Chapter VII: Part 7

This is all on that point; but I wish to make one other remark. The Senator intimated, if I understood him aright, that his propositions, at least in his own mind, were not applicable to territory hereafter acquired.

MR. CRITTENDEN. No: I do not mean to be understood as saying
that.

MR. SUMNER. I understood the Senator so.

MR. CRITTENDEN. I said I did not consider that proposition as
an essential part of mine,--that I did not intend to insist
upon it, if I found it would not be acceptable. I did not
intend that that should be any obstacle to an adjustment, and I
would propose to strike it out, if necessary.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator did not consider that an essential part; and yet in the Journal of the Senate, now before me, in the yeas and nays, I find his name recorded in the affirmative on introducing those words, “now held or hereafter to be acquired.” Here is the record,--the name of the Senator from Kentucky answering yea, when we were all asked to answer yea or nay.

This brief effort of Mr. Sumner at a critical moment found
response, not only from his constituents, but from the North
generally. In Massachusetts many made haste to testify that the
petition praying for such a shameful surrender had been signed
by large numbers without knowing its true character,--while
the Common Council of Boston, then controlled by Compromisers,
also made haste to censure Mr. Sumner, declaring, in formal
resolution, that his assertion in the Senate with regard to
the petitioners was “undignified, unbecoming a Senator and a
citizen of Boston, and untrue.”

As through this remarkable petition, and the speech of Mr.
Crittenden in presenting it, Massachusetts was vouched for
Slavery, a few witnesses may be properly adduced to show how
the signatures were obtained, and also what was the real
sentiment of the people there.

William Lloyd Garrison, always watchful for Human Rights, and
knowing the wiles of Compromise, wrote from Boston:--

“For one, I desire to thank you for declaring in the Senate
that the petition from Boston, asking for any compromise
to propitiate the South, did not represent the sentiment
even of the city, but was signed by multitudes ignorantly
and recklessly,--the left hand not knowing what the right
hand did. I wish it were in your power to have that
list of names critically examined. I am quite sure that
hundreds of names would be proved to be ‘men of straw.’ I
have been told that the names of Wendell Phillips, Henry
Ward Beecher, Theodore Parker (!),[139] and my own, were
appended to it. This is possible, but hardly credible.
Still, excepting the Border-Ruffian returns in Kansas, I do
not believe there was ever a petition more impudently and
fraudulently presented to a legislative assembly than the
one from this city.

“I congratulate you upon being the special object of the
_Courier’s_ malignant abuse. Do not fear of being fully
sustained by Massachusetts in your boldest utterances; and
how posterity will decide is easily seen.”

M. P. Kennard, an excellent citizen and business man, wrote
from Boston:--

“The petition was placed in the lobby of our post-office,
under the charge of a crier, who saluted every one who
passed him with, ‘Sign this petition?’--and it was
thoughtlessly signed by men and boys, native and foreign.”

Charles W. Slack, of the newspaper press, wrote from Boston:--

“You are entirely right relative to the signers of the
Crittenden Petition. Boys, non-voters, foreigners, anybody,
were taken, who could write a name. The city police
canvassed all the out-of-the-way places, and took the names
they could gather.… Glad that you spoke as you did. We
look to you to give the key-note. None knows Massachusetts
better than you, and none will be more faithful to her,
come weal or woe.”

Dr. William J. Dale, afterwards the Surgeon-General of
Massachusetts, wrote from Boston:--

“The other day a neighbor of ours, Mr. Brown, an
intelligent citizen, a provision dealer, corner of Derne
and Temple Streets, stopped me and said, ‘If you ever write
Mr. Sumner, tell him that I, with many others, signed that
Crittenden Petition under an entire misapprehension.’ Says
he, ‘I would cut off my right hand before it should sign
so infamous a proposition.’ That is the feeling among the
middling-interest people. The so-called Union men assume
the air and manner of slave-overseers. They have overdone
the thing here.”

J. Vincent Browne, afterwards Collector of Internal Revenue in
the Essex District of Massachusetts, wrote from Salem:--

“At least twenty persons who signed the paper in this city
have said to me, ‘Why, Mr. Crittenden’s propositions are
merely to restore the Missouri Compromise. I was told so,
when I signed.’ When the _truth_ was told them, as usual,
they were _astonished_. And so men trifle with their
rights, and are trifled with.”

John Tappan, a venerable citizen, loving peace, but hating
Slavery, and anxious that Massachusetts should be right, wrote
from Boston:--

“I thank you for it, and believe it speaks the sentiments
of a vast majority of _all parties_ in this and the other
New England States. The only reason assigned by some of the
signers is, that it was not expected that it would pass as
offered, but lead to some compromise.

“Be assured the heart of the Commonwealth is with you,
and that, if ever we were called upon for firmness in
maintaining our Constitutional rights, it is now; and
although I pray God no blood may be shed in the conflict,
yet submission to the demands of Slavery is not to be the
alternative.

“I rejoice the conflict has come in my day, although, on
the verge of four-score, I may not live to see harmony
restored.”[140]

Rev. John Weiss, the eloquent preacher and author, wrote from
Milton, Massachusetts:--

“Your little speech lies in the hand like an ingot,--dense
and precious, and of the color which charms my eyes at
least. Nothing can be truer than your statement, that
multitudes of people do not know what they sign, when they
indorse the Crittenden propositions. I, for one, had not
read them till quite lately. They have not been freely
ventilated in the newspapers. When, the other day, the
Boston papers undertook to print them formally, people were
shocked.… The 4th March will come with a fatal suddenness
for all the plotters and expecters and adjustment-mongers.
Just at the proper moment, not a moment too soon nor too
late, you spoke a word which will help to clear the air.”

Others wrote correcting the statement with regard to signatures
in different towns. Some in a few words exposed the petition.
Professor Convers Francis wrote from Cambridge: “The big
Boston petition, so far as I can learn, is regarded here as a
piece of gammon, except, perhaps, in certain quarters of the
business world.” Rev. R. S. Storrs, the venerable divine, wrote
from Braintree: “A great hoax, that famous petition for the
Crittenden Compromise!” This testimony, which might be extended
indefinitely, will relieve Massachusetts from a painful
complicity, and help keep her history bright.

The resolutions of the Boston Common Council did not fare
better than the petition. Among newspapers, the _Boston
Advertiser_ remarked:--

“It is hardly necessary for us to say that we do not
concur in all respects in the policy which Mr. Sumner is
understood to follow at this crisis; but in the matter of
this petition we certainly hold that he was plainly right.
And we are led to this belief by observing the industrious
efforts made by those who urged the signing of the petition
to conceal the true meaning of the scheme which is known as
Mr. Crittenden’s.… It appears to us also that Mr. Sumner
gave not only the most friendly, but also a most natural,
account of the manner in which a large number of these
petitioners must have been led to this singular mistake.”

The _New York Tribune_ stated the case.

“A great many dull people, and a few clever ones,
lately signed a petition asking Congress to adopt the
Crittenden Compromise. When this document was taken up in
the Senate, Mr. Sumner said, with much calmness and in
the most courteous spirit, that he believed the signers
had so high a regard for the name of Crittenden that they
had put their signatures to a paper which they could not
have fully understood in all its obligations, bearings,
and propositions. This was a very gentle letting-down
of the Bostonians, much more tender treatment than they
deserved. Nevertheless, the remark raised a breeze in the
respectable city, such as only a small thing can create in
that place. It would never do to say that any Boston man
or boy could sign a paper the whole of which he had not
read and digested. So the Common Council, of all bodies in
that town, took up the matter, and actually passed a vote
of censure on Senator Sumner for mildly hinting that the
signers aforesaid were rather hasty than wicked, stupid, or
weak.”

A sonnet by David A. Wasson, which appeared at this time,
expresses gratitude to Mr. Sumner, with small sympathy for
compromise in any form.

“TO CHARLES SUMNER.

“Thou and the stars, our Sumner, still shine on!
No dark will dim, no spending waste thy ray;
And we as soon could doubt the Milky Way,
Whether enduring were its silver zone,
As question of thy truth. Their light is gone
Whose beam was borrowed: ever will Accident,
Upon a day, the garment it hath lent
Strip off,--make beggars of its kings anon.
Thou and the stars eternal, inly fed
From God’s own bosom with celestial light,
Must needs emit the glory in ye bred;
Alike it is your nature to be bright:
And I, while thou art shining overhead,
Know God is with us in the gloomy night.”

DUTY AND STRENGTH OF THE COMING ADMINISTRATION.

FROM NOTES OF UNDELIVERED SPEECH ON THE VARIOUS PROPOSITIONS OF COMPROMISE, FEBRUARY, 1861.

Mr. Sumner contemplated a speech reviewing the various
propositions of Compromise, but he never made it. The following
passages are given, as proposed at the time.

…

I would not say a word except of kindness and respect for the Senator of Kentucky [Mr. CRITTENDEN]. But that Senator must pardon me, if I insist that he is entirely unreasonable in pressing his impracticable and unconstitutional propositions so persistently in the way of most important public business. Yesterday it hindered a great measure of Internal Improvement. To-day it blocks the admission of a State into this Union, being none other than Kansas, which has earned a better hospitality.

The Senator makes his appeal in the name of the Union. But I must remind him that he takes a poor way of showing that attachment to the Union which he avers. He turns round and lectures us who are devoted to the Union, when his lecture should be addressed to the avowed and open Disunionists in this Chamber. Nay, more, he actually sides with the Disunionists in their claims. Imagine Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, John Jay, Andrew Jackson, or Henry Clay, in the place of the venerable Senator. They would not wheel towards the known friends of the Union, and ask an impossible surrender of sacred principles, but rather face to face address the Disunionists frankly, plainly, austerely, calling upon them to renounce their evil schemes; to acknowledge the National Constitution, and especially in this age of light to make no new demands for Slavery.

In reply to the Senator, who so constantly lectures us, I say, look to the good examples of our history; take counsel of the Spirit of Nationalism, rather than Sectionalism, and be willing to defend the Constitution _as it is_, rather than _patch it over_ with propositions which our fathers would have disowned.

…

Putting aside all question of concession or compromise, the single question remains, _How shall we treat the seceding States?_ And this is the question which the new Administration will be called to meet. I see well that it will naturally bear much and forbear long,--that it will be moved by principle, and not by passion,--and that it will adopt the harsh instrumentalities of power only when all other things have failed. And I see well the powerful allies which will be enlisted on its side. There will be the civilization of the Christian world, speaking with the innumerable voices of the press, and constituting a Public Opinion of irresistible energy. There will be the great contemporary example of Italy, after a slumber of centuries aroused to assertion of her rights,--and of Russia also, now completing that memorable act of Emancipation by which Freedom is assured to twenty millions of serfs. There will be also the concurring action of European powers, which, turning with disgust from a new confederacy founded on Human Slavery, will refuse to recognize it in the Family of Nations. There will be also the essential weakness of Slavery with the perils of servile insurrection, which, under the influence of this discussion, must become more and more manifest in every respect. There will be also the essential strength of Freedom, as a principle, carrying victory in its right hand. And there will be Time, which is at once Reformer and Pacificator. Such are some of the allies sure to be on the side of the Administration.

FOREIGN RELATIONS: ARBITRATION.

REPORT FROM COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, ADVISING THE PRESIDENT TO SUBMIT THE SAN JUAN BOUNDARY QUESTION TO ARBITRATION, IN THE SENATE, MARCH 19, 1861.

By the withdrawal of Southern Senators, the Republicans were
left with a majority in the Senate, enabling them to reorganize
the Standing Committees, which was done March 8, 1861. At the
head of the Finance Committee was Mr. Fessenden, instead of
Mr. Hunter,--of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Trumbull, instead
of Mr. Bayard,--of the Military Committee, Mr. Wilson, instead
of Mr. Jefferson Davis,--and of the Naval Committee, Mr. Hale,
instead of Mr. Mallory. Mr. Sumner was appointed Chairman of
the Committee on Foreign Relations, in place of Mr. Mason, of
Virginia, who had held this position from December 8, 1851.
With the former on the new Committee were Messrs. Collamer,
of Vermont, Doolittle, of Wisconsin, Harris, of New York,
Douglas, of Illinois, Polk, of Missouri, and Breckinridge,
of Kentucky. The appointment of Mr. Sumner to this important
position was contrasted with his treatment at an earlier day,
when the omission of his name from any committee was justified
on the ground that he was “outside of any healthy political
organization in this country,” and this Senatorial sally was
received with “laughter.”[141] Mr. Hale and Mr. Chase were in
the same category. Only Democrats and Whigs were accepted: such
was the Law of Slavery. At last this was all changed.

The reorganization of the Committees attracted the attention
of the press at home and abroad. It was properly recognized
as marking a change from old to new. The London _Star_, in an
elaborate article on the transition, welcomed especially the
new Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations.

“The Republican Senators have selected for the Chairman
of this Committee the Hon. Charles Sumner, a statesman
deservedly honored in this country, not only for his
eloquence as an orator, but for his unswerving fidelity to
the cause of Freedom. No man could have been chosen for
this office in every respect more acceptable to the English
people. It is not only as the Antislavery legislator, who,
from the first moment that he took his seat in the Senate
as the representative of Massachusetts, has ever raised
his voice and given his vote for the hapless negro,--it is
not only as the patriot who almost suffered martyrdom on
the floor of the Senate Chamber from the ruffian hand of
Preston S. Brooks, that the English people will be disposed
to regard his appointment with hearty approval: he has
established other claims to our sympathy and admiration,
which we must not be slow to recognize. Mr. Sumner is
well known in this country--scarcely less, indeed, than
in America--as the stanch friend of Peace. Years ago, in
his famous oration on the True Glory of Nations, he set
forth the advantages of a pacific policy, with arguments as
cogent and irresistible as those which have been employed
by Mr. Cobden, and with an eloquence of language and a
fertility of illustration which revived the oratory of
classic times.…

“And if during the period of Mr. Lincoln’s administration
causes of dispute should unhappily arise between America
and Great Britain, or any other foreign power, Mr.
Sumner will not fail to point to _arbitration as the
only reasonable and satisfactory mode_ of settling
international differences. _He will not, if he can help
it, permit San Juan to be made a casus belli_, or tolerate
any more of those periodical expeditions against the weak
and effeminate republics of South America, by which Mr.
Buchanan and his predecessors treated with contempt the
solemn injunctions of the Fathers of the Republic, that
their posterity should avoid the fatal quicksands of
European diplomacy, and abstain from intermeddling with the
affairs of other states.”

The very questions anticipated by the London journal were
presented at an early day, even before its article could reach
Washington. The advice of the Senate was asked by the President
on submitting the San Juan Question to arbitration.

March 16, 1861, the following Message from President Lincoln
was read in Executive Session, and on motion of Mr. Sumner
referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

“TO THE SENATE:--

“The Senate has transmitted to me a copy of the Message
sent by my predecessor to that body on the 21st day of
February last, proposing to take its advice on the subject
of a proposition made by the British Government through its
minister here to refer the matter in controversy between
that Government and the Government of the United States
to the arbitrament of the King of Sweden and Norway, the
King of the Netherlands, or the Republic of the Swiss
Confederation.

“In that Message my predecessor stated that he wished to
submit to the Senate the precise questions following,
namely:--

“‘Will the Senate approve a Treaty referring to either of
the sovereign powers above named the dispute now existing
between the Governments of the United States and Great
Britain concerning the boundary line between Vancouver’s
Island and the American continent? In case the referee
shall find himself unable to decide where the line is by
the description of it in the Treaty of June 15, 1846, shall
he be authorized to establish a line according to the
Treaty as nearly as possible? Which of the three powers
named by Great Britain as an arbiter shall be chosen by the
United States?’

“I find no reason to disapprove of the course of my
predecessor in this important matter, but, on the contrary,
I not only shall receive the advice of the Senate thereon
cheerfully, but I respectfully ask the Senate for their
advice on the three questions before recited.

“ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

“WASHINGTON, March 16, 1861.”

From this Message it appears that the subject had been already
before the Senate on the submission of President Buchanan in
the last days of his Administration. In his Message the latter
stated these precise questions:--

“Will the Senate approve a treaty referring to either of
the sovereign powers above named [Sweden, the Netherlands,
or Switzerland] the dispute now existing between the
Governments of the United States and Great Britain
concerning the boundary line between Vancouver’s Island and
the American continent?

“In case the referee shall find himself unable to decide
where the line is by the description of it in the Treaty of
June 15, 1846, shall he be authorized to establish a line
according to the Treaty as nearly as possible?

“Which of the three powers named by Great Britain as an
arbiter shall be chosen by the United States?”

February 27, 1861, Mr. Mason, from the Committee on Foreign
Relations, reported the following Resolution, directly
responsive to the questions proposed.

“_Resolved_, That in the opinion of the Senate the boundary
in dispute between the Governments of Great Britain and
the United States should be referred to the arbitrament
and final award of an umpire to be agreed on between the
two Governments; that such umpire should, if practicable,
determine said boundary as the same is prescribed in the
Treaty aforesaid; or if that be not practicable, then that
he be authorized to establish a boundary, conforming as
nearly as may be to that provided by said Treaty.

“And that, of the three powers referred to in the Message
of the President, the Senate would indicate as such umpire
the Republic of the Swiss Confederation.”

This was the last diplomatic act of Mr. Mason as Chairman of
the Committee on Foreign Relations.

* * * * *

March 19, 1861, Mr. Sumner submitted the following Report,
which was his first diplomatic act as Chairman.

* * * * *

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the
Message of the President of the United States dated the 16th
instant, with the documents accompanying it, have had the same
under consideration, and now report.

The Treaty concluded between Great Britain and the United States on the 15th of June, 1846, provided in its first Article that the line of boundary between the territories of her Britannic Majesty and those of the United States, from the point on the 49th parallel of north latitude, to which it was ascertained, should be continued westward along this parallel, “to the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver’s Island, and thence southerly, through the middle of said channel and of Fuca’s Straits, to the Pacific Ocean.” When the commissioners appointed by the two Governments to mark the boundary line came to that part of it required to run southerly through the channel dividing the continent from Vancouver’s Island, they differed entirely in their opinions, not only concerning the true point of deflection from the 49th parallel, but also as to the channel intended in the Treaty. After long discussion, producing no result, they reported a disagreement to their respective Governments. Since then the two Governments, through their ministers here and at London, have carried on a voluminous correspondence on the matter in controversy, each sustaining the conclusion of its own commissioner, and neither yielding in any degree to the other. Meanwhile the unsettled condition of this question produced serious local disturbance, and on one occasion threatened to destroy the harmonious relations existing between Great Britain and the United States, causing serious anxiety.

If our construction of the Treaty be right, the island of San Juan, with other small islands, will fall to the United States, while, if the British interpretation be adopted, these islands will be on their side of the line. President Buchanan, in his Message to the Senate of February 21, 1861, declared his conviction that the territory thus in dispute “is ours by the Treaty fairly and impartially construed.” But the British Government, on their side, insist that it is theirs. The argument on both sides seems to have been exhausted.

Under these circumstances, it appears from the correspondence submitted to the Senate, that General Cass, Secretary of State, by letter of June 25, 1860, to Lord Lyons, the British Minister at Washington, invited the British Government to make a proposition of adjustment. Here are his words:--

“And I have it further in charge to inform your Lordship, that
this Government is ready to receive and fairly to consider any
proposition which the British Government may be disposed to
make for a mutually acceptable adjustment, with an earnest hope
that a satisfactory arrangement will speedily put an end to all
danger of the recurrence of those grave questions which have
more than once threatened to interrupt that good understanding
which both countries have so many powerful motives to maintain.”

The reply of the British Government to this invitation was communicated by Lord Lyons, in a letter to General Cass, dated December 10, 1860, in the course of which he uses the following language.

“In reference to the line of the water boundary intended by the
Treaty, with respect to which also her Majesty’s Government
have been invited by the United States Government to make a
proposition for its adjustment, I am instructed to inform you
that her Majesty’s Government are glad to reciprocate the
friendly sentiments expressed in your note of the 25th of June,
and will not hesitate to respond to the invitation which has
been made to them.

“It appears to her Majesty’s Government that the argument on
both sides being nearly exhausted, and neither party having
succeeded in producing conviction on the other, the question
can only be settled by arbitration.”

Lord Lyons then proceeds to details connected with the offered arbitration, and, in behalf of his Government, proposes that the King of the Netherlands, or the King of Sweden and Norway, or the President of the Federal Council of Switzerland should be invited to be arbiter.

Upon these facts the President submits to the consideration of the Senate the following interrogatories.

“Will the Senate approve a Treaty referring to either of
the sovereign powers above named the dispute now existing
between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain
concerning the boundary line between Vancouver’s Island and the
American continent?

“In case the referee shall find himself unable to decide where
the line is by the description of it in the Treaty of June 15,
1846, shall he be authorized to establish a line according to
the Treaty as nearly as possible?

“Which of the three powers named by Great Britain as an arbiter
shall be chosen by the United States?”

The Committee, in conclusion, recommend to the Senate the adoption of the following Resolution.

“_Resolved_, That, in pursuance of the Message of the President
of the 16th instant, the Senate advises a reference of the
existing dispute between the Government of the United States
and the Government of Great Britain, concerning the boundary
line which separates Vancouver’s Island and the American
continent, to the arbitration of a friendly power, with
authority to determine the line according to the provisions
of the Treaty of 15th June, 1846, but without authority to
establish any line other than that provided for in the Treaty.

“And of the three powers named by Great Britain, the Senate
advises that the Republic of Switzerland be chosen by the
United States as arbiter.”

* * * * *

On two different days the Senate proceeded with this
resolution, when, March 27, 1861, the day before the close of
the Session, it was ordered that its further consideration be
postponed to the second Monday of December next. This was done
on the suggestion that the time was not propitious for the
arbitration of a disputed boundary line. April 12, Fort Sumter
was bombarded.

* * * * *

A difference between the resolution of Mr. Mason and that
of Mr. Sumner will be noted. The former declared that the
umpire “should, if practicable, determine said boundary as
the same is prescribed in the Treaty aforesaid; or if that be
not practicable, then that he be authorized to establish a
boundary, _conforming as nearly as may be to that provided by
said Treaty_.” The latter resolution declared, that the arbiter
should have “authority to determine the line according to the
provisions of the Treaty of 15th June, 1846, _but without
authority to establish any line other than that provided
for in the Treaty_.” The obvious purpose was to prevent a
compromise line. This same purpose appears in the terms of the
Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, signed at
Washington, May 8, 1871, where, after mentioning the Article
of the original Treaty under which the question arose, it is
declared, that, “whereas the Government of her Britannic
Majesty claims that such boundary line should, under the
terms of the Treaty above recited, be run through the Rosario
Straits, and the Government of the United States claims that it
should be run through the Canal de Haro, it is agreed that the
respective claims of the Government of the United States and
of the Government of her Britannic Majesty shall be submitted
to the arbitration and award of his Majesty the Emperor of
Germany, who, having regard to the abovementioned Article of
the said Treaty, shall decide thereupon, finally, and without
appeal, _which of these claims is most in accordance with the
true interpretation of the Treaty of June 15, 1846_.” This
provision follows substantially the early resolution of Mr.
Sumner.

BEGINNING OF THE CONFLICT.

SPEECH BEFORE THE THIRD MASSACHUSETTS RIFLES, IN THE ARMORY AT NEW YORK, APRIL 21, 1861.

After adjournment of the Senate, Mr. Sumner remained for
some time in Washington, as was his habit. Meanwhile
occurred the bombardment of Fort Sumter, and the President’s
Proclamation, calling for seventy-five thousand men to suppress
insurrectionary combinations, “and to cause the laws to be duly
executed.” On the afternoon of 18th April, 1861, amidst the
general commotion, he left on his way to Boston, stopping over
night at Baltimore, where an incident occurred, which, besides
illustrating the state of the country, helps to explain the
brief speech which follows.

On arrival by the train, Mr. Sumner drove at once to Barnum’s
Hotel, where he entered his name in the open book. Taking a
walk before dark in the principal street, he was recognized
by excited persons, whose manner and language went beyond
any ordinary occasion.[142] Early in the evening he called
on a family friend, with whom he took tea, surrounded by her
children. Leaving her house about nine o’clock, he walked
slowly back to the hotel. When descending Fayette Street by
its side, he could not but observe an enormous assemblage of
people, with very little apparent government, in the open
square at the foot of the street. Entering the private door,
which was at some distance from the riotous crowd, he came upon
a gentleman, who, addressing him by name, expressed surprise
at seeing him there, saying, “That mob in the square is after
you. Their leaders have been to the hotel and demanded you.
They were told that you were out,--that nobody knew where you
were, and that you had probably left town”; and he wound up
by insisting that it was not safe for Mr. Sumner to continue
at the hotel, or anywhere in town, if his place of stopping
were known. Without reply to this notice, Mr. Sumner walked
down the long corridor of the hotel, and, turning into the
office, asked for his key. At once Mr. Barnum, with one of
his assistants, took him into a small back room, where they
explained the condition of things, narrated the visit of the
leaders, and the answer they were able to give, by which the
mob were turned aside; but this temporary relief left them
still anxious, especially if Mr. Sumner’s return should be
suspected, and therefore they must request him to leave the
hotel; and this was enforced by saying that his longer stay
was perilous to the hotel as well as to himself, and that he
must find shelter somewhere else. Mr. Sumner, while declaring
his sincere regret that he should be the innocent occasion of
peril to the hotel, said that there was nowhere else for him
to go,--that he had no right to carry peril to the house of a
friend,--that it was impossible for him to do this,--that he
had come to the hotel as a traveller, and he must claim his
rights, believing that in so large a structure there was more
safety than in a private house, even if there were any such
where he could go. The interview ended in conducting him to
a chamber on a long entry of the third story, where all the
rooms were alike, when, after saying that nobody in the hotel
but themselves would know where he was, they left him alone.
From the window which opened on the street at the side of the
hotel, he could see the swaying multitude, and hear their
voices. In the gray of the morning he left for the Philadelphia
Railroad.[143]

On the way to Philadelphia, he met a long train for Baltimore,
containing the Sixth Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers,
hurrying to the defence of the national capital. It was the
first regiment of volunteers he had seen, and he was struck
by the gayety of soldier life, which overflowed as the train
passed. On his arrival at Philadelphia, the telegraph was
announcing the tragedy which had befallen them.

The troops were passing through Baltimore from the Philadelphia
station, in the large horse-cars, and a portion had arrived
at the Washington station, when those behind were set upon by
a mob, the successor of that at the hotel on the preceding
evening. Before they could leave the station, the streets
were barricaded, and the rails removed, so that they were
obliged to make their way on foot, amidst the growing fury of
the mob, which had increased to ten thousand. Stones, bricks,
and other murderous missiles were thrown at them. Then came
pistol-shots. As the soldiers saw their comrades fall, they
fired. Several of the assailants dropped upon the pavements,
and others were wounded. And so for two miles they fought their
way to the Washington station. Of the troops, four were killed,
and thirty-six wounded. That evening the regiment quartered
at Washington, in the Senate Chamber.[144] Thus, on the 19th
of April, 1861, began and closed the first encounter of the
terrible war at hand.

The mob now reigned in Baltimore. Gun-shops were plundered.
Other shops were closed. The President was notified that
no more troops could pass through the city, unless they
fought their way. That night the bridges on the railroad
to Philadelphia were burnt, so that this great avenue was
closed.[145]

* * * * *

On the 21st of April, the Third Battalion of Massachusetts
Rifles, with Hon. Charles Devens as Major, consisting of two
hundred and sixty-six men, arrived at New York from Worcester,
on their way to the scene of action, and quartered in the
armory of the famous New York Seventh, which had left on the
preceding afternoon. On a visit to the armory by Mr. Sumner,
the Battalion was called into line, and he made the following
remarks.

MAJOR DEVENS, SOLDIERS, AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF MASSACHUSETTS:--

Being in New York, on my way home from Washington to our beloved Massachusetts, and learning that you also were here on your way to duty, I have called, that I might have the privilege of looking upon your faces. [_Cheers._] Your commanding officer, whom I have known long in other walks of life, does me the honor of inviting me to say a few words. If I have yielded, it is because he is irresistible, for I feel in my soul that action, and not speech, is needed now. [_Cheers._] Elsewhere it has been my part to speak. It is your part now to act. [_Applause._] Nor do I doubt that you will act as becomes the Commonwealth that has committed to you her name. [_Cheers._]

I cannot see before me so large a number of the sons of Massachusetts, already moving to the scene of trial, without feeling anew the loss we have just encountered: I allude to the death, at Baltimore, of devoted fellow-citizens, who had sprung forward so promptly at the call of country. As I heard that they had fallen, my soul was touched. And yet, when I thought of the cause for which they met death, I said to myself, that, for the sake of Massachusetts, ay, and for their own sake, I would not have it otherwise. [_Enthusiastic applause._] They have died well, for they died at the post of duty, and so dying have become an example and a name in history, while Massachusetts, that sent them forth, adds new memories to a day already famous in her calendar, and links the present with the past. It was on the 19th of April that they died, and their blood was the first offering of patriotism in the great cause which snatched them from the avocations of peace. Thus have they passed at once into companionship with those forefathers who on the 19th of April, 1775, made also the offering of their blood. [_Loud cheers._] Lexington is not alone. As on that historic field, Massachusetts blood is again the first to be spilled, and in a conflict which is but a continuation of the other; and these dying volunteers have placed Massachusetts once more foremost, as on that morning which heralded Independence. [_Cheers._] Therefore I would not have it otherwise. [_Cheers._] Nor do I doubt that the day we now deplore will be followed, as was that earlier day, by certain triumph. [_Cheers._]

Those other times, when our forefathers struggled for Independence against the British power, were often said “to try men’s souls”; and these words are yet repeated to depict those trials. But, witnessing the willingness and alacrity with which patriot citizens now offer themselves for country, and to die, if need be, I look in vain for signs that souls are tried. [_Cheers._] And yet I cannot disguise from you, soldiers, that there are hardships and perils in your path. But what is victory, unless through hardship and peril? [_Cheers._] Be brave, then, and do the duty to which you are called; and if you need any watchword, let it be, _Massachusetts_, THE CONSTITUTION, and FREEDOM! [_Loud applause from the soldiers._]

On the same evening, the Battalion embarked on board the
transport “Ariel” for Annapolis, where it arrived on the
morning of April 24th, and on the 2d of May was transferred to
Fort McHenry, in the harbor of Baltimore. There it remained to
the end of its term of service.

PASSPORTS FOR COLORED CITIZENS.

NOTE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE, JUNE 27, 1861.

The question of Passports for Colored Citizens was embarrassed
by the Dred Scott decision, and the usage of the State
Department, refusing to recognize colored persons as citizens.
The position of the latter was set forth in a letter of Mr.
Thomas, Assistant Secretary, communicating the judgment of Mr.
Marcy, Secretary of State.

“DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, November 4, 1856.

“Your letters of the 29th ult. and 3d inst., requesting
passports for eleven colored persons, have been received,
and I am directed by the Secretary to inform you that the
papers transmitted by you do not warrant the Department
in complying with your request. The question whether free
negroes are citizens is not now presented for the first
time, but has repeatedly arisen in the administration
of both the National and State governments. In 1821 a
controversy arose as to whether free persons of color
were citizens of the United States, within the intent and
meaning of the Acts of Congress regulating foreign and
coasting trade, so as to be qualified to command vessels,
and Wirt, Attorney-General, decided that they were not, and
he moreover held that the words ‘citizens of the United
States’ were used in the Acts of Congress in the same sense
as in the Constitution. This view is also fully sustained
in a recent opinion of the present Attorney-General.

“The judicial decisions of the country are to the same
effect.… Such being the construction of the Constitution in
regard to free persons of color, it is conceived that they
cannot be regarded, when beyond the jurisdiction of this
Government, as entitled to the full rights of citizens;
but the Secretary directs me to say, that, though the
Department could not certify that such persons are citizens
of the United States, yet, if satisfied of the truth of
the facts, it would give a certificate that they were born
in the United States, are free, and that the Government
thereof would regard it to be its duty to protect them,
if wronged by a foreign government while within its
jurisdiction for a legal and proper purpose.”[146]

Amidst the general anxieties of the time this important
question was presented for revision. A colored youth of
Boston, son of Robert Morris, Esq., a practitioner in the
courts of Massachusetts, unable to obtain a college education
at home, proposed to seek it in France, where there was no
exclusion on account of color, and Mr. Sumner, in a written
communication to the Secretary of State, requested a passport
for him, at the same time inclosing the description of his
person duly authenticated, in which his complexion was said
to be “colored” and his hair “short and curly.” There being
some delay, Mr. Sumner called at the Department to urge
personally his formal application. Mr. Seward did not like
to issue a passport on the description furnished, but at the
same time would furnish a passport to Mr. Sumner for anybody
whom he certified to be a citizen, without description. The
authenticated description was then returned, and Mr. Sumner, at
Mr. Seward’s own desk, and on the ordinary despatch paper of
the Department, wrote at once the following.

WASHINGTON, 27 June, ’61.

SIR,--Please send me a passport for Robert Morris, Jr., of
Boston, a citizen of the United States.

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

The passport was duly issued, bearing date June 29, 1861, and
Mr. Sumner’s note was filed in the Passport Bureau, being the
only paper in the case.

The opinion of the Attorney-General, affirming the citizenship
of colored freemen, November 29, 1862,[147] settled this
question definitively.

OBJECT OF THE WAR.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE, ON THE CRITTENDEN RESOLUTION DECLARING THE OBJECT OF THE WAR, JULY 24 AND 25, 1861.

July 4th, 1861, Congress met in extraordinary session, at
the call of the President, to make provision for the welfare
of the country, and especially for the prosecution of the
war. Meanwhile, Mr. Crittenden, so famous for his attempt at
Compromise, had ceased to be a Senator, but he had become a
member of the other House. Here he introduced a resolution,
declaring the object of the war, which was adopted by the House
with only two dissenting votes.

July 24, the same resolution, in nearly the same words,
was introduced into the Senate by Hon. Andrew Johnson, of
Tennessee, afterwards President, who pressed a vote at once,
even without having it printed. On Mr. Sumner’s objection it
was postponed. His few words in making this objection have
significance, as showing his feeling towards Mr. Johnson at
that time, and also his unwillingness that the Senate should
commit itself hastily to a proposition which, under the name of
the “Crittenden Resolution,” was destined to play an important
part.

Mr. Sumner said:--

I am unwilling to stand in the way of any desire of the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. ANDREW JOHNSON]. I hesitate, therefore, to use the privilege, under the rules, of objecting to a resolution on the day of its introduction; but I do think, in view of its importance, that it ought at least to be printed, so that we may have an opportunity of reading it carefully and considering it well, before we act upon it. Therefore I object to its consideration at this time. I wish the Senator to understand that it is with great respect for himself, and with a desire to do really what the occasion, as I think, requires. I hope the Senator himself will consent that it lie on the table and be printed.

Mr. Johnson said that he would not object, and the resolution
was ordered to be printed, as follows.

“_Resolved_,--That the present deplorable civil war has
been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the
Southern States, now in revolt against the Constitutional
Government, and in arms around the capital; that in this
national emergency, Congress, banishing all feeling of
mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty
to the whole country; that this war is not prosecuted
upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any
purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of
overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established
institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain
the supremacy of the Constitution, and all laws made in
pursuance thereof, and to preserve the Union, with all
the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States
unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished,
the war ought to cease.”

The next day the resolution was taken up, on motion of Mr.
Johnson. Mr. Trumbull objected to the allegation in it that the
disunionists were “in arms around the capital,” which in his
opinion was not true; and he added, that, in his opinion, the
revolt was occasioned by people who are not here or in this
vicinity: it was started in South Carolina. He objected also
to the clause that the war was “not prosecuted for any purpose
of conquest or subjugation,”--on which he said, “I trust this
war _is_ prosecuted for the purpose of subjugating all rebels
and traitors who are in arms against the Government.” For
these reasons he voted in the negative. Every other Republican
present voted in the affirmative, except Mr. Sumner, who
declined to vote. His name does not appear in the record.

* * * * *

This resolution was general in terms, but specious. Though
not mentioning Slavery expressly, or interfering with the
requirement of military necessity, it was considered at the
time as a safeguard of Slavery, even to the Fugitive Slave Bill
itself, which was included under the words, “the supremacy of
the Constitution, and all laws made in pursuance thereof.” Nor
could it be forgotten that it was first brought forward by the
same person who, during the previous winter, as Senator from
Kentucky, had most pertinaciously urged an odious compromise,
by which Slavery was to be intrenched in the Constitution,
and made dominant in the National Government. Mr. Sumner,
always sensitive to any recognition of Slavery, saw in it an
effort to commit Congress the wrong way, so that inaction on
Slavery should be the policy of the war, when, to his mind,
the sooner Slavery was attacked, the better. His objection to
the resolution was radical; but, unwilling to separate openly
from political associates, anxious also with regard to the
President, who held back, and hoping that time would bring
general concurrence in striking at Slavery, he was silent, and
contented himself by withholding his vote, so that he was not
committed to the resolution in any respect.

This statement is made to explain the progress of events, and
also because Mr. Sumner’s course was the occasion of comment,
and even of hostile criticism, at the time.

SYMPATHIES OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD NOT TO BE REPELLED.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, AGAINST INCREASE OF TEN PER CENT ON ALL FOREIGN DUTIES, JULY 29, 1861.

In the consideration of the Tariff Bill at this session, Mr.
Sumner differed from friends on some of the points involved.
One of these differences occurred on his motion, July 29, 1861,
to strike out the following clause:--

“That, in addition to the duties now imposed by law on
goods, wares, and merchandise not enumerated in the
foregoing section, and on all goods not herein otherwise
provided for, hereafter imported from foreign countries,
there shall be levied, collected, and paid _a duty of ten
per centum ad valorem, to include all merchandise subject
to or exempt from duty by former laws_.”

On this motion he spoke as follows.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I think we had better take a vote on the simple proposition, because in that way we shall arrive at the precise wishes of the Senate. I therefore move to strike out the words just read; and if I can have the attention of the Senate for two minutes, I think I can explain why they should be stricken out.

It will be remembered that in the latter days of the last session a new tariff was adopted; but, owing to the disturbed state of the country, and the impediments to commerce, it is not too much to say that we have no present experience of its operation. We do not know to what extent it will supply revenue. While thus ignorant of its operation, it is proposed to make an important change, being nothing less than to pile another story upon what is already criticised as too high. In addition to all existing duties, we are asked to impose a further duty of ten per cent. In the present exigencies of the country, if there were reasonable assurance that out of such extraordinary tax the revenue would be advanced, I should have nothing to say against it,--on the contrary, I should hold up both hands for it; but, so far as I am informed,--and I have taken pains to inform myself,--there is no reasonable ground to believe that the addition of ten per cent extra upon present duties would yield any additional revenue.

MR. POLK. If the Senator will allow me to interrupt him----

MR. SUMNER. Certainly.

MR. POLK. I will ask if the result of his investigations is not
that the addition of ten per cent would actually decrease the
revenue?

MR. SUMNER. The Senator properly directs attention to an important point. I said there was no reasonable assurance that there would be an increase of revenue. I believe that I may go further, as the Senator has suggested, and say that a tariff so far prohibitory will actually diminish instead of increasing revenue. Where then will be your revenue? Revenue comes from commerce, and is just in proportion to the extent of commerce; but if you make commerce impossible, where is your revenue? You kill the bird that lays the golden egg.

There is a pleasant story, which I remember to have heard, of a shopkeeper who once announced to his friends that before breakfast he had increased his fortune by ten per cent; but, on inquiry, it was ascertained that he had merely marked his goods on hand at an increased price of ten per cent, and that was his boasted increase. I much fear that this additional ten per cent will be equally vain for the increase of our national revenue.

But, Mr. President, while the advantages of this proposed increase are all uncertain, there are disadvantages that are certain. It will add to the bad name which, unhappily, the tariff of the last session has already with those disposed to criticise it, and especially with foreign countries. At this moment, when every suggestion of prudence dictates that in our relations with foreign countries we should be governed by a supreme policy of moderation, conciliation, and good-will, you propose to take a step which, to say the least of it, will be regarded as indicative of hostility or of indifference. Now, whatever may be the sentiments and the feelings of European Governments with regard to us, it is perfectly clear that the laboring classes of Europe do sympathize with us in our present struggle; and all those sympathies you turn aside, when you impose prohibitory duties which cut off a market for their labor. I am therefore, Mr. President, opposed to this increase on two positive grounds: first, because its advantages are uncertain; secondly, because its disadvantages are certain.

Mr. Fessenden replied, saying, among other things,--

“I am very glad that the Senator has made the remarks
he has, and I desire to say a few words in reply, more
particularly to the last portion of his speech. As Chairman
of the Committee on Foreign Relations, it being his duty to
keep on the best possible terms with all foreign powers,
he had a right, perhaps, to say what he has said; but,
after all, that is not the question. I would suggest to
the honorable Senator, that there is something else to be
considered, at the present time, besides the good or bad
opinion which certain foreign ministers and others may have
of our domestic policy.”

Then again:--

“Now the Senator says: ‘Be careful how you lay these duties
on, because foreign countries will be offended at us.’ What
right has a foreign country to make any question about what
we choose to do with reference to these matters,--to say,
when we are in a state of war, and struggling for national
existence even, that we shall not impose duties which are
necessary to enable us to prosecute that war, because,
forsooth, it may affect the interests of foreign gentlemen?”

Here Mr. Sumner interposed:--

I know the Senator does not intend to misstate my argument. I assumed that there would be no increase of revenue from this additional ten per cent,--at least, that the advantages of the increase were uncertain, doubtful; and then that it was very certain there would be disadvantages.

Mr. Fessenden continued at some length, and with much
earnestness said:--

“I have heard this argument adduced out of doors, and this
talk about how foreign powers might feel respecting the
duties we choose to impose upon articles imported into this
country. Why, Sir, I say the argument is nothing less than
an insult.… I say, therefore, that no people have a right
to be offended with us for acting according to our own
views of our own interests. They would not have it in time
of peace, and much less could they have it in time of war.”

Mr. Sumner restated his position.