Volume 11 — RECONSTRUCTION, AND ADOPTION OF PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION BY ACT OF CONGRESS.

Remarks in the Senate, July 1, 1864.

The effort at Reconstruction, which failed in the previous Congress, was superseded at the present session by another, having, like the former, as its distinctive feature, the assertion of the power of Congress over the Rebel States.

February 15th, Henry Winter Davis, of Maryland, reported a bill to guaranty to certain States, whose governments have been usurped or overthrown, a republican form of government. This bill provided for these States Provisional Governors, appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; also, the assembling of Constitutional Conventions, chosen by “loyal white male citizens,” being a majority of the persons enrolled in the State, which shall declare “involuntary servitude forever prohibited, and the freedom of all persons guarantied in said State”; also, all slaves were declared emancipated, and persons free by this or any other act or by “any proclamation of the President” were protected in their freedom. After earnest debate, this bill passed the House May 4th,—Yeas 74, Nays 66.

In the Senate the bill was referred to the Committee on Territories, of which Mr. Wade was Chairman. May 27th, he reported it to the Senate with amendments. July 1st, it was on his motion considered, and, in order to save the bill at that late day of the session, he abandoned the amendments reported, the most important of which was to strike out the word “white,” so as to read “all male citizens of the United States.” This amendment was rejected, by Yeas 5, Nays 24,—the minority being Messrs. Gratz Brown, Lane, of Kansas, Morgan, of New York, Pomeroy, of Kansas, and Sumner. Mr. Gratz Brown then moved to substitute for the whole bill a single section, providing that the inhabitants of a State declared to be in insurrection shall not cast any vote for electors of President or Vice-President, or elect Senators or Representatives in Congress, until the suppression of the insurrection, “nor until such return to obedience shall be declared by proclamation of the President, issued by virtue of an Act of Congress, hereafter to be passed, authorizing the same.” This was in conformity with propositions introduced by Mr. Sumner.[366] The House bill was unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it founded the new governments on “white male citizens”: but, besides asserting the power of Congress over the Rebel States, it decreed the abolition of Slavery in these States; therefore Mr. Sumner favored it. But the substitute of Mr. Brown prevailed,—Yeas 17, Nays 16.

Mr. Sumner then brought forward his bill, originally reported from the Committee on Slavery and Freedmen, and moved it as an additional section:—

“And be it further enacted, That the Proclamation of Emancipation, issued by the President of the United States on the 1st day of January, 1863, so far as the same declares that the slaves in certain designated States and portions of States thenceforward should be free, is hereby adopted and enacted as a statute of the United States, and as a rule and article for the government of the military and naval forces thereof.”

Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, was in favor of this, but thought it “incongruous and out of place here.” Mr. Sumner followed.

The Senator from New Hampshire is entirely mistaken, when he says that the section moved by me is incongruous. The Senator whispers to me that he did not say so.[367] I beg his pardon; he began by saying it was incongruous. It is entirely germane,—nothing could be more germane. The section already adopted concerns the Rebel States: that I offer concerns the Rebel States. The Senator cannot vote against what I now offer; it is neither more nor less than this: to recognize as a statute the Proclamation of Emancipation, putting it under the guaranty and safeguard of an Act of Congress. That is all. It is as simple as day; it is as plain as truth. It is impossible for any person recognizing the Proclamation of Emancipation, or disposed to stand by it, to vote against the amendment I now offer. I wish Emancipation in the Rebel States supported by Congress. I am unwilling to see it left afloat on a presidential proclamation. We are assured that the Proclamation will not be changed; but who knows what may be the vicissitudes of elections? I do not look far enough into the future to see what proclamation may be issued hereafter. I would make the present sure, and fix it forevermore and immortal in an Act of Congress.

Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, denounced the amendment as “an attempt by Federal legislation to legislate for the States themselves, to regulate their domestic institutions,—to control property, in other words.” Mr. Gratz Brown said that the amendment, “as an independent proposition, met his hearty concurrence”; that he concurred heartily and fully with Mr. Sumner “as to the propriety of putting in the shape of a statute that proclamation of the President”; but that it ought not to be on the present bill, as it could not pass the House.

Mr. Sumner. I adopt the language of my friend from Missouri. He regards his proposition as necessary. I regard his proposition, or something equivalent, as necessary. But not less necessary do I regard that which I have the honor to offer. His is to meet a question in Reconstruction. Mine is to meet a similar question.

Mr. Brown. Mine is not a proposition for Reconstruction, at all. It is simply providing that they shall not exercise the elective franchise until Congress authorizes it by Act.

Mr. Sumner. I understand it. The obvious effect is to postpone all activities tending to Reconstruction, and to bring them all under the rule of Congress. That is the object of the Senator. And my present object is to bring Emancipation under the rule of Congress, so that it shall no longer depend on the Proclamation of the President. I am unwilling that Emancipation shall depend upon the will of any one man, be he Senator or President. I would place it under the highest sanction which our country knows. If I could, I would place it at once under the shield of the Constitution; but that failing, let me place it under that other safeguard, an Act of Congress. I am sure the Senator cannot differ with me. But the Senator, whose experience here certainly does not compare with that of others, assures us that this measure cannot pass the other House. Sir, by what intuition has he arrived at that knowledge? I have no means of knowing that. On the contrary, if left to draw my conclusion from what has already occurred, I say, unhesitatingly, it can pass the other House. The Senator forgets, that, when it reaches the other House, it will not be as a bill, to go through its three different stages,—but as an amendment to a House bill, subject only to one stage of proceeding, with one vote. I tell the Senator it can pass the other House. It only requires that the Senate should send it there. Let us will it, and it can be done; and I do entreat the Senator from Missouri, who I know is pledged so strenuously to the cause of Emancipation, not to fail it at this hour.

The amendment of Mr. Sumner was lost,—Yeas 11, Nays 21.

The bill, as amended by the substitute of Mr. Brown, then passed the Senate,—Yeas 26, Nays 3. The House of Representatives disagreed to the substitute, and asked a conference. The Senate, on motion of Mr. Wade, receded from the substitute,—Yeas 18, Nays 14,—and so the bill passed both Houses; but it failed to receive the approval of the President of the United States.