Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 06 (of 20)

by Charles Sumner · English · Gutenberg #48045 · 711,490 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 06 (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 06 (of 20)

Author: Charles Sumner

Release date: January 22, 2015 [eBook #48045]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48045

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 06 (OF 20) ***

[Illustration: A. W. Elson & Co. Boston: JAMES BUCHANAN]

Statesman Edition VOL. VI

Charles Sumner

HIS COMPLETE WORKS

With Introduction
BY
HON. GEORGE FRISBIE HOAR

[Illustration]

BOSTON
LEE AND SHEPARD
MCM

Statesman Edition.
LIMITED TO ONE THOUSAND COPIES.
OF WHICH THIS IS
No. 565

Norwood Press:
NORWOOD, MASS., U.S.A.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME VI.

PAGE

APPEAL FOR THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES. Letter to the Republican
Committee at Boston, June 21, 1856 1

LONGING FOR RESTORATION TO ACTIVE DUTIES, WITH APPEAL TO THE
YOUNG MEN OF MASSACHUSETTS. Letter to the Committee of a Young
Men’s Convention at Fitchburg, August 5, 1856 6

APPEAL TO THE REPUBLICANS OF RHODE ISLAND. Letter to a
Committee, September 4, 1856 9

CONTRIBUTION FOR KANSAS. Letter to Messrs. Greeley and
McElrath, of the New York Tribune, September 23, 1856 10

REGRET FOR CONTINUED DISABILITY. Letter to Hon. Lewis D.
Campbell, of Ohio, September 24, 1856 11

EFFECT OF A VOTE FOR BUCHANAN: APPEAL TO THE REPUBLICANS OF
ILLINOIS. Letter to a Committee of Republicans at Joliet,
October 2, 1856 13

APPEAL FOR THE REPUBLICAN CAUSE. Letter to a Committee of
Hudson River Counties, Poughkeepsie, New York, October 3, 1856 15

RELIEF FOR KANSAS. Letter to a Committee of the Kansas Aid
Society at Boston, October 3, 1856 18

DUTY TO VOTE FOR KANSAS AND FOR BURLINGAME. Letter to a Meeting
at Faneuil Hall, October 29, 1856 20

PUBLIC RECEPTION OF MR. SUMNER, ON HIS RETURN TO BOSTON: WITH
THE SPEECHES: November 3, 1856 22

AID FOR KANSAS. Letter to Hon. M. F. Conway, November 17, 1856 40

CONGRATULATION ON REËLECTION OF ANSON BURLINGAME AS
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS. Letter to a Banquet at Faneuil
Hall, November 24, 1856 41

THE LATE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OUR BUNKER HILL. Letter to a
Committee at Worcester, November 24, 1856 43

LET MASSACHUSETTS HELP KANSAS. Letter to James Redpath, Esq.,
January 10, 1857 44

ACCEPTANCE OF SENATORSHIP, ON REËLECTION. Letter to the
Legislature of Massachusetts, January 22, 1857 46

GRATITUDE FOR SYMPATHY OF THE PEOPLE OF VERMONT. Letter to Hon.
Ryland Fletcher, Governor of Vermont, March 7, 1857 52

A LAST WORD FOR KANSAS, ON SAILING FOR EUROPE. Letter to James
Redpath, Esq., March 7, 1857 54

INVITATION TO DINNER BY AMERICAN MERCHANTS IN PARIS. Letter to
the American Merchants at Paris, April 20, 1857 56

OUR POLITICS SEEN FROM A DISTANCE. Letter to a Friend, dated
Heidelberg, September 11, 1857 60

FAREWELL ON SAILING FOR EUROPE A SECOND TIME IN QUEST OF
HEALTH. Letter to the People of Massachusetts, on Board Steamer
Vanderbilt, New York Harbor, May 22, 1858 62

HONOR TO THE INVENTOR OF THE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH. Letter to
Professor Morse, in excusing himself from a Dinner at Paris,
August 17, 1858 64

LONGING FOR DUTIES OF POSITION. From a Letter to a Friend,
dated at Aix, Savoy, September 11, 1858 65

INDEPENDENCE AND UNITY OF ITALY. Letter to a Public Meeting at
New York, February 17, 1860 67

TWO LESSONS FROM THE LIFE OF WASHINGTON. Letter to the
Washington Monument Association of the First School District of
Philadelphia, February 21, 1860 70

MACAULAY ON SLAVERY. Communication to the New York Tribune,
March 3, 1860 71

STATUE OF HORACE MANN. Letter to Dr. Samuel G. Howe, March 5,
1860 78

USURPATION OF THE SENATE IN IMPRISONING A CITIZEN. Two
Speeches, on the Imprisonment of Thaddeus Hyatt for refusing
to testify in the Harper’s Ferry Investigation, in the Senate,
March 12, and June 15, 1860 80

ABOLITION OF CUSTOM-HOUSE OATHS. Resolution in the Senate,
March 15, 1860 95

BOSTON COMMON, AND ITS EXTENSION. Letter to George H. Snelling,
Esq., of Boston, March 26, 1860 96

ATTEMPT TO KIDNAP A CITIZEN UNDER ORDER OF THE SENATE. The Case
of Frank B. Sanborn, of Concord, Massachusetts, with Speeches
in the Senate, April 10, 13, and 16, 1860 99

PETITIONS AGAINST SLAVERY. Speech in the Senate, April 18,
1860 106

SAFETY OF PASSENGERS IN STEAMSHIPS FOR CALIFORNIA. Resolution
and Remarks in the Senate, May 21, 1860 109

CANDIDATES WHO ARE A PLATFORM. Letter to a Ratification Meeting
at Buffalo, New York, May 30, 1860 111

THE BARBARISM OF SLAVERY. Speech in the Senate, on Bill for
Admission of Kansas as a Free State, June 4, 1860 113

A VICTORY OF PRINCIPLE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. Letter to
a Public Meeting at Middleborough, Massachusetts, June 11,
1860 287

REFUSAL TO COLORED PERSONS OF RIGHT OF PETITION. Notes of
Undelivered Speech in the Senate, on Resolution refusing to
receive Petition from Citizens of Massachusetts of African
Descent, June 15, 1860 288

THE LATE HONORABLE JOHN SCHWARTZ, OF PENNSYLVANIA. Speech in
the Senate, on Resolutions in Tribute to him, June 21, 1860 300

UNHESITATING ASSERTION OF OUR PRINCIPLES. Letter to the
Republicans of New York City, June 27, 1860 302

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY: ITS ORIGIN, NECESSITY, AND PERMANENCE.
Speech before the Young Men’s Republican Union of New York, at
Cooper Institute, July 11, 1860 303

OUR CANDIDATES WILL BE ELECTED. Letter to the Lincoln and
Hamlin Club of Owego, New York, July 30, 1860 342

EMANCIPATION IN THE BRITISH WEST INDIES A BLESSING, AND
NOT A FAILURE. Letter to a Public Meeting at Framingham,
Massachusetts, July 30, 1860 343

SLAVERY A BARBAROUS DISEASE TO BE STAYED. Letter to a
Republican Meeting at the Dedication of the Republican Wigwam
in New York, August 6, 1860 346

TRIBUTE TO A COLLEGE CLASSMATE. Remarks on the Late John W.
Browne, August 20, 1860 348

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AND THE ISSUES. Speech at the State
Convention of the Republican Party at Worcester, August 29,
1860 352

APPEAL FOR THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES.

LETTER TO THE REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE AT BOSTON, JUNE 21, 1856.

The selection of a Republican candidate for the Presidency gave
rise to the customary discussion in the newspapers, in the
course of which the _New York Tribune_, under date of June 6,
1856, expressed itself as follows.

“The People’s Convention, which assembles at Philadelphia
on the 17th instant, will be called first to decide this
question: _Can the opponents of Slavery Extension elect
whomsoever they may choose to nominate?_ If, on a careful
comparison of views, this question can be confidently
answered in the affirmative, we have next to consider who,
by early, earnest, faithful, protracted, unswerving service
to the cause, has done most for the triumph of Humanity
and Impartial Freedom; and in that view but three names
can be seriously considered, namely, those of WILLIAM H.
SEWARD, of New York, SALMON P. CHASE, of Ohio, and CHARLES
SUMNER, of Massachusetts. They are all capable, reliable,
and deserving, and either of them would worthily fill the
highest office in the Republic. We will not weigh their
respective claims, but we shall support to the utmost
of our ability whichever (if either) of them shall be
nominated.”

The Republican National Convention assembled at Philadelphia,
June 17, 1856, and chose Henry S. Lane, of Indiana, as
presiding officer. At an informal ballot for President there
were 359 votes for John C. Fremont and 196 for John McLean; New
York also gave two votes for Mr. Sumner and one for Mr. Seward.
Mr. Fremont was thereupon nominated unanimously. At an informal
ballot for Vice-President there were 259 votes for William L.
Dayton, 110 for Abraham Lincoln, 46 for N. P. Banks, 43 for
David Wilmot, 35 for Charles Sumner, 15 for Jacob Collamer, 9
for John A. King, 8 for S. C. Pomeroy, 7 for Thomas Ford, 5
for Henry Wilson, 4 for Cassius M. Clay, 3 for Henry C. Carey,
2 for J. R. Giddings, 2 for W. F. Johnston, and 1 for A. C.
M. Pennington. On a formal ballot, Mr. Dayton was nominated
unanimously.

Mr. Sumner, who was at the time a guest of Francis P. Blair, at
his place near Washington, addressed the following letter to a
meeting at Faneuil Hall, in Boston, for the ratification of the
nominations.

SILVER SPRING (near WASHINGTON), June 21, 1856.

MY DEAR SIR,--I am not strong enough for public speaking, even if
I were strong enough for a journey to Boston. Besides, my duties
in the Senate have the first claim upon me, and to them I must
give my first returning strength. Therefore am I constrained to
decline the invitation with which you have honored me.

But I am strong enough to send from my present retreat a brief
expression of cordial concurrence in the nominations made by the
People’s Convention at Philadelphia, and also of the gladness
with which I shall support them, by voice and vote, with mind and
heart.

I have long honored Colonel Fremont for his genius in
geographical enterprise, his eminent intelligence, his manly
fortitude, his perfect integrity, and his easy command of
men,--swaying to his own beneficent purpose even the savages of
the forest, while Nature herself, in her winter fastnesses, bowed
before his march. It is well, at this moment, when a Great Crime
is instigated and sustained by the National Government, that
such a man, with courage which will not be questioned, and with
sensitiveness to right which will not rest, should be summoned to
grapple with the wrong-doers. And permit me to say that I find no
force in the objection that he has never been a _politician_.

Your candidate for Vice-President is worthy to enjoy the same
enthusiastic support. As lawyer, as judge, and as Senator, Mr.
Dayton has been conspicuous for character and ability; and I
rejoice to believe that he will soon have a larger field of
activity, where these can be employed for the good of our common
country, while the Senate, which is the stronghold of Human
Slavery, will be compelled to receive as its presiding officer a
representative of Human Freedom.

But better even than the candidates is the Declaration of
Principles, under which we now go forth to conquer. Such a
Declaration, promulgated by such a Convention, is in itself the
beginning of victory. Strong in simplicity and truthfulness, it
must prevail just so soon as it is comprehended. It expresses
objects which should enlist the Conservative, while they enlist
the Reformer,--which should rally all who turn with respect to
the example of the Fathers, while they rally all who are filled
with aspirations for a brighter future on earth. It proposes to
save Kansas from the revolting usurpation established in that
fair Territory, and in this good work it joins issue with the
Slave Oligarchy, now swaying our whole country; so that, in
saving Kansas, we shall necessarily overthrow this Despotism,
and save ourselves. For support, it appeals to all, without
distinction of party, who love their country. It appeals to the
true Democrat, whose democracy is founded on the recognition of
Human Rights; it appeals to the true Whig, who is animated by
that hatred of despotic power which inspired those who earliest
wore the name; it appeals to the true American, who is ready to
forget all other questions for the sake of union to save Liberty
endangered; and it appeals to the foreign-born, who, rejoicing in
the privileges of American citizens, will not hesitate to join in
this holy endeavor to vindicate them against the aggressions of
an Oligarchy worse than any tyranny from which they have fled. In
this appeal all former differences are forgotten, while men,

“Erewhile that stood aloof, as shy to meet,
Familiar mingle here, like sister streams
That some rude interposing rock has split.”

In this contest there is every motive to union, and also every
motive to exertion. _Now or never! now and forever!_--such was
the ancient war-cry, which, embroidered on the Irish flag,
streamed from the Castle of Dublin, and resounded through the
whole island, arousing a generous people to new struggle for
ancient rights; and this war-cry may be fitly inscribed on our
standard now. _Arise now, or an inexorable slave-driving Tyranny
will be fastened upon you. Arise now, and Liberty will be secured
forever._

Present my regards to your associates in the good cause, and
believe me, my dear Sir,

Always faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

SETH WEBB, JR., Esq.

LONGING FOR RESTORATION TO ACTIVE DUTIES,

WITH APPEAL TO THE YOUNG MEN OF MASSACHUSETTS.

LETTER TO THE COMMITTEE OF A YOUNG MEN’S CONVENTION AT FITCHBURG,
AUGUST 5, 1856.

CRESSON, ALLEGHANY MOUNTAINS, PA.,
August 5, 1856.

DEAR SIR,--I wish that I could be with the young men of
Massachusetts at their proposed Convention, but I am so feeble
still that I am constrained to turn away from all temptations and
opportunities of labor. In writing this letter I infringe a rule
prescribed by my physician.

We have been told that “the duties of life are more than life”;
and I assure you that the hardest part of my present lot is the
enforced absence from public duties, and especially from that
seat where, as a Senator from Massachusetts, it is my right,
and also my strong desire at this moment, to be heard. But in
the coolness of the mountain retreat where I now am, I begin
to gather hope of returning strength,--if too tardily for the
performance of any public duties during the session of Congress
now about to close, yet in season to take part in the rally of
the people for the protection of Liberty in Kansas, and for the
overthrow of the oligarchical Tyranny which now degrades our
Republic.

Meanwhile I commit the cause which we have at heart to the
generous sympathies of the people, who will surely rise to
smite the oppressor. Especially do I invoke the young. They are
the natural guardians of Liberty. Thus has it been throughout
all history; and never before in history did Liberty stand in
greater need of their irresistible aid. It is the young who
give spontaneous welcome to Truth, when she first appears an
unattended stranger. It is the young who open the soul with
instinctive hospitality to the noble cause. The young men of
Massachusetts act under natural impulses, when they step forward
as body-guard of the Republican party.

The great discoverer Harvey, on announcing the circulation of the
blood, was astonished to find that no person _upward of forty_
received this important truth. The young only embraced it. More
fortunate than this discovery, our cause rallies in its support
alike the experience of age and the ardor of youth; but it is
in the glowing embrace of the young that it finds assurance of
victory.

Were I able to make myself heard throughout the land, I would
say to the young men everywhere who truly love Liberty: “Your
candidate has been the renowned pioneer of civilization in
unsettled wastes: associate yourselves with him now as pioneers
of Liberty in the National Government; help him unfurl at
Washington the flag which he first unfurled on the peaks of the
Rocky Mountains; and be copartners with him in the glory of
redeeming our beloved country.”

Present to the young men of Massachusetts, whom you represent,
the assurance of my sincere interest in their happiness and
welfare, and believe me, my dear Sir, with much regard,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

GEORGE H. HOYT, Esq., of the Committee, &c.

APPEAL TO THE REPUBLICANS OF RHODE ISLAND.

LETTER TO A COMMITTEE, SEPTEMBER 4, 1856.

CRESSON, ALLEGHANY MOUNTAINS, PA.,
September 4, 1856.

DEAR SIR,--Were I well, I should regard your letter as a summons.
But I am still in the hands of physicians, by whom I am carefully
warned against all public effort. Most reluctantly, at this
period of our country’s trial, do I submit.

Accept for the Convention which will assemble at Providence my
best wishes. Let it apply itself with earnestness, diligence,
and singleness of purpose to the rescue of our fair land from
the tyranny which now degrades it. Here is room for all,--the
aged and the young, the Conservative and the Reformer. Surely,
Rhode Island, if not utterly disloyal to herself, if not utterly
disloyal to New England civilization, if not utterly disloyal to
the Republic of which she constitutes a part, will rise up as one
man and insist that Kansas shall be secured to Liberty, and that
the Slave Oligarchy shall be driven from its usurped foothold in
the National Government. At all events, this State, first planted
by the Author of Religious Freedom, will see that Human Rights do
not suffer through the votes of her children.

Believe me, my dear Sir, faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

CONTRIBUTION FOR KANSAS.

LETTER TO MESSRS. GREELEY AND MCELRATH, OF THE NEW YORK TRIBUNE,
SEPTEMBER 23, 1856.

MESSRS. GREELEY AND MCELRATH:--

I have watched with interest your generous fund for the relief
and liberation of Kansas, now insulted, trodden down, torn, and
enslaved by the President of the United States, acting as the
tool of the tyrannical Slave Oligarchy. To other funds for this
important charity I have already given according to my small
means; but, as a constant reader of the “Tribune,” I cannot miss
the opportunity which you afford to protest anew against an
unparalleled Crime, and to contribute anew to its mitigation.
Please to accept the check which I enclose for one hundred
dollars. I wish it were more, when so much is needed.

Believe me, Gentlemen, your faithful servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

PHILADELPHIA, September 23, 1856.

REGRET FOR CONTINUED DISABILITY.

LETTER TO HON. LEWIS D. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO, SEPTEMBER 24, 1856.

HAMILTON, Monday, September 29, 1856.

EDITORS OF THE CINCINNATI GAZETTE:--

Tens of thousands of the Friends of Freedom were anxious to meet
Senator Sumner at this place on Friday last. Many went away
disappointed. I had assured the Committee of Arrangements, that,
if the state of his health permitted, he would attend the meeting.

I have just received the enclosed private letter, which I venture
to hand for publication, that those who were disappointed may
understand and appreciate the cause of his non-attendance. It
is in answer to a letter in which I urged Mr. Sumner to spend a
fortnight in the Miami Valley for recreation, and to appear at
the Hamilton meeting, even if his health should not permit him to
speak.

Very truly yours, &c.

LEWIS D. CAMPBELL.

* * * * *

PHILADELPHIA, Wednesday, September 24, 1856.

MY DEAR SIR,--Your letter of the 9th of September, after
travelling to Boston, at last found me here, where I am still
detained under medical treatment, away from my home, which I have
not visited since I left it at the beginning of the late session
of Congress, now ten months ago.

With sorrow inexpressible, I am still constrained to all the
care and reserve of an invalid. More than four months have
passed since you clasped my hand as I lay bleeding at the Senate
Chamber, and my system is even now so far from the firmness of
health that any departure from the prescribed rule is sure to
occasion a relapse. I could not reach Ohio except by slow stages;
and were I there, I should not have the sanction of my physician
in exposing myself to the excitements of a public meeting, even
if I said nothing. This is hard, very hard, for me to bear; for I
long to do something at this critical moment for the cause. What
is life without action?

For a while, at least, I must leave to others the precious
satisfaction of laboring for Liberty and the redemption of our
country. But I have the comfort of knowing that never before was
I so little needed.

God bless Ohio for her glorious testimony already, and her more
glorious promises!

Believe me, my dear Sir, very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

HON. LEWIS D. CAMPBELL, Hamilton, Ohio.

EFFECT OF A VOTE FOR BUCHANAN:

APPEAL TO THE REPUBLICANS OF ILLINOIS.

LETTER TO A COMMITTEE OF REPUBLICANS AT JOLIET, OCTOBER 2, 1856.

The local paper reports that this letter “was received with
tremendous applause.”

PHILADELPHIA, October 2, 1856.

DEAR SIR,--I am sorry that I cannot be with the Republicans
of Illinois at Joliet on the 8th of October, according to the
invitation with which they have honored me; but inexorable,
long-continued disability and the admonitions of medical skill
keep me back still from all public effort, and even from return
to my home, which I have not visited for more than ten months.

It is hard to renounce the opportunity which you offer me; for
I have constantly hoped to visit Illinois during the present
contest, and in plain language put to her people the questions
which they are to decide by their votes. These are all involved
in the Freedom of Kansas, but they are manifold in form.

Are you _against_ the extension of Slavery? If _yea_, then vote
for Fremont.

Are you especially _against_ the extension of Slavery BY FORCE?
If _yea_, then vote for Fremont.

Are you _against_ the erection of the Slave Oligarchy as the
dominant power in our Republic? If _yea_, then vote for Fremont.

Are you _against_ the violation of the constitutional rights of
American citizens? If _yea_, then vote for Fremont.

Audacious sophistry, often exposed, but still flaunting abroad,
may seek to deceive you. It may foam with abuse and bristle with
perversion of fact; but it cannot obscure the unquestionable
truth, which now stares everybody in the face, that a vote for
Buchanan is a vote for all these bad things. _It is a vote not
simply for the extension of Slavery, but also for the extension
of Slavery_ BY FORCE, involving, besides, the erection of the
Slave Oligarchy as the dominant power in our Republic, and the
violation of the constitutional rights of American citizens.
Surely, Illinois will not be led to sanction such enormities.
Hers will be the path of Liberty, which is, of course, the path
of true patriotism. Through her agency incalculable harm has
already come to the Republic; but I cannot forget that she has
begun a glorious reparation, by introducing to the National
Councils a Senator of rare skill in debate, of sweetest purity of
character, and of perfect loyalty to those principles by which
Liberty will be secured, and our good name extended in history.
I refer to Mr. Trumbull, who now belongs to the whole country,
which is justly grateful for his eminent services. With his
example before her, Illinois cannot wander again into the support
of Slavery.

Give to the Republicans of Illinois my hearty God-speed, and let
my absence speak to them.

Ever faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO HON. J. O. NORTON.

APPEAL FOR THE REPUBLICAN CAUSE.

LETTER TO A COMMITTEE OF HUDSON RIVER COUNTIES, POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW YORK,
OCTOBER 3, 1856.

PHILADELPHIA, October 3, 1856.

DEAR SIR,--Among valued opportunities, which, by the dictation of
my physician and the admonitions of continued ill-health, I am
constrained to forego, is that afforded by the invitation, with
which I have been honored, to meet the Republicans of the Hudson
River Counties at Poughkeepsie. They will, I trust, believe me
not indifferent to their kindness, or to the cause in whose name
they are to assemble.

Nothing but necessity could keep me thus aloof, a mere looker-on,
while the great battle of Freedom is waged. The pleasure of the
sight to a spectator secure in the distance has been declared
by an ancient poet in a much admired passage, reproduced by a
greater modern:--

“’Tis pleasant also to behold from far
The moving legions mingled in the war.”

Yet the impulse and ardor of my convictions do not allow me to
be content in any such retirement. I wish to enter the strife,
and give such powers as I can to the righteous cause. But I am
forbidden.

It only remains that from my retreat I should send all that for
the present I can give, the prayers and benedictions of one yet
too feeble for any exertion.

While thus sitting apart, I am permitted to survey the field and
to recognize the ensigns of triumph now streaming in the fresh
northern breeze. Everywhere the people are aroused, at least
away from the pavement of great cities, where, too often, human
perversity is such as to suggest that “God made the country and
man made the town.”

Iowa, at the extreme West, and Maine, at the extreme East,
testify to a sentiment which must prevail also in the
intermediate States. In proper season New York and Pennsylvania
will confess it. And this is natural; for the whole broad country
has been shocked by the enormities of which Mr. Buchanan, in
the pending contest, is the unflinching representative, and Mr.
Fillmore the cautious, but effective, partisan.

In this contest I discern the masses of the people, under the
name of the Republican party, together with good men regardless
of ancient party ties, arrayed on the one side, while on the
other side is the oligarchical combination of slave-masters, with
the few Northern retainers they are yet able to keep, composed
chiefly of sophists whose lives are involved in a spider’s web of
fine-spun excuses, hirelings whose personal convictions are all
lost in salary, present or prospective, and trimmers whose eyes
fail to discern present changes of opinion only because they are
fastened too greedily upon ancient chances of preferment. Such
are the parties.

And I discern clearly the precise question on which these parties
are divided. In stating it I answer it.

The Territory of Kansas has been made the victim of countless
atrocities, in order to force Slavery upon its beautiful,
uncontaminated soil. By lawless violence a Government has been
established there, which, after despoiling the citizen of all
his dearest rights, has surrounded Slavery with the protection
of pretended statutes. And the question is distinctly submitted
to the American people, “Are you ready to sanction these
enormities?” This is the simple question. The orators of Slavery,
freely visiting Poughkeepsie, could not answer it, and therefore
they have kept it out of sight. But there the question stands.

Refusing to become partakers of such wrong, you will contribute
not only to the freedom of Kansas, but also to the overthrow
of the brutal and domineering Oligarchy which seeks to enslave
Kansas, simply as a stepping-stone to the enslavement of the
whole country. Surely, no man can hesitate, when Freedom requires
his vote. Nay, more, is not this cause worth living for? is not
this cause worth dying for?

* * * * *

Accept my thanks for the special kindness of your communication,
and my regrets that I can answer it only by this imperfect letter.

Believe me, dear Sir, ever faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

STEPHEN BAKER, Esq.

RELIEF FOR KANSAS.

LETTER TO A COMMITTEE OF THE KANSAS AID SOCIETY AT BOSTON, OCTOBER 3,
1856.

PHILADELPHIA, October 3, 1856.

MY DEAR SIR,--There is inspiration in a good cause, which is
shown at once in the improved character of all who embrace it.
Especially is this apparent in the young. Never is youth so
radiant as under its influence. The young men of Boston have done
wisely for themselves in associating together for the relief of
Kansas. All that they can do will be twice blessed,--blessing
them in their lives, and blessing distant despoiled
fellow-citizens.

With pleasure I learn that the Governor will preside at your
earliest public meeting. But this is only according to the just
rule of life. Kindred to honors are duties; and the head of a
Christian Commonwealth should be the head of this Christian
charity, while every citizen should range in place, and our
beloved Massachusetts, by the contributions, voices, and votes
of her unanimous children, should become one united, compact,
all-embracing _Kansas Relief Society_, at once an overflowing
fountain of beneficence and an irresistible example to the
country. For myself, I would rather a thousand times serve
this cause, even in the humblest capacity, than be a Governor
indifferent to its appeals.

All that can be given is needed; and whoso gives bestows upon
a missionary enterprise, which, in the footsteps of Liberty,
will carry peace, civilization, Christianity, the Bible, and all
blessings of earth and heaven. To such a charity every person
must give; if in no other way, the man who has two coats must
sell one, and let Kansas have the other. But, while encouraging
this effort, candor compels the confession that all your
contributions will be of small account, unless a President and
Congress are chosen who shall give their sympathies to Freedom
rather than to Slavery. Only in this way can the rod of the
oppressor be broken. A vote for such men will be a contribution
to Kansas.

Present my thanks to your associates, and accept for yourself the
assurance of my special gratitude for that constant devotion to
human freedom by which you have been distinguished.

Ever faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

DR. W. F. CHANNING.

DUTY TO VOTE FOR KANSAS AND FOR BURLINGAME.

LETTER TO A MEETING AT FANEUIL HALL, OCTOBER 29, 1856.

PHILADELPHIA, October 29, 1856.

SIR,--I cannot be at Faneuil Hall on Saturday evening, according
to the invitation with which I have been honored. But, though
feeble still, I hope to be in Boston on the succeeding Tuesday,
to vote. If not strong enough to speak, I trust at least to be
able to perform this duty of the citizen.

My vote will not be needed; but I am unwilling that the
opportunity should pass of uttering my determined NO against
the efforts now making to subjugate Kansas and to install the
Slave Oligarchy in permanent control of the National Government.
Against this dreadful conspiracy I protest, with all the ardor
of my soul; and I know no way in which I can hope to make
this protest immediately effective, except by casting my vote
for those candidates openly and unequivocally hostile to the
consummation of the crime.

Especially shall I vote for Burlingame; and I shall do this, not
only because I think him worthy of honor, and admire his generous
nature, intrepidity, and eloquence, but because I have at heart
the good name of Boston, and the welfare of my country. Boston
should sustain Burlingame, not merely for his sake, but for her
own sake,--not merely to do him honor, but to save herself from
dishonor,--not merely from local pride, but to strengthen Liberty
and to serve the whole Republic, now endangered alike from
criminal audacity and from subservient timidity.

I have the honor to be, Sir,

Your faithful servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MEETING AT FANEUIL HALL.

PUBLIC RECEPTION OF MR. SUMNER, ON HIS RETURN TO BOSTON:

WITH THE SPEECHES:

NOVEMBER 3, 1856.

As it became known that Mr. Sumner would return home to vote,
a Boston committee visited Philadelphia to urge his acceptance
of a banquet, with the understanding that he should simply show
himself there without speaking. Acting under medical advice, he
declined this invitation. The sympathy of the community found
vent in a public reception.

The reception of Senator Sumner, on his return to Boston, was
an imposing popular demonstration.[1] It was purely a peaceful
and spontaneous celebration. There was no organization of
enthusiasm; there were no military, no fire companies, no
associated bodies, to swell the ranks of the procession or
attract attention. Those of his fellow-citizens, simply, who
wished to testify respect and sympathy, went forth to meet
him; through the mouth of one, the most venerable and honored
of their number, they welcomed him on his entrance within the
limits of the city, and the chief executive magistrate of the
Commonwealth greeted him on his arrival beneath the shadow of
the State capitol. In both places, and also before Mr. Sumner’s
residence in Hancock Street, there were vast concourses of
citizens, assembled to do honor to their Senator.

The weather was favorable; the atmosphere was clear and warm
for the season; and although the appearance of the sky at times
boded rain, none fell until late in the evening, long after the
exercises of the day were concluded.

Mr. Sumner arrived in this vicinity on Sunday morning,
November 2d. On Monday he drove from Professor Longfellow’s,
in Cambridge, where he had been staying, to the house of Amos
A. Lawrence, Esq., at Longwood, in Brookline. Soon after one
o’clock, the invited guests, who had assembled at the State
House, proceeded in open carriages to Longwood, where they were
joined by Mr. Sumner, who passed along the line of carriages,
and was silently greeted by the gentlemen rising and removing
their hats. The carriages then proceeded across to Roxbury, and
thence along Washington Street to the Boston line, which was
reached at three o’clock. Here the cavalcade was assembled,
together with a vast concourse of citizens.

The chief marshal was General John S. Tyler, assisted by the
following gentlemen as aids: Major John C. Park, Colonel
R. I. Burbank, Major Moses G. Cobb, E. Webster Pike, Esq.,
Adjutant-General E. W. Stone, Colonel A. J. Wright, Colonel W.
W. Bullock, and Carlos Pierce, Esq.

The following were the assistant marshals: Captain I. F.
Shepard, Charles H. Hawes, W. E. Webster, F. L. Chapin, O.
H. Dutton, Major F. A. Heath, F. B. Fay, Julian O. Mason, A.
A. Dunnels, Stephen Rhoades, H. D. Child, Leister M. Clark,
Charles W. Pierce, R. F. Martin, Rufus Frost, F. A. Fuller,
J. W. Wolcott, William B. Spooner, Henry D. Williams, Colonel
Robert Cowdin, of Boston, and Eugene Batchelder, Charles D.
Hills, D. P. Ripley, of Cambridge.

As it went up Washington Street, the cavalcade numbered, by
actual count, about eight hundred horsemen; but its numbers
were subsequently increased by fresh arrivals, in couples and
in groups, to over a thousand.

On the head of the cavalcade reaching the borders of Roxbury,
it halted, and the whole was drawn up in a long line at the
upper side of Washington Street, facing the centre. For over
half an hour it waited for the cortege from Brookline which was
to escort Mr. Sumner, and when at last the latter appeared,
it was received with hearty cheers and music from the Brigade
Band. It consisted of some sixteen or eighteen barouches or
carriages, containing the Committee of Arrangements and other
gentlemen.

The barouche which contained Mr. Sumner was drawn by
magnificent horses. With Mr. Sumner was the Rev. Professor F.
D. Huntington, of Harvard University, and Dr. Perry, of this
city, Mr. Sumner’s physician. Among those in the succeeding
barouches were Messrs. Abbott and James Lawrence, George and
Isaac Livermore, Edwin P. Whipple, George R. Russell, Charles
G. Loring, J. Huntington Wolcott, Hon. E. C. Baker, President
of the Senate, Dr. Beck and Rev. Dr. Francis, of Cambridge,
Professor Lovering, and James Russell Lowell, the poet,--that
which followed Mr. Sumner’s barouche containing Professor
Longfellow, and George Sumner, the brother of the Senator.

As the carriage with Mr. Sumner touched the line between
Roxbury and Boston, there was a general cheer, which was
continued along far into the distance,--the Brigade Band
playing “Hail Columbia.” The first division of the cavalcade
wheeled to the left, and formed into an escort. The carriages
of Mr. Sumner and the Committee came next in succession, and
then the two remaining divisions fell into column.

A few rods north of the Roxbury line the cavalcade came to a
halt, when Mr. Sumner’s carriage was driven alongside of that
containing Hon. Josiah Quincy, and Hon. Alexander H. Rice,
mayor of Boston. After greetings between the parties, Professor
Huntington introduced Mr. Sumner to Mr. Quincy in the following
brief address.

“MR. QUINCY,--The Committee of Arrangements for welcoming
the Hon. Charles Sumner to his home present him here to
you, Sir, a venerated representative of the city of his
birth. He comes back from his public post, where he has
bravely advocated the cause of all freemen, to enjoy a
freeman’s privilege and discharge a freeman’s duty. He
comes, a cheerful and victorious sufferer, out of great
conflicts of humanity with oppression, of ideas with
ignorance, of scholarship and refinement with barbarian
vulgarity, of intellectual power with desperate and brutal
violence, of conscience with selfish expediency, of right
with wrong. Boston does well in coming out to greet him.
For that ample and lofty manhood, trained under her
education and consolidated in her climate, has added new
dignity to her old renown. It has joined her name more
inseparably than ever with the aspirations of Christian
liberty, and the honors of disinterested patriotism,
throughout the earth, and through all time.”

MR. QUINCY then addressed Mr. Sumner as follows.

“MR. SUMNER,--It is with inexpressible pleasure that I
address you this day as the voice of the great multitude
of your fellow-citizens. In their name, and by their
authority, I welcome you to your home in Massachusetts,
expressing their honor and thanks for the power and
fidelity with which you have fulfilled your duties as
their representative in the Senate of the United States,
where, ‘unshaken, unseduced, unterrified,’ you kept your
love, your zeal, your loyalty to Liberty,--where neither
number nor example, threat nor sneer, ‘within you wrought
to swerve from truth, or change your constant mind.’
[_Applause._]

“You return to your country, Sir, after having given
glorious evidences of intellectual power, which touched,
as with the spear of Ithuriel, the evil spirit of our
Union, causing it at once to develop in full proportions
its gigantic deformity, compelling it to unveil to the Free
States its malign design to make this land of the free a
land of slaves. [_Voices, ‘Never! never!’_]

“You have suffered, and are still suffering, for your
intrepid faithfulness. But suffering in the cause of Truth
and Liberty is the heaven-laid path to win ‘the crown
which Virtue gives after this mortal change to her true
servants.’ [_Hearty cheers._]

“I rejoice that my life has been prolonged to this
day,--that I am permitted to behold the dawnings of
ancient Liberty through the broken openings of the clouds,
which for more than fifty years the spirit of Slavery has
extended over this Union. I thank Heaven that now, at
last, the Free States are beginning to awaken to a sense
of their dangers and their duties,--that, at length, they
begin to realize that the Slave States have overleaped
the bounds of the Constitution. The apathy of half a
century may delay for a time the triumphs of Freedom, but
come they will. Final success is certain. Never again
will the Free States in silence acquiesce in the farther
extension of slave domain. [_Loud applause, and cries of
‘Never! never!’_] Henceforth they will hear and attend to
the warning voice of Washington, solemnly uttered in his
Farewell Address,--‘SUBMIT NOT TO USURPATION,’--‘RESIST,
WITH CARE, THE SPIRIT OF INNOVATION UPON THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE CONSTITUTION.’ [_Cheers._]

“We welcome you, Sir, as the champion of Freedom [_loud
cheers_], and as one to whom the deliverance which we hope
may yet be destined for our country will be greatly due.”

MR. SUMNER, who had been standing in his carriage, uncovered,
then spoke, in a subdued voice, and evidently under the
influence of deep feeling, as follows.

MR. QUINCY,--A year has nearly run since I left Boston in the discharge
of public duties. During this period, amidst important events, I have
been able to do something which my fellow-citizens and neighbors,
speaking by your authoritative voice, are pleased to approve. I am
happy in this approbation. Especially am I happy that it is conveyed
by the eloquent words of one who from my childhood has been with me an
object of unaffected reverence, who was the municipal head of my native
city while I was a pupil at its public schools, and who was the head of
the University while I was a pupil in that ancient seat.

Boston, early in her history, set her face against Slavery. By a vote,
entered upon her Town Records, as long ago as 1701, she called upon her
Representatives “to put a period to negroes being slaves.” If I have
done anything to deserve the greeting you now lavish, it is because I
have striven to maintain those principles here declared, and to extend
them to other places,--stretching the venerable shelter of Faneuil Hall
even over distant Kansas. [_Loud applause._]

You have made allusion to the suffering which I have undergone. This
is not small. But it has been incurred in the performance of duty; and
how little is it, Sir, compared with the suffering of fellow-citizens
in Kansas! How small is it, compared with that tale of woe which is
perpetually coming to us from the house of bondage!

With you I hail the omens of final triumph. I ask no prophet to confirm
this assurance. The future is not less secure than the past.

You are pleased to quote injunctions of Washington. If ever there was
occasion to bear these, not only in memory, but in heart, the time is
now, when Usurpation is the order of the day, and the Constitution
is set at defiance. Beyond these precepts is also his great example,
which, from first to last, teaches the constant lesson of fidelity, in
standing up for the liberties of our country, in undoubting faith that
the good cause cannot fail.

The rule of duty is the same for the lowly and the great; and, in the
communication which I addressed to the Legislature of Massachusetts,
accepting the trust which I now hold, I ventured to adopt the
determination of Washington, and to avow his confidence. In both I hope
to hold fast unto the end. [_Loud cheers._]

Mr. Sumner then passed from the carriage in which he had been
riding into that of Mr. Quincy and Mayor Rice. Professor
Huntington also took a seat in the same carriage, which was
drawn by six splendid gray horses. A body-guard of marshals
mounted, and of police, formed on each side of the barouche, in
order to keep the multitudes in the streets from pressing up to
shake hands with Mr. Sumner.

The cavalcade then proceeded onwards, amid repeated cheers of
the multitudes lining the streets on both sides. In accordance
with directions from his physician, Mr. Sumner acknowledged
these demonstrations only by a wave of the hand.

On reaching Newton Street, on Blackstone Square, a long line
of beautiful young ladies was ranged upon the pavement on the
south side, each holding a bouquet, to present to Senator
Sumner. Previously, however, a very interesting scene took
place. Mrs. C. W. Pierce, Mrs. G. L. Goodwin, Mrs. Henry Keyes,
and Miss Mary Pierce--each dressed in white, with wreaths on
their heads, and wearing elegant sashes--came forward, and
presented Mr. Sumner splendid bouquets, which action seemed
to give him much gratification. But the receipt of another
from the hands of a lovely child, carried up to the Senator in
the arms of a gentleman, and a similar act in Shawmut Avenue,
were peculiarly grateful to him. No previous or subsequent
circumstances during the day seemed to give Mr. Sumner such
true delight as these kindnesses. On proceeding forward, the
ladies showered their bouquets upon him from sidewalks and
windows along the street, until the carriage was pretty nigh
full. As the floral burden accumulated, he laughed the more
heartily, and spoke his gratitude to every one of the fair
donors his voice could reach. All along Newton Street, and the
west side of Blackstone Square, the procession was cheered
in the most enthusiastic manner. Ladies crowded almost every
window, and the scene was the most brilliant along the route.

As the procession reached the Boston Female Orphan Asylum on
Washington Street, the inmates of that institution were seen
ranged in front of the building, waving their handkerchiefs,
and displaying on a white banner a beautiful wreath of
evergreen intermingled with flowers, with the motto,--

“We weave a wreath for Charles Sumner.”

This was the only point on the route of the procession where
Mr. Sumner rose to his feet. Here the kindness of these
orphaned ones so touched his feelings, that he could not help
acknowledging it in this way.

Attached to several of the bouquets thrown to Mr. Sumner were
appropriate and expressive mottoes. The principal of them were
as follows.

“No bludgeon can dim the lustre of our champion of Freedom.”

“Massachusetts’s most honored son. If the ladies could
vote, he would be the next President.”

“A warm welcome from warm hearts to the noblest man America
has ever borne in her bosom! 78 Shawmut Avenue, Nov. 3,
1856.”

“Welcome home! The sons and daughters of Massachusetts
greet her noblest defender.”

“Infants welcome him whose name lives immortal in the
hearts of his countrymen.”

“Welcome, dear friend of justice!”

All along the line of procession, namely, down Washington
Street, Newton Street, Shawmut Avenue, Dover Street, Washington
Street, West Street, Tremont Street, Boylston Street, Charles
Street, and Beacon Street to the State House, the crowds which
greeted the honored Senator at every point were great.

At the corner of Washington and Newton Streets, over
Washington, there was a fine display of flags and streamers.
From the house of Mr. Nickerson, fronting on Franklin Square,
was a splendid triumphal arch, between two elm-trees, flags and
streamers surrounding the word--

“Welcome!”

Newton Street had a large number of flags, the union jack
displayed alternately with the national ensign on staffs
projecting from Franklin Square. The entire street was strewed
with evergreens. It was a beautiful display.

At the junction of Newton Street and Shawmut Avenue, the
houses of Benjamin Smith and Alfred A. Andrews were splendidly
decorated with festoons and flags. Between them, floating above
Newton Street, was the following:--

“Massachusetts loves, honors, will sustain and defend her
noble Sumner!”

The house of E. G. Dudley, at the corner of Shawmut Avenue
and Waltham Street, made a fine appearance. Besides flags and
festoons, was the following, wreathed in black:--

“May 22, 1856.”

Beneath this was the following:--

“Welcome, thrice welcome!”

At the corner of Shawmut Avenue and Dover Street, on the house
of Rev. Mr. Sargent, was the following significant motto:--

“To the _Right_!”

pointing the route of the procession.

The house of Dr. Parks, No. 88 Dover Street, was beautifully
decorated,--an eagle above the upper-story windows, holding a
number of streamers, which were gathered below. The following
was inscribed upon the building:--

“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”

The piano-rooms of T. Gilbert were decorated, with the words in
front,--

“Welcome, Freedom’s Defender!”

There were many other similar decorations. If longer time had
been given, the demonstration would have been other than it
was.[2] But it was not in decorations that the citizens of
Boston welcomed home the beloved son of Massachusetts; it was
rather with emotion too deep for utterance that they received
him.

The scene at the State House was beyond description. The area
in front, the long range of steps leading to the Capitol, the
Capitol itself, the streets in the vicinity, the houses even
to the roofs, were packed with human beings. The assembled
thousands greeted him with long continued cheering.

Mr. Sumner arrived in front of the Capitol, where a platform
had been erected. His Excellency Governor Gardner, the
Executive Council, and the Governor’s Staff were escorted by
the Sergeant-at-Arms, Benjamin Stevens, Esq. Mr. Sumner was
then introduced by Professor Huntington in an eloquent speech,
as follows.

“MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY,--In behalf of the
Committee of Reception, I present to your Excellency the
Hon. Charles Sumner, Senator of Massachusetts in the
Congress of the United States. It is needless to recount
here his services to our Commonwealth, to the whole
Republic, to the principles of a pure and just nationality,
to elegant learning, to Christian statesmanship, to the
liberties and the rights of man. These are all safely
recorded in the imperishable history of the country and
the race. How deeply they are written in the hearts
of his fellow-citizens let this vast and enthusiastic
concourse bear witness. He returns to his friends; but
his friends are wherever justice is revered. He returns
to his neighbors; but he has a neighbor in every victim
of wrong throughout the world. He returns to the State
that entrusted her interests to his charge, having
proclaimed--according to the spirit of her own institutions
and her people--the doctrine of the Brotherhood of all
States, in the bonds of universal Peace. He stands at the
door of her Capitol, and in the presence of her Chief
Magistrate,--stands here her faithful steward, her eloquent
and fearless advocate, her honored guest, her beloved son!”

His Excellency replied briefly as follows.

“SIR,--I am admonished by the Committee of Arrangements
that my words must be few and brief.

“This is no political ovation. The Chief Marshal of the
procession announces that no political mottoes will be
admitted into the ranks. By the same sense of propriety I
am admonished that no political phrases are appropriate
here.

“This is the spontaneous outpouring of your friends and
neighbors and fellow-citizens to welcome you from your
field of intellectual victory,--and to welcome you also
from your bed of pain and suffering. I cordially add my
tribute, humble, save what my official station imparts to
it, to crown the just and welcome offering.

“We hail you with warm hearts, not only as the eloquent
orator, the accomplished scholar, and the acknowledged
statesman,--not only as the earnest friend of suffering
humanity and of every good cause,--not only as one
who, educated in the institutions and by the altars
and firesides of Massachusetts, has won for himself
imperishable laurels on the arena of the nation’s
conflicts,--but especially now do we welcome you as the
successful defender of her integrity and her honor.
[_Cheers._]

“In her name I declare that the base and cowardly blows
which fell on you struck through you into her. Within the
circuit of the sun’s flight after I heard of that assault,
before such an assemblage as rarely gathers in Faneuil
Hall, I pledged Massachusetts to stand by you. [_Loud
applause._]

“And she does stand by you to-day. She will stand by you
to-morrow [_enthusiastic cheers_]; and she will stand by
you in her defence forever. [_Loud cheering._]

“I welcome you, then, most cordially and warmly, in her
name, again to her borders. Every thrilling breast and
kindling countenance around you in this immense throng
welcomes you,--Boston welcomes you,--Massachusetts welcomes
you.

“In her name I trust that the quiet of your home may
speedily restore you to perfect health, so you can again go
forward to your sphere of duty, to new achievements, and
new victories.

“And now, Gentlemen, fellow-citizens, one word to you.
The duty of the day over, let us, one and all, leave our
distinguished friend to the undisturbed quiet of his own
home, to the fond caress of one whose ear is at this moment
bent in anxious watching for the earliest warning of his
approach, that he may there recover, not only from his past
illness, but from the present excitement and the fatigues
of travel. At present our kindest attentions will consist
in scrupulously avoiding exacting intrusions.

“To you, Sir, again, in the name of our glorious old
Commonwealth, I extend a cordial welcome. [_Loud cheers._]”

Three times three cheers were then given for Mr. Sumner, who
attempted to reply; but his voice was more feeble than in
replying to Mr. Quincy. He spoke, with great difficulty, as
follows.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY,--

It is a pleasure to be once more among the scenes of home; to look upon
familiar objects,--the State House, the Common, and well-known streets.
It is more pleasant still to behold the countenances of friends. And
all this pleasure, Sir, is enhanced by the welcome which you now give
me, in behalf of the beloved Commonwealth which for five years I have
served, honestly, earnestly, and constantly, in an important field of
duty, to which I was introduced by an unsought suffrage.

Sir, I thank you for this welcome. I thank, also, the distinguished
gentlemen who have honored this occasion by their presence. I thank,
too, these swelling multitudes who contribute to me the strength
and succor of their sympathies; and my soul overflows especially to
the young men of Boston, out of whose hearts, as from an exuberant
fountain, this broad-spreading hospitality took its rise.

My earnest desire, often expressed, has been, that I might be allowed
to return home quietly, without show or demonstration of any kind.
And this longing was enforced by my physical condition, which, though
vastly improved at this time, and advancing surely towards complete
health, is still exposed to the peril of relapse, or at least to the
arrest of those kindly processes of Nature essential to the restoration
of a shattered system. But the spontaneous kindness of this reception
makes me forget my weakness, makes me forget my desire for repose.

I thank you, Sir, for the suggestion of seclusion, and the security
which that suggestion promises to afford.

Something more, Sir, I would say, but I am admonished that voice and
strength will not permit. With your permission, therefore, I will hand
the reporters what I should be glad to say, that it may be printed.

[The remainder of the speech is printed from Mr. Sumner’s
manuscript.]

More than five months have passed since I was disabled from the
performance of my public duties. During this weary period I have been
constrained to repeat daily the lesson of renunciation,--confined at
first to my bed, and then only slowly regaining the power even to walk.
But, beyond the constant, irrepressible grief which must well up in the
breast of every patriot, as he discerns the present condition of his
country, my chief sorrow has been caused by the necessity, to which I
was doomed, of renouncing all part in the contest for human rights,
which, beginning in Congress, has since enveloped the whole land. The
Grecian chief, grievously ill of a wound from the stealthy bite of
a snake, and left behind while his companions sailed to the siege of
Troy, did not repine more at his enforced seclusion. From day to day
and week to week I vainly sought that health which we value most when
lost, and which perpetually eluded my pursuit. For health I strove, for
health I prayed. With uncertain steps I sought it at the seashore and I
sought it on the mountain-top.

“Two voices are there: one is of the sea,
One of the mountains; each a mighty voice:
In both from age to age thou didst rejoice,
They were thy chosen music, Liberty!”[3]

I listened to the admonitions of medical skill, and I courted all the
bracing influences of Nature, while time passed without the accustomed
healing on its wings. I had confidently hoped to be restored so as
to take my seat in the Senate, and to be heard there again, long
before the session closed. But Congress adjourned, leaving me still an
invalid. My next hope was, that I might be permitted to appear before
the people during the present canvass, and with heart and voice plead
the great cause now in issue. Here again I have been disappointed,
and the thread of my disability is not yet spun to the end. Even now,
though happily lifted from long prostration, and beginning to assume
many of the conditions of health, I am constrained to confess that I am
an invalid,--cheered, however, by the assurance that I shall soon be
permitted, with unimpaired vigor, to resume all the responsibilities of
my position.

* * * * *

Too much have I said about myself; but you will pardon it to the
occasion, which, being personal in character, invites these personal
confessions. With more pleasure I turn to other things.

* * * * *

I should feel that I failed in one of those duties which the heart
prompts and the judgment confirms, if I allowed this first opportunity
to pass without sincerest acknowledgment to my able, generous, and
faithful colleague, Mr. Wilson. Together we labored in mutual trust,
honorably leaning upon each other. By my disability he was left sole
representative of Massachusetts on the floor of the Senate, throughout
months of heated contest, involving her good name and most cherished
sentiments. All who watched the currents of debate, even as imperfectly
as I did in my retirement, know with what readiness, courage, and power
he acted,--showing himself, by extraordinary energies, equal to the
extraordinary occasion. But it is my especial happiness to recognize
his unfailing sympathies for myself, and his manly assumption of all
the responsibilities of the hour.

I am not here to indulge in eulogy, nor to open any merit-roll of
service; but the same feeling which prompts these acknowledgments
to my colleague embraces also the Commonwealth from whom we have
received our trust. To Massachusetts, mother of us all,--great in
resources, great in children,--I now pledge anew my devotion. Never
before did she inspire equal pride and affection; for never before was
she so completely possessed by those sentiments which, when manifest
in Commonwealth or citizen, invest the character with its highest
charm, so that what is sown a natural body is raised a spiritual
body. My filial love does not claim too much, when it exhibits her
as approaching the pattern of a Christian Commonwealth, which,
according to the great English Republican, John Milton, “ought to be
but as one huge Christian personage, one mighty growth and stature
of an honest man, as big and compact in virtue as in body.”[4] Not
through any worldly triumphs, not through the vaults of State Street,
the spindles of Lowell, or even the learned endowments of Cambridge,
is Massachusetts thus,--but because, seeking to extend everywhere
within the sphere of her influence the benign civilization which she
cultivates at home, she stands forth the faithful, unseduced supporter
of Human Nature. Wealth has its splendor, and the intellect has its
glory; but there is a grandeur in such service which is above all that
these can supply. For this she has already the regard of good men,
and will have the immortal life of history. For this she has also the
reproach and contumely always throughout the ages poured upon those
who have striven for justice on earth. Not now for the first time in
human struggles has Truth, when most dishonored, seemed most radiant,
gathering glory even out of obloquy. When Sir Harry Vane, courageous
champion of the English Commonwealth, was dragged on a hurdle up the
Tower Hill to suffer death by the axe, one of the multitude cried
out to him, “That is the most glorious seat you ever sat on!”[5]
And again, when Russell was exposed in the streets, on his way to a
similar scaffold, the people, according to the simple narrative of his
biographer, imagined they saw Liberty and Virtue sitting by his side.
Massachusetts is not without encouragement in her own history. She has
seen her ports closed by arbitrary power,--has seen her name made a
byword of reproach,--has seen her cherished leaders, Hancock and Adams,
excepted from all pardon by the crown; but then, when most dishonored,
did Massachusetts deserve most, for then was she doing most for the
cause of all. And now, when Massachusetts is engaged in a greater cause
than that of our fathers, how serenely can she turn from the scoff and
jeer of heartless men! Her only disgrace will be in disloyalty to the
truth which is to make her free.

Worse to bear--oh, far worse!--than the evil speaking of others
is the conduct of some of her own children. It is hard to see the
scholarship which has been drawn from her cisterns, and the riches
accumulated under her hospitable shelter, now employed to weaken and
discredit that cause which is above riches or scholarship. It is hard,
while fellow-citizens in Kansas plead for deliverance from a cruel
Usurpation, and while the whole country, including our own soil, is
trodden down by a domineering and brutal Despotism, to behold sons of
Massachusetts in sympathy, open or disguised, with the vulgar enemy,
quickening everywhere the lash of the taskmaster, and helping forward
the Satanic carnival, when Slavery shall be fastened not only upon
prostrate Kansas, but upon all the Territories of the Republic,--when
Cuba shall be torn from a friendly power by dishonest force,--and when
the slave-trade itself, with all its crime, its woe, and its shame,
shall be opened anew under the American flag. Alas, that any child of
Massachusetts, in wickedness of heart, or in weakness of principle, or
under the delusion of partisan prejudice, should join in these things!
With such I have no word of controversy at this hour. But, leaving
them now, in my weakness, I trust not to seem too severe, if I covet
for the occasion something of the divine power

“To bend the silver bow with tender skill,
While, void of pain, the silent arrows kill.”[6]

Gladly from these do I turn to another character, yet happily spared
to Massachusetts, whose heart beats strong with the best blood of
the Revolution, and with the best sentiments by which that blood was
enriched. The only child of one of the authors of American Liberty,
for many years the able and courageous Representative of Boston on the
floor of Congress, where his speeches were the masterpieces of the
time, distinguished throughout a long career by the grateful trust of
his fellow-citizens, happy in all the possessions of a well-spent life,
and surrounded by “honor, love, obedience, troops of friends,” with an
old age which is second youth, JOSIAH QUINCY, still erect under the
burden of eighty-four winters, puts himself at the head of our great
battle,--and never before, in the ardor of youth, or the maturity of
manhood, did he show himself so grandly conspicuous, and add so much to
the heroic wealth of our history. His undaunted soul, lifted already
to glimpses of another life, may shame the feebler spirits of a later
generation. There is one other personage, at a distant period, who,
with precisely the same burden of winters, asserted the same supremacy
of powers. It is the celebrated Dandolo, Doge of Venice, at the age of
eighty-four, of whom the historian Gibbon has said, in words strictly
applicable to our own Quincy: “He shone, in the last period of human
life, as one of the most illustrious characters of the times: under the
weight of years he retained a sound understanding and a manly courage,
the spirit of an hero and the wisdom of a patriot.”[7] This old man
carried the Venetian Republic over to the Crusaders, and exposed his
person freely to all the perils of war, so that the historian describes
him, in words again applicable to our day, saying: “In the midst of the
conflict, the Doge, a venerable and conspicuous form, stood aloft, in
complete armor, on the prow of his galley,” while “the great standard
of St. Mark was displayed before him.”[8] Before the form of our
venerable head is displayed the standard of a greater republic than
Venice, thrilling with its sight greater multitudes than ever gazed on
the standard of St. Mark, while a sublimer cause is ours than the cause
of the Crusaders; for our task is not to ransom an empty sepulchre,
but to rescue the Saviour himself, in the bodies of his innumerable
children,--not to dislodge the Infidel from a distant foreign soil, but
to displace him from the very Jerusalem of our Liberties.

* * * * *

May it please your Excellency, I forbear to proceed further. With
thanks for this welcome, accept also my new vows of duty. In all
simplicity let me say that I seek nothing but the triumph of Truth.
To this I offer my best efforts, careless of office or honor. Show me
that I am wrong, and I stop at once; but in the complete conviction
of right I shall persevere against all temptations, against all odds,
against all perils, against all threats,--knowing well, that, whatever
may be my fate, the Right will surely prevail. Terrestrial place is
determined by celestial observation. Only by watching the stars can
the mariner safely pursue his course; and it is only by obeying those
lofty principles which are above men and human passion that we can make
our way safely through the duties of life. In such obedience I hope to
live, while, as a servant of Massachusetts, I avoid no labor, shrink
from no exposure, and complain of no hardship.

The cavalcade then moved rapidly away, escorting Mr. Sumner to
his home in Hancock Street.

On arriving there, he was again welcomed with unbounded
enthusiasm by a large crowd assembled in the street and on the
sidewalks, the windows being filled on both sides up and down
the street. The crowd cheered vociferously for Mr. Sumner, his
mother, the Governor, Hon. Josiah Quincy, Hon. N. P. Banks, and
Hon. Anson Burlingame. Mr. Sumner and his mother appeared at
the window and bowed their acknowledgments, which called forth
general and enthusiastic plaudits. The multitude then, giving
three parting cheers for the distinguished Senator, separated,
and the ceremonies of reception terminated.

Many of the business firms closed their stores during the
afternoon. The paper agreeing to do so was headed by A. & A.
Lawrence & Co., Gardner Brewer & Co., Parker, Wilder, & Co.,
Denny, Rice, & Gardner, Wilkinson, Stetson, & Co., Blake,
Bigelow, & Co., Pierce Brothers & Flanders, &c.

AID FOR KANSAS.

LETTER TO HON. M. F. CONWAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1856.

HON. M. F. CONWAY, afterwards Representative in Congress from
Kansas, in communicating this letter to the public, reported
that it “was of great value in securing the appropriation of
twenty thousand dollars by the Legislature of Vermont in aid of
Kansas.”

BOSTON, November 17, 1856.

DEAR SIR,--I wish that I could aid your efforts to interest the
State Legislatures for Kansas. To these Legislatures I look at
this exigency for something worthy of the cause which is now in
jeopardy. They have the power, and this is the very moment to
exert it. God bless the State which begins!

Surely liberty in Kansas, involving our own liberty also, is
worthy of every effort. To its security every citizen should
contribute according to his means; and I know no better rule for
the State Legislatures than for the citizen. These Legislatures
should all contribute according to their means,--the more, the
better. And such contributions, like every other charity, will be
twice blessed.

Accept my best wishes for Kansas, and believe me, dear Sir,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

JUDGE CONWAY, of Kansas.

CONGRATULATION ON REËLECTION OF ANSON BURLINGAME AS REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS.

LETTER TO A BANQUET AT FANEUIL HALL, NOVEMBER 24, 1856.

HANCOCK STREET,
Monday Evening, November 24, 1856.

DEAR SIR,--I am sorry to renounce any opportunity of doing honor
to Mr. Burlingame; but my careful physician does not allow me yet
to take part in the excitement of a public meeting, and I yield
to his prescription.

My best wishes attend your distinguished guest to-night and
always. His recent triumph is the occasion of special joy, not
only in Massachusetts, but everywhere throughout the free North.
Many who voted against him must, in their better moments, condemn
themselves,--as much as they have been condemned by others. If
not entirely dead to generous impulses, they must be glad that
they failed. If not entirely insensible to appearances, they
must look with regret at the means employed to accomplish the
end proposed. If not entirely indifferent to principles, they
must look with amazement at the unprecedented, incongruous, and
eccentric political conglomerate of which they constituted a part.

It was natural that the propagandists of Slavery, acting under
dictation from Washington, should vote against Mr. Burlingame. It
was natural that others, who allow themselves to be controlled
by the rancors and jealousies of party, should do likewise.
But it was hard that this blow at Freedom should be attempted
in the name of Trade, and that merchants of Boston should
be rallied against a candidate who had done so much to make
Boston respectable. And yet this extraordinary conduct is not
without parallel in history. The earliest antislavery effort of
England was against the Barbary corsairs, and this, it is well
known, was opposed by “the mercantile interest.” And this same
“mercantile interest,” as you also know, set itself against the
great antislavery enterprise of Clarkson and Wilberforce, when
they demanded the suppression of the slave-trade. Such examples
teach us not to be disappointed, when this interest is invoked
against our efforts. But I rejoice to know that in Boston there
are honorable exceptions, and, if anything be expected from me
to-night, let it be a tribute to one of these. I propose the
following toast.

_The Merchants of Boston._--May they all appreciate the
spirit of him among their number, who, when pressed to vote
against Mr. Burlingame on mercantile grounds, nobly replied
at once, “I am a merchant, but at the polls I mean to be a
patriot.”

Accept my thanks for the honor of your invitation, and believe
me, dear Sir,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

JOSEPH STORY, Esq.

THE LATE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OUR BUNKER HILL.

LETTER TO A COMMITTEE AT WORCESTER, NOVEMBER 24, 1856.

BOSTON, November 24, 1856.

MY DEAR SIR,--Not willingly do I give up the opportunity of
uniting with the gallant Republicans of Worcester in celebrating
our recent victories; but my health, though vastly improved,
has limitations which I cannot with prudence neglect, and these
forbid the indulgence to which you kindly invite me. Please
tender to the Republicans my cordial congratulations. Clearly
do I see the beginning of the end. All New England, with New
York, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa, constitute an
irresistible phalanx for Freedom, while our seeming reverse in
the Presidential election is only another Bunker Hill. If toasts
are in order at your festival, let me propose the following.

_The late Presidential Election._--Like Bunker Hill, it
teaches us our strength, and gives assurance of speedy
triumph.

Believe me, my dear Sir, faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

LET MASSACHUSETTS HELP KANSAS.

LETTER TO JAMES REDPATH, ESQ., JANUARY 10, 1857.

HANCOCK STREET, January 10, 1857.

MY DEAR SIR,--I am happy that you are still active for Kansas.
Much remains to be done. Indeed, I think that no effort can be
safely relaxed, until the Territory is admitted into the Union as
a Free State.

The Slave Oligarchy has not yet abandoned its darling idea of a
new Slave State, and this can be defeated only by vigilance. The
lull which seems now to prevail does not persuade me to repose.
Too much is at stake. Besides, I have read the fable of the cat
in the meal.

Of course, emigrants who love Freedom, and, if need be, are
willing to die in her cause, must be encouraged to plant
themselves in the Territory. But we who stay at home must
contribute to their comfort and protection, and, since this can
be done most effectively through State Legislatures, these must
be enlisted. The name of a State Legislature will be a tower of
strength.

Massachusetts, which, throughout our history, has led in every
liberal movement, must lead now by a generous appropriation,
which, if not needed, may not be used, but which, in any
alternative, will be an irresistible token of her sincerity, an
example to other States, and a fountain of encouragement to
distant fellow-citizens. I cannot believe that Massachusetts will
hesitate. Her people have already opened their hearts to Kansas,
and the public treasury should be opened as wide as their hearts.

Accept my thanks for the good you have done and the good you are
still doing, and believe me, my dear Sir, with much regard,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

JAMES REDPATH, Esq.

ACCEPTANCE OF SENATORSHIP, ON REËLECTION.

LETTER TO THE LEGISLATURE OF MASSACHUSETTS, JANUARY 22, 1857.

In the winter of 1856, the American party having the control of
the Legislature of Massachusetts, members of this party were
reported as entering into a plan to choose a Senator in place
of Mr. Sumner at the expiration of his term, March 4, 1857,
thus anticipating the action of the Legislature to be chosen in
the autumn following. The plan was discussed in newspapers and
in contemporary letters. It excited the anxiety of Mr. Sumner’s
political friends so far, that, at their request, he was
induced to obtain from the Secretary of the Senate the adverse
precedents, which were published at the time in the newspapers.
The discussion of the question was arrested by the event which
soon followed, turning all eyes to him, and making him more
than ever the representative of Massachusetts.

The new Legislature seemed to have been constituted for the
reëlection of Mr. Sumner. It came together January 7, 1857,
when, even before the message of the Governor, it was insisted
that the election should be proceeded with, and January 9th was
fixed upon for this purpose. On that day, in pursuance of an
order of the House, the Clerk called the roll of members, when
each responded _viva voce_ with the name of the person for whom
he voted, as follows.

Charles Sumner, of Boston, 333
Robert C. Winthrop, of Boston, 3
Nathaniel J. Lord, of Salem, 2
George W. Gordon, of Boston, 1
Erasmus D. Beach, of Springfield, 1
Charles B. Goodrich, of Boston, 1
Otis P. Lord, of Salem, 1
Edward Everett, of Boston, 1
William Appleton, of Boston, 1
Rufus Choate, of Boston, 1
----
Total vote, 345
Members absent or not voting, 10
----
Whole number of members, 355

The announcement of the vote was received with applause.

In the Senate the vote was taken in the same way, January 13th,
and every member responded with the name of “Charles Sumner, of
Boston,” the vote being unanimous, when the President announced
that “Hon. CHARLES SUMNER, of Boston, having received the
entire vote of the Senate, in concurrence with the House, is
elected United States Senator from this State for the term of
six years from the fourth of March next.”

The _Boston Daily Advertiser_ noticed this event as follows.

“It is impossible to refrain from comparing the election
of yesterday with Mr. Sumner’s previous election in the
same place six years ago. _Now_ he receives nearly all the
votes, on the first ballot, taken on the third day of the
session, every member speaking aloud his vote. _Then_ he
received only the exact number necessary for a choice,--one
more than half the whole number; and the election was not
effected until the twenty-sixth ballot, taken on the one
hundred and fourteenth day of the session (April 24, 1851),
and the votes were thrown in sealed envelopes. _Then_ he
was the candidate of a party which threw 27,636 votes in
the State, at the preceding popular election, or about one
fifth of the whole number. _Now_ he is the candidate of a
party which threw 108,190 votes in the State, at the last
popular election, or about two thirds of the whole number.
_Then_ he was chosen to a body where he could expect to
find but two or three associates sympathizing with his
sentiments. _Now_ he is a member of a party which has a
majority in the lower House of Congress, and numbers a
quarter of the members even of the Senate of the United
States. Truly, _tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis_.”

The _New York Tribune_ had the following comment.

“We need not, in view of recent events, point out the
change which has taken place in the public sentiment of
Massachusetts. It is not too much to say that Mr. Sumner
is at this moment the most popular man in the State, the
opinions of which he so truly represents. Nor will it
do to attribute this general love, honor, and sympathy
entirely to the felonious assault made upon Mr. Sumner. Had
he been less true to the cause committed to his keeping,
had he trimmed and temporized, and spoken softly when he
should have spoken sharply, he would have been safe from
the bludgeon of the bully, and might have won the smiles
instead of the expectorations of a certain servile Senator.
The people of Massachusetts have estimated Mr. Sumner’s
service in all its length and breadth; they have duly
weighed all its incidents and indignities,--what he has
suffered, what he has accomplished, and what he has failed
to accomplish; and their verdict, expressed in yesterday’s
almost unanimous vote in the House of Representatives,
bestows upon him a crown of honor which may well assuage
the hope deferred of a tardy convalescence. Few public men
have had such large opportunities, few public men have so
nobly improved them.”

On the 23d of January, 1857, Hon. Charles A. Phelps, Speaker
of the House of Representatives, laid before the House the
following letter, which was read, and, on motion of Hon.
Charles Hale, of Boston, entered at large upon the Journal.

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,--

I have been officially notified that the people of
Massachusetts, by concurrent votes of both branches of the
Legislature, have charged me with the duty of representing
them in the Senate of the United States for another term of
six years, on the expiration of that which I now have the
honor to hold. This renewed trust I accept with gratitude
enhanced by the peculiar circumstances under which it is
bestowed. But far beyond every personal gratification is
the delight of knowing, by this sign, that the people of
Massachusetts, forgetting ancient party hates, have at
last come together in fraternal support of a sacred cause,
compared with which the fate of any public servant is of
small account.

When first selected for this eminent trust, I was a
stranger to all official life. Untried in public affairs,
I was taken up, and placed, without effort of my own, and
even without antecedent aspiration, in the station where,
after an experience of nearly six years, you now, with
spontaneous unanimity, bid me remain. About to commence a
fresh term of service, I turn with honest pride to that
which is about to close, while I greet anew the duties
and responsibilities of my position,--hoping, that, by
conscientious endeavor, I may do something in the future
better than in the past, and mindful that “he that girdeth
on his harness should not boast himself as he that putteth
it off.”

The duties of a public servant are not always conspicuous.
Much of his time is absorbed in cares which, if not
obscure, are little calculated to attract public attention.
Massachusetts justly expects that no such interests
shall be neglected. But, by solemn resolutions of her
Legislature, by the votes of her people, and by the voice
of her history, Massachusetts especially enjoins upon her
representatives to see, that, at all hazards, and whatever
else may suffer, Freedom shall prevail. I cannot neglect
this injunction.

Alike by sympathy with the slave and by determination to
save ourselves from wretched thraldom, we are all summoned
to the effort now organized for _the emancipation of the
National Government_ from a degrading influence, hostile
to civilization, which, wherever it shows itself, even
at a distance, is brutal, vulgar, and mean, constituting
an unnatural tyranny, calculated to arouse the generous
indignation of good men. Of course, no person, unless
ready to say in his heart that there is no God, can doubt
the certain result. But this result, like every great
good, can be accomplished only by well-directed effort. I
know something of the labor and trial which such service
imposes; I also know something of the satisfaction it
affords, giving to all who truly espouse it a better joy
than anything in office or honor. In the weary prostration
of months, from which I have now happily risen, the
sharpest pang came out of my enforced separation from
the cause which was so dear to me; and now my content is
in the assurance that to this service I may dedicate the
vigorous health which, through medical care and the kindly
ministrations of Nature, I am permitted to expect. In this
well-founded assurance, I welcome the trust which has been
again conferred upon me, while I once more bespeak the
candid judgment of my fellow-citizens, and once more invoke
the guardianship of a benignant Providence.

I have the honor to be, fellow-citizens, with grateful
regard,

Your faithful servant and Senator,

CHARLES SUMNER.

BOSTON, January 22, 1857.

The following tribute, taken from contemporary newspapers,
attests a feeling much above that of ordinary politics, and
therefore illustrates this record.

“‘CHARLES SUMNER, OF BOSTON.’

“‘Three hundred and thirty-three members answered to their
names, with the words, “CHARLES SUMNER, of Boston”; and
as the Clerk responded with the same words to each vote,
they rang upon the ears of the large assembly more than six
hundred times during the hour occupied with calling the
roll.’

“‘It is said, no sound is ever lost,--that every word
uttered upon earth is echoed and reëchoed through space
forever.’

“Old Massachusetts! nobly thou
This day thy work hast done;
Proudly thou speakest for the Right,
And for thy honored son:

“Three hundred voices on the air,
Ringing the loved name forth;
Three hundred voices echoing back,
‘CHARLES SUMNER, of the North!’

“Throughout the land, beyond the sea,
The voices will be heard;
His name shall stand for Liberty,
The freeman’s rallying word.

“Throughout the land, beyond the sea,
Above, in arches high,
Voices are ever echoing
A name that ne’er will die.

“Unfurl the banners! even now
The stars more brightly shine:
Is one more glorious than the rest?
Old Bay State, it is thine!

“Gather fresh laurels, twine two wreaths,
Wreaths for a victory won,--
Loved Massachusetts, one for thee,
One for thy chosen son!”

GRATITUDE FOR SYMPATHY OF THE PEOPLE OF VERMONT.

LETTER TO HON. RYLAND FLETCHER, GOVERNOR OF VERMONT, MARCH 7, 1857.

The Legislature of Vermont, at its recent session, passed
a series of joint resolutions, highly complimentary, and
indorsing Mr. Sumner’s last speech in the Senate. On receiving
a copy, Mr. Sumner wrote the following reply.

NEW YORK, Saturday, March 7, 1857.

TO HIS EXCELLENCY, RYLAND FLETCHER, GOVERNOR OF VERMONT.

SIR,--At the last moment before leaving for foreign lands in
quest of that vigorous health which for nearly ten months has
been taken from me, I have received notice of the resolutions
adopted by the Legislature of Vermont, and approved by your
Excellency, which give the official sanction of a generous,
virtuous, and intelligent State to my speech in the Senate on the
19th and 20th of May last, exposing the Crime against Kansas.
Such a token is precious to me in every respect,--not only
because it assures me of the personal sympathy of the people of
Vermont, declared through their representatives, but because it
attests their interest in that cause which is more important than
any person.

I cannot accept this public approval of my speech without seizing
the occasion to express a heartfelt joy that I was permitted
to make it, and also my humble determination, with returning
strength, to do something that shall still further unmask the
portentous _Barbarism_ which has fastened on our Republic, and
installed itself in all the high places of power.

I have the honor to be, Sir, with much respect,

Your faithful servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

A LAST WORD FOR KANSAS, ON SAILING FOR EUROPE.

LETTER TO JAMES REDPATH, ESQ., MARCH 7, 1857.

ON BOARD STEAMSHIP FULTON, March 7, 1857.

MY DEAR SIR,--I trust that you and our friends will not be
disheartened in efforts for Kansas. Much must still be done, or
the night of Slavery will settle down on that beautiful Territory.

Surely the Legislature of Massachusetts will feel the inspiration
of a great cause, and pledge itself by a generous appropriation
to its support. I hear of constitutional impediments, but I
believe that all such will be found to have bottom in the
lukewarm hearts of objectors rather than in the Constitution.

There are some who think that anything for Slavery is
constitutional, but nothing for Freedom. With me the opposite
rule prevails, and I venture to say that any other rule must
bring discredit upon a country calling itself a Commonwealth.

I trust, also, that the people of Kansas will stand firm, and
that, if need be, they will know how to die for Freedom. Do any
sigh for a Thermopylæ? They have it in Kansas, for there is to
be fought the great battle between Freedom and Slavery,--by the
_ballot-box_, I trust; but I do not forget that all who destroy
the ballot-box madly invoke the _cartridge-box_.

With a farewell to my country, as I seek a foreign land, hoping
for health long deferred, I give my last thoughts to suffering
Kansas, with devout prayers that the ruffian Usurpation which now
treads her down may be peaceably overthrown, and that she may be
lifted into the enjoyment of freedom and repose.

Ever faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

P. S. I entrust this to the pilot, and hope it may reach you.

JAMES REDPATH, Esq.

INVITATION TO DINNER BY AMERICAN MERCHANTS IN PARIS.

LETTER TO THE AMERICAN MERCHANTS AT PARIS, APRIL 20, 1857.

The following correspondence, with its brief introduction, is
copied from _Galignani’s Messenger_ at Paris.

“SENATOR SUMNER, OF MASSACHUSETTS.--This distinguished
American statesman and orator has been tendered a public
dinner by the American merchants residing at Paris, in the
following complimentary terms.

“PARIS, April 28, 1857.

“DEAR SIR,--The American merchants residing in Paris,
desirous of expressing their high regard and admiration
for your noble independence and distinguished services as
a Senator of the United States, respectfully invite you to
meet them at a public dinner, to be given at such a time
during your sojourn in Paris as may be most convenient to
yourself.

“Though well aware that you are habitually accustomed to
decline all similar requests, we earnestly hope you will
yield to our wishes.

“As citizens of the great Republic, representing many
States, and all actively engaged in commercial life, we
tender you this tribute, as an evidence of our appreciation
of your elevated patriotism, unbending integrity, and
spotless honor.

“With the highest esteem, we have the honor to be your
friends and fellow-citizens.

“JOHN MUNROE,
B. G. WAINWRIGHT,
ELLIOT C. COWDIN,
SAMUEL P. HOLMES,
A. P. MONTANT,
THOMAS N. DALE,
G. F. T. REED,
JAMES W. TUCKER,
GEORGE T. RICHARDS,
A. K. P. COOPER,
GEORGE MILNE,
C. L. SHARPSTEEN,
HENRY WOODS,
W. ENDICOTT, JR.,
JOHN C. MARTIN,
WALTER H. LEWIS,
GEORGE L. TODD,
DAVID LANE,
V. MUMFORD MOORE,
J. H. DEMING,
JOS. D. B. CURTIS.”

To this invitation Mr. Sumner returned the following reply.

HÔTEL DE LA PAIX, RUE DE LA PAIX,
April 30, 1857.

GENTLEMEN,--I have been honored by your communication of
the 28th April, where, after referring to my services
as Senator of the United States, in language generous
beyond the ordinary experience of political life, you are
pleased to invite me, in the name of the American merchants
residing in Paris, to a public dinner, at such time as may
be most convenient to myself.

The voice of hospitality is pleasant in a strange land.
But the hospitality which you offer is enhanced by the
character and number of those who unite in it, among whom
I recognize well-known names, intimately associated with
the commerce of my country in one of its most important
outposts.

There is one aspect in which your invitation is especially
grateful. It is this. If I have been able to do anything
not unworthy of your approbation, it is because I never
failed, whether in majorities or minorities, against all
obloquy, and at every hazard, to uphold those principles of
Liberty which, just in proportion as they prevail under our
Constitution, make us an example to the nations. And since
my public course cannot be unknown to you, I am permitted
to infer that the public testimony with which you now honor
me is offered in some measure to those principles,--dearer
to me than any personal distinction,--with which I am proud
to know that my name is associated.

The invitation you send me, coming from such a source,
couched in terms so flattering, and possessing such an
import, presents a temptation difficult to resist. But
I am admonished by the state of my health, which is yet
far from its natural vigor, that I must not listen to it,
except to express my gratitude. In making this excuse,
let me fortify myself by the confession that I left home
mainly to withdraw from the excitements of public life, and
particularly from all public speaking, in the assurance
that by such withdrawal, accompanied by that relaxation
which is found in change of pursuit, my convalescence would
be completed. The good physician under whose advice I have
acted would not admit that by crossing the sea I had been
able at once to alter all the conditions under which his
advice was given.

I cannot turn coldly from the opportunity you offer
me. My heart overflows with best wishes for yourselves
individually, and also for the commerce which you conduct,
mingled with aspirations that your influence may always add
to the welfare and just renown of our country. As American
merchants at Paris, you are representatives of the United
States on a foreign mission, without diplomatic salary or
diplomatic privilege. But it belongs to the felicity of
your position that what you do well for yourselves will be
well for your country, and, more than any diplomacy, will
contribute to strengthen the friendly ties of two powerful
nations. Pardon the allusion, when I add that you are
the daily industrious workmen in that mighty loom whose
frame stands on the coasts of opposite continents, whose
threads are Atlantic voyages, whose colors are the various
enterprises and activities of a beneficent commerce,
and whose well-wrought product is a radiant, speaking
tissue,--more beautiful to the mind’s eye than any fabric
of rarest French skill, more marvellous than any tapestry
woven for kings,--where every color mingles with every
thread in completest harmony and on the grandest scale, to
display the triumphs and the blessings of Peace.

Accept the assurance of the sincere regard with which I
have the honor to be, Gentlemen,

Your faithful servant and fellow-citizen,

CHARLES SUMNER.

To JOHN MUNROE, B. G. WAINWRIGHT, ELLIOT C. COWDIN, Esqrs.,
and others, American merchants at Paris.

The vigilant spirit of Slavery did not fail to note this
correspondence. Immediately upon its appearance, a well-known
Virginian, the reputed owner of large plantations in right of
his wife, and long resident in Paris, addressed a letter to
_Galignani’s Messenger_, in which he undertook to set forth
what he called Mr. Sumner’s mission in Europe. Here is a
specimen.

“That mission, certainly ‘without any diplomatic
privilege,’ but peradventure not without perquisites, is
to initiate, and, if the exigencies of the cotton market
and manufacture do not forbid it, to organize, a systematic
agitation in this and the British capital against the
Southern States of the Confederacy, and that ‘peculiar
institution’ of theirs, so tenderly nursed of yore, and
transmitted to them by dear Old Mother England, and which
in very modern times has been not less cherished and
sustained by the ‘enterprise and activity’ on the coast
of Africa of some of her Puritanical progeny in the New
World. Under these circumstances can any such subdolous
plea as that put forward excuse these ‘American merchants’
from lending themselves to such agencies and influences? If
they were sordid and self-seeking adventurers, in pursuit
of _political_ capital, rather than the honorable rewards
of a liberal and enlightened trade, one could understand,
or rather would not marvel at, this pseudo-patriotic
partisanship, this unfraternal display of their _sectional_
colors in a foreign land.”

Thus was the invalid in search of health pursued by the same
malign spirit from which he had originally suffered.

OUR POLITICS SEEN FROM A DISTANCE.

LETTER TO A FRIEND, DATED HEIDELBERG, SEPTEMBER 11, 1857.

The following letter found its way into the papers of the time.

HEIDELBERG, September 11, 1857.

MY DEAR ----,--Weeks have now passed since I have seen a letter
or newspaper from home. During this time I have been travelling
away from news, and am now famished. On arrival at Antwerp, I
trust to find letters at last.

I have been ransacking Switzerland; I have visited most of its
lakes, and crossed several of its mountains, mule-back. My
strength has not allowed me to venture upon any of those foot
expeditions, the charm of Swiss travel, by which you reach places
out of the way; but I have seen much, and have gained health
constantly.

I have crossed the Alps by the St. Gothard, and then recrossed by
the Grand St. Bernard, passing a night with the monks and dogs.
I have spent a day at the foot of Mont Blanc, and another on the
wonderful Lake Leman. I have been in the Pyrenees, in the Alps,
in the Channel Isles. You will next hear of me in the Highlands
of Scotland.

I see our politics now in distant perspective, and I am more
than ever satisfied that our course is right. It is Slavery
which degrades our country, and prevents its example from being
all-conquering. In fighting our battle at home we fight the
battle of Freedom everywhere. Be assured, I shall return, not
only with renewed strength, but with renewed determination to
give myself to our great cause.

Ever sincerely yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

FAREWELL ON SAILING FOR EUROPE A SECOND TIME IN QUEST OF HEALTH.

LETTER TO THE PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS, ON BOARD STEAMER VANDERBILT, NEW
YORK HARBOR, MAY 22, 1858.

TO THE PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS:--

Two years have now passed, since, when in the enjoyment of
perfect health, I was suddenly made an invalid. Throughout this
protracted period, amidst various vicissitudes of convalescence,
I seemed to be slowly regaining the health that had been taken
from me, until I was encouraged to believe myself on the verge of
perfect recovery.

But injuries so grave as those originally received are not
readily repaired; and a recent relapse painfully admonishes me,
that, although enjoying many of the conditions of prosperous
convalescence, I am not yet beyond the necessity of caution. This
has been confirmed by the physicians in Boston and Philadelphia
most familiar with my case, who, in concurrence with counsels
previously given by medical authorities in Europe, have enjoined
travel as best calculated to promote restoration. Anxious to
spare no effort for this end, so long deferred, I to-day sail for
France.

To the generous people of Massachusetts, who have honored me with
an important trust, and cheered me by so much sympathy, I wish to
express the thanks which now palpitate in my bosom, while I say
to them all collectively, as I would say to a friend, Farewell!

These valedictory words would be imperfect, if I did not seize
this occasion to declare, what I have often said less publicly,
that, had I foreseen originally the duration of my disability,
I should at once have resigned my seat in the Senate, making
way for a servant more fortunate in the precious advantages of
health. I did not do so, because, like other invalids, I lived
in the belief that I was soon to be well, and was reluctant to
renounce the opportunity of again exposing the hideous Barbarism
of Slavery, now more than ever transfused into the National
Government, infecting its whole policy and degrading its whole
character. Besides, I was often assured, and encouraged to feel,
that to every sincere lover of civilization my vacant chair was a
perpetual speech.

CHARLES SUMNER.

ON BOARD STEAMER VANDERBILT, NEW YORK HARBOR, May 22, 1858.

HONOR TO THE INVENTOR OF THE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.

LETTER TO PROFESSOR MORSE, IN EXCUSING HIMSELF FROM A DINNER AT PARIS,
AUGUST 17, 1858.

HÔTEL AND RUE DE LA PAIX, PARIS,
Tuesday, August 17, 1858.

MY DEAR SIR,--I have fresh occasion to be unhappy that I am
still an invalid, because it prevents me from joining in the
well-deserved honors which our countrymen here are about to offer
you.

As I would not be thought indifferent to the occasion, I seize
the moment to express in this informal manner my humble gratitude
for the great discovery with which your name will be forever
associated. Through you Civilization has made one of her surest
and grandest triumphs, beyond any ever won on a field of battle;
nor do I go beyond the line of most cautious truth, when I add,
that, if mankind had yet arrived at a just appreciation of its
benefactors, it would welcome such a conqueror with more than a
marshal’s baton.

I write to you frankly, and with a still cordial memory of that
distant day, when, in the company of a friend who is no longer on
earth, I first had the happiness of taking you by the hand.

Believe me, my dear Sir, with much regard,

Ever sincerely yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

PROFESSOR MORSE.

LONGING FOR DUTIES OF POSITION.

FROM A LETTER TO A FRIEND, DATED AT AIX, SAVOY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1858.

This extract is taken from the public papers of the time.

AIX, SAVOY, September 11, 1858.

…

Look at the map of Europe, and you will find, nestling in the
mountains of Savoy, between Switzerland and France, the little
village of Aix, generally known as Aix-les-Bains, from the baths
which give it fame. There I am now. The country about is most
beautiful, the people simple and kind.

My life is devoted to health. I wish that I could say that I am
not still an invalid; yet, except when attacked by the pain on my
chest, I am now comfortable, and enjoy my baths, my walks, and
the repose and incognito which I find here.

I begin the day with _douches_, hot and cold,--and when
thoroughly exhausted, am wrapped in sheet and blanket, and
conveyed to my hotel, and laid on my bed. After my walk, I find
myself obliged again to take to my bed for two hours before
dinner. But this whole treatment is in pleasant contrast with the
protracted suffering from fire which made the summer a torment.
And yet I fear that I must return to that treatment.

It is with a pang unspeakable that I find myself thus arrested
in the labors of life and in the duties of my position. This is
harder to bear than the fire. I do not hear of friends engaged in
active service--like Trumbull in Illinois--without a feeling of
envy.

…

CHARLES SUMNER.

INDEPENDENCE AND UNITY OF ITALY.

LETTER TO A PUBLIC MEETING AT NEW YORK, FEBRUARY 17, 1860.

This meeting was at the City Assembly Rooms, and was addressed
by Rev. Joseph P. Thompson, Hon. Charles King, Rev. H. W.
Bellows, Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, Hon. Joseph Hoxie, and
Professor O. M. Mitchel. According to the _New York Tribune_,
the letter of Mr. Sumner “was received with much enthusiasm.”

SENATE CHAMBER, February 16, 1860.

GENTLEMEN,--You do me no more than justice, when you suppose
that my sympathies are with Italy in her present noble struggle.
If I do not attend the meeting at New York, according to the
invitation with which I am honored, it is because other duties
here keep me away.

To the cause of Human Freedom everywhere I am bound by all ties,
whether of feeling or principle. To Italy also--venerable, yet
ever young, with that fatal gift of beauty which from all time
she has worn--I confess a sentiment of love and reverence; I am
sorrowful in her sorrow, and happy in her happiness.

Surely, by her past history, and all that she has done for human
improvement, we are her debtors. Without Italian genius what
now were modern civilization? There is no art, or science, or
activity, or grace, in which she has not excelled or led the
way. If I went into detail, I must mention not only sculpture,
painting, engraving, and music, but also astronomy, navigation,
bookkeeping, and jurisprudence; and I must present an array of
great names, such as no other country can boast. And to all these
I must add the practical discoveries of the mariner’s compass,
the barometer, the telescope applied to astronomy, and the
pendulum as a measure of time.

To the political skeptics and infidels who affect to doubt the
capacity for freedom of this illustrious people I would say,
that Italy, in modern times, was the earliest home of political
science, and the earliest author of some of those political
truths which have since passed into principles. Besides, divided
into separate, sovereign States, with separate systems of
legislation, her condition is coincident with our own, to the
extent of possessing those local facilities for self-government
which are our boast. And then there is the spirit of her sons, as
shown in recent efforts, giving assurance of courage, and of that
rarer wisdom which knows how to guide and temper courage, both of
which shone so conspicuous in the Venetian Manin, worthy compeer
of our own Washington.

Allow me to add, that I confidently look to the day when we
may welcome into the fellowship of nations a community new in
external form, but old in constituent parts,--separate in local
governments, but bound in perfect union, with one national flag,
one national coin, and one national principle, giving to all the
strength of unity,--_E Pluribus Unum_,--and constituting the
United States of Italy. And may God speed this good time!

Accept the assurance of the respect with which I have the honor
to be, Gentlemen,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TWO LESSONS FROM THE LIFE OF WASHINGTON.

LETTER TO THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT ASSOCIATION OF THE FIRST SCHOOL
DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, FEBRUARY 21, 1860.

SENATE CHAMBER, February 21, 1860.

DEAR SIR,--It would be a pleasure to be with you at your
celebration of the Birthday of Washington, according to the
invitation with which you have honored me. But other duties will
keep me away.

It is always a delight to listen to the praise of Washington,
particularly when his full life is set forth, and he is shown
in his real character, ever wise, firm, and true, teaching two
commanding lessons: first, by the achievements and trials of
a seven years’ war, that his fellow-countrymen should not be
willing to be slaves; and, secondly, by the repeated declarations
of his life, and especially by his great example in his last will
and testament, that his fellow-countrymen should not be willing
to be slave-masters. I do not know for which he is to be most
honored.

Accept my thanks for the personal kindness of your letter, and
believe me, dear Sir,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

GEORGE F. GORDON, Esq.

MACAULAY ON SLAVERY.

COMMUNICATION TO THE NEW YORK TRIBUNE, MARCH 3, 1860.

The same paper contained the article of Macaulay entitled “The West
Indies,” from the _Edinburgh Review_, January, 1825, Vol. XLI. pp.
464-488. The day after its appearance, the New York Herald, in a
leader with the caption, “_Macaulay, Sumner, and Slavery,_” sought to
disparage the testimony, saying, among other things:--

“What Mr. Sumner now introduces is a proof how badly off the
party must be for weapons, when they rake them up from the
dead magazines of another generation, and written by a youth
a little over twenty years of age; or Mr. Sumner has not yet
recovered his usual strength of mind, since the injury he
received a few years ago at the Capitol. And what does his
article amount to? That the British planters in the West Indies
treated their slaves very badly, which may or may not be true.
But from the abuse of the institution in one place he argues
against the policy of its continued existence in any other
part of the world. He might as well conclude, that, because
many of the English are cruel to their horses, and that it was
necessary to pass an Act of Parliament for their protection,
therefore horses ought to be emancipated in the United States,
and let loose through the country. An argument from the abuse
to the disuse of anything is the poorest kind of logic.”

Such was the tone of discussion on the eve of the Presidential election
destined to decide the fate of American Slavery.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TRIBUNE:--

SIR,--I ask attention to an eloquent and characteristic article
on Slavery, by Macaulay, never yet printed in our country with
his name. It is in an old number of the “Edinburgh Review,”
while Jeffrey was its editor, and in point of time preceded
the famous article on Milton. It is, indeed, the earliest
contribution of the illustrious writer to that Review, of
which he became a chief support and ornament. As such, it
belongs to the curiosities of literature, even if it did not
possess intrinsic interest from subject and style.

Here are seen, no longer in germ, but almost in perfect
development, those same great elements of style which appear
in the maturer essays and the History,--mastery of language,
clearness of statement, force, splendor of illustration, an
irrepressible sequence of thought and argument, and that same
whip of scorpions which he afterward flourished over Barère:
all these are conspicuous in this first effort, where he utters
the honest, gushing indignation of his soul. Never has Slavery
inspired speaker or writer to more complete and scornful
condemnation.

The article was called forth by British Slavery in the West
Indies; but it is just as applicable to American Slavery.
_Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur._ Every line bears upon
the slave-drivers of our country, with greater force even than
upon the slave-drivers of the West Indies; for audacity here
goes further than it was ever pushed in the British dominions.
It is interesting to find how exact the parallel becomes. In
the picture of illiberal men conspiring to support Slavery
Macaulay seems to delineate us.

“The slave-drivers may boast, that, if our cause has
received support from honest men of all religious and
political parties, theirs has tended in as great a
degree to combine and conciliate every form of violence
and illiberality. Tories and Radicals, prebendaries and
field-preachers, are to be found in their ranks. The only
requisites for one who aspires to enlist are a front of
brass and a tongue of venom.”[9]

Aiming to exhibit Slavery in its laws, without dwelling on
the accumulated instances of cruelty, he puts the case on the
strongest ground; and here his unimpeachable witness is the
statute-book itself. But this same argument bears with equal
force upon _our_ Slavery; so that, in reading his indignant
exposure of the West India jurisprudence, we see rising
before us the kindred enormities of our own Slave States, and
acknowledge the truth of his generous words.

He seems also to have anticipated that flagrant sophism, which,
under the guise of Popular Sovereignty, insists that men shall
be at liberty--“perfectly free” is the phrase of the Nebraska
Bill--to buy and sell fellow-men.

“If you will adopt the principles of Liberty, adopt them
altogether. Every argument which you can urge in support
of your own claims might be employed, with far greater
justice, in favor of the emancipation of your bondsmen.
When that event shall have taken place, your demand will
deserve consideration. At present, what you require under
the name of Freedom is nothing but unlimited power to
oppress. It is the freedom of Nero.”[10]

The threats of disunion, coming from slave-drivers, are also
foreshown, and treated with the scorn they merit.

“Who can refrain from thinking of Captain Lemuel Gulliver,
who, while raised sixty feet from the ground on the hand
of the King of Brobdignag, claps his hand on his sword and
tells his Majesty that he knows how to defend himself?
You will rebel!… But this is mere trifling. Are you, in
point of fact, at this moment able to protect yourselves
against your slaves without our assistance? If you can
still rise up and lie down in security,--if you can still
eat the bread of the fatherless and grind the faces of the
poor,--if you can still hold your petty Parliaments, and
say your little speeches, and move your little motions,--if
you can still outrage and insult the Parliament and people
of England,--to what do you owe it?”[11]

The sensitiveness of slave property--the same in our Slave
States as in the British West Indies--is aptly described in
the remark, that a pamphlet of Mr. Stephen or a speech of Mr.
Brougham is sufficient to excite all the slaves in the colonies
to rebel. And it is shown that in a servile war the master
_must_ be loser; for his enemies are his chattels. Whether
the slave conquer or fall, he is alike lost to the owner. In
the mean time, the soil lies uncultivated, the machinery is
destroyed. And when the possessions of the planter are restored
to him, they have been changed into a desert.[12]

Here also is an exhibition of the incompatibility between
Slavery and Christianity, which ought to be read in every
Southern pulpit:--

“The immorality and irreligion of the slaves are the
necessary consequences of their political and personal
degradation. They are not considered by the law as human
beings.… _They must become men before they can become
Christians_.… Can a preacher prevail on his hearers
strictly to fulfil their conjugal duties in a country where
no protection is given to their conjugal rights,--in a
country where the husband and wife may, at the pleasure of
the master or by process of law, be in an instant separated
forever?… The great body of the colonists have resolutely
opposed religious instruction; and they are in the right.
They know, though their misinformed friends in England do
not know, that Christianity and Slavery cannot long exist
together.”[13]

Such is the philippic against Slavery by the first writer of
the English language in our day, and one of the first in all
times. As testimony to a sacred cause, it is priceless; as a
contribution to literature, it cannot be forgotten. Why it was
suppressed by American publishers, who gave us the earliest
collection of Macaulay’s Essays ever printed in England or
America, I know not. Unhappily, this suppression was too
much in harmony with the received American system from that
day to this, whether in publishing Humboldt’s work on Cuba,
the Bishop of Oxford’s work on the American Church, or the
engraving of Ary Scheffer’s “Christus Consolator,” from all of
which the slave is shut out. That this blame may not fall upon
the author himself, it is important to know that the American
collection was made without any list supplied by him. In the
modesty of his nature, he regarded his contributions to Reviews
as fugitive pieces, which he abandoned to the world, without
caring to gather them together. It will be for posterity to
rejudge this judgment.

In this statement, I rely upon personal recollection of
conversations with him. More than twenty years ago--as also
more recently--I was in the habit of meeting the great writer
in the society of London; and I remember well how, on one of
these occasions, when told that an American bookseller proposed
to publish a collection of his articles, he very positively
protested against it, and refused to furnish a list. Nor
is it out of place to add here, that, while his wonderful
conversation left on the mind an ineffaceable impression of
eloquence and fulness, perhaps without parallel, it also showed
a character of singular integrity.

This article is not alone in attesting his sympathy with the
Antislavery cause. The first public appearance of Macaulay,
while yet a very young man, was at an Antislavery meeting;
and one of his most stinging speeches, at the maturity of his
powers, in the House of Commons, bore testimony to the depth
and constancy of this sentiment.[14] This was natural; for he
was son of Zachary Macaulay, one of the devoted Abolitionists
who helped to carry, first, the abolition of the slave-trade,
and then, at a later day, the abolition of Slavery itself, in
the British dominions.

The services of the father, as friend of the slave, have been
aptly commemorated by a cenotaph in Westminster Abbey, situated
in the nave, on the left side of the great door as you enter,
and close to the imposing monument of Fox. The son now lies
in the same historic burial-place and beneath the same mighty
roof,[15] but in Poets’ Corner, distant by more than the whole
length of the nave from the tablet erected in honor of his
father. In all that multitude of monuments to the illustrious
dead, if we except the line of kings, there is but one other
instance of father and son enshrined in the Abbey, and that is
Lord Chatham and William Pitt, whose monuments are also distant
from each other by more than the whole length of the nave.

Such is the conspicuous fellowship of the two Pitts and
the Macaulays, father and son, although most unlike in
circumstances of life and the services which have secured this
common foothold of immortality. In each case, the father, even
with the fame of Lord Chatham, has new glory from the son. The
resting-places of the two Pitts are known at once on entering
the Abbey. Hereafter, the stranger, who has stood with grateful
admiration before the grave of the younger Macaulay, will
seek with reverent step the simple tribute to his father, the
Abolitionist,--mindful that the love of Human Freedom in which
the son was cradled and schooled gave to his character some of
its best features, and to his career of authorship its earliest
triumph.

My purpose is simply to introduce this new-found testimony
against Slavery, and not to dwell on the life or character of
the author. If I followed a hint from him, the way would be
open. Nobody can forget that in one of his most magnificent
essays he has availed himself of the interest, transient it may
have been, created by a newly discovered prose work of Milton,
and has reminded his readers that the dexterous Capuchins never
choose to preach on the life and miracles of a Saint till they
have awakened the devotional feelings of their auditors by
exhibiting some relic of him,--a thread of his garment, a lock
of his hair, or a drop of his blood. Here, indeed, is a relic
of Macaulay; but I venture no further.

CHARLES SUMNER.

STATUE OF HORACE MANN.

LETTER TO DR. SAMUEL G. HOWE, MARCH 5, 1860.

From the public papers of the time.

SENATE CHAMBER, March 5, 1860.

MY DEAR HOWE,--I am glad to know that you are moving in earnest
for a public statue to Horace Mann.

Absence, and not indifference, is my excuse for not associating
myself at first with this purpose. Though tardily, I do it
now most sincerely, and with my whole heart. I send you for
it one hundred dollars; but you will please not to measure my
interest in this tribute to a public benefactor by the sum which
I contribute. Were I able, it would be ten times as large. If
each person in Massachusetts who has been benefited by the vast
and generous labors of Horace Mann,--each person who hates
Intemperance, and who hates Slavery,--each person who loves
Education, and who loves humane efforts for the prisoner, the
poor, and the insane,--should contribute a mite only, then his
statue would be of gold. Why not at once appeal to good men, and
insist upon organization throughout the Commonwealth, reaching
into every School District, so that all may have an opportunity
to contribute? Pray do this, and if I can serve you any way
about it, command me, and believe me,

Always yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

P. S.--Mr. Seward, who is not a Massachusetts man, asks me to put
his name down for fifty dollars. I enclose his subscription.

USURPATION OF THE SENATE IN IMPRISONING A CITIZEN.

TWO SPEECHES, ON THE IMPRISONMENT OF THADDEUS HYATT FOR REFUSING TO
TESTIFY IN THE HARPER’S FERRY INVESTIGATION, IN THE SENATE, MARCH 12
AND JUNE 15, 1860.

On his return to the Senate, at the opening of Congress,
December 5, 1859, Mr. Sumner encountered the agitation arising
from the famous attempt of John Brown at Harper’s Ferry. Though
warned to enter slowly into the full responsibilities of his
position, he was constantly moved by incidents arising from
this agitation.

* * * * *

On the first day of the session, Mr. Mason, of Virginia, moved
the appointment of a committee “to inquire into the facts
attending the late invasion and seizure of the armory and
arsenal of the United States at Harper’s Ferry, in Virginia,
by a band of armed men,” and the long resolution concluded
with “power to send for persons and papers.” The Committee
was appointed, with Mr. Mason as chairman, and, in the course
of its duties, summoned John Brown, Jr., of Kansas, and F. B.
Sanborn and James Redpath, of Massachusetts, who severally
failed to appear. Thaddeus Hyatt, of New York, appeared, but
refused to testify. Thereupon Mr. Mason reported from his
committee the following resolution.

“Whereas Thaddeus Hyatt, appearing at the bar of the
Senate, in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, pursuant to
the resolution of the Senate of the 6th of March, instant,
was required, by order of the Senate then made, to answer
the following questions, under oath and in writing: ‘1st,
What excuse have you for not appearing before the select
committee of the Senate, in pursuance of the summons
served on you on the 24th day of January, 1860? 2d, Are
you now ready to appear before said committee, and answer
such proper questions as shall be put to you by said
committee?’--time to answer the same being given until
the 9th day of March following: And whereas, on the said
last-named day, the said Thaddeus Hyatt, again appearing,
in like custody, at the bar of the Senate, presented a
paper, accompanied by an affidavit, which he stated was
his answer to said questions; and it appearing, upon
examination thereof, that said Thaddeus Hyatt has assigned
no sufficient excuse in answer to the question first
aforesaid, and in answer to said second question has not
declared himself ready to appear and answer before said
committee of the Senate, as set forth in said question, and
has not purged himself of the contempt with which he stands
charged: Therefore,

“_Be it resolved_, That the said Thaddeus Hyatt be
committed by the Sergeant-at-Arms to the common jail of the
District of Columbia, to be kept in close custody until
he shall signify his willingness to answer the questions
propounded to him by the Senate; and for the commitment and
detention of the said Thaddeus Hyatt this resolution shall
be a sufficient warrant.

“_Resolved_, That, whenever the officer having the said
Thaddeus Hyatt in custody shall be informed by said Hyatt
that he is ready and willing to answer the questions
aforesaid, it shall be the duty of such officer to deliver
the said Thaddeus Hyatt over to the Sergeant-at-Arms of the
Senate, whose duty it shall be again to bring him before
the bar of the Senate, when so directed by the Senate.”

On the question upon its passage, March 12, 1860, Mr. Sumner
spoke as follows.

MR. PRESIDENT,--It is related in English parliamentary history, that,
on a certain occasion, when the House of Commons was about ordering
the commitment of a somewhat too famous witness to the custody of the
Sergeant-at-Arms, the Speaker interfered by volunteering to say, that
“the House ought to pause before they came to a decision upon a point
in which the liberty of the subject was so materially concerned.”[16]
That same question is now before us. We are to pass on the liberty of a
citizen.

Pardon me, if I say that such a question cannot at any time be trivial.
But it has an unaccustomed magnitude on this occasion, because the
case is novel in this body; so that what you now do, besides involving
the liberty of the gentleman at the bar, will establish a precedent,
which, in itself, will be a law for other cases hereafter.

Now, if it be conceded that the Senate is invested with all the
large powers claimed by the Houses of Parliament, then I cannot
doubt its power in the present case, although I might well question
the expediency of exercising it. But this is notoriously untrue. It
is well known that Parliament is above the constraint of a written
Constitution; and it has been more than once declared--much to the
indignation of our Revolutionary fathers--that it is “omnipotent” to
such extent that it can do anything it pleases, except make a man of a
woman, or a woman of a man. The Senate has no such large powers; it is
not “omnipotent,” but under the constraint of a written Constitution.
Instead of authority in all possible cases, it has authority only in
certain specific cases.

If the Senate can summon witnesses to its bar, and compel them to
testify, under pains and penalties, it must be by virtue of powers
delegated in the Constitution,--I do not say by express grant, but at
least by positive intendment. I say positive intendment; for nothing is
to be presumed against liberty.

There are certain cases in which the power is clear: first, and most
conspicuously, in the trial of impeachments; secondly, in determining
the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members; and,
thirdly, in punishing its members for disorderly behavior. All these
proceedings are judicial, as well as political, in character, and carry
with them, as a natural incident, the power to compel witnesses to
testify.

Beyond these three cases, which stand on the express words of the
Constitution, there are two other cases, quasi-judicial in character,
which, though not supported by express words of the Constitution, have
grown out of necessity and reason, amounting to positive intendment,
and are sanctioned by precedents. I refer, first, to the inquiry into
an alleged violation of the privileges of this body, as where a copy
of a treaty was furtively obtained and published; and, secondly, to
the inquiry into conduct of servants of the Senate, like that now
proceeding with regard to the Printer, on the motion of the Senator
from New York [Mr. KING]. If I were asked to indicate the principle
on which these two cases stood, I should say it was that just and
universal right of _self-defence_ inherent in every parliamentary body,
as in every court, and also in every individual, but which is limited
closely by the simple necessities of the case.

Such are the five cases in which this extraordinary power has been
heretofore exercised: the first three standing on the text of
the Constitution, and the other two on the right of self-defence
necessarily inherent in the Senate; all five sanctioned by precedents
of this body; all five judicial in character; all five judicial also
in purpose and intent; and all five agreeing in this final particular,
that they have no legislative purpose or intent. Beyond these cases
there is no precedent for the exercise by the Senate of the power in
question.

It is now proposed to add a new case, most clearly without any support
in the Constitution, without any support in the right of _self-defence_
inherent in the Senate, and without any support in the precedents of
the Senate.

A committee has been appointed to inquire into the facts attending
the late invasion and seizure of the armory and arsenal at Harper’s
Ferry by a band of armed men, and report whether the same was attended
by armed resistance to the authorities and public force of the United
States, and by the murder of any citizens of Virginia, or of any troops
sent there to protect public property; whether such invasion was made
under color of any organization intended to subvert the government
of any of the States of the Union; the character and extent of such
organization; _whether any citizens of the United States, not present,
were implicated therein or accessory thereto, by contributions of
money, arms, munitions, or otherwise_; the character and extent of the
military equipment in the hands or under the control of such armed
band; where, how, and when the same was obtained and transported to the
place invaded; also, to report what legislation, if any, is necessary
by the Government for the future preservation of the peace of the
country and the safety of public property; with power to send for
persons and papers.

And this committee, after several weeks of session, now invokes the
power of the Senate to compel the witness to testify. The chairman of
the committee, the Senator from Virginia [Mr. MASON], who calls for the
imprisonment of an American citizen, has shown no authority for such
an exercise of power in the Constitution, or in the admitted right of
self-defence, or in the precedents of the Senate. He cannot show any
such authority. It does not exist.

Surely, where the Constitution, and reason, and precedent, all three,
are silent, we might well hesitate to exercise a power so transcendent.
But I shall not stop here. I go further, and point out two specific
defects in the resolution of the Senate.

_First._ The inquiry which it institutes is clearly judicial in
character,--without, however, any judicial purpose, or looking to any
judicial end. The committee is essentially a Tribunal, with power of
denunciation, but without power of punishment,--sitting with closed
doors, having the secrecy of the Inquisition or the Star Chamber,
or, if you please, the Grand Jury,--with power to investigate facts
involving the guilt of absent persons, and to denounce fellow-citizens
as felons and traitors. If such a power is lodged anywhere outside of
judicial tribunals, it must be in the House of Representatives, as
the Grand Inquest of the Nation, with its power to impeach all civil
officers, from the President down; but it cannot be in the Senate.
Let me cite an illustration. The Constitution of Maryland provides
expressly that “the House of Delegates may inquire, on the oath of
witnesses, into all complaints, grievances, and offences, as the Grand
Inquest of the State, and may commit any person for any crime to the
public jail, there to remain until discharged by due course of law.”
But I deny that the Senate of that neighbor State can erect itself into
a Grand Inquest.

If the Senate of the United States have power to make the present
inquiry, then, on any occasion of alleged crime, of whatever nature,
whether of treason or murder or riot, it may rush to the assistance of
the grand juries of the District, or, still further, it may rush to the
assistance of the grand juries of Virginia; in short, it will be an
inquest of commanding character, and with far-reaching, all-pervading
process, supplementary and ancillary to the local inquest,--or, rather,
so transcendent in powers, that by its side the local inquest will be
dwarfed into insignificance. This cannot be proper or constitutional.
But perhaps I am especially sensitive on this point; for, as a citizen
of Massachusetts, I cannot forget that her Bill of Rights, originally
the work of John Adams, provides expressly that the legislative
department shall never exercise judicial powers, and the judicial
department shall never exercise legislative powers,--“to the end,” as
is solemnly declared, “it may be a government of laws, and not of men.”

But, assuming that the resolution is defective so far as it constitutes
an inquest into crime, it may be said that the witness should be
compelled to answer the other parts. Surely, the Senate will not resort
to any such refinement in order to imprison a citizen.

_Secondly._ But there is a broader objection still: that, whatever may
be the power of the Senate in judicial cases, it cannot compel the
testimony of a witness in a proceeding of which the declared purpose
is merely legislative. Officers of the Government communicate with
Congress and its committees simply by letter. They are not summoned
from distant posts, or even from their offices here. And I know not
why a distant citizen, charged with no offence, and in every right the
peer of any office-holder, should be treated with less consideration.
If information be desired from him for any legislative purpose, let
him communicate it in the way most convenient to himself, and most
consistent with those rights of the citizen which all are bound to
respect.

At all events, if this power is to be exercised, let it not be under a
simple resolution of the Senate, but by virtue of a general law, passed
by both Houses, and approved by the President, so that the citizen
shall be surrounded with certain safeguards.

Mr. President, I confidently submit that a power so entirely without
support, and also so obnoxious to criticism, at the same time that it
is so vast, is not to be carelessly exercised. You cannot send the
witness to prison without establishing a new precedent and commencing a
new class of cases. You will declare that the Senate, at any time,--not
merely in the performance of admitted judicial duties, but also in
the performance of mere legislative duties,--may drag a citizen from
the most distant village of the most distant State, and compel his
testimony, involving the guilt or innocence of absent persons, or, it
may be, of the witness himself. This is a fearful prerogative, and
permit me to say, that, in assuming it, you liken yourselves to the
Jesuits, at the period of their most hateful supremacy, when it was
said that their power was a sword whose handle was at Rome and whose
point was in the most distant places. You take into your hands a sword
whose handle will be in this Chamber, to be clutched by a mere partisan
majority, and whose point will be in every corner of the Republic.

If the present case were doubtful, which I do not admit, I feel that
I cannot go wrong, when I lean to the side of Liberty. But, even
admitting that you have the power, is this the occasion to use it?
Is it, upon the whole, expedient? Is the object to be accomplished
worth the sacrifice? It is well to have a giant’s strength, but it is
tyrannous to use it like a giant.

For myself, Sir, I confess a feeling of gratitude to the witness, who,
knowing nothing which he desires to conceal, and chiefly anxious that
the liberties of all may not suffer through him, feeble in body and
broken in health, hardly able to endure the fatigue of appearing at
your bar, now braves the prison which you menace, and thrusts his arm
as a bolt to arrest an unauthorized and arbitrary proceeding.

The resolutions were adopted March 12, 1860, and on the same
day Mr. Hyatt was committed to the common jail of Washington.

* * * * *

On the 15th of June, 1860, Mr. Mason, of Virginia, Chairman of
the Harper’s Ferry Investigating Committee, in submitting his
final report, further submitted the following order.

“_Ordered_, That Thaddeus Hyatt, a witness confined in
the jail of this city for refusal to appear and testify
before said committee, be discharged from custody, and
that a copy of this order be delivered to the jailer by
the Sergeant-at-Arms, as his warrant for discharging said
prisoner.”

On the question upon its passage, Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I welcome with pleasure the proposition for the
discharge of Mr. Hyatt from his long incarceration in the filthy
jail where he has been detained by the order of the Senate. But I am
unwilling that this act of justice should be done to a much injured
citizen, without for one moment exposing the injustice which he has
received at your hands.

The case, it seems to me, can be made as plain as a diagram.

We must not forget a fundamental difference between the powers of the
House of Representatives and the powers of the Senate. It is from the
former that the Senator from Virginia has drawn his precedents, and
here is his mistake.

To the House of Representatives expressly are given by the Constitution
_inquisitorial_ powers, while no such powers are given to the Senate.
This is contained in the words, “The House of Representatives
shall have the _sole_ power of impeachment.” Here, then, obviously,
is something delegated to the House, and not delegated to the
Senate,--namely, those inquiries in their nature preliminary to
impeachment, which may or may not end in impeachment; and since, by
the Constitution, every “civil officer” of the national government may
be impeached, the _inquisitorial_ powers of the House may be directed
against every “civil officer,” from the President down to the lowest on
the list.

This is an extensive power, but it is confined solely to the House.
Strictly speaking, the Senate has no general _inquisitorial_ powers. It
has, we know, _judicial powers_ in three cases under the Constitution:--

1. To try impeachments;

2. To judge the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members;

3. To punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the
concurrence of two thirds, to expel a member.

In the execution of these powers, the Senate has the attributes of
a court, and, according to established precedents, it may summon
witnesses and compel their testimony, although it may well be doubted
if a law be not necessary even to the execution of this power.

Besides these three cases, expressly named in the Constitution, there
are two others, where it has already undertaken to exercise _judicial
powers_, not by virtue of express words, but in _self-defence_:--

1. With regard to the conduct of its servants, as of its Printer;

2. When its privileges have been violated, as in the case of William
Duane,[17] by a libel, or in the case of Nugent,[18] by obtaining and
divulging a treaty while still under seal of secrecy.

It will be observed that these two classes of cases are not sustained
by any text of the Constitution. If sustained at all, it must be by
that principle of universal jurisprudence, and also of natural law,
which gives to every body, whether natural or artificial, the right
to protect its own existence,--in other words, the great right of
self-defence. And I submit that no principle less solid can sustain
this exercise of power. It is not enough to say that such a power
would be _convenient_, highly convenient, or important. _It must be
absolutely essential to the self-preservation of the body_; and even
then, in the absence of any law, it must be open in our country to the
gravest doubts.

“Doubtless,” says Blackstone, “all arbitrary powers, well executed,
are _the most convenient_.”[19] But _mere convenience_ is not a proper
reason, under a free government, for the assumption of powers not
granted; and this is especially the case where the powers are arbitrary
and despotic, and touch the liberty of the citizen.

Now, if the present inquiry were in the House of Representatives, and
were directed against the President or the Secretary of War, on the
ground of negligence or malfeasance at an important moment, it would
be clearly within the jurisdiction of that body, which has the _sole_
power of impeachment; but it would not come within the jurisdiction
of the Senate, until it became the duty of the latter body to try the
impeachment instituted by the House.

But the present inquiry is neither preliminary to impeachment nor on
the trial of an impeachment. It has no such element. It is precisely
the same as if an inquiry should be instituted into the murder of Dr.
Burdell in New York, or into the burning of slaves in Alabama, or into
the banks of New York, or into the conduct of the Supreme Court of
Wisconsin in alleged obstructions of the Fugitive Slave Bill,--with
regard to all which the Senate has no judicial powers. And yet it has
judicial powers in all these cases, precisely to the same extent that
it has in the case of John Brown at Harper’s Ferry.

I know it is said that this power is necessary _in aid of legislation_.
I deny the necessity. _Convenient_, at times, it may be; but
_necessary_, never. We do not drag members of the Cabinet or the
President to testify before a committee, _in aid of legislation_; but
I say, without hesitation, they can claim no immunity which does not
belong equally to the humblest citizen. Mr. Hyatt and Mr. Sanborn
have rights as ample as if they were office-holders. Such a power as
this--which, without the sanction of law, and merely at the will of a
partisan majority, may be employed to ransack the most distant States,
and to drag citizens before the Senate all the way from Wisconsin or
from South Carolina--may be convenient, and to certain persons may seem
to be necessary. Throughout all time alleged necessity has been the
apology for wrong.

“So spake the Fiend, and with _necessity_,
The tyrant’s plea, excused his devilish deeds.”

Such, according to Milton, was the practice among the fallen angels.

Let me be understood as admitting the power of the Senate, where it is
essential to its own protection or the protection of its privileges,
but not where it is required merely in aid of legislation. The
difference is world-wide between what is required for _protection_ and
what is required merely for _aid_; and here I part from Senators with
whom I am proud on other matters to act. They hold that this great
power may be exercised, not merely for the _protection_ of the Senate,
but also for its _aid_ in framing a bill or in maturing any piece of
legislation. To aid a committee of this body merely in a legislative
purpose, a citizen, guilty of no crime, charged with no offence,
presumed to be innocent, honored and beloved in his neighborhood, may
be seized, handcuffed, kidnapped, and dragged away from home, hurried
across State lines, brought here as criminal, and then thrust into
jail. The mere statement of the case shows the dangerous absurdity
of such a claim. “Nephew,” said Algernon Sidney in prison, on the
night before his execution, “I value not my own life a chip; but what
concerns me is, that the _law_ which takes away my life may hang every
one of you, whenever it is thought convenient.” It was a dangerous
_law_ that aroused the indignation of the English patriot. But in the
present case there is not even a law,--nothing but an order made by a
fractional part of Congress.

There are Senators here who pretend to find in the Constitution
the right to carry slaves into the National Territories. That such
Senators should also find in the same Constitution the right to make a
slave of Mr. Hyatt or Mr. Sanborn, or of anybody else, merely to aid
legislation, is not astonishing; but I am at a loss how Senators who
love Freedom can find any such right in the Constitution.

I say nothing now of precedents from the British Parliament, for
they are all more or less inapplicable. We live under a written
Constitution, with certain specified powers; and all these are
restricted by the Tenth Amendment, declaring that “the powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.” But even British precedents have found a critic at home, in
the late Chief Justice of England, Lord Denman, pronouncing judgment
in the great case of _Stockdale_ v. _Hansard_,[20]--and also in the
words of an elegant and authoritative historian, whose life has been
passed in one or the other of the two Houses of Parliament: I refer to
Lord Mahon, now Earl Stanhope, who, in his History of England, thus
remarks:--

“I may observe, in passing, that throughout the reign of George
the Second the privileges of the House of Commons flourished
in the rankest luxuriance.… So long as men in authority are
enabled to go beyond the law, on the plea of their own dignity
and power, _the_ ONLY _limit to their encroachments will be
that of the public endurance_.”[21]

Nothing can be more true than this warning. But Lord Brougham has
expressed himself in words yet stronger, and, if possible, still more
applicable to the present case.

“All rights,” says this consummate orator, “are now utterly
disregarded by the advocates of Privilege, excepting that of
exposing their own short-sighted impolicy and thoughtless
inconsistency. Nor would there be any safety for the people
under their guidance, if unhappily their powers of doing
mischief bore any proportion to their disregard of what is
politic and just.”[22]

With these observations I quit this question, anxious only that the
recent Usurpation of the Senate may not be drawn into a precedent
hereafter.

During Mr. Hyatt’s protracted imprisonment, Mr. Sumner visited
him constantly, and thus became familiar with the condition
of the jail. This led to the introduction of the following
resolution, March 13, 1860.

“_Resolved_, That the Committee on the District of Columbia
be directed to consider the expediency of doing something
to improve the condition of the common jail of the city of
Washington.”

Before the vote on the resolution was taken, Mr. Sumner remarked
that he had visited the jail, and found it neither more nor less
than a mere human sty; and since the Senate had undertaken to send a
fellow-creature there, he thought that the least it could do was to see
that something was done to improve its condition.

ABOLITION OF CUSTOM-HOUSE OATHS.

RESOLUTION IN THE SENATE, MARCH 15, 1860.

Mr. Sumner submitted the following resolution, which was
considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to.

RESOLVED, That the Committee on Finance be instructed to consider
whether the numerous custom-house oaths, now administered under Acts of
Congress, may not with propriety be abolished, and a simple declaration
be substituted therefor.

BOSTON COMMON, AND ITS EXTENSION.

LETTER TO GEORGE H. SNELLING, ESQ., OF BOSTON, MARCH 26, 1860.

Mr. Snelling interested himself much with regard to the
disposition of the lands west of Boston Common, known as
the “Back Bay Lands,” and owned by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Beyond a general desire to keep them open, his
special aim was to have a tidal lake, bordered by avenues
with trees. In this effort he was aided particularly by John
A. Andrew, afterwards Governor. Other citizens, including the
venerable Josiah Quincy, Professor Agassiz, and Dr. Edward
Jarvis, wrote letters, published at the time, and used before
the Committee of the Legislature to whom the matter was
referred. Among these was the following.

SENATE CHAMBER, March 26, 1860.

MY DEAR SIR,--I am grateful for your timely intervention to save
our Boston Common, by keeping it open to the western breezes
and the setting sun. It is not pleasant, I know, to separate in
opinion from those about us; but your object is so disinterested,
so pure, so benevolent, so truly in the nature of a charity, that
all, even though differing in details, must be glad that you have
come forward.

I know well the value of water in scenery. Perhaps nothing
else adds so much to the effect of a landscape, which, indeed,
without water often seems lifeless, or, as was once said by
a valued friend of mine, “like a face without eyes.” Boston,
from its peninsular situation, cannot be entirely deprived of
this picturesque feature. It seems to me, however, that, in
a region like that now in question, we should hesitate long
before renouncing the opportunity of adding to its attractions
by a piece of water, which, from perennial supply, would always
prove an ornament of unsurpassed beauty, as well as a place of
recreation, and a source of health.

On this it is useless to enlarge. All who have ever stood on
Boston Common will easily see how much this pleasant retreat
must lose in charm, when its great western vista is closed;
and all who have ever speculated on the probable growth of our
metropolis, and the longing of a crowded population for fresh
air, will recognize the necessity for open spaces, which will be
_outdoor ventilators_.

Boston is already growing in every direction. A wise forecast,
if not able at once to provide all the means needful for its
salubrity and adornment, will at least avoid embarrassing the
future, when half a million of souls have built their homes about
the ancient Trimountain.

Our Common has been ample enough for the past; but the metropolis
has already outgrown it in every respect. Besides being too
narrow in proportions, it is wanting in those accessories of
beauty and of knowledge especially illustrative of Natural
History, which, according to the experience of other countries,
are proper for public grounds. I wish much to see there, among
other things, an arboretum, where every tree that can bear our
climate shall find its classified place,--pleasing the eye by its
beauty, protecting the body by its shade, and speaking to all by
the voice of Science.

Accept the thanks of an absent citizen, who never thinks of his
native Boston without a yearning to see it foremost in all that
contributes to a true civilization; and believe me to be, my dear
Sir,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

To GEORGE H. SNELLING, Esq.

ATTEMPT TO KIDNAP A CITIZEN UNDER ORDER OF THE SENATE.

THE CASE OF FRANK B. SANBORN, OF CONCORD, MASSACHUSETTS, WITH SPEECHES
IN THE SENATE, APRIL 10, 13, AND 16, 1860.

The case of Mr. Sanborn illustrates the reach of the Slave
Power, and the extent to which the Senate did its bidding, at
the instance of the author of the Fugitive Slave Bill. It is
one of the skirmishes in the warfare with Slavery.

April 10, 1860, Mr. Sumner presented the memorial of Mr.
Sanborn, which he explained as follows.

I have a memorial, Mr. President, from Frank B. Sanborn, of Concord,
Massachusetts, setting forth a gross attempt to kidnap, by men
pretending to act in the name of the Senate of the United States. The
memorial is authenticated by his affidavit before a notary public. It
sets forth, that, on the evening of the 3d of April, certain persons,
who had been prowling about his neighborhood, under shelter of night,
with fraudulent pretence drew him to his door, seized him, handcuffed
him, and then by force undertook to convey him to a carriage. By the
courageous interposition of a refined lady, his sister, neighbors were
aroused; the village was next summoned by the ringing of bells, and at
length that great friend of the oppressed in our country, the writ of
_Habeas Corpus_, arrived on the ground. By intervention of that writ he
was taken from the custody of the kidnappers. The next day a hearing
was had before the Supreme Court of Massachusetts; and Chief Justice
Shaw, for thirty years the honored Chief Justice of Massachusetts,
whose opinions are respected in every part of the country, representing
the full bench, without undertaking to pass upon the question of
jurisdiction in the Senate, went on to declare that the power delegated
to its Sergeant-at-Arms could not be delegated to another, and that
therefore all these proceedings were void, and the prisoner was
discharged.

Now, Mr. President, this act, it seems to me, is conspicuous, both from
the person against whom it was directed and the place where it was
attempted. It was directed against Mr. Sanborn, a quiet citizen engaged
in the instruction of youth, a scholar of excellent attainments, of
perfect purity, and much beloved by friends and neighbors. It was
attempted at Concord, where another seizure was once attempted, which
began that revolutionary contest that ended in Independence. I affirm,
Mr. President, that a person like Mr. Sanborn, having suffered this
outrage at the hands of persons claiming to act in the name of the
Senate, has a right to redress in this body: and I assert, still
further, that this body owes something to its own character; it ought
to wash its hands of such an outrage. I offer his memorial, and ask its
reference to the Committee on the Judiciary, and, that the Senate may
better understand it, I think it ought to be printed. I move also its
printing.

Mr. Mason, of Virginia, Chairman of the Harper’s Ferry
Committee, made an explanation of the attempt to arrest Mr.
Sanborn, in the course of which he said: “This man Sanborn was
in correspondence either with the man who was not long since
hung in Virginia for his conduct as a traitor and murderer
at Harper’s Ferry, or with some of his associates, I do not
recollect which.” At the call of Mr. Fessenden the memorial was
read, when Mr. Sumner said, in reply to Mr. Mason:--

I merely wish to correct one error into which the Senator has fallen.
He states that Mr. Sanborn was taken from the custody of those
pretended officers by a mob. Now nothing is within my knowledge except
what is authenticated by that memorial under oath, and there the
statement is express that he was not taken from the custody of these
pretended officers except by the intervention of the writ of _Habeas
Corpus_, sustained by the _posse comitatus_ of the neighborhood.

Mr. Mason having stated that he expected a return of the
officer, at his suggestion the memorial was laid on the table
to await that return. To this Mr. Sumner consented, as he
declared, with great reluctance, and with the understanding
that then it should be referred.

April 13, 1860, Mr. Sumner presented additional papers in the
case. After reading these, he said:--

There, Sir, is the official response to the assertion of the Senator
from Virginia. The Senator says that Mr. Sanborn was rescued by a mob.
It is true there was a mob in Concord. It was a mob of kidnappers, who
went there in the name of the Senate of the United States to seize a
citizen of Massachusetts. I have here a letter which I have received
from a prominent citizen of Concord, present at the time. This is his
statement:--

“No rescue by the crowd was made or attempted, till the writ
of _Habeas Corpus_ was served; and this, even, Carleton and his
fellows resisted, till the deputy sheriff was obliged to use
force to take Mr. Sanborn from him.… The arrest was as brutal,
cowardly, and outrageous a proceeding as I ever knew in seven
years’ experience as sheriff of that county.”

Sir, it is not unnatural that an arrest made under such circumstances
should have attracted attention in that town and throughout
Massachusetts. It did so. It has excited a feeling of indignation
against this attempt, increased, perhaps, when people put the question,
“Why all this effort to seize Mr. Sanborn? Why this overthrow of law to
accomplish such a purpose?”

It is notorious that there is a citizen of Virginia, formerly chief
magistrate of that State, who has openly avowed that he knew much in
regard to the very matters in inquiry before that committee, and that
rubies could not bribe him to disclose it. He has thrown the challenge
down to that committee and this Senate, before the whole country,
refusing openly to testify; and yet that committee make no motion to
bring Ex-Governor Wise before the Senate, and compel him to testify.
Instead, the committee seeks a Northern man, Mr. Hyatt, now in jail,
and another Northern man, Mr. Sanborn, who it is well understood know
nothing of the matter; and it follows up Mr. Sanborn by an attempt
which I characterize here as simply an act of kidnapping.

Mr. Mason, in reply, insisted, at some length, that Mr. Sumner
could have no information on the action of the committee, which
had not yet reported. To this Mr. Sumner rejoined:--

Mr. President, I profess to have no information except what is open to
all the world; and there are two things open to all the world, through
the public press: first, that the Ex-Governor of Virginia has more
than once declared that he had important information in reference to
the matter before the committee, and that rubies would not tempt him
to disclose it; and, secondly, it is known that the Ex-Governor of
Virginia has not been brought to Washington, as Mr. Hyatt has been, and
as an attempt has been made to bring Mr. Sanborn. No kidnappers have
been sent into Virginia, nor handcuffs put upon Ex-Governor Wise.

April 16, 1860, Mr. Mason presented to the Senate the warrant
for the arrest of Mr. Sanborn, with the return of the Deputy
Marshal of Massachusetts to whom it was addressed, and
moved its reference to the Committee on the Judiciary, with
instructions to inquire and report whether any, and what,
further proceedings were necessary to vindicate the authority
of the Senate and to effect the arrest of the witnesses. This
motion was agreed to. Mr. Sumner then moved that the memorial
of Mr. Sanborn, with the additional papers, be taken from
the table and referred to the same committee. Here Mr. Mason
promptly interposed the very unusual motion _that the memorial
be rejected_. The Chair decided that the motion “to reject”
could not take precedence, and therefore the motion to refer
was first in order. Then it was that Mr. Sumner spoke as
follows.

Mr. President, I think that I ought not to listen to such a proposition
as has been made by the Senator from Virginia with reference to
this memorial, without one word in reply. Here is a memorial from a
gentleman of perfect respectability, charged with no crime, presumed
to be innocent, complaining of gross outrage at the hands of certain
persons pretending to act in the name of the Senate. The facts are duly
set forth. They are authenticated also by documents now of record. The
Senator moves--without any reference to a committee, without giving
the petition the decency of a hearing, according to the ordinary forms
of this body--that the memorial be “rejected”; and he makes this
unaccustomed motion with a view to establish a precedent in such a
case. I feel it my duty to establish a precedent also in this case,
by entering an open, unequivocal protest against such attempt. Sir,
an ancient poet said of a judge in hell, that he punished first and
heard afterwards,--“_castigatque auditque_”; and, permit me to say, the
Senator from Virginia, on this occasion, takes a precedent from that
court.

To this protest Mr. Mason replied: “The Senator from
Massachusetts, it seems to me, makes an opportunity to use
language in the Senate Chamber which, so far as my intercourse
with the world goes, is not usual out of the Senate Chamber.
There is nothing in it that I have a right to take as
personally offensive to myself. The Senate is the proper judge
and arbiter of the decorum of its own proceedings.”

Then ensued a debate on the return, in which Mr. Bayard, of
Delaware, and Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, took part, when Mr.
Sumner, at last obtaining the floor, remarked as follows.

Only one word. I presented a memorial to this body, setting forth
an outrage. The Senator from Virginia moved its rejection, while he
proposed that the case should be proceeded with. I characterized that
motion as I thought I was authorized to do, referring to a precedent
of antiquity, and that was all; and this is the occasion for a lecture
from the Senator on the manner in which one should conduct on this
floor. From the heights of his self-confidence he addresses me. Sir, I
wish to say simply, in reply, that, when an outrage comes before this
body, I shall denounce it in plain terms; and if a precedent from a
very bad place seems to be in point, I shall not hesitate to quote it.

Mr. Mason rejoined: “I did not undertake to lecture the
Senator, of all others, upon the subject of manners or
propriety. I do not mean it offensively, but, for my own
convenience, I should consider it time thrown away. All that I
said was, that I was not accustomed, in my intercourse with the
world outside of this Chamber, to hear language of that sort in
the circles in which I move.”

April 17, 1860, the memorial of Mr. Sanborn was referred to the
Judiciary Committee, according to the motion of Mr. Sumner.

June 7, Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, from the Committee on
the Judiciary, to whom was referred the return of the
Deputy-Marshal and the other papers, reported a “Bill
concerning the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate and the
Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives,” authorizing
the appointment of deputies. This was intended to meet the
decision of Chief Justice Shaw, of Massachusetts.[23]

June 15, Mr. Bayard moved to proceed with the consideration
of his bill. The motion was not agreed to,--there being, on a
division, ayes 22, noes 25. This was the end of that bill.

* * * * *

This incident was much noticed by the Northern press,
especially in Massachusetts. The Boston _Atlas and Bee_
expressed itself thus:--

“In our opinion the people of the Free States are never
better satisfied with their representatives than when they
see them repelling indignantly and manfully the arrogant
insults of the slave-driving aristocracy. It will not
diminish their attachment to Mr. Sumner, when they take
notice that his rebuke of Mr. Mason was not in reply to
any insult upon himself, but upon one of his outraged and
abused constituents.”

PETITIONS AGAINST SLAVERY.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, APRIL 18, 1860.

The treatment of these petitions illustrates the tyranny of the
Slave Power to the very eve of its fall. Such an incident is
not without historic significance.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I present the petition of Henry Elwell, Jr., and
four hundred and fifty-five others, of Manchester, in Massachusetts,
earnestly petitioning Congress to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act
of 1850,--to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia, and
in the United States Territories,--to prohibit the inter-State
slave-trade,--and to pass a resolution pledging Congress against
the admission of any Slave State into the Union, the acquisition of
any Slave Territory, and the employment of any slaves by any agent,
contractor, officer, or department of the National Government; also,
a like petition of Alvan Howes and fifty-five others, of Barnstable,
Massachusetts; also, a like petition of John Clement and one hundred
and nineteen others, of Townsend, Massachusetts; also, a like
petition of Samuel L. Rockwood and seventy-three others, of Weymouth,
Massachusetts; also, a like petition of J. H. Browne and sixty-four
others, of Sudbury, Massachusetts; also, a like petition of Daniel
Hosmer and ninety-eight others, of Sterling, Massachusetts; also, a
like petition of Albert Gould and one hundred and thirty-one others
of Leicester, Massachusetts; also, a like petition of James M. Evelett
and two hundred others, of Princeton, Massachusetts; also, a like
petition of Daniel Otis and seventy-nine others, of South Scituate,
Massachusetts; also, a like petition of Calvin Cutter and eighty-four
others, of Warren, Massachusetts; also, a like petition of R. W. French
and thirty others, of Lawrence, Massachusetts; also, a like petition
of Edmund H. Sears and two hundred and forty-five others, of Wayland,
Massachusetts.

These several petitions I now present. On a former occasion, during
this session, a similar petition presented by me was laid upon the
table. A similar petition presented by another Senator was referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary. An authoritative precedent, established
after debate, since I have been in the Senate, seems to be the best
guide on this occasion. That was on a memorial from four thousand
citizens of Boston, praying the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act.
After ample consideration, during which much was said against the
memorialists, no proposition was made to lay their prayer on the table.
Following that precedent, and another established during the present
session, I move that all these petitions be referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary.

Mr. Mason, of Virginia, at once moved that the petitions lie on
the table, thus precluding debate and stifling action. The yeas
and nays were ordered on motion of Mr. Sumner, and resulted as
follows, 25 yeas and 19 nays:--

YEAS,--Messrs. Bayard, Bragg, Chesnut, Clay, Clingman,
Crittenden, Davis, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Gwin, Hemphill, Hunter,
Iverson, Johnson of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy,
Lane, Latham, Mason, Nicholson, Polk, Rice, Sebastian,
Slidell, and Thomson,--25.

NAYS,--Messrs. Bingham, Cameron, Chandler, Clark, Collamer,
Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Hamlin, King,
Seward, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, and Wilson,--19.

So the petitions were ordered to lie on the table. The
Democrats all voted yea; the Republicans all voted nay.

SAFETY OF PASSENGERS IN STEAMSHIPS FOR CALIFORNIA.

RESOLUTION AND REMARKS IN THE SENATE, MAY 21, 1860.

May 21, 1860, Mr. Sumner introduced the following resolution.

“_Resolved_, That the Committee on Commerce be instructed to
consider the expediency of further action, in order to secure
proper accommodations and proper safety for passengers on
board the steamers between New York and San Francisco, and to
increase the efficacy of the existing passenger laws of the
United States in their application to California passengers;
with liberty to report by bill or otherwise.”

The Senate, by unanimous consent, proceeded to consider the
resolution.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I see the Senator from California [Mr. LATHAM] in his
place, and I very gladly take the opportunity of calling his attention
particularly to the resolution which I now have the honor to offer.
By a communication in the newspapers, from a distinguished source,--a
clergyman, who, during the last two months, sailed from Boston to
San Francisco,[24]--it appears that the steamers are overloaded with
passengers, and without adequate accommodations of other kinds for
safety. His statement on the subject is explicit, and has been made
in the newspapers, as also in private letters to his friends. I do
not know that the evil can be reached by any additional legislation;
perhaps no additional legislation is needed; but it is an evil which
should be remedied in some way, or else we shall be startled some
morning by the news of a great calamity,--the loss of one of these
steamers, with, it may be, a thousand passengers.

CANDIDATES WHO ARE A PLATFORM.

LETTER TO A RATIFICATION MEETING AT BUFFALO, NEW YORK, MAY 30, 1860.

This was addressed to a meeting at Buffalo for the ratification
of the nomination of Abraham Lincoln as President and Hannibal
Hamlin as Vice-President.

SENATE CHAMBER, May 30, 1860.

DEAR SIR,--My duties here will not allow me to be with you at
Buffalo; but I shall unite with you in every generous word
uttered for Freedom, and in every pledge of enthusiastic support
to the Republican candidates.

We have a Platform of noble principles, and candidates, each
of whom, through his well-known principles and integrity of
character, is a Platform in himself.

Accept my thanks for the honor of your invitation, and believe
me, dear Sir,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

A. W. HARVEY, ESQ.

THE BARBARISM OF SLAVERY.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL FOR THE ADMISSION OF KANSAS AS A FREE
STATE, JUNE 4, 1860.

Thou art a slave, whom Fortune’s tender arm
With favor never clasped, but bred a dog.
SHAKESPEARE, _Timon of Athens_, Act IV. Sc. 3.

A universe of death, which God by curse
Created evil, for evil only good,
Where all life dies, death lives, and Nature breeds,
Perverse, all monstrous, all prodigious things.
MILTON, _Paradise Lost_, Book II. 622-625.

Onward! onward!
With the night-wind,
Over field and farm and forest,
Lonely homestead, darksome hamlet,
Blighting all we breathe upon!
LONGFELLOW, _Golden Legend_.

Instrumenti genus vocale, et semivocale, et mutum: _vocale, in
quo sunt servi_; semivocale, in quo sunt boves; mutum, in quo
sunt plaustra.--VARRO, _De Re Rustica_, Lib. I. cap. xvii. § 1.

Nil metuunt jurare, nihil promittere parcunt;
Dicta nihil metuere, nihil perjuria curant.
CATULLUS, _Carm._ LXIV. 146, 148.

Pone crucem servo.--Meruit quo crimine servus
Supplicium? quis testis adest? quis detulit? Audi;
Nulla unquam de morte hominis cunctatio longa est.--
O demens, ita servus homo est? Nil fecerit, esto:
Hoc volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas.
JUVENAL. _Sat._ VI. 219-223.

There is a tradition of the Prophet having said, that the
greatest mortification at the Day of Judgment will be when
the pious slave is carried to Paradise and the wicked master
condemned to Hell.--SAADI, _The Gulistan_, tr. Gladwin, p. 242.

“And the Black Oppressor am I called. And for this reason I
am called the Black Oppressor, that there is not a single man
around me whom I have not oppressed, and justice have I done
unto none.” … “Since thou hast, indeed, been an oppressor so
long,” said Peredur, “I will cause that thou continue so no
longer.” So he slew him.--_The Mabinogion_, tr. Lady Charlotte
Guest, Vol. I. pp. 341, 342.

After we had secured these people, I called the linguists, and
ordered them to bid the men-negroes between decks be quiet (for
there was a great noise amongst them). On their being silent, I
asked, What had induced them to mutiny? They answered, _I was
a great rogue to buy them_ in order to carry them away from
their own country, and that they were resolved to regain their
liberty, if possible.--SNELGRAVE, _New Account of some Parts of
Guinea and the Slave-Trade_, p. 170.

A system of concubinage was practised among them worse than the
loose polygamy of the savages: the savage had as many women as
consented to become his wives; the colonist as many as he could
enslave. There is an ineffaceable stigma upon the Europeans in
their intercourse with those whom they treat as inferior races;
there is a perpetual contradiction between their lust and
their avarice. The planter will one day take a slave for his
harlot, and sell her the next as a being of some lower species,
a beast of labor. If she be indeed an inferior animal, what
shall be said of the one action? If she be equally with himself
a human being and an immortal soul, what shall be said of the
other? Either way there is a crime committed against human
nature.--SOUTHEY, _History of Brazil_, Chap. VIII., Vol. I. p.
258.

Negro slavery exists in no part of the world without
producing indolence, licentiousness, and inhumanity in
the whites; and these vices draw after them their earthly
punishment,--to look no farther into their fearful, but assured
consequences.--IBID., Chap. XLIV., Vol. III. p. 816.

I had observed much, and heard more, of the cruelty of masters
towards their negroes; but now I received an authentic account
of some horrid instances thereof. The giving a child a slave of
its own age to tyrannize over, to beat and abuse out of sport,
was, I myself saw, a common practice. Nor is it strange, being
thus trained up in cruelty, they should afterwards arrive at
so great perfection in it; that Mr. Star, a gentleman I often
met at Mr. Lasserre’s, should, as he himself informed L., first
nail up a negro by the ears, then order him to be whipped in
the severest manner, and then to have scalding water thrown
over him, so that the poor creature could not stir for four
months after. Another much applauded punishment is drawing
their slaves’ teeth. One Colonel LYNCH is universally known to
have cut off a poor negro’s legs, and to kill several of them
every year by his barbarities.--REV. CHARLES WESLEY, _Journal_,
Charleston, S. C., August 2, 1736.

You are to have no regard to the health, strength, comfort,
natural affections, or moral feelings, or intellectual
endowments of my negroes. You are only to consider what
subsistence to allow them and what labor to exact of them
will subserve my interest. According to the most accurate
calculation I can make, the proportion of subsistence and
labor which will work them up in six years upon an average
is the most profitable to the planter. And this allowance,
surely, is very humane; for we estimate here the lives of our
coal-heavers, upon an average, at only two years, … and our
soldiers and seamen no matter what.--_A West-India Planter’s
Instructions for his Overseers_: JOHN ADAMS, _Works_, Vol. X.
pp. 339, 340.

The unfortunate man would have been tried upon five other
indictments, some of them still more atrocious than the one
upon which he was found guilty; and his general character for
barbarity was so notorious that no room was left for me even to
deliberate. His victims have been numerous; some of them were
even buried in their chains, and there have been found upon
the bones taken from the grave chains and iron rings of near
forty pounds’ weight.… He had been three times married, has
left several children; he had been in the Army, had a liberal
education, and lived in what is called the great world. His
manners and address were those of a gentleman. Cruelty appears
in him to have been the effect of violence of temper, _and
habit had made him regardless of the death and suffering of
a slave_.--RIGHT HON. HUGH ELLIOT, Governor of the Leeward
Islands: _Memoir_, by the COUNTESS OF MINTO, pp. 409, 410.

Is slavery less slavery in a Christian than in a Mahometan
country? I entreat your attention, while I plead the general
cause of humanity. In such a cause it is right to appeal to
your sensibility as well as your reason. It is now no longer
time to flatter petty tyrants by acknowledging that color
constitutes a legitimate title for holding men in abject and
perpetual bondage. In support of this usurpation what can be
urged but the law of the strongest?--COL. DAVID HUMPHREYS,
_Valedictory Discourse before the Cincinnati of Connecticut_,
July 4, 1804, p. 29.

Christianity suppressed slavery, but the Christians of the
sixteenth century reëstablished it,--as an exception, indeed,
to their social system, and restricted to one of the races of
mankind; but the wound thus inflicted upon humanity, though
less extensive, was far more difficult of cure.--TOCQUEVILLE,
_Democracy in America_, ed. Bowen, Chap. XVIII. sec. 2, Vol. I.
p. 457.

The Kentuckian delights in violent bodily exertion; he is
familiar with the use of arms, and is accustomed from a very
early age to expose his life in single combat.… Were I inclined
to continue this parallel, I could easily prove that almost all
the differences which may be remarked between the characters of
the Americans in the Southern and in the Northern States have
originated in Slavery.--IBID., pp. 467, 468.

I visited our State Penitentiary a short time since, and
from my own personal observation I am led to the inevitable
conclusion that the plan of sending our slaves to the
Penitentiary, as a _punishment_ for crime, is exactly the
reverse: it is rather a reward than punishment. “Let sober
reason judge.”

We punish offenders to prevent crime. I would ask any
reasonable man, Is the sending a slave of any of our farms
to the Penitentiary a punishment? The white man is punished
by being deprived of his liberty for that length of time:
what liberty is the slave deprived of? He has as much, and
oftentimes _more_, liberty within the walls of the Penitentiary
than on any of those large sugar or cotton plantations. Then
where is the punishment? We send white men there, and the dread
of going is a _stain_ on his character: what character has
the negro to lose? Hence we must come to the conclusion that
sending negro slaves to the Penitentiary is not a punishment.

A moment’s reflection will convince any man who has ever had
the management of negroes on a plantation, that the well-being
and safety of societies demand that any offence committed by
a negro, for which the _lash_ is not a sufficient punishment,
_death_ should be the penalty.

Taking these things into consideration, would it not be just
and laudable to sell all negroes now in the Penitentiary to
the highest bidder, on or about the first of November next,
by the Sheriff of the Parish of East Baton Rouge, on the same
terms and conditions that negroes are sold at present, under
an ordinary _fi. fa._, and, as near as can be, two thirds of
the net proceeds of each negro be paid to the former owners or
their legal representatives, the balance be and remain in the
State Treasury for ordinary purposes?--_Weekly Advocate_, Baton
Rouge, La., Jan. 17, 1858.

A very large edition of this speech was printed at Washington,
immediately after its delivery. Another appeared at Boston,
with a portrait; and another at San Francisco, with the
Republican Platform. While the Rebellion was still warring on
the National Government, an edition was brought out in New York
by the “Young Men’s Republican Union,” to which Mr. Sumner
prefixed a Dedication to the Young Men of the United States,
which will be found in its proper place, according to date, in
this collection.

* * * * *

A letter from that devoted friend of the Slave, the late George
L. Stearns, of Boston, under date of March 1st, 1860, shows
something of the outside prompting under which Mr. Sumner spoke.

“I have just read ----’s speech. He stands up to the mark
_well_, for a politician; but we want one who believes a
Man is greater than a President, and who would not lift
his finger to obtain the best office in the gift of our
nation, to raise this question above the political slough
into its true position. Charles O’Conor, in his late speech
in New York, affirmed, that, ‘if Slavery were not a wise
and beneficent institution for the black as well as the
white, it could not be defended.’ We want you to take up
the gauntlet that he has thrown down so defiantly.”

A letter from William H. Brooks, of Cambridgeport,
unconsciously harmonized with Mr. Stearns.

“Feeling that our nation is now in the very throes of her
deliverance, and I trust her prompt deliverance, from
bondage to her, not Thirty, but Three Hundred Thousand
Tyrants, may I frankly say, that, if not inconsistent with
your health and safety, which are on no consideration to
be perilled, you could aid more than any single person,
or score of them, in effectually accomplishing the
great triumph.… The unseen forces of public opinion are
gathering and forming for the great November conflict. Your
long, enforced, and martyr silence will give a depth of
impression and moving power and ten thousand echoes to your
words beyond their accustomed might.”

Something about the menace of violence after this speech, with
illustrations of its reception at the time, is postponed to an
Appendix.

* * * * *

Kansas was not admitted as a State into the Union until January
29, 1861, after the slaveholding Senators had withdrawn to
organize the Rebellion, when the bill on which the present
speech was made became a law.

SPEECH.

MR. PRESIDENT,--Undertaking now, after a silence of more than four
years, to address the Senate on this important subject, I should
suppress the emotions natural to such an occasion, if I did not
declare on the threshold my gratitude to that Supreme Being through
whose benign care I am enabled, after much suffering and many changes,
once again to resume my duties here, and to speak for the cause so
near my heart. To the honored Commonwealth whose representative I
am, and also to my immediate associates in this body, with whom I
enjoy the fellowship which is found _in thinking alike concerning the
Republic_,[25] I owe thanks which I seize the moment to express for
indulgence extended to me throughout the protracted seclusion enjoined
by medical skill; and I trust that it will not be thought unbecoming
in me to put on record here, as an apology for leaving my seat so long
vacant, without making way, by resignation, for a successor, that I
acted under the illusion of an invalid, whose hopes for restoration to
natural health continued against oft-recurring disappointment.

When last I entered into this debate, it became my duty to expose the
Crime against Kansas, and to insist upon the immediate admission of
that Territory as a State of this Union, with a Constitution forbidding
Slavery. Time has passed, but the question remains. Resuming the
discussion precisely where I left it, I am happy to avow that rule
of moderation which, it is said, may venture to fix the boundaries
of wisdom itself. I have no personal griefs to utter: only a vulgar
egotism could intrude such into this Chamber. I have no personal wrongs
to avenge: only a brutish nature could attempt to wield that vengeance
which belongs to the Lord. The years that have intervened and the
tombs that have opened[26] since I spoke have their voices, too, which
I cannot fail to hear. Besides, what am I, what is any man among the
living or among the dead, compared with the question before us? It is
this alone which I shall discuss, and I begin the argument with that
easy victory which is found in charity.

* * * * *

The Crime against Kansas stands forth in painful light. Search history,
and you cannot find its parallel. The slave-trade is bad; but even this
enormity is petty, compared with that elaborate contrivance by which,
in a Christian age and within the limits of a Republic, all forms of
constitutional liberty were perverted, all the rights of human nature
violated, and the whole country held trembling on the edge of civil
war,--while all this large exuberance of wickedness, detestable in
itself, becomes tenfold more detestable, when its origin is traced
to the madness for Slavery. The fatal partition between Freedom and
Slavery, known as the Missouri Compromise,--the subsequent overthrow
of this partition, and the seizure of all by Slavery,--the violation
of plighted faith,--the conspiracy to force Slavery at all hazards
into Kansas,--the successive invasions by which all security there was
destroyed, and the electoral franchise itself was trodden down,--the
sacrilegious seizure of the very polls, and, through pretended forms of
law, the imposition of a foreign legislature upon this Territory,--the
acts of this legislature, fortifying the Usurpation, and, among other
things, establishing test-oaths, calculated to disfranchise actual
settlers friendly to Freedom, and securing the privileges of the
citizen to actual strangers friendly to Slavery,--the whole crowned
by a statute, “the be-all and the end-all” of the whole Usurpation,
through which Slavery was not only recognized on this beautiful soil,
but made to bristle with a Code of Death such as the world has rarely
seen,--all these I fully exposed on a former occasion. And yet the most
important part of the argument was at that time left untouched: I mean
that found in the Character of Slavery. This natural sequel, with the
permission of the Senate, I now propose to supply.

Motive is to Crime as soul to body; and it is only when we comprehend
the motive that we can truly comprehend the Crime. Here the motive is
found in Slavery and the rage for its extension. Therefore, by logical
necessity, must Slavery be discussed,--not indirectly, timidly, and
sparingly, but directly, openly, and thoroughly. It must be exhibited
as it is, alike in its influence and its animating character, so that
not only outside, but inside, may be seen.

This is no time for soft words or excuses. All such are out of place.
They may turn away wrath; but what is the wrath of man? This is no time
to abandon any advantage in the argument. Senators sometimes announce
that they resist Slavery on political grounds only, and remind us that
they say nothing of the moral question. This is wrong. Slavery must
be resisted not only on political grounds, but on all other grounds,
whether social, economical, or moral. Ours is no holiday contest; nor
is it any strife of rival factions, of White and Red Roses, of theatric
Neri and Bianchi; but it is a solemn battle between Right and Wrong,
between Good and Evil. Such a battle cannot be fought with rosewater.
There is austere work to be done, and Freedom cannot consent to fling
away any of her weapons.

* * * * *

If I were disposed to shrink from this discussion, the boundless
assumptions made by Senators on the other side would not allow me.
The whole character of Slavery, as a pretended form of Civilization,
is put directly in issue, with a pertinacity and a hardihood which
banish all reserve on this side. In these assumptions Senators from
South Carolina naturally take the lead. Following Mr. Calhoun, who
pronounced Slavery “the most solid and durable foundation on which to
rear free and stable political institutions,”[27] and Mr. McDuffie,
who did not shrink from calling it “the corner-stone of our republican
edifice,”[28] the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. HAMMOND] insists
that its “frame of society is the best in the world”[29]; and his
colleague [Mr. CHESNUT] takes up the strain. One Senator from
Mississippi [Mr. JEFFERSON DAVIS], adds, that Slavery “is but a form
of civil government for those who by their nature are not fit to govern
themselves”;[30] and his colleague [Mr. BROWN] openly vaunts that it
“is a great moral, social, and political blessing,--a blessing to the
slave, and a blessing to the master.”[31] One Senator from Virginia
[Mr. HUNTER], in a studied vindication of what he is pleased to call
“the social system of the South,” exalts Slavery as “the normal
condition of human society,” “beneficial to the non-slave-owner as it
is to the slave-owner,” “best for the happiness of both races,”--and,
in enthusiastic advocacy, declares, “that the very keystone of the
mighty arch, which, by its concentrated strength, and by the mutual
support of its parts, is able to sustain our social superstructure,
consists in the black marble block of African Slavery: knock that out,
and the mighty fabric, with all that it upholds, topples and tumbles
to its fall.”[32] These are his very words, uttered in debate here.
And his colleague [Mr. MASON], who never hesitates where Slavery is in
question, proclaims that it is “_ennobling_ to both races, the white
and the black,”--a word which, so far as the slave is concerned, he
changes, on a subsequent day, to “elevating,” assuming still that it
is “ennobling” to the whites,[33]--which is simply a new version of
the old assumption, by Mr. McDuffie, of South Carolina, that “the
institution of Domestic Slavery supersedes the necessity of an order of
nobility.”[34]

Thus, by various voices, is Slavery defiantly proclaimed a form of
Civilization,--not seeing that its existence is plainly inconsistent
with the first principles of anything that can be called Civilization,
except by that figure of speech in classical literature where a thing
takes its name from something which it has not, as the dreadful
Fates were called merciful because they were without mercy. Pardon
the allusion, if I add, that, listening to these sounding words for
Slavery, I am reminded of the kindred extravagance related by that
remarkable traveller in China, the late Abbé Huc, where a gloomy hole
in which he was lodged, infested by mosquitoes and exhaling noisome
vapors, with light and air entering by a single narrow aperture only,
was styled by Chinese pride “The Hotel of the Beatitudes.” According to
a Hindoo proverb, the snail sees nothing but its own shell, and thinks
it the grandest palace in the universe. This is another illustration of
the delusion which we are called to witness.

It is natural that Senators thus insensible to the true character of
Slavery should evince an equal insensibility to the true character of
the Constitution. This is shown in the claim now made, and pressed
with unprecedented energy, degrading the work of our fathers, that by
virtue of the Constitution the pretended property in man is placed
beyond the reach of Congressional prohibition even within Congressional
jurisdiction, so that the slave-master may at all times enter the broad
outlying territories of the Union with the victims of his oppression,
and there continue to hold them by lash and chain.

Such are two assumptions, the first of fact, and the second of
Constitutional Law, now vaunted without apology or hesitation. I meet
them both. To the first I oppose the essential Barbarism of Slavery,
in all its influences, whether high or low,--as Satan is Satan still,
whether towering in the sky or squatting in the toad. To the second
I oppose the unanswerable, irresistible truth, that the Constitution
of the United States nowhere recognizes property in man. These two
assumptions naturally go together. They are “twins” suckled by the same
wolf. They are the “couple” in the present slave-hunt. And the latter
cannot be answered without exposing the former. It is only when Slavery
is exhibited in its truly hateful character that we fully appreciate
the absurdity of the assumption, which, in defiance of express letter
in the Constitution, and without a single sentence, phrase, or word
upholding human bondage, yet foists into this blameless text the
barbarous idea that man can hold property in man.

On former occasions I have discussed Slavery only incidentally: as, in
unfolding the principle that Slavery is Sectional and Freedom National;
in exposing the unconstitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Bill; in
vindicating the Prohibition of Slavery in the Missouri Territory; in
exhibiting the imbecility, throughout the Revolution, of the Slave
States, and especially of South Carolina; and, lastly, in unmasking the
Crime against Kansas. On all these occasions, where I spoke at length,
I said too little of the character of Slavery,--partly because other
topics were presented, and partly from a prevailing disinclination
to press the argument against those whom I knew to have all the
sensitiveness of a sick man. But, God be praised, this time has passed,
and the debate is now lifted from details to principles. Grander debate
has not occurred in our history,--rarely in any history; nor can it
close or subside, except with the triumph of Freedom.

FIRST ASSUMPTION.

Of course I begin with the assumption of fact, which must be treated at
length.

It was the often-quoted remark of John Wesley, who knew well how to use
words, as also how to touch hearts, that Slavery is “the sum of all
villanies.” The phrase is pungent; but it were rash in any of

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/48045