2
hough TO
SUBSCRi,-
- O viPANY
'■•^rMENT
CAMBRIOt:,c, iviASS.
V
- ■ '.' ■ ,• 'ii;
» 1 '- '■ ■■ ». ■ 'i •; ■ .•»
■:. » ■i'\i>‘v, :r‘rr
' ' ' ■ . ' .■ , 4
■ . ■ . ■>, '
• ■ ■ .*■■,'••
I
, *** '
.■:*
I .'
I <
r-.H;
y
I
r
i
ji,‘-
* JWS^
r«
; »'*
} '
i-,..
Sr'"
♦' .*'■
k' !■; '•
J'
\
V
» I
- 'll*
'■ *♦• •'
^V'Vai
'■'i.
> ♦•P'ri) .
4
ti
I
f.
'*• ki
I
I
»
rJfl^
^tanDaro iltbrar^ Coition
AMERICAN STATESMEN
EDITED BY
JOHN T. MORSE, JR.
IN THIRTY-TWO VOLUMES
VOL. XXX.
THE CIVIL WAR
CHARLES SUMNER
■; ;■ -.:-•■ ■.■■■- -^2, ]sife# :r^ii ■' ■
•I t
>/f. M * ■'*'•■ 4*' V' ■ ■'■' ■■ - ^-'■' >■ ’
' - > .
■'V'.
i
Vir-,' i
■' .^'/i. v'
, *v*if5
-■ ■cu^"-;.’'
w-**
i
T »
' ’ ,'^;V • ■''*’ ' ■ '
imr^ :&s
t
r%
V - ' ,'^vt .\'T''5.V* - ^-fV’ ■'""t
- ■ .r' r^. „ ' , - ....:;<i‘
• ■ ‘ trshJfiS • ,.
'4/. 01 '.iH.pi
*’ v ■ ■ ■' - . ' ' 'ij' !i
“■'L
. »
’Si-
V
f •’
• t .•‘^'* ’>^ T’i
.y fi ;!i?it<:'i4 ' .t • t*
wr:;atW >
m -■•
,
'■^ J.,* (H
kdk
.
»•■ ,
J.
• 'I
— ' ■
.: at;.
• 0 ;; ^ ^
i 1
r .
LIBEARYBDITIOIT
HO UGI1T0\^ MIFFLIN 5. CO.
American l^tatesimen
CHARLES SUMNER
BY
MOORFIELD STOREY
BOSTON AND NEW YORK
HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY
(arJje HiUi’tiSiCie JDiCjSjS, €ambcit»0e
Copyright, 1900,
By MOORFIELD STOREY.
Copyright, 1900,
By HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & ca
All rights reserved.
CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
1. Birth and Education . 1
II. European Experience . 17
III. Professional Life . 27
IV. Entrance into Public Life .... 34
V. Election to the Senate . 65
VI. First Years in the Senate .... 86
VIIo The Repeal of the Missouri Compromise . 101
VIII. The Brooks Assault . 131
IX. The Results of the Assault .... 154
X. The Triumph of the Republican Party . 165
XI. Secession vs. Compromise .... 178
XII. Emancipation . 197
XIII. The Trent Affair . 208
XIV. The End of Slavery . 217
XV. The Critical Period of the Civil War . 235
XVI. Reconstruction and Equal Rights . . 255
XVII. The Last Year of the War . . .271
XVIII. Reconstruction again . 282
XIX. The Struggle with President Johnson . 302
XX. Alaska : the Alabama Claims : the Impeach¬
ment . 338
XXL Financial Reconstruction: Foreign Rela¬
tions . 352
XXII. Grant’s Administration : the Alabama Claims 362
XXIII. San Domingo and the Contest with Grant 379
XXIV. Civil Rights: Grant’s Renomination . . 401
XXV. The Last Session . 426
Index . 433
•'A
I
I
• 'V»l|
• »♦
6
I* • /
t ^
I >
. • I
, I
^ ,i- k
.r .
:/ L"' 1. .J*.
u f
• ■ n
• * 1-1 HI- ■ • ■>
, T'i ' 'I •
' * ‘^s : '.i ; M .
«»'fl C!»' "•- '
'.* ^n* r
y ^ r'f .i-rn • M
■ •< -ffF - : -Hi
. I /m . ! r
. ■ 5 . MV', f '* ' * '
. . ; . • . /.M ;iif V •
'"■'•* ■' ' ''
f'jij ' ifr.if V’/;rfv. •,•■* ■ 5 Ht >JC ^
' il ; V,7 AJi '«■]; •■ :i !’ \ .
' 'A»Ul/ :<».J '■
:r.i.y't ,Vi ■
■ V <A
V.
ILLUSTRATIONS
Charles Sumner . Frontispiece
From a photograph by Brady in the Library of the
State Department at Washington.
Autograph from the Chamberlain collection, Boston
Public Library.
The vignette of Mr. Sumner’s home, corner of Ver¬
mont Avenue and H Street, Washington, D. C., is from
a drawing after a photograph. Page
George S. Boutwell . facing 84
From a photograph by Brady in the Library of the
State Department at Washington.
Autograph from the Chamberlain collection, Boston
Public Library.
John A. Andrew . facing 192
From a photograph in the possession of Mr. Francis J.
Garrison, Boston.
Autograph from the Chamberlain collection, Boston
Public Library.
Henry Wilson . facing 400
From a photograph by Brady in the Library of the
State Department at Washington.
Autograph from the William Lloyd Garrison MSS.,
Boston Public Library.
J. >
■4*^ V ' ri.” "t
:!«i - : .
'-b
- J-
.1- ■" ■ ■■■ ?■ - '
V^v-
•S »Ki,
*1 « ♦ .• *, *■
»»
awariAnf>
atfj; 11» T‘( “t <
./ (tjt*('pwj|f(^..tlJ li'it n\fy\\ Wi/i .;'>>* ' • ,>a-^-
-•. .tm ■*.<•*, "fi , .1 • ^ .«• >• ■•*^ ■ ” j>i T J
'■ .MtilJ I-,,
‘*~ *®*jV f'^«•^m^ '- V ' ^ tdf V ' ^ ■ • j
41 . ' <<t ,Mt » x/ «.i SSfJii tfi-it.'t'j A
*\r’-a2?T.-^* ^
i . *. ■'- ■ r, • . ‘ .-
2^J
• /
-. ‘"i
X^wMaVs: *» '>i,<if l
%
ijt|* ^t‘‘V''.fA^; , . t .» . . - . . • ♦ . K*vti»’^ mrafX I
. , 4yi* lti^t3'ivtr^?it'<^jti:rti ^i({f M '^h/ -
Wh.rii.W-^ ^':
*
'•it
' %
rJI. ■ ■'' ^ *■
i\.
Si.* , .: .... ,. -/.n j i,. ?iS!^|
CHARLES SUMNER
CHAPTER I
BIRTH AND EDUCATION
Charles Sumner came of typical Massachusetts
stock. His family on both sides was of English
origin, but his ancestors left England very soon
after the landing of the Pilgrims, and dwelt
in the neighborhood of Boston for nearly two
centuries before his birth. Roger Sumner, his
lineal ancestor in the eighth generation, died and
was buried at Bicester in Oxfordshire. William,
the only son of Roger, came to America about
1635, and settled in Dorchester, which adjoined
Boston on the south. He became at once a land-
owner and was made a freeman in 1637. He was
admitted to the church in 1652 ; was a deputy to
the General Court, a selectman, a commissioner to
try small causes, and in other ways showed himself
an active and public-spirited citizen. He brought
three children with him from England, and two
more were born afterward. Roger, his second son,
was born in England. He married Mary J osselyn,
of Lancaster, in Massachusetts, and became an in*
2
CHARLES SUMNER
habitant of that town in 1660, but when Lancaster
was destroyed by the Indians he removed to Milton,
where he died. George, the third son of William,
was the ancestor of Increase Sumner, a justice of
the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, and
governor of the Commonwealth. William, the
fourth son of Roger, had many children, of whom
one, Seth, was married twice. A son of the first
marriage was the grandfather of Major-General
Edwin V. Sumner, who commanded a corps in the
Army of the Potomac under McClellan and Burn¬
side. A son of the second marriage. Job, was the
father of Charles Pinckney Sumner, and the grand¬
father of Charles Sumner.
The Sumners had been for the most part farm¬
ers, but Job was resolved to obtain a liberal educa¬
tion, and entered Harvard College in November,
1774, at the age of twenty. The shots fired at
Concord and Lexington changed the current of . his
ambition, and in May, 1775, he joined the Ameri¬
can army at Cambridge. He was a lieutenant at
Bunker Hill and during the siege of Boston, and
his conduct in several actions earned him a com¬
mission as captain, given him by vot<^ of Congress
in 1779, to date from July 1, 1776. He was com¬
missioned a major in 1783, and was second in com¬
mand of the force which protected New York dur¬
ing the evacuation by the British in that year. It
was from soldiers under his command that Wash¬
ington received the last salute of the revolutionary
army. After the war, on July 7, 1785, the cor-
BIRTH AND EDUCATION
3
poration of Harvard College gave him the degree
of A. M., as a member of his class, by a vote which
recited that he had “ duj’ing the war behaved with
reputation as a man and as an officer.” In 1785
he was appointed a commissioner to settle the ac¬
counts between the Confederation and the State of
Georgia, and he resided in Georgia until he died.
He is said to have been a candidate for governor,
and to have been defeated by only a few votes.
He was apparently a man of the world, who lived
expensively and entertained freely. He died in
New York of a fever, in his thirty-sixth year, and
was buried in St. Paul’s churchyard on Broadway,
where stands his tombstone, erected by the Society
of the Cincinnati.
His son, Charles Pinckney Sumner, was born
in Milton, and brought up on a farm. He went
to Phillips Academy at Andover, and graduated at
Harvard College in 1796, where he formed a friend¬
ship with J oseph Story which exercised an important
influence on his son’s career. After graduating he
taught school for a while, but in 1799 he entered
the office of Josiah Quincy, and in 1801 was ad¬
mitted as an attorney. He took an active interest
in politics as a supporter of Jefferson, and his flrst
political speech, made in 1804, was an argument
against disunion. He was clerk of the House of
Representatives in 1806-7 and 1810-11. He was
married in 1810, and in 1819 he accepted the office
of deputy sheriff, having been unsuccessful in pra(s
tice. From 1825 till just before his death in 1839
4
CHARLES SUMNER
he was the sheriff of Suffolk County, and while his
political activity ended when he became sheriff, he
was interested in the temperance question and in
the anti-Masonic movement, though he had been
a Mason. He was an anti-slavery man in feel¬
ing, though not prominent in the agitation. He
delivered a number of public addresses at various
times, but was not conspicuous as an orator. He
was high-minded, courageous, scholarly, extremely
conscientious and faithful in the discharge of
every duty, but formal, reserved, grave, and stern ;
somewhat narrow also, and without his father’s
social charm. He foresaw the inevitable result
of the agitation against slavery, and in 1820 said :
“ Our children’s heads will some day be broken on
a cannon-ball on this question.” It is from him
that Charles Sumner may well have derived his
unbending conscience and his intense earnest¬
ness.
Charles Pinckney Sumner married Kelief J acob
of Hanover in Massachusetts, a descendant from
Nicholas Jacob, who came to America in 1633, and
after settling in Watertown, removed to Hingham
in 1635. Her grandfather was a man of property
and one of the Committee of Public Safety at the
time of the Eevolution, but the family were gener¬
ally farmers of the solid New England type. Her
father was evidently in narrow circumstances, and
before her marriage she supported herself by her
needle. She was a woman of even temper and
great good sense, who probably did much to temper
BIRTH AND EDUCATION
5
her husband’s austerity in the family life. She had
nine children, and died in 1866 at the age of eighty-
one.
Such was the ancestry of Charles Sumner. He
and his twin sister Matilda, the first children of
their parents, were born on January 6, 1811, at
the corner of Revere and Irving streets in Boston,
His childhood was in no way remarkable ; he was
educated in the schools of Boston, and was an
amiable, quiet, refined, and studious boy. Among
his schoolmates at the Public Latin School were
Robert C. Winthrop, who was older, and Wen¬
dell Phillips, who was younger than himself. He
won several prizes for translations from Latin,
for a Latin poem, and for an English theme ; but
while taking respectable rank, he seems to have
been more remarkable for knowledge acquired by
general reading than for striking ability. Though
apparently never ill his health was not robust, and
having little inclination for sports he early acquired
the tastes and habits of a scholar.
His father at first did not intend to give him
a college education, and it is a little curious that
Sumner himself, in later years the champion of
peace, wished to enter the military academy at West
Point. His application for a cadetship failed, and
the father’s opportune appointment as sheriff, with
a larger income, enabled the son to enter Harvard
College in September, 1826. Lovers of specula¬
tive inquiry may be interested to consider what
sort of a soldier was thus lost to the country.
6
CHARLES SUMNER
Sumner’s college class was not so rich in distin¬
guished men as its brilliant predecessor, the famous
class of ’29, and he was among the youngest mem¬
bers. He devoted his time to history, literature,
and the classics, in which he excelled, but his dislike
for mathematics and physics prevented his taking
high rank, and abandoning this ambition he gave
himself up to the studies that he loved. A
classmate tells us that he was “ one of the best
declaimers in the class,” showing “ a great degree
of earnestness with an entire freedom from any
effort to make a dash.” “ It was the same type
of subdued eloquence, inseparable from the man,”
which he afterward displayed, and already he was
self-possessed and easy on the stage. He received
minor parts at college exhibitions and Commence¬
ment, and he won a second Bowdoin prize by an
essay on “ The Present Character of the Inhabit¬
ants of New England,” which, we are told, showed
copious reading and immense industry, but lacked
condensation and clearness. He was fond of dis-»
cussion, persistent and possibly somewhat aggres¬
sive in argument. Socially he was frank, kindly
and genial, but possessed a native dignity which
became him well. His life at college was a period
of healthy and natural growth before anything had
occurred to awaken strong feeling.
The year after Sumner’s graduation was spent
at home. He took time to decide what his work
in life should be, and meanwhile, rising early
and working late, he read the classics, poetry,
BIRTH AND EDUCATION
7
general literature and history, and attacked mathe¬
matics with better success than in college. Pie
taught school for a few weeks, wrote an essay on
commerce for a prize offered by a Boston society,
of which Daniel Webster was the president, and
received the award from his hands. This success
gratified his friends and we may suppose gave him
a certain reputation. Except that, in natural sym¬
pathy with his father, his feelings were enlisted
against Freemasonry, he seems to have taken little
interest in public questions during this year, which
was spent in desultory labor. At this time he saw
little of society ; he was pondering carefully the
question of his future occupation, and it was after
much deliberation and with many misgivings that
he decided to study law.
Sumner entered the Harvard Law School in
September, 1831, where he was brought under the
influence of Judge Story, who had been sitting
on the Supreme Bench of the United States for
twenty years and was just beginning the series of
treatises which gave him his great international re¬
putation. Story’s enthusiasm and personal charm
made him a stimulating teacher. As an old friend
of Sumner’s father he took a kindly interest in the
son, which ripened into friendship, and Sumner was
soon a constant visitor at his house. Simon Green-
leaf, who was appointed a professor about six
months before Sumner left the school, also became
his friend, and the two eminent lawyers inspired
him with the strongest devotion to his profession.
8
CHARLES SUMNER
Sumner remained in the Law School until the
end of December, 1833, applying himself to study
with ardor and persistency. For the first time he
felt a definite ambition, for the first time his work
satisfied and inspired him. He wrote to one of
his classmates : “ A lawyer must know everything.
He must know law, history, philosophy, human
nature ; and if he covets the fame of an advocate
he must drink of all the springs of literature,
giving ease and elegance to the mind and illus¬
tration to whatever subjects it touches.” His
plan of life was : “ Six hours, namely, the fore¬
noon, wholly and solely to law ; afternoon to clas¬
sics ; evening to history, subjects collateral and
assistant to law, etc. . . . Recreation must not be
found in idleness or loose reading.”
Possessed with this theory he read law, classics,
history, literature, rising early and working late,
until his inflamed eyes and clouded complexion
showed the effects of excessive labor. Yet he was
never ill and seemed independent of sleep and ex¬
ercise. He treated his mind as a reservoir and
into it steadily pumped learning of every kind,
which his strong memory retained. He became
librarian of the school, and was given a room in
Dane Hall, where he acquired a remarkable fa¬
miliarity with the books under his charge. He
won a Bowdoin prize by an essay on the sub¬
ject, “ Are the most important Changes in Society
effected Gradually or by Violent Revolutions ? ”
He wrote two articles for the “ American Monthly
BIRTH AND EDUCATION
9
Keview,” and before he left the Law School be¬
came a contributor to the “ American Jurist.”
His style gained in clearness and conciseness, but
his writings were more learned than original. The
impression which he made upon his contemporaries
at this time was very pleasant. Thus President
Quincy’s daughter, Mrs. Waterston, speaks of
seeing at one of her mother’s receptions, “the
tall spare form and honest face of Charles Sum¬
ner,” and adds : “ This youth, though not in the
least handsome, is so good-hearted, clever, and real,
that it is impossible not to like him and believe in
him.”
Judge Story’s son, William W., who was some
eight years younger than Sumner, writes : “ He
used to come to our house some two or three even¬
ings in the week, and to his long conversations I
used to listen night after night with eager pleasure.
His simplicity and directness of character, his en¬
thusiasm and craving for information, his lively
spirit and genial feeling, immediately made a strong
impression on me. My father was very fond of
him, and treated him almost as if he were a son ;
and we were all delighted to welcome him to our
family circle. He was free, natural, and naive in
his simplicity, and plied my father with an ever-
flowing stream of questions, and I need not say
that the responses were as full and genial as heart
and mind could desire. . . . He was at this time
totally without vanity, and only desirous to acquire
knowledge and information on every subject. . . .
10
CHARLES SUMNER
Though he was an interesting talker, he had no
lightness of hand. He was kindly of nature, in¬
terested in everything, but totally put off his
balance by the least persiflage ; and if it was
tried on him his expression was one of complete
astonishment. He was never ready at a retort
. . . and was at this time almost impervious to a
joke. He had no humor himself and little sense of
it in others, and his jests, when he tried to make
one, were rather cumbrous. But in ‘ plain sail¬
ing ’ no one could be better or more agreeable.”
Another characteristic is described by a friend,
who says : “ A peculiar life-and-death earnestness
characterized even then all that Sumner did and
said.”
His years at the Law School gave him a definite
ambition, and for the first time he distinguished
himself from his fellows and showed promise of
future eminence, while the favorable opinion of
Judge Story and Mr. Greenleaf gave him a repu¬
tation at the very outset of his career. In those
days the community was small, and the world out¬
side was ready to welcome a man who made his
mark at Cambridge.
In January, 1834, after leaving the Law School,
Sumner entered the office of Benjamin Band, an
eminent lawyer of Boston, where he continued to
write for the “ Jurist,” becoming one of its editors
in May. In February he went to Washington for
a month, making on his way short visits in Phila¬
delphia and New York. Through the introduc-
BIRTH AND EDUCATION
11
tions of Judge Story, Sumner enjoyed on this trip
rare opportunities to become acquainted with the
distinguished men of the day. A letter from Pro¬
fessor Greenleaf introduced him to Chancellor
Kent, and it is amusing to find Kent saying that
he “ thought Jackson would ruin us ; wanted to go
to Washington, but if he went should be obliged
to see much company, call upon Jackson and dine
with him, perhaps, all of which he could not con¬
sent to do.” This was a time when men took
political differences seriously, and did not condone
in social intercourse conduct which they condemned
in public speech. It is amusing, also, to find Sum¬
ner writing : “ Kent’s conversation is lively and
instructive, but grossly ungrammatical.”
During this visit he saw much of Judge Story ;
was introduced to President Jackson; met the
judges of the Supreme Court at their Sunday din¬
ner, he being the only guest ; secured what he “ may
almost call a place in the court ; ” dined repeat¬
edly with Horace Binney ; made the acquaintance
of Henry Wheaton and Francis Lieber, afterward
his intimate friend ; and heard many distinguished
lawyers address the Supreme Court. The country
was convulsed at the time by the removal of the
deposits from the Bank of the United States, and
the debates in Congress were especially interesting.
Webster gave Sumner a card admitting him to the
floor of the Senate, so that he heard the greatest
orators of the country, — Webster, Clay, and Cal¬
houn, for once on the same side. It was a memo-
12
CHARLES SUMNER
rable visit, and it would seem that in scenes of such
excitement, and under the influence of such men,
the political instincts of Sumner must have been
aroused. Yet he wrote to his father : “ Calhoun
has given notice to-day that he will speak to-mor¬
row on Mr. Webster’s bank bill. I shall probably
hear him, and he will be the last man I shall
ever hear speak in Washington. I probably shall
never come here again. I have little or no desire
ever to come again in any capacity. Nothing that
I have seen of politics has made me look upon
them with any feeling other than loathing. The
more I see of them the more I love law, which I
feel will give me an honorable livelihood.”
To see what manner of man he then was we
may borrow the eyes of a young lady who saw him
in Philadelphia, a daughter of Mr. Peters, the
reporter : —
“ He was then a great, tall, lank creature, quite
heedless of the form and fashion of his garb ; ‘ un¬
sophisticated,’ everybody said, and oblivious to the
propriety of wearing a hat in a city, going about in
a rather shabby fur cap ; but the fastidiousness of
fashionable ladies was utterly routed by the wonder¬
ful charm of his conversation, and he was carried
about triumphantly and introduced to all the dis¬
tinguished people, young and old, who then made
Philadelphia society so brilliant. No amount of
honeying, however, could then affect him. His
simplicity, his perfect naturalness, was what struck
every one, combined with his rare culture and his
BIRTH AND EDUCATION
13
delicious youthful enthusiasm. . . . Every one was
sorry when he left town, and from that time his
name was really a household word with us. There
was a sweetness and tenderness of character about
him, and an entire unworldliness, that won all hearts,
while his delightful culture completed the charm.”
A witness of the opposite sex describes him as
“modest and deferential, attracting attention by
his remarkable attainments and manly presence.”
After his return. Judge Story offered him the
position of an instructor in the Law School, but he
declined it, and in September, 1834, was admitted
to the bar. For a little more than three years he
practiced law in Boston, forming a partnership in
November, 1834, with George S. Hillard. Pro¬
fessor Greenleaf kept a desk in the rooms, and
Judge Story was a frequent caller, with others
then prominent in literary or legal life. Sumner
was not the man to acquire a large general prac¬
tice. He lacked the readiness and quick percep¬
tion essential to success before juries, and he had
not yet shown any great power as a speaker. He
had a number of suits which he conducted with
success, but his arguments were learned essays
rather than that forcible presentation of the case
which is most effective in getting a judgment.
Indeed, his copious learning was rather an incum¬
brance in active practice, since he was disposed
to overestimate the value of what had cost him
so much labor, and to rely on quotations rather
than on his own ideas, often better suited to the
14
CHARLES SUMNER
immediate occasion. The defect which Doctor
Holmes points out in saying that he had “ little
imagination, wit, or sense of humor” was a se¬
rious handicap, the outward sign of that great dis¬
qualification, the inability to put oneself in an¬
other’s place. He stood ready to undertake any
work which came, but could not seek business, and
apparently did not attract clients. He did as well,
probably, as most young lawyers, but the reputa¬
tion which he brought from the school and the
commendations of his friends led him to expect
more, and he was naturally disappointed.
Yet he was always occupied. The literary work
for which he was fitted sought him constantly.
In J anuary, 1835, he became an instructor in the
Law School, during Judge Story’s absence, and
again in 1836-37. He was substantially in charge
of the school at one time, and though he did not
fail as a teacher, he was not brilliantly successful.
In 1835 Judge Story selected him to report his de¬
cisions in the Circuit Court, of which he published
three volumes. He assisted Greenleaf in his Maine
Digest, and prepared the index for Story’s “ Equity
Jurisprudence.” He was an editor of the “ Jurist,”
and a constant contributor to it, but dealt more
with the literary aspects of the law than with prac¬
tical questions. He helped Dunlap in revising
for the press his work on ‘‘ Admiralty Practice,”
and he prepared the forms which are added to
it. He wrote for the “ North American Review,”
and delivered some lectures, but they were essays
BIRTH AND EDUCATION
15
on legal subjects which gave him no popular re¬
putation.
During these years he did not make any effort
to enter general society, but he enlarged his ac¬
quaintance with eminent men and made some life¬
long friendships. His connection with the “Ju¬
rist ” brought him into correspondence with leading
lawyers all over the country and with foreign
writers on jurisprudence. He became intimate
with Cornelius C. Felton, afterwards the President
of Harvard University, Henry W. Longfellow,
and Henry R. Cleveland, a company of scholars
who met with Hillard and Sumner almost weekly,
calling their society “ The Five of Clubs.” His
circle was not large, but it was of the best, and his
associates were mostly older than he.
Devoted to his work, he showed little interest in
the questions of the day, while his friends were tak¬
ing part in politics. He became acquainted with
Dr. William Ellery Channing, and later felt his
influence strongly, but as yet his sense of public
duty was not awakened. Winthrop and Hillard
went to the legislature, and Phillips, his intimate
friend, had already won reputation as a speaker,
but he was still absorbed in law and literature.
Only two references to slavery are found in his
published letters. On February 24, 1834, in writ¬
ing to his parents of his journey from Baltimore
to Washington, he says: “For the first time I
saw slaves, and my worst preconception of their
appearance and ignorance did not fall as low as
16
CHARLES SUMNER
their actual stupidity. They appear to be nothing
more than moving masses of flesh, unendowed with
anything of intelligence above the brutes. I have
now an idea of the blight upon that part of our
country in which they live.”
Nearly two years later, on January 9, 1836,
he writes to Lieber, then in Columbia, S. C. :
“ You are in the midst of slavery. . . . What think
you of it ? Should it longer exist ? Is not eman¬
cipation practicable? We are becoming aboli¬
tionists at the North fast ; the riots, the attempts
to abridge the freedom of discussion. Governor
McDuffie’s message, and the conduct of the South
generally have caused many to think favorably of
immediate emancipation, who never before inclined
to it.”
Sumner had subscribed to the “ Liberator ” in
1835, and had read it since, but these letters
show only a languid interest in the question. Nor
was it sympathy with the sufferings of slaves,
but indignation at the attempts to impair the liber¬
ties of white men, which roused him, and began to
change the kindly scholar into the insistent and
uncompromising foe of slavery.
CHAPTER II
EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE
Sumner had long felt an overmastering desire
to visit Europe, and in 1837 he determined to go,
although his friends with few exceptions counseled
against the journey, as an interruption of his pro¬
fessional career. His own funds were insufficient,
but Judge Story and two other friends lent him
what he needed, and with excellent letters of intro¬
duction he sailed on December 8, 1837. He was
well prepared for his new experiences. He had
learned to be nice in his dress, and the impression
which he made upon strangers may be gathered
from the description of him given by one who met
him just before he started. “ He appeared with a
right royal presence, his countenance characterized
by a genuine warmth and great readiness; in a
word it was that of a highly bred, well-informed
gentleman of a somewhat older school than I was
ill the way of meeting.” He was “ handsomely
dressed, erect, easy, conscious of his strength.”
The “ shabby fur cap ” of a few years before had
disappeared with all that it implied.
The years which he spent in Europe enlarged
his horizon, added to his knowledge, filled his
18
CHARLES SUMNER
memory with a wealth of associations, and made
him a citizen of the world. No other American
had been received so cordially or offered such
opportunities. In a biography intended to pre¬
sent Sumner as a statesman and to show what
influence he exerted upon the government of his
country, there is room only for such a sketch of his
journey as will indicate what it contributed to the
education with which he entered public life. It
was now that he established personal relations with
leading foreigners, and gained an influence which
later was of great value in the conduct of our
foreign affairs.
Landing at Havre, he spent five months in
France, almost entirely in Paris. He was then in
England for ten months, again for four weeks
in Paris, and then made a tour through France to
Italy, where he remained five months ; thence to
Germany, where he saw the principal cities, stay¬
ing in Vienna, Berlin, and Heidelberg, about a
month in each. He saw the Rhine and the Low
Countries, and in March, 1840, returned to Lon¬
don for about three weeks, after which he sailed
for home. His journey was an unbroken success.
His spectacles were rosy, and Europe was full of
enchantment for him.
In Paris he called at once on his correspondent
Foelix, editor of the “ Revue Etrangere,” but only
to find his own knowledge of French insufficient
for conversation. Therefore he took lodgings on
the unfashionable side of the Seine, studied with
EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE
19
two teachers, and supplemented their instruction
by attending lectures at the Sorbonne and the
Ecole de Droit, and by visiting the theatres, where
he followed the play with book in hand. In less
than a month he was able to engage in a conver¬
sation on American politics and make himself
understood in French. Early in March he took
lodgings near the boulevards, and presented his
letters of introduction. His life in Paris was no
vacation; about the middle of April he wrote to
Greenleaf that he had heard “ one hundred and
fifty or two hundred lectures on all branches of
jurisprudence, belles-lettres, and philosophy,” that
is to say, “two or three lectures of an hour or
more each ” every morning, delivered by the great
scholars and scientific men of France. In the
hospitals he saw the best surgeons of the day at
work ; at the theatres and the opera he enjoyed
Grisi, Lablache, Dejazet, Mars ; he visited the
museums, the galleries, and the historic places ; he
attended the Chambers of Deputies and Peers, and
from a reserved tribune in the former heard a
great debate and saw the statesmen of France.
He made the acquaintance of leading lawyers and
was given especial privileges in the courts. He
studied French procedure in operation, talked with
the judges, learned to know their system of law,
heard arguments by the most eminent advocates,
and watched important trials. He went into society
and met many eminent persons, — Cousin, Demetz,
the Due de Broglie, Michel Chevalier, Madame
20
CHARLES SUMNER
Murat, Pardessus, David. He saw and had a long
conversation with Sisrnondi. Nor did he forget to
study the people, in the streets and at the fetes.
The knowledge which he thus gained of the French
language was of great service during the civil war,
when, as chairman of the Senate committee on
foreign relations, he wished to talk freely with
foreign ministers.
When on May 29, 1838, he left Paris for
England, he was not twenty-eight and had as yet
no reputation. Of his attitude towards English
society he wrote to Judge Story : “ Since I have
been here I have followed a rigid rule with regard
to my conduct ; I have not asked an introduction
to any person ; nor a single ticket, privilege, or
anything of the kind from any one ; I have not
called upon anybody (with one exception) until I
had been first called upon or invited.” None the
less he was received everywhere and given a rare
opportunity to see everything and know everybody,
so that a brief statement of his doings in England
becomes almost a catalogue of names and places.
His first interest was in his profession, and there
was scarcely an eminent lawyer or judge whom he
did not meet. He went the circuits, was the guest
of the bar, attended their dinners and mingled
with barristers on terms of close acquaintance, and
sat on the bench. He stayed with Lord Brougham
and became familiarly acquainted with him. He
was the guest of Denman, Vaughan, Parke, Alder-
son, Langdale, Coltman, and other judges, and
EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE
21
in his letters to Judge Story and Greenleaf he de¬
scribes every judge and every prominent lawyer.
With the attorney-general, Campbell, with Follett,
Talfourd, Rolfe, Wilde, Crowder, Sir Frederick
Pollock, Dr. Lushington, Charles Austin, Hay¬
ward, Adolphus, and many others he established
cordial relations, and his ten months in England
gave him a more extended acquaintance with Eng¬
lish lawyers than he had with those of his own
country.
Of literary men he met Carlyle, Wordsworth,
Macaulay, Sydney Smith, Hallam, Parkes, Senior,
Grote, Jeffrey, Rogers, Whewell, Landor, Leigh
Hunt, Theodore Hook, Thomas Campbell, and
others. Among his associates were Monckton
Milnes, Robert Ingham, Basil Montagu, John
Kenyon. He was the guest of Lord Durham,
Inglis, Cornewall Lewis, Hume, and Roebuck among
political leaders, and of Lords Fitzwilliam, Lans-
downe, Wharncliffe, Leicester, Holland, and Car¬
lisle among the peers. Lord Morpeth, the son of the
Earl of Carlisle, became his close friend and a
constant correspondent in later years. Miss Mar-
tineau, Mrs. Shelley, Mrs. Grote, Mrs. Norton, the
Duchess of Sutherland, Joanna Baillie, Mrs. Jame¬
son, and Lady Blessington were among the ladles
whose acquaintance he made, and as Mrs. Parkes,
the granddaughter of Dr. Priestley, wrote : “ It was
said, after Mr. Sumner’s northern journey, that he
made the acquaintance of all the principal Whig
families going north and of the Tories on his re*
22
CHARLES SUMNER
turn. He was wondrously popular, almost like
a meteor passing through the country. Young,
agreeable, full of information and animation, he
enchanted every one ; and he bore the ovation well
and modestly.” He witnessed the coronation of
Queen Victoria and heard her first speech from
the throne. In Parliament he heard Peel, Sheil,
O’Connell, Lord John Russell, Lord Lyndhurst,
Lord Brougham, Sir Edward Sugden, and other
leaders of the day. He was toasted at various
public dinners and replied with success. He
even rode to hounds, with an immunity from dis¬
aster which is not the least remarkable fact in his
foreign experience.
There is abundant testimony from independent
sources to Sumner’s brilliant success in English
society and to the reasons for it. Mr. Abraham
Hayward spoke of his “ entire absence of preten¬
sion,” and said : “ Sumner’s social success at this
early period, before his reputation was established,
was most remarkable. He was a welcome guest
at most of the best houses both in town and coun¬
try, and the impression he uniformly left was
that of an amiable, sensible, high-minded, well-in¬
formed gentleman.”
Lady Wharncliffe wrote : “ I never knew an
American who had the degree of social success he
had ; owing, I think, to the real elevation and worth
of his character, his genuine nobleness of thought
and aspiration, his kindliness of heart, his absence
of dogmatism and oratorical display, his genuine
EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE
23
amiability, bis cultivation of mind, and bis appre¬
ciation of England without anything approaching
to flattery of ourselves or depreciation of his own
country.”
These statements of English people show
that Sumner must have possessed very unusual
attractions for men and women of intelligence, cul¬
tivation, and character. He carried good letters,
but he presented very few, and letters at best only
offer an opportunity. A man is liked or disliked
for himself, not for his introductions.
He left England on March 22, 1839, for a
month in Paris. Here he showed that his sojourn
in England had not affected his love for America.
General Cass, the American minister, thought
that the American position on the northeastern
boundary question should be stated, as it was not
understood in Europe, and at his request Sumner
prepared for “ Galignani’s Messenger ” an elabo¬
rate article, conciliatory in tone, which added to
his reputation on both sides of the water.
He next visited Italy, and spent three months in
Rome, studying Italian literature, and learning to
speak Italian fluently if not with entire correct¬
ness. Here first awoke the love of art from which
in later years he derived much pleasure, and he
became the warm friend of Crawford the sculptor.
In Florence he met some Italian men of letters and
saw something of Florentine society. He visited
Venice and Milan, and entered Germany early in
October. He spent a week in Munich, and a
24
CHARLES SUMNER
month in Vienna, where Prince Metternich received
him graciously and, contrasting the youth of Amer¬
ica with the age of Europe, said : “ Mais laissons
nous jouir de notre vieillesse.” Thence by Prague,
Dresden, and Leipsic, he came to Berlin, where he
made the acquaintance of Raumer, Ranke, Hum¬
boldt, and Savigny, and was well received by the
Crown Prince. During five weeks in Heidelberg
he studied German industriously, learning to un¬
derstand and to converse “tolerably.” He saw
much of Mittermaier and Thibaut, and still ambi¬
tious to be a jurist he made the most of his opportu¬
nities to meet these great teachers of the law and
the other scholars at Heidelberg. He next made
the trip down the Rhine, saw Cologne, Brussels,
and Antwerp, and returned to London, March 17,
1840. His final fortnight in London was full of
pleasure. In his last letter to Hillard before sail¬
ing he wrote : “ London is more bewitching than
ever,” and breaks off with “ I must now go to
breakfast with Sydney Smith : to-morrow with
Rogers : next day with dear Sir Robert Inglis : the
next with Milnes.” It is not strange that he was
loath to exchange a life so full of charm for the
work of a lawyer in Boston.
Judge Story, Mr. Greenleaf, and other friends
expressed their doubts and advised his return.
They told him that they wished to have him as
a colleague at the Law School, but he replied that
he needed a larger income than the school could
offer. To Longfellow he wrote on November 10,
EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE
25
1839 : “ I now begin to think of hard work, of
long days filled with uninteresting toil and humble
gains. I sometimes have a moment of misgiving
when I think of the certainties which I abandoned
for travel and of the uncertainties to which I return.
But this is momentary, for I am thoroughly con¬
tent with what I have done. ... I hope people
will not say that I have forgotten my profession
and that I cannot live contented at home. Both
of these things are untrue. I know my profession
better now than when I left Boston, and I can live
content at home.” But the misgivings of his friends
were well founded. Sumner was by nature a stu¬
dent and a scholar, with little aptitude for the life
of a practicing lawyer. By perseverance he might
have overcome some of his disqualifications, but
his journey only widened the breach between him
and his office. He had learned to love a fuller
and freer life. If his trip did not fit him better
for the law, however, it completed his preparation
for the part which he was to take in the affairs of
his country.
It is strange, however, that he still had no pre¬
vision of what awaited him. During his years in
Europe the slavery question had become a burning
issue. On the day of his departure Wendell Phil¬
lips, his intimate friend, delivered the speech in
Faneuil Hall which made him famous ; j^et Sum¬
ner’s letters do not refer to it and betray no inter¬
est in political questions, dealing only with the pri¬
vate life of his friends, and with literary subjects.
26
CHARLES SUMNER
He talks with Sismondi of slavery ; doubtless he
discussed it with Miss Martineau, the Duchess of
Sutherland, and others who strongly opposed it ;
but his own feelings are not expressed, and his
own zeal is not aroused.
CHAPTER ni
PROFESSIONAL LIFE
On May 3, 1840, Sumner landed in New York,
and in September be resumed practice in earnest.
He brought out the third volume of Story’s Reports
and was engaged in several cases, some involving
the validity of patents. He was retained with
Hillard by the British consul in actions against
British officers who had searched American ships
suspected of being slavers. He did his best to
prove that his professional enthusiasm was not
dampened by his foreign experience, but not with
entire success. To Lieber he wrote : “ My mind,
soul, heart, are not improved or invigorated by the
practice of my profession ; by overhauling papers,
old letters, and sifting accounts in order to see if
there be anything on which to plant an action.
The sigh will come for a canto of Dante, a rhap¬
sody of Homer, a play of Schiller. But I shall
do my devoir.''^ Yet he was not less devoted to
America by reason of his attachment to his foreign
friends, and in reply to a suggestion that, after
making a fortune, he might like to settle in Eng¬
land, he wrote : “ I never expect to be rich. . . .
If I were so, however, I should prefer to live among
28
CHAKLES SUMNER
my own kindred, near the friends to whom I have
grown and in sight of objects that have become as
dear as they are familiar. Believe me when I say
that I have no hankering after England or Eng¬
lish people.”
He found the society of Boston very pleasant,
and was welcomed cordially in a circle which in¬
cluded Judge Story, Jeremiah Mason, Washington
Allston, Dr. Channing, Rufus Choate, Prescott,
Bancroft, Longfellow, Felton, Dr. Howe, the Nor¬
tons, and others. In short, in 1840-41 he led an
agreeable but not very productive life, enlarging
his acquaintance, and devoting himself to his pro¬
fession.
When the Harrison campaign of 1840 deeply
stirred the whole community, he did not share the
excitement, and it is not entirely certain how he
voted, though probably for Harrison. His letters
to his brother George just before and just after the
election prove him a very early opponent of the
spoils system, but singularly indifferent to the
issues of the contest. The influence of his father
and J udge Story, both Democrats, and the example
of the conservative men with whom he lived may
have promoted this apathy ; but whatever the cause,
at thirty Sumner was a cultivated and scholarly
gentleman, with slight interest in politics. His
ambition was not active, and the success for which
he hoped was purely professional.
He could not, however, live among men and
not concern himself in their problems. He was
PROFESSIONAL LIFE
29
essentially unselfish, and one is struck, in read¬
ing his letters between 1841 and the summer of
1845, with the breadth of his sympathies, the
warmth of his feelings, the catholicity of his tastes.
He corresponded constantly with his friends on
both sides of the ocean. He interested himself in
all their projects, lent them cordial assistance,
rejoiced in their success, and was ever ready to
praise them generously. He spoke ill of none, and
showed no trace of jealousy nor of the selfishness,
indolence, or preoccupation which leads men to
neglect the calls of private or public duty. To
help Crawford he raised the money to buy his
Orpheus for the Boston Athenaeum, and secured
him many commissions. He brought substantial
aid to Horace Mann in his struggle to improve the
methods of education in Massachusetts. He was
strongly interested in Dr. Howe’s work for the
blind. He rejoiced in the success of Longfellow’s
poems, of Hillard’s oration before the Phi Beta
Kappa society at Cambridge, of Prescott’s “ Con¬
quest of Mexico,” and in his letters he recounts with
sincere delight the praises which they received. Dr.
Howe, who was one of Sumner’s warmest friends,
wrote to him : —
“ I know not where you may be or what you may
be about ; but I know what you are not about.
You are not seeking your own pleasure or striving
to advance your own interests ; you are, I warrant
me, on some errand of kindness — some work for
a friend or for the public.”
30
CHARLES SUMNER
It was thus intellectually impossible for Sumner
not to be interested in every great question which
divided the community, and soon we find in his
letters decided views on slavery and the questions
arising from anti-slavery agitation. He was drawn
into the contest gradually, and only by his sense
of public duty.
After the treaty of 1841 between Great Britain,
Russia, Austria, and Prussia for the suppression
of the slave trade, the slavers often hoisted the
American flag to avoid arrest and search. Any
vessel belonging to the treaty powers might easily
defy their authority if this ruse protected it against
search, and England therefore claimed the right to
stop and examine suspected vessels. If they were
found to be American, no right to interfere with
them was asserted. This claim led to a diplomatic
discussion, and Sumner supported the English con¬
tention in two careful articles. On the same side
were Kent, Story, Prescott, and Rufus Choate ; but
Webster, then secretary of state, took the opposite
view, and England tacitly waived her claim.
About this time a number of slaves on the way
from Hampton Roads to New Orleans in the brig
Creole mutinied, and carried the vessel into Nas¬
sau. There by English law the slaves became free,
and the British government refused to surrender
them. Mr. Webster maintained that, as their free¬
dom was won by mutiny, the British government
was bound by the comity of nations to aid the offi¬
cers of the ship in asserting their authority and not
PROFESSIONAL LIFE
31
to interfere with the status of persons on hoard.
Dr. Channing in a vigorous pamphlet attacked this
position, and Sumner, who assisted in preparing
it for the press, was strongly enlisted in support
of Dr. Channing, and expressed his views in con¬
versation, in letters, and in the press.
He followed with admiration and sympathy the
course of John Quincy Adams in his heroic and
persistent struggle for the right of petition. He
was as yet only a student, hut his study of the
questions which constantly arose was rapidly pre¬
paring him to act.
When the Boston “ Advertiser ” took the ground
that slavery was a local institution concerning only
the inhabitants of the slave States, Sumner replied
on January 10, 1843, saying : —
“ The opponents of slavery in the free States
recognize the right of all States to establish within
their own borders such institutions as they please ;
and they do not seek, either through their own legis¬
latures or through Congress, to touch slavery in
the States where it exists. But while they abstain
from all political action in these States, they do not
feel called upon to suppress their sympathy for the
suffering slave, nor their detestation of the system
which makes him a victim. . . . Slavery is, on sev¬
eral grounds, distinctly within the jurisdiction of the
United States, of which the free States are a part.
It is a national evil, for which to a large extent
the nation and all its parts are responsible, and
which to a large extent the nation may remove.”
32
CHARLES SUMNER
As legitimate subjects of discussion in the free
States he named slavery in the District of Colum¬
bia, slavery in the territories, the slave trade be¬
tween our own ports, the rendition of fugitive
slaves, the laws of the slave States abridging the
rights of colored persons who were citizens of the
free States, the conditions to be made on admitting
new States, and the amendment of the Constitu¬
tion.
“ It cannot be doubted,” he said, “ that the Con¬
stitution may be amended so that it shall cease
to render any sanction to slavery. The power to
amend carries with it the previous right to inquire
into and discuss the matter to be amended, and
this right extends to all parts of the country over
which the Constitution is spread, — the North as
well as the South.”
This is a clear statement of the lines within which
Sumner’s action against slavery was always con¬
fined.
Early in 1844 he undertook to edit Vesey’s Re¬
ports, in twenty volumes with original notes, agree¬
ing to prepare a volume every two weeks. This
was a tremendous undertaking, under which his
health broke down. In 1843 and 1844 he suffered
from despondency, and after completing four vol¬
umes of the Reports, he became seriously ill in
June, 1844. In July his friends thought that he
was dying of consumption, the disease which had
proved fatal to others of his family. At the end
of the month, however, he began to recover, and
PROFESSIONAL LIFE
33
regained his strength so rapidly that in November
we find him trying an important patent case against
Franklin Dexter, which he won after eleven days
of trial and an argument of ten hours. His spirits
did not immediately revive with his strength, for
we find him in August writing to Dr. Howe : —
“ Since my convalescence I have thought much
and often whether I have any just feeling of grati¬
tude that my disease was arrested. Let me con¬
fess to you that I cannot find it in my bosom. . . .
Why was I spared? For me there is no future,
either of usefulness or happiness.”
His illness doubtless helped to keep him a spec¬
tator during the great campaign of 1844. He had
no sympathy with the Whigs in their position on
the tariff, but he shared the views of men like
Adams and Giddings on the slavery question, and
regarding this as the important issue he hoped for
the election of Clay. Late in 1844 he resumed
his work upon Vesey, of which a part had been
edited by others during his illness, and completed
it in the spring of 1845. With this his career as
a lawyer practically closed. He had reached the
threshold of his public life.
CHAPTER IV
ENTKANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE
Sumnek’s opportunity came when he was invited
to deliver the annual oration in Boston on the
Fourth of July, 1845. He accepted the invitation,
and his oration gave him at once a new position
in the community. He stated his subject thus :
“ What in our age are the true objects of national
ambition — what is truly national honor, national
glory ; what is the true grandeur of nations ? ”
The political situation at the time gave the subject
“ an urgent interest,” for wars with Mexico about
Texas, and with England over the northwestern
boundary were then threatened. “Mexico and
England,” he said, “ both avow the determination
to vindicate what is called the national honor ;
and our government calmly contemplates the arbit¬
rament of war, provided it cannot obtain what is
called an honorable peace.” Hence he was brought
to consider the question, “ Can there be in our age
any peace that is not honorable, any war that is not
dishonorable ? ”
His oration was an argument against war, in
which its horrors, its failure to accomplish its ob¬
jects, its wickedness, its waste, its absurdity, were
ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE
36
all set forth. A speech in praise of peace would
doubtless have passed unchallenged, but Sumner’s
method excited warm opposition. Seeking to be
clear, he spoke to an audience as he thought to
himself, without reserve or regard for the feelings
of others. He stated the truth as he saw it, never
thinking that the truth upon a public question
could offend any one. The address was carefully
prepared : it was enriched with quotations and il¬
lustrations from the history and literature of every
nation and every time, and inspired throughout
with a lofty purpose and sincere moral enthusiasm.
Its statements were true and its arguments sound.
It was more rhetorical perhaps than suits the taste
of to-day, but its views were in harmony with those
of Franklin, whose famous saying, “ There never
was a good war or a bad peace,” has left no stain
on his reputation for rare wisdom.
But among Sumner’s auditors were officers of
the army, navy, and state militia, while the Wash¬
ington Light Guard, in full uniform, sat directly
before him. These gentlemen, conscious of their
becoming raiment, were irritated when they heard
the orator say : “ Peaceful citizens volunteer as sol¬
diers, and affect in dress, arms, and deportment
‘ the pride, pomp, and circumstance of glorious
war ; ’ ” and when he spoke of such warriors as
men “ closely dressed in padded and well-buttoned
coats of blue ‘ besmeared with gold,’ surmounted by
a huge mountain cap of shaggy bear-skin, with a
barbarous device typical of brute force, a tiger
painted on oilskin, tied to their backs.”
36
CHARLES SUMNER
The regular officers felt themselves personally
insulted by his questions : “ What use is the stand¬
ing army of the United States ? What use is the
navy of the United States ? ” Not even the famous
passage, which showed that the annual cost of the
battleship Ohio would support four institutions like
Harvard College, found favor in their ears, and
their criticism of the speaker was sharp.
The oration was received on both sides of the
ocean with every variety of approval and disap¬
proval, but all agreed that Sumner had shown
rare courage, high purpose, and marked eloquence.
From that time he was strong in the support of
generous youth. He had learned his own power
as an orator, until then not suspected ; he had
found that there was an audience ready to sympa¬
thize with his highest aims, and he stepped at once
into the position of a recognized leader.
While he was delivering his address in the Tre-
mont Temple, the convention was assembling in
Texas to ratify her annexation to the United
States, and to frame her constitution. The great
contest which was to end in the civil war was just
beginning. “ The hour and the man ” were both
come.
A brief review may recall the political situation.
From the adoption of the Missouri Compromise in
February, 1821, until January, 1836, slavery ex¬
cited no serious discussion in Congress. The wise,
however, knew that the conflict between freedom
and slavery was irrepressible. On May 1, 1833,
ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE
37
Andrew Jackson, fresh from crushing nullification,
wrote : “ The tariff was only the pretext, and dis¬
union and a Southern Confederacy the real object.
The next pretext will be the negro or slavery
question.” The great political parties ignored the
issue, but forces were at work beyond their control.
Lundy and Garrison began an agitation which led
to the formation of anti-slavery societies. In a
convention held at Baltimore in 1826, eighty-one
such societies were represented, of which seventy-
three were in slaveholding communities. In Janu¬
ary, 1831, Garrison began to publish “ The Liber¬
ator ” in Boston. In November the New England
Anti-Slavery Society was founded. In 1833 the
New York Anti-Slavery Society was formed, and
a convention at Philadelphia established the Ameri¬
can Anti-Slavery Society. These societies took the
ground that slavery was wrong and should at once
be abolished ; that the existing States had the
exclusive right to legislate within their own limits,
but that Congress had and should exercise the
power to suppress the slave trade between the
States, and to abolish slavery in the District of
Columbia and in the territories. A single sen¬
tence from the declaration of principles adopted by
the American Society summed up their position : —
“We also maintain that there are at the pre¬
sent time the highest obligations resting upon the
people of the free States to remove slavery by moral
and political action, as prescribed in the Constitu*
tion of the United States.”
38
CHAKLES SUMNER
Thus a few private citizens of little influence and
small means undertook to grapple with a gigantic
evil, supported by the political, social, and business
powers of the country. They were individually
pure, kindly, law-abiding, actuated only by a lofty
patriotism : they saw the wrong clearly and they
spoke very plainly. This force operating steadily
upon the conscience of the country began to make
itself strongly felt about twelve years after the
Missouri Compromise.
In August, 1831, occurred the slave insurrection
in Virginia led by Nat Turner, in which some sixty-
one white persons were killed. It was promptly
suppressed, ljut it left all over the South a sense. of
insecurity, “ a suspicion, ” as one Southern speaker
said, “ that a Nat Turner might be in every fam¬
ily,” and that the materials for insurrection “were
spread through the land, and were always ready for
a like explosion.” While, therefore, the methods
of the abolitionists were peaceful and lawful, they
were none the less irritating to the slaveholders,
both because they felt the difficulty of defending
slavery on moral grounds, and because they dreaded
the effect of agitation upon their slaves.
Many Southern men were opposed to slavery ;
but the majority of the people, everywhere, were
willing to acquiesce in a system which it seemed im¬
possible to change without a disastrous disturbance
of business and political relations. Many thought
with Edward Everett that “ the great relation of
servitude in some form or other, with greater or
ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE
39
less departure from the theoretic equality of men, is
inseparable from our nature ; ” that “ it is a condi¬
tion of life as well as any other, to be justified by
morality, religion, and international law ; ” and that
it was right “ to abstain from a discussion which by
exasperating the master can have no other effect
than to render more oppressive the condition of
the slave ; and which if not abandoned there is
great reason to fear will prove the rock on which
the Union will split.” To these men the abolition¬
ists seemed reckless incendiaries, endangering the
Union and inviting general calamity without bene¬
fit to the slaves.
The abolitionists held meetings and circulated
papers attacking slavery. Their meetings were
broken up, their houses were sacked, their presses
were destroyed, their buildings burned. Garrison
was dragged through the streets of Boston, Love-
joy was killed in Illinois, and anti-slavery agitation
was met by mob violence in almost every Northern
State. These demonstrations were encouraged by
the press, and in many cases by respectable citi¬
zens, though such violence was an admission that
the abolitionists were breaking no law. They were
mobbed, because they could not be prosecuted.
Southern postmasters took anti-slavery publications
from the mails. The Postmaster-General, Amos
Kendall, admitted that this was illegal, but de¬
clined to condemn his subordinates for their acts,
saying : “ By no act or direction of mine, official or
private, could I be induced knowingly to aid in
40
CHARLES SUMNER
giving circulation to papers of this description,
directly or indirectly.”
The anti-slavery men sent petitions to Congress
praying for such action against slavery as Congress
had power to take, and these led to the struggle
over the right of petition, in which John Quincy
Adams won a new claim to the gratitude of his coun¬
trymen. The Twenty-fourth Congress, on May 26,
1836, after prolonged and bitter contest, adopted
the rule, that all petitions, memorials, or papers
relating in any way to slavery, be laid on the table
without being debated, printed, read, or referred,
and that no action be taken thereon. Against this
rule Mr. Adams waged unrelenting war until, in
the second session of the Twenty-eighth Congress,
it was abandoned.
The legislatures of the Southern States called
upon the Northern States to pass laws which
should make anti-slavery agitation criminal, but
such efforts to abridge the rights of citizens fed
the flame of abolition, and attempts to enforce the
Fugitive Slave Law intensified the popular feeling
on both sides. The laws of Southern States, under
which free colored men were imprisoned who were
employed in vessels visiting their harbors, caused
great indignation, which was very much increased
when Samuel Hoar, sent by Massachusetts to test
the validity of such imprisonment, was expelled
from South Carolina. The practical result of the
abolition movement from 1830 to 1845 was to
create wrath on both sides, to enlist against slav-
ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE
41
ery many excellent men who opposed it because
it wronged the slaves, and many others because it
endangered the rights of free citizens. The slave¬
holders, dreading discussion, undertook to prevent
it, and hence attacked freedom of speech, the right
of petition, the inviolability of private correspond¬
ence, and finally the right to a hearing in court.
There was no escape from their dilemma. They
could not prevent the discussion of slavery with¬
out depriving their fellow citizens of constitutional
rights. They could not permit it without exposing
slavery to the force of public opinion, which must
inevitably destroy it.
From the beginning the supporters of slavery
saw that they must keep their power in the Senate,
where States counted, not voters. Hence they re¬
sisted the admission to the Union of any free State,
unless at the same time a slave State was added;
and Texas, large enough for several States, natu¬
rally tempted them. No sooner was its independ¬
ence proclaimed in 1836 than Mr. Calhoun declared
in favor of annexing it. Slavery had been abol¬
ished in Mexico in 1829, when Texas was a part
of that country ; but Texas had been settled largely
by emigrants from the Southwestern States, who
took their slaves with them, so that slavery existed
there when it became independent. The election of
President Harrison in 1840 delayed the agitation
for annexation, but in 1843 President Tyler’s ad¬
ministration was found friendly to the scheme, and
the movement began in earnest. Mr. Upshur, the
4r2
CHARLES SUMNER
secretary of state, in August, 1843, wrote to our
diplomatic representative in Texas that “ few
calamities could befall this country more to be
deplored than the abolition of slavery in Texas ; ”
and three months later he said: “ We regard annex¬
ation as involving the security of the South.”
Mr. Calhoun succeeded Mr. Upshur in March,
1844, and on April 12 he concluded a treaty of
annexation, which was defeated in June, after a
discussion which aroused great public excitement.
The election of 1844 resulted in the choice of Mr.
Polk, upon a platform which favored annexation
at the earliest possible moment. President Tyler
in his annual message urged immediate action, and
at the next session of Congress a joint resolution
annexing Texas was passed, receiving the Presi¬
dent’s approval on March 2, 1845. Every friend
of slavery regarded the result as a great victory ^
every friend of freedom was cast down. The
Whig party as a whole had opposed the measure,
while the Democrats supported it.
It was in the autumn of 1845, after the annexa¬
tion of Texas and before the struggle over her
admission as a State, that Charles Sumner entered
the arena. The friends of slavery had succeeded
in moving him, when the abolitionists had failed.
His attitude was described by himself a few years
later : —
“ I have ever entertained a strong attachment
for the Constitution and the Union. I am a Con¬
stitutionalist and a Unionist, but have felt it to
ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE
43
be our duty at the North, according to the words
of Franklin, to step to the ‘ very verge of the Con¬
stitution in discouraging every species of traffic in
our fellow men.’ ... In the autumn of 1845,
when the question arose of the annexation of
Texas with a slaveholding constitution, I spoke at
a meeting called in Faneuil Hall to oppose it.
This was the first political meeting in which I had
ever taken any part ; nor had I ever before sought
to express in public my opposition to slavery. In
short, there had never before been any occasion in
which I was disposed to participate. I had no
relish for the strife, nor did I coincide in views
with those who conducted the anti-slavery move¬
ment.”
The autumn of 1845 was a critical time. As
the free States had a majority in the House, many
Whig leaders felt that the admission of Texas as a
slave State could be prevented. Early in that year
the Massachusetts legislature had denied the law¬
fulness of the annexation, and had declared the
opposition of the State to the extension of slavery.
The most conservative classes supported this posi¬
tion. Up to this time the Whigs of Massachusetts
had been substantially united. When, however, the
resolution of annexation had passed, differences at
once appeared. The Whig leaders desired to take
up other questions, as was indicated by Mr. Win-
throp’s toast on the Fourth of July, “ Our Coun¬
try, however bounded ; ” but the younger members
of the party, led by Charles Francis Adams, John
44
CHARLES SUMNER
G. Palfrey, Henry Wilson, E. K. Hoar, K. H
Dana, Jr., and others were determined to oppose
the admission of Texas with a slave constitution.
Sumner was made a member of a state committee
appointed to organize the opposition. In the work
of this committee, he took an active part, and
drew the resolutions presented at a meeting in
Faneuil Hall, on November 4, 1845. These reso-
lutions, which were his first contribution to the
anti-slavery contest, are characteristic. His whole
argument, unchanged thereafter during his life,
rested on his first proposition : that “ the Govern¬
ment and Independence of the United States are
founded on the adamantine truth of Equal Bights
and the Brotherhood of All Men^ declared on the
4th of July, 1776, a truth receiving new and con¬
stant recognition in the progress of time, and which
is the great lesson from our country to the world.”
Among the other recitals appear in immediate
sequence the following : “ And lohereas the slave¬
holders seek annexation for the purpose of increas¬
ing the market of human flesh and for extendino-
to
and perpetuating slavery ; —
“ And whereas by the triumph of this scheme,
and by creating new slave States within the limits
of Texas, the slaveholders seek to control the po¬
litical power of the majority of freemen represented
in the Congress of the Union.”
The first statement presents the view and uses
the language of the abolitionists, the second the
argument which appealed to the Whigs as a po-
ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE
45
litical party. The resolutions were a vigorous pro¬
test against annexation on every moral and po¬
litical ground, and Sumner supported them in a
temperate speech, important only as being the first
public statement of his opposition to slavery.
The movement failed of its immediate object,
for in the December following Texas was admit¬
ted as a slave State. But its political conse¬
quences were far-reaching, for it divided the
Whigs of Massachusetts into two parties, some¬
times called the “ Conscience Whigs ” and the
“ Cotton Whigs,” and the breach constantly
widened until the birth of the Republican party.
Sumner appreciated the situation fully. In No¬
vember, 1845, he wrote : “ The spirit of anti¬
slavery promises soon to absorb all New England.
Massachusetts will never give her vote for another
slaveholder. The cotton lords will interfere, but
they will at last be borne away by the rising tide.”
Events moved rapidly, and annexation was
speedily followed by the Mexican war. General
Taylor’s advance into Mexican territory led to a
slight skirmish ; whereupon the President sent a
message to Congress saying that “ war exists, and,
notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, exists by
the act of Mexico herself,” and asking for money.
An appropriation bill, reciting that “ by the act of
the Republic of Mexico a state of war exists be¬
tween that government and the United States,”
was passed, with only fourteen dissenting votes in
the House and two in the Senate. John Davis of
46
CHARLES SUMNER
Massachusetts voted against it in the Senate, and
in the House, J. Q. Adams, with all the other Mas¬
sachusetts members present except two, of whom
one was Robert C. Winthrop.
The Whigs who voted for the bill were con¬
demned by many leaders of the party, and nowhere
more strongly than in Massachusetts. Winthrop,
whose inherited position and natural abilities had
early given him prominence, was especially criti¬
cised and his action was contrasted with that
of Adams. This feeling was first expressed
publicly in an editorial written by Charles Fran¬
cis Adams in the “ Daily Whig.” The “ Ad¬
vertiser,” the recognized champion of the Whig
organization, replied, and then at the request of
friends Sumner took part in the discussion, but
with reluctance, for his relations with Winthrop
had been pleasant, and he did not enjoy personal
criticism. He felt strongly, however, and once
enlisted he wrote as he felt. He expressed for
Winthrop the “personal regard, justly due to
his accomplishments and his many virtues,” but
condemned his vote and questioned his motives,
saying : “ I cannot doubt the integrity of his
character ; but I fear that some thoughts little
worthy of a Christian statesman have intruded
upon his mind. I fear that he was unwilling to be
found alone in the company of truth ; or that he
would not follow truth in the company of those
few men who bore the stain of anti-slavery ; or that
the recollection of the unpopularity of those who
ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE
47
opposed the late war with England frightened him
from his propriety.”
The “ Advertiser ” retorted, and Sumner in the
“ Courier ” repeated his condemnation. These
articles were not signed, but Sumner wrote to
Winthrop avowing his authorship, and expressing
his hope that differences on a public question
would not affect their private relations. Winthrop
replied that Sumner had done him injustice, and ap¬
parently had intended to be personally offensive ;
adding that he regretted the disturbance of their
relations, and hoped that changed circumstances
might reestablish them.
Sumner’s reply was so characteristic that a few
words may be quoted : “In the great public ques¬
tions, on which we are for the moment separated,
I had hoped, perhaps ignorantly and illusively,
that an honest, conscientious, and earnest discus¬
sion, such as the magnitude of the occasion seemed
to require, might be conducted without the sug¬
gestion of personal unkindness on either side. . . .
But the act with which your name has been so
unhappily connected is public property. Espe¬
cially is it the property of your constituents, whose
conscience you represented. I do feel, my dear sir,
that holding the sentiments on this subject which
I do, and which seem to be general in our commu¬
nity, it was a duty to direct them distinctly, une¬
quivocally, and publicly against the act.”
After this note was written, and before Winthrop
replied, Sumner published a third article, in which
48
CHARLES SUMNER
he said that Winthrop’s vote had “ given his sanc¬
tion to one of the most important acts, as it is
unquestionably the most wicked act, in our his¬
tory,” and after describing the terrible concomi¬
tants and consequences of war, proceeded : “ All
this misery has the sanction of your vote, Mr.
Winthrop. Every soldier is nerved partly by you.
. . . Surely this is no common act. It cannot
be forgotten on earth ; it must be remembered in
heaven. Blood ! blood ! is on the hands of the re¬
presentative from Boston. Not all great Neptune’s
ocean can wash them clean.”
It is not surprising that Winthrop, in reply,
charged Sumner with not only criticising his acts,
but attacking his motives, and with proceeding
“ upon the offensive assumption that under some in¬
fluence of ambition or moral cowardice ” he had
“knowingly and deliberately committed an un¬
worthy and wicked act.” He declined further
personal relations with one who had questioned his
integrity, adding, “My hand is not at the ser¬
vice of any one who has denounced it with such
ferocity as being stained with blood.” With this
letter the correspondence ended, and for twentv
years they never spoke to each other. Sumner
continued his strictures, and the discussion widened
the breach in the Whig party.
Space is given to this incident only for the
light which it throws upon Sumner’s character
and methods. It is impossible not to share Win¬
throp’s feeling, that Sumner’s language was incon-
ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE
49
sistent with the continuance of their personal
relations. With many men, the desire to retain
such relations in private, while making such attacks
in public, would imply insincerity. But Sumner
really thought that such language might properly
be used where men of equal integrity differed on a
public question ; that he could discuss whether his
opponent was governed by expediency or coward¬
ice, and that his opponent would regard it as an
impersonal question of general human interest.
This inability to realize his adversary’s feelings
led him often to use strong expressions appro¬
priate to the action attacked, and as often to be
surprised that his words were considered offensive.
His nature was affectionate and kindly, and he was
absolutely sincere, but he lacked the sense of humor,
and this perhaps explains why he so innocently
gave such bitter offense. Living the life of a
student, and much alone, he occupied in thought
the historical standpoint; he applied to current
events and contemporary men the historical treat¬
ment, and what he thought in his closet he said
openly, unconscious apparently that no living
man wished to anticipate the adverse verdict of
history. The controversy with Winthrop changed
his personal relations with many whose friendship
he had valued, but who sympathized with his adver¬
sary. Many such ruptures ensued, especially hard
for Sumner to bear, both because as a bachelor
lie stood more in need of friends, and because he
enjoyed his social relations. But keenly as he felt
60
CHARLES SUMNER
the coldness of former friends, it never affected
his public action.
Sumner’s next noteworthy speech was delivered
before the Phi Beta Kappa Society, at Cambridge,
on August 27, 1846, just after his last letter from
Mr. Winthrop. In this he “ took advantage of
the occasion to express himself freely, especially
on the two great questions of slavery and war,”
but his address was in form a tribute to John
Pickering, Judge Story, Washington Allston, and
William Ellery Channing, four members of the
society who had lately died. He sheltered himself
behind these names in the hope of saying what he
thought without offending his hearers; and his
success was triumphant. Emerson wrote in his
journal : “ At Phi Beta Kappa, Sumner’s oration
was marked with a certain magnificence which I
do not well know where to parallel ; ” and Everett
said : “ It was an amazingly splendid affair. I
never heard it surpassed ; I don’t know that I ever
heard it equaled.”
In September, 1846, for the first time he went
to a caucus, and on the 23d attended as a delegate
the Whig state convention. It was his first ap¬
pearance as a member of a political organization.
The convention was controlled by those who wished
to unite the party on economic and other issues
of general policy. The anti-slavery Whigs were
determined to array it against slavery. The man¬
agers had arranged that Winthrop should address
the convention, but loud calls from the floor brought
ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE
51
up Sumner, and in a powerful speech he contended
that it was “ the duty of Whigs, professing the
principles of the fathers, to express themselves
openly, distinctly, and solemnly against slavery —
not only against its further extension, but against
its longer continuance under the Constitution and
laws of the Union.” He added, “ While it is
their duty to enter upon this holy warfare it should
be their aim to temper it with moderation, with
gentleness, with tenderness towards slaveholders.
These should be won if possible, rather than
driven, to the duties of emancipation. But eman¬
cipation should always be presented as the car¬
dinal object of our national policy.” Winthrop,
in reply, emphasized the questions upon which
the Whigs were united, the tariff, care of the pub¬
lic money, internal improvements ; and the two
speeches brought the views of the two factions
into sharp contrast. The resolutions were then
presented, and the anti-slavery Whigs offered an
amendment expressing the views of Sumner, which
was defeated after a heated debate.
Sumner’s speech gave him a new position. It
was a time when anti-slavery utterances were
rare, and his temperate but unequivocal decla¬
ration of principles came with the ring of sin¬
cerity from one who thought only of his cause and
not of his own fortunes. It appealed to a rapidly
growing party who were tired of compromise and
anxious to attack slavery vigorously, and it won
for Sumner many friends among the young. The
52
CHARLES SUMNER
effect of the debate may be read in Whittier’s
poem, “ The Pine Tree,” written immediately after
reading it.
Winthrop was a candidate for reelection in the
autumn of 1846, and on October 25 Sumner,
in an open letter, arraigned him with increased
severity for his vote on the Mexican war bill.
Those Whigs, who were dissatisfied with Winthrop,
decided to nominate a candidate against him, and
their convention, in which Charles Francis Adams
presided, and John A. Andrew was chairman of
the committee on nominations and resolutions, se¬
lected Sumner. The suggestion, however, having
been made that his attacks on Winthrop had been
prompted by a desire to succeed him, Sumner felt
that he could give no color to this suspicion and
declined the nomination, saying : “ I have never on
any occasion sought or desired public office of any
kind. I do not now. My tastes are alien to offi¬
cial life.” Dr. S. G. Howe was then nominated,
but Winthrop was elected by a large majority.
Sumner took a prominent part in the campaign
and made a speech justifying the opposition to
the Mexican war. This must interest all, who
believe that a patriot is not always bound to sup¬
port the government of his country in war, for
it quotes from speeches of Chatham, Burke, Fox,
and Englishmen like these during the American
Revolution, in which the true duty of a patriot is
defined by men whose sincere patriotism has never
been doubted.
ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE
53
Thus in a single year, from a private citizen
little interested in politics, Sumner had become
an anti-slavery leader in Massachusetts. He could
not be half-hearted, and already in January, 1847,
friends were counseling moderation. He continued
to practice law, but his heart was in the contest for
freedom. During 1847 he wrote in the newspapers
against the war and against slavery. On Febru¬
ary 4, in Faneuil Hall, he urged the immediate with¬
drawal of our troops from Mexico. A fortnight
later he delivered a lecture on “ White Slavery in
the Barbary States,” in which, while painting the
horrors of ' white slavery, he made it clear that it
was not the color of the victim which made slavery
abominable, and answered the familiar pro-slavery
arguments by showing that when used by Algerines
their fallacy was evident. He dealt solely with the
slavery of whites, only alluding to the fact that the
Algerines still had many black slaves enduring
the same hardships. It was an adroit and very
effective object lesson.
The year 1847 was important politically as the
year preceding a presidential election. The Mexi¬
can war was in successful progress and its oppo¬
nents were strongly aroused. Sumner had pre-
])ared some resolutions against it in the spring,
though his authorship was unknown, and these with
slight amendments had been adopted by the legis¬
lature. He offered substantially the same resolu¬
tions at a Whig meeting in Boston. They declared
the war unconstitutional, unjust, and detestable,
54
CHARLES SUMNER
opposed further expenditure for it, called for the
withdrawal of our troops, and opposed the annex¬
ation of any territory either by conquest or indi¬
rectly as indemnity. Sumner and C. F. Adams
supported them, but they were laid on the table.
Sumner, however, was placed at the head of the
delegation, numbering more than one hundred mem¬
bers, which was sent by the meeting to the state
convention.
On September 29, when the convention met
Daniel Webster was present, a candidate for the
next presidential nomination and seeking the in¬
dorsement of his own State. In a speech to the
convention, he took ground against the extension
of slavery, but was evidently averse to affirmative
anti-slavery action. The resolutions declared the
unalterable opposition of Massachusetts to any
acquisition of territory unless on condition that
slavery should be prohibited therein ; but the anti¬
slavery forces were not satisfied, and John G. Pal¬
frey, a member of Congress, offered a resolution,
prepared in conference with Sumner and others,
“ that the Whigs of Massachusetts will support no
men for the office of president and vice-president
but such as are known by their acts or declared
opinions to be opposed to the extension of slavery.”
This was done, as Sumner subsequently stated, “ in
the hope of making opposition to the extension
of slavery a political test at the next presidential
election.” Adams and Sumner supported Palfrey,
and Winthrop opposed because the resolution would
ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE
55
divide the party and elect a Democratic president.
The convention followed Winthrop, but the pur¬
pose of the minority was not affected. Palfrey’s
resolution contained the principle upon which
a new party was soon to be founded, and in
his speech Sumner said : ‘‘ Be assured, sir, what¬
ever the final determination of this convention,
there are many here to-day who will never yield
support to any candidate for presidency or vice¬
presidency who is not known to be against the ex¬
tension of slavery, even though he have received
the sacramental unction of a ‘ regular nomination.’
We cannot say, with detestable morality, ‘Our
party, 7'ight or wrong' The time has gone by
when gentlemen can expect to introduce among us
the discipline of a camp. Loyalty to principle is
higher than loyalty to party.” This contest ended
the struggle within the Whig party. The time was
ripe for independent action.
When Congress met in December Winthrop
was the Whig candidate for Speaker, and was
elected, though Giddings, Palfrey, and Tuck, anti¬
slavery Whigs, refused to support him. Palfrey
was attacked sharply in Massachusetts for voting
against Winthrop and also for voting against re¬
moving the postmaster of the House, who was a
Democrat, and Sumner warmly defended both
votes, stating the true principle of civil service
reform most concisely.
“ It is proper that with a change of policy, as in¬
dicated by a change of parties, the important func-
66
CHARLES SUMNER
tionaries, who may impress their peculiar opinions
upon the country, should be changed. But it is
not just or proper that the humbler office-holders,
who cannot in any way influence those matters on
which parties hinge, should be driven with every
political change from the duties to which they have
just become accustomed, and in this way, perhaps,
be deprived of their daily bread.”
Early in 1848 the Mexican war was ended by
the treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo, which ceded to
the United States New Mexico and Upper Cali¬
fornia in return for a payment of fifteen million
dollars. Should this new area be free or slave soil ?
This question had been raised early in the war.
The President in his message of August 8, 1846,
asking for an additional appropriation, indicated
that the war would result in a change of bound¬
aries, and when the appropriation bill came before
the House David Wilmot, a Democrat, offered as
an amendment the famous “ Wilmot Proviso,”
prohibiting slavery forever in any territory acquired
from Mexico. This gave rise to a contest between
the House and the Senate which lasted through two
sessions of Congress. The result left the question
undecided, and when the new territory, nearly as
large as the thirteen original States, became ours,
the presidential campaign of 1848 had begun.
The territory came to us free. Should it remain
so ? This was the most important question before
the country. Whigs and Democrats alike recog¬
nized that a decided position would alienate some
ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE
57
of their followers, for there was serious disaffec¬
tion in both parties.
The Democratic convention nominated Lewis
Cass, who had declared against the Wilmot Pro¬
viso, on a platform which did not deal with the
question, but denied the power of Congress to
interfere with or control the domestic institutions
of the States. The Whig convention was even
more diplomatic. It nominated General Taylor,
at once a successful general and a Southern slave¬
holder, and adjourned without adopting any plat¬
form, — silent on the great question of the day.
A resolution in favor of the Wilmot Proviso
was voted down. Taylor was put forward as “ the
people’s candidate,” “without regard to party
limits or party questions,” and he claimed “the
right to look to the Constitution and the high inter¬
ests of ” the country “ and not to the principles of
a party ” for his “ rules of action.” The Whig
party thus sought to evade the real issue and to
achieve party success by ignoring principles. Clay
and Webster, themselves candidates, felt the igno¬
miny of the situation and did not disguise their
feelings. Lowell in the “ Biglow Papers ” stated
Taylor’s position thus : —
“Ez to my princerples, I glory
In hevin’ nothin’ o’ the sort ;
I aint a Wig, I aint a Tory,
I ’m jest a canderdate, in short.”
To the conscientious opponents of slavery this
surrender by the Whig party was the signal for
58
CHARLES SUMNER
immediate revolt, announced by Charles Allen and
Henry Wilson in the convention itself.
In Massachusetts the result had been anticipated.
A conference of representative anti-slavery Whigs
held in May decided that if the party nominated
Taylor or any candidate whose opposition to the
extension of slavery was not assured, they would
oppose the nominees and call a state convention.
A call was issued so soon as the result was known,
and on the list of signers Charles Francis Adams
was first and Sumner second. The convention,
at W orcester, was attended by five thousand people.
Sumner was very active in all the preliminary
steps, and his speech at the convention was eloquent
and inspiring.
“ In the coming contest,” he said, “ I wish it
understood that I belong to the party of free¬
dom, — to that party which plants itself on the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
of the United States. I hear the old political saw,
that ‘we must take the least of two evils.’ . . .
• For myself, if two evils are presented to me I will
take neither. . . . There are matters legitimately
within the range of expediency and compromise,
. . . But the question before the country is of
another character. This will not admit of com¬
promise. It is not within the domain of expediency.
To he wrong on this is to he wholly wrong. . . .
But it is said that we shall throw away our votes
and that our opposition will fail. Fail, sir ! No
honest, earnest effort in a good cause can fail. It
ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE
59
may not be crowned with the applause of men ; it
may not seem to touch the goal of immediate
worldly success, which is the end and aim of so
much in life. But it is not lost. ... Fail !.. .
Did the three hundred Spartans fail when in the
narrow pass they did not fear to brave the innumer¬
able Persian hosts, whose very arrows darkened the
sun? Overborne by numbers, crushed to earth,
they left an example greater far than any victory,
and this is the least we can do. Our example
will be the mainspring of triumph hereafter. It
will not be the first time in history that the hosts
of slavery have out-numbered the champions of
freedom. But where is it written that slavery
finally prevailed?”
These words, uttered at the outset of Sumner’s
political career, state the rule of his life. They
express the feelings, too, of those who led the great¬
est independent movement in our history, and give
their reply to the argument by which all such move¬
ments are discouraged.
Sumner threw himself into the contest with
enthusiasm. At Buffalo, on August 9, a national
convention nominated Martin Van Buren and
Charles Francis Adams. Sumner, though not a
delegate, was present and prominent in the coun¬
cils. He presided at a ratification meeting in
Faneuil Hall, where he said that “ a new party ”
had been formed whose leading principle was op¬
position to the extension of slavery and to its longer
continuance wherever the national government was
60
CHARLES SUMNER
responsible for it, thus early stating the position
soon to be taken by the Eepublican party.
In the following campaign he was very active.
He headed the list of delegates from Boston to the
state convention of the Free-Soil party, and was
made the chairman of the state campaign com¬
mittee. During the campaign he spoke all over
Massachusetts, and his speeches added greatly to
his reputation. Sometimes he spoke for three hours
at a time without wearying his hearers, if we may
judge from contemporary testimony, and such at¬
tention is the best proof of eloquence.
The Free-Soilers nominated him for Congress'
against Winthrop, and in accepting the nomination
he said : “ It has been my desire and determination
to labor in such fields of usefulness as are open to
every private citizen, without the honor, emolu¬
ment, or constraint of office. I would show by
example (might I so aspire !) that something may
be done for the welfare of our race without the sup¬
port of public station or the accident of popular
favor.” Defeat was certain, but he felt bound to
lead the forlorn hope, and his letter may well be
commended to all who doubt the wisdom of inde¬
pendent action or feel uncertain as to the duty of
a private citizen.
After his nomination and before his acceptance
Longfellow wrote in his diary : —
“ Sumner stands now, as he himself feels, at just
the most critical point of his life. Shall he plunge
irrevocably into politics, or not ? That is the ques-
ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE
61
tion, and it is already answered. He inevitably
will do so, and after many defeats will be very
distinguished as a leader. . . . From politics as a
career he still shrinks back. When he has once
burned his ships, there will be no retreat. He
already holds in his hands the lighted torch.”
He was defeated, but the campaign gave him wide
influence and national reputation. He had met or
corresponded with Free-Soilers in other States, and
was recognized as the most eloquent among the
leaders in Massachusetts, while he had acquired a
strong hold upon men in every part of that State.
But the loss of friends continued, and while some
thought of Sumner charitably, others shared the
views of a former friend who wrote : “ You and I
never can meet on neutral ground. I can contem¬
plate you only in the character of a defamer of
those you profess to love, and an enemy to the per¬
manency of the Union.”
The year 1848 was a year of hope. All over the
civilized world men believed that the old heaven and
the old earth were passing away. It was a period
of moral and political enthusiasm, and no one sym¬
pathized with the feeling of the hour more keenly
than did Sumner. He hailed the revolution in
France and the similar outbreaks in other countries
as parts of a great movement for freedom, of which
the anti-slavery agitation in America was another
part. He anticipated its speedy triumph, but as we
look around us his millennium still seems remote.
Such hopes as his belong to youth. The old are apt
62
CHARLES SUMNER
to question whether man does improve, and whether
history will not repeat itself indefinitely.
The year 1849 was quiet, politically. The Free-
Soil party kept its organization, and Sumner called
its annual convention to order with a brief speech,
adapting the splendid “ UU lihertas ibl patria ”
by saying, “ Where liberty is, there is my party.”
As chairman of a committee he prepared an address
to the people of Massachusetts in which the party
was “ explained and vindicated,” and which put the
Free-Soil argument with a power and directness
well fitted to arouse public opinion. Sumner had
laid aside the florid diction of his early orations, and
spoke with unfaltering conviction in deadly earnest.
He said of his cause ; “ It can no longer be avoided
or silenced. To every man in the land it now says
with clear, penetrating voice, ‘ Are you for freedom,
or are you for slavery ? ’ and every man in the land
must answer this question when he votes.”
The Free-Soil position was stated thus : “ Wher¬
ever we are responsible for slavery, we oppose it.
Our opposition is coextensive with our responsi¬
bility. In the States slavery is sustained by local
law. . . . We are not responsible for it there. . .
But slavery everywhere under the Constitution of
the United States, everywhere under the exclu¬
sive jurisdiction of the national government, every¬
where under the national flag, is at our own par¬
ticular doors. . . . Nor will this responsibility cease
so long as slavery continues to exist in the District
of Columbia, in any territories of the United States,
ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE
63
or anywhere on the high seas, beneath the protect¬
ing flag of the Republic.”
The campaign of 1849, though involving only state
and local offices, cemented the Free-Soil organiz¬
ation, and kept the national issue clearly before the
people. The direct appeal to the New England
conscience developed anti-slavery feeling, with the
important result that the Free-Soilers and Demo¬
crats began to combine and thus elected many
members of the state legislature. Sumner fostered
this inevitable union as a step in the formation of
the new party. It was by skillfully using the bal¬
ance of power that the Free-Soilers accomplished
results. With the Whigs they sent John P. Hale
to the Senate from New Hampshire, and with the
Democrats they chose Salmon P. Chase senator
from Ohio. These signal victories presaged that
breaking down of party lines which made the Re¬
publican party possible.
During the years after his Fourth of July ora¬
tion Sumner often lectured in various towns
throughout New England. The lyceum was then
in its glory, with its opportunities for educating
public opinion. In May,*1849, he spoke before the
American Peace Society on the “War System of
the Commonwealth of Nations,” his last studied
argument against war. In the same year he argued
strongly before the Supreme Court of Massa¬
chusetts, that under the state constitution no dis¬
crimination on account of race or color could be
made between children entitled to the benefit of
64
CHARLES SUMNER
the common schools. The court held otherwise, but
the discrimination was removed by statute a few
years later. His professional practice does not
seem to have grown during the years from 1845 to
1849. He was learning to realize his true voca¬
tion, and in obedience to the strong impulses of
his nature was changing from a lawyer into a
political reformer. Gradually, half unconsciously
and at first with great reluctance, he was recogniz¬
ing his real work in life.
CHAPTER V
ELECTION TO THE SENATE
The friends of slavery had hoped to extend the
area of slave territory by the annexation of Texas,
but they were doomed to bitter disappointment.
Gold was discovered in California early in 1848,
and an enormous immigration followed. Among
the newcomers were many from the free States who
had no love for slavery, and many from the slave
States who, expecting to enrich themselves by their
own toil, had no wish to compete with slave labor.
There came also such throngs of lawless adven¬
turers that a strong government became necessary,
and thus California was occupied by a large anti¬
slavery population demanding stable government.
When, after the election of General Taylor, the
second session of the Thirtieth Congress met in De¬
cember, 1848, President Polk’s message stated that
California and New Mexico were still subject to
the provisional governments created during the
war, but that the condition of affairs was such as
to require the immediate establishment of perma¬
nent governments. Thus the question, which the
Whig party had endeavored to evade, confronted
its representatives as soon as the victory was won.
66
CHARLES SUMNER
The President suggested that the line of the
Missouri Compromise should be extended to the Pa¬
cific, to which there should be no serious objection,
since the climate and soil of these regions were such
that slavery could not exist there. This argument,
afterwards so often reiterated, assumed that slaves
could be used only in a climate like that of the South¬
ern States, and in such agricultural labor as thev
performed there. This was a pure assumption and
was not accepted by either side.
Douglas offered bills admitting California as a
State and organizing Minnesota, Nebraska, and New
Mexico as territories. The bill admitting Califor¬
nia said nothing about slavery, but left the inhab¬
itants to deal with it as they chose, and they seemed
distinctly opposed to it. Shortly after the session
began Mr. Benton presented to the Senate a petition
from the people of New Mexico assembled in con¬
vention, asking for the establishment of a civil
government, and saying : “ We do not desire to have
domestic slavery within our borders ; and until the
time shall arrive for our admission into the Union
as a State, we desire to be protected by Congress
against their introduction among us.”
The proposition of Douglas did not satisfy the
Southern slaveholders, who wished to carry their
slaves into the newly acquired territory for which
they had fought the war, and were not willing
to be deprived of this right by the action of the
local population ; nor did it please the anti-slavery
men, who had insisted upon the power and duty
ELECTION TO THE SENATE
67
of Congress to exclude slavery from this territory
whatever the wishes of the local population, and
were not likely to recede at the moment when
such a population begged to be protected against
slavery. The anti-slavery men were determined
and aggressive. Though the House refused Palfrey
permission to introduce a bill abolishing all laws
concerning slavery and the slave trade in the Dis¬
trict of Columbia, a motion made by Gott of New
York instructing the committee on the District of
Columbia to bring in a bill forbidding slavery in
the District was passed by a majority of ten votes,
though it was afterwards reconsidered, and the
committee on territories was instructed to bring
in bills organizing California and New Mexico
as territories, with provisions prohibiting slavery.
Nor were the friends of slavery idle. In the hope
of uniting the South against the North, Calhoun
prepared an address which was signed by forty
members of Congress and which indicated the ques¬
tions on which battle was shortly to be joined. It
was an attack on the North for its aggressions on
the South, asserting that the North had systemati¬
cally disregarded its obligation to return fugitive
slaves, insisting that slaveholders had a constitu¬
tional right to carry their slaves into the territories,
which Congress had denied, and stating the position
of the slavery party in these words : “We hold
that the federal government has no right to extend
or restrict slavery, no more than to establish or
abolish it ; nor has it any right to distinguish be-
68
CHARLES SUMNER
tween the domestic institutions of one State or
section and another, in order to favor the one or dis¬
courage the other.” This address pointed out the
danger that slavery would be abolished by constitu¬
tional amendment, and that thus the owners of
slaves would be driven from the country. There¬
fore it urged a union of Southerners to protect
themselves and their property.
Calhoun’s attempt was defeated by Southern
opposition. Indeed, for the moment slavery was
losing ground, even in its own territory. A con¬
vention in Kentucky, composed of delegates from
twenty-four counties, pronounced it “ injurious to
the prosperity of the Commonwealth, inconsistent
with the fundamental principles of free govern¬
ment, contrary to the natural right of mankind,
and adverse to a pure state of morals,” and de¬
clared “ that it ought not to be increased, and that
it ought not to be perpetuated in the Common¬
wealth.” A Richmond newspaper announced that
“ two thirds of the people of Virginia are open and
undisguised advocates of ridding the State of slav¬
ery.” The like feeling was gaining ground in
Missouri and other border States, and making a
lodgment even further South. A strong pro-slav¬
ery man wrote : “ Maryland, Virginia, North Caro¬
lina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri are per¬
vaded with a feeling of hostility to the institution.”
Such were the conditions just before the strug¬
gle of 1850.
The last session of the Thirtieth Congress left
ELECTION TO THE SENATE
69
the territorial question untouched. President Tay¬
lor, who entered office without a policy, undertook
in the absence of Congress to deal with California
as its people wished, — a course which seemed nat¬
ural to a man of simple and direct character, un¬
familiar with politics. He suggested to the people
that they organize their own government, adopt a
constitution, and then seek admission as a State.
A convention was called by the military governor,
a constitution prohibiting slavery was adopted, the
people accepted it and chose officers, the legisla¬
ture met on December 15, and a few days later
the state government was turned over to the offi¬
cers thus elected. The result was entirely satisfac¬
tory to Taylor, and he wished to proceed in the
same way with New Mexico.
The Thirty-first Congress met on December 3,
and after a long contest Howell Cobb was chosen
Speaker of the House. The President’s message
at once introduced the unsettled question by stat¬
ing that California and probably New Mexico
would shortly apply for admission to the Union.
The action of California had increased the diffi¬
culty of the situation for the South, and slavery
was clearly losing ground. On December 31 the
anti-slavery leaders renewed the motion passed by
the House at the last session, which instructed the
committee on territories to bring in bills organizing
California and New Mexico with slavery prohibited.
On the other side Mason introduced a new fugi¬
tive slave law, while Benton brought in a bill fix-
70
CHARLES SUMNER
ing the boundaries of Texas and authorizing the
payment of a considerable sum to that State for
the release of her claims outside these limits. The
Southern leaders began to threaten loudly that the
passage of the anti-slavery measures would make
secession inevitable. The student of history will
find much that is instructive in their violent lan¬
guage, for their threats were not mere idle bluster.
The great mass of the Southern people indeed was
not affected, but the purpose of the leaders was
genuine, and the experience of the country in 1861
and on other occasions has shown how easy it is
for a body of determined men, controlling a politi¬
cal organization and aided by the press, to carry the
people into a movement which they do not favor.
A disorganized majority in such a case is like a mob
against a regiment.
It is not surprising that the cry of disunion
produced an effect on men in every walk of life,
and that a strong sentiment was created in favor
of some compromise. Under these circumstances,
on January 29, 1850, Henry Clay brought forward
his famous proposition of compromise, embodied in
eight resolutions, which proposed to admit Califor¬
nia without reference to slavery ; to establish ter¬
ritorial governments in the other territory taken
from Mexico, without permitting or excluding slav¬
ery ; to fix the *western boundary of Texas on the
Rio Grande ; to pay a certain amount of her debt
for the relinquishment of her claims beyond that
boundary ; to declare inexpedient the abolition of
ELECTION TO THE SENATE
71
slavery in the District of Columbia ; to forbid the
importation of slaves into the District to be sold
there or carried to other markets ; to pass a more
stringent fugitive slave law, and to declare that
Congress had no power to prohibit the slave trade
between States. This meant the abandonment of
the Wilmot Proviso, to which the legislatures of
all the free States save Iowa stood committed ;
it intrenched slavery in the District of Colum¬
bia ; sanctioned the interstate slave trade ; enabled
the owner to recover fugitive slaves more easily ;
left a large territory, then free, open to the attacks
of slavery ; and in return only recognized the fact
that the population of California had made it a
free State. The new Fugitive Slave Law empow¬
ered a commissioner of the United States, without
a jury, to deliver a man into slavery upon the evi¬
dence of two witnesses that a slave had escaped,
and an affidavit of identity, which was required to
contain “ a general description of the person so
escaping with such convenient certainty as may be.”
The alleged slave was not allowed to testify, and
thus a man could be deprived of his liberty
upon evidence which would not have been ad¬
mitted, and by a procedure which would not have
been legal, if he had been charged with the slight¬
est misdemeanor. The bill contained other severe
provisions. It is unnecessary to repeat the his¬
tory of the struggle in Congress. The measures,
at first defeated as a whole, were afterward passed
separately, and substantially as Clay proposed them.
72
CHARLES SUMNER
Thus the South won a victory more fatal to its
cause than defeat could have been.
The most important feature of the struggle, so
far as it affected Sumner, was the course of
Webster. In his famous speech of March 7, 1850,
avowedly for “ the preservation of the Union,”
Webster supported the compromise, declaring that
he would not vote to exclude slavery from Cali¬
fornia and New Mexico because it was already ex¬
cluded by nature, and he would not “ reenact the
will of God.” He sustained the new Fugitive Slave
Law “ with all its provisions to its fullest extent.”
He condemned the opponents of the law and aU
agitators against slavery with unsparing violence,
and instead of standing as the representative of
freedom he became in the eyes of many the apolo¬
gist of slavery. The speech alienated members
who had looked to him for guidance, and caused
the deepest sorrow and indignation among anti¬
slavery men. It was a powerful influence in break¬
ing up the Whig party, and it opened the door of
the Senate to Sumner.
President Taylor opposed the compromise, firmly
believing that California should be admitted at once
with the constitution adopted by her citizens, and
that New Mexico should be allowed to follow. An
open rupture between him and leading Southern
Whigs was imminent, when his sudden death, on
July 9, 1850, made Millard Fillmore president.
Fillmore appointed W ebster secretary of state, and
from that time the whole power of the adminis-
ELECTION TO THE SENATE
73
tration was used in favor of the compromise. Win-
throp was appointed senator in Webster’s place,
and this created a vacancy in the House, for which
Samuel A. Eliot was nominated by the Whigs and
Sumner by the Free-Soilers. Webster’s great in¬
fluence held the social and commercial powers of
Boston to their party allegiance, and Eliot was
elected in time to vote for the compromise mea¬
sures.
The Free-Soilers of Massachusetts threw their
whole influence against the compromise from the
outset, and Sumner took a prominent part in the
movement. On February 27 in Faneuil Hall they
passed resolutions, drawn by a committee of which
he was a member, insisting that Congress must
prohibit slavery in the territories without conces¬
sion. They tried hard to make the legislature
declare against the compromise, but the Whigs,
who were in control, stood by Webster. Sumner’s
feeling is apparent in his correspondence. In Feb¬
ruary he wrote to his brother : “ The bluster of the
South is, I think, subsiding, though as usual the
North is frightened and promises to give way. I
hope to God they will stand firm. There is a small
body at Washington who will not yield, — the Free-
Soilers.” After Webster’s speech: “Webster
has placed himself in the dark list of apostates.”
In May : “ I am sick at heart when I observe the
apostasies to freedom. There is one thing needful
in our public men, — hachhoney
It was late in September when the contest in
74
CHARLES SUMNER
Congress ended, and its members returned to face
the issues of the autumn campaign. In Massa¬
chusetts the question was, whether or not the State
should approve the compromise and the course of
Webster. On one side was the Whig organiza¬
tion, dominated by Webster and represented by
Winthrop, who was a candidate for reelection to
the Senate. The merchants and manufacturers,
the capitalists, the leaders of the several great pro¬
fessions, men like Rufus Choate and B. R. Curtis,
men of letters like Ticknor, Everett, and Prescott,
with all the influence which such a combination
could command, were enlisted in its support, and
they made their disapproval of their opponents felt
in business and in society.
On the other side were Charles Francis Adams,
Josiah Quincy, Horace Mann, Palfrey, Dana,
Theodore Parker, Samuel Hoar and his sons,
Emerson, Lowell, Whittier, Sumner, Henry Wil¬
son, and a host of others who represented the
moral forces of Massachusetts. Perhaps nothing
better illustrates their feeling than Emerson’s re¬
mark about Webster: “Every drop of blood in
this man’s veins has eyes that look downward.”
The Fugitive Slave Law created intense indigna¬
tion throughout the North, which was increased by
attempts to enforce it. Knowing that public opin¬
ion was against them, those who were charged with
its execution moved with a haste and secrecy abso¬
lutely inconsistent with Anglo-Saxon ideas of lib¬
erty, and every time that a human being was seized
ELECTION TO THE SENATE
75
and hurried back to slavery under the forms of law,
but without any real opportunity to defend himself,
men were taught to hate slavery. In Massachusetts
this feeling was especially strong. Meetings were
held all over the State, the most important, per¬
haps, being that at Faneuil Hall “ for the denun¬
ciation of the law and the expression of sympathy
and cooperation with the fugitive.”
At the Free-Soil convention held on October 3,
Sumner was a member of the committee on reso¬
lutions, and was reelected to the state committee.
A question of practical politics was at once pre¬
sented. There were in both great parties strong
opponents of slavery, who sympathized with the
Free-Soilers, though unwilling to abandon their
party. As Sumner writes after his defeat by
Eliot : “A leading and popular Whig said to me
on the morning of the election, ‘ I must go and
vote against you, though I will say I should rather
at this moment see you in Congress than any per¬
son in Boston; but I stick to my party.’ ”
The bitter feeling of the Whig leaders drew the
party line on that side very sharply. On the other
hand the Democrats, some from sympathy with the
Free-Soil movement, others perhaps because they
saw an opportunity to overthrow the Whig domina¬
tion, were willing to cooperate with the Free-Soilers.
In September, 1849, the Democratic state conven¬
tion had pronounced against “ slavery, in every
form and color.” The question was whether Demo¬
crats and Free-Soilers, united upon the great issue
76
CHARLES SUMNER
of the campaign, should act together. Similar
cooperation in other States had won important vic¬
tories for freedom, and Henry Wilson, chairman of
the Free-Soil state committee, favored it in Massa¬
chusetts. At a meeting of prominent Free-Soilers
to consider its expediency, Adams, Palfrey, Dana,
Samuel Hoar, and others opposed coalition, while
Wilson and others favored it. It was finally de¬
cided that no action should be taken committing
the party, but that each member should be at lib¬
erty to act according to his own sense of propriety.
Sumner wrote to Wilson, saying: —
“ I see no objection in point of principle to
unions in towns, and also in counties, such as
took place last autumn. . . . But it seems to me a
step of questionable propriety for our state com¬
mittee or any number of Free-Soilers to enter into
an arrangement or understanding with the Demo¬
crats as to the disposition of offices. As at present
advised I should be unwilling to be a party to any
such bargain.”
It was impossible at such a time to keep men
who thought alike from acting together. The
Democrats had accepted the principles of the
Free-Soilers, and the latter accepted their votes.
In towns and senatorial districts the combination
was general and the campaign was thorough and
intense. Sumner spoke in various parts of the
State, but his most important speech was made at
Faneuil Hall on November 6. Of it he himself
says : “ It is sometimes said to have made Mr.
ELECTION TO THE SENATE
77
Sumner senator. More than anything else it de¬
termined his selection by the Free-Soil party shortly
afterwards as their candidate. On the other hand
it was often pronounced ‘ treasonable,’ and in sub¬
sequent discussions at Washington, sometimes in
newspapers and repeatedly in the Senate, it was
employed to point the personalities of slave mas¬
ters and their allies.” It put into clear and
strong words what anti-slavery men were think¬
ing ; reflected the intense feeling of the hour, and
showed the people a leader with courage and ability
to speak for them.
He began by stating his position on the coalition
as follows : —
“ At the outset let me say that it is because I
place freedom above all else that I cordially con¬
cur in the different unions or combinations through¬
out the Commonwealth. . . . The friends of free¬
dom may arbitrate between both the old parties,
making freedom their perpetual object, and in this
way contribute more powerfully than they other¬
wise could to the cause which has drawn us to¬
gether.”
He denounced the monstrous provisions of the
Fugitive Slave Law, and declared it unconstitutional
for reasons which he stated at length. His counsel
to resist it was often brought up against him, and
should be quoted : —
“ I cannot believe that this bill will be executed
here. . . . But let me be understood ; 1 counsel no
violence. There is another power stronger than
78
CHARLES SUMNER
any individual arm which I invoke : I mean that
irresistible public opinion, inspired by love of God
and man, which, without violence or noise, gently
as the operations of nature, makes and unmakes
laws. Let this public opinion be felt in its might,
and the Fugitive Slave bill will become every¬
where among us a dead letter. No lawyer will aid
it by counsel, no citizen will be its agent ; it will
die of inanition, like a spider beneath an exhausted
receiver.
“ It rests with you, my fellow citizens, by word
and example, by calm determination and devoted
lives, to do this work. From a humane, just, and
religious people will spring a public opinion to keep
perpetual guard over the liberties of all within our
borders. ... It shall prevent any slave hunter
from ever setting foot in this Commonwealth. . . .
I would not touch his person. Not with whips
and thongs would I scourge him from the land.
The contempt, the indignation, the abhorrence of
the community, shall be our weapons of offense.
Wherever he moves he shall find no house to re¬
ceive him, no table spread to nourish him, no wel¬
come to cheer him. . . . Villages, towns, and cities
shall refuse to receive the monster.”
In answer to the argument of the Whigs that
the compromise ended the slavery contest, he
said : —
“We are told that the slavery question is set¬
tled. Yes, settled — settled^ — that is the word.
Nothing^ sir, can he settled which is not right.
ELECTION TO THE SENATE
79
Nothing can be settled which is against free¬
dom.”
His declaration of principles may he quoted, as
the people of Massachusetts in effect made it their
platform when they sent Sumner to the Senate.
“ We demand, first and foremost, the instant
repeal of the Fugitive Slave bill.
“ We demand the abolition of slavery in the Dis¬
trict of Columbia.
“ We demand of Congress the exercise of its
time-honored power to prohibit slavery in the ter¬
ritories.
“We demand of Congress that it shall refuse to
receive any new slave State into the Union.
“We demand the abolition of the domestic slave
trade, so far as it can be constitutionally reached,
but particularly on the high seas under the na¬
tional flag.
“ And generally we demand from the national
government the exercise of all constitutional pow¬
ers to release itself from responsibility for slavery.
“ And yet one thing further must be done. The
slave power must be overturned, so that the na¬
tional government may be put openly, actively,
and perpetually on the side of freedom.”
A few extracts from a single other passage are
always pertinent : “ The friends of freedom cannot
lightly bestow their confidence. They can put
trust only in men of tried character and inflexible
will. Three things at least they must require :
the first is hachhone ; the second is backbone ; and
80
CHARLES SUMNER
the third is backbone. When I see a person of
upright character and pure soul yielding to a tem¬
porizing policy, I cannot but say, He wants back¬
bone. When I see a person talking loudly against
slavery in private, but hesitating in public and
failing in the time of trial, I say. He wants back¬
bone. When I see a person leaning upon the ac¬
tion of a political party and never venturing to
think for himself, I say. He wants backbone.
When I see a man careful always to be on the side
of the majority, and unwilling to appear in a mi¬
nority, or, if need be, to stand alone, I say. He
wants backbone. Wanting this they all want that
courage, constancy, firmness, which are essential to
the support of principle. Let no such man be
trusted.”
Tlie campaign resulted in the triumph of the
coalition. There was indeed no choice for gover¬
nor ; but the combined Democrats and Free-Soil-
ers had a majority in the legislature. Never had
the W^hig party of Massachusetts known so crush¬
ing a defeat. From the outset the object of the
Free-Soilers had been to elect a senator, and now,
when the victory was won, Sumner was their choice.
The newspaper organ of the party said that this
was “because, while true as the truest to Free-
Soil principles, he was supposed to be less obnox¬
ious than any prominent Free-Soiler in the State
to the Democratic party. He was never identified
with any of the measures of the Whig party, ex¬
cept those relating to slavery. He never entered
ELECTION TO THE SENATE
81
a Whig state convention except to sustain the sen¬
timent, not of the Whig party alone, but of Massa¬
chusetts against the annexation of Texas and the
Mexican war.”
Sumner’s confidential letters, and the contempo¬
rary judgment of those who knew him best, forti¬
fied by the opinion of political opponents, leave
no doubt that he had never desired the place. To
Charles F. Adams, with whom he was in the clos¬
est relations, he wrote : “ My dreams and visions
are all in other directions. In the course of my
life I have had many, but none have been in the
United States Senate. In taking that post I must
renounce quiet and repose forever ; my life hence¬
forward would be in public affairs. I cannot con¬
template this without repugnance.” But from his
associates in Massachusetts, from Free-Soilers else¬
where, from leaders like Chase and Giddings in
Washington, came a pressure which he could not
resist, and when the Free-Soil members of the
legislature by unanimous vote, or according to an¬
other account by eighty-four votes out of eighty-
five, selected him as their candidate, he consented
to stand.
The failure to elect the state officers by the peo¬
ple threw the election into the legislature, and the
Free-Soilers and Democrats at separate caucuses
chose committees to determine how the votes of the
two parties should be cast. It was decided that
the Democrats should name the state officers with
some exceptions, and also the senator for the short
82
CHARLES SUMNER
term which expired March 4, 1851, while the
Free-Soilers should name the senator for the long
term of six years. The belief, however, that Sum¬
ner was more acceptable to the Democrats than
any other Free-Soiler proved unfounded. His ad¬
vanced position on the slavery question, and espe¬
cially his speech against the Fugitive Slave Law,
made some Democrats very reluctant to accept him,
lest they might hazard their relations with the na¬
tional organization by helping to elect a man whom
the Democratic journals of Boston described as “a
disunionist.” He secured a two thirds vote in the
Democratic caucus and his nomination was made
unanimous with only a few dissenting votes, but
after the other officers had been elected by the
combined votes of Free-Soilers and Democrats, it
was found that enough Democrats in the House to
prevent his election refused to vote for him.
There followed a struggle from January 14 till
April 24, 1851. During the contest he was op¬
posed bitterly by the Whigs, who denounced the
coalition as an iniquitous conspiracy, and, smart¬
ing under their recent defeat, spared no pains to
take from the Free-Soilers the prize of victory.
Webster exerted all his influence and seems to
have been joined by Lewis Cass, who represented
a certain number of Democrats. Caleb Cushing
led the Democratic opposition in the House, and it
often seemed that this combination would be suc¬
cessful. But the Democrats did not feel satisfied
with their position in refusing to carry out their
ELECTION TO THE SENATE
83
agreement after all their own candidates had been
elected, and they attempted to meet the difficulty
by offering to vote for some other Free-Soil candi¬
date like Stephen C. Phillips. Governor Boutwell
urged a change, and some of Sumner’s own sup¬
porters were inclined to accept the suggestion.
Sumner himself wrote to Wilson : “ In this mat¬
ter, I pray you, do not think of me. . . . Aban¬
don me, then, whenever you think best, without
notice or apology. The cause is everything. I am
nothing.” The Free-Soilers, however, stood firm,
believing Sumner their best man, and also fearing
that a change might give the Democrats an excuse
for breaking the compact.
Failing with his supporters, his opponents next
sought some concession from Sumner himself.
He was asked by the editor of the “ Times,” a
Democratic journal of Boston, to write a letter
modifying his speech against the Fugitive Slave
Law, so as to make it easier for the Democrats to
support him. He declined, and when the editor
asked him how he would like to see that speech
reprinted in the “ Times,” replied that nothing
would give him greater pleasure. The speech was
])ublished the next day, with the statement that it
contained Mr. Sumner’s deliberate opinions and
the expression of a hope that the Democratic mem¬
bers of the legislature would read it, “ and then
consider whether it is not their duty to vote for
some other person.” The Free-Soil organ accepted
the issue, and likewise published the speech,
84
CHARLES SUMNER
adopting every word of it with enthusiastic ap¬
proval. Individual Democrats and committees
urged him to give some assurance that he would
not agitate the slavery question in the Senate, or
would give other questions precedence ; but he
replied that he had not sought the office, and if
it came to him, it must come to an absolutely
independent man whose opinions were known, and
who would go to the Senate resolved to assert them.
This inflexible determination of Sumner’s sup¬
porters, with considerable pressure from the con¬
stituencies, finally triumphed, and so many of Sum¬
ner’s opponents yielded as to secure his election.
The New York “ Tribune,” then in close alliance
with the Whig party, thus spoke of his victory : —
“ We do not know the man who has entered the
Senate under auspices so favorable to personal in¬
dependence as Mr. Sumner. He has not sought
the office, has not made an effort for its acquisi¬
tion. No pledge has he given to any party or any
person upon any question or measure.”
Sumner received the news of his election at
the house of Mr. Adams, “ with as perfect calm¬
ness and absence of any appearance of excitement
as was possible. There was no change in his face
or in his manner, and the latter was one of per¬
fect quiet and self-possessed dignity.” On the
same day Longfellow writes : “ He is no more
elated by his success than he has been depressed
by the failure heretofore, and evidently does not
desire the office.”
\
ELECTION TO THE SENATE
85
All over the State and the country the result was
hailed with the greatest enthusiasm by the oppo¬
nents of slavery. It was justly regarded as a signal
victory for freedom.
It was the unique beginning of a remarkable
public career. The next campaign in Massachu¬
setts presented for approval the result of the coali¬
tion. Winthrop was the candidate of the Whigs
for governor, while the Democrats renominated
Governor Boutwell. Sumner took no part in the
contest, both because the propriety of his own elec¬
tion was involved, and because he desired to shun
further personal conflict with Winthrop. The
excitement was intensified by the feeling over the
Fugitive Slave Law, and again the coalition car¬
ried the State. Boutwell was reelected by the
legislature, and those Democrats who had refused
to support Sumner were defeated. When, there¬
fore, he took his seat in the Senate on Decem¬
ber 1, 1851, he went there the fully accredited
representative of Massachusetts.
CHAPTER VI
FIEST YEARS IN THE SENATE
The anti-slavery cause had two unfaltering sup¬
porters in the Senate before Sumner entered it,
John P. Hale of New Hampshire and Salmon P.
Chase of Ohio. Hale had great ability and cour¬
age, firm principles, and a caustic wit which made
him a power in debate, but as compared with Sum¬
ner he was critical, not aggressive. The character
of Chase is well known. He had far more skill as
a politician than Sumner, and, though he was an
earnest and uncompromising Free-Soiler, the con¬
test was to him more like a game. William H.
Seward was still identified with the Whigs, though
his speeches showed a clear grasp of the situation and
did much to create and develop anti-slavery feel¬
ing. Sumner brought into the Senate a new force.
In the language of Von Holst, “ The rigid fidelity
to principle and the fiery-spirited moral earnest¬
ness of abolitionism, united to the will and capacity
to pursue political ends with the given political
means, received in him their first representative in
the Senate.” He was no politician in the ordinary
sense. He saw clearly what was right, and he de¬
voted his life with absolute singleness of purpose
FIRST YEARS IN THE SENATE 87
and unwavering courage to the pursuit of the ends
which his conscience approved. To intense convic¬
tion he added a certain lightness of heart, a serene
confidence of ultimate success. It was not so much
that he weighed and disregarded the obstacles and
the personal consequences which daunted other
men, as that they did not present themselves to
him. His gaze was fixed on a distant goal, and he
did not stoop to look at what lay in the path.
When Congress met in December, 1851, more
than a year had elapsed since the passage of the
compromise measures, and meanwhile the Admin¬
istration and the leaders of both parties — Clay
and Webster agreeing with Cass, Buchanan, and
Douglas — had exerted all their influence to unite
the country in support of the compromise. The
great material and political forces of the nation,
with too much assistance from the church, were all
arrayed on the same side. In January, 1851, forty-
four members of Congress, headed by Clay, issued
a manifesto written by Alexander H. Stephens,
deelaring that they would support no man for any
prominent office who was not known to condemn
disturbance of the compromise and further agita¬
tion of the slavery question.
Never was there a more determined effort to
“cry ‘Peace’ when there is no peace.” Never
was clearer proof of Sumner’s rule that “ nothing
can be settled which is not right.” In both Houses
petitions for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law
were presented, and the law was bitterly denounced
CHARLES SUMNER
. 88
by Giddings, Horace Mann, Hale, and others, while
Senator Butler of South Carolina declared his con¬
viction that the attempt to prevent agitation of the
slavery question was absolutely idle. The abuses
attending the attempts to recover fugitive slaves
kept the public excited. Free persons were seized
and deported as slaves. Murders, mob violence,
and lawlessness on both sides aroused the deepest
indignation. The rescue of Shadrach in February,
1851, while under arrest in Boston as a fugitive
slave, led the President to issue a proclamation
calling upon all well-disposed citizens to aid in
enforcing the law, and the secretaries of war and
of the navy issued instructions in aid. Mr. Clay
introduced resolutions calling for information, to
which the President responded by a special mes¬
sage reciting the facts and his action, upon which
ensued a bitter debate in the Senate.
Nor was it only at the North that the compro¬
mise had failed. In South Carolina a convention
declared in May, 1851, that “ the State of South
Carolina cannot submit to the wrongs and aggres¬
sions which have been perpetrated by the federal
government and the Northern States without dis¬
honor and ruin, and that it is necessary for her to
release herself therefrom, whether with or without
the cooperation of the Southern States.” Like
feeling was strong in Mississippi ; but the majority
of the Southern people were not ready for seces¬
sion, and all attempts to secure action in this di¬
rection failed. An active minority, however, re¬
fused to regard the compromise as final.
FIRST YEARS IN THE SENATE
89
It was easier to stay the rising tide than to stop
the discussion of slavery by paper proclamations,
in the face of events like these. It was the indig¬
nation excited by the Fugitive Slave Law — the
public resolve that it should be repealed — which
sent Charles Sumner to the Senate, and which he
went there to express.
When he took his seat the exasperation on both
sides was steadily growing, and the final contest
was beginning. He made his entrance upon the
stage just as Henry Clay was retiring, for the latter
never entered the Senate after the first day of the
session.
On the same day with Sumner, Hamilton Fish
of New York and Benjamin F. Wade of Ohio also
entered the Senate. Chase was already his friend,
and his relations with the families of Seward and
Fish were cordial from the beginning. He took a
chair on the Democratic side next to Chase. Be-
‘ fore him sat Butler of South Carolina, and behind
Chase was James M. Mason of Virginia. Cass,
who presented his credentials, was an old friend,
and Sumner was received very pleasantly by other
senators, by the diplomatic corps, and by many
residents, so that he found himself amid agreeable
surroundings. The social antipathies of Boston
were not felt in the capital, and Boston heard of
his ‘‘ triumphant success in W ashington, social
and otherwise.” In the arrangement of commit¬
tees he was placed at the foot of those on revo¬
lutionary claims and on roads and canals, which
90
CHARLES SUMNER
gave him scant opportunities. His first speech was
made upon a resolution of welcome to Kossuth,
when he came to this country after the failure of
the Hungarian revolution. It was a graceful trib¬
ute to the great Magyar, and in it he took ground
against any departure from our policy of non-inter¬
vention in the affairs of other nations, a position
which many strong supporters of freedom disap¬
proved.
His next appearance was in support of a bill
granting land to the State of Iowa “ in aid of the
construction of certain railroads,” a position which
made him friends in the West and Southwest, but
was used against him at home. Cheaper ocean
postage and other questions of general interest
enofased his attention, but it was not until the end
of May that he said anything even remotely relat¬
ing to slavery. He felt it wise to become familiar
with his colleagues and his surroundings, with the
rules and atmosphere of the Senate, and to show
that he was not “ a man. of one idea,” — a fanatic
at once unreasonable and unpractical. Indeed,
nothing could have injured Sumner’s infiuence in
the Senate or gratified his enemies more than his
rushing prematurely into a debate, or endeavoring
to interject a speech against slavery into a discus¬
sion of some other subject. He did not, however,
forget the cause to which he owed his election.
He meant to be heard before the session closed,
but at his own time, and not mitil the necessary
preparation had been completed.
FIRST YEARS IN THE SENATE
91
His silence was misinterpreted. Before the ses¬
sion was three months old the Whig journals began
to taunt their opponents with Sumner’s failure
to attack slavery. Garrison, at an anti-slavery
meeting, introduced a resolution condemning him,
and Phillips, though opposing it and expressing
his implicit confidence in Sumner, said, “ I think
his course at Washington impolitic and wrong.”
Other friends assured him of their perfect faith, but
none the less impressed on him the importance of
breaking his silence.
As he wrote to John Jay : —
“ Had I imagined the impatience of friends, I
would have anticipated their most sanguine de¬
sires. ... I fear nothing. I am under no influ¬
ences which can interfere with this great duty.
From the time I first came here I determined to
speak on slavery some time at the end of June or in
July, and not before unless pressed by some prac¬
tical question. No such question has occurred, and
I have been left to my original purposes.”
It soon became apparent that an opportunity to
speak would not readily be given to him. On May
26 he presented a memorial against the Fugitive
Slave Law, but on seeking to say a few words he
was interrupted by the president, and only allowed
to proceed on his assurance that he did not propose
to enter into any discussion. He simply announced
his purpose to address the Senate at a later day.
when he hoped for a hearing.
The two great parties held their national com
92
CHARLES SUMNER
ventions in J une, and, differing on other questions,
declared their support of the compromise and their
opposition to any agitation of the slavery question
in almost identical language. Under these circum¬
stances Sumner was obliged to make his own op¬
portunity, and when for this purpose he offered,
on July 27, a resolution requesting the commit¬
tee on the judiciary to consider the expediency of
reporting a bill for the immediate repeal of the
Fugitive Slave Law, both parties were determined
to prevent his speaking. Sumner’s appeal to the
courtesy of his associates fell on deaf ears, and his
motion was defeated, even Hamilton Fish voting
against it.
This action made it very doubtful whether Sum¬
ner would be allowed to deliver his speech. Mason
told him that he might have an opportunity “ next
term,” but not at the current session. Politicians
of both parties were anxious that he should not
speak before the presidential election, and es¬
pecially that he should not be able to put certain
senators on record as to the Fugitive Slave Law.
His failure increased the anxiety of his friends at
home, and he was thus between two fires. But he
never changed his purpose, and in the last days of
the session he secured the floor in the only way
possible. The Civil and Diplomatic appropriation
bill was under consideration, when Hunter of Vir¬
ginia moved an amendment for the payment of un¬
usual expenses in executing the laws of the United
States. Sumner, who was prepared, at once moved
FIRST YEARS IN THE SENATE
93
the following amendment, “ provided that no such
allowance shall be authorized for any expenses in¬
curred ill executing the act of September 18, 1850,
for the surrender of fugitives from service or labor,
which said act is hereby repealed,” and upon this
he made a speech which occupied nearly four hours.
It stands in his works under the title so often
quoted, “ Freedom National, Slavery Sectional.”
This speech and its reception by his opponents
are full of instruction. It is far from being an in¬
flammatory harangue, or even the ordinary speech
of a political partisan. The present Senate on far
less exciting questions is much more violent. It is
an argument such as a thorough student of consti¬
tutional law and history might address to a court
of justice. It is free from all suspicion of personal
bitterness, and it contains no word which could
offend a slaveholder, except as any attack upon
slavery might irritate its supporters. The speaker
did not dilate on the horrors of slavery, nor recite
the crimes of slave masters. The whole subject
was lifted above the plane of political contest into
the serener air of eternal principles, — the atmo¬
sphere of an ideal senate. As Sumner said in his
introductory remarks : “ Slavery I must condemn
with my whole soul ; but here I need only borrow
the language of slaveholders ; nor would it accord
with my habits or my sense of justice to exhibit
them as the impersonation of the institution — Jef¬
ferson calls it the ‘ enormity ’ — which they cherish.
Of them I do not speak. But without fear and
94
CHARLES SUMNER
without favor, as without impeachment of any per¬
son, I assail this wrong.”
He showed by abundant authority that slavery
was not recognized in the Constitution, and that
Congress had no power to establish it. Thence
he argued that it could not legally exist where the
jurisdiction of the national government was ex¬
clusive. He traced the history of the provision as
to persons “ held to service or labor,” arguing that
it was not among the compromises of the Consti¬
tution, but that it was only a compact between
the States like the kindred provision for the ex¬
tradition of criminals, and that Congress had no
power to enforce it. He’ took the ground that the
Constitution only prevented the States from mak¬
ing laws which should discharge from service or
labor a person held thereto in any other State, and
that the States alone had power to pass laws for
the rendition of such persons. For these reasons
and because it committed the great question of
personal liberty “to the unaided judgment of a
single petty magistrate,” denying a trial by jury,
he contended that the Fugitive Slave Law was
unconstitutional. He cited authority for the propo¬
sition that an unconstitutional law need not be
obeyed, and insisted that a law which could not be
enforced without outraging the public conscience
and exciting dangerous commotions should not be
left upon the statute-book, quoting with approval
the remark of Senator Butler of South Carolina,
that “a law which can be enforced only by the
bayonet is no law.”
FIRST YEARS IN THE SENATE
95
In conclusion he maintained that a law which
required men to stifle their natural sympathy with
a fugitive slave was contrary to the divine law and
not to be obeyed ; but it was passive, not active,
resistance which he counseled.
“ By the supreme law which commands me to do
no injustice, by the comprehensive Christian law
of brotherhood, hy the Constitution which I ham
sworn to support^ I am bound to disobey this act.
Never, in any capacity, can I render voluntary aid
in its execution. Pains and penalties I will en¬
dure, but this great wrong I will not do.”
The speech was fortified by copious quotations
from the leaders of human thought ; it tried slavery
and the Fugitive Slave Law by unchangeable prin¬
ciples of law, morals, and religion, and it was char¬
acterized throughout by loftiness of spirit and deep
conviction. It was a thoroughly dignified presen¬
tation of the speaker’s case, yet its delivery de¬
manded high courage.
A debate followed in which several Southern
senators were offensively personal, but nothing in¬
dicated that the speech had aroused any serious
bitterness. It was received bv Sumner’s Free-Soil
colleagues, and by the opponents of slavery on
both sides of the water, with great enthusiasm, and
it made many converts. From this time he was
the acknowledged representative in the Senate of
the moral forces opposed to slavery, — the embod¬
ied conscience of the anti-slavery movement.
The adjournment of Congress a few days later
96
CHARLES SUMNER
set the leaders of the two parties free to enter the
presidential campaign of 1852. Dividing upon
all other issues, they united in declaring that the
slavery question was finally settled by the compro¬
mise of 1850. The campaign tested severely the
conscience of the country, for the feeling against
slavery was shared by Whig and Democrat alike,
yet no one could vote either party ticket without
pledging himself, so far as a vote could pledge
him, to do nothing against it. The Free-Soilers
had formed alliances here with the Whigs and
there with the Democrats on the question of free¬
dom. In certain localities these alliances promised
the election of anti-slavery candidates, but how
could Free-Soilers act with men committed by their
party platforms to oppose any one willing even to
discuss slavery ?
From the beginning Sumner consistently favored
independent action both in private and in public.
This view prevailed, and in August the Free-
Soilers in national convention nominated John P.
Hale and George W. Julian for president and vice-
president. Two weeks after Congress adjourned
the Free-Soilers of Massachusetts nominated an
independent state ticket. At this convention Sum¬
ner made his first appearance after his speech in
the Senate, and in a short but very effective ad¬
dress advocated a new party, “ a party of freedom,”
encountering the time-dishonored argument, that in
this country there can be only two parties, so in¬
sistently put forth by the politician to hold his
wavering followers, saying : —
FIRST YEARS IN THE SENATE
97
“ At the present time in our country there exists
a deep, controlling, conscientious feeling against
slavery. You and I, sir, and all of us, confess
it. . . . If not through the old parties then omr
the old parties this irresistible current shall find
its way. It cannot be permanently stopped. If
the old parties will not become its organs they must
become its victims. The party of freedom will
certainly prevail.”
Seward did not share his views, but actively sup¬
ported the Whig candidates, and after the election
said : “ No new party will arise, nor will any old
one fall. The issue will not change. We shall go on
much as heretofore, I think, only that the last effort
to convert the Whig party to slavery has failed.”
Mr. Seward with his varied and great abilities
lacked prophetic instinct; yet the campaign of 1852
seemed to justify his opinion. The Free-Soilers,
weakened by the return of the “ Barn-Burners ” in
New York to the Democratic party, cast hardly
more than half as many votes as they had four years
before, losing ten thousand votes in Massachusetts.
The Whigs carried only Vermont, Massachusetts,
Kentucky, and Tennessee, though in the popular
vote they were but two hundred thousand behind
the Democrats. In Massachusetts a certain alliance
with the Democrats continued, but the Whigs
secured a small majority in the legislature and
elected all the members of Congress save two.
They therefore secured the state offices and elected
Edward Everett to the national Senate. But in
98
CHARLES SUMNER
many districts the vote was close and the victory
was not overwhelming.
Sumner took no part in the contest after his
speech at the convention. Campaign speaking was
naturally distasteful to him, and not being a prac¬
tical politician he was slow to recognize the claims
which his political associates made upon their
leader. His inaction gave rise to many complaints
from his supporters, and for a while his hold upon
some of them was weakened.
At the next session of Congress the question of
slavery was not discussed, and Sumner preserves in
his works only two contributions to the debates.
One of these was a short speech in support of reso¬
lutions offered by Chase against secrecy in proceed¬
ings of the Senate, in which he said : —
“ Executive sessions with closed doors, shrouded
from the public gaze and public criticism, consti¬
tute an exceptional part of our system, too much
in harmony with the proceedings of other govern¬
ments less liberal in character. The genius of our
institutions requires publicity.”
His first Congress established his position and
demonstrated his courage and ability, and at its
close he was able to say, “ With most of the South¬
ern men my relations have been pleasant.” Per-
haj^s his opponents were more ready to treat him
with indulgence because he was one of an insignifi¬
cant minority, while they were in control of the
government. This good feeling, however, in the
nature of things could not endure.
FIRST YEARS IN THE SENATE
99
Though the Whigs elected the legislature of
Massachusetts in 1852, the Democrats and the Free-
Soilers carried a proposition to call a constitutional
convention. The primary object was to change the
existing basis of representation, under which the
city of Boston elected forty-four representatives on
a general ticket, to the great advantage of the
Whigs who controlled the city ; but the convention
was called upon to deal with many other proposi¬
tions. It met early in May, and finished its work
on August 1, 1853. Among its members were
many of the ablest men in the State, and its dis¬
cussions were interesting. Marshfield, the home of
Daniel Webster, chose Sumner as its representa¬
tive by a very large majority over Webster’s son, a
result which was hailed with satisfaction as the
verdict of his townsmen on Webster. Sumner’s
principal contribution to the discussions was a
speech in favor of dividing the State into equal
^ districts according to population, and letting each
district choose its representative. In this he dif¬
fered from his party associates and his views did
not prevail, though the district system was adopted
not many years afterward and is still in force.
He advocated the abolition of all distinctions of
race or color in the militia, and as chairman of the
committee on the bill of rights, he made an in¬
structive speech in regard to the history and utility
of such declarations. He was not a leader in the
convention ; though it enlarged his acquaintance
throughout the State, and corrected the impression
100
CHARLES SUMNER
of many that he was a man of one idea, who was
not readily accessible.
The state campaign in the autumn of 1853
turned on the adoption of the new constitution,
and Sumner threw himself into it with vigor,
speaking almost every evening after he began, and
in all the principal cities. His speech was much
admired, and his ‘exertions effaced entirely the
feeling caused by his inaction a year before. The
campaign ended in a Whig victory and the defeat
of the constitution by some five thousand votes.
This result was due to several causes and it ended
the alliance between Democrats and Free-Soilers,
which was replaced in a short time by a union of
anti-slavery men in the party of Freedom. The
Whigs were offensively triumphant and the Free-
Soilers were correspondingly depressed. Neither
dreamed of the political ‘revolution which was im¬
pending.
CHAPTER VII
THE REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE
When the Thirty-third Congress met on Decem¬
ber 5, 1853, the situation was discouraging to the
Free-Soilers. Chase and Sumner stood alone in
the Senate, for Hale had given place to a Demo¬
crat. The country, by the concurrent action of
both parties, had decided that slavery should not
even be discussed. The pro-slavery party, control¬
ling every branch of the government, was able to
make, to execute, and to interpret laws. It wielded
the whole patronage of the nation, and its purpose
to use this power had been declared by the new
secretary of state in the offensive phrase, “ To the
victors belong the spoils.” Indeed, it was the dark¬
est moment of the struggle, not because the slave
power was then most aggressive, but because there
was the least resistance to slavery and the con¬
science of the country seemed dead. The Whig
party had fallen “ like Lucifer, never to hope
again,” but the Free-Soilers had lost rather than
gained strength by its fall. Yet it is in the his¬
tory of the next twelve years that the believer in
free government must always find abundant justi¬
fication for his faith, for it was during these that
102
CHARLES SUMNER
apathy gave place to the consuming fire in which
slavery perished.
The President’s message assured the country
that the prevailing peace would not be disturbed
during his administration, and everything promised
a dull session. Nor was it the enemies of slavery
who renewed the contest. The blow which in the
end proved fatal to it came from its friends. In¬
toxicated with their victory they thought to win
even greater triumphs. Slavery had gained peace
but not territory by the compromise, and its friends
knew that when it ceased to expand it began to die.
Convinced that the surrender of the North was
final, they resolved to assert the equal right of
slavery in all the territories of the United States
and to repeal the Missouri Compromise, which had
consecrated to freedom all the territory acquired
from France which lay north of latitude 36° 30'.
On December 14 Mr. Dodge of Iowa introduced
a bill to organize the territory of Nebraska, which
was in the usual form, with no reference to slav¬
ery. Nebraska was part of the territory from
which slavery was forever excluded by the Mis¬
souri Compromise. The bill was referred to the
committee on territories, and on January 4 was
reported to the Senate with amendments, which
copied from the statutes organizing the territories
of Utah and New Mexico the provision, that any
States formed from the territory should be admitted
into the Union, whether their constitutions pro¬
hibited or permitted slavery. The accompanying
rp:peal of the Missouri compromise los
report said : “ It is a disputed point whether
slavery is prohibited in the Nebraska country by
valid enactment. The decision of this question
involves the constitutional power of Congress to
pass laws prescribing and regulating the domestic
institutions of the various territories of the Union.”
This question the committee did not discuss, pre¬
ferring to follow the policy adopted with New
Mexico and Utah by the compromise of 1850.
The report questioned the power, which Congress
had exercised for years, of regulating the domestic
institutions of the territories and of prescribing the
conditions upon which States should be admitted,
and it set aside the provisions of a statute designed
to be a permanent compact between North and
South, and so regarded for a generation.
As originally printed the bill contained twenty
sections, but a few days later it was again printed
with an additional section, said to have been omit¬
ted by the copyist. This declared the intent of the
bill to be that all questions as to slavery in the ter¬
ritories, and States to be formed therefrom, should
be left to the decision of the people residing therein ;
that all cases involving title to slaves and questions
of personal freedom should be referred to the local
tribunals, with a right of appeal to the Supreme
Court of the United States ; and that the fugitive
slave laws should be executed in the territories as
in the States. These propositions were said to be
established by the compromise of 1850.
Some two weeks later Mr. Dixon of Kentucky
104
CHARLES SUMNER
proposed an amendment that the existing pro«
hibition of slavery “ shall not be so construed as to
apply to the territory contemplated by this act, or
to any other territory of the United States ; but
that the citizens of the several States or territories
shall be at liberty to take and hold their slaves
within any of the territories of the United States
or of the States to be formed therefrom.” This
amendment, if adopted, established slavery every¬
where except in the existing free States.
The next day Sumner offered an amendment
exjoressly providing that the act should not be con¬
strued ‘‘ to abrogate or in any way contravene the
act of March 6, 1820,” known as the Missouri
Compromise. That is to say, the anti-slavery leader
sought to maintain the existing law, while his op¬
ponents wished at a blow to give slavery the widest
possible extension. On January 23, Douglas, from
the committee on territories, submitted a substi¬
tute bill, which divided the territory into two, Kan¬
sas and Nebraska, and in terms declared that the
Missouri Compromise “ was superseded by the
principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly
called the Compromise Measures, and is hereby
declared inoperative.” This measure was approved
by the President, and Douglas moved its imme¬
diate consideration. It was postponed, however,
till January 30, when it was made the special order
from day to day until disposed of.
The claim of Douglas that the Missouri Com¬
promise was in any way affected by the compromise
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 105
of 1850 was a brazen assumption. In the exercise
of its power to govern the territories, Congress
had, in 1820, determined that slavery should be
prohibited in certain territory of the United States,
and should be permitted in certain other territory.
In 1850 it had authorized the organization of ter¬
ritorial governments in Utah and New Mexico,
without settling the question of slavery while they
remained territories ; but had provided that, when
admitted as States, they should be received “ with
or without slavery.” Both measures asserted the
power of Congress to deal with the question, and
between them was no inconsistency.
Nothing in the situation of Kansas and Ne¬
braska made it important to organize these terri¬
tories at once. The Indian commissioner in his
official report of November 9, 1853, made this state¬
ment : “ On the 11th of October, the day on which
I left the frontier, there was no settlement made in
any part of Nebraska. From all the information I
could obtain there were but three white men in the
territory, except such as were there by authority
of law, and those adopted by marriage or other¬
wise into Indian families.” General Houston, who
was' well informed, said that there was not a white
man in Kansas, and by treaty with the Indians
large parts of the territory were given up to them,
from which whites were excluded. It was there¬
fore only a political exigency which led to the intro¬
duction of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. As Douglas
is said to have confessed subsequently, “ his party,
106
CHARLES SUMNER
in the election of Pierce, had consumed all its pow¬
der, and therefore, without a deep-reaching agita¬
tion, it would have no more ammunition for its
artillery.”
The full meaning of the proposed measure was
not immediately appreciated by the Free-Soilers,
and in order to arouse public opinion. Chase, Sum¬
ner, Joshua R. Giddings, Edward Wade, Gerrit
Smith, and Alexander DeWitt, calling themselves
“the Independent Democrats in Congress,” issued
an address to the country. This document, drawn
by Chase, was a strong statement of the situation
and a powerful appeal to the moral sense of the
people. Douglas felt its force, and doubtless it
opened his eyes to the character of the contest
which he had provoked. In opening the debate he
denounced the signers with great bitterness, calling
them “ abolition confederates,” and accusing them
of misrepresentation and calumny. His ill-temper
was perhaps increased by the recollection that, not
five years before, he had said that the Missouri
Compromise “ had become canonized in the hearts
of the American people as a sacred thing which
no ruthless hand would ever be reckless enough to
disturb.” An uneasy conscience, as is often the
case, added venom to his attacks on his opponents.
In reply to Douglas, Chase defended the appeal,
and Sumner supported him with a few words,
saying that the signers had discharged a public
duty. His principal speech against the bill was
made on February 15, and discussed the measure
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 107
itself, expressly declining to engage in any personal
controversy with Douglas. The speech was singu¬
larly dispassionate, a literary and historical treat¬
ment of the question prepared in the closet, and
not an argument glowing with the heat of debate.
He made the character of the Missouri Compro¬
mise as a binding compact clearly apparent; he
insisted that it be maintained, and showed the
gradual change in public sentiment on the slavery
question, until, as he said, “ the original policy of
the government is absolutely reversed. Slavery,
which at the beginning was a sectional institution,
with no foothold anywhere on the national terri¬
tory, is now exalted as national, and all our broad
domain is threatened by its blighting shadow.”
He was studious to state his position without
flinching, yet so as to conciliate rather than offend
his opponents. This he accomplished, and his
speech was approved by his supporters as a clear
and strong statement, while even opponents as bit¬
ter as the Webster Whigs complimented him.
Sumner took no further part in the debate ex¬
cept twice to deny accusations made against him¬
self, and the bill passed on March 4. In the
House the Senate bill could not be reached under
the rules, so an identical bill was introduced and
passed there. This was sent to the Senate in
May, and Sumner spoke briefly against it just
before its passage. He took the opportunity to
present remonstrances from various bodies of citi¬
zens, including some from clergymen of all denomh
108
CHARLES SUMNER
nations. A protest from three thousand New Eng¬
land ministers had been presented by Mr. Everett
earlier in the debate, and in this, as in some of
those presented by Sumner, the signers protested
“ in the name of Almighty God and in his pre¬
sence.” This language was denounced as blas¬
phemous by Douglas and his supporters, and in
answer to their attacks Sumner spoke with dignity
and power. He paid a just tribute to the clergy
of New England. Then keenly appreciating the
situation and accurately forecasting the future he
continued : —
Ah, sir, senators vainly expect peace. Not in
this way can peace come. In passing such a bill
as is now threatened, you scatter from this dark
midnight hour no seeds of harmony and good will,
but broadcast through the land dragon’s teeth,
which haply may not spring up in a direful crop
of armed men, yet I am assured, sir, will fructify
in civil strife and feud. . . .
“ Sir, the bill you are about to pass is at once
the worst and best on which Congress has ever
acted. Yes, sir, worst and hest at the same time.
“ It is the worst bill inasmuch as it is a present
victory of slavery. In a Christian land, and in an
aQ:e of civilization, a time-honored statute of free-
dom is stricken down, opening the way to all the
countless woes and wrongs of human bondage. . . .
“ Sir, it is the best bill on which Congress ever
acted, ybr it annuls all past compromises with slav¬
ery and makes any future compromises impossible.
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 109
Thus it puts Freedom and Slavery face to face,
and bids them grapple. Who can doubt the re¬
sult ? It opens wide the door of the future, when
at last there will really be a North and the slave
power will be broken. . . . Everywhere within the
sphere of Congress the great Northern Hammer
yjill descend to smite the wrong, and the irresisti¬
ble cry will break forth, ‘ No more Slave States ! ’
This lofty defiance, this confident prophecy, so
free from any passion or bitterness, in the very
moment of slavery’s greatest triumph, exactly re¬
presented the rising feeling of the North, and the
speech was cordially applauded.
Up to this time nothing had occurred to disturb
his personal relations with his associates, but the
“ dragon’s teeth ” sprang up sooner than he thought*
On the evening of May 24 Anthony Burns was
seized as a fugitive slave in Boston, and on the
evening of the 26th a meeting of abolitionists was
held in Faneuil Hall. Immediately after this a body
of citizens, among whom were some who had been
prominent at the meeting, attacked the court-house
where Burns was detained, and in the conflict one
of the ofuards was killed. This created intense feel-
ing in Washington, where the news was received
while the memory of Sumner’s speech was fresh in
men’s minds. In fact the speech did not reach Bos¬
ton till the morning after the riot, but it was felt
that the trouble had been inspired by the abolition¬
ists, and it was easy to claim that Sumner’s speech
was responsible for it, especially as he came from
110
CHARLES SUMNER
the city where it had occurred. The organs of
the Administration attacked him fiercely, and some
of the articles suggested personal violence.
Sumner was warned to be on his guard, but he
continued to walk from his rooms to the Capitol
regardless of the threatened danger. At a restau¬
rant where he dined he was menaced, though no
actual assault was attempted. But the feeling of
hostility to him, the idea of holding him personally
responsible for the acts of abolitionists and in¬
flicting upon him physical punishment, had been
planted in the minds of men who were approach¬
ing the time when
“ The war of tongue and pen
Learns with what deadly purpose it was fraught.”
In Boston the majesty of the law was vindicated,
and through crowded streets, but in deep silence
and between files of soldiers, Anthony Burns was
carried back to slavery. For many a spectator
the sight gave a new meaning to the word “ slav¬
ery,” and the incident made many determined abo¬
litionists. Massachusetts and especially Boston
were stirred to their depths.
Supporters and opponents of the compromise
united in a petition for the repeal of the Fugitive
Slave Law, which, bearing many influential names
and twenty-nine hundred signatures, was pre¬
sented in the Senate by Julius Rockwell, who
had succeeded Everett. On J une 26 this petition
was referred to the committee on the judiciary
after some debate, in the course of which Sumner
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 111
spoke in answer to Jones of Tennessee, who had
threatened disunion if the law should be repealed,
and had attacked Massachusetts and her citizens
with some bitterness.
Sumner made a spirited reply in which he
alluded to her revolutionary history, and among
other things said : “ The senator says that Bos¬
ton is filled with traitors. That charge is not
new. Boston of old was the home of Hancock and
Adams. Her traitors now are those who are truly
animated by the spirit of the American Revolution.
In condemning them, in condemning Massachu¬
setts, in condemning these remonstrants, you simply
give proper conclusion to the utterance on this floor
that the Declaration of Independence is ‘a self-
evident lie.’ ”
Mr. Butler of South Carolina at once replied,
claiming that the Revolution was carried through
by slaveholding States, and characterizing Sum¬
ner’s speech as “a species of rhetoric intended
to feed the fires of fanaticism in his own State,”
but “ vapid ” and unworthy of a scholar. Touch¬
ing upon the constitutional duty of the States to
return fugitive slaves, he first asked Sumner’s col¬
league, Rockwell, whether Massachusetts “would
send fugitives back to us after trial by jury
or any other mode,” and receiving no reply he
turned to Sumner and said, “ Will this honor¬
able senator tell me that he will do it ? ” Sumner
answered, “ Is thy servant a dog, that he should do
this thing ? ” This reply excited Butler, and the
112
CHARLES SUMNER
debate became bitterly personal. He attempted
to state Sumner’s position somewhat incoherently,
when Sumner, interrupting, said : “ The senator
asked me if I would help to reduce a fellow man
to bondage. I answered him.” To which Butler
replied : “ Then you would not obey the Consti¬
tution. Sir, standing here before this tribunal,
where you swore to support it, you rise and tell
me that you regard it the office of a dog to en¬
force it. You stand in my presence as a coequal
senator, and tell me that it is a dog’s office to exe¬
cute the Constitution of the United States.”
Mason of Virginia followed in an insolent vein
beginning : “ I say, sir, the dignity of the American
Senate has been rudely, wantonly, grossly assailed
by a senator from Massachusetts, — and not only
the dignity of the Senate, but of the whole people,
trifled with in the presence of the American Senate,
either ignorantly or corruptly, I do not know which,
nor do I care.” Pettit of Indiana compared Sum¬
ner and Webster as a jackal and a lion, or a buzzard
and an eagle. On a later day Clay of Alabama
described Sumner as “ a sneaking, sinuous, snake¬
like poltroon,” and used other like epithets, con¬
cluding : “ If we cannot restrain or prevent this
eternal warfare upon the feelings and rights of
Southern gentlemen, we may rob the serpent of his
fangs, we can paralyze his influence, by placing him
in that nadir of social degradation which he merits.”
Sumner could afford to despise the coarse epithets
of such opponents as Clay and Pettit, but their at-
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 113
tacks followed tke speeches of more important men
like Mason, whose insolence, reflected as it doubt¬
less was in the behavior of many senators, was ex¬
tremely irritating. In fact, the Southern leaders
had so long adopted a domineering manner in de¬
bate, and had assumed for themselves such social
superiority, that men were anxious to have them met
with their own weapons. Public feeling in the
North demanded a champion able to assert at least
the equality of Northern men with their Southern
fellow citizens, and Sumner perhaps felt that his
own position in the Senate and in the country would
be weakened if he seemed unable or unwilling to
face his antagonists. Whatever were the control¬
ling considerations, he departed in this instance
from his previous course, and met personality with
personality. He replied to the claims of Mason
and Butler by facts from the history of their States.
Thus Butler had said : “ Yes, sir, the independ¬
ence of America, to maintain republican liberty,
v/as won by the arms and treasure, by the patriot¬
ism and good faith, of slaveholding communities.”
To this Sumner’s reply was crushing. He showed
by indisputable evidence that Massachusetts alone
not only furnished to the army of the Revolution
thirteen times as many men as South Carolina, but
more than all the Southern States together, though
the populations of the Northern and Southern States
were then substantially equal. Not stopping here
he showed by the memoirs of General Moultrie
and by other South Carolina authorities, that when
114
CHARLES SUMNER
the British were threatening Charleston, the gover¬
nor and council proposed that South Carolina
should remain neutral during the war, and “ the
question whether the State shall belong to Great
Britain, or remain one of the United States, be de¬
termined by the treaty of peace between those two
powers.” He concluded by proving from Southern
sources that the failure of the South to do its share
in the Revolution was caused by slavery, quoting
from the Secret J ournals of the Continental Con¬
gress, —
“ That the State of South Carolina ... is un¬
able to make any effectual efforts with militia bv
*7
reason of the great population of citizens necessary
to remain at home to prevent insurrection among
the negroes, and to prevent the desertion of them
to the enemy.”
He pointed out that Butler had challenged the
comparison, and proceeded : —
“ For myself, sir, I understand the sensibilities
of senators from ‘ slaveholding communities ’ and
would not wound them by a superfluous word.
Of slavery I speak strongly, as I must, but thus
far, even at the expense of my argument, I have
avoided the contrasts founded on detail of figures
and facts, which are so obvious between the free
States and ‘ slaveholding communities.’ . . . God
forbid that I should do injustice to South
Carolina. I know well the gallantry of many
of her sons. ... I have little desire to expose
her sores; I would not lay bare even her na-
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 115
kedness. But the senator in his vaunt for ‘ slave¬
holding communities ’ has made a claim for slavery
so derogatory to freedom, and so inconsistent with
history, that I cannot allow it to pass unan¬
swered. ... I speak here for a commonwealth of
just renown, but I speak also for a cause which
is more than any commonwealth, even that which I
represent ; and I cannot allow the senator to dis¬
credit either. Not by slavery, but in spite of slav¬
ery, was independence achieved. Not because^ but
notwithstanding there were ‘ slaveholding com¬
munities,’ did triumph descend upon our arms.”
Then addressing himself to Mr. Mason : —
“ With imperious look and in the style of Sir
Forcible Feeble, that senator undertakes to call in
question my statement that the Fugitive Slave Act
denies the writ of habeas corpus ; and in doing this
he assumes a superiority for himself which, permit
me to tell him in his presence, nothing in him can
warrant. Sir, I claim little for myself ; but I
shrink in no respect from comparison with that
senator, veteran though he be. Sitting near him,
as has been my fortune since I had the honor of
a seat in this chamber, I have come to know
something of his conversation, something of his
manners, something of his attainments, something
of his abilities, something of his character, — ay,
sir, and something of his associations ; and while
I would not disparage him in any of these re¬
spects, I feel that I do not exalt myself unduly,
that I do not claim too much for the position which
116
CHARLES SUMNER
I hold or the name which I have established, when
I openly declare that as senator from Massachu¬
setts and as man I place myself at every point in
unhesitating comparison with that honorable as¬
sailant. And to his peremptory assertion that the
Fugitive Slave Act does not deny the habeas cor¬
pus, I oppose my assertion, peremptory as his own,
that it does, and there I leave that issue.”
These extended quotations have been made to
show the character and purpose of a speech
which was an important event in Sumner’s life. It
increased the personal hostility to him felt by the
pro-slavery party, and it made him more distinctly
the leader of the anti-slavery forces in Congress.
The feeling in the Senate was so strong that a pro¬
position to expel him was seriously considered. On
the other hand, the applause from the North was
general. The feeling of the time is illustrated not
so much by the enthusiastic plaudits of the active
abolitionists as by the verdict of conservative men,
from many of whom he received letters of warm
approval.
Sumner had won that cordial and enduring
respect which Americans always feel for a man
“ that ain’t a-feared.” He had shown himself not
only a polished scholar and idealist, but a fearless
fighter also ; he had met and withstood the cham¬
pions of the Senate on their own grounds. It was
a triumph for his cause, for his State, and for him¬
self, and it drew from Whittier the lines “ To C.
S.,” which describe him as
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 117
“ One
Who, momently by Error’s host assailed,
Stands strong- as Truth, in greaves of granite mailed ;
And, tranquil-fronted, listening over all
The tumult, hears the angels say. Well done ! ”
During the remainder of the session nothing
very important occurred. There were occasional
references to his view of his constitutional obliga¬
tions, but he was treated as a rule with entire re¬
spect and courtesy by his opponents. His reply
to Mason and Butler had discouraged further
attacks, and cleared the atmosphere of the Senate.
The answer of the North to the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise was the Republican party.
Anti-slavery men were to be found in every polit¬
ical organization, but upon the question of slavery
none of these organizations could be trusted. No
party with a Southern wing would alienate Southern
votes. When, therefore, the Kansas-Nebraska bill
brought the country face to face with the danger
that slavery would be extended over all the terri¬
tories of the United States and thus control the
government, resistance to this extension became
the paramount duty of the hour, and men who
differed on other questions united for the common
defense. All over the North a new party was
demanded. The party existed : it only needed
to be recognized by its own members. In Wash¬
ington some thirty members of the House met on
the morning after the passage of the bill, and
concluded that a new party was necessary. The
118
CHARLES SUMNER
name “ Republican,” which, indeed, had been sug¬
gested previously at a small meeting in Wisconsin,
was discussed and agreed upon. In Massachusetts
the Free-Soilers held a convention, and the sen¬
timent of the meeting was expressed by Henry
Wilson: “We go with none who do not wear
our principles upon their foreheads, and have them
engraved on their hearts.”
Conferences followed, and after a preliminary
meeting, at which the name “ Republican ” was
adopted, a state convention of delegates was held
at Worcester on September 7, and at this Sumner
made his first public appearance after his return
from Washington. He addressed himself to the
duty of Massachusetts, and made a powerful argu¬
ment for a new party. The speech did not smell
of the lamp like some of his earlier ones ; he did
not stop to consider phrases ; he was still hot from
the battle. Of the Burns case he said : “ In those
streets where he had walked as freeman Anthony
Burns was seized as slave, under the base pretext
that he was a criminal, — imprisoned in the court¬
house, which was turned for the time into fortress
and barracoon, — guarded by heartless hirelings,
whose chief idea of liberty was license to wrong,
— escorted by intrusive soldiers of the United
States, — watched by a prostituted militia, — and
finally given up to a slave hunter by the decree of
a petty magistrate, who did not hesitate to take
upon his soul the awful responsibility of dooming
a fellow man, in whom he could find no fault, to
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 119
a fate worse than death. ... In doing this deed
of woe and shame, the liberties of our citizens,
white as well as black, were put in jeopardy, the
mayor of Boston was converted to a tool, the gov¬
ernor of the commonwealth to a cipher, the laws,
the precious sentiments of religion, the pride and
glory of Massachusetts, were trampled in the dust,
and ‘ you and I and all of us fell down ’ while
the Slave Power flourished over us.”
He insisted that to every scheme of slavery Mas¬
sachusetts must send forth an “ emrlasting No ; ”
that she must by proper laws secure for her people
the rights of trial by jury and habeas corpus;
that she must choose to ofiice “ men who, at Wash¬
ington, will not shrink from conflict with slavery,
and also other men who at home in Massachusetts
will not shrink from the same conflict when the
slave hunter appears,” and that this could only be
done by a new party.
He urged that all existing laws for the protec¬
tion of freedom must be enforced, and that new
laws must be enacted where the old laws were in¬
adequate, saying : “ Massachusetts will do well in
following Vermont, which by special law places the
fugitive slave under the safeguard of trial by jury
and the writ of habeas corpus. ... A simple
prohibition, declaring that no person holding the
commission of Massachusetts as justice of the peace
or other magistrate shall assume to act as a slave¬
hunting commissioner or as counsel of any slave
hunter, under some proper penalty, would go far to
120
CHARLES SUMNER
render the existing slave act inoperative. There •
are not many so fond of this base trade as to con¬
tinue it when the commonwealth sets upon it a
legislative brand.”
He justified this counsel, which would have
placed Massachusetts in direct conflict with the
United States, by the familiar argument that every
man was bound only to support the Constitution
as he understood it. He pointed out that the
judgment of the Supreme Court was final in each
case, but as a precedent was not binding on the
court itself and therefore could not bind coordinate
branches of the government. In the same vein he
reminded his hearers that all human tribunals are
liable to err, recited historical instances of judi¬
cial error, and summed up his advice as follows :
“ No man who is not lost to self-respect, and ready
to abandon that manhood which is shown in the
Heaven-directed countenance, will voluntarily aid
in enforcing a judgment which in conscience he
believes wrong. He will not hesitate ‘to obey
God rather than man ’ and calmly abide the peril
he provokes.”
This was strong doctrine for an eminent lawyer
and a senator of the United States to preach in a
law-abiding community. It was the most extreme
speech that Sumner had made. It brushed aside
all respect for law, and appealed directly to the
consciences of men, to that law which is above
magistrates. It advocated a course of conduct
which, if adopted in the ordinary affairs of life.
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 121
would make our “ government of laws ” impossible.
He was preaching revolution. When the decisions
of courts cannot be reconciled with the great prin¬
ciples of right and wrong ; when they find no sup¬
port in the consciences of men, their authority is
gone, and a refusal to obey them may be justified
by the same arguments that make resistance to
other tyrants “ obedience to God.” In each case
the question of acquiescence or resistance is a
question which each man in the last resort must
decide for himself according to his conscience, sub¬
mitting to the penalties with fortitude if he fails to
make his resistance good.
The judgment of a majority in many North¬
ern States sustained Sumner’s opinion that the
time for resistance had come. Chase and Sew¬
ard applauded his speech, and the legislature of
Massachusetts at the next session followed his
advice. He was perhaps the first of the national
leaders to advocate the laws known as “ personal
liberty bills ” and the similar statutes, by which
Northern States undertook in effect to nullify
the Fugitive Slave Law. Ilis fundamental pro-
])osition was, that the provision of the Constitu¬
tion touching the rendition of “ persons held to
service or labor ” did not confer any power on the
national government “ to establish a uniform rule
for the rendition of fugitives,” but was “ merely
a compact between the States with a prohibition
on the States, conferring no g)Ower on the nationf
like the provision for the extradition of fugitives
122
CHARLES SUMNER
from justice. From this he drew the conclusion
that, “as a compact, its execution depends abso¬
lutely upon the States without any intervention of
the nation. Each State in the exercise of its own
judgment will determine for itself the precise ex¬
tent of obligation assumed^ When he first as¬
serted this position in the Senate he contented
himself with the inference that Congress had no
power to pass the Fugitive Slave Law, but he
suggested no action by the States. Now, how¬
ever, he went further, and called upon the States
to act so as to secure for their citizens claimed as
fugitive slaves the right of trial by jury and the
privilege of habeas corpus^ and to render the exe¬
cution of the Fugitive Slave Law difficult if not
impossible. Upon the legal proposition, that the
States were at liberty to construe the Constitution
and to pass any laws which their construction of
that instrument permitted, rested the whole body
of statutes passed by the free States for this pur¬
pose, and Sumner’s argument was doubtless largely
influential in procuring their enactment.
The Republican party, however, was not imme¬
diately triumphant. Strong as was the feeling-
excited by the Kansas-Nebraska bill and the Fu¬
gitive Slave Law, it was not strong enough to
dissolve party ties in Massachusetts. The con¬
vention which Sumner addressed was composed
mostly of Free-Soilers. The Whig leaders, elated
by their recent victory, were unwilling to unite
with men whom they had just been opposing,
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 123
especially when to do so was to confess that their
opponents had been right. The aspect of the
slavery question had not changed enough to make
these men forget so recent a contest. An unex¬
pected political movement accomplished that for
which Sumner and his associates were laboring.
A secret order, organized in New York to resist
the. influence of foreign-born voters, especially such
as were Catholics, spread rapidly over the country,
and many anti-slavery men joined it, notably Henry
Wilson of Massachusetts. He was well acquainted
with the secrets of the new party, which named itself
“American,” but was popularly called “Know-
Nothing,” and we may safely rely upon his state¬
ment that “ hundreds of thousands, who cared less
for its avowed principles than for the higher claims
of justice and humanity, and had little faith in its
permanency, were willing to use its machinery to
disrupt the Whig and Democratic parties, in the
confident hope that out of the disorganized masses
there would come a great political party, antag¬
onistic to the dominating influences of the slave
power.” ^
What the party leaders had attempted to prevent
was accomplished. While the political armies were
seemingly intact, the privates were secretly in re¬
volt and deserted on the battlefield. When the
election took place the Know-Nothings chose the en¬
tire state ticket, — all the members of Congress, all
the state senators, and nearly all the representa-
^ Wilson’s Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, ii. 419, 420.
124
CHAKLES SUMNER
lives, — and. so dominant was the anti-slavery
sentiment in the legislature that Wilson was sent to
the Senate as Sumner’s colleague.
The rise of the new organization left Sumner
without a party, and after his speech at Worcester
he took no part in the campaign. He was abso¬
lutely opposed to the attitude of the “ Know-No¬
things ” towards foreign voters, and he never fa¬
vored secrecy in political action. W ith his hatred
of intolerance or oppression and his essentially
frank nature, no other position was possible for
him. So far, however, as the result was due to the
anti-slavery feeling, Sumner’s speeches in the Sen¬
ate and elsewhere had helped to secure it. As a
movement against religious freedom and the equal¬
ity of men, the new party failed ignominiously and
deservedly. As a movement for freedom, it suc¬
ceeded, and by shattering the Whig organization
opened the way for the Republican party, which,
abandoning the secrecy and the intolerance of the
“ Know-Nothings,” became a true party of freedom.
It is interesting to observe that it was the Whig
and not the Democratic party which delayed the
formation of the Republican party. Until the
Whig party was destroyed, the new organization
was feeble. The general respectability of the
Whigs, and the party spirit which made them un¬
willing to recognize the weakness of their own posi¬
tion, while they were keenly alive to the faults of
Democrats and Free-Soilers, kept their party to¬
gether long after it had ceased to be a useful
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 125
political tool. Of the two great parties, it was
essentially the anti-slavery party, but political expe¬
diency and the constant desire of its leaders to win
the next election kept it from taking strong ground
on the issue of the day. By offering a shelter to
the timid, by appearing to be the better of the two
powerful parties while it did not work effectively
for righteousness, it divided the anti-slavery forces,
created a bitter difference between men who
thought alike, and was therefore a worse enemy of
freedom than the Democratic party, as a false
friend is more dangerous than an open foe. While
the Whig party endured, there was no harmonious
and strong opposition to the slave power. When
it was destroyed, the knell of slavery was sounded.
Such conditions are not uncommon in the history
of parties ; and when they prevail the real ob¬
stacles to progress are often those who think them¬
selves its friends, but whose action is paralyzed by
cowardice or selfishness, and who neither work
heartily themselves nor give place to others who
will do so. The political field must be cleared of
such effete organizations, which live on their past
and prize victory for its spoils, whenever any great
political object is to be attained or any great reform
accomplished.
The second session of the Thirty-third Congress
met in December, 1854, and began peacefully.
Sumner offered resolutions on various subjects of
general interest, such as the amendment of the law
relating to the fisheries, and mediation in the Cri-
126
CHARLES SUMNER
mean war. He introduced a bill securing to sea¬
men their wages in case of wreck, which he sup¬
ported by a speech ; and he wrote against capital
punishment to a committee of the Massachusetts
legislature. But such calm could not continue.
The legislation in the Northern States against
the Fugitive Slave Law provoked retaliation, and
in February, 1855, the committee on the judi¬
ciary reported a bill “ to protect officers and other
persons acting under the authority of the United
States ; ” which provided that any one tried in a
state court for an act done under any law of the
United States might have the suit removed to the
federal court. It was recognized at once as an at¬
tempt to defeat the recent legislation of the North¬
ern States and to aid in enforcing the Fugitive
Slave Law, and when it was taken up an active
debate ensued, in which Mr. Benjamin said :
“ The whole course of Northern legislation for the
past few months has been a course of direct war
with the South ; and the bill now before the Sen¬
ate is a measure, not of aggression, but of defense.”
Sumner closed the debate by a speech in which he
repeated some of his arguments against the consti¬
tutionality of the Fugitive Slave Law. In answer
to the question of Butler, whether, if there were
no federal laws on the subject, he would recommend
Massachusetts to pass any law for the rendition of
fugitive slaves, he replied, ‘‘ Never,” thus for him¬
self at least repudiating any obligation to regard
this provision of the Constitution. In closing he
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 127
offered an amendment repealing the Fugitive Slave
Law, for which nine senators, including Chase and
Seward, voted, but which was defeated by the ad¬
verse votes of thirty. The bill passed the Sen¬
ate, but was not taken up in the House, and
Sumner’s speech was his only conspicuous contri¬
bution to the anti-slavery cause during the session.
Shortly after his return home, he delivered a
carefully prepared address on the needs of the
hour, entitled “ The Anti-Slavery Enterprise, its
Necessity, Practicability, and Dignity, with Glances
at the Special Duties of the North.” It was the
closing lecture in an anti-slavery course at Boston,
and was afterwards repeated elsewhere, and finally
in the city of New York itself, where it was re¬
ceived, said the “ Tribune,” with enthusiasm “ by
the largest audience yet gathered in New York to
hear a lecture.” It was at once repeated in Brook¬
lyn, and again in Niblo’s Theatre in New York.
When we recall the persecution to which the early
anti-slavery men were exposed in that city, and
the demonstrations which attended their meetings,
this reception of Sumner indicated a wonderful
change in public opinion. He placed the argu¬
ment against slavery on the highest plane, and
said of the anti-slavery movement : ‘‘ With the
sympathies of all Christendom as allies, already
it encompasses the slave masters by a moral block¬
ade^ invisible to the eye, but more potent than
navies, from which there can be no escape except
in final capitulation.” In this sentence he touched
128
CHARLES SUMNER
the essential weakness of slavery. Its friends felt
keenly the “ moral blockade,” and knew that slavery
must extend or die.
Towards the end of May, 1855, Sumner made his
first journey to the West, and while in Ohio he
visited Chase. In all he “traversed eleven free
States and three slave States.” During this
journey, in a letter of June 18, he stated the
political situation : “ The country is approaching
a crisis on the slavery question, when freedom will
triumph in the national government or the Union
will be dissolved. At moments latterly I have
thought that the North was at last ready for a
rising, and that it would be united in the support
of a truly Northern man for president. Perhaps
the wish is father of this thought. It is evident
that the Know-Nothings cannot construct a national
platform on which they can stand at the North and
South ; their failure will make way for a Northern
combination.”
Again, as often, the idealist saw with far clearer
vision than did the practical politician. The Know-
Nothing National Council, which met on June 5
at Philadelphia, divided hopelessly on slavery and
the organization was shattered, though the Know-
Nothings still retained sufficient coherence to delay
the advent of the Republican party for a year.
In Massachusetts a vigorous attempt was made to
draw the anti-slavery Whigs and Know-Nothings
into union with the' Republicans for the autumn
campaign of 1855. Mr. Winthrop and other
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 129
Whigs were urged to take the lead in the new
party. Mr. W inthrop declined, but J ulius Rock¬
well, who had been Sumner’s colleague in the
Senate, became the Republican candidate for gov¬
ernor, and the ranks of the party were recruited
from both organizations, though each nominated
its own candidates. Nevertheless, the Know-No¬
things carried the State by a large plurality.
Sumner took an active part in the campaign.
He put to the voters the direct question, “ Are
you for freedom, or are you for slavery? ” arguing
that neither the Democratic nor the Whig party
represented the cause of freedom, and that the
exigency required a new party. Though the Know-
Nothings controlled the State and professed anti¬
slavery opinions, he took decided ground in a
careful speech, alike against their distinguishing
principle and their methods, saying: “The special
aims which this party proposes are in harmony
with the darkness in which it begins.” He de¬
nounced religious intolerance, unwilling that “ the
children of the Pilgrims of a former generation ”
should “turn from the Pilgrims of the present,”
and concluded : “ A party which, beginning in
secrecy, interferes with religious belief, and founds
a discrimination on the accident of birth, is not
the party for us.”
Sumner was splendidly consistent in rejecting
the assistance of those who, while opposing slav¬
ery, were also opposing freedom of thought and
speech. He felt the need of every ally in his gTeat
130
CHARLES SUMNER
contest, yet he did not hesitate to uphold the princi¬
ples upon which our government rests, even against
anti-slavery men. His attacks upon their party led
some of the Know-Nothings to oppose his rejec¬
tion, but they were not successfuL
CHAPTER VIII
THE BROOKS ASSAULT
The first session of the Thirty-fourth Congress
began December 3, 1855. Only eighteen months
earlier Sumner had warned his colleagues that
they were scattering “ broadcast through the land
dragon’s teeth, which . . . will fructify in civil
strife and feud.” His prophecy was already
realized.
The Missouri Compromise had been repealed in
order to make new slave States ; but to cloak this
purpose the act declared that it was intended
“ not to legislate slavery into any territory or
State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave
the people thereof perfectly free to form and reg¬
ulate their domestic institutions in their own
way.” The law transferred the struggle from the
halls of Congress to the plains of Kansas, and
made them the battlefield on which the contest
was to be won or lost. Nothing could be done
unless the Kansans themselves decided, or ap¬
peared to decide, in favor of slavery, and therefore,
to insure slave States in the new territory, the first
requisite was pro-slavery population.
The friends of the Kansas-Nebraska Act had
132
CHARLES SUMNER
expected such an immigration from Missouri as
would give Kansas the necessary voters. They did
not realize the deep feeling in the North, which
from its larger population could easily send more
emigrants. Emigration societies were at once
formed in Massachusetts and other Northern
States, whose purposes and methods were entirely
legal ; but the South saw in them evidence of a
purpose which, backed by adequate resources,
meant the inevitable defeat of any attempt to win
Kansas for slavery by peaceful settlement. There¬
upon associations were formed in Missouri and
other slave States for the purpose, avowed with
brutal frankness, of expelling immigrants who came
to Kansas through the efforts of these societies.
From asserting their own right to carry their
slaves into the territories the slaveholders had
come to deny the right of any others to settle there ;
after insisting that the people of each territory
must decide for themselves between freedom and
slavery, they now refused to allow their opponents
any voice in the matter. They determined in
short to win Kansas for slavery by force, and they
acted promptly. Andrew H. Reeder, a pro-slavery
Democrat from Pennsylvania, was made the first
governor of Kansas, and entered upon the dis¬
charge of his duties in October, 1854. Upon No¬
vember 29, the day named for electing a delegate
to Congress, bodies of armed Missourians entered
the territory and voted openly in such numbers
that more than half the votes cast were i1 legal.
THE BROOKS ASSAULT
133
On March 30, 1855, the elections for the territo¬
rial legislature took place, and again several thou¬
sand armed Missourians invaded Kansas, drove the
settlers from the polls, and voted in their places.
To such open outrages even the Democratic gov¬
ernor could not be blind. He admitted the facts,
but lacked courage to set aside the results, and
issued certificates of election to most of the per¬
sons thus fraudulently chosen. The others were
elected later by the legislature itself. Reeder’s re¬
cognition of the election gave the President an
excuse for not interfering, and thus the legislative
power in Kansas became vested in representatives
chosen by the invaders and not by the inhabitants.
This legislature met on July 2, 1855, and en¬
acted the laws of Missouri bodily, together with
such extreme measures in favor of slavery as to
make Senator Clayton say that, under such laws,
even John C. Calhoun would not be safe from the
house of correction.
It was not in human nature to submit when a
legislature so chosen passed such statutes ; and
the real inhabitants bestirred themselves in ear¬
nest. A mass meeting held at Lawrence called
upon all citizens, whatever their political views, to
choose delegates to a convention which should meet
at Topeka on September 19, and deal with the
whole situation. As a result delegates were chosen
to a constitutional convention which met at To¬
peka on October 23, framed a constitution prohib¬
iting slavery, but also forbidding the settlement of
134
CHARLES SUMNER
free colored persons, and ordered that this, after*
wards called the “ Topeka constitution,” should
be submitted to the people for ratification on De¬
cember 15. A petition was presented to Congress
for the admission of Kansas as a State with this
constitution; so when Congress met it was con¬
fronted with the question whether it should recog¬
nize as the legislature of Kansas the body chosen
by the Missouri ruffians, or should treat the To¬
peka convention as the real representatives of the
people, or should direct the people of Kansas to
begin afresh.
Before Congress could act, the situation was ag¬
gravated by something closely approaching civil
war. The rescue of a prisoner from a pro-slavery
sheriff led Governor Shannon, who had succeeded
Reeder, to call for troops, and a force of Missou¬
rians from the border counties responded, assuming
to be Kansas militia. These invaders encamped near
Lawrence, and open battles were imminent when
the governor, terrified at the prospect, made a
treaty with the citizens of Lawrence and ordered
the troops under his command to withdraw. One
man was shot in these proceedings, and the escape
from considerable bloodshed was very narrow. Im¬
mediately after this incident the Topeka consti¬
tution was ratified, the pro-slavery men not voting.
On the same day, Atchison, whose term as senator
from Missouri had just expired, and who was a
leader of the pro-slavery forces, issued an appeal
to the South, urging the sending of men and
THE BROOKS ASSAULT
135
money to Kansas. “ Twelve months,” he said,
“will not elapse before war — civil war of the
fiercest kind — will be upon us. W e are arming
and preparing for it.”
On January 15 the state elections were held
under the Topeka constitution and were attended
by much disorder and some bloodshed. This
caused great excitement, and another invasion from
Missouri was threatened, whereupon the leaders
of the free state men telegraphed to the Presi¬
dent for protection. On January 24 the President
sent to Congress a special message on Kansas,
in which he said that the Emigrant Aid Societies
had attempted by colonization to prevent the free
determination of the question whether Kansas
should be free or slave, and had thus given excuse
for the excitement in Missouri ; that though the
conduct of the Missourians had been “ illegal and
reprehensible,” yet Governor Reeder’s certificates
of election were binding, and this legal recogni¬
tion of the territorial legislature left him power¬
less to interfere ; that he would exert the whole
force at his command to suppress any resistance to
the federal or territorial laws, and that he would
protect the citizens of Kansas against further vio¬
lence from Missourians, but onlv in case the terri-
torial authorities should request his interposition.
The result was that, as the Missourians had by
fraud and violence created a legislature and passed
atrocious laws, obedience to these would be en¬
forced by the whole power of the government ; but
136
CHARLES SUMNER
the President would not interfere to protect citi¬
zens against further outrage by the Missourians
and their allies unless the offenders themselves
requested him to do so.
In the Senate various resolutions calling upon
the President for information were passed, to which
he responded on February 18 by a message with
documents. In the sharp debate which ensued
Sumner took no part, reserving himself for the later
discussion which was inevitable ; but he watched the
progress of the struggle in Kansas and in Wash¬
ington with the keenest interest. His letters show
not only his own feeling, but the general bitterness
which prevailed. Thus on December 14, 1855,
he wrote to Theodore Parker : “ All things here
indicate bad feelings. I have never seen so little
intercourse and commingling among the senators
of opposite opinions. Seward, W ilson, and myself
are the special marks of disfavor. God willing,
something more shall be done to deserve this dis¬
tinction.”
On March 12 two reports from the committee
on territories were made to the Senate, the major¬
ity report read by Douglas, the minority report by
Collamer of Vermont. The majority reported a
bill for organizing a state government in Kansas
when the territory should have a certain popula¬
tion, but provided that the steps to be taken for
the purpose should be prescribed by the territorial
legislature, thus recognizing as legal that fraudu¬
lent body. Douglas in his report adopted the
THE BROOKS ASSAULT
137
argument of tlie President’s message, laying the
blame on the Emigrant Aid Societies, and Sum¬
ner, in a five-minute speech, repelled the attack.
Seward moved to substitute a bill which admitted
Kansas under the Topeka constitution. Upon
these measures debate began on March 20, and
continued with interruptions for some months.
Douglas indulged constantly in bitter personality,
calling his colleague Trumbull a “traitor,” and
suggesting that the “ black Republicans ” favored
amalgamation of the white and colored races. He
charged Sumner with having obtained from him a
delay of two days in the debate on the Nebraska
bill, in order to publish “ a libel ” on him. Sumner
controverted his statement, and there was a brief
colloquy in which Douglas was very offensive. This
was Sumner’s only participation in the debate until
May 19, when he made his great speech, which
is published under the title of “ The Crime against
Kansas.” In the interval the lawless proceedings
in Kansas continued, and the authorities of the
territory exerted all their power to crush the free
state party. The invasions from Missouri con¬
tinued, and in May, 1856, one of his officers re¬
ported to Colonel Sumner, who commanded the
federal troops : “ There are probably five to seven
hundred armed men on the pro-slavery side organ¬
ized into companies. ... For the last two or
three days these men have been stationed between
Lawrence and Lecompton, stopping and disarming
all free state men, making some prisoners, and in
138 CHARLES SUMNER
many cases pressing the horses of free state settlers
into service.”
These outrages culminated on May 21 in an
attack on Lawrence, made by the United States
marshal and the sheriff with a party of Missourians
which they called a posse, when the sheriff de¬
manded the surrender of all arms, while a body
of his followers broke the presses, tyi3e, and appli¬
ances of the two newspapers, burnt the Free State
Hotel, broke into and plundered stores and houses,
and burnt some dwellings. This attack on Law¬
rence was imminent when Sumner began his speech
in the Senate.
This brief sketch of events has been given to
remind the reader of the conditions under which
he spoke, and the reasons for the fierce indig¬
nation which inspired his speech. Sumner had
prepared it carefully, and, as he wrote to Theo¬
dore Parker, he meant it to be “ the most thorough
philippic ever uttered in a legislative body.” He
who reads the speech now will find it a terrible
indictment of a policy which should have been
impossible in a free country, and of men whose
views and whose acts seem absolutely indefensible.
It was an unanswerable presentation of eternal
truths against the falsehoods of the hour. Its
strength lies in its clear and strong statement of
the whole case, from the passage of the Kansas-
Nebraska bill down to the attack on Lawrence;
the facts are marshaled effectively; the conduct of
the administration and its representatives in Kan-
THE BROOKS ASSAULT
139
sas is described in terms which are forcible from
their naked truth ; the arguments in their defense
are riddled ; and civil war as the inevitable result
is clearly prophesied. Delivered as the speech
was with the earnestness of intense conviction,
when Sumner was in the full possession of his
splendid powers as an orator and was inspired by
his audience, it is very easy to understand the effect
produced alike upon friends and opponents.
Framed after classical orations, its resemblance to
his models is at times too close, and the speech
is marred by the elaborate attacks on his leading
opponents, though these were hardly written in
cold blood, for Sumner was aflame with indigna¬
tion even in the solitude of his study. A man
with a keener sense of humor would not have writ¬
ten them, but Sumner delivered them with con¬
scientious earnestness. The feeling which led him
to speak as he did may be gathered from his lan¬
guage to a friend. “ There is a time for every¬
thing ; and when crime and criminals are thrust
before us they are to be met by all the energies
that God has given us, — by argument, sarcasm, *
scorn and denunciation. The whole arsenal of
God is ours ; and I will not renounce one of the
weapons, — not one ! ” It is impossible by quota¬
tion here to do the speech justice, but one or two
of the most irritating passages must be quoted in
view of what followed. He compared Butler and
Douglas to Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, and
then proceeded as follows : “ The senator from
140
CHARLES SUMNER
South Carolina has read many books of chivalry,
and believes himself a chivalrous knight, with sen¬
timents of honor and courage. Of course he has
chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows,
and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to
him ; though polluted in the sight of the world, is
chaste in his sight : I mean the harlot Slavery.
. . . Let her be impeached in character, or any
proposition be made to shut her out from the ex¬
tension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of
manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great
for this senator. The frenzy of Don Quixote in
behalf of his wench Dulcinea del Toboso is all sur¬
passed. ... If the slave States cannot enjoy what,
in mockery of the great fathers of the Kepublic,
he misnames Equality under the Constitution, — in
other words, the full power in the national terri¬
tories to compel fellow men to unpaid toil, to sepa¬
rate husband and wife, and to sell little cliildren
at the auction block, — then, sir, the chivalric sen¬
ator will conduct the State of South Carolina out
of the Union ! Heroic knight ! Exalted senator !
• A second Moses come for a second exodus ! . . .
“ As the senator from South Carolina is the
Don Quixote, so the senator from Illinois is the
squire of Slavery, its very Sancho Panza, ready to
do its humiliating offices. This senator, in his
labored address vindicating his labored report, —
piling one mass of elaborate error upon another
mass, — constrained himself, as you will remember,
to unfamiliar decencies of speech. . . . Standing
THE BROOKS ASSAULT
141
on this floor, the senator issued his rescript re¬
quiring submission to the usurped power of Kan¬
sas ; and this was accompanied by a manner — all
his own — befitting the tyrannical threat. . . .
“ The senator dreams that he can subdue the
North. He disclaims the open threat, but his con¬
duct implies it. How little that senator knows
himself, or the strength of the cause which he per¬
secutes ! He is but mortal man ; against him is
immortal principle. With finite power he wres¬
tles with the infinite, and he must fall. Against
him are stronger battalions than any marshaled by
mortal arm, — the inborn, ineradicable, invincible
sentiments of the human heart ; against him is
Nature with all her subtile forces ; against him is
God. Let him try to subdue these. . . .
“ With regret I come again upon the senator
from South Carolina, who, omnipresent in this de¬
bate, overflows with rage at the simple suggestion
that Kansas has applied for admission as a State,
and, with incoherent phrase, discharges the loose
expectoration of his speech, now upon her repre¬
sentative and then upon her people. There was
no extravagance of the ancient parliamentary de¬
bate which he did not repeat ; nor was there any
possible deviation from truth which he did not
make, — and with so much of passion, I gladly add,
as to save him from the suspicion of intentional
aberration. But the senator touches nothing
which he does not disfigure — with error some¬
times of principle, sometimes of fact. He shows
142
CHARLES SUMNER
an incapacity of accuracy, whether in stating the
Constitution or in stating the law, whether in de¬
tails of statistics or diversions of scholarship. He
cannot ope his mouth, but out there flies a blun¬
der. . . .
“ W ere the whole history of South Carolina
blotted out of existence, from its very beginning
down to the day of the last election of the senator
to his present seat on this floor, civilization might
lose — I do not say how little, but surely less than
it has already gained by the example of Kansas, in
that valiant struggle against oppression, and in the
development of a new science of emigration. . . .
Ah, sir, I tell the senator that Kansas, welcomed
as a free State, ‘ a ministering angel shall be ’ to
the Republic when South Carolina, in the cloak
of darkness which she hugs, ‘ lies howling.’ ”
No sooner had Sumner taken his seat than the
feelings which his speech provoked found expres¬
sion. Cass first condemned his speech as “ the most
un-American and unpatriotic that ever grated on
the ears of the members of this high body.”
Douglas followed, attacking Sumner with great
violence, and saying : “ Is it his object to provoke
some of us to kick him as we would a dog in the
streets, that he may get sympathy upon the just
chastisement ? ” and again ; “We have had another
dish of the classics served up, — classic allusions,
each one distinguished for its lasciviousness and
obscenity ; ” alluding to Sumner’s description of the
policy pursued in Kansas as “ the rape of a virgin
THE BROOKS ASSAULT
143
territory, compelling it to the hateful embrace of
slavery.” Mason came next, saying : “ I am con¬
strained to hear here depravity, vice in its most
odious form uncoiled in this presence, exhibiting
its loathsome deformities in accusation and vilifi¬
cation against the quarter of the country from
which I come ; and I must listen to it because it
is a necessity of my position, under a common gov¬
ernment, to recognize as an equal politically one
whom to see elsewhere is to shun and despise.”
Sumner replied, speaking affectionately of Cass
and regretting his attitude, but dealing otherwise
with Douglas. To the latter’s assertion that Sum¬
ner took his seat in the Senate, and swore to
support the Constitution while determined not to
support a part of it, he gave a direct denial. He
stated his exact position, quoted from the debates,
and then, after alluding to the repeated personali¬
ties of Douglas, proceeded : —
“ Sir, this is the Senate of the United States, an
important body under the Constitution, with great
powers. Its members are justly supposed,, from
years, to be above the intemperance of youth, and
from character, to be above the gusts of vulgarity.
They are supposed to have something of wisdom
and something of that candor which is the hand¬
maid of wisdom. Let the senator bear these things
in mind, and •remember hereafter that the bowie
knife and bludgeon are not proper emblems of sen¬
atorial debate. . . . The senator infused into his
speech the venom sweltering for months, — ay, for
144
CHARLES SUMNER
years ; and he has alleged matters entirely without
foundation, in order to heap upon me some per¬
sonal obloquy. I will not descend to things which
dro23ped so naturally from his tongue. I only
brand them to his face as false. I say also to that
senator, and I wish him to bear it in mind, that
no person with the upright form of a man can be
allowed — (^Hesitation,')
“ Mr. Douglas : Say it.
“ Mr. Sumner : I will say it, — no person with
the upright form of a man can be allowed, without
violation of all decency, to switch out from his
tongue the perpetual stench of offensive person¬
ality. Sir, that is not a proper weapon of debate,
at least on this floor. The noisome, squat, and
nameless animal to which I now refer is not the
proper model for an American senator. Will the
senator from Illinois take notice ? ”
These, the bitterest personalities ever used by
Sumner in debate, were uttered in the excitement
following a long speech and under extreme provo¬
cation. It is difficult after the lapse of years to
reproduce the conditions and make the reader
understand the feeling of the day ; but a few words
may be quoted from the correspondent of a Mis¬
souri newspaj^er, who was probably no partial
critic : —
“ That Sumner displayed greait ability, and
showed that in oratorical talent he was no un¬
worthy successor of Adams, Webster, and Everett,
no one who heard him will deny. In vigor and
THE BROOKS ASSAULT
145
richness of diction, in felicity and fecundity of il¬
lustration, in breadth and completeness of view, he
stands unsurpassed. ... In his reply to Cass,
Douglas, and Mason, who stung him into excite¬
ment, he was more successful than at any other
time. The collision knocked fire from him ; and
well it might, for he was abused and insulted as
grossly as any man could be ; but he replied
successfully to the unmeasured vituperation of
Douglas, and the aristocratic and withering hau¬
teur of Mason.”
Whittier, the poet, wrote the verdict of those
whom Sumner represented : “ I have read and re¬
read thy speech, and I look upon it as thy best.
A grand and terrible philippic, worthy of the
great occasion ; the severe and awful truth which
the sharp agony of the national crisis demanded.
It is enough for immortality.” Longfellow called
it “ the greatest voice on the greatest subject that
has been uttered since we became a nation.” The
London “ Times,” discussing it as a “ provoca¬
tion ” for violence, said : “ The speech was elabo¬
rately strong, but not stronger than many delivered
within the walls of Parliament during the discus¬
sion of the Reform and Emancipation bills.”
The effect on the country was at once intensified
by the events now to be narrated. On Thursday,
the 22d, the Senate adjourned early, but Sumner
remained writing letters. While he was thus en¬
gaged, with his legs stretched out under his desk,
which was firmly screwed to the fioor, Preston S.
146
CHARLES SUMNER
Brooks, the son of Senator Butler’s cousin, and a
representative from South Carolina, came up and
said, “ Mr. Sumner.” Sumner looked up and saw
a perfect stranger, who said, “ I have read your
speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South
Carolina and on Mr. Butler, who is a relative of
mine ” — Then, without completing the sentence,
he struck Sumner a blow on the head with a heavy
gutta-percha cane, and followed it by a series of
blows until the cane broke. Sumner struggled to
rise, and in so doing wrenched his desk from the
floor and gained his feet, but, by the time he had
done so, his consciousness had gone, and beneath
the continuing blows he fell senseless on the floor.
Brooks was a very powerful man, over six feet tall,
and he struck with his full strength. Toombs of
Georgia, who witnessed and approved the outrage,
testified of the blows : “ They were very rapid, and
as hard as he could hit. They were hard licks,
and very effective.” Brooks himself, in the House
of Representatives, said : “ I went to work very
deliberately, as I am charged, — and this is ad¬
mitted, — and speculated somewhat as to whether
I should employ a horsewhip or a cowhide ; but
knowing that the senator was my superior in
strength, it occurred to me that he might wrest it
from my hand, and then — for 1 never attempt
anything I do not perform — I might have been
compelled to do that which I would have regretted
the balance of my natural life.”
He had made his purpose known to Edmundson,
THE BROOKS ASSAULT
147
a representative from Virginia, and to Keitt, one
of his colleagues from South Carolina, and both
were present in the senate chamber at the time.
Edmundson had advised with Brooks on Monday
and Wednesday, and was present at his request.
Keitt, when the assault began, hurried up, flourish¬
ing a cane, as if to prevent any interference with
Brooks until his purpose was accomplished.
Senators Slidell and Douglas were in the ante¬
room when some one rushed in and cried out that
a man was beating Sumner. Slidell said in the
Senate : “ We heard the remark without any par¬
ticular emotion ; for my own part I confess I felt
none. I am not accustomed to participate in broils
of any kind. ... I have no associations or rela¬
tions of any kind with Mr. Sumner. ... I did
not think it necessary to express my sympathy or
make any advances towards him.” Douglas said :
“ My first impression was to come into the senate
chamber and help put an end to the affray if I
could ; but it occurred to my mind in an instant
that my relations to Mr. Sumner were such that, if
I came into the hall, my motives would be miscon¬
strued perhaps, and I sat down again.” Toombs
said ; “ As for rendering Mr. Sumner any assist¬
ance, I did not do it. As to what was said, some
gentleman present condemned it in Mr. Brooks ; I
stated to him, or to some of my own friends pro¬
bably, that I approved it. That is my opinion.”
Sumner’s head was bruised and gashed, and
the flow of blood was so copious as to drench his
148
CHARLES SUMNER
clothes and those of the men who helped him, hut
the thickness of his hair apparently prevented a
fracture of the skull and saved his life. He re¬
gained his consciousness, his wounds were sewed
up, and he was taken to his lodgings, still in a
partly stupefied condition. On reaching his rooms
he said to Wilson that he should renew the contest
with slavery so soon as he could return to his seat.
An assault, even of this cowardly and . aggra¬
vated nature, was in itself a matter of compara¬
tively trifling importance. There are always men
who in moments of great excitement, or for reasons
affecting them individually, will commit a crime.
The tone adopted by the pro-slavery party in
regard to the act, however, gave it the greatest
significance. The next day in the Senate Wilson
called attention to Sumner’s chair, vacant for the
first time during his five years of service, and
briefly narrated the facts, stating that they showed
a grave offense not only against Sumner, but
against the rights of the Senate, which called for
prompt action. Seward moved a committee of in¬
quiry. Mason moved as an amendment that the
committee be appointed by the Senate, and not
named by the president of that body. Seward
accepted this, and the resolution was adopted.
The committee was made up wholly of Sumner’s
political opponents, not a single Republican being
chosen. Five days later it reported the facts
briefly without comment, but with the conclusion
that “the Senate, for a breach of its privileges,
THE BROOKS ASSAULT
149
cannot arrest a member of the House of Repre¬
sentatives, and a fortiori cannot try and punish
him ; ” that the House alone could deal with the
case, and that the Senate could “ not proceed fur¬
ther than to make complaint to the House of Re¬
presentatives of the assault committed by one of
its members.” The only action of the Senate was
an order that this report with the accompanying
affidavits be sent to the House of Representatives.
In the House a committee of investigation was
appointed on the day of the assault, with instruc¬
tions to report the facts and such resolutions as
seemed “ necessary for the vindication of the char¬
acter of the House.” The Southern members with
some Northern Democrats resisted the appointment
of this committee, on the ground that there was no
breach of privilege since the assault was not on a
member of the House, but the resolution was passed
by a vote of ninety-three to sixty-eight. The com¬
mittee consisted of three Northern Republicans and
two Southern Democrats. They heard witnesses,
and in about a week presented a majority and a
minority report. The former stated the facts and
recommended resolutions expelling Brooks and cen¬
suring Edmundson and Keitt. The latter, signed
by the two Democrats, concluded with a resolution
that the House had no jurisdiction over the assault
“ alleged to have been committed,” and therefore
deemed “ it improper to express any opinion on
the subject.”
These resolutions did not come before the House
150
CHARLES SUMNER
for action until July 9. Meanwhile Brooks had
been tried for the assault in the Circuit Court of
the District, and sentenced to pay a fine of three
hundred dollars. After a debate lasting some
four days, the minority resolution was defeated,
yeas 66, nays 145. The resolution expelling
Brooks did not receive the necessary two thirds
of the votes cast, but a resolution censuring him
was passed. The censure of Keitt was voted by
ten majority, and the House declined to censure
Edmundson by a vote of 60 against 136. Only
one Southern vote was cast for the expulsion of
Brooks. Immediately after the vote upon the re¬
solution of expulsion. Brooks arose and announced
his resignation. He left on July 14, returned to
South Carolina, was reelected, receiving all the
votes cast but six, and on August 1 again took
the oath as a member of the House. Keitt also
resigned, and also was returned to the House by a
unanimous vote.
This brief statement of the facts as they appear
of record is sufficient to excite our wonder, but
the language used by the defenders of Brooks was
amazing. In October his constituents gave him
a public dinner, “ in testimony of their complete
indorsement of his congressional course,” and in¬
vited Senator Mason of Virginia and elefferson
Davis, the secretary of war. Both wrote regret¬
ting their inability to accept, and in cold blood,
months after the assault. Mason said of Brooks;
I know of none whose public career I hold more
THE BROOKS ASSAULT
151
worthy of the full and cordial approbation of his
constituents than his. He has shown himself alike
able and prompt to sustain the rights and the in¬
terests of his constituents in debate and by vote,
or to vindicate in a different mode, and under
circumstances of painful duty, the honor of his
friend.” Davis expressed his “ high regard and
esteem ” for Brooks, and his “ sympathy with the
feeling which prompted the sons of Carolina to
welcome the return of a brother who has been the
subject of vilification, misrepresentation, and per¬
secution because he resented a libelous assault
upon the reputation of their mother.”
In the debate members defended and applauded
the act of Brooks. Public meetings were held in
his honor. Students at the University of Virginia
voted to send him a cane with “ a heavy gold head,
which will be suitably inscribed, and also bear upon
it a device of the human head badly cracked and
broken.” The “Richmond Enquirer,” in reporting
this meeting, added, “ The chivalry of the South, it
seems, has been thoroughly aroused.” Similar tes¬
timonials were sent him in great numbers from all
parts of the South. On June 12 the same news-
l)aper said : “In the main, the press of the South
applauds the conduct of Mr. Brooks without con¬
dition or limitation. Our approbation, at least, is
entire and unreserved ; we consider the act good in
conception, better in execution, and best of all in
consequence. ... It was a proper act, done at the
proper time and in the proper place.”
152
CHARLES SUMNER
These are but specimens of numerous utterances
by the recognized leaders and the public press of
the South. By the open approval of many, and by
the silence of others who could not applaud such a
brutal and cowardly assault, the South made the
act of Brooks its own, and that, which as the crime
of an individual might have passed almost un¬
heeded, became by adoption the crime of the whole
pro-slavery party.
The assault and the manner in which it was re¬
ceived excited general and intense indignation at
the North, expressed in the resolutions of public
meetings, the resolves of the Massachusetts legis¬
lature, the speeches and letters of leading men in
every walk of life and of all political opinions, and
in the public press. The real effect of slavery, its
brutalizing influence on master as well as slave, the
essential barbarism of the system, and the danger
to the liberty of free citizens which its continuance
and extension involved, were brought home to men
as by a flash of lightning. Those, who had been
slow to read the lesson taught on the plains of
Kansas, had their eyes opened by the strokes of
Brooks. It is doubtful whether in his whole life
Sumner ever struck a blow at slavery so effective
as that which, through him, it received from Brooks.
From that moment, on both sides of the Atlantic,
the real spirit of “ Southern chivalry ” was re¬
vealed. Quotations might be multiplied, but the
feeling and resolve of the North are perhaps epito¬
mized best in the entry which Emerson made ir
THE BROOKS ASSAULT
153
his journal : “ Sumner’s attack is of no impor¬
tance ; it is only a leaf of the tree. It is not
Sumner who must be avenged, but the tree must be
cut down. . . . But this stroke rouses the feeling
of the people, and shows every one where they are.
All feel it. Those who affect not to feel it must
perforce share the shame, nor will hiding their
heads and pretending other tasks and a preoccu¬
pied mind deceive themselves or us.”
The outrages in Kansas and this reply of slavery
to the man who had characterized these outrages
justly were but the first steps in the civil war, and
did much to hasten it.
CHAPTER IX
THE RESULTS OF THE ASSAULT
The result of the act, as an incident in the con=
test for freedom, has been stated. Its effect upon
Sumner personally was serious and lasting. When
he was carried to the anteroom of the Senate, it
was believed that his injuries were fatal, but he
revived more rapidly than was expected, and even
thought of going to the Senate on the day after
the assault. For several days, indeed, he seemed
to be doing well ; but then unfavorable symptoms
appeared, — high fever, a threatening of erysipelas,
and much inflammation of the scalp. The wound
was opened, and for some days he remained in a
very critical condition ; but the immediate danger
passed, and the cuts healed.
During the summer he went to various places in
search of health, but without success. In August
the action of his heart was weak, his gait was tot¬
tering and uncertain, the slightest exertion was
followed by lassitude, his nights were wakeful, and
any mental effort was followed by a sense of weight
and a throbbing pain in the head. On October 9
he wrote : “ My brain and whole nervous system
are jangled and subject to relapse.”
THE RESULTS OF THE ASSAULT
155
Within a week or two after the assault, the gov¬
ernor of Massachusetts recommended the legisla¬
ture to pay the expenses of Sumner’s illness, but
when he heard of it, he telegraphed his hope that
this would not be pressed, adding, “ Whatever
Massachusetts can give, let it be given to suffer¬
ing Kansas.” Some of his friends, including
Josiah Quincy, Longfellow, Dana, Adams, and
others, began a subscription for a testimonial ; but
this, likewise, he discouraged, making the same
suggestion that any contributions be given to
Kansas.
The campaign of 1856 was in progress, and he
longed to take part in it, but this was clearly im¬
possible. He could not refrain, however, from
writing letters in support of the Kepublican candi¬
dates, and he wrote many in answer to requests
from different parts of the country. In none of his
speeches or letters, at this time or afterward, was
there the least expression of indignation at the
attack on himself or any personal allusion to his
assailant. Years afterward, when walking with
George William Curtis in the Congressional Ceme¬
tery, his attention was called to the cenotaph of
Brooks, which he had not seen. Curtis asked him :
“ How did you feel about Brooks ? ” He answered :
“ Only as to a brick that should fall upon my head
from a chimney. He was the unconscious agent
of a malign power.” His hostility was directed
against slavery ; not against slaveholders.
He was unable to take his seat in the Seriate
156
CHARLES SUMNER
again in December and talked of resigning, but
was persuaded to abandon this idea. Towards
the end of the session, however, it became apparent
that the vote on the Tariff bill of 1857 would be
close, and as he wished the duties on raw material
reduced, he went to Washington and entered the
Senate February 26, 1857, for the first time since
the assault. He found himself unable to remain
and went to his lodging, but returned in the even^
ing and stayed until an early hour in the morning,
giving on two occasions the vote which saved the
bill. Except on this day he was not present in
the chamber during the session.
He describes his condition in a letter to Theo¬
dore Parker, March 1, 1857, as follows : “ I have
sat' in my seat only on one day. After a short
time the torment to my system became great and
a cloud began to gather over my brain. I tottered
out and took to my bed. I long to speak, but I
cannot. . . . My own daily experience, while sat¬
isfying me of my improvement, shows a subtle and
complete overthrow of my powers organically, from
which I can hope to recover only slowly.’’
While Sumner was thus disabled the contest in
Kansas and in the country had been proceeding.
The sacking of Lawrence, instead of crushing
the Free State party, had fired their indignation.
A guerrilla warfare ensued in which many lives
were lost, and it was in this that John Brown of
Osawatomie first acquired prominence. The ma¬
jority of the investigating committee appointed
THE RESULTS OF THE ASSAULT
157
by the House reported that the elections had been
carried by invaders from Missouri, that all the pro¬
ceedings in Kansas had been irregular, that the
conditions were such as to make fair elections im¬
possible without further legislation, and that the
Topeka convention represented the majority of the
people. There followed a struggle between the two
branches of Congress, the effort of the Republican
House being to secure the admission of Kansas
under the Topeka constitution, while the Demo¬
cratic Senate proposed a new convention which
should frame a constitution and so pave the way
for the admission of Kansas. Congress adjourned
without legislating, and left Kansas to its fate.
The country immediately plunged into the presi¬
dential election. The Republican party, for the
first time a national organization, named John C.
Fremont, and, relying on the indignation which the
struggle in Kansas and the attack upon Sumner
had aroused, confidently expected to elect him, but
he lost four Northern States, and James Buchanan
was chosen president. Massachusetts gave the Re¬
publicans an enormous majority, and the reelec¬
tion of Sumner was certain. He had been steadily
gaining ground among his constituents during his
whole term in the Senate. The assault upon him
had been felt as an attack upon the State, and so
soon as the legislature met he was reelected, receiv¬
ing a unanimous vote in the Senate, and all but
twelve out of three hundred and forty-five votes
in the House. At his first election he had been
158
CHARLES SUMNER
the candidate of a party which included about one
fifth of the voters in the State, while now it threw
about two thirds of the votes cast. Then he could
expect to find only two or three senators in sym¬
pathy with his views; now his party had some
twenty senators. Six years had wrought a great
change in the sentiments alike of Massachusetts
and of the whole country. On March 4, 1857,
Sumner took the oath for the second time, and
three days later he sailed for France. On the
same morning the newspapers announced the deci¬
sion of the Supreme Court in the case of Dred
Scott. His assailant. Brooks, had died six weeks
before, and Butler, in whose behalf Brooks as¬
sumed to strike, died a few weeks afterward.
Some nineteen years earlier he had made the
same journey, full of enthusiasm and vigor, with the
world before him and only his own personality to
make good the commendations of his friends. Now,
a man of forty-six, with a reputation on both sides
of the ocean, but broken in health and depressed
in spirit, he was to renew the friendships made on
his former trip, and to extend his acquaintance
among the leading men of France and England.
He reached Paris on March 23, and spent a little
more than seven months in Europe. A portion of
this time he devoted to traveling on the continent,
and the rest was divided between Paris, England,
and Scotland.
In Paris he saw the best of French society, while
in England his life seems to have been a round of
THE RESULTS OF THE ASSAULT
159
breakfasts and dinners in the company of the most
distinguished Englishmen. He met Gladstone for
the first time, and as the guest of John Bright made
his acquaintance, the beginning of a lifelong friend¬
ship. This visit placed him in relation with many
influential men like Cobden, Palmerston, Lord
John Russell, the Duke of Argyll, Dr. Lushing-
ton. Lord Cranworth, and William E. Forster,
and he was thus enabled to exert a most important
influence during the civil war. The Duchess of
Sutherland and her daughter, the Duchess of
Argyll, who were very hostile to slavery, were
especially cordial, and the latter corresponded with
him until his death.
What a strong man could hardly have done with¬
out fatigue, naturally did not cure a man in his con¬
dition. Yet the pleasure and excitement diverted
his attention from himself, and the change from
the intensity of political conflict at home to the
friendly atmosphere of cultivated English society
was doubtless refreshing. Gladstone, Bright, and
de Tocqueville were pleasant substitutes for Doug¬
las and Toombs, and Sumner was encouraged to
believe that his recovery was at hand, though lead¬
ing physicians in England strongly advised him not
to return. Nevertheless, he sailed on November 7,
and arrived in Boston on November 19. The next
evening he attended a lecture in the Tremont Tem¬
ple, where he spoke briefly, but he made no other
public appearance until Congress met on Decem¬
ber 7, 1857, when he took his seat in the Senate.
160
CHARLES SUMNER
The Kansas question in its most acute stage at
once engaged the attention of Congress, and Sum¬
ner was impatient to take part in the debate ; but
his physicians forbade him even to listen, and he
was obliged to leave the Senate on the third day of
the session, when Douglas began his speech against
the position of the administration. For two weeks
he attended during the morning hour, and spent
the rest of his time quietly at his rooms, in the Li¬
brary of Congress, or at the Smithsonian Institu¬
tion. On December 19 he wrote Theodore Parker :
“ I am unhappy, and yesterday after sitting in
the Senate I felt like a man of ninety.” To Dr.
Howe : “ At times I feel almost well, and then after
a little writing or a little sitting in the Senate I
feel the weight spreading over my brain, but at
least for the present I shall do nothing ; . . . this is
my fate. Hard ! very hard ! I long to speak.”
The next day he left Washington, and only re¬
turned occasionally, when his vote was required on
some important question affecting Kansas.
The difficulty in walking and rising from his seat
continued, and in April he was attacked with
pressure on the brain and pain in the back, which
disabled him. After this condition had continued
for a month he listened to the advice of physicians
and friends, and decided again to visit Europe,
He sailed for Havre on May 21, two years after
he had received his injury, and on June 1 he
wrote to John Jay from the ship: “I long for
work, and especially to make myself felt again in
THE RESULTS OF THE ASSAULT
161
our cause. The ghost of two years already dead
haunts me.”
Before starting he addressed a short letter to his
constituents, stating briefly his condition and that
he left the country under the advice of his physi¬
cians. He added that had he foreseen originally
the duration of his disability, he should at once have
resigned his seat, and that he had not done so be¬
cause he hoped to recover, and did not wish to lose
the opportunity of continuing the battle against
slavery.
Sumner landed June 1, 1858, and went forth¬
with to Paris, where he consulted Dr. Brown-
Sequard, who decided that the blows on the head
had produced a disturbance of the spinal cord.
The remedy was “ Are,” and at Sumner’s desire
the moxa was applied the same afternoon. He de¬
clined to take chloroform lest the remedy might be
less effective, and he submitted to the treatment six
times in two weeks, the application lasting from
five to ten minutes each time. A moxa is a burn¬
ing of the skin with some very combustible sub¬
stance, and the doctor said, “ I have never seen a
man bearing with such fortitude as Mr. Sumner
has shown the extremely violent pain of this burn¬
ing.” Indeed Brown-Sequard never afterward used
it, because he considered the pain too severe for the
human system. The immediate result in Sumner’s
case was an inflammation which made it hard to
walk or sleep, and kept him in bed for the greater
part of J une and J uly.
162
CHARLES SUMNER
On July 20 he had the first attack of angina
pectoris^ the intensely painful disease which caused
his death, and similar attacks occurred for a time
with great frequency ; yet he managed to write
many letters to England, urging his friends to re¬
sist a change in the attitude of the English gov¬
ernment towards the slave trade, which then seemed
possible. After the middle of August he traveled
in Switzerland, Italy, and Germany, and on Novem¬
ber 8 he wrote from Worms : —
“ The last three or four weeks have shown a
palpable improvement. ... I feel now certain of
my ultimate restoration, but know not whether it
will be in a month or a year. ... I suppose
Charles F. Adams is now in his father’s seat.
This must tell for the cause everywhere, as his
presence will tell for it incalculably on the floor of
Congress. All alone I gave three cheers on the
night of the election, and startled the streets of
Munich.”
Under the advice of his physicians, he spent the
winter at Montpellier, a pleasant city with an an¬
cient university and a gallery, where he occupied
himself mainly with reading. In February, 1859,
he wrote to C. F. Adams : —
“ The meeting of Congress this winter presented
a question of painful embarrassment. There were
several courses to take. To go home in the face of
the positive counsel of eminent medical authorities,
and with a consciousness that I was still an in¬
valid, seemed rash, and hardly to be vindicated,
THE RESULTS OF THE ASSAULT
163
but to leave my seat vacant throughout a whole
session seemed inexcusable. It only remained that
I should resign. Had I not felt that my case was
exceptional, and not that of ordinary political life,
of course I should have yielded to the inevitable
necessity of this step. But I could not abandon a
position dearer to me now than ever, because more
than ever, with returning health, I can hope to
serve our cause, and because I have at heart to be
heard again from the seat where my assassination
was attempted.”
In the spring he went to Rome, remaining there
three weeks and meeting Story, Motley, Hawthorne,
and others of his old friends. “ Rome now, as
when I first saw it, touches me more than any
other place,” he wrote to Story as he left. On
the journey north from Rome he passed through
bodies of soldiers gathered for the Franco- Austrian
war, and the battle of Montebello was fought on .
the day before he left Italy. He sympathized
warmly with the Italians, and at Turin he met
Cavour, with whom he had a very interesting in¬
terview.
A month was spent in Paris, and then he went
to London, where he stayed till July 23. He went
into society and often attended Parliament, where
the Speaker gave him a seat for a month under the
gallery of the House of Commons ; but he over¬
taxed his strength, and was sent to Aix-les-Bains.
He returned to London on October 10, and his
account of his last days in England may be quoted ;
164
CHARLES SUMNER
“ Seven days in London at the British Museum ; a
day with the poet-laureate Tennyson at the Isle of
Wight; two days with Lord Stanhope, at Cheven-
ing Park, where I slept in the room which was oc¬
cupied for three years by Lord Chatham ; one day
at Argyll Lodge, with the duke, where I met Glad¬
stone ; one day with Dr. Lushington at Ockham
Park in Surrey ; one day with my countryman,
Motley, the historian of the Dutch Commonwealth,
at W alton-on-Thames ; one day with Lord Claren¬
don at the Grove ; one day with Lord Spencer at
Althorp ; one day with Lord Belper at Kingston
Hall ; one day with Lord Hatherton at Teddesley
Park ; and here I am.” He sailed from Liverpool
on November 5, and reached Boston, November
21, a well man, prepared again to take his place
in the Senate, and when the first session of the
Thirty-sixth Congress met, on December 5, 1859,
he was in his seat. His constituents had been glad
to let his chair remain vacant until he himself was
able to fill it.
CHAPTER X
THE TRIUMPH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
During Sumner’s absence the cause of freedom
had been gaining in Kansas. Under an act of the
territorial legislature the question of calling a
convention to frame a state constitution was sub¬
mitted to the people at the election in 1856, and
as the vote was in favor of the proposition, an act
was passed in 1857 for the election of delegates.
This was the state of the contest when Buchanan
was inaugurated and the Dred Scott decision was
announced, of which Mr. Justice Curtis, who deliv¬
ered an admirable dissenting opinion, once said :
“ If you ask me what the Supreme Court of the
United States decided in the case of Dred Scott, I
answer that I don’t know.”
From the conflicting opinions of the judges it
appeared that, though the case did not call for
a decision of the question, a majority meant to
express the opinion that Congress had no power
to prohibit slavery in any territory of the United
States. This gave slavery a new weapon, and
the free state men of Kansas had now to contend
against the whole power of the government, sus¬
tained by the Supreme Court. When the time
166
CHARLES SUMNER
came for electing delegates to the constitutional
convention the free state men asked for correct
registration and protection at the polls, but the
governor said he could do nothing. They there¬
fore decided not to vote, and at the election in
June less than seventeen hundred votes were cast,
hardly more than “ one tenth ” of the total vote.
The pro-slavery men elected their candidates and
adjourned till October, when they met at Lecomp-
ton and framed a slave constitution. They di¬
rected that the question should be submitted to the
people whether they would adopt the constitution
with slavery or without slavery, each voter being
required, if challenged, to swear that he would sup¬
port the constitution “ if adopted.’’ This ingen¬
ious device was intended to prevent the rejection
of the constitution as a whole, and to deter free
state men from voting.
Meanwhile under the advice of Henry Wilson,
the free state men voted at the election in October
for members of the territorial legislature, electing a
majority in both houses, and the delegate to Con¬
gress by a very large majority. Thus Kansas on a
fair vote showed itself decisively for freedom, and
it was clear that the new constitution would be de¬
feated if the people were given a proper opportu¬
nity to vote. Hence the pro-slavery leaders adopted
the form of submission which denied this. As
the Charleston “Mercury” said: “Whether the
clause in the constitution is voted out or voted in,
slavery exists and has a guaranty in the constitu-
TRIUMPH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 167
tion that it shall not be interfered with,” this
guaranty being a provision against interference
with the right of property in slaves.
When the Thirty-fifth Congress met, December
7, 1857, Buchanan in his message approved the
Lecompton constitution, and stated that the ques¬
tion had been “ fairly and explicitly referred to
the people of Kansas whether they will have a
constitution with or without slavery.” With a
Democratic president, supported by a Democratic
Congress chosen when the Kansas troubles were
fresh in the public mind, and therefore ready to sup¬
port the pro-slavery policy in that territory ; with
a slave constitution likely to be adopted apparently
under the forms of law, it seemed as if the fate of
Kansas was sealed. But help came from an unex¬
pected quarter. After the reading of the President’s
message, Douglas rose, — he who had been at once
the author and the leading champion of the De¬
mocratic policy in Kansas, — and said : “ I totally
dissent from that portion of the message which
may fairly be construed as approving of the pro¬
ceedings of the Lecompton convention.”
These few words meant freedom for Kansas —
meant the final failure of the whole pro-slavery
campaign. The Lecompton fraud had divided the
party of slavery. On December 9 Douglas made
an elaborate speech, in which he asserted that the
people had been denied the right to decide whether
Kansas should be free or slave, a right guaran¬
tied by the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and while, as
168
CHARLES SUMNER
he said, he did not care whether they voted slavery
“ up ” or “ down,” he insisted that until the ques¬
tion had been fairly submitted, Kansas could not
enter the Union as a State.
On December 1 Stanton, as acting governor of
Kansas, summoned the new legislature for Decem¬
ber 7, that it might act concerning the Lecompton
constitution, and it voted that the whole constitu¬
tion be submitted to a popular vote. On Decem¬
ber 21 the vote on the question submitted by the
Lecompton convention was taken, and 6063 votes
were cast “ for the constitution with slavery,”
against 576 votes “for the constitution without
slavery.” Of the votes for slavery an enormous
proportion was fraudulent and the free state men
generally declined to vote. On January 4 the
vote on the constitution as a whole was taken, and
10,266 votes were cast against it. These results
left no doubt as to the wish of the people, and
greatly strengthened the opposition to the Presi¬
dent’s position. None the less he persevered, and
on February 2, 1858, he sent a special message
to Congress defending the proceedings by which
the Lecompton constitution was adopted, and re¬
commending the admission of Kansas under it. To
secure this the whole power of the administration
was exerted, but after a bitter struggle the bill
was defeated in the House of Representatives by
three votes. Again, as at almost every important
crisis in our history, the majority for the right was
very small.
TRIUMPH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 169
The Senate, after a heated contest, passed a
bill to admit Kansas with the Lecompton consti¬
tution, and a struggle between the two Houses
ensued, which ended in a compromise. This law
submitted to the people of Kansas the question
whether they would accept the Lecompton consti¬
tution with the provision that, upon admission, the
State should receive five per cent of the sums to
be realized from the sale of public lands within its
borders, — a very large amount, — or reject both
money and constitution. If they rejected the con¬
stitution, Kansas was to remain a territory until
her population should equal the unit-quota of re¬
presentation in Congress, and then a new constitu¬
tional convention was to be chosen. On August 2
the voters of Kansas repudiated the bribe by an
overwhelming majority. The Democratic party
had thus striven by fraud, violence, and purchase
to establish slavery in Kansas. It is at once mor¬
tifying to think how nearly the monstrous attempt
succeeded, and encouraofino; to remember that it
failed.
Congress adjourned on June 14, and the con¬
gressional campaign of 1858 followed, rendered
memorable by the great debate between Lincoln
and Douglas in Illinois. More clearly than ever
before this campaign was fought upon the ques¬
tion whether slavery or freedom should prevail in
this country. The Kansas struggle, no longer an
issue by itself, became an episode in a greater con¬
flict. Seward put the question clearly before the
170
CHARLES SUMNER
country in his speech at Rochester, in the words
so often quoted : “ The two systems of free labor
and slave labor are more than incongruous, — they
are incompatible. They have never permanently
existed together in one country, and they never
can ; it is an irrepressible conflict between
opposing and enduring forces, and it means that
the United States must and will, sooner or later,
become either entirely a slaveholding nation or en¬
tirely a free-labor nation.” The campaign resulted
in the choice of a House in which the Republicans
had 109 members, the Democrats 101, and the
“ Americans ” 27.
The second session of the Thirty-fifth Congress
began on December 6, 1858, and was noteworthy
only because the debates emphasized and widened
the breach between the Douglas Democrats and the
opposing wing of the party. During this session
the Kansas legislature passed a law abolishing
slavery, and also called another constitutional con¬
vention, which met in July and adopted a free
constitution, ratified by the people in October.
Before Congress met again John Brown had
made his raid into Virginia, which resulted in his
execution for murder, on December 2, with six of
his followers, and it was amid the profound feeling
caused by this episode that the Thirty-sixth Con¬
gress — the last before the civil war — convened.
In this Sumner took his seat, well at last and
anxious again to share in the conflict. He was
now one of twenty-four Republican senators, and
TRIUMPH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 171
was for the first time given his proper place in the
formation of committees, being assigned to that on
foreign relations.
Under the advice of his physicians to make
haste slowly, he did not at once enter the debates.
His first speech was on March 12, against a
motion made by Mason of Virginia to commit
Thaddeus Hyatt for refusing to testify before the
committee appointed to investigate the John Brown
raid. Early in March he offered a sensible resolu¬
tion to substitute simple declarations for custom¬
house oaths, but the recommendation was not
adopted. He presented some petitions against
slavery, but he took no very conspicuous part in
the proceedings till June. He was feeling his way
back into active life.
He busied himself during the early months of
the session in preparing an exhaustive speech on
slavery, its nature and its effects. The Southern
leaders had become more aggressive, and during
the session resolutions proposed by Jefferson Davis
were passed by the Senate, declaring that slave
property could not be interfered with in the terri¬
tories, approving the Fugitive Slave Law, and con¬
demning the personal liberty laws of the Northern
States. Sumner felt that their attitude should be
rebuked and the weakness of their cause exposed.
He had looked forward during his long illness to
the time when he could again in the Senate tell
the truth about slavery, and his hour had arrived.
The House passed a bill for the admission of
172
CHARLES SUMNER
Kansas with its free constitution, and when it
reached the Senate many senators took the oppor¬
tunity to speak on the issues of the coming cam¬
paign. On June 4 Sumner delivered his speech,
published under the title “ The Barbarism of Slav¬
ery.” He read it from printed slips and he spoke
for four hours. The temper of the Senate is indi¬
cated by the following extracts from a letter of
Hammond of South Carolina to Dr. Lieber, writ¬
ten on April 19, 1860, just a year before the Sixth
Regiment of Massachusetts was attacked by the
mob at Baltimore : —
“ So far as I hnow^ and as I believe, every man
in both Houses is armed with a revolver — some
with two — and a bowie knife. It is, I fear, in
the power of any Red or Black Republican to pre¬
cipitate at any moment a collision in which the
slaughter would be such as would shock the world
and dissolve the government. ... I tell you —
knowing all about it — that unless the aggression
on the slaveholder is arrested, no power short of
God’s can prevent a bloody fight here, and a dis¬
ruption of the Union.”
Sumner was aware of this condition and was
urged by his friends to arm himself, but replied that
it was idle, for he should be shot before he could
draw his weapon, while any attempt to do so would
be used as evidence that his murderer acted in
self-defense. His speech showed no trace of re¬
sentment for what he had suffered, unless it was
to be found in a cold indifference to the feelings
TRIUMPH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 173
of his opponents, which was apparent throughout.
Hitherto he had always shown a certain sympathy
with the defenders of the wrong, while he attacked
the wrong itself. Now he seemed to have reached
a plane whence he regarded them with no concern.
It was slavery whose enormities he exposed, and
the time had come when the feelings of men were
not to be weighed against the duty of destroying
“ the sum of all the villainies.”
The speech was rather an essay upon slavery
than an argument. Its strength lay in the accu¬
mulation of facts rather than in the eloquence with
which they were presented ; and the simple recital
would perhaps have been more effective without
the rhetorical accompaniments. It was addressed
to men who had been born under the system and
who believed in it, and it exposed the wickedness
and the evil effects of slavery with unsparing,
almost brutal fidelity. In opening Sumner re¬
minded his audience that his last speech in the
Senate was made to urge the immediate admission
of Kansas, with a constitution prohibiting slavery,
and although years had intervened he took up the
case precisely where he left it. After briefly re¬
capitulating the wrongs of Kansas, he said that
the most important part of his argument was un¬
touched in his former speech ; that slavery was the
motive and therefore must slavery be discussed
not indirectly, timidly, and sparingly, but directly,
openly, and thoroughly.” “ This is no time,” he
said, “ to abandon any advantage in argument.
174
CHARLES SUMNER
. . . It is a solemn battle between right and
wrong, between good and evil ; such a battle can¬
not be fought with rose water. There is austere
work to be done, and freedom cannot consent to
fling away any of her weapons.” He quoted from
the recent statements of senators such passages
as : “ Slavery is a great moral, social, and political
blessing, — a blessing to the slave and a blessing
to the master.” Its “ frame of society is the best
in the world.” It is “ ennobling to both races, the
white and the black.” Accepting the issue thus
tendered and looking at the matter from the stand¬
point of a moralist, he showed the essential bar¬
barism of slavery. He quoted from the statutes
of the Southern States, from the decisions of their
courts, from the advertisements in their news¬
papers, from the speeches of their public men,
from the census, and proved that slavery blasted
where it existed, and exposed the slave to every
crime, while brutalizing the master. For examples
he referred to a recent article in a leading Virginia
newspaper, offering fifty thousand dollars for the
head of William H. Seward ; another proposing to
raise ten thousand dollars for the delivery at Kich-
mond of Joshua R. Giddings, “or five thousand
dollars for the production of his head.” He quoted
from speeches made at that same session of Con¬
gress by Southern representatives, which showed
an absolute brutality now hard to imagine. The
strength of his terrible picture lay in the fact that
it was painted by the slave masters themselves.
TRIUMPH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 175
Such a speech at the beginning of the campaign
was intended to be and was a reservoir of facts,
from which arguments could be drawn by campaign
speakers for use in discussions the country over.
Sumner knew that it could have no effect on the
action of the Senate, but when men were more
than ever considering the slavery question on
moral grounds, this speech of the man who had
been so conspicuous a victim of the barbarism
which he denounced, and who now spoke for the
first time after his return to the Senate, had a
widespread influence. There was great difference
of opinion even among Republicans as to its wis¬
dom, and many felt that it would anger but not
convince. A Western newspaper called it “one of
the ablest, most exasperating, and most useless
speeches we ever read.” All admitted its truth,
but many doubted whether it would aid the bill
to admit Kansas or win votes at the coming elec¬
tion. The event proved that Sumner judged
wisely. He appreciated better the state of public
feeling than those who were active in the political
campaign. He believed in appealing to the highest
motives, and putting the evils of slavery before
the people so clearly that no one with any moral
sense could doubt which side was right. It was
the speech which closed the discussion of slavery
in Congress, and it seems more like the summing
up of a merciless judge than the argument of an
advocate.
The adjournment of Congress was followed by
176
CHARLES SUMNER
the jo^reat campaign of 1860, which resulted in the
election of Lincoln, and in this Sumner took an
active interest. Requests to speak poured in upon
him from all parts of the country, and after the
adjournment of Congress he spoke for the Repub¬
lican Union at the Cooper Institute before an enor¬
mous audience. This was an effective campaign
speech in which he repeated his arguments and
pointed out that by the census of 1850 there were
only 347,525 slaveholders, of whom a large ma¬
jority held only a very few slaves. He showed
how great and how pernicious an influence this
insignificant number exerted on every department
of the government, and urged the vital necessity
of saving the country and the age by defeating
the party which upheld this abuse. As we read
in the light of to-day what he said of slavery, it is
difficult to realize how slaveholders believed that
their institution could be preserved.
On August 29, for the first time in six years,
he met the Republicans of Massachusetts in their
state convention, where he discussed the candidates
and pointed out that Lincoln stood for freedom,
while Bell, Breckinridge, and Douglas were all for
slavery. He paid especial attention to Douglas and
followed him through his various changes of opinion.
During the campaign he wrote many letters, and
spoke often in Massachusetts. At Worcester he
attacked the theory that popular sovereignty, exer¬
cised by a handful of early settlers, could determine
the fate of a territory and its immense population
TRIUMPH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 177
in the future. His last speech, made in Faneuil
Hall the night before the election, rings with a
note of triumph. After alluding to the years that
had elapsed since he last stood in that place, he
said : “ Could these venerable arches speak, what
stories could they not tell ; . . . the history of
American freedom, with all its anxieties, struggles,
and triumphs, commencing before national inde¬
pendence and continued down to the very contest
now about to close, — all this might be written
from the voices in this hall. But, thank God, the
days of defeat, of mourning, of fear, have passed,
and these walls will record only those notes of vic¬
tory already beginning to sound in our ears. There
are anniversaries in our history noticed by young
and old with grateful emotion ; but to-morrow’s
sun will set on a day more glorious for freedom
than any anniversary since the fourth of July,
1776. . . . That power which, according to the
boast of slave masters, has governed the country
for more than fifty years ; . . . that power which
lias taught us by example how much of tyranny
there may be in the name of democracy, is doomed.
The great clock will soon strike, sounding its knell.
Every four years a new president is chosen, but
rarely a new government. To-morrow we shall
have not only a new president, but a new govern¬
ment.”
CHAPTER XI
SECESSION VS. COMPKOMISE
Threats of disunion were frequent during the
campaign, and Lincoln was opposed by some on
the ground that his election would be followed by
secession. Sumner replied to this argument, point¬
ing out that it had been used before “ at seven dif¬
ferent stages in our history,” adding : “ Whatever
it might have been at first it is now nothing more
than ‘ second childishness and mere oblivion sans
everything.’ There is nothing in it which should
not be treated with indignant contempt, certainly
when employed here in Massachusetts to make us
sacrifice our principles.” He showed how little it
would avail “ as a remedy for the alleged griev¬
ances of the slave States,” and concluded: “Re¬
member that your first duty is to stand up straight,
and not bend before absurd threats, whether uttered
at the South or repeated here in Massachusetts.
Let people cry ‘ Disunion.’ We know what the
cry means, and we answer back : The Union shall
be preserved and made more precious by its conse¬
cration to freedom.”
His view was shared by the most sagacious Re¬
publican leaders. Seward derided the cry which
SECESSION VS. COMPROMISE
179
the slave power now uttered “ with a feeble and
muttering voice.” Thurlow Weed wrote : “ Dis¬
solving the Union is a game for the presidency.
It is nothing but a game. That it will be played
desperately we admit, because Southern sportsmen
play desperately.” Chase took the same ground,
and so did all the leading Republican newspapers.
The party as a whole insisted that the threats of
disunion were idle. Before Congress met, however,
it had become apparent that the danger of seces¬
sion was real. In South Carolina the presidential
electors were chosen by the legislature, and as the
law required a choice in all the States on the
same day, the governor convened the legislature on
November 5. His message invited them “ to re¬
main in session, and take such action as would
prepare the State for any emergency that might
arise,” urging that, if Lincoln were elected, a con¬
vention should at once be called, and expressing
the opinion that South Carolina must secede and
the other slave States follow her. The news of
Lincoln’s election was received at Charleston with
rejoicing, because it insured disunion. On Novem¬
ber 7 the federal grand jury in that city closed its
session, because the result of the election “ involved
the existence of the government.” On the same
day the district judge of the United States re¬
signed, and his example was followed by the dis¬
trict attorney and the collector. Within a few
days the legislature called a convention and fixed
December 7 as the day for electing delegates.
180
CHARLES SUMNER
The legislature of Georgia met the day after the
election, heard the message of Governor Brown,
who advised against secession but counseled pre¬
paration, and passed a resolution affirming the
right of secession. By the middle of November
the speeches of the governor, the senators, and
other leading men showed that Georgia would fol¬
low South Carolina. The legislatures of Missis¬
sippi and Florida also met in November, and in
the same month the governor of Alabama called a
state convention, and the governor of Louisiana a
meeting of the legislature, making it clear that all
these States were on the brink of seceding.
When Congress met, on December 3, the coun¬
try was face to face with a crisis for which no one
was really prepared. Everything was uncertain.
In the South a compact body of men was bent on
secession, but by no means contemplated civil war.
They expected to be joined by the border slave
States so that the new confederation would control
a large territory and present a united front. They
depended on the active sympathy of Europe, believ¬
ing that the manufacturing nations would exert
pressure enough to prevent any war that would
interrupt their supply of cotton. As Hammond
said in the Senate : “ What would happen if no
cotton was furnished for three years? England
would topple headlong and carry the whole civi¬
lized world with her. No, you dare not make war
upon cotton. No power on earth dares to make
war upon it.” His more enthusiastic associate,
SECESSION VS. COMPROMISE
181
Wigfall of Texas, insisted that “ Victoria’s crown
would not stand on her head one week if cotton
was stopped, nor would her head stand on her
shoulders.”
They relied also on disunion at the North.
Some believed that the Northwest would join them
in order not to lose the control of the Mississippi.
Others predicted a new union from which New
England and New Jersey alone would be excluded,
or to which they would be admitted only on terms
to be imposed by the slave power. Nearly all
believed that any attempt at coercion would lead
to civil war in the free States, and fancied that
the stoppage of cotton would throw millions out of
employment, and create disturbances which would
paralyze the aggressive force of the government.
Alexander H. Stephens said, “ I have but little
doubt that the North will go into anarchy.” VTith
such expectations it is not singular that the South¬
ern leaders agreed with Iverson that “ there is to
be 1^0 war. The Northern States are controlled by
sagacious men, like the distinguished senator from
New York. Where public opinion and action are
thus controlled bv men of common sense, who know
well that they cannot succeed in a war against the
Southern States, no such attempt of coercion will
be made.” Hence the Southern leaders were in¬
clined to reject all proposals of compromise, believ¬
ing it better to dictate terms after disunion than to
negotiate while it was still doubtful. A large body
of Southerners indeed opposed secession, but they
182
CHARLES SUMNER
were not in office, had no leaders or organization,
and were in no position to make head against their
aggressive opponents. In some States a majority
of the voters probably were Union men, but a
silent and timid majority without leading is hardly
a force even in a republic.
Amid such conditions events moved rapidly
from the meeting of Congress to the inauguration
of Lincoln. Following the lead of South Carolina,
which passed her ordinance of secession on Decem¬
ber 20, the Southern States seceded in rapid suc¬
cession. The members of the Cabinet and the
senators and representatives from the seceding
States successively resigned their places. On
January 19 the legislature of Virginia called a
convention of representatives from all the States
to find a way of preventing disunion. On Febru¬
ary 4 the Peace Conference, summoned by Vir¬
ginia, met at Washington, while a convention to
frame a constitution for the new confederacy met
at Montgomery. On the 8th the Confederate con¬
stitution was adopted. On February 9 Jefferson
Davis and Alexander H. Stephens were elected
president and vice-president of the Southern Con¬
federacy, and on February 18 they were inaugu¬
rated at Montgomery. The secessionists marched
steadily on, and their plans apparently were not
affected by any suggestions of compromise.
The national administration was utterly unfitted
to meet the emergency. The President was old
and irresolute, anxious onlv to reach the end of his
* */
SECESSION VS. COMPROMISE
183
term in peace and transfer his responsibilities to
his successor. Of his Cabinet, Floyd, secretary
of war, and Thompson, secretary of the interior,
actively aided secession. Thompson communicated
the secrets of the administration, and Floyd had
long been stocking the Southern arsenals with
munitions of war.
In his message to Congress, December 3, 1860,
the President blamed the North and admitted that
the Southern States had been wronged, but denied
their right to secede, saying that the election of any
citizen to the presidency was not of itself an excuse
for such revolutionary action, especially since no
law injurious to the interests of the South could
pass both houses of Congress. He recognized his
duty to enforce the laws, but suggested that where
the whole machinery of the federal government had
broken down, as in South Carolina, it was extremely
difficult to do so. Finally, he found no power in
the government to prevent secession by force, thus
telling the secession leaders that they need fear no¬
thing from the administration.
The seat of active trouble was Charleston, and
the question, whether the forts in its harbor should
be reinforced and held, divided the counselors of
the President and was the subject of negotiation
between him and commissioners from South Caro¬
lina. The President vacillated, and satisfied no
one.
On December 15 Cass, the secretary of state,
resigned, because the President refused to reinforce
184
CHARLES SUMNER
the forts, and on the 29th Floyd resigned, because
the President would not order Major Anderson to
leave Fort Sumter. Finally the unarmed steamer
Star of the West was sent with provisions, but was
driven back by South Carolina troops advised of
her sailing by the secretary of the interior. This
was Buchanan’s only attempt to assert the author¬
ity of the United States. From the first day of
the session to the last he was advising Congress to
win the seceders back by compromise, and was
trying to avoid any positive action.
What was the position of the victorious Republi¬
cans in this crisis ? They owed their success to
the division of their opponents rather than to their
own strength, and their candidates had received a
minority of the popular vote even in the Northern
States. The sudden spectre of disunion, the worse
one of civil war, appalled a peace-loving commu¬
nity entirely unprepared to fight. Merchants were
frightened by the probable interruption of rela¬
tions with half the country and the danger of enor¬
mous pecuniary loss. A veritable panic ensued.
The opponents of the Republicans loudly demanded
some compromise to relieve the situation, while
many who had voted for Lincoln joined in the
demand, regarding civil war as a far worse ca¬
lamity than concession to slavery. Many of the
abolitionist leaders, Wendell Phillips, Horace
Greeley, Whittier, and others, urged that no at¬
tempt should be made to hold the seceding States.
Their view was expressed in Whittier’s poem : —
SECESSION VS. COMPROMISE
185
“ They break the links of Union ; shall we light
The fires of hell to weld anew the chain
On that red anvil where each blow is pain ? ”
In the face of impending calamity every shade
of opinion found supporters, and it was not easy to
tell what course would command public approval.
A policy was needed which the North would sup¬
port, which would keep the border States from
joining the South, and which would not sacrifice
what had been gained by Lincoln’s election. It also
seemed to the Republicans important that any
open rupture should be avoided, until the inaugura¬
tion of Lincoln should place them in control of the
government ; for under Buchanan the secessionists
might gain great advantages. This alone was to
many a sufficient reason for temporizing. Some
Republicans felt it most desirable to put the South
in the wrong, in order to unite the North. Others
believed it far more essential to stand firm and
lose none of the ground which had been won with
such difficulty. A few believed adjustment possi¬
ble and were willing to concede much for the sake
of peace. From whatever motive, Seward, already
known to be Lincoln’s secretary of state, was active
in suggesting compromise. The existence of these
different forces must be recognized in order to
understand the confused politics of the session. It
must also be borne in mind that some resolute dis-
unionists were anxious to avoid hostilities while
Buchanan was in office, fearing that, if he were
driven to act against them, the Democrats would
186
CHARLES SUMNER
rally to the supjjort of a Democratic president and
give Lincoln a united North.
The winter passed in negotiations, and there was
the gravest danger that the victory so hardly won
for freedom might be turned into the worst of
defeats by a surrender. Such a course would not
only have sacrificed the immediate fruits of the
victory, but would have paralyzed future effort, by
making threats of disunion more effective than a
majority of the votes at a presidential election.
The results of such a compromise were indicated
in the following amendment to the Constitution
proposed during the session ; “ Whenever a party
shall be beaten in an election for president and
vice-president, such party may rebel and take up
arms, and unless the successful shall adopt as its
own the principles of the defeated party and con¬
sent to such amendments of the Constitution as
the latter party shall dictate, then in such case the
Union shall be at an end.”
In the House of Representatives so much of the
President’s message as related “ to the present
perilous condition of the country ” was referred
to a special committee of one from each State.
Corwin of Ohio was chairman, and Reuben Davis
of Mississippi was the most prominent representa¬
tive of the secessionists. On December 15 Davis
offered a resolution in this committee, that it was
the duty of the federal government to protect slave
property like all other property on land and water.
The Southern members agreed to it, and promised
SECESSION VS. COMPROMISE
187
to recommend it as a final settlement of the slavery
question. It was defeated by the casting vote of
the chairman, and the Southern members left the
committee room. From that moment it was appar¬
ent that this committee could not agree.
In the Senate a motion to refer so much of the
message as related to the condition of the coun¬
try was not adopted until the 18th, after a debate.
Sumner read a letter of President Jackson, writ¬
ten on May 1, 1833, in which these striking
words occurred : “ Take care of your nullifiers ;
you have them among you ; let them meet with the
indignant frowns of every man who loves his coun¬
try. The tariff, it is now known, was a mere pretext
. . . and disunion and a Southern Confederacy the
real object. The next pretext will be the negro or
slavery question.” On December 18 Mr. Critten¬
den introduced his compromise resolutions, propos¬
ing six articles for the Constitution and many legis¬
lative acts. He spoke in support of his plan on
January 7, and his resolutions were antagonized
by an amendment introduced by Mr. Clark of New
Hampshire, to the effect that “ the provisions of
the present Constitution are ample for the preser¬
vation of the Union and the protection of all the
material interests of the country ; that it needs to
be obeyed rather than amended ; . . . and therefore
to the maintenance of the existing Union and Con¬
stitution should be directed all the energies of ■ all
the departments of the government and the efforts
of all good citizens.” On January 16 this sub-
!
188
CHARLES SUMNER
stitute was adopted, owing to the fact that the sen¬
ators from the Gulf States did not vote. A motion
to reconsider, however, was carried, and the resolu¬
tions of Crittenden lay upon the table until, on the
last day of the session, they were called up by Ma¬
son of Virginia and defeated, most of the Southern
senators having withdrawn or withholding their
votes.
In the House the committee of thirty-three, after
much discussion, submitted eight reports on Janu¬
ary 14, but not one of these was fully approved by
a majority of the whole committee.
The so-called majority report urged the impor¬
tance of respecting the constitutional obligation to
return fugitive slaves, and proposed resolutions
that all state legislation obstructing the execution
of the Fugitive Slave Law should be discouraged ;
that Congress had no right to interfere with slavery
in the States ; that there was no ground for the
dissolution of the Union ; that the States should
revise their laws concerning the right of citizens of
one State to travel in another ; and that the States
should enact proper laws against the invasion of
one State by another. The report proposed an
amendment to the Constitution, declaring that Con¬
gress should have no power to interfere with slav¬
ery where it existed, “until every State in the
Union, by its individual state action, shall con¬
sent to its exercise.” It also recommended that
.i^ew Mexico be admitted as a State with its pro¬
slavery code. To the surprise of many, Charles
SECESSION VS. COMPROMISE
189
Francis Adams supported these recommendations.
Into his reasons for so doing, it is unnecessary to
enter. He was essentially a diplomat, and his
policy was to discuss concession until the control
of the government was secured.
Sumner was absolutely opposed to compromise.
His object was the destruction of slavery because
it was wrong, and any concession to it was to him
impossible. From the time when he enlisted
against it, he never saw the hour when he would
have hesitated to use every legal power to free
his country from its great curse. The attitude of
Adams was to him inconceivable, for he believed
that the offer of compromise might be accepted.
The very intimacy of their previous friendship
made their disagreement on this point more serious.
From the difference in their tempers and modes
of action, it was inevitable that their paths should
diverge, and at this point they separated. The
result was a coolness which terminated their cordial
relations. Sumner refrained from taking part in
the debates, “because,” as he said in a private
letter, “ I could say nothing which would not be
perverted by the compromisers as an attempt to
widen the breach.” By conversation and corre¬
spondence, however, he did much to make his po¬
litical associates stand firm against any concession
to slavery and disunion.
The following extracts from his correspondence
show his position. On January 1, 1861, he wrote
to William Claflin, president of the Massachusetts
190
CHARLES SUMNER
SonatG and chairman of the Republican state com¬
mittee : “ Massachusetts has now an important
post. Her most difficult duty is to be true to
herself and her own noble history. In the name
of Liberty, I supplicate you not to let her take
any backward step, — not an inch, not a hair* s
breadth**
J anuary 8 he wrote : “ Sunday evening I had
a visit from Thurlow TV^eed and Seward. . . ,
They urge that we cannot have a united North
unless we make an effort for adjustment ; to which
I reply : ‘ We have the verdict of the people last
November ; that is enough.’ The slave States are
mad. They will all move. Nothing now but ab¬
ject humiliation on the part of the North can stay
them. Nobody can foresee precisely all that is in
the future, but I *do not doubt that any conflict
will precipitate the doom of slavery. It will prob-
ably go down in blood.”
He hastened to deny his alleged adherence to
the Virginia “ Peace Conference,” and said : “ I
am against sending commissioners to treat for the
surrender of the North. Stand firm.”
On February 2, after an interview with the
President, he wrote to Governor Andrew : “ I said
to him, ‘ Mr. President, what else can we do in
Massachusetts for the good of the country?’ A
pause. ‘Much, Mr. Sumner.’ ‘What?’ said I. •
‘Adopt the Crittenden propositions,’ said he. ‘ Is
that necessary ? ’ said I. ‘ Yes,’ said he. To which
I replied, ‘ Massachusetts has not yet spoken di-
SECESSION VS. COMPROMISE
191
rectly ; but I feel authorized to say that, such are
the unalterable convictions of her people, they
would see their State sunk below the sea, and
turned into a sandbank, before they would adopt
propositions acknowledging property in men^ and
disfranchising a portion of her population.’ I think
I was right.”
When the legislature of Massachusetts was
urged to repeal her personal liberty laws, Sumner
wrote to members strongly opposing such action,
and his influence prevailed. Seward urged com¬
promise, though he offered no definite proposi¬
tions. He seemed to think that a solution might
be found if a rupture could be avoided until the
new administration came into power. On Janu¬
ary 12, in a great speech, he recognized the con¬
stitutional obligation to return fugitive slaves, ex¬
pressed his willingness by constitutional amend¬
ment to provide that Congress should never be
given power to deal with slavery in the States,
and to pass acts for the admission of future States
without special prohibition of slavery. Of this
speech, Sumner wrote to Andrew on January 17 :
“ Our friends are all tranquil, except so far as
disturbed by Seward’s speech. If his propositions
were pressed, I think they would split the party.
. . . He read me his speech four days in advance
of its delivery. I pleaded with him for the sake
of the cause, the country, and his own good name
to abandon all his propositions, and simply to
declare that Mr. Lincoln would be inausurated on
192
CHARLES SUMNER
the 4tli of March President of the United States,
and rally the country to his support. I do not
think we should allow this opportunity to pass
without trying the question whether a single State
can break up the Union. What is it worth, if held
by any such tenure ? I have no concession or com¬
promise of any kind to propose or favor.”
On the 21st : “ Pray keep our beloved common¬
wealth firm ; yet a little longer and the crisis will
be passed. Save her from surrender. Nothing
she can do will stay secession. Impossihle. Let
her not write a shameful page in the history of
human freedom.” On the 26th : “ The mistake
of many persons comes from this, — they do not
see that we are in the midst of a revolution, where
reason is dethroned, and passion rules instead. . . .
I have but one prayer, — stand firm, keep every
safeguard of human rights on our statute-book.”
When the rest of the Massachusetts delegation
urged Governor Andrew to appoint delegates to
the Peace Conference, Sumner declined to sign.
The governor thought it better to send delegates
in order that volunteers might not go who would
misrepresent Massachusetts.
February 10, after the conference had assem¬
bled : “ Every word of concession thus far has
done infinite mischief, — first, by encouraging the
slave masters ; and, secondly, by demoralizing our
own friends, and filling them with doubt and dis¬
trust.”
On February 12 Crittenden presented in the
SECESSION VS. COMPROMISE
193
Senate in support of his proposals a petition from
more than twenty thousand citizens of Massachu-
setts, who alleged that “ their sentiments towards
the Union and towards their common country have
been misrepresented and misunderstood.” This
brought Sumner to his feet. He pointed out how
enormously the proposed compromise increased the
power of slavery, and how it ‘discredited our whole
system of government, and he took the distinct
ground that “ there is but one thing now for the
North to do : it is to stand firm.” Of this speech
Emerson wrote to him : “ Peace and prosperity
adhere to your truth and firmness as they ought.
I am always consoled in the bad times by your
fidelity.”
It is interesting to compare the words of Sumner
with the counsels of Lincoln at the same time, who,
on January 11, 1861, wrote: “We have just car¬
ried an election on principles fairly stated to the
people. Now we are told in advance the govern¬
ment shall be broken up, unless we surrender to
those we have beaten before we take the offices. In
this they are either attempting to play upon us, or
they are in dead earnest. Either way, if we sur¬
render, it is the end of us and of the government.”
And on February 1 to Seward : “ On the territo¬
rial question — that is, the question of extending
slavery under the national auspices — I am indexi¬
ble. I am for no compromise which assists or per¬
mits the extension of the institution on soil owned
by the nation. And any trick by which the nation
194
CHARLES SUMNER
is to acquire territory, and then allow some local
authority to spread slavery over it, is as obnoxious
as any other. I take it that to effect some such
result as this, and to put us again on the high road
to a slave empire, is the object of all these proposed
compromises. I am against it.”
Chase was equally inflexible, and these views pre -
vailed. The compromise propositions were defeated.
The Peace Conference and the committees of
House and Senate alike failed. The seceding
States were unwilling to accept any concession that
the North was prepared to make. On the last day
of the session the Senate concurred with the House
in adopting a hastily drawn amendment to the Con¬
stitution, intended to prevent any amendment which
should give Congress the power to interfere with
slavery in the States, but this abortive result of the
attempt to stay a revolution was soon forgotten in
civil war.
On March 4, 1861, Lincoln was inaugurated, and
the withdrawal of the Southern senators left the Re¬
publicans in control of the Senate, which remained
to act upon the appointments of the new President.
The committees were at once reorganized, and Sum¬
ner was made chairman of the committee on for¬
eign relations in place of his opponent Mason.
He had been suggested for the English mission, but
he preferred to remain in the Senate. His tastes,
his training, and his European acquaintance fitted
him well for his new position. It was thoroughly
agreeable to him, and the selection was approved at
home and abroad.
SECESSION VS. COMPROMISE
195
He was at once interested in the choice of our
diplomatic representatives. As he wrote : “ There
is chaos in our foreign system. But it is of incal¬
culable importance that our cause should be repre¬
sented at every European government with all the
character, skill, and persuasion which we can com¬
mand.” It was urged then, as it has been ever since,
that these great positions should be used to reward
political service and should be distributed geograph¬
ically. To such views Sumner was absolutely op¬
posed, though somewhat inclined to favor men con¬
spicuous for anti-slavery zeal. He felt that a
minister should speak the language of the country
to which he was sent, and that fitness was essential.
His advice was influential but not always control¬
ling, and to some changes he was strongly opposed.
In one case where an incompetent politician was
appointed against his urgent counsel, Mr. Lincoln
came to agree with him, for he afterwards said :
“ When I think of - as minister to - , I wish
the earth would open and take me in.”
The only important subject referred to his com¬
mittee during the short session of the Senate was
the message of the President, asking advice upon
the question whether the proposition of Great Brit¬
ain to refer the San Juan boundary question
to arbitration should be accepted. Mr. Sumner
promptly reported in favor of acceptance and the
selection of Switzerland as arbiter.
The Senate adjourned on March 28, 1861, but
Sumner remained in Washington until after Sum-
196
CHARLES SUMNER
ter was fired upon and the administration called
for troops. Leaving on April 18, he spent the
night in Baltimore, where he narrowly escaped
being mobbed. He left there on the morning of
the day when the Sixth Regiment of Massachusetts
was fired upon while passing through the city, and
three days later he addressed the third battalion of
Massachusetts Rifles in New York on its way to the
front. His speech was brief but inspiring, and it
was clear, as his biographer Mr. Pierce says, that
“ at last a war had come which the author of ‘ The
True Grandeur of Nations ’ thought honorable and
worthy of every patriot’s blessing.”
CHAPTER XII
EMANCIPATION
So soon as the true nature of the conflict was
recognized the question of its effect upon slavery
was presented. This was of vital importance,
especially in the border States, where men were di¬
vided between love of the Union and fear of losing
property. Even in the free States many were ready
to support the government in restoring the Union
who were not yet opposed to slavery, and the ad¬
ministration justly felt that it could not alienate
these men or strengthen the secessionists in the
border States. Its first duty was to stop the
spread of the conflagration and to retain in the
Union the States which had not seceded. Could
this be done and the North remain united, the de¬
feat of the South became only a question of time.
The administration therefore was supported by
])ublic opinion, when in the early stages of the con¬
flict it declared that its purpose was simply to re¬
store the authority of the government in the seceded
States, and that slavery would not be interfered
with. This was stated by Seward in his instruc¬
tions to our foreign representatives.
In pursuance of this policy the army was in-
198
CHARLES SUMNER
structed not to interfere with slaves, and the attor¬
ney-general instructed the marshals of the United
States in Missouri that the Fugitive Slave Law
must be executed. The secretary of war met
General Butler’s famous suggestion that slaves
were “ contraband of war ” with the statement : “ It
is the desire of the President that all existing rights
in all the States be fully respected and main¬
tained ; ” and the President annulled General Fre¬
mont’s order of August 30, 1861, emancipating the
slaves of those Missourians who should take arms
against the government. The policy thus pro¬
claimed and carried out was doubtless wise. It
won for the President the confidence of many who
had not been his supporters, it strengthened the
Union cause in the border States and perhaps pre¬
vented their secession, and when in the fullness of
time the President decided that slavery must per¬
ish to save the Union, he had behind him a support
which he could not have commanded earlier, and
without which his blow might have been futile.
Sumner recognized the wisdom of not attacking
slavery too soon, but he never believed that the
Union and slavery could both be preserved. He
had seen in slavery the root of all our trouble, too
long not to feel that the government should use
every power to destroy it, and that no real union was
possible until this was done. His never varying
purpose from the moment when the Republicans
came into power was to end slavery, and strike
from the statute-book every recognition of its ex-
EMANCIPATION
199
istence, and every denial to colored men of their
equal rights as citizens. He saw with the eye of a
statesman that there could be only one real end
to the conflict, and he sought that end with a di¬
rectness which more politic men could not imi¬
tate. He was a force constantly pushing for free¬
dom, and trying to carry his fellow countrymen
with him. It was necessary, perhaps, that others
should hold back, that the army might be kept to¬
gether, — that men might gradually outgrow the
prejudices with which they began the struggle.
The war was a process of education, and Sumner
was a teacher constantly inculcating its lesson.
Without him and those who shared his views
progress would have been slower; without others it
might have been less sure.
The President and he were in thorough accord
as to the end, but Sumner felt that the time to
strike had arrived before the President was ready
to act. He thought that foreign intervention, on
which the Confederate leaders relied, would be
made impossible by emancipation, since we should
have the sympathy of Europe in a contest for
freedom, while we should not have it in a con¬
test for empire. He believed also that there was
no weapon so effective against the armies in the
field. At the end of May, 1861, in conversation
with the President he admitted that the time had
not yet come, but he urged him to be ready for
action at the first favorable moment. Two days
after the defeat of Bull Run, when the news showed
200
CHARLES SUMNER
that the country was thoroughly aroused, he told
the President that the time had come. The Presi¬
dent thought not, and recalling their earlier con¬
versation said : “ Did you not then approve my
course ? ” “ Certainly,” was the reply, “ at that
time ; but I said also that you must be ready to
strike at slavery, and now the moment has come.
Of this I have no doubt.” But though this was
his private advice, he betrayed no impatience in
public.
Congress met in extra session on July 4, 1861,
and Mr. Crittenden, now a member of the House,
introduced a resolution to declare the object of the
war, which was passed with only two opposing
votes. Andrew Johnson introduced almost the
same resolution in the Senate, and in it was this
statement : “ That this war is not prosecuted on our
part in any spirit of oppression ; . . . nor for the
purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the
rights or established institutions of those States;
but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the
Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof,
and to preserve the Union.” This general lan¬
guage was evidently intended to protect slavery
and the Fugitive Slave Law, but it received the
support of all the senators except Trumbull, who
voted against it, and Sumner, who did not vote
because, though opposed to the resolution, he was
“ unwilling to separate openly from political asso¬
ciates.” For the same reason, in two bills which
he introduced during this session for punishing
EMANCIPATION
201
treason and confiscating the property of traitors,
he made no reference to slaves, though he used
language broad enough to cover all property.
There was some evidence during the session that
Sumner’s view was gaining ground in the passage
by the House, on July 9, of a resolution “ that it is
no part of the duty of the soldiers of the United
States to capture and return fugitive slaves,” and
the passage of a law that the slaves of rebels used
by them for military purposes should be freed.
Nevertheless, the policy of protecting slavery
against the natural consequences of war still con¬
tinued, and the attitude of the President was made
apparent by the various military orders above men¬
tioned.
Sumner felt that it was not safe to delay until
the course of the war had educated the country up
to emancipation, and that something should be
done to create a public opinion upon which the
President could lean. His opportunity came in an
invitation to address the State Republican Conven¬
tion of Massachusetts, and his speech on October 1,
1861, was the first public demand for emancipation
made by any responsible statesman. After dwell¬
ing on the suffering and disasters caused by the
civil war, and pointing out that all these were
borne to preserve slavery, he proceeded : —
“ It is often said that war will make an end of
slavery. This is probable. But it is surer still
that the overthrow of slavery will make an end of
the war.
202
CHARLES SUMNER
“ If I am correct in this averment, which 1 be-
lieve beyond question, then do reason, justice, and
policy unite, each and all, in declaring that the
war must be brought to bear directly on the
grand conspirator and omnipresent enemy. Not
to do so is to take upon ourselves all the weak^
ness of slavery, while we leave to the rebels its
boasted resources of military strength. ... It is
not necessary even, borrowing a familiar phrase,
to carry the war into Africa. It will be enough if
we carry Africa into the war.”
To sustain his position, he quoted John Quincy
Adams, who always held that the government had
power to destroy slavery in the event of war ; and
having established the power to strike he said : “ I
calmly deliver the whole question to those on whom
the responsibility rests, contenting myself with
reminding you that there are times when not to act
carries with it greater responsibility than to act.
It is enough for us to review the unquestioned pow¬
ers of government, to handle for a moment its
mighty weapons, yet allowed to slumber, without
assuming to declare that the hour has come when
they shall flash against the sky.” In conclusion he
recognized the duty of compensating loyal owners
for their losses. Outside the convention and on
both sides of the ocean opinion was sharply divided
as to the wisdom of the speech. Conservatives re^
garded it as unfortunate, and its author as im¬
practicable, perverse, and almost insane. They
thought that it would divide the North, embarrass
EMANCIPATION
203
the administration, and render more difficult the
prosecution of the war. On the other hand, it was
warmly applauded by large numbers, including
some of those very border state men, whose sen¬
sibilities the North was so anxious to consult. It
stirred men’s minds, and awakened in many a fresh
enthusiasm, especially among the rank and file of
the Republican party.
Sumner followed it up by a more carefully
prepared address, delivered during October and No¬
vember in various cities, and finally at the Cooper
Institute in New York on November 27, 1861,
where a singularly brilliant audience adopted by
acclamation a resolution approving his position.
His line of argument was essentially the same
as in his speech to the Worcester convention, and
the reasons for striking slavery directly were pre¬
sented with great force. He dwelt especially upon
the fact that it was the labor of slaves at home
which kept their masters in the field, saying, “ Thus
by singular fatality is this doomed race, without
taking up arms, actually engaged in feeding, sup¬
porting, succoring, invigorating those battling for
their enslavement.” This speech, like the preced¬
ing, was attacked as unwise, but it did much to
change public opinion.
When the session of Congress opened, on De¬
cember 2, 1861, Sumner was in his seat. He
found the President in sympathy with the policy
which he had advocated, but not ready to act.
He tells me,” wrote Sumner to Andrew, “that I
204
CHARLES SUMNER
am ahead of him only a month or six weeks.” The
President in his message suggested his favorite
plan of colonization, but took no decided stand as
to freeing the slaves of rebel owners. The ten¬
dency of his mind was indicated by his declaration :
“ The Union must be preserved, and hence all
indispensable means must be employed ; ” but his
doubts found expression in the qualifying clause :
“We should not be in haste to determine that radi¬
cal and extreme measures, which may reach the
loyal as well as the disloyal, are indispensable.”
He was feeling his way, knowing the danger of
hasty action, and in justification of his policy he
was able to adduce the fact that from Maryland,
Kentucky, and Missouri, which at first would not
offer a soldier, at least forty thousand men were
then in the Union army.
Sumner at once addressed himself to the work
of educating the people to demand emancipation.
On December 4 he offered a resolution calling
for General Halleck’s orders in Missouri, which di¬
rected that fugitive slaves be not received within
the lines, and that those already there should be
expelled. In a brief speech he criticised these or¬
ders as “ disheartening to our soldiers,” “ irrational
and inhuman.” There was some hesitancy on the
part of our generals in regard to escaped slaves,
and Sumner again spoke on the subject in May,
urging the folly of protecting slavery while it was
attempting to destroy the government. He fol¬
lowed his first speech by a resolution directing the
EMANCIPATION
205
committee on military affairs to consider the ex¬
pediency of legislation against the surrender of
fugitive slaves by our armies. The subject re¬
ceived prompt attention in both Houses, and, after
much discussion as to form, a bill was passed by
the House adding a new article of war prohibiting
the use of the United States forces for the return
of fugitive slaves. This passed the Senate, and
became a law on March 13, 1862.
On December 4 he took advantage of a debate
over the condition of the courts and prisons in the
District of Columbia to suggest that the evils of
which senators complained were due to the black
code, and that the remedy was to be found in the
abolition of slavery in the District. He had long
urged the abolition of slavery wherever the United
States had exclusive jurisdiction, but this was the
first public word on the subject since the Republi¬
can party came into power.
On December 16 his colleague, Mr. Wilson,
introduced a bill to abolish slavery in the District
of Columbia with compensation to loyal owners,
which was amended by adding an appropriation of
one hundred thousand dollars for colonizino* in
Hayti or Liberia slaves who desired to migrate.
While this was pending in the Senate the Presi¬
dent sent for Mr. Sumner, and showed him the
draft of a messao^e recommendino; the followino;
resolution : “ That the United States ought to co¬
operate with any State which may adopt gradual
abolishment of slavery, giving to such State pecum
206
CHARLES SUMNER
iary aid, to be used by such State, in its discretion,
to compensate for the inconveniences, public and
private, produced by such change of system.”
Sumner did not believe the plan practicable, but
he welcomed the evidence of the President’s ten¬
dency towards the course which he so strongly
urged. He made some suggestions as to the lan¬
guage, which the President adopted, and the mes¬
sage was sent in. The resolution was passed, and
soon afterwards the bill for compensated abolition
in the District of Columbia came up for discus¬
sion. Sumner spoke in favor of the bill on March
31, addressing himself especially to the doubt
of anti-slavery men whether it was right to ac¬
knowledge property in man by paying the own¬
ers for their slaves. To many it seemed that the
payment should be made to the slaves. Sumner
urged compensation : firsts because Congress had
recognized and supported slavery in the District,
thus making the whole country responsible for
the wrong, and therefore properly chargeable with
the expense of righting it ; second^ because it
was the most practical way of removing slavery.
To meet the scruples of friends, he called the pay¬
ment ransom, and compared it with our payments
to the Dey of Algiers. The speech was not espe¬
cially noteworthy ; for he was speaking to a body
which agreed with him, and was only waiting for
the end of the debate to pass the bill. This was
done in the House on April 11, but the Presi¬
dent withheld his signature till the 15th. Sumner
EMANCIPATION
207
could not understand the delay, and called upon
Mr. Lincoln to urge action. “ Do you know,” he
said, “who at this moment is the largest slave¬
holder in this country? It is Abraham Lincoln,
for he holds all the three thousand slaves of the
District, which is more than any other person in
the country holds.”
The President, in a message approving the bill,
explained his delay by pointing out that certain
classes, such as minors, married women, and others,
were not sufficiently protected by it, and suggested
additional legislation, which was passed. He was,
however, pleased that it recognized the two princi¬
ples of compensation and colonization. Thus was
paid, in the words of Sumner, “ a small installment
of that great debt to an enslaved race which we all
owe.
CHAPTER XIII
THE TRENT AFFAIR
During this autumn occurred an event which
gave Sumner the opportunity to render his coun¬
try perhaps the greatest single service of his life.
The state of our foreign relations was far from
satisfactory, and Mr. Seward had created the im¬
pression that he was hostile to England and not
averse to war with that country. ' The people of
the North had expected English sympathy, and
were irritated by the hostile tone of many promi¬
nent Englishmen. The early recognition of bellig¬
erency by England and France had seemed un¬
friendly, and on both sides misunderstanding and
ill feeling existed. The course of the war also had
been unfavorable to the government.
In this condition of affairs, on November 8, 1861,
Captain Wilkes, in command of the United States
ship San Jacinto, stopped the British mail steamer
Trent on the high seas, while on a voyage from
Havana to Nassau, and took from her Mason and
Slidell, envoys from the Confederate States to Eng¬
land and France. The Trent was allowed to pro¬
ceed, while the prisoners were brought to the United
States. This action of Captain Wilkes was received
THE TRENT AFFAIR
209
throughout the North with warm approval, perhaps
the more cordial because Mason and Slidell had
been especially arrogant and offensive champions
of slavery. On November 30 the secretary of the
Navy sent to Captain Wilkes the “ emphatic ap¬
proval ” of the department, and two days later the
House of Representatives passed a joint resolution
giving him the thanks of Congress. The press and
leading men of all parties, like Edward Everett,
Governor Andrew, Chief Justice Bigelow, and Caleb
Cushing in Massachusetts, united in applauding the
act.
Sumner was in Boston when the news came, and
at once said, “We shall have to give them up.”
He went to Washington and found the President
doubtful and anxious, but his Cabinet, except Post¬
master-General Blair, in sympathy with the feeling
of the country. On November 30 Mr. Seward
wrote to Mr. Adams that Captain Wilkes had acted
without instructions, and expressed the desire of
the government so to deal with the case as to avoid
conflict. While waiting dispatches from the British
government the administration did nothing to an¬
ticipate the discussion. The news of the capture
reached London on the night of November 27.
Earl Russell, after consulting the law officers of the
Crown, sent a dispatch to Lord Lyons at Wash¬
ington on November 30, instructing him to de¬
mand the surrender of Mason and Slidell and a
suitable apology. In a letter accompanying the
dispatch, Earl Russell authorized Lord Lyons to
210
CHARLES SUMNER
permit a delay not exceeding seven days. If a
favorable answer were not then given, he was in¬
structed to leave W ashington with the whole lega¬
tion, and to repair immediately to London. At the
same time preparations were made for war, troops
were dispatched to Canada, and ships were hastily
fitted for sea. The English press was bitter and
Parliament was hostile. “Three fourths of the
House of Commons,” wrote Cobden, “ will be glad
to find an excuse for voting for the dismemberment
of the great republic.” The Southern press was
jubilant, and the situation was critical in the ex¬
treme.
Sumner exerted all his influence to promote a
peaceful adjustment. He strongly urged that the
envoys be given up, and showed the President that
according to the doctrines always maintained by the
United States the capture was unjustifiable. He in¬
sisted that England, on the other hand, in demand¬
ing their release abandoned claims on which she
had always insisted, and it was thus in our power
to win a diplomatic victory by surrendering the
prisoners and accepting England’s surrender of
rights which she had always asserted, and we had
as constantly denied.
But the peremptory tone of the English demand
and the strong feeling in this country made such a
course very difficult, and for a time it was doubtful
what the answer would be. Sumner persistently
urged his views on Mr. Lincoln, and on December
25 he read to him and the Cabinet private letters
THE TRENT AFFAIR
211
from Cobden and Bright, which sustained him.
Cobden wrote : “ I am sure that the President
and the people of the United States would be but
too happy to let these men go free, unnatural and
unpardonable as their offenses have been, if by it
they could emancipate the commerce of the world.
. . . If I were in the position of your govern¬
ment, I would act upon their traditional policy,
and thus by a great strategic movement turn the
flank of the European powers, especially of the
yomrniny classes of England. I would propose
to let Mason and Slidell go, and stipulate, at the
same time, for a complete abandonment of the old
code of maritime law as upheld by England and
the European powers.”
Sumner’s anxiety and his appreciation of the
crisis appear in numerous letters. Thus he wrote
to Dr. Lieber on December 24: “War with Eng¬
land involves : (1.) Instant acknowledgment of
rebel States by England, followed by France. (2.)
Breaking of the present blockade with capture of
our fleet. (3.) The blockade of our coast from
Chesapeake to Eastport. (4.) The sponging of
our ships from the ocean. (5.) The establishment
of the independence of rebel States. (6.) Opening
of these States by free trade to English manufac¬
turers, which would be introduced by contraband
into our States, making the whole North American
continent a manufacturing dependency of England.
All this I have put to the President. . . . But my
anxious desire is to associate with our decision
212
CHARLES SUMNER
about Mason and Slidell some triumph of our tra¬
ditional policy with regard to maritime rights.”
He labored with his English friends to prevent
war. To Cobden he wrote December 31, 1861 :
“ On reaching Washington for the opening of
Congress I learned from the President and from
Mr. Seward that neither had committed himself
on the Trent affair, and that it was absolutely an
unauthorized act. Seward told me that he was re¬
serving himself in order to see what view England
would take. It would have been better to act on
the case at once, and to make the surrender in con¬
formity with our best precedents ; but next to that
was the course pursued. . . . The question was not
touched in the Cabinet. It was also kept out of
the Senate. . . . These circumstances will let you
see how little there was of study or effort against
England. . . . Telling the President a few days
ago that it was now important to drive out from
the British government their distrust of his admin¬
istration, and to plant confidence instead, he said
at once with perfect simplicity, ‘ I never see Lord
Lyons. If it were proper I should like to talk with
him, that he might hear from my lips how much I
desire peace. If we could talk together, he would
believe me.’ ”
In the same letter he says : —
“ Last evening, at a dinner by the secretary of
war, where were Seward, Chase, and two or three
senators, while we were seated the President en¬
tered and took a seat at the table. . . . The con-
THE TRENT AFFAIR
213
versation was much of it on the Trent case.
Speaking of the course of England, Seward said
he had no memory for injuries, and that in sur¬
rendering Mason and Slidell he did it in good faith,
— laying up nothing for future account or recol¬
lection. I mention this conversation and the sur¬
rounding circumstances that you may know the
inner sentiments of our Cabinet, and especially of
the man who is most suspected by Englishmen.
Seward may be careless or hasty ; he is not vindic¬
tive. The President is naturally and instinctively
for peace, besides being slow to conclusions. He
covets kindly relations with all the world, especially
with England. I say this confidentially, for I
have seen him almost daily and most intimately,
ever since the Trent question has been under dis¬
cussion.”
He pressed upon both Bright and Cobden the
idea that interference by England in behalf of
slavery would be a crime against civilization, and
pointed out clearly the danger that such conduct
would leave behind it “an ineradicable, undying
sting.”
Pending the settlement, Sumner was very anx¬
ious to prevent any discussion in Congress which
would embarrass the administration. When the
resolution of the House approving the action of
Wilkes was sent to the Senate, he moved its refer¬
ence to the committee on foreign relations. But
Hale of New Hampshire moved that it be sent to
the committee on naval affairs, and to avoid de^
214
CHARLES SUMNER
bate Sumner yielded. On December 26, the last
of the seven days allowed by Earl Hussell, Senator
Hale made an occasion in the Senate to assail vehe¬
mently the suggested surrender of national honor.
Sumner spoke briefly in reply, urging that the mat¬
ter be left with the administration unembarrassed
by any action in Congress.
The administration decided to surrender the
prisoners, and Mr. Seward, in announcing the de¬
cision, wrote that it was made “ upon principles
confessedly American.” But he took the narrow
ground that the error of Captain Wilkes lay in
not seizing the Trent herself and bringing her be¬
fore a prize court for condemnation. This view
was indeed sustained by the opinion of the Crown
lawyers, but it was not sound. He added in his
letter that, “ if the safety of the Union required the
detention of the captured persons, it would be the
right and duty of this government to detain them,”
thus substantially asserting the right to disregard
international law whenever it seemed expedient.
This contention naturally was rejected by Earl
Russell, and it was felt that the subject was left in
an unsatisfactory position. The government was
attacked for its course, and the country felt sore
over what seemed a humiliation.
The President sent to the Senate the correspond¬
ence relating to the Trent case, and Sumner moved
its reference to his committee, making a speech on
January 7, in which he stated fully the history of
the case and discussed the principles involved, the
THE TRENT AFFAIR
215
historical precedents, and the position of the two
governments. By this review he established his
main proposition which he stated thus : —
“ The seizure of the rebel emissaries on board a
neutral ship cannot be justified, according to de¬
clared American principles and practice. There
is no single point where the seizure is not ques¬
tionable, unless we invoke British precedents and
practice, which, beyond doubt, led Captain Wilkes
into his mistake. ... In this surrender, if such it
may be called, the national government does not
even ‘ stoop to conquer.’ It simply lifts itself to
the height of its own original principles. The
early efforts of its best negotiators, the patriot
trials of its soldiers in an unequal war at length
prevail, and Great Britain, usually so haughty,
invites us to practice upon principles which she has
so strenuously opposed. There are victories of
force ; here is a victory of truth. If Great Brit¬
ain has gained the custody of two rebels, the
United States have secured the triumph of their
principles.”
This speech was generally approved by men of
all parties on this side of the ocean. It smoothed
ruffled sensibilities and turned apparent humilia¬
tion into triumph. It converted many who had
defended the capture. It strengthened Sumner’s
personal influence greatly by letting men see that
he was a conservative statesman, and an interna¬
tional lawyer in whose hands the foreign relations
of the United States were safe. It also produced
216
CHARLES SUMNER
an excellent impression upon the continent. In
England, however, the speech was regarded very
differently. The “ Times ” gave it sneers and
abuse, but did not print it, while Mr. William
Vernon Harcourt, as “ Historicus,” thus concluded
a vituperative article : —
“ Whether we turn to the puerile absurdities of
President Lincoln’s message, or to the confused
and transparent sophistry of Mr. Seward’s dis¬
patch, or to the feeble and illogical malice of Mr.
Sumner’s oration, we see nothing on every side but
a melancholy spectacle of impotent violence and
furious incapacity.”
More reasonable Englishmen received it in a
very different spirit, and the wrath of “ The Times”
was taken as evidence that the speech was effective.
The whole result was favorable to Sumner alike
at home and abroad, and his speech gave him a
position as an authority on international law, both
in the Senate and in the country, which was never
shaken.
CHAPTER XIV
THE END OF SLAVERY
During the second session of the Thirty-seventh
Congress, Sumner was constantly active. Recon¬
struction was hardly imminent, but feeling certain
that the relations between the government and
the seceded States should be settled, and foresee¬
ing that this could not be done without prolonged
discussion, he offered on February 11, 1862, a
series of resolutions with a view of bringing the
difficulties to the attention of the country, and at
the same time presenting his own solution after¬
wards known as the theory of “ state suicide.” The
recitals which preceded the resolutions declared
that the seceding States, “ through their respective
governments,” had undertaken to renounce their
allegiance to the United States and to levy war
upon them ; that the territory “ thus usurped by
these pretended governments . . . belonged to the
United States as an inseparable part thereof under
the sanction of the Constitution, to be held in
trust for the inhabitants in the present and future,”
and that the Constitution could not be displaced
by any “ pretended government.” Upon these
statements was based the proposition that the or-
218
CHARLES SUMNER
dinances of secession and other acts “ by a State
hostile to the Constitution were void ; and, “ when
sustained by force,” were “ a practical abdication
of all rights under the Constitution,” while the
treason involved worked “ instant forfeiture of all
functions and powers essential to the continued
existence of the State as a body politic, so that
from such time forward the territory falls under
the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, as other ter¬
ritory, and the State becomes fdo de se.
From this were deduced as conclusions that the
termination of the State ended all “ peculiar local
institutions,” and that therefore slavery in the
seceded States, being “ without any origin in the
Constitution or in natural right,” must fall with
the State whose creature it was ; that Congress
must provide for the termination of slavery in fact
throughout the whole seceded territory ; that as
allegiance to the government and protection by it
are corresponding obligations, the slaves were
entitled to its protection ; and that Congress must
‘‘ assume complete jurisdiction ” of the “ vacated
territory,” and proceed to establish therein gov¬
ernments republican in form with due regard to
the equal rights of all the inhabitants.
These resolutions were in aid of Sumner’s fixed
purpose that the war should end slavery, and sug¬
gested another way of accomplishing this object ; but
such radical propositions naturally encountered bit¬
ter opposition. That the void acts of men assum-
ins: to be the government of a State were inefiec-
O
THE END OF SLAVERY
219
tual to displace the authority of the United States
over the territory of the State, yet were effectual
to terminate the legal existence of the State and
to destroy rights of property created lawfully
by the State and recognized by the Constitution,
was a proposition open to destructive attack. Yet
though the premises were unsound, the conclusion
was ultimately adopted. Stripped of the argu¬
mentative propositions which were questionable,
the resolutions declared the purpose of the United
States to reconstruct the Union without slavery,
and to establish in each of the seceded States a
government which should be republican in reality.
It was harder to justify this result on Sumner’s
theories of law than to sustain it by practical con¬
siderations of justice and expediency.
Upon Sumner’s motion the resolutions were laid
upon the table, and were never taken up. His
purpose was accomplished by presenting them.
Leading Kepublicans like Fessenden, Sherman,
and Dixon of Connecticut, hastened to declare
dissent from his theories, and to make it clear that
he spoke only for himself and not for the Repub¬
lican party, Sherman saying that ‘‘ candid men
must know that they [the resolutions] are but the
emanation of a single individual, who has decided
convictions on the subject and who is far in
advance of any political organization in this coun¬
try.” Yet Sumner was not without influential
supporters, and it will be interesting hereafter to
compare the final legislation of the Republican
220
CHARLES SUMNER
party on reconstruction with this early stateinjpnt
of his theory.
His attention, however, was not confined to
slavery. On February 13 he made an elaborate
argument upon the proposition to make treasury
notes a legal tender in payment of all debts, con¬
cluding that Congress had the power to do so, but
expressing grave doubts as to the wisdom of exer¬
cising it. He found ample reason for these doubts
in the history of previous experiments, and they
have been justified fully by the results.
Grave questions besides those growing out of the
Trent case came before the committee on foreign
relations. Prominent among them was that of
our duty towards Mexico, then threatened with
intervention by England, France, and Spain, for
the alleged purpose of securing redress for their
citizens who held bonds, upon which Mexico had
suspended the payment of interest. The object
of our diplomacy was to keep Mexico from fall¬
ing into hands likely to aid the Southern Confed¬
eracy, and also, in accordance with the Monroe
Doctrine, to prevent the establishment on this con¬
tinent of a new foreign monarchy. Our minister
to Mexico, Mr. Corwin, sent to Washington the
project of a treaty by which the United States
should lend Mexico a sum sufficient to meet the un¬
doubted claims of her creditors, taking as security
mining property or other resources. The President
submitted this to the Senate for its advice, and Mr.
Suinner reported in favor of assuming the interest
THE END OF SLAVERY
221
on the Mexican debt for a limited time, and of
paying certain claims, provided the allied powers
would accept this and withdraw from Mexico ; and
j)rovided further that the advance should “ be se¬
cured by such mortgage or pledge as is most prac¬
ticable without any territorial acquisition or dis¬
memberment of Mexico.” Political leaders at this
time were willing to help a neighboring nation and
to preserve its freedom, but were careful that no
portion, even of contiguous territory, should be
taken in payment for this country’s help. Our
hands were too full, however, and the Senate de¬
clined to follow the committee. Instead, a reso¬
lution was adopted, “ that it is not advisable to
negotiate a treaty that will require the United
States to assume any portion of the principal or
interest of the debt of Mexico, or that will require
the concurrence of European powers.” The result
was the tragedy of Maximilian.
Through his committee Sumner was able also
to serve the cause which he had most at heart.
While slavery dominated the government the
“ colored republics,” Ilayti and Liberia, had never
been accorded diplomatic recognition. As Mr.
Penton put it : “ The peaee of eleven States in this
Union will not permit the fruits of a successful
ne^’^ro insurrection to be exhibited among them.
^ •
In his annual message of December, 1861, Presi¬
dent Lincoln stated that he saw no reason for
longer withholding our recognition, and Mr. Sum¬
ner reported a bill, which was passed, authorizing
222
CHARLES SUMNER
the President to send diplomatic representatives.
He supported it by a speech suggesting commer¬
cial and business considerations, but not alluding
to the reason which had prevented earlier recogni¬
tion, or even to the fact that the population of
the two countries was colored. Senator Davis of
Kentucky moved an amendment, and attacked the
policy of establishing diplomatic relations with
negroes, excusing his opposition on the ground that
such a step was distasteful to the people of the
slave States. Sumner replied : —
“ I made no appeal on account of color. I did
not allude to the unhappy circumstance in their
history that they had once been slaves. It is the
senator from Kentucky who introduces this topic.
. . . In presenting this measure, I make no ap¬
peal on account of an oppressed race. I urge it
simply as an act for our own good. . . . Thus far
we have stood aloof from two important oppor¬
tunities of extending and strengthening our influ¬
ence. It is time to change.”
Though not presented to the Senate as a step in
the contest with slavery, this measure was so re¬
garded in the country, as was abundantly shown by
the letters which Sumner received from Governor
Andrew and others. The people of Liberia and
Hayti were especially grateful to him, and for this
and his later service a medal was presented to
him in the name of the Haytien people, which,
however, he felt obliged to decline, and it is now in
the State Library.
THE END OF SLAVERY
223
A more signal triumph was won when the treaty
with England for the more effectual suppression •
of the slave trade, negotiated in the spring of
1862 and signed in Sumner’s presence, was rati¬
fied by the Senate without a dissenting voice.
It was sent to the Senate on April 11 ; it was
reported by Sumner on the 15th, and ratified on
the 24th after a brief speech by him, in which
he pointed out its especial features, the granting
of a mutual and restricted right of search, and
the establishment of mixed courts with authority
to condemn ships. The President announced the
ratification of the treaty on June 7, and on the
13th Sumner reported a bill to carry it into effect,
which was passed at once. The effect was im¬
mediate. The infamous traffic ceased when it was
found that Great Britain and the United States
were united and in earnest. No business ever came
before the mixed courts, for no ship was ever cap¬
tured, and they were abolished by mutual consent
in 1869. The promptitude with which Congress
acted was largely due to Sumner, and he wasted
no time in speech, though the occasion must have
been tempting.
In pursuance of his purpose to remove from the
statute-book every discrimination on account of
color, he introduced a bill to amend the law which
provided “ that no other than a free white person ”
should be employed to carry the mail. This law,
passed in 1825, was first suggested in 1802 by the
postmaster-general, who, speaking of the negroes.
224
CHARLES SUMNER*
said : “ Everything which tends to increase their
knowledge of natural rights, of men and things,
or that affords them an opportunity of associating,
acquiring, and communicating sentiments, and of
establishing a chain or line of intelligence, must
increase your hazard because it increases their
means of effecting their object. The most active
and intelligent are employed as post-riders. These
are the most ready to learn and the most able to
execute. By traveling from day to day, and hourly
mixing with people, they must, they will, acquire
information. They will learn that a man^ s rights
do not depend on his color. They will in time
become teachers to their brethren. They become
acquainted with each other on the line. When¬
ever the body, or a portion of them, wish to act,
they are an organized corps, circulating our intel¬
ligence openly, their own privately.”
Sumner’s bill provided that no person should be
disqualified, by reason of color, to carry the mails.
It passed the Senate without amendment or dis¬
pute, but was reported adversely by Mr. Colfax in
the House, and was defeated on his motion, — a sin¬
gular fate for such a measure. Mr. Sumner again
introduced it in the next Congress, and eventually
it was passed.
He proposed and carried legislation preventing
the exclusion of witnesses in the District of Co¬
lumbia on account of color, and made repeated
attempts to extend the same rule to the federal
courts, but without success at this session. Only
THE END OF SLAVERY
225
thirteen other senators supported Sumner, but in
this, as in many cases, his views soon prevailed.
Unable to convince the President that imme¬
diate emancipation was wise, but sure that it was
the most effective weapon against the Confederates,
Sumner neglected no opportunity to urge measures
tending to accomplish it. We see now that he
grasped the situation with the instinct of a states¬
man ; but many of his associates were confused by
lesfal and constitutional doubts as to the rights of
o
slaveholders. It was a singular survival of the
tenderness for slavery, which had been fostered by
the Whig and Democratic parties during years of
agitation. In May, 1862, Sumner attacked these
scruples in a powerful speech delivered in support
of an amendment to the confiscation bill. This
proposed that any person, who after the passage of
the act should engage in or abet the rebellion,
should forfeit all claim to his slaves, and that these
should thereafter be free ; further, that any claim¬
ant of a slave must establish his loyalty as a con¬
dition of recovery. Sumner dwelt upon the dis¬
tinction between a law intended to punish treason,
which must be passed in the exercise of sovereignty
and must not violate constitutional limitations, and
a law exercising those rights of war which interna¬
tional law gives to every belligerent. It was a
lef^al arsfument, founded on the decisions of courts,
& O ^ • •
the principles laid down by recognized authorities,
and the well-established practice of all nations.
The common sense of his position is shown by the
226
CHARLES SUMNER
following extracts from his speeches made in the
debate on this proposition : —
“ The rebel in arms is an enemy, and something
more. ... In appealing to war, he has voluntarily
renounced all safeguards of the Constitution, and
put himself beyond its pale. . . . And yet, sir, the
Constitution is cited as a limitation upon these
rights. As well cite the Constitution on the field
of battle to check the bayonet charge of our armies.
. . . The Constitution is entirely inapplicable.
Sacred and inviolable, the Constitution is made
for friends who acknowledge it, and not for ene¬
mies. . . .
“ If it be constitutional to make war, to set
armies in the field, to launch navies, to occupy
fields and houses, to bombard cities, to kill in bat¬
tle, — all without trial by jury, or any process of
law, or judicial proceeding of any kind, — it is
equally constitutional, as a war measure, to confis¬
cate the property of the enemy and to liberate his
slaves. ... You may condemn confiscation and
liberation as impolitic, but you cannot condemn
them as unconstitutional unless, in the same breath,
you condemn all other agencies of war, and resolve
our present proceeding into the process of a crimi¬
nal court, guarded at each step by the technicali¬
ties of the common law. ... I confess frankly that
I look with more hope and confidence to liberation
than to confiscation. To give freedom is nobler
than to take property, and on this occasion it can¬
not fail to be more efficacious.”
THE END OF SLAVERY
227
Mr. Sumner’s amendment, altered so as to affect
only slaves coming actually under the control of the
federal armies, became a part of the law as en¬
acted. It doubtless helped to familiarize the pub¬
lic with the idea of emancipation as a war measure.
At this session Sumner voted against the bill
to admit West Virginia, because the Senate refused
to amend it by providing that, after July 4, 1863,
slavery should cease in the State ; though it in¬
serted the provision that slaves in the State on
July 4, 1863, and under twenty-one years of age,
should be free at certain ages. He successfully
opposed a bill to establish temporary govern¬
ments in the seceded States because it provided
that the laws and institutions which existed in
each State at the time of its secession should not
be interfered with. He pointed out that “ insti¬
tutions ” meant “ slavery,” and read some of the
laws which would thus be enforced. By various
resolutions from time to time he sought to prevent
the surrender of fugitive slaves, and to make the
public see how much the slaves could help us, and
the importance of encouraging them to do so.
At this time Sumner asserted the right of Con¬
gress to control reconstruction. The President
had appointed Edward Stanly as military gov¬
ernor of North Carolina, with absolute power,
including even the right to suspend the writ of
habeas corpus. Stanly undertook to act despoti¬
cally and showed a disposition to protect slavery.
Andrew Johnson was made governor of Tennessee,
228
CHARLES SUMNER
and it seemed probable that, if this policy were to be
countenanced, the Executive would dictate the
terms of reconstruction, at least so far as to tie the
hands of Congress. Sumner, therefore, on J une 6,
1862, introduced a resolution reciting Stanly’s
acts, and asking the President to revoke the ap¬
pointment. A second resolution declared that such
an appointment was without sanction in the Consti¬
tution and laws, and subordinated the civil to the
military authority, “ contrary to the spirit of our
institutions and in derogation of the powers of
Congress.” This resolution, though never acted
upon, accomplished its purpose, and no more
military governors were appointed.
Sumner also introduced a resolution ; “ That in
the efforts now making for the restoration of the
Union and the establishment of peace throughout
the country, it is inexpedient that the names of
victories obtained over our fellow citizens should
be placed on the regimental colors of the United
States.” No action was taken upon it, and it pro¬
voked no noticeable opposition. On the contrary
it was cordially approved by many, including
General Winfield Scott, who afterwards said :
“ This was noble and from the right Quarter.” A
very different reception was accorded later to a
similar proposition.
Sumner was constantly in his seat, and nothing
escaped his attention. He opposed adjournment
on July 16, because much important business de¬
manded attention. Unduly shortened as the ses-
THE END OF SLAVERY
229
sion seemed to him, yet Congress accomplished
much upon which he looked back with profound
satisfaction. He thus recapitulated its legislative
achievements : “ . . . Emancipation in the national
capital ; freedom in all the national territories ; the
offer of ransom to help emancipation in the States ;
the recognition of Hayti and Liberia ; the treaty
with Great Britain for the suppression of the slave
trade ; the prohibition of the return of fugitive
slaves by military officers ; homesteads for actual
settlers on the public lands ; a Pacific railroad ;
endowments of agricultural colleges out of the pub¬
lic lands ; — such are some of the achievements by
which the present Congress is already historic.
. . . Besides these measures of unmixed benefi¬
cence, the present Congress has created an immense
army and a considerable navy, and has provided
the means for all our gigantic expenditures by a
tax which in itself is an epoch.”
No one had been more responsible for the ac¬
tions of Congress against slavery than had Sum¬
ner, and he might well rejoice in the record.
Through it all he never lost sight of his great
object nor neglected an opportunity to press eman¬
cipation on the President. He urged him to com¬
memorate the Fourth of July by proclaiming free¬
dom and calling the slaves to our assistance ; but
Lincoln was not ready. Even after Congress ad¬
journed Sumner remained to press his views.
Lincoln was more than six weeks behind him,
though not very much more. On July 13 he
230
CHARLES SUMNER
said to Seward and Welles that emancipation was
a military necessity, and on July 22 he submit¬
ted to his Cabinet the draft of a proclamation de¬
claring that slaves should be free on January 1,
1863, in States then in rebellion. He waited for
a victory, and then he acted. On September 22,
five days after Antietam, the preliminary procla¬
mation of emancipation was issued, and the Re¬
publican party became, what Sumner had been de¬
nounced for trying to make it a year before, an
emancipation party. To this result no one had
contributed so much as he. The President was
doubtless right in waiting, but that he was able to
strike when he did was largely due to Sumner and
those who, with him, had educated the people to
approve the blow.
Though Sumner sometimes differed with the
President on questions of policy, and was impa¬
tient with his deliberation, they were in essential
harmony, and Sumner never lost his confidence in
Lincoln. His feelings appear clearly in private
letters written early in June, 1862, from which
some passages may be quoted : —
“ Your criticism of the President is hasty. I am
confident, if you knew him as I do, you would not
make it. Could you — as has been my privilege
often — have seen the President while considering
the great questions on which he has already acted,
. . . even your zeal would be satisfied ; for you
would feel the sincerity of his purpose to do what
he can to carry forward the principles of the Decla¬
ration of Independence.”
THE END OP SLAVERY
231
In the interest of harmony he urged the passage
of a resolution construing the confiscation bill so as
to limit the forfeiture of real estate to the life of
the offender. This was introduced while the bill
was in the President’s hands, to meet certain doubts
on his part. Without sharing these doubts Sum¬
ner was willing to adopt the President’s view in
order that the bill might be signed.
Durine: this session Sumner was the most con-
spicuous senator. He was in full vigor of mind
and body, and there was no one among his asso¬
ciates who had been so prominent as he in the con¬
test which had ended in the rebellion. He was the
recognized political leader of those who sought the
destruction of slavery through the war. An Eng¬
lish traveler thus described him : “ That great,
sturdy, English-looking figure, with the broad,
massive forehead, over which the rich mass of nut-
brown hair, streaked here and there with a line of
gray, hangs loosely ; with the deep blue eyes and
the strangely winning smile, half bright, half full
of sadness. He is a man whom you would notice
amongst other men, and whom, not knowing, you
would turn round and look at as he passed by you.
... A child would ask him the time in the streets,
and a woman would come to him unbidden for pro¬
tection.” Judge Hoar described “his commanding
presence, his stalwart frame (six feet and four
inches in height), the vigor and grace of his mo¬
tions, the charm of his manners, the polish of his
rhetoric, the abundance of his learning, the fervor
232
CHARLES SUMNER
and impressiveness of his oratory ; ” and said,
“ he was every inch a senator.”
Yet it was a question whether he would again
be sent to the Senate. His second term expired on
March 4, 1863, and the autumn campaign of 1862
in Massachusetts was especially important on this
account. The reasons for his reelection may be
taken from the answer of John Bigelow to one of
Sumner’s critics : —
“ First, he was the most accomplished man in
public life in America ; second, the ablest senator
in Congress ; third, of unblemished private char¬
acter ; fourth, of unblemished public character,
which no breath of calumny had ever reached, and
whom no one had ever dared to approach with a
dishonorable proposition ; fifth, a man whose zeal
and talents had been expended, not upon selfish
schemes, but upon measures and policies looking
to the improvement of the condition of society —
such ends as, whatever difference of opinion may
prevail as to the adaptation of his means to secure
them, must possess the sympathy and respect of
all good citizens ; sixth, he is very amiable ; and
seventh, a man whose decorum of character and
whose talents have done and are doing more than
those of any other man in the Senate to avert the
gradual decline of that body in the estimation of
the country.”
Against such arguments his opponents urged his
radical views on slavery, and his determination to
force a policy of emancipation ; that he was so
THE END OF SLAVERY
233
absorbed in this that he could not give the neces¬
sary attention to the other interests of his con¬
stituents ; that his relations with the President
were not sufficiently cordial, and that he embar¬
rassed the administration. It was a period of re¬
action and depression all over the country. Some
of Sumner’s friends had grown conservative, and
were inclined to the opposition, which actually re¬
ceived the powerful support of the “Springfield
Republican.” But the suggestion that his reelec¬
tion was in doubt aroused to enthusiastic action
the moral forces of Massachusetts. Ministers,
teachers, editors, anti-slavery veterans, all over the
State, rallied to his support. His life had given
him a hold upon his constituents not easily shaken,
and the attempt to unseat him was defeated as
soon as it was known. His friends in the Republi¬
can convention were resolved that the party should
be committed to his support, and a complimen¬
tary resolution nominating him for rejection was
adopted with enthusiasm. The Emancipation Pro¬
clamation of September 22, issued some two weeks
later, completely answered the suggestion that
Sumner^s policy of emancipation was not approved
by the President. The administration had taken
his advice and was thus his strongest supporter.
To vote against him on this ground was to vote
against Lincoln.
In the campaign Sumner made several speeches,
in which he planted himself upon the proclamation
and urged his constituents to support the policy of
234
CHARLES SUMNER
the government as both necessary and right. He
referred briefly to the charges against himself, say-
ing : —
“ There are two accusations, ... to which I re¬
ply on the spot ; and I do so with less hesitation
because the topics are germane to this debate.
The first is, that from my place in the Senate I
early proclaimed slavery to be barbarism. Never
shall the cause of freedom go by default if I can
help it ; and I rejoice that, on that occasion, in
presence of the slaveholding conspirators vaunting
the ennobling character of slavery, I used no soft
words. . . . Was I not right?
“ The other accusation is similar in character.
It is said that I have too often introduced the slav¬
ery question. At this moment, seeing what slavery
has done, I doubt if you will not rather say that I
have introduced it too seldom. . . . The slave is
the humblest and the grandest figure of our times.
... In his presence all other questions are so
petty that for a public man to be wrong with re¬
gard to him is to be wholly wrong. How, then,
did I err ? The cause would have justified a better
pertinacity than I can boast.”
Phillips, Whittier, Greeley, all the anti-slavery
leaders came to his support, and while other States
deserted the Republican party, Massachusetts stood
firm, and reelected him by an overwhelming major¬
ity in both houses of the legislature. He returned
to the Senate with increased influence, to complete
the work which he had carried on so long and well.
CHAPTER XV
*
THE CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR
The second session of the Thirty-seventh Con*
gress began in December, 1862, and ended March
3, 1863. It was a period of anxious waiting.
The death of slavery had been decreed by the
Emancipation Proclamation, but it remained to exe¬
cute the decree. The United States was to be free
in fact as in name, but it was still doubtful what
would constitute the United States. It was indeed
true that the year just closing had seen a distinct
advance of the Union arms. The border States
had been saved ; the Mississippi, at its mouth and
for the larger part of its course, had been brought
under the control of the government, and with it
the largest part of Tennessee. The desperate bat¬
tle of Stone River had destroyed the Confederate
hope of recovering Kentucky. An invasion of
Maryland had ended in disaster to the invaders,
and important points had been won upon the coast.
The area of the rebellion was materially reduced,
and its resources were greatly impaired. On the
other hand, however, the year ended ingloriously
with the defeat at Fredericksburg. The main army
of the Confederates under Lee still menaced W ash-
236
CHARLES SUMNER
ington, while Grant was besieging Vicksburg with
doubtful prospect. Our enemies in England and
France took courage and threatened intervention.
Cruisers, fitted out in England, were destroying
our commerce. The elections had indicated dis¬
satisfaction at home, and the falling off in volun¬
tary enlistments had compelled the resort to con¬
scription. The Republican senators asked the
dismissal of Mr. Seward, on the ground that he
lacked earnest convictions, and that his influence in
the councils of the administration was unfortunate.
Both Seward and Chase offered their resignations,
and though Mr. Lincoln refused to accept them,
the discussion left bitter feeling behind, and to
our other difficulties was added this lack of har¬
mony among Republican leaders. It was for a
statesman, in this time of doubt and despondency,
to sustain the courage of his countrymen, to keep
Congress and the Executive united in a vigorous
prosecution of the war, and to prevent any back¬
ward steps. Sumner never shared the prevailing
discouragement. To him it was morally impos¬
sible that a war waged to establish human slavery
could succeed, and he did his part in persistently
urging on the work.
It is not surprising that in these circumstances,
and after the great legislative activity of the pre¬
ceding session, the last session of the Thirty-
seventh Congress was uneventful. Its work lay
rather in prevention than in action. Sumner’s
action may be stated in a few words. His first reso-
CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR 237
lution was in favor of establishing a hospital and am¬
bulance corps. He moved to amend a bill regulat¬
ing the appointment of midshipmen, by providing
that candidates should be selected “ on the ground
of merit and qualification, to be ascertained by an
examination ” under regulations to be prescribed
by the secretary of the navy. The spoils system
was then too well intrenched, and his amendment
commanded only six votes. He introduced a bill
for enlisting all negroes freed by the confiscation
act or any other lawful authority “exercised in
suppressing the present rebellion,” also for re¬
ceiving colored volunteers, but the bill was not
reported, and fell with the session. By a resolu¬
tion offered in May, 1862, he had urged the enlist¬
ment of colored men, and in J uly of that year laws
had been passed which authorized their employ¬
ment in the army and navy. His present bill went
a step further, but the policy of using the negroes
was now fully adopted by the Executive.
At the recommendation of the President the
House of Representatives passed a bill to aid Mis¬
souri in abolishing slavery by a gift of ten mil¬
lion dollars in bonds, to be used in compensating
the owners. The senate committee on the judici¬
ary amended by providing for “ gradual or imme¬
diate emancipation,” offering twenty millions if
there was “ full and perfect manumission ” before
July 4, 1865, and half as much if it was at a later
day before July 4, 1876. Sumner opposed gradual
emancipation, both because the expenditure could
238
CHARLES SUMNER
only be justified as a war measure, and it was
absurd to order a blow at tbe enemy to be deliv¬
ered ten or twenty years later, and because slavery
was an evil of such a character that it should
not be permitted to exist for any period. He con¬
sidered it a new compromise, and after pointing
out the disastrous consequences of former compro¬
mises, used words of more than temporary appli¬
cation : “ 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.”
In those days of procrastination his words struck a
different note: “What is done in war must be
done promptly, except perhaps under the policy of
defense. ... If you would be triumphant, strike
quickly, let your blows be felt at once, without
notice or premonition, 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.”
The greatest danger of the moment was the
danger of foreign intervention, and while pressing
action against the enemy, Sumner was solicitous
to prevent anything which might precipitate this
calamity. His associates were not all equally
conservative. On January 19, 1863, Senator
McDouo;all of California introduced resolutions
condemning the intervention of the French in
Mexico, describing it as “ an act not merely un-
CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR 239
friendly to this republic, but to free institutions
everywhere, and . . . regarded by this republic as
not only unfriendly, but as hostile ; ” and declaring
it our duty to require the immediate withdrawal of
the French forces, and to aid Mexico in resisting
them. On February 3 he moved to take them
up, and Sumner opposed, saying that if the reso¬
lutions “ mean anything, they mean war,” and ask¬
ing : “ Have we not war enough already on our
hands without needlessly and wantonly provoking
another ? ”
The Senate took up the resolutions that Mc-
Dougall might have an opportunity to speak, and
Sumner replied that the way to drive the French
from Mexico and to prevent any other attempt by
foreign nations on this hemisphere was to crush
the rebellion ; “ after which,” he said, “ this whole
continent will fall naturally, peacefully, and tran¬
quilly under the irresistible influence of American
institutions.” The Senate followed his lead and
tabled the resolutions.
The sharpest struggle during this session arose
over a proposition to issue letters of marque. Sew¬
ard had favored this early in the war, and a bill
to authorize it in this and in any future war was
reported from the committee on naval affairs.
It came up in February, 1863, and Mr. Grimes,
the chairman, supported it. Sumner opposed it
pertinaciously in a series of direct and simple
speeches. He pointed out that privateers were
vessels employed to prey upon the commerce of an
240
CHARLES SUMNER
enemy, and that the Confederacy had no commerce.
He contended that if more ships were needed they
should be made a part of the navy, for the reason
that every privateer is entitled to the right of
search, saying: “By virtue of this right, he and
every licensed sea rover is entitled on the ocean to
stop and overhaul all merchant vessels under what¬
ever flag. If he cannot capture, he can at least
annoy. . . . Every exercise upon neutral commerce
of this terrible right of search will be the fruitful
occasion of misunderstanding, bickering, and con¬
troversy at a moment when, if my voice could pre¬
vail, 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. . . .
“ The speaking trumpet of a reckless privateer
may contribute to that discord which is the herald
of bloodshed itself.’’
Failing to defeat the bill he tried to modify it,
but in vain. The bill, limited to three years, be¬
came a law, and Mr. Seward at once sought to have
it carried into effect. Mr. Sumner, however, was
so convinced that it was futile against the Confed¬
eracy, and effective only to embroil us with foreign
nations, that he remained in M^ashington and used
all his influence to prevent action under it. He
pressed his views upon the President, and showed
him confirmatory letters from John Bright and
Joshua Bates, the well known American banker in
London. He wrote a letter for publication, reiter-
CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR 241
ating his objections. Mr. Adams, from England,
opposed the step, and the Cabinet was divided, Mr.
Welles agreeing with Sumner, while Chase sup¬
ported Seward. Eventually Sumner prevailed, and
no letters of marque were issued. The struggle
excited much attention in England, and Mr. Bates
wrote afterward : “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 oppor¬
tunity through the press to make a war popular.
. . . It is the last card the Confederates have to
play.” This judgment of an able witness may
help to show the value of Sumner’s service to his
country in this matter.
On the other hand, while anxious not to provoke
war, he desired equally to avoid inviting it by an
appearance of fear. Offers of mediation had been
made by Russia in 1861, and in 1862 the French
Emperor tried to secure the cooperation of Russia
and England in obtaining a suspension of hostili¬
ties for six months or longer. Failing in this, he
tendered his good offices to facilitate negotiations,
but his offer was declined. In England, interven¬
tion in various forms was from time to time sug¬
gested in the press and in Parliament. In conse¬
quence of all this, on February 28, 1863, Sumner
reported a series of resolutions drawn by him.
These recited the offer of the Emperor and the
dan<rer that “ the idea of mediation or intervention
in some shape may be regarded by foreign govern¬
ments as practicable,” and then declared that “ any
242
CHARLES SUMNER
further proposition from a foreign power, intended
to arrest the efforts of the United States to crush
the rebellion, was calculated to prolong and embit¬
ter the conflict,” and would be regarded by Con¬
gress as “ an unfriendly act.”
The resolutions were passed promptly, and, being
communicated through our ministers to foreign
governments, did much to end a course of action
which had excited the hopes of the Confederate
States, and had created irritations which might at
any time have led to war with new enemies. It
was a bold and dignified step which was justified
by the event.
After the Senate adjourned Sumner remained in
Washington till July. Though the Emancipation
Proclamation had aroused the anti-slavery senti¬
ment in England and had led to manifestations
of sympathy with the North, our relations with
Eno-land and France were never more critical than
between March and October, 1863. Influential
Englishmen like Gladstone openly declared that
the South would succeed, and so thought many of
Sumner’s closest personal friends. The tone of
Earl Russell was most irritating; the escape of
the Alabama and Florida, the building and equip¬
ping of ships of war for Confederate use in Eng¬
lish shipyards, and the depredations of the priva¬
teers created intense feeling in this country, well
expressed in Lowell’s “ Jonathan to John.” The
climax was reached when, in September, Earl Rus¬
sell at first refused to stop the Confederate iron-
CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR 243
clads, nearly ready at Birkenhead, and Mr. Adams
sent his famous note, in which he said ; “ This is
war.”
During this period Sumner constantly corre¬
sponded with his English friends, impressing them
with the fixed resolution of the North to restore
the Union, no matter at what cost of civil or foreign
war ; insisting that England could not, upon moral
grounds, throw her weight for slavery, and in every
way endeavoring to prevent war. In W ashington
he was in constant consultation with the President
and Seward, in touch with each difficulty as it
arose, and while his efforts were not known to the
public they were of the greatest value.
Some extracts from his correspondence will show
the nature of his labors, and his unfailing confi¬
dence during the darkest hours.
To Cobden, on March 16, 1863 : —
“ I am anxious, vei"y anxious, on account of the
ships building in England to cruise against our
commerce. Cannot something be done to stop
them? Our people are becoming more and more
excited, and there are many who insist upon war.
A very important person said to me yesterday : ‘ We
are now at war with England, but the hostilities
are all on her side.’ . . . To-day the Cabinet con¬
sider whether to issue letters of marque under the
new statute. I have seen the President twice upon
this question, which I regard as grave, for it is
intended as a counter movement to what is done
in Eno-land. ... I found myself powerless against
244
CHARLES SUMNER
it in the Senate, for there was a ‘ war fever,’ and
you know how irresistible and diabolical that be¬
comes.”
To the Duchess of Argyll, on April 13 : —
“ Let me say frankly and most kindly where I
think England has erred. It is twice. First, she
declared neutrality between the two parties,
fatal mistake, from which Lord Russell’s speech is
the beginning of extrication. There can be no
just neutrality between the two parties. . . . Such
a government, founded on such a pretension, seek¬
ing admission into the fellowship of Christian
States, should have been told at the beginning that
there was no place for it. . . . The next mistake
of England is that, having declared neutrality, she
has not been true to it. I do not allude now to
the ships, though to us that case is flagrant ; but
I allude to the declarations of at least two of her
ministers, made long ago, that separation was inev¬
itable. The direct tendency of their declarations
was twofold : first, to encourage the slavemongers,
and to give hope and confidence to slavery wher¬
ever it was ; and, secondly, by an infirmity of
human nature, to bind these ministers, who had
thus ' made themselves prophets, to desire the verifi¬
cation of their prophecy.”
Again, on April 21 : —
“ It has seemed to us an obvious duty of the
English government to take the responsibility of
enforcing its own statute of neutrality, which is lit¬
tle more than the requirement of international law,
CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR 245
and that it was enough for us to direct attention to
the reported fact. Some of our Cabinet were so
strongly of this opinion that they were unwilling
that our minister or agents should take any further
steps, ... it being generally understood that the
sailing of the ships would be a declaration of war.
I insisted most earnestly that, while I did not
differ from others as to the obvious duty of the
English government, yet, as it had become a ques¬
tion of peace or war, I would not stand upon any
form ; that I would employ agents, attorneys, and
counsel ; institute law proceedings, — do all that
we thought the British government ought to do, so
far as we might be able to do, whether in courts
or out of courts. The President at last adopted
this view, and Mr. Evarts, who is a very eminent
lawyer, without a superior in the country, has been
dispatched to do all that he can, in consultation if
possible with your law officers or with others, to
arrest the guilty vessels.”
To Bright, on J uly 21 : —
“I have read the debate of the 30th of June.
. . My friend Mr. Gladstone dealt with the
whole question as if there were no God. English¬
men may doubt. I tell you, there can be but one
end to this war. I care not for any temporary
success of the slavemongers, they must fail ; but
English sympathy is a mighty encouragement. . . .
W e are too victorious ; I fear more from our vic¬
tories than our defeats. If the rebellion should
suddenly collapse. Democrats, Copperheads, and
246
CHARLES SUMNER
Seward would insist upon amnesty and the Union,
and ‘ no question asked about slavery.’ God save
us from any such calamity.”
Again, on August 4 : —
“ There are two things which make me anxious.
First, I fear that devil of compromise. I do not
think the danger is great, but any such danger is
terrible. The longer our triumph is postponed, the
more impossible this becomes. Our present policy
is, therefore, (1) two hundred thousand negroes
under arms ; (2) the admission of a Gulf State
with an altered constitution abolishing slavery ; . . .
(3) to insist that there can be no talk of admission
into the Union except on the basis of the actual
condition at the moment, with slavery abolished by
the Proclamation.
“ The second cause of anxiety is in our relations
with England. Your government recklessly and
heartlessly seems bent on war. You know how the
Democracy, which it now courts, will turn and rend
it, while the Irish have at last their long-sought
opportunity. A leading merchant said to^ me this
morning that he would give fifty thousand dollars
for a war between England and Russia, that he
might turn English doctrines against England.
The feeling is very bitter.”
To Cobden, on September 4 : —
“ I do not differ from you when you say that you
never would have counseled a war for emancipa¬
tion. Nor I ; indeed, I have done nothing but ac¬
cept the conditions imposed by the other side. Of
CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR 247
, course, I would not surrender to slavery. There
was a moment when, perhaps, it was possible to let
tlie States go ; but I doubt. Since then the thing
has been morally impossible ; the war must be
fought out. This is sad enough to me ! It costs
me a pang to give up early visions, and to see my
country filled with armies, while the military spirit
prevails everywhere. Everywhere soldiers come
forward for offices of all kinds, from the presidency
to the post of constable ; and this will be the case
from this time during my life.”
To Bright, on October 6 ; —
“ At this moment I am more solicitous about
France and England than about our military
affairs. In the latter there is a temporary check,
and you know I said long ago that I was prepared
for further disaster ; but this can only delay, not
change the result. Foreign intervention will in¬
troduce a new, vast, and incalculable element ; it
would probably provoke a universal war. You will
observe the hobnobbing at New York with the Rus¬
sian admiral. Why is that fleet gathered there ?
My theory is that when it left the Baltic war with
France was regarded as quite possible, and it was
determined not to be sealed up at Cronstadt ; if at
New York, they could take the French expedition
at Vera Cruz.”
The replies of Bright and Cobden kept Sumner
advised of English feeling and English difficulties,
and they were at once shown to the President.
This familiar and frank correspondence helped our
248
CHARLES SUMNER
govGriunGiit and. streiigtliGnod thG hands of thosG
EnglishmGn who favorGd tliG North, of whom from
first to last John Bright was tho bravGst and most
unfaltGring. Hg nGVGr dGSGrtGd nor doubted the
success of the government.
Sumner felt that the position of the United
States should be stated so that the people of Eng¬
land and France might understand our feelings and
the dangers of the situation, and that the Amer¬
ican people might be instructed as to their rights.
He therefore prepared a speech during the spring
and summer, which he delivered in New York on
September 10, at the very crisis of our troubles
with England. It was a long oration, with the faults
of Sumner’s elaborate addresses, and we miss the
spontaneity and directness of his letters. There
are passages which seem intemperate ; but, coming
from Sumner, the indignation which they expressed
made the greater impression in England. None
the less, it was a strong statement of the American
case.
He enumerated the unfriendly acts of England,
dwelling first on the proclamation of neutrality,
“ foremost in time, foremost also in the magnitude
of its consequences ; ” issued with indecent haste,
it gave the Southern cruisers equal rights with our
own on the seas and in British ports, and enabled
Enoflishmen to sell munitions of war to the Con-
federates. He alluded next to the captious tone of
England when the Trent was stopped, when ships
were sunk at the entrance of Charleston harbor,
CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR 249
and on other occasions, when she complained of
action justified by her own precedents.
He spoke of unfriendly speeches in Parliament,
and of official declarations by members of the
Cabinet, quoting the statement that our war was
“ a contest for empire on one side and for inde¬
pendence on the other ; ” and he dwelt upon their
constant prophecies of disaster and the assertion
that Jefferson Davis had “created a nation^
Passing to acts, he said : “ I am sorry to add that
there are acts, also, with which the British gov¬
ernment is too closely associated. I do not refer
to the unlimited supply of ‘ munitions of war,’ so
that our army everywhere, whether at Vicksburg
or Charleston, is compelled to encounter Arm¬
strong guns and Blakely guns, with all proper
ammunition, from England. . . . Nor do I refer
to the swarms of swift steamers, always under the
British flag, with contributions to rebel slavery,
. . . Of course no royal proclamation can change
wrong into right, or make such business other¬
wise than immoral ; but the proclamation may
take from it the character of felony.
“ Even the royal manifesto gives no sanction to
the fitting out in England of a naval expedition
against the commerce of the United States. And
yet . . . powerful ships are launched, equipped, fitted
out, and manned in England, with arms supplied
at sea from another English vessel, and then . . ,
proceed at once to rob and destroy the commerce of
the United States. England is the naval base
850
CHARLES SUMNER
from which are derived the original forces and sup¬
plies enabling them to sail the sea. . . . Of these
incendiaries, the most famous is the Alabama, with
a picked crew of British seamen, with ‘trained
gunners out of Her Majesty’s naval reserve,’ all,
bke those of Queen Elizabeth, described as ‘ good
sailors and better pirates,’ and with everything
else from keel to truck British, which, after more
than a year of unlawful havoc, is still firing the
property of our citizens, without oiicG Bfitcvifig d
rebel slavemonger port^ . . . and never losing the
original nationality stamped upon her by origin,
. . . It is difficult to see how the British govern¬
ment can avoid the consequences of complicity with
the pirate ships in all their lawless devastation. I
forbear to dwell on all the accumulating liability,
amounting already to millions of dollars, with ac¬
cumulating exasperation also.”
Thus early was England warned of the Alabama
claims.
Passing from England to France, he stated our
grievances against Louis Napoleon, dwelling on the
invasion of Mexico, and on the Emperor s attempt
to procure a joint mediation in our affairs with
“ an armistice for six months, during which every
act of war, direct or indirect, should provisionally
cease.” Of this he said : “ Any such offer, what¬
ever its motive, must be an encouragement to the
rebellion , ” and he spoke of the Emperor thus :
“ Trampler upon the republic in France, trampler
upon the republic in Mexico, it remains to be seen
CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR 251
if the French Emperor can prevail as tram pier
upon this republic.”
Having framed his indictment, he proceeded to
discuss the rights of intervention and mediation,
prefacing his argument by a significant warning : —
“ Nations are equal in the eye of international law,
so that what is right for one is right for all. . . .
Therefore, should our cases be reversed, there is
nothing England and France now propose, or may
hereafter propose, which it will not be our equal
right to propose when Ireland or India once more
rebels, or when France is in the throes of its next
revolution. ... We may reject the precedents
they furnish ; but it will be difficult for them to
complain if we follow their steps.”
He reviewed at great length the subject of in¬
tervention, quoting Canning’s statement that the
“ British government disclaimed for itself, and de¬
nied for other powers, the right of requiring any
changes in the internal institutions of independent
states with the menace of hostile attack in case of
refusal ; ” and that “ a menace of direct and immi¬
nent danger could alone, in exception to the gen¬
eral rule, justify foreign interference.”
Dilating on England’s long “ intervention against
slavery,” he asked : “ And can it be that now . . .
a rebellion inspired by slavery turns to England
with hope ? ” He discussed the law of recognition
and the precedents, showing how impossible it
would be to recognize the Southern Confederacy
“ when, in fact^ nothing is established, nothing
252
CHARLES SUMNER
untroubled, nothing secure, not even a single bound¬
ary line, . . . when, in fact^ the conflict is still
waged on numerous battlefields, and these pretend¬
ers to independence have been driven from State
to State, driven away from the Mississippi which
parts them, driven -back from the sea which sur¬
rounds them, and shut up in the interior or in
blockaded ports, so that only by stealth can they
communicate with the outward world.”
In conclusion he dwelt upon the fact that the
new confederacy was founded to maintain slavery,
and enforced by a wealth of quotation and argu¬
ment his contention that no civilized nation, and
England least of all, could help to establish such a
government.
At home the speech was received with the warm¬
est approval by press and public, and by leaders
like Seward and Chase. In England it excited
much indignation, and was criticised as unjust and
unduly bitter. None the less it commanded atten¬
tion, and made England appreciate as never before
the real feeling of the United States and the grav¬
ity of the situation. From this time foreign pow¬
ers gave us no serious anxiety, and their attitude
was doubtless due in part to the enlightenment
conveyed by this speech, reenforced by the success
of our arms. The Argylls, Cobden, and others of
Sumner’s friends regretted the speech, and Cobden
wrote : —
“ I was, I confess, rather beset with the feeling
of cui hono after reading your powerful indictments
CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR 263
against England and France together ; it should
have been your policy to have kept them asunder.”
Sumner answered thus : —
“ Not for controversy, but for statement, I reply
to your cui hono : (1.) As regards my own coun¬
try. People here had a right to expect from me a
statement of the case. There was a feverish and
indignant feeling against Great Britain, without
much knowledge. The facts which I set forth,
none of which can be questioned, are now accepted
as an exhibition of what your government has done.
The effect has been excellent ; for the people now
understand the points in discussion. Instead of
exciting them, I think that speech allayed existing
excitement, followed as it was by a change in Eng¬
land. (2.) As regards England. It was important
that your government and people should know how
those in our country most friendly felt with re¬
gard to their conduct. For months we have done
all that could be done, and Lord Bussell down to
the 9th of September (I spoke on the 10th of Sep¬
tember) gave no hint that we should not have war.
. . . For weeks before I spoke bankers and lead-
ins: business men had revealed to me their anxie-
ties, and the agent of a great English house had
told me he could not venture to open credits. It
was time that something was said openly and
plainly. I knew too well the prejudices of coun¬
try and of party not to see that such an exposition
would draw down upon me abuse and misrepresen¬
tation. But it seemed clearly my duty, and I am
254
CHARLES SUMNER
glad I did it. I know England well, and I know
my own country ; being somewhat behind the
scenes, too, I felt that I could judge what was
needed, not to soothe for the moment, not to grat¬
ify personal feelings, but to secure the great object
of my heart, — solid peace between our two coun¬
tries.”
The death of his brother George, on October 6,
led him to decline all invitations to speak during
the autumn campaign, and he made no other pub¬
lic address before the meeting of Congress.
CHAPTER XVI
RECONSTRUCTION AND EQUAL RIGHTS
President Lincoln regarded reconstruction
from the standpoint of the Executive. His policy
was to suppress the insurrection and then to per¬
mit the loyal citizens of each State to organize its
government, giving them military protection during
the process. He was in a hurry to see recon¬
struction accomplished, and distrusted the tedious
methods of Congress. He perhaps did not suffi¬
ciently appreciate that the people were yet in doubt
upon the questions involved, and that debates in
Congress were the best way of educating leaders
and people alike, until was formed that public
opinion upon which any enduring reconstruction
must rest. He seems also to have underesti¬
mated the danger of allowing a state government
to be formed by a minority, especially where the
persons allowed to act were determined by military
order, and were bitterly hated by the majority.
Sumner felt that the conditions of reconstruction
must be fixed by Congress and the President to¬
gether, that the new governments must rest upon
the consent of substantially the whole community,
and that the freedom and rights of the colored
266
CHARLES SUMNER
race must be insured. Hence delay was necessary.
He wished to build upon sound foundations an
enduring structure, and this was not possible until
the passions of war had cooled. While Lincoln
lived harmony was preserved ; but when Andrew
Johnson succeeded, inheriting Lincoln’s opinions
but not fully understanding them, and his violent,
ill-reemlated nature was substituted for Lincoln’s
o
perfect steel,” the conflict between the executive
and the legislative policies became acute. Sum¬
ner was perhaps the first to appreciate the dangers
of Lincoln’s plan, and from the outset he led the
opposition to any reconstruction without the con¬
sent of Congress. This controversy in its vari¬
ous phases occupied many years, and none more,
important ever engaged the attention of our peo¬
ple. The results of the war, the whole future of
the country, were at stake, and at every stage in
the struggle Sumner’s influence was predominant.
Sumner contributed to the “ Atlantic Monthly ”
for October, 1863, an article upon reconstruction,
originally prepared as a speech on his resolution
of February 11, 1862, but withheld because the
military situation was unfavorable. In tone and
style it differed much from his speech on our for¬
eign relations. It is temperate, simple, and direct,
and is a strong argument for the policy ultimately
adopted by Congress. He began by pointing out
that the President, without consulting Congress,
had appointed military governors in four States,
giving them practically absolute power, and that
RECONSTRUCTION AND EQUAL RIGHTS 257
if this precedent were to be followed, eleven
States and more than nine millions of people
would be governed arbitrarily by one man, in a way
not recognized by the Constitution nor regulated
by law.
He reviewed the history of the confederation
and the reasons which led to the adoption of the
Constitution, reaching the conclusion that “ this
government is not established hy the Stettes, nor is
it established J'or the States ; but it is established
hy the people, for themselves and their posterity.”
He discussed the various theories as to the effect
of secession on the relations of the States to the
Union, and then stated an impregnable position:
“ For the time being, and in the absence of a loyal
yovernment, they can take no part and perform
no function in the Union, so that they cannot
he vecoynized hy the national govevnfnent. . . .
Therefore to all pretensions in behalf of state gov¬
ernments in the rebel States I oppose the simple
fact, that for the time being no such governments
exist.”
To the suggestion that loyal men might reorgan¬
ize the governments, he replied : “ Assuming that
all this is practicable, as it clearly is not, it attributes
to the loyal citizens of a rebel State, however few in
numbers, — it may be an insignificant minority, —
a power clearly inconsistent with the received princi¬
ple of popular government, that the majority must
rule.” He found abundant authority for congres¬
sional action in the necessity of the case, in the rights
268
CHARLES SUMNER
of war, and in the obligation imposed upon the
United States “ to guarantee to every State in this
Union a republican form of government,” which
clearly conferred upon the national government
“ jurisdiction above all pretended state rights.”
He urged that this view must be adopted, because
threats were openly made that the States would
restore slavery, and because of the danger to loyal
men involved in the recognition of the existing
governments. In a word, he dealt with a condition
to which all theories must bend, and argued that
since military government was not permanent and
no trustworthy civil government existed. Congress
must deal with the situation, and pass laws to secure
reconstruction with safety to the loyal and freedom
to all. This plan was attacked by Montgomery
Blair and others as revolutionary, but it is difficult
to see what other course was possible. The article
shows Sumner at his best.
The first session of the Thirty-eighth Congress
began in December, 1863, and adjourned the follow¬
ing J uly. It was a busy session, but not marked by
any exciting issue. As Sumner wrote to Gladstone
on January 1, 1864: “Our politics seem to have
something of the tranquillity of our neighboring
army. Never since I have been in public life has
there been so little excitement in Congress. The
way seems at last open. Nobody doubts the re¬
sult. The assurance of the future gives calmness.”
There was, however, much to do in legislation
and in education. Early in February, 1864, Sum-
RECONSTRUCTION AND EQUAL RIGHTS 259
ner offered a series of resolutions in order to bring
his theory of reconstruction to public attention.
In substance these declared that slavery was the
cause of the rebellion ; that to crush the rebellion
it was necessary to destroy it ; that in order to erad¬
icate every germ of rebellion, any scheme of re¬
construction must be rejected which did not provide
“ by irreversible guaranties against the continued
existence or possible revival of slavery, and that
these guaranties could be had only through the
national government ; that it was therefore the duty
of Congress to let no State resume its functions
until within its borders proper safeguards were
established, “ so that loyal citizens, including the
new-made freedmen, cannot at any time be molested
by evil-disposed persons, and especially that no
man there may be made a slave;” that slavery
must be destroyed in the loyal as well as the
seceded States, so that it should “ no longer exist
anywhere to menace the general harmony,” and
that to this end the Constitution must be amended
so as to prohibit slavery everywhere within the
jurisdiction of the United States. On the next
day he presented the petition of one hundred thou¬
sand persons praying Congress to pass an act of
universal emancipation, and supported it briefly.
Though Sumner did not disclose it, he inspired the
movement which led to this petition ; but the time
was ripe, and before Sumner moved his resolutions,
two amendments abolishing slavery had been intro¬
duced in the House and one in the Senate. On the
260
CHARLES SUMNER
day when he introduced his resolutions he also
proposed the amendment in this form : “ Every¬
where within the limits of the United States and
of each State or Territory thereof, all persons are
equal before the law, so that no person can hold
another as slave.”
When the amendment, in the form ultimately
adopted, came before the Senate, Sumner proposed
some changes in the phraseology, not liking the
possible implication that men might be enslaved as
a punishment for crime ; but finding his suggestions
not acceptable, he withdrew them and supported
the amendment. In his speech upon it he insisted
that Congress could abolish slavery by statute, and
urged that the power should be exercised without
waiting for the slow process of constitutional
amendment ; but he apparently asserted the exist¬
ence of this power with reference to possible future
exigencies, rather than with any hope of present
action. He might have been pardoned some per¬
sonal exultation over the change in public senti¬
ment since he entered the Senate, to which his own
efforts had so largely contributed, but none appears
in his speech. The cause for which he had sacri¬
ficed so much was about to win the final victory,
but he is not exultant, only devoutly thankful.
For myself, let me confess,” he said, “ that in
the presence of the mighty events now thronging,
I feel how insignificant is any individual, whether
citizen or senator.” The amendment failed to re¬
ceive the necessary two thirds vote in the House
RECONSTRUCTION AND EQUAL RIGHTS 261
of Representatives until January 31, 1865, after
Mr. Lincoln’s reelection, and being subsequently
ratified, it became a part of the Constitution on
December 18 in the same year.
Sumner’s first great speech in the Senate was
made on August 26, 1852, in support of a motion
to repeal the Fugitive Slave Law. Twice after¬
ward he had renewed the attack in vain. This
session was to witness his final victory. On Feb¬
ruary 8, 1864, he introduced a bill to repeal all
fuiritive slave laws, and had it referred to a com-
mittee of which he was the chairman. On Feb¬
ruary 29 he reported it with an elaborate report,
but when it was taken up in the Senate, Sher¬
man proposed to amend it so as to repeal only the
act of 1850, leaving the act of 1793 in force.
Against Sumner’s opposition the amendment was
adopted, and therefore he decided not to press the
bill, but to wait the action of the House of Repre¬
sentatives, which on June 13 passed a bill repeal¬
ing all fugitive slave laws. Sumner took charge
of this in the Senate, and pressed it vigorously
till it passed, the Senate rejecting the amendment
to preserve the act of 1793, which it had previously
adopted. On June 28 this bill was approved, and
thus all laws for the rendition of fugitive slaves
were wiped from the statute-book. Sumner’s report
was a thorough historical and legal discussion of
these acts and of the provision in the Constitu¬
tion upon which they rested. His speech against
Sherman’s amendment expressed almost indignant
262
CHARLES SUMNER
surprise that senators should at that late day be
trying to protect slavery.
He proceeded to attack and destroy the but¬
tresses of slavery one by one. On the day when
he introduced his amendment to the Constitution
he introduced also a bill to prevent the exclusion of
witnesses on account of color in the courts of the
United States. One would suppose that at so late
a period in the civil war the bill would have passed
at once, but Sumner could not get the Senate to
consider it. He therefore moved it as an amend¬
ment to the civil appropriation bill, and though
Sherman begged him not to press it because the
weather was very hot and the amendment would
provoke discussion, he insisted, and his proposition,
with immaterial amendments, became the law. He
had an almost identical experience with a bill to
prohibit commerce in slaves among the States, but
could not get it before the Senate until he moved
it as an amendment to an appropriation bill. The
amendment, at first lost, was renewed later, and
carried.
It was in the debate upon this amendment that
Mr. Hendricks of Indiana made a suggestion,
half a taunt but wholly true, when he said : “ I
am surprised that any senator should oppose the
proposition of the senator from Massachusetts, for
we all know that eventually it will be adopted.
The objection as to its suitability, or proper con¬
nection with the measure, is but an objection of
time. No gentleman can question that the senator
RECONSTRUCTION AND EQUAL RIGHTS 263
from Massachusetts will eventually carry his propo¬
sition.’' During the last ten years of his life the
opponents of his proposals repeatedly attributed
to Sumner such control over his Republican asso¬
ciates that, no matter how distasteful to them his
ideas might be at the outset, they always finally
adopted them ; or as Mr. Doolittle said in 1868,
“ he had not only educated, but had Sumnerized
the Senate.”
During this session also he began the contest
for negro suffrage. The first battle occurred upon
a bill to provide a temporary government for the
territory of Montana, amended in the Senate by
giving the suffrage to every “ free male citizen.”
Reverdy Johnson insisted that under the Dred
Scott decision “ black men ” were not citizens.
Sumner in reply asserted the right of Congress
“to interpret the Constitution without constraint
from the Supreme Court,” and denounced the Dred
Scott decision. The House of Representatives re¬
fused to concur, and the Senate yielded, perhaps
for the reason suggested by Mr. Morrill of Maine,
that there were no negroes in Montana to whom
the amendment could possibly apply. Sumner,
however, insisted that this made no difference,
saying : “ It is something to declare a principle,
and I cannot hesitate to say that at this moment
the principle is much more important than the
bill. The bill may be postponed, but the principle
must not be postponed.”
The contest was renewed on a bill to regulate
264
CHARLES SUMNER
elections in the District of Columbia, which did
not confine the suffrage to white citizens. Mr.
Cowan of Pennsylvania moved to amend by in¬
serting the word “ white,” and Sumner opposed
him. The bill was never again considered, but a
resolution relating to the registration of voters was
reported later, which in effect excluded colored
men. Sumner moved to amend by a proviso that
no person should be excluded on account of color,
insisting that his opponents were defending slav¬
ery. Many friends of negro suffrage, however,
considered the resolution a temporary arrange¬
ment, and refused to imperil its passage by voting
for the amendment, which was lost. Thus ended
the contest for that session of Congress.
Sumner’s persistency in battling against all dis¬
crimination founded on color was conspicuously
exhibited at this time in his efforts to prevent the
exclusion of colored persons from street cars in the
District of Columbia. The struggle lasted through
several sessions with varying fortunes, but in the
end he accomplished his object. He also actively
supported the attempt of his colleague, Mr. W il-
son, to secure for colored soldiers equal pay wdth
white, a result finally achieved by leaving the ques¬
tion to the attorney-general, who sustained the
equality.
The condition of the recently emancipated slaves
was deplorable. Without property or education
and. with no knowledge of their rights, they were
largely at the mercy of their white neighbors. The
RECONSTRUCTION AND EQUAL RIGHTS 265
social system of the South was destroyed and the
result was general demoralization.
At this session the first steps were taken to
deal with this situation by establishing the Freed-
men’s Bureau, which Sumner called “ a bridge from
slavery to freedom.” The measure, originating in
the House of Representatives, reached the Senate
in March, 1864, and was referred to Mr. Sumner’s
committee on slavery and freedmen, which on
May 25 reported it, with a substitute drawn by
him and adopted by the committee. This substan¬
tially established a bureau in the Treasury Depart¬
ment to take charge of freedmen, to secure for
them an opportunity to work, and to protect them
against any enforced labor, by requiring the sub¬
mission to local officers of their contracts with their
employers. The officers of the bureau were to see
that the freedmen did not suffer from ill treatment
or breach of contract ; to do what was possible as
arbitrators in disputes, and “ to appear as next
friends of the freedmen in trials before any court.”
Tn short, the bill undertook to supply the lately
emancipated negroes with official friends to watch
over them, advise them, and protect their inter¬
ests, exercising, however, no real authority, since
they were dealing with free men. This was made
perfectly clear by an amendment which Mr. Sum¬
ner himself offered : “ And every such freedman
shall be treated in every respect as a freeman with
all proper remedies in courts of justice ; and no
power or control shall be exercised with regard to
him except in conformity with law.”
266
CHARLES SUMNER
Mr. Sumner’s substitute was adopted in the Sen¬
ate, but the House postponed the measure until the
next session, when, amended so as to place the new
bureau in the War Department, it became a law.
The burden of supporting this bill at every stage
fell upon Sumner as the senator in charge. It
was vigorously opposed, especially by Mr. Grimes
of Iowa, whose opposition seemed to Sumner al¬
most personal. Sumner made the importance of
the measure clear in describing the condition of
the freedmen : —
“ They look about and find no home. They seek
occupation, but it is not within their reach. They
ask for protection, sometimes against former task¬
masters and s'ometimes against other selfish men.
If these are not supplied in some way by the
government, I know not where to look for them.
... To this end a central agency is proposed at
Washington, with subordinate agencies where the
freedmen are to be found, devoted to this work of
watching over emancipation, so that it may be sur¬
rounded with a congenial atmosphere.”
Such were the steps in the extirpation of slavery
which Sumner urged during this session of Con¬
gress, and at its close he could look back upon sub¬
stantial victories. Slavery was dead. Henceforth
his work was to remove from the statute-book all
traces of its existence, and to secure for the new
freedmen all their rights as citizens.
Sumner did not neglect the work of the com-
■ mittee on foreign relations, but at this session
RECONSTRUCTION AND EQUAL RIGHTS 267
made an exhaustive report upon the “ French
Spoliation Claims,” in which their whole history
was given, and the obligation of the United States
was made apparent. Though Congress was not
willing then to satisfy these claims, their justice
was established, and with a fuller treasury pro¬
vision has since been made for their payment. He
supported the proposition to appoint consular
pupils, dwelling upon the character of our service,
and saying : “It is a shame that our offices
abroad, whether consular or diplomatic, are served
in this inferior way.”
On April 30, 1864, he introduced the first bill
to reform the civil service, which he “ matured
alone without consultation,” and which contained
all the essential features of the present system.
It gave the preference to the first on the list, and
provided against removals except for cause, and
for promotions according to seniority ; but it al¬
lowed one fifth of the promotions to be made for
merit “ irrespective of seniority.” The bill was
cordially apf)roved by the press, and the comments
showed that the spoils system had begun to attract
public disapproval ; but the time was not ripe for
its passage and no actual legislation was had until
March, 1871, when the appointment of the first
Civil Service Commission was authorized by an
amendment to an appropriation bill.
In the debates upon the bill to establish national
banks, Sumner persistently opposed subjecting the
shares to state taxation. He offered an amend-
268
CHARLES SUMNER
ment whicli imposed a national tax on their circu¬
lation, deposits, and capital, in lieu of all other
taxes. He argued that the instruments by which
the new national currency was created should
not be exposed to attack from the States, and
he saw in the attempt to make them liable an¬
other assertion of state rights. Secretary Chase
and other prominent men agreed with Sumner ; but
Fessenden, for the finance committee, opposed his
amendment with some bitterness, and the Senate
followed the committee. Fessenden’s acrimony in
the debate disturbed for some years his relations
with Sumner, but the bitterness disappeared be¬
fore they died. Sumner also advocated the estab¬
lishment of a branch mint in Oregon, his speech
showing a remarkable knowledge of foreign ex¬
perience as well as our own, and containing an
excellent discussion of coinage and the true func¬
tion of government in regard to it. He pre¬
vailed, and the branch mint was established. At
this session, as always, he opposed imposts on books
and on philosophical apparatus and .instruments
imported for schools, colleges, and like institutions,
as taxes on knowledge never to be imposed in a land
where education was free ; but Congress would not
follow him. He proposed a bill to incorporate
a national academy of literature and art, but in
the contest between different measures this bill was
not considered. He took part also in the discus¬
sion of the tariff, saying that he regarded the taxes
imposed ‘‘ as temporary or provisional,” and levied
merely to carry on the war.
RECONSTRUCTION AND EQUAL RIGHTS 269
The reconstruction problem came up again in
June upon a resolution recognizing the free state
government of Arkansas. The Union forces hav¬
ing occupied a part of Arkansas, a government had
been organized within their lines, and members of
Consfress as well as state officers had been chosen.
Sumner opposed recognition because the govern¬
ment represented only a minority of the people ;
and to let this minority elect representatives and
two senators, and cast the vote of the State in the
electoral college, was to give it a wholly dispro¬
portionate influence in the government. He op¬
posed also because civil order was not sufficiently
restored in Arkansas, and the new government
rested in fact upon a military edict, and not upon
that peaceful action of the people which is the
proper foundation of civil government. He as¬
serted the necessity of congressional sanction to
any permanent government, and insisted that this
must not be given until freedom had been secured
by “irreversible guaranties.” The resolution of
recognition was referred to the committee on the
judiciary, which reported adversely. A few days
later, when a bill postponing elections in the se¬
ceded States was pending, Mr. Sumner offered an
amendment abolishing slavery in these States by
act of Congress, but it was lost.
With characteristic pertinacity he opposed the
final adjournment of Congress, because increased
taxes were necessary, and Congress ought not to
adjourn without laying them. He acted invariably
270
CHARLES SUMNER
as if “thinking naught done while aught remains
to do,” and his catalogue of unfinished work often
irritated his less diligent or enduring associates.
During this session our foreign relations were
not troublesome, but Sumner kept up his corre¬
spondence with leading Englishmen, and on the
day of adjournment, July 4, 1864, he wrote this
summary to the Duchess of Argyll : —
“ Congress will disperse to-day, having done sev¬
eral good things : (1) all fugitive slave acts have
been repealed ; (2) all acts sustaining the traffic in
slaves on the coast from one domestic port to an¬
other have been repealed, so that now there is no
support of slavery in our statute-book ; (3) the
railroads here in Washington have been required
to admit colored persons into their carriages ; (4)
greatest of all in practical importance, the rule of
evidence excluding colored testimony in the United
States courts has been abolished. All these mea¬
sures are now the law of the land. They were all
introduced and pressed by myself. I feel happy
in the result, but I shrink from saying that any¬
thing can make me happy now.”
To Gladstone, Bright, and Bishop Wilberforce
among others, he urged action by England which
would range her clearly on the side of freedom in
the struggle to extirpate slavery.
CHAPTER XVII
THE LAST YEAR OF THE WAR
During the summer of 1864 occurred the con¬
test over the renomination of Mr. Lincoln. Many
leading Republicans had lost confidence in him,
and an attempt to secure some other candidate was
made, in which men like Wade, Henry Winter
Davis, Horace Greeley, Governor Andrew, and
many leading journalists were active. Mr. Chase
had many supporters, and Grant and Sherman were
suggested. Lincoln was renominated in June, but
it was still felt by many that defeat was certain
unless he withdrew, and steps were taken to se¬
cure his withdrawal and the substitution of an¬
other candidate. In these movements Sumner took
no part ; he shared to some extent the doubts of
his associates as to Lincoln’s entire fitness, but his
correspondence and conversation showed no strong
feeling. A conference of leading men was held in
New York on August 14, 1864, which resolved
that a committee should request Mr. Lincoln to
retire, and Dr. Lieber, who was present, informed
Sumner of it. In reply Sumner stated his posi¬
tion, and in this letter to an intimate friend he
spoke with absolute frankness. He said : —
272
CHARLES SUMNER
“ Your letter about the meeting was very inter¬
esting. I do not see how anything can be done
except through Mr. Lincoln and with his good-will.
If he could see that patriotism required his with¬
drawal and would sincerely give his countenance
and support to a new candidate, I am sure that the
candidate of that convention, whoever he might
be, could be chosen. ... If Mr. Lincoln does not
withdraw, then all who now disincline to him must,
come to his support. I have declined to sign any
paper or take any action, because I was satisfied
that nothing could be done except through Mr.
Lincoln and with his good-will. To him the ap¬
peal must be made and on him must be the final
responsibility. But the Chicago platform will
make it possible to elect him, if not easy. Indeed,
I am prepared for an uprising against it.”
This platform described the war as “ four years
of failure ” and demanded that it cease. Sumner
was right in his anticipation, and under such a
banner the Democrats marched to overwhelming
and deserved defeat.
Andrew Johnson was substituted for Hannibal
Hamlin as the Republican candidate for the vice¬
presidency, not from any loss of confidence in Mr.
Hamlin, but because it was felt that a Southern loy¬
alist would strengthen the ticket, and at that crisis
nothing could be neglected which tended to insure
success. The Massachusetts delegation supported
the change, and one of them is quoted by Mr.
Hamlin’s son as saying that “ Mr. Sumner and
THE LAST YEAR OF THE WAR
273
the Massachusetts delegation desired another can¬
didate,” and that “ Mr. Sumner appealed to the
Massachusetts delegates and insisted that they
should advocate the nomination of a war Democrat
for vice-president, in order to bring more Demo¬
crats to the support of the Republican ticket.”
Mr. Dawes, then a representative in Washington,
also is quoted as saying that this was the under¬
standing at the time. But neither speaks of any
interview with Mr. Sumner, or seems to know per¬
sonally of any action by him. Mr. Dawes could
readily have seen him, and if much interested in
the controversy would doubtless have done so, but
he does not speak of any conversation. On the
other hand, Senator Morrill, who attended the con¬
vention and on the day after its adjournment wrote
Mr. Hamlin the history of Mr. Johnson’s nomi¬
nation, does not allude to Mr. Sumner; nor has
any one ever shown any word or act of his before
the nomination. He was in the Senate during the
convention, his correspondence is silent on the sub¬
ject, and it was not his habit to interest himself
in such contests. The whole evidence sustains the
conclusion that he took no part in bringing about
the change of candidates.
Writing to Cobden after the campaign had be¬
gun, he summed up the political situation thus : —
“ The hesitation in the support of Mr. Lincoln
disappears at the promulgation of the Chicago
treason. There was a meeting in New York of
persons from different parts of the country to bring
274
CHARLES SUMNER
about a new convention to nominate a Union can¬
didate. The ‘ Tribune,’ ‘ Evening Post,’ ‘ Inde¬
pendent,’ and Cincinnati ‘ Gazette,’ were all repre¬
sented in it, but as soon as they read the platform,
they ranged in support of Mr. Lincoln. I declined
to take any part in the meeting, for I could not
but see that nothing could be done except with
Mr. Lincoln’s good-will. ... You understand that
there is a strong feeling among those who have
seen Mr. Lincoln in the way of business, that he
lacks practical talent for his important place. It
is thought that there should be more readiness,
and also more capacity for government. But these
doubts are now abandoned, and all are united to
prevent the election of McClellan. To my mind
the election is already decided.”
In the campaign of 1864 Sumner took an active
part, speaking in a number of cities. Two of his
speeches are preserved in his works and are excel¬
lent specimens of his most effective oratory. They
are simple and direct, and present the issues of the
campaign with great grasp and power. A single
warning against party spirit may be quoted : —
“ Local prejudice, personal antipathy, and self¬
ish interest obscure the vision. And far beyond
all these is the disturbing influence of ‘ party,’ with
all the power of discipline and organization added
to numbers. Men attach themselves to political
party as to a religion, and yield blindly to its be¬
hests. By error of judgment, rather than of heart,
they give up to party what was meant for country
THE LAST YEAR OF THE WAR
275
or mankind. I do not condemn political parties,
but warn against their tyranny. ... It is, unhap¬
pily, an evil of party always, even in its best estate,
that it tends to dominate over its members. . . .
This influence becomes disastrous beyond measure,
when bad men obtain control or bad ideas prevail.”
In this speech he made his famous comparison
between the Mayflower and the slave-ship : —
“ Go back to the earliest days of colonial his¬
tory, and you will And the conflict already prepar¬
ing. It was in 1620 that twenty slaves were
landed at Jamestown, in Virginia, — the first that
ever pressed the soil of our country. In that same
year the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth. Those
two cargoes contained the hostile germs which have
ripened in our time. They fitly symbolize our
gigantic strife. On one side is the slave-ship, and
on the other is the Mayflower. . . . Each had ven¬
tured upon an untried and perilous ocean to find
an unknown and distant coast. In this they were
alike, but in all else how unlike! One was
freighted with human beings forcibly torn from
their own country, and hurried away in chains to
be sold as slaves; the other was filled with good
men, who had voluntarily turned their backs upon
their own country, to seek other homes, where at
least they might be free. One was heavy with
curses and with sorrow ; the other was lifted with
anthem and with prayer. And thus, at the same
time, beneath the same sun, over the same waves,
each found its solitary way. By no effort of
276
CHARLES SUMNER
imagination do we see on one Slavery and on the
other Liberty, traversing the ocean to continue
here, on this broad continent, their perpetual, im¬
mitigable war.’’ This warfare thus begun could
be ended, however, only by the destruction of
slavery.
To the demand of the Democratic party that
hostilities should cease he replied : —
“ If you agree to abandon patriots and slaves in
the rebel States, you will only begin your infinite
difficulties. How determine the boundary line to
cleave this continent in twain ? Where shall the
god Terminus plant his stone ? W^hat States shall
be left at the North in the light of Liberty?
What States shall be consigned to the gloom of
Slavery? . . .
“ Suppose the shameful sacrifice consummated,
the impossible boundaries adjusted, and the illu¬
sive terms and conditions stipulated, do you im¬
agine that you have obtained peace ? Alas, no !
Nothing of the sort. You may call it peace, but it
will be war in disguise, ready to break forth in per¬
petual, chronic, bloody battle. Such an extended
inland border, over which Slavery and Liberty
scowl at each other, will be a constant temptation,
not only to enterprises of smuggling, but to hostile
incursions, so that our country will be obliged to
sleep on its arms, ready to spring forward in self-
defense. . . . Military preparations, absorbing the
resources of the people, will become permanent in¬
stead of temporary, and the arts of peace will
THE LAST YEAR OF THE WAR 277
yield to the arts of war. Have we not war enough
now ? ’’
A few words at Faneuil Hall after the election
may well be given as a contrast with those which
he uttered when he first spoke in that venerable
building at the beginning of his political career : —
“ The voice of the people at the ballot box has
echoed back that great letter of the President, ‘ To
whom it may concern,’ declaring the integrity of
the Union and the abandonment of slavery the
two essential conditions of peace. Let the glad
tidings go forth, ‘ to whom it may concern,’ — to
all the people of the United States, at length now
made wholly free, — to foreign countries, — to the
whole family of man, — to posterity, — to the mar¬
tyred band who have fallen in battle for their coun¬
try, — to the angels above, — ay, and to the devils
below, — that this Republic shall live, for slavery
is dead. This is the great joy we now announce to
the world.”
It was during the campaign, on October 7, 1864,
that the Wachusett captured the rebel privateer
Florida in the harbor of Bahia, and carried her off
from under the guns of the Brazilian fleet and
forts. This daring breach of our obligations to
Brazil naturally created some excitement, and the
English press denounced it as an outrage. In a
letter to the “ Advertiser ” Mr. Sumner replied that
the act accorded with too many British precedents
for England to complain ; and contended that,
while Brazil might demand reparation, the prece*
278
CHARLES SUMNER
dents did not require a return of the ship. In Jan¬
uary, after the incident was closed, he wrote another
letter. Both were written to put English critics
on the defensive, and the first to strengthen the
hands of the government in its negotiations with
Brazil, rather than to justify the seizure under in¬
ternational law.
During the recess of Congress Chief Justice
Taney died, and Sumner urged the appointment of
Chase to the vacant chair. Mr. Lincoln had lost
much of his confidence in Chase and hesitated to
appoint him, believing that, though chief justice,
he would still aspire to the presidency; but he
yielded to the general opinion, and made the ap¬
pointment. A few weeks later Sumner moved the
admission of a colored man, J. S. Bock of Boston,
to the bar of the Supreme Court, and the chief
justice granted the motion, thus ignoring the Dred
Scott decision and holding that a negro was a citi¬
zen, since none but a citizen could be admitted.
This result was reached after a correspondence
between Sumner and Chase and a consultation, in
which the other judges apparently decided not to
depart from the usage by which the chief justice
acts upon admissions to the bar without consulting
his associates. Thus quietly was the equality of
colored men before the law recognized by the high¬
est tribunal in the country, and for so brief a time
did the Dred Scott decision survive its author.
Not content with this, Sumner opposed a bill to
place a bust of Taney in the Supreme Court room.
THE LAST YEAR OF THE WAR
279
speaking twice against it, and severely criticising
his opinion in the Dred Scott case. His opposition
defeated the bill, and it was not till two months
before his death, and when illness kept him from
the Senate, that a resolution providing for busts
both of Taney and Chase passed Congress.
The last session of the Thirty-eighth Congress
began in December, 1864. The rebellion was tot¬
tering to its fall, and the session was uneventful.
A raid from Canada into Vermont was made in the
interest of the rebellion by a party of men who
broke open banks and plundered citizens in St.
Albans, and caused a brief excitement. A bill was
introduced authorizing the President to spend ten
million dollars in fortifications and floating batteries
to protect our northern border, but in a few tem¬
perate remarks Sumner pointed out the danger of
letting the rebels succeed in disturbing our rela¬
tions with England, and the bill was sent to the
committee on foreign relations, where it died.
The treatment of our soldiers in Southern prisons
had produced deep indignation throughout the
North, and naturally retaliation in kind was de¬
manded. The public feeling found expression in
a resolution reported from the committee on mili¬
tary affairs in January, 1865, which provided that
the prisoners in our hands should receive the treat¬
ment “ practiced towards our officers or soldiers in
the hands of the insurgents, in respect to quantity
and quality of food, clothing, fuel, medicine, medi¬
cal attendance, personal exposure, or other method
280
CHARLES SUMNER
of dealing with them ; that with a view to the same
ends the insurgent prisoners in our hands ought to
be placed under the control and in the keeping of
officers and men who have themselves been pris¬
oners in the hands of the insurgents and have thus
acquired a knowledge of their mode of treating
Union prisoners.” A few days later Sumner
moved as a substitute a series of resolutions, which
declared that retaliation, always harsh, was allow¬
able only where it was likely to effect its object
and within narrow limits, and that, while the treat¬
ment of our officers and soldiers in rebel prisons
was cruel, “ any attempted imitation of rebel bar¬
barism in the treatment of prisoners ” was imprac¬
ticable, useless, and immoral ; “ that it could have
no other result than to degrade the national char¬
acter and the national name, and to bring down
upon our country the reprobation of history.” His
final resolution declared the determination of the
United States to end the barbarous treatment of
prisoners by ending the rebellion.
He expanded his argument in a speech, and a
long debate ensued in which many leading Repub¬
licans — Wade, Howard, Chandler, Howe, Gratz
Brown, Harlan, and others favored the original
resolutions, while the Democrats with some Repub¬
licans opposed. Sumner spoke again, saying .
“ The committee . . . propose that Congress shall
instruct the President to enter upon a system of
retaliation, where we shall imitate as precisely as
possible rebel barbarism, and make our prisons
THE LAST YEAR OF THE WAR
281
the scenes of torments we here denounce. Why,
sir, to state the case is to answer it. . . . What
civilization forbids cannot be done. Your enemy
may be barbarous and cruel, but you cannot be
barbarous and cruel. The rule is clear and un¬
questionable. . . . Even if you make up your
minds to do this thing, you cannot. The whole
idea is impracticable. The attempt must fail be¬
cause human nature is against you.”
The opposition was effective, and upon Sumner’s
motion the resolution was so modified as to sug¬
gest only retaliation “ in conformity with the laws
and usages of war among civilized nations.” Thus
amended it passed the Senate, but was never acted
upon by the House. In thus opposing the indig¬
nation of the country Sumner showed the moral
courage and the enlightened humanity which never
failed him. Of these he gave another proof when
he moved to amend a joint resolution authorizing
a contract with the artist Powell for a picture to
be placed in the Capitol, by adding : “ Provided^
That in the national Capitol, dedicated to the na¬
tional Union, there shall be no picture of a victory
in battle with our fellow citizens.”
This found little or no support, and was rejected
without division, but his action on these two mat¬
ters helped to teach many that his course towards
slavery was dictated by hatred of the crime and
not by personal bitterness against slaveholders.
CHAPTER XVIII
RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN
The question of reconstruction, heretofore dis¬
cussed as a question of the future, now became
pressing, and the struggle, which had begun at the
last session in the case of Arkansas, was renewed
over a resolution to recognize a state government
in Louisiana. The first issue was, whether the
President by military order, or Congress by law,
should control reconstruction ; the second was,
whether the right of suffrage should be given to
the colored men in the seceded States. Every¬
thing else was really matter of detail. The issue
between Congress and the President had first to
be fought out, and it was in effect settled at this
session of Congress. To John Bright Sumner
wrote, on January 1, 1865 : —
“ The President is exerting every force to bring
Congress to receive Louisiana under the Banks
government. I do not believe Louisiana is strong
enough in loyalty and freedom for an independent
State. ... I have discussed it with the President,
and have tried to impress on him the necessity of
having no break between him and Congress on
such questions.”
RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN
283
That the reader may understand the discussions,
the history of reconstruction in Louisiana may be
sketched briefly. In December, 1863, President
Lincoln had issued a proclamation proposing a plan
of reconstruction. He offered all persons in the
seceded States, with certain exceptions, pardon and
restoration of property, except slaves, upon their
taking an oath to support the Constitution of the
United States, and the laws and proclamations with
reference to slaves. He declared that whenever
persons who had taken this oath, equal in number
to one tenth of the votes cast at the presidential
election of 1860, and qualified to vote by the laws
of the State in force at the time of secession, should
establish a state government republican in form
and recognizing the freedom of the negroes, this
government would be recognized as that of the
State. This proclamation was discussed in the
President’s annual message of December, 1863.
In accordance with it, and under orders issued by
General Banks, which in effect allowed only male
white citizens to vote, elections were held in Loui¬
siana early in 1864, at which state officers and dele¬
gates to a constitutional convention were chosen.
Only some eleven thousand voters, including sol¬
diers, took part in the elections, and a much smaller
number voted when the constitution was submitted
to the people in September, 1864. The orders of
Banks were not to be reconciled with constitutional
principles, and while the State was the scene of
hostile operations any fair and free expression of
284
CHARLES SUMNER
the popular will was impossible. The govern¬
ment thus established rested on military force and
did not really represent the people of Louisiana.
Meanwhile, Congress took up the subject, and
after long deliberation passed an act in July, 1864,
providiug for conventions in the seceded States and
for reconstruction by a majority of the voters ; but
the President withheld his signature, and it failed
to become a law. He refused his approval, partly
because he did not wish to set aside the govern¬
ments which had been organized in Arkansas
and Louisiana under his proclamation, “ thereby
repelling and discouraging the loyal citizens, who
have set up the same, as to further effort.” The
result was to leave him in control of reconstruc¬
tion.
This bill, as it passed the House, made the per¬
petual prohibition of slavery in the constitution of
each reconstructed State an essential condition,
but it gave the suffrage only to “ white male citi¬
zens.” The Senate committee reported it with an
amendment striking out the word “ white,” but
subsequently abandoned the amendment as endan¬
gering the bill. Sumner and four others voted for
the amendment, and he then tried to amend the
bill so as to give the Emancipation Proclamation
the force of a statute. Defeated in this he voted
for the bill, because it asserted the power of Con¬
gress over the terms of reconstruction and assured
the freedom of the slaves, waiving for the last
time his objection to any reconstruction without
RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN
285
equal suffrage. Soon afterward he took his final
position, that there could be no just and lasting
reconstruction unless the negroes were given the
vote, and thereafter he never wavered.
The refusal of the President to sign the act
passed by Congress, and his attempt to effect re¬
construction by proclamation and military order
upon terms fixed by himself without the consent
of Congress, had irritated some of the Republican
leaders, and there were many who, like Sumner,
felt that his plan was objectionable in itself. An
issue was thus created between the President and
many of his own supporters, which made the strug¬
gle in Congress especially interesting. The contest
of the session began on February 18, 1865, with
the introduction of a resolution from the committee
on the judiciary, recognizing the government of
Louisiana as the legitimate government of the
State. Sumner opposed it, because the government
thus established was “ not republican in origin
or form,” and because it furnished “no secur¬
ity for the rights of colored persons.” When it
was taken up on February 23, he moved a sub¬
stitute, which declared that neither the people nor
the legislature of any seceded State should elect
senators or representatives in Congress, until the
President should declare by proclamation that
armed hostility to the government had ceased
therein, nor until the people had adopted a consti¬
tution in harmony with the Constitution and laws
of the United States, and Congress had by law
286
CHARLES SUMNER
declared the State entitled to representation. This
substitute was defeated, but Sumner continued to
antagonize the resolution, and in the press of busi¬
ness at the close of the session his determination
to discuss the subject fully, and his refusal to per¬
mit a vote, prevented action upon it. He was
charged with making obstructive motions, and re¬
plied that he thought the measure dangerous, and
was justified in opposing it with all the weapons
in the arsenal of parliamentary warfare.
In the course of the discussion Sumner offered
an amendment to the resolution, providing that it
should not take effect “except upon the funda¬
mental condition that within the State there shall
be no denial of the electoral franchise, or of any
other rights, on account of color or race, but all
persons shall be equal before the law,” and requir¬
ing the assent of the legislature to this fundamen¬
tal condition. He made no extended speech, but
he took the same ground in regard to the origin
of the government that he had taken in discuss-
ins: the similar orgranization in Arkansas.
For the same reasons he opposed the admission
of Mr. Segar as senator from Virginia, saying:
“ It is in vain that senators say that Virginia, now
in war against the Union, is entitled to i-epresen-
tation on this floor, when you have before you the
inexorable fact that the greater part of the State
is at this moment in the possession of an armed
rebellion, and that other fact, repeated by the news¬
papers of the land, that the body of men who have
RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN
287
undertaken to send a senator to Congress are little
more than the common council of Alexandria.”
In support of his theories as to the position of
the States in rebellion and the true method of re¬
construction, he offered two sets of resolutions
during the session. The first in substance declared
that the seceded States were not to be regarded as
States in determining whether the constitutional
amendment prohibiting slavery had been ratified.
The other asserted that it was the duty of the
United States by act of Congress to reestablish
republican governments in the States whose gov¬
ernments had been vacated ; that the governments,
to be republican, must rest on the consent of the
governed, and that all persons must be equal before
the law ; that no government “ founded on military
power or having its origin in military orders ”
could be republican.
The defeat of the attempt to secure recognition
for the governments of Arkansas and Louisiana
established the control of Congress over the whole
subject of reconstruction. In this contest Sumner
opposed the President, and when we consider what
the governments favored by Lincoln really repre
sented and upon what a slender foundation they
rested, whether of numbers or character, it is clear
that Sumner was not only right as a matter of prin¬
ciple, but practically wise in refusing to support
them. If the power of the President to prescribe
the conditions of reconstruction had been conceded,
it is hard to say what evil might not have been
288
CHARLES SUMNER
done by President Johnson. Sumner’s attitude in
this debate was supported by the anti-slavery sen¬
timent of the country, and it doubtless secured the
establishment of equal suffrage without regard to
color. His course was fiercely attacked, and the
President criticised it freely. Indeed many be¬
lieved that the difference would lead to a breach
of their friendly relations. Mr. Lincoln, however,
was too magnanimous not to respect Mr. Sumner’s
right to differ with him on a public question, and
he invited him to join the President’s party at the
inauguration ball. Sumner accepted, and his ap¬
pearance with the President on this occasion effec¬
tually silenced all doubts as to their friendship.
Until Lincoln’s death their intercourse continued
to be constant and cordial. In the Senate Sumner
had avoided making any extended speech, for he
recognized the difficulty of speaking without saying
something that might be misinterpreted by the
President ; but in a letter to J ohn Bright, written
just after the session closed, he spoke freely : —
“I insist that the rebel States shall not come
back except on the footing of the Declaration of
Independence, with all persons equal before the
law and government founded on the consent of
the governed. In other words, there shall be no
discrimination on account of color. If all whites
vote, then must all blacks ; but there shall be no
limitation of suffrage for one more than the other.
It is sometimes said, ‘ What ; let the freedman,
yesterday a slave, vote ? ’ 1 am inclined to think
RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 289
that there is more harm in refusing than in con¬
ceding the franchise. . . . Without their votes we
cannot establish stable governments in the rebel
States. Their votes are as necessary as their mus¬
kets ; of this I am satisfied. Without them the
old enemy will reappear, and under the form of
law take possession of the governments, choose
magistrates and officers, and, in alliance with the
Northern democracy, put us all in peril again,
postpone the day of tranquillity, and menace the
national credit by assailing the national debt. To
my mind the nation is now bound by self-interest
— ay, self-defense — to be thoroughly just.”
At the special session of the Senate, which began
on March 4, 1865, Sumner offered again substan¬
tially the same resolutions, which he had offered as
a substitute for the resolution recognizing the gov¬
ernment of Louisiana, and his policy, though at
the time attacked by many leading Republicans,
became, before another session, the accepted policy
of the Republican party.
This special session terminated on March 11,
1865, but Sumner as usual remained in Wash¬
ington, seeing much of the President. When
Mr. Lincoln was at the headquarters of the army,
whither he went on March 23, Sumner by his
invitation joined the party, and remained with it
for several days, returning with it to W^ ashington
on April 9. During a part of the time Mr. John¬
son, the Vice-President, was in the neighborhood,
and Mr. Sumner learned how much Mr. Lincoln
290
CHARLES SUMNER
disliked him, — a feeling which he was at little
pains to conceal.
Lee’s surrender was announced to Sumner by a
message from the White House ; but after a day
or two of rejoicing the assassination of the Presi¬
dent came like a thunderbolt to change joy into
profound grief, and to work a revolution in the
political situation. Sumner heard the news shortly
after the assassination occurred, and he went at
once to the bedside of the President, where he re¬
mained till the end. One witness, who described
the scene shortly after midnight, said : “ Senator
Sumner was seated on the right of the President’s
couch, near the head, holding the right hand of
the President in his own. He was sobbing like a
woman, with his head bowed down almost on the
pillow of the bed on which the President was
lying.” He attended the meeting of senators and
representatives in Washington, and drew the reso¬
lutions which they adopted. He did what was
possible for Mrs. Lincoln, and on leaving Wash¬
ington she sent him her husband’s cane, with a
note in which she said : “ Your unwavering kind¬
ness to my idolized husband and the great regard
he entertained for you prompt me to offer for your
acceptance this simple relic.” These reminiscences
show his relations with President Lincoln, and that
differences upon questions of policy never impaired
their mutual confidence and respect.
Sumner did not realize the consequences which
were to flow from Mr. Johnson’s accession. Writ-
RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 291
ing to Mr. Bright on April 18, he said : “ Our
government will continue tranquilly according to
the requirements of fundamental law. It is prob¬
able that the policy towards leading rebels will be
modified. President Lincoln was so essentially
humane and gentle that he could not make up
his mind to any severity, even to Jefferson Davis.
. . . President Johnson is in a different mood.
In a letter of April 25, he said : “ I have seen a
good deal of the new President, and have con¬
versed on questions of business and of general
policy. ... On Saturday the chief justice and
myself visited him in the evening, especially with
the view of conversing on negro suffrage. Suffice
it to say that he is well disposed, and sees the
rights and necessities of the case, all of which
I urged earnestly. Both of us left him light-
hearted.” A week later he writes, after another
interview i Last evening I had a long conver¬
sation with him mainly on the rebel States, and
how they shall be tranquillized. Of course my
theme is justice to the colored race. He accepted
this idea completely, and indeed went so far as to
say, “ There is no difference between us. . . . He
deprecates haste ; is unwilling that States should
be precipitated back ; thinks there must be a period
of probation, but that meanwhile all loyal people
without distinction of color must be treated as
citizens, and must take part in any proceedings for
reorganization.”
In repeated interviews Sumner presented his
292
CHARLES SUMNER
views, and he left Washington well assured that
Johnson agreed with him, and that the battle for
equal rights was won.
On June 1 he delivered in Boston a eulogy upon
President Lincoln, and, possessed with the impor¬
tance of persuading the country that negro sulfrage
was essential to lasting reconstruction, he availed
himself of this opportunity to urge his views. The
speech did full justice to Lincoln’s great character¬
istics, and dwelt especially upon the consecration of
his life to the principles embodied in the Declara¬
tion of Independence, of which the orator said:
“ The inevitable topic to which he returned with
most frequency, and to which he clung with all the
grasp of his soul, was the practical character of the
Declaration of Independence in announcing the lib¬
erty and equality of all men. No idle words were
there, but substantial truth, binding on the con¬
science of mankind.”
His entire harmony with Lincoln in devotion to
human rights, is made absolutely clear by the tone
in which he quoted from Lincoln’s speeches and
the admiration which he expressed. He firmly
believed in the words of Lincoln : “ This is a
world of compensations ; and he who would be
no slave must consent to have no slave. Those
who deny freedom to others deserve it not for them¬
selves, and, under a just God, cannot long retain
it.” Their fellow countrymen will do well to burn
these words upon their hearts.
Three days earlier, the President had disap
RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN
293
pointed the country by his proclamation of May
29 in regard to North Carolina, and this act may
have added something to Mr. Sumner’s speech.
It certainly changed the whole political horizon.
Johnson, in accepting the nomination for the vice¬
presidency, had denounced treason as “ worthy
of the punishment of death,” and after he suc¬
ceeded to the presidency he frequently repeated:
“ Treason is a crime and must be punished as a
crime.” His treatment of the South seemed sure
to be more vigorous than that which Mr. Lincoln
proposed, and the impression which he conveyed to
Sumner and Chase as to his views upon negro
suffrage was confirmed by his public statements to
various delegations. Therefore, when on May 29
he issued a proclamation of amnesty, and another
providing for reconstruction in North Carolina by
a convention to be chosen only by persons qualified
to vote before secession, thus excluding all colored
men from the electorate, he astonished and greatly
disappointed the loyal States. By some his change
of position has been attributed to the persuasion
of Southern men, for whom he had the instinctive
respect of one who had held an inferior social po¬
sition among them ; by others to the influence of
Seward and the Blairs. It is possible also that his
public declarations were intended to assure his hear¬
ers of his general sympathy with their purposes and
of his honest intention, rather than to announce a
fixed policy. He was not a master of accurate state¬
ment, and his speeches can be explained consist-
294
CHARLES SUMNER
ently with his subsequent action. He may have
thought that in following substantially the policy
of Lincoln he was pursuing a safe course, which
the country would approve, and in that case it
is easy to understand how the attacks upon him
might seem to him unjust, and operating upon a
man of strong will, violent temper, and little edu¬
cation might drive him to the indefensible line of
aetion which he afterwards adopted. President
J ohnson will probably be regarded by the historian
as a patriotic man of pure intentions, but who
could brook no opposition and was entirely unfit¬
ted for his great office. But whatever the verdict
upon him in foro conscientice^ his course endan¬
gered the whole results of the war. He had the
will and it was not yet certain that he had not also
the power to adopt a policy which would have left
the negroes only the name of freedom and have
given reconstruction into the hands of disloyal men.
Sumner felt that unless this policy was defeated,
the battles which had been won for equal rights
must be fought again. So soon, therefore, as the
proclamation of May 29 disclosed the President’s
purpose, he strove at once by letter and speech to
kindle an opposition. He wrote to members of the
Cabinet, members of Congress, and other men ol
influence, urging the importance of arresting the
President’s course and the necessity of giving the
freedmen suffrage. A petition from colored men of
Savannah was sent to him for presentation to the
President, and in a published letter he said : It
RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN
295
is impossible to suppose that Congress will sanc¬
tion governments in the rebel States which are not
founded on ‘ the consent of the governed.’ This
is the corner-stone of republican institutions. Of
course by the ‘ governed ’ is meant all the loyal cit¬
izens without distinction of color. Anything else
is mockery.”
For a few months Sumner found little support.
There was, indeed, a meeting in Boston to demand
equal suffrage ; but the Cabinet expressed no sym¬
pathy with Sumner’s views, some members, like
Seward, being in active sympathy with the Presi¬
dent, while others, like Stanton, were disinclined to
make an issue with him. Sumner wrote of them
on August 11 : “ The attorney-general [Speed] is
the best of the Cabinet ; but they are all courtiers,
unhappily, as if they were the counselors of a
king.”
Among the Republican leaders in Congress some
doubted the power of prescribing the conditions of
suffrage in the Southern States ; others, like Fes¬
senden and Wilson, felt it wiser to persuade than
to oppose the President ; others again, like Stevens
and Wade, thought opposition hopeless. Outside
of Congress there was the same division of opinion.
Governor Morton of Indiana, Governor Andrew of
Massachusetts, and several of the leading newspa¬
pers opposed Sumner’s attitude. Some of the old ab¬
olitionists, and Horace Greeley, in the “ Tribune,”
threw their weight for equal suffrage, but among
prominent Republicans, Sumner, almost alone, in-
296
CHARLES SUMNER
sisted that there should be no reconstruction unless
imj3artial suffrage was allowed ; that until the col¬
ored men were secured not only their freedom, but
also absolute political equality before the law, the
seceded States should not reenter the Union.
To Mr. Schleiden, on June 27, he wrote : “ On
the suffrage question the President has changed.
Shortly after I left Washington Southern influ¬
ences proved too strong. The ascendency is with
the Blairs. I have a letter from a member of the
Cabinet, telling me of a strong pressure on the
President to enforce the Monroe Doctrine as a
safety valve now, and to divert attention from do¬
mestic questions.” Then, as always, a “ vigorous
foreign policy ” was the favorite resort of those
whose domestic policy had failed, and whose power
was therefore threatened.
To Dr. Lieber, on August 14, he said : “ All
my first impressions were for the writing and
reading qualification; but on reflection it seemed
to me impracticable. Of course any rule must
apply to the whites as well as to the blacks. Now
you cannot get votes of Congress to disfranchise,
which you must do in imposing this qualification.
Providence has so arranged it that the work shall
be done completely, because it must be done. Be¬
sides, there are very intelligent persons, especially
among the freed men, who cannot read or write.
But we need the votes of all, and cannot afford to
wait.”
Again, on August 21 : “ The true policy of the
RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN
297
administration is as plain as noonday. No path
was ever clearer, and how they could get away
from it is astonishing. (1.) Refer the whole ques¬
tion of reconstruction to Congress where it belongs.
What right has the President to reorganize States ?
(2.) Meanwhile, by good government through mil¬
itary officers, to lead public opinion in the right
direction. (3.) To obey the existing laws of Con¬
gress, which expressly exclude from public service
any person who has sustained the rebellion. (4.)
To obey the Constitution, which refuses to make
any distinction of color. (5.) To redeem the pro¬
mises of the Declaration of Independence instead
of openly setting them at defiance. Why the Cabi¬
net have not insisted upon these plain rules is very
strange. I have been invited to preside at the
coming Republican State Convention for Massa¬
chusetts. At any other time I should not do it ;
but I shall now, in order to speak the voice of
Massachusetts.”
He carried out this purpose, and on September
14 made a speech to the convention, which Mas¬
sachusetts received with cordial approval. It was
a discussion of the conditions to be observed in re¬
construction, with no criticism of the President
or of those who agreed with him, — a statement of
what could and ought to be done. At the outset
he said : —
“ When last I addressed my fellow citizens, at
the close of the late presidential canvass, ... I
said to friends near me, ‘ This is my last anth
298
CHARLES SUMNER
slavery speech.’ I so thought at the time ; for I
anticipated the speedy downfall of the rebellion,
carrying with it slavery. I was mistaken. Neither
the rebellion nor slavery is yet ended. The rebel¬
lion has been disarmed ; but that is all. Slavery
has been abolished in name ; but that is all. . . .
The work of liberation is not yet completed. Nor
can it be, until the equal rights of every person once
claimed as a slave are placed under the safeguard
of irreversible guaranties.
“It is essential . . . that all men should be
hailed as equal before the law ; and this enfran¬
chisement must be both civil and political. Unless
this is done, the condition of the freedman will be
deplorable. Exposed to every brutality, he will
not be heard as a witness against his oppressor.
Compelled to pay taxes, he will be excluded from
all representation in the government. Without
this security, emancipation is illusory. ... It is
impartial suffrage that I claim, without distinction
of color, so that there shall be one equal rule for
all men. And this, too, must be placed under the
safeguard of constitutional law.”
He counseled against any reliance on oaths or
pardons and against the too prompt removal of
political disabilities, saying of the Confederates : —
“ I would not be harsh. There is nothing humane
that I would reject. Nothing in hate. Nothing in
vengeance. Nothing in passion. I am for gentle¬
ness. I am for a velvet glove ; but for a while I
wish the hand of iron.” But it was not yet time
RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN
299
to trust them : “ Therefore, we turn from recent
rebels to constant loyalists. This is only ordinary
prudence. As those who fought against us should
be for the present disfranchised, so those who
fought for us should be at once enfranchised. . . .
“ All these guaranties should be completed and
crowned by an amendment of the Constitution of
the United States., especially providing that here¬
after there shall be no denial of the electoral fran¬
chise or any exclusion of any kind on account of
race or color, but all persons shall be equal before
the law.”
These quotations indicate his position, but give
no idea of his speech, which was very effective.
The Massachusetts convention applauded and in¬
dorsed it, and by contrast we may note the posi¬
tion of Pennsylvania, as it appeared to Thaddeus
Stevens, whose views were not less radical than those
of Sumner, and whose courage was undoubted : —
“ I am glad you are laboring to avert the Presi¬
dent’s fatal policy. I wish the prospect of success
were better. 1 have twice written him, urging him
to stay his hand till Congress meets. Of course he
pays no attention to it. Our editors are generally
cowardly sycophants. I would make a speech, as
you suggest, if a fair occasion offered. Our views
(Reconstruction and Confiscation) were embodied
in our resolutions [in the Republican State Con¬
vention, recently held] at Harrisburg, amidst much
chaff. Negro suffrage was passed over, as heavy
and premature. Get the rebel States into a terri-
300
CHARLES SUMNER
toriRil conditioiij 3<iid it c3/ii U© ©RSily d-G^lt with*
That, I think, should be our great aim. Then
Congress can manage it.”
The President’s plan of reconstruction was sim¬
ple. In each State he appointed a provisional
governor, and provided for a constitutional con¬
vention to frame a state government under which
there should be held elections for state officers and
for members of Congress. Under the proclama¬
tion of amnesty all white men in the Southern
States might vote and hold office on taking an oath
to support the Constitution, except those belonging
to certain specified classes who could be pardoned
and restored to their rights on special application
to the President. On the other hand colored men
were denied all right to vote or hold office. Men
who had shown their sympathy with secession by
their acts were appointed provisional governors,
and thus given the power to direct the course of
reconstruction. It was not to be expected that
those who had held slaves for years and had lost
them suddenly by what seemed to them an arbi¬
trary and unjust act should be ready at once to
treat them as citizens. The passions which had
brought on the war had not been quenched by the
bitter struggle of four years, and it was not in
human nature that the defeated should at once
become loyal. The radical vice of the President’s
plan was that it placed the freedmen and the loyal
minority of whites absolutely in the power of the
disloyal majority. It opened to men but lately in
301
RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN
rebellion the pathway to power in the national
government through an alliance with the Demo¬
cratic party in the North, while it assured them
control of their own section.
The conventions and legislatures organized under
the President’s proclamation annulled the ordi¬
nances of secession, ratified the Thirteenth Amend¬
ment, and declared the Confederate debt invalid,
but uniformly excluded negroes from all rights as
citizens, and passed statutes designed to keep them
in subjection to the whites, restoring' slavery in fact,
if not in name. Assured of the President’s sup¬
port and of their own restoration to power, they
took little pains to conceal their feelings, and as
a result the Southern Unionists found themselves
in danger, while the colored people were exposed
to outrages of every kind.
CHAPTER XIX
THE STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON
Such were the conditions which confronted the
Thirty-ninth Congress on December 4, 1865. Sum¬
ner reached lAashington two days earlier, and at
once called on the President. Some weeks before
this he had sent him a telegram, which began :
“As a faithful friend and supporter of your ad¬
ministration, I most respectfully petition you to
suspend for the present your policy towards the
rebel States,” and gave with necessary brevity
his reasons, which were those of his speech to the
Republican convention. He had not criticised Mr.
Johnson personally, and he called upon him as a
leader of the party which had made him president.
He thus described his interview and his relations
with the administration ; —
“ I found him changed in temper and purpose.
How unlike that president who only a few days
after arrival at power made me feel so happy in
the assurance of agreement on the great question.
No longer sympathetic, or even kindly, he was
harsh, petulant, and unreasonable. Plainly his
heart was with ex-rebels. For the Unionist, white
or black, who had borne the burden of the day, he
STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 303
had little feeling. He would not see the bad spirit
of the rebel States, and insisted that the outrages
there were insufficient to justify exclusion from
Congress. ... I left the President that night with
the painful conviction that his whole soul was set
as flint against the good cause, and that by the
assassination of Abraham Lincoln the Kebellion
had vaulted into the presidential chair. Jefferson
Davis was then in the casemates at Fortress Mon¬
roe, but Andrew Johnson was doing his work.”
On the first day of the session Sumner opened
his campaign by introducing six bills and a num¬
ber of resolutions. The bills were ; to secure
equal suffrage in the District of Columbia ; to
secure the presence of colored jurors upon the
panel at the trial of cases in which the rio’hts of
colored persons were involved ; to prescribe a form
of oath which should be required of every voter
or officer in the seceded States ; to forbid the de¬
nial in those States of rights, civil or political, on
account of race or color, and to make all persons
equal before the law, whether in the court room
or at the ballot box ; ’ to enforce the Thirteenth
Amendment by making it a crime to claim any
right to control the services ” of any person in con¬
travention of its provisions. This last bill gave
the federal courts jurisdiction of offenses committed
by or against persons of African descent, and of all
suits to which such persons should be parties, and
it annulled all state laws or customs making any
distinction of rights on account of race or color.
304
CHARLES SUMNER
Another bill contained a complete scheme of
reconstruction. It was carefully drawn, but its
exact provisions are not material. In effect it gave
Congress the control of reconstruction, insured
equal suffrage, prevented all distinctions of race or
color, and disfranchised the leaders of the rebellion.
A set of resolutions presented the same ideas
in a different form. Another resolution proposed
the amendment to the Constitution which he had
previously offered, apportioning representatives ac¬
cording to the number of voters in each State, while
a third declared the Thirteenth Amendment ratified
by the action of the loyal States. Thus Sumner
placed before Congress and the country his method
of dealing with the existing situation.
On December 19, in answer to a resolution of
the Senate, the President sent the reports of Gen¬
erals Grant and Schurz as to the condition of the
seceded States, and accompanied them by a mes¬
sage in which he expressed his belief ‘‘that sec¬
tional animosity is surely and rapidly merging
itself into a spirit of nationality, and that represen¬
tation, connected with a properly adjusted system
of taxation, will result in a harmonious restoration
of the relations of the States to the national
Union.”
The report of General Grant, made after a brief
tour, expressed the belief that the Southern States
were in good faith accepting the results of the war,
and were anxious to resume their relations with
the Union, and said nothing to indicate that the
STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 305
colored race was in any way ill treated. General
Sclinrz, whom the President had sent to examine
into the conditions at the South, had reached
exactly opposite conclusions. After the President’s *
message and General Grant’s report had been read,
Mr. Sumner called for the reading of General
Schurz’s report. Some senators objecting on ac¬
count of its length, Sumner said : —
“It is a very important document. ... We
have a message from the President which is like
the whitewashing message of Franklin Pierce with
regard to the enormities in Kansas. Such is its
O
parallel. I think the Senate had better at least
listen to the opening of Major-General Schurz’s
report.”
The phrase “ whitewashing ” provoked some of
the President’s supporters, and Mr. Doolittle of
Wisconsin urged Sumner to withdraw or at least
to qualify it, but he refused, disclaiming any “ re¬
flection on the patriotism or the truth of the Pre¬
sident,” but insisting that the adjective properly
described the message. The remark was the first
shot in the impending war, and caused an extended
discussion in the press and elsewhere. Sumner’s
attitude was strongly criticised by some as injudi¬
cious and as likely to provoke unhappy dissension,
but the more positive men recognized and rejoiced
in the justice of the phrase, and applauded it. On
the following day Sumner spoke upon Mr. Wilson’s
bill to establish the civil rights of the negroes in
the rebel States, beginning thus : —
306
CHARLES SUMNER
“ When I think of what occurred yesterday in
this chamber, when I call to mind the attempt to
whitewash the unhappy condition of the rebel
States, and to throw the mantle of official oblivion
over sickening and heart-rending outrages, ... I
feel that I ought to speak of nothing else.”
He then showed the real condition of the South
by many quotations from letters written by officers,
travelers, and citizens, from speeches of Southern
men, and from official documents. The testimony
was overwhelming. The case thus presented may
be judged from one or two quotations, which are
specimens of the whole : —
“ This is precisely what ninety-nine in every
hundred of the men, women, and children believe
sincerely as to the situation to-day : first, that the
South of right possesses, and always possessed, the
right of secession; secondly, that the war only
proved that the North was the strongest ; thirdly,
that negro slavery was and is right, but has been
abolished by the war.
“ All expect the negro will be killed in one way
or another by emancipation. The policy of those
who will eventually become the leaders here at the
South is, for the present, to accept the best they
can get, to acquiesce in anything and everything,
but to strain every nerve to regain the political
power and ascendency they held under Buchanan.
This, they believe, cannot be postponed longer than
up to the next presidential election. They will
do all in their power to resist negro suffrage, to
STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 307
reduce taxation and expenditures, and would attack
the national debt if they saw any reason to believe
repudiation possible. They will continue to assert
the inferiority of the African, and they would to¬
day, if possible, precipitate the United States into
a foreign war, believing they could then reassert
and obtain their independence. . . . On the whole,
looking at the affair from all sides, it amounts to
just this ; If the Northern people are content to
be ruled over by the Southerners, they will con¬
tinue in the Union, if not, the first chance they get
they will rise again.”
“ The former masters exhibit a most cruel, re¬
morseless, and vindictive spirit toward the colored
people. In parts where there are no Union soldiers
I saw colored women treated in the most outrageous
manner. They have no rights that are respected.
They are killed, and their bodies thrown into ponds
or mud holes. They are mutilated by having ears
and noses cut off.”
The evidence collected in this speech and the re¬
port of General Schurz justified Sumner’s descrip¬
tion of the President’s message, and from that time
the President steadily lost ground in public opinion.
It was a process of education, and Sumner’s posi¬
tion was sustained by evidence of Southern feeling
daily brought to the North by the press and pri¬
vate correspondence. Men were reluctant to re¬
alize that a conflict with their own President must
be won before the results of the war were finally
assured, and they would gladly have closed their
308
CHARLES SUMNER
eyes to the facts, fearing disturbance of business,
loss of office and political power, — in a word, trou¬
ble, of which they had had enough. But the facts
were too strong and the unsettled question of the
day, as always, had “no respect” for their “re¬
pose.” The rapid change in public opinion is
perhaps shown by the history of the very bill upon
which Mr. Sumner made his speech.
In the debate which followed Mr. Trumbull and
other leading Republicans expressed the hope that
the measure was unnecessary, that the South would
change its laws in good faith so as to secure the
rights of the freedmen, and that the conditions
were exaggerated by Mr. Sumner. By general
consent Mr. Wilson’s bill was laid aside ; but on
January 5, 1866, only some two weeks later, Mr.
Trumbull himself introduced a bill to prevent any
discrimination in civil rights on account of race,
color, or previous condition of slavery. On the
same day he introduced a bill giving to the Freed-
men’s Bureau jurisdiction wherever there were
freedmen or refugees, and empowering it to pro¬
tect freedmen against hostile discrimination on
account of race or color. This was fiercely op¬
posed by the congressmen from the slave States
which had not seceded, and by some Republicans,
but it passed both Houses by large majorities. The
President vetoed it on February 19, and the Sen¬
ate failed to pass it over his veto, though his veto
message contained no argument which had not been
presented when the bill was under consideration.
STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 309
The first vote in the Senate was thirty-seven to
ten ; on the question of passing it over the veto it
was thirty to eighteen. Congress was not yet fully
enlisted in the struggle with the President.
Opinion was forming rapidly, however, as is
shown by the fate of Mr. Trumbull’s Civil Rights
bill, introduced on the same day with his Freed-
men’s Bureau bill. This was a bill to prevent any
discrimination in civil rights on account of race or
color ; and it was reported by the committee on
the judiciary, with an amendment declaring “ all
persons born in the United States and not sub¬
ject to any foreign power ” “ to be citizens of the
United States, without distinction of color.” After
a full debate, in which the measure was supported
upon the grounds already urged by Sumner, the
bill passed both Houses. On March 27 the Presi¬
dent refused his approval, but Congress passed the
bill over his veto on April 9, and thus made appar¬
ent the position which the Republican party would
take as to the state governments erected under the
President’s proclamation. Later in the session an¬
other bill enlarging the powers of the Freedmen’s
Bureau, and extending the period of its existence,
was passed over the President’s veto. In the ex¬
cited debate over these measures Sumner took no
part, content with the arguments of his associates.
After his speech of December 20, he made no fur¬
ther attacks on the President’s policy.
The state legislature of Florida, chosen under
the President’s proclamation, had elected Mr. Mar*
310
CHARLES SUMNER
vin senator, but when his credentials were pre¬
sented Sumner objected, calling attention to the
composition of the legislature in which Confeder¬
ate officers largely predominated, and to the state
constitution which disfranchised negroes. The
credentials were laid on the table, and the case
was never moved again. In this case, as in Mr.
Segar’s, Sumner’s objections settled the case against
the state government organized by executive ac¬
tion.
On February 5 the Senate took up a resolution,
which had passed the House, in favor of an amend¬
ment to the Constitution providing that represent¬
atives should be apportioned among the States
according to the population, “ excluding Indians
not taxed,” with the proviso : “ That whenever the
elective franchise shall be denied or abridged in
any State on account of race or color, all persons
therein of such race or color shall be excluded from
the basis of representation.” This was strongly
supported by many Republican leaders, including
Thaddeus Stevens, who usually sympathized with
Sumner but was a more practical politician. Sum¬
ner was absolutely opposed to this proposition and
put forth all his energies to defeat it. He spoke
against it on February 5 and 6, 1866, very elab¬
orately and effectively. This speech and the oth¬
ers which he made during the debate are upon a
high plane, discussing the question with earnest¬
ness and dignity, but without personal feeling.
The elevation of tone is made more striking by
STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 311
comparison with the speeches of other senators,
notably Mr. Fessenden, who was in charge of the
measure, and spoke at times with acrimony.
The real nature of the proposition which Sumner
was combating was well stated by Mr. Cowan of
Pennsylvania, who sympathized with the President,
and opposed the amendment. He said : “ This
committee proposes in this amendment to sell out
four million (radical count) negroes to the bad
people of those States for ever and ever. In con¬
sideration of what? . . . For about sixteen mem¬
bers of Congress. Has there ever been before,
sir, in the history of this or any other country, such
a stupendous sale of negroes as that ? ” Sumner
opposed it on various grounds. He said that after
Congress had been “ carefully expunging from the
statute-book the word ‘ white,’ ” it was proposed
to insert in the Constitution itself a distinction
of color, and to make another of those fatal com¬
promises with human rights which had fastened
slavery upon the country. His demand was for
enfranchisement as the necessary complement of
emancipation, without which it must fail, and he
added : “ By enfranchisement I mean the estab¬
lishment of the equal rights of all, so that there
shall be no exclusion of any kind, civil or political,
founded on color, and the promises of the fathers
shall be fulfilled.”
He proved from historical sources what was
meant by “ a republican form of government ” as
used in the Constitution, and that its essence was
312
CHARLES SUMNER
expressed by James Otis in his famous “ Taxation
without representation is tyranny.” In reply to
Fessenden he showed that representation did not
mean representation of communities, but of indi¬
viduals. Upon these points his speeches are a mag¬
azine of learning. His postulate was thus stated:
“ A state which, in the foundation of its gov¬
ernment, sets aside ‘ the consent of the governed,’
which imposes taxation without representation,
which discards the principle of equal rights, and
lodges power exclusively with an oligarchy, aris¬
tocracy, caste, or monopoly, cannot be recognized
as a ‘ republican form of government,’ according to
the requirement of American institutions.”
His principal speech is unnecessarily long, yet
it is stimulating and refreshing. The quotations
with which he seemed to overload this and other
elaborate speeches served at least one purpose :
they created an atmosphere removed from the
political struggles of the day, and placed the reader
in association with the great men of successive
ages, so that it was easier to recognize as eternal
the principles which such even united in accepting,
and to see the baser arguments of the moment in
their true relation.
He gave the figures which showed the proportion
of negroes in the total population of the South,
and argued that no government could be called re¬
publican where political rights were denied to so
large a portion of the people. He met the argu¬
ment drawn from laws which impose educational
STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 313
and other qualifications as follows : “ Let me be
understood. What I ask especially is impartial
suffrage, which is, of course, embraced in universal
suffrage. What is universal is necessarily impar¬
tial. For the present, I simply insist that all shall
be equal before the law, so that in the enjoyment
of this right there shall be no restriction not equally
applicable to all.”
He dwelt upon the value of the ballot as assuring
peace and reconciliation, as an educational influ¬
ence, as a means of defense to the negro ; and he
claimed also that it was necessary for the safety of
the country. He said : “It is idle to expect any
true peace while the freedman is robbed of this
transcendent right, and left a prey to a vengeance
too ready to wreak upon him the disappointment
of defeat. The country, sympathetic with him,
will be in perpetual unrest. With him it will suf¬
fer ; with him alone can it cease to suffer. . . .
He is our best guaranty. Use him. If he votes
now, there will be peace. Without this you must
have a standing army, which is a sorry substitute
for justice. Before you is the plain alternative of
the ballot box or the cartridge box : choose ye
between them.”
The whole speech, with its array of authority,
had, perhaps, as much effect on public opinion as
any that Mr. Sumner ever made. Its temperate
and earnest statements carried conviction to many
who hesitated, and educated the public to accept
negro suffrage. The resolution which he opposed
314
CHARLES SUMNER
did not receive the necessary votes in the Senate,
and the proposed amendment failed. During the
debate Sumner explained the difference between
this proposition and his own proposal for appor¬
tioning representatives according to voters and not
according to population. His proposition in no
way prevented Congress from securing impartial
suffrage, or brought into the Constitution any re¬
cognition of color as a reason for inequality of
rights, and he offered simultaneously a series of
resolutions declaring the duty of Congress to secure
equal rights for the freedmen. He proposed the
rule adopted in Massachusetts and urged by him
in the constitutional convention of 1853. There
was nothing inconsistent, therefore, in Sumner’s
opposition to the amendment.
The defeat of the resolution left the question un¬
settled, and paved the way for the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth amendments. The result was received
with much regret by many of Sumner’s associates,
who held him responsible. The President also was
excited, and on the day after Sumner’s speech,
speaking to a delegation of colored men, he criti¬
cised it with some feeling, dwelling upon his own
service to their cause, and expressing his unwill¬
ingness to adopt a policy likely to result in race
conflicts. He was more violent in a speech from
the steps of the White House on February 22, when
he classed Stevens, Sumner, and Wendell Phillips
with Davis, Toombs, and Slidell, as opposed to the
Union and anxious to desti’oy our institutions.
STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 315
This was the first attack by the President on Re¬
publicans by name, and it increased the growing
hostility.
The amendment to the Constitution was defeated
on March 9, and three days later a bill for the
admission of Colorado was taken up. Sumner op¬
posed it, partly because the population was small
and decreasing, and it seemed to him unfair that
so small a body should be given an equal voice with
New York in the Senate. But chiefly he urged
that the Constitution of the State allowed only
white citizens to vote. He took an active part
in the discussion of the bill and offered an amend¬
ment providing that the State should not be ad¬
mitted except upon the condition, accepted by a
majority of the voters, that there should be no de¬
nial of suffrage or of any other right on account
of race or color. This was finally defeated and the
bill was passed. The President vetoed it, and on
a motion to assign it for further consideration
Sumner announced his purpose to sustain the veto ;
but the bill was never taken up and fell with the
session.
The desire to increase the Republican vote in
the Senate caused the pressure for the admission
of the State, and this probably explains the Presi¬
dent’s opposition. Sumner met this argument char¬
acteristically, sajdng : —
“ Tell me not that it is expedient to create two
more votes in this chamber. Nothing can be ex¬
pedient that is not right. If I were now about to
316
CHARLES SUMNER
pronounc6 thG l^/St words tli3-t I could ever utter m
this chamber, I would say to you, Senators, do not
forget that right is always the highest expediency.
You can never sacrifice the right without suffering
for it.”
Later in the session the question was raised again
on a bill to admit Nebraska. Mr. Sumner moved
the same condition as in the case of Colorado, but
the motion was lost. The bill passed, but was not
signed by the President, and the session closed with
the question still open. Upon a resolution declar¬
ing Tennessee entitled to representation, Sumner
made the same point and undertook to attach the
same condition ; but his amendment was defeated,
and the resolution passed and was signed by the
President.
The Republican leaders were not satisfied to
leave the question of suffrage as it was left by the
defeat of the proposed constitutional amendment,
and on April 30, 1866, Mr. Stevens reported a new
resolution, proposing the first form of what, after
many changes of language and some of substance,
was afterwards adopted as the Fourteenth Amend¬
ment. Wilson, in his “ Rise and Fall of the Slave
Power,” says that the committee on reconstruc¬
tion had adopted a much more sweeping amend¬
ment, which forbade any discrimination as to civil
rights, and, after July 4, 1876, as to suffrage, on
account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude, but that this failed because the Republi¬
can representatives from New York, Illinois, and
STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 317
Indiaiica were afraid that the adoption of negro suf¬
frage by the Republicans might defeat the party
at the next election in those States. This shows
that Sumner’s associates were themselves in agree¬
ment with him, but feared their constituents, so
that the differences which appeared in the debate
were more apparent than real. The amendment
as finally drawn avoided the objection made by
Mr. Sumner to the earlier one, in that it did not
recognize the right of a State to deny the suffrage
to any citizen on account of color. On this point
it conformed more nearly to his idea of apportion¬
ing representatives according to voters, while it
left Congress at liberty to prevent any discrimina¬
tion inconsistent with a republican form of gov¬
ernment. It also contained two other things which
he had proposed and considered vital : the declara¬
tion that the. national debt should not be questioned,
nor any debt incurred in aid of the rebellion paid ;
and the exclusion from office of all persons who,
having as federal or state officers sworn to sup¬
port the Constitution of the United States, had
afterwards taken part in or aided the rebellion.
Satisfied on these points, he did not speak, but
voted for the amendment. It was one step to¬
wards the goal which he had in view, and it left the
way open. He would have preferred to take the
final step at once, but did not decline to make
the advance for which his associates were ready.
So far as it provided for reducing the representa¬
tion of a State the amendment has thus far been
of no effect.
318
CHARLES SUMNER
The net result of the session was that the ques¬
tion of equal suffrage had been thoroughly dis'.
cussed, that the doubts as to the power of Congress
to impose it upon the States were gradually dis¬
appearing, that the necessity of requiring it was
becoming clearer, that nothing had been done af¬
fecting the control of Congress over the question,
and that an amendment had been defeated, which
would have placed in the Constitution a recognition
of the power to deny political rights on account of
color. The session also made it clear that Congress
would control reconstruction, that the freedmen
would be protected by law against oppression, and
that no state governments organized and controlled
by disloyal men would be recognized. The Presi¬
dent’s plan had failed, and the situation which con¬
fronted Congress at the beginning of the session
had been changed for the better. To John Bright,
on May 21, Sumner wrote : “ I am sure there can
be no tranquillity or security here until complete
justice is rendered to the negro. ... I confess I
can see nothing but ‘ agitate and convert ’ until
the franchise is extended.”
Besides these matters, other things also engaged
Sumner’s attention during this session. When the
trial of Jefferson Davis was impending, a bill was
introduced to remove the disqualification of jurors
who had formed an opinion founded on common
notoriety, public rumor, or newspaper statements,
Sumner doubted the wisdom of this, saying : “ I
shrink from any change in the law to meet an indi-
STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 319
vidiial case, even though of transcendent impor¬
tance.” The bill was not passed. On the legal
question whether a senator could be elected by a
plurality of the votes cast in the joint assembly of
a state legislature, he argued that a majority was
necessary ; and he contended that on this question
the senator whose title to a seat was involved could
not vote. In these positions Fessenden supported
him.
He spoke on the subject of relieving the Supreme
Court from the undue accumulation of cases ; he
discussed the power of Congress to establish quaran¬
tine regulations ; he urged with success an amend¬
ment to the consular and diplomatic appropriation
bills giving a higher rank to our foreign ministers ;
he reported from a special committee bills to au¬
thorize the metric system of weights and measures,
and supported them with a careful and instructive
speech ; and he did his best to prevent the contract
with Vinnie Ream for a statue of IVIr. Lincoln.
His speeches on this question were sensible and
direct, and the statue, which he failed to prevent,
stands a monumental proof of his wisdom. As he
said, the artist might as well have contracted “ to
furnish an epic poem or the draft of a bankrupt
bill.”
At the very end of the session the House passed,
unanimously, a bill amending our neutrality laws.
It was dictated by hostility to England, and it re¬
pealed the provisions against the fitting out in this
country of military expeditions against nations
320
CHARLES SUMNER
with which the United States was at peace. In
the Senate Sumner had it sent to his committee,
resolved to let it sleep there. Some of its friends
decided to move that the committee be discharged,
whereupon Sumner armed himself with books and
kept his seat from seven at night till seven in the
morning on the last night of the session, that no
advantage might be taken of his absence. At
eleven in the morning the motion to take up the
bill was made, but Sumner announced that he
should speak for the rest of the session, and the
motion was not pressed. He was determined that
no provocation should induce this nation to aban¬
don the true position of a neutral ; and in the same
spirit he carried a bill through the Senate to pay
an award made to a British subject, saying that
“ our own country should be kept firm and constant
in the attitude of justice.” While Sumner was
at the head of the committee on foreign relations
our peace was not to be disturbed by any hasty
or ill-considered legislation, and his countrymen
had come to rely upon him.
It is not strange that we find him writing to Mr.
Bright in May : “ Curiously, I too have fallen
into the doctor’s hands. He finds my brain and
nervous system overtaxed ; and, suffering from my
original injuries as a predisposing cause, I long
for rest, and yet every day I grind in my mill.”
When we consider all that he did, it is only won¬
derful that he did not suffer more.
As Sumner was afterward charged with allow-
STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 321
ing liis personal feeling to interfere with the con¬
duct of public business, it is interesting to note
that, though he thought Seward largely responsible
for the President’s course, his personal relations
with his old associate remained undisturbed during
the whole struggle between Congress and the Pre¬
sident, and until Sumner’s death. This enabled
him quietly to stifle some rather extraordinary pro¬
positions of Seward’s, such as an attack on Ecua¬
dor for failing to pay an award promptly.
The feeling at this time upon the tariff, since a
great issue, is thus stated in a letter to Mr. Bright
on May 21, 1866 : “ On protection and free trade
there does not seem to be any general feeling. The
question will be settled for some time by the neces¬
sities of our position without much reference to
principles. My own people, originally strong pro¬
tectionists, are silent now. It is Pennsylvania
which is clamorous, and the balance of parties in
this important State makes the question one of
political power.” This is a succinct statement of
a great historical truth.
After the adjournment the President, in a series
of absurd and intemperate speeches made appar¬
ently in the hope of securing popular support at
the autumn elections, violently attacked Congress
and its policy, and charged it with endeavoring
“ to prevent the restoration of peace, harmony, and
union,” calling it a body “ hanging on the verge of
the government, as it were, a body called, or which
assumes to be, the Congress of the United States,
322
CHARLES SUMNER
while in fact it is a congress of only a part of the
States.” Then followed his extraordinary elec¬
tioneering tour, described in the political slang of
the day as “ swinging round the circle,” from a
phrase used in one of his speeches. His conduct
and language were so indecent and so unworthy of
his high office that later they were made one of
the grounds for his impeachment.
Thus the issue was made very clear. On the
one hand the policy of the President was to admit
the Southern States, with the leaders of secession
in control, and with loyal men, white and black,
substantially at their mercy, — the whites because
they were in a hopeless minority among a bitterly
hostile population, the blacks because they were
entirely without political power. To sustain his
policy the President exerted all his prerogatives ;
by pardons he restored prominent Confederates
to power, and by removals and appointments he
used the whole patronage of the government to
build up a party which should support him. Thus
encouraged, the governments established by him
in the South made no concealment of their bitter
feeling toward the North, nor of their determina¬
tion to keep the colored race, deprived of civil
and political rights, in a state of vassalage hardly
distinguishable from slavery. Their legislation
as to the negroes was barbarous, and their spirit
was proved by a series of outrages which kept
this unhappy race in abject terror. On the other
hand Congress and the party of which Sumner
STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 323
was the most prominent leader were determined
that there should be no reconstruction, unless the
civil and political rights of loyal men in the South
were established beyond possible doubt, and that
the supporters of secession should not be admitted
to ofhce or power until they had become loyal in
fact as well as in name. The whole result of the
civil war, the whole future of the country were
at stake, and upon the question between the oppos¬
ing policies the autumn campaign was fought.
During this campaign Sumner spoke in Boston.
He stated the issue clearly, pointing out that the
President denied to Congress and claimed for him¬
self the whole power to legislate upon the question
of reconstruction. He dwelt upon the vices of the
Presidents policy, showed its deplorable results in
the actual condition of the South, repeated the
arguments in favor of a reconstruction which should
be real and permanent, and insisted that the fun¬
damental conditions of reunion were emancipa^
tion, enfranchisement, equality, and education,
which it was the duty of Congress to impose, thus
insuring the results of the war and proper security
for the future. He spoke of the President’s weak¬
ness, held him responsible for the death of colored
men recently slain at Memphis, New Orleans, and
elsewhere, and placed him next to Jefferson Davis
as the country’s “ worst enemy.”
Some two weeks later Mr. Sumner was married
to Mrs. Hooper, a lady then twenty-eight years of
age, and a daughter-in-law of Samuel Hooper, a
324
CHARLES SUMNER
representative in Congress from Boston. His mar¬
riage prevented his taking any further part in the
campaign, and opened to him a prospect of great
happiness. These hopes were disappointed, and
his brief married life ended in a separation, fol¬
lowed later by a divorce procured by him. In a
biography which deals only with Mr. Sumner as
a statesman it is not necessary to do more than
mention these facts.
The second session of the Thirty-ninth Congress
met on December 8, 1866. The elections had re¬
sulted in Republican victories, and the policy of the
President had been condemned. His opponents
returned fully assured of popular support, and
with ample power to adopt any measure which
their judgment approved. On the third day of the
session Sumner, according to his practice, pre¬
sented his views on reconstruction in the form of
resolutions. These asserted the power and duty
of Consfress to control reconstruction, and insisted
that in establishing a new republican government
“ Congress must follow implicitly the definition
supplied by the Declaration of Independence,”
and, “ after excluding all disloyal persons, take
care that new governments are founded on the two
fundamental truths therein contained : first, that
all men are equal in rights ; and secondly, that all
just government stands only on the consent of the
governed.” He had the satisfaction at this session
O
of seeing these doctrines adopted. His persistence,
as before and afterwards, was finally rewarded, and
STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 325
impartial suffrage became the accepted principle of
his party.
The first step was taken when, on December 13,
1866, a bill giving the suffrage to colored men in
the District of Columbia passed the Senate. Sum¬
ner said nothing until the third day of the debate,
when he explained briefly why he voted against
an amendment giving women the suffrage, and
against another imposing an educational cj^ualifica-
tion. Of the first he said : “ That question I leave
untouched, contenting myself with the remark that
it is obviously the great question of the future, —
at least one of the great questions, — which will be
easily settled whenever the women in any consid¬
erable proportion insist that it shall be settled,”
an observation fraught with practical wisdom. Of
the second : “ In voting against an educational
test, I do not mean to say that under other circum¬
stances such test may not be proper. But I am
against it now.*^ His reason was thus stated .
“ To my mind nothing is clearer than the present
necessity of suffrage for all colored persons in
the disorganized States. It will not be enough if
you give it to those who read and write ; you will
not in this way acquire the voting force needed
there for the protection of the Unionists, whether
white or black.” This bill passed the House, was
vetoed, and passed over the veto.
The next day Mr. M^ade moved to take up the
bill for the admission of Nebraska, which had failed
at the last session. Sumner again opposed it, be-
326
CHARLES SUMNER
cause the proposed constitution gave only white
men the right to vote. Gratz Brown offered the
proviso which Sumner had offered at the previous
session, and in the debate some of his Republi¬
can associates, impatient at Sumner’s opposition,
became quite angry. Sumner in reply was cour¬
teous and gentle, but inflexible in his resolution
that no new State should be admitted “ with the
word ‘ white ’ in its constitution.” “ It passes my
comprehension,” he said, “ how we can require
equal rights in the rebel States, when we deliber¬
ately sanction the denial of equal rights in a new
State completely within our jurisdiction and about
to be fashioned by our hands.” Some Republi¬
cans wished the State admitted to strengthen the
party in the Senate, and various reasons were
given for the inconsistency which Sumner pointed
out, such as the insignificant number of negroes in
Nebraska, and the fact that the enabling act under
which Nebraska had been organized as a State did
not require impartial suffrage. The debate lasted
several days until interrupted by the holiday recess,
during which Sumner stirred up much opposition
by letters. When the discussion was resumed an
amendment, offered by Mr. Edmunds, was adopted,
making the act take effect upon the fundamental
condition that there should be “ no abridgment or
denial of the exercise of the elective franchise or
of any other right to any person by reason of race
or color, excepting Indians not taxed.” The bill
passed the Senate on January 9, was amended in
STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 327
the House by requiring the assent of the Nebraska
legislature, and became a law after a veto. The
bill to admit Colorado was amended by adding the
same proviso, and was passed without debate.
On the next day the Senate passed a bill, already
passed by the House, forbidding the denial of suf¬
frage in the Territories on account of race or color.
Thus another step was taken and Congress again
adopted Sumner’s view. The final battle occurred
when a bill “ to provide for the more efficient gov¬
ernment of the insurrectionary States ” passed the
House and was laid before the Senate. This cre¬
ated five military districts in the South without
any requirement as to suffrage and with no exclu¬
sion of those who had supported the Confederacy.
The Senate began the discussion on February 15,
1867, when great differences of opinion were de^
veloped. What followed was thus narrated by
Sumner to Bright : —
“ I do not know that I have mentioned to you
how the requirements of universal suffrage in the
new constitutions came to be readjusted in our
reconstruction bill. The bill as it came from the
House was simply a military bill. In the Senate
several amendments were moved in the nature of
conditions of restoration. I did not take much in¬
terest in them, as I preferred delay, and therefore
was content with anything that secured this, be¬
lieving that Congress must ultimately come to the
true ground. In the confusion which ensued a cau¬
cus of liepublican senators was called. Then Mr.
328
CHARLES SUMNER
Sherman moved that all the pending propositions
be referred to a committee of seven. Of this com¬
mittee he was chairman ; I was a member. In the
committee I insisted that the existing governments
should be declared invalid ; adopted. Then that
the States in question be designated simply ‘ rebel
States ; ’ adopted. Then that in the new constitu¬
tions there should be no exclusion from suffrage on
account of color. This was voted down ; only one
other member of the committee sustaining me, Mr.
Sherman being strongly averse. When the com¬
mittee reported their bill to tlie caucus, I stated my
objections and moved my amendment in an enlarged
form, to the effect that in the new constitutions all
citizens with a proper residence should be voters.
In moving it I simply said that it was in our power
to decide this question, and to supersede its discus¬
sion in the Southern States ; that if we did not de¬
cide it every State and village between here and the
Rio Grande would be agitated by it. It was dinner
time and there was impatience for a vote, which was
by the ayes, standing and being counted, and then
the noes. There were two counts, seventeen ayes
to fifteen noes ; so this important requirement was
adopted. Mr. Sherman, as chairman. of the com¬
mittee, was directed to move the amended bill as
a substitute for the pending measure, and it was
passed by the usual Republican majority. That
evening in caucus some few saw the magnitude of
the act, and there was corresponding exultation.
Wilson wished to dance with somebody. I have
STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 329
given you this narrative because it concerns an
important event, and will show you how business
with us is sometimes conducted.”
The bill was passed after an all-night session at
an early hour in the morning, and finding its pas¬
sage sure, Sumner, tired out, left before the vote.
Thus was won the great battle for equal rights.
It is interesting in reading the debates on this and
other questions of reconstruction to observe that,
though they were often hot and not infrequently
acrimonious, the differences were those of honest
men. His opponents were often exasperated by
Sumner’s persistence and his somewhat tedious re¬
iteration of arguments drawn from the principles
of our government ; but no one can doubt their
sincerity. At no period in the history of our gov¬
ernment have the debates in Congress been con¬
ducted upon a higher plane or been less marred
by the kind of argument known as “buncombe,”
than when Sumner, Fessenden, Grimes, Trumbull,
and their associates were seeking to settle the
questions growing out of the civil war.
Ever on the watch against any encroachment
upon liberty, Sumner at this session called atten¬
tion to the system of peonage in New Mexico, and
a bill to abolish and forever prohibit it was passed.
After the question of suffrage was decided, the
most important act of the session was the Tenure of
Office law. The President had used the offices so
openly to buy support, to punish his opponents and
j reward his friends, that Congress felt it necessary
330
CHARLES SUMNER
to check the abuse. To this end a bill was reported
which required the consent of the Senate to the
removal of any officer whose appointment was sub¬
ject to confirmation. It gave the President, during
the recess, power to suspend such officers, but
made it his duty to give his reasons to the Senate
at its next session, when, if the Senate failed to
concur, the officer was reinstated. Sumner tried
to make it more sweeping, by providing that the
consent of the Senate should be necessary to the
appointment of a large number of officers, where it
was not required by existing law, and by limiting
the terms of such officers appointed after July 1,
1866. He contended that these subordinates were
as much entitled to protection as were those to
whom the bill applied, and that the additional
labor imposed upon the Senate was not to be
weighed against the duty of preventing injustice.
He urged his amendment persistently, but was de¬
feated. In one of his speeches he said : —
“ I return, then, to my proposition, that the duty
of the hour is protection to the loyal and patriotic
citizen. But when I have said this, I have not
completed the proposition. You may ask. Protec¬
tion against whom ? I answer plainly. Against the
President of the United States. There, sir, is the
duty of the hour. . . . There was no such duty on
our fathers, there was no sucli duty on recent pre¬
decessors in this chamber, because there was no
President of the United States who had become
the enemy of his country.” For these words he
STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 331
was called to order, but lie insisted upon liis lan¬
guage and the point of order was overruled. Later
he used yet more pointed language : “ Do not for¬
get that we stand face to face with an enormous
and malignant usurper, through whom the Republic
is imperiled, — that Republic which, according to
our oaths of office, we are bound to save from all
harm.” Mr. Reverdy Johnson, in reply, suggested
that this expression of opinion disqualified Sumner
to sit on any impeachment of the President; but
Sumner repudiated this idea at once, saying .
“ What right have I to know that the President is
to be impeached ? How can I know it ? And let
me add, even if I could know it, there can be no
reason in that why I should not argue the measure
directly before the Senate, and present such con¬
siderations as seem to me proper, founded on the
misconduct of that officer.” It was quite apparent
already that the contest between President and
Congress might result in extreme measures.
Mr. Sumner supported a proposed amendment
to the Constitution, making the term of the presi¬
dent and vice-president six years, and making the
president ineligible for reelection. He wished even
to abolish the electoral college for reasons thus
stated : —
“ Such an amendment would give every indi¬
vidual voter, wherever he might be, a positive
weight in the election. It would give minorities
in distant States an opportunity of being heard in
determining who shall be chief magistrate. Now
332
CHARLES SUMNER
they are of no consequence. ... I know nothing
that would contribute more to bring all the people
. . . into one united whole, than to make the Pre¬
sident directly eligible by their votes.”
In a letter to W. W. Story during this session,
Sumner expressed his views of the political situa¬
tion : —
“ Congress is doing pretty well ; every step is
forward. The next Congress, which will probably
meet on the 4th of March, will be still better in¬
spired. All that is possible will be done to limit
the executive power. It is possible that the Presi¬
dent may be impeached. If we go forward and
supersede the sham governments set up in the rebel
States, we encounter the appointing power of the
President, who would put in office men who sym¬
pathize with him. It is this consideration which
makes ardent representatives say that he must be
removed. Should this be attempted, a new ques¬
tion will be presented.”
The expiring Congress, feeling it unsafe to leave
the President unwatched during the usual recess,
provided that the new Congress should meet on
March 4, and the session beginning on that day
lasted till the 30th of the month. On March 7
Mr. Sumner presented the usual resolutions em¬
bodying his views as to the work which demanded
the attention of Congress. His requirements were :
the vacation of the existing state governments ; the
creation of provisional governments, from which
every disloyal influence should be excluded ; the
STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 333
establishment of free public schools ; and measures
to secure a piece of land for every head of a family
among the freedmen. A few days later he moved
the consideration of the resolutions and a debate
ensued, in which Sherman, Fessenden, Freling-
huysen, and other Republicans indicated dissent.
Sumner felt that without education or land the
freedmen would be at the mercy of their former
masters, and he thought it of the first importance
to provide the machinery for the creation of new
state governments. He urged his resolutions ear¬
nestly and claimed that the power to give the negroes
•land was found in the necessity of the case. He
failed to point out any constitutional way in which
Congress could take land from its owners and give
it to the freedmen, and it is not surprising that his
resolutions never came to a vote. In the heat of
argument he reminded his opponents that they had
differed from him before and had insisted that steps
were unconstitutional or impossible which they had
afterward supported. This line of argument was
made more irritating by his Democratic opponents,
who taunted the Republicans with the fact that
what he proposed was always eventually done.
Perhaps the experience to which they alluded made
him more impatient than hitherto, for as a rule
he was singularly courteous in debate. His criti¬
cism was a serious matter to less known men, backed
as he was by a strong body of supporters all over
the country who followed his lead implicitly, and
it is not strange that some of those whom he con-
334
CHARLES SUMNER
demned were aggrieved by bis tone, and that their
resentment weakened his position in the Senate.
It is probable that dislike, created in these days of
his domination, helped his removal from the com¬
mittee on foreign relations a few years later.
A bill to amend the reconstruction act was in¬
troduced almost as soon as the new Congress met,
and in the debate Sumner insisted that a majority
of the registered voters in each State should vote
on the question of holding a convention, and that
voting at all popular elections should be by ballot.
The latter proposition was defeated. He himself
offered as an amendment the proviso : “ That the
Constitution shall require the legislature to estab¬
lish and sustain a system of public schools open to
all without distinction of race or color.”
By making it a condition that no seceded State
should be admitted whose Constitution did not con¬
tain this clause, he hoped to secure public and im¬
partial education in the South. He thought that
the power under which all other conditions were
imposed warranted this one, and of its wisdom and
necessity he entertained no doubt. The Senate
divided equally upon his amendment and it was lost,
to his bitter disappointment. In advocating it he
explained his plan of reconstruction, which was to
make the States adopt constitutions which would
insure good government and equal rights. His
policy was far-reaching and deserved success. In
following him so far as to require impartial suf-
frasfc, Cong'ress was doubtless influenced by the
STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 335
necessit}?’ of creating a loyal electorate, and secur¬
ing the lives, the rights, and the property of loyal
men, white and black.
In the light of all that has happened since, many
think the policy unwise which at once changed the
slaves into citizens. No one should criticise the
legislation adopted unless he has studied the con¬
dition of the Southern States at the close of the
war, and has realized the difficulties which beset
any course. It is easy to point out the evils which
negro suffrage caused, but far greater evils would
probably have occurred had negro suffrage been
refused. A community just conquered, demoralized
by a long war, prostrated by the loss of property
and lives, sullen, disloyal, and filled with hatred
and contempt for the new freedmen and their own
loyal white neighbors, was a hotbed in which trouble
of every kind found root easily and grew rapidly.
No law could prevent it. Only the slow passage of
years, the death of those too old to learn, the birth
of a new generation, the replacement of men born
slaves by men born free, could make these commu¬
nities peaceful and prosperous. Friction between
the two races in their new relation was inevitable.
It was clear that the slavery question would never
be settled until the negroes were recognized as citi¬
zens, equal before the law with their white neigh¬
bors. Had President Johnson’s reconstruction pre¬
vailed, they would have remained virtually slaves.
The laws passed by his legislatures were skillfully
devised to secure this result, and the consequence
336
CHARLES SUMNER
would have been disorder and bloodshed. Politi¬
cians needing votes would have sought to get them
by giving the suffrage to the negroes, and they
would have offered in this way a constant tempta¬
tion to agitators. It was better to cut deep at
once, to extirpate the cancer utterly, and having
done all that law could do by giving the freed men
equal rights, to let them gradually learn, as they
must, how to use them. No people can learn
self-government while governed by others. Years
were needed more than laws. It was to hasten
this process that Sumner insisted on education, and
he seems wiser than his opponents. His terms
would not have irritated the masters more than
those imposed, while they would have given the
freedmen the one thing needed to fit them for their
places as citizens.
The conditions which the war left, no matter what
the legislation, required as representatives of the
government the most honest, wise, and patient men
that could be obtained ; men whom freedmen and
masters could trust and respect, and who could
understand and deal considerately, if firmly, with
a stricken community. Instead the government
was represented by mere adventurers, ignorant,
foolish, corrupt, and wholly unfitted for their work.
No matter what the policy, it must fail if admin¬
istered by such men. Without brains and charac¬
ter no form of government is good. With these
absent and every element of disorder present, it is
not strange that the reconstructed States were
STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 337
unhappy. But in considering the course of Sum¬
ner and his associates, we may well pause before
we attribute to a policy, in itself just, evils which
sprang inevitably from the condition of the com¬
munity, and which were increased by the men who
were placed in power during reconstruction.
This first session of the Fortieth Congress ad¬
journed on March 30, but before the resolution
of adjournment was adopted there was a struggle
between those who wished to adjourn till the fol¬
lowing* December and those who were afraid to
trust the President so long. Among the latter was
Sumner, who urged the importance of not leaving
the loyal men without protection, and spoke of the
President as follows : —
“You must not forget that the President is a
bad man, the author of incalculable woe to his
country, and especially to that part which, being
most tried by war, most needed kindly care.
Search history, and I am sure you will find no
elected ruler who, during the same short time, has
done so much mischief to his country. He stands
alone in bad eminence.”
Repeated differences between the houses resulted
in adjournment till the first Wednesday in Jul}^
when, in the absence of a quorum, the presiding
officers were to adjourn their respective houses
without day.
CHAPTER XX
ALASKA : THE ALABAMA CLAIMS : THE IMPEACH¬
MENT
The Senate held a special session for executive
business from the 1st to the 20th of April, at which
the treaty for the i3urchase of Alaska was ratified.
Sumner first learned of the treaty late in the even¬
ing of Friday, March 29, at the State Department.
It was signed on the morning of the 30th and on
the same day it was sent to the Senate. The com¬
mittee on foreign relations reported it favorably,
Mr. Fessenden alone dissenting. On April 9
Sumner spoke for three hours in favor of rati¬
fication and the treaty was ratified, only Mr. Fes¬
senden and Mr. Morrill voting in the negative.
The injunction of secrecy was removed, and Sumner
was requested to write out his speech, which had
been made from scanty notes. After the adjourn¬
ment he devoted some six weeks to inform in cf
himself and to amplifying his speech, which when
finished was a miracle of information on the sub¬
ject of Alaska, gathered from sources of every
kind, of which many were in foreign languages,
and some in Russian were translated for his use.
It was he who gave the name of Alaska to the
ALASKA
339
whole territory. He wrote to John Bright on
April 16, 1867 : —
“ The Russian treaty tried me severely ; ab¬
stractedly I am against further accessions of terri¬
tory, unless by the free choice of the inhabitants.
But this question was perplexed by considerations
of politics and comity and the engagements already
entered into by the government. I hesitated to
take the responsibility of defeating it.”
In a note to the speech as published in his works
he says : “ Mr. Sumner was controlled less by
desire for more territory than by a sense of the
amity of Russia, manifested especially during our
recent troubles, and by an unwillingness to miss
the opportunity of dismissing another European
sovereign from our continent, predestined, as he
believed, to become the broad, undivided home of
the American people.”
His influence doubtless carried the treaty ; or, to
speak more accurately, his opposition would have
killed it. In his speech he did not allude to the
doubts of which he wrote to Mr. Bright, but spoke
of the cession as an extension of republican insti¬
tutions. He was doubtless satisfied by the fact
that there was practically no population to consult.
To use his own words : “ The immense country is
without form and without light, without activity
and without progress. . . . Its life is solitary and
feeble. Its settlements are only encampments or
lodfres.” He estimated the number of Russians
and Creoles at about 2500, the number of abori-
340
CHARLES SUMNER
gines within the jurisdiction of the Fur Company
at about 8000, and of those outside at between
40,000 and 50,000, and these he compared to our
Indians. It was clearly impossible to ask or obtain
the consent of so insignificant and scattered a pop¬
ulation, with no national life and no relation to
government. He, however, took occasion to guard
against further annexation, saying : —
“ This treaty must not be a precedent for a sys¬
tem of indiscriminate and costly annexation. Sin¬
cerely believing that republican institutions under
the primacy of the United States must embrace
this whole continent, ... I cannot disguise my
anxiety that every stage in our predestined future
shall be by natural processes, without war, and I
would add even without purchase. There is no
territorial aggrandizement worth the price of blood.
Only under peculiar circumstances can it become
the subject of pecuniary contract. Our triumph
should be by growth and organic expansion in
obedience to ‘preestablished harmony,’ recognizing
always the will of those who are to become our
fellow citizens. All this must be easy, if we are
only true to ourselves.”
As the pressure of domestic difficulties was
gradually relieved, the questions growing out of
England’s course during the war began to receive
attention, and negotiations were begun looking to
a settlement. The English government saw its
mistake, and aware of the latent exasperation in
the United States became anxious to remove a
THE ALABAMA CLAIMS
341
source of danger to international peace. Sumner’s
speeches during the war had made perfectly appar¬
ent the grounds of our feeling, but England did
not realize that we proposed to make claims as a
nation on account of losses caused by her action.
Sumner took a deep interest in this question
and his attitude upon it never changed. His cor¬
respondence shows the development of the contro¬
versy. Thus he wrote to Mr. Bright on August 8,
1865 : “ General Grant was here last week. . . .
He cared little whether England paid ‘ our little
bill ’ or not ; upon the whole, he would rather she
would not, as that would leave the precedent of
her conduct in full force for us to follow, and he
wished it understood that we should follow it. He
thought that we should make more out of the
‘ precedent ’ than out of the ‘ bill,’ and that Boston
especially would gain. ... I need not say that I
dissented from his policy most resolutely. I told
him that our true object should be to bring the two
countries into relations of harmony and good-will ;
that this could not be done if one nation was watch¬
ing an opportunity to strike, and the other was
standing on guard ; that the truest statesmanship
was to remove all questions, and to that end I
wished the precedent rejected.”
On December 25, 1865, he wrote to George Be-
mis : “ Sir F. Bruce, at dinner Saturday evening,
said to me that England would fight before she
would pay a dollar or consent to arbitration.”
On December 24, 1866, almost exactly one year
342
CHARLES SUMNER
after saying that England would never arbitrate,
Sir F. Bruce told Sumner that he had left with
Seward a letter from Lord Stanley “accepting
arbitration in the ‘ Alabama ’ case,” and asked
whether this country would, upon this basis, “ pro¬
ceed to a general settlement of reciprocity, fisher¬
ies, and everything else.”
On May 27, 1867, Sumner wrote to Mr. Bright :
“ I have just perused the correspondence between
Mr. Seward and Lord Stanley on the ‘ Alabama ’
claims. There is a deadlock, the legacy of Lord
Russell. The British government offers arbitra¬
tion, but insists upon excluding the fundamental
question on which our claims rest — namely, the
right, morally and legally, of the recognition of
the rebels as belligerents on the ocean. We are
willing to arbitrate, provided the whole case is
submitted. I think that the correspondence, when
published, will rally the whole country. . . . Thus
far I have avoided saying anything on this ques¬
tion in the Senate, because I was anxious to secure
time for an amicable adjustment. The next Con¬
gress will debate it fully, unless meanwhile in some
way it is settled.”
Sumner took no pains in his correspondence to
disguise the views which he was soon to express
publicly.
Congress convened in July, 1867, in accordance
with the resolution of the last session. The Re¬
publican senators in caucus voted to do no business
during this session except such as was necessary to
THE ALABAMA CLAIMS
343
secure the execution of the reconstruction laws
already passed. Their decision was embodied in a
rule of the Senate and prevented Mr. Sumner from
bringing forward legislation on the subject of suf¬
frage and other measures which he had much at
heart. Sumner vigorously opposed the adoption
of the rule, insisting that there was public busi¬
ness of great importance which the Senate had no
right to neglect, and repudiating the claim that he
was bound as a senator by the decision of the Re¬
publican caucuses. His opposition was unavail¬
ing, but his argument for individual independence
deserves attention. He justly characterized the
caucus as “ a meeting of friends for consultation
and harmony, where each gives up something with
a view to a common result, but no man gives up a
principle, no man gives up anything vital.” The
opposing view makes the caucus a convenient in¬
strument by which the minority of a legislative
body controls the majority, and dominates the con¬
science and judgment of the best members.
The principal measure of the session was a bill
to strengthen the reconstruction laws and to limit
the power of the President. When this bill was
under discussion, Mr. Sumner olfered an amend'
ment, that “ every constitution in the rebel States
shall require the legislature to establish and main¬
tain a system of public schools open to all without
distinction of race or color.” This was excluded
under the rule. He offered another amendment,
“ that no person shall be disqualified as member of
344
CHARLES SUMNER
any board of registration by reason of race or
color.” In advocating this he expressed his belief
that under the existing law a colored person might
be a senator of the United States. This amend¬
ment was rejected by a tie vote, but at a later stage
of the bill was adopted. Other amendments were
excluded under the rule.
He endeavored to obtain consideration for a bill,
introduced by him at the last session, to secure the
franchise to colored citizens all over the country,
which he had advocated by letter during the recess.
Again the rule proved a barrier, nor would the
Senate suspend it on his motion. He succeeded,
however, by unanimous consent, in bringing up
his bill to prevent the exclusion of any person
from office in the District of Columbia on account
of race or color, and, amended in form, this was
passed. The President refused to sign it, and as
Congress adjourned before the expiration of ten
days from its passage it failed to become a law.
It was again brought forward by Mr. Sumner and
passed at the December session, but by the refusal
of the President to sign it and the adjournment of
Congress for the holidays, it again failed. It had
a like experience once more in the session which
ended March 4, 1869, but it finally became a law
by the signature of President Grant. At every
stage of its checkered career Mr. Sumner was its
sponsor and persistent advocate. An attempt by
him on July 19, 1867, to strike the word “ white”
from the naturalization laws was referred to a com'
THE ALABAMA CLAIMS
345
mittee, and not reported till February, 1869, too
late for consideration.
The adjourned session of Congress met on No¬
vember 21, and during the holiday recess Sumner
moved into his new house on the corner of Vermont
Avenue and Lafayette Square, which was his home
till his death. He gathered here the books, auto¬
graphs, and works of art which he had collected
during his life, and while he was in Washington
entertained freely. He was a most agreeable host,
and at his table were to be met the most interest¬
ing men of the time. Here, for example, Dickens
met his great admirer Stanton, who paid him a
high compliment when he said : “ During the war
I always kept ‘ Pickwick ’ under my pillow. Often
and often I went to bed with my mind so full of
anxiety after bad news of battles or campaigns
that sleep seemed impossible, but two chapters of
‘ Pickwick ’ never failed to divert my thoughts so
that I could sleep, and it was the only book in
the language that would do it.” Seward was a
frequent guest; and, unmindful of his previous
misadventures as a prophet, tempted fate again by
saying : “ In thirty years Mexico will be the cap¬
ital of the United States.” Here Mr. Evarts,
coming to dinner on Sunday, after a day’s work
upon the answer of the President to the articles
of impeachment, excused his breach of the com¬
mandment by saying : “ Is it not written that if
thine ass falleth into a pit, it is lawful to pull him
out on the Sabbath day?” Here Motley was a
346
CHARLES SUMNER
frequent guest while a candidate for the English
mission. Here the diplomatic corps were constantly
welcomed, and political opponents like Caleb Cush¬
ing and William Beach Lawrence engaged in liter¬
ary and diplomatic discussion. Here Emerson
and Agassiz made him visits. It was a pleasant
house, and, when he first occupied it, he was at the
very height of his reputation and power on both
sides of the ocean.
In the brief session which began on November 21,
little was done ; but it is amusing to find Sumner
opposing a resolution to fix the final adjournment
one half hour before the beginning of the regular
session, on the ground that in that half hour the
President might make appointments and suspen¬
sions which, under the Tenure-of-office Act, might
stand till the close of the next session.
The regular session of Congress began on Decem¬
ber 2, 1867, and was at first uneventful. In Febru¬
ary Sumner opposed the admission of Mr. Thomas,
senator-elect from Maryland, because he had per¬
mitted and aided his minor son to join the Con¬
federate army, which was such aid to the rebellion
as should prevent his taking the oath of office. It
was a strict construction of the law, but it pre¬
vailed.
In August the President had removed Secre¬
tary Stanton, whose presence in the Cabinet was
regarded by the Republican leaders as a great
safeguard. The feeling against the President had
been gathering force for some time, and now led
THE IMPEACHMENT
347
his opponents in the House to propose his im¬
peachment, but the House would not direct it. On
January 13, 1868, the Senate refused to concur
in the suspension of Stanton, and on February 21
the President removed him in direct violation of
the Tenure-of-office Act. Mr. Stanton refused to
go, acting upon the advice, among others, of Sum¬
ner, who, hearing of the President’s action, wrote
from his desk in the Senate : “ Stick, Stanton,
stick.” The President, after trying in vain to
make General Grant take the place, appointed
General Lorenzo Thomas secretary of war ad
interim. For a time it seemed that Mr. Stanton
would be expelled by force, and that the President
would obtain control of the army through a plastic
person of his own choice. Congress was excited
to immediate action, and on February 24 the
House voted to present articles of impeachment.
Thaddeus Stevens, advanced in years and feeble
in health, but looking the ideal Roman, announced
this action to the Senate with singular impressive¬
ness, as if he were discharging a sad duty, though
it was a result for which he had long labored, and
the element of personal triumph could not have
been absent from his mind.
The Senate began its sessions as a court of im¬
peachment on March 5, and from then until May
11, when the final votes were taken, the trial was
its chief business. The principal charge was the
removal of Mr. Stanton, but some of Mr. John¬
son’s scandalous and violent language in attacking
348
CHARLES SUMNER
Congress was made tlie ground of a distinct article.
The examination of the witnesses was conducted
mainly by General Butler for the prosecution, and
by Mr. Evarts for the defense. The former lost
his sense of proportion and, as he admitted, con¬
ducted himself as if he were trying a criminal case
in a Middlesex County court room. He forgot
that his success depended upon winning the doubt¬
ful senators like Fessenden, Trumbull, and Grimes,
and these were alienated by his methods, while
they were much impressed by the argument of
Judge Curtis for the defense. The managers in¬
sisted that the proceeding was in its nature polit¬
ical, while the counsel who defended the President
sought to make it absolutely judicial, and invoked
the rules which would govern a trial that might
result in the punishment of the offender and not
merely in his removal from office. Remember¬
ing that the law provides adequate machinery for
the punishment of offenders, while impeachment
is designed to relieve the people from the dan¬
gers attending the abuse of official power, a strong
argument may be made for the former view. It
is the danger to the country, rather than the
guilt of the defendant, which the prosecution must
establish. The balance of power was held by
three or four lawyers, who felt that they were sit¬
ting as judges and who tried the question of the
President’s guilt or innocence with strictness. The
counsel for the defense addressed them in lan¬
guage which commanded their respect, while they
THE IMPEACHMENT
349
had no sympathy with the looser methods and theo¬
ries of the prosecution. It was training and tem¬
perament which separated these men from their
associates and saved the President.
This is not the place to describe the events of the
trial, but no one who heard it can forget the won¬
derful impression which the brief argument of Mr.
Groesbeck made upon the Senate and the audience.
Beginning at noon, his voice an hour later had
become so husky as to be almost inaudible. An
earlier recess was taken on that account, and when
he began again his voice gradually cleared, until
during the last hour he addressed a crowded but
absolutely still chamber. No senator wrote on
his desk, no page was summoned, no conversation
could be heard in gallery or cloak room, and a
silence prevailed almost unknown in the Senate,
while every one listened with rapt attention to each
word that the speaker uttered. It was an oratori¬
cal feat which had no parallel at that trial, and
few in the experience of the Senate.
At the outset the question arose whether Senator
Wade, the president 'pro tempore of the Senate,
could take the oath as a member of the court of
impeachment, since in the event of the President’s
conviction he would succeed to the office. Sumner
showed that there was no authority for the objec¬
tion, and paid Mr. Wade this high compliment; —
“Put in one scale these interests, so dear to the
heart of the patriot, and in the other all the per¬
sonal temptations which have been imagined, and
350
CHARLES SUMNER
I cannot doubt that, if the senator from Ohio holds
these scales, the latter will kick the beam.”
A few weeks later the chief justice, presiding,
threw the casting vote, when the Senate was
equally divided on some question of procedure or
evidence. Sumner would not let this claim of
right pass unchallenged, and argued that the right
to “ preside ” gave no right to vote. He gathered
copious authority in support of his contention,
which he sustained also by comparison with the
provision giving the vice-president the right to
preside and give the casting vote ; at the same
time he took occasion to speak most pleasantly of
Chief Justice Chase.
After the vote the different senators prepared
their opinions upon the case, and Mr. Sumner
stated his views at some length, taking the ground
that the proceeding was a remedy against political
offenders. He insisted that the acts charged were
to be interpreted by the President’s whole course
in office, and that “ if on any point you entertain
doubts the benefit of those doubts must be given
to your country,” whose safety is the supreme law.
Seeing clearly the danger to which all the great
interests of the country were exposed while the
President continued in office, he voted without
hesitation for conviction, and while it is now clear
that no especial harm was done during the brief
remnant of Mr. Johnson’s term, and many feel that
a dangerous precedent was avoided, we may here¬
after find that a not less dangerous precedent was
THE IMPEACHMENT
351
established, and learn to consider the doctrine of
Sumner the safer for the country.
After the trial Congress returned to reconstruc¬
tion, and Sumner made a strong speech, repeating
his argument in favor of the right to impose fun¬
damental conditions when States are admitted to
the Union. Congress adopted this view, and a bill
was passed admitting Arkansas upon the funda¬
mental condition that there should never be in the
State any denial of suffrage or of any other right
on account of race or color, except to “ Indians not
taxed.” A few days later an act admitting North
Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Ala¬
bama, and Florida was passed, v/ith fundamental
conditions that they should not deprive “ any citi¬
zen or class of citizens of the State of the right
to vote by the constitution thereof,” and should
ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, and with some
further requirements. The same policy was pur¬
sued with the other States, and in 1870 Virginia,
Mississippi, and Texas were admitted upon similar
fundamental conditions.
By various letters at this time Sumner encour¬
aged the election of colored men to Congress, be¬
lieving that nothing could so effectually establish
their absolute equality as citizens, and that such a
conspicuous example was worth more than speeches
or statutes. His advice was soon taken, and he
had the pleasure of welcoming a colored senator
from Mississippi.
CHAPTER XXI
FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION : FOREIGN RELATIONS
The civil war left a legacy of debt and finan¬
cial disturbance which has been ever since a pro¬
lific source of trouble. During the year 18G7 and
early in 1868 the plan of paying the bonds of the
United States in the demand notes called “green¬
backs ” was supported by various politicians. Mr.
Sherman, chairman of the Senate committee on
finance, had maintained in the Senate the right to
do this. In May, 1868, the Republican National
Convention had passed a resolution in favor of
paying all debts of the government “ in the utmost
good faith, . . . not only according to the letter, but
to the spirit of the laws ” under which they were
contracted. This, however, like many another cam¬
paign declaration, was not too definite, and when
a bill to fund the national debt came before the
Senate Mr. Sumner on July 11, 1868, expressed
his views fully. He stated as the two objects of
our policy the reduction of taxes and the substitu¬
tion of specie for unconvertible paper, and claimed
that these objects could only be attained by keeping
the public faith “above all question or suspicion.”
From this impregnable ground he attacked the
FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION
353
propositions to tax the bonds, and to pay them in
irredeemable paper, showing that both were clear
violations of public faith. The speech was a wel¬
come reinforcement to the cause of public honesty,
and increased Sumner’s strength with conservative
men.
A few days after this speech a bill containing
some extraordinary provisions came before the
House. The recent triumph over the Confederate
armies and our great military strength did not
tend to foster discretion in Congress. Questions
had arisen as to the effect of naturalization in this
country. Foreign governments took the ground
that no one could, as against the country of his
birth, assume a foreign citizenship, and upon this
theory they arrested our naturalized citizens, held
them to military service, and otherwise treated
them as still their own subjects. It must be ad¬
mitted that then, as since, many of these natural¬
ized citizens were more interested in the affairs of
their native land than in those of the United States,
and that they used our citizenship only as a shield
against the consequences of seditious enterprises.
They were foreigners in feeling and conduct while
successful in tlieir plots, and became citizens of
this country only when they failed. But the un¬
friendly course of European governments had left
a feeling here which induced sympathy with their
disaffected subjects and made many Americans will¬
ing to seize any pretext for aiding them. Promi¬
nent in this class were certain Irish Fenians, whose
354
CHARLES SUMNER
purposes were actively hostile to England. General
Banks, the chairman of the committee on foreign
affairs of the House, though he came into public
life as a vigorous opponent of the foreigners and
Catholics among us, now espoused their cause, and
seemed bent on committing this country to a reck¬
less policy. He had carried through the House a
bill which, as Sumner wrote to Mr. Bright, “ was
Seward’s work,” asserting the American doctrine
that any man may assume a new citizenship and
thereby dissolve his old allegiance. To this was
added a section empowering the President, when
any citizen was arrested by any foreign govern¬
ment in denial of this right, to suspend commercial
relations with such government and to arrest and
detain any citizen of such government found within
our jurisdiction.
Mr. Sumner reported a substitute for this pro¬
vision, directing the President, when any natural¬
ized citizen should be arrested, to report the cir¬
cumstance to Congress for its action, and taking
from him all power of reprisal. He supported this
in a speech exposing the absurdity and barbarism
of the House bill, saying : —
“ Suppose the law is passed, and the authority
conferred upon the President. Whom shall he
seize ? What innocent foreigner ? What trustful
traveler ? What honored guest ? It may be Mr.
Dickens, or Mr. Trollope, or Rev. Newman Hall,
or it may be some merchant here on business, guilt¬
less of any wrong and under the constant safeguard
FOREIGN RELATIONS
355
of the public faith. Permit me to say, sir, that,
the moment you do this, you will cover the country
with shame, of which the present bill will be the
painful prelude.” Mr. Conness, himself of Irish
birth, in reply charged Sumner with indifference
to the rights of foreign-born citizens who happened
to be white and not black. But Sumner met the
charge completely by recalling his position at the
time of the Know-Nothing excitement, thereby well
illustrating how he who resists the folly of the
hour is sure to find in time that his course is vin¬
dicated and his influence increased.
The bill had passed the House by a vote of 104
to 4, men like Garfield, who had opposed it vigor¬
ously, voting for it. Eighty or more others did not
vote. Sumner kept it in committee for two months
and then led in opposing its monstrous provisions.
The result Was that his substitute was carried in
the Senate by a vote of 30 to 7, though an amend¬
ment was passed against his opposition, which au¬
thorized the President to use all methods except
war to effect the release of any American citizen
unjustly arrested by a foreign government. These
votes in House and Senate show the feeling of the
hour, which Sumner resisted. Without this con¬
temporary record it would be impossible to believe
that such a measure could pass the House of Re¬
presentatives.
At this session treaties with Germany and Ba¬
varia were ratified which recognized our claim,
and these were followed by like treaties with the
356 CHARLES SUMNER
other European powers, so that the rights of
our naturalized citizens were established on a sure
foundation.
The Republican convention of Massachusetts
unanimously nominated Sumner for reelection to
the Senate, by a resolution which approved his
course in the warmest language. This nomination
was ratified by the legislature, and he was elected
in the following January by an almost unanimous
vote. After his nomination he made one speech,
delivered at Cambridge, in which he stated the
issue of the campaign thus : “ Shall the men who
saved the Repuhlic continue to rule it^ or shall it
he handed over to rebels and their allies f and
the statement was the only argument needed in
those days. He insisted that the defeat of Grant
meant the nullification of the reconstruction acts,
declared by the Democratic convention to be un¬
constitutional, revolutionary, and void. On the
financial question he went further, and urged the
possibility and the duty of resuming specie pay¬
ments on July 4, 1869. He repeated his^ argu¬
ment against any breach of the contract with the
public creditor, and concluded with propositions
that cannot too often be repeated :
a republic is where every man has his due.
Equality of rights is the standing promise of Na¬
ture to man. ... In harmony with the promise
of Nature is the promise of our fathers, recorded
in the Declaration of Independence. It is the two¬
fold promise; first, that all are equal in rights;
FOREIGN RELATIONS
357
and, secondly, that just government stands only on
the consent of the governed, — being the two great
political commandments on which hang all laws
and constitutions. Keep these truly and you will
keep all. Write them in your statutes ; write them
in your hearts. This, is the great and only final
settlement of all existing questions^
Sumner had taken no part in nominating Grant.
From a statement published by Mr. Forney it would
appear indeed that in November, 1867, he opposed
his nomination, in a conference held to consider
the situation, when General Babcock and other
close friends of Grant favored it. Sumner doubted
his qualities as a civil administrator, but the popu¬
lar feeling made the nomination inevitable, and
Sumner did not publicly dissent. In November he
wrote to Dr. Lieber : “ Grant will be our President
with infinite Opportunities. I hope and believe he
will be true to them.”
During the summer of 1868 President Johnson
appointed Reverdy Johnson minister to England,
and in a letter to Mr. Bright, Sumner thus spoke : —
“ He hopes to settle all outstanding questions. I
think he will be successful on the naturalization
question. But I do not see signs of accord on the
other question.” This passage is quoted because it
was afterwards suggested that Sumner had misled
Bright into thinking that Johnson fully represented
the feeling in this country on the Alabama question.
The last session of the Fortieth Congress began
on December 7, 1868.
358
CHARLES SUMNER
The most important action at this session was
the adoption by Congress of the Fifteenth Amend¬
ment. Although impartial suffrage had been re¬
quired in the Southern States by the fundamental
conditions imposed on their readmission, it was
deemed wise to secure it in the States which had
not seceded, and to place the result of the war be¬
yond the reach of legislative action by constitutional
amendment. Accordingly, after much discussion of
the exact phraseology, the amendment was adopted
by Congress on February 25, 1869. Its ratifica¬
tion by the States was announced a little more than
a year later.
To the policy of this amendment Mr. Sumner was
strongly opposed. He was satisfied that Congress
had power to secure impartial suffrage by legisla¬
tion, and he thought that to propose the amendment
was to admit that the power did not exist. If after
Congress had made this admission the States should
fail to ratify the amendment, the opportunity to se¬
cure equal rights would be lost. He thought that
the proposal therefore exposed the cause to great
and unnecessary peril. He urged these views upon
the Senate with great persistency, and he presented
them again in a speech against the amendment,
wherein he spoke with great sadness and strong
feeling, seeming to consider that his opponents
were defending wrong by throwing doubt upon the
power of Congress under the Constitution. He
failed to convince them, and their practical wisdom
was proved by the ratification of the amendment,
GRANT’S CABINET
359
while his fears were not realized. In the result
he rejoiced as heartily as any one.
This was the session of Congress preceding
the inauguration of a new administration, but the
usual struggle over the new cabinet did not occur.
General Grant, possibly from his experience in the
army, had conceived a profound distrust of politi¬
cians, and at the outset evidently expected to con¬
duct his administration without consulting the lead¬
ers of the party which had elected him. He seemed
to regard his Cabinet as his staff, and was governed
largely by personal considerations in selecting it.
Yet he soon came under the influence of politi¬
cians belonging to the very class which he at first
distrusted, with results unfortunate alike to the
country and to himself. Sumner’s manners and
methods never could have attracted Grant, and the
attitude of the two men towards public questions
was radically different even when they agreed in
opinion. Sumner was suggested for secretary of
state, but he never countenanced the idea. He
felt, as he wrote to Dr. Lieber just after the elec¬
tion : “ The headship of the first committee of the
Senate is equal in position to anything in our gov¬
ernment under the President ; and it leaves to the
senator great opportunities.”
General Grant never spoke to him on the sub¬
ject or consulted him about the Cabinet, though
their relations were pleasant. Sumner was not,
however, confident that Grant would be a success¬
ful president, and his doubts were shared by other
360
CHARLES SUMNER
leading statesmen. He wrote to Whittier on Feb¬
ruary 26, 1869 : “ Stanton says that he hears of
declarations by Grant in favor of economy, re¬
trenchment, and the collection of the revenue, but
nothing about the rights of man to be maintained
in all their fullness ; but I hope for the best.”
At this session the treaties negotiated by E,ev-
erdy Johnson with Lord Clarendon relating to
naturalization, the San Juan boundary question,
and the Alabama Claims were sent to the Senate.
Sumner took pains to ascertain the views of Gen¬
eral Grant, who showed his feeling that the settle¬
ment of the main questions pending with England
should be left for the new administration. The
consideration of the Claims treaty was accordingly
postponed. Sumner tried to prepare Mr. Bright
for adverse action, in a letter of January 19,
1869: —
“ I finish this letter at my seat in the Senate.
Last evening I met General Grant at dinner and
conversed with him briefly on the new treaties.
I would not commit him, and do not think that he
has any very precise policy. He did not seem to
object to the naturalization and San Juan negotia¬
tions, but I think he had a different feeling with
regard to the Claims convention. He asked why
this could not be allowed to go over to the next
administration ? This morning I called up the sub¬
ject in my committee. There was nothing but
general conversation, in the course of which it was
remarked that Great Britain had never appreciated
FOREIGN RELATIONS
361
the wrong, the terrible wrong done to us, not only
in the cases of the ships destroyed, but also in
driving our commerce from the ocean. You know
that I have never disguised the opinion that the
concession of belligerent rights was wrongful.”
In 1867 Mr. Seward negotiated a treaty with
Denmark by which the United States were to buy
the island of St. Thomas for $7,500,000, if the
inhabitants by vote consented .to the transfer.
When the treaty was first sent to the Senate, at
the session beginning December 2, 1867, this assent
had not been obtained nor were the papers which
Mr. Sumner at once called for sent to the Senate
for several weeks. Meanwhile the impeachment of
the President had been voted, and the treaty was
laid over till the next winter. It was now consid¬
ered. General Raasloff, one of the Danish minis¬
ters and a most attractive man, who came to Wash¬
ington in order to urge its ratification, was kindly
treated by Sumner and others, and given every
opportunity to present his case ; but the commit¬
tee on foreign relations was unanimously opposed
to the project, and in this represented the opin¬
ion of the country. Consideration for Raasloff, to
whom failure meant political ruin, induced them
to keep the treaty in committee until after the in¬
auguration of Grant, when it was laid upon the
table, the entry in the records being that “ this
was equivalent to a rejection and was a gentler
method of effecting it.” This action accorded
with the opinion of the new President.
CHAPTER XXn
grant’s administration: the ALABAMA
CLAIMS
Sumner’s last term in the Senate began on
March 4, 1869, when General Grant was inau¬
gurated. The oldest senator in continuous ser¬
vice, he occupied a place of great consideration and
influence. The cause to which he had devoted his
life had triumphed, and equality of rights seemed
established in this country under the protection of
the Constitution. Having been in opposition dur¬
ing the larger part of his senatorial career, he was
now in full sympathy with the party in power and
among its recognized leaders. His former associ¬
ates, Chase and Seward, were no longer Republi¬
cans, which made his position in the party more
conspicuous. There was no man in public life
whose career had been so long, so distinguished,
so consistent, as his, or who to so great an extent
led the conscience of the country. Emerson wrote
at this time : “ Wherever I have met with a dear
lover of the country and its moral interests, he is
sure to be a supporter of Sumner. Sumner’s moral
instinct and character are so exceptionally pure
that he must have perpetual magnetism for honest
GRANT’S ADMINISTRATION
363
men ; his ability and working energy such that
every good friend of the Kepiiblic must vote for
him.” This position, won by the constant labors
and sacrifices of eighteen years, was exceptional,
and he might well look forward to a period of dig¬
nified repose, free from the strain of active political
contest and from the fearful anxieties of the strug¬
gle with slavery, — a period in which his experience
and accumulated wisdom would make his counsels
respected, and in which he could exert a strong in¬
fluence in the conduct of the government. These
anticipations were not to be realized. His last
term of service was to be marked by a series of
conflicts with his own party associates, more bitter
to him than any he had known, and was to be sad¬
dened by personal differences which clouded the
rest of his life.
At first his relations with the administration
were most cordial. Hamilton Fish, who after
Elihu Washburne’s brief service of a week became
secretary of state, was an old and intimate friend.
With Judge Hoar, the attorney-general, his friend¬
ship was even closer ; while Mr. Boutwell, the sec¬
retary of the treasury, was, among leading Repub¬
licans, the one most uniformly in sympathy with
Sumner. Indeed, there was no one in the Cabinet
wuth whom he was not on pleasant terms, though
some of its members were little known to him.
The President’s first choice for secretary of the
treasury was Alexander T. Stewart of New York,
but after his nomination it was found that he was
364
CHARLES SUMNER
ineligible under the law of 1789, which provided
that no incumbent of this office should “ directly
or indirectly be concerned in carrying on the
business of trade or commerce.” Mr. Sherman
at once introduced a bill to repeal this provision,
askincr unanimous consent to its immediate con-
O
sideration. Mr. Sumner objected, and when, a
little later, the President sent a message urging
legislation which would exempt Mr. Stewart from
the prohibition and Mr. Sherman introduced a
bill for this purpose, Sumner repeated the objec¬
tion. He thus prevented instant action, and on
reflection the proposed legislation was abandoned.
It is doubtful if some of Mr. Sumner’s more
conspicuous services were followed by so many
private letters of thanks as was this simple action.
There is, however, reason to think that General
Grant was irritated thereby, though his feeling
was not manifested.
The diplomatic appointments were the subject of
much conference between Mr. Fish and Mr. Sum¬
ner, but it does not appear that Sumner’s wishes
were always regarded. He recommended Mr.
Motley as minister to England, but the appoint¬
ment was probably due to other considerations.
The Johnson-Clarendon treaty for the settle¬
ment of our claims against England came before
the Senate at its special session. Keverdy John¬
son’s effusive expressions of good-will towards
England and a desire that the new administration
should deal with the question created a feeling
GRANT’S ADMINISTRATION 365
against ratification, and the committee on foreign
relations unanimously agreed in an adverse report.
Sumner, however, had sounder reasons for opposing
the treaty, and on April 13, 1869, he stated them,
putting the case of the United States against Eng¬
land in its extreme form and in severe terms.
The treaty, he said, did not settle the pending
questions ; “ it is nothing but a snare.” His reason
was that it was only an ordinary “ claims conven¬
tion,” providing for the adjustment of individual
claims on both sides, but leaving untouched the
great wrong to the United States as a nation.
Therefore, he said, “ it cannot be for the interest
of either party” that it be ratified, since both
desired a final settlement.
He claimed that our real grievance lay in the
concession to the rebels of ocean belligerency,
when they had no ships, no ports, no prize courts,
and were in fact not belligerents at sea. This en¬
abled the Confederacy to build and equip ships of
war and to buy munitions in England, in short it
made England a Confederate arsenal, and saved
blockade runners from being treated as pirates.
He dwelt on the negligence which allowed the Ala¬
bama to escape, and on the shelter accorded to her
in English ports, which made her in fact an English
ship warring upon us under English protection.
He recalled the fact that the proclamation of
neutrality was signed on the very day that Mr.
Adams landed in Liverpool, and claimed that the
offense was far worse because England departed
366
CHARLES SUMNER
from her settled policy of hostility to slavery in
thus helping men who were fighting to estab¬
lish it.
“ The blockade runners,” he said, “ were kin¬
dred to the pirate ships. . . . When, after a long
and painful siege, our conquering troops entered
Vicksburg, they found Armstrong guns from
England in position ; and so on every field where
our patriot fellow citizens breathed a last breath
were English guns and munitions of war, all
testifying against England. The dead spoke also
— and the wounded still speak.”
Individual losses were trifling compared with
the national losses caused by England’s conduct.
Among these he counted the loss of our carrying
trade, the injury to our shipbuilding interest, and
the expense of the war during the period by which
England’s action prolonged it.
Mr. Sumner stated his own position thus : “ For
several years I have carefully avoided saying
anything on this most irritating question, being
anxious that negotiations should be left undis¬
turbed to secure a settlement which could be ac¬
cepted by a deeply injured nation. The submission
of the pending treaty to the judgment of the Sen¬
ate left me no alternative. It became my duty to
consider it carefully in committee, and to review
the whole subject. If I failed to find what we
had a right to expect, and if the just claims of
our country assumed unexpected proportions, it was
not because I would bear hard on England, but
GRANT’S ADMINISTRATION
367
because I wish most sincerely to remove all pos¬
sibility of strife between our two countries ; and
it is evident that this can be done only by first
ascertaining the nature and extent of difference.
In this spirit I have spoken to-day. . . . The at¬
tempt to close this great international debate with¬
out a complete settlement is little short of puerile.”
Notwithstanding its few pacific words the speech
seemed hardly calculated to promote a settlement.
England had reluctantly consented to arbitrate,
and now her most conspicuous friend among Amer¬
ican statesmen replied that her concession was idle,
and that the claims of the United States exceeded
in character and magnitude anything that her
statesmen had imagined possible. In it Sumner
took no new position ; his opinions had already
been stated fully, and in fact our government had
taken the same ground ; but the English had not
realized what we meant. As Sumner wrote to
Lieber somewhat later : “ I have made no demand,
not a word of apology, not a dollar ! nor have I
menaced, suggested, or thought of war. . . . My
object was simply to expose our wrongs as plainly,
but as gently, as possible. . . : To my mind our
first duty is to make England see what she has
done to us.”
Sumner accomplished this object completely.
He instructed England, and he satisfied America.
The people of the United States felt that his pre¬
sentation of the case was adequate. The admin¬
istration, the Senate, and the public approved his
3G8
CHARLES SUMNER
words. The treaty was rejected by a unanimous
vote, and Sumner acquired a controlling influence
in the settlement of the controversy. In England
the speech was received with indignation by the
public, with sorrow by some of his friends, and
with resentment by others. He was regarded as
an enemy of England. Even John Bright com¬
plained, and the Duchess of Argyll wrote : “For
the first time I am silenced when you are spoken
about. I understood you through the war. I do
not now.”
After the first feeling of wrath subsided, how¬
ever, England awoke to the fact that the questions
growing out of her course during the civil war
must be settled ; that the grievance of this coun¬
try was real and its sense of wrong deep, and that
such a feeling was a danger not to be ignored.
The result was the Joint High Commission. Two
years later Sir Stafford Northcote wrote to Mr.
Sumner, after reading the speech again ; “ Though
I must own your speech was somewhat sharp, I
verily believe that it taught us a valuable lesson
in that respect, and that we may say of it, fidelia
vulnera amantisy'
Mr. Sumner’s course was justified by the event,
and the words, which seemed likely to prevent an
adjustment, paved the way to a real settlement as
he intended. His views were met in the later
treaty, his positions were maintained by our coun¬
sel at Geneva, and if the arbitrators rejected our
claims for “ indirect damages,” it is one thing to
GRANT’S ADMINISTRATION
369
lose after a fair trial, and quite another to be
denied a trial altogether. It was not money but
the recognition by England that her course was
at least questionable which was desired. England’s
consent to arbitrate all our claims was such a recos:-
nition and was what we asked. That conceded,
reconciliation was substantially accomplished.
During the early months of the new administra¬
tion the secretary of war. General Rawlins, a close
friend of the President, endeavored to secure the
recognition of the insurgent Cubans as belligerents.
The President was inclined to follow this advice,
and Mr. Sumner exerted all his influence against
it. Not only did the conditions fail to justify it, but
premature recognition would have embarrassed us
seriously in our controversy with England. Backed
by Mr. Fish and Judge Hoar, Sumner’s arguments
prevailed, and were repeated publicly when at a
later day the question became more pressing.
Mr. Fish consulted him freely upon the instruc¬
tions to Mr. Motley, especially as to the difficulty
of making the proclamation of belligerency a
ground for claim against England, while it was
still uncertain whether the President would not
recognize the Cubans as belligerents. Sumner
was determined that our position against England
should not be affected by any such consideration,
and succeeded in having the instructions so drawn
as to present the case against England substan¬
tially in accordance with his speech upon the John-
son-Clarendon treaty. His relations with the ad-
370
CHARLES SUMNER
ministration at this time were stated by Mr. Fish
himself in a dispatch to a New York newspaper,
which he dictated : —
“ Mr. Sumner, as chairman of the Senate com¬
mittee on foreign relations, was consulted con¬
stantly during the preparation of these instructions ;
and when they were completed he not only ex¬
pressed his entire approval of the course Mr. Mot¬
ley was intended to pursue, but signified that the
policy thus marked out was as firm and vigorous as
our foreign relations would now justify. In fact at
no time has Mr. Sumner been in closer accord or in
more direct sympathy with the policy of President
Grant than at present, and rumors of disagreement
are entirely unfounded.”
Evidently the secretary of state saw that there
was danger even in a rumor that Sumner disap¬
proved the policy of the department.
Sumner left Washington shortly after June 15,
entirely satisfied with the situation, for he wrote
to Motley on that day: “England must listen
and at last yield. I do not despair of seeing the
debate end, (1) in the withdrawal of England
from this hemisphere, (2) in remodeling maritime
international law. Such a consummation would
place our Republic at the head of the civilized
world.”
Indeed at that time the cession of Canada, in
satisfaction of our claims, was suggested by Mr
Fish to the English minister, who replied, as Sum¬
ner writes in a private letter, that “ England did
GRANT’S ADMINISTRATION 371
not wish to keep Canada, but could not part with
it without the consent of the population.”
After leaving Washington Sumner visited Mr.
Fish, among others, and continued to urge vigor¬
ous action in the negotiations with England. At
his suggestion Caleb Cushing was consulted in
drawing the instructions to Mr. Motley, which
were sent on September 25, and were described
by Lord Clarendon as “ Mr. Sumner’s speech over
again.”
On September 22 Mr. Sumner presided at the
Republican convention in Massachusetts, and made
a speech upon the political situation, in which he
reasserted the positions which he had taken already
on reconstruction, finance, and the pending ques¬
tions with England. He spoke also of our rela¬
tions with Spain and Cuba, dealing with the pro¬
blem which has confronted the country steadily
for years, and which has now taken a new phase,
admitting that the Spanish power was “an an¬
achronism,” and that the day of European colonies
had passed in this hemisphere, but contending that
“ the true course of the United States ” was “ to
avoid involving ourselves in any way,” that the
sound rule was “ non-intervention, except in the
way of good offices.” He said that by interna¬
tional law “ nations are not left to any mere ca¬
price. There is a rule of conduct which they must
follow, subject always to just accountability where
they depart from it.” Under that law “ belli¬
gerence is a ‘ fact ’ attested by evidence. If the
372
CHARLES SUMNER
‘ fact ’ does not exist, there is nothing to recognize.
The fact cannot be invented or imagined, it must
be proved. No matter what our sympathy, what
the extent of our desires, we must look at the fact.”
In speaking of the question with England, he
said : “ Sometimes there are whispers of territorial
compensation, and Canada is named as the consid¬
eration. Hut he knows England little, and little
also of that great English liberty from Magna
Charta to the Somerset case, who supposes that
this nation could undertake any such transfer.
And he knows our country little, and little also of
that great liberty which is ours, who supposes that
we could receive such a transfer. On each side
there is impossibility. Territory may be conveyed,
but not a people. I allude to this suggestion only
because, appearing in the public press, it has been
answered from England.” He expressed his belief,
however, that eventually a union between Canada
and the United States would come by mutual desire.
During this autumn he delivered his lecture on
“Caste” before audiences all over the Eastern
States. It was intended as an appeal to public
opinion against the prejudice of race and in favor
of equal rights. His conclusion indicates what his
attitude would have been on some later issues : —
“ To those who find peril in the growing multi¬
tudes admitted to citizenship I reply, that our
Kepublic assumed these responsibilities when it
declared the equal rights of all men, and that just
government stands only on the consent of the gov-
GRANT’S ADMINISTRATION
373
erned. Hospitality of citizenship is the law of its
being. ... If the Chinese come for labor only, we
have the advantage of their wonderful and docile
industry. If they come for citizenship, then do
they offer the pledge of incorporation in our Re¬
public, filling it with increase. Nor is there peril
in the gifts they bring. As all rivers are lost in
the sea, which shows no sign of their presence, so
will all peoples be lost in the widening confines
of our Republic, with an ocean-bound continent
for its unparalleled expanse, and one harmonious
citizenship, where all are equal in rights, for its
gentle and impartial sway.”
In November, shortly before the reassembling of
Congress, Mr. Fish wrote him that Mr. Thornton,
the British minister, had expressed the anxiety of
his government to settle the pending question, and
had asked for some intimation as to terms. “ I
answered,” wrote Mr. Fish, “ somewhat vaguely ;
but he evidently wished ... to obtain something
more definite, — which I was not willing to give,
until I could have the opportunity of consulting
with you to know what your committee and the
Senate will agree to. When will you be here?
Will you either note what you think will be suffi¬
cient to meet the views of the Senate and of the
country, or will you formulate such a proposition ? ”
In such cordial relations with the administration
Sumner began the session of Congress which opened
on December 6, 1869. Mr. Fessenden’s death
during the recess had left a vacancy in the com-
374
CHARLES SUMNER
mittee on foreign relations, which was filled by Mr.
Schurz, who was from this time in close accord
with Mr. Sumner.
The reconstruction question came again before
the Senate in January, 1870, when a long debate
occurred on a bill to admit Virginia. Sumner,
believing that the reconstructed government was
in the hands of disloyal men, urged investigation.
An amendment was moved, that action by the legis¬
lature of Virginia at any time, rescinding its rati¬
fication of the Fifteenth Amendment, should exclude
the State from representation in Congress and re¬
mand it to its provisional government. Governor
Morton of Indiana and Mr. Sumner supported
this, insisting that Congress would always have the
power to enforce the conditions on which the States
were admitted. Sumner said : “ No one of these
States, by anything that it may do hereafter, can
escape from that far-reaching power.” If this
position can be maintained, a question may arise
as to the power of Congress over the recent action
of certain Southern States, by which the right of
suffrage is taken from ignorant colored men but
preserved to equally ignorant white men.
The amendment was lost ; but fundamental con¬
ditions were attached to the bill, imposing the test
oath on state officers and securing impartial suf¬
frage, equal eligibility to office, and equal school
privileges. “Good faith” in the adoption of a
republican state constitution, and in the ratifica¬
tion of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments,
GRANT’S ADMINISTRATION
375
was also made “ a condition precedent to represen¬
tation of the State in Congress.” Sumner took
part in the debate, supporting every proposition
calculated to insure a loyal government and abso¬
lute equality of rights, but not voting for the bill,
even as amended, because he felt that it endan¬
gered the rights and security of loyal people.
Mississippi was admitted at this session upon the
conditions already imposed on Virginia. The pas¬
sage of this act was followed by the admission of
Mr. Revels, a colored man, as one of the senators
from Mississippi, an event which Sumner hailed as
forever setting at rest the question of equal rights.
With this session the reconstruction period practi¬
cally ended, and though the battle for equal rights
was not yet over, the recognition of the principle
in the reconstruction legislation was due to Sum¬
ner’s untiring persistency.
At this session he struck another blow at dis¬
crimination on account of color, when a bill was
pending to amend the naturalization laws so as
to prevent certain election frauds. Much to the
disgust of Mr. Edmunds, who was in charge of
the bill, he offered an amendment striking the
word “ white ” from all statutes relating to natural-
•ization. The session was approaching its end, and
the amendment meant a discussion, for it opened
our citizenship to the Chinese as well as to men of
African descent. Hence, doubtless, Mr. Edmunds
considered it ill-timed, and opposed it. Mr. Sum¬
ner answered that he had twice tried to pass his
376
CHARLES SUMNER
amendment as a separate bill and would not forego
this opportunity. The amendment was at first
adopted, whereupon a proviso excluding Chinese
was moved. The debate continuing, Sumner was
attacked by Conkling for pressing his amendment.
The day was July 4, and Sumner did not fail to
take advantage of the coincidence in reply, quot¬
ing the Declaration of Independence, and continu-
ing : —
“The great, the mighty, words of this clause are
that these self-evident, unalienable rights belong to
‘ aU men.’ It is ‘ all men,’ and not a race or color,
that are placed under protection of the Declara¬
tion. . . . But the statutes of the land assert the
contrary, — they declare that only all white men
are created equal.”
Sumner’s amendment was finally rejected, on
account of the feeling against the Chinese ; but an
amendment extending the privilege of naturaliza¬
tion to persons of African birth or descent was
adopted, and the bill passed. It certainly was
strange that among all nations of color, preference
should be given expressly to the African, so lately
deemed the lowest among the races of men.
Sumner firmly believed that financial reconstruc¬
tion was essential to repair the wounds of the war, •
and amid the contest over the admission of Vir¬
ginia he introduced a bill to authorize the re¬
funding of the national debt, “ to extend banking
facilities, and to establish specie payments.” This
he supported in a careful speech, and afterwards
GRANT’S ADMINISTRATION
377
in debates upon this and other financial measures
he took an active part. These speeches were direct
and business-like discussions of the subject, entirely
free from the tone into which he was sometimes
betrayed when speaking on questions of human
rights. His plans involved refunding at a lower
rate of interest by the issue of long-time bonds,
substituting for the “ greenbacks ” an equal amount
of national bank notes so distributed as to provide
for the necessities of districts where the currency
was insufficient, and direct legislation looking to
the resumption of specie payments. He recognized
those evils which still confront us, and his reme¬
dies might have avoided much subsequent trouble.
Some of his recommendations, indeed, were in sub¬
stance adopted shortly afterwards ; but the replace¬
ment of the “ greenbacks ” by bank circulation
properly distributed and secured, though recognized
as necessary by the best financial authorities, is
still to come.
Always in favor of everything that aided educa¬
tion and the diffusion of knowledge, he made an
elaborate speech in favor of one-cent postage, which
must remain a permanent contribution to the dis¬
cussion of postal systems and a convincing argu¬
ment for the lowest rates. When Mr. Fessenden’s
death was formally announced in the Senate he
spoke of him in terms of cordial appreciation,
showing that their sharp differences had not af¬
fected his respect for his eminent associate. He
opposed the continuance of the income tax as a
378
CHARLES SUMNER
war tax no longer needed, unequal and vexatious.
By sheer persistence he secured a pension for Mrs.
Lincoln in spite of a unanimous report against it
from the committee. These were among his mis¬
cellaneous labors.
CHAPTER XXIIl
SAN DOMINGO AND THE CONTEST WITH GRANT
The most important contest of the session in its
effect on Sumner personally arose over the treaty
for annexing San Domingo. This part of Hayti
had long been torn by the feud between Baez and
Cabral, rivals for the presidency and alternately
successfid. In 1868 Baez was in control, but Ca¬
bral threatened his supremacy. When out of
power Baez had sought aid from the United States.
Now, being in office, he sent an envoy to this
country in the hope of gaining support, and reso¬
lutions for the annexation of San Domingo, or a
protectorate, were introduced in the House during
Mr. Johnson’s administration, but were not dis¬
cussed.
After General Grant’s accession Baez applied to
liim, and he was persuaded that the annexation of
San Domingo was desirable. He kept the nego¬
tiations in his own hands and selected his secre¬
tary, General Babcock, as his representative. In
May a man-of-war was sent to the several Domin¬
ican ports in order to learn the popular feeling,
and in July General Babcock was dispatched with
instructions, signed by Mr. Fish, to inquire as to
380
CHARLES SUMNER
the island, its resources, and the condition of its
affairs. Secretary Robeson placed a man-of-war at
his service, instructed if necessary to give him “ the
moral support of its guns ; ” and in September,
acting absolutely without authority, Babcock exe¬
cuted with Baez a treaty of annexation involving
the payment by this country of §1,500,000 for de¬
fraying the debt of San Domingo. Babcock signed
as the aide-de-camp of the President, and his pro¬
tocol stated that the President “ promises privately
to use all his influence in order that the idea of
annexing the Dominican republic to the United
States may acquire such a degree of popularity
among members of Congress as will be necessary
for its accomplishment.”
The President ratified his action and sent him
back to San Domingo in November, backed by
three men-of-war. There he made two treaties,
one for the annexation of San Domingo and one
for a lease of Samana Bay, and in behalf of the
President guarantied San Domingo against foreign
interference until the treaties were ratified. Bab¬
cock forthwith declared his intention to take pos¬
session of Samana Bay and to raise the American
flag there, and he instructed the naval commander
to protect the government of San Domingo against
any attack, especially from Hayti. This meant
that the navy should keep Baez in power against
Cabral until the bargain by which Baez sold his
country was ratified by the United States. These
instructions were confirmed by Secretary Robeson,
SAN DOMINGO
381
who kept a large force in the waters of San Do¬
mingo and directed the admiral in command, not
only to “ protect ” the “ Dominican government
against any power attempting to interfere with
it,” but to “ visit Samana Bay and the capital and
see the United States power and authority secure
there.” He was directed also to notify the govern¬
ment of Hayti that the United States would pro¬
tect San Domingo, and the peremptory order was
added : “ If the Haytians attack the Dominicans
with their ships, destroy or capture them.” The
navy of the United States was thus placed at the
disposal of Baez, to protect him against his own
subjects as well as foreign enemies, while war was
threatened against Hayti, a friendly power; and
these things were done without authority from
Congress.
The country was in no mood for annexing a hot¬
bed of revolution with a population like that of
San Domingo. The rejection of the St. Thomas
treaty was fresh in the public mind, and the argu¬
ments against the annexation of San Domingo were
much stronger. But even had annexation been
desirable, the manner of securing the treaty, the
doubts as to the authority of Baez, the absence of
popular consent, the extraordinary proceedings of
Babcock, and the arbitrary use of the navy, added
much to the opposition. Had President Johnson
done these things, he could not have escaped im¬
peachment. But the great popularity of Grant,
the public confidence in his honesty, and the feeh
382
CHARLES SUMNER
ing that his training had not fitted him to un¬
derstand the illegality of his action, made men
indulgent to his errors ; nor was the Republican
party inclined to quarrel a second time with a
})resident of its own selection.
Sumner’s first knowledge of these transactions
was in January, 1870, when President Grant called
at his house one evening while he was at dinner
with J. W. Forney and B. P. Poore, one the sec¬
retary of the Senate, the other a well known news¬
paper correspondent. They were both present at
the interview which followed. The President made
some reference to treaties about San Domingo, but
gave no clear idea of their terms or object. He
said that they would come before the committee on
the judiciary, and therefore he wished to see Mr.
Sumner as its chairman, a mistake in the name of
the committee, which indicated General Grant’s
lack of familiarity with the Senate. Sumner turned
the conversation to Governor Ashley of Montana,
of whose removal he wished to speak, but the
President brought it back to the treaties and made
some inquiry intended to ascertain Sumner’s atti¬
tude towards them. Sumner’s reply, as he repeated
it to Mr. Schurz next day, was : “ Mr. President,
1 am an administration man, and whatever you do
will always find in me the most careful and candid
consideration.” The President afterwards claimed,
that Sumner promised his support, and it is prob¬
able that he misunderstood Sumner’s language,
interpreting what was said by his own strong
SAN DOMINGO
383
wishes and not anticipating opposition. It is in¬
credible, however, that Mr. Sumner pledged him¬
self to support the treaties without having seen
them, and with no knowledge of their contents.
Ill such matters he was extremely cautious, and
where the “ Black Republic ” was concerned he
would have been especially so ; for to preserve its
independence was to him a matter of great impor¬
tance. Nor would he ever have consented to any
treaty which annexed territory without the consent
of the inhabitants.^ The attitude which he had
just taken on the annexation of St. Thomas, his
political creed, the whole habit of his life, were
such as to make the alleged promise impossible.
Sumner was a man of his word and absolutely
truthful. It is therefore of no slight importance
that, from the moment of the interview until the
treaties were rejected, he never by word or act indi¬
cated the least consciousness of any pledge to sup¬
port them, while on the contrary his opposition was
frank and consistent. It is impossible to resist the
conclusion that this opposition to a scheme which
the President had at heart seemed to him, with his
ideas of military discipline, like rank insubordi¬
nation. Experience has shown that a president
bent upon enlarging the country’s boundaries is apt
to take a deeper personal interest in the project
than in questions of domestic policy, and to treat
opposition as personal disloyalty. To Grant this
was especially easy, for he felt that, as the head of
^ See his remarks upon the annexation of Canada, ante, p. 372.
384
CHARLES SUMNER
the Republican party, he had a right to command
its members, and he was peculiarly impatient of
resistance. Finding Sumner opposed he became
irritated, and in his irritation gave to the interview
at Sumner’s house a character which it did not
deserve. It became a subject of bitter contro¬
versy ; but its importance was exaggerated. Had
no interview occurred the President would have
been equally indignant at Sumner’s attitude.
When the treaties were referred to the committee
on foreign relations, the first meeting, on January
18, 1870, made it clear that the committee would
report against them. Only one member said any¬
thing in their favor. At Sumner’s suggestion the
committee proceeded deliberately, so that their ac¬
tion might be taken with due respect to the Presi¬
dent, and Sumner withheld his own opinion for a
while that each member might act upon his own
judgment. During the consideration he learned
from the assistant secretary of state, and after¬
wards by inquiry at the Navy Department, how
our navy had been employed and by what means
the treaties had been secured. He was shocked
at the discovery that “ we were engaged in forcing
upon a weak people the sacrifice of their country.”
From that moment his position was taken. He did
not call upon the President and state his views, be¬
cause, as he afterwards said in the Senate : “ On
careful reflection at the time I did not regard it as
expedient. I thought it more gentle and consider¬
ate to avoid discussions with him, being assured
SAN DOMINGO
386
that he would ascertain the judgment on annexa¬
tion through the expression of public sentiment in
the newspapers and various reports.”
The opposition angered the President, and he
exerted all his influence to carry his point. He
sent two messages to the Senate urging ratiflca-
tion, on March 14 and on May 31. He argued
with members of the committee ; he visited the Cap¬
itol, and interviewed senators. In a word he did
all that General Babcock had pledged him to do,
and his influence, especially with the new Southern
senators, was very great. Mr. Fish urged Sumner
not to oppose the President, and the efforts of the
administration continued up to the final vote. On
March 15 the treaties were reported adversely,
Senators Harlan and Morton dissenting from the
report in which Sumner, Patterson, Schurz, Cam¬
eron, and Casserly joined, though Cameron re¬
served the right to vote for ratification in certain
events. Mr. Ferry moved that the debate be in open
session, but the motion was defeated upon Sumner’s
suggestion that, though he favored open sessions, it
was unwise to change an established rule when it
might seem to be done with reference to a particu¬
lar treaty. Sumner opened the debate in a speech
of four hours, in which he discussed the whole sub¬
ject, but “ expressed confidence in the President’s
entire honesty.” No partisan of the President who
heard it ever complained of its tone, while several
spoke of it in terms of admiration. He opposed on
obvious grounds, such as the difficulty of dealing'
386
CHARLES SUMNER
with the population, the likelihood of our being
tempted into further annexation, the chronic rebel¬
lion existing there, the expense and trouble, and the
wrong to the colored man involved in taking away
the independence of Hayti. After a debate run¬
ning through some weeks the treaty was laid aside
until June 29, when after a brief discussion the
vote was taken on June 30, and the Senate being
equally divided the treaty was rejected.
The day after the vote Mr. Motley was removed *
from his place as minister to England. This was
clearly meant as a punishment of Sumner, who was
Motley’s friend, and had favored his appointment.
The President’s friends learned his purpose and
some protested against the removal before it was
made. Senator Wilson wrote an urgent letter
against it, saying : “ His removal will be re¬
garded by the Republicans of Massachusetts as a
blow not only at him, but at Mr. Sumner.”
The tone and manner of the removal, and the
testimony from contemporary witnesses, leave little
doubt that Mr. Wilson was right. Till then Mr.
Sumner had said or done nothing to indicate any
hostility to the President, and though indignant at
an act which seemed intended to influence impro¬
perly the action of senators, he now gave no public
expression of his feeling. He could not, however,
fail to recognize in the act a meaning which was
apparent to the President’s own supporters. In
letters to intimate friends he spoke of it, but more
in sorrow for Motley than in wrath on his own
account.
SAN DOMINGO
387
Sumner’s first public speech after the adjourn¬
ment of Congress was in Faneuil Hall, where he
presided at a meeting held to ratify the state nom¬
inations, and urged the voters of Massachusetts to
maintain the Republican party, saying : “ So long
as anybody assails the Declaration of Independ¬
ence the Republican party cannot cease its patri¬
otic labors.” The speech contained no reference
to the administration or to the treaties, and no hint
of any difference with the President.
At the next session the President in his annual
message reiterated his conviction that the interests
of the country demanded the ratification of the San
Domingo treaties, and he recommended the appoint¬
ment of commissioners to negotiate a new treaty
for the acquisition and an appropriation for their
expenses. He said : “ I now firmly believe that
the moment it is known that the United States
have entirely abandoned the project of accepting
as a part of its territory the island of San Domingo,
a free port will be negotiated for by European na¬
tions in the Bay of Samana, — a large commercial
city will spring up, to which we shall be tributary
without receiving corresponding benefits, and then
will be seen the folly of our rejecting so great a
prize.” Thirty years have elapsed since these words
were written, and no great foreign city has sprung
up on the Bay of Samana. The cry is ancient that
acquisitions, useless or worse to us, are much de¬
sired by other nations, but experience has never
proved it true.
388
CHARLES SUMNER
An attempt was made at the outset of the ses¬
sion to change the committee on foreign relations,
in order to get a body more favorable to the pro¬
ject. The first suggestion was to drop Sumner or
Schurz, but it was decided to leave them and to
substitute Conkling for Patterson. The commit¬
tee thus changed was reported to the caucus, but
Sumner objected and the change was abandoned.
The first move was made by Sumner, who, on
December 9, offered a resolution calling for all
the correspondence and instructions relating to the
former treaty, the directions given to our naval
officers, and other information. On December 12
Senator Morton offered resolutions authorizing the
President to appoint a commission with authority
to inquire into matters' bearing upon annexation.
The latter resolution was taken up first and pressed
to a vote, without reference to a committee which
was refused. It was treated by its supporters as
a resolution of inquiry, and the commission con¬
templated by it was very different from that which
the President wanted. It was an attempt to tem¬
porize. Sumner opposed it vigorously on Decem¬
ber 21, pointing out that it was unnecessary, since
the President already had power to appoint com¬
missioners and money enough in the secret service
fund to pay their expenses. He argued that the
only effect of the resolution was to commit the
country, and that it was offered for this purpose.
He discussed the history of the rejected treaty,
criticised Baez, and condemned the use of the
SAN DOMINGO
389
navy, which had been employed to keep Baez in
power that he might sell his country. He did not
attack the President personally, but he criticised
the course of the administration, and described the
whole project as an attempt to deprive a feeble
people of their independence by methods unjusti¬
fiable in law or morals. He spoke evidently with
strong feeling, and his speech, though in form
merely an attack upon a policy, was in effect an
arraignment of the President. He was absolutely
right in his positions, but his language and manner
were unfortunate, and he excited a feeling which
made it harder to attain his object. His opening
sentence was : —
“ The resolution before the Senate commits Con¬
gress to a dance of blood. It is a new step in a
measure of violence. Already several steps have
been taken, and Congress is now summoned to an¬
other.’’
Addressing the Vice-President, he said : —
“ Go to the President, I ask you, and address
him frankly with the voice of a friend to whom he
must hearken. Counsel him to shun all approach
to the example of Franklin Pierce, James Buch¬
anan, and Andrew Johnson ; tell him not to allow
the oppression of a weak and humble people ;
ask him not to exercise war powers without au¬
thority of Congress ; and remind him, kindly,
but firmly, that there is a grandeur in justice and
peace beyond anything in material aggrandizement,
beyond anything in war. ... I am not insensi-
390
CHARLES SUMNER
ble to the commercial and material prosperity of
my country. But there is something above these.
It is the honor and good name of the Republic,
now darkened by an act of wrong. If this terri¬
tory so much coveted by the President were infi¬
nitely more valuable than it is, I hope the Senate
would not be tempted to obtain it by trampling on
the weak and humble.”
This speech led to sharp replies, and Sumner
answered, repeating what he had in fact said to
the President in the interview at his house, and
declaring that his “ language was precise, well-con¬
sidered, and chosen in advance.” It was entirely
characteristic of Sumner that he did not see how
his words were calculated to irritate the President.
At the close of his last speech during the debate he
insisted : “ I said nothing to arraign Grant,” and
disclaimed any disposition to do so. But it was
impossible for him to feel so strongly as he did
without making his feeling apparent, even though
his language was impersonal. His words were
those of one outraged at a wrong and determined
to expose it as a matter of duty, though not willing
to call names. The President recognized and un¬
doubtedly exaggerated Sumner’s feeling ; he felt
himself attacked, and from that moment his hos¬
tility to Sumner was settled.
The debate became very bitter, and Sumner was
sharply criticised by Conkling, Edmunds, Carpen¬
ter, Chandler, and others, who attributed his atti¬
tude to personal resentment. It is certainly true
SAN DOMINGO
391
that he was indignant with the President for treat¬
ing his opposition as a personal matter, and his
indignation undoubtedly affected his speech. It
is not true that any personal feeling led him to
oppose the treaty, or to condemn the acts by which
Baez was supported and the treaty negotiated.
The President’s purpose and methods were bad,
and Sumner was sure to oppose them, though his
language might have been more persuasive.
When Sumner made this speech he was familiar
with the facts disclosed by the records of the State
and Navy Departments ; but the country was igno¬
rant of them, so that the justice of his criticisms
was not apparent. His resolution of December 9
was intended to elicit these facts, and after the
passage of Morton’s resolution it was taken up on
January 4, and passed without a division. Another
resolution, calling for orders and facts relating to
the naval force then in the waters of San Domingo,
was also passed on February 15, and the answer
to these brought out the whole history which had
inspired Sumner’s speech.
Meanwhile Morton’s resolution was taken up in
the House on January 9, under a suspension of
the rules, and was passed the next day. General
Butler leading for the administration. It was,
however, amended by a provision that it should not
be considered as committing Congress to the policy
of annexation, whereby its real purpose was de¬
feated. The Senate at once passed it as amended
and the commission was appointed. Their report
392
CHARLES SUMNER
was in line with the President’s recommendation,
but led to no action.
A contest with the administration involving so
much personal bitterness, and the disturbance of
long-established relations, was a serious strain upon
Sumner. Age and unremitting labor began to tell
upon his strength. During much of the session he
suffered from some difficulty in his throat or lungs,
which gradually weakened him until, on February
18, he had an attack of angina pectoris^ his old
trouble, which was very severe, and kept him from
the Senate for a week. His condition after this
attack is described by W endell Phillips : —
“ The doctors say the only policy is rest ; the
more he ’ll take, the better health, and the better
chance of life prolonged. I argued and prayed,
so did we all. . . . The Russian minister said to
me, ‘ Make him rest — he must. No man in Wash¬
ington can fill his place, — no man^ no man. W e
foreio-ners all know he is honest. We do not
think that of many.’ ”
Sumner’s relations with Mr. Fish had continued
unchanged, notwithstanding the controversy over
San Domingo, and on December 23, after his
speech in the Senate, Sumner dined at Fish’s house.
On January 9, 1871, the President sent to the Sen¬
ate the papers relating to the recall of Motley,
among which was a letter, in which Motley alluded
to the statement that he was removed on account
of Sumner’s opposition to the treaty. Fish’s reply
was that this rumor originated “ in a source bitterly,
SAN DOMINGO
393
personally, and vindictively hostile to the Presi¬
dent,” clearly indicating Sumner, and continued : —
“ Mr. Motley must know — or, if he does not
know it, he stands alone in his ignorance of the
fact — that many senators opposed the San Do¬
mingo treaty openly, generously, and with as much
efficiency as did the distinguished senator to whom
he refers, and have nevertheless continued to enjoy
the undiminished confidence and the friendship of
the President, — than whom no man living is more
tolerant of honest and manly differences of opinion,
is more single or sincere in his desire for the public
welfare, or more disinterested or regardless of what
concerns himself, is more frank and confiding in
his own dealings, is more sensitive to a betrayal
of confidence, or would look with more scorn and
contempt upon one who uses the words and the
assurances of friendship to cover a secret and
determined purpose of hostility.”
These words were absolutely without excuse,
and conveyed a charge against Mr. Sumner unwar¬
ranted by any statement of facts made by Mr. Fish
or his defenders. No one else, who had known
Mr. Sumner so long and so well as Mr. Fish had
done, would have believed Mr. Sumner capable of
duplicity, nor can any motive for it be suggested.
The object of duplicity is to deceive, and Mr. Sum¬
ner’s opposition to the treaty was open, so soon as
he understood its provisions. Nothing could be
gained by a promise of sup])ort broken at once,
and it is perfectly clear that no promise was ever
394
CHARLES SUMNER
given. The whole nature, training, experience,
and standards of Grant and Sumner made it easy
for them to misunderstand each other. Mr. Fish
had no such excuse for misrepresenting him, and it
is charitable to believe that he did not, in writing
to Motley, fully appreciate how his words would
read if published. At all events he understood
afterward what they meant ; for three days later,
though nothing but the publication of the letter
had occurred to change his relations with Mr.
Sumner, he sent Mr. Patterson to inquire how
Mr. Sumner would receive him if he called upon
public business. Sumner replied : “ That should
the secretary come to my house he would be
received as an old friend, and that at any time I
should be at his service for consultation on pub¬
lic business ; but that I could not conceal my deep
sense of personal wrong received from him abso¬
lutely and without excuse.”
Fish accordingly called, and the two had a frank
and full conversation upon the Alabama claims;
but a few days later Sumner refused to recognize
Fish at dinner.
The Forty-first Congress expired on March 4,
and its successor met on the same day and re¬
mained in session until May 27. In the debate
on the Morton resolution in December, Conkling
had indicated that Sumner was to be removed from
the chairmanship of the committee on foreign rela¬
tions, and this was done when the committees were
elected at the beginning of the new Congress,
SAN DOMINGO
395
Howe, Nye, and Pool, a majority of the caucus
committee, reported a list of committees, putting
Cameron in Sumner’s place and making Sumner
chairman of the committee on privileges and elec¬
tions. Sherman and Morrill of Vermont, the other
members of the committee, dissented. In private
conversation, Howe said that Sumner had offended
the President by the tone of his opposition to the
San Domingo treaty. In the caucus he said that,
as a majority of the Senate favored annexation, the
committee should be constituted in sympathy with
this feeling. After some debate in the caucus the
report was adopted, though Trumbull, the Morrills,
Ferry of Connecticut, Wilson, Logan, Schurz, and
others opposed it. Hamlin, Edmunds, Colliding,
Chandler, Howe, Carpenter, and the strong per¬
sonal following of the President were in the ma¬
jority. When the report was moved in the Senate
on March 10, Schurz opposed it. Howe, replying,
paid a high compliment to Sumner’s “ management
of the affairs of that committee in the years that
have passed,” and even said : “ If senators insist
upon it, I will admit that the senator from Massa¬
chusetts could, under happier circumstances, fill it
better than anybody else.”
After a debate, which was one long testimonial
to his fitness and which exposed the wrong that
was done him, the report was adopted. The Senate
refused to stand by Sumner, but yielded to execu¬
tive influence and removed him. It is not pro¬
posed to discuss the reasons which, in the contro-
396
CHARLES SUMNER
versy over the matter, were subsequently alleged
to justify this action. These were afterthoughts,
not suggested at the time, and disproved when they
were brought forward. The only reason alleged
in the discussion was that Sumner’s personal re¬
lations with the President and secretary were not
good, whereby the public business might suffer.
The charge, made later by Mr. Fish, that Sumner
had delayed action on treaties, was disproved by
the Senate records, when the injunction of secrecy
was removed. It is not proposed, however, to
discuss Mr. Fish’s action. For the purposes of
this biography it is enough to chronicle the fact
that Sumner’s opposition to the San Domingo
treaty, in which he was fully supported by the
opinion of the country, led to his removal at the
instance of the administration from the place which
he adorned. The whole chapter illustrates the
condition of our politics at the time, and is not
pleasant reading for a patriotic American.
The press and the public condemned the act of
the Senate, and it is perhaps sufficient to record
the judgment of Mr. Blaine, then the speaker of
the House, as given years afterward. He was
not naturally in sympathy with Sumner, though in
active opposition to some of his opponents : —
“ Many senators were compelled, from their sense
of obedience to the decision of the majority, to
commit an act against their conceptions of right,
against what they believed to be justice to a polit¬
ical associate, against what they believed to be
SAN DOMINGO
397
sound public policy, against what they believed to
be the interest of the Republican party.” Mr.
Sumner’s “ bearing was distinguished by dignity
and magnanimity. He gave utterance to no com¬
plaints, and silently submitted to the unjustifiable
wrong: of which he was a victim.”
The Joint High Commission to consider all
pending questions between Great Britain and this
country was then in session, and Sumner was re¬
moved from his position at the very crisis when a
question which he had made his own came up for
settlement. Mr. Blaine’s statement is true. He
bore himself with dignity and made no complaint,
simply excusing himself from service on the new
committee. The documents called for by his reso¬
lutions of January and February were sent to the
Senate, and the facts which had led him to oppose
the President were thus laid before the country.
On March 24 he introduced a series of resolutions
reciting these and calling for the withdrawal of our
naval forces from San Domingo pending negotia¬
tions, and for the disavowal of the threats uttered
by our naval officers to the government of Hayti
and of all hostile action taken by them upon the
island. The employment of our navy to maintain
Baez was condemned “ as morally wrong,” as a
violation of international law, as “ an infraction of
the Constitution of the United States and a usur¬
pation of power not conferred upon the President,”
and as unauthorized violence utterly without sup¬
port in law or reason, and proceeding directly from
398
CHARLES SUMNER
that kingly prerogative which is disowned by the
Constitution of the United States.”
Against a vigorous attempt to prevent it, Sumner
gained the floor and delivered a speech, which had
been prepared carefully and was far stronger than
his previous one, because it was more temperate
and impersonal. He now proved his facts by the
official records, and the severity lay in the facts
and the law. He declared that “ the navy of the
United States, acting under orders from Wash¬
ington, has been engaged in measures of violence
and of belligerent intervention, being war without
the authority of Congress.” This he certainly
established, and he made it evident how little the
administration had regarded the legal limitations
of executive power, and with what reckless violence
the attempt at annexation had been conducted.
He told the story of the Dominican adventurers
who were trying to sell their country, and the
case of Mr. Hatch, an American citizen, who was
arrested and imprisoned to prevent his using his
influence against annexation, because, said Baez,
“ a few weeks’ restraint would not be so incon¬
venient to him as his slanderous statements might
become to the success of General Grant’s policy in
the Antilles.”
The most direct attack upon Grant was this : —
“ It is difficult to see how we can condemn, with
proper, whole-hearted reprobation, our own domes¬
tic Ku-Klux with its fearful outrages, while the
President puts himself at the head of a powerful
SAN DOMINGO
399
and costly proceeding operating abroad in defiance
of international law and tlie Constitution of tbe
United States. . . . Nor should I do otherwise
than fail in justice to the occasion, if I did not
declare my unhesitating conviction, that, had the
President been so inspired as to bestow upon the
protection of Southern Unionists, white and black,
one half, nay, sir, one quarter, of the time, money,
zeal, will, personal attention, personal effort, and
personal intercession, which he has bestowed on
his attempt to obtain half an island in the Carib¬
bean Sea, our Southern Ku-Klux would have ex¬
isted in name only, while tranquillity reigned
everywhere within our borders.”
This was inserted on the morning of the speech,
and might better have been omitted. A. debate
followed, in which Sumner was attacked personally
by the President’s friends, and ably defended by
Schurz.
On April 5 the President sent the report of the
commission to Congress with a special message.
IVIorrill of Vermont replied to it, and then the San
Uomingo project was abandoned, as it was found
impossible to get the necessary support in Con¬
gress. Again Sumner had helped to keep the
right, though at terrible cost to himself.
Shortly after this Sumner spoke in favor of a
measure to stop the outrages of the Ku-Klux Klan,
standing in this case with many who had opposed
him; but after the defeat of the San Domingo
proposition the most important work of the session
400
CHARLES SUMNER
was tlie treaty of Washington. His relation to
the questions pending with England and the know¬
ledge that the country was behind him gave him
an influence unaffected by his removal from the
chairmanship of the committee. He conferred
with the English commissioners often and freely,
and in the Senate he made the leading speech in
support of the treaty. He offered, indeed, certain
amendments, to secure immunity for private pro¬
perty on the ocean and other ameliorations of war,
but he did not press them. The new treaty was in
substantial harmony with his views, and thus the
result of the session was gratifying to him.
His health called for rest, and he spent the sum¬
mer and autumn in visits and literary labors.
During this autumn General Butler made his first
attempt to win the Kepublican nomination for
governor of Massachusetts. His campaign was
extraordinary, and the prospects of his success
were at one time so good that Sumner and Wilson
were induced to throw their influence against him,
which was done by the publication of a statement,
prepared by Sumner and assented to by Wilson,
in which they expressed their regret at his course,
and their opinion that “ his nomination as governor
would be hostile to the best interests of the Com¬
monwealth and the Republican party.” The hos¬
tility of the administration had not yet weakened
Sumner’s influence in Massachusetts, and it was
believed that his action defeated Butler, who from
this time was his enemy.
CHAPTER XXIV
CIVIL EIGHTS: grant’s RENOMINATION
The second session of the Forty -second Congress
began in December, 1871. An attempt was made
to reconcile the President and Sumner, but the
President did not receive it favorably, though he
had become reconciled to General Butler and was
much under his influence. It does not appear that
Sumner was cognizant of the effort.
The lines were forming for the campaign of 1872,
and the question of the President’s renomination
was beginning to press. On December 21 Sum¬
ner proposed a constitutional amendment making
the President ineligible for reelection, with a reso¬
lution which was in itself a stump speech in favor
of the proposition. This amendment had been
reported by the judiciary committee of the Senate
in 1867. As the preamble of Sumner’s resolution
recited, it had been three times recommended by
President Jackson ; President Harrison, in accept¬
ing his nomination, had supported it ; Henry Clay
had urged it ; the Whig party in 1844 had made
it a plank in their platform ; Senator Wade had
proposed it at the end of his senatorial term, and
De Tocqueville had dwelt on the danger arising
402
CHARLES SUMNER
from the desire of the President to be reelected.
The proposed amendment by its terms was not to
take effect until after March 4, 1873, so that it
* could not prevent President Grant’s renomination,
but in effect it was an argument against that action.
Certainly, if the facts were as stated in the resolu¬
tion, there was every reason for selecting a new can¬
didate. It was Sumner’s habit to use this method
of influencing public opinion, and undoubtedly he
now had this in view. The President’s friends all
opposed the resolution, but its purpose was accom¬
plished when it was presented and printed. It
showed his probable position in regard to the next
nomination.
At this session Sumner began in earnest the last
great struggle of his life to secure the protection
of equal rights by national statute. He had intro¬
duced what became known as the “ supplementary
civil rights bill” in May, 1870, but at the end of
the session the committee on the judiciary reported
against it. He introduced it again in January,
1871, and again an adverse report was made. In
March, 1871, he again offered it, and on his motion
it was ordered to lie on the table. At this ses¬
sion a resolution limiting legislation to certain sub¬
jects was passed against Sumner’s protest, and this
prevented the consideration of his measure. On
December 20, 1871, the Senate had under consid¬
eration an amnesty bill, and Mr. Sumner moved
his civil rights bill as an amendment. The first
section of this bill declared : “ That all citizens
CIVIL RIGHTS
403
of the United States, without distinction of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude,” were
entitled to “ equal and impartial facilities and ac¬
commodations from common carriers, innkeepers,
managers of theatres and other places of public
amusement, the officers of common schools and
other public institutions of learning, supported or
authorized by law, and the officers of church organ¬
izations, cemetery associations, and benevolent in¬
stitutions incorporated by public authority.” The
other sections prescribed penalties, gave the courts
of the United States jurisdiction to enforce the act,
forbade the exclusion of jurors by reason of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude, and an¬
nulled every state law inconsistent with the act.
A Ion Of discussion ensued between Mr. Sumner
o
and Senator Hill of Georgia, which brought out the
Southern point of view very clearly. Hill thought
that distinct accommodations in public convey¬
ances, inns, and schools, if equally good, were all
that the colored race could ask. Sumner insisted
that the distinction was an indignity to which no
man should be subjected, saying :
“ How often shall I say that this is no question
of taste, — it is no question of society, it is a
stern, austere, hard question of rights ? . . . I
may have whom I please as friend, acquaintance,
associate ; ... but I cannot deny any human be¬
ing, the humblest, any right of equality. He must
be equal with me before the law, or the promises
of the Declaration of Independence are not yet
fulfilled.”
404
CHARLES SUMNER
A point of order was overruled, and then the
amendment was defeated by one vote. Sumner
renewed his motion when the bill was reported to
the Senate, and on January 15 supported it by an
elaborate speech, which put the argument largely
on moral grounds, ignoring those legal objections
which led the Supreme Court in after years to de¬
clare the act unconstitutional. He easily showed
that evils existed, and that the civil rights of colored
men were not recognized in the South. He insisted
that if the Civil Eights Act was constitutional,
this supplemental measure was equally so, and that
since the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments
had made the colored man a citizen, well-settled
law compelled innkeepers and common carriers to
treat him as such. He argued against the preju¬
dice of color, placing himself on Eousseau’s propo¬
sition : “ It is precisely because the force of things
tends always to destroy equality that the force
of legislation should always tend to maintain it ; ”
and he contended that before rebels were restored
to rights and privileges which they had forfeited,
they should be compelled to give their colored fel¬
low citizens the equal rights which belonged to
them, thus making his amendment a condition of
amnesty. It is impossible to do more than indi¬
cate his line of argument. He contended for what
was right, and relied on arguments which appealed
to moral convictions, but which were not calculated
to meet the constitutional doubts of men who, like
himself, were in favor of equal rights, but who
CIVIL RIGHTS
405
were unwilling to exceed their power. In fact, the
constant reiteration of moral considerations, whose
force is admitted, inevitably irritates men who are
considering a legal question, nor is the irritation
diminished if the argument is presented in sono¬
rous phrase. Mr. Sumner’s amendment was
adopted by the casting vote of the Vice-President,
but the amended bill was defeated.
On May 8 another amnesty bill came from the
House, and Sumner again moved to amend by
striking out all after the enacting clause and in¬
serting his bill. This was lost by the casting vote
of the Vice-President. Sumner then moved it
as an addition, and it was adopted by the same
vote. The bill thus amended failed, as had its
predecessors. On May 10 Sumner again intro¬
duced his bill with some slight changes. On
May 21, when a bill to extend the provisions of
the so-called “ Ku-Klux Act ” was pending, and
an all-night session was ordered, Sumner, who
was unwell, left the Senate. In his absence, on
motion of Carpenter, his civil rights bill was taken
up and passed, amended by inserting a substitute,
which did not provide against discrimination in
schools, churches, cemeteries, or juries, and which
was in other respects imperfect. A protest was
made against this action in Sumner’s absence,
and he was sent for by friends, but arrived too late.
An amnesty bill was under consideration, which he
tried to amend by adding his bill, but his amend¬
ment was rejected and the bill passed, Sumner
406
CHARLES SUMNER
protesting. He then moved a reconsideration of
the vote which had been taken, but without suc¬
cess, and after a vigorous speech, in which he
charo:ed that the rio^hts of the colored race had
been sacrificed by the Republican majority in the
Senate, the discussion closed. The amnesty bill
became a law ; the civil rights bill was not con¬
sidered in the House. Three days before the ses¬
sion ended he moved his bill as an amendment to
the civil appropriation bill, but it was ruled out of
order, and so Congress adjourned without action on
the subject. The next session Sumner was unable
to attend, but on the first day of the Congress
which met on December 1, 1873, he again intro¬
duced his bill, in a new draft, but the same in
effect.
The debates just alluded to show that Sumner’s
mind was tired and that ill health was telling
upon him. He could not discuss the question to
which he had devoted his life without repeating
himself. His brain worked in channels which had
been worn deep by use, and he could not escape
from the lines of thought, or even the phrases, with
which he had grown so familiar. In his contest
with younger men like Carpenter and Conkling,
and amonof associates of whom some were inclined
to treat him with scant respect, there was something
pathetic in his efforts to make them feel what was
so clear and so vital to him. From this discussion
no one can get any just idea of Sumner’s power.
It is a sick and weary man, animated by high pur-
FRENCH ARMS
407
pose and with indomitable resolution, struggling
ajrainst obstacles of which his own weakness was
not the least. The form remained, the will and
purpose were there, the vigor and life were begin¬
ning to fail.
None the less Mr. Sumner took a leading part
durins: the session in other matters. He felt
keenly the methods and practices which discredited
the administration, and it was not in his nature
to let them pass unchallenged. On February 12,
1872, he introduced a resolution for a select com¬
mittee to investigate the sales of ordnance stores
made by the government during the Franco-Ger¬
man war, and said that the United States had fallen
under the suspicion of violating the neutrality laws,
and that therefore there should be an investigation.
This led to a long and sharp debate, for any re¬
flection on the government during Grant’s admin¬
istration was at once resented by his supporters,
who felt that his renomination was at stake. The
fact undoubtedly was that during this war large
amounts of arms and ammunition were sold by the
War Department to agents of the French govern¬
ment, and were sent to France. The only author¬
ity for this lay in the statute authorizing the sale
of arms and munitions of war, which were “ dam¬
aged or otherwise unsuitable ; ” but the arms sold
were of our best, and ammunition was manufac¬
tured at our arsenals for the purpose. The original
purchasing agents were Remington & Co. ; but
after their admitted relations with the French
408
CHARLES SUMNER
government made further sales to them imprudent,
later ones were made to a small country lawyer,
who lived in Ilion, where the Remingtons were
established in business. The sales amounted to
425,000 arms and 54,000,000 cartridges, and the
amount of money involved was more than |4,000,-
000. The circumstances were suspicious, the trans¬
action was illegal, and there was good reason
to suspect corruption ; therefore the demand for
an investigation was manifestly proper. The
debate was very animated, Sumner and Schurz
speaking for the investigation, while Carpenter,
Conkling, Edmunds, Morton, Frelinghuysen, and
others defended the War Department. Sumner
and Schurz were charged with want of patriotism,
with laying the United States open to claims from
Germany, and with being “ emissaries and spies ”
of foreiofn nations. Schurz took the more active
part, and carried off the honors of the debate.
Sumner closed the case, on February 28, with a
dignified and able presentation of the facts and the
law. It attacked no one and was free from per¬
sonality, but it left no doubt that an investigation
must be had. The supporters of the administra¬
tion did not dare to prevent it, and his resolution
passed, the preamble having been laid on the table
with his consent.
In reply to attack he said, “ The objection of
Senators is too much like the old heathen cry,
' Our country, right or wrong.’ Unhappy words,
which dethrone God and exalt the Devil ! I am
FRENCH ARMS
409
for our country with the aspiration that it may be
always right ; but I am for nothing wrong. When
I hear of wrong, I insist at all hazards that it shall
be made right, knowing that in this way I best
serve my country and every just cause.”
The opponents of the investigation next under¬
took to stifle it by appointing a committee, upon
which was placed no Republican who favored the
inquiry and only one Democrat. Sumner, attacked
by angina pectoris and disabled for a fortnight,
declined to serve on the committee, and Schurz
was denied a seat on it, though permitted to attend
its sessions and examine the witnesses. Both were
invited to testify and Sumner came, but protested
against being examined. He was then subpoenaed
and submitted to examination, but under protest
because the confidential communications on which
he had acted were privileged, and because the com¬
mittee was made up, in violation of parliamentary
law, from persons who did not favor the inquiry.
He was entirely willing to testify, though treated
with scant courtesy by members who resented his
protest.
The report, in which all the Republican members
joined, exonerated the War Department, and so
accomplished the result for which the committee
was organized ; but no impartial person can read
the evidence and feel satisfied with this conclusion.
The report was discussed in the Senate, but with¬
out final action, and the episode remained as one
count in the indictment which many Republicans
410
CHARLES SUMNER
were framing against the forces of which the Pre¬
sident was at once the leader and the instrument.
President Grant had used his appointing power
very freely to benefit his relatives and personal
friends, and he was surrounded and influenced by
politicians who did not command the public con¬
fidence. In the San Domingo affair he had shown
an obstinacy, a disregard of law, and an impa¬
tience of opposition, which had shaken the confi¬
dence of many ; and the corruption in the depart¬
ments and among his close friends, which in his
second administration led to scandals without pre¬
cedent in our history, was beginning to be generally
suspected. At the same time it was clear that the
power of the executive would be used to compass
his renomination and election, as it had been used
in behalf of the politicians whom he favored. The
Republican party as a whole was so much swayed
by the prejudices and passions of the war. Grant’s
personal popularity was so great, the Democratic
party was so thoroughly discredited, that the chance
of successfully opposing him either in the Republi¬
can convention or at the polls was very slight, but
many Republicans felt it a public duty to oppose
him, and among these were the very best of the
Republican leaders, as for example, Trumbull and
Schurz. A convention of Republicans opposed to
Grant was called to meet at Cincinnati on May
1, and the movement was supported by influen¬
tial newspapers like the New York “Tribune,”
the Chicago “Tribune,” the Cincinnati “Commer-
GRANT’S RENOMINATION 411
cial,” and others. It was rich in leaders, its prin¬
ciples were sound, it was entirely patriotic, the
need for it was imperative, but it was unfortunate
in its choice of a candidate, and its chance of per¬
manent influence was lost when its nominations
were made. The Republicans who had taken
prominent part against Grant had expended some
of their influence in so doing. A man of unques¬
tioned character and ability was needed, who would
command the respect of the country, and who had
not been weakened by political antagonisms. Such
a man was Charles Francis Adams, but unhappily
he spoke of the new movement somewhat con¬
temptuously and seemed indifferent to the ques¬
tions at issue. Sumner’s name was suggested, but
not with his approval, and finally the choice fell
upon Horace Greeley, a man of unquestioned abil¬
ity, high character, and intense earnestness, but
erratic and impulsive. His personal peculiarities
and his foibles invited ridicule, and the people
hardly treated him as a serious candidate. The
movement therefore failed, though Greeley was also
nominated by the Democrats and received more
than four ninths of the popular vote, which showed
the strength of the opposition to Grant.
Sumner was urged to join this political move¬
ment before the convention at Cincinnati , but
though in cordial sympathy with the opposition to
Grant and in close relations with Trumbull and
Schurz, he was reluctant to leave the Republican
party and hoped that Grant might be defeated in
412
CHARLES SUMNER
the Republican convention. He indeed sent to Mr.
F. W. Bird a draft of the platform, which, so far
as it demanded the equal rights of all, and declared
that emancipation and enfranchisement were finally
and forever secure, was in substance adopted ; but
he refused to declare his position until after the
convention had adjourned. Against many and
urgent appeals from both sides he preserved abso¬
lute silence when the prospects of the new move¬
ment were brightest, but after its failure, and when
Grant’s election seemed certain, he took his posi¬
tion. His reasons for hesitation were given in a
letter to Mr. Bird written late in May : —
“ Nor have I ever given a hint to a human being
as to my future course. My right hand has never
spoken it to my left. Of this I shall not speak
until I can see the whole field, and especially the
bearins’ on the colored race. I mean to fail in
nothing by which they may be helped ; therefore
all stories as to what I shall do, or shall not, are
inventions. Nobody will know my position sooner
than yourself. I honor you constantly. But I
seek two things : (1) the protection of the colored
race, and (2) the defeat of Grant.”
It was hard for him to sever his political relations
with his party and especially with men like his col¬
league Wilson, who had been his warm supporter
when he was first elected and who had been in sub¬
stantial harmony with him during their long asso¬
ciation in the Senate. His feelings were stated in
the speech by which he attempted to defeat the
GRANT’S RENOMINATION 413
nomination of Grant, making liis opportunity un¬
expectedly on May 31 by moving to postpone the
consideration of an appropriation bill. He spoke
to a full Senate, and among the listeners were three
members of the Cabinet and the President’s private
secretaries. It was published under the title of
“ Republicanism v. Grantism,” and it was the in¬
consistency between these which Sumner tried to
show. He began thus : —
“ I have no hesitation in declaring myself a mem¬
ber of the Republican party, and one of the strait-
est of the sect. I doubt if any senator can point
to earlier or more constant service in its behalf.
I began at the beginning, and from that early day
have never failed to sustain its candidates and to
advance its principles. . . . To such a party, with
which so much of my life is intertwined, I have no
common attachment. Not without regret can I see
it suffer ; not without a pang can I see it changed
from its original character, for such a change is
death. Therefore do I ask, with no common feel¬
ing, that the peril which menaces it may pass away.
I stood by its cradle ; let me not follow its hearse.”
He then pointed out that the party had become
“ the instrument of one man and his personal will,
recounting the history of the San Domingo treaty.
The general tenor of the speech may be gathered
from a part of the introductory statement ; —
“ Not only are Constitution and law disregarded,
but the presidential office itself is treated as little
more than a plaything and a perquisite. . . .
414
CHARLES SUMNER
Here the details are ample, showing how from the
beginning this august trust has dropped to be a per¬
sonal indulgence, where palace cars, fast horses,
and seaside loiterings figure more than duties ; how
personal aims and objects have been more promi¬
nent than the public interest ; how the presiden¬
tial office has been used to advance his own family-
on a scale of nepotism dwarfing everything of the
kind in our history, and hardly equaled in the
corrupt governments where this abuse has most
prevailed ; how in the same spirit office has been
conferred upon those from whom he had received
gifts or benefits, thus making the country repay his
personal obligations ; how personal devotion to him¬
self, rather than public or party service, has been
made the standard of favor ; how the vast ap¬
pointing power conferred by the Constitution for
the general welfare has been employed at his will
to promote his schemes, to reward his friends, to
punish his opponents, and to advance his election
to a second term ; how all these assumptions have
matured in a personal government, semi-military
in character and breathing the military spirit.”
The speech amplified fully the details of this
general outline. It condemned the President un¬
sparingly, and its charges were true, though it
was possible to put a much more charitable inter¬
pretation upon the facts than Sumner adopted.*
Grant’s unfitness and the dangers involved in his
rejection were clear to Sumner, and he determined
to make them equally clear to the country. Yet
GRANT’S RENOMINATION
415
it was an ineffectual speech. It was too elaborate,
too much encumbered with historical matter. It
dealt too much in generalities and sweeping accu¬
sations. If it had recognized President Grant’s
services and his good qualities, it would have
carried more weight. From the standpoint of the
practical politician it was a failure, — the attempt
and not the deed, which “ confounds.” Grant was
not a Caesar, as Sumner painted him. There was
no fear that he would overthrow our form of gov¬
ernment. The real peril was that unchecked cor¬
ruption would lower the public standards, and un¬
dermine that respect for the traditions of honorable
government upon which free institutions rest ; and
this danger was realized.
Sumner’s speech provoked bitter replies in the
Senate and adverse criticism from all supporters
of the Republican party. He must have been dis¬
appointed in its effect and pained to see the un¬
swerving allegiance of the party to an unfit man.
Nothing is harder to bear than the sense of hope¬
less failure, coming at a dangerous crisis to a man
who knows that he is right, but is wholly unable to
impress his convictions on others. Many friends,
even while recognizing his sincerity, could not but
feel that his vision was distorted by his personal
wrongs, and that his judgment was consequently
at fault. Among these were George William
Curtis, Mrs. Child, Whittier, Phillips, and others,
whose doubts were especially disappointing. Gar¬
rison bitterly attacked him in successive articles.
416
CHARLES SUMNER
Many of these lived to learn that Sumner was
right, and perhaps to regret all the more keenly
that he did not present his argument more effec¬
tively.
Though he had opposed Grant he had not yet de.
dared his readiness to support Greeley ; but after
the Republican convention had unanimously nomi¬
nated Grant, the next step was necessary. He was
urged by Republicans to remain silent, by the
friends of Greeley to speak, and finally, on July
29, he announced his decision in a reply to a re¬
quest for advice from a committee of colored men.
He dwelt upon Grant’s indignity to the colored
race in San Domingo and his neglect to help them
by supporting the civil rights bill ; he repeated
the charges of his speech ; he contrasted the
training of Greeley and Grant and their careers,
and finding in Greeley a lifelong Republican and a
consistent friend of the negro, he advised them to
support him, declaring that he proposed to do so.
Immediately after the publication of this letter
Mr. Blaine, then the speaker of the House, wrote
to him an open letter, charging him with being
false both to his party and his principles, and
pointing out that he was in singular alliance with
Confederates and allies of Preston S. Brooks.
Sumner replied effeetively and somewhat tartly :
“ You are greatly concerned about the company
I keep. To quiet your solicitude, I beg leave to
say that, in joining the Republicans who brought
forward an original Abolitionist, I find myself with
GRANT’S RENOMINATION
417
so iiian}^ others devoted to the cause I have always
served, that I had not missed you until you hastened
to report absence. ... You entirely misunder¬
stand me when you introduce an incident of the
past, and build on it an argument why I should
not support Horace Greeley. AVhat has Preston
Brooks to do with the Presidential election?
Never, while a sufferer, did anybody hear me
speak of him in unkindness ; and now, after the
lapse of more than half a generation, I will not
unite with you in dragging him from the grave,
where he sleeps, to aggravate the passions of a
political conflict, and arrest the longing for con¬
cord.”
In this letter he met the charge that a Demo¬
cratic victory would mean a reaction against the
rights of the colored race, asserting that, with
Greeley and a Congress elected upon the Demo¬
cratic platform, equal rights would be safe.
The session, with its sharp personal conflicts,
and the strain attending the severance of his rela¬
tions with the administration and his party, had
overtaxed his strength, and when it closed he
found himself with a feeble and irregular heart,
and other indications of exhaustion. He was in no
condition for a presidential campaign, in which his
feelings were so much enlisted, and his physicians
advised Europe. He took this advice, and sailed
on September 3. He was anxious to make one
speech in Faneuil Hall before he left, but under
medical advice he abandoned the idea, deterred
418
CHARLES SUMNER
not by the fear of death, but by the danger of
paralysis or some form of mental disability. He
accordingly wrote his speech, and it was pub¬
lished about the time of his departure. It began:
“ While recognizing party as an essential agency
and convenience, I could not allow it to restrain
my conscience against what seemed the require¬
ments of public good ; ” and then stated the argu¬
ments for Greeley and against Grant simply and
directly. He said that his first inclination was not
to vote at all, but that his doubts were removed when
the Democratic party accepted a Republican plat¬
form, “ the best ever adopted, with a Republican
candidate who was the most devoted Republican
ever nominated, thus completely accepting the re¬
sults of the war, and offering the hand of recon¬
ciliation.’^ The speech does not appear to have
produced any new effect upon the public mind.
His opposition to Grant had long been declared, and
it was easy to misrepresent his motives. On reach¬
ing England he learned, to his great surprise and
annoyance, that he had been nominated as the De¬
mocratic candidate for governor of Massachusetts,
and he at once cabled a positive refusal.
He spent a month in Paris, meeting American
friends, and many distinguished Frenchmen. He
devoted himself to the galleries, and to buying
works of art, books, bronzes, china ; but he could
not forget the abuse of which he had been the tar¬
get, and to which he alluded sadly in his letters.
Returning to London he was entertained pleasantly
GRANT’S RENOMINATION 419
by old and new English friends, but he and they
alike felt that it was his last visit, and there was
evidently that undercurrent of sadness which inev¬
itably attends the partings of later life. He passed
a night with John Bright, who wrote of the visit:
“ There was great gentleness in all he said, with
a sadness and a melancholy, which left upon us
the impression that he felt himself seriously ill, and
that his work of life was nearly ended.”
The trip seemed to help him, but his health was
by no means restored, and he was urged to prolong
his stay. His sense of duty, however, called him
back to the Senate, and he sailed on November
14, reaching New York on the 26th and lYashing-
ton on the 29th, the day of Mr. Greeley’s death,
which was a serious shock to him.
When the session opened he was so ill that he
asked to be excused from service on committees,
and from December 19 until the following March
he was not in his seat at all, nor did he after
December 18 take any part in the business of the
Senate. On the opening day of the session he
offered the following bill : —
‘‘ Whereas the national unity and good-will
among fellow citizens can be assured only through
oblivion of past differences, and it is contrary to
the usage of civilized nations to perpetuate the
memory of civil war : Therefore, — it cno^ct^d^
That the names of battles with fellow citizens shall
not be continued in the Army Register, or placed
on the regimental colors of the United States. ’
420
CHARLES SUMNER
He attempted without success to press his civil
rights bill and his bill to secure equality in the
schools of the District, and spoke briefly on minor
topics. In his eulogy of his former associate, Gar¬
rett Davis, and in some remarks prepared to be
spoken of Horace Greeley there was an apparent
recognition that his own end was near, and a gen¬
tle kindliness which was pathetic. Smarting from
the wounds inflicted by former friends he felt the
beauty and the uses of charity. Such was his work
for the session.
The bill just quoted provoked an unexpected re¬
sponse. Already in 1862 and 1865 he had intro¬
duced similar propositions without exciting adverse
criticism, and his purpose was clearly reasonable.
His position cannot be stated better than in these
words of Carl Schurz in his eulogy : —
“ Let the dead man have a hearing. This was
his thought : No civilized nation, from the republics
of antiquity down to our days, ever thought it wise
or patriotic to preserve in conspicuous and durable
form the mementos of victories won over fellow
citizens in civil war. Why not? Because every
citizen should feel himself with all others as the
child of a common country, and not as a defeated
foe. All civilized governments of our days have
instinctively followed the same dictate of wisdom
and patriotism. . . .
“ Should the son of South Carolina, when at
some future day defending the Republic against
some foreign foe, be reminded by an inscription on
THE BATTLE-FLAG BILL
421
the colors floating over him that under this flag
the gun was fired that killed his father at Gettys¬
burg? Should this great and enlightened Repub¬
lic, proud of standing in the front of human pro¬
gress, be less wise, less large-hearted, than the
ancients were two thousand years ago, and the
kingly governments of Europe are to-day ? . . .
“ Do you want conspicuous mementos of your
victories ? They are written upon the dusky brow
of every freeman who was once a slave ; they are
written on the gate-posts of a restored Union ; and
the most glorious of all will be written on the faces
of a contented people, reunited in common national
pride.”
Now it happened that in December, 1872, the
legislature of Massachusetts was holding an extra
session. A country member introduced a resolu¬
tion condemning the senator’s bill, and the com¬
mittee to which it was referred gave him a private
hearing. On the last day of the session this reso¬
lution was reported by half the committee, and
after a debate, in which Sumner’s purpose was
wholly misrepresented by those who favored the
resolution, it was passed. The legislators feared
the ancer of the veterans, and this fear carried the
resolution. As adopted it described Sumner’s bill
as an insult to the loyal soldiery of the nation ”
and as “ meeting the unqualified condemnation of
the people of the Commonwealth.”
This astonished Sumner, who wrote : “ I cannot
understand this tempest. The resolution which is
422
CHARLES SUMNER
treated so severely is an old inhabitant, I have
already brought it forward in substance twice be¬
fore this last motion. ... I know that I never
deserved better of Massachusetts than now. It
was our State which led in requiring all safeguards
for liberty and equality ; I covet for her that other
honor of leading in reconciliation.”
His own bill was not taken up in the Senate, for
he wished to take part in the debate and his health
rendered this impossible. The leaders of Massa¬
chusetts, however, rallied to his support, and when
the new legislature met in January, 1873, an at¬
tempt was made to have the resolution of censure
rescinded. A very strong petition was presented,
supported by energetic speech and action ; but the
movement failed, owing largely to the efforts made
by members of the previous legislature, who wished
not to be discredited so promptly and who argued
that one legislature could not reverse an expression
of opinion by another. Party feeling, fear of “ the
soldier vote,” desire to propitiate the administra¬
tion, carried the day, and it was a year before the
legislature of Massachusetts removed the blot which
the legislature of 1872 had placed upon the good
name of the State.
Such action from his own State, coming when
he was prostrated by disease and discouraged by
the political situation, naturally hurt Mr. Sumner,
but did not change his purpose. He was deter¬
mined to persuade Massachusetts, and wrote:
“ How a cultivated heathen could differ from me I
THE BATTLE-FLAG BILL 423
do not understand. History is full of examples to
sustain me ; only the sea and tiger are as blind
and senseless in ferocity as party hate. I long to
state the case.”
Unhappily his strength was not sufficient for
the undertaking. During the whole winter he suf¬
fered from recurring attacks of angina pectoris
with constant nervous pains, sleeplessness, and gen¬
eral weakness. From the time when he left the
Senate in December until May he was substantially
confined to the house, and employed himself in
reading and chatting with his visitors, keeping his
mind as free from disturbing thoughts as possible.
He wrote one or two brief letters for publication
favoring equal civil rights, but he was substantially
withdrawn from public life. He was naturally de¬
pressed in spirits by his sickness, and there was
nothing in the political situation or prospect to
encourage him. Even men in full health were
saddened by the acts and tendencies of the day.
At a time when his great and unselfish services
should have surrounded him with respect and
honor, it was hard to feel that his influence was
weakened, and that the legislature of his own State
was hostile.
Nor was it so much the condemnation of himself
as the uncivilized attitude of the Commonwealth
which depressed him. The change which the four
years of Grant^s administration had wrought in
the character of the Republican party, and in his
own position, was bitter to the taste. Add to this
424
CHARLES SUMNER
the death of old friends like Seward, Chase, and
Greeley, the paralysis of Wilson, the retirement of
others from public life, and it is not surprising
that he felt the increasing isolation of advancing
years. A host of friends were busy in writing
him letters of regard and sympathy, and these were
very pleasant, but his position was inevitably
lonely. When the Senate met in special session
on March 4, 1873, he went to present the creden¬
tials of Governor Boutwell, his new colleague, but
he was not invited to the caucus of the Kepublicans,
and was substantially without party relations. No-
thins: was ne2;lected that could make him feel the
O O
consequences of opposing the President.
Sumner refused to visit Europe again, as his
friends advised, and reached Boston on August 2,
feeling very much better. He spent the autumn
there and in visits, writing occasional letters upon
public questions.
He grew stronger for a while, so that he could
enjoy the society of his friends ; he went to the Sat¬
urday Club and other like social organizations ; he
occasionally spoke briefly, avoiding controversial
topics and leaving on all who met him an impres¬
sion of gentleness and kindliness. He renewed
early acquaintances, some of whom had been es¬
tranged from him by political differences, and it
seemed as if, having abandoned the consideration
of political questions, he returned to the simple
friendliness of his youth. It was the pleasant even-
injr of his life, his last visit to his native State. He
LAST VISIT TO MASSACHUSETTS 42&
was cordially received, and the general expression
of respect and regard, which met him everywhere,
made him feel that he was appreciated at home
and dispelled the sense of injustice and wrong
which had clouded the previous winter. He learned
on her own soil that Massachusetts did not con¬
demn him and that the resolution of the legislature
did her as much injustice as it did him. He was
assured on every hand that his reelection to the
Senate was certain, and he returned to his seat
refreshed in body and cheered in mind by touching
again his native earth.
CHAPTER XXV
THE LAST SESSION
Sumner had borne himself during this period
with entire dignity. He had made no complaints,
had in no way discussed his party relations, but
had simply, so far as his health permitted, pro¬
ceeded as before. His absence from the Senate
and the known condition of his health had per¬
mitted exasperation to subside, so that on his return
he found his associates disposed to welcome him
with cordiality.. He was not recognized as a Re¬
publican, owing to the opposition of the senators
who assumed to represent the administration, and
as a member of the Democratic party he was given
inferior places on two unimportant committees.
He was again where he stood when he entered the
Senate, with such influence only as came from his
personal character and arguments.
He showed how great was the improvement in
his health by at once introducing several measures,
including his civil rights bill ; the bill to secure
equality in the schools of the District ; a bill for
the payment of the F rench spoliation claims ; a
bill to hasten specie payments ; a proposition for
the election of the president by popular vote for
THE LAST SESSION
427
one term ; and one for international arbitration.
His programme indicated no sense of failing power
or desire to avoid controversy ; it showed, on the
contrary, a resolute determination to deal with all
the more important questions before the country.
On the second day of the session he moved to
take up his civil rights bill, saying that it had
been well considered and would require no debate.
Objection was made and a reference urged. Sum¬
ner asked for speedy action, but the Senate refused.
Later a motion to refer it to the committee on the
judiciary was made, which Sumner opposed. He
recited the action repeatedly taken on the bill by
the committee since its first introduction in May,
1870, and urged that the committee could not fur¬
ther enlighten the Senate, which itself had fully
debated and indeed passed the bill. He appealed
personally to Edmunds, to join him in supporting
the measure, saying : “ My desire, the darling
desire, if I may say so, of my soul, at this moment,
is to close forever this great question, so that it
shall never again intrude into these chambers, —
so that hereafter in all our legislation there shall
be no such words as ‘black’ or ‘white,' but that
we shall speak only of citizens and of men.”
Finally, on a j^romise from Mr. Frelinghuysen,
in which Edmunds joined, that the bill should be
reported promptly, Sumner consented to the refer¬
ence. It was his last speech on the subject. Be¬
fore the bill was reported, he died ; but after his
death it passed the Senate with some changes, and
428
CHARLES SUMNER
ultimately became the law, only to be declared un-
constitutional by the Supreme Court, which con¬
strued the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments
strictly, thereby justifying Sumner’s objection to
the wording of these amendments and his advo¬
cacy of more sweeping language when they were
under discussion in Congress. He lived to urge
and to see enacted every law which Congress had
the power to pass in aid of equal rights and against
distinctions of color. He proposed and pressed
nearly to enactment, the act which he considered
necessary to complete the work, and its ultimate
failure came from causes beyond his control. All
that man could do he did for the cause so near to
his heart. '
This year for the first time he felt that he could
leave the Senate and attend the New England din¬
ner in New York on December 22, and there he
made his last speech outside the Senate. It was a
brilliant occasion, and he was welcomed with the
warmest demonstrations by the whole audience.
The genuine enthusiasm of the distinguished com¬
pany made Mr. Sumner feel again that his coun¬
trymen were not alienated, and it was a pleasant
memory during the few weeks of life that remained
to him.
The rest may be told briefl}^ After the holiday
recess and his attempt to pass the civil rights bill
Sumner continued in apparently good health until
the beo^inniiiG: of March. He busied himself in
editing his speeches on the civil rights bill, and
THE LAST SESSION
429
in the preparation of his Works. He was pre¬
pared to support the nomination of Caleb Cushing
for chief justice, believing him well fitted for
the position and likely to be sound on questions
involving equal rights. When his name was with¬
drawn and that of Chief Justice Waite was sub¬
stituted, he made in executive session a speech
upon the office and its requirements, with very in¬
teresting reminiscences of Marshall and others
whom he had known. He spoke on some other
matters briefly. The legislature of Massachusetts
rescinded in February, 1874, its resolution of cen¬
sure, and the record of this action was delivered to
him on March 6. This was a great gratification,
and was the theme of many pleasant letters. His
attitude towards the world at this time may be
given in the words of a friend : —
“ I saw him frequently and familiarly during the
last four months of his life, and wish to give my
testimony to the gentleness and kindliness of his
temj^er during all that time, and to the fact that
he uttered no word of harshness or censure in my
hearing concerning any human being.”
The clouds which had shadowed the last years
had disappeared ; he was at peace with mankind,
and his work was done. His comrades in the great
battle were passing away, and he was not loath to
lay down his burden. Early in March the attacks
of angina pectoris began to recur. On March 6
he spoke for the last time in the Senate on the bill
for the centennial exhibition at Philadelphia. On
430
CHARLES SUMNER
the 10th he visited the Senate, where Senator BouU
well presented the resolution of the Massachusettb
legislature, and remained there some time talking
with friends, but complaining of pain. At six
o’clock Henry L. Pierce and B. P. Poore found him
writing letters, and remained to dine with him.
Almost immediately after they left he had a severe
attack of pain, followed by others, which were
deadened by injections of morphine, and from that
time he slowly sank till his death on the afternoon
of March 11. E. R. Hoar, Carl Schurz, and others
of his friends were with him during the day, and
to Judge Hoar he said several times : “You must
take care of the civil rights bill, — my bill, the
civil rights bill, — don’t let it fail ; ” and his last
message was: “eTudge, tell Emerson how much I
love and revere him ; ” and so passed away the man
of whom Emerson said that he had “ the whitest
soul of any man I ever knew.”
It would be easy to fill a volume with extracts
from the eulogies which were pronounced after his
death, but it may be permitted to preserve at least
a few words from E. R. Hoar, who held his hand
as he died : —
“ Wherever the news of the event spreads
through this broad land, not only in this city among
his associates in the public councils, not only in the
old Commonwealth of which he was the pride and
ornament, but in many quiet homes, in many a cabin
of the poor and lowly, there is to-day inexpressible
tenderness and profound sorrow.”
THE LAST SESSION
431
Charles Sumner was a great man in his absolute
fidelity to principle, his clear perception of what
his country needed, his unflinching courage, his
perfect sincerity, his persistent devotion to duty,
his indifference to selfish considerations, his high
scorn of anything petty or mean. He was essen¬
tially simple to the end, brave, kind, and pure. In
his prime he was a very eloquent speaker, and his
unbending adherence to the highest morality gave
him insight and power in dealing with great ques¬
tions and a strong hold upon the moral forces of
the country. As Emerson said, he was for many
years the conscience of the Senate.”
He was a man of great ability but not of the
highest intellectual power, nor was he a master of
style. He was not incisive in thought or speech.
His orations were overloaded, his rhetoric was often
turgid, he was easily led into irrelevance and undue
stress upon undisputed points. His untiring indus¬
try as a reader had filled his memory with associa¬
tions which perhaps he valued unduly. Originally
modest and not self-confident, the result of his long
contest was to make him egotistical and dogmatic.
There are few successful men who escape these pen¬
alties of success, the common accompaniment of
increasing years. A man who is trying to produce
definite results naturally and properly wishes to
know how far he has succeeded. No one aims at
a mark without caring to discover whether his shot
hits, and the speaker or writer who is seeking to
influence public opinion must know whether his
432
CHARLES SUMNER
words tell, in order to guide his future action.
From this proper interest the transition to egotism
is easy. Sumner’s naively simple nature, his con¬
fidence in his fellows, and his lack of humor com¬
bined to prevent his concealing what many feel but
are better able to hide.
From the time he entered public life till he died
he was a strong force constantly working for right¬
eousness. He had absolute faith in the principles
of free government as laid down in the Declaration
of Independence, and he gave his life to secure
their practical recognition. They were not to him
glittering generalities, but ultimate, practical truths,
and in this faith Lincoln and Sumner were one.
To Sumner more than to any single man, except
possibly Lincoln, the colored race owes its emanci¬
pation and such measure of equal rights as it now
enjoys. To Sumner more than to any single man
the whole country owes the prevention of war with
England and France when such a war would have
meant the disruption of the Union.
Such men are rare in the public life of any
nation, and when we depart from the principles
which they believe and practice we may well trem¬
ble for the permanence of our government, for, as
Lowell said, this will endure only “ so long as the
ideas of the founders remain dominant.”
INDEX
INDEX
Abolitionists, begin with Lundy and
Garrison, 37 ; form anti-slavery
societies, 37 ; their platform, 37,
38; accused by South of inciting
negroes to insurrection, 38; perse¬
cution of, in North, 39; petition
Congress, 40; denounce Sumner for
slowness to attack slavery, 91, 92.
Adams, Charles Francis, opposes ad¬
mission of Texas, 43 ; denounces
Winthrop’s vote for Mexican war,
46; presides over convention of
Conscience Whigs, 52; supports
Sumner’s resolutions against Mex¬
ican war, 54; supports Palfrey’s
resolutions at Whig convention of
1847, 54 ; signs call for Free-Soil
convention, 58 ; nominated for vice¬
presidency, 59 ; opposes compro¬
mise of 1850, 74 ; opposes coalition
with Democrats, 76; suggests testi¬
monial to Sumner in 1856, 155;
elected to Congress, 162 ; sup¬
ports compromise measures in 1861 ,
189; has breach with Sumner on this
point, 189 ; opposes issuing of letters
of marque, 241; warns Russell of
consequences of failure to stop
Laird rams, 243 ; speaks contemptu¬
ously of movement against Grant,
411.
Adams, John Quincy, his course in
Congress admired by Sumner, 31;
fights for the right of petition, 40 ;
votes against Mexican war bill, 46;
quoted by Sumner with regard to
emancipation, 202.
Adolphus, John Leycester, meets
Sumner in 1838, 21.
Agassiz, J. L. R., visits Sumner, 346.
Alabama, beginning of secession in,
180.
Alaska, acquired by United States,
338, 339.
Alderson, Baron Edward Hall, enter¬
tains Sumner, 20.
Allen, Charles, bolts Taylor’s nomi¬
nation, 58.
Allston, Washington, in Boston soci¬
ety of 1840, 28; his death, 30.
“American Jurist,” contributions of
Sumner to, 8, 10, 14.
Andrew, John A., at convention of
Conscience Whigs, 52; appoints
delegates to Peace Conference, 192;
applauds Wilkes’s action in Trent
affair, 209 ; opposes renomination
of Lincoln, 271 ; reluctant to antag¬
onize Johnson in 1865, 295.
Anti-Masons, connection of C. P. Sum¬
ner with, 4, 7.
Argyll, Duchess of, complains to Sum¬
ner of his speech against ratification
of Johnson-Clarendon treaty, 368.
Argyll, Duke of, meets Sumner in
1857, 159; entertains him in 1859,
164 ; regrets Sumner’s denuncia¬
tion of England, 252.
Arkansas, reconstruction of, under
Lincoln, 269 ; refusal of Congress
to recognize, 269.
Ashley, James M., removed from
governorship of Montana by Grant,
382.
Atchison, David R., urges South to
hold Kansas at all costs, 134.
Austin, Charles, meets Sumner in
1838, 21.
Babcock, General Orville E., sent by
Grant to investigate San Domingo,
379 ; makes treaties to annex it,
380; prepares to defend Baez gov¬
ernment by force, 380.
436
INDEX
Baez, Buenaventura, President of San
Domingo, proposes annexation, 379 ;
makes treaties with Babcock, 380 ;
supported by United States navy,
380 ; criticised by Sumner, 388,
398.
Baillie, Joanna, met by Sumner in
1838, 21.
Bancroft, George, in Boston in 1840,
28.
Banks, Nathaniel P., his share in
reconstruction of Louisiana, 283 ;
introduces bill to authorize Presi¬
dent to protect American citizens
by reprisals, 354.
Bates, Edward, gives United States
marshals instructions to execute
the Fugitive Slave Law, 198.
Bates, Joshua, writes to Seward op¬
posing issue of letters of marque,
240, 241.
Bell, John, candidate for presidency
in 1860, 176.
Belper, Lord, visited by Sumner in
1859, 164.
Benjamin, Judah P., on necessity of
counteracting personal liberty laws,
126.
Benton, Thomas H., presents petition
of New Mexico against slavery, 66;
introduces bill to compensate Texas,
69.
Bigelow, George T., applauds Wilkes’s
action in Trent affair, 209.
Bigelow, John, advocates Sumner’s
reelection to the Senate, 232.
Binney, Horace, entertains Sumner, 11.
Bird, F. W., sent a platform by Sum¬
ner for use in Republican conven¬
tion, 412.
Blaine, James G., on reasons for Sum¬
ner’s deposition from committee on
foreign affairs, 396 ; charges Sum¬
ner with alliance with Confederates,
416.
Blair, Montgomery, disapproves
Wilkes’s action in Trent affair, 209.
Blessington, Lady, meets Sumner in
1838, 21.
Border States, favorable to emanci¬
pation in 1850, 68 ; importance of
retaining, in 1861, 185, 197; policy
of Lincoln toward, 197, 198 ; es¬
trangement of, risked by Sumner,
202 ; furnish troops to Union army^
204 ; unquestionably saved by 1863,
235.
Boston, society in, 14-16, 28 ; Anthony
Bums case in, 109, 110; last visit
of Sumner to, 424.
Boston Latin School, studies of Sum¬
ner at, 5.
Boutwell, George S., urges coalition
of Democrats and Free-Soilers on
some other than Sumner, 83 ; Dem¬
ocratic candidate for governor,
elected over Winthrop, 85 ; secre¬
tary of treasury, 363 ; elected to
Senate, 424; presents resolutions
of Massachusetts rescinding censure
of Sumner, 430.
Breckinridge, John C., candidate for
President in 1860, 176.
Bright, John, entertains Sumner in
1857, 159 ; writes to Sumner against
issue by United States of letters of
marque, 240 ; informs Sumner of
English feeling, 247; the firmest
friend of the North, 248; said to
have been misled by Sumner as to
Reverdy Johnson’s mission, 357 ;
prepared by Sumner for rejection
of Johnson treaties, 360 ; indignant
at Sumner’s speech on rejection of
Johnson-Clarendon treaty, 368; on
Sumner’s sadness on his last English
visit, 419.
Broglie, Due de, met by Sumner in
Paris, 19.
Brooks, Preston S., assaults Sumner
in Senate, 145, 146; announces in¬
tention of killing Sumner if neces¬
sary, 146; not dealt with by Senate,
149; report of House committee
upon, 149; fined in Circuit Court,
150; censured by House, 150; re¬
signs and is reelected, 150; given
dinner by constituents, 150; praised
by Davis and Mason, 151; generally
approved by the South, 151, 152;
Sumner’s opinion of, 155, 417 ; hif.'
death, 158.
Brougham, Lord, becomes acquainted
with Sumner, 20; heard by Sumner
in Parliament, 22.
Brown, B. Gratz, favors resolution to
INDEX
437
retaliate on Southern prisoners,
280; offers proviso to strike out
“ white ” from Nebraska constitu¬
tion, 326.
Brown, John, his career in Kansas,
156; his raid in Virginia, 170.
Brown, Joseph E., opposes secession,
180.
Brown-S^quard, Dr., his treatment of
Sumner for spinal trouble, 161.
Bruce, Sir Frederick, tells Sumner
England will fight rather than pay
Alabama claims, 341; tells Sumner
England has accepted arbitration,
342.
Buchanan, James, agrees with Clay
and Webster as to finality of com¬
promise, 87 ; elected President, 157;
approves Lecompton constitution,
167 ; recommends admission of Kan¬
sas as a slave State, 168; incompe¬
tent in 1860, 182; his message on
secession, 183; vacillates regarding
Fort Sumter, 183; urges compro¬
mise, 184 ; hesitation of secession¬
ists to attack, for fear of offending
Democrats, 185 ; tells Sumner that
Massachusetts ought to adopt Crit¬
tenden resolutions, 190.
Burns, Anthony, recaptured as a fugi¬
tive slave, 109, 110, 118.
Butler, Andrew P., admits failure of
attempts to prevent agitation, 88 ;
has seat near Sumner, 89 ; claims
superior patriotism for South, 111,
113; denounces Sumner for refusal
to carry out Fugitive Slave Act,
111, 112; asks Sumner if he would
advise Massachusetts to pass a Fu¬
gitive Slave Act, 126 ; virulent at¬
tack upon, by Sumner, 139-142 ; his
death, 158.
Butler, General Benjamin F., calls
slaves “ contraband of war,” 198 ;
fails in conducting impeachment of
Johnson, 348 ; leads House to pass
resolution for San Domingo Com¬
mission, 391; prevented from get¬
ting Republican nomination in Mas¬
sachusetts by Sumner and Wilson,
400 ; becomes an enemy to Sumner,
400; gains influence over Grant,
401.
Cabral, - , rival of Baez for presi¬
dency of San Domingo, 379.
Calhoun, John C., heard in Senate by
Sumner, 12; demands annexation of
Texas, 41; makes treaty of annexa¬
tion, 42; in 1849, issues address de¬
manding union of South to secure
rights of slaveholders, 67.
California, settlement and first con¬
stitution of, 65, 69 ; admitted to
Union in 1850, 70, 71.
Cameron, Simon, replies to Butler’s
suggestion as to “contraband of
war,” 198 ; opposes annexation of
San Domingo, 385.
Campbell, Baron John, meets Sum¬
ner in 1838, 21.
Campbell, Thomas, met by Sumner in
1838, 21.
Canada, Confederate raid from, into
Vermont, 279 ; cession of, in pay¬
ment of Alabama claims suggested
by Fish, 370, 372.
Canning, George, quoted by Sumner
in 1863, 251.
Carlisle, Earl of, entertains Sumner
in 1838, 21.
Carlyle, Thomas, meets Sumner in
1838, 21.
Carpenter, Matthew H., attributes
Sumner’s attack on Grant to per¬
sonal feeling, 390; votes for Sum¬
ner’s removal from chairmanship,
395 ; moves to take up Sumner’s
civil rights bill, 405; defends War
Department against Schurz and
Sumner, 409.
Cass, Lewis, requests Sumner to
write article on American boundary
claims, 23 ; nominated for President,
57 ; tries to prevent Massachusetts
Democrats from voting for Sumner,
82 ; tries to suppress agitation, 87 ;
condemns Sumner’s Kansas speech,
142; resigns from Buchanan’s Cabi¬
net, 183.
Casserly, Eugene, opposes annexation
of San Domingo, 385.
Caucus, Sumner’s views on, 343.
Cavour, Count, meets Sumner in 1859,
163.
Chandler, Zachariah, favors bill to
retaliate on Southern prisoners.
438
INDEX
280; attacks Sumner for criticising
Grant, 390; favors removal of Sum¬
ner from chairmanship, 395.
Channing, William Ellery, his influ¬
ence over Sumner, 15 ; in Boston
society in 1840, 28; attacks Web¬
ster’s course in Creole case, 31 ; his
death, 49.
Chase, Salmon P., elected to Senate
by a coalition, 63 ; urges Sumner to
accept Free-Soil nomination for
Senate, 81 ; more of a politician than
Sumner, 86; friendly with Sumner,
89 ; offers resolutions against execu¬
tive sessions, 98; writes “Appeal of
Independent Democrats,” 106; at¬
tacked by Douglas, 106; approves
Sumner’s speech advocating resist¬
ance to Fugitive Slave Act, 121 ;
votes for repeal of Fugitive Slave
Act, 127 ; visited by Sumner in 1855,
128 ; considers threats of disunion
idle, 179; opposes compromises in
1861, 194; at dinner to discuss Trent
affair, 212 ; offers to resign, 236 ;
approves plan to issue letters of
marque, 241 ; approves Sumner’s de¬
nunciation of England, 252 ; agrees
with Sumner regarding national
bank bill, 268 ; hopes for Republican
nomination in 1864, 271; his ap¬
pointment to succeed Taney urged
by Sumner, 278; appointed by Lin¬
coln, 278; admits negro to bar, 278;
bust of, placed in Supreme Court
room, 279; visits Johnson to urge
negro suffrage, 291; gives a casting
vote in impeachment case, 350 ; his
right to do so questioned by Sum¬
ner, 350 ; not a Republican in 1869,
362.
Chevalier, Michel, met by Sumner in
Paris, 19.
Child, Lydia Maria, disapproves of
Sumner’s attack on Grant, 415.
Chinese, excluded from naturaliza¬
tion, 376.
Choate, Rufus, in Boston society in
1840, 28; favors English claim of
right to search slaves, 30 ; leads
Massachusetts Whigs in 1850, 74.
Civil Service, appointments in, accord¬
ing to merit advocated by Sumner,
55 ; attempt to regulate in 1863,
237 ; Sumner’s bill to improve, in
1864, 267 ; regulated by Tenure of
Office Act, 329,’ 330.
Clarendon, Lord, entertains Sumner
in 1859, 164 ; negotiates treaties
with Reverdy Johnson, 360; on
Motley’s instructions, 371.
Clark, Daniel, offers amendment to
Crittenden resolutions, 187.
Clay, Clement C., abuses Sumner, 112.
Clay, Henry, voted for in 1844 by
Sumner, 33 ; humiliated by Taylor’s
nomination, 57 ; introduces compro¬
mise in 1850, 70; signs manifesto
against renewal of agitation, 87 ; in¬
troduces resolutions on Shadrach
case, 88; retires from Senate, 89;
favors ineligibility of President for
reelection, 401.
Clayton, John M., on the severity of
the Kansas slave code, 133.
Cleveland, Henry R., member of
“Five of Clubs,” 15.
Cobb, Howell, elected Speaker, 69.
Cobden, Richard, meets Sumner in
1857, 159 ; on hostility of three
fourths of Commons to North in
1861, 210 ; informs Sumner of Eng¬
lish feeling, 247 ; displeased with
Sumner’s speech against England,
252.
Colfax, Schuyler, defeats bill to per¬
mit negroes to carry mails, 224 ;
as Vice-President appealed to by
Sumner to dissuade Grant from
San Domingo project, 389 ; gives
casting votes for and against Sum¬
ner’s civil rights bill, 405.
Colorado, proposal to admit, in 1866,
with white suffrage, 315, 316; with
negro suffrage in 1867, 327.
Coltman, Justice Thomas, entertains
Sumner, 20.
Compromise of 1850, 70, 71; supported
by manifesto of leaders in 1851, 87 ;
claimed by Douglas to have repealed
Missouri Compromise, 104, 105.
Conkling, Roscoe, attacks Sumner for
pressing amendment to naturaliza¬
tion act, 376 ; proposal to put, on
committee on foreign relations,
388 ; attacks Sumner for defaming
INDEX
439
Grant, 390 ; annonnces that Sumner
will be removed from chairmanship
of committee on foreign relations,
394; votes for his removal, 395; de¬
fends War Department against
Sumner and Schurz, 408.
Coimess, John, charges Sumner with
indifference to rights of white for¬
eigners, 355.
Constitution, Sumner’s view of, in re¬
lation to slavery, 32, 94; its relation
to Fugitive Slave Law, 94, 95 ; 120-
122 ; in relation to personal liberty
laws, 121, 122 ; proposed amendment
of, in 18G1, 194 ; in relation to eman¬
cipation, 202, 226 ; in relation to
secession, 217-219 ; in relation to
reconstruction, 257-259, 287, 323 ;
thirteenth amendment to, 259-261 ;
in relation to power of Congress to
abolish slavery by law, 260 ; four¬
teenth amendment to, 304, 310-314,
316, 317 ; in relation to Tenure of
Office Act, 330 ; desire of Sumner
to amend presidential term in, 331,
401; power of Congress to impose
conditions on States, 351 ; fifteenth
amendment to, 358 ; in relation to
civil rights bill, 404.
Corruption, suspicion of, under
Grant’s administration, in War De¬
partment, 407, 408 ; denied by ex¬
amining committee of Senate, 409.
Corwin, Thomas, chairman of com¬
mittee in 1861, 186 ; defeats resolu¬
tion pledging United States to pro¬
tect slave property, by casting vote,
187 ; makes treaty by which the
United States shall lend Mexico
enough to satisfy France, 220.
Cousin, Victor, met by Sumner in
Paris, 19.
Cowan, Edgar, moves to exclude ne¬
groes from voting in District, 264 ;
attacks proposed fourteenth amend¬
ment, 311.
Cranworth, Lord, meets Sumner in
1859, 159.
Crawford, Thomas, friendly with
Sumner, 23 ; aided by Sumner, 29.
Creole, case of, 30.
Crittenden, J. J., introduces compro¬
mise resolutions, 187 ; presents
petition from Massachusetts in
favor of his measures, 192 ; intro¬
duces resolution declaring object of
war, 200.
Crowder, Richard B., meets Sumner
in 1838, 21.
Cuba, question of recognizing belli¬
gerency of insurgents in, 369, 371.
Curtis, Benjamin R., supports com¬
promise in 1850, 74 ; on the Dred
Scott case, 165 ; his argument in
Johnson impeachment case, 348.
Curtis, George William, asks Sumner
his opinion of Brooks, 155 ; doubts
Sumner’s judgment in attacking
Grant in 1872, 415.
Cushing, Caleb, leads Democratic
opposition to Sumner’s election in
1851, 82; applauds Wilkes’S action
in Trent affair, 209 ; visits Sumner
in Washington, 346 ; consulted re¬
garding Motley’s instructions, 371 ;
mentioned for chief justice in 1874,
429.
Dana, Richard H., Jr., leader of Con¬
science Whigs, 44 ; Free-Soiler in
1850, 74 ; opposes coalition with
Democrats, 76 ; suggests testimonial
to Sumner in 1856, 155.
David, Pierre Jean, met by Sumner
in Paris, 20.
Davis, Garrett, eulogized by Sumner,
420.
Davis, Henry Winter, opposes recog¬
nition of Liberia and Hayti, 222 ;
opposes renomination of Lincoln,
271.
Davis, Jefferson, approves Brooks’s
assault on Sumner, 150, 151 ; intro¬
duces resolutions on non-interven¬
tion with slavery in the territories,
171 ; elected president of Confeder¬
ate States, 182 ; said in England to
have created a nation, 219 ; impris¬
oned in 1865, 303; proposed bill to
alter qualifications of jurors in his
trial, 318.
Davis, John, votes against Mexican
war bill, 45.
Davis, Reuben, offers resolution in
1861 on duty of federal government
to protect slave property, 186, 187.
440
INDEX
Dawes, Henry L., on Sumner’s share
in nomination of Johnson, 273.
Demetz, Frederic Auguste, met by
Sumner in Paris, 19.
Democratic party, nominates Cass in
1848, 57 ; coalesces with Free-Soil-
ers in Massachusetts and Ohio, 63 ;
adopts Free-Soil principles in Mas¬
sachusetts, 75 ; coalesces with Free-
Soilers and carries legislature, 76-
80 ; reluctant to support Sumner,
82 ; finally agrees to elect him
senator, 83, 84 ; ceases coalition
with Free-Soilers after failures of
1853, 100 ; not so great a hindrance
to freedom as Whig party, 125 ;
successful in election of 1856, 157 ;
divides on question of Lecompton
constitution, 167, 170 ; expectation
of help from, by South, 181 ; its
platform and defeat in election of
1864, 272 ; discredited after war,
410 ; nominates Horace Greeley in
1862, 411 ; willingness of Sumner to
cooperate with, 417, 418.
Denman, Lord Thomas, entertains
Sumner, 20.
Denmark, negotiates treaty to sell St.
Thomas to United States, 361.
De Tocqueville, Alexis, meets Sumner
in 1857, 159.
De Witt, Alexander, signs Address of
Independent Democrats, 106.
Dexter, Franklin, in suit against Sum¬
ner, 33.
Dickens, Charles, visits Sumner in
Washington, 345.
Diplomatic history, negotiations con¬
cerning right of search to enforce
slave trade, 30 ; Creole case, 30, 31 ;
negotiations relative to annexation
of Texas, 42 ; treaty of Guadeloupe
Hidalgot 56 ; arbitration of San
Juan boundary, 195 ; the Trent
affair, 208-214 ; English demands,
210 ; chance for a diplomatic vic¬
tory seen by Sumner, 210, 211 ;
Seward’s reply, 214 ; plan to keep
European nations from intervention
in Mexico, 220, 221 ; treaty to sup¬
press slave trade, 223 ; dangers of
mediation in 1862, 241 ; dealing
regarding “ Laird rams,” 242, 243 ;
seizure of the Florida by the Wa-
chusett, 277, 278; Alaska treaty,
338, 339 ; negotiations regarding
war claims on England, 341-343;
treaties regarding rights of Ameri¬
can naturalized citizens, 355, 356 ;
mission of Reverdy Johnson to Eng¬
land, 357, 360 ; Clarendon- Johnson
treaties rejected by Senate, 360,
364-368 ; rejection of treaty for
purchase of St. Thomas, 361 ; ap¬
pointment of Joint High Commis¬
sion on Alabama claims, 368, 369 ;
Geneva arbitration, 368, 369 ; ques-
tion of recognition of Cuban belli¬
gerency, 369 ; query as to cession of
Canada, 370 j negotiations leading
to treaties annexing San Domingo,
379-381, 397 ; treaty of Washington,
400.
District of Columbia, slave trade
abolished in, 71 ; emancipation in,
urged by Sumner in 1861, 205 ;
passage of bill to emancipate in,
205-207 ; attempt of Sumner to
carry bill to allow negroes to testify
in, 224 ; attempts of Sumner to
secure negro suffrage in, 264 ; equal
rights for negroes secured in, 264,
344; bill to give negroes suffrage
in, 326.
Dixon, Archibald, offers amendment
to Nebraska act repealing Missouri
Compromise, 103.
Dixon, James, dissents from Sumner’s
theory of state suicide, 219.
Dodge, Augustus C., introduces bill
to organize Nebraska, 102.
Doolittle, James S., on Sumner’s con¬
trol over the Senate, 263; urges
Sumner to withdraw term “ white¬
washing ” applied to Johnson’s mes¬
sage, 305.
Douglas, Stephen A., offers bills or¬
ganizing new Territories and admit¬
ting slavery, 60 ; announces finality
of Compromise, 87 ; reports Kansas-
Nebraska bill, 104; his reasons,
105, 106; denounces Chase and Sum.
ner, 106 ; denounces protest of New
England clergy, 108 ; reads report
on Kansas, 136 ; denounces Emi¬
grant Aid societies, 137 ; his abusive
INDEX
441
language in debate, 137 ; bitter ridi¬
cule of, by Sumner, 140, 142 ; makes
abusive reply, 142, 143; bitter re¬
tort of Sumner to, 143, 144; declines
to interfere during Brooks’s attack
on Sumner, 147 ; speaks against
Lecompton constitution, 160, 167 ;
his debates with Lincoln, 169 ; at¬
tacked by Sumner as candidate for
presidency, 176.
Dred Scott decision, 165 ; quoted in
1864 to prevent granting suffrage to
negroes, 263 ; ignored by Chase in
admitting negro to practice before
Supreme Court, 278.
Durham, Lord, entertains Sumner in
1838, 21.
Ecuador, proposal of Seward to pun¬
ish, in 1866, 321.
Edmunds, George F., offers amend¬
ment to compel equal suffrage in
Nebraska, 326 ; opposes Sumner’s
amendment to strike out “ white ”
from naturalization acts, 375 ; at¬
tacks Sumner for criticising Grant,
390 ; favors removal of Sumner
from chairmanship, 395 ; defends
War Department against Sumner,
408 ; asked by Sumner not to pre¬
vent action on the civil rights
bill, 427.
Edmundson, Henry A., prepared to
aid Brooks in beating Sumner, 147 ;
not censured by House, 149, 150.
Election of 1840, indifference of Sum¬
ner in, 28 ; position of Sumner in
election of 1844, 33 ; election of
1848, 56-61 ; election of 1852, 96,
97 ; election of 1856, 155, 157 ; con¬
gressional election of 1858, 169, 170;
election of 1860, 176, 177 ; elections
of 1862, 234 ; election of 1864, 271-
277 ; congressional elections of 1866,
324 ; election of 1872, 410-417.
Eliot, Samuel A., Whig candidate
elected to Congress over Sumner,
73.
Emancipation, held by Sumner to be
the inevitable end of war, 198, 199 ;
considered necessary to gain Euro¬
pean sympathy, 199 ; urged by Sum¬
ner after Bull Run, 200; disavowed
by Crittenden resolution, 200; de°
manded publicly by Sumner in 1861,
201, 202; urged by Sumner in con¬
nection with confiscation bill, 225,
226 ; continually pressed upon Lin¬
coln by Sumner, 229; Lincoln’s pro¬
clamation declaring, 230 ; Sumner’s
share in causing, 230; bill to aid it
in Missouri, 237 ; introduction of
amendments to Constitution abolish¬
ing slavery, 259-261; completed by
fifteenth amendment, 261 ; attempt
of Sumner to hasten by congressional
enactment, 269 ; how far gamed by
Sumner, 432.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, on Sumner’s
Phi Beta Kappa oration, 50 ; his -bit¬
ter remark on Webster in 1850, 74;
on significance of Brooks’s assault
on Sumner, 163 ; visits Sumner in
Washington, 346 ; on Sumner’s
moral leadership in 1869, 362; Sum¬
ner’s last message to, 430.
England, Sumner’s visit to, in 1838,
20-23, 24 ; danger of war with, over
Oregon question, 34; visited by
Sumner in 1857, 159 ; and again in
1859, 163, 164 ; expectation of South¬
ern leaders to coerce, through cotton,
in 1861, 180 ; considers Seward hos¬
tile, 208 ; recognizes Southern bel¬
ligerency, 208 ; demands reparation
in Trent affair, 209, 210 ; ready for
war, 210 ; sneers at Sumner’s speech,
216 ; intervenes in Mexico, 220 ;
makes treaty to abolish slave trade,
223; building of Confederate cruisers
in, 236 ; mediation by, agitated in
Parliament, 241 ; effect of Emanci¬
pation Proclamation upon, 242 ;
strained relations with, in 1862,
242, 243; letters of Sumner to, ur¬
ging neutrality, 243-248 ; Sumner’s
speech on errors of, 248-252 ; indig¬
nation in, at Seward’s speech, 252 ;
Sumner’s justification of his attack
upon, 253 ; denounces seizure of
Florida by Wachusett, 277; wishes
to settle claims arising out of war,
340; willing to negotiate, but reluc¬
tant to arbitrate, 341, 342; makes
Johnson-Clarendon treaties, 360,
364 ; indirect claims against, state
442
INDEX
by Sumner, 365-367 ; indignant at
Sumner’s language, 368 ; recognizes
American claims by consenting to
arbitrate, 369 ; mission of Motley to,
370, 371; last visit of Sumner to,
418, 419.
Evarts, William M., his special mis¬
sion to England in 1863, 245 ; anec¬
dote of, at Sumner’s house, 345;
conducts defence of Johnson in im¬
peachment, 348.
Everett, Edward, on inevitableness of
slavery, 38, 39 ; on Sumner’s Phi
Beta Kappa oration, 50; supports
compromise in 1850, 74; elected to
Senate, 97 ; presents petition of New
England clergy against Nebraska
bill, 108 ; applauds seizure of Mason
and Slidell, 209.
Felton, Cornelius C., his friendship
with Sumner, 15, 28.
Ferry, Orris S., moves that debate on
San Domingo treaty be in open ses¬
sion, 385; opposes removal of Sum¬
ner from his chairmanship, 395.
Fessenden, William P., disagrees with
Sumner’s theory of state suicide,
219 ; bitterly opposes Sumner’s
amendment to national bank bill,
268 ; prefers to persuade rather than
oppose Johnson, 295 ; has charge of
fourteenth amendment resolution
in Senate, 311 ; opposes plan to give
land to freedmen, 333 ; votes against
Alaska treaty, 338; failure of Butler
to impress in impeachment case,
348; his death, 373; eulogized by
Sumner, 377.
Fillmore, Millard, becomes President,
and appoints Webster secretary of
state, 72 ; issues proclamation in
Shadrach case, 88.
Financial History, speech of Sumner
on legal tender issue in 1862, 220 ;
attempt of Sumner to exempt na¬
tional banks from state taxation,
267, 268 ; establishment of new
mint, 268; proposal to pay bonds
in greenbacks, 352; proposal to tax
bonds, 353; specie payment urged
by Sumner, 356 ; bill of Sumner to
refund the debt and retire green¬
backs, 376, 377 ; debate on income
tax, 377.
Fish, Hamilton, enters Senate, 89 ;
friendly with Sumner, 89; votes
against proposal to repeal Fugitive
Slave Act, 92; secretary of state,
his relations with Sumner, 363 ; con¬
sults Sumner regarding diplomatic
appointments, 364 ; opposes recogni¬
tion of Cuban belligerency, 369 ;
consults Sumner regarding Motley’s
instructions, 369 ; 370; suggests ces¬
sion of Canada, 370 ; consults Sum¬
mer as to feeling of Senate regarding
Alabama claims, 373 ; signs Bab¬
cock’s instructions, 879 ; urges Sum¬
ner not to oppose Grant, 385; on
good relations with Sumner, 392;
writes letter bitterly accusing Sum¬
ner of duplicity, 393; breaks off re¬
lations with Sumner, 394; says that
Sumner delayed action on treaties,
396.
Fitzwilliam, Lord, entertains Sumner
in 1838, 21.
Florida, prepares for secession in 1860,
180; refusal of Congress to recognize
reconstructed government of, 309,
310.
Floyd, John B., aids secession from
Buchanan’s Cabinet, 183 ; resigns,
184.
FoUett, Sir William Webb, meets
Sumner in 1838, 21.
Forney, J. W., says Sumner opposed
nomination of Grant, 357 ; dines
with Grant and Sumner, 382.
Forster, William E., meets Sumner in
1857, 159.
France, Revolution of 1848 in, ap¬
plauded in United States, 61 ; recog¬
nizes belligerency of Confederacy,
208 ; intervenes in Mexico to secure
payment of debt, 220; resolutions
condemning, defeated by Sumner in
Senate, 238, 239 ; offers to mediate,
241 ; menacing language of Sumner
against, 250 ; illegal sales of arms to,
during Franco-German war, 407,
408.
Freedmen, their condition after war,
264, 266 ; creation of Bureau to pro¬
tect, 265, 266 ; oppressed by recon-
INDEX
443
structed Southern States, 301, 306,
307 ; bills to protect, introduced by
Sumner in 1865, 303 ; bill to protect
civil rights of, passed, 308, 309 ; ne¬
cessity of giving suffrage to, 312,
313 ; attempt of Sumner to secure
land and free education for, 332-
334, 343 ; Sumner’s efforts to se¬
cure complete equality for, by his
civil rights bill, 402-406, 420, 426-
428.
Free-Soil party, called for by vote of
Conscience Whigs in Massachusetts,
58; formed at Buffalo convention,
59; its campaign in Massachusetts,
60; continues activity in 1849, 62;
begins to combine with Democrats
and Whigs in different States, 63;
denounces Webster and the com¬
promises, 73, 74 ; plans coalition in
Massachusetts with Democrats, 75-
77 ; its platform in 1850, 79 ; urges
Sumner for senator, 80, 81 ; refuses
to drop Sumner in order to please
Democrats, 83 ; renews coalition in
1851, 85 ; determines to act alone, in
1852, and nominates Hale and Ju¬
lian, 96 ; casts small vote, 97 ; loses
ground in Massachusetts, 99, 100 ;
members of, publish “ Appeal of In¬
dependent Democrats,” 106; joins
Republican party, 122.
Frelinghuysen, Frederick T., opposes
proposal to give land to freedmen,
333 ; defends War Department
against Sumner, 408 ; promises Sum¬
ner not to prevent action on the
civil rights bill, 427.
Fremont, John C., Republican candi¬
date in 1856, 157 ; his order emanci¬
pating slaves annulled, 198.
French Spoliation Claims, Sumner’s
report on, 267.
Fugitive Slave Law, passed in 1850,
its terms, 71 ; stirs indignation in
North, 74, 75 ; denunciation of, by
Sumner, 77-80; agitation against, in
1851, 87, 88; Shadrach rescue under,
88 ; attacked by Sumner in Senate,
92, 94, 95; agitation against, after
Burns case, 110, 118; blocked by
personal liberty acts, 121, 122; at¬
tempt to repeal defeated, 126, 127 ;
enforced during war, 198; repealed
in 1864, 261.
Garfield, James A., votes for bill au¬
thorizing President to protect citi¬
zens by reprisals on foreigners, 355.
Garrison, William Lloyd, publishes
“ Liberator,” 37 ; mobbed in Boston,
39 ; introduces resolutions condemn¬
ing Sumner for his silence in the
Senate, 91 ; attacks Sumner bitterly
in 1872, 415.
Georgia, movement for disunion in,
180.
Germany, visit of Sumner to, in 1839-
1840, 23, 24.
Giddings, Joshua R., his views sympa¬
thized with by Sumner, 33 ; votes
against Winthrop for speaker, 65;
urges Sumner to accept Free-Soil
nomination for Senate, 81 ; re¬
nounces Fugitive Slave Law, 88 ;
signs “ Appeal of Independent
Democrats,” 106; reward offered
for his head in Virginia, 174.
Gladstone, William Ewart, meets
Sumner, 159, 164; proclaims success
of South, 242; bitter comment of
Sumner on, 245.
Gott, Daniel, moves to forbid slavery
in District of Columbia, 67.
Grant, Ulysses S., proposal to nomi¬
nate in 1864, 271 ; sends optimistic
report of state of South in 1865, 304,
305 ; not anxious that England
should pay Alabama claims, 341 ;
attempt of Johnson to appoint sec¬
retary of war, 347 ; candidate for
presidency in 1868, 356, 357 ; dis¬
trusts politicians and selects Cabinet
independently, 359 ; incompatible
with Sumner, 359 ; not trusted by
Sumner from outset, 359, 360 ;
wishes Johnson treaties left to be
considered by new administration,
360 ; his Cabinet, 363 ; wishes law
changed so as to permit Stewart to
be secretary of treasury, 363, 364 ;
favors recognition of Cuban belli¬
gerency, 369 : wishes annexation of
San Domingo, 379 ; sends Babcock
to investigate, 379 ; authorizes Bab¬
cock to make treaties of annex-
444
INDEX
ation, 380 ; his popularity enables
him to escape censure, 381 ; asks
Sumner to support treaties, 382 ;
his ignorance of the Senate, 382 ;
afterwards says Sumner promised
support, 382 ; considers opposition
as insubordination and disloyalty,
383, 384 ; sends messages urging rati¬
fication, and uses personal influ¬
ence, 385; not attacked in Sumner’s
speech against annexation, 385, 386;
removes Motley to punish Sumner,
386 ; renews argument for annexa¬
tion of San Domingo, 387 ; attacked
by Sumner in speech on San Do¬
mingo, 389 ; becomes bitterly hos¬
tile to Sumner, 390 ; sends papers
concerning Motley’s removal to Sen¬
ate, 392 ; bitterly attacked by Sum¬
ner in Senate, 398 ; sends another
San Domingo message, 399 ; refuses
to be reconciled to Sumner, 401 ;
comes under Butler’s influence, 401 ;
argument against his reelection by
Sumner, 402 ; uses patronage to
benefit friends, 410 ; his popularity
makes renomination inevitable, 410 ;
movement against, in Republican
party, 410 ; determination of Sum¬
ner to oppose, 412 ; arraigned by
Sumner as danger to the country,
413-415 ; extravagance of Sumner’s
attack on, 415, 416.
Greeley, Horace, favors permitting
secession in 1860, 184 ; urges re-
election of Sumner, 234 ; opposes
renomination of Lincoln, 271 ; de¬
mands negro suffrage in 1865, 295 ;
nominated for President in 1872,
411 ; intention of supporting him
announced by Sumner, 416, 418 ; his
death, 419.
Greenleaf, Simon, teaches in Harvard
Law School, 7 ; introduces Sumner
to Kent, 11 ; assisted by Sumner,
14 ; advises Sumner to return from
England, 24.
Grimes, James W., favors bill to au¬
thorize privateering, 239 ; opposes
Freedman’s Bureau bill, 266 ; his
attitude in impeachment trial, 348.
Qroesbeck, William S., his argument
in Johnson impeachment, 349.
Grote, George, met by Sumner in
1883, 21.
Grote, Mrs. Harriet Lewin, met by
Sumner in 1838, 21.
Hale, John P., elected to Senate by a
coalition, 63 ; strong in debate but
not aggressive, 86 ; denounces Fu¬
gitive Slave Act, 88 ; nominated for
presidency, 97 ; fails of reelection
to Senate, 101 ; his speech on Trent
affair, 214.
Hallam, Henry, met by Sumner in
1838, 21.
Halleck, Henry W., orders that fugi¬
tive slaves be not received, 204.
Hamlin, Hannibal, his renomination in
1864 not prevented by Sumner, 272,
273 ; favors removal of Sumner from
his chairmanship, 395.
Hammond, James H., predicts a
bloody fight in Congress, 172 ; pre¬
dicts success to South from cotton
power, 180.
Harcourt, William Vernon, denounces
and sneers at Lincoln, Seward, and
Sumner in Trent affair, 216.
Harlan, James, favors bill to retali¬
ate on Confederate prisoners, 280 ;
favors annexation of San Domingo,
385.
Harrison, William Henry, voted for
by Sumner in 1840, 28 ; favors in¬
eligibility of President for reelec¬
tion, 401.
Harvard College, gives Job Sumner
honorary degree, 2 ; studies of C.
P. Sumner at, 3 ; studies of Sumner
at, 5-10 ; cost of, compared by Sum¬
ner to a warship, 36.
Harvard Law School, studies of Sum¬
ner at, 7 ; services of Sumner as in¬
structor in, 14 ; position in, declined
by Sumner, 24.
Hatherton, Lord, visited by Sumner
in 1859, 164.
Hawthorne, Nathaniel, meets Sumner
in Rome, 163.
Ha3i:i, recognition of, secured by Sum¬
ner, 221, 222 ; San Domingo pro¬
tected against by Grant’s order,
380, 381.
Hayward, Abraham, meets Sumner in
INDEX
445
1838, 21 ; on Sumner’s social suc¬
cess, 22.
Hendricks, Thomas A., taunts Repub¬
licans with subservience to Sum¬
ner, 262.
Hill, Joshua, on civil rights bill, 403.
Hillard, George S., law partner of
Sumner, 13 ; member of “ Five of
Clubs,” 15 ; elected to legislature,
15 ; delivers Phi Beta Kappa ora¬
tion, 29.
Hoar, E. Rockwood, leader of Con¬
science Whigs, 44 ; describes Sum¬
ner’s appearance, 231 ; attorney-
general under Grant, 363 ; opposes
recognition of Cuban belligerency,
369 ; with Sumner the day before
his death, 430 ; his eulogy of Sum¬
ner, 430.
Hoar, Samuel, expelled from South
Carolina, 40 ; Free-Soiler in 1850,
74 ; opposes coalition with Demo¬
crats, 76.
Holland, Lord, entertains Sumner in
1838, 21.
Holmes, Oliver Wendell, on Sumner’s
lack of humor, 14.
Hook, Theodore, met by Sumner in
1838, 21.
Hooper, Mrs., her marriage to Sum¬
ner, 323, 324.
House of Representatives, petition
contest in, 40 ; passes Mexican war
bill, 45 ; division of Conscience and
Cotton Whigs in, 55 ; struggle in
over Wilmot Proviso, 56 ; passes
bill to organize Territories without
slavery, 67 ; speakership struggle
in, 69 ; agitation in, against Fugitive
Slave Law, 88 ; passes Kansas-Ne-
braska bill, 107 ; appoints commit¬
tee to investigate Brooks assault,
149 ; censures Brooks and Keitt
but declines to expel them, 150 ;
adopts report declaring territorial
government of Kansas fraudulent,
157 ; defeats bill to admit Kansas
under Lecompton constitution, 168;
adopts English bill as compromise,
169 ; passes bill to admit Kansas
under free constitution, 171 ; ap¬
points special committee on state
of Union, 186 ; discusses elaborate
compromise reports, 188 ; passes
Crittenden resolution on object of
war, 200 ; resolves against return¬
ing of slaves by soldiers, 201, 205 ;
thanks Wilkes in Trent affair, 209;
rejects bill to permit negroes to
carry mails, 224 ; passes bill to aid
emancipation in Missouri, 237 ; re¬
jects proposal to allow negro suf¬
frage in Montana, 263 ; passes act
amending neutrality laws, 319 ; im¬
peaches Johnson, 347 ; passes bill
to authorize reprisals on foreigners
for seizures of American citizens,
353, 354.
Houston, Samuel, on needlessness of
Nebraska bill, 105.
Howard, Jacob M., favors resolutions
to retaliate on Southern prisoners,
280.
Howe, Dr. S. G., in Boston in 1840,
28; praises Sumner’s unselfishness,
29 ; candidate of Conscience Whigs
against Winthrop, 52.
Howe, Timothy O., favors bill to re¬
taliate on Confederate prisoners,
289 ; reports committees excluding
Sumner from his chairmanship, 395 ;
argues that he has offended Presi¬
dent and blocks annexation, 395.
Humboldt, Alexander von, visited by
Sumner, 24.
Hume, Joseph, entertains Sumner in
1838, 21.
Himt, Leigh, met by Sumner in 1838,
21.
Hunter, R. M. T., moves payment of
unusual expenses in executing
United States laws, 92.
Hyatt, Thaddeus, refuses to testify
before congressional committee on
John Brown, 171.
Illinois, campaign of 1858 in, 169.
Impeachment, of Johnson, suggested
in 1867, 332 ; carried out in 1869,
347 ; conduct of, 347-351 ; ques¬
tions at issue in, 348, 350 ; position
of chief justice in, 350.
Ingham, Robert, m^ets Sumner in
1838, 21.
Inglis, Sir Robert, entertains Sumner
in 1838, 21, 24.
446
INDEX
Italy, visit of Sumner to, in 1839, 23.
Iverson, Alfred, says war in 1860 is
impossible, 181.
Jackson, Andrew, loathing of Kent
for, 11 ; presentation of Sumner to,
11 ; says slavery question is at bot¬
tom of nullification, 37, 187 ; quoted
by Sumner in 1861, 187 ; favors in¬
eligibility of President for reelec¬
tion, 401.
Jacob, Relief, marries C. P. Sumner,
4 ; mother of Charles Sumner, 4, 5.
Jameson, Mrs. Anna, meets Sumner
in 1838, 21.
Jeffrey, Francis Lord, met by Sumner
in 1838, 21.
Johnson, Andrew, introduces Critten¬
den resolution on object of war into
the Senate, 200; governor of Ten¬
nessee, 227 ; nominated for vice-
president in place of Hamlin, 272 ;
disliked by Lincoln, 289 ; assures
Sumner of entire agreement with
his views, 291; leads public to ex¬
pect severity toward South, 293 ;
issues amnesty proclamation, 293 ;
reasons for his apparent change of
purpose, 293 ; his policy criticised,
294 ; opposition to, divided in 1865,
294-296 ; Southern pressure on, de¬
scribed by Sumner, 290 ; appealed
to in vain by Stevens, 299 ; his plan
of reconstruction, 300 ; visited by
Sumner, 302 ; definite rupture of
Sumner with, 303 ; sends Grant’s
and Schurz’s reports on condition of
South to Congress, 304 ; his mes¬
sage denounced by Sumner as
“whitewashing,” 305; discredited
by Schurz’s report, 307 ; vetoes
Freedman’s Bureau bill, 308 ; vetoes
civil rights bill, 309 ; makes violent
speeches against opponents in Con¬
gress, 314 ; vetoes bill to admit Col¬
orado, 315 ; does not sign bill to
admit Nebraska, 316 ; signs resolu¬
tion admitting Tennessee, 316 ; at¬
tacks Congress in a series of inde¬
cent speeches, 321, 322 ; uses pat¬
ronage to build up support, 322,
329 ; bitter attack of Sumner upon,
323 ; vetoes bill for negro suffrage
in district, 325 ; necessity of re¬
straining by Tenure of Office bill
stated by Sumner, 330, 331 ; fear of
Congress to leave him without su¬
pervision, 337 ; refuses to sign hill
to prevent exclusion of negroes
from office in district, 344 ; removes
Stanton, 346 ; violates Tenure of
Office Act, 347 ; tries to expel Stan¬
ton by force through Grant and
Thomas, 347 ; impeached by the
House, 347 ; trial of, 348-351 ; ap¬
points Reverdy Johnson minister to
England, 357.
Johnson, Reverdy, insists, in 1864, that
negroes are not citizens, 263 ; says
that Sumner’s opinions disqualify
him to sit on impeachment of John¬
son, 331 ; appointed minister to
England, 357; negotiates treaties
with Great Britain, 360 ; his effu¬
siveness toward England arouses
prejudices against treaties, 364.
Jones, James C., threatens disimion
if Fugitive Slave Act be not en¬
forced, 111.
Josselyn, Mary, ancestor of Sumner, 1.
Julian, George W., nominated for
vice-president, 96.
Kansas, organization of, proposed,
104, 105 ; not really inhabited at
all, 105 ; left to settle slavery ques¬
tion, 131 ; purpose of North to set¬
tle with Free-Soilers, 132 ; invaded
by Missourians, 132, 133 ; controlled
by sham elections, 133 ; adopts pro¬
slavery code, 133 ; Northern set¬
tlers of, form Topeka constitution,
133, 134; narrow escape from civil
war in, 134 ; state government
formed in, 135 ; attitude of Presi¬
dent Pierce toward, 135, 136 ; be¬
ginning of violence in, 137 ; guerrilla
warfare in, 156 ; election of Lecomp-
ton convention in, 165, 166 ; carried
by free-state men, 166 ; attempt to
force Lecompton constitution on,
167, 168 ; rejects Lecompton con¬
stitution in 1858, 168 ; struggle
over, in Congress, 169 ; rejects Le¬
compton constitution again under
provisions of English hill, 169 ; abol
INDEX
447
ishcB slavery and draws up a new
constitution, 170.
Kausas-Nebraska bill, early stages in
formation of, 102-104 ; its final form
as reported by Douglas, 104.
Keitt, L. M., ready to aid Brooks
in beating Sumner, 147 ; censured
by House, 149, 150 ; resigns and is
reelected, 150.
Kendall, Amos, his attitude on aboli¬
tion matter in the mails, 39.
Kent, James, visited by Sumner, 11 ;
comments of Sumner on, 11 ; sup¬
ports English claim to right of
search, 30.
Kentucky, emancipation convention
in, 68.
Kenyon, John, meets Sumner in 1838,
21.
Know-Nothing party, origin of, 123 ;
carries Massachusetts, 123 ; serves
useful purpose in breaking up Whig
party, 124 ; divides on slavery ques¬
tion in 1855, 128.
Kossuth, Louis, tribute of Sumner to,
90.
Ku-Klux, measures against, 399, 405.
Landor, Walter S., met by Sumner in
1838, 21.
Langdale, Baron Henry B., entertains
Sumner, 20.
Lansdowne, Lord, entertains Sumner
in 1838, 21.
Lawrence, William Beach, visits Sum¬
ner in Washington, 346.
Leicester, Lord, entertains Sumner in
1838, 21.
Lewis, George Cornewall, entertains
Sumner in 1838, 21.
Liberal Republicans, oppose Grant’s
renomination, 410 ; unable to secure
a leader, 411 ; make a blunder in
naming Horace Greeley, 411 ; con¬
nection of Sumner with, 411-416,
418.
“Liberator,” fails to arouse Sumner,
16.
Liberia, recognition of, 222.
Lieber, Francis, acquaintance of Sum¬
ner with, 11 ; informs Sumner of
plan to request Lincoln to withdraw
in 1864, 271.
Lincoln, Abraham, his debates with
Douglas, 169 ; elected President,
176, 177 ; his election the signal for
disunion, 179 ; his attitude on com¬
promises, 193 ; inaugurated, 194 ;
regrets rejecting Sumner’s advice in
a diplomatic appointment, 195 ;
sends message on San Juan arbitra¬
tion, 195 ; annuls Fremont’s eman¬
cipation order, 198 ; wisdom of his
policy, 198 ; agrees with Sumner as
to necessity of abolishing slavery,
199 ; urged by Sumner to act in
1861, 199, 200 ; tells Sumner he is
not yet ready to act, 203 ; urges
colonization, 204 ; consults with
Sumner about offering federal aid
to state emancipation, 205 ; urged
by Sumner not to delay signing bill
for abolition in the district, 207 ;
in signing, points out certain fiaws
in bill, 207 ; doubtful about Trent
affair, 209; urged by Sumner to
surrender Mason and Slidell, 210,
211 ; wishes to confer personally
with Lyons, 212 ; his desire for
peace, 213 ; sends papers on Trent
affair to Senate, 214; sneered at
by English, 216 ; submits Corwin’s
Mexican project to Senate, 220 ;
suggests recognition of Hayti and
Liberia, 221 ; announces ratification
of slave trade treaty, 223 ; appoints
military governors, 227 ; continues
to be urged by Sumner, 229 ; issues
emancipation proclamation, 230 ;
Sumner’s judgment on, 230 ; re¬
fuses to accept resignations of Sew¬
ard and Chase, 236 ; recommends
federal aid to emancipation in Mis¬
souri, 237 ; urged by Seward not to
issue letters of marque, 243 ; adopts
idea of forcing neutrality through
English courts, 245 ; shown Cob-
den’s and Bright’s letters, 247 ; his
theory of reconstruction, 255, 256 ;
Republican opposition to his renom-
ination, 271 ; efforts to secure his
withdrawal, 271 ; Sumner’s opinion
of, in 1864, 272, 273, 274 ; hesitates
to appoint Chase chief justice, 278 ;
urges recognition of Louisiana under
B.mks’s governorship, 282 ; issues
448
INDEX
reconstruction proclamation, 283;
vetoes congressional reconstruction
bill, 284 ; stirs up opposition in
Congress, 285 ; his policy criticised,
287 ; continues on good terms with
Sumner, 288 ; visits army with
Sumner, 289 ; his dislike for John¬
son, 289 ; his assassination, 290 ;
his gentleness toward rebels de¬
scribed by Sumner, 291 ; eulogized
by Sumner, 292 ; proposal to con¬
tract for a statue of, 319 ; like Sum¬
ner in his faith in equal rights,
432.
Lincoln, Mrs. Mary Todd, thanks
Sumner for his kindness after Lin¬
coln’s assassination, 290 ; a pension
secured for by Sumner, 378.
Logan, John A., opposes removal of
Sumner from his chairmanship,
395.
Longfellow, Henry W., forms friend¬
ship with Sumner, 15, 28, 29 ; on
Sumner’s probable career in poli¬
tics, 60, 61 ; on Sumner’s lack of
elation on being elected to Senate,
84 ; praises Sumner’s Kansas speech,
145; suggests testimonial to Sum¬
ner in 1856, 155.
Louisiana, beginnings of secession in,
180 ; reconstructed under Lincoln’s
rule by Banks, 282-284.
Lovejoy, Elijah P., killed in 1838, 39.
Lowell, James Russell, Free-Soil
leader in 1850, 74.
Lundy, Benjamin, 37.
Lushington, Dr. Stephen, meets Sum¬
ner in 1838, 21 ; and again in 1 857,
159 ; entertains him in 1859, 164.
L3mdhur8t, Lord, heard by Sumner
in Parliament, 22.
Lyons, Lord, his instructions in Trent
affair, 208.
Macaulay, Thomas B., met by Sumner
in 1838, 21.
McDougall, James A., introduces reso¬
lutions condemning French inter¬
vention in Mexico, 238, 239.
Mann, Horace, aided by Sumner,
29; Free-Soil leader in 1850, 74;
denounces Fugitive Slave Law,
88.
Martineau, Harriet, met by Sumner
in 1838, 21, 26.
Marvin, WiUiam, refused admission as
senator from Florida, 310.
Mason, James M., introduces Fugitive
Slave Law, 69; sits near Sumner, 89;
accuses Sumner of insulting Senate,
112; haughty reply of Sumner to,
115, 116; denounces Sumner after
his Kansas speech, 143; moves that
Senate elect committee of inquiry
after Brooks assault, 148; praises
Brooks, 150; moves commitment of
Hyatt, 171; calls up Crittenden
compromise for a final vote, 188 ;
captured by Wilkes in 1861, 208 ;
his surrender demanded by Eng¬
land, 209.
Mason, Jeremiah, acquainted with
Sumner, 28.
Massachusetts, sends Hoar to test
South Carolina seaman laws, 40;
opposes annexation of Texas, 43;
controversy in, between Conscience
and Cotton Whigs, 46-55 ; formation
of Free-Soil party in, 58-60 ; strug¬
gle of Free-Soilers in against com¬
promise, 73, 74 ; election of 1850 in,
75-80 ; carried by Free-Soil and
Democratic coalition, 80; senatorial
election in, 80-84; campaign of 1851
in, 85; carried by Whigs in 1852, 97,
98; constitutional convention of 1853
in, 99, 100; carried by Whigs in
1853, 100 ; rejects new constitution,
100 ; urged by Sumner to counter¬
act Fugitive Slave Law, 119 ; passes
personal liberty acts, 121 ; carried
by Know-Nothings in 1854, 123 ; cam¬
paign of 1855 in, 128- 130 ; denounces
Brooks’s assault on Sumner, 152 ;
carried by Republicans in 1856, re¬
elects Sumner to Senate, 157 ; Re¬
publican campaign of 1860 in, 176;
urged by Sumner not to repeal per¬
sonal liberty acts, 191 ; petition from,
in favor of Crittenden resolutions,
193 ; campaign of 1862, in for Sum¬
ner’s reelection, 233-235 ; reelects
Sumner to Senate in 1868, 356 ; Re¬
publican nomination in, withheld
from Butler by Sumner’s infiuence,
400 ; censures Sumner for opposing
INDEX
449
registration of victories over South,
421, 422 ; finally rescinds the cen¬
sure, 422, 429.
Mayflower, Sumner’s comparison of,
with the Jamestown slave-ship, 275.
Mettemich, Prince, receives Sumner
in 1839, 24.
Mexico, danger of war with in 1845,
34 ; war with, brought on, by Polk
and Taylor, 45 ; defeated in 1847,
53 ; makes peace, 56 ; intervention
of France, England, and Spain in,
220 ; attempt of Corwin to get
United States to lend it enough
to pay creditors, 220 ; intervention
of France in, condemned in Senate,
239.
Millies, Monckton, meets Sumner in
1838, 21, 24.
Mississippi, secession party in, during
1850, 88 ; prepares for secession in
1860, 180 ; completion of recon¬
struction in, 375.
Missouri, forms associations to keep
free-state emigrants out of Kansas,
132 ; ruffians from, control territorial
elections, 132, 133 ; its slave code
adopted by Kansas, 133; invasions
from, into Kansas continue, 137 ;
bill to aid emancipation in, 237.
Missouri Compromise, temporarily
removes slavery from politics, 36 ;
its repeal proposed in 1854, 103, 104.
Mittermaier, Karl Joseph, visited by
Sumner, 24.
Montagu, Basil, meets Sumner in
1838, 21.
Montana, organized without negro
suffrage, 263.
Morpeth, Lord, becomes friend of
Sumner, 21.
Morrill, Justin H., replies to Grant’s
San Domingo message, 399.
Morrill, Lot M., in debate on bill to
organize Montana, 263 ; ignorant of
any attempt by Sumner to secure
nomination of Johnson, 273 ; votes
against Alaska treaty, 338 ; opposes
removal of Sumner from his chair¬
manship, 395.
Morton, Oliver P., unwilling to oppose
Johnson in 1865, 295 ; favors power
of Congress to impose conditions on
States admitted to Union, 374 ; fa¬
vors annexation of San Domingo,
385 ; offers resolution for a commis¬
sion to investigate San Domingo, 388 ;
defends War Department against
Sumner, 408.
Motley, John Lothrop, meets Sumner
in Rome, 163; entertains him in
England, 164 ; visits Sumner in
Washington, 345 ; appointed minis¬
ter to England, 364 ; his instructions,
369, 370, 371 ; removed from office
to punish Sumner, 386.
Murat, Madame, met by Sumner in
Paris, 19.
Napoleon III., offers to mediate in
1862, 241 ; denounced by Sumner
for his Mexican policy, 250, 251.
Naturalization, privilege of, secured to
negroes by Sumner, 375, 376.
Nebraska, uninhabited by white men
in 1854, 105 ; failure of attempt to
admit as a State in 1866, 316; ad¬
mitted as a State with negro suf¬
frage, 326, 327.
Negro suffrage, attempt of Sumner to
secure in Montana, 263 ; defeated in
District of Columbia, 264 ; attempt
of Sumner to secure in reconstruc¬
tion act of 1864, 284 ; and again in
1865, 286 ; its necessity to secure
rights of freedmen, 288, 289; advo¬
cated by Sumner in speeches and
otherwise in 1865, 292, 294-299 ;
bills to secure introduced by Sumner
in 1865, 303 ; proposed amendment
to secure by indirection, opposed by
Sumner, 310-314 ; attempt of Sum¬
ner to secure in Colorado, 315; and
in Nebraska and Tennessee, 316 ;
altered popular opinion toward, 324,
325; secured in District, 325; in
Nebraska, and Colorado, 326, 327 ;
in the Territories, 327 ; secured in
reconstruction act, 328 ; attempt
of Sumner to secure in North, 344.
New Mexico, petitions against allow¬
ing slavery, 66 ; peonage abolished
in, 329.
North, indifferent to slavery in 1831,
38 ; persecution of abolitionists in,
39, 40; begins to be forced into op-
450
INDEX
posing slavery, 41; opposes exten¬
sion of slavery into Territories, 66,
67 ; attacked by Calhoun, 67 ; ap¬
plauds Sumner’s reply to Butler,
116; passes personal liberty laws,
121, 122; its union against South
predicted by .Sumner, 128; sends
emigrants to Kansas, 132 ; indig¬
nant at Brooks’s assault on Sum¬
ner, 152, 153 ; expected by South
to fall into anarchy, 181 ; blamed
by Buchanan for secession, 183 ;
appalled at secession movement,
calls for compromise, 184 ; fear of
disunionists of uniting by too vigor¬
ous action, 185 ; compromise dis¬
cussion in, 189-194 ; expects Eng¬
lish sympathy, 208 ; angry at English
attitude, 208 ; enthusiastic over
Trent capture, 209 ; favors reten¬
tion of envoys, 210 ; applauds Sum¬
ner’s speech against England, 248-
253 ; impressed by Sumner’s speech
on condition of South, 307.
“ North American Review,” contribu¬
tions of Sumner to, 14.
North Carolinia, process of recon¬
struction in, 293.
Northcote, Sir Stafford, on Sumner’s
Claims speech, 368.
Norton, Mrs. Caroline E. S., meets
Sumner in 1838, 21.
Nye, James W., favors removal of
Sumner from his chairmanship,
395.
O’Connell, Daniel, heard by Sumner
in 1838, 22.
Otis, James, quoted by Sumner in
1866, 312.
Palfrey, John G., leader of Conscience
Whigs, 43 ; at Whig convention,
offers resolutions against support¬
ing any pro-slavery candidate, 54 ;
votes against Winthropfor speaker,
55 ; tries in vain to introduce biU to
abolish all laws regarding slavery,
67 ; leader of Free-Soilers in cam¬
paign of 1850, 74 ; opposes Free-Soil
and Democratic coalition, 76.
Palmerston, Lord, meets Sumner in
1857, 159.
Pardessus, Jean Marie, met by Sumner
in Paris, 20.
Paris, visit of Sumner to, in 1838, 18-
20 ; and in 1839, 23 ; third visit of
Sumner to, in 1857, 158 ; fourth
visit in 1858, 161, 163 ; last visit of
Sumner to, 418.
Parke, Baron James, entertains Sum¬
ner, 20.
Parker, Theodore, opposes compro¬
mise of 1850, 74.
Parkes, Joseph, met by Sumner in
1838, 21.
Patterson, James W., opposes annex¬
ation of San Domingo, 385 ; pro¬
posal to drop from committee on
foreign relations, 388 ; acts as inter¬
mediary between Fish and Sumner,
394.
Peace Conference of 1861, 182, 192,
194.
Peel, Sir Robert, heard by Sumner in
Parliament, 22.
Personal Liberty Acts, their consti¬
tutionality, 121, 122 ; debated in
Senate, 126.
Pettit, John, abuses Sumner in 1855,
112.
Phillips, Stephen C., suggested as
senatorial candidate in 1851 instead
of Sumner, 83.
Phillips, Wendell, schoolmate of Sum¬
ner, 5 ; gains reputation before
Sumner, 15 ; delivers speech in
Faneuil Hall, 25; criticises Sumner’s
slowness to attack slavery in Senate,
91 ; willing to allow secession in
1860, 184 ; urges reelection of Sum¬
ner, 234 ; denounced by Johnson,
314 ; on Sumner’s breaking health,
392 ; disapproves of Sumner’s attack
on Grant, 415.
Pickering, John, eulogized by Sumner,
60.
Pierce, Franklin, his first presidential
message, 102 ; favors Kansas-Ne-
braska bill, 104 ; declines to inter¬
fere in Kansas, 133 ; sends special
message on Kansas, recognizing
Border Ruffian government, 135 ;
sends documents, 136 ; his Kansas
message compared with Johnsou’a
of 1865, 305.
INDEX
451
Pierce, Henry L., visits Sumner
shortly before his deatli, 430.
Polk, James K., sends message an¬
nouncing Mexican war, 45 ; asks
for appropriation to buy territory,
56 ; his message urging organiza¬
tion of new Territories with Mis¬
souri Compromise line, 65, 66.
Pollock, Sir Frederick, meets Sumner
in 1838, 21.
Pool, John, favors removal of Sunmer
from his chairmanship, 395.
Poore, Ben : Perley, dines with Grant
and Sumner, 382 ; visits Sumner
shortly before his death, 430.
Prescott, William, in Boston in 1840,
28 ; writes “ Conquest of Mexico,”
29 ; favors English contention for
right of search, 30 ; supports Com¬
promise Whigs in 1850, 74.
Privateering, bill to permit, passed by
Congress, 239-241 ; not employed
by Lincoln’s administration, 241.
Quincy, Josiah, Free-Soil leader in
1850, 74 ; suggests testimonial for
Sumner in 1856, 155.
Raasloff, General, urges ratification
of St. Thomas treaty, 361 .
Rand, Benjamin, studies of Sumner in
his office, 10.
Ranke, Leopold von, visited by Sum¬
ner, 24.
Raumer, Frederick L. G. von, visited
by Sumner, 24.
Rawlins, General J., tries to secure
recognition of Cuban belligerency,
369.
Ream, Vinnie, attempt of Sumner to
prevent contract with, for a statue
of Lincoln, 319.
Reconstruction, plan of, foreshad¬
owed in Sumner’s theory of state
suicide, 217-219 ; failure of bill to
establish temporary governments,
227 ; begun by Lincoln’s appoint¬
ments of military governors, 227,
228 ; Lincoln’s theory of, 255 ;
Sujnner’s desire to delay, 255, 256 ;
Sumner’s article upon, in 1863, 256-
258 ; Sumner’s resolutions upon, iu
1864, 259 ; its process iu Arkansas,
269 ; carried through in Louisiana,
283 ; passage of reconstruction act
by Congress in 1864, 284 ; act vetoed
by Lincoln, 285 ; further attempt
to act upon in Congress in 1865,
285, 286 ; Johnson’s policy regard¬
ing, 293; amnesty proclamation, 293 ;
process of reconstruction in North
Carolina, 293 ; carrying out of John¬
son’s plan, 300, 301 ; Freedman’s
Bureau and Civil Rights acts, 308,
309 ; passage of fourteenth amend¬
ment, 316, 317 ; passage of recon¬
struction act, 327-329 ; proposal of
Sumner to amend so as to include
compulsory education, 334 ; discus¬
sion of wisdom of congressional
policy, 335-337 ; passage of act ad¬
mitting States on condition of ratify¬
ing fourteenth amendment, 351 ; ad¬
mission of Virginia and Mississippi,
374, 375 ; amnesty act, 406.
Reeder, Andrew H., governor of Kan¬
sas, 132 ; lacks courage to annul
elections in 1855, 133.
Republican party, causes for, 117 ; its
formation in North, 117 ; formed in
Massachusetts, 118, 122 ; nominates
Fremont in 1856, 157 ; in election
of 1858, 170 ; doubts wisdom of
Sumner’s speech on slavery in 1859,
175 ; succeeds in election of 1860,
17 6 ; disregards threats of secession
178, 179 ; panic struck in 1861, 184 ;
variety of policies suggested by,
185 ; depressed in 1862, 233 ; loses
ground in elections, 234 ; leaders of,
ask dismissal of Seward, 236 ; oppo¬
sition in, to Lincoln’s renomination,
271, 272, 274 ; substitutes Johnson
for Hamlin, 272, 273 ; leaders of,
doubtful how to act regarding
Jolmson, 295 ; becomes settled on
policy of carrying through recon¬
struction, 309 ; successful in elec¬
tion of 1866, 324 ; votes to do no¬
thing in Congress, in 1867, except
push reconstruction, 342, 343 ; re¬
fusal of Sumner to be bound by
caucus rule of, 343 ; national con¬
vention pledges to pay debt of gov¬
ernment, 352 ; nominates Grant in
1868, 357 ; popularity of Grant
452
INDEX
among masses of, 410 ; movement
in, against Grant’s renomination,
410 ; successful in election of 1872,
411 ; reluctance of Sumner to leave,
411-412 ; denounces Sumner, 415,
416 ; depraved character of, under
Grant’s second term, 423, 424 ; ex¬
cludes Sumner from caucus, 424,
426.
Revels, Hiram R., a negro admitted
as senator from Mississippi, 375.
Robeson, George W., authorizes Bab¬
cock to use navy to protect Baez
government in San Domingo, 380,
381.
Rock, J. S., a negro admitted to bar
of Supreme Court, 278.
Rockwell, Julius, presents in Senate
petition for repeal of Fugitive Slave
Act, 110; refuses to answer Butler’s
question. 111 ; Republican candi¬
date for governor in Massachusetts,
129.
Roebuck, John Arthur, entertains
Sumner in 1838, 21.
Rogers, Samuel, met by Sumner in
1838, 21, 24.
Rolfe, Robert M. [Baron Chan-
worth], meets Sumner in 1838, 21.
Russell, Lord John, heard by Sumner
in 1838, 22 ; meets Sumner in 1857,
159 ; sends dispatch demanding re¬
lease of Mason and Slidell, within
seven days, 209; rejects Seward’s
argument on Trent affair, 214 ; his
irritating tone, 242 ; his controversy
with Adams over Laird rams, 242,
243 ; apparently expects war, 253.
Russia, offers mediation, 241 ; friend¬
ly relations with, 247 ; cedes Alaska,
338.
St. Thomas, treaty for acquisition of,
rejected by the Senate, 361.
San Domingo, rivalry of Baez and
Cabral over, 379 ; treaty for annex¬
ation of, made by Baez with Bab¬
cock under Grant’s instructions,
379, 380 ; intervention of American
navy in, 380, 381 ; ratification of
treaty with, urged by Grant, 382,
383, 387 ; treaty of annexation re¬
jected, 386 ; appointment of com¬
mission to investigate, 391 ; further
debate upon behavior of Grant
toward, 397-399; plan to annex,
abandoned, 399.
Savigny, Frederick Karl, visited' by
Sumner, 24.
Schurz, Carl, sends report describing
bad condition of South in 1865, 305,
307 ; member of committee on for¬
eign relations, 374 ; opposes annexa¬
tion of San Domingo, 385 ; opposes
removal of Sumner from his chair¬
manship, 395 ; defends Sumner in
debate, 399 ; attacked for support¬
ing Sumner in demanding investiga¬
tion of government sales of arms,
408 ; invited to testify before com¬
mittee of investigation, 409 ; op¬
poses reelection of Grant, 410 ; his
eulogy of Sumner, 420 ; with Sum¬
ner on the day of his death, 430.
Scott, Winfield, approves Sumner’s
motion relative to names of victories
on Union flags, 228.
Secession, threatened seriously in
1850, 70 ; again threatened in 1851,
88 ; threats of, in 1860, despised by
North, 178, 179 ; carried out by
South in 1860-61, 179-182.
Segar, Joseph, his admission as sena¬
tor from Virginia opposed by Sum¬
ner, 286.
Senate, visited by Sumner during de¬
bates on bank bill, 11, 12; passes
Mexican war bill, 45 ; Free-Soil
members of, in 1851, 86, 87 ; de¬
bate in, on Shadrach case, 88 ; Sum¬
ner’s beginnings in, 89, 90 ; refuses
to permit Sumner to speak on Fugi¬
tive Slave Law, 92 ; Sumner’s
speech in, on Freedom and Slavery,
92-95 ; debate in, on Sumner’s
speech, 95 ; debate in, on executive
sessions, 98 ; bill to organize Ne¬
braska introduced into, 102 ; final
introduction of Kansas-Nebraska bill
into, 103, 104 ; bitter debates in, on
bill, 106-109 ; debate in, between
Sumner and Butler, 111-116 ; de¬
bate in, on personal liberty acts,
126 ; first debate in, on Kansas,
136 ; debate on majority report of
committee on territories, recogniz*
INDEX
453
Ing fraudulent government, 136,
137 ; Sumner’s speech in, on the
crime against Kansas, 138-142 ; vir¬
ulent debate in, between Sumner,
Douglas, and Cass, 142-145 ; Brooks
assaults Sumner in, 145-147 ; ap¬
points unfriendly committee to in¬
vestigate affair, 148 ; declines to
take any action, 149 ; passes tariff
of 1857, 156 ; first debate in, on
Lecompton constitution, 167 ; passes
bill to admit Kansas under Lecomp¬
ton constitution, 169 ; compromises
with House, 169 ; passes pro-slavery
resolutions, 171 ; Sumner’s speech
in, on “barbarism” of slavery,
172-175 ; debates Crittenden com¬
promise, 187, 188; passes amend¬
ment to Constitution, 194 ; passes
Crittenden resolution on object of
war, 200 ; passes act prohibiting re¬
turn of fugitive slaves by soldiers,
204, 205 ; debates bill to emancipate
slaves in district, 205, 206 ; discusses
Trent affair, 213, 215 ; debates Sum¬
ner’s resolutions on state suicide,
219 ; rejects proposal to protect
Mexico against European interven¬
tion, 220, 221 ; debates bill to send
representatives to Hayti and Libe¬
ria, 222 ; ratifies treaty to suppress
slave trade, 223 ; passes bill to per¬
mit negroes to carry mails, 223 ; re¬
jects bill to permit negroes to tes¬
tify in District, 224 ; passes confis¬
cation bill, 226, 227 ; admits West
Virginia with gradual emancipation
proviso, 227 ; debates bill to aid
emancipation in Missouri, 237 ; de¬
bates resolutions censuring French
intervention in Mexico, 239 ; de¬
bates bill to issue letters of marque,
239-241 ; passes resolutions against
mediation, 241 ; struggle in, over
repeal of Fugitive Slave Act, 260 ;
reluctant to pass act to permit
negroes to testify in federal courts,
262 ; control of Sumner over, 2G2,
263 ; does not insist upon negro
suffrage in Montana, 263 ; defeats
negro suffrage in District of Colum¬
bia, 264 ; debate in, on Freedman’s
Bureau, 266 ; debates national
banks, 267, 268 ; refuses to recog¬
nize reconstructed government of
Arkansas, 269 ; passes resolution to
retaliate for treatment of Northern
prisoners, 279-281 ; debates reports
on condition of South, 304-307 ; de¬
bates proposed fourteenth amend
ment, 310-314 ; rejects negro suf¬
frage in Colorado, 315 ; miscellane¬
ous business in, 318, 319 ; kept by
Sumner from considering bill to
amend neutrality laws, 319, 320 ;
debates negro suffrage in new
States and in Territories, 326, 327 ;
debate in, on reconstruction act,
327-329 ; debates Tenure of Office
Act, 330, 331; debates Sumner’s pro¬
posal to give land to freedmen, 333;
ratifies Alaska treaty, 338-340 ; re¬
fuses to concur in removal of Stan¬
ton, 347 ; sits in impeachment of
Johnson, 347-351 ; impressed by
arguments for defense, 348, 349 ;
discussion of its action, 350, 351 ;
debates bill to authorize reprisals
on foreigners, 353-355 ; passes
Sumner’s substitute, 355 ; rejects
treaty to purchase St. Thomas, 361 ;
prevented by Sumner from passing
act to alter qualifications for secre-
tarj' of treasury, 364 ; rejects John-
son-Clarendon treaties, 364-3G8 ; de¬
bates bills to admit Virginia and
Mississippi, on conditions, 374, 375 ;
debates amendment of naturaliza¬
tion acts, 375, 376 ; reports unfavor¬
ably upon San Domingo treaties,
384, 385 ; debsites annexation, 385,
386 ; rejects treaty, 386 ; refuses to
cliange committees to please Grant,
388 ; debates proposal to appoint a
commission to investigate San Do¬
mingo, 388-391 ; removes Sumner
from committee on foreign relations,
394-397 ; violent speech of Sumner
in, on San Domingo intrigue, 397-
399 ; ratifies treaty of Washington,
400 ; debates and rejects Sumner’s
civil rights bills, 402-406 ; debates
amnesty bills, 403, 405, 406 ; passes
defective civil rights bill, 405; de¬
bates proposal to investigate war
department, 408 ; Sumner’s speech
464
INDEX
in, on Grant, 413-415 ; finally passes
Sumner’s civil rights bill, 427, 428.
Senior, Nassau W., met by Sumner in
1838, 21.
Seward, William H., his position in
the Senate in 1851, 86 ; friendly
with Sumner, 89 ; predicts that no
new party will rise, 97 ; approves
Sumner’s speech against enforce¬
ment of Fugitive Slave Act, 121 ;
votes for repeal of Fugitive Slave
Act, 127 ; moves admission of Kan¬
sas under Topeka constitution, 137 ;
moves committee of inquiry on
Brooks’s attack on Sumner, 148 ;
makes speech on “ irrepressible con¬
flict,” 170 ; reward offered for his
head in Virginia, 174 ; laughs at
threat of secession in 1860, 178 ;
active in suggesting compromises in
1860, 185 ; discusses compromise
with Sumner, 190, 191 ; offers con¬
siderable concessions to South, 191;
states purpose of war to foreign
representatives, 197 ; considered to
be hostile to England, 208 ; sends
conciliatory message on Trent affair,
209 ; his policy explained by Sum¬
ner to Cobden, 212 ; his good will
toward England asserted by Sum¬
ner, 213 ; his narrow view of rea¬
sons for surrender of envoys, 214 ;
sneered at by English, 216 ; at¬
tempt of Republicans to force his
dismissal, 236 ; wishes to issue let¬
ters of marque, 240 ; approves Sum¬
ner’s speech against England, 252 ;
favors Johnson’s reconstruction
, policy, 295; continues on good
terms with Sumner, 321 ; his corre¬
spondence with Stanley on Alabama
claims, 342 ; at Sumner’s house,
predicts annexation of Mexico, 345 ;
negotiates treaty for annexation of
St. Thomas, 361 ; no longer a leader
in 1869, 362.
Shannon, Wilson, prevents civil war
with difficulty in Kansas, 134.
Shell, Richard Lalor, heard by Sum¬
ner in Parliament, 22.
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, met by
Sumner in 1838, 21.
Sherman, John, disagrees with Sum¬
ner’s theory of state suicide, 219;
opposes repeal of Fugitive Act of
1793, 261 ; begs Sumner not to in¬
sist on anti-slavery amendment to
civil appropriation bill, 262 ; moves
appointment of committee on re¬
construction, 328 ; opposes proposi¬
tion to enforce negro suffrage, 328 ;
opposes proposition to give land to
freedmen, 333 ; introduces bill to
repeal provision of law rendering
Stewart ineligible to Treasury De¬
partment, 364 ; opposes removal of
Sumner from his chairmanship,
395.
Sherman, William Tecumseh, proposal
to nominate for President in 1864,
271.
Sismondi, J. C. L. de, his conversation
with Sumner in 1838, 20, 26.
Slavery, early references of Sumner
to, 15, 16, 25, 31 ; proper method of
attacking it stated by Sumner, 31,
32 ; not a subject of public contro¬
versy before 1836, 36 ; indifference
of North to, 38 ; becomes a political
question, 41 ; question of its exist¬
ence in new Territories, 56, 57 ; lec¬
ture of Sumner on, in 1855, 127,
128 ; cautious attitude of Lincoln
toward, at outbreak of war, 197,
198 ; impatience of Sumner to at¬
tack, 198, 199. See Emancipation.
Slave trade, treaty of 1841 for sup¬
pression of, 30 ; question of enforce¬
ment of, by England against Ameri¬
can vessels, 30;
Slidell, John, his comments on
Brooks’s assault on Sumner, 147 ;
captured by Wilkes in 1861, 208 ;
his release demanded by England,
209.
Smith, Gerrit, signs Appeal of Inde¬
pendent Democrats, 106.
Smith, Sydney, met by Sumner in
1838, 21, 24.
South, its real basis for action in
1833 said by Jackson to be slavery,
and not the tariff, 37 ; alarmed by
Turner insurrection, 38 ; calls upon
North to suppress abolitionists, 40 ;
imprisons free seamen, 40 ; demands
equality with North in Senate, 41 ;
INDEX
455
demands right to carry slaves into
Territories, 66 ; attempt of Calhoun
to unite, in opposition to North, 67 ;
lack of general enthusiasm in, over
slavery, 68 ; threatens secession in
1850, 70 ; controls country in 1853,
101 ; leaders of, adopt bullying
manners, 113 ; claimed by Butler to
have carried through Revolution,
113 ; urged by Atchison to save
Kansas, 134, 135 ; applauds Brooks’s
attack on Sumner, 150-152 ; adopts
extreme views of rights of slave¬
holders, 171 ; its threats of seces¬
sion despised in 1860, 178, 179 ; pro¬
cess of secession in, 179-184 ; plans
of leaders of, to control North and
Europe through cotton, 180 ; ex¬
pects North to break up in anarchy,
181 ; Union men in, overridden,
181, 182 ; forms Southern Confed¬
eracy, 182 ; Buchanan’s attitude
toward, 183 ; unwilling to accept
any compromises in 1861, 194 ; belli¬
gerency of, recognized by England
and France, 208 ; sends emissaries
to England and France, 208 ; aid
received from England by, 248-250;
its treatment of Northern prisoners,
279 ; magnanimous attitude of Sum¬
ner toward, 281 ; reconstruction of,
under Johnson, 300 ; passes acts op¬
pressing negroes, 301 ; reports of
Grant and Schurz on condition of,
304-307 ; controlled by former
rebels, 322, 323 ; discussion of work¬
ing of congressional reconstruction
in, 335-337 ; bill of Sumner against
registering names of victories over,
419.
South Carolina, expels Hoar, 40 ; con¬
vention in, threatens disunion, 88 ;
claimed by Butler to have surpassed
Massachusetts in Revolution, 111 ;
its proposed neutrality in 1779 ex¬
posed by Sumner, 114 ; process of
secession in, 179, 182 ; sends com¬
missioners to treat for surrender of
Sumter, 183 ; fires on Star of the
West, 184.
Spain, intervenes in Mexico, 220 ;
considered an anachronism by Sum¬
ner, 371.
Speed, James, Sumner’s opinion of, in
1865, 295.
Spencer, Lord, visited by Sumner in
1859, 164.
Spoils system, used by Johnson, 329;
employed by Grant, 386, 410.
“Springfield Republican,” opposes
reelection of Sumner in 1862, 233.
Stanhope, Lord, visited by Sumner in
1859, 164.
Stanley, Lord, negotiates with Seward
about arbitrating Alabama claims,
342.
Stanly, Edward, military governor of
North Carolina, 227.
Stanton, Edwin M., not inclined to
oppose Johnson’s reconstruction
policy, 295; meets Dickens at Sum¬
ner’s house, 345; removed by John¬
son, 346 ; his removal not concurred
in by Senate, 347 ; again removed
by Johnson, 347 ; urged by Repub¬
licans to refuse to submit, 347 ;
speaks hopefully of Grant’s policy
on entering presidency, 360.
Stanton, Frederic P., calls Kansas
legislature to act concerning Le-
compton constitution, 168.
Stephens, Alexander H., writes mani¬
festo against agitation of slavery
questions after the compromise, 87 ;
thinks North will fall into anarchy
in case of stoppage of cotton exports
from South, 181 ; elected vice-presi¬
dent of Confederacy, 182.
Stevens, Thaddeus, thinks opposition
to Johnson hopeless, 295; consults
with Sumner on plan of action, 299,
300 ; favors fourteenth amendment,
310 ; denounced by Johnson as an
enemy of the Union, 314 ; reports a
new fourteenth amendment, 316;
presents articles of impeachment
against Johnson, 347.
Stewart, Alexander T., when nomi¬
nated by Grant for Treasury Depart¬
ment, found to be ineligible, 363;
attempt to remove disqualification
by law, 364.
Story, Joseph, teaches in Harvard Law
School, 7; his friendship with Sum¬
ner, 7 ; plied by Sumner with ques¬
tions, 9; gives Sumner letters to
456
INDEX
eminent men at Washington, 11 ;
offers Sumner position in Law-
School, 13 ; selects Sumner to report
his decisions, 14; lends Sumner
money to go to Europe, 17 ; advises
him to return, 24; supports English
claim to right of search, 30; his
death, 50.
Story, William W., describes Sumner
as a law student, 9, 10 ; meets him
in Rome, 163.
Sugden, Sir Edward, heard by Sumner
in Parliament, 22.
Sumner, Charles, ancestry, 1-5; birth
and childhood, 5 ; studies in Boston
Latin School, 5 ; wishes to enter
West Point, 5; studies at Harvard,
6; his early intellectual and social
habits, 6; spends a year in literary
studies, 6, 7 ; enters Harvard Law
School, 7 ; begins intimacy with
Judge Story, 7 ; studies with avidity,
8 ; gains prizes, 8 ; his youthful
agreeableness, sincerity, and mod¬
esty, 9 ; takes everything seriously,
10; begins to feel ambition to excel
in the law, 10 ; enters office of Rand,
10; makes a journey to New York,
Philadelphia, and Washington, 10;
visits Chancellor Kent, 11; sees dis¬
tinguished people at Washington,
11; not attracted by political life,
11, 12; his social freshness and
charm, 12, 13 ; practices law in Bos¬
ton, 13 ; discussion of his abilities
as a lawyer, 13; overburdened with
learning, 13; hampered by lack of
imagination, 14 ; teaches in Harvard
Law School, 14; publishes legal arti¬
cles, 14, 15 ; makes a circle of cul¬
tured friends, 15 ; indifferent to
politics, 15 ; takes slight interest in
slavery and abolitionism, 16; bor¬
rows money to go to Europe, 17 ;
his increased impressiveness of ap¬
pearance and manner, 17 ; greatly in¬
fluenced by his foreign experiences,
18 ; places visited by him, 18; learns
French and hears lectures in Paris,
18, 19 ; sees all the sights, 19 ; meets
leading lawyers, 19; encounters
eminent men in society, 19, 20; in
England adopts a dignified attitude,
20; visits eminent judges and law¬
yers, 20, 21 ; meets leading literary
and political figures, 21; his great
popularity, 22; returns to Paris, 23;
writes account of American bound¬
ary claims, 23 ; in Rome learns Ital¬
ian, 23 ; makes new friends, 23 ;
visits Germany, 23 ; received by
Metternich, 24 ; meets eminent his.
torians and jurists, 24 ; again plunges
into London society, 24 ; declines to
teach in Harvard Law School, 24;
returns to Boston zealous for work,
25; really a student, 25; continues
to ignore slavery, 25, 26 ; resumes
practice, 27 ; enjoys Boston society,
28 ; indifferent in campaign of 1840,
28 ; his breadth and kindliness of
nature at this time, 29 ; his unself¬
ishness, 29 ; supports English claim
of right of search of slave traders,
30; attacks Webster’s position on
Creole case, 31; admires J. Q.
Adams’s career in Congress, 31 ;
adopts attitude of Liberty party
toward slavery, 31; edits Vesey’s
Reports, 32 ; suffers from ill health
and despondency, 32, 33 ; regains
strength and resumes practice, 33 ;
completes his legal labors, 33.
Anti-Slavery Whig Leader. De¬
livers oration “ on true grandeur of
nations,” 34; denounces war and
praises peace, 35 ; angers officers of
army and navy by his language, 35,
36 ; becomes at once conspicuous,
36 ; takes part in meeting to protest
against admission of Texas, 42, 43 ;
does not seek occasion, 43; mem¬
ber of committee of “ Conscience
Whigs,” 44; writes resolutions of
protest against extension of slave
territory, 44, 45 ; prophesies success
of anti-slavery Whigs, 45 ; writes
severe criticism on Winthrop, call¬
ing him cowardly, 46 ; writes to
Winthrop expressing hope for con¬
tinued friendly relations, 47 ; pub¬
lishes bitter attack on Winthrop, 48 ;
his acquaintance dropped by Win¬
throp, 48 ; unable to realize feelings
of opponents, 49 ; treats living men
as if they were mere historical fig-
INDEX
457
ures, 49; frequently loses friends,
49 ; his oration before the Phi Beta
Kappa society, 50 ; attends Whig
state convention of 184G, 50 ; makes
speech urging anti-slavery action,
51, 52 ; renews attack on Winthrop,
52 ; declines to be candidate against
him, 52 ; justifies opposition to Mex¬
ican war, 52 ; neglects law for polit¬
ical writing, 53 ; delivers lecture on
“ White Slavery in Barbary States,”
53 ; offers resolutions against war at
Whig meeting in Boston, 53 ; at
state convention supports Palfrey’s
motion not to support any candidate
not opposed to extension of slavery,
54 ; his argument, 55 ; defends Pal¬
frey’s action in Congress, 55 ; op¬
poses spoils system, 55.
Member of Free-Soil Party. Signs
call for convention of anti-slavery
Whigs, 58 ; defends a third party as
necessary, 58, 59 ; attends Buffalo
convention, 59 ; active in Free-Soil
campaign, 60 ; nominated for Con¬
gress against Winthrop, 60 ; his
career predicted by Longfellow, 60,
61 ; defeated in election, 61 ; be¬
comes known as a leading Free-
Soiler, 61 ; loses many friends, 61 ;
rejoices in revolution of 1848, 61 ;
speaks at Free-Soil convention of
1849, 62 ; states position of Free-Soil
party, 62, 63 ; lectures in New Eng¬
land towns, 63; argues before state
Supreme Court against color line in
schools, 63 ; does not increase legal
practice, 64; nominated for Con¬
gress against Eliot, 73 ; opposes
compromise measures, 73 ; disheart¬
ened at Webster’s 7th of March
speech, 73; at Free-Soil convention
of 1850, 75; attitude of anti-slavery
Whigs toward, 75 ; doubtful about
Free-Soil and Democratic coalitions,
76 ; his speech at Faneuil Hall, 76-
80; on coalitions, 77 ; on proper way
to nullify Fugitive Slave Law, 77,
78 ; repeats demands of Free-Soilers,
79 ; denounces lack of backbone in
leaders, 79, 80 ; candidate of Free-
Soilers for the Senate, 80 ; does not
seek the place, 81 ; unanimously
nominated in caucus, 81 ; reluctance
of Democrats to support, 82 ; de¬
nounced by the Whigs, 82 ; worked
against by Cass and Cushing, 82 ;
willing to withdraw in favor of some
other Free-Soiler, 83; refuses to
modify his Fugitive Slave Law
speech to please Democrats, 83 ; his
speech published by both friends
and enemies, 83 ; declines to pledge
anything to satisfy Democrats, 84;
finally elected, 84 ; receives news of
success without elation, 84; declines
to take part in contest against Win¬
throp, 85.
In the Senate. His Free-Soil col¬
leagues, 86 ; brings a new moral
element into the Senate, 86 ; never
notices obstacles, 87 ; his relations
with various senators, 89; has social
success in Washington, 89; on minor
committees, 89 ; eulogizes Kossuth,
but opposes any change from tradi¬
tional non-intervention, 90 ; sup¬
ports land grants to Iowa, 90 ; pur¬
posely delays mentioning slavery,
90 ; his silence jeered at by Whigs
and complained of by abolitionists,
91; announces purpose to speak in
due time, 91 ; prevented from speak¬
ing on Fugitive Slave Law, 91, 92 ;
finally moves an amendment against
paying expenses under Fugitive
Slave Act, 92 ; delivers a long
speech, 93-95; does not attack
Southerners personally, 93 ; argues
against constitutionality of slavery
in Territories, 94 ; holds Fugitive
Slave Law unconstitutional, 94 ; an¬
nounces purpose not to obey it, 95 ;
at Free-Soil state convention, 96 ;
does not take part in campaign, 98 ;
complained of by Free-Soilers, 98 ;
in Senate opposes executive sessions,
98 ; on good terms with Southerners,
98 ; elected to state constitutional
convention, 99 ; favors district sys¬
tem of representation, 99; urges
abolition of color distinctions, 99 ;
takes part in campaign for adoption
of constitution, 100; offers amend¬
ment to Nebraska bill to preserve
the Missouri Compromise, 104 ; signs
458
INDEX
“ Appeal of Independent Demo¬
crats,” 106; his speech against the
Nebraska bill, 107 ; does not exas¬
perate opponents, 107 ; again speaks
before final passage, 107 ; defends
right of clergy to protest, 108 ; pre¬
dicts end of compromise, 109 ; de¬
nounced as responsible for Burns
riot, 110 ; defends Massachusetts
from charge of treason. 111, has per¬
sonal controversy with Butler and
Mason, 111, 112; violently abused by
Mason and others, 112 ; feels called
upon to crush claims of South to su¬
perior patriotism, 113 ; on relative
shares of Massachusetts and South
Carolina in the Revolution, 111, 115 ;
gives Mason the he direct, 115, IIG ;
gains hatred of the South, 116;
pleases the North by his courage,
116; at Republican state convention
in Massachusetts, 118 ; describes the
Burns case, 118, 119 ; urges legisla¬
tion to protect fugitive slaves, 119,
120 ; urges refusal to obey the Fugi¬
tive Slave Law in spite of the Con¬
stitution, 120; in this really preaches
revolution, 120, 121 ; applauded by
Chase and Seward, 121 ; his consti¬
tutional doctrine on the Fugitive
Slave clause, 121, 122 ; left stranded
by Know-Nothing movement, 124;
declines to support new party, 124 ;
in Senate offers resolutions on gen¬
eral matters, 125, 126 ; speaks against
Fugitive Slave Law, 126; delivers
lecture on the “ Anti-Slavery Enter¬
prise,” 127 ; travels in West, 128 ;
expects a new Northern party, 128 ;
takes part in Massachusetts cam¬
paign for Republicans against Know-
Nothings, 129 ; foresees trouble from
Kansas disorders, 136 ; has brief de¬
bate with Douglas, 137 ; delivers
speech “The Crime against Kan¬
sas,” 138-142 ; makes two elaborate
attacks on enemies, 139 ; his attacks
on Butler and Douglas, 140, 141 ;
virulently replied to by Cass and
Douglas, 142, 143 ; retorts on Doug¬
las with extreme bitterness, 143,
144 ; justified in his language by the
provocation, 144, 145 ; assaulted by
Brooks, 146 ; various testimony re¬
garding assault upon, 146, 147 ; suf¬
fers severely from injuries, 154 ;
discourages any testimonials, 155 ;
writes letters during campaign, 155 ;
does not feel animosity toward
Brooks, 155 ; tries vainly to return
to Senate, 156 ; reelected almost
unanimously to Senate, 157 ; visits
France in search of health, 158;
renews social successes, 158, 159;
cheered in mind, and hopes for re¬
covery, 159 ; returns to Senate, 159 ;
does not take part in or listen to
debates, 160 ; again obliged to sail
for Europe, 160 ; writes letter to
constituents, 161 ; treated by Brown-
S^quard by the moxa, 161 ; suffers
from angina pectoris^ 162 ; cheered
by hopes of improvement, and by
news from America, 162 ; his reasons
for not resigning, 163 ; visits Rome,
163 ; meets Cavour, 163 ; in London,
his social engagements, 163, 164 ;
returns to Senate, 164, 170 ; takes
slight part in active business, 171 ;
delivers speech on “ Barbarism of
Slavery,” 171-174 ; warned to be¬
ware of assassination, 172 ; ignores
feelings of his opponents, 172, 173 ;
quotes slaveholders to prove his
point, 174 ; his speech considered
unwise by Republicans, 175; speaks
at Cooper Institute in campaign of
1860, 176 ; in Massachusetts state
campaign, 176 ; predicts overthrow
of slave power, 177 ; repeats that
disunion threats are ridiculous, 178 ;
opposes any compromise in 1861,
189 ; disagrees with Adams on this
point, 189; abstains from debate,
189 ; urges North not to concede an
inch, 189-193 ; repudiates “ Peace
Conference,” 190 ; tells Buchanan
Massachusetts will never adopt Crit¬
tenden compromise, 190 ; opposes
repeal of personal liberty laws, 191 ;
pleads with Seward not to favor
concessions, 191 ; says all concession
has done harm, 192 ; again attacks
Crittenden compromise, 193; be¬
comes chairman of committee on
foreign relations, 194 ; urges ap-
INDEX
459
pointment of fit men, 195 ; reports
in favor of arbitration with England,
195 ; narrowly escapes a mob in Bal¬
timore, 196 ; addresses Massachu¬
setts troops, 196 ; from beginning of
war desires extinction of slavery,
198; foresees this as necessary end
of the war, 199 ; thinks emancipation
will conciliate Europe, 199 ; confers
with Lincoln and urges early action,
199, 200 ; refuses to vote on Critten¬
den resolution, 200 ; introduces bills
to punish treason, 200 ; in Massachu¬
setts state convention makes public
demand for emancipation, 201 ; not
urgent for instant action, 202 ; favors
compensation for loyal slaveholders,
202; considered impolitic by con¬
servatives, 202 ; repeats same argu¬
ment in a lecture at Cooper Insti¬
tute, 203 ; reassured by Lincoln, 203 ;
criticises Halleck’s order to exclude
fugitive slaves, 204 ; suggests legis¬
lation to prevent return of fugitives,
204 ; suggests abolition in the Dis¬
trict, 205 ; consults with Lincoln on
plan for gradual abolition, 205 ; jus¬
tifies compensation, 206 ; urges Lin¬
coln not to delay signing, 207 ; on
news of Trent affair says surrender
is necessary, 209 ; urges Lincoln to
avoid conflict by giving up Mason
and Slidell, 210 ; reads letters from
Cobden and Bright, 210 ; points out
results of war with England, 211;
on Seward’s and Lincoln’s attitude,
212, 213 ; tries to prevent discussion
of Trent case in Senate, 213 ; makes
speech on Trent correspondence,
214, 215 ; calls it a triumph of Amer¬
ican principles, 215 ; sneered at by
English, 216 ; gains reputation in
international law, 216 ; introduces
resolutions on status of seceded
States, 217 ; argues for state suicide
and consequent end of slavery, 218 ;
his logic faulty, 219 ; finds himself
without support in Senate, 219 ; his
argument on legal tender notes, 220 ;
favors assuming interest on Mexican
debt to satisfy France, 220 ; intro¬
duces bill to recognize Hayti and
Liberia, 221, 222; declines medal
from Hayti, 222 ; reports bill to
carry out treaty to suppress slave
trade, 223 ; introduces bill to allow
negroes to carry mails, 223 ; makes
efforts to give negroes rights as wit¬
nesses, 224; argues on constitution¬
ality of emancipation under war
power, 225, 226; votes against ad¬
mission of West Virginia, 227 ; op¬
poses bill to establish temporary
governments in seceded States, 227 ;
introduces resolutions against mili¬
tary governors, 228 ; introduces re¬
solution against putting names of
victories on regimental colors, 228 ;
satisfied with results of session, 229 ;
continues to press Lincoln to eman¬
cipate slaves, 229 ; never loses con¬
fidence in Lincoln, 230 ; the recog¬
nized leader of anti-slavery in the
country, 231 ; his impressive person¬
ality, 231 ; arguments for his reelec¬
tion, 232 ; opposed as too radical,
233 ; nominated by Republican con¬
vention, 233 ; in campaign defends
himself, 234 ; reelected to Senate,
234 ; introduces various bills, 236 ;
favors enlistment of negroes, 237 ;
opposes gradual emancipation bill
for Missouri, 237, 238 ; opposes re¬
solutions against French in Mexico,
239 ; opposes privateering, 239, 240 ;
fails to prevent passage of act, 240 ;
tries to prevent action under it, 240;
persuades Lincoln not to issue let¬
ters, 241 ; introduces resolutions
against offers of mediation, 241 ;
continually corresponds with Eng¬
lish friends, 243 ; warns Cobden of
danger of war, 243 ; complains to
Duchess of Argyll of England’s un¬
friendly attitude, 244 ; describes his
part in urging United States to act
in English courts against privateers,
245; announces inevitable end of
war in emancipation, 245 ; on impos¬
sibility of compromise, 246 ; on bit¬
terness toward England, 246 ; la¬
ments growth of militarism, 247 ;
on dangers of a general foreign war,
247 ; prepares a speech on England’s
attitude, 248 ; rehearses unfriendly
acts on England’s part, 248-262;
460
INDEX
denounces the Alabama, 250; de¬
nounces the policy of Napoleon, 250,
261 ; convicts England of inconsis¬
tency, 251 ; denies that in fact the
Confederate States are a nation,
251, 252 ; his speech criticised in
England, 252 ; justifies his conduct
to Cobden, 253, 254 ; wishes to post¬
pone reconstruction, 255 ; in 1863
writes article against Lincoln’s mili¬
tary government, 256 ; thinks it the
duty of Congress to interpose, 258 ;
offers resolutions on necessity of
protecting freedmen in reconstruc¬
tion, 259 ; proposes emancipation
amendment to Constitution, 260 ;
insists that Congress can abolish by
statute, 260 ; succeeds in carrying
repeal of Fugitive Slave Acts, 261 ;
introduces bills to benefit free ne¬
groes, 262 ; his power over the Sen¬
ate at this time, 262, 263 ; opposes
white suffrage in Montana territorial
bill, 263 ; fails to secure negro suf¬
frage in District, 264 ; other efforts
to secure equal rights for negroes,
264 ; carries through bill establishing
Freedman’s Bureau, 265, 266 ; makes
report on French Spoliation Claims,
267 ; introduces bill to reform the
civil service, 267 ; opposes subjecting
national banks to state taxation,
268 ; secures establishment of mint
in Oregon, 268 ; his ideas on tariff
duties, 268 ; opposes recognition of
Arkansas under Lincoln’s recon¬
struction, 269 ; sums up work of
Congress, 270 ; takes no part in
movement against Lincoln, 271 ;
does not see how Lincoln can be
forced to withdraw, 272 ; story of
his having advocated nomination of
Johnson probably fictitious, 273 ;
explains to Cobden the reasons for
distrust of Lincoln, 274; speaks in
campaign on “ party spirit,” 274 ;
contrasts Mayfiower with slave-ship,
275 ; shows impossibility of peace
between North and South, 276 ; on
results of election, 277 ; defends
seizure of Florida, 277 ; urges ap¬
pointment of Chase to chief-justice-
ship, 278 ; secures admission of negro
lawyer to bar, 278 ; opposes bill for
bust of Taney, 278, 279 ; prevents
fortification of Northern border, 279 ;
opposes proposal to retaliate for
abuses on Northern prisoners, 280,
281 ; opposes paintings in Capitol of
victories over Confederates, 281 ; dis¬
cusses reconstruction with Lincoln,
282 ; tries to secure negro suffrage
in reconstruction act of 1864, 284 ;
opposes recognition of Louisiana
government as legitimate, 285; con¬
tinues to demand negro suffrage,
286; opposes admission of a senator
from Virginia, 286; offers resolu¬
tions on reconstruction, 287 ; his
course justified, 287, 288; does not
quarrel personally with Lincoln,
288 ; explains his position to Bright,
288, 289 ; remains in Washington
after session, 289 ; at deathbed of
Lincoln, 290; his kindness to Mrs.
Lincoln, 290; expects cooperation
from Johnson, 291 ; delivers eulogy
upon Lincoln, 292; begins to stir up
opposition to Johnson’s reconstruc¬
tion policy, 294 ; discouraged by
lack of support, 295 ; thinks the
Southern element controls Johnson,
296 ; justifies universal suffrage, 296 ;
announces necessity of congressional
action, 297 ; makes speech demand¬
ing unrestricted equal rights, 297-
299 ; sends telegram to Johnson
urging him to pause, 302 ; has final
interview with Johnson, 302, 303 ;
introduces bills to protect civil
rights of negroes, 303, 304 ; calls
President’s report on the South
“ whitewashing,” 305 ; stirs up feel¬
ing by the phrase, 305 ; explains the
real condition of the South, 306, 307 ;
takes no part in debate on civil
rights bill, 309 ; objects to admission
of a senator from Florida, 310 ; op¬
poses proposed fourteenth amend¬
ment on ground that it permits
States to exclude blacks from suf¬
frage, 310-313 ; bases argument on
nature of Republican government,
312 ; shows that only through negro
suffrage can there be peace, 313 ;
denounced by the President, 314;
INDEX
461
opposes bill to admit Colorado, 315;
opposes admission of Nebraska, 316 ;
unable to prevent admission of Ten¬
nessee with white suffrage, 316 ; sat¬
isfied with fourteenth amendment
as adopted, 317 ; opposes bill to re¬
move disqualifications from jurors
in case of Davis, 318 ; argues that a
majority vote is necessary to election
of a senator, 319 ; his attitude on
minor matters, 319; succeeds in
blocking bill to abolish neutrality
laws, 320; suffers from nervous ex¬
haustion, 320; continues on good
terms with Seward, 321; on basis
for protectionist agitation, 321 ; de¬
nounces Johnson’s policy, 323; his
marriage and subsequent separation,
323; in Thirty-ninth Congress offers
new resolutions on reconstruction,
324; opposes woman suffrage, 325;
opposes any educational qualifica¬
tion, 325; blocks admission of Ne¬
braska until act is amended to allow
negro suffrage, 326 ; describes his
success in placing negro suffrage in
the reconstruction bill, 328; exas¬
perates opponents by his tedious¬
ness, 329; secures abolition of peon¬
age, 329 ; wishes to extend scope of
Tenure of Office Act, 330; denounces
Johnson as a usurper, 331; wishes
to revise presidential term and elec¬
tion, 331, 332 ; sums up progress,
wishes impeachment of Jolinson,
332; urges some method of giving
the freedmen land and education,
332, 333; stirs up dislike by his
masterfulness, 333, 334; urges free
schools in South, 334, 336; afraid to
trust Johnson, 337; favors ratifi¬
cation of Alaska treaty to please
Russia, 338, 339; hopes it will not
prove a precedent, 340 ; thinks only
way to secure permanent peace is to
have England pay claims, 341 ; tells
Bright arbitration must cover the
whole case, 342 ; struggles against
narrow caucus rule of Senate, ^3;
again tries to force equal education
upon South, 343 ; unable to carry bill
to secure suffrage to blacks all over
country, 344; his further attempts
to secure legal equality in small
matters, 344 ; moves into a new
house in Washington, his guests,
345 ; opposes admission of Senator
Thomas from Maryland, 346 ; urges
Stanton to refuse to resign, 347 ; his
tribute to Wade’s incorruptibility,
349 ; argues against right of chief
justice to vote in case of tie in im¬
peachment proceedings, 350 ; his
argument for conviction of John¬
son, 350 ; argues in favor of right
of Congress to impose conditions on
States, 351 ; encourages election of
negroes to Congress, 351 ; argues
against payment of debt in green¬
backs, 352, 353 ; opposes bill to au¬
thorize President to make reprisals
upon countries arresting American
citizens, 354 ; succeeds in carrying a
substitute through Senate, 355 ; re¬
elected to Senate, 356; in campaign
urges necessity of Republican rule
and resumption of specie payments,
356; his plea for equal rights, 356;
neither favors nor opposes Grant’s
nomination, 357 ; his comment on
Reverdy Johnson as minister to
England, 357 ; opposes fifteenth
amendment as unnecessary and
dangerous, 358 ; does not wish a
Cabinet position under Grant, 359;
early doubts Grant’s ability, 359,
360; discusses Johnson’s English
treaties with Grant, 360 ; secures
rejection of treaty to buy St.
Thomas, 361 ; his influential position
in the Senate at opening of Grant’s
term, 362; a recognized Republican
leader, 362 ; looks forward to period
of repose, 363 ; on good terms with
members of Cabinet, 363 ; objects to
proposal to alter law in order to ad¬
mit Stewart as secretary of trea-
sur}', 364; has little influence on
diplomatic appointments, 364 ; op¬
poses Johnson treaty as inadequate,
365 ; enlarges on catalogue of Eng¬
lish infractions of neutrality, 365-
367 ; his motives in stating extreme
claims, 367; supported by Senate,
368 ; amazes both friends and ene¬
mies in England, 368; his course
462
INDEX
justified by events, 368 ; succeeds
in preventing recognition of Cuban
belligerency, 369 ; consulted by Fish
as to Motley’s instructions, 369, 370;
his extravagant expectations of Eng¬
land’s yielding, 370; again urges
vigorous action, 371 ; his speech be¬
fore Massachusetts Republican con¬
vention, 371, 372; announces true
policy in Cuban question, 371 ; does
not expect cession of Canada, 372 ;
his argument for equal rights in lec¬
ture on caste, 372, 373; urges that
if Virginia rescind ratification of
fifteenth amendment it be reduced
to provisional government, 374 ; re¬
joices at admission of a colored sen¬
ator from Mississippi, 375 ; moves
to strike out “ white ” from natu¬
ralization laws, 375 ; introduces bill
to refund national debt, 376, 377 ;
favors one-cent postage, 377 ; various
other acts, 377, 378 ; visited by Grant
to urge support of San Domingo
treaties, 382 ; question of his having
promised support, 382, 383 ; impos¬
sibility of his having pledged him¬
self, 383; secures deliberate consid¬
eration of treaties, 384; discovers
means employed to get treaties, 384 ;
opposes consideration in open ses¬
sion, 385 ; his speech against ratifi¬
cation, 386 ; does not resent removal
of Motley, 386; in Massachusetts
campaign makes no reference to San
Domingo, 387 ; failure of attempt to
remove from committee on foreign
relations, 388 ; offers resolutions
calling for correspondence relating
to treaty, 388 ; opposes plan to ap¬
point a commission, 388; his lan¬
guage exasperating and censorious,
389 ; does not realize that he will
irritate Grant, 390 ; bitterly attacked
by various senators, 390 ; suffers in
health from this quarrel, 392 ; ac¬
cused by Fish and Motley of treach¬
ery to Grant, 393 ; severs friendly
relations witli Fish, 394 ; removed
by Senate, from position at head of
committee on foreign affairs 395,
396 ; makes no complaint, 397 ; in¬
troduces resolutions calling for re¬
moval of navy from San Domingo,
397 ; his speech denouncing Grant’s
action, 398, 399 ; favors measure to
repress Ku-Klux, 399; his infiuence
in favor of treaty of Washington,
400 ; uses infiuence to prevent But¬
ler’s nomination in Massachusetts,
400 ; unaware of attempt to recon¬
cile him with Grant, 401 ; introduces
amendment making President in¬
eligible for reelection, 401, 402 ; his
efforts to secure passage of civil
rights act, 402-406; his argument
for equal rights as beyond matters
of feeling, 403; argues against color
prejudice, 404 ; insists on purely
moral aspect, 404, 405 ; his bill fails
repeatedly, 405, 406 ; shows failing
health and lack of originality in de¬
bate, 406; introduces resolutions to
investigate sales of arms during
Franco-German war, 407 ; attacked
as unpatriotic, 408; testifies before
investigating committee, 409 ; un¬
willing to take lead in liberal Re¬
publican movement, 411 ; reluctant
to leave Republican party, 411; his
ideas adopted in Republican plat¬
form, 412 ; his speech declaring op¬
position to Grant, 412-415 ; arraigns
Grant for party despotism, 413 ; and
for corruption in office, 414 ; his
speech exaggerated and a failure,
415 ; bitterly criticised by leading
Republicans, 415 ; finally decides to
vote for Greeley, 416; assailed by
Blaine in an open letter, 416 ; his
reply, 416, 417 ; his health giving
way, visits Europe, 417 ; leaves
speech to be printed, 418 ; declines
Democratic nomination in Massa¬
chusetts, 418 ; sadness of his last
meeting with English friends, 418,
419; returns to Washington, but is
\mable to serve on committees, 419 ;
offers bill to prevent names of bat¬
tles in civil war from being honored,
419 ; his other share in business,
420 ; his bill condemned by the Mas¬
sachusetts legislature as an insult
to the soldier, 421, 422 ; suffers
from continued ill health and de¬
pression, 423 ; embittered by altered
INDEX
463
character of Republican party, 423 ;
isolated by deaths of old friends,
424 ; excluded from Republican cau¬
cus, 424 ; renews social life in Bos¬
ton, avoiding political discussion,
424 ; on returning to Senate finds
himself without a party, 426 ; intro¬
duces a large number of bills, 426 ;
unable to secure immediate consid¬
eration of civil rights bill, 427 ; asks
Edmunds to help him, 427 ; attends
New England dinner in New York,
428 ; his subsequent activity in Sen¬
ate, 428, 429 ; his speech on chief
justiceship, 429 ; gratified at re¬
scinding of censure by Massachu¬
setts, 429 ; his last speech, 429 ; his
last illness and death, 430 ; summary
of his character, 431 ; discussion of
his eloquence, 431 : his egotism in
later life, 431, 432 ; his belief in
principles of democracy, 432.
Personal traits. General estimate,
431, 432 ; ambition, 8, 25, 60, 81 ;
courage, 110, 113, 116, 230; dig¬
nity, 80, 83, 84, 115, 380, 394, 397,
426 ; eloquence, 6, 35, 50, 60, 61 ;
egotism, 431 ; generosity, 22, 29,
155, 228, 278-281, 419; honesty,
383, 393 ; invective, power of, 139-
144 ; kindliness, 290, 424, 429 ; lack
of humor, 10, 14 ; lack of imagina¬
tion, 48, 49, 415 ; legal ability, 13 ;
masterfulness, 262, 333 ; modesty,
13, 20, 22 ; moral force, 6, 86, 362 ;
naturalness, 9, 12, 432 ; personal
appearance, 12, 17, 231 ; prolixity,
312, 406 ; social charm, 6, 9, 12, 17,
22, 89, 98, 321, 345, 362 ; wideness
of culture, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13.
Political views. Abolitionists, 43 ;
Alabama claims, 341, 342, 360, 365-
367 , 370, 400; Alaska treaty, 339,
340 ; Andrew Johnson, 303, 323, 330,
337, 350 ; caucus, congressional, 343 ;
civil service reform, 55, 195, 237,
267, 330 ; compromises in 1861, 189-
194 ; Cuban belligerency, 369, 371 ;
debt, payment of, 352, 376, 377 ; dis¬
union, 178, 217, 218 ; emancipation,
198, 199, 201-207, 225-227, 229, 230,
237, 259, 260, 269, 277 ; England’s
policy during civil war, 243-247,
248-254, 367 ; equal civil rights for
negroes, 223-225, 237, 255, 262, 264-
266, 278, 303, 309, 312, 333, 344, 351,
375, 402-406, 420, 426-428, 430;
equality of mankind, 44, 61, 99, 297,
324, 356, 372, 374, 387, 432; Eu¬
rope, attitude toward, 320, 353-355 ;
expansion, 340 ; fifteenth amend¬
ment, 358 ; Florida affair, 277 ;
fourteenth amendment, 310, 317 ;
French spoliation claims, 267, 426 ;
Free-Soil party, 58, 62, 76, 79, 80,
97 ; Fugitive Slave Law, 77-79, 94,
95, 111, 112, 116, 118-122, 191, 204,
227, 261, 262; Hayti, recognition of,
221, 222 ; Kansas, troubles in, 138-
142, 173 ; Kansas-Nebraska bill, 107,
108 ; Know-Nothing party, 124, 128,
129 ; legal-tender notes, 220 ; lib¬
eral Republi can movement, 411-418;
Liberia, recognition of, 221, 222 ;
Massachusetts and South Carolina
in the Revolution, 111, 113; media¬
tion, ill civil war, 241 ; Mexican
war, 46-48, 52-55 ; Mexico, French
intervention in, 220, 238, 239, 250,
251 ; national banks, 267, 268 ; negro
education, 333-335, 343 ; negro suf¬
frage, 263, 204, 284, 286, 288, 291,
292, 294-296, 303, 310-313, 315, 325-
328, 334, 344 ; party politics, 27, 28,
55, 78, 273-275, 316, 400 ; popular
sovereignty, 176; presidential term,
331, 401 ; privateering, 239-241, 243 ;
reconstruction, 228, 255-258, 269,
284-289, 304, 300, 307, 310, 323, 328,
332, 351, 356, 374 ; retaliation for
Southern treatment of prisoners,
280 ; Republican party, 411-413 ;
St. Thomas treaty, 361 ; San Do¬
mingo treaties, 384-390, 397-399 ;
senatorial elections, 319 ; slavery,
15, 10, 26, 31, 32, 51, 53, 62, 93, 114,
127, 172-175, 234, 275, 329; slave
trade, 223 ; tariff, 208, 321; Texas, 43,
44 ; Trent affair, 209-213, 215 ; war,
34-36, 63, 196 ; woman suffrage, 325.
Sumner, Charles Pinckney, father of
Charles Sumner, his education, and
career in Massachusetts politics, 3,
4 ; his character, 4 ; predicts slavery
struggle, 4 ; connected with anti*
Masonic movement, 4.
464
INDEX
Sumner, General Edwin V., relative
of Charles Sumner, 2.
Sumner, Increase, relative of Charles
Sumner, his career, 2.
Sumner, Job, grandfather of Charles
Sumner, his education, and career
in revolutionary army, 2, 3.
Sumner, Matilda, twin sister of
Charles Sumner, 5.
Sumner family, its history in England
and America, 1-5.
Sutherland, DutAess of, meets Sum¬
ner in 1838, 21, 26 ; and again in
1857, 159.
Talfourd, Sir Thomas Noon, meets
Sumner in 1838, 21.
Taney, Roger B., his death, 278; pla¬
cing of his bust in Supreme Court
room prevented by Sumner, 278.
Taylor, Zachary, brings on Mexican
war, 45 ; nominated for President,
57 ; considers himself a People’s
candidate, 57 ; wishes to organize
new Territories as States, 69 ;
strongly opposes compromise mea¬
sures, 72; his death, 72.
Tennessee, attempt of Sumner to
secure negro suffrage in, 316.
Tennyson, Alfred, visited by Sumner
in 1859, 164.
Territories, question of slavery in, 56 ;
organization of, urged by Polk, 65;
difficulties in war of settlement of,
66-68 ; admission of, as States urged
by Taylor, 69 ; negro suffrage in,
327.
Texas, its boundary question causes
danger of war with Mexico, 34 ;
agitation for its annexation, 41 ; an¬
nexed through endeavors of Calhoun
and Tyler, 41, 43 ; opposition to its
admission, in Massachusetts, 43-45;
admitted as a State, 45; question of
its boundaries in 1849, 69, 70, 71.
Thibaut, Anton Friedrich Justus,
visited by Sumner, 24.
Thomas, General Lorenzo, attempt
of Johnson to make secretary of
war, 347.
Thomas, Francis, prevented by Sum¬
ner from entering Senate from
Maryland , 346.
Thompson, Jacob, aids secessionists
in 1860, from Buchanan’s Cabinet,
183.
Thornton, Sir Edward, British minis¬
ter, anxious to settle Alabama ques¬
tion, 373.
Ticknor, George, a Compromise Whig
in 1850, 74.
Toombs, Robert, describes with ap¬
proval Butler’s assault on Sumner,
146, 147.
Trumbull, Lyman, called a traitor by
Douglas, 137 ; votes against Critten¬
den resolution, 200 ; calls civil
rights bill unnecessary, 308 ; later
introduces similar bills himself, 308 ;
his attitude in impeachment trial,
348 ; opposes removal of Sumner
from his chairmanship, 395 ; opposes
reelection of Grant, 410.
Tuck, Amos, votes against Winthrop
for speaker, 55.
Turner, Nat, leads slave insurrection,
38.
Tyler, John, favors annexation of
Texas, 41 ; secures it in 1845, 42.
Upshur, Abel P., calls abolition in
Texas a calamity, 42.
Van Buren, Martin, nominated for
President by Buffalo convention,
59.
Vaughan, Sir Charles Richard, enter¬
tains Sumner, 20.
Vermont, Confederate raid into, 279.
Victoria, her coronation witnessed by
Sumner, 22.
Virginia, anti-slavery feelings in, 168 ;
John Brown raid in, 170 ; calls
Peace Conference, 182 ; recognition
of reconstructed government of, op¬
posed by Sumner, 286, 287 ; debate
on its admission in 1870, 374.
Wade, Benjamin F., elected to Senate,
89 ; opposes Lincoln’s renomination,
271 ; favors bill to retaliate for
Southern treatment of prisoners,
280 ; thinks opposition to Johnson
hopeless, 295 ; moves to take up
bill for admission of Nebraska, 325;
question of his fitness to sit in im-
INDEX
465
peach ment, 349 ; tribute of Sumner
to, 349, 350 ; favors ineligibility of
President for reelection, 401.
Wade, Edward, signs •* Address of In¬
dependent Democrats,” 106.
Waite, M. R., appointed chief jus¬
tice, 429.
War, Sumner’s arguments against, 34-
36, 63.
War of Rebellion, military situation
in, during 1861-1863, 235, 236.
War of Revolution, 2.
Washburne, Elihu, secretary of state
for a week, 363.
Waterston, Mrs., describes Sumner as
a law student, 9.
Webster, Daniel, presents a prize to
Sumner, 7 ; admits Sumner to floor
of Senate, 11 ; opposes English
claim to right of search, 30; de¬
mands surrender of Creole muti¬
neers, 30; attacked by Channing
and Sumner, 31 ; at Whig Conven¬
tion of 1847, endeavors to get united
support of Massachusetts Whigs, 54;
humiliated by Taylor’s nomination,
.57 ; makes 7th of March speech, 72 ;
appointed secretary of state, 72;
his influence in Boston, 73; com¬
ments of Sumner on, 73 ; bitter re¬
mark of Emerson on, 74 ; works
against Sumner in election of 1850,
82 ; announces finality of compro¬
mise, 87.
Weed, Thurlow, considers threat of
disunion a mere game, 179; shows
political advantage of offering com¬
promises, 190.
Welles, Gideon, approves Wilkes’s
seizure of Mason and Slidell, 209 ;
opposes plan to issue letters of
marque, 241.
West Virginia, admitted to Union,
227.
Wharnclifife, Lady, describes Sujnner’s
social success in England, 22.
Wharncliffe, Lord, entertains Sumner
in 1838, 21.
Wlieaton, Henry, acquaintance of
Sumner with, 11.
Whewell, William, met by Sumner
in 1838, 21.
Whig party, considered anti-slavery
by Sumner in 1844, 33 ; division in,
on question of continuing opposition
to Texas, 43-45; splits in Massachu¬
setts over Mexican war, 41-55 ;
struggle in state convention of 1846,
50-52; carried by conservative ele¬
ment, 51; Massachusetts conven¬
tion of, in 1847, 53-55 ; nominates
Taylor in 1848, 57 ; votes down
Wilmot Proviso, 57 ; bolt from in
Massachusetts, 58 ; joins with Free-
Soilers in New Hampshire, 63 ;
liable to be disrupted by Taylor’s
territorial policy, 72 ; bitterness of,
against Free-Soilers, 75; defeated
by Free-Soil and Democratic coali¬
tion, 80; again defeated in 1851, 85;
its position in campaign of 1852, 96;
beaten in election, 97 ; regains con¬
trol of Massachusetts, 97; carries
Massachusetts in 1853, and rejects
new constitution, 100 ; practically
dead in 1853, 101 ; members of,
refuse to join Republican party»
122 ; joins Know-Nothing move¬
ment, 123-125 ; reasons for its co¬
hesion, 124 ; a greater hindrance to
freedom than Democratic party,
125.
Whittier, John Greenleaf, impressed
by Sumner’s speech in Whig con¬
vention, 52 ; Free-Soil leader in
1850, 74; writes poem to C. S., 116;
praises Sumner’s Kansas speech,
145; opposes war to prevent seces¬
sion, 184; urges reelection of Sum¬
ner, 234 ; disapproves of Sumner’s
attack on Grant, 415.
Wigfall, Louis T., predicts ruin to
English monarchy if cotton export
be blocked, 181.
Wilde, Sergeant Thomas, meets Sum¬
ner in 1838, 21.
Wilkes, Captain Charles, seizes Mason
and Slidell, 208; approved by
Welles, thanked by House, 209;
judgment of Seward upon his con¬
duct, 214 ; Sumner’s opinion on,
215.
Wilmot, David, offers anti-slavery
proviso, 56.
Wilmot Proviso, 56.
Wilson, Henry, leader of Conscience
466
INDEX
Whigs, 44 ; announces purpose to
bolt, 58 ; Free-Soil leader in 1850,
74 ; urges coalition with Democrats,
76 ; on formation of Republican
party, 118 ; joins Know-Nothing
party, his justification, 123 ; elected
to Senate, 124 ; states facts of
Brooks’s attack on Sumner, 148 ;
advises Kansas free-state men to
vote, 166 ; introduces bill to abolish
slavery in the District, 205 ; his
efforts to secure equal pay for negro
soldiers, 264; prefers to persuade
rather than oppose Johnson, 295;
introduces civil rights bill, 305 ; on
original form of fourteenth amend¬
ment, 316 ; protests against removal
of Motley, 386 ; opposes removal of
Sumner from his chairmanship,
395 ; prevents Butler from getting
Republican nomination for governor
of Massachusetts, 400 ; suffers from
paralysis, 424.
Winthrop, Robert C., schoolmate of
Sumner, 5 ; elected to legislature, 15;
gives toast “ Our country, however
bounded,” 43 ; votes for Mexican
war bill, 46 ; denounced by Sumner,
46, 47 ; tells Sumner his criticisms
are offensive, 47 ; again accused by
Sumner, 48; renounces Sumner’s
acquaintance, 48 ; again assailed by
Whigs, 52 ; refusal of Sumner to
run against, for Congress, 52 ; re¬
elected in spite of a Whig bolt, 52 ;
opposes Palfrey’s resolutions at
Whig state convention, 54 ; elected
Speaker of House, 65 ; reelected to
Congress over Sumner, 55 ; ap¬
pointed to Senate to fill Webster’s
place, 73; candidate for Senate in
election of 1850, 74 ; defeated for
governor in 1851, 85 ; declines to
join Republicans, 128, 129.
Woman suffrage, Sumner’s opinion
on, 325.
Wordsworth, William, meets Sumner
in 1838, 21.
>
* - »
* ■ ?
>4 -
• i
s
A. .
r .•'
1
¥
%
i
*r
rt
t
M-ini
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11