Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 04 (of 20)
by Charles Sumner · English · Gutenberg #45954 · 640,618 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 04 (of 20)
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 04 (of 20)
Author: Charles Sumner
Release date: June 13, 2014 [eBook #45954]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45954
Credits: Produced by Mark C. Orton, Suzanne Fleming and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHARLES SUMNER: HIS COMPLETE WORKS, VOLUME 04 (OF 20) ***
Charles Sumner; his complete works, Volume 4 (of 20)
HENRY WILSON
[Illustration: Eng^d. by A H Richie]
Statesman Edition VOL. IV
Charles Sumner
HIS COMPLETE WORKS
With Introduction
BY
HON. GEORGE FRISBIE HOAR
[Illustration]
BOSTON
LEE AND SHEPARD
MCM
COPYRIGHT, 1900,
BY
LEE AND SHEPARD.
Statesman Edition.
LIMITED TO ONE THOUSAND COPIES.
OF WHICH THIS IS
No. 565
Norwood Press:
NORWOOD, MASS., U.S.A.
CONTENTS OF VOLUME IV.
PAGE
ANDREW J. DOWNING, THE LANDSCAPE GARDENER. Speech
in the Senate, in Favor of an Allowance to the Widow of
the late Andrew J. Downing, August 26, 1852 1
THE PARTY OF FREEDOM: ITS NECESSITY AND PRACTICABILITY.
Speech at the State Convention of the Free-Soil
Party of Massachusetts, held at Lowell, September 15, 1852 3
CIVIL SUPERINTENDENTS OF ARMORIES. Speech in the Senate,
on the Proposition to change the Superintendents of
Armories, February 23, 1853 12
NECESSITY OF UNION TO UPHOLD FREEDOM. Letter to a
Rhode Island Committee, March 26, 1853 15
AGAINST SECRECY IN PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENATE. Speech
in the Senate, on the Proposition to limit the Secret Sessions
of the Senate, April 6, 1853 16
THE GERMAN EMIGRANT MUST BE AGAINST SLAVERY. Letter
to Lewis Tappan, Esq., May 17, 1853 19
POWERS OF THE STATE OVER THE MILITIA: EXEMPTIONS
FOR CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES. Speech in Convention
to revise and amend the Constitution of Massachusetts,
June 21, 1853 20
POWERS OF THE STATE OVER THE MILITIA: COLORED COMPANIES.
Speech in Convention to revise and amend the
Constitution of Massachusetts, June 22, 1853 25
THE PACIFIC RAILROAD AND THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
Letter to the Mayor of Boston, for the Celebration
of July 4, 1853 32
THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM, AND ITS PROPER BASIS.
Speech on the Proposition to amend the Basis of the
House of Representatives of Massachusetts, in the Convention
to revise and amend the Constitution of that
State, July 7, 1853 33
BILLS OF RIGHTS: THEIR HISTORY AND POLICY. Speech on
the Report from the Committee on the Bill of Rights, in
the Convention to revise and amend the Constitution of
Massachusetts, July 25, 1853 62
FINGER-POINT FROM PLYMOUTH ROCK. Speech at the Plymouth
Festival in Commemoration of the Embarkation
of the Pilgrims, August 1, 1853 73
IRELAND AND IRISHMEN. Letter to a Committee of Irish-born
Citizens, August 2, 1853 80
THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM: NO REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI
COMPROMISE. Speech in the Senate, against the
Repeal of the Missouri Prohibition of Slavery north of
36° 30´ in the Nebraska and Kansas Bill, February 21, 1854 81
WHEN WILL THE NORTH BE AROUSED? Letter to a Personal
Friend, March 30, 1854 137
A LIBERTY-LOVING EMIGRATION TO GUARD KANSAS. Letter
to a Massachusetts Committee, May 1, 1854 138
FINAL PROTEST, FOR HIMSELF AND THE CLERGY OF NEW
ENGLAND, AGAINST SLAVERY IN NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.
Speech in the Senate, on the Night of the Final Passage
of the Nebraska and Kansas Bill, May 25, 1854 140
UNION OF ALL PARTIES NECESSARY AGAINST THE SLAVE
POWER. Letter to a Massachusetts Committee, May 29, 1854 157
BOSTON PETITION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE
ACT. Speech in the Senate, on the Boston Petition for
the Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, June 26, 1854 159
REPLY TO ASSAILANTS: OATH TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION;
WEAKNESS OF THE SOUTH FROM SLAVERY. Second
Speech in the Senate on the Boston Petition for the
Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, June 28, 1854 172
PEACEFUL OPPOSITION TO THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. Letter
to the Mayor of Boston, for the Celebration of July 4, 1854 228
NO PENSION FOR SERVICE IN SUPPORT OF THE FUGITIVE
SLAVE ACT. Minority Report to the Senate of the
United States, on the Bill granting to the Widow of
James Batchelder a Provision for her Future Support,
July 13, 1854 230
JAMES OTIS AN EXAMPLE TO MASSACHUSETTS. Letter to
the Cape Cod Association of Massachusetts, July 30, 1854 237
STRUGGLE FOR REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. Debate
in the Senate, July 31, 1854 239
DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS AT THE PRESENT CRISIS. FORMATION
OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Speech before the
Republican State Convention at Worcester, September 7,
1854 255
THE GOOD FARMER AND THE GOOD CITIZEN. Letter to the
Norfolk Agricultural Society, September 25, 1854 280
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT TO BE DISOBEYED. Letter to a
Committee at Syracuse, New York, September 28, 1854 282
POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MERCHANT, ILLUSTRATED BY
THE LIFE OF GRANVILLE SHARP. Address before the
Mercantile Library Association of Boston, on the Evening
of November 13, 1854 283
WAGES OF SEAMEN IN CASE OF WRECK. Speech in the
Senate, on introducing a Bill to secure Wages to Seamen
in Case of Wreck, February 12, 1855 324
AGAINST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. Letter to a Committee of
the Massachusetts Legislature, February 12, 1855 331
THE DEMANDS OF FREEDOM: REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE
SLAVE ACT. Speech in the Senate against Mr. Toucey's
Bill, and for the Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, February
23, 1855 333
ANDREW J. DOWNING, THE LANDSCAPE GARDENER.
SPEECH IN THE SENATE, IN FAVOR OF AN ALLOWANCE TO THE WIDOW
OF THE LATE ANDREW J. DOWNING, AUGUST 26, 1852.
The Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation Bill being under consideration,
Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, under instructions from the Committee
on Finance, moved the following amendment:--
"For the payment of the arrears of salary due to the late Rural
Architect, A. J. Downing, deceased, from the 1st of May, 1852,
to the date of his death, and a further allowance to his widow,
equal to the salary for one year, $2,500: _Provided_, that the
said sum shall be in full of all claim for the services of the
said deceased, and for all models, specifications, and drawings,
designed for the benefit of the United States, which are not in its
possession."
In the course of the debate which ensued, Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.
Mr. President--The laborer is worthy of his hire; and I believe at this
moment there is no question of charity to the widow of the late Mr.
Downing. The simple proposition is, to make compensation for services
rendered to the United States by this eminent artist as superintendent
of the public grounds in Washington. And since the plans he has left
behind and the impulse he has given to improvements here by his
remarkable genius will continue to benefit us, though he has been
removed, it is thought reasonable to continue his salary to the close
of the unexpired year from which it commenced. These plans alone have
been valued at five thousand dollars, and we are to have the advantage
of them. In pursuance of these, his successor will be able to proceed
in arranging the public grounds, and in embellishing the national
capital, without further expenditure for others. Thus, as I said at
the outset, it is not a question of charity, but of compensation; and
on this ground I doubt not the estate of the departed artist deserves
the small pittance it is proposed to pay. For myself, I should be much
happier to vote a larger appropriation, believing, that, over and above
the services actually rendered in the discharge of his duties, these
plans are amply worth it, and that we shall all feel better by such
recognition of our debt.
Few men in the public service have vindicated a title to regard
above Mr. Downing. At the age of thirty-seven he has passed away,
"dead ere his prime,"--like Lycidas, also, "floating upon his watery
bier,"[1]--leaving behind a reputation above that of any other citizen
in the beautiful department of Art to which he was devoted. His labors
and his example cannot be forgotten. I know of no man among us, in any
sphere of life, so young as he was at his death, who has been able to
perform services of such true, simple, and lasting beneficence. By
wide and active superintendence of rural improvements, by labors of
the pen, and by the various exercise of his genius, he has contributed
essentially to the sum of human happiness. And now, Sir, by practical
services here in Washington, rendered at the call of his country, he
has earned, it seems to me, this small appropriation, not as a charity
to his desolate widow, but as a remuneration for labor done. I hope the
amendment will be agreed to.
[1] Mr. Downing was accidentally drowned in the Hudson River.
THE PARTY OF FREEDOM: ITS NECESSITY AND
PRACTICABILITY.
SPEECH AT THE STATE CONVENTION OF THE FREE-SOIL PARTY OF
MASSACHUSETTS, HELD AT LOWELL, SEPTEMBER 15, 1852.
The annual State Convention of the Free-Soil Party of Massachusetts
met at Lowell September 15, 1852. It was organized with the following
officers: Hon. Stephen C. Phillips, of Salem, President,--Rodney
French, of New Bedford, George B. Atwood, of Taunton, William Jackson,
of Newton, George F. Williams, of Boston, Charles Beck, of Cambridge,
John B. Alley, of Lynn, Benjamin F. Thompson, of Winchester, John
Nesmith, of Lowell, John Edgell, of Gardner, Francis Bates, of
Springfield, Calvin Marden, of Pittsfield, Vice-Presidents,--George
M. Brooks, of Concord, Edmund Anthony, of New Bedford, William S.
Robinson, of Lowell, Andrew J. Aiken, of Adams, Benjamin F. White, of
Weymouth, Secretaries.
Eloquent speeches were made by the President, Hon. S. C. Phillips,
Hon. Henry Wilson, Hon. John W. Graves, Hon. E. L. Keyes, Hon. Rodney
French, Dr. Caleb Swan, Richard H. Dana, Jr., Esq., Hon. Horace Mann,
Hon. Amasa Walker, Hon. Anson Burlingame, and Seth Webb, Jr., Esq.
The resolutions adopted by the Convention were reported by Hon. C. F.
Adams. Hon. Horace Mann was nominated as candidate for Governor, and
Hon. Amasa Walker as candidate for Lieutenant-Governor.
Early in the proceedings Mr. Sumner was introduced to the audience by
the President. This incident is copied from the report in the papers,
as is also the speech which he made, with the interruptions.
"The President remarked, that there was one gentleman present
whom the Convention would all delight to hear: he alluded to our
distinguished Senator in Congress, Hon. Charles Sumner.
"The name of Mr. Sumner was received with 'three times three'
rousing cheers, and the waving of hats, canes, handkerchiefs,
&c.; which demonstrations of regard were renewed as he made his
appearance on the platform."
Among those on the platform was Captain Drayton, called "The Hero
of the Pearl," recently liberated from prison through the exertions
of Mr. Sumner (_ante_, p. 49), who took his seat "amid the hearty
cheers of the whole assembly."
MR. PRESIDENT, AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF MASSACHUSETTS:--
I should be dull indeed,--dull as a weed,--were I insensible to this
generous, heart-speaking welcome. After an absence of many months,
I have now come home to breathe anew this invigorating Northern air
[_applause_], to tread again the free soil of our native Massachusetts
[_cheers_], and to enjoy the sympathy of friends and fellow-citizens.
[_Renewed applause._] But, while glad in your greetings, thus
bounteously lavished, I cannot accept them for myself. I do not deserve
them. They belong to the cause [_applause_] which we all have at heart,
and which binds us together. [_Cheers._]
Fellow-citizens, I have not come here to make a speech. The occasion
requires no such effort. Weary with other labors, and desiring rest,
I have little now to say,--and that little will be too much, if about
myself. If, at Washington, during a long session of Congress,--my first
experience of public life,--I have been able to do anything which meets
your acceptance, I am happy. [_Cheers._] I have done nothing but my
duty. ["_Hear! hear!_"] Passing from this, and taking advantage of
the kind attention with which you honor me, let me add one word in
vindication of our position as a _national party_.
We are on the eve of two important elections,--one of National
officers, and the other of State officers. A President and
Vice-President of the United States and members of Congress are to be
chosen; also, Governor and Lieutenant-Governor of the Commonwealth,
and members of the Legislature. And at these elections we are to
cast our votes so as most to advance the cause of Freedom under the
National Constitution. [_Cheers._] This is our peculiar object,--though
associated with it are other aims, kindred in their humane and liberal
character.
Against Freedom both the old parties are banded. Opposed to each other
in the contest for power, they concur in opposing every effort for the
establishment of Freedom under the National Constitution. [_Applause._]
Divided as parties, _they are one_ as supporters of Slavery. On this
question we can have no sympathy with either, but must necessarily be
against both. ["_Hear! hear!_"] They sustain Slavery in the District
of Columbia: we are against it. They sustain the coastwise Slave-Trade
under the National Flag: we abhor it. [_Cheers._] They sustain the
policy of silence on Slavery in the Territories: we urge the voice
of positive prohibition. They sustain that paragon of legislative
monsters,--unconstitutional, unchristian, and infamous,--the Fugitive
Slave Bill [_sensation_]: we insist on its repeal. [_Great applause._]
They concede to the Slave Power new life and protection: we cannot
be content except with its total destruction. [_Enthusiasm._] Such,
fellow-citizens, is the difference between us.
And now, if here in Massachusetts there be any who, on grounds of
policy or conscience, feel impelled to support Slavery, let them go
and sink in the embrace of the old parties. [_Applause._] There they
belong. On the other hand, all sincerely opposed to Slavery, who desire
to act against Slavery, who seek to bear their testimony for Freedom,
who long to carry into public affairs those principles of morality
and Christian duty which are the rule of private life,--let them
come out from both the old parties, and join us. [_Cheers._] In our
organization, with the declared friends of Freedom, they will find a
place in harmony with their aspirations. [_Enthusiasm._]
There is one apology, common to the supporters of both the old parties,
and often in their mouths, when pressed for inconsistent persistence
in adhering to these parties. It is dogmatically asserted that there
can be but two parties,--that a new party is impossible, particularly
in our country,--and that, therefore, all persons, however opposed to
Slavery, must be content in one of the old parties. This assumption,
which is without foundation in reason, is so often put forth, that
it has acquired a certain currency; and many, who reason hastily, or
implicitly follow others, have adopted it as the all-sufficient excuse
for their conduct. Confessing their own opposition to Slavery, they
yield to the domination of party, and become dumb. All this is wrong
morally, and therefore must be wrong practically.
Party, in its true estate, is the natural expression and agency of
different forms of opinion on important public questions, and itself
assumes different forms precisely according to the prevalence of
different opinions. Thus, in the early Italian republics there were for
a while the factions of Guelphs and Ghibellines, rival supporters of
Pope and Emperor,--also of Whites and Blacks, taking their names from
the color of their respective badges,--and in England, the two factions
of the White and Red Roses, in which was involved the succession to
the crown. In all these cases the party came into being, died out, or
changed with the objects originating it. If there be in a community
only two chief antagonist opinions, then there will be but two parties
embodying these opinions. But as other opinions practically prevail
and seek vent, so must parties change or multiply. This is so strongly
the conclusion of reason and philosophy, that it could not be doubted,
even if there were no examples of such change and multiplicity. But we
need only turn to the recent history of France and England, the two
countries where opinion has the freest scope, to find such examples.
Thus, for instance, in France,--and I dwell on this point because
I have myself observed, in conversation, that it is of practical
importance,--under Louis Philippe, anterior to the late Republic, there
was the party of Legitimists, supporters of the old branch of Bourbons,
and the party of Orleanists, supporters of the existing throne: these
two corresponding at the time, in relative rank and power, to our
Whigs and Democrats. Besides these was a third party, _the small
band of Republicans, represented in the Legislature by a few persons
only_, but strong in principles and purposes, which in February, 1848,
prevailed over both the others. [_Applause._] On the establishment of
the Republic, the multiplication of parties continued, until, with
the freedom of opinion and the freedom of the press, all were equally
overthrown by Louis Napoleon, and their place supplied by the enforced
unity of despotism.
In England, the most important measure of recent reform, the abolition
of the laws imposing a protective duty on corn, was carried only by a
third party. Neither of the two old parties could be brought to adopt
this measure and press it to consummation. A powerful public opinion,
thwarted in the regular parties, had recourse to a new one, neither
Whig nor Tory, but formed from both the old ones, where Sir Robert
Peel, the great Conservative leader, took his place, side by side,
in honorable coalition, with Mr. Cobden, the great Liberal leader.
["_Hear! hear!_"] In this way the Corn Laws were finally overthrown.
The multiplicity of parties engendered by this contest still continues
in England. At the general election for the new Parliament which
has just taken place, the strict lines of ancient parties seemed to
be effaced, and many were returned, not as Whigs and Tories, but as
Protectionists and Anti-Protectionists.
Thus by example in our own day we confirm the principle of political
philosophy, that parties naturally adapt themselves in character and
number to prevailing public opinion.
At the present time, in our country, there exists a deep, controlling,
conscientious feeling against Slavery. [_Cheers._] You and I, Sir, and
all of us, confess it. While recognizing the Constitution, we desire
to do everything in our power to relieve ourselves of responsibility
for this terrible wrong. ["_Yes! yes!_"] We would vindicate the
Constitution, and the National Government it has established,
from all participation in this outrage. [_Cheers._] Both the old
political parties, forgetful of the Fathers, and of the spirit of the
Constitution, not only refuse to be agents or representatives in any
degree of our convictions, but expressly discourage and denounce them.
Thus baffled in effort for utterance, these convictions naturally seek
expression in a new agency, _the party of Freedom_. [_Cheers._] Such
is the party, representing the great doctrines of Human Rights, as
enunciated in our Declaration of Independence, and inspired by a truly
Democratic sentiment, now assembled here under the name of the Free
Democracy. [_Cheers._]
The rising public opinion against Slavery cannot flow in the old
political channels. It is impeded, choked, and dammed back. But if not
_through_ the old parties, then _over_ the old parties [_tremendous
cheering_], this irresistible current _shall_ find its way.
[_Enthusiasm._] It cannot be permanently stopped. If the old parties
will not become its organs, they must become its victims. [_Cheers._]
The party of Freedom will certainly prevail. [_Sensation._] It may be
by entering into and possessing one of the old parties, filling it with
our own strong life; or it may be by drawing to itself the good and
true from both who are unwilling to continue in a political combination
when it ceases to represent their convictions; but, in one way or the
other, its ultimate triumph is sure. [_Great applause._] Of this let no
man doubt. [_Repeated cheers._]
At this moment we are in a minority. At the last popular election
in Massachusetts, there were twenty-eight thousand Free-Soilers,
forty-three thousand Democrats, and sixty-four thousand Whigs. But this
is no reason for discouragement. According to recent estimates, the
population of the whole world amounts to about eight hundred millions.
Of these only two hundred and sixty millions are Christians, while
the remaining five hundred and forty millions are mainly Mahometans,
Brahmins, and Idolaters. Because the Christians are in this minority,
that is no reason for renouncing Christianity, and for surrendering
to the false religions [_cheers_]; nor do we doubt that Christianity
will yet prevail over the whole earth, as the waters cover the sea.
["_Hear! hear!_"] The friends of Freedom in Massachusetts are likewise
in a minority; but they will not therefore renounce Freedom [_cheers_],
nor surrender to the political Mahometans, Brahmins, and Idolaters of
Baltimore ["_Never! never!_"]; nor can they doubt that their cause,
like Christianity, will yet prevail. [_Enthusiastic cheers._]
Our party commends itself. But it is also commended by our candidates.
[_Cheers._] In all that makes the eminent civilian or the accomplished
statesman fit for the responsibilities of government, they will proudly
compare with any of their competitors [_applause_], while they are dear
to our hearts as able, well-tried, loyal supporters of those vital
principles which we seek to establish under the Constitution of the
United States. [_Applause._] In the Senate, Mr. Hale [_cheers_] is
admitted to be foremost in aptitude and readiness for debate, whether
in the general legislation of the country, or in constant and valiant
championship of our cause. [_Applause._] His genial and sun-like nature
irradiates the antagonism of political controversy [_cheers_], while
his active and practical mind, richly stored with various experience,
never fails to render good service. [_Great cheering._]
Of Mr. Julian, our candidate for the Vice-Presidency, ["_Hear! hear!_"]
let me say simply, that, in ability and devotion to our principles, he
is a worthy compeer of Mr. Hale. To vote for such men will itself be a
pleasure. But it will be doubly so, when we reflect that in this way
we do something to accomplish a noble work, with which the happiness,
welfare, and fame of our country are indissolubly connected. [_Repeated
and enthusiastic cheers._]
With such a cause and such candidates, no man can be disheartened. The
tempest may blow,--but ours is a life-boat, not to be harmed by wind
or wave. The Genius of Liberty sits at the helm. I hear her voice of
cheer, saying, "Whoso sails with me comes to shore!"
Mr. Sumner resumed his seat amid heartiest and long-protracted applause.
CIVIL SUPERINTENDENTS OF ARMORIES.
SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE PROPOSITION TO CHANGE THE
SUPERINTENDENTS OF ARMORIES, FEBRUARY 23, 1853.
The Army Appropriation Bill being under discussion, Mr. Davis, of
Massachusetts, moved the following amendment:--
"That from and after the first day of July next, the Act of
Congress approved August 23, 1842, be so modified, that the
President may, if in his opinion the public interest demands it,
place over any of the armories a superintendent who does not belong
to the Army."
In the course of the debate, Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.
Mr. President,--I do not desire to speak upon the general subject of
the manufacture of arms under the authority of the United States, which
has been opened in debate by honorable Senators. What I have to say
will be on the precise question before the Senate, and nothing else.
That question, as I understand it, is on the amendment proposed by my
colleague [Mr. DAVIS], according to which the Act of 1842 is
to be so far modified, that the President, in his discretion, may place
over the armories persons not of the army,--leaving it, therefore, to
his judgment whether the superintendent shall be a military man or a
civilian. This is all.
The Senate is exhorted not to act precipitately. But the character
of this proposition excludes all idea of precipitation. We do not
determine absolutely that the system shall be changed, but simply that
it may be changed in the discretion of the President. This discretion,
which will be exercised only after ample inquiry, stands in the way of
all precipitation; and this is my answer to the Senator from Illinois
[Mr. SHIELDS].
Again, it is urged, that under a military head the armories are better
administered than they would be under a civil head, and that the
arms are better and cheaper; and here my friend from South Carolina,
who sits before me [Mr. BUTLER], dwelt with his accustomed
glow upon the success with which this manufacture is conducted at
the national armories, and the extent to which it is recognized in
Europe. But, Sir, in the precise question before you the merits of the
armories are not involved. We do not undertake to judge the military
superintendents or their works. The determination of this question is
referred to the President; and this is my answer to the Senator from
South Carolina.
The objections to this amendment of my colleague, then, seem to
disappear. But there are two distinct arguments in its favor, which, at
the present moment, do not seem to me susceptible of any answer.
In the first place, there are complaints against the existing system,
which ought to be heard. A memorial from five hundred legal voters of
Springfield, now on your table, bears testimony to them. Letters to
myself and others, from persons whose opinions I am bound to regard,
set them forth sometimes in very strong language. The administration of
the arsenal at Springfield is commended by many; but there are others
who judge it differently. As now conducted, it is sometimes represented
to be the seat of oppressive conduct, and the occasion of heart-burning
and strife, often running into local politics. In the eyes of some this
arsenal is little better than a sore on that beautiful town. Now on
these complaints and allegations I express no opinion. I do not affirm
their truth or untruth. What I know of the superintendent makes it
difficult for me to believe that anything unjust, oppressive, or hard
can proceed from him. But the whole case justifies inquiry at least,
and such will be secured by the proposition before the Senate. This is
the smallest thing we can do.
This proposition is enforced by another consideration which seems to me
entitled to weight. I have nothing to say now on the general question
of reducing the army or modifying the existing military system. But
I do affirm, confidently, that the genius of our institutions favors
civil life rather than military life,--and that, in harmony with this,
it is our duty, whenever the public interests will permit, to limit
and restrict the sphere of military influence. This is not a military
monarchy, where the soldier is supreme, but a republic, where the
soldier yields to the civilian. But the law, as it now stands, gives to
the soldier an absolute preference in a service which is not military,
and which, from its nature, belongs to civil life. The manufacture of
arms is a mechanical pursuit, and, for myself, I can see no reason why
it should not be placed in charge of one bred to the business. Among
the intelligent mechanics of Massachusetts there are many fully fit to
be at the head of the arsenal at Springfield; but by the existing law
all these are austerely excluded from any such trust. The idea which
has fallen from so many Senators, that the superintendent of an armory
ought to be a military man, that a military man only is competent, or
even that a military man is more competent than a civilian, seems to me
as illogical as the jocular fallacy of Dr. Johnson, that he "who drives
fat oxen should himself be fat."
NECESSITY OF UNION TO UPHOLD FREEDOM.
LETTER TO A RHODE ISLAND COMMITTEE, MARCH 26, 1853.
WASHINGTON, March 26, 1853.
Dear Sir,--I cannot promise myself the pleasure of being in Rhode
Island at the time you propose, and am therefore constrained to
decline the invitation with which you have honored me.
But let me assure you, that, in all our political contests, I see
no question comparable in practical importance, as surely there is
none equal in moral grandeur, to that which is presented by the
Free Democracy, and which now enlists your sympathies.
Both the old parties unite in upholding Slavery. It becomes all
good citizens to unite in upholding Freedom; nor should any one
believe that his single vote may not exert an influence on the
struggle.
Believe me, dear Sir, faithfully yours,
CHARLES SUMNER.
GEORGE L. CLARKE, Chairman of the State Central Committee of the
Free Democracy of Rhode Island.
AGAINST SECRECY IN PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENATE.
SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE PROPOSITION TO LIMIT THE SECRET
SESSIONS OF THE SENATE, APRIL 6, 1853.
The following resolution was submitted by Mr. Chase, of Ohio.
"_Resolved_, That all sessions and all proceedings of the Senate
shall be public and open, except when matters communicated in
confidence by the President shall be received and considered,
and in such other cases as the Senate by resolution from time to
time shall specially order; and so much of the thirty-eighth,
thirty-ninth, and fortieth rules as may be inconsistent with this
rule is hereby rescinded."
In the debate which ensued, Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.
Mr. President,--Party allusions and party considerations have been
brought to bear upon this question. I wish to regard it for a moment in
the light of the Constitution, and in the spirit of our institutions.
In the Constitution there is no injunction of secrecy on any of the
proceedings of the Senate; nor is there any requirement of publicity.
To the Senate is left the determination of its rules of proceeding.
Thus abstaining from all regulation of this matter, the framers of
the Constitution obviously regarded it as in all respects within the
discretion of the Senate, to be exercised from time to time as it
thinks best.
The Senate possesses three important functions: _first_, the
legislative or parliamentary power, where it acts concurrently with
the House of Representatives, as well as the President; _secondly_,
the diplomatic power, or that of "advice and consent" to treaties with
foreign countries in concurrence with the President; and, _thirdly_,
the executive power, or that of "advice and consent" to nominations
by the President for offices under the Constitution. I say nothing
of another, rarely called into activity, the sole power to try
impeachments.
At the first organization of the Government, the proceedings of the
Senate, whether in legislation or on treaties or nominations, were
with closed doors. In this respect legislative business and executive
business were alike. This continued down to the second session of the
Third Congress, in 1794, when, in pursuance of a formal resolution,
the galleries were opened so long as the Senate were engaged in their
legislative capacity, unless where, in the opinion of the Senate,
secrecy was required; and this rule has continued ever since. Here was
an exercise of discretion, in obvious harmony with public sentiment and
the spirit of our institutions.
The change now proposed goes still further. It opens the doors
on all occasions, whether legislative or executive, except when
specially ordered otherwise. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
BUTLER] says that the Senate is a confidential body, and
should be ready to receive confidential communications from the
President. But this will still be the case, if we adopt the resolution
now submitted to us. The limitation proposed seems adequate to all
exigencies, while the general rule will be publicity. Executive
sessions with closed doors, shrouded from the public gaze and public
criticism, constitute an exceptional part of our system, too much in
harmony with the proceedings of other Governments less liberal in
character. The genius of our institutions requires publicity. The
ancient Roman, who bade his architect so to construct his house that
his guests and all that he did could be seen by the world, is a fit
model for the American people.
THE GERMAN EMIGRANT MUST BE AGAINST SLAVERY.
LETTER TO LEWIS TAPPAN, ESQ., MAY 17, 1853.
BOSTON, May 17, 1853.
Dear Sir,--I know Mr. Schmidt by the good name he has won, and I
have also had the pleasure of making his personal acquaintance.
I understand him to be a scholar, believing in the demand which
Liberty in our country now makes upon every citizen. Thus
endowed in mind and character, he will address his compatriots
from Germany, in their own language, with persuasive power. I
trust he will find the opportunity he covets; and I know of none
which promises better than his present plan of a Weekly German
Antislavery Newspaper at Washington.
The number of persons to be addressed by such a journal is very
large; and they should be easy converts. The German emigrant who
is not against Slavery here leads us to doubt the sincerity of his
opposition to the Tyranny he has left behind in his native land.
Believe me, dear Sir,
faithfully yours,
CHARLES SUMNER.
LEWIS TAPPAN, ESQ.
POWERS OF THE STATE OVER THE MILITIA: EXEMPTIONS FOR CONSCIENTIOUS
SCRUPLES.
SPEECH IN CONVENTION TO REVISE AND AMEND THE CONSTITUTION OF
MASSACHUSETTS,[2] JUNE 21, 1853.
Propositions of amendment on the general subject of the Militia being
under consideration in Committee of the Whole, Mr. Sumner spoke as
follows.
I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the precise
question on which we are to vote. This does not, as it seems to me,
properly open the discussion to which we have been listening. I do not
understand that it involves the topics introduced by my friend opposite
[Mr. WILSON],--the present condition of Europe, the prospects
of the liberal cause in that quarter of the globe, or the extent to
which that cause may be affected by a contemporaneous movement for
peace. Nor do I understand that the important considerations introduced
by the gentleman on my right [Mr. WHITNEY, of Boylston],
regarding the extent to which Government may be intrusted with the
power of the sword, can materially influence our decision. I put these
things aside at this time.
[2] The members of this Convention were not required to have their
domiciles in the places which they represented. Mr. Sumner sat as
member for Marshfield, by which place he was chosen while absent
from the State.
The question is on the final passage of the fifteen resolutions
reported by the Committee on the Militia. And here let me adopt a
suggestion dropped by my friend opposite [Mr. WILSON]. He
regretted, if I understood him, that this whole subject was not
compressed into one or two resolutions. Am I right?
MR. WILSON. The gentleman is correct.
MR. SUMNER. I agree with him. I regret that it was not
compressed into one or two resolutions. I object to these resolutions
for several reasons. In the first place, there are too many; in
the second place, at least two of them seem to be an assumption of
power belonging to Congress, and therefore at least of doubtful
constitutionality; and, in the third place, because twelve of them
undertake to control matters which it were better to leave with the
Legislature.
On the formation of the Constitution of Massachusetts, in 1780, it was
natural that our fathers should introduce details with regard to the
militia and its organization. The Constitution of the United States had
not then been made. But since the establishment of this Constitution
the whole condition of the militia is changed. Among the powers
expressly given to Congress is the power "to provide for organizing,
arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part
of them as may be employed in the service of the United States,
_reserving_ to the States respectively the appointment of the officers,
and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress." And Congress has proceeded to exercise this
power by the organization of a national militia. Whatever might have
been the original inducement to multiform provisions on this subject in
the Constitution of Massachusetts, none such exists at this day, and
it is impolitic at least to introduce them.
I fear that they are more than impolitic. I will not argue here the
question of Constitutional Law; but I appeal to the better judgment
of my professional brethren--and I am happy to see some of them
lingering at this late hour--that any attempt on the part of the
State to interfere, in any way, by addition or subtraction, with
the organization of the national militia, is an experiment which we
should not introduce into the permanent text of our organic law.
If the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States on the
powers of Congress are to prevail, then, it seems to me, any such
assumption, in a case where the original power of Congress is clear,
will be unconstitutional and void. In the famous case of _Prigg_
v. _Pennsylvania_, after an elaborate discussion at the bar, all
State legislation on the subject of fugitive slaves was declared
unconstitutional and void, while Congress is recognized as the sole
depository of power on this subject. According to my recollection, it
was expressly held that legislation by Congress excluded all State
legislation on the same subject, whether to control, qualify, or
_superadd_ to the remedy enacted by Congress. I commend gentlemen, now
so swift with these provisions, to the study of this precedent. It is
comparatively recent; and the principle of interpretation which it
establishes is applicable to State laws on the militia, even though
entirely inapplicable to State laws on fugitive slaves,--for the simple
reason, that in the former case the original power of Congress is
clear, while in the latter it is denied.
But the States are not without power over the militia. In the very
grant to Congress is a reservation to them as follows: "reserving
to the States respectively the appointment of the officers, and
the authority of training the militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress." And here is precisely what the States can do.
They may appoint the officers and train the militia.
Now, Sir, the first two resolutions before us transcend the powers of
the State. They touch the enrolment and organization of the militia,
and on this account are an assumption of power forbidden by the
principle to which I have referred. The other thirteen resolutions,
with the exception of the seventh, are in the nature of a military
code, concerning the choice of officers, all of which should be left to
the action of the Legislature.
In conformity with these views, Mr. Chairman, and in the hope of
presenting a proposition on which the Convention may unite, I propose
to strike out all after the preamble and insert two resolutions, as
follows.
ART. 1. The Governor shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the Army
and Navy of the State, and the Militia thereof, excepting when
these forces shall be actually in the service of the United
States,--and shall have power to call out the same to aid in the
execution of the laws, to suppress insurrection, and to repel
invasion.
ART. 2. The appointment of officers and the training of the Militia
shall be regulated in such manner as may hereafter be deemed
expedient by the Legislature; and all persons, who from scruples
of conscience shall be averse to bearing arms, shall be excused on
such conditions as shall hereafter be prescribed by law.
The first of these resolutions is identical with the seventh
resolution of the Committee. The second provides for the exercise by
the Legislature of powers expressly reserved to the States over the
appointment of officers and the training of the militia; and taking
advantage of the Act of Congress which allows the States to determine
who shall be exempted from military duty, it plants in the text of the
Constitution a clause by which this immunity is secured to all persons
who from scruples of conscience are averse to bearing arms. I believe
we cannot go far beyond these without doing too much, while these seem
to me enough.
POWERS OF THE STATE OVER THE MILITIA: COLORED COMPANIES.
SPEECH IN CONVENTION TO REVISE AND AMEND THE CONSTITUTION OF
MASSACHUSETTS, JUNE 22, 1853.
On 22d June the following resolution was brought forward by Mr.
Wilson:--
"_Resolved_, That no distinction shall ever be made, in the
organization of the volunteer militia of this Commonwealth, on
account of color or race."
On this proposition Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.
I HAVE a suggestion for my friend opposite [Mr. WILSON], in
regard to the form of his proposition, which, if he accepts it, will,
as it seems to me, absolutely remove his proposition from the criticism
of my most eloquent friend before me [Mr. CHOATE], and from
the criticism of other gentlemen who have addressed the Convention.
I suggest to strike out the word "militia," and substitute the words
"military companies," so that his proposition will read, "that in the
organization of the volunteer military companies of the Commonwealth
there shall be no distinction of color or race."
MR. WILSON. I accept the suggestion, and will amend my proposition
accordingly.
MR. SUMNER. Now the proposition, as amended, I assert, is
absolutely consistent with the Constitution of the United States, and,
I believe, in conformity with the public sentiment of Massachusetts.
A brief inquiry will show that it is consistent with the Constitution
of the United States, and in no respect interferes with the
organization of the National Militia. That Constitution provides for
organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and gives Congress
full power over the subject,--in which particular, be it observed, it
is clearly distinguishable from that of fugitive slaves, over whom no
such power is given. To be more explicit, I will read the clause. It
is found in the long list of enumerated powers of Congress, and is as
follows: "The Congress shall have power to provide for organizing,
arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part
of them as may be employed in the service of the United States,
reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers,
and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress." And then, at the close of the section, it is
further declared, that Congress shall have power "to make _all laws
which shall be necessary and proper_ for carrying into execution the
foregoing powers."
In pursuance of this power, Congress has proceeded, by various laws,
"to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and
for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of
the United States." The earliest of these laws, still in force, is
entitled "An act more effectually to provide for the national defence,
by _establishing an uniform_ militia throughout the United States."[3]
This was followed by several acts in addition. Congress, then, has
undertaken to exercise the power of "organizing" the militia under the
Constitution.
Here the question arises, to what extent, if any, this power, when
already exercised by Congress, is exclusive in character. Among the
powers delegated to Congress there may be some not for the time being
exercised. For instance, there is the power "to fix the standard of
weights and measures." Practically, this has never been exercised by
Congress; but it is left to each State within its own jurisdiction.
On the other hand, there is a power, belonging to the same group, "to
establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the
United States," which, when exercised by Congress, has been held so far
exclusive as to avoid at once all the bankrupt and insolvent laws of
the several States.
[3] Act of May 8, 1792, ch. 33.
I might go over all the powers of Congress, and find constant
illustration of the subject. For instance, there is the power
"to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," on which Chief
Justice Marshall once remarked, "That the power of naturalization is
_exclusively_ in Congress does not seem to be, and certainly ought not
to be, controverted."[4] There is the power "to regulate commerce with
foreign nations and among the several States," which was early declared
by the Supreme Court to be exclusive, so as to prevent the exercise of
any part of it by the States.[5] There is the power over patents and
copyrights, which is also regarded as exclusive. So also is the power
"to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas,
and offences against the Law of Nations." So also is that other power,
"to establish post-offices and post-roads." All these powers, as in the
case of the power over the National Militia, have been exercised by
Congress, and even if not absolutely exclusive in original character,
have become so by exercise.
[4] Chirac _v._ Chirac, 2 Wheaton, 269.
[5] Gibbons _v._ Ogden, 9 Wheaton, 198.
Now, Sir, upon what ground do gentlemen make any discrimination in
the case of the power over the National Militia? I know of none which
seems at all tenable. It is natural that the States should desire to
exercise this power, since it was so important to them before the
Union; but I do not see how any discrimination can be maintained at
the present time. Whatever may have been the original importance
of the militia to each State, yet, when the National Constitution
was formed, and Congress exercised the power delegated to it over
this subject, the militia of the several States was absorbed into
one uniform body, organized, armed, and disciplined as the National
Militia. To the States respectively, according to the express language
of the Constitution, was left "the appointment of the officers, and
the authority of training the militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress." To this may be added the implied power of
"governing" them when in the service of the State. This is all. The
distinct specification of certain powers, as reserved to the States,
excludes the States from the exercise of all other powers not specified
or clearly implied. In other words, they are excluded from all power
over the "organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia," at least
after Congress has undertaken to enact laws for this purpose.
The history of the adoption of the several parts of this clause in the
National Convention reflects light upon its true meaning. The first
part, in regard to organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia,
was passed by a vote of nine States against two; the next, reserving
the appointment of officers to the States, after an ineffectual attempt
to amend it by confining the appointment to officers under the rank
of general officers, was passed without a division; and the last,
reserving to the States the authority to train the militia according
to the discipline prescribed by Congress, was passed by a vote of
seven States against four.[6] It seems, then, that there was strong
opposition in the Convention, even to the secondary reservation of "the
authority of training the militia." But this power is not reserved
unqualifiedly. The States are to train the militia "according to the
_discipline prescribed_ by Congress": not according to any discipline
determined by the States, or by the States concurrently with the
National Government, but absolutely _according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress_,--nor more, nor less: thus distinctly
recognizing the essentially exclusive character of the legislation of
Congress on this subject.
[6] Madison's Debates, August 23, 1787.
This interpretation derives confirmation from the manner in which
the militia of England was constituted or organized at the time of
the adoption of the National Constitution. To the crown was given
"the _sole right_ to govern and command them," though they were
"officered" by the Lord Lieutenant, the Deputy Lieutenants, and other
principal landholders of the county.[7] The Commentaries of Sir William
Blackstone, from which this description is drawn, were familiar to
the members of the Convention; and it is reasonable to suppose, that,
in the distribution of powers between the National Government and the
States, on this subject, the peculiar arrangement prevailing in the
mother country was not disregarded.
[7] Blackstone, Commentaries, I. 412, 413.
If it should be said, that the adoption of this conclusion would
affect the character of many laws enacted by States, and thus
far recognized as ancillary to the National Militia, it may be
replied, that the possibility of these consequences cannot justly
influence our conclusions on a question which must be determined
by acknowledged principles of Constitutional Law. In obedience to
these same principles, the Supreme Court, in the case of _Prigg_ v.
_Pennsylvania_, after asserting a power over fugitive slaves which
is controverted, has proceeded to annul a large number of statutes
in different States. Mr. Justice Wayne in this case said, "that the
legislation by Congress upon the provision, as the supreme law of the
land, _excludes all State legislation upon the same subject_,--and
that no State can pass any law or regulation, or interpose such as
may have been a law or regulation when the Constitution of the United
States was ratified, _to superadd to_, control, qualify, or impede
a remedy enacted by Congress for the delivery of fugitive slaves to
the parties to whom their service or labor is due."[8] Without the
sanction of any express words in the Constitution, and chiefly, if not
solely, impressed by the importance of consulting "unity of purpose or
uniformity of operation"[9] in the legislation with regard to fugitive
slaves, the Court assumed a power over this subject, and then, as a
natural incident to this assumption, excluded the States from all
sovereignty in the premises.
[8] Prigg _v._ Pennsylvania, 16 Peters, 636.
[9] Ibid., 624.
If this rule be applicable to the pretended power over fugitive slaves,
it is still more applicable to the power over the militia which nobody
questions. Besides, I know of no power which so absolutely requires
what has been regarded as an important criterion, "unity of purpose or
uniformity of operation." No uniform military organization can spring
from opposite or inharmonious systems, and all systems proceeding from
different sources are liable to be opposite or inharmonious.
Now, Sir, let us apply this reasoning to the matter in hand. In
Massachusetts there exists, and has for a long time existed, an
anomalous system, familiarly and loosely described as the Volunteer
Militia, not composed absolutely of those enrolled under the laws of
the United States, but a smaller, more select, and peculiar body. It
cannot be doubted that the State, by virtue of its _police powers_
within its own borders, has power to constitute or organize a body of
_volunteers_ to aid in enforcing its laws. But it does not follow that
it has power to constitute or organize a body of volunteers who shall
be regarded as part of the National Militia. And, Sir, I make bold
to say that the volunteer militia--I prefer to call it the volunteer
military companies--cannot be regarded as part of the National Militia.
It is no part of that _uniform militia_ which it was the object of the
early Act of Congress to organize. It may appear to be part of this
system, it may affect to be, but I pronounce it a mistake to suppose
that it is so in any just constitutional sense.
As a local system, disconnected from the National Militia, and not in
any way constrained by its organization, it is within our jurisdiction.
We are free to declare the principles which shall govern it. We
may declare, that, whatever may be the existing law of the United
States with regard to its enrolled militia,--and with this I propose
no interference, because it would be futile,--I say, Massachusetts
may proudly declare that in her own volunteer military companies,
marshalled under her own local laws, there shall be no distinction of
race or color.
THE PACIFIC RAILROAD AND THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
LETTER TO THE MAYOR OF BOSTON, FOR THE CELEBRATION OF JULY 4,
1853.
BOSTON, July 1, 1853.
Dear Sir,--It will not be in my power to unite with the City
Council of Boston in the approaching celebration of our national
anniversary; but I beg to assure you that I am not insensible to
the honor of their invitation.
The day itself comes full of quickening suggestions, which can need
no prompting from me. And yet, with your permission, I would gladly
endeavor to associate at this time one special aspiration with the
general gladness. Allow me to propose the following toast.
_The Railroad from the Atlantic to the Pacific._--Traversing a
whole continent, and binding together two oceans, this mighty
thoroughfare, when completed, will mark an epoch of human progress
second only to that of our Declaration of Independence. May the day
soon come!
Believe me, dear Sir, faithfully yours,
CHARLES SUMNER.
HON. BENJAMIN SEAVER, Mayor, &c.
THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM, AND ITS
PROPER BASIS.
SPEECH ON THE PROPOSITION TO AMEND THE BASIS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF MASSACHUSETTS, IN THE CONVENTION TO REVISE AND AMEND
THE CONSTITUTION OF THAT STATE, JULY 7, 1853.
Mr. President,--If the question under consideration were less important
in its bearings, or less embarrassed by conflicting opinions, I should
hesitate to break the silence which I have been inclined to preserve
in this Convention. In taking the seat to which I was unexpectedly
chosen while absent from the Commonwealth, in another sphere of duty,
I felt that it would be becoming in me, and that my associates here
would recognize the propriety of my course, considering the little
opportunity I had enjoyed of late to make myself acquainted with the
sentiments of the people on proposed changes, especially in comparison
with friends to whom this movement is mainly due,--on these accounts,
as also on other accounts, I felt that it would be becoming in me
to interfere as little as possible with these debates. To others I
willingly left the part which I might have taken.
And now, while I think, that, since our labors began, weeks, even
months, have passed, and that the term is already reached, when,
according to the just expectations and earnest desires of many, they
should be closed, I feel that acts rather than words, that votes
rather than speeches,--at least such as I might hope to make,--are
needed here, to the end that the Convention, seasonably and effectively
completing its beneficent work, may itself be hailed as a Great Act in
the history of the Commonwealth.
But the magnitude of this question justifies debate; and allow me to
add, that the State, our common mother, may feel proud of the ability,
the eloquence, and the good temper with which it has thus far been
conducted. Gentlemen have addressed the Convention in a manner which
would grace any assembly that it has been my fortune to know, at home
or abroad. Sir, the character of these proceedings gives new assurance
for the future. The alarmist, who starts at every suggestion of change,
and the croaker, who augurs constant evil from the irresistible
tendency of events, must confess that there are men here to whose
intelligence and patriotism, under God, the interests of our beloved
Commonwealth may well be intrusted. Yes, Sir, Massachusetts is safe.
Whatever the result even of the present important question, whichsoever
scheme of representation may be adopted, Massachusetts will continue to
prosper as in times past.
In the course of human history, two States, small in territory,
have won enviable renown by genius and devotion to Freedom, so that
their very names awaken echoes: I refer to Athens and Scotland. But
Athens,--even at Salamis, repelling the Persian host, or afterwards,
in the golden days of Pericles,--and Scotland, throughout her long
struggle with England, down to the very Act of Union at the beginning
of the last century,--were each inferior, in population and wealth,
to Massachusetts at this moment. It belongs to us, according to our
capacities, to see that this comparison does not end here. Others may
believe that our duty is best accomplished by standing still. I like
to believe that it can be completely done only by constant, incessant
advance in all things,--in knowledge, in science, in art, and lastly in
government itself, destined to be the bright consummation, on earth, of
all knowledge, all science, and all art.
* * * * *
In framing our Constitution anew, we encounter a difficulty which
at its original formation, in 1780, perplexed our fathers,--which
perplexed the Convention of 1820,--which with its perplexities
has haunted successive Legislatures and the whole people down to
this day,--and which now perplexes us. This difficulty occurs in
determining the Representative System, and proceeds mainly from the
corporate claims of towns. From an early period in the State, towns,
both great and small, with slight exceptions, have sent one or more
representatives to the Legislature. In primitive days, when towns
were few and the whole population was scanty, this arrangement was
convenient at least, if not equitable. But now, with the increased
number of towns, and the unequal distribution of a large population, it
has become inconvenient, if not inequitable. The existing system does
not work well, and we are summoned to reform it.
And here, Sir, let me congratulate the Convention, that, on this most
important question, transcending every other, all of us, without
distinction of party, are in favor of reform. All are Reformers. The
existing system finds no advocate on this floor. Nobody here will
do it reverence. If the call of the Convention were not already
amply vindicated, if there were doubt anywhere of its expediency,
the remarkable concurrence of all sides in condemning the existing
representative system shows that we have not come together without
cause.
The orders of the day have been filled with various plans to meet the
exigency. Most of these aimed to preserve the corporate representation
of towns; some of them, at least one from the venerable gentleman from
Taunton [Mr. MORTON], and another from the venerable gentleman
from Boston [Mr. HALE], favored an opposite system, hitherto
untried among us, and proposed to divide the State into districts.
The question has been between these hostile propositions; and that is
the question which I propose to consider, in the light of history and
abstract principle, as also with reference to present exigencies. I
shall speak, _first_, of the origin and nature of the Representative
System, and its proper character under American institutions; and,
_secondly_, I shall endeavor to indicate the principles which may
conduct us to a practical conclusion in the present debate. Entering
upon this service at so late a stage of the discussion, I feel like a
tardy gleaner in a well-traversed field; but I shall proceed.
I.
I begin with the Origin and Nature of the Representative System. This
is an invention of modern times. In antiquity there were republics and
democracies, but there was no Representative System. Rulers were chosen
by the people, as in many Commonwealths; senators were designated by
the king or by the censors, as in Rome; ambassadors or legates were
sent to a Federal Council, as to the Assembly of the Amphictyons; but
in no ancient state was any body of men ever constituted by the people
to represent them in the administration of their internal affairs.
In Athens, the people met in public assembly, and directly acted for
themselves on all questions, foreign or domestic. This was possible
there, as the State was small, and the Assembly seldom exceeded five
thousand citizens,--a large town-meeting, or mass-meeting, we might
call it,--not inaptly termed "that fierce democratie" of Athens.
But where the territory was extensive, and the population scattered and
numerous, there could be no assembly of the whole body of citizens. To
meet this precise difficulty the Representative System was devised. By
a machinery so obvious that we are astonished it was not employed in
the ancient Commonwealths, the people, though scattered and numerous,
are gathered, by their chosen representatives, into a small and
deliberative assembly, where, without tumult or rashness, they consider
and determine all questions which concern them. In every representative
body, properly constituted, the people are practically present.
Nothing is invented and perfected at the same time; and this system is
no exception to the rule. In England, where it reached its earliest
vigor, it has been, and still is, anomalous in character. The existing
divisions of the country, composed of boroughs, cities, and counties,
were summoned by the king's writ to send representatives, with little
regard to equality of any kind, whether of population, taxation, or
territory. Their existence as corporate units was the prevailing title.
The irregular operation of the system, increasing with lapse of time,
provoked a cry for Parliamentary Reform, which, after a struggle of
more than fifty years, ending in a debate that occupied the House of
Commons more than fifty days, was finally carried; but, though many
abuses and inequalities were removed, yet the anomalous representation
by counties, cities, and boroughs still continued. And this, Sir, is
the English system.
Pass now to the American system. I say American system,--for to our
country belongs the honor of first giving to the world the idea of
a system which, discarding corporate representation, founded itself
absolutely on equality. Let us acknowledge with gratitude that from
England have come five great and ever memorable institutions, by
which Liberty is secured: I mean the Trial by Jury,--the writ of
_Habeas Corpus_,--the Representative System,--the Rules and Orders
of Debate,--and, lastly, that benign principle which pronounces
_that its air is too pure for a slave to breathe_: perhaps the five
most important political establishments of modern times. This glory
cannot be taken from the mother country. But America has added to
the Representative System another principle, without which it is
incomplete, and which, in the course of events, is destined, I cannot
doubt, to find acceptance wherever the Representative System is
employed: I mean the _principle of equality_.
Here in Massachusetts, home of the ideas out of which sprang the
Revolution, this principle had its earliest expression. And it is not
a little curious that this very expression was suggested by the two
evils of which we now complain,--namely, a practical inequality of
representation, and a too numerous House.
In the earliest days of the Colony, while the number of freemen was
small and gathered in one neighborhood, there was no occasion for any
representative body. All could then meet in public assembly, as at
ancient Athens; in fact, they did so meet, and in this way discharged
the duties of legislation. But as the freemen became scattered and
numerous, it was found grievous to compel the personal attendance
of the whole body, and, as a substitute, the towns were empowered,
in 1634, to assemble in General Court by deputies.[10] Here was the
establishment of the Representative System in Massachusetts, which
has continued, without interruption, down to our day. The size of the
House and the relative representation of towns have varied at different
times; but the great principle of representation, by which a substitute
is provided for the whole body of the people, has constantly been
preserved. Still a feeling has long prevailed that the system had not
yet received its final form, while, with more or less precision, has
been discerned that principle of equality which is essential to its
completeness.
[10] Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts, Vol. I. pp. 30,
39. Charters and General Laws of the Colony and Province of
Massachusetts Bay, Appendix, p. 713. Records of the Governor and
Company of the Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I. pp. 116-118.
Among the acts of the first General Court of the Revolution was
one passed in the summer of 1775, after the Battle of Bunker Hill,
"declaratory of the right of the towns and districts to elect
and depute a representative or representatives to serve for and
represent them in the General Court." By this act all provisions of
previous acts denying to certain towns and districts the right of
sending a representative were declared null and void, and every town
containing thirty qualified voters was authorized to send one.[11]
The immediate consequence was the two evils to which I have already
referred,--namely, inequality of representation, and a too numerous
House: but the whole number of representatives which aroused the
complaints of that day was three hundred and five.
[11] Charters and General Laws of Massachusetts Bay, Appendix, pp.
796, 797.
These grievances were the occasion of a Convention of delegates from
the towns of Essex County, at Ipswich, April 25, 1776, where was
adopted a Memorial, afterwards presented and enforced at the bar of
the House by John Lowell. In this remarkable document occurs the
first development, if not the first proclamation, of the principle of
equality in representation. Here, Sir, is the fountain and origin of an
idea full of strength, beauty, and truth. Listen to the words of these
Revolutionary fathers.
"If this representation is equal, it is perfect; as far as it
deviates from this equality, so far it is imperfect, and approaches
to that state of slavery; and the want of a just weight in
representation is an evil nearly akin to being totally destitute of
it. An inequality of representation has been justly esteemed the
cause which has in a great degree sapped the foundation of the once
admired, but now tottering, fabric of the British Empire; and we
fear, that, if a different mode of representation from the present
is not adopted in this Colony, our Constitution will not continue
to that late period of time which the glowing heart of every true
American now anticipates....
"We cannot realize that your Honors, our wise political fathers,
have adverted to the present inequality of representation in this
Colony, to the growth of the evil, or to the fatal consequences
which will probably ensue from the continuance of it.
"Each town and district in the Colony is by some late regulations
permitted to send one representative to the General Court, if
such town or district consists of thirty freeholders and other
inhabitants qualified to elect; if of one hundred and twenty,
to send two. No town is permitted to send more than two, except
the town of Boston, which may send four. There are some towns
and districts in the Colony in which there are between thirty
and forty freeholders, and other inhabitants qualified to elect,
only; there are others besides Boston in which there are more than
five hundred. The first of these may send one representative; the
latter can send only two. If these towns as to property are to
each other in the same respective proportion, is it not clear to
a mathematical demonstration that the same number of inhabitants
of equal property in the one town have but an _eighth_ part of the
weight in representation with the other?--and with what colorable
pretext? we would decently inquire."[12]
[12] From the original MS. in the Massachusetts Archives, Vol. 156.
Under the pressure of this powerful state paper the obnoxious law
was repealed, and one "providing for a _more equal_ representation"
substituted; but the evil was only partially remedied. Then followed
an unsuccessful effort to make a Constitution in 1777-8, which failed
partly through dissatisfaction with its disposal of this very question.
The County of Essex was again heard in another document, now known as
the "Essex Result," and among the most able and instructive in our
history, from which I take the following important words.
"The rights of representation should be so equally and impartially
distributed, that the representatives should have the same views
and interests with the people at large. They should think, feel,
and act like them, and, in fine, should be an exact miniature of
their constituents. They should be, if we may use the expression,
the whole body politic, with all its property, rights, and
privileges reduced to a smaller scale, _every part being diminished
in just proportion_. To pursue the metaphor, if, in adjusting the
representation of freemen, _any ten are reduced into one, all the
other tens should be alike reduced; or, if any hundred should be
reduced to one, all the other hundreds should have just the same
reduction_."[13]
[13] Result of the Convention of Delegates holden at Ipswich, in
the County of Essex, who were deputed to take into Consideration
the Constitution and Form of Government proposed by the Convention
of the State of Massachusetts Bay, (Newburyport, 1778,) pp. 29, 30.
See also Memoir of Theophilus Parsons, by his Son, Appendix, pp.
359-402, where this remarkable paper will be found.
Mark well these words. Here is the Rule of Three, for the first time
in history, applied to representation. This, Sir, is not the English
system. I call it, with pride, the American system.
In another place the document proceeds as follows.
"The rights of representation should also be held sacred and
inviolable, and for this purpose representation should be fixed
upon known and easy principles; and the Constitution should
make provision that recourse should constantly be had to those
principles within a very small period of years, to rectify the
errors that will creep in through lapse of time or alteration of
situations."[14]
[14] Result, p. 33.
Then, distinctly, it proposes a system of districts, in words which I
quote.
"In forming the first body of legislators, let regard be had only
to the representation of persons, not of property. This body
we call the House of Representatives. Ascertain the number of
representatives. It ought not to be so large as will induce an
enormous expense to Government, nor too unwieldy to deliberate with
coolness and attention, nor so small as to be unacquainted with
the situation and circumstances of the State. One hundred will be
large enough, and perhaps it may be too large. We are persuaded
that any number of men exceeding that cannot do business with such
expedition and propriety as a smaller number could. However, let
that at present be considered as the number. Let us have the number
of freemen in the several counties in the State, and let these
representatives be apportioned among the respective counties in
proportion to their number of freemen.... As we have the number of
freemen in the county, and the number of county representatives,
by dividing the greater by the less we have the number of freemen
entitled to send one representative. Then add as many adjoining
towns together as contain that number of freemen, or as near as may
be, and _let those towns form one district_, and proceed in this
manner through the county."[15]
[15] Result, pp. 49-51.
* * * * *
MR. HALLETT, for Wilbraham (interrupting). Will the gentleman state
who was the author of that Essex paper?
MR. SUMNER. Theophilus Parsons is the reputed author of the
document known as the "Essex Result."
MR. HALLETT. Yes, Sir, it was Theophilus Parsons who was the author
of that, and John Lowell of the other; and good old Tory doctrines
they are.
MR. SUMNER. If these be Tory doctrines, I must think well of
Toryism.
Sir, notwithstanding these appeals, sustained with unsurpassed ability,
the American system failed to be adopted in the Constitution of 1780.
The anomalous English system was still continued; but, as if to
cover the departure from principle, it was twice declared that the
representation of the people should be "founded upon the principle of
equality." This declaration still continues as our guide, while the
irregular operation of the existing system, with its inequalities and
large numbers, is a beacon of warning.
Following closely upon these efforts in Massachusetts, this principle
found an illustrious advocate in Thomas Jefferson. In his "Notes on
Virginia," written in 1781, he sharply exposes the inequalities of
representation;[16] and a short time afterwards, when the victory
at Yorktown had rescued Virginia from invasion and secured the
independence of the United Colonies, he prepared the draught of a
Constitution for his native State, which, disowning the English system,
and recognizing the very principle that had failed in Massachusetts,
expressly provided that "the number of delegates which each county
may send shall be _in proportion to the number of its qualified
electors_; and the whole number of delegates for the State shall be so
_proportioned to the whole number of qualified electors in it_, that
they shall never exceed three hundred nor be fewer than one hundred....
If any county be reduced in its qualified electors below the number
authorized to send one delegate, let it be annexed to some adjoining
county."[17] This proposition, which is substantially the Rule of
Three, did not find favor in Virginia, which State, like Massachusetts,
was not yet prepared for such a charter of electoral equality; but it
still stands as a monument at once of its author and of the true system
of representation.
[16] Query XIII.
[17] Notes on Virginia, Appendix, No. II.: Works, Vol. VIII., p.
443.
The American system, though first showing itself in Massachusetts and
Virginia, found its earliest practical exemplification a few years
later in the Constitution of the United States. By the Articles of
Confederation each State was entitled to send to Congress not less
than two nor more than seven representatives, and in the determination
of questions each State had one vote only. This plan was rejected
by the framers of the new Constitution, and another was adopted,
till then untried in the history of the world. It was declared that
"representatives and direct taxes shall be _apportioned_ among the
several States which may be included within this Union _according to
their respective numbers_": not according to property, not according
to territory, not according to any corporate rights, _but according to
their respective numbers_. And this system has continued down to our
day, and will continue immortal as the Union itself. Here is the Rule
of Three actually incorporated into the Representative System of the
United States.
An attempt has been made to render this system odious, or at least
questionable, by charging upon it something of the excesses of the
great French Revolution. Even if this rule had prevailed at that time
in France, it would be bold to charge upon it any such consequences.
But it is a mistake to suppose that it was then adopted in that
country. The republican Constitution of 1791 was not founded upon
numbers only, but upon numbers, territory, and taxation combined,--a
mixed system, which excluded the true idea of personal equality. At
the peaceful, almost bloodless, Revolution of 1848, under the lead
of Lamartine, a National Assembly was convened on the simple basis
of population, and one representative was allowed for every forty
thousand inhabitants. Here, indeed, is the Rule of Three; but the idea
originally came from our country.
MR. HALLETT. Will the gentleman for Marshfield allow me to make one
more inquiry?
MR. SUMNER. Certainly.
MR. HALLETT. Do I understand the gentleman to say that the Rule of
Three was applied to representation in the United States?
MR. SUMNER. I mean to say that the representation in the lower
House of Congress was apportioned according to numbers; and this is
the Rule of Three.
A practical question arises here, whether this rule should be applied
to the whole body of population, including women, children, and
unnaturalized foreigners, or to those only who exercise the electoral
franchise,--in other words, to voters. It is probable that the rule
would produce nearly similar results in both cases, as voters, except
in few places, would bear a uniform proportion to the whole population.
But it is easy to determine what the principle of the Representative
System requires. Since its object is to provide a practical substitute
for meetings of the people, it should be founded, in just proportion,
on the numbers of those who, according to our Constitution, can
take part in those meetings,--that is, upon the qualified voters.
The representative body should be a miniature or abridgment of the
electoral body,--in other words, of those allowed to participate in
public affairs. If this conclusion needs authority, it may be found in
the words of Mr. Madison, in the Debates on the National Constitution.
"It has been very properly observed," he says, "that representation is
an expedient by which the meeting of the people themselves is rendered
unnecessary, _and that_ _the representatives ought, therefore, to bear
a proportion to the votes which their constituents, if convened, would
respectively have_."[18]
[18] Madison's Debates, July 14, 1787, Vol. II. p. 1102.
The Rule of Three, then, applied to voters, seems to me sound; but
whether applied to voters or population, it is the true rule of
representation, and stands on irreversible principles. In my view, it
commends itself to the natural reason so obviously, so instinctively,
that I do not feel disposed to dwell upon it. But since it is called in
question, I shall be excused for saying a few words in its behalf. Its
advantages present themselves in several aspects.
_First._ I put in the front its constant and equal operation throughout
the Commonwealth. Under it, every man will have a representative
each year, and every man will have the same representative power as
every other man. In this respect it recognizes a darling idea of
our institutions, which cannot be disowned without weakening their
foundations. It gives to the great principle of human equality a new
expansion and application. It makes all men, in the enjoyment of the
electoral franchise, whatever their diversities of intelligence,
education, or wealth, or wheresoever they may be within the borders of
the Commonwealth, whether in small town or in populous city, absolutely
equal at the ballot-box.
I know that there are persons, Sir, who do not hesitate to assail the
whole doctrine of the equality of men, as enunciated in our Declaration
of Independence and in our Bill of Rights. In this work two eminent
statesmen of our own country and England have led the way.[19] But it
seems to me, that, if they had chosen to comprehend the meaning of
the principle, much, if not all, of their objection would have been
removed. Very plain it is that men are not born equal in physical
strength or in mental capacity, in beauty of form or health of body.
This is apparent to all, and the difference increases with years.
Diversity or inequality in these respects is the law of creation. But
as God is no respecter of persons, and as all are equal in his sight,
whether rich or poor, whether dwellers in cities or in fields, so are
all equal in natural rights; and it is an absurd declamation--of which
no gentleman in this Convention is guilty--to adduce, in argument
against them, the physical or mental inequalities by which men are
characterized. Now I am not prepared to class the electoral franchise
among inherent, natural rights, common to the whole human family,
without distinction of age, sex, or residence; but I do say, that from
the equality of men, which we so proudly proclaim, we derive a just
rule for its exercise. For myself, I accept this principle, and, just
so far and just so soon as possible, I would be guided by it in the
system of Representation. But there are other reasons still.
[19] See _ante_, Vol. II. p. 331.
_Secondly._ The Rule of Three, as applied to representation, is
commended by its simplicity. It supersedes all the painful calculations
to which we have been driven, the long agony of mathematics, as it was
called by my friend over the way [Mr. GILES], and is as easy
in application as it is just.
_Thirdly._ This rule is founded in Nature, and not in Art,--on
natural bodies, and not on artificial bodies,--on men, and not on
corporations,--on souls, and not on petty geographical lines. On this
account it may be called a natural rule, and, when once established,
will become fixed and permanent, beyond all change or desire of change.
And, _fourthly_, this rule removes, to every possible extent,
those opportunities of political partiality and calculation, in
the adjustment of representation, which are naturally incident to
any departure from precise rule. It was beautifully said of Law
by the greatest intellect of Antiquity, that it is _mind without
passion_; and this very definition I would extend to a rule which,
with little intervention from human will, is graduated by numbers,
passionless as law itself in the conception of Aristotle. The object
of free institutions is to withdraw all concerns of State, so far
as practicable, from human discretion, and place them under the
shield of human principles, to the end, according to the words of our
Constitution, that there may be "a government of laws, and not of men."
But, just in proportion as we depart from precise rule, it becomes a
government of men, and not of laws.
Such considerations as these, thus briefly expressed, seem to vindicate
this rule of representation. But I would not forget the arguments
adduced against it. These assume two distinct forms: one founded on
the character of our towns and the importance of preserving their
influence; the other founded on the alleged necessity of counteracting
the centralization of power in the cities. Now of these in their order.
And, first, of the importance of preserving our towns. Sir, I yield to
no man in appreciation of the good done by these free municipalities.
The able member for Erving [Mr. GRISWOLD], who began this
debate, the eloquent member for Berlin [Mr. BOUTWELL], and my
excellent friend of many years, the accomplished member for Manchester
[Mr. DANA], in the masterly speeches which they have addressed
to the Convention, attributed no good influence to the towns which I
do not recognize also. With them I agree, cordially, that the towns
of Massachusetts, like the municipalities of Switzerland, have been
schools and nurseries of freedom,--and that in these small bodies men
were early disciplined in those primal duties of citizenship, which, on
a grander scale, are made the foundation of our whole political fabric.
But I cannot go so far as to attribute this remarkable influence to the
assumed fact, that each town by itself was entitled to a representative
in the legislative body. At the time of the Revolution this was the
prerogative of most towns, though not of all; but it cannot be regarded
as the distinctive, essential, life-giving attribute: at most, it was
only an incident.
Sir, the true glory of the towns then was, that they were organized on
the principle of self-government, at a time when that principle was not
generally recognized,--that each town by itself was a little republic,
where the whole body of freemen were voters, with powers of local
legislation, taxation, and administration, and, especially, with power
to choose their own head and all subordinate magistrates. The boroughs
of England have possessed the power to send a member--often two
members--to Parliament; but this has not saved them from corruption;
nor has any person attributed to them, though in the enjoyment of this
franchise, the influence which has proceeded from our municipalities.
The reason is obvious. They were organized under charters from the
crown, by which local government was vested, not in the whole body of
freemen, but in small councils, or select classes, originally nominated
by the crown, and ever afterwards renewing themselves. No such abuse
prevailed in our municipalities; and this political health at home,
Sir, and not the incident of exclusive representation in a distant
Legislature, has been the secret of their strength. I would cherish it
ever.
This brings me, in the next place, to the objection founded on
centralization of power in the cities. It is said that wealth,
business, population, and talent, in multitudinous forms, all tend to
the cities, and that the excessive influence of this concentrated mass,
quickened by an active press, by facilities of concert, and by social
appliances, ought to be counterbalanced by allotment to the towns of
representative weight beyond their proportion of numbers. Now, Sir,
while confessing and regretting the present predominance of the cities,
I must be permitted to question the propriety of the proposed remedy.
And here, differing in some respects from friends on both sides, I make
an appeal for candid judgment of what I shall candidly say.
Let us deal fairly by the cities. No student of history can fail to
perceive that they have performed different parts at different stages
of the world. In Antiquity, they were the acknowledged centres of
power, often of tyranny. In the Middle Ages, they became the home of
freedom, and the bridle to feudalism. For this service they should
be gratefully remembered. And now there is another change. The armed
feudalism is overthrown; but it is impossible not to see that it
has yielded to a commercial feudalism, whose seat is in the cities,
and which, in its way, is hardly less selfish and exacting than the
feudalism of the iron hand. My friend, the member for Manchester [Mr.
DANA], was clearly right, when he said that the Boston of
to-day is not the Boston of our fathers. Let me be understood. I make
no impeachment of individuals, but simply indicate those combined
influences proceeding from the potent Spirit of Trade, which, though
unlike that Spirit of the Lord where is Liberty, is not inconsistent
with the most enlarged munificence. I think, while confessing the
abounding charities of the rich men whose eulogy we have heard
more than once in this debate, it must be admitted that those pure
principles which are the breath of the Republic now find their truest
atmosphere in calm retreats, away from the strife of gain and the hot
pavements of crowded streets. Sir, it is not only when we look upon the
fields, hills, and valleys, clad in verdure, and shining with silver
lake or rivulet, that we are ready to exclaim,--
"God made the country, and man made the town."
But, Sir, while maintaining these opinions, I cannot admit the
argument, that the centralized power of the cities may be counteracted
by degrading them in the scale of representation. This cannot be
purposely done, without departing from fundamental principles, and
overthrowing the presiding doctrine of personal equality. Cities are
but congregations of men; and men exert influence in various ways,--by
the accident of position, the accident of intelligence, the accident
of property, the accident of birth, and, lastly, by the vote. It is
the vote only which is not an accident; and it should be the boast of
Massachusetts, that all men, whatever their accidents, are equal in
their votes.
Here the hammer of the President fell, as the hour expired; but, by
unanimous consent, Mr. Sumner proceeded.
The idea of property as a check upon numbers, which on a former
occasion found such favor in this hall, is now rejected in the
adjustment of our representative System. And, Sir, I venture to predict
that the proposition, newly broached in this Commonwealth, to restrain
the cities by curtailment of their just representative power, will
hereafter be as little regarded.
II.
MR. PRESIDENT,--Such is what I have to say on the history and
principles of the Representative System, particularly in the light of
American institutions; and this brings me to the _practical question_
at this moment. I cannot doubt that the District System, as it is
generally called, whereby the representative power will be distributed
in just proportion, according to the Rule of Three, among the voters
of the Commonwealth, is the true system, destined at no distant day
to prevail. And gladly would I see this Convention hasten the day
by presenting it to the people for adoption in the organic law. To
this end I have striven by my votes. But, Sir, I cannot forget what
has passed. The votes already taken show that the Convention is not
prepared for this radical change; and I am assured by gentlemen more
familiar with public sentiment than I can pretend to be, that the
people are not yet prepared for it.
Thus we are brought to the position occupied successively by the
Conventions of 1780 and 1820, each of which, though containing warm
partisans of the District System, shrank from its adoption--as in
Virginia, the early recommendation of Jefferson, and his vehement
support at a later day, have been powerless to produce this important
amendment. John Lowell, who appeared at the bar of the Massachusetts
Legislature in 1776 to vindicate the principle of equality in
representation, and Theophilus Parsons, author of the powerful tract
which proposed to found the Representative System on the Rule of Three,
were both members of the first Convention,--and I know not if the
District System has since had any abler defenders. To these I might
add the great name of John Adams, who early pleaded for equality of
representation, and declared, in words adopted by the Essex Convention,
that the Representative Assembly should be "an exact portrait in
miniature of the people at large."[20] In the Convention of 1820, the
District System was cherished and openly extolled by a distinguished
jurist, at that time a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States,--Joseph Story,--whose present fame gives additional importance
to his opinions. And yet the desire of these men failed. The corporate
representation of towns was preserved, and the District System
pronounced impracticable. In the Address put forth by the Convention of
1780, and signed by its President, James Bowdoin, these words may be
found:--
[20] Thoughts on Government: Works, Vol. IV. pp. 195, 205. Essex
Result, p. 29.
"You will observe that we have resolved that representation ought
to be founded on the principle of Equality; but it cannot be
understood thereby that each town in the Commonwealth shall have
weight and importance in a just proportion to its numbers and
property. An exact representation would be unpracticable, even
in a system of government arising from the state of Nature, and
much more so in a State already divided into nearly three hundred
corporations."[21]
[21] Journal of the Convention, p. 219.
The Convention seem to have recognized the theoretic fitness of
an "exact representation," but did not regard it as feasible in a
State already divided into nearly three hundred corporations. In the
Convention of 1820, Joseph Story, who has been quoted by my eloquent
friend [Mr. CHOATE], used language which, though not so strong
as that of the early Address, has the same result.
"In the Select Committee, I was in favor of a plan of
representation in the House founded on population, as the most just
and equal in its operation. I still retain that opinion. There
were serious objections against this system, and it was believed
by others that the towns could not be brought to consent to yield
up the corporate privileges of representation, which had been
enjoyed so long, and were so intimately connected with their pride
and their interests. I felt constrained, therefore, with great
reluctance, to yield up a favorite plan. I have lived long enough
to know, that, in any question of government, something is to be
yielded up on all sides. Conciliation and compromise lie at the
origin of every free government; and the question never was and
never can be, what is absolutely best, but what is relatively wise,
just, and expedient. I have not hesitated, therefore, to support
the plan of the Select Committee, as one that, on the whole, was
the best that, under existing circumstances, could be obtained."[22]
[22] Debates, etc., in the Convention to revise the Constitution of
Massachusetts, 1820-21, p. 136 _c._ Story's Miscellaneous Writings,
p. 518.
Sir, I am not insensible to these considerations, or to the authority
of these examples. A division of the State into districts would be a
change, in conformity with abstract principles, which would interfere
with existing opinions, habitudes, and prejudices of the towns, all of
which must be respected. A change so important in character cannot be
advantageously made, unless supported by the permanent feelings and
convictions of the people. Institutions are formed _from within_, not
_from without_. They spring from custom and popular faith, silently
operating with internal power, not from the imposed will of a lawgiver.
And our present duty here, at least on this question, may be in some
measure satisfied, if we aid this growth.
Two great schools of jurisprudence for a while divided the learned mind
of Germany,--one known as the Historic, the other as the Didactic. The
question between them was similar to that now before the Convention.
The first regarded all laws and institutions as the growth of custom,
under constant influences of history; the other insisted upon positive
legislation, giving to them a form in conformity with abstract reason.
It is clear that both were in a measure right. No lawgiver or statesman
can disregard either history or abstract reason. He must contemplate
both. He will faithfully study the Past, and will recognize its
treasures and traditions; but, with equal fidelity, he will set his
face towards the Future, where all institutions will at last be in
harmony with truth.
I have been encouraged to believe in the practicability of the District
System by its conformity with reason, and by seeing how naturally
it went into operation under the Constitution of the United States.
But there is a difference between that case and the present. A new
Government was then founded, with new powers, applicable to a broad
expanse of country; but the Constitution of Massachusetts was little
more than a continuation of preëxisting usages and institutions, with
all dependence upon royalty removed. This distinction may help us now.
If the country were absolutely new, without embarrassment from existing
corporate rights,--_claims_ I would rather call them,--it might easily
be arranged according to the most approved theory, as Philadelphia is
said to have been originally laid out on the model of the German city
which its great founder had seen in his travels.[23] But to bring our
existing system into symmetry, and to lay it out anew, would seem to
be a task--at least I am reluctantly led to this conclusion by what I
have heard here--not unlike that of rebuilding Boston, and of shaping
its compact mass of crooked streets into the regular rectangular forms
of the city of Penn. And yet this is not impossible. With each day, by
demolishing ancient houses and widening ancient ways, changes are made
which tend to this result.
[23] Julius, Nordamerikas Sittliche Zustände, Band I. p. 92.
Sir, we must recognize the existing condition of things, remedy all
practical grievances so far as possible, and set our faces towards the
true system. We must act in the Present, but be mindful also of the
Future. There are proper occasions for compromise, as most certainly
there are rights beyond compromise. But the Representative System is an
expedient or device for ascertaining the popular will, and, though well
satisfied that this can be best founded on numbers, I would not venture
to say, in the present light of political science, that the right of
each man to an equal representation, according to the Rule of Three,
and without regard to existing institutions or controlling usages, is
of that inherent and lofty character--like the God-given right to life
or liberty--which admits of no compromise.
* * * * *
Several grievances exist, which will be removed by the proposed
amendments. There is one which I had hoped would disappear, but which
is the necessary incident of corporate representation: I mean the
unwieldy size of the House.
It is generally said that a small body is more open to bribery and
corruption than a large body; but, on the other hand, I have heard
it asserted that the larger is more exposed than the smaller. I put
this consideration aside. My objection to a large House is, that it is
inconvenient for the despatch of public business. There is a famous
saying of Cardinal de Retz, that every assembly of more than one
hundred is a mob; and Lord Chesterfield applied the same term to the
British House of Commons. At the present time that body has nominally
six hundred and fifty-four members. It is called by Lord Brougham
"preposterously large"; but a quorum for business is forty only; and
it is only on rare occasions of political importance that its benches
are completely occupied. The House of Lords, nominally, has four
hundred and fifty-nine members; but a quorum in this body consists of
three only;[24] and much of its business is transacted in a very thin
attendance.
[24] According to the old rule, _Tres faciunt collegium._
The experience of Congress, as also of other States, points to a
reduction of our present number. Indeed, for many years this was
a general desire through the State. In the earliest Colonial days
every town was allowed three deputies; but in five years the number,
on reaching thirty-three, was reduced to two for each.[25] At a
later day, in 1694, a great contest in the House was decided by a
vote of twenty-six against twenty-four.[26] In the agitating period
between 1762 and 1773, covering the controversies which heralded the
Revolution, the House consisted, on an average, of one hundred and
twenty members; and only on one occasion the magnitude of the interest
is reported by Hutchinson to have drawn together so many as one hundred
and thirteen. At the last session of the Provincial Legislature, in
May, 1774, when the Revolutionary conflict was at hand, the complete
returns of the Journal show one hundred and forty. In 1776 there
was a House of three hundred and five; but this "enormous and very
unwieldy size," according to the language of the time, was assigned
as a reason for a new Constitution. I regret that we cannot profit by
this experience. A House of two hundred and fifty, or, since we are
accustomed to large congregations,[27] of three hundred at most, would
be an improvement on the present system.
[25] Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay,
Vol. I. pp. 118, 250, 254.
[26] Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts, Vol. II. p. 77.
[27] The House for many years numbered upwards of five hundred
members,--in 1835, '36, and '37 swelling to the truly "enormous and
unwieldy size" of 615, 619, and 635; and even under the greatly
reduced apportionment established by the Amendment of 1840, the
numbers in the two years (1851 and 1852) preceding the present
Convention were no less than 396 and 402. See Gifford and Stowe's
Manual for the General Court, (Boston, 1860,) p. 130.
There are two proposed improvements which I hail with satisfaction:
one relates to the small towns, and the other to the cities. The small
towns will have a more constant representation; and this of itself is
an approach to the true principle of representation, which should be
constant as well as equal. The cities will be divided into districts,
and this I regard of twofold importance: first, as the beginning of a
true system; and, secondly, as reducing the power which the cities, by
the large number of their representatives, chosen by general ticket,
now exercise.
A respected gentleman, now in my eye, has reminded me that in boyhood
his attention was arrested in this House by what was called "the Boston
seat," reserved exclusively for the Boston members, who sat together
on cushions, while other members were left to such accommodation as
they could find on bare benches. This discrimination ceased long
ago. But it seems to me that this reserved and cushioned seat is
typical of another discrimination, which Boston, in common with the
cities, still enjoys. Sir, in voting for forty-four representatives,
the elector in Boston exercises a representative power far exceeding
that of electors in the country; and the majority which rules Boston
and determines the whole delegation exercises a representative power
transcending far that of any similar number in the Commonwealth. This
is apparent on the bare statement, as forty-four sticks are stronger in
one compact bundle than when single or in small parcels. Thus, while
other counties are divided, the delegation from Boston is united. In
all political contests, it is like the well-knit Macedonian phalanx, or
the iron front of the Roman legion, in comparison with the disconnected
individual warriors against whom they were engaged. This abuse will be
removed; and here is the beginning, I had almost said the inauguration,
of a true electoral equality in our Commonwealth.
And now, in conclusion, while thanking gentlemen for the kind attention
with which they have honored me, let me express briefly the result to
which I have come. I have openly declared my convictions with regard
to the District System, and in accordance with these have recorded my
votes in this Convention. These votes, which reveal my inmost desires
on this matter, I would not change. But the question is not now between
the District System, which I covet so much for Massachusetts, and the
proposed amendments, but between these amendments and the existing
system. On this issue I decide without hesitation. I shall vote, Sir,
for the propositions of amendment before the Convention, should they
come to a question on their final passage, not because they are all
that I desire, not because they satisfy the requirement of principles
which I cannot deny, not because they constitute a permanent adjustment
of this difficult question, but because they are the best which I can
now obtain, because they reform grievances of the existing system, and
because they begin a change which can end only in the establishment of
a Representative System founded in reality, as in name, on _Equality_.
Their adoption will be the triumph of conciliation and harmony,
and will furnish new testimony to the well-tempered spirit of our
institutions, where
"jarring interests, reconciled, create
The according music of a well-mixed State."
BILLS OF RIGHTS: THEIR HISTORY AND
POLICY.
SPEECH ON THE REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS,
IN THE CONVENTION TO REVISE AND AMEND THE CONSTITUTION OF
MASSACHUSETTS, JULY 25, 1853.
As Chairman of the Committee on the Bill of Rights, Mr. Sumner
submitted a Report, on which, in Committee of the Whole, he spoke as
follows.
Mr. Chairman,--As Chairman of the Committee on the Preamble and Bill of
Rights, it is my duty to introduce and explain their Report. It will
be perceived that it is brief, and proposes no important changes. But
in justice to the distinguished gentlemen with whom I have the honor
of being associated on that Committee, I deem it my duty to suggest
that the extent of their labors must not be judged by this result.
It appears from the proceedings of the Convention of 1820, that the
Committee on the Bill of Rights at that time sat longer than any other
Committee. I believe that the same Committee in the present Convention
might claim the same preëminence. Their records show twenty different
sessions.
At these sessions, the Preamble and the Bill of Rights, in its thirty
different propositions, were passed in review and considered clause by
clause; the various orders of the Convention, amounting to twelve in
number, the petitions addressed to the Convention and referred to the
Committee, as also informal propositions from members of the Convention
and others were considered, some of them repeatedly and at length.
On many questions there was a decided difference of opinion, and on
a few the Committee was nearly equally divided. But after the best
consideration we could bestow in our protracted series of meetings, it
was found that the few simple propositions now on your table were all
upon which a majority of the Committee could be brought to unite. As
such I was directed to present them. Admonished by the lapse of time
and the desire to close these proceedings, I might be content with this
simple statement.
But, notwithstanding the urgency of our business, I cannot allow
the opportunity to pass--indeed, I should not do my duty--without
attempting for a brief moment to show the origin and character of this
part of our Constitution. In this way we may learn its weight and
authority, and appreciate the difficulty and delicacy of any change in
its substance or even its form. I will try not to abuse your patience.
* * * * *
The Preamble and Bill of Rights, like the rest of our Constitution,
were from the pen of John Adams,--among whose published works the
whole document, in its original draught, may be found. At the time
when he rendered this important service to his native Commonwealth and
to the principles of free institutions everywhere, he was forty-four
years of age. He was also quite prepared. The natural maturity of his
powers had been enriched by the well-ripened fruit of assiduous study
and of active life, both of which concurred in him. The examples of
Greece and Rome and the writings of Sidney and Locke were especially
familiar to his mind. The Common Law he had made his own, and mastered
well its whole arsenal of Freedom. For a long time the vigorous and
unfailing partisan of the liberal cause in Boston, throughout its
many conflicts,--then in Congress, whither he was transferred, the
irresistible champion of Independence,--and then the republican
representative of the United, but still struggling, Colonies at the
Court of France,--in the brief interval between two foreign missions,
only seven days after landing from his long ocean voyage, he was chosen
a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, and at once brought all
his varied experience, rare political culture, and eminent powers to
the task of adjusting the framework of government for Massachusetts. As
his work, it all claims our regard; and no part bears the imprint of
his mind so much as the Preamble and Bill of Rights; nor is any other
part authenticated as coming so exclusively from him.
At the time of its first adoption the Massachusetts Bill of Rights
was more ample in provisions and more complete in form than any
similar declaration in English or Colonial history. Glancing at its
predecessors, we learn something of its sources. First came, long back
in the thirteenth century, Magna Charta, with generous safeguards of
Freedom, wrung from King John by the Barons at Runnymede. From time
to time these liberties were confirmed, and, after an interval of
centuries, they were again ratified, near the beginning of the unhappy
reign of Charles the First, by a Parliamentary Declaration, to which
the monarch assented, known as the Petition of Right, which, in its
very title, reveals the humility with which the rights of the people
were then maintained. Finally, in a different tone and language, at
the Revolution of 1688, when James the Second was driven from his
dominions, a "Declaration of the true, ancient, and indubitable rights
and liberties of the people of the kingdom," familiarly known as the
Bill of Rights, was delivered by the Convention Parliament to the new
sovereigns, William and Mary, and embodied in the Act of Settlement,
by virtue of which they sat on the throne. These, Sir, are English
examples.
Their influence was not confined to England. It crossed the ocean. From
the beginning the Colonists were tenacious of the rights and liberties
of Englishmen, and at various times and in various forms declared them.
Connecticut, as early as 1639, Virginia in 1624 and 1776, Pennsylvania
in 1682, New York in 1691,--and I might mention others still,--put
forth Declarations, brief and meagre, but kindred to those of the
mother country. In the Colony of New Plymouth, the essential principles
of Magna Charta were proclaimed in 1636, under the name of "The General
Fundamentals"; and in 1641 the inhabitants of Massachusetts Bay
announced, in words worthy of careful study, that "the free fruition of
such Liberties, Immunities, and Privileges, as Humanity, Civility, and
Christianity call for, as due to every man in his place and proportion,
without impeachment and infringement, hath ever been and ever will
be the tranquillity and stability of Churches and Commonwealths, and
the denial or deprival thereof the disturbance, if not the ruin, of
both."[28] Such was the Preamble to the "Body of Liberties" of the
Massachusetts Colony in 1641. It would be difficult to find any text
more comprehensive than these remarkable words,--the object being
"Liberties, Immunities, and Privileges," to such extent "as Humanity,
Civility, and Christianity call for"; and this Declaration, broader
than Magna Charta, became the inspiration of Massachusetts, if not
of the Nation. Nor does Massachusetts stand alone in this honor.
Connecticut is by her side.[29]
[28] Preamble to the Body of Liberties of the Massachusetts Colony,
1641: Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., 3d Ser. Vol. VIII. p. 216. See also
General Laws and Liberties of the Massachusetts Colony, revised and
reprinted by Order of the General Court, 1672, p. 1.
[29] The Preamble in combination with the first Article of the
Massachusetts Body of Liberties was adopted as the Preamble to
the Connecticut Code of 1650. See Public Records of the Colony of
Connecticut, edited by J. H. Trumbull, (Hartford, 1850,) p. 509;
and compare with Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., _ut supra_.
I should not do justice to this "Body of Liberties," if I did not call
attention to at least four different declarations. There is, first,
the clause: "There shall never be any bond slavery, villenage, or
captivity amongst us, unless it be lawful captives taken in just wars,
and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are sold to us"; and
although this provision falls short of that universal freedom which
is our present aspiration, it is a plain limitation upon Slavery, and
marks the hostility of the Colony. Another declaration sets an example
of hospitality: "If any people of other nations, professing the true
Christian religion, shall flee to us from the tyranny or oppression
of their persecutors, or from famine, wars, or the like necessary
and compulsory cause, they shall be entertained and succored amongst
us according to that power and prudence God shall give us." And it
is further declared: "Every person within this jurisdiction, whether
inhabitant or foreigner, shall enjoy the same Justice and Law that
is general for the Plantation, which we constitute and execute one
towards another, without partiality or delay." Here is nothing less
than Equality before the Law, without this compendious term. There is
another declaration, which has the same exalted character: "Every man,
whether inhabitant or foreigner, free or not free, shall have liberty
to come to any public Court, Council, or Town Meeting, and either
by speech or writing to move any lawful, seasonable, and material
question, or to present any necessary motion, complaint, petition,
bill, or information, whereof that meeting hath proper cognizance, so
it be done in convenient time, due order, and respective manner." Such
declarations as these belong to the history of Freedom.
In the animated discussions immediately preceding the Revolution,
the rights and liberties of Englishmen were constantly asserted as
the birthright of the Colonists. This was often by formal resolution
or declaration, couched at first in moderate phrase. At the outrage
of the Stamp Act, a Congress of delegates from nine Colonies, held
at New York in October, 1765, put forth a series of resolutions
embodying "_Declarations of our humble opinion_ respecting the most
essential rights and liberties of the Colonists."[30] The humility
of this language recalls the English Petition of Right under Charles
the First. This was followed in 1774 by the Declaration of the
Continental Congress, which, in another tone and with admirable force,
in ten different propositions, arrays the rights which belong to "the
inhabitants of the English Colonies in North America, by the immutable
Laws of Nature, the Principles of the English Constitution, and the
several Charters or Compacts."[31]
[30] Proceedings of the Congress at New York, p. 5. Hutchinson's
History of Massachusetts, Vol. III., Appendix, p. 479.
[31] Journals of Congress, October 14, 1774, Vol. I. p. 28.
"Time's noblest offspring is the last";
and the whole Colonial series is aptly closed by the Declaration of
Independence, announcing not merely the rights of Englishmen, but the
rights of men.
Only a few brief weeks before the Declaration of Independence,
Virginia, taking the lead of her sister Colonies, established a
Constitution, to which was prefixed an elaborate Declaration of Rights.
This remarkable document, which became the immediate precedent for
the whole country, marks an epoch in political history. Massachusetts
and Connecticut had already led the way in that early and most
comprehensive Preamble, which has been too little noticed; but in
all English Declarations of Rights, and generally even in those of
the Colonies, stress was laid upon the liberties and privileges of
Englishmen. The rights claimed even by the Continental Congress of
1774, in their masculine Declaration, were the rights of "free and
natural-born subjects within the realm of England." But the Virginia
Bill of Rights, standing at the front of its first Constitution,
discarded all narrow title from mere English precedent, planted
itself on the eternal law of God, above every human ordinance, and
openly proclaimed that "all men are by nature equally free and
independent,"--a declaration which is repeated, though in other
language, by the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
* * * * *
The policy of Bills of Rights is sometimes called in question. It has
been said that they were originally privileges or concessions extorted
from the king, and, though expedient in a monarchy, are of little
value in a republic. As late as 1821, in the Convention for revising
the Constitution of New York, doubts of their utility were openly
expressed by Mr. Van Buren. But they are now above question. State
after State, ending with California, follows the example of Virginia
and Massachusetts, and places its Bill of Rights in the front of its
Constitution. Nor can I doubt that much good is done by this frank
assertion of fundamental principles. The public mind is instructed,
people learn to know their rights, liberal institutions are confirmed,
and the Constitution is made stable in the hearts of the community.
Bills of Rights are lessons of political wisdom and anchors of liberty.
They are the constant index, and also scourge, of injustice and wrong.
In Massachusetts, Slavery itself disappeared before the declaration
that "all men are born free and equal," interpreted by a liberty-loving
Court.[32]
[32] See, on this subject, a paper entitled "The Extinction of
Slavery in Massachusetts," by Emory Washburn: Coll. Mass. Hist.
Soc., 4th Ser. Vol. IV. pp. 333-346.
* * * * *
In the Convention of 1780 the Bill of Rights formed a prominent subject
of interest. The necessity of such a safeguard had been pressed
upon the people, and its absence from the Constitution of 1778 was
unquestionably a reason for the rejection of that ill-fated effort.
Indeed, the Constitution was openly opposed because it had no Bill of
Rights. In the array of objections at the period was the following,
which I take from an important contemporaneous publication: "That
a Bill of Rights, clearly ascertaining and defining the rights of
conscience and that security of person and property which every member
in the State hath a right to expect from the supreme power thereof,
ought to be settled and established previous to the ratification of any
Constitution for the State."[33] Accordingly, at the earliest moment
after the organization of the Convention, a motion was made, "that
there be a Declaration of Rights prepared previous to the framing a new
Constitution of Government," which after adoption gave way to another,
"that the Convention _will prepare_ a Declaration of Rights," and this
motion prevailed by a nearly unanimous vote,--the whole number present,
as returned by the monitors, being two hundred and fifty-one, of whom
two hundred and fifty voted in the affirmative.[34] Thus emphatically
did the early fathers of Massachusetts manifest their watchfulness for
the rights of the people; and there is good reason to believe, also,
that among the motives which stimulated it was a determination in this
way to abolish Slavery.[35] The Convention then resolved to "proceed
to the framing a new Constitution of Government." A grand Committee
of thirty was chosen to perform these two important duties; and this
Committee, after extended discussion, intrusted to John Adams alone
the preparation of a Declaration of Rights, and to a Sub-Committee,
consisting of James Bowdoin, Samuel Adams, and John Adams, the
duty of preparing the Form of a Constitution, which Sub-Committee
again delegated the task to John Adams: so that to the pen of this
illustrious citizen we are indebted primarily both for the Declaration
of Rights and the Form of the Constitution.[36]
[33] Essex Result, p. 4.
[34] Journal of the Convention, pp. 22, 23.
[35] This was the testimony of the late Rev. Charles Lowell, who
had received it from his father, Hon. John Lowell, a member of
the Convention, in whose family was a tradition that the latter
obtained the insertion of the words "all men are born free and
equal," for this declared purpose. See, _ut supra_, Coll. Mass.
Hist. Soc., 4th Ser. Vol. IV. p. 340.
[36] Observations on the Reconstruction of Government in
Massachusetts during the Revolution: Works of John Adams, Vol. IV.
pp. 215, 216.
It is not difficult to trace most, if not all, of the ideas and
provisions of our Preamble and Declaration of Rights to their primitive
sources. The Preamble, where the body politic is founded on the fiction
of the Social Compact, was doubtless inspired by the writings of
Sidney and Locke, and by the English discussions at the period of the
Revolution of 1688, when this questionable theory did good service
in response to the assumptions of Filmer, and as a shield against
arbitrary power. Of different provisions in the Bill of Rights, some
are in the very words of Magna Charta,--others are derived from the
ancient Common Law, the Petition of Right, and the Bill of Rights
of 1688,--while, of the thirty Articles composing it, no less than
nineteen,[37] either wholly or in part, may be found substantially in
the Virginia Bill of Rights: but these again are in great part derived
from the earlier fountains.
[37] Namely, Articles 1, 2, 4-10, 12-18, 20, 26, 30. The Virginia
Bill of Rights consists of sixteen Articles, three of which (the
5th, 6th, and 8th) are divided in the Massachusetts Declaration,
constituting respectively the substance of Articles 30 and 8, 9 and
10, 12 and 13.
* * * * *
And now, Sir, you have before you for revision and amendment this early
work of our fathers. I do not stop to consider its peculiar merits.
With satisfaction I might point to special safeguards by which our
rights have been protected against usurpation, whether executive,
legislative, or judicial. With pride I might dwell on those words
which banished Slavery from our soil, and rendered the Declaration
of Independence here with us a living letter. But the hour does not
require or admit any such service. You have a practical duty, which I
seek to promote; and I now take leave of the whole subject, with the
simple remark, that a document proceeding from such a pen, drawn from
such sources, with such an origin in all respects, speaking so early
for Human Rights, and now for more than threescore years and ten a
household word to the people of Massachusetts, should be touched by the
Convention only with exceeding care.
FINGER-POINT FROM PLYMOUTH ROCK.
SPEECH AT THE PLYMOUTH FESTIVAL IN COMMEMORATION OF THE EMBARKATION
OF THE PILGRIMS, AUGUST 1, 1853.
The President, Richard Warren, Esq., said they had already been
delighted with the words of a distinguished member of the Senate of
the United States [Mr. EVERETT.] They were favored with the
presence of another; and he would give as a sentiment:--
_The Senate of the United States_,--The concentrated light of the
stars of the Union.
In his reply, Mr. Sumner attempted to obtain a hearing for the
Antislavery cause and the Party of Freedom. In picturing the English
Puritans he had in mind our Antislavery Puritans, who, like their
prototypes, were at first "Separatists," and then "Independents." The
abuse showered on each was the same. Though nothing is said directly on
present affairs, they were clearly discerned behind the Puritan veil.
Such was the sensibility in certain quarters, that it was objected
to as out of place. Others were pleased with its fidelity. Among the
latter was the poet John G. Whittier, who wrote at the time: "Its tone
and bearing are unmistakable, and yet unobjectionable.... When I read
the toast which called thee up, I confess I could see very little
appropriateness in it; in fact, it seemed to me a very unpromising
text, and I almost feared to read the sermon. I enjoyed it all the
better for my misgivings."
Mr. President,--You bid me speak for the Senate of the United States.
But I know well that there is another voice here, of classical
eloquence, which might more fitly render this service. As one of the
humblest members of that body, and associated with the public councils
for a brief period only, I should prefer that my distinguished
colleague [Mr. EVERETT], whose fame is linked with a long
political life, should speak for it. And there is yet another here
[Mr. HALE], who, though not at this moment a member of the
Senate, has, throughout an active and brilliant career, marked by a
rare combination of ability, eloquence, and good-humor, so identified
himself with the Senate in the public mind that he might well speak for
it always, and when he speaks, all are pleased to listen. But, Sir, you
have ordered it otherwise.
From the tears and trials at Delft Haven, from the deck of the
Mayflower, from the landing on Plymouth Rock, to the Senate of the
United States is a mighty contrast, covering whole spaces of history,
hardly less than from the wolf that suckled Romulus and Remus to that
Roman Senate which on curule chairs swayed Italy and the world. From
these obscure beginnings of poverty and weakness, which you now piously
commemorate, and on which all our minds naturally rest to-day, you bid
us leap to that marble Capitol, where thirty-one powerful republics,
bound in common fellowship and welfare, are gathered together in
legislative body, constituting One Government, which, stretching from
ocean to ocean, and counting millions of people beneath its majestic
rule, surpasses far in wealth and might any government of the Old World
when the little band of Pilgrims left it, and now promises to be a
clasp between Europe and Asia, bringing the most distant places near
together, so that there shall be no more Orient or Occident. It were
interesting to dwell on the stages of this grand procession; but it is
enough, on this occasion, merely to glance at them and pass on.
Sir, it is the Pilgrims that we commemorate to-day, not the Senate.
For this moment, at least, let us tread under foot all pride of
empire, all exultation in our manifold triumphs of industry, science,
literature, with all the crowding anticipations of the vast untold
Future, that we may reverently bow before the Forefathers. The day is
theirs. In the contemplation of their virtue we derive a lesson which,
like truth, may judge us sternly, but, if we can really follow it, like
truth, shall make us free. For myself, I accept the admonition of the
day. It may teach us all, though few in numbers or alone, never, by
word or act, to swerve from those primal principles of duty, which,
from the landing on Plymouth Rock, have been the life of Massachusetts.
Let me briefly unfold the lesson,--though to the discerning soul it
unfolds itself.
Few persons in history have suffered more from contemporary
misrepresentation, abuse, and persecution, than the English Puritans.
At first a small body, they were regarded with indifference and
contempt. But by degrees they grew in numbers, and drew into their
company education, intelligence, and even rank. Reformers in all ages
have had little of blessing from the world they sought to serve.
But the Puritans were not disheartened. Still they persevered. The
obnoxious laws of conformity they vowed to withstand, till, in the
fervid language of the time, "they be sent back to the darkness from
whence they came." Through them the spirit of modern Freedom made
itself potently felt, in great warfare with Authority, in Church, in
Literature, and in State,--in other words, for religious, intellectual,
and political emancipation. The Puritans primarily aimed at religious
freedom: for this they contended in Parliament, under Elizabeth and
James; for this they suffered: but, so connected are all these great
and glorious interests, that the struggles for one have always helped
the others. Such service did they do, that Hume, whose cold nature
sympathized little with their burning souls, is obliged to confess that
"the precious spark of Liberty had been kindled and was preserved by
the Puritans alone," and he adds, that "to this sect the English owe
the whole freedom of their Constitution."
As among all reformers, so among them were differences of degree. Some
continued within the pale of the National Church, and there pressed
their ineffectual attempts in behalf of the good cause. Some at length,
driven by conscientious convictions, and unwilling to be partakers
longer in its enormities, stung also by cruel excesses of magisterial
power, openly disclaimed the National Establishment, and became a
separate sect, first under the name of Brownists, from the person
who led in this new organization, and then under the better name of
Separatists. I like this word, Sir. It has a meaning.[38] After long
struggles in Parliament and out of it, in Church and State, prolonged
through successive reigns, the Puritans finally triumphed, and the
despised sect of Separatists, swollen in numbers, and now under the
denomination of Independents,[39] with Oliver Cromwell at their head
and John Milton as his Secretary, ruled England. Thus is prefigured
the final triumph of all, however few in numbers, who sincerely devote
themselves to Truth.
The Pilgrims of Plymouth were among the earliest of the Separatists. As
such, they knew by bitter experience all the sharpness of persecution.
Against them the men in power raged like the heathen. Against them the
whole fury of the law was directed. Some were imprisoned, all were
impoverished, while their name became a by-word of reproach. For safety
and freedom the little band first sought shelter in Holland, where they
continued in obscurity and indigence for more than ten years, when they
were inspired to seek a home in this unknown Western world. Such, in
brief, is their history. I could not say more of it without intruding
upon your time; I could not say less without injustice to them.
[38] Our Abolitionists and Free-Soilers were Separatists.
[39] Like the Republican party.--whose triumph is here foreshadowed.
Rarely have austere principles been expressed with more gentleness
than from their lips. By a covenant with the Lord, they had vowed to
walk in all his ways, according to their best endeavors, _whatsoever
it should cost them_,--and also to receive whatsoever truth should
be made known from the written word of God. Repentance and prayers,
patience and tears, were their weapons. "It is not with us," said
they, "as with other men, whom small things can discourage or small
discontentments cause to wish themselves at home again." And then
again, on another occasion, their souls were lifted to utterance like
this: "When we are in our graves, it will be all one, whether we have
lived in plenty or penury, whether we have died in a bed of down or
on locks of straw." Self-sacrifice is never in vain, and with the
clearness of prophecy they foresaw that out of their trials should come
a transcendent Future. "As one small candle," said an early Pilgrim
Governor, "may light a thousand, so the light kindled here may in some
sort shine even to the whole nation." And these utterances were crowned
by the testimony of the English governor and historian, whose sympathy
for them was as little as that of Hume for the Puritans, confessing
it doubtful "whether Britain would have had any colonies in America
at this day, if religion had not been the grand inducement,"--thus
honoring our Pilgrims.
And yet these men, with such sublime endurance, lofty faith, and
admirable achievement, are among those sometimes called "Puritan
knaves" and "knaves-Puritans," and openly branded by King James as
"very pests in the Church and Commonwealth." The small company of our
forefathers became jest and gibe of fashion and power. The phrase "men
of one idea" was not invented then; but, in equivalent language, they
were styled "the pinched fanatics of Leyden." A contemporary poet and
favorite of Charles the First, Thomas Carew, lent his genius to their
defamation. A masque, from his elegant and careful pen, was performed
by the monarch and his courtiers, turning the whole plantation of New
England to royal sport. The jeer broke forth in the exclamation, that
it had "purged more virulent humors from the politic body than guaiacum
and all the West Indian drugs have from the natural bodies of this
kingdom."[40]
And these outcasts, despised in their own day by the proud and great,
are the men whom we have met in this goodly number to celebrate,--not
for any victory of war,--not for any triumph of discovery, science,
learning, or eloquence,--not for worldly success of any kind. How poor
are all these things by the side of that divine virtue which, amidst
the reproach, the obloquy, and the hardness of the world, made them
hold fast to Freedom and Truth! Sir, if the honors of this day are not
a mockery, if they do not expend themselves in mere self-gratulation,
if they are a sincere homage to the character of the Pilgrims,--and I
cannot suppose otherwise,--then is it well for us to be here. Standing
on Plymouth Rock, at their great anniversary, we cannot fail to be
elevated by their example. We see clearly what it has done for the
world, and what it has done for their fame. No pusillanimous soul here
to-day will declare their self-sacrifice, their deviation from received
opinions, their unquenchable thirst for liberty, an error or illusion.
From gushing multitudinous hearts we now thank these lowly men that
they dared to be true and brave. Conformity or compromise might,
perhaps, have purchased for them a profitable peace, but not peace of
mind; it might have secured place and power, but not repose; it might
have opened present shelter, but not a home in history and in men's
hearts till time shall be no more. All must confess the true grandeur
of their example, while, in vindication of a cherished principle,
they stood alone, against the madness of men, against the law of the
land, against their king. Better the despised Pilgrim, a fugitive for
freedom, than the halting politician, forgetful of principle, "with a
Senate at his heels."
[40] This masque, entitled _Coelum Britannicum_, was performed
at Whitehall, February 18, 1633.
Such, Sir, is the voice from Plymouth Rock, as it salutes my ears.
Others may not hear it; but to me it comes in tones which I cannot
mistake. I catch its words of noble cheer:--
"New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still and onward who would keep abreast of Truth:
Lo, before us gleam her camp-fires! we ourselves must Pilgrims be,
Launch our Mayflower, and steer boldly through the desperate winter
sea."
IRELAND AND IRISHMEN.
LETTER TO A COMMITTEE OF IRISH-BORN CITIZENS, AUGUST 2, 1853.
BOSTON, August 2, 1853.
Gentlemen,--It is not in my power to be with you on the evening of
the celebration at Faneuil Hall, but, I pray you, do not consider
me insensible to the honor of your invitation.
Permit me to say that no country excites a generous sympathy more
than Ireland; nor is any society more genial and winning than that
of Irishmen.
Believe me, Gentlemen, faithfully yours,
CHARLES SUMNER.
THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM:
NO REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.
SPEECH IN THE SENATE, AGAINST THE REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI
PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY NORTH OF 36° 30´ IN THE NEBRASKA AND KANSAS
BILL, FEBRUARY 21, 1854.
Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark. _And all the people
shall say, Amen._--DEUTERONOMY, xxvii. 17.
"The Nebraska Debate," as it was called at the time, was one of
the most remarkable in our history. It grew out of the proposition
to overturn the famous Missouri Compromise, so as to admit Slavery
into the vast territory west of the Mississippi, where it had been
prohibited by that Compromise. The country was startled by the outrage.
Many who had tried to reconcile themselves to the Fugitive Slave Bill,
as required by the Constitution, were maddened by this most audacious
attempt. Even assuming that the Fugitive Slave Bill was in any sense
justifiable, there was nothing to justify this flagrant violation of
plighted faith, where Slavery was the inexorable robber. Here began
those heats which afterwards showed themselves in blood. Never was the
action of Congress watched with more anxiety. Speeches were read as
never before, especially those opposed to this new aggression. That
of Mr. Sumner was extensively circulated in various editions, and he
received numerous letters expressing sympathy and gratitude. The tone
of these illustrates the reception of the speech. The late Rufus W.
Griswold, so well known in contemporary literature, wrote from New
York on the day after its delivery: "The admirable speech which you
delivered in the Senate yesterday will bring you a wearying quantity
of approving letters; but, though aware of this, I cannot refrain from
assuring you of my own admiration of it and gratitude for it, nor from
telling you that all through the city it appears to be the subject of
applauding conversation.... I congratulate you on having made a speech
so worthy of an American Senator, and calculated to be so serviceable
to the cause of Liberty." Frederick Douglass, who watched the contest
from a distance with the interest of a former slave, wrote: "All the
friends of Freedom in every State and of every color may claim you
just now as their representative. As one of your sable constituents,
I desire to thank you for your noble speech for Freedom and for your
country, which I have now read twice over." An original Abolitionist
wrote: "Let me thank you from my heart of hearts for your noble
speech. It is everything that we could wish,--bold, free, and true.
God will surely bless you!" The feeling of the hour appeared also
in the following from John G. Whittier: "I am unused to flatter any
one, least of all one whom I love and honor; but I must say, in all
sincerity, that there is no orator or statesman living in this country
or in Europe whose fame is so great as not to derive additional
lustre from such a speech. It will live the full life of American
history." Professor C. S. Henry, of the New York University, wrote:
"I thank you for your noble speech on the Nebraska Bill. In every
quality of nobleness transcendently noble. Unsurpassed in tone and
temper,--unrivalled in impregnable soundness and judicious statement
of positions, in clearness and logical force of historical recital,
in conclusiveness of reasoning, in beautiful fitness of style, and in
the true eloquence of a justice-loving soul." Among the curiosities of
praise, considering the political position of the writer, was a letter
from Pierre Soulé, our minister at Madrid, and formerly Senator from
Louisiana, containing the following passage: "Que je profite de cette
occasion pour vous dire combien j'ai été heureux du succès, et pour
mieux dire, du triomphe éclatant que vous avez obtenu à l'occasion de
votre discours sur le _Nebraska Bill_. Courage! _Sic itur ad astra._
Mais que dis-je? Vous y êtes déjà, et habile qui réussirait vous
en déloger." These are examples only; but they help to exhibit the
condition of the public mind. The North was aroused, and felt as never
before towards those who spoke in its behalf.
* * * * *
The origin of the debate will appear from a statement of facts.
On the 14th of December, 1853, Mr. Dodge, of Iowa, asked and obtained
leave to introduce a bill to organize the Territory of Nebraska, which
was read a first and second time by unanimous consent and referred to
the Committee on Territories. This was a simple Territorial Bill, in
the common form, containing no allusion to Slavery, and not in any
way undertaking to touch the existing Prohibition of Slavery in this
Territory.
On the 4th of January, 1854, Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, as Chairman of
the Committee on Territories, reported this bill back to the Senate
with various amendments, accompanied by a special report. By this bill
only a single Territory was constituted, under the name of Nebraska;
the existing Prohibition of Slavery was not directly overthrown, but
it was declared that the States formed out of this Territory should
be admitted into the Union "with or without Slavery," as they should
desire.
On the 16th of January, Mr. Dixon, of Kentucky, in order to accomplish
directly what the bill did only indirectly, gave notice of an
amendment, to the effect that the existing Prohibition 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."
On the next day, January 17, Mr. Sumner, in order to preserve the
existing Prohibition, gave notice of the following amendment.
"_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed
to abrogate or in any way contravene the Act of March 6, 1820,
entitled 'An Act to authorize the people of Missouri Territory to
form a Constitution and State Government, and for the admission of
such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original
States, and to prohibit Slavery in certain Territories'; wherein it
is expressly enacted, 'that in that territory ceded by France to
the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of
thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, not included
within the limits of the State contemplated by this Act, slavery
and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of
crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall
be, and is hereby, forever prohibited.'"
It is worthy of remark, that at this stage the proposition of Mr. Dixon,
and also that of Mr. Sumner, were equally condemned by the _Washington
Union_, the official organ of the Administration. It had not then
been determined to sustain the repeal.
On the 23d of January, Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on Territories,
submitted a new bill, as a substitute for that already reported. Here
was a sudden change, by which the Territory was divided into two,
Nebraska and Kansas, and the Prohibition of Slavery was directly
overthrown. According to his language at the time, there were
"incorporated into it one or two other amendments, which make the
provisions of the bill upon other and more delicate questions more
clear and specific, so as to avoid all conflict of opinion." It was
formally enunciated in the bill, that the Prohibition of Slavery "was
superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly
called the Compromise Measures, and is hereby declared inoperative."
This of course superseded the proposed amendment of Mr. Dixon, who
subsequently declared his entire assent to the bill in its new form.
It also presented the issue directly raised in Mr. Sumner's proposed
amendment.
On the next day, January 24th, when the amended bill had just been laid
upon the tables of Senators, and without allowing the necessary time
even for its perusal, Mr. Douglas pressed its consideration upon the
Senate. After some debate it was postponed until the 30th of January,
and made the special order from day to day until disposed of.
Meanwhile an appeal to the country was put forth by a few Senators and
Representatives in Congress, calling themselves Independent Democrats.
The only Senators who signed this appeal were Mr. Chase and Mr.
Sumner. It was entitled, "Shall Slavery be permitted in Nebraska?"
and proceeded in strong language to expose the violation of plighted
faith and the wickedness about to be perpetrated. This document was
extensively circulated, and did much to awaken the public.
On the 30th of January the Senate proceeded to the consideration of
the bill, when Mr. Douglas took the floor and devoted himself to
denunciation of the appeal by the Independent Democrats, characterizing
its authors as "Abolition confederates," and particularly arraigning
Mr. Chase and Mr. Sumner, the two Senators who had signed it. When he
sat down, Mr. Chase replied at once to the personal matters introduced,
and was followed by Mr. Sumner, in the few remarks below; and this was
the opening of the great debate which occupied for months the attention
of the country.
Mr. President,--Before the Senate adjourns I crave a single moment. As
a signer of the address referred to by the Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DOUGLAS], I openly accept, before the Senate and the country,
my full responsibility for it, and deprecate no criticism from any
quarter. That document was put forth in the discharge of a high public
duty,--on the precipitate introduction into this body of a measure
which, as seems to me, is not only subversive of an ancient landmark,
but hostile to the peace, the harmony, and the best interests of the
country. But, Sir, in doing this, I judged the act, and not its author.
I saw only the enormous proposition, and nothing of the Senator.
The language used is strong, but not stronger than the exigency
required. Here is a measure which reverses the time-honored policy
of our fathers in the restriction of Slavery,--which sets aside the
Missouri Compromise, a solemn compact, by which all the territory ceded
by France under the name of Louisiana, north of thirty-six degrees and
thirty minutes north latitude and not included within the limits of
Missouri, was "forever" consecrated to Freedom,--and which violates,
also, the alleged compromises of 1850: and all this opening an immense
territory to Slavery. Such a measure cannot be regarded without
emotions too strong for speech; nor can it be justly described in
common language. It is a soulless, eyeless monster,--horrid, unshapely,
vast: and this monster is now let loose upon the country.
Allow me one other word of explanation. It is true I desired that the
consideration of this measure should not be pressed at once, with
indecent haste, as was proposed, even before the Senate could read the
bill in which it is embodied. You may remember that the Missouri Bill,
as appears from the Journals of Congress, when first introduced, in
December, 1819, was allowed to rest upon the table nearly two months
before the discussion commenced. The proposition to undo the only part
of that work which is now in any degree within the reach of Congress
should be approached with even greater caution and reserve. The people
have a right to be heard on this monstrous scheme; and there is no
apology for that driving, galloping speed which shall anticipate their
voice, and, in its consequences, must despoil them of this right.
The debate was continued from day to day. On the 7th of February Mr.
Douglas proposed still another change in his bill. There seemed to be
a perpetual difficulty in adjusting the language by which the existing
Prohibition of Slavery should be overthrown. He now moved to strike out
the words referring to this Prohibition, and to insert the following:--
"Which, being inconsistent with the principles of non-intervention
by Congress with Slavery in the States and Territories, as
recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the
Compromise Measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void: it
being the true intent and meaning of this Act 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 regulate
their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the
Constitution of the United States."
On the 15th of February this amendment was adopted by a vote of
thirty-five yeas to ten nays. The debate was then continued upon the
pending substitute reported by the Committee for the original bill.
On the 21st of February Mr. Sumner took the floor and delivered the
following speech.
SPEECH.
Mr. President,--I approach this discussion with awe. The mighty
question, with untold issues, oppresses me. Like a portentous cloud
surcharged with irresistible storm and ruin, it seems to fill the whole
heavens, making me painfully conscious how unequal to the occasion I
am,--how unequal, also, is all that I can say to all that I feel.
In delivering my sentiments to-day I shall speak frankly, according
to my convictions, without concealment or reserve. If anything fell
from the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS], in opening this
discussion, which might seem to challenge a personal contest, I desire
to say that I shall not enter upon it. Let not a word or a tone pass
my lips to divert attention for a moment from the surpassing theme,
by the side of which Senators and Presidents are but dwarfs. I would
not forget those amenities which belong to this place, and are so
well calculated to temper the antagonism of debate; nor can I cease
to remember, and to feel, that, amidst all diversities of opinion, we
are the representatives of thirty-one sister republics, knit together
by indissoluble ties, and constituting that Plural Unit which we all
embrace by the endearing name of country.
The question for your consideration is not exceeded in grandeur by
any which has occurred in our national history since the Declaration
of Independence. In every aspect it assumes gigantic proportions,
whether we consider simply the extent of territory it affects, or the
public faith and national policy which it assails, or that higher
question--that _Question of Questions_, as far above others as Liberty
is above the common things of life--which it opens anew for judgment.
It concerns an immense region, larger than the original Thirteen
States, vying in extent with all the existing Free States,--stretching
over prairie, field, and forest,--interlaced by silver streams, skirted
by protecting mountains, and constituting the heart of the North
American continent,--only a little smaller, let me add, than three
great European countries combined,--Italy, Spain, and France,--each of
which, in succession, has dominated over the globe. This territory has
been likened, on this floor, to the Garden of God. The similitude is
found not merely in its pure and virgin character, but in its actual
geographical situation, occupying central spaces on this hemisphere,
which, in their general relations, may well compare with that "happy
rural seat." We are told that
"Southward through Eden went a river large":
so here a stream flows southward which is larger than the Euphrates.
And here, too, all amid the smiling products of Nature, lavished by
the hand of God, is the lofty Tree of Liberty, planted by our fathers,
which, without exaggeration, or even imagination, may be likened to
"the Tree of Life,
High eminent, blooming ambrosial fruit
Of vegetable gold."
It is with regard to this territory that you are now called to exercise
the grandest function of lawgiver, by establishing rules of polity
which will determine its future character. As the twig is bent the
tree inclines; and the influences impressed upon the early days of an
empire, like those upon a child, are of inconceivable importance to its
future weal or woe. The bill now before us proposes to organize and
equip two new territorial establishments, with Governors, Secretaries,
Legislative Councils, Legislators, Judges, Marshals, and the whole
machinery of civil society. Such a measure at any time would deserve
the most careful attention. But at the present moment it justly excites
peculiar interest, from the effort made--on pretences unsustained by
facts, in violation of solemn covenant, and in disregard of the early
principles of our fathers--to open this immense region to Slavery.
According to existing law, this territory is now guarded against
Slavery by a positive Prohibition, embodied in the Act of Congress
approved March 6th, 1820, preparatory to the admission of Missouri into
the Union as a sister State, and in the following explicit words:--
"SEC. 8. _And be it further enacted_, That in all that territory
_ceded by France to the United States, under the name of
Louisiana_, which lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty
minutes north latitude, not included within the limits of the
State contemplated by this Act, SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE,
otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the parties
shall have been duly convicted, SHALL BE, AND IS HEREBY, FOREVER
PROHIBITED."
It is now proposed to set aside this Prohibition. But there seems to be
a singular indecision as to the way in which the deed shall be done.
From the time of its first introduction, in the Report of the Committee
on Territories, the proposition has assumed different shapes; and it
promises to assume as many as Proteus,--now one thing in form, and now
another,--now like a serpent, and then like a lion,--but in every form
and shape identical in substance; with but one object,--the overthrow
of the Prohibition of Slavery. At first it proposed simply to declare
that the States formed out of this territory should be admitted into
the Union "with or without Slavery," and did not directly assume to
touch this Prohibition. For some reason this was not satisfactory, and
then it was precipitately proposed to declare that the Prohibition in
the Missouri Act "was superseded by the principles of the legislation
of 1850, commonly called the Compromise Measures, and is hereby
declared inoperative." But this would not do; and it is now proposed to
enact, that the Prohibition, "being inconsistent with the principles
of non-intervention by Congress with Slavery in the States and
Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called
the Compromise Measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void."
* * * * *
All this is to be done on pretences founded upon the Slavery
enactments of 1850. Now, Sir, I am not here to speak in behalf of
those measures, or to lean in any way upon their support. Relating to
different subject-matters, contained in different acts, which prevailed
successively, at different times, and by different votes,--some persons
voting for one, and some for another, and very few for all,--they
cannot be regarded as a unit, embodying conditions of compact, or
compromise, if you please, adopted equally by all, and therefore
obligatory on all. But since this broken series of measures is adduced
as apology for the proposition now before us, I desire to say, that,
such as they are, they cannot, by any rule of interpretation, by any
charming rod of power, by any magic alchemy, be transmuted into a
repeal of that original Prohibition.
On this head there are several points to which I would merely call
attention, and then pass on. _First_: The Slavery enactments of
1850 did not pretend, in terms, to touch, much less to change, the
condition of the Louisiana Territory, which was already fixed by
Congressional enactment. The two transactions related to different
subject-matters. _Secondly_: The enactments do not directly touch the
subject of Slavery, during the Territorial existence of Utah and New
Mexico; but they provide prospectively, that, when admitted as States,
they shall be received "with or without Slavery." Here certainly
can be no overthrow of an Act of Congress which directly concerns a
Territory _during its Territorial existence_. _Thirdly_: During all
the discussion of these measures in Congress, and afterwards before
the people, and through the public press, at the North and the South
alike, no person was heard to intimate that the Prohibition of Slavery
in the Missouri Act was in any way disturbed. _Fourthly_: The acts
themselves contain a formal provision, that "nothing herein contained
shall be construed to impair or qualify anything" in a certain article
of the Resolution annexing Texas, where it is expressly declared, that,
in any State formed out of territory north of the Missouri Compromise
line, "Slavery or involuntary servitude, except for crime, shall be
prohibited."
I do not dwell on these things. These pretences have been amply
refuted by able Senators who have preceded me. It is clear, beyond
contradiction, that the Prohibition of Slavery in this Territory was
not superseded, or in any way contravened, by the Slavery Acts of
1850. The proposition before you is, therefore, original in character,
without sanction from any former legislation, and it must, accordingly,
be judged by its merits, as an original proposition.
* * * * *
Here, Sir, let it be remembered that the friends of Freedom are
not open to any charge of aggression. They are now standing on the
defensive, guarding the early intrenchments thrown up by our fathers.
No proposition to abolish Slavery anywhere is now before you, but, on
the contrary, a proposition to abolish Freedom. The term Abolitionist,
so often applied in reproach, justly belongs, on this occasion, to him
who would overthrow this well-established landmark. He is, indeed,
no Abolitionist of Slavery; let him be called, Sir, Abolitionist of
Freedom. For myself, whether with many or few, my place is taken. Even
if alone, my feeble arm should not be wanting as a bar against this
outrage.
On two distinct grounds, "strong both against the deed," I arraign
it: _First_, in the name of Public Faith, as an infraction of solemn
obligations, assumed beyond recall by the South, on the admission of
Missouri into the Union as a Slave State. _Secondly_, I arraign it in
the name of Freedom, as an unjustifiable departure from the original
Antislavery policy of our fathers. These two heads I shall consider
in their order, glancing, under the latter, at the objections to the
Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories.
Before I approach the argument, indulge me with a few preliminary
words on the character of this proposition. Slavery is the forcible
subjection of one human being, in person, labor, and property, to
the will of another. In this simple statement is involved its whole
injustice. There is no offence against religion, against morals,
against humanity, which, in the license of this enormity, may not stalk
"unwhipped of justice." For the husband and wife there is no marriage;
for the mother there is no assurance that her infant child will not
be ravished from her breast; for all who bear the name of Slave there
is nothing that they can call their own. Without a father, without a
mother, almost without a God, the slave has nothing but a master. It
would be contrary to that Rule of Right which is ordained by God, if
such a system, though mitigated often by patriarchal kindness, and by
plausible physical comfort, could be otherwise than pernicious. It is
confessed that the master suffers not less than the slave. And this
is not all. The whole social fabric is disorganized; labor loses its
dignity; industry sickens; education finds no schools; and all the
land of Slavery is impoverished. And now, Sir, when the conscience
of mankind is at last aroused to these things, when, throughout the
civilized world, a slave-dealer is a by-word and a reproach, we, as a
nation, are about to open a new market to the traffickers in flesh that
haunt the shambles of the South. Such an act, at this time, is removed
from all reach of that palliation often vouchsafed to Slavery. This
wrong, we are speciously told by those who seek to defend it, is not
our original sin. It was entailed upon us, so we are instructed, by our
ancestors; and the responsibility is often thrown, with exultation,
upon the mother country. Now, without stopping to inquire into the
value of this apology, which is never adduced in behalf of other
abuses, and which availed nothing against that kingly power imposed by
the mother country, but overthrown by our fathers, it is sufficient for
the present purpose to know that it is now proposed to make Slavery our
own original act. Here is a fresh case of actual transgression, which
we cannot cast upon the shoulders of any progenitors, nor upon any
mother country, distant in time or place. The Congress of the United
States, the people of the United States, at this day, in this vaunted
period of light, will be responsible for it, so that it shall be said
hereafter, so long as the dismal history of Slavery is read, that in
the year of Christ 1854 a new and deliberate act was passed by which a
vast territory was opened to its incursions.
Historic instances show how such an act will make us solitary among
the nations. In autocratic Russia, the serfdom which constitutes
the "peculiar institution" of that great empire is never allowed to
travel with the imperial flag, according to American pretension,
into provinces newly acquired by the common blood and treasure, but,
by positive prohibition, in harmony with the general conscience,
is carefully restricted within its ancient confines; and this
prohibition--the Wilmot Proviso of Russia--is rigorously enforced on
every side, in all the provinces, as in Bessarabia on the south, and
Poland on the west, so that, in fact, no Russian nobleman is able to
move into these important territories with his slaves. Thus Russia
speaks for Freedom, and disowns the slaveholding dogma of our country.
India, the land of caste, and Turkey, the abode of polygamy, both
fasten upon Slavery the stigma of reprobation. The Barbary States of
Africa, occupying the same parallels of latitude with the Slave States
of our Union, and resembling them in the nature of their boundaries,
their productions, their climate, and the "peculiar institution" which
sought shelter in both, are changed into Abolitionists. Algiers, seated
on the line of 36° 30´, is dedicated to Freedom. Tunis and Morocco are
doing likewise.
As the effort now making is extraordinary in character, so no
assumption seems too extraordinary to be advanced in its support. The
primal truth of the Equality of Men, proclaimed in our Declaration
of Independence, is assailed, and this Great Charter of our country
discredited. Sir, you and I will soon pass away, but that charter will
continue to stand above impeachment or question. The Declaration of
Independence was a Declaration of Rights, and the language employed,
though general in character, must obviously be confined within the
design and sphere of a Declaration of Rights, involving no such
pitiful absurdity as was attributed to it yesterday by the Senator
from Indiana [Mr. PETTIT]. Sir, who has pretended that all
men are born equal in physical strength or in mental capacities, in
beauty of form or health of body? Certainly not the signers of the
Declaration of Independence, who could have been guilty of no such
self-stultification. Diversity is the law of creation, unrestricted
to race or color. But as God is no respecter of persons, and as all
are equal in his sight, both Dives and Lazarus, master and slave, so
are all equal in natural inborn rights; and pardon me, if I say it
is a mere quibble to adduce, in argument against this vital axiom
of Liberty, the physical or mental inequalities by which men are
characterized, or the unhappy degradation to which, in violation
of a common brotherhood, they are doomed. To deny the Declaration
of Independence is to rush on the bosses of the shield of the
Almighty,--which, in all respects, the supporters of this measure seem
to do.
To the delusive suggestion of the Senator from North Carolina [Mr.
BADGER], that by overthrow of this Prohibition the number of
slaves will not be increased, that there will be simply a beneficent
diffusion of Slavery, and not its extension, I reply at once, that this
argument, if of any value, if not mere words and nothing else, would
equally justify and require the overthrow of the Prohibition of Slavery
in the Free States, and, indeed, everywhere throughout the world. All
the dikes, which, in different countries, from time to time, with the
march of civilization, have been painfully set up against the inroads
of this evil, must be removed, and every land opened anew to its
destructive flood. It is clear, beyond dispute, that by the overthrow
of this Prohibition Slavery will be quickened, and slaves themselves
will be multiplied, while new room and verge will be secured for the
gloomy operations of Slave Law, under which free labor will droop,
and a vast territory be smitten with sterility. Sir, a blade of grass
would not grow where the horse of Attila had trod; nor can any true
prosperity spring up in the footprints of a slave.
But it is argued that slaves will be carried into Nebraska only in
small numbers, and therefore the question is of little practical
moment. My distinguished colleague [Mr. EVERETT], in his
eloquent speech, hearkened to this apology, and allowed himself, while
upholding the Prohibition, to disparage its importance in a manner
from which I feel obliged, kindly, but most strenuously, to dissent.
Sir, the very census attests its vital consequence. There is Missouri,
at this moment, with Illinois on the east and Nebraska on the west,
all covering nearly the same spaces of latitude, and resembling
each other in soil, climate, and natural productions. Mark now the
contrast! By the potent efficacy of the Ordinance of the Northwestern
Territory Illinois is a Free State, while Missouri has eighty-seven
thousand four hundred and twenty-two slaves; and the simple question
which challenges answer is, whether Nebraska shall be preserved in the
condition of Illinois or surrendered to that of Missouri? Surely this
cannot be treated lightly. But I am unwilling to measure the exigency
of the Prohibition by the number of persons, whether many or few, whom
it may protect. Human rights, whether in a multitude or the solitary
individual, are entitled to equal and unhesitating support. In this
spirit, the flag of our country only recently became the impenetrable
panoply of a homeless wanderer who claimed its protection in a distant
sea;[41] and in this spirit I am constrained to declare that there is
no place accessible to human avarice or human lust or human force,
whether the lowest valley or the loftiest mountain-top, whether
the broad flower-spangled prairies or the snowy caps of the Rocky
Mountains, where the Prohibition of Slavery, like the commandments of
the Decalogue, should not go.
[41] Martin Koszta, Hungarian by birth, who had made the
preliminary declaration of citizenship, and had a protection from
the United States Consul at Smyrna, was, July 2, 1853, surrendered
by an Austrian man-of-war in the harbor of Smyrna at the demand of
a man-of-war of the United States.
I.
And now, Sir, in the name of that Public Faith which is the very
ligament of civil society, and which the great Roman orator tells us it
is detestable to break even with an enemy, I arraign this scheme, and
hold it up to the judgment of the country. There is an early Italian
story of an experienced citizen, who, when told by his nephew, at
the University of Bologna, that he had been studying the science of
_Right_, said in reply, "You have spent your time to little purpose.
It would have been better, had you learned the science of _Might_, for
that is worth two of the other"; and the bystanders of that day all
agreed that the veteran spoke the truth. I begin, Sir, by assuming
that honorable Senators will not act in this spirit,--that they will
not wantonly and flagitiously discard any obligation, pledge, or
covenant, because they chance to possess the power,--that they will not
substitute _might_ for _right_.
Sir, the proposition before you involves not merely the repeal of
existing law, but the infraction of solemn obligations, originally
proposed and assumed by the South, after protracted and embittered
contest, as a covenant of peace, with regard to certain specified
territory therein described, namely, "All that territory ceded by
France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana,"--according
to which, in consideration of the admission into the Union of Missouri
as a Slave State, Slavery was forever prohibited in all the remaining
part of this territory which lies north of 36° 30´. This arrangement
between different sections of the Union, the Slave States of the first
part and the Free States of the second part, though usually known as
the Missouri Compromise, was at the time styled a COMPACT. In
its stipulations for Slavery, it was justly repugnant to the conscience
of the North, and ought never to have been made; but on that side it
has been performed. And now the unperformed outstanding obligations to
Freedom, originally proposed and assumed by the South, are resisted.
Years have passed since these obligations were embodied in the
legislation of Congress, and accepted by the country. Meanwhile the
statesmen by whom they were framed and vindicated have, one by one,
dropped from this earthly sphere. Their living voices cannot now be
heard, for the conservation of that Public Faith to which they were
pledged. But this extraordinary lapse of time, with the complete
fruition by one party of all the benefits belonging to it under the
compact, gives to the transaction an added and most sacred strength.
Prescription steps in and with new bonds confirms the original work,
to the end, that, while men are mortal, controversies shall not be
immortal. Death, with inexorable scythe, has mowed down the authors of
this compact; but, with conservative hour-glass, the dread destroyer
has counted out a succession of years, which now defile before us, like
so many sentinels, to guard the sacred landmark of Freedom.
* * * * *
A simple statement of facts, derived from the Journals of Congress
and contemporary records,[42] will show the origin and nature of
this compact, the influence by which it was established, and the
obligations it imposed.
[42] As the volumes of the Annals of Congress covering the
proceedings on the Missouri Compromise were not published when
this speech was made, Mr. Sumner was obliged to rely upon the
National Intelligencer and Niles's Register. In the present edition
references are made to the Annals of Congress.
As early as 1818, at the first session of the Fifteenth Congress, a
bill was reported to the House of Representatives, authorizing the
people of the Missouri Territory to form a Constitution and State
Government, for the admission of such State into the Union; but
at that session no final action was had. At the next session, in
February, 1819, the bill was again brought forward, when an eminent
Representative of New York, whose life was spared till this last
autumn, Mr. James Tallmadge, moved a clause prohibiting any further
introduction of slaves into the proposed State, and securing Freedom
to the children born within the State, after admission into the Union,
on attaining the age of twenty-five years. This important proposition,
which assumed a power not only to prohibit the ingress of Slavery
into the State, _but also to abolish it there_, was passed in the
affirmative, after a vehement debate of three days. On a division of
the question, the first part, prohibiting the further introduction
of slaves, was adopted by eighty-seven yeas to seventy-six nays; the
second part, providing for the emancipation of children, was adopted
by eighty-two yeas to seventy-eight nays. Other propositions to thwart
the operation of these amendments were voted down, and on the 17th
of February the bill was read a third time, and passed with these
important restrictions.
In the Senate, after debate, the provision for the emancipation of
children was struck out by thirty-one yeas to seven nays; the other
provision, against the further introduction of Slavery, was struck
out by twenty-two yeas to sixteen nays. Thus emasculated, the bill
was returned to the House, which, on the 2d of March, by a vote of
seventy-eight nays to seventy-six yeas, refused its concurrence. The
Senate adhered to their amendments, and the House, by seventy-eight
yeas to sixty-six nays, adhered to their disagreement; and so at this
session the Missouri Bill was lost: and here was a temporary triumph
for Freedom.
Meanwhile the same controversy was renewed on the bill pending at the
same time for the organization of the Territory of Arkansas, then known
as the southern part of the Territory of Missouri. The restrictions
already adopted in the Missouri Bill were moved by Mr. Taylor, of New
York, subsequently Speaker; but, after at least five close votes, on
the yeas and nays, in one of which the House was equally divided,
eighty-eight yeas to eighty-eight nays, they were lost. Another
proposition by Mr. Taylor, simpler in form, that Slavery should not
hereafter be introduced into this Territory, was lost by ninety nays
to eighty-six yeas; and the Arkansas Bill, on the 20th of February,
was read the third time and passed. In the Senate, Mr. Burrill, of
Rhode Island, moved, as an amendment, the prohibition of the further
introduction of Slavery into this Territory, which was lost by nineteen
nays to fourteen yeas. And thus, without any provision for Freedom,
Arkansas was organized as a Territory: and here was a triumph of
Slavery.
At this same session Alabama was admitted as a Slave State, without any
restriction or objection.
It was in the discussion on the Arkansas Bill, at this session, that
we find the earliest suggestion of a Compromise. Defeated in his
efforts to prohibit Slavery in this Territory, Mr. Taylor stated that
"he thought it important that some line should be designated beyond
which Slavery should not be permitted," and he moved its prohibition
hereafter in all Territories of the United States north of 36° 30´
north latitude, _without any exception of Missouri, which is north of
this line_. This proposition, though withdrawn after debate, was at
once welcomed by Mr. Livermore, of New Hampshire, as "made in the true
spirit of _compromise_." It was opposed by Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee, on
behalf of Slavery, who avowed himself against every restriction,--and
also by Mr. Ogle, of Pennsylvania, on behalf of Freedom, who was
"opposed to any compromise by which Slavery in any of the Territories
should be recognized or sanctioned by Congress." In this spirit it
was opposed and supported by others, among whom was General Harrison,
afterwards President of the United States, who "assented to the
expediency of establishing some such line of discrimination," but
proposed a line due west from the mouth of the Des Moines, thus
constituting the northern, and not the southern boundary of Missouri,
the partition line between Freedom and Slavery.
This idea of Compromise, though suggested by Mr. Taylor, was thus early
adopted and vindicated in this very debate by an eminent character--Mr.
Louis McLane, of Delaware--who has since held high office in the
country,[43] and enjoyed no common measure of public confidence. Of all
the leading actors in these early scenes, he and Mr. Mercer alone are
yet spared. On this occasion he said:--
"The fixing of a line on the west of the Mississippi, north of
which Slavery should not be tolerated, _had always been with him
a favorite policy_, and he hoped the day was not distant, when,
upon principles of _fair compromise_, it might constitutionally be
effected."[44]
[43] Secretary of State and Minister to England under President
Jackson, and a second time Minister to England under President Polk.
[44] Annals of Congress, 15th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 17, 1819, Vol.
II. col. 1228.
The present attempt, however, he regarded as premature. After opposing
the restriction on Missouri, he concluded by declaring:--
"At the same time, I do not mean to abandon the policy to which
I alluded in the commencement of my remarks. I think it but fair
that both sections of the Union should be accommodated on this
subject, with regard to which so much feeling has been manifested.
The same great motives of policy which reconciled and harmonized
the jarring and discordant elements of our system originally, and
which enabled the framers of our happy Constitution to compromise
the different interests which then prevailed upon this and other
subjects, if properly cherished by us, will enable us to achieve
similar objects. If we meet upon principles of reciprocity, we
cannot fail to do justice to all. _It has already been avowed by
gentlemen on this floor, from the South and the West, that they
will agree upon a line which shall divide the slaveholding from
the non-slaveholding States. It is this proposition I am anxious
to effect; but I wish to effect it by some COMPACT which shall be
binding upon all parties and all subsequent Legislatures_,--which
cannot be changed, and will not fluctuate with the diversity of
feeling and of sentiment to which this empire, in its march, must
be destined. There is a vast and immense tract of country west of
the Mississippi yet to be settled, and intimately connected with
the northern section of the Union, _upon which this compromise can
be effected_."[45]
[45] Ibid., 1235.
The suggestions of Compromise were at this time vain: each party was
determined. The North, by the prevailing voice of its Representatives,
claimed all for Freedom; the South, by its potential command of the
Senate, claimed all for Slavery.
The report of this debate aroused the country. For the first time
in our history, Freedom, after animated struggle, hand to hand, was
kept in check by Slavery. The original policy of our fathers in the
restriction of Slavery was suspended, and this giant wrong threatened
to stalk into all the broad national domain. Men at the North were
humbled and amazed. The imperious demands of Slavery seemed incredible.
Meanwhile the whole subject was adjourned from Congress to the
people. Through the press and at public meetings, an earnest voice
was raised against the admission of Missouri into the Union without
the restriction of Slavery. Judges left the bench, and clergymen the
pulpit, to swell the indignant protest which went up from good men
without distinction of party or pursuit.
The movement was not confined to a few persons, nor to a few States.
A public meeting at Trenton, in New Jersey, was followed by others in
New York and Philadelphia, and finally at Worcester, Salem, and Boston,
where committees were organized to rally the country. The citizens
of Baltimore, in public meeting at the court-house, with the mayor
in the chair, resolved "that the future admission of slaves into the
States which may hereafter be formed west of the Mississippi ought to
be prohibited by Congress." Villages, towns, and cities, by memorial,
petition, and prayer, called upon Congress to maintain the great
principle of the Prohibition of Slavery. The same principle was also
commended by the resolutions of State Legislatures; and Pennsylvania,
inspired by the teachings of Franklin and the convictions of the
respectable denomination of Friends, unanimously asserted at once
the right and the duty of Congress to prohibit Slavery west of the
Mississippi, solemnly calling upon her sister States "to refuse to
covenant with crime." New Jersey and Delaware followed. Ohio asserted
the same principle: so did Indiana. The latter State, not content with
providing for the future, severely censured one of its Senators for
his vote to organize Arkansas without the prohibition of Slavery. The
resolutions of New York were reinforced by the recommendation of De
Witt Clinton.[46]
Amidst these excitements Congress came together in December, 1819,
taking possession of these Halls of the Capitol for the first time
since their desolation by the British. On the day after the receipt
of the President's Message two several Committees of the House were
constituted, one to consider the application of Maine, and the other of
Missouri, to enter the Union as separate and independent States. With
only the delay of a single day, the bill for the admission of Missouri
was reported to the House without the restriction of Slavery; but, as
if shrinking from the immediate discussion of the great question it
involved, afterwards, on motion of Mr. Taylor, of New York, modified by
Mr. Mercer, of Virginia, its consideration was postponed for several
weeks: all which, be it observed, is in open contrast with the manner
in which the present discussion has been precipitated upon Congress.
Meanwhile the Maine Bill, when reported to the House, was promptly
acted upon, and sent to the Senate.
In the interval between the report of the Missouri Bill and its
consideration by the House, a Committee was constituted, on motion of
Mr. Taylor, of New York, to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting
the introduction of Slavery into the Territories west of the
Mississippi. This Committee, at the end of a fortnight, was discharged
from further consideration of the subject, which, it was understood,
would enter into the postponed debate on the Missouri Bill.
[46] See Niles's Weekly Register, Vol. XVII. _passim_.
This early effort to interdict Slavery in the Territories by special
law is worthy of notice on account of expressions of opinion it
drew forth. In the course of his remarks, Mr. Taylor declared that
"he presumed there was no member--he knew of none--who doubted the
constitutional power of Congress to impose such a restriction on the
Territories."[47]
[47] Annals of Congress, 16th Cong. 1st Sess., I. 802.
A generous voice from Virginia recognized at once the right and duty
of Congress. This was from Charles Fenton Mercer, who declared, that,
"when the question proposed should come fairly before the House, he
should support the proposition.... He should record his vote against
suffering the dark cloud of calamity which now darkened his country
from rolling on beyond the peaceful shores of the Mississippi."[48]
[48] Ibid., 803.
At length, on the 25th of January, 1820, the House resolved itself
into Committee of the Whole on the Missouri Bill, and proceeded with
its discussion, day by day, till the 28th of February, when it was
reported back with an amendment excluding Slavery from the proposed
State. At the opening of the debate an amendment was offered with a
view to Compromise, when Mr. Smith, of Maryland, for many years an
eminent Senator of that State, but at this time a Representative, while
opposing the restriction of Missouri, vindicated the prohibition of
Slavery in the Territories.
"He said that he rose principally with a view to state his
understanding of the proposed amendment, namely: That it retained
the boundaries of Missouri as delineated in the bill; that it
prohibited the admission of slaves west of the west line of
Missouri, and north of the north line; that it did not interfere
with the Territory of Arkansas, or the uninhabited land west
thereof. _He thought the proposition not exceptionable_, but
doubted the propriety of its forming a part of the bill. He
considered the power of Congress over the Territory as supreme,
unlimited, before its admission; that Congress could impose on its
Territories any restriction it thought proper; and the people,
when they settled therein, did so under a full knowledge of the
restriction. If citizens go into the Territory thus restricted,
they cannot carry with them slaves. They will be without slaves,
and will be educated with prejudices and habits such as will
exclude all desire on their part to admit Slavery, when they shall
become sufficiently numerous to be admitted as a State. And this is
the advantage proposed by the amendment."[49]
[49] Annals of Congress, _ut supra_, I. 940, 941, January 26, 1820.
Meanwhile the same question was presented to the Senate, where a
conclusion was reached earlier than in the House. A clause for the
admission of Missouri was moved by way of tack to the Maine Bill.
To this an amendment was moved by Mr. Roberts, of Pennsylvania,
prohibiting the further introduction of Slavery into the State, which,
after a fortnight's debate, was defeated by twenty-seven nays to
sixteen yeas.
The debate in the Senate was of unusual interest and splendor. It
was especially illustrated by an effort of eminent power from that
great lawyer and orator, William Pinkney. Recently returned from
a succession of missions to foreign courts, and at this time the
acknowledged chief of the American bar, particularly skilled in
questions of Constitutional Law, his course as a Senator from Maryland
was calculated to produce a profound impression. A speech from him,
which for two days[50] drew to this Chamber an admiring throng, and at
the time was fondly compared with the best examples of Greece and Rome,
is without any record; but another, made shortly afterwards, remains to
us, and here we find the first authoritative proposition and statement
of what has been since known as the Missouri Compromise. This latter
effort was mainly directed against the restriction upon Missouri, but
it began and ended with the idea of Compromise. "Notwithstanding," he
says, "occasional appearances of rather an unfavorable description,
I have long since persuaded myself that the _Missouri question_, as
it is called, might be laid to rest with innocence and safety by some
_conciliatory compromise_ at least, by which, as is our duty, we might
reconcile the extremes of conflicting views and feelings, without
any sacrifice of constitutional principle." And he closed with the
hope that the restriction on Missouri would not be pressed, but that
the whole question "might be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to
all, _by a prospective prohibition of Slavery in the territory to the
north and west of Missouri_."[51] Here let me remark, that, in the
nomenclature of the time, the term "restriction" was applied to the
requirement of Freedom proposed for the State of Missouri, while the
term "prohibition" was applied to the outlying territory north of a
certain line.
[50] January 21 and 24, 1820: Annals of Congress, _ut supra_, I.
232, 236.
[51] Ibid., I. 389-417, February 15, 1820. Wheaton's Life of
Pinkney, Appendix, pp. 573-612.
The compromise proposed was abandonment of the "restriction," with
recognition of the "prohibition."
This authoritative proposition of Compromise from the most powerful
advocate of the unconditional admission of Missouri, was made in the
Senate on the 15th of February. From various indications, it seems to
have found prompt favor in that body. On the 16th of February, the
union of Maine and Missouri in one bill prevailed there by twenty-three
yeas to twenty-one nays. The next day, Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, who
had always voted with the South against any restriction upon Missouri,
introduced the famous clause prohibiting Slavery in territory north of
36° 30´ outside this State, which constitutes the eighth section of
the Missouri Act. An effort was made to include within the prohibition
"the whole country west of the Mississippi, except Louisiana, Arkansas,
and Missouri"; but the South united against such extension of the area
of Freedom, and it was defeated by twenty-four nays to twenty yeas.
The prohibition, as moved by Mr. Thomas, then prevailed by thirty-four
yeas to only ten nays. Among those in the affirmative were both the
Senators from each of the Slave States, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky,
Delaware, Maryland, and Alabama, and also one of the Senators from each
of the Slave States, Mississippi and North Carolina, including in the
honorable list the familiar names of William Pinkney, James Brown, and
William Rufus King.
This bill, thus amended, is the first legislative embodiment of the
Missouri Compact or Compromise, the essential conditions of which
were the admission of Missouri as a State without any restriction of
Slavery, and the prohibition of Slavery in all the remaining territory
of Louisiana north of 36° 30´.[52] Janus-faced, with one front towards
Freedom and another towards Slavery, this must not be confounded with
the simpler proposition of Mr. Taylor, at the preceding session, to
prohibit Slavery in all the territory north of 36° 30´, including
Missouri. The compromise now brought forward, following the early
lead of Mr. McLane, both recognized and prohibited Slavery north of
36° 30´. Here, for the first time, these two opposite principles
commingled in one legislative channel; and it is immediately subsequent
to this junction that we discern the precise responsibility assumed
by different parties. And now observe the indubitable and decisive
fact. This bill, thus composed, containing these two elements, this
double measure, finally passed the Senate by a test vote of twenty-four
yeas to twenty nays. The yeas embraced every Southern Senator except
Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina, and William Smith, of South
Carolina.
MR. BUTLER, of South Carolina (_interrupting_), Mr. Gaillard,
of South Carolina, voted with Mr. Smith.
MR. SUMNER. No, Sir: the Journal, which I now hold in my
hand, shows that he voted for the bill with the Compromise. I repeat,
that the yeas on this vital question embraced every Southern Senator
except Mr. Macon and Mr. Smith. The nays embraced every Northern
Senator, except the two Senators from Illinois, one Senator from Rhode
Island, and one from New Hampshire. And this, Sir, is the record of the
first stage in the adoption of the Missouri Compromise. First openly
announced and vindicated on the floor of the Senate by a distinguished
Southern statesman, it was forced on the North by an almost unanimous
Southern vote.
[52] The eminent Judge Story, who was then in Washington, mentions
these conditions in a private letter, under date of February 27,
1820, as follows: "There is a great deal of heat and irritation,
but most probably a compromise will take place, admitting Missouri
into the Union without the restriction, and imposing it on all the
other Territories."--_Letter to Stephen White, Esq._: Life and
Letters of Story, Vol. I. pp. 362, 363.
* * * * *
While things had thus culminated in the Senate, discussion was still
proceeding in the House on the original Missouri Bill. This was for
a moment arrested by the reception from the Senate of the Maine
Bill, amended by tacking to it a bill for the admission of Missouri,
embodying the Compromise. Upon this the debate was brief and the
decision prompt. The House was not disposed to abandon the substantial
restriction of Slavery in Missouri for what seemed its unsubstantial
prohibition in an unsettled territory. The Senate's amendments to
the Maine Bill were all rejected, and the bill left in its original
condition. This was done by large votes. Even the Prohibition of
Slavery was thrown out, by one hundred and fifty-nine yeas to eighteen
nays, both North and South uniting against it,--though, in this small,
but persistent minority, we find two Southern statesmen, Samuel Smith
and Charles Fenton Mercer. The Senate, on receiving the bill back from
the House, insisted on their amendments. The House in turn insisted on
their disagreement. According to parliamentary usage, a Committee of
Conference between the two Houses was now appointed. Mr. Thomas, of
Illinois, Mr. Pinkney, of Maryland, and Mr. James Barbour, of Virginia,
composed this important Committee on the part of the Senate; and Mr.
Holmes, of Massachusetts, from the District of Maine, Mr. Taylor, of
New York, Mr. Lowndes, of South Carolina, Mr. Parker, of Massachusetts,
and Mr. Kinsey, of New Jersey, on the part of the House.
Meanwhile the House voted on the original Missouri Bill. An amendment
peremptorily interdicting all Slavery in the new State was adopted
by ninety-four yeas to eighty-six nays; and thus the bill passed
the House and was sent to the Senate on the 1st of March. So, after
an exasperated and protracted discussion, the two Houses were at a
dead-lock. The double-headed Missouri Compromise was the ultimatum
of the Senate. The restriction of Slavery in Missouri, involving, of
course, its prohibition in all the unorganized territories, was the
ultimatum of the House.
At this stage, on the 2d of March, the Committee of Conference made
their report, which was urged at once upon the House by Mr. Lowndes,
the distinguished representative from South Carolina, and one of her
most cherished sons. And here, Sir, at the mention of this name,
still so fragrant among us, let me for one moment stop this current
of history, to express the honest admiration with which he inspires
me. Mr. Lowndes died before my memory of political events, but he is
still endeared by the self-abnegation of a single utterance,--_that the
Presidency is an office not to be sought or declined_,--a sentiment
which by its beauty, in one part at least, shames the vileness of
aspiration in our day. Such a man, on any occasion, would be a host;
but he now threw his great soul into the work. He even objected to
a motion to print the Report, on the ground "that it would imply a
determination in the House to delay a decision of the subject to-day,
which he had hoped the House was fully prepared for." The question then
followed on striking out the restriction in the Missouri Bill. The
report in the "National Intelligencer"[53] says:--
"Mr. Lowndes spoke briefly in support of the Compromise recommended
by the Committee of Conference, and urged with great earnestness
the propriety of a decision which would restore tranquillity to the
country, which was demanded by every consideration of discretion,
of moderation, of wisdom, and of virtue."
"Mr. Mercer [of Virginia] followed on the same side with great
earnestness, and had spoken about half an hour, when he was
compelled by indisposition to resume his seat."
[53] See also Annals of Congress, _ut supra_, II. 1578, 1586, March
2, 1820.
Such efforts, pressed with Southern ardor, were not unavailing. In
conformity with the report of the Committee, the whole question was
forthwith put at rest. Maine and Missouri were admitted into the
Union as independent States. The restriction of Slavery in Missouri
was abandoned by a vote in the House of ninety yeas to eighty-seven
nays; and the prohibition of Slavery in territories north of 36° 30´,
exclusive of Missouri, was substituted by a vote of one hundred and
thirty-four yeas to forty-two nays. Among the distinguished Southern
names in the affirmative are Louis McLane, of Delaware, Samuel Smith,
of Maryland, William Lowndes, of South Carolina, and Charles Fenton
Mercer, of Virginia. The title of the Missouri Bill was amended in
conformity with this prohibition, by adding the words, "and to prohibit
Slavery in certain Territories." _The bills then passed both Houses
without a division_; and on the morning of the 3d of March, 1820, the
"National Intelligencer" contained an exulting article, entitled "The
Question Settled."
Another paper, published in Baltimore, immediately after the passage of
the Compromise, vindicated it as a perpetual compact, which could not
be disturbed. The language is so clear and strong that I will read it,
although it has been already quoted by my able and excellent friend
from Ohio [Mr. CHASE].
"_It is true, the Compromise is supported only by the letter
of a law repealable by the authority which enacted it; but the
circumstances of the case give to this law a MORAL FORCE equal
to that of a positive provision of the Constitution; and we do
not hazard anything by saying that the Constitution exists in its
observance._ Both parties have sacrificed much to conciliation. _We
wish to see the COMPACT kept in good faith_, and trust that a kind
Providence will open the way to relieve us of an evil which every
good citizen deprecates as the supreme curse of this country."[54]
[54] Niles's Weekly Register, March 11, 1820.
Sir, the distinguished leaders in this settlement were all from the
South. As early as February, 1819, Louis McLane, of Delaware, urged it
upon Congress, in the form of a "compact binding upon all subsequent
Leg
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/45954