Chapter VI: Part 6

I put aside, also, the suggestion of the Senator from New York [Mr. HARRIS], to the effect that the Senator from Indiana is now on trial, that our proceedings are judicial, and that the evidence before us is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of such a case. Surely this assumption proceeds on a mistake. The Senator from Indiana is not on trial, in the ordinary understanding of that term; nor are our proceedings judicial; nor is the evidence insufficient for the case. Under the Constitution, each House, with the concurrence of two thirds, may expel a member; but this large discretionary power is given simply for the protection of the body in the exercise of an honest and honorable self-defence. The Senate itself is on trial just as much as the Senator; and permit me to say that the Senate will condemn itself, if it allow any person to continue among its members who has forfeited that peculiar confidence in his loyalty which is essential to his usefulness as Senator. It is vain to say that the evidence is insufficient. Technically and judicially it may be so; but according to all legislative precedents and all the rules of common life it is obviously sufficient, for it is beyond all practical doubt. My friend from New York did not hesitate at this session to vote for the expulsion of Breckinridge, of Polk, and of Johnson, without one scrap of evidence that he would recognize as a judge on the bench. How can he require evidence now which he did not require then?

I put aside, also, the argument of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. COWAN], so carefully and elaborately stated, to the effect that on the 1st of March, when the disloyal letter was written, there was no war actually existing between the Rebel States and the United States. Even if this assumption were correct, even if the United States were still hesitating what course to adopt, nothing is clearer than this: the Rebel States were in rebellion,--organized, armed, and offensive,--with the avowed purpose of overthrowing the National Government within their borders; and such rebellion was, beyond all question, a levying of war under the Constitution of the United States, so that all adherence to it, giving aid and comfort, was treason itself. But even if not disposed to admit actual levying of war on the part of the Rebels,--though of this there can be no doubt,--there was surely preparation and purpose so to do; and any contribution to such preparation and purpose was disloyalty, if not treason. Clearly, Jefferson Davis at that time was a traitor, at the head of traitors. What, then, can be thought of a Senator who offered arms to him?

I put aside, also, the suggestion of the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. TEN EYCK], founded on the language of the President in his inaugural address of the 4th of March. It is true that the President spoke of the Rebels in generous, fraternal words, such as became the Chief Magistrate of a great people, not yet renouncing the idea of conquering by kindness, and not forgetting that Leviathan was tamed by a cord. But, whatever the language of the President, it is none the less clear that the Rebellion at that very moment was completely organized by a succession of overt acts, which fixed the treasonable position of its authors, and especially of its chief, to whom the letter offering arms was addressed.

I put aside, also, the argument of the Senator from California [Mr. LATHAM], especially that part founded on the tolerance shown to treason, when uttered here by the retiring Rebels. Nobody questions that treason was uttered on this floor, or that treasonable counsels went forth from this Chamber. But the Senate was then controlled by the associates of the Senator of Indiana, and it was not in our power to check or chastise the traitors. It is within the recollection of many that those utterances were heard on this side of the Chamber, not only with indignant patriotism, but with bitter, stinging regret at the abject condition of the Senate, then so entirely in the hands of traitors that we were obliged to hear in silence. Surely such utterances, wicked with treason, constituting the very voice of the Rebellion, cannot be an apology for the disloyal letter of the Senator; nor can silence, when we were powerless to act, be any argument for silence now that power and responsibility are ours.

I agree with the Senator from Illinois [Mr. BROWNING], that the whole conduct and declaration of the author may be legitimately employed to elucidate the character of this letter; but I found no supplementary charge on such conduct or declaration. Others may use the argument that the Senator has declared himself against coercion of the Rebel States, or that he has refused to vote the necessary means for the suppression of the Rebellion; but I use no such argument. Much as I lament such a course, and justly obnoxious as I regard it, yet I cannot consider it as an argument for expulsion of the Senator. Freedom of debate is among the triumphs of modern civilization; and it shall never be impaired by any vote or word of mine. To this freedom I have held fast, when almost alone in this body; and what I have steadily vindicated for myself against all odds I shall never deny to another. Therefore, if I am the judge, there is no Senator who will not always be perfectly free to speak and vote as he thinks best on every question that shall legitimately arise; but beyond this immunity he must not go. He shall not talk treason; he shall not parley with rebellion; he shall not address to it words of sympathy and good-will; especially, he shall not recognize its chief in his pretended character of President, nor shall he send him improved fire-arms to be employed in the work of treason.

Putting aside all these considerations, the case against the Senator from Indiana is clear. All apologies, all excuses, utterly fail. It is vain to say that the bearer of the letter was his lifelong friend, as it is vain to say, also, that the Senator did not dream that there would be war. The first apology is as feeble as the second is audacious. If the Senator did not dream that there would be war, then why send arms to the chief of the Rebellion? To Jefferson Davis as a private citizen, to Jefferson Davis as a patriot Senator, there was no occasion or motive for sending arms. It was only to Jefferson Davis as chief of the Rebellion that arms could be sent; and to him, in that character, they were sent. But even if the Rebellion were not at that time manifest in overt acts,--as it clearly was,--still the sending of arms was a positive provocation and contribution to its outbreak, especially when the arms were sent by a Senator. And now, at the risk of repetition, I say again, it is not necessary that the war should have been commenced on the part of the United States. It is enough, that, on the part of Jefferson Davis, at the date of the letter, there was actual levying of war, or, at least, a purpose to levy war; and in either of these two cases, the latter as well as the former, the guilt of the Senator offering arms is complete,--call it treason, or simply disloyalty, if you will.

It is vain that you seek to surround the Senatorial letter-writer with the technical defences of a judicial tribunal. This will not do. They are out of place. God grant, that, in the administration of justice, a citizen arraigned for his life may always be presumed innocent till he is proved guilty! But, while zealously asserting this presumption in a criminal trial, I utterly deny it in the present case. The two proceedings are radically unlike. In the one we think most of the individual; in the other we think most of the Senate. The flag-officer of a fleet, or the commander of a garrison, when only suspected of correspondence with the enemy, is without delay deprived of command; nor can any technical presumption of innocence be invoked in his defence. For the sake of the fleet, for the sake of the garrison, which must not be betrayed, it is your duty to see that he is deprived of command. Nor can a suspected Senator, with all his confidential trusts, legislative, diplomatic, and executive, expect any tolerance denied to a suspected flag-officer, or to a suspected commander of a garrison. If not strong, pure, and upright in himself, he must not expect to find strength, purity, and uprightness in any presumption of innocence, or in any technical rule of law. For the sake of the Senate, he must be deprived of his place. Afterwards, should he be arraigned at law, he will be allowed to employ all the devices and weapons familiar to judicial proceedings.

There is another illusion into which the Senator has fallen; and it seems to me that the Senator from New York, and perhaps other Senators, have followed him. It is the assumption, that, in depriving the Senator of his seat, we take from him something that is really his. This is a mistake. A Senator is simply a trustee. The Senator is trustee for Indiana. But his fidelity as trustee is now drawn in question; and since no person is allowed to continue as trustee whose character is not above suspicion,--inspired _uberrimâ fide_, according to the language of the law,--the case of the Senator should obviously be remanded to the State for which he still assumes to act. Should he be wronged by expulsion, then will that State promptly return him to his present trust, and our judgment will be generously reversed. The Senator has no right for himself here; he does not represent himself; but he represents his State, of which he is the elected, most confidential trustee; and when his fidelity is openly impeached, there is no personal right which can become his shield. Tell me not of the seat of the Senator. Let the Senator be cautious in language. By courtesy the seat may be his; but in reality the seat belongs to Indiana; and this honored State, unsurpassed in contributions to the patriot armies of the Republic, may justly protest against longer misrepresentation on this floor by a disloyal Senator.

But the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. COWAN] exclaims--and the Senator from New York follows him--that the offence of the Senator is “treason or nothing.” For myself, I have no hesitation in expressing the conviction that it is treason. If it be not treason in a Senator to send arms to an open traitor, whom he at the same time acknowledges in his traitorous character, then it were better to blot out the crime of treason from our statute-book, and to rase its definition from the Constitution. Sir, it is treason. But even if not treason according to all the technical requirements of that crime, obviously and unquestionably it is an act of disloyalty so discreditable, so unworthy, and so dangerous as to render the duty of the Senate imperative. Is it nothing that the Senator should write a friendly letter, make open acknowledgment, and offer warlike aid to a public traitor? Is it nothing, that, sitting in this Chamber, the Senator should send to the chief of the Rebellion words of sympathy and arms of power? Is it nothing that the Senator should address the traitor in terms of courtesy and official respect? Is it nothing that the Senator should call the traitor “His Excellency,” and should hail him “President of the Confederation of States”? And is it nothing that the Senator should offer to the traitor thus addressed what of all things he most coveted, to be turned against the Constitution which the Senator has sworn to support?

“Is this nothing?
Why, then the world, and all that’s in ’t, is nothing;
The covering sky is nothing: …
… nor nothing have these nothings,
If this be nothing.”

Sir, the case is too plain for argument. You cannot argue that two and two make four, that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points, or that the sun shines in the sky. All these are palpable to reason or to sense. But, if I did not see before me honored Senators, valued friends, who think otherwise, I should say that to the patriot soul it is hardly less palpable that a Senator, acknowledging in friendly correspondence the chief of a Rebellion set on foot in defiance of the United States, and sending to him arms, whose only possible use was in upholding the Rebellion, has justly forfeited that confidence which is as much needed as a commission to assure his seat in this Chamber. The case is very plain, and we have taken too much time to consider it. We have been dilatory when we ought to have been prompt, and have hearkened to technical defences when we should have surrendered to that indignation which disloyalty is calculated to arouse.

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. CLARK] has reminded us--as John Quincy Adams reminded another generation--of that beautiful work of Art in the other wing of the Capitol, where the Muse of History, with faithful pen, registers the transactions of each day, and he trusted that over against the record of past disloyalty another page might beam with the just judgment that followed. But there is another work of Art, famous as Art itself, and proceeding from its greatest master, which may admonish us precisely what to do. The ancient satrap Heliodorus, acting in the name of a distant sovereign, entered that sumptuous temple dedicated to the true God, where stood the golden candlesticks and hung the veil which was yet unrent, and profanely seized the riches under protection of the altar itself, when suddenly, at the intercession of the high priest, an angelic horseman armed with thongs is seen to dash the intruder upon the marble pavement, and to sweep him with scourges from the sacred presence. Now that disloyalty, in the acknowledged name of a distant traitor, intrudes into this sanctuary of the Constitution, and insists upon a place at our altar, there should be indignant chastisement, swift as the angelic horseman that moves immortal in the colors of Raffaelle. In vain do you interpose appeals for lenity or forbearance. The case does not allow them. I know well the beauty and the greatness of charity. For the Senator I have charity; but there is a better charity due to the Senate, whose solemn trusts are in jeopardy; and even if you do not accept completely the saying of Antiquity, which makes duty to country the great charity embracing all other charities, you will not deny that it is at least a commanding obligation, by the side of which all that we owe the Senator is small. And, Sir, let us not forget, let the precious example be present in our souls, that He who taught the beauty and the greatness of charity was the first to scourge the money-changers from the temple of the Lord.

Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, followed. Some of his words are quoted,
from their bearing on Mr. Sumner’s opposition to Slavery.

“The gentleman shakes his imperial locks like a Jove, and
menaces death and destruction to Slavery. I thank my stars
that the gentleman is not yet the Jove of this land, nor
the Jove of this Senate either. There are minds as exalted
and as cultivated as his, and there are wills as patriotic
and as true to the Constitution and to the country as his,
and altogether independent of his; and it is to those minds
that I appeal, whenever a question involving the interests
of my constituents comes up here, not to the mind of the
gentleman from Massachusetts. I know, Sir, what fate would
await Slavery, if he could speak the fiat. He is, however,
but one member of this body.”

February 5th, after further debate, the final vote was taken on
the resolution of expulsion, and resulted in yeas 32, nays 14.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT. Upon this question the yeas are 32,
the nays are 14. More than two thirds having agreed to the
resolution, it is passed. [_Applause in the galleries._]

THE VICE-PRESIDENT. Order! Order!

The Washington correspondent of a Northern journal described
the scene of the vote.

“All seemed to feel that they were acting, not for the
present only, but for coming time. The great crowd of
spectators filling every available spot, and the presence
of many of the members of the House, added to the
impressiveness of the scene. Amid breathless anxiety and
profound silence the roll-call commenced. For a time the
ayes and noes bore a doubtful proportion. Senator Willey,
having held his vote in abeyance till the last, had just
announced that he should vote against the expulsion,
and Senator Carlile, who had been generally supposed to
favor the resolution, also joined his colleague among
the noes. As the vote proceeded, the ayes became almost
uninterrupted, and we were prepared for the result. A few
moments more and the event was over,--felt by those who
witnessed it to be scarcely less solemn than the infliction
of death itself, and which will probably be cited in
precedent when all its spectators shall have long been
dust.”

ANSWER OF A WITNESS CRIMINATING HIMSELF.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL RELATING TO WITNESSES BEFORE COMMITTEES, JANUARY 22, 1862.

In considering the bill amending the provisions of the
second section of the Act of January 24, 1857, enforcing the
attendance of witnesses before Committees of either House of
Congress, the following clause was objected to: “And no witness
shall hereafter be allowed to refuse to testify to any fact
or to produce any paper touching which he shall be examined
by either House of Congress or any Committee of either House,
for the reason that his testimony touching such fact or the
production of such paper _may tend to disgrace him or otherwise
render him infamous_.” In the debate that ensued Mr. Sumner
spoke as follows.

MR. PRESIDENT,--There seems to be much inquiry as to the Common Law on this question, and various points are presented.

It is asked, for instance, whether a witness is obliged to answer, where his answer will render him infamous. I know the differences on this point, but cannot doubt that by the Common Law the witness is obliged to answer in such a case,--most certainly, if the question is relevant and material.

Again, it is asked if a witness is permitted to determine for himself whether to answer the question proposed. Here also the Common Law, when properly interpreted, is clear. The witness cannot be the final judge. He must submit to the decision of the Court, which will determine whether his answer may criminate him, by revealing either guilt or a possible link in the evidence of guilt.

But then, Mr. President, why speak of the Common Law? Why revert to these antiquarian inquiries, when we have the Constitution of the United States specifically dealing with this very question? In the fifth article of the Amendments it is provided that “no person shall be compelled _in any criminal case_ to be a witness against himself.” Such are the very words of the Constitution, derived from the Common Law, but imparting precision and limitation to the Common Law. Now it seems to me it will be enough, if, on this occasion, we follow the text of the Constitution. As in the pending proposition there is nothing inconsistent with the Constitution, we need not ransack the wide and ancient demesnes of the Common Law to stir up difficulties. Whatever the rule at Common Law, plainly under the Constitution its operation is restricted to a “criminal case,” leaving a case of infamy untouched.

I am free to say, Sir,--and what I am about to remark is particularly in answer to the Senator from New York [Mr. HARRIS],--that, if this question were presented independent of the Constitution, I should be little disposed to follow the Common Law. In my judgment the Common Law is less wise here than it ought to be. I cannot but think that the jurisprudence of other civilized countries, derived from the Roman Law, supplies a better rule. There is no other civilized jurisprudence under which a witness is excused from answering any question, though the answer may affect his character or honor, or even render him criminal. The Common Law, at an early day, under a generous inspiration, adopted a contrary principle, which, crossing the ocean with our forefathers, is embodied in the text of the Constitution. Finding it there, I accept it; certainly I do not quarrel with it; but I cannot consent that it shall receive any expansion, especially interfering with the public interests. I hope the bill may pass as it comes from the House, without amendment. It is a good bill.

Mr. Harris, of New York, moved as an amendment: “Nor shall this
Act be so construed as to require any witness to testify to any
fact which shall tend to criminate him.” The question, being
taken by yeas and nays, resulted, yeas 19, nays 21; so the
amendment failed.

The bill was then passed, and, January 24th, approved by the
President.[140]

LIMITATION OF DEBATE IN THE SENATE.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A FIVE MINUTES’ RULE, JANUARY 27 AND 29, 1862.

A Joint Rule, moved by Mr. Wade, of Ohio, to facilitate
secret sessions, contained a restriction on debate, which was
afterwards struck out on his own motion. Mr. Sumner united with
others against this restriction, and some of his remarks are
preserved here as a record of opinion.

January 27th, he said:--

I am glad the Senator has modified his rule, so far as it bears on the length of speeches. He thinks a speech of five minutes long enough. If all had the happy faculty of my distinguished friend, who so easily speaks to the point, I doubt not it would be long enough; but we must take Senators as they are, according to our experience, and allow for their ways. Besides, such a rule would be a departure from the constant policy of the Senate.

The Joint Rule was much discussed, and underwent various
modifications, some on motion of Mr. Sumner. January 29th, a
substitute was moved by Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, and subsequently
adopted, which contained the restriction on debate abandoned by
his colleague, as follows:--

“If decided in the affirmative, debate shall be confined to
the subject-matter, and be limited to five minutes by any
member. _Provided_, That any member shall be allowed five
minutes to explain or oppose any pertinent amendment.”

This led Mr. Sumner to speak again.

I must confess that I hesitate to place among Rules of the Senate a limitation of debate to five minutes,--not that I desire in our conversations on business to exceed that allowance. Personally I am content with what pleases my associates; but I doubt the expediency of such a rule, which thus far is a stranger among us.

Limitations of debate in various forms play a large part in the other Chamber. Shall they begin here, even in the small way proposed? A five minutes’ rule is not the previous question, with its death-dealing _garrote_, but it is a limitation of debate, and the Senate has from the beginning set itself against any such restriction, insisting always upon the largest latitude and amplest opportunity.

If there were any obvious good to be accomplished by such a rule, if there were any exigency seeming to require the sacrifice, I should welcome it; but I put it to Senators, whether experience in Executive Session does not show that it is unnecessary. I cannot doubt that the very business contemplated by the rule would be discussed directly, plainly, briefly, according to the essential nature of the question, even without any restriction. But, if unnecessary, why make a change which will look so ill that it were better to bear inconvenience rather than have such a deformity?

It is enough, if on a critical occasion we are able to close our doors, leaving the great privilege of debate unchecked, to be employed as sword or buckler, according to the promptings of patriotism and the conscience of Senators.

INDUSTRIAL EXHIBITION AT LONDON.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE JOINT RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR REPRESENTATION THERE, JANUARY 31, 1862.

January 31st, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint
resolution reported by Mr. Sumner from the Committee on Foreign
Relations, providing for representation at the Exhibition of
the Industry of all Nations at London in the year 1862.

Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, said that he was “entirely opposed
to this whole thing.” Mr. Sumner then spoke as follows.

MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. HALE] objects to the joint resolution, but he assigns no reason. When I make a personal appeal to him, he declines to answer. Of course, that is according to his right. He may be silent, though we are always too happy when he speaks. It becomes my duty, therefore, to explain the resolution, which I shall do in few words.

At the extra session of Congress in July last, a joint resolution was adopted in the following words:--

“That the President be, and he hereby is, authorized to take
such measures as shall to him seem best to facilitate a proper
representation of the industrial interests of the United States
at the Exhibition of the Industry of all Nations to be holden
at London in the year 1862, and the sum of two thousand dollars
is hereby appropriated for the incidental expenses thereof.”

The resolution passed Congress, and was approved by the President on the 27th of July. Under it a Commission was organized by the President, with the Secretary of State as Chairman. Associated with him were eminent gentlemen from different walks of life, from different parts of the country----

MR. GRIMES. What parts?

MR. SUMNER. All parts,--the West, the North, and the East.

MR. GRIMES. Who from the West?

MR. SUMNER. You will find the names on the printed list. At a meeting in Washington, a sub-committee was organized for the direction of business. Through this sub-committee a correspondence has been conducted with persons all over the country interested in the Exhibition, and industrial products have been gathered at New York, to be forwarded to London; but their proceedings are stopped for want of means, and the actual question is simply this: Will the Senate allow the business already commenced under their auspices to fail, or will they make the needful appropriation to carry it forward?

There is at least one precedent. Ten years ago witnessed an industrial exhibition in London, which attracted the attention of the civilized world. There was no provision in advance by the Government of the United States for any representation there; but patriotic citizens came forward at the last moment, volunteered money and representation, and through their activity we became honorably known there,--so, indeed, I think I may say, as to gain renown for our industrial products. I would not exaggerate; but nobody can forget the triumph of the American reaper or the American mower. I believe I state what cannot be denied, when I say, that, through the representation of American industry at that exhibition, we gained not only fame abroad, but new fields of activity for our industry, and new markets for our homely, but most useful products.

Now there is to be another exhibition, and the question is, whether our country shall be represented. An appropriation is needed for this purpose. The Committee, after most careful deliberation, not acting, I assure you, hastily, came to the conclusion that our country should be represented there, and they recommended the appropriation of the modest sum of $35,000. Persons interested in the subject desired a larger appropriation. The Committee concluded in favor of $35,000, as the utmost they would ask from Congress at the present time. Accordingly they have made that recommendation, believing it for the general welfare.

I do not know the objection of my friend from New Hampshire. Perhaps he is against any representation. If so, I can understand that he should oppose the appropriation. But is his objection founded on grounds of economy peculiar to the present moment, or is it because he is against such appearance at any time? If founded on grounds of economy peculiar to the present moment, I must say I cannot enter into his idea. Nobody more completely than myself can appreciate the importance of bending every corporal and intellectual agent to the work of putting down the Rebellion; but I am unwilling that meanwhile all the glorious and beneficent arts of peace should slumber. Nor would I, even while pushing this war to victory, cease to watch with guardian care the industrial interests of my country. Those interests, I am sure, will be advanced, if we allow them to be represented at this great centre of industry; and so will all the national resources increase and multiply. And this is not simply because the exhibition is in London, or because it may open a market in London, but because through London we approach all the great markets of the world; and while making our products known in the great metropolis, we make them known wherever civilization extends. The exhibition will be an immense fair, to which exhibitors can have access only through their respective governments. I am unwilling to deprive American citizens of this opportunity.

I assume, therefore, that my friend cannot be against contributing to this exhibition simply on grounds peculiar to this moment. It must be on some other broader, more general ground. I must say that I cannot enter into that idea, either. If it was good for us to be represented ten years ago,--and I believe all, after the exhibition, were satisfied that it was good for us,--I believe it better now. Surely, all this my friend has at heart. I hope he will not forget that the interests of farmers, the interests of inventors, the interests of mechanics, the interests of all who toil and of all who produce,--in one word, the great diversified interests of the people, cannot fail to be promoted by this opportunity. And here is reason enough for the small outlay.

In the brief debate that ensued, Mr. Lane, of Indiana, said:--

“The sword and the cannon are the reapers now, and the
Rebels are the harvest; and to that purpose and to those
reapers I shall devote my attention.”

The joint resolution was lost,--yeas 17, nays 22; so that at
the London Exhibition the United States had no representation.

ORDER IN BUSINESS: EACH QUESTION BY ITSELF.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 6, 1862.

The Senate had under discussion an Army Bill, when Mr.
Doolittle, of Wisconsin, moved an amendment reducing and
regulating the mileage of Members of Congress. The remarks of
Mr. Sumner were not addressed to the merits of the question,
but to the impropriety of dealing with it in the pending bill.

MR. PRESIDENT,--It seems clear that the discussion in which we are launched is a departure from the question before the Senate. The pending bill is “to define the pay and emoluments of certain officers of the army, and for other purposes,” and an amendment is moved to reduce and regulate Congressional mileage. By what process of association the two are brought together it is not easy to see. Certainly nobody looking for light on Congressional mileage would think of exploring our army legislation.

* * * * *

My experience teaches me the advantage, not to say the beauty of order, in the business of legislation, as in all other business. There is a proper place for everything, and everything should be in its proper place. Especially should things plainly incongruous be kept apart, and without commixture. But what more unreasonable than the commixture proposed? Each measure may be good in itself, but the two do not go together. They are without natural or logical connection. One is not the incident of the other, nor in any respect germane to the other. They should be in separate bills, and be discussed separately.

Here we are in high debate on the Army Bill, and all at once the subject is changed, although the original bill is still before the Senate. But Congressional mileage is enough by itself. Already it has occupied the attention of the country, has been discussed in the newspapers, and especially in the other House. It is a Serbonian bog, not indeed “where armies whole have sunk,” but only Members of Congress. Are you ready, while considering another question, to revive this debate, making it the accident of another, with which it has nothing to do? Is it advisable? Is it according to the natural order of business?

The Mileage Amendment was adopted, but the bill failed between
the two Houses.

STATE REBELLION, STATE SUICIDE; EMANCIPATION AND RECONSTRUCTION.

RESOLUTIONS IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 11, 1862. WITH APPENDIX.

Mr. Sumner sent to the Chair a series of resolutions, which he
described by their title. They were then read, as follows.

Resolutions declaratory of the Relations between the United
States and the Territory once occupied by certain States,
and now usurped by pretended Governments without
Constitutional or Legal Right.

Whereas certain States, rightfully belonging to the Union of
the United States, have, through their respective Governments,
wickedly undertaken to abjure all those duties by which their
connection with the Union was maintained, to renounce all
allegiance to the Constitution, to levy war upon the National
Government, and, for the consummation of this treason, have
unconstitutionally and unlawfully confederated together with
the declared purpose of putting an end, by force, to the
supremacy of the Constitution within their respective limits;

And whereas this condition of insurrection, organized by
pretended Governments, openly exists in North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana,
Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Virginia,--except in Eastern
Tennessee and Western Virginia,--and the President of the
United States, in a proclamation duly made in conformity with
an Act of Congress, has declared the same to exist throughout
this territory, with the exceptions already named;

And whereas the extensive territory thus usurped by
these pretended Governments and organized into a hostile
confederation _belongs to the United States, as an inseparable
part thereof, under the sanctions of the Constitution_, to be
held in trust for the inhabitants in the present and future
generations, and is so completely interlinked with the Union
that it is forever dependent thereupon;

And whereas the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the
land, cannot be displaced within this territory, but must ever
continue the supreme law thereof, notwithstanding the doings of
any pretended Governments, acting singly or in confederation,
hostile to its supremacy: Therefore,--

1. _Resolved_, That any vote of secession, or other act,
by a State hostile to the supremacy of the Constitution
within its territory, _is inoperative and void against the
Constitution_, and, when sustained by _force_, becomes a
practical abdication by the State of all rights under the
Constitution, while the treason it involves works instant
forfeiture of all functions and powers essential to the
continued existence of the State as a body politic; so
that from such time forward the territory falls under the
exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, as other territory, and
the State becomes, according to the language of the law,
_felo de se_.

2. That any combination of men assuming to act in the
place of such State, and attempting to ensnare or coerce
its inhabitants into a confederation hostile to the Union,
is rebellious, treasonable, and destitute of all moral
authority; and such combination is a usurpation incapable
of constitutional existence and utterly lawless, _so that
everything dependent upon it is without constitutional or
legal support_.

3. That the termination of a State under the Constitution
necessarily causes the termination of those peculiar local
institutions which, having no origin in the Constitution,
or in natural right independent of the Constitution, are
upheld by the sole and exclusive authority of the State.

4. That Slavery, being a peculiar local institution,
derived from local law, _without any origin in the
Constitution or in natural right_, is upheld by the sole
and exclusive authority of the State, and must therefore
cease, legally and constitutionally, when the State on
which it depends has lapsed; for the incident must follow
the principal.[141]

5. That, in the exercise of exclusive jurisdiction over the
territory once occupied by the States, it is the duty of
Congress to see that the supremacy of the Constitution is
maintained in its essential principles, so that everywhere
in this extensive territory Slavery shall cease to exist
in fact, as it has already ceased to exist in law or
Constitution.

6. That any recognition of Slavery in such territory, or
surrender of slaves under pretended laws of such States,
by an officer of the United States, civil or military, is
a practical recognition of the pretended Governments, to
the exclusion of the jurisdiction of Congress under the
Constitution, and is in the nature of aid and comfort to
the Rebellion that has been organized.

7. That any such recognition of Slavery, or surrender of
pretended slaves, besides being a practical recognition of
the pretended Governments, giving them aid and comfort, is
a denial of the rights of persons who by the action of the
States have become free, so that, under the Constitution,
they cannot again be enslaved.

8. That allegiance from the inhabitant and protection from
the Government are corresponding obligations, dependent
upon each other; so that, while the allegiance of every
inhabitant of this territory, without distinction of class
or color, is due to the United States, and cannot in any
way be defeated by the action of any pretended Government,
or by any pretence of property or claim to service, the
corresponding obligation of protection is at the same
time due from the United States to every such inhabitant,
without distinction of class or color; and it follows that
inhabitants held as slaves, whose paramount allegiance
is to the United States, may justly look to the National
Government for protection.

9. That the duty cast upon Congress by the action of
the States is enforced by the positive requirement of
the Constitution, that “no State shall enter into any
confederation,” or, “without the consent of Congress, keep
troops or ships of war in time of peace,” or “enter into
any agreement or compact with another State,” or “grant
letters of marque and reprisal,” or “coin money,” or “emit
bills of credit,” or, “without the consent of the Congress,
lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports,” all
of which have been done by these pretended Governments,
and also by the positive injunction of the Constitution,
addressed to the Nation, that “the United States shall
guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form
of government”; and that, in pursuance of this duty cast
upon Congress, and further enjoined by the Constitution,
_Congress will assume complete jurisdiction of such vacated
territory, where such unconstitutional and illegal things
have been attempted, and will proceed to establish therein
republican forms of government under the Constitution_,
and, in the execution of this trust, will provide carefully
for the protection of all the inhabitants thereof, for
the security of families, the organization of labor, the
encouragement of industry, and the welfare of society, and
will in every way discharge the duties of a just, merciful,
and paternal Government.

When the reading was completed, Mr. Sumner asked that the
resolutions be printed and laid upon the table, adding that at
some future day he hoped to call them up for consideration.
Then ensued a scene not inaptly called a “flurry,” with regard
to the disposition of the resolutions,--some wishing their
reference to a committee, where they would be out of the way,
and others wishing them laid on the table, so as to avoid
present debate. Mr. Sumner made the latter motion, so as to
keep them on the calendar of the Senate.

Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, moved at once their reference to the
Committee on the Judiciary. But the motion to lay on the table
had precedence. Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, said: “I do not think
we ought to take time now in discussing this question.” Mr.
Anthony, of Rhode Island, said: “If the motion to lay on the
table be lost, the motion to refer will be debatable. I vote
‘yea.’” The motion of Mr. Sumner prevailed,--yeas 21, nays 15.

Chief among the nays were the Democrats and the ordinary
revilers of Antislavery movements; but the division did not
indicate definite opinions on the resolutions. It was in no
sense an adverse vote, although often cited as such by hostile
partisans, which was the more curious as Mr. Sumner voted with
the majority.

* * * * *

February 13th, Mr. Davis introduced a series of counter
resolutions, eight in number, which were ordered to lie on the
table and be printed. Their special object was the protection
of loyal persons, so that no form of confiscation or forfeiture
should reach them,--meaning, of course, protection against
Emancipation,--“whilst inflicting on the guilty leaders condign
and exemplary punishment, granting amnesty and oblivion to the
comparatively innocent masses.”

The difference developed here entered into subsequent debates.
Mr. Sumner regarded Slavery as the great offender, besides
being a constant wrong, and he wished it destroyed completely.
Others sought to confine the sphere of Emancipation to the
slaves of Rebels.

After certain Senatorial protests at a subsequent day, the
question of Congressional power, presented by the resolutions,
and involving Reconstruction, dropped out of sight, partly
because the Proclamation of Emancipation provided a method
against Slavery, and partly because Rebel resistance and the
cloud which soon afterwards lowered upon our arms prevented
Reconstruction from becoming what was called “a practical
question,” except to those who, anticipating the future, saw
how much would be gained by a sure rule capable of immediate
application as the national power prevailed.

A speech on this subject, especially vindicating the positions
he had taken, was prepared by Mr. Sumner during this session;
but the proper occasion for its delivery not occurring, it was
handed over to the _Atlantic Monthly_, where it appeared as an
article, October, 1863. Some of the points of the resolutions
reappeared in the speech of the 19th May, on “Rights of
Sovereignty and Rights of War”;[142] also in the resolutions of
June 2 and 6, 1862, relating to the Provisional Government of
North Carolina.[143]

APPENDIX.

These Resolutions became the occasion of controversy, and
occupied public attention. They have been considered the
starting-point of Reconstruction, although the primary object
on their introduction was to strike at Slavery. The principle
here enunciated, that Slavery, being without support in
the Constitution or in natural right, fell with the local
governments on which it depended, seemed to Mr. Sumner
impregnable, and he never ceased to regret that it was not
authoritatively announced at an early day, believing that such
a juridical truth adopted by the Government would have smoothed
the way, while it hastened the great result. The essential
difficulty proceeded from the indisposition to Emancipation;
for here was only another form of the perpetual question,
“Shall the slaves be set free?”

Towards the close of the war, Mr. Everett, in an eloquent
speech at Faneuil Hall, gave his valuable authority in favor of
this principle.

“I will add, that it is very doubtful whether any act
of the Government of the United States was necessary to
liberate the slaves in a State which is in rebellion. There
is much reason for the opinion, that, by the simple act
of levying war against the United States, the relation of
Slavery was terminated, certainly so far as concerns the
duty of the United States to recognize it or to refrain
from interfering with it. Not being founded on the Law of
Nature, and resting solely on positive local law, and that
not of the United States, as soon as it becomes either
the motive or pretext of an unjust war against the Union,
an efficient instrument in the hands of the Rebels for
carrying on the war, a source of military strength to the
Rebellion and of danger to the Government at home and
abroad, with the additional certainty, that, in any event
but its abandonment, it will continue in all future time
to work these mischiefs, who can suppose it is the duty of
the United States to continue to recognize it? To maintain
this would be a contradiction in terms.… No such absurdity
can be admitted; and any citizen of the United States, from
the President down, who should by any overt act recognize
the duty of a slave to obey a Rebel master in a hostile
operation, would himself be giving aid and comfort to the
enemy.”[144]

Dr. Brownson’s judgment was the same way, as appears in a
citation on a subsequent page.

Besides the enunciation of this juridical truth, which,
frankly adopted, must have put an end to Slavery legally and
constitutionally in the Rebel States, the Resolutions further
asserted the jurisdiction of Congress over these States, and
the duty to establish republican government therein,--in other
words, the plenary power and duty of Reconstruction. Although
these were formally denied, yet the power was practically
recognized and the duty was followed, but only after injurious
delay and the conflict of debate.

The Resolutions were especially criticized, in the Senate and
out of it, for what was termed the doctrine of “State Suicide,”
and “the lapse of States into Territories.” They were described
as proposing to reduce States into Territories. Naturally, the
sentiment of State Rights was aroused.

SENATORS ADVERSE.

Mr. Willey, of Virginia, saw in them a scheme of
“unconditional, immediate, and universal Emancipation”; and he
added:--

“These consequences, in my judgment, involve the lives of
thousands of my fellow-citizens, and the happiness of all
the loyal people of all the border slaveholding States.”

Then referring to the people of the South, he said:--

“Especially will they point to the sweeping resolutions
of the great apostle of Abolition, the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER], which by one dash of the pen
deprive every Southern man of his slaves.”

Then came the familiar parallel between Mr. Sumner and
Jefferson Davis.

“Sir, a few weeks ago we expelled a Senator, because, on
the 1st of March last, he wrote a letter to Jefferson
Davis, commending to his regard a friend who had a valuable
fire-arm to sell, and who visited the South mainly for
the purpose of selling it. This was deemed evidence of
disloyalty sufficient to warrant his ejection from the
Senate. But what do we now see? What, for instance, is the
proposition of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts
[Mr. SUMNER]? It is, by one fell swoop of his pen, to
blot ten or twelve States out of the Union forever to
remit them back to a Territorial condition, and thus to
involve our muniments of right, the titles to our estates,
our franchises and municipal privileges, in a kind of
hotch-pot, begetting and superinducing an inevitable
confusion as inexplicable and dark as original Chaos.”[145]

Mr. Fessenden, in reply to Mr. Willey, emphatically disowned
Mr. Sumner.

“Why, Sir, I do not hesitate to say here most distinctly,
for myself, that I dissent entirely from the conclusions
of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, as stated in
his resolutions. I do not look upon the States of this
Union as gone and destroyed.… It is enough to say, in this
connection, that upon this particular point the opinions of
the honorable Senator from Massachusetts are his own, for
which he alone is responsible, and which he is undoubtedly
well able to defend.”[146]

On the next day Mr. Sherman followed in the same
vein,--vindicating the Republican party, and especially
disowning Mr. Sumner, which in the course of his speech he did
twice. The first time he said:--

“The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER], as he has a
perfect right to do, introduced a series of resolutions
giving his idea about the effect of the war upon the
political status of the States, and at once those
resolutions are seized upon as the dogmas of the Republican
party, and we are denounced for them, although candid men
must know that they are but the emanation of a single
individual, who has decided convictions on this subject,
and who is far in advance of any political organization in
this country.”

Then, at the close of his speech, after saying that “we
ought to oppose all useless and unconstitutional measures of
legislation,” he proceeded:--

“I, therefore, cannot help but say, that, while I respect
the motives of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts,
while I give him credit for consistency, ability, and a
great deal of culture, and am always glad to hear him
speak, yet I must confess, that, when I looked over his
resolutions, they struck me with surprise and regret. They
would revolutionize this Government. Sir, strike the States
out of this system of Government, and your Government is
lost and gone. I cannot conceive of the United States
governing colonies and provinces containing millions upon
millions of people, black and white. I do not think such
a thing can exist. I do not believe it is in the power of
Secession to bring us to such a state of things. I can
draw no distinction between the resolutions of the Senator
from Massachusetts and the doctrines that are proclaimed
by Jefferson Davis.… The doctrine of the Senator from
Massachusetts is substantially an acknowledgment of the
right of secession, of the right to secede. He, however,
puts the States in the condition of abject Territories, to
be governed by Congress. Jefferson Davis puts it in the
power of the people of the States to govern the States
themselves. As to which is the most dangerous or obnoxious
doctrine I leave every man to determine.”[147]

Not long afterwards, Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, took up the
same strain, characterizing the doctrine of the Resolutions
as “fatal to our form of government, destructive of our
Federal system, and utterly incompatible with a restoration of
harmonious relations between the States in which rebellion now
prevails and the United States”; and he condensed his judgment
by calling the doctrine a “fatal heresy.”[148]

Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, some time later, spoke in harmony
with the others.

“Now everybody knows that the honorable Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] has a scheme by which he
proposes to turn all these States, in case they could be
conquered, into Territories, that they shall be governed
by the United States as Territories, and then, when their
people come to their senses,--this is the language of the
advocates of the scheme,--they are to be readmitted into
the Union upon terms. Mr. President, I do not know anybody
hardly who has not deprecated that as a most mischievous
scheme to agitate just at present.”[149]

Still later, Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, in an elaborate
speech, discussed Mr. Sumner’s policy in the same spirit,
saying that he had provided a way of disunion,--“which for
brevity I will call, with no disrespect to my honorable friend
from Massachusetts, THE SUMNER WAY FOR STATES TO GO OUT OF THE
UNION, namely, by Act of Congress.” And he attributed the same
position to his colleague, Mr. Howe.

“What, in effect, do the Senator from Massachusetts
and my colleague propose? To place outside of the
Constitution, and to govern with unlimited power, eleven
States and ten million people, nearly one third of all
the States and people of the United States, without any
representation.”[150]

Mr. Howe replied to Mr. Doolittle, and, after referring to
a resolution introduced by himself, declaring that “local
governments ought to be provisionally organized forthwith for
the people in each of the districts named in the preamble
hereto,”[151] being the Rebel States, paid the following
tribute to Mr. Sumner.

“As to the matter of fact, whether this resolution is
the Lincoln and Johnson theory or the Sumner theory, the
Senator from Massachusetts has not yet, I regret to say,
indorsed that resolution, nor anything that I said in
support of it; and I suppose the Senator from Massachusetts
will claim the right, which, under the Constitution, as
I understand it, belongs to every Senator on this floor,
to speak for himself. If it should hereafter happen to
receive his indorsement, it will be very gratifying to me.
If I should find that I had given utterance on this floor
to one sentiment which is approved by the Senator from
Massachusetts, it will be only a small compensation for the
great number of living sentiments to which I have listened
from the Senator from Massachusetts, and which are bound to
live long after my colleague and myself shall have passed
from this stage of existence.”[152]

Meanwhile, Mr. Sumner, acting upon the principles of his
Resolutions, insisted upon colored suffrage in the Rebel
States to be ordained by Congress, as will appear hereafter in
these volumes. Senators who had originally opposed the power
of Congress over these States now united in this requirement.
Among those who still stood out was Mr. Doolittle, who, after
alluding to President Lincoln’s policy of Reconstruction,
said:--