MR. PRESIDENT,--Listening with interest to this debate, and noting
the various propositions to modify the original resolution of the
Committee, especially that of the Senator [Mr. WADE] who has urged
it so vehemently, and then again the modification even of this
modification, I have been reminded of the story told by Byron[56] of
Mr. Fox, afterwards British minister at Washington, and now sleeping
in our Congressional burial-ground, who said of himself, after an
illness in Naples, that he was “so changed that his oldest creditors
would hardly know him.” But no illness could work a greater change
than is promised in the resolution of the Committee. In the form it
is about to assume, its oldest supporter will hardly know it. The
ancient legend of the ship of Theseus is revived. That famous ship,
which bore the Athenian hero on his adventurous expedition to Crete,
was piously preserved in the arsenal of Athens, where its decaying
timbers were renewed, until, in the lapse of time, every part of the
original ship had disappeared, and nothing but the name remained. Are
we not witnessing a similar process, to end, I trust, in a similar
disappearance?
In its original form, the resolution so earnestly maintained by my
friends from Ohio and Michigan called for retaliation in kind,--eye
for eye, tooth for tooth, cruelty for cruelty, freezing for freezing,
starvation for starvation, death for death. The President was commanded
to imitate Rebel barbarism in all respects, point by point. This
command I felt it my duty to resist. I said nothing against retaliation
according to the laws and usages of civilized nations, for that I know
is one of the terrible incidents of war; but I resisted a principle
which civilization disowns. The resolutions I offered as a substitute
were intended as a sort of “earthwork” in support of this resistance.
Perhaps they have already accomplished their purpose, inasmuch as
Senators have evacuated their original position.
The question is solemn enough, and yet, as I recall the original
resolution, I am reminded of an incident, more comic than serious,
which occurred at Paris, while occupied by the conquering Prussians,
in 1814. A Prussian soldier was brought before the Governor, charged
with unmercifully beating a Frenchman, at whose house he was billeted,
for not supplying a bottle of Berlin _weissbier_, which the Prussian
insisted upon drinking. The Governor spoke of unreasonableness in
the demand, and declared that he should be obliged to inflict severe
punishment, when the Prussian soldier set up the Law of Retaliation.
“I was a little boy,” said he, “when a French dragoon beat my father
because he was unable to find a bottle of claret in our whole village,
and I then swore, that, if ever I reached France, I would beat a
Frenchman for not getting me a bottle of _weissbier_. Am I not right?”
This was retaliation in kind, and retrospective in operation, like
that of the original resolution.
Much as this resolution is changed, so that it no longer requires
retaliation in kind, I think it might be changed still further. It
is not enough, on such an occasion, and especially after avowals
made in this Chamber, to say that retaliation shall be according to
the principles of Public Law. Montesquieu, in his “Spirit of Laws,”
exhibits the uncertainty of this language. These are his words:--
“All nations have a Law of Nations,--even the Iroquois, who
eat their prisoners. They send and receive ambassadors; they
know the Laws of War and Peace. The evil is, that their Law of
Nations is not founded on true principles.”[57]
The resolution, therefore, for the sake of certainty, and to give
double assurance that humanity shall not suffer, ought to be still
further amended, by limiting the retaliation to the usages of civilized
society. This amendment becomes the more needful since Senators argue
that by the principles of public law the intolerable cruelties of the
Rebellion may be retaliated.
I desire to repeat my unalterable conviction that these cruelties
cannot be retaliated in kind. And here I call attention to the opinions
of an illustrious citizen, only recently removed from the duties of
this world. I refer to the late Edward Everett, who, in a speech at
Faneuil Hall, a few days before his lamented death, thus testifies in
what may be called his dying words:--
“I believe the best way in which we can retaliate upon the
South for the cruel treatment of our prisoners is for us to
continue to treat their prisoners with entire humanity and
all reasonable kindness,--and not only so, but to seize every
opportunity like the present to go beyond this. Indeed, it is
no more than our duty to treat the prisoner well. The Law of
Nations requires it. The Government that refuses or neglects it
does not deserve the name of civilized. Even inability is no
justification. If you are yourself so exhausted that you cannot
supply your prisoner with a sufficient quantity of wholesome
food, you are bound, with or without exchange, to set him free.
You have no more right to starve than to poison him. It will,
however, be borne in mind, that, while the hard fare of our
prisoners is defended by the Southern leaders, on the ground
that it is as good as that of their own soldiers, at the same
time they maintain that their harvests are abundant and their
armies well fed. There is no merit in treating a prisoner with
common humanity; it is simply infamous and wicked to treat him
otherwise.”[58]
You will not fail to observe how positive is his opinion on the limits
of retaliation, and its character when carried beyond proper limits.
And here it is proper to remark, that Mr. Everett was not only a
patriot, who, in the latter trials of the Republic, devoted himself
ably, purely, and successfully to the vindication and advancement of
the national cause, but he was a publicist, who had profoundly studied
the Law of Nations. Few in our history have understood it better. His
last labors were devoted to this important subject. At the time of his
death he was preparing a course of lectures upon it. Therefore, when,
in the name of Public Law, he speaks against any imitation of Rebel
barbarism, it is with the voice of authority.
From one eminent publicist I pass to another. On a former occasion
I took the liberty of introducing a familiar letter from Professor
Lieber, once of South Carolina, now of New York. The Senator from
Michigan [Mr. HOWARD], not content with attempting an answer to the
learned professor, proceeded to language with regard to him which I
am sure his careful judgment cannot approve. The friend whose letter
I read needs no praise as a practical writer and thinker on questions
of International Law. On account of his acknowledged fitness as a
master of this science, he was selected as commissioner to prepare
instructions for the armies of the United States, constituting a most
important chapter of the Law of Nations. Those instructions are the
evidence of his ability and judgment. So long as they are followed by
our Government, it will be difficult for the Senator, learned as he
unquestionably is, to impeach their distinguished author. There is no
Senator, not excepting the Senator from Michigan, who might not be
proud to have such a monument of fame. But he is no mere theorist. It
was on the field of battle, where, as a youthful soldier, he was left
for dead, that he began a practical acquaintance with those Laws of War
which he has done so much to expound.
And now let me read a commentary on the Law of Retaliation by this
authority. I quote from an article which has already appeared in the
New York “Times.”
“No mawkish sentimentality has induced the writer to express
his views. He has had dear friends in those Southern pens,
which have become the very symbols of revolting barbarity; but
he desires, for this very reason, that the subject be weighed
without passion, which never counsels well,--especially without
the passion of mere vengeance. Let us bring down this general
call for retaliation to practical and detailed measures. It is
supposed, then, that retaliation is resolved upon; what next?
The order is given to harass, starve, expose, and torture,
say twenty thousand prisoners in our hands, until their bones
pierce the skin, and they die idiots in their filth. Why should
things be demanded which every one knows the Northern man is
incapable of doing?
“If, however, by retaliation he meant that captured Rebels
in our hands should be cut off from the pleasant comforts
of life which Northerners subservient to the South love to
extend to them, then, indeed, we fully agree. This treasonable
over-kindness ought never to have been permitted. It has had
the worst effect on the arrogance of our enemy; but prohibiting
it is not, and cannot be called, retaliation.
“Let us not be driven from the position of manly calmness and
moral dignity; and let us, on the other hand, be stern, so
stern that our severity shall impress the prisoners that they
are such. But let us not follow Rebel examples. It is too
sickening, too vile.”
Such is the testimony of Francis Lieber, in entire, but independent,
harmony with the testimony of Edward Everett. As authority, nothing
further can be desired. And yet the question is still debated, and
grave Senators take counsel of their indignation rather than of the law.
The earnestness which has characterized this discussion attests the
interest of the subject, and the interest here is only a reflection of
that throughout the country. When you speak of our brave officers and
soldiers suffering, languishing, pining, dying in Rebel prisons, you
touch a chord which vibrates in every patriot bosom. He must be cold,
sluggish, and inhuman,--so cold “that nought can warm his blood, Sir,
but a fever,”[59]--who is not moved to every possible effort for their
redemption.
I am happy to see that the Secretary of War is not insensible to this
commanding duty. Here is an extract from a communication which he sent
to the House of Representatives as late as January 21st:--
“On the 15th October the subject of exchanges was placed under
the direction of Lieutenant-General Grant, with full authority
to take any steps he might deem proper to effect the release
and exchange of our soldiers, and of loyal persons, held as
prisoners by the Rebel authorities. He was instructed that it
was the desire of the President that no efforts consistent
with national safety and honor should be spared to effect the
prompt release of all soldiers and loyal persons in captivity
to the Rebels as prisoners of war, or on any other grounds, and
the subject was committed to him with full authority to act in
the premises as he should deem right and proper. Under this
authority the subject of exchanges has from that time continued
in his charge, and such efforts have been made as he deemed
proper to obtain the release of our prisoners.
“An arrangement was made for the supply of our prisoners,--the
articles to be distributed under the direction of our own
officers, paroled for that purpose; and the corresponding
privilege was extended to the Rebel authorities. In order to
afford every facility for relief, special exchanges have been
offered, whenever desired on behalf of our prisoners. Such
exchanges have in a few instances been permitted by the Rebel
authorities, but in many others they have been denied.
“A large number of exchanges, including all the sick, has
been effected within a recent period. The Commissary General
of Prisoners has been directed to make a detailed report of
all the exchanges that have been accomplished since the
general exchange ceased. It will be furnished to the House of
Representatives as soon as completed.
“The last communication of General Grant gives reason to
believe that a full and complete exchange of all prisoners
will speedily be made. It also appears from his statement that
weekly supplies are furnished to our prisoners, and distributed
by officers of our own selection.”[60]
Let these instructions be followed, and it is difficult to see what
remains to be done. Exchange, retaliation, and every other agency
“right and proper,” are fully authorized in the discretion of the
commanding general. There is nothing in the arsenal of war he may
not employ. What more is needed? But this brings me again to the
proposition before the Senate.
The Committee, not content with what has been done,--distrustful,
perhaps, of the commanding general,--propose that Congress shall
instruct the President to enter upon a system of retaliation, _where
we shall imitate as precisely as possible Rebel barbarism_, and make
our prisons the scenes of torments we here denounce. Why, Sir, to state
the case is to answer it. The Senator from Michigan, who advocates so
eloquently this _unprecedented retaliation_, attempted a description
of the torments making the Rebel prisons horrible, but language
failed him. After speaking of their “immeasurable criminality,”
and “the horrors of those scenes,” which he said were “absolutely
indescribable,” beggaring even his affluence of language and of
passion, he proceeded to ask that we should do these same things,--that
we should take the lives of prisoners, even by freezing and starvation,
or turn them into living skeletons,--by Act of Congress.
Sir, the Law of Retaliation, which he invokes, has its limits, and
these are found in the laws of civilized society. Admit the Law of
Retaliation; yet you cannot escape from its circumscription. As well
escape from the planet on which we live. What civilization forbids
cannot be done. Your enemy may be barbarous and cruel, but you cannot
be barbarous and cruel. The rule is clear and unquestionable. Perhaps
the true principle of law on this precise point was never better
expressed than by one of our masters, William Shakespeare, natural
jurist as well as poet, when he makes Macbeth exclaim,--
“I dare do all that may become a man;
Who dares do more is none.”
So with us now. We are permitted to do all that may become men, but
nothing more.
Surely nobody will argue that the “barbarities of Andersonville,” and
all those tortures we deplore, can behoove men. As well undertake,
by way of retaliation, to revive the boot and thumb-screw of the
Inquisition, the fires of Smithfield, “Luke’s iron crown and Damien’s
bed of steel,” or to repeat that execrable crime pictured by Dante, in
one of his most admired passages, where Ugolino and his children were
shut up in a tower, without food or water, and left to die slowly,
cruelly, wickedly, by starvation:--
“Thou modern Thebes! what though, as Fame hath said,
Count Ugolino did thy forts betray?
His sons deserved not punishment so dread.”[61]
Thanks to the immortal poet who has blasted forever this sickening
enormity, and rendered its imitation impossible! Thanks to that mighty
voice which has given new sanction to the mandate of Public Law. And
yet in this terrible case there was retaliation, and the famished
victim is revealed as ferociously gnawing the skull of his tormentor.
But this was not on earth.
It is when we consider precisely the conduct of the Rebels, as
represented,--when we read the stories of their atrocities,--when we
call to mind the sufferings of our men in their hands,--when we look on
the pictures introduced into this discussion, where photographic art
has sought to exhibit the living skeletons,--when the whole scene in
all its horror is before us, and our souls are filled with unutterable
anguish, that we confess how difficult, how absolutely impossible, it
is for us to follow this savage example. And just in proportion as this
treatment of our soldiers transcends the usages of civilized society
must the example be rejected. Such is the law you cannot disobey.
Nor am I to be considered indifferent to the condition of those
unhappy prisoners. I do not yield to the Committee, or to any Senator,
in ardor or anxiety for their protection. Whatever can be done I am
ready to do. But, as American citizens, they have an interest that we
should do nothing by which our country shall forfeit the great place
belonging to it in the vanguard of nations. It cannot be best for them
that our country should do an unworthy thing. It cannot be best for
them that the national destiny should be thus darkened. Duties are in
proportion to destinies, and from the very heights of our example I
argue again that we cannot allow ourselves, under any passing passion
or resentment, to accept a policy which history must condemn. There is
not a patriot soldier who would not cry out, “Let me suffer, but save
my country!”
Even if you make up your minds to do this thing, you cannot. The whole
idea is impracticable. The attempt must fail, because human nature
is against you. “_Nemo repente turpissimus._” A humane and civilized
people cannot suddenly become inhuman and uncivilized. Conscience,
heart, soul and body, will all rise against you. From every side will
be repeated that generous cry which comes to us from the darkest day of
French history, when the courageous governor said to the monarch who
ordered the massacre of St. Bartholomew, “Sire, I have under me good
citizens and brave soldiers, but not a single executioner”; or that
other later cry, when the French Convention, under the lead of Barère,
decreed that all English prisoners should be shot,--“We will not shoot
them,” said a stout-hearted sergeant; “if the Convention takes pleasure
in killing prisoners, let members kill them and eat them, like savages
as they are.” But the citizens and soldiers of the armies of the United
States are not less generous. They, too, would cry out, “Let members of
Congress do this work, if it is to be done; but do not impose it upon a
fellow-man.”
* * * * *
Mr. President, with pain I differ from valued friends whose friendship
is among the treasures of my life. But I cannot help it. I cannot do
otherwise. It is long since I first raised my voice in this Chamber
against the “Barbarism of Slavery,” and I have never ceased to denounce
it in season and out of season. But the Rebellion is nothing but that
very barbarism armed for battle. Plainly it is our duty to overcome it,
not to imitate it. Here I stand.
January 31st, on motion of Mr. Sumner, it was still further
amended so as to read, “in conformity with the laws _and usages
of war among civilized_ nations,”--Yeas 27, Nays 13. Mr. Sumner
then withdrew his substitute, remarking that he did so because
the original resolution had undergone such modification as
to be in substantial harmony with the resolutions introduced
by him. After other amendments, the original resolution was
passed by the Senate; but it was never acted on in the House of
Representatives.
* * * * *
This effort against Retaliation attracted attention and
sympathy at the time.
* * * * *
Hon. Israel Washburn, formerly a Representative in Congress
from Maine, being in Washington, wrote:--
“I shall not see you again before leaving the city, but
I will not go without thanking you from my heart’s heart
for the glorious resolutions upon Retaliation which you
offered in the Senate yesterday. Our country must live in
the atmosphere of those resolutions, or bear no life worth
having.”