Chapter XI: Part 11

Then commenced those early deeds by which our arms became known in Europe,--the best achievement of Decatur, and the romantic expedition of Eaton. Three several times Tripoli was attacked; and yet, after successes sometimes mentioned with pride, our country consented by solemn treaty to pay sixty thousand dollars for the freedom of two hundred American slaves, and thus again by money obtained Emancipation.[272] But Algiers was governed by Slavery as a ruling passion. Again our people were seized. Even the absorbing contest with Great Britain could not prevent an outbreak of indignant sympathy for those in bonds. A naval force, promptly despatched to the Mediterranean, was sufficient to secure the freedom of the American slaves without ransom, and the further stipulation that hereafter no Americans should be made slaves, and that “any Christians whatsoever, captives in Algiers,” making their escape and taking refuge on board an American ship of war, should be safe from all requisition or reclamation.[273] Decatur, on this occasion, showed character as well as courage. The freedmen of his arms were welcomed on board his ship with impatient triumph. Thus, by war, and not by money, was Emancipation this time obtained.

At a later day, Great Britain, weary of tribute and ransom, directed her naval power against the Barbary States. Tunis and Tripoli each promised Abolition, but Algiers sullenly refused, until compelled by irresistible force. Before night, on the 27th August, 1816, the fleet fired, besides shells and rockets, one hundred and eighteen tons of powder and fifty thousand shot, weighing more than five hundred tons. Amidst the crumbling ruins of walls and citadel, the cruel Slave Power was humbled, and by solemn stipulation consented to the surrender of all slaves in Algiers, and the abolition of White Slavery forever. This great triumph was announced by the victorious admiral in a despatch to his Government, where he uses words of rejoicing worthy of the occasion.

“In all the vicissitudes of a long life of public service, no
circumstance has ever produced on my mind such impressions
of gratitude and joy as the event of yesterday. To have
been one of the humble instruments in the hands of Divine
Providence for bringing to reason a ferocious Government,
and destroying forever the insufferable and horrid system of
Christian Slavery, can never cease to be a source of delight
and heartfelt comfort to every individual happy enough to be
employed in it.”[274]

And thus ended White Slavery in the Barbary States. A single brief effort of war put an instant close to the wicked pretension. If, in looking back upon its history, we find much to humble our pride, if we are disposed to mourn that the National Government stooped to ransom men justly free without price, yet we cannot fail to gather instruction from this great precedent. Slavery is the same in essential character, wherever it exists,--except, perhaps, that it has received new harshness here among us. There is no argument against its validity at Algiers not equally strong against its validity at Washington. In both cases it is _unjust_ FORCE organized into law. But in Algiers it is not known that the law was unconstitutional, as it clearly is here in Washington. In the early case, Slavery was regarded by our fathers only as an existing FACT; and it is only as an existing FACT that it can be regarded by us in the present case; nor is there any power of Congress, generously exerted for those distant captives, which may not be invoked for the captives in our own streets.

* * * * *

Mr. President, if, in this important discussion, which seems to open the door of the future, I confine myself to two simple inquiries, it is because practically they exhaust the whole subject. If Slavery be unconstitutional in the national capital, and if it be a Christian duty, sustained by constitutional examples, to ransom slaves, then your swift desires will not hesitate to adopt the present bill. It is needless to enter upon other questions, important perhaps, but irrelevant. It is needless, also, to consider the objections which Senators have introduced, for all must see that they are but bugbears.

If I seem to dwell on details, it is because they furnish at each stage instruction and support; if I occupy time on a curious passage of history, it is because it is more apt even than curious, while it sometimes holds the mirror up to our own wickedness, and sometimes even seems to cry out, “Thou art the man!” I scorn to argue the obvious truth that the slaves here are as much entitled to freedom as the white slaves that enlisted the early energies of the new-born nation. They are _men_ by the grace of God, and this is enough. There is no principle of the Constitution, and no rule of justice, which is not as strong for one as for the other. Consenting to the ransom proposed, you recognize their manhood, and if authority be needed, you find it in the example of Washington, who did not hesitate to employ a golden key to open the house of bondage.

Let this bill pass, and then will be accomplished the first practical triumph of Freedom, for which good men have longed, dying without the sight,--for which a whole generation has petitioned, and for which orators and statesmen have pleaded. Slavery will be banished from the national capital. This metropolis, bearing a venerated name, will be exalted, its evil spirit cast out, its shame removed, its society refined, its courts made just, its revolting ordinances swept away, and even its loyalty assured. If not moved by justice to the slave, then be willing to act for your own good and in self-defence. If you hesitate to pass this bill for the blacks, then pass it for the whites. Nothing is clearer than that the degradation of Slavery affects the master as well as the slave; while also recent events testify, that, wherever Slavery exists, there Treason lurks, if it does not flaunt. From the beginning of this Rebellion, Slavery has been constantly manifest in the conduct of the masters, and even here in the national capital it is the traitorous power encouraging and strengthening the enemy. This power must be suppressed at every cost; and if its suppression here endangers Slavery elsewhere, there will be new motive for determined action.

Amidst all present solicitudes, the future cannot be doubtful. At the national capital Slavery will give way to Freedom. But the good work will not stop here: it must proceed. What God and Nature decree Rebellion cannot arrest. And as the whole wide-spread tyranny begins to tumble, then, above the din of battle, sounding from the sea and echoing along the land, above even the exultations of victory on hard-fought fields, will ascend voices of gladness and benediction, swelling from generous hearts, wherever civilization bears sway, to commemorate a sacred triumph, whose trophies, instead of tattered banners, are ransomed slaves.

REBEL BARBARITIES, AND THE BARBARISM OF SLAVERY.

RESOLUTION AND REMARKS IN THE SENATE, APRIL 1, 1862.

Mr. Sumner offered the following resolution, and then spoke
upon it.

“_Resolved_, That the Select Committee on the Conduct of
the War be directed to collect the evidence with regard
to the barbarous treatment by the Rebels at Manassas of
the remains of officers and soldiers of the United States
killed in battle there, and to report the same to the
Senate, with power to send for persons and papers.”

MR. PRESIDENT,--We have all been shocked, during the last few days, by the evidence that has accumulated with regard to the treatment of our dead at Manassas.

Instead of those honorable rites which in all ages generous soldiers have been glad to bestow upon enemies fallen in battle, we are disgusted by barbarities reminding us of savage life. Bodies have been dug up, and human bones carried off as trophies. The skull of a gallant Massachusetts soldier has been converted into the drinking-cup of a Georgia colonel, that he may, far away among his slaves, renew the festive barbarism of another age under the name of “The Feast of Skulls.”

It is obvious, Sir, that we are now in conflict with beings who belong to a different plane of civilization from ourselves, and it is important that this unquestionable fact should be made known to the country and to the world.

All familiar with recent events will remember the effect with which that great minister, Cavour, when on the eve of the war for Italian liberation, put forth his circular, setting forth the outrages of the Austrian soldiers on the Italian inhabitants. Through that appeal, Sir, he secured the general sympathy of Europe and of the civilized world. Our cause needs no such document; but I am anxious, nevertheless, for the sake of history, that the record should be made.

Let it be made, also, that the country and mankind may see how Slavery in all its influences is barbarous,--barbarous in peace, barbarous in war, barbarous always, and nothing but barbarism.

On motion of Mr. Howard, the resolution was amended by adding:--

“And that the said Select Committee also inquire into the
fact, whether Indian savages have been employed by the
Rebels in their military service against the Government of
the United States, and how such warfare has been conducted
by said savages, and to report the same to the Senate, with
power to send for persons and papers.”

The resolution as amended was adopted.

* * * * *

April 30, Mr. Wade, Chairman of the Committee, reported
particularly on that part of the resolution moved by Mr.
Sumner, and the next day the Senate ordered fifty thousand
extra copies of the report. Its conclusions appear in the
following painful passage.

“The outrages upon the dead will revive the recollections
of the cruelties to which savage tribes subject their
prisoners. They were buried, in many cases, naked, with
their faces downward; they were left to decay in the open
air; their bones were carried off as trophies, sometimes,
as the testimony proves, to be used as personal adornments;
and one witness deliberately avers that the head of one of
our most gallant officers was cut off by a Secessionist,
to be turned into a drinking-cup on the occasion of his
marriage. Monstrous as this revelation may appear to
be, your Committee have been informed, that, during the
last two weeks, the skull of a Union soldier has been
exhibited in the office of the sergeant-at-arms of the
House of Representatives, which had been converted to such
a purpose, and which had been found on the person of one of
the Rebel prisoners taken in a recent conflict.”[275]

The report sustained the allegations of Mr. Sumner, when he
moved the inquiry, besides giving new force to the term “The
Barbarism of Slavery.”

TESTIMONY OF COLORED PERSONS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE EMANCIPATION BILL, APRIL 3, 1862.

MR. PRESIDENT,--In addressing the Senate on this bill, urging the duty of ransom, I exposed an early, inhuman, and wicked statute of Maryland, belonging to that offensive mass originally adopted at the time of the cession as the law of the District, and ever since recognized, although never voted on, and having only a surreptitious authority. I refer to that unjust statute making colored persons incompetent to testify, where a white is a party. I quoted the precise words, still the law of the District.[276] No language of mine is strong enough to express the detestation such a contrivance is calculated to arouse in every bosom not entirely given over to injustice.

The time has come for a change. At least, while providing for the release of those now detained in Slavery,--unconstitutionally, as I hold,--we must see that the proceedings are without embarrassment from that outrageous statute. I propose an amendment, and here I have the consent of my friend, the chairman of the Committee [Mr. MORRILL], in the hope of removing this grievance in the inquiries under the bill.

The bill provides for something like a tribunal, as follows:--

“They [the Commissioners] shall have power to subpœna and
compel the attendance of witnesses, and to receive testimony
and enforce its production, as in civil cases before courts of
justice.”

Under this provision the old Maryland statute is left in full force. This should not be.

Mr. Sumner moved to add at the end of this clause, immediately
after “courts of justice,” the words “without the exclusion of
any witness on account of color.”

Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, called for the yeas and nays, which
were ordered, and, being taken, resulted, yeas 26, nays 10. So
the amendment was agreed to.

* * * * *

This was the first step for the civil rights of colored
persons, but it was limited to proceedings under the
Emancipation Act in the District of Columbia.

* * * * *

July 7th, the Senate having under consideration a Supplementary
Bill on Emancipation in the District, Mr. Sumner took occasion
to broaden the immunity by moving the following additional
section:--

“_And be it further enacted_, That in all judicial
proceedings in the District of Columbia there shall be no
exclusion of any witness on account of color.”

The yeas and nays were ordered, at the call of Mr. Powell, of
Kentucky, and, being taken, resulted, yeas 25, nays 11.

* * * * *

In the House of Representatives, while the bill was under
consideration, Mr. Wickliffe, of Kentucky, said: “I have no
hope of success; but I feel it to be my duty to move to strike
out the words ‘without the exclusion of any witness on account
of color,’ where they occur.… I presume it is intended to let a
man’s servant come in and swear that he is a disloyal man. I do
hope the friends of this bill will not so far outrage the laws
of this District as to authorize slaves or free negroes to be
witnesses in cases of this kind.” Mr. Thaddeus Stevens said,
“I trust that this Committee [of the whole House] will not so
far continue an outrage as not to allow any man of credit,
whether he be black or white, to be a witness”; and the motion
was rejected.[277]

INDEPENDENCE OF HAYTI AND LIBERIA.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE APPOINTMENT OF DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES TO THE REPUBLICS OF HAYTI AND LIBERIA, APRIL 23, 1862.

Thereupon Zeus, fearing for the safety of our race, sent Hermes
with self-respect and justice, that their presence among men
might establish order and knit together the bonds of friendship
in society. “Must I distribute them,” said Hermes, “as the
various arts have been distributed aforetime, only to certain
individuals, or must I dispense them to all?” “_To all_,” said
Zeus, “_and let all partake of them_.”--PLATO, _Protagoras_, p.
322 C.

_Resolved_, That the independence of Texas [Hayti and Liberia]
ought to be acknowledged by the United States, whenever
satisfactory information shall be received that it has in
successful operation a civil government capable of performing
the duties and fulfilling the obligations of an independent
power.--RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, _Journal
of the Senate_, July 1, 1836.

_Resolved_, That the State of Texas [Hayti and Liberia] having
established and maintained an independent government capable of
performing those duties, foreign and domestic, which appertain
to independent governments, … it is expedient and proper, and
in conformity with the Laws of Nations and the practice of
this Government in like cases, that the independent political
existence of said State be acknowledged by the Government of
the United States.--RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED
STATES, _Journal of the Senate_, January 12 and March 1, 1837.

Every nation that governs itself, under what form soever,
without any dependence on a foreign power, is a sovereign
state. Its rights are naturally the same as those of any other
state.… To give a nation a right to make an immediate figure in
this grand society, it is sufficient if it be really sovereign
and independent; that is, it must govern itself by its own
authority and laws.--VATTEL, _Law of Nations_, Book I. ch. 1, §
4.

* * * * *

In his Annual Message at the beginning of this session of
Congress, December, 1861, the President said: “If any good
reason exists why we should persevere longer in withholding
our recognition of the independence and sovereignty of Hayti
and Liberia, I am unable to discern it. Unwilling, however,
to inaugurate a novel policy in regard to them without the
approbation of Congress, I submit for your consideration
the expediency of an appropriation for maintaining a Chargé
d’Affaires near each of those new states. It does not admit of
doubt that important commercial advantages might be secured by
favorable treaties with them.”

Until this recommendation, Hayti and Liberia had borne the ban
of the colored race. The National Government, so long as it was
ruled by Slavery, could not tolerate a Black Republic. A few
extracts exhibit the indecency of the opposition. Mr. Hayne,
of South Carolina, announced: “Our policy with regard to Hayti
is plain: we never can acknowledge her independence. Let our
Government direct all our ministers in South America and Mexico
to _protest_ against the independence of Hayti.” Mr. Hamilton,
of South Carolina, declared the sentiments of the Southern
people to be, “that Haytien independence is not to be tolerated
in any form.” Mr. Berrien, of Georgia, said: “Consistently
with their own safety, can the people of the South permit the
intercourse which would result from establishing relations of
any sort with Hayti?” Even Mr. Benton, of Missouri, joined
with the rest: “The peace of eleven States in this Union will
not permit the fruits of a successful negro insurrection to be
exhibited among them.”[278] On the presentation of a petition
in the House of Representatives, December 18, 1838, praying
for the establishment of international relations with the
Republic of Hayti, there was an outburst. Mr. Legaré, of South
Carolina, known as an accomplished scholar, exclaimed: “The
memorial originates in a design to revolutionize the South and
to convulse the Union, and ought, therefore, to be rejected
with reprobation. As sure as you live, Sir, if this course is
permitted to go on, the sun of this Union will go down,--it
will go down in blood, and go down to rise no more. I will vote
unhesitatingly against nefarious designs like these. They are
treason.” Mr. Wise, of Virginia, spoke in the same tone.[279]
Such was the prevailing spirit. The time had come for a change.

December 4, 1861, on motion of Mr. Sumner, so much of the
President’s Message as related to the establishment of
diplomatic relations with the Governments of Hayti and Liberia
was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

December 9th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, all memorials,
resolutions of Legislatures, and other papers on the files of
the Senate, relating to the recognition of Hayti and Liberia,
were taken from the files and referred to the Committee on
Foreign Relations. Mr. Sumner stated, that he wished to reach
papers as far back as 1852,--that among these was a very
important paper, which at the time passed under the eye of Mr.
Webster, from the mercantile interest of New England, strongly
in favor of the recognition of Hayti.

The subject was carefully considered in committee.

February 4, 1862, Mr. Sumner reported from the Committee
a bill, which was read and passed to a second reading, to
authorize the President of the United States to appoint
diplomatic representatives to the Republics of Hayti and
Liberia respectively, each representative so appointed
to be accredited as Commissioner and Consul-General, the
representative in Hayti to receive the compensation of
Commissioner according to the Act of Congress of August 18,
1856, being $7,500, and the representative in Liberia not more
than $4,000.

April 23d, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the Senate proceeded to
consider the bill, when Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.

SPEECH.

MR. PRESIDENT,--The independence of Hayti and Liberia has never been acknowledged by our Government down to this day. It is within the province of the President to do this at any time, either by receiving a diplomatic representative or by sending one. The action of Congress is not necessary, except so far as an appropriation is needed to sustain a mission. But the President has seen fit, in his Annual Message, to invite such action. By this bill Congress will associate itself with him in the acknowledgment, which, viewed only as an act of justice, comity, and good neighborhood, must commend itself to all candid minds.

In all respects Hayti and Liberia fulfil the requirements of International Law. Our acknowledgment can raise no question with any foreign power. Independent in fact, and with a civil government in successful operation, these two Republics are entitled to hospitable recognition in the Family of Nations, according to the rule already established by our Government.

In proposing to appoint diplomatic representatives, we necessarily contemplate the negotiation of treaties and the establishment of friendly relations with these two Republics under the sanctions of International Law, and according to the usage of nations. If it be important that such treaties should be negotiated and such relations be established, then the present bill is entitled to support. Thus far our Government, habitually hospitable to all newly formed republics, has turned aside from Hayti and Liberia, although the former has been an independent power for nearly sixty years, and the latter for nearly fifteen. Our national character has suffered from such conduct, while important commercial relations with these countries have continued without the customary support of treaties or the active protection afforded by the presence of an honored representative. It is time to end this anomalous state of things.

The arguments for the recognition of Hayti loom like her own mountains as the mariner approaches the beautiful island, rising higher and higher, while the head of the last purple peak is lost in the clouds; and the arguments for the recognition of Liberia are not inferior in character.

It was my purpose originally to consider this question in some of its larger aspects, to trace the character and history of the two Republics, to exhibit the struggles in our own country for the acknowledgment of their independence, and to vindicate this act in its manifest relations to civilization. I am happy to believe that such a discussion is unnecessary, and shall therefore content myself with a few considerations exclusively practical in character, and especially in reply to the assertion that diplomatic representatives are not needed in our concerns with these two Republics.

* * * * *

Hayti is one of the most charming and important islands in the world, possessing remarkable advantages in size, situation, climate, soil, productions, and mineral wealth. In length, from east to west, it is about three hundred and thirty-eight miles; and in breadth, from north to south, it varies from one hundred and forty-five miles to seventeen. Its circumference, without including bays, measures eight hundred and forty-eight miles. Its surface, exclusive of adjacent islands, is estimated at thirty thousand five hundred and twenty-eight square miles,--being about the area of Ireland, and nearly half that of New England. In size it is so considerable as to attract attention among the islands of the world. In situation it is commanding, being at the entrance to the Gulf of Mexico, and within easy reach of all the islands there. In climate it is salubrious, with natural heats tempered by sea-breezes. In soil, it is rich with tropical luxuriance, various with mountains and plains, watered by numerous rivers, and dotted with lakes. In productions it is abundant beyond even the ordinary measure of such favored regions. The mountains yield mahogany, satin-wood, and lignum-vitæ, while the plains supply all the bountiful returns of the tropics, including bananas, oranges, pine-apples, coffee, cacao, sugar, indigo, and cotton. Among the minerals are gold, silver, platinum, mercury, copper, iron, sulphur, and several kinds of precious stones. Such, in brief, is the physical character of this wonderful island, which, like Ireland, is a “gem of the sea.”

Originally discovered by Christopher Columbus, who named it Hispaniola, or Little Spain, the island was for a long time among the most valued possessions of Spain, from which power the western portion, known as Hayti, passed to France. Throwing off the government of the latter country, the Republic of Hayti for nearly sixty years has maintained its independence before the world, and performed honorably all its duties in the family of nations. At one time it embraced the whole island: at present it occupies a portion only, with a population of six hundred thousand.

* * * * *

The Republic of Liberia extends along the western coast of Africa for a space of five hundred miles, beginning at the British colony of Sierra Leone, with an average breadth of fifty miles, between latitude 4° 20´ and 7° 20´ north, embracing an area of thirty thousand square miles, being almost precisely the area of Hayti,--so that these two regions, one an island and the other a strip of African sea-coast, are of equal geographical extent. I say nothing of the origin of this republic, although it cannot be contemplated without the conviction that perhaps it is one of the most important colonies ever planted. At last civilization obtains foothold in Africa, almost under the equator.

In soil and productions, if not in climate, this region is hardly less favored than Hayti. Though so near the equator, the mercury seldom rises above ninety degrees in the shade, and never falls below sixty. Most of the productions in one are also found in the other. But Liberia abounds in iron ore. Copper and other metals are said to exist in the interior. It is, however, in sugar, cotton, coffee, and palm-oil that Liberia seems destined to excel. A person familiar with the country reports that it “bids fair to become one of the greatest sugar-producing countries in the world.” The population embraces some fifteen thousand persons, emigrants, or their children, from the United States, with a large native population, held in subjection and already won toward civilization, amounting to more than two hundred thousand.

With two countries like these the argument for treaties is strong, without pursuing the inquiry further. But it becomes irresistible, when we consider the positive demands of our commerce in these quarters. Even in spite of coldness, neglect, and injustice, our commercial relations have grown there to great importance. If assured of the customary protection afforded by treaties and the watchful presence of a diplomatic representative, they must become of greater importance still.

I have in my hands a tabular statement of our commerce and navigation with foreign countries for the year ending June 30, 1860, arranged according to amount, so that the country with the largest commercial intercourse stands first. This authentic testimony has been prepared at the Treasury Department, under my directions, for this occasion. Though most interesting and instructive, it is too minute to be read in debate. Here, under one head, are the exports from the United States; under another head, the imports; and, under other heads, the number of ships and tonnage: the whole so classified that we see at a glance the relative importance of foreign countries in their commercial relations with the United States.[280] Such a statement is in itself an argument.

It is to exhibit the precise position of Hayti and Liberia in the scale that I introduce this table. When it is said that out of seventy-one countries Hayti stands the _twenty-seventh_, and Liberia at least helps to make the _twenty-ninth_, this is not enough. It must be observed that there are no less than ten countries, like Canada and Cuba, which, though enumerated separately, belong to other nationalities. If these are excluded, or added to their proper nationalities, Hayti will rank as _seventeenth_, and Liberia will take her place as _nineteenth_. But if we examine this table in detail, we find the important relative position of these two countries amply sustained. Confining ourselves for the present to Hayti, we have these remarkable results.

Hayti, in exports received from us, stands next to Russia. The exports to Hayti are $2,673,682; while those to Russia amount to $2,786,835. But the imports from Hayti are $2,062,723, while those from Russia are only $1,545,164. In number of vessels employed, Hayti is much the more important to us. Only sixty vessels are employed between the United States and Russia, while four hundred and ninety are employed between the United States and Hayti. So that, in importance of commercial relations, Hayti stands above Russia, where we have been constantly represented by a Minister Plenipotentiary of the highest class, with a Secretary of Legation, and have at this moment no less than eight consuls besides.

According to this table, there are no less than _fifteen_ countries with which the United States maintain diplomatic relations, although lower than Hayti in the scale of commerce and navigation. This is not all. In point of fact, there are at least _three_ other countries, where we are now represented by a Minister Resident, which do not appear in any commercial tables: I refer to Switzerland, Paraguay, and Bolivia. So that there are as many as _eighteen_ countries of less commercial importance than Hayti, with which the United States are now in diplomatic relations.

The exports to Austria, including Venice, where we are represented by a Minister Plenipotentiary of the first class, with a Secretary of Legation and three consuls, are less than one half our exports to Hayti, while the number of ships in this commerce is only forty-five, being four hundred and forty-five less than in our commerce with Hayti. The exports to Peru, where we are represented also by a Minister Plenipotentiary of the first class, with a Secretary of Legation and five consuls, are still less than those to Austria.

In this scale of commerce and navigation Hayti stands above Prussia, where we are represented by a Minister Plenipotentiary, and also above Sweden, Turkey, Central America, Portugal, the Papal States, Japan, Denmark, and Ecuador, where we are represented by Ministers Resident. It also stands above the Sandwich Islands, where we are represented by a Commissioner. Of these there are several whose combined commerce with the United States is inferior to that of Hayti. This is the case with Sweden, Turkey, Portugal, Japan, Denmark, and Ecuador, which altogether do not equal Hayti in commercial relations with the United States.

Our combined exports to Turkey in Europe and Turkey in Asia are nearly two millions less than to Hayti; and yet, with this Mohammedan Government we have felt it important within a few weeks to negotiate a treaty of commerce.

The commerce with China is among the most valuable we possess, and the ships engaged in it are of large size; but in number they are inferior to those engaged in trade with Hayti. And yet at China we have a Minister Plenipotentiary of the first class, with a salary of twelve thousand dollars, an interpreter with a salary of five thousand dollars, two consuls with salaries each of four thousand dollars, one other consul with a salary of three thousand five hundred dollars, two other consuls with salaries each of three thousand dollars, and two other consuls paid by fees.

Perhaps the comparison between Hayti and the Sandwich Islands is the most instructive. Both are islands independent in government,--Hayti with a population of six hundred thousand, the Sandwich Islands with a population of little more than seventy thousand. The exports to Hayti, as we have already seen, are $2,673,682, while the exports to the Sandwich Islands are only $747,462. And the difference in navigation is as great. In commerce with Hayti there are four hundred and ninety ships, with an aggregate of 82,360 tons, while in commerce with the Sandwich Islands there are only eighty-five ships, with an aggregate of 35,368 tons. And yet, at the Sandwich Islands, with this inferior population, inferior commerce, and inferior navigation, we are represented by a Commissioner, with a salary of seven thousand five hundred dollars, one consul with a salary of four thousand dollars, another consul with a salary of three thousand dollars, and still another paid by fees.

Nor is the interest in the trade with Hayti confined to any particular State or section of the United States. From other authentic tables it appears that the New England States send fish and cheap cottons,--Pennsylvania and the Western States send pork,--Vermont, New York, Ohio, and Illinois send beef, butter, and cheese,--Philadelphia and Boston send soap and candles,--while Maine sends lumber, and in times past Southern States have sent rice and tobacco.

Of fish Hayti in 1859-60 took from us 55,652 cwt., being much more than was taken by any other country, except Cuba, which took 59,719 cwt., and much more than was taken by all the rest of the West Indies. Of cotton manufactures Hayti took from us to the value of $227,717, being more than was taken by many other countries together, and nearly double the amount taken by Cuba and Porto Rico together, the two remaining, but valuable, American possessions of Spain. Of butter Hayti took 211,644 pounds, of cheese 121,137 pounds, of lard 675,163 pounds,--but of soap she took 2,602,132 pounds, being three times as much as was taken by any other country. Cuba, which stands next, took only 867,823 pounds, while Mexico took only 66,874 pounds.[281]

Such are some of the articles, which I mention that you may see the distribution of this commerce in our own country, as well as the extent to which, though pursued under difficulties, it has already gone.

* * * * *

The practical advantages from the recognition of Hayti were directly urged upon the National Government by one of its agents, even during the unfriendly administration of President Pierce. I refer to the consular return of John L. Wilson, commercial agent at Cape Haytien, under date of June 5, 1854, as follows.

“By a recognition of the independence of Hayti our commerce
would be likely to advance still more. Our citizens trading
there would enjoy more privileges, besides standing on a better
footing. _Many decided advantages might also be obtained
through treaty_, and our own Government exercise a wholesome
influence over theirs, of which it stands much in need.”[282]

This is certainly strong testimony, although, when we consider his political relations, testimony from an unwilling witness. There is other testimony of a similar character. In the text of the elaborate report by the Department of State, from which the above is taken, is found the following weighty opinion.

“There being no treaty between the United States and Hayti, the
commerce between the two countries is governed by such local
laws and regulations as may from time to time be enacted. These
are always subject to changes and alterations, sometimes so
sudden,--decrees of to-day superseding the laws in force but
yesterday,--that commercial interests, _especially those of
the United States_, have been in many instances most seriously
affected.”[283]

As late as June 25, 1850, a law was in force which subjected the vessels of all countries not acknowledging the independence of Hayti to an additional duty of ten per cent. American vessels, being within its operation, could not compete with the vessels of other nations, even in exporting to Hayti our own staples. Then, again, there was a tariff, that took effect in January, 1850, under which there was a most injurious discrimination against our trade. A despatch at that period from Aux Cayes to the Department of State says: “While the citizens of France are scarcely affected in their importations to Hayti, the Americans here import, and our merchants at home export, scarcely any article that is free.” And yet, in the face of these annoyances, and notwithstanding the embarrassments which they occasioned, our merchants have secured at least a moiety of the foreign trade of Hayti. With the encouragements bestowed on our relations with other countries, we shall enjoy a much larger proportion.[284]

If any additional motive were needed, it might be found in the political condition of the West India Islands, and the present movements in Mexico. Spain, quickened by ancient pride, has begun to recover her former foothold,[285] and it is sometimes supposed that France is willing to profit by imagined change of sentiment in her favor. Thus far the Republic of Hayti has been left without sympathy or support from our country. That it is able to sustain itself so well gives assurance of still greater strength, when surrounded by more auspicious circumstances. Nor is the influence of Hayti to be neglected in adjusting that balance of power which is daily becoming of increased importance in the West Indies. It may be of value to us that this republic should be among our friends, while it cannot be doubted that our friendship will contribute to Haytien security against danger from any quarter whatsoever. It will be remembered that Mr. Canning boasted, somewhat grandly, that he called a new world into existence to redress the balance of the old,--alluding in this way to the acknowledgment of the Spanish colonies. In the same spirit, and without any exaggeration, may it be said that by the acknowledgment of Hayti we shall provide a check to distant schemes of ambition, which have latterly menaced an undue predominance in the West Indies. In this view, the present proposition has a political importance which it is difficult to measure. It becomes a pledge of permanent peace, as well as of commerce; but it can have this character only if made effective, sincerely and honestly, according to the usage of nations.

Of the many colonies following our example and independence Hayti was the first, and yet, by strange perversity, is not even now recognized by our Government. We are told that the last shall be first and the first shall be last. This, surely, is a case where the first is last. It remains to be seen, if, under the genial influence of such recognition, Hayti may not become, among all independent colonies, first in importance to us, as it was first in accepting our example.

In acknowledging the independence of Hayti, we follow too tardily the lead of other nations. France for a long time hesitated, as Spain hesitated, to acknowledge the independence of her colonies. This concession was made in 1825, under Charles the Tenth, while Hayti stipulated by treaty to pay one hundred and fifty million francs, as well for the recognition as for indemnification to colonial proprietors. It was natural that the mother country should hesitate; but when France abandoned all claim, every objection to recognition by other nations ceased. Accordingly, this republic has been recognized, if not cordially welcomed, by Great Britain, France, Spain, Prussia, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Portugal, Sweden, Hanover, Italy, and even by Austria, all of whom have representatives there, duly chronicled in the Almanach de Gotha.

* * * * *

Thus far I have confined myself to the case of Hayti. But Liberia has claims of its own. If our commercial relations with this interesting country are less important, they are nevertheless of such consequence as to require protection, while this republic may properly look to us for parental care.

The commercial tables by which I have illustrated so completely the relative importance of Hayti are less precise with regard to Liberia, inasmuch as this republic, owing to unhappy prejudices in recent Administrations, was not allowed a separate place in the tables, but was concealed under the head of “Other Ports in Africa.” From authentic sources I learn that the exports from the single port of Monrovia for the year 1860 amounted to near $200,000, while those from the whole republic amounted to as much as $400,000.

I forbear details with regard to the commerce of Liberia. It is enough that it is already considerable, and is increasing in value, although Great Britain, by a treaty, and the cultivation of friendly relations, has done something to divert this commerce from the United States. But it is not too late for us to enter into a treaty, and to establish similar friendly relations. If, beyond the impulse of self-interest, we need anything to quicken us, we shall find it in the judgment of Henry Clay, who, in a letter dated Ashland, October 18, 1851, uses these positive words:--

“I have thought for years that the independence of Liberia
ought to be recognized by our Government, and I have frequently
urged it upon persons connected with the Administration,--and I
shall continue to do so, if I have suitable opportunities.”

In taking this step, and entering into a treaty with Liberia, we only follow the example of commercial nations. Nor can I doubt that we must in this way essentially promote our own commercial interests. Liberia is so situated, that, with the favor of the National Government, it may become the metropolitan power on the whole African coast, so that the growing commerce of that continent will be to a great degree in its hands.

* * * * *

I do not dwell at length on the general advantages from the recognition of these two powers, nor do I enlarge on the motives of justice. I mean to state the case simply, without introducing any topic which can justly cause debate in this body. It is enough that the acknowledgment is required for our own good. Happily, in benefiting ourselves we shall promote the interests of others.

There is one consequence which I cannot forbear to specify. Emigrants to these Republics will be multiplied by such recognition, while every emigrant, when happily established, will create an additional demand for the productions of our commerce, and contribute to the number of American keels which plough the ocean.

And there is yet one other consequence, which ought to be presented expressly. Our commerce will be put at once under the solemn safeguard of treaty, so that it will enjoy that security which is essential to its perfect prosperity, and can no longer suffer from discriminating duties or hostile legislation, aroused by a just sensibility at our persevering illiberality. If you would have such treaties, you must begin by an acknowledgment of independence.

Sir, there is one business only which can suffer by this measure: I mean that of counterfeit money. You know, Sir, that, by a familiar rule of International Law, declared by the Supreme Court of the United States,[286] it belongs exclusively to the political department of the Government to determine our relations with a foreign country. And since our Government refuses to acknowledge Hayti, our courts of justice are obliged to do so likewise; so that, when criminals are arraigned for counterfeiting the money of Hayti, they decline all jurisdiction of the offence. As Hayti is not a nation, it cannot have money. Such is the reasoning, and the counterfeiters go free. It is said that during the past thirty years millions of false dollars have in this way been put in circulation. A case has occurred only recently, where the counterfeiter was promptly discharged, while the witness alone seemed to be in danger. It is time that such an outrage should be stopped.

It may be said that the same objects can be obtained by consuls, instead of commissioners. It is clear that it is not the habit of the United States to enter upon negotiations and open friendly relations with foreign states through consuls. And it is also clear, that, according to the usage of nations, consuls are not entitled to the same consideration with diplomatic representatives. Their influence is less, whether in dealing with the Government to which they are accredited, or with the representatives of other powers at the same place. On this point I content myself with reading the words of Mr. Wheaton.

“Consuls are not public ministers. Whatever protection they
may be entitled to in the discharge of their official duties,
and whatever special privileges may be conferred upon them
by the local laws and usages, or by international compact,
they are not entitled by the general Law of Nations to the
peculiar immunities of ambassadors. No state is bound to permit
the residence of foreign consuls, unless it has stipulated
by convention to receive them. They are to be approved and
admitted by the local sovereign, and, if guilty of illegal or
improper conduct, are liable to have the exequatur which is
granted them withdrawn, and may be punished by the laws of the
state where they reside, or sent back to their own country, at
the discretion of the Government which they have offended. In
civil and criminal cases they are subject to the local law, in
the same manner with other foreign residents owing a temporary
allegiance to the state.”[287]

It may be true that negotiations are sometimes conducted by consuls, but very rarely; and the exceptions testify to the prevailing policy. Ministers are the received agents of diplomacy. Any other agent must be inferior in weight and character. If this be true,--and it is undeniable,--then obviously the objects now proposed can be most fitly and effectively accomplished only by diplomatic representatives. And since what is worth doing is worth well doing, I hope there will be no hesitation. Here again the example of the great European powers may properly influence us. England, France, and Spain have diplomatic representatives at Hayti, who are reputed to discharge their responsible duties with activity and ability. All these have the advantage of subsisting treaties. Our treaty remains to be negotiated. To do this in such a way as to secure for our various interests all proper advantages must be our special aim. Any further neglect on our part can be nothing less than open abandonment of these various interests. Too long already has this sacrifice been made.

* * * * *

Mr. President, a full generation has passed since the acknowledgment of Hayti was urged upon Congress. As an act of justice too long deferred, it aroused even then the active sympathy of multitudes, while as an act for the benefit of our commerce it was ably commended by eminent merchants of Boston and New York without distinction of party. It received the authoritative support of John Quincy Adams, whose vindication of Hayti was associated with his best labors in the other House. The right of petition, which he steadfastly maintained, was long ago established. Slavery in the national capital is now abolished. It remains that this other triumph shall be achieved. Petitioners, who years ago united in this prayer, and statesmen who presented the petitions, are dead. But they will all live again in the good work they generously began.

* * * * *

Mr. President, this is the statement I have to make on this important question. As I know that the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. DAVIS] desires to move an amendment, I shall not ask a vote to-day; but I propose that the further consideration of the bill be postponed until to-morrow at half past twelve o’clock, when I hope we may have a vote upon it.

The motion was agreed to.

April 24th, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed
the consideration of the bill to authorize the President of
the United States to appoint diplomatic representatives to the
Republics of Hayti and Liberia respectively. Mr. Davis, of
Kentucky, moved to strike out all after the enacting clause,
and insert:--

“That the President of the United States be, and hereby
is, authorized, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, to appoint a consul to the Republic of Liberia, and
a consul-general to the Republic of Hayti, respectively,
with powers to negotiate treaties of amity, friendship, and
commerce between the United States and those Republics.”

In the course of his remarks, Mr. Davis expressed himself as
follows.

“MR. PRESIDENT,--I am weary, sick, disgusted, despondent
with the introduction of the subject of Slaves and Slavery
into the Chamber; and if I had not happened to be a member
of the committee from which this bill was reported, I
should not have opened my mouth upon the subject.… I oppose
the sending of ambassadors of any class from our Government
to theirs upon this consideration: it would establish
diplomatically terms of mutual and equal reciprocity
between the two countries and us. If, after such a measure
should take effect, the Republic of Hayti and the Republic
of Liberia were to send their ministers plenipotentiary
or their chargés d’affaires to our Government, they would
have to be received by the President, and by all the
functionaries of the Government, upon the same terms of
equality with similar representatives from other powers. If
a full-blooded negro were sent in that capacity from either
of those countries, by the Laws of Nations he could demand
that he be received precisely on the same terms of equality
with the white representatives from the powers of the
earth composed of white people. When the President opened
his saloons to the reception of the diplomatic corps,
when he gave his entertainments to such diplomats, the
representatives, of whatever color, from those countries,
would have the right to demand admission upon terms of
equality with all other diplomats; and if they had families
consisting of negro wives and negro daughters, they would
have the right to ask that their families also be invited
to such occasions, and that they go there and mingle with
the whites of our own country and of other countries that
happened to be present. We recollect that a few years
ago the refined French court admitted and received the
representative of Soulouque, who then denominated himself,
or was called, the Emperor of Dominica, I think.”

MR. SUMNER. “Of Hayti.”

MR. DAVIS. “Well, a great big negro fellow, dressed out
with his silver or gold lace clothes in the most fantastic
and gaudy style, presented himself in the court of Louis
Napoleon, and, I admit, was received. Now, Sir, I want
no such exhibition as that in our capital and in our
Government. The American minister, Mr. Mason, was present
on that occasion, and he was sleeved by some Englishman--I
have forgotten his name--who was present, who pointed
him to the ambassador of Soulouque, and said, ‘What do
you think of him?’ Mr. Mason turned round and said, ‘I
think, clothes and all, he is worth a thousand dollars.’
[_Laughter._]

…

“Mr. President, I regret to have felt myself forced to
speak the words upon this subject I have. I do begin to
nauseate the subject of Slaves and Slavery in debate in
this Chamber; and it was only because this measure has
been perseveringly and uniformly opposed from the Slave
States heretofore, and I know is distasteful, to a very
considerable extent, to the people of those States, and
because the measure, in the form in which it has been
reported, would have the effect, in my opinion, to increase
this feeling, that I have thought it incumbent on me to say
a word.”

MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, the Senate will bear me witness, that, in presenting this important question yesterday, I made no allusion to the character of the population in the two Republics. I made no appeal on account of color. I did not allude to the unhappy circumstance in their history, that they had once been slaves. It is the Senator from Kentucky who introduces this topic. And not only this, Sir, he follows it by alluding to some possible difficulties--I hardly know how to characterize them--which may occur in social life, should the Congress of the United States undertake at this late day, simply in harmony with the Law of Nations, and following the policy of civilized communities, to pass this bill. I shall not follow the Senator on those sensitive topics. I content myself with a single remark. More than once I have had the opportunity of meeting citizens of these Republics, and I say nothing beyond the truth when I add that I have found them so refined and so full of self-respect as to satisfy me that no one of them charged with a mission from his Government can seek any society where he will be not entirely welcome. Sir, the Senator from Kentucky may banish all personal anxiety. No representative from Hayti or Liberia will trouble him.

But the proposition of the Senator makes a precise objection to the bill, which I am ready to meet. He insists that we shall be represented by consuls only, and not by diplomatic agents. Yesterday, in the remarks I had the honor of addressing to the Senate, I anticipated this very objection. I quoted then the authoritative words of Mr. Wheaton in his work on the Law of Nations, where he sets forth the distinction between ministers and consuls, and shows the greater advantage from a representation by one than by the other. I follow up that quotation now by reading from another work. It is a treatise on International Law and the Laws of War by General Halleck; and as I quote this authority, which is not yet much known, I venture to remark that I doubt if there is any recent contribution to the literature of the Law of Nations of more practical value. In a few words he states the character of consuls. I quote from him as follows.