April 14, 1862.
It is, of course, to be expected that there will be great
differences of opinion among the friends of the Government as to the manner in
which the present war should be conducted. Such differences are the natural
results of our various domestic institutions, systems of education, modes of
thought, degrees of civilization, and of individual opinions of the necessities
of our situation. But there are certain great fundamental principles upon
which, one would think, all ought to agree. We certainly ought to do nothing
and suffer nothing to be done calculated in any degree to repel or paralyze the
efforts of our friends at home, who are doing everything in their power to
encourage and sustain the soldiers in the field. While inculcating the
necessity of the strictest obedience to military duty, it should be constantly
borne in mind that ours are a citizen soldiery, soon to return to the bosom of
civil society, and that the performance of no unsoldierly duty should be
required of them that would be calculated to impair their self-respect,
diminish their regard for their officers, incite them to rebel against
discipline, or taint their reputations at home. It must not be expected that
the natural instincts of humanity will be stifled by military orders, and
surely our soldiers should not be required to assist in the perpetration of
acts against which every enlightened sentiment of their hearts revolts. One
would think that all men would agree in pronouncing that a cruel and despotic
order, which repeals the divine precept, “Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of
the least of these ye did it not to me,” and arbitrarily forbids the soldier to
bestow a crust of bread or a cup of water upon a wretched, famishing fugitive
escaping from our own as well as from his enemy. Yet, I grieve to say there are
those high in rank in the service of the United States who have sought to break
down the spirit of manhood, which is the crowning glory of true soldiers, by
requiring them to do acts outside of their profession which they abhor, and to
smother all impulses to those deeds of charity which they have been taught to
believe are the characteristics of Christian gentlemen.
It was known to the country at an early day after the
commencement of the war, that some military commanders were abusing the great
power intrusted to them, and were employing the Army to assist in the capture
and rendition of fugitive slaves, not in aid of any judicial process, but in
obedience to their own unbridled will. The effect of this assumption of
unauthorized power was to incite the soldiery to disobedience, and to arouse
the people to the necessity of proper legislative restraints. It was in
compliance with the popular sentiment on this subject that Congress enacted the
additional article of war, which was approved on the 13th of March last, and
which declared that “all officers or persons in the military or naval service
of the United States are prohibited from employing any of the forces under
their respective commands for the purpose of returning fugitives from service
or labor, who may have escaped from any persons to whom such service or labor
is claimed to be due, and any officer who shall be found guilty by
court-martial of violating this article shall be dismissed from the service.”
It was intended by this article to prevent the military
service from becoming odious to the people who support the war, and degrading
to those who have volunteered to fight under our banners. It simply declares
that the Army of the United States shall not be perverted from the legitimate
use for which it was raised, while it interferes in no degree with the claim of
any man to a person alleged to be a slave; it leaves questions of that
character to be settled, and rights of that description to be enforced, by
other than the military authority. The intention of those who voted for this
article was not to abridge any man's rights, but to leave every one to his
legal remedies as though no war existed.
How is this new article of war enforced? It has been
promulgated to the army it is true. It may not be openly and avowedly violated.
Soldiers may not hereafter be required to actually perform the humiliating
office of fastening manacles upon the limbs of persons said to be slaves, nor
to escort them to the residences of their masters; but the experience of the last
few days has taught us that, notwithstanding the new article of war, our
military officers suffer their camps to be invaded by armed detachments of
slave-hunters, without the support of any process of law, who there attempt to
shoot, maim, and kill with impunity those whom they claim to be slaves, while
our soldiers are required to stand indifferently by and witness the inhuman
work.
How long, think you, will this method of dealing with the
rebels be endured by the freemen of this country? Are our brothers and sons to
be confined within the walls of the tobacco-warehouses and jails of Richmond
and Charleston, obliged to perform the most menial offices, subsisted upon the
most stinted diet, their lives endangered if they attempt to obtain a breath of
fresh air, or a beam of God's sunlight at a window, while the rebels, captured
by these very men, are permitted to go at large upon parol[e], to be pampered
with luxuries, to be attended by slaves, and the slaves guarded from escape by
our own soldiers?
In the month of February last, an officer of the Third
Regiment of Iowa Infantry, stationed at a small town in Missouri, succeeded in
capturing several rebel bridge-burners, 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
lieutenant-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 General
Halleck's celebrated Order No. 3, two of them attempted an escape. This was
regarded as an unpardonable sin. The Iowa officer was immediately placed under
arrest, and a detachment of the Missouri State militiamen, in the pay of the
Government and under the command of General 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. President, how long shall we permit such conduct as this
to go unrebuked? Does any one suppose that the people will quietly submit to
the imposition of taxes to support a State militia in the field that is to be
employed in the capture of slaves for the benefit of officers in the rebel
army? Is it supposed that the Senators from Iowa will silently, patiently permit
the gallant officers from that State to be outraged in the manner I have
described?
It is quite time that some definite policy should be
established for the treatment of escaped slaves; and I am of the opinion that
Congress has been grossly derelict in permitting the evil to go so long
unregulated and unchecked. We have almost as many diverse systems of dealing
with this class of persons as we have military departments. In one, fugitive
slaves have been pursued, flogged, and returned to their masters by our army;
in another, they have been simply pursued and returned without flogging; in
another, they have been pursued and shot in the attempt to return them; in another,
they have been termed “contraband,” and received within our lines in the mixed
character of persons and property. In the absence of any authoritative
declaration of Congress, none of these modes may be held to be in conflict with
law, other than the law of common-sense and common decency.1
It is obvious that the article of war which I have quoted
does not meet the case presented by Major-General Halleck in his Order No. 3.
That celebrated manifesto declares in substance that all persons from the
enemy's country shall be excluded from our lines. The plain purpose of the
order is to prohibit fugitive slaves escaping from the rebellious district, and
thereby securing freedom. It was doubtless competent for General Halleck to
issue such an order, and it is equally competent for Congress, which has made
and continues to make articles of war for the government of the army and navy,
to countermand it. And it ought to be countermanded. I will not pause to discuss
the humanitarian features of the question. Public policy, no less than popular
feeling, demands that Order No. 3 be forever erased. There never was a war
waged in the history of the world where the means of acquiring information of
the enemy's position and numbers were more ample than here, and there never was
one where the commanding officers have suffered more from lack of such
information. Order No. 3 proposes to incorporate the fatuity and blindness
which remained unwritten in other military departments into an historical
record and a public advertisement. It proposes to warn all persons against
bringing information of the enemy's movements to our camps, under penalty of
being turned back to receive such punishment as the enemy may choose to inflict
for betraying them, or for running away and betraying combined. No organization
of secret service can meet all the requirements of an army operating in an
enemy's country, unless aided by some portion of the inhabitants of the
country. What folly, then, to wall out and repel the very inhabitants who might
bring us the information we most need, and who have everywhere shown an
eagerness to do so!
It is the undoubted right and the duty of every nation, when
engaged in a righteous war — and no other than a righteous war is justifiable
at all — to avail itself of every legitimate means known to civilized warfare
to overcome its enemies. What will be thought by posterity of this nation, if,
in the present emergency, we not only fail to employ the agencies which
Providence seems to have placed at our disposal, but actually seek every
opportunity to exasperate and drive from our support those who are anxious to
serve us? Were the Russian nobles now engaged in a rebellion against their
Government, would we not regard their emperor as guilty of the greatest folly,
if he not only declined to enlist the serfs of his empire to aid in suppressing
the insurrection, but repelled them from his service and allowed his generals
to return them to his rebellious nobles, to be used by them in overthrowing his
authority? And can anyone tell me the difference between the case I have put
and our own?
The whole history of the world does not exhibit a nation
guilty of such extreme fatuity as has marked the conduct of our Government in
its treatment of the colored population since the present war began. It seems
to be impossible to convince ourselves that war, with all of its
attendant responsibilities and calamities, really exists, and that future
generations will not hold those guiltless who refuse to use any of the means
which God has placed in their hands to bring it to a speedy and successful
termination. History will pronounce those men criminal who, in this crisis of
the nation's fate, consult the prejudices of caste or color, and regard the
interests of property of paramount importance to the unity of the nation.
It is useless to attempt to blink out of sight the great
issues before us — issues that must be settled, and settled by us. It
were wiser and more manly to meet them squarely and at once. We are in the
midst of the greatest revolution that ever occurred in ancient or modern times.
Such armies as are now marshaled in hostile array on this continent, in point
of numbers, equipment, and expense, have been hitherto unknown in the annals of
mankind. We are imposing burdens in the form of taxes that will be felt by
unborn generations. We are suffering much now; we expect and are willing to
suffer more. And why? Because we desire to preserve the integrity of our
nation; because we believe that Heaven designed us to be one people with one
destiny; the freest and happiest on earth. It was to preserve that unity of our
national existence that our sons and brothers have gone forth to do battle. For
this it was that the gallant men of Iowa have freely, triumphantly, laid down
their lives at Wilson's Creek, Blue Mills, Belmont, Fort Donelson, Pea Ridge,
and Pittsburg. And shall we, after these great sacrifices of life and treasure,
hesitate about employing any of the instrumentalities in aid of the country
that are known to civilized warfare? Shall we not be recreant to our high trust
if we doubt or delay in this particular?
This war will go on until rebellion is subdued. Upon this
point there need be no controversy. Rely upon it, the Northwestern States will
submit to no temporizing or compromising policy. They are too much in earnest;
they have suffered too much already; they know too well what they would be
compelled to suffer in the future to allow treason to go unpunished. It is
because they desire to prevent the recurrence of the rebellion that they demand
that it shall now be thoroughly crushed out. Among things necessary to be done
to fully accomplish this purpose, we must conquer and hold all the forts and
strong positions on the South Atlantic and Gulf coasts. How shall they be
garrisoned when captured? This is a question we shall soon be compelled to
answer; and I am prepared for its solution. I answer it unhesitatingly that we
should garrison them, in whole or in part, by soldiers of African descent; that
instead of returning slaves to their rebel masters to fight against us, we
should employ them in our own military service.
I know very well that this proposition encounters at once
all the prejudices that have been engendered by differences of race, education,
and social position; but let us look at it a moment soberly and practically. It
is assumed as admitted by all that the Southern forts must be captured and
strongly garrisoned for some years to come. They are situated in a warm and
enervating climate, and the particular location of nearly all of them renders
them more than usually unhealthy, even for that section of the country. In
addition to the forts already established, we shall be compelled to build new
ones. The rebels rely upon the diseases of their climate to decimate our
Northern army in the summer and autumnal months; and their confidence is well
placed. Our troops will wither before the fevers of the Gulf coast as
vegetation does before the blast of the sirocco. Now, we have in our midst
thousands of hardy, athletic colored men, fitted by nature to endure the heat
and miasma of the tropics, and some of them accustomed to it, who are panting
to be employed in the capacity of soldiers. Many of them having been in a state
of bondage, have been abandoned by their masters, and are now thrown upon us
for support. Some of them were forced by our enemies into their military
service, and have deserted from it. They implore our protection, and we must
give it, if we would not become a “scorn and derision” among the nations of the
earth. They have shown on divers occasions, both on sea and land, that they
belong to a warlike race. They are obedient and teachable. They can be
subsisted much cheaper than white soldiers, can perform more labor, and are
subject to fewer diseases in a warm climate.
Now, with these facts before us, shall we refuse to employ
them? What substantial reason can be given for not doing so? Is it because they
have not the proper capacity for command? Then give them white officers, as is
done by the British Government to the same race, by the French Government to
the Arabs, and by the Russian Government to the Tartars and other
semi-barbarous soldiers within that empire. Is it because they do not possess
the average courage of soldiers? In addition to the testimony in disproof of
this, furnished a few days ago by the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Wilson),
I refer you to your vessels-of-war, where you have hundreds of these men
employed, and none more valiant. Is it because they are not obedient to
command? The whole history of the race shows the contrary, for, if there is any
one thing for which they are remarkable more than another, it is their
confiding submission to the will of their superiors. Is it said that we have
white soldiers enough for all of our purposes? True, we have a large army,
composed of men of unsurpassed valor and patriotism, who, if we require it,
will sacrifice their lives for their country, whether by the sword or by
disease; but I would, if I could, recall a portion of them to their homes and
to the industrial pursuits of life. Am I told that the enrollment of a few
colored soldiers will be regarded by the Army as humiliating to them? Mr.
President, those public men fail to comprehend the character of American
soldiers who suppose that they are fighting for mere military glory, or that in
this critical hour they are controlled by ignoble prejudice against color or
race. They are citizens and taxpayers as well as soldiers. They want the rebellion
speedily crushed and the supreme authority of the law established, leaving
social and political questions to be settled afterward. They feel that the
desertion of every colored soldier, artificer, or laborer, from the rebellious
States, withdraws aid and support from the rebellion, and brings it so much
nearer to an end. They cannot understand, nor can I, that refined casuistry
that justifies us in converting the enemy's horse or ox to our use, and in
turning their inanimate engines of destruction against themselves, but denies
to us the right to turn their slaves, their animate hostile engines in human
form, to the same purpose. They cannot imagine why it is that some gentlemen
are so willing that men of the African race should labor for them, and so unwilling
that they should fight for them.
What a wonderful difference of action and sentiment there is
on this subject between the officers of the Army and Navy! While officers of
the Army have disgraced themselves, annoyed and incensed their subordinates,
dishonored the country, and injured the public service, by the promulgation of
their ridiculous orders about slaves, no officer of the Navy, thank God, has
ever descended to follow their example. Their noble, manly, generous hearts
would revolt at the idea of having imposed upon them the humiliating duty of
capturing and returning fugitive slaves. They serve their country, not rebel
slave-owners. They think that duty to the country requires them to avail
themselves of the services of these people, instead of driving them back to
their masters, or suffering them to starve; and they act upon this conviction.
At the taking of Hatteras, one of the large guns of the Minnesota was wholly manned
and worked by persons called “contrabands,” and no gun on the ship was better
served. These people are, it is well known, remarkable for the proficiency they
soon acquire as cannoneers. On the same ship is a boat’s crew, every one of
whom, including the cockswain, is a colored man, and there are none more
skillful, or render more satisfactory service to the officers of the vessel.
The whole country knows the services rendered by them to Commodore Du Pont and
to the vessels under his command. They have acted as pilots, and in the most
important positions, and I have the authority of the two superior officers of
that fleet for saying that they have never been deceived or misled by any one
of them. I am convinced that our expedition to the South Atlantic coast would
not have been so perfect a success as it has been but for the slaves found
there, and who were employed by our naval officers. There are more or less of
them on all our vessels-of-war. They are efficient men, and their presence
produces no discord among the crews.
Mr. President, I wish to be distinctly understood. I
advocate no indiscriminate arming of the colored race, although I frankly
confess that I would do so were it necessary to put down the rebellion. I do
not favor this proposition merely because of its antislavery tendency. I approve
it because it will result in a saving of human life, and in bringing the
rebellion to a speedier termination. It is my business to aid in bringing this
war to a close by conquering an unconditional peace in the least expensive and
speediest manner possible. Acting upon this idea of my duty, and believing that
humanity and the best interests of the country require the enrollment of a few
colored regiments for garrisoning the Southern forts, I shall vote, whenever an
opportunity shall be afforded me, for converting a portion of the colored
refugees into soldiers, instead of forcing them back into servitude to their
rebel masters and their rebel government. We may hesitate to do this. Our
hesitation will cost us the valuable lives of many of our own race who are near
and dear to us. Our hesitation to use the means which Providence seems to have
placed in our hands for crushing the rebellion may carry desolation to many a
loyal hearthstone. But we must adopt this policy sooner or later, and, in my
opinion, the sooner we do it the better. The rebels have this day thousands of
slaves throwing up intrenchments and redoubts at Yorktown, and thousands of
them performing military duty elsewhere; and yet we hesitate and doubt the
propriety of employing the same race of people to defend ourselves and our
institutions against them. Mr. President, how long shall we hesitate?
_______________
1 “Up to that date (July, 1862), neither Congress
nor the President had made any clear, well-defined rules touching the negro
slaves, and the different generals had issued orders according to their own
political sentiments.” — Memoirs of General W. T. Sherman, written by Himself, Vol. I, p. 285.
SOURCE: William Salter, The Life of James W. Grimes,
p. 184-93
No comments:
Post a Comment