Chapter II (2)

Meanwhile an incident in Boston was used to arouse a feeling against him. On the evening of the 24th of May Anthony Burns was seized there as a fugitive slave, on the claim of a citizen of Virginia, and detained by the marshal in a room of the Court-House. In the course of the evening of the 26th, immediately after a meeting at Faneuil Hall, addressed by Abolitionists, the Court-House was attacked by a number of citizens, and in the defence, James Batchelder, one of the guard, was killed. The report of his death caused a great sensation at Washington. It was received while the impression of Mr. Sumner's midnight speech was still fresh, and was at once attributed to that effort. Mr. Sumner was treated as responsible for this act, and the official organs of the Administration openly denounced him as "murderer." It was predicted in the speech that the bill would "scatter dragons' teeth," which he was assured would "fructify in civil strife and feud"; but plainly there was nothing to suggest or excite violence, even if at the time the speech had been known in Boston, as it was not. It was concluded on the morning of the 26th of May, at too late an hour for the telegraph, and in fact was not known in Boston until it reached there by mail on the 27th; but Batchelder was killed on the previous evening. And yet, in the face of these unquestionable facts, there was a cry against Mr. Sumner.

The _Union_, which was the official organ, thus broke forth on the morning of May 30th.

"Boston in arms against the Constitution, and an Abolition fanatic,
the distant leader, safe from the fire and the fagot he invokes
from his seat in the Senate of the United States, _giving the
command_. Men shot down in the faithful discharge of duty to a
law based upon a constitutional guaranty, and _the word which
encourages the assassin_ given by a man who has sworn on the
Holy Evangelists and in the presence of his Maker to support the
Constitution of the country. But our Charles Sumner tells us that
a new era has been inaugurated, ... that the Constitution shall
not be obeyed, and that Slavery shall at all and every hazard be
uprooted and destroyed, in spite of all that has been pledged and
written in other days."

The _Star_, another organ of the Administration, repeated the imputations of the _Union_, in a long article, of which the following is a specimen.

"If Southern gentlemen are threatened and assaulted, while legally
seeking to obtain possession of property for the use of which they
have a solemn constitutional guaranty, if legal rights can only
be sought for and established at the bayonet's point, _certain
Northern men now in our midst_ will have to evince a little more
circumspection than they have ever evinced in their walk, talk, and
acts.

"Public sentiment in Alexandria is intensely excited in
condemnation of Sumner and his allies. We know that it increases in
this city every hour. The masses look upon Sumner as responsible
for the death of Batchelder. They attribute, and justly, the
action of the murderers to the counsel of Sumner. We hope that the
public sentiment against these Abolition miscreants who infest
Congress and our fair city, and fill the atmosphere in which they
move with the odor of a brothel, will not descend to acts of
personal violence. Such conduct can find no justification. But let
public opinion condemn these men everywhere,--in the street, in
the Capitol, in every place where men meet. _Let Sumner and his
infamous gang_ feel that he cannot outrage the fame of his country,
counsel treason to its laws, incite the ignorant to bloodshed
and murder, and still receive the support and countenance of the
society of this city, which he has done so much to vilify.

"While the person of a Virginia citizen is only safe from
rudeness and outrage behind the serried ranks of armed men,
Charles Sumner is permitted to walk among the 'slave-catchers'
and 'fire-eaters' of the South in peace and security. While he
incites his constituents to resist the Federal laws _even to the
shedding of blood_, concocts his traitorous plots, and sends
forth his incendiary appeals under the broad protecting panoply
of the laws he denounces, he retains his seat in the Senate, and
yet daily violates the official oath which he took to support the
Constitution of the United States."

Such articles were plainly intended to excite a mob against Mr. Sumner. The conspiracy obtained headway in Alexandria. One proposition was, to seize him as hostage for the surrender of the fugitive slave whose case was then pending in Boston; another was, to inflict upon him personal indignity and violence; another was, "to put a ball through his head." These menaces were communicated to him, and he was warned to leave Washington. This he refused to do, and he insisted upon walking to the Senate by Pennsylvania Avenue, always unarmed. At a restaurant, where he dined, he was directly menaced and insulted. The following telegram in the New York _Times_, under date of May 31, states the case briefly.

"A strenuous and systematized effort is making here and in
Alexandria to raise a mob against Senator Sumner, in retaliation
for the Boston difficulty.... The _Star_ of this evening has two
articles, the incendiary purpose of which cannot be mistaken.
Senator Sumner himself has been several times warned to-day of
personal danger, and assured that persons bearing close relation to
the Administration are inciting the people to violence against him.
Northern men are much excited in consequence, and if an outrage
is committed, there is a probability that there will be serious
trouble."

The same telegram was sent to other places. Throughout New England it excited great sensation, attested at once by the public press and by private letters. The following was received by Mr. Sumner, under date of May 31, from Joseph R. Hawley, of Connecticut, afterwards a general in the War, and Governor of Connecticut.

"If you really think there is any danger worth mentioning, I wish
you would telegraph me instantly. I will come to Washington by
the next train, and quietly _stay by_. I have revolvers, and can
use them,--and while there should not be a word of unnecessary
provocation, still, if anybody in Alexandria or Washington _really_
means to trouble you, or any other Free Democrat there, you know
several can play at that game. I feel comparatively little anxiety
as to the result in Boston. Let them hunt slaves till the people
get sick of it. But such threats as are conveyed by that despatch
should be quietly prepared for, and met as they deserve."

George Livermore, of Boston, gave expression to the same anxiety in a different form. He wrote thus, under date of June 3.

"There is but one feeling here respecting the infamous threats of
the _Union_ and _Star_. _Let the minions of the Administration and
of the Slavocracy harm one hair of your head, and they will raise
a whirlwind that will sweep them to destruction._ I have read your
closing remarks on the Nebraska Bill with the greatest admiration,
and most heartily indorse every word and sentiment. You never made
a better speech. What higher praise could I offer? Many persons not
of the Free-Soil party have spoken of it in terms of the highest
commendation."

The violence was postponed; but the malignant spirit continued active.

Beyond the sentiment of indignation at the menaces to which Mr. Sumner was exposed arose another against Slavery. Persons who had been cold or lukewarm before were excited now. Here again contemporary newspapers and private letters testify. John B. Alley, for several years afterwards the representative from Essex, wrote thus, under date of June 5.

"The most eventful week that Boston has ever seen has just passed,
and I cannot refrain from troubling you with a description of the
state of feeling here. In the first place, allow me to congratulate
you upon the glorious position you occupy in the hearts of the
people of Boston. Praises from the lips of the most ultra Hunker
Whigs have greeted my ears (I need not tell you with how much
pleasure) during the past week.

"Boston, it is true, has been humbled in the dust, and it is hard,
terribly hard, to be compelled to witness the surrender of a
panting fugitive into the hands of the Slave-Hunters; but never,
since I have been engaged in the Antislavery cause, have I seen
occasion for rejoicing as now.

"Thank God, the chains that have bound the people to their old
organizations have been snapped asunder, and they have proved in
this case but as packthreads upon the arms of an unshorn Samson....
Your speech in defence of the clergy is noble, and wonderfully
effective, apparently, in stirring up their sympathies for the
slave."

Numerous letters describe the surrender to which Mr. Alley alludes. The following from R. H. Dana, Jr., under date of June 5, gives details.

"Judging from present appearances, there are few Compromise men
left in Boston. I firmly believe that in the providence of God it
has been decreed that one cup more should be put to our lips, and
that it should not pass away until we had drained it to the dregs.
To this end, a folly has been put in their counsel and a madness
in their hearts, that they might do the things that should work in
the end the utmost good. The delays, the doubts as to the propriety
of the decision (more than doubts even with the moderate), the
military indignities and violence, the noonday procession, the
refusal to sell, the Presidential intervention, all have tended
to the desired effect. Poor Burns himself looked with terror to a
renewal of slavery. Not that Colonel Suttle was cruel. He has never
lived with Suttle, but he is intelligent, reads and writes, is weak
in his injured head, and therefore of little value, and liable to
be sold and abused.

"Batchelder was not a deputy-marshal. He is only a man who has
volunteered, this third time, against advice, to help catch and
keep a fugitive slave. You observe the marshal only calls him one
of his 'guards.' This guard were a precious set of murderers,
thieves, bullies, blacklegs,--with a very few men who went into it
from party bias, old Hunker Democratic truckmen. Batchelder was a
truckman, I am told, and may be personally respectable for aught
I know. I can give you no advice as to the pension. They ought
to know what Batchelder was. It seems to me unconstitutional and
unprecedented. If it can be defeated without your stir, it would
be better, no doubt. I do not find there is any feeling for his
case here. He volunteered for the duty, and met the consequences.
He voluntarily risked his life for pay, in an odious and dangerous
business, and lost it."

George Livermore, always a decided Whig, who had written under date of June 3, wrote again, under date of June 13:--

"I am, as I always have been, a Conservative Whig, but I am ready
to fraternize with _anybody who will do the most for Freedom_; and
if one who has heretofore been called a Democrat or a Free-Soiler
will do more for this cause than a candidate who has been called a
Whig, he shall have my vote, and my hearty coöperation in every way
in my power."

A merchant of Boston wrote at the same time:--

"I rejoice that a man of your sympathies and sensibilities is
not here to see the Court-House again in chains, and justice
administered behind bayonets. The only retaliation at present
proposed is a petition to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act, now in the
News-Room, on its second day, with several thousand names attached.
But what is the use of petition, or polished sentences and rounded
periods, in a contest with the pirate honor of Slavery? It is like
an attempt to hew down a mountain of granite with a glass pick-axe."

The sentiments of the people, and particularly of the clergy, are sketched by Rev. George C. Beckwith, Secretary of the Peace Society, in a letter dated June 2, from which an extract is given.

"You will have learned ere this that the deed is done.--the deed
of shame and degradation to our good old State. I witnessed the
scene from an insurance office on State Street, and never before
felt such a sense of degradation. I am glad that so many seemed to
share it with me: for I observed a sort of funereal sadness on the
vast masses before and around me. There were groans and hisses at
even our own troops, the militia, that had come out at the call of
our mayor; but every effort to get up any counter applause proved a
failure.

"I took my pen, however, for another purpose, as you will
get from other sources a better account of this day's public
proceedings. I wish to say a word about our clerical friends,
whom you have vindicated with so much spirit and force in your
brief speech before the Senate. They met yesterday morning, almost
without notice, to the number of some four or five hundred, for
consultation on this subject. I never attended a meeting that
evinced a truer spirit or a greater amount of moral power. Little
or no effervescence on the surface, but a depth of feeling, a
calmness of conviction, and an energy of purpose, from which, I am
well satisfied, the whole country will hear in due time.

* * * * *

"I think I am still true to my peace principles, but my heart is
stirred to its lowest depths of indignation; and I say frankly to
men who applaud what our forefathers did, that _we_ have now even
_stronger_ reasons for resistance to the Slave Power than they had
to the usurpations of England."

Thomas Sherwin, late head-master of the Boston High School, and once a tutor of Mr. Sumner at Harvard University, wrote as follows.

"You, Sir, in my opinion, command the highest respect from the
people, not only of Massachusetts, but of the entire Union. To
yourself, Chase, Giddings, Smith, Benton, and a few others, the
great majority of our people look for protection against the
machinations of politicians who would bring upon our country the
contempt of the civilized world, and upon the Government the
execration of unborn millions."

These extracts prepare the way for the next scene in the drama.

UNION OF ALL PARTIES NECESSARY AGAINST THE SLAVE POWER.

LETTER TO A MASSACHUSETTS COMMITTEE, MAY 29, 1854.

SENATE CHAMBER, May 29, 1854.

Gentlemen,--For the present my post of duty is here, so that I must
forego the pleasure of meeting our friends on Wednesday next. The
Massachusetts host, I am glad to learn, will be reinforced on that
occasion by brave voices from other States. Mr. Giddings you will
be glad to welcome.

Could I meet my fellow-citizens, I should not lose the opportunity
of sounding the alarm and exhorting them to action. The Nebraska
Bill has passed, but it is a mistake to suppose that the
propagandists of Slavery will stop here. Other audacities are
at hand. More land from Mexico is sought, on which to extend
a nefarious institution. The calamities of war with Spain,
incalculably disastrous to the commerce of New York and Boston,
are all to be braved in order to appropriate slaveholding Cuba. An
intrigue is now pending to secure a foothold in Hayti; and even the
distant valley of the Amazon is embraced in these gigantic schemes,
by which the despotism of the Slave Power is to be established,
while you and I, and all of us from the North, are to bow down
before it. For myself, I will not bow down; but, Gentlemen, you
will understand that no individual can effectually oppose these
schemes.

This can be done only in one way. As all at the South, without
distinction of party, unite for Slavery, so all at the North,
without distinction of party, forgetting vain differences of Whig
and Democrat, must unite for Freedom, and, rising in majority and
might, take control of the National Government. For this work
the people are now ready; and they can surely accomplish it, if
they will. The only impediment, at this moment, is to be found in
those blind or selfish politicians who perversely seek a triumph
of mere party, instead of a triumph of Freedom. Neither the Whig
party nor the Democratic party, through its national organization
dependent on slaveholding wings, is competent to the exigency. The
slaveholding wings can be kept in concert with the Northern wings
only when they give the law to the movement. For a poor triumph
of party, the North yields, in advance, all that is dear to it,
and, while vainly calling itself _national_, helps to instal the
_sectional_ power of Slavery in the National Government. This must
be changed.

With an earnest soul, devoted to the triumph of the righteous
cause, and indifferent to the name by which I may be called, I
would say to all at this time, Abandon old party ties; forget old
party names; let by-gones be by-gones; and for the sake of Liberty,
and to secure the general welfare, now unite against the Despotism
of Slavery, and in this union let past differences disappear.

Believe me, Gentlemen,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

Hon. F.W. BIRD, JAMES M. STONE, Committee.

THE BOSTON PETITION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE BOSTON PETITION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE
FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT, JUNE 26, 1854.

The midnight speech of Mr. Sumner on the Kansas and Nebraska Bill contained language which was soon justified. In pronouncing the bill "the best on which Congress ever acted," he said that it annulled all past compromises with Slavery, and "thus it puts Freedom and Slavery face to face, and bids them grapple." And this was the case in Boston, immediately after the passage of the bill, when a fugitive slave was surrendered. The indignation was general, and a petition for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act was extensively signed, in the following terms.

"To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives in
Congress assembled: The undersigned, men of Massachusetts, ask for
the repeal of the Act of Congress of 1850 known as the FUGITIVE
SLAVE BILL."

There were twenty-nine hundred petitioners, among whom were many who had heretofore sustained this atrocious measure; but they felt at last relieved from this service. In this respect this petition marks an epoch in public sentiment.

Its reception in the Senate marks an epoch there. It was presented on the 22d of June, by Mr. Rockwell, the new Senator in Mr. Everett's place, who moved its reference to the Committee on the Judiciary. Other petitions of like character had been treated very unceremoniously. This was debated at length, and finally referred according to the motion of Mr. Rockwell.

On the 26th of June the debate began, in which Mr. Jones, of Tennessee, Mr. Rockwell, of Massachusetts, then again Mr. Jones, and Mr. Brodhead, of Pennsylvania, took part. At this stage Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.

Mr. President,--I begin by answering the interrogatory propounded by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. JONES]: "Can any one suppose, that, if the Fugitive Slave Act be repealed, this Union can exist?" To which I reply at once, that, if the Union be in any way dependent on an act--I cannot call it a _law_--so revolting in every aspect as that to which he refers, then it ought not to exist. To much else that has fallen from that Senator I do not desire to reply. Matters already handled again and again, in the long-drawn-out debates of this session, he has discussed at length. Like the excited hero of Macedonia, he has renewed past conflicts,--

"And thrice he routed all his foes, and thrice he slew the slain."

Of what the Senator said on the relations of Senators, North and South, of a particular party, it is not my province to speak. And yet I do not turn from it without expressing at least some confidence that men from the North, whether Whigs or Democrats, will neither be cajoled by any temptation nor driven by any lash from the support of those principles which are inseparable from the true honor and welfare of the country. At last there will be, I trust, a backbone in the North.

My colleague has already remarked that this petition proceeds from persons many of whom were open supporters of the alleged Compromises of 1850, including even the odious Fugitive Slave Act. I have looked over the long list, and, so far as I can judge, find this to be true. And, in my opinion, the change shown by these men is typical of the change in the community of which they constitute a prominent part. Once the positive upholders of the Fugitive Slave Act, they now demand its unconditional repeal.

There is another circumstance worthy of especial remark. This petition proceeds mainly from persons connected with trade and commerce. Now it is a fact too well known in the history of England, and of our own country, that these persons, while often justly distinguished by individual charities, have been lukewarm in opposition to Slavery. Twice in English history did "the mercantile interest" frown upon endeavors to suppress the atrocity of Algerine Slavery; steadfastly in England it sought to baffle Wilberforce's great effort for the abolition of the African slave-trade; and at the formation of our own Constitution, it stipulated a sordid compromise, by which this same detested, Heaven-defying traffic was saved for twenty years from American judgment. But now it is all changed,--at least in Boston. Representatives of "the mercantile interest" place themselves in the front of the new movement against Slavery, and, by their explicit memorial, call for the removal of a grievance which they have bitterly felt in Boston.

Mr. President, this petition is interesting to me, first, as it asks a repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, and, secondly, as it comes from Massachusetts. That repeal I shall be glad, at any time, now and hereafter, as in times past, to sustain by vote and argument; and I trust never to fail in any just regard for the sentiments or interests of Massachusetts. With these few remarks I would gladly close. But there has been an arraignment, here to-day, both of myself and of the Commonwealth which I represent. To all that has been said of myself or the Commonwealth, so far as it is impeachment of either, so far as it subjects either to any real censure, I plead openly, for myself and for Massachusetts, "Not guilty." But pardon me, if I do not submit to be tried by the Senate, fresh from the injustice of the Nebraska Bill. In the language of the Common Law, I put myself upon "God and the country," and claim the same trial for my honored Commonwealth.

So far as the arraignment touches me personally, I hardly care to speak. It is true that I have not hesitated, here and elsewhere, to express my open, sincere, and unequivocal condemnation of the Fugitive Slave Act. I have denounced it as at once a violation of the law of God, and of the Constitution of the United States; and I now repeat this denunciation.

Its violation of the Constitution is manifold; and here I repeat but what I have often said. Too often it cannot be set forth, so long as the infamous statute blackens the land.

It commits the great question of human freedom,--than which none is more sacred in the law,--not to a solemn trial, but to summary proceedings.

It commits this great question, not to one of the high tribunals of the land, but to the unaided judgment of a single petty magistrate.

It commits this great question to a magistrate appointed, not by the President with the 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.

It authorizes judgment on _ex parte_ evidence, by affidavit, without the sanction of cross-examination.

It denies the writ of _habeas corpus_, ever known as the palladium of the citizen.

Contrary to the declared purposes of the framers of the Constitution, it sends the fugitive back "at the public expense."[64]

[64] See Madison's Debates, August 28, 1787.

Adding meanness to the violation of the Constitution, it bribes the Commissioner by a double fee to pronounce against Freedom. If he dooms a man to Slavery, the reward is ten dollars; but saving him to Freedom, his dole is five dollars.

This is enough, but not all. On two other capital grounds do I oppose the Act as unconstitutional: first, as it is an assumption by Congress of powers not delegated by the Constitution, and in derogation of the rights of the States; and, secondly, as it takes away that essential birthright of the citizen, trial by jury, in a question of personal liberty and a suit at Common Law. Thus obnoxious, I have always regarded it as an enactment totally devoid of all constitutional, as it is clearly devoid of all moral obligation, while it is disgraceful to the country and the age. And, Sir, I have hoped and labored for the creation of such a Public Opinion, firm, enlightened, and generous, as should render this Act practically inoperative, and should press, without ceasing, upon Congress for its repeal. For all that I have thus uttered I have no regret or apology, but rather joy and satisfaction. Glad I am in having said it; glad I am now in the opportunity of affirming it all anew. Thus much for myself.

In response for Massachusetts, there are other things. Something surely must be pardoned to her history. In Massachusetts stands Boston. In Boston stands Faneuil Hall, where, throughout the perils which preceded the Revolution, our patriot fathers assembled to vow themselves to Freedom. Here, in those days, spoke James Otis, full of the thought that "the people's safety is the law of God."[65] Here, also, spoke Joseph Warren, inspired by the sentiment that "death with all its tortures is preferable to Slavery."[66] And here, also, thundered John Adams, fervid with the conviction that "consenting to Slavery is a sacrilegious breach of trust."[67] Not far from this venerable hall--between this Temple of Freedom and the very court-house to which the Senator [Mr. JONES] has referred--is the street where, in 1770, the first blood was spilt in conflict between British troops and American citizens, and among the victims was one of that African race which you so much despise. Almost within sight is Bunker Hill; further off, Lexington and Concord. Amidst these scenes a Slave-Hunter from Virginia appears, and the disgusting rites begin by which a fellow-man is sacrificed. Sir, can you wonder that our people are moved?

"Who can be wise, amazed, temperate and furious,
Loyal and neutral, in a moment? _No man._"

[65] Rights of the British Colonies (Boston, 1764), p. 10.

[66] Letter to Edmund Dana, March 19, 1766: Loring's Hundred Boston
Orators, 2d ed., p. 51.

[67] Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law: Works, Vol. III. p.
463.

It is true that the Slave Act was with difficulty executed, and that one of its servants perished in the madness. On these grounds the Senator from Tennessee charges Boston with fanaticism. I express no opinion on the conduct of individuals; but I do say, that the fanaticism which the Senator condemns is not new in Boston. It is the same which opposed the execution of the Stamp Act, and finally secured its repeal. It is the same which opposed the Tea Tax. It is the fanaticism which finally triumphed on Bunker Hill. The Senator says that Boston is filled with traitors. That charge is not new. Boston of old was the home of Hancock and Adams. Her traitors now are those who are truly animated by the spirit of the American Revolution. In condemning them, in condemning Massachusetts, in condemning these remonstrants, you simply give proper conclusion to the utterance on this floor, that the Declaration of Independence is "a self-evident lie."

Here I might leave the imputations on Massachusetts. But the case is stronger yet. I have referred to the Stamp Act. The parallel is of such aptness and importance, that, though on a former occasion I presented it to the Senate, I cannot forbear from pressing it again. As the precise character of this Act may not be familiar, allow me to remind the Senate that it was an attempt to draw money from the Colonies through a stamp tax, while the determination of certain questions of forfeiture under the statute was delegated, not to the Courts of Common Law, but to Courts of Admiralty, without trial by jury. This Act was denounced in the Colonies at its passage, as contrary to the British Constitution, on two principal grounds, identical in character with the two chief grounds on which the Slave Act is now declared to be unconstitutional: first, as an assumption by Parliament of powers not belonging to it, and an infraction of rights secured to the Colonies; and, secondly, as a denial of trial by jury in certain cases of property. On these grounds the Stamp Act was held to be an outrage.

The Colonies were aroused against it. Virginia first declared herself by solemn resolutions, which the timid thought "treasonable,"--yes, Sir, "treasonable,"[68]--just as that word is now applied to recent manifestations of opinion in Boston,--even to the memorial of her twenty-nine hundred merchants. But these "treasonable" resolutions soon found response. New York followed. Massachusetts came next. In an address from the Legislature to the Governor, the true ground of opposition to the Stamp Act, coincident with the two radical objections to the Slave Act, are clearly set forth, with the following pregnant conclusion:--

"We deeply regret it that the Parliament has seen fit to pass such
an act as the Stamp Act; we flatter ourselves that the hardships of
it will shortly appear to them in such a point of light as shall
induce them, in their wisdom, to repeal it; _in the mean time we
must beg your Excellency to excuse us from doing anything to assist
in the execution of it_."[69]

[68] Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts, Vol. III. p. 119.

[69] Journal of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts Bay,
October 24, 1765, p. 135. Hutchinson, Vol. III., Appendix, p. 474.

The Stamp Act was welcomed in the Colonies by the Tories of that day, precisely as the unconstitutional Slave Act has been welcomed by an imperious class among us. Hutchinson, at that time Lieutenant-Governor and Judge in Massachusetts, wrote to Ministers in England:--

"The Stamp Act is received among us with as much decency as could
be expected. It leaves no room for evasion, and will execute
itself."[70]

[70] Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol. V. p. 272.

Like Judges of our day, in charges to Grand Juries, he resolutely vindicated the Act, and admonished "the jurors and people" to obey.[71] Like Governors of our day, Bernard, in his speech to the Legislature of Massachusetts, demanded unreasoning submission. "I shall not," says this British Governor, "enter into any disquisition of the policy of the Act. I have only to say that it is an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain."[72] The elaborate answer of Massachusetts--the work of Samuel Adams, one of the pillars of our history--was pronounced "the ravings of a parcel of wild enthusiasts,"[73] even as recent proceedings in Boston, resulting in the memorial before you, have been characterized on this floor. Am I not right in this parallel?

[71] Ibid.

[72] Journal of the House of Representatives, September 25, 1765,
p. 119. Hutchinson, Vol. III. p. 467.

[73] Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol. V. p. 349.

The country was aroused against the execution of the Act. And here Boston took the lead. In formal instructions to her Representatives, adopted unanimously in town meeting at Faneuil Hall, the following rule of conduct was prescribed:--

"We therefore think it our indispensable duty, in justice to
ourselves and posterity, as it is our undoubted privilege, in the
most open and unreserved, but decent and respectful terms, to
declare our greatest dissatisfaction with this law: _and we think
it incumbent upon you by no means to join in any public measures
for countenancing and assisting in the execution of the same_,
but to use your best endeavors in the General Assembly to have
the inherent, unalienable rights of the people of this Province
asserted and vindicated, and left upon the public records, that
posterity may never have reason to charge the present times with
the guilt of tamely given them away."[74]

[74] Boston Gazette, September 23, 1765.

The opposition spread and deepened, with a natural tendency to outbreak and violence. On one occasion in Boston, it showed itself in the lawlessness of a mob most formidable in character, even as is now charged. Liberty, in her struggles, is too often driven to force. But the town, at a public meeting in Faneuil Hall, called without delay, on the motion of the opponents of the Stamp Act, with James Otis as Chairman, condemned the outrage. Eager in hostility to the execution of the Act, Boston cherished municipal order, and constantly discountenanced all tumult, violence, and illegal proceeding. On these two grounds she then stood: and her position was widely recognized. In reply, March 24, 1766, to an address from the inhabitants of Plymouth, her own consciousness of duty done is thus expressed:--

"If the inhabitants of this metropolis have taken _the warrantable
and legal measures to prevent that misfortune, of all others
the most to be dreaded, the execution of the Stamp Act_, and,
as a necessary means of preventing it, have made any spirited
applications for opening the custom-houses and courts of
justice,--_if, at the same time, they have bore their testimony
against outrageous tumults and illegal proceedings_, and given
any example of the love of peace and good order, next to the
consciousness of having done their duty is the satisfaction of
meeting with the approbation of any of their fellow-countrymen."[75]

[75] Boston Gazette, March 31, 1766.

Thus was the Stamp Act annulled, even before its actual repeal, which was pressed with assiduity by petition and remonstrance, at the next meeting of Parliament. Among potent influences was the entire concurrence of the merchants, and especially a remonstrance against the Stamp Act by merchants of New York, like that now made against the Slave Act by merchants of Boston. Some at first sought only its mitigation. Even James Otis began with this moderate aim. The King himself showed a disposition to yield to this extent. But Franklin, who was then in England, when asked whether the Colonies would submit to the Act, if mitigated in certain particulars, replied: "No, never, unless compelled by force of arms."[76] Then it was that the great Commoner, William Pitt, in an ever-memorable speech, uttered words which fitly belong to this occasion. He said:--

"Sir, I have been charged with giving birth to sedition in America.
They have spoken their sentiments with freedom against this unhappy
Act, and that freedom has become their crime. Sorry I am to hear
the liberty of speech in this House imputed as a crime. But the
imputation shall not discourage me. It is a liberty I mean to
exercise. No gentleman ought to be afraid to exercise it. It is
a liberty by which the gentleman who calumniates it might have
profited. He ought to have profited. He ought to have desisted from
his project. The gentleman tells us America is obstinate, America
is almost in open rebellion. I rejoice that America has resisted.
Three millions of people, so dead to all the feelings of Liberty as
voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments
to make slaves of the rest.... I would not debate a particular
point of law with the gentleman; but I draw my ideas of Freedom
from the vital powers of the British Constitution,--not from the
crude and fallacious notions too much relied upon, as if we were
but in the morning of Liberty. I can acknowledge no veneration
for any procedure, law, or ordinance, that is repugnant to reason
and the first elements of our Constitution.... The Americans have
been wronged. They have been driven to madness by injustice....
Upon the whole, I will beg leave to tell the House what is really
my opinion. _It is, that the Stamp Act be repealed, absolutely,
totally, and immediately,--that the reason for the repeal be
assigned, because it was founded on an erroneous principle._"[77]

[76] Hansard, Parliamentary History, XVI. 140.

[77] Hansard, Parliamentary History, XVI. 103-108. Bancroft,
History of the United States, V. 391-395.

Thus spoke this great orator, at the time tutelary guardian of American Liberty. He was not unheeded. Within less than a year from its original passage, the Stamp Act--assailed as unconstitutional on the precise grounds which I now occupy in assailing the Slave Act--was driven from the statute-book.

Sir, the Stamp Act was, at most, an infringement of _civil_ liberty only, not of _personal_ liberty. How often must I say this? It touched questions of property only, and not the personal liberty of any man. Under it, no freeman could be seized as a slave. There was an unjust tax of a few pence, with the chance of amercement by a single judge without jury; but by this statute no person could be deprived of that vital right of all which is to other rights as soul to body,--_the right of a man to himself_. Who can fail to see the difference between the two cases, and how far the tyranny of the Slave Act is beyond the tyranny of the Stamp Act? The difference is immeasurable. And this will yet be pronounced by history.

I call upon you, then, to receive the petition, and hearken to its prayer. All other petitions asking for change in existing legislation are treated with respect, promptly referred and acted upon. This should not be an exception. The petition asks simply the repeal of an obnoxious statute, which is entirely within the competency of Congress. It proceeds from a large number of respectable citizens, whose autograph signatures are attached. It is brief and respectful, and, in its very brevity, shows that spirit of freedom which should awaken a generous response. In refusing to receive it or refer it, according to the usage of the Senate, or in treating it with any indignity, you offer an affront not only to these numerous petitioners, but also to the great Right of Petition, which is never more sacred than when exercised in behalf of Freedom against an odious enactment. Permit me to add, that by this course you provoke the very spirit which you would repress. There is a plant which is said to grow when trodden upon. It remains to be seen if the Boston petitioners have not something of this quality. But this I know, Sir,--that the Slave Act, like Vice, is

"a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen."

And the occurrences of this day will make it visible to the people in new forms of injustice.

REPLY TO ASSAILANTS:

OATH TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION; WEAKNESS OF THE SOUTH FROM SLAVERY.

SECOND SPEECH IN THE SENATE ON THE BOSTON PETITION FOR THE REPEAL
OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT, JUNE 28, 1854.

The preceding speech was followed by a debate without example in anger, excitement, and brutality. Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, Mr. Mason, of Virginia, Mr. Pettit, of Indiana, Mr. Dixon, of Kentucky, Mr. Mallory, of Florida, and Mr. Clay, of Alabama, vied with each other in bullying denunciation of Mr. Sumner.

Mr. Butler began by claiming that the American Revolution was carried through by "slaveholding States," thus making boast for Slavery,--and then turned to pour contempt upon Mr. Sumner, whose speech he characterized as "a species of rhetoric intended to feed the fires of fanaticism in his own State"; then it was "a Fourth of July Oration,"--"vapid rhetoric,"--"a species of rhetoric which ought not to come from a scholar,"--"a rhetoric with more fine color than real strength"; and then he announced, "If sectional agitation is to be fed by such sentiments, such displays, and such things as come from the honorable gentleman near me, I say we ought not to be in a common confederacy, and we should be better off without it." Then again, "If the object be to make the issue between the North and the South, let the issue come." He then asked if Massachusetts "would send fugitives back to us after trial by jury or any other mode?" Then, turning to Mr. Sumner, he demanded, with much impetuosity of manner, "Will this honorable Senator tell me that he will do it?" To which Mr. Sumner promptly replied, "Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?" The _Globe_ reports the disorderly ejaculations which followed from Mr. Butler, winding up with the words, "You stand in my presence as a coëqual Senator, and tell me that it is a dog's office to execute the Constitution of the United States?" Here Mr. Sumner remarked, "I recognize no such obligation,"--meaning, plainly, no obligation to return a fugitive slave.

Mr. Mason, afterwards so conspicuous in the Rebellion, followed in similar vein. He began by saying: "I say, Sir, the dignity of the American Senate has been rudely, wantonly, grossly assailed by a Senator from Massachusetts,--and not only the dignity of the Senate, but of the whole people, trifled with in the presence of the American Senate, either ignorantly or corruptly, I do not know which, nor do I care." He then proceeded to vindicate the "gentleman from Virginia" who had sought his slave in Boston, denounced Mr. Sumner for having "the boldness to speak here of such a man as a slave-hunter," and boasted that the law had been executed in Boston,--that "in that city, within the last fortnight, it has done its office, and done it in the presence of a mob, which that Senator and his associates roused and inflamed to the very verge of treason, subjecting them to traitors' doom, while he and his associates sat here and kept themselves aloof from danger." Then he exclaimed: "Why, Sir, am I speaking of a fanatic, one whose reason is dethroned? Can such a one expect to make impressions upon the American people from his vapid, vulgar declamation here, accompanied by a declaration that he would violate his oath now recently taken?"

All that was said by these two representatives of Slavery was intensified and aggravated by Mr. Pettit, of Indiana, who charged Mr. Sumner with openly declaring in the Senate that he would violate his oath, and then proceeded to foreshadow a proposition for his expulsion. At the same time he vindicated at length his original statement, that the construction put upon the Declaration of Independence by the Abolitionists of the country "made it a self-evident lie, instead of a self-evident truth." At this stage the Senate adjourned, leaving the question of reference still pending.

The next day was occupied by other business, contrary to the declared desire of Mr. Sumner, who said that he had "something further to say" upon the petition. On the 28th of June the attack on Mr. Sumner was renewed by Mr. Pettit, but without taking up the petition. An attempt was made to stifle further debate. Motions to postpone, and then to lay on the table, were proposed, when Mr. Sumner remarked:--

I am unwilling to stand in the way of the general wish of the Senate to go on with its business; I desire at all times to promote its business; but this question has been presented and debated. Several Senators have already expressed themselves on it. Other Senators within my knowledge expect to be heard. I too, Sir, claim the privilege of being heard again, in reply to remarks which have fallen from honorable Senators. I hope, therefore, the memorial will have no disposition that shall preclude its complete discussion.

The Senate refused to postpone, and Mr. Mallory, of Florida, afterwards Secretary of the Navy in the cabinet of Jefferson Davis, began the assault on Mr. Sumner, expressing horror at his declarations in the Senate, and then adducing his early language in the Boston speech so often referred to. The future rebel dwelt with unction on the obligations of an oath, saying: "Sir, if there be any principle in the breast of the American citizen which more than any other lies at the foundation of law, morals, and society, it is his habitual observance and recognition of _all_ the sacred obligations of an oath; and this no man knows better than the Senator himself." Mr. Clay, of Alabama, afterwards a violent rebel, succeeded in interpolating into the speech of Mr. Mallory a tirade of personality and brutality, which will be found in the _Globe_, and, after presenting a portrait meant for Mr. Sumner, "who held himself irresponsible to all law, feeling the obligation neither of the Divine law, nor of the law of the land, _nor of the law of honor_," proceeded to ask, "How would such a miscreant be treated? Why, if you could not reach him with the arm of the municipal law, if you could not send him to the Penitentiary, you would _send him to Coventry_." And the orator of Slavery wound up by saying: "If we cannot restrain or prevent this eternal warfare upon the feelings and rights of Southern gentlemen, we may rob the serpent of his fangs, we can paralyze his influence, by placing him in that nadir of social degradation which he merits."

This brief account of the debate is important, as showing the atmosphere of the Senate, and the personal provocation, when Mr. Sumner at last obtained the floor and spoke as follows.

Mr. President,--Since I had the honor of addressing the Senate two days ago, various Senators have spoken. Of these, several have alluded to me in terms clearly beyond the sanction of parliamentary debate. Of this I make no complaint, though, for the honor of the Senate, at least, it were well, had it been otherwise. If to them it seems fit, courteous, parliamentary, let them

"unpack the heart with words,
And fall a-cursing, like a very drab,
A scullion";

I will not interfere with the enjoyment they find in such exposure of themselves. They have given us a taste of their quality. Two of them, the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER], who sits immediately before me, and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. MASON], who sits immediately behind me, are not young. Their heads are amply crowned by Time. They did not speak from any ebullition of youth, but from the confirmed temper of age. It is melancholy to believe that in this debate they showed themselves as they are. It were charitable to believe that they are in reality better than they showed themselves.

I think, Sir, that I am not the only person on this floor, who, listening to these two self-confident champions of that peculiar fanaticism of the South, was reminded of the striking words of Jefferson, picturing the influence of Slavery, where he says: "The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism, on the one part, and degrading submission on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal.... The parent storms. The child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to the worst of passions, and, thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. _The man must be a prodigy, who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances._"[78] Nobody, who witnessed the Senator from South Carolina or the Senator from Virginia in this debate, will place either of them among the "prodigies" described by Jefferson. As they spoke, the Senate Chamber must have seemed to them, in the characteristic fantasy of the moment, a plantation well-stocked with slaves, over which the lash of the overseer had free swing. Sir, it gives me no pleasure to say these things. It is not according to my nature. Bear witness that I do it only in just self-defence against the unprecedented assaults and provocations of this debate. In doing it, I desire to warn certain Senators, that, if, by any ardor of menace, or by any tyrannical frown, they expect to shake my fixed resolve, they expect a vain thing.

[78] Notes on Virginia, Query XVIII.

There is little that fell from these two champions, as the fit was on, which deserves reply. Certainly not the hard words they used so readily and congenially. The veteran Senator from Virginia [Mr. MASON] complained that I had characterized one of his "constituents"--a person who went all the way from Virginia to Boston in pursuit of a slave--as Slave-Hunter. Sir, I choose to call things by their right names. White I call white, and black I call black. And where a person degrades himself to the work of chasing a fellow-man, who, under the inspiration of Freedom and the guidance of the North Star, has sought a freeman's home far away from coffle and chain,--that person, whosoever he may be, I call Slave-Hunter. If the Senator from Virginia, who professes nicety of speech, will give me any term more precisely describing such an individual, I will use it. Until then, I must continue to use the language which seems to me so apt. But this very sensibility of the veteran Senator at a just term, truly depicting an odious character, shows a shame which pleases me. It was said by a philosopher of Antiquity that a blush is the sign of virtue; and permit me to add, that, in this violent sensibility, I recognize a blush mantling the cheek of the honorable Senator, which even his plantation manners cannot conceal.

And the venerable Senator from South Carolina, too, [Mr. BUTLER,]--he has betrayed his sensibility. Here let me say that this Senator knows well that I always listen with gurgles forth,--sometimes tinctured by generous ideas,--except when, forgetful of history, and in defiance of reason, he undertakes to defend what is obviously indefensible. This Senator was disturbed, when, to his inquiry, personally, pointedly, and vehemently addressed to me, whether I would join in returning a fellow-man to Slavery, I exclaimed: "Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?" In fitful phrase, which seemed to come from unconscious excitement, so common with the Senator, he shot forth various cries about "dogs," and, among other things, asked if there was any "dog" in the Constitution? The Senator did not seem to bear in mind, through the heady currents of that moment, that, by the false interpretation he fastens upon the Constitution, he has helped to nurture there a whole kennel of Carolina bloodhounds, trained, with savage jaw and insatiable scent, for the hunt of flying bondmen. No, Sir, I do not believe that there is any "kennel of bloodhounds," or even any "dog," in the Constitution.

But, Mr. President, since the brief response which I made to the inquiry of the Senator, and which leaped unconsciously to my lips, has drawn upon me such various attacks, all marked by grossness of language and manner,--since I have been charged with openly declaring a purpose to violate the Constitution, and to break the oath which I have taken at that desk, I shall be pardoned for showing simply how a few plain words will put all this down. The authentic report in the "Globe" shows what was actually said. The report in the "Sentinel" is substantially the same. And one of the New York papers, which has been put into my hands since I entered the Senate Chamber to-day, under its telegraphic head, states the incident with substantial accuracy,--though it omits the personal, individual appeal addressed to me by the Senator, and preserved in the "Globe." Here is the New York report.

"MR. BUTLER. I would like to ask the Senator, if Congress
repealed the Fugitive Slave Law, would Massachusetts execute
the Constitutional requirements, and send back to the South the
absconding slaves?

"MR. SUMNER. Do you ask me if I would send back a slave?

"MR. BUTLER. Why, yes.

"MR. SUMNER. 'Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this
thing?'"[79]

[79] New York Daily Times, June 27, 1854.

To any candid mind, either of these reports renders anything further superfluous. The answer is explicit and above impeachment. Indignantly it spurns a service from which the soul recoils, while it denies no constitutional obligation. But Senators who are so swift in misrepresentation, and in assault upon me as disloyal to the Constitution, deserve to be exposed, and it shall be done.