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

CHAPTER IV.

THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSITION TO AID STATES IN THE ABOLISHMENT OF SLAVERY.

THE PRESIDENT’S SPECIAL MESSAGE, — MR. ROSCOE CONKLING'S RESOLTION, — MR. RICHARDSON'S SPEECH. — MR. BINGHAM's SPEECH. — MR. VOORHEES' SPEECH. — MR. MALLORY'S SPEECH, — MR. WICKLIFFE'S SPEECH, — MR. DIVEN'S SPEECH. — MR. THOMAS'S SPEECH, — MR. BIDDLE'S SPEECH. — MR. CRISFIELD'S SPEECH. — MR. OLIN'S SPEECH. — MR. CRITTENDEN'S SPEECH, — MR. FISHER'S SPEECH. — MR. HICKMAN'S SPEECH. — PASSAGE OF THE BILL IN THE HOUSE, — IN THE SENATE, THE RESOLUTION REPORTED WITHOUT AMENDMENT BY MR. TRUMBULL, — MR. SAULSBURY'S SPEECH, — MR. DAVIS'S AMENDMENT, — MR. SHERMAN'S SPEECH. — MR. DOOLITTLE'S SPEECH, — MR. WILLEY'S SPEECH, — MR. BROWNING'S SPEECH. — MR. M'DOUGALL'S SPEECH. — MR. POWELL'S SPEECH. — MR. LATHAM'S SPEECH. — MR. MORRILL'S SPEECH. — MR. HENDERSON'S AMENDMENT. — MR. SHERMAN'S SPEECH. — PASSAGE OF THE RESOLUTION.

ON the fifth of March, 1862, the President sent to Congress a special message, in which he said, " I recommend the adoption of a joint resolution by your honorable bodies, which shall be substantially as follows : —

"Resolved, That the United States ought to co-operate 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.

" If the proposition contained in the resolution does not meet the approval of Congress and the country, there is the end ; but, if it does command such approval, Page 80 I deem it of importance that the States and people im mediately interested should be at once distinctly notified of the fact, so that they may begin to consider whether to accept or reject it. The Federal Goverment would find its highest interest in such a measure, as one of the most efficient means of self-preservation. The leaders of the existing insurrection entertain the hope, that this Government will ultimately be forced to acknowledge the independence of some part of the disaffected region, and that all the slave States north of such part will then say, ' The Union for which we . have struggled being already gone, we now choose to go with the Southern section.' To deprive there of this hope, substantially ends the Rebellion ; and the initiation of emancipation completely deprives them of it as to all the States initiating it. The point is, not that all the States tolerating slavery would very soon, if at all, initiate emancipation, but that, while the offer is equally made to all, the more Northern shall, by such initiation, make it certain to the more Southern that in no event will the former ever join the latter in their proposed confederacy. . . . While it is true that the adoption of the proposed resolution would be merely initiatory, and not within itself a practical measure, it is recommended in the hope that it would soon lead to important practical results. In full view of my great responsibility to my God and to my country, I earnestly beg the attention of Congress and the people to the subject."

Mr. Stevens (Rep.) of Pennsylvania moved its reference to the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. On the 10th of March, Mr. Roscoe Conkling (Rep.) of New York asked leave to introduce a joint Page 81 resolution, " That the United States ought to co-operate 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."

Mr. Ben. Wood (Dem.) of New York objected. Mr. Conkling moved the suspension of the rules, to allow him to introduce the resolution, which was the exact resolution recommended by the President; and the rules were suspended, — yeas 86, nays 35. Mr. Grider (Opp.) of Kentucky remarked, that he had not decided whether he should vote for the resolution or not. Mr. Wadsworth (Opp.) differed from his col league : he was now ready to vote against the resolution. Mr. Conkling moved the previous question : lost, — ayes 61, noes 68. Mr. Richardson (Dem.) of Illinois opposed the resolution. His " people were not prepared to enter upon the proposed work of pur chasing the slaves of other people, and turning them loose in their midst." Mr. Bingham (Rep.) of Ohio said," This proposition interferes with no right of any State by intendment or otherwise." Mr. Wickliffe (Opp.) of Kentucky asked Mr. Bingham to tell him under "what clause of the Constitution he finds the power in Congress to appropriate the treasure of the United States to buy negroes, or to set them free." — " I took occasion in January last," replied Mr. Bingham, " to remind the House of the words of the Father of the Constitution, uttered in the hearing of the listening nation when the Constitution was under consideration for adoption or rejection, that the power conferred Page 82 upon the National Legislature by the grant of the Constitution, for the common defence, had no limitation upon it, express or implied, save the public necessity, and that their laws should not conflict with the general spirit and purpose of the Constitution ; viz. , the protection of the lives, liberty, and property of its loyal citizens. If the gentleman will pardon me, I beg leave to remind him again of the words of Madison, that ' it is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation : it is worse than in vain.'" — "I have," declared Mr. Voorhees (Dem.) of Indiana, " taken my stand, in the name of the people I represent, against It. If there is any Border slave State man here who is in doubt whether he wants his State to sell its slaves to this Goverment or not, I represent a people that is in no doubt as to whether they want to become the purchasers. It takes two to make a bar gain ; and I repudiate, once and for ever, for the people whom I represent on this floor, any part or parcel in such a contract," Mr. Mallory (Dem.) of Kentucky wanted the resolution postponed, to give the representatives from the Border States an opportunity for consultation, " We have," he said, " agreed on the time and the manner of consultation." Mr. Diven (Rep.) of New York " hailed the introduction of this resolution, coming as it did from the Executive of the country, as a bow of hope and promise," Mr. Thomas (Opp.) of Massachusetts " intended to vote for the resolution ; but I do not understand, as gentlemen seem to intimate frequently on the floor of this House, that the House is to follow the beck of the President, or any member of the Administration. It has its duties to discharge Page 83 as well as the President. This House is to initiate a policy, and not the President of the United States ; it is to take the responsibility as well as the President ; and therefore it is to discuss and deliberate before it decides or votes." Mr. Stevens said, "I have read it over ; and I confess I have not been able to see what makes one side so anxious to pass it, or the other side so anxious to defeat it. I think it is about the most diluted, milk-and-water-gruel proposition that was ever given to the American nation."

On the llth of March, Mr. Wickliffe opposed the resolution and the policy of emancipation. Mr. Diven appealed to the representatives of the Border States. " I ask," he said, " those men of the Border States to come up and stand by us who are loyal to them, and who have testified to them our desire to maintain to them the possession of all their rights. Stand by the President, who has never had a thought of violating one of your constitutional rights. I appeal to these men ; I appeal to all who would rally round the President in his desire — in his honest, earnest desire — to bring this country out from this fiery ordeal unscathed, with every star upon her flag undimmed." Mr. Biddle (Dem.) of Pennsylvania said, "If you review this subject from the adoption of the present Constitution down to the present day, — and it is a review I do not intend to inflict upon the House at the present moment, — if you review the subject, you will find, that, while State action has always been beneficent. Federal action has always been pernicious, exasperative, and, as I think, unconstitutional," — "I concede, and it gives are pleasure to concede," said Mr. Crisfield (Opp.) of Maryland, "that Page 84 the President of the United States, in making this offer to the country, is actuated by a spirit of patriotism, I can understand that he offers it to the people of the slave States to produce some harmony on the agitating question of slavery, which has disturbed the whole country, I give him entire credit for honesty and good faith," Mr. Olin (Rep,) of New York inquired, " What is this resolution, in its whole scope and ex tent? Why, simply, that, if you gentlemen of the slave States are willing to get rid of slavery, the General Government will aid you to do it by giving you a compensation for any loss that you may sustain ; and, although I am not worth much, God knows I would divide my last crust of bread to aid our Southern friends to get rid of slavery, and let us live in peace and harmony together. I have not a great deal ; but, thank God I what there is of it has been earned by honest industry; and I would cheerfully divide it to aid you, gentlemen, in accomplishing that object. If these gentlemen say, ' We cannot afford to make the sacrifice of manumitting our slaves,' the President says, ' Very well : the General Government will aid you to accomplish it.' That is the magnanimous, the great, the God-like policy of the Administration." Mr. Critten den (Opp.) of Kentucky opposed the resolution. "I avow my confidence," he declared, " in the integrity of the President, I avow my confidence in his purity of intention, I believe he means right ; and it affords me pleasure to concur with him in most of the measures recommended by him : but I regret that in this my conscience and judgment will not permit it, I believe the President would not, as he says he would not, interfere.

Page 85 He would leave it to the choice of the States to say whether they will enter upon the policy of emancipation or not ; but do not I know, that although the President will abstain from interfering, so far as he is concerned, there are many others, who, knowing it is a favorite policy of his, desiring themselves to be in his favor, would stir up an emancipation party in Missouri, in Maryland, and in Delaware, — I will not now speak of my own State, — simply from that motive ? " Mr. Fisher (Ind.) of Delaware declared his intention to vote for the resolution. Mr. Hickman (Rep.) of Pennsylvania said, " The resolution is rather a palliative and caution than an open and avowed policy ; it is rather an excuse for non-action than an avowed determination to act. Neither the message nor the resolution is manly and open. They are both covert and insidious. They do not become the dignity of the President of the United States. The message is not such a document as a full-grown, independent man should publish to the nation at such a time as the present, when positions should be freely and fully defined. , , . I know no great diversity of opinion among men whose interests are identified with slavery, I have never been able to discover a difference in views or feelings between a man from Maryland and a man from South Carolina or Alabama, I have found, wherever the negro is, there is an undivided loyalty to slavery; and every day's proceedings here show it, — conclusively show it. Every fair-minded man cannot but admit it. The President knows it ; the Cabinet knows it ; and therefore the difficulty which the President has had for a long time in dealing with this Rebellion,

Page 86 Mr. Lincoln has found himself between two swords, — the sword of the party looking to a particular policy to be pursued towards a rebellion springing from slavery ; and the sword in the hands of the Border States, who insist all the time that the war shall be prosecuted in such a way as to save their peculiar, divine, and humanizing institution." The question was taken on laying the resolution on the table, — yeas 34, nays 81. Mr. Wickliffe of Kentucky demanded the yeas and nays on the passage of the resolution, — yeas 89, nays 31, as follows : —

Yeas, — Messrs. Aldrich, Arnold, Ashley, Babbitt, Baker, Baxter, Beaman, Bingham, Francis P. Blair, Jacob B. Blair, Samuel S. Blair, Blake, William G. Brown, Buffinton, Campbell, Chamberlin, Clements, Colfax, Frederick A. Conkling, Roscoe Conkling, Conway, Covode, Cutler, Davis, Delano, Diven, Duell, Dunn, Edgerton, Edwards, Eliot, Ely, Fessenden, Fisher, Franchot, Frank, Gooch, Goodwin, Granger, Haight, Hale, Harrison, Hickman, Hooper, Horton, Hutchins, Julian, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, William Kellogg, Killinger, Lansing, Loomis, Lovejoy, M'Knight, M'Pherson, Mitchell, Moorhead, Anson P. Morrill, Justin S, Morrill, Nixon, Olin, Patton, Timothy G, Phelps, Pike, Pomeroy, Porter, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Riddle, Edward H, Rollins, Sargent, Shanks, Sheffield, Shellabarger, Sloan, Stratton, Train, Trowbridge, Van Valkenburgh, Verree, Wallace, Charles W. Walton, E, P. Walton, Whaley, Albert S. White, Wilson, Windom, and Worcester, — 89.

Nays. — Messrs. Ancona, Joseph Baily, Biddle, Corning, Cox, Cravens, Crisfield, Crittenden, Dunlap, English, Harding, Johnson, Knapp, Law, Leary, Noble, Norton, Pendleton, Perry, Richardson, Robinson, Shiel, John B, Steele, Francis Thomas, Voorhees, Wads worth, Ward, Chilton A. White, Wickliffe, Wood, and Woodruff, — 31.

So the joint resolution passed the House of Representatives.

In the Senate, on the 20th of March, Mr. Trumbull (Rep.) of Illinois, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the joint resolution of the House Page 87 of Representatives, declaring that Congress ought to co-operate with, affording pecuniary aid to, any State which may adopt the gradual abolishment of slavery, reported back the joint resolution, with a recommendation that it pass. Mr. Trumbull asked the Senate to put the resolution on its passage ; but Mr. Powell (Dem.) of Kentucky objected, and it went over under the rale. On the 24th, on motion of Mr. Trumbull, the Senate proceeded, as in Committee of the Whole, to consider the joint resolution of the House, declaring that Congress ought to co-operate with and afford pecuniary aid to any State which may adopt the gradual abolishment of slavery.

Mr. Saulsbury (Dem.) of Delaware pronounced it to be " the most extraordinary resolution that was ever introduced into an American Congress ; extraordinary in its origin ; extraordinary in reference to the source from whence it proceeds ; extraordinary in the object which it contemplates ; mischievous in its tendency : and I am not at all sure that it is anywise patriotic, even in its design."

Mr. Davis (Opp.) of Kentucky moved an amendment, as a substitute for the resolution, to strike out all after the word " that," and insert, " although the whole subject of slavery in the States is exclusively within the jurisdiction and cognizance of the government and people of the States respectively having slaves, and cannot be interfered with directly or indirectly by the Goverment of the United States, yet, when any of those States or their people may determine to emancipate their slaves, the United States will pay a reason able price for the slaves they may emancipate, and the Page 88 cost of their colonization in some other country." Mr. Sherman (Rep.) of Ohio did "not see any substantial difference between the resolution framed by the President and the resolution as proposed by the senator from Kentucky ; but he should vote for it as framed by the President." — "I admit," replied Mr. Davis, that "the general principle both of the original resolution and of the substitute in the same," Mr. Doolittle (Rep,) of Wisconsin said, " As I understand it, the resolution suggested by the President covers two ideas, — first, emancipation by the States at their own pleasure, in their own way, either immediate or gradual ; and, second, the idea of colonization, a thing believed to be necessary to go along side by side with emancipation by nine-tenths of the people of the States interested, and without which they declare emancipation impossible," Mr. Willey (Union) of Virginia " could not withhold the expression of his regret that the President has deemed it to be his duty to make such a proposition to Congress ; but be should vote for it, not without hesitation, not without deepest regret." Mr. Browning (Rep,) of Illinois supported the original resolution, Mr. M'Dougall (Dem,) of California denied " the right of the Senate to impose upon the people on the shores of the Pacific a tax for the purpose of emancipating the slaves of Kentucky, Missouri, or Maryland." — "I regard," said Mr. Powell, "the whole thing, so far as the slave States are concerned, as a pill of arsenic, sugar-coated." He thought the language of the President's message was very artfully and cautiously couched ; but the intimation was in it, that, if we did not accept this proposition, the Government would take our slaves Page 89 anyhow. " I happened," he said, " a few nights ago, through curiosity, to go to the Smithsonian Institution, to hear a man of some distinction as an orator and lecturer in this country. I took my seat in the gallery ; and there I heard this man, Wendell Philips, for half an hour ; and he distinctly announced, after eulogizing the President very highly for this message, that the interpretation of It was simply saying to the Border slave State men, 'Gentlemen, if you do not take this, we will take your negroes anyhow,'" — "I am," said Mr. Latham (Dem.) of California, "very free to Say, that I believe the motive which prompted the sending of this resolution by the President to Congress to be a proper and patriotic one ; . , , but I am not prepared, as a representative of one of the States on the Pacific coast, to pledge the people thereof to submit to any kind of taxation that the Goverment may see fit to impose in a general scheme of emancipation," — "I am," said Mr. Morrill (Rep.) of Maine, "greatly surprised at the course of this debate. I had supposed it was possible for somebody In some way to allude to the subject of slavery, without eliciting indignation, or without rendering it a subject for discussion, for latitudinarian discussion, for discussion in various directions, for discussion in which gentlemen must think it necessary to define their positions. , , , I cannot conceive that such a proposition as that is offensive, or can possibly be offensive, to any man or any class of men who have not made up their minds, that, above all things, — Constitution, country, every thing, — they hold slavery to be supreme. They will stand on that, no matter what becomes of the country. They will not Page 90 only resist all legislation on the subject, but they will treat with scorn and contempt every invitation to consider the subject. That is the attitude in which senators place themselves here. They are indignant that the President of the United States proposes that these States in their own way shall consider whether it is not expedient to get rid in the future of the cause of our present troubles." The question was taken on Mr. Davis's amendment ty yeas and nays, — yeas 4, nays 34.

On the 27th, Mr. Henderson (Union) of Missouri offered an amendment, to insert at the end of the resolution the following proviso : " That nothing herein contained shall be construed to imply a willingness on the part of Congress that any of the States now composing the Union shall be permitted to withdraw permanently their allegiance to the Goverment; but it is hereby declared to be the duty of the country to prosecute the war until the Constitution shall have been restored over every State professing to have acceded." Mr. Henderson advocated his amendment, and avowed his intention to vote for the resolution. " I regard it," he said, " as no insult to the people of my State ; I regard it as no threat : but I regard it as a measure that is conciliatory, and looks to the future peace and harmony of the country, and to the early restoration of the Union. If this spirit had been more largely cultivated in days gone by, we would not this day be forced to witness a ruined South and a deeply oppressed North. Why, sir, ninety-six days of this war would pay for every slave, at full value. In the States of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Page 91 Columbia." Mr. Henderson's amendment was rejected,

Mr. Sherman, on the 2d of April, made an elaborate speech in favor of the joint resolution, and of the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and in favor of enacting "the most rigid law of confiscation against the leaders of the Rebellion."

The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading ; and was read the third time, at length, as follows: "Resolved, &c. That the United States ought to cooperate with any State which may adopt the 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,"

Mr. Saulsbury called for the yeas and nays on the passage of the resolution, and they were ordered ; and, being taken, resulted — yeas 32, nays 10 — as follows : —

Yeas. — Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Henderson, Howard, Howe, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sherman, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Thomson, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Willey, Wilmot, and Wilson of Massachusetts, — 32.

Nays. — Messrs. Bayard, Carlile, Kennedy, Latham, Nesmith, Powell, Saulsbury, Stark, Wilson of Missouri, and Wright, — 10.

So the joint resolution was passed in the Senate, and received the approval of the President on the 10th of April, 1862.

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.