Part 21

“SIR,--An objection exists against employing negroes, or people of color, in transporting the public mails, of a nature too delicate to ingraft into a report which may become public, yet too important to be omitted or passed over without full consideration. I therefore take the liberty of making to the Committee, through you, a private representation on that subject.…

“Everything which tends to increase their knowledge of natural rights, of men and things, or that affords them an opportunity of associating, acquiring, and communicating sentiments, and of establishing a chain or line of intelligence, must increase your hazard, because it increases their means of effecting their object.

“The most active and intelligent are employed as post-riders. These are the most ready to learn and the most able to execute. By travelling from day to day, and hourly mixing with people, they must, they will, acquire information. _They will learn that a man’s rights do not depend on his color. They will in time become teachers to their brethren._ They become acquainted with each other on the line. Whenever the body, or a portion of them, wish to act, they are an organized corps, circulating our intelligence openly, their own privately.”[209]

This communication, which Mr. Sumner laid before the Committee, was the argument on which he relied.

April 11th, the bill was considered in the Senate, on motion of Mr. Sumner, and passed without amendment or debate: Yeas 24, Nays 11.

* * * * *

A correspondent of the _Boston Journal_ remarked at the time:--

“This is the first time, within the recollection of your correspondent, that any bill having the negro in it, directly or indirectly, has been passed by the Senate without debate. What a good time is coming, when the negro questions shall all have been legislated upon, and when the African race will no longer be a bone of contention in our legislative halls!”

The bill was less fortunate in the House of Representatives, where, May 20th, Mr. Colfax, of Indiana, reported it from the Post-Office Committee with the recommendation that it do not pass. In explaining the reasons for this report, he referred to the original Act of Congress establishing the disqualification, and said:--

“That law has been on the statute-book for more than a third of a century. Among all the petitions presented during that time to this House and the Senate, from people in all sections of the country, there has not been, so far as I have been able to discover, a single petition from any person, white or black, male or female, asking for a repeal or modification of this law. It has remained there by common consent until the present time; and therefore I think it unwise and inexpedient to pass the bill at the present time, not being demanded by public opinion.

“In the second place, the repeal of this bill does not affect exclusively the blacks of the country, as generally supposed. It will throw open the business of mail-contracting, and of thus becoming officers of the Post-Office Department, not only to blacks, but also to the Indian tribes, civilized and uncivilized, and to the Chinese, who have come in such large numbers to the Pacific coast.…

“By this bill, if it is to pass, you would allow all over the South the employment by the slaveholder of his slaves to carry the mail, and to receive compensation for the labor of such slaves out of the Federal Treasury. By the present law not a dollar is ever paid out of the Post-Office Treasury to any slaveholder for the labor of his slave.…

“Mr. Speaker, I am furthermore authorized by the Postmaster-General to say that he has not recommended the passage of this bill, nor does he regard it as promotive of the interests of the Department. I cannot find that it is asked for by any official or private citizen throughout the length and breadth of this land.”

To these objections he added, that it was necessary to have testimony by which you can convict mail depredators; and “in some of the States Indians and negroes, and in California and Oregon the Chinese also, are not allowed by the statutes of the State to give testimony in the courts against white persons.”

Mr. Dawes, of Massachusetts, inquired of Mr. Colfax, “whether he supposes depredators upon the mails are tried in the State courts, or whether they are tried in the United States courts, and if the latter, whether he and I do not make the laws of the United States and the courts of the United States, prescribing who shall testify and who shall not?”

“MR. COLFAX. Not being a lawyer, and not understanding, therefore, all the rules which govern the proceedings of the courts, I, however, say that I am informed by those who are lawyers that the rules of evidence in force in the States respectively are adopted by the United States courts in such States. And the gentleman from Massachusetts, who is a lawyer, ought to have known the fact, and, knowing it, ought not to have asked me such a question.

“MR. DAWES. The gentleman from Indiana has not quite answered me.”[210]

Mr. Colfax moved to lay the bill on the table, which was ordered, May 21st: Yeas 82, Nays 45. So the bill was lost.

In the next Congress it was again introduced by Mr. Sumner.

* * * * *

A letter from William C. Nell, of Boston, well known for his volume on “The Colored Patriots of the Revolution,” shows how a single individual suffered under this discrimination of color.

“Please accept my sincere thanks for your efforts to remove the disqualification of color in mail-carrying.

“Mr. Phillips conveyed to me the substance of information imparted by you, to wit, the postponement of the bill in the House. To me the disappointment is heavy, presuming said action to be a finality, at least for this session, and the next one is not likely to be as liberal.

“I never had more desire or more need of chances to earn money than now, and never were my opportunities so small.”

The existing law was general, and Mr. Nell could not be a letter-carrier in Boston.

RANSOM OF SLAVES AT THE NATIONAL CAPITAL.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARCH 31, 1862.

And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you.

ST. PAUL, _2 Corinthians_, XII. 15.

Ornatus sacramentorum redemtio captivorum est.

ST. AMBROSE, _De Officiis Ministrorum_, Lib. II. Cap. 28.

Thy ransom paid, which man from death redeems.

MILTON, _Paradise Lost_, Book XII. 424.

Let me observe, fellow-citizens, that this enterprise of unparalleled magnitude and importance, the extirpation of Slavery from the face of the earth, of which the Abolition of Slavery throughout this Union is the principal branch, and the Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia a minute ramification, is an effort to purify and redeem the human race from the sorest evil with which they are afflicted in the mortal stage of their existence.--JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, _Speech at Bridgewater, Mass., November 6, 1844_.

* * * * *

In activity against Slavery Mr. Sumner did not confine himself to public effort. By writing and personal appeal he was always doing. The letter to Governor Andrew, already given,[211] not only shows his exertion in that important quarter, but affords a glimpse of his relations with the President, whom he reports as saying that there was a difference between them of a month or six weeks only. In point of fact, Mr. Sumner found the difference much greater.

On his arrival at Washington, previously to the opening of Congress, he lost no time in seeing the President, who read to him the draught of his Annual Message. Mr. Sumner was disheartened by the absence of any recommendation or statement on Emancipation, and especially by what the President told him of his striking from Mr. Cameron’s Report a strong passage on this subject. But he was entirely satisfied that the President was really against Slavery, and was determined to do his duty. From that time Mr. Sumner saw him constantly, never missing an opportunity of pressing action. Not a week passed without one or more interviews. At the same time, Mr. Chase was pressing, also, and the two interchanged reports with regard to his state of mind. During this time he was watching the Border States, and communicating with friends in Kentucky. For Mr. Sumner this was an anxious period.

At last, early in the morning of March 6th, he received a request from the President to come to him as soon as convenient after breakfast. Mr. Sumner hastened, and on his arrival the President said that he had something to read; and he then read the draught of the Special Message of that date, proposing Compensated Emancipation.

Mr. Sumner never had strong faith in the practicability of Compensated Emancipation on a large scale, and was always against Gradual Emancipation; but he welcomed any step towards Emancipation, being assured, that, when once begun in any way, it must proceed to the complete establishment of Freedom. In the conversation that ensued he began with a mild protest against gradualism in dealing with wrong, but said nothing against compensation. Taking the draught into his hands, and reading it over slowly and carefully, he could not but object to a certain brief paragraph, which he thought might be turned against us by the other side, and he asked permission to rewrite it, so as to remove the ground of possible objection. While occupied in this attempt with his pencil, the President said: “Don’t trouble yourself; I will strike it all out”: and it was struck out. As Mr. Sumner continued for some time studying the paper, the President at length interrupted him in a familiar, pleasant way, saying: “Enough; you must go, or the boys[212] won’t have time to copy it.” He then said that he should communicate the Message to the Senate that day. It was communicated accordingly.

Before he left, Mr. Sumner told the President, that, though knowing that the Message was coming, he should stand aside and leave to others the making of the proper motion with regard to it. As he anticipated, nothing was ever done under it beyond the adoption by the two Houses of the joint resolution recommended: “That the United States ought to coöperate with any State which may adopt _gradual_ abolishment of Slavery, giving to such State pecuniary aid, to be used by such State in its discretion, to compensate for the inconveniences, public and private, produced by such change of system.” But the Message gave public assurance that the President was occupied with the great question, and its concluding words sank into the popular heart. “In full view,” he said, “of my great responsibility to my God and to my country, I earnestly beg the attention of Congress and the people to the subject.” Many breathed freer.

* * * * *

Meanwhile a bill was introduced into the Senate by Mr. Wilson, providing for Emancipation in the District of Columbia. This was entitled, “For the release of certain persons held to service or labor in the District of Columbia.” It provided for a commission to appraise the claims on account of the slaves liberated, limiting their allowance in the aggregate to an amount equal to three hundred dollars a slave, and appropriated one million dollars to pay loyal owners; to which was added, on motion of Mr. Doolittle, one hundred thousand dollars for the colonization of slaves who desired to emigrate to Hayti or Liberia.

This bill was introduced December 16th, referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia December 20th, reported with amendments by Mr. Morrill of Maine February 13th, taken up for consideration March 12th, and proceeded with to its final passage April 3d: Yeas 29, Nays 14.

April 11th, it passed the House: Yeas 94, Nays 44.

April 16th, it was approved by the President, who sent a Message expressing gratification that “the two principles of compensation and colonization are both recognized and practically applied in the Act.”[213]

In the interval between the passage of the bill and its approval by the President there was concern with many lest it should fail in his hands. During this painful suspense, Mr. Sumner visited the President, and said: “Do you know who at this moment is the largest slave-_holder_ in this country? It is Abraham Lincoln; for he holds all the three thousand slaves of the District, which is more than any other person in the country holds.” He then expressed astonishment that the President could postpone the approval a single night.

* * * * *

Mr. Sumner spoke, March 31st, treating the case as of ransom rather than compensation. He was willing to vote money for Emancipation, but would not recognize the title of the master implied in compensation. The distinction facilitated a bolder dealing with the question, which was needed in the Rebel States.

This method was noticed especially by the _New York Tribune_.

“The speech of Mr. Sumner in the Senate on the Bill for the Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia is a statesmanlike view of the subject, which should commend it to the impartial consideration of the country. He addressed himself, not to a discussion of the character of Slavery itself, but simply to its recognition in the national capital, and advocates its removal because it is not in accordance with the Constitution. On this point his reasoning is conclusive, and is an appeal to the national self-respect which ought not to be disregarded. Not less forcible is the ground he takes on the question of compensation. Viewing it rather in the light of ransom for the slave than compensation to the master for a right surrendered, he upholds it as a duty springing from the complicity of the whole country in the existence heretofore of the system in the domain exclusively under national jurisdiction. Common sense and a sense of justice to all parties alike commend such a treatment of the subject.”

Lewis Tappan, the early and most watchful Abolitionist, wrote from New York:--

“I have just read the speech again in pamphlet form. Your able efforts in procuring the passage of this bill add another link to the golden chain by which you are bound to the good people of my native State, and, as I believe, to posterity.”

Orestes A. Brownson, able and indefatigable with his pen, recognized the idea of ransom.

“I thank you for your able speech on the Ransom of the Slaves in the District of Columbia. The term _Ransom_ is happily chosen, and meets many scruples.”

Frederick Douglass wrote with the effusion of a freeman once a slave.

“I want only a moment of your time to give you my thanks for your great speech in the Senate on the Bill for the Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia. I trust I am not dreaming; but the events taking place seem like a dream. If Slavery is really dead in the District of Columbia, and merely waiting for the ceremony of ‘Dust to dust’ by the President, to you more than to any other American statesman belongs the honor of this great triumph of justice, liberty, and sound policy. I rejoice for my freed brothers,--and, Sir, I rejoice for you. You have lived to strike down in Washington the power that lifted the bludgeon against your own free voice. I take nothing from the good and brave men who have coöperated with you. There is, or ought to be, a head to every body; and whether you will or not, the slaveholder and the slave look to you as the best embodiment of the Antislavery idea now in the councils of the nation. May God sustain you!”

The speech, while addressed to the particular circumstances of the District of Columbia, presented considerations applicable to Slavery everywhere. It was a blow at Slavery outside the District, as well as inside, while it illustrated the power and duty of Congress over this subject.

SPEECH.

Before Mr. Sumner began, Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, read the following interrogatories.

“It may be that the speech which the honorable Senator intends to pronounce may cover the points which I have embodied in some questions to him. If not, I should take it very kindly, if the honorable Senator will answer the questions. I will read them.

“1. Are slaves in the District of Columbia, and in the slaveholding States, legally the subject of property?

“2. Has Congress the power to deprive the owners of lands and houses and lots situated in the District of Columbia of that property?

“3. What law or laws give the owners of real estate in the District of Columbia their right to such property? Inform us where such law or laws may be found and read.

“4. What law or laws give a different right and title to slaves and to real estate? Where can such law or laws be found?

“5. Is or not the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all the treaties made under the authority of the United States, the supreme law of the land, which all persons, without any exception whatever, are bound to obey?

“6. Is or not the Supreme Court of the United States the proper and final tribunal to judge and determine all questions, whether in law or equity, under the Constitution and laws of the United States?”

The answers to these interrogatories, so far as they bear on the main question, will be found in the course of the speech.

MR. PRESIDENT,--With unspeakable delight I hail this measure and the prospect of its speedy adoption. Though only a small instalment of that great debt to an enslaved race which we all owe, yet will it be recognized in history as a victory of humanity. At home, throughout our own country, it will be welcomed with gratitude, while abroad it will quicken the hopes of all who love Freedom. Liberal institutions will gain everywhere by the abolition of Slavery at the national capital. Nobody can read that slaves were once sold in the markets of Rome, beneath the eyes of the Sovereign Pontiff, without confessing the scandal to religion, even in a barbarous age; and nobody can hear that slaves are now sold in the markets of Washington, beneath the eyes of the President, without confessing the scandal to liberal institutions. For the sake of the national name, if not for the sake of justice, let the scandal cease.

In early discussions of this question many topics were introduced that obtain little attention now. It was part of the tactics of Slavery to claim absolute immunity. Indeed, without such immunity it had small chance to exist. Such a wrong, so utterly outrageous, could find safety only where protected from inquiry. Therefore Slave-Masters always insisted that petitions against its maintenance at the national capital were not to be received, that it was unconstitutional to touch it even here within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, and that, if it were touched, it should be only under the auspices of the neighboring States of Virginia and Maryland. On these points elaborate arguments were constructed, useless to consider now. Whatever the opinions of individual Senators, the judgment of the country is fixed. The right of petition, first vindicated by the matchless perseverance of John Quincy Adams, is now beyond question, and the constitutional power of Congress is hardly less free from doubt. It is enough to say on this point, that, if Congress cannot abolish Slavery here, then there is no power anywhere to abolish it here, and this wrong will endure always, lasting as the capital itself.

As the moment of justice approaches, we are called to meet a different objection, inspired by generous sentiments. It is urged, that, since there can be no such thing as property in man, especially within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, therefore all held as slaves at the national capital are justly entitled to freedom without price or compensation of any kind,--or, at least, that any money paid should be distributed according to an account stated between master and slave. If this question were determined according to divine justice, so far as we may be permitted to contemplate such a judgment, it is obvious that nothing can be due to the master, and that any money paid belongs rather to the slave, who for generations has been despoiled of every right and possession. If we undertake to audit this fearful account, pray what sum shall be allowed for the prolonged torments of the lash? what treasure shall be voted to the slave for wife ravished from his side, for children stolen, for knowledge shut out, and for all the fruits of labor wrested from him and his fathers? No such account can be stated. It is impossible. Once begin the inquiry, and all must go to the slave. It only remains for Congress, anxious to secure this great boon, and unwilling to embarrass or jeopard it, to act practically, according to its finite powers, in the light of existing usage, and even existing prejudice, under which these odious relations have assumed the form of law; nor can we hesitate at any forbearance or sacrifice, provided Freedom is established without delay.