I am unwilling to stand in the way of any desire of the Senator from
Tennessee [Mr. ANDREW JOHNSON]. I hesitate, therefore, to use the
privilege, under the rules, of objecting to a resolution on the day
of its introduction; but I do think, in view of its importance, that
it ought at least to be printed, so that we may have an opportunity
of reading it carefully and considering it well, before we act upon
it. Therefore I object to its consideration at this time. I wish the
Senator to understand that it is with great respect for himself, and
with a desire to do really what the occasion, as I think, requires. I
hope the Senator himself will consent that it lie on the table and be
printed.
Mr. Johnson said that he would not object, and the resolution
was ordered to be printed, as follows.
“_Resolved_,--That the present deplorable civil war has
been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the
Southern States, now in revolt against the Constitutional
Government, and in arms around the capital; that in this
national emergency, Congress, banishing all feeling of
mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty
to the whole country; that this war is not prosecuted
upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any
purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of
overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established
institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain
the supremacy of the Constitution, and all laws made in
pursuance thereof, and to preserve the Union, with all
the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States
unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished,
the war ought to cease.”
The next day the resolution was taken up, on motion of Mr.
Johnson. Mr. Trumbull objected to the allegation in it that the
disunionists were “in arms around the capital,” which in his
opinion was not true; and he added, that, in his opinion, the
revolt was occasioned by people who are not here or in this
vicinity: it was started in South Carolina. He objected also
to the clause that the war was “not prosecuted for any purpose
of conquest or subjugation,”--on which he said, “I trust this
war _is_ prosecuted for the purpose of subjugating all rebels
and traitors who are in arms against the Government.” For
these reasons he voted in the negative. Every other Republican
present voted in the affirmative, except Mr. Sumner, who
declined to vote. His name does not appear in the record.
* * * * *
This resolution was general in terms, but specious. Though
not mentioning Slavery expressly, or interfering with the
requirement of military necessity, it was considered at the
time as a safeguard of Slavery, even to the Fugitive Slave Bill
itself, which was included under the words, “the supremacy of
the Constitution, and all laws made in pursuance thereof.” Nor
could it be forgotten that it was first brought forward by the
same person who, during the previous winter, as Senator from
Kentucky, had most pertinaciously urged an odious compromise,
by which Slavery was to be intrenched in the Constitution,
and made dominant in the National Government. Mr. Sumner,
always sensitive to any recognition of Slavery, saw in it an
effort to commit Congress the wrong way, so that inaction on
Slavery should be the policy of the war, when, to his mind,
the sooner Slavery was attacked, the better. His objection to
the resolution was radical; but, unwilling to separate openly
from political associates, anxious also with regard to the
President, who held back, and hoping that time would bring
general concurrence in striking at Slavery, he was silent, and
contented himself by withholding his vote, so that he was not
committed to the resolution in any respect.
This statement is made to explain the progress of events, and
also because Mr. Sumner’s course was the occasion of comment,
and even of hostile criticism, at the time.