THE FREEDMEN'S BUREAU BILL IN THE SENATE.
The bill introduced and referred to Judiciary Committee --
Its provisions -- Argument of Mr. Hendricks against it --
Reply of Mr. Trumbull -- Mr. Cowan's amendment -- Mr.
Guthrie wishes to relieve Kentucky from the operation of the
bill -- Mr. Creswell desires that Maryland may enjoy the
benefits of the bill -- Mr. Cowan's gratitude to God and
friendship for the negro -- Remarks by Mr. Wilson -- "The
short gentleman's long speech" -- Yeas and nays -- Insulting
title.
On the 19th of December Mr. Trumbull gave notice that "on some early
day" he would "introduce a bill to enlarge the powers of the
Freedmen's Bureau so as to secure freedom to all persons within the
United States, and protect every individual in the full enjoyment of
the rights of person and property, and furnish him with means for
their vindication." Of the introduction of this measure, he said it
would be done "in view of the adoption of the constitutional amendment
abolishing slavery. I have never doubted that, on the adoption of that
amendment, it would be competent for Congress to protect every person
in the United States in all the rights of person and property
belonging to a free citizen; and to secure these rights is the object
of the bill which I propose to introduce. I think it important that
action should be taken on this subject at an early day, for the
purpose of quieting apprehensions in the minds of many friends of
freedom, lest by local legislation or a prevailing public sentiment in
some of the States, persons of the African race should continue to be
oppressed, and, in fact, deprived of their freedom; and for the
purpose, also, of showing to those among whom slavery has heretofore
existed, that unless by local legislation they provide for the real
freedom of their former slaves, the Federal Government will, by virtue
of its own authority, see that they are fully protected."
On the 5th of January, 1866, the first day of the session of Congress
after the holidays, Mr. Trumbull obtained leave to introduce a bill
"to enlarge the powers of the Freedmen's Bureau." The bill was read
twice by its title, and as it contained provisions relating to the
exercise of judicial functions by the officers and agents of the
Freedmen's Bureau, under certain circumstances, in the late insurgent
States, it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
On the 11th of January Mr. Trumbull reported the bill from the
Judiciary Committee, to whom it had been referred, with some
amendments of a verbal character. On the following day these
amendments were considered by the Senate, in Committee of the Whole,
and adopted. The consideration of the bill as amended was deferred to
a subsequent day.
The bill provided that "the act to establish a Bureau for the relief
of Freedmen and Refugees, approved March 3, 1865, shall continue until
otherwise provided for by law, and shall extend to refugees and
freedmen in all parts of the United States. The President is to be
authorized to divide the section of country containing such refugees
and freedmen into districts, each containing one or more States, not
to exceed twelve in number, and by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, to appoint an assistant commissioner for each district,
who shall give like bond, receive the same compensation, and perform
the same duties prescribed by this act and the act to which it is an
amendment. The bureau may, in the discretion of the President, be
placed under a commissioner and assistant commissioners, to be
detailed from the army, in which event each officer so assigned to
duty is to serve without increase of pay or allowances.
"The commissioner, with the approval of the President, is to divide
each district into a number of sub-districts, not to exceed the number
of counties or parishes in each State, and to assign to each
sub-district at least one agent, either a citizen, officer of the
army, or enlisted man, who, if an officer, is to serve without
additional compensation or allowance, and if a citizen or enlisted
man, is to receive a salary not exceeding $1,500 per annum. Each
assistant commissioner may employ not exceeding six clerks, one of the
third class and five of the first class, and each agent of a
sub-district may employ two clerks of the first class. The President
of the United States, through the War Department and the commissioner,
is to extend military jurisdiction and protection over all employés,
agents, and officers of the bureau, and the Secretary of War may
direct such issues of provisions, clothing, fuel, and other supplies,
including medical stores and transportation, and afford such aid,
medical or otherwise, as he may deem needful for the immediate and
temporary shelter and supply of destitute and suffering refugees and
freedmen, their wives and children, under such rules and regulations
as he may direct.
"It is also provided that the President may, for settlement in the
manner prescribed by section four of the act to which this is an
amendment, reserve from sale or settlement, under the homestead or
preemption laws, public lands in Florida, Mississippi, and Arkansas,
not to exceed three million acres of good land in all, the rental
named in that section to be determined in such manner as the
commissioner shall by regulation prescribe. It proposes to confirm and
make valid the possessory titles granted in pursuance of Major-General
Sherman's special field order, dated at Savannah, January 16, 1865.
The commissioner, under the direction of the President, is to be
empowered to purchase or rent such tracts of land in the several
districts as may be necessary to provide for the indigent refugees and
freedmen dependent upon the Government for support; also to purchase
sites and buildings for schools and asylums, to be held as United
States property until the refugees or freedmen shall purchase the
same, or they shall be otherwise disposed of by the commissioner.
"Whenever in any State or district in which the ordinary course of
judicial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion, and
wherein, in consequence of any State or local law, ordinance, police
or other regulation, custom, or prejudice, any of the civil rights or
immunities belonging to white persons (including the right to make and
enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit,
purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property,
and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the
security of person and estate), are refused or denied to negroes,
mulattoes, freedmen, refugees, or any other persons, on account of
race, color, or any previous condition of slavery or involuntary
servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted, or wherein they or any of them are subjected
to any other or different punishment, pains, or penalties, for the
commission of any act or offense, than are prescribed for white
persons committing like acts or offenses, it is to be the duty of the
President of the United States, through the commissioner, to extend
military protection and jurisdiction over all cases affecting such
persons so discriminated against.
"Any person who, under color of any State or local law, ordinance,
police, or other regulation or custom, shall, in any State or district
in which the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has been
interrupted by the rebellion, subject, or cause to be subjected, any
negro, mulatto, freedman, refugee, or other person, on account of race
or color, or any previous condition of slavery or involuntary
servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted, or for any other cause, to the deprivation
of any civil right secured to white persons, or to any other or
different punishment than white persons are subject to for the
commission of like acts or offenses, is to be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor, and be punished by fine not exceeding $1,000 or
imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both. It is to be the duty of
the officers and agents of this bureau to take jurisdiction of and
hear and determine all offenses committed against this provision; and
also of all cases affecting negroes, mulattoes, freedmen, refugees, or
other persons who are discriminated against in any of the particulars
mentioned in this act, under such rules and regulations as the
President of the United States, through the War Department, may
prescribe. This jurisdiction is to cease and determine whenever the
discrimination on account of which it is conferred ceases, and is in
no event to be exercised in any State in which the ordinary course of
judicial proceedings has not been interrupted by the rebellion, nor in
any such State after it shall have been fully restored in all its
constitutional relations to the United States, and the courts of the
State and of the United States within its limits are not disturbed or
stopped in the peaceable course of justice."
Other business occupying the attention of the Senate, the
consideration of the Freedman's Bureau Bill was not practically
entered upon until the 18th of January. On that day, Mr. Stewart made
a speech ostensibly on this bill, but really on the question of
reconstruction and negro suffrage, in reply to remarks by Mr. Wade on
those subjects.
Mr. Trumbull moved as an amendment to the bill that occupants on land
under General Sherman's special field order, dated at Savannah,
January 16, 1865; should be confirmed in their possessions for the
period of three years from the date of said order, and no person
should be disturbed in said possession during the said three years
unless a settlement should be made with said occupant by the owner
satisfactory to the commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau.
Mr. Trumbull explained the circumstances under which the freedmen had
obtained possessory titles to lands in Georgia, and urged the
propriety of their being confirmed by Congress for three years. He
said:
"I should be glad to go further. I would be glad, if we could, to
secure to these people, upon any just principle, the fee of this land;
but I do not see with what propriety we could except this particular
tract of country out of all the other lands in the South, and
appropriate it in fee to these parties. I think, having gone upon the
land in good faith under the protection of the Government, we may
protect them there for a reasonable time; and the opinion of the
committee was that three years would be a reasonable time."
On the following day, Mr. Hendricks presented his objections to the
bill in a speech of considerable length. He was followed by Mr.
Trumbull in reply. As both were members of the Judiciary Committee
from which the bill was reported, and both had carefully considered
the reasons for and against the measure, their arguments are given at
length.
[Illustration: Hon. T. A. Hendricks, Senator from Indiana.]
Mr. Hendricks said: "At the last session of Congress the original law
creating that bureau was passed. We were then in the midst of the war;
very considerable territory had been brought within the control of the
Union troops and armies, and within the scope of that territory, it
was said, there were many freedmen who must be protected by a bill of
that sort; and it was mainly upon that argument that the bill was
enacted. The Senate was very reluctant to enact the law creating the
bureau as it now exists. There was so much hesitancy on the part of
the Senate, that by a very large vote it refused to agree to the bill
reported by the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Sumner,] from a
committee of conference, and I believe the honorable Senator from
Illinois, [Mr. Trumbull,] who introduced this bill, himself voted
against that bill; and why? That bill simply undertook to define the
powers and duties of the Freedmen's Bureau and its agents, and the
Senate would not agree to confer the powers that that bill upon its
face seemed to confer, and it was voted down; and then the law as it
now stands was enacted in general terms. There was very little gained,
indeed, by the Senate refusing to pass the first bill and enacting the
latter, for under the law as it passed, the Freedmen's Bureau assumed
very nearly all the jurisdiction and to exercise all the powers
contemplated in the bill reported by the Senator from Massachusetts.
"Now, sir, it is important to note very carefully the enlargement of
the powers of this bureau proposed by this bill; and in the first
place, it proposes to make the bureau permanent. The last Congress
would not agree to this. The bill that the Senate voted down did not
limit the duration of the bureau, and it was voted down, and the bill
that the Senate agreed to provided that the bureau should continue
during the war and only for one year after its termination. That was
the judgment of the Senate at the last session. What has occurred
since to change the judgment of the Senate in this important matter?
What change in the condition of the country induces the Senate now to
say that this shall be a permanent bureau or department of the
Government, when at the last session it said it should cease to exist
within one year after the conclusion of the war? Why, sir, it seems to
me that the country is now, and especially the Southern States are now
in better condition than the Senate had reason to expect when the law
was enacted. Civil government has been restored in almost all the
Southern States; the courts are restored in many of them; in many
localities they are exercising their jurisdiction within their
particular localities without let or hinderance; and why, I ask
Senators, shall we make this bureau a perpetual and permanent
institution of the Government when we refused to do it at the last
session?
"I ask Senators, in the first place, if they are now, with the most
satisfactory information that is before the body, willing to do that
which they refused to do at the last session of Congress? We refused
to pass the law when it proposed to establish a permanent department.
Shall we now, when the war is over, when the States are returning to
their places in the Union, when the citizens are returning to their
allegiance, when peace and quiet, to a very large extent, prevail over
that country, when the courts are reëstablished; is the Senate now,
with this information before it, willing to make this a permanent
bureau and department of the Government?
"The next proposition of the bill is, that it shall not be confined
any longer to the Southern States, but that it shall have a government
over the States of the North as well as of the South. The old law
allowed the President to appoint a commissioner for each of the States
that had been declared to be in rebellion--one for each of the eleven
seceding States, not to exceed ten in all. This bill provides that the
jurisdiction of the bureau shall extend wherever, within the limits of
the United States, refugees or freedmen have gone. Indiana has not
been a State in insurrection, and yet there are thousands of refugees
and freedmen who have gone into that State within the last three
years. This bureau is to become a governing power over the State of
Indiana according to the provisions of the bill. Indiana, that
provides for her own paupers, Indiana, that provides for the
government of her own people, may, under the provisions of this bill,
be placed under a government that our fathers never contemplated--a
government that must be most distasteful to freemen.
"I know it may be said that the bureau will not probably be extended
to the Northern States. If it is not intended to be extended to those
States, why amend the old law so as to give this power? When the old
law limited the jurisdiction of this bureau to the States that had
been declared in insurrection, is it not enough that the bureau should
have included one State, the State of Kentucky, over which it had no
rightful original jurisdiction? And must we now amend it so as to
place all the States of the Union within the power of this
irresponsible sub-government? This is one objection that I have to the
bill, and the next is the expense that it must necessarily impose upon
the people. We are asked by the Freedmen's Bureau in its estimates to
appropriate $11,745,050; nearly twelve million dollars for the support
of this bureau and to carry on its operations during the coming year.
I will read what he says:
"'It is estimated that the amount required for the
expenditures of the bureau for the fiscal year commencing
January, 1866, will be $11,745,050. The sum is requisite for
the following purposes:
Salaries of assistant and sub-assistant commissioners $147,500
Salaries of clerks 82,800
Stationery and printing 63,000
Quarters and fuel 15,000
Clothing for distribution 1,750,000
Commissary stores 4,106,250
Medical department 500,000
Transportation 1,980,000
School superintendents 21,000
Sites for school-houses and asylums 3,000,000
Telegraphing 18,000
Making in all the sum which I have mentioned. The old system under
this law, that was before the commissioner when he made this estimate,
requires an expenditure to carry on its operations of nearly twelve
million dollars, and that to protect, as it is called, and to govern
four millions of the people of the United States--within a few
millions of the entire cost of the Government under Mr. Adams's
administration, when the population of the States had gone up to many
millions. How is it that a department that has but a partial
jurisdiction over the people shall cost almost as much for the
management of four million people as it cost to manage the whole
Government, for its army, its navy, its legislative and judicial
departments, in former years? My learned friend from Kentucky suggests
that the expenses under John Quincy Adams's administration were about
thirteen million dollars. What was the population of the United States
at that time I am not prepared to state, but it was far above four
millions. Now, to manage four million people is to cost the people of
the United States, under the law as it stands, nearly as much as it
cost the people to manage the whole affairs of the Government under
the administration of Mr. John Quincy Adams.
"I hear Senators speak very frequently of the necessity of economy and
retrenchment. Is this a specimen, increasing the number of officers
almost without limit, and increasing the expenditures? I think one
might be safe in saying that, if this bill passes, we can not expect
to get through a year with less than $20,000,000 of an expenditure for
this bureau. But that is a mere opinion; for no man can tell until we
have the number of officers that are to be appointed under the bill
prescribed in the bill itself, and this section leaves the largest
discretion to the bureau in the appointment of officers. I appeal to
Senators to know whether, at this time, when we ought to adopt a
system of retrenchment and reform, they are willing to pass a bill
which will so largely increase the public expenditures.
"Then, sir, when this army of officers has been organized, the bill
provides: 'And the President of the United States, through the War
Department and the commissioner, shall extend military jurisdiction
and protection over all employés, agents, and officers of this
bureau.'
"Will some Senator be good enough to tell me what that means? If
Indiana be declared a State within which are found refugees and
freedmen, who have escaped from the Southern States, and if Indiana
has a commissioner appointed to her, and if in each county of Indiana
there be a sub-commissioner at a salary of $1,500 a year, with two
clerks with a salary of $1,200 each, and then the War Department
throws over this little army of office-holders in the State of Indiana
its protection, what does that mean? The people of Indiana have been
ground hard under military authority and power within the last three
or four years, but it was borne because it was hoped that when the war
would be closed the military power would be withdrawn from the State.
Under this bill it may be established permanently upon the people by a
body of men protected by the military power of the Government. An
officer is appointed to the State of Indiana to regulate the contracts
which are made between the white people and the colored people of that
State, and because he holds this office, not military in its
character, involving no military act whatever, the military throws
over him its iron shield of protection. What does that mean? If this
officer shall do a great wrong and outrage to one of the people, and
the wronged citizen appeals to the court for his redress and brings
his suit for damages, does the protecting shield of the War Department
prevent the prosecution of that suit and the recovery of a judgment?
What is the protection that is thrown over this army of
office-holders? Let it be explained.
"It may be said that this is a part of the military department. That
will depend not so much upon what we call them in the law as what are
the duties imposed upon these sub-agents. It is a little difficult to
tell. They are to protect the freedmen; they are to protect refugees;
they are to buy asylums and school-houses; they are to establish
schools; they are to see to the contracts that are made between white
men and colored men. I want to know of the chairman of the committee
that reported this bill, in what respect these duties are military in
their character? I can understand one thing, that it may be regarded
as a war upon the liberties of the people, but I am not able to see in
what respect the duties of these officers otherwise are military. But
this protection is to be thrown over them. I will not occupy longer
time upon that subject.
"The third section of the bill changes the letter of the law in two
respects: first, 'That the Secretary of War may direct such issues of
provisions, clothing, fuel, and other supplies, including medical
stores and transportation,' etc. Those last words, 'medical stores and
transportation,' make the change in the law that is proposed in this
bill. But, sir, in point of fact it makes no change in the law; for if
you will turn to the report of the commissioner of this bureau, it
will be found that the bureau, during the past six months, has been
furnishing medical supplies and transportation. A very large item in
the expenditures estimated for is transportation. But I wish to ask of
the Senator who framed this bill why we shall now provide for the
transportation of freedmen and refugees. During the war, a very large
number of refugees came from the Southern States into the North; but
the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, in his report, says that
those refugees have mainly returned, and but few remain now to be
carried back from the North to the South, or who desire to be. Then
why do we provide in this bill for transportation? Is it simply to
give the bureau the power to transport refugees and freedmen from one
locality to another at its pleasure? The necessity of carrying them
from one section of the country to another has passed away. Is it
intended by this bill that the bureau shall expend the people's money
in carrying the colored people from one locality in a Southern State
to another locality? I ask the Senator from Illinois, when he comes to
explain his bill, to tell us just what is the force and purpose of
this provision.
"The fourth resolution, as amended, provides for the setting apart of
three million acres of the public lands in the States of Florida,
Mississippi, and Arkansas for homes for the colored people. I believe
that is the only provision of the bill in which I concur. I concur in
what was said by some Senator yesterday, that it is desirable, if we
ever expect to do any thing substantially for the colored people, to
encourage them to obtain homes, and I am willing to vote for a
reasonable appropriation of the public lands for that purpose. I shall
not, therefore, occupy time in discussing that section.
"The fifth section, as amended by the proposition before the Senate,
proposes to confirm the possessory right of the colored people upon
these lands for three years from the date of that order, or about two
years from this time. I like the amendment better than the original
bill; for the original bill left it entirely uncertain what was
confirmed, and of course it is better that we should say one year, or
three years, or ten years, than to leave it entirely indefinite for
what period we do confirm the possession. I have no doubt that General
Sherman had the power, as a military commander, at the time, to set
apart the abandoned lands along the coast as a place in which to leave
the colored people then surrounding his army; but that General Sherman
during the war, or that Congress after the war, except by a proceeding
for confiscation, can take the land permanently from one person and
give it to another, I do not admit; nor did General Sherman undertake
to do that. In express terms, he said that they should have the right
of possession; for what length of time he did not say, for the reason
that he could not say. It was a military possession that he conferred,
and that possession would last only during the continuance of the
military occupation, and no longer. If General Sherman, by his General
Order No. 15, placed the colored people upon the lands along the coast
of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, for a temporary purpose, what
was the extent of the possessory right which he could confer? He did
not undertake to give a title for any defined period, but simply the
right of possession. It is fair to construe his order as meaning only
what he could do, giving the right of possession during military
occupancy. Now, sir, the President informs us that the rebellion is
suppressed; that the war is over; that military law no longer governs
in that country; but that peace is restored, and that civil law shall
now govern. What, then, is the law upon the subject? A right of
possession is given by the commanding general to certain persons
within that region of country; peace follows, and with peace comes
back the right of the real owners to the possession. This possession
that the General undertook to give, according to law, could not last
longer than the military occupancy. When peace comes, the right of the
owners return with it. Then how is it that Congress can undertake to
say that the property that belongs to A, B, and C, upon the islands
and sea-coast of the South, shall, for two years from this date, not
belong to them, but shall belong to certain colored people? I want to
know upon what principle of law Congress can take the property of one
man and give it to another.
"I know very well what may be done in the courts by a proceeding for
confiscation. I am not discussing that question. If there has been any
property confiscated and disposed of under proceedings of
confiscation, I do not question the title here. That is purely a
judicial question. But, sir, I deny that Congress can legislate the
property of one man into the possession of another. If this section is
to pass, I prefer that this confirmation shall be for three years
rather than leave it in the uncertain state in which General Sherman's
order left it.
"The sixth section provides, 'That the commissioners shall, under the
direction of the President, procure in the name of the United States,
by grant or purchase, such lands within the districts aforesaid as may
be required for refugees and freedmen dependent on the Government for
support; and he shall provide, or cause to be erected, suitable
buildings for asylums and schools.' Upon what principle can you
authorize the Government of the United States to buy lands for the
poor people in any State of the Union? They may be very meritorious;
their cases may appeal with great force to our sympathies; it may
almost appear necessary to prevent suffering that we should buy a home
for each poor person in the country; but where is the power of the
General Government to do this thing? Is it true that by this
revolution the persons and property of the people have been brought
within the jurisdiction of Congress, and taken from without the
control and jurisdiction of the States? I have understood heretofore
that it has never been disputed that the duty to provide for the poor,
the insane, the blind, and all who are dependent upon society, rests
upon the States, and that the power does not belong to the General
Government. What has occurred, then, in this war that has changed the
relation of the people to the General Government to so great an extent
that Congress may become the purchasers of homes for them? If we can
go so far, I know of no limit to the powers of Congress. Here is a
proposition to buy a home for each dependent freeman and refugee. The
section is not quite as strong as it might have been. It would have
been stronger, I think, in the present state of public sentiment, if
the word 'refugee' had been left out, and if it had been only for the
freedmen, because it does not seem to be so popular now to buy a home
for a white man as to buy one for a colored man. But this bill
authorizes the officers of the Freedmen's Bureau to buy homes for
white people and for black people only upon the ground that they are
dependent. If this be the law now, there has come about a startling
change in the relation of the States and of the people to the General
Government. I shall be very happy to hear from the learned head of the
Judiciary Committee upon what principle it is that in any one single
case you may buy a home for any man, whether he be rich or poor. The
General Government may buy land when it is necessary for the exercise
of any of its powers; but outside of that, it seems to me, there is no
power within the Constitution allowing it.
"The most remarkable sections of the bill, however, are the seventh
and eighth, and to those sections I will ask the very careful
attention of Senators; for I think if we can pass those two sections,
and make them a law, then indeed this Government can do any thing. It
will be useless to speak any longer of limitations upon the powers of
the General Government; it will be idle to speak of the reserved power
of the States; State rights and State power will have passed away if
we can do what is proposed in the seventh and eighth sections of this
bill. We propose, first, to legislate against the effects of 'local
law, ordinance, police, or other regulation;' then against 'custom,'
and lastly, against 'prejudice,' and to provide that 'if any of the
civil rights or immunities belonging to white persons' are denied to
any person because of color, then that person shall be taken under the
military protection of the Government. I do not know whether that will
be understood to extend to Indiana or not. That will be a very nice
point for the bureau to decide, I presume, after the enactment of the
law. The section limits its operation to 'any State or district in
which the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has been interrupted
by the rebellion.' It will be a little difficult to say whether in the
State of Indiana and Ohio the ordinary course of judicial proceeding
has or has not been interrupted. We had some war in Indiana; we had a
very great raid through that State and some fighting; and I presume
that in some cases the proceedings of the courts were interrupted and
the courts were unable to go on with their business, so that it might
be said that even in some of the Northern States this provision of the
bill would be applicable. Suppose that it were applicable to the State
of Indiana, then every man in that State, who attempted to execute the
constitution and laws of the State, would be liable for a violation of
the law. We do not allow to colored people there many civil rights and
immunities which are enjoyed by the white people. It became the policy
of the State in 1852 to prohibit the immigration of colored people
into that State. I am not going to discuss the question whether that
was a wise policy or not. At the time it received the approval of my
judgment. Under that constitutional provision, and the laws enacted in
pursuance of it, a colored man coming into the State since 1852 can
not acquire a title to real estate, can not make certain contracts,
and no negro man is allowed to intermarry with a white woman. These
are civil rights that are denied, and yet this bill proposes, if they
are still denied in any State whose courts have been interrupted by
the rebellion, the military protection of the Government shall be
extended over the person who is thus denied such civil rights or
immunities.
"The next section of the bill provides punishments where any of these
things are done, where any right is denied to a colored man which
under State law is allowed to a white man. The language is very vague,
and it is very difficult to say what this section will mean. If it has
as broad a construction as is attempted to be given to the second
section of the constitutional amendment, I would not undertake to
guess what it means. Any man who shall deny to any colored man any
civil rights secured to white persons, shall be liable to be taken
before the officers of this bureau and to be punished according to the
provisions of this section. In the first place, now that peace is
restored, now that there is no war, now that men are no longer under
military rule, but are under civil rule, I want to know how such a
court can be organized; how it is that the citizen may be arrested
without indictment, and may be brought before the officers of this
bureau and tried without a jury, tried without the forms which the
Constitution requires.
"But sir, this section is most objectionable in regard to the offense
that it defines. If any portion of the law ought to be certain, it is
that which defines crime and prescribes the punishment. What is meant
by this general expression, 'the deprivation of any civil right
secured to white persons?' The agent in one State may construe it to
mean one thing, and the agent in another State another thing. It is
broad and comprehensive--'the deprivation of any civil right secured
to white persons.' That act of deprivation is the crime that is to be
punished. Take the case that I have just referred to. Suppose a
minister, when called upon, should refuse to solemnize a marriage
between a colored man and a white woman because the law of the State
forbade it, would he then, refusing to recognize a civil right which
is enjoyed by white persons, be liable to this punishment?
"My judgment is that, under the second section of the constitutional
amendment, we may pass such a law as will secure the freedom declared
in the first section, but that we can not go beyond that limitation.
If a man has been, by this provision of the Constitution, made free
from his master, and that master undertakes to make him a slave again,
we may pass such laws as are sufficient in our judgment to prevent
that act; but if the Legislature of the State denies to the citizen as
he is now called, the freedman, equal privileges with the white man, I
want to know if that Legislature, and each member of that Legislature,
is responsible to the penalties prescribed in this bill? It is not an
act of the old master; it is an act of the State government, which
defines and regulates the civil rights of the people.
"I regard it as very dangerous legislation. It proposes to establish a
government within a government--not a republic within a republic, but
a cruel despotism within a republic. In times of peace, in communities
that are quiet and orderly, and obedient to law, it is proposed to
establish a government not responsible to the people, the officers of
which are not selected by the people, the officers of which need not
be of the people governed--a government more cruel, more despotic,
more dangerous to the liberties of the people than that against which
our forefathers fought in the Revolution. There is nothing that these
men may not do, under this bill, to oppress the people.
"Sir, if we establish courts in the Southern States, we ought to
establish courts that will be on both sides, or on neither side; but
the doctrine now is, that if a man is appointed, either to an
executive or a judicial office, in any locality where there are
colored people, he must be on the side of the negro. I have not heard,
since Congress met, that any colored man has done a wrong in this
country for many years; and I have scarcely heard that any white man
coming in contact with colored people has done right for a number of
years. Every body is expected to take sides for the colored man
against the white man. If I have to take sides, it will be with the
men of my own color and my own race; but I do not wish to do that.
Toward these people I hope that the legislation of Congress, within
the constitutional powers of Congress, will be just and fair--just to
them and just to the white people among whom they live; that it will
promote harmony among the people, and not discord; that it will
restore labor to its channels, and bring about again in those States a
condition of prosperity and happiness. Do we not all desire that? If
we do, is it well for us to inflame our passions and the passions of
the people of the North, so that their judgments shall not be equal
upon the questions between these races? It is all very well for us to
have sympathy for the poor and the unfortunate, but both sides call
for our sympathy in the South. The master, who, by his wickedness and
folly, has involved himself in the troubles that now beset him, has
returned, abandoning his rebellion, and has bent down upon his humble
knees and asked the forgiveness of the Government, and to be restored
again as a citizen. Can a man go further than that? He has been in
many cases pardoned by the Executive. He stands again as a citizen of
the country.
"What relation do we desire that the people of the North shall sustain
toward these people of the South--one of harmony and accord, or of
strife and ill will? Do we want to restore commerce and trade with
them, that we shall prosper thereby as well as they, or do we wish
permanent strife and division? I want this to be a Union in form,
under the Constitution of the United States, and, in fact, by the
harmony of the people of the North and of the South. I believe, as
General Grant says, that this bureau, especially with the enlarged
powers that we propose to confer upon it, will not be an instrument of
concord and harmony, but will be one of discord and strife in that
section of the country. It can not do good, but, in my judgment, will
do much harm."
Following immediately upon the close of the above argument, Mr.
Trumbull thus addressed the senate: "Mr. President, I feel it
incumbent on me to reply to some of the arguments presented by the
Senator from Indiana against this bill. Many of the positions he has
assumed will be found, upon examination, to have no foundation in
fact. He has argued against provisions not contained in the bill, and
he has argued also as if he were entirely forgetful of the condition
of the country and of the great war through which we have passed.
"Now, sir, what was the object of the Freedmen's Bureau, and why was
it established? It was established to look after a large class of
people who, as the results of the war, had been thrown upon the hands
of the Government, and must have perished but for its fostering care
and protection. Does the Senator mean to deny the power of this
Government to protect people under such circumstances? The Senator
must often have voted for appropriations to protect other classes of
people under like circumstances. Whenever, in the history of the
Government, there has been thrown upon it a helpless population, which
must starve and die but for its care, the Government has never failed
to provide for them. At this very session, within the last thirty
days, both houses of Congress have voted half a million dollars to
feed and clothe people during the present winter. Who were they? Many
of them were Indians who had joined the rebellion, and had slain loyal
people of the country. Yes, sir, we appropriated money to feed Indians
who had been fighting against us. We did not hear the Senator's voice
in opposition to that appropriation. What were the facts? It was
stated by our Indian agents that the Indian tribes west of Arkansas, a
part of whom had joined the rebel armies and some the Union armies,
had been driven from their country; that their property had been
destroyed; and now, the conflict of arms having ceased, they had
nothing to live upon during the winter; that they would encroach upon
the white settlements; that unless provision was made for them, they
would rob, plunder, and murder the inhabitants nearest them; and
Congress was called upon to appropriate money to buy them food and
clothing, and we did it. We did it for rebels and traitors. Were we
not bound to do it?
"Now, sir, we have thrown upon us four million people who have toiled
all their lives for others; who, unlike the Indians, had no property
at the beginning of the rebellion; who were never permitted to own any
thing, never permitted to eat the bread their own hands had earned;
many of whom are without support, in the midst of a prejudiced and
hostile population who have been struggling to overthrow the
Government. These four million people, made free by the acts of war
and the constitutional amendment, have been, wherever they could,
loyal and true to the Union; and the Senator seriously asks, What
authority have we to appropriate money to take care of them? What
would he do with them? Would he allow them to starve and die? Would he
turn them over to the mercy of the men who, through their whole lives,
have had their earnings, to be enslaved again? It is not the first
time that money has been appropriated to take care of the destitute
and suffering African. For years it has been the law that whenever
persons of African descent were brought to our shores with the
intention of reducing them to slavery, the Government should, if
possible, rescue and restore them to their native land; and we have
appropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars for this object. Can any
body deny the right to do it? Sir, humanity as well as the
constitutional obligation to suppress the slave trade required it. So
now the people relieved by our act from the control of masters who
supplied their wants that they might have their services, have a right
to rely upon us for assistance till they can have time to provide for
themselves.
"This Freedmen's Bureau is not intended as a permanent institution; it
is only designed to aid these helpless, ignorant, and unprotected
people until they can provide for and take care of themselves. The
authority to do this, so far as legislative sanction can give it, is
to be found in the action of a previous Congress which established the
bureau; but, if it were a new question, the authority for establishing
such a bureau, in my judgment, is given by the Constitution itself;
and as the Senator's whole argument goes upon the idea of peace, and
that all the consequences of the war have ceased, I shall be pardoned,
I trust, if I refer to those provisions of the Constitution which, in
my judgment, authorize the exercise of this military jurisdiction; for
this bureau is a part of the military establishment not simply during
the conflict of arms, but until peace shall be firmly established and
the civil tribunals of the country shall be restored with an assurance
that they may peacefully enforce the laws without opposition.
"The Constitution of the United States declares that Congress shall
have authority 'to declare war and make rules concerning captures on
land and water,' 'to raise and support armies,' 'to provide and
maintain a navy,' 'to make rules for the government and regulation of
the land and naval forces,' 'to provide for calling forth the militia
to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel
invasion,' and 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.' It also declares
that 'the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the
privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States,' and that
'the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a
republican form of government.' Under the exercise of these powers,
the Government has gone through a four years' conflict. It has
succeeded in putting down armed resistance to its authority. But did
the military power which was exercised to put down this armed
resistance cease the moment the rebel armies were dispersed? Has the
Government no authority to bring to punishment the authors of this
rebellion after the conflict of arms has ceased? no authority to hold
as prisoners, if necessary, all who have been captured with arms in
their hands? Can it be that, the moment the rebel armies are
dispersed, the military authority ceases, and they are to be turned
loose to arm and organize again for another conflict against the
Union? Why, sir, it would not be more preposterous on the part of the
traveler, after having, at the peril of his life, succeeded in
disarming a highwayman by whom he was assailed, to immediately turn
round and restore to the robber his weapons with which to make a new
assault.
"And yet this is what some gentlemen would have this nation do with
the worse than robbers who have assailed its life. They propose, the
rebel armies being overcome, that the rebels themselves shall be
instantly clothed with all the authority they possessed before the
conflict, and that the inhabitants of States who for more than four
years have carried on an organized war against the Government shall at
once be invested with all the powers they had at its commencement to
organize and begin it anew; nay, more, they insist that, without any
action of the Government, it is the right of the inhabitants of the
rebellious States, on laying down their arms, to resume their former
positions in the Union, with all the rights they possessed when they
began the war. If such are the consequences of this struggle, it is
the first conflict in the history of the world, between either
individuals or nations, from which such results have followed. What
man, after being despoiled of much of his substance, his children
slain, his own life periled, and his body bleeding from many wounds,
ever restored the authors of such calamities, when within his power,
to the rights they possessed before the conflict without taking some
security for the future.
"Sir, the war powers of the Government do not cease with the
dispersion of the rebel armies; they are to be continued and exercised
until the civil authority of the Government can be established firmly
and upon a sure foundation, not again to be disturbed or interfered
with. And such, sir, is the understanding of the Government. None of
the departments of the Government understand that its military
authority has ceased to operate over the rebellious States. It is but
a short time since the President of the United States issued a
proclamation restoring the privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_ in
the loyal States; but did he restore it in the rebellious States?
Certainly not. What authority has he to suspend the privilege of that
writ anywhere, except in pursuance of the constitutional provision
allowing the writ to be suspended 'when in cases of rebellion or
invasion the public safety may require it?' Then the President
understands that the public safety in the insurrectionary States still
requires its suspension.
"The Attorney-General, when asked, a few days ago, why Jefferson Davis
was not put upon trial, told you that, 'though active hostilities have
ceased, a state of war still exists over the territory in rebellion,'
so that it could not be properly done. General Grant, in an order
issued within a few days--which I commend to the especial
consideration of the Senator from Indiana, for it contains many of the
provisions of the bill under consideration--an order issued with the
approbation of the Executive, for such an order, I apprehend, could
not have been issued without his approbation--directs 'military
division and department commanders, whose commands embrace or are
composed of any of the late rebellious States, and who have not
already done so, will at once issue and enforce orders protecting from
prosecution or suits in the State, or municipal courts of such State,
all officers and soldiers of the armies of the United States, and all
persons thereto attached, or in anywise thereto belonging; subject to
military authority, charged with offenses for acts done in their
military capacity, or pursuant to orders from proper military
authority; and to protect from suit or prosecution all loyal citizens
or persons charged with offenses done against the rebel forces,
directly or indirectly, during the existence of the rebellion; and all
persons, their agents and employés, charged with the occupancy of
abandoned lands or plantations, or the possession or custody of any
kind of property whatever, who occupied, used, possessed, or
controlled the same, pursuant to the order of the President, or any of
the civil or military departments of the Government, and to protect
them from any penalties or damages that may have been or may be
pronounced or adjudged in said courts in any of such cases; and also
protecting colored persons from prosecutions, in any of said States,
charged with offenses for which white persons are not prosecuted or
punished in the same manner and degree.'"
Mr. Saulsbury having asked whether the Senator believed that General
Grant or the President had any constitutional authority to make such
an order as that, Mr. Trumbull replied: "I am very glad the Senator
from Delaware has asked the question. I answer, he had most ample and
complete authority. I indorse the order and every word of it. It would
be monstrous if the officers and soldiers of the army and loyal
citizens were to be subjected to suits and prosecutions for acts done
in saving the republic, and that, too, at the hands of the very men
who sought its destruction. Why, had not the Lieutenant-General
authority to issue the order? Have not the civil tribunals in all the
region of country to which order applies been expelled by armed rebels
and traitors? Has not the power of the Government been overthrown
there? Is it yet reëstablished? Some steps have been taken toward
reëstablishing it under the authority of the military, and in no other
way. If any of the State governments recently set up in the rebellious
States were to undertake to embarrass military operations, I have no
doubt they would at once be set aside by order of the Lieutenant-General,
in pursuance of directions from the Executive. These governments which
have been set up act by permission of the military. They are made use
of, to some extent, to preserve peace and order and enforce civil
rights between parties; and, so far as they act in harmony with the
Constitution and laws of the United States and the orders of the
military commanders, they are permitted to exercise authority; but
until those States shall be restored in all their constitutional
relations to the Union, they ought not to be permitted to exercise
authority in any other way.
"I desire the Senator from Indiana to understand that it is under this
war power that the authority of the Freedmen's Bureau is to be
exercised. I do not claim that its officers can try persons for
offenses without juries in States where the civil tribunals have not
been interrupted by the rebellion. The Senator from Indiana argues
against this bill as if it was applicable to that State. Some of its
provisions are, but most of them are not, unless the State of Indiana
has been in rebellion against the Government; and I know too many of
the brave men who have gone from that State to maintain the integrity
of the Union and put down the rebellion to cast any such imputation
upon her. She is a loyal and a patriotic State; her civil government
has never been usurped or overthrown by traitors, and the provisions
of the seventh and eighth sections of the bill to which the Senator
alludes can not, by their very terms, have any application to the
State of Indiana. Let me read the concluding sentence of the eighth
section:
"'The jurisdiction conferred by this section on the officers
and agents of this bureau to cease and determine whenever,
the discrimination on account of which it is conferred
ceases, and in no event to be exercised in any State in
which the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has not
been interrupted by the rebellion, nor in any such State
after said State shall have been fully restored in all its
constitutional relations to the United States, and the
courts of the State and of the United States within, the
same are not disturbed or stopped in the peaceable course of
justice.'
"Will the Senator from Indiana admit for a moment that the courts in
his State are now disturbed or stopped in the peaceable course of
justice? If they were ever so disturbed, they are not now. Will the
Senator admit that the State of Indiana does not have and exercise all
its constitutional rights as one of the States of this Union? The
judicial authority conferred by this bill applies to no State, not
even to South Carolina, after it shall have been restored in all its
constitutional rights.
"There is no provision in the bill for the exercise of judicial
authority except in the eighth section. Rights are declared in the
seventh, but the mode of protecting them is provided in the eighth
section, and the eighth section then declares explicitly that the
jurisdiction that is conferred shall be exercised only in States which
do not possess full constitutional rights as parts of the Union.
Indiana has at all times had all the constitutional rights pertaining
to any State, has them now, and therefore the officers and agents of
this bureau can take no jurisdiction of any case in the State of
Indiana. It will be another question, which I will answer, and may as
well answer now, perhaps, as to what is meant by 'military
protection.'
"The second section declares that 'the President of the United States,
through the War Department and the commissioner, shall extend military
jurisdiction and protection over all employés, agents, and officers of
this bureau.' He wants to know the effect of that in Indiana. This
bureau is a part of the military establishment. The effect of that in
Indiana is precisely the same as in every other State, and under it
the officers and agents of the Freedmen's Bureau will occupy the same
position as do the officers and soldiers of the United States Army.
What is that? While they are subject to the Rules and Articles of War,
if they chance to be in Indiana and violate her laws, they are held
amenable the same as any other person. The officer or soldier in the
State of Indiana who commits a murder or other offense upon a citizen
of Indiana, is liable to be indicted, tried, and punished, just as if
he were a civilian. When the sheriff goes with the process to arrest
the soldier or officer who has committed the offense, the military
authorities surrender him up to be tried and punished according to the
laws of the State. It has always been done, unless in time of war when
the courts were interrupted. The jurisdiction and 'protection' that is
extended over these officers and agents is for the purpose of making
them subject to the Rules and Articles of War. It is necessary for
this reason: in the rebellious States civil authority is not yet fully
restored. There would be no other way of punishing them, of holding
them to accountability, of governing and controlling them, in many
portions of the country; and it is because of the condition of the
rebellious States, and their still being under military authority,
that it is necessary to put these officers and agents of the
Freedmen's Bureau under the control of the military power.
"The Senator says the original law only embraced within its provisions
the refugees in the rebellious States; and now this bill is extended
to all the States, and he wants to know the reason. I will tell him.
When the original bill was passed, slavery existed in Tennessee,
Kentucky, Delaware, and in various other States. Since that time, by
the constitutional amendment, it has been every-where abolished."
Mr. Saulsbury, aroused by the mention of his own State, interrupted
the speaker: "I say, as one of the representatives of Delaware on this
floor, that she had the proud and noble character of being the first
to enter the Federal Union under a Constitution formed by equals. She
has been the very last to obey a mandate, legislative or executive,
for abolishing slavery. She has been the last slaveholding State,
thank God, in America, and I am one of the last slaveholders in
America."
Mr. Trumbull continued: "Well, Mr. President, I do not see
particularly what the declaration of the Senator from Delaware has to
do with the question I am discussing. His State may have been the last
to become free, but I presume that the State of Delaware, old as she
is, being the first to adopt the Constitution, and noble as she is,
will submit to the Constitution of the United States, which declares
that there shall be no slavery within its jurisdiction." [Applause in
the galleries.]
"It is necessary, Mr. President, to extend the Freedmen's Bureau
beyond the rebel States in order to take in the State of Delaware,
[laughter,] the loyal State of Delaware, I am happy to say, which did
not engage in this wicked rebellion; and it is necessary to protect
the freedmen in that State as well as elsewhere; and that is the
reason for extending the Freedmen's Bureau beyond the limits of the
rebellious States.
"Now, the Senator from Indiana says it extends all over the United
States. Well, by its terms it does, though practically it can have
little if any operation outside of the late slaveholding States. If
freedmen should congregate in large numbers at Cairo, Illinois, or at
Evansville, Indiana, and become a charge upon the people of those
States, the Freedmen's Bureau would have a right to extend its
jurisdiction over them, provide for their wants, secure for them
employment, and place them in situations where they could provide for
themselves; and would the State of Illinois or the State of Indiana
object to that? The provisions of the bill which would interfere with
the laws of Indiana can have no operation there.
"Again, the Senator objects very much to the expense of this bureau.
Why, sir, as I have once or twice before said, it is a part of the
military establishment. I believe nearly all its officers at the
present time are military officers, and by the provisions of the
pending bill they are to receive no additional compensation when
performing duties in the Freedmen's Bureau. The bill declares that the
'bureau may, in the discretion of the President, be placed under a
commissioner and assistant commissioners, to be detailed from the
army, in which event each officer so assigned to duty shall serve
without increase of pay or allowances.'
"I shall necessarily, Mr. President, in following the Senator from
Indiana, speak somewhat in a desultory manner; but I prefer to do so
because I would rather meet the objections made directly than by any
general speech. I will, therefore, take up his next objection, which
is to the fifth section of the bill. That section proposes to confirm
for three years the possessory titles granted by General Sherman. The
Senator from Indiana admits that General Sherman had authority, when
at the head of the army at Savannah, and these people were flocking
around him and dependent upon him for support, to put them upon the
abandoned lands; but he says that authority to put them there and
maintain them there ceased with peace. Well, sir, a sufficient answer
to that would be that peace has not yet come; the effects of war are
not yet ended; the people of the States of South Carolina, Georgia,
and Florida, where these lands are situated, are yet subject to
military control. But I deny that if peace had come the authority of
the Government to protect these people in their possessions would
cease the moment it was declared. What are the facts? The owners of
these plantations had abandoned them and entered the rebel army. They
were contending against the army which General Sherman then commanded.
Numerous colored people had flocked around General Sherman's army. It
was necessary that he should supply them to save them from starvation.
His commissariat was short. Here was this abandoned country, owned by
men arrayed in arms against the Government. He, it is admitted, had
authority to put these followers of his army upon these lands, and
authorize them to go to work and gain a subsistence if they could.
They went on the lands to the number of forty or fifty thousand,
commenced work, have made improvements; and now will the Senator from
Indiana tell me that upon any principle of justice, humanity, or law,
if peace had come when these laborers had a crop half gathered, the
Government of the United States, having rightfully placed them in
possession, and pledged its faith to protect them there for an
uncertain period, could immediately have turned them off and put in
possession those traitor owners who had abandoned their homes to fight
against the Government?
"The Government having placed these people rightfully upon these
lands, and they having expended their labor upon them, they had a
right to be protected in their possessions, for some length of time
after peace, on the principle of equity. That is all we propose to do
by this bill. The committee thought it would not be more than a
reasonable protection to allow them to remain for three years, they
having been put upon these lands destitute, without any implements of
husbandry, without cattle, horses, or any thing else with which to
cultivate the land, and having, up to the present time, been able to
raise very little at the expense of great labor. Perhaps the Senator
thinks they ought not to remain so long. I will not dispute whether
they shall go off at the end of one year or two years. The committee
propose two years more. The order was dated in January, 1865, and we
propose three years from that time, which will expire in January,
1868, or about two years from this time.
"On account of that provision of the bill, the Senator asks me the
question whether the Government of the United States has the right, in
a time of peace, to take property from one man and give it to another.
I say no. Of course the Government of the United States has no
authority, in a time of peace, by a legislative act, to say that the
farm of the Senator from Indiana shall be given to the Senator from
Ohio; I contend for no such principle. But following that up, the
Senator wants to know by what authority you buy land or provide
school-houses for these refugees. Have we not been providing
school-houses for years? Is there a session of Congress when acts are
not passed giving away public lands for the benefit of schools? But
that does not come out of the Treasury, the Senator from Indiana will
probably answer. But how did you get the land to give away? Did you
not buy it of the Indians? Are you not appropriating, every session of
Congress, money by the million to extinguish the Indian title--money
collected off his constituents and mine by taxation? We buy the land
and then we give the land away for schools. Will the Senator tell me
how that differs from giving the money? Does it make any difference
whether we buy the land from the Indians and give it for the benefit
of schools, or whether we buy it from some rebel and give--no, sir,
use--it for the benefit of schools, with a view ultimately of selling
it for at least its cost? I believe I would rather buy from the
Indian; but still, if the traitor is to be permitted to have a title,
we will buy it from him if we can purchase cheaper.
"Sir, it is a matter of economy to do this. The cheapest way by which
you can save this race from starvation and destruction is to educate
them. They will then soon become self-sustaining. The report of the
Freedmen's Bureau shows that to-day more than seventy thousand black
children are being taught in the schools which have been established
in the South. We shall not long have to support any of these blacks
out of the public Treasury if we educate and furnish them land upon
which they can make a living for themselves. This is a very different
thing from taking the land of A and giving it to B by an act of
Congress.
"But the Senator is most alarmed at those sections of this bill which
confer judicial authority upon the officers and agents of the
Freedmen's Bureau. He says if this authority can be exercised there is
an end to all the reserved rights of the States, and this Government
may do any thing. Not at all, sir. The authority, as I have already
shown, to be exercised under the seventh and eighth sections, is a
military authority, to be exerted only in regions of country where the
civil tribunals are overthrown, and not there after they are restored.
It is the same authority that we have been exercising all the time in
the rebellious States; it is the same authority by virtue of which
General Grant issued the order which I have just read. Here is a
perfect and complete answer to the objection that is made to the
seventh and eighth sections.
"But, says the Senator from Indiana, we have laws in Indiana
prohibiting black people from marrying whites, and are you going to
disregard these laws? Are our laws enacted for the purpose of
preventing amalgamation to be disregarded, and is a man to be punished
because he undertakes to enforce them? I beg the Senator from Indiana
to read the bill. One of its objects is to secure the same civil
rights and subject to the same punishments persons of all races and
colors. How does this interfere with the law of Indiana preventing
marriages between whites and blacks? Are not both races treated alike
by the law of Indiana? Does not the law make it just as much a crime
for a white man to marry a black woman as for a black woman to marry a
white man, and _vice versa_? I presume there is no discrimination in
this respect, and therefore your law forbidding marriages between
whites and blacks operates alike on both races. This bill does not
interfere with it. If the negro is denied the right to marry a white
person, the white person is equally denied the right to marry the
negro. I see no discrimination against either in this respect that
does not apply to both. Make the penalty the same on all classes of
people for the same offense, and then no one can complain.
"My object in bringing forward these bills was to bring to the
attention of Congress something that was practical, something upon
which I hoped we all could agree. I have said nothing in these bills
which are pending, and which have been recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary--and I speak of both of them because they have both been
alluded to in this discussion--about the political rights of the
negro. On that subject it is known that there are differences of
opinion, but I trust there are no differences of opinion among the
friends of the constitutional amendment, among those who are for real
freedom to the black man, as to his being entitled to equality in
civil rights. If that is not going as far as some gentlemen would
desire, I say to them it is a step in the right direction. Let us go
that far, and, going that far, we have the coöperation of the
Executive Department; for the President has told us 'Good faith
requires the security of the freedmen in their liberty and their
property, their right to labor, and their right to claim the just
return of their labor.'
"Such, sir, is the language of the President of the United States in
his annual message; and who in this chamber that is in favor of the
freedom of the slave is not in favor of giving him equal and exact
justice before the law? Sir, we can go along hand in hand together to
the consummation of this great object of securing to every human being
within the jurisdiction of the republic equal rights before the law,
and I preferred to seek for points of agreement between all the
departments of Government, rather than to hunt for points of
divergence. I have not said any thing in my remarks about
reconstruction. I have not attempted to discuss the question whether
these States are in the Union or out of the Union, and so much has
been said upon that subject that I am almost ready to exclaim with one
of old, 'I know not whether they are in the body or out of the body;
God knoweth.' It is enough for me to know that the State organizations
in several States of the Union have been usurped and overthrown, and
that up to the present time no State organization has been inaugurated
in either of them which the various departments of Government, or any
department of the Government, has recognized as placing the States in
full possession of all the constitutional rights pertaining to States
in full communion with the Union.
"The Executive has not recognized any one, for he still continues to
exercise military jurisdiction and to suspend the privilege of the
writ of _habeas corpus_ in all of them. Congress has not recognized
any of them, as we all know; and until Congress and the Executive do
recognize them, let us make use of the Freedmen's Bureau, already
established, to protect the colored race in their rights; and when
these States shall be admitted, and the authority of the Freedmen's
Bureau as a court shall cease and determine, as it must when civil
authority is fully restored, let us provide, then, by other laws, for
protecting all people in their equal civil rights before the law. If
we can pass such measures, they receive executive sanction, and it
shall be understood that it is the policy of the Government that the
rights of the colored men are to be protected by the States if they
will, but by the Federal Government if they will not; that at all
hazards, and under all circumstances, there shall be impartiality
among all classes in civil rights throughout the land. If we can do
this, much of the apprehension and anxiety now existing in the loyal
States will be allayed, and a great obstacle to an early restoration
of the insurgent States to their constitutional relations in the Union
will be removed.
"If the people in the rebellious States can be made to understand that
it is the fixed and determined policy of the Government that the
colored people shall be protected in their civil rights, they
themselves will adopt the necessary measures to protect them; and that
will dispense with the Freedmen's Bureau and all other Federal
legislation for their protection. The design of these bills is not, as
the Senator from Indiana would have us believe, to consolidate all
power in the Federal Government, or to interfere with the domestic
regulations of any of the States, except so far as to carry out a
constitutional provision which is the supreme law of the land. If the
States will not do it, then it is incumbent on Congress to do it. But
if the States will do it, then the Freedmen's Bureau will be removed,
and the authority proposed to be given by the other bill will have no
operation.
"Sir, I trust there may be no occasion long to exercise the authority
conferred by this bill. I hope that the people of the rebellious
States themselves will conform to the existing condition of things. I
do not expect them to change all their opinions and prejudices. I do
not expect them to rejoice that they have been discomfited. But they
acknowledge that the war is over; they agree that they can no longer
contend in arms against the Government; they say they are willing to
submit to its authority; they say in their State conventions that
slavery shall no more exist among them. With the abolition of slavery
should go all the badges of servitude which have been enacted for its
maintenance and support. Let them all be abolished. Let the people of
the rebellious States now be as zealous and as active in the passage
of laws and the inauguration of measures to elevate, develop, and
improve the negro as they have hitherto been to enslave and degrade
him. Let them do justice and deal fairly with loyal Union men in their
midst, and henceforth be themselves loyal, and this Congress will not
have adjourned till the States whose inhabitants have been engaged in
the rebellion will be restored, to their former position in the Union,
and we shall all be moving on in harmony together."
On the day following the discussion above given, Mr. Cowan moved to
amend the first section of the bill so that its operation would be
limited to such States "as have lately been in rebellion." In
supporting his amendment, Mr. Cowan remarked: "I have no idea of
having this system extended over Pennsylvania. I think that as to the
freedmen who make their appearance there, she will be able to take
care of them and provide as well for them as any bureau which can be
created here. I wish to confine the operation of this institution to
the States which have been lately in rebellion."
To this Mr. Trumbull replied: "The Senator from Pennsylvania will see
that the effect of that would be to exclude from the operation of the
bureau the State of Kentucky and the State of Delaware, where the
slaves have been emancipated by the constitutional amendment. The
operation of the bureau will undoubtedly be chiefly confined to the
States where slavery existed; but it is a fact which may not be known
to the Senator from Pennsylvania, that during this war large numbers
of slaves have fled to the Northern States bordering on the
slaveholding territory.
"It is not supposed that the bill will have any effect in the State of
Pennsylvania or in the State of Illinois, unless it might, perhaps, be
at Cairo, where there has been a large number of these refugees
congregated, without any means of support; they followed the army
there at different times.
"The provision of the bill in regard to holding courts, and some other
provisions, are confined entirely to the rebellious States, and will
have no operation in any State which was not in insurrection against
this Government. I make this explanation to the Senator from
Pennsylvania, and I think he will see the necessity of the bureau
going into Kentucky and some of the other States, as much as into any
of the Southern rebellious States."
Mr. Guthrie was opposed to the extension of the bill to his State. He
said: "I should like to know the peculiar reasons why this bill is to
be extended to the State of Kentucky. She has never been in rebellion.
Though she has been overrun by rebel armies, and her fields laid
waste, she has always had her full quota in the Union armies, and the
blood of her sons has marked the fields whereon they have fought.
Kentucky does not want and does not ask this relief. The freedmen in
Kentucky are a part of our population; and where the old, and lame,
and halt, and blind, and infants require care and attention they
obtain it from the counties. Our whole organization for the support of
the poor, through the agencies of the magistrates in the several
counties, is complete."
[Illustration: Hon. Henry Wilson.]
On the other hand, Mr. Creswell, of Maryland, saw a necessity for the
operation of the bill in his State. He said: "I have received, within
the last two or three weeks, letters from gentlemen of the highest
respectability in my State, asserting that combinations of returned
rebel soldiers have been formed for the express purpose of
persecuting, beating most cruelly, and in some cases actually
murdering the returned colored soldiers of the republic. In certain
sections of my State, the civil law affords no remedy at all. It is
impossible there to enforce against these people so violating the law
the penalties which the law has prescribed for these offenses. It is,
therefore, necessary, in my opinion, that this bill shall extend over
the State of Maryland."
Mr. Cowan, in the course of a speech on the bill, said: "Thank God! we
are now rid of slavery; that is now gone." He also said: "Let the
friends of the negro, and I am one, be satisfied to treat him as he is
treated in Pennsylvania; as he is treated in Ohio; as he is treated
every-where where people have maintained their sanity upon the
question."
Mr. Wilson said: "The Senator from Pennsylvania tells us that he is
the friend of the negro. What, sir, he the friend of the negro! Why,
sir, there has hardly been a proposition before the Senate of the
United States for the last five years, looking to the emancipation of
the negro and the protection of his rights, that the Senator from
Pennsylvania has not sturdily opposed. He has hardly ever uttered a
word upon this floor the tendency of which was not to degrade and to
belittle a weak and struggling race. He comes here to-day and thanks
God that they are free, when his vote and his voice for five years,
with hardly an exception, have been against making them free. He
thanks God, sir, that your work and mine, our work which has saved a
country and emancipated a race, is secured; while from the word 'go,'
to this time, he has made himself the champion of 'how not to do it.'
If there be a man on the floor of the American Senate who has tortured
the Constitution of the country to find powers to arrest the voice of
this nation which was endeavoring to make a race free, the Senator
from Pennsylvania is the man; and now he comes here and thanks God
that a work which he has done his best to arrest, and which we have
carried, is accomplished. I tell him to-day that we shall carry these
other measures, whether he thanks God for them or not, whether he
opposes them or not." [Laughter and applause in the galleries.]
After an extended discussion, the Senate refused, by a vote of
thirty-three against eleven, to adopt the amendment proposed by Mr.
Cowan.
The bill was further discussed during three successive days, Messrs.
Saulsbury, Hendricks, Johnson, McDougall, and Davis speaking against
the measure, and Messrs. Fessenden, Creswell, and Trumbull in favor of
it. Mr. Garrett Davis addressed the Senate more than once on the
subject, and on the last day of the discussion made a very long
speech, which was answered by Mr. Trumbull. The Senator from Illinois,
at the conclusion of his speech, remarked:
"What I have now said embraces, I believe, all the points of the long
gentleman's speech except the sound and fury, and that I will not
undertake to reply to."
"You mean the short gentleman's long speech," interposed some Senator.
"Did I say short?" asked Mr. Trumbull. "If so, it was a great mistake
to speak of any thing connected with the Senator from Kentucky as
short." [Laughter.]
"It is long enough to reach you," responded Mr. Davis.
The vote was soon after taken on the passage of the bill, with the
following result:
YEAS--Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Conness,
Cragin, Creswell, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster,
Grimes, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of
Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Norton, Nye,
Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner,
Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Williams, Wilson, and Yates--37.
NAYS--Messrs. Buckalew, Davis, Guthrie, Hendricks, Johnson,
McDougall, Riddle, Saulsbury, Stockton, and Wright--10.
ABSENT--Messrs. Cowan, Nesmith, and Willey--3.
The bill having passed, the question came up as to its title, which it
was proposed to leave as reported by the committee: "A bill to enlarge
the powers of the Freedmen's Bureau."
Mr. Davis moved to amend the title by substituting for it, "A bill to
appropriate a portion of the public land in some of the Southern
States and to authorize the United States Government to purchase lands
to supply farms and build houses upon them for the freed negroes; to
promote strife and conflict between the white and black races; and to
invest the Freedmen's Bureau with unconstitutional powers to aid and
assist the blacks, and to introduce military power to prevent the
commissioner and other officers of said bureau from being restrained
or held responsible in civil courts for their illegal acts in
rendering such aid and assistance to the blacks, and for other
purposes."
The President _pro tempore_ pronounced the amendment "not in order,
inconsistent with the character of the bill, derogatory to the Senate,
a reproach to its members."
Mr. McDougall declared the proposed amendment "an insult to the action
of the Senate."
The unfortunate proposition was quietly abandoned by its author, and
passed over without further notice by the Senate. By unanimous
consent, the title of the bill remained as first reported.