REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON DIFFERENT PROPOSITIONS, FEBRUARY 10, 29, AND
JUNE 11, 1864.
February 3d, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, reported a joint
resolution to equalize the pay of soldiers in the United
States army, which provided that all persons of color, who
have been or may be mustered into the military service of
the United States, shall receive the same uniform, clothing,
arms, equipments, camp equipage, rations, medical and hospital
attendance, pay and emoluments, other than bounty, as other
soldiers of the regular or volunteer forces of the United
States of like arm of service, during the whole term in which
they shall be or shall have been in such service, and every
person of color who shall hereafter be mustered into the
service shall receive such sums in bounty as the President
shall order in the different States and parts of the United
States, not exceeding one hundred dollars.
February 4th, the Senate considered the joint resolution. Mr.
Fessenden, of Maine, “wished to inquire what propriety there is
in our going back and paying them this increase for services
already rendered.” Mr. Wilson thought, “as an act of justice,
the bill should be retrospective,”--that “the gross injustice
done by the country toward these men ought to be corrected.”
Mr. Fessenden was in favor, and had ever been in favor, of
putting colored soldiers on a level with white, but he was
opposed to paying men for services already rendered, unless
the men were promised full pay by orders emanating from the
War Department. Mr. Sumner, after stating that there were two
classes of enlistments, first, under the statute of 1861, and,
secondly, under the statute of 1862, insisted that under the
former statute any person of African descent might be enlisted
and entitled to the same pay as a white soldier. “There was
no limitation in the statute. There was no color there. There
was nothing against the enlistment of colored men under that
statute, except a blind prejudice which we ought to forget.”
He concluded: “I wish to see our colored troops treated like
white troops in every respect. But I would not press this first
principle by any retroactive proposition, unless where the
faith of the Government is committed, and there I would not
hesitate. The Treasury can bear any additional burden better
than the country can bear to do an injustice.”
February 10th, the subject being still under consideration, Mr.
Sumner said:--
MR. PRESIDENT,--I am grateful to the Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
FOSTER] for his admirable argument on this question; and yet it seems
to me, if he will pardon me, that even in point of law he has not
stated the case as strongly in favor of this obligation as it might be
stated. It may be remembered, that, when this discussion was closing,
the other day, I ventured to throw out the remark, that there were
evidently two classes of cases: the first, where enlistments in good
faith were made under the statute of 1861; and the second, where they
were made under the statute of 1862.
In point of law, it seems obvious, if enlistments were made in good
faith under the statute of 1861, and there was no legal objection
to those enlistments, then the United States are bound. If, on the
contrary, they were made under the subsequent statute, then it is
simply a question of policy and expediency whether we shall make this
payment. The whole subject is open to discussion,--first, in the light
of sentiment, which may involve expediency and policy, and, secondly,
in the light of law. I shall not say anything upon it in the first
aspect, except to make one remark,--that our country at this moment can
ill afford to take the responsibility of refusing justice to colored
soldiers whom it has allowed to shed their blood in its cause. The soul
repudiates any such sacrifice,--for sacrifice it will be, at once of
honor and of interest. I do not follow out this idea, but pass at once
to the second aspect, which I called the question of law; and there I
differ from my learned friend from Connecticut, when I say that there
are certain colored regiments in the field who in point of law are
entitled to the full wages of thirteen dollars a month.
MR. FOSTER. If the Senator will pardon me, I insisted on that
fact, and said they were enlisted, not under the law, but under
instructions from the Department, authorizing the officers to
enlist them on the same terms that white troops were enlisted,
which would be thirteen dollars per month.
MR. SUMNER. Very well. I still understood the Senator to imply
that perhaps in point of law there might be some doubt whether the
Government was liable for the thirteen dollars a month. I propose to
carry the argument a little further, and show, by calling attention for
one moment to the statutes,--not at any great length,--that, under the
statutes themselves, the Government is obliged to pay certain regiments
thirteen dollars a month.
I begin with the Massachusetts fifty-fourth and fifty-fifth regiments;
and these may be taken as examples. I have before me the actual order
under which those two regiments were raised.
“WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, January 26, 1863.
“_Ordered_, That Governor Andrew, of Massachusetts, is
authorized, until further orders, to raise such number of
volunteer companies of artillery for duty in the forts of
Massachusetts and elsewhere, and such corps of infantry for the
volunteer military service, as he may find convenient; _such
volunteers to be enlisted for three years_,”--