History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States. William Horatio Barnes
there is an old maxim of law in which I have very considerable faith, that regard must be had to the public welfare; and this maxim is said to be the highest law. It is the law of the Constitution, and in the light of that Constitution as amended I find ample power for the enactment of this law. It is the duty of Congress to exercise its power in such a time as this, in a time of public peril; and I hope that nobody on this side of the House will be so craven as to want courage to come up to the question and give his vote for the bill. It is necessary to provide for the public welfare."
Mr. Moulton, of Illinois, spoke in favor of the bill. Of the oft-repeated objection that "this bill is in violation of the Constitution of the United States," he said: "This is the very argument that we have heard from the other side of this chamber for the last five years with reference to every single measure that has been proposed to this House for the prosecution of the war for the Union. No measure has been passed for the benefit of the country, for the prosecution of this war, for the defense of your rights and mine, but has been assailed by gentlemen on the opposite side of this House with the argument that the whole thing was unconstitutional."
He then proceeded to set forth at length the authority of Congress to pass such a bill.
Very strenuous opposition to the passage of the bill was made by most of the members from Kentucky. Mr. Ritter, of that State, uttered his earnest protest at considerable length against the measure. He presented his views of the "grand purposes and designs of those who introduced this bill." In his opinion they intended "to commence a colony in each one of the five States above named, which is ultimately to drive out the entire white population of those States and fill their places with the negro race." And whether this is the design or not, it is certain, in my judgment, to have this effect. And they could not have devised a more effectual scheme for that purpose.
"Sir, it is not to be expected that the two races will live contentedly where there are large numbers of the colored people living near to neighborhoods settled with white persons. Experience has proved to many of us that wherever large numbers of colored people live, that the white people living within five or ten miles of the place become sufferers to a very large extent. Now, sir, if this should be the case (as I have no doubt it will) in the States in which you propose to establish these people, the whites and blacks will disagree to such an extent that, when people find that the colored people are permanently established, they will be compelled, in self defense, to seek a home somewhere else. No doubt, Mr. Speaker, but that those who prepared this bill saw that the difficulties and disagreements to which I have just alluded would arise, and hence they require that military jurisdiction and protection shall be extended, so as to give safety in their movements; and if the white inhabitants become dissatisfied, the commissioner is prepared with authority by this bill to buy them out and put the negroes upon the land."
He thus presented his calculation of the cost of carrying out the bill as an argument against it: "In 1822 the ordinary expenses of the Government were $9,827,643, and in 1823 the expenses amounted to the sum of $9,784,154. Now, sir, who could have thought at that day that in the comparatively short time of forty-three years it would require the sum of even $12,000,000 to fix up a machinery alone for the benefit of three or four million negroes, and more especially, sir, when it is understood that in 1820 we had a population, including white and colored, of 9,633,545. Mr. Speaker, how long will it be at this rate—when we take into consideration the fact that our Government proper, besides this little bureau machine, is now costing us hundreds of millions of dollars—how long, sir, will it be before we have to call in the services of Mr. Kennedy, of census notoriety, to estimate the amount of the debt we owe?"
Mr. Rousseau, of Kentucky, in defining his position, said: "I am not a Republican; I was a Whig and a Union man, and belong to the Union party, and I am sorry to say that the Union party and the Republican party are not always convertible terms."
Mr. Rousseau urged, against the Freedmen's Bureau Bill the wrongs and oppressions which its abuses heaped upon the people of the South. In the course of his speech Mr. Rousseau quoted what he had said on one occasion to an official of the Freedmen's Bureau: "I said to him, 'if you intend to arrest white people on the ex parte statements of negroes, and hold them to suit your convenience for trial, and fine and imprison them, then I say that I oppose you; and if you should so arrest and punish me, I would kill you when you set me at liberty; and I think that you would do the same to a man who would treat you in that way, if you are the man I think you are, and the man you ought to be to fill your position here.'"
This extract has considerable importance as being the occasion of an unfortunate personal difficulty between Mr. Rousseau and Mr. Grinnell, of Iowa, narrated in a subsequent chapter. The latter portion of Mr. Rousseau's speech was devoted to the subject of reconstruction. He was followed by Mr. Shanklin, of Kentucky. He characterized the Freedmen's Bureau as a "gigantic monster." He declared that "the effect of this measure upon the negro population will be to paralyze their energy, destroy their industry, and make them paupers and vagabonds." He saw "revolution and ruin" in prospect. "I affirm," said he, "that in legislating for those States, or without allowing them any representation in these halls, you are violating one of the cardinal principles of republican government; you are tearing down the main pillar upon which our whole fabric of Government rests; you are sowing broadcast the seeds of revolution and ruin. Mr. Speaker, if the object of gentlemen here is to restore harmony and peace and prosperity throughout the Union, why do they adopt measures thus insulting, tyrannical, and oppressive in their character? Is this the way to restore harmony and peace and prosperity? How can you expect to gain the respect and affection of those people by heaping upon them insult and injustice? If they have the spirit of their ancestors, you may crush them, you may slay them, but you can never cause them to love you or respect you; and they ought not while you force upon them measures which are only intended to degrade them."
Mr. Trimble, of Kentucky, viewed the question in a similar light to that in which it was regarded by his colleague. "I hold," said he, "this bill is in open and plain violation of that provision of the Constitution. There exists no power in this Government to deprive a citizen of the United States of his property, to take away the hard earnings of his own industry and bestow them upon this class of citizens. The only way you can take property in South Carolina, Georgia, or any other State, is to take that property under the Constitution of the United States and the laws passed in pursuance thereof."
He closed his speech with the following appeal: "I appeal to my friends who love this Union, who love it for all the memories of the past, who love it because it has protected them and theirs; I appeal to them to pause and reflect before they press this measure upon these people; for I tell you that, in my judgment, the effects of the provisions of this bill to us as a nation will not be told in our lifetimes. If legislation of this character is to be pressed here, I awfully fear hope will sink within us. Our love for this Union and desire for its restoration will be greatly weakened and estranged."
Mr. McKee alone, of all the Representatives from Kentucky, was favorable to the bill. The opponents of the measure had spoken of it as a "monstrous usurpation." "We have heard that talk," said Mr. McKee, "for more than four years here. What bill has been introduced into and passed by Congress since this war began that this same party has not been accustomed to denounce as a monstrous usurpation of power? When the President of the United States issued his call for troops they cried out, 'A monstrous usurpation of power.' When he sent a requisition to the Governor of my own State, what was the response? 'Not a man, not a dollar, to prosecute this wicked war against our Southern brethren.' And the Union party, God help them! in Kentucky, indorsed the sentiment at that day. I did not belong to that part of the Union party; I never belonged to that 'neutrality concern.' I never put in my oar to help propel that ship which was in favor of thundering forth with its cannon against the North and the South alike. I never belonged to that party which said, 'We will stand as a wall of fire against either side.' I thank God I never stood upon but one side, and that was the side of my country, against treason, against oppression, against wrong in all its forms."
In arguing the necessity for some such legislation as that provided in this bill, Mr. McKee asked, "Has any Southern State given the freedmen 'their full rights and full protection?' Is there a solitary State of those that have been in rebellion, (and I include my own State with the rest, because, although