Part 20

MR. PRESIDENT,--If I speak tardily in this debate, I hope for the indulgence of the Senate. Had I been able to speak earlier, I should have spoken; but, though present in the Chamber, and voting when this bill was under consideration formerly, I was at the time too much of an invalid to take an active part in the debate. In justice to myself and to the great question, I cannot be silent.

I have already voted to give Missouri twenty million dollars to secure freedom at once for her slaves, and to make her at once a Free State. I am ready to vote more, if more be needed for this good purpose; but I will not vote money to be sunk and lost in an uncertain scheme of Prospective Emancipation, where Freedom is a jack-o’-lantern, and the only certainty is the Congressional appropriation. For money paid down, Freedom must be delivered.

Notwithstanding all differences of opinion on this important question, there is much occasion for congratulation in the progress made.

Thank God, on one point the Senate is substantially united. A large majority will vote for Emancipation. This is much, both as a sign of the present and a prophecy of the future. A large majority, in the name of Congress, will offer pecuniary aid. This is a further sign and prophecy. Such a vote, and such an appropriation, will constitute an epoch. Only a few short years ago the very mention of Slavery in Congress was forbidden, and all discussion of it was stifled. Now Emancipation is an accepted watchword, while Slavery is openly denounced as a guilty thing worthy of death.

It is admitted, that now, under the exigency of war, the United States ought to coöperate with any State in the abolition of Slavery, giving it pecuniary aid; and it is proposed to apply this principle practically in Missouri. It was fit that Emancipation, destined to end the Rebellion, should begin in South Carolina, where the Rebellion began. It is also fit that the action of Congress in behalf of Emancipation should begin in Missouri, which, through the faint-hearted remissness of Congress, as late as 1820, was opened to Slavery. Had Congress at that time firmly insisted that Missouri should enter the Union as a Free State, the vast appropriation now proposed would have been saved, and, better still, this vaster civil war would have been prevented. The whole country is now paying with treasure and blood for that fatal surrender. Alas, that men should forget that God is bound by no compromise, and that, sooner or later, He will insist that justice shall be done! There is not a dollar spent, and not a life sacrificed, in this calamitous war, which does not plead against any repetition of that wicked folly. Palsied be the tongue that speaks of compromise with Slavery!

Though, happily, compromise is no longer openly mentioned, yet it insinuates itself in this debate. In former times it took the shape of barefaced concession, as in the admission of Missouri with Slavery, in the annexion of Texas with Slavery, the waiver of the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories, the atrocious bill for the reënslavement of fugitives, and the opening of Kansas to Slavery, first by the Kansas Bill, and then by the Lecompton Constitution. In each of these cases there was concession to Slavery which history records with shame, and it was by this that your wicked slaveholding conspiracy waxed confident and strong, till at last it became ripe for war.

And now it is proposed, as an agency in the suppression of the Rebellion, to make an end of Slavery. By proclamation of the President, all slaves in certain States and designated parts of States are declared free. Of course this proclamation is a war measure, rendered just and necessary by exigencies of war. As such, it is summary and instant in operation, not prospective or procrastinating. A proclamation of Prospective Emancipation would have been an absurdity,--like a proclamation of a prospective battle, where not a blow was to be struck or a cannon pointed before 1876, unless, meanwhile, the enemy desired it. What is done in war must be done promptly, except, perhaps, under the policy of defence. Gradualism is delay, and delay is the betrayal of victory. If you would be triumphant, strike quickly, let your blows be felt at once, without notice or premonition, and especially without time for resistance or debate. Time deserts all who do not appreciate its value. Strike promptly, and time becomes your invaluable ally; strike slowly, gradually, prospectively, and time goes over to the enemy.

But every argument for the instant carrying out of the Proclamation, every consideration in favor of despatch in war, is especially applicable to whatever is done by Congress as a war measure. In a period of peace Congress might fitly consider whether Emancipation should be immediate or prospective, and we could listen with patience to the instances adduced by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. DOOLITTLE] in favor of delay,--to the case of Pennsylvania, and to the case of New York, where slaves were tardily admitted to their birthright. Such arguments, though to my judgment of little value at any time, might then be legitimate. But now, when we are considering how to put down the Rebellion, they are not even legitimate. There is but one way to put down the Rebellion, and that is _instant action_; and all that is done, whether in the field, in the Cabinet, or in Congress, must partake of this character. Whatever is postponed for twenty years, or ten years, may seem abstractly politic or wise; but it is in no sense a war measure, nor can it contribute essentially to the suppression of the Rebellion.

I think I may assume, without contradiction, that the tender of money to Missouri for the sake of Emancipation is a war measure, to be vindicated as such under the Constitution of the United States. It is also an act of justice to an oppressed race. But it is not in this unquestionable character that it is now commended. If it were urged on no other ground, even if every consideration of philanthropy and of religion pleaded for it with rarest eloquence, I fear that it would stand but little chance in either House of Congress. Let us not disguise the truth. Except as a war measure to aid in putting down the Rebellion, this proposition could expect little hospitality here. Senators are ready to vote money--as the British Parliament voted subsidies--to supply the place of soldiers, or to remove a stronghold of the Rebellion, all of which is done by Emancipation. I do not overstate the case. Slavery is a stronghold, which through Emancipation will be removed, while every slave, if not every slave-master, becomes an ally of the Government. Therefore Emancipation is a war measure, and constitutional as the raising of armies or the occupation of hostile territory.

In vindicating Emancipation as a war measure, we must see that it is made under such conditions as to exercise a present, _instant_ influence. It must be immediate, not prospective. In proposing Prospective Emancipation, you propose a measure which can have little or no influence on the war. Abstractly Senators may prefer that Emancipation should be prospective rather than immediate; but this is not the time for the exercise of any abstract preference. Whatever is done as a war measure must be immediate, or it will cease to have this character, whatever you call it.

If I am correct in this statement,--and I do not see how it can be questioned,--then is the appropriation for Immediate Emancipation just and proper under the Constitution, while that for Prospective Emancipation is without sanction, except what it finds in the sentiments of justice and humanity.

It is proposed to vote ten million dollars to promote Emancipation ten years from now. Perhaps I am sanguine, but I cannot doubt that before the expiration of that period Slavery will die in Missouri under the awakened judgment of the people, even without the action of Congress. If our resources were infinite, we might tender this large sum by way of experiment; but with a treasury drained to the bottom, and a debt accumulating in fabulous proportions, I do not understand how we can vote millions, which, in the first place, will be of little or no service in the suppression of the Rebellion, and, in the second place, will be simply a largess in no way essential to the subversion of Slavery.

Whatever is given for Immediate Emancipation is given for the national defence, and for the safety and honor of the Republic. It will be a blow at the Rebellion. Whatever is given for Prospective Emancipation will be a gratuity to slaveholders and a tribute to Slavery. Pardon me, if I repeat what I have already said on this question: “Millions for defence, but not a cent for tribute”; millions for defence against peril, from whatever quarter it may come, but not a cent for tribute in any quarter,--especially not a cent for tribute to the loathsome tyranny of Slavery.

I know it is sometimes said that even Prospective Emancipation will help weaken the Rebellion. That it will impair the confidence in Slavery, and also its value, I cannot doubt. But it is equally clear that it will leave Slavery still alive and on its legs; and just so long as this is the case, there must be controversy and debate, with attending weakness, while Reaction perpetually lifts its crest. Instead of tranquillity, which we all seek for Missouri, we shall have contention. Instead of peace, we shall have prolonged war. Every year’s delay, ay, Sir, every week’s delay, in dealing death to Slavery leaves just so much of opportunity to the Rebellion; for so long as Slavery is allowed to exist in Missouri the Rebellion will still struggle, not without hope, for its ancient mastery. But let Slavery cease at once and all will be changed. There will be no room for controversy or debate, with attending weakness; nor can Reaction lift its crest. There will be no opportunity to the Rebellion, which must cease all effort there, when Missouri can no longer be a Slave State. Freedom will become our watchful, generous, and invincible ally, while the well-being, the happiness, the repose, and the renown of Missouri will be established forever.

* * * * *

Thus far, Sir, I have presented the argument on grounds peculiar to this case; and here I might stop. Having shown, that, as a military necessity, and for the sake of that economy which it is our duty to cultivate, Emancipation must be immediate, I need not go further. But I do not content myself here. The whole question is opened between Immediate Emancipation and Prospective Emancipation,--or, in other words, between doing right at once and doing right at some future, distant day. Procrastination is the thief, not only of time, but of virtue itself. Yet such is the nature of man that he is disposed always to delay, so that he does nothing to-day which he can put off till to-morrow. Perhaps in no single matter is this disposition more apparent than with regard to Slavery. Every consideration of humanity, justice, religion, reason, common sense, and history, all demanded the instant cessation of an intolerable wrong, without procrastination or delay. But human nature would not yield, and we have been driven to argue the question, whether an outrage, asserting property in man, denying the conjugal relation, annulling the parental relation, shutting out human improvement, and robbing its victim of all the fruits of his industry,--the whole to compel work without wages,--should be stopped instantly or gradually. It is only when we regard Slavery in its essential elements, and look at its unutterable and unquestionable atrocity, that we fully comprehend the mingled folly and wickedness of this question. If it were merely a question of economy, or a question of policy, then the Senate might properly debate whether the change should be instant or gradual; but considerations of economy and policy are all absorbed in the higher claims of justice and humanity. There is no question whether justice and humanity shall be immediate or gradual. Men are to cease at once from wrong; they are to obey the Ten Commandments instantly, and not gradually.

Senators who argue for Prospective Emancipation show themselves insensible to the true character of Slavery, or insensible to the requirements of reason. One or the other of these alternatives must be accepted.

Shall property in man be disowned immediately, or only prospectively? Reason answers, Immediately.

Shall the conjugal relation be maintained immediately, or only prospectively? Reason recoils from the wicked absurdity of the inquiry.

Shall the parental relation be recognized immediately, or only prospectively? Reason is indignant at the question.

Shall the opportunities of knowledge, including the right to read the Book of Life, be opened immediately or prospectively? Reason brands the idea of delay as impious.

Shall the fruits of his own industry be given to a fellow-man immediately or prospectively? Reason insists that every man shall have his own without postponement.

And history, thank God, speaking by examples, testifies in conformity with reason. The conclusion is irresistible. If you would contribute to the strength and honor of the Nation, if you would bless Missouri, if you would benefit the slave-master, if you would elevate the slave, and, still further, if you would afford an example which shall fortify and consecrate the Republic, making it at once citadel and temple, do not put off the day of Freedom. In this case, more than in any other, he gives twice who quickly gives.

The substitute, containing the provisions for Gradual Emancipation, was then adopted,--Yeas 27, Nays 10,--Mr. Sumner voting in the minority. The final question was on the passage of the bill as amended by the insertion of the substitute, when Mr. Sumner said:--

I shall vote for this bill on its final passage, but it will be because I know it will go back to the House of Representatives, where it can undergo consideration, and where, I trust, a bill will be at last matured that will embody the true principle which ought to govern this great question.

The bill passed,--Yeas 23, Nays 18. It went back to the House, where it gave way to a new bill, which was lost in the closing hours of the Thirty-Seventh Congress. Aid to States and Compensated Emancipation soon passed out of sight.

LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE PRESIDENT, IN ALL DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN WARS, TO ISSUE LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL, FEBRUARY 14 AND 17, 1863.

At the close of the preceding session of Congress, Mr. Grimes introduced a bill concerning Letters of Marque and Reprisal, but he was unable to secure the action of the Senate upon it. January 7, 1863, he again asked for its consideration, when, on motion of Mr. Sumner, it was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. January 20th, it was reported from the Committee by Mr. Hale, with amendments. February 14th, Mr. Grimes moved to proceed with its consideration. In opposing this motion, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--It seems to me that this bill is in all respects a misconception. There is nothing now to justify letters of marque and reprisal; and when Senators say that Massachusetts is interested in their issue, I repel the suggestion. Sir, Massachusetts is interested in putting down the Rebellion. She is also interested in clearing the sea of pirates. Such is her open and unquestionable interest, and to this end she is concerned in the employment of all possible agencies consistent with the civilization of our day. Massachusetts is interested in the enlargement of the marine, national and private, and I add, also, in the present enlistment of the private marine in the national service; but this is very different from the issue of letters of marque.

…

I think the Senator from Iowa is misled by a phrase. He speaks of the militia of the sea. It is a captivating phrase, I admit; but the meaning is not entirely clear. The Senator finds it in privateers,--that is, private armed ships, belonging to private individuals, under the command of private persons, cruising against private commerce, and paid exclusively by booty. Such is his idea of a sea militia. I confess this is not very captivating to me. My idea of a sea militia is different. It is all the ships of the country, if the occasion require, under the national flag, in the service of the country as national ships, with the character of national ships, enjoying everywhere the immunities of national ships, and free from the suspicions always attaching to the privateer, wherever it appears. An enactment, authorizing the employment of the mercantile marine in the national service as part of the national navy, would be practical and reasonable. Such a marine might justly be called the militia of the sea; but I must protest against the deceptive militia of the Senator.

The bill was taken up by a vote of 31 yeas and 6 nays; but, after ordering the printing of amendments, it was postponed.

February 17th, it was taken up again, when Mr. Sumner spoke in reply to Mr. Grimes.

MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senator from Iowa [Mr. GRIMES], who has just taken his seat, ingeniously and elaborately vindicates a bill which, at least in one feature, is an innovation upon the original policy of our country; and, strange to say, while doing so, he pleads for what he calls our traditional policy. I, too, plead for our traditional policy, but not the policy of the Senator. And I plead also for a policy which, whether traditional or not, will provide for the national defence according to that best economy which takes counsel of prudence as well as of courage.

The Senator, with seeming triumph, asks if we can afford to declare that our whole private marine shall rot at the wharf. Clearly not, and nobody proposes to declare so, although we might as well do this as recklessly provoke war which must drive our commerce from the ocean,--if in no other way, by the increased rates of insurance. I would secure for our private marine the amplest opportunity, that it may continue without interruption to plough every sea with its keels, and that, wherever it appears, it may find its accustomed welcome. The policy of the Senator has no such promise.

All will concur in any practical measure at this time for the increase of our strength on the ocean. To this end my vote shall not be wanting. But to my mind it is clear to demonstration that the measure proposed is not practical in character, that it promises no result which cannot be reached better in another way, while it is almost sure to bring upon the country additional embarrassment. It may be bold, but I am sure it is not prudent, nor is there in it economy of any kind.

This bill is entitled, “Concerning Letters of Marque, Prizes, and Prize Goods.” The title is borrowed from the two statutes of 1812 and 1813. It is, in plain terms, a bill to authorize _Privateers_,--that is, private armed vessels licensed to cruise against the commerce of an enemy, and looking to booty for support, compensation, and salary. It is by booty that owners, officers, and crews are to be paid. Booty is the motive power and life-spring. Such is this bill on its face, without going into detail. Surely a bill of this character ought not to pass without strong reason.

Looking at the bill more closely, it is found to have two distinct features: _first_, as a new agency against the Rebellion; _secondly_, as a provision for privateers in any future war. I regard these two features as distinct. They may be considered separately. One may be right, and the other wrong. One may be adopted, and the other rejected.

So far as the bill promises substantial help in putting down the Rebellion without more than countervailing mischief, it may properly be entertained. But what can it do against the Rebellion? And where is the policy or necessity on which it is founded? If Senators think that the bill can do any good now, I am sure they listen to their hopes rather than to the evidence. Why, Sir, the Rebels, against whom you would cruise, are absolutely without commerce. Pirate ships they have, equipped in England, armed to the teeth, and unleashed upon the sea to prey upon us; but there is not a single bottom of theirs that can afford the booty which is the pay and incentive of the privateer. It would be hardly more irrational to enlist private armed ships against the King of Dahomey.

I know it is said that our navy is too small, and that more ships are needed, not only for transportation, but also to increase and strengthen the blockade, or to cruise against pirates. Very well. Hire them, and put them in commission as Government ships, with the immunities, the responsibilities, and the character of such ships. There can be no difficulty in this; and, better still, there will be no difficulty afterwards. This is simple and practical.

But, while I see no probable good from launching privateers upon the ocean to cruise against a commerce that does not exist, and to be paid by a booty that cannot be found, I see certain evils which I am anxious to avoid for the sake of my country, especially at this moment. I think that I cannot be mistaken in this anxiety.

It is well known, that, according to ancient usage and the Law of Nations, every privateer is entitled to belligerent rights, one of which is that most difficult, delicate, and dangerous right, the much disputed Right of Search. There is no Right of War with regard to which nations are more sensitive,--and no nation has been more sensitive than our own, while none has suffered more from its exercise. By virtue of this right, every licensed sea-rover is entitled on the ocean to stop and overhaul all merchant vessels under whatever flag. If he cannot capture, he can at least annoy. If he cannot make prize, he can at least make trouble, and leave behind a sting. I know not what course the great neutral powers may adopt, nor do I see how they can undertake to set aside this ancient right, even if they smart under its exercise. But when I consider that these powers have already by solemn convention--I refer, of course, to the Congress of Paris in 1856--renounced the whole system of privateers among themselves, I confess my fears that they will not witness with perfect calmness the annoyance to which their commerce will be exposed. And now, Sir, mark my prediction. Every exercise upon neutral commerce of this terrible Right of Search will be the fruitful occasion of misunderstanding, bickering, and controversy, at a moment when, if my voice could prevail, there should be nothing to interfere with that accord, harmony, and sympathy which are due from civilized states to our Republic in its great battle with Barbarism. Even if we are not encouraged to expect these things from Europe, I hope that nothing will be done by us to put impediments in their way. Justly sensitive with regard to our own rights, let us respect the sensibility of others.

It is not enough to say that we have an unquestioned right to issue letters of marque. Rights, when exercised out of season or imprudently, may be changed into wrongs. It was a maxim of ancient jurisprudence, _Sic utere tua, ut alienum non lædas_, and I think that this maxim, at least in spirit, is applicable to the present occasion. Our right may be clear; but, if its exercise would injure or annoy others, especially without corresponding advantage to ourselves, we shall do well, if we forbear to exercise it.