he described by their title. They were then read, as follows.

Resolutions declaratory of the Relations between the United States and the Territory once occupied by certain States, and now usurped by pretended Governments without Constitutional or Legal Right.

Whereas certain States, rightfully belonging to the Union of the United States, have, through their respective Governments, wickedly undertaken to abjure all those duties by which their connection with the Union was maintained, to renounce all allegiance to the Constitution, to levy war upon the National Government, and, for the consummation of this treason, have unconstitutionally and unlawfully confederated together with the declared purpose of putting an end, by force, to the supremacy of the Constitution within their respective limits;

And whereas this condition of insurrection, organized by pretended Governments, openly exists in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Virginia,--except in Eastern Tennessee and Western Virginia,--and the President of the United States, in a proclamation duly made in conformity with an Act of Congress, has declared the same to exist throughout this territory, with the exceptions already named;

And whereas the extensive territory thus usurped by these pretended Governments and organized into a hostile confederation _belongs to the United States, as an inseparable part thereof, under the sanctions of the Constitution_, to be held in trust for the inhabitants in the present and future generations, and is so completely interlinked with the Union that it is forever dependent thereupon;

And whereas the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, cannot be displaced within this territory, but must ever continue the supreme law thereof, notwithstanding the doings of any pretended Governments, acting singly or in confederation, hostile to its supremacy: Therefore,--

1. _Resolved_, That any vote of secession, or other act, by a State hostile to the supremacy of the Constitution within its territory, _is inoperative and void against the Constitution_, and, when sustained by _force_, becomes a practical abdication by the State of all rights under the Constitution, while the treason it involves works instant forfeiture of all functions and powers essential to the continued existence of the State as a body politic; so that from such time forward the territory falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, as other territory, and the State becomes, according to the language of the law, _felo de se_.

2. That any combination of men assuming to act in the place of such State, and attempting to ensnare or coerce its inhabitants into a confederation hostile to the Union, is rebellious, treasonable, and destitute of all moral authority; and such combination is a usurpation incapable of constitutional existence and utterly lawless, _so that everything dependent upon it is without constitutional or legal support_.

3. That the termination of a State under the Constitution necessarily causes the termination of those peculiar local institutions which, having no origin in the Constitution, or in natural right independent of the Constitution, are upheld by the sole and exclusive authority of the State.

4. That Slavery, being a peculiar local institution, derived from local law, _without any origin in the Constitution or in natural right_, is upheld by the sole and exclusive authority of the State, and must therefore cease, legally and constitutionally, when the State on which it depends has lapsed; for the incident must follow the principal.[141]

5. That, in the exercise of exclusive jurisdiction over the territory once occupied by the States, it is the duty of Congress to see that the supremacy of the Constitution is maintained in its essential principles, so that everywhere in this extensive territory Slavery shall cease to exist in fact, as it has already ceased to exist in law or Constitution.

6. That any recognition of Slavery in such territory, or surrender of slaves under pretended laws of such States, by an officer of the United States, civil or military, is a practical recognition of the pretended Governments, to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of Congress under the Constitution, and is in the nature of aid and comfort to the Rebellion that has been organized.

7. That any such recognition of Slavery, or surrender of pretended slaves, besides being a practical recognition of the pretended Governments, giving them aid and comfort, is a denial of the rights of persons who by the action of the States have become free, so that, under the Constitution, they cannot again be enslaved.

8. That allegiance from the inhabitant and protection from the Government are corresponding obligations, dependent upon each other; so that, while the allegiance of every inhabitant of this territory, without distinction of class or color, is due to the United States, and cannot in any way be defeated by the action of any pretended Government, or by any pretence of property or claim to service, the corresponding obligation of protection is at the same time due from the United States to every such inhabitant, without distinction of class or color; and it follows that inhabitants held as slaves, whose paramount allegiance is to the United States, may justly look to the National Government for protection.

9. That the duty cast upon Congress by the action of the States is enforced by the positive requirement of the Constitution, that “no State shall enter into any confederation,” or, “without the consent of Congress, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace,” or “enter into any agreement or compact with another State,” or “grant letters of marque and reprisal,” or “coin money,” or “emit bills of credit,” or, “without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports,” all of which have been done by these pretended Governments, and also by the positive injunction of the Constitution, addressed to the Nation, that “the United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government”; and that, in pursuance of this duty cast upon Congress, and further enjoined by the Constitution, _Congress will assume complete jurisdiction of such vacated territory, where such unconstitutional and illegal things have been attempted, and will proceed to establish therein republican forms of government under the Constitution_, and, in the execution of this trust, will provide carefully for the protection of all the inhabitants thereof, for the security of families, the organization of labor, the encouragement of industry, and the welfare of society, and will in every way discharge the duties of a just, merciful, and paternal Government.

When the reading was completed, Mr. Sumner asked that the resolutions be printed and laid upon the table, adding that at some future day he hoped to call them up for consideration. Then ensued a scene not inaptly called a “flurry,” with regard to the disposition of the resolutions,--some wishing their reference to a committee, where they would be out of the way, and others wishing them laid on the table, so as to avoid present debate. Mr. Sumner made the latter motion, so as to keep them on the calendar of the Senate.

Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, moved at once their reference to the Committee on the Judiciary. But the motion to lay on the table had precedence. Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, said: “I do not think we ought to take time now in discussing this question.” Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, said: “If the motion to lay on the table be lost, the motion to refer will be debatable. I vote ‘yea.’” The motion of Mr. Sumner prevailed,--yeas 21, nays 15.

Chief among the nays were the Democrats and the ordinary revilers of Antislavery movements; but the division did not indicate definite opinions on the resolutions. It was in no sense an adverse vote, although often cited as such by hostile partisans, which was the more curious as Mr. Sumner voted with the majority.

* * * * *

February 13th, Mr. Davis introduced a series of counter resolutions, eight in number, which were ordered to lie on the table and be printed. Their special object was the protection of loyal persons, so that no form of confiscation or forfeiture should reach them,--meaning, of course, protection against Emancipation,--“whilst inflicting on the guilty leaders condign and exemplary punishment, granting amnesty and oblivion to the comparatively innocent masses.”

The difference developed here entered into subsequent debates. Mr. Sumner regarded Slavery as the great offender, besides being a constant wrong, and he wished it destroyed completely. Others sought to confine the sphere of Emancipation to the slaves of Rebels.

After certain Senatorial protests at a subsequent day, the question of Congressional power, presented by the resolutions, and involving Reconstruction, dropped out of sight, partly because the Proclamation of Emancipation provided a method against Slavery, and partly because Rebel resistance and the cloud which soon afterwards lowered upon our arms prevented Reconstruction from becoming what was called “a practical question,” except to those who, anticipating the future, saw how much would be gained by a sure rule capable of immediate application as the national power prevailed.

A speech on this subject, especially vindicating the positions he had taken, was prepared by Mr. Sumner during this session; but the proper occasion for its delivery not occurring, it was handed over to the _Atlantic Monthly_, where it appeared as an article, October, 1863. Some of the points of the resolutions reappeared in the speech of the 19th May, on “Rights of Sovereignty and Rights of War”;[142] also in the resolutions of June 2 and 6, 1862, relating to the Provisional Government of North Carolina.[143]

APPENDIX.

These Resolutions became the occasion of controversy, and occupied public attention. They have been considered the starting-point of Reconstruction, although the primary object on their introduction was to strike at Slavery. The principle here enunciated, that Slavery, being without support in the Constitution or in natural right, fell with the local governments on which it depended, seemed to Mr. Sumner impregnable, and he never ceased to regret that it was not authoritatively announced at an early day, believing that such a juridical truth adopted by the Government would have smoothed the way, while it hastened the great result. The essential difficulty proceeded from the indisposition to Emancipation; for here was only another form of the perpetual question, “Shall the slaves be set free?”

Towards the close of the war, Mr. Everett, in an eloquent speech at Faneuil Hall, gave his valuable authority in favor of this principle.

“I will add, that it is very doubtful whether any act of the Government of the United States was necessary to liberate the slaves in a State which is in rebellion. There is much reason for the opinion, that, by the simple act of levying war against the United States, the relation of Slavery was terminated, certainly so far as concerns the duty of the United States to recognize it or to refrain from interfering with it. Not being founded on the Law of Nature, and resting solely on positive local law, and that not of the United States, as soon as it becomes either the motive or pretext of an unjust war against the Union, an efficient instrument in the hands of the Rebels for carrying on the war, a source of military strength to the Rebellion and of danger to the Government at home and abroad, with the additional certainty, that, in any event but its abandonment, it will continue in all future time to work these mischiefs, who can suppose it is the duty of the United States to continue to recognize it? To maintain this would be a contradiction in terms.… No such absurdity can be admitted; and any citizen of the United States, from the President down, who should by any overt act recognize the duty of a slave to obey a Rebel master in a hostile operation, would himself be giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”[144]

Dr. Brownson’s judgment was the same way, as appears in a citation on a subsequent page.

Besides the enunciation of this juridical truth, which, frankly adopted, must have put an end to Slavery legally and constitutionally in the Rebel States, the Resolutions further asserted the jurisdiction of Congress over these States, and the duty to establish republican government therein,--in other words, the plenary power and duty of Reconstruction. Although these were formally denied, yet the power was practically recognized and the duty was followed, but only after injurious delay and the conflict of debate.

The Resolutions were especially criticized, in the Senate and out of it, for what was termed the doctrine of “State Suicide,” and “the lapse of States into Territories.” They were described as proposing to reduce States into Territories. Naturally, the sentiment of State Rights was aroused.

SENATORS ADVERSE.

Mr. Willey, of Virginia, saw in them a scheme of “unconditional, immediate, and universal Emancipation”; and he added:--

“These consequences, in my judgment, involve the lives of thousands of my fellow-citizens, and the happiness of all the loyal people of all the border slaveholding States.”

Then referring to the people of the South, he said:--

“Especially will they point to the sweeping resolutions of the great apostle of Abolition, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER], which by one dash of the pen deprive every Southern man of his slaves.”

Then came the familiar parallel between Mr. Sumner and Jefferson Davis.

“Sir, a few weeks ago we expelled a Senator, because, on the 1st of March last, he wrote a letter to Jefferson Davis, commending to his regard a friend who had a valuable fire-arm to sell, and who visited the South mainly for the purpose of selling it. This was deemed evidence of disloyalty sufficient to warrant his ejection from the Senate. But what do we now see? What, for instance, is the proposition of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER]? It is, by one fell swoop of his pen, to blot ten or twelve States out of the Union forever to remit them back to a Territorial condition, and thus to involve our muniments of right, the titles to our estates, our franchises and municipal privileges, in a kind of hotch-pot, begetting and superinducing an inevitable confusion as inexplicable and dark as original Chaos.”[145]

Mr. Fessenden, in reply to Mr. Willey, emphatically disowned Mr. Sumner.

“Why, Sir, I do not hesitate to say here most distinctly, for myself, that I dissent entirely from the conclusions of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, as stated in his resolutions. I do not look upon the States of this Union as gone and destroyed.… It is enough to say, in this connection, that upon this particular point the opinions of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts are his own, for which he alone is responsible, and which he is undoubtedly well able to defend.”[146]

On the next day Mr. Sherman followed in the same vein,--vindicating the Republican party, and especially disowning Mr. Sumner, which in the course of his speech he did twice. The first time he said:--