Chapter XI: Appendix: Nomination and Reëlection of Mr. Sumner (1)

As this speech was made in the midst of the excitement in
Massachusetts on the nomination of Mr. Sumner as Senator, an
account of that contest will not be out of place here.

* * * * *

The early and active part taken by Mr. Sumner in favor
of Emancipation, and the urgency of his efforts against
Slavery, excited against him an intense opposition, not
only in Massachusetts, but throughout the country. He was
denounced as second only to Jefferson Davis in hostility to
the Constitution. But these attacks aroused the friends of
Emancipation, who were unwilling to see their representative
sacrificed.

There were signs of this contest in the autumn of 1861, when
Mr. Sumner called for Emancipation as our best weapon.[133]
Governor Andrew saw it coming. In a letter, dated June 9, 1862,
with reference to the appointment of officers in the Internal
Revenue Bureau, he used the following language.

“The Hunkers will make the most strenuous efforts to secure
a large representation in this agency, so that, by means
of their influence with the people (and in travelling from
town to town), they can poison the minds of prominent
citizens against you, and accomplish your defeat by
securing a Legislature favorable to their purposes.

“Depend upon it, that they are calculating largely upon the
Tax Bill as an element in their desperate ‘strategy’ for
the fall campaign.”

The _New York Tribune_, in a vigorous article, June 24, 1862,
entitled “Mr. Sumner’s Seat,” set forth reasons “why many
earnest Republicans in other States would regret the retirement
of Mr. Sumner.” Here it said:--

“Most of our Republican statesmen have a political
history antecedent to our existing organizations. Mr.
Sumner, nearly alone, is nowhere regarded as having Whig
or Democratic predilections, but as purely and wholly
Republican.

“Other statesmen, however profoundly Republican, regard
collateral questions with an observing interest: the
Tariff, the Currency, the Pacific Railroad, &c., largely
engross their attention. Mr. Sumner profoundly believes it
of paramount, absorbing interest that the nation should be
just, even to her humblest, most despised children, and
that Righteousness is the essential condition of material
and other prosperity. Never inattentive to or neglectful
of any public duty, never even accused of sacrificing
or opposing the interest of Massachusetts in any matter
of legislation, he is yet known to believe that her
interests can never be truly promoted by sacrificing those
of Humanity. In an age of venality and of uncharitable
suspicion, he was never even suspected of giving a
mercenary or selfish vote; in an atmosphere where every
man is supposed to have his price, and to be scheming and
striving for self-aggrandizement, no man ever suggested
that Charles Sumner was animated by sinister impulses, or
that he would barter or stifle his convictions for the
Presidency. The one charge brought against him by his many
bitter adversaries imports that he is a _fanatic_,--not
that it was ever imagined that he is the special devotee of
any fane or sect, but that he sincerely believes it the end
of civil government to hasten the coming of God’s earthly
kingdom by causing His justice to pervade every act, every
relation, and thus making the earth, so far as human
imperfection will permit, a vestibule of heaven.”

In warning against possible combination to defeat his
reëlection, the article said:--

“All that the Republicans of other States can and do
ask is, that no back-stairs intrigue, no chimney-corner
arrangement, shall send to Boston a Legislature secretly
pledged to oust him, and elected by constituencies
profoundly ignorant of any such manipulation.… All we ask
is, that those who vote at the polls to supersede Mr.
Sumner in the Senate shall know for what they vote, and not
be duped by professions only made to deceive.”

The adverse spirit showed itself at a large public meeting in
New York, July 1st, which was entitled by the _Herald_, “The
Anti-Abolition and Anti-Secession Movement.--Disunion the Fruit
of Abolition.” Here Hon. William Duer, of Oswego, seemed to
become the mouthpiece of the excited multitude.

“No emancipation and turning loose upon them hordes
of uncivilized and ignorant Africans.… No tyrant in
history has ever made his name execrated by measures more
despicable than such as those proposed by the Abolitionists
for the humiliation and destruction of the South. The
Southern people have been deluded by their leaders in the
same way as the Northern people, and, in his opinion,
the next man who walked up the scaffold after Jefferson
Davis should be Charles Sumner. [_Loud and long-continued
applause, mingled with hooting and groans for Sumner. Some
person in the meeting attempted to say a word in his favor,
but his voice was quickly drowned in loud shouts of ‘Put
him out!’_]”

This is from the _Herald_. The same incident is thus reported
in the _Tribune_.

“And if we came to hanging every traitor in this country
in the order of their guilt, the next man who marched
upon the scaffold after Jefferson Davis would be Charles
Sumner. [_Loud applause, the greatest of the evening thus
far. Groans for Sumner. Great excitement. Cries of ‘Put him
out!’ Cries, ‘Where is Horace Greeley?’_]”

A correspondent of a Boston paper, taking up the strain, echoed
it for the benefit of Massachusetts.

“There are now two war-cries in New York, and the great
Union mastiff is as ready to pounce upon one of the brutes
as upon the other. If there are two parties outside of the
doomed radicals, they are those, the most violent of them,
who would hang Jeff. Davis and Sumner together, and those
who would hang Davis first and Sumner afterwards.

“If Sumner is reëlected to the Senate, he may not find it
convenient to pass through this city. That his name is
odious, infamous, is not all,--it is cursed and abominable.
The blood of thousands sacrificed to his ambition and
personal revenge cries to Heaven against him, and if a
Massachusetts Legislature can still support him by its
vote, those who do so will deserve to lose their children
at the altar of this Moloch.”

The _New York Herald_ followed with a leader, July 16th,
entitled, “Senators Wade and Sumner,” which, after announcing
that the terms of these Senators would expire on the 4th of
March next, made the following appeal.

“By the foulest means they have succeeded in clogging the
wheels of our progress in the war, and have made another
year of battles unavoidable. Had it not been for them and
their coadjutors, the war would have been over and the
Union restored on the Fourth of July instant. More than any
other men they are responsible for the useless sacrifice of
blood and treasure in the past, and for the three hundred
thousand more men and five hundred millions more dollars
which will have to be perilled in the future. Practically,
and in the most emphatic sense, they are traitors to the
country and enemies of the nation. From them, more than
from a thousand Vallandighams, Jeff. Davis has received
aid and comfort; for they have strengthened his forces by
exasperating the South and by dividing and weakening the
North. We hope that the loyal men of Massachusetts and
Ohio will raise these questions in the coming elections
for State legislators, and vote down every man who is
pledged or who intends to vote for the reëlection of these
twin traitors, Sumner and Wade. They have only escaped
Fort Lafayette and the gallows because the Government has
distrusted its own power and misunderstood the sentiments
of the loyal people. Let this misunderstanding now end,
and let Messrs. Sumner and Wade find, when they return to
their homes, that they are held personally and politically
responsible for their infamous and treasonable course.”

The friends of Emancipation in Massachusetts were not inactive.
The issue thus presented was accepted by the formal nomination
of Mr. Sumner, at the annual Republican State Convention at
Worcester, September 10th.

* * * * *

The Convention was organized by the choice of the following
officers.

_President_,--Hon. Alexander H. Bullock of Worcester.

_Vice-Presidents_,--District 1, Nathaniel Coggswell of
Yarmouth; District 2, J. H. D. Blake of Braintree; District
3, Theodore Otis of Roxbury; District 4, Nehemiah Boynton of
Chelsea; District 5, Timothy Davis of Gloucester; District 6,
George Foster of Andover; District 7, Chauncey L. Knapp of
Lowell; District 8, Valorous Taft of Upton; District 9, Joel
Hayden of Williamsburg; District 10, George L. Wright of West
Springfield. _At Large_,--John Bertram of Salem, George Morey
of Boston, Tappan Wentworth of Lowell, Ensign H. Kellogg of
Pittsfield, Charles G. Davis of Plymouth, Henry Alexander, Jr.,
of Springfield.

_Secretaries_,--Stephen N. Stockwell of Boston, William M.
Walker of Pittsfield, Joseph B. Thaxter, Jr., of Hingham,
William T. Hollis of Plymouth, Thomas B. Gardner of Boston,
Joel Hayden, Jr., of Williamsburg.

John A. Andrew was re-nominated for Governor by acclamation.
J. Q. A. Griffin, of Charlestown, introduced a resolution
approving the course of the two Senators, and nominating Mr.
Sumner for reëlection as Senator, and at the same time said:--

“Remember, it is our duty not only to sustain the arms
of the Generals in the field, but likewise to sustain
the President in his seat, the Cabinet in its counsels,
the Governor in his chair, and, _above all, the fearless
legislator in his duty_. [_Loud applause, and cries of
‘Good!’_]”

Mr. Griffin was followed by Frederick Robinson, of Marblehead,
who hoped that the resolution would be adopted unanimously,
and also another, expressing the opinion of Massachusetts in
favor of Emancipation. George F. Hoar, of Worcester, agreed
with Mr. Robinson. As to the resolution approving Charles
Sumner and Henry Wilson, “he liked that,” but he wished, also,
“an expression of the opinion of this Convention, that it
is the duty of the United States Government, in the further
prosecution of the war, to strike the Rebellion where it is
weakest.” The different propositions were then referred to
a committee. At this stage the letter of Mr. Sumner to the
Convention was presented and read by Mr. Claflin.[134]

Among the resolutions subsequently reported were the two
following.

“_Resolved_, That the most decisive measures for the
complete and permanent suppression of this Rebellion are
the most prudent, and that, as the institution of Slavery
is a principal support of it, that institution shall be
exterminated.”

“_Resolved_, That we recognize and acknowledge the
preëminent merits and services of our Senators in the
Congress of the United States, the Hon. Charles Sumner
and the Hon. Henry Wilson. In the posts of duty assigned
them by the suffrages of their brother Senators, one as
Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the
other as Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs,
they have cordially and unreservedly, and with masterly
ability, supported all governmental measures, and fitly
represented the Commonwealth as among the most cheerful and
enthusiastic defenders of the Government. And now that the
second term of our senior Senator is drawing to a close,
we desire to express our warm approbation of his course
and appreciation of his services, and to commend him to
the suffrages of his fellow-citizens, whom he has served
so well, that the Commonwealth may again honor itself by
returning to duty at the capital a statesman, a scholar, a
patriot, and a man of whom any republic in any age might be
proud.”

The whole series, as read, was received with intense
enthusiasm, especially that against Slavery. A motion was
made to amend by striking out that part recommending the
reëlection of Mr. Sumner, which was voted down promptly, and
the resolution was unanimously adopted.

The action of the Convention presented two distinct
issues,--first, the extermination of Slavery, and, secondly,
the reëlection of Mr. Sumner. There was at once a counter
movement. A call was put forth for what was called a “People’s
Convention,” at Faneuil Hall, October 7th, whose main object
was to defeat the action of the Republican Convention, and
especially the reëlection of Mr. Sumner. It was supposed that
in this way all the elements of opposition could be united.
This plan received an unexpected check by the Proclamation of
Emancipation of September 22d. It could no longer be said that
the Republican Party of Massachusetts and Mr. Sumner were not
in entire harmony with the President.

Meanwhile Mr. Sumner addressed his fellow-citizens at Faneuil
Hall, October 6th, in vindication of the Proclamation. On
the succeeding day the “People’s Convention” assembled in
the same place and nominated candidates for State offices in
opposition to the Republicans. The tone of this Convention
appears in a brief extract from the speech of Hon. Josiah G.
Abbott, of Boston. After alluding to the various interests of
Massachusetts, he said:--

“And I tell you, Gentlemen,--and every heart here responds
to it,--every heart out of this hall would respond to it,
if the lips would speak the language of the heart,--I tell
you, Gentlemen, we want men in the Halls of Congress, in
the House of Representatives, and, above and beyond all,
in the Senate Chamber, who will attend to those interests,
and not be continually, as they have been, Sir, attending
to mere wild speculations and sentimental theories.
[_Applause._] Do not the people cry out, ’For God’s sake,
give us somebody who believes there is something to be
attended to in the wants of a million and a quarter of
white men, women, and children’? [_Great applause._]”

The spirit of this Convention was thus described by the
_Norfolk County Journal_:--

“The partisanship of the People’s Convention all centres
in opposition to Charles Sumner. It is as pure an instance
of personal hate on the part of its leaders as was ever
exhibited. _This animosity comes solely from the fact
that he was the earliest and has been the most persistent
advocate of what is now the policy of the nation._ They
hate Mr. Sumner, not because he is personally unamiable,
not because there is a flaw in his moral character or a
doubt as to the purity of his intentions, not because he
has not represented the opinion of Massachusetts, and
faithfully advocated her best interests on every point
affecting her material prosperity. They have commenced this
personal crusade _solely_ because he has been the most
conspicuous and uncompromising foe to the encroachments of
Southern Slavery. And now that the President has ranged
himself on Mr. Sumner’s side, in opposing him they oppose
the Administration.”

On the next day, the Democratic Convention at Worcester adopted
the nominations of the “People’s Convention,” so that the
elements of opposition seemed to be united. The President of
the Convention in his remarks announced the common object.

“Let me, then, appeal to you to come here with one heart
and with kindly feelings towards all, entertaining respect
for the opinions of all, so that, when this Convention
shall have adjourned, a voice will go forth throughout this
Commonwealth, that the day of John A. Andrew and Charles
Sumner is ended. [_Prolonged cheers._]”

Other speeches followed in the same tone, and insisting upon
union “to beat Sumner and Andrew.”

The issue was thus presented to the people of Massachusetts,
and throughout the Commonwealth the election of Senators
and Representatives turned mainly upon it. If the attack
was vigorous, so also was the defence. Of the latter a few
illustrations will suffice. The first is from Wendell Phillips,
who, in an address at Music Hall, Sunday forenoon, November 2d,
said:--

“I say this much, before turning again to my immediate
subject, for our great Senator, who has done justice to the
manufacturing interests and the shipping of Massachusetts,
as Webster did, and also justice to her conscience and her
thought, as Webster did not. [_Applause._] I do not wish to
take one leaf from the laurel of the great Defender of the
Constitution; he rests at Marshfield, beneath the honors he
fairly earned. But we have put in his place a man far more
practical than he was; we have put in his place the hardest
worker that Massachusetts ever sent to the Senate of the
United States [_applause_]; we have put in his place the
Stonewall Jackson of the floor of the Senate,--patient of
labor, untiring in effort, boundless in resources, terribly
in earnest,--the only man who, in civil affairs, is to
be compared with the great terror of the Union armies,
the General of the Virginia forces: both ideologists,
both horsed on an idea, and both men whom a year ago the
drudges of State Street denounced, or would have denounced,
as unpractical and impracticable; but when the war-bugle
sounded through the land, both were found to be the only
men to whom Carolina and Massachusetts hasted to give the
batons of the opposing hosts.”

John G. Whittier, whose words of flame had done so much in the
long warfare with Slavery, was aroused from his retirement to
testify. In the Amesbury _Villager_, near his home, he wrote:--

“In looking over the speeches and newspapers of his active
opponents, it really seems to me, that, if ever a man
was hated and condemned for his very virtues, it is this
gentleman. Nobody accuses him of making use of his high
position for his own personal emolument; no shadow of
suspicion rests upon the purity of his private or public
character; no man can point to an instance in which he
has neglected any duty properly devolving upon him; no
interest of his State has been forgotten or overlooked;
no citizen has appealed to him in vain for kindly offices
and courteous hearing and attention. As Chairman of the
Committee of Foreign Affairs, his industry and ability
have never been denied by his bitterest enemies. All admit
that he has rendered important service to his Government.
What, then, is his crime? Simply and solely this, that he
stands inflexibly by his principles,--that he is too hearty
in his hatred of the monstrous Wrong which initiated and
still sustains the present Rebellion,--that in advance
of his contemporaries he saw the danger and proclaimed
it,--that he heartily sustains the President in his
Proclamation,--that he is in favor of destroying the guilty
cause of all our national calamities, that red-handed
murderer and traitor against whom the sighs and groans of
Massachusetts wives and mothers, weeping in every town
and hamlet for dear ones who are not, are rising in swift
witness to God.

“This is his crime, his real offence, in the eyes of his
leading opponents. I know it has been said that he is
too much a man of ideas, and not a statesman. That he
is not a politician, in the modern sense of the word, I
admit; and if indirection, trickery, and the habit of
looking upon men, parties, and principles as mere stock in
trade and tools of convenience are the qualifications of
statecraft, then he is not a statesman. But if a thorough
comprehension of the great principles of law and political
economy, of all which constitutes the true honor and glory
and prosperity of a people,--if the will and ability to
master every question as it arises,--if entire familiarity
with the history, resources, laws, and policy of other
nations, derived not merely from the study of books, but
from free personal intercourse with the leading minds of
Europe, are essential requisites of statesmanship, then is
Charles Sumner a statesman in the noblest and truest sense.
Certain it is that he is so regarded by the diplomatic
representatives of European nations, and that no man in the
country has so entirely the confidence and esteem of all
who are really our friends in the Old World.”

Horace Greeley, in an article under his own name in the
New York _Independent_, and entitled, “Charles Sumner as a
Statesman,” united with the Republicans of Massachusetts.

“For the first time in our political history, a party has
been organized and a State ticket nominated for the sole
purpose of defeating the reëlection of one who is not a
State officer, and never aspired to be. Governor Andrew is
regarded with a hostility intensified by the fewness of
those who feel it; but the bitterness with which Mr. Sumner
is hated insists on the gratification of a canvass, even
though a hopeless one; and, since there was no existing
party by which this could be attempted without manifest
futility, one was organized for the purpose. And it was
best that this should be. Let us have a census of the
friends and the enemies of Mr. Sumner in the State which he
has so honored.

“I have said, that, while other Senators have shared
his convictions, none has seemed so emphatically, so
eminently, as he to embody and represent the growing,
deepening Antislavery sentiment of the country. None has
seemed so invariably to realize that a public wrong is a
public danger, that injustice to the humblest and weakest
is peril to the well-being of all. Others have seemed to
regard the recent developments of disunion and treason
with surprise and alarm: he has esteemed them the bitter,
but natural, fruit of the deadly tree we have so long been
watering and cherishing. The profound, yet simple truth,
that ‘RIGHTEOUSNESS exalteth a nation,’--that nothing else
is so baleful as injustice,--that the country which gains
a large accession of territory or of wealth at the cost
of violating the least tittle of the canons of eternal
rectitude has therein made a ruinous mistake,--that
nothing else can be so important or so profitable as
stern uprightness: such is the key-note of his lofty and
beneficent career. May it be vouchsafed him to announce
from his seat in the Senate the final overthrow of the
demon he has so faithfully, so nobly resisted, and that
from Greenland to Panama, from the St. John to the Pacific,
the sun in his daily course looks down on no master and no
slave!”

A single incident will illustrate the interest excited
throughout the Commonwealth. A venerable citizen of New
Bedford, seventy-nine years of age and very feeble, was
assisted to the polls, saying, “Here goes a dying vote for
Charles Sumner!”

The triumphant result of the election was known at once. It was
declared officially on the meeting of the Legislature.

* * * * *

January 15, 1863, at twelve o’clock, each branch of the
Legislature proceeded, by special assignment, to vote for a
Senator to represent Massachusetts for six years from March
4th next ensuing. The vote in each branch was _vivâ voce_, the
roll bring called and each member pronouncing the name of the
candidate he voted for.

In the Senate, the vote was,--

Charles Sumner, of Boston 33
Josiah G. Abbott, of Boston 5
Charles Francis Adams, of Quincy 1

In the House of Representatives, the vote was,--

Charles Sumner 194
Josiah G. Abbott 38
Caleb Gushing 2
Charles Francis Adams 1

In the House there were slight manifestations of applause when
the result was announced, but they were promptly checked by the
Speaker.

The result was noticed by the press throughout the country.
The venerable _National Intelligencer_, at Washington, which
had been opposed to the principles and policies of Mr. Sumner,
employed the following generous terms.

“This is the third time that this gentleman has been thus
honored by the Legislature of Massachusetts. Such repeated
tokens of confidence would seem sufficiently to indicate,
that, whatever dissent from the views of Mr. Sumner may
elsewhere exist, he is the favorite, as he is admitted
by all to be the able, representative of the opinions
entertained by a majority of the people of this great and
influential State. And these views now predominate in the
conduct of the present Administration, which may be said to
have adopted, reluctantly and at a late day, the political
and military policy early commended to its favor by Mr.
Sumner.

“If we are not able to concur with Mr. Sumner in certain of
his opinions on questions of domestic politics, it gives
us only the greater pleasure to bear our cheerful and
candid testimony to the enlightened judgment and peculiar
qualifications he brings to the discharge of the important
duties devolved on him as Chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Relations in the Senate. In this capacity he has
deservedly won the confidence of the whole country.”

Such testimony from a political opponent attested the change
that had occurred in public policy and private feeling.

The _Tribune_ exhibited the change in yet stronger light.

“By a vote of nearly six to one, Massachusetts again
declares her confidence in her long-tried Senator, and, on
an issue defined with unmistakable clearness, for the third
time returns him to his seat.

“The contrast between his present position and that which
he held on first entering the Senate is instructive. Then
an arrogant Democratic majority with unequalled effrontery
declared him outside of any healthy political organization,
excluded him from the Committees, denied him parliamentary
courtesies, and withheld the common civilities of social
intercourse and acquaintance. There were hardly three or
four Senators in Congress who were in any degree identified
with his opinions. He declared them none the less boldly,
and his speeches for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act,
on the Nebraska Bill, and on the Crime against Kansas
finally exasperated the slaveholding oligarchy into
personal violence, and for words spoken in orderly debate
he was brutally assaulted on the floor of the Senate and
seriously injured. This outrage, and the enthusiastic
approval with which it was received throughout the South,
were largely instrumental in rousing the North to a right
estimate of the system and the political power which sought
such means of defence.”

The _Liberator_, by the pen of its faithful and able editor,
William Lloyd Garrison, gave expression to the sentiments of
those most enlisted against Slavery.

“Thus has Massachusetts nobly vindicated her name and fame
as the foremost State of all the world in the cause of free
institutions, and trampled beneath her feet the malignant
aspersions cast upon the political reputation of her gifted
Senator by the minions of a traitorous Slave Oligarchy. The
vote is an overwhelming one, notwithstanding the desperate
efforts of Mr. Sumner’s enemies to make his defeat a sure
event. Such enemies only serve to prove his personal worth
and public usefulness, and their factious and profligate
character.

“Mr. Sumner’s friends in Washington proposed, last week,
to give him a serenade in honor of his reëlection to the
Senate; but, hearing of their intention, he declared that
the compliment was not in accordance with the present
condition of public affairs, and intimated that he
preferred that the funds subscribed for the music should be
donated to the Massachusetts Soldiers’ Relief Association,
which was done.”

In Mr. Sumner’s reëlection the cause of Emancipation triumphed,
and Massachusetts was fixed irrevocably on that side.

THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION OUR CORNER-STONE.

LETTER TO FELLOW-CITIZENS AT SALEM, OCTOBER 10, 1862.

BOSTON, October 10, 1862.

GENTLEMEN,--I feel flattered by your invitation, where I
recognize so many excellent names, and shall be happy to take
advantage of the opportunity with which you honor me.

The Emancipation Proclamation of the President, on which you ask
me to speak, is now the corner-stone of our national policy. For
the sake of our country, and in loyalty to our Government, it
ought to have the best support of every patriot citizen, without
hesitation or lukewarmness. Now is the time for earnest men.

If agreeable to you, I accept your invitation for Monday evening,
20th October.

Believe me, Gentlemen, with much respect,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

FARMERS, THEIR HAPPINESS AND LIBERAL SENTIMENTS.

SPEECH AT THE DINNER OF THE HAMPSHIRE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY, AT NORTHAMPTON, MASS., OCTOBER 14, 1862.

At the dinner which followed the cattle-show, Mr. Sumner was
introduced by Hon. Erastus Hopkins, who commenced by alluding
to their early days at the Boston Latin School.

“GENTLEMEN,--It is now full forty years, when at school
I had a schoolmate and a classmate who in point of
physical altitude and breadth, but more especially (I am
no flatterer, I only speak historic truth) in point of
diligence and scholarship, was _primus inter pares_,--first
among equals. That boy was father of the man. He now holds
the position of Senator in the Senate of the United States,
with a relative eminence no less than that of his earlier
days. He is the valued servant and the honored Senator of
Massachusetts, whom she has hitherto delighted to honor,
and whom, so long as she remains true to her cherished
sentiments, to her gushing instincts, and to her memorable
history, SHE WILL EVER HONOR. [_Loud applause._]

“We were told yesterday by the Rev. Dr. Huntington, in
his admirable address delivered in this hall, that the
farmer owed his first duty to his land,--to care for it, to
fertilize it, and to beautify it. Recurring to this point,
at the close of his address, he reminded the farmer that
‘duty to his land’ was susceptible of a double meaning: the
one referring to the few acres of his own individual and
exclusive proprietorship; the other, to that great land,
that vast country, which he owned, and to which he owed
duty, in common with all his fellow-citizens.

“I do not know that the honorable Senator owns, or ever did
own, in separate proprietorship, any acres of land,--that
he ever held the plough, or ‘drove the team a-field’; I do
not know whether he intends to enlighten us with regard to
the care and culture of our homesteads and our farms; but
I do know that he understands the farmer’s ‘duty to his
land,’ in the secondary and higher sense to which allusion
has been made,--that, looking over our wide country, our
rich heritage, and heritage of our fathers, he has been
ever diligent and untiring in his endeavors to remove its
deformities, to augment its fertility, and to crown it with
beauty.

“To which department of farming the Senator will direct his
remarks I know not; but, whatever his topic, I submit without
fear his words of instruction and of eloquence to the ordeal
of your verdict.

“I have the honor to introduce to you the Hon. CHARLES SUMNER.”

* * * * *

Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.

MR. PRESIDENT, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:--

I cannot forget the first time that I looked upon this beautiful valley, where river, meadow, and hill contribute to the charm. It was while a youth in college. With several of my classmates I made a pedestrian excursion through Massachusetts. Starting from Cambridge, we passed, by way of Sterling and Barre, to Amherst, where, arriving weary and footsore, we refreshed ourselves at the evening prayer in the College Chapel. From Amherst we walked to Northampton, and then, ascending Mount Holyoke, saw the valley of the Connecticut spread out before us, with river of silver winding through meadows of gold. It was a scene of enchantment, and time has not weakened the impression it made. From Northampton we walked to Deerfield, sleeping near Bloody Brook, and then to Greenfield, where we turned off by Coleraine through dark woods and over hills to Bennington in Vermont. The whole excursion was deeply interesting, but no part more so than your valley. Since then I have been a traveller at home and abroad, but I know no similar scene of greater beauty. I have seen the meadows of Lombardy, and those historic rivers, the Rhine and the Arno, and that stream of Charente, which Henry the Fourth called the most beautiful of France,--also those Scottish rivers so famous in legend and song, and the exquisite fields and sparkling waters of Lower Austria; but my youthful joy in the landscape which I witnessed from the neighboring hill-top has never been surpassed in any kindred scene. Other places are richer in the associations of history; but you have enough already in what Nature has done, without waiting for any further illustration.

It is a saying of Antiquity, often quoted: “Oh, too fortunate husbandmen, if they only knew their blessings!”[135] Nowhere are these words more applicable than to this neighborhood, where Nature has done so much, and where all that Nature has done is enhanced by an intelligent and liberal spirit. An eminent French writer, one of the greatest of his country, who wrote in the middle of the last century, when France was a despotism, Montesquieu, has remarked in his “Spirit of Laws,” that “countries are not cultivated in proportion to their fertility, but in proportion to their liberty.”[136] A beautiful truth. But here in this valley are both. Where is there greater fertility? where is there truer liberty?

If the farmers of our country needed anything to stimulate pride in their vocation, it would be found in the statistics furnished by the national census. That of 1860 is not yet prepared, and I go back to that of 1850. Here it appears, that, out of the whole employed population of the United States over fifteen years of age, two millions four hundred thousand, or forty-four per cent, were engaged in agricultural pursuits, while the total number engaged in commerce, trade, manufactures, mechanic arts, and mining was only one million six hundred thousand, or about thirty per cent. These figures show an immense predominance of the agricultural interest in the whole country. Of course in Massachusetts the commercial and manufacturing interests are relatively larger than in other parts of the country. But our farmers are numerous.

This same census shows, that, in 1850, the four largest staples of our country, ranking them according to their nominal value, were: Indian corn, two hundred and ninety-six million dollars; wheat, one hundred million dollars; cotton, ninety-eight million dollars; hay, ninety-six million dollars. These figures, of course, are familiar, but they are so instructive that they will bear repetition. Besides illustrating the magnitude of our agricultural interests, they shed new light on the lofty pretensions that have been made for King Cotton. There is no crown for hay, or wheat, or Indian corn, and yet two of these stand above cotton. But the whole table testifies to the power of the farmer.

From another quarter are statistics showing how agricultural pursuits favor longevity. Out of seventeen hundred persons, the average life of farmers was forty-five years; of merchants, thirty-three years; of mechanics, twenty-nine years; and of laborers, twenty-seven years. Thus length of days seems to be an agricultural product.

Gratifying as it may be to glance at agriculture in these statistics, which must arouse the pride, if not the content of the farmer, there are other aspects which to my mind are more interesting. In early days agriculture was only an art, most imperfectly developed. The plough of the ancient husbandman was little more than a pole with a stick at the end by which the earth was scratched, and other implements were of like simplicity. As for the knowledge employed, it was all of the most superficial character. But agriculture is now not only an art, in a high degree of perfection, it is also a science, with its laws and rules, as much as navigation or astronomy. There is no knowledge which will not help the farmer; especially is there no branch of science. Geography, geology, meteorology, botany, chemistry, zoölogy, and animal physiology, all contribute. Regarding agriculture in this light, we cannot fail to give the farmer a high standard of excellence. In the cultivation of the earth he practises an art and pursues a science. But human character is elevated by the standard which is followed.

There is another feature in the life of the farmer which is to me more interesting still. The farmer is patriotic and liberal. Dependent upon Nature, he learns to be independent of Man. If not less than others under the influence of local prejudices, he is at least removed from those combinations engendered by the spirit of trade. He thinks for himself, and acts for his country. I do not venture to say that he is naturally a reformer, but I think the experience of our country attests that he does not set himself against the ideas of the age.

Here Mr. Sumner dwelt on that spirit of obstructiveness which
is so common, illustrating it by historic instances, and then
proceeded.

I rejoice to believe that there is no such hide-bound indifference to liberal ideas among our farmers. But, just in proportion as these are numerous, intelligent, powerful, and liberal, do they constitute an arm of strength. Pardon me, if now more than ever I see them in this character. In appealing to them for the sake of our country, I make no appeal inconsistent with the proprieties of this occasion. Our country is in peril, and it must be saved. This is enough.

Under God, our country will be saved through the united energy, the well-compacted vigor of the people directed by the President of the United States. Our first duty is to stand by the President, and to hold up his hands. There must be no hesitation or timidity. If he calls for troops, he must have them. If, besides calling for troops, he enlist other agencies for the suppression of the Rebellion, he must be sustained precisely as in calling for troops.

Thus far the main dependence has been troops, to which our honored Commonwealth has made generous contributions. No part of the country has suffered more in gallant officers, youthful, gentle, and excellent in all things. This neighborhood has its story of sorrow. Amherst has buried the pure and patriotic Stearns, and only within a few days here in Northampton you have received from the field of death the brave and accomplished Baker.

And now at last a new power is invoked, being nothing less than that great Proclamation of the President which places Liberty at the head of our columns.

Mr. Sumner here explained the immediate and prospective effects
of the Proclamation, and then closed as follows.

It is sometimes said that this edict is unconstitutional. Some there are with whom the Constitution is a constant stumbling-block, wherever anything is to be done for Freedom. It cannot be so, I trust, with the liberal farmers of this valley. Of course, the Edict of Emancipation is to be regarded as a war measure, made in the exercise of the Rights of War. It is as much a war measure as the proclamation calling forth troops, and is entitled to the same support. It is not a measure of Abolition or Antislavery, or of philanthropy, but a war measure, pure and simple. If there be any person disposed to discourage it, I warn him that _he departs from the duties of patriotism hardly less than if he discouraged enlistments_. There is but one course now before us. The policy of Emancipation, at last adopted as a war measure, must be sustained precisely as we sustain an army in the field. With this new and mighty agency I cannot doubt the result. The Rebellion will be crushed, and the Republic will be elevated to heights of power and grandeur where it will be an example to mankind. It is related of the Emperor Julian, known as the Apostate,--for he had once embraced Christianity,--that, perishing before he had struck the last blows prepared by hatred to the Church, he looked at the blood which spurted from his side, and then cried, “Galilean, thou hast conquered!” Whether fable or truth, the story has its meaning. Such a cry will yet be heard from the apostate chiefs in our Rebel States, “Liberty, thou hast conquered!”--and the echo of this cry will be heard round the globe.

* * * * *

Following the usage of your festival, I offer the following sentiment:--

_The Valley of the Connecticut._ Happy in its fertility, and
also in its beauty; happier still in that inspiration of
Liberty which is better than fertility or beauty.

AMBULANCE AND HOSPITAL CORPS.

RESOLUTION IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 3, 1862.

The following resolution, offered by Mr. Sumner, was adopted.

RESOLVED, That the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia be directed to consider the expediency of providing by law for the establishment of a corps composed of men especially enlisted for hospital and ambulance service, with officers commissioned purposely to command them, who shall have the entire charge, under the medical officers, of the hospitals and of the ambulance wagons, so as to enlarge the usefulness of this humane service, and give to it the efficiency derived from organization.

CELEBRATION OF EMANCIPATION.

LETTER TO A PUBLIC MEETING OF COLORED CITIZENS IN BOSTON, JANUARY 1, 1863.

WASHINGTON, January 1, 1863.

MY DEAR SIR,--Owing to the wretched condition of the mails
between New York and Washington, I did not receive your letter
of the 27th in season for an answer to be used at the proposed
meeting.

I am glad that you celebrated the day. It deserved your
celebration, your thanksgiving, and your prayers. On that day an
angel appeared upon the earth.

Accept my best wishes for your association, and believe me, dear
Sir,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

PRUDENCE IN OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON RESOLUTIONS AGAINST FRENCH INTERFERENCE IN MEXICO, FEBRUARY 3, 1863.

In the Senate, January 19th, Mr. McDougall, a Democratic
Senator from California, introduced the following resolutions,
setting forth the duty of the United States to take steps
against French interference in Mexico.

“_Resolved by the Senate_ (_the House of Representatives
concurring_), That the present attempt by the Government of
France to subject the Republic of Mexico to her authority
by armed force is a violation of the established and known
rules of International Law, and that it is, moreover, a
violation of the faith of France, pledged by the treaty
made at London on the 31st day of October, 1861, between
the allied Governments of Spain, France, and England,
communicated to this Government over the signatures of the
representatives of the allies, by letter of the 30th day of
November, 1861, and particularly and repeatedly assured to
this Government through its minister resident at the Court
of France.

“_Resolved further_, That the attempt to subject the
Republic of Mexico to French authority is an act not merely
unfriendly to this Republic, but to free institutions
everywhere; and that it is regarded by this Republic as not
only unfriendly, but as hostile.

“_Resolved further_, That it is the duty of this Republic
to require of the Government of France that her armed
forces be withdrawn from the territories of Mexico.

“_Resolved further_, That it is the duty and proper office
of this Republic, now and at all times, to lend such aid to
the Republic of Mexico as is or may be required to prevent
the forcible interposition of any of the States of Europe
in the political affairs of that Republic.

“_Resolved further_, That the President of the United
States be requested to cause to be communicated to the
Government of Mexico the views now expressed by the two
Houses of Congress, and be further requested to cause to
be negotiated such treaty or treaties between the two
Republics as will best tend to make these views effective.”

February 3d, Mr. McDougall moved to take them up for
consideration. His motion was opposed by Mr. Sumner, who said,
among other things:--

But, Sir, if the Senate had abundant time, like a mere debating society, and were free to select at will a topic for discussion, I surely should object at this moment to a debate which must be not only useless, but worse than useless. I forbear from details at present. I wish to avoid them, unless rendered necessary. I content myself with saying that the resolutions either mean something or they mean nothing. If they mean nothing, surely the Senate will not enter upon their discussion. If they mean anything, if they are not mere words, they mean war, and this no common war, but war with a great and adventurous nation, powerful in fleets and armies, bound to us by treaties and manifold traditions, and still constant in professions of amity and good-will. Sir, have we not war enough already on our hands, without needlessly and wantonly provoking another? For myself, I give all that I have of intellectual action, and will, and heart, to the suppression of this Rebellion; and never, by my consent, shall the Senate enter upon a discussion the first effect of which will be aid and comfort to the Rebellion itself.

Mr. McDougall, in reply, said: “I trust the Senate will dare to
look the grave question of our foreign relations with France
and Mexico fairly, boldly, and openly in the face. I hope the
Senate will not take counsel of its fears.” Mr. Sumner followed.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I, too, hope that the Senate will dare do everything that is right; but I hope that it will not dare to embarrass the Government at this moment, and give aid and comfort to the Rebellion. I do not say that the Senator means to give such aid and comfort, but I do say that the very speech which has just fallen from him, to the extent of its influence, will give aid and comfort. Can any Senator doubt that all who sympathize with the Rebellion will rejoice to see this Senate discussing the question of peace and war with a great European power? Can any one doubt that the Rebels over the way will rejoice and clap their hands, when they hear the tidings? Sir, I will not give them any such encouragement. They shall not have it, if vote or voice of mine can prevent. I, too, Sir, am for the freest latitude of debate, but I am for the suppression of the Rebellion above and before everything else; and the desires of the Senate must all yield at this moment to the patriotic requirements of the country. There is a time for all things. There is a time to weep, and there is a time to laugh. I do not know, that, in the chapter of national calamities, there may not be a time for further war; but I do say that the duty of statesmanship here in this Chamber is to set the foot down at once against any such proposition, which, just to the extent of its recognition, must add to present embarrassments.

The resolutions were taken up for consideration by a vote of 29
yeas to 16 nays, when Mr. McDougall made an elaborate speech.
Mr. Sumner followed.

MR. PRESIDENT,--At the present moment there is one touchstone to which I am disposed to bring every question, especially in our foreign relations; and this touchstone is its influence on the suppression of the Rebellion. A measure may in itself be just or expedient; but if it would be a present burden, if it would add to our embarrassments and troubles, and especially if it would aggravate our military condition, then, whatever may be its merits, I am against it. To the suppression of the Rebellion the country offers life and treasure without stint, and it expects that these energies shall not be sacrificed or impaired by the assumption of any added responsibilities.

If I bring these resolutions to this touchstone, they fail. They may be right or wrong in fact and principle, but their influence at this moment, if adopted, must be most prejudicial to the cause of the Union. Assuming the tone of friendship to Mexico, they practically give to the Rebellion a most powerful ally, for they openly challenge war with France. There is madness in the proposition. I do not question the motives of the Senator, but it would be difficult to conceive anything more calculated to aid and comfort the Rebellion, just in proportion to its adoption. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. The present war is surely enough, without adding war with France.

I content myself with this protest, without following the Senator in a discussion which must be unprofitable, if not pernicious.

I say nothing of France, whose power cannot be doubted, and whose friendship I would carefully cultivate.

I say nothing of Mexico, our unhappy neighbor Republic, torn, as we now are, except to declare sympathy and cordial good-will.

It is sufficient that the policy of the Senator from California, without any certainty of good to Mexico, must excite the hostility of France, and give to the Rebellion armies and fleets, not to mention that recognition and foreign intervention which we deprecate.

Let us all unite to put down the Rebellion. This is enough for the present.

If Senators are sensitive, when they see European monarchies again setting foot on this hemisphere,--entering Mexico with their armies, entering New Grenada with their influence, and occupying the ancient San Domingo,--let them consider that there is but one way in which this return of empire can be arrested. It is by the suppression of the Rebellion. Let the Rebellion be overcome, and this whole continent will fall naturally, peacefully, and tranquilly under the irresistible influence of American institutions. Resolutions cannot do this, nor speeches. I therefore move that the resolutions lie on the table.

The Senate went into Executive Session without a vote. The
resolutions came up again the next day, when, on motion of Mr.
Sumner, they were laid on the table, by a vote of yeas 34, nays
10.

EMPLOYMENT OF COLORED TROOPS.

BILL IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 9, 1863.

As early as May 26, 1862, Mr. Sumner introduced a resolution
declaring that the time had come for the Government “to invite
all, without distinction of color, to make their loyalty
manifest by ceasing to fight or labor for the Rebels, and also
by rendering every assistance in their power to the cause of
the Constitution and the Union, according to their ability,
whether by _arms_, or labor, or information, or in any other
way.”

After much debate, an Act was passed to amend the Act to
provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws
of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions,
approved February 28, 1795. The new Act, approved by the
President July 17, 1862, contained the following provision:--

“That the President be, and he is hereby, authorized to
receive into the service of the United States, for the
purpose of constructing intrenchments, or performing camp
service or any other labor, or any military or naval
service for which they may be found competent, persons of
African descent; and such persons shall be enrolled and
organized under such regulations, not inconsistent with the
Constitution and laws, as the President may prescribe.”[137]

This was the beginning of colored troops.

In his speech at Faneuil Hall, October 6, 1862,[138] Mr. Sumner
justified an appeal to the slaves.

In the Senate, February 9, 1863, he introduced the following
bill, providing for the enlistment of slaves and others of
African descent, which was referred to the Committee on
Military Affairs and the Militia, and ordered to be printed.

* * * * *

A Bill to raise additional Soldiers for the Service of the
United States.

_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That each and every able-bodied male person of the age of eighteen years and under forty-five years, made free by the Act of Congress, approved August sixth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, entitled “An Act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes,” or the Act of July seventeenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, entitled “An Act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of Rebels, and for other purposes,” or by Proclamations of the President of the United States, dated September twenty-second, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and January first, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, respectively, or by any other legal and competent authority exercised in suppressing the present Rebellion, shall severally be forthwith enrolled as a military force of the United States by the commanding officer within whose department such persons shall be found, and they shall be organized, armed, equipped, and mustered into the service of the United States, to serve during the present war, to a number not exceeding three hundred thousand men.

SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That the said military force shall be organized according to the regulations of the branch of service in which they may be designated to serve, and receive the same rations, clothing, and equipments as volunteers, and a monthly pay of seven dollars, to be paid one half at the end of each month, and the other half when discharged. They shall be officered by persons appointed and commissioned by the President, and governed by the rules and articles of war, and such other rules and regulations as may be prescribed by law. Each person so serving as a non-commissioned officer or private in such military force of the United States shall be entitled to receive, upon his discharge, ten acres of land, and each person so serving as a commissioned officer shall be entitled to receive twenty-five acres, the same to be located upon any lands confiscated during the present Rebellion, and not reserved by the Government for public use; the land so located to be occupied only as a homestead by the person entitled to receive the same, and his family.