Chapter X: Appendix (1)

The sequel of this speech, which occupied two days in the
delivery, will appear, _first_, in the Debate and Votes that
ensued, and, _secondly_, in its reception by the country, as
illustrated by the Press and Correspondence.

DEBATE AND VOTES.

The speech of Mr. Sumner was followed by a succession of
speeches extending over a month, with considerable variation
by a concurrent resolution from the House of Representatives
involving the same questions.

Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, on the day after Mr. Sumner, spoke at
length. In the course of his remarks he said:--

“I take it no one contends, I think the honorable Senator
from Massachusetts himself, who is the great champion of
Universal Suffrage, would hardly contend, that now, at this
time, the whole mass of the population of the recent Slave
States is fit to be admitted to the exercise of the right
of suffrage.”

Then again:--

“While the honorable Senator from Massachusetts argued, and
argued with great force, that every man should have that
right, and that he should only be subject to disabilities
which he could overcome, his argument, connected with the
other principle that he laid down, and the application of
it that he made, that taxation and representation should go
together, would just as well apply to women as to men; but
I noticed that the honorable Senator dodged that part of
the proposition very carefully.”

He criticized the substitute offered by Mr. Sumner, when the
latter remarked:--

“Last Friday this Senate solemnly declared, that, under
the Constitutional Amendment abolishing Slavery, it had
power to decree the equal rights of all persons everywhere
throughout the United States, without distinction of
color. The moment that was declared, I said to friends
about me that the duty of Congress was fixed with regard
to political rights also. If Congress can decree equality
in civil rights, by the same reason, if not _a fortiori_,
it can decree equality in political rights; and as the
preamble to my proposition recited two reasons or moving
causes, one the guaranty clause, and the other the
Constitutional Amendment, I felt it my duty, acting upon
the vote of the Senate, to insist that the declaration of
equality for all should be coextensive with the Republic,
claiming as I do under the guaranty clause that it operates
within all the States where there has been a lapse of
government, and that under the Constitutional Amendment it
operates everywhere within the limits of the Republic.”

In confining the guaranty clause to States that had “lapsed,”
Mr. Sumner was cautious not to make his proposition too
broad, although his judgment was that it was applicable to
all the States, and authorized a prohibition by Congress of
unrepublican provisions in any State.

Mr. Fessenden said: “The Senator says we may secure it in the
States which have lapsed. That is a new phrase, but perhaps it
is as good as any other.” But he was unwilling to accept this
power.

Mr. Lane, of Indiana, said, in answer to Mr. Sumner:--

“If Congress had the undoubted and unquestionable authority
to pass such a law, it gets at the result more readily than
does the Constitutional Amendment; but it is doubtful to my
mind whether Congress has this power. I believe, under the
Constitution, the right to determine the qualifications of
electors is left with the several States.”

Then of the counter proposition he said:--

“It is a noble declaration, but a simple declaration,--a
paper bullet, that kills no one, and fixes and maintains
the rights of no one.”

Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, Mr.
Clark, of New Hampshire, Mr. Williams, of Oregon, Mr.
Hendricks, of Indiana, Mr. Yates, of Illinois, Mr. Buckalew,
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, Mr. Saulsbury,
of Delaware, Mr. Morrill, of Maine, and Mr. Wilson, of
Massachusetts, all spoke at length. Of these, Mr. Henderson,
Mr. Yates, and Mr. Pomeroy sustained Mr. Sumner, in opposition
to the House expedient, although the first preferred to assure
suffrage by a Constitutional Amendment ordaining it: while
insisting upon the ballot for the colored citizen, he doubted
the power of Congress. Mr. Johnson thought the claim of our
fathers, in their cry against Taxation without Representation,
was for communities, and not for individuals. Mr. Sumner
afterwards replied at length to this opinion.[197] In the
course of Mr. Henderson’s speech, occupying two days, the
following colloquy occurred.

MR. SUMNER. Do I understand my friend as insisting that the
denial of the franchise is consistent with a republican
government? Take the State of South Carolina, which denies
the franchise to more than half its population.

MR. HENDERSON. In theory it is not. Under the Constitution
it was regarded as a republican State at the time of the
adoption of the instrument.

MR. SUMNER. It did not deny the franchise to half its
citizens and more. I say citizens. Most excluded were
slaves.

MR. HENDERSON. It then had only one hundred and forty
thousand whites, and had one hundred and seven thousand
slaves. It also had eighteen hundred free negroes. I
think it more nearly a republican State now than then.
Practically, the question of suffrage was left to the
States----

MR. SUMNER. But that is the question, whether they were
left to deny suffrage to any freeman on account of color.

MR. HENDERSON. If that be the question, then the point is
against my friend; for both South Carolina and Virginia did
deny the suffrage to the free negroes on account of color
only, at the time when the Constitution was made, and when
it was adopted. Virginia had upward of twelve thousand free
negroes thus denied.

MR. SUMNER. But the question is--I cannot anticipate my
friend’s conclusion on that point----

MR. HENDERSON. My conclusion is, that a mistake was made
in recognizing a Constitution as republican that permitted
Slavery. I know of no way to get rid of it except by
Constitutional Amendment. I think another mistake was
committed in leaving each State to so far abridge the right
of suffrage as to change, in theory, the republican form.
But such is the Constitution, and you cannot change it by
Act of Congress. That is my conclusion.

MR. SUMNER. You are wrong. It is a question of theory
with regard to republican government, and I say that the
Constitution must be interpreted according to this theory.

MR. HENDERSON. But our fathers did not deal with it in the
Constitution as a question of theory, but as a question of
fact. Whatever may have been their theories, I mean only to
say that the text of the Constitution does not carry them
out----

MR. SUMNER. The practical point is, Did our fathers concede
to any State the power of disfranchising citizens on
account of color? I utterly deny it, and I challenge my
friend to show any authority for it.

MR. HENDERSON. Why, Mr. President, if I have already
failed to show it, I must fail in the future. I have shown
that the suffrage was left to the States, and that they
did exclude their negroes,--that they held in slavery
in Virginia almost half of their population,[198] and
that Virginia was called a republican State. Indeed, she
was most prominent in making the very provisions we are
discussing. She excluded the slaves and----

MR. SUMNER. Ah! slaves. That is another thing. The question
is, whether you are allowed to disfranchise freemen on
account of color,--whether you are allowed to deny freemen
rights as citizens. That I deny. The exception was slaves,
who were not regarded as members of the “body politic.”
They were treated as minors, or as women, represented
by their masters. But every freeman, no matter what his
color, was recognized as entitled to all the privileges of
citizenship; he was one of the sovereigns. The proposition
cannot be met, if my friend will consult the history of his
country.

MR. HENDERSON. It was not slaves only that were
disfranchised, but I have shown that free negroes were also
disfranchised. But I have no controversy with the Senator
in what we mutually aim at.

MR. SUMNER. I know that, and I concede to my excellent
friend all that I claim for myself. We are in search of the
best. I applaud his zeal, and thank him for his courtesy.

MR. HENDERSON. I am certainly very much obliged to the
Senator from Massachusetts. I feel now ten times better
than I did before. [_Laughter._]--I cannot longer detain
the Senate in presenting objections to the exercise
of legislative power under the guaranty clause. It is
sufficient to control my own action, that I believe by the
letter, and even spirit of the Constitution, the suffrage
was placed exclusively under the control of State action.
I think that the error of so placing it is as clear as the
error made in tolerating Slavery. To rid ourselves of the
evil, however, we must amend the Constitution.

MR. SUMNER. Do I understand my friend that a State might
adopt a rule founded on the color of the hair, so that
all men with light hair should be excluded from suffrage?
I insist that a State is not authorized, under the
Constitution, to make any exclusion on account of color.

MR. HENDERSON. It ought not to be, you mean.

MR. SUMNER. No,--it cannot be. Color cannot be a
qualification. There may be a qualification founded on age,
or residence, or knowledge, or crime.

MR. HENDERSON. You are now coming in conflict with the
Committee of Fifteen, who declare by their resolution
that the States now have the power, and may yet exclude
everybody of a particular race or color.

MR. SUMNER. The Committee propose to place that in the
Constitution, which is one reason why I object to their
report. I say that they propose to do what our fathers
never did.

MR. HENDERSON. The Senator from Massachusetts is in theory,
perhaps, correct. He is speaking, however, of an ideal
Constitution.

The following colloquy also occurred.

MR. HENDERSON. The Senator from Massachusetts proposes to
do by an Act of Congress what I think can only be done by
a Constitutional Amendment. That is the difference now
between the Senator from Illinois [Mr. YATES] and myself.
I think the Amendment can be adopted. Indeed, I feel
confident of it.

MR. SUMNER. What Amendment?

MR. HENDERSON. An Amendment to the Constitution preventing
any discrimination against the negro in the right of
suffrage because of color.

MR. SUMNER. It cannot.

MR. HENDERSON. I thought in the bright lexicon of the
Senator from Massachusetts there was no such word as “fail.”

MR. SUMNER. I thought the Senator meant that this
proposition of the Reconstruction Committee could be
adopted.

MR. HENDERSON. Oh, no! I never thought that.

MR. SUMNER. I believe that the Senator’s proposition can be
adopted--gratefully adopted--by the country; but the other
cannot be.

Mr. Williams, of Oregon, hesitated with regard to Mr. Sumner’s
substitute, although he seemed to sympathize with the speech.

“Sir, I listened with profound admiration to the speech
which the Senator delivered in favor of the proposed
substitute. It was worthy of the subject, worthy of the
occasion, worthy of the author; and when those who heard it
shall be forgotten, the echoes of its lofty and majestic
periods will linger and repeat themselves among the
corridors of History. I cordially indorse the prevailing
sentiment of that speech. I believe that the founders of
this Republic intended that all freemen should participate
in the political and civil rights of the country. I think
the distinction which they made was not between white men
and black men: that distinction is of modern origin: but
the distinction which they made was between freemen and
slaves.”

He took objection to the substitute.

“Pass that law at this session, and it becomes an issue
in the next political campaign; and those who sustain it
and pass it here will be committed to its support, and
those who oppose it will strive to elect men in favor of
its repeal. A majority of this Congress may believe in the
constitutionality and expediency of such legislation; but
another Congress, if a majority should happen to sympathize
with the honorable Senator from Kentucky, would abrogate
the law, and so the political rights of millions of people
would be as varying as the capricious fortunes of the
political parties of the country.”

In the intervening debate on the Reconstruction Resolution
of the House of Representatives, Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania,
made an elaborate speech on the pending Amendment, in which he
pictured the compromise involved in it.

“This Committee proposes in this Amendment to sell out four
million (radical count) negroes to the bad people of those
States forever and ever. In consideration of what? I am
asked. O shame, where is thy blush? I answer, in dust and
ashes, For about sixteen members of Congress. Has there
ever been before, Sir, in the history of this or any other
country, such a stupendous sale of negroes as that? Never!
never! It is saying to the Southern States, You may have
these millions of human beings, whom we love so dearly, and
about whom we have said so much, and for whom we have done
so much,--you may do with them as you please in the way of
legislative discrimination against them, if you will only
agree not to count them at the next census, except as your
sheep and oxen are counted; waive your right to sixteen
members of Congress, and the great compromise is sealed,
the long agony is over, the nation’s dead are avenged, the
nation’s tears are dried, and the nation’s politics are
relieved of the negro.”

March 7th, Mr. Sumner spoke at length in reply to Mr. Fessenden
and others who had opposed his substitute. This speech appears
in the present volume, according to its date.[199] He was
followed by his colleague, Mr. Wilson, who was strenuous for
the House Amendment.

“Mr. President, there are indications, not to be mistaken,
that this Amendment is doomed to defeat. To me this result
will be a subject of sincere and profound regret. My heart,
my conscience, and my judgment approve of this Amendment,
and I support it without qualification or reservation.”

March 9th, Mr. Fessenden spoke again, criticizing especially
Mr. Yates and Mr. Sumner.

Mr. Sumner followed Mr. Fessenden in a brief reply, which will
be found under its date.[200]

Mr. Wilson declared again his adhesion to the pending
Amendment, saying: “I would go to the scaffold joyfully before
the sun goes down, if I could put this proposed Amendment into
the Constitution of my country; for, if it were there, there
would be but one result and one end to it, and that is the
enfranchisement of every black man within the bounds of the
United States.”

The voting then commenced on the various substitutes for the
Amendment adopted by the House of Representatives.

First came the counter proposition of Mr. Sumner, altered,
in conformity with the original draught,[201] so as to be
applicable only to States that had lapsed, being “lately
declared to be in rebellion,” without republican government.

Mr. Henderson moved to strike out all of the counter
proposition, and in lieu of it insert a Constitutional
Amendment securing the suffrage to colored citizens:--

“ARTICLE 14. No State, in prescribing the qualifications
requisite for electors therein, shall discriminate against
any person on account of color or race.”

Mr. Henderson felt obliged to move his amendment as a
substitute for the counter proposition of Mr. Sumner in order
to compel a vote upon it.

Mr. Sumner stated that he was for this proposition, and that he
should vote for it, and, on its failure, press his own.

The question, being taken by yeas and nays on Mr. Henderson’s
amendment, resulted--Yeas 10, Nays 37--as follows:--

YEAS,--Messrs. Brown, Chandler, Clark, Henderson, Howe,
Pomeroy, Sumner, Wade, Wilson, and Yates.

NAYS,--Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Conness, Cowan, Cragin,
Creswell, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes,
Guthrie, Harris, Hendricks, Johnson, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana,
Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Morgan, Morrill, Nesmith, Norton,
Nye, Poland, Ramsey, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague,
Stewart, Stockton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, and Williams.

ABSENT,--Messrs. Foot, Howard, and Wright.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The question then recurred on the substitute of Mr. Sumner,
when the vote stood,--Yeas 8, Nays 39; so it was rejected.
Those voting in the affirmative were Messrs. Gratz Brown, of
Missouri, Chandler, of Michigan, Howe, of Wisconsin, Pomeroy,
of Kansas, Sumner, Wade, of Ohio, Wilson, of Massachusetts, and
Yates, of Illinois.

Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, then moved to amend the House
proposition by striking out the proviso and inserting these
words, being an amplification of the proviso:--

“Whenever the elective franchise shall be denied or
abridged in any State in the election of Representatives
to Congress, or of any other officer, municipal, State,
or national, on account of race, color, descent, or
previous condition of servitude, or by any provision of
law not equally applicable to all races and descents,
all persons of such race, color, descent, and condition
shall be excluded from the basis of representation, as
prescribed in the second section of the first article of
the Constitution.”

This amendment was adopted,--Yeas 26, Nays 20. It was
afterwards withdrawn by the mover, with the unanimous consent
of the Senate.

The next question was on a legislative substitute, not unlike
that of Mr. Sumner, moved by Mr. Yates:--

“That no State or Territory of the United States shall,
by any constitution, law, or other regulation whatever,
heretofore in force or hereafter to be adopted, make,
or enforce, or in any manner recognize, any distinction
between citizens of the United States, or of any State
or Territory, on account of race or color or previous
condition of slavery; and that hereafter all citizens,
without distinction of race, color, or previous condition
of slavery, shall be protected in the full and equal
enjoyment and exercise of all their civil and political
rights, including the right of suffrage.”

This was rejected,--Yeas 7, Nays 38.

Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, then moved to amend the proposition
of the House of Representatives by inserting after the word
“legislatures” the words “next hereafter to be chosen in each
State.” The motion was rejected,--Yeas 12, Nays 31.

Mr. Sumner then moved to strike out the proviso in the House
proposition, as amended on the motion of Mr. Clark, and in lieu
thereof insert,--

“And the elective franchise shall not be denied or abridged
in any State on account of race or color.”

In moving this Constitutional Amendment, Mr. Sumner remarked
that it was “a direct, positive proposition, slightly different
from that [Mr. HENDERSON’S] on which the Senate had voted.” It
was rejected,--Yeas 8, Nays 38.

Mr. Sumner then moved to add at the end of the House
proposition the words, “And they shall be exempt from taxation
of all kinds.”

Before the vote he remarked:--

“It is proposed, by a solemn provision of the Constitution,
to declare that certain persons shall not be included
in the basis of representation. I think, in justice to
them, they should not be taxed. You ought not to repeat
in the Constitution the tyranny of taxation without
representation. In so many words, you are about to despoil
fellow-citizens of representation, and I say, that, not to
be inconsistent with your own institutions and with the
principles upon which your government is founded, you must
exempt them from taxation.”

The amendment was rejected.

The question then came on the passage of the House proposition,
when the vote stood,--

YEAS,--Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cragin,
Creswell, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Harris, Howe, Kirkwood,
Lane of Indiana, McDougall, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Poland,
Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Trumbull, Wade, Williams, and Wilson.

NAYS,--Messrs. Brown, Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle,
Guthrie, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, Lane of Kansas,
Nesmith, Norton, Pomeroy, Riddle, Saulsbury, Stewart, Stockton,
Sumner, Van Winkle, Willey, and Yates.

ABSENT,--Messrs. Foot, Howard, and Wright.

The Chair then declared: “On this question the Yeas are 25 and
the Nays 22. Two thirds of the Senators present not having
voted for the joint resolution, it is not agreed to.”

This vote showed the judgment of the Senate at that time. But,
in order to keep the question open, it was, on motion of Mr.
Henderson, reconsidered. Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, then
moved a substitute, basing representation on qualified voters,
and also regulating direct taxes. Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, offered
another substitute, founded on qualified voters, but with
nothing on direct taxes. While these were pending, the subject
was postponed on motion of Mr. Fessenden, and never resumed.

Much feeling was manifested by some of the supporters of the
House attempt at amendment, when its defeat was known. Mr.
Stevens, of Pennsylvania, took an early occasion to say:--

“It was slaughtered by a puerile and pedantic criticism, by
a perversion of philological definition, which, if, when
I taught school, a lad who had studied Lindley Murray had
assumed, I would have expelled him from the institution
as unfit to waste education upon.… The murderers must
answer to the suffering race. I would not have been the
perpetrator. A load of misery must sit heavy on their
souls.… Let us again try and see whether we cannot devise
some way to overcome the united forces of self-righteous
Republicans and unrighteous Copperheads.”[202]

The Fourteenth Amendment followed, and was adopted by
both Houses of Congress during the present session. While
undertaking to regulate representation, this Amendment had
no recognition of exclusion from the elective franchise on
account of “race or color.” Though failing in directness, there
was nothing in it to injure the text of the Constitution, or
impair the idea of a republican form of government, always with
Mr. Sumner a cardinal point. There were also other important
clauses, defining citizenship, assuring for all “the equal
protection of the laws,” disqualifying certain persons from
office until the removal of such disability by a vote of two
thirds of each House of Congress, protecting the public debt of
the United States, and annulling all debts in aid of rebellion
or on account of the loss or emancipation of any slave.

The original object of the clause relating to representation
was accomplished directly, before its ratification as part of
the Constitution. After much debate, Congress yielded to the
claim of power, and took jurisdiction of the elective franchise
in the Rebel States, requiring, that, in voting on any State
constitution in the reconstruction of the Rebel States, there
should be no exclusion on account of race or color, and
that this prohibition should be embodied in the new State
constitutions.[203] The Fifteenth Constitutional Amendment on
equal suffrage followed.

Unquestionably the establishment of the equal rights of colored
citizens at the ballot-box was one of the most important events
in our political history. With few supporters at first, the
cause grew in interest and strength until final success in
the Acts of Reconstruction, and then in the Constitutional
Amendment. This great result was accomplished by discussion and
the gradual recognition of the national exigency.

PRESS AND CORRESPONDENCE.

Mr. Sumner’s speech was extensively circulated, and awakened
much attention. The response of the country will be seen in
the contemporary press and in letters addressed to him, which,
while illustrating the speech, reflect light on the times.

* * * * *

The Washington correspondents concurred in accounts of the
speech, and of the interest it created.

Henry C. Bowen, proprietor of the New York _Independent_, then
on a visit to Washington, wrote to his paper of the first day
of the speech:--

“SENATE CHAMBER,
Monday Afternoon.

“Whatever may be said in regard to the political opinions
of Hon. Charles Sumner, no one can deny his eminent ability
as an orator and scholar, and to-day this world-renowned
friend of the poor and the oppressed is speaking in the
Senate,--I had almost said as orator and scholar never
spoke before. His theme is the Rights of Man. The floor
and galleries of the Senate Chamber are crowded with most
attentive listeners, and such a spectacle as it is now my
unspeakable privilege to witness is worthy of a thousand
miles’ journey.… Never before have I heard in these
halls such solemn appeals, never such noble and eloquent
utterances. May the great Author of truth and justice
continue to inspire the great Senator now speaking to do
His will to the glory of His name!”

So also the correspondent of the Boston _Daily Advertiser_:--

“The finest audience of the session came out to-day to
hear Mr. Sumner’s great speech on the Amendment to the
Constitution. Many persons were in the galleries before the
Senate was called together at noon, and long before one
o’clock, the hour at which the proposition was to be taken
up, they were crowded to their utmost capacity. The morning
hour was occupied with minor business, and it was a
quarter past one when Mr. Fessenden called for the special
order. He of course was entitled to open the debate, but,
being unwell to-day, he yielded the floor to Mr. Sumner.

“The scene, when he rose to speak, was one that could not
fail to touch the most indifferent heart. One fourth of
the gentlemen’s gallery was filled with colored soldiers,
and the other seats and aisles of the remaining part of
the galleries were closely packed with an intent and
appreciative auditory, while on the floor were a large
number of members from the House and several members of the
foreign delegations resident in the city.”

So also the correspondent of the Pittsburg _Commercial_:--

“The great event of the day and of the session in the
Senate was Mr. Sumner’s speech. The galleries were crowded
to excess, as they have not been on any occasion before
in a long time. Frederick Douglass was in the gallery,
one of the most attentive listeners, and evidently
the best-pleased man in the Chamber, as he heard the
distinguished champion of his race plead so eloquently in
its behalf. Nearly every member of the Senate listened with
rapt attention to Mr. Sumner.”

So also the correspondent of the Boston _Commonwealth_:--

“Mr. Sumner’s great speech upon what constitutes a
republican government is now being delivered in the Senate.
It is the most powerful oration of his life,--the crowning
glory of his scholarship and statesmanship. Never yet has
any American statesman swept so wide a range of learning,
so complete a circle of public law, history, philosophy,
and jurisprudence, in support of so noble a principle as
the one underlying republican government. Mr. Sumner spoke
two hours yesterday, and will occupy about the same time
to-day. The galleries were filled to overflowing. The
Senatorial chairs were all occupied, while the floor was
thronged by Representatives and others having the _entrée_.”

The correspondent of the Boston _Journal_ wrote of the second
day:--

“Senator Sumner was honored to-day by such an audience
as is rarely seen in the Senate Chamber. The Senators,
wheeling around their chairs so as to face the speaker,
listened with marked attention. Scores of Representatives
filled the sofas or the floor and stood in groups, and the
galleries were literally packed with earnest men and women,
who drank in every word as the gifted orator proceeded.
When he closed, the galleries applauded loudly, until
Senator Pomeroy, who occupied the chair, secured order,
while those on the floor crowded around Senator Sumner to
offer earnest congratulations.”

So also the correspondent of the New York _Tribune_:--

“Senator Sumner concluded his great effort at fifty-five
minutes past two, having commenced at one. Diplomats,
two Cabinet Ministers, and a much larger number of
Congressmen than yesterday were on the floor, while
all the galleries and approaches were densely packed
with attentive listeners. As the argument of the speaker
culminated, he became grandly eloquent, and his elaborate
plea, which might rather be denominated an essay than a
speech, for negro enfranchisement, unquestionably made a
profound impression upon every intelligent listener. At its
conclusion the floor and galleries broke forth in applause.”

A few days later, the correspondent of the New York _Tribune_,
after mentioning President Johnson’s interview with the
delegation of colored people headed by Frederick Douglass and
George T. Downing, wrote:--

“As to Mr. Sumner’s grand vindication of the fundamental
principles underlying republicanism, it is unnecessary
to repeat what has been said of the immediate effect it
produced upon those who listened to it,--of the overcrowded
galleries, the silent attention of the Senate, the members
of the House who had left their own seats and eagerly
thronged the floor of the Senate Chamber.… And even now,
since the sound has died away and there has been ample time
for searching criticism, you can hear men who are not in
the habit of following Mr. Sumner’s views of policy say
with heartfelt satisfaction, it was a grand speech, worthy
of the Senate, worthy of the cause it defended, worthy of
this Republic. I have hardly seen a Republican here who was
not as proud of it as if he had made it himself. Even Mr.
Sumner’s opponents, the Democrats of the Senate and the
House, yielded to it the tribute of their respect. That
respect will go all over this country, and even beyond its
boundaries; and while no thinking man in this Republic will
take it up without feeling the irresistible weight of its
logic and the ennobling power of its sentiments, it will
abroad do more honor to American republicanism than any
public act since the decree of Emancipation.”

The correspondent of the New Orleans _Tribune_ wrote:--

“You will of course give to your readers the great speech
of Senator Sumner. His speech is one of the best ever
delivered in the Senate, and it was delivered in the
greatest of causes,--that of Human Liberty. It differs from
the tone so common among so-called ‘Democratic’ orators for
years past, both North and South, inasmuch as it contained
neither abusive, personal, nor vindictive language. But it
was calm, manly, dignified,--full of the subject in hand,
treating it with frankness,--alluding to the opposite
view with fairness, and even respect, while showing up
their errors and weaknesses as one would those of a
wayward child. For historical and legal research, critical
analysis, and logical argument, it is unsurpassed. Concise,
pithy, full of effective and happy illustrations, it was
admirably conceived and presented.”

The correspondent of the Richmond _Republic_, with equal
appreciation, but less faith, wrote:--

“In the Senate, the day was devoted to Sumner. He began
speaking about one o’clock, and concluded his exhaustive
argument in an hour and forty minutes. The burden of the
whole of it was the absolute political and civil equality
of all men, and his peroration was a loftier flight of
majestic eloquence than the Senate has heard since the
best days of Clay and Webster. While very few agree with
Sumner in the present practicability of his ideas, and
still fewer indorse them at all as tenets of political
faith, yet there is but one opinion of the speech he has
been making for two days,--that, simply as a monument of
laborious research and good English, it is unsurpassed.
When he concluded to-night, the densely crowded galleries
could not be restrained, and burst out into vehement
applause; but it was a tribute to the grandly classical
language in which his ideas were clothed, and not to the
ideas themselves. Charles Sumner may possibly be a patriot,
but he is certainly a political philanthropist, and as such
there is no probability that he will live to see his tenets
practically enforced in the legislation of the country.”

The correspondent of the New York _Times_ wrote:--

“He exhausted ancient and modern history in gathering
maxims and examples for the illustration of the points
which he made. Portions of the speech were marked by great
felicity of language and beauty of imagery. It exhibited,
perhaps, more of the speculative theorist than of the
practical statesman. Though he took pains to disavow
everything of this character, and to present his views as
the basis and guide of practical action, it was by far the
most elaborate and comprehensive speech made in Congress
for many years, and was heard with great attention by the
Senate and crowded galleries.”

A few extracts from newspapers will show how the speech was
received at a distance.

* * * * *

The _Independent_, of New York, in printing the speech, thus
noticed it:--

“Charles Sumner’s argument for the Rights of Men ought to
be printed by the hundred thousand, and scattered like
seed-grain throughout the nation. It is a speech worth
a lifetime to have achieved,--the greatest of all Mr.
Sumner’s great speeches. Standing in some respects almost
alone in the Senate, his position is all the more morally
grand for his isolation, and his plea all the more eloquent
for his moral heroism. Generous readers will overlook
their minor differences of opinion from Mr. Sumner, for
the sake of agreeing with him to the full in the masterly,
unanswerable, and incomparable argument which he has made
in behalf of securing to every American citizen his just
rights before the law.”

The New York _Tribune_ said:--

“Mr. Sumner concluded yesterday a great speech on the
true basis of a Republic. We believe it will exalt his
reputation as a statesman, a scholar, and a devotee of
Liberty. It is elaborate; but his theme demanded thorough
treatment, and we think very few who read the speech will
find it too long. He will not convince the majority that
the Federal Constitution, as it stands, empowers Congress
to extend and guaranty the right of suffrage in the States
lately in revolt to the black race, and especially to the
freedmen; but he has very clearly demonstrated that it
_ought_ to be so extended,--that the rights of the humble,
the hated, the scorned ought especially to be protected by
their right to vote. Hear what he says on this point.”

The Boston _Daily Advertiser_ said:--

“There has been a good deal of amusement expressed at
the evidence of industry, during the recess of Congress,
presented by the sheaf of bills and resolutions offered
by Mr. Sumner at the opening of the session. The copious
use of authorities in his speech of this week shows that
these numerous measures were not prepared without a careful
survey of the ground upon principle and in history,
nor without very profound inquiry into the underlying
doctrines upon which the true glory of our institutions is
established.”

The Adams _Transcript_, of Massachusetts, said:--

“In this work of clearing away the rubbish of lies which
Slavery has heaped upon the real doctrines and purposes of
the Fathers, and bringing out into clear, glorious relief
the great truth and work of the Revolution, Mr. Sumner has
performed a service which no public man of our politics
has equalled. The whole of our history is searched and
illumined, and the most overwhelming mass of evidence
produced to the point, that a true construction of the
Constitution gives all men who pay taxes representation and
the ballot, thus basing free government upon the consent of
the governed. No such argument for free government has been
made in our day. For learning, cogency of logic, wealth of
illustration, felicity and splendor of diction, nobility
of tone and sentiment, and genuine eloquence, it will take
rank with the highest of forensic efforts. Already its
effect is visible in the political atmosphere. The public
feeling and thought have received an obvious elevation.”

The Rochester _Democrat_, of New York, said:--

“It will be observed, as a remarkable characteristic of
this great speech, that it is but slightly controversial
in its character, but is devoted mainly to the elucidation
of the general principles of republican government, which
are discussed with an elevation of sentiment, a depth
of learning, and a power of logic that entitle it to a
place far above the transient expressions of the views
and passions of the hour. It will stand for ages, a noble
and enduring monument of the highest range and scope of
American statesmanship, and will be read with profit and
admiration long after the questions of the day have been
settled and forgotten, or remembered only by students
of history. Its immediate effect, however, on public
sentiment cannot fail to be vast and beneficial.

The Dayton _Journal_, of Ohio, said:--

“As an exposition of the American theory of Republicanism,
this speech is unsurpassed in the history of American
oratory. It is a magnificent contribution to our political
literature. It is candid and temperate, the speech of a
statesman and patriot who earnestly seeks the welfare of
all his countrymen. It abounds in splendid passages, and is
a model of classic strength and elegant style. The partisan
sneers of demagogues cannot prevail against it.”

The Portland _Daily Press_, of Maine, said:--

“It is not only _the_ great speech of Charles Sumner’s
life, but it is the great speech of the age. It is
perfectly exhaustive, free from all personalities, free
from all idiosyncrasies, statesmanlike, philosophical, and
calculated to become a lasting memorial of its author’s
research, patient investigation, power of analysis, and,
above all, his undying devotion to the cause of popular
liberty and human rights.”

The _Progressive Age_, of Belfast, Maine, said:--

“It is beyond question the greatest effort of our most
distinguished New England statesman, and will make his name
dear to every friend of freedom and equal rights in all
coming time. It is throughout the language of the calm,
conscientious statesman. Avoiding all mere expedients and
controversies concerning details, it fixes the attention
upon the great principles of a free republican government;
and never in our history have those principles been so
clearly and forcibly elucidated.”

The Bangor _Jeffersonian_, also of Maine, said:--

“In the United States Senate, on Monday and Tuesday of last
week, Mr. Sumner made a speech which will occupy a very
conspicuous place in the history of the American Union,
not so much for its advocacy of any merely formal plan or
scheme of national legislation for Reconstruction as for
its closer relations to the great fundamental principles
which constitute the ideal of a truly republican government
It goes to the very foundation of things.”

In a leading article of more than two columns, the New York
_Herald_ said, in a different vein:--

“MR. SUMNER’S ORATION.--NEGRO SUFFRAGE THE WHOLE DUTY OF
THE NATION, AND THE ONLY ESCAPE FROM OUR DIFFICULTIES.--Mr.
Sumner, in his Senatorial pleading in the case of the
negro, has given to the country an elaborate evidence of
the utterly impracticable and visionary character of his
political views. His oration is admirable in all purely
literary respects, and indicates an abundant industry and
research; but its theories of society, its interpretations
of the Constitution, and its assumptions as to the history
of the country and of the war are inadmissible, excepting
only what is said of the Constitutional Amendment.…

“Those parts of the oration which claim suffrage for the
negro, as a necessary policy of the nation, will require
but little answer by argument; for the country and the
world--all men outside the Radical Republican party--will
completely deny the truth of the points from which they
start.…

“We quite agree with Mr. Sumner in the grand fact that
the Constitutional Amendment gives Congress full power to
settle the position of the negro in the Southern States,
and even to give him the suffrage. We are quite sure that
this oration has not shown the necessity, the justice,
or even the expediency of this gift. Still it may be
expedient, necessary, and just.”

The speech attracted attention in Europe. In the _Revue
des Deux Mondes_, of Paris, which is so comprehensive a
representative of the French mind, a leading article by M.
Forcade presents a parallel between Mr. Sumner’s speech and the
famous speech of the time in the French Assembly by M. Thiers,
where Liberty was the theme.

“The very day when M. Thiers delivered his speech we were
occupied in reading the remarkable speech which Mr. Sumner
has just pronounced in the Senate at Washington, and which
the last mail from America has brought us. The speech of
Mr. Sumner is the recent political event in the United
States.

“The illustrious American Senator, the chief of the radical
party in the Senate, proposed to himself to deduce from
the most careful examination of the Constitution of his
country those principles according to which should be
settled that difficult problem which the Americans call
Reconstruction,--that is to say, the return of the Rebel
States into the Union. We shall not undertake to judge
the practical bearing of the opinions of Mr. Sumner on
the great question which agitates the United States;
but it is impossible for us not to render homage to the
patriotic piety which breathes in his beautiful discourse.
As M. Thiers wished to derive the liberal destinies of
France from the great principles of the Revolution, so
Mr. Sumner applied himself to exhibit in the origin of
the Constitution of the United States the fundamental
principles of republican government of modern times.…

“Is it not a remarkable coincidence, that these voices of
two great patriots, who, almost at the same moment, without
any concert, obey instinctively the mysterious law which
moves the people destined to guide civilization, answer
to each other with so much splendor from opposite sides
of the Atlantic? All the news from the United States show
that the effect produced by the speech of Mr. Sumner has
been immense.… The habitual adversaries of Mr. Sumner,
the Democrats in Congress, covered themselves with honor
in uniting in the testimonials of respect which were so
universally rendered to the radical Senator. In the pride
inspired by this beautiful and good oratorical plea, the
Americans turn in a friendly spirit toward our Old World,
and do not dissemble the hope that this speech will do them
more honor in Europe than any public act in their country
since the decree of Emancipation. We are charmed, for our
part, to justify this hope.”[204]

CORRESPONDENCE.

Numerous letters, from various persons and quarters, attest the
general interest, marked in many cases by feeling and personal
gratitude seeking to express itself. Brief extracts from a
portion only are given.

* * * * *

Theodore Tilton, editor of the New York _Independent_, wrote
just before the speech:--

“I protested with all my heart against the Amendment
offered by the Committee of Fifteen. It don’t execute
justice. It leaves the negro to the decision of the Rebel.
It proves that a republic is ungrateful.

“I am glad to notice by the _Tribune_ of this morning that
you are to move an Amendment, or rather a substitute for
that Amendment.”

[FROM MASSACHUSETTS.]

William Lloyd Garrison, the early Abolitionist, always
persistent against Slavery, wrote from Boston:--

“I have perused your eloquent and unanswerable speech on
the Suffrage question, and need not say that it contains
the noblest sentiments, to which all the faculties and
powers which God has given me thrillingly respond. It will
doubtless be more efficacious out of the Senate than in it,
as it will help to educate the popular mind up to the point
of abolishing all complexional distinctions before the law,
North and South.… Your speech, based as it is upon absolute
justice and eternal right, is an admirable elementary
treatise, and I trust will have the widest circulation.…

“What assiduity and perseverance, what courage and
determination, what devotion and inflexible purpose
you have shown, through fiery trials and at the risk
of martyrdom, ‘in season and out of season,’ to effect
the downfall of the atrocious slave system, and thereby
elevate and save the Republic! If to this extent the year
of jubilee has come, you have done much towards ushering
it in, and have a right to be specially glad and grateful
that Heaven has been pleased to make you so potential an
instrumentality in bringing about its beneficent designs.”

Wendell Phillips, who never failed to sympathize with efforts
for Human Rights, wrote from Boston:--

“We are all inexpressibly grateful for your brave position
and words. You and half a dozen others redeem Congress.
Your arguments have been grand and exhaustive. You never
linked so many hearts to you as during the last two months.”

Elizur Wright, the veteran Abolitionist, wrote from Boston:--

“Your speech and vote on the Blaine Amendment ought to
produce a thrill of life and joy and hope through every
spinal column that supports a loyal soul. We can’t afford
any of the old nonsense. We took our sable friends into our
boat when it was _bulleting_; and if we allow them to be
thrown overboard by the traitors now it is _balloting_, we
sink, in short.”

George Bemis, the eminent lawyer and publicist, wrote from
Boston:--

“I think that you may justly rank it among your greatest
efforts, and that it will go into history as the great
statement of the Freedman’s claim to participate in the
government of the country of which he makes part. The
general student of governmental law and civil polity
will also constantly refer to it as a new and important
development of the connection between representation and
executive sovereignty, and as a powerful _exposé_ of the
true basis of republican institutions. You have done a
great service to the colored race, to the science of
statesmanship, and to your country, all at once.”

Hon. Charles P. Huntington, for some time an able Judge of the
Superior Court, wrote from Boston:--

“If your opposition does not just now reflect the feeling
of New England Republicans, it anticipates their sober
judgment. Theoretically, at least, it deprives the black
race of representation, and punishes them for acts of
legislation in which they have no voice.”

Hon. Theophilus P. Chandler, able lawyer and Assistant
Treasurer, wrote from the United States Treasury, Boston:--

“Eloquent, exhaustive, unanswerable.”

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

“Your masterly speech will one day be reached by Congress
and the people,--I trust, in your day and mine. The best
minds believe in it; the best hearts take courage from it.”

Hon. E. L. Pierce, afterwards Secretary of the Board of
Charities in Massachusetts, wrote from Boston:--

“I read last evening, at one session, your last speech in
the Senate. It is a noble one, and right in all respects.
One passage near the close reminds me of the famous
passages of Curran and Brougham about Freedom. I agree with
you about the proposed Amendment.”

Thomas Sherwin, head master of the Boston High School, father
of General Sherwin, and a tutor of Mr. Sumner at Harvard
College, wrote from Dedham:--

“Allow me, as an old friend, to congratulate you and to
thank you for your noble speech in the Senate on the 5th.
I obtained it last evening, and read the whole before I
slept. In humanity of sentiment, in true patriotism, in
completeness of argument, in fulness of illustration, you
have left nothing to be desired.

“This Reconstruction is, indeed, a momentous affair, and I
feel a greater doubt of its just determination than I felt
for that of arms while the war raged.”

Rev. John T. Sargent, always swift to sympathize with Mr.
Sumner, wrote from Boston:--

“It is emphatically _the_ speech of the time and crisis,
absorbing, superseding, and transcending every other. God
bless you for these timely words! They ought to be widely
circulated, and reprinted in every corner of our land,
East, West, North, and South.”

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

“Nothing but the constant feeling that you are constantly
overtasked has kept me from writing you on several
occasions. I will only just say now, that I owe you a
thousand thanks for the great and noble services you
are rendering. God give you strength and life and full
opportunity to complete your work!”

Rev. R. S. Storrs, the eminent Congregational clergyman, wrote
from Braintree:--

“I am sure that I express but the common sentiment of
the people all about me, when I say that your own course
meets with more than a hearty approval, even admiration
and gratitude. May God give you wisdom and firmness equal
to the emergency, and crown your arduous labors with the
success they deserve!”

E. E. Williamson, one of the earnest men of Massachusetts,
wrote from Boston:--

“Your whole argument is founded upon righteousness and
justice, and cannot be overthrown. What a glorious
record you are making for future generations to peruse
with gladness, and by which record your name is made as
imperishable as the hills of your native State! I hope God
will spare you to finish the good work you are in, and many
years after to reap a slight portion of your reward.”

Nathaniel C. Nash, a merchant devoted to the national cause,
wrote from Boston:--

“The multitude who thronged to the Senate Chamber, together
with the representatives of foreign governments, to listen
to your speech (which I term the New Testament of the
Nineteenth Century), was an exhibition of the world’s
interest in how well or ill you finish the great battle for
human freedom, not for one continent, but for civilized
man.”

Hon. Charles G. Davis, a stanch Antislavery Republican, wrote
from Plymouth:--

“Your course is fully approved here by a majority of
the Republicans, and by all who have opinions. Besides
all this, you will be historically right, now that the
Amendment is defeated.… It is the greatest work of your
life, unless your opposition to Lincoln’s Louisiana scheme
may prove such, if you even succeed in keeping out the
mongrel States.”

Augustine G. Stimson, desiring to express his sympathies as a
constituent, wrote from Boston:--

“Last evening I read your speech from beginning to end,
with an interest that awakened admiration and gratitude.
The Equal Rights of All is the only sure guaranty for the
present and future of mankind.”

William E. Chase, formerly a private in the national army,
wrote from North Uxbridge:--

“Please accept the thanks of a poor private for your noble,
courageous, and Christian efforts in the great cause of
Right, Justice, and Liberty, when Justice is unpopular, and
you are obliged by duty to meet both friend and foe in this
conflict.”

F. W. Pelton wrote from Boston:--

“I desire to thank you for your late noble speech in favor
of legal equality in this country. I read it with deep
interest. Your propositions are sound, and the great lights
of history you marshal up to sustain them impressed me
forcibly.”

William Plumer wrote from Lexington:--

“Please accept my thanks for the copies of your very able
and learned speech on the right of universal suffrage.
Whatever may be the practicability of this principle at
the present time, and however the country or Congress may
settle the question in the future, your arguments are
certainly unanswerable, and will ever remain an enduring
monument of your earnest labors in behalf of the Freedman.”

Richard L. Pease, Clerk of Courts, wrote from Edgartown:--

“It was with feelings of intense satisfaction that I read
the report of your recent speech on equal suffrage, as it
appeared in the Boston _Journal_. The argument is so clear
and able that it would seem that no intelligent man of
candor could deny the conclusions. Adherence to the Right
because it is the Right will never fail to commend itself
to all right-thinking men.”

Rev. Robert Crawford wrote from Deerfield:--

“I thank you for that noble speech, … so logical, so
happily illustrated, so full of earnestness and soul, and
withal so convincing. I rejoice that there is one in our
highest councils who feels as you do on the subject, and
who has the ability and the courage to make such a speech.”

Rev. Patrick V. Moyce, a priest of the Roman Catholic Church,
wrote from Northampton:--

“I am often reading your admirable speech of March 7th,
and so much am I impressed with the justice of the
principles it inculcates with so much classical ability and
statesmanly wisdom and foresight, that I cannot possibly
deny myself the honor of taking this method of testifying
to you my heartfelt congratulations. You are the one man
among many who seems to have studied the present exigencies
of your noble country, and to have judged aright the
requirements of the age you and we all live in at present.
The benevolent qualities of heart which distinguish you in
this great speech are in perfect keeping with the towering
majesty of your well-cultivated intellect. Go on. Lead
and triumph, and accept the blessing and prayers of a
Roman Catholic priest, who begs to subscribe himself, with
profound esteem and high consideration, your most humble
and devoted servant.”

The New England Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
meeting at Chicopee, Massachusetts, March 28th, adopted a
resolution, officially communicated to Mr. Sumner, which, after
declaring approbation of both Houses of Congress, proceeds:--

“Especially do we offer our sympathies and prayers for our
own honored Senators, one of whom has endured in the past,
with a martyr’s fortitude, the barbarous assaults upon his
person of the champion of Slavery, and has lately been
called to endure an equally unjustifiable assault upon his
reputation by the present Chief Magistrate of the United
States.”

[OUT OF MASSACHUSETTS.]

Hon. Israel Washburn, Collector of the port of Portland,
formerly Governor of Maine and a distinguished Representative
in Congress, wrote from Portland:--