May 1st, on motion of Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, the
Senate resumed the consideration of the following resolution,
submitted by him on the 3d of April.
“_Resolved_, That the Committee on Military Affairs and
the Militia be directed to consider and report whether
any further legislation is necessary to prevent persons
employed in the military service of the United States from
aiding in the return of or control over persons claimed as
fugitive slaves, and to punish them therefor.”
MR. PRESIDENT,--Some time has elapsed since we listened to the
persuasive speech of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. GRIMES], but,
unhappily, the subject is fresh still. The character, if not the
efficiency, of our armies is concerned in the complete enforcement of
the late legislation with regard to slaves. If this legislation be set
at defiance, or evaded, I think that our military strength will be
impaired, and I am sure that our good name must suffer.
I am grateful to the Senator from Iowa for the frankness with which he
exposed and condemned the recent orders of several of our generals.
One of these officers, though last from California, was originally of
Massachusetts. He served honorably in the Mexican War, and, I believe,
is an excellent soldier. His present position as a general is due
partly to my exertions. I pressed his appointment. But, had I for a
moment imagined he could do what he has just perpetrated, he would
never have had my support. When an officer falls bravely in defence
of his country, honest pride mingles with the regret that we feel.
But when an officer falls as General Hooker has now fallen, there is
nothing but regret. He has fallen, although not dead. I say this with
pain; but I cannot say less.
The order of General Hooker has been quoted by the Senator from Iowa
[Mr. GRIMES]. I ask leave to read part of a letter which I have
received from his camp.
“I take the liberty of forwarding to you the enclosed order of
General Hooker, with a report of its results, thinking that
you will be interested to know how the late Act of Congress
forbidding the rendition of slaves by army officers is
violated, and hoping that some effort may be made to prevent
such unjust and outrageous measures on the part of superior
officers.
“Our moral and humane feelings have been violated by having
been compelled to witness the attempts of slave-holders, known
to be of Secession proclivities, coming into our camps and
searching our private quarters for their slaves, under the
cover of a protecting order from a general who exceeds his
authority.”
This letter expresses feelings natural to a humane bosom. In contrast
with General Hooker, I call attention to the course of General
Doubleday, whose head-quarters are here in Washington. I read his order.
“HEADQUARTERS, MILITARY DEFENCES NORTH OF THE POTOMAC,
WASHINGTON, April 6, 1862.
“SIR,--I am directed by General Doubleday to say, in answer to
your letter of the 2d instant, that all negroes coming into the
lines of any of the camps or forts under his command are to be
treated as persons, and not as chattels.
“Under no circumstances has the commander of a fort or camp the
power of surrendering persons claimed as fugitive slaves, as it
cannot be done without determining their character.
“The additional article of war recently passed by Congress
positively prohibits this.
“The question has been asked, whether it would not be better
to exclude negroes altogether from the lines. The General is
of the opinion that they bring much valuable information which
cannot be obtained from any other source. They are acquainted
with all the roads, paths, fords, and other natural features of
the country, and they make excellent guides. They also know,
and frequently have exposed, the haunts of Secession spies and
traitors and the existence of Rebel organizations. They will
not, therefore, be excluded.
“The General also directs me to say that civil process cannot
be served directly in the camps or forts of his command,
without full authority be obtained from the commanding officer
for that purpose.
“I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
“E. P. HALSTED, _Assistant Adjutant-General_.
“LIEUTENANT-COLONEL JOHN D. SHAUL,
_Commanding Seventy-Sixth Regiment New York Volunteers_.”
General Doubleday acted bravely at Fort Sumter; but he did not render a
truer service to his country on that occasion than he has now done in
this order. If this example were followed everywhere in our camps, we
should at least save ourselves from shame, if we did not secure victory.
Other generals at the West think they do their duty best, when they
serve Slavery. There is General McCook, of whom we have the following
sad report, on the authority of a paper at Nashville, recounting the
visit of a slave-hunter to his camp.
“He visited the camp of General McCook, in Maury County, in
quest of a fugitive, and that officer, instead of throwing
obstacles in the way, afforded him every facility for the
successful prosecution of his search. That General treated
him in the most courteous and gentlemanly manner, as
also did General Johnson, and Captain Blake, the brigade
provost-marshal. Their conduct toward him was in all respects
that of high-toned gentlemen desirous of discharging their
duties promptly and honorably. It is impossible for the army to
prevent slaves from following them; but whenever the fugitives
come into the lines of General McCook, they are secured, and a
record made of their names and the names of their owners. All
the owner has to do is to apply either in person or through an
agent, examine the record or look at the slaves, and, if he
finds any that belong to him, take them away.”
Can we listen to such a statement and not feel indignant at the levity
with which human freedom is treated?
Yet similar cases multiply. There is the provost-marshal of Louisville,
who seems to be a disgrace to our army, if we may believe the following
report.
Here Mr. Sumner quoted at length the description of his
conduct: making colored people “his subjects of oppression and
inhuman treatment”; “ordering his provost guards to flog all
colored persons out after dark”; “now being revenged on the
colored people for their faithfulness to the Union cause.”[307]
But, Sir, an incident has occurred under General Buell’s command which
cannot be read without a blush. Here it is, as described in the
letter of a soldier who was more than a witness, even a party to it.
I find this letter in a newspaper, but it has been furnished to me in
manuscript by the person to whom it is addressed.
“CAMP ANDY JOHNSON, NEAR NASHVILLE,
TENNESSEE, March 8, 1862.
“MY DEAR PARENTS,-- … A great outrage was perpetrated in our
camp yesterday, as follows.
“A black boy, named Henry, has been at work for the Colonel for
some days. His owner came after him while we were camped on the
other side of the river, but the boys hooted him out of camp.
The negro said he would sooner be killed on the spot than go
back with his master, even if he knew he would not be punished.
His master, he said, was a Secessionist, and had kept him (the
boy) on some fortifications down the river at work for four
mouths.
“Nothing more transpired concerning his return until yesterday.
While the greater part of the regiment were out on picket, the
boy’s owner came with two sentinels of the provost guard from
the city, and, after chasing the poor frightened boy through
the camp several times,--he drawing a knife once, and the
sentinel knocking him down with his musket,--they captured
and delivered him to his owner, who stood waiting outside the
lines. The latter paid the catching sentries fifteen dollars
each, and led Henry away with him unmolested, flourishing
a pistol at his head as he went. They had no order--at
least, showed none--for the boy from head-quarters, and the
Lieutenant-Colonel of our regiment, who was in command, need
not have delivered him up without such an order, yet allowed
him to be caught, and the Major forbade our boys from giving
him any assistance. One of the sentinels was from a Kentucky,
and one from an Indiana regiment.…
“The former master of our boy will not get him without an
order, and an imperative one, I believe; and if one is
given for him,--his master having been a strong and active
Secessionist, a quartermaster for the Southern army, in
fact,--I have about concluded to follow it by immediate
resignation, and this, whether the order be for him or any
other negro. The order would make it an official act. What do
you think my duty would be in the premises?”
Of General Buell I know nothing personally; but such an incident
must fill us with distrust. He may possess military talent, he may
be a thunderbolt of war; but it is clear that he wants that just
comprehension of the times and that sympathy with humanity without
which no officer can do his complete duty.
But General Buell may, perhaps, shelter himself behind the instructions
of his superior officer; and this brings me to the famous Order No.
3 of Major-General Halleck. I have it in my hands, and quote these
words:--
“We will prove to them that we come to restore, not to violate,
the Constitution and the laws.… The orders heretofore issued
from this department in regard to pillaging, marauding, and
the destruction of private property, and stealing and the
concealment of slaves, must be strictly enforced. It does not
belong to the military to decide upon the relation of master
and slave: such questions must be settled by the civil courts.
_No fugitive slaves will, therefore, be admitted within our
lines or camps, except when specially ordered by the General
commanding._”[308]
In this order, so strangely inconsistent, absurd, unconstitutional, and
inhuman, the General perversely perseveres. In every aspect it is bad.
It wants common sense, as well as common humanity. It is unworthy a man
of honor and a soldier.
It is inconsistent with itself, inasmuch as the General proclaims
that he “comes to restore, not to violate, the Constitution and the
laws,” and then proceeds to a direct violation of them. In the same
order he says: “It does not belong to the military to decide upon the
relation of master and slave: such questions must be settled by the
civil courts.” And then, in the face of this declaration, he proceeds
to say that “no fugitive slaves will be admitted within our lines or
camps.” But pray, Sir, how can such persons be excluded from lines or
camps without deciding that they are fugitive slaves? This flat and
discreditable inconsistency is in harmony with the whole order.
But worse than its inconsistency is its absurdity. This watchful,
prudent General proposes to exclude all fugitive slaves from his camps.
In other words, he shuts out all opportunities of information with
regard to the enemy naturally afforded by this class of deserters. They
may come charged with knowledge of movements and plans; but the General
will not receive them, because they are slaves. They may be able to
disclose the secret of a campaign; but the General will not have it,
because they are slaves. If we have failed thus far in knowledge of the
enemy’s designs, it is because this absurd policy has prevailed.
General Halleck may be instructed by General McDowell, whose opposite
conduct shines in a despatch published in the papers.
“CATLETTSVILLE STATION, VIRGINIA,
FIFTEEN MILES SOUTH OF MANASSAS JUNCTION, April 13.
“HON. EDWIN M. STANTON, _Secretary of War_:--
“An intelligent negro has just come in from Stafford County,
and says his master returned this morning from Fredericksburg
to his home, and told his wife, in this negro’s presence, that
all the enemy’s troops had left Fredericksburg for Richmond and
Yorktown, the last of them leaving on Saturday morning. This
last has just been confirmed by another negro.
“IRVIN MCDOWELL, _Major-General_.”
Here are two negroes coming into camp with important information,
both of whom General Halleck’s order would repel and drive back to
bondage. And he may be instructed by the despatch of General Wool, just
received, announcing our success at New Orleans, the news of which came
by a “fugitive black.” The General adds: “The negro bringing the above
reports that the Rebels have two iron-clad steamers nearly completed,
and that it is believed that the Merrimac will be out to-morrow.”
But all this information would be shut out by General Halleck. Can
absurdity be more complete?
But worse than inconsistency or absurdity is its positive
unconstitutionality. What right, under the Constitution, has this
General to set himself up as judge in cases of human freedom? Where
does he find his power? By whom has he been invested with this
attribute? It is the boast of the National Constitution that all
are “persons.” The National Constitution so regards everybody, and
surrounds everybody with the safeguards of “persons,” even to the
extent of declaring that “no person shall be deprived of _liberty_
without due process of law.” And yet the army is gravely told to
treat certain persons as slaves. Of course this cannot be without
sitting in judgment most summarily on human freedom. How does the
General know that they are slaves? On what evidence? Because they are
black? Why may they not be free blacks? General Halleck would reverse
the true presumption. He assumes Slavery, when he ought to assume
Freedom. In the eye of the Constitution all are freemen until proved
to be slaves, no matter of what color. The only question to be asked
concerns loyalty. Are you loyal or rebel? If loyal, then welcome to the
hospitality and protection of our camps. If rebel, then surrender to
our arms. Be these the inquiries, with this rule, and the Union we seek
to restore will not be indefinitely postponed.
But worse than its unconstitutionality is the inhumanity of this order,
so shocking to the moral sense. This General, professing to fight the
battle of the Constitution with the commission of the Republic, speaks
of “the concealment of slaves” in the same class with “pillaging,
marauding, and stealing.” I complain of this confusion of language,
showing an insensibility to human rights. It is like those shameful
advertisements which garnish Southern newspapers, where “the boy Tom”
and “the girl Sally” are to be sold in the same lot with “horses,
mules, cattle, and swine.” That such an order should be put forth in
the name of our country may justly excite indignation.
On these various grounds I object to this order. In this criticism,
which I make with sincere sorrow, I confine myself to the order.
General Halleck is reputed an able officer, and I am sure he is an
able lawyer. I do not intend to question his various capacity. But
I do protest against his perverse violation of the Constitution to
carry out a miserable and disgraceful proslavery policy; and I protest
against his being allowed to degrade the character of our country. Sir,
we are making history. Every victory adds something to that history;
but such an order is worse for us than defeat. More than any defeat
it will discredit us with posterity, and with the friends of liberal
institutions in foreign lands. I have said that General Halleck is
reputed an able officer; but, most perversely, he undoes with one hand
what he does with the other. He undoes by his orders the good he does
as a general. While professing to make war upon the Rebellion, he
sustains its chief and most active power, and degrades his gallant army
to be the constables of Slavery.
How often must I repeat that Slavery is the constant Rebel and
universal enemy? It is traitor and belligerent together, and is always
to be treated accordingly. Tenderness to Slavery now is practical
disloyalty and practical alliance with the enemy.
Believe me, Sir, against the officers named to-day I have no personal
unkindness. I should much prefer to speak in their praise; but I am in
earnest. While I have the honor of a seat in the Senate, no success,
no victory, shall be apology or shield for a general who insults human
nature. From the midst of his triumphs I will drag him forward to
receive the condemnation which such conduct deserves.
This movement ended in the Bill for Confiscation and
Liberation, approved July 17th, which provided for the freedom
of the slaves of Rebels. The enactments on this subject
were embodied by the President in the first Proclamation of
Emancipation, September 22, 1862.