Chapter C: J. Higginson, a merchant, wrote from Boston (1)

“Notwithstanding all that has been said and written on
Slavery, I think you have first perceived and expressed this
‘unconsciousness’ of slaveholders; and the additional fact of
this unconsciousness being nearly as general at the North as
South explains the necessity of proving at this late day, even
to us of the North, the Barbarism of Slavery. We thought their
wealth and leisure led them to be generous; nobody has ever so
plainly shown their accepted necessity of meanness. We have
been unconscious of their influence in lowering our standing.…
I only wish to express my satisfaction at finding Massachusetts
again represented by a man with a constitution, so valuable in
the latitude of Washington, capable of standing the burning
heat of the South and the chilliness of the North.”

Hon. J. Q. A. Griffin, the lawyer and earnest Republican, too early removed from life, wrote from Charlestown:--

“I must thank you for the great gratification I felt in the
perusal of your great speech. Twice I have read the whole of
it, and many times more various parts. It is small praise to
say, what is here on all lips, that it evinces marvellous
scholarship, and embraces a sternly logical statement of the
whole question between Freedom and Slavery. Its amazing courage
and justice will commend it yet more to the thinking men of
this and all other countries.”

George Baty Blake, the banker, wrote from Boston:--

“Its unanswerable arguments will stand forever as monuments
of manly effort in behalf of an oppressed race,--defending
principles, too, which ought to be approved by every Christian
man.”

A practical Republican, very active in the party, wrote from Boston:--

“I have read your splendid speech, and find that I cannot
express in words or with pen my admiration of it. It is one of
_your_ efforts, the results of which will undoubtedly place our
great party one more pace onward, as in every case of the past
you have done. In my opinion it was needed at this time; and
as I have been something of a prophet in days past, perhaps my
sanction may give you courage.”

A considerable number of constituents at Boston, among whom were James Redpath, Richard J. Hinton, and Loring Moody, friends of Kansas, and Abolitionists, forwarded the following address, signed by them:--

“Jointly and severally, as men and as citizens, we say, God
bless you, Charles Sumner! Thank God for one man whom no
Barbarism frightens, whom no pusillanimous policy deters from
uttering the truth! Thank Heaven that in our modern Sodom one
just man and fearless was found, who, in the face of despots,
has dared to plead the cause of their victims, and to brand
their tyranny with the titles it has won!

“Go on,--with God, and the slave, and all good men applauding
you. Victory is inevitable, and near at hand.

“With gratitude and love and admiration, your friends,
constituents, and fellow-citizens.”

Dr. Joseph Sargent, the eminent surgeon and strong Republican, wrote from Worcester, Massachusetts:--

“When I first read your speech, as I did immediately after
its delivery, my blood boiled anew, as after the outrage
which our country’s Barbarism inflicted on you four years
ago. God has punished that crime, in the persons of its more
immediate perpetrators, in his own way. Your speech is the apt
and condign punishment of that portion of the community who
supported them. In its learning, its truth, and its eloquence,
it is worthy of you; while in its comprehensiveness, its
compactness, and its completeness, it has exhausted the whole
subject. If you never say a word more, your record will be
right, and may God bless you!”

Hon. James H. Morton, holding a judicial situation, wrote from Springfield, Massachusetts:--

“I have long been expecting to hear from you in your regaining
health, and my expectation has been fully realized in the
noble, scorching, withering expression of the true sentiment
of Massachusetts on this subject. Would to God that every
man who entertains the sentiments contained in your speech,
whether of the North or South, had the moral courage boldly to
express them! We should soon see an end of that accursed thing,
Slavery.”

Hon. D. W. Alvord, lawyer and warm Republican, wrote from Greenfield, Massachusetts:--

“I write to thank you for your recent speech. There is not
elsewhere in the English language so powerful an argument on
the Barbarism of Slavery. In my opinion it is just such a
speech as you were bound to make,--just such a speech as the
honor of Massachusetts required from you. It is such a speech
as few men living but you could make. Hurt the Republican
party, will it? If it will, then the party does not deserve
success.”

Humphrey Stevens, Register of Deeds for Franklin County, Massachusetts, wrote from Greenfield:--

“I have just read your speech on the Barbarism of Slavery. God
be praised that you did not compromise, and that the prayers
of the good have been answered! Some Republicans may condemn,
but hosts will rejoice that you regard the cause more than
Republicanism.”

Rev. William S. Tyler, the learned Greek Professor, wrote from Amherst:--

“I cannot refrain from expressing to you the deep, though in
some respects painful, interest with which I have read your
late speech in the United States Senate.

“That your life has been spared, your health in such a measure
restored, and that you were able to begin ‘where you left
off,’ and finish such a faithful and complete exposition
of the monstrous Barbarism--that is the word--of American
Slavery, is just matter of congratulation to the country, and
of thanksgiving to God. The enemies of Freedom and Humanity
will of course gnash their teeth upon you, and timid friends
will question the expediency of such a speech; but when the
passions and prejudices of the hour have passed away, it will
be remembered and honored as one of the truest, greatest, best
utterances of our age.”

Hon. Henry Hubbard, the agent of Massachusetts to visit New Orleans in behalf of colored seamen imprisoned there, wrote from Pittsfield:--

“I cannot, even at the hazard of offending you, refrain from
expressing the sense of honor and gratitude I feel for your
sending me your immortal and all-conquering speech on the
Kansas Question, showing and proving the unmitigated atrocity
and monstrous deformity of Slavery, maintained in many States
of this confederacy, and threatening all the rest. Boldly,
manfully, faithfully you have ‘done the austere work,’ not
letting, by your laches, ‘Freedom fling away any of her
weapons.’ Oh, no! Freedom stood in all her majesty, and used
all her weapons.”

Henry D. Thoreau, author and man of genius, wrote from Concord, Massachusetts:--

“Especially I wish to thank you for your speech on the
Barbarism of Slavery, which I hope and suspect commences a new
era in the history of our Congress, when questions of national
importance have come to be considered from a broadly ethical,
and not from a narrowly political point of view alone. It
is refreshing to hear some naked truth, moral or otherwise,
uttered there, which can always take care of itself, when
uttered, and of course belongs to no party. (That was the
whole value of Gerrit Smith’s presence there, methinks, though
he did go to bed early.) Whereas this has only been employed
occasionally to perfume the wheel-grease of party or national
politics.”

Frank B. Sanborn, teacher and earnest man, afterwards an able journalist, wrote from Concord:--

“Whatever politicians and editors may say, or even think, you
have more endeared yourself to the popular heart by your labors
in the last Session than by all that you have previously done.
Neither the North nor the South can soon forget the faithful
picture held up before us in your speeches.”

Miles Pratt, a business man and active Republican, of Watertown, Massachusetts, wrote:--

“I am sure I express the sentiments of nine tenths of the
Republicans of this town, when I say that your speech is
received with joy by us all. Strange that such papers as the
_Tribune_ can wish that it had been made at some other time!
We don’t want victory, if at such sacrifice as the _Tribune_
proposes. Let me assure you that such sentiments as you have
uttered are what keep very many men in the Republican ranks.”

E. P. Hill, of Haverhill, Massachusetts, wrote:--

“Allow me to congratulate you upon the delivery of one of the
most effective speeches upon the great question of the age that
have ever been given to the American people. I rejoice most
heartily that the facts and sentiments it contains have found
a timely utterance, and it is safe to predict for it a decided
effect upon the moral sense of the whole world.”

P. L. Page wrote from Pittsfield, Massachusetts:--

“I have just read your speech, ‘The Barbarism of Slavery,’ and,
notwithstanding the opinions of some politicians, am glad you
have delivered it just as it is. It is terrible, but truthful.
I think it will do good. While there is immense sympathy
for the Republican party, as a party, there is too little
sympathy for the Slave, and too little indignation against that
abominable system by which he is held in bondage. The tendency
of that speech is to show that it is not this or that measure
merely we have to contend with, but the monster Slavery.”

Andrew L. Russell, an excellent citizen, of Pilgrim stock, and an early Abolitionist, wrote from Plymouth, Massachusetts:--

“I have just read your speech with great interest, and thank
you for it. It is just the thing, manly and conclusive. I
hope in all the copies of your speech Mr. Chesnut’s beautiful
specimen of Southern Chivalry manners will be printed, with
your rejoinder.

“We must be bold and determined now, and the victory is sure.
The ravings of the Oligarchy show that they are wounded.”

Mrs. Lydia Maria Child, of beautiful genius, and equal devotion to the cause, wrote from Wayland, Massachusetts:--

“I presume you were not disappointed that so many Republican
editors pronounced your speech injudicious, ill-timed, etc.
I was not surprised, though I confess I did expect something
better from the _New York Evening Post_. Honest utterance
generally frightens or offends the wise and prudent; but it
gains the popular heart, and thus renders political parties
the greatest service, though it is one they least know how to
appreciate. They themselves are also carried onward by such
agencies, as certainly as cars follow the engine.”

* * * * *

From representative colored men similar testimony proceeded. That of Frederick Douglass has been given already. Robert Morris, the colored lawyer, wrote from Boston:--

“In behalf of the colored young men of Boston, and following
the dictates of my own heart, I write to thank you for the
speech you have just made in exposition of the Barbarism of
Slavery.…

“In battle, when a bombshell is thrown into the camp of the
enemy, if it creates consternation and surprise, rest assured
it has been thrown successfully, and done good service. So your
speech, every word of which is truthful, fearlessly spoken
to the guilty parties in the iniquitous system of Slavery,
was properly directed, and has done good service, as is fully
demonstrated by the renewed attempts on the part of the
Southerners to assault you again and silence your voice.”

John S. Rock, also a colored lawyer, afterwards, on motion of Mr. Sumner, admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, wrote from Boston:--

“Your immortal speech has sent a thrill of joy to all the
lovers of Freedom everywhere, and especially so to the
down-trodden. We feel the value of it the more since the
Republican party appears determined to treat us in the spirit
of the Dred Scott decision.”

J. B. Smith, colored, of New Bedford, wrote from Boston:--

“Permit me, as a citizen of your native State, and especially
as a colored man, who has faithfully devoted more than twenty
years of his brief life to the elevation of his race, most
sincerely and heartily to thank you for your very masterly
speech in exposition of the monstrous iniquity of American
Slavery. I can assure you that the gratitude of the colored
people of this country towards you, who so eminently deserve
it, is incalculable.”

Ebenezer D. Bassett, a colored professor, afterwards Minister at Hayti, wrote from Philadelphia:--

“The speech, which I read in the _Herald_, is, it seems to
me, unequalled by anything in the oratory of modern times,
and I venture to predict that future ages will place it, as a
work of art, side by side with the matchless _De Corona_ of
Demosthenes. It is certainly beyond all praise.”

William Still, colored, and with the natural sentiments of his race, wrote from Philadelphia:--

“In my humble opinion, you have so effectually laid the axe at
the root of the tree that thousands and tens of thousands who
have been indifferent or Proslavery will henceforth work for
the deliverance of the bondman,--will labor to help cut the
tree down. Thus I am greatly encouraged, and devoutly hope and
pray for a better day for my race soon.”

Robert Purvis, an accomplished gentleman, connected by blood with the colored race, wrote from his home at Byberry, near Philadelphia:--

“Permit me, out of the fulness of my heart, to make to you my
grateful acknowledgments for the most powerfully effective
speech, in my humble opinion, against the ‘Barbarism of
Slavery,’ ever made in this or any other country. Its
_timeliness_, as well as its vital power, stirs within me
the deepest emotions, which, indeed, are poorly expressed in
subscribing myself as being your grateful and admiring friend
and obedient servant.”

H. O. Wagoner testifies to the sentiments of the colored people of Illinois, in a letter from Chicago:--

“For the great words you have spoken, and the ever-memorable
services which you have just rendered in the Senate of the
United States to the cause of my enslaved and down-trodden
fellow-countrymen, I return you not only my own individual
heartfelt thanks, but I venture to speak in the name and in the
behalf of the seven or eight thousand colored people of the
State of Illinois.… Could the poor slave but know the substance
of that speech, the circumstances under which it was given, in
the very face of the Slave Power,--I say could the slaves be
made to comprehend fully all this, it would thrill their very
souls with emotions of joy unspeakable.”

* * * * *

This collection, which might be extended, is concluded with a voice from the Land of Slavery. J. R. S. Van Vleet wrote from Richmond:--

“As a citizen of the ‘Old Dominion,’ and a hater of Slavery, I
hereby send to you my unqualified approbation of your manly,
bold, eloquent, and truthful exposition of the great crime
of our common country; and let this come to you as from the
slave-pens of Richmond, in the midst of which these lines are
secretly written, and within which hundreds of human hearts
this moment feel the crushing weight of the ‘Barbarism’ you
have so faithfully illustrated. If these poor slaves were
permitted to give you thanks, their dark and gloomy prisons
for once would be made vocal with praise, and their tears of
sorrowing and bitterness be changed to tears of joy.

“If you knew the deep and secret interest which these people
take in the great battle now waging, you would be stimulated in
your efforts to hasten the day when we white men of Virginia
could unite with the colored slave to celebrate our common
emancipation.…

“Some of the Northern Republicans affect to think that your
speech was ill-timed; but I think it was just in time, and not
a moment too soon. The Southern party demand that the area of
Slavery shall be extended,--that the system shall be protected
by Congressional legislation backed by the whole power of the
Government; is it not, therefore, right and proper that the
people of the Free States should know what that system is which
they are required to perpetuate and protect? You have torn off
its mask and exhibited to them its hideous features, and now
let them say whether they will crush it beneath their feet, or
foster, caress, and protect it.”

William Rabé, Secretary of the Republican Central Committee of California, wrote from San Francisco:--

“We have republished your speech.… I have the honor to hail
from Mr. Chesnut’s State, but am extremely sorry to be obliged
to disagree with him, and to be obliged to indorse the
reasoning of your speech, notwithstanding, or, in fact, in
consequence of, my having been a planter in South Carolina for
years.… It may not be for me to eulogize you and your speeches;
but that you have created an enthusiasm and opened the door for
free talk on the subject of Slavery no one will deny, and the
effect has already been electric.”

* * * * *

From the press, and from correspondence, it is plain, that, whatever the efforts or desires of politicians, the question of Slavery had reached a crisis. Nothing touched the universal heart so strongly, and the interest extended abroad. For years the South had been growing passionate for this Barbarism, and determined on its extension. It now appeared that in the North there was a passion the other way. The Presidential election turned on Slavery, and nothing else. The precise point in issue was its limitation by preventing its spread into the Territories; but this issue, even in its moderate form, involved the whole character of Slavery, and the supremacy of the Slave Power in the National Government.

The speeches during the canvass were on this issue. Politicians were swept into the irresistible current. This appeared in the pressure upon Mr. Sumner to speak. At the close of the session of Congress, only a brief period after his exposure of the Barbarism of Slavery, on the invitation of the Young Men’s Republican Union of New York, he delivered an address at Cooper Institute, on “The Origin, Necessity, and Permanence of the Republican Party,” where he presented anew the argument against Slavery. This was followed by urgent requests to speak in other places. Hon. Hannibal Hamlin, the Republican candidate for Vice-President, wrote from Maine: “We want you much, very much.… Will you come? Don’t say, No.” Hon. William P. Fessenden, learning that he was coming, wrote: “The news has rejoiced all our hearts.” Hon. Neal Dow urged: “You may say _all_ that is in your heart, relying _fully_ upon the entire sympathy of the people.” And John A. Andrew, who was visiting there, reported: “Your name will draw like a thousand elephants.” There were other States where there was similar urgency. A private letter from Thurlow Weed, at Albany, hoping it would be in Mr. Sumner’s power to visit New York, was followed by a formal letter from the New York State Republican Central Committee, pressing him to address the electors of this State, and saying: “The Committee are very urgent in this request, and hope you will consent to speak for us as much as possible”; and this was followed by a special appeal from Simeon Draper, Chairman of the State Committee. A similar call, with the same urgency, came from Illinois,--and here the agents were Hon. Elihu B. Washburne, of the Republican Congressional Committee at Washington, and Hon. N. B. Judd, Chairman of the Illinois Republican State Committee. In pressing the invitation, the latter said: “We can promise you such welcome as Western Republicans can give to laborers in the cause of Freedom”; and then again, in another letter: “The people expect you, and know that no personal motive or interest induces you to come,--only a deep conviction of the necessity for the election of Mr. Lincoln, and the triumph of the principles of which he is the representative.” Another ardent Republican wrote from Chicago: “A glorious reception is awaiting you.”

During the canvass, Mr. Sumner spoke several times in Massachusetts, treating different heads of the Great Question, as will appear in the course of this volume; but after his address at New York, he did not speak out of his own State. The appeals from other States attest that his method was not discarded by the people. As the Rebellion began to show itself, the Barbarism of Slavery was more and more recognized.

A VICTORY OF PRINCIPLE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

LETTER TO A PUBLIC MEETING AT MIDDLEBOROUGH, MASSACHUSETTS, JUNE 11, 1860.

SENATE CHAMBER, June 11, 1860.

DEAR SIR,--It would give me pleasure to mingle with my
fellow-citizens at Middleborough in pledges of earnest support
to our candidates recently nominated at Chicago, but duties here
will keep me away.

Be assured, however, of the sympathy, which I offer more freely
because I find in the Platform declarations full of glorious
promise. Our victory will be worth having, only as it is a
victory of principle; but such a victory I expect.

Because I believe that our candidates hate the _five-headed_
Barbarism of Slavery, and will set their faces against all its
irrational and unconstitutional pretensions, I am earnest for
their success.

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

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

F. M. VAUGHAN, Esq., Secretary, &c., &c.

REFUSAL TO COLORED PERSONS OF RIGHT OF PETITION.

NOTES OF UNDELIVERED SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON RESOLUTION REFUSING TO RECEIVE PETITION FROM CITIZENS OF MASSACHUSETTS OF AFRICAN DESCENT, JUNE 15, 1860.

June 5, 1860, Mr. Sumner presented a petition of citizens
of Massachusetts, of African descent, praying the Senate
to suspend the labors of the Select Committee appointed to
investigate the facts of the late invasion and seizure of
public property at Harper’s Ferry, and that all persons now in
custody under the proceedings of such Committee be discharged,
which was duly referred to the Select Committee.

* * * * *

June 15, Mr. Mason submitted a report from the Committee,
accompanied by the following resolution:--

“_Resolved_, That the paper purporting to be a petition
from ‘citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, of
African descent,’ presented to the Senate by Charles
Sumner, a Senator of Massachusetts, on the 5th of June,
instant, and on his motion referred to a Select Committee
of the Senate, be returned by the Secretary to the Senator
who presented it.”

This resolution was never called up for consideration, but it
stands on the Journal of the Senate in perpetual testimony of
the assumption of the Slave Power and its tyrannical hardihood.
Anticipating its discussion, Mr. Sumner prepared the notes of a
speech upon it, which are here preserved precisely as sketched
at the time.

It is difficult to treat this proposition, proceeding from a Committee of the Senate, except as you would treat a direct proposition of Atheism. “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God”; but it was only in his heart; the fool in Scripture did not openly declare it. Had he openly declared it, he would have been in a position hardly more offensive than your Committee.

There is a saying of antiquity, which has the confirming voice of all intervening time, that “whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.” And now, Sir, while humbled for my country that such a proposition should be introduced into the Senate, I accept it as the omen of that madness which precedes the fall of its authors.

At this moment the number of free persons, African by descent, in the United States, is almost half a million,--being a population two thirds larger than the white population in South Carolina, more than one third larger than the white population in Mississippi, and six times larger than the white population in Florida. I mention these facts in order to show at the outset the number of persons whose rights are now assailed.

Already, in several States, free negroes are threatened with expulsion, under the terrible penalty of being sold into Slavery. The Supreme Court of the United States has stepped forward, and by cruel decree declared that they are not citizens, and therefore are not entitled to sue in the courts of the United States. And now, to complete their degradation and exclusion from all rights, it is proposed to declare that their petitions cannot be received by the Senate.

* * * * *

The right of petition is not _political_, but _personal_,--born with Humanity, and confirmed by Christianity,--belonging to all, but peculiar to the humble, the weak, and the oppressed. It belongs even to the criminal; for it is simply the right to pray.

There is no country, professing civilization, where this right is not sacred. In Mahometan countries it is revered. One of the most touching stories of the East is where a petitioner in affliction came before the Sultan, crying out,--

“‘My sorrow is my right,
And I _will_ see the Sultan, and to-night.’
‘Sorrow,’ said Mahmoud, ‘is a reverend thing;
I recognize its right, as king with king:
Speak on.’”[144]

To take this right away from any portion of our _fellow-subjects_--even if you say they are not _fellow-citizens_--will be barbarous. And when I consider under what influence this proposition is brought forward, I present it as a fresh illustration of the Barbarism of Slavery,--most barbarous in the unconsciousness of its Barbarism.

The outrage is apparent from a simple statement.

In all the States--even in the Slave States--a free colored man may hold property of all kinds, personal or real,--even land, in which citizenship strikes its strongest root; but you will not allow him the poor right of petition.

He may own stocks of the United States, Treasury notes, and in other ways be the creditor of the Government; but you will not allow him the poor right of petition.

He is strictly bound by every enactment upon our statute-book; and yet you will not allow him to appear before you with a prayer to modify or soften this statute-book.

He is rigidly held to pay his quota of taxes; but you will not allow him to ask for their reduction.

And still further, under all your pension laws for Revolutionary services, and for services in other wars, whether on land or sea, he is entitled to a pension precisely as if he were white; but you will not allow him to solicit aid under these laws.

Such is a simple statement of the injustice you are about to do. On this statement alone, without one word of argument or illustration, you will surely recoil.

But this proposition proceeds on two assumptions, each of which is radically false: _first_, that a free person of African descent is not a citizen of the United States; and, _secondly_, that none other than a citizen is entitled to petition Congress.

In support of the first assumption is the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dred Scott. But against that decision--so unfortunate for the character of the tribunal from which it proceeded,--which has degraded that tribunal hardly less than it sought to degrade the African race--I oppose the actual fact in at least _six_ of the original thirteen States at the adoption of the Constitution.

_First_, in Massachusetts, where the present petitioners reside, all persons, without distinction of color, are treated as citizens by its Constitution adopted in 1780.

_Secondly_, in Virginia, the State represented by the Senator [Mr. MASON] who brings forward this decree of disfranchisement, the same principle prevailed at the same time. And here I call attention to the 11th volume of Hening’s Virginia Statutes, where, on page 322, may be found the law of October, 1783, which repeals that of 1779, limiting citizenship to whites, and enacts, “that _all free persons_ born within the territory of this Commonwealth … shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth,” without one word referring to descent or color.

_Thirdly_, in New Hampshire, whose Constitution conferred the elective franchise upon “every inhabitant of the State having the proper qualifications,”--of which descent or color was not one.

_Fourthly_, in New York, where the Constitution conferred the elective franchise upon “every male inhabitant of full age who shall have personally resided,” &c., “if during the time aforesaid he shall have been a freeholder,” &c.,--without any discrimination of descent or color.

_Fifthly_, in New Jersey, by whose Constitution the elective franchise was conferred upon “_all inhabitants_ of this colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds, proclamation money, clear estate,”--also without any discrimination of descent or color.

_Sixthly_, in North Carolina, where Mr. Justice Gaston, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of the State in the case of _The State_ v. _Manuel_, declared that “the Constitution extended the elective franchise to _every freeman_ who had arrived at the age of twenty-one and paid a public tax; and it is a matter of universal notoriety, that, under it, _free persons_, without regard to color, claimed and exercised the franchise, until it was taken from free men of color a few years since by our amended Constitution.”[145]

To these authoritative precedents, drawn from the very epoch of the National Constitution, I might add other illustrations. I content myself with referring to the Constitution of Missouri, which, in speaking of “every free _white_ male citizen,”[146] admits by implication that colored persons may be _citizens_, and to the Code of Alabama, which declares that certain sections “do not apply to or affect any free person of color who by the Treaty between the United States and Spain became _a citizen of the United States, or the descendants of such_.”[147]

But not only in six of the old thirteen States _all freemen_ without distinction of color were _citizens_, but also under the Articles of Confederation they were _citizens_. By the fourth article it was expressly declared that “the _free inhabitants_ of each of these States (paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted) shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of _free citizens_ in the several States.” The meaning of this clause, which is clear on its face, becomes clearer still, when it is known, that, while it was under discussion, on the 25th of June, 1778, the delegates from South Carolina moved to amend it by inserting between the words “free inhabitants” the word “white,” so that the character of a citizen should be restricted to white persons. This proposition was rejected,--two States only voting for it, eight States against it, and the vote of one State being divided; so that the term “free inhabitants” was left in its full significance, without any distinction of descent or color.

The Constitution of the United States next followed. And it contains not a sentence, phrase, or word of disfranchisement on account of descent or color, any more than on account of religion.

* * * * *

If the present question depended upon citizenship, you could not refuse to receive the petition. But it does not depend upon citizenship. The right to petition Congress is not an incident of the elective franchise. It exists where the elective franchise does not exist. The Constitution expressly secures it, not simply to _citizens_, but broadly and completely to THE PEOPLE, declaring, in the first article of its Amendments, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, _or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances_.”

The term _people_ here naturally means all, without distinction of class, who owe allegiance to the Government. It is the American equivalent for _subjects_. If there were any doubt on this point, it would be removed by the clear and irresistible meaning of the term in other parts of the Constitution. Thus, in the clause constituting the House of Representatives, it is declared that it “shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the _people_ of the several States, and the _electors_ in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.” Here is an obvious difference between the “people” and “electors.” The former is broader than the latter. It is the former that constitutes the _basis of representation_, and the Constitution then proceeds to declare that this basis “shall be determined by adding _to the whole number of free persons_, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.” Whatever may be the position of the _fractional_ class, nothing can be clearer than that all _free persons_, without distinction of color or descent, belong to the _people_, and, so belonging, they are solemnly and expressly protected by the Constitution in the right of petition.

The Constitution next provides for the “enumeration” of the _people_, and under this provision there is a decennial census of the whole _people_, without distinction of color or descent; and yet, while including all of African descent in your population, you refuse to receive their petitions.

The present proposition is aggravated by well-attested facts in our history. A colored man, Crispus Attucks, was the first martyr of our Revolutionary struggle. Throughout the long war of seven years, while national independence was still doubtful, colored men fought sometimes in the same ranks with the whites, and sometimes in separate companies, but always with patriotic courage, and often under the eye of Washington. The blood of the two races mingled, and, dying on the same field, they were buried beneath the same sod. And this same association was continued throughout the War of 1812, in all our naval contests, and especially in the Battle of Lake Erie under Perry, and of Lake Champlain under Macdonough, where colored men performed a conspicuous part. But no better testimony can be presented than the eloquent proclamation of General Jackson, before the Battle of New Orleans, where he calls upon the “free colored inhabitants of Louisiana” to take part in the contest as _American soldiers_, and speaks of them by implication as “fellow-citizens.”[148] “American soldiers” and “fellow-citizens”: such is the language of Andrew Jackson, when speaking of those whom you would despoil of a venerable right.

Thus, Sir, throughout our history, you have used these men for defence of the country, you have coined their blood into your own liberties; but you deny them now the smallest liberty of all,--the last which is left to the miserable,--_the liberty to pray_. In the history of misfortune or of tyranny nothing can surpass this final act of robbery. The words of the classic poet are fulfilled:--

“‘The wretch, in short, had nothing.’ You say true:
And yet the wretch _must lose that nothing too_.”[149]

There is a story of General Washington which illustrates by contrast the wrong of the present proposition. On a certain occasion, being engaged late at the quarters of his aid, Colonel Pickering, of Massachusetts, he proposed to pass the night, if the colored servant, Primus Hall, whom I remember at Boston in my childhood, could find straw and a blanket. Of course they were found; but it was by the surrender of the servant’s own blanket. In the course of the night, the General, becoming aware of the sacrifice, most authoritatively required the servant to share the blanket, saying, “There is room for both, and I insist upon it”; and on the same straw, beneath the same blanket, the General and the faithful African slept till morning sun.[150] You not only refuse to share your liberties with the colored man, but you now propose to take from him his last blanket.

* * * * *

This is not the time to dwell on the character of the colored race; for the right of petition can never depend on the character of the petitioner, while in criminal cases liberty and life even may. But I mention two facts which speak for this much injured people. The first, Sir, is the official census, by which it appears that throughout the Free States among the colored population a much larger proportion attend school than among the whites of the Slave States, and this contrast becomes still more apparent when we consider the small attendance upon school by the whites in South Carolina. The other fact appears in the last will and testament of Mr. Upshur, of Virginia, Secretary of State under President Tyler, where he thus speaks:--

“I emancipate and set free my servant, David Rich, and direct
my executors to give him one hundred dollars. I recommend him
in the strongest manner to the respect, esteem, and confidence
of any community in which he may happen to live. He has been
my slave for twenty-four years, during which time he has been
trusted to every extent and in every respect. My confidence
in him has been unbounded; his relation to myself and family
has always been such as to afford him daily opportunities to
deceive and injure us, and yet he has never been detected in
a serious fault, nor even in an intentional breach of the
decorums of his station. His intelligence is of a high order,
his integrity above all suspicion, and his sense of right and
propriety always correct and even delicate and refined. I feel
that he is justly entitled to carry this certificate from me
into the new relations which he now must form. It is due to
his long and most faithful services, and to the sincere and
steady friendship which I bear him. In the uninterrupted and
confidential intercourse of twenty-four years, I have never
given nor had occasion to give him an unpleasant word. I know
no man who has fewer faults or more excellencies than he.

A. P. UPSHUR.”[151]

I do not dwell on precedents; for Senators willing to entertain this proposition can have little regard for any precedents in favor of Human Rights. I content myself with saying, that never before has this assault on Human Rights been made,--that petitions from colored persons have been often presented and refused, precisely as other petitions. Here, for example, is an instance on the Journals of the Senate:--

“Mr. Seward presented a petition of citizens of Ontario County,
New York, praying that the army may be disbanded, and its
services hereafter dispensed with; _a petition of male and
female colored inhabitants of Boston, Massachusetts_, praying
that colored men may be employed in transporting the mails, and
enrolled in the militia; _and a petition of male and female
colored inhabitants of Boston, Massachusetts_, protesting
against the enactment of a law for the recovery of fugitive
slaves.”[152]

But I have said enough. Most earnestly and sincerely do I protest against this attempt, on three grounds: _first_, because, being essentially barbarous in character, it must be utterly shameful to a government boasting Christianity and professing Civilization; _secondly_, because it is a flagrant violation of the constitutional rights of more than half a million of American people; and, _thirdly_, because, in the present case, it is an insult to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where these petitioners reside in the free enjoyment of all the rights of citizens,--among others, of voting for Members of Congress. I am unwilling to weaken this argument for Human Rights by any appeal to State Rights; but I cannot fail to observe that this proposition, which tramples down State Rights in order to assail Human Rights, proceeds from a Senator [Mr. MASON] who always avows himself the defender of State Rights.

For myself, Sir, my course is plain. Whatever may be the action of the Senate, I shall continue to present such petitions. And permit me to say, that I should be little worthy of the place I now hold, if, at any time hereafter, receiving such petitions, I hesitate in the discharge of this sacred duty.

THE LATE HONORABLE JOHN SCHWARTZ, OF PENNSYLVANIA.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE RESOLUTIONS IN TRIBUTE TO HIM, JUNE 21, 1860.

MR. PRESIDENT,--Some men make themselves felt at once by their simple presence, and Mr. Schwartz was of this number. No person could set eyes on him without being moved to inquire who he was, or, if the occasion presented, to form his acquaintance. His look was that of goodness, and he acted in a way to confirm the charm of his appearance. Entering tardily into public life, he followed the prompting of duty, and not of ambition. At this call he severed friendships, personal and political, believing that principle was of higher worth than party or politician or President. Thus, when already reverend with age, he became a Representative in Congress.

His presence in the other House was a protest. All who saw him there knew that he came from a constituency which had always been represented by an unhesitating member of the Democratic party, while he openly denounced that party,[153] and associated himself cordially and completely with those who, founding themselves on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, sought to bring the National Government to the ancient ways. I mention this circumstance, because it is an essential part of his too brief public life, while it illustrates his character, and proclaims his title to honor. The powerful party leader, “with a Senate at his heels,” is less worthy of love and consideration than the simple citizen, who, scorning party ties, dares to be true and just.

But never did man, who had broken down a party at home, and taken his seat as representative of Opposition, wear his signal success more gently. Though decided and firm in conduct, he was winning and sweet in manner, and by beautiful example showed how to unite two qualities which are not always found together. Winter was not sterner, summer was not softer.

In character he did honor to the brave and pure German stock, which, even from that early day when first revealed to history in the sharp and clean-cut style of Tacitus, has preserved its original peculiarities untouched by change, showing, that, though the individual is mortal, the race is immortal. American by birth, and American in a generous patriotism, he was German in his clear blue eye, in his physical frame, in the warmth of his affections, and in the simplicity of his life. To him alone our tribute is now due; but, in pronouncing the name of JOHN SCHWARTZ, we cannot forget the “fatherland” of his ancestors, which out of its abundance has given to our Republic so many good heads, so many strong arms, with so much of virtue and intelligence, rejoicing in freedom, and calling no man master.

UNHESITATING ASSERTION OF OUR PRINCIPLES.

LETTER TO THE REPUBLICANS OF NEW YORK CITY, JUNE 27, 1860.

An enthusiastic meeting of the Old Men’s and Young Men’s
Republican Central Committees of the City of New York was held
on the evening of June 28, for the purpose of extending a
welcome to the Republican Senators of the Eastern States, on
their return from Congress. D. D. Conover, of the Old Men’s
Committee, presided, assisted by Charles S. Spencer, of the
Young Men’s Committee. The following letter from Mr. Sumner, in
answer to an invitation, was read by Edgar Ketchum.

SENATE CHAMBER, June 27, 1860.

MY DEAR SIR,--I must renounce the opportunity of meeting the
Republicans of New York to-morrow evening, asking them to accept
my thanks for the invitation with which they have honored me.

Let me congratulate them on the good omens which cheer us on
every side.

It only remains, that, by _unhesitating assertion of our
principles_, we continue to deserve victory.

Believe me, my dear Sir,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

EDGAR KETCHUM, Esq.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY: ITS ORIGIN, NECESSITY, AND PERMANENCE.

SPEECH BEFORE THE YOUNG MEN’S REPUBLICAN UNION OF NEW YORK, AT COOPER INSTITUTE, JULY 11, 1860.

This early speech in the Presidential campaign which ended in
the election of Abraham Lincoln was made by Mr. Sumner while on
his way home from Washington. It was reported and noticed by
the New York press. A journal having little sympathy with it
describes the magnificence and enthusiasm of the auditory, and
thus abridges the speech in flaming capitals: “The Presidential
Contest; Great Convulsion in the Republican Camp; Charles
Sumner on the Stump; A Strong Plea for Old Abe; Another Attack
upon Slaveholders; The Fivefold Wrong of Human Slavery.”

The meeting is mentioned in all the journals as one of the
largest ever assembled within the walls of Cooper Institute,
and also remarkable for respectability of appearance. One of
them says it seemed more like an audience of some great concert
or festival than a political meeting. As soon as the doors were
opened every available position was occupied, and in half an
hour afterwards it was impossible to find accommodation. More
than one third of the vast hall had been reserved for ladies,
and it was completely filled. The windows of the upper floor
opening upon the basement were crammed with people. On the
stage were many distinguished persons, judges and ex-judges.
The welcome of the speaker is thus noticed by another:--

“Mr. Sumner appeared on the rostrum precisely at eight
o’clock, and was received with an outburst of excited
enthusiasm which defies all description. The applause was
unanimous and intense. Cheer after cheer arose, loud and
vociferous; men stood up and waved their handkerchiefs and
their hats till scarcely anything else could be seen.”

The scene at this time was chronicled by the _Independent_.

“The orator’s return to the people, after his long and
enforced retirement from the platform, was celebrated at
Cooper Institute with such a welcome as we have rarely seen
given to any man. On coming forward, he was greeted with
cheer after cheer, the audience rising and prolonging their
salutations through many minutes, with continuous shouting
and waving of handkerchiefs.”

Mr. Rogers, the President of the Young Men’s Republican Union,
nominated for chairman of the meeting Hon. Abijah Mann, Jr.,
which nomination was unanimously accepted. Mr. Mann, on taking
the chair, said that they had now to listen to the voice of
one who had stood up manfully for freedom of speech, not only
against open foes, but even against the opposition of some of
his colleagues. [_Applause._] He was here to-night to maintain
this same right to free speech, and to express his views of the
political condition of the country. It gave him pleasure to
introduce to the audience Hon. Charles Sumner, of Massachusetts.

Mr. Sumner, on taking the stand, was again greeted with loud
and prolonged cheers. After tendering acknowledgments for the
generous and cordial reception, and regretting his inability to
express all he felt, he proceeded with his speech, which was
thus described by the _Evening Post_:--

“Mr. Sumner was as happy in the manner as he was forcible
in the matter of his speech. His commanding person, his
distinct utterance, and his graceful elocution combined
with the eloquence of his words in keeping the immense
auditory to their seats for two hours, without a movement,
and almost without a breath, save when the applause broke
forth. It is the first time that Mr. Sumner has spoken in
public since he was laid low in the Senate House, and New
York, by this grand demonstration, has shown its eagerness
to welcome him to the field of so many former triumphs.”

In this speech Mr. Sumner sought to popularize his argument in
the Senate on the Barbarism of Slavery, with an application to
the Presidential election, and at the same time to reassert
the positions he had there taken. Its influence was increased
by the circulation it enjoyed. Besides the _Tribune_, _Times_,
_Herald_, and _World_, which printed it in full, there was a
pamphlet edition of more than fifty thousand copies circulated
by the Young Men’s Republican Union. The Secretary of the
Republican Central Committee of California wrote, that this
Committee, after publishing a large edition of the “Barbarism
of Slavery,” published ten thousand copies of the New York
speech, which was “read with that attention which the subject
elucidated by you readily commands.” Among letters with regard
to it, two are preserved as friendly voices.

Hon. W. H. Seward wrote from Auburn:--

“Your speech, in every part, is noble and great. Even you
never spoke so well.”

Another friend, who had not agreed with Mr. Sumner at an
earlier period, George Livermore, the intelligent merchant of
Boston, devoted to books as well as business, being in New York
at the time, heard the speech, and, in a letter dated at the
Fifth Avenue Hotel, wrote:--

“I can say in all sincerity, that, of all the political
addresses I have ever heard,--and for thirty years past I
have heard a great many, and from the most distinguished
men in the country,--I have never listened to one that
would begin to compare with this as a whole. The high and
broad ground on which you based your views, the clearness
and force with which you presented the subject, the dignity
and grace of your manner, and the honest and hearty tone
in which you uttered your thoughts, all together make your
speech _the best one that was ever delivered_, as far as my
knowledge and experience go.”

These testimonies will at least explain the effect of this
speech at the time.

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF NEW YORK:--

Of all men in our history, there are two whose influence at this moment is peculiar. Though dead, they yet live, speak, and act in the conflict of principle which divides the country,--standing face to face, like two well-matched champions. When I add that one was from South Carolina and the other from Massachusetts, you cannot fail to see that I mean John C. Calhoun and John Quincy Adams.

Statesmen, both, of long career, marked ability, and unblemished integrity,--acting together at first,--sitting in the same Cabinet, from which they passed, one to become Vice-President, and the other President,--then, for the remainder of their days, battling in Congress, and dying there,--each was a leader in life, but each is now in death a greater leader still.

Mr. Calhoun possessed an intellect of much originality and boldness, and, though wanting the culture of a scholar, made himself felt in council and in debate. To native powers unlike, but not inferior, Mr. Adams added the well-ripened fruits of long experience in foreign lands and of studies more various and complete than those of any other public man in our history, besides an indomitable will, and that spirit of freedom which inspired his father, when, in the Continental Congress, he so eloquently maintained the Declaration of Independence, making himself its Colossus on that floor.

Sitting together in the Cabinet of Mr. Monroe, they concurred in sanctioning the Missouri Prohibition of Slavery as constitutional, and so advised the President. But here divergence probably began, though for a long time not made manifest. The diary of Mr. Adams shows that at that early day, when Slavery had been little discussed, he saw its enormity with instinctive quickness, and described it with corresponding force. The record is less full with regard to Mr. Calhoun; but when they reappeared, one in the Senate, and the other in the House of Representatives, each openly assumed the position by which he will be known in history,--one as chief in all the pretensions of Slavery and Slave-Masters, the other as champion of Freedom.

Mr. Calhoun regarded Slavery as a permanent institution; Mr. Adams regarded it as something transitory. Mr. Calhoun vaunted it as a form of civilization; Mr. Adams scorned it as an unquestionable barbarism. Mr. Calhoun did not hesitate to call it the most stable basis of free government; Mr. Adams vehemently denounced it as a curse, full of weakness and mockery, doubly offensive in a boastful Republic. Mr. Calhoun, not content with exalting Slavery, proceeded to condemn the early opinions of Washington and Jefferson as “folly and delusion,” to assail the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence as “absurd,” and then to proclaim that human beings are “property” under the Constitution, and, as such, may be transported into the Territories and there held in Slavery; while Mr. Adams added to the glory of his long and diversified career by persistent efforts which are better for his fame than having been President,--upholding the great rights of petition and of speech,--vindicating the early opinions of the Fathers, and the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence,--exposing the odious character of Slavery,--insisting upon its prohibition in the Territories,--denying the asserted property in man,--and especially, and often, exhibiting the unjust power in the National Government usurped by what he called “the little cluster” of Slave-Masters, whose yoke was to him intolerable.

Such, most briefly told, were antagonist opinions of these two chiefs. Never was great conflict destined to involve a great country more distinctly foreshadowed. All that the Republican party now opposes may be found in John C. Calhoun; all that the Republican party now maintains may be found in John Quincy Adams. Choose ye, fellow-citizens, between the two.