History of the Negro Race in America Volume II Part 30

"In regard to the other question, of whether I am pledged to the admission of any more slave States into the Union, I state to you very frankly that I would be exceedingly sorry ever to be put in a position of having to pa.s.s upon that question. I should be exceedingly glad to know that there would never be another slave State admitted into the Union; but I must add, that if slavery shall be kept out of the territories during the territorial existence of any one given territory, and then the people shall, having a fair chance and a clear field, when they come to adopt the const.i.tution, do such an extraordinary thing as to adopt a slave const.i.tution, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the inst.i.tution among them, I see no alternative, if we own the country, but to admit them into the Union. [Applause.]

"The third interrogatory is answered by the answer to the second, it being, as I conceive, the same as the second.

"The fourth one is in regard to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In relation to that I have my mind very distinctly made up. I should be exceedingly glad to see slavery abolished in the District of Columbia. I believe that Congress possesses the const.i.tutional power to abolish it. Yet, as a member of Congress, I should not, with my present views, be in favor of _endeavoring_ to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, unless it would be upon these conditions: _First_, that the abolition should be gradual; _second_, that it should be on a vote of the majority of qualified voters in the district; and, _third_, that compensation should be made to unwilling owners.

With these three conditions I confess I would be exceedingly glad to see Congress abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; and, in the language of Henry Clay, 'sweep from our capital that foul blot upon our nation.'

"In regard to the fifth interrogatory, I must say here that, as to the question of the abolition of the slave-trade between the different States, I can truly answer, as I have, that I am _pledged_ to nothing about it. It is a subject to which I have not given that mature consideration that would make me feel authorized to state a position so as to hold myself entirely bound by it. In other words, that question has never been prominently enough before me to induce me to investigate whether we really have the const.i.tutional power to do it. I could investigate it, if I had sufficient time, to bring myself to a conclusion upon that subject; but I have not done so, and I say so frankly to you here, and to Judge Dougla.s.s. I must say, however, that if I should be of opinion that Congress does possess the const.i.tutional power to abolish slave-trading among the different States, I should still not be in favor of the exercise of that power unless upon some conservative principle as I conceive it, akin to what I have said in relation to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.

"My answer as to whether I desire that slavery should be prohibited in all territories of the United States, is full and explicit within itself, and cannot be made clearer by any comments of mine. So, I suppose, in regard to the question whether I am opposed to the acquisition of any more territory unless slavery is first prohibited therein, my answer is such that I could add nothing by way of ill.u.s.tration, or making myself better understood, than the answer which I have placed in writing.

"Now, in all this the judge has me, and he has me on the record.

I suppose he had flattered himself that I was really entertaining one set of opinions for one place, and another set for another place--that I was afraid to say at one place what I uttered at another. What I am saying here I suppose I say to a vast audience as strongly tending to abolitionism as any audience in the State of Illinois, and I believe I am saying that which, if it would be offensive to any persons and render them enemies to myself, would be offensive to persons in this audience."[74]

Here, then, is the position of Mr. Lincoln set forth with deliberation and care. He was opposed to any coercive measures in settling the slavery question; he was for gradual emanc.i.p.ation; and for admitting States into the Union with a slave const.i.tution. Within twenty-four months, without a change of views, he was nominated for and elected to the Presidency of the United States.

With no disposition to interfere with the inst.i.tution of slavery, Mr.

Lincoln found himself chief magistrate of a great _nation_ in the midst of a great rebellion. And in his inaugural address on the 4th of March, 1861, he referred to the question of slavery again in a manner too clear to admit of misconception, affirming his previous views:

"There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Const.i.tution as any other of its provisions:

"'No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.'

"It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law.

"All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Const.i.tution--to this provision as well as any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause 'shall be delivered up,' their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not, with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pa.s.s a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?

"There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by National or by State authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done; and should any one, in any case, be content that this oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?"

So the issues were joined in war. The South aggressively, offensively sought the extension and perpetuation of slavery. The North pa.s.sively, defensively stood ready to protect her free territory, but not to interfere with slavery. And there was no day during the first two years of the war when the North would not have cheerfully granted the slave inst.i.tution an indefinite lease of _legal_ existence upon the condition that the war should cease.

FOOTNOTES:

[72] National Intelligencer, Tuesday, May 7, 1861.

[73] National Intelligencer, Tuesday, April, 2, 1861.

[74] Barrett, pp. 177-180.

CHAPTER XV.

"A WHITE MAN'S WAR."

THE FIRST CALL FOR TROOPS.--RENDITION OF FUGITIVE SLAVES BY THE ARMY.--COL. TYLER'S ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF VIRGINIA.--GENERAL ISAAC R. SHERWOOD'S ACCOUNT OF AN ATTEMPT TO SECURE A FUGITIVE SLAVE IN HIS CHARGE.--COL. STEEDMAN REFUSES TO HAVE HIS CAMP SEARCHED FOR FUGITIVE SLAVES, BY ORDER FROM GEN. FRY.--LETTER FROM GEN. BUELL IN DEFENCE OF THE REBELS IN THE SOUTH.--ORDERS ISSUED BY GENERALS HOOKER, WILLIAMS, AND OTHERS, IN REGARD TO HARBORING FUGITIVE SLAVES IN UNION CAMPS.--OBSERVATION CONCERNING SLAVERY FROM THE "ARMY OF THE POTOMAC."--GEN. BUTLER'S LETTER TO GEN. WINFIELD SCOTT.--IT IS ANSWERED BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR.--HORACE GREELEY'S LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT.--PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S REPLY.--GEN. JOHN C. FREMONT, COMMANDER OF THE UNION ARMY IN MISSOURI, ISSUES A PROCLAMATION EMANc.i.p.aTING SLAVES IN HIS DISTRICT.--IT IS DISAPPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT.--EMANc.i.p.aTION PROCLAMATION BY GEN. HUNTER.--IT IS RESCINDED BY THE PRESIDENT.--SLAVERY AND UNION JOINED IN A DESPERATE STRUGGLE.

When the war clouds broke over the country and hostilities began, the North counted the Negro on the outside of the issue. The Federal Government planted itself upon the policy of the "defence of the free States,"--pursued a defensive rather than an offensive policy. And, whenever the Negro was mentioned, the leaders of the political parties and the Union army declared that it was "_a white mans war_."

The first call for three months' troops indicated that the authorities at Washington felt confident that the "trouble" would not last long.

The call was issued on the 15th of April, 1861, and provided for the raising of 75,000 troops. It was charged by the President that certain States had been guilty of forming "combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings," and then he proceeded to state:

"The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department. I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government, and to redress wrongs already long enough endured. I deem it proper to say that the first service a.s.signed to the forces hereby called forth, will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens of any part of the country; and I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid, to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date."[75]

There was scarcely a city in the North, from New York to San Francisco, whose Colored residents did not speedily offer their services to the States to aid in suppressing the Rebellion. But everywhere as promptly were their services declined. The Colored people of the Northern States were patriotic and enthusiastic; but their interest was declared insolence. And being often rebuked for their loyalty, they subsided into silence to bide a change of public sentiment.

The almost unanimous voice of the press and pulpit was against a recognition of the Negro as the cause of the war. Like a man in the last stages of consumption who insists that he has only a bad cold, so the entire North urged that slavery was not the cause of the war: it was a little local misunderstanding. But the death of the gallant Col.

Elmer E. Elsworth palsied the tongues of mere talkers; and in the tragic silence that followed, great, brave, and true men began to think.

Not a pulpit in all the land had spoken a word for the slave. The clergy stood dumb before the dreadful issue. But one man was found, like David of old, who, gathering his smooth pebble of fact from the brook of G.o.d's eternal truth, boldly met the boastful and erroneous public sentiment of the hour. That man was the Rev. Justin D. Fulton, a Baptist minister of Albany, New York. He was chosen to preach the funeral sermon of Col. Elsworth, and performed that duty on Sunday, May 26, 1861. Speaking of slavery, the reverend gentleman said:

"Shall this magazine of danger be permitted to remain? _We must answer this question. If we say no, it is no!_ Slavery is a curse to the North. It impoverishes the South, and demoralizes both. It is the parent of treason, the seedling of tyranny, and the fountain-source of all the ills that have infected our life as a people, being the central cause of all our conflicts of the past and the war of to-day. What reason have we for permitting it to remain? G.o.d does not want it, for His truth gives freedom. The South does not need it, for it is the chain fastened to her limb that fetters her progress. Morality, patriotism, and humanity alike protest against it.

"The South fights for slavery, for the despotism which it represents, for the ignoring the rights of labor, and for reducing to slavery or to serfdom all whose hands are hardened by toil.

"Why not make the issue at once, which shall inspire every man that shoulders his musket with a n.o.ble purpose? Our soldiers need to be reminded that this government was consecrated to freedom by those who first built here the altars of worship, and planted on the sh.o.r.e of the Western Continent the tree of liberty, whose fruit to-day fills the garners of national hope.... I would not forget that I am a messenger of the Prince of Peace. My motives for throwing out these suggestions are three-fold: 1. Because I believe G.o.d wants us to be actuated by motives not one whit less philanthropic than the giving of freedom to four million of people. 2. I confess to a sympathy for and faith in the slave, and cherish the belief that if freed, the war would become comparatively bloodless, and that as a people we should enter on the discharge of higher duties and a more enlarged prosperity. 3.

The war would hasten to a close, and the end secured would then form a brilliant dawn to a career of prosperity unsurpa.s.sed in the annals of mankind."[76]

Brave, prophetic words! But a thousand vituperative editors sprang at Mr. Fulton's utterances, and as snapping curs, growled at and shook every sentence. He stood his ground. He took no step backward. When notice was kindly sent him that a committee would wait on him to treat him to a coat of tar and feathers, against the entreaties of anxious friends, he sent word that he would give them a warm reception. When the best citizens of Albany said the draft could not be enforced without b.l.o.o.d.y resistance, the Rev. Mr. Fulton exclaimed: "If the floodgates of blood are to be opened, we will not shoot down the poor and ignorant, but the swaggering and insolent men whose hearts are not in this war!"

The "Atlas and Argus," in an editorial on _Ill-Timed Pulpit Abolitionism_, denounced Rev. Mr. Fulton in bitterest terms; while the "Evening Standard" and "Journal" both declared that the views of the preacher were as a fire-brand thrown into the magazine of public sentiment.

Everywhere throughout the North the Negro was counted as on the outside. Everywhere it was merely "a war for the Union," which was half free and half slave.

When the Union army got into the field at the South it was confronted by a difficult question. What should be done with the Negroes who sought the Union lines for protection from their masters? The sentiment of the press, Congress, and the people of the North generally, was against interference with the slave, either by the civil or military authorities. And during the first years of the war the army became a band of slave-catchers. Slave-holders and sheriffs from the Southern States were permitted to hunt fugitive slaves under the Union flag and within the lines of Federal camps. On the 22d of June, 1861, the following paragraph appeared in the "Baltimore American":

"Two free negroes, belonging to Frederick, Md., who concealed themselves in the cars which conveyed the Rhode Island regiment to Washington from this city, were returned that morning by command of Colonel Burnside, who _supposed them to be slaves_.

The negroes were accompanied by a sergeant of the regiment, who lodged them in jail."

On the 4th of July, 1861, Col. Tyler, of the 7th Ohio regiment, delivered an address to the people of Virginia; a portion of which is sufficient to show the feeling that prevailed among army officers on the slavery question:

"To you, fellow-citizens of West Virginia--many of whom I have so long and favorably known,--I come to aid and protect. [The grammar is defective.]

"I have no selfish ambition to gratify, no personal motives to actuate. I am here to protect you in person and property--to aid you in the execution of the law, in the maintenance of peace and order, in the defence of the Const.i.tution and the Union, and in the extermination of our common foe. As our enemies have belied our mission, and represented us as a band of Abolitionists, I desire to a.s.sure you that the relation of master and servant as recognized in your State shall be respected. Your authority over that species of property shall not in the least be interfered with. To this end I a.s.sure you that those under my command have peremptory orders to take up and hold any negroes found running about the camp without pa.s.ses from their masters."

When a few copies had been struck off, a lieutenant in Captain G. W.

Shurtleff's company handed him one. He waited upon the colonel, and told him that it was not true that the troops had been ordered to arrest fugitive slaves. The colonel threatened to place Captain Shurtleff in arrest, when he exclaimed: "I'll never be a slave-catcher, so help me G.o.d!" There were few men in the army at this time who sympathized with such a n.o.ble declaration, and, therefore, Captain Shurtleff found himself in a very small minority.

The following account of an attempt to secure a fugitive slave from General Isaac R. Sherwood has its historical value. General Sherwood was as n.o.ble a _man_ as he was a brave and intelligent soldier. He obeyed the still small voice in his soul and won a victory for humanity:

"In the February and March of 1863, I was a major in command of 111th O. V. I regiment. I had a servant, as indicated by army regulations, in charge of my private horse. He was from Frankfort, Ky., the property of a Baptist clergyman. When the troops pa.s.sed through Frankfort, in the fall of 1862, he left his master, and followed the army. He came to me at Bowling Green, and I hired him to take care of my horse. He was a lad about fifteen years old, named _Alfred Jackson_.

"At this time, Brig.-Gen. Boyle, or Boyd (I think Boyle), was in command of the District of Kentucky, and had issued his general order, that fugitive slaves should be delivered up. Brig.-Gen. H.

M. Judah was in command of Post of Bowling Green, also of our brigade, there stationed.

"The owner of Alfred Jackson found out his whereabouts, and sent a U. S. marshal to Bowling Green to get him. Said marshal came to my headquarters under a pretence to see my very fine saddle-horse, but really to identify Alfred Jackson. The horse was brought out by Alfred Jackson. The marshal went to Brig.-Gen.