Part 9

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

SHUTTING UP OF COLORED SCHOOLS BY THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF NORTH CAROLINA.

RESOLUTION AND REMARKS IN THE SENATE, JUNE 2, 1862.

Hon. Edward Stanly was appointed by the President Provisional Governor of North Carolina, and Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee. The former signalized his arrival at his post by an official movement against schools for colored children, as forbidden by “the laws of the State,” meaning the Black Code, before the war.

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

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

June 2d, he offered the following resolution:--

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

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

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

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

“A true copy.

“C. H. MENDELL, _Clerk to Mr. Colyer_.

“NEWBERN, May 28, 1862.”

Then follows a further statement.

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

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

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

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

The resolution was agreed to.

* * * * *

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

STAND BY THE ADMINISTRATION.

LETTER TO ----, JUNE 5, 1862.

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

It first appeared in the _Boston Journal_,[75] with the caption, “Senator Sumner and the President,” and with these introductory words:--

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

SENATE CHAMBER, June 5, 1862.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Believe me, my dear Sir,

With much regard,

Ever faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

POWER OF CONGRESS _VS._ MILITARY GOVERNMENT OF STATES.

RESOLUTIONS IN THE SENATE, JUNE 6, 1862.

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

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

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

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

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

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

AIR-LINE RAILROAD BETWEEN WASHINGTON AND NEW YORK.

RESOLUTION IN THE SENATE, JUNE 9, 1862.

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

This resolution was objected to, and so was postponed; but its immediate object was accomplished. The existing roads were stimulated, and the attention of the country was called to the idea of better communication between the two capitals of politics and commerce. A French paper spoke of the proposed road as “_atmospheric_.”

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

ABOLITION AND PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY IN WEST VIRGINIA.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL FOR THE ADMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA AS A STATE, JUNE 26, JULY 1 AND 14, 1862.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Sumner concluded by moving to strike out the words of the condition proposed, and insert an absolute abolition and prohibition, so that it should read, “From and after the fourth day of July, 1863, within the limits of the State there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crime whereof the party shall be duly convicted.”

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

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

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

MR. WILLEY. That was in 1860; but it is not so now.

MR. SUMNER. There may be fewer now: call the number ten thousand. There are ten thousand slaves there, who, according to the bill, are to remain in bondage during life. Thus, for one whole generation, shall we be afflicted by another Slave State, with two slaveholding representatives in this body.

I mean to speak of this question with all possible respect for Senators on the other side. I am anxious not to introduce any topic otherwise than agreeable; but I must discharge my duty here. I cannot by my vote consent that there shall be two additional slaveholding Senators for another generation. I content myself with this declaration, without argument,--except what is found in a brief passage by Mr. Webster in this body. I refer to his speech of the 22d of December, 1845, on the admission of Texas, where he used this language:--

“In the next place, Sir, I have to say, that, while I hold, with as much integrity, I trust, and faithfulness, as any citizen of this country, to all the original arrangements and compromises under which the Constitution under which we now live was adopted, I never could, and never can, persuade myself to be in favor of the admission of other States into the Union as Slave States, with the inequalities which were allowed and accorded by the Constitution to the slaveholding States then in existence. I do not think that the Free States ever expected, or could expect, that they would be called on to admit more Slave States, having the unequal advantages arising to them from the mode of apportioning representation under the existing Constitution.…

“It will always be a question, whether the other States have not a right (and I think they have the clearest right) to require that the State coming into the Union should come in upon an equality; and if the existence of Slavery be an impediment to coming in on an equality, then the State proposing to come in should be required to remove that inequality by abolishing Slavery, or take the alternative of being excluded.”[77]

Afterwards, in his famous speech of the 7th of March, 1850, he reaffirmed these principles.

“It has happened that between 1837 and this time, on various occasions, I have expressed my entire opposition to the admission of Slave States, or the acquisition of new Slave Territories, to be added to the United States. I know, Sir, no change in my own sentiments or my own purposes in that respect.”[78]

I might quote more, but this is sufficient. Mr. Webster was against new Slave States.

I adduce these words as stating strongly at least one important ground of objection. The admission of West Virginia with a condition recognizing Slavery for a full generation will be an extension of the Slave Power and a new sanction of Slavery. I cannot consent to it, Sir; nor do I see any apology for hesitation. Our control of this matter is clear beyond reasonable doubt, and the present state of our country supplies a new motive for its exercise.

In the debate that ensued, Mr. Hale criticized Mr. Sumner, quoting the story of Abraham and his aged idolatrous guest, as given by Dr. Franklin.

“‘And God said to Abraham, Have I borne with you [him] these fourscore years, and canst thou not bear with him one night, who art thyself a sinner?’ Sir, in exactly the spirit inculcated by that fable I would deal with Slavery; and I would listen to-day as it were to the voice of God, who asks us, Have I borne with this thing so many generations, and cannot you bear with it dying, when it begins on the next Fourth of July?”[79]

Mr. Wade, in the same spirit, said:--

“My friend from Massachusetts, by his proposition, strikes this institution down at one dash. I should like to see it go; but I must look a little to see what its effect will be, after all.”[80]

Before the vote was taken, Mr. Carlile, of Virginia, remarked:--

“Mr. President, it is my sincere belief that this disposition to interfere with the rights of the States, exhibited by this Congress, has prolonged the war,--that, if persisted in, the war becomes a war of indefinite duration, and that the Constitutional Union our fathers formed will be lost to us and our posterity forever.”[81]

July 14th, the question was taken on Mr. Sumner’s amendment, which was rejected,--Yeas 11, Nays 24.

Mr. Lane, of Kansas, moved that all slaves in the State, July 4, 1863, and under the age of ten, shall be free when they arrive at the age of twenty-one, and all slaves over ten and under twenty-one shall be free when they arrive at the age of twenty-five; and the amendment was adopted,--Yeas 25, Nays 12.

* * * * *

The question then occurred on the passage of the bill, when Mr. Sumner remarked:--

I renounce the intention of presenting again the amendment you have already voted down; but it is none the less important in my judgment. I do not like to occupy the time of the Senate; but I cannot doubt that you have acted on the amendment hastily, and without full consideration. Why, Sir, it is simply the old Jeffersonian ordinance, which, when originally adopted for the great Territory of the Northwest, operated upon Slavery already there, and absolutely forbade this wrong from that time forward. In point of fact, slaves were freed by this ordinance.

I thought it well that this institute of Virginia’s son should help to redeem Virginia. It has been voted down; and now the question is presented, whether the Senate will recognize a new Slave State. True, Slavery will be for a short term only, for twenty-one years, if you please, but that is a long time for Slavery. I cannot consent to admit a new State with such a curse for twenty-one years. How little slavery it takes to make a Slave State is illustrated by Delaware, with less than eighteen hundred slaves, sending two Senators of Slavery to this Chamber. Shall we welcome two more from a State newly created by ourselves? Never, Sir, by my vote; and as the Senate sees fit to discard the effort I have made, I deem it my duty to vote against the bill.

The bill was passed,--Yeas 23, Nays 17,--Mr. Sumner voting in the negative.

WAR POWERS OF CONGRESS: CONFISCATION AND LIBERATION.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE HOUSE BILL FOR THE CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY AND THE LIBERATION OF SLAVES BELONGING TO REBELS, JUNE 27, 1862.