IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, February 10, 1863.Mr. DOUGLASS, by direction of the select committee to whom was referred the bill S. 48, reported as a substitute therefor, [110] a bill creating the 14th Judicial District, and to provide for the appointment and election of a Prosecuting Attorney and Judge therein, and for holding the terms of the Court therein, &c., which was read the first time.
ARMING OF NEGROES.
Mr. COBB, from the Committee on federal Relations, reported back his joint resolution 10, relative to the enlisting and arming of negroes, with a recommendation that it pass.
Mr. MARCH moved to amend so as to strike out the words " the people of Indiana have declared against any interference with slavery." He said the preamble of these resolutions contained what was not a historical fact: "that the people of Indiana had over and again decided against interfering with slavery."
Mr. WILLIAMS. What was the expression on the 4th of October last?
Mr. MARCH. What was decided at the October election was that the people didn't think the war was prosecuted with sufficient vigor. While the people of Indiana were against interference with slavery in time of peace, they had never said that they were not in favor of using negroes as instruments to cripple the rebellion, He recited the history of the late political canvass, and said there were many who voted the Democratic ticket who thought its success would help on the war. They thought they would try the old Democracy, that had conquered under the lead of Jackson. He did not think any large portion of the people of Indiana were in favor of a dissolution of the Union.
Mr. WOLFE and Mr. COBB. " Nor do we think so."
Mr. COBB asked if the gentleman was in favor of taking the slaves of loyal men from their owners, and destroying their rights of property in such slaves.
Mr. MARCH disclaimed such intention, and contended that the slaves of loyal owners South were better protected under this Government than they would be under any other Government on earth.
Mr. COBB. Would not the slaves of even loyal owners who might be enlisted in the 150,000 troops sought to be raised be free for all time ?
Mr. MARCH admitted they would. If the South would lay down their arms, and come back, he would receive them as erring sisters, and give them all proper guarantees tor their rights in the future.
Mr. COBB would not attempt to argue the general proposition with the Senator. It would be useless. He would confine himself to the point in the amendment. He denied the assertion that the people were not opposed to the interference with slavery in the prosecution of the war. The first of June convention, of which the gentleman was a member disclaimed all intention of Interfering with slavery, and men of all parties were invited to join them in that platform. The 8th of January convention was explicit on that subject. How can men now say or assume that the people of Indiana would favor such a measure as that before Congress, to arm 150,000 negroes, and make them the equals of our sons and brothers in the field. He contended that the speeches and writings of the leaders of the Republican party all tended to establish negro equality. He spoke plainly, and with great force on this branch of the subject.
Mr. MARCH said that if the resolution was worded so as to declare that the people of the State were opposed to any interference with slavery in the States in time of peace, he would make no opposition to it, for he had never been in favor of any such interference. But in time of war, when other things were being trampled down, he couldn't understand why slavery should be held more sacred then all else. The resolution committed the Legislature to the doctrine that the slaves of rebels should not be interfered with. He wouldn't touch the property of loyal slaveholders, and was not for prosecuting the war simply to destroy slavery, nor did he believe that to be the policy of the Administration; but if, during the progress of the war, slav- page: 130[View Page 130] ery received a side blow, those rebels who were to become the sufferers should receive no sympathy from loyal men. He denied that the Republican party declared in their Convention that they were not in favor of interfering with slavery. They declared that they were in favor of the war to restore the States with all their original rights unimpaired.
Mr. WOLFE. The gentleman has been striving to pick a flaw in the resolution, and with all his zeal he has only found one in the second line, that'the people of Indiana were opposed to interfering with slavery. He had no doubt that three-fourths of the people of Indiana were so opposed. The Democratic party always had been of that opinion, and a large portion of the Republican party still adhered to the declaration of Mr. Lincoln--that he had not the desire or the constitutional right to interfere with slavery. He did not believe that the mess of that party had become speedily Abolitionized. He did not believe that any considerable portion of the people of Indiana were in favor of a violation of the Constitution.
Mr. BROWN, of Wells, moved to lay the amendment on the table.
The yeas and nays were demanded, and being ordered and taken resulted-- yeas 25, nays 19--as follows :
YEAS--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, of Wells, Cobb, Corbin, Davis, of Cass, Douglass, Dunning. Ferguson, Finch, Fuller, Gaff, Gifford, Graves, Hartley, Hoagland, Hord, Jenkins, Johnston, McClurg, Moore, Ray, Shields, Williams, Wilson, and Wolfe-- 25.
NAYS--Messrs. Bearss, Beeson, Berry, Blair, Browne, of Randolph, Campbell, Claypool, Culver, Davis, of Parke, Dickinson, Graves, Grubb, March, Mellett, Murray, New, Reed, and Wright--19.
So the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. CLAYPOOL moved to amend the last resolution by adding the words "and that they use their influence in favor of the passage of any and all measures looking to the vigorous prosecution of the war for the maintenance of the Union, the enforcement of the laws,and the suppression of the rebellion."
Mr. RAY moved to amend the amendment by adding, "and with the distinct understanding that the war shall be prosecuted only for the purpose of crushing out rebellion, restoring the Union, maintaining the Constitution, enforcing the laws and securing American liberty ; and not for any sectional, political, or anti-slavery purpose."
Mr. CLAYPOOL accepted the amendment.
Mr. WOLFE moved to further amend by adding, and provided that it shall be the duty of the President to immediately with draw his Emancipation Proclamation."
Mr. MARCH contended that the amendment to the amendment was not germain to the question. The Joint Resolution instructs Senators to vote on a certain question, and this advises the President to do a certain act.
The PRESIDENT (Mr. Johnston in the Chair) decided the amendment to the amendment in order.
Mr. NEW made an ineffectual motion to lay the amendment to the amendment on the table--yeas 18, nays 24.
The amendment to the amendment was then adopted by yeas 24, nays 18--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, of Wells, Cobb, Corbin, Davis, of Cass, Douglass, Dunning, Ferguson, Finch, Fuller, Gaff, Gifford, Hartley, Hoagland, Hord, Jenkins, Johnston, McClurg, Moore, Ray, Shields, Williams, Wilson and Wolfe--24.
NAYS--Messrs. Bearss, Beeson, Berry, Blair, Brown, of Randolph, Campbell, Claypool, Culver, Davis of Parke, Dickinson, Graves, Grubb, March, Mellett, Murray, New, Reed, and Wright--18.
Mr. MARCH was in favor of a portion of the amendment and opposed to another portion. He deprecated the discussion of matters such as these, as such discussions embarrassed the Administration in the prosecution of the war. As well might, regiments discuss the orders of a commander.
Mr. DUNNING (Mr. Johnston in the chair) was in hopes that these several amendments would prove a common ground, where we could all stand. He regretted to hear the gentleman from, Delaware (Mr. March) oppose it, and for the reasons given. Who was it that raised the issues?--not the Democratic party, but the President himself, the chief of the gentleman's own party. He had made the strongest argument ever made against the foolish proclamation, and yet in a few days after, he gives notice that he would issue it, and, after a large portion of the people had expressed themselves against it, he issues his proclamation. He built the windmill the gentleman speaks of. His acts were open to criticism, and he should be compelled to withdraw his foolish proclamation, That "bull against the comet" made a unit of the people of the South, and divided the people of the North. Its effect was wicked. It crushed out every particle of Union sentiment in the South. He ably and eloquently advocated the passage of the resolution as amended.
Mr. BROWNE, of Randolph, said that the proclamation contained nothing that could be construed as an interference with the legal existence of slavery in any of the States. It said that the slaveholder in rebellion should lose his right to hold his slave. But this would not prevent slaves being held after the rebellion in such States as recognized the institution. If the President, by an edict, had attempted to repeal existing laws on the subject, then he would have exercised an unconstitutional power. The Constitution gave the rebel the right to his life, but we had deprived him of it ; it gave him the right to property, but we had deprived him of that. page: 131[View Page 131] yet this did not take from any rebel the right to be protected in life and property in time of peace. He defended the policy and justice of the proclamation gs a military measure, and believed it would be found of practical utility, and ought not to be recalled.
Mr. SHIELDS. Does the gentleman contend that the slave of the loyal master is not affected by the proclamation in the States covered by it?
Mr BROWNE, of Randolph. It does not affect the system.
Mr. WOLFE. What difference is there between striking down the tenure and striking out the property held under that tenure?
Mr. BROWNE, of Randolph. If you strike down the tenure, you deprive the party of all power to acquire property in the future. This was the difference.
Mr. COBB asked the Senator if the proclamation did not strike the loyal slaveholder? The confiscation act and the article of war under it already had forfeited their right to property in slaves.
Mr. SHIELDS. While the gentleman is answering, will he tall us how the proclamation would deprive the rebellion off support when the President admonished the slaves to remain and work for their masters? What difference to us, in the light of supplies to the rebellion, whether the slave worked for wages or for food and clothing?
Mr. BROWNE, of Randolph, did not profess to understand the operations of the confiscation act, but this he knew, that law was a dead letter in the revolted States, and the disloyal men could not be reached. He then took a general view of the question, and closed with an appeal to hold up the hands of the President in his efforts to crush out the rebellion.
Mr. DOUGLASS moved to further amend so as to add, "and provided further that if the propositions made by the Legislatures of the different States fail to effect an honorable settlement or compromise between the Federal Government and the seceded States."
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. MELLETT spoke as one who had no reverence or love for any party in existence. He believed that with the close of the rebellion both the Democratic and Republican parties would go down. Partyism he believed had been the ruin of the country. It was proposed by the amendment adopted to favor a vigorous prosecution of the war. provided the President would withdraw his emancipation proclamation: otherwise the war ought not to be prosecuted with vigor. He had always been in favor of prosecuting the war without reference to slavery, one way or the other, and not with a view to either interfere with or protect that institution. He had not been of those who had insisted that the army ought not to proceed an inch until a proclamation was issued, nor of those who were always clamoring against the war because negroes were allowed to enter the camps. He was not for prosecuting the war in such a way as to aid any party, but for the sole purpose of putting down the rebellion, and securing an honorable peace. He might consent to join in a request to the President to withdraw his proclamation, but if he should fail to regard such a request, he would not declare that the war should be no longer prosecuted with vigor. It had been said that the war could not be prosecuted with a view to its successful close as long as the proclamation was before the people, but no good reason had been offered to sustain this proposition. The war ought to be prosecuted, or it ought not; and if it ought to be prosecuted, it was worth sustaining by all means, without any conditions whatever. He and others knew that there were men in both parties who had injured the Government by making different conditions for their support of it. There were, also, traitors in the land, and had been since the war ; and he regarded, all who threw obstructions in the way of the prosecution of the war, by different modes of embarrassing the Government, as traitors. If the views of extremists were to be listened to and adopted, never-ending difficulty would be the result, and the Government brought to utter ruin. He saw no hope of peace and wanted no peace until we could conquer the rebellion.
Mr. RAY had sufficiently shown his disposition to lay aside party for country.-- Two years ago he had advocated measures, as he thought, vital to the interest of his country, and then he was met with the same withering retort that the gentleman makes now--that those who do not stand shoulder to shoulder with him are disloyal. This was the taunt with which true-hearted men were met. Men were not suffered to differ on measures of policy with the Administration. He had no speech on record that he would wish to take back. If the proclamation was an act of the President--a civil act--it was a bold and daring usurpation. If as a military measure, as the act of the Commander-in-Chief, the case was different; but even so it was nugatory, as gentlemen admitted. He would go further, and say that it was disastrous. It united the South as one man, and brought a million of men to the Rebel standard, and it divided the North, and would continue to divide it. The belief existed that the war was diverted from, its avowed purpose at the start,and this sentiment was wide spread and deep rooted. It was not an effective war measure. It united the South. They would dispute every inch of ground and burn every blade of grass behind them. Would it nerve any page: 132[View Page 132] Union soldier's arm ? Would it cheer him on his bed of death ? It would not. He did not defend the Rebels. If he had his way, he would wipe rebellion out, and slavery with it, if need be. He did not sympathize with slavery, but we have a country North to care for. Gentlemen said the slaves would not come North.-- Then what good does the proclamation do ? As a measure of philanthropy what is the effect ? Are we to bring a vagabond population here to curse our own country, and not benefit the degraded race ? The gentleman from Henry (Mr. Mellett) might not like the resolution now, but he had to thank members from his own side for the condition it was now in. The amendment now under discussion was called forth by amendments tacked on by members from his side of the chamber. If the emancipation proclamation is to have any effect as a military measure, it is to stir up servile insurrection, and produce a night of horrors that will shock the Christian world, but he did not think it would have any such effect. He thought it was nugatory as a military measure, and mischievous otherwise.
He read from the BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS as to his position on the war at that time, and the views expressed by other Senators at the same time. He then deprecated a war for slavery, while he supported with all his ability the supply of means to enforce the laws ana restore the integrity of the Government.
Mr. MARCH said that the (Senator had answered his own speech by admitting that the proclamation would prove to be ineffective, and would not produce insurrections. If the statements of those who attacked the proclamation were correct they were fighting a man of straw, for they had declared that it was a nullity, and could have no force or effect. They admitted that a military commander could accomplish ail that it was claimed the proclamation could effect. The latter was preferable because it was more public, and it was nothing but a military order from the Commander-in-Chief of the Army. If it was proper to condemn one military order, it would be equally proper to condemn others, and, believing that such a course would not aid in putting down the rebellion, he was opposed to it. It only tended to divide and distract the people and weaken the national cause. He believed that the impression that the proclamation had been detrimental to the army existed only in the imaginations of Senators and the wishes of Northern traitors. Senators reckoned without their host if they calculated that the late elections had decided that the people meant to give up the war until it should result in suppressing the rebellion. The Southern slaveholders had divided the Democratic party because they could not control it ; they had divided the country because they could not control it, and they were now fighting the Government because they could not control it. And if these were to be the only sufferers from the war, why should loyal men complain ?
Mr. COBB. If the proclamation was ineffective, as gentlemen contended, it should be withdrawn. Why keep an ineffective law on the statute book ? But he differed with gentlemen in their views of its being inoperative. He believed that the President intended to enforce the proclamation wherever he could do it. Suppose it is made effective at the point of the bayonet, and three millions of a degraded race will be turned loose upon the now happy people of the North. The public mind is being educated to the point of receiving this vagabond population. Already the intimation was given that the 13th article of our constitution was in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. He contended forcibly that, the proclamation was leveled at the loyal men of the South, The confiscation bill and the articles of war had already confiscated the slaves of rebels, and why add the proclamation to embitter the South. War, it was said, was waged for peace, but the proclamation meant war, and nothing but, war. Let every Rebel lay down his arms to-day, and while this proclamation was in force, peace could not spread its sunshine over the land. He had no sympathy with the rebellion--not a particle--but he owed a duty to himself and his posterity. Senators would not allow us to judge of what is a military necessity, but we must blindly follow whatever they choose to proclaim as a "necessity." The Senator from Henry (Mr. Mellett), and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. March) would compel us to submit to anything, and everything, the President might choose to order, even to the enslaving of ourselves. He took a financial view of the question. If the Government should be restored, as he trusted to God it would be, with all the rights and privileges of the States unimpaired, he would be in favor of the South paying her share of the war debt. He would not rob them of their negroes, but when the tax-gather went round he would tax them on their value for the debt now creating. He replied to the arguments of the Senator from Randolph (Mr. Browne) that the proclamation did not destroy the system of slavery, or interfere with its tenure. It was like taking a man's life, and admitting that he still had a legal tenure to live. What good would that be to him ? But to return to the main question. The tendency of arming the negroes was to demoralize the army. It was to equalize the races. If a negro regiment should be effective in the field, it would be quoted on. all occasions, and the cry would be raised that so gallant a race should not be de- page: 133[View Page 133] prived of the rights of franchise, and all other-rights possessed by white men, It was an admission, also, that we were incapable of success without the aid of the blacks, and on that score he felt it his duty to protest against the measure.
Mr. CLAYPOOL had listened for some denunciation of the rebellion, but he had listened in vain.
Mr. RAY. Did the gentleman pay attention to the remarks of the Senator from Shelby ? (Mr. Ray.)
Mr. CLAYPOOL did, and heard something said, but the general tenor was of complaint against the Administration. The cry had been "green backs," millions of debt," "negro equality," "military arrests, " proclamations," and such expressions. We had been told that not another man nor another dollar should be given for this war. If the Democratic party would come forward and unite for a vigorous prosecution of the war, and agree to favor the further increase of white soldiers, there would be no use for negro soldiers. But if they failed to do this, he was for arming the negroes, and for one he would rather fight by the side of a negro soldier who was loyal, than by the side of the whitest Democratic traitor in the country.
