The abuses in Missouri, to which Mr. Sumner called attention,
December 4, 1861, appeared even in the neighborhood of
Washington, almost under the eye of Congress, so that he felt
it his duty to expose them once more.
December 18, he spoke briefly on the following resolution,
introduced by himself the preceding day.
“_Resolved_, That the Committee on Military Affairs and the
Militia be directed to consider the expediency of providing
by additional legislation that our national armies shall
not be employed in the surrender of fugitive slaves.”
MR. PRESIDENT,--Some days ago it was my duty to expose abuses in
Missouri in regard to fugitive slaves. Since then I have received
communications from that State, showing great interest in the question,
some of them in the nature of protest against the system adopted there.
One purports to be from a slave-master, educated in a Slave State, and
he speaks with bitterness of the indignity put upon the army there, and
of the injury it inflicts on the cause of the Union. Another contains a
passage which I shall read.
“I wish to say in addition that I have lived twenty-four
years in Missouri, that I know the people well, have served
them in various offices; and let me assure you, it is nonsense
to try to save Missouri to the Union, and the institution of
Slavery also. We must give up one or the other. Slavery ought
to fall, and Missouri be saved. Fremont’s army struck terror
into the Secessionists. He made them feel it by taking their
goods and chattels. Let our armies proclaim freedom to the
slaves of the Secessionists and the Rebellion will soon close.
We can take care of the free negroes at a future day; give
General Lane ten thousand men, and he would establish peace in
Missouri in thirty days.”
But, Sir, my special object now is, to exhibit wrong here at home
rather than in distant Missouri. Brigadier-General Stone, the
well-known commander at Ball’s Bluff, is adding to his disaster there
by engaging in the surrender of fugitive slaves. He does this most
successfully. If a fugitive slave is to be handed over to a Rebel, the
General is easily victorious.
Sir, beside my constant interest in this question, beside my interest
in the honor of the national army, I have a special interest at the
present moment, because Brigadier-General Stone sees fit to impose
this vile and unconstitutional duty upon Massachusetts troops. The
Governor of my honored State has charged me with a communication to the
Secretary of War, treating it as an indignity to the men, and an act
unworthy of the flag. I agree with the Governor; and when I ask your
attention to this outrage, I make myself his representative, as well as
my own.
Others beside the Governor of Massachusetts complain. There are two
German companies in one of the Massachusetts regiments, who entered
into the public service with the positive understanding that they
should not be put to any such discreditable and unconstitutional
service. They complain, and with them all their own compatriot
fellow-citizens, the enlightened, freedom-loving German population
throughout the country.
The complaint extends to other quarters. Here is a letter from
Philadelphia, interesting and to the point. I read a short extract only.
“I have but one son, and he fought on Ball’s Bluff in the
California regiment, where his bravery brought him into notice.
He escaped, wounded, after dark. He protests against being made
to return fugitive slaves, and, if ordered to that duty, will
refuse obedience and take the consequences. I ask, Sir, shall
our sons, who are offering their lives for the preservation
of our institutions, be degraded to slave-catchers for any
persons, loyal or disloyal? If such is the policy of the
Government, I shall urge my son to shed no more blood for its
preservation.”
With such communications, some official and others private, I feel that
I should not do my duty, if I failed to implore the attention of the
Senate to this intolerable grievance. It must be arrested. I am glad
to know that my friend and colleague, the Chairman of the Committee on
Military Affairs [Mr. WILSON], promises us a bill to stop this outrage.
It should be introduced promptly, and passed at once. Our troops must
be saved from such shame.
The resolution was adopted after remarks by Mr. Cowan, of
Pennsylvania, which revealed the tone still prevalent in
certain quarters. He said:--
“I agree, that, if all men were Puritans, that, if all
men appreciated Liberty as we do, and as our race does,
then we might extend it to all men; but to extend it to
men who have no appreciation of it, who would trample the
boon under foot, when granted them,--to such men it is a
mischief rather than a blessing.
“Still I have only to say, that I think we have nothing in
the world to do with all these questions. I think their
discussion here, their being mooted in these assemblies,
is mischievous, and only calculated to keep up an angry
irritation, which may have exceedingly bad results in the
final consummation of the struggle in which we are now
engaged.”
Mr. Wilson, as chairman of the Committee, reported a bill on
the subject, which, after debate, gave way to another from the
House of Representatives, containing a new article of war,
prohibiting the employment of the national forces in the return
of fugitive slaves, which became a law March 13, 1862.[10]
* * * * *
This movement of Mr. Sumner was followed by a personal
incident. General Stone, whose conduct was exposed with
severity, took exception to the speech, and addressed him a
letter intended to be very insulting. Mr. Sumner made no reply,
nor did he utter any complaint in any quarter. A few days later
be received notice from Boston that a near relative of the
General had threatened to inflict personal violence upon him.
Some time afterwards General Stone was taken into custody by
military order, and for a long time incarcerated. The hostile
press and the General’s friends charged this upon Mr. Sumner,
often in most offensive terms, and it was repeated in the
face of his constant denial. April 21, 1862, the question of
this arrest was considered in the Senate, on motion of Mr.
McDougall, of California, when Mr. Sumner spoke briefly.
MR. PRESIDENT,--I have no opinion to express on the case of General
Stone, for I know nothing about it. Clearly he ought to be confronted
with his accusers at an early day, unless, indeed, there be some reason
of transcending military character, which, in the present condition of
the country, at a moment of war, might render such a trial improper. Of
this I do not pretend to judge; nor am I aware of evidence on which the
Senate can now act.
…
I hope I shall be pardoned, if I allude to myself. A most persistent
attempt has been made in newspapers to connect me with this arrest, to
the extent of according to me and my imagined influence the credit
or the discredit of it. This is a mistake. I have been from the
beginning an absolute stranger to it. The arrest was made originally
without suggestion or hint from me, direct or indirect, and it has been
continued without any such suggestion or hint from me. I knew nothing
about it at the beginning, and know nothing about it now. There is no
intimate friend or family relative of the prisoner more entirely free
from all connection with it than myself.