Mr. Richardson. You have no show in the world this summer. If you could carry that proposition now, you could not carry one of the Northwestern States this fall.
June 14th, the consideration of the bill was renewed, when Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, spoke against it. He moved to strike out “Treasury Department,” and insert “Department of the Interior.” On this motion Mr. Sumner said:—
The point to which the Senator directs attention was considered very carefully by the Committee. Were this a moment of peace, I believe the Committee would have been unanimous in the idea of the Senator. Indeed, it seems to me, the reasons for it in time of peace are unanswerable. It is in the Interior Department that we place the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Pensions, the Bureau of Patents, the Bureau of Public Lands; and a Bureau of Freedmen would be more or less germane to all these interests. It would naturally be lodged in the same department with them. Naturally it belongs to the Interior; there can be no question about it. The Senator, therefore, is perfectly right, when he makes the suggestion. But the Senator should take into consideration that at this moment we are acting provisionally, and not permanently,—under suggestions growing out of the present state of the country, and not as if we were in a condition of permanent peace.
In placing the bureau where the Committee have placed it, they followed what seemed the necessities of the case. Congress, by previous legislation, has practically placed the bureau in the Treasury Department,—or rather it has rendered it necessary that it should be placed there, unless we are willing by legislation to create a conflict between two different departments. Congress has already placed in the Treasury Department the control of the business relations between the Rebel States and the Loyal States, and also the control of the abandoned lands and plantations in the Rebel States. Now, as I tried to exhibit the other day, when I opened this question, the main interest for the moment is how to bring the freedmen in connection with the lands. If you go beyond that, if you undertake to provide means for their support, you assume what I believe the country does not expect you to assume, and what I believe those who have the welfare of that people most at heart do not venture to counsel. We desire to secure for them opportunity,—opportunity to work: that is the main point, and that can be secured only by bringing them in connection with the lands. The care and guardianship of the lands where it is proposed to place the freedmen have already, by previous legislation, I repeat, been lodged with the Treasury Department. Therefore, naturally and logically, it seems to follow, unless you are willing to create a conflict between two different departments, or between the agents of two different departments, that you should place the care of the freedmen in the same department.
Sir, I am not alone in this view. The other day I presented it, and gave opinions on the subject, to which I now call attention: one is a private letter from Hon. Robert Dale Owen, and the other is part of the Report of the Freedmen’s Commission, appointed by the Secretary of War to consider, among other questions, that now before the Senate.[355]
The amendment of Mr. Hendricks was rejected. Mr. Willey, of West Virginia, then spoke against the bill. He said: “In my opinion, after as close and careful an examination of this bill as I have been able to give to it, its proper title would be ‘A bill to reënslave freedmen.’ … Sir, in the name of Liberty and Emancipation I protest against the passage of any such bill by the American Senate.”
June 15th, the debate was continued, when the bill was opposed by Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, Mr. Hicks, of Maryland, and Mr. Grimes, of Iowa. Mr. Ten Eyck, of New Jersey, spoke in favor of it. Mr. Carlile, of Virginia, moved to postpone its further consideration to the first Monday of December next, which was lost,—Yeas 13, Nays 23. Mr. Grimes was particularly severe in his criticism, which drew from Mr. Sumner the following reply.
I am sorry that I am obliged to say another word in this debate. I had hoped to be excused. But the remarks of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grimes] leave me no alternative.
I am not astonished at the opposition this bill has encountered from Senators over the way. It is their vocation to oppose every such measure, and to give it, if possible, a bad name. They believe in Slavery more or less, and will not do anything to remove it or to mitigate its terrible curse. There is the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Willey], who gives us smooth words for Freedom, with boasts of the slaves he has emancipated, and then straightway, by voice and vote, sustains slave-hunting, and, if possible, worse still, startles the Senate by a menace that slaves set free by Act of Congress will be reënslaved by States restored to the Union. That this Senator should attack a bill for a Bureau of Freedmen is perfectly natural; nor am I astonished that he should misrepresent its character. But I cannot conceal my surprise at the course of the Senator from Iowa, who I know has no love for Slavery, and no congenital, persistent, and rooted prejudices against the colored race. If the Senator from West Virginia spoke naturally, allow me to say that my friend from Iowa spoke unnaturally.