previous next


The Federal Congress
confiscation — the Negro question.

We make some extracts from the proceedings of the Northern Congress on the 25th and 26th of February:

In the Senate, on Tuesday,

Mr. Trumbull, (Rep.,) of Lt., moved to take up the bill for the confiscation of the property of rebels. He said there was pressing proceedly. Within a few weeks the property of a rebel General in this city had been sold, and the proceeds transmitted to him., while we were sitting here and imposing paper currency on suffering soldiers.

The bill being taken up, Mr. Trumbull made a long speech in it favor.

Mr. Pomeroy, (Rep.,) of Kansas, objected to the third section, which provides for colonization. He thought we could not afford to send out of the country the laboring men and producers; and if insisted upon, he should move to amend by providing colonization for slaveholders, who are dangerous to the country, and whose loss would not be felt.

Mr. Willey, (Union,) of Va., wanted to know where there was any constitutional power for the President's colonizing negroes. He was willing to co-operate in the most stringent measures for the confiscation of property, but had the Senator from Illinois counted the immense cost of the scheme of colonization? It would cost $500 a head to colonize and keep ignorant slaves.

Mr. Pomeroy said his amendment would obviate that, as there would be only a few slaveholders to colonize.

Mr. Willey--I propose to hang all such traitors, and thus save all the expense of transportation.

[Applause in the galleries, which was immediately suppressed by the chair]

Mr. Ten Eyck, (Rep.,) of N. J. thought the third section very important. He said there was great aversion at the North to having large masses of free negroes turned loose among them to injure other laborers, nor could they be allowed to roam at large in the South.

Mr. Sumner, (Rep.,) of Mass., said he entirely agreed with the Senator from Kansas, (Mr. Pomeroy) to objecting to any recognition of the Fugitive Slave Law, which he thought never had authority in the Constitution. He moved to make a verbal amendment to divide. It suspicion of anything of that kind. The amendment was adopted.

On motion of Mr. Powell, (Opp.,) of Ky., further consideration was postponed till to-morrow.

The Negro question.

In the House, after the consideration of several other matters, Mr. Blair, of Mo., from the Military Committee reported a bill establishing an additional article of war for the government of the United States army.

All officers in the military service are prohibited from employing any of the forces under their respective commands for the purpose of returning fugitives from service or labor, escaping from those who claim such service or labor to be due to them; and any officers found guilty, by court-martial, of violating this article, shall be dismissed from service.

Mr. Bingham, (Rep.,) of Ohio, moved an amendment, so as to include not only officers, but any person in the naval or military service of the United States.

Mr. Mallory, (Union.,) of Ky., looked upon this as an effect to repeal the Fugitive Slave Law, and as a denial of the States to claim their property. He moved the postponement of the bill.

Mr. Blair, of Mo., thought officers could be engaged in better business than returning fugitive slaves.

Mr. Bingham was against postponement.

Mr. Wickliffe, (Union.,) of Ky., mentioned the fact that after the capture of Fort Donelson, General Grant caused twelve slaves, forced into the rebel service from Kentucky, to be returned to their masters. Did the proposition pending prohibit the government from returning such property?

Mr. Grider, (Union.,) of Ky., opposed the bill, looking upon it as an indirect way of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law.

Mr. Bingham replied that the bill was intended to confine officers to their legitimate duty, and prohibit them from interfering with the civil law. Such practice should not be tolerated for a single moment by the American people. He would not only punish those who would kidnap, but have them shot.

Mr. Mallory said that Kentucky had as stringent laws against kidnapping as any other State.

Mr. Bingham had read in the newspapers a case of a fugitive who had, at the risk of his life, swam the Oato river into Indiana. He should think that when under the Stars and Stripes he should be protected. But it was said he was suspected of the crime of running away, when a company of soldiers was detailed, and he was escorted to his master. If that was the course to be pursued by the army and navy under the flag of the republic, it would be better to cover with midnight blackness every star that floats upon its azure field. The practice was enough to consign to eternal infamy the man who dared to perform it. What are we fighting for? For the administration of justice, and, among other things, for the principle that no man shall be condemned or deprived of his liberty without due process of law.

Mr. Diven--I want the gentleman from Ohio to specify where any military officer has hunted down any fugitive slave for the purpose of returning him to his master?

Mr. Bingham--The very case I referred to is enough to bring the blush of shame to the face of every American.

Mr. Diven--It is a matter founded on falsehood.

Mr. Bingham--How do you know that?

Mr. Diven--I have just as much reason to believe it untrue, as you have to believe it is true.

Mr. Bingham--The statement which has received credence all over the land, is characterized by the gentleman as a falsehood. I know the fact, because it has been published in the newspapers, and I have never seen it contradicted.

Mr. Diven was understood to say that that was because the gentleman read only one-sided newspapers.

Mr. Vallandigham, (Opp.,) of Ohio, moved to lay the bill on the table.

Not agreed to--43 against 87.

Mr. Wright, (Union.,) of Pa., moved to adjourn.

Disagreed to--27 against 95.

The question for postponing the bill till the first Wednesday in March was disagreed to--51 against 73.

The main question was ordered, when

Mr. Johnson, (Opp.,) of Pa., moved to adjourn.

Negatived--41 against 78.

Mr. Bingham introduced an amendment, which was agreed to, prohibiting any person connected with the army and navy from returning fugitive slaves.

Mr. Crittenden, (Union.,) of Ky., wished to occupy two minutes in remarks; but

Mr. Lovejoy, (Rep.,) of Ill, persisted in his objection, unanimous consent being necessary for further debate.

Mr. Steele, (Opp.,) of N. Y., objected to the third reading of the bill, on the ground that it had not been engrossed.

Several ineffectual motions were made to adjourn by the opponents of the bill.

Mr. Vallandigham raised a point of order, which the Speaker overruled.

Mr. Hickman, (Rep.,) of Pa., vainly endeavored to offer an amendment.

The bill finally passed.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide People (automatically extracted)
Sort people alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a person to search for him/her in this document.
Bingham (8)
Diven (4)
Pomeroy (3)
Willey (2)
Vallandigham (2)
Trumbull (2)
Mallory (2)
Blair (2)
Joseph A. Wright (1)
Wickliffe (1)
Sumner (1)
Steele (1)
Powell (1)
Lovejoy (1)
Bushrod Johnson (1)
Hickman (1)
Grider (1)
Robert Y. Grant (1)
Eyck (1)
Crittenden (1)
hide Dates (automatically extracted)
Sort dates alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a date to search for it in this document.
March (1)
February 26th (1)
February 25th (1)
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: