Volume 9 — ABOLITION AND PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY IN WEST VIRGINIA.

Remarks in the Senate, on the Bill for the Admission of West Virginia As a State, June 26, July 1 and 14, 1862.

The facts essential to the comprehension of this case appear in the debate.

MR. PRESIDENT,—The question is on the admission of West Virginia into the Union as a new State, and the following is one of the conditions, namely: “That from and after the fourth day of July, 1863, the children of all slaves born within the limits of said State shall be free.” Here is a condition which you undertake to impose. This is clear.

But, Sir, be good enough to observe that this condition recognizes Slavery during the present generation. Short as life may be, it is too long for Slavery. If it be adopted, and the bill becomes a law, a new Slave State will take its place in our Union,—it may be with but few slaves, and for the present generation only, but nevertheless a new Slave State. That, Sir, is too much.

How often have I said, and how painful that I must now repeat what all know, that it takes but little Slavery to make a Slave State with all the virus of Slavery! Now my vote shall help no new State to take a place in this Union, with Senators in this body, unless purged of this poison. Enough has our nation been disturbed, and enough has the Constitution been perverted. The time has come for the remedy. It is found in the policy of Thomas Jefferson, originally applied to the great Territory of the Northwest. Its application to a portion of his own Virginia, seeking to become a new State, will be politic, just, and conservative.

Mr. Sumner concluded by moving to strike out the words of the condition proposed, and insert an absolute abolition and prohibition, so that it should read, “From and after the fourth day of July, 1863, within the limits of the State there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crime whereof the party shall be duly convicted.”

July 1st, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the bill, the pending question being the amendment of Mr. Sumner, who made the following remarks.

Time has elapsed since this measure was before the Senate, which meanwhile has been engaged in an important debate. Therefore I shall be pardoned, if, at the expense of repetition, I recall attention to the precise question.

The bill for the admission of West Virginia provides that from and after the 4th of July, 1863, all children born of slaves shall be free, leaving the existing generation in Slavery. From statistics furnished by the honorable Senator from Virginia [Mr. Willey], in his elaborate speech, it appears that in West Virginia twelve thousand human beings are held in Slavery.

Mr. Willey. That was in 1860; but it is not so now.

Mr. Sumner. There may be fewer now: call the number ten thousand. There are ten thousand slaves there, who, according to the bill, are to remain in bondage during life. Thus, for one whole generation, shall we be afflicted by another Slave State, with two slaveholding representatives in this body.

I mean to speak of this question with all possible respect for Senators on the other side. I am anxious not to introduce any topic otherwise than agreeable; but I must discharge my duty here. I cannot by my vote consent that there shall be two additional slaveholding Senators for another generation. I content myself with this declaration, without argument,—except what is found in a brief passage by Mr. Webster in this body. I refer to his speech of the 22d of December, 1845, on the admission of Texas, where he used this language:—

“In the next place, Sir, I have to say, that, while I hold, with as much integrity, I trust, and faithfulness, as any citizen of this country, to all the original arrangements and compromises under which the Constitution under which we now live was adopted, I never could, and never can, persuade myself to be in favor of the admission of other States into the Union as Slave States, with the inequalities which were allowed and accorded by the Constitution to the slaveholding States then in existence. I do not think that the Free States ever expected, or could expect, that they would be called on to admit more Slave States, having the unequal advantages arising to them from the mode of apportioning representation under the existing Constitution.…

“It will always be a question, whether the other States have not a right (and I think they have the clearest right) to require that the State coming into the Union should come in upon an equality; and if the existence of Slavery be an impediment to coming in on an equality, then the State proposing to come in should be required to remove that inequality by abolishing Slavery, or take the alternative of being excluded.”[77]

Afterwards, in his famous speech of the 7th of March, 1850, he reaffirmed these principles.

“It has happened that between 1837 and this time, on various occasions, I have expressed my entire opposition to the admission of Slave States, or the acquisition of new Slave Territories, to be added to the United States. I know, Sir, no change in my own sentiments or my own purposes in that respect.”[78]

I might quote more, but this is sufficient. Mr. Webster was against new Slave States.

I adduce these words as stating strongly at least one important ground of objection. The admission of West Virginia with a condition recognizing Slavery for a full generation will be an extension of the Slave Power and a new sanction of Slavery. I cannot consent to it, Sir; nor do I see any apology for hesitation. Our control of this matter is clear beyond reasonable doubt, and the present state of our country supplies a new motive for its exercise.

In the debate that ensued, Mr. Hale criticized Mr. Sumner, quoting the story of Abraham and his aged idolatrous guest, as given by Dr. Franklin.

“‘And God said to Abraham, Have I borne with you [him] these fourscore years, and canst thou not bear with him one night, who art thyself a sinner?’ Sir, in exactly the spirit inculcated by that fable I would deal with Slavery; and I would listen to-day as it were to the voice of God, who asks us, Have I borne with this thing so many generations, and cannot you bear with it dying, when it begins on the next Fourth of July?”[79]

Mr. Wade, in the same spirit, said:—

“My friend from Massachusetts, by his proposition, strikes this institution down at one dash. I should like to see it go; but I must look a little to see what its effect will be, after all.”[80]

Before the vote was taken, Mr. Carlile, of Virginia, remarked:—

“Mr. President, it is my sincere belief that this disposition to interfere with the rights of the States, exhibited by this Congress, has prolonged the war,—that, if persisted in, the war becomes a war of indefinite duration, and that the Constitutional Union our fathers formed will be lost to us and our posterity forever.”[81]

July 14th, the question was taken on Mr. Sumner’s amendment, which was rejected,—Yeas 11, Nays 24.

Mr. Lane, of Kansas, moved that all slaves in the State, July 4, 1863, and under the age of ten, shall be free when they arrive at the age of twenty-one, and all slaves over ten and under twenty-one shall be free when they arrive at the age of twenty-five; and the amendment was adopted,—Yeas 25, Nays 12.

The question then occurred on the passage of the bill, when Mr. Sumner remarked:—

I renounce the intention of presenting again the amendment you have already voted down; but it is none the less important in my judgment. I do not like to occupy the time of the Senate; but I cannot doubt that you have acted on the amendment hastily, and without full consideration. Why, Sir, it is simply the old Jeffersonian ordinance, which, when originally adopted for the great Territory of the Northwest, operated upon Slavery already there, and absolutely forbade this wrong from that time forward. In point of fact, slaves were freed by this ordinance.

I thought it well that this institute of Virginia’s son should help to redeem Virginia. It has been voted down; and now the question is presented, whether the Senate will recognize a new Slave State. True, Slavery will be for a short term only, for twenty-one years, if you please, but that is a long time for Slavery. I cannot consent to admit a new State with such a curse for twenty-one years. How little slavery it takes to make a Slave State is illustrated by Delaware, with less than eighteen hundred slaves, sending two Senators of Slavery to this Chamber. Shall we welcome two more from a State newly created by ourselves? Never, Sir, by my vote; and as the Senate sees fit to discard the effort I have made, I deem it my duty to vote against the bill.

The bill was passed,—Yeas 23, Nays 17,—Mr. Sumner voting in the negative.