Chapter IX: Part 9

Meanwhile, Great Britain, France, and Spain, by a Convention, dated at London, October 31, 1861, have entered into an alliance, the declared object of which is “to demand from the authorities of the Republic of Mexico more efficacious protection for the persons and properties of their subjects, as well as a fulfilment of the obligations contracted by the Republic of Mexico.” The high contracting parties engaged not to seek for themselves, in the employment of coercive measures, any acquisition of territory, nor any special advantage, and not to exercise in the internal affairs of Mexico any influence of a nature to prejudice the right of the Mexican nation to choose and to constitute freely the form of its government. Desiring that the measures they intend to adopt should not bear an exclusive character, and being aware that the Government of the United States, on its part, has, like them, claims upon the Mexican Republic, they further agree that our Government shall be invited to join in the Convention.

Mr. Seward, in a despatch, dated at Washington, December 4, 1861, declined to join in the Convention, saying, “that the United States prefer, as much as lies in their power, to maintain the traditional policy recommended by the Father of their country, confirmed by successful experience, and which forbids them to make an alliance with foreign powers.”

In pursuance of this Convention, the naval and military forces of the three great powers have assembled at San Juan de Ulua, and the flags of the three powers now float over the castle. The Government of Mexico has rallied the people to resistance, and there is at this moment the prospect of a prolonged and exhausting contest. The occasion seems to have arrived, when the aid proposed by Mr. Seward, in his despatch of September 2, 1861, may be of decisive value to Mexico. To the United States it may also be of great importance, if it could be the means of removing from Mexico the pressure of hostile armaments, and placing a neighbor republic in a more tranquil and independent condition. If the Allied Powers desire security for their claims, and nothing else, then a reasonable provision of this nature ought to be satisfactory, so far as any question arises from the claim.

The debt of Mexico to the Allied Powers may be stated, in round numbers, as follows.

To England, immediate $ 1,000,000
convention, 4 per cent interest 5,000,000
bondholders, 3 per cent interest 65,000,000
general claims 4,000,000
----------$75,000,000

To France, immediate 500,000
convention, balance, immediate 200,000
Pennand agreement 800,000
claims, general 3,500,000
---------- 5,000,000

To Spain, immediate 500,000
convention, 3 per cent interest 8,000,000
claims 1,500,000
---------- 10,000,000
----------
Total $90,000,000

Of course, payment or guaranty of this large mass on our part is out of the question; nor was it contemplated by the United States in the original instructions to Mr. Corwin. It was proposed to make such payment as would afford present relief to Mexico, and secure the forbearance of the Allied Powers. To this end, Mr. Seward offered to assume the interest of the Mexican debt for the term of five years. But the unfunded claims in the foregoing list, entitled “immediate,” it is understood, are pressed with equal energy by the Allied Powers. If these were satisfied, and provision made for the interest, the United States would have the following liabilities.

Payments, immediate, or at 3, 6, and 12 months, as follows.

To England, 3, 6, and 12 months’ drafts of Mexico on
United States $1,000,000
To France, 3, 6, and 12 months’ drafts of Mexico on
United States 700,000
To Spain, 3, 6, and 12 months’ drafts of Mexico on
United States 500,000
----------
Total cash, or 3, 6, and 12 months $2,200,000

Interest, in semi-annual drafts of Mexico on the United States.

To England, convention, 4 per cent $200,000
bondholders, 3 per cent 1,950,000
---------- $2,150,000
To Spain, convention, 3 per cent 240,000
----------
Total interest, per annum $2,390,000

Other outstanding claims of the Allied Powers are not included in either of these lists. It is proposed that these should be provided for by a sinking fund, at the rate of 10 per cent a year for ten years, as follows.

To England $400,000
To France 80,000
To France 350,000
To Spain 150,000
--------
Total, per annum $980,000

The assumption of all these liabilities for a long period would throw upon the United States a burden too great for the present moment, although, perhaps, not out of proportion to the anticipated advantages. If anything be done on our part, it must be more moderate. The offer of Mr. Seward for five years, if accepted, would devolve upon the United States a responsibility sufficiently large; and this responsibility ought to be kept within a limitation, of which $15,000,000 should be a maximum.

But there are two conditions to be required by the United States, before the assumption of any such responsibility. The first is the assent of the Allied Powers, and the acceptance on their part of the friendly offers proposed. Unless the Allied Powers are parties to the transaction, it would be productive only of embarrassment and loss, without accomplishing any permanent good to the United States or to Mexico.

The other essential condition is, that security should be given by Mexico for the liabilities assumed. It is not too much to expect such security; nor is Mexico, as is well known, disinclined to give it. Her creditors are now foreclosing their demands, at the cost, perhaps, of her national existence, and she turns to the United States for help. Not merely friendship, but a continental policy, affecting our own cherished interests, prompts us to afford such help, so far as in our power. In asking for security, we simply follow the rules of prudence, whether between individuals or nations.

The security proposed by Mr. Corwin on the public lands, minerals, and Church property of Mexico, would require the appointment of a board or mixed commission for the management and disposition of this property. This necessity adds to the complications of such security.

The security proposed by Mr. Seward, on the public lands and mineral rights in the several provinces of Lower California, Chihuahua, Sonora, and Cinaloa, is simple, and it is understood that in some of this territory there is vast mineral wealth. The province of Lower California is unquestionably the territory of Mexico most interesting to the United States in a military and naval point of view.

Another security, perhaps less manageable, but more interesting still, would be the right of way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, with a mortgage on the adjoining public lands of the Isthmus. Estimated by its pecuniary value, this security would not be large; but there can be no doubt of its political and commercial value.

Still another security would be a pledge by Mexico of 25 per cent, or perhaps a larger percentage, of the customs or other revenues.

It is not easy to say positively, at this distance from the scene of operations, and with the information before the Committee, what is the most practicable form of security. Perhaps it is advisable to leave the matter to the careful discretion of our minister at Mexico, under instructions from the President, with the explicit understanding that the United States decline any territorial acquisition, and seek the consolidation of Mexico, without dismemberment of any kind.

Such are the main features of the question on which the President has asked the advice of the Senate. With more precise information on the matters involved, it might be proper for the Senate to enter upon details in its answer. But such information, especially with regard to actual relations, now daily changing, between Mexico and the Allied Powers, can be obtained only on the spot. It is evident, therefore, that the Senate can do little more than indicate an opinion on what has already been done, and declare the proper principles on which a negotiation with Mexico should be conducted, without presuming to fix in advance all its terms. Much must be left to the discretion of our minister there, and to the instructions he will receive from the President.

* * * * *

The Committee recommend the passage of the following resolution.

_Resolved_, That, in the changing condition of the relations
between Mexico and the Allied Powers, and in the absence
of precise information, it is impossible for the Senate to
advise the President with regard to all the terms of a treaty
with Mexico, so as to supersede the exercise of considerable
discretion on the part of our Minister there, under
instructions from the President, but that, in answer to the two
several Messages of the President, the Senate expresses the
following conclusions.

_First._ The Senate approves the terms of the instructions to
our Minister at Mexico contained in the despatch bearing date
September 2, 1861.

_Secondly._ The Senate does not advise a treaty in conformity
with the project communicated by our Minister to Mexico in his
despatch of November 29, 1861, as the same fails to secure in
any way the application of the money to the demands of the
Allied Powers, or either of them, and therefore can be in no
respect satisfactory to them.

_Thirdly._ The Senate advises a treaty with Mexico providing
for the assumption of the interest on the debt from Mexico to
the Allied Powers during a limited period of time, and also
for the payment of certain immediate claims by these Powers,
the whole liability to be kept within the smallest possible
sum; it being understood that the same shall be accepted by the
Allied Powers in present satisfaction of their claims, so that
they shall withdraw from Mexico.[206] And it shall be secured
by such mortgage or pledge as is most practicable, without any
territorial acquisition or dismemberment of Mexico.

* * * * *

The Resolution reported by the Committee was amended in the
Senate by striking out all after the word “_Resolved_,” and
inserting in lieu thereof as follows: “That, in reply to the
two several Messages of the President with regard to a treaty
with Mexico, the Senate express the opinion that it is not
advisable to negotiate a treaty that will require the United
States to assume any portion of the principal or interest of
the debt of Mexico, or that will require the concurrence of
European powers.”

NO RECOGNITION OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL.

MOTION AND REMARKS IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 25, 1862.

February 25th, the Senate having under consideration a bill,
reported by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, to confiscate the
property and free the slaves of Rebels, an incidental question
arose on the recognition of the Fugitive Slave Bill, when Mr.
Sumner spoke as follows.

I desire to move an amendment, which I believe will carry out the idea of the Senator from Kansas. I concur with that Senator in all he has said in relation to the Fugitive Slave Bill. I have never called it a law, hardly an act. I regard it simply as a bill, still a bill, having no authority under the Constitution. There is no unsoundness in that instrument out of which such excrescence can grow. That is my idea; I believe it is the idea of the Senator from Kansas. Therefore I concur with him in any criticism upon legislation seeming even in the most indirect way to recognize the existence of a thing which can have, thank God, under the Constitution, when properly interpreted, no legal existence. Therefore, if the language introduced in this bill has the effect which the Senator supposes, if it does in any way recognize the existence of that bill, certainly I am against it; and when I listened to the remarks of the Senator, and critically examined the language, I must say I feared that there was some implication or other on our part in favor of that bill. I therefore propose an amendment which shall remove all such implication or possibility of recognition on our part, while, at the same time, I believe it will carry out completely, adequately, in every respect, the idea of the Senator from Illinois in the measure now under consideration. The language here is as follows.

“And whenever any person claiming to be entitled to the service
or labor of any other person shall seek to enforce such claim,
he shall, in the first instance, and before _any order for the
surrender of the person whose service is claimed, establish not
only his title to such service, as now provided by law, but
also_ that he is, and has been, during the existing Rebellion,
loyal to the Government of the United States.”

I propose to strike out all after the word “before,” in the sixteenth line, down to the word “that,” in the nineteenth line, being these words,--

“any order for the surrender of the person whose service is
claimed, establish not only his title to such service, as now
provided by law, but also”--

and instead thereof insert--

“proceeding with the trial of his claim, satisfactorily prove”--

so that the sentence will read,--

“he shall, in the first instance, and before proceeding with
the trial of his claim, satisfactorily prove that he is,
and has been, during the existing Rebellion, loyal to the
Government of the United States.”

This language, as I believe, carries out completely the idea of the Senator from Illinois in the measure before us. I think it also carries out the idea of the Senator from Kansas. It gives all proper efficacy to the language of the statute; at the same time it does not compromise any of us, in this age of Christian light, by a new recognition, direct or indirect, of the Fugitive Slave Bill.

MR. COWAN. How long will that provision last?

MR. SUMNER. As long as this statute lasts.

MR. COWAN. Then a person claiming one hundred years from this
time would open his cause by showing that he was loyal during
this Rebellion!

MR. SUMNER. I hope so, certainly,--forever.

The amendment was agreed to. The bill never became a
law. Another bill on the same subject from the House of
Representatives was adopted, with the following title, “To
suppress Insurrection, to punish Treason and Rebellion, to
seize and confiscate the property of Rebels, and for other
purposes,” and approved by the President, July 17, 1862.[207]

OUR GERMAN FELLOW-CITIZENS, AND A TRUE RECONSTRUCTION.

LETTER TO THE GERMAN REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF NEW YORK, FEBRUARY 25, 1862.

Mr. Sumner’s letter is in reply to the following resolutions,
communicated to him by the Secretary of the Committee.

“The German Republican Central Committee of the City and
County of New York, at their regular monthly meeting, held
at head-quarters, February 14th, 1862, unanimously

“_Resolved_, That the thanks of this Committee are hereby
tendered to the Hon. Charles Sumner, United States Senator
from Massachusetts, for the ‘Resolutions declaratory of the
relations between the United States and the territory once
occupied by certain States, and now usurped by pretended
Governments without constitutional or legal right,’
introduced by him into the United States Senate.

“_Resolved_, That we consider these Resolutions as
embodying sound constitutional doctrine, conclusive logical
argumentation, and the only true basis upon which the Union
can be permanently reconstructed.”

SENATE CHAMBER, February 25, 1862.

SIR,--I have had the honor to receive the Resolutions unanimously
adopted by the German Republican Central Committee of New York,
declaring their adhesion to certain principles presented by me
to the Senate on the relation between the United States and the
territory once occupied by certain States, and now usurped by
pretended Governments without constitutional or legal right.

I pray you to let the Committee know my gratitude for the prompt
and generous support they have given to these principles. Our
German fellow-citizens, throughout the long contest with Slavery,
have not only been earnest and true, but have always seen the
great question in its just character and importance. Without
them our cause would not have triumphed at the last Presidential
election. It is only natural, therefore, that they should
continue to guard and advance this cause.

Where so many hesitate and fail, it is most gratifying to find a
Committee so distinguished as yours ready again to enter into the
contest for Human Rights.

Accept the assurance of the respect with which I have the honor
to be, Sir,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

WM. M. WERMERSKIRCH, Esq.,
_Corresponding Secretary of the German
Republican Central Committee, New York._

STATE SUICIDE AND EMANCIPATION.

LETTER TO A PUBLIC MEETING AT THE COOPER INSTITUTE, NEW YORK, MARCH 6, 1862.

This meeting was in pursuance of the following call.

“All citizens of New York who rejoice in the downfall
of treason, and are in favor of sustaining the National
Government in the most energetic exercise of all the rights
and powers of war, in the prosecution of its purpose
to destroy the cause of such treason, and to recover
the territories heretofore occupied by certain States
recently overturned and wholly subverted as members of the
Federal Union by a hostile and traitorous power calling
itself ‘The Confederate States,’ and _all who concur in
the conviction that said traitorous power, instead of
achieving the destruction of the Nation, has thereby
only destroyed Slavery_, and that it is now the sacred
duty of the National Government, as the only means of
securing permanent peace, national unity and well-being,
to provide against its restoration, and _to establish in
said territories Democratic Institutions founded upon
the principles of the Great Declaration_, ‘That all MEN
are created equal, endowed by their Creator with the
unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness,’ are requested to meet at the Cooper Institute,
on the sixth day of March, at eight o’clock, P. M., to
express to the President and Congress their views as to the
measures proper to be adopted in the existing emergency.”

On the day of this great meeting the President communicated to
Congress his Message on Compensated Emancipation, which was his
first public step in the transcendent cause.

The President of the meeting was Hon. James A. Hamilton, the
venerable son of Alexander Hamilton, who agreed with Mr. Sumner
in regard to the death of Slavery and the power of Congress.
There was also a distinguished list of Vice-Presidents,
with George Bancroft at the head. There were letters from
Preston King, Senator of New York, Henry Wilson, Senator of
Massachusetts, David Wilmot, Senator of Pennsylvania, George W.
Julian, Representative in Congress from Indiana, and from Mr.
Sumner. Among the orators were the President of the meeting,
Mr. Martin F. Conway, Representative in Congress from Kansas,
and Carl Schurz, who had recently returned from his Spanish
mission.

The report in the _New York Tribune_ has the caption, “The
Suicide of Slavery.--New York for a Free Republic.”

Mr. Sumner’s letter was a vindication of his Resolutions.

SENATE CHAMBER, March 5, 1862.

DEAR SIR,--Never, except when suffering from positive disability,
have I allowed myself to be absent from my seat in the Senate
for a single day, and now, amid the extraordinary duties of the
present session, I am more than ever bound by this inflexible
rule. If anything could tempt me to depart from it, I should find
apology in the invitation with which you honor me.

The meeting called under such distinguished auspices is needed at
this moment as a rally to those true principles by which alone
this great Rebellion can be permanently suppressed. I should be
truly happy to take part in it, and try to impart something of
the strength of my own convictions.

It is only necessary that people should see things as they are,
and they will easily see how to deal with them. This is the
obvious condition of practical action. Now, beyond all question,
Slavery is the great original malefactor and omnipresent
traitor,--more deadly to the Union than all Rebel leaders,
civil or military. Therefore, as you are in earnest against the
Rebellion, you will not spare Slavery. And happily the way is
plain, so that it cannot be mistaken.

Look throughout the whole Rebel territory, and you do not find
a single officer legally qualified to discharge any function
of Government. By the Constitution of the United States,
“members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive
and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the
several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support
this Constitution.” But these functionaries have all renounced
allegiance to the United States, and taken a new oath to support
the Rebel Government, so that at this moment they cannot be
recognized as constitutionally empowered to act. But a State is
known only through its functionaries, constitutionally empowered
to act; and since all these have ceased to exist, the State,
with its unnatural institutions, has ceased to exist also, or it
exists only in the lifeless parchments by which its Government
was originally established. The action of these functionaries was
impotent to transfer its territory to a pretended confederation.
To destroy the State was all they could do.

In the absence of any legitimate authority in this territory,
Congress must assume the necessary jurisdiction. Not to do so is
abandonment of urgent duty. Some propose a temporary military
government; others propose a temporary provisional government,
with limited powers. These all concede to Congress jurisdiction
over the territory; nor can such jurisdiction be justly
questioned. But I cannot doubt that it is better to follow the
authoritative precedents of our history, and proceed as Congress
is accustomed to proceed in the organization and government of
other territories. This is simple.

And as to Slavery, if there be any doubt that it died
constitutionally and legally with the State from which it drew
its malignant breath, it might be prohibited by the enactment of
that same Jeffersonian ordinance which originally established
Freedom throughout the great Northwest.

Accept my thanks for the honor you have done me, and believe me,
dear Sir,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

Among the resolutions adopted at the meeting was one
calling for the overthrow of Slavery,--“because the supreme
jurisdiction of the National Constitution over all the
territories now occupied by the Rebel States must be held
to be exclusive of the traitorous Rebel authorities therein
established, by virtue of which alone Slavery now therein
exists, and that wherever the Constitution has exclusive
jurisdiction it ordains Liberty and not Slavery.”

These were forwarded to Mr. Sumner by one of the secretaries,
with the following letter.

“I hand herewith a copy of Resolutions adopted, amid the
wildest enthusiasm, and without a breath of dissent, by an
assembly of some three thousand of our prominent citizens,
last evening, at the Cooper Institute Mass Meeting. No
such audience has been convened in this city (except only
the Union Square meeting of last April) since your address
in July, 1860. Nor has so demonstrative a gathering been
seen here since that time. I say this to give you an
idea of the character and popularity of the affair. I
hand the Resolutions to you _for personal presentation
to the President_ (and to _Congress_, if your views are
not opposed to such a course), preferring to secure
their reaching the President through you as a medium of
communication.”

Mr. Sumner had pleasure in presenting them to the President.

REMOVAL OF DISQUALIFICATION OF COLOR IN CARRYING THE MAILS.

BILL IN THE SENATE, MARCH 18, 1862, AND INCIDENTS.

March 18, 1862, Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous
consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill to remove all
disqualification of color in carrying the mails, which was
read twice by its title and referred to the Committee on
Post-Offices and Post-Roads.

The bill in its operative words was as follows.

That, from and after the passage of this Act, no person, by reason of color, shall be disqualified from employment in carrying the mails; and all Acts and parts of Acts establishing such disqualification, including especially the seventh section of the Act of March 3, 1825, are hereby repealed.

March 27th, the bill was reported to the Senate by Mr.
Collamer, of Vermont, Chairman of the Committee, without
amendment.

* * * * *

The existing law was as follows:--

“That no other than a free white person shall be employed
in conveying the mail, and any contractor who shall employ
or permit any other than a free white person to convey the
mail shall for every such offence incur a penalty of twenty
dollars.”[208]

This passed the Senate March 1, 1825, and the House March 2,
without a division. The first suggestion of this measure was
as early as 1802, by Gideon Granger, Postmaster-General, in a
communication addressed to Hon. James Jackson, Senator from
Georgia, which, it will be seen, was private in character.

“GENERAL POST-OFFICE, March 23, 1802.

“SIR,--An objection exists against employing negroes, or
people of color, in transporting the public mails, of a
nature too delicate to ingraft into a report which may
become public, yet too important to be omitted or passed
over without full consideration. I therefore take the
liberty of making to the Committee, through you, a private
representation on that subject.…

“Everything which tends to increase their knowledge of
natural rights, of men and things, or that affords them an
opportunity of associating, acquiring, and communicating
sentiments, and of establishing a chain or line of
intelligence, must increase your hazard, because it
increases their means of effecting their object.

“The most active and intelligent are employed as
post-riders. These are the most ready to learn and the
most able to execute. By travelling from day to day, and
hourly mixing with people, they must, they will, acquire
information. _They will learn that a man’s rights do not
depend on his color. They will in time become teachers to
their brethren._ They become acquainted with each other
on the line. Whenever the body, or a portion of them,
wish to act, they are an organized corps, circulating our
intelligence openly, their own privately.”[209]

This communication, which Mr. Sumner laid before the Committee,
was the argument on which he relied.

April 11th, the bill was considered in the Senate, on motion of
Mr. Sumner, and passed without amendment or debate: Yeas 24,
Nays 11.

* * * * *

A correspondent of the _Boston Journal_ remarked at the time:--

“This is the first time, within the recollection of your
correspondent, that any bill having the negro in it,
directly or indirectly, has been passed by the Senate
without debate. What a good time is coming, when the negro
questions shall all have been legislated upon, and when the
African race will no longer be a bone of contention in our
legislative halls!”

The bill was less fortunate in the House of Representatives,
where, May 20th, Mr. Colfax, of Indiana, reported it from the
Post-Office Committee with the recommendation that it do not
pass. In explaining the reasons for this report, he referred to
the original Act of Congress establishing the disqualification,
and said:--

“That law has been on the statute-book for more than a
third of a century. Among all the petitions presented
during that time to this House and the Senate, from people
in all sections of the country, there has not been, so far
as I have been able to discover, a single petition from
any person, white or black, male or female, asking for a
repeal or modification of this law. It has remained there
by common consent until the present time; and therefore I
think it unwise and inexpedient to pass the bill at the
present time, not being demanded by public opinion.

“In the second place, the repeal of this bill does
not affect exclusively the blacks of the country, as
generally supposed. It will throw open the business of
mail-contracting, and of thus becoming officers of the
Post-Office Department, not only to blacks, but also to
the Indian tribes, civilized and uncivilized, and to the
Chinese, who have come in such large numbers to the Pacific
coast.…

“By this bill, if it is to pass, you would allow all
over the South the employment by the slaveholder of his
slaves to carry the mail, and to receive compensation for
the labor of such slaves out of the Federal Treasury.
By the present law not a dollar is ever paid out of the
Post-Office Treasury to any slaveholder for the labor of
his slave.…

“Mr. Speaker, I am furthermore authorized by the
Postmaster-General to say that he has not recommended the
passage of this bill, nor does he regard it as promotive of
the interests of the Department. I cannot find that it is
asked for by any official or private citizen throughout the
length and breadth of this land.”

To these objections he added, that it was necessary to have
testimony by which you can convict mail depredators; and “in
some of the States Indians and negroes, and in California and
Oregon the Chinese also, are not allowed by the statutes of the
State to give testimony in the courts against white persons.”

Mr. Dawes, of Massachusetts, inquired of Mr. Colfax, “whether
he supposes depredators upon the mails are tried in the State
courts, or whether they are tried in the United States courts,
and if the latter, whether he and I do not make the laws of the
United States and the courts of the United States, prescribing
who shall testify and who shall not?”

“MR. COLFAX. Not being a lawyer, and not understanding,
therefore, all the rules which govern the proceedings of
the courts, I, however, say that I am informed by those
who are lawyers that the rules of evidence in force in the
States respectively are adopted by the United States courts
in such States. And the gentleman from Massachusetts, who
is a lawyer, ought to have known the fact, and, knowing it,
ought not to have asked me such a question.

“MR. DAWES. The gentleman from Indiana has not quite
answered me.”[210]

Mr. Colfax moved to lay the bill on the table, which was
ordered, May 21st: Yeas 82, Nays 45. So the bill was lost.

In the next Congress it was again introduced by Mr. Sumner.

* * * * *

A letter from William C. Nell, of Boston, well known for his
volume on “The Colored Patriots of the Revolution,” shows how a
single individual suffered under this discrimination of color.

“Please accept my sincere thanks for your efforts to remove
the disqualification of color in mail-carrying.

“Mr. Phillips conveyed to me the substance of information
imparted by you, to wit, the postponement of the bill in
the House. To me the disappointment is heavy, presuming
said action to be a finality, at least for this session,
and the next one is not likely to be as liberal.

“I never had more desire or more need of chances to earn
money than now, and never were my opportunities so small.”

The existing law was general, and Mr. Nell could not be a
letter-carrier in Boston.

RANSOM OF SLAVES AT THE NATIONAL CAPITAL.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARCH 31, 1862.

And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you.

ST. PAUL, _2 Corinthians_, XII. 15.

Ornatus sacramentorum redemtio captivorum est.

ST. AMBROSE, _De Officiis Ministrorum_, Lib. II. Cap. 28.

Thy ransom paid, which man from death redeems.

MILTON, _Paradise Lost_, Book XII. 424.

Let me observe, fellow-citizens, that this enterprise of
unparalleled magnitude and importance, the extirpation of
Slavery from the face of the earth, of which the Abolition of
Slavery throughout this Union is the principal branch, and
the Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia a minute
ramification, is an effort to purify and redeem the human race
from the sorest evil with which they are afflicted in the
mortal stage of their existence.--JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, _Speech at
Bridgewater, Mass., November 6, 1844_.

* * * * *

In activity against Slavery Mr. Sumner did not confine himself
to public effort. By writing and personal appeal he was always
doing. The letter to Governor Andrew, already given,[211] not
only shows his exertion in that important quarter, but affords
a glimpse of his relations with the President, whom he reports
as saying that there was a difference between them of a month
or six weeks only. In point of fact, Mr. Sumner found the
difference much greater.

On his arrival at Washington, previously to the opening of
Congress, he lost no time in seeing the President, who read
to him the draught of his Annual Message. Mr. Sumner was
disheartened by the absence of any recommendation or statement
on Emancipation, and especially by what the President told him
of his striking from Mr. Cameron’s Report a strong passage on
this subject. But he was entirely satisfied that the President
was really against Slavery, and was determined to do his duty.
From that time Mr. Sumner saw him constantly, never missing an
opportunity of pressing action. Not a week passed without one
or more interviews. At the same time, Mr. Chase was pressing,
also, and the two interchanged reports with regard to his state
of mind. During this time he was watching the Border States,
and communicating with friends in Kentucky. For Mr. Sumner this
was an anxious period.

At last, early in the morning of March 6th, he received a
request from the President to come to him as soon as convenient
after breakfast. Mr. Sumner hastened, and on his arrival the
President said that he had something to read; and he then read
the draught of the Special Message of that date, proposing
Compensated Emancipation.

Mr. Sumner never had strong faith in the practicability of
Compensated Emancipation on a large scale, and was always
against Gradual Emancipation; but he welcomed any step towards
Emancipation, being assured, that, when once begun in any way,
it must proceed to the complete establishment of Freedom. In
the conversation that ensued he began with a mild protest
against gradualism in dealing with wrong, but said nothing
against compensation. Taking the draught into his hands, and
reading it over slowly and carefully, he could not but object
to a certain brief paragraph, which he thought might be turned
against us by the other side, and he asked permission to
rewrite it, so as to remove the ground of possible objection.
While occupied in this attempt with his pencil, the President
said: “Don’t trouble yourself; I will strike it all out”:
and it was struck out. As Mr. Sumner continued for some time
studying the paper, the President at length interrupted him in
a familiar, pleasant way, saying: “Enough; you must go, or the
boys[212] won’t have time to copy it.” He then said that he
should communicate the Message to the Senate that day. It was
communicated accordingly.

Before he left, Mr. Sumner told the President, that, though
knowing that the Message was coming, he should stand aside and
leave to others the making of the proper motion with regard
to it. As he anticipated, nothing was ever done under it
beyond the adoption by the two Houses of the joint resolution
recommended: “That the United States ought to coöperate with
any State which may adopt _gradual_ abolishment of Slavery,
giving to such State pecuniary aid, to be used by such State in
its discretion, to compensate for the inconveniences, public
and private, produced by such change of system.” But the
Message gave public assurance that the President was occupied
with the great question, and its concluding words sank into
the popular heart. “In full view,” he said, “of my great
responsibility to my God and to my country, I earnestly beg
the attention of Congress and the people to the subject.” Many
breathed freer.

* * * * *

Meanwhile a bill was introduced into the Senate by Mr. Wilson,
providing for Emancipation in the District of Columbia. This
was entitled, “For the release of certain persons held to
service or labor in the District of Columbia.” It provided for
a commission to appraise the claims on account of the slaves
liberated, limiting their allowance in the aggregate to an
amount equal to three hundred dollars a slave, and appropriated
one million dollars to pay loyal owners; to which was added,
on motion of Mr. Doolittle, one hundred thousand dollars for
the colonization of slaves who desired to emigrate to Hayti or
Liberia.

This bill was introduced December 16th, referred to the
Committee on the District of Columbia December 20th, reported
with amendments by Mr. Morrill of Maine February 13th, taken up
for consideration March 12th, and proceeded with to its final
passage April 3d: Yeas 29, Nays 14.

April 11th, it passed the House: Yeas 94, Nays 44.

April 16th, it was approved by the President, who sent a
Message expressing gratification that “the two principles
of compensation and colonization are both recognized and
practically applied in the Act.”[213]

In the interval between the passage of the bill and its
approval by the President there was concern with many lest it
should fail in his hands. During this painful suspense, Mr.
Sumner visited the President, and said: “Do you know who at
this moment is the largest slave-_holder_ in this country?
It is Abraham Lincoln; for he holds all the three thousand
slaves of the District, which is more than any other person in
the country holds.” He then expressed astonishment that the
President could postpone the approval a single night.

* * * * *

Mr. Sumner spoke, March 31st, treating the case as of ransom
rather than compensation. He was willing to vote money for
Emancipation, but would not recognize the title of the master
implied in compensation. The distinction facilitated a bolder
dealing with the question, which was needed in the Rebel States.

This method was noticed especially by the _New York Tribune_.

“The speech of Mr. Sumner in the Senate on the Bill for
the Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia is a
statesmanlike view of the subject, which should commend
it to the impartial consideration of the country. He
addressed himself, not to a discussion of the character
of Slavery itself, but simply to its recognition in the
national capital, and advocates its removal because it is
not in accordance with the Constitution. On this point
his reasoning is conclusive, and is an appeal to the
national self-respect which ought not to be disregarded.
Not less forcible is the ground he takes on the question
of compensation. Viewing it rather in the light of ransom
for the slave than compensation to the master for a right
surrendered, he upholds it as a duty springing from the
complicity of the whole country in the existence heretofore
of the system in the domain exclusively under national
jurisdiction. Common sense and a sense of justice to all
parties alike commend such a treatment of the subject.”

Lewis Tappan, the early and most watchful Abolitionist, wrote
from New York:--

“I have just read the speech again in pamphlet form. Your
able efforts in procuring the passage of this bill add
another link to the golden chain by which you are bound to
the good people of my native State, and, as I believe, to
posterity.”

Orestes A. Brownson, able and indefatigable with his pen,
recognized the idea of ransom.

“I thank you for your able speech on the Ransom of the Slaves
in the District of Columbia. The term _Ransom_ is happily
chosen, and meets many scruples.”

Frederick Douglass wrote with the effusion of a freeman once a
slave.

“I want only a moment of your time to give you my thanks
for your great speech in the Senate on the Bill for the
Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia. I trust
I am not dreaming; but the events taking place seem like
a dream. If Slavery is really dead in the District of
Columbia, and merely waiting for the ceremony of ‘Dust
to dust’ by the President, to you more than to any other
American statesman belongs the honor of this great triumph
of justice, liberty, and sound policy. I rejoice for my
freed brothers,--and, Sir, I rejoice for you. You have
lived to strike down in Washington the power that lifted
the bludgeon against your own free voice. I take nothing
from the good and brave men who have coöperated with you.
There is, or ought to be, a head to every body; and whether
you will or not, the slaveholder and the slave look to you
as the best embodiment of the Antislavery idea now in the
councils of the nation. May God sustain you!”

The speech, while addressed to the particular circumstances of
the District of Columbia, presented considerations applicable
to Slavery everywhere. It was a blow at Slavery outside the
District, as well as inside, while it illustrated the power and
duty of Congress over this subject.

SPEECH.

Before Mr. Sumner began, Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, read the
following interrogatories.

“It may be that the speech which the honorable Senator
intends to pronounce may cover the points which I have
embodied in some questions to him. If not, I should take
it very kindly, if the honorable Senator will answer the
questions. I will read them.

“1. Are slaves in the District of Columbia, and in the
slaveholding States, legally the subject of property?

“2. Has Congress the power to deprive the owners of lands
and houses and lots situated in the District of Columbia of
that property?

“3. What law or laws give the owners of real estate in the
District of Columbia their right to such property? Inform
us where such law or laws may be found and read.

“4. What law or laws give a different right and title to
slaves and to real estate? Where can such law or laws be
found?

“5. Is or not the Constitution, and the laws of the United
States made in pursuance thereof, and all the treaties
made under the authority of the United States, the supreme
law of the land, which all persons, without any exception
whatever, are bound to obey?

“6. Is or not the Supreme Court of the United States the
proper and final tribunal to judge and determine all
questions, whether in law or equity, under the Constitution
and laws of the United States?”

The answers to these interrogatories, so far as they bear on
the main question, will be found in the course of the speech.

MR. PRESIDENT,--With unspeakable delight I hail this measure and the prospect of its speedy adoption. Though only a small instalment of that great debt to an enslaved race which we all owe, yet will it be recognized in history as a victory of humanity. At home, throughout our own country, it will be welcomed with gratitude, while abroad it will quicken the hopes of all who love Freedom. Liberal institutions will gain everywhere by the abolition of Slavery at the national capital. Nobody can read that slaves were once sold in the markets of Rome, beneath the eyes of the Sovereign Pontiff, without confessing the scandal to religion, even in a barbarous age; and nobody can hear that slaves are now sold in the markets of Washington, beneath the eyes of the President, without confessing the scandal to liberal institutions. For the sake of the national name, if not for the sake of justice, let the scandal cease.

In early discussions of this question many topics were introduced that obtain little attention now. It was part of the tactics of Slavery to claim absolute immunity. Indeed, without such immunity it had small chance to exist. Such a wrong, so utterly outrageous, could find safety only where protected from inquiry. Therefore Slave-Masters always insisted that petitions against its maintenance at the national capital were not to be received, that it was unconstitutional to touch it even here within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, and that, if it were touched, it should be only under the auspices of the neighboring States of Virginia and Maryland. On these points elaborate arguments were constructed, useless to consider now. Whatever the opinions of individual Senators, the judgment of the country is fixed. The right of petition, first vindicated by the matchless perseverance of John Quincy Adams, is now beyond question, and the constitutional power of Congress is hardly less free from doubt. It is enough to say on this point, that, if Congress cannot abolish Slavery here, then there is no power anywhere to abolish it here, and this wrong will endure always, lasting as the capital itself.

As the moment of justice approaches, we are called to meet a different objection, inspired by generous sentiments. It is urged, that, since there can be no such thing as property in man, especially within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, therefore all held as slaves at the national capital are justly entitled to freedom without price or compensation of any kind,--or, at least, that any money paid should be distributed according to an account stated between master and slave. If this question were determined according to divine justice, so far as we may be permitted to contemplate such a judgment, it is obvious that nothing can be due to the master, and that any money paid belongs rather to the slave, who for generations has been despoiled of every right and possession. If we undertake to audit this fearful account, pray what sum shall be allowed for the prolonged torments of the lash? what treasure shall be voted to the slave for wife ravished from his side, for children stolen, for knowledge shut out, and for all the fruits of labor wrested from him and his fathers? No such account can be stated. It is impossible. Once begin the inquiry, and all must go to the slave. It only remains for Congress, anxious to secure this great boon, and unwilling to embarrass or jeopard it, to act practically, according to its finite powers, in the light of existing usage, and even existing prejudice, under which these odious relations have assumed the form of law; nor can we hesitate at any forbearance or sacrifice, provided Freedom is established without delay.

Testimony and eloquence have been accumulated against Slavery; but on this occasion I shall confine myself precisely to the argument for the ransom of slaves at the National Capital; although such is Slavery that it is impossible to consider it in any single aspect without confronting its whole many-sided wickedness, while the broad, diversified field of remedy is naturally open to review. At some other time the great question of emancipation in the States may be more fitly considered, together with those other questions where the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. DOOLITTLE] has allowed himself to take sides so earnestly,--whether there is an essential incompatibility between the two races, so that they cannot live together except as master and slave? and whether the freedmen shall be encouraged to exile themselves to other lands, or rather continue their labor here at home? Enough for the present to consider Slavery at the National Capital. And here we are met by two inquiries, so frankly addressed to the Senate by the clear-headed Senator from Kansas [Mr. POMEROY]: first, _Has Slavery any constitutional existence at the national capital?_ and, secondly, _Shall money be paid to secure its abolition?_ The answer to these two inquiries will make our duty clear. If Slavery has no constitutional existence here, then more than ever is Congress bound to interfere, even with money; for the scandal must be peremptorily stopped, without any postponement, or any consultation of the people on a point which is not within their power.

* * * * *

It may be said, that, whether Slavery be constitutional or not, nevertheless it exists, and therefore this inquiry is superfluous. True, it exists as a MONSTROUS FACT; but it is none the less important to consider its origin, that we may understand how, assuming the form of law, it was able to shelter itself beneath the protecting shield of the Constitution. When we see clearly that it is without any such just protection, that the law which declares it is baseless, and that in all its pretensions it is essentially and utterly brutal and unnatural, we shall have less consideration for the Slave Tyranny, which, in satisfied pride, has thus far--not without compunction at different moments--ruled the national capital, reducing all things here, public opinion, social life, and even the administration of justice, to its own degraded standard, so as to fulfil the curious words of an old English poet:--

“It serves, yet reigns as King;
It lives, yet ’s death; it pleases, full of paine.
Monster! ah, who, who can thy beeing faigne,
Thou shapelesse shape, live death, paine pleasing, servile raigne?”[214]

It is true, there can be no such thing as property in man: and here I begin to answer the questions propounded by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. DAVIS]. If this pretension is recognized anywhere, it is only another instance of custom, which is so powerful as to render the idolater insensible to the wickedness of idolatry, and the cannibal insensible to the brutality of cannibalism. To argue against such a pretension seems to be vain; for the pretension exists in open defiance of reason as well as of humanity. It will not yield to argument; nor will it yield to persuasion. It must be encountered by authority. It was not the planters in the British islands or in the French islands who organized emancipation, but the distant governments across the sea, far removed from local prejudice, which at last forbade the outrage. Had these planters been left to themselves, they would have clung to the pretension, as men among us still cling to it. In making this declaration against the idea of property in man, I say nothing new. An honored predecessor of the Senator from Maryland [Mr. KENNEDY], whose fame as a statesman was eclipsed, perhaps, by his more remarkable fame as a lawyer,--I mean William Pinkney, and it is among the recollections of my youth that I heard Chief Justice Marshall call him the undoubted head of the American bar,--in a speech before the Maryland House of Delegates, spoke as statesman and lawyer, when he said:--

“Sir, by the eternal principles of natural justice no master in
the State has a right to hold his slave in bondage for a single
hour.”[215]

And Henry Brougham spoke not only as statesman and lawyer, but as orator also, when, in the British Parliament, he uttered these memorable words:--

“Tell me not of rights, talk not of the property of the
planter in his slaves. I deny the right, I acknowledge not
the property. The principles, the feelings, of our common
nature rise in rebellion against it. Be the appeal made to
the understanding or to the heart, the sentence is the same
that rejects it. In vain you tell me of laws that sanction
such a claim. There is a law above all the enactments of human
codes,--the same throughout the world, the same in all times:
… it is the law written on the heart of man by the finger of
his Maker; and by that law, unchangeable and eternal, while men
despise fraud and loathe rapine and abhor blood, they will
reject with indignation the wild and guilty fantasy that man
can hold property in man.”[216]

It has been sometimes said that the finest sentence of the English language is that famous description of Law with which Hooker closes the first book of his “Ecclesiastical Polity”; but I cannot doubt that this wonderful denunciation of an irrational and inhuman pretension will be remembered hereafter with higher praise; for it gathers into surpassing eloquence the waking and immitigable instincts of Universal Man.