History of the Antislavery Measures of the Thirty-seventh and Thirty-eighth United States Congresses, 1861-65, by Henry Wilson, 1865.

CHAPTER XII.

AID TO THE STATES TO EMANCIPATE THEIR SLAVES.

MR. WILSON'S JOINT RESOLUTION. — HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EMANCIPATION. MR. WHITE’S BILL. — MR. WILSON'S RESOLUTION, — MR. HENDERSON'S BILL. MR. NOELL'S BILL. — MR. WHITE'S REPORT, — REMARKS OF MR. CLEMENTS, — MR. WICKLIFFE. — MR. NOELL, — PASSAGE OF THE BILL. — HOUSE BILL REPORTED BY MR. TRUMBULL. — REMARKS OF MR. HENDER SON, — MR. WILSON'S AMENDMENT, — REMARKS OF MR. FESSENDEN. — MR. TRUMBULL, — MR. FOSTER. — MR. WILSON, — MR. SHERMAN, — MR. COWAN, — MR. BAYARD. — MR. CLARK, — MR. LANE OF KANSAS, — MR. MORRILL, MR. WILSON'S AMENDMENT. — MR. GRIMES'S SPEECH, — MR. KENNEDY'S SPEECH. MR. HARRIS'S REPORT. MR. WILSON OF MISSOURI. MR. WALL’S SPEECH, MR. RICHARDSON'S AMENDMENT. MR. COLLAMER'S AMENDMENT. — MR. SUMNER'S AMENDMENT. REMARKS OF MR. POWELL, — MR. SUMNER'S AMENDMENT, — MR. SUMNER'S SPEECH. PASSAGE OF THE BILLAS AMENDED, MR. WHITE'S REPORT IN THE HOUSE. — BILL REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

IN the Senate, on the 7th of March, 1862, Mr. Wilson (Rep.) of Massachusetts asked leave to introduce a joint resolution to grant aid to the States of Maryland and Delaware to emancipate certain persons held to service or labor. It provided, that in case the States of Maryland and Delaware, within two years, shall enact that all persons held to service within those States shall be discharged from all claim to such service, and that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall thereafter exist in those States, the President may issue and de liver to those States the bonds of the United States, payable in twenty-five years, to an amount equal to two hundred and fifty dollars for each person so Page 225 discharged and freed from service or labor. Mr. Saulsbury objected, and the resolution was not acted upon.

On the 10th, the Vice-President stated, that, " on Fri day, the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Wilson) sent to the chair a joint resolution, and it was objected to by the senator from Delaware (Mr. Saulsbury) . It being a joint resolution, the objection of the senator from Delaware precluded its reception. It is now in order for the senator to renew it, if he chooses so to do." Mr. Wilson asked leave to introduce his joint resolution to grant aid to the States of Maryland and Delaware to emancipate their slaves. "I intend," said Mr. Saulsbury, " to object to the proposition in every stage, and fight It at every stage : I shall make all objections at all stages that I have a right to make." Mr. Wilson said he did not understand that it required unanimous con sent, as he had given notice more than a week ago. The Vice-President stated that " the senator from Massachusetts did on Friday send to the chair the joint resolution, and the title was read. The chair rules that that was notice ; and therefore the senator is entitled to ask leave to introduce his resolution to-day, under the notice already given." Leave was granted to Mr. Wilson to introduce his joint resolution ; and it was read, and passed to a second reading.

In the House, on the 7th of April, 1862, Mr. White (Rep.) of Indiana introduced a resolution forth appointment of a select committee of nine members — the chairman and a majority of whom shall be members from the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri — to inquire and report whether any plan can be prepared and recommended for Page 226 the gradual emancipation of all the African slaves and the extinction of slavery in those States by the people or local authorities. Mr. Roscoe Conkling (Rep.) of New York suggested the modification of the resolution, so as not to restrict the chair in the appointment of the committee ; and Mr. White as modified his resolution. Mr. Mallory (Dem.) of Kentucky denounced the resolution as " an unconstitutional absurdity," and moved that it be laid on the table. Mr. Cox (Dem.) of Ohio demanded the yeas and nays on Mr. Mallory's motion, and they were taken, — yeas 51, nays 68. Mr. Vallandigham called for the yeas and nays on the passage of the resolution, — yeas 67, nays 52 : so the resolution was passed. On the 14th of April, the Speaker announced as the select committee on the subject of gradual emancipation in the slaveholding States, — Messrs. Albert S. White of Indiana, Francis P. Blair of Missouri, George P. Fisher of Delaware, William E. Lehman of Pennsylvania, C. L. L. Leary of Maryland, K. V. Whaley of Virginia, James F. Wilson of Iowa, Samuel L. Casey of Kentucky, and Andrew J. Clements of Tennessee.

On the 16th of July, Mr. White, from the Select Committee on Emancipation, reported a bill granting the aid of the United States to certain States, upon the adoption by them of a system" of emancipation, and to provide for the colonization of free negroes, accompanied by a report. The bill provided, that whenever the President shall be satisfied that any one of the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, or Missouri, shall have emancipated the slaves therein, it shall be the duty of the President Page 227 to deliver to such State an amount of bonds of the United States, payable at thirty years, equal to the aggregate value of all slaves within such State at the rate of three hundred dollars for each slave, — the whole amount for any one State to be delivered at once if the emancipation shall be immediate, or in ratable instalments if it shall be gradual ; that no State shall make any compensation to the owner of any slave who shall be proved to have willingly engaged in or in any manner aided the present Rebellion. Mr. White, by unanimous consent, explained the action of the committee. "I will only add," he said " that this measure has passed the committee with great unanimity ; the slight dissent of any member being more to detail than to principle. It is addressed, not to the politician of an hour, but to historic men, conscious of the peril of their country, who know that great sacrifices must be made to save it, and look upon this as the most hopeful, as it will be the noblest, in its results." The bill was ordered to be printed, and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union.

In the Senate, on the 8th of December, 1862, Mr. Wilson of Massachusetts introduced a resolution, in structing the Committee on Military Affairs to consider the expediency of providing by law for more effectually suppressing the Rebellion and securing domestic tranquillity in the State of Missouri. On the 19th, Mr. Henderson (Union) of Missouri introduced a bill granting aid to that State to emancipate the slaves therein ; which was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

In the House, on the 15th, Mr. Noell (Union) of Missouri introduced a bill to secure the abolishment Page 228 of slavery in the State of Missouri, and to provide compensation to loyal persona therein who own slaves ; which was referred to the Select Committee on Emancipation. On the 22d, Mr. White, chairman of the committee, asked the consent of the House to report Mr. Noell's bill relative to the abolishment of slavery in Missouri, with a view to having it printed and recommitted. Mr. Vallandigham (Dem.) of Ohio objecting, Mr. White moved the suspension of the rules, — yeas 77, nays 36. Mr. Noell, on the 6th of January, 1863, reported back from the select committee, without amendment, his bill giving aid to Missouri, for the purpose of securing the abolishment of slavery therein. Mr. Vallandigham raised a point of order on the reception of the bill, which the Speaker overruled. The bill provided that the Government of the United States will, upon the passage by the State of Missouri of a good and valid act of emancipation of all the slaves therein, and to be irrepealable unless by the consent of the United States, apply the aura of ten million dollars in United-States bonda, redeemable in thirty years from their date.

Mr. Clements (Union) of Tennessee did intend to make a minority report, but was not aware the bill was to be reported : hence he deaired to make an explanation. He was in favor of a general act to aid emancipation in the Border slave States ; but he thought the bill alone, by Itself, " to be of a sectional character," and " for that reason I oppose it." — "I have seen it stated," said Mr. Wickliffe (Opp.) of Kentucky, "in the public prints, that, before the issuing of the President's proclamation, he received information from intelligent, unconditional Union men of Kentucky, which Page 229 satisfied him that there was a great change in publio sentiment among the people of Kentucky, and especially in the Union party, in favor of these miserable abolition schemes. I feel it my duty and my privilege to state on this floor, in the face of Heaven, in the presence of the Congress of the United States, and in the hearing of the nation, that there is not one in every three hundred men in Kentucky who is in favor of such a measure, or of the proclamation." The result of a measure for the emancipation of slaves in the Border States, by the aid of the national treasury, " would, in my judgment," said Mr. Clements, "deserve the thanks of all mankind; as it would, I believe, relieve our country, in time, of one of the greatest evils that disturb our national quietude." Mr. Noell advocated his bill as a just, wise, and beneficent measure. " I am aware," he said, " that some of the public men in my own State believe that that sum is not large enough. I differ from them in opinion on that point. ... I believe that ten million dollars will be amply sufficient to pay for every slave of loyal owner at the rate of three hundred dollars each." Mr. Noell demanded the previous question. Mr. Price (Dem.) of Missouri asked Mr. Noell to withdraw it, to allow him to offer an amendment. Mr. Noell declared, if the amendment was to increase the amount named in the bill, he could not admit it. Mr. Price avowed that it did increase the amount. Mr. Holman (Dem.) of Indiana moved to lay the bill on the table, and demanded the yeas and nays. They were ordered, — yeas 42, nays 73. The question being on the passage of the bill, it was decided in the affirmative, — yeas 73, nays 46. Page 230

In the Senate, on the 14th of January, Mr. Trumbull reported back from the Judiciary Committee Mr. Henderson's bill, with a recommendation that It be indefinitely postponed ; and the Senate concurred in the recommendation of the committee. Mr. Trumbull reported back from the committee Mr. Noell's House bill, with an amendment. On the 16th, on motion of Mr. Henderson, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the House bill giving aid to Missouri for the abolishment of slavery ; the question pending being upon the amendment reported by the Committee on the Judiciary to strike out all after the enacting clause of the bill, and insert, "That whenever satisfactory evidence shall be presented to the President of the United States that the State of Missouri has adopted a law, ordinance, or other provision, for the gradual or immediate emancipation of all the slaves therein, and the exclusion of slavery for ever thereafter from said State, it shall be his duty to prepare, and deliver to the Governor of said State, as hereinafter provided, to be used by said State to compensate for the inconveniences produced by such change of system, bonda of the United States to the amount of twenty million dollars, the same to bear Interest at the rate of five per cent per annum, and payable thirty years after the date thereof." Mr. Henderson said this bill was substantially the one he introduced. "The decree had gone forth, that slavery must be destroyed. It is needless to argue that Missouri is beyond the limits of this decree. It is not beyond the influence of your past legislation, nor is it beyond the influence of events far more powerful than acts of legislation. ... It is the best possible economy for the Government. If, in any Page 231 manner, Missouri is held responsible for this state of things, she now presents her regrets. If it be charged that her admission into the Union gave origin to this unfortunate feud, she may at least claim the honor of fidelity to her pledge in the darkest hour of the nation's existence. If it be said that slavery is the cause of this Rebellion, the answers by placing slavery upon the altar of the country." On the 30th of January, the bill, on motion of Mr. Trumbull, was considered. "To carry out the pledge," said Mr. Sherman (Rep.) of Ohio, " we made one year ago, I am willing to vote ten million dollars in bonds of the United States to the State of Missouri. I will not vote for any more." -^"We cannot," replied Mr. Henderson, "emancipate In the State of Missouri, under our Constitution, with out paying the owners for their property. If we undertake to liberate at all, we are bound to pay." Mr. Wilson (Dem.) of Missouri gave notice that he should move to increase the amount. "I am ready," said Mr. Wilson of Massachusetts, "to give my vote to tax the toiling men of my State — to tax the farmers, the mechanics, the merchants, the fishermen on the coasts of New England — to blot slavery out of the State. Yea, sir : I am ready to tax my own barren New England so ae to more effectually crush out this Rebellion, give domestic tranquillity, increase of population and of wealth, to that great Empire State of the West. I shall vote the money of Massachusetts with all my heart for emancipation in Missouri ; but, sir. It must be emancipation now or within a few years. I care far less for the money than for the time. I am for making it a free State with free influences in ray day and generation." Page 232 Mr. Wilson moved to amend the amendment proposed by the committee by inserting in lieu of it, " that when ever satisfactory evidence shall be presented to the President of the United States that either of the States of Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, or West Virginia, has adopted a law, ordinance, or other provision, for the emancipation of all the slaves therein, and for the exclusion of slavery for ever thereafter from such State, it shall be his duty to prepare, and deliver to the Governor of such State as shall so provide, to the Governor of Missouri eighteen million dollars, to the Governor of Maryland eighteen million dollars, to the Governor of Delaware three hundred thousand dollars, and to the Governor of West Virginia one million five hundred thousand dollars, — bonds of the United States, bearing interest at the rate of five per cent per annum , and pay able thirty years after the date thereof." Mr. Fessenden (Rep.) of Maine said, "I confess that I am somewhat surprised at the change that has been made by the Committee on the Judiciary in the bill passed by the House of Representatives. I rose, sir, to suggest that the bill before us is better than the proposed substitute, because it is satisfactory to the House of Representatives, satisfactory to the representative from the State of Missouri who introduced and advocated it ; Is less in amount, — proposing to appropriate only half as much, and yet. In my judgment, a sufficient amount."

Mr. Henderson made an earnest and eloquent appeal for prompt action. " Now is the moment," he asserted ; '" now is the accepted time. If ever you intend to do any thing to carry out your pledges that you are opposed to the institution of slavery, now is that time." Mr. Page 233 Trumbull explained the bill, and defended the action of the committee. "This bill," he said, "proposes that slavery shall cease once and for ever after thirteen years. That is the object of it. The object of it is to insure freedom, and not perpetuate slavery. I would be glad if the shackles could fall from every slave, not only in Missouri, but throughout the United States and the world, to-day ; but, sir, I cannot accomplish it." Mr. Foster (Rep.) of Connecticut made an able and effective Speech in favor of the substitute of the committee. He said, " In my opinion, Mr. President, no more grave question can be raised in this body. I think , the decision of that question affects directly, more directly than any other question before us, the existence and perpetuity of the Government of the United States ; I will add, than any other question which in the ordinary course of legislation can be brought before us. I will not say that the existence and perpetuity of the Union depend upon the manner in which that question may be decided ; but I will say, that if it be decided to make this State a free State, and we actually make It a free State, we do more to perpetuate the existence of the Republic than we can do in any other one way." Mr. Wilson of Massachusetts, in response to Mr. Henderson, said, "I assure the senator from Missouri, to whose earnest tones I have listened to-day with unmixed pleasure, whose devotion to the country we all so fully applaud, that I am ready to vote any reasonable sum from the treasury of the nation to make Missouri free, — free now, when freedom will bring to her law, order, and tranquility. I admit that it is important to take the first step ; and if this were a proposition to aid a State situated like Page 234 Kentucky or Tennessee, then I should regard the first step as every thing gained : but for a great State like Missouri, with so few slaves, a State that has such mighty interests to become free at once, the proposition is one that we ought not to entertain ; and I hope it will be voted down by the Senate of the United States. Let us stamp upon her now war-desolated fields the words, ' Immediate emancipation,' and these blighted fields will bloom again, and law and order and peace will again bless the dwellings of her people." — "I want to say," remarked Mr. Pomeroy (Rep.) of Kansas, "that I think Missouri is destined to become a free State at any rate. You cannot keep slavery In Missouri thirteen years without a standing army."

On the 30th of January, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill, " I believe," said Mr. Sherman, " that the condition of slavery as a fixed and permanent relation in Missouri tends to keep up civil war in the State ; and that, the very moment she enters upon the path of gradual emancipation, all her sympathies and all her interests will be opposed to the present Rebellion, and in favor of the preservation of the Union. It is to accomplish this purpose, to create a spirit in the State of Missouri in favor of the perpetuity of the Union, that I am willing to vote the money of the people of Ohio to aid in this object. That can be accomplished better by gradual emancipation than by immediate emancipation." — "I should like to ask the senator from Ohio," said Mr. Cowan (Rep.) of Pennsylvania, "if a scheme of gradual emancipation be adopted, where would be the necessity for an appropriation at all ? I understand that the Page 235 usual mode by which that is effected is by declaring the children, born after a certain time fixed, free." — " The right to the increase of slaves is now," replied Mr. Sherman, " under the local law, a property right, and that is estimated at a certain proportion of the value of the slaves. I should be willing to contribute from the treasury of the United States to the State of Missouri the value of that property right, according to their local law." — "The right," said Mr. Cowan, "remains in the State perfect over the condition of the children yet unborn." Mr. Wilson of Massachusetts, in reply to Mr. Sherman, said, " The senator from Ohio speaks with much feeling of the extreme views of some of us who desire, in contributing of the public money to make Missouri a free State, to give the priceless boon of personal freedom to her hundred thousand bondmen. The senator earnestly deprecates such radicalism as cares for the rights and interests of the slave. He announces that he is willing to tax the people of America to pay for children not yet born ; no, not yet begotten. I am not. The senator talks of our extreme views, of our radicalism ; while he accepts the abhorrent dogma, that slave-masters have a right to the unborn, unbegotten issue of their slaves, — a right he is willing to tax the people of Ohio to pay. I, sir, give no such vote'. I will never consent to tax the people of Massachusetts to pay for unborn children twenty-two years hence." Mr. Henderson said, that, if a bill offering ten million dollars and immediate emancipation were passed, " I for one, though I as earnestly desire emancipation as any man in Missouri, will ask the Legislature of that State not to accept it. That is plain and honest. Page 236 In that event, I shall ask the Legislature of the State of Missouri, however, to adopt a gradual system of emancipation upon their own hook." — "I would not," said Mr. Bayard (Dem.) of Delaware, "throw a straw in the road of the people of Missouri, if it is the will of the people of that State to abolish slavery within its limits, either now or at a future day; but I am unable to find in the Constitution of the United States any authority for Congress interfering with that institution, or making an appropriation to aid any State for the pur pose of emancipation."

Mr. Henderson said, "I now move in line twenty-one to strike out ' seventy-six,' and insert ' eighty-five,' so as to read, ' some day not later than the fourth day of July, 1885.'" — "That will allow," remarked Mr. Howard (Rep.) of Michigan, "to the State of Missouri the period of twenty-two years within which to bring about emancipation. It seems to me that that is an unnecessarily long period. 1876 will be a great epoch in the history of this nation, as I trust, if the people are true to themselves, true to their own interests, true to that tutelary Constitution under which we have lived and prospered for eighty long years past. I shall expect, if it shall have the good fortune to survive until that day, to see the Constitution in its vigor and purity restored, and the Union restored, and to see not one foot of slave soil within the territorial limits of the United States. I hope, sir, to live to see that day. I expect to live to see that day ; and I want, when that great day shall arrive, to have the pleasure of joining in its festivities, and listening to the roar of its cannon, and to the joyous shouts of the people of the

Page 237 whole United States, that not only Missouri, but every other slaveholding State, is that day, at least, free, redeemed, emancipated from the pestilence." — "I am opposed," said Mr. Clark (Rep.) of New Hampshire, "to the amendment of the senator from Missouri. I am, with the senator from Michigan, willing to keep in good faith the resolution adopted by the Senate and House of Representatives at the last session. I am willing to aid any State in the gradual emancipation or in the immediate emancipation of its slaves ; but I am not willing that we should bear, as the senator from Missouri intimated we should, the whole of this burden." Mr. Henderson said, " I hope that the amendment I propose will be adopted. There are some senators here, like the senator from Ohio (Mr. Sherman) , who insist that emancipation must be gradual in my State. He cannot vote for any proposition of emancipation unless it is gradual. He does not want any immediate emancipation. The senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Wilson) , with the very same integrity of purpose, with the same desire to accomplish the purpose, says he must have it immediate ; and so says the senator from New Hampshire. If the bill is to fall between the contrariety of opinion that I find here, let it fall at once." Mr. Clark replied, that he was willing to give more to have it immediate, but was willing to give ten millions for gradual emancipation. He would propose an amendment giving fifteen million dollars for immediate emancipation, or ten million dollars for emancipation on the 4th of July, 1876." — "I should," said Mr. Lane (Rep.) of Kansas, "like to ask the senator from New Hampshire, if in time of peace the question Page 238 was asked him, ' How much money will the people of New Hampshire give to extend the area of freedom over sixty-five thousand square miles of this country ? ' what his answer would be. I think I know the people of New Hampshire well enough to know that the answer would be, 'It is not to be estimated by dollars and cents.'" — "In requiring," said Mr. Wilson, "that a practical measure that shall secure the object intended shall be adopted, I have no fear of being accused of illiberality or of want of fidelity to the cause of the slave. I have a record, sir, of twenty-seven years; and no vote of mine during those years, for men or for measures or for principles, has been in support of slavery." Mr. Foster would stand by the amendment of the committee. " The only difference of opinion is that it appropriates more money than may be necessary : but the mistake of a few too much is not fatal ; the mistake of a few millions below the point will be fatal." Mr. Morrill (Rep.) of Maine said, "If Missouri, that great State lying in the centre of the continent, would speak the word, " We are on this side in this great contest ; we are on the side of freedom, free men, and free labor,' it would be worth ten million dollars to have the word spoken, and to have it spoken now, and would place that State on the side of the Government of the country." The presiding officer : " The question recurs on the amendment of the senator from Missouri, to strike out ' seventy-six,' and insert 'eighty -five.'" Mr. Wilson said, "I want the privilege of voting to give ten million dollars for emancipation in 1876 ; as that the alternative presented to the people of Missouri will be this : Emancipation in 1865, twenty million dollars;

Page 239 emancipation in 1876, ten million dollars." — "I move," said Mr. Clark, " to fill the blank with ten million dollars ; and on that amendment I will ask for the yeas and nays." The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. Clark said, " The effect of the amendment will be precisely this, as I understand it : We pay twenty millions dollars for immediate emancipation by 1865, and pay ten million dollars for gradual emancipation In 1876." The question, being taken by yeas and nays, resulted — yeas 16, nays 21. "I now move," said Mr. Wilson of Massachusetts, "to amend the amendment of the committee by striking out all after the word ' that,' and inserting the following : ' Whenever satisfactory evidence shall be presented to the President of the United States that the State of Missouri has adopted a law, ordinance, or other provision, for the emancipation of all the slaves therein, and for the exclusion of slavery for ever there after from the State, it shall be his duty to prepare and deliver to the Governor of Missouri twenty million dollars in bonda of the United States, bearing interest at the rate of five per cent per annum, and payable thirty years after the date thereof, to be used by that State to compensate for the inconveniences produced by such change of system.'" Mr. Grimes (Rep.) of Iowa moved to strike out " twenty million dollars," and insert " ten million dollars." — "I am willing," he remarked, "to go before the people of my State, and undertake to justify — I believe I shall be justified in making an appropriation of ten million dollars to create freedom, and only freedom, in the State of Missouri, from and after 1865. I am willing to take the responsibility of giving that vote, and stand the test before the freedmen Page 240 of Iowa ; but informed as I am in regard to the condition of slavery in Missouri, knowing as little as I do of the number of slaves within the State, and of their value, I am unwilling at this time to vote more than ten million dollars."

Mr. Wilson of Massachusetts said, " One proposition Is to put twenty million dollars in the pockets of the slaveholders, and give freedom to the slaves on the 4th of July, 1865 : the other proposition is to give ten million dollars, and extend the time twelve years, — to 1876. One proposition fills the slaveholders' pockets with our money at once, gives freedom to the bondman, and brings content and peace there : the other proposition puts off" emancipation for twelve years, and blasts the hopes of thousands of these people, and makes them discontented ; and they will run away whenever they can." Mr. Lape of Kansas declared, " So far as the blacks are concerned, they will be practically as free under an act of gradual emancipation to take effect In 1876 as under an act to take effect in 1865…I assure the senator from Massachusetts, with some knowledge of the subject of which I speak, that an emancipation bill to take full effect in 1876, so far as the black is concerned, is as potent in securing him freedom as an act to take effect in 1865." — "I confess I am surprised," replied Mr. Wilson of Massachusetts, "that the senator from Kansas, .who has such practical views on these questions, and is as earnest in the cause, can think that these slaves, who are now kept under chain, to prevent whose running away, as he admits, armed men have to traverse the State, would be con tented with an act promising them freedom thirteen Page 241 years hence. Pass an act to make them all free in two years, and they will be contented at once. They will shout for joy, and offer up prayers to Almighty God for our action and the action of the emancipationists : but if you pass an act that they shall not be free for thirteen years, and that, in the mean time, they may be worked for nothing, sold, sent out of the State, and. If they run away, the Fugitive-slave Law may be brought to bear to bring them back, they will not be contented ; they will be turbulent. The very hopes of freedom, thus baffled, will excite them to action, and they will run away ; and there will be dis content and trouble in that State on the part of master and slave." Mr. Kennedy (Dem.) of Maryland was opposed to all these measures. "Let us alone. The laws of political economy, of inevitable destiny, are Working out a remedy for slavery there. Do not trammel us with questions that may precipitate issues that we cannot control, and which may involve our beloved State in the most horrid scenes of fratricidal war."

On the amendment of the Committee on the Judiciary, by Mr. Harris, to strike Out all after the enacting clause, and insert an amendment giving twenty million dollars for immediate emancipation, Mr. Wilson of Missouri moved to strike out " twenty million," and insert " twenty-five million " dollars, — yeas 2, nays 36. Mr. Davis spoke in opposition to the bill. Mr. Turpie (Dem.) of Indiana followed in opposition to the measure and the policy of the Administration. " Do senators," he asked, " still desire to continue to agitate this most odious doctrine of interference with the sovereignty of the States ? Do they still desire to Page 242 continue to agitate this dangerous and disgraceful element in the political history of the country ? If they do, let them vote for the Missouri bill." Mr. Wall (Dem.) of New Jersey opposed the bill. He said, " The President of the United States, in his message, told the country that history would never forget him nor this Congress. Sir, I do not think it will. As Sir Charles Townshend once said to . Lord Thurlow, who was an exceedingly profane man, when, in a burst of enthusiasm upon the floor of Parliament, he said, ' If I forget my sovereign, may my God forget me I ' 'No, no,' said the witty Townshend: 'he will see you damned first I ' And that, senators, I am afraid will be our condition with history. If we go on passing these enormous acts."

Mr. Ten Eyck (Rep.) of New Jersey addressed the Senate in favor of putting " the bill in such a shape that we may vote to aid the State of Missouri, and thus establish a precedent for the other States that may ask for assistance in the gradual abolition of slavery." Mr. Richardson (Dem.) of Illinois opposed the bill. " The Attorney-General," he said, " at the instance of the President, gives an opinion, announcing, for. the first time from any national official position in this country, that Africans born here are citizens ; disregarding the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Scott case, — the highest legal tribunal in the land. , . . The President wanted this opinion for some purpose. What was that pur pose ? Evidently for the advantage and benefit of the ' free American of African descent.' He has thought of nothing else, wrote of nothing else, talked of nothing Page 243 else, dreamed of nothing else, since his election to the Presidency ; and I fear lie will think of nothing else until our Union is dissolved, our Constitution destroyed, and our nationality lost."

Mr. Wilson of Missouri moved to amend by inserting as a new section : ' That no part of the bonds herein specified shall be delivered until the act of the Legislature or the Constitutional Convention of the State of Missouri, providing for the emancipation of the' slaves in said State, shall be submitted to a vote of the people, and approved by a majority of the legal voters of said State." Mr. Henderson opposed the amendment ; and Mr. Powell and Mr. Saulsbury advocated it. The question, being taken by yeas and nays, resulted — yeas 13, nays 27.

"I am," said Mr. Harris, "an ardent friend of the measure proposed by this bill. - I regard it as the most important measure that has been presented to the con sideration of the Senate during its present session. Forty years ago, sir, the first great conflict between slavery and freedom took place in reference to the ad mission of the State of Missouri. In that conflict, slavery was successful. It secured a predominance of political power which was never effectually checked until the election of 1860. I desire exceedingly, that, in reference to this very State, we should begin to roll back the tide of slavery. There is peculiar fitness in it ; but, sir, I see from the discussions here to-day that there is danger that this great and important measure may fall on account of some division of its friends in reference to the details. Apprehending that, and desiring to avoid it, I propose to make one further effort to Page 244 prepare a bill which shall harmonize the friends of the measure of emancipation in Missouri ; and, with a view to that, I move that the bill itself, with the preposition of the senator from Massachusetts, be recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary." The motion was agreed to.

Mr. Harris, on the 2d of February, reported back from the Judiciary Committee the bill, with amendments. On the fifth, Mr. Henderson moved to take up the bill ; and the motion was agreed to. On the 7th, the Senate resumed its consideration. Mr. Richardson moved that each one of the bonds issued by virtue of the provisions of this act shall have indorsed on the back thereof, in writing, as follows : " This bond was issued for the purpose of paying for slaves emancipated in the State of Missouri," — yeas 13, nays 27, Mr. Dixon (Rep.) of Connecticut moved to strike out "twenty million," and insert "eleven million" dollars, — yeas 14, nays 24, Mr. Collamer (Rep.) of Vermont moved to strike out " twenty million," and insert "fifteen million" dollars, — yeas 15, nays 21. Mr. Sumner (Rep.) of Massachusetts moved to strike out "1876," and insert "1864." — "I move," he said, " to strike out ' seventy-six,' and insert ' sixty-four,' so that the act of emancipation shall go into operation on the fourth day of July, 1864 ; and, air, my reason for the amendment is this : this bill, as I understand it, is a bill of peace ; it is to bring tranquillity to a disturbed State. . . . Sir, for the sake of the United States at this moment, for the sake of Missouri herself, for the sake of every slave-master in Missouri, and for the sake of every slave, I insist that this proposition shall go Page 245 into execution at the nearest possible day. The testimony of reason, of common sense, and of history, is uniform in that direction ; and I challenge any contra diction to it."

Mr. Willey (Union) of Virginia thought it would be much better for Missouri and for the slave, if, instead of " 1876," it was " 1900." Mr. Wilson of Missouri understood Mr. Sumner to desire to strike out " 1876," " for the purpose of forcing immediate emancipation ; " and therefore he could not vote for it. Mr. Henderson wished to stand by the bill as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Davis spoke at great length in opposition to the bill and amendment. In the course of his speech, he declared that "the negroes are re claimed savages, and you want to put them in a position where they will relapse into savages." — "Allow me to suggest," remarked Mr. Grimes, "that it cannot be possible that this race, after they have been under the humanizing effects of ' the domestic institution ' as it is enjoyed by the State of Kentucky, can be regarded in the same light with the savages whose employment Lord Chatham denounced." The question, being taken by yeas and nays on Mr. Sumner's amendment, resulted — yeas 11, nays 26. Mr. Powell denounced the bill. "Is there," he asked, "any morality in it? What kind of morals is that, that will take from the people of a State, against their will, their property, not for the purpose of benefiting the State, but for the purpose of gratifying the fanatical zeal of a party temporarily in power ? "

On the 12th, the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill, and Mr. Saulsbury spoke in opposition to Page 246 the measure. Mr. Sumner moved to amend the amendment by striking out "three hundred," and inserting "two hundred" dollars, as the measure of value of slaves, — yeas 19, nays 17.

Mr. Sumner then moved to strike out the words " gradual or," in action one, so that the money will be paid on evidence of " the im mediate emancipation of all slaves therein." The question, being taken by yeas and nays, resulted — yeas 11, nays 27. Mr. Sumner moved to amend the House bill by striking out "ten million," and inserting "twenty million " dollars. On motion of Mr. Fessenden, the yeas and nays were taken, — yeas 3, nays 37. The question recurring on the amendment reported by Mr. Harlan to the House bill, Mr. Sumner closed the debate in a brief, concise, and eloquent speech. He said, " Procrastination is the thief, not only of time, but of virtue itself; but such is the nature of man, that he is disposed always to delay, as that he does nothing to-day which he can put off till to-morrow. Perhaps in no single matter has this disposition been more apparent than with regard to slavery. Every consideration of humanity, justice, religion, reason, common sense, and history, all demanded the instant cessation of an intolerable wrong, without procrastination or delay. But human nature would not yield ; and we have been driven to argue the question, whether an outrage, asserting property in man, denying the conjugal relation, annul ling the parental relation, shutting out human improvement, and robbing its victim of all the fruits of his industry, — the whole, in order to compel work without wages, — should be stopped instantly or gradually. It Page 247 is only when we regard slavery in its essential elements, and look at its unutterable and unquestionable atrocity, that we. can fully comprehend the mingled folly and wickedness of this question. If it were merely a question of economy or a question of policy, then the Senate might properly debate whether the change should be instant or gradual ; but considerations of economy and policy are all absorbed in the higher claims of justice and humanity. There is no question whether justice and humanity shall be im mediate or gradual. ... If you would contribute to the strength and glory of the United States ; if you would bless Missouri ; if you would benefit the slave-master ; if you would elevate the slave ; and, still further, if you would afford an example which shall fortify and sanctify the Republic, making it at once citadel and temple, — do not put off the day of freedom. In this case, more than in any other, he gives twice who quickly gives."

The question was on Mr. Harris's substitute ; and, being taken by yeas and nays, resulted — yeas 26, nays 10. So the amendment as amended was concurred in. The question was then taken on the passage of the bill as amended, — yeas 23, nays 18. So the bill was passed by the Senate.

In the House of Representatives, when the bill was taken from the Speaker's table, Mr. Norton (Dem.) of Missouri raised the point of order, that, the bill must have its first consideration in the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. The Speaker ruled that the point of order was well taken. Mr. White (Rep.) of Indiana, Chairman of the Select Committee on Emancipation, moved its reference to that committee Page 248 Mr. Vallandigham demanded the yeas and nays on the motion of reference, — yeas 81, nays 51. On the 3d of March, Mr. White, from the Select Commit tee, moved to suspend the rules, so that the House may proceed to the consideration of the bill to aid the State of Missouri in emancipation, reported from the Select Committee on Emancipation. The question was taken ; and there were — yeas 63, nays 57 ; and it was decided in the negative, two-thirds not voting for the suspension of the rules. So the bill to aid Missouri in the emancipation of the slaves therein was lest in the House of Representatives In the closing hours of the Thirty-seventh Congress.

Source: Wilson, Henry. History of the Antislavery Measures of the Thirty-Seventh and Thirty-Eighth United States Congresses, 1861-1865, Boston: Walker, Fuller, & Co., 1865.