Chapter II (1)

Mr. President,--It is not only as an infraction of solemn compact, embodied in ancient law, that I oppose this bill; I arraign it as a flagrant and extravagant departure from the original policy of our fathers, consecrated by their lives, opinions, and acts.

[Here Mr. Sumner proceeded to set forth the Antislavery policy at the foundation of the Government,--less fully than in the earlier speech, _Freedom National, Slavery Sectional_, but substantially in the same vein. After alluding to the memorial of Franklin, addressed to the first Congress under the Constitution, he proceeded as follows.]

The memorial of Franklin, with other memorials of a similar character, was referred to a Committee, and much debated in the House, which finally sanctioned the following resolution, and directed the same to be entered upon its Journals, namely:--

"That Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation
of slaves, or in the treatment of them, within any of the
States: _it remaining with the several States alone to provide
any regulations therein which humanity and true policy may
require_."[58]

This resolution, declaring the principle of non-intervention by Congress with Slavery in the States, was adopted by the same Congress which had solemnly affirmed the Prohibition of Slavery in all the existing territory of the Union; so that one may be regarded as the complement of the other. And it is on these double acts, at the first organization of the Government, and the recorded sentiments of the founders, that I take my stand, and challenge all question.

In the country, at this time, there was strictly no dividing line between Antislavery and Proslavery. The Antislavery sentiment was thoroughly national, broad and general, pervading alike all parts of the Union, and uprising from the common heart of the entire people. The Proslavery interest was strictly personal and pecuniary, and had its source simply in the self-interest of individual slaveholders. It contemplated Slavery only as a domestic institution, not as a political element, and merely stipulated for its security where it actually existed within the States.

[58] Annals of Congress, 1st Cong. 2d Sess., II. 1472-74, March 23,
1790.

Sir, the original policy of the country, begun under the Confederation, and recognized at the initiation of the new Government, is clear and unmistakable. Compendiously expressed, it was _non-intervention by Congress with Slavery in the States, and its prohibition in all the national domain_. In this way discordant feelings on this subject were reconciled. Slave-masters were left at home in their respective States, under the protection of local laws, to hug Slavery without interference from Congress, while all opposed to it were exempted from any responsibility therefor in the national domain. This, Sir, is the common ground on which our political fabric was reared; and I do not hesitate to say that it is the only ground on which it can stand in permanent peace.

* * * * *

Our Republic has swollen in population and power, but it has shrunk in character. It is not now what it was in the beginning, a Republic merely permitting, while it regretted Slavery,--tolerating it only where it could not be removed, and interdicting it where it did not exist,--but a mighty Propagandist, openly favoring and vindicating it,--visiting, also, with displeasure all who oppose it.

Sir, our country early reached heights which it could not keep. Its fall was gentle, but complete. At the session of Congress immediately following the ratification of the Prohibition of Slavery in the national domain, a transfer of the territory now constituting Tennessee was accepted from North Carolina (2d April, 1790), loaded with the express proviso, "that no regulations made or to be made by Congress shall tend to emancipate slaves": a formal provision, which, while admitting the power of Congress over Slavery in the Territories, waived the prevailing policy of executing it. This was followed, in 1798, by the transfer from Georgia of the region between her present western limit and the Mississippi, under a similar condition. In both these cases apology may be found in the very terms of the transfer, and in the fact that the region constituted part of two States where Slavery actually existed,--though it will be confessed that even here there was a descent from that summit of Freedom on which the Nation had so proudly rested.

Without tracing this downward course through its successive stages, let me refer to facts which too palpably reveal the abyss that has been reached. Early in our history no man was disqualified for public office by reason of his opinions on this subject; and this condition continued for a long period. As late as 1820, John W. Taylor, Representative from New York, who pressed with so much energy, not merely the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories, but its restriction in the State of Missouri, was elected to the chair of Henry Clay, as Speaker of the other House. It is needless to add, that no determined supporter of the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories at this day could expect that eminent trust.... To such lowest deep has our Government descended!

These things prepare us to comprehend the true character of the change with regard to the Territories. In 1787 all existing national domain was promptly and unanimously dedicated to Freedom, without opposition or criticism. The interdict of Slavery then covered every inch of soil belonging to the National Government. Louisiana, an immense region beyond the bounds of the original States, was subsequently acquired, and in 1820, after a vehement struggle which shook the whole land, discomfited Freedom was compelled, by a dividing line, to a partition with Slavery. This arrangement, which, in its very terms, was exclusively applicable to a particular territory purchased from France, has been accepted as final down to the present session of Congress; but now, Sir, here in 1854, Freedom is suddenly summoned to surrender even her hard-won moiety. Here are the three stages: at the first, all consecrated to Freedom; at the second, only half; at the third, all grasped by Slavery. The original policy of the Government is absolutely reversed. Slavery, which at the beginning was a sectional institution, with no foothold anywhere on the National Territory, is now exalted as national, and all our broad domain is threatened by its blighting shadow.

* * * * *

Thus much for what I have to say, at this time, of the original policy, consecrated by the lives, opinions, and acts of our fathers. Certain reasons are adduced for the proposed departure from their great example, which, though of little validity, I would not pass in silence.

The Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories is assailed, as beyond the power of Congress, and an infringement of local sovereignty. On this account, at this late day, it is pronounced unconstitutional. Now, without considering minutely the sources from which the power of Congress over the national domain is derived,--whether from express grant in the Constitution to make rules and regulations for the government of the Territory, or from power, necessarily implied, to govern territory acquired by conquest or purchase,--it seems to me impossible to deny its existence, without invalidating a large portion of the legislation of the country, from the adoption of the Constitution down to the present day. This power was asserted before the Constitution. It was not denied or prohibited by the Constitution itself. Exercised from the first existence of the Government, it has been recognized by the three departments, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Precedents of every kind are thick in its support. Indeed, the very bill now before us assumes a control of the Territory clearly inconsistent with those principles of sovereignty which are said to be violated by Congressional prohibition of Slavery.

Here are provisions determining the main features of the Government, the distribution of powers in the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial departments, and the manner in which they shall be respectively constituted,--securing to the President, with the consent of the Senate, the appointment of Governor, Secretary, and Judges, and to the people only the election of the Legislature,--and even ordaining the qualifications of voters, the salaries of the public officers, and the daily compensation of the members of the Legislature. Surely, if Congress may establish these provisions, without interference with the rights of territorial sovereignty, it is absurd to say that it may not also prohibit Slavery.

In this very bill there is an express prohibition on the Territory, borrowed from the Ordinance of 1787, and repeated in every Act organizing a Territory, or even a new State, down to the present time, where it is expressly declared that "no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States." Now here is a clear and unquestionable restriction upon the Territories and States. The public lands of the United States, situated within an organized Territory or State, cannot be regarded as the _instruments_ and _means_ necessary and proper to execute the sovereign powers of the nation, like fortifications, arsenals, and navy-yards. They are strictly in the nature of _private property_ of the nation, and as such, unless exempted by the foregoing prohibition, would clearly be within the scope of local taxation, liable, like the lands of other proprietors, to all customary burdens and incidents. Mr. Justice Woodbury has declared, in a well-considered judgment, that, "where the United States own land situated within the limits of particular States, and over which they have no cession of jurisdiction, for objects either special or general, little doubt exists that the rights and remedies in relation to it are usually such as apply to other land-owners within the State."[59] I assume, then, that without this prohibition these lands would be liable to taxation. Does any one question this? Nobody. The conclusion, then, follows, that by this prohibition you propose to deprive the present Territory, as you have deprived other Territories,--ay, and States,--of an essential portion of its sovereignty.

[59] United States _v._ Ames, 1 Woodbury & Minot, 80.

And these, Sir, are not vain words. The Supreme Court of the United States has given great prominence to the sovereign right of taxation in the States. In the case of _Providence Bank_ v. _Billings and Pittman_, 4 Peters, 561, they declare,--

"That the taxing power is of vital importance; _that it is
essential to the existence of Government_; that the relinquishment
of such a power is never to be assumed."

And again, in the case of _Dobbins_ v. _Commissioners of Erie County_, 16 Peters, 447, they say:--

"Taxation is a sacred right, _essential to the existence of
Government, an incident of sovereignty_. The right of legislation
is coëxtensive with the incident, to attach it upon all persons and
property within the jurisdiction of a State."

Now I call upon Senators to remark, that this sacred right, reputed so essential to the very existence of Government, is abridged in the bill before us.

For myself, I do not doubt the power of Congress to fasten this restriction upon the Territory, and afterwards upon the State, as is always done; but I am at a loss to see on what grounds this restriction can be placed, which will not also support the Prohibition of Slavery. The former is an unquestionable infringement of sovereignty, as declared by our Supreme Court, far more than can be asserted of the latter.

I am unwilling to admit, Sir, that the Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories is in any just sense an infringement of local sovereignty. Slavery is an infraction of the immutable Law of Nature, and as such cannot be considered a natural incident to any sovereignty, especially in a country which has solemnly declared, in its Declaration of Independence, the unalienable right of all men to life, _liberty_, and the pursuit of happiness. In an age of civilization, and in a land of rights, Slavery may still be tolerated _in fact_; but its prohibition within a municipal jurisdiction by the government thereof--as by one of the States of the Union,--cannot be considered an infraction of natural rights; nor can its prohibition by Congress in the Territories be regarded as an infringement of local sovereignty, founded, as it must be, on natural rights.

Then comes another argument, most fallacious in its character. It is asserted, that, inasmuch as the Territories were acquired by the common treasure, they are the common property of the whole Union, and therefore no citizen can be prevented from carrying into them his slaves, without infringement of the equal rights and privileges which belong to him as a citizen of the United States. But it is admitted that the people of this very Territory, when organized as a State, may exclude slaves, and in this way abridge an asserted right, founded on the common property in the Territory. Now, if this can be done by the few thousand settlers who constitute the State Government, the whole argument founded on the acquisition of the Territories by a common treasure is futile and evanescent.

But this argument proceeds on an assumption which cannot stand. It assumes that Slavery is a National Institution, and that property in slaves is recognized by the Constitution of the United States. Nothing can be more false. By the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, and also by the principles of the Common Law, Slavery is a local municipal institution, deriving its support exclusively from local municipal laws, and beyond the sphere of these laws it ceases to exist, except so far as it may be preserved by the uncertain clause for the rendition of fugitives from service. Madison thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there can be property in men; and I rejoice to believe that no such idea can be found there. The Constitution regards slaves always as "persons," with the rights of "persons,"--never as property. When it is said, therefore, that every citizen may enter the national domain with his property, it does not follow, by any rule of logic or of law, that he may carry his slaves. On the contrary, he can carry only that property which is admitted such by the universal Law of Nature, written by God's own finger on the heart of man. In vain do you speak of "rights" in the Territories,--as if this august word could be profaned to characterize such a claim.

The relation of master and slave is sometimes classed with the "domestic relations." Now, while it is unquestionably among the powers of any State, within its own jurisdiction, to change the existing relation of husband and wife, and to establish polygamy, I presume no person would contend that a polygamous husband, resident in one of the States, would be entitled to enter the National Territory with his harem,--his property, if you please,--and there claim immunity. Clearly, when he passes the bounds of that local jurisdiction which sanctions polygamy, the peculiar domestic relation would cease: and it is precisely the same with Slavery.

* * * * *

Sir, I dismiss these considerations. The Prohibition of Slavery in the Territory of Kansas and Nebraska stands on foundations of living rock, upheld by the early policy of the Fathers, by constant precedent, and time-honored compact. It is now in your power to overturn it; you may remove the sacred landmark, and open the whole vast domain to Slavery. To you is committed this high prerogative. Our fathers, on the eve of the Revolution, set forth in burning words, among their grievances, that George the Third, "determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, had prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce."[60] Sir, like the English monarch, you may now prostitute your power to this same purpose. But you cannot escape the judgment of the world, nor the doom of history.

[60] First Draught of the Declaration of Independence: Jefferson's
Writings, Vol. I. p. 23.

It will be in vain, that, while doing this thing, you plead in apology the principle of _self-government_, which you profess to recognize in the Territories. Sir, this very principle, when truly administered, secures equal rights to all, without distinction of race or color, and makes Slavery impossible. By no rule of justice, and by no subtilty of political metaphysics, can the right to hold a fellow-man in bondage be regarded as essential to self-government. The inconsistency is too flagrant. It is apparent on the bare statement. It is like saying _two_ and _two_ make _three_. In the name of Liberty you open the door to Slavery. With professions of Equal Rights on the lips, you trample on the rights of Human Nature. With a kiss upon the brow of that fair Territory, you betray it to wretchedness and shame. Well did the patriot soul exclaim, in bitter words, wrung out by bitter experience, "O Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name!"[61]

[61] "O Liberté, que de crimes on commet en ton nom!"--MME. ROLAND.

In vain, Sir, you will plead that this measure proceeds from the North, as has been suggested by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. DIXON]. Even if this were true, it would be no apology. But, precipitated upon the Senate, as this bill has been, at a moment of general calm, and in the absence of any controlling exigency, and then hurried to a vote in advance of the public voice, as if fearful of arrest, it cannot justly be called the offspring of any popular sentiment. In this respect it differs widely from the Missouri Prohibition, which was adopted only after solemn debate, extending through two sessions of Congress, and ample discussion before the people. As yet, there is no evidence that this attempt, though espoused by Northern politicians, proceeds from that Northern sentiment which throbs and glows, strong and fresh, in the schools, the churches, and the homes of the people. _Populi omnes AD AQUILONEM positi Libertatem quandam spirant._[62] And could the abomination which you seek to perpetrate be now submitted to the awakened millions whose souls are truly ripened under Northern skies, it would be flouted at once, with indignant and undying scorn.

[62] Bodinus, de Republica, Lib. I. cap. 8, p. 90.

But the race of men, "white slaves of the North," described and despised by a Southern statesman, is not yet extinct there, Sir. It is one of the melancholy tokens of the power of Slavery, under our political system, and especially through the operations of the National Government, that it loosens and destroys the character of Northern men, exerting its subtle influence even at a distance,--like the black magnetic mountain in the Arabian story, under whose irresistible attraction, the iron bolts which held together the strong timbers of a stately ship, floating securely on the distant wave, were drawn out, till the whole fell apart, and became a disjointed wreck. Alas! too often those principles which give consistency, individuality, and form to the Northern character, which render it stanch, strong, and seaworthy, which bind it together as with iron, are sucked out, one by one, like the bolts of the ill-fated vessel, and from the miserable loosened fragments is formed that human anomaly, _a Northern man with Southern principles_. Sir, no such man can speak for the North.

[Here there was an interruption of prolonged applause in the galleries.]

THE PRESIDENT (Mr. STUART in the chair). The Chair will be obliged
to direct the galleries to be cleared, if order is not preserved.
No applause will be allowed.

SEVERAL VOICES. Let them be cleared now.

MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, this bill is proposed as a measure of peace. In this way you vainly think to withdraw the subject of Slavery from National Politics. This is a mistake. Peace depends on mutual confidence. It can never rest secure on broken faith and injustice. Permit me to say, frankly, sincerely, and earnestly, that the subject of Slavery can never be withdrawn from the National Politics until we return once more to the original policy of our fathers, at the first organization of the Government under Washington, when the national ensign nowhere on the National Territory covered a single slave.

* * * * *

Amidst all seeming discouragements, the great omens are with us. Art, literature, poetry, religion, everything which elevates man, all are on our side. The plough, the steam-engine, the railroad, the telegraph, the book, every human improvement, every generous word anywhere, every true pulsation of every heart which is not a mere muscle and nothing else, gives new encouragement to the warfare with Slavery. The discussion will proceed. Wherever an election occurs, there this question will arise. Wherever men come together to speak of public affairs, there again will it be. No political Joshua now, with miraculous power, can stop the sun in its course through the heavens. It is even now rejoicing, like a strong man, to run its race, and will yet send its beams into the most distant plantations, melting the chains of every slave.

But this movement, or agitation, as it is reproachfully called, is boldly pronounced injurious to the very object desired. Now, without entering into details, which neither time nor the occasion justifies, let me say that this objection belongs to those commonplaces which have been arrayed against every good movement in the world's history, against even knowledge itself, against the abolition of the slave-trade. Perhaps it was not unnatural for the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. BADGER] to press it, even as vehemently as he did; but it sounded less natural, when it came, though in more moderate phrase, from my distinguished friend and colleague from Massachusetts [Mr. EVERETT]. The past furnishes a controlling example by which its true character may be determined. Call to mind, Sir, that the efforts of William Wilberforce encountered this precise objection, and that the condition of the kidnapped slave was then vindicated, in language not unlike that of the Senator from North Carolina, by no less a person than the Duke of Clarence, of the royal family of Great Britain. In what was called his maiden speech, on the 3d of May, 1792 and preserved in the Parliamentary Debates, he said: "The negroes were not treated in the manner which had so much agitated the public mind. He had been an attentive observer of their state, and had no doubt but he could bring forward proofs to convince their Lordships that their state was far from being miserable: on the contrary, that, when the various ranks of society were considered, they were comparatively in a state of humble happiness." And only the next year, this same royal prince, in debate in the House of Lords, asserted that the promoters of the abolition of the slave-trade were "either fanatics or hypocrites," and in one of these classes he ranked Wilberforce. Mark now the end. After years of weary effort, the slave-trade was finally abolished; and at last, in 1833, the early vindicator of this enormity, the maligner of a name hallowed among men, was brought to give his royal assent, as William the Fourth, King of Great Britain, to the immortal Act of Parliament, greater far than any victory of war, by which Slavery was abolished throughout the British dominions. Sir, time and the universal conscience have vindicated the labors of Wilberforce. The movement against American Slavery, protected by the august names of Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson, can calmly await a similar judgment.

Sometimes it is said that this movement is dangerous to the Union. In this solicitude I cannot share. As a lover of concord, and a jealous partisan of all that makes for peace, I am always glad to express my attachment to the Union; but I believe that this bond will be most truly preserved and most beneficently extended (for I shrink from no expansion where Freedom leads the way) by firmly upholding those principles of Liberty and Justice which were its early corner-stones. The true danger to this Union proceeds not from any abandonment of the "peculiar institution" of the South, but from the abandonment of the spirit in which the Union was formed,--not from any warfare upon Slavery within the limits of the Constitution, but from warfare upon Freedom, like that waged by this very bill. The Union is most precious; but more precious far are that "general welfare," that "domestic tranquillity," and those "blessings of Liberty" which it was established to secure,--all which are now wantonly endangered. Not that I love the Union less, but Freedom more, do I now, in pleading this great cause, insist that Freedom, at all hazards, shall be preserved.

The great master, Shakespeare, who with all-seeing mortal eye observed mankind, and with immortal pen depicted the manners as they rise, has presented a scene which may be read with advantage by all who would plunge the South into tempestuous quarrel with the North. I refer to the well-known passage between Brutus and Cassius. Reading this remarkable dialogue, it is difficult not to see in Brutus our own North, and in Cassius the South.

"_Cas._ Urge me no more, I shall forget myself;
Have mind upon your health, tempt me no further.

* * * * *

"_Bru._ Hear me, for I will speak.
Must I give way and room to your rash choler?

* * * * *

"_Cas._ O ye gods! ye gods! must I endure all this?

"_Bru._ All this? Ay, more: fret, till your proud heart break:
_Go, show your slaves how choleric you are,
And make your bondmen tremble._ Must I budge?
Must I observe you? Must I stand and crouch
Under your testy humor?

* * * * *

"_Cas._ Do not presume too much upon my love;
I may do that I shall be sorry for.

"_Bru._ _You have done that you should be sorry for._
There is no terror, Cassius, in your threats;
For I am armed so strong in honesty,
That they pass by me as the idle wind,
Which I respect not.

* * * * *

"_Cas._ A friend should bear his friend's infirmities, But Brutus
makes mine greater than they are.

"_Bru._ I do not, TILL YOU PRACTISE THEM ON ME.

"CAS. You love me not.

"_Bru._ I do not like your faults."

And the colloquy proceeding, each finally comes to understand the other, appreciates his character and attitude, and the impetuous, gallant Cassius exclaims, "Give me your hand!"--to which Brutus replies, "And my heart too!" Afterwards, with hand and heart united, on the field of Philippi they together upheld the liberties of Rome.

The North and the South, Sir, as I fondly trust, amidst all differences, will ever have hand and heart for each other; and believing in the sure prevalence of Almighty Truth, I confidently look forward to the good time, when both will unite, according to the sentiments of the Fathers and the true spirit of the Constitution, in declaring Freedom, and not Slavery, NATIONAL, to the end that the Flag of the Republic, wherever it floats, on sea or land, within the National jurisdiction, may cover none but freemen. Then will be achieved that Union contemplated at the beginning, against which the storms of faction and the assaults of foreign power shall beat in vain, as upon the Rock of Ages,--and LIBERTY, seeking a firm foothold, WILL HAVE AT LAST WHEREON TO STAND AND MOVE THE WORLD.

WHEN WILL THE NORTH BE AROUSED?

LETTER TO A PERSONAL FRIEND, MARCH 30, 1854.

The following private letter found its way into the public prints.

SENATE CHAMBER, March 30, 1854.

My dear----: Your letter has cheered and strengthened me. It came
to me, too, with pleasant memories of early life. As I read it, the
gates of the Past seemed to open, and I saw again the bright fields
of study in which we walked together.

Our battle here has been severe, and much of its brunt has fallen
upon a few. For weeks my trials and anxieties were intense. It is a
satisfaction to know that they have found sympathy among good men.

But the Slave Power will push its tyranny yet further, and there is
but one remedy,--Union at the North without distinction of party,
to take possession of the National Government, and administer it in
the spirit of Freedom, and not of Slavery. Oh, when will the North
be aroused?

Ever sincerely yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

A LIBERTY-LOVING EMIGRATION TO GUARD KANSAS.

LETTER TO A MASSACHUSETTS COMMITTEE, MAY 1, 1854.

SENATE CHAMBER, May 1, 1854.

My Dear Sir,--I cannot be with you at your meeting on Wednesday
next: my post of duty is here. But I must not lose the opportunity
afforded by your invitation to express anew my abhorrence of the
outrage upon Freedom and public faith attempted by the Nebraska
Bill, and to offer my gratitude to those who unite in the good work
of opposing it.

In this warfare there is room for every human activity. By speech,
vote, public meeting, sermon, and prayer, we have already striven.
But a new agent is now announced. It is proposed to organize a
company of Liberty-loving citizens, who shall enter upon the broad
lands in question, and by example, voice, and vote, trained under
the peculiar institutions of Massachusetts, overrule the designs of
slave-masters. The purpose has a nobleness which gives assurance of
success.

With a heart full of love for Massachusetts, her schools,
libraries, churches, and happy homes, I should hesitate to counsel
any one to turn away from her, a voluntary exile. I do not venture
such advice. But if any there be among us, to whom our goodly
Commonwealth seems narrow, and who incline to cast their lines in
other places,--to such I would say, that they will do well, while
becoming, each for himself, the artificer of his fortune, to enter
into the Sacred Legion by which Liberty shall be safely guarded
in Nebraska and Kansas. Thus will mingle public good with private
advantage.

The Pilgrim Fathers turned their backs upon their native land to
secure Liberty for themselves and their children. The emigrants
whom you organize have a higher motive. Liberty for _themselves_
and their children is already secured in Massachusetts. They will
go to secure Liberty for _others_,--to guard an immense territory
from the invasion of Slavery, and to dedicate it forever to
Liberty. In such an expedition volunteers may win a victory of
peace, which history will record with admiration and gratitude.

Believe me, dear Sir,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

THOMAS DREW, Esq., Chairman of the Committee.

FINAL PROTEST, FOR HIMSELF AND THE CLERGY OF
NEW ENGLAND, AGAINST SLAVERY IN NEBRASKA
AND KANSAS.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE NIGHT OF THE FINAL PASSAGE OF THE
NEBRASKA AND KANSAS BILL, MAY 25, 1854.

Among the important incidents of the Nebraska Debate was a protest from three thousand clergymen of New England, which was severely denounced by the supporters of the aggression, especially by Mr. Douglas. Particular objection was taken to the words, "In the name of Almighty God, and in his presence," which were employed by the protestants. The heats on both sides increased. At a later stage Mr. Sumner felt constrained to speak again, which he did for himself and the much-abused clergy. This brief effort attracted unusual attention. It seemed to meet the rising sentiments of the people, and especially of the clergy. Rev. Dr. Allen, formerly President of Bowdoin College, wrote: "Our _Northampton Courier_ of yesterday contained your bold and admirable midnight speech. I thank you for what you said for the clergy, but more especially what you said for the country and for Freedom." Rev. Dr. Storrs, of Braintree, Massachusetts, an eminent Congregationalist, wrote: "I took my pen only to say a single word,--to tell you of my grateful admiration of your courage, faithfulness, and eloquence in defence of truth and godliness against the increasing tide of hellish principles and passions." Rev. Theodore Parker wrote: "I have had no time to thank you for your noble speech till this minute. Nat. Bowditch says it is the best speech delivered in the Senate of the United States in his day. You never did a thing more timely, or which will be more warmly welcomed than this." George S. Hillard, a friend of many years, but differing in position on political questions, wrote: "Your last brief speech on the Nebraska Bill is capital. I think it the best speech you have ever made. The mixture of dignity and spirit is most happy. We are going to fill up that region with free laborers, and secure it against Slavery." John G. Whittier wrote: "It was the fitting word; it entirely satisfied me; and with a glow of heart I thanked God that its author was my friend." As the speech received the sympathy of friends, so it aroused all the bad passions on the side of Slavery. The manifestation that ensued will appear in a note at the end.

The original debate in the Senate on the Nebraska and Kansas Bill, in which Mr. Sumner took part, was closed by the passage of that bill--after a protracted session throughout the night--on the morning of Saturday, March 4, 1854, by a vote of thirty-seven yeas to fourteen nays. The bill was then sent to the House of Representatives. It was there taken up and referred to the Committee of the Whole; but, owing to the mass of prior business, it became impossible to reach it. Under these circumstances, a fresh bill, nearly identical with that which passed the Senate, was introduced and passed the House. This, of course, required the action of the Senate. On the 23d of May a message from the House announced its passage, and asked the concurrence of the Senate. It was at once read a first time; but, on the objection of Mr. Sumner, its second reading was stopped for that day. The next day, on motion of Mr. Douglas, all prior orders were postponed for the purpose of considering it. The debate upon it continued during that day and the next. The interest it excited was attested by crowded galleries to the end. Among spectators on the floor of the Senate was the Earl of Elgin, Governor-General of Canada, with his suite, then in Washington to negotiate the Canadian Reciprocity Treaty. Late in the night of the last day, after the bill was reported to the Senate, and the question put by the Chair, "Shall the bill be engrossed and read a third time?" Mr. Sumner took the floor and said:--

Mr. President,--It is now midnight. At this late hour of a session drawn out to unaccustomed length, I shall not fatigue the Senate by argument. There is a time for all things, and the time for argument has passed. The determination of the majority is fixed; but it is not more fixed than mine. The bill which they sustain I oppose. On a former occasion I met it by argument, which, though often attacked in debate, still stands unanswered and unanswerable. At present I am admonished that I must be content with a few words of earnest protest against the consummation of a great wrong. Duty to myself, and also to the honored Commonwealth of which I find myself the sole representative in this immediate exigency, will not allow me to do less.

But I have a special duty, which I would not omit. Here on my desk are remonstrances against the passage of this bill, some placed in my hands since the commencement of the debate to-day, and I desire that these voices, direct from the people, should be heard. With the permission of the Senate, I will offer them now.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. STUART in the chair). The remonstrances
can be received by unanimous consent.

SEVERAL VOICES. Let them be received.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair hears no objection.

MR. SUMNER. Taking advantage of this permission, I now present the remonstrance of a large number of citizens of New York against the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

I also present the memorial of the religious Society of Friends in Michigan against the passage of the Nebraska Bill, or any other bill annulling the Missouri Compromise Act of 1820.

I also present the remonstrance of the clergy and laity of the Baptist denomination in Michigan and Indiana against the wrong and bad faith contemplated in the Nebraska Bill.

But this is not all. I hold in my hand, and now present to the Senate, one hundred and twenty-five separate remonstrances, from clergymen of every Protestant denomination in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, constituting the six New England States. These remonstrances are identical in character with the larger one presented by my distinguished colleague [Mr. EVERETT],--whose term of service here ends in a few days by voluntary resignation, and who is now detained at home by illness,--and were originally intended as part of it, but did not arrive in season for annexation to that interesting and weighty document. They are independent in form, though supplementary in nature, helping to swell the protest of the pulpits of New England.

With pleasure and pride I now do this service, and at this last stage interpose the sanctity of the pulpits of New England to arrest an alarming outrage,--believing that the remonstrants, from their eminent character and influence as representatives of the intelligence and conscience of the country, are peculiarly entitled to be heard,--and, further, believing that their remonstrances, while respectful in form, embody just conclusions, both of opinion and fact. Like them, Sir, I do not hesitate to protest against the bill yet pending before the Senate, as a great moral wrong, as a breach of public faith, as a measure full of danger to the peace, and even existence, of our Union. And, Sir, believing in God, as I profoundly do, I cannot doubt that the opening of an immense region to so great an enormity as Slavery is calculated to draw down upon our country his righteous judgments.

"In the name of Almighty God, and in his presence," these remonstrants protest against the Nebraska Bill. In this solemn language, most strangely pronounced blasphemous on this floor, there is obviously no assumption of ecclesiastical power, as is perversely charged, but simply a devout observance of the Scriptural injunction, "Whatsoever ye do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord." Let me add, also, that these remonstrants, in this very language, have followed the example of the Senate, which, at our present session, has ratified at least one important treaty beginning with these precise words, "In the name of Almighty God." Surely, if the Senate may thus assume to speak, the clergy may do likewise, without imputation of blasphemy, or any just criticism, at least in this body.

I am unwilling, particularly at this time, to be betrayed into anything like a defence of the clergy. They need no such thing at my hands. There are men in this Senate justly eminent for eloquence, learning, and ability; but there is no man here competent, except in his own conceit, to sit in judgment on the clergy of New England. Honorable Senators, so swift with criticism and sarcasm, might profit by their example. Perhaps the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER], who is not insensible to scholarship, might learn from them something of its graces. Perhaps the Senator from Virginia [Mr. MASON], who finds no sanction under the Constitution for any remonstrance from clergymen, might learn from them something of the privileges of an American citizen. And perhaps the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS], who precipitated this odious measure upon the country, might learn from them something of political wisdom. Sir, from the first settlement of these shores, from those early days of struggle and privation, through the trials of the Revolution, the clergy are associated not only with the piety and the learning, but with the liberties of the country. New England for a long time was governed by their prayers more than by any acts of the Legislature; and at a later day their voices aided even the Declaration of Independence. The clergy of our time speak, then, not only from their own virtues, but from echoes yet surviving in the pulpits of their fathers.

For myself, I desire to thank them for their generous interposition. Already they have done much good in moving the country. They will not be idle. In the days of the Revolution, John Adams, yearning for Independence, said, "Let the pulpits thunder against oppression!" And the pulpits thundered.[63] The time has come for them to thunder again. So famous was John Knox for power in prayer, that Queen Mary used to say she feared his prayers more than all the armies of Europe. But our clergy have prayers to be feared by the upholders of wrong.

[63] A specimen is an address by Rev. Thomas Allen, Minister
of Pittsfield, Mass., entitled "Instruction and Counsel of a
Country Clergyman, given to his People, Lord's Day, June 20, 1779,
immediately after reading [to them] the Address of the Honorable
Congress to the Inhabitants of these United States." See Boston
Independent Chronicle, July 15, 1779.

There are lessons taught by these remonstrances, which, at this moment, should not pass unheeded. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. WADE], on the other side of the chamber, has openly declared that Northern Whigs can never again combine with their Southern brethren in support of Slavery. This is a good augury. The clergy of New England, some of whom, forgetful of the traditions of other days, once made their pulpits vocal for the Fugitive Slave Bill, now, by the voices of learned divines, eminent bishops, accomplished professors, and faithful pastors, uttered in solemn remonstrance, unite at last in putting a permanent brand upon this hateful wrong. Surely, from this time forward, they can never more render it any support. Thank God for this! Here is a sign full of promise for Freedom.

These remonstrances have especial significance, when it is urged, as has been often done in this debate, that the proposition still pending proceeds from the North. Yes, Sir, proceeds from the North: for that is its excuse and apology. The ostrich is reputed to hide its head in the sand, and then vainly imagine its coward body beyond the reach of pursuers. In similar spirit, honorable Senators seem to shelter themselves behind scanty Northern votes, and then vainly imagine that they are protected from the judgment of the country. The pulpits of New England, representing in unprecedented extent the popular voice there, now proclaim that six States, with all the fervor of religious conviction, protest against your outrage. To this extent, at least, I maintain it does not come from the North.

From these expressions, and other tokens which daily greet us, it is evident that at last the religious sentiment of the country is touched, and, through this sentiment, I rejoice to believe that the whole North will be quickened with the true life of Freedom. Sir Philip Sidney, speaking to Queen Elizabeth of the spirit in the Netherlands, animating every man, woman, and child against the Spanish power, exclaimed, "It is the spirit of the Lord, and is irresistible." A kindred spirit now animates the Free States against the Slave Power, breathing everywhere its involuntary inspiration, and forbidding repose under the attempted usurpation. It is the spirit of the Lord, and is irresistible. The threat of disunion, too often sounded in our ears, will be disregarded by an aroused and indignant people. Ah, Sir, Senators vainly expect peace. Not in this way can peace come. In passing such a bill as is now threatened, you scatter, from this dark midnight hour, no seeds of harmony and good-will, but, broadcast through the land, dragons' teeth, which haply may not spring up in direful crops of armed men, yet, I am assured, Sir, will fructify in civil strife and feud.

From the depths of my soul, as loyal citizen and as Senator, I plead, remonstrate, protest, against the passage of this bill. I struggle against it as against death; but, as in death itself corruption puts on incorruption, and this mortal body puts on immortality, so from the sting of this hour I find assurance of that triumph by which Freedom will be restored to her immortal birthright in the Republic.

_Sir, the bill you are about to pass is at once the worst and the BEST on which Congress ever acted._ Yes, Sir, WORST and BEST at the same time.

It is the worst bill, inasmuch as it is a present victory of Slavery. In a Christian land, and in an age of civilization, a time-honored statute of Freedom is struck down, opening the way to all the countless woes and wrongs of human bondage. Among the crimes of history, another is soon to be recorded, which no tears can blot out, and which in better days will be read with universal shame. Do not start. The Tea Tax and Stamp Act, which aroused the patriot rage of our fathers, were virtues by the side of your transgression; nor would it be easy to imagine, at this day, any measure which more openly and wantonly defied every sentiment of justice, humanity, and Christianity. Am I not right, then, in calling it the worst bill on which Congress ever acted?

There is another side, to which I gladly turn. Sir, it is the best bill on which Congress ever acted; _for it annuls all past compromises with Slavery, and makes any future compromises impossible_. Thus it puts Freedom and Slavery face to face, and bids them grapple. Who can doubt the result? It opens wide the door of the Future, when, at last, there will really be a North, and the Slave Power will be broken,--when this wretched Despotism will cease to dominate over our Government, no longer impressing itself upon everything at home and abroad,--when the National Government will be divorced in every way from Slavery, and, according to the true intention of our fathers, Freedom will be established by Congress everywhere, at least beyond the local limits of the States.

Slavery will then be driven from usurped foothold here in the District of Columbia, in the National Territories, and elsewhere beneath the national flag; the Fugitive Slave Bill, as vile as it is unconstitutional, will become a dead letter; and the domestic Slave-Trade, so far as it can be reached, but especially on the high seas, will be blasted by Congressional Prohibition. Everywhere within the sphere of Congress, the great _Northern Hammer_ will descend to smite the wrong; and the irresistible cry will break forth, "No more Slave States!"

Thus, Sir, standing at the very grave of Freedom in Nebraska and Kansas, I lift myself to the vision of that happy resurrection by which Freedom will be assured, not only in these Territories, but everywhere under the National Government. More clearly than ever before, I now penetrate that great Future when Slavery must disappear. Proudly I discern the flag of my country, as it ripples in every breeze, at last in reality, as in name, the Flag of Freedom,--undoubted, pure, and irresistible. Am I not right, then, in calling this bill the best on which Congress ever acted?

Sorrowfully I bend before the wrong you commit. Joyfully I welcome the promises of the Future.

When Mr. Sumner took his seat, he was succeeded by Mr. MASON, of Virginia, who spoke as follows.

I understand that the petitions which the Senator [Mr. SUMNER] who has just taken his seat offers were to be admitted, as they were offered, by the unanimous consent of the Senate. Two of them, when offered, were sent to the President's table. The last he has reserved, and made the vehicle for communicating the sentiments of the pulpits of New England to the Senate, on the subject of this bill. I object to its reception; and I object to it because I understand that Senator to say that it is _verbatim_ the petition that was presented by his honorable colleague, who is not now with us, in which the clergy presented themselves in this Senate and to the country as a third estate, speaking not as American citizens, but as clergymen, and in that character only. I object to its reception. I object to it, that I may not in any manner minister to the unchristian purposes of the clergy of New England, as the Senator has just announced them. I object to it, that I may be in no manner responsible for the prostitution of their office (once called holy and sacred, with them no longer so) in the face of the Senate and of the American people. I object to it, that the clergymen of my own honored State, and of the South, may, as holding a common office in the ministry of the Gospel, be in no manner confounded with or contaminated by these clergymen of New England, if the Senator represents them correctly.

Sir, if the Senator has represented these clergymen correctly, I rejoice that there is to be a separation between the Church North and the Church South; for, I say, if these men dare to lay aside the character of American citizens, and come here profaning their office, profaning the name of the Almighty, for the purpose of political alliances, they are unworthy of their associates in the Church. Sir, it is the first time in the history of this country that a Church of any denomination has asserted a right to be heard, as a Church, upon the floors of legislation; and if the Senator represents that body correctly, they have profaned their office, and I predict now a total separation between the Church North and the Church South, if I understand the sentiments of the Church South. The Church there, I know, is yet pure in its great and holy mission. When its ministers address themselves from the pulpit, they are heard with respect, under the sanctity of their office. You find none of them coming here to the doors of legislation to mingle in political strife. They truly hold themselves "unspotted from the world."

If the Senator who has just taken his seat has correctly expounded the clergymen of New England, I object to that petition. If he has correctly stated that it is _verbatim_ copied from the petition presented by his colleague, I say it is a prostitution of their office to the embrace of political party; and the Senate shall not, by my assent, be made the medium of so unholy an alliance. I do not mean to go further into this debate; but I object to the reception of the petition.

* * * * *

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The petitions cannot be received without unanimous consent.

MR. SUMNER. It may be, Sir, at this moment, within the competency of the honorable Senator from Virginia to object to the reception of these remonstrances; but I am satisfied that at another time his calmer judgment will not approve this course, much less the ground on which now, as well as on a former occasion, he has undertaken to impeach the right of clergymen to appear by petition or remonstrance at the bar of Congress. Sir, in refusing to receive these remonstrances, or in neglecting them in any way, on reasons assigned in this chamber, you treat them with an indignity which becomes more marked, because it is the constant habit of the Senate to welcome remonstrances from members of the Society of Friends in their religious character, and from all other persons, by any designation which they may adopt. Booksellers remonstrate against the international copyright treaty; last-makers against a proposed change in the patent laws; and only lately the tobacconists have remonstrated against certain regulations touching tobacco: and all these remonstrances are received with respect, and referred to appropriate committees in the Senate. But the clergy of New England, when protesting against a wicked measure, which, with singular unanimity, they believe full of peril and shame to our country, are told to stay at home. Almost the jeer is heard, "Go up, thou bald head!" If not well, it is at least natural, that the act you are about to commit should be attended by this concordant outrage.

* * * * *

From the Kansas and Nebraska Bill came forth a demon. Down to this time the hostility to Mr. Sumner in the Senate was limited. It now became more general, although he had said nothing in any way to justify it, except that he had exposed Slavery and the pretensions in its behalf. From the Senate it extended among the partisans of Slavery.