Chapter V: Injuries and Continued Disability of Mr. Sumner (2)

There is a proper interest in knowing the personal provocation under which Mr. Sumner spoke. Something of this will be seen in the early onslaught upon him by the combined forces of Slavery, to which he replied promptly.[149] The _Globe_ shows constantly the tone which was adopted by the representatives of Slavery towards all who presumed in any way to question its rights. Here Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, was always prominent; and when the question of the admission of Kansas as a Free State occurred, he was especially aroused.

His previous personalities and aggressions were set forth by Hon. Henry Wilson, in a speech made in the Senate, June 13, 1856, in direct reply to him, after he had spent two days in criticising Mr. Sumner and defending his assailant. On this occasion Senator Butler was particularly indignant because Mr. Sumner had personified Slavery as a “harlot,” saying, “What in the name of justice and decency could have ever led that man to use such language?”[150] In the course of his speech the Senator described his former patronage of Mr. Sumner, saying, “I did not hesitate to keep up what my friends complained of, an intercourse with him, _which was calculated to give him a currency far beyond what he might have had, if I had not indulged in that species of intercourse_. My friends here and everywhere know it.”[151] Mr. Wilson’s reply is important in this history.

SPEECH OF HON. HENRY WILSON.

“MR. PRESIDENT,--I feel constrained, by a sense of duty to my State, by personal relations to my colleague and friend, to trespass for a few moments upon the time and attention of the Senate.

“You have listened, Mr. President, the Senate has listened, these thronged seats and these crowded galleries have listened, to the extraordinary speech of the honorable Senator from South Carolina, which has now run through two days. I must say, Sir, that I have listened to that speech with painful and sad emotions. A Senator of a sovereign State more than twenty days ago was stricken down senseless on the floor for words spoken in debate. For more than three weeks he has been confined to his room upon a bed of weakness and of pain. The moral sentiment of the country has been outraged, grossly outraged, by this wanton assault, in the person of a Senator, on the freedom of debate. The intelligence of this transaction has flown over the land, and is now flying abroad over the civilized world; and wherever Christianity has a foothold, or civilization a resting-place, that act will meet the stern condemnation of mankind.

“Intelligence comes to us, Mr. President, that a civil war is raging beyond the Mississippi; intelligence also comes to us that upon the shores of the Pacific Lynch Law is again organized; and the telegraph brings us news of assaults and murders around the ballot-boxes of New Orleans, growing out of differences of opinion and of interests. Can we be surprised, Sir, that these scenes, which are disgracing the character of our country and our age, are rife, when a venerable Senator--one of the oldest members of the Senate, and chairman of its Judiciary Committee--occupies four hours of the important time of the Senate in vindication of and apology for an assault unparalleled in the history of the country? If lawless violence here, in this Chamber, upon the person of a Senator, can find vindication, if this outrage upon the freedom of debate finds apology from a veteran Senator, why may not violent counsels elsewhere go unrebuked?

“The Senator from South Carolina commenced his discursive speech by an allusion to the present condition of my colleague which I cannot say exhibited good taste. I know it, personally, to be grossly unjust, because I know that for more than twenty days--three weeks--Mr. Sumner has been compelled to lie upon a bed of pain, from the effects of blows received by him here in the Senate Chamber.

“The Senator from South Carolina, I am aware, referred to the evidence of a medical person, who was accidentally employed in the early stages of the case, but who has not seen Mr. Sumner lately. I have in my hands the testimony of his present medical adviser, a distinguished physician of this city, who has been selected for his known talents and character, and who _understands_ his present condition. The Secretary will please to read his letter, which I now send to the desk.”

The Secretary read as follows.

“C STREET, June 12, 1856.

“DEAR SIR,--In answer to your inquiries, I have to state that
I have been in attendance on the Hon. Charles Sumner, as his
physician, on account of the injuries received by him in the
Senate Chamber, from the 29th of May to the present time,--part
of this time in consultation with Dr. Perry, of Boston, and Dr.
Miller, of Washington.

“I have visited him at least once every day. During all this
time Mr. Sumner has been confined to his room, and the greater
part of the day confined to his bed.

“NEITHER AT THE PRESENT MOMENT, _nor at any time since Mr.
Sumner’s case came under my charge_, HAS HE BEEN IN A CONDITION
TO RESUME HIS DUTIES IN THE SENATE.

“My present advice to him is to go into the country, where he
can enjoy fresh air; and I think it will not be prudent for him
to enter upon his public duties for some time to come.

“Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

“H. LINDSLY.”

“HON. HENRY WILSON.”

MR. WILSON. “Mr. President, this is the testimony of Dr. Lindsly, known by the members of the Senate, and others around me, to be an eminent physician of Washington. I will say, that Mr. Sumner, and Mr. Sumner’s friends, when he was first assailed, underestimated altogether the force of the assault. He is a man of great physical power, in full vigor and maturity, and in the glow of health. For a day or two after that assault he believed, and his friends believed, that he would soon throw off its effects; but time disclosed the extent and force of his injuries, while he was doomed to hours of restless, sleepless pain. Dr. Perry, of Boston, a gentleman of great professional eminence, accidentally in Washington, expressed the strongest solicitude concerning his case. To his skill and advice I believe my colleague and his friends are under the deepest obligations. His testimony before the Committee is the testimony of one who knows what he affirms.--But I pass from this topic.

“The Senator from South Carolina, through this debate, has taken occasion to apply to Mr. Sumner, to his speech, to all that concerns him, all the epithets----

[MR. BUTLER. I used criticism, but not epithets.]

Mr. WILSON. “Well, Sir, I accept the Senator’s word, and I say ‘criticism.’ But I say, in his criticism, he used every word that I can conceive a fertile imagination could invent, or a malignant passion suggest. He has taken his full revenge here on the floor of the Senate, here in debate, for the remarks made by my colleague. I do not take any exception to this mode. This is the way in which the speech of my colleague should have been met,--not by blows, not by an assault.

“The Senator tells us that this is not, in his opinion, an assault upon the constitutional rights of a member of the Senate. He tells us that a member cannot be permitted to print and send abroad over the world, with impunity, his opinions,--but that he is liable to have them questioned in a judicial tribunal. Well, Sir, if this be so,--he is a lawyer, I am not,--I accept his view, and I ask, Why not have tested Mr. Sumner’s speech in a judicial tribunal, and let that tribunal have settled the question whether Mr. Sumner uttered a libel or not? Why was it necessary, why did the ‘chivalry’ of South Carolina require, that for words uttered on this floor, under the solemn guaranties of Constitutional Law, a Senator should be met here by violence? Why appeal from the floor of the Senate, from a judicial tribunal, to the bludgeon? I put the question to the Senator,--to the ‘chivalry’ of South Carolina,--ay, to ‘the gallant set’ (to use the Senator’s own words) of ‘Ninety-Six,’--Why was it necessary to substitute the bludgeon for the judicial tribunal?

“Sir, the Senator from South Carolina--and in what I say to him to-day I have no disposition to say anything unkind or unjust, and if I utter any such word, I will withdraw it at once--told us, that, when my colleague came here, he came holding fanatical ideas, but that he met him, offered him his hand, and treated him with courtesy, supposing, as in other cases which had happened under his eye, that acquaintance with Southern gentlemen might cure him of his fanaticism. He gravely told us that his courtesy and attentions introduced Mr. Sumner where he could not otherwise have gone. The Senator will allow me to say that this is not the first time during this session we have heard this kind of talk about ‘social influence,’ and the necessity of association with gentlemen from the South, in order to have intercourse with the refined and cultivated society of Washington. Sir, Mr. Sumner was reared in a section of country where men know how to be gentlemen. He was trained in the society of gentlemen, in as good society as could be found in _that_ section of the country. He went abroad. In England and on the Continent he was received everywhere, as he had a right to be received, into the best social circles, into literary associations, and into that refined and polished society which adorns and graces the present age in Western Europe. I do not know where any gentleman could desire to go that Mr. Sumner could not go, without the assistance of the Senator from South Carolina, or any other person on this floor. Sir, we have heard quite enough of this. It is a piny-wood doctrine, a plantation idea. Gentlemen reared in refined and cultivated society are not accustomed to this language, and never indulge in its use towards others.

“The Senator from South Carolina commenced his speech by proclaiming what he intended to do, and he closed it by asserting what he had done. Well, Sir, I listened to his speech with some degree of attention, and I must say that the accomplishment did not come quite up to what was promised, and that without his assurance the Senate and the country would never have supposed that his achievements amounted to what he assured us they did in this debate.

“The Senator complained of Mr. Sumner for quoting the Constitution of South Carolina; and he asserted over and over again, and he winds up his speech by the declaration, that the quotation made is not in the Constitution. After making that declaration, he read the Constitution, and read the identical quotation. Mr. Sumner asserted what is in the Constitution; but there is an addition to it which he did not quote. The Senator might have complained because he did not quote it; but the portion not quoted carries out only the letter and the spirit of the portion quoted. To be a member of the House of Representatives of South Carolina, it is necessary to own a certain number of acres of land and ten slaves, or seven hundred and fifty dollars of real estate, free of debt. The Senator declared with great emphasis--and I saw nods, Democratic nods, all around the Senate--that ‘a man who was not worth that amount of money was not fit to be a Representative.’ That may be good Democratic doctrine,--it comes from a Democratic Senator of the Democratic State of South Carolina, and received Democratic nods and Democratic smiles,--but it is not in harmony with the Democratic ideas of the American people.

“The charge made by Mr. Sumner was, that South Carolina was nominally republican, but in reality had aristocratic features in her Constitution. Well, Sir, is not this charge true? To be a member of the House of Representatives of South Carolina, the candidate must own ten men,--yes, Sir, ten men,--five hundred acres of land, or have seven hundred and fifty dollars of real estate, free of debt; and to be a member of the Senate double is required. This Legislature, having these personal qualifications, placing them in the rank of a privileged few, are elected upon a representative basis as unequal as the rotten-borough system of England in its most rotten days. That is not all. This Legislature elects the Governor of South Carolina and the Presidential Electors. The people have the privilege of voting for men with these qualifications, upon this basis, and they select their Governor for them, and choose the Presidential Electors for them. The privileged few govern; the many have the privilege of being governed by them.

“Sir, I have no disposition to assail South Carolina. God knows that I would peril my life in defence of any State of this Union, if assailed by a foreign foe. I have voted, and I will continue to vote, while I have a seat on this floor, as cheerfully for appropriations, or for anything that can benefit South Carolina, or any other State of this Union, as for my own Commonwealth of Massachusetts. South Carolina is a part of my country. Slaveholders are not the tenth part of her population. There is somebody else there besides slaveholders. I am opposed to its system of Slavery, to its aristocratic inequalities, and I shall continue to be opposed to them; but it is a sovereign State of this Union, a part of my country, and I have no disposition to do injustice to it.

“The Senator assails Mr. Sumner for referring to the effects of Slavery upon South Carolina in the Revolutionary era. What Mr. Sumner said in regard to the imbecility of South Carolina, produced by Slavery, in the Revolution, is true, and more than true,--yes, Sir, true, and more than true. I can demonstrate its truth by the words and correspondence of General Greene, by the words and correspondence of Governor Matthews, General Barnwell, General Marion, Judge Johnson, Dr. Ramsay, the historian, Mr. Gadsden, Mr. Burk, Mr. Huger, and her Representatives, who came to Congress and asked the nation to relieve her from her portion of the common burdens, because it was necessary for her men to stay at home to keep her negro slaves in subjection. These sons of South Carolina have given to the world the indisputable evidence that Slavery impaired the power of that State in the War of Independence.

“The Senator told us that South Carolina, which furnished one fifteenth as many men as Massachusetts in the Revolution, ‘shed hogsheads of blood where Massachusetts shed gallons.’ That is one of the extravagances of the Senator,--one of his loose expressions, absurd and ridiculous to others,--one of that class of expressions which justify Mr. Sumner in saying that ‘he cannot ope his mouth, but out there flies a blunder.’ This is one of those characteristics of the Senator which naturally arrested the attention of a speaker like Mr. Sumner, accustomed to think accurately, to speak accurately, to write accurately, and to be accurate in all his statements. I say that such expressions as those in which the Senator from South Carolina has indulged in reference to this matter are of the class in which he too often indulges, and which brought from my colleague that remark at which he takes so much offence.--But enough of this.

“Sir, the Senator from South Carolina has undertaken to assure the Senate and the country to-day that he is not the aggressor. Here and now I tell him that Mr. Sumner was not the aggressor,--that the Senator from South Carolina was the aggressor. I will prove this declaration to be true beyond all question. Mr. Sumner is not a man who desires to be aggressive towards any one. He came into the Senate ‘a representative man.’ His opinions were known to the country. He came here knowing that there were but few in this body who could sympathize with him. He was reserved and cautious. For eight months here he made no speeches upon any question that could excite the animadversion even of the sensitive Senator from South Carolina. He made a brief speech in favor of the system of granting lands for constructing railways in the new States, which the people of those States justly applauded; and I will undertake to say that he stated the whole question briefly, fully, and powerfully. He also made a brief speech welcoming Kossuth to the United States. But, beyond the presentation of a petition, he took no steps to press his earnest convictions upon the Senate; nor did he say anything which could by possibility disturb the most excitable Senator.

“On the 28th day of July, 1852, after being in this body eight months, Mr. Sumner introduced a proposition to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act. Mr. Sumner and his constituents believed that act to be not only a violation of the Constitution of the United States, and a violation of all the safeguards of the Common Law which have been garnered up for centuries to protect the rights of the people, but at war with Christianity, humanity, and human nature,--an enactment that is bringing upon this Republic the indignant scorn of the Christian and civilized world. With these convictions, he proposed to repeal that act, as he had a right to propose. He had made no speech. He rose and asked the Senate to give him the privilege of making a speech. ‘Strike, but hear,’ said he, using a quotation. I do not know that he gave the authority for it. Perhaps the Senator from South Carolina will criticise it as a plagiarism, as he has criticised another application of a classical passage. Mr. Sumner asked the privilege of addressing the Senate. The Senator from South Carolina, who now tells us that he had been his friend, an old and veteran Senator here, instead of feeling that Mr. Sumner was a member standing almost alone, with only the Senator from New York [Mr. SEWARD], the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. HALE], and Governor Chase, of Ohio, in sympathy with him, objected to his being heard. He asked Mr. Sumner, tauntingly, if he wished to make an ‘oratorical display’? and talked about ‘playing the orator’ and ‘the part of a parliamentary rhetorician.’ These words, in their scope and in their character, were calculated to wound the sensibilities of a new member, and perhaps bring upon him what is often brought on a member who maintains here the great doctrines of Liberty and Christianity,--the sneer and the laugh under which men sometimes shrink.

“Thus was Mr. Sumner, _before he had ever uttered a word on the subject of Slavery here_, arraigned by the Senator from South Carolina, not for what he ever had said, but for what he intended to say; and the Senator announced that he must oppose his speaking, because he would attack South Carolina. Mr. Sumner quietly said that he had no such purpose; but the Senator did not wish to allow him to ‘make the Senate the vehicle of communication for his speech throughout the United States, to wash deeper and deeper the channel through which flow the angry waters of agitation.’

“Now I charge here on the floor of the Senate, and before the country, that the Senator from South Carolina was the aggressor,--that he arraigned, in language which no man can defend, my colleague, before he ever uttered a word on this subject on the floor of the Senate, and in the face of his express disclaimer that he had no purpose of alluding to South Carolina. This was the beginning; other instances follow.

“Mr. Sumner made, in February, 1854, a speech on the Kansas-Nebraska Bill; and I want to call the attention of the Senate to the manner in which he opened that speech. No man will pretend, that, up to that day, he had ever uttered a word here to which any, the most captious, could take objection. He commenced this magnificent speech, which any man within sound of my voice would have been proud to have uttered, by saying:--

“‘I would not forget those amenities which belong to this
place, and are so well calculated to temper the antagonism
of debate; nor can I cease to remember, and to feel, that,
amidst all diversities of opinion, we are the representatives
of thirty-one sister republics, knit together by indissoluble
ties, and constituting that Plural Unit which we all embrace by
the endearing name of country.’

“Thus, on that occasion, by those words of kindness, did he commence his speech; and he continued it to the end in that spirit. The effort then made might be open to opposition by argument; but there is no word there to wound the sensibilities of any Senator, or to justify any personal bitterness. And yet this speech, so cautious and guarded, and absolutely without any allusion to the Senator from South Carolina or his State, brought down upon him the denunciations and assaults of the Senator, who now complains that his own example has been in some measure followed. I intend to hold that Senator to-day to the record. Yes, Sir, I have his words, and I intend to hold him responsible for them. I am accustomed to deal with facts, as that Senator will discover before I close.

“A few days after this speech was delivered, the Senator from South Carolina addressed the Senate,--then, as now, in a long speech, running through two days. You will find his speech in the _Congressional Globe_, Appendix, Vol. XXIX. pp. 232-240. Sir, you must read that speech, read it all through, look at it carefully, consider its words and its phrases, to understand the tone he evinced towards Mr. Sumner, and towards Massachusetts, and the Northern men who stood with him. I need not say that there were bitter words, taunting words, in the speech. I was not here to listen to it; but we all know--and I say it without meaning to give offence--that the Senator from South Carolina is often more offensive in the manner which he exhibits, and he throws more of contempt and more of ridicule in that manner than he can put in his words,--and he is not entirely destitute of the ability of using words in that connection.

“On page 232 we have the insinuation that Mr. Sumner is a ‘plunging agitator,’--that is the phrase, ‘plunging agitator.’ That is a plunging expression. I think it is one of those loose expressions that brought down on the Senator the censure of my colleague the other day. Then we have another insinuation,--that he is a ‘rhetorical advocate’; and then these words: ‘He has not, in my judgment, spoken with the wisdom, the judgment, and the responsibilities of a statesman.’ Now, Sir, I doubt the propriety of applying to members of this body such phrases as these, ‘plunging agitator,’ ‘rhetorical advocate,’ and then to say he has not shown ‘the wisdom, the judgment, and the responsibilities of a statesman.’

“On page 234 he says of Mr. Sumner: ‘It seems to me, that, if he wished to write poetry, he would get a negro to sit for him.’ That is his expression, and the report says it was followed by ‘laughter,’--whether laughter at Mr. Sumner, or at the refined wit of the Senator from South Carolina, I cannot say, not having been present.

“On page 236 he again alludes to a remark by Mr. Sumner, saying (to quote his own words), ‘which I think even _common prudence or common delicacy_ would have suggested to him that he ought not to have made.’

“On the same page, again alluding to Mr. Sumner, he says: ‘Our Revolutionary fathers thought nothing of these _sickly distinctions_ which gentlemen use now to make the South odious.’

“Again, on the same page, alluding to other remarks of Mr. Sumner, he says: ‘They may furnish materials for what I understand is a very popular novel,--_Uncle Tom’s Cabin_. I have no doubt they may do this; but I put it to the gentleman, _are his remarks true?_’ ‘Are his remarks true?’ was the question, full of insolence and of accusation, put to Mr. Sumner in the face of the Senate.

And again he says: ‘They dealt some hard licks, _but they are not true as historical facts_.’

“So you will perceive Mr. Sumner was not the first man to raise this question of truth and veracity on the floor of the Senate.

“On the same page the Senator from South Carolina made a misstatement of a fact, which was promptly corrected by Mr. Sumner, and by General Shields, then a member of the Senate.

“On page 237 there are insinuations made of ‘pseudo-philanthropy,’ and also insinuations of ‘_mere_ eloquence,--professions of philanthropy,--a philanthropy of adoption more than affection.’ Yes, Sir, according to the Senator from South Carolina, the Senator from Massachusetts, and those who think with him, have ‘adopted’ their philanthropy; it is not the ‘philanthropy of affection, but of adoption,’--‘a philanthropy that professes much and does nothing, with a long advertisement and short performance.’ These are expressive words, and the Senator from South Carolina should remember that these words, uttered with the peculiar forms which he affects, are anything but calculated to be complimentary to my colleague or any other Senator.

“On the same page, allusions, which, from the context, are in the nature of insinuations, are made against Mr. Sumner and his associates, as to ‘those who stand aloof and hold up an ideal standard of morality, emblazoned by imagination and sustained in ignorance, or _perhaps more often planted by criminal ambition and heartless hypocrisy_.’ ‘Criminal ambition and heartless hypocrisy’ are the terms used by the Senator from South Carolina, in application to Senators on this floor, and to a large portion of the country, which concurs with them!

“On page 239 he tauntingly speaks of a ‘machine,’ in reference to the people who hold Mr. Sumner’s opinions, ‘oiled by Northern fanaticism.’ I do not know what kind of a machine that is,--a machine ‘oiled by Northern fanaticism.’ The Senator who uses these phrases towards members of this body, and towards a section of the Union, is a Senator who tries to make us believe that he is a man who comprehends the whole country and all its interests, and who has nothing in him of the spirit of a sectional agitator! He takes great offence because my colleague holds him up as one of the chieftains of sectional agitation. I think my colleague is right,--that the Senator from South Carolina _is_ one of the chieftains of a _sectionalism_ at war with the fundamental ideas that underlie our democratic institutions, and at war with the repose and harmony of the country.

“On page 234 he again talks about ‘sickly sentimentality,’ and he charges that this ‘sickly sentimentality’ now governs the councils of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Yes, Sir, the Senator from South Carolina makes five distinct assaults upon Massachusetts. Massachusetts councils governed by sickly sentimentality! Sir, Massachusetts stands to-day where she stood when the little squad assembled, on the 19th of April, 1775, to fire the first gun of the Revolution. The sentiments that brought those humble men to the little green at Lexington, and to the bridge at Concord, which carried them up the slope of Bunker Hill, and which drove forth the British troops from Boston, never again to press the soil of Massachusetts,--that sentiment still governs the councils of Massachusetts, and rules in the hearts of her people. The feeling which governed the men of that glorious epoch of our history is the feeling of the men of Massachusetts of to-day.

“Those sentiments of liberty and patriotism have penetrated the hearts of the whole population of that Commonwealth. Sir, in that State, every man, no matter what blood runs in his veins, or what may be the color of his skin, stands up before the law the peer of the proudest that treads her soil. This is the sentiment of the people of Massachusetts. In equality before the law they find their strength. They know this to be right, if Christianity is true,--and they will maintain it in the future, as they have in the past; and the civilized world, the coming generations, those who are hereafter to give law to the universe, will pronounce that in this contest Massachusetts is right, inflexibly right, and South Carolina, and the Senator from South Carolina, wrong. The latter are maintaining the odious relics of a barbarous age and civilization,--not the civilization of the New Testament,--not the civilization that is now blessing and adorning the best portions of the world.

“On page 234 he says: ‘At the time of the passage of the law in Massachusetts abolishing Slavery, pretty near all the grown negroes disappeared somewhere; and, as the historian expresses it, the little negroes were left there, without father or mother, and with hardly a God,--were sent about as puppies, to be taken by those who would feed them.’

“Now, Sir, the Constitution of Massachusetts was framed and went into operation in 1780. The Supreme Court decided, that, by the provisions of that Constitution, slaves could not be held as bondmen in the Commonwealth. Slavery was abolished by judicial decision,--abolished at once, without limitation, without time to send men out of the State. It may be that some mean Yankee in Massachusetts--and God never made a meaner man than a mean Yankee [_laughter_]--may have hurried his slave out of that Commonwealth, and sold him into bondage. But Massachusetts, by one stroke of the pen of the Supreme Court, abolished Slavery forever in that State, and the slaves became freemen. They and their descendants are there to-day, as intelligent as the average people of the United States, many of them being men that grace and adorn the State, which, by just and equal laws, protects them in the enjoyment of all their rights,--men whom I am proud here to call my constituents, and some of whom I recognize as my friends.

“On page 236 he introduced statistics into his speech, in regard to pauperism, insanity, and drunkenness, in disparagement of Massachusetts. This introduction called up Mr. Everett to respond for his State; and if gentlemen are anxious to know what he said, they have but to turn to the debates of that day, and read the words of a man always to be comprehended, whatever his opinions may be.

“On page 240 it will be found that the Senator from South Carolina asserts that Massachusetts has been an ‘anti-nigger State.’ This is the classic phrase of the Senator from South Carolina. He said that Massachusetts was an ‘anti-nigger State,’ and that, ‘when she had to deal with these classes of persons practically, her philanthropy became very much attenuated.’ Attenuated philanthropy! These are the words of the Senator who never makes assaults, who is never the aggressor! They were in reply to a speech which made no personal assault upon the Senator or upon his State. These remarks were made in regard to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

“And again, still anxious to make his lunge at Massachusetts, on page 240 he repeats the accusation that Massachusetts ‘treated her little slaves as puppies.’

“To all these _personal_ allusions of the Senator Mr. Sumner made no reply. He did reply for his State, and replied fully, as the occasion required, and in a manner contrasting by its moderation and its decency with that of the Senator from South Carolina. I have references to other passages in that speech by the Senator from South Carolina, but I shall not weary the Senate by quoting them. They are of the same nature and character. In this same speech, however, not content with assailing Mr. Sumner, he went on to attack the honorable Senator from New York [Mr. SEWARD], and he compared him to ‘the condor, that soars in the frozen regions of ethereal purity, yet lives on garbage and putrefaction.’ This is the language of an honorable Senator, who prides himself upon his elegant diction, and whose friends plume themselves upon the exceeding care with which he turns his phrases in debate.

“For some time I have been giving elegant extracts from a single speech of the Senator from South Carolina. I come here to another. On the 14th of March, 1854, he assailed the three thousand clergymen of New England who had sent their remonstrance here against the passage of the Nebraska Bill. He declared ‘they deserved the grave censure of the Senate.’ Sir, I have great respect for the Senate of the United States, and I have respect for these three thousand clergymen. I suppose they care more for their own opinions, and the approbation of their own consciences, than even for the grave censure of this Senate.

“He then went on to make use of one of those loose expressions for which Mr. Sumner censured him the other day so severely. He employed this language: ‘I venture to say that they [the clergymen] never saw the memorial they sent’: thus directly charging the religious teachers of our country with palming on the Senate a spurious document.

“To this attack of the Senator from South Carolina, and others, on the clergy of New England, a portion of Mr. Sumner’s reply may be given, as an illustration of the parliamentary character and perfect temper of his discourse.

“‘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 who have been 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. Perhaps the Senator from
Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS], who precipitated this odious measure
upon the country, might learn from them something of political
wisdom.’

“But this history of personalities is not complete. One of the greatest outbreaks is yet to come.

“On the 22d June, 1854, my predecessor, Mr. Rockwell, presented a memorial, signed by three thousand citizens of Boston, asking for the immediate repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act. That memorial was severely attacked, and Mr. Sumner rose to vindicate it. He was followed by the Senator from South Carolina, who made a succession of assaults and insinuations.

“Among other things, he characterized Mr. Sumner’s speech as ‘a species of rhetoric which is intended to feed the fires of _fanaticism_ which he has helped to kindle in his own State,--a species of rhetoric which is not becoming the gravity of this body.’

“And again, on the same page, the Senator says: ‘When gentlemen rise and _flagrantly misrepresent_ history, as that gentleman has done, by a Fourth-of-July oration, by vapid rhetoric, by a species of rhetoric which, I am sorry to say, ought not to come from a scholar, a rhetoric with more fine color than real strength, I become impatient under it.’

“Here, it will be observed, is a direct charge that Mr. Sumner had _flagrantly misrepresented_ history, that his speech was ‘vapid rhetoric’ and ‘a Fourth-of-July oration.’ The Senator displays great sensibility because Mr. Sumner charges him, in guarded phrase, with a ‘deviation from truth, with so much of passion as to save him from the suspicion of intentional aberration.’ And yet, with unblushing assurance, he openly charges Mr. Sumner with _flagrant misrepresentation_, without any of that apology of passion which Mr. Sumner conceded to him. Nor is this the first or the last time in which the Senator did this.

“Again, on the same page, he insinuates that Mr. Sumner was ‘a rhetorician playing a part.’ This is a favorite idea of the polite Senator. And yet again, on page 1517, first column, he breaks forth in insinuations against Mr. Sumner, as follows: ‘I do not want any of these flaming speeches here, calculated to excite merely, to feed a flame without seeing where it shall extend. No, Sir: do not let us involve the country in a contest to be decided by mobs infuriated by _the flaming speeches of servile orators_.’

“Then follows a passage which can be appreciated only by giving it at length.

“‘I have said I am perfectly willing, so far as I am concerned,
to let the memorial be referred; but I wish to ask the
honorable Senator from Massachusetts who presented it [Mr.
ROCKWELL] a question, and I believe, from the impression which
he made on me to-day, that he will answer it. If we repeal the
Fugitive Slave Law, will the honorable Senator tell me that
Massachusetts will execute the provision of the Constitution
without any law of Congress? Suppose we should take away all
laws, and devolve upon the different States the duties that
properly belong to them, I would ask that Senator, whether,
under the prevalence of public opinion there, Massachusetts
would execute that provision as one of the constitutional
members of this Union? Would they send fugitives back to us,
after trial by jury, or any other mode? Will this honorable
Senator [Mr. SUMNER] tell me that he will do it?

“‘MR. SUMNER. Does the honorable Senator ask me if I would
personally join in sending a fellow-man into bondage? “Is thy
servant a dog, that he should do this thing?”

“‘MR. BUTLER. _These are the prettiest speeches that I ever
heard._ [_Laughter._] He has them turned down in a book by him,
I believe, and he has them so elegantly fixed that I cannot
reply to them. [_Laughter._] _They are too delicate for my
use._ [_Renewed laughter._] _They are beautiful things_, made
in a factory of rhetoric, somewhat _of a peculiar shape_, but,
I must be permitted to say, not of a definite texture. Now what
does he mean by talking about his not being a dog? [_Continued
laughter._] What has that to do with the Constitution, or the
constitutional obligations of a State? [_Laughter._] _Well,
Sir, it was a beautiful sentiment, no doubt, as he thought,
and perhaps he imagined he expressed it with Demosthenian
abruptness and eloquence._ [_Laughter._] I asked him whether he
would execute the Constitution of the United States, without
any Fugitive Slave Law, and he answered me, is he a dog----

“‘MR. SUMNER. The Senator asked me if I would help to reduce a
fellow-man to bondage. I answered him.

“‘MR. BUTLER. Then you would not obey the Constitution. Sir
[_turning to Mr._ SUMNER], standing here before this tribunal,
where you swore to support it, _you rise and tell me that you
regard it the office of a dog to enforce it. 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?_

“‘MR. PRATT. Which he has sworn to support.

“‘MR. SUMNER. I recognize no such obligation.

“‘MR. BUTLER. I know you do not. _But nobody cares about
your recognitions as an individual; but as a Senator, and a
constitutional representative, you stand differently related to
this body._ But enough of this.’

“This attack upon Mr. Sumner is without a parallel in the records of the Senate. But the Senator from South Carolina was not alone in this outrage. He was assisted, I regret to say, by other Senators,--particularly by the Senator from Virginia [Mr. MASON], by the then Senator from Indiana [Mr. PETTIT]; but I do not quote their words, for I am now dealing with the Senator from South Carolina.

“To all these Mr. Sumner replied fully and triumphantly, in a speech which, though justly severe throughout, was perfectly parliamentary, and which was referred to at that time, and has been often mentioned since, as a specimen of the greatest severity, united with perfect taste and propriety.

“The above imputation which had been heaped upon him, with regard to the Constitution, was completely encountered, and his position vindicated by the authority of Andrew Jackson, and the still earlier authority of Thomas Jefferson. On this point no attempt has ever been made to answer him.

“In the course of this speech, alluding to the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Sumner used words which I now adopt, not only for myself on this occasion, but also as an illustration of his course in this controversy.

“‘It is he, then, who is the offender. For myself, Sir, I
understand the sensibilities of Senators from “slaveholding
communities,” and would not wound them by a superfluous word.
Of Slavery I speak strongly, as I must; but thus far, even
at the expense of my argument, I have avoided the contrasts,
founded on details of figures and facts, which are so obvious,
between the Free States and “slaveholding communities”;
especially have I shunned all allusion to South Carolina. But
the venerable Senator, to whose discretion that State has
entrusted its interests here, will not allow me to be still.
God forbid that I should do injustice to South Carolina!’

“But the Senator from South Carolina was not to be silenced or appeased. He still returned to those personalities which flow so naturally and unconsciously from his lips. The early, bitter, personal assaults were repeated. He charged Mr. Sumner’s speech with being ‘unfair in statement.’ This is one of the delicate accusations of the Senator. The next is bolder. He charged Mr. Sumner as ‘guilty of historical perversion.’ Pray, with what face, after this, can he complain of my colleague? But he seems determined still to press this imputation in the most offensive form, for he next charges my colleague with ‘_historical falsehood_, which the gentleman has committed in the fallacy of his _sectional_ vision.’ It would be difficult to accumulate into one phrase more offensive suggestions; and yet the Senator now complains that he has had administered to him what he has so often employed himself.

“All these are understood to have been accompanied by a manner more offensive than the words.

“In these extracts you will see something of the Senator’s insolence, in contrast with the quiet manner of Mr. Sumner, who, while defending his position, was perfectly parliamentary.

“Other passages from the speech of the Senator might be quoted; but the patience of the Senate is wellnigh exhausted by this long exhibition of personalities; therefore I will content myself with only one more. Here it is.

“‘I know, Sir, he said the other day that all he said was
the effusion of an impulsive heart. But it was the effusion
of his drawer. Talk to me about the effusions of the heart!
What kind of effusions are those which escape from tables,
from papers played like cards sorted for the purpose? They
are weapons prepared by contribution, and discharged in this
body with a view of gratifying the feelings of resentment and
malice,--with a view of wounding the pride of the State which I
represent, and through her to stab the reputation of the other
Southern States. _But, Sir, we are above the dangers of open
combat, and cannot be hurt by the assaults even of attempted
assassination._’

“‘We cannot be hurt by attempted assassination,’ exclaims the Senator from South Carolina!

“‘Attempted assassination’?

“It ill becomes the Senator from South Carolina to use these words in connection with Massachusetts or the North. The arms of Massachusetts are Freedom, Justice, Truth. Strong in these, she is not driven to the necessity of resorting to ‘attempted assassination,’ either in or out of the Senate.

“But the whole story is not yet told. I wish to refer to another assault made by the Senator, which I witnessed myself a few days after I took a seat in this body. On the 23d of February, 1855, on one of the last days of the last session, to the bill introduced by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. TOUCEY] Mr. Sumner moved an amendment providing for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act. He made some remarks in support of that proposition. The Senator from South Carolina followed him, saying, ‘I would ask him one question, which he, perhaps, will not answer _honestly_.’ Mr. Sumner said, ‘I will answer any question.’ The Senator went on to ask questions, and received his answers; and then he said, speaking of Mr. Sumner, ‘I know he is not a tactician, and I shall not take advantage of the infirmity of a man who does not know half his time exactly what he is about.’ This is indeed extraordinary language for the Senator from South Carolina to apply to the Senator from Massachusetts. I witnessed that scene. I then deemed the language insulting: the manner was more so. I hold in my hands the remarks of the _Louisville Journal_, a Southern press, upon this scene. I shall not read them to the Senate, for I do not wish to present anything which the Senator may even deem offensive. I will say, however, that his language and his deportment to my colleague on that occasion were aggressive and overbearing in the extreme. And this is the Senator who never makes assaults! But not content with assaulting Mr. Sumner, he winds up his speech by a taunt at ‘Boston philanthropy.’ Surely, no person ever scattered assault more freely.

“I have almost done. But something has occurred this session which illustrates the Senator’s manner. Not content with making his own speeches, he interrupted the Senator from Missouri [Mr. GEYER], and desired him to insert in his speech an assault on Massachusetts. Here are his words.

“‘I wish my friend would incorporate into his speech an old
law of Massachusetts which I have found. I would remind my
friend of an old league between the four New England States,
made while they were colonies, expressly repudiating trial by
jury for the reclamation of fugitive slaves. They called them
“slaves,” too, or rather “fugitive servants”; and they say they
shall be delivered up on the certificate of one magistrate.’

“Here is another instance of the Senator’s looseness of assertion, even on law, upon the knowledge of which he has plumed himself in this debate. Sir, there were no slaves in Massachusetts at that day. The law alluded to was passed in 1643. It was not until 1646, three years afterward, that the first slaves were imported into Massachusetts from the coast of Africa, and these very slaves were sent back to their native land at public expense. The following is a verbatim copy of the remarkable statute by which these Africans were returned to Guinea, at the expense of the Commonwealth.

“‘The General Court, conceiving themselves bound by the
first opportunity to bear witness against the heinous and
crying sin of man-stealing, as also to prescribe _such timely
redress for what is past, and such a law for the future, at may
sufficiently deter all others belonging to us to have to do in
such vile and most odious courses, justly abhorred of all good
and just men_, do order that the negro interpreter, with others
unlawfully taken, be, by the first opportunity, at the charge
of the country for present, sent to his native country of
Guinea, and a letter with him, of the indignation of the Court
thereabouts, and justice hereof.’

“In the face of this Act of 1646, the learned Senator from South Carolina wished his friend from Missouri to incorporate into his speech a false accusation against Massachusetts and the New England colonies. And he went so far as to assert that this old law contained an allusion to ‘slaves,’ when the word ‘slaves’ was not mentioned, and ‘servants’ only was employed.

“Sir, I might here refer to the assault made by the Senator from South Carolina on the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HARLAN], in which he taunted that Senator with being a clergyman, and modestly told him, in the face of the country, that ‘he understood Latin as well as that Senator understood English.’

[MR. BUTLER. I never taunted any gentleman with being a
clergyman; and the Senator from Iowa will not say so. I said
that I had respect for his vocation; but when he attempted to
correct my speech, I put him right.]

MR. WILSON. “Whether it was a taunt or not, the Senator disclaims its being so, and I accept the disclaimer; but I apprehend it was not intended as a compliment to the Senator from Iowa, or that it was received as such by that Senator, particularly when taken in connection with the other taunting assumption of the Senator from South Carolina, that he ‘understood Latin as well as that Senator understood English.’

“Thus has Mr. Sumner been by the Senator from South Carolina systematically assailed in this body, from the 28th of July, 1852, up to the present time,--a period of nearly four years. He has applied to my colleague every expression calculated to wound the sensibilities of an honorable man, and to draw down upon him sneers, obloquy, and hatred, in and out of the Senate. In my place here, I now pronounce these continued assaults upon my colleague unparalleled in the history of the Senate.

* * * * *

“I come now to speak for one moment of the late speech of my colleague, which is the alleged cause of the recent assault upon him, and which the Senator from South Carolina has condemned so abundantly. That speech--a thorough and fearless exposition of what Mr. Sumner entitled ‘The Crime against Kansas’--from beginning to end is marked by entire plainness. Things are called by their right names. The usurpation in Kansas is exposed, and also the apologies for it, successively. No words were spared which seemed necessary to the exhibition. In arraigning the _Crime_, it was natural to speak of those who sustained it. Accordingly, the Administration is constantly held up to condemnation. Various Senators who have vindicated this Crime are at once answered and condemned. Among these are the Senator from South Carolina, the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. MASON], and the Senator from Missouri [Mr. GEYER]. The Senator from South Carolina now complains of Mr. Sumner’s speech. Surely, it is difficult to see on what ground that Senator can make any such complaint. The speech was, indeed, severe,--severe as truth,--but in all respects parliamentary. It is true that it handles the Senator from South Carolina freely; but that Senator had spoken repeatedly in the course of the Kansas debate, once at length and elaborately, and at other times more briefly, and foisting himself into the speeches of other Senators, and identifying himself completely with the Crime which my colleague felt it his duty to arraign. It was natural, therefore, that his course in the debate, and his position, should be particularly considered. And in this work Mr. Sumner had no reason to hold back, when he thought of the constant and systematic and ruthless attacks which, utterly without cause, he had received from that Senator. The only objection which the Senator from South Carolina can reasonably make to Mr. Sumner is, that he struck a strong blow.

“The Senator complains that the speech was printed before it was delivered. Here, again, is his accustomed inaccuracy. It is true that it was in the printer’s hands, and was mainly in type; but it received additions and revisions after its delivery, and was not put to press till then. Away with this petty objection! The Senator says that twenty thousand copies have gone to England. Here, again, is his accustomed inaccuracy. If they have gone, it is without Mr. Sumner’s agency. But the Senator foresees the truth. Sir, that speech will go to England; it will go to the Continent of Europe; it has gone over the country, and has been read by the American people as no speech ever delivered in this body was read before. That speech will go down to coming ages. Whatever men may say of its sentiments,--and coming ages will indorse its sentiments,--it will be placed among the ablest parliamentary efforts of our own age or of any age.

“The Senator from South Carolina tells us that the speech is to be condemned, and he quotes the venerable and distinguished Senator from Michigan [Mr. CASS]. I do not know what Mr. Sumner could stand. The Senator says he could not stand the censure of the Senator from Michigan. _I could_; and I believe there are a great many in this country whose powers of endurance are as great as my own. I have great respect for that venerable Senator; but the opinions of no Senator here are potential in the country. This is a Senate of equals. The judgment of the country is to be made up on the records formed here. The opinions of the Senator from Michigan, and of other Senators here, are to go into the record, and will receive the verdict of the people. By that I am willing to stand.