Chapter XI: Appendix (2)

“When I obtained Wilson’s bill, which prohibited the denial
by the States of _civil_ rights to persons on account of
color or race, I wrote him to inquire why he had not said
also _political_. The authority is certainly as clear for
the latter as for the former. So, when, last evening, I
read your resolution and speech, I was strengthened and
rejoiced. Your positions are impregnable, and your speech,
I think, the greatest of your life. We must stand there, or
not at all.”

In another letter, Mr. Washburn wrote:--

“When men as patriotic and sincere as I am, and a great
deal wiser, sustain the Blaine Amendment, I am confounded,
and don’t know what to make of it. To my mind it is most
abhorrent, and I hope it will not receive the assent of
Congress.”

Rev. Rufus P. Stebbins, a Unitarian clergyman, wrote from
Portland, Maine:--

“You have fought a good fight. The Amendment proposed was
defeated. _Laus Deo!_ It was a blot too dark and foul to be
permitted to stain the Constitution. To speak of ‘race and
color’ in that instrument would be an insult to the men who
framed it.”

Rev. A. Battles wrote from Bangor, Maine:--

“As a native of Massachusetts, and more than that, as a
lover of my race, I want to thank you for your timely
and eloquent words in behalf of universal and impartial
justice. I thank you also for voting against the Blaine
Amendment. Though it might accomplish one desirable object,
it was a concession to prejudice against color. The black
man could hope for nothing through it. We want no more
compromise.”

Hon. William Greene, an enlightened citizen, who has held
various public offices in Rhode Island, wrote from East
Greenwich:--

“I beg to congratulate you as a friend, and to thank you
as an American citizen, for the great speech recently
delivered by you in the Senate. You have opened a new field
of thought to American statesmen, and furnished a new book
of elementary political lessons to the American people. It
would seem almost impossible that such an effort should not
tell grandly upon both.”

Hon. Gerrit Smith, the devoted Abolitionist, formerly a
Representative in Congress, wrote from Peterboro, New York:--

“God bless you for this noble speech which you have made
against the Apportionment Amendment! I have this day read
the part of it in yesterday’s New York _Tribune_. I long to
read the whole of it.”

In another letter, Mr. Smith wrote:--

“You are the keystone of our arch. If you fail, all falls.”

Hon. N. Niles, formerly in the diplomatic service, wrote from
New York:--

“I admire and applaud the tenacity with which you advocate
the equal rights of all men of all races under one
Constitution and Government.… I hope you will stand up
for the Asiatics as well as for the negroes. They are now
treated as brutes in some of our States.”

Cephas Brainerd, lawyer, and arbitrator under the last treaty
with England against the Slave Trade, wrote from New York:--

“Nearly all the copies of your great speech that I
obtained have been circulated, and I don’t find any one
who dares deny the correctness of the doctrines you lay
down. It has my hearty assent, and I have subjected it
to the examination which the argument of an opposing
counsel receives from me. I consider that very many of
your Senatorial speeches will be quite as permanent as
any of Burke’s productions; but this last seems to be as
enduring as the Constitution of our country, whether as the
foundation of a government or as a matter of mere study.”

Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, always on the watch-tower, wrote from
Brooklyn, New York:--

“Although I do not think with you on the specific change
in the Amendment which you advocate, I cannot forbear
expressing my thanks for your noble speech, which has the
merit of rising far above the occasion and object for which
it was uttered, and covering a ground which will abide
after all temporary questions of special legislation have
passed away.

“I wish that your oration might be in every school library
in the Union. May your life be prolonged, and every year
add some new jewel to the crown of fame, that, when you go
to a higher sphere, men will place upon your name!”

Rev. A. P. Putnam, Unitarian clergyman, also wrote from
Brooklyn, New York:--

“I bless God for the firm and lofty stand you have taken,
and the people will yet see, if they do not now see,
that it is the only wise and sure one for Union- and
Freedom-loving men to take. Would that all loyal men,
especially the great Union party, could see it to be their
duty and their interest to meet boldly and grandly the
issue which the President seems determined to force upon
them!”

Rev. F. C. Ewer, anxious against compromise, wrote from New
York:--

“I am but one of thousands whom you little think of as
watching you with anxiety, and to whom your present firm
position has given great cheer and comfort. Of course there
are many who have always stood with you, and who must be
sources of encouragement; but we are new recruits, who
have had enough of ‘compromise,’ and who see no hope of
permanent peace ahead except under a thorough adjusting of
the Constitution to the principles of the Declaration of
Independence.”

James P. Lee and fourteen others united in a letter from
Herkimer, New York:--

“In this centre of the Empire State there are not a few
who would express their thanks to you personally, if
they could, but more especially to God, our Heavenly
Father, for having endowed you, as Joshua of old, with the
determination to lead His oppressed people to the promised
land, ‘a land flowing with milk and honey’ (not with
disgrace), after their Moses had been taken from them.”

F. Hawley wrote with much feeling, from Cazenovia, New York:--

“In God’s name, in the name of Justice and Freedom, and
in behalf of the millions of God’s outraged poor, I thank
you for your noble speech. Brooks could not kill you. God
predetermined that you should live to be mouth for Him,
that this preëminently guilty nation might know their duty,
and that the great idea that lies at the foundation of all
righteous civil government might be vindicated. It is to be
regretted that your proposition could not have been brought
forward before the House had committed itself to that
miserable Amendment.”

Alexander Ostrander, a lawyer, wrote from New York:--

“I thank God that we have a man in the Senate bold enough
and capable enough to point the nation the road back to the
foundation principles of the Government.”

E. W. Stewart, originally of the Liberty party, wrote from
North Evans, New York:--

“Having read your truly noble plea for the ‘great guaranty’
of personal and political rights under the Constitution,
in the Senate, I write to thank you with my whole heart.
It is the right word spoken at the right time and in the
right place, and it will reach the hearts of the people
and produce there a deep conviction, if it does not in
Congress.… The positions in your speech are unanswerable.”

Dr. Henry A. Hartt, a radical Abolitionist, wrote from New
York:--

“I must tell you how proud I feel, as a man and as an
American citizen, on account of the position you have
taken. When the Amendment of the Committee was proposed, I
felt chagrined and mortified beyond expression, and I did
fervently pray that we might be saved from the intolerable
infamy of putting into our Constitution a sanction,
even by implication, of the right of a State to deny or
abridge the franchise in consequence of race or color.
You may, then, imagine my joy, when I saw you break loose
from all considerations of policy and party, and place
yourself immovably upon the elevated platform of a just and
righteous statesmanship.

“I have read the report of your speech in the extra of the
_Tribune_, and I am sure that history will confirm the
verdict which I give, when I say that it was equal to the
great occasion.”

Edward Cary, editor of the Brooklyn _Daily Union_, wrote from
that place:--

“The loyal people in Brooklyn have felt very keenly the
outrage and insult you have suffered at the hands of Mr.
Johnson. They honor and trust you, and will uphold you. The
mention of your name by Mr. Garrison, on Tuesday evening,
drew from the large audience rounds of applause, which died
away only to be renewed, until it was the most prolonged I
ever heard.”

William Silvey, of New Jersey, earnest in patriotism and
Antislavery, wrote from Alexandria, Virginia:--

“How all the hearts of the true lovers of their country,
even in this rebellious city, are thrilling with gratitude
and thankfulness for your uniform noble efforts, which
have opened and will continue to open the eyes of the
citizens of our country and the whole world as to the true
significance or meaning of what constitutes a republican
government, which has been so sadly perverted by our
practice as a nation!”

W. H. Ashhurst, an eminent merchant, wrote from Philadelphia:--

“I have read nothing for a long while that has moved me so
much as your speech in the Senate on the 5th and 6th inst.”

George D. Parrish, an earnest friend of peace, wrote from
Philadelphia:--

“I have written you more than once before, but, having
no personal acquaintance, hesitated to thank you for the
strength and instruction which really called for thanks and
congratulations. You have done nobly, Sir, for your country
and for this generation.”

Joseph T. Thomas, of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives,
wrote from Harrisburg:--

“You may be vilified and abused, and no doubt are, as
all great benefactors of their race are in their day and
generation. But future ages will do you full justice,
and your name will be illustrious when the names of your
revilers will be consigned to the most ignoble oblivion.”

T. E. Hall wrote from Galion, Ohio:--

“In the joy of my heart I congratulate the people of this
Government that the old ship of state has at its helm a
statesman who, despite the storms, the howling tempests,
the Cimmerian darkness which enshrouds us, stands boldly
and fearlessly at his post, unawed, calm, self-possessed,
ready for any emergency.

“The great speech, portions of which it has been my
privilege to peruse, is only second in importance to
President Lincoln’s proclamation which liberated four
millions of slaves; and, indeed, this speech carried out is
virtually but the fulfilling of that proclamation.”

Rev. George Duffield wrote from Detroit, Michigan:--

“I feel constrained, though entirely unknown to you,
to thank you most cordially for the intense pleasure I
have enjoyed in the perusal of your great oration on the
question of Universal Enfranchisement, as involved in
the proposed Constitutional Amendment, looking towards
universal suffrage. Its lucid didactic statements, its
admirable analysis, its irresistible logic, and its
glowing, brilliant eloquence, with its valuable historic
instruction and its burning love of freedom and humanity,
have both convinced my understanding and captivated my
heart.”

Rev. Charles H. Brigham, an accomplished Unitarian clergyman,
in a letter describing an exhibition at the University of
Michigan, wrote from Ann Arbor:--

“But the most attractive piece on the programme, which
brought the house down with the most prolonged and hearty
applause, was Number Four [entitled “Charles Sumner”],
in which a most glowing and animated tribute was paid to
the scholarship, industry, fidelity, patriotism, love of
justice, and love of man, of the Senator whom Massachusetts
delights to honor. It was a delight, I assure you, to a
Massachusetts man, and a friend of yours, to hear, out here
in the West, among these ‘Fogies’ and ‘Copperheads,’ such
noble words about the old Bay State and her representative
man, and to hear the response to them from the great
audience.”

Hon. Charles V. Dyer, a Judge under the final treaty with
England against the Slave Trade, wrote from Chicago:--

“I am greatly your debtor for your two speeches, in a form
for preservation and re-perusal, and any word of mine in
regard to their ability or patriotism is quite needless.
But I will say that the courage that can face cold looks
of friends, cruel animadversions of one’s own party press,
and, what is easier, the unceasing abuse and bullyism of
the enemies of all good, is so rare that it commands my
admiration.”

Jesse W. Fell wrote from Normal, Illinois:--

“I have just finished reading your late speech on
Reconstruction, and I cannot forbear dropping you a line
to say how much I have been gratified by its perusal. I
will not characterize it as under different circumstances
I should be tempted to. Suffice it to say, in my poor
judgment it is the noblest, ablest effort of your life, and
is just the document to send broadcast over the land.”

James H. Alderman wrote from Jacksonville, Illinois:--

“A thousand thanks for your incomparable speech, expounding
and defining the true theory of a republican government.
Yes, I say a thousand thanks. I have always believed
the Constitution was fully adequate for every exigency.
Congress, therefore, must of necessity guaranty to every
State a republican form of government.”

Worthington G. Snethen, an Abolitionist, of Baltimore, wrote:--

“Thanks, thanks for your two great speeches. They will live
and breathe and stir the heart of humanity, when the memory
of A. Johnson and his Republican renegade sycophants will
be forgotten, or brought to mind only to be execrated.
Millions of black men bless you now, and hundreds of
millions of God’s dusky skins will bless you in the ages
to come, for these two grand and eloquent vindications of
human liberty from the assaults of despotism, caste, and
the white man’s meanness; and the white world, too, far
down in the future, will bless your name. The spirit of
prophecy pervades every line of these speeches, and lights
up every step you take with the blaze of logic and truth.…

“Your resistance to the Trojan horse of the Apportionment
Amendment I sincerely hope was crowned with success in
to-day’s vote. That Amendment is the basest compromise that
has yet bubbled to the surface of the cesspool of American
politics.…

“You must all come to it, sooner or later. Congress must
legislate impartial suffrage into all the States by direct
statute. Strange that the States in Congress cannot do what
the States separately out of Congress can do!”

Hon. R. Stockett Mathews, the orator and lawyer, wrote from
Baltimore:--

“I thank you most profoundly for the seasonable courage
which will admonish others of their duty, although I have
but small hope of witnessing any immediate fruition of the
good work you have done for us all.”

F. W. Alexander, of Maryland, who served patriotically in the
war, wrote from New York:--

“I read your speech in the paper this morning, and I write
to express my gratification that you have refused to accept
any half-measures, but have sought to induce Congress to
proceed in its work of Reconstruction on the only sure
foundation, that of justice to all. Whether the measure is
carried or not, your speech will not be lost, and it is a
mere question of time.”

S. F. Chapman wrote from Alexandria, Virginia:--

“I thank you for your speech. I think it an honor to
the age in which you live, and believe it will remain a
monument to your genius and eloquence. I am proud of it,
and that you sent it to me. I shall preserve it, and leave
it to my children, as one of the noblest consecrations to
Liberty and Man.”

John W. Osborne, Hospital Steward of the United States Army,
wrote from Washington:--

“That elaborate exposition will endure for ages as a
monument of your noble patriotism and unparalleled
eloquence. Its sentences will be read with grateful emotion
by the freedom-loving people of all nations, and their
prayers for your welfare and warfare will daily ascend to
Heaven.”

Rev. Henry Highland Garnet, a colored clergyman and orator, for
some time settled in New York, wrote from Washington, where he
was on a visit:--

“I was one of the many who heard your speech which you
concluded yesterday afternoon in the Senate of the United
States, and I take this opportunity to tender you my thanks
and undying gratitude for that glorious and inspired
production. I think that I may safely say that you have the
gratitude of my entire race for your fearless and radical
advocacy of the rights of all men, as I know you have their
sincere and ardent love.

“After having slept upon your speech, and the excitement
which was produced at the moment of its delivery is
somewhat subdued, I must say, that, if I were able, I would
cause a million of copies to be printed and scattered over
the land.”

This was followed by the presentation of the Memorial Discourse
by Mr. Garnet in the Hall of the House of Representatives,
Washington, February 12, 1866, with the inscription, “To the
Hon. Charles Sumner, as a small and humble token of respect,
and admiration of the ablest speech ever delivered in the
Senate of the United States.”

* * * * *

Among the most enlightened women of the country the pending
question awakened a deep interest; nor was their testimony
wanting.

Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing, devoted to good works in
Washington, and especially to the care and protection of poor
colored people, young and old, wrote from Washington:--

“I hope I shall not be considered intrusive in expressing
to you my deep gratitude for and high estimation of your
unparalleled speech, made in the United States Senate,
February 5th and 6th, not only as contrasted with that of
President Johnson to the colored delegation, but as an
independent effort, the greatest, because the broadest
in its application, of any ever made before the American
people.”

Mrs. L. M. Worden, sister of the late Mrs. William H. Seward,
and always a warm Abolitionist, wrote from Auburn, New York:--

“Please accept my thanks for your noble speech of the 5th
and 6th of February, which I have read and re-read with
great attention and deep gratitude and admiration. This
‘testimony of the truth’ will add yet another bright page
to the record of your undeviating fidelity to the cause of
Justice and Humanity.”

Mrs. Horace Mann, widow of the philanthropist, teacher, and
Representative in Congress, wrote from Concord, Massachusetts:--

“I presume you will receive a thousand letters expressive
of the satisfaction and delight that your speech upon the
Suffrage question has given; and yet I must add mine,
for it is but rarely that one feels that a moral subject
is exhausted, and you appear to have accomplished this
astonishing result. It is difficult to conceive how
Congress can act otherwise than in the highest manner,
after listening to it and reading it.”

Miss Susan B. Anthony, so earnest to secure suffrage for her
own sex, was not less earnest for the colored race:--

“A thousand thanks for your renewed, repeated protest
against that proposed Amendment. You stand in the Senate
almost the lone man to vindicate the absolute Right. May
you be spared these many years, thus to stand and thus to
speak!”

PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND HIS COUNTER MANIFESTATIONS.

An immediate effect of the speech was to hasten yet more the
issue with President Johnson. On the day after its delivery he
was visited by a delegation of colored citizens, who pleaded
especially for the ballot. The President answered with feeling,
that he had always been a friend of the colored race, and
said:--

“I do not like to be arraigned by some who can get up
handsomely rounded periods, and deal in rhetoric, and talk
about abstract ideas of Liberty, who never perilled life,
liberty, or property. This kind of theoretical, hollow,
unpractical friendship amounts to but very little. While I
say that I am a friend of the colored man, I do not want to
adopt a policy that I believe will end in a contest between
the races, which, if persisted in, will result in the
extermination of one or the other.”

The idea of “a contest between the races” recurred in stronger
language, when, alluding to the colored man, he spoke of “the
sacrifice of his life and the shedding of his blood.… I feel
what I say, and I feel well assured, that, if the policy urged
by some be persisted in, it will result in great injury to the
white as well as to the colored man.… The query comes up right
there, whether we don’t commence a war of races.… I do not want
to be engaged in a work that will commence a war of races.… I
feel a conviction that driving this matter upon the people,
upon the community, will result in the injury of both races,
and the ruin of one or the other.”[205]

Shortly afterwards he was reported in the press as saying to a
colored delegation of North Carolina, “I suppose Sumner is your
God”; to which the spokesman replied, “We respect and love Mr.
Sumner, Sir, but no man is our God.”

Then came the incendiary speech of the 22d February, when the
President, standing on the steps of the Executive Mansion,
threw away all reserve.

“I am opposed to the Davises, the Toombses, the Slidells,
and the long list of such. But when I perceive, on the
other hand, men [_A voice, “Call them off!”_]--I care not
by what name you call them--still opposed to the Union,
I am free to say to you that I am still with the people.
I am still for the preservation of these States, for the
preservation of this Union, and in favor of this great
Government accomplishing its destiny.”

Here the President was called upon to give the names of three
of the Members of Congress to whom he had alluded as being
opposed to the Union.

“The gentleman calls for three names. I am talking to
my friends and fellow-citizens here. Suppose I should
name to you those whom I look upon as being opposed to
the fundamental principles of this Government, and as
now laboring to destroy them. I say Thaddeus Stevens, of
Pennsylvania; I say Charles Sumner, of Massachusetts; I say
Wendell Phillips, of Massachusetts.”

Becoming excited in speech, the President followed the charge
of opposition to the fundamental principles of this Government
with an accusation of a different character.

“Are those who want to destroy our institutions and change
the character of the Government not satisfied with the
blood that has been shed? Are they not satisfied with one
martyr? Does not the blood of Lincoln appease the vengeance
and wrath of the opponents of this Government? Is their
thirst still unslaked? Do they want more blood? Have they
not honor and courage enough to effect the removal of the
Presidential obstacle otherwise than through the hands of
the assassin?”[206]

Mr. Sumner never made answer or allusion to this Presidential
attack, but others did. It became the subject of debate in the
House of Representatives of the Massachusetts Legislature,
on resolutions by Hon. George B. Loring, the Representative
of Salem, already mentioned in this Appendix.[207] His
reasons for vindication of Mr. Sumner were private and public,
according to the report of the debate.

“The first men to congratulate him on his change [from the
Democratic party] were John A. Andrew and Charles Sumner;
and he should not forget that Mr. Sumner, against whom he
had warred so long, was the first to extend sympathy to
him, and had led him on till this day.

“Passing now to the public reasons for his advocacy of
the fourth resolution, Mr. Loring paid a high eulogium to
Senator Sumner, who, he said, would live in history with
Adams and Hancock, for his adherence to and courageous
advocacy of great principles, and his remarkable record
since the war of the Rebellion broke out. Men might say
that Mr. Sumner was an impracticable theorist; but it
was to him, more than to any other man, that we owed the
defeat of the iniquitous Louisiana proposition in the last
Congress, the success of which would have established a
precedent fraught with great danger to the nation.”[208]

The resolution, adopted by the House March 14, and the Senate
April 7, 1866, was as follows:--

“_Resolved_, That, while thus expressing our confidence in
our Senatorial and Representative delegations in Congress,
and the determination of the people to stand by them, we
are also impelled to take notice of the recent charges
made by name against one of the Senators of this State,
Hon. Charles Sumner, in the lately published speech of the
President of the United States, and to declare that the
language used and the charges made by the President are
unbecoming the elevated station occupied by him, an unjust
reflection upon Massachusetts, and without the shadow of
justification or defence founded upon the private or public
record of our eminent Senator.”

A copy of the resolutions, containing the foregoing, engrossed
on parchment, was forwarded to Mr. Sumner by the Governor
of Massachusetts, Hon. Alexander H. Bullock, with a letter,
saying, “This I take great personal pleasure in asking you to
accept and preserve.”

The Aldermen of Boston, by a resolution, under date of March
2d, interposed their “indignant conviction of the utter
falsehood” of the charges against Mr. Sumner.[209]

This testimony may be closed by that of a Massachusetts pen. In
the New York _Independent_, Mrs. Lydia Maria Child, replying to
the President, said:--

“Let any man capable of forming an opinion independent
of party prejudice look candidly at the whole course of
the Hon. Charles Sumner, and say whether any nation was
ever blessed with a public man intellectually more able
and consistent, and morally more courageous, pure, and
noble. What a tower of strength he has been in times of
difficulty and danger! How brave and steadfast he has been
in the midst of denunciations and threats! How much he
has suffered in the cause of Freedom! and how calmly and
heroically he suffered, never boasting or complaining!
What herculean labor he has performed, and every particle
of that labor to sustain and advance those principles of
justice and freedom which form the only sure basis of a
republic! I am glad to see that Boston has, at last, by the
voice of its city government, shown due appreciation of the
services rendered to the country by that truly great and
good man.”

Such was the conflict then raging, with Truth gaining new
strength daily.

PERSONAL SAFETY.

From his first arrival in Washington as a Senator, as far back
as 1851, Mr. Sumner had been pursued by menace of personal
violence. At the beginning of the present session he received
a warning,[210] while the head of the military police reported
to him at least one conspiracy against his life, with regard to
which he had evidence. The prevailing bitterness, especially
after the speech of President Johnson, arrested the attention
of Hon. A. P. Granger, a retired Representative in Congress
from the State of New York, whose experience in the anxious
days of Kansas, when Mr. Sumner suffered personal violence,
put him on his guard. In a letter from Syracuse, New York, he
expressed his present anxiety:--

“Permit me to say a word as to your personal safety. There
are many of our best men who think more of that than you
do. No man living that Treason would so much rejoice to
see struck down as yourself; and many there are who would
strike, if they dared. I know you think little of danger;
but fear for your country, if not for yourself. Do not
keep your room alone, night or day. Seldom or never go out
after nightfall, and let your painful experience and the
character of the foe teach you to be ever on guard.”

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE REPUBLIC OF DOMINICA.

BILL IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 6, 1866.

Dominica was a colored government, occupying part of the island
of Hayti.

In pursuance of a message from President Johnson, Mr. Sumner,
from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported the following
bill, which was read and passed to a second reading.

A Bill to authorize the President of the United States to appoint a diplomatic representative to the Republic of Dominica.

_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint a diplomatic representative of the United States to the Republic of Dominica, who shall be accredited as Commissioner and Consul General, and shall receive the compensation of a Commissioner, according to the Act of Congress approved August eighteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty-six.

The object of this bill was accomplished by specific
appropriation in the Consular and Diplomatic Bill.[211]

PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 9, 1866.

January 5, 1866, Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, introduced “a bill
to protect all persons in the United States in their civil
rights, and furnish the means of their vindication,” which was
referred to the Judiciary Committee, of which he was Chairman.
By this bill all courts, National and State, were opened to
colored persons as parties and witnesses as to white citizens,
and they were subject to like punishments. January 11th, he
reported it to the Senate with amendments, and the next day
the Senate proceeded to its consideration. The amendments were
adopted, when, on motion of Mr. Trumbull, it was postponed.
January 25th, its consideration was resumed, and continued
until February 2d, when it passed the Senate,--Yeas 33, Nays 12.

March 13th, the bill passed the House of Representatives, with
amendments,--Yeas 111, Nays 38. The Senate promptly concurred
in the House amendments.

March 27th, President Johnson returned the bill to the Senate
with his objections.

April 6th, after debate of several days, the bill passed the
Senate again, notwithstanding the veto of the President, two
thirds agreeing,--Yeas 33, Nays 15.

April 9th, it passed the House again, notwithstanding the veto
of the President, two thirds agreeing,--Yeas 122, Nays 41.

* * * * *

Mr. Sumner, on the first day of the session, had introduced
a “Bill supplying appropriate legislation to enforce the
Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting Slavery.”[212] He
had also succeeded at an earlier day in opening the courts
of the District of Columbia,[213] and then the courts of the
United States, to colored testimony.[214] The bill of Mr.
Trumbull was introduced after consultation with Mr. Sumner,
who watched its progress with absorbing interest, not doubting
that it would be a precedent for a similar bill securing
political rights. That the latter were embraced in civil
rights was ably stated by Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, in the House
of Representatives, while the Civil Rights Bill was under
discussion.

“A distinction is taken, I know very well, in modern
times, between civil and political rights. I submit with
all respect that the term ‘political rights’ is only a
limitation of the term ‘civil rights,’ and by general
acceptation signifies that class of civil rights which
are more directly exercised by the citizen in connection
with the government of his country. If this be so, are
not political rights all embraced in the term ‘civil
rights,’ and must it not of necessity be so interpreted?
Blackstone, whose Commentaries on the Common Law are so
exact in definition, uses in that classic of the law the
terms ‘civil liberty’ and ‘political liberty’ everywhere
as synonymous. It never occurred to him that there was a
colorable distinction between them.”[215]

Another point equally clear to Mr. Sumner was, that a bill
to secure equal rights at the ballot-box was “appropriate
legislation” in enforcement of the Constitutional Amendment
abolishing Slavery, just as much as the Civil Rights Bill. If
the latter was constitutional, so also was the former. This
appears in the speech of February 5th and 6th, and also in that
of March 7th. But he took care to present it briefly in the
debate on the Constitutional Amendment.

February 9th, interrupting Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland,
with his permission, Mr. Sumner, after reading the operative
words of the Civil Rights Bill, which had already passed the
Senate and was then pending in the House, said:--

As I understand it, this bill, which, as the Senator will see, actually annuls all State laws, everywhere throughout the United States, fixing any inequality in civil rights, is founded upon the second clause of the recent Amendment to the Constitution abolishing Slavery. Now the point to which I ask the attention of the Senator, before he passes from this branch of the discussion, is, whether, if we can annul all State laws declaring inequality in civil rights, we cannot also annul all State laws declaring inequality in political rights? whether, if this bill is constitutional, as I believe it is, such a bill as I propose would not also be constitutional? And in this connection I call attention to the famous judgment of Chief Justice Marshall, which the Senator remembers so well, in the case of _M’Culloch_ v. _The State of Maryland_,[216] where the Chief Justice distinctly announces, having the point before him, that it is within the power of Congress to select its means, provided the means are appropriate to the end, and it is not for the Supreme Court, or any other branch of the Government, to sit in judgment on the means Congress chose to select. Therefore, if Congress now think, that, to enforce the abolition of Slavery, it is necessary, in the first place, to annul all inequality of civil rights, and, in the second place, to annul all inequality of political rights, I ask the Senator whether the latter proposition can be called in question?--whether an Act of Congress annulling all State laws declaring inequality of political rights is not absolutely constitutional, being “appropriate legislation” to enforce the Constitutional Amendment?

Mr. Johnson replied, that he had stated more than once that the
bill on which Mr. Sumner “now relies is unconstitutional,” and
then said:--

“But even supposing it to be within the power of Congress
to pass a law of that kind, it by no means follows that
I think it has power to pass a law placing all the
inhabitants of the States on the same political ground.”

Later in his speech Mr. Sumner interrupted Mr. Johnson again,
with his permission:--

My argument is, that, if, to carry out the prohibition of Slavery, and to complete the duty of Abolition, it shall be regarded necessary to confer the franchise, it is within the power of Congress so to do. And now I ask my honorable friend to give the Senate the benefit of his opinion on this precise point. If Congress, under the Constitutional Amendment, can secure equality of civil rights, may it not, _a fortiori_, secure equality in political rights, under the same clause? I do not ask the Senator whether in his opinion it may under that clause confer equality in civil rights. I assume that it can, and the Senator knows well that the Senate has acted accordingly. Senators all about me assume that power; and now I ask the Senator, as a Constitutional lawyer to whom we refer daily, whether, if you can do the one, you cannot do the other?

Mr. Johnson replied at once: “I answer that in the negative
very decidedly, and have only time to give a few reasons for
it.”

* * * * *

The following remarks, sketched for a speech on the veto of the
Civil Rights Bill, and not delivered, are presented here in
illustration of opinion at that time.

If I have not taken part in this debate, it is not from lack of interest in the question, but because on other occasions I have expressed my views on our duty to maintain the freedmen in their rights, civil and political, and since the cause, in the hands of the able Chairman of the Judiciary Committee [Mr. TRUMBULL], needed no assistance from me. I cannot disguise my joy that a measure like that now pending should receive the support it does. This is an augury for the future. If I were disposed to despair on other questions, I should take heart, when I see how Senators, once lukewarm, indifferent, or perhaps hostile, now generously unite in securing protection to the freedman by Act of Congress.

But, Mr. President, I am unwilling that this debate should close without at least one remark applicable to the future. You are about to decree that colored persons shall enjoy the same civil rights as white persons,--in other words, that with regard to civil rights there shall be no distinction of color; and this you do under the Constitutional Amendment by which Congress is empowered to “enforce” the prohibition of Slavery by “appropriate legislation.” Rightly you regard the present proposition as “appropriate legislation” to this end. It is so, unquestionably. But I should fail in frankness, if I did not give notice that at the proper time I shall insist that every reason, every argument, every consideration, by which you assert the power of Congress for the protection of colored persons in civil rights, is equally strong for their protection in political rights. There is no difference between the two cases. In each you legislate to the same end,--that the freedman may be maintained in that liberty so tardily accorded; and the legislation is just as appropriate in one case as in the other.

All this, Sir, I have seen from the beginning; but I have been unwilling to embarrass the present bill by any additional proposition. The protection of colored persons in their civil rights by Act of Congress will be a great event. It will be great in itself. It will be greater still because it establishes the power of Congress, without further Amendment of the Constitution, to protect colored persons in all their rights, including of course the elective franchise. The power is ample. I trust that you will not hesitate to exercise it.

…

The able and exhaustive argument of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] has rendered all minute discussion of the veto superfluous. He has taken it up paragraph by paragraph, and has shown how absolutely unfounded it is in reason or authority. And then again, when the Senator from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON] attempted to vindicate it, he has most successfully quoted that Senator against himself. If argument could avail, the veto is already lost, even without a vote.

But there are considerations of a more general character, which I desire to present very briefly; for at this stage of the debate I cannot venture to trespass on your attention.

Sir, you do not forget the Dred Scott decision, pronounced just as Mr. Buchanan was coming into power,--fit decision to inaugurate such a Presidency. Take it all in all, that decision must always stand forth in bad eminence, as perhaps the most thoroughly perverse and reprehensible in judicial history. Whether regarded in the light of morals or politics or jurisprudence, or of juridical history, it was simply shocking. It was an insult to conscience, to reason, and to truth.

The essential element of this decision was, that persons “guilty of a skin not colored like our own” could not be citizens of the United States; and this postulate was sustained by that remarkable assertion, outrageously false in history, that at the adoption of the Constitution colored persons were regarded as having no rights which the white man was bound to respect,--when, in point of fact, at that time they enjoyed the right of citizens in several States of the Union, while in England, Scotland, France, and Holland, to say nothing of other countries, it had been solemnly declared that all men within their respective borders were free.

In the lapse of time this decision passed out of sight. It seemed to be dead. Blasted at once by an indignant public sentiment, it received a more formal condemnation on two separate occasions: first, when the Attorney General, in an elaborate opinion, declared that a colored person was a citizen of the United States;[217] and, secondly, when the Supreme Court of the United States admitted a colored person as a counsellor at its bar.[218] We all thought this decision dead, and the whole practice of the Government was altered accordingly. Passports were issued to colored persons as citizens, and licenses to enter into the country trade were awarded to colored persons as citizens. For the time being that ill-begotten decision was practically dead.

But now it is once more alive. Bursting the cerements of the grave, it again stalks into this Chamber to fright us from our propriety. Not now from the Supreme Court does it come, but from the President. That public opinion which did not hesitate to condemn the Supreme Court cannot hesitate now to condemn the President.

The veto does not undertake to declare precisely that colored persons are not citizens under the Constitution, but it forbids all legislation positively declaring this citizenship. It is the Dred Scott decision in a new draught. It is the same thing, only with a new shake of the kaleidoscope. You cannot adopt this veto without practically overturning the recent practice of the Government, and setting aside that opinion of Attorney-General Bates which is one of the most illustrious acts in the Administration of President Lincoln. For myself, I have always regarded that production as of the first importance in our recent history. The future historian, as he records the events by which the Republic has been elevated, must dwell with pride upon that simple act, where a single officer of the Government did so much to fix the liberties of a race.

I have said that this veto revives the Dred Scott decision. It does more. It is bad to revive the worst decision in our history; but this veto practically sets aside one of the best decisions in our history. I refer to the case of _M’Culloch_ v. _Bank of Maryland_, where our great magistrate, Chief Justice Marshall, expended all his marvellous talent in expounding the powers of Congress under the Constitution. In all the annals of the Supreme Court there is no decision more carefully considered or wrought with a finer skill. In this remarkable judgment it has been positively declared, that, where the Constitution confers upon Congress certain powers, it is within the discretion of Congress to determine when and how they shall be exercised. Here are the precise words:--

“The government which has a right to do an act, and has imposed
on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to
the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means; and
those who contend that it may not select _any appropriate
means_, that one particular mode of effecting the object is
excepted, take upon themselves the burden of establishing
that exception.… Let the end be legitimate, let it be within
the scope of the Constitution, and _all means_ which are
appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are
not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the
Constitution, are constitutional.”[219]

According to this authoritative text, Congress must determine the “means” it will employ in the exercise of its powers. But this veto pretends to despoil Congress of this discretion.

In the exercise of its discretion, Congress has undertaken to assure civil rights to colored persons. It has been moved to this especially in pursuance of the second clause of the Thirteenth Amendment, where it is empowered to enforce the prohibition of Slavery by appropriate legislation. The present bill is regarded as essential to enforce the prohibition of Slavery, and Congress, in the exercise of its discretion under the Constitution, has passed it. But the veto comes to arrest this discretion. So far as its influence goes, it will neutralize and nullify the great Amendment by which Slavery has been abolished. It leaves the letter in the Constitution, but it takes away the powers by which that letter is made a living soul.

* * * * *

I have said enough to condemn the veto. I have shown, first, that it revives a most odious judgment, and, secondly, that it subverts a received rule of interpretation, and degrades that Constitutional Amendment which is the glory of our recent history. But I go further.

…

THE CITY OF BOSTON AND MR. SUMNER.

LETTER TO THE MAYOR OF BOSTON, IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN, MARCH 5, 1866.

March 2d, the Board of Aldermen of Boston adopted unanimously
the following resolution, which was communicated to Mr. Sumner
by the Mayor.

“_Resolved_, That we deem it fitting time to express
our profound sense of the eminent loyalty, patriotism,
and statesmanship of our distinguished Senator, Charles
Sumner,--to acknowledge the measureless debt of gratitude
which the Commonwealth and the nation owe him for his wise
counsels and constant and efficient services in this great
struggle to establish justice and to secure the prosperity
of the Union,--and our indignant conviction of the utter
falsehood of any accusation, no matter by whom made, which
likens him, either in theory or practice, to the traitor
chiefs of the Rebellion, or which charges him with any
lack of devotion or loyalty to that great cause of Freedom
and Nationality which he has watched with such untiring
vigilance and served with such masterly ability.

“_Resolved_, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded by
his Honor the Mayor to Mr. Sumner.”

This resolution was plainly aimed at President Johnson on
account of his speech of February 22d.[220]

In reply Mr. Sumner wrote:--

SENATE CHAMBER,
March 5, 1866.

DEAR SIR,--I have been honored by your communication of March 2d,
covering a resolution of the Board of Aldermen of the city of
Boston, expressing in most flattering terms the good feelings of
the Board toward me.

I have read with pride and gratification this emphatic token
of confidence and regard. Coming as it does from the highest
functionaries of the city where I was born, educated, and have
always had my home, it has a value of its own. It is precious as
the approbation of friends and neighbors.

While disclaiming all title to the praise so generously accorded
for the services I have been able to render in the discharge
of public duties, I have no hesitation in claiming for myself
such credit as may come from early, faithful, and persistent
devotion to the principles of Republican Government, and
especially to those ideas which from the beginning have been the
glory of Massachusetts. For these principles and these ideas
I have labored, and I shall continue to labor so long as life
lasts. If at any moment I could hesitate, your words would be
an encouragement to constancy. And permit me to add, the result
cannot be doubtful. Even through the present darkness it is
plainly visible.

* * * * *

Please tender to the Board of Aldermen my best thanks for the
honor they have done me, and believe me, Mr. Mayor, with much
respect,

Your faithful fellow-citizen,

CHARLES SUMNER.

HON. F. W. LINCOLN, JR., Mayor, &c.

POLITICAL EQUALITY WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF COLOR.

NO COMPROMISE OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

SECOND SPEECH IN THE SENATE ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION FIXING THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION, MARCH 7, 1866.

This second speech was in continuation of the debate on the
proposed Constitutional Amendment, and in reply to those who
had spoken after Mr. Sumner, especially Mr. Fessenden. The
history of the debate and its result appear in the Appendix to
the speech of February 5th and 6th.[221]

MR. PRESIDENT,--I hesitate to intrude again into this debate, which now, after the interposition of another debate on another question, is again renewed. I do it with unfeigned reluctance, and I hope not to trespass too much on your patience.

The question before us, even in its simplest form, is of incalculable importance; but it has added interest, as opening the whole vast subject of Reconstruction. Into this field I shall not be tempted, except to express a brief opinion on the general principles we should seek to establish. Treason must be made odious, and to this end power should be secured to loyal fellow-citizens. In doing this, two indispensable conditions cannot be forgotten: first, all who have been untrue to the Republic must, for a certain time, constituting the _transition period_, be excluded from the partnership of government; and, secondly, all who have been true to the Republic must be admitted into the partnership of government, according to the sovereign rule of the Constitution, which knows no distinction of color. Following these two simple commandments, there will be safety and peace, together with power and renown; neglecting these two simple commandments, there must be peril and distraction, together with imbecility and dishonor. In the one way, Reconstruction is easy; in the other way, it is in any just sense impossible. It may seem for the moment to succeed; but it must fail in the end. This is all I have to say at present on Reconstruction, and I turn at once to the precise question before us.

* * * * *

Pardon me, Sir, if I remind you that there are two modes of debate. One is to attack the previous speaker with personality of criticism or manner. The other is to speak plainly on the question, and to deal directly, according to your convictions, with the principles involved. Sometimes the two modes are allowed to intermingle. If ever there was occasion when the first should be carefully avoided, when the question alone should be handled, and not the previous speaker, when attention should be directed exclusively to principles involved, and not to any subordinate point of mere form, it is now, when we are asked to insert a new provision in the Constitution, fixing the basis of political power at the expense of fellow-citizens counted by millions. In this spirit I shall try to speak. To my mind, the occasion is too solemn for personal controversy, and I shall not be drawn into it.

* * * * *

The proposition before you is the most important ever brought into Congress, unless, perhaps, we except the Amendment abolishing Slavery; and to my mind it is the most reprehensible. The sentiment which inspired us to hail the abolition of Slavery with gratitude, as the triumph of justice, should make us reject with indignation a device to crystallize into organic law the disfranchisement of a race. With intense regret I differ from valued friends about me, but I cannot do otherwise. I bespeak in advance their candor, and most cheerfully concede to all from whom I differ the indulgence which I claim for myself. With me there is no alternative. Seeing this proposition as I do, I must speak frankly, as on other occasions, in exposing the crime against Kansas, or the infamy of that enactment which turned the whole North into a hunting-ground where man was the game. The attempt now is on a larger scale, if not more essentially bad. Such a measure, so obnoxious to every argument of reason, justice, and feeling, so perilous to the national peace, and so injurious to the good name of the Republic, must be encountered as a public enemy. There is no language which can adequately depict its character. Thinking of it, I am reminded of words of Chatham, where he held up to undying judgment a barbarous measure of the British Ministry. The Englishman did not hesitate, nor did he tame his words, but exclaimed:--

“I am astonished, shocked, to hear such principles
confessed,--to hear them avowed in this House, or in this
country,--principles equally unconstitutional, inhuman, and
un-christian.… I call upon your Lordships and the united powers
of the State to stamp upon them an indelible stigma of the
public abhorrence.”

Then, rising to still higher flight, he cried out:--

“My Lords, I am old and weak, and at present unable to say
more; but my feelings and indignation were too strong to
have said less. I could not have slept this night in my bed,
nor reposed my head on my pillow, without giving this vent
to my eternal abhorrence of such preposterous and enormous
principles.”[222]

But what was the measure which thus aroused the veteran orator, compared with that before us? It was only a transient act of wrong, small in proportions. Here is an act of wrong permanent in influence, colossal in proportions, operating in an extensive region, affecting millions of citizens, positively endangering the peace of the country, and covering its name with dishonor. Such is the character of the present attempt. I exhibit it as I see it. Others may not see it so. Of course, its supporters cannot see it so. The British Ministry did not see the measure which Chatham denounced as he saw it, and as history now sees it. Senators would not support the present proposition, if they thought it disgraceful; nor would the British Ministry have supported that earlier proposition, had they thought it disgraceful. Unhappily, they did not think it so; but I trust you will be warned by their example.