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

CHAPTER XXI.

THE COASTWISE SLAVE-TRADE.

MR. SUMNER'S BILL. — MR. SUMNER'S AMENDMENT TO THE CIVIL APPROPRIATION BILL, — REMARKS OF MR. SHERMAN, MR. SUMNER, MR. JOHNSON, MR. HENDRICKS, MR. COLLAMER, MR. JOHNSON, MR. SAULSBURY, MR. DOOLITTLE. — ADOPTION OF MR. SUMNER'S AMENDMENT.

In the Senate, on the 23d of March, 1864, Mr. Sumner (Rep.) of Massachusetts, from the Select Committee on Slavery and Freedmen, reported a bill to prohibit commerce in slaves among the several States, and the holding or transportation of human beings as property in any vessel within the jurisdiction of the National Government. The bill provided that there shall be no commerce in slaves among the several States, by land or by water ; and any person attempting oi* aiding to transport slaves as an article of commerce from one State to another State, or any person who shall take part in each commerce, either as seller, buyer, or agent, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, being convicted thereof, shall suffer imprisonment for not more than five years, and be fined not exceeding five thousand dollars ; and every slave so treated as an article of commerce shall be free ; and no human being shall be held or transported as property in any vessel on the high seas, or sailing coastwise, or on any navigable water, within the jurisdiction of the United States ; and every vessel violating the provisions of this act shall be forfeited Page 363 to the United States. But this bill was not taken up for consideration.

The Senate, on the 24th of June, proceeded, as in Committee of the Whole, to the consideration of the Civil Appropriation. Mr. Sumner (Rep.) of Massachusetts moved as an amendment, that sections eight and nine of the act entitled " An act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord 1808," which said sections undertake to regulate the coastwise slave-trade, are hereby repealed. Mr. Sherman (Rep.) of Ohio would not oppose the amendment on an ordinary bill. He had read the two sections referred to in the amendment, and felt dis posed to repeal them ; but he trusted the Senate would keep the bill free from disputed political questions. Mr. Sumner regretted the opposition of Mr. Sherman, though it was one of form only. " In moving it now," he said, " on an appropriation bill, I follow approved precedents : it is in conformity with order and with usage. ... I propose," he said, " to remove from the statute- book odious provisions in support of slavery. Whoever is in favor of those provisions, whoever is disposed to keep alive the coastwise slave-trade, &r whoever wishes to recognize it in our statutes, will naturally vote against my motion. And yet let me say that I am at a loss to understand how at this moment, at this 'stage of our history, any senator can hesitate to unite with me in this work of expurgation and purification." Mr. Johnson of Maryland contended that the repeal of these sections of the act of 1807 would leave the slave-trade Page 364 open to unrestrained abuse. Mr. Sumner differed " radically from the senator from Maryland. He is always willing to interpret the Constitution for slavery : I interpret it for freedom. He proceeds as if those old days still continued, when slavery was installed supreme over the Supreme Court, giving immunity to slavery everywhere. The times have changed, and the Supreme Court will yet testify to the change. To me it seems clear, that, under the Constitution of the United States, no person can be held as a slave on shipboard within the national jurisdiction, and that the national flag cannot cover a slave. The senator thinks differently, and re lies upon the Supreme Court ; but I cannot doubt that this regenerated tribunal will yet speak for freedom, as in times past It has spoken for slavery. And I trust, should my life be spared, to see the senator from Mary land, who bows always to the decisions of that tribunal, recognize gladly the law of freedom thus authoritatively pronounced."

Mr. Hendrick (Dem.) of Indiana expressed surprise that any senator should oppose the proposition, as it would eventually be adopted. He regretted to see all the laws made by -the fathers to carry out the Constitution fall, one after another. Mr. Sumner proposed to amend his amendment by adding at the end, " and the coastwise slave-trade is prohibited for ever." Mr. Col- lamer (Rep.) of Vermont asserted, that, "if it be true that Congress can prohibit the carrying of slaves as articles of commerce from one State to another, they can allow it from one State to another ; and the State cannot prevent it. I say. If they can prohibit it or regulate it, they can allow it and license it ; and no Page 365 State can prevent it. . .' . In my judgment, all laws, I do not care when they are attempted to be made nor when they were made, that undertake to deal with slaves, who are persons under the Constitution and our laws, as articles bf merchandise in any form, under any regulations of trade whatever, are unconstitutional; and I believe to make a law now to prohibit the carrying of slaves from one State to another for sale is totally unauthorized. . . . Therefore, inasmuch as the sections of the law to which our attention is now called, and which it is proposed to repeal, are of that character, and attempt to deal with the subject as of that character, I say, repeal them." Mr. Johnson did not concur in the views expressed by Mr. Collamer; and that senator, on the 25th, replied to his criticisms. Mr. Sumner said, that, " in view of the minute and ample legislation of Congress on the subject of passengers and of the coasting-trade, I submit there can be no question that Congress can go farther, and, by a final regulation, declare, that, in that coasting-trade, there shall be no such thing as the slave-trade." The question, being taken by yeas and nays, resulted — yeas 13, nays 20. So the amendment was lost in Committee of the Whole.

After the Civil Appropriation Bill was reported to the Senate, Mr. Sumner again moved as an additional section to the bill, that sections eight and nine of the act entitled "An Act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord 1808," which sections under take to regulate the coastwise slave-trade, are hereby Page 366 repealed, and the coastwise slave-trade prohibited for ever. " It seems to me," he said, " this Congress will do wrong to itself, wrong to the country, wrong to history, wrong to our national cause, if it separates without clearing the statute-book of every support of slavery. Now, this Is the last support that there is in the statute-book ; and I entreat the Senate to remove it." Mr. Saulsbury (Dem.) of Delaware moved the indefinite postponement of the bill ; and the motion was rejected. Mr. Doolittle (Rep.) of Wisconsin voted against the proposition ; but as other amendments had been put on the bill, and he was in favor of the abolition of the coastwise slave-trade, he should vote for it. The vote was then taken, and resulted — yeas 23, nays 14. So the amendment was agreed to, and the bill approved by the President on the 2d of July, 1864.

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.