Chapter II (4)

"But the number dispersed through these [Southern] States was
very great,--_so great as to render it impossible for the citizens
to muster freemen enough to withstand the pressure of the British
arms_."[123]

[123] Life of Greene, Vol. II. Appendix, p. 472.

Here is illustration from an English pamphlet entitled "Account of the Duckenfield Hall Estate Negroes, 1806, Law Case," where will be found the following incident.

"In 1779 I bought ten negroes, which, with sixty others, were taken
by a privateer from a plantation in South Carolina."

Thus from every quarter are we conducted to the same conclusion.

And all this cumulative and unimpeachable testimony is reinforced by testimony of an earlier day, also from South Carolina. The Assembly of the Colony represented to the King, in 1734, that they were

"Subject to _many intestine dangers from the great number of
negroes_ that are now among us."[124]

[124] Grahame, History of the United States, Vol. III. p. 161.

Another representation shortly afterwards declared:--

"If any stop be put to the exportation of rice from South Carolina
to Europe, it ... may render the whole Colony an easy prey to their
neighbors, the Indians and Spaniards, _and also to those yet more
dangerous enemies, their own negroes, who are ready to revolt on
the first opportunity_, and are eight times as many in number as
there are white men able to bear arms."[125]

[125] Ibid., p. 215.

Thus was it before, as during the Revolution,--weakness always, nothing but weakness.

And this is precisely according to human experience. It was in South Carolina as it had been in other lands where Slavery prevailed. Here I read the testimony of a remarkable writer, Archbishop Whately.

"For if there be any one truth which the deductions of reason
alone, independent of history, would lead us to anticipate,
and which again history alone would establish independently of
antecedent reasoning, it is this: that a whole class of men
placed permanently under the ascendency of another as subjects,
without the rights of citizens, must be _a source, at the best,
of weakness, and generally of danger, to the State_.... It is
notorious, accordingly, how much Sparta was weakened and endangered
by the Helots, always ready to avail themselves of any public
disaster as an occasion for revolt."[126]

[126] Essays on Some of the Dangers to Christian Faith, pp.
214-216, note F, 2d edition. See also Bacon's Essays, with
Annotations by Whately, pp. 127-130: Annotations to Essay XV.

The Archbishop then recalls how Hannibal for sixteen years maintained himself in Italy against the Romans, and, though scantily supplied from Carthage, recruited his ranks by the aid of Roman subjects. Truly does he say that every page of history teaches the same lesson, and proclaims in every different form, "How long shall these men be a snare unto us?"[127]--and also, "The remnant of these nations which thou shalt not drive out shall be pricks in thine eyes and thorns in thy side."[128]

[127] Exodus, x. 7.

[128] Numbers, xxxiii. 58.

* * * * *

Surely, Sir, this is enough, and more. From authentic documents, including the very muster-rolls of the Revolution, we learn the small contributions of men and the military weakness of the Southern States, particularly of South Carolina, as compared with the Northern States; and from the very lips of South Carolina herself, on four different occasions,--by a Committee, by one of her Representatives in Congress, by her historian, and by an eminent citizen,--we have the confession, not only of weakness, but that this weakness was caused by Slavery. And yet, in the face of this combined and authoritative testimony, we are called to listen, in the American Senate, to the arrogant boast, from a venerable Senator, that American Independence was achieved by the arms and treasure of "slaveholding communities": an assumption baseless as the fabric of a vision, in any way it may be interpreted,--whether as meaning baldly that Independence was achieved by those Southern States, the peculiar home of Slavery, or that it was achieved by any strength or influence which came from that noxious source. Sir, I speak here for a Commonwealth of just renown, but I speak also for a cause which is more than any Commonwealth, even that which I represent; and I cannot allow the Senator to discredit either. Not by Slavery, but in spite of Slavery, was Independence achieved. Not _because_, but _notwithstanding_, there were "slaveholding communities," did triumph descend upon our arms. It was the inspiration of Liberty Universal that conducted us through the Red Sea of the Revolution, as it had already given to the Declaration of Independence its mighty tone, resounding through the ages. "Let it be remembered," said the Nation, speaking by the voice of the Continental Congress, at the close of the war, "that it has ever been the pride and boast of America, that the rights for which she contended were THE RIGHTS OF HUMAN NATURE."[129] Yes, Sir, in this behalf, and by this sign, we conquered.

[129] Address to the States, April 26, 1783: Journal of Congress,
Vol. VIII. p. 201.

Such, Sir, is my answer on this head to the Senator from South Carolina. If the work which I undertook has been done thoroughly, he must not blame me. Justice demanded that it should be thorough. But, while thus repelling insinuations against Massachusetts, and assumptions for Slavery, I would not unnecessarily touch the sensibilities of that Senator, or of the State which he represents. I cannot forget, that, amidst all diversities of opinion, we are bound together by ties of a common country,--that Massachusetts and South Carolina are sister States, and that the concord of sisters ought to prevail between them; but I am constrained to declare, that, throughout this debate, I have sought in vain any token of that just spirit which within the sphere of its influence is calculated to promote the concord whether of State or of individuals.

* * * * *

And now, for the present, I part with the venerable Senator from South Carolina. Pursuing his inconsistencies, and exposing them to judgment, I had almost forgotten his associate leader in the wanton personal assault upon me in this long debate,--I mean the veteran Senator from Virginia [Mr. MASON], who is now directly in my eye. With imperious look, and in the style of Sir Forcible Feeble, that Senator undertakes to call in question my statement, that the Fugitive Slave Act denies the writ of _Habeas Corpus_; and in doing this, he assumes a superiority for himself, which, permit me to tell him now in this presence, nothing in him can warrant. Sir, I claim little for myself; but I shrink in no respect from any comparison with that Senator, veteran though he be. Sitting near him, as has been my fortune since I had the honor of a seat in this chamber, I have come to know something of his conversation, something of his manners, something of his attainments, something of his abilities, something of his character,--ay, Sir, and something of _his_ associations; and, while I would not disparage him in any of these respects, I feel that I do not exalt myself unduly, that I do not claim too much for the position which I hold or the name which I have established, when I openly declare, that, as Senator of Massachusetts, and as man, I place myself at every point in unhesitating comparison with that honorable assailant. And to his peremptory assertion, that the Fugitive Slave Act _does not_ deny the _Habeas Corpus_, I oppose my assertion, peremptory as his own, that it _does_,--and there I leave that issue.

Mr. President, I welcome the sensibility which the Senator from Virginia manifests at the exposure of the Fugitive Slave Act. He is the author of that enormity. From his brain came forth the soulless monster. He is, therefore, its natural guardian. The Senator is, I believe, a lawyer. And now, since at last he shows parental solicitude to shield his offspring, he must do more than vainly parry the objection that it denies the great writ of _Habeas Corpus_. It is true, Sir, if anything but Slavery were in question, such an objection, if merely plausible, would be fatal; but it is not to be supposed that the partisans of an institution founded on denial of human rights can appreciate the proper efficacy of that writ. Sir, I challenge the Senator to defend his progeny,--not by assertion, but by reason. Let him rally all the ability, learning, and subtilty which he can command, and undertake the impossible work.

Let him answer this objection: The Constitution, by an amendment which Samuel Adams hailed as a protection against the usurpations of the National Government, and which Jefferson asserted was its very "foundation," has solemnly declared 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." Stronger words could not be employed to limit the powers under the Constitution, and to protect the people from all assumptions of the National Government, particularly in derogation of Freedom. By the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, which the Senator is reputed to accept, this limitation of the powers of the National Government is recognized and enforced. The Senator himself is understood, on all questions not affecting the claims of Slavery, to espouse this rule in its utmost strictness. Let him now indicate, if he can, any article, clause, phrase, or word in the Constitution which gives to Congress any power to establish a "uniform law throughout the United States" on the subject of fugitive slaves. Let him now show, if he can, from the records of the National Convention, one jot of evidence inclining to any such power. Whatever its interpretation in other respects, the clause on which this bill purports to be founded gives no such power. Sir, nothing can come out of nothing; and the Fugitive Slave Act is, therefore, without any source or origin in the Constitution. It is an open and unmitigated usurpation.

When the veteran Senator of Virginia has answered this objection, when he is able to find in the Constitution a power which is not to be found, and to make us see what is not to be seen, then let him answer another objection. The Constitution has secured the inestimable right of Trial by Jury "in suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars." Of course Freedom is not susceptible of pecuniary valuation; therefore there can be no question that the claim for a fugitive slave is within this condition. In determining what is meant by "suits at Common Law," recourse must be had to the Common Law itself, precisely as we resort to that law in order to determine what is meant by "Trial by Jury." Let the Senator, if he be a lawyer, undertake to show that a claim for a fugitive slave is not, according to early precedents and writs,--well known to the framers of the Constitution, especially to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and John Rutledge, of South Carolina, both of whom had studied law at the Temple,--a _suit at Common Law_, to which, under the solemn guaranty of the Constitution, is attached the Trial by Jury, as an inseparable incident. Let the Senator show this, if he can.

And, Sir, when the veteran Senator has found a power in the Constitution where none exists, and has set aside the right of Trial by Jury in a suit at Common Law, then let him answer yet another objection. By the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, a claim for a fugitive slave is declared to be _a case under the Constitution_,[130] within the judicial power; and this judgment of the Court is confirmed by common sense and Common Law. Let the Senator show, if he can, how such exalted exercise of judicial power can be confided to a single petty magistrate, appointed, not by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, but by the Court,--holding his office, not during good behavior, but merely during the will of the Court,--and receiving, not a regular salary, but fees according to each individual case. Let the Senator answer this objection, if, in any way, by twist of learning, logic, or law, he can.

[130] Prigg _v._ Pennsylvania, 16 Peters, 616.

Thus, Sir, do I present the issue directly on this monstrous enactment. Let the author of the Fugitive Slave Bill meet it. He will find me ready to follow him in argument,--though I trust never to be led, even by his example, into any departure from those courtesies of debate which are essential to the harmony of every legislative body.

* * * * *

Such, Mr. President, is my response to all that has been said in this debate, so far as I deem it in any way worthy of attention. To the two associate chieftains in this personal assault, the veteran Senator from Virginia, and the Senator from South Carolina with the silver-white locks, I have replied completely. It is true that others have joined in the cry which these associates first started; but I shall not be tempted further. Some there are best answered by silence, best answered by withholding the words which leap impulsively to the lips. [_Here Mr. Sumner turned to Mr. Mallory and Mr. Clay._]

And now, giving to oblivion all these things, let me, as I close, dwell on a single aspect of this discussion, which will render it memorable. On former occasions like this, the right of petition has been vehemently assailed or practically denied. Only two years ago, memorials for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, presented by me, were laid on your table, Mr. President, without reference to any Committee. All is changed now. Senators have condemned the memorial, and sounded in our ears the cry of "Treason! treason!"--but thus far, throughout this excited debate, no person has so completely outraged the spirit of our institutions, or forgotten himself, as to persevere in objecting to the reception of the memorial, and its proper reference. It is true, the remonstrants and their representatives here are treated with indignity; but the great right of petition, the sword and buckler of the citizen, though thus dishonored, is not denied. Here, Sir, is a triumph for Freedom.

When Mr. Sumner had finished, Mr. Clay, of Alabama, made haste to say, "He has put the question, whether any Senator upon this floor would assist in returning a fugitive slave? No response was made to the interrogatory; and lest he should herald it to the world that there was no Senator upon this floor who had the _moral courage_ to say 'Ay,' in response to the interrogatory, I tell him that I would do it." To which Mr. Sumner replied at once, "Then let the Senator say the _immoral courage_."

Mr. Butler rose to reply, when Mr. Badger asked his "friend from South Carolina, whether it would not be better for him to allow us now to adjourn?" To which Mr. Butler answered: "No, Sir; I would not subject myself to the temptation of preparing a reply that might have something in it, that, like a hyena, I was scratching at the graves in Massachusetts, to take revenge for the elaborate and vindictive assault that has been made by the gentleman who has just spoken." The _Globe_ shows his continued anger and excitement, which broke out especially at the comparison Mr. Sumner made between the Stamp Act and the Slave Act, and at his refusal to surrender a fugitive slave. These seemed to be the two grounds of offence. On the latter point, Mr. Butler, contrary to Mr. Sumner's positive declaration, was persistent in saying that he had denied the obligation of his oath to support the Constitution, when he had only denied his obligation to surrender a fugitive slave. At this stage, Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, remarked: "The answer made by the Senator from Massachusetts was in these precise words: 'I recognize no such obligation.' I did not understand that Senator as meaning to say that he would not obey the Constitution, or would disregard his oath,--nor, allow me to say, was he so understood by many gentlemen on this side of the chamber; but he simply meant to say (I certainly so understood him) that he did not consider that the Constitution imposed any such obligation upon him. That is all." Before the debate closed, Mr. Toucey, of Connecticut, said: "I beg leave to ask the Senator from Massachusetts whether he now recognizes an obligation to return a fugitive slave? I put the question in general language: Does he recognize the obligation to return a fugitive slave?" Mr. Sumner then said, "To that I answer distinctly, _No_." The petition was then referred to the Committee.

* * * * *

As Mr. Sumner resumed his seat, after his speech in reply to his assailants, Mr. Chase, who sat next to him, said: "You have struck Slavery the strongest blow it ever received; you have made it reel to the centre." The rage of its representatives was without bounds. The suggestion of Mr. Pettit to expel him was the first idea, which at last gave way to that of Mr. Clay to put him in Coventry. The first was not abandoned at once. It was seriously entertained. The newspapers of the time represent that it was under consideration from the day of his speech,--that "the opposition to Mr. Sumner is general and bitter in the Senate, and that it would be rash, therefore, to assert that the resolution will not be presented, and that, if presented, it will not be carried." It was added, that four Northern Senators were pledged to the resolution. The _Evening Post_ said, jestingly: "The Washington _Union_, and those of whom it is the special organ, are as much puzzled what to do with Senator Sumner as the Lilliputians were how to dispose of Mr. Lemuel Gulliver, when he made his appearance among them." Other papers treated the subject more gravely. The _National Era_, at Washington, said: "When we heard that a project for the expulsion of Mr. Sumner was under consideration among some Senators, we scouted the report as simply ridiculous; but there is no limit to the insolence and folly of some men. On inquiry, we learned that such a project was seriously canvassed."

* * * * *

This debate was profoundly felt throughout the country. Mr. Sumner's speech was telegraphed to the North, and extensively read. People there were smarting under the repeal of the Missouri Prohibition and the attempt to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. They were glad to find the audacious pretensions of the slave-masters repelled in Congress. Newspapers were enthusiastic. The correspondent of the New York _Times_ wrote:--

"This able, triumphant vindication, which covered the assailants
with confusion, told with the more effect because it was
unexpected. It had been supposed that Mr. Sumner would submit
quietly to any indignity that might be heaped upon him; but the
people, doubtless, when they read his speech, will acknowledge
that he held in reserve, and knew when and how to use, weapons of
defence far keener than the bowie-knife, and far more certain and
fatal than the duellist's rifle; and his countrymen will honor the
moral courage that enabled him to bear unflinchingly all the cruel
taunts of his misreckoning assailants, until the time had arrived
for drawing the arrows of Truth.... I have not been accustomed to
praise the Senator who is now my theme; but that heart must be
cold, and that judgment lamentably distorted, which could withhold
from Mr. Sumner his well-earned tribute for to-day's acquittance."

The Springfield _Republican_ thus characterizes the speech:--

"Curiosity has been greatly stimulated to see it in full, and it
will amply repay attention. Mr. Sumner has made more brilliant,
classical, scholarly speeches, but never one more effective,
nor one upon which his fame as Congressional debater can more
creditably rest. It was a full vindication of himself and of
Massachusetts, and its influence and effect have been marked at
Washington. It ended the discussion which the South so vauntingly
provoked. There has been no essay at reply. It carried the war into
the bowels of his opponents in a manner not ordinarily excusable,
but, after the provocation which had been given, in this instance
most abundantly justifiable. His annihilation of his accusers was
complete."

In a speech at Providence shortly afterwards, Mr. Giddings, of the House of Representatives, referred to this effort, which he heard, in sympathetic terms.

"They assailed Sumner because he said, 'Is thy servant a dog, that
he should do this thing?' in reply to the question, whether he
would assist in the capture of a fugitive slave? He was assailed
by the whole Slave Power in the Senate, and for a time he was the
constant theme of their vituperation. The maddened waves rolled
and dashed against him for two or three days, until eventually
he obtained the floor himself. Then he arose and threw back the
dashing surges with a power of inimitable eloquence utterly
indescribable.... I assure you that last week was the proudest week
I ever saw. Sumner stood inimitable, and hurled back the taunts of
his assailants with irresistible force. There he stood towering
above the infamous characters who had attempted to silence him,
while I sat and listened with rapturous emotion."

The interest awakened by the conflict in the Senate and the part borne by Mr. Sumner can be understood only by reading the testimony of the time in private letters, which have additional value in the light of subsequent events. It will be seen how Mr. Sumner was supported, and what already was the sentiment of the North.

Letters came from unknown persons, saying, "I want to thank you for that speech." On the next day after its delivery Rev. Theodore Parker wrote:--

"I never felt so proud of you as now, and can't go to bed without first
thanking you for the noble words which Apthorp has just read me of
yours from the _Transcript_ of to-night. Even phlegmatic---- is roused
up with your fire. God bless you!"

Hon. John P. Hale, of the Senate, wrote from Dover, N. H., under date of July 3d:--

"As I came from Washington to this place, in New York, Boston, and
in steamboats and railroad cars, I heard but one expression in
regard to your speech, and that was of unmingled gratification.
I have heard all classes, Whigs and others, and there is no
exception. Ladies particularly are in ecstasies at it. Mrs.
Hale says, 'Give him my thanks for his speech.' The feeling of
gratification at your speech is so great, that people do not think,
much less speak, of the Billingsgate by which you were assailed."

Hon. Henry Wilson thus expressed his feelings in a letter from Boston:--

"I write to say to you that you have given the heaviest blow you
ever struck to the slaveholding oligarchy. All our friends are
delighted, and men, who, even up to this hour have withheld all
words of commendation, are proud of your speech, and loud in their
commendations."

John A. Andrew, Esq., wrote:--

"Your recent rencontre with the wild beasts of Ephesus has been
a brilliant success. I have regarded that debate with pride and
gratification. I am glad it has occurred for many reasons, private
and personal, as well as public and universal. And I have heard
no person refer to it but in terms the most gratifying to my
friendship for you, and my interest in the controversy itself. I
think our friends here are in good spirits and full of hope.

"How do those people treat you now, since they have come to close
quarters with you? I hope you will spare not. You had ample
occasion, and now I hope you will keep up the war _aggressively_;
never fail to attack them, in the right way, whenever they deserve
it. The insolence of the presumption to stand between a man and his
own conscientious interpretation of the Constitution, especially
when they defiantly and every day dare everybody to tread on their
coat-tails, at the price of treason and rebellion, under the name
of '_disunion_,' is utterly unbearable.

"I only wish they _would_ expel you, and Chase, and Gillette,--all
three."

Wendell Phillips was most earnest, as follows:--

"The storm of letters of congratulation is perhaps lulled a little
by this time, and you'll have a moment's leisure to receive the
admiring thanks of an old friend. Amid so much that was sad and
dark at home, it has been delightful to sun one's self now and then
in the glad noon of hope at Washington. The whole State is very
proud of you just now. If your six years were out this next winter,
I think you'd be run in again without a competitor, and by a vote
of all parties.

"All your late efforts have been grand: see the benefit of being
insulted. Your last richly merited the claim you made of being
_thorough_. I liked and entirely approved the self-respect with
which you put your own opinion side by side with the Virginian's
and left it. You claimed not a tittle too much, and he deserved
just that sort of treatment.

"If, amid such universal congratulation, it be any joy to you to
hear my amen, be assured it is most heartily shouted."

Rev. Joshua Leavitt, the lifelong Abolitionist, wrote from New York:--

"I have just read the full report of your speech with intense
satisfaction. It is a glorious work. The report, the echo, the
effect in the other fleet, shows that it was such a broadside as
they never had before."

John Jay wrote from Bedford, New York, the country home of his grandfather, the Chief Justice:--

"I have read your speech of the 28th June with, I think, more
thorough satisfaction and delight than any other in my life,
not excepting even your first speech on the Fugitive Bill, for
which I waited so impatiently, as your first great blow in the
Senate against American Slavery. Your last is a glorious, a most
triumphant effort, and has given you a proud and commanding
position before the country, as the long hoped-for Champion of
the North, before whose fearless front and avenging arm Southern
insolence at length shall quail. How the Free States will receive
your words is already clear, if doubt could have been entertained
of it, by the tone generally of the public press, and the delight
manifested, both in the town and country, by almost all who speak
of it. In our quiet neighborhood I find people talking of it
enthusiastically whom I never before heard express the slightest
feeling on the Slavery question."

Rev. Convers Francis, the eminent professor of Harvard University, wrote:--

"When I came to that answer of yours, 'Is thy servant a dog, that
he should do this thing?' I could not but cry out, 'That is just
the thing! Mr. Sumner could not have found in all literature or
history elsewhere so fitting words for reply, when he was asked
whether he would send back a slave.' And your admirable application
of Jefferson's description of the manners produced by Slavery
did my very heart good. I have heard but one opinion of these
speeches from every side: indeed, there can be but one,--that which
expresses unmingled admiration and delight."

Dr. Joseph Sargent, of Worcester, wrote:--

"You must allow me to thank you for your reply to the assaults of
Mr. Pettit and Mr. Clay. It is a personal matter with me, and all
of us; for we have felt ourselves insulted, and we are satisfied.
I have read all your speeches in the Senate with instruction and
gratification; but this has warmed me so that I cannot withhold my
thanks, though I trespass on your time. The whole community feels
as I do. Men stop their business to ask each other if they have
read Mr. Sumner's speech, and even men calling on me to visit their
sick families forget their errand till they have put the universal
question. We have hitherto admired your forbearance, but your reply
is as dignified and noble as your forbearance, while it is strong,
rich, and Saxon. We have had nothing like it since the Hülsemann
letter. I will say no more, but I could say no less."

Theophilus P. Chandler, Esq., of Boston, wrote:--

"I cannot express the pleasure your friends have enjoyed at the
result of the late Senatorial conflict. Old Fogies read your speech
with satisfaction, although some complain of the Jackson doctrine."

Count Gurowski wrote from Newport:--

"You showed what is the real backbone of a gentleman, considered in
the higher moral or philosophical point of view, by far superior to
what your assailers conceive or are able to imagine in their vulgar
or low conceptions."

Rev. William H. Furness, the distinguished divine and devoted Abolitionist, wrote:--

"I congratulate you upon having been blackguarded and denounced. It
has redounded to your honor. It has proved a rare success. I think
you should thank God for placing you, in his wise Providence, in a
position which, utterly hateful as it must be to you (fighting with
wild beasts at Ephesus), proves to furnish occasion for the heroic
element. I can dimly surmise how much it costs you to stand there;
but I doubt not the experience you are having testifies that it
will pay the cost, and a great deal more. I may be mistaken, but,
from all I have learned of your position in the Senate, things look
as if those Southern men, after trying to steal your sting away by
all sorts of courtliness and courtesy, and trying in vain, have
turned upon you like rabid dogs, with the intent to tear you in
pieces. They have not done it, nor will they."

Hiram Barney, Esq., of New York, wrote:--

"I congratulate you on that day's work. It was well and nobly done.
I have seen something of your assailants, and know something of
their habits and manners, and can appreciate your forbearance.
It is a shame that you should be obliged to meet so much that is
disgusting to the taste and shocking to the moral sense in the
American Senate. But it is a matter of just pride that the friends
of Freedom there are gentlemen, and always win upon the field of
argument."

William C. Russell, Esq., of New York, afterwards professor at Cornell University, wrote:--

"I am delighted beyond measure by your reply to the Southern
chivalry. It is grand, gentlemanly, cool, pointed, well aimed, and
true metal. I do not wonder that Mr. Butler did not want to play
vampire to Massachusetts. The fact is, it is getting to be rather
serious work to interfere with the old Commonwealth; and I shall
be surprised, if the Southern bull-dogs do not bay in some other
quarter."

Hon. Charles P. Huntington, of Northampton, afterwards Judge of the Superior Court of the County of Suffolk, wrote:--

"I have been, as usual, exceedingly gratified with the manner,
style, and spirit in which you have met your Senatorial
responsibilities on this trying Nebraska question. But the reply to
the personal attacks and insults of Butler and Mason last week has
gratified me more than anything that has fallen from your lips,--so
severe, yet so just,--so cutting, yet so keen and polished,--so
decided, manly, and bold,--so indicative of backbone, as well as
pith and marrow, that your adversaries were fairly hung up and
impaled."

Hon. Charles G. Loring, the eminent lawyer, wrote:--

"Your reply to the Southern gentlemen, who seem to think that a
Northern man must be craven, elicited general and great admiration.
I heartily enjoyed it, and think that Mr. Mason must have had at
least one experience in his life of the comfort of being squeezed
through the little end of the horn. You will doubtless be treated
with some consideration by these worthies hereafter. In what school
of blackguardism was Clay of Alabama graduated? He certainly is a
magnificent specimen of Southern chivalry. You would have great
reason to thank him for placing you in Coventry, at a distance
beyond hailing from him and his compeers."

Andrew Ritchie, Esq., of Boston, wrote:--

"These gentlemen have been unfortunate in attacking you. You have
punished them in a most exemplary manner, without descending
to their vulgar level. You have exposed their ignorance of our
Revolutionary history, vindicated the character of your own State,
and brought forward, to their utter confusion, their own General
Jackson, to justify your remark that you would not voluntarily
do anything to promote the execution of what you deemed an
unconstitutional law. In a word, you have taught these orators how
much more effective is a _caustic civility_ of reply than coarse,
intemperate reviling."

Hon. S. E. Sewall, the constant Abolitionist, of Boston, wrote:--

"It is hardly necessary for me to tell you, what you probably see
in the newspapers, that you have become one of the most popular men
in Massachusetts. Even the Whigs are beginning to find out that you
have maintained the character of the State far better than their
own Senator.

"I suppose the idea of expelling you from the Senate, which was
reported in the papers some weeks ago, could never have been
seriously entertained. But the mere suggestion of such an outrage
roused many men who had never been your political friends; for
everybody felt that to attempt such an act would be an indignity to
the State not to be tolerated.

"I find that I have left to the end of my letter, what I meant to
have said in the beginning, that all your friends are delighted
with your course in Congress under the very trying circumstances
of the present session. We all agree that you have fought a good
fight."

William I. Bowditch, Esq., of Boston, communicated the following incident:--

"One gentleman whom I saw this forenoon said that he involuntarily
gave three cheers, when he had finished reading your speech; and an
'old Hunker' said to me smilingly, 'I really don't know but that I
shall myself come out at last a Sumner man.'"

Dr. James W. Stone, an indefatigable member of the Free-Soil party, wrote:--

"But I should not only fail to express my own feelings, but also
the universal satisfaction here evinced, did I long delay to
tell you, even if I have time to do nothing more, how great the
enthusiasm is in your behalf, for your noble reply to the unworthy
assaults from Pettit, whose name is more significant of his mental
than of his physical calibre, from Butler the faithless, and from
Clay the slave-hunter, _et id omne genus_. I doubt whether even
you can repress the enthusiasm which so earnestly demands a public
reception for you on your return home."

Hon. Benjamin F. Butler, afterwards General, and Representative in Congress, wrote:--

"My interest in the subject of the speeches procured me the reports
while they were being delivered. At that time I was at Concord, in
court, seeing people of all parties; and I can assure you, from
observation, that your course in the Senate is sanctioned by the
approving sentiment of Massachusetts."

Robert Carter, Esq., the journalist and writer, wrote from Cambridge:--

"A month ago I thought your popularity had reached a wonderfully
high pitch, that you had at a leap overcome prejudices and
misconceptions that seemed likely to be surmounted only by the
gradual toil of years. But the last week has wrought even greater
wonders. Multitudes, formerly your enemies and revilers, are
not merely willing to tolerate you, not merely willing to be
satisfied with you, but have become actually proud of you, as their
representative, and the champion of Massachusetts and the North. I
hear on all sides nothing but commendations and exultations."

John C. Dodge, Esq., of Boston, wrote:--

"I rejoice that Massachusetts has found a defender who will,
without fear or favor, tell the whole truth, when she is
assailed. And I assure you that such is the voice of nearly our
whole community. Whigs, Democrats, and Free-Soilers unite in the
expression of approbation and pleasure."

Hon. Albert G. Browne, of Salem, wrote:--

"Let me say seriously, frankly, your reputation as a fearless,
brave, and true man is firmly established,--confidence also in your
discretion and good judgment, as shown in this last debate and in
the management of this whole affair. There is a settled conviction
that you know how to withstand the entreaties or coolness of
friends, when your thoughts are not their thoughts,--that you have
shown great moral and physical courage, united with admirable
ability, in meeting and discomfiting the foes of Freedom, when, in
your opinion, the right time had come."

Professor Edward T. Channing, of Harvard University, whose memory is dear to a large circle of pupils, wrote to a friend:--

"Sumner has done nobly. He is erect and a man of authority among
the slave holders, dealers, and hunters. He has made an historical
era for the North; for at least one among us has dared to confront
the insolent. He makes cowards of them, or rather shows what
cowards they are at the South. So will it ever be, when the Truth
is bold; though it is rare for a young or old hero in politics
to produce effect so rapidly. Still, and notwithstanding, and
nevertheless, our Whigs would send Apollyon to the Senate as soon
as Sumner, if his term should expire when they are uppermost."

T. C. Connolly, Esq., under date of August 21, reported from Washington the opinion of Mr. Gales, the very able editor of the _National Intelligencer_.

"I rejoice in the assurance universally felt here, that your
position in the Senate will be far more pleasant in the future than
it has been in the past. I enjoyed the pleasure of a conversation
with Mr. Gales on this subject a few days since. He introduced
your name, and remarked that the absence of sympathy in your views
could not influence his fair judgment of your worth. He was an
attentive reader of the debates of the Senate, and he had seen
that every step you had taken was a step upward, and that they
who had affected to contemn were at length driven into a tacit
acknowledgment of their very great error. He spoke in particular of
the reproofs you had found it necessary to administer to Senators
around you, and said, that, while they were exceedingly severe and
effective, they were equally just, and unaccompanied by a single
word that could be regarded as incompatible with the place and
presence in which you stood."

Men particularly interested in the Peace Cause united in the prevailing sentiment.

Of these, Hon. Amasa Walker, afterwards a Representative in Congress from Massachusetts, wrote:--

"Your reply to the slaveholders is capital, and receives universal
admiration in this quarter. It was just such a flagellation as the
slavocrats deserved, and such a one as they never received before
in the Senate. I think, from what I can observe, that your course
is universally popular, always excepting the mercenary minions of
the Government."

J. P. Blanchard, Esq., devoted to Peace, wrote:--

"I take this occasion to express my warm admiration of the spirit
and power you have exhibited in your late contest with Messrs.
Butler, Pettit, _et id genus omne_. I am rejoiced and grateful
that your 'backbone' has proved strong enough to stand such a test
without bending: that I have not given you this acknowledgment
earlier is because, being very busy, I did not take time to write a
letter for that purpose only, as I knew you were so well acquainted
with my sympathies that the expression of them was unnecessary.
I am glad to understand that you have received commendations on
this score from sources where a short time ago you would not have
expected them."

Elihu Burritt, the Missionary of Peace, wrote:--

"And now I want to thank you with my whole heart for your grand and
brave rejoinder to Butler and Mason. It was the best, bravest thing
done in the Senate this many a year. I think more hearts in the
Free States will glory in your courageous and overwhelming reply to
these plantation Senators than in any public effort of your life.
You must have made it, too, on short notice. I never read anything
with more satisfaction."

Other letters attest a change in sentiment among those who had been lukewarm on Slavery, and perhaps adverse to Mr. Sumner.

Hon. Daniel Shattuck, of Concord, wrote:--

"Being one of the old-time Whigs, I was not pleased with your
election to the high seat which you hold: for that opinion you will
forgive me, I am sure, when I say that I go with you now heart
and soul, and approve all you have said in defence of your native
State, whose sons I know approve your course and wish you God-speed.

George M. Browne, Esq., of Boston, wrote:--

"Differing with you as I do in political sentiments, and having no
other connection with public affairs than what pertains to every
citizen, I desire nevertheless to express to you, what I believe
to be the general feeling among all classes of reflecting minds
here, an admiration for the dignified and gentlemanly bearing with
which you have gone through the contest and rebuked the ruffian
onslaught,--and to say, moreover, that we should, I have no doubt,
all unite, from all sides, as one man, in sending you back to the
Senate, should the maniac threats of expulsion by any possibility
be carried into effect."

The following poem, suggested by this debate, belongs to this
history.

TO C. S.

I have seemed more prompt to censure wrong
Than praise the right,--if seldom to thine ear
My voice hath mingled with the exultant cheer
Borne upon all our Northern winds along,--
If I have failed to join the fickle throng
In wide-eyed wonder that thou standest strong
In victory, surprised in thee to find
Brougham's scathing power with Canning's grace combined,--
That he, for whom the ninefold Muses sang,
From their twined arms a giant athlete sprang,
Barbing the arrows of his native tongue
With the spent shafts Latona's archer flung,
To smite the Python of our land and time,
Fell as the monster born of Crissa's slime,
Like the blind bard who in Castalian springs
Tempered the steel that clove the crest of kings,
And on the shrine of England's freedom laid
The gifts of Cumæ and of Delphi's shade,--
Small need hast thou of words of praise from me.
Thou knowest my heart, dear friend, and well canst guess,
That, even though silent, I have not the less
Rejoiced to see thy actual life agree
With the large future which I shaped for thee,
When, years ago, beside the summer sea,
White in the moon, we saw the long waves fall
Baffled and broken from the rocky wall,
That to the menace of the brawling flood
Opposed alone its massive quietude,
Calm as a fate, with not a leaf nor vine
Nor birch-spray trembling in the still moonshine,
Crowning it like God's peace. I sometimes think
That night-scene by the sea prophetical,
(For Nature speaks in symbols and in signs,
And through her pictures human fate divines,)--
That rock, wherefrom we saw the billows sink
In murmuring rout, uprising clear and tall
In the white light of heaven, the type of one
Who, momently by Error's host assailed,
Stands strong as Truth, in greaves of granite mailed,
And, tranquil-fronted, listening over all
The tumult, hears the angels say, Well done!

J. G. W.

_11th month, 25th, 1854._

PEACEFUL OPPOSITION TO THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT.

LETTER TO THE MAYOR OF BOSTON, FOR THE CELEBRATION JULY 4,
1854.

SENATE CHAMBER, 1st July, 1854.

Dear Sir,--I have been honored by the invitation of the municipal authorities of Boston to unite with them in commemorating the approaching anniversary of our National Independence.

Please tender to them my gratitude, that they have thus remembered me, an absent citizen, who tries to serve truth and justice in the sphere where he has been placed. Pleasure would take me home among congenial souls, but duty keeps me here.

The approaching anniversary of Independence in Boston should be something more than a show and expense. It ought to be the occasion of a practical vow to those primal principles of Freedom which have been assailed. Our municipal history should be carefully read, and, unless we are prepared to disown our fathers, the conduct of Boston at memorable times should be set forward anew, as an example which her children must never forget. I do not refer to the violent act by which her harbor was converted into a "teapot"; but I would especially dwell on the peaceful opposition, which, according to her own records, now preserved at the City Hall, she organized against a tyrannical and unconstitutional Act of Parliament,--"bearing testimony against outrageous tumults and illegal proceedings," but never failing to "take legal and warrantable measures to prevent that misfortune, of all others the most to be dreaded, the execution of the Stamp Act." The City Clerk will find these words in his books, under date of 24th March, 1766, whence I have with my own hand copied them. With this great precedent of Freedom in my memory, I ask the municipal authorities--should I be remembered at their hospitable board--to propose in my name the following sentiment.

_The City of Boston._--While still in colonial dependence, and with no aim at revolution, her municipal fathers steadfastly opposed the execution, within her borders, of an unconstitutional and tyrannical Act of Parliament, until, without violence or collision, it was at first practically annulled, and at last repealed. Truly honoring the Fathers, let Boston not depart from their example.

I remain, dear Sir, your faithful servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO THE MAYOR OF BOSTON.

NO PENSION FOR SERVICE IN SUPPORT OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT.

MINORITY REPORT TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE BILL
GRANTING TO THE WIDOW OF JAMES BATCHELDER A PROVISION FOR HER FUTURE
SUPPORT, JULY 13, 1854.

An attempt was made to obtain a pension for the widow of James
Batchelder, killed in Boston, while guarding Anthony Burns,
the fugitive slave, on the evening of May 26, 1854. A bill was
reported from the Committee on Pensions. Mr. Sumner and Mr. Seward,
constituting a minority of the Committee, made the following
adverse report, which was drawn up by the former.

VIEWS OF MR. SUMNER AND MR. SEWARD.

The undersigned, a minority of the Committee on Pensions, cannot concur with the majority of the Committee in reporting a bill for the relief of the widow of the late James Batchelder. They also dissent from the report accompanying the bill, which, however, is understood not to proceed from a majority of the Committee.

In granting pensions, or bounties of a kindred nature, it has been the habit of the Committee to require evidence of all essential facts and circumstances,--not, indeed, according to the rigorous forms of a court of law, but with substantial fulness and authenticity. Applications for pensions are constantly rejected for defect of testimony. But this reasonable practice, which is a necessary safeguard against abuse, has been disregarded in the present case. No evidence of any kind--not a shred or particle--was produced. The majority of the Committee undertook to act at once, on loose and general report, gathered from the public press at a moment of excitement. In this report they have obviously proceeded with more haste than discretion. Such a course cannot be in conformity with approved precedents. In itself it will be a bad precedent for the future.

But this proceeding seems more obnoxious to comment, when it is known that it appears, from the very sources on which the Committee relied, that the facts in question are all at this moment the subject of judicial inquiry, _still pending_, in the courts at Boston. Several citizens have been indicted for participation in the transaction to which reference is made, and in which Batchelder is said to have been killed. Their trials have not yet taken place, but are near at hand. Under these peculiar circumstances, the indiscreet haste of the Committee, thus acting in advance of authentic evidence, and _lite pendente_, is enhanced by possible detriment to the grave interests of justice, which all will admit should not be exposed to partisan influence from abroad. The report accompanying the bill, without any aid from human testimony, undertakes to pronounce dogmatically on facts which will be in issue on these trials. Anticipating the court, and literally without a hearing, it gives judgment on absent persons, as well as on distant events.

On grounds irrespective of the merits of the case, the undersigned object to any action upon it on the present evidence, and in the existing state of things. They object for two reasons: _first_, that such action would become a bad precedent, opening the way to a disregard of evidence in the distribution of pensions and bounties; and, _secondly_, that it would be an interference--offensive, though indirect--with the administration of justice, in matters _still pending_, and involving the fortunes of several citizens. These reasons are ample.

But on other grounds, of a different character, and vital to the merits of the case, the undersigned must dissent from the majority of the Committee.

Regarding the Act of Congress usually known as the Fugitive Slave Act as unconstitutional, while it is justly condemned by the moral sense of the communities where it is sought to be enforced, the undersigned are not disposed to recognize any services rendered in its enforcement as meritorious in character. Especially are they unwilling to depart beyond the clear line of precedent, in voting bounties on account of such services. This of itself is sufficient reason for opposition to the proposed bill.

But admitting for the moment the asserted constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Act, and its conformity with just principles of duty, and admitting further, that efforts for its enforcement are to be placed in the same scale with efforts to enforce other Acts of Congress, of acknowledged constitutionality, and clear conformity with just principles of duty, then the undersigned beg leave to submit, that, according to the practice of our country, such efforts have not been considered as entitled to the ordinary reward of pensions or kindred bounties.

The pensions and kindred bounties of our country have been founded exclusively on _military_ and _naval_ services. In England, _civil_ services, whether on the bench, in diplomacy, or in the departments of State, are subjects of pension; but it is otherwise here. With us there are no general laws to this end; nor are there special laws of such clear meaning and character as to become precedents, sanctioning pensions or bounties for civil service. A report of this Committee, made by its Chairman at this very session of Congress, states the rule and practice of Congress. Here is the whole report.

"IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

"APRIL 11, 1854.--Ordered to be printed.

"Mr. JONES, of Iowa, made the following report.

"_The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of
Rebecca Bright, beg leave to report_:--

"That the petitioner is the widow of Jacob Bright, an armorer,
who was killed at the navy-yard in this city by the bursting of a
shell. _He being an employee of the Government, and in no sense to
be regarded as in its 'military or naval service,' the Committee
can find no reason, founded in law or justice, for pensioning
his widow._ Her case is precisely that of the widow of a laborer
or mechanic employed by the day or month upon any public work.
They therefore recommend that the prayer of the petitioner be
rejected."[131]

[131] Reports of the Committees of the Senate, 33d Cong. 1st Sess.,
No. 199.

And yet, in the very teeth of this recommendation, made by themselves at this very session, the Committee now propose to bestow a bounty upon such services. If the Committee were right in their former report, they cannot be right now.

The report accompanying the bill shows that three of the Committee have felt that their recommendation needed the support of precedents, and they have ransacked the records for them. Two only are produced.

The first is an Act of Congress, bearing date June 7, 1794, which provides "that the sum of two thousand dollars be allowed to the widow of Robert Forsyth, late marshal of the district of Georgia, for the use of herself and the children of the said Robert Forsyth." On search in the office of the Secretary of the Senate, where this bill originated, and also at the Treasury, where the money was paid, no papers have been found showing the occasion of this grant; nor has anybody undertaken to state any. This precedent, then, can be of little value in establishing an important rule in the dispensation of national bounties.