Chapter XIII: Appendix: Nomination and Reëlection of Mr. Sumner (3)

The amendment of Mr. Sumner was lost,--Yeas 13, Nays 22.

Mr. Sumner then moved to strike out the words authorizing the
President to “make all needful rules and regulations,” and to
insert--

“The provisions of the Act of Congress, approved on
the 26th day of June, 1812, entitled ‘An Act concerning
letters of marque, prizes, and prize goods,’ and of the Act
of Congress, approved on the 27th day of January, 1813,
entitled ‘An Act in addition to the Act concerning letters
of marque, prizes, and prize goods,’ are hereby revived,
and shall be in force in relation to all that part of the
United States where the inhabitants have been declared in a
state of insurrection, and the vessels and property to them
belonging.”

Mr. Sumner explained the amendment.

It will be observed, that, by the amendment already adopted, the President alone, without the coöperation of Congress, is empowered to make what are called all needful rules and regulations for the government and conduct of these privateers, and for the adjudication and disposal of prizes and salvages made by them. But formerly it was not so ordered. No such large power was ever before vested in the President. By the statute of June 26, 1812, a system was provided, in seventeen sections, for the government of letters of marque, prizes, and prize goods. These sections relate to the formalities required from persons applying for letters of marque, the bonds to be given, and the sureties, how the captured property shall be forfeited, the distribution of the prize money, the distribution of salvage, how the prize shall be brought in for adjudication, regulations concerning prisoners found on board of prize vessels, instructions for the privateers, bounty for destroying the enemy’s vessels, instructions to the commanding officers of privateers to keep journals, how owners of privateers are punishable for violating the revenue laws of the United States, how offences on board private armed vessels are punishable; also the commissions of collectors and consuls upon prize goods, and the uses to which they shall be applied. Here is a statute, in itself a code, containing provisions exclusively applicable to these important matters, all determined by Congress in advance; but it is now proposed that Congress shall abdicate, leaving to the President alone this large power.

I call attention to one matter in the statute, namely, “How offences on board private armed vessels shall be punished.” It is enacted, “that all offences committed by any officer or seaman on board any such vessel having letters of marque and reprisal, during the present hostilities against Great Britain, shall be tried and punished in such manner as the like offences are or may be tried and punished, when committed by any person belonging to the public ships of war of the United States.”[147]

I would ask if it is in the power of the President merely by regulation to determine how offences on board private armed vessels shall be tried and punished? I take it that Congress must deal directly with this question. I am sure that it is unwise for Congress to renounce a duty belonging to it obviously under the Constitution, and which in former times it exercised. Senators sometimes complain that great powers are assumed by the President; but, unless I misread this bill, they are about to confer on him powers large, indeed, beyond precedent. There is, in the first place, the power to declare whether, in case of war with a foreign nation, letters of marque shall be issued,--a high prerogative, in times past reserved exclusively to Congress. But, not content with this, they would confer upon him plenary powers, as legislator, with regard to everything to be done by the letter of marque, and with regard, also, to its possible prizes. As once the French monarch exclaimed, “The State, it is I!”--so, when we have conferred these powers, one after another, on the President, I think he may make a similar exclamation.

This amendment was also lost.

Mr. Sumner then moved the following substitute for the pending
bill:--

“That the Secretary of the Navy be authorized to hire any
vessels needed for the national service, and, if he see
fit, to put them in charge of officers commissioned by
the United States, and to give them in every respect the
character of national ships.”

The proposition on which a vote is now asked has all that is good in the pending measure, without any of the unquestionable disadvantages. I am unwilling to trespass upon the Senate, and would hope that I am not too earnest; but the question, to my mind, is of no common character.

The Senator who presses this measure seeks to employ private enterprise in all wars, domestic or foreign: I show him how it can be done. He seeks to enlist the private marine of the country in the public service: I show him how it can be done. He seeks to contribute at this moment to the national force: I show him how it can be done. Say not that I am against the employment of private enterprise. Nor say that I would allow our private marine to rot at the wharf. Nor say that I would begrudge anything needed by the national force. To this end the Senate cannot go further than I. All that the Senator would do I would do, but in a way to avoid those embarrassments and difficulties necessarily incident to privateering, and so as to be in harmony with the civilization of our age. Nor shall it be said that I shrink from any of the responsibilities which belong to us with regard to foreign nations; but I desire to say, that among the highest responsibilities which any can recognize is that of doing nothing needlessly which shall add to existing troubles or give the country a new burden.

In conclusion, let me once more remind you that every privateer upon the ocean carries the right of search. Wherever he sails, he is authorized to overhaul neutral ships in search of contraband, or, it may be, to determine if the voyage is to break the blockade. A right so delicate and grave I would reserve to the Government, to be exercised only by national ships. I cannot err, when I insist that it shall be intrusted to those only whose position, experience, and relations with the Government give assurance that it will be exercised with wisest discretion.

If, in order to secure private enterprise and to enlist all its energies, it were necessary to have privateers, then the argument of the other side might be entitled to weight. But all that you desire can be had without any such resort, and without any drawback or disadvantage. Let the Secretary of the Navy hire private ships, wherever he can find them, and put them in commission as national ships, with the rations, pay, officers, and character of national ships. This will be simple and most effective. I am at a loss for any objection to it: I can see none.

I may be mistaken, Sir, but I speak in frankness. To my mind the question between the two propositions is too clear for argument. On one side it is irrational, barbarous, and fruitless, except of trouble. On the other side you have practical strength, and the best assurance of that prudence which is the safeguard of peace. Between the two let the Senate choose.

This amendment was also lost,--Yeas 8, Nays 28.

The bill then passed the Senate,--Yeas 27, Nays 9. March 2d, it
passed the House of Representatives without a division, and was
subsequently approved by the President.

* * * * *

Failing in Congress, Mr. Sumner renewed his opposition with
President Lincoln, urging upon him the impolicy of any action
under the law. He advised most strenuously that no commissions
should be issued, and that the law should be allowed to remain
a dead letter. The President was so much impressed by these
representations that he invited Mr. Sumner to attend the next
meeting of his Cabinet and make them there. When Mr. Sumner
doubted the expediency of such a step, as possibly giving rise
to comment, the President requested him to see the members of
his Cabinet individually, which he did. No commissions were
ever issued, and the attempt soon subsided.

* * * * *

This effort to set afloat privateers created anxiety among our
friends in England. Mr. Bright wrote:--

“I hope the President will remain firm against the letters
of marque, so long as peace is preserved. They will do no
good, and only tend to war. I was sorry your fight against
the bill was in vain.”

A letter from Mr. Bates, the intelligent American partner in
the London house of the Barings, confirmed the President in his
determination. Another letter from the same source concurs with
Mr. Bright in condemning the project.

“I am very glad that anything I have written has had any
effect in stopping the issue of letters of marque, for I
am convinced that their issue would have led to a war, and
would have given those who in this country wish for war an
opportunity through the press to make a war popular. It
would, further, have been playing into the hands of the
Confederates, who are doing all they can to embarrass the
relations between this country and the United States. It is
the last card the Confederates have to play.”

The Act of Congress authorizing letters of marque has since
expired by its own limitation.

APPOINTMENTS TO THE NAVAL ACADEMY.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL TO REGULATE THE APPOINTMENT OF MIDSHIPMEN TO THE NAVAL ACADEMY, FEBRUARY 16, 1863.

The Senate having under consideration the bill to regulate the
appointment of midshipmen, Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, moved
the following amendment:--

“And to be selected by the Senators, Representatives,
and Delegates on the ground of merit and qualification,
to be ascertained by an examination of the candidates,
and that the Secretary of the Navy be authorized to make
the regulations under which such examinations shall be
conducted, not inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act.”

Mr. Sumner sustained the amendment.

Because these appointments are conferred upon youth, or, if you please, upon boys, it seems to me that they are too often regarded as of little moment. In reality, they are among the most important appointments under Government. They are appointments for life; since, beginning with the youth or boy, they end only at death, it may be as captain, commodore, or admiral, supported always at the expense of the country, and with increasing emoluments corresponding to increasing rank.

Therefore do I think that the Government cannot be too careful in securing the best youths, and I welcome cordially the proposition of the Senator from Rhode Island. I think it entirely practicable, and also most important. I hope the Senate will adopt it. I cannot doubt that such places should be given only to the most worthy, discarding personal or political favoritism; but there must be a rule by which to ascertain the most worthy.

The amendment was lost, having only 6 yeas against 32 nays.

EXEMPTION OF CLERGYMEN FROM MILITARY CONSCRIPTION.

REMARKS ON THE CONSCRIPTION LAW, FEBRUARY 16, 1863.

The Senate having under consideration the bill for enrolling
and calling out the national forces, Mr. Sumner moved as an
amendment that clergymen or ministers of the Gospel be exempted
from conscription. Then ensued brief comments.

MR. POMEROY. They will fight.

MR. MCDOUGALL. I will ask the Senator from Massachusetts to
modify his proposition so as not to include the Methodist
clergy, because they are a fighting clergy.

MR. HOWARD. I think the loyal clergy are among the most
fighting portion of our population, quite as reliable as
any other.

MR. WILSON. I do hope we are not to exempt lawyers, or
clergymen, or any other class.

MR. FESSENDEN. It is now provided in the bill that those
who cannot go may be excused on paying a fine.

Mr. Sumner followed.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I would not have this proposition treated with levity. I do not say that it has been. Suffice it for me that I make it in sincerity, because I think the exception worthy of place in a permanent statute regulating the military system of our country.

I shall not be led into debate, but you will let me declare my conviction that the proper duty of the clergyman, if he joins the army, is as chaplain, ministering to the sick, the wounded, the dying, and teaching the living how to die. At the same time, I can well understand that there may be occasions when another service will be required, or when an irresistible impulse may change the chaplain into the soldier.

An eminent writer of our age, the late Lord Macaulay, has said positively that a clergyman should never fight. The motion which I make has no such extent. It simply proposes that the law shall not require him to fight.

In former days bishops have worn coats of mail and led embattled forces, and there are many instances where the chaplain has assumed all the duties of the soldier.

At the famous Battle of Fontenoy, where the French, under Marshal Saxe, prevailed over the united armies of England, Austria, and Holland, there was a British chaplain, with a name subsequently historic, who by military service acquired the title of “The Fighting Chaplain of Fontenoy.” This was the renowned Edinburgh professor, Adam Ferguson, author of the “History of the Roman Republic.” And only a few days ago I presented a petition for a pension from the widow of Rev. Arthur B. Fuller, chaplain, who fell fighting at Fredericksburg. But these instances are exceptional. Legislation cannot be founded on exceptions.

In reply to other Senators, Mr. Sumner spoke again.

The Senate is engaged in maturing a permanent law,--not merely for a year, not only for the present Rebellion, not for any exigency of the day, but an enduring statute,--and as such it will be a record of the sentiments and the civilization of our time. But I am not disposed to present this question on any ground of sentiment, though such an appeal would be difficult to answer.

Time is precious, and I content myself with another appeal,--I mean to practical experience. I think I do not err, when I say, that, in the history of the Christian world, you will not find a single evidence of a country where clergymen have been compelled to serve as soldiers,--at least I do not recall such instance,--while the most military country of modern times has refused to sanction the compulsion. I have before me the well-considered military statute of France, where everything was matured with the greatest care and consideration, and so as to secure the largest amount of service. No exemption was recognized, except after conscientious debate and for sufficient reason. Therefore this statute is testimony of the highest character. But here I find exemption, not only of the clergy, including all denominations recognized by the State, but also of students of divinity preparing to enter the ministry. If not absolutely indifferent to practical experience, the example of a military people like the French, especially in exemptions from conscription, cannot be neglected. I doubt if we shall lose by following it.

Mr. Wilson then said:--

“If they cannot bear arms, if they cannot perform military
duty, they at any rate can furnish a substitute, or pay the
sum provided for, be that more or less.”

Mr. Sumner replied:--

I do not understand that our clergy throughout the United States are rich. In some of the larger towns they may be comparatively so, but in the country such is not the case. Goldsmith’s village preacher, “passing rich with forty pounds a year,”--that is, about two hundred dollars,--was not unlike large numbers of the clergy among us. Now, Sir, to compel persons living on such a small allowance to pay two hundred and fifty dollars for a substitute is really asking too much. I think it unreasonable; and I think my colleague, who is pressing this bill with so much energy, would adapt himself better to the sentiment of the country and of civilization, if he admitted this natural and humane exemption into his list.

The amendment was lost.

PROTEST AGAINST FOREIGN INTERVENTION, AND DECLARATION OF NATIONAL PURPOSE.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS OF CONGRESS, REPORTED IN THE SENATE FEBRUARY 28, 1863.

From the beginning of the Rebellion there had been constant
anxiety lest foreign powers, especially England and France,
should intervene in some way, by diplomacy, if not by arms. As
early as July, 1861, Russia made an offer of its good offices
between the contending parties, with warm expressions for the
integrity of the Union; but these were promptly declined.[148]
In October, 1862, the French Emperor instructed his ambassadors
at London and St. Petersburg to propose the coöperation of
the three Cabinets in obtaining a suspension of arms for six
months, and, if required, to be prolonged further, during which
every act of war, direct or indirect, should provisionally
cease, on sea and land. The Cabinets of England and St.
Petersburg both declined the proposition.[149] The French
Emperor then proceeded alone. By a despatch of M. Drouyn de
Lhuys, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to M. Mercier, the
Minister at Washington, dated January 9, 1863, his good offices
were tendered to the United States, in the view of facilitating
negotiations between the contending parties; but these were
declined by Mr. Seward, in a despatch to Mr. Dayton at Paris,
February 6, 1863.[150]

Meanwhile there were suggestions in the English press, and
also in Parliament, of intervention in some form. Sometimes
it was proposed that the independence of the Rebels should be
acknowledged.

The proposition from the French Emperor and the reply of Mr.
Seward, being communicated to the Senate, were, on motion of
Mr. Sumner, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and
February 28th he reported the following resolutions.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS OF CONGRESS CONCERNING FOREIGN
INTERVENTION IN THE EXISTING REBELLION.

Whereas it appears from the diplomatic correspondence submitted to Congress, that a proposition, friendly in form, looking to pacification through foreign mediation, has been made to the United States by the Emperor of the French, and promptly declined by the President; _and whereas_ the idea of mediation or intervention in some shape may be regarded by foreign governments as practicable, and such governments, through this misunderstanding, may be led to proceedings tending to embarrass the friendly relations which now exist between them and the United States; _and whereas_, in order to remove for the future all chance of misunderstanding on this subject, and to secure for the United States the full enjoyment of that freedom from foreign interference which is one of the highest rights of independent states, it seems fit that Congress should manifest its convictions thereon: _Therefore_--

_Resolved_ (_the House of Representatives concurring_), That, while in times past the United States have sought and accepted the friendly mediation or arbitration of foreign powers for the pacific adjustment of _international_ questions, where the United States were party of the one part and some other sovereign power party of the other part; and while they are not disposed to misconstrue the natural and humane desire of foreign powers to aid in arresting _domestic_ troubles, which, widening in influence, have afflicted other countries, especially in view of the circumstance, deeply regretted by the American people, that the Rebel blow aimed at the national life has fallen heavily upon the laboring population of Europe; yet, notwithstanding these things, Congress cannot hesitate to regard every proposition of foreign interference so far unreasonable and inadmissible, that its only explanation can be found in a misunderstanding of the true state of the question, and of the real character of the war in which the Republic is engaged.

_Resolved_, That the United States are grappling with an unprovoked and wicked Rebellion, which is seeking the destruction of the Republic, that it may build a new power, whose corner-stone, according to the confession of its chiefs, shall be Slavery; that for the suppression of this Rebellion, thus saving the Republic and preventing the establishment of such a power, the National Government is employing armies and fleets, in full faith that the purposes of conspirators and rebels will be crushed; that, while engaged in this struggle, on which so much depends, any proposition from a foreign power, whatever form it take, having for object the arrest of these efforts, is, just in proportion to its influence, an encouragement to the Rebellion, and to its declared pretensions, and on this account is calculated to prolong and embitter the conflict, to cause increased expenditure of blood and treasure, and to postpone the much desired day of peace; that, with these convictions, and not doubting that every such proposition, although made with good intent, is injurious to the national interests, Congress will be obliged to look upon any further attempt in the same direction as an unfriendly act, which it earnestly deprecates, to the end that nothing may occur abroad to strengthen the Rebellion, or to weaken those relations of good-will with foreign powers which the United States are happy to cultivate.

_Resolved_, That the Rebellion, from its beginning, and far back even in the conspiracy which preceded its outbreak, was encouraged by hope of support from foreign powers; that its chiefs constantly represented the people of Europe as so far dependent upon regular supplies of the great Southern staple, that, sooner or later, their governments would be constrained to take side with the Rebellion in some effective form, even to the extent of forcible intervention, if the milder form did not prevail; that the Rebellion is now sustained by this hope, which every proposition of foreign interference quickens anew, and that without this life-giving support it must soon yield to the just and paternal authority of the National Government; that, considering these things, which are aggravated by the motive of the resistance thus encouraged, the United States regret that foreign powers have not frankly told the chiefs of the Rebellion that the work in which they are engaged is hateful, and that a new government, such as they seek to found, with Slavery as its acknowledged corner-stone, and with no other declared object of separate existence, is so far shocking to civilization and the moral sense of mankind that it must not expect welcome or recognition in the Commonwealth of Nations.

_Resolved_, That the United States, confident in the justice of their cause, which is the cause of good government and of human rights everywhere among men, anxious for the speedy restoration of peace, which shall establish tranquillity at home and remove all occasion of complaint abroad, and awaiting with well-assured trust the final suppression of the Rebellion, through which all these things, rescued from present peril, will be secured forever, and the Republic, one and indivisible, triumphant over its enemies, will continue an example to mankind, HEREBY ANNOUNCE, as their unalterable purpose, that the war will be vigorously prosecuted, according to the humane principles of Christian nations, until the Rebellion is overcome; and they reverently invoke upon their cause the blessing of Almighty God.

_Resolved_, That the President be requested to transmit a copy of these resolutions, through the Secretary of State, to the ministers of the United States in foreign countries, that the protest and declaration herein set forth may be communicated by them to the governments near which they reside.

March 3d, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the Senate proceeded
to consider the resolutions. In reply to Mr. Powell, of
Kentucky, he remarked: “The resolutions speak for themselves,
and I content myself by simply asking for a vote.” Then,
in reply to Mr. Carlile, of West Virginia, he said: “These
resolutions proceed from the spontaneous deliberations of the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, without a suggestion
or hint from the Secretary of State or from any member of
the Administration; but I am able to state, that, since the
resolutions have been reported, they have the entire and
cordial approval of the Secretary of State, who has authorized
me to say that he takes a special interest in their adoption by
Congress.”

The resolutions passed the Senate by a vote of 31 yeas
to 5 nays. On the same day they passed the House of
Representatives,--Yeas 103, Nays 28.

Being concurrent resolutions of the two Houses, and not a joint
resolution, they were never submitted to the President for
approval; but, according to the request in the last resolution,
they were communicated by the Secretary of State in an official
note to our ministers abroad.

* * * * *

The reception of these resolutions at the time will appear by
an extract from the _Evening Post_ of New York.

“Mr. Sumner’s resolutions, which have so triumphantly
passed the National Legislature, and which receive at the
same time the cordial approval of the President and the
Cabinet, will deepen and justify the feeling in our favor.
They define our position with a distinctness that has not
always been attained in our official acts. They describe
boldly and vividly the nature of the Rebellion which has
destroyed our peace, tracing it wholly to the ambition
and selfishness of the Slaveholders, and warning foreign
nations of the awful crime they commit in lending their
aid to such an infamous assault upon all the principles of
orderly government, all the rights of humanity, and all the
best interests of Christian civilization. Every reflective
mind in Europe will know, after reading them, that whatever
encourages the Rebellion will encourage the most odious
tyranny that human cupidity ever devised.”

The speech on Foreign Relations, at New York, September 10,
1863,[151] was a vindication of these resolutions.

INEXPEDIENCY OF LETTERS OF MARQUE.

LETTER TO A CITIZEN OF NEW YORK, MARCH 17, 1863.

The following letter, which appeared in the papers at the time,
was written in the hope of preventing any action under the law
of Congress authorizing letters of marque.

WASHINGTON, March 17, 1863.

MY DEAR SIR,--In the freedom of that conversation which I had
with you as we drove to the Capitol recently, allow me for a
moment to speak again on the question which interested us then.…

I confess that I am anxious that the issuing of letters of marque
should be avoided, not merely because it will give us a bad name
without commensurate good, nor because it will be a departure
from the early and often declared policy of our Government,
which has not hesitated, by the pen of Benjamin Franklin and
John Quincy Adams, to denounce privateering as an “enormity,”
but because it does not meet, in a practical way, the precise
necessity of this time. People who advocate it are obviously
misled by the experience of another generation, when we were at
war with a nation whose commerce was a temptation and a reward
to private enterprise. The case is so different now that the old
agency is entirely inapplicable.

The privateer cruises for booty, which is in lieu of rations
and pay to officers and men, and of hire and compensation to
owners. But if the booty does not exist, or if it is in such
inconsiderable quantity as to afford small chance of valuable
prize, evidently you must find some other system of compensation;
as this cannot be, you must abandon the idea of private
enterprise stimulated and sustained by booty. An agency must be
found applicable to the present case, precisely as in machinery a
force is found best calculated to do the required work.

Now our present business is to help the Government capture
the Alabama and her piratical comrades, and also to catch
blockade-runners. But a letter of marque is not proper for
this purpose, nor will the chance of booty be the best way to
stimulate and sustain the cruiser, while, on the other hand, it
is obvious that such a ship, invested with the belligerent right
of search, in the quest of booty, will be tempted to exercise it
on neutral commerce, and thus become the occasion of contention
and strife with foreign powers.

Privateers have never been remarkable for the caution or reserve
with which they employ belligerent rights. I would not exaggerate
the troubles that might ensue; but when I think of these
sea-rovers, with license to overhaul neutral ships and to inflict
upon them visitation and search, I feel how much evil may ensue
compared with the good. You would not threaten a whole street in
order to catch a few robbers who had sought shelter in some of
its recesses, nor would you burn down your house, according to
the amusing story of Charles Lamb, in order to roast a pig.

It seems to be only according to common prudence, that private
enterprise, if enlisted now, should be regulated by the object
in view. To this end, it is not necessary that it should assume
a form calculated to awaken solicitude. The way is simple. If
citizens are willing to unite in efforts of the Government, let
them place their ships at its disposal, to be commissioned as
national ships, and let the Government, on its part, offer bounty
and prize money, in addition to pay and rations, for the capture
of the Alabama and her piratical comrades. The motive power will
thus be adapted to the object, while our country will be saved
from all chance of additional complication, and also from the
stigma of reviving a policy which civilization condemns.

The argument of economy is sometimes pressed. But it is poor
economy to employ an agency which in its very nature is
inapplicable. Besides, I doubt if any success reasonably expected
from such ships, called by the French _corsaires_, will be a
compensation for the bad name they will give us, and the bad
passions they will engender.

I hope I do not take too great a liberty in sending you this
sequel to our conversation. At all events, you will be pleased
to accept my best wishes, and believe me, my dear Sir, with much
regard,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

JOHN AUSTIN STEVENS, Jr., Esq., &c., &c., &c.

UNITY FOR THE SAKE OF FREEDOM, AND FREEDOM FOR THE SAKE OF UNITY.

LETTER TO A PUBLIC MEETING AT CLEVELAND, OHIO, MAY 18, 1863.

WASHINGTON, May 18, 1863.

GENTLEMEN,--It will not be in my power to take part in the
generous meeting to assemble at Cleveland, but I pray you to
accept my thanks for the cordial invitation with which you have
honored me.

If it were my privilege to speak on that occasion, I should urge
upon my fellow-citizens everywhere the duty of _Unity for the
sake of Freedom_, and also of _Freedom for the sake of Unity_.
The two cannot be separated. They are mutually dependent. Let
this people continue united, and Freedom must surely prevail. Let
Freedom prevail, and this people cannot cease to be united.

With such a cause, there is but one side and one duty. Whoever is
for the Unity of the Republic must be for Freedom, and whoever
is for Freedom must be for the Unity of the Republic. It is vain
to think that one can be advanced without the other. Whoever is
against one is against the other, and whoever is lukewarm for one
is lukewarm for the other. We must be fervid and strong for both.

This is not the time for doubt or hesitation. We must act at
once and constantly, so that the Republic may be saved, while
Slavery is scourged from this temple consecrated to Freedom. And
this will be done.

Believe me, Gentlemen,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

PACIFIC RAILROAD.

LETTER TO MESSRS. SAMUEL HALLETT & CO., MAY 23, 1863.

Messrs. Hallett & Co. were associated with General Fremont
in urging the Pacific Railroad. This letter was extensively
circulated.

WASHINGTON, May 23, 1863.

GENTLEMEN,--I have always voted for the Pacific Railroad, and
now that it is authorized by Congress I follow it with hope and
confidence. It is a great work, but science has already shown it
to be practicable.

Let the road be built, and its influence will be incalculable.
People will wonder that the world lived so long without it.

Conjoining the two oceans, it will be an agency of matchless
power, not only commercial, but political. It will be a new
girder to the Union, a new help to business, and a new charm to
life. Perhaps the imagination is most impressed by the thought
of travel and merchandise winding their way from Atlantic to
Pacific in one unbroken line; but I incline to believe that the
commercial advantages will be more apparent in the opportunities
the railroad will create and quicken everywhere on the way. New
homes and new towns will spring up, making new demand for labor
and supplies. Civilization will be projected into the forest and
over the plain, while the desert is made to yield its increase.
There is no productiveness to compare with that from the upturned
sod which receives the iron rail. In its crop are school-houses
and churches, cities and states.

In this vast undertaking coöperation of all kinds is needed,
and it will be rewarded too. Capitalists, bankers, merchants,
engineers, mechanics, miners, laborers, all must enlist.
Perhaps there will be a place also for _the freedmen of this
war_, although it seems to me that their services can be more
effectively bestowed at home, as laborers and soldiers. But I
see not why emigrants should not be invited from Europe to take
part in this honorable service, and share the prosperity it
will surely organize. Let them quit poverty, dependence, and
wretchedness in their own country, for good wages here, with
independence, and a piece of ground which each man can call his
own.

Emigration will hasten the work; but, with or without emigration,
it must proceed. Everywhere, from sunrise to sunset, the Rail
and Wheel, which an eminent English engineer has pronounced “man
and wife,” will yet be welcomed, sure to become the parents of a
mighty progeny.

I have the honor to be, Gentlemen,

Your faithful servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

MESSRS. SAMUEL HALLETT & CO.

UNION OF THE MISSISSIPPI AND THE LAKES BY CANAL.

LETTER TO A CONVENTION AT CHICAGO, MAY 27, 1863.

The Convention was held June 2d.

WASHINGTON, May 27, 1863.

GENTLEMEN,--I resign most reluctantly the opportunity with which
I am favored by your invitation, and shall try to content myself
with reading the report of your powerful and well-organized
meeting at Chicago, without taking part in it.

The proposition to unite the greatest navigable river of the
world with the greatest inland sea is characteristic of the West.
Each is worthy of the other. The idea of joining these together
strikes the imagination as original. But the highest beauty is
in utility, which will not be wanting here. With this union,
the Gulf of Mexico will be joined to the Gulf of St. Lawrence,
and the whole continent, from Northern cold to Southern heat,
traversed by one generous flood, bearing upon its bosom untold
commerce.

It is for the West to consider well the conditions of this
enterprise, and the advantages it will secure. Let its
practicability be demonstrated, and the country will command
it to be done, as it has already commanded the opening of the
Mississippi. Triumphant over the wickedness of an accursed
Rebellion, we shall achieve another triumph, to take its place
among the victories of Peace.

To this magnificent work Science will contribute her myriad
resources. But there is something needed even to quicken and
inspire science: it is the unconquerable will, which does not
yield to difficulties, but presses forward to overcome them.
No word is used with more levity than the word “impossible.”
A scientific professor, in a public address, declared the
navigation of the Atlantic by steam “impossible.” Within a few
weeks it was done. The British Prime-Minister declared the
construction of a canal between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea
“impossible.” The Pacha of Egypt, with French engineers, is now
doing it. Mirabeau was right, when he protested against the use
of this word as simple stupidity. But I doubt if the word will be
found in any Western dictionary.

Believe me, Gentlemen, with much respect,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

To Hon. JAMES ROBB, I. N. ARNOLD, and others of the Committee.

THE ISSUES OF THE WAR.

DEDICATION OF A NEW EDITION OF THE SPEECH ON THE BARBARISM OF SLAVERY,[152] JULY 4, 1863.

TO THE YOUNG MEN OF THE UNITED STATES I DEDICATE THIS NEW
EDITION OF A SPEECH ON THE BARBARISM OF SLAVERY, IN TOKEN OF
HEARTFELT GRATITUDE TO THEM FOR BRAVE AND PATRIOTIC SERVICE
RENDERED IN THE PRESENT WAR FOR CIVILIZATION.

It is now more than three years since I deemed it my duty, in the Senate, to expose the Barbarism of Slavery. This phrase, though common now, was new then. The speech was a reply, strict and logical, to assumptions of Senators, asserting the “divine origin” of Slavery, its “ennobling” character, and that it was the “black marble keystone” of our national arch. Listening to these assumptions, which were of daily recurrence, I felt that they ought to be answered; and considering their effrontery, it seemed to me that they should be answered frankly and openly, by exhibiting Slavery _as it really is_, without reserve,--careful that I should “nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in malice.” This I did.

In that debate was joined the issue still pending in the Trial by Battle. The inordinate assumptions for Slavery naturally ripened in Rebellion and War. If Slavery were in reality all that was claimed by its representatives, they must have failed in duty, if they did not vindicate and advance it. Not easily could they see a thing so “divine” and so “ennobling,” constituting the “black marble keystone” of our national arch, discredited by popular vote, even if not yet consigned to sacrifice.

The election of Mr. Lincoln was a judgment against Slavery, and its representatives were aroused.

Meanwhile, for more than a generation, an assumption of Constitutional Law, hardly less baleful, had become rooted side by side with Slavery, so that the two shot up in rank luxuriance together. It was assumed, that, under the Constitution, a State was privileged at any time, in the exercise of its own discretion, to withdraw from the Union. This absurdity found little favor at first, even among the representatives of Slavery. To say that two and two make five could not be more irrational. But custom and constant repetition gradually produced an impression, until, at last, all the maddest for Slavery were the maddest also for this disorganizing ally.

It was then, conjoined with this constitutional assumption, that the assumption for Slavery grew into noxious vigor, so that, at last, when Mr. Lincoln was elected, it broke forth in flagrant war; but the war was declared in the name of State Rights.

Therefore there are two _apparent_ rudiments to this war. One is Slavery, and the other is State Rights. But the latter is only a cover for the former. If Slavery were out of the way, there would be no trouble from State Rights.

The war, then, is for Slavery, and nothing else. It is an insane attempt by arms to vindicate the lordship asserted in debate. With madcap audacity it seeks to install this Barbarism as the truest Civilization. Slavery is announced as the “corner-stone” of the new edifice. This is enough.

The question is presented between Barbarism and Civilization,--not merely between two different forms of Civilization, but between Barbarism on the one side and Civilization on the other side.

Such is the issue, simply stated. On the one side are women and children at the auction-block, families rudely separated, human flesh lacerated and seamed by the bloody scourge, labor extorted without wages; and all this frightful, many-sided wrong is the declared foundation of a mock Commonwealth. On the other side is the Union of our fathers, with the image of Liberty on its coin and the sentiment of Liberty in its Constitution, now arrayed under a patriotic Government, which insists that no such mock Commonwealth, having such declared foundation, shall be permitted on the national territory, purchased with money and blood, to impair the unity of our jurisdiction, and to insult the moral sense of mankind.

Therefore the battle waged by the Union is for Civilization itself, and it must have aid and God-speed from all not openly for Barbarism. Every one must give his best efforts, and especially the young men to whom I now appeal.

CHARLES SUMNER.

WASHINGTON, 4th July, 1863.

LET COLORED MEN ENLIST.

LETTER TO A CONVENTION AT POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW YORK, JULY 13, 1863.

BOSTON, July 13, 1863.

DEAR SIR,--It will not be in my power to take part in the
proposed meeting at Poughkeepsie. But I am glad it has been
called, and I trust it will be successful.

To me it has been clear from the beginning that the colored men
would be needed in this war. I never for a moment doubted that
they would render good service. And thus far the evidence in
their favor is triumphant. Nobody now questions their bravery or
capacity for discipline. All that can be said against them is
that they are not “white.”

But they have a special interest in the suppression of the
Rebellion. The enemies of the Union are the enemies of their
race. Therefore, in defending the Union, they defend themselves
even more than other citizens; and in saving the Union, they save
themselves.

I doubt if in times past our country could have justly expected
from colored men any patriotic service. Such service is the
return for protection. But now that protection has begun, the
service should begin also. Nor should relative rights and duties
be weighed with nicety. It is enough that our country, aroused at
last to a sense of justice, seeks to enroll colored men among
its defenders.

If my counsels could reach such persons, I would say, Enlist
at once. Now is the day, and now the fortunate hour. Help to
overcome your cruel enemies battling against your country, and
in this way you will surely overcome those other enemies, hardly
less cruel, here at home, who still seek to degrade you. This is
not the time to hesitate or to higgle. Do your duty to our common
country, and you will set an example of generous self-sacrifice
which must conquer prejudice and open all hearts.

Accept my thanks for the invitation with which you have honored
me, and believe me, dear Sir,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

EDWARD GILBERT, Esq.

FOOTNOTES

[1] See, _ante_, Vol. VI. p. 379.

[2] May 6, 1862, pp. 1957, 1958.

[3] Congressional Globe, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., May 20, 1862, p. 2223.

[4] _Post_, p. 128.

[5] Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. p. 591.

[6] 12 Juin, 1862.

[7] The Crime against Kansas, May 19 and 20, 1856: _ante_, Vol. IV. p. 125.

[8] Sonnet XVI. 9-11: To the Lord General Cromwell.

[9] Rose _v._ Himely, 4 Cranch, S. C. R., pp. 272, 273.

[10] Ibid., pp. 288, 289.

[11] Cheriot _v._ Foussat, 3 Binney, R., pp. 252, 253.

[12] Upton, The Law of Nations affecting Commerce during War, pp. 211, 212.

[13] Law Reporter, Vol. XXIV. p. 345, April, 1862.

[14] Lib. I. cap. 3, § 1.

[15] Oratio de Chersoneso, p. 97: Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Prolegom. § 25.

[16] Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, Vol. II. § 1344.

[17] Commentaries, Vol. IV. p. 381.

[18] Introduction to the Literature of Europe, 3d edit., (London, 1847,) Vol. II. p. 568, note.

[19] 12 Wheaton, R., 14, 15.

[20] Bynkershoek, Questiones Juris Publici, Lib. I. cap. 7.

[21] Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Hammond, May 29, 1792: American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I. p. 201.

[22] Speech on International Maritime Law, March 17, 1862: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXV. col. 1608.

[23] Manning, Commentaries on the Law of Nations, p. 127.

[24] Vattel, Book III. ch. 5, sec. 76.

[25] 8 Cranch, S. C. R., 110.

[26] Wheaton, Elements of International Law, Part IV. ch. 1, § 11.

[27] Law of Nations, p. 136.

[28] Halleck, International Law, p. 460.

[29] “Washington, dans la guerre de l’Amérique, inventa l’expression et la chose.”--KLÜBER, _Droit des Gens Moderne de l’Europe_, (Paris, 1831,) Tom. II. p. 33, sec. 251, note.

[30] Page 410.

[31] Q. Curtius, Lib. VII. cap. 8.

[32] Law of Nations, Book III. Ch. 13, § 203.

[33] 8 Cranch, S. C. R., 110.

[34] Le Caux _v._ Eden, Douglas, R., 594; Faith et al. _v._ Pearson, Holt, N. P. Cases, 113.

[35] Elphinstone _v._ Bedreechund, 1 Knapp, Privy Council R., 337.

[36] Elphinstone _v._ Bedreechund, 1 Knapp, Privy Council R., 360, 361.

[37] Merlin, Répertoire de Jurisprudence, art. CONFISCATION, § I.

[38] History of the Reformation (Oxford, 1829), Vol. I. p. 538.

[39] Alison, History of Europe, (5th edit.,) Vol. IV. pp. 708, 709, note.

[40] Ibid., p. 705, note.

[41] Alison, History of Europe, Vol. IV. p. 706, note.

[42] Austin’s Life of Elbridge Gerry, Vol. I. p. 207.

[43] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I. pp. 198, 199.

[44] Letter to United States Commissioners: American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I. p. 219.

[45] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I. p. 219.

[46] Extract from Mr. Adams’s Journal respecting Peace, November 29, 1782: Ibid., p. 220.

[47] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I. p. 221.

[48] Definitive Treaty of Peace, Art. V.: United States Statutes at Large, Vol. VIII. p. 82.

[49] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I. p. 201.

[50] Ibid., p. 205.

[51] Ware _v._ Hylton et al., 3 Dallas, R., 222.

[52] Ibid., p. 282.

[53] Ibid., p. 227.

[54] Ibid., p. 264.

[55] Ware _v._ Hylton et al., 3 Dallas, R., 210.

[56] How completely this early prophecy has been fulfilled appears in our history.

[57] Law of Nations, Book III. ch. 9.

[58] Count Portalis, at the installation of the Council of Prizes in 1800: Cussy, Phases et Causes Célèbres du Droit Maritime des Nations, Tom. I. pp. 179, 206, 264. Montesquieu had previously enunciated the same principle, with a limitation: L’Esprit des Lois, Liv. I. ch. 3.

[59] “Impius et crudelis judicandus est, qui libertati non favet.”--FORTESCUE, _De Laudibus Legum Angliæ_, Cap. XLII.

[60] Executive Documents, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., Senate, No. 67.

[61] This prophecy, like so many others with regard to Slavery, has failed, as appears from a Comparative Statement of the Cotton Crops of the United States for the three years last preceding the War (which years had the largest crops ever produced), and for the three years last past, prepared by Mr. B. F. Nourse, of Boston, December, 1871.

+-------------------------+-----------------------+--------------+
| | CROP PRODUCED. | Aggregate |
| YEAR, OR COTTON SEASON. +---------+-------------+Value at Ports|
| | Bales. |Pounds Gross.| in Gold. |
+-------------------------+---------+-------------+--------------+
|1858-59 |4,019,000|1,876,800,000| $164,225,000 |
|1859-60 |4,861,000|2,343,000,000| 207,190,000 |
|1860-61 |3,849,000|1,886,240,000| 170,000,000 |
| | | +--------------+
| Gold value, three years | | | $541,415,000 |
| | | +==============+
|1868-69 |2,367,000|1,103,957,000| $201,835,000 |
|1869-70 |3,123,000|1,441,057,000| 242,195,000 |
|1870-71 |4,352,000|2,021,651,000| 236,770,000 |
| | | +--------------+
| Gold value, three years | | | $680,800,000 |
+-------------------------+---------+-------------+--------------+

[62] Debates in the Federal Convention, August 22, 1787: Madison Papers, Vol. III. p. 1396.

[63] Debates, August 25: Ibid., pp. 1429, 1430.

[64] Congressional Globe, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 2403.

[65] Congressional Globe, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 2402.

[66] Congressional Globe, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 2403.

[67] Congressional Globe, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 2404.

[68] Notes on Virginia, Query XVIII.: Writings, Vol. VIII. p. 403.

[69] Debates in the Federal Convention, August 22, 1787: Madison Papers, Vol. III. p. 1391.

[70] These lines, with a slight alteration, are from a parody, “On the Discoveries of Captain Lewis,” which appeared anonymously in the _Monthly Anthology_ for March, 1807, but attributed to John Quincy Adams.--DUYCKINCK, _Cyclopædia of American Literature_, Vol. I. p. 395.

[71] Notes on Virginia, Query XVIII.: Writings, Vol. VIII. p. 404.

[72] Elphinstone _v._ Bedreechund, 1 Knapp’s Privy Council Rep., 320. See, _ante_, p. 51.

[73] Executive Documents, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., Senate, Vol. V. No. 54.

[74] Page 233.

[75] June 13, 1862.

[76] _Ante_, Vol. VI. pp. 301-305.

[77] Works, Vol. V. pp. 56, 57.

[78] Works, Vol. V. pp. 348, 349.

[79] Congressional Globe, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., July 1, 1862, p. 3035. Mr. Hale quotes from memory. The passage in the original, entitled “A Parable against Persecution,” is as follows: “And God said, Have I borne with him these hundred ninety and eight years, and nourished him, and clothed him, notwithstanding his rebellion against me, and couldst not thou, that art thyself a sinner, bear with him one night?”--Franklin’s Works, ed. Sparks, Vol. II. p. 122.

[80] Congressional Globe, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., July 1, 1862, p. 3038.

[81] Ibid., July 14, p. 3314.

[82] _Ante_, p. 5.

[83] Arlington, the property of General Lee.

[84] Hon. Henry Winter Davis, late Representative in Congress from Maryland.

[85] Acts of 37th Cong. 1st Sess., Ch. LX. sec. 4: Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. p. 319.

[86] “Sunt et belli, sicut pacis, jura.”--LIVY, Lib. V. c. 27: quoted by Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Prolegom. § 26.

[87] Art. IX.

[88] Cicero, Orat. pro Milone, Cap. iv. § 10.

[89] Letter to the Secretary of State, August 22, 1815: American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. IV. p. 117.

[90] Quoting it in reply to “the authority that has been rung in our ears by the Senator of Massachusetts,” Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, said: “This was the utterance of Mr. Adams, before he was fired with that fanatical zeal, before he had that disease of negrophobia, that for a time dethroned his mighty intellect on that subject.”--Congressional Globe, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., July 15, 1862, p. 3349.

[91] Congressional Globe, 27th Cong. 2d Sess., April 14, 1842, p. 424.

[92] The important passages introduced here will be found in an earlier speech, “Emancipation our Best Weapon,” _ante_, Vol. VI. pp. 21-23.

[93] Chap. 107, sec. 31.

[94] Chap. 34, sec. 16.

[95] Chap. 107, sec. 59.

[96] Chap. 34, sec. 11.

[97] Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, § 248, pp. 95, 96.

[98] Ibid., § 248 and note.

[99] Stansbury’s Report of the Trial of James H. Peck, Appendix, p. 499.

[100] System des heutigen Römischen Rechts, Band II. p. 329, § 97.

[101] Notes on Virginia, Query XIII.: Writings, Vol. VIII. p. 367.

[102] The Fugitive Slave Act.

[103] Milton, Of Reformation in England, Book II.: Prose Works, ed. Symmons, Vol. I. p. 29.

[104] Senate Journal, July 17, 1862, pp. 872-874. Congressional Globe, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 3406.

[105] Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. p. 627.

[106] Works (London, 1801), Vol. III. p. 69.

[107] At this Convention Mr. Sumner was nominated for reëlection as Senator. See, _post_, pp. 240, 241.

[108] United States Statutes at Large, Vol. XII., Appendix, p. 1267.

[109] The pen with which the President signed the final proclamation was given by him to George Livermore, author of the “Historical Research respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic on Negroes as Slaves, as Citizens, and as Soldiers.”

[110] Joint Resolution on the Subject of Retaliation, May 1, 1863: Public Laws of the Confederate States of America, 1st Cong. 3d Sess., (Richmond, 1863,) p. 167.

[111] John A. Andrew.

[112] In the delivery of the speech Mr. Sumner was interrupted here by an inquiry from the audience: “What about that vacant chair?” Cries answered: “Put him out!” The Voice: “He challenges inquiry. I ask him, What about the vacant chair?” Repeated cries: “Put him out!” Mr. Sumner: “Let him stay. The gentleman asks about the vacant chair. I refer him to the history of my country for answer.” [_Tremendous applause._]

[113] Here the same voice that had already interrupted said: “Without reservation?” Mr. Sumner replied: “Yes, without reservation.”

[114] Speech at Bristol, previous to the Election, 1780: Works (London, 1801), Vol. IV. pp. 72, 73.

[115] Horace, Epist. I. vi. 67, 68.

[116] Congressional Globe, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 2342; Senate Journal, p. 527.

[117] See, _ante_, Vol. VI. pp. 20-23.

[118] Letter to Doctor Gordon, July 16, 1788: Writings, Vol. II. pp. 426, 427.

[119] November 7, 1775: American Archives, Fourth Series, Vol. III. col. 1385.

[120] November 27, 1775: Ibid., Vol. IV. col. 202.

[121] Letter to the Secretary of State, March 30, 1776: Ibid., Fifth Series, Vol. II. col. 160.

[122] Letter to Joseph Reed, December 15, 1775: Life and Correspondence of Joseph Reed, Vol. I. p. 135.

[123] John Adams, Notes of Debates in the Continental Congress, October 6, 1775: Works, Vol. II. p. 458.

[124] An Historical Research, by George Livermore, p. 187.

[125] Proclamation, dated at Bermuda, April 2, 1814. An Exposition of the Causes and Character of the Late War, by A. J. Dallas, (Philadelphia, 1815,) p. 70. Life and Writings of A. J. Dallas, by his Son, G. M. Dallas, Appendix, No. 5, p. 356.

[126] Report of Quartermaster-General, November 15, 1841: Senate Documents, 27th Cong. 2d Sess., No. 1, p. 110.

[127] Works, Vol. II. p. 428.

[128] Secret Journals, Vol. I. p. 108. _Ante_, Vol. III. p. 403.

[129] Speech in the House of Representatives of the United States, December 10, 1811: Hildreth’s History of the United States, Vol. VI. p. 269; Annals of Congress, 12th Cong. 1st Sess., col. 451.