posed" further action to the same | bill; which provided for the Aboli 12 end; and the Senate considered " his resolution of inquiry. Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, in supporting it, made a statement as follows: "In the month of February last, an officer of the 3d regiment of Iowa infantry, stationed at a small town in Missouri, suc ceeded in capturing several Rebel bridgeburners, and some recruiting officers belonging to Price's army. The information that led to their capture was furnished by two or three remarkably shrewd and intelligent slaves, claimed by a Lt.-Colonel in the Rebel army. Shortly afterward, the master dispatched an agent, with instructions to seize the slaves, and convey them within the Rebel lines: whereupon, the Iowa officer 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 attempt ed an escape. This was regarded as an unpardonable sin. The Iowa officer was immediately placed under arrest; and a detach ment 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." Mr. Sumner followed in an able speech in advocacy; but the subject was overlaid by others deemed more urgent; and the bill was not conclusively acted on. 13 At an early period of the session, Gen. Wilson had proposed a reference of all laws relating to persons of color in the District of Columbia, and to the arrest of fugitives from labor, to the Standing Committee on said District, with instructions that they consider the expediency of a compensated Abolition of Slavery therein; and he soon afterward introduced" a bill of like purport; which was read twice and referred ' to the Committee aforesaid. Mr. Morrill, of Maine, duly reported from said Committee Gen. Wilson's 15 16 tion of Slavery in the District, and the payment to the masters from the Treasury of an average compensation of $300 each for the slaves thus manumitted. The bill was so amended as to abolish also the Black Laws of said District. Mr. G. Davis, of Ky., bitterly opposed the bill; proposing so to amend it as to send out of the country all persons freed thereby; which was ardently supported by Mr. Saulsbury, of Del. Mr. Doolittle (Repub.), of Wisc., favored colonizing the freedmen, but moved to add "with their own consent;" which prevailed-Yeas 23; Nays 16-and Mr. Davis's proposition, as thus amended, was lost by a tie vote-19 to 19; and the emancipating billafter having been ably supported by Messrs. Wilmot, of Pa., Hale, of N. H., Pomeroy, of Kansas (against paying the masters), King, of N. Y., Wilson, of Mass., Harlan, of Iowa, Wilkinson, of Minn., Sumner, of Mass., Fessenden, of Maine, Browning, of Ill., and Morrill, of Maine, and further opposed by Messrs. Wright (Union), of Ind., Willey, West Va. (who wished the question of Emancipation submitted to a popular vote of the District), Kennedy, of Md., McDougall, of Cal., and Bayard, of Del.--was passed:" Yeas 29; Nays 14-as follows: of YEAS― Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Howard, Howe, King, Lane, of Ind., Lane, of Kansas, Morrill, Pomeroy, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilmot, and Wilson, of Sherman, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Mass.-29. NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Carlile, Davis, Nesmith, Powell, Saulsbury, Stark, Willey, Henderson, Kennedy, Latham, McDougall, Wilson, of Mo., and Wright-14. 1 April 3. 12 April 14. is Dec. 14. 14 Dec. 16. 15 Dec. 22. 16 Feb. 13. 17 April 3. LINCOLN PROPOSES AID TO EMANCIPATION. 18 This bill having reached the House, Mr. Stevens, of Pa., in Committee of the Whole, moved the laying aside successively of each bill preceding it on the calendar, and thus reached this one; which was taken up and debated by Judge Thomas, of Mass., and Mr. Crittenden, of Ky., in opposition. Mr. Stevens tried to close the debate next day, but failed; and the bill was advocated by Messrs. F. P. Blair, of Mo., Bingham, Blake, Riddle, Ashley, and Hutchins, of Ohio, Rollins, of N. H., and Van Horn, of N. Y. Mr. Stevens at length induced the Committee to rise and report the bill; when the measure was further opposed by Messrs. H. B. Wright, of Pa., Wadsworth, Harding, Menzies, and Wickliffe, of Ky., and supported by Messrs. Hickman, of Pa., Train, of Mass., Lovejoy, of Ill., Dunn, of Ind., Cox and Vallandigham, of Ohio; and passed under the Previous Question: Yeas 92; Nays 39. [Messrs. G. H. Browne, of R. I., English, of Conn., Haight and Odell, of N. Y., Sheffield, of R. I., and B. F. Thomas, of Mass., voted Yea with the Republicans; while Messrs. J. B. Blair and Wm. G. Brown, of Va., James S. Rollins, of Mo., and Francis Thomas, of Md., voted Nay with the Democrats and Kentuckians.] The bill, thus passed on the 11th, was signed by the President on the 16th of April, 1862." President Lincoln made his first overt, yet cautious, demonstration 18 April 10. 19 Some of the anomalies of the slaveholding system were brought to light in the execution of this measure. For instance; while it had long been usual for White men to sell their parti-colored children, there were no known precedents for a like thrifty procedure on the 259 against Slavery as the main cause of our subsisting troubles in a Special Message," which proposed that the Houses of Congress should unite in adopting this joint resolution : Resolved, That the United States, in oradopt gradual abolition of Slavery, give to der to cooperate with any State which may such State pecuniary aid, to be used by such State, in its discretion, to compensate it for the inconvenience, public and private, produced by such change of system." This proposition he commended in these guarded and deferential terms: "If the proposition contained in the resolution does not meet the approval of Congress and the country, there is an end of it. But, if it does command such approval, I deem it of importance that the States and people immediately 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 Government would find its highest interest in such a measure, as one of the most important means of selfRebellion entertain the hope that this Govpreservation. The leaders of the existing ernment 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 them of this hope substantially ends the Rebellion; and the initiation of Emancipainitiating it. tion deprives them of it, and of all the States "The point is not that all the States tolerating Slavery would very soon, if at all, initiate Emancipation; but, 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 part of Blacks; but U. S. Treasurer Spinner was waited on by a District negro (free), who had bought and paid for his (slave) wife, and who required payment not only for her but for their half-dozen children-all his legal and salable chattels-and the claim could not be disallowed. 20 March 6, 1862. my country, I earnestly beg the attention | Sherman, of Ohio, Doolittle, of of Congress and the people to the subject." Wisc., Browning, of Ill., and Morrill, of Maine, also advocated the measure; and it passed "-Yeas 32 (including Davis, of Ky., Henderson, of Mo., Thomson [Dem.], of N. J., and Willey, of Va.); Nays-Messrs. Mr. Stevens, of Pa., having moved and carried a reference of this Message by the House to a Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, and Mr. R. Conkling, of N. Y., hav- | Bayard and Saulsbury, of Del., Kening moved"1 the resolve above recom-nedy, of Md., Carlile, of Va., Powell, mended, a debate sprung up thereon; of Ky., Wilson, of Mo., Wright, of which is notable only as developing N. J., Latham, of Cal., Nesmith and the repugnance of the Unionists of the Stark, of Oregon. It is noteworthy Border Slave States, with that of the that a majority of these Nays were Democrats of all the States, to com- the votes of Senators from Border pensated or any other Emancipation. States, to which it proffered compenMessrs. Wadsworth, Mallory, Wick-sation for their slaves, all whom have liffe, and Crittenden, of Ky., and Crisfield, of Md., spoke for the former; Messrs. Richardson, of Ill., Voorhees, of Ind., Biddle, of Pa., for the latter. All the Republicans who spoke supported the proposition; though Messrs. Stevens and Hickman, of Pa., characterized it as timid, temporizing, and of small account. It passed the House 22 by 89 Yeas (Republicans, West Virginians, and a few others not strictly partisans) to 31 Nays (including Crisfield, Leary, and Francis Thomas, of Md., with Crittenden, Dunlap, Harding, Wadsworth, and Wickliffe, of Ky.-the rest Democrats). 23 The resolve having reached the Senate and been duly referred, Mr. Trumbull, of Ill., reported "3 it favorably from the Judiciary Committee; when, on its coming up," it was fiercely assailed by Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, and more temperately opposed by Messrs. Willey, of Va., McDougall and Latham, of Cal., and Powell, of Ky. Mr. Henderson, of Mo., supported it, and thenceforward acted as an emancipationist. Messrs. 21 Mar. 10. 22 Mar. 11. 23 Mar. 20. 24 Mar. 24. since been freed without compensation. The President of course approved" the measure; but no single Slave State ever claimed its benefits; and its only use inhered in its demonstration of the willingness of the Unionists to increase their already heavy burdens to pay for the slaves of the Border States a willingness which the infatuation of the ruling class in those States rendered abortive, save in its inevitable tendency to soften prejudice and reconcile the minds of loyal slaveholders to a social revolution fast becoming inevitable. Mr. Wilson, of Mass., having given notice" of a joint resolve granting aid to the States of Delaware and Maryland to emancipate their slaves, Mr. Saulsbury, of Del., objected to its consideration; and it lay over. When called up," he declared his inflexible hostility to it, and his purpose to interpose every available obstacle to its passage. It was introduced, however, and had its first reading; but was not again taken up. Soon, however, Mr. White, of Ind., 25 Apr. 2. Apr. 10. 27 Mar. 7, 1862. 28 Mar. 10. 26 SLAVERY EXCLUDED FROM THE TERRITORIES. measure; contemplating the gradual extinguishment, at the National cost, of Slavery in all the Border Slave States, and moved its reference to a Select Committee of nine. Mr. Mallory, of Ky., moved that this proposition do lie on the table; which failed: Yeas 51; Nays 68; and it then prevailed: Yeas 67; Nays 52. 36 261 proposed " a more comprehensive | ferred-Yeas 81; Nays 51-to the Select Committee aforesaid; which was only enabled to perfect it on the last day of the session; when the House refused-Yeas 63; Nays 57to suspend the rules in favor of its immediate consideration, which required a vote of two-thirds. So perished the last effort to compensate the loyal States for the Emancipation of their Slaves-the Democrats and all the Border-State members who were not friends of the Administration unanimously resisting it in every shape and to the extent of their power. The Committee having been appointed," Mr. White reported" therefrom a bill offering $300 per head from the Treasury for the legal emancipation of the slaves of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, or either of them. The bill was committed, but not acted on; having been reported too near the close of the Session. Next winter, Mr. Henderson," in the Senate, and Mr. Noell," in the House, submitted bills of similar tenor, providing for compensated emancipation in Missouri alone. Each encountered a bitter opposition from the Democratic and most of the Border-State Members; but Mr. Noell's finally passed the House-Yeas 73; Nays 46. The Senate acted on Mr. Henderson's bill, which provided only for very Gradual Emancipation-he declaring that if Congress should offer his State $10,000,000 for an act of Immediate Abolition, he would oppose its acceptance. The Senate debated hotly and tediously the rival advantages of Immediate and Gradual Emancipation: the Democrats opposing both, but inclining the scale in favor of the latter; which prevailed-26 to 11-and in this shape the bill passed: " Yeas 23; Nays 18. On reaching the House, it was re 34 We have se seen 37 that the XXXVIth Congress, after it had become Republican through the withdrawal of the representatives of the Gulf States, organized the new Territories of Colorado, Nevada, and Dakotah, by acts which maintained a profound silence with regard to Slavery. The hope of thus winning a portion of the slaveholding interest to active loyalty in the approaching struggle having been disappointed, Mr. Arnold, of Ill., submitted" to the next House a bill abolishing and prohibiting Slavery in every Territory of the Union; which Mr. Lovejoy, of Ill., duly reported" and pressed to a vote; ultimately modifying the bill so as to read as follows: "An Act to secure freedom to all persons within the Territories of the United States; "To the end that freedom may be and remain forever the fundamental law of the land in all places whatsoever, so far as it lies within the power or depends upon the action of the Government of the United States to make it so, therefore ני "Be it enacted, &c., That Slavery or involuntary servitude, in all cases whatsoever (other than in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly con- * No measure of the session was more hibited forever, in all the Territories of the | Menzies, Wadsworth, and Wickliffe, of United States now existing, or hereafter to Ky.,Clements and Maynard, of Tenn., be formed or acquired in any way." Hall, Noell, and J. S. Phelps, of Mo.22 of the 50 from Border Slave States. The bill having reached the Senate, it was reported by Mr. Browning, of Illinois, substituting for the terms above cited the following: vehemently opposed, not only by the Democrats without exception, but by the Border-State Unionists with equal zeal and unanimity; even Mr. Fisher, of Del., denouncing it, though he did not vote on the final passage. Mr. Cox, of Ohio, stigmatized it in debate as (6 a bill for the benefit of Secession and Jeff. Davis." Mr. Crisfield, of Md., characterized it as "a palpable violation of the rights of the States, and an unwarrantable interference with private property—a fraud upon the States which have made cessions of land to this Government, a violation of the Constitution, and a breach of the pledges which brought the dominant [Republican] party into power "-" a usurpation a usurpation" -"destructive of the good of the country," &c., &c. Judge Thomas, of Mass., held that Congress could not warrantably pass this act without providing compensation for slaveholders in the Territories. Messrs. Bingham, of Ohio, Stevens and Kelley, of Pa., R. Conkling and Diven, of N. Y., Arnold and Lovejoy, of Ill., and others, defended the bill, and it passed, under the Previous Question: Yeas,85 (all Republicans but Sheffield, of R. I., and Judge Thomas, of Mass. -to meet whose objections the original bill had been modified): Nays, 50: composed of all the Democrats and Border-State Unionists who voted, including Messrs. Calvert, Crisfield, Leary, Francis Thomas, and Webster, of Md., J. B. Blair, Wm. G. Brown, and Segar, of Va., Casey, Crittenden, Dunlap, Grider, Harding, Mallory, May 15. 44 June 19. 40 May 12. 43 June 17. 41 42 June 9. 41 act, there shall be neither Slavery nor in"That, from and after the passage of this voluntary servitude in any of the Territories of the United States now existing, or which may at any time hereafter be formed or acquired by the United States, otherwise than in punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." The policy of confiscating or emancipating the slaves of those engaged in the Rebellion was very cautiously and timidly approached at the first ** or extra session of this Congress. Very early in the ensuing session, it was again suggested in the Senate by Mr. Trumbull,* of Illinois, and in the House by Mr. Eliot," of Mass. At the former session, Congress had ventured only to direct the confiscation of the right or property of masters in such slaves as those masters permitted or directed to labor on fortifications or other works designed to aid the Rebellion; but now, a bolder and more sweeping measure was deemed requisite. Mr. Eliot's joint resolve-after disclaiming all right to interfere with the internal affairs and institutions of loyal States in peace-affirmed that the ex 45 See Vol. I., chap. XXXIV., particularly page 569-70. 40 Dec. 5, 1861. 47 Dec. 2, 1861, 46 |