Part 23

3. That, in dealing with the Rebel War, the National Government is invested with two classes of rights,--one the _Rights of Sovereignty_, inherent and indefeasible everywhere within the national limits, and the other the _Rights of War_, or belligerent rights, superinduced by the nature and extent of the contest; that, by virtue of the Rights of Sovereignty, the Rebel and belligerent region is now subject to the nation as its only rightful government, bound under the Constitution to all the duties of sovereignty, and by special mandate bound also to guaranty to every State a republican form of government, and to protect it against invasion; that, by virtue of the Rights of War, this same region is subject to all the conditions and incidents of war, according to the established usages of Christian nations, out of which is derived the familiar maxim of public duty, “Indemnity for the past and security for the future.”

4. That, in seeking restoration of the States to their proper places as members of the Republic, so that every State shall enjoy again its constitutional functions, and every star on the national flag shall represent a State in reality as well as in name, care must be taken that the Rebellion is not allowed, through any negligence or mistaken concession, to retain the least foothold for future activity, or the least germ of future life; that, whether proceeding by the exercise of sovereign rights or of belligerent rights, the same precautions must be exacted against future peril; that, therefore, any system of “Reconstruction” must be rejected which does not provide by irreversible guaranties against the continued existence or possible revival of Slavery, and that such guaranties can be primarily obtained only through the agency of the National Government, which to this end must assert a temporary supremacy, military or civil, throughout the Rebel and belligerent region, of sufficient duration to stamp upon this region the character of Freedom.

5. That, in the exercise of this essential supremacy of the nation, a solemn duty is cast upon Congress to see that no Rebel State is prematurely restored to its constitutional functions until within its borders all proper safeguards are established, so that loyal citizens, including the new-made freedmen, cannot at any time be molested by evil-disposed persons, and especially that no man there may be made a slave; that this solemn duty belongs to Congress under the Constitution, whether in the exercise of Rights of Sovereignty or Rights of War, and that in its performance that system of “Reconstruction” will be best, howsoever named, which promises most surely to accomplish the desired end, so that Slavery, which is the synonym of the Rebellion, shall absolutely cease throughout the whole Rebel and belligerent region, and the land it has maddened, impoverished, and degraded shall become safe, fertile, and glorious from assured Emancipation.

6. That, in the process of “Reconstruction,” it is not enough to secure the death of Slavery throughout the Rebel and belligerent region only; that experience testifies against Slavery wherever it exists, not only as crime against humanity, but as disturber of the public peace and spoiler of the public liberties, including liberty of the press, liberty of speech, and liberty of travel and transit; that, in the progress of civilization, it has become incompatible with good government, and especially with that “republican form of government” which the United States are bound to guaranty to every State; that from the outbreak of this Rebel war, even in States professing loyalty, it has been an open check upon patriotic duty and an open accessory to the Rebellion, so as to be a source of unquestionable weakness to the national cause; that the defiant pretensions of the master claiming control of his slave are in direct conflict with paramount rights of the nation; and that, therefore, it is the further duty of Congress, in the exercise of its double powers under the Constitution, as guardian of the national safety, to take all needful steps for the extinction of Slavery, even in States professing loyalty, so that this crime against humanity, this disturber of the public peace, and this spoiler of the public liberties shall no longer exist anywhere to menace the general harmony, that civilization may be no longer shocked, that the constitutional guaranty of a republican form of government to every State may be fulfilled, that the Rebellion may be deprived of the traitorous aid and comfort Slavery has instinctively volunteered, and that the master claiming an unnatural property in human flesh may no longer defy the nation.

7. That, in addition to the guaranties stipulated by Congress, and as the cap-stone to its work of restoration and reconciliation, the Constitution itself must be so amended as to prohibit Slavery everywhere within the limits of the Republic; that such prohibition, leaving all personal claims, whether of slave or master, to the legislation of Congress and of the States, will be a sacred and inviolable guaranty, representing the collective will of the people of the United States, and placing Universal Emancipation under sanction of the Constitution, so that Freedom shall be engraved on every foot of the national soil and be woven into every star of the national flag, while it elevates and inspires our whole national existence, and the Constitution, so often invoked for Slavery, but at last in harmony with the Declaration of Independence, will become, according to the aspirations of its founders, sublime guardian of the inalienable right of every human being to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: all of which must be done in the name of the Union, in duty to humanity, and for the sake of permanent peace.

PRAYER OF ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON PRESENTING A PETITION OF THE WOMEN’S NATIONAL LEAGUE, PRAYING UNIVERSAL EMANCIPATION BY ACT OF CONGRESS, FEBRUARY 9, 1864.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I offer the petition now on the desk before me. It is too bulky for me to take up. I need not add that it is too bulky for any of our pages to carry.

This petition marks a stage of public opinion in the history of Slavery, and also in the suppression of the Rebellion. As it is short, I will read it.

“_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:--

“The undersigned, women of the United States above the age of eighteen years, earnestly pray that your honorable body will pass, at the earliest practicable day, an act emancipating all persons of African descent held to involuntary service or labor in the United States.”

There is also a duplicate of the petition, signed by “men above the age of eighteen years.”

It will be perceived that the petition is in rolls. Each roll represents a State. For instance, here is New York with a list of seventeen thousand seven hundred and six names, Illinois with fifteen thousand three hundred and eighty, and Massachusetts with eleven thousand six hundred and forty-one. But I will read the abstract with which I have been furnished.

State. Men. Women. Total. New York 6,519 11,187 17,706 Illinois 6,382 8,998 15,380 Massachusetts 4,249 7,392 11,641 Pennsylvania 2,259 6,366 8,625 Ohio 3,676 4,654 8,330 Michigan 1,741 4,441 6,182 Iowa 2,025 4,014 6,039 Maine 1,225 4,362 5,587 Wisconsin 1,639 2,391 4,030 Indiana 1,075 2,591 3,666 New Hampshire 393 2,261 2,654 New Jersey 824 1,709 2,533 Rhode Island 827 1,451 2,278 Vermont 375 1,183 1,558 Connecticut 393 1,162 1,555 Minnesota 396 1,094 1,490 West Virginia 82 100 182 Maryland 115 50 165 Kansas 84 74 158 Delaware 67 70 137 Nebraska 13 20 33 Kentucky 21 .. 21 Louisiana .. 14 14 Citizens of the United States living in New Brunswick 19 17 36 ------ ------ ------ 34,399 65,601 100,000

These several petitions are consolidated into one, being another illustration of the motto on our coin,--_E pluribus unum_.

This unprecedented petition is signed by one hundred thousand men and women, who unite in this unparalleled number to support its prayer. They are from all parts of the country, and from every condition of life: from the seaboard, fanned by the free airs of the ocean, and from the Mississippi and the prairies of the West, fanned by the free airs which vitalize that extensive region; from the families of the educated and uneducated, rich and poor, of every profession, business, and calling in life, representing every sentiment, thought, hope, passion, activity, intelligence, that inspires, strengthens, and adorns our social system. Here they are, a mighty army, one hundred thousand strong, without arms or banners, the advance-guard of a yet larger army.

Though memorable for numbers, these petitioners are more memorable for the prayer in which they unite. They ask nothing less than Universal Emancipation; and this they ask directly at the hands of Congress. No reason is assigned. The prayer speaks. It is simple, positive. So far as it proceeds from the women of the country, it is naturally a petition and not an argument. But I need not remind the Senate that there is no reason so strong as the reason of the heart. Do not all great thoughts come from the heart?

It is not for me at this moment to offer reasons which the one hundred thousand petitioners have forborne. But I may properly add, that, naturally and obviously, they all feel in their hearts, what reason and knowledge confirm, not only that Slavery _as a Unit_, one and indivisible, is the guilty origin of the Rebellion, but that its influence everywhere, even outside the Rebel States, is hostile to the Union, always impairing loyalty, and sometimes openly menacing the national cause. It requires no difficult logic to conclude that such a monster, wherever it shows its head, is a _National Enemy_, to be pursued and destroyed as such, or at least a nuisance to the national cause, to be abated as such.

The petitioners know well that Congress is the depository of those supreme powers by which rebellion, alike in its root and distant offshoots, may be surely crushed, while unity and peace are permanently assured. They know well that the action of Congress may be with the coöperation of the Slave-Masters, or even without their coöperation, under the overruling law of military necessity, or the commanding precept of the Constitution to guaranty a republican form of government. Above all, they know well that to save the country from peril, especially to save the national life, there is no power in the ample arsenal of self-defence which Congress may not grasp; for to Congress, under the Constitution, belongs the prerogative of the Roman Dictator, to see that the Republic receives no detriment. Therefore to Congress these petitioners appeal.

I ask the reference of the petition to the Select Committee on Slavery and Freedmen.

An earnest debate ensued, which ended in the reference of the petition.

EQUAL PAY OF COLORED SOLDIERS.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON DIFFERENT PROPOSITIONS, FEBRUARY 10, 29, AND JUNE 11, 1864.

February 3d, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, reported a joint resolution to equalize the pay of soldiers in the United States army, which provided that all persons of color, who have been or may be mustered into the military service of the United States, shall receive the same uniform, clothing, arms, equipments, camp equipage, rations, medical and hospital attendance, pay and emoluments, other than bounty, as other soldiers of the regular or volunteer forces of the United States of like arm of service, during the whole term in which they shall be or shall have been in such service, and every person of color who shall hereafter be mustered into the service shall receive such sums in bounty as the President shall order in the different States and parts of the United States, not exceeding one hundred dollars.

February 4th, the Senate considered the joint resolution. Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, “wished to inquire what propriety there is in our going back and paying them this increase for services already rendered.” Mr. Wilson thought, “as an act of justice, the bill should be retrospective,”--that “the gross injustice done by the country toward these men ought to be corrected.” Mr. Fessenden was in favor, and had ever been in favor, of putting colored soldiers on a level with white, but he was opposed to paying men for services already rendered, unless the men were promised full pay by orders emanating from the War Department. Mr. Sumner, after stating that there were two classes of enlistments, first, under the statute of 1861, and, secondly, under the statute of 1862, insisted that under the former statute any person of African descent might be enlisted and entitled to the same pay as a white soldier. “There was no limitation in the statute. There was no color there. There was nothing against the enlistment of colored men under that statute, except a blind prejudice which we ought to forget.” He concluded: “I wish to see our colored troops treated like white troops in every respect. But I would not press this first principle by any retroactive proposition, unless where the faith of the Government is committed, and there I would not hesitate. The Treasury can bear any additional burden better than the country can bear to do an injustice.”

February 10th, the subject being still under consideration, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I am grateful to the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. FOSTER] for his admirable argument on this question; and yet it seems to me, if he will pardon me, that even in point of law he has not stated the case as strongly in favor of this obligation as it might be stated. It may be remembered, that, when this discussion was closing, the other day, I ventured to throw out the remark, that there were evidently two classes of cases: the first, where enlistments in good faith were made under the statute of 1861; and the second, where they were made under the statute of 1862.

In point of law, it seems obvious, if enlistments were made in good faith under the statute of 1861, and there was no legal objection to those enlistments, then the United States are bound. If, on the contrary, they were made under the subsequent statute, then it is simply a question of policy and expediency whether we shall make this payment. The whole subject is open to discussion,--first, in the light of sentiment, which may involve expediency and policy, and, secondly, in the light of law. I shall not say anything upon it in the first aspect, except to make one remark,--that our country at this moment can ill afford to take the responsibility of refusing justice to colored soldiers whom it has allowed to shed their blood in its cause. The soul repudiates any such sacrifice,--for sacrifice it will be, at once of honor and of interest. I do not follow out this idea, but pass at once to the second aspect, which I called the question of law; and there I differ from my learned friend from Connecticut, when I say that there are certain colored regiments in the field who in point of law are entitled to the full wages of thirteen dollars a month.

MR. FOSTER. If the Senator will pardon me, I insisted on that fact, and said they were enlisted, not under the law, but under instructions from the Department, authorizing the officers to enlist them on the same terms that white troops were enlisted, which would be thirteen dollars per month.

MR. SUMNER. Very well. I still understood the Senator to imply that perhaps in point of law there might be some doubt whether the Government was liable for the thirteen dollars a month. I propose to carry the argument a little further, and show, by calling attention for one moment to the statutes,--not at any great length,--that, under the statutes themselves, the Government is obliged to pay certain regiments thirteen dollars a month.

I begin with the Massachusetts fifty-fourth and fifty-fifth regiments; and these may be taken as examples. I have before me the actual order under which those two regiments were raised.

“WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, January 26, 1863.

“_Ordered_, That Governor Andrew, of Massachusetts, is authorized, until further orders, to raise such number of volunteer companies of artillery for duty in the forts of Massachusetts and elsewhere, and such corps of infantry for the volunteer military service, as he may find convenient; _such volunteers to be enlisted for three years_,”--

Mark, Sir, if you please, the period of service,--“for three years,”--

“or until sooner discharged, _and may include persons of African descent_, organized into separate corps. He will make the usual needful requisitions on the appropriate staff bureaus and officers for the proper transportation, organization, supplies, subsistence, arms, and equipments, of such volunteers.

“EDWIN M. STANTON, _Secretary of War_.”

Now, on the face of this order, the Governor of Massachusetts is empowered to raise certain regiments in the volunteer service of the United States for three years. Under what statute? Under no other, surely, than the statute of 1861, for it was under that statute that the organization for three years was authorized. If you come to the later statute--and to that I ask particular attention--of July 17, 1862, which contains a special provision with reference to African troops, you will find that it is to raise troops for nine months.

“SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That the President be, and he is hereby, authorized, in addition to the volunteer forces which he is now authorized by law to raise, to accept the services of any number of volunteers, not exceeding one hundred thousand, as infantry, for a period of nine months, unless sooner discharged.”

And then, Sir, in section twelve of this same statute, the President is further empowered to employ persons of African descent. In section fifteen we come to the question of pay.

“_And be it further enacted_, That all persons who have been or shall be hereafter enrolled in the service of the United States under this Act”--

“Under this Act,”--an Act authorizing enrolments for nine months, not for three years--

“shall receive the pay and rations now allowed by law to soldiers, according to their respective grades: _Provided_, That persons of African descent, _who under this law shall be employed_, shall receive ten dollars per month and one ration, three dollars of which monthly pay may be in clothing.”

Now, Sir, you have the question precisely: Under what statute were these enlistments made? Were they under the nine months’ statute, or under the three years’ statute? To answer that question, look at the order of the War Department:--

“_Ordered_, That Governor Andrew, of Massachusetts, is authorized, until further orders, to raise such number of volunteer companies of artillery for duty in the forts of Massachusetts and elsewhere, and such corps of infantry for the volunteer military service, as he may find convenient; _such volunteers to be enlisted for three years, or until sooner discharged_.”

Here are no nine months’ men. There is nobody under the second statute, but all are clearly under the first by the plain language of the order. And this is none the less so, even if the second statute, so far as Africans are concerned, may be interpreted to sanction a longer term of enlistment.

Mark well, that “all persons who have been or _shall be hereafter enrolled in the service of the United States_ under this Act shall receive the pay and rations now allowed by law to soldiers.” (§ 15.) But were not the soldiers of the fifty-fourth and fifty-fifth Massachusetts regiments “enrolled in the service of the United States”? Unquestionably, if troops ever were enrolled.

But it is the _proviso_ that follows which causes the mischief. “Persons of African descent, _who under this law shall be employed_, shall receive ten dollars,” &c.

It is said that these colored soldiers were “employed,”--that is all,--not “enrolled,” but “employed”; and on this distinction the promise of Governor Andrew in the name of the National Government, and the honest expectations of the soldiers, are set aside.

The order of the Secretary of War is for “volunteer companies of artillery,” also for “corps of infantry,” “_to be enlisted for three years_,” “and may include persons of African descent.” The persons of African descent are to be included in the artillery or infantry “enlisted.” Such persons are in advance declared men to be _enlisted_. And yet the argument which denies them their well-earned wages asserts that they are only “employed,” and not enlisted. But if they are “employed,” then are the “corps of infantry” in which they are included “employed” also.

To me the conclusion seems irresistible, on the face of these facts, that these troops were enrolled or enlisted under the earlier statute. It is clear that Governor Andrew thought so at the time, and it is equally clear that the troops themselves thought so at the time.