Chapter XII: Part 12

Amidst all surrounding perils there is one only which I dread. It is the peril from some new surrender to Slavery, some fresh recognition of its power, some present dalliance with its intolerable pretensions. Worse than any defeat, or even the flight of an army, would be this abandonment of principle. From all such peril, good Lord, deliver us! And there is _one way of safety_, clear as sunlight, pleasant as the paths of Peace. Over its broad and open gate is written JUSTICE. In that little word is victory. Do justice and you will be twice victors; for so will you subdue the Rebel master, while you elevate the slave. Do justice frankly, generously, nobly, and you will find strength instead of weakness, while all seeming responsibility disappears in obedience to God’s eternal law. Do justice, though the heavens fall. But they will not fall. Every act of justice becomes a new pillar of the Universe, or it may be a new link of that

“golden everlasting chain
Whose strong embrace holds heaven and earth and main.”

* * * * *

At the conclusion of Mr. Sumner’s address the following
resolutions were offered and adopted by acclamation.

“_Resolved_, That the doctrine enunciated by Major-General
Fremont with respect to the emancipation of the slaves of
Rebels, and the more recent utterances of General Burnside,
Senator Wilson, and the Hon. George Bancroft, in this city,
and of Colonel John Cochrane and the Hon. Simon Cameron
at Washington, foreshadowing the eventual rooting out of
Slavery as the cause of the Rebellion, indicate alike a
moral, political, and military necessity; and, in the
judgment of this meeting, the public sentiment of the
North is now in full sympathy with any practicable scheme
which may be presented for the extirpation of this national
evil, and will accept such result as the only consistent
issue of this contest between Civilization and Barbarism.

“_Resolved_, That the thanks of this meeting be and
are hereby tendered to the Hon. Charles Sumner, the
distinguished orator of this evening, for his reassertion
and eloquent enforcement of the political principle herein
indorsed.”

APPENDIX.

The bill to confiscate property used for insurrectionary
purposes, reported by Mr. Trumbull from the Judiciary
Committee, came up in regular order in the Senate, Monday,
July 22, when, on his motion, the following amendment was
adopted, every Republican voting for it: “That whenever any
person, claiming to be entitled to the service or labor of any
other person under the laws of any State, shall employ such
person in aiding or promoting any insurrection, or in resisting
the laws of the United States, or shall permit him to be so
employed, he shall forfeit all right to such service or labor,
and the person whose labor or service is thus claimed shall
be thenceforth discharged therefrom, any law to the contrary
notwithstanding.”[237] This very moderate proposition was the
beginning of Emancipation. In the House of Representatives it
was changed in form, but not in substance, and the Bill was
approved by the President August 6, 1861.[238]

* * * * *

This address appeared in numerous journals, and also in the
_Rebellion Record_, besides being circulated extensively in
pamphlet form at home and abroad. Evidently the hostility to
Emancipation was softening, although the old spirit found
utterance in some of the newspapers.

* * * * *

The _New York Herald_ thus declared itself.

“The Hon. Charles Sumner, the famous orator of the Satanic
Abolition school, which first introduced into our happy
republic the elements of dismemberment and dissolution, as
the Old Serpent introduced sin and death into the Garden
of Eden, held forth last evening at the Cooper Institute
before the Young Men’s Republican Union of New York. His
audience were Abolitionists of the true-blue stamp, and
the design of his harangue was to stir up in this city
mutiny and rebellion against the Government in the interest
of General Fremont, around whom the revolutionary forces
of fanatical Puritanism have been gathering ever since
he issued his proclamation emancipating the negroes of
Missouri.…

“Till the head of the serpent of Abolitionism is crushed by
the heel of Abe Lincoln, there can be no salvation for the
South, and no hope of redeeming its rebels from the fatal
error and delusion into which they have been led by the
Antislavery propagandists and sympathizers with John Brown.”

But this same journal spoke otherwise of the auditory.

“Rarely has there been such a large audience assembled in
the Cooper Institute,--never one of such general reputation
and intelligence. Several hundred ladies were present. As
Mr. Sumner made his appearance on the platform, he was
hailed with enthusiastic applause.”

The New York _Journal of Commerce_ followed the _Herald_.

“_It was a labored, but concealed, attack on the
Constitution and its framers._ Mr. Sumner did not dare
speak his sentiments fully, and boldly attack Washington
and the illustrious Fathers. He preferred the insidious
course of instilling into the minds of his audience
sentiments of hatred to the Constitution, so that they
might look complacently hereafter on the Abolition
revolution which he contemplates.”

An extract from the _Principia_, at New York, the
organ of Abolitionists insisting always upon the utter
unconstitutionality of Slavery, will suffice on the other side.

“Our readers at a distance will be interested and
encouraged to know that the most radical portions of it
received the most enthusiastic applause from the immense
assemblage, on that occasion, without eliciting the
slightest expression of dissent. This was remarkably true,
even of that portion of it which defended the Abolitionists
from the charge of having caused our present national
troubles, and, on the contrary, gave them ample and due
credit for keeping alive the flame of Freedom by their
opposition to Slavery, and forewarning the country of the
evils it was bringing upon us. To ourselves and a remnant
of our old associates, on the platform and in the meeting,
who remembered the scenes of mob violence in this city in
1833-34, and the attempted renewal of the same riots in
the same Cooper Institute only about two years since, when
Cheever and Phillips were interrupted and threatened, the
contrast was most striking and cheering.”

Correspondents expressed themselves warmly.

Richard Warren, of Plymouth stock, wrote from New York:--

“Congratulating you, Sir, and our country, that the day now
seems not far distant when America is to fulfil the destiny
assigned to her, and be throughout all her borders a land
of freemen without slaves, and honoring you for the labor
you have so well performed in the past and in the present,
I have to express the gratification with which I listened
to your true words on Wednesday last in this city, and to
subscribe myself as one who heard you at Plymouth,[239] and
who always hears you when opportunity offers.”

Richard J. Hinton, the courageous and liberal journalist, was
moved to write from Kansas:--

“Having just finished the perusal of your late oration in
New York City, I cannot let the opportunity pass of sending
my thanks, and I know therein I speak for Kansas, for the
emphatic opinions and masterly _exposé_ of the cause of,
and remedy for, this most stupendous rebellion. Such things
as you there so eloquently express give the soldiers of
Freedom in Kansas heart and courage in the work of giving
Freedom to all.”

Orestes A. Brownson, whose able and learned pen was so active
on the same line with Mr. Sumner, wrote from Elizabeth, New
Jersey:--

“I have read with great pleasure your discourse on the
‘Origin and Mainspring of the Rebellion.’ It is conclusive,
and powerfully so, and does you infinite credit. I see you
are afraid of some attempt at compromise. I am very much
afraid of it. There must be no compromise. The battle must
be fought out, and we must settle the question once and
forever, whether we are a nation or are not. Everything, I
fear, depends on the vigilance, firmness, and patriotism of
Congress.”

Henry C. Wright, the veteran of Abolition, wrote:--

“I am sixty-four years old. Thirty of those years have been
almost exclusively spent in a war of ideas against Slavery,
as a Garrisonian Abolitionist. _Conquer by suffering!
Victory or death! Resistance to tyrants, obedience to God!_
Such have been the watchwords of the battle. You know what
it has cost those who have waged this war of ideas. But I
felt fully rewarded last evening in seeing that audience
so earnestly listening to such sentiments as fell from
your lips. What a revolution in thought and feeling in
twenty-five years! Never again let man be discouraged in a
conflict between _humanity_ and its _incidents_.”

A citizen of Washington confessed the change in his mind from
this speech.

“I have through all my life been a Democrat, and I confess
I have had no great love for you, or what I thought to be
your principles. But a cardinal principle in my ethics
is, that men should always be ‘open to conviction.’ I am
happy to confess that I have been doubly deceived: first,
in the principles and intentions of the Democratic party;
and, second, in the principles and intentions of the
Republicans,--or Abolitionists, as we call them. A friend
handed me your great oration delivered in New York, and I
am so favorably struck with its logic and patriotism that
I am completely proselyted. Mr. Sumner, I want my children
and my children’s children to know that I am a ‘Sumner
man.’”

These expressions from different parts of the country show the
wakeful sympathy which prevailed.

WELCOME TO FUGITIVE SLAVES.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A MILITARY ORDER IN MISSOURI, DECEMBER 4, 1861.

The first regular session of Congress, after the breaking out
of the Rebellion, opened on Monday, December 2, 1861. Mr.
Sumner renewed at once his movement against Slavery.

December 4th he submitted the following resolution, as a mode
of calling attention to an abuse, and of obtaining a hearing
while he exposed it.

“_Resolved_, That the Secretary of War be requested to
furnish to the Senate copies of any General Orders in
the military department of Missouri relating to fugitive
slaves.”

On this he spoke briefly.

MR. PRESIDENT,--My attention has been called, by letter from St. Louis, to certain General Orders purporting to be by Major-General Halleck, in command of the Department of Missouri, relating to fugitive slaves, wherein it is directed that such persons shall not be received within his camps, or within the lines of his forces when on march, and that any such persons now within such lines shall be thrust out; and the reason strangely assigned for this order is, that such fugitive slaves will carry information to the Rebels.

It is difficult to speak of an order like this, and keep within bounds. Beside being irrational and inhuman on its face, it practically authorizes the surrender of fugitive slaves beyond any constitutional obligation. Such an order must naturally be disheartening to our soldiers, and it gives a bad name to our country, both at home and abroad.

General Halleck is reported to be a good tactician; but an act like this, with which he chooses to inaugurate his command, does not give assurance of great success hereafter. He may be expert in details of military science; but something more is needed now. Common sympathy, common humanity, and common sense must prevail in the conduct of this war. I take the liberty of saying--and I wish that my words may reach his distant head-quarters--that every fugitive slave he surrenders will hereafter rise in judgment against him with a shame which no possible victory can remove.

A letter from St. Louis, written the day after these remarks,
shows the necessity for them, and also how promptly they
reached Missouri, thanks to the telegraph.

“We thank you most kindly for your motion yesterday, and
I beg to inclose you some extracts which will show you
the workings of that unfortunate Order No. 3. The slaves
advertised, in some instances, to my own knowledge, belong
to Secessionists in Price’s army. For that matter, they may
all belong to that class of people. Is it not an inhuman
act for these poor people to be made outlaws for no crime,
only that they refused to join their traitor masters in
onslaught on our beneficent Government?”

SLAVERY AND THE BLACK CODE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A RESOLUTION FOR THE DISCHARGE OF FUGITIVE SLAVES FROM THE WASHINGTON JAIL, DECEMBER 4, 1861.

December 4th, Mr. Wilson introduced a joint resolution for
the release of certain persons confined in the county jail
for the County of Washington in the District of Columbia,
which was read a first and second time. A debate ensued, in
which the jail and the judiciary of the District were severely
handled. Mr. Hale hoped that Mr. Wilson, who had introduced the
resolution, would “pursue his inquiries further, and find out
where the cause of all this evil is, and apply the remedy.” Mr.
Fessenden, after calling attention to the administration of
justice in the District and hoping for an inquiry, concluded:
“It is well, perhaps, that we should begin here; it is a
tangible point; but I hope it will be followed up to any extent
that may be necessary in order to accomplish the purpose.” Mr.
Sumner at once took advantage of the debate, and turned it
against Slavery and the Black Code.

MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senator from Maine [Mr. Fessenden] has pointed to abuses of the judiciary in this District, and he insists that at last we shall have decent men on the bench. But that is not going far enough, Sir. Something more is needed. We must have decent laws. A Black Code still prevails in this District, imported from the old legislation of Maryland, which is a shame to the civilization of our age. If any one wishes to know why such abuses exist in prisons and in courts as have been so eloquently portrayed, I refer him to that Black Code. There you will find apology for every outrage. If, therefore, Senators are really in earnest, if they are determined that the national capital shall be purified, that the administration of justice here shall be worthy of a civilized community, they must expunge that Black Code from the statute-book: but to do this is to expunge Slavery itself; and here we are brought precisely to the point.

Senators mistake, if they treat this question merely on the outside. They must penetrate its interior. Why is that prison so offensive as I know it to be?--for it has been my fortune to visit it repeatedly. It is on account of Slavery, with the Black Code, which is its offspring. Why is justice so offensively administered in this District? It is on account of those brutal sentiments generated by Slavery, and manifested in the Black Code, which the courts here but enforce.

I listened with gratitude to my distinguished friend from New Hampshire [Mr. HALE], when he reviewed this subject, and announced that he would soon bring in a bill to remove the evil. He did not tell us what the bill would be; but the Senator is apt to be thorough. I doubt not that he understands the case; but I am sure, that, to meet it, he must deal directly with Slavery, the fountain and origin of all the noisome inhumanity exposed before us to-day.

This was the first open word against Slavery in the District
since the breaking out of the Rebellion.

The resolution of Mr. Wilson was referred to the Committee
on the District of Columbia. He followed at once by another
resolution, which was referred to the same committee, where,
among other things, the committee was “instructed to consider
the expediency of abolishing Slavery in the District, with
compensation to the loyal holders of slaves.”

December 16th, Mr. Wilson introduced a bill “for the release
of certain persons held to service or labor in the District
of Columbia,” which was afterwards referred to the Committee
on the District, who reported it with amendments February 14,
1862. The further part Mr. Sumner took on this question will
appear hereafter.

THE LATE SENATOR BINGHAM, WITH PROTEST AGAINST SLAVERY.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE DEATH OF HON. KINSLEY S. BINGHAM, LATE SENATOR OF MICHIGAN, DECEMBER 10, 1861.

MR. PRESIDENT,--There are Senators who knew Mr. Bingham well, while he was a member of the other House. I knew him well only when he became a member of this body. Our seats here were side by side, and, as he was constant in attendance, I saw him daily. Our acquaintance soon became friendship, quickened by common sympathies, and confirmed by that bond which, according to the ancient orator, is found in the _eadem de Republica sensisse_.[240] In his death I have lost a friend; but the sorrow of friendship is deepened, when I think of loss to the country.

If he did not impress at once by personal appearance or voice or manner, yet all these, as they became familiar, testified continually to the unaffected simplicity and integrity of his character. His life, so far as not given to his country, was devoted to the labors of agriculture. He was a farmer, and, amidst all the temptations of an eminent public career, never abandoned this vocation, which does so much to strengthen both body and soul. More than merchant, manufacturer, or lawyer, the agriculturist is independent in condition. To him the sun and rain and the ever-varying seasons are agents of prosperity. Dependent upon Nature, he learns to be independent of men. Such a person, thus endowed, easily turns from the behest of party to follow those guiding principles which are kindred to the laws of Nature. Of such a character our friend was a beautiful example.

In him all the private virtues commingled. Truthful and frank, he was full of gentleness and generous sympathy. He had risen from humble fortunes, and his heart throbbed warmly for all who suffered in any way. Especially was he aroused against wrong and injustice, wherever they appeared, and then his softer sentiments were changed into an indomitable firmness,--showing that he was one of those admirable natures where

“Mildness and bravery went hand in hand.”

It was this character which gave elevation to his public life. Though companions about him hesitated, though great men on whom he had leaned apostatized, he stood sure and true always for the Right. Such a person was naturally enlisted against Slavery. His virtuous soul recoiled from this many-headed Barbarism, entering into and possessing the National Government. His political philosophy was simply moral philosophy applied to public affairs. Slavery was wrong; therefore he was against it, wherever he could justly reach it. No matter what form it took,--whether of pretension or blandishment,--whether, like Satan, stalking lordly, or sitting squat like a toad,--whether, like Mephistopheles, cozening cunningly, or lurking like a poodle,--whether, like Asmodeus, inquisitorial even to lifting the roofs of the whole country,--he was never deceived, but saw it always, in all its various manifestations, as the Spirit of Evil, and was its constant enemy. And now, among the signs that Freedom has truly triumphed, is the fact that here, in this Chamber, so long the stronghold of Slavery, our homage can be freely offered to one who so fearlessly opposed it.

There was something in our modest friend which seemed peculiarly adapted to private life. Had he not been a public man, he would have been, in his own rural neighborhood, at home, the good citizen, active and positive for human improvement, with an honored place in that list whose praise Clarkson pronounces so authoritatively. “I have had occasion,” says this philanthropist, “to know many thousand persons in the course of my travels, and I can truly say that the part which these took on this great question [of the Abolition of the Slave-Trade] was always a true criterion of their moral character.”[241] But he was not allowed to continue in retirement. His country had need of him, and he became a member of the Michigan Legislature and Speaker of its House, Representative in Congress, Governor, and then Senator of the United States. This distinguished career was stamped always with the plainness of his character. The Roman Cato was not more plain or determined. He came into public life when Compromise was the order of the day, but he never yielded to it. He was a member of the Democratic party, which was the declared tool of Slavery, but he never allowed Slavery to make a tool of him. All this should now be spoken in his honor. To omit it on this occasion would be to forget those titles by which hereafter he will be most gratefully remembered.

* * * * *

There were two important questions, while he was a member of the other House, on which his name is recorded for Freedom. The first was the famous proposition introduced by Mr. Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, for the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories. On this question he separated from his party, and courageously voted in the affirmative. Had his voice at that time prevailed, Slavery would have been checked, and the vast Conspiracy under which we now suffer would have received an early death-blow. The other question on which his record is so honorable was the Fugitive Slave Bill. There his name is found among the noes, in generous fellowship with Preston King among the living, and Horace Mann among the dead.

From that time forward his influence for Freedom was felt in his own State, and when, at a later day, he entered the Senate, he became known instantly as one of our surest and most faithful Senators, whose inflexible constancy was more eloquent than a speech. During all recent trials he never for one moment wavered. With the instincts of an honest statesman, he saw the situation, and accepted frankly and bravely the responsibilities of the hour. He set his face against concession in any degree and in every form. The time had come when Slavery was to be met, and he was ready. As the Rebellion assumed its warlike proportions, his perception of our duties was none the less clear. In his mind, Slavery was not only the origin, but vital part of the Rebellion, and therefore to be attacked. Slavery was also the mainspring of the belligerent power now arrayed against the Union,--therefore, in the name of the Union, to be destroyed. While valuing the military arm as essential, he saw that without courageous counsels it would be feeble. The function of the statesman is higher than that of general; and our departed Senator saw that on the counsels of the Government, even more than on its armies, rested the great responsibility of bringing this war to a speedy and triumphant close. Armies obey orders, but it is for the Government to organize and to inspire victory. All this he saw clearly; and he longed impatiently for that voice, herald of Union and Peace, which, in behalf of a violated Constitution, and in the exercise of a just self-defence, should change the present contest from a bloody folly into a sure stage of Human Improvement and an immortal landmark of Civilization.

Such a Senator can be ill spared at this hour. His cheerful confidence, his genuine courage, his practical instinct, his simple presence, would help the great events now preparing, nay, which are at hand. Happily he survives in noble example, and speaks even from the tomb. By all who have shared his counsels he will ever be truly remembered, while the State which trusted him so often in life, and the neighbors who knew him so well in his daily walks, will cherish his memory with affectionate pride. Marble and bronze are not needed. If not enough for glory, he has done too much to be forgotten; and hereafter, when our country is fully redeemed, his name will be inscribed in that faithful company, who, through good report and evil report, held fast to the truth.

“By fairy hands their knell is rung,
By forms unseen their dirge is sung;
There Honor comes, a pilgrim gray,
To bless the turf that wraps their clay,
And Freedom shall awhile repair,
To dwell, a weeping hermit, there.”[242]

THE LATE SENATOR BAKER, WITH CALL FOR EMANCIPATION.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE DEATH OF HON. EDWARD D. BAKER, LATE SENATOR OF OREGON, DECEMBER 11, 1861.

This occasion was remarkable for the presence of President
Lincoln, thus described in the _Congressional Globe_:--

“The President of the United States entered the Senate
Chamber, supported by Hon. Lyman Trumbull and Hon. O. H.
Browning, Senators from the State of Illinois; he was
introduced to the Vice-President, and took a seat beside
him on the daïs appropriated to the President of the
Senate. J. G. Nicolay, Esq., and John Hay, Esq., Private
Secretaries to the President of the United States, took
seats near the central entrance.”

MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senator to whom we now say farewell was generous in funeral homage to others. More than once he held great companies in rapt attention, while doing honor to the dead. Over the coffin of Broderick[243] he proclaimed the dying utterance of that early victim, and gave to it the fiery wings of his own eloquence: “They have killed me because I was opposed to the extension of Slavery, and a corrupt Administration”; and as the impassioned orator repeated these words, his own soul was knit in sympathy with the departed; and thus at once did he win to himself the friends of Freedom, though distant.

“Who would not sing for Lycidas? He knew
Himself to sing, and build the lofty rhyme.”

There are two forms of eminent talent which are kindred in effect, each producing instant impression, each holding crowds in suspense, and each kindling enthusiastic admiration: I mean the talent of the orator and the talent of the soldier. Each of these, when successful, gains immediate honor, and reads his praise in a nation’s eyes. Baker was orator and soldier. To him belongs the rare renown of this double character. Perhaps he carried into war something of the confidence inspired by the conscious sway of great multitudes, as he surely brought into speech something of the ardor of war. Call him, if you will, the Rupert of battle; he was also the Rupert of debate.

His success in life attests not only a remarkable genius, but the benign hospitality of our institutions. Born on a foreign soil, he was to our country only a step-son; but, were he now alive, I doubt not he would gratefully declare that the country was never to him an ungentle step-mother. Child of poverty, he was brought, while yet in tender years, to Philadelphia, where he began life an exile. His earliest days were passed at the loom rather than at school; and yet from this lowliness he achieved the highest posts of trust and honor, being at the same time Senator and General. It was the boast of Pericles, in his funeral oration, in the Ceramicus, over the dead who had fallen in battle, that the Athenians readily communicated to all the advantages which they themselves enjoyed, that they did not exclude the stranger from their walls, and that Athens was a city open to the Human Family.[244] The same boast may be repeated by us with better reason, as we commemorate our dead fallen in battle.

From Philadelphia the poor man’s son was carried to the West, where he grew with the growth of that surpassing region. He became one of its children; and his own manhood was closely associated with its powerful progress. The honors of the bar and of Congress were soon his; but impatient temper led him from these paths into the Mexican War, where he gallantly took the place of Shields--torn with wounds and almost dead--at Cerro Gordo. But the great West, beginning to teem with population, did not satisfy his ambition, and he repaired to California. With infancy rocked on the waves of the Atlantic, and manhood formed in the broad and open expanse of the Prairie, he now sought a home on the shores of the Pacific. There again his genius was promptly recognized. A new State, which had just taken its place in the Union, sent him as Senator; and Oregon first became truly known to us on this floor by his eloquent lips.[245]

In the Senate he took at once the part of orator. His voice was not full and sonorous, but sharp and clear. It was penetrating rather than commanding, and yet, when touched by his ardent nature, became sympathetic and even musical. Countenance, body, and gesture all shared the unconscious inspiration of his voice, and he went on, master of his audience, master also of himself. All his faculties were completely at command. Ideas, illustrations, words, seemed to come unbidden and range in harmonious forms,--as in the walls of ancient Thebes each stone took its proper place of its own accord, moved only by the music of a lyre. His fame as a speaker was so peculiar, even before he appeared among us, that it was sometimes supposed he might lack those solid powers without which the oratorical faculty itself exercises only a transient influence. But his speech on this floor in reply to a slaveholding conspirator, now an open rebel, showed that his matter was as good as his manner, and that, while master of fence, he was also master of ordnance. His oratory was graceful, sharp, and flashing, like a cimeter; but his argument was powerful and sweeping, like a battery.

You have not forgotten that speech. Perhaps the argument against the sophism of Secession was never better arranged and combined, or more simply popularized for general apprehension. A generation had passed since that traitorous absurdity, fit cover of conspiracy, was exposed. For a while it had shrunk into darkness, driven back by the massive logic of Daniel Webster and the honest sense of Andrew Jackson.

“The times have been,
That, when the brains were out, the man would die,
And there an end; but now they rise again.”

As the pretension showed itself anew, our orator undertook again to expose it. How thoroughly he did this, now with historic and now with forensic skill, while his whole effort was elevated by a charming, ever-ready eloquence, aroused to new power by the interruptions he encountered,--all this is present to your minds. That speech passed at once into general acceptance, while it gave its author an assured position in this body.

Another speech showed him in a different character. It was his instant reply to the Kentucky Senator,[246]--not then expelled from this body. The occasion was peculiar. A Senator, with treason in his heart, if not on his lips, had just sat down. Our lamented Senator, who had entered the Chamber direct from his camp, rose at once to reply. He began simply and calmly; but, as he proceeded, the fervid soul broke forth in words of surpassing power. On the former occasion he presented the well-ripened fruits of study; but now he spoke with the spontaneous utterance of his natural eloquence, meeting the polished traitor at every point with weapons keener and brighter than his own.

Not content with the brilliant opportunities of this Chamber, he accepted a commission in the Army, vaulting from the Senate to the saddle, as he had already leaped from Illinois to California. With a zeal that never tired, after recruiting men, drawn by the attraction of his name, in New York, Philadelphia, and elsewhere, he held his brigade in camp near the Capitol, so that he passed easily from one to the other, and thus alternated between the duties of Senator and of General.

His latter career was short, though shining. At a disastrous encounter near Ball’s Bluff, he fell, pierced by nine balls. That brain, once the seat and organ of subtile power, swaying assemblies, and giving to this child of obscurity place and command among his fellow-men, was now rudely shattered, and the bosom that throbbed so bravely was rent by numerous wounds. He died with his face to the foe,--and he died so instantly, that he passed without pain from the service of his country to the service of his God. It is sweet and becoming to die for country. Such a death, sudden, but not unprepared for, is the crown of the patriot soldier.

But the question is painfully asked, Who was author of this tragedy, now filling the Senate Chamber, as already it has filled the country, with mourning? There is a strong desire to hold somebody responsible, where so many perished so unprofitably. But we need not appoint committees, or study testimony, to know precisely who took this precious life. That great criminal is easily detected,--still erect and defiant, without concealment or disguise. The guns, the balls, and the men that fired them are of little importance. It is the power behind all, saying, “The State, it is I,” that took this precious life; and this power is Slavery. The nine balls that slew our departed brother came from Slavery. Every gaping wound of his slashed bosom testifies against Slavery. Every drop of his generous blood cries out from the ground against Slavery. The brain so rudely shattered has its own voice, and the tongue so suddenly silenced in death speaks now with more than living eloquence. To hold others responsible is to hold the dwarf agent and dismiss the giant principal. Nor shall we do great service, if, merely criticizing some local blunder, we leave untouched that fatal forbearance through which the weakness of the Rebellion is changed into strength, and the strength of our armies is changed into weakness.

May our grief to-day be no hollow pageant, nor expend itself in this funeral pomp! It must become a motive and impulse to patriot action. But patriotism itself, that commanding charity, embracing so many other charities, is only a name, and nothing else, unless we resolve, calmly, plainly, solemnly, that Slavery, the barbarous enemy of our country, the irreconcilable foe of our Union, the violator of our Constitution, the disturber of our peace, the vampire of our national life, sucking its best blood, the assassin of our children, and the murderer of our dead Senator, shall be struck down. And the way is easy. The just avenger is at hand, with weapon of celestial temper. Let it be drawn. Until this is done, the patriot, discerning clearly the secret of our weakness, can only say sorrowfully:--

“Bleed, bleed, poor country!
Great tyranny, lay thou thy basis sure,
For goodness dares not check thee!”[247]

APPENDIX.

The tributes to Bingham and Baker were accepted at the time as
more than eulogies. The protest against Slavery and the cry
for Emancipation were not lost. They were noticed extensively
by the press and by correspondents. The effect shows the
development of that sentiment before which Slavery was falling.
A Philadelphia newspaper, even while praising the eulogy on
Senator Baker, seemed to shrink from the demand with which it
concluded.

“The speech of Senator Sumner surpassed all others in
powerful effect, clear and manly style, and an undisguised
expression of opinion which all must respect, and which
but few can condemn at the present juncture. His learned
eloquence captivated the heart, even where it did not
convince the judgment.”

Another recorded the impressions of a correspondent.

“Mr. Sumner, in his splendid eulogy on Baker this morning,
uttered a stupendous thought, when, in commenting on the
unfortunate reconnoissance at Ball’s Bluff, he scoffed at
the idea of an investigating committee to ascertain where
the blame should justly be charged, and said that the
great criminal stood before the country and the world, and
that great criminal was Slavery. You will have his words
in print, and can judge of this point for yourselves. I
confess that it thrilled me like an electric shock.”

The _Antislavery Standard_, of New York, exulted that Slavery
was arraigned.

“To see men like Bright and Powell sit still, when Charles
Sumner charged Baker’s murder on Slavery, was worth at
least ten years of Antislavery privations. The Proslavery
interest in the Senate is quite respectful, and does not
indulge in the old-time bluster and parade.”

On the contrary, the “Editorial Correspondent” of the _New York
Express_, writing on the day of the eulogy on Baker, gave vent
to his sentiments with regard to Mr. Sumner.

“Even in the burial services of the dead he mingles his
sectional hate and personal wrath.

“Such a man will never consent to a peaceful reunion of
the States, nor to an equal representation of all the
States in the Federal Congress. He deeply wounds the
self-sacrificing, loyal Union men of the Border States and
Far South; in every breath he utters, and in every speech
he makes, he sets back upon the clock of advancing time
the hour-hand of Peace. His presence in the Senate Chamber
is a signal of protracted war, renewed sectional hate, and
offensive intermeddling.…

“If Massachusetts were to-day represented in the spirit of
her early Revolutionary men, or in the spirit in which so
many thousands of her sons have rushed to the defence of
the country, Mr. Sumner, as a long standing enemy of the
Constitution and the Union, would be sent back to Boston,
and there sandwiched between Slidell and Mason within the
casemates of Fort Warren. These three men are each old
acquaintances here, and each old enemies of the Government,
the Union, and the Constitution; and the only difference
between the extremes is, that the Senator from Boston
remains in council here to fight the Government, and men
and institutions belonging to it from its foundation, while
the others fled from its service to render more available
aid to those in arms against it.”

Hon. Edward G. Parker, author of “The Golden Age of American
Oratory” and “Reminiscences of Rufus Choate,” wrote from
Boston:--

“I thank you sincerely for a copy of your exquisite
panegyrics on Bingham and Baker. I often heard Baker,
and recognize at once the beautiful fidelity of your
description.

“The touch of Plutarch and of Addison--both, if you will
allow me to say so--are there.

“I had, before receiving this, cut out of the newspaper
your portrait of Baker, and put it in a choice book devoted
to great men and memorable thoughts.

“It is to me like a medallion of that _true_ man, who, in
so shining a manner, and yet so suddenly, ‘passed from the
service of his country to the service of his God.’

“Pardon what you may perhaps consider the superfluous
enthusiasm of this note; but it is written right away
upon reading these oratoric odes, and I feel a little of
the _lava_ struggling even in the attempt to acknowledge
receiving them.”

Hon. John Jay, afterwards Minister at Vienna, wrote from New
York:--

“They are not only eloquent tributes to the dead, but
powerful appeals to the living.”

Epes Sargent, the friend and writer, showed his sympathy in a
letter from Boston.

“Your remarks in the Senate on Senator Baker pleased me
so much that I could not forbear speaking my pleasure in
print. They are level with the theme and the time, and the
trumpet-note at the close is in just the right key. Oh, if
it were not for Kentucky, that neither hot nor cold State,
we might hope for a policy up to the height of this great
argument! ‘I would she were hot or cold.’

“Our Boston papers do not yet speak out, as I would like to
see them, on this question of proclaiming emancipation to
the slaves of Rebels. We need another disaster to carry us
forward a little further.”

William Lloyd Garrison declared himself with his accustomed
directness in a letter from Boston.

“Thanks for your eloquent eulogy upon the late Senator
Baker, (which I have published in the _Liberator_ this
week,) and its forcible application to Slavery as the
primary cause of his untimely death, as it is of all
our national woes. Be in no wise daunted, but rather
strengthened and stimulated, by the abusive clamors and
assaults following all your efforts, on the part of the
‘Satanic press,’ and unprincipled demagogues generally.
These are surer evidences of the wisdom, goodness, and
nobility of your cause than all the praises of your
numerous friends and admirers. You may confidently make
‘the safe appeal of truth to time,’ and rely upon a
universal verdict of approval at no distant day. To be in
the right is as surely to be allied to victory as that God
reigns. When there is howling in the pit, there is special
rejoicing in heaven.”

FOOTNOTES

[1]

“Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto.”

TERENT., _Heaut._ Act. I. Sc. i. 25.

[2] New England’s First Fruits: Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., Vol. I. p. 242.

[3] Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay, Vol. II. p. 6, June 14, 1642.

[4] Ibid., p. 203, November 11, 1647.

[5] Enquiries to the Governor of Virginia by the Lords Commissioners of Foreign Plantations, with the Governor’s Answers: Hening, Statutes at Large of Virginia, Vol. II. p. 517.

[6] Oldmixon, British Empire in America, 2d ed., Vol. I. p. 195.

[7] 4 Mass. R., 128, note; 16 Mass. R., 75; 10 Cushing, R., 410; 14 Allen, R., 562. See, _ante_, Vol. III. p. 384.

[8] New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Vol. VI. p. 156.

[9] A Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre in Boston, perpetrated in the Evening of the Fifth Day of March, 1770, by Soldiers of the XXIXth Regiment, to which is added an Appendix containing the several Depositions, etc., (Boston, 1770,) App., p. 56. Trial of William Wemms and others, Soldiers in his Majesty’s 29th Regiment of Foot, for the Murder of Crispus Attucks and others, (Boston, 1770,) pp. 110, 111.

[10] Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay, Vol. III. p. 268, May 27, 1652.

[11] Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, Vol. VIII. p. 187, August, 1643.

For most of the foregoing particulars, see also Palfrey’s History of New England, Vol. II. p. 30, note.

[12] Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay, Vol. III. p. 84, November 4, 1646.

[13] Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., 2d Ser., Vol. VIII. p. 184.

[14] Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, Vol. I. p. 138.

[15] Jackson’s History of Newton, p. 336. See, _ante_, Vol. II. pp. 289, 290.

[16] Wordsworth, Rob Roy’s Grave.

[17] Tom. II. p. 155.

[18] Collection of Papers on Political, Literary, and Moral Subjects, by Noah Webster, pp. 325, 326.

[19] Letter to Stephen White, February 27, 1820: Life and Letters of Joseph Story, by his Son, Vol. I. p. 362.

[20] See, _post_, p. 435, Remarks in the Senate, Dec. 10, 1860.

[21] _The Impending Crisis_, by H. R. Helper, containing a radical arraignment of Slavery, was recommended by Members of Congress.

[22] Leyden, Scenes of Infancy, Part III.: Poetical Remains, pp. 373, 374.

[23] Essays: Of Plantations.

[24] Commentaries, Vol. I. p. 49.

[25] Ibid., p. 160.

[26] Works, (Oxford, 1825,) Vol. VI. p. 234.

[27] _Ante_, p. 251.

[28] Letter to A. O. P. Nicholson, December 24, 1847.

[29] Oration at Quincy, pp. 13, 14.

[30] Ibid., p. 18.

[31] Oration at Newburyport, p. 24.

[32] Ibid., pp. 26, 27.

[33] Annals of Congress, 7th Cong. 2d Sess., 613, 1353. At a later day the tone of Mr. Randolph was different. See, _ante_, p. 298.

[34] Congressional Globe, 36th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 2073, May 11, 1860.

[35] Writings of Washington, ed. Sparks, Vol. VII., Appendix, p. 533.

[36] Speech at Chicago, July 10, 1858: Political Debates between Lincoln and Douglas, p. 20.

[37] See Odyssey, tr. Pope, Book XIII. 180, 181.

[38] Debates in the Federal Convention, August 25, 1787: Madison Papers, Vol. III. pp. 1429, 1430.

[39] In opening his lecture, Mr. Sumner, according to the newspaper reports, alluded to the new hall in which he spoke, called after the founder of Providence, as follows.--“In the honored name assumed for this most beautiful and spacious hall, you pledge yourselves that here Toleration shall prevail, and Liberty be a constant word. It was the gratulation of the Roman historian in the days of the good Emperors, that he could think what he pleased and speak what he thought. Should this privilege ever fail in your new hall, or anywhere within its influence, then must you forget the great example consecrated in the name of Roger Williams. With this privilege securely established, you may proudly point to a higher token of civilization than a column of the Roman Forum or a frieze of the Parthenon.”

[40] “Nullum numen abest, si sit Prudentia.”--JUVENAL, _Sat._ X. 365.

[41] Life of Washington, Appendix, pp. 510, 511: Writings, Vol. I., Appendix, pp. 552, 553.

[42] Vol. I. p. 652.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Ibid., p. 478.

[45] Sylva, ed. Hunter, (York, 1776,) p. 497.

[46] The Satyr: Works, ed. Gifford, (London, 1816,) Vol. VI. p. 468.

[47] Memoirs, Vol. II. p. 50.

[48] At the date of Mr. Sumner’s letter the extremists of Slavery in our country were known as “fire-eaters.”

[49] Memoirs, Vol. I. pp. 458, 483, 579.

[50] Introduction, p. 4, ed. Milman, London, 1839.

[51] The Republican Party, its Origin, Necessity, and Permanence: _Ante_, pp. 191-229.

[52] See, _post_, p. 420.

[53] Langhorne, The Country Justice, Part I. 161-164. See also Lockhart’s Life of Scott, Vol. I. ch. 5.

[54] Grahame, History of the United States, Book XI. ch. 5. Writings of Washington, ed. Sparks, Vol. V., Appendix, No. 1. Mémoires, Correspondance et Manuscrits du Général Lafayette, publiés par sa Famille, Tom. I. pp. 9, 10, note.

[55] Letter to J. Holroyd, Esq.: Miscellaneous Works, ed. Lord Sheffield, (London, 1814,) Vol. II. p. 197.

[56] Lettre au Duc d’Ayen, 9 Mars, 1777: Mémoires, Tom. I. p. 83.

[57] Ibid., p. 89.

[58] Letter of 17th July, 1777: Mémoires, Tom. I. p. 98.

[59] Ibid., p. 16, note.

[60] Mémoires, Tom. I. p. 21.

[61] Letter of January 4, 1782: Writings, ed. Sparks, Vol. VII. p. 225.

[62] Letter of December 8, 1784: Ibid., Vol. IX. p. 78. See also Mémoires, Tom. I. p. 62, note.

[63] Letter of 6th November, 1777: Mémoires, Tom. I. p. 119. See also p. 133.

[64] Mémoires, Tom. I. p. 78.

[65] Mémoires, Tom. I. pp. 240-243. Washington’s Writings, ed. Sparks, Vol. VI., Appendix, pp. 503, 504.

[66] Mémoires, Tom. I. pp. 61, 62. According to his Memoirs, the Madeira wine of Boston completed his restoration. “Malgré sa faiblesse extrême, M. de Lafayette, accompagné du docteur, alla sur ses chevaux à Boston, où le vin de Madère acheva de le rétablir.” Ibid., p. 63.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Ibid., p. 65.

[69] Lettre à Madame de Lafayette, 5 Août, 1799: Mémoires, Tom. V. p. 71.

[70] Mémoires, Tom. I. p. 259.

[71] Ibid., p. 261, note.

[72] Rives’s Life and Times of James Madison, Vol. I. p. 294, note.

[73] Letter to Judge Pendleton, November 13, 1781: Ibid., p. 289, note.

[74] Rives’s Life and Times of James Madison, Vol. I. pp. 289, 290, note.

[75] Ibid. An American citizen, who, after enjoying the honors of the nation as Senator and as Minister to France, could become a Proslavery Rebel, was incompetent to sit in judgment on Lafayette. In declaring “the comparative nullity” of his career at home, “contrasted with the unquestionable splendor of his American services and deeds,” he writes as a Slave-Master, whose standard of merit excludes what is done for Liberty and Equality.

[76] Mémoires, Tom. II. p. 4.

[77] Mémoires, Tom. II. p. 58.

[78] Correspondence of the American Revolution: Letters to Washington, ed. Sparks, Vol. III. p. 547. Mémoires, Tom. II. p. 58.

[79] Letter to Alexander Hamilton, Boston, October 22, 1784: Hamilton’s Works, edited by his Son, Vol. I. p. 422.

[80] Mémoires, Tom. II. p. 8. Madison, writing to Jefferson, under date of October 17, 1784, says: “The time I have lately passed with the Marquis has given me a pretty thorough insight into his character. With great natural frankness of temper he unites much address and very considerable talents. In his politics, he says his three hobby-horses are the alliance between France and the United States, the union of the latter, and the manumission of the slaves.” (Madison’s Letters and other Writings, Vol. I. p. 106.) Call these hobby-horses! They were three practical policies, having their foundation in everlasting principles. How many of our own statesmen saw as wisely?

[81] Journal of Congress, Vol. X. p. 20: December 13, 1784. Mémoires, Tom. II. p. 106.

[82] Letter of December 21, 1784: Correspondence of the Revolution, ed. Sparks, Vol. IV. pp. 87, 89; Mémoires, Tom. II. pp. 111, 113.

[83] Letter to Washington, October 26, 1786: Correspondence of the Revolution, ed. Sparks, Vol. IV. p. 144; Mémoires, Tom. II. p. 157.

[84] Mémoires, Tom. II. p. 131.

[85] Correspondence of Charles, First Marquis Cornwallis, ed. Ross, Vol. I. p. 205.

[86] Letter of 5th April, 1783: Writings, ed. Sparks, Vol. VIII. p. 414; Mémoires, Tom. II. p. 74.

[87] Mémoires, Tom. II. pp. 9, 139; Tom. III. p. 72.

[88] Letter of 10th May, 1786: Writings, ed. Sparks, Vol. IX. p. 163.

[89] Works of John Adams, Vol. VIII. p. 376.

[90] Hamilton’s Works, edited by his Son, Vol. I. pp. 423, 424.

[91] Lady Morgan’s France, Vol. I. p. 71. Ticknor’s Outlines of the Life of Lafayette, p. 19. Mémoires, Tom. II. p. 177.

[92] Mémoires, Tom. II. p. 252.

[93] Mémoires, Tom. II. p. 251.

[94] Speech in the National Assembly, February 20, 1790: Mémoires, Tom. II. p. 383.

[95] Mémoires, Tom. III. p. 71, note. Clarkson, History of the Abolition of the African Slave-Trade, (Philadelphia, 1808,) Vol. II. pp. 106, 107.

[96] Mémoires, Tom. IV. pp. 221, 230, 231.

[97] Mémoires, Tom. IV. p. 288.

[98] Ibid., pp. 237, 238.

[99] Ibid., p. 242.

[100] Mémoires, Tom. III. p. 412; Tom. IV. p. 229.

[101] Lettre à Madame d’Hénin, Magdebourg, 13 Mars, 1793: Mémoires, Tom. IV. p. 224; Sparks’s Life of Gouverneur Morris, Vol. I. p. 410; Washington’s Writings, ed. Sparks, Vol. IX. p. 163, note.

[102] Mémoires, Tom. III. pp. 72 and 401, note.

[103] Speech of Gen. Fitzpatrick in the House of Commons, December 16, 1796: Hansard’s Parliamentary History, Vol. XXXII. col. 1353.

[104] “M. de la Fayette est de ces hommes que nous devons aimer, et lors de sa captivité je me présentai à l’Empereur pour réclamer sa liberté, que je n’ai pas eu le bonheur d’obtenir.” This is the report, by Joseph Bonaparte, of the conversation of Lord Cornwallis at the dinner-table of the former, in 1802.--_Mémoires du Roi Joseph_, Tom. I. pp. 86, 87.

[105] In this effort Washington responded to the appeal of Madame de Lafayette by letter to himself. “In this abyss of misery,” she wrote, “the idea of owing to the United States and to Washington the life and liberty of M. de Lafayette kindles a ray of hope in my heart. I hope everything from the goodness of the people with whom he has set an example of that Liberty of which he is now made the victim.”--_Letter of October 8, 1792_: Washington’s Writings, ed. Sparks, Vol. X. p. 316, note.

[106] Exhibiting this chivalrous incident, Mr. Sumner had in mind our fugitive slaves and the generous souls who did not shrink from helping them.

[107] Letter to the Marchioness de Lafayette, January 31, 1793: Writings, ed. Sparks, Vol. X. p. 315.

[108] Letter dated Lemkuhlen, 27 Janvier, 1798: Mémoires, Tom. IV. p. 403.

[109] Letter of 20th April, 1798: Ibid., p. 432.

[110] Ibid., Tom. V. p. 71.

[111] Mémoires, Tom. V. p. 198.

[112] May 20, 1802. Ibid., pp. 199, 200.

[113] Mémoires, Tom. V. pp. 257, 258, 261.

[114] Letter to Mr. Madison, 22d April, 1805, MS.

[115] Biographie Universelle (Michaud), Supplément, Tom. LXIX. p. 382, art. LAFAYETTE.

[116] Speech in the Chamber of Deputies, June 4, 1819: Mémoires, Tom. VI. pp. 50, 51.

[117] Speech in the Chamber of Deputies, May 27, 1820: Ibid., p. 83.

[118] Speech in the Chamber of Deputies, July 9, 1829: Mémoires, Tom. VI. p. 313. Biographie Universelle (Michaud), Supplément, Tom. LXIX. p. 388, art. LAFAYETTE.

[119] Mémoires, Tom. VI. pp. 185, 220. There is also a correspondence with Colonel Seaton, of the _National Intelligencer_, on this interesting subject. A letter to the latter, dated January 1, 1827, has seen the light since this address, where, alluding to the District of Columbia, Lafayette says: “The state of Slavery, especially in that emporium of foreign visitors and European ministers, is a most lamentable drawback on the example of independence and freedom presented to the world by the United States.”--_William Winston Seaton, a Biographical Sketch_, p. 267.

[120] Mrs. Jameson’s Sacred and Legendary Art, pp. 424-427.

[121] Ordre du Jour du 29 Juillet, 1830: Mémoires, Tom. VI. p. 391.

[122] Ordre du Jour du 19 Décembre, 1830: Mémoires, Tom. VI. p. 491.

[123] Lettre à Thomas Clarkson, 11 Mai, 1823: Ibid., p. 159.

[124] Mémoires, Tom. VI. p. 222.

[125] Ibid., p. 754, note.

[126] Lettre à M. Murray, Président de la Société d’Émancipation des Noirs, à Glasgow, 1 Mai, 1834: Mémoires, Tom. VI. p. 763, note.

[127] Funeral Oration over the first who fell in the Peloponnesian War: Thucydides, Hist., Book II. c. 43.