Chapter XII: Appendix

The appearance and condition of Andrew Johnson before the
Senate, and representatives of foreign powers, when taking
the oath as Vice-President, March 4, 1865, was not calculated
to inspire general confidence. But, in the absence of further
display of the same kind, the public had become silent, hoping
something better. The memory of that incident threw a shadow
over the great office he was called to assume. Some were
favorably affected by the avowals of patriotism in numerous
off-hand speeches, although touching but a single chord.
Nothing was said of the great principles of Reconstruction,
but treason was to be made “odious.” The repetition of himself
impressed Chief Justice Chase, as well as Mr. Sumner, and he
said to the latter, “Let us see the President, and try to give
him another topic.” So, in company, at an early hour of the
evening, about a week after the commencement of his Presidency,
they called, and united in urging him to say something for the
equal rights of our colored fellow-citizens. Though reserved in
language, he was not unsympathetic in manner, so that, after
the interview, the Chief Justice, on reaching the street,
said: “Did you see how his face lighted at your appeal to
carry out the Declaration of Independence?” A few days later
Mr. Sumner called alone, and received from the President
positive assurance of agreement on the suffrage question.
His words were, “On this question, Mr. Sumner, there is no
difference between us,--you and I are alike.” An account of
these interviews, and the sequel, was subsequently given in an
address at Boston, October 2, 1866.

Very soon it was too apparent that the President had adopted an
opposite course. States were to be hurried back by Presidential
prerogative on the electoral basis anterior to the war. Mr.
Sumner from the beginning had regarded the votes of colored
fellow-citizens necessary to a proper reconstruction,--first,
as an act of justice to them, and, secondly, as a counterpoise
to the disloyal. He had urged this solution in the Senate, and
had repeatedly presented it to President Lincoln. The Diary of
Hon. Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy, according to an
article published by him,[247] shows how Mr. Sumner pressed
this duty in the most intimate councils. It appears that this
Secretary was at the War Department, Sunday evening, April
16th, the day after President Lincoln’s death, where he met
Speaker Colfax, Mr. Covode, the very earnest Representative
from Pennsylvania, Messrs. Dawes and Gooch, Representatives of
Massachusetts, and Mr. Sumner. After stating that Mr. Stanton
read to them the drafts of orders for the reorganization of
Virginia and North Carolina, the article proceeds:--

“Before concluding that which related to North Carolina,
Mr. Sumner interrupted the reading, and requested Mr.
Stanton to stop until he could understand whether any
provision was made for enfranchising the colored man.
Unless, said he, the black man is given the right to vote,
his freedom is mockery.

“Mr. Stanton said there were differences among our friends
on that subject, and it would be unwise, in his judgment,
to press it in this stage of the proceedings.

“Mr. Sumner declared he would not proceed a step, unless
the black man had his rights. He considered the black man’s
right to vote the essence, the great essential.”

In conformity with this declaration Mr. Sumner continued to
act, as appears in correspondence and speech. His Eulogy on
President Lincoln, at the request of the municipal authorities
of Boston, was an appeal for the black man. So also was his
private correspondence, during this summer, with Secretary
Stanton, Secretary McCulloch, Secretary Welles, Secretary
Harlan, and Attorney-General Speed, all of the Cabinet.

Meanwhile the President went forward in his “policy.” The
country was alarmed. Hon. Thaddeus Stevens, the acknowledged
leader of the House of Representatives, partook of the anxiety
which ensued. Though not yet prepared to press the ballot for
all, he was strenuous against the assumption and precipitation
of the President.

As early as May 10th he wrote to Mr. Sumner, from
Philadelphia:--

“I see the President is precipitating things. Virginia is
recognized. I fear before Congress meets he will have so
bedevilled matters as to render them incurable. It would be
well, if he would call an extra session of Congress. But I
almost despair of resisting Executive influence.”

This was followed by another letter, under date of June 3d,
from Caledonia, Penn., where were his iron-works:--

“Is it possible to devise any plan to arrest the Government
in its mad career? When will you be in Washington? Can’t we
enlist bold men enough to lay the foundation of a party to
take the helm of this Government and keep it off the rocks?”

Then, under date of June 14th, another, also from Caledonia:--

“Is there no way to arrest the insane course of the
President in ‘reorganization’? Can you get up a movement
in Massachusetts? I have thought of trying it in our State
Convention. If something is not done, the President will
be crowned king before Congress meets. How absurd his
interfering with the internal regulations of the States,
and yet considering them as ‘States in the Union’!”

Also, under date of August 17th, from Caledonia:--

“I have written very plainly to the President, urging
delay. But I fear he will pursue his wrong course. With
illegal courts and usurping ‘reconstruction,’ I know not
where you and I shall be. While we can hardly approve all
the acts of the Government, we must try and keep out of the
ranks of the Opposition. The danger is that so much success
will reconcile the people to almost anything.”

August 26th, Mr. Stevens wrote from his home at Lancaster,
Penn.:--

“I am glad you are laboring to avert the President’s fatal
policy. I wish the prospect of success were better. I
have twice written him, urging him to stay his hand until
Congress meets. Of course he pays no attention to it. Our
editors are generally cowardly sycophants. I would make a
speech, as you suggest, if a fair occasion offered. Our
views (‘Reconstruction and Confiscation’) were embodied
in our resolutions [in the Republican State Convention,
recently held] at Harrisburg, amidst much chaff. Negro
suffrage was passed over, as heavy and premature. Get the
Rebel States into a territorial condition, and it can be
easily dealt with. That, I think, should be our great aim.
Then Congress can manage it.”

In the same spirit, Hon. B. F. Wade, of the Senate of the
United States, July 29th, wrote from his home at Jefferson,
Ohio:--

“I regret to say, that, with regard to the policy resolved
upon by the President, I have no consolation to impart.
To me all appears gloomy.… The salvation of the country
devolves upon Congress and against the Executive. Will
they be able to resist the downward tendency of events? My
experience is not calculated to inspire me with confidence.”

Hon. Henry Winter Davis, the able, eloquent, and courageous
Representative in Congress from Baltimore, June 20th, in a long
letter to Mr. Sumner, on our perils and duties, wrote:--

“One way is to pass a law by two-thirds over the
President’s veto, prescribing the conditions of
reconstruction of any State government, and declaring
_none_ republican in form which excludes negroes from
voting. Such a law the President will be obliged to obey
and execute.… The other mode of solving the problem, over
the head of the President, is to pass an Amendment of the
Constitution prescribing universal suffrage.… We have the
requisite majority to pursue either of these plans; but
is there nerve for the work? I have too often failed to
inspire my political friends with that elevated sense of
their own authority to dictate the course of affairs, to
be sanguine of success in measures which require so much
unity, energy, and singleness of purpose as these. The last
Congress was not equal to it; is the present Congress?…
Now do me the favor to give me your views as fully as I
have given you mine. I trust you are not, as I am, in
despair.”[248]

In the course of the summer a pamphlet was published in
Boston, entitled “Security and Reconciliation for the Future:
Propositions and Arguments on the Reorganization of the Rebel
States,”--being a collection of resolutions by Mr. Sumner,
with the article in the _Atlantic Monthly_,[249] the speech
on the admission of Senators from Arkansas,[250] and the
Louisiana debate.[251] The large edition of this collection
drew attention, and helped prepare for the speech at the State
Convention. A few extracts will show its reception.

* * * * *

Dr. George B. Loring, the agriculturist, afterwards Chairman of
the State Committee of the Republican party in Massachusetts,
and President of the Massachusetts Senate, wrote from Salem:--

“I only wish all our statesmen had taken the ground adopted
by yourself; it would have saved us infinite trouble. It
entitles you to eternal thanks, and receives daily more and
more assent.”

Hon. John C. Underwood, District Judge of the United States,
wrote from Alexandria, Va.:--

“I have read your collected arguments on the subject of
Reconstruction with great pleasure and profit. Let me thank
you for convincing me, very much against my will, that to
allow immediate representation to the Rebel States would
be a cruel breach of faith and honor to the freedmen, and
that we of the South must be just to these poor people,
and submit to a genuine republican government, before
we deserve admission again into the American family. I
trust no petty personal ambition will prevent my full
appreciation of the immensely important work for our
country and humanity which you have so well performed.”

Hon. Charles Eames, the able lawyer and scholar, former
Commissioner to the Sandwich Islands, and Minister at
Venezuela, residing in Washington, wrote from the sea-shore at
Long Branch:--

“It is a noble monumental record, worthy both of the
subject and of the Senator, and which will stand a landmark
in our parliamentary history. Every new day, as it comes,
brings new attestation of your wisdom and foresight, and
of the truthful views which from the first, and almost, if
not altogether, alone in Congress, you took and faithfully
expounded on the whole question of Reconstruction. The
idea of hurrying these lately Rebel communities into
participation in the enactment and administration of our
laws seems to me the most absurd blunder ever perpetrated
in history, with the possible exception of that earlier and
still more monstrous enormity of error which assigned to
them the right to give by silence a negative vote on the
purposed change of our fundamental law.”

Hon. John Y. Smith, an able and independent thinker, wrote from
Madison, Wisconsin:--

“Pray, honored Sir, do not be discouraged by the stupid
prejudices with which you have to contend, but fight it
out, and you may save the nation; for at no time during the
war was it in greater peril than it is at this moment. The
Ship of State has gallantly borne up through the storms
of war, but I fear that President Johnson, with the best
intentions, is running her straight upon the rocks.”

A few extracts from newspapers attest the impression made by
the Speech.

* * * * *

The Boston _Transcript_, which reported the speech on the
afternoon of its delivery, said:--

“Mr. Sumner has made many powerful addresses, on many
important occasions; but we think our readers will admit
that he has never presented a more masterly argument, on a
more important occasion, than that which he has urged on
the Union Republicans in his speech of to-day. Clear and
pointed in statement, felicitous in illustration, admirable
in arrangement, cogent in logic, affluent in learning,
with occasional bursts of eloquence which light up and
animate, but never disturb, the course of the argument,
the speech cannot fail to exert an immense influence on
the formation of that public opinion which is to determine
the mode by which one of the most momentous questions ever
brought before the American people shall be definitely
settled.… Mr. Sumner does not merely attempt to convince
the understanding; he strikes through it to the national
conscience and sense of humanity and honor. His sentences
are full of heat, as well as light,--will lodge in the
minds they inform, and influence the will which votes, as
well as the judgment which assents.”

The Albany _Morning Express_ said:--

“Let us call Senator Sumner a fanatic, if we will; let us
pronounce him a man of one idea, if we choose; but let
us at least award him the honor he deserves.… If Charles
Sumner is wrong, his example is right. We have not so
many politicians true to eternal principle, we have not
so many statesmen devoted with a single purpose even to
their own conception of the best interests of the country,
we have not so many counsellors studious only of strict
justice, that we can afford to throw away the Senator from
Massachusetts. Whether we regard him as right or wrong,
there is something sublime in his steady, persistent,
unwavering devotion to his idea. Such honesty cannot be
impugned. Such fidelity cannot be misinterpreted.… Senator
Sumner has always been in advance of the mass. He is a
leader a long way ahead, a pioneer through trackless mazes.
It is his mission to discover a path where the throng shall
follow.”

With different spirit, the New York _Herald_, in an article
entitled “Senator Sumner on the Rampage,” said:--

“We now have an essay from Senator Sumner, who, mounted on
his ‘Bay horse,’ makes a furious assault upon the President
and his policy, and, in fact, everybody, except the blacks
in the South.… He is determined to fight it out, if it
takes the remainder of his life. The public now know his
position, and just what the Jacobins intend to do. The
President can also understand the nature of the opposition
which he is to have arrayed against him in the next
Congress.… The Rebellion, he declares, is not ended, nor
Slavery abolished. If he means by the former term Northern
rebellion, he is not far out of the way; for it is very
evident that a rebellion has commenced in the North, and
has been inaugurated in Massachusetts, with Senator Sumner
as high-priest and prophet.”

The New York _World_, in an article entitled “The Massachusetts
Declaration of War against the President,” said:--

“It is not worth while to spend words on the formal
resolves of the Massachusetts Convention. They but
condense, in more staid and decorous language, the
sentiments of Mr. Sumner’s speech; and we prefer to dip
out of the fountain. The unanimous election of Mr. Sumner
as the presiding officer, the applause which greeted his
speech, the panegyrics lavished upon it by the Republican
press of Boston, and its harmony with every public
utterance in Massachusetts, from the Faneuil Hall meeting
in May down, are so many seals of its authentication as a
true exposition of the purposes of the Republican party.
Charles Sumner is the Republican platform incarnate.”

Other papers show how it was received in States lately in
rebellion.

The Memphis _Argus_, of Tennessee, said:--

“Yesterday we received, under the frank of ‘C. Sumner,’ his
recent infamous speech at Worcester, Massachusetts. We use
the word _infamous_ advisedly, temperately; for viler or
more wilful and malicious slanders of a great, suffering,
and submissive people, vanquished in war by overwhelming
odds, but honestly accepting all the legitimate results of
their defeat, and patriotically anxious to resume their old
places in a full, restored Union, were never published to
the world by the filthiest political scavenger that ever
plied his trade in the foul services of party.”

The Augusta _Transcript_, of Georgia, said:--

“To show the infamous slanders to which the fanatical
leaders are obliged to resort, in order to goad on their
followers to the new crusade against the South, we
republish an extract from Mr. Sumner’s last speech in
Massachusetts.”

In England, Colonel T. Perronet Thompson, the Freetrader, and
former Member of Parliament, in his series of articles in the
Bradford _Advertiser_, after enumerating the topics, said:--

“The man who has no curiosity to know what the first
statesman in America says on all these heads would go to
bed without asking whether the fire in the next street was
put out, or if the house next his own began to smoke. The
very jobbers in Rebel bonds, or builders of the Shenandoah,
might feel a desire to know which way the thing was going.”

The _Scotsman_, a foremost journal at Edinburgh, commenced a
leader on this speech as follows:--

“It would be at least difficult to name a man in the United
States, or rather the States now under process of being
reunited, who is better entitled to a respectful hearing,
all the world over, than Mr. Charles Sumner. He has had but
one object,--a noble object, worthy any calculable amount
of struggle and sacrifice; and he has pursued it ardently,
bravely, disregarding both party and personal consequences,
and letting no other object stand in the way or turn him
aside for a moment from the straight path. He has sought
only the Abolition of Slavery, and has deemed nothing else
worth fighting for.”

The response by correspondence was prompt and earnest from
various parts of the country. The letters from which extracts
are taken, with the exception of that from Great Salt Lake
City, were received immediately after the delivery of the
speech.

* * * * *

Charles Stearns, ardently against Slavery, and familiar with
the Rebel States, wrote from Springfield:--

“After an absence from good old Massachusetts of eleven
years, my heart was made glad, the other day, by seeing
a notice in the papers that you were to speak at the
Republican Convention at Worcester. I immediately hastened
thither, and felt happy beyond measure, as I listened to
the deafening applause with which your appearance upon the
platform was greeted.”

Rev. John T. Sargent, the Liberal clergyman, wrote from
Boston:--

“That noble speech of yours at the Worcester Convention,
so complete in its analysis of our national condition,
dangers, and duties, ought to be printed in letters of
gold, and emblazoned henceforth as the established moral
code of every one of our States.”

David A. Wasson, the honest thinker and student of philosophy,
wrote from Boston:--

“God bless you, and make you strong for the arduous and
immense work that is immediately before you! The coming
session of Congress will, I think, be preëminently the
critical and cardinal day in all American legislation. I
look forward to it with unspeakable anxiety. If only your
counsels had been accepted, how clear, how easy, all would
be! Now the situation is fearfully complicated.”

Rev. George C. Beckwith, Secretary of the American Peace
Society, wrote from Boston:--

“Let me express the earnest hope that you will economize
your strength for the great conflict soon to come during
the approaching Congress. I never doubted the final success
of our arms; but when the sword should be sheathed, I have
always expected to see our worst crisis in our last grapple
with slaveholders. We shall quite need all your prudence,
forecast, energy, courage, and decision, to meet the
dangers ahead from returning Rebels.”

Rev. Charles Brooks, eminent for his services to education,
wrote from Medford:--

“I thank you, I thank you a thousand times, for your
sound, comprehensive, and patriotic speech at Worcester.
Shakespeare says, ‘Things by season seasoned are.’ Never
was a word more fitly spoken. It is the best speech I have
read for years, and will become historic.”

William I. Bowditch, the able conveyancer and Abolitionist,
wrote from Boston:--

“I read your speech yesterday morning with great
satisfaction, and yet with considerable misgiving as to
whether its truths will be acted on. I doubt if the North
has been punished enough to induce it to forego the attempt
of trying again to circumvent God.”

P. R. Guiney, on the day the speech was delivered, wrote from
Boston:--

“I am under an overwhelming conviction, that, unless the
views which you express are substantially adhered to,
Despotism will have gained all that Liberty won in our
recent war. The Battle of Gettysburg was not more of a
crisis than this. May God prosper you!”

Professor George W. Greene, scholar and author, wrote from East
Greenwich, R. I.:--

“I received your Worcester speech this morning. I
must write a line to say I have read it carefully and
thoughtfully, and say ‘Amen’ to it all. God grant it may go
into every house and every heart! I look with deep anxiety
for the opening of Congress. You have yet your hardest
fight to win; but it is the fight of God and Humanity, and
you will win it.”

Professor Charles D. Cleveland, an ardent Abolitionist and
successful teacher, recently Consul at Cardiff in Wales, wrote
from Philadelphia:--

“Many, many thanks to you for your noble speech at the
Worcester Convention. Oh that your words might unite with
the heart of the President and bring forth appropriate
fruits! For the last two or three months I have been quite
desponding as to his course.”

John Penington, the scholarly bookseller, wrote from
Philadelphia:--

“With its matter I fully sympathize; but I was particularly
struck with the aptitude and felicity of your illustrations
of the various points of your argument.”

William Goodell, the early and constant Abolitionist, author
of “Slavery and Anti-Slavery,” a history also of the “American
Slave Code,” wrote from Bozrahville, Connecticut, where he was
then residing:--

“In my rural retreat, where I am for the present
recruiting my health, a copy of the _Commonwealth_
containing your great speech at Worcester, September 14th,
providentially falls into my hands, and I cannot forbear
trespassing upon your time one moment to congratulate and
to thank you, which I do most heartily, upon your great
achievement, and for your signal service to your country,
in the hour of its greatest peril,--_greatest_ I say,
because, as I fear, so little perceived and so little
understood.… If you had spent the whole summer in preparing
that speech, I see not how you could have improved it, nor
how your time and talents could have been more worthily
or more usefully employed.… You well say, ‘We must look
confidently to Congress’; to which permit me to add, that
for the leadership of Congress the country must look to
_you_, whose ‘course is fixed,’ who ‘will not hesitate,’
who ‘will not surrender.’”

Hon. Wayne MacVeagh, Chairman of the Republican State Committee
of Pennsylvania, afterwards Minister at Constantinople, wrote
from West Chester, Pennsylvania:--

“I have just finished reading your superb speech at
Worcester, in the complete form in which you sent it to
me, and cannot go to bed without thanking you for it. The
right word, in the right time, by the right man,--what more
should we ask?”

William Hickey, Chief Clerk of the Senate, where he had been
a life-long officer, and author of a well-known edition of
the Constitution with accompanying documents, wrote from
Washington:--

“Your speech ably maintains the consistency, ability, and
patriotism which have uniformly distinguished your course,
from your first essay in the sacred cause of Liberty, which
has elicited so much of disinterested zeal and indomitable
courage and perseverance on your part as to call forth,
in my hearing, from the most honorable and intelligent
of your political opponents from the South, declarations
attributing those qualities to you in an eminent degree,
giving you credit for consistency and unmistakable
integrity of purpose. Your exertions have in a very great
degree contributed towards the defeat of the Rebellion and
the victory of the Government over its enemies, and you
have now the satisfaction of enjoying the fruits of your
labors and the exercise of your literary superiority and
transcendent talents.”

Hon. John C. Underwood, who had written shortly before on
Reconstruction,[252] wrote from Alexandria, Virginia:--

“I thank you for your Convention speech. Its positions and
arguments are so overwhelming that I feel almost certain
that your efforts will succeed with our people, and that
you will be acknowledged the wise statesman and enlightened
Christian patriot that I know you are.”

General Saxton, an Antislavery army officer, commanding in
South Carolina, wrote from Charleston:--

“I most fully sympathize with and cordially indorse every
word and line. In the future, the wisdom of your position
will be fully established and vindicated.”

Hon. Charles D. Drake, an eminent lawyer and law-writer,
afterwards United States Senator from Missouri, and Chief
Justice of the Court of Claims, wrote:--

“Being detained at home by indisposition, I was glad of the
privilege of at once reading your latest views on the great
questions of the day in connection with Reconstruction.
For them, and for the heroic spirit with which you take
your stand, and determine ‘to fight it out on that line,’
I offer you my most sincere and fervent thanks. May God
preserve your life and health, and enable you to fight it
out to a complete victory!”

Hon. Charles Durkee, formerly Senator of the United States from
Wisconsin, and then Governor of Utah, wrote from Salt Lake City
to Governor Farwell, of Wisconsin:--

“I have just finished reading Mr. Sumner’s great speech
delivered at the Massachusetts State Convention. What a
masterly argument! It embodies the condensation of Calhoun,
the strength of Webster, and more than the eloquence of
Clay. In logic, in illustration, in simplicity of truth, I
have never read a state-paper that equals it. Its timely
utterance how fortunate for the country! He inspires
some of the most vital parts of the Constitution (which
heretofore have been a dead letter) with new life and
activity. Washington and Lincoln led in the first and
second revolutions, but it was left for Charles Sumner to
lead in the third,--a revolution in _Constitutional and
Republican ideas_. Be so kind as to thank him, in my name,
for this timely effort in behalf of his country and in the
cause of the oppressed.”

Such words from distant places were an encouragement to the
speaker. Evidently he was not alone, nor had he spoken in vain.

QUORUM OF STATES NECESSARY IN ADOPTION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

LETTER TO THE NEW YORK EVENING POST, SEPTEMBER 28, 1865.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK EVENING POST.

As a faithful reader of the “Evening Post” for many years, I
have perused your article insisting that all present effort
for guaranties of national security and national faith must
be postponed, in order to obtain the ratification of the
Constitutional Amendment by which slavery is abolished throughout
the United States. If the Constitutional Amendment were not
already ratified by the requisite number of States, I should
doubt if even this most desirable object could be a sufficient
excuse for leaving the national freedman and the national
creditor exposed to peril, when exertions now can save them.
But allow me to inquire if you do not forget, that, according
to usage of the National Government in analogous cases, this
Amendment has been already ratified by the requisite number of
States, so that at this moment it is valid, to all intents and
purposes, as part of the Constitution? There was a butcher once
who looked everywhere for his knife, forgetting that he held it
between his teeth; there also was the good Dr. Dove, who was in
love without knowing it; and you have laughed, I am sure, at the
story told by Southey to illustrate this condition, where the
traveller, asking how far it was to a place called “The Pan,” was
answered directly, “You be in the Pan now.” It seems to me, that,
like the traveller, the doctor, and the butcher, you already have
what you desire; so that, even according to your programme, the
way is clear for insisting upon those other things embraced under
“Security for the Future.”

The Constitution of the United States decides that “the Congress,
whenever _two thirds of both Houses_ shall deem it necessary,
shall propose amendments to this Constitution, … which shall be
valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution,
when ratified by _the Legislatures of three fourths of the
several States_.” On these words the simple question arises, What
constitutes the quorum?

But the usage of the National Government in analogous cases has
determined that the quorum is founded on the States _actually
participating in the Government_. This has been decided in both
Houses of Congress. The House of Representatives led the way
in fixing its quorum _according to actual representation_, or,
in other words, at “a majority of the members chosen.”[253]
The Senate, after careful consideration and protracted debate,
followed in establishing a similar rule.[254] The Constitutional
Amendment was adopted by both houses _organized according to
this rule_. The national debt has been sanctioned by both houses
_thus organized_. Treaties also with foreign powers have been
sanctioned in the Senate _thus organized_.

Applying this rule, the quorum of States requisite for the
ratification of the Constitutional Amendment is plainly three
fourths of the States _actually participating in the Government_,
or, in other words, three fourths of the States having
“Legislatures.” Where a State has no Legislature, it may be still
a State, but it cannot be practically counted in the organization
of Congress; and I submit that the same rule must prevail in
the ratification of the Constitutional Amendment. The reason of
the rule is the same in each case. If you insist upon counting
a rebel State, having no Legislature, you make a concession
to rebellion. You concede to a mutinous State the power to
arrest, it may be, the organization of Congress, or, it may be,
amendments to the Constitution important to the general welfare.
This is not reasonable. Therefore, on grounds of reason as well
as usage, I prefer the accepted rule.

If this conclusion needed the support of authority, it would find
it in the declared opinion of one of our best law-writers, who
is cited with respect in all the courts of the country. I refer
to Mr. Bishop, who, in the third edition of his “Commentaries
on the Criminal Law,” published within a few days, discusses
this question at length. In the course of his remarks he uses
the following language: “If the matter were one relating to
any other subject than Slavery, no legal person would ever
doubt, that, when there are States with Legislatures and States
without Legislatures, and the Constitution submits a question
to the determination of ‘the Legislatures of three fourths of
the several States,’ the meaning is, three fourths of the States
which have Legislatures. In fact, it does not require either
legal wisdom or legal acumen to see this, provided we look at the
point disconnected from the peculiar subject of Slavery.”[255]
The learned author then proceeds to illustrate this statement in
a manner to which I can see no answer.

To my mind all this seems so plain that I am disposed to ask
pardon for arguing it. Of course there is no question whether a
State is _in_ the Union or _out of_ the Union. It is enough that
it is without a Legislature, and on this point there can be no
question. Being without a Legislature, it cannot be counted in
determining the quorum.

Therefore, beyond all dispute, the Constitutional Amendment has
been already ratified by the requisite number of States; so
that Slavery is now constitutionally abolished twice,--first,
by the Proclamation of President Lincoln, under the war powers
of the National Constitution; and, secondly, by Constitutional
Amendment. It remains that we should provide supplementary
safeguards, and complete the good work that has been begun,
by taking care that Slavery is abolished in spirit as well as
letter, and that the freedmen are protected by further needed
guaranties. Without this additional provision, I see small
prospect of that peace and reconciliation which are the object so
near our hearts.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

BOSTON, 28th September, 1865.

SELF-SACRIFICE FOR THE COLORED RACE. EQUESTRIAN STATUE OF COLONEL SHAW, FIRST COMMANDER OF MASSACHUSETTS COLORED TROOPS.

ARTICLE IN THE BOSTON DAILY ADVERTISER, OCTOBER 2, 1865.

The two colored regiments enlisted, equipped, and sent forth by Massachusetts have returned home and been mustered out. Officers and privates are now dispersed. The last music has died away. Of these two famous regiments, which made such a mark on the times, nothing now remains but the memory. This cannot die; for it belongs to the history of a race. But all who went have not returned. The youthful hero, so gentle and true, who was selected by the Governor to command the Fifty-Fourth Regiment, fell at the head of his men on the very parapets of the Rebel enemy, and was buried in the sand with his humble companions in arms,--thus in death, as in life, sharing their fortunes. Family, parents, wife, were left to mourn. As was said of “Bonnie George Campbell,” in the beautiful Scotch ballad,--

“Hame cam’ his gude horse,
But never cam’ he.”

Few who were in Boston at the time can forget that pleasant day in May, when this colored regiment, with Colonel Shaw riding proudly at its head, passed by the State-House, where it had been equipped and inspired. Cheers and the waving of handkerchiefs greeted it. There were tears also. It was a joyous and a sad sight to see this new legion, acquired to the national service, promptly marching to its distant and perilous duty, under a commander who, turning away from the blandishments of life, consecrates himself to his country. Nor was another consecration forgotten. It was to the redemption of a race. Massachusetts had sent forth many brave regiments; but here was the first regiment of colored soldiers marshalled at the North. It was an experiment, destined to be an epoch. By the success of this regiment a whole race was elevated. As he went forth, it became less an incident of war than an act of magnanimity and moral grandeur. Sidney, who refused the cup of cold water, was one of our young hero’s predecessors.

Not long after came tidings of the bloody assault on Fort Wagner, when, by an advance without parallel over an open beach, exposed to a storm of shot and shell, these new-made soldiers of a despised color, sleepless, dinnerless, supperless, vindicated their title as bravest of the brave. They had done what no other troops had done during the war. This was their Bunker Hill, and Shaw was their martyred Warren. Though defeated, they were yet victorious. The regiment was driven back; but the cause was advanced. The country learned to know colored troops, and they learned to know themselves. From that day of conflict nobody doubted their capacity or courage as soldiers. There was sorrow in Massachusetts as we were told how many had fallen, and that the beloved officer so recently admired in our streets was sleeping in an unknown grave; but even this sorrow did not blind an intelligent people to the magnitude of the event. Grief was chastened by honest pride. Swelling hearts were soothed by the thought that much had been done for humanity.

A desire arose at once for a monument to commemorate alike the hero and the event. But the Rebellion was then raging. It was no time for monuments. At last, with the overthrow of the Rebel arms, the time seems to have arrived. The youthful commander still sleeps with his comrades in death. There let him sleep. Westminster Abbey has no resting-place more honorable. But his patriotic sacrifice and the great event deserve commemoration, as well for gratitude as for example. Some propose a monument on the spot where he fell. This may be made; but it can be only a mound or pile of stones, to be seen by ships as they enter the harbor of Charleston. This is not enough. It will not tell the whole story.

The monument should be in Massachusetts, where the hero was born, and where the regiment was also born. Each belonged to Massachusetts,--the martyr by double title: first, as he drew his breath here, and, secondly, as he commanded this regiment of Massachusetts. Let the monument be here. Of course, no common stone or shaft will be sufficient. It must be of bronze. It must be an equestrian statue. And there is a place for it. Let it stand on one of the stone terraces of the steps ascending from Beacon Street to the State-House. It was in the State-House that the regiment was equipped and inspired. It was from the State-House that the devoted commander rode to death. Let future generations, as long as bronze shall endure, look upon him there riding always, and be taught by his example to succor the oppressed and to surrender life for duty. Especially let legislators of Massachusetts, by daily sight of the symbolic statue, be gratefully led to constant support of the cause for which he died. Here is a theme for Art, and its elements are youth, beauty, self-sacrifice, death, and a great cause.

On the Continent of Europe, by general usage, only members of a royal family are allowed the honor of an equestrian statue. In the unequalled monument by Rauch, at Berlin, the royal Fritz is mounted, but his generals are about him standing. Near by is Blücher, who was prince and marshal, also standing. In England there are equestrian statues of kings, and of the Duke of Wellington. But this is no reason why a grateful people should not decree an equestrian statue to a youthful hero, whose duty was on horseback, and who was last seen in our streets on horseback. As an American citizen he belonged to our sovereignty, and we fitly celebrate him with the highest honors. Few belonging to any royal family have so good a title. In the Republics of Italy, during the early ages, when royalty did not exist, there were equestrian statues. The first of these in merit, and one of the first in time, was the renowned statue in bronze of the _condottiere_ Bartolommeo Coleoni, who, after a lapse of centuries, is still admired as he rides bravely in a public square of Venice, while the artist has secured the immortality of his own name by engraving it upon the girth of the saddle. It is sometimes said, on doubtful authority, that this early chieftain was the first to mount cannon on wheels, so that they could be used in the field. But our chieftain did more than mount cannon, and the triumphant experiment with which his name is linked surpasses far anything in the life of an Italian trooper. His act was above any triumph of battle. It was a victory of ideas, and belongs to the sacred history of Humanity.

Let the monument be made. Boston has a sculptor without a superior among living artists, whose soul and genius would be in the work. Already a colored person, well known among us, with a heart full of gratitude, has subscribed five hundred dollars. Other colored persons are contributing in smaller sums, according to their means. They properly lead now in tribute to him who died in leading them. But others of ampler means must see that this generous effort does not fail. I should not suggest this, if I thought that I should take away from other things deserving aid. The present charity is so peculiar, that it appeals equally to all who are moved by patriotism, by gratitude, by sympathy, or by Art.

This article was followed by a public meeting in the Council
Chamber of the State-House, at the invitation of Governor
Andrew, to consider the proposition of an equestrian statue in
honor of Colonel Shaw. The following committee was appointed
to collect subscriptions and superintend the erection of the
statue: John A. Andrew, Charles Sumner, Joshua B. Smith,
Charles R. Codman, Samuel G. Howe, Robert B. Storer, Frederick
W. Lincoln, Jr., James L. Little, William W. Clapp, Jr.,
Charles Beck, Rev. Leonard A. Grimes, Peleg W. Chandler,
William G. Weld, Edward Atkinson, Charles W. Slack, Robert E.
Apthorp, Henry Lee, Jr., Edward W. Kinsley, George B. Loring,
LeBaron Russell, Henry I. Bowditch.

At a meeting of this committee, Charles Sumner, Samuel G. Howe,
Charles Beck, George B. Loring, LeBaron Russell, Henry I.
Bowditch, and Charles R. Codman were appointed a sub-committee
to select an artist, to contract with him, to secure a proper
place for the statue, and to superintend its erection.

THE LATE RICHARD COBDEN.

LETTER TO MRS. COBDEN, COVERING RESOLUTIONS OF THE REPUBLICAN STATE CONVENTION OF MASSACHUSETTS, OCTOBER 5, 1865.

The letter of Mr. Sumner first appeared in the London papers.

BOSTON, October 5, 1865.

MY DEAR MADAM,--I have been charged by the State Convention of
the Republicans of Massachusetts, over which I had the honor of
presiding, to communicate to you resolutions unanimously adopted
by them, expressing their grateful regard for the memory of your
late husband, and their sympathy in your bereavement.[256]

Knowing Mr. Cobden personally, as I did for many years, and
corresponding with him on public questions, I confess a sense
of personal loss beyond even that of my fellow-citizens. He was
the good friend of my country, and he was my own private friend.
Therefore, in making this communication, I desire to express my
own individual grief.

His lamented death has caused a chasm not only in his own home
and country, but here in the United States. We all miss him and
mourn him. He was a wise and good man. An Englishman by birth,
his heart and all his faculties were given to mankind, knowing
well that the welfare and true glory of his own great country
were best assured by such a dedication.

Hoping that you may be consoled in your sorrow, and that your
children may be blessed in life, I ask you to accept the respect
with which I have the honor to be, dear Madam,

Your very faithful servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

The following reply was received from Mrs. Cobden.

DUNFORD, MIDHURST, December 27, 1865.

MY DEAR MR. SUMNER,--On behalf of myself and my children,
I beg most kindly to thank you, and the members of the
Republican State Convention of Massachusetts, for the
resolutions, passed by them, of sympathy with us in our
terrible bereavement.

These resolutions are rendered more valuable by the letter
from yourself which accompanies them.

The expressions of sympathy and condolence which have
reached us from public bodies and private individuals, in
your and other countries, have been deeply grateful to
my stricken heart; for they assure me of the wide-spread
appreciation of the efforts of my beloved husband to
promote the cause of international prosperity and peace.

From America they are especially grateful; for his sympathy
with the cause of liberty to the slave was undoubted and
intense. And it was on his way to Parliament, to speak
on the Canadian question in its relation to the American
Union, that he contracted the illness which ended his dear
and noble life.

Pray accept the kindest remembrances of myself and
children, and believe me to remain,

My dear Mr. Sumner,

Yours very sincerely,