APPENDIX.
NOMINATION AND REËLECTION OF MR. SUMNER.
As this speech was made in the midst of the excitement in Massachusetts on the nomination of Mr. Sumner as Senator, an account of that contest will not be out of place here.
The early and active part taken by Mr. Sumner in favor of Emancipation, and the urgency of his efforts against Slavery, excited against him an intense opposition, not only in Massachusetts, but throughout the country. He was denounced as second only to Jefferson Davis in hostility to the Constitution. But these attacks aroused the friends of Emancipation, who were unwilling to see their representative sacrificed.
There were signs of this contest in the autumn of 1861, when Mr. Sumner called for Emancipation as our best weapon.[133] Governor Andrew saw it coming. In a letter, dated June 9, 1862, with reference to the appointment of officers in the Internal Revenue Bureau, he used the following language.
“The Hunkers will make the most strenuous efforts to secure a large representation in this agency, so that, by means of their influence with the people (and in travelling from town to town), they can poison the minds of prominent citizens against you, and accomplish your defeat by securing a Legislature favorable to their purposes.
“Depend upon it, that they are calculating largely upon the Tax Bill as an element in their desperate ‘strategy’ for the fall campaign.”
The New York Tribune, in a vigorous article, June 24, 1862, entitled “Mr. Sumner’s Seat,” set forth reasons “why many earnest Republicans in other States would regret the retirement of Mr. Sumner.” Here it said:—
“Most of our Republican statesmen have a political history antecedent to our existing organizations. Mr. Sumner, nearly alone, is nowhere regarded as having Whig or Democratic predilections, but as purely and wholly Republican.
“Other statesmen, however profoundly Republican, regard collateral questions with an observing interest: the Tariff, the Currency, the Pacific Railroad, &c., largely engross their attention. Mr. Sumner profoundly believes it of paramount, absorbing interest that the nation should be just, even to her humblest, most despised children, and that Righteousness is the essential condition of material and other prosperity. Never inattentive to or neglectful of any public duty, never even accused of sacrificing or opposing the interest of Massachusetts in any matter of legislation, he is yet known to believe that her interests can never be truly promoted by sacrificing those of Humanity. In an age of venality and of uncharitable suspicion, he was never even suspected of giving a mercenary or selfish vote; in an atmosphere where every man is supposed to have his price, and to be scheming and striving for self-aggrandizement, no man ever suggested that Charles Sumner was animated by sinister impulses, or that he would barter or stifle his convictions for the Presidency. The one charge brought against him by his many bitter adversaries imports that he is a fanatic,—not that it was ever imagined that he is the special devotee of any fane or sect, but that he sincerely believes it the end of civil government to hasten the coming of God’s earthly kingdom by causing His justice to pervade every act, every relation, and thus making the earth, so far as human imperfection will permit, a vestibule of heaven.”
In warning against possible combination to defeat his reëlection, the article said:—
“All that the Republicans of other States can and do ask is, that no back-stairs intrigue, no chimney-corner arrangement, shall send to Boston a Legislature secretly pledged to oust him, and elected by constituencies profoundly ignorant of any such manipulation.… All we ask is, that those who vote at the polls to supersede Mr. Sumner in the Senate shall know for what they vote, and not be duped by professions only made to deceive.”
The adverse spirit showed itself at a large public meeting in New York, July 1st, which was entitled by the Herald, “The Anti-Abolition and Anti-Secession Movement.—Disunion the Fruit of Abolition.” Here Hon. William Duer, of Oswego, seemed to become the mouthpiece of the excited multitude.
“No emancipation and turning loose upon them hordes of uncivilized and ignorant Africans.… No tyrant in history has ever made his name execrated by measures more despicable than such as those proposed by the Abolitionists for the humiliation and destruction of the South. The Southern people have been deluded by their leaders in the same way as the Northern people, and, in his opinion, the next man who walked up the scaffold after Jefferson Davis should be Charles Sumner. [Loud and long-continued applause, mingled with hooting and groans for Sumner. Some person in the meeting attempted to say a word in his favor, but his voice was quickly drowned in loud shouts of ‘Put him out!’]”
This is from the Herald. The same incident is thus reported in the Tribune.
“And if we came to hanging every traitor in this country in the order of their guilt, the next man who marched upon the scaffold after Jefferson Davis would be Charles Sumner. [Loud applause, the greatest of the evening thus far. Groans for Sumner. Great excitement. Cries of ‘Put him out!’ Cries, ‘Where is Horace Greeley?’]”
A correspondent of a Boston paper, taking up the strain, echoed it for the benefit of Massachusetts.
“There are now two war-cries in New York, and the great Union mastiff is as ready to pounce upon one of the brutes as upon the other. If there are two parties outside of the doomed radicals, they are those, the most violent of them, who would hang Jeff. Davis and Sumner together, and those who would hang Davis first and Sumner afterwards.
“If Sumner is reëlected to the Senate, he may not find it convenient to pass through this city. That his name is odious, infamous, is not all,—it is cursed and abominable. The blood of thousands sacrificed to his ambition and personal revenge cries to Heaven against him, and if a Massachusetts Legislature can still support him by its vote, those who do so will deserve to lose their children at the altar of this Moloch.”
The New York Herald followed with a leader, July 16th, entitled, “Senators Wade and Sumner,” which, after announcing that the terms of these Senators would expire on the 4th of March next, made the following appeal.
“By the foulest means they have succeeded in clogging the wheels of our progress in the war, and have made another year of battles unavoidable. Had it not been for them and their coadjutors, the war would have been over and the Union restored on the Fourth of July instant. More than any other men they are responsible for the useless sacrifice of blood and treasure in the past, and for the three hundred thousand more men and five hundred millions more dollars which will have to be perilled in the future. Practically, and in the most emphatic sense, they are traitors to the country and enemies of the nation. From them, more than from a thousand Vallandighams, Jeff. Davis has received aid and comfort; for they have strengthened his forces by exasperating the South and by dividing and weakening the North. We hope that the loyal men of Massachusetts and Ohio will raise these questions in the coming elections for State legislators, and vote down every man who is pledged or who intends to vote for the reëlection of these twin traitors, Sumner and Wade. They have only escaped Fort Lafayette and the gallows because the Government has distrusted its own power and misunderstood the sentiments of the loyal people. Let this misunderstanding now end, and let Messrs. Sumner and Wade find, when they return to their homes, that they are held personally and politically responsible for their infamous and treasonable course.”
The friends of Emancipation in Massachusetts were not inactive. The issue thus presented was accepted by the formal nomination of Mr. Sumner, at the annual Republican State Convention at Worcester, September 10th.
The Convention was organized by the choice of the following officers.
President,—Hon. Alexander H. Bullock of Worcester.
Vice-Presidents,—District 1, Nathaniel Coggswell of Yarmouth; District 2, J. H. D. Blake of Braintree; District 3, Theodore Otis of Roxbury; District 4, Nehemiah Boynton of Chelsea; District 5, Timothy Davis of Gloucester; District 6, George Foster of Andover; District 7, Chauncey L. Knapp of Lowell; District 8, Valorous Taft of Upton; District 9, Joel Hayden of Williamsburg; District 10, George L. Wright of West Springfield. At Large,—John Bertram of Salem, George Morey of Boston, Tappan Wentworth of Lowell, Ensign H. Kellogg of Pittsfield, Charles G. Davis of Plymouth, Henry Alexander, Jr., of Springfield.
Secretaries,—Stephen N. Stockwell of Boston, William M. Walker of Pittsfield, Joseph B. Thaxter, Jr., of Hingham, William T. Hollis of Plymouth, Thomas B. Gardner of Boston, Joel Hayden, Jr., of Williamsburg.
John A. Andrew was re-nominated for Governor by acclamation. J. Q. A. Griffin, of Charlestown, introduced a resolution approving the course of the two Senators, and nominating Mr. Sumner for reëlection as Senator, and at the same time said:—
“Remember, it is our duty not only to sustain the arms of the Generals in the field, but likewise to sustain the President in his seat, the Cabinet in its counsels, the Governor in his chair, and, above all, the fearless legislator in his duty. [Loud applause, and cries of ‘Good!’]”
Mr. Griffin was followed by Frederick Robinson, of Marblehead, who hoped that the resolution would be adopted unanimously, and also another, expressing the opinion of Massachusetts in favor of Emancipation. George F. Hoar, of Worcester, agreed with Mr. Robinson. As to the resolution approving Charles Sumner and Henry Wilson, “he liked that,” but he wished, also, “an expression of the opinion of this Convention, that it is the duty of the United States Government, in the further prosecution of the war, to strike the Rebellion where it is weakest.” The different propositions were then referred to a committee. At this stage the letter of Mr. Sumner to the Convention was presented and read by Mr. Claflin.[134]
Among the resolutions subsequently reported were the two following.
“Resolved, That the most decisive measures for the complete and permanent suppression of this Rebellion are the most prudent, and that, as the institution of Slavery is a principal support of it, that institution shall be exterminated.”
“Resolved, That we recognize and acknowledge the preëminent merits and services of our Senators in the Congress of the United States, the Hon. Charles Sumner and the Hon. Henry Wilson. In the posts of duty assigned them by the suffrages of their brother Senators, one as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the other as Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, they have cordially and unreservedly, and with masterly ability, supported all governmental measures, and fitly represented the Commonwealth as among the most cheerful and enthusiastic defenders of the Government. And now that the second term of our senior Senator is drawing to a close, we desire to express our warm approbation of his course and appreciation of his services, and to commend him to the suffrages of his fellow-citizens, whom he has served so well, that the Commonwealth may again honor itself by returning to duty at the capital a statesman, a scholar, a patriot, and a man of whom any republic in any age might be proud.”
The whole series, as read, was received with intense enthusiasm, especially that against Slavery. A motion was made to amend by striking out that part recommending the reëlection of Mr. Sumner, which was voted down promptly, and the resolution was unanimously adopted.
The action of the Convention presented two distinct issues,—first, the extermination of Slavery, and, secondly, the reëlection of Mr. Sumner. There was at once a counter movement. A call was put forth for what was called a “People’s Convention,” at Faneuil Hall, October 7th, whose main object was to defeat the action of the Republican Convention, and especially the reëlection of Mr. Sumner. It was supposed that in this way all the elements of opposition could be united. This plan received an unexpected check by the Proclamation of Emancipation of September 22d. It could no longer be said that the Republican Party of Massachusetts and Mr. Sumner were not in entire harmony with the President.
Meanwhile Mr. Sumner addressed his fellow-citizens at Faneuil Hall, October 6th, in vindication of the Proclamation. On the succeeding day the “People’s Convention” assembled in the same place and nominated candidates for State offices in opposition to the Republicans. The tone of this Convention appears in a brief extract from the speech of Hon. Josiah G. Abbott, of Boston. After alluding to the various interests of Massachusetts, he said:—
“And I tell you, Gentlemen,—and every heart here responds to it,—every heart out of this hall would respond to it, if the lips would speak the language of the heart,—I tell you, Gentlemen, we want men in the Halls of Congress, in the House of Representatives, and, above and beyond all, in the Senate Chamber, who will attend to those interests, and not be continually, as they have been, Sir, attending to mere wild speculations and sentimental theories. [Applause.] Do not the people cry out, ’For God’s sake, give us somebody who believes there is something to be attended to in the wants of a million and a quarter of white men, women, and children’? [Great applause.]”
The spirit of this Convention was thus described by the Norfolk County Journal:—
“The partisanship of the People’s Convention all centres in opposition to Charles Sumner. It is as pure an instance of personal hate on the part of its leaders as was ever exhibited. This animosity comes solely from the fact that he was the earliest and has been the most persistent advocate of what is now the policy of the nation. They hate Mr. Sumner, not because he is personally unamiable, not because there is a flaw in his moral character or a doubt as to the purity of his intentions, not because he has not represented the opinion of Massachusetts, and faithfully advocated her best interests on every point affecting her material prosperity. They have commenced this personal crusade solely because he has been the most conspicuous and uncompromising foe to the encroachments of Southern Slavery. And now that the President has ranged himself on Mr. Sumner’s side, in opposing him they oppose the Administration.”
On the next day, the Democratic Convention at Worcester adopted the nominations of the “People’s Convention,” so that the elements of opposition seemed to be united. The President of the Convention in his remarks announced the common object.
“Let me, then, appeal to you to come here with one heart and with kindly feelings towards all, entertaining respect for the opinions of all, so that, when this Convention shall have adjourned, a voice will go forth throughout this Commonwealth, that the day of John A. Andrew and Charles Sumner is ended. [Prolonged cheers.]”
Other speeches followed in the same tone, and insisting upon union “to beat Sumner and Andrew.”
The issue was thus presented to the people of Massachusetts, and throughout the Commonwealth the election of Senators and Representatives turned mainly upon it. If the attack was vigorous, so also was the defence. Of the latter a few illustrations will suffice. The first is from Wendell Phillips, who, in an address at Music Hall, Sunday forenoon, November 2d, said:—
“I say this much, before turning again to my immediate subject, for our great Senator, who has done justice to the manufacturing interests and the shipping of Massachusetts, as Webster did, and also justice to her conscience and her thought, as Webster did not. [Applause.] I do not wish to take one leaf from the laurel of the great Defender of the Constitution; he rests at Marshfield, beneath the honors he fairly earned. But we have put in his place a man far more practical than he was; we have put in his place the hardest worker that Massachusetts ever sent to the Senate of the United States [applause]; we have put in his place the Stonewall Jackson of the floor of the Senate,—patient of labor, untiring in effort, boundless in resources, terribly in earnest,—the only man who, in civil affairs, is to be compared with the great terror of the Union armies, the General of the Virginia forces: both ideologists, both horsed on an idea, and both men whom a year ago the drudges of State Street denounced, or would have denounced, as unpractical and impracticable; but when the war-bugle sounded through the land, both were found to be the only men to whom Carolina and Massachusetts hasted to give the batons of the opposing hosts.”
John G. Whittier, whose words of flame had done so much in the long warfare with Slavery, was aroused from his retirement to testify. In the Amesbury Villager, near his home, he wrote:—
“In looking over the speeches and newspapers of his active opponents, it really seems to me, that, if ever a man was hated and condemned for his very virtues, it is this gentleman. Nobody accuses him of making use of his high position for his own personal emolument; no shadow of suspicion rests upon the purity of his private or public character; no man can point to an instance in which he has neglected any duty properly devolving upon him; no interest of his State has been forgotten or overlooked; no citizen has appealed to him in vain for kindly offices and courteous hearing and attention. As Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Affairs, his industry and ability have never been denied by his bitterest enemies. All admit that he has rendered important service to his Government. What, then, is his crime? Simply and solely this, that he stands inflexibly by his principles,—that he is too hearty in his hatred of the monstrous Wrong which initiated and still sustains the present Rebellion,—that in advance of his contemporaries he saw the danger and proclaimed it,—that he heartily sustains the President in his Proclamation,—that he is in favor of destroying the guilty cause of all our national calamities, that red-handed murderer and traitor against whom the sighs and groans of Massachusetts wives and mothers, weeping in every town and hamlet for dear ones who are not, are rising in swift witness to God.
“This is his crime, his real offence, in the eyes of his leading opponents. I know it has been said that he is too much a man of ideas, and not a statesman. That he is not a politician, in the modern sense of the word, I admit; and if indirection, trickery, and the habit of looking upon men, parties, and principles as mere stock in trade and tools of convenience are the qualifications of statecraft, then he is not a statesman. But if a thorough comprehension of the great principles of law and political economy, of all which constitutes the true honor and glory and prosperity of a people,—if the will and ability to master every question as it arises,—if entire familiarity with the history, resources, laws, and policy of other nations, derived not merely from the study of books, but from free personal intercourse with the leading minds of Europe, are essential requisites of statesmanship, then is Charles Sumner a statesman in the noblest and truest sense. Certain it is that he is so regarded by the diplomatic representatives of European nations, and that no man in the country has so entirely the confidence and esteem of all who are really our friends in the Old World.”
Horace Greeley, in an article under his own name in the New York Independent, and entitled, “Charles Sumner as a Statesman,” united with the Republicans of Massachusetts.
“For the first time in our political history, a party has been organized and a State ticket nominated for the sole purpose of defeating the reëlection of one who is not a State officer, and never aspired to be. Governor Andrew is regarded with a hostility intensified by the fewness of those who feel it; but the bitterness with which Mr. Sumner is hated insists on the gratification of a canvass, even though a hopeless one; and, since there was no existing party by which this could be attempted without manifest futility, one was organized for the purpose. And it was best that this should be. Let us have a census of the friends and the enemies of Mr. Sumner in the State which he has so honored.
“I have said, that, while other Senators have shared his convictions, none has seemed so emphatically, so eminently, as he to embody and represent the growing, deepening Antislavery sentiment of the country. None has seemed so invariably to realize that a public wrong is a public danger, that injustice to the humblest and weakest is peril to the well-being of all. Others have seemed to regard the recent developments of disunion and treason with surprise and alarm: he has esteemed them the bitter, but natural, fruit of the deadly tree we have so long been watering and cherishing. The profound, yet simple truth, that ‘Righteousness exalteth a nation,’—that nothing else is so baleful as injustice,—that the country which gains a large accession of territory or of wealth at the cost of violating the least tittle of the canons of eternal rectitude has therein made a ruinous mistake,—that nothing else can be so important or so profitable as stern uprightness: such is the key-note of his lofty and beneficent career. May it be vouchsafed him to announce from his seat in the Senate the final overthrow of the demon he has so faithfully, so nobly resisted, and that from Greenland to Panama, from the St. John to the Pacific, the sun in his daily course looks down on no master and no slave!”
A single incident will illustrate the interest excited throughout the Commonwealth. A venerable citizen of New Bedford, seventy-nine years of age and very feeble, was assisted to the polls, saying, “Here goes a dying vote for Charles Sumner!”
The triumphant result of the election was known at once. It was declared officially on the meeting of the Legislature.
January 15, 1863, at twelve o’clock, each branch of the Legislature proceeded, by special assignment, to vote for a Senator to represent Massachusetts for six years from March 4th next ensuing. The vote in each branch was vivâ voce, the roll bring called and each member pronouncing the name of the candidate he voted for.
In the Senate, the vote was,—
| Charles Sumner, of Boston | 33 |
| Josiah G. Abbott, of Boston | 5 |
| Charles Francis Adams, of Quincy | 1 |
In the House of Representatives, the vote was,—
| Charles Sumner | 194 |
| Josiah G. Abbott | 38 |
| Caleb Gushing | 2 |
| Charles Francis Adams | 1 |
In the House there were slight manifestations of applause when the result was announced, but they were promptly checked by the Speaker.
The result was noticed by the press throughout the country. The venerable National Intelligencer, at Washington, which had been opposed to the principles and policies of Mr. Sumner, employed the following generous terms.
“This is the third time that this gentleman has been thus honored by the Legislature of Massachusetts. Such repeated tokens of confidence would seem sufficiently to indicate, that, whatever dissent from the views of Mr. Sumner may elsewhere exist, he is the favorite, as he is admitted by all to be the able, representative of the opinions entertained by a majority of the people of this great and influential State. And these views now predominate in the conduct of the present Administration, which may be said to have adopted, reluctantly and at a late day, the political and military policy early commended to its favor by Mr. Sumner.
“If we are not able to concur with Mr. Sumner in certain of his opinions on questions of domestic politics, it gives us only the greater pleasure to bear our cheerful and candid testimony to the enlightened judgment and peculiar qualifications he brings to the discharge of the important duties devolved on him as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate. In this capacity he has deservedly won the confidence of the whole country.”
Such testimony from a political opponent attested the change that had occurred in public policy and private feeling.
The Tribune exhibited the change in yet stronger light.
“By a vote of nearly six to one, Massachusetts again declares her confidence in her long-tried Senator, and, on an issue defined with unmistakable clearness, for the third time returns him to his seat.
“The contrast between his present position and that which he held on first entering the Senate is instructive. Then an arrogant Democratic majority with unequalled effrontery declared him outside of any healthy political organization, excluded him from the Committees, denied him parliamentary courtesies, and withheld the common civilities of social intercourse and acquaintance. There were hardly three or four Senators in Congress who were in any degree identified with his opinions. He declared them none the less boldly, and his speeches for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, on the Nebraska Bill, and on the Crime against Kansas finally exasperated the slaveholding oligarchy into personal violence, and for words spoken in orderly debate he was brutally assaulted on the floor of the Senate and seriously injured. This outrage, and the enthusiastic approval with which it was received throughout the South, were largely instrumental in rousing the North to a right estimate of the system and the political power which sought such means of defence.”
The Liberator, by the pen of its faithful and able editor, William Lloyd Garrison, gave expression to the sentiments of those most enlisted against Slavery.
“Thus has Massachusetts nobly vindicated her name and fame as the foremost State of all the world in the cause of free institutions, and trampled beneath her feet the malignant aspersions cast upon the political reputation of her gifted Senator by the minions of a traitorous Slave Oligarchy. The vote is an overwhelming one, notwithstanding the desperate efforts of Mr. Sumner’s enemies to make his defeat a sure event. Such enemies only serve to prove his personal worth and public usefulness, and their factious and profligate character.
“Mr. Sumner’s friends in Washington proposed, last week, to give him a serenade in honor of his reëlection to the Senate; but, hearing of their intention, he declared that the compliment was not in accordance with the present condition of public affairs, and intimated that he preferred that the funds subscribed for the music should be donated to the Massachusetts Soldiers’ Relief Association, which was done.”
In Mr. Sumner’s reëlection the cause of Emancipation triumphed, and Massachusetts was fixed irrevocably on that side.
THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION OUR CORNER-STONE.
Letter to Fellow-Citizens at Salem, October 10, 1862.
Boston, October 10, 1862.
GENTLEMEN,—I feel flattered by your invitation, where I recognize so many excellent names, and shall be happy to take advantage of the opportunity with which you honor me.
The Emancipation Proclamation of the President, on which you ask me to speak, is now the corner-stone of our national policy. For the sake of our country, and in loyalty to our Government, it ought to have the best support of every patriot citizen, without hesitation or lukewarmness. Now is the time for earnest men.
If agreeable to you, I accept your invitation for Monday evening, 20th October.
Believe me, Gentlemen, with much respect,
Faithfully yours,
Charles Sumner.
FARMERS, THEIR HAPPINESS AND LIBERAL SENTIMENTS.
Speech at the Dinner of the Hampshire County Agricultural Society, at Northampton, Mass., October 14, 1862.
At the dinner which followed the cattle-show, Mr. Sumner was introduced by Hon. Erastus Hopkins, who commenced by alluding to their early days at the Boston Latin School.
“Gentlemen,—It is now full forty years, when at school I had a schoolmate and a classmate who in point of physical altitude and breadth, but more especially (I am no flatterer, I only speak historic truth) in point of diligence and scholarship, was primus inter pares,—first among equals. That boy was father of the man. He now holds the position of Senator in the Senate of the United States, with a relative eminence no less than that of his earlier days. He is the valued servant and the honored Senator of Massachusetts, whom she has hitherto delighted to honor, and whom, so long as she remains true to her cherished sentiments, to her gushing instincts, and to her memorable history, she will ever honor. [Loud applause.]
“We were told yesterday by the Rev. Dr. Huntington, in his admirable address delivered in this hall, that the farmer owed his first duty to his land,—to care for it, to fertilize it, and to beautify it. Recurring to this point, at the close of his address, he reminded the farmer that ‘duty to his land’ was susceptible of a double meaning: the one referring to the few acres of his own individual and exclusive proprietorship; the other, to that great land, that vast country, which he owned, and to which he owed duty, in common with all his fellow-citizens.
“I do not know that the honorable Senator owns, or ever did own, in separate proprietorship, any acres of land,—that he ever held the plough, or ‘drove the team a-field’; I do not know whether he intends to enlighten us with regard to the care and culture of our homesteads and our farms; but I do know that he understands the farmer’s ‘duty to his land,’ in the secondary and higher sense to which allusion has been made,—that, looking over our wide country, our rich heritage, and heritage of our fathers, he has been ever diligent and untiring in his endeavors to remove its deformities, to augment its fertility, and to crown it with beauty.
“To which department of farming the Senator will direct his remarks I know not; but, whatever his topic, I submit without fear his words of instruction and of eloquence to the ordeal of your verdict.
“I have the honor to introduce to you the Hon. Charles Sumner.”
Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.
Mr. President, Ladies, and Gentlemen:—
I cannot forget the first time that I looked upon this beautiful valley, where river, meadow, and hill contribute to the charm. It was while a youth in college. With several of my classmates I made a pedestrian excursion through Massachusetts. Starting from Cambridge, we passed, by way of Sterling and Barre, to Amherst, where, arriving weary and footsore, we refreshed ourselves at the evening prayer in the College Chapel. From Amherst we walked to Northampton, and then, ascending Mount Holyoke, saw the valley of the Connecticut spread out before us, with river of silver winding through meadows of gold. It was a scene of enchantment, and time has not weakened the impression it made. From Northampton we walked to Deerfield, sleeping near Bloody Brook, and then to Greenfield, where we turned off by Coleraine through dark woods and over hills to Bennington in Vermont. The whole excursion was deeply interesting, but no part more so than your valley. Since then I have been a traveller at home and abroad, but I know no similar scene of greater beauty. I have seen the meadows of Lombardy, and those historic rivers, the Rhine and the Arno, and that stream of Charente, which Henry the Fourth called the most beautiful of France,—also those Scottish rivers so famous in legend and song, and the exquisite fields and sparkling waters of Lower Austria; but my youthful joy in the landscape which I witnessed from the neighboring hill-top has never been surpassed in any kindred scene. Other places are richer in the associations of history; but you have enough already in what Nature has done, without waiting for any further illustration.
It is a saying of Antiquity, often quoted: “Oh, too fortunate husbandmen, if they only knew their blessings!”[135] Nowhere are these words more applicable than to this neighborhood, where Nature has done so much, and where all that Nature has done is enhanced by an intelligent and liberal spirit. An eminent French writer, one of the greatest of his country, who wrote in the middle of the last century, when France was a despotism, Montesquieu, has remarked in his “Spirit of Laws,” that “countries are not cultivated in proportion to their fertility, but in proportion to their liberty.”[136] A beautiful truth. But here in this valley are both. Where is there greater fertility? where is there truer liberty?
If the farmers of our country needed anything to stimulate pride in their vocation, it would be found in the statistics furnished by the national census. That of 1860 is not yet prepared, and I go back to that of 1850. Here it appears, that, out of the whole employed population of the United States over fifteen years of age, two millions four hundred thousand, or forty-four per cent, were engaged in agricultural pursuits, while the total number engaged in commerce, trade, manufactures, mechanic arts, and mining was only one million six hundred thousand, or about thirty per cent. These figures show an immense predominance of the agricultural interest in the whole country. Of course in Massachusetts the commercial and manufacturing interests are relatively larger than in other parts of the country. But our farmers are numerous.
This same census shows, that, in 1850, the four largest staples of our country, ranking them according to their nominal value, were: Indian corn, two hundred and ninety-six million dollars; wheat, one hundred million dollars; cotton, ninety-eight million dollars; hay, ninety-six million dollars. These figures, of course, are familiar, but they are so instructive that they will bear repetition. Besides illustrating the magnitude of our agricultural interests, they shed new light on the lofty pretensions that have been made for King Cotton. There is no crown for hay, or wheat, or Indian corn, and yet two of these stand above cotton. But the whole table testifies to the power of the farmer.
From another quarter are statistics showing how agricultural pursuits favor longevity. Out of seventeen hundred persons, the average life of farmers was forty-five years; of merchants, thirty-three years; of mechanics, twenty-nine years; and of laborers, twenty-seven years. Thus length of days seems to be an agricultural product.
Gratifying as it may be to glance at agriculture in these statistics, which must arouse the pride, if not the content of the farmer, there are other aspects which to my mind are more interesting. In early days agriculture was only an art, most imperfectly developed. The plough of the ancient husbandman was little more than a pole with a stick at the end by which the earth was scratched, and other implements were of like simplicity. As for the knowledge employed, it was all of the most superficial character. But agriculture is now not only an art, in a high degree of perfection, it is also a science, with its laws and rules, as much as navigation or astronomy. There is no knowledge which will not help the farmer; especially is there no branch of science. Geography, geology, meteorology, botany, chemistry, zoölogy, and animal physiology, all contribute. Regarding agriculture in this light, we cannot fail to give the farmer a high standard of excellence. In the cultivation of the earth he practises an art and pursues a science. But human character is elevated by the standard which is followed.
There is another feature in the life of the farmer which is to me more interesting still. The farmer is patriotic and liberal. Dependent upon Nature, he learns to be independent of Man. If not less than others under the influence of local prejudices, he is at least removed from those combinations engendered by the spirit of trade. He thinks for himself, and acts for his country. I do not venture to say that he is naturally a reformer, but I think the experience of our country attests that he does not set himself against the ideas of the age.
Here Mr. Sumner dwelt on that spirit of obstructiveness which is so common, illustrating it by historic instances, and then proceeded.
I rejoice to believe that there is no such hide-bound indifference to liberal ideas among our farmers. But, just in proportion as these are numerous, intelligent, powerful, and liberal, do they constitute an arm of strength. Pardon me, if now more than ever I see them in this character. In appealing to them for the sake of our country, I make no appeal inconsistent with the proprieties of this occasion. Our country is in peril, and it must be saved. This is enough.
Under God, our country will be saved through the united energy, the well-compacted vigor of the people directed by the President of the United States. Our first duty is to stand by the President, and to hold up his hands. There must be no hesitation or timidity. If he calls for troops, he must have them. If, besides calling for troops, he enlist other agencies for the suppression of the Rebellion, he must be sustained precisely as in calling for troops.
Thus far the main dependence has been troops, to which our honored Commonwealth has made generous contributions. No part of the country has suffered more in gallant officers, youthful, gentle, and excellent in all things. This neighborhood has its story of sorrow. Amherst has buried the pure and patriotic Stearns, and only within a few days here in Northampton you have received from the field of death the brave and accomplished Baker.
And now at last a new power is invoked, being nothing less than that great Proclamation of the President which places Liberty at the head of our columns.
Mr. Sumner here explained the immediate and prospective effects of the Proclamation, and then closed as follows.
It is sometimes said that this edict is unconstitutional. Some there are with whom the Constitution is a constant stumbling-block, wherever anything is to be done for Freedom. It cannot be so, I trust, with the liberal farmers of this valley. Of course, the Edict of Emancipation is to be regarded as a war measure, made in the exercise of the Rights of War. It is as much a war measure as the proclamation calling forth troops, and is entitled to the same support. It is not a measure of Abolition or Antislavery, or of philanthropy, but a war measure, pure and simple. If there be any person disposed to discourage it, I warn him that he departs from the duties of patriotism hardly less than if he discouraged enlistments. There is but one course now before us. The policy of Emancipation, at last adopted as a war measure, must be sustained precisely as we sustain an army in the field. With this new and mighty agency I cannot doubt the result. The Rebellion will be crushed, and the Republic will be elevated to heights of power and grandeur where it will be an example to mankind. It is related of the Emperor Julian, known as the Apostate,—for he had once embraced Christianity,—that, perishing before he had struck the last blows prepared by hatred to the Church, he looked at the blood which spurted from his side, and then cried, “Galilean, thou hast conquered!” Whether fable or truth, the story has its meaning. Such a cry will yet be heard from the apostate chiefs in our Rebel States, “Liberty, thou hast conquered!”—and the echo of this cry will be heard round the globe.
Following the usage of your festival, I offer the following sentiment:—
The Valley of the Connecticut. Happy in its fertility, and also in its beauty; happier still in that inspiration of Liberty which is better than fertility or beauty.
AMBULANCE AND HOSPITAL CORPS.
Resolution in the Senate, December 3, 1862.
The following resolution, offered by Mr. Sumner, was adopted.
RESOLVED, That the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia be directed to consider the expediency of providing by law for the establishment of a corps composed of men especially enlisted for hospital and ambulance service, with officers commissioned purposely to command them, who shall have the entire charge, under the medical officers, of the hospitals and of the ambulance wagons, so as to enlarge the usefulness of this humane service, and give to it the efficiency derived from organization.
CELEBRATION OF EMANCIPATION.
Letter to a Public Meeting of Colored Citizens in Boston, January 1, 1863.
Washington, January 1, 1863.
MY DEAR SIR,—Owing to the wretched condition of the mails between New York and Washington, I did not receive your letter of the 27th in season for an answer to be used at the proposed meeting.
I am glad that you celebrated the day. It deserved your celebration, your thanksgiving, and your prayers. On that day an angel appeared upon the earth.
Accept my best wishes for your association, and believe me, dear Sir,
Faithfully yours,
Charles Sumner.
PRUDENCE IN OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS.
Remarks in the Senate, on Resolutions against French Interference in Mexico, February 3, 1863.
In the Senate, January 19th, Mr. McDougall, a Democratic Senator from California, introduced the following resolutions, setting forth the duty of the United States to take steps against French interference in Mexico.
“Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the present attempt by the Government of France to subject the Republic of Mexico to her authority by armed force is a violation of the established and known rules of International Law, and that it is, moreover, a violation of the faith of France, pledged by the treaty made at London on the 31st day of October, 1861, between the allied Governments of Spain, France, and England, communicated to this Government over the signatures of the representatives of the allies, by letter of the 30th day of November, 1861, and particularly and repeatedly assured to this Government through its minister resident at the Court of France.
“Resolved further, That the attempt to subject the Republic of Mexico to French authority is an act not merely unfriendly to this Republic, but to free institutions everywhere; and that it is regarded by this Republic as not only unfriendly, but as hostile.
“Resolved further, That it is the duty of this Republic to require of the Government of France that her armed forces be withdrawn from the territories of Mexico.
“Resolved further, That it is the duty and proper office of this Republic, now and at all times, to lend such aid to the Republic of Mexico as is or may be required to prevent the forcible interposition of any of the States of Europe in the political affairs of that Republic.
“Resolved further, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be communicated to the Government of Mexico the views now expressed by the two Houses of Congress, and be further requested to cause to be negotiated such treaty or treaties between the two Republics as will best tend to make these views effective.”
February 3d, Mr. McDougall moved to take them up for consideration. His motion was opposed by Mr. Sumner, who said, among other things:—
But, Sir, if the Senate had abundant time, like a mere debating society, and were free to select at will a topic for discussion, I surely should object at this moment to a debate which must be not only useless, but worse than useless. I forbear from details at present. I wish to avoid them, unless rendered necessary. I content myself with saying that the resolutions either mean something or they mean nothing. If they mean nothing, surely the Senate will not enter upon their discussion. If they mean anything, if they are not mere words, they mean war, and this no common war, but war with a great and adventurous nation, powerful in fleets and armies, bound to us by treaties and manifold traditions, and still constant in professions of amity and good-will. Sir, have we not war enough already on our hands, without needlessly and wantonly provoking another? For myself, I give all that I have of intellectual action, and will, and heart, to the suppression of this Rebellion; and never, by my consent, shall the Senate enter upon a discussion the first effect of which will be aid and comfort to the Rebellion itself.
Mr. McDougall, in reply, said: “I trust the Senate will dare to look the grave question of our foreign relations with France and Mexico fairly, boldly, and openly in the face. I hope the Senate will not take counsel of its fears.” Mr. Sumner followed.
Mr. President,—I, too, hope that the Senate will dare do everything that is right; but I hope that it will not dare to embarrass the Government at this moment, and give aid and comfort to the Rebellion. I do not say that the Senator means to give such aid and comfort, but I do say that the very speech which has just fallen from him, to the extent of its influence, will give aid and comfort. Can any Senator doubt that all who sympathize with the Rebellion will rejoice to see this Senate discussing the question of peace and war with a great European power? Can any one doubt that the Rebels over the way will rejoice and clap their hands, when they hear the tidings? Sir, I will not give them any such encouragement. They shall not have it, if vote or voice of mine can prevent. I, too, Sir, am for the freest latitude of debate, but I am for the suppression of the Rebellion above and before everything else; and the desires of the Senate must all yield at this moment to the patriotic requirements of the country. There is a time for all things. There is a time to weep, and there is a time to laugh. I do not know, that, in the chapter of national calamities, there may not be a time for further war; but I do say that the duty of statesmanship here in this Chamber is to set the foot down at once against any such proposition, which, just to the extent of its recognition, must add to present embarrassments.
The resolutions were taken up for consideration by a vote of 29 yeas to 16 nays, when Mr. McDougall made an elaborate speech. Mr. Sumner followed.
Mr. President,—At the present moment there is one touchstone to which I am disposed to bring every question, especially in our foreign relations; and this touchstone is its influence on the suppression of the Rebellion. A measure may in itself be just or expedient; but if it would be a present burden, if it would add to our embarrassments and troubles, and especially if it would aggravate our military condition, then, whatever may be its merits, I am against it. To the suppression of the Rebellion the country offers life and treasure without stint, and it expects that these energies shall not be sacrificed or impaired by the assumption of any added responsibilities.
If I bring these resolutions to this touchstone, they fail. They may be right or wrong in fact and principle, but their influence at this moment, if adopted, must be most prejudicial to the cause of the Union. Assuming the tone of friendship to Mexico, they practically give to the Rebellion a most powerful ally, for they openly challenge war with France. There is madness in the proposition. I do not question the motives of the Senator, but it would be difficult to conceive anything more calculated to aid and comfort the Rebellion, just in proportion to its adoption. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. The present war is surely enough, without adding war with France.
I content myself with this protest, without following the Senator in a discussion which must be unprofitable, if not pernicious.
I say nothing of France, whose power cannot be doubted, and whose friendship I would carefully cultivate.
I say nothing of Mexico, our unhappy neighbor Republic, torn, as we now are, except to declare sympathy and cordial good-will.
It is sufficient that the policy of the Senator from California, without any certainty of good to Mexico, must excite the hostility of France, and give to the Rebellion armies and fleets, not to mention that recognition and foreign intervention which we deprecate.
Let us all unite to put down the Rebellion. This is enough for the present.
If Senators are sensitive, when they see European monarchies again setting foot on this hemisphere,—entering Mexico with their armies, entering New Grenada with their influence, and occupying the ancient San Domingo,—let them consider that there is but one way in which this return of empire can be arrested. It is by the suppression of the Rebellion. Let the Rebellion be overcome, and this whole continent will fall naturally, peacefully, and tranquilly under the irresistible influence of American institutions. Resolutions cannot do this, nor speeches. I therefore move that the resolutions lie on the table.
The Senate went into Executive Session without a vote. The resolutions came up again the next day, when, on motion of Mr. Sumner, they were laid on the table, by a vote of yeas 34, nays 10.
EMPLOYMENT OF COLORED TROOPS.
Bill in the Senate, February 9, 1863.
As early as May 26, 1862, Mr. Sumner introduced a resolution declaring that the time had come for the Government “to invite all, without distinction of color, to make their loyalty manifest by ceasing to fight or labor for the Rebels, and also by rendering every assistance in their power to the cause of the Constitution and the Union, according to their ability, whether by arms, or labor, or information, or in any other way.”
After much debate, an Act was passed to amend the Act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, approved February 28, 1795. The new Act, approved by the President July 17, 1862, contained the following provision:—
“That the President be, and he is hereby, authorized to receive into the service of the United States, for the purpose of constructing intrenchments, or performing camp service or any other labor, or any military or naval service for which they may be found competent, persons of African descent; and such persons shall be enrolled and organized under such regulations, not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws, as the President may prescribe.”[137]
This was the beginning of colored troops.
In his speech at Faneuil Hall, October 6, 1862,[138] Mr. Sumner justified an appeal to the slaves.
In the Senate, February 9, 1863, he introduced the following bill, providing for the enlistment of slaves and others of African descent, which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, and ordered to be printed.
A Bill to raise additional Soldiers for the Service of the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every able-bodied male person of the age of eighteen years and under forty-five years, made free by the Act of Congress, approved August sixth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, entitled “An Act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes,” or the Act of July seventeenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, entitled “An Act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of Rebels, and for other purposes,” or by Proclamations of the President of the United States, dated September twenty-second, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and January first, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, respectively, or by any other legal and competent authority exercised in suppressing the present Rebellion, shall severally be forthwith enrolled as a military force of the United States by the commanding officer within whose department such persons shall be found, and they shall be organized, armed, equipped, and mustered into the service of the United States, to serve during the present war, to a number not exceeding three hundred thousand men.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the said military force shall be organized according to the regulations of the branch of service in which they may be designated to serve, and receive the same rations, clothing, and equipments as volunteers, and a monthly pay of seven dollars, to be paid one half at the end of each month, and the other half when discharged. They shall be officered by persons appointed and commissioned by the President, and governed by the rules and articles of war, and such other rules and regulations as may be prescribed by law. Each person so serving as a non-commissioned officer or private in such military force of the United States shall be entitled to receive, upon his discharge, ten acres of land, and each person so serving as a commissioned officer shall be entitled to receive twenty-five acres, the same to be located upon any lands confiscated during the present Rebellion, and not reserved by the Government for public use; the land so located to be occupied only as a homestead by the person entitled to receive the same, and his family.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the President be, and is hereby, authorized to further order the voluntary enlistment or enrolment of each and every able-bodied free male person of African descent, of the age of eighteen years and under forty-five years, within the United States, for military service, as provided by this Act, except that the monthly pay of such free persons shall be the same as that of the volunteers: Provided, The whole number called into the service of the United States under the provisions of this section shall not exceed one hundred thousand men.
There was no action of the Committee on this bill, and it fell with the session.
February 10, 1864, more than a year later, the subject was brought forward in the House of Representatives by Mr. Stevens, in an amendment to the Enrolment Bill then pending, and finally prevailed in the following terms:—
“That all able-bodied male colored persons, between the ages of twenty and forty-five years, resident in the United States, shall be enrolled according to the provisions of this Act and of the Act to which this is an amendment, and form part of the national forces; and when a slave of a loyal master shall be drafted and mustered into the service of the United States, his master shall have a certificate thereof, and thereupon such slave shall be free.”[139]
IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION, AND NOT GRADUAL.
Speech in the Senate, on the Bill providing Aid for Emancipation in Missouri, February 12, 1863.
The recommendation of President Lincoln to aid the States in Emancipation, though urged by him, never found great favor in Congress. Among the measures prompted by it was one introduced into the House of Representatives by Mr. Noell, of Missouri, entitled, “A Bill giving aid to the State of Missouri for the purpose of securing the abolishment of Slavery in said State.” This provided that the Government of the United States would, upon the passage of a good and valid Act of Emancipation of all the slaves therein, and to be irrepealable, unless by the consent of the United States, apply the sum of ten million dollars in United States bonds, redeemable in thirty years from date. It passed the House by 73 yeas against 46 nays.
In the Senate, this bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, which reported a substitute, when it was recommitted and another substitute reported, by which it was provided, that, on the adoption of a valid law by Missouri “for the gradual or immediate emancipation of all the slaves therein, and the exclusion of Slavery forever thereafter from said State,” twenty million dollars in United States bonds should be applied “to compensate for the inconveniences produced by such change of system,” which was to take effect “on some day not later than the fourth day of July, 1876”; but the bonds were not to exceed ten million dollars, unless there was “full and perfect manumission” before the fourth day of July, 1865, nor in their aggregate were they to exceed “the sum of three hundred dollars for each slave emancipated.”
This recognition of the principle of Gradual Emancipation, especially as a war measure, was very disagreeable to Mr. Sumner. February 7th, he moved to strike out “seventy-six” and insert “sixty-four,” so that the Act of Emancipation should go into operation on the 4th of July, 1864; and here he remarked:—
Mr. President,—This bill, as I understand it, is a bill of peace; it is to bring back tranquillity in a disturbed State. If you ask for authority under the Constitution, I cannot doubt that it is in the War Power. It is in the power to suppress this insurrection, to put down this rebellion. But most strangely do you seek to put down this rebellion by the abolition of Slavery twenty years, or even ten years, from now. To my mind the proposition is simply ridiculous. I use strong language, because so it seems to me, and I cannot help saying it.
Sir, for the sake of our common country at this critical moment, for the sake of Missouri herself, for the sake of every slave-master in Missouri, and for the sake of every slave, I insist that Abolition shall be completed at the nearest possible day. History, reason, and common sense are uniform in this requirement, and I challenge contradiction to their concurring testimony.
The measure on its face is double, being in the alternative. It provides a certain sum in the event of Emancipation taking place within two years, and another sum if it takes place at a certain distant day. Now, Sir, I do not desire any alternative. I trust that what we do will take effect at once. I wish to see the benefit of it, especially to see it felt in the suppression of the Rebellion.
Mr. Willey, of West Virginia, said, that, in his estimation, “it would be much better for Missouri, and for the slave, if, instead of 1876, it was 1900”; and he was followed by Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, on the same side. Mr. Sumner replied briefly.
I assume that Senators are in earnest for something to put down the Rebellion. Our country, I know, is rich in resources. It can vote millions for almost any purpose; but still I doubt if the Senator from Missouri would urge Congress, at this moment, to appropriate millions, unless he expected in this way to do something very positive against the Rebellion. I assume that this is his object, and also the object of other Senators urging this measure. Is there any other object to justify, at this moment, a vote for it? Is there any Senator who will toss twenty or ten millions of money to any State, unless he is satisfied that by doing so he can help put an end to the Rebellion? On this point all must agree. Therefore do I insist on the single question, How shall we most surely help put an end to the Rebellion? If this can be best accomplished by immediate Emancipation, then must we vote accordingly. But if it is better to allow Emancipation to drag through twenty or even ten years, with the possibility of reaction, and with the certainty of controversy during all this period, and, above all, without any immediate good, then will Senators vote accordingly. Sir, I am against any such thing. I wish the measure to be effective for the object proposed, and, as I do not believe it can be effective, unless immediate, I must vote accordingly.
The amendment of Mr. Sumner was lost,—Yeas 11, Nays 26.
In the debate which ensued, Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, taunted Mr. Sumner with desiring the negroes of Missouri to be “freed quickly, so that Governor Andrew can recruit there to fill up the Massachusetts quota.” Mr. Sumner replied: “I would have a musket put in the hands of every one of these negroes in Missouri.”
Mr. Sumner moved to amend by striking out “three hundred” and inserting “two hundred” dollars, as the measure of value of a slave. Here he said:—
I object to the enormous valuation. I object to it in the present bill, and also as a precedent. We shall be bound by it hereafter. The next bill will have this same value of three hundred dollars for each slave. I would begin by putting it at two hundred dollars, and that is my motion.
This amendment was adopted,—Yeas 19, Nays 17.
Mr. Sumner then moved to strike out the word “gradual,” so that the money should be paid only on immediate Emancipation. Here he remarked, that he did not understand a war measure which was to go into effect ten years from now,—that he did not understand a gradual war measure,—that it was an absurdity in terms, and utterly indefensible.
The motion was lost,—Yeas 11, Nays 27.
The question then recurred on the adoption of the substitute, when Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.
MR. PRESIDENT,—If I speak tardily in this debate, I hope for the indulgence of the Senate. Had I been able to speak earlier, I should have spoken; but, though present in the Chamber, and voting when this bill was under consideration formerly, I was at the time too much of an invalid to take an active part in the debate. In justice to myself and to the great question, I cannot be silent.
I have already voted to give Missouri twenty million dollars to secure freedom at once for her slaves, and to make her at once a Free State. I am ready to vote more, if more be needed for this good purpose; but I will not vote money to be sunk and lost in an uncertain scheme of Prospective Emancipation, where Freedom is a jack-o’-lantern, and the only certainty is the Congressional appropriation. For money paid down, Freedom must be delivered.
Notwithstanding all differences of opinion on this important question, there is much occasion for congratulation in the progress made.
Thank God, on one point the Senate is substantially united. A large majority will vote for Emancipation. This is much, both as a sign of the present and a prophecy of the future. A large majority, in the name of Congress, will offer pecuniary aid. This is a further sign and prophecy. Such a vote, and such an appropriation, will constitute an epoch. Only a few short years ago the very mention of Slavery in Congress was forbidden, and all discussion of it was stifled. Now Emancipation is an accepted watchword, while Slavery is openly denounced as a guilty thing worthy of death.
It is admitted, that now, under the exigency of war, the United States ought to coöperate with any State in the abolition of Slavery, giving it pecuniary aid; and it is proposed to apply this principle practically in Missouri. It was fit that Emancipation, destined to end the Rebellion, should begin in South Carolina, where the Rebellion began. It is also fit that the action of Congress in behalf of Emancipation should begin in Missouri, which, through the faint-hearted remissness of Congress, as late as 1820, was opened to Slavery. Had Congress at that time firmly insisted that Missouri should enter the Union as a Free State, the vast appropriation now proposed would have been saved, and, better still, this vaster civil war would have been prevented. The whole country is now paying with treasure and blood for that fatal surrender. Alas, that men should forget that God is bound by no compromise, and that, sooner or later, He will insist that justice shall be done! There is not a dollar spent, and not a life sacrificed, in this calamitous war, which does not plead against any repetition of that wicked folly. Palsied be the tongue that speaks of compromise with Slavery!
Though, happily, compromise is no longer openly mentioned, yet it insinuates itself in this debate. In former times it took the shape of barefaced concession, as in the admission of Missouri with Slavery, in the annexion of Texas with Slavery, the waiver of the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories, the atrocious bill for the reënslavement of fugitives, and the opening of Kansas to Slavery, first by the Kansas Bill, and then by the Lecompton Constitution. In each of these cases there was concession to Slavery which history records with shame, and it was by this that your wicked slaveholding conspiracy waxed confident and strong, till at last it became ripe for war.
And now it is proposed, as an agency in the suppression of the Rebellion, to make an end of Slavery. By proclamation of the President, all slaves in certain States and designated parts of States are declared free. Of course this proclamation is a war measure, rendered just and necessary by exigencies of war. As such, it is summary and instant in operation, not prospective or procrastinating. A proclamation of Prospective Emancipation would have been an absurdity,—like a proclamation of a prospective battle, where not a blow was to be struck or a cannon pointed before 1876, unless, meanwhile, the enemy desired it. What is done in war must be done promptly, except, perhaps, under the policy of defence. Gradualism is delay, and delay is the betrayal of victory. If you would be triumphant, strike quickly, let your blows be felt at once, without notice or premonition, and especially without time for resistance or debate. Time deserts all who do not appreciate its value. Strike promptly, and time becomes your invaluable ally; strike slowly, gradually, prospectively, and time goes over to the enemy.
But every argument for the instant carrying out of the Proclamation, every consideration in favor of despatch in war, is especially applicable to whatever is done by Congress as a war measure. In a period of peace Congress might fitly consider whether Emancipation should be immediate or prospective, and we could listen with patience to the instances adduced by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Doolittle] in favor of delay,—to the case of Pennsylvania, and to the case of New York, where slaves were tardily admitted to their birthright. Such arguments, though to my judgment of little value at any time, might then be legitimate. But now, when we are considering how to put down the Rebellion, they are not even legitimate. There is but one way to put down the Rebellion, and that is instant action; and all that is done, whether in the field, in the Cabinet, or in Congress, must partake of this character. Whatever is postponed for twenty years, or ten years, may seem abstractly politic or wise; but it is in no sense a war measure, nor can it contribute essentially to the suppression of the Rebellion.
I think I may assume, without contradiction, that the tender of money to Missouri for the sake of Emancipation is a war measure, to be vindicated as such under the Constitution of the United States. It is also an act of justice to an oppressed race. But it is not in this unquestionable character that it is now commended. If it were urged on no other ground, even if every consideration of philanthropy and of religion pleaded for it with rarest eloquence, I fear that it would stand but little chance in either House of Congress. Let us not disguise the truth. Except as a war measure to aid in putting down the Rebellion, this proposition could expect little hospitality here. Senators are ready to vote money—as the British Parliament voted subsidies—to supply the place of soldiers, or to remove a stronghold of the Rebellion, all of which is done by Emancipation. I do not overstate the case. Slavery is a stronghold, which through Emancipation will be removed, while every slave, if not every slave-master, becomes an ally of the Government. Therefore Emancipation is a war measure, and constitutional as the raising of armies or the occupation of hostile territory.
In vindicating Emancipation as a war measure, we must see that it is made under such conditions as to exercise a present, instant influence. It must be immediate, not prospective. In proposing Prospective Emancipation, you propose a measure which can have little or no influence on the war. Abstractly Senators may prefer that Emancipation should be prospective rather than immediate; but this is not the time for the exercise of any abstract preference. Whatever is done as a war measure must be immediate, or it will cease to have this character, whatever you call it.
If I am correct in this statement,—and I do not see how it can be questioned,—then is the appropriation for Immediate Emancipation just and proper under the Constitution, while that for Prospective Emancipation is without sanction, except what it finds in the sentiments of justice and humanity.
It is proposed to vote ten million dollars to promote Emancipation ten years from now. Perhaps I am sanguine, but I cannot doubt that before the expiration of that period Slavery will die in Missouri under the awakened judgment of the people, even without the action of Congress. If our resources were infinite, we might tender this large sum by way of experiment; but with a treasury drained to the bottom, and a debt accumulating in fabulous proportions, I do not understand how we can vote millions, which, in the first place, will be of little or no service in the suppression of the Rebellion, and, in the second place, will be simply a largess in no way essential to the subversion of Slavery.
Whatever is given for Immediate Emancipation is given for the national defence, and for the safety and honor of the Republic. It will be a blow at the Rebellion. Whatever is given for Prospective Emancipation will be a gratuity to slaveholders and a tribute to Slavery. Pardon me, if I repeat what I have already said on this question: “Millions for defence, but not a cent for tribute”; millions for defence against peril, from whatever quarter it may come, but not a cent for tribute in any quarter,—especially not a cent for tribute to the loathsome tyranny of Slavery.
I know it is sometimes said that even Prospective Emancipation will help weaken the Rebellion. That it will impair the confidence in Slavery, and also its value, I cannot doubt. But it is equally clear that it will leave Slavery still alive and on its legs; and just so long as this is the case, there must be controversy and debate, with attending weakness, while Reaction perpetually lifts its crest. Instead of tranquillity, which we all seek for Missouri, we shall have contention. Instead of peace, we shall have prolonged war. Every year’s delay, ay, Sir, every week’s delay, in dealing death to Slavery leaves just so much of opportunity to the Rebellion; for so long as Slavery is allowed to exist in Missouri the Rebellion will still struggle, not without hope, for its ancient mastery. But let Slavery cease at once and all will be changed. There will be no room for controversy or debate, with attending weakness; nor can Reaction lift its crest. There will be no opportunity to the Rebellion, which must cease all effort there, when Missouri can no longer be a Slave State. Freedom will become our watchful, generous, and invincible ally, while the well-being, the happiness, the repose, and the renown of Missouri will be established forever.
Thus far, Sir, I have presented the argument on grounds peculiar to this case; and here I might stop. Having shown, that, as a military necessity, and for the sake of that economy which it is our duty to cultivate, Emancipation must be immediate, I need not go further. But I do not content myself here. The whole question is opened between Immediate Emancipation and Prospective Emancipation,—or, in other words, between doing right at once and doing right at some future, distant day. Procrastination is the thief, not only of time, but of virtue itself. Yet such is the nature of man that he is disposed always to delay, so that he does nothing to-day which he can put off till to-morrow. Perhaps in no single matter is this disposition more apparent than with regard to Slavery. Every consideration of humanity, justice, religion, reason, common sense, and history, all demanded the instant cessation of an intolerable wrong, without procrastination or delay. But human nature would not yield, and we have been driven to argue the question, whether an outrage, asserting property in man, denying the conjugal relation, annulling the parental relation, shutting out human improvement, and robbing its victim of all the fruits of his industry,—the whole to compel work without wages,—should be stopped instantly or gradually. It is only when we regard Slavery in its essential elements, and look at its unutterable and unquestionable atrocity, that we fully comprehend the mingled folly and wickedness of this question. If it were merely a question of economy, or a question of policy, then the Senate might properly debate whether the change should be instant or gradual; but considerations of economy and policy are all absorbed in the higher claims of justice and humanity. There is no question whether justice and humanity shall be immediate or gradual. Men are to cease at once from wrong; they are to obey the Ten Commandments instantly, and not gradually.
Senators who argue for Prospective Emancipation show themselves insensible to the true character of Slavery, or insensible to the requirements of reason. One or the other of these alternatives must be accepted.
Shall property in man be disowned immediately, or only prospectively? Reason answers, Immediately.
Shall the conjugal relation be maintained immediately, or only prospectively? Reason recoils from the wicked absurdity of the inquiry.
Shall the parental relation be recognized immediately, or only prospectively? Reason is indignant at the question.
Shall the opportunities of knowledge, including the right to read the Book of Life, be opened immediately or prospectively? Reason brands the idea of delay as impious.
Shall the fruits of his own industry be given to a fellow-man immediately or prospectively? Reason insists that every man shall have his own without postponement.
And history, thank God, speaking by examples, testifies in conformity with reason. The conclusion is irresistible. If you would contribute to the strength and honor of the Nation, if you would bless Missouri, if you would benefit the slave-master, if you would elevate the slave, and, still further, if you would afford an example which shall fortify and consecrate the Republic, making it at once citadel and temple, do not put off the day of Freedom. In this case, more than in any other, he gives twice who quickly gives.
The substitute, containing the provisions for Gradual Emancipation, was then adopted,—Yeas 27, Nays 10,—Mr. Sumner voting in the minority. The final question was on the passage of the bill as amended by the insertion of the substitute, when Mr. Sumner said:—
I shall vote for this bill on its final passage, but it will be because I know it will go back to the House of Representatives, where it can undergo consideration, and where, I trust, a bill will be at last matured that will embody the true principle which ought to govern this great question.
The bill passed,—Yeas 23, Nays 18. It went back to the House, where it gave way to a new bill, which was lost in the closing hours of the Thirty-Seventh Congress. Aid to States and Compensated Emancipation soon passed out of sight.
LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL.
Speeches in the Senate, on the Bill To authorize the President, in all Domestic or Foreign Wars, to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal, February 14 and 17, 1863.
At the close of the preceding session of Congress, Mr. Grimes introduced a bill concerning Letters of Marque and Reprisal, but he was unable to secure the action of the Senate upon it. January 7, 1863, he again asked for its consideration, when, on motion of Mr. Sumner, it was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. January 20th, it was reported from the Committee by Mr. Hale, with amendments. February 14th, Mr. Grimes moved to proceed with its consideration. In opposing this motion, Mr. Sumner said:—
Mr. President,—It seems to me that this bill is in all respects a misconception. There is nothing now to justify letters of marque and reprisal; and when Senators say that Massachusetts is interested in their issue, I repel the suggestion. Sir, Massachusetts is interested in putting down the Rebellion. She is also interested in clearing the sea of pirates. Such is her open and unquestionable interest, and to this end she is concerned in the employment of all possible agencies consistent with the civilization of our day. Massachusetts is interested in the enlargement of the marine, national and private, and I add, also, in the present enlistment of the private marine in the national service; but this is very different from the issue of letters of marque.
…
I think the Senator from Iowa is misled by a phrase. He speaks of the militia of the sea. It is a captivating phrase, I admit; but the meaning is not entirely clear. The Senator finds it in privateers,—that is, private armed ships, belonging to private individuals, under the command of private persons, cruising against private commerce, and paid exclusively by booty. Such is his idea of a sea militia. I confess this is not very captivating to me. My idea of a sea militia is different. It is all the ships of the country, if the occasion require, under the national flag, in the service of the country as national ships, with the character of national ships, enjoying everywhere the immunities of national ships, and free from the suspicions always attaching to the privateer, wherever it appears. An enactment, authorizing the employment of the mercantile marine in the national service as part of the national navy, would be practical and reasonable. Such a marine might justly be called the militia of the sea; but I must protest against the deceptive militia of the Senator.
The bill was taken up by a vote of 31 yeas and 6 nays; but, after ordering the printing of amendments, it was postponed.
February 17th, it was taken up again, when Mr. Sumner spoke in reply to Mr. Grimes.
MR. PRESIDENT,—The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grimes], who has just taken his seat, ingeniously and elaborately vindicates a bill which, at least in one feature, is an innovation upon the original policy of our country; and, strange to say, while doing so, he pleads for what he calls our traditional policy. I, too, plead for our traditional policy, but not the policy of the Senator. And I plead also for a policy which, whether traditional or not, will provide for the national defence according to that best economy which takes counsel of prudence as well as of courage.
The Senator, with seeming triumph, asks if we can afford to declare that our whole private marine shall rot at the wharf. Clearly not, and nobody proposes to declare so, although we might as well do this as recklessly provoke war which must drive our commerce from the ocean,—if in no other way, by the increased rates of insurance. I would secure for our private marine the amplest opportunity, that it may continue without interruption to plough every sea with its keels, and that, wherever it appears, it may find its accustomed welcome. The policy of the Senator has no such promise.
All will concur in any practical measure at this time for the increase of our strength on the ocean. To this end my vote shall not be wanting. But to my mind it is clear to demonstration that the measure proposed is not practical in character, that it promises no result which cannot be reached better in another way, while it is almost sure to bring upon the country additional embarrassment. It may be bold, but I am sure it is not prudent, nor is there in it economy of any kind.
This bill is entitled, “Concerning Letters of Marque, Prizes, and Prize Goods.” The title is borrowed from the two statutes of 1812 and 1813. It is, in plain terms, a bill to authorize Privateers,—that is, private armed vessels licensed to cruise against the commerce of an enemy, and looking to booty for support, compensation, and salary. It is by booty that owners, officers, and crews are to be paid. Booty is the motive power and life-spring. Such is this bill on its face, without going into detail. Surely a bill of this character ought not to pass without strong reason.
Looking at the bill more closely, it is found to have two distinct features: first, as a new agency against the Rebellion; secondly, as a provision for privateers in any future war. I regard these two features as distinct. They may be considered separately. One may be right, and the other wrong. One may be adopted, and the other rejected.
So far as the bill promises substantial help in putting down the Rebellion without more than countervailing mischief, it may properly be entertained. But what can it do against the Rebellion? And where is the policy or necessity on which it is founded? If Senators think that the bill can do any good now, I am sure they listen to their hopes rather than to the evidence. Why, Sir, the Rebels, against whom you would cruise, are absolutely without commerce. Pirate ships they have, equipped in England, armed to the teeth, and unleashed upon the sea to prey upon us; but there is not a single bottom of theirs that can afford the booty which is the pay and incentive of the privateer. It would be hardly more irrational to enlist private armed ships against the King of Dahomey.
I know it is said that our navy is too small, and that more ships are needed, not only for transportation, but also to increase and strengthen the blockade, or to cruise against pirates. Very well. Hire them, and put them in commission as Government ships, with the immunities, the responsibilities, and the character of such ships. There can be no difficulty in this; and, better still, there will be no difficulty afterwards. This is simple and practical.
But, while I see no probable good from launching privateers upon the ocean to cruise against a commerce that does not exist, and to be paid by a booty that cannot be found, I see certain evils which I am anxious to avoid for the sake of my country, especially at this moment. I think that I cannot be mistaken in this anxiety.
It is well known, that, according to ancient usage and the Law of Nations, every privateer is entitled to belligerent rights, one of which is that most difficult, delicate, and dangerous right, the much disputed Right of Search. There is no Right of War with regard to which nations are more sensitive,—and no nation has been more sensitive than our own, while none has suffered more from its exercise. By virtue of this right, every licensed sea-rover is entitled on the ocean to stop and overhaul all merchant vessels under whatever flag. If he cannot capture, he can at least annoy. If he cannot make prize, he can at least make trouble, and leave behind a sting. I know not what course the great neutral powers may adopt, nor do I see how they can undertake to set aside this ancient right, even if they smart under its exercise. But when I consider that these powers have already by solemn convention—I refer, of course, to the Congress of Paris in 1856—renounced the whole system of privateers among themselves, I confess my fears that they will not witness with perfect calmness the annoyance to which their commerce will be exposed. And now, Sir, mark my prediction. Every exercise upon neutral commerce of this terrible Right of Search will be the fruitful occasion of misunderstanding, bickering, and controversy, at a moment when, if my voice could prevail, there should be nothing to interfere with that accord, harmony, and sympathy which are due from civilized states to our Republic in its great battle with Barbarism. Even if we are not encouraged to expect these things from Europe, I hope that nothing will be done by us to put impediments in their way. Justly sensitive with regard to our own rights, let us respect the sensibility of others.
It is not enough to say that we have an unquestioned right to issue letters of marque. Rights, when exercised out of season or imprudently, may be changed into wrongs. It was a maxim of ancient jurisprudence, Sic utere tua, ut alienum non lædas, and I think that this maxim, at least in spirit, is applicable to the present occasion. Our right may be clear; but, if its exercise would injure or annoy others, especially without corresponding advantage to ourselves, we shall do well, if we forbear to exercise it.
Thus far I have considered that part of the bill which provides for privateers against the Rebels; but I cannot quit this branch of the question without calling attention again to the scenes that must ensue, if these privateers are let loose. Picture to yourselves the ocean traversed by licensed rovers seeking prey. The Dutch admiral carried a broom at his mast-head as the boastful sign that he swept the seas. The privateer might carry a scourge. Wherever a sail appears, there is chase; the signal gun is fired, and the merchantman submits to visitation and search. Delay is the least of the consequences. Contention, irritation, humiliation ensue, all calculated to engender ill-feeling, which, beginning with individuals, may embrace country and government. I do not say that such an act, even harshly exercised upon neutral commerce, will bring upon us further war, but I would not try the experiment. The speaking-trumpet of a reckless privateer may contribute to that discord which is the herald of bloodshed itself.
But, Sir, even if you think it worth while to authorize privateers against the Rebels, to cruise against an imaginary commerce, in quest of an imaginary booty, why not stop there? The measure would not be wise, but it might find seeming apology in the present condition of affairs. The bill of the Committee, and also the amendment of the Senator from Iowa, go much further. It is a general bill, authorizing privateers, not merely against the Rebels, but also against foreign nations in future wars, in the discretion of the President. I quote from the bill of the Committee.
“That, whenever war exists or has been declared between the United States and any other nation, and during the present Rebellion, the President of the United States is hereby authorized to issue to private vessels of the United States commissions or letters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he may think proper.”
Mark the language, “whenever war exists.” I am not ready to say that these words give the President power to declare the existence of war without the intervention of Congress; but I object to the whole clause on account of its generality. And the substitute of the Senator is obnoxious to the same objection. It says:—
“That, in all domestic and foreign wars, the President of the United States is authorized to issue to private armed vessels of the United States commissions or letters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he shall think proper.”
This is a general provision, by which the President is authorized to issue letters of marque, not only to aid in putting down the present Rebellion, but also “in all domestic and foreign wars” which may occur hereafter. I will not say that any such general, prospective provision, although clearly a departure from that traditional policy which the Senator professes to uphold, is positively unconstitutional; but I am sure that it is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. To me it seems obvious that the Constitution contemplated the special action of Congress on every occasion for the exercise of this power. This was the safeguard against excess or blunder. Such a power was not to be exercised hastily or inconsiderately, but with full and special consideration. It was not to be exercised all at once and in the lump, but as the exigency occurred in individual cases. And Congress, which was empowered to declare war, had the further power, in the same way and with similar solemnities, to give the war this additional feature, if, under the circumstances, it thought best. This great power was not handed over indefinitely to the President, to be wielded at will, but was lodged in Congress. If Congress is not insensible to the spirit of the Constitution, it will never hand it over to the President, as now proposed.
Even in England, where the power to declare war is lodged with the sovereign in council, it seems that in point of fact letters of marque are regulated by special Acts of Parliament on the breaking out of war. This is stated by Chitty, in his work on the Prerogatives of the Crown.
“By various statutes, enacted during every war, the Lord High Admiral, or the Commissioners of the Admiralty, are empowered to grant commissions, or, as they are also called, letters of marque and reprisals, to the owners of ships, enabling them to attack and take the property of his Majesty’s enemies, which statutes contain, also, various provisions as to the prizes captured. (See 29 George II. c. 34; 19 George III. c. 67; 43 George III. c. 160; 45 George III. c. 72.)”[140]
Obviously recognizing this principle, which is so entirely consistent with reason and that wisdom which is the strength of nations, our country thus far in its history has declined to pass any general prospective law authorizing letters of marque. This is our traditional policy, which the Senator seeks to overturn. The statute authorizing letters of marque in 1812 expired with the war. It was not general or prospective. Is there any reason now that we should depart from this policy? Is there any good to be accomplished by such departure? It is strange that at this moment, when other nations renounce privateering, we should rush forward and ostentatiously declare it part of our political system,—I might almost say, an element of our political life. Pray, if this declaration were of such importance, why has it been so long postponed? Generations, jealous guardians of all our national rights, have passed away, leaving the statute-book without any such voice. It did not occur to them that the national defence or the national honor required it. And yet the discovery is suddenly made that this is a mistake, or that our predecessors were all wrong, especially in not announcing to the world that in the event of war privateers will be let loose.
As there is no foreign war in which we are now engaged, this provision is prospective and minatory, so far as foreign nations are concerned. It is notice to avoid any question with us, under penalty of depredations by privateers. If not a menace, it is very like one. I do not know that it will be so interpreted by those to whom it is addressed, but I am sure that it can do no good; and just in proportion as it is so interpreted, it will be worse than useless. A menace is as ill-timed between nations as between individuals.
I do not dwell now on the irrational character of privateering, but I seize the occasion to declare my deliberate judgment that our country may yet find, to its cost, that this cherished weapon is a two-edged sword. A nation with an extensive commerce cannot afford to invite the hazard of its employment. Thus, in the event of war with a power inferior to ourselves in commerce, as Portugal, or Spain, or France, the increased rates of insurance would make it impossible for us to keep our ships afloat, while all our profits on the ocean would be appropriated by those nations happily still at peace. The very superiority of our commerce would be a disadvantage, inasmuch as we should be more exposed. For instance, in a war with Portugal or Spain we should stake gold against copper, and even in a war with France it would be gold against silver. If this prospect pleases, then Senators will vote for a measure which may be called Privateering made easy; or, how to do it without Congress.
Nor do I discuss the immorality and brutality too naturally engendered by a system whose inspiration is booty. Here I content myself with the words of General Halleck, in his excellent summary of International Law.
“But, even with these precautions, privateering is usually accompanied by abuses and enormous excesses. The use of privateers, or private armed vessels under letters of marque and reprisal, has often been discussed by publicists and text-writers on International Law, and has recently been made the subject of diplomatic correspondence and negotiation between the United States and the principal European powers. The general opinion of text-writers is, that privateering, though contrary to national policy and the more enlightened spirit of the present age, is, nevertheless, allowable under the general rules of International Law. It leads to the worst excesses and crimes, and has a most corrupting influence upon all who engage in it, but cannot be punished as a breach of the Law of Nations. The enlightened opinion of the world is most decidedly in favor of abolishing it, and recent events lead to the hope that all the commercial nations of both hemispheres will unite in no longer resorting, in time of war, to so barbarous a practice.”[141]
There is another American authority I ought not to omit. I refer to Chancellor Kent, who in his much quoted Commentaries has recorded his judgment. If I chose to cross the ocean, I might add indefinitely to this testimony; but I confine myself to our own countrymen, so that you shall see privateering as judged by Americans. Here are the words of the great jurist.
“As a necessary precaution against abuse, the owners of privateers are required, by the ordinances of the commercial states, to give adequate security that they will conduct the cruise according to the laws and usages of war and the instructions of the Government, and that they will regard the rights of neutrals, and bring their prizes in for adjudication. These checks are essential to the character and safety of maritime nations. Privateering, under all the restrictions which have been adopted, is very liable to abuse. The object is not fame or chivalric warfare, but plunder and profit. The discipline of the crews is not apt to be of the highest order, and privateers are often guilty of enormous excesses, and become the scourge of neutral commerce. They are sometimes manned and officered by foreigners, having no permanent connection with the country, or interest in its cause. This was a complaint made by the United States, in 1819, in relation to irregularities and acts of atrocity committed by private armed vessels sailing under the flag of Buenos Ayres. Under the best regulations, the business tends strongly to blunt the sense of private right and to nourish a lawless and fierce spirit of rapacity.”[142]
It is well known that these were the sentiments of the founders of our Republic, which, in its early treaty with Prussia, took the lead in denouncing the whole system of privateering. Is it not better to follow this example, until positive, irresistible exigencies of war compel us to depart from it? If we cannot do this, let us at least keep from affording new facilities to an offensive system. What our country denounced in other days should not now be proclaimed and glorified.
Mr. Grimes. The Senator will allow me to inquire when it was that this nation denounced the system of privateering.
Mr. Sumner. By the treaty of 1785.
Mr. Grimes. The Prussian treaty, I suppose.
Mr. Sumner. The Prussian treaty.
Mr. Grimes. I should like to know the purport of that denunciation. Was it not a mere stipulation that we should not prey on the commerce of that nation?
Mr. Sumner. It was a stipulation to the effect, that, in any war between the United States and Prussia, neither party should commission privateers to depredate on the commerce of the other.
Mr. Grimes. A stipulation that I suppose this Government could very easily make, because Prussia has no commerce.
Mr. Sumner. I wish the treaty had been such as to afford a stronger example; but it must be accepted as the judgment of our country at that time; and to my mind it is a practical denunciation of privateering, worthy of the illustrious character by whom it was negotiated, who was none other than Benjamin Franklin. But this treaty is not all. I do not forget how Jefferson wrote to France, “The benevolence of this proposition is worthy of the nation from which it comes, and our sentiments on it have been declared in the treaty to which you are pleased to refer, as well as in some others which have been proposed,”[143] thus testifying to our treaty and to his own sentiments; and, at a later day, that John Quincy Adams, in his instructions to Mr. Rush, of July 28, 1823, directing him to negotiate a treaty with Great Britain for the abolition of privateering, declared that this was “an object which has long been dear to the hearts and ardent in the aspirations of the benevolent and the wise, an object essentially congenial to the true spirit of Christianity”; and he adopted the earlier declaration of Franklin, “It is time, it is high time, for the sake of humanity, that a stop were put to this enormity.”[144]
Mr. Grimes. I am speaking now of the declaration which the Senator has seen fit to designate as a national denunciation of privateers, made in 1785, though the Constitution, which was made in 1787, expressly reserved to Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal. Taking these two facts, the treaty made in 1785 and the Constitution made in 1787, how can it be asserted that the ancient policy of the Government is against privateering, and that we have nationally denounced it?
Mr. Sumner. The Senator will pardon me, if I say that I know no better denunciation than that of a treaty negotiated by Franklin. A treaty is the act of the nation, and testifies to the sentiments of the nation. If the same denunciation did not find place in more important treaties, it is reasonable to suppose that it was not acceptable to the other contracting parties. It is an historic fact, that Franklin sought to embody this denunciation in the very treaty by which our independence was acknowledged, and thus to associate it with our national being.[145] Indeed, it was a standing offer from our Government to foreign powers.[146] Unquestionably the Constitution gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque, but the reason is obvious: because privateering was recognized at that time as a proper agency of war. The framers of the Constitution did not divest the government they created of a power which belonged to other governments according to the existing usage of nations. In recognizing this power, they express no opinion upon its character. For that we must go to the treaty, and to the words and efforts of Franklin, Jefferson, and John Quincy Adams, speaking and acting officially for the nation,—all but Franklin subsequent to the Constitution.
And now, Sir, at the risk of repetition, I enumerate my objections to this bill.
1. It proposes to cruise against a non-existent commerce, for the sake of a non-existent booty.
2. It accords to private individuals the belligerent right of search, which must be fruitful of trouble in our relations with the great neutral powers.
3. It gives to the President, in his discretion, the power to issue letters of marque in any future wars, without any further authority of Congress, when this power should always wait for the special authority of Congress on the declaration of war.
4. It is in the nature of a menace to foreign nations, and therefore worse than useless.
5. It vitalizes and legalizes a system which civilization always accepted with reluctance, and our own country was one of the earliest and most persistent to denounce.
6. It will give us a bad name in history.
It does all this without accomplishing any substantial good. If it be said that ships are needed for transportation, or for the blockade, or in order to pursue pirates on the sea, then, I repeat, let the Government hire them. The way is easy, and it is also the way of peace. To this end I offer a substitute for the present bill, which will secure to the Government all the aid it can desire, without the disadvantage or shame of a measure which can be justified only by overruling necessity. I will read the substitute.
“That the Secretary of the Navy be authorized to hire any vessels needed for the national service, and, if he sees fit, to put them in charge of officers commissioned by the United States, and to give them in every respect the character of national ships.”
If Senators desire a militia of the seas, here it is,—a sea militia, precisely like the land militia, mustered into the service of the United States, under the command of the United States, and receiving rations and pay from the United States, instead of sea-rovers, not mustered into the national service, not under national command, and not receiving rations or pay from the nation, but cruising each for himself, according to his own will, without direction, without concert, simply according to the wild temptation of booty. Such a system on land would be rejected at once. Nobody would call it a militia. Do not sanction it now on the ocean; or, if you are disposed to sanction it, call it not a militia of the seas.
The bill was then amended, on motion of Mr. Sherman, by limiting it to “three years from the passage of this Act.”
Mr. Sumner then moved to strike out the words “in all domestic and foreign wars,” and to insert “to aid in putting down the present Rebellion,” so that it would read,—
“That, to aid in putting down the present Rebellion, the President of the United States is authorized to issue to private armed vessels of the United States commissions,” &c.
On this motion he remarked:—
Mr. President,—The question is now presented precisely, whether the Senate will confine this bill in operation to the war in which we are actually engaged for the suppression of the Rebellion, or make it prospective in character, applicable to some war in the unknown future, to some country not named, to some exigency not now understood, and therefore, in its nature, a notice or warning, if not a menace, to all countries.
This is the precise question: Shall the bill be confined to our own time, to this day, to this hour, to something we can see, to what is actually before us; or shall it be extended also to the future, to something we cannot see, to what is not actually before us, and with regard to which we can have no knowledge, unless we listen to our fears?
If the words are introduced as a menace, then are they out of place and irrational. Suppose any such words in the legislation of Great Britain or France at a moment when they might be interpreted as applicable to us, who can doubt their injurious effect upon public opinion here? A brave and intelligent people will not bend before menace, nor can any such attempt affect a well-considered national policy. All history and reason show that such conduct is more irritating than soothing. Sir, if you are in earnest, as I cannot doubt, to cultivate those relations of peace and good-will with foreign nations which are in themselves a cheap defence, you must avoid all legislation which can be misinterpreted, especially everything which looks like menace.
I cannot pretend to foresee the future. I know not that other wars may not be in store for us, that we may not be called to confront other powers, in alliance, perhaps, with our Rebels, and to make still greater efforts. All this may come; but I pray not. If it does come, then let us meet its duties and responsibilities like Senators; but do not rush forward recklessly, like the bully with his bludgeon, ready to strike wherever there is a head. I do not believe in such legislation; nor do I believe in any legislation providing new facilities for a war, or tending to produce irritation and distrust. Prepared always for the future, I would not challenge it. Preparation and provocation are widely different. Nor would I do anything out of season. There was characteristic wisdom in the remark of the venerable Chief Justice of England, Sir Matthew Hale, when he said that “we must not jump before we get to the stile.” It seems to me that Senators who are pressing this bill forget this time-honored injunction, and try to make their country take a jump prematurely.
…
You have just listened to the Senator from California [Mr. McDougall], announcing that perhaps before the next meeting of Congress there may be foreign war; and you have not forgotten his elaborate speech only the other day, when he openly challenged war with France. I ask Senators, if, at this critical moment, they are ready to follow him in his effort to carry us in that direction. For myself, I protest against it. I am heart and soul for putting down this Rebellion without playing into the hands of Rebels. Now it must be plain to all that every word calculated to draw or drive any foreign government into alliance with the Rebellion does play into the hands of Rebels. Senators may be willing to distract the attention of the country from our single object, to impair the national force, and help surrender all to the uncertainties and horrors of accumulating war. Let me not enter into their counsels. It is not my habit to shrink from responsibility; personal risks I accept willingly; but I confess anxiety that my country should not rush abroad in quest of new dangers, whose only effect will be to increase the national calamities.
The amendment of Mr. Sumner was lost,—Yeas 13, Nays 22.
Mr. Sumner then moved to strike out the words authorizing the President to “make all needful rules and regulations,” and to insert—
“The provisions of the Act of Congress, approved on the 26th day of June, 1812, entitled ‘An Act concerning letters of marque, prizes, and prize goods,’ and of the Act of Congress, approved on the 27th day of January, 1813, entitled ‘An Act in addition to the Act concerning letters of marque, prizes, and prize goods,’ are hereby revived, and shall be in force in relation to all that part of the United States where the inhabitants have been declared in a state of insurrection, and the vessels and property to them belonging.”
Mr. Sumner explained the amendment.
It will be observed, that, by the amendment already adopted, the President alone, without the coöperation of Congress, is empowered to make what are called all needful rules and regulations for the government and conduct of these privateers, and for the adjudication and disposal of prizes and salvages made by them. But formerly it was not so ordered. No such large power was ever before vested in the President. By the statute of June 26, 1812, a system was provided, in seventeen sections, for the government of letters of marque, prizes, and prize goods. These sections relate to the formalities required from persons applying for letters of marque, the bonds to be given, and the sureties, how the captured property shall be forfeited, the distribution of the prize money, the distribution of salvage, how the prize shall be brought in for adjudication, regulations concerning prisoners found on board of prize vessels, instructions for the privateers, bounty for destroying the enemy’s vessels, instructions to the commanding officers of privateers to keep journals, how owners of privateers are punishable for violating the revenue laws of the United States, how offences on board private armed vessels are punishable; also the commissions of collectors and consuls upon prize goods, and the uses to which they shall be applied. Here is a statute, in itself a code, containing provisions exclusively applicable to these important matters, all determined by Congress in advance; but it is now proposed that Congress shall abdicate, leaving to the President alone this large power.
I call attention to one matter in the statute, namely, “How offences on board private armed vessels shall be punished.” It is enacted, “that all offences committed by any officer or seaman on board any such vessel having letters of marque and reprisal, during the present hostilities against Great Britain, shall be tried and punished in such manner as the like offences are or may be tried and punished, when committed by any person belonging to the public ships of war of the United States.”[147]
I would ask if it is in the power of the President merely by regulation to determine how offences on board private armed vessels shall be tried and punished? I take it that Congress must deal directly with this question. I am sure that it is unwise for Congress to renounce a duty belonging to it obviously under the Constitution, and which in former times it exercised. Senators sometimes complain that great powers are assumed by the President; but, unless I misread this bill, they are about to confer on him powers large, indeed, beyond precedent. There is, in the first place, the power to declare whether, in case of war with a foreign nation, letters of marque shall be issued,—a high prerogative, in times past reserved exclusively to Congress. But, not content with this, they would confer upon him plenary powers, as legislator, with regard to everything to be done by the letter of marque, and with regard, also, to its possible prizes. As once the French monarch exclaimed, “The State, it is I!”—so, when we have conferred these powers, one after another, on the President, I think he may make a similar exclamation.
This amendment was also lost.
Mr. Sumner then moved the following substitute for the pending bill:—
“That the Secretary of the Navy be authorized to hire any vessels needed for the national service, and, if he see fit, to put them in charge of officers commissioned by the United States, and to give them in every respect the character of national ships.”
The proposition on which a vote is now asked has all that is good in the pending measure, without any of the unquestionable disadvantages. I am unwilling to trespass upon the Senate, and would hope that I am not too earnest; but the question, to my mind, is of no common character.
The Senator who presses this measure seeks to employ private enterprise in all wars, domestic or foreign: I show him how it can be done. He seeks to enlist the private marine of the country in the public service: I show him how it can be done. He seeks to contribute at this moment to the national force: I show him how it can be done. Say not that I am against the employment of private enterprise. Nor say that I would allow our private marine to rot at the wharf. Nor say that I would begrudge anything needed by the national force. To this end the Senate cannot go further than I. All that the Senator would do I would do, but in a way to avoid those embarrassments and difficulties necessarily incident to privateering, and so as to be in harmony with the civilization of our age. Nor shall it be said that I shrink from any of the responsibilities which belong to us with regard to foreign nations; but I desire to say, that among the highest responsibilities which any can recognize is that of doing nothing needlessly which shall add to existing troubles or give the country a new burden.
In conclusion, let me once more remind you that every privateer upon the ocean carries the right of search. Wherever he sails, he is authorized to overhaul neutral ships in search of contraband, or, it may be, to determine if the voyage is to break the blockade. A right so delicate and grave I would reserve to the Government, to be exercised only by national ships. I cannot err, when I insist that it shall be intrusted to those only whose position, experience, and relations with the Government give assurance that it will be exercised with wisest discretion.
If, in order to secure private enterprise and to enlist all its energies, it were necessary to have privateers, then the argument of the other side might be entitled to weight. But all that you desire can be had without any such resort, and without any drawback or disadvantage. Let the Secretary of the Navy hire private ships, wherever he can find them, and put them in commission as national ships, with the rations, pay, officers, and character of national ships. This will be simple and most effective. I am at a loss for any objection to it: I can see none.
I may be mistaken, Sir, but I speak in frankness. To my mind the question between the two propositions is too clear for argument. On one side it is irrational, barbarous, and fruitless, except of trouble. On the other side you have practical strength, and the best assurance of that prudence which is the safeguard of peace. Between the two let the Senate choose.
This amendment was also lost,—Yeas 8, Nays 28.
The bill then passed the Senate,—Yeas 27, Nays 9. March 2d, it passed the House of Representatives without a division, and was subsequently approved by the President.
Failing in Congress, Mr. Sumner renewed his opposition with President Lincoln, urging upon him the impolicy of any action under the law. He advised most strenuously that no commissions should be issued, and that the law should be allowed to remain a dead letter. The President was so much impressed by these representations that he invited Mr. Sumner to attend the next meeting of his Cabinet and make them there. When Mr. Sumner doubted the expediency of such a step, as possibly giving rise to comment, the President requested him to see the members of his Cabinet individually, which he did. No commissions were ever issued, and the attempt soon subsided.
This effort to set afloat privateers created anxiety among our friends in England. Mr. Bright wrote:—
“I hope the President will remain firm against the letters of marque, so long as peace is preserved. They will do no good, and only tend to war. I was sorry your fight against the bill was in vain.”
A letter from Mr. Bates, the intelligent American partner in the London house of the Barings, confirmed the President in his determination. Another letter from the same source concurs with Mr. Bright in condemning the project.
“I am very glad that anything I have written has had any effect in stopping the issue of letters of marque, for I am convinced that their issue would have led to a war, and would have given those who in this country wish for war an opportunity through the press to make a war popular. It would, further, have been playing into the hands of the Confederates, who are doing all they can to embarrass the relations between this country and the United States. It is the last card the Confederates have to play.”
The Act of Congress authorizing letters of marque has since expired by its own limitation.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE NAVAL ACADEMY.
Remarks in the Senate, on the Bill to regulate the Appointment of Midshipmen to the Naval Academy, February 16, 1863.
The Senate having under consideration the bill to regulate the appointment of midshipmen, Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, moved the following amendment:—
“And to be selected by the Senators, Representatives, and Delegates on the ground of merit and qualification, to be ascertained by an examination of the candidates, and that the Secretary of the Navy be authorized to make the regulations under which such examinations shall be conducted, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.”
Mr. Sumner sustained the amendment.
Because these appointments are conferred upon youth, or, if you please, upon boys, it seems to me that they are too often regarded as of little moment. In reality, they are among the most important appointments under Government. They are appointments for life; since, beginning with the youth or boy, they end only at death, it may be as captain, commodore, or admiral, supported always at the expense of the country, and with increasing emoluments corresponding to increasing rank.
Therefore do I think that the Government cannot be too careful in securing the best youths, and I welcome cordially the proposition of the Senator from Rhode Island. I think it entirely practicable, and also most important. I hope the Senate will adopt it. I cannot doubt that such places should be given only to the most worthy, discarding personal or political favoritism; but there must be a rule by which to ascertain the most worthy.
The amendment was lost, having only 6 yeas against 32 nays.
EXEMPTION OF CLERGYMEN FROM MILITARY CONSCRIPTION.
Remarks on the Conscription Law, February 16, 1863.
The Senate having under consideration the bill for enrolling and calling out the national forces, Mr. Sumner moved as an amendment that clergymen or ministers of the Gospel be exempted from conscription. Then ensued brief comments.
Mr. Pomeroy. They will fight.
Mr. McDougall. I will ask the Senator from Massachusetts to modify his proposition so as not to include the Methodist clergy, because they are a fighting clergy.
Mr. Howard. I think the loyal clergy are among the most fighting portion of our population, quite as reliable as any other.
Mr. Wilson. I do hope we are not to exempt lawyers, or clergymen, or any other class.
Mr. Fessenden. It is now provided in the bill that those who cannot go may be excused on paying a fine.
Mr. Sumner followed.
MR. PRESIDENT,—I would not have this proposition treated with levity. I do not say that it has been. Suffice it for me that I make it in sincerity, because I think the exception worthy of place in a permanent statute regulating the military system of our country.
I shall not be led into debate, but you will let me declare my conviction that the proper duty of the clergyman, if he joins the army, is as chaplain, ministering to the sick, the wounded, the dying, and teaching the living how to die. At the same time, I can well understand that there may be occasions when another service will be required, or when an irresistible impulse may change the chaplain into the soldier.
An eminent writer of our age, the late Lord Macaulay, has said positively that a clergyman should never fight. The motion which I make has no such extent. It simply proposes that the law shall not require him to fight.
In former days bishops have worn coats of mail and led embattled forces, and there are many instances where the chaplain has assumed all the duties of the soldier.
At the famous Battle of Fontenoy, where the French, under Marshal Saxe, prevailed over the united armies of England, Austria, and Holland, there was a British chaplain, with a name subsequently historic, who by military service acquired the title of “The Fighting Chaplain of Fontenoy.” This was the renowned Edinburgh professor, Adam Ferguson, author of the “History of the Roman Republic.” And only a few days ago I presented a petition for a pension from the widow of Rev. Arthur B. Fuller, chaplain, who fell fighting at Fredericksburg. But these instances are exceptional. Legislation cannot be founded on exceptions.
In reply to other Senators, Mr. Sumner spoke again.
The Senate is engaged in maturing a permanent law,—not merely for a year, not only for the present Rebellion, not for any exigency of the day, but an enduring statute,—and as such it will be a record of the sentiments and the civilization of our time. But I am not disposed to present this question on any ground of sentiment, though such an appeal would be difficult to answer.
Time is precious, and I content myself with another appeal,—I mean to practical experience. I think I do not err, when I say, that, in the history of the Christian world, you will not find a single evidence of a country where clergymen have been compelled to serve as soldiers,—at least I do not recall such instance,—while the most military country of modern times has refused to sanction the compulsion. I have before me the well-considered military statute of France, where everything was matured with the greatest care and consideration, and so as to secure the largest amount of service. No exemption was recognized, except after conscientious debate and for sufficient reason. Therefore this statute is testimony of the highest character. But here I find exemption, not only of the clergy, including all denominations recognized by the State, but also of students of divinity preparing to enter the ministry. If not absolutely indifferent to practical experience, the example of a military people like the French, especially in exemptions from conscription, cannot be neglected. I doubt if we shall lose by following it.
Mr. Wilson then said:—
“If they cannot bear arms, if they cannot perform military duty, they at any rate can furnish a substitute, or pay the sum provided for, be that more or less.”
Mr. Sumner replied:—
I do not understand that our clergy throughout the United States are rich. In some of the larger towns they may be comparatively so, but in the country such is not the case. Goldsmith’s village preacher, “passing rich with forty pounds a year,”—that is, about two hundred dollars,—was not unlike large numbers of the clergy among us. Now, Sir, to compel persons living on such a small allowance to pay two hundred and fifty dollars for a substitute is really asking too much. I think it unreasonable; and I think my colleague, who is pressing this bill with so much energy, would adapt himself better to the sentiment of the country and of civilization, if he admitted this natural and humane exemption into his list.
The amendment was lost.
PROTEST AGAINST FOREIGN INTERVENTION, AND DECLARATION OF NATIONAL PURPOSE.
Concurrent Resolutions of Congress, reported in the Senate February 28, 1863.
From the beginning of the Rebellion there had been constant anxiety lest foreign powers, especially England and France, should intervene in some way, by diplomacy, if not by arms. As early as July, 1861, Russia made an offer of its good offices between the contending parties, with warm expressions for the integrity of the Union; but these were promptly declined.[148] In October, 1862, the French Emperor instructed his ambassadors at London and St. Petersburg to propose the coöperation of the three Cabinets in obtaining a suspension of arms for six months, and, if required, to be prolonged further, during which every act of war, direct or indirect, should provisionally cease, on sea and land. The Cabinets of England and St. Petersburg both declined the proposition.[149] The French Emperor then proceeded alone. By a despatch of M. Drouyn de Lhuys, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to M. Mercier, the Minister at Washington, dated January 9, 1863, his good offices were tendered to the United States, in the view of facilitating negotiations between the contending parties; but these were declined by Mr. Seward, in a despatch to Mr. Dayton at Paris, February 6, 1863.[150]
Meanwhile there were suggestions in the English press, and also in Parliament, of intervention in some form. Sometimes it was proposed that the independence of the Rebels should be acknowledged.
The proposition from the French Emperor and the reply of Mr. Seward, being communicated to the Senate, were, on motion of Mr. Sumner, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and February 28th he reported the following resolutions.
Concurrent Resolutions of Congress concerning Foreign Intervention in the existing Rebellion.
Whereas it appears from the diplomatic correspondence submitted to Congress, that a proposition, friendly in form, looking to pacification through foreign mediation, has been made to the United States by the Emperor of the French, and promptly declined by the President; and whereas the idea of mediation or intervention in some shape may be regarded by foreign governments as practicable, and such governments, through this misunderstanding, may be led to proceedings tending to embarrass the friendly relations which now exist between them and the United States; and whereas, in order to remove for the future all chance of misunderstanding on this subject, and to secure for the United States the full enjoyment of that freedom from foreign interference which is one of the highest rights of independent states, it seems fit that Congress should manifest its convictions thereon: Therefore—
Resolved (the House of Representatives concurring), That, while in times past the United States have sought and accepted the friendly mediation or arbitration of foreign powers for the pacific adjustment of international questions, where the United States were party of the one part and some other sovereign power party of the other part; and while they are not disposed to misconstrue the natural and humane desire of foreign powers to aid in arresting domestic troubles, which, widening in influence, have afflicted other countries, especially in view of the circumstance, deeply regretted by the American people, that the Rebel blow aimed at the national life has fallen heavily upon the laboring population of Europe; yet, notwithstanding these things, Congress cannot hesitate to regard every proposition of foreign interference so far unreasonable and inadmissible, that its only explanation can be found in a misunderstanding of the true state of the question, and of the real character of the war in which the Republic is engaged.
Resolved, That the United States are grappling with an unprovoked and wicked Rebellion, which is seeking the destruction of the Republic, that it may build a new power, whose corner-stone, according to the confession of its chiefs, shall be Slavery; that for the suppression of this Rebellion, thus saving the Republic and preventing the establishment of such a power, the National Government is employing armies and fleets, in full faith that the purposes of conspirators and rebels will be crushed; that, while engaged in this struggle, on which so much depends, any proposition from a foreign power, whatever form it take, having for object the arrest of these efforts, is, just in proportion to its influence, an encouragement to the Rebellion, and to its declared pretensions, and on this account is calculated to prolong and embitter the conflict, to cause increased expenditure of blood and treasure, and to postpone the much desired day of peace; that, with these convictions, and not doubting that every such proposition, although made with good intent, is injurious to the national interests, Congress will be obliged to look upon any further attempt in the same direction as an unfriendly act, which it earnestly deprecates, to the end that nothing may occur abroad to strengthen the Rebellion, or to weaken those relations of good-will with foreign powers which the United States are happy to cultivate.
Resolved, That the Rebellion, from its beginning, and far back even in the conspiracy which preceded its outbreak, was encouraged by hope of support from foreign powers; that its chiefs constantly represented the people of Europe as so far dependent upon regular supplies of the great Southern staple, that, sooner or later, their governments would be constrained to take side with the Rebellion in some effective form, even to the extent of forcible intervention, if the milder form did not prevail; that the Rebellion is now sustained by this hope, which every proposition of foreign interference quickens anew, and that without this life-giving support it must soon yield to the just and paternal authority of the National Government; that, considering these things, which are aggravated by the motive of the resistance thus encouraged, the United States regret that foreign powers have not frankly told the chiefs of the Rebellion that the work in which they are engaged is hateful, and that a new government, such as they seek to found, with Slavery as its acknowledged corner-stone, and with no other declared object of separate existence, is so far shocking to civilization and the moral sense of mankind that it must not expect welcome or recognition in the Commonwealth of Nations.
Resolved, That the United States, confident in the justice of their cause, which is the cause of good government and of human rights everywhere among men, anxious for the speedy restoration of peace, which shall establish tranquillity at home and remove all occasion of complaint abroad, and awaiting with well-assured trust the final suppression of the Rebellion, through which all these things, rescued from present peril, will be secured forever, and the Republic, one and indivisible, triumphant over its enemies, will continue an example to mankind, hereby announce, as their unalterable purpose, that the war will be vigorously prosecuted, according to the humane principles of Christian nations, until the Rebellion is overcome; and they reverently invoke upon their cause the blessing of Almighty God.
Resolved, That the President be requested to transmit a copy of these resolutions, through the Secretary of State, to the ministers of the United States in foreign countries, that the protest and declaration herein set forth may be communicated by them to the governments near which they reside.
March 3d, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions. In reply to Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, he remarked: “The resolutions speak for themselves, and I content myself by simply asking for a vote.” Then, in reply to Mr. Carlile, of West Virginia, he said: “These resolutions proceed from the spontaneous deliberations of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, without a suggestion or hint from the Secretary of State or from any member of the Administration; but I am able to state, that, since the resolutions have been reported, they have the entire and cordial approval of the Secretary of State, who has authorized me to say that he takes a special interest in their adoption by Congress.”
The resolutions passed the Senate by a vote of 31 yeas to 5 nays. On the same day they passed the House of Representatives,—Yeas 103, Nays 28.
Being concurrent resolutions of the two Houses, and not a joint resolution, they were never submitted to the President for approval; but, according to the request in the last resolution, they were communicated by the Secretary of State in an official note to our ministers abroad.
The reception of these resolutions at the time will appear by an extract from the Evening Post of New York.
“Mr. Sumner’s resolutions, which have so triumphantly passed the National Legislature, and which receive at the same time the cordial approval of the President and the Cabinet, will deepen and justify the feeling in our favor. They define our position with a distinctness that has not always been attained in our official acts. They describe boldly and vividly the nature of the Rebellion which has destroyed our peace, tracing it wholly to the ambition and selfishness of the Slaveholders, and warning foreign nations of the awful crime they commit in lending their aid to such an infamous assault upon all the principles of orderly government, all the rights of humanity, and all the best interests of Christian civilization. Every reflective mind in Europe will know, after reading them, that whatever encourages the Rebellion will encourage the most odious tyranny that human cupidity ever devised.”
The speech on Foreign Relations, at New York, September 10, 1863,[151] was a vindication of these resolutions.
INEXPEDIENCY OF LETTERS OF MARQUE.
Letter to a Citizen of New York, March 17, 1863.
The following letter, which appeared in the papers at the time, was written in the hope of preventing any action under the law of Congress authorizing letters of marque.
Washington, March 17, 1863.
MY DEAR SIR,—In the freedom of that conversation which I had with you as we drove to the Capitol recently, allow me for a moment to speak again on the question which interested us then.…
I confess that I am anxious that the issuing of letters of marque should be avoided, not merely because it will give us a bad name without commensurate good, nor because it will be a departure from the early and often declared policy of our Government, which has not hesitated, by the pen of Benjamin Franklin and John Quincy Adams, to denounce privateering as an “enormity,” but because it does not meet, in a practical way, the precise necessity of this time. People who advocate it are obviously misled by the experience of another generation, when we were at war with a nation whose commerce was a temptation and a reward to private enterprise. The case is so different now that the old agency is entirely inapplicable.
The privateer cruises for booty, which is in lieu of rations and pay to officers and men, and of hire and compensation to owners. But if the booty does not exist, or if it is in such inconsiderable quantity as to afford small chance of valuable prize, evidently you must find some other system of compensation; as this cannot be, you must abandon the idea of private enterprise stimulated and sustained by booty. An agency must be found applicable to the present case, precisely as in machinery a force is found best calculated to do the required work.
Now our present business is to help the Government capture the Alabama and her piratical comrades, and also to catch blockade-runners. But a letter of marque is not proper for this purpose, nor will the chance of booty be the best way to stimulate and sustain the cruiser, while, on the other hand, it is obvious that such a ship, invested with the belligerent right of search, in the quest of booty, will be tempted to exercise it on neutral commerce, and thus become the occasion of contention and strife with foreign powers.
Privateers have never been remarkable for the caution or reserve with which they employ belligerent rights. I would not exaggerate the troubles that might ensue; but when I think of these sea-rovers, with license to overhaul neutral ships and to inflict upon them visitation and search, I feel how much evil may ensue compared with the good. You would not threaten a whole street in order to catch a few robbers who had sought shelter in some of its recesses, nor would you burn down your house, according to the amusing story of Charles Lamb, in order to roast a pig.
It seems to be only according to common prudence, that private enterprise, if enlisted now, should be regulated by the object in view. To this end, it is not necessary that it should assume a form calculated to awaken solicitude. The way is simple. If citizens are willing to unite in efforts of the Government, let them place their ships at its disposal, to be commissioned as national ships, and let the Government, on its part, offer bounty and prize money, in addition to pay and rations, for the capture of the Alabama and her piratical comrades. The motive power will thus be adapted to the object, while our country will be saved from all chance of additional complication, and also from the stigma of reviving a policy which civilization condemns.
The argument of economy is sometimes pressed. But it is poor economy to employ an agency which in its very nature is inapplicable. Besides, I doubt if any success reasonably expected from such ships, called by the French corsaires, will be a compensation for the bad name they will give us, and the bad passions they will engender.
I hope I do not take too great a liberty in sending you this sequel to our conversation. At all events, you will be pleased to accept my best wishes, and believe me, my dear Sir, with much regard,
Very faithfully yours,
Charles Sumner.
John Austin Stevens, Jr., Esq., &c., &c., &c.
UNITY FOR THE SAKE OF FREEDOM, AND FREEDOM FOR THE SAKE OF UNITY.
Letter to a Public Meeting at Cleveland, Ohio, May 18, 1863.
Washington, May 18, 1863.
GENTLEMEN,—It will not be in my power to take part in the generous meeting to assemble at Cleveland, but I pray you to accept my thanks for the cordial invitation with which you have honored me.
If it were my privilege to speak on that occasion, I should urge upon my fellow-citizens everywhere the duty of Unity for the sake of Freedom, and also of Freedom for the sake of Unity. The two cannot be separated. They are mutually dependent. Let this people continue united, and Freedom must surely prevail. Let Freedom prevail, and this people cannot cease to be united.
With such a cause, there is but one side and one duty. Whoever is for the Unity of the Republic must be for Freedom, and whoever is for Freedom must be for the Unity of the Republic. It is vain to think that one can be advanced without the other. Whoever is against one is against the other, and whoever is lukewarm for one is lukewarm for the other. We must be fervid and strong for both.
This is not the time for doubt or hesitation. We must act at once and constantly, so that the Republic may be saved, while Slavery is scourged from this temple consecrated to Freedom. And this will be done.
Believe me, Gentlemen,
Very faithfully yours,
Charles Sumner.
PACIFIC RAILROAD.
Letter to Messrs. Samuel Hallett & Co., May 23, 1863.
Messrs. Hallett & Co. were associated with General Fremont in urging the Pacific Railroad. This letter was extensively circulated.
Washington, May 23, 1863.
GENTLEMEN,—I have always voted for the Pacific Railroad, and now that it is authorized by Congress I follow it with hope and confidence. It is a great work, but science has already shown it to be practicable.
Let the road be built, and its influence will be incalculable. People will wonder that the world lived so long without it.
Conjoining the two oceans, it will be an agency of matchless power, not only commercial, but political. It will be a new girder to the Union, a new help to business, and a new charm to life. Perhaps the imagination is most impressed by the thought of travel and merchandise winding their way from Atlantic to Pacific in one unbroken line; but I incline to believe that the commercial advantages will be more apparent in the opportunities the railroad will create and quicken everywhere on the way. New homes and new towns will spring up, making new demand for labor and supplies. Civilization will be projected into the forest and over the plain, while the desert is made to yield its increase. There is no productiveness to compare with that from the upturned sod which receives the iron rail. In its crop are school-houses and churches, cities and states.
In this vast undertaking coöperation of all kinds is needed, and it will be rewarded too. Capitalists, bankers, merchants, engineers, mechanics, miners, laborers, all must enlist. Perhaps there will be a place also for the freedmen of this war, although it seems to me that their services can be more effectively bestowed at home, as laborers and soldiers. But I see not why emigrants should not be invited from Europe to take part in this honorable service, and share the prosperity it will surely organize. Let them quit poverty, dependence, and wretchedness in their own country, for good wages here, with independence, and a piece of ground which each man can call his own.
Emigration will hasten the work; but, with or without emigration, it must proceed. Everywhere, from sunrise to sunset, the Rail and Wheel, which an eminent English engineer has pronounced “man and wife,” will yet be welcomed, sure to become the parents of a mighty progeny.
I have the honor to be, Gentlemen,
Your faithful servant,
Charles Sumner.
Messrs. Samuel Hallett & Co.
UNION OF THE MISSISSIPPI AND THE LAKES BY CANAL.
Letter to a Convention at Chicago, May 27, 1863.
The Convention was held June 2d.
Washington, May 27, 1863.
GENTLEMEN,—I resign most reluctantly the opportunity with which I am favored by your invitation, and shall try to content myself with reading the report of your powerful and well-organized meeting at Chicago, without taking part in it.
The proposition to unite the greatest navigable river of the world with the greatest inland sea is characteristic of the West. Each is worthy of the other. The idea of joining these together strikes the imagination as original. But the highest beauty is in utility, which will not be wanting here. With this union, the Gulf of Mexico will be joined to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the whole continent, from Northern cold to Southern heat, traversed by one generous flood, bearing upon its bosom untold commerce.
It is for the West to consider well the conditions of this enterprise, and the advantages it will secure. Let its practicability be demonstrated, and the country will command it to be done, as it has already commanded the opening of the Mississippi. Triumphant over the wickedness of an accursed Rebellion, we shall achieve another triumph, to take its place among the victories of Peace.
To this magnificent work Science will contribute her myriad resources. But there is something needed even to quicken and inspire science: it is the unconquerable will, which does not yield to difficulties, but presses forward to overcome them. No word is used with more levity than the word “impossible.” A scientific professor, in a public address, declared the navigation of the Atlantic by steam “impossible.” Within a few weeks it was done. The British Prime-Minister declared the construction of a canal between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea “impossible.” The Pacha of Egypt, with French engineers, is now doing it. Mirabeau was right, when he protested against the use of this word as simple stupidity. But I doubt if the word will be found in any Western dictionary.
Believe me, Gentlemen, with much respect,
Very faithfully yours,
Charles Sumner.
To Hon. James Robb, I. N. Arnold, and others of the Committee.
THE ISSUES OF THE WAR.
Dedication of a New Edition of the Speech on the Barbarism of Slavery,[152] July 4, 1863.
To the Young Men of the United States I dedicate this new Edition of a Speech on the Barbarism of Slavery, in Token of heartfelt Gratitude to them for brave and patriotic Service rendered in the present War for Civilization.
It is now more than three years since I deemed it my duty, in the Senate, to expose the Barbarism of Slavery. This phrase, though common now, was new then. The speech was a reply, strict and logical, to assumptions of Senators, asserting the “divine origin” of Slavery, its “ennobling” character, and that it was the “black marble keystone” of our national arch. Listening to these assumptions, which were of daily recurrence, I felt that they ought to be answered; and considering their effrontery, it seemed to me that they should be answered frankly and openly, by exhibiting Slavery as it really is, without reserve,—careful that I should “nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in malice.” This I did.
In that debate was joined the issue still pending in the Trial by Battle. The inordinate assumptions for Slavery naturally ripened in Rebellion and War. If Slavery were in reality all that was claimed by its representatives, they must have failed in duty, if they did not vindicate and advance it. Not easily could they see a thing so “divine” and so “ennobling,” constituting the “black marble keystone” of our national arch, discredited by popular vote, even if not yet consigned to sacrifice.
The election of Mr. Lincoln was a judgment against Slavery, and its representatives were aroused.
Meanwhile, for more than a generation, an assumption of Constitutional Law, hardly less baleful, had become rooted side by side with Slavery, so that the two shot up in rank luxuriance together. It was assumed, that, under the Constitution, a State was privileged at any time, in the exercise of its own discretion, to withdraw from the Union. This absurdity found little favor at first, even among the representatives of Slavery. To say that two and two make five could not be more irrational. But custom and constant repetition gradually produced an impression, until, at last, all the maddest for Slavery were the maddest also for this disorganizing ally.
It was then, conjoined with this constitutional assumption, that the assumption for Slavery grew into noxious vigor, so that, at last, when Mr. Lincoln was elected, it broke forth in flagrant war; but the war was declared in the name of State Rights.
Therefore there are two apparent rudiments to this war. One is Slavery, and the other is State Rights. But the latter is only a cover for the former. If Slavery were out of the way, there would be no trouble from State Rights.
The war, then, is for Slavery, and nothing else. It is an insane attempt by arms to vindicate the lordship asserted in debate. With madcap audacity it seeks to install this Barbarism as the truest Civilization. Slavery is announced as the “corner-stone” of the new edifice. This is enough.
The question is presented between Barbarism and Civilization,—not merely between two different forms of Civilization, but between Barbarism on the one side and Civilization on the other side.
Such is the issue, simply stated. On the one side are women and children at the auction-block, families rudely separated, human flesh lacerated and seamed by the bloody scourge, labor extorted without wages; and all this frightful, many-sided wrong is the declared foundation of a mock Commonwealth. On the other side is the Union of our fathers, with the image of Liberty on its coin and the sentiment of Liberty in its Constitution, now arrayed under a patriotic Government, which insists that no such mock Commonwealth, having such declared foundation, shall be permitted on the national territory, purchased with money and blood, to impair the unity of our jurisdiction, and to insult the moral sense of mankind.
Therefore the battle waged by the Union is for Civilization itself, and it must have aid and God-speed from all not openly for Barbarism. Every one must give his best efforts, and especially the young men to whom I now appeal.
Charles Sumner.
Washington, 4th July, 1863.
LET COLORED MEN ENLIST.
Letter to a Convention at Poughkeepsie, New York, July 13, 1863.
Boston, July 13, 1863.
DEAR SIR,—It will not be in my power to take part in the proposed meeting at Poughkeepsie. But I am glad it has been called, and I trust it will be successful.
To me it has been clear from the beginning that the colored men would be needed in this war. I never for a moment doubted that they would render good service. And thus far the evidence in their favor is triumphant. Nobody now questions their bravery or capacity for discipline. All that can be said against them is that they are not “white.”
But they have a special interest in the suppression of the Rebellion. The enemies of the Union are the enemies of their race. Therefore, in defending the Union, they defend themselves even more than other citizens; and in saving the Union, they save themselves.
I doubt if in times past our country could have justly expected from colored men any patriotic service. Such service is the return for protection. But now that protection has begun, the service should begin also. Nor should relative rights and duties be weighed with nicety. It is enough that our country, aroused at last to a sense of justice, seeks to enroll colored men among its defenders.
If my counsels could reach such persons, I would say, Enlist at once. Now is the day, and now the fortunate hour. Help to overcome your cruel enemies battling against your country, and in this way you will surely overcome those other enemies, hardly less cruel, here at home, who still seek to degrade you. This is not the time to hesitate or to higgle. Do your duty to our common country, and you will set an example of generous self-sacrifice which must conquer prejudice and open all hearts.
Accept my thanks for the invitation with which you have honored me, and believe me, dear Sir,
Very faithfully yours,
Charles Sumner.
Edward Gilbert, Esq.