a candidate recommended by the Board, he shall not be removed except
for good cause, and promotions shall be according to seniority, which
shall be determined in all cases by the dates of the recommendations of
the Board and the rank therein assigned; but it shall be allowable to
make one fifth of the promotions on account of merit irrespective of
seniority.
This bill found an unexpected response from the public press.
The _National Intelligencer_, at Washington, welcomed it.
“The object of this bill commands our entire approval, and
we hope it may equally receive the approval of Congress.
Its passage, more than any other single decision that could
be taken by Congress in the way of needed reforms, would
tend to correct abuses which threaten our whole political
system with wreck and ruin.”
The _Evening Post_, of New York, was equally explicit.
“This bill, if passed, would do away with what has become
one of the most serious vices in our political life, the
‘Spoils system,’ as it has been appropriately called.
Congress should, as soon as possible, provide some rules
for the reformation of this universal evil. The patronage
of the President and his Cabinet officers has increased, is
increasing, and ought to be diminished; it has become, by
the extension of the country, the increase of population
and wealth, and especially through the circumstances of the
present war, so vast as to be dangerous to the nation, if
it should chance to fall into the hands of unscrupulous and
wicked men. But, besides this, it is manifestly impossible
to carry on the immense business of the Government without
extraordinary and ruinous loss and waste, under the old
system of turning out the occupants of civil offices every
four years. The Government thus virtually refuses the
services of trained men, familiar with the office routine.
If we desire public affairs to be administered honestly
and economically, Congress must provide for the numerous
servants of the Government regular grades of promotion,
retention of office during good behavior, and, if possible,
a small retiring pension, which might be arranged in the
shape of an annuity and life insurance combined.”
The New York _Times_ noticed it at length, beginning,--
“Mr. Sumner has introduced a bill into the Senate, which,
owing to the general absorption of the public attention
in the great events which are taking place in the field,
will probably not attract much notice; but it nevertheless
attempts to deal with a matter which is of more importance,
we venture to say, to the stability of this Government
than any other one thing except the extinction of the
Rebellion. It is neither more nor less than a sweeping
measure of administrative reform, obliging all candidates
for situations in the public service to pass an examination
before a board appointed for the purpose, giving them
their offices during good behavior, and with promotion
through the various grades in the order of seniority, and a
retiring pension after a certain term of service.”
The _New Nation_, of New York, said:--
“Mr. Sumner has recently brought a bill in the Senate to
regulate the conditions of admission to public offices of
the highest importance to the country. This bill is based
upon the most equitable, the most sincerely republican,
and the most progressive principles as yet adopted in
any country. We have not sufficient space to review
this project at present. At the first glance we find it
deficient only in one respect, namely, in carrying respect
for seniority to too great an extent. If this bill is
passed, the era of inefficiency and favoritism, hitherto
prevailing, will be at an end.”
The New Bedford _Mercury_ said:--
“Mr. Sumner’s bill will cure the evils of which every
sensible man now complains, and avert the terrible dangers
which menace us. It contemplates a return to the practice
of the better days of the republic, and making that
practice the rule. ‘Is he capable? Is he honest?’ were the
inquiries propounded by Jefferson, when a candidate for
office was named.”
The New York _World_ devoted a leading article to the bill,
which it criticized.
“We had supposed, that, in the opinion of Mr. Sumner,
the disposition to be made of black men came nearest, in
legislative importance, to the crushing out of the Rebels.…
Mr. Sumner’s bill does not touch the evil in our clerical
system. The difficulty is not in want of examination,
classification, promotion, or pension, but springs, in the
first place, out of the manner in which the President,
through the heads of departments, exercises the appointing
power, and, in the next place, out of the conduct of
the clerks themselves, when in office. An examining
board cannot change the general character of the men the
President, directly or indirectly, sends before it.”
These notices show the interest excited by this effort. In the
various labors which occupied Mr. Sumner he was not able to
give it the attention it required. Meanwhile the cause found an
able advocate elsewhere.
The next step was by Hon. Thomas A. Jenckes, of Rhode Island,
who introduced into the House of Representatives, December
20, 1865, a bill “To regulate the Civil Service of the United
States,” which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Subsequently a special committee was appointed on the Civil
Service of the United States, with Mr. Jenckes as Chairman, and
June 13, 1866, he reported his bill to the House. Then again,
at the next session, he reported another bill, “To regulate the
Civil Service of the United States, and promote the efficiency
thereof,” which he sustained by a forcible and elaborate
speech; but the bill was laid on the table,--Yeas 72, Nays 66.
Other efforts followed at subsequent sessions, but without
success.
* * * * *
Meanwhile, in the Senate, on motion of Mr. Trumbull, of
Illinois, March 3, 1871, the following section was attached to
the General Appropriation Bill, then pending:--
“That the President of the United States be, and he is
hereby, authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations
for the admission of persons into the Civil Service of the
United States as will best promote the efficiency thereof,
and ascertain the fitness of each candidate, in respect
to age, health, character, knowledge, and ability, for
the branch of service into which he seeks to enter; and
for this purpose the President is authorized to employ
suitable persons to conduct said inquiries, to prescribe
their duties, and to establish regulations for the conduct
of persons who may receive appointments in the Civil
Service.”[341]
Under this provision President Grant appointed the following
Commissioners: George William Curtis, of New York; Alexander G.
Cattell, of New Jersey; Joseph Medill, of Illinois; and Dawson
A. Walker, E. B. Elliott, Joseph H. Blackfan, and David C. Cox,
of the District of Columbia: who, after careful consideration
during the summer and autumn, submitted a report December 18,
1871, with a schedule of rules and regulations, all of which
was promptly communicated to Congress by the President.
COLORED SUFFRAGE IN WASHINGTON.
REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON BILLS TO AMEND THE CITY CHARTER, MAY 12, 26,
27, 28, 1864.
February 13th, Mr. Harlan, of Iowa, asked, and by unanimous
consent obtained, leave to bring in a bill to amend section
five of an Act entitled “An Act to continue, alter, and amend
the charter of the city of Washington,” approved May 17, 1848,
and further to preserve the purity of elections and guard
against the abuse of the elective franchise, by a registration
of electors for the city of Washington, in the District of
Columbia; which was read the first and second time, and
referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.
March 8th, Mr. Dixon, from the Committee, reported the bill
without amendment.
March 17th, the bill was taken up and amended in unimportant
particulars.
May 6th, it was again taken up, when, after an amendment moved
by Mr. Dixon, Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, moved to amend the
bill in the first section by inserting the word “white” before
the word “male,” so as to confine the right of voting in
Washington to white male citizens. Mr. Sumner said at once, “I
hope not.” Mr. Cowan then spoke in favor of his amendment.
May 12th, Mr. Cowan remarked that the bill “would have the
effect, in some cases, of admitting negroes to the right of
suffrage, which, I may say, is obnoxious to the vast bulk of
the people of the Border States.” Mr. Harlan would vote for Mr.
Cowan’s amendment, “first, because it is manifest to the Senate
that the bill, without that provision in it, cannot now become
a law.” Mr. Willey, of West Virginia, spoke elaborately against
colored suffrage, winding up with this interrogatory: “Shall
we, without any petitions from the people of this District,
without anything before the Senate to indicate that this
bill, in any of its parts, is required by the people of this
District, undertake to say, of our own volition, that we will
impose upon them a provision which is odious to them, and will,
in my estimation, be disastrous in its results, not only here,
but in its influence on popular opinion everywhere in this
nation?”
Mr. Sumner followed.
MR. PRESIDENT,--Slavery dies hard. It still stands front to front
with our embattled armies, holding them in check. It dies hard on
the battle-field. It dies hard in the Senate Chamber. We have been
compelled during this session to hear various defences of Slavery,
sometimes in its most offensive forms. Slave-hunting has been openly
vindicated. And now, to-day, the exclusion of colored persons from the
electoral franchise, simply on account of color, is openly vindicated,
and the Senator from West Virginia, newly introduced into this Chamber
from a State born of Freedom, rises here to uphold Slavery in one of
its meanest products.
MR. WILLEY. Mr. President, I cannot pass that assertion
without giving it an unequivocal, categorical denial. I have
not vindicated Slavery in any of its aspects. I said to the
Senator, what perhaps he did not hear before, that, when he has
liberated by the sweat of his brow as many slaves as I have, he
can get up and make such a remark in regard to me.
MR. SUMNER. I said, Sir, that the Senator vindicated Slavery in
one of its meanest products. I repeat what I said. The Senator has
spoken, I do not know how long by the clock, to vindicate an odious
prejudice bequeathed by Slavery, having its origin in Slavery, and in
nothing else. Had Slavery never existed among us, there would have
been no such prejudice as that of which the Senator makes himself the
representative. Far better would it be for that Senator, who comes
into this Chamber as the representative of a new-born free State, had
he surrendered generously to the sentiment in which West Virginia had
its birth. But, instead, he comes forward and labors with unwonted
earnestness to perpetuate at the national capital an odious feature
derived from Slavery. The Senator says he has not vindicated Slavery.
If he has not used the word, he has vindicated the thing, in one of
its most odious features. He seeks to blast a whole race merely on
account of color. Would he ever have proposed such injustice, but for
the prejudices nursed by Slavery? Had not Slavery existed, would any
such idea have found place in a Senator naturally so generous and
humane? No, Sir,--he spoke with the voice of Slavery, which he cannot
yet forget. He spoke under the unhappy and disturbing influences which
Slavery has left in his mind.
Now, Sir, I am against Slavery, wherever it shows itself, whatever form
it takes. I am against Slavery, when compelled to meet it directly;
and I am against Slavery in all its products and its offspring. I
am against Slavery, when encountering the beast outright, or only
its tail. The prejudices of which the Senator makes himself the
representative to-day, permit me to say, are nothing but the tail of
Slavery. Unhappily, while we have succeeded in abolishing Slavery in
this District, we have not yet abolished the tail; and the tail has
representatives in the Senate Chamber, as the beast once had.
We have been reminded that we are engaged in a fearful conflict. The
Senator has reminded us of it. Senators nearer to me have reminded us
of it. This is too true; and now, as that conflict lowers, I invoke the
spirit of our fathers. They went forth to battle with the Declaration
of Independence on their lips, solemnly declaring that all men are born
equal, entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They
introduced no discrimination of color into that sacred text, nor into
the contemporary Articles of Confederation, nor into the Constitution
of the United States, which was the work of their hands. I am content
to be guided by their example. As they went forth to meet the enemy,
they placed themselves under the protection of the God of Justice. Let
us imitate them.
I had not intended to say a word on this occasion; but I could not
listen to the remarks of the Senator, so harsh and unfeeling toward
a whole race, belonging to the human family, like himself, without
interposing a solemn protest.
Since this debate began, I have sent to the Law Library for a volume
containing the authoritative words of a distinguished Southern
jurist, a slaveholder, with regard to the electoral franchise. It has
been a question, in what States, at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution, colored persons enjoyed this franchise. I say nothing
now about the more northern States; but there is a State, sometimes
referred to, with regard to which there is peculiar evidence: I mean
North Carolina. The enjoyment of the electoral franchise by colored
persons in that State for a long time after the Constitution is not
a matter of doubt. Her most eminent magistrate, the late Mr. Justice
Gaston, accomplished as a jurist and as a man, whom I remember well in
most agreeable personal intercourse, laid down the law of his State in
emphatic words. Pronouncing the opinion of the Supreme Court of North
Carolina in the case of _The State_ v. _Manuel_, in 1838, he said:--
“Slaves manumitted here become freemen, and therefore, if born
within North Carolina, are citizens of North Carolina; and all
free persons born within the State are born citizens of the
State.… The Constitution extended the elective franchise to
every freeman who had arrived at the age of twenty-one and paid
a public tax; _and it is a matter of universal notoriety, that,
under it, free persons, without regard to color, claimed and
exercised the franchise, until it was taken from free men of
color a few years since by our amended Constitution_.”[342]
There is still another case, that of _The State_ v. _Newsom_, which
was decided in 1844, where the Supreme Court of North Carolina, after
citing the opinion of Judge Gaston from which I have just read,
proceeds:--
“That case underwent a very laborious investigation, both by
the bar and the bench.… The case was brought here by appeal,
and was felt to be one of great importance in principle. It was
considered with an anxiety and care worthy of the principle
involved, and which gave it a controlling influence and
authority on all questions of a similar character.”[343]
Therefore not hastily or carelessly did the Supreme Court of North
Carolina declare colored persons to be voters under the State
Constitution.
Such was the constitutional law of North Carolina, fashioned by our
fathers under the influence of the Declaration of Independence. Sir, I
am content with that law. I do not think the Senator from Pennsylvania
[Mr. COWAN], though he represents a Northern State, can mend that law
from a Slave State. Nor do I think that any of us on this floor can
feel humbled, if our judgment is postponed to that of Judge Gaston
of North Carolina, who did not hesitate to declare positively the
constitutional law of human rights, by virtue of which colored persons
are citizens. And if they are citizens, how can you deny them the
electoral franchise?
I am content to leave the question here, adding, that, as I understand
it, I shall deem it my duty to vote against all propositions creating
any discrimination of color. At this moment of revolution, when our
country needs the blessing of Almighty God and the strong arms of all
her children, this is not the time for us solemnly to enact injustice.
In duty to our country, and in duty to God, I plead against any such
thing. We must be against Slavery in its original shape, and in all its
brood of prejudice and error.
This bill was never considered again; but the question of
colored suffrage in Washington reappeared.
May 24th, Mr. Wade, from the Committee on the District of
Columbia, reported a joint resolution to amend the charter of
the city of Washington, which was read twice and considered
as in Committee of the Whole. In reporting it, he said: “It
relates to the registration of voters; and if it is to be
passed at all, it ought to be passed immediately. I believe
there is no objection to it. It alters none of the present
qualifications of voters, but improves the present law as to
registration, which is very defective.”
May 26th, the consideration of the joint resolution was
resumed, when Mr. Sumner said:--
Examining this joint resolution, I find that it is entitled “A
Resolution to amend the charter of the city of Washington.” In that
aspect it is important. Looking into it, I find the provision,--
“That, in case any person shall offer and claim the right to
vote at any election held in the city of Washington, whose
name is not registered, his name shall be registered by the
Commissioners of Election upon the terms and conditions
following.”
It will be observed that the language is very broad. It is applicable
to any person who shall offer and claim the right to vote at any
election; and his name shall be registered upon certain specified
conditions. The first condition is, that he shall take a certain
oath; and if unable to understand the English language, it is further
provided that the oath shall be interpreted to him: so that this clause
actually contemplates that certain persons shall be registered who do
not speak the English language. It then proceeds:--
“If in his answers on oath he shall state positively that he
has resided in the city one year next preceding the day of said
election, designating particularly the place of his residence,
and that he possesses the other qualifications of an elector,
and if, furthermore, some qualified elector of the city, not
a candidate for any office at that election, shall take an
oath before said Commissioners, which any one of them may
administer, that he is well acquainted with such applicant,
that he is, in fact, a resident in the city, and has been one
year next previous to such election, and that he (qualified
elector) has good reason to believe, and does believe, that all
the statements of such applicant are true, the Commissioners
shall cause his name to be registered by their clerk, and shall
then receive the vote of said applicant.”
Now it is at once perceived from these words, that they are directly
applicable, in the first place, to any person who shall offer and
claim the right to vote at an election; but, after taking the oath,
he is to show residence for a certain term in the city, and also that
“he possesses the other qualifications of an elector.” What are “the
other qualifications of an elector”? I presume, if we go back to the
original charter, we shall find it is that qualification which, as I
said the other day, is the tail of Slavery,--that discrimination of
color left to us, unhappily, by the former presence of Slavery in the
national capital. I know not if the Committee propose to keep alive
that ancient and odious discrimination; but it seems to me, that, if
the language of this joint resolution be interpreted according to its
natural signification, and certainly as such language is apt to be
interpreted here in Washington, it must operate to the exclusion of
persons not of the favored color. I know my friend from Ohio does not
contemplate such exclusion; but a joint resolution to amend the charter
of the city of Washington ought to be made clear, and also in that
respect unobjectionable; it ought not to be the means of continuing and
of extending that odious discrimination. I therefore propose to amend
it by adding these words:--
“_Provided_, That there shall be no exclusion of any person
from the register on account of color.”
* * * * *
Mr. Wade was in favor of colored suffrage; but the Committee,
in reporting this measure, did “not contemplate going into the
question of the right of suffrage, or extending that right
beyond those who are at present authorized to exercise it. It
does not widen the suffrage; it does not narrow it.”
Mr. Sumner began a reply to Mr. Wade.
MR. PRESIDENT,--The argument of my friend from Ohio was, that the
measure now before the Senate is temporary in its character. That
is inconsistent with the title of the joint resolution, which is as
follows.
MR. WADE. Let me explain. I say temporary, because we all
know that there is a bill fixing the right of voting, that, I
suppose, is intended as a permanent law. This is temporary in
that view. That is all I meant.
MR. SUMNER. That certainly will not justify my friend in his argument,
for on the face of it this is permanent. It is as permanent as anything
else in the existing charter. Its title is, “A Resolution to amend the
charter of the city of Washington.” When this is done, what assurance
has my friend that anything else will be done? There is a bill on our
tables. How many other bills are there on other matters which we may
not reach during this session, or, if we reach, on which we cannot
expect harmonious votes in the two Houses!
Here Mr. Sumner was interrupted by the Tax Bill, which was the
order of the day.
May 27th, Mr. Sumner resumed.
I was interrupted yesterday by other business, called up while I was
replying to my friend from Ohio [Mr. WADE]. I did not propose any
extended reply.
It is with pain that I differ from friends. But with me there is no
choice. Here is a measure which opens the whole question of suffrage
in the national capital, and assumes the form of amendment to the
charter of the city of Washington. It provides that certain persons
shall be registered, including even those who cannot speak English; but
in positive terms _it continues and keeps alive the old rule founded
on color_. Now, Sir, I cannot sanction any such rule directly or
indirectly.
But it is said, that, in pressing my amendment, the original
proposition may be lost. This I shall regret much; for I desire its
passage sincerely. But I can see no reason why a discrimination of
color should be made in the bill, or in our proceedings. If white
persons are kept out of their rights, so are colored persons; and I
would ask my friend from Ohio, Which has been kept out the longest? I
am for the rights of both, to the end that we may have at last in the
national capital _Equality before the law_.
We are shocked daily by the report of outrages upon colored persons.
In Tennessee a colored woman has been murdered under the lash. Near
Fortress Monroe another colored woman has been cruelly treated under
the lash. This must be stopped. But I know no way so effective as to
set an example of justice and humanity. If we sanction slave-hunting,
if we disregard the rights of colored persons, if we treat them as
inferior in condition, unhappily, Sir, there are others who will follow
our example, and add a vindictive cruelty.
Therefore, insisting upon the rights of colored persons here, I insist
upon their rights everywhere. Nor do I see how I can abandon their
rights here without abandoning them everywhere. We are Senators of the
United States, bound to consider the whole country in all its extent,
and to do nothing here which shall do mischief elsewhere; nor can we
yield to any local pressure, or any imagined local interests, and thus
forget the cause of justice.
It is vain to say that this measure is temporary; for, in plain terms,
it undertakes to amend the charter of Washington. It is vain to say,
also, that there is another bill now on your calendar regulating this
whole question. Who can say that this bill will become a law? Ay, Sir,
who can say, that, in the hurried hours of these closing days of a
weary session, the bill will even be considered again? And yet on these
grounds we are asked to abandon the present assertion of the rights of
colored persons. If the bill conferring these rights can pass, so also
can the present measure. If it be practical to assert these rights on
one bill, it is equally practical to assert them on another, where such
assertion is germane. It only remains that Senators should stand firm.
For myself, I will not sanction injustice; nor will I miss any
opportunity of asserting the rights of an oppressed race. I may be
alone; but, to the extent of my powers, I mean to be right.
Mr. Morrill appealed to Mr. Sumner to withdraw his opposition,
saying: “Now, as a question of practical statesmanship, I
submit to my honorable friend whether it is not the part of
wisdom to say we will do this now and we will consider the
other question when it comes up.” Mr. Harlan moved to amend by
adding, “who have borne arms in the military service of the
United States, and have been honorably discharged therefrom.”
This amendment, limiting Mr. Sumner’s proposition, was agreed
to,--Yeas 26, Nays 12.
May 28th, Mr. Sumner spoke again, and adduced the details of
the recent outrage in Tennessee, saying, in conclusion:--
We all feel, Sir, the brutality of this act. It was done by a white
man on the person of a colored woman. Would he have been the author
of such a brutality, had the woman been white? No; because she was
black, he thus insulted human nature, and performed an act never to
be read without a blush that he is a member of the human family. And
how are we to discountenance such acts? Is it by keeping alive this
odious discrimination of color, by imparting to it the sanction of
law, by investing it with the authority of this Chamber? I appeal to
you, Senators, as men of humanity, do not continue a discrimination,
which, proceeding from this Chamber, must exercise a far-reaching
influence. It is not simply the question of a few voters more or less
in the District, but it is a question of human rights everywhere
throughout this land, involving the national character and its good
name forevermore.
Again, in reply to Mr. Reverdy Johnson, Mr. Sumner said:--
But the Senator thinks that I am not logical, because I quote an
outrage in Tennessee having its origin in the prejudice of color, and
insist that here in this Chamber we shall not found legislation on
a prejudice of color. Sir, I submit the question to the judgment of
the Senate: Am I illogical, or is the Senator so? I insist, Sir, that
you cannot sanction injustice here, especially you cannot sanction a
prejudice founded on color, without quickening that prejudice, and
sustaining it, wherever it now unhappily exists throughout our whole
country.
At the next stage of the joint resolution, the question
recurred on concurring with the amendment in Committee of the
Whole:--
“_Provided_, That there shall be no exclusion of any
persons from the register, on account of color, who have
borne arms in the military service of the United States,
and have been honorably discharged therefrom.”
And it was rejected,--Yeas 18, Nays 20. The joint resolution
was then passed.
And so this second battle for colored suffrage was lost.
VOTE OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS NECESSARY TO READMISSION OF REBEL
STATES.
RESOLUTION IN THE SENATE, MAY 27, 1864.
The Senate having under consideration the credentials of
certain claimants as Senators from Arkansas, Mr. Sumner offered
the following resolution:--
_RESOLVED_, That a State pretending to secede from the Union, and
battling against the National Government to maintain this pretension,
must be regarded as a Rebel State, subject to military occupation,
and without title to representation on this floor, until it has been
readmitted by a vote of both Houses of Congress; and the Senate will
decline to entertain any application from any such Rebel State, until
after such vote of both Houses of Congress.
June 13th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the resolution was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary, at the same time with a
joint resolution by Mr. Lane, of Kansas, recognizing the
existing government of Arkansas, and also the credentials of
the claimants as Senators.
June 27th, Mr. Trumbull from the Committee reported adversely
on all these references.
The requirement of this resolution was affirmed by the Senate,
when it adopted the amendment of Mr. Gratz Brown to the
Reconstruction Bill of the House, July 1st,[344] and it became
a corner-stone of Reconstruction.
NO TAX ON BOOKS.
REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON AMENDMENT OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE BILL, JUNE
2 AND 6, 1864.
The Senator from New York [Mr. MORGAN] has proposed the exemption of a
class of hospitals. I am in favor of his proposition. It is not now,
however, under discussion. In similar spirit I move to strike out, on
the one hundred and thirty-fifth page, lines two hundred and twelve,
two hundred and thirteen, and two hundred and fourteen, as follows:--
“On all printed books, magazines, pamphlets, reviews, and all
other similar printed publications, except newspapers, a duty
of five per cent _ad valorem_.”
I make one remark on this tax. We do not tax wheat or corn, because
they are the staff of life. In my judgment, a tax on books is less
defensible than a tax on wheat or on corn. I believe books are the
staff of life; and I believe that our country would do itself honor,
if at this moment, when imposing a heavy tax upon all things, it
deliberately exempted books. The tax proposed is applicable to all
books,--books for family reading, for the library, and also for the
school. All that we can get from the tax will be very small indeed. It
will not add sensibly to the Treasury, but it will impose a burden upon
knowledge. I hope, therefore, that the Senate will strike the words out.
The motion was rejected.
At the next stage of the bill Mr. Sumner renewed his motion to
strike out the tax on books, and then said:--
MR. PRESIDENT,--I am sorry to occupy the attention of the Senate, even
for a moment, especially at this late stage of a protracted debate.
But I feel that the question which I have presented is not adequately
appreciated. I venture to say, that, in point of principle, few
questions of equal importance have arisen on this bill.
The tax on books is peculiar, and, so far as I know, without precedent
in other countries. In England paper has been taxed, but books not;
here paper is to be taxed, and books too. For instance, there is to be
a tax of three per cent on paper, and then five per cent additional on
books, making a sum-total of eight per cent on books.
The tax of three per cent on paper seems contrary to sound policy.
But the additional tax of five per cent on books is more indefensible
still. I have already likened it to a tax on wheat or flour or bread,
which you do not think of imposing. More than either of these is a book
“the staff of life.” It may be likened also to a tax on the light of
day, like the English window-tax, which you do not think of imposing.
Better shut out the light of day than the light of books.
The book in some cases may be a luxury, but in most cases it is a
necessary, while always the handmaid of civilization. It is for all
ages and all conditions,--for young and old, for rich and poor, for the
family circle as well as the library,--but it is especially for the
school. In all these places you will enter and demand eight per cent on
every book. Every book, if it had a voice, would repel the demand.
Why not be instructed by the example of England, when taxing
everything taxable? Read the extensive list of articles taxed at the
period of most searching and wide-spread taxation, and you do not find
books. Read that marvellous enumeration made by the genius of Sydney
Smith, and you do not find books.
“Taxes upon every article which enters into the mouth, or
covers the back, or is placed under the foot; taxes upon
everything which it is pleasant to see, hear, feel, smell,
or taste; taxes upon warmth, light, and locomotion; taxes
on everything on earth and the waters under the earth, on
everything that comes from abroad or is grown at home; taxes
on the raw material; taxes on every fresh value that is added
to it by the industry of man; taxes on the sauce which pampers
man’s appetite, and the drug that restores him to health,--on
the ermine which decorates the judge, and the rope which hangs
the criminal,--on the poor man’s salt, and the rich man’s
spice,--on the brass nails of the coffin, and the ribbons of
the bride,--at bed or board, couchant or levant,--we must pay.
The school-boy whips his taxed top; the beardless youth manages
his taxed horse with a taxed bridle on a taxed road; and the
dying Englishman, pouring his medicine which has paid seven
per cent into a spoon that has paid fifteen per cent, flings
himself back upon his chintz bed which has paid twenty-two per
cent, and expires in the arms of an apothecary who has paid a
license of a hundred pounds for the privilege of putting him to
death. His whole property is then immediately taxed from two
to ten per cent. Besides the probate, large fees are demanded
for burying him in the chancel; his virtues are handed down
to posterity on taxed marble; and he is then gathered to his
fathers, to be taxed no more.”[345]
A passage so exquisite in wit and language is seasonable here,
especially when considering what shall be taxed; but I ask you to bear
in mind that the English tax-gatherer never laid his hand on a book.
Everything else he might touch,--a book never.
And yet in our country it is proposed to tax books. This is the land of
public schools, where you boast that education, like justice, is free
to all at the common cost. But a tax on books is in direct conflict
with this beautiful principle. Every argument for free schools pleads
also for free books,--at least for freedom from taxation. It will be
a curious inconsistency to rear the school-house, often costly, where
every child is welcomed without charge, and then compel him to pay a
tax of eight per cent on every book he carries in his satchel.
There is one term which fitly characterizes this tax. It is a term
adopted abroad, but more justly applicable to a tax on books than
to any other tax: I mean _a tax on knowledge_. Such is the tax now
proposed. And this tax, which cannot be named without awakening just
condemnation, you are asked to make an American institution. After long
struggle in England, the various _taxes on knowledge_ are abandoned. I
hope that our country, representative and defender of liberal ideas,
will not commence a system which modern civilization has disowned.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The motion was lost,--Yeas 8, Nays 19.
CREATION OF THE FREEDMEN’S BUREAU: A BRIDGE FROM SLAVERY TO FREEDOM.
SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON BILLS AND CONFERENCE REPORTS CREATING A
BUREAU OF FREEDMEN, JUNE 8, 14, 15, 1864, AND FEBRUARY 13, 21, 22, 1865.
March 1, 1864, after debate on different days in February, the
House of Representatives adopted a bill to establish a Bureau
of Freedmen’s Affairs.
March 2d, in the Senate, this bill was referred to the
Committee on Slavery and Freedmen, of which Mr. Sumner was
Chairman.
May 25th, Mr. Sumner reported the bill to the Senate with
a substitute. The intermediate period was occupied by the
Committee in a careful and laborious consideration of the
whole subject, involving the question of power proper for the
Bureau, whether it should be placed in the War Department or
in the Treasury Department, which already had the care of
abandoned lands. No less than nine different projects were
laid before the Committee, some by eminent citizens interested
in the freedmen, among whom were Hon. Robert Dale Owen, of
Indiana, Hon. John Jay, of New York, and Edward L. Pierce, of
Massachusetts. The House bill was not satisfactory. Mr. Owen
said, in a letter dated March 8th, “In my judgment the bill of
the House will not work.”
The bill reported by Mr. Sumner was drafted by him, and adopted
by the Committee. It was in ten sections, and began with these
words: “That an office is hereby created in the Treasury
Department, to be called the Bureau of Freedmen, meaning
thereby such persons as have become free since the beginning of
the present war.”
June 8th, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, when Mr.
Sumner explained and vindicated it.
MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senate only a short time ago was engaged for a week
considering how to open an iron way from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
It is now to consider how to open a way from Slavery to Freedom.
I regret much that only thus tardily we are able to take up the bill
for a Bureau of Freedmen. But I trust that nothing will interfere with
its consideration. In what I have to say, I shall confine myself to a
simple statement. If I differ from others, I beg to be understood it is
in no spirit of controversy and with no pride of opinion. Nothing of
the kind can enter justly into any such discussion.
I shall not detain the Senate to set forth the importance of this
measure. All must confess it at a glance. It is clearly a charity and a
duty.
By virtue of existing Acts of Congress, and also under the Proclamation
of the President, large numbers of slaves have suddenly become free.
These may be counted by the hundred thousand. In the progress of
victory they will be counted by the million.
As they derive their freedom from the United States, under legislative
or executive acts, the National Government cannot be excused from
making such provisions as may be required for their immediate
protection and welfare during the present _transition period_. The
freedom conferred must be rendered useful, or at least saved from being
a burden. Reports, official and unofficial, show the necessity of
action. In some places it is a question of life and death.
It is superfluous to quote at length from these reports, while all
testify alike, whether from Louisiana, South Carolina, Fortress Monroe,
Vicksburg, Tennessee, or Arkansas. I know not where the call is most
urgent. It is urgent everywhere; and in some places it is the voice of
distress.
Wherever our arms have prevailed, the old social system has been
destroyed. Masters have fled, and slaves have assumed a new character.
Released from former obligations, and often adrift in the world,
they naturally look to the prevailing power. Here, for instance, is
testimony which I take from an excellent report in the department of
Tennessee, under date of April 29, 1863:--
“Negroes, in accordance with the Acts of Congress, free on
coming within our lines, circulated much like water; the task
was to care for and render useful.
“They rolled like eddies around military posts; many of the
men employed in accordance with Order No. 72, district West
Tennessee; women and children largely doing nothing but eating
and idling, the dupes of vice and crime, the unsuspecting
sources of disease.”
From this statement Senators may form an idea of the numbers seeking
assistance.
The question is often asked as to the disposition of those persons to
labor. Here, also, the testimony is explicit. I have in my hand the
answers from different stations on this point.
“QUESTION. ‘What of their disposition to labor?’
“ANSWER. _Corinth._ ‘So far as I have tested it, better than I
expected; willing to work for money, except in waiting on the
sick. One hundred and fifty hands gathered five hundred acres
of cotton in less than three weeks, much of which time was bad
weather. The owner admitted that it was done more quickly than
it could have been done with slaves. When detailed for service,
they generally remained till honorably discharged, even when
badly treated. I am well satisfied, from careful calculations,
that the contrabands of this camp and district have netted
the Government, over and above all their expenses, including
rations, tents, &c., at least $3,000 per month, independent of
what the women do, and all the property brought through our
lines from the Rebels.’
“_Cairo._ ‘Willing to labor, when they can have proper motives.’
“_Grand Junction._ ‘Have manifested considerable disposition to
escape labor, having had no sufficient motives to work.’
“_Holly Springs and Memphis._ ‘With few exceptions, generally
willing, even without pay. Paid regularly, they are much more
prompt.’
“_Memphis._ ‘Among men better than among women. Hold out to
them the inducements, benefit to themselves and friends,
essential to the industry of any race, and they would at once
be diligent and industrious.’
“_Bolivar._ ‘Generally good; would be improved by the idea of
pay.’”
Here, also, is a glimpse at Newbern, North Carolina, under date of
February 26, 1864:--
“Immediately on my return here, on the 12th of October, I
instituted measures for placing the different abandoned
plantations within our lines in this State under proper
management and cultivation. As soon as it became known, that,
as supervising Treasury agent, I had charge of this property, I
was visited by hundreds (and I might correctly say thousands)
of contrabands, along with numerous white persons, desiring to
obtain privileges to work upon the same.”
And here is the testimony of General Banks, in Louisiana:--
“Wherever in the department they have been well treated and
reasonably compensated, they have invariably rendered faithful
service to their employers. From many persons who manage
plantations I have received the information that there is no
difficulty whatever in keeping them at work, if the conditions
to which I have referred are complied with.”
I do not quote further, for it would simply take time. But I cannot
forbear adding that the report from the Commissioners on Freedmen,
appointed by the Secretary of War, accumulates ample testimony on this
head, all showing that the freedmen are anxious to find employment.
Your Treasury testifies to their productive power, for it contains at
this moment more than a million dollars which have come from the sweat
of freedmen.
It is evident, then, that the freedmen are not idlers. They desire
work. But, in their helpless condition, they have not the ability
to obtain it without assistance. They are alone, friendless, and
uninformed. The curse of Slavery is still upon them. Somebody must
take them by the hand,--not to support them, but simply to help them
obtain the work which will support them. Thus far private societies in
different parts of the country, at the East and the West, especially
at all the principal centres, have done much toward this charity.
But private societies are inadequate to the duties required. The
intervention of the National Government is necessary. Without such
intervention, many of those poor people, freed by our acts in the
exercise of a military necessity, will be left to perish.
The service required is too vast and complex for unorganized
individuals. It must proceed from the National Government. This alone
can supply the adequate machinery, and extend the proper network of
assistance, with the proper unity of operation. The National Government
must interfere in the case, precisely as in building the Pacific
Railroad. Private charity in our country is active and generous; but it
is powerless to cope with the evils arising from a wicked institution;
nor can it provide a remedy, where society itself is overthrown.
There are few who will not admit that something must be done by the
Government. Cold must be the heart that could turn away from this call.
But whatever is done must be through some designated agency; and this
brings me to another aspect of the question.
The President in his Proclamation of Emancipation has used the
following language: “I recommend to them,”--that is, to the
freedmen,--“that in all cases, when allowed, they labor faithfully
for reasonable wages.” Such is the recommendation from that supreme
authority which decreed Emancipation. They are to labor, and for
reasonable wages. But the President does not undertake to say how this
opportunity shall be obtained,--how the laborer shall be brought in
connection with the land, how his rights shall be protected, and how
his new-found liberty shall be made a blessing. It was enough, perhaps,
on the occasion of the Proclamation, that the suggestion should be
made. Faithful labor and reasonable wages: let these be secured, and
everything else will follow. But how shall they be secured?
Different subjects, as they become important, are committed to special
bureaus. I need only refer to Patents, Agriculture, Public Lands,
Pensions, and Indian Affairs,--each under the charge of a separate
Commissioner. Clearly, the time has come for a Bureau of Freedmen.
In speaking of this agency, I mean a bureau which will be confined
in operation to the affairs of freedmen, and not travel beyond this
increasing class to embrace others, although of African descent. Our
present necessity is to help those made free by the present war; and
the term “freedmen” describes sufficiently those who have once been
slaves. It is this class we propose to help during the _transition
period_ from Slavery to Freedom. Call it charity or duty, it is sacred
as humanity.
And here a practical question arises with regard to the department in
which this bureau should be placed. There are reasons for placing it in
the War Department, at least during the war. There are other reasons
for placing it in the Department of the Interior, which has charge of
Indian Affairs, Pensions, and Patents. But, whatever the reasons on
general grounds for placing it in one of these two departments, there
are other reasons, of special importance at this moment, which point
to the Treasury Department. Indeed, after careful consideration, the
Committee were satisfied that it was so clearly associated with other
interests already intrusted to this department, that it could not be
advantageously administered elsewhere. Although beginning this inquiry
with a conviction in favor of the War Department, I could not resist
the conclusion of the Committee.
Look, for one moment, at the class of duties already imposed upon the
Treasury Department in connection with the very homes of these freedmen.
Congress has, by special Acts, conferred upon the Secretary of the
Treasury extraordinary powers with regard to trade in the Rebel
States. There is, first, the Act of July 13, 1861, entitled “An Act
further to provide for the collection of duties on imports, and for
other purposes,” which declares that commercial intercourse with any
State or part of a State in rebellion, when licensed by the President,
“shall be conducted and carried on _only in pursuance_ of rules and
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.” And it is
further provided, that “the Secretary of the Treasury may appoint
such officers, at places where officers of the customs are not now
authorized by law, as may be needed to carry into effect such licenses,
rules, and regulations.”[346]
There is another Act of Congress, approved May 20, 1862, supplementary
to that just named, which confers additional powers upon the Secretary
of the Treasury with reference to trade with “any place in the
possession or under the control of insurgents against the United
States.”[347]
There is also the Act of June 7, 1862, entitled “An Act for the
collection of direct taxes in insurrectionary districts within the
United States, and for other purposes.” In this Act it is provided,
(section nine,) that, where the Board of Commissioners shall be
satisfied that the owners of lands “have left the same to join the
Rebel forces, or otherwise to engage in and abet this Rebellion, and
the same shall have been struck off to the United States at public
sale, the said Commissioners shall, in the name of the United States,
enter upon and take possession of the same, and may lease the same,
together or in parcels, to any person or persons who are citizens of
the United States”; and (section ten) the Commissioners “shall from
time to time make such temporary rules and regulations and insert such
clauses in said leases as shall be just and proper to secure proper and
reasonable employment and support, at wages or upon shares of the crop,
of such persons and families as may be residing upon the said parcels
or lots of land, which said rules and regulations are declared to be
subject to the approval of the President.”[348] The execution of this
Act is lodged in the Treasury Department.
Then comes the Act of Congress, approved March 12, 1863, entitled “An
Act to provide for the collection of abandoned property and for the
prevention of frauds in insurrectionary districts within the United
States,” under which the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized “to
appoint a special agent or agents to receive and collect all abandoned
or captured property in any State or Territory or any portion of any
State or Territory of the United States, designated as in insurrection
against the lawful Government of the United States.” The Act proceeds
with details on the subject.[349]
Such are powers conferred by Congress upon the Treasury Department
concerning trade and abandoned property in the Rebel States. These were
followed by a general order from the War Department, as follows:--
“GENERAL ORDERS, No. 331.
“WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT-GENERAL’S OFFICE,
“WASHINGTON, October 9, 1863.
“The President orders:--
“1. All houses, tenements, lands, and plantations, except
such as may be required for military purposes, which have
been or may be deserted and abandoned by insurgents within
the lines of the military occupation of the United States
forces in States declared by proclamation of the President to
be in insurrection, will hereafter be under the supervision
and control of the supervising special agents of the Treasury
Department.
“2. All commanders of military departments, districts, and
posts will, upon receipt of this order, surrender and turn over
to the proper supervising special agent such houses, tenements,
lands, and plantations, not required for military uses, as may
be in their possession or under their control; and all officers
of the army of the United States will at all times render to
the agents appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury all such
aid as may be necessary to enable them to obtain possession of
such houses, tenements, lands, and plantations, and to maintain
their authority over the same.
“By order of the Secretary of War.
“E. D. TOWNSEND,
“_Assistant Adjutant-General_.”
By this order, the Treasury Department is substituted for the War
Department in jurisdiction over “houses, tenements, lands, and
plantations deserted and abandoned by insurgents within the lines of
military occupation.” This is broad, but it is positive.
In pursuance of these Acts of Congress, and of this order of the War
Department, the Secretary of the Treasury has proceeded to appoint
special agents and to establish a code of regulations. I have in my
hands a small volume, entitled “Commercial Intercourse with and in
States declared in Insurrection, and the Collection of Abandoned
and Captured Property,”[350] containing the statutes and also the
departmental regulations on the subject. It appears that there is
already an organization under the Secretary of the Treasury, and also a
system, each of reasonable completeness, to carry out these purposes.
* * * * *
In determining where the Bureau of Freedmen should be placed, it
becomes important to consider the interests it is proposed to guard;
and this brings me to another aspect of the question.
Looking at the freedmen whose welfare is in question, we find that
their labor may be classified under two different heads: first,
_military_; and, secondly, _predial_, or relating to farms. There are
still other laborers, including especially mechanics; but these are
chiefly in the towns. The large mass are included in the two classes
I have named. It is, therefore, these two classes that are to be
particularly considered.
1. The first class is already provided for. It appears that one
hundred thousand freedmen are already engaged in the military service
as soldiers or laborers. Others will continue to be engaged in this
way. These are all naturally and logically under the charge of the
War Department; nor do they need the superintendence of the proposed
bureau. The Act of Congress equalizing their condition in the army of
the United States is better for them than any bureau.
2. But there will remain the other larger class, consisting in the
main of women and children and farm laborers, who must find employment
on the abandoned lands. To this labor they are accustomed. These lands
are their natural home. But this class must naturally and logically
come under the charge of the department which has charge of the
abandoned lands. Conceding that all in the military service fall under
the superintendence of the War Department, it follows with equal reason
that all who labor on the lands must fall under the superintendence
of the Treasury Department, so long, at least, as this department has
charge of the lands.
This conclusion seems so reasonable that your Committee were not able
to resist it. But the testimony of persons who have given particular
attention to the question is also explicit; so that experience is in
harmony with reason. I have in my hands a letter from Colonel McKaye,
an eminent citizen of New York, and also a member of the Commission to
inquire and report on this subject, appointed by the Secretary of War.
After visiting South Carolina and Louisiana, expressly to study the
necessities of freedmen, and to ascertain what could be done to benefit
them, he thus expresses himself:--
“_In the first place_, everybody who has had any _practical
experience_ of the working of the plantations or of the
superintendence of negro labor will tell you that _the control
of the abandoned plantations and the care of the colored people
must be in the same hands_.”
You will not fail to observe how positively this _expert_ speaks.
According to him, all who have had “practical experience” insist that
the care of the freedmen and of the plantations should be “in the same
hands”; and so important does he regard this point that he places it
first in consideration.
But Colonel McKaye is not alone. Here is a letter from Hon. Robert
Dale Owen, Chairman of the Commission on Freedmen, appointed by the
Secretary of War, which testifies as follows:--
“It will never do to have Treasury agents who lease the lands
to white men, and War Department agents who assign the same
lands to colored people. Nothing but confusion and conflict of
authority can result. It will not work at all. But even if it
would, why employ two sets of agents to do what one set can do
much better? And who is to inspect the leased plantations, and
see to it that neither employers nor employed are wronged? The
men who gave the leases? But they are Treasury agents, and have
nothing to do with freedmen. Or the Freedmen’s Commissioners?
But what authority can they have over men who do not hold their
leases from them? _The men who have the care of the laborer
ought to have the leasing of the land and the inspection of
the leases_; and they should be authorized to lease equally to
white and to colored people.”
Such a statement is an argument.
This conclusion has the support also of General Banks, in a letter
addressed to one of the Freedmen’s Commission. Here are his words:--
“The assignment of the abandoned or forfeited plantations
to one department of the Government, and the protection and
support of the emancipated people to another, _is a fundamental
error productive of incalculable evils, and cannot be too soon
or too thoroughly corrected_.”
The able and elaborate report from the Freedmen’s Commission, just
published, considers this question carefully. Nothing could be more
explicit than the following testimony.
“But, in the judgment of the Commission, the most serious error
in connection with the present arrangements for the care and
protection of these people _arises out of the assignment to
a different agency of the care and disposal of the abandoned
plantations_. To enter into the detail of all the evils and
abuses that have arisen out of this error, and which are
unavoidable so long as it continues to exist, would occupy too
great a space in this report. Suffice it to say, that it is
the source of the greatest confusion and a perpetual collision
between the different local authorities, in which not only the
emancipated population, but the Government itself, suffers the
most serious injuries and losses.
…
“And this is the purport of all the testimony which the
Commission has been able to obtain, not in the department of
the Gulf only, but everywhere, in relation to this matter.
“The unhesitating judgment of every person, official or other,
not interested in the opportunities it affords for peculation,
with whom we have consulted, coincides with that of General
Banks. All, without exception, declare that no system can
avail to effect the great objects contemplated that does not
assign to one and the same authority the care and disposal of
the abandoned plantations and the care and protection of the
emancipated laborers who are to cultivate them.
“_And, after the most thorough investigations, I am authorized
in saying that this is the deliberate judgment of the
Commission._”[351]
It was on this ground of reason, and yielding to the influence of such
authoritative opinions, that the Committee were led to believe that
there was no alternative on this practical question.
In the course of their inquiries the Committee sought the opinion of
the Secretary of the Treasury. With the heavy burdens of his department
resting on his shoulders, he does not desire any additional labor; but
he does not conceal his conviction that the care of the freedmen must
for the present be associated with the care of the lands. He would be
glad to be relieved of all the responsibilities connected with the
subject, but he hopes that it will not be divided between two different
departments. In that event it is feared that there will be little good
from either.
I have dwelt with some minuteness on this question, because it seems
to be the practical point on which there may be difference of opinion.
Already gentlemen have taken sides, and newspapers also. I regret this
difference, but I trust that a calm and dispassionate consideration of
the subject will render it innocuous. The first thought of all should
be for the freedmen.
* * * * *
There is another point, which ought not to be passed over in silence,
arising from the just desire to protect the freedmen from any system of
serfdom or enforced apprenticeship. It is well known that among former
slave-masters there are many who continue to count upon appropriating
the labor of their slaves, if not under the name of Slavery, at least
under some other system by which freedmen shall be effectually held to
service. This very phrase “held to service,” standing alone, is the
pleonastic definition of Slavery itself. One of these slave-masters, in
a public speech, said: “There is really no difference, in my opinion,
whether we hold them as absolute slaves or obtain their labor by some
other method. Of course we prefer the old method; but that question is
not now before us.”[352] Such barefaced avowals were not needed to put
humane men on their guard against the conspiracy to continue Slavery
under another name.
The bill before the Senate provides against any such possibility by
requiring that the assistant commissioners and local superintendents
shall not only aid the freedmen in the adjustment of their wages, but
shall take care that they do not suffer from ill-treatment or any
failure of contract on the part of others,--and also that the contracts
for service shall be limited to a year. The latter provision is so
important that I give it precisely.
“_Provided_, That no freedmen shall be held to service on any
estate above mentioned otherwise than according to voluntary
contract, reduced to writing, and certified by the assistant
commissioner or local superintendent; nor shall any such
contract be for a longer period than twelve months.”
Here is a safeguard against serfdom or enforced apprenticeship which
seemed to the Committee of especial value. In this respect the House
bill was thought to be fatally defective, inasmuch as it interposed no
positive safeguards.
I do not know how extensive the desire may be to set Slavery again
on its feet under another name. But when we take into consideration
the selfish tendencies of business, the disposition of the strong to
appropriate the labor of the weak, and the reluctance of slave-masters
to renounce habitual power, I have felt that Congress would fail in
its duty, if it did not by special provision guard against any such
outrage. There must be no Slavery under an _alias_. This infinite wrong
must not be allowed to skulk in serfdom or compulsory labor. “Once
free, always free,”--such is the maxim of justice and jurisprudence.
But any system by which the freedmen may be annexed to the soil, like
the old _adscripti glebæ_, will be in direct conflict with their newly
acquired rights. They can be properly bound only by contract; and
considering how easily they may be induced to enter into engagements
ignorantly or heedlessly, and thus become the legal victims of
designing men, it is evident that no precautions in their behalf can be
too great.
It is well known that in some of the British West Indies an attempt
was made, at the period of emancipation, to establish a system of
apprenticeship, which should be an intermediate condition between
Slavery and Freedom. But the experiment failed. In some of the
islands it was abandoned by the planters themselves, who frankly
accepted emancipation outright; and in all it finally fell before the
irresistible eloquence of Brougham. Here is a passage from one of his
speeches.
“They who always dreaded Emancipation, who were alarmed at
the prospect of negro indolence, who stood aghast at the
vision of negro rebellion, should the chains cease to rattle
or the lash to resound through the air, gathering no wisdom
from the past, still persist in affrighting themselves and
scaring you with imaginary apprehensions from the transition
to entire freedom out of the present intermediate state. But
that intermediate state is the very source of all their real
danger; and I disguise not its magnitude from myself. You have
gone too far, if you stop here and go no farther; _you are in
imminent hazard, if, having loosened the fetters, you do not
strike them off_,--if, leaving them ineffectual to restrain,
you let them remain to gall and to irritate and to goad. Beware
of that state, yet more unnatural than slavery itself, _liberty
bestowed by halves_.
…
“I have demonstrated to you that everything is ordered, every
previous step taken, all safe, by experience shown to be safe,
for the long desired consummation. The time has come, the
trial has been made, the hour is striking; you have no longer
a pretext for hesitation or faltering or delay. The slave
has shown, by four years’ blameless behavior and devotion to
the pursuits of peaceful industry, that he is as fit for his
freedom as any English peasant, ay, or any lord whom I now
address. I demand his rights,--_I demand his liberty without
stint_,--in the name of justice and of law, in the name of
reason, in the name of God, who has given you no right to work
injustice.”[353]
But surely there is no need of eloquence or persuasion to induce you
to set your faces like flint against any such half-way system. Freedom
already declared must be secured completely, so that it may not fail
through any pretension or fraud of wicked men. The least that can be
done is what is proposed by your Committee.
Much more might be said on the whole subject; but I forbear. I have
opened to consideration the two principal questions. If the Senate
agree with the Committee, first, on the importance of keeping the
superintendence of the freedmen and of lands in the same hands, so as
to avoid local conflict and discord, and, secondly, in the importance
of providing surely against any system of serfdom or adscription to the
soil, the bill of the Committee must be adopted.
For the sake of plainness, I ask attention to the general character of
the bill in its main features.
1. It provides exclusively for freedmen, meaning thereby “such persons
as have once been slaves,” without undertaking to embrace persons
generally of African descent.
2. It seeks to secure for such freedmen the opportunity of labor on
those lands which are natural and congenial to them, and on this
account it places superintendence of the freedmen in a department
having superintendence of the lands.
3. It provides positively against any system of enforced labor or
apprenticeship, by requiring contracts between the freedmen and their
employers to be carefully attested before local officers.
4. It establishes careful machinery for the purposes of the bill, both
as regards freedmen and as regards lands.
But the bill is seen not only in what it does, but also in what it
avoids doing.
It does not undertake too much. It does not assume to provide ways and
means for the support of the freedmen; but it does look to securing
them the opportunities of labor according to well-guarded contracts and
under the friendly advice of agents of the Government, who will take
care that they are protected from abuse of all kinds.
It is the declared duty of the agents “to protect these persons in
the enjoyment of their rights, to promote their welfare, and to secure
to them and their posterity the blessings of liberty.” Under these
comprehensive words all that is proper and constitutional is authorized
for their welfare and security, while labor is made to go hand in hand.
Thus far in the sad history of this people labor has been compelled by
Slavery. But the case at last will be reversed. It is Liberty that will
conduct the freedman to the fields, protect him in his toil, and secure
to him all its fruits.
In closing what I have to say on this subject, allow me to read the
official testimony of the Commission on Freedmen, appointed by the
Secretary of War, in their recent report.
“For a time we need a Freedmen’s Bureau,--but not because these
people are negroes, only because they are men who have been
for generations despoiled of their rights. The Commission has
heretofore--to wit, in the Supplemental Report made to you in
December last--recommended the establishment of such a bureau;
and they believe that all that is essential to its proper
organization is contained, substantially, in a bill to that
effect, reported, on April 12, from the Senate Committee on
Slavery and Freedmen.”[354]
This is the bill before us.
It is for the Senate to determine, under the circumstances, what it
will do. My earnest hope is that it will do something. The opportunity
must not be lost of helping so many persons now helpless, and of aiding
the cause of reconciliation, without which peace cannot be assured. In
this spirit I leave the whole subject to the judgment of the Senate. If
anything better than the work of the Committee can be found, I hope it
will be adopted; meanwhile I ask you to accept what is now offered.
After various amendments moved by Mr. Sumner, the bill was
violently opposed by Mr. Richardson, of Illinois. In the course
of his speech the following colloquy occurred.
MR. RICHARDSON. The Senator from Massachusetts will be able
to carry his proposition next winter, if the people can be
deceived to reëlect Lincoln.
MR. SUMNER. I hope this summer.
MR. RICHARDSON. You have no show in the world this summer.
If you could carry that proposition now, you could not
carry one of the Northwestern States this fall.
June 14th, the consideration of the bill was renewed, when Mr.
Hendricks, of Indiana, spoke against it. He moved to strike out
“Treasury Department,” and insert “Department of the Interior.”
On this motion Mr. Sumner said:--
The point to which the Senator directs attention was considered very
carefully by the Committee. Were this a moment of peace, I believe the
Committee would have been unanimous in the idea of the Senator. Indeed,
it seems to me, the reasons for it in time of peace are unanswerable.
It is in the Interior Department that we place the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, the Bureau of Pensions, the Bureau of Patents, the Bureau of
Public Lands; and a Bureau of Freedmen would be more or less germane
to all these interests. It would naturally be lodged in the same
department with them. Naturally it belongs to the Interior; there
can be no question about it. The Senator, therefore, is perfectly
right, when he makes the suggestion. But the Senator should take into
consideration that at this moment we are acting provisionally, and not
permanently,--under suggestions growing out of the present state of the
country, and not as if we were in a condition of permanent peace.
In placing the bureau where the Committee have placed it, they
followed what seemed the necessities of the case. Congress, by previous
legislation, has practically placed the bureau in the Treasury
Department,--or rather it has rendered it necessary that it should be
placed there, unless we are willing by legislation to create a conflict
between two different departments. Congress has already placed in the
Treasury Department the control of the business relations between
the Rebel States and the Loyal States, and also the control of the
abandoned lands and plantations in the Rebel States. Now, as I tried to
exhibit the other day, when I opened this question, the main interest
for the moment is how to bring the freedmen in connection with the
lands. If you go beyond that, if you undertake to provide means for
their support, you assume what I believe the country does not expect
you to assume, and what I believe those who have the welfare of that
people most at heart do not venture to counsel. We desire to secure
for them opportunity,--opportunity to work: that is the main point,
and that can be secured only by bringing them in connection with the
lands. The care and guardianship of the lands where it is proposed to
place the freedmen have already, by previous legislation, I repeat,
been lodged with the Treasury Department. Therefore, naturally and
logically, it seems to follow, unless you are willing to create a
conflict between two different departments, or between the agents
of two different departments, that you should place the care of the
freedmen in the same department.
Sir, I am not alone in this view. The other day I presented it, and
gave opinions on the subject, to which I now call attention: one is a
private letter from Hon. Robert Dale Owen, and the other is part of the
Report of the Freedmen’s Commission, appointed by the Secretary of War
to consider, among other questions, that now before the Senate.[355]
The amendment of Mr. Hendricks was rejected. Mr. Willey, of
West Virginia, then spoke against the bill. He said: “In my
opinion, after as close and careful an examination of this bill
as I have been able to give to it, its proper title would be ‘A
bill to reënslave freedmen.’ … Sir, in the name of Liberty and
Emancipation I protest against the passage of any such bill by
the American Senate.”
June 15th, the debate was continued, when the bill was opposed
by Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, Mr. Hicks, of Maryland, and Mr.
Grimes, of Iowa. Mr. Ten Eyck, of New Jersey, spoke in favor
of it. Mr. Carlile, of Virginia, moved to postpone its further
consideration to the first Monday of December next, which was
lost,--Yeas 13, Nays 23. Mr. Grimes was particularly severe in
his criticism, which drew from Mr. Sumner the following reply.
I am sorry that I am obliged to say another word in this debate. I had
hoped to be excused. But the remarks of the Senator from Iowa [Mr.
GRIMES] leave me no alternative.
I am not astonished at the opposition this bill has encountered
from Senators over the way. It is their vocation to oppose every
such measure, and to give it, if possible, a bad name. They believe
in Slavery more or less, and will not do anything to remove it or to
mitigate its terrible curse. There is the Senator from West Virginia
[Mr. WILLEY], who gives us smooth words for Freedom, with boasts of the
slaves he has emancipated, and then straightway, by voice and vote,
sustains slave-hunting, and, if possible, worse still, startles the
Senate by a menace that slaves set free by Act of Congress will be
reënslaved by States restored to the Union. That this Senator should
attack a bill for a Bureau of Freedmen is perfectly natural; nor am
I astonished that he should misrepresent its character. But I cannot
conceal my surprise at the course of the Senator from Iowa, who I know
has no love for Slavery, and no congenital, persistent, and rooted
prejudices against the colored race. If the Senator from West Virginia
spoke naturally, allow me to say that my friend from Iowa spoke
unnaturally.
Sir, the Senator has not done justice to the bill he undertook to
criticize. It was evident that he spoke hastily, without having even
read it. At least, this is not an improper assumption, when we consider
some of his criticisms. It will be remembered how promptly I corrected
him, while he was picturing the Assistant Commissioners as so utterly
without restraint that they were not even obliged to make reports.
I rose and read the clause in the bill expressly requiring not only
“quarterly reports,” but “other special reports from time to time.”
The Senator, surprised by this provision, replied, that it was at the
close of the bill, and was evidently an afterthought. This, again,
was a mistake. Had he read the bill carefully, he would have found,
that, whatever its merits in other respects, everything is introduced
in its proper place, and this provision is no exception. There is
no afterthought in the bill. The Senator then complained that the
Assistant Commissioner was not obliged to give a bond. Here, again,
he was mistaken. By an amendment moved by myself this was required.
All this was part of the attempt to show that the bureau had not been
planned with sufficient care. Suffice it to say that there is no bureau
of the Government constituted with more care, or surrounded with more
safeguards against abuse. Much, in the last resort, must be confided to
the honesty of public servants; but in the present case they are all
placed under the observation of their superiors. Superintendents will
be observed by the Assistant Commissioner, who will be observed by the
Commissioner, and all will be under the observation of the Secretary of
the Treasury, who himself is under the observation of the President;
and I need not add that the whole will be subject to the oversight of a
humane and enlightened people, awakening daily to a sense of obligation
which cannot be postponed.
I am not wrong, then, when I say that the Senator did injustice to
the bill in his criticism on its structure and the machinery it
establishes. But this was the smallest part of his injustice. He went
further, and, following the Senator from West Virginia, asserted that
it gave the Commissioner unlimited power and control, so as to hand
the unhappy freedman over to Slavery under another name. I looked at
the Senator to see if he were really serious, as he made this strange
accusation against a measure conceived in a sentiment of humanity and
equity, and, by positive provisions, guarding every freedman against
the very outrage which the Senator professes to fear. He seemed to be
serious, as he repeated the accusation. But as he had erred with regard
to the restraints upon the Assistant Commissioners, so he erred in the
graver impeachment which he launched here.
The Senator began by saying that the bill, according to its definition
of freedmen, was applicable to all “once slaves,” and that even Robert
Small, the patriot slave who navigated the “Planter” out of Charleston
and gave it to us, would come under its provisions. Very well. Suppose
he does. Can he suffer from it? Does he lose anything by it? Can
anybody under this bill exercise any power or control over Robert
Small? The Senator forgets that the bill assumes that all are free, and
in every respect entitled to all the privileges of freemen,--that they
are invested with every right the Senator himself possesses, and, if
these rights are violated, they may look for a remedy to any court of
justice precisely as he could. None of these rights are infringed. On
the contrary, the officers under the bill are charged to see that the
freedmen are secure in their rights; so that Robert Small himself, if
the occasion required, might find aid and protection under it. The bill
gives no power to take away or limit existing rights; but it provides
additional means for their safeguard, that emancipation may be perfect,
so far as possible.
I do not like to take time, especially when I consider that in opening
this matter to the Senate I explained the character of the bill and
its necessity. I do not pretend that it is perfect; but I beg to
assure the Senate that it is the result of the careful deliberations
of the Committee. If Senators are disposed to criticize it, or to
offer amendments with a view to its improvement, let them do so. But
I trust that they will not allow themselves to be carried into any
general hostility founded on misconception of its real character. I
might remind them again of the large numbers of freedmen--free, thank
God, by legislative and executive acts of the United States, but not
yet introduced into the new condition appointed for them--unemployed,
suffering, starving, and, with a voice of agony, calling for relief.
I might remind them of the inability of private charity, or any
effort organized by private individuals, to meet all the exigencies
of this unprecedented case, although the generosity of our people is
overflowing. I might dwell on the obligation of the nation, reaching
everywhere with its hundred arms, to do what inferior charity must fail
to do; and I might especially show that it is not enough to strike
down the master, but that you must go further, and lift up the slave.
But I forbear, contenting myself with reminding you, that, if you
oppose legislation to help the freedmen in their rough passage from
Slavery to Freedom, you hand over this unhappy people--unhappy for long
generations, and not yet conducted into the full enjoyment of their
rights--to a condition which I dread to contemplate. They look about
and find no home. They seek occupation, but it is not within their
reach. They ask for protection, sometimes against former taskmasters,
and sometimes against other selfish men. If these are not supplied in
some way by the Government, I know not where to look for them. Surely,
Sir, you will not hesitate to provide, so far as you can, carefully
and wisely, the proper means to secure employment for them during the
transition from one condition to another, and, above all, to throw over
them everywhere the ægis of Constitution and Law. And such, permit me
to say, is the single supreme object of the present bill, which has
been so cordially misrepresented by the Senator from West Virginia, and
so strangely misrepresented by my friend from Iowa.
I have said that the object was care and protection for persons
actually free, and so regarded, who, from the peculiarity of their
condition, might not be able in all respects to secure these without
assistance. To this end a central agency is proposed at Washington,
with subordinate agencies where the freedmen are to be found, devoted
to this work of watching over emancipation, so that it may be
surrounded with a congenial atmosphere. Is not the object worthy of
support? Who will question it?
The language of the bill describing the functions of the Commissioner
is plain and explicit; and yet out of this language, so guarded and
so utterly inoffensive, the Senator from Iowa has conjured a phantom
to frighten the Senate from its propriety. Why, Sir, if there were
anything which by possibility could justify the fears of the Senator,
if there were anything which even the most lively imagination could
exaggerate into a lack of care and protection, then I should be the
first to denounce it, and to ask forgiveness for an unconscious
aberration. But there is absolutely nothing; and if you listen to the
bill, you will agree with me.
I begin with the very words which to the Senator from Iowa were so
alarming:--
“The Commissioner, under the direction of the Secretary of
the Treasury, shall have the general superintendence of all
freedmen throughout the several departments.”
Here are duties imposed upon the Commissioner; but there is no power
or control over the freedmen. Calling a man superintendent gives him
no power except in conformity with law; but all the laws, general and
special, are for Freedom. And yet the Senator has repeated, again and
again, that this was a grant of unlimited power and control over the
freedmen. To his mind here was an overflowing fountain of tyranny and
wrong.
MR. GRIMES. Will the Senator tell the Senate what is meant by
it?
MR. SUMNER. With great pleasure; and if I can have the candid attention
of my friend, I believe that he and I cannot differ, for I will not
doubt that we have the same object at heart. Obviously the language
indicates in a general way the character of the duties to be performed.
They are duties of superintendence, but we are to look elsewhere for
the extent of the duties; and the words which follow in the same
section show something of their nature. Thus:--
“And it shall be his duty especially _to watch over_ the
execution of all laws, proclamations, and military orders of
emancipation, or in any way concerning freedmen.”
There, Sir, is the first glimpse of this tyrant. Mark, Sir, there is
not one word of power or control over the freedmen, but duties solemnly
imposed, all in behalf of Freedom. What next?
“And generally, by careful regulations in the spirit of the
Constitution, _to protect these persons in the enjoyment of
their rights_, to promote their welfare, and to secure to them
and their posterity the blessings of liberty.”
Here, again, are duties of the Commissioner; but there is not one
word conferring power or control over the freedmen. The main object is
protection in the enjoyment of their rights,--inborn, but new-found.
This is to be crowned by such watchfulness as will promote their
welfare and secure to them and their posterity the blessings of
liberty; and all this is to be according to “careful regulations.” To
find tyranny in this provision the Senator must be as critical as the
German theologian who found heresy in the Lord’s Prayer. I do not go
to the dictionary for the meaning of superintendent. This is needless.
Obviously, the superintendent must superintend according to law; and
since this is now for Freedom, whatever he does must be for Freedom
likewise. He can do nothing without this inspiration. The function of
superintendence is not applicable exclusively to this case. It is of
common occurrence. There is a superintendent of emigrants; but nobody
supposes that he can do anything with regard to emigrants except in
conformity with law. The mayor of Washington is, in a certain sense,
a superintendent of the Senator and myself, as we walk the streets or
lie down at night in our houses, bound to see that we are protected
from outrage and robbery. And the Vice-President, or the President
of the Senate, is a superintendent of this Chamber, bound to see
that the rules of Parliamentary Law are observed. But the Senator
would not think of attributing to either of these functionaries that
“unlimited control and power” which he dreaded in the superintendent of
freedmen,--bound to see that freedmen are protected in their rights.
And yet it exists in one case just as much as in the other.
I think, Sir, that after this explanation there can be no difficulty
in answering the inquiry of the Senator. By “superintendence of all
freedmen” is meant that watchfulness of their rights and interests
consistent with laws, general and special, for their protection,
welfare, and liberty, so that they may be helped to employment and be
guarded against outrage. The object is good. What other word would
the Senator employ to designate it? How would he describe the humane
function of the Commissioner? He is versed in language. Will he supply
any term more apt? I invite him to do it, and shall gladly accept it.
Since we seem to concur in the object, let there be no difference on
account of words. All I desire is something that shall supply help and
protection. For this I cheerfully sacrifice the rest. And permit me to
say, I have misread this bill, if there is a single word in it, from
beginning to end, which can give the most remote apology for any other
idea.
I have thus far only glanced at a single section. Look further. I
pass for the moment the next section, and go to the sixth, which
describes some of the duties of the “Assistant Commissioners and local
superintendents.” It begins by declaring that they--
“Shall act as _advisory guardians to aid_ the freedmen in
the adjustment of their wages, or, where they have rented
plantations or small holdings, in the application of their
labor.”
Observe, if you please, the friendly service to be performed. Not in
this way do tyrants or slave-masters wield a wicked power. Here is
advice, guardianship, and the adjustment of wages,--all inconsistent
with Slavery in any of its pretensions. What next?
“That they shall take care that the freedmen do not suffer
from ill-treatment or any failure of contract on the part of
others, and that on their part they perform their duty under
any contract entered into by them.”
Mark, again, the friendly service. Here is another duty cast upon
these officers.
MR. GRIMES. How is that to be enforced? Suppose they will not
work,--will not fulfil their contracts?
MR. SUMNER. The duty of these officers is “advisory.” They are not
invested with power to enforce any provisions, unless by court of law
or some other tribunal. The freedmen are entitled to all the rights of
freemen, just as much as the Senator. Curiously, the Senator does not
seem to have purged his mind of the idea that these men, in some way or
other, have not yet ceased to be slaves,--
MR. GRIMES. No.
--an assumption which, however natural in the Senator from West
Virginia, is not natural in my friend from Iowa. Let him recognize them
as free, like himself, and he will see that there is no remedy open to
him which is not open to them, and that any outrage upon them is, in
point of law, the same as if inflicted upon himself.
MR. HARLAN. I desire to ask the Senator if there are courts of
law in existence in these Rebel States before whom the parties
may appear.
MR. SUMNER. I am afraid that courts of justice in those States are not
yet in perfect operation. But such as they are, they will be open to
every freedman. On this point there can be no question.
The next words show what shall be done by these officers to promote the
administration of justice:--
“They shall further do what they can as _arbitrators_ to
reconcile and settle any differences in which freedmen may be
involved, whether among themselves or between themselves and
other persons.”
Here is the duty of arbitrator and peacemaker, but no power or control.
And this duty is applicable to differences of all kinds, where the
freedmen are parties. Nothing can be more humane or less tyrannical.
This is not all.
“In case such differences are carried before any tribunal,
civil or military, they shall appear as next friends of the
freedmen, so far as to see that the case is fairly stated and
heard. And in all such proceedings there shall be no disability
or exclusion on account of color.”
If not “arbitrators,” then the officers are to be “next friends,”
to aid the freedmen in any litigation into which they may be drawn.
Very little tyranny here. And this service is to be rendered in any
tribunal, “civil or military”; so that, where the civil courts are
closed, the freedmen may obtain justice in any military tribunal. But
whether in a civil or military tribunal, there is to be no disability
or exclusion on account of color. When we consider how this disability
and exclusion have been the badge of Slavery and its pretensions, we
may find in their positive prohibition a new token of the spirit in
which this bill is conceived. Very little tyranny here.
MR. GRIMES. But, Mr. President, the case that was put by me
was not where there was a controversy between the colored man
and some third party, but where the Commissioner attempted to
enforce the obligation of duty upon the colored man.… Now I
want to know of the Senator if a Commissioner who undertakes to
carry out the provisions of this bill may not, under the third
section, avail himself of the military authority that may be
in the department to enforce obedience,--and if he thinks it
would be doing justice to the colored men in the department
to leave them to the military control of the Commissioner, of
whom we know nothing, and about whom we do not know whether he
sympathises with the colored man or not. Is it right to leave
these colored men to the military control of this Commissioner
in order to enforce the obligation to labor?
MR. SUMNER. The Senator calls attention to another section, where it
is provided that “the military commander within any department shall,
on the application of the Assistant Commissioner thereof, supply
all needful military support in the discharge of the duties of such
Assistant Commissioner”; and he inquires if this does not authorize the
Assistant Commissioner to use military power in making freedmen work.
Let me say at once that the criticism of the Senator is absolutely
novel. If the clause to which he refers could be employed to any such
purpose, I beg to assure him it was not anticipated by the Committee.
It was intended for a very different purpose, and in the interest of
the freedman. Here, again, I remind the Senator that nothing can be
done by any officer, military or civil, toward a freedman, which cannot
be done toward any other citizen. If this military power can be used
against one, it can be equally used against the other. The occasion
for this power seemed obvious. It was supposed that in the Rebel
States there might be exposed districts where the plantations would be
subject to incursion or ravage from the enemy, by which labor would be
obstructed or disturbed, unless military protection were at hand. To
remedy evils of that character this provision was introduced. Such is
the object sought to be accomplished. It is protection, in the spirit
of the whole bill, and nothing else. If by any possibility there can
be the chance of an abuse of this power, beyond what is incident to
every trust, I shall be glad to take advantage of the criticism of the
Senator, and amend the bill so that the evil he snuffs afar shall not
be permitted to arrive.
The Senator cannot bear the thought of freedmen exposed to the tyranny
of military power. But does he not forget that at this moment they are
subject to this tyranny? It is to remove them from all this arbitrary
control and uncertain protection that we establish a bureau, which
shall be an agency of the civil power, charged to surround the freedmen
with every safeguard the Constitution and laws can supply. Show me any
provision in one or the other for the protection of human rights, and I
claim it at once for the freedman against any oppressor, whatever his
office or name.
Let the Senator bear these things in mind, and give us the advantage of
his counsels. I shall welcome from him any suggestion, any proposition,
any criticism, calculated to promote the object of the bill. The more
he makes, the better. Let him be no niggard. But I trust he will pardon
me, if I complain of inconsiderate assault, which, as it seems to me,
can have no other effect than to injure the cause.
I have not done with the criticism of the Senator. It was on the
fifth section, concerning the labor on abandoned plantations, that he
bent his chief force. In the provisions of that section he found a new
system of Slavery: sometimes it was Slavery outright, and sometimes
it was Peon Slavery. Senators who did me the honor of listening to my
remarks at the beginning of this debate will remember how I dwelt upon
the importance of guarding against any revival of Slavery under any
other name, whether of apprenticeship or adscription to the soil; and
they may remember, perhaps, how I explained the impossibility of any
such occurrence under the present bill, and showed that the freedman
was guarded at all points. And yet, in the face of this exposition,
and of the positive text,--better than any exposition,--the cry is
sounded, that the liberty of the freedman is in danger. The Senator
read this section at length, and then sounded again particular clauses
and phrases, striving to interpret them for Slavery. I will not read it
at length; nor will I dwell on the first part of the section. Suffice
it to say, that, so far as it describes the lands to be taken for
occupation, it follows substantially the text of the order from the War
Department, by which “all houses, tenements, lands, and plantations,
except such as may be required for military purposes, which have
been or may be deserted and abandoned by insurgents within the lines
of the military occupation,” are placed under the supervision and
control of the supervising special agents of the Treasury Department.
Under this order the Secretary of the Treasury has been acting for
several months,--doing with these lands precisely what the Senator so
vehemently condemns. The present bill, so far as concerns the power of
the Commissioner over the lands, does little more than reduce the order
of the War Department to the text of a statute, thus imparting to it a
certain legality which it does not now possess.
Passing from the lands to be occupied under the bill, the Senator
next pictures the terrible fate of the freedmen laboring on these
lands in pursuance of careful contracts. There seems no limit to the
Senator’s anxiety lest they should be bound in Slavery. I welcome his
generous solicitude. But I pray that he will not allow it to mislead
his judgment or prevent him from seeing the case in its true character.
Surely he must be unduly excited, or he could not find danger in these
words:--
“In case no proper lessees can be found, then to cause the same
to be cultivated or occupied by the freedmen, on such terms, in
either case, and under such regulations, as the Commissioner
may determine.”
“What a frightful power!” exclaimed the Senator. But why? Here is no
power or control over the freedmen, but simply over the lands, which
the officers cause to be cultivated or occupied. These officers are
representatives of the National Government, to which the lands belong
for the time being, and, in determining the terms and regulations
under which they are to be cultivated or occupied, they do no more
than is done by the Senator with regard to the lands he is so happy
in owning. The Senator fixes the terms and regulations under which
his lands are leased or cultivated: does he not? And he would be
surprised, if any person called in question his rights in this regard;
especially would he be surprised, if any person undertook to infer that
the freedom of laborers upon his lands could be compromised by any
terms or regulations he might choose to make. But there is no power
he may exercise over his own lands that may not now be exercised by
the Government. In each case the laborer must be treated as a freeman.
The Senator seems to imagine that there is power or control over the
freedmen conferred by these words. Here is his mistake. The power and
control are over the lands, not over the freedmen. There is not a word
in the clause that can be tortured into any such idea. I challenge the
Senator to point it out.
Thus far I have considered this clause, which according to the Senator
is so terribly pregnant, without alluding to the express limitation
following in the same section. Even without this limitation it is clear
and blameless. But the Committee, in order to make assurance doubly
sure, and to set up an absolute impediment against any abuse, have
added the following proviso:--
“_Provided_, That no freedmen shall be held to service on any
estate above mentioned otherwise than according to voluntary
contract, reduced to writing, and certified by the Assistant
Commissioner or local superintendent; nor shall any such
contract be for a longer period than twelve months.”
And yet, in the face of this proviso, the Senator sees danger. Nobody
can be found on the lands except in pursuance of voluntary contract,
which must be reduced to writing and certified by an officer of the
Government. Nor is this all. The contract is not to be for a term
beyond twelve months; so that, by no excuse, and by no exercise of
power, can the freedman be put even under a shadow of control beyond
this brief term. He is in all respects a freeman, laboring on lands
according to careful contract for a limited period. And yet the Senator
calls this beneficent arrangement Slavery, and then, changing the name,
he calls it Peonage. Sir, the Senator has an imperfect conception of
that peonage which is indefinite service, or of that slavery which is
service for endless generations, if he undertakes to liken employment
in pursuance of contract most carefully guarded for a term of a few
months to either of these wretched conditions.
But all this is only part of the mistake in which the Senator has
proceeded from beginning to end. I am at a loss to account for it.
I do not understand it. That I regret it most sincerely I need not
say. I counted upon his charitable regard for this bill. I felt sure
of his sympathy with its general objects. I do not renounce the hope
of this sympathy now. But I cannot forbear saying, that, to my mind,
the Senator throws himself in the way of a humane undertaking, and
practically abandons the claims of the oppressed race to which he
and I both owe service. Long have they suffered, much have they been
abused, wearily have they journeyed through life; and now, at last,
when Slavery is overturned, and we seek to provide a passage from
its torments to a better condition, where labor shall be quickened
and protected by Liberty, and where all rights shall be respected,
it is hard to find our efforts buffeted by a cross-wind from such an
unexpected quarter.
Mr. Grimes and Mr. Willey followed. Between the latter and Mr.
Sumner there was an earnest passage.
June 27th, the consideration of the bill was again resumed,
when other amendments moved by Mr. Sumner were adopted, among
which was the following:--
“And every such freedman shall be treated in every respect
as a freeman, with all proper remedies in courts of
justice; and no power or control shall be exercised with
regard to him, except in conformity with law.”
Several Senators spoke.
* * * * *
June 28th, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, moved to strike out
“Treasury” and insert “War.” Mr. Sumner again explained the
preference of the Committee at length, when Mr. Wilson withdrew
his motion; but it was afterwards renewed by Mr. Reverdy
Johnson, of Maryland, and rejected,--Yeas 15, Nays 20. Other
motions ensued, with speeches. The substitute of the Committee
having been adopted, the bill was then passed,--Yeas 21, Nays
9,--with the title, “An Act to establish a Bureau of Freedmen.”
July 2d, in the House of Representatives, Mr. Eliot, from the
Select Committee on Emancipation, moved that the House should
not concur with the substitute of the Senate, when, on motion
of Mr. Griswold, the whole subject was postponed to December
20th.
* * * * *
December 20, 1864, in the House of Representatives, the bill
being under consideration, according to the postponement from
the last session, Mr. Eliot, of Massachusetts, Mr. Kelley,
of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Noble, of Ohio, were appointed a
Committee of Conference. The Senate agreed to the Conference,
and Mr. Sumner, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, and Mr. Buckalew,
of Pennsylvania, were appointed on the part of the Senate. A
new bill was reported. Instead of attaching the bureau to the
War Department or to the Treasury Department, an independent
department was created, called a Department of Freedmen and
Abandoned Lands; but in other respects it was substantially the
Senate bill.
February 9, 1865, after debate, the report of the Committee was
adopted by the House,--Yeas 64, Nays 62.
February 10th, Mr. Sumner, on the part of the Committee,
reported the new bill to the Senate, and on the 13th, in answer
to inquiry, explained it as follows.
Mr. PRESIDENT,--I trust that there will be no opposition to this most
important, and, as I solemnly believe, most beneficent measure. But I
shall be happy to make any explanation with regard to it.
Senators have not forgotten the bill to create a Bureau of Freedmen,
which, after careful debate for several days, was passed by the Senate
at the close of the last session as a substitute for a House bill. For
some time the difference between the two Houses has been under the
consideration of a Conference Committee, whose report is now before
you. This report embodies substantially the Senate bill, including
various propositions moved by different Senators,--among others, that
relating to the forfeiture of estates, moved by the Senator from
Illinois, [Mr. TRUMBULL],--that relating to the care of freedmen
unemployed on the lands, moved by the Senator from West Virginia [Mr.
WILLEY],--and that relating to trials by courts-martial, moved by the
Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. DOOLITTLE]. All of the Senate bill, in
substance, and generally in language, is preserved, with one single
exception. By the Senate bill a bureau was created in the Treasury.
The Committee of the two Houses unite in recommending a separate
department, holding directly under the President, and therefore free
from the control of either the Treasury or the War.
In point of fact, the only substantial difference between the two
Houses was on the place where the bureau should be. Each was for a
bureau; but one was for it in the Treasury, and the other was for it
in the Department of War; and there were strong arguments in favor
of each. There were also strong feelings against each. Sometimes it
was compendiously said that the freedmen could not be trusted to “the
harpies of the Treasury”; and then again it was said, with equal point,
that they could not be trusted to “the bloodhounds of the War.” These
were exaggerations of opposite opinions; but they serve to disclose the
irreconcilable discord on the subject.
If the freedmen could have been provided for without reference to
the lands, the question would have been relieved from much of its
embarrassment. But it was the conviction of the Committee, in which
they were sustained by all most familiar with the matter, that the care
of the freedmen and the care of the abandoned lands ought to be in the
same hands, and that they could not be separated without exposing the
freedmen to the mischiefs of two conflicting jurisdictions. But the War
Office was not adapted to manage the lands, as many insisted that the
Treasury was not adapted to manage the freedmen.
There was another consideration not without influence. It was felt
that each of these great departments of the Government was already so
severely burdened, so weighed down with manifold duties, that it was
hardly in condition to assume a new trust, so grave and onerous as that
proposed.
For such reasons, Sir, and yielding to such influences, the Committee,
after careful and conscientious deliberation, determined to recommend
a new department, not unlike that of Agriculture, which should not
be subject either to the Treasury or to the War. It was felt that in
doing this they were doing the best for the cause, and they were not
insensible also to the consideration that in this way they might secure
a higher order of talent and of character for the service. Men fitted
for Treasury agents or fitted for War might not always be the best
for the care of freedmen. The man for this humane service should be
humane by nature, and should sympathize especially with the race so
long neglected and outraged. They must be versed, if I may so express
myself, in the humanities of the subject.
After quoting the testimony of experts in favor of an
independent department, and of changing the actual system, he
concluded.
Such is the system that now exists, under which the freedman is the
mere accident of the Treasury. Sir, it is unworthy of the Republic at
this great period of our history.
Already the President, by irrepealable proclamation, has declared all
slaves free. An Amendment to the Constitution will, in the course of
a few weeks, place their freedom under the sanction of Constitutional
Law. But this is not enough. The debt of justice will not be paid, if
we do not take them by the hand in their passage from the house of
bondage to the house of freedom: and this is what is proposed by the
present measure. The temporary care of the freedman is the complement
of Emancipation; but the general welfare is involved in the performance
of this duty. Without it Emancipation may for a while seem at fault,
and the general welfare gravely suffer.
February 14th and 21st, the consideration of the report was
continued,--Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, Mr. Hendricks, Mr. Grimes,
and Mr. Sprague, of Rhode Island, speaking against it. In reply
to Mr. Grimes, who moved the postponement of its consideration,
Mr. Sumner again vindicated the measure.
I hope there will be no postponement. A motion to postpone at the
present time is a motion to kill, and such is the unquestionable object
of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. GRIMES]. He is against the bill now,
just as he was at the beginning, and is acting according to his sense
of duty, when he tries in every way to defeat it. But are Senators
whose votes have thus far shown a determination to do something for the
freedmen ready to follow his example?
The Senator says he wishes time. Well. But he wishes something more.
He wishes to arrest this legislation now at its latest stage. He says
that he desires opportunity for debate. But, Sir, has he not had this
opportunity in largest measure and to excess? The Senate cannot forget
how carefully and conscientiously this question has been considered:
first, in a Committee of this body, who gave their best attention to
it for weeks, during the last session of Congress; then for five days
and two evenings in the Senate, during which the Senator signalized his
opposition; then again in a Conference Committee, the present session,
where the whole subject was most thoroughly studied in every possible
light; and now in this debate, running over several days, which has
already occupied the Senate since the report of that Committee. Surely,
if the Senator is not satisfied with the labors of the Committees of
this body, he cannot complain that opportunity of debate has been
wanting. Sir, he has had the opportunity, and has exercised it.
I am pained by this opposition. It is out of season. I am pained by
it especially from the Senator from Iowa. I do not judge him. But he
will pardon me, if I say that from the beginning he has shown a strange
insensibility to this cause. He is for Liberty, but he will not help
us assure it to those who have for generations been despoiled of it.
Sir, I am in earnest. Seriously, religiously, I accept Emancipation as
proclaimed by the President, and now, by the votes of both Houses of
Congress, placed under the sanction of Constitutional Law. But even
Emancipation is not enough. You must see to it that it is not nullified
or evaded; and you must see to it especially that the new-made freedmen
are protected in the rights now assured to them, and that they are
saved from the prevailing caste, which menaces Slavery under some new
form; and this is the object of the present measure.
Would you know the perils of freedmen ever since Emancipation? Listen,
then, to the words of that true patriot, General Wadsworth, of New
York, who, after his visit to the Valley of the Mississippi, and
personal observation of the freedmen there, testified:--
“There is one thing that must be taken into account, and that
is, that there will exist a very strong disposition among the
masters to control these people and keep them as a subordinate
and subjected class. Undoubtedly they intend to do that. I
think the tendency to establish a system of serfdom is the
great danger to be guarded against. I talked with a planter in
the La Fourche district, near Thibodeauville. He said he was
not in favor of secession; he avowed his hope and expectation
that Slavery would be restored there in some form. I said, ‘If
we went away and left these people now, do you suppose you
could reduce them again to slavery?’ He laughed to scorn the
idea that they could not. ‘What!’ said I, ‘these men who have
had arms in their hands?’ ‘Yes,’ he said; ‘we should take the
arms away from them, of course.’”[356]
But this emphatic attestation is simply in harmony with accumulated
testimony from other quarters. The freedmen, rejoicing in recovered
rights, must for a while be saved from the traditional harshness and
cruelty to which for generations they have been exposed. Call it
protection,--call it what you will: the power of the Government must be
to them a shield. And yet you hesitate.
The Senator from Iowa renews the objections he made at an earlier
stage. It will not be forgotten that he most earnestly protested
against the bill, as giving to persons a control of the freedman. It
was shown, I think, to demonstration, that he was mistaken. But, out
of deference to his sensibilities, and that nothing might seem to
be wanting, other safeguards were introduced, as amendments, on his
motion, or in pursuance of his suggestions. But all this is not enough
to secure his favor. He objects still.
Very well. So far as I understand his objection then and now, it is
twofold: first, that the freedman is placed under constraint, and that
he is not a freeman; and, secondly, that he is treated too much as an
infant or a pupil. Now I undertake to say that the objection, in both
these forms, is absolutely inapplicable.
The freedman is treated in every respect as a freeman. Again and
again in the bill his rights are secured to him. Thus, for instance,
in the fourth section, it is expressly provided that “every such
freedman shall be treated in all respects as a free man, with all
proper remedies in courts of justice, and no power or control shall be
exercised with regard to him except in conformity with law.” Language
cannot go further. In face of these positive words, so completely
in harmony with the whole bill, it is vain to say that the freedman
is not a freeman. Sir, he is a freeman just as much as the Senator
himself, with a title derived from the Almighty, which no person can
assail. When the Senator finds danger to the freedman, he consults his
imagination, inflamed by hostile sentiments he has allowed himself to
nurse.
But the Senator complains that the freedman is treated too much as
an infant or a pupil. How? Where? Let him point out the objectionable
words. Analyze the bill. The freedmen, it is admitted, are under
the general superintendence of the Commissioner. But are we not all
under the general superintendence of the police, to which we may
appeal for protection in case of need? And just such protection the
freedmen may expect from the Commissioner, according to his power. The
Senator himself is under the superintendence of the Presiding Officer
of the Senate, whose duty it is to see that he is protected in his
rights on this floor. But the Presiding Officer can do nothing except
according to law; and the Commissioner is bound by the same inevitable
limitations.
But there are regulations applicable to the contracts of the freedman.
Very well. Why not? To protect him from the imposition and tyranny of
the dominant race, it is provided that “no freedman shall be employed
on any estate above mentioned otherwise than according to _voluntary
contract_, reduced to writing, and certified by the Assistant
Commissioner or local superintendent.” Mark the language,--“voluntary
contract.” What more can be desired? But this is reduced to writing.
Certainly, as a safeguard to the freedman, and for his benefit. Then,
again, the Assistant Commissioners are to act “as advisory guardians,”
in which capacity they are to “aid the freedmen in the adjustment of
their wages.” But do not forget that the freedman is a freeman, and if
he does not need such aid or advice, he may reject it, just as much as
the Senator himself. Look at other clauses, and they will all be found
equally innocent.
But there is the section, originally introduced on motion of the
Senator from West Virginia [Mr. WILLEY], providing, that, “whenever the
Commissioner cannot otherwise employ any of the freedmen who may come
under his care, he shall, so far as practicable, make provision for
them with humane and suitable persons, at a just compensation for their
services.” Here, again, are tyranny and outrage carried to the highest
point. But how? The superintendence is that of the _intelligence
office_, and everything done is to be “in conformity with law.” This
clause, even if it were in any respect ambiguous, must be ruled by
those earlier words which declare that “every such freedman shall be
treated in all respects as a free man.” What more can be desired? With
this rule as a guide, no freedman can suffer in rights.
The strange complaint is made, that this measure is too favorable
to the freedman; and, indeed, we have been told that something is
needed for the whites. Very well; let it be done. I trust that an
enlightened Government will not fail to recognize its duties to all
alike. Meanwhile, it is proposed that abandoned lands shall be leased
to freedmen, and, if they are not able and disposed to take the lands
for a twelvemonth, then they are to be leased to other persons. Reflect
that the freedmen, for weary generations, have fertilized these lands
with their sweat. The time has come when they should enjoy the results
of their labor, at least for a few months. This war has grown out of
injustice to them. Plainly, to them we owe the first fruits of justice.
Besides, this provision is essential as a safeguard against white
speculators from a distance, who will seek to monopolize these lands,
with little or no regard to the freedman. Ay, Sir, it is too evident
that it is essential as a safeguard against grasping neighbors, who
still pant and throb with the bad passions of Slavery.
Mr. President, the objections are vain. The bill is not hurtful to the
freedman. It is not hostile to Liberty. Its declared object is the good
of the freedman. Its inspiration is Liberty. Look at it as a whole or
in detail, and you will find the same object and the same inspiration.
It only remains that the Senate should adopt it, and give a new
assurance of justice to an oppressed race. In the name of justice, I
ask your votes.
The motion to postpone was rejected,--Yeas 13, Nays 16.
* * * * *
February 22d, the debate was resumed by Mr. Hale, of New
Hampshire, in opposition to the report, who was followed on the
same side by Mr. Lane, of Indiana, Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, and
Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland. Mr. Conness, of California,
spoke in favor of it. Mr. Sumner, in reply, after answering
the criticisms on the bill, and adducing testimony to its
importance, said:--
I have read these opinions merely to bring home to the Senate, on
authoritative grounds, the importance of providing some protection
for this large body of freedmen, now justly looking to the National
Government as their guardian. That Government has given them the great
boon of Freedom. It is for us to go further, and see that Freedom is
something more than a barren letter. We must see that it is a fruitful
thing, of which they can avail themselves always, and which will be to
them everywhere prolific of good.
Mr. President, I did not intend to enter into this discussion this
morning. I hoped that a vote might be taken without further debate.
I have no desire to discuss it. To my mind the question is perfectly
clear. If you reject the pending measure, you voluntarily refuse to
carry forward that great act of Emancipation which you have already
sanctioned. I say, therefore, for the sake of Emancipation, let the
report of this Committee be adopted; and I appeal to you, Senators, do
not be afraid to be just.
The vote on the report of the Conference Committee stood,--Yeas
14, Nays 24; so that, though accepted in the House, it was
lost in the Senate. On motion of Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts,
another Conference Committee was ordered, consisting of
himself, Mr. Harlan, of Iowa, and Mr. Willey, of West Virginia.
The House, on their part, appointed Mr. Schenck, of Ohio, Mr.
Boutwell, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Rollins, of Missouri. The
Committee reported still another bill, placing the bureau in
the War Department.
March 3d, the Senate agreed to the report without a division.
In the House, after an ineffectual effort to lay it on the
table, it was agreed to without a division, and the same day
was approved by the President.
MAKE HASTE SLOWLY: IRREVERSIBLE GUARANTIES.
SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE RECOGNITION OF ARKANSAS, JUNE 13, 1864.
June 10th, Mr. Lane, of Kansas, asked, and by unanimous
consent obtained, leave to bring in a joint resolution for
the recognition of the Free State Government of the State of
Arkansas, which was read, passed to a second reading, and
ordered to be printed.
June 13th, he called it up for consideration, when Mr. Sumner
made the following speech.
MR. PRESIDENT,--I begin by expressing sympathy with every loyal soul in
a Rebel State. Knowing well, from long experience, the cruel rule and
domination of Slavery, even in this Chamber, I cannot be indifferent to
the trials of loyalty anywhere in these latter days. Show me a man who
in a Rebel State stands faithful to the national cause, and I go forth
to meet him with heart in hand. To have been true at a time when truth
was disowned is enough for honor as well as thanks. But the merits of
individuals cannot determine the rights of States.
The case is too important. If individual merits, universally
recognized, could save a State to present rights in the Union,
Tennessee would not now be a self-condemned exile. There are few
anywhere so entirely true as Andrew Johnson, and not one in all the
Rebel States who so bravely encountered the Rebellion face to face.
Ten men might have saved Sodom; but he was in himself more than ten
men. Besides, he was a Senator on this floor, when the State he
represented took its place in the Rebel Confederacy, and joined in
war against the National Government; but he stayed behind with his
country, and kept his seat here. Persons ignorant of Parliamentary
Law have sometimes argued from the latter circumstance that Rebel
Tennessee was still entitled to her ancient rights in the Union; but
they forget two principles, fixed long ago, beyond all question, in
England, the original home of Parliamentary Law: first, that the power
once conferred by an election to Parliament is irrevocable, so that
it is not affected by any subsequent change in the constituency; and,
secondly, that a member, when once chosen, is _member for the whole
kingdom_, becoming thereby, according to the words of an early author,
not merely knight or burgess of the county or borough which elected
him, but knight or burgess of England.[357] If these two principles are
not entirely discarded in our political system, then the seat of Andrew
Johnson was not in any respect affected by the subsequent madness of
his State, nor can the legality of his seat be any argument for the
ancient rights of his State.
Nor, again, can the fact that Andrew Johnson has been selected by
the Convention of a powerful political party as candidate for the
Vice-Presidency be any argument for these ancient rights. It is not
necessary that a candidate for President or Vice-President should
belong to a State. It is enough, under the Constitution, that he is “a
natural born citizen.” He may be of the District of Columbia, or of a
Territory, or of a Rebel State; for these are all equally within the
rightful jurisdiction of the United States, and this is enough. The
national jurisdiction is permanent and indefeasible.
Therefore, I repeat again, we must look beyond the virtues of
individuals. Not all the virtues under heaven can suffice to make a
State of this Union, or establish any claim for restoration to ancient
rights, where there is failure to comply with essential requirements.
* * * * *
The question under consideration is of momentous interest. It concerns
primarily the claim to a seat in the Senate; but it includes also the
right of the State of Arkansas to share at this moment in the National
Government by representation in Congress, and also the other right of
participating in the approaching Presidential election. And behind this
great question looms that other, “How shall we treat the Rebel States?”
This has already been answered by the House of Representatives in a
bill passed by that body; but it has not yet been decided by the Senate.
Unexpectedly, the great question and all the subordinate questions are
presented for decision. Not only Arkansas, but Louisiana, and every
other Rebel State, will await your judgment. No question of equal
importance has been presented since it was determined to meet the
Rebellion by arms.
For the present I forbear all minute discussion, either of history
or principle. It will be enough, if I state the case, and exhibit the
questions involved.
William M. Fishback, a citizen of Arkansas, appears before the Senate
of the United States, and claims membership. He asserts that he has
been duly chosen to fill the unexpired term of Senator Sebastian, who
was expelled in 1861 for complicity with the Rebellion; and he produces
a certificate purporting to be signed by the Governor of Arkansas.
Shall this claimant be admitted to a seat in the Senate? Such is the
immediate question. But I have said that there are other questions, of
the highest importance, which must be considered now and here; for they
all enter into the present case. Admitting the claimant, we must also
admit that other claimant who has appeared with like credentials as
colleague. The question is not, therefore, Shall Arkansas have one vote
in the Senate? but, Shall it have two?
Then, again, if Arkansas is fully represented in the Senate, does it
not follow that it is to be represented to the same extent in the
other House? If represented in that Chamber, such representation must
be under the existing Apportionment Act, assigning to Arkansas two
Representatives, chosen by districts, without reference to the number
of votes polled in either.
One privilege draws after it another. To him that hath shall be given.
If Arkansas is admitted to immediate representation in the National
Government, this Rebel State, which has overthrown the Constitution
within its borders, and assumed the front of war, can participate in
the approaching election of President and Vice-President by organizing
an electoral college, and, in case the election of either of those
great officers should devolve upon Congress, can give a vote affecting
the result as weighty as that of Massachusetts, New York, or Illinois;
for, in such case, the vote, which in the Senate is _per capita_, is in
the House by States.