APPENDIX.
An incident in connection with the delivery of this address at Philadelphia illustrates the sensitive condition of the public mind at the time. Mr. Sumner was announced to give it before “The People’s Literary Institute,” when he received a letter from the President of the Institute, which will be understood by his reply.
“Senate Chamber, December 19, 1860.
“Dear Sir,—I have been honored by your official communication as President of the People’s Literary Institute of Philadelphia, bearing date 17th December, in which you say, ‘that the patrons of the Institute are persons of all shades of political opinion, and that in the present excited state of the public mind it is desirable that Slavery and Antislavery should not be touched by its lecturers.’ This is written to govern me on the evening of the 27th of December, when, according to invitation, I was to address the Institute.
“With much misgiving I accepted the place urged upon me in your course. For some time I declined it, and yielded only to the most pressing solicitation. Afterwards, in reply to an inquiry from one of your officers, I let it be known that my subject would be ‘Lafayette,’ and I think you have already announced the same in your course. You are too familiar with the career of this constant friend of Human Freedom not to know that it cannot be adequately presented without touching upon the topics which you forbid. It was the peculiar glory of this illustrious man, that from his early days to his death-bed he strove always for Human Freedom, and especially sought to remove the intolerable evil of African Slavery. To leave so great a part of his life untouched would be an infidelity I cannot commit. Indeed, I do not think your careful judgment could approve such an act. If at any other time it might be done, you will see that at this moment, when persons acting in behalf of Slavery openly threaten treason, silence upon testimony so powerful would be nearly akin to complicity with the treason. The pirates of the Caribbean Sea are said to have carefully recited the Ten Commandments, omitting ‘Thou shalt not steal.’ A precedent like this I have no disposition to follow.
“Even if the subject of my lecture did not require me to infringe your instructions, I beg to assure you that I could not consent to speak under any such constraint. For many years I have addressed associations, societies, and meetings of all kinds; but never before have I been met by any hint of interference with the completest latitude of speech, according to my sense of the duties and proprieties of the occasion. Long accustomed to free speech, I am too old now to renounce it.
“There are two recent events in Philadelphia which furnish a commentary upon your letter. The first is a resolution adopted at a public meeting, with the Mayor in the chair, openly proclaiming that free speech must not be permitted at the North; and the other is a practical illustration of this tyranny in the refusal to hear the accomplished Mr. Curtis, when announced to lecture before your Institute on ‘The Policy of Honesty.’ All this is done for the sake of Slavery, and in the hope of soothing traitors. You can know little of me, if you suppose that I can take part in any such work. Of course my place in your list is now vacant.
“I observe that your letter, although signed officially as President of the People’s Institute, is marked ‘Confidential.’ I have no desire to draw your name into any public discussion; but it is obvious that my refusal to take part in your course cannot be frankly stated without reference to what you have written.
“I have the honor to be, dear Sir,
“Your obedient servant,
“Charles Sumner.
“—— ——,
“President of the People’s Literary Institute, Philadelphia.”
December 22, Mr. Sumner received from the President of the Institute the following telegram:—
“Permit me to withdraw my letter. Come and speak freely. Do not decline. I have written you to-day.”
This was followed by a letter from the President, repeating his request, and saying, among other things,—
“That the public are very desirous to hear you, and will be greatly disappointed, if you cancel the engagement.
“That, in common with the Managers and patrons of the Institute, I earnestly hope that you will reconsider your determination not to speak on the 27th instant, and that you will consent to deliver the lecture on ‘Lafayette,’ which has been advertised, and which the people expect, without any feeling of constraint as to the treatment of the subject.”
Accordingly, December 27, Mr. Sumner spoke for the first time in Philadelphia. A few sentences from the Press show how he was received.
“The announcement that Hon. Charles Sumner would lecture at Concert Hall, before the People’s Literary Institute, last evening, attracted an immense audience. At an early hour the hall was filled to its utmost sitting and standing capacity, and there must have been enough turned away, after the sale of tickets was discontinued at the door, to have filled another hall of equal size. The audience was also of the most respectable character.…
“When the lecturer entered the platform, he was greeted with uproarious applause. For several minutes the audience—the greater part of whom rose to receive him—continued clapping, cheering, and waving their handkerchiefs.…
“He was introduced to the audience by President Allen, of Girard College, who said that the scholar, the eloquent orator, and the steadfast friend of man, all found a synonym in the name of the statesman who was now to address them; and his subject was suggestive to all lovers of Liberty. He had now the pleasure of introducing the Hon. Charles Sumner, who was to speak on Lafayette. The lecture which followed occupied two hours and a quarter in its delivery, and was given without notes.”
The address on Lafayette was the last of a series during the year, by which Mr. Sumner had striven to direct public opinion against Slavery, so at least that it should not be carried into the Territories. Amidst hostile criticism there were friendly expressions, showing that he had not spoken in vain. Of these, one is presented as applicable to the series. It is the Dedication of the Thanksgiving Sermon, Sunday Evening, November 11, 1860, by Rev. Gilbert Haven, entitled, “The Cause and Consequence of the Election of Abraham Lincoln.”
“TO THE HON. CHARLES SUMNER:
“Who has spoken the bravest words for Liberty in the most perilous places; who has suffered in behalf of the Slave only less than those who wear the martyr’s crown; who has come forth from that suffering with the profoundest, because experimental, sympathy with the Oppressed, with a more intense hatred of the Oppression, yet without any bitterness of heart against the Oppressor; who will stand forth in the future times as the clearest-eyed, boldest-tongued, and purest-hearted Statesman of the age: these few words of Thanksgiving and Praise, for the manifestation of the Presence and Power of the Almighty Redeemer in this greatest work of our time, are most respectfully dedicated.”
DISUNION AND A SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY: THE OBJECT.
Remarks in the Senate, December 10, 1860.
The opening of Congress was signalized by two things: first, the Message of President Buchanan, December 4, 1860, misrepresenting the North, and practically abdicating the power to control rebellious States; and, secondly, the development of a determination on the part of certain States at the South to secede from the Union. Here South Carolina took the lead.
In the Senate, December 6th, Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, brought forward a resolution, which, after modification by himself, was as follows.
“Resolved, That so much of the President’s Message as relates to the present agitated and distracted condition of the country, and the grievances between the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding States, be referred to a special committee of thirteen members, and that said committee be instructed to inquire into the present condition of the country and report by bill or otherwise.”
In the consideration of this resolution a debate ensued on the state of the Union, and the resolution was adopted December 18th. The committee appointed by the Vice-President, Mr. Breckinridge, was Mr. Powell of Kentucky, the mover, Mr. Hunter of Virginia, Mr. Crittenden of Kentucky, Mr. Seward of New York, Mr. Toombs of Georgia, Mr. Douglas of Illinois, Mr. Collamer of Vermont, Mr. Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, Mr. Wade of Ohio, Mr. Bigler of Pennsylvania, Mr. Rice of Minnesota, Mr. Doolittle of Wisconsin, and Mr. Grimes of Iowa. December 31st, Mr. Powell reported to the Senate “that the Committee have not been able to agree upon any general plan of adjustment.” In the propositions offered in committee by Mr. Douglas we first meet that for the disfranchisement of the colored race, even where already voters, which was part of the Crittenden Compromise in its final form.[129]
Immediately after the first reading of Mr. Powell’s resolution for the appointment of a committee Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.
MR. PRESIDENT,—I have no desire to make a speech at this time, nor to take any part in the discussion that has commenced. I can bear yet a little longer the misrepresentations in the President’s Message, and I believe the North can bear them yet a little longer. The time will come, perhaps, when I shall deem it my duty to set forth those things in the light of reason and of history; meanwhile I content myself with simply offering to the Senate testimony of direct and most authoritative bearing upon the present state of the Union. If I may adopt the language of the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Jefferson Davis], it will help us to make the diagnosis of the present disease in the body politic.
I hold in my hand an unpublished autograph letter, written by General Jackson while President of the United States, and addressed to a clergyman in a slaveholding State. Omitting certain sentences which are of a purely private nature, the letter is as follows.
“[Private.]
“Washington, May 1, 1833.
“My dear Sir,— … I have had a laborious task here, but Nullification is dead; and its actors and courtiers will only be remembered by the people to be execrated for their wicked designs to sever and destroy the only good government on the globe, and that prosperity and happiness we enjoy over every other portion of the world. Haman’s gallows ought to be the fate of all such ambitious men, who would involve their country in civil war, and all the evils in its train, that they might reign and ride on its whirlwinds and direct the storm. The free people of these United States have spoken, and consigned these wicked demagogues to their proper doom. Take care of your Nullifiers; you have them among you; let them meet with the indignant frowns of every man who loves his country. The Tariff, it is now”—
and he underscores, or italicizes, the word “now”—
“known, was a mere pretext. Its burden was on your coarse woollens. By the law of July, 1832, coarse woollen was reduced to five per cent for the benefit of the South. Mr. Clay’s bill takes it up and classes it with woollens at fifty per cent, reduces it gradually down to twenty per cent, and there it is to remain, and Mr. Calhoun and all the Nullifiers agree to the principle. The cash duties and home valuation will be equal to fifteen per cent more, and after the year 1842 you pay on coarse woollens thirty-five per cent. If this is not protection, I cannot understand; therefore the Tariff was only the pretext, and Disunion and a Southern Confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the Negro or Slavery Question.
“My health is not good, but is improving a little. Present me kindly to your lady and family, and believe me to be your friend. I will always be happy to hear from you.
“Andrew Jackson.
“The Rev. Andrew J. Crawford.”[130]
Here is the original autograph letter, in the well-known, unmistakable, bold, broad handwriting. [Here Mr. Sumner held the letter up.] These are the words of a patriot slaveholder of Tennessee, addressed to a patriot clergyman of a slaveholding State, and they are directly applicable to the present hour. Of practical sense, of inflexible purpose, and of various experience, Andrew Jackson saw intuitively the springs and motives of human conduct, while he loved his country with a firm and all-embracing attachment. Thus inspired, he was able to judge the present and to discern the future. The Tariff, in his opinion, was a pretext only,—Disunion and a Southern Confederacy the real object. “The next pretext,” says he,—and you, Sir, cannot fail to mark the words,—“will be the Negro or Slavery Question.” These, Sir, are his words, not mine. Such is his emphatic judgment. Words and judgment now belong to history; nor can they be assailed without assailing one of the greatest examples that a slaveholding community has given to our common country.
ATTEMPT AT COMPROMISE: THE CRITTENDEN PROPOSITIONS.
Incidents and Notes, December 18, 1860, to March 4, 1861.
Before the organization of the Committee of Thirteen on the State of the Union, mentioned in the preceding article, Mr. Crittenden brought forward a joint resolution, December 18, 1860, containing propositions of Compromise, which soon became known by the name of their author. These propositions were extensive in character, covering amendments to the Constitution and recommendations to the States. Afterwards, January 3, 1861, he reintroduced his propositions, with a new preamble, and with two additional amendments to the Constitution. That such propositions could have been seriously presented as a basis of Union shows the exacting spirit of Slavery, and the deplorable insensibility to great principles.
The Compromise in its final form opened with a Constitutional prohibition of Slavery in all territory of the United States north of 36° 30´, but on the other hand it was expressly declared that “in all the territory now held, or hereafter to be acquired, south of said line of latitude, Slavery of the African race is hereby recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by Congress, but shall be protected as property by all the departments of the Territorial Government during its continuance”; and any territory north or south of this line was to be admitted into the Union as a State with or without Slavery, as the Constitution of such new State might provide. It was further declared that Congress should have no power to abolish Slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction and within the limits of slaveholding States; that Congress should have no power to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia, so long as it exists in the adjoining States of Virginia and Maryland, or either, nor without the consent of the inhabitants, nor without just compensation to slave-owners who do not consent to such abolishment; that Congress should not prohibit officers of the Federal [National] Government, or Members of Congress, whose duties require them to be in the District, from bringing with them their slaves and holding them as such; and that Congress should have no power to prohibit or hinder the transportation of slaves from one State to another, or to a Territory in which slaves are by law permitted to be held, whether that transportation be by land, navigable rivers, or by sea.
Then followed Constitutional amendments, providing that the United States should pay to the owner of a fugitive slave the full value of such slave, in case of obstruction to the recovery thereof,—also providing that no future amendment of the Constitution should affect these articles, or the existing provisions relating to slave representation and the surrender of fugitives from service, or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with Slavery in any of the States where it exists.
Then followed another Constitutional amendment, providing that “the elective franchise and the right to hold office, whether Federal [National], State, Territorial, or municipal, shall not be exercised by persons who are in whole or in part of the African race,”—and still another, providing for the acquisition of “districts of country in Africa and South America” for the colonization of “free negroes and mulattoes.”[131]
Besides these amendments to the Constitution, the joint resolution, in order “to remove all just cause for the popular discontent and agitation which now disturb the peace of the country and threaten the stability of its institutions,” proceeded to declare, that the laws now in force for the recovery of fugitive slaves are in strict pursuance of the plain and mandatory provisions of the Constitution, that the slaveholding States are entitled to their faithful observance and execution, and that laws should be made for the punishment of those who illegally interfere to prevent their execution,—that State laws interfering with the recovery of fugitive slaves (referring to Personal Liberty Laws) should be repealed, that the Fugitive Slave Act of September 18, 1850, should be amended in certain particulars, and that the laws for the suppression of the African Slave-Trade should be made effectual.
The Crittenden Compromise was encountered in the Senate by the following counter propositions, offered by Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, January 9, 1861.
“Resolved, That the provisions of the Constitution are ample for the preservation of the Union and the protection of all the material interests of the country; that it needs to be obeyed rather than amended; and that an extrication from the present dangers is to be looked for in strenuous efforts to preserve the peace, protect the public property, and enforce the laws, rather than in new guaranties for particular interests, compromises for particular difficulties, or concessions to unreasonable demands.
“Resolved, That all attempts to dissolve the present Union, or overthrow or abandon the present Constitution, with the hope or expectation of constructing a new one, are dangerous, illusory, and destructive; that in the opinion of the Senate of the United States no such reconstruction is practicable; and therefore to the maintenance of the existing Union and Constitution should be directed all the energies of all the departments of the Government, and the efforts of all good citizens.”
January 16, the question being taken by yeas and nays, on the motion to substitute, resulted, yeas 25, nays 23, as follows.
Yeas,—Messrs. Anthony, Baker, Bingham, Cameron, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hall, Harlan, King, Seward, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilson,—25.
Nays,—Messrs. Bayard, Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Clingman, Crittenden, Fitch, Green, Gwin, Hunter, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Latham, Mason, Nicholson, Pearce, Polk, Powell, Pugh, Rice, Saulsbury, Sebastian,—23.
So the amendment was agreed to, and the proposition of Mr. Clark was substituted for that of Mr. Crittenden.
This important result, by which the Crittenden Compromise received a heavy blow, was a surprise, brought about by the Senators of the Gulf States,—Iverson of Georgia, Clay and Fitzpatrick of Alabama, Brown and Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, Benjamin and Slidell of Louisiana, Mallory and Yulee of Florida, Hemphill and Wigfall of Texas, and Johnson of Arkansas,—who were in attendance, but withheld their votes. The two Senators of South Carolina, Hammond and Chesnut, also Toombs of Georgia, had not appeared in their seats during the session. Three of these Senators voting against the substitute, it could not have been carried, and the original propositions would have been still before the Senate. The adoption of the substitute was used by them to inflame their constituents. Their conduct on this occasion showed a “foregone conclusion.” Nothing but Disunion would satisfy them,—not even the Crittenden Compromise, so full of surrender.
Then ensued a comedy. Immediately after the adoption of the substitute, a reconsideration of the vote was moved by Mr. Cameron, of Pennsylvania, at the request of Mr. Crittenden, which on a subsequent day was carried. The question was then allowed to sleep on the table, until, unexpectedly, on the last legislative day of the session, just before the expiration of the Congress, and after the withdrawal of the Southern Senators, it was called up by Mr. Mason, of Virginia, when Mr. Clark again offered his substitute, which was lost by a vote of 22 nays against 14 yeas, several Senators expressing a desire to vote directly on the original propositions. On these propositions the final vote stood, yeas 19, nays 20, as follows.
Yeas,—Messrs. Bayard, Bigler, Bright, Crittenden, Douglas, Gwin, Hunter, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Latham, Mason, Nicholson, Polk, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian, Thomson, Wigfall,—19.
Nays,—Messrs. Anthony, Bingham, Chandler, Clark, Dixon, Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Harlan, King, Morrill, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilson,—20.
So the joint resolution of Mr. Crittenden, with its various propositions, was rejected. The final withdrawal of the Senators from seceding States obviously aided this result.
As the session was coming to a close, a joint resolution was received from the House of Representatives proposing yet another amendment to the Constitution, as follows.
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any State with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
Bills and joint resolutions must be read on three several days; but on ordinary occasions they receive their first and second readings the same day. Mr. Sumner, unwilling that this other attempt should be hurried through the Senate, objected to the second reading on the first day, and the next day had a question with Mr. Douglas on the correction of the Journal, which failed to record his objection. On his motion the Journal was corrected.[132] The Senate then suspended the rule requiring the three readings of a Constitutional amendment on three separate days, and proceeded to the consideration of the proposed amendment. Mr. Pugh, of Ohio, spoke lightly of its composition, saying:—
“I think it was De Quincey who said, that, next to the duty which a man owes God and his country and his family, it was his duty to preserve the purity of his mother tongue. The Constitution of the United States is written in excellent English; but if this amendment be expressed in the English language, or by any rule of grammar, I do not understand it.”
Mr. Crittenden replied, that he could “bear with bad English, when it expressed a good thing.”
The vote on its passage was 24 yeas to 12 nays, as follows.
Yeas,—Messrs. Anthony, Baker, Bigler, Bright, Crittenden, Dixon, Douglas, Foster, Grimes, Gwin, Harlan, Hunter, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Latham, Mason, Morrill, Nicholson, Polk, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian, Ten Eyck, Thomson,—24.
Nays,—Messrs. Bingham, Chandler, Clark, Doolittle, Durkee, Foot, King, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilson,—12.
Two thirds of the Senate present voting for the joint resolution, it was agreed to. The proposed amendment to the Constitution was never adopted by the States. It remains in the national archives, a singular instance of bad composition, and the monument of a fruitless effort.
This final attempt to appease the spirit of Rebellion was on the last legislative day of the session. The 3d of March being Sunday, the Senate, without adjourning, took a recess from Saturday evening till Sunday evening at seven o’clock, thus making the 2d of March the concluding day of that Congress, which was prolonged till noon of March 4th. During the sitting of Sunday, from seven o’clock in the evening till midnight, Mr. Sumner, who had never been in the habit of pairing, was induced to pair with Mr. Polk, of Missouri, who was unwilling to transact business on Sunday. His scruples did not prevent him from joining the Rebellion, for which he was subsequently expelled from the Senate on Mr. Sumner’s motion.
The Crittenden Compromise attracted attention not only in Congress, but throughout the country.
Meanwhile a Boston committee arrived at Washington, composed of leading citizens, with Hon. Edward Everett as chairman, to urge an adjustment by mutual surrender. Mr. Everett called upon Mr. Sumner at his lodgings, and with much emotion urged him to bring forward some conciliatory proposition, saying, “You are the only person who can introduce such a proposition with chance of success.” Mr. Sumner replied: “You are mistaken in supposing that I might have success with compromise, if I could bring it forward. If I am strong with the North, it is because of the conviction that I cannot compromise; but the moment I compromised, I, too, should be lost.”
All in Massachusetts were not like this committee. The tone of many was expressed by a venerable citizen, and an able writer, connected with the press during a long life, Joseph T. Buckingham, who closed a firm and courageous letter, under date of January 11, 1861, with the words,—
“God bless you, and all who keep a stiff backbone! For those who yield, I care not what becomes of them.”
On the 19th of January, 1861, the General Assembly of Virginia adopted a series of resolutions, proposing a Convention of States at Washington, February 4, 1861, to attempt an adjustment of the pending difficulties, and recommending the propositions of Mr. Crittenden reinforced. The action of the Virginia Assembly was communicated to the Senate by message of President Buchanan, January 28th. Mr. Sumner, being against all compromise, could not regard with favor any attempt in that direction. A misrepresentation of his position was corrected by the following telegram in Northern papers.
“Washington, January 30, 1861.
“The report, that Senator Sumner has approved the objects of the Convention which is to assemble here at the call of Virginia, is a mistake. Mr. Sumner regards that call as part of the treasonable conspiracy against the National Government, and does not see how Northern men can have anything to do with it, unless they are ready in some way to play into the hands of the traitors.
“Mr. Sumner has always held that any change by the North from its attitude of firmness and repose can have no other effect than the encouragement of treason.”
A telegraphic correspondence further shows his position.
“Boston, January 31, 1861.
“Hon. Charles Sumner:—
“Do you favor sending Commissioners to Washington 4th February?
“George L. Stearns.”
“Washington, January 31, 1861.
“George L. Stearns, Esq., Boston:—
“I am against sending Commissioners to treat for the surrender of the North. Stand firm.
“Charles Sumner.”
Alone of the Massachusetts delegation Mr. Sumner declined to unite with his colleagues in recommending to the Governor the appointment of Commissioners. This isolation was the occasion of a report which is mentioned in a letter of S. M. Booth, written, under date of February 2d, from his prison at Milwaukee, where he was suffering for aiding a fugitive slave.
“The telegraph assigns you the enviable position of standing ‘solitary and alone’ among the Massachusetts representatives, as inflexibly opposed to compromise with rebels for the benefit of Slavery. I cannot believe you are so entirely forsaken, yet I greatly fear the country is to be dishonored and the Republican party dissolved.… Rest assured that the masses of the Republican party do not sympathize with the Compromisers of the Republican party, nor appreciate that statesmanship which consists in yielding vital principles to the demands of the Slave Power. The ‘Barbarism of Slavery’ is now demonstrated before ‘all Israel and the sun.’ I see little good to come from the election of Lincoln, if the platform of the opposing candidates is to be adopted by the Republican leaders. Indeed, it were far better that Slavery should triumph under the rule of Douglas or Breckinridge than under the rule of Lincoln.”
So Mr. Sumner thought, and he acted accordingly. His correspondence with Governor Andrew at this time was constant and earnest. The latter was resolute against Compromise. In a letter of January 20th, the Governor wrote:—
“From war, pestilence, and famine, from all assaults of the world, the flesh, and the Devil, good Lord, deliver us,—but most especially from any compromise with traitors, or any bargain with Slavery!”
Under date of January 30th, the Governor wrote:—
“I think we had better be present by good men in the Conference, if there is to be one, than to be misrepresented by volunteers, or be wholly outside, unheard, and misinformed of the plans and doings inside. Our Committee on Federal Relations will report good resolutions, I think, which will leave us free of complicity with the heresy of the Virginia resolutions, and secure the dignity and fairness of our position.”
Another letter from Massachusetts said, that, if Massachusetts did not send representatives, “the Boston Hunkers would send a delegation, which would not be desirable.”
The Commissioners appointed by the Governor were, John Z. Goodrich, Charles Allen, George S. Boutwell, Francis B. Crowninshield, Theophilus P. Chandler, John M. Forbes, and Richard P. Waters,—all firm against any new concession to Slavery.
Against their influence and votes, the Convention, known as the “Peace Congress,” presented a series of propositions similar in character and surrender to those of Mr. Crittenden, sharing also a similar fate.
During these various efforts, President Buchanan was earnest for the Crittenden Compromise. An interview of Mr. Sumner with him, reported in the Northern papers, shows his desire for this terrible concession.
“Washington, February 4.
“Much interest is manifested in the interview between President Buchanan and Senator Sumner. Mr. Sumner visited the President, at the request of Governor Andrew, to learn his answer to the Massachusetts offer of military aid; that done, Mr. Sumner said,—
“What else can Massachusetts do for the good of the country?
“Mr. Buchanan. A great deal. No State more.
“Mr. Sumner. I should like to know what.
“Mr. Buchanan (after a pause). Adopt the Crittenden propositions.
“Mr. Sumner. Is that necessary?
“Mr. Buchanan. It is.
“Mr. Sumner. Massachusetts has not acted directly on these propositions, which seek to give Slavery Constitutional protection in Territories, and disfranchise large numbers of her citizens; but I believe such are the convictions of the Massachusetts people that they would never consent to any such thing.
“Mr. Sumner repeated his assurance in the strongest language.
“The President said he felt discouraged by the reply.
“Mr. Sumner spoke of the common ground where all who truly loved the country could stand. It was the Constitution as administered by Washington. The verdict of the people last November should be recognized without price or condition.
“The President said he and Mr. Sumner must differ politically.
“Mr. Sumner assured the President that the people of Massachusetts were attached to the Union; that real disunionists there might all be put in an omnibus; but Massachusetts could not be brought to sacrifice or abandon her principles, and in that he sincerely joined.”
This interview was described by Mr. Sumner in one of his familiar letters to Governor Andrew, which is copied from the private files of the latter.
Washington, February 3, 1861.
My dear Andrew,—I saw the President yesterday. He was astonished to learn that the resolutions had not been acknowledged, and said that it should be done.
Afterwards I said to him, “Mr. President, what else can we do in Massachusetts for the good of the country?” A pause. “Much, Mr. Sumner.” “What?” said I. “Adopt the Crittenden propositions,” said he. “Is that necessary?” said I. “Yes,” said he. To which I replied, “Massachusetts has not yet spoken directly; but I feel authorized to say, that, such are the unalterable convictions of her people, they would see their State sunk below the sea, and turned into a sand-bank, before they would adopt propositions acknowledging property in men, and disfranchising a portion of her population.” I think I was right.
In God’s name stand firm! Don’t cave, Andrew! God bless you!
Charles Sumner.
Save Massachusetts from any “surrender,” THE LEAST!
C. S.
The latter part of the letter alluded to reports that the Legislature was disposed to repeal or modify the well-known laws for the protection of Personal Liberty, passed originally as a defence against the Fugitive Slave Bill. Compromisers urged this surrender, particularly after the special call in the Crittenden propositions. At the request of anxious citizens at home, Mr. Sumner wrote to members of the Legislature against any such sacrifice, insisting, that, with the manifest determination of the South, it could do no good, while plainly the laws should be maintained for the sake of Liberty. His views were briefly expressed in a private letter to Hon. William Claflin, Chairman of the Republican State Committee, and President of the Massachusetts Senate.
[Private.]
Washington, January 1, 1860.
My dear Claflin,—Massachusetts has now an important post. Her most difficult duty is to be true to herself and her own noble history. In the name of Liberty, I supplicate you not to let her take any backward step,—not an inch, not a hair’s breadth.
It is now too late for any fancied advantage from such conduct. The crisis is too far advanced. It only remains that she do nothing by which Liberty suffers, or her principles are recanted.
Remember well, that not a word from our Legislature can have the least influence in averting the impending result. What the case requires is firmness which nothing can shake.
Let the timid cry, but let Massachusetts stand stiff. God bless her!
We are on the eve of great events, and this month will try men’s souls. But our duty is clear as noonday, and bright as the sun.
Ever yours,
Charles Sumner.
In a letter dated January 15, Governor Andrew suggested a communication from the Massachusetts delegation, “that it is not important or desirable that we should repeal the Personal Liberty Laws.” February 17th, he announces, with something of exultation, the unanimous report of the Committee of the Legislature in harmony with his ideas.
“I had no original expectation of getting such a result; but I told some persons that they could not get anything through this room [the Council Chamber] not conformable to certain principles, and which did not contain certain details, unless they marched it through by dragoons.”
A letter from Hon. D. W. Alvord, written from Greenfield, Massachusetts, refers to the action of Mr. Sumner.
“Those who believe that it is the first duty of a State to protect its citizens from oppression, as much when the oppression is threatened by the General Government as when it comes from any other quarter, owe you especial thanks. Your influence has saved the ‘Personal Liberty Laws’ of this State from essential change. Such change would have been strenuously resisted by many true men in the Legislature, even had your advice been different; but your letters, shown about among members, and the knowledge spread through the Legislature that you advised against repeal or essential modification, stiffened many weak backs, and rendered any great change impossible.”
Thus at home, in the Legislature, as well as in Congress, people were busy to find some form of surrender inconsistent with those principles which had triumphed at the Presidential election. Mr. Sumner was positive against any surrender anywhere. A letter to Count Gurowski, in New York, which has seen the light since his death, is a contemporary record.
Washington, January 8, 1861.
My dear Count,—Sunday evening I had a visit from Thurlow Weed and Seward. The former said that he found himself “alone,”—nobody united with him. I rejoiced. —— and —— are here from New York for the same object. They urge that we cannot have a united North, unless we make an effort for adjustment; to which I reply: “We have the verdict of the people last November: that is enough.”
But these compromisers do not comprehend the glory of a principle. Périssent les colonies plutôt qu’un principe! That exclamation exalts a period which has many things to be deplored.
The Slave States are mad. They will all move. Nothing now but abject humiliation on the part of the North can stay them. Nobody can foresee precisely all that is in the future, but I do not doubt that any conflict will precipitate the doom of Slavery. It will probably go down in blood.…
Ever yours,
Charles Sumner.
During these efforts at compromise, the conspirators proceeded in their work. South Carolina took the lead, adopted an Ordinance of Secession December 20, 1860, and shortly thereafter raised the Palmetto flag over the custom-house and post-office at Charleston. Mississippi followed, January 9, 1861; Florida, January 10; Alabama, January 11; Georgia, January 19; and Louisiana, January 26. January 21st the Senators of seceding States withdrew from the Senate. Texas was not declared out of the Union until March 4th, when her Senators withdrew.
Another event will properly close this sketch. At the end of December, 1860, Commissioners from South Carolina arrived at Washington, in order to obtain the complete withdrawal of the national troops. Major Anderson, by a sudden movement, had transferred his command from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, which was much easier to hold. Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney were at once occupied by the Rebels. The country was aroused, and insisted that Fort Sumter should not be abandoned. It was held, until, after a bombardment of thirty-four hours, it yielded, April 13, 1861.
ANXIETIES AND PROSPECTS DURING THE WINTER.
Letters to John A. Andrew, Governor of Massachusetts, January 17 to February 20, 1861.
The following letters to Governor Andrew were obviously written in the intimacy of personal friendship and under the spur of public duty. The constant appeals for firmness at home found sympathetic response in one who was himself always firm, and they helped him with others. A letter to Mr. Sumner, dated January 28th, shows his appreciation of the correspondence.
“I have had great satisfaction in your constant remembrance of me by letters, documents, &c. I bear always in my mind and on my heart the honor of the ‘Old Bay State,’ and the claims of our holy cause of Liberty upon my devotion and efforts. May God help us all to be faithful!… I feel much support in your letters.”
Senate Chamber, January 17, 1861.
MY DEAR ANDREW,—Your timely suggestion with regard to Treasury notes I have referred to Mr. Sherman in the House, where any measure founded upon it must originate.
I have letters constantly from New York as well as Massachusetts, expressing great solicitude with regard to the safety of the capital. I am satisfied, that, had the President persevered in his original policy of surrender and treason, we should have been driven away before the 1st of February. Others with whom I converse do not doubt this. But General Scott has applied his best energies to measures of defence. He is satisfied that the traitors cannot succeed here, whatever they may do elsewhere. He has force enough on hand to hold the capital for hours against any attack which can be expected, and within that time he can have fifty thousand men from the North. A law maxim says, Cuique in sua arte credendum est. Should he be mistaken, his military reputation will suffer terribly.
You see as well as I, that any military assistance must be invited by the Government. A march of troops on our side would be a “first move” towards hostilities. Our safety must depend upon the watchfulness of the Government. But I agree with Mr. Stearns, that it would be useful to have some faithful men here who would make it a business to ascertain the plans and purposes of the enemy.
Mr. Burleigh, a Republican of John Covode’s district, has recently made an excursion into Maryland, where, passing himself as a speculator in negroes, he thinks he got into secrets. He reports a combination of ten thousand men to seize the capital, and also another conspiracy to assassinate Mr. Lincoln in Maryland, on his way to Washington.
Our friends are all tranquil, except so far as disturbed by Seward’s speech. If his propositions were pressed, I think they would split the party. I regret very much that he made them, and I protested most earnestly against them. He read me his speech four days in advance of its delivery. I pleaded with him, for the sake of the cause, the country, and his own good name, to abandon all his propositions, and simply to declare that Mr. Lincoln would be inaugurated on the 4th of March President of the United States, and rally the country to his support. I do not think we should allow this opportunity to pass without trying the question, whether a single State can break up the Union. What is it worth, if held by any such tenure? I have no concession or compromise of any kind to propose or favor; least of all can I become party to any proposition which sanctions Slavery directly or indirectly. I deplore everything of this kind, however plausible, as demoralizing to the country.
Pray keep Massachusetts sound and firm—FIRM—FIRM—against every word or step of concession. God bless you!
Ever and ever yours,
Charles Sumner.
Senate Chamber, January 18, 1861.
My dear Andrew,—I think that our friends are coming to the conclusion, that we can offer no terms of concession or compromise, in order to please the Border States. The question must be met on the Constitution as it is and the facts as they are, or we shall hereafter hold our Government subject to this asserted right of secession. Should we yield now,—and any offer is concession,—every Presidential election will be conducted with menace of secession by the defeated party.
There is a disposition to stand firm together.…
Ever yours,
Charles Sumner.
Senate Chamber, January 21, 1861.
My dear Andrew,—Pray keep our beloved Commonwealth firm; yet a little longer and the crisis will be passed. Save her from surrender. Nothing she can do will stay secession. Impossible. Let her not write a shameful page in the history of Human Freedom. I feel strongly for her fame, her good name, her character, her example. In the future let it be said that Massachusetts did not waver in the cause for which she has done so much.
How easy it would be for me to give my life rather than have her take a single backward step!
God bless you!
Ever yours,
Charles Sumner.
There is tranquillity now with regard to the capital. General Scott feels safe, and others feel safe under his wing. Virginia, it is said, will surely go.
Senate Chamber, January 23, 1861.
My dear Andrew,—You have doubtless received my telegram. I found General Scott with the Secretary of War, and read the letter you inclosed. They said at once that no such guns had been ordered by the National Government, and General Scott added that they were, without doubt, intended for Fort Sumter. He said they were “very formidable.” He thought they were “already in a state of great forwardness.” Of course you will see that Massachusetts does not “imp the wings” of Treason.
Yesterday, before receiving your letter, I passed an hour and a half with General Scott. He is not without solicitude in regard to the capital. Information received yesterday confirms the idea that there is a wide-spread conspiracy. He will have one thousand men here,—three companies of flying artillery, two companies of infantry, and five companies from Fortress Monroe. The place of the latter at Fortress Monroe will be supplied by recruits from New York.
He cannot ride on horseback, but he proposes to accompany Mr. Lincoln on the 4th of March in a carriage with Commodore Stewart, each in his uniform.
Nothing that Massachusetts can do now can arrest one single State. There can be no other result except our own humiliation, and a bad example, which will be felt by all other States. If Massachusetts yields one hair’s breadth, other States may yield an inch or foot, a furlong, or a mile. Pray keep the Legislature firm. Don’t let them undo anything ever done for Freedom.
Good bye.
Ever yours,
Charles Sumner.
Senate Chamber, January 24, 1861.
My dear Andrew,—I have a suggestion to make which is in harmony with one of your recent letters.
Mr. Dix,[133] in his letter of 18th January, on the present resources of the country, says: “Before closing this communication, I wish to call your attention to the fact that there are deposited with twenty of the States, for safe-keeping, over $28,000,000 belonging to the United States, for the repayment of which the faith of these States is pledged by written instructions on file in this department.”
Of course this money might be reclaimed; but the Secretary does not propose to do so. These liabilities may be made a basis of credit, if the States will volunteer to indorse or guaranty the Treasury notes of the Government to the extent of their respective liabilities.
I wish to suggest that our Legislature should at once volunteer this aid to the General Government. Without some assistance Mr. Lincoln will find the Treasury empty. Beyond this consideration, you will appreciate the influence of such an act of loyalty at this peculiar moment.
Mr. Seward writes to-day to the Governor of New York, and makes the same suggestion. Other Senators will do the same. General Wilson unites with me.
Ever yours,
Charles Sumner.
Wilson says he should like to see our State do this promptly.
Washington, January 26, 1861.
My dear Andrew,—Yesterday I was with the Attorney-General,[134] an able, experienced, Northern Democratic lawyer, with the instincts of our profession on the relation of cause and effect. He drew me into his room, but there were clerks there; opening the door into another room, there were clerks there, too; and then traversing five different rooms, he found them all occupied by clerks; when, opening the door into the entry, he told me he was “surrounded by Secessionists,” who would report in an hour to the newspapers any interview between us,—that he must see me at some other time and place,—that everything was bad as could be,—that Virginia would certainly secede,—that the conspiracy there was the most wide-spread and perfect,—that all efforts to arrest it by offers of compromise, or by the circulation of Clemens’s speech, were no more than that (snapping his fingers),—that Kentucky would surely follow, and Maryland, too. “Stop, Mr. Attorney,” said I, “not so fast. I agree with you to this point,—Maryland would go, except for the complication of the National Capital, which the North will hold, and also the road to it.”
Of course you will keep Massachusetts out of all these schemes. If you notice the proposition for a commission, say that it is summoned to make conditions which contemplate nothing less than surrender of cherished principles, so that she can have nothing to do with it.
My opinion has been fixed for a long time. All the Slave States will go, except Delaware, and perhaps Maryland and Missouri,—to remain with us Free States.
The mistake of many persons comes from this,—they do not see that we are in the midst of a revolution, where reason is dethroned, and passion rules instead. If this were a mere party contest, then the circulation of speeches and a few resolutions might do good. But what are such things in a revolution? As well attempt to hold a man-of-war in a tempest by a little anchor borrowed from Jamaica Pond; and this is what I told the Boston Committee with regard to their petition.
I have but one prayer: Stand firm, keep every safeguard of Human Rights on our statute-book, and save Massachusetts glorious and true.
Ever yours,
Charles Sumner.
Senate Chamber, January 28, 1861.
My dear Andrew,—I did not unite with the delegation yesterday in recommending commissioners, and I think they signed without much reflection, certainly without any general conference.
My disposition in any matter not involving principle is to keep the delegation a Unit, and I certainly would not stand in the way now. Two things have been pressed, both entitled to consideration: first, in the absence of commissioners duly appointed, certain “Union-savers” from Massachusetts, accidentally here, will work into the Convention, and undertake to represent Massachusetts; and, secondly, it is important that Massachusetts should not be kept insulated. Both you can judge, and I shall defer to your judgment.
Preston King concurred with me as to the true policy of our States; but he did not think it worth while to interfere positively by writing to the Governor of New York.
Should you conclude to move, let two things be guarded: first, the principles, by having it known that Massachusetts has taken no step towards any acceptance of the resolutions which are made the implied basis of the proposed Convention; and, secondly, the men, by designating only the firmest, in whom there is no possibility of concession or compromise, like ——, ——, ——, ——, ——, ——; but you know the men better than I do.
Last evening the Attorney-General was with me for a long time, till after midnight. I know from him what I cannot communicate. Suffice it to say, he does not think it probable—hardly possible—that we shall be here on the 4th of March. The President has been wrong again, and a scene has taken place which will be historic, but which I know in sacred confidence. General Scott is very anxious. It is feared that the department will be seized and occupied as forts. What then can be done by the General, surgeons, and flying artillery?
Ever yours,
Charles Sumner.
Senate Chamber, January 28, 1861.
My dear Andrew,—Mr. Dix has proposed a form of State guaranty to be used in New York. He thinks it advisable to have the forms alike in the different States.
Ever yours,
Charles Sumner.
I send a copy.
P. S.—Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. Don’t let these words be ever out of your mind, when you think of any proposition from the Slave-Masters.
They are all essentially false, with treason in their hearts, if not on their tongues. How can it be otherwise? Slavery is a falsehood, and its supporters are all perverted and changed. Punic in faith, Punic in character, you are to meet all that they do or say with denial or distrust.
Mr. Everett reported to me some smooth words of John Tyler, which seem to have gone to the soul of the eloquent son of Massachusetts. “Don’t trust him,” said I, “he means to betray you.”
I know these men, and see through their plot.
The time has not yet come to touch the chords which I wish to awaken. But I see my way clear. O God! let Massachusetts keep true. It is all I now ask.
Senate Chamber, February 5, 1861.
My dear Andrew,—Ever remember, “Forewarned is forearmed.” Since recent sincere propositions to defend the capital, I have had no fear except from a revolutionary movement in Maryland. That, as I have repeatedly said, will depend upon Virginia. The recent elections seem to show that she at least will take time. This postpones the danger contingent upon her course.
More than the loss of forts, arsenals, or the national capital, I fear the loss of our principles.
These are now in greatest danger. Our Northern Fort Sumter will be surrendered, if you are not aroused. In my view, the vacillation of the Republicans is more fatal than that of Buchanan.
Keep firm, and do not listen to any proposition.
Ever yours,
Charles Sumner.
Senate Chamber, February 6, 1861.
My dear Andrew,—It seems to me that nothing is gained for the Union by the Virginia election except delay, unless the North surrender everything. I have always trusted that the North would not, and therefore look to the secession of Virginia as impending,—sooner or later to occur.
This delay seems like a beneficent intervention of Providence to arrest the conflict, which a sudden movement would have precipitated. It suspends the revolutionary movement in Maryland, which was to begin the 18th,—five days after the Virginia Convention,—and thus gives security to the capital.
Since General Scott has become wakeful, and has received powers from the President, I have felt safe against everything but a revolutionary movement.
Be assured I will keep you advised. I shall scent the coming danger.
But do not be deceived by that fatal advice which sees nothing but peace and security in the recent elections.
Chase has just left me. He thinks there may be thirty Unionists per se in the Virginia Convention; all the rest only conditionally,—the condition being the resolutions on which the Massachusetts commissioners are to deliberate. Bah! A friend, who was with Mr. Rives this morning, tells me that he was very bitter against Johnson, of Tennessee, for his Union speech, and especially for saying “Secession is treason.” He says that the persons called Unionists will be for secession, if the South cannot have “Constitutional guaranties.” The course of such a person as Mr. Rives, who is said to be conservative, foreshadows the result.
I have just seen Colonel Ritchie: a most intelligent gentleman, who does honor to our Commonwealth,—God bless her! But the crisis is adjourned.
Ever yours,
Charles Sumner.
May we all be loyal and true, and never desert great principles!
Senate Chamber, February 8, 1861.
My dear Andrew,—Last evening I was greeted by the first instalment of the commissioners. The rest I expect this morning.
Be assured, I shall do all that I can for their comfort and information. I am relieved to know that there is not a single weak joint in them.…
I pray constantly for courage at home. Let Massachusetts be true and firm, and keep our friends from division.
The news from Virginia continues to reveal the same tendency,—secession, unless constitutional guaranties are secured for Slavery. Without some change, contrary to all legislative and other declarations, Virginia must go out.
I hope that our Legislature will not pause in offering its guaranty to the bonds of the National Government. It ought to be done at once.
Did I ever tell you how much I enjoyed and admired your old musket speech? It was well conceived and admirably done. I am glad that Theodore Parker’s name is enrolled in the Capitol.
I find your commissioners noble, true, good characters, able to support Massachusetts.
God bless you!
Ever yours,
Charles Sumner.
Washington, February 10, 1861.
Dear Andrew,—It is much to be regretted that our State has hesitated so long in giving its indorsement to the United States bonds. Let us give Government the means of procuring money at once, and put her credit on its legs.
There is tranquillity now. The Peace Conference has not reached any point. It is evident that Virginia and the other Border States will have to decide the question, Which to choose, Union or Slavery? If they remain, it must be in subjection to the Constitution and the antislavery policy of the Fathers.
I do not tremble at anything from our opponents, whoever they may be, but from our friends.
The New York commissioners, the majority, are stiff and strong.
Every word of concession thus far has done infinite mischief,—first, by encouraging the Slave-Masters, and, secondly, by demoralizing our own friends, and filling them with doubt and distrust.
God bless you!
Ever yours,
Charles Sumner.
Senate Chamber, February 20, 1861.
My dear Andrew,—I lost no time in seeing the Attorney-General and placing your letter in his hands. At the same time I pressed the pardon. He will give the subject his best attention, but I thought he was rather fixed against it.
Nothing has occurred to change my view of our affairs. It seems to me that Virginia will secede. At all events, if you expect this result, you will be best prepared for the future.
The Peace Conference is like the Senate,—powerless to mature any system of harmony. And the question of enforcing the laws and retaking the forts,—in other words, of our existence as a Government,—when presented, must increase the discord.
If Mr. Lincoln stands firm, I do not doubt that our cause will be saved. All that we hear testifies to his character. But he is a man.
The heart-burnings and divisions showing themselves in our party a few weeks ago are now less active. Those fatal overtures will fall to the ground. Oh, that they never had been made!
God bless you!
Ever yours,
Charles Sumner.
NO SURRENDER OF THE NORTHERN FORTS.
Speech in the Senate, on a Massachusetts Petition in Favor of the Crittenden Propositions, February 12, 1861.
During weary, anxious weeks, while the Rebellion was preparing, and Senators were leaving their seats to organize hostile governments, Mr. Sumner resisted appeals to speak. An earnest character in Philadelphia wrote to him, January 31st:—
“May we not look to have you speak once more for us,—as a statesman, not as a politician,—as a philanthropist, not as the representative of a prospective Cabinet? Mr. Sumner, you know that Kansas was yesterday admitted. God bless her, and God bless you, to whom under Him she owes her deliverance, and the country owes the turning of the balances against Slavery for all time to come. Now, if the whole country is on the eve of a similar struggle, why should we not know it and act accordingly?”
Another zealous friend, writing from Massachusetts on the same day, said:—
“Why do we not hear your voice uplifted, in this critical, this dangerous hour?”
It was hard to resist such appeals. But there were good friends, agreeing with Mr. Sumner, who counselled silence. An incident unexpectedly occurred which compelled him to speak, although briefly.
February 12, 1861, Mr. Crittenden presented a petition extensively signed by people of Massachusetts, where, after setting forth that “their sentiments towards the Union and towards their common country have been misrepresented and misunderstood,” and further declaring themselves “willing that all parts of the country should have their full and equal rights under the Constitution, and recognizing in the propositions of Hon. J. J. Crittenden a basis of settlement which the North and the South may fairly and honorably accede to, and which is well calculated to restore peace to the country,” the petitioners conclude by asking the adoption of these propositions. The petition purported to be from one hundred and eighty-two cities and towns of Massachusetts, and to be signed by twenty-two thousand three hundred and thirteen citizens of Massachusetts. In presenting it, Mr. Crittenden remarked on the number of signatures in different towns, mentioning especially Natick, the home of Senator Wilson, and Boston, where there were more than fourteen thousand petitioners out of nineteen thousand voters. And he added, that he felt “peculiar and especial satisfaction” in presenting the petition.
On his motion the petition was laid on the table, which, under the rules of the Senate, cut off debate, when Mr. Sumner moved the printing of the petition, and on this motion spoke as follows.
MR. PRESIDENT,—As I desire to say a few words on the petition, I move that it be printed.
These petitioners, I perceive, ask you to adopt what are familiarly known as the Crittenden Propositions. Their best apology, Sir, for such a petition is their ignorance of the character of those propositions. Had they known what they are, I feel sure they could not have put their names to any such paper.
Those propositions go beyond the Breckinridge platform, already solemnly condemned by the American people in the election of Abraham Lincoln. If adopted, they set aside the Republican platform, while they foist into the National Constitution guaranties of Slavery which the framers of that instrument never sanctioned,—which Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Patrick Henry, and John Jay, according to the testimony of their lives and declared opinions, would have scorned to sanction; nor can there be any doubt, that, had such propositions been made the condition of Union, this Union could not have been formed.
Mr. Madison, in the Convention which framed the National Constitution, taught his fellow-countrymen that it is “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there can be property in men.”[135] What manly vigor and loftiness inspired that warning! Now these propositions not only interpolate the forbidden idea, but, proceeding to its practical application, they run a visible black line at latitude 36° 30´, extending the protection of the Constitution itself over Slavery south of that line, and then, making the case yet more offensive and more impossible at the North, they carry it to all territory hereafter acquired, so that the flag of the Republic, as it moves southward, must always be the flag of Slavery, while every future acquisition in that direction must submit to the terrible doom,—and all this under irrepealable text of Constitution, which, by supplementary provision, is expressly placed beyond amendment. In an age of civilization this is bad, very bad; but they go further. There are to be new guaranties of Slavery in the National capital, and in other places within the National jurisdiction,—also in transporting slaves to States and Territories,—also a reinforcement of the Fugitive Slave Bill; and all these are so placed under Constitutional safeguard as to exceed the permanence of other provisions. Nor is even this all. As if to do something inconceivably repugnant to just principles, and especially obnoxious to the people of Massachusetts, it is proposed to despoil our colored fellow-citizens there of political franchises long time assured by the institutions of that Liberty-loving Commonwealth. Before the adoption of the National Constitution it was declared in Massachusetts that there could be no distinction of color at the ballot-box; and this rule of equality is to be sacrificed, while fellow-citizens are thrust out of rights which they have enjoyed for generations.
Sir, for these things, and others kindred, do these petitioners now pray, insisting that they shall all be interpolated into the National Constitution,—while, in entire harmony with this unparalleled betrayal, those laws which have been established for the protection of Personal Liberty are to be set aside, that the Slave-Hunter may have free course. Such are things which in the judgment of these petitioners “the North and the South may honorably accede to,” while, in consideration of these impossible sacrifices, the fee of the Fugitive Slave Commissioners is modified, and it is declared that the Slave-Trade shall not be revived. And this is the compromise for which Massachusetts people in such large numbers from cities and towns now pray!
I have infinite respect for the right of petition, and I hope always to promote the interests and to represent the just and proper wishes of my fellow-citizens; but I cannot hesitate to declare my unfeigned regret that these petitioners, uniting in such numbers, have missed the opportunity of demanding plainly and unequivocally, as lovers of the Union, two things, all-sufficient for the present crisis, with regard to which I might expect the sympathies of the Senator from Kentucky: first, that the Constitution of the United States, as administered by George Washington, shall be preserved intact and blameless in its text, with no tinkering for the sake of Slavery; and, secondly, that the verdict of the people last November, by which Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States, shall be enforced without price or condition. Here is a platform on which every patriot citizen can take his stand, having over him the stars of the Union. How much better than any proposition, scheme, or vain delusion of Compromise! On such ground, all who really love the Union of their fathers, without an if or a but, can plant themselves.
I remember, Sir, that in the debate on the night of the passage of the Nebraska Bill,—it was at midnight,—I made the declaration that all future compromise was impossible.[136] Events now taking place verify this truth. It is obvious that existing difficulties can be arranged only on permanent principles of justice, freedom, and humanity. Any seeming settlement founded in abandonment of principles will be but a miserable patchwork, which cannot succeed. Only a short time ago the whole country was filled with shame and dismay, as the reports came to us of the surrender of the Southern forts; and when it was known that Fort Sumter, too, was about to be given up, a cry went forth from the popular heart, by which that fortress was saved, at least for the present. And now for the parallel. Propositions are brought forward by the Senator from Kentucky, and enforced by petition from my own State, calling upon the North to surrender its principles,—to surrender those impregnable principles of Human Rights which constitute our Northern forts. It is even proposed to surrender the principle of Freedom in the Territories,—the Fort Sumter of the North. I trust, Sir, that all these principles will yet be saved; but plainly their safety depends upon the people, and not upon a President; therefore must the people be heard, as in that cry from the heart which only a few days ago saved the other Fort Sumter, menaced by the representatives of Slavery. For myself, if I stand with many, with few, or alone, I have but one thing to say: “No surrender of the Fort Sumter of the North! No surrender of any of our Northern forts,—no, Sir, not one of them!”
Bankers and merchants of New York and Boston tell us that the Government shall not have money, if we do not surrender. Then again, Sir, do I appeal to the people. Surely the American people are not less patriotic than the French. They only want the opportunity to come forward and supply the necessities of the Government, as the latter, at the hint of their Emperor, came forward with money, all in small sums, for the support of that war which ended in the liberation of Italy. Our Government stands on the aggregate virtue and intelligence of the people. Not only the rich and fortunate, but the farmer, the mechanic, the laborer, every citizen truly loving his country, will contribute out of his daily life to uphold the Constitution and the flag. From these small sums, inspired by a generous patriotism, I am glad to believe we shall have a full treasury, even if bankers and merchants stand aloof.
There is but one thing now for the North to do: it is to stand firm. The testimony of a great national benefactor, who helped our country to Independence, should be heard,—I mean Lafayette,—who, in his old age, with experience ripened by time, contemplating the terrible Revolution which had convulsed France, as a surviving actor and a surviving sufferer, did not hesitate to announce from his seat in the Chamber of Deputies, after recognizing the unutterable calamities of that Revolution, that, according to his solemn judgment, they must be referred not so much to the bad passions of men as to those timid counsels which sought to substitute Compromise for Principle.[137] The venerable patriot may well speak to his American fellow-citizens now, and inspire them to stand firm against those timid counsels which would make any such fatal substitution.
Mr. Crittenden replied at some length, vindicating his propositions, and also the Massachusetts petitioners, who, he said, had been charged with “ignorance.” In the course of the debate the following passage occurred.
Mr. Crittenden. If the propositions I offered, and which I offered with diffidence, are not adequate to the purpose, if they ask too much, why have not gentlemen moved to amend? Why has the honorable Senator sat here for one month and more, and proposed no amendment to the propositions which he now rises to condemn his constituents for approving?
Mr. Sumner. Will the Senator allow me to say that every time I could get an opportunity I have voted against his propositions? I have missed no opportunity, direct or indirect, of voting against them, from beginning to end, every line and every word.
Mr. Crittenden. I do not controvert that, Mr. President; it may be so; but that is not what I am asking of the gentleman. It is, that, if he desired union and conciliation at all, why did he not move to amend the propositions which he now condemns?
Mr. Sumner. I will answer the Senator: Because I thought there could be no basis of peace on the Senator’s propositions, which are wrong in every respect, in every line, in every word. That is what I thought. I was for the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of our fathers, as administered by George Washington.
Mr. Crittenden. If that was all true, and the gentleman desired an amicable settlement of the difficulties which now threaten the country, had he no proposition whatever to make?
Mr. Sumner. Certainly,—the proposition which I have already made, that the Constitution, as administered by George Washington, should be preserved pure and free from any amendment for the sake of Slavery.
Mr. Crittenden. Why did he not move that? Why did he sit sullen and silent here for one month or more, with his breast full of resentment? [Applause in the galleries.]
The Presiding Officer [Mr. Foster, of Connecticut]. Order will be preserved in the galleries, or they will be cleared immediately.
Mr. Crittenden. With such a spirit of opposition to, and thinking as he did of these resolutions, why did he not propose to strike them all out?
Mr. Sumner. Will the Senator let me answer?
Mr. Crittenden. Yes, I will.
Mr. Sumner. I did vote for the substitute of the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Clark] just as soon as it could come to a vote, and that expresses precisely my conviction. That vote displaced the Senator’s propositions entirely.[138]
Before the debate closed, Mr. Sumner replied briefly.
Mr. President,—I have no desire to prolong this debate, or to occupy the time of the Senate. I content myself with two remarks. The Senator from Kentucky is not aware of his own popularity in Massachusetts, of the extent to which his name is an authority there, of the willingness of the people there to adopt anything with the sanction of his respectable name. I do not think the distinguished Senator is aware of that fact; consequently he does not see how easily the people of Massachusetts might be seduced to adopt at sight a proposition brought forward by him, which otherwise they would at once reject. Now all that I suggest in regard to these petitioners is, that, under the lead of the distinguished Senator, they put their names to a petition which I am sure they did not, in all respects and in all its bearings, fully understand; and I must do them the justice to believe, that, had they known the true character of the propositions of the Senator, they would not have signed petitions for their adoption.
This is all on that point; but I wish to make one other remark. The Senator intimated, if I understood him aright, that his propositions, at least in his own mind, were not applicable to territory hereafter acquired.
Mr. Crittenden. No: I do not mean to be understood as saying that.
Mr. Sumner. I understood the Senator so.
Mr. Crittenden. I said I did not consider that proposition as an essential part of mine,—that I did not intend to insist upon it, if I found it would not be acceptable. I did not intend that that should be any obstacle to an adjustment, and I would propose to strike it out, if necessary.
Mr. Sumner. The Senator did not consider that an essential part; and yet in the Journal of the Senate, now before me, in the yeas and nays, I find his name recorded in the affirmative on introducing those words, “now held or hereafter to be acquired.” Here is the record,—the name of the Senator from Kentucky answering yea, when we were all asked to answer yea or nay.
This brief effort of Mr. Sumner at a critical moment found response, not only from his constituents, but from the North generally. In Massachusetts many made haste to testify that the petition praying for such a shameful surrender had been signed by large numbers without knowing its true character,—while the Common Council of Boston, then controlled by Compromisers, also made haste to censure Mr. Sumner, declaring, in formal resolution, that his assertion in the Senate with regard to the petitioners was “undignified, unbecoming a Senator and a citizen of Boston, and untrue.”
As through this remarkable petition, and the speech of Mr. Crittenden in presenting it, Massachusetts was vouched for Slavery, a few witnesses may be properly adduced to show how the signatures were obtained, and also what was the real sentiment of the people there.
William Lloyd Garrison, always watchful for Human Rights, and knowing the wiles of Compromise, wrote from Boston:—
“For one, I desire to thank you for declaring in the Senate that the petition from Boston, asking for any compromise to propitiate the South, did not represent the sentiment even of the city, but was signed by multitudes ignorantly and recklessly,—the left hand not knowing what the right hand did. I wish it were in your power to have that list of names critically examined. I am quite sure that hundreds of names would be proved to be ‘men of straw.’ I have been told that the names of Wendell Phillips, Henry Ward Beecher, Theodore Parker (!),[139] and my own, were appended to it. This is possible, but hardly credible. Still, excepting the Border-Ruffian returns in Kansas, I do not believe there was ever a petition more impudently and fraudulently presented to a legislative assembly than the one from this city.
“I congratulate you upon being the special object of the Courier’s malignant abuse. Do not fear of being fully sustained by Massachusetts in your boldest utterances; and how posterity will decide is easily seen.”
M. P. Kennard, an excellent citizen and business man, wrote from Boston:—
“The petition was placed in the lobby of our post-office, under the charge of a crier, who saluted every one who passed him with, ‘Sign this petition?’—and it was thoughtlessly signed by men and boys, native and foreign.”
Charles W. Slack, of the newspaper press, wrote from Boston:—
“You are entirely right relative to the signers of the Crittenden Petition. Boys, non-voters, foreigners, anybody, were taken, who could write a name. The city police canvassed all the out-of-the-way places, and took the names they could gather.… Glad that you spoke as you did. We look to you to give the key-note. None knows Massachusetts better than you, and none will be more faithful to her, come weal or woe.”
Dr. William J. Dale, afterwards the Surgeon-General of Massachusetts, wrote from Boston:—
“The other day a neighbor of ours, Mr. Brown, an intelligent citizen, a provision dealer, corner of Derne and Temple Streets, stopped me and said, ‘If you ever write Mr. Sumner, tell him that I, with many others, signed that Crittenden Petition under an entire misapprehension.’ Says he, ‘I would cut off my right hand before it should sign so infamous a proposition.’ That is the feeling among the middling-interest people. The so-called Union men assume the air and manner of slave-overseers. They have overdone the thing here.”
J. Vincent Browne, afterwards Collector of Internal Revenue in the Essex District of Massachusetts, wrote from Salem:—
“At least twenty persons who signed the paper in this city have said to me, ‘Why, Mr. Crittenden’s propositions are merely to restore the Missouri Compromise. I was told so, when I signed.’ When the truth was told them, as usual, they were astonished. And so men trifle with their rights, and are trifled with.”
John Tappan, a venerable citizen, loving peace, but hating Slavery, and anxious that Massachusetts should be right, wrote from Boston:—
“I thank you for it, and believe it speaks the sentiments of a vast majority of all parties in this and the other New England States. The only reason assigned by some of the signers is, that it was not expected that it would pass as offered, but lead to some compromise.
“Be assured the heart of the Commonwealth is with you, and that, if ever we were called upon for firmness in maintaining our Constitutional rights, it is now; and although I pray God no blood may be shed in the conflict, yet submission to the demands of Slavery is not to be the alternative.
“I rejoice the conflict has come in my day, although, on the verge of four-score, I may not live to see harmony restored.”[140]
Rev. John Weiss, the eloquent preacher and author, wrote from Milton, Massachusetts:—
“Your little speech lies in the hand like an ingot,—dense and precious, and of the color which charms my eyes at least. Nothing can be truer than your statement, that multitudes of people do not know what they sign, when they indorse the Crittenden propositions. I, for one, had not read them till quite lately. They have not been freely ventilated in the newspapers. When, the other day, the Boston papers undertook to print them formally, people were shocked.… The 4th March will come with a fatal suddenness for all the plotters and expecters and adjustment-mongers. Just at the proper moment, not a moment too soon nor too late, you spoke a word which will help to clear the air.”
Others wrote correcting the statement with regard to signatures in different towns. Some in a few words exposed the petition. Professor Convers Francis wrote from Cambridge: “The big Boston petition, so far as I can learn, is regarded here as a piece of gammon, except, perhaps, in certain quarters of the business world.” Rev. R. S. Storrs, the venerable divine, wrote from Braintree: “A great hoax, that famous petition for the Crittenden Compromise!” This testimony, which might be extended indefinitely, will relieve Massachusetts from a painful complicity, and help keep her history bright.
The resolutions of the Boston Common Council did not fare better than the petition. Among newspapers, the Boston Advertiser remarked:—
“It is hardly necessary for us to say that we do not concur in all respects in the policy which Mr. Sumner is understood to follow at this crisis; but in the matter of this petition we certainly hold that he was plainly right. And we are led to this belief by observing the industrious efforts made by those who urged the signing of the petition to conceal the true meaning of the scheme which is known as Mr. Crittenden’s.… It appears to us also that Mr. Sumner gave not only the most friendly, but also a most natural, account of the manner in which a large number of these petitioners must have been led to this singular mistake.”
The New York Tribune stated the case.
“A great many dull people, and a few clever ones, lately signed a petition asking Congress to adopt the Crittenden Compromise. When this document was taken up in the Senate, Mr. Sumner said, with much calmness and in the most courteous spirit, that he believed the signers had so high a regard for the name of Crittenden that they had put their signatures to a paper which they could not have fully understood in all its obligations, bearings, and propositions. This was a very gentle letting-down of the Bostonians, much more tender treatment than they deserved. Nevertheless, the remark raised a breeze in the respectable city, such as only a small thing can create in that place. It would never do to say that any Boston man or boy could sign a paper the whole of which he had not read and digested. So the Common Council, of all bodies in that town, took up the matter, and actually passed a vote of censure on Senator Sumner for mildly hinting that the signers aforesaid were rather hasty than wicked, stupid, or weak.”
A sonnet by David A. Wasson, which appeared at this time, expresses gratitude to Mr. Sumner, with small sympathy for compromise in any form.
“TO CHARLES SUMNER.
“Thou and the stars, our Sumner, still shine on!
No dark will dim, no spending waste thy ray;
And we as soon could doubt the Milky Way,
Whether enduring were its silver zone,
As question of thy truth. Their light is gone
Whose beam was borrowed: ever will Accident,
Upon a day, the garment it hath lent
Strip off,—make beggars of its kings anon.
Thou and the stars eternal, inly fed
From God’s own bosom with celestial light,
Must needs emit the glory in ye bred;
Alike it is your nature to be bright:
And I, while thou art shining overhead,
Know God is with us in the gloomy night.”
DUTY AND STRENGTH OF THE COMING ADMINISTRATION.
From Notes of undelivered Speech on the various Propositions of Compromise, February, 1861.
Mr. Sumner contemplated a speech reviewing the various propositions of Compromise, but he never made it. The following passages are given, as proposed at the time.
…
I would not say a word except of kindness and respect for the Senator of Kentucky [Mr. Crittenden]. But that Senator must pardon me, if I insist that he is entirely unreasonable in pressing his impracticable and unconstitutional propositions so persistently in the way of most important public business. Yesterday it hindered a great measure of Internal Improvement. To-day it blocks the admission of a State into this Union, being none other than Kansas, which has earned a better hospitality.
The Senator makes his appeal in the name of the Union. But I must remind him that he takes a poor way of showing that attachment to the Union which he avers. He turns round and lectures us who are devoted to the Union, when his lecture should be addressed to the avowed and open Disunionists in this Chamber. Nay, more, he actually sides with the Disunionists in their claims. Imagine Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, John Jay, Andrew Jackson, or Henry Clay, in the place of the venerable Senator. They would not wheel towards the known friends of the Union, and ask an impossible surrender of sacred principles, but rather face to face address the Disunionists frankly, plainly, austerely, calling upon them to renounce their evil schemes; to acknowledge the National Constitution, and especially in this age of light to make no new demands for Slavery.
In reply to the Senator, who so constantly lectures us, I say, look to the good examples of our history; take counsel of the Spirit of Nationalism, rather than Sectionalism, and be willing to defend the Constitution as it is, rather than patch it over with propositions which our fathers would have disowned.
…
Putting aside all question of concession or compromise, the single question remains, How shall we treat the seceding States? And this is the question which the new Administration will be called to meet. I see well that it will naturally bear much and forbear long,—that it will be moved by principle, and not by passion,—and that it will adopt the harsh instrumentalities of power only when all other things have failed. And I see well the powerful allies which will be enlisted on its side. There will be the civilization of the Christian world, speaking with the innumerable voices of the press, and constituting a Public Opinion of irresistible energy. There will be the great contemporary example of Italy, after a slumber of centuries aroused to assertion of her rights,—and of Russia also, now completing that memorable act of Emancipation by which Freedom is assured to twenty millions of serfs. There will be also the concurring action of European powers, which, turning with disgust from a new confederacy founded on Human Slavery, will refuse to recognize it in the Family of Nations. There will be also the essential weakness of Slavery with the perils of servile insurrection, which, under the influence of this discussion, must become more and more manifest in every respect. There will be also the essential strength of Freedom, as a principle, carrying victory in its right hand. And there will be Time, which is at once Reformer and Pacificator. Such are some of the allies sure to be on the side of the Administration.
FOREIGN RELATIONS: ARBITRATION.
Report from Committee on Foreign Relations, advising the President to submit the San Juan Boundary Question to Arbitration, in the Senate, March 19, 1861.
By the withdrawal of Southern Senators, the Republicans were left with a majority in the Senate, enabling them to reorganize the Standing Committees, which was done March 8, 1861. At the head of the Finance Committee was Mr. Fessenden, instead of Mr. Hunter,—of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Trumbull, instead of Mr. Bayard,—of the Military Committee, Mr. Wilson, instead of Mr. Jefferson Davis,—and of the Naval Committee, Mr. Hale, instead of Mr. Mallory. Mr. Sumner was appointed Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, in place of Mr. Mason, of Virginia, who had held this position from December 8, 1851. With the former on the new Committee were Messrs. Collamer, of Vermont, Doolittle, of Wisconsin, Harris, of New York, Douglas, of Illinois, Polk, of Missouri, and Breckinridge, of Kentucky. The appointment of Mr. Sumner to this important position was contrasted with his treatment at an earlier day, when the omission of his name from any committee was justified on the ground that he was “outside of any healthy political organization in this country,” and this Senatorial sally was received with “laughter.”[141] Mr. Hale and Mr. Chase were in the same category. Only Democrats and Whigs were accepted: such was the Law of Slavery. At last this was all changed.
The reorganization of the Committees attracted the attention of the press at home and abroad. It was properly recognized as marking a change from old to new. The London Star, in an elaborate article on the transition, welcomed especially the new Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations.
“The Republican Senators have selected for the Chairman of this Committee the Hon. Charles Sumner, a statesman deservedly honored in this country, not only for his eloquence as an orator, but for his unswerving fidelity to the cause of Freedom. No man could have been chosen for this office in every respect more acceptable to the English people. It is not only as the Antislavery legislator, who, from the first moment that he took his seat in the Senate as the representative of Massachusetts, has ever raised his voice and given his vote for the hapless negro,—it is not only as the patriot who almost suffered martyrdom on the floor of the Senate Chamber from the ruffian hand of Preston S. Brooks, that the English people will be disposed to regard his appointment with hearty approval: he has established other claims to our sympathy and admiration, which we must not be slow to recognize. Mr. Sumner is well known in this country—scarcely less, indeed, than in America—as the stanch friend of Peace. Years ago, in his famous oration on the True Glory of Nations, he set forth the advantages of a pacific policy, with arguments as cogent and irresistible as those which have been employed by Mr. Cobden, and with an eloquence of language and a fertility of illustration which revived the oratory of classic times.…
“And if during the period of Mr. Lincoln’s administration causes of dispute should unhappily arise between America and Great Britain, or any other foreign power, Mr. Sumner will not fail to point to arbitration as the only reasonable and satisfactory mode of settling international differences. He will not, if he can help it, permit San Juan to be made a casus belli, or tolerate any more of those periodical expeditions against the weak and effeminate republics of South America, by which Mr. Buchanan and his predecessors treated with contempt the solemn injunctions of the Fathers of the Republic, that their posterity should avoid the fatal quicksands of European diplomacy, and abstain from intermeddling with the affairs of other states.”
The very questions anticipated by the London journal were presented at an early day, even before its article could reach Washington. The advice of the Senate was asked by the President on submitting the San Juan Question to arbitration.
March 16, 1861, the following Message from President Lincoln was read in Executive Session, and on motion of Mr. Sumner referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
“To the Senate:—
“The Senate has transmitted to me a copy of the Message sent by my predecessor to that body on the 21st day of February last, proposing to take its advice on the subject of a proposition made by the British Government through its minister here to refer the matter in controversy between that Government and the Government of the United States to the arbitrament of the King of Sweden and Norway, the King of the Netherlands, or the Republic of the Swiss Confederation.
“In that Message my predecessor stated that he wished to submit to the Senate the precise questions following, namely:—
“‘Will the Senate approve a Treaty referring to either of the sovereign powers above named the dispute now existing between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain concerning the boundary line between Vancouver’s Island and the American continent? In case the referee shall find himself unable to decide where the line is by the description of it in the Treaty of June 15, 1846, shall he be authorized to establish a line according to the Treaty as nearly as possible? Which of the three powers named by Great Britain as an arbiter shall be chosen by the United States?’
“I find no reason to disapprove of the course of my predecessor in this important matter, but, on the contrary, I not only shall receive the advice of the Senate thereon cheerfully, but I respectfully ask the Senate for their advice on the three questions before recited.
“Abraham Lincoln.
“Washington, March 16, 1861.”
From this Message it appears that the subject had been already before the Senate on the submission of President Buchanan in the last days of his Administration. In his Message the latter stated these precise questions:—
“Will the Senate approve a treaty referring to either of the sovereign powers above named [Sweden, the Netherlands, or Switzerland] the dispute now existing between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain concerning the boundary line between Vancouver’s Island and the American continent?
“In case the referee shall find himself unable to decide where the line is by the description of it in the Treaty of June 15, 1846, shall he be authorized to establish a line according to the Treaty as nearly as possible?
“Which of the three powers named by Great Britain as an arbiter shall be chosen by the United States?”
February 27, 1861, Mr. Mason, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported the following Resolution, directly responsive to the questions proposed.
“Resolved, That in the opinion of the Senate the boundary in dispute between the Governments of Great Britain and the United States should be referred to the arbitrament and final award of an umpire to be agreed on between the two Governments; that such umpire should, if practicable, determine said boundary as the same is prescribed in the Treaty aforesaid; or if that be not practicable, then that he be authorized to establish a boundary, conforming as nearly as may be to that provided by said Treaty.
“And that, of the three powers referred to in the Message of the President, the Senate would indicate as such umpire the Republic of the Swiss Confederation.”
This was the last diplomatic act of Mr. Mason as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations.
March 19, 1861, Mr. Sumner submitted the following Report, which was his first diplomatic act as Chairman.
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the Message of the President of the United States dated the 16th instant, with the documents accompanying it, have had the same under consideration, and now report.
The Treaty concluded between Great Britain and the United States on the 15th of June, 1846, provided in its first Article that the line of boundary between the territories of her Britannic Majesty and those of the United States, from the point on the 49th parallel of north latitude, to which it was ascertained, should be continued westward along this parallel, “to the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver’s Island, and thence southerly, through the middle of said channel and of Fuca’s Straits, to the Pacific Ocean.” When the commissioners appointed by the two Governments to mark the boundary line came to that part of it required to run southerly through the channel dividing the continent from Vancouver’s Island, they differed entirely in their opinions, not only concerning the true point of deflection from the 49th parallel, but also as to the channel intended in the Treaty. After long discussion, producing no result, they reported a disagreement to their respective Governments. Since then the two Governments, through their ministers here and at London, have carried on a voluminous correspondence on the matter in controversy, each sustaining the conclusion of its own commissioner, and neither yielding in any degree to the other. Meanwhile the unsettled condition of this question produced serious local disturbance, and on one occasion threatened to destroy the harmonious relations existing between Great Britain and the United States, causing serious anxiety.
If our construction of the Treaty be right, the island of San Juan, with other small islands, will fall to the United States, while, if the British interpretation be adopted, these islands will be on their side of the line. President Buchanan, in his Message to the Senate of February 21, 1861, declared his conviction that the territory thus in dispute “is ours by the Treaty fairly and impartially construed.” But the British Government, on their side, insist that it is theirs. The argument on both sides seems to have been exhausted.
Under these circumstances, it appears from the correspondence submitted to the Senate, that General Cass, Secretary of State, by letter of June 25, 1860, to Lord Lyons, the British Minister at Washington, invited the British Government to make a proposition of adjustment. Here are his words:—
“And I have it further in charge to inform your Lordship, that this Government is ready to receive and fairly to consider any proposition which the British Government may be disposed to make for a mutually acceptable adjustment, with an earnest hope that a satisfactory arrangement will speedily put an end to all danger of the recurrence of those grave questions which have more than once threatened to interrupt that good understanding which both countries have so many powerful motives to maintain.”
The reply of the British Government to this invitation was communicated by Lord Lyons, in a letter to General Cass, dated December 10, 1860, in the course of which he uses the following language.
“In reference to the line of the water boundary intended by the Treaty, with respect to which also her Majesty’s Government have been invited by the United States Government to make a proposition for its adjustment, I am instructed to inform you that her Majesty’s Government are glad to reciprocate the friendly sentiments expressed in your note of the 25th of June, and will not hesitate to respond to the invitation which has been made to them.
“It appears to her Majesty’s Government that the argument on both sides being nearly exhausted, and neither party having succeeded in producing conviction on the other, the question can only be settled by arbitration.”
Lord Lyons then proceeds to details connected with the offered arbitration, and, in behalf of his Government, proposes that the King of the Netherlands, or the King of Sweden and Norway, or the President of the Federal Council of Switzerland should be invited to be arbiter.
Upon these facts the President submits to the consideration of the Senate the following interrogatories.
“Will the Senate approve a Treaty referring to either of the sovereign powers above named the dispute now existing between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain concerning the boundary line between Vancouver’s Island and the American continent?
“In case the referee shall find himself unable to decide where the line is by the description of it in the Treaty of June 15, 1846, shall he be authorized to establish a line according to the Treaty as nearly as possible?
“Which of the three powers named by Great Britain as an arbiter shall be chosen by the United States?”
The Committee, in conclusion, recommend to the Senate the adoption of the following Resolution.
“Resolved, That, in pursuance of the Message of the President of the 16th instant, the Senate advises a reference of the existing dispute between the Government of the United States and the Government of Great Britain, concerning the boundary line which separates Vancouver’s Island and the American continent, to the arbitration of a friendly power, with authority to determine the line according to the provisions of the Treaty of 15th June, 1846, but without authority to establish any line other than that provided for in the Treaty.
“And of the three powers named by Great Britain, the Senate advises that the Republic of Switzerland be chosen by the United States as arbiter.”
On two different days the Senate proceeded with this resolution, when, March 27, 1861, the day before the close of the Session, it was ordered that its further consideration be postponed to the second Monday of December next. This was done on the suggestion that the time was not propitious for the arbitration of a disputed boundary line. April 12, Fort Sumter was bombarded.
A difference between the resolution of Mr. Mason and that of Mr. Sumner will be noted. The former declared that the umpire “should, if practicable, determine said boundary as the same is prescribed in the Treaty aforesaid; or if that be not practicable, then that he be authorized to establish a boundary, conforming as nearly as may be to that provided by said Treaty.” The latter resolution declared, that the arbiter should have “authority to determine the line according to the provisions of the Treaty of 15th June, 1846, but without authority to establish any line other than that provided for in the Treaty.” The obvious purpose was to prevent a compromise line. This same purpose appears in the terms of the Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, signed at Washington, May 8, 1871, where, after mentioning the Article of the original Treaty under which the question arose, it is declared, that, “whereas the Government of her Britannic Majesty claims that such boundary line should, under the terms of the Treaty above recited, be run through the Rosario Straits, and the Government of the United States claims that it should be run through the Canal de Haro, it is agreed that the respective claims of the Government of the United States and of the Government of her Britannic Majesty shall be submitted to the arbitration and award of his Majesty the Emperor of Germany, who, having regard to the abovementioned Article of the said Treaty, shall decide thereupon, finally, and without appeal, which of these claims is most in accordance with the true interpretation of the Treaty of June 15, 1846.” This provision follows substantially the early resolution of Mr. Sumner.
BEGINNING OF THE CONFLICT.
Speech before the Third Massachusetts Rifles, in the Armory at New York, April 21, 1861.
After adjournment of the Senate, Mr. Sumner remained for some time in Washington, as was his habit. Meanwhile occurred the bombardment of Fort Sumter, and the President’s Proclamation, calling for seventy-five thousand men to suppress insurrectionary combinations, “and to cause the laws to be duly executed.” On the afternoon of 18th April, 1861, amidst the general commotion, he left on his way to Boston, stopping over night at Baltimore, where an incident occurred, which, besides illustrating the state of the country, helps to explain the brief speech which follows.
On arrival by the train, Mr. Sumner drove at once to Barnum’s Hotel, where he entered his name in the open book. Taking a walk before dark in the principal street, he was recognized by excited persons, whose manner and language went beyond any ordinary occasion.[142] Early in the evening he called on a family friend, with whom he took tea, surrounded by her children. Leaving her house about nine o’clock, he walked slowly back to the hotel. When descending Fayette Street by its side, he could not but observe an enormous assemblage of people, with very little apparent government, in the open square at the foot of the street. Entering the private door, which was at some distance from the riotous crowd, he came upon a gentleman, who, addressing him by name, expressed surprise at seeing him there, saying, “That mob in the square is after you. Their leaders have been to the hotel and demanded you. They were told that you were out,—that nobody knew where you were, and that you had probably left town”; and he wound up by insisting that it was not safe for Mr. Sumner to continue at the hotel, or anywhere in town, if his place of stopping were known. Without reply to this notice, Mr. Sumner walked down the long corridor of the hotel, and, turning into the office, asked for his key. At once Mr. Barnum, with one of his assistants, took him into a small back room, where they explained the condition of things, narrated the visit of the leaders, and the answer they were able to give, by which the mob were turned aside; but this temporary relief left them still anxious, especially if Mr. Sumner’s return should be suspected, and therefore they must request him to leave the hotel; and this was enforced by saying that his longer stay was perilous to the hotel as well as to himself, and that he must find shelter somewhere else. Mr. Sumner, while declaring his sincere regret that he should be the innocent occasion of peril to the hotel, said that there was nowhere else for him to go,—that he had no right to carry peril to the house of a friend,—that it was impossible for him to do this,—that he had come to the hotel as a traveller, and he must claim his rights, believing that in so large a structure there was more safety than in a private house, even if there were any such where he could go. The interview ended in conducting him to a chamber on a long entry of the third story, where all the rooms were alike, when, after saying that nobody in the hotel but themselves would know where he was, they left him alone. From the window which opened on the street at the side of the hotel, he could see the swaying multitude, and hear their voices. In the gray of the morning he left for the Philadelphia Railroad.[143]
On the way to Philadelphia, he met a long train for Baltimore, containing the Sixth Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers, hurrying to the defence of the national capital. It was the first regiment of volunteers he had seen, and he was struck by the gayety of soldier life, which overflowed as the train passed. On his arrival at Philadelphia, the telegraph was announcing the tragedy which had befallen them.
The troops were passing through Baltimore from the Philadelphia station, in the large horse-cars, and a portion had arrived at the Washington station, when those behind were set upon by a mob, the successor of that at the hotel on the preceding evening. Before they could leave the station, the streets were barricaded, and the rails removed, so that they were obliged to make their way on foot, amidst the growing fury of the mob, which had increased to ten thousand. Stones, bricks, and other murderous missiles were thrown at them. Then came pistol-shots. As the soldiers saw their comrades fall, they fired. Several of the assailants dropped upon the pavements, and others were wounded. And so for two miles they fought their way to the Washington station. Of the troops, four were killed, and thirty-six wounded. That evening the regiment quartered at Washington, in the Senate Chamber.[144] Thus, on the 19th of April, 1861, began and closed the first encounter of the terrible war at hand.
The mob now reigned in Baltimore. Gun-shops were plundered. Other shops were closed. The President was notified that no more troops could pass through the city, unless they fought their way. That night the bridges on the railroad to Philadelphia were burnt, so that this great avenue was closed.[145]
On the 21st of April, the Third Battalion of Massachusetts Rifles, with Hon. Charles Devens as Major, consisting of two hundred and sixty-six men, arrived at New York from Worcester, on their way to the scene of action, and quartered in the armory of the famous New York Seventh, which had left on the preceding afternoon. On a visit to the armory by Mr. Sumner, the Battalion was called into line, and he made the following remarks.
Major Devens, Soldiers, and Fellow-Citizens of Massachusetts:—
Being in New York, on my way home from Washington to our beloved Massachusetts, and learning that you also were here on your way to duty, I have called, that I might have the privilege of looking upon your faces. [Cheers.] Your commanding officer, whom I have known long in other walks of life, does me the honor of inviting me to say a few words. If I have yielded, it is because he is irresistible, for I feel in my soul that action, and not speech, is needed now. [Cheers.] Elsewhere it has been my part to speak. It is your part now to act. [Applause.] Nor do I doubt that you will act as becomes the Commonwealth that has committed to you her name. [Cheers.]
I cannot see before me so large a number of the sons of Massachusetts, already moving to the scene of trial, without feeling anew the loss we have just encountered: I allude to the death, at Baltimore, of devoted fellow-citizens, who had sprung forward so promptly at the call of country. As I heard that they had fallen, my soul was touched. And yet, when I thought of the cause for which they met death, I said to myself, that, for the sake of Massachusetts, ay, and for their own sake, I would not have it otherwise. [Enthusiastic applause.] They have died well, for they died at the post of duty, and so dying have become an example and a name in history, while Massachusetts, that sent them forth, adds new memories to a day already famous in her calendar, and links the present with the past. It was on the 19th of April that they died, and their blood was the first offering of patriotism in the great cause which snatched them from the avocations of peace. Thus have they passed at once into companionship with those forefathers who on the 19th of April, 1775, made also the offering of their blood. [Loud cheers.] Lexington is not alone. As on that historic field, Massachusetts blood is again the first to be spilled, and in a conflict which is but a continuation of the other; and these dying volunteers have placed Massachusetts once more foremost, as on that morning which heralded Independence. [Cheers.] Therefore I would not have it otherwise. [Cheers.] Nor do I doubt that the day we now deplore will be followed, as was that earlier day, by certain triumph. [Cheers.]
Those other times, when our forefathers struggled for Independence against the British power, were often said “to try men’s souls”; and these words are yet repeated to depict those trials. But, witnessing the willingness and alacrity with which patriot citizens now offer themselves for country, and to die, if need be, I look in vain for signs that souls are tried. [Cheers.] And yet I cannot disguise from you, soldiers, that there are hardships and perils in your path. But what is victory, unless through hardship and peril? [Cheers.] Be brave, then, and do the duty to which you are called; and if you need any watchword, let it be, Massachusetts, the Constitution, and FREEDOM! [Loud applause from the soldiers.]
On the same evening, the Battalion embarked on board the transport “Ariel” for Annapolis, where it arrived on the morning of April 24th, and on the 2d of May was transferred to Fort McHenry, in the harbor of Baltimore. There it remained to the end of its term of service.
PASSPORTS FOR COLORED CITIZENS.
Note to the Secretary of State, June 27, 1861.
The question of Passports for Colored Citizens was embarrassed by the Dred Scott decision, and the usage of the State Department, refusing to recognize colored persons as citizens. The position of the latter was set forth in a letter of Mr. Thomas, Assistant Secretary, communicating the judgment of Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State.
“Department of State, Washington, November 4, 1856.
“Your letters of the 29th ult. and 3d inst., requesting passports for eleven colored persons, have been received, and I am directed by the Secretary to inform you that the papers transmitted by you do not warrant the Department in complying with your request. The question whether free negroes are citizens is not now presented for the first time, but has repeatedly arisen in the administration of both the National and State governments. In 1821 a controversy arose as to whether free persons of color were citizens of the United States, within the intent and meaning of the Acts of Congress regulating foreign and coasting trade, so as to be qualified to command vessels, and Wirt, Attorney-General, decided that they were not, and he moreover held that the words ‘citizens of the United States’ were used in the Acts of Congress in the same sense as in the Constitution. This view is also fully sustained in a recent opinion of the present Attorney-General.
“The judicial decisions of the country are to the same effect.… Such being the construction of the Constitution in regard to free persons of color, it is conceived that they cannot be regarded, when beyond the jurisdiction of this Government, as entitled to the full rights of citizens; but the Secretary directs me to say, that, though the Department could not certify that such persons are citizens of the United States, yet, if satisfied of the truth of the facts, it would give a certificate that they were born in the United States, are free, and that the Government thereof would regard it to be its duty to protect them, if wronged by a foreign government while within its jurisdiction for a legal and proper purpose.”[146]
Amidst the general anxieties of the time this important question was presented for revision. A colored youth of Boston, son of Robert Morris, Esq., a practitioner in the courts of Massachusetts, unable to obtain a college education at home, proposed to seek it in France, where there was no exclusion on account of color, and Mr. Sumner, in a written communication to the Secretary of State, requested a passport for him, at the same time inclosing the description of his person duly authenticated, in which his complexion was said to be “colored” and his hair “short and curly.” There being some delay, Mr. Sumner called at the Department to urge personally his formal application. Mr. Seward did not like to issue a passport on the description furnished, but at the same time would furnish a passport to Mr. Sumner for anybody whom he certified to be a citizen, without description. The authenticated description was then returned, and Mr. Sumner, at Mr. Seward’s own desk, and on the ordinary despatch paper of the Department, wrote at once the following.
Washington, 27 June, ’61.
SIR,—Please send me a passport for Robert Morris, Jr., of Boston, a citizen of the United States.
Faithfully yours,
Charles Sumner.
The Secretary of State.
The passport was duly issued, bearing date June 29, 1861, and Mr. Sumner’s note was filed in the Passport Bureau, being the only paper in the case.
The opinion of the Attorney-General, affirming the citizenship of colored freemen, November 29, 1862,[147] settled this question definitively.
OBJECT OF THE WAR.
Proceedings in the Senate, on the Crittenden Resolution declaring the Object of the War, July 24 and 25, 1861.
July 4th, 1861, Congress met in extraordinary session, at the call of the President, to make provision for the welfare of the country, and especially for the prosecution of the war. Meanwhile, Mr. Crittenden, so famous for his attempt at Compromise, had ceased to be a Senator, but he had become a member of the other House. Here he introduced a resolution, declaring the object of the war, which was adopted by the House with only two dissenting votes.
July 24, the same resolution, in nearly the same words, was introduced into the Senate by Hon. Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, afterwards President, who pressed a vote at once, even without having it printed. On Mr. Sumner’s objection it was postponed. His few words in making this objection have significance, as showing his feeling towards Mr. Johnson at that time, and also his unwillingness that the Senate should commit itself hastily to a proposition which, under the name of the “Crittenden Resolution,” was destined to play an important part.
Mr. Sumner said:—
I am unwilling to stand in the way of any desire of the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Andrew Johnson]. I hesitate, therefore, to use the privilege, under the rules, of objecting to a resolution on the day of its introduction; but I do think, in view of its importance, that it ought at least to be printed, so that we may have an opportunity of reading it carefully and considering it well, before we act upon it. Therefore I object to its consideration at this time. I wish the Senator to understand that it is with great respect for himself, and with a desire to do really what the occasion, as I think, requires. I hope the Senator himself will consent that it lie on the table and be printed.
Mr. Johnson said that he would not object, and the resolution was ordered to be printed, as follows.
“Resolved,—That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States, now in revolt against the Constitutional Government, and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency, Congress, banishing all feeling of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and all laws made in pursuance thereof, and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished, the war ought to cease.”
The next day the resolution was taken up, on motion of Mr. Johnson. Mr. Trumbull objected to the allegation in it that the disunionists were “in arms around the capital,” which in his opinion was not true; and he added, that, in his opinion, the revolt was occasioned by people who are not here or in this vicinity: it was started in South Carolina. He objected also to the clause that the war was “not prosecuted for any purpose of conquest or subjugation,”—on which he said, “I trust this war is prosecuted for the purpose of subjugating all rebels and traitors who are in arms against the Government.” For these reasons he voted in the negative. Every other Republican present voted in the affirmative, except Mr. Sumner, who declined to vote. His name does not appear in the record.
This resolution was general in terms, but specious. Though not mentioning Slavery expressly, or interfering with the requirement of military necessity, it was considered at the time as a safeguard of Slavery, even to the Fugitive Slave Bill itself, which was included under the words, “the supremacy of the Constitution, and all laws made in pursuance thereof.” Nor could it be forgotten that it was first brought forward by the same person who, during the previous winter, as Senator from Kentucky, had most pertinaciously urged an odious compromise, by which Slavery was to be intrenched in the Constitution, and made dominant in the National Government. Mr. Sumner, always sensitive to any recognition of Slavery, saw in it an effort to commit Congress the wrong way, so that inaction on Slavery should be the policy of the war, when, to his mind, the sooner Slavery was attacked, the better. His objection to the resolution was radical; but, unwilling to separate openly from political associates, anxious also with regard to the President, who held back, and hoping that time would bring general concurrence in striking at Slavery, he was silent, and contented himself by withholding his vote, so that he was not committed to the resolution in any respect.
This statement is made to explain the progress of events, and also because Mr. Sumner’s course was the occasion of comment, and even of hostile criticism, at the time.
SYMPATHIES OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD NOT TO BE REPELLED.
Speech in the Senate, against Increase of Ten per Cent on all Foreign Duties, July 29, 1861.
In the consideration of the Tariff Bill at this session, Mr. Sumner differed from friends on some of the points involved. One of these differences occurred on his motion, July 29, 1861, to strike out the following clause:—
“That, in addition to the duties now imposed by law on goods, wares, and merchandise not enumerated in the foregoing section, and on all goods not herein otherwise provided for, hereafter imported from foreign countries, there shall be levied, collected, and paid a duty of ten per centum ad valorem, to include all merchandise subject to or exempt from duty by former laws.”
On this motion he spoke as follows.
MR. PRESIDENT,—I think we had better take a vote on the simple proposition, because in that way we shall arrive at the precise wishes of the Senate. I therefore move to strike out the words just read; and if I can have the attention of the Senate for two minutes, I think I can explain why they should be stricken out.
It will be remembered that in the latter days of the last session a new tariff was adopted; but, owing to the disturbed state of the country, and the impediments to commerce, it is not too much to say that we have no present experience of its operation. We do not know to what extent it will supply revenue. While thus ignorant of its operation, it is proposed to make an important change, being nothing less than to pile another story upon what is already criticised as too high. In addition to all existing duties, we are asked to impose a further duty of ten per cent. In the present exigencies of the country, if there were reasonable assurance that out of such extraordinary tax the revenue would be advanced, I should have nothing to say against it,—on the contrary, I should hold up both hands for it; but, so far as I am informed,—and I have taken pains to inform myself,—there is no reasonable ground to believe that the addition of ten per cent extra upon present duties would yield any additional revenue.
Mr. Polk. If the Senator will allow me to interrupt him——
Mr. Sumner. Certainly.
Mr. Polk. I will ask if the result of his investigations is not that the addition of ten per cent would actually decrease the revenue?
Mr. Sumner. The Senator properly directs attention to an important point. I said there was no reasonable assurance that there would be an increase of revenue. I believe that I may go further, as the Senator has suggested, and say that a tariff so far prohibitory will actually diminish instead of increasing revenue. Where then will be your revenue? Revenue comes from commerce, and is just in proportion to the extent of commerce; but if you make commerce impossible, where is your revenue? You kill the bird that lays the golden egg.
There is a pleasant story, which I remember to have heard, of a shopkeeper who once announced to his friends that before breakfast he had increased his fortune by ten per cent; but, on inquiry, it was ascertained that he had merely marked his goods on hand at an increased price of ten per cent, and that was his boasted increase. I much fear that this additional ten per cent will be equally vain for the increase of our national revenue.
But, Mr. President, while the advantages of this proposed increase are all uncertain, there are disadvantages that are certain. It will add to the bad name which, unhappily, the tariff of the last session has already with those disposed to criticise it, and especially with foreign countries. At this moment, when every suggestion of prudence dictates that in our relations with foreign countries we should be governed by a supreme policy of moderation, conciliation, and good-will, you propose to take a step which, to say the least of it, will be regarded as indicative of hostility or of indifference. Now, whatever may be the sentiments and the feelings of European Governments with regard to us, it is perfectly clear that the laboring classes of Europe do sympathize with us in our present struggle; and all those sympathies you turn aside, when you impose prohibitory duties which cut off a market for their labor. I am therefore, Mr. President, opposed to this increase on two positive grounds: first, because its advantages are uncertain; secondly, because its disadvantages are certain.
Mr. Fessenden replied, saying, among other things,—
“I am very glad that the Senator has made the remarks he has, and I desire to say a few words in reply, more particularly to the last portion of his speech. As Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, it being his duty to keep on the best possible terms with all foreign powers, he had a right, perhaps, to say what he has said; but, after all, that is not the question. I would suggest to the honorable Senator, that there is something else to be considered, at the present time, besides the good or bad opinion which certain foreign ministers and others may have of our domestic policy.”
Then again:—
“Now the Senator says: ‘Be careful how you lay these duties on, because foreign countries will be offended at us.’ What right has a foreign country to make any question about what we choose to do with reference to these matters,—to say, when we are in a state of war, and struggling for national existence even, that we shall not impose duties which are necessary to enable us to prosecute that war, because, forsooth, it may affect the interests of foreign gentlemen?”
Here Mr. Sumner interposed:—
I know the Senator does not intend to misstate my argument. I assumed that there would be no increase of revenue from this additional ten per cent,—at least, that the advantages of the increase were uncertain, doubtful; and then that it was very certain there would be disadvantages.
Mr. Fessenden continued at some length, and with much earnestness said:—
“I have heard this argument adduced out of doors, and this talk about how foreign powers might feel respecting the duties we choose to impose upon articles imported into this country. Why, Sir, I say the argument is nothing less than an insult.… I say, therefore, that no people have a right to be offended with us for acting according to our own views of our own interests. They would not have it in time of peace, and much less could they have it in time of war.”
Mr. Sumner restated his position.
Mr. President,—The Senator and myself are perfectly agreed in our main object. Here there is no difference between us. Each desires to secure the largest revenue. For myself, I know no bounds to this desire. The simple question is, How will this be best accomplished? The Senator puts forward the proposition to increase by ten per cent all existing duties, and he does this while still ignorant of the actual working of the tariff established in March. To our inexperience with regard to that tariff he would add further inexperience with regard to the effect of the proposed increase. Now this may be good policy; but it does not seem so to me. The commerce of the country cannot bear such constant change, especially in the direction proposed. The revenue will not gain by it.
For good or for evil, what is familiarly known as the “Morrill Tariff” has been adopted. The commerce of the country has taken note of its requisitions, and is now ready to govern itself accordingly. And it seems to me that the House of Representatives acted wisely, in seeking to increase the revenue by duties on selected articles, which it was thought could bear the tax, rather than by wholesale change, which must cause the whole system to be remodelled. In this respect the House bill has an advantage over that brought forward by the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Simmons] and maintained so zealously by the Senator from Maine [Mr. Fessenden].
But the Senator from Maine says he is unwilling to hearken to suggestions from foreign nations.
Mr. Fessenden. Not at all. I said no such thing as that. I am perfectly willing to hearken to all suggestions, if they are respectfully made, and do not assume a right to dictate to us.
Mr. Sumner. Pray, who has dictated to us, or who assumes any such right? And as to suggestions, which the Senator says he welcomes, I am not aware that any foreign nation, or any person representing any foreign nation, has made even a suggestion that could come within the criticism, swift as it is, of the Senator. Nor, indeed, am I aware of any suggestion in any form to this body. Surely the Senator is mistaken. He must in his imagination exaggerate something that he has heard; or perhaps he misinterprets something that fell from myself.
Let me not be misunderstood. I have said that this ten per cent proposition, if adopted, will give your tariff a bad name among those who are disposed to criticise it, and especially with foreign countries. Was I not right? Is it not true? Willingly I take the censure of the Senator, while I strive at this moment to secure for my country sympathy from every quarter, even from foreign nations; nor shall I be disturbed by anything which fell from the Senator. I am accustomed to criticism in this body. And I beg to say that I shrink from no responsibility which belongs to my position. If duty requires that foreign nations should be encountered by a policy harassing to their industry, I shall take my full share of this grave responsibility; but until I see the path of duty in that direction, I hope that I may be pardoned, if I prefer a policy doubly commended as most beneficial to us and least hurtful to them.
I am unwilling that my country at this moment should pursue a shadow, and in the end find that it has gained nothing but ill-will. Strong as we are, we cannot afford to augment the odium created by our late tariff. Better husband our resources,—among which I place the sympathies of the civilized world, and of those laboring classes whose industry must suffer by your act, without, I fear, any corresponding benefit to us.
The amendment of Mr. Sumner was lost.
EMANCIPATION OUR BEST WEAPON.
Speech before the Republican State Convention at Worcester, Massachusetts, October 1, 1861. With Appendix.
Therefore take heed …
How you awake the sleeping sword of war:
We charge you, in the name of God, take heed!
Shakespeare, King Henry V., Act I. Scene 2.
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the Law of Liberty.—Epistle of James, ii. 12.
This speech, at the time of its delivery, was entitled in some quarters “Emancipation the Cure of the Rebellion,” which certainly showed an appreciation of its meaning. In the pamphlet edition another title was adopted, argumentative in form, and intended to suggest the same conclusion,—“Union and Peace, how they shall be restored.” It was made at the annual State Convention of the Republican party of Massachusetts.
The Convention was called to order by Hon. William Claflin, Chairman of the Republican State Committee. Its permanent organization was as follows.
President,—Hon. Henry L. Dawes, of North Adams.
Vice-Presidents,—Richard Libbey of Wellfleet, James H. Mitchell of East Bridgewater, Joseph N. Bacon of Newton, Albert J. Wright of Boston, Nehemiah Boynton of Chelsea, John S. E. Rogers of Gloucester, Gerry W. Cochrane of Methuen, N. C. Munson of Shirley, Giles H. Whitney of Winchendon, J. H. Butler of Northampton, Joel Hayden of Haydensville, by districts; with Robert M. Hooper of Boston, Oliver Ames, Jr., of Easton, Alexander DeWitt of Oxford, Hapgood Swift of Lowell, Freeman Walker of North Brookfield, Marshall P. Wilder of Dorchester, Clement Willis of Boston, Lorenzo Sabine of Roxbury, Thomas Tucker of Worcester, Francis H. Fay of Lancaster, Columbus Tyler of Somerville, George Washington Warren of Charlestown, Linus Beck of Boston, Charles O. Rogers of Boston, H. B. Staples of Milford, Orlando Burt of Sandisfield, Francis Coggswell of Andover, at large.
Secretaries,—S. N. Stockwell of Boston, J. E. Tucker of Worcester, N. A. Horton of Salem, Z. E. Stowe of Lowell, George S. Merrill of Lawrence, Joseph B. Thaxter of Hingham, Samuel B. Noyes of Canton, William S. Robinson of Malden, Charles A. Chase of Boston, L. H. Bradford of Fitchburg, William Martin of North Adams, Gardner M. Fiske of Palmer, William W. Clapp, Jr., of Boston.
The President, on being conducted to the chair, made a speech, in which he said:—
“Since last assembled here for a kindred purpose, the mighty march of events has borne the popular efforts on to a higher plane than ever before opened to the gaze of man.… Massachusetts cannot, if she would, and, thank God, she would not, if she could, perform an indifferent part in this life struggle of the Republic. She makes no boast over her sister States, but the great Disposer and Adjuster of events has placed her in the forefront rank, in this great battle for the integrity of the nation and the existence of free institutions, and she accepts her place with alacrity.”
Immediately after this speech, John A. Andrew was unanimously and by acclamation renominated as candidate for Governor, being his second nomination for that post. The committees of the Convention having been appointed, there was an adjournment till afternoon.
In the afternoon, the resolutions of the Committee, seven in number, were reported by George S. Hale, of Boston, and at once laid upon the table, on motion of Edward L. Pierce, of Milton, in order to give an opportunity for Mr. Sumner to address the Convention. A report says:—
“Hon. Charles Sumner came on the platform about this time, and his presence was acknowledged with great applause. The President introduced him to the Convention, and he made a speech about an hour long.”
“Great enthusiasm” and “warm cheers” are the terms of other reports with regard to his reception. These are mentioned because the sentiments of the audience were represented afterwards as adverse. The pamphlet report says:—
“Upon the appearance of Mr. Sumner on the platform, he was most cordially greeted by the whole Convention and the large audience in the galleries. Hon. H. L. Dawes, President of the Convention, introduced him in a few felicitous words, whereupon the warm applause of the vast assembly burst forth again with great enthusiasm, ending with three rousing cheers.”
At the conclusion of Mr. Sumner’s speech, a motion was made to take the resolutions of the Committee from the table, when Rev. James Freeman Clarke, the Liberal preacher and sincere reformer, appeared on the platform, and after a few remarks offered the following resolutions.
“Resolved, That, while the people of Massachusetts have confidence in the wisdom of the National Administration, and are ready hereafter, as hitherto, to give their blood and their treasure in answer to its call, yet, believing that Slavery is the root and cause of this Rebellion, they will rejoice when the time shall come, in the wisdom of the Government, to remove this radical source of our present evils.
“Resolved, That, when the proper time shall arrive, the people of Massachusetts will welcome any act, under the war power of the Commander-in-Chief, which shall declare all the slaves within the lines of our armies to be free, and accept their services in defence of the Union,—compensating all loyal owners for slaves thus emancipated, and thus carrying liberty for all human beings wherever the Stars and Stripes shall float.”
There was no direct vote on these resolutions, but authentic accounts at the time enable us to trace their fortune.
They were at once opposed by George S. Hale, the reporter of the Committee’s resolutions, and by Artemas Lee of Templeton, “declaring that they were calculated to weaken the Administration in Kentucky.” Not being moved as an amendment to the other resolutions, the first question was on the adoption of the latter, which were carried. Pending the question on Mr. Clarke’s resolutions, the Committee to nominate Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Attorney-General, Treasurer and Receiver-General, and Auditor, made their report, which superseded the other question, and caused an irritating and personal discussion. When the nominations were completed, it had become late, and many had already left by the trains, among them Mr. Sumner; but Mr. Clarke moved to take his resolutions from the table, when, according to the report, “a member in front of the chair moved to adjourn, and that motion, being first in order, was put and carried, with but few dissenting votes.” It was supposed by many, that, had a vote been taken on these resolutions while the Convention was full, they would have been adopted.
In the disposition to weaken the speech of Mr. Sumner, it was charged at the time that he spoke without official invitation,—which was contrary to the fact. Some time in advance of the Convention, Mr. Claflin, Chairman of the State Committee, called on Mr. Sumner and invited him to address it, urging him strongly; and when the latter said that he could not consent, without declaring the duty of Emancipation, and freeing his mind on this all-important subject, Mr. Claflin insisted that he should do so, and Mr. Sumner promised to speak. At another call Mr. Sumner read to Mr. Claflin a sketch of what he proposed to say, adding that he would not speak except with the approval of Mr. Claflin, when the latter declared his entire agreement with Mr. Sumner, and insisted that the speech should be made.
An account of the contemporaneous discussion, whether of criticism or sympathy, will be found in the Appendix.