Chapter XII: Part 12

“Consuls have neither the representative nor diplomatic
character of public ministers. They have no right of
ex-territoriality, and therefore cannot claim, either for
themselves, their families, houses, or property, the privileges
of exemption which by this fiction of law are accorded to
diplomatic agents, who are considered as representing, in a
greater or less degree, the sovereignty of the state which
appoints them. They, however, are officers of a foreign state,
and, when recognized as such by the exequatur of the state in
which they exercise their functions, they are under the special
protection of the Law of Nations. Consuls are sometimes made
also chargés d’affaires, in which cases they are furnished with
credentials, and enjoy diplomatic privileges; but these result
only from their character as chargés, and not as consuls.”[288]

The Committee who had the subject in charge, taking it into careful consideration,--as I believe the Senator from Kentucky, who is a member of the Committee, will confess,--deliberately reached the conclusion that it was advisable for the United States at present to be represented at each of those Republics by a person of diplomatic character. The Committee put aside the proposition that we should be represented merely by a consul. It was felt that such an officer would not adequately do all that our country might justly expect to have done. Nor is this all. We were guided also by the precedents of our Government. There are eighteen different states lower down in the scale of commerce and navigation with the United States, where we are now represented by diplomatic representatives. One of these, as I explained yesterday, is the Sandwich Islands, with a population of only seventy thousand, and with a commerce and navigation vastly inferior to that between the United States and Hayti.

MR. DAVIS. I think we have too many.

MR. SUMNER. Possibly. I go into no inquiry on that point. Suffice it to say we already have these eighteen diplomatic representatives, and one of these is at the Sandwich Islands, with a population, a commerce, and navigation inferior to those of Hayti. Besides, at the Sandwich Islands we have three consuls highly paid. If we have too many, let us reduce the list, but do not commence our economies on Hayti and Liberia.

The Committee in their conclusion followed the usage of nations, and also the example of the great powers at Hayti. In presenting this measure, I make no appeal on account of an oppressed race. I urge it simply as an act for our own good. We go about the world hunting up the smaller powers, where to make treaties and to place diplomatic representatives, under the temptation of petty commercial advantage. Thus far we have stood aloof from two important opportunities of extending and strengthening our influence. It is time to change.

The proposition of Mr. Davis was rejected,--Yeas 8, Nays 30.

* * * * *

Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, then said:--

“After the vote just taken in the Senate, I shall not
trespass upon their attention, as I intended to do,--only
for a brief period, however. It is evident that this bill
is going to pass. I want the country, however, to know that
according to the rules of the Senate foreign ministers have
a right upon this floor, and we have set apart a portion of
the gallery for the ministers and their families. If this
bill should pass both Houses of Congress and become a law,
I predict that in twelve months some negro will walk upon
the floor of the Senate of the United States and carry his
family into that gallery which is set apart for foreign
ministers. If that is agreeable to the taste and feeling of
the people of this country, it is not to mine; and I only
say that I will not be responsible for any such act. With
this I will content myself.”

The question, on the passage by yeas and nays, resulted, Yeas
32, Nays 7.

So the bill was passed.

* * * * *

June 3d, the bill passed the House,--Yeas 86, Nays 37.

* * * * *

The passage of this bill was felt to be an important stage
in the warfare with Slavery. Governor Andrew saw it so, and
wrote:--

“The triumphant and exemplary majority which the
Hayti bill obtained in the Senate is most gratifying.
I am greatly rejoiced. The law, when passed, will be a
recognition of the _Colored Man_, not merely of Hayti. It
is a jewel in your crown.”

Joshua Leavitt, of New York, the tried Abolitionist, also saw
it so, and wrote:--

“Allow me to congratulate you on the splendid vote in the
Senate on Haytien recognition. I think it shows the benefit
of waiting for the right time, and then striking. This
action is final in regard to the supremacy of the Slave
Power. How can they administer a government that is in
amity with a nation of insurgent negro slaves?”

The joy in Hayti was reported by Seth Webb, Jr., our Commercial
Agent at Port-au-Prince.

“We all admire the way you steered the recognition through
the Senate, and can only hope for as good a pilot in the
House.

“The news of the passage of the Recognition Bill through
the Senate was received here about the same time with
that of the taking of Yorktown and Williamsburg, and
diffused real joy among all classes. The American residents
illuminated their houses, and had a good time generally.

“Your speech on the passage of the Recognition Bill
attracts great attention here, and, when printed in full,
will be extensively read.”[289]

Hon. Benjamin C. Clark, an eminent merchant, acting as Consul
of Hayti at Boston, wrote with the feelings of an American
citizen, as well as of a Haytien representative.

“The passage of the bill under your thorough exposition
of the subject will be a big white stone in our pathway
as a nation, and a gravestone to the vampires and Vandals
who have left nothing by the wayside but works of treason
leading to bloodshed and desolation.”

The feelings of the Haytien people were communicated by the
following letter.

“CONSULATE OF HAYTI, NEW YORK, 26 April, 1862.

“SIR,--I have the honor to express my high appreciation
of the important services you have so untiringly rendered
to Hayti, for which you receive the gratitude of all
liberal and benevolent persons who desire justice and
political equality accorded to all men, and especially,
in the present instance, to a people who, under many
embarrassments, have nobly maintained their position, and
are daily advancing in intellectual culture and in the
refinements of civilized life.…

“My despatches announcing the recognition were forwarded
yesterday by a vessel sailing directly for the Bay of
Port-au-Prince, and duplicates of my despatches will be
sent on Monday by a fast vessel for Port-au-Prince.

“I know the character of the Haytiens thoroughly, having
lived among them some fifteen years, eight years of the
time as Commercial Agent of the United States, and I can
imagine their hearts swelling with pleasure and gratitude
on the reception of the good news; and your name, Sir, will
be held in kind remembrance as long as Hayti exists.

“Be pleased, Sir, to accept assurance of my distinguished
consideration.

“GEORGE F. USHER, _Hayti Commercial Agent_.

“HON. CHARLES SUMNER, _United States Senator, &c., &c.,
&c._, Washington.”

The sentiments of Liberia were conveyed in the following.

“WASHINGTON, D. C., 10th June, 1862.

“DEAR SIR,--The children of Africa all over the globe owe
you the deepest gratefulness and lasting honor, for you
have been most prompt and punctual in vindicating their
cause, in advancing their interests, and even in suffering
in their behalf. But recently you have participated in an
act which touches with benignant power upon the great home
of this race, and which, combining with the generous and
beneficent policy of other great nations, will, without
doubt, serve to stir to unusual activity and to move with
a civilizing and saving power millions of human beings
throughout the entire continent of Africa.

“To you, Sir, to a very considerable degree, we owe the
recognition of the Republic of Liberia by the Government of
the United States.

“Had it not been for your masterly policy and your wise
discretion, allied to a most persistent determination, we
have reason to doubt whether the Bill of Recognition would
not have met with a miscarriage during the present session
of Congress.

“Thanks to your fast friendship, it has not failed, and
the Republic of Liberia has been brought, through wise
and cordial legislation, into brotherhood with the great
Republic of America. And believe us, Sir, your name and
memory will never be forgotten by us. Your virtues and
excellencies shall be recited to our children’s children,
your philanthropic course and painful labors shall be held
up for imitation to our aspiring youth, and your effigy
shall adorn the halls of legislation, of letters, and of
art in Liberia, with all the other great benefactors of our
country and our race, as advancing civilization shall rear
stately structures and noble courts.

“In our own behalf, and in behalf of the young nation we
represent, we tender you cordial congratulations and our
sincerest thanks, and we are, Sir,

“Your obedient servants,

“ALEX. CRUMMELL,
“EDWARD W. BLYDEN,
“J. D. JOHNSON,
“_Commissioners from Liberia, &c., &c._

“HON. CHARLES SUMMER.”

In the summer of 1871, the memory of this effort was revived
by a beautiful medal offered to Mr. Sumner in the name of
the Haytien people, as an expression of gratitude for his
defence of their independence on two different occasions,--the
first being the present speech, and the other a later effort,
growing out of the attempt to annex Dominica, with menace to
Hayti. As Mr. Sumner felt it his duty to decline the medal,
the Haytien Minister placed it in the hands of the Governor
of Massachusetts, who deposited it in the Library of the
State-House.

FINAL SUPPRESSION OF THE SLAVE-TRADE.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE TREATY WITH GREAT BRITAIN, APRIL 24, 1862.

Early in the spring of 1862, Mr. Seward conferred with Mr.
Sumner on a treaty with Great Britain for a mutual and
restricted right of search and mixed courts, with a view to the
suppression of the slave-trade. The negotiation was opened and
proceeded successfully. April 7th, Mr. Sumner, being at the
State Department, had the happiness of witnessing the signature
of this treaty by Mr. Seward and Lord Lyons. April 11th, it was
communicated to the Senate in Executive Session, and referred
to the Committee on Foreign Relations. April 15th, it was
reported to the Senate by Mr. Sumner, with the recommendation
that the Senate advise and consent thereto. April 22d, it
was brought up in the Senate, when Mr. Sumner moved the
usual resolution of ratification. April 24th, on motion of
Mr. Sumner, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution
of ratification. The yeas and nays were dispensed with by
unanimous consent, and the resolution was agreed to without a
dissenting vote.

MR. PRESIDENT,--Already a slave-trader has been executed at New York, being the first in our history to suffer for this immeasurable crime.[290] English lawyers dwell much upon treason to the king, which they denounce in a term borrowed from ancient Rome as _lese_-majesty; but the slave-trade is treason to man, being nothing less than _lese_-humanity. Much as I incline against capital punishment, little as I am disposed to continue this barbarous penalty, unworthy of a civilized age, I see so much of good in this example at the present moment, that I reconcile myself to it without a pang. Clearly it will be a warning to slave-traders, and also notice to the civilized world that at last we are in earnest, while it helps make the slave-trade detestable. Crime is seen in the punishment, and the gallows sheds upon it that infamy which nothing short of martyrdom in a good cause can overcome.

* * * * *

The important treaty now before the Senate is to enforce on a large scale final judgment against the slave-trade. It is to do with many what has just been done with an individual. Our flag is desecrated by this hateful commerce; ships equipped in New York are tempted by its cruel gains. To stop this has been impossible, while Slavery prevailed in the National Government. How could our courts judge the slave-trader, how could the National Government set itself against the hateful commerce, while Slavery occupied all the places of power? But this is changed. If Emancipation is yet longer delayed, Slavery is at least dislodged from its predominant influence. Therefore is the way free for action against the slave-trade.

The treaty proceeds on the idea of earnest work, and it recognizes two especial agencies, each of which has been discussed between the two Governments in former years, but has always failed of adoption. The first is a mutual and restricted right of search, and the second is the well-known system of mixed courts, for the enforcement of the treaty.

The treaty has just been read, so that I need not recite in detail the terms of these two provisions. I pass at once to the consideration of their origin and necessity.

* * * * *

There was a time when our country was open and earnest against the slave-trade. A well-known provision of the Constitution, classed among original compromises, restrained Congress from prohibiting it prior to the year 1808; but, just so soon as it had the power, Congress acted. Its promptitude justified the enthusiasm with which Judge Story in his Commentaries remarks: “It is to the honor of America that she should have set the first example of interdicting and abolishing the slave-trade in modern times.”[291] By Act of Congress, bearing date as early as March 2, 1807, and to take effect January 1, 1808, the importation of slaves into the United States was prohibited, under penalties of imprisonment, fine, and forfeiture. These were increased by Act of Congress of April 20, 1818. But mild and moderate enactments were not enough; and at length, by Act of May 15, 1820, Congress was constrained to declare the slave-trade piracy, and to punish it with death. Since then this offence has stood in the catalogue of capital crimes.

Already this immense subject had occupied the attention of the great European powers. In the Treaty of Paris in 1814, Great Britain and France united against what was denounced as “a species of commerce equally repugnant to the principles of natural justice and the lights of the times.”[292] This was followed by the Treaty of Ghent, at the close of the same year, in which the United States and Great Britain denounced the traffic in slaves as “irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and justice,” and promised their best endeavors for its suppression.[293] Then came the Treaty of Vienna, where the great powers joined in declaring it “repugnant to the principles of humanity and of universal morality.”[294] These were declarations only. The next attempt was to find a system of action, which should be effective against the Protean monster in the many metamorphoses it was able to assume, and here England nobly took the lead.

Lord Castlereagh instructed the Duke of Wellington, the British ambassador at Paris, to obtain from France the concession of a mutual right of search for the enforcement of the denunciation in which they were agreed; but this was found unwelcome to the French Government, and therefore not pressed at the time. Such was the beginning of the proposition, which, after various fortunes, is at last recognized in the treaty now before us.

Meanwhile negotiations were opened on our side particularly with Great Britain. These seem for a time to have had the sanction not only of the Executive, but of Congress, or at least of the House of Representatives. Messages from the President, calling attention to the slave-trade, were answered by reports from special committees of the House of Representatives. One of these, made February 9, 1821, concluded with a resolution, “That the President of the United States be requested to enter into such arrangements as he may deem suitable and proper with one or more of the maritime powers of Europe for the effectual abolition of the African slave-trade.” The report, while declaring that “to efface this reproachful stain from the character of civilized mankind would be the proudest triumph that could be achieved in the cause of humanity,” proceeds to announce, in words applicable to the present moment, that “this happy result, experience has demonstrated, cannot be realized by any system, except a concession by the maritime powers to each other’s ships of war of a qualified right of search.”[295] Another report, by a select committee of the House, April 12, 1822, adopted the resolution of the previous committee, and also the recommendation of a mutual right of search, adding, that it could not be doubted “that the people of America have the intelligence to distinguish between the right of searching a neutral on the high seas in time of war, claimed by some belligerents, and that mutual, restricted, and peaceful concession by treaty, suggested by your Committee, and which is demanded in the name of suffering humanity.”[296]

Then came the devoted efforts of Charles Fenton Mercer, an admirable representative of Virginia, who exposed this terrible traffic with a pathos not to be forgotten. On his motion, another resolution was adopted, February 28, 1823, by a vote of one hundred and thirty-one yeas to only nine nays, calling upon the President to enter into negotiations “for the effectual abolition of the African slave-trade, and its ultimate denunciation as piracy, under the Law of Nations, by the consent of the civilized world.”[297] The character of this resolution was impaired by the rejection of an amendment, “and that we agree to a qualified right of search,”[298] which was a falling off from the recommendations of the two committees.

The Executive responded to Congress, and, under instructions from John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State, a treaty was negotiated with Great Britain, bearing date March 13, 1824, in which it was stipulated that the ships of the two powers might “cruise on the coasts of Africa, _of America_, and of the West Indies, for the suppression of the slave-trade,” and empowering them under certain restrictions to detain and capture vessels engaged in this traffic.[299] Important in substance, this treaty became important historically. Although the clause quoted appeared in the original draught sent out from Washington, yet the treaty was ratified by the Senate only on the condition that the words “of America” were struck out, thus excluding operations of British cruisers along the whole extent of American coast.[300] This was fatal to the treaty, as the British Government would not accept the condition. The case is memorable, not only as a check to negotiations for the suppression of the slave-trade, but as a conspicuous instance, where the Senate, in dealing with a power like Great Britain, did not shrink from asserting its prerogative under the Constitution, not less decisive than the tribunitial veto.

Thus it stood. Our own Government had proposed a modified search on the coast of America, but this was point-blank refused by the Senate. It appears that the proposition was made contrary to the judgment of Mr. Adams. His sense of wrong from the long-continued search exercised by British cruisers was so keen that he would not willingly furnish any excuse for its revival; and such, it was feared, might be the concession. Afterwards, in the revelations which he sometimes made to the House of Representatives, he declared his repugnance to this negotiation, and the way it was overcome. The same repugnance, doubtless, influenced Senators in the vote on the treaty, increased by a growing sentiment for Slavery, which the debates on the Missouri Compromise had quickened.

Mr. Adams’s statement made in debate at a later day lets us behind the scenes at an important period. After describing the proposition for a mutual right of search, the veteran said:--

“It was utterly against my judgment and wishes; but I was
obliged to submit, and I prepared the requisite despatches to
Mr. Rush, then our minister at the court of London. When he
made his proposal to Mr. Canning, Mr. Canning’s reply was,
‘Draw up your convention, and I will sign it.’ Mr. Rush did so,
and Mr. Canning, without the slightest alteration whatever,
without varying the dot of an _i_ or the crossing of a _t_,
did affix to it his signature,--thus assenting to our own
terms in our own language. The convention came back here for
ratification; but in the mean while another spirit came over
the feelings of this House, as well as of the Senate. A party
had been formed against the Administration of Mr. Monroe;
the course of the Administration was no longer favored, and
the House came out in opposition to a convention drawn in
conformity to its own previous views.… The Senate ratified the
treaty, giving the right of search in the fullest manner to
Great Britain, with the exception, I think, of one article,
which extended the right to the coast of the United States:
that was rejected.”[301]

This statement from an eminent quarter shows how at another time the opposition to a mutual right of search became manifest. It is for the Senate to determine if the time has not come for this opposition to cease.

Not disheartened by failure with the United States, Great Britain pursued her honorable policy, enlisting Government after Government, until nearly all the maritime powers of Europe, moved by a common sentiment of humanity, had conceded a mutual and restricted right of search, with the single object of suppressing the slave-trade. The famous Quintuple Treaty of 1841 between the great powers consecrated the same principle on a wider theatre; but, owing to the extraordinary efforts of General Cass, our Minister at Paris, France was induced to withhold her assent, yielding, I fear, to an irritated Anglophobia and to the growing pretensions of Slavery. The treaty was duly ratified by Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, and Austria. As a substitute, stipulations for naval coöperation were adopted between Great Britain and France,--also between Great Britain and the United States. And still Great Britain persevered in this glorious championship, until, in 1850, it was her boast that she stood party to no less than twenty-four treaties denouncing the slave-trade, of which ten conceded a mutual right of search and mixed courts, twelve conceded search with trial only before home tribunals, and two provided for naval coöperation.[302]

This summary brings us to the present treaty, where we find a mutual and restricted right of search and mixed courts for certain purposes, but with the trial of criminals only before home tribunals.

If at an earlier day there was reason to be sensitive about any concession of the right of search, especially to Great Britain, always so exacting on the ocean, that day has happily passed. The reason ceasing, so also should the opposition cease. Even if the acknowledged power of the United States and the enlightened opinion of the civilized world did not remove the liability to abuse, making it so absolutely impossible as not to be an element in the case, we cannot forget a recent signal event, when Great Britain openly renounced that tyrannous pretension which so stirred the soul of the whole American people, never again to assert it. This was done in solemn demand for the rendition of Mason and Slidell, who had been taken by a national cruiser, acting in precise conformity with early and constant British practice. Therefore on this account there need be no solicitude. Conceding search for the suppression of the slave-trade, we furnish no excuse and open no door for that other search, always so justly offensive, which finally brought war in its train. Such a concession now is only an addition to international policy demanded by the civilization of the age.

Nor need there be any jealousy on account of Slavery; for this power is disappearing. If, unhappily, it is not yet extinct, if it still lingers in prolonged malignant existence, it has ceased to sway the National Government. Therefore I see no reason why the sensibilities of its partisans should be consulted.

* * * * *

Another possible objection to the treaty is more technical. This also was presented by John Quincy Adams, when he spoke of mixed courts “as inconsistent with our Constitution,”[303] because the judges are not appointed, nor do they hold office, according to its well-known requirements. But this objection, if entitled to any consideration, is mitigated in the present treaty, which hands over the slave-trader for trial in the home courts of the captor, leaving to the mixed courts only the condemnation and destruction of the slave-ship. But whatever doubts might have prevailed at an earlier period, when the question was less understood, it is plain now that this objection is wholly superficial and untenable. Besides courts known to the Constitution and subject to its requirements, there are others extra-constitutional, like courts in the Territories, where the judges hold for four years instead of during good behavior, and yet are recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States.[304] Like Territorial courts, mixed courts are plainly extra-constitutional, standing on the treaty power and the practice of nations,--as courts martial are also extra-constitutional, standing on the war power and the practice of nations.

Among frequent means for the determination of international questions are mixed courts or mixed commissions in various forms, where different nations are represented. Such tribunals are the natural incident of treaties, and were recognized as such at the beginning of our history. Nor is it easy to see how treaties can be consummated without their ancillary help. A mixed commission, where our country was represented, sat at London under Jay’s Treaty, deciding numerous cases; and similar commissions have been sitting ever since. The Jay Commission was originally criticized on the ground that judicial power cannot be vested except according to the Constitution,[305]--being the very objection to mixed courts in anti-slave-trade treaties, that occupied so much attention at a later day, and to which I am now replying. But nobody now doubts that this commission was proper. The proposed tribunal, though differing in purpose, proceeds from the same fountain of power. It is kindred in character and origin. Now, without considering if the objection to mixed courts is not equally strong against a crowned head as arbitrator, as when the French Emperor sat in judgment on the long-pending litigation between the United States and Portugal in the _General Armstrong_ case, it is obvious that all the international tribunals constituted by treaty, whether an emperor or a commissioner, are sustained by unbroken usage as well as by reason. To insist that the restrictions of the Constitution, evidently intended for the national judicature, are applicable to these outlying tribunals, is to limit the treaty power and to curtail the means of justice beyond the national jurisdiction. Mixed courts are familiar to International Law, and our country cannot afford to reject them, least of all on a discarded technicality which would leave us isolated among nations.

* * * * *

It remains only that we make haste to ratify the treaty, nor miss the great opportunity. A moment lost is a concession to crime. Therefore must we be prompt.

Foreign nations will not fail to recognize this open pledge to Human Rights, and the Rebels will discern a new sign of the national purpose. Abroad and at home we shall be strengthened. The Rebellion itself will feel the blow, and ambitious Slavery foresee its doom.

As soon as the vote was announced in the Senate, Mr. Sumner
hastened to Mr. Seward at the State Department. It was five
o’clock in the afternoon, and the Secretary was reposing
on a sofa. On hearing the words, “The treaty is ratified
unanimously,” he exclaimed, “Where ---- were the Democrats?”
His joy was great, and Lord Lyons, on learning the result, was
not less happy. It is much in a diplomatic career to sign any
treaty, but it was an event to have signed a treaty promising
the final extinction of an infinite scandal and curse to
humanity.

Subsequent action was prompt. The treaty was ratified by the
Senate April 24th; ratifications were exchanged in London May
25th; the treaty was proclaimed by the President June 7th, 1862.

June 10th, a message of the President, transmitting a copy of
the treaty, with correspondence between Mr. Seward and Lord
Lyons in relation to it, was laid before the Senate, and on
motion of Mr. Sumner referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations, and ordered to be printed.

June 13th, Mr. Sumner reported from the Committee a bill to
carry the treaty into effect, providing for the appointment,
with the advice and consent of the Senate, of a judge and also
an arbitrator on the part of the United States to reside at
New York, a judge and also an arbitrator to reside at Sierra
Leone, and a judge and also an arbitrator to reside at the Cape
of Good Hope,--all the judges to be paid $2,500 annually, the
arbitrator at New York $1,000, and the arbitrators at Sierra
Leone and the Cape of Good Hope $2,000 respectively.

Owing to the pressure of business incident to the latter days
of a very crowded session, Mr. Sumner was not able to call it
up immediately. June 26th, on his motion, it was considered and
passed: Yeas, 34; Nays, only 4.

Among the nays was Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, who remarked:--

“I do not object to the suppression of the African
slave-trade, but I do not believe that this Government has
the constitutional right to establish any such court. I
think the treaty ought not to have been adopted.”

July 7th the bill passed the House, and July 11th was approved
by the President.

* * * * *

The importance of this treaty had not been exaggerated. The
_Journal des Débats_, organ of French intelligence at Paris, in
its enunciation, June 15, 1862, of the objects accomplished by
the National Government, says: “There is a treaty with England,
which, loyally executed, must soon render the slave-trade
almost impossible.”

The slave-trade became almost impossible, so that practically
it ceased to exist. The terror of the law, with these
provisions for its enforcement, sufficed at last to deter the
perpetrators of this inhuman crime, and the ocean, so often
traversed by slave-ships, became like a peaceful metropolis
with a well-ordered police.

This great result was without the capture of a single vessel.
It was enough that at last we were in earnest. Judges and
arbitrators found themselves without employment, when, in an
appropriation bill, of March 3, 1869, Congress called on the
President, with the consent of Great Britain, to terminate that
part of the treaty requiring mixed courts and their annual
outlay.[306] This was done by treaty between the two powers,
signed at Washington, June 3, 1870; so that the mutual right of
search for the suppression of the slave-trade alone remained.

ENFORCEMENT OF EMANCIPATION IN THE DISTRICT.

RESOLUTION AND REMARKS IN THE SENATE, APRIL 28, 1862.

April 18th, Mr. Sumner offered the following resolution, which
was considered by unanimous consent, and adopted.

“_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Interior be
requested to furnish, for the use of the Senate, a list of
all persons residing in the District of Columbia who appear
in the returns of the last census as owners of slaves,
indicating the number claimed to be owned by each person,
with the classification of their ages according to the
returns.”

April 28th, the Secretary of the Interior accompanied the
return with the suggestion, that, as it exposed the private
affairs of individuals, it was questionable “whether it would
be proper to print it for circulation.” On hearing this
communication read at the desk, Mr. Sumner moved its reference
to the Committee on the District of Columbia, and remarked:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--In offering the resolution, I felt that I was doing good service to the Commissioners appointed to carry out our recent measure of Emancipation, and I felt also that I was helping to correct possible abuses in anticipation of its operation.

I have been sorry to hear of efforts during the last few weeks to run able-bodied slaves out of the District. Slavery is often called a patriarchal institution, and I am anxious to see how many of the patriarchs, in avoidance of the action of Congress, have transported slaves beyond the reach of its beneficent power. Such an outrage ought to be exposed. I confess that I find no good reason for delicacy towards persons so guilty. I am sure that freedom and truth will be gainers, when such conduct is laid bare. I cannot doubt that the object proposed is important.

These statistics should be brought before the Senate, if not before the country. They will be needed by the Commissioners, and I am sure they will do something to illustrate the character of Slavery.

The motion was agreed to.

THE CONDUCT OF OUR GENERALS TOWARDS FUGITIVE SLAVES.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY, MAY 1, 1862.

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.

NO NAMES OF VICTORIES OVER FELLOW-CITIZENS ON REGIMENTAL COLORS.

RESOLUTION IN THE SENATE, MAY 8, 1862.

In a despatch announcing the capture of Williamsburg, May 6th,
General McClellan inquired whether he was “authorized to follow
the example of other generals and direct the names of battles
to be placed on the colors of regiments.” This gave occasion to
the following resolution, moved by Mr. Sumner.

RESOLVED, That, in the efforts now making for the restoration of the Union and the establishment of peace throughout the country, it is inexpedient that the names of victories obtained over our fellow-citizens should be placed on the regimental colors of the United States.

Mr. Hale objected to its consideration; so it was postponed.

May 13th, Mr. Wilson introduced a joint resolution to authorize
the President to permit regiments of the volunteer forces to
inscribe on their flags the names of battles in which such
regiments have been engaged; but no further action was had upon
it.

* * * * *

Mr. Sumner’s resolution excited comment at the time. The
_National Intelligencer_ remarked:--

“Now that public attention has for the first time been
called to the subject, we presume there will be on the
part of many an instinctive approval of the grounds on
which Senator Sumner condemns the custom thus originated
and practised by ‘other generals.’ … When the Union is
restored and peace has been reëstablished, we take it that
the regimental colors of the United States will preserve
no trace either of Union _victories_ or Union _defeats_.
The name of ‘Springfield,’ in Missouri, would otherwise
perpetually remind us of the unhappy fall of Lexington in
that State.”

An excellent citizen of New York, Alfred Pell, wrote that
“exactly what Congress should do with base Secession standards
and flags was pointed out by Mrs. Brownrigg, who

“‘whipped two female ’prentices to death,
_And hid them in the coal-hole_.’”

Other testimony was from an undoubted authority, being
none other than Lieutenant-General Winfield Scott, in his
autobiography. After quoting the famous resolution which Rufus
King laid upon the table of the Senate, February 18, 1825,
fifteen days before he finally left that body, which he calls
“a benign resolution,” to the effect, that, as soon as the
remnant of the national debt should be discharged, the net
proceeds of the whole of the public lands should constitute a
fund for Emancipation, the Lieutenant-General proceeds:--

“The resolution stands a national record. Here is
statesmanship, farsightedness.… Here is magnanimity,
considering the hostility of the South on account of Mr.
King’s powerful resistance to the admission of Missouri
into the Union with Slavery. Here is a Christian’s revenge,
returning good for evil. All honor to a great deed and a
great name!.…

“I place in juxtaposition with the foregoing a kindred
sentiment that gleamed in the same body on a more recent
occasion.

“It had been proposed, without due reflection, by one
of our gallant commanders engaged in the suppression
of the existing Rebellion, to place on the banners of
his victorious troops the names of their battles. The
proposition was rebuked by the subjoined resolution,
submitted by the Hon. Mr. Sumner, May 8, 1862.”

Then quoting the resolution, the Lieutenant-General adds:--

“This was noble, and from the right quarter.”[309]

BOUNTY LANDS FOR SOLDIERS OUT OF REAL ESTATE OF REBELS.

RESOLUTION IN THE SENATE, MAY 12, 1862.

RESOLVED, That the Select Committee on the confiscation of Rebel property be directed to consider the expediency of providing that our soldiers engaged in the suppression of the Rebellion may be entitled to bounty lands out of the real estate of the Rebels.

This was objected to by Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, but on the
next day it was agreed to.

TESTIMONY OF COLORED PERSONS IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS FOR CONFISCATION AND EMANCIPATION.