Mr. McCreery, of Kentucky, asked leave to introduce a Joint Resolution, providing for the return of the ground at Arlington to the family of General Robert E. Lee, “and if graveyards have been established on the land, then the Committee shall ascertain and report the number of interments, on what terms a suitable spot for a cemetery can be purchased in the neighborhood, and the probable cost of removing the bodies to the new place of sepulture.”
On the question, “Will the Senate grant leave to introduce the Joint Resolution?” Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, demanded the yeas and nays, when a debate ensued, in which Mr. Sumner spoke as follows:—
MR. PRESIDENT,—Being called to vote on the pending motion, I make haste to say that I wish on this occasion to apply the Parliamentary Law in its strongest form. Whatever rigors it may have against propositions inopportune or offensive in character must be applied now, or never be invoked again; for never before in this Chamber was there similar occasion for these rigors. Therefore shall I vote for the most summary disposition of this joint resolution.
Beyond this, perhaps, there is no occasion for remark, especially when I consider how eloquent Senators have already characterized the proposition and the traitor it seeks to commemorate. I am not disposed to speak of General Lee. It is enough to say that he stands high on the catalogue of those who have imbrued their hands in their country’s blood. I hand him over to the avenging pen of History.
But there is one practical remark that I would make. I would call the attention of the Senate to this proposition in another aspect. We all know the political associations of the honorable Senator who introduces it. Must we not regard this joint resolution as revealing the sentiments of his associates? Does it not prefigure the policy they would establish, should they obtain power, as threatened by the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. Saulsbury,] as threatened by other Senators and by other associates of these Senators? Do we not see here the policy that would be established,—a policy which would take the old Rebellion by the hand and install it in the high places of power,—in the Executive Mansion,—in these Halls of Congress?
Now, Sir, could I make my voice heard from one end of this country to the other, from Massachusetts to Louisiana, it would be to warn against that political combination which shows itself now in the proposition of the Senator from Kentucky. Take warning, I would say to my fellow-countrymen everywhere, not only at the South, but at the North, but especially at the South, that the political party with which the Senator is associated, should it obtain power in this nation, will establish the policy of which his joint resolution is the expression. That is the practical remark I have to make.
There is a fact which I think I ought to contribute to this debate. It so happened that I was with the late Mr. Stanton when he made the order for the burial of our patriot dead on the grounds of Arlington. He mentioned it, and disclosed to me his reason. He meant to bury those dead in perpetual guard over that ground, so that no person of the family of Lee should ever dare to come upon it, unless to encounter patriot ghosts counted by the thousand. In such spirit the ground was set apart. And now we are asked to dig up these dead and give over their resting-place to the traitor family.
My friend by my side [Mr. Nye] has already used an expression which I think a happy inspiration, when he said that those dead lying there are as sacred as the Constitution itself. He was right. We may as well disturb our sacred text as disturb them. Over every grave are written words of warning. Do you remember, Sir, that most memorable epitaph over the remains of William Shakespeare?—
“Good friend, for Jesus’ sake forbear