The Treasury can bear any additional burden better than the country can bear to do an injustice.

In point of law, it seems obvious, if enlistments were made in good faith under the statute of 1861, and there was no legal objection to those enlistments, then the United States are bound.

I shall not say anything upon it in the first aspect, except to make one remark,--that our country at this moment can ill afford to take the responsibility of refusing justice to colored soldiers whom it has allowed to shed their blood in…

The soul repudiates any such sacrifice,--for sacrifice it will be, at once of honor and of interest.

And yet the argument which denies them their well-earned wages asserts that they are only “employed,” and not enlisted.

To me the conclusion seems irresistible, on the face of these facts, that these troops were enrolled or enlisted under the earlier statute.

There is no color in any statute raising troops for the army of the United States, nor any color in any statute raising sailors for the navy of the United States.

Only in our militia statutes do you find the word “white.” In all our army and navy statutes there is no such limitation.

I accepted it as notice to the Administration that in the opinion of Congress the time had come when colored troops must be used.

Am I wrong, then, if I say that in point of law these colored troops have just the same right to the full pay of a soldier that any Senator on this floor has to his compensation?

It is by just as good title, and as firm in the statute-book, as your own pay, Sir.

I take the past as it is; but for the future I insist that they shall be put upon an equality.

True equality in the past is for the National Government to redeem its pledges, whether direct or only implied,--whether there is an absolute promise, of which you have a record, or only an inference or understanding, founded, it may be…

Now, if this money is due, let us charge the Treasury with the burden; and that brings me again to the direct question, Is not the money due?

On many accounts I confess a special interest in it; not the least is that I would have my country above doing injustice, least of all injustice to people of a race too long crushed by injustice.

Then you have the order from the Secretary of War to Governor Andrew, authorizing an enrolment for three years, making no discrimination between persons of African descent and white soldiers.

You have, in the third place, the open promises and pledges of Governor Andrew, under that order, and for the time being the agent of the United States, solemnly promising the full pay of thirteen dollars a month to these colored persons…

In face of these, how can it be said that these colored troops were “employed” under the statute of 1862?

The only inducement he offered to these men was an acknowledgment of their manhood; for he promised that the United States Government would treat them, in every particular, the same as other volunteer regiments from the State of…

These colored troops declare that they were enlisted as soldiers of the United States, and as such are entitled to the pay of soldiers of the United States from the Government of the United States.

If it be wrong to maintain their claim, then is Massachusetts wrong, then am I wrong.

If the claim is maintained earnestly, it is because, both in law and in sentiment, and on every ground of policy or expediency, it commends itself to those who represent Massachusetts.

To my own mind, the right of these men, under the existing statutes, to the lawful pay and allowances of volunteers is demonstrably clear.

I think there can be no proposition of law more clear than this, namely, that colored men are competent to be enlisted into the regular army of the United States, into the volunteer army of the United States, into the navy of the United…

Let us at all hazards prevent the extension of Slavery and the increase of the Slave Power.