Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 05 (of 20)
by Charles Sumner · English · Gutenberg #48035 · 713,139 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 05 (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 05 (of 20)
Author: Charles Sumner
Release date: January 20, 2015 [eBook #48035]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48035
Credits: Produced by Mark C. Orton 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 05 (OF 20) ***
[Illustration: STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS]
Statesman Edition VOL. V
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 V.
PAGE
THE ANTISLAVERY ENTERPRISE: ITS NECESSITY, PRACTICABILITY,
AND DIGNITY; WITH GLANCES AT THE SPECIAL DUTIES OF THE NORTH.
Address before the People of New York, at the Metropolitan
Theatre, May 9, 1855 1
NEW OUTRAGE FOR THE SAKE OF SLAVERY. Letter to Passmore
Williamson, in Moyamensing Prison, August 11, 1855 52
THE PEN BETTER THAN THE SWORD. Letter to Committee of
Publishers in New York, September 26, 1855 58
REPUBLICAN PARTY IN NEW YORK. Letter to a New York Committee,
October 7, 1855 60
REPUBLICAN PARTY OFFSPRING OF AROUSED CONSCIENCE OF THE
COUNTRY. Letter to a Boston Committee, October 8, 1855 61
POLITICAL PARTIES AND OUR FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION. Speech at
a Republican Rally in Faneuil Hall, November 2, 1855 62
ORIGINATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS. Speech in the Senate,
on the Usurpation of the Senate in the Origination of
Appropriation Bills, February 7, 1856 83
RELIEF OF VESSELS IN DISTRESS ON THE COAST. Letter to the
Director of the Exchange News-room, Boston, February 18, 1856 93
THE EXAMPLE OF WASHINGTON AGAINST SLAVERY NOT TO BE FORGOTTEN
NOW. Letter to a Committee of the Boston Mercantile Library
Association, February 19, 1856 95
CONSTANT EXERTION AND UNION AMONG GOOD MEN. Letter to a
Massachusetts Committee, February 25, 1856 97
ABROGATION OF TREATIES. Speeches in the Senate, March 6 and
May 8, 1856 98
REPLY TO ASSAULTS ON EMIGRATION IN KANSAS. Speech in the
Senate, on the Report of the Committee on Territories, March
12, 1856 121
UNION TO SAVE KANSAS, AND UNION TO SAVE OURSELVES. Letter to
a New York Committee, April 28, 1856 123
THE CRIME AGAINST KANSAS: THE APOLOGIES FOR THE CRIME; THE
TRUE REMEDY. Speech in the Senate, May 19 and 20, 1856. With
Appendix 125
“WHATEVER MASSACHUSETTS CAN GIVE, LET IT ALL GO TO SUFFERING
KANSAS.” Telegraphic Despatch to Boston, June 6, 1856 343
REFUSAL TO RECEIVE TESTIMONIAL IN APPROBATION OF KANSAS SPEECH.
Letter to a Committee in Boston, June 13, 1856 344
THE ANTISLAVERY ENTERPRISE: ITS NECESSITY, PRACTICABILITY, AND DIGNITY;
WITH GLANCES AT THE SPECIAL DUTIES OF THE NORTH.
ADDRESS BEFORE THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK, AT THE METROPOLITAN THEATRE, MAY
9, 1855.
The principles of true politics are those of morality enlarged;
and I neither now do nor ever will admit of any other.--BURKE,
_Letter to the Bishop of Chester: Correspondence_, Vol. I. p.
332.
True politics I look on as a part of moral philosophy, which
is nothing but the art of conducting men right in society, and
supporting a community amongst its neighbors.--JOHN LOCKE,
_Letter to the Earl of Peterborough: Life, by Lord King_, Vol.
I. p. 9.
Malus usus abolendus est.--LAW MAXIM.
All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to
you, do ye even so to them; for this is the Law and the
Prophets.--MATTHEW, viii. 12.
You have among you many a purchased slave,
Which, like your asses, and your dogs, and mules,
You use in abject and in slavish parts,
Because you bought them.
SHAKESPEARE, _Merchant of Venice_.
From Guinea’s coast pursue the lessening sail,
And catch the sounds that sadden every gale.
Tell, if thou canst, the sum of sorrows there;
Mark the fixed gaze, the wild and frenzied glare,
The racks of thought, and freezings of despair!
But pause not then,--beyond the western wave,
Go, view the captive bartered as a slave!
ROGERS, _Pleasures of Memory_.
Through the influence of the late Dr. James W. Stone, an
indefatigable Republican, a course of lectures was organized in
Boston especially for the discussion of Slavery. This course
marks the breaking of the seal on the platform. Mr. Sumner
undertook to open this course, which was to begin in the week
after his address before the Mercantile Library Association;
but he was prevented by sudden disability from a cold. His
excuse was contained in the following letter.
“HANCOCK STREET, 23d November, 1854.
“MY DEAR SIR,--An unkindly current of air is often more
penetrating than an arrow. From such a shaft I suffered
on the night of my address to the Mercantile Library
Association, more than a week ago, and no care or skill has
been efficacious to relieve me. I am admonished alike by
painful consciousness and by the good physician into whose
hands I have fallen, that I am not equal to the service I
have undertaken on Thursday evening.
“Fitly to inaugurate that course of lectures would task the
best powers in best health of any man. Most reluctantly,
but necessarily, I must lose sight of the inspiring company
there assembled in the name of Freedom to sit in judgment
on Slavery, and postpone till some other opportunity what
I had hoped to say. You, who know the effort I have made
to rally for this occasion, will appreciate my personal
disappointment.
“It is my habit to keep my engagements. Not for a single
day have I been absent from my seat in the Senate during
the three sessions in which duty has called me there; and
never before, in the course of numerous undertakings to
address public bodies, at different times and in different
places, has there been any failure through remissness or
disability on my part.
“Pardon these allusions, which I make that you may better
understand my feelings, now that I am compelled to depart
for the moment from a cherished rule of fidelity.
“Ever faithfully yours,
“CHARLES SUMNER.
“DR. STONE.”
Failing to open the course, Mr. Sumner closed it, on his return
from Washington in the spring, with the following address,
which he was called to repeat in the same hall a few days
later. Yielding to friendly pressure, he consented to repeat
it at several places in New York, among which was Auburn, the
residence of Mr. Seward, by whom he was introduced to the
audience in the following words.
“FELLOW-CITIZENS,--A dozen years ago I was honored by
being chosen to bring my neighbors residing here to the
acquaintance of a statesman of Massachusetts who was then
directing the last energies of an illustrious life to the
removal of the crime of Human Slavery from the soil of our
beloved country,--a statesman whose course I had chosen for
my own guidance,--John Quincy Adams, ‘the old man eloquent.’
“He has ascended to heaven: you and I yet remain here, in
the field of toil and duty. And now, by a rare felicity, I
have your instructions to present to you another statesman
of Massachusetts, him on whose shoulders the mantle of the
departed one has fallen, and who more than any other of the
many great and virtuous citizens of his native Commonwealth
illustrates the spirit of the teacher whom, like us, he
venerated and loved so much,--a companion and friend of my
own public labors,--the _young_ ‘man eloquent,’--Charles
Sumner.”
In the city of New York the same address formed the last of
an Antislavery course. It was delivered in the Metropolitan
Theatre, before a crowded audience, May 9, 1855. Mr. Sumner
had never before spoken in New York. He was introduced by Hon.
William Jay, in the following words.
“LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,--I have been requested, on the part
of the Society, to perform the pleasing, but unnecessary,
office of introducing to you the honored and well-known
advocate of Justice, Humanity, and Freedom, Charles Sumner.
It is not for his learning and eloquence that I commend
him to your respectful attention; for learning, eloquence,
and even theology itself, have been prostituted in the
service of an institution well described by John Wesley
as the sum of all villanies. I introduce him to you as a
Northern Senator on whom Nature has conferred the unusual
gift of a backbone,--a man who, standing erect on the floor
of Congress, amid creeping things from the North, with
Christian fidelity denounces the stupendous wickedness of
the Fugitive Law and the Nebraska Perfidy, and in the name
of Liberty, Humanity, and Religion demands the repeal of
those most atrocious enactments. May the words he is about
to utter be impressed on your consciences and influence
your conduct.”
The reception of the address attested the change in the public
mind. Frederick Douglass, who was present, wrote:--
“Metropolitan Theatre was literally packed, and, for
two hours and a half, the vast audience, with attention
unwearied, and with interest rising with every sentence
which dropped from the speaker, indorsed sentiments which
many of the same parties would five years ago have stoned
any one for uttering.”
The _Tribune_ said:--
“Mr. Sumner’s speech last night was the greatest
oratorical and logical success of the year, and was most
enthusiastically praised by the largest audience yet
gathered in New York to hear a lecture.”
The interest was such, that he was constrained, much against
his own disposition, to repeat it in Brooklyn, where he was
introduced by Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, and then again at
Niblo’s Theatre, New York, where he was introduced by Joseph
Blunt, Esq. The concluding words of Mr. Beecher were as follows.
“I am to introduce to you a statesman who follows a long
train of representatives and statesmen who were false
to the North, false to Liberty; and then they made a
complaint that there was no North! It was because the
North lost faith in her recreant children. It lost faith
in its traitors, and not in Liberty. But now, if the
haughty Southerners wish to engage in any more conflicts
of this kind, I think they will have to find some other
than the speaker to-night with whom to break a lance.
[_Loud cheers._] I do not wish merely to introduce to you
the ‘honorable gentleman’ sent from Massachusetts as a
United States Senator; my wish is to do better than that; I
wish to introduce to you the MAN,--CHARLES SUMNER. [_Loud
applause._]”
The _Tribune_ spoke thus of these meetings:--
“That a lecture should be repeated in New York is a
rare occurrence. That a lecture on Antislavery should
be repeated in New York, even before a few despised
‘fanatics,’ is an unparalleled occurrence. But that an
Antislavery lecture should be repeated night after night
to successive multitudes, each more enthusiastic than the
last, marks the epoch of a revolution in popular feeling;
it is an era in the history of Liberty. Niblo’s Theatre was
crowded last evening long before the hour of commencement.
Hundreds stood through the three hours’ lecture. We give a
full report of the words, but only of the words.”
Other newspapers were enthusiastic in their comments.
The _National Era_, at Washington, in printing the address,
said of its delivery in Metropolitan Hall:--
“Mr. Sumner closed, as he had continued, amid loud and
protracted applause. Especially at the point when he said
that the Fugitive Slave Bill must be made a dead letter,
the audience seemed wild with enthusiasm. Handkerchiefs
waved from fair hands, and reporters almost forgot their
stolid unconcern.”
Such extracts might be multiplied. Beyond these was the
testimony of individuals gratified at the hearing obtained for
cherished sentiments. One wrote from Philadelphia as follows.
“I cannot forbear, not for your gratification, but for my
own, to testify my unbounded sympathy and satisfaction in
the Three Days’ Ovation of May that you have enjoyed in
New York, in reward of your faithful sentinelship on the
ramparts of Liberty in that sin-beleaguered fortress, the
Capitol at Washington, faithfully supporting the cause of
the weak against insolence and haughty vulgarity.… You have
gloriously and faithfully withstood obloquy and reproach:
the hour of triumph is now well assured.”
Another wrote from Albany:--
“I have never read anything so magnificent as your Lecture
in the _Independent_. How I wish I could have heard it!
Letters from judges in such matters inform me that no
speech in New York for many years has produced such a
sensation.”
Count Gurowski, writing from Brattleboro’, Vermont, expressed
his enthusiastic sympathy, and at the same time predicted the
adverse feeling among slave-masters.
“I have just finished the reading of your admirable
Oration. I am _en extase_. I was near to cry.… But you
have thrown the gauntlet once more to the ‘gentlemen from
the South,’ bravely, decidedly, and pitilessly. Do not be
astonished, if they shall send you, covered with laurels as
you are, to Coventry. This undoubtedly they will do.”
These extracts show something of public sentiment at this stage
of the great contest with Slavery. From this time forward the
discussion broadened and deepened.
ADDRESS.
History abounds in vicissitudes. From weakness and humility, men ascend
to power and place. From defeat and disparagement, enterprises are
borne on to recognition and triumph. The martyr of to-day is gratefully
enshrined on the morrow. The stone that the builders rejected is made
head of the corner. Thus it always has been, and ever will be.
Only twenty years ago, in 1835, the friends of the slave in our country
were weak and humble, while their great undertaking, just then showing
itself, was trampled down and despised. Small companies, gathered
together in the name of Freedom, were interrupted and often dispersed
by riotous mobs. At Boston, a feeble association of women, called the
Female Antislavery Society, sitting in a small room of an upper story
in an obscure building, was insulted and then driven out of doors by a
frantic crowd, politely termed at the time “gentlemen of property and
standing,” which, after various deeds of violence and vileness, next
directed itself upon William Lloyd Garrison,--known as the determined
editor of the “Liberator,” and originator of the Antislavery Enterprise
in our day,--then ruthlessly tearing him away, amidst savage threats
and with a halter about his neck, dragged him through the streets,
until, at last, guilty only of loving liberty, if not wisely, too well,
this unoffending citizen was thrust into the common jail for protection
against an infuriate populace. Nor was Boston alone. Even villages
in remote rural solitude broke out in similar outrage,--while large
towns, like Providence, New Haven, Utica, Worcester, Alton, Cincinnati,
Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York, became so many fiery craters
overflowing with rage and madness. What lawless violence failed to
accomplish was urged next through forms of law. By solemn legislative
acts, the Slave States called on the Free States “promptly and
effectually to suppress all those associations within their respective
limits purporting to be Abolition Societies”;[1] and Rhode Island,
Massachusetts, and New York basely hearkened to the base proposition.
The press, too, with untold power, exerted itself in this behalf, while
pulpit, politician, and merchant conspired to stifle discussion, until
the voice of Freedom was hushed to a whisper, “alas! almost afraid to
know itself.”
Since then, in the lapse of few years only, a change has taken
place. Instead of those small companies, counted by tens, we have
now this mighty assembly, counted by thousands; instead of an
insignificant apartment, like that in Boston, the mere appendage of a
printing-office, where, as in the manger itself, Truth was cradled,
we have this Metropolitan Hall, ample in proportion and central in
place; instead of a profane and clamorous mob, beating at our gates,
dispersing our assembly, and making one of our number the victim
of its fury, we have peace and harmony at unguarded doors, ruffled
only by generous competition to participate in this occasion; while
Legislatures openly declare their sympathies, villages, towns, and
cities vie in the new manifestation, and the press itself, with
increased power, heralds, applauds, and extends the prevailing
influence, which, gushing from every fountain, and pouring through
every channel, at last, by quickening power of pulpit, politician, and
merchant, swells into an irresistible tide.
Here is a great change, worthy of notice and memory, for it attests the
first stage of victory. Slavery, in all its many-sided wrong, still
continues; but here in this metropolis--ay, Sir, and throughout the
whole North--freedom of discussion is at length secured. And this, I
say, is the first stage of victory,--herald of the transcendent future.
“Hark! a glad voice the lonely desert cheers:
Prepare the way! a God, a God appears!
A God! a God! the vocal hills reply:
The rocks proclaim the approaching Deity.”
Nor is there anything peculiar in the trials to which our cause
has been exposed. Thus in all ages is Truth encountered. At first
persecuted, gagged, silenced, crucified, she cries out from the prison,
the rack, the stake, the cross, until at last her voice is heard.
And when that voice is really heard, whether in martyr cries, or in
earthquake tones of civil convulsion, or in the calmness of ordinary
speech, such as I now employ, or in that still, small utterance
inaudible to the common ear, then is the beginning of victory! “Give me
where to stand and I will move the world,” said Archimedes; and Truth
asks no more than did the master of geometry.
Viewed in this aspect, the present occasion rises above any ordinary
course of lectures or series of political meetings. It is the
inauguration of Freedom. From this time forward, her voice of warning
and command cannot be silenced. The sensitive sympathies of property,
in this commercial mart, may yet again recognize property in man; the
watchful press itself may falter or fail; but the vantage-ground of
free discussion now achieved cannot be lost. On this I take my stand,
and, as from the Mount of Vision, behold the whole field of our great
controversy spread before me. There is no point, topic, fact, matter,
reason, or argument, touching the question between Slavery and Freedom,
which is not now open. From these I might aptly select some one, and
confine myself to its development. But I should not in this way best
satisfy the seeming requirement of the occasion. According to the
invitation of your Committee, I was to make an address introductory to
the present course of lectures, but was prevented by ill-health. And
now, at the close of the course, I am to say what I failed to say at
its beginning. Not as Caucus or as Congress can I address you; nor am I
moved to undertake a political harangue or constitutional argument. Out
of the occasion let me speak, and, discarding any individual topic, aim
to exhibit the entire field, in its divisions and subdivisions, with
metes and bounds.
* * * * *
My subject will be THE NECESSITY, PRACTICABILITY, AND DIGNITY OF THE
ANTISLAVERY ENTERPRISE, WITH GLANCES AT SPECIAL DUTIES OF THE NORTH.
By this enterprise I do not mean the efforts of any restricted circle,
sect, or party, but the cause of the slave, in all its forms and
under all its names,--whether inspired by pulpit, press, economist,
or politician,--whether in the early, persistent, and comprehensive
demands of Garrison, the gentler tones of Channing, or the strictly
constitutional endeavors of others now actually sharing the public
councils of the country. To carry through this review, under its
different heads, I shall not hesitate to meet the objections urged
against it, so far at least as I am aware of them. As I speak to you
seriously, I venture to ask your serious attention even to the end.
Not easily can a public address reach that highest completeness which
is found in mingling the useful and the agreeable; but I desire to
say that it will be my effort to cultivate that highest courtesy of a
speaker which is found in clearness.
I.
I begin with the NECESSITY of the Antislavery Enterprise. In the wrong
of Slavery, _as defined by existing law_, this necessity is plainly
apparent; nor can any man within the sound of my voice, who listens
to the authentic words of the law, hesitate in my conclusion. A wrong
so grievous and unquestionable should not be allowed to continue. For
the honor of human nature, and the good of all concerned, _it must at
once cease_. On this simple statement, as corner-stone, I found the
necessity of the Antislavery Enterprise.
I do not dwell, Sir, on the many tales which come from the house
of bondage: on the bitter sorrows undergone; on the flesh galled
by manacle, or spurting blood beneath the lash; on the human form
mutilated by knife, or seared by red-hot iron; on the ferocious scent
of bloodhounds in chase of human prey; on the sale of fathers and
mothers, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, little children,
even infants, at the auction block; on the practical prostration of all
rights, all ties, and even all hope; on the deadly injury to morals,
substituting concubinage for marriage, and changing the whole land of
Slavery into a by-word of shame, only fitly pictured by the language
of Dante, when he called his own degraded country a House of Ill
Fame;[2] and, last of all, on the pernicious influence upon master as
well as slave, showing itself too often, even by his own confession,
in rudeness of manners and character, and especially in that blindness
which renders him insensible to the wrongs he upholds. On these things
I do not dwell, although volumes are at hand of unquestionable fact,
and also of illustrative story so just and germane as to vie with fact,
out of which I might draw, until, like Macbeth, you had “supped full
with horrors.”
All these I put aside,--not because I do not regard them of moment
in exhibiting the true character of Slavery, but because I desire to
present this argument on grounds above all controversy, impeachment, or
suspicion, even from slave-masters themselves. Not on triumphant story,
not even on indisputable fact, do I now accuse Slavery, but on its
character, as revealed in its own simple definition of itself. Out of
its own mouth do I condemn it. By the _Law of Slavery_, man, created in
the image of God, is divested of the human character, and declared to
be a mere chattel. That this statement may not seem to be put forward
without precise authority, I quote the law of two different States. The
Civil Code of Louisiana thus defines a slave:--
“A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he
belongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his
industry, and his labor. He can do nothing, possess nothing,
nor acquire anything but what must belong to his master.”[3]
The law of another polished Slave State gives this definition:--
“Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed, and adjudged in
law to be _chattels personal_, in the hands of their owners and
possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns,
to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever.”[4]
And a careful writer, Judge Stroud, in a work of juridical as well as
philanthropic merit, thus sums up the law:--
“The cardinal principle of Slavery, that the slave is not to
be ranked among _sentient beings_, but among _things_, is an
article of property, a chattel personal, obtains as undoubted
law in all of these [Slave] States.”[5]
Sir, this is enough. As out of its small egg crawls forth the slimy,
scaly, reptile crocodile, so out of this simple definition crawls
forth the whole slimy, scaly, reptile monstrosity by which a man is
changed into a chattel, a person is converted into a thing, a soul
is transmuted into merchandise. According to this very definition,
the slave is held simply for the good of his master, to whose behest
his life, liberty, and happiness are devoted, and by whom he may be
bartered, leased, mortgaged, bequeathed, invoiced, shipped as cargo,
stored as goods, sold on execution, knocked off at public auction, and
even staked at the gaming-table on the hazard of a card or die. The
slave may seem to have a wife; but he has not, for his wife belongs to
his master. He may seem to have a child; but he has not, for his child
is owned by his master. He may be filled with desire of knowledge,
opening to him the gates of joy on earth and in heaven; but the master
may impiously close all these gates. Thus is he robbed, not merely of
privileges, but of himself,--not merely of money and labor, but of
wife and children,--not merely of time and opportunity, but of every
assurance of happiness,--not merely of earthly hope, but of all those
divine aspirations that spring from the Fountain of Light. He is not
merely restricted in liberty, but totally deprived of it,--not merely
curtailed in rights, but absolutely stripped of them,--not merely
loaded with burdens, but changed into a beast of burden,--not merely
bent in countenance to the earth, but sunk in law to the level of a
quadruped,--not merely exposed to personal cruelty, but deprived of
his character as a person,--not merely compelled to involuntary labor,
but degraded to a rude thing,--not merely shut out from knowledge, but
wrested from his place in the human family. _And all this, Sir, is
according to the simple Law of Slavery._
And even this is not all. The law, by cumulative provisions,
positively forbids that a slave shall be taught to read. Hear this,
fellow-citizens, and confess that no barbarity of despotism, no
extravagance of tyranny, no excess of impiety can be more blasphemous
or deadly. “Train up a child in the way he should go” is the
lesson of Divine Wisdom; but the Law of Slavery boldly prohibits
any such training, and dooms the child to hopeless ignorance and
degradation. “Let there be light” was the Divine behest at the dawn
of Creation,--and this commandment, travelling with the ages and the
hours, still speaks with the voice of God; yet the Law of Slavery says,
“Let there be darkness.”
But it is earnestly averred that slave-masters are humane, and slaves
are treated with kindness. These averments, however, I properly
put aside, precisely as I have already put aside the multitudinous
illustrations from the cruelty of Slavery. On the simple _letter of the
law_ I take my stand, and do not go beyond what is there nominated.
The masses of men are not better than their laws, and, whatever may be
the eminence of individual virtue, it is not reasonable to infer that
the body of slave-masters is better than the Law of Slavery. And since
this law submits the slave to their irresponsible control, with power
to bind and to scourge, to shut the soul from knowledge, to separate
families, to unclasp the infant from a mother’s breast, and the wife
from a husband’s arms, it is natural to conclude that such enormities
are sanctioned by them, while the supplementary denial of instruction
gives conclusive evidence of their full complicity. And this conclusion
must exist unquestioned, just so long as the law exists unrepealed.
Cease, then, to blazon the humanity of slave-masters. Tell me not
of the lenity with which this cruel law is tempered to its unhappy
subjects. Tell me not of the sympathy which overflows from the mansion
of the master to the cabin of the slave. In vain you assert these
instances. In vain you show that there are individuals who do not exert
the wickedness of the law. The law still endures. Slavery, which it
defines and upholds, continues to outrage Public Opinion, and, within
the limits of our Republic, more than three millions of human beings,
guilty only of a skin not colored like your own, are left the victims
of its unrighteous, irresponsible power.
Power divorced from right is devilish; power without the check
of responsibility is tyrannical; and I need not go back to the
authority of Plato, when I assert that the most complete injustice
is that erected into the form of law. But all these things concur in
Slavery. It is, then, on the testimony of slave-masters, solemnly,
legislatively, judicially attested in the very law itself, that I now
arraign this institution as an outrage upon man and his Creator. And
herein is the necessity of the Antislavery Enterprise. A wrong so
transcendent, so loathsome, so direful, must be encountered, _wherever
it can be reached_; and the battle must be continued without truce or
compromise, until the field is entirely won. Freedom and Slavery can
hold no divided empire; nor can there be any true repose, until Freedom
is everywhere established.
* * * * *
To the _necessity_ of the Antislavery Enterprise there are two, and
only two, main objections,--one founded on the alleged distinction of
race, and the other on the alleged sanction of Christianity. All other
objections are of inferior character, or are directed logically at its
_practicability_. Of these two main objections let me briefly speak.
* * * * *
1. I begin with the alleged _distinction of race_. This objection
assumes two different forms,--one founded on a prophetic malediction in
the Old Testament, and the other on professed observations of recent
science. Its importance is apparent in the obvious fact, that, unless
such distinction be clearly and unmistakably established, every
argument by which our own freedom is vindicated, every applause awarded
to the successful rebellion of our fathers, every indignant word ever
hurled against the enslavement of white fellow-citizens by Algerine
corsairs, must plead trumpet-tongued against the deep damnation of
Slavery, black as well as white.
It is said that Africans are the posterity of Ham, son of Noah, through
Canaan cursed by Noah, to be the servant of his brethren, and that
this malediction has fallen upon all his descendants, including the
unhappy Africans,--who are accordingly devoted by God, through unending
generations, to unending bondage. Such is the favorite argument at
the South, and more than once directly addressed to myself. Here, for
instance, is a passage from a letter recently received. “You need not
persist,” says the writer, “in confounding Japheth’s children with
Ham’s, and making both races one, and arguing on their rights as those
of man broadly.” And I have been seriously assured, that, until this
objection is answered, it will be vain to press my views upon Congress
or the country. Listen now to the texts of the Old Testament which are
so strangely employed.
“And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants
shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord
God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge
Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan
shall be his servant.”[6]
That is all; and I need only read these words in order to expose the
whole--transpicuous humbug. I am tempted to add, that, to justify
this objection, it is necessary to maintain at least five different
propositions, as essential links in the chain of the African slave:
_first_, that by this malediction Canaan himself was actually changed
into a _chattel_,--whereas he is simply made the servant of his
brethren; _secondly_, that not merely Canaan, but all his posterity,
to the remotest generation, was so changed,--whereas the language has
no such extent; _thirdly_, that the African actually belongs to the
posterity of Canaan,--an ethnographical assumption absurdly difficult
to establish; _fourthly_, that each descendant of Shem and Japheth has
a right to hold an African fellow-man as chattel,--a proposition which
finds no semblance of support; and, _fifthly_, that every slave-master
is truly descended from Shem or Japheth,--a pedigree which no anxiety
or assurance can prove. This plain analysis, which may fitly excite
a smile, shows the fivefold absurdity of an attempt to found this
revolting wrong on any
“successive title, long and dark,
Drawn from the mouldy rolls of Noah’s ark.”[7]
The small bigotry which finds comfort in these texts has been
exalted lately by the voice of Science, undertaking to suggest that
the different races of men are not derived from a single pair, but
from several distinct stocks, according to their several distinct
characteristics; and it is haughtily argued, that the African is so far
inferior as to lose all title to that liberty which is the birthright
of the lordly white. Now I have neither time nor disposition, on
this occasion, to discuss the question of the unity of races; nor
is it necessary to my present purpose. It may be that the different
races of men proceeded from different stocks; but there is but _one_
great Human Family, in which Caucasian and African, Chinese and
Indian, are all brothers, children of _one_ Father, and heirs to
_one_ happiness,--alike on earth and in heaven. “Star-eyed Science”
cannot shake this everlasting truth. It may exhibit peculiarities in
the African, by which he is distinguishable from the Caucasian. In
his physical form and intellectual character it may presume to find
the stamp of permanent inferiority. But by no reach of learning, no
torture of fact, no effrontery of dogma, can any science show that he
is not _a man_. And as a man he stands before you an unquestionable
member of the Human Family, entitled to _all the rights of man_. You
can claim nothing for yourself, _as man_, which you must not accord to
him. _Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness_, which you proudly
declare to be your own inalienable, God-given rights, and to the
support of which your fathers pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred
honor, are his by the same immortal title that they are yours.
* * * * *
2. From the objection founded on alleged distinction of race, I pass to
that other founded on alleged _sanction of Slavery by Christianity_.
Striving to be brief, I shall not undertake to reconcile texts often
quoted from the Old Testament, which, whatever their import, are
all absorbed in the New; nor shall I stop to consider the precise
interpretation of the familiar phrase, _Servants, obey your masters_,
nor seek to weigh any such imperfect injunction in the scales against
those grand commandments on which hang all the Law and the Prophets.
Surely, in the example and teachings of the Saviour, who lifted up
the down-trodden, who enjoined purity of life, and overflowed with
tenderness even to little children, human ingenuity can find no apology
for an institution which tramples on man, which defiles woman, and
sweeps little children beneath the hammer of the auctioneer. If to
any one these things seem to have the license of Christianity, it is
only because they have first secured a license in his own soul. Men are
prone in uncertain, disconnected texts to find confirmation of their
own personal prejudices or prepossessions. And I--who am no theologian,
but only a simple layman--make bold to say, that whoever finds in the
Gospel any sanction of Slavery finds there merely a reflection of
himself. On a matter so irresistibly clear authority is superfluous;
but an eminent character, who as poet makes us forget his high place
as philosopher, and as philosopher makes us forget his high place as
theologian, exposes the essential antagonism between Christianity
and Slavery in a few pregnant words, which, by recalling the spirit
of our Faith, are more satisfactory than whole volumes of ingenious
discussion. “By a principle essential to Christianity,” says Coleridge,
“a _person_ is eternally differenced from a _thing_; so that _the idea
of a Human Being necessarily excludes the idea of property in that
Being_.”[8]
With regret, though not with astonishment, I learn that a Boston divine
has sought to throw the seamless garment of Christ over this shocking
wrong. But I am patient, and see clearly how vain is his effort, when I
call to mind, that, within this very century, other divines in another
country sought to throw the same sacred vesture over the more shocking
slave-trade,--and that, among many publications, a little book was then
put forth by a reverend clergyman, with the title, “The African Trade
for Negro Slaves shewn to be consistent with Principles of Humanity and
with the Laws of Revealed Religion.”[9] Thinking of these things, I am
ready to say, with Shakespeare,--
“In religion,
What damnèd error, but some sober brow
Will bless it, and approve it with a text?”
In support of Slavery, it is the habit to pervert texts and to invent
authority. Even St. Paul is vouched for a wrong which his Christian
life rebukes. Much stress is now laid on his example, as it appears
in the Epistle to Philemon, written at Rome, and sent by Onesimus, a
servant. From the single chapter constituting the entire epistle I take
the following ten verses, most strangely invoked for Slavery.
“_I beseech thee for my son Onesimus_, whom I have begotten
in my bonds; which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but
now profitable to thee and to me; whom I have sent again.
Thou, therefore, receive him, that is, mine own bowels: whom I
would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have
ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel; but without thy
mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it
were of necessity, but willingly. For perhaps he therefore
departed for a season that thou shouldest receive him forever;
_not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved_,
specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh
and in the Lord! _If thou count me, therefore, a partner,
receive him as myself._ If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee
aught, put that on mine account: I Paul have written it with
mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how
thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.”[10]
Out of this affectionate epistle, where St. Paul calls the converted
servant, Onesimus, his _son_, precisely as in another epistle he
calls Timothy his son, Slavery is elaborately vindicated, and the
great Apostle to the Gentiles made the very tutelary saint of the
Slave-Hunter. Now, without invoking his real judgment of Slavery from
his condemnation on another occasion of “men-stealers,” or what I
prefer to call _slave-hunters_, in company with “murderers of fathers
and murderers of mothers,” and without undertaking to show that the
present epistle, when truly interpreted, is a protest against Slavery
and a voice for Freedom,--all of which might be done,--I content myself
with calling attention to two things, apparent on its face, and in
themselves an all-sufficient response. _First_, while it appears that
Onesimus had been in some way the servant of Philemon, it does not
appear that he was ever held as _chattel_; and how gross and monstrous
is the effort to derive such a wrong out of words, whether in the
Constitution of our country or in the Bible, which do not explicitly,
unequivocally, and exclusively define this wrong! _Secondly_, in
charging Onesimus with this epistle to Philemon, the Apostle recommends
him as “not now a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved,”
and he enjoins upon his correspondent the hospitality due to a freeman,
saying expressly, “If thou count me, therefore, a partner, _receive
him as myself_”: ay, Sir, not as slave, not even as servant, but as
brother beloved, even as the Apostle himself. Thus, with apostolic pen,
wrote Paul to his disciple, Philemon. In these words of gentleness,
benediction, and equal rights, dropping with celestial, soul-awakening
power, there can be no justification for a conspiracy, which, beginning
with the treachery of Iscariot and the temptation of pieces of silver,
seeks, by fraud, brutality, and violence, through officers of the law
armed to the teeth, like pirates, and amidst soldiers who degrade
their uniform, to hurl a fellow-man back into the lash-resounding den
of American Slavery; and when any one thus perverts this beneficent
example, allow me to say that he gives too much occasion to doubt his
intelligence or his sincerity.
Certainly I am right in stripping from Slavery the apology of
Christianity, which it has tenaciously hugged; and here I leave the
first part of my subject, asserting, against every objection, the
Necessity of our Enterprise.
II.
I am now brought, in the _second_ place, to the PRACTICABILITY of the
Enterprise. And here the way is easy. In showing its necessity, I have
already demonstrated its practicability; for the former includes the
latter, as the greater includes the less. Whatever is necessary must be
practicable. By a decree which is a proverb of tyranny, the Israelites
were compelled to make bricks without straw; but it is not according
to the ways of a benevolent Providence that man should be constrained
to do what cannot be done. Besides, the Antislavery Enterprise is
right; and the right is always practicable.
I know well the little faith of the world in the triumph of principles,
and I readily imagine the despair with which our object is regarded;
but not on this account am I disheartened. That exuberant writer,
Sir Thomas Browne, breaks into ecstatic wish for some new difficulty
in Christian belief, that his faith may have a new victory; and an
eminent enthusiast went so far as to say, “I believe because it is
impossible,”--_Credo quia impossibile_. No such exalted faith is now
required. Here is no impossibility; nor is there any difficulty which
will not yield to faithful, well-directed endeavor. If to any timid
soul the Enterprise seems impossible because it is too beautiful, then
do I say at once that it is too beautiful not to be possible.
Descending from these summits, let me show plainly the object it
seeks to accomplish; and here you will see and confess its complete
practicability. While discountenancing all prejudice of color and
every establishment of caste, the Antislavery Enterprise--at least so
far as I may speak for it--does not undertake to change human nature,
or to force any individual into relations of life for which he is not
morally, intellectually, and socially adapted; nor does it necessarily
assume that a race, degraded for long generations under the iron
heel of bondage, can be taught at once all the political duties of
an American citizen. But, Sir, it does confidently assume, against
all question, contradiction, or assault whatever, _that every man is
entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and, with
equal confidence, it asserts that every individual who wears the human
form, whether black or white, should be recognized at once as man_.
When this is done, I know not what other trials may be in wait for the
unhappy African; but this I do know, that the Antislavery Enterprise
will then have triumphed, and the institution of Slavery, _as defined
by existing law_, will no longer shock mankind.
In this work, the first essential, practical requisite is, that
the question shall be openly and frankly confronted. Do not put it
aside. Do not blink it out of sight. Do not dodge it. Approach it.
Study it. Ponder it. Deal with it. Let it rest in the illumination of
speech, conversation, and the press. Let it fill the thoughts of the
statesman and the prayers of the pulpit. When Slavery is thus regarded,
its true character will be recognized, _as a hateful assemblage of
unquestionable wrongs under sanction of existing law_, and good men
will be moved to apply the remedy. Already even its zealots admit that
its “abuses” should be removed. This is their word, not mine. Alas!
alas! Sir, it is these very “abuses” that constitute its component
parts, without which it would not exist,--even as the scourges in a
bundle with the axe constituted the dread fasces of the Roman lictor.
Take away these, and the whole embodied outrage disappears. Surely
that central assumption--more deadly than axe itself--by which man is
changed into a chattel, may be abandoned; and is not this practicable?
The associate scourges by which that transcendent “abuse” is surrounded
may, one by one, be subtracted. The “abuse” which substitutes
concubinage for marriage, the “abuse” which annuls the parental
relation, the “abuse” which closes the portals of knowledge, the
“abuse” which tyrannically usurps all the labor of another, now upheld
by positive law, may by positive law be abolished. To say that this is
not practicable, in the nineteenth century, is a scandal upon mankind,
and just in proportion as these “abuses” cease to have the sanction
of law will the institution of Slavery cease to exist. The African,
whatever may be then his condition, will no longer be the _slave_ over
whose wrongs and sorrows the world throbs at times fiercely indignant,
and at times painfully sad, while with outstretched arms he sends forth
the piteous cry, “Am I not a man and a brother?”
In pressing forward to this result, the inquiry is often presented, To
what extent, if any, shall compensation be allowed to slave-masters?
Clearly, if the point be determined by _absolute justice_, not the
masters, but the slaves, are entitled to compensation; for it is
the slaves who, throughout weary generations, have been deprived of
the fruits of their toil, all constantly enriching their masters.
Besides, it seems hardly reasonable to pay for the relinquishment
of disgusting “abuses,” which, in their aggregation, constitute the
bundle of Slavery. Pray, Sir, by what tariff, price-current, or
principle of equation, shall their several values be estimated? What
sum shall be counted out as the proper price for the abandonment of
that pretension--more indecent than the _jus primæ noctis_ of the
feudal age--which leaves woman, whether in the arms of master or slave,
always a concubine? What bribe shall be proffered for restoration of
God-given paternal rights? What money shall be paid for taking off the
padlock by which souls are fastened down in darkness? How much for a
quit-claim to labor now meanly exacted by the strong from the weak?
And what compensation shall be awarded for the egregious assumption,
condemned by reason and abhorred by piety, which changes man into a
thing? I put these questions without undertaking to pass upon them.
Shrinking instinctively from any recognition of _rights founded
on wrongs_, I find myself shrinking also from any austere verdict
which shall deny any means necessary to the great consummation. Our
fathers, under Washington, did not hesitate, by Act of Congress, to
appropriate largely for the ransom of white fellow-citizens enslaved
by Algerine corsairs; and, following this example, I am disposed to
consider the question of compensation as one of expediency, to be
determined by the exigency of the hour and the constitutional powers
of the Government,--though such is my desire to see the disappearance
of Slavery, that I could not hesitate to build a Bridge of Gold, if
necessary, for the retreating fiend.
The _Practicability_ of the Antislavery Enterprise is constantly
questioned, often so superficially as to be answered at once. I shall
not take time to consider the allegation, founded on assumptions
of economy, which audaciously assumes that Slave Labor is more
advantageous than Free Labor, that Slavery is more profitable
than Freedom, for this is all exploded by official tables of the
census,--nor that other futile argument, that the slaves are not
prepared for Freedom, and therefore should not be precipitated into
this condition, for this is no better than the ancient Greek folly,
where the anxious mother would not allow her son to enter the water
until he had learned to swim.
* * * * *
As against the Necessity of the Antislavery Enterprise there were
two chief objections, so also against its Practicability there are
two,--the first founded on alleged danger to the master, and the second
on alleged damage to the slave himself.
* * * * *
1. The first objection, founded on alleged _danger to the master_,
most generally takes the extravagant form, that the slave, if released
from his present condition, would “cut his master’s throat.” Here is
a blatant paradox, which can pass for reason only among those who
have lost their reason. With absurdity having no parallel except in
the defences of Slavery, it assumes that the African, when treated
justly, will show a vindictiveness he does not exhibit when treated
unjustly,--that, when elevated by the blessings of Freedom, he will
develop an appetite for blood never manifested when crushed by the
curse of bondage. At present, the slave sees his wife ravished from
his arms,--sees his infant swept away to the auction-block,--sees the
heavenly gates of knowledge shut upon him,--sees his industry and
all its fruits unjustly snatched by another,--sees himself and his
offspring doomed to servitude from which there is no redemption; and
still his master sleeps secure. Will the master sleep less secure when
the slave no longer smarts under these revolting atrocities? I will
not trifle with your intelligence, or with the quick-passing hour, by
arguing this question.
There is a lofty example, brightening the historic page, by which the
seal of experience is affixed to the conclusion of reason; and you
would hardly pardon me, if I failed to adduce it. By a single Act of
Parliament the slaves of the British West Indies were changed at once
to freedmen; and this great transition was accomplished absolutely
without personal danger of any kind to the master. And yet the chance
of danger there was greater far than among us. In our broad country
the slaves are overshadowed by a more than sixfold white population.
Only in two States, South Carolina and Mississippi, do the slaves
outnumber the whites, and there not greatly, while in the entire Slave
States the whites outnumber the slaves by millions. It was otherwise
in the British West Indies, where the whites were overshadowed by
a more than sixfold population. The slaves were 800,000, while the
whites numbered only 131,000, distributed in different proportions
on the different islands. And this disproportion has since increased
rather than diminished, always without danger to the whites. In
Jamaica, the largest of these possessions, there are now upwards of
400,000 Africans, and only 15,000 whites; in Barbadoes, the next
largest, 120,000 Africans, and only 16,000 whites; in St. Lucia, 24,000
Africans, and only 900 whites; in Tobago, 14,000 Africans, and only 160
whites; in Montserrat, 7,000 Africans, and only 150 whites; and in the
Grenadines, upwards of 6,000 Africans, and only about 60 whites.[11]
And yet the authorities in all these places attest the good behavior
of the Africans. Sir Lionel Smith, Governor of Jamaica, in a speech to
the Assembly, declares that their conduct “amply proves how well they
have deserved the boon of Freedom”;[12] the Governor of the Leeward
Islands dwells on “the peculiarly rare instances of the commission
of grave or sanguinary crimes amongst the emancipated population of
these islands”;[13] and the Queen of England, in a speech from the
throne, has announced that the complete and final emancipation of the
Africans had “taken place without any disturbance of public order and
tranquillity.”[14] In this example I find new confirmation of the rule,
that the highest safety is in doing right; and thus do I dismiss the
objection founded on alleged danger to the master.
* * * * *
2. I am now brought to the second objection, founded on alleged _damage
to the slave_. It is common among partisans of Slavery to assert that
our Enterprise has actually retarded the cause it seeks to promote; and
this paradoxical accusation, which might naturally show itself among
the rank weeds of the South, is cherished here on our Northern soil
among those who look for any fig-leaf with which to cover indifference
or tergiversation.
This peculiar form of complaint is an old device, instinctively
employed on other occasions, until it ceases to be even plausible.
Thus, throughout all time, has every good cause been encountered. The
Saviour was nailed to the cross with a crown of thorns on his head,
as a disturber of that peace on earth which he came to declare. The
Disciples, while preaching the Gospel of forgiveness and good-will,
were stoned as preachers of sedition and discord. The Reformers, who
sought to establish a higher piety and faith, were burnt at the stake
as blasphemers and infidels. Patriots, in all ages, striving for their
country’s good, have been doomed to the scaffold or to exile, even
as their country’s enemies. Those brave Englishmen, who, at home,
under the lead of Edmund Burke, espoused the cause of our fathers,
shared the same illogical impeachment, which was touched to the quick
by that orator statesman, when, after exposing its essential vice, in
“attributing the ill effect of ill-judged conduct to the arguments
which had been used to dissuade us from it,” he denounced it as
“absurd, but very common in modern practice, and very wicked.”[15] Ay,
Sir, it is common in modern practice. In England it has vainly renewed
itself with special frequency against Bible Societies,--against the
friends of education,--against the patrons of vaccination,--against
the partisans of peace,--all of whom have been openly arraigned as
provoking and increasing the very evils, whether of infidelity,
ignorance, disease, or war, which they benignly seek to check. To
bring an instance precisely applicable to our own,--Wilberforce, when
conducting the Antislavery Enterprise of England, first against the
Slave-Trade, and then against Slavery itself, was told that those
efforts, by which his name is now consecrated forevermore, tended to
increase the hardships of the slave, even to the extent of riveting
anew his chains. Such are precedents for the imputation to which our
Enterprise is exposed; and such, also, are precedents by which I
exhibit the fallacy of the imputation.
Sir, I do not doubt that the Enterprise produces heat and irritation,
amounting often to inflammation, among slave-masters, which to
superficial minds seems inconsistent with success, but which the
careful observer will recognize at once as the natural and not
unhealthy effort of a diseased body to purge itself of existing
impurities; and just in proportion to the malignity of the concealed
poison will be the extent of inflammation. A distemper like Slavery
cannot be ejected like a splinter. It is too much to expect that men
thus tortured should reason calmly, that patients thus suffering should
comprehend the true nature of their case and kindly acknowledge the
beneficent cure; but not on this account can it be suspended. Nor,
when we consider the character of Slavery, can it be expected that men
who sustain it will be tranquil. Conscience has its voice, and will be
heard in awful warning hurrying to and fro in the midnight hour. Its
outcry is more natural than silence.
In the face of this complaint, I assert that the Antislavery Enterprise
has already accomplished incalculable good. Even now it sweeps the
national heart, compelling it to emotions of transforming power. All
are touched,--the young, the middle-aged, the old. There is a new glow
at the household hearth. Mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters are
aroused to take part in the great battle. There is a new aspiration for
justice on earth, awakening not merely a sentiment against Slavery,
such as prevailed with our fathers, but a deep, undying conviction of
its wrong, and a determination to leave no effort unattempted for its
removal. With the sympathies of all Christendom as allies, already it
encompasses the slave-masters by a _moral blockade_, invisible to the
eye, but more potent than navies, from which there can be no escape
except in final capitulation. Thus it has created the irresistible
influence which itself constitutes the beginning of success.
Already are signs of change. In common speech, as well as in writing,
among slave-masters, the bondman is no longer called _slave_, but
_servant_,--thus, by soft substitution, concealing and condemning the
true relation. Newspapers, even in the land of bondage, blush at the
hunt of men by bloodhounds,--thus protesting against an unquestionable
incident of Slavery. Other signs appear in the added comfort of the
slave,--in the enlarged attention to his wants,--in the experiments
now beginning, by which the slave is enabled to share in the profits
of his labor, and thus finally secure his freedom,--and, above all, in
the consciousness among slave-masters that they dwell now, as never
before, under the keen observation of an ever-wakeful Public Opinion,
quickened by an ever-wakeful Public Press. Nor is this all. Only lately
propositions were introduced into the Legislatures of different States,
and countenanced by Governors, to mitigate the existing Law of Slavery;
and almost while speaking, I have received drafts of two different
memorials, one to the Legislature of Virginia, and the other to that
of North Carolina, asking for the slave three things, which it will be
monstrous to refuse, but which, if conceded, will take from Slavery its
existing character: I mean, _first_, the protection of the marriage
relation; _secondly_, the protection of the parental relation; and,
_thirdly_, the privilege of knowledge. Grant these, and the girdled
Upas tree soon must die. Sir, amidst these tokens of present success,
and the auguries of the future, I am not disturbed by complaints of
seeming damage. “Though it consume our own dwelling, who does not
venerate fire, without which human life can hardly exist on earth?”
says the Hindoo proverb; and the time is even now at hand, when the
Antislavery Enterprise, which is the very fire of Freedom, with all its
incidental excesses and excitements, will be hailed with similar regard.
III.
It remains to show, in the _third_ place, that the Antislavery
Enterprise, which stands before you at once necessary and practicable,
is commended by inherent DIGNITY. Here reasons are obvious and
unanswerable.
Its object is benevolent; nor is there in the dreary annals of the
Past a single enterprise more clearly and indisputably entitled to
this character. With unsurpassed and touching magnanimity, it seeks to
benefit the lowly whom your eyes have not seen, and who are ignorant
even of your labors, while it demands and receives a self-sacrifice
calculated to ennoble an enterprise of even questionable merit. Its
true rank is among works properly called _philanthropic_,--the title
of highest honor on earth. “I take goodness in this sense,” says Lord
Bacon in his Essays, “_the affecting of the weal of men_, which is that
the Grecians call Philanthropia, … of all virtues and dignities of
the mind the greatest, being the character of the Deity; and without
it, man is a busy, mischievous, wretched thing, no better than a
kind of vermin.”[16] Lord Bacon was right, and perhaps unconsciously
followed a higher authority; for, when Moses asked the Lord to show
him his glory, the Lord said, “I will make all my goodness pass before
thee.”[17] Ah! Sir, Peace has trophies fairer and more perennial than
any snatched from fields of blood, but, among all these, the fairest
and most perennial are the trophies of beneficence. Scholarship,
literature, jurisprudence, art, may wear their well-deserved honors;
but an enterprise of goodness deserves, and will yet receive, a higher
palm than these.
In other aspects its dignity is apparent. It concerns the cause of
Human Freedom, which from earliest days has been the darling of
History. By all the memories of the Past, by the stories of childhood
and the studies of youth, by every example of magnanimous virtue, by
every aspiration for the good and true, by the fame of martyrs swelling
through all time, by the renown of patriots whose lives are landmarks
of progress, by the praise lavished upon our fathers, are you summoned
to this work. Unless Freedom be an illusion, and Benevolence an error,
you cannot resist the appeal. Who can doubt that our cause is nobler
even than that of our fathers? for is it not more exalted to struggle
for the freedom of _others_ than for our _own_?
Its practical importance at this moment gives to it additional
eminence. Whether measured by the number of beings it seeks to benefit,
by the magnitude of the wrongs it hopes to relieve, by the difficulties
with which it is beset, by the political relations which it affects,
or by the ability and character it enlists, the cause of the slave now
assumes proportions of grandeur which dwarf all other interests in our
broad country. In its presence the machinations of politicians, the
aspirations of office-seekers, and the subterfuges of party, all sink
below even their ordinary insignificance. For myself, Sir, I see among
us at this time little else by which an honest man, wishing to leave
the world better than he found it, can be tempted out upon the exposed
steeps of public life. I see little else which can afford any of those
satisfactions an honest man should covet. Nor is there any cause so
surely promising final success:--
“Oh! a fair cause stands firm and will abide;
Legions of angels fight upon her side!”[18]
It is written that in the last days there shall be scoffers, and
even this Enterprise, thus philanthropic, does not escape their
aspersions. As the objections to its Necessity were twofold, and the
objections to its Practicability twofold, so also are the aspersions
twofold,--_first_, in the form of hard words, and, _secondly_, by
personal disparagement of those engaged in it.
* * * * *
1. The _hard words_ are manifold as the passions and prejudices of
men; but they generally end in the imputation of “fanaticism.” In such
a cause I am willing to be called “fanatic,” or what you will; I care
not for aspersions, nor shall I shrink before hard words, either here
or elsewhere. They do not hurt. “My dear Doctor,” said Johnson to
Goldsmith, “what harm does it do any man to call him Holofernes?” From
that great Englishman, Oliver Cromwell, I have learned that one cannot
be trusted “who is afraid of a paper pellet”; and I am too familiar
with history not to know that every movement for reform, in Church
or State, every endeavor for Human Liberty or Human Rights, has been
thus assailed. I do not forget with what facility and frequency hard
words are employed: how that grandest character of many generations,
the precursor of our own Washington, without whose example our
Republic might have failed, the great William, Prince of Orange,
founder of the Dutch Republic, the United States of Holland,--I do
not forget how he was publicly branded as “a perjurer and a pest of
society”; and, not to dwell on general instances, how the enterprise
for the abolition of the slave-trade was characterized on the floor of
Parliament, by one eminent speaker as “mischievous,” and by another
as “visionary and delusive”; and how the exalted characters which it
enlisted were arraigned by still another eminent speaker,--none other
than that Tarleton, so conspicuous as commander of the British horse
in the Southern campaigns of our Revolution, but more conspicuous in
politics at home,--“as a junto of sectaries, sophists, enthusiasts,
and fanatics”; and yet again were arraigned by no less a person than
a prince of the blood, the Duke of Clarence, afterwards William the
Fourth of England, as “either fanatics or hypocrites,” in one of which
categories he openly placed William Wilberforce.[19] Impartial History,
with immortal pen, has redressed these impassioned judgments; nor has
the voice of the poet been wanting:--
“Thy country, Wilberforce, with just disdain,
Hears thee by cruel men and impious called
Fanatic, for thy zeal to loose the inthralled
From exile, public sale, and slavery’s chain.”[20]
But the same impartial History will yet re-judge the impassioned
judgments of this hour.
* * * * *
2. Hard words have been followed by _personal disparagement_, and the
sneer is often raised that our Enterprise lacks the authority of names
eminent in Church and State. If this be so, the more is the pity on
their account; for our cause is needful to them more than they are
needful to our cause. Alas! it is only according to example of history
that it should be so. It is not the eminent in Church and State, the
rich and powerful, the favorites of fortune and of place, who most
promptly welcome Truth, when she heralds change in the existing order
of things. It is others in poorer condition who open hospitable hearts
to the unattended stranger. This is a sad story, beginning with the
Saviour, whose disciples were fishermen, and ending only in our own
day. Each generation has its instances. But the cause cannot be judged
by any such indifference. Strong in essential truth, it awaits the day,
surely at hand, when all will flock to its support. As the rights of
man are at last recognized, the scoffers, now so heartless, will forget
to scoff.
* * * * *
And now, Sir, I present to you the Antislavery Enterprise vindicated,
in Necessity, Practicability, and Dignity, against all objection. If
there be any which I have not answered, it is because I am not aware of
its existence. It remains that I should give a practical conclusion to
this whole matter, by showing, though in glimpses only, your SPECIAL
DUTIES AS FREEMEN OF THE NORTH. And, thank God! at last there is a
North.
* * * * *
Mr. President, it is not uncommon to hear persons among us at the North
confess the wrong of Slavery, and then, folding the hands in absolute
listlessness, ejaculate, “What can we do about it?” Such we encounter
daily. You all know them. Among them are men in every department of
human activity,--who perpetually buy, build, and plan,--who shrink
from no labor,--who are daunted by no peril of commercial adventure,
by no hardihood of industrial enterprise,--who, reaching in their
undertakings across ocean and continent, would promise to “put a girdle
round about the earth in forty minutes”; and yet, disheartened, they
can join in no effort against Slavery. Others there are, especially
among the youthful and enthusiastic, who vainly sigh because they
were not born in the age of Chivalry, or at least in the days of the
Revolution, not thinking that in this Enterprise there is opportunity
for lofty endeavor such as no Paladin of Chivalry or chief of the
Revolution enjoyed. Others there are who freely bestow means and
time upon distant, inaccessible heathen of another hemisphere, in
islands of the sea; and yet they can do nothing to mitigate our graver
heathenism here at home. While confessing that it ought to disappear
from the earth, they forego, renounce, and abandon all effort to this
end. Others there are still (such is human inconsistency!) who plant
the tree in whose full-grown shade they can never expect to sit,--who
hopefully drop the acorn in the earth, trusting that the oak which
it sends upward to the skies will shelter their children beneath its
shade; but they do nothing to plant or nurture the great tree of
Liberty, that it may shield with its arms unborn generations of men.
Others still there are, particularly in large cities, who content
themselves with occasional contribution to the redemption of a slave.
To this object they give out of ample riches, and thus seek to silence
the monitions of conscience. I would not discountenance any activity
by which Human Freedom, even in a single case, may be secured; but I
desire to say that such an act--too often accompanied by pharisaical
pretension, in contrast with the petty performance--cannot be
considered essential aid to the Antislavery Enterprise. Not in this
way can impression be made on an evil so vast as Slavery,--so widely
scattered, and so exhaustless in its unnatural supply. The god Thor,
of Scandinavian mythology, whose power surpassed that of Hercules, was
once challenged to drain dry a simple cup. He applied it to his lips,
and with superhuman capacity drank, but the water did not recede even
from the rim, and at last the god abandoned the trial. The failure of
even his extraordinary prowess was explained, when he learned that the
cup communicated, by invisible connection, with the whole vast ocean
behind, out of which it was perpetually supplied, and which remained
absolutely unaffected by the effort. And just so will these occasions
of charity, though encountered by the largest private means, be
constantly renewed; for they communicate with the whole Black Sea of
Slavery behind, out of which they are perpetually supplied, and which
remains absolutely unaffected by the effort. Sir, private means may
cope with individual necessities, but they are powerless to redress the
evils of a wicked institution. Charity is limited and local; the evils
of Slavery are infinite and everywhere. Besides, a wrong organized and
upheld by law can be removed only through change of the law. Not, then,
by occasional contribution to ransom a slave can your duty be done in
this great cause, but only by earnest, constant, valiant effort against
the institution, against the law, which makes slaves.
I am not insensible to the difficulties of this work. Full well I know
the power of Slavery. Full well I know all its various intrenchments in
the Church, the politics, and the prejudices of the country. Full well
I know the wakeful interests of property, amounting to many hundred
millions of dollars, which are said to be at stake. But these things
can furnish no motive or apology for indifference, or any folding
of the hands. Surely the wrong is not less wrong because gigantic;
the evil is not less evil because immeasurable; nor can the duty of
perpetual warfare with wrong and evil be in this instance suspended.
Nay, because Slavery is powerful, because the Enterprise is difficult,
therefore is the duty of all more exigent. The well-tempered soul does
not yield to difficulties, but presses _onward forever_ with increased
resolution.
But the question recurs, so often pressed in argument, or in taunt,
_What have we at the North to do with Slavery?_ In answer, I might
content myself by saying, that, as members of the human family, bound
together by cords of common manhood, there is no human wrong to which
we can be insensible, nor is there any human sorrow which we should
not seek to relieve; but I prefer to say, on this occasion, that, as
citizens of the United States, anxious for the good name, the repose,
and the prosperity of the Republic, that it may be a blessing and not a
curse to mankind, there is nothing among all its diversified interests,
under the National Constitution, with which, at this moment, we have
so much to do; nor is there anything with regard to which our duties
are so irresistibly clear. I do not dwell on the scandal of Slavery
in the national capital, of Slavery in the national territories,
of the coastwise slave-trade on the high seas beneath the national
flag,--all of which are outside State limits, and within the exclusive
jurisdiction of Congress, where you and I, Sir, and every freeman of
the North, are compelled to share the giant sin and help to bind its
chain. To dislodge Slavery from these usurped footholds, and thus at
once relieve ourselves from grievous responsibility, and begin the
great work of Emancipation, were an object worthy an exalted ambition.
But before even this can be commenced, there is a great work, more
than any other important and urgent, which must be consummated in
the domain of national politics, and also here at home in the Free
States. The National Government itself must be emancipated, so that
it shall no longer wear the yoke of servitude; and Slavery in all its
pretensions must be dislodged from a usurped foothold in the Free
States themselves, thus relieving ourselves from serious responsibility
at our own door, and emancipating the North. Emancipation, even within
the national jurisdiction, can be achieved only through emancipation
of the Free States, accompanied by complete emancipation of the
National Government. Ay, Sir, emancipation at the South can be reached
only through emancipation of the North. And this is my answer to the
interrogatory, What have we at the North to do with Slavery?
But the answer may be made yet more irresistible, while, with mingled
sorrow and shame, I portray the tyrannical power which holds us in
thraldom. Notwithstanding all its excess of numbers, wealth, and
intelligence, the North is now the vassal of an OLIGARCHY, whose single
inspiration comes from Slavery. According to official tables of our
recent census, the slave-masters, all told, are only THREE HUNDRED AND
FORTY-SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE;[21] and yet this
small company now dominates over the Republic, determines its national
policy, disposes of its offices, and sways all to its absolute will.
With a watchfulness that never sleeps and an activity that never tires,
the SLAVE OLIGARCHY asserts its perpetual and insatiate masterdom,--now
seizing a broad territory once covered by a time-honored ordinance of
Freedom,--now threatening to wrest Cuba from Spain by violent war,
or hardly less violent purchase,--now hankering for another slice of
Mexico, merely to find new scope for Slavery,--now proposing once more
to open the hideous, Heaven-defying Slave-Trade, thus replenishing its
shambles with human flesh,--and now, by the lips of an eminent Senator,
asserting an audacious claim to the whole group of the West Indies,
whether held by Holland, Spain, France, or England, as “our Southern
islands,”[22] while it assails the independence of Hayti, and extends
its treacherous ambition even to the distant valley of the Amazon.
For all this tyranny there must be tools, and these are found through
a new test for office, where Slavery is the shibboleth. Nobody,
throughout this Republic, who cannot repeat the hateful word, is
taken,--nobody, unless faithful to Slavery, is accepted for any post
under the National Government. Yes, let it be proclaimed, that now
at last, not honesty, not capacity, not fidelity to the Constitution
is the test for office, but unhesitating support of Slavery. This is
fidelity, this is loyalty, according to the new dispensation. And thus
the strength of the whole people is transfused into this oligarchy.
The Constitution, the flag itself, and everything we call our own, is
degraded to this wicked rule.
And this giant strength is used with giant heartlessness. By cruel
enactment, which has no source in the Constitution, which defies
justice, tramples on humanity, and rebels against God, the Free States
are made the hunting-ground for slaves, and you and I and all good
citizens are pressed to join in the loathsome and abhorred work. Your
hearts and judgments, swift to feel and to condemn, will not require
me to expose here the abomination of the Fugitive Slave Bill, or
its unconstitutionality. Elsewhere I have done this, and never been
answered. Nor will you expect that an enactment so entirely devoid of
all just sanction should be called by the sacred name of _law_. History
still repeats the language in which our fathers persevered, when they
denounced the last emanation of British tyranny which heralded the
Revolution, as the Boston Port _Bill_; and I am content with this
precedent. I have said, that, if any man finds in the Gospel any
support of Slavery, it is because Slavery is already in himself; so
do I now say, if any man finds in the Constitution of our country any
support of the Fugitive Slave Bill, it is because that bill is already
in himself. One of our ancient masters--Aristotle, I think--tells us
that every man has a beast in his bosom; but the Northern citizen who
has the Fugitive Slave Bill there has worse than a beast,--a devil!
And yet in this bill, more even than in the ostracism at which you
rebel, does the Slave Oligarchy stand confessed,--heartless, grasping,
tyrannical,--careless of humanity, right, or the Constitution,--whose
foundation is a coalition of wrong-doers, without even the semblance
of decency,--while it degrades the Free States to the condition of a
slave plantation, under the lash of a vulgar, despised, and revolting
overseer.
Surely, fellow-citizens, without hesitation or postponement, you
will insist that this Oligarchy shall be overthrown; and here is the
foremost among the special duties of the North, now required for the
honor of the Republic, for our own defence, and in obedience to God.
In urging this comprehensive duty, I ought to have hours rather than
minutes; but in a few words you shall see its comprehensive importance.
With the disappearance of the Slave Oligarchy, the wickedness of the
Fugitive Slave Bill will drop from the statute-book,--Slavery will
cease at the national capital,--Freedom will become the universal law
of the national territory,--the Slave-Trade will no longer skulk along
our coast beneath the national flag,--the Slave-marriage of the nation
will be dissolved,--the rule of our country will be Freedom instead of
Slavery,--the North will no longer be trampled on by the South,--the
North will at last be allowed its just proportion of office and honor.
Let all this be done, and much more will follow. With the disappearance
of the Slave Oligarchy, you will possess the master-key to unlock the
whole house of bondage. Oh, Sir! prostrate the Slave Oligarchy, and the
gates of Emancipation will be open at the South.
Without waiting for this consummation, there is another special duty
here at home, on our own soil, which must be made free in reality,
as in name. And here I shall speak frankly, though not without a
proper sense of the responsibility of my words. I know that I cannot
address you entirely as a private citizen; but I shall say nothing
here which I have not said elsewhere, and which I shall not be proud
to vindicate everywhere. “A lie,” it has been declared, “should be
trampled out and extinguished forever”; and surely you will do nothing
less with a tyrannical and wicked enactment. The Fugitive Slave Bill,
while it continues unrepealed, must be made a dead letter,--not by
violence, not by any unconstitutional activity or intervention, not
even by hasty conflict between jurisdictions,--but by an aroused Public
Opinion, which, in its irresistible might, shall blast with contempt,
indignation, and abhorrence all who consent to be its agents. Thus did
our fathers blast all who became agents of the Stamp Act; and surely
their motive was small, compared with ours. The Slave-Hunter who
drags his victim from Africa is loathed as a monster; but I defy any
acuteness of reason to indicate the moral difference between his act
and that of the Slave-Hunter who drags his victim from our Northern
free soil. A few puny persons, calling themselves Congress, with
titles of Representatives and Senators, cannot turn wrong into right,
cannot change a man into a thing, cannot reverse the irreversible
law of God, cannot make him wicked who hunts a slave on the burning
sands of Congo or Guinea, and make him virtuous who hunts a slave over
the pavements of Boston or New York. Nor can any acuteness of reason
distinguish between the original bill of sale from the kidnapper, by
which the unhappy African was transferred in Congo or Guinea, and the
certificate of the Commissioner, by which, when once again in Freedom,
he is reduced anew to bondage. The acts are kindred, and should share a
kindred condemnation.
One man’s virtue becomes a standard of excellence for all; and there
is now in Boston a simple citizen whose example may be a lesson
to Commissioners, Marshals, Magistrates, while it fills all with
the beauty of a generous act. I refer to Mr. Hayes, who resigned
his place in the city police rather than take part in the pack of
the Slave-Hunter. He is now the door-keeper of the public edifice
honored this winter by the triumphant lectures on Slavery. Better be
a door-keeper in the house of the Lord than a dweller in the tents of
the ungodly. Has he not chosen well? Little think those now doing the
work of Slavery that the time is near when all this will be dishonor
and sadness. For myself, long ago my mind was made up. Nothing will
I have to do with it. How can I help to make a slave? The idea alone
is painful. To do this thing would plant in my soul a remorse which
no time could remove or mitigate. His chains would clank in my ears.
His cries would strike upon my heart. His voice would be my terrible
accuser. Mr. President, may no such voice fall on your soul or mine!
Yes, Sir, here our duty is plain and paramount. While the Slave
Oligarchy, through its unrepealed Slave Bill, undertakes to enslave our
free soil, we can only turn for protection to a Public Opinion worthy
of a humane, just, and religious people, which shall keep perpetual
guard over the liberties of all within our borders. On this from the
beginning I have relied. On this I now rely. Wherever it is already
strong, I would keep it so; wherever it is weak, I would strengthen it,
until of itself it is an all-sufficient protection, with watch and ward
surrounding the fugitive, surrounding all. And this Public Opinion,
with Freedom as its countersign, must proclaim not only the overthrow
of the Slave Bill, but also the overthrow of the Slave Oligarchy
behind,--the two pressing duties of the North, essential to our own
emancipation; and believe me, Sir, while they remain undone, nothing is
done.
* * * * *
Mr. President, far already have I trespassed upon your generous
patience; but there are other things pressing for utterance. Something
would I say of the arguments by which our Enterprise is commended;
something also of the appeal it makes to people of every condition;
and something, too, of union, as a vital necessity, among all who love
Freedom.
I know not if our work will be soon accomplished. I know not, Sir, if
you or I shall live to see in our Republic the vows of the Fathers
at length fulfilled, as the last fetter falls from the last slave.
But one thing I do know, beyond all doubt or question: that this
Enterprise must go on; that, in its irresistible current, it will sweep
schools, colleges, churches, the intelligence, the conscience, and the
religious aspiration of the land, while all who stand in its way or
speak evil of it are laying up sorrow and shame for their children, if
not for themselves. Better strive in this cause, even unsuccessfully,
than never strive at all. The penalty of indifference is akin to the
penalty of opposition,--as is well pictured by the great Italian poet,
when, among the saddest on the banks of Acheron, rending the air with
outcries of torment, shrieks of anger, and smiting of hands, he finds
the troop of dreary souls who had been ciphers in the great conflicts
of life:--
“Mingled with whom, of their disgrace the proof,
Are the vile angels, who did not rebel,
Nor kept their faith to God, _but stood aloof_.”[23]
There is no weapon in the celestial armory of Truth, no sweet influence
from the skies, no generous word from human lips, which may not be
employed. Ours, too, is the argument alike of the Conservative and
the Reformer; for our cause stands on the truest conservatism and
the truest reform. It seeks the conservation of Freedom itself, and
of kindred historic principles; it seeks also the reform of Slavery,
and of the kindred tyranny by which it is upheld. Religion, morals,
justice, economy, the Constitution, each and all, may be invoked; and
one person is touched by one argument, while another person is touched
by another. You do not forget how Christopher Columbus won Isabella of
Spain to his enterprise of discovery. He began with the temptation of
extending her dominions; but she hearkened not. Next he promised the
dazzling wealth of the Indies; and still she hearkened not. When, at
last, to her pious imagination were pictured poor heathen with souls
to be saved, then the youthful Queen poured her royal jewels into the
lap of the Genoese adventurer, and at her expense went forth that small
fleet which gave to Spain and to mankind a New World.
As in this Enterprise there is a place for every argument, so also is
there a place for every man. Even as on the broad shield of Achilles,
sculptured by divine art, was wrought every form of human activity, so
in this cause, which is the very shield of Freedom, whatever man can
do by deed or speech will find its place. One may act in one way, and
another in another way; but all must act. Providence is felt through
individuals; the dropping of water wears away the rock; and no man
can be too humble or poor for this work, while to all the happy in
genius, fortune, or fame it makes a special appeal. Here is room for
the strength of Luther and the sweetness of Melancthon, for the wisdom
of age and the ardor of youth, for the judgment of the statesman and
the eloquence of the orator, for the grace of the scholar and the
aspiration of the poet, for the learning of the professor and the skill
of the lawyer, for the exhortation of the preacher and the persuasion
of the press, for the various energy of man and the abounding sympathy
of woman.
And still one thing more is needed, without which Liberty-loving men,
and their arguments, will fail in power,--even as without charity all
graces of knowledge, speech, and faith are said to profit nothing. I
mean that _Unity of Spirit_--in itself a fountain of strength--which,
filling the people of the North, shall make them tread under foot past
antipathies, decayed dissensions, and those irritating names which
now exist only as tattered ensigns of ancient strife. It is right to
be taught by the enemy; and with their example before us, and their
power brandished in our very faces, we cannot hesitate. With them
Slavery is the mainspring of political life, and the absorbing centre
of political activity; with them all differences are swallowed up by
this _one idea_, as all other rods were swallowed up by the rod of
Aaron; with them all unite to keep the National Government under the
control of slave-masters: and surely we should not do less for Freedom
than they do for Slavery. _We, too, must be united._ Among us at last
mutual criticism, crimination, and feud must give place to mutual
sympathy, trust, and alliance. Face to face against the Slave Oligarchy
must be rallied the UNITED MASSES of the North, in compact political
association,--planted on the everlasting base of justice,--knit
together by instincts of a common danger and holy sympathies of
humanity,--enkindled by love of Freedom, not only for themselves, but
for others,--determined to enfranchise the National Government from
degrading thraldom,--and constituting the BACKBONE PARTY, powerful
in numbers, wealth, and intelligence, but more powerful still in an
inspiring cause. Let this be done, and victory will be ours.
NEW OUTRAGE FOR THE SAKE OF SLAVERY.
LETTER TO PASSMORE WILLIAMSON, IN MOYAMENSING PRISON, AUGUST 11, 1855.
Mr. Sumner occupied several weeks of this summer in a tour to
the West, ascending the Mississippi to St. Paul, and then,
from Detroit, visiting Lake Superior. While on board a steamer
in Lake Superior, he learned by the newspapers that Passmore
Williamson, an excellent citizen of Philadelphia, had been
flung into prison for the offence of reminding a person claimed
as slave, that, being brought to Philadelphia voluntarily by
her pretended master, she was free, according to well-known
principles of jurisprudence. The indignation of Mr. Sumner
found expression in the following letter, which he addressed to
the new victim of Slavery.
This remarkable case will be found in a volume published at
Philadelphia, in 1856, with the following title: “Case of
Passmore Williamson. Report of the Proceedings on the Writ of
Habeas Corpus issued by the Hon. John K. Kane, Judge of the
District Court of the United States for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, in the Case of the United States of America
_ex rel._ John H. Wheeler _vs._ Passmore Williamson, including
the several Opinions delivered, and the Arguments of Counsel,
reported by Arthur Cannon, Esq., Phonographer.” From this it
appears that John H. Wheeler, of Virginia, in a petition to
Hon. John K. Kane, Judge of the District Court of the United
States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, dated July 18,
1855, sets forth, that he is “the owner of three persons held
to service or labor by the laws of the State of Virginia, said
persons being respectively named Jane, aged about thirty-five
years, Daniel, aged about twelve years, and Isaiah, aged about
seven years, persons of color, and that they are detained from
the possession of your petitioner by one Passmore Williamson,
resident of the city of Philadelphia, and that they are not
detained for any criminal or supposed criminal matter,” and
asks a writ of _Habeas Corpus_ commanding Mr. Williamson to
bring before the Judge the bodies of the said Jane, Daniel, and
Isaiah. The writ was at once allowed, and the next day followed
by another, to which Mr. Williamson made return, that “the
within named Jane, Daniel, and Isaiah, or by whatsoever names
they may be called, nor either of them, are not now, nor was at
the time of the issuing of said writ or the original writ, or
at any other time, in the custody, power, or possession of, nor
confined nor restrained their liberty by him, the said Passmore
Williamson. Therefore he cannot have the bodies of the said
Jane, Daniel, and Isaiah, or either of them, before your Honor,
as by the said writ he is commanded.”
In the course of the proceedings, Mr. Williamson, who was
Secretary to the Acting Committee of the Pennsylvania Abolition
Society, testified as follows.
“I was informed that three slaves were at Bloodgood’s
Hotel, who wished to assert their right to freedom; I went
to the hotel, and saw a yellow boy on the steps fronting on
Walnut Street; I made inquiry of him, and he stated that
such was the case, but referred me up stairs to one of the
waiters for further information; the latter informed me
that the slaves, with their master, had just gone on board
the steamboat at the end of Walnut Street wharf, for the
purpose of going to New York in the five o’clock line. I
went on board the boat, looked through the cabin, and then
went up on the promenade deck; I saw that man” (_pointing
to Mr. Wheeler_) “sitting sideways on the bench on the
farther side; Jane was sitting next to and three or four
feet from him; the two children were sitting close to her.
I approached her and said, ‘You are the person I am looking
for, I presume’; Wheeler turned towards me and asked what I
wanted with him; I replied, Nothing, that my business was
entirely with this woman; he said, ‘She is my slave, and
anything you have to say to her you can say to me.’ _I then
said to her, ‘You may have been his slave, but you are now
free; he brought you here into Pennsylvania, and you are
now as free as either of us; you cannot be compelled to go
with him, unless you choose; if you wish your liberty, all
you have to do is to walk ashore with your children.’_ Some
five minutes were consumed in conversation with Wheeler,
Jane, and a stranger, when the bell rang, and I told her,
if she wished to be free, she would have to act at once, as
the boat was about starting. She took one of her children
by the hand and attempted to rise from her seat; Wheeler
placed his hands upon her shoulders and prevented her; I
then, for the first time, took hold of her arm and assisted
her to rise; the colored people who had collected around
us seized hold of the two children, and the whole party
commenced a movement towards the head of the stairs leading
to the lower deck, Mr. Wheeler having at the start clinched
Jane, and during the progress repeatedly and earnestly
entreated her to say she wished to stay with him; at the
head of the stairway I took Wheeler by the collar and held
him to one side. The whole company passed down and left
the boat, proceeding peacefully and quietly to Dock and
Front Streets, where Jane and her children, with some of
her friends, entered a carriage and were driven down Front
Street; I returned to my office. _After the colored people
left Dock Street in the carriage, I saw no more of them,
have had no control of them, and do not know where they
are. My whole connection with the affair was this._”
At the conclusion of Mr. Williamson’s cross-examination, he
declared to the Court “that in the proceedings he had not
designed to do violence to any law, but supposed that he had
acted throughout in accordance with the law, and the legal
rights of the respective parties.”
On his return to the writ of _Habeas Corpus_, Mr. Williamson
was held to bail in the sum of $5,000 for perjury, and
subsequently committed, without bail, for contempt,--the
alleged contempt being the declaration that the parties were
never in his custody. In the course of the hearing, the Judge
remarked that “the conduct of those who interfered with Mr.
Wheeler’s rights was a criminal, wanton, and cruel outrage.”
His final decree, July 27, 1855, was as follows: “Let Mr.
Williamson, the respondent, be committed to the custody of the
marshal without bail or mainprise, as for a contempt of the
Court in refusing to answer to the writ of _Habeas Corpus_,
heretofore awarded against him at the relation of Mr. Wheeler.”
On the motion looking to a committal for perjury the Judge
“withheld an expression of opinion,” observing, that, “Mr.
Williamson being under arrest, he may be charged at any time by
the grand jury.”
The respondent attempted to regain his freedom by an
application to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. After solemn
hearing, the application was refused, the Hon. J. S. Black,
afterwards a member of President Buchanan’s cabinet, giving
the opinion of the Court. The State Court was in obvious
sympathy with the National Court, and both were sympathetic
with Slavery. Meanwhile Mr. Williamson continued a prisoner,
until, at last, November 3, 1855, his case was again presented
to the Judge who committed him, when, in reply to formal
interrogatories, he declared: “I did not seek to obey the writ
by producing the persons therein mentioned before the Court,
because I had not, at the time of the service of the writ, the
power over, the custody, or control of them, and therefore it
was impossible for me to do so.… I sought to obey the writ by
answering it truly; the parties not being in my possession or
control, it was impossible for me to obey the writ by producing
them.” The Judge announced the contempt purged and the party
released from custody.
While the immediate object of this proceeding was to compel
Mr. Williamson to produce the bodies of Jane, Daniel, and
Isaiah, claimed as slaves in Philadelphia by a person who had
voluntarily brought them there, it is impossible to explain
the action of the Judge except by his desire to establish
the protection of the National Government over slave-masters
travelling with their slaves in Free States. The claimant, at
the discharge of Mr. Williamson, stated by his counsel that he
“sought an adjudication, by the highest judicial tribunal of
the country, of the questions, whether Mr. Wheeler was entitled
to pass over the soil of Pennsylvania with his property? and
whether or not a wrong had been committed in the forcible
abduction thereof?”[24]
Mr. Williamson was in the Moyamensing Prison from July 27th to
November 3, 1855.
LAKE SUPERIOR, ON BOARD THE NORTH STAR,
Saturday, August 11, 1855.
MY DEAR SIR,--With astonishment and indignation I have learned
the story of your imprisonment; and now, from this distant
retreat, where I am for the moment, make haste to send you my
sympathy.
From beginning to end, from side to side, and in every aspect,
this transaction can be regarded only as a clear, indubitable,
and utterly unmitigated outrage. The new-fangled doctrine, that
a slave-master can _voluntarily_ import his alleged slave--of
course with all the revolting incidents of Slavery--into the Free
States, is not more odious than preposterous. It is scouted by
reason, and disowned by universal jurisprudence. You were right
in disregarding it. In stepping forward to remind persons claimed
as slaves on this pretext that all such claim is baseless, you
did a good work. It was this knowledge which filled them with
confidence to regain their God-given liberty. And for this it
appears that you have been brought before a man, “dressed in a
little brief authority,” who has cast you into prison.
This outrage is rendered more outrageous by the way in which it
was done. It was perpetrated through perversion of the great writ
of _Habeas Corpus_. This writ of freedom and deliverance, which
in England is often styled the Palladium of the Constitution,
which is recognized as a distinctive feature of Constitutional
Government, which finds no place in despotism, and which is the
very master-key appointed to unlock prison-doors and let the
oppressed go free, has been made in your case, by a hocus-pocus
without precedent, the instrument of imprisonment and oppression.
Strange and disgraceful as all this is, it must be considered
the natural fruit of Slavery. Any person, whosoever he may be,
whether simple citizen or magistrate, who undertakes to uphold
this wrong, seems forthwith to lose his reason. He may be just,
humane, and decent in other things, but in the support of Slavery
he becomes unjust, inhuman, and indecent,--often in obvious
unconsciousness of his degradation. The blindness which makes
him insensible to wrong so transcendent naturally makes him
insensible to the lesser wrong by which it is maintained. What
is the writ of _Habeas Corpus_, the trial by jury, the privilege
of debate, or your liberty or mine, in the estimation of a
person who has already screwed himself to the pitch of injustice
necessary for the vindication of an institution which separates
parent and child, which stamps woman as a concubine, which shuts
the gates of knowledge, and which snatches from the weak all the
hard-earned fruits of incessant toil?
But there must be an end to these things; and as Shakespeare
found a jewel in the toad’s head, so do I find a cheering omen
even in the injustice which has made you its victim. There is
an old saying, handed down from distant antiquity, that “whoso
the gods wish to destroy they first make mad”; and I have often
of late been impressed by its truth. The Slave Oligarchy is
mad, and their overflowing madness runs through every agent and
tool. In all that they do--especially in the Fugitive Slave Bill
and its cruel enforcement, the Nebraska Bill and its felonious
administration, and now in the imprisonment of an unoffending
citizen--I rejoice to believe that there is unmistakable evidence
of that madness which precedes a fall. Verily the day is at hand
when returning justice will once more bear sway; then, among the
triumphs of Freedom, will be a reckoning with unjust judges.
Meanwhile accept my congratulations on the portion of
responsibility and dignity which is yours. It is a privilege
to suffer for truth; and I envy not the meanness of that soul
which would hesitate to prefer your place within the stone walls
of a prison to the cushioned bench of the magistrate by whose
irrational and tyrannical edict you have been condemned.
Believe me, my dear Sir, with much regard,
Very faithfully yours,
CHARLES SUMNER.
PASSMORE WILLIAMSON, Esq., Moyamensing Prison, Philadelphia.
THE PEN BETTER THAN THE SWORD.
LETTER TO COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS IN NEW YORK, SEPTEMBER 26, 1855.
BOSTON, 26th September, 1855.
MY DEAR SIR,--Constrained by other things, I renounce with much
reluctance the opportunity which you offer me of partaking in the
splendid hospitality prepared by the Publishers for the Authors
of our country.
The occasion will be of special interest. It would be pleasant
to sit at feast with so many, who, as Authors, adorn our
national name. And it would be pleasant also to be the guest of
those active, enlightened, and generous Publishers who do so
much for Authors. But I must forego this luxury. Only in “bare
imagination” can I enjoy it.
At your table there will be an aggregation of various genius
and talent constituting a true _Witenagemote_, which may justly
gratify an honest pride of country. Grateful as this may be as
a token of power, it will be more grateful still as a token of
that concord growing among men in all the relations of life.
The traditional feud between Authors and Publishers promises
to lose itself in your Festival, even as the traditional feud
between England and France is absorbed in the welcome of Victoria
by Louis Napoleon. This is beautiful. And the whole scene,
where differing Authors commingle under auspices of differing
Publishers, will be an augury of that permanent coöperation and
harmony which will secure to the pen its mightiest triumphs.
It is in honor of the pen that the company will be gathered
together. If any word of mine be expected, please let me offer
the following sentiment.
_The Pen of the Author_,--Exposing error, defending truth,
instructing the ignorant, cheering the unhappy, while
charming and animating _all_, it can do better than the
Sword, and will yet receive from the world a higher praise.
Believe me, dear Sir,
Very faithfully yours,
CHARLES SUMNER.
G. P. PUTNAM, Esq.
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN NEW YORK.
LETTER TO A NEW YORK COMMITTEE, OCTOBER 7, 1855.
BOSTON, October 7, 1855.
GENTLEMEN,--Your summons addressed to me at Newport was forwarded
to me at this place.
I wish I could be at your proposed meeting, but I cannot. Accept
my best wishes for the Republican party of New York, which you
represent. Among the multitudes already rallying spontaneously in
this bodyguard of Freedom my presence cannot be needed.
The infant Hercules strangled the serpents in his cradle, and the
new party, just born, gives token of a like precocious strength.
Believe me, Gentlemen, very respectfully yours,
CHARLES SUMNER.
E. D. MORGAN, LUMAN SHERWOOD, CHARLES W. ELLIOTT, Esqrs.,
Committee, &c.
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OFFSPRING OF THE AROUSED CONSCIENCE OF THE COUNTRY.
LETTER TO A BOSTON COMMITTEE, OCTOBER 8, 1855.
HANCOCK STREET, 8th October, 1855.
MY DEAR SIR,--Your invitation for to-night, after a journey to
Newport and back, reached me only yesterday. It finds me already
engaged, so that I cannot join my fellow-citizens in the proposed
ratification at Faneuil Hall of the nominations lately made by
the Republican Party of Massachusetts.
In my heart I have already ratified those nominations. On some
other occasion I hope for an opportunity at Faneuil Hall to do
the same by public speech.
Meanwhile accept my Godspeed for the good cause which we seek to
promote, and for the Republican Party which is its organ. The
cause is blessed alike in itself and in its influence on all
who espouse it. No man can exert himself for Freedom without
feeling better than before. The party is so entirely in harmony
with prevailing opinion, it is such a natural and inevitable
expression of the existing state of things, it is so clearly
the offspring of the aroused conscience of the country, that it
begins with auguries of success. Already it draws into its ranks
good men from all sides, who, forgetting the things that are
behind, press on to the things that are before.
Believe me, dear Sir, very faithfully yours,
CHARLES SUMNER.
WILLIAM BRIGHAM, Esq.
POLITICAL PARTIES AND OUR FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION.
SPEECH AT A REPUBLICAN RALLY IN FANEUIL HALL, NOVEMBER 2, 1855.
Immediately before the election there was a Republican Rally
at Faneuil Hall, with the following officers: Richard H. Dana,
Jr., Esq., _President_; Dr. Edward Reynolds, Ezra Lincoln,
William Pope, Josiah W. Butler, Aaron Bancroft, Samuel Johnson,
James P. Whitney, Prince Hawes, Daniel Kimball, Charles
M. Ellis, N. Davies Cotton, Frederick A. Sumner, John G.
Webster, George S. Winslow, Henry W. Farley, of East Boston,
William P. Houston, of South Boston, Henry Slade, of Chelsea,
Francis B. Fay, of Chelsea, and James L. Jones, of Chelsea,
_Vice-Presidents_; John D. W. Joy, E. Baker Welch, Franklin W.
Smith, Samuel W. Lane, _Secretaries_.
On taking the chair, Mr. Dana made an able speech especially
in reply to one recently made by Mr. Choate, in the course of
which he said that the Republicans repudiated the charge of
ignoring the Constitution or menacing the Union.
Mr. Sumner was then introduced, and spoke for two hours and a
quarter, with the marked attention of a very large audience.
This speech was reported at length in the papers, and was
afterwards printed in a pamphlet. It particularly discussed
the Slave Oligarchy and its usurpations,--the outrages in
Kansas,--the different political parties,--the rights of
our foreign-born population,--and the Republican party.
Several of these topics, being treated in other speeches,
are omitted here. The part relating to our foreign-born
population attracted attention at the time, and has been
often quoted since. Among the audience were many persons of
the Know-Nothing party, pledged against the foreign-born, who
were there to create difficulty; but Mr. Sumner was allowed
to proceed uninterrupted. The papers speak of “rapturous
applause.” In this vindication of our foreign-born population,
he acted only according to his convictions and all his votes
in the Senate. Although the Know-Nothing party prevailed in
Massachusetts, Mr. Sumner refused all association with it; and
yet, such was the recklessness of misrepresentation, that the
Richmond _Enquirer_ announced him as “the head of the Northern
Know-Nothing party.” The following speech is sufficient answer
to this assertion.
In the course of this speech Mr. Sumner gives his personal
testimony as to Slavery, founded on what he saw in a short
journey he had made through Kentucky as far as Nashville in
Tennessee.
FELLOW-CITIZENS OF BOSTON:--
Are you for Freedom, or are you for Slavery? This is the question which
you are to answer at the coming election. Above all other questions,
national or local, it lifts itself directly in the path of every voter.
There it is. It cannot be avoided. It cannot be banished away. It
cannot be silenced. Forever sounding in our ears, it has a mood for
every hour,--stirring us at times as with the blast of a trumpet, then
visiting us in solemn tones, like the bell which calls to prayer, and
then again awaking us to unmistakable duty, like the same bell, when at
midnight it summons all to stay the raging conflagration.
And yet there are persons among us who seek to put this great question
aside. Some clamor for financial reform, and hold up a tax-bill; others
clamor for a modification of the elective franchise, and they hold up
the Pope; some speak in the name of old parties, calling themselves
Democrats or Whigs; others in the name of a new party, which shall be
nameless at present. Surely the people of Massachusetts will not be
diverted from the true issue, involving Freedom for broad territories
and Freedom for themselves, by holding up a tax-bill or by holding up
the Pope. The people of Massachusetts are intelligent and humane.
…
But above all these is heard the great question, which will not be
postponed, Are you for Freedom, or are you for Slavery? “Under which
king, Bezonian? Speak or die!” Are you for Freedom, with its priceless
blessings, or are you for Slavery, with its countless wrongs and woes?
Are you for God, or are you for the Devil?
Fellow-Citizens, I speak plainly; nor can words exhibiting the
enormity of Slavery be too plain, whether it be regarded simply in the
legislative and judicial decisions by which it is upheld, or in the
unquestionable facts by which its character is revealed. It has been my
fortune latterly to see Slavery face to face in its own home, in the
Slave States; and I take this early opportunity to offer my testimony
to the open barbarism which it sanctions. I have seen a human being
knocked off at auction on the steps of a court-house, and, as the
sale went on, compelled to open his mouth and show his teeth, like a
horse; I have been detained in a stage-coach, that our driver might,
in the phrase of the country, “help lick a nigger”; and I have been
constrained, at public table, to witness the revolting spectacle of a
poor slave, yet a child, almost felled to the floor by a blow on the
head from a clenched fist. Such incidents were not calculated to shake
my original convictions. The distant slaveholder, who, in generous
solicitude for that truth which makes for Freedom, feared, that, like
a certain Doctor of Divinity, I might, under influence of personal
kindness, be hastily swayed from these convictions, may be assured
that I saw nothing to change them one tittle, but much to confirm
them,--while I was entirely satisfied that here in Massachusetts,
where all read, the true character of Slavery is better known than in
the Slave States themselves, where ignorance and prejudice close the
avenues of knowledge.
And now, grateful for the attention with which you honor me, I venture
to hope that you are assembled honestly to hear the truth,--not to
gratify prejudice, to appease personal antipathies, or to indulge
a morbid appetite for excitement, but with candor and your best
discrimination to weigh facts and arguments in order to determine
the course of duty. I address myself particularly to the friends of
Freedom, Republicans, on whose invitation I appear to-night; but I make
bold to ask you of other parties, who now listen, to divest yourselves,
for the time, of partisan constraint,--to forget, for the moment, that
you are Whigs or Democrats, or however called, and to remember only
that you are _men_, with hearts to feel, with heads to understand,
and with consciences to guide. Then only will you be in condition to
receive the truth. “If men are not aware of the probable influence
of party over them, they are so much the more likely to be blindly
governed by it.” Such is the wise remark of Wilberforce.[25] And I
fear that among us there are too many unconsciously governed by such
bias. There are men, who, while professing candor, yet show that the
bitterness of party has entered into their whole character and lives,
as the bitterness of the soil in Sardinia is said to appear even in its
honey.
…
There are honorable responsibilities belonging to Massachusetts, as an
early and constant vindicator of Freedom, which she cannot renounce.
“If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself
to the battle?” The distant emigrant, the whole country, awaits the
voice of our beloved Commonwealth in answer to the question, Are you
for Freedom, or are you for Slavery? So transcendent, so exclusive, so
all-absorbing at the present juncture is this question, that it is vain
to speak of the position of candidates on other things. To be doubtful
on this is to be wrong, and to be wrong on this is to be wholly wrong.
Passing strange it is that here in Massachusetts, in this nineteenth
century, we should be constrained to put this question; passing
strange, that, when it is put, there should be any hesitation to answer
it, by voice and vote, in such way as to speak the loudest for Freedom.
…
But, without exposing the game of political sweepstakes which the Slave
Oligarchy has perpetually played,--interesting as it would be,--I
prefer to hold up for one moment the assumptions, aggressions, and
usurpations by which, in defiance of the Constitution, it has made
Slavery national, when it is in reality sectional. Here is a brief
catalogue.
…
Fellow-citizens, I have said enough to stir you; but this humiliating
tale is not yet finished. An oligarchy seeking to maintain an outrage
like Slavery, and drawing its inspirations from this fountain of
wickedness, is naturally base, false, and heedless of justice. It
is vain to expect that men who have brought themselves to become
propagandists of this enormity will be constrained by any compromise,
compact, bargain, or plighted faith. As the less is contained in the
greater, so there is no vileness of dishonesty, no denial of human
rights, that is not plainly involved in the support of an enormity
which begins by changing man, created in the image of God, into a
chattel, and consigns little children to the auction-block. A power
which Heaven never gave can be maintained only by means which Heaven
can never sanction. And this conclusion of reason is confirmed by late
experience.
And here I approach the special question under which the country now
shakes from side to side. The protracted struggle of 1820, known as
the Missouri Question, ended with the admission of Missouri as a
slaveholding State, and the prohibition of Slavery in all the remaining
territory west of the Mississippi and north of 36° 30´. Here was a
solemn act of legislation, called at the time a compromise, a covenant,
a compact, first brought forward by the Slave Oligarchy, vindicated
by it in debate, finally sanctioned by its votes,--also upheld at the
time by a slaveholding President, James Monroe, and his cabinet, of
whom a majority were slaveholders, including Mr. Calhoun himself,--and
made the condition of the admission of Missouri, without which that
State could not have been received into the Union. Suddenly, during the
last year, without any notice in the public press or the prayer of a
single petition, after an acquiescence of thirty-four years, and the
irreclaimable possession by the Slave Oligarchy of its special share in
the provisions of this Compromise, in violation of every obligation of
honor, compact, and good neighborhood, and in contemptuous disregard
of the outgushing sentiments of an aroused North, this time-honored
Prohibition, in itself a Landmark of Freedom, was overturned, and the
vast region now known as Kansas and Nebraska was opened to Slavery:
and this was done under the disgraceful lead of Northern politicians,
and with the undisguised complicity of a Northern President, forgetful
of Freedom, forgetful also of his reiterated pledges that during his
administration the repose of the country should receive no shock.
And all this was perpetrated under pretences of popular rights. Freedom
was betrayed by a kiss. In defiance of uninterrupted prescription
down to our day, early sustained at the South as well as the North,
leaning at once on Jefferson and Washington, sanctioned by all the
authoritative names of our history, and beginning with the great
Ordinance by which Slavery was prohibited in the Northwest,--it was
pretended that the people of the United States, who are the proprietors
of the national domain, and who, according to the Constitution,
may “make all needful rules and regulations” for its government,
nevertheless were not its sovereigns, that they had no power to
interdict Slavery there, but that this eminent dominion resided in the
few settlers, called squatters, whom chance or a desire to better their
fortunes first hurried into these places. To this precarious handful,
sprinkled over immense spaces, it was left, without any constraint
from Congress, to decide whether into these vast unsettled lands, as
into the veins of an infant, should be poured the festering poison of
Slavery, destined, as time advances, to show itself in cancers and
leprous disease, or whether they should be filled with all the glowing
life of Freedom. And this great power, transferred from Congress to
these few settlers, was hailed by the new-fangled name of _Squatter
Sovereignty_.
It was fit that the original outrage perpetrated under such pretences
should be followed by other outrages perpetrated in defiance of these
pretences. In the race of emigration the Freedom-loving citizens of
the North promised to obtain the ascendency, and, in the exercise of
the conceded sovereignty of the settlers, to prohibit Slavery. The
Slave Oligarchy was aroused to other efforts. Of course it stuck at
nothing. On the day of election, when this vaunted popular sovereignty
was first invoked, hirelings from Missouri, having no home in the
Territory, entered it in bands of fifties and hundreds, and, assuming
an electoral franchise to which they had no claim, trampled under
foot the Constitution and laws. Violently, ruthlessly, the polls were
possessed by these invaders. The same Northern President, who did not
shrink from unblushing complicity in the original outrage, now assumed
another complicity. Though prompt to lavish the Treasury, the Army,
and the Navy of the Republic in hunting a single slave through the
streets of Boston, he could see the Constitution and laws which he
was sworn to protect, and those popular rights which he had affected
to promote, all struck down in Kansas,--and then give new scope to
these invaders by the removal of the faithful Governor, who had become
obnoxious to the Slave Oligarchy because he would not become its tool,
and the substitution of another, who vindicated the dishonest choice by
making haste, on his first arrival there, to embrace the partisans of
Slavery. The Legislature, which was constituted by the overthrow of the
electoral franchise, proceeded to overthrow every safeguard of Freedom.
At one swoop it adopted all the legislation of Missouri, including its
Slave Code; by another act it imposed unprecedented conditions upon
the exercise of the electoral franchise; and by still another act it
denounced _the punishment of death_ no less than five times against as
many different forms of interference with the alleged property in human
flesh, while all who but write or speak against Slavery are adjudged
to be felons. Yes, fellow-citizens, should any person there presume
to print or circulate the speech in which I now express my abhorrence
of Slavery, and deny its constitutional existence anywhere within the
national jurisdiction, he would become liable under this act as a
felon. And this overthrow of all popular rights is done in the name of
Popular Sovereignty. Surely its authors follow well the example of the
earliest Squatter Sovereign,--none other than Satan,--who, stealing
into Eden, was there discovered by the celestial messengers just
beginning his work: as Milton tells us,--
“Him there they found
_Squat_ like a toad, close at the ear of Eve.”
Would you know the secret of this unprecedented endeavor, beginning
with the repeal of the Prohibition of Slavery, down to the latest
atrocity? The answer is at hand. It is not merely to provide new
markets for slaves, or even to guard Slavery in Missouri, but to build
another Slave State, and thus, by the presence of two additional
Slaveholding Senators, to give increased preponderance to the Slave
Oligarchy in the National Government. As men are murdered for the sake
of their money, so is this Territory blasted in peace and prosperity in
order to wrest its political influence to the side of Slavery.
* * * * *
But a single usurpation is not enough to employ the rapacious energies
of our Oligarchy. At this moment, while the country is pained by the
heartless conspiracy against Freedom in Kansas, we are startled by
another effort, which contemplates not merely the political subjugation
of the National Government, but the actual introduction of Slavery into
the Free States. The vaunt is made that slaves will yet be counted in
the shadow of the monument on Bunker Hill, and more than one step has
been taken towards this effrontery. A person of Virginia has asserted
his right to hold slaves in New York on the way to Texas; and this
claim is still pending before the highest judicial tribunal of the
land. A similar claim has been asserted in Pennsylvania, and thus far
been sustained by the court. A blameless citizen, who, in obedience to
generous impulses, and in harmony with received law, merely gave notice
to a person held as a slave in a Free State that she was in reality
free, has been thrust into jail, and now, after the lapse of months,
still languishes there, the victim of this pretension; while--that
no excess might be wanting in the madness of this tyranny--the great
writ of Habeas Corpus, proudly known as the writ of deliverance, has
been made the instrument of his imprisonment.[26] Outrage treads upon
outrage, and great rights pass away to perish. Alas! the needful tool
for such work is too easily found in places low and high,--in the lanes
and cellars of Boston, on the bench of the judge, in the chair of
the President. But it is the power behind which I impeach. The Slave
Oligarchy does it; the Slave Oligarchy does it all.
* * * * *
To the prostration of this Oligarchy we are bound by a threefold
cord of duty: _first_, as we would secure Freedom for ourselves;
_secondly_, as we would uphold Freedom in distant Kansas; and,
_thirdly_, as we would preserve the Union in its early strength
and integrity. The people of Kansas are, many of them, from
Massachusetts,--bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh; but as
fellow-citizens under the Constitution they are bound to us by ties
which we cannot disown; nay, more,--by the subtile cord which connects
this embryo settlement with the Republic, they are made part of us.
The outrage which touches them touches us. What galls them galls us.
The fetter which binds the slave in Kansas binds every citizen in
Massachusetts. Thus are we prompted to their rescue, not only to save
them, but also to save ourselves. The tyranny which now treads them
down has already trampled on us, and only awaits an opportunity to do
it again. In its complete overthrow is the only way of safety. Indeed,
this must be done before anything else can be done.
…
In the choice of men we are driven to the organization of parties;
and here occurs the practical question on which hinges immediate
duty,--By what political party can our desire be accomplished? There
are individuals in all parties, even the Democratic, who hate Slavery,
and say so; but a political party cannot be judged by the private
opinions of some of its members. Something else, more solid and
tangible, must appear. The party that we select to bear the burden and
honor of our great controversy should be adapted to the work. It must
be a perfect machine. Wedded to Freedom for better or for worse, and
clinging to it with a grasp never to be unloosed, it must be clear,
open, and unequivocal in its declarations, and should admit no other
question to divert its energies. It must be all for Freedom, and, like
Cæsar’s wife, above suspicion. But besides this character which it
should sustain in Massachusetts, it must be prepared to take its place
in close phalanx with the united masses of the North, now organizing
through all the Free States, _junctæque umbone phalanges_, for the
protection of Freedom and the overthrow of the Slave Oligarchy.
Bearing these conditions in mind, there are three parties which we may
dismiss, one by one, as they pass in review. Men do not gather grapes
from thorns, nor figs from thistles; nor do they expect patriotism from
Benedict Arnold. A party which sustains the tyrannies and perfidies of
the Slave Oligarchy, and is represented by the President, through whom
has come so much of all our woe, need not occupy our time; and such is
the Democratic party. If there be within the sound of my voice a single
person, professing sympathy with Freedom, who still votes with this
party, to him I would say: The name of Democrat is a tower of strength;
let it not be the bulwark of Slavery; for the sake of a name do not
sacrifice the thing; for the sake of party do not surrender Freedom.
According to familiar rule, handed down from distant antiquity, we are
to say nothing but good of the dead. How, then, shall I speak of the
late powerful Whig party, by whose giant contests the whole country was
once upheaved, but which has now ceased to exist, except as the shadow
of a name? Here in Massachusetts, a few who do not yet know that it is
dead have met together and proffered the old allegiance. They are the
Rip Van Winkles of our politics. This respectable character, falling
asleep in the mountains, drowsed undisturbed throughout the war of the
Revolution, and then, returning to his native village, ignorant of all
that had passed, made haste to declare himself “a loyal subject of
the King, God bless him!” But our Whigs are less tolerant and urbane
than this awakened sleeper. In petulant and irrational assumption
they are like the unfortunate judge, who, being aroused from slumber
on the bench by a sudden crash of thunder, exclaimed, “Mr. Crier,
stop the noise in Court!” The thunder would not be hushed; nor will
the voice of Freedom, now reverberating throughout the land. Some
there are among these who openly espouse the part of Slavery, while
others, by indifference, place themselves in the same unhappy company.
If their position at this moment were of sufficient importance to
justify grave remark, they should be exhibited as kindred in spirit and
isolation to the Tories of our Revolution, or at least as the Bourbons
of Massachusetts,--always claiming everything, learning nothing,
forgetting nothing, and at last condemned by an aroused people for
disloyalty to Freedom. Let no person who truly loves Freedom join this
company, tempted by its name and old associations.
There is still another party claiming your votes, but permit me to
say, at this crisis, with little reason. I am at a loss to determine
the name by which it may be called. It is sometimes styled the Know
Nothing party, sometimes the American party; but it cannot be entitled
to these designations,--if they be of any value,--for it does not claim
to belong to the organization which first assumed and still retains
them. It is an isolated combination, peculiar to Massachusetts, which,
while professing certain political sentiments, is bound together by
the support of one of the candidates for Governor.[27] At this moment
this is its controlling idea. It is therefore a _personal_ party;
and I trust that I shall not be considered as departing from that
courtesy which is with me a law, if I say, that, in the absence of any
appropriate name, expressive of principles, it may properly take its
designation from the candidate it supports.
Of course such a party wants the first essential condition of the
organization which we seek. It is a _personal_ party, whose controlling
idea is predilection for a man, and not a principle. Whatever may
be the private sentiments of some of its members, clearly it is not
a party wedded to Freedom for better and for worse, and clinging to
it with a grasp never to be unloosed. While professing opposition to
Slavery, it also arraigns Catholics and foreigners, and allows the
question of their privileges to disturb its energies. It is not all
for Freedom; nor is it, like Cæsar’s wife, above suspicion. Besides,
even as party of Freedom, it is powerless from its isolation; for it
stands by itself, and is in no way associated with that great phalanx
now rallying throughout the North. In this condition should it continue
to exist, it will, in the coming Presidential contest, from natural
affinity, lapse back into the American party of the country, which
is ranged on the side of Slavery. Of course, as a separate party, it
is necessarily short-lived. Cut off from the main body, it may show
a brief vitality, as the head of a tortoise still bites for some
days after it is severed from the neck; but it can have no permanent
existence. Surely this is not the party of Freedom which we seek.
The incompetency of this party, as organ of our cause, is enhanced by
the uncongenial secrecy in which it had its origin and yet shrouds
itself. For myself let me say, that on the floor of the Senate I have
striven by vote and speech, in conjunction with my distinguished friend
Mr. Chase, to limit the secret sessions of that body, under shelter of
which so much of the public business is transacted; and I have there
presented, as the fit model for American institutions, the example of
that ancient Roman who bade his architect so construct his house that
all that he did might be seen by the world.[28] What I urged there I
now urge here. But the special aims which this party proposes are in
harmony with the darkness in which it begins. Even if justifiable on
any ground of public policy, they should not be associated with our
cause: but I am unwilling to allude to them without expressing my frank
dissent.
It is proposed to attaint men for religion, and also for birth. If
this object can prevail, vain are the triumphs of Civil Freedom in its
many hard-fought fields, vain is that religious toleration which we
profess. The fires of Smithfield, the tortures of the Inquisition, the
proscriptions of Non-Conformists may all be revived. Mainly to escape
these outrages, dictated by a dominant religious sect, was our country
early settled: in one place by Pilgrims, who sought independence; in
another by Puritans, who disowned bishops; in another by Episcopalians,
who take their name from bishops; in another by Quakers, who set
at nought all forms; and in yet another by Catholics, who look to
the Pope as spiritual father. Slowly among the struggling sects was
evolved that great idea of the equality of all men before the law
without regard to religious belief; nor can any party now organize a
proscription merely for religious belief, without calling in question
this well-established principle.
But Catholics are mostly foreigners, and on this account are condemned.
Let us see if there be any reason in this; and here indulge me with one
word on foreigners.
With the ancient Greeks a foreigner was _a barbarian_, and with the
ancient Romans he was _an enemy_. In early modern times the austerity
of this judgment was relaxed; but, under the influence of feudalism,
different sovereignties, whether provinces or nations, were kept in a
condition of isolation, from which they have gradually passed, until
now provinces are merged in nations, and nations are giving signs
that they too will yet combine in one. In our country a new example
is already displayed. From all nations people commingle here. As in
ancient Corinth, by accidental fusion of all metals, accumulated in
the sacred temples, a peculiar metal was produced, better than any
individual metal, even silver or gold,--so, perhaps, in the order of
Providence, by fusion of all races here, there will be a better race
than any individual race, even Saxon or Celt. Originally settled from
England, the Republic has been strengthened and enriched by generous
contributions of population from Scotland, Ireland, Switzerland,
Sweden, France, and Germany; and the cry is, Still they come! At no
time since the discovery of the New World has the army of emigrants
pressed so strongly upon us. More than one quarter of a million are
annually landed on our shores. The manner in which they shall be
received is a problem of national policy.
All will admit that any influence which they bring, hostile to our
institutions, calculated to substitute priestcraft for religion and
bigotry for Christianity, must be deprecated and opposed. All will
admit, too, that there must be some assurance of their purpose to
become not merely consumers of the fruits of our soil, but useful,
loyal, and permanent members of our community, upholders of the general
welfare. With this simple explanation, I cannot place any check upon
the welcome to foreigners. There are our broad lands, stretching
towards the setting sun; let them come and take them. Ourselves
children of the Pilgrims of a former generation, let us not turn from
the Pilgrims of the present. Let the home founded by our emigrant
fathers continue open in its many mansions to the emigrants of to-day.
The history of our country, in its humblest as well as most exalted
spheres, testifies to the merit of foreigners. Their strong arms
have helped furrow our broad territory with canals, and stretch in
every direction the iron rail. They fill our workshops, navigate
our ships, and even till our fields. Go where you will among the
hardy sons of toil on land or sea, and there you find industrious
and faithful foreigners bending their muscles to the work. At the
bar and in the high places of commerce you find them. Enter the
retreats of learning, and there too you find them, shedding upon our
country the glory of science.[29] Nor can any reflection be cast upon
foreigners, coming for hospitality now, which will not glance at once
upon the distinguished living and the illustrious dead,--upon the
Irish Montgomery, who perished for us at the gates of Quebec,--upon
Pulaski the Pole, who perished for us at Savannah,--upon De Kalb and
Steuben, the generous Germans, who aided our weakness by their military
experience,--upon Paul Jones, the Scotchman, who lent his unsurpassed
courage to the infant thunders of our navy,--also upon those great
European liberators, Kosciusko of Poland, and Lafayette of France, each
of whom paid his earliest vows to Liberty in our cause. Nor should
this list be confined to military characters, so long as we gratefully
cherish the name of Alexander Hamilton, who was born in the West
Indies, and the name of Albert Gallatin, who was born in Switzerland,
and never, to the close of his octogenarian career, lost the French
accent of his boyhood,--both of whom rendered civic services to be
commemorated among the victories of peace.
Nor is the experience of our Republic peculiar. Where is the country or
power which does not inscribe the names of foreigners on its historic
scroll? It was Christopher Columbus, of Genoa, who disclosed to Spain
the New World; it was Magellan, of Portugal, sailing in the service of
Spain, who first passed with adventurous keel through those distant
Southern straits which now bear his name, and opened the way to the
vast Pacific Sea; and it was Cabot, the Venetian, who first conducted
English enterprise to this North American continent. As in triumphs
of discovery, so also in other fields have foreigners excelled, while
serving states to which they were bound by no tie of birth. The Dutch
Grotius, author of the great work, “Laws of War and Peace,” an exile
from his own country, became Ambassador of Sweden; and, in our own day,
the Italian Pozzo di Borgo, turning his back upon his own country,
reached the most exalted diplomatic trust in the jealous service of
Russia. In the list of monarchs on the throne of England, not one
has been more truly English than the Dutch William. In Holland no
ruler has equalled in renown the German William, Prince of Orange.
In Russia the German Catharine the Second takes place among the most
commanding sovereigns. And who of Swedish monarchs was a better Swede
than Bernadotte, the Frenchman? and what Frenchman was ever filled with
aspiration for France more than the Italian Napoleon Bonaparte?
* * * * *
I pass from these things, which have occupied me too long. A party,
which, beginning in secrecy, interferes with religious belief, and
founds a discrimination on the accident of birth, is not the party for
us.
* * * * *
“Where Liberty is, there is my country,” was the sentiment of that
great Apostle of Freedom, Benjamin Franklin, uttered during the trials
of the Revolution. In similar strain, I would say, “Where Liberty is,
there is my party.” Such an organization is now happily constituted
here in Massachusetts, and in all the Free States, under the name of
REPUBLICAN PARTY.
In assuming our place as a distinct party, we simply give form
and direction, in harmony with the usage and genius of popular
governments, to a movement which stirs the whole country, and does
not find adequate and constant organ in either of the other existing
parties. The early opposition to Slavery was simply a sentiment,
outgushing from the hearts of the sensitive and humane. In the lapse
of time it became a determined principle, inspiring larger numbers,
and showing itself first in an organized endeavor to resist the
annexation of slaveholding Texas; next, to prohibit Slavery in newly
acquired territories; and now, alarmed by the overthrow of all rights
in Kansas, and the domination of the Slave Oligarchy throughout the
Republic, it breaks forth in a stronger effort, a wider union, and
a deeper channel, inspiring yet larger numbers and firmer resolves,
while opposite quarters contribute to its power,--even as the fountain,
first outgushing from the weeping sides of its pure mountain home,
trickles in the rill, leaps in the torrent, and flows in the river,
till, at last, swollen with accumulated waters, it presses onward, in
irresistible, beneficent current, fertilizing and uniting the spaces
which it traverses, washing the feet of cities, and wooing states to
repose upon its banks.
…
Our party has its origin in the exigencies of the hour. Vowing
ourselves against Slavery, wherever it exists, whether enforced by
Russian knout, Turkish bastinado, or lash of Carolina planter, we
do not seek to interfere with it at Petersburg, Constantinople, or
Charleston; nor does any such grave duty rest upon us. Political duties
are properly limited by political responsibilities; and we are in
no just sense responsible for the local law or usage by which human
bondage in these places is upheld. But wherever we are responsible for
the wrong, there our duty begins. The object to which, as a party, we
are pledged, is all contained in acceptance of the issue which the
Slave Oligarchy tenders. To its repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and
its imperious demand that Kansas shall be surrendered to Slavery, we
reply, that Freedom shall be made the universal law of all the national
domain, without compromise, and that hereafter no Slave State shall be
admitted into the Union. To its tyrannical assumption of supremacy in
the National Government we reply, that the Slave Oligarchy shall be
overthrown. Such is the practical purpose of the Republican Party.
ORIGINATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS.
SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE USURPATION OF THE SENATE IN THE
ORIGINATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS, FEBRUARY 7, 1856.
On the 11th of December, 1855, Mr. Brodhead, of Pennsylvania,
introduced a resolution directing the Committee on Finance to
consider the expediency of reporting the appropriation bills
for the support of the Government. The resolution was allowed
to lie on the table till January 7, 1856, when it was called
up for consideration, and adopted. On the 4th of February, Mr.
Hunter, of Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on Finance,
reported to the Senate the following resolution:--
“_Resolved_, That the Committee on Finance be instructed to
prepare and report such of the general appropriation bills
as they may deem expedient.”
The resolution was adopted by the Senate, February 7, but this
was all. Nothing was done under it.
This attempt was prompted by the protracted contest in the
organization of the House of Representatives, when, after one
hundred and thirty-three ballotings, Mr. Banks was chosen
Speaker, February 2, and the Slave Power received its first
check.
In the course of the debate, February 7, Mr. Sumner spoke as
follows.
MR. PRESIDENT,--Whatever the Senator from New York [Mr. SEWARD] touches
he handles with a completeness to render anything superfluous from
one who follows on the same side; but the opposition which his views
have encountered from the Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER], and also
from the Senator from Georgia [Mr. TOOMBS], as well as the intrinsic
importance of the question, may justify the attempt to state the
argument anew.
We are carried first to the words of the Constitution, which are as
follows:--
“All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House
of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments, as on other bills.”
Under this provision, the annual appropriation bills for the Army,
Navy, Post-Office, and civil and diplomatic service, from the beginning
of the Government, have originated in the House of Representatives;
and this has always been so, I believe, without question. It is now
proposed to reverse the standing policy, and to originate such bills in
the Senate; and this proposition has the sanction of the Committee on
Finance.
The proposition is a clear departure from usage, and on this account
must be regarded with suspicion. A slight examination will demonstrate
that it tends to subvert well-established landmarks.
By looking at the debates in the Convention which framed the National
Constitution, it will be found that this clause was not hastily or
carelessly adopted,--that it was the subject of much discussion, and
was viewed as essentially important in establishing the system of
checks and balances peculiar to our Republic. It was, indeed, part of
the compromise between the small States and the large States.
After much consideration, the _equality of the States_ was recognized
in the Constitution of the Senate, and small States, like Delaware
and Rhode Island, were allowed, in this body, equal power with large
States, like Virginia and Massachusetts. But this great concession to
the small States was coupled at the time with a condition that “money
bills” should originate in the House of Representatives, where the
people were represented according to numbers. The language finally
employed was, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the
House of Representatives.” This was adopted, as compensation to the
large and populous States for their comparative weakness in the Senate.
That I do not go too far, when I call it part of the compromise between
the great States and small States, I proceed to show, from the debates
in the National Convention, as reported by Mr. Madison, how it was
regarded there.
The provision owes its authoritative introduction to Dr. Franklin,
who moved it in the committee which subsequently reported it.[30]
Afterwards, in Convention, when the clause relating to _equality of
votes_ was under consideration, we have this report of what he said.
“Dr. Franklin observed, that this question could not be
properly put by itself, the Committee having reported several
propositions as _mutual conditions of each other_. He could not
vote for it, if separately taken, but should vote for the whole
together.”[31]
Colonel Mason, of Virginia, was of the same opinion, and desired “that
the whole might be brought _into one view_.”[32]
Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, followed up the idea of the mutual
dependence of the two propositions, remarking,--
“He would not say that the concession was a sufficient
one on the part of the small States; but he could not but
regard it in the light of a _concession_. It would make it
a constitutional principle, that the second branch were not
possessed of the confidence of the people in _money matters_,”--
Please, Sir, to mark the breadth of this expression.
--“which would lessen their weight and influence.”[33]
Mr. Pinckney, of South Carolina, followed, saying,--
“He thought it evident that the concession was wholly on one
side, that of the large States; the privilege of originating
_money bills_ being of no account.”[34]
At a later stage of the debates the subject was resumed, and the two
propositions still appear together.
“Mr. Rutledge [of South Carolina] proposed to reconsider the
two propositions touching the originating of _money bills_ in
the first, and the _equality of votes_ in the second branch.”
“Mr. Sherman [of Connecticut] was for the question on the whole
at once. It was, he said, _a conciliatory plan_. It had been
considered in all its parts.”
“Mr. Luther Martin [of Maryland] urged the question on the
whole. He did not like many parts of it.… He was willing,
however, to make trial of the plan, rather than do nothing.”
“Mr. Gerry [of Massachusetts] did not approve of a
reconsideration of the clause relating to _money bills_. It
was of great consequence. _It was the corner-stone of the
accommodation._”[35]
At a still later stage Mr. Pinckney moved to strike out the section
on money bills, “as giving no peculiar advantage to the House of
Representatives, and as clogging the Government.” Mr. Gorham “was
against allowing the Senate to _originate_, but was for allowing
it only to _amend_.” Mr. Gouverneur Morris urged, that it was
“particularly proper that the Senate should have the right of
originating _money bills_. They will sit constantly, will consist of
a smaller number, and will be able to prepare such bills with due
correctness, and so as to prevent delay of business in the other
House.” To all this Colonel Mason replied, in the strong language which
seems to have been natural to him, that he “was unwilling to travel
over this ground again. _To strike out the section was to unhinge the
compromise of which it made a part._”[36]
I might adduce other authorities; but here surely is enough to show
that the provision was in reality one of the important compromises of
the Constitution.
* * * * *
This brings me, Sir, to the precise meaning of the provision. The
seeming indefiniteness of the term, “bills for raising revenue,”
may alone furnish apology for the present debate. It may be argued,
that, while the Senate is placed under certain restrictions, it may
nevertheless originate “appropriation bills.” This, of course, is a
question of interpretation. Does this interdict upon the Senate extend
to bills by which money is appropriated to the support of Government,
as well as to bills by which it is directly obtained? Are appropriation
bills included under the term, “bills for raising revenue”? Now I
cannot accord with opinions so confidently expressed by the Senator
from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER], and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. TOOMBS],
that it was clearly the intention of the Constitution to concede to the
Senate the power of originating all appropriation bills; nor, on the
other hand, do I assert that such exercise of power is in the strict
sense unconstitutional. I approach the question as an inquirer anxious
to find the real purpose.
Several considerations seem to shed light on the path to our conclusion.
_First._ The compromise between the small States and large States
can be made completely effective, according to obvious intent of
the authors of the Constitution, only by interdicting the Senate
from originating the great appropriation bills. If this interdict is
restricted simply to tariff bills, which occur only at rare intervals,
it becomes a very inadequate compensation for the surrender by the
large States to the small States in the constitution of the Senate.
According to the reason of the rule, the great appropriation bills must
be equally within its intendment. The reason is as strong in one case
as in the other.
In the debates of the Convention, Dr. Franklin said:--
“As it had been asked what would be the use of restraining the
second branch from meddling with _money bills_, he could not
but remark, that it was always of importance that the people
should know who had disposed of their money, _and how it had
been disposed of_.”
Please, Sir, to mark these words.
“It was a maxim, that those who feel can best judge. This end
would, he thought, be best attained, if _money affairs_ were to
be confined to the immediate representatives of the people.”[37]
Mr. Gerry, in urging the restraint upon the Senate, said:--
“The other branch was more immediately the representatives of
the people, _and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold
the purse-strings_.”[38]
How, Sir, can the people hold the purse-strings, unless they hold the
bills by which the purse is appropriated?
And Colonel Mason broke forth in language clearly revealing his sense
of danger against which to guard.
“If the Senate can originate, they will, in the recess of
the legislative sessions, hatch their mischievous projects
for their own purposes, and have their _money bills_ cut and
dried (to use a common phrase) for the meeting of the House of
Representatives.”[39]
I repeat, then, according to the reason of the rule, the great
appropriation bills must be embraced by the prohibition.
_Secondly._ There is a further consideration, founded on the familiar
use of the term _money bills_ throughout the debates in the Convention,
as applicable to bills which the Senate cannot originate. I need not
occupy time by reference to instances; but whoever takes the trouble to
investigate the matter in Mr. Madison’s report of the debates, and also
in the report of the Virginia Convention, will find that this term is
universally employed,--unless, indeed, where Mr. Gouverneur Morris uses
the broader term “money plans,”[40] and Mr. Gerry “money matters.”[41]
Now all these phrases are clearly applicable to “appropriation bills,”
by which the Government is carried on; and the inference seems
irresistible, that the parties who used them must have had such bills
in mind.
In the Virginia Convention objection was made by Mr. Grayson “to the
power of the Senate to propose or concur with _amendments to money
bills_.” The objection is even to “amendments.” He pronounced this “a
departure from that great principle which required that the _immediate
representatives_ of the people only should interfere with _money
bills_.… The Lords in England had never been allowed to intermeddle
with money bills. He knew not why the Senate should.”[42]
_Thirdly._ This brings me to another consideration, founded on the
example of England, which was obviously present to the framers of
the Constitution. The Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER] is clearly
mistaken on this point. It was often adduced in debate in the National
Convention, and, as we have just seen, in the Virginia Convention also.
In England the rule is explicit, and of ancient date. As early as July
3, 1678, the Commons resolved:--
“That all aids and supplies, and aids to his Majesty in
Parliament, are the sole gift of the Commons; _and all bills
for the granting of any such aids and supplies ought to begin
with the Commons; and that it is the undoubted and sole right
of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint, in such bills,
the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations,
and qualifications of such grants_, which ought not to be
changed or altered by the House of Lords.”[43]
In pursuance of this rule, estimates for the annual expenditure are
submitted by the Ministry to the House of Commons, sitting as a
Committee of Supply. This process is explained as follows.
“The member of the Administration representing the department
for which the supplies are required first explains to the
Committee such matters as may satisfy them of the correctness
and propriety of the estimates, and then proceeds to propose
each grant in succession, which is put from the Chair in these
words: ‘That a sum not exceeding ---- be granted to her Majesty,
for the object specified in the estimate.’ … The Committee of
Supply votes every sum which is granted annually for the public
service,--the army, the navy, the ordnance, and the several
civil departments.”[44]
At the close of the session all the grants are embodied in a bill,
which is known as “Appropriation Bill,” and, as it is kindred in
character to that under our system, doubtless has given its name to
ours. This bill is thus described:--
“It enumerates every grant made during the whole session, and
authorizes the several sums, as voted by the Committee of
Supply, to be issued and applied to each service.”[45]
Thus, on three grounds,--first, by the reason of the thing,--secondly,
by the familiar use in all the debates of the descriptive term, “money
bills,”--and, thirdly, by the example of England,--the conclusion is
inevitable, that “appropriation bills,” _by which the Government is
carried on_, are within the spirit of the interdict upon the Senate,
and that this body cannot originate such bills without violation of a
well-established principle inherited from English jurisprudence, and
also without _unhinging_, according to the language of Colonel Mason,
that compromise by virtue of which the small States are admitted to
equality of representation on this floor.
I am not unmindful of the fact, on which the Senator from Virginia has
dwelt so emphatically, that the Senate is in the habit of originating
pension bills, also bills for payment of private claims, and kindred
measures. I was glad, to-day, to vote for the bill originating in
this body for the relief of our late distinguished Minister at
Constantinople.[46] But against this usage, which is exceptional
in character, and has probably attracted little attention, from
its considerable convenience and little importance, may be opposed
the uniform practice by which the great bills providing for the
necessities of the Government have always originated in the House of
Representatives. And you will bear in mind, Sir, that the question is
now on these bills.
Mr. President, it is a received maxim, that it is the part of a good
judge to amplify his jurisdiction; but it will hardly be accepted,
that it is the part of the American Senate to amplify its powers,
particularly in derogation of the popular branch. And it surely cannot
escape observation, that the present effort is launched at a moment
when the popular branch promises to differ from the Senate on important
questions of national policy. I am not insensible to the public
convenience, which has been pressed in this debate; but permit me to
say, Sir, that, should this convenience require the proposed departure
from our standing policy, we shall be wise, if we hearken to the
counsels of the Senator from New York, and refrain from any innovation,
unless assured of the consent and coöperation of the other House.
RELIEF OF VESSELS IN DISTRESS ON THE COAST.
LETTER TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE EXCHANGE NEWS-ROOM, BOSTON, FEBRUARY 18,
1856.
SENATE CHAMBER, February 18, 1856.
DEAR SIR,--I have pleasure in acknowledging the receipt of the
memorial, forwarded by you from the underwriters and merchants
of Boston, and addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury,
asking the despatch of immediate relief to the large fleet of
vessels now distressed by the rigors of this severe winter on our
northern coast. It reached me Sunday morning; but its charitable
object did not allow delay, and on that day I placed the memorial
in the hands of the Secretary.
I have his verbal answer to-day, expressing great interest in
the object of the memorial, but saying, that, beyond the revenue
cutter, the Treasury Department has no vessel at Boston which can
be detached on this service, and that the cutter was directed
some weeks ago to do what it could for the relief of distressed
vessels.
Though the memorial was addressed to the Secretary of the
Treasury, I felt it my duty to apply to the Secretary of the
Navy. He entered into the plan with much benevolence, and
expressed a desire to do all that the means at his command
would permit. The only vessel at Boston in readiness is
the steam-frigate Merrimack, which is about to start on a
“trial-trip” of one week, previous to a cruise of six months.
This vessel has already been ordered to make the week’s voyage
direct from Boston to Norfolk; but the Secretary will give
directions that she shall proceed to the Great Banks as far as
can be judiciously done, under the circumstances, in order to
afford relief to vessels in distress. He would extend the cruise
to a longer term at once, but the contractors who have furnished
her engines have certain rights which he is bound to respect.
The Secretary authorizes me to say also that he will send further
relief, if possible.
I beg you to assure the memorialists that it will give me
pleasure to promote the objects of the memorial to the full
extent of my power.
Believe me, dear Sir, faithfully yours,
CHARLES SUMNER.
JOHN T. SMITH, Esq., Exchange News-Room.
THE EXAMPLE OF WASHINGTON AGAINST SLAVERY NOT TO BE FORGOTTEN NOW.
LETTER TO A COMMITTEE OF THE BOSTON MERCANTILE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION,
FEBRUARY 19, 1856.
WASHINGTON, February 19, 1856.
DEAR SIR,--I have been honored by your invitation to be with the
Mercantile Library Association on the 22d instant. You know well
the happiness I find in any coöperation with the young men of
that Association, and I need not assure you of the gratification
with which I should participate in any services calculated to
exalt the example of Washington.
Particularly at this moment should it be invoked, when the
Republic, which he helped to found, seems to shake with the
first throes of civil war, engendered by an interest which was
condemned by him during life and formally abjured by him at his
death. His great name should now be employed for the suppression
of that Slave Power which is the fruitful mother of so much
wretchedness. It will not be enough to quote his paternal words
for Union: his example must be arrayed against the gigantic wrong
which now disturbs this Union to its centre, and, in the madness
of its tyranny, destroys the very objects of Union.
The play of Othello without the part of Othello would be a barren
spectacle; and the example of Washington, without his testimony
against the malevolent force which disturbs the Republic, would
be hardly less barren. Let the young men of Boston be encouraged
to dwell on those sentiments and acts which, while they elevate
his name, apply with prevailing power to the existing state of
things among us. Let them bear in mind that he declared it to
be “_among his first wishes_ to see some plan adopted by which
Slavery in this country may be _abolished by law_,”--that, to
promote this purpose, he expressed a desire, in a recorded
interview with a distinguished foreigner, for the formation of
an Antislavery Society,--that on many occasions he condemned
Slavery,--that, in congratulations to Lafayette on his purchase
of a plantation with a view of emancipating the slaves on it,
he exclaimed, “Would to God a like spirit might diffuse itself
generally into the minds of the people of this country!”--and
that, finally, by his last will and testament, written within six
months of his death, he bore his practical testimony to those
ideas and aspirations, by the emancipation of his slaves. With
these things taken to heart, the example of Washington will exert
its just conservative influence over the country, holding it back
from the extension of that evil against which he set himself, and
arousing the general sentiment to repulse the aggressions which
now threaten civil war. Then, indeed, will the Father of his
Country have a new birth and influence.
Believe me, my dear Sir, very faithfully yours,
CHARLES SUMNER.
CHARLES G. CHASE, Esq., &c., &c., &c.
CONSTANT EXERTION AND UNION AMONG GOOD MEN.
LETTER TO A MASSACHUSETTS COMMITTEE, FEBRUARY 25, 1856.
The papers announce, that the following letter, when read, was
received with six rousing cheers.
SENATE CHAMBER, February 25, 1856.
MY DEAR SIR,--I cannot be present at the festival in
commemoration of the election of Mr. Banks as Speaker. My duties
will keep me here.
But with you I rejoice in this triumph of Freedom, which is the
first achieved in the National Government, since the recognition,
by the earliest Congress under Washington, of the Ordinance
prohibiting Slavery in the Northwestern Territory. To advance
this victory, and to obtain its just fruits, there must be no
relaxation of efforts, but constant exertion, with union among
good men, and a determination to yield no jot in the conflict.
To Massachusetts belongs an honorable place at the head of the
battle. May no treason or hesitation of any of her sons deprive
her of this post!
Yours, faithfully,
CHARLES SUMNER.
F. H. UNDERWOOD, Secretary, &c., &c.
THE ABROGATION OF TREATIES.
SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, MARCH 6 AND MAY 8, 1856.
The effort to obtain for the Senate the power to abrogate
treaties had peculiar interest at this time, from the known
desire of certain Senators to terminate the stipulation between
the United States and Great Britain, requiring a naval force on
the coast of Africa for the suppression of the slave-trade. In
1854 Mr. Slidell brought forward a proposition to this effect
in Executive Session, assuming that the stipulation could be
terminated by a simple vote of the Senate. Mr. Sumner insisted
that the prerogative belonged to the law-making power, and
could be exercised only by Act of Congress. By his effort the
proposition was defeated.
The power of the Senate over the abrogation of treaties was
brought forward in Legislative Session, on the motion of Mr.
Sumner, in connection with the Danish Sound dues, being the
tax at Elsinore laid by Denmark upon the cargoes of vessels
passing through the Sound into and out from the Baltic Sea.
In 1841, Mr. Webster, as Secretary of State, traced the
origin of this tax to the treaty of 1645 between Denmark and
Holland, embracing a tariff of the principal articles then
known in commerce; which treaty was the basis of our own
concluded with Denmark in 1826, and limited to continue ten
years from date, and further until the end of one year after
notice by either party of an intention to terminate it; but
he contented himself with recommending friendly negotiations,
“with a view of securing to the commerce of the United States
a full participation in any reduction of these duties, or the
benefits resulting from any new arrangements respecting them
which may be granted to the commerce of other states.”[47]
In 1848, Mr. Buchanan, as Secretary of State, instructed our
Minister at Copenhagen, that, “under the public law of nations,
it cannot be pretended that Denmark has any right to levy
duties on vessels passing through the Sound from the North Sea
to the Baltic.” President Pierce, in his annual message of
1854, proposed to terminate the treaty of 1826; the Senate,
by simple resolution in Executive Session, March 3, 1855,
undertook to terminate it; and the President, in his annual
message of 1855, announced that the proper notice had been
given to Denmark.[48]
Mr. Sumner, impressed with the conviction that this notice
was a bad precedent, and in the interest of the Slave Power,
which controlled the Senate, besides being inadequate under the
Constitution, brought forward the following resolution:--
“_Resolved_, That the Committee on Foreign Relations be
directed to consider the expediency of some act of legislation,
having the concurrence of both Houses of Congress, by which the
treaty with Denmark regulating the payment of Sound dues may be
effectively abrogated, in conformity with the requirements of
the Constitution, under which every treaty is a part of ‘the
supreme law of the land,’ and in conformity with the practice
of the Government in such cases,--and especially to consider
if such legislation be not necessary forthwith, in order to
supply a defect in the notice of the purpose of the United
States to abrogate the said treaty, which the President has
undertaken to give to Denmark without the authority of an Act
of Congress, and in disregard of the function of the House of
Representatives in the abrogation of all existing laws.”
On his motion the Senate proceeded to its consideration, March
6, when he spoke as follows.
MR. PRESIDENT,--If I can have the attention of the Senate for a brief
time, I will explain the object of this inquiry. The subject may be
dry, but it is important, and, at this moment, of direct practical
interest.
The President in his annual message named three different questions,
arising out of our relations with foreign nations. Two of these,
concerning England, have been discussed in the Senate; the other,
which concerns the payment of the Sound dues to Denmark, has not yet
been mentioned here. Introducing it now, I have no purpose to say
anything on the character of these dues, or to arrest the efforts of
the Government for the relief of our commerce from foreign exactions.
That is a broad field of history and of public law, which for the
present there is no occasion to enter. My desire is simply to open a
question of domestic interest under our own Constitution, with which,
of course, Denmark has no concern, but which is necessarily involved in
the determination of our course on this matter.
The President, in his annual message, announces:--
“In pursuance of the authority conferred by a resolution of the
Senate of the United States, passed on the 3d of March last,
notice was given to Denmark, on the 14th day of April, of the
intention of this Government to avail itself of the stipulation
of the subsisting convention of friendship, commerce, and
navigation, between that kingdom and the United States, whereby
_either party_ might, after ten years, terminate the same at
the expiration of one year from the date of notice for that
purpose.”[49]
The treaty, it will be noted, reserves to _either party_--that is, to
_either of the Governments_ between whom it is made--the privilege of
terminating it by notice; and the President, without the sanction of an
Act of Congress, but simply in pursuance of a resolution of the Senate,
passed in Executive Session, _has constituted himself the Government_,
so far as to give such notice, and by such notice to abrogate the
treaty. Acting under his instructions, our Minister at Copenhagen, on
the 14th of April, 1855, notified the Danish Government, that,--
“After the expiration of one year from the date of this
communication, the United States will regard the general
convention of ‘friendship, commerce, and navigation,’ agreed
upon by Denmark and themselves on the 26th of April, 1826, as
_finally abrogated_, and that after that period its provisions
will not be binding upon our Government.”[50]
Thus undertaking, merely with the consent of the Senate, and without
the concurrence of the House of Representatives, to abrogate a treaty,
the President has assumed a power inconsistent with the Constitution,
and disowned by the practice of the Government, adopted, after debate,
on leading occasions. Such a usurpation cannot be justified by the good
that is sought; for that good might have been sought, and may still be
sought, by another course, in entire harmony with the Constitution and
the practice of the Government. Nor will any temporary purpose justify
the removal of constitutional safeguards.
The Constitution declares that the President “_shall have power_,
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties,
provided two thirds of the Senators present concur”; but it does not
declare that the President, by and with the consent of the Senate,
shall have power to abrogate treaties. The absence of all language
conferring this extraordinary power is itself an unanswerable argument
against the existence of the power. But we are not left to found our
conclusion even on irresistible inference. There are explicit words
of the Constitution, which determine it beyond doubt. It is declared,
that--
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which
shall be made in pursuance thereof, AND ALL TREATIES MADE _or
which shall be made under the authority of the United States_,
SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.”
Thus declaring treaties to be “the supreme law of the land,” the
Constitution not only gives to them the highest authority, but places
them under the highest safeguard known to our institutions. When once
made, they are obligatory on our side as _laws_, and can be abrogated
by no power less than that which may abrogate existing laws. Not the
President alone, not the President and Senate, can set them aside; but
for this purpose the whole power of the Government must be invoked,
in its most solemn form, by Act of Congress. In conformity with
this requirement, the power to declare war, involving, of course,
the abrogation of treaties, is expressly lodged with Congress. The
President, with the consent of the Senate, cannot declare war; and it
is difficult to see what greater power he possesses in the abrogation
of a treaty, involving possibly the rupture of friendly intercourse
with a foreign nation, and involving certainly the overthrow of what
the Constitution declares to be the supreme law.
Thus placing treaties under all the sanctions of law, I follow the best
authorities. The eminent commentator, Mr. Justice Story, in speaking of
them, gives them this character. Expounding this very clause, he says:--
“It is therefore indispensable that they should have the
obligation and force of a law, that they may be executed by the
judicial power, _and be obeyed like other laws_. This will not
prevent them from being cancelled or abrogated by the nation,
upon grave and suitable occasions; for it will not be disputed
_that they are subject to the legislative power, and may be
repealed, like other laws, at its pleasure_.”[51]
And the Supreme Court of the United States affirm the same principle.
“A treaty is in its nature a contract between two nations,
not a legislative act.… In the United States a different
principle is established. _Our Constitution declares a
treaty to be the law of the land._ It is consequently to be
regarded in courts of justice as _equivalent to an Act of the
Legislature_, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid
of any legislative provision.”[52]
This is a decision comparatively recent. But early in our history the
authority of treaties was much considered by the Supreme Court, in the
famous case of _Ware_ v. _Hylton et al._, 3 Dallas, 199-285, and we
find judges from opposite sections of the country arriving at the same
conclusion. Mr. Justice Gushing, of Massachusetts, said:--
“The treaty … is of _equal force_ with the Constitution
itself, and _certainly with any law whatsoever_.”[53]
Mr. Justice Iredell, of North Carolina, passed directly upon the power
of Congress, asserting that to this body alone was given the power to
abrogate a treaty under our Constitution. These are his words:--
“It is a part of the Law of Nations, that, if a treaty be
violated by _one party_, it is at the option of _the other
party_, if innocent, to declare, in consequence of the breach,
that the treaty is void. _If Congress, therefore, who, I
conceive, alone have such authority under our Government_,
shall make such a declaration in any case like the present, I
shall deem it my duty to regard the treaty as void.”[54]
In practical illustration of the legal character attributed to
treaties, it will be observed that they are published with _the Laws of
the United States_, and constitute part of this collection, being bound
between the same covers; and I submit that the President and Senate
might undertake to tear out a leaf from the Statutes at Large with as
much propriety as to tear out an existing treaty.
Such is the rule of the Constitution, in conformity with which is the
practice of the country. Never before has the President assumed to act
without the House of Representatives in the performance of this duty.
* * * * *
This question arose early after the adoption of the Constitution, in
our relations with France; and you will find, Sir, on our statute-book
the evidence of the way in which it was regarded. In 1798, the existing
treaties with France were abrogated by Act of Congress, which, after a
preamble, proceeded as follows:--
“_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That
the United States are of right freed and exonerated from the
stipulations of the treaties and of the consular convention
heretofore concluded between the United States and France,
and that the same shall not henceforth be regarded as legally
obligatory on the Government or citizens of the United
States.”[55]
This very Act of Congress originated in the Senate, which at that
day undertook to exercise no such power as is now claimed. It was
not passed hastily, or without debate. The subject of our relations
with France was referred to a committee of that body on the 29th of
November, 1797. After the lapse of months, on the 21st of June, 1798,
Mr. Goodhue, from that committee, reported a bill to abrogate existing
treaties with that nation, which passed the Senate on the 23d of June,
by a vote of thirteen yeas to five nays. On the 25th it was carried to
the House of Representatives, where it was referred to the Committee
of the Whole on the State of the Union, fully debated, and finally
passed on the 6th of July. In the course of the debate, _treaties
were recognized as laws, to be abrogated only by Act of Congress_.
A Representative from Massachusetts, afterwards an eminent judicial
character, Mr. Sewall, put this point in these words:--
“It is certainly a novel doctrine to pass a law declaring
a treaty void; but the necessity arose from the peculiar
situation of this country. In most countries it is in the power
of the Chief Magistrate to suspend a treaty, whenever he thinks
proper. _Here Congress only has that power._”[56]
This view was in no respect controverted or questioned. On the
contrary, it was recognized by the whole debate. Mr. Dana, of
Connecticut, said:--
“France has violated the faith pledged by her treaties
with America. This, by the Law of Nations, _puts it within
the option of the Legislature to decide_, as a question of
expediency, whether the United States shall any longer continue
to observe their stipulations.”[57]
Mr. Gallatin, whose position in our public affairs was afterwards so
justly distinguished, employed the very language applicable to laws,
when he spoke of the proposed abrogation of the treaty as a _repeal_.
“He knew of no precedent of a Legislature _repealing a
treaty_. It is therefore an act of a peculiar kind, and it
appeared to him necessary that _Congress_ should justify it
by a declaration of their reasons.… It is not sufficient to
say, that, because a treaty has been violated, _we will repeal
it_.”[58]
Such is the first and leading precedent in our history. The next is
more recent, and of hardly less importance. It was the notice to Great
Britain of the termination of the convention of 1827, relating to the
joint occupancy of certain parts of Oregon. This was not done by the
President, with the advice of the Senate in secret session, but by Act
of Congress. President Polk, in his annual message of 2d December,
1845, called upon Congress to act. These are his words:--
“Under that convention, a year’s notice is required to be given
by _either party_ to the other, before the joint occupancy
shall terminate, and before either can rightfully assert
or exercise exclusive jurisdiction over any portion of the
territory. This notice it would, in my judgment, be proper to
give; _and I recommend that provision be made by law for giving
it accordingly_, and terminating in this manner the convention
of the 6th of August, 1827.”[59]
In pursuance of this recommendation, _provision was made by law for
this notice_. You will remember, Sir, the debate which for months
occupied both Houses of Congress, and was closed by the passage of a
joint resolution, approved 27th April, 1846, which, after a preamble,
proceeds as follows.
“_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That
the President of the United States be, and he is hereby,
authorized, at his discretion, to give to the Government of
Great Britain the notice required by the second article of
the said convention of the sixth of August, 1827, for the
abrogation of the same.”[60]
This instance is particularly in point; for the treaty was terminated,
in accordance with its stipulations, by notice from the United
States,--precisely as it is now proposed to terminate the treaty with
Denmark. And the notice given to Great Britain with regard to the
treaty is declared to be “for the abrogation of the same.”
Such, Sir, is the rule of the Constitution, sustained by authoritative
precedents, in the abrogation of successive treaties with two powerful
nations, France and Great Britain. Surely there cannot be one rule for
large nations and another for small nations; nor will any one argue
that a treaty with France or Great Britain can be abrogated only by
Act of Congress, but a treaty with Denmark may be abrogated by the
President without an Act of Congress. And yet, in apparent harmony with
this fallacious distinction, the Executive, merely with the consent
of the Senate, obtained in secret session, assumes to abrogate a
treaty with weaker Denmark, and has given notice that this abrogation
will take effect on the ensuing 14th of April. Not content with the
_treaty-making_ power which it possesses under the Constitution, it
assumes the _treaty-abrogating_ power, which it does not possess. And
this assumption becomes more objectionable, when it is considered how
completely it excludes the House of Representatives from an important
function in the Government. Louis the Fourteenth, in the pride of
conscious power, exclaimed, “I am the State”; and permit me to say,
that our own Executive, undertaking to act in this matter without
the sanction of Congress, effectively makes the same declaration. To
the Senate is justly accorded large powers; but it now assumes more.
Only lately it authorized the origination of the great appropriation
bills, constituting the mainspring of the Government, in defiance of
uninterrupted usage, and, as I submit, the spirit of the Constitution.
What next, Sir? “Glamis thou art, and Cawdor!” And where, Sir, in this
career of aggrandizement, will you stop?
Whatever may be the merits of the existing controversy with Denmark,
I trust that the President will not clutch so eagerly at the promised
fruits as to disregard the requirement of the Constitution, and the
voice of the popular branch, in the repeal of an existing law. In vain
you will urge the good accomplished. To do even a great right, it is
not safe to do even a little wrong. At all events, I call attention
to this extraordinary assumption, that it may not be recorded for a
precedent. I call attention to it, also, that the needful steps may be
taken forthwith, in order to make effective the notice which has been
given, without due authority under the Constitution. The treaty with
Denmark is at this moment part of the supreme law of the land, and can
be abrogated only by Act of Congress.
A debate ensued, in which the conclusions of Mr. Sumner were
maintained by Mr. Seward, of New York, Mr. Fessenden, of
Maine, Mr. Collamer, of Vermont, Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky,
and Mr. Stuart, of Michigan,--and controverted by Mr. Mason,
of Virginia, Mr. Toucey, of Connecticut, and Mr. Cass, of
Michigan. Mr. Mason proposed to amend the pending resolution by
striking out the second clause, which amendment Mr. Sumner at
once accepted, and closed the debate as follows.
MR. PRESIDENT,--My desire is simply to bring the question before the
Committee, and, to accomplish this, I shall not stand on the form of
the resolution. I am aware that it is argumentative, and involves,
perhaps, a reflection upon the course of the Executive; but I adopted
this form purposely, from a desire that the resolution should tell
the whole story on its face, and speak for itself. The ample debate
that has occurred supersedes all such desire. The subject is fully
before the Senate, and I doubt not will receive the attention of the
Committee.
In introducing this question, I remarked that it was of domestic
concern under our own Constitution, with which, of course, Denmark
has nothing to do. All references, therefore, to that power have
been superfluous, if not illogical. Her consent is not sought in
the proposed termination of the treaty. On the contrary, it will be
terminated against her desires. We must look for our rule of conduct to
our own Constitution. This I assume as an undeniable postulate.
The discussion, though protracted, has not been unprofitable; but at
each stage we have been brought back to the clear and unmistakable
distinction between the power to make treaties and the power to
abrogate them, under the Constitution. The President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, may make treaties; but there is
nothing in our Constitution conferring upon them the power to abrogate
treaties. To attribute to them any such power is to go beyond the
Constitution. Nor has any Senator distinctly, and in terms, claimed
for them this power. On the contrary, I think that Senators on the
other side--both the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from
Connecticut--admit that a treaty cannot be abrogated, except by virtue
of an Act of Congress. I understood the Senator from Connecticut to
make this admission, and I believe the Senator from Virginia did also.
MR. MASON nodded assent.
MR. TOUCEY. I mean, except by Act of Congress or a new treaty.
MR. SUMNER. I put aside the whole idea of a new treaty, constituting in
itself a new transaction, and involving the concurrence of the foreign
power. The President and Senate, with the concurrence of a foreign
power, may, of course, make a new treaty; but we are now dealing with
the case where the whole proceeding is without any such concurrence.
The question does not turn on the _treaty-making_ power, but on the
_treaty-abrogating_ power. And I come back again to the admission of
both Senators, that a treaty can be abrogated only by Act of Congress.
This admission is important, and, as it seems to me, conclusive.
But here a distinction is made by these Senators between treaties
which contain no provision for their termination and treaties which
contain such provision. And I understand the Senator from Virginia to
maintain that a treaty terminated in pursuance of such a provision
is not _abrogated_. This is strange; for in both cases the treaty
is brought to an end by our special intervention, and this is done
_without the concurrence of the other contracting party_. If this is
not the abrogation of a treaty, I do not see what can be. You may, if
you choose, call it by a softer term, but still it is the same thing.
The treaty is invalidated, or made to cease. But I will not argue this
question. I submit to Senators opposite, who have maintained their
views with so much constancy, that their position is not tenable; I say
this frankly, but with entire respect for their learning and ability.
The same power must be invoked to terminate a treaty containing a
provision for its termination, on notice from _either party_, as to
terminate a treaty containing no such provision; and in both cases the
treaty may properly be said to be abrogated. The single distinction
between the two cases is, that the treaty in one case is abrogated
in defiance of the other party, and perhaps on hostile ground, while
in the other case it is abrogated in pursuance of a power specially
reserved, and therefore without any just cause of offence; but in both
cases the life of the treaty is destroyed by our act. Permit me to add,
that the distinction made between these two classes is a distinction
without a difference, and the admission that a treaty can be abrogated
only by Act of Congress is as applicable to one class as to the other:
it settles the question.
I rest, then, confidently in the conclusion, that a treaty is part
of the supreme law of the land, and cannot be set aside, terminated,
superseded, disclaimed, repealed, or abrogated, except by the exercise
of the highest power known to the Constitution, embodying the collected
will of the whole people in a legislative act, under the sanction
of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in
Congress assembled.
The resolution, as modified, was adopted.
On the 7th of April, Mr. Mason, from the Committee on Foreign
Relations, reported the following resolution.
“_Resolved_, That the notice which has been given by
the President to Denmark, pursuant to the resolution of
the Senate of the 3d of March, 1855, to terminate the
treaty with that power of the 26th of April in the year
1826, is sufficient to cause such treaty to terminate and
be annulled to all intents whatsoever, pursuant to the
eleventh article thereof, and that no other or further act
of legislation is necessary to put an end to said treaty,
as part of the law of the land.”
This was considered May 8th, 1856, when Mr. Sumner spoke as
follows.
Mr. President,--As this subject was originally brought before the
Senate on my motion, I hope to be indulged while I state briefly what
seems to be the true state of the question.
By the usage of most countries, the war-making power, the
treaty-making power, and the treaty-abrogating power are all lodged in
one and the same body. For instance, in England, the Queen in council
declares war, makes treaties, and also abrogates treaties: so also do
the other sovereigns of Europe. This is the growth of custom, and has
become European constitutional law. But it is otherwise in the United
States, where, according to the Constitution, the war-making power
is expressly lodged in Congress, while the treaty-making power is
expressly lodged in the President, acting with the advice of two thirds
of the Senate. Nothing express appears in the Constitution with regard
to the treaty-abrogating power. We are left to argument and inference,
in order to ascertain whether this great attribute belongs with the
war-making power to Congress, or with the treaty-making power to the
President and Senate.
To me there are three considerations, each of which seems to be
decisive, while the three combined compel us irresistibly to the true
conclusion.
_First._ In the absence of any express words in the Constitution,
the power to abrogate treaties should not be attributed to any _mere
fraction_ of the Government, as to the President, or to the President
and Senate, nor to any branches short of the whole Government embodied
in an Act of Congress. In view of the magnitude of the power, I am at a
loss to see how any other conclusion can be adopted on this point.
_Secondly._ The Constitution has expressly lodged the war-making power
in Congress, and, in doing so, seems by implication to have placed the
treaty-abrogating power in the same body; for the latter seems to be an
incident of the former. The abrogation of a treaty may be the prelude
of war; indeed, it may practically amount to a declaration of war.
The powers, though differing in degree, are kindred in character, and
should go together.
_Thirdly._ The Constitution has stepped forward, and expressly declared
that treaties shall be “the supreme law of the land”; and I know no
way in which these words can have complete efficacy, unless they are
held to impress upon treaties _the character of law, so that they will
not only be recognized as such by the courts, but also be irrepealable
except by Act of Congress_.
And this conclusion is confirmed by the practice of the Government
on two important occasions, in abrogating all subsisting treaties
with France in 1798, and in abrogating the convention with England
relating to Oregon as late as 1846. I do not dwell on these instances,
or their authoritative character; for I went over them at length on a
former occasion. Now, for the first time in our history, an opposite
practice is adopted, contrary to precedents, and also, as it seems
to me, contrary to reason. It is proposed to terminate a subsisting
treaty with Denmark, establishing reciprocal privileges of trade,
and especially regulating the payment of Sound dues, without any Act
of Congress, but simply by virtue of a resolution of the Senate. The
novelty of this course creates an impression against it. But this is
vindicated by the Committee on Foreign Relations, in an elaborate
report, on the ground of a peculiar provision in the treaty, as follows.
“The present convention shall be in force for ten years from
the date hereof, and further until the end of one year _after
either of the contracting parties_ shall have given notice
to the other of its intention to terminate the same,--_each
of the contracting parties_ reserving to itself the right of
giving such notice _to the other_ at the end of the said term
of ten years; and it is hereby agreed between them, that, on
the expiration of one year after such notice shall have been
received _by either from the other party_, this convention
and all the provisions thereof shall altogether cease and
determine.”
It is admitted, as I understand, that, without this provision, the
treaty could not be terminated, except by Act of Congress; but it
is said, that, under this provision, no such Act is required. It is
difficult to understand the ground of this distinction; for there is
nothing in this provision to take power from Congress and confer it
upon the Senate alone. Point out the words, if they exist. They are not
there. How, then, can you infer them? The treaty is to be terminated
on notice from _either party_; and this notice must proceed from _the
same power_ which, in the absence of such provision, would be competent
to act. The mode of action is different, but _the acting power_ is the
same in both cases.
This treaty may be terminated on notice from “either of the contracting
parties.” In other treaties, having a similar provision, other
equivalent terms are employed: as in the treaty with Greece in 1837,
and with Sardinia in 1838, where the term “high contracting parties”
is employed; the treaty with Hanover in 1840, and with the Hanseatic
Republics in 1852, where the term “Government of the United States on
the one part” is employed; and, again, in the treaty with New Granada
in 1844, where the term “one of the two Governments” is employed. These
terms are all identical in meaning; and they signify that the notice in
all cases must be _an act of the Government_.
Who, then, for this purpose, is the Government, under the Constitution
of the United States? Surely, the power that can abrogate a treaty,
and nothing short of this; and this power, we have already seen, is
represented by an Act of Congress alone.
The Committee in their report, undertake to set forth the difference
between treaties which contain no provision for their termination and
those which do contain such provision, as follows.
“The distinction in the character of the acts, in the one class
of treaties and in the other, consists in this: that in the
first class, as in the treaties with France in 1798, they were
annulled as to the other party, _se invito_; in the second, in
the case with England, they became null with the assent of that
power previously given.”
Permit me to say that this does not seem to be a correct statement of
the difference between the two classes; for in both cases the treaties
were annulled contrary to the desire of the opposite party; and it is
notorious that the pending proceedings to annul the treaty with Denmark
are contrary to the desire of that power. No, Sir: the difference
between the two cases must be found in something else, which seems to
me palpable and unmistakable. It is this.
By the Law of Nations, in the absence of any express stipulation, a
treaty is of perpetual obligation on both parties,--to be abrogated
only by a new treaty having the assent of both parties, or by the act
of one party, alleging bad faith or hostile intent in the other, and on
this account declaring before the civilized world a release from all
its obligations. Such an act not only operates upon the other party _in
invitum_, but it is also _offensive in character_. But if any express
stipulation is introduced, authorizing the termination of the treaty
on notice from either party, then it may be abrogated in conformity to
the stipulation, even contrary to the desire of the opposite party,
_without giving cause of offence_; and this will be found to be the
sole practical distinction between the two cases. In both, the same
_power_ must be invoked; but it acts in different ways.
The question in the present case is of importance in two aspects:
_first_, as it involves the determination of a question of political
power under our Constitution; and, _secondly_, as it may affect the
interest of private individuals.
In the first aspect, the question would not be unimportant,
constitutionally, if the treaty with Denmark were the only one affected
by it; but the frequency of the provision in recent treaties adds to
its interest. Unknown in early days, it makes its first appearance as
late as 1822 in a treaty with France, and then in 1826 in this very
treaty with Denmark; but it has been repeated constantly since. Here is
a list, now in my hand, of no less than _forty-six_ different treaties
of the United States with _thirty-two_ different foreign powers, in
which this provision will be found. Among these is the important
stipulation with Great Britain, under which a squadron is kept on the
coast of Africa for the suppression of the slave-trade; and you are now
to determine whether the Senate will assume to itself the extraordinary
power now claimed over all these treaties, or will leave it in the
hands of Cong
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/48035