Chapter X: Appendix: (A). Page 121 (6)

This attempt is aggravated, when it is considered how it proceeds in grievous indifference to the African race. Not content with setting up an adventurer in Dominica, it menaces the Republic of Hayti. An American Commodore was found who did not resign rather than do this thing. What are fairest fields with golden harvests as compensation for such an act? But, if indifferent to the means of annexion, and content even with violence, there remains another question, overtopping all others: Whether the whole Island of San Domingo is not set apart by Providence for the African race?--nay, more, Whether the whole Caribbean Sea must not be African? A private letter from New Jersey gives expression to humane sentiments:--

“As a great people, instead of swallowing up small republics,
we should encourage their growth, and, above all, leave a
small portion at least where the African and his descendants
may work out the problem of self-government.… I speak to you in
behalf of the colored Sabbath School of this city, numbering
one hundred and eighty-one members, from seven years of age up
to ninety-five,--I speak in behalf of our colored citizens,
(we are all agreed upon it,)--I speak in behalf of myself, a
sufferer and a laborer amongst them for ten years past, when I
say we are _all opposed_ to the annexation of San Domingo.”

This is natural. It is not easy to comprehend how it can be otherwise. Colored persons, unwilling to see their race sacrificed, will make a stand against an ill-omened measure. New Year’s Day will be elevated by vows to keep our Republic true to her great mission, as benefactor, rather than conquering annexer.

Not without anxiety can we see how, contrary to the promise of his Inaugural, the President proclaims a “policy,” and insists upon its enforcement, even to the extent of disregarding the treaty power of the Senate, and menacing annexion of a foreign nation by Joint Resolution. Is Congress to be coerced? All this may make us reflect with more than usual solemnity at the beginning of a New Year.

Such an effort is adverse to the Republican Party, with which are associated the best interests of the country. Every Republican must do his best to keep the party strong. Questions calculated to divide must not be pressed. The party must be a unit; but it cannot be such at any mere word of command. No one man by _ipse dixit_ can establish the test of fidelity to the party. Its strength is in its principles, and especially in the Declaration of Independence, which is its corner-stone. Let us stand by these, without any new shibboleth, unknown to the party, and which many can never utter. General Jackson’s great words for the Union should be adopted now: “The Republican Party; _it must be preserved!_” And may every project inconsistent with its harmony be allowed to slumber! This is a fit vow for the New Year.

* * * * *

On this day the thoughts cannot be confined to our own country. Wherever man exists, there must our good wishes travel, with the precious example of our Republic, making Liberty everywhere an inspiration. To the whole human family must the benison go,--adding especially that most precious of all, the benison of Peace. Humanity stands aghast at the barbarous conflict yet prolonged between two most civilized nations. Who can gauge the mighty dimensions of the fearful sacrifice? Soon must it end, and out of its consuming fires may a new civilization arise! The time has come when the War System, which is still the established arbiter for the determination of international differences, must give place to peaceful substitutes and the disarming of nations. Let this be done, and there will be a triumph with glory serene and lasting, undimmed by a single tear. Forbear, at least on this day of aspiration, to insist that such a good cannot be accomplished. You wrong Human Nature, when you proclaim that the colossal barbarism bestriding nations must be maintained. You wrong Justice, when you degrade it to the condition of successful force, making _Might_ the substitute and synonym for _Right_. You wrong Charity, with all the virtues in her train, when you put them under the hoof of Violence. International War, like Slavery, is a monster chartered by Law. Why not repeal the charter? That this may be done is another vow worthy of the year we begin.

ITALIAN UNITY.

LETTER TO A PUBLIC MEETING AT THE ACADEMY OF MUSIC IN NEW YORK, JANUARY 10, 1871.

SENATE CHAMBER, January 10, 1871.

DEAR SIR,--Though not in person at your great meeting to
commemorate what you happily call the completion of Italian
unity, I shall be there in heart and soul. A lover of Italy and
anxious for her independence as a nation, I have for years longed
to see this day. Italy without Rome was like the body without
its head. Rome is the natural head of Italy, and is now at last
joined with the body to which it belongs, never again to be
separated.

How many hearts have throbbed with alternate despair and hope,
watching the too tardy fulfilment of the patriot aspiration for
that United Italy which shall possess once more the Capitoline
Hill and the ancient Forum, the Colosseum and its immense
memories of grandeur, together with the later dome of Michel
Angelo, in itself the emblem of all-embracing unity! This was the
aspiration of Cavour. I remember the great man well, at the very
beginning of the war for Independence, in a small apartment which
was bed-room and office, while he conversed on the future of the
historic Peninsula, and with tranquil voice declared that all
must be free to the Adriatic, with Rome as the national capital.
I need not say that I listened with delight and sympathy. He died
before all was free to the Adriatic, and while Rome was yet ruled
by the Papal autocrat. At last his desires are accomplished.
Naturally the liberation of Venice was followed by the liberation
of Rome, and both, when free, helped complete the national unity.
No longer “merely a geographical expression,” according to the
insulting phrase of Metternich, Italy is now a nation whose lofty
capstone is Rome.

Besides the triumph of the nation, I see in this event two other
things of surpassing value in the history of Liberty. First, the
union of Church and State is overthrown in its greatest example.
The Pope remains the pastor of a mighty flock, but without
temporal power. Here is a precedent, which, beginning at Rome,
must be followed everywhere, until Church and State are no longer
conjoined, and all are at liberty to worship God according to
conscience, without compulsion from Man. The other consequence
is hardly less important. The Pope was an absolute sovereign for
life. In the overthrow of his temporal power Absolutism receives
a blow, and the people everywhere obtain new assurance for the
future. Here is occasion for joy and hope. There is no Italian
who may not now repeat the words of Alfieri without dooming
himself to exile:--

“Loco, ove solo UN contra tutti basta,
Patria non m’ è, benchè natío terreno.”[267]

The poet who loved Liberty so well was right, when he refused to
recognize as his country that place “where _one alone_ sufficed
against all.” But this was the condition of Rome under the Papal
power.

Therefore, not only in sympathy with Italy, but in devotion to
human rights, do I rejoice in this day.

Full of good wishes for Italy, happy in what she has already
accomplished, and hopeful for the future, I remain, dear Sir,
very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO THE COMMITTEE.

RESPONSE TO A TOAST.

REMARKS AT A COMPLIMENTARY DINNER TO COLONEL JOHN W. FORNEY, AT WASHINGTON, JANUARY 28, 1871.

The occasion was one of farewell to Colonel Forney by his
brother journalists, on his retirement from the editorship of
the “Chronicle” and removal from Washington,--Mr. Sumner being
one of a few invited guests.

After the toast to Colonel Forney, and his response, Mr. L. A.
Gobright, of the Associated Press, at the call of the Chair
rose and said:--

“GENTLEMEN,--The glory of a free people is the possession
of a government founded upon justice. It is their duty
at all times to defend it against assaults from without
and the causes of ruin within. Education is an essential
principle with a view to the elevation of morals. The
political superstructure being a social necessity,
controversies as to the architecture and materials to
be employed only excite comment, and thus quicken the
interest in the great results. The people, however, select
the workmen: Congress to make the laws; the Judiciary to
expound them; the President to administer them; and the
Press to record them with comments, either of censure
or favorable, as the public interests may demand. We
have heard from the Press; it is but just that we should
now hear from Congress,--from one who is a native and a
resident of a part of the country the people of which have
long been familiar with the subject of Constitutions for
the purpose of securing religious and political freedom. I
therefore, in the name of this Society and at the command
of our President, respectfully call upon the Hon. Charles
Sumner to respond to--

“‘The Government of the United States: The Press records
with pride the acts of the executive and legislative
branches to secure the honor of the nation abroad and its
prosperity at home.’”

Mr. Sumner, responding, said:--

Really, Mr. President, when I listened to the remarks of our excellent Mr. Gobright upon Education, Architecture, and various other important topics, I could not see how he could land on me. [_Laughter._] By what process I am to-night in that line is past my comprehension. I am still further mystified when called to respond for the Government. [_Laughter._]

Mr. President, do I represent the Government? [_Laughter and applause._] I wish I did, but I fear that I do not. I do represent Massachusetts,--[“_That’s so!_”]--the venerable Commonwealth who gives me permission to speak for her. And yet, as I am called to speak of the Government, I am reminded of an incident which may not be familiar to all, as I do not remember to have seen it in print, of what occurred to Joseph Bonaparte, when, after the overthrow of his family, leaving France, he sought a home on this side of the ocean, and reaching New York, he looked about for a soldier or _gendarme_, or at least a policeman, to whom he could exhibit his passport. There was none within sight or call, when, at last, he exclaimed: “This is the first country where I ever found myself in which I could not find the Government.” I believe that you are not more fortunate to-night, when you call upon me to speak for the Government, than was Joseph Bonaparte, ex-King of Spain, when he landed in New York. [_Laughter and applause._] We are of course talking confidentially here,--[“_Oh, yes, of course!_”]--and yet, if you will allow me to allude to the Government, I will say that I do wish this Government of ours may be so good and great, so true and brave, that it may become an example of republican institutions, by which they may be commended throughout the world. [_Applause._] I am a believer in republican institutions, and I do earnestly wish that my country should be a most persuasive example.

But you are thinking more of your guest than of the Government, and, however I may be addressed, I am only a witness here to-night. I witness the honors bestowed and received. The two parties are the gentlemen of the press in Washington, of the first part, and my honored friend, John W. Forney, of the second part. [_Applause._] The rest are witnesses only.

If a witness might speak, I would declare the pleasure I feel in this instance of fellowship and harmony, as honorable to the many hosts as to the single guest. Such an example will do something to smooth those differences which, unhappily, are too often the incident of public life. And yet this token is natural. Are we not told that we shall reap as we have sown? And has not your guest sown always the seeds of kindness and goodwill? [_Applause, and cries of “That’s so!”_] And, therefore, should he not now reap his reward? My own friendly relations began when there were many differences between us; but I remember continually the personal amenity, superior to all differences, by which I was won to him.

In leaving Washington, he goes from one circle of friends to another circle, of which we have honored representatives here to-night. I cannot wish for him more than that he may be as happy and welcome with them as he has been with you.

Our guest, only a moment ago, in conversation alluded to this Saturday evening, which so peculiarly belongs to gentlemen of the Press, as reminding of the “Cotter’s Saturday Night,” the exquisite poem of Burns. He will allow me to quote words peculiarly applicable:--

“The toil-worn cotter frae his labor goes;
This night his weekly moil is at an end;
Collects his spades, his mattocks, and his hoes.”

[_Laughter._]

Such is your case to-night, unless you are connected with a Sunday paper. [_Laughter._] Your weekly moil is at an end. Allow me to wish that when it is again renewed, it may be with heart strengthened and soul refreshed by the social enjoyment of to-night.

DUTY OF THE YOUNG COLORED LAWYER.

ADDRESS AT THE COMMENCEMENT EXERCISES OF THE LAW DEPARTMENT OF HOWARD UNIVERSITY AT WASHINGTON, FEBRUARY 3, 1871.

YOUNG GENTLEMEN, GRADUATES OF THE LAW SCHOOL:--

I am glad in listening to the exercises on this interesting occasion. They carry me back to early life, when I was a student at the Law School of Harvard University, as you have been students in the Law School of Howard University. I cannot think of those days without fondness. They were the happiest of my life. Nor do I doubt that hereafter you will look back with something of the same emotion to your student days.

There is happiness in the acquisition of knowledge, which surpasses all common joys. The student who feels that he is making daily progress, constantly learning something new, who sees the shadows by which he was originally surrounded gradually exchanged for an atmosphere of light, cannot fail to be happy. His toil becomes a delight, and all that he learns is a treasure,--with this difference from gold and silver, that it cannot be stolen or lost. It is a perpetual capital at compound interest. Therefore do I say, for the sake of happiness, and also for worldly good, must the young man be faithful in study.

Pardon me, if, while congratulating you upon the career you now commence, I make one or two practical suggestions, which I hope may not be without value.

In the first place, you must not cease your studies, now that you leave the Law School. You must be students always. Some there are who content themselves with what is called “an education,” and then cease their studies. This is a mistake. At college or school we acquire the elements of knowledge, and we learn also _how to study_,--but very little more. If to this be added the love of study, this is the beginning of success.

But your studies must not be confined to the Law; you must study other things. Your minds must be refined and elevated by Literature; your knowledge must be extended by Science. All great lawyers testify to the importance of these acquisitions. Probably most persons familiar with the law would recognize the venerable Horace Binney, of Philadelphia, as the living head of the profession in our country; but while he was engaged in practice, he was not more remarkable for profound learning in the Law than for various attainments in scholarship and science. The necessity of literature to the lawyer is illustrated by an anecdote of Lord Brougham, who, when Chancellor of England, was visited by the father of a young man just commencing his law studies, and asked what books he would especially recommend to the beginner. “Tell him to read Dante,” was the prompt reply. “But,” said the astonished father, “my son is beginning law.” “Yes,” said the Chancellor, “and I say tell him to read Dante. If he would be a good lawyer, he must be at home in literature.”

There is one other possession without which science, literature, and law, all in amplest measure, will be of small avail: it is Character. Would you succeed, you must deserve success; and this can only be by character. Cicero, in his work describing the orator, says that he must be a good man; that otherwise he cannot be a true orator.[268] This is heathen testimony worthy of constant memory. But the same may be said of the lawyer. Remember well, do not forget, you cannot be a good lawyer unless you are a good man. Nothing is more certain.

If to these things be added health, there is no success which will not be within your reach.

There is one other remark which I hope you will allow me to make. Belonging to a race which for long generations has been oppressed and despoiled of rights, you must be the vigilant and sensitive defenders of all who suffer in any way from wrong. The good lawyer should always be on the side of Human Rights; and yet it is a melancholy fact in history that lawyers have too often lent learning and subtle tongue to sustain wrong. This you must scorn to do. In the sacred cause of Justice be faithful, constant, brave. No matter who is the offender,--whether crime be attempted by political party, by Congress, or by President,--wherever it shows itself, whether on the continent or on an island of the sea, you must be ready at all times to stand forth, careless of consequences, and vindicate the Right. So doing, you will uphold your own race in its unexampled trials.

Each of you is a unit of the mass. Therefore, sustaining the rights of all, you will sustain your own. Be not satisfied with anything less than the Rights of All. But while generously maintaining the rights of others, I venture to say that you will be entirely unworthy of the vantage-ground on which you now stand, if you do not insist at all times on those Equal Rights which are still denied to you. Here particularly is a duty. The poet has said that

“Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow.”

You are all free, God be praised! But you are still shut out from rights which are justly yours. Yourselves must strike the blow,--not by violence, but in every mode known to the Constitution and Law. I do not doubt that every denial of Equal Rights, whether in the school-room, the jury-box, the public hotel, the steamboat, or the public conveyance, by land or water, is contrary to the fundamental principles of Republican Government, and therefore to the Constitution itself, which should be corrected by the Courts, if not by Congress. See to it that this is done. The Constitution does not contain the word “white”; who can insert it in the Law? Insist that the common-school, where the child is prepared for the duties of manhood, shall know no discrimination unknown to the Constitution. Insist, also, that the public conveyances and public hotels, owing their existence to Law, shall know no discrimination unknown to the Constitution, so that the Senator or the Representative in Congress, who is the peer of all at the National Capitol, shall not be insulted and degraded on the way to his public duties. Insist upon equal rights everywhere; make others insist upon them. Insist that our institutions shall be brought into perfect harmony with the promises of the Declaration of Independence, which is grand for its universality. I hold you to this allegiance,--first, by the race from which you are sprung, and, secondly, by the profession you now espouse.

CHARITY TO FRANCE OR GERMANY?

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 4, 1871.

February 4, 1871, Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, brought forward a
Joint Resolution authorizing the President “to cause to be
stationed at the port of New York, if the same can be done
without injury to the public service, one or more of our naval
vessels, to be there held in readiness to receive on board for
transportation such supplies as may be furnished by the people
of the United States for the destitute and suffering people of
France and Germany.” The resolution was passed, after debate,
in which Senators Howard of Michigan, Conkling of New York,
Morton of Indiana, Casserly of California, Schurz of Missouri,
and others, made brief speeches. Mr. Sumner spoke as follows:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--If I were compelled to determine our comparative obligation to France and Germany, I should hesitate; and what American could do otherwise? I look at the beginning of our history, and I see, that, through the genius of our greatest diplomatist and greatest citizen, Benjamin Franklin, France was openly enlisted on our side. She gave us the Treaty of Alliance, and flung her sword into the trembling scale. Through France was independence assured; without France it must have been postponed. Such, Sir, is our obligation to France, infinite in extent, which, ever paying, we must ever owe.

But is our obligation to Germany less? I cannot forget that this great country, fertile in men as in thought, has contributed to ours a population numerous and enlightened, by which the Republic is strengthened and our civilization elevated. France contributed to national independence; Germany to national strength and life. How shall I undertake to determine the difference between these two obligations? We owe infinitely to France; we owe infinitely to Germany. It is within my knowledge,--indeed, I have learned it within a very few days,--that, during this last year, Count Bismarck, in conversation with a personal friend of my own, said, with something of pride, that Germany had in the United States her second largest State after Prussia.

MR. WILSON. What did he mean by that?

MR. SUMNER. The German statesman had encouraged emigration, by which Germans come here; so that there is a German population among us larger than that of any other German State after Prussia. Such, to my mind, is the natural meaning of his language. Some of the largest German cities are in our country; and all this population together is itself a State.

But, Sir, why consider this comparison? Here is simply a question of charity. Now charity knows no distinction of persons, knows no distinction of nations; especially does it know no distinction of friends. I will not undertake to hold the balance between these two mighty benefactors, to whom we are under such great and perhaps equal obligations. Let us do all that we can for each, with this understanding,--that, where there is the most suffering, there must our charity go.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Equality before the Law,--Argument before the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, December 4, 1849: _Ante_, Vol. III. pp. 51, seqq.

[2] The Equal Rights of All,--Speech on the proposed Amendment of the Constitution fixing the Basis of Representation, February 5 and 6, 1866: _Ante_, Vol. XIII. pp. 190-4.

[3] See article entitled “Admission of a Colored Lawyer to the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States,” February 1, 1865: _Ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 97, seqq.

[4] “Le domicile est l’habitation fixée en quelque lieu, dans l’intention d’y demeurer toujours.”--_Le Droit des Gens_, Liv. I. ch. 19, § 218.

[5] Senate Reports, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., No. 75, p. 2.

[6] March 16th, Mr. Revels, the recently admitted colored Senator from Mississippi, made an eloquent speech in opposition to the Bingham Amendment.

[7] American Insurance Co. _v._ Canter: 1 Peters, S. C. R., 542.

[8] M’Culloch _v._ The State of Maryland: 4 Wheaton, R., 409.

[9] “Habemus … Senatusconsultum, verumtamen inclusum in tabulis, tanquam gladium in vagina reconditum.”--_Oratio I. in Catilinam_, Cap. 2.

[10] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 429.

[11] Law of Nations, Book II. ch. 12, § 197.

[12] Hamilton to Washington, April, 1793,--Cabinet Papers: Works, ed. J. C. Hamilton, (New York, 1851,) Vol. IV. p. 368.

[13] Nicomachean Ethics, Book V. ch. 10, § 7.

[14] De Æquitate, Cap. 3.

[15] Reading on the Statute of Uses: Works, ed. Spedding, (London, 1859,) Vol. VII. p. 401.

[16] Dursley _v._ Berkeley: 6 Vesey, Ch. R., 260.

[17] Life and Death of Sir Matthew Hale, (London, 1682,) p. 106.

[18] Treatise on the Principles and Practical Influence of Taxation and the Funding System, (2d edit., London, 1852,) p. 120.

[19] Treatise on the Principles and Practical Influence of Taxation and the Funding System, (2d edit.,) p. 134.

[20] Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, 1842, 3d Ser., Vol. LXI. coll. 909, 913; LXII. 158, 169, 1077.

[21] Contra Aristogeitonem Oratio I., ed. Reiske, (Lipsiæ, 1770,) p. 774. 15.

[22] Senate Bill, No. 793,--introduced April 15, 1870.

[23] Vol. LXIV. p. 559, October, 1839.

[24] 35 Geo. III. c. 53, § 3. Lewins, Her Majesty’s Mails, (2d edit., London, 1865,) p. 100.

[25] Encyclopædia Britannica, (8th edit.,) Vol. XVIII. p. 404, art. POST-OFFICE.

[26] Burton’s Diary, (London, 1828,) Vol. II. p. 156.

[27] Encyclopædia Britannica, (8th edit.,) Vol. XVIII. p. 405.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid., p. 407.

[31] Epilogue to Satires, Dial. I. 136-7. Lewins, Her Majesty’s Mails, (2d edit.,) p. 111.

[32] Encyclopædia Britannica, (8th edit.,) Vol. XVIII. p. 407. Lewins, Her Majesty’s Mails, (2d edit.,) p. 53.

[33] Encyc. Brit., _ubi supra_.

[34] Commentaries, Vol. I. p. 323.

[35] Burton’s Diary, Vol. II. p. 156.

[36] Hansard’s Parliamentary History, Vol. IV. col. 163, December 17, 1660.

[37] Encyclopædia Britannica, (8th edit.,) Vol. XVIII. p. 405. Lewins, Her Majesty’s Mails, (2d edit.,) p. 97.

[38] Lewins, p. 100.

[39] Barber and Howe’s Historical Collections of New York, p. 290.

[40] Encyc. Brit., (8th edit.,) Vol. XVIII. p. 406.

[41] Statutes at Large, ed. Hening, Vol. I. p. 436. Encyc. Brit., (8th edit.,) Vol. XVIII. p. 406.

[42] Lord Cornbury to the Lords of Trade, June 30, 1704: Documents relative to the Colonial History of New York, ed. O’Callaghan, Vol. IV. p. 1113.

[43] Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. XVIII. (8th edit.,) pp. 406, 408.

[44] Autobiography: Works, ed. Sparks, Vol. I. p. 174.

[45] Miles, History of the Post-Office: Bankers’ Magazine, (New York, 1857-58,) Vol. XII. pp. 342-3.

[46] Ibid., p. 343.

[47] Post-Office Reform, (4th edit.,) pp. 2-4.

[48] Post-Office Reform, (4th edit.,) pp. 12-14.

[49] Ibid., p. 44.

[50] Debates, June 15 and December 18, 1837: Mirror of Parliament, cited in Encyclopædia Britannica, (8th edit.,) Vol. XVIII. p. 411.

[51] Second Report from Select Committee on Postage, p. 349,--Minutes of Evidence, Nos. 10908, 10911: Parliamentary Papers, 1837-8, Vol. XX.