Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1863-03-11
Remarks of Mr.. Hutchins.

r. L gentle
a man from Kentucky Mr.. Crittenden
has not answered, and has not attempted
to answer, the argument which my ques
ton suggested. His argument was that
it was wrong to take the slaves because il
deprived the master of their services
The law makes no distinction. The Con.
stitution makes no distinction. They are
persons owing service or labor in both
, instances. The fugitive slave clause OF
the Constitution, as it is sometimes call
ed, which is often referred to, to show
the property relations of slaves says, mo
person held to service or labor" &c.
Mr.. Wright. Let me move that the
House do now adjourn. This debate can
not be closed to-day. There are several
gentlemen who propose to speak on it.
Mr.. Hutchins. | prefer TO 90 on now.
/ will occupy but a few moments time.
Now, the master is entitled to the SER
vice of his apprentice by virtue of statute
law; the parent is entitled to the service
of his child by statute law the master
is entitled to the service of his slave by
statute law, the difference being only in
the time of service. What is the gentle
mans answer to that? Simply that the
apprentice and the son can be taken, be-
cause they are not property. but are free
citizens, and not slaves. This is no an
swer to the argument. The Attorney
General of the United States, in an able
and elaborate opinion recently published,
maintains that natiye-born colored per-
sons are citizens. In this he is correct
If we can take as soldiers, minor appren-
tices and minor sons, we have the same
right TO take slaves, for they are either
g persons or property. If they are persons,
we are entitled to their services to save
T. the Government; and the fact that they
are not citizens does not change the right
. of the Government to their services as
subjects, unless they owe allegiance to a
foreign Government. If colored persons
are property, we may use that property
to put down this rebellion The bill un-
der consideration does not limit the use
of colored persons to slaves; and large
proportion of them will not be slaves.
But l viii not multiply the argument.
b. ! say the gentleman from Kentucky,
ed Mr.. Crittendenl, with all his assump-
tion, and ability, failed to answer the
argument which my question presented
to him.
General Hunter has been referred to.
and his experiments in the arming of
these soldiers have been referred to as a
failure / have little testimony upon
that point which wish to commend to
the consideration of the House. l sought
an interview with General Hunter soon
after his return from Hilton Head, at the I
time he was relieved from his command /
there. | had heard rumors that his ne
gro regiment in South Carolina was a /
failure, and / wanted to ascertain the /
truth from his own lips, for l knew him |
to be patriot, an honest and an honora- I
BILE man, whose character was without 1
stain. General Hunter told me in Will /
lard'S Hotel-and the conversation was !
not private-that his attempt to arm ne
gro regiments in South Carolina was a 1
complete success that their aptitude for
drill and learning military movements /
was equal to that of any white soldiers /
he ever saw in his life. He said the only .
reason they were disbanded was because !
the Government at that time did not see
fit to endorse his policy that was the :
reason, and the only reason.
Now he has returned to South Carolina /
armed with authority to employ in the |
service of the United States these coiored |
men. The Government has changed its
policy upon that point; and while at
Hilton Head, last fall, had conversa-
ton with the lamented, eloquent, and
patriotic General Mitchell, who laid down
his life upon the altar of his country
He agreed with General Hunter in opin-
ion that they made good and efficient
soldiers, and said that if the Government
would sanction that policy, he could
raise and arm in South Carolina, Florida,
and Georgia force which, within three !
or four months, would restore those
States to loyalty, to the Constitution and
the laws, and rescue them from the
hands of traitors.
The idea of using colored men as sol
diers is no new idea. Facts have been
referred to in this discussion, and have
q few more with which every student of
American history is familiar, furnished
by Southern men of revolutionary days
men who were not anti-slayery men, nor
abolitionists in the sense that the gentle
man from Kentucky Mr.. Crittendenl
speaks of. The first l have is the testi-
mony of Hon. Henry Laurens, of South
Carolina, in letter he wrote to Washing
ton, under date of March l6, l77q | ask
my conservative friends upon the other
side of the House, who are so alarmed at
the idea of employing negro slaves to
defend this Republic, and rescue it from
the dominion of traitors, to consider this
southern testimony. l refer first to
what Hon. Henry Laurens, of South Car
olina. said on this subject. In a letter
dated March l6, l779, written to General
Washington, he uses the following Ian {
guage: :
=" Had we arms for three thousand such
black men as l could select in Carolina. | {
should have no doubt of success in driv-
ing the British out of Georgia, and sub
DUNG East Florida before the end of I
July" j
James Madison, in letter which he {
wrote TO Joseph Jones, on the 10th of !
November, $780, uses this forcible lam {
guage:
Would it not be as well to iberate
and make soldiers at once of the blacks
themselves, as to make them instruments |,
of enlisting white soldiers? 1t would ,
certainly be more consonant with the
principles of liberty, which ought never ,
to be lost sight of in a contest for liberty;
and, with white officers, and a majority .
of white soldiers, no imaginable danger
could be feared for themselves, as there ,
could be none from the effect OF /;
the example on those who should remain /,
in bondage"
Further along down in history, two r
years later, that fine and gallant patriot :
and soldier of the Revolution, General
Nathaniel Greene, upon this very subject,
in letter to General Washington, uses
this language:
81 have recommended to this State v
South Cardinal to raise some black reg r
ments." s.
Remember that this was in letter ad- e
dressed to Washington, on the 24th of s.
January, 1882. That is the testimony of t
! soldier not tainted by what the gentle b
man from Kentucky Mr.. Crittenden d
calls abolitionisp, but a true patriot as $