Chapter VI: Part 6

“_Resolved_, That the provisions of the Constitution are
ample for the preservation of the Union and the protection
of all the material interests of the country; that it needs
to be obeyed rather than amended; and that an extrication
from the present dangers is to be looked for in strenuous
efforts to preserve the peace, protect the public property,
and enforce the laws, rather than in new guaranties
for particular interests, compromises for particular
difficulties, or concessions to unreasonable demands.

“_Resolved_, That all attempts to dissolve the present
Union, or overthrow or abandon the present Constitution,
with the hope or expectation of constructing a new one, are
dangerous, illusory, and destructive; that in the opinion
of the Senate of the United States no such reconstruction
is practicable; and therefore to the maintenance of the
existing Union and Constitution should be directed all the
energies of all the departments of the Government, and the
efforts of all good citizens.”

January 16, the question being taken by yeas and nays, on the
motion to substitute, resulted, yeas 25, nays 23, as follows.

_Yeas_,--Messrs. Anthony, Baker, Bingham, Cameron,
Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Durkee,
Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hall, Harlan, King,
Seward, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade,
Wilkinson, Wilson,--25.

_Nays_,--Messrs. Bayard, Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Clingman,
Crittenden, Fitch, Green, Gwin, Hunter, Johnson of
Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Latham, Mason, Nicholson, Pearce,
Polk, Powell, Pugh, Rice, Saulsbury, Sebastian,--23.

So the amendment was agreed to, and the proposition of Mr.
Clark was substituted for that of Mr. Crittenden.

This important result, by which the Crittenden Compromise
received a heavy blow, was a surprise, brought about by
the Senators of the Gulf States,--Iverson of Georgia, Clay
and Fitzpatrick of Alabama, Brown and Jefferson Davis of
Mississippi, Benjamin and Slidell of Louisiana, Mallory and
Yulee of Florida, Hemphill and Wigfall of Texas, and Johnson of
Arkansas,--who were in attendance, but withheld their votes.
The two Senators of South Carolina, Hammond and Chesnut, also
Toombs of Georgia, had not appeared in their seats during the
session. Three of these Senators voting against the substitute,
it could not have been carried, and the original propositions
would have been still before the Senate. The adoption of the
substitute was used by them to inflame their constituents.
Their conduct on this occasion showed a “foregone conclusion.”
Nothing but Disunion would satisfy them,--not even the
Crittenden Compromise, so full of surrender.

Then ensued a comedy. Immediately after the adoption of the
substitute, a reconsideration of the vote was moved by Mr.
Cameron, of Pennsylvania, at the request of Mr. Crittenden,
which on a subsequent day was carried. The question was then
allowed to sleep on the table, until, unexpectedly, on the last
legislative day of the session, just before the expiration
of the Congress, and after the withdrawal of the Southern
Senators, it was called up by Mr. Mason, of Virginia, when
Mr. Clark again offered his substitute, which was lost by a
vote of 22 nays against 14 yeas, several Senators expressing a
desire to vote directly on the original propositions. On these
propositions the final vote stood, yeas 19, nays 20, as follows.

_Yeas_,--Messrs. Bayard, Bigler, Bright, Crittenden,
Douglas, Gwin, Hunter, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane,
Latham, Mason, Nicholson, Polk, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian,
Thomson, Wigfall,--19.

_Nays_,--Messrs. Anthony, Bingham, Chandler, Clark, Dixon,
Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Harlan,
King, Morrill, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson,
Wilson,--20.

So the joint resolution of Mr. Crittenden, with its various
propositions, was rejected. The final withdrawal of the
Senators from seceding States obviously aided this result.

As the session was coming to a close, a joint resolution was
received from the House of Representatives proposing yet
another amendment to the Constitution, as follows.

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will
authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or
interfere within any State with the domestic institutions
thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service
by the laws of said State.”

Bills and joint resolutions must be read on three several
days; but on ordinary occasions they receive their first and
second readings the same day. Mr. Sumner, unwilling that this
other attempt should be hurried through the Senate, objected
to the second reading on the first day, and the next day had
a question with Mr. Douglas on the correction of the Journal,
which failed to record his objection. On his motion the Journal
was corrected.[132] The Senate then suspended the rule
requiring the three readings of a Constitutional amendment on
three separate days, and proceeded to the consideration of the
proposed amendment. Mr. Pugh, of Ohio, spoke lightly of its
composition, saying:--

“I think it was De Quincey who said, that, next to the duty
which a man owes God and his country and his family, it was
his duty to preserve the purity of his mother tongue. The
Constitution of the United States is written in excellent
English; but if this amendment be expressed in the English
language, or by any rule of grammar, I do not understand
it.”

Mr. Crittenden replied, that he could “bear with bad English,
when it expressed a good thing.”

The vote on its passage was 24 yeas to 12 nays, as follows.

_Yeas_,--Messrs. Anthony, Baker, Bigler, Bright,
Crittenden, Dixon, Douglas, Foster, Grimes, Gwin, Harlan,
Hunter, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Latham, Mason,
Morrill, Nicholson, Polk, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian, Ten Eyck,
Thomson,--24.

_Nays_,--Messrs. Bingham, Chandler, Clark, Doolittle,
Durkee, Foot, King, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson,
Wilson,--12.

Two thirds of the Senate present voting for the joint
resolution, it was agreed to. The proposed amendment to the
Constitution was never adopted by the States. It remains in the
national archives, a singular instance of bad composition, and
the monument of a fruitless effort.

This final attempt to appease the spirit of Rebellion was on
the last legislative day of the session. The 3d of March being
Sunday, the Senate, without adjourning, took a recess from
Saturday evening till Sunday evening at seven o’clock, thus
making the 2d of March the concluding day of that Congress,
which was prolonged till noon of March 4th. During the sitting
of Sunday, from seven o’clock in the evening till midnight,
Mr. Sumner, who had never been in the habit of pairing, was
induced to pair with Mr. Polk, of Missouri, who was unwilling
to transact business on Sunday. His scruples did not prevent
him from joining the Rebellion, for which he was subsequently
expelled from the Senate on Mr. Sumner’s motion.

* * * * *

The Crittenden Compromise attracted attention not only in
Congress, but throughout the country.

Meanwhile a Boston committee arrived at Washington, composed
of leading citizens, with Hon. Edward Everett as chairman, to
urge an adjustment by mutual surrender. Mr. Everett called upon
Mr. Sumner at his lodgings, and with much emotion urged him
to bring forward some conciliatory proposition, saying, “You
are the only person who can introduce such a proposition with
chance of success.” Mr. Sumner replied: “You are mistaken in
supposing that I might have success with compromise, if I could
bring it forward. If I am strong with the North, it is because
of the conviction that I cannot compromise; but the moment I
compromised, I, too, should be lost.”

All in Massachusetts were not like this committee. The tone
of many was expressed by a venerable citizen, and an able
writer, connected with the press during a long life, Joseph T.
Buckingham, who closed a firm and courageous letter, under date
of January 11, 1861, with the words,--

“God bless _you_, and _all_ who keep a stiff backbone! For
those who yield, I care not what becomes of them.”

On the 19th of January, 1861, the General Assembly of Virginia
adopted a series of resolutions, proposing a Convention
of States at Washington, February 4, 1861, to attempt an
adjustment of the pending difficulties, and recommending the
propositions of Mr. Crittenden reinforced. The action of the
Virginia Assembly was communicated to the Senate by message of
President Buchanan, January 28th. Mr. Sumner, being against all
compromise, could not regard with favor any attempt in that
direction. A misrepresentation of his position was corrected by
the following telegram in Northern papers.

“WASHINGTON, January 30, 1861.

“The report, that Senator Sumner has approved the objects
of the Convention which is to assemble here at the call of
Virginia, is a mistake. Mr. Sumner regards that call as
part of the treasonable conspiracy against the National
Government, and does not see how Northern men can have
anything to do with it, unless they are ready in some way
to play into the hands of the traitors.

“Mr. Sumner has always held that any change by the North
from its attitude of firmness and repose can have no other
effect than the encouragement of treason.”

A telegraphic correspondence further shows his position.

“BOSTON, January 31, 1861.

“HON. CHARLES SUMNER:--

“Do you favor sending Commissioners to Washington 4th
February?

“GEORGE L. STEARNS.”

“WASHINGTON, January 31, 1861.

“GEORGE L. STEARNS, Esq., Boston:--

“I am against sending Commissioners to treat for the
surrender of the North. Stand firm.

“CHARLES SUMNER.”

Alone of the Massachusetts delegation Mr. Sumner declined to
unite with his colleagues in recommending to the Governor
the appointment of Commissioners. This isolation was the
occasion of a report which is mentioned in a letter of S. M.
Booth, written, under date of February 2d, from his prison at
Milwaukee, where he was suffering for aiding a fugitive slave.

“The telegraph assigns you the enviable position of
standing ‘solitary and alone’ among the Massachusetts
representatives, as inflexibly opposed to compromise with
rebels for the benefit of Slavery. I cannot believe you
are so entirely forsaken, yet I greatly fear the country
is to be dishonored and the Republican party dissolved.…
Rest assured that the masses of the Republican party do
not sympathize with the Compromisers of the Republican
party, nor appreciate that statesmanship which consists
in yielding vital principles to the demands of the Slave
Power. The ‘Barbarism of Slavery’ is now demonstrated
before ‘all Israel and the sun.’ I see little good to
come from the election of Lincoln, if the platform of the
opposing candidates is to be adopted by the Republican
leaders. Indeed, it were far better that Slavery should
triumph under the rule of Douglas or Breckinridge than
under the rule of Lincoln.”

So Mr. Sumner thought, and he acted accordingly. His
correspondence with Governor Andrew at this time was constant
and earnest. The latter was resolute against Compromise. In a
letter of January 20th, the Governor wrote:--

“From war, pestilence, and famine, from all assaults of
the world, the flesh, and the Devil, good Lord, deliver
us,--but most especially from any compromise with traitors,
or any bargain with Slavery!”

Under date of January 30th, the Governor wrote:--

“I think we had better be present by good men in
the Conference, if there is to be one, than to be
misrepresented by volunteers, or be wholly outside,
unheard, and misinformed of the plans and doings
inside. Our Committee on Federal Relations will report
good resolutions, I think, which will leave us free of
complicity with the heresy of the Virginia resolutions, and
secure the dignity and fairness of our position.”

Another letter from Massachusetts said, that, if Massachusetts
did not send representatives, “the Boston Hunkers would send a
delegation, which would not be desirable.”

The Commissioners appointed by the Governor were, John Z.
Goodrich, Charles Allen, George S. Boutwell, Francis B.
Crowninshield, Theophilus P. Chandler, John M. Forbes, and
Richard P. Waters,--all firm against any new concession to
Slavery.

Against their influence and votes, the Convention, known as the
“Peace Congress,” presented a series of propositions similar
in character and surrender to those of Mr. Crittenden, sharing
also a similar fate.

During these various efforts, President Buchanan was earnest
for the Crittenden Compromise. An interview of Mr. Sumner with
him, reported in the Northern papers, shows his desire for this
terrible concession.

“WASHINGTON, February 4.

“Much interest is manifested in the interview between
President Buchanan and Senator Sumner. Mr. Sumner visited
the President, at the request of Governor Andrew, to learn
his answer to the Massachusetts offer of military aid; that
done, Mr. Sumner said,--

“What else can Massachusetts do for the good of the country?

“Mr. BUCHANAN. A great deal. No State more.

“Mr. SUMNER. I should like to know what.

“Mr. BUCHANAN (after a pause). Adopt the Crittenden
propositions.

“Mr. SUMNER. Is that necessary?

“Mr. BUCHANAN. It is.

“Mr. SUMNER. Massachusetts has not acted directly on these
propositions, which seek to give Slavery Constitutional
protection in Territories, and disfranchise large numbers
of her citizens; but I believe such are the convictions of
the Massachusetts people that they would never consent to
any such thing.

“Mr. Sumner repeated his assurance in the strongest
language.

“The President said he felt discouraged by the reply.

“Mr. Sumner spoke of the common ground where all who truly
loved the country could stand. It was the Constitution as
administered by Washington. The verdict of the people last
November should be recognized without price or condition.

“The President said he and Mr. Sumner must differ
politically.

“Mr. Sumner assured the President that the people of
Massachusetts were attached to the Union; that real
disunionists there might all be put in an omnibus; but
Massachusetts could not be brought to sacrifice or abandon
her principles, and in that he sincerely joined.”

This interview was described by Mr. Sumner in one of his
familiar letters to Governor Andrew, which is copied from the
private files of the latter.

WASHINGTON, February 3, 1861.

MY DEAR ANDREW,--I saw the President yesterday. He was
astonished to learn that the resolutions had not been
acknowledged, and said that it should be done.

Afterwards I said to him, “Mr. President, what else can
we do in Massachusetts for the good of the country?” A
pause. “Much, Mr. Sumner.” “What?” said I. “Adopt the
Crittenden propositions,” said he. “Is that necessary?”
said I. “Yes,” said he. To which I replied, “Massachusetts
has not yet spoken directly; but I feel authorized to say,
that, such are the unalterable convictions of her people,
they would see their State sunk below the sea, and turned
into a sand-bank, before they would adopt propositions
acknowledging _property in men_, and disfranchising a
portion of her population.” I think I was right.

In God’s name stand firm! _Don’t cave_, Andrew! God bless
you!

CHARLES SUMNER.

Save Massachusetts from any “surrender,” THE LEAST!

C. S.

The latter part of the letter alluded to reports that the
Legislature was disposed to repeal or modify the well-known
laws for the protection of Personal Liberty, passed originally
as a defence against the Fugitive Slave Bill. Compromisers
urged this surrender, particularly after the special call
in the Crittenden propositions. At the request of anxious
citizens at home, Mr. Sumner wrote to members of the
Legislature against any such sacrifice, insisting, that, with
the manifest determination of the South, it could do no good,
while plainly the laws should be maintained for the sake of
Liberty. His views were briefly expressed in a private letter
to Hon. William Claflin, Chairman of the Republican State
Committee, and President of the Massachusetts Senate.

[_Private._] WASHINGTON, January 1, 1860.

MY DEAR CLAFLIN,--Massachusetts has now an important post.
Her most difficult duty is to be true to herself and her
own noble history. In the name of Liberty, I supplicate you
not to let her take any backward step,--_not an inch, not a
hair’s breadth_.

It is now too late for any fancied advantage from such
conduct. The crisis is too far advanced. It only remains
that she do nothing by which Liberty suffers, or her
principles are recanted.

Remember well, that not a word from our Legislature can
have the least influence in averting the impending result.
What the case requires is firmness which nothing can shake.

Let the timid cry, but let Massachusetts stand stiff. God
bless her!

We are on the eve of great events, and this month will try
men’s souls. But our duty is clear as noonday, and bright
as the sun.

Ever yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

In a letter dated January 15, Governor Andrew suggested a
communication from the Massachusetts delegation, “that it is
not important or desirable that we should repeal the Personal
Liberty Laws.” February 17th, he announces, with something
of exultation, the unanimous report of the Committee of the
Legislature in harmony with his ideas.

“I had no original expectation of getting such a result;
but I told some persons that they could not get anything
_through this room_ [the Council Chamber] not conformable
to certain principles, and which did not contain certain
details, unless they marched it through by dragoons.”

A letter from Hon. D. W. Alvord, written from Greenfield,
Massachusetts, refers to the action of Mr. Sumner.

“Those who believe that it is the first duty of a State
to protect its citizens from oppression, as much when the
oppression is threatened by the General Government as
when it comes from any other quarter, owe you especial
thanks. Your influence has saved the ‘Personal Liberty
Laws’ of this State from essential change. Such change
would have been strenuously resisted by many true men in
the Legislature, even had your advice been different; but
your letters, shown about among members, and the knowledge
spread through the Legislature that you advised against
repeal or essential modification, stiffened many weak
backs, and rendered any great change impossible.”

Thus at home, in the Legislature, as well as in Congress,
people were busy to find some form of surrender inconsistent
with those principles which had triumphed at the Presidential
election. Mr. Sumner was positive against any surrender
anywhere. A letter to Count Gurowski, in New York, which has
seen the light since his death, is a contemporary record.

WASHINGTON, January 8, 1861.

MY DEAR COUNT,--Sunday evening I had a visit from Thurlow
Weed and Seward. The former said that he found himself
“alone,”--nobody united with him. I rejoiced. ---- and ----
are here from New York for the same object. They urge that
we cannot have a united North, unless we make an effort for
adjustment; to which I reply: “We have the verdict of the
people last November: that is enough.”

But these compromisers do not comprehend the glory of a
principle. _Périssent les colonies plutôt qu’un principe!_
That exclamation exalts a period which has many things to
be deplored.

The Slave States are mad. They will all move. Nothing
now but abject humiliation on the part of the North can
stay them. Nobody can foresee precisely all that is in
the future, but I do not doubt that any conflict will
precipitate the doom of Slavery. It will probably go down
in blood.…

Ever yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

During these efforts at compromise, the conspirators proceeded
in their work. South Carolina took the lead, adopted an
Ordinance of Secession December 20, 1860, and shortly
thereafter raised the Palmetto flag over the custom-house
and post-office at Charleston. Mississippi followed, January
9, 1861; Florida, January 10; Alabama, January 11; Georgia,
January 19; and Louisiana, January 26. January 21st the
Senators of seceding States withdrew from the Senate. Texas
was not declared out of the Union until March 4th, when her
Senators withdrew.

Another event will properly close this sketch. At the end of
December, 1860, Commissioners from South Carolina arrived at
Washington, in order to obtain the complete withdrawal of the
national troops. Major Anderson, by a sudden movement, had
transferred his command from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter,
which was much easier to hold. Fort Moultrie and Castle
Pinckney were at once occupied by the Rebels. The country was
aroused, and insisted that Fort Sumter should not be abandoned.
It was held, until, after a bombardment of thirty-four hours,
it yielded, April 13, 1861.

ANXIETIES AND PROSPECTS DURING THE WINTER.

LETTERS TO JOHN A. ANDREW, GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS, JANUARY 17 TO FEBRUARY 20, 1861.

The following letters to Governor Andrew were obviously written
in the intimacy of personal friendship and under the spur of
public duty. The constant appeals for firmness at home found
sympathetic response in one who was himself always firm, and
they helped him with others. A letter to Mr. Sumner, dated
January 28th, shows his appreciation of the correspondence.

“I have had great satisfaction in your constant remembrance of
me by letters, documents, &c. I bear always in my mind and on
my heart the honor of the ‘Old Bay State,’ and the claims of
our holy cause of Liberty upon my devotion and efforts. May
God help us all to be faithful!… I feel much support in your
letters.”

SENATE CHAMBER, January 17, 1861.

MY DEAR ANDREW,--Your timely suggestion with regard to Treasury
notes I have referred to Mr. Sherman in the House, where any
measure founded upon it must originate.

I have letters constantly from New York as well as Massachusetts,
expressing great solicitude with regard to the safety of the
capital. I am satisfied, that, had the President persevered in
his original policy of surrender and treason, we should have
been driven away before the 1st of February. Others with whom I
converse do not doubt this. But General Scott has applied his
best energies to measures of defence. He is satisfied that the
traitors cannot succeed here, whatever they may do elsewhere. He
has force enough on hand to hold the capital for hours against
any attack which can be expected, and within that time he can
have fifty thousand men from the North. A law maxim says, _Cuique
in sua arte credendum est._ Should he be mistaken, his military
reputation will suffer terribly.

You see as well as I, that any military assistance must be
invited by the Government. A march of troops on our side would be
a “first move” towards hostilities. Our safety must depend upon
the watchfulness of the Government. But I agree with Mr. Stearns,
that it would be useful to have some faithful men here who would
make it a business to ascertain the plans and purposes of the
enemy.

Mr. Burleigh, a Republican of John Covode’s district, has
recently made an excursion into Maryland, where, passing himself
as a speculator in negroes, he thinks he got into secrets. He
reports a combination of ten thousand men to seize the capital,
and also another conspiracy to assassinate Mr. Lincoln in
Maryland, on his way to Washington.

Our friends are all tranquil, except so far as disturbed by
Seward’s speech. If his propositions were pressed, I think they
would split the party. I regret very much that he made them, and
I protested most earnestly against them. He read me his speech
four days in advance of its delivery. I pleaded with him, for
the sake of the cause, the country, and his own good name, to
abandon all his propositions, and simply to declare that Mr.
Lincoln would be inaugurated on the 4th of March President of the
United States, and rally the country to his support. I do not
think we should allow this opportunity to pass without trying
the question, whether a single State can break up the Union. What
is it worth, if held by any such tenure? I have no concession or
compromise of any kind to propose or favor; least of all can I
become party to any proposition which sanctions Slavery directly
or indirectly. I deplore everything of this kind, however
plausible, as demoralizing to the country.

Pray keep Massachusetts sound and _firm_--FIRM--FIRM--against
every word or step of concession. God bless you!

Ever and ever yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

* * * * *

SENATE CHAMBER, January 18, 1861.

MY DEAR ANDREW,--I think that our friends are coming to the
conclusion, that we can offer no terms of concession or
compromise, in order to please the Border States. The question
must be met on the Constitution _as it is_ and the facts _as they
are_, or we shall hereafter hold our Government subject to this
asserted right of secession. Should we yield now,--and any offer
is concession,--every Presidential election will be conducted
with menace of secession by the defeated party.

There is a disposition to _stand firm_ together.…

Ever yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

* * * * *

SENATE CHAMBER, January 21, 1861.

MY DEAR ANDREW,--Pray keep our beloved Commonwealth firm; yet
a little longer and the crisis will be passed. Save her from
surrender. Nothing she can do will stay secession. IMPOSSIBLE.
Let her not write a shameful page in the history of Human
Freedom. I feel strongly for her fame, her good name, her
character, her example. In the future let it be said that
Massachusetts did not waver in the cause for which she has done
so much.

How easy it would be for me to give my life rather than have her
take a single backward step!

God bless you!

Ever yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

There is tranquillity now with regard to the capital. General
Scott feels safe, and others feel safe under his wing. Virginia,
it is said, will surely go.

* * * * *

SENATE CHAMBER, January 23, 1861.

MY DEAR ANDREW,--You have doubtless received my telegram. I found
General Scott with the Secretary of War, and read the letter you
inclosed. They said at once that no such guns had been ordered by
the National Government, and General Scott added that they were,
without doubt, intended for Fort Sumter. He said they were “very
formidable.” He thought they were “already in a state of great
forwardness.” Of course you will see that Massachusetts does not
“imp the wings” of Treason.

Yesterday, before receiving your letter, I passed an hour and a
half with General Scott. He is not without solicitude in regard
to the capital. Information received yesterday confirms the idea
that there is a wide-spread conspiracy. He will have one thousand
men here,--three companies of flying artillery, two companies of
infantry, and five companies from Fortress Monroe. The place of
the latter at Fortress Monroe will be supplied by recruits from
New York.

He cannot ride on horseback, but he proposes to accompany Mr.
Lincoln on the 4th of March in a carriage with Commodore Stewart,
each in his uniform.

Nothing that Massachusetts can do now can arrest one single
State. There can be no other result except our own humiliation,
and a bad example, which will be felt by all other States. If
Massachusetts yields one hair’s breadth, other States may yield
an inch or foot, a furlong, or a mile. Pray keep the Legislature
firm. Don’t let them undo anything ever done for Freedom.

Good bye.

Ever yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

* * * * *

SENATE CHAMBER, January 24, 1861.

MY DEAR ANDREW,--I have a suggestion to make which is in harmony
with one of your recent letters.

Mr. Dix,[133] in his letter of 18th January, on the present
resources of the country, says: “Before closing this
communication, I wish to call your attention to the fact that
there are deposited with twenty of the States, for safe-keeping,
over $28,000,000 _belonging to the United States_, for the
repayment of which the faith of these States is pledged by
written instructions on file in this department.”

Of course this money might be reclaimed; but the Secretary does
not propose to do so. These liabilities may be made a basis of
credit, if the States will volunteer to indorse or guaranty
the Treasury notes of the Government to the extent of their
respective liabilities.

I wish to suggest that our Legislature should at once volunteer
this aid to the General Government. Without some assistance Mr.
Lincoln will find the Treasury empty. Beyond this consideration,
you will appreciate the influence of such an act of loyalty at
this peculiar moment.

Mr. Seward writes to-day to the Governor of New York, and makes
the same suggestion. Other Senators will do the same. General
Wilson unites with me.

Ever yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

Wilson says he should like to see our State do this promptly.

* * * * *

WASHINGTON, January 26, 1861.

MY DEAR ANDREW,--Yesterday I was with the Attorney-General,[134]
an able, experienced, Northern Democratic lawyer, with the
instincts of our profession on the relation of cause and effect.
He drew me into his room, but there were clerks there; opening
the door into another room, there were clerks there, too; and
then traversing five different rooms, he found them all occupied
by clerks; when, opening the door into the entry, he told me
he was “surrounded by Secessionists,” who would report in an
hour to the newspapers any interview between us,--that he must
see me at some other time and place,--that everything was bad
as could be,--that Virginia would certainly secede,--that the
conspiracy there was the most wide-spread and perfect,--that
all efforts to arrest it by offers of compromise, or by the
circulation of Clemens’s speech, were no more than that (snapping
his fingers),--that Kentucky would surely follow, and Maryland,
too. “Stop, Mr. Attorney,” said I, “not so fast. I agree with you
to this point,--Maryland would go, except for the complication
of the National Capital, which the North will hold, and also the
road to it.”

Of course you will keep Massachusetts out of all these schemes.
If you notice the proposition for a commission, say that it is
summoned to make conditions which contemplate nothing less than
surrender of cherished principles, so that she can have nothing
to do with it.

My opinion has been fixed for a long time. All the Slave States
will go, except Delaware, and perhaps Maryland and Missouri,--to
remain with us Free States.

The mistake of many persons comes from this,--they do not see
that we are in the midst of a revolution, where reason is
dethroned, and passion rules instead. If this were a mere party
contest, then the circulation of speeches and a few resolutions
might do good. But what are such things in a revolution? As well
attempt to hold a man-of-war in a tempest by a little anchor
borrowed from Jamaica Pond; and this is what I told the Boston
Committee with regard to their petition.

I have but one prayer: Stand firm, keep every safeguard of Human
Rights on our statute-book, and save Massachusetts glorious and
true.

Ever yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

* * * * *

SENATE CHAMBER, January 28, 1861.

MY DEAR ANDREW,--I did not unite with the delegation yesterday in
recommending commissioners, and I think they signed without much
reflection, certainly without any general conference.

My disposition in any matter not involving principle is to
keep the delegation _a Unit_, and I certainly would not stand
in the way now. Two things have been pressed, both entitled
to consideration: first, in the absence of commissioners
duly appointed, certain “Union-savers” from Massachusetts,
accidentally here, will work into the Convention, and undertake
to represent Massachusetts; and, secondly, it is important that
Massachusetts should not be kept insulated. Both you can judge,
and I shall defer to your judgment.

Preston King concurred with me as to the true policy of our
States; but he did not think it worth while to interfere
positively by writing to the Governor of New York.

Should you conclude to move, let two things be guarded: first,
the principles, by having it known that Massachusetts has taken
no step towards any acceptance of the resolutions which are made
the implied basis of the proposed Convention; and, secondly,
the men, by designating only the firmest, in whom there is
no possibility of concession or compromise, like ----, ----,
----, ----, ----, ----; but you know the men better than I do.

Last evening the Attorney-General was with me for a long time,
till after midnight. I know from him what I cannot communicate.
Suffice it to say, he does not think it probable--hardly
possible--that we shall be here on the 4th of March. The
President has been wrong again, and a scene has taken place which
will be historic, but which I know in sacred confidence. General
Scott is very anxious. It is feared that the department will
be seized and occupied as forts. What then can be done by the
General, surgeons, and flying artillery?

Ever yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

* * * * *

SENATE CHAMBER, January 28, 1861.

MY DEAR ANDREW,--Mr. Dix has proposed a form of State guaranty
to be used in New York. He thinks it advisable to have the forms
alike in the different States.

Ever yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

I send a copy.

P. S.--_Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes._ Don’t let these words be
ever out of your mind, when you think of any proposition from the
Slave-Masters.

_They are all essentially false, with treason in their hearts,
if not on their tongues._ How can it be otherwise? Slavery is
a falsehood, and its supporters are all perverted and changed.
Punic in faith, Punic in character, you are to meet all that they
do or say with denial or distrust.

Mr. Everett reported to me some smooth words of John Tyler,
which seem to have gone to the soul of the eloquent son of
Massachusetts. “Don’t trust him,” said I, “he means to betray
you.”

I know these men, and see through their plot.

The time has not yet come to touch the chords which I wish to
awaken. But I see my way clear. O God! let Massachusetts keep
true. It is all I now ask.

* * * * *

SENATE CHAMBER, February 5, 1861.

MY DEAR ANDREW,--Ever remember, “Forewarned is forearmed.” Since
recent sincere propositions to defend the capital, I have had no
fear except from a revolutionary movement in Maryland. That, as
I have repeatedly said, will depend upon Virginia. The recent
elections seem to show that she at least will take time. This
postpones the danger contingent upon her course.

More than the loss of forts, arsenals, or the national capital,
_I fear the loss of our principles_.

These are now in greatest danger. Our Northern Fort Sumter
will be surrendered, if you are not aroused. In my view, the
vacillation of the Republicans is more fatal than that of
Buchanan.

Keep firm, and do not listen to any proposition.

Ever yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

* * * * *

SENATE CHAMBER, February 6, 1861.

MY DEAR ANDREW,--It seems to me that nothing is gained for the
Union by the Virginia election _except delay_, unless the North
surrender everything. I have always trusted that the North
would not, and therefore look to the secession of Virginia as
impending,--sooner or later to occur.

This delay seems like a beneficent intervention of Providence
to arrest the conflict, which a sudden movement would have
precipitated. It suspends the revolutionary movement in Maryland,
which was to begin the 18th,--five days after the Virginia
Convention,--and thus gives security to the capital.

Since General Scott has become wakeful, and has received powers
from the President, I have felt safe against everything but a
revolutionary movement.

Be assured I will keep you advised. I shall scent the coming
danger.

But do not be deceived by that fatal advice which sees nothing
but peace and security in the recent elections.

Chase has just left me. He thinks there may be thirty Unionists
_per se_ in the Virginia Convention; all the rest _only
conditionally_,--the condition being the resolutions on which the
Massachusetts commissioners are to deliberate. Bah! A friend,
who was with Mr. Rives this morning, tells me that he was very
bitter against Johnson, of Tennessee, for his Union speech, and
especially for saying “Secession is treason.” He says that the
persons called Unionists will be for secession, if the South
cannot have “Constitutional guaranties.” The course of such a
person as Mr. Rives, who is said to be conservative, foreshadows
the result.

I have just seen Colonel Ritchie: a most intelligent gentleman,
who does honor to our Commonwealth,--God bless her! But the
crisis is adjourned.

Ever yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

May we all be loyal and true, and never desert great principles!

* * * * *

SENATE CHAMBER, February 8, 1861.

MY DEAR ANDREW,--Last evening I was greeted by the first
instalment of the commissioners. The rest I expect this morning.

Be assured, I shall do all that I can for their comfort and
information. I am relieved to know that there is not a single
weak joint in them.…

I pray constantly for courage at home. Let Massachusetts be true
and firm, and keep our friends from division.

The news from Virginia continues to reveal the same
tendency,--secession, unless constitutional guaranties are
secured for Slavery. Without some change, contrary to all
legislative and other declarations, Virginia must go out.

I hope that our Legislature will not pause in offering its
guaranty to the bonds of the National Government. It ought to be
done at once.

Did I ever tell you how much I enjoyed and admired your old
musket speech? It was well conceived and admirably done. I am
glad that Theodore Parker’s name is enrolled in the Capitol.

I find your commissioners noble, true, good characters, able to
support Massachusetts.

God bless you!

Ever yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

* * * * *

WASHINGTON, February 10, 1861.

DEAR ANDREW,--It is much to be regretted that our State has
hesitated so long in giving its indorsement to the United States
bonds. Let us give Government the means of procuring money at
once, and put her credit on its legs.

There is tranquillity now. The Peace Conference has not reached
any point. It is evident that Virginia and the other Border
States will have to decide the question, Which to choose, Union
or Slavery? If they remain, it must be in subjection to the
Constitution and the antislavery policy of the Fathers.

I do not tremble at anything from our opponents, whoever they may
be, but from our friends.

The New York commissioners, the majority, are stiff and strong.

Every word of concession thus far has done infinite
mischief,--first, by encouraging the Slave-Masters, and,
secondly, by demoralizing our own friends, and filling them with
doubt and distrust.

God bless you!

Ever yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

* * * * *

SENATE CHAMBER, February 20, 1861.

MY DEAR ANDREW,--I lost no time in seeing the Attorney-General
and placing your letter in his hands. At the same time I pressed
the pardon. He will give the subject his best attention, but I
thought he was rather fixed against it.

Nothing has occurred to change my view of our affairs. It seems
to me that Virginia will secede. At all events, if you expect
this result, you will be best prepared for the future.

The Peace Conference is like the Senate,--powerless to mature
any system of harmony. And the question of enforcing the laws
and retaking the forts,--in other words, _of our existence as a
Government_,--when presented, must increase the discord.

If Mr. Lincoln _stands firm_, I do not doubt that our cause will
be saved. All that we hear testifies to his character. _But he is
a man._

The heart-burnings and divisions showing themselves in our party
a few weeks ago are now less active. Those fatal overtures will
fall to the ground. Oh, that they never had been made!

God bless you!

Ever yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

NO SURRENDER OF THE NORTHERN FORTS.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A MASSACHUSETTS PETITION IN FAVOR OF THE CRITTENDEN PROPOSITIONS, FEBRUARY 12, 1861.

During weary, anxious weeks, while the Rebellion was preparing,
and Senators were leaving their seats to organize hostile
governments, Mr. Sumner resisted appeals to speak. An earnest
character in Philadelphia wrote to him, January 31st:--

“May we not look to have _you_ speak once more for us,--as
a statesman, not as a politician,--as a philanthropist,
not as the representative of a prospective Cabinet? Mr.
Sumner, you know that Kansas was yesterday admitted. God
bless her, and God bless you, to whom under Him she owes
her deliverance, and the country owes the turning of the
balances _against_ Slavery for all time to come. Now, if
the whole country is on the eve of a similar struggle, why
should we not know it and act accordingly?”

Another zealous friend, writing from Massachusetts on the same
day, said:--

“Why do we not hear your voice uplifted, in this critical,
this dangerous hour?”

It was hard to resist such appeals. But there were good
friends, agreeing with Mr. Sumner, who counselled silence. An
incident unexpectedly occurred which compelled him to speak,
although briefly.

February 12, 1861, Mr. Crittenden presented a petition
extensively signed by people of Massachusetts, where, after
setting forth that “their sentiments towards the Union and
towards their common country have been misrepresented and
misunderstood,” and further declaring themselves “willing
that all parts of the country should have their full and
equal rights under the Constitution, and recognizing in the
propositions of Hon. J. J. Crittenden a basis of settlement
which the North and the South may fairly and honorably accede
to, and which is well calculated to restore peace to the
country,” the petitioners conclude by asking the adoption of
these propositions. The petition purported to be from one
hundred and eighty-two cities and towns of Massachusetts, and
to be signed by twenty-two thousand three hundred and thirteen
citizens of Massachusetts. In presenting it, Mr. Crittenden
remarked on the number of signatures in different towns,
mentioning especially Natick, the home of Senator Wilson,
and Boston, where there were more than fourteen thousand
petitioners out of nineteen thousand voters. And he added, that
he felt “peculiar and especial satisfaction” in presenting the
petition.

On his motion the petition was laid on the table, which, under
the rules of the Senate, cut off debate, when Mr. Sumner moved
the printing of the petition, and on this motion spoke as
follows.

MR. PRESIDENT,--As I desire to say a few words on the petition, I move that it be printed.

These petitioners, I perceive, ask you to adopt what are familiarly known as the Crittenden Propositions. Their best apology, Sir, for such a petition is their ignorance of the character of those propositions. Had they known what they are, I feel sure they could not have put their names to any such paper.

Those propositions go beyond the Breckinridge platform, already solemnly condemned by the American people in the election of Abraham Lincoln. If adopted, they set aside the Republican platform, while they foist into the National Constitution guaranties of Slavery which the framers of that instrument never sanctioned,--which Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Patrick Henry, and John Jay, according to the testimony of their lives and declared opinions, would have scorned to sanction; nor can there be any doubt, that, had such propositions been made the condition of Union, this Union could not have been formed.

Mr. Madison, in the Convention which framed the National Constitution, taught his fellow-countrymen that it is “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there can be property in men.”[135] What manly vigor and loftiness inspired that warning! Now these propositions not only interpolate the forbidden idea, but, proceeding to its practical application, they run a visible black line at latitude 36° 30´, extending the protection of the Constitution itself over Slavery south of that line, and then, making the case yet more offensive and more impossible at the North, they carry it to all territory hereafter acquired, so that the flag of the Republic, as it moves southward, must always be the flag of Slavery, while every future acquisition in that direction must submit to the terrible doom,--and all this under irrepealable text of Constitution, which, by supplementary provision, is expressly placed beyond amendment. In an age of civilization this is bad, very bad; but they go further. There are to be new guaranties of Slavery in the National capital, and in other places within the National jurisdiction,--also in transporting slaves to States and Territories,--also a reinforcement of the Fugitive Slave Bill; and all these are so placed under Constitutional safeguard as to exceed the permanence of other provisions. Nor is even this all. As if to do something inconceivably repugnant to just principles, and especially obnoxious to the people of Massachusetts, it is proposed to despoil our colored fellow-citizens there of political franchises long time assured by the institutions of that Liberty-loving Commonwealth. Before the adoption of the National Constitution it was declared in Massachusetts that there could be no distinction of color at the ballot-box; and this rule of equality is to be sacrificed, while fellow-citizens are thrust out of rights which they have enjoyed for generations.

Sir, for these things, and others kindred, do these petitioners now pray, insisting that they shall all be interpolated into the National Constitution,--while, in entire harmony with this unparalleled betrayal, those laws which have been established for the protection of Personal Liberty are to be set aside, that the Slave-Hunter may have free course. Such are things which in the judgment of these petitioners “the North and the South may honorably accede to,” while, in consideration of these impossible sacrifices, the fee of the Fugitive Slave Commissioners is modified, and it is declared that the Slave-Trade shall not be revived. And this is the compromise for which Massachusetts people in such large numbers from cities and towns now pray!

I have infinite respect for the right of petition, and I hope always to promote the interests and to represent the just and proper wishes of my fellow-citizens; but I cannot hesitate to declare my unfeigned regret that these petitioners, uniting in such numbers, have missed the opportunity of demanding plainly and unequivocally, as lovers of the Union, two things, all-sufficient for the present crisis, with regard to which I might expect the sympathies of the Senator from Kentucky: first, that the Constitution of the United States, as administered by George Washington, shall be preserved intact and blameless in its text, with no tinkering for the sake of Slavery; and, secondly, that the verdict of the people last November, by which Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States, shall be enforced without price or condition. Here is a platform on which every patriot citizen can take his stand, having over him the stars of the Union. How much better than any proposition, scheme, or vain delusion of Compromise! On such ground, all who really love the Union of their fathers, without an _if_ or a _but_, can plant themselves.

I remember, Sir, that in the debate on the night of the passage of the Nebraska Bill,--it was at midnight,--I made the declaration that all future compromise was impossible.[136] Events now taking place verify this truth. It is obvious that existing difficulties can be arranged only on permanent principles of justice, freedom, and humanity. Any seeming settlement founded in abandonment of principles will be but a miserable patchwork, which cannot succeed. Only a short time ago the whole country was filled with shame and dismay, as the reports came to us of the surrender of the Southern forts; and when it was known that Fort Sumter, too, was about to be given up, a cry went forth from the popular heart, by which that fortress was saved, at least for the present. And now for the parallel. Propositions are brought forward by the Senator from Kentucky, and enforced by petition from my own State, calling upon the North to surrender its principles,--to surrender those impregnable principles of Human Rights which constitute our Northern forts. It is even proposed to surrender the principle of Freedom in the Territories,--the Fort Sumter of the North. I trust, Sir, that all these principles will yet be saved; but plainly their safety depends upon the people, and not upon a President; therefore must the people be heard, as in that cry from the heart which only a few days ago saved the other Fort Sumter, menaced by the representatives of Slavery. For myself, if I stand with many, with few, or alone, I have but one thing to say: “No surrender of the Fort Sumter of the North! No surrender of any of our Northern forts,--no, Sir, not one of them!”

Bankers and merchants of New York and Boston tell us that the Government shall not have money, if we do not surrender. Then again, Sir, do I appeal to the people. Surely the American people are not less patriotic than the French. They only want the opportunity to come forward and supply the necessities of the Government, as the latter, at the hint of their Emperor, came forward with money, all in small sums, for the support of that war which ended in the liberation of Italy. Our Government stands on the aggregate virtue and intelligence of the people. Not only the rich and fortunate, but the farmer, the mechanic, the laborer, every citizen truly loving his country, will contribute out of his daily life to uphold the Constitution and the flag. From these small sums, inspired by a generous patriotism, I am glad to believe we shall have a full treasury, even if bankers and merchants stand aloof.

There is but one thing now for the North to do: it is to stand firm. The testimony of a great national benefactor, who helped our country to Independence, should be heard,--I mean Lafayette,--who, in his old age, with experience ripened by time, contemplating the terrible Revolution which had convulsed France, as a surviving actor and a surviving sufferer, did not hesitate to announce from his seat in the Chamber of Deputies, after recognizing the unutterable calamities of that Revolution, that, according to his solemn judgment, they must be referred not so much to the bad passions of men as to those timid counsels which sought to substitute _Compromise_ for _Principle_.[137] The venerable patriot may well speak to his American fellow-citizens now, and inspire them to stand firm against those timid counsels which would make any such fatal substitution.

Mr. Crittenden replied at some length, vindicating his
propositions, and also the Massachusetts petitioners, who, he
said, had been charged with “ignorance.” In the course of the
debate the following passage occurred.

MR. CRITTENDEN. If the propositions I offered, and which I
offered with diffidence, are not adequate to the purpose,
if they ask too much, why have not gentlemen moved to
amend? Why has the honorable Senator sat here for one month
and more, and proposed no amendment to the propositions
which he now rises to condemn his constituents for
approving?

MR. SUMNER. Will the Senator allow me to say that every
time I could get an opportunity I have voted against his
propositions? I have missed no opportunity, direct or
indirect, of voting against them, from beginning to end,
every line and every word.

MR. CRITTENDEN. I do not controvert that, Mr. President;
it may be so; but that is not what I am asking of
the gentleman. It is, that, if he desired union and
conciliation at all, why did he not move to amend the
propositions which he now condemns?

MR. SUMNER. I will answer the Senator: Because I thought
there could be no basis of peace on the Senator’s
propositions, which are wrong in every respect, in every
line, in every word. That is what I thought. I was for the
Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of our
fathers, as administered by George Washington.

MR. CRITTENDEN. If that was all true, and the gentleman
desired an amicable settlement of the difficulties which
now threaten the country, had he no proposition whatever to
make?

MR. SUMNER. Certainly,--the proposition which I have
already made, that the Constitution, as administered by
George Washington, should be preserved pure and free from
any amendment for the sake of Slavery.

MR. CRITTENDEN. Why did he not move that? Why did he sit
sullen and silent here for one month or more, with his
breast full of resentment? [_Applause in the galleries._]

THE PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. FOSTER, of Connecticut]. Order
will be preserved in the galleries, or they will be cleared
immediately.

MR. CRITTENDEN. With such a spirit of opposition to, and
thinking as he did of these resolutions, why did he not
propose to strike them all out?

MR. SUMNER. Will the Senator let me answer?

MR. CRITTENDEN. Yes, I will.

MR. SUMNER. I did vote for the substitute of the Senator
from New Hampshire [Mr. CLARK] just as soon as it
could come to a vote, and that expresses precisely my
conviction. That vote displaced the Senator’s propositions
entirely.[138]

Before the debate closed, Mr. Sumner replied briefly.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I have no desire to prolong this debate, or to occupy the time of the Senate. I content myself with two remarks. The Senator from Kentucky is not aware of his own popularity in Massachusetts, of the extent to which his name is an authority there, of the willingness of the people there to adopt anything with the sanction of his respectable name. I do not think the distinguished Senator is aware of that fact; consequently he does not see how easily the people of Massachusetts might be seduced to adopt at sight a proposition brought forward by him, which otherwise they would at once reject. Now all that I suggest in regard to these petitioners is, that, under the lead of the distinguished Senator, they put their names to a petition which I am sure they did not, in all respects and in all its bearings, fully understand; and I must do them the justice to believe, that, had they known the true character of the propositions of the Senator, they would not have signed petitions for their adoption.