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

CHAPTER II.

FUGITIVE SLAVES NOT TO BE RETURNED BY PERSONS IN THE ARMY.

SURRENDER OF SLAVES COMING WITHIN THE LINES OF THE UNION ARMIES, MR. LOVEJOY'S RESOLUTION. NOTICE OF A BILL BY MR. WILSON. — MR. LOVEJOY’S BILL. — MR. SUMNER'S RESOLUTION MR. COWAN'S SPEECH, — RESOLUTION OP MR. WILSON OF IOWA, — BILL OF MR. WILSON OF MASSACHUSETTS. MR. WILSON'S BILL CONSIDERED. MR. SAULSBURY'S MOTION TO POSTPONE INDEFINITELY MR. COLLAMER'S AMENDMENT, — MR. POWELL'S SPEECH. — MR. COLLAMER'S SPEECH, — MR. WILSON'S SPEECH. — MR. PEARCE'S SPEECH. — MR. BLAIR'S BILL TO MAKE AN ADDITIONAL ARTICLE OF WAR. — MR. BINGHAM'S SPEECH, — MR. VALLANDIGHAM'S MOTION TO LAY THE BILL ON THE TABLE. — PASSAGE OP THE HOUSE BILL, — REPORTED BY MR. WILSON IN THE SENATE. — MR. DAVIS'S AMENDMENT, — MR. SAULSBURY’S Amendment, — MR. M'DOUGALL'S SPEECH, — MR. HOWARD'S SPEECH. — PASSAGE OF TIHE BILL, — MR. WILSON'S RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE SURRENDER OF FUGITIVES, — MR. GRIMES'S AMENDMENT, — MR. GRIMES'S SPEECH, — MR. SUMNER'S SPEECH, — MR. SAULSBURY'S SPEECH.

IN the outset of the Rebellion, slaves inspired by the hope of freedom came within the lines of the Union armies. Their masters often sought for them within the encampments, where they had hoped for protection and freedom, and demanded their surrender as escaped bondmen. While many officers refused to surrender these persons claimed as slaves, or to permit slave masters to seek for them within their Camps, other officers readily permitted them or their agents, weaponed for violence, to search their camps, seize, bind, and bear away their trembling, despairing victims. In many Page 18 instances, slaves, who had brought to the officers of the Union armies intelligence of great value, were given up on the demand of rebel claimants. These slaves surrendered by officers of the army were often most mercilessly punished by their enraged masters, whose arms were doubtless nerved by the malignity of their hearts toward the country and its defenders. This revolting practice of arresting and surrendering fugitives coming within the lines of the armies demoralized the soldiers, and outraged the moral sense of the nation.

In the House of Representatives, on the 9th of July, 1861, Mr. Lovejoy (Rep.) of Illinois introduced the following resolution, and demanded the previous question upon its passage : " That, in the judgment of this House, it is no part of the duty of the soldiers of the United States to capture and return fugitive slaves." Mr. Mallory (Dem.) of Kentucky moved to lay it upon the table, — yeas 66, nays 81. The question recurring on agreeing to the resolution, Mr. Logan (Dem.) of Illinois demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered, — yeas 93, nays 55. In the Senate, on the 4th of December, 1861, Mr. Wilson (Rep.) of Massachusetts gave notice of his intention to introduce a bill to punish officers and privates of the army for arresting, detaining, or delivering persons claimed as fugitive slaves. Mr. Lovejoy (Rep.) of Illinois, on the 4th of December, introduced a bill making it a penal offence for any officer or private of the army or navy to capture or return, or aid in the capture or return of, fugitive slaves. It was read twice, and its consideration postponed to the 10th of December.

Page 19 In the Senate, on the 17th of December, Mr. Sumner (Rep.) of Massachusetts introduced, and asked for its immediate consideration, a resolution, — " That the Committee on Military Affairs and the militia be directed to consider the expediency of providing, by additional legislation, that our national armies shall not be employed in the surrender of fugitive slaves." Mr. McDougall (Dem.) of California objecting, the resolution went over under the rule ; but it came up for consideration the next day, and Mr. Sumner stated that he had received communications in regard to the out rages perpetrated in the armies. He said, "With these communications which I have received, some of an official character and others of a private character, I have felt that I should not do my duty if I did not call the attention of the Senate to this outrage. It must be arrested. I am glad to know that my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, promises us at once a bill to meet this grievance. It ought to be introduced promptly, and to be passed at once. Our troops ought to be saved from this shame." Mr. Cowan (Rep.) of Pennsylvania apprehended that " there need be no possible difficulty what ever upon this question in any of its aspects." He thought " we had nothing in the world to do with all these questions. We send a general," he said, " to suppress this insurrection. What is his duty? If he meets a negro upon his errand, and that negro is an enemy, he treats him as an enemy ; if the negro is a friend, he treats him as a friend, and uses him as such. Nothing, to my mind, can be simpler. How is he to determine the title to that regard? Suppose, Mr. President, Page 20 you were to go into his camp, and say, ' Sir, here is my negro : I want him.' The obvious answer of the general is, ' My dear sir, that may be all true ; I have no desire to raise any issues of fact with you : it may be that this .is your negro ; but I cannot determine that question ; I cannot try the title to him ; I am not a court; I am not a jury,' — a great many of them, in deed, are not even lawyers. How are they to deter mine whether this negro is a slave or not ? They cannot determine it ; they have no right to determine it. If the master, being a loyal man, in that camp insists, and says, ' This is my negro ; ' I do not know what other men might do, but, if I were the general, I would say to him, "If this is your negro, your "boy," as you call him, — this man 'that you are educating to civilization and Christianity, — if he will go with you, if he is willing to submit to your guardianship in this behalf, take him, in God's name, and be away with him.' Suppose the claimant says, ' He will not go, and I want to force him : ' what then? I would say to him, 'No, you cannot do that; because that presumes that I decide the very question which I am incompetent to decide. I cannot allow you to use force here, because I am the constable of the nation, and I am the repository of its force in this behalf, and you cannot use it,' " The resolution was agreed to.

Mr., Wilson (Rep.) of Iowa, on the 23d of December, offered the following resolution, and demanded the previous question upon it : " That the Committee on Military Affairs be requested to report a bill to this House for the enactment of an additional article of war, whereby all officers in the military service of the United

Page 21 States shall be prohibited from using any portion of the forces under their respective commands for the purpose of returning fugitives from service or labor, and provide for the punishment of such officers as may violate said article by dismissal from the service." Pending the question, the House, on the motion of Mr. Cox (Dem.) of Ohio, adjourned, — yeas 58, nays 53.

Mr. Wilson (Rep.) of Massachusetts, on the 23d of December, introduced a bill in relation to the arrest of persons claimed to be held to service or labor by the officers of the military and naval service of the United States ; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. It declared that officers in the military service of the United States have, without the authority of law, and against the plainest dictates of justice and humanity, caused persons declared as fugitives from service or labor to be seized, held, and delivered up ; and that such conduct has brought dis credit upon our arms, and reproach upon our Goverment; and it therefore proceeded to enact, that any officer in the military or naval service of the United States, who shall cause any person, claimed to be held to service or labor by reason of African descent, to be seized, held, detained, or delivered up to or for any person claiming such service or labor, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be dishonorably discharged, and for ever ineligible to any appointment in the military or naval service of the United States.

On the 6th of January, 1862, Mr. Wilson reported back his bill from the Committee on Military Affairs, with an amendment. On the 7th of January, Mr. Wilson called it up; and the Senate, as in Committee Page 22 of the Whole, proceeded to its consideration. The Committee on Military Affairs reported an amendment to strike out all of the original bill, and insert as a substitute, " That it shall be unlawful for any officer in the military or naval service of the United States to cause any person claimed to be held to service or labor by reason of African decent to be seized, held, detained, or delivered up to or for any person claiming such service or labor ; and any officer so offending shall be discharged from service, and be forever ineligible to any appointment in the military or naval service of the United States." Mr. Saulsbury (Dem.) of Delaware moved its indefinite postponement, — yeas 13, nays 23. On motion of Mr. Carlile (Dem.) of Virginia, it was temporarily laid on the table.

The Senate, on the 16th of January, on motion of Mr. Wilson, took from the table and resumed the consideration of the bill to punish persons in the military and naval service for arresting and delivering fugitive slaves. The pending question being on the amendment reported from the Committee on Military Affairs to strike out the original bill, and insert the amendment as a substitute, Mr. Collamer (Rep.) of Vermont said, " Without criticising at all the form of expression of the proposed amendment, I offer a substitute for it, which I send to the Chair, — ' No officer of the army or navy of the United States, or of the volunteers or militia in the service of the United States, shall assume or exercise any military command or authority to arrest, detain, hold, or control any person, on account of such person being holden to service as of African descent ; and any such officer so offending shall Page 23 be dismissed from service.' " Mr. Wilson accepted the amendment proposed by the senator from Vermont. Mr. Powell said, " This is a very important measure ; and, as the amendment of the senator from Vermont has only been this moment presented, I ask that the bill be postponed, and the amendment be printed, in order that we may have some time to look into it." — " The amendment," replied Mr. Wilson, " is very plain and simple : a child can comprehend its import. I hope that this important bill, which ought to have been passed on the second day of this session, for the honor of the country, will not be postponed any longer." — "I have drawn up," said Mr. Saulsbury, "very hurriedly, an amendment, which I propose to insert as an additional section, — 'Nor shall any soldier or officer, under the penalty, entice away or detain any person held to service or labor in the United States from his or her master or owner.'" Mr. Collamer thought the amendment hardly germane to the subject. "I believe," he said, " we are generally agreed that there is great im propriety in military men exercising military authority within the States, in relation to their internal and municipal affairs: it is very likely to produce collisions, that ought to be avoided. . . . The amendment reported by the committee made it unlawful for an officer to do any thing in regard to the seizure or delivery of a person held to service by reason of African descent : it seemed to direct the individual action of the man as a man ; which is, I think, hardly legitimate and proper on this occasion. I do not know but that we have officers in our army who are themselves the owners of slaves. According to the provision reported by the committee. Page 24 such an officer could not even arrest his own slave under the laws of the State in which he -was holden. It seems to mc, that, in dealing with officers of the army, our business is to deal with them in their official capacity. Therefore, to strip the subject of all sort of question about that, I have drawn and presented the amendment which the Senate have adopted, and which, I think, should pass into a law, — that no officer shall use any military power over this subject. As to his own individual action, that is a matter which must be left to him." — "If you adopt," said Mr. Saulsbury, "the amendment of the senator from Vermont, you make it penal for a soldier or officer to return, even to a loyal master or owner, his slave ; but you provide no penalty against any soldier or any officer for depriving even a loyal master of the services of his slave. My amendment proposes to prohibit, under the same penalty, an officer or a soldier of the army from decoying or enticing away from the service of his master a slave, or from harboring a slave."

Mr. Rice (Dem.) of Minnesota proposed to amend Mr. Saulsbury's amendment by adding, "who may be a loyal citizen of the United States; " and the amendment to the amendment was agreed to. Mr. Collamer thought, that, under Mr. Saulsbury's amendment, "if any soldier wanted to get dismissed from the service, he would have nothing to do but to entice a slave, and he would get himself and the slave both dismissed." — " I am opposed," said Mr. Wilson, " to this amendment in every shape and form, and to any legislation protecting, covering, or justifying slavery for loyal or disloyal masters. The laws on that subject are all that ought

Page 25 to be given at this time. What I want to do is to put upon the statute-book of this country a prohibition to the officers of the array of the United States from arresting, detaining, and delivering up persons claimed as fugitives by the use of military power. There is no law for it. They have acted in violation of law. Some of these officers have dishonored, the profession, and disgraced the country : and I mean, if God is willing and I have the power, to reject their confirmation here for that reason ; and I give them the notice now." Mr. Pearce (Dem.) of Maryland said, "The senator from Massachusetts objects to a proposition which forbids officers and soldiers of the army from enticing, harboring, or preventing the recovery — that is the amount of it — of a fugitive slave, known to be such, upon the application of his master, known to be his lawful owner, according to the laws of the State in which he lives. What is the effect of that? It is an invitation to all the slaves of the State of Maryland, who can do so, to resort to the camp, sure of protection there, first, because no officer of the army can order their delivery up to their master, however loyal or however indisputable his title may be to that slave. It is an invitation, therefore, to all such people to resort to the lines of the army as a harbor of refuge, a place of asylum, a spot where they can be safe from the operation of the undoubted legal rights of the owner. That is the effect of it ; and that is an invitation to the whole body of such people, within the loyal State* of Maryland, to accomplish their freedom by indirection. It is not an act of emancipation in its terms ; but so far as it can operate, and does operate, it leads directly Page 26 to that result." The bill was then reported to the Senate ; and, pending the question of concurring in Mr. Collamer's amendment, the Chair announced the special order of the day.

In the House, Mr. Blair (Rep.) of Missouri, on the 25th of February, reported from the Committee on Military Affairs a bill to make an additional article of war. The bill provided, that hereafter the following shall be promulgated as an additional article of war for the government of the army of the United States, and shall be obeyed and observed as such : " All officers are prohibited from employing any of the forces under their respective commands for the purpose of returning fugitives from service or labor who may have escaped from any persons to whom such service or labor is claimed to be due. Any officer who shall be found guilty by court-martial of violating this article shall be dismissed from the service." Mr. Bingham (Rep.) of Ohio moved to add, after the word " officers," the words " or persons in the military and naval service of the United States ; " and the amendment was agreed to. "You," said Mr. Mallory (Dem.) of Kentucky, "are deciding, by this article of war, that the President of the United States shall not be permitted to send a military force into a State to aid the authorities of that State in enforcing a national law which stands on your statute-book. I ask the gentleman from Missouri whether it is the fixed determination to repeal the Fugitive-slave Law." — '"I do not propose," replied Mr. Blair, " to decide the question the gentleman has raised, as to whether this bill, if it becomes a law, will repeal the Fugitive-slave Law or not. I believe, in common with a Page 27 great many others, that the army of the United States has a great deal better business than returning fugitive slaves." Mr. Mallory wished to postpone the bill to the third Wednesday in March. Mr. Lovejoy objected to Mr. Blair yielding the floor. Mr. Blair would yield the floor to Mr. Mallory for the purpose indicated. Mr. Bingham hoped Mr. Blair would not yield the floor to allow this bill to be postponed to the end of March. He denounced the practice of arresting and returning fugitive slaves by officers of the army, as " a military despotism that the American people should not tolerate for a moment, nor lose a moment in ending it by the enactment of this bill into a law. I say, that a military officer who assumes, wrongfully assumes, to exercise the functions of civil magistracy, and under takes to sit upon the right of any human being, born within the limits of this Republic, to the possession of his own person and his own soul, and against whom no offence is charged, is worse than a kidnap per. He has no right to do it; and, by so doing, commits a crime, a great crime. Some of your military officers of high and low degree have been detailing their men for the purpose of seizing, and have seized, persons not accused of crime, but suspected of the virtue of preferring liberty to bondage. Are we to revive here, in this land, the hated rule of the Athenian ostracism, by which men were condemned, not because they were charged with crime or proved guilty of crime, but because they were suspected to possess and practise the virtues of justice and patriotism in such degree as rendered their presence in the State dangerous to republican equality? Aristides was condemned because Page 28 he was just ; and Themistocles, because he was the savior of the city. I have read in the papers, and I believe it is true, that one of these persons suspected of escaping from bondage to liberty swam across the Ohio River, making for an encampment upon the Indiana shore, where he saw the banner of Liberty flying, which he fondly looked upon as consecrating that place, at least, as sacred to the rights of person, and where even the rights of a hunted bondman would be respected. After having been beaten about, bruised and mangled against the rocks in the channel of the river, to whose rushing waters he committed his life that he might re gain his liberty, he reached the opposite shore. Some body went into the camp, and reported that this man was suspected of the crime of having run away from chains and slavery. A company of soldiers, it is said, were detailed to seize him, and did seize and return him as a slave to the man who claimed him. If that practice is to be pursued by the army and navy under the American flag, it ought to cover with midnight blackness every star that burns upon its field of azure, and with everlasting infamy the men who dare to dese crate it to such base uses."

Mr. Wickliffe (Dem.) of Kentucky said "I see, by the evidence which has been furnished, that Gen. Grant captured — at Fort Donelson I think it was — twelve negro slaves among the prisoners there taken. They were returned by him to their loyal owners in Kentucky, from whom they had been forced by the rebel power. Would this bill prevent a military commander from the exercise of such a power?" — "I am informed by a letter from my neighborhood," said Mr. Grider

Page 29 (Dem.) of Kentucky, " that, within three counties in my district, the rebel army have impressed and run off slaves to the value of about three hundred thousand dollars. Now, sir, does this article of war propose that these servants shall not be returned, and shall not be intercepted?" Mr. Vallandigham (Dem.) of Ohio moved to lay the bill on the table ; upon which Mr. Bingham demanded the yeas and nays, — yeas 44, nays 87. Mr. Blair demanded the previous question upon the bill and amendment ; and it was ordered. He did not wish to press the bill to a vote to-night, and moved an adjournment ; but the motion was lost, — ayes 59, nays 61. The question was taken on the passage of the bill, — yeas 83, nays 42. So the bill passed the House.

In the Senate, on the 4th of March, Mr. Wilson reported back from the Military Committee, without amendment, the House bill providing for the promulgation of an additional article of war, forbidding officers or persons in the military and naval service, on pain of dismissal from the service, to arrest or return fugitive slaves. Mr. Davis (Opp.) of Kentucky would like to offer an amendment, and desired that the bill should go over until to-morrow. Mr. Wilson would, with the understanding that we take up the bill and act on it to-morrow, withdraw his motion to proceed to its con sideration ; and the proposition was assented to.

On the 10th of March, Mr. Wilson moved to take up the bill from the House of Representatives to make an additional article of war. The motion was agreed to, and the consideration of the bill was resumed as in Committee of the Whole. " I have to amend the bill," Page 30 said Mr. Davis, " by inserting, after the word due,' in the eleventh line of the first section, the words, and also from detaining, harboring, or concealing any such fugitives ; ' so that the proposed article will read : ' All officers or persons in the military or naval service of the United States are prohibited from employing any of the forces under their respective commands for the purpose of returning fugitives from service or labor who may have escaped from any persons to whom such service or labor is claimed to be due, and also from detaining, harboring, or concealing any such fugitive.' " The yeas and nays were ordered; and, being taken, resulted — yeas 10, nays 29 — as follows : —

Yeas. — Messrs. Bayard, Carlile, Davis, Henderson, Latham, M'Dougall, Powell, Bice, Saulsbury, and Wilson of Missouri, — 10.

Nays. — Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Cowan, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Howard, Howe, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morrel, Pomeroy, Sherman, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilson of Massachusetts, and Wright, — 29.

Mr. Saulsbury moved to amend by adding at the end of the first section, "That this article shall not apply in the States of Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky, nor elsewhere where the Federal authority is recognized or can be enforced." Yeas 7, nays 30, " I wish," remarked Mr. Carlile, " to make an inquiry of the patron of this bill. The President, under his proclamation in April, among other things, called for the services of the militia to aid him in the execution of the laws. One of the laws upon our statute-book is for the return of fugitive slaves. If the President shall find it necessary to call upon the military power of the Page 31 country to enable him to discharge his sworn duty in this respect, — for he swears, as I understand, when he enters upon the duties of his office, to see that the laws are faithfully executed, — I desire to know if this bill will not interfere with that in this particular, and what effect this bill would have upon any military authorities of the country who should obey the call." — " I suppose," said Mr. Wilson in reply, " the senator from Virginia clearly understands this matter. The case he supposes, if I understand it, would be a case where the authorities would call out the military for the purpose of enforcing ¦ the decision of the judicial tribunals, — a mere civil process. The return of fugitive slaves is a civil question, a judicial one, not a military one." — " Then," said Mr. Carlile, " I am to understand that this will not interfere with that? " Mr. M'Dougall said, " It is, I understand, a mere measure to prevent the interference of the army in these matters. As such, I am prepared to vote for it ; but, in voting for it, I wish to say here, that I under stand it to be simply a provision to prevent the interference of army officers in this matter ; not impairing the obligation on the part of an army officer, as well as a private citizen, to surrender a fugitive from service or labor, under the Constitution and laws of the United States." The amendment was then rejected. Mr. Saulsbury said, " I move to amend the bill by inserting after the word ' due,' in the eleventh line of the first section, the words, 'or for the purpose of enticing or decoying such persons, held to service or labor, from the service of their loyal masters.' I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment." Mr. Anthony inquired "if officers of the army, and all other Page 32 persons, are not already prohibited from enticing or decoying slaves." Mr. Howard replied, " They are, by heavy penalties." Mr. Saulsbury remarked, "If you say you intend to keep your army aloof from this question, but do not intend that they shall return fugitive slaves, then all I ask of you is, that, when they come into a loyal community, it shall not be lawful for them, nor for any person acting under Federal authority, to entice or decoy my slave or the slave of my constituents away." — "If he did, I suppose," replied Mr. Howard, " he would simply make himself liable to the severe and almost inhuman penalties of the fugitive- slave law of 1850." Mr. Sherman observed, that "the laws of the State would operate also." Mr. Howard said he " would be subject also to the penalty prescribed by the law of the State where he is. I understand this bill as simply prohibiting military men from disgracing the uniform they wear, by engaging in the business of slave-catching, and delivering slaves to their owners, — a disreputable business, in which no gentleman. North or South, military or civil, I undertake to say, will willingly engage." — "In voting," said Mr. Anthony, " against this amendment, which I shall do, I certainly do not wish it to be understood that I would vote to give any officer the right to entice a slave from a loyal master ; but I understand that the law already prohibits it : it is already an offence, and we are only re-enacting another law." Mr. M'Dougall could see no mischief in the amendment of the senator from Delaware. The question, being taken by yeas and nays, resulted — yeas 10, nays 29. The bill was then passed, — yeas 29, nays 9, — as follows: —

Page 33

Yeas. — Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Har ris, Howard, Howe, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, M'Dougall, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sherman, Sumner, Ton Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilson of Massachusetts, and Wright, — 29,

Nays. — Messrs. Bayard, Carlile, Davis, Henderson, Latham, Powell, Rice, Saulsbury, and Wilson of Missouri, — 9.

So the bill passed, and was approved by the President on the 13th of March, 1862.

The 14th of April, on motion of Mr. Wilson of Massachusetts, the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution, submitted by him on the 3d of April : "He- solved, That the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia be directed to consider and report whether any fur ther legislation is necessary to prevent persons employed in the military service of the United States from aiding in the return or control over persons claimed as fugitive slaves, and to punish them therefor." — " I propose," said Mr. Grimes (Rep.) of Iowa, "to amend the resolution by adding to it, ' and to report what re-organization of the army, in its personnel or otherwise, may be necessary to promote the publio welfare, and bring the Rebellion to a speedy and triumphant end.'" — "One would think," said Mr. Grimes, " that all men would agree in pronouncing that a cruel and despotic order which repeals the divine precept, ' Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me,' and arbitrary forbids the soldier to bestow a crust of bread or a cup of water upon a wretched, famishing fugitive escaping from our own as well as from his enemy. Yet, Mr. President, I grieve to say that there are those, high in rank in the service of the United States, who have sought to break down the spirit of manhood, which Page 34 is the crowning glory of true soldiers, by requiring them to do acts, outside of their profession, which they abhor, and to smother all impulses to those deeds of charity which they have been taught to believe are the characteristics of Christian gentlemen. ... It was known to the country, at an early day after the commencement of the war, that some military commanders were abusing the great power intrusted to them, and were employing the army to assist in the capture and rendition of fugitive slaves, not in aid of any judicial process, but in obedience to their own unbridled will. The effect of this assumption of unauthorized power was to incite the soldiery to disobedience, and to arouse the people to the necessity of proper legislative restraints. It was in compliance with the popular sentiment on this subject that Congress enacted the additional article of war, which was approved on the 13th of March last. . . . In the month of February last, an officer of the third regiment of Iowa infantry, stationed at a small town in Missouri, succeeded in capturing several rebel bridge-burners, and some recruiting officers belonging to Price's array. The information that led to their capture was furnished by two or three remarkably shrewd and intelligent slaves, claimed by a lieutenant-colonel in the rebel army. Shortly afterwards, the master despatched an agent, with instructions to seize the slaves, and convey there within the rebel lines : whereupon the Iowa officer himself seized them, and reported the circumstances to headquarters. The slaves soon understanding the full import of Gen. Halleck's celebrated order No, 3, two of them attempted an escape. This was regarded as an unpardonable sin. The Iowa officer Page 35 was immediately placed under arrest, and a detachment of the Missouri State militia — men in the pay of this Government and under the command of Gen. Halleck — were sent in pursuit of the fugitives. The hunt was successful. The slaves were caught, and returned to their traitor master, but not until one of them had been shot by order of the soldier in command of the pursuing party. . . . How long, think you, will this method of dealing with the rebels be endured by the freemen of this country? Are our brothers and sons to be confined within the walls of the tobacco-warehouses and jails of Richmond and Charleston, obliged to perform the most menial offices, subsisted upon the most stinted diet, their lives endangered if they attempt to obtain a breath of fresh air or a beam of God's sunlight at a window, while the rebels captured by those very men are permitted to go at large upon parole, to be pampered with luxuries, to bo attended by slaves, and the slaves guarded from escape by our own soldiers ? "

On the 1st of May, the Senate, on motion of Mr. WU son, resumed the consideration of the resolution; the pending question being the amendment moved by Mr. Grimes. Mr. Sumner was " grateful to the senator from Iowa for the frankness with which he exposed and condemned the recent orders of our generals." Mr. Sumner then examined and condemned the orders of Generals Hooker, M'Cook, Buel, Halleck, and the Provost Marshal of Louisville. He contrasted and commended the action of Gen. Doubleday and Gen. M'Dowell. He closed his speech by saying, " Sir, we are making history now. Every victory adds something to that history ; but such an order is worse for us than

Page 36 a defeat. More than any defeat, it will discredit us with posterity, and with the friends of liberal institutions in foreign nations. I have said that Gen. Halleck is reputed to be an able officer ; but most perversely he undoes with one hand what he does with the other. He undoes by his orders the good he does as a general. While professing to make war upon the Rebellion, he sustains its chief and most active power, and degrades his gallant army to be the constables of slavery. Slavery is the constant rebel and universal enemy. It is traitor and belligerent together, and is always to be treated accordingly. Tenderness to slavery now is practical disloyalty, and practical alliance with the enemy. Against these officers to whom I have referred to-day I have no personal unkindness. I should much prefer to speak in their praise ; but, sir, I am in earnest. While I have the honor of a seat in the Senate, no success, no victory, shall be any apology or any shield to a general who undertakes to insult human nature. From the midst of his triumphs, I will drag him forward to receive the condemnation which such conduct deserves." Mr. Saulsbury moved to amend the resolution by adding to it,"" and what further legislation is necessary to pre vent the illegal capture and imprisonment of the free white citizens of the United States." In support of the amendment, he said, "But, where we are entertained every morning with a narrative of the grievances of the black men of this country, the free negroes and the slaves of this country, thinking equally as much, and — although it may be an infirmity and a weakness at the present time to say it — thinking a little more, of the free white citizens of my country, I will, in my Page 37 place, demand that justice shall be done them, and that free white men, who have done nought to injure their country, to destroy its institutions or its Union, shall be protected, and that inquiry shall be made to see if further legislation is necessary to secure them in their rights." Pending the question, the President called up the Confiscation Bill, which was the order of the day : the bill went over, and was not again taken up. Page 38

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.