Chapter VII: Introduction: To the Collection,41 April 1, 1872 (5)

I have also before me a note, dated August 10th, from Mr. Wormley, so
well known for his excellent hotel in Washington, who says that he
asked Mr. Douglass, shortly after his return, if he dined with the
President and the Commissioners, to which he answered, “No, and for
the good reason that I was not invited”; and then he added, “It is
no use to deny it, but I feel it sorely.” This was at Mr. Douglass’s
office. On another occasion, at his son’s house, referring to the
same thing, he said to Mr. Wormley, “I felt it keenly.”

Mr. Gray, recently of the Legislative Council of the District,
nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, now a School
Trustee, assures me that Mr. Douglass spoke to him of his omission
by the President with the same feeling that he exhibited to Mr.
Green and Mr. Wormley. These witnesses are all colored, but even
without the new law nobody would question their testimony. I add my
own acquaintance with the case. At my house, Mr. Douglass, while
speaking not unkindly, said that he felt the President’s neglect in
not inviting him to dine, which was more noticeable, as he had gone
to San Domingo at the express invitation of the President, and on his
return was insulted on board the Potomac mail-packet. He added, that
an invitation from the President would have been a proper rebuke to
those who had insulted him.

I will add, that it is a matter of common notoriety that Mr. Douglass
did not disguise his feelings on account of this Presidential
incident.

Such are the facts and the evidence. I think that you will see, my
dear Sir, that, if there is any misstatement, or, as you express it,
“perversion of facts,” it is not on my part.

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

GREELEY OR GRANT?

SPEECH INTENDED TO BE DELIVERED AT FANEUIL HALL, BOSTON, SEPTEMBER 3, 1872.

LIBERAL REPUBLICAN HEAD-QUARTERS, BOSTON,
August 24, 1872.

MY DEAR SIR,--I am directed by the Liberal Republican State
Committee to communicate to you a vote of which the following is a
copy:--

“_Voted_, That the Chairman, in the name of the Liberal
Republican State Committee, invite the Hon. Charles Sumner to
address his constituents on Public Affairs in Faneuil Hall, at
the earliest day that may suit his convenience.”

Allow me to add my earnest personal wishes that you will be able
to comply with the request. “The great soul of the world is just,”
and the sober second thought of the people of Massachusetts will, I
doubt not, sustain you in the position you have taken in favor of
Reform and Reconciliation, and therefore of the election of Greeley
and Brown.

Very faithfully yours,

F. W. BIRD.

HON. CHARLES SUMNER.

BOSTON, August 30, 1872.

DEAR SIR,--I have been honored by your communication of August 24th,
inviting me in the name of the Liberal Republicans of Massachusetts,
to speak in Faneuil Hall. It is with inexpressible pain and regret
that I feel constrained to decline this flattering opportunity.

I had confidently hoped, on returning home, to meet my
fellow-citizens in that venerable forum, so dear to us all, and
to speak once more on great questions involving the welfare of
our country; but recurring symptoms of a painful character warn
me against any such attempt. My physician advises that I must not
for the present make any public effort, and he prescribes rest.
Valued friends, familiar with my condition, unite with the excellent
physician.

In submitting most reluctantly to these admonitions, I cannot
renounce the privilege of communicating with my fellow-citizens, and
therefore hand you a copy of what, with the blessing of health, I
hoped to say. In the House of Representatives undelivered speeches
are sometimes ordered to be printed. You may follow this precedent
with mine, or do with it as you please. Meanwhile accept my best
wishes, and believe me, dear Sir,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

HON. FRANCIS W. BIRD, Chairman, etc.

SPEECH.

FELLOW-CITIZENS,--It is on the invitation of the State Committee of Liberal Republicans that I have the honor of addressing you. I shall speak directly on the issue before us. If I am frank and plain, it will be only according to my nature and the requirement of duty at this time. But nothing can I say which is not prompted by a sincere desire to serve my country, and especially to promote that era of good-will, when the assent of all shall be assured to the equal rights of all.

THE TWO CANDIDATES.

At the approaching Presidential Election the people are to choose between two candidates. By the operation of our electoral system, and the superadded dictation of National Conventions, the choice is practically limited to President Grant and Horace Greeley; so that no preference for another can be made effective. One of these must be taken. Preferring Horace Greeley, I have no hesitation in assigning the reasons which lead me to this conclusion.

Believing the present incumbent unfit for the great office to which he aspires for a second time, and not doubting that a vote for him would be regarded as the sanction of abuses and pretensions unrepublican in character, I early saw the difficulty of taking any part for his reëlection. Long ago I declared, that, while recognizing party as an essential agency and convenience, I could not allow it to constrain my conscience against what seemed the requirements of public good. Regarding always substance rather than form, I have been indifferent to the name by which I might be called. Nor was I impressed by the way in which the candidate was urged. Supporters, while admitting his failure, and even the abuses and pretensions so notorious in his civil life, commended his reëlection as necessary to uphold the party with which I have been associated. But it is easy to see that a vote for such a candidate on such a reason was “to do evil that good might come,” which is forbidden in politics as in morals.

Two courses seemed open. One was to abstain from voting,--and I confess that this was my first inclination. But it is not easy for me to be neutral,--certainly where wrong-doing is in question; nor is it my habit to shrink from responsibility. But the doubt that beset me was removed when I saw the Democratic Party adopt the candidate opposed to President Grant, being an original Republican already nominated by a Republican Convention, and at the same time accept the Republican platform on which he was nominated. An old party, which had long stood out against the Republican cause, now placed itself on a Republican platform, the best ever adopted, with a Republican candidate, who was the most devoted Republican ever nominated,--thus completely accepting the results of the war, and offering the hand of reconciliation. At once the character of the contest changed. This was no common event. Pardon me, if I say that to me it was of peculiar interest. For years I have sought to establish in the National Government the great principles of the Declaration of Independence, avowing always that when this was done nobody should surpass me in generosity towards former Rebels. Not only by the logic of my life, but by constant speeches, was I bound to welcome those who placed themselves on this glorious platform. The extent of this obligation will appear before I close. And now its performance harmonizes with opposition to the prolonged misrule of the present incumbent.

TWO REASONS IN FAVOR OF GREELEY.

Evidently I am not at liberty to abstain from voting. In considering the reasons in favor of Horace Greeley, I find two, differing in character, but of chief importance: first, that he represents a reformed civil service, beginning with the One-Term principle, without which this reform is too much like a sham; and, secondly, that he represents reconciliation, not only between the two sections, but between the two races, which is essential to the repose of the country and the safeguard of Equal Rights.

To these must be added, that he does not represent those personal pretensions, so utterly inconsistent with Republican government, which are now known as Grantism. In voting for Horace Greeley you will not sustain nepotism, you will not sustain gift-taking and repayment by official favor, and you will not lend your sanction to the San Domingo machination, with its unconstitutional usurpations, its violations of International Law, and its indignity to the Black Republic. Elsewhere I have considered these fully,[177] and I am not aware of any answer to the undeniable facts. I shall only glance at them now.

NEPOTISM.

Nepotism is already condemned by history, and most justly; for it is obviously a form of self-seeking, hostile to purity of government, and strangely out of place in a Republic. Nothing for self, but all for country and mankind, should be the rule of our President. If the promptings of his inner nature fail, then must he feel the irresistible obligation of his position. As he does, so will others do; and therefore must his example be such as to elevate the public service. Nothing in Washington’s career has shone with more constant light than his refusal to confer office on his relations. Even at the time, it arrested attention not only at home but abroad, landing praise in England. Of this there is a striking illustration. The “Register of the Times,” published at London in 1795, in an article entitled “Interesting and Authentic Documents respecting the United States of America,” records its homage:--

“The execution of the office of the Chief Magistrate has been
attended through a term of four years with a circumstance which
to an admiring world requires no commentary. A native citizen of
the United States, transferred from private life to that station,
has not, during so long a term, appointed a single relation to any
office of honor or emolument.”[178]

With such confession an admiring world looked on. Something would I do--something, I trust, the American people will do at the coming election--to secure this beautiful praise yet again for our country.

GIFT-TAKING.

Like nepotism, the taking of gifts by a public servant is condemned by history. No honest nature can uphold it. How well did our late General Thomas, so admirable in character, rebuke this abuse, when he replied to an offer of $100,000, as I am told, “Let it go to my men”! If not a form of bribery, it is kindred in nature,--and this has long been recognized, from the Bible down to our day. According to the old scriptures it is destructive: “The king by judgment stablisheth the land; but he that receiveth gifts overthroweth it.”[179] Here again is the example of Washington brightly lighting the true republican pathway. The same President who would not appoint a relation would not take a gift, even when out of office. His example was in harmony with the lesson of Colonial days. As long ago as April 20, 1703, Queen Anne, in a communication to Lord Cornbury, Governor of New York and New Jersey, laid down the following rule: that neither the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Commander-in-Chief, or President of the Council “do receive any gift or present from the Assembly _or others_ on any account or in any manner whatsoever, upon pain of our highest displeasure, and of being recalled from that our Government.”[180] This rule is as good for our day as for that in which it was ordained by royal authority.

There is another instance, which should not be forgotten. It is that of Lord Wellesley, the accomplished brother of the Duke of Wellington. A work so common as that of Smiles on “Self-Help” records, that, while Governor-General of India, he positively refused a present of £100,000 from the Directors of the East India Company on the conquest of Mysore; and here the terms of his refusal are important:--

“It is not necessary for me to allude to the independence of my
character and the proper dignity attaching to my office; other
reasons besides these important considerations lead me to decline
this testimony, which is not suitable to me. I think of nothing but
our army. I should be much distressed to curtail the share of those
brave soldiers.”[181]

His refusal remained unalterable. At a later period, when nearly eighty years of age, embarrassed by debts, and entirely withdrawn from public life, he allowed the Company to vote him a much smaller sum in consideration of his signal services.[182]

GIFT-MAKERS APPOINTED TO OFFICE.

The allowances voted by Parliament to Marlborough and Wellington on account of their victories can be no precedent for the acceptance of gifts from fellow-citizens. The distinction is clear. But the case against the present incumbent is not only that while holding high office he accepted gifts from fellow-citizens, but subsequently appointed the gift-makers to office,--thus using the Presidency to pay off his own personal obligations. Please bear this in mind; and when some apologist attempts to defend the taking of gifts, let him know that he must go still further, and show that the Presidency, with all its patronage, is a perquisite to be employed for the private advantage of the incumbent.

SAN DOMINGO.

Next in illustration of the prevailing misrule is the San Domingo business, with its eccentricities of wrong-doing; and this, too, is now in issue. At the thought of this unprecedented enormity, where wrong assumes such various forms, it is hard to be silent; but I shall be brief. The case is clear, and stands on documents which cannot be questioned. I keep within the line of moderate statement, when I say, that, from the beginning of our Government, nothing in our foreign relations has been so absolutely indefensible. It will not do to call it simply a fault and an insolence; it was an elaborate contrivance, conceived in lust of territory, pursued in ignorance, maintained in open violation of the National Constitution, pushed forward in similar violation of International Law in fundamental principles, and crowned by intolerable indignity to the Black Republic, even to the extent of menacing hostilities and the sinking of its ships,--all without authority of Congress, and by Presidential prerogative alone. In this drama the President, like a favorite actor, assumed every part. In negotiating the treaty he was President; in declaring war he was Congress; in sending ships and men he was Commander-in-Chief; and then in employing private influence with Senators to promote his scheme--according to the promise in the protocol with Baez, signed in his name by Orville E. Babcock, entitled therein “Aide-de-Camp to his Excellency General Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States of America”--he was lobbyist. That such things can be done by a President without indignant condemnation, loud and universal, shows a painful demoralization in the country. That their author can be presented for reëlection to the Presidency, whose powers he has thus misused, shows a disheartening insensibility to public virtue.

Here I remark, that, so long as the President confined himself to negotiation, he was strictly within the line of the Constitution. Even if indiscreet in character and impolitic in object, it was not unconstitutional. But in seizing war powers without the authority of Congress, in upholding the usurper Baez that he might sell his country, in menacing the Black Republic, and then in playing the lobbyist to promote the contrivance, the President did what no other President ever did before, and what, for the sake of Republican Institutions, should be rebuked by the American people. It was the knowledge of these proceedings that changed essentially my relations to the question.

PERSONAL MISREPRESENTATIONS.

I allude with hesitation to personal misrepresentations on the matter. It has been said that I promised originally to support the treaty. This is a mistake. I knew nothing of the treaty, and had no suspicion of it, until several months after the protocol, and some time after the negotiation was completed; and then my simple promise was that it should have from me “the most careful and candid consideration”; and such I gave it most sincerely. At first my opposition was reserved and without allusion to the President. It was only when the strange business was fully disclosed in official documents communicated in confidence to the Senate, and it was still pressed, that I felt impelled to a sterner resistance. Especially was I constrained, when I found how much the people of Hayti suffered. It so happened that I had reported the bill acknowledging their independence and establishing diplomatic relations between our two countries, assuring that equality which had been violated. Not unmoved could I witness the wrong inflicted upon them. And has it come to this, that the President of the Great Republic, instead of carrying peace and good tidings to Africans commencing the experiment of self-government, should become to them an agent of terror?

It is difficult to see how I could have done otherwise. Anxious to excuse the anger towards me, it has been said that I opposed the treaty because Mr. Motley was unceremoniously removed from the mission at London; and here you will see the extent to which misrepresentation has gone. It so happens that Mr. Motley was removed on the day immediately following the rejection of the treaty. Evidently my opposition was not influenced by the removal: was the removal influenced by my opposition?

Equally absurd is the story that I am now influenced by personal feelings. I am a public servant, trained to duty; and now, as always before, I have yielded only to this irresistible mandate. With me there is no alternative. The misconduct of the President, so apparent in the San Domingo device, became more conspicuous in the light of illustrative facts, showing it to be part of a prevailing misrule, which, for the sake of our country, should not be prolonged. As a patriot citizen, anxious for the national welfare and renown, am I obliged to declare these convictions.

* * * * *

I am now brought to those two chief measures to be advanced by the election of Horace Greeley, each of controlling importance,--one looking directly to purity and efficiency in the government, and the other to the peace and welfare of our country.

ONE-TERM PRINCIPLE.

The principle of One Term for President is the corner-stone of a reformed civil service. So plain is this to my apprehension, that I am at a loss to understand how any one sincerely in favor of such reform can fail to insist upon this principle. All experience shows that the employment of the appointing power to promote the personal ends of the President is the great disturbing influence in our civil service. Here is the comprehensive abuse which envelops all the offices of the country, making them tributary to one man, and subordinate to his desires. Let this be changed, and you have the first stage of reform, without which all other measures are dilatory, if not feeble and inefficient. How futile to recommend, as is done by the Commissioners on Civil Service, “an honest competitive examination,” while the rules for this system are left to the discretion of a President seeking reëlection! “Lead us not into temptation” is part of the brief prayer we are all taught to repeat; nor are Presidents above the necessity of this prayer. The misuse of the appointing power to advance ambitious aims is a temptation to which a President must not be exposed. For his sake, and for the sake of the country, this must not be.

In attributing peril to this influence, I speak not only from my own careful observation, but from the testimony of others whose words are authoritative. You do not forget how Andrew Jackson declared that the limitation of the office to one term was required, in order to place the President “beyond the reach of any improper influences” and “uncommitted to any other course than the strict line of constitutional duty,”[183]--how William Henry Harrison announced, that, with the adoption of this principle, “the incumbent would devote all his time to the public interest, and there would be no cause to misrule the country,”[184]--how Henry Clay was satisfied, after much observation and reflection, “that too much of the time, the thoughts, and the exertions of the incumbent are occupied during his first term in securing his reëlection,”[185]--and how my senatorial associate of many years, Benjamin F. Wade, after denouncing the reëligibility of the President, said, “There are defects in the Constitution, and this is among the most glaring.”[186] According to this experienced Senator, the reëligibility of the President is not only a defect in the Constitution, but one of its most glaring defects.

And such also was the declared opinion of the present incumbent before his election and the temptation of a second term. It has been stated by one who conferred with him at the time, that immediately before his nomination General Grant said, in the spirit of Andrew Jackson, “The liberties of the country cannot be maintained without a One-Term Amendment of the Constitution”; and another writes me, that while on a walk between the White House and the Treasury, just at the head of the steps, near the fountain, the General paused a moment, and said, “I am in favor of restricting the President to a single term, and of abolishing the office of Vice-President.” By the authority of this declaration, the “Morning Chronicle,”[187] the organ of the Republican party at Washington, proclaimed of its Presidential candidate, “He is, moreover, an advocate of the One-Term principle, as conducing toward the proper administration of the law”; and then at a later date,[188] after calling for the adoption of this principle, the same Republican organ said, “General Grant is in favor of it.” Unquestionably at that time, while the canvass was proceeding, he allowed himself to be commended as a supporter of this principle. That he should now disregard it gives new reason for the prayer, “Lead us not into temptation.”

Never before was the necessity for this beneficent Amendment more apparent; for never before was the wide-spread abuse from the reëligibility of the President more grievously conspicuous. De Tocqueville, the illustrious Frenchman, who saw our institutions with a vision quickened by genius and chastened by friendly regard, discerned the peril, when he said:--

“Intrigue and corruption are the natural vices of elective
government; but when the head of the State can be reëlected, these
evils rise to a great height and compromise the very existence of
the country. When a simple candidate seeks to rise by intrigue,
his manœuvres must be limited to a very narrow sphere; _but when
the Chief Magistrate enters the lists, he borrows the strength of
the Government for his own purposes_.… If the representative of
the Executive descends into the combat, the cares of Government
dwindle for him into second-rate importance, and the success of his
election is his first concern.”[189]

Nothing can be more true than these remarkable words, which are completely verified in what we now behold. The whole diversified machinery of the National Government in all its parts, operating in State, District, Town, and Village, is now at work to secure the reëlection of the President, as for some time before it worked to secure his renomination,--the whole being obedient to the central touch.

Look for a moment at this machinery, or, if you please, at this political hierarchy, beginning with Cabinet officers, and reaching to the pettiest postmaster, every one diligent to the single end of serving Presidential aspiration. The Jeffersonian rule was, “Is he honest? Is he capable? Is he faithful to the Constitution?” But this is now lost in the mightier law, “Is he faithful to reëlection?” This failing, all merit fails. Every office-holder, from highest to lowest, according to his influence, becomes propagandist, fugleman, whipper-in. Members of the Cabinet set the example, and perambulate the country, instructing the people to vote for reëlection. Heads of Bureaus do likewise. Then, in their respective localities, officers of the Customs, officers of the Internal Revenue, marshals with their deputies, and postmasters, each and all, inspired from the National Capitol, are all calling for reëlection. This organized power, variously estimated at from sixty to eighty thousand in number, all paid by the Government, and overspreading the whole country in one minute network, has unprecedented control at this moment, partly from increased facilities of communication, and partly from the military drill which still survives the war, but more, perhaps, from the determined will of the President, to which all these multitudinous wills are subjugated. This simple picture, which nobody can question, reveals a tyranny second only to that of the Slave Power itself,--which Jefferson seems to have foreseen, when, after portraying the Legislature as most to be feared in his day, he said, “The tyranny of the Executive will come in its turn.”[190] Even his prophetic vision did not enable him to foresee the mournful condition we now deplore, with the One-Man Power lording itself through all the offices of the country.

The recent election in North Carolina made this practically manifest. Even without a telescope, all could discern the operations of the field. Postmasters and officers of Internal Revenue were on hand, each in his place; then came the Marshal, with files of deputies, extemporized for the occasion; while, ranging over the extensive circuit, was the Supervisor of the Revenue; the whole instructed and animated by members of the Cabinet, who abandoned their responsible duties to help reëlection, which for the time was above all departments of Government and all exigencies of the public service. In the same way the chief Custom-Houses of the country have been enlisted. Each has become a political centre whose special object is reëlection. Authentic evidence before a Congressional Committee shows that Thomas Murphy, while Collector of New York, acting as Lieutenant of the President, sought to control the Republican State Convention by tendering office to four men, in consideration of the return of certain delegates, promising that “he would immediately send their names on to Washington and have them appointed”; and by way of enforcing the Presidential supremacy, he announced with startling effrontery that “President Grant was the representative and head of the Republican party, and all good Republicans should support him in all his measures and appointments, and any one who did not do it should be _crushed out_.”[191] If this were not authenticated under oath, it would be hard to believe. But the New Orleans Custom-House has a story much worse. Here Presidential pretension is mixed with unblushing corruption, in which the Collector, a brother-in-law, is a chief actor. And all for reëlection.[192]

This prostitution of the offices of the country to the Presidential will can be upheld only by unhesitating partisan zeal, discarding reason and patriotism. Already it has been condemned in an official Report made to the House of Representatives, November 25, 1867, by Mr. Boutwell, as Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and signed by him. His direct object was to arraign Andrew Johnson; but these words declare a rule applicable to all Presidents:--

“The presence and active participation of _two of the Heads of
Departments_ in a political convention at Philadelphia, having
for its object the organization of a party to sustain the policy
of the President and defeat the will of Congress and the people,
and one of those functionaries the prime agent in the removals
from and appointments to office for ‘political reasons,’ is a fact
well known to the country. The like had not happened before in its
history. In the view of right-minded men, it was something more
than a public scandal.”[193]

The Report adduces the authority of John Locke, the eminent philosopher, as declaring “the employment of ‘the force, treasure, and _offices of the society to corrupt the representatives, or openly to preëngage the electors, and prescribe what manner of persons shall be chosen_,’ as among those breaches of trust in the executive magistrate which amounts to a dissolution of the Government; for ‘what is it,’ he says, ‘but to cut up the Government by the roots, and poison the very fountains of public security?’”[194] But all this we witness here. The offices are employed to preëngage the electors, and prescribe the persons to be chosen. Nor do I see any corrective of this undoubted abuse, especially after the example now set in high quarters, so long as the President is a candidate for reëlection.

Therefore, to arrest a flagrant tyranny, and to secure purity in the Government, also to save the President from himself, should this Amendment be adopted; and since Horace Greeley is known to be its strenuous supporter, we have an unanswerable reason in his behalf.

RECONCILIATION.

From the practical question of Civil Service Reform I pass to Reconciliation, being the most important issue ever presented to the American people,--reconciliation not only between the two once warring sections, but also between the two races. This issue, so grand and beautiful, was distinctly presented, when Horace Greeley, in accepting the Republican nomination at Cincinnati, wrote these memorable words:--

“In this faith, and with the distinct understanding, that, if
elected, I shall be the President, not of a party, but of the whole
people, I accept your nomination,--in the confident trust that the
masses of our countrymen, North and South, are eager to clasp hands
across the bloody chasm which has too long divided them, forgetting
that they have been enemies, in the joyful consciousness that they
are, and must henceforth remain, brethren.”[195]

The issue was again presented, when thereafter the Democratic Party in National Convention, acting under an irresistible movement of the people, nominated the author of these words.

It is difficult to see how this noble aspiration can find other than a generous response. Nothing but a party spirit which forgets the obligations of Christian duty could treat it with indifference, much less make it the occasion of misrepresentation. By no effort of ingenuity or malignity can it be tortured into anything but an offer of reconciliation, while the very letter of acceptance, where it appears, declares the established supremacy of Equal Rights. Observe also that it is made only when the work of Reconstruction is ended. Here is the testimony of a Senator of South Carolina, in a speech in the Senate, January 22, 1872:--

“The last of the Southern States is admitted to its full privileges
as a member of the brotherhood of States; the Constitutional
Amendments intended to secure the principles established by the war
and subsequent events have been accepted as valid. There can be no
fear or danger of their being disturbed.”[196]

But these things are forgotten; the Sermon on the Mount is forgotten also; the Beatitudes are put aside. A great writer of the Middle Ages, after dwelling on what is best for us, says:--

“Hence it is that not riches, not pleasures, not honors, not length
of life, not health, not strength, not comeliness, was sung to the
shepherds from on high, but peace.”[197]

The supporters of reëlection will not hearken to this song, and the proffered hand is rejected. If not war, they would preserve at least the passions of war, and instead of peace would scatter distrust and defiance. The old fable is renewed:--

“Emboldened now on fresh attempt he goes,
With serpent’s teeth the fertile furrows sows;
The glebe fermenting with enchanted juice
Makes the snake’s teeth a human crop produce.”[198]

For me there can be but one course on this issue, and the moment it was presented I seemed to behold, for the first time, the dawn of that better era in our country when the Equal Rights of All should be placed under the safeguard of assured Peace and Reconciliation. Had I failed to sympathize with this endeavor, I should have been false to the record of my life. My first public utterance, as far back as July 4, 1845, was to commend the cause of Peace, which from that early day, amidst the contentions of public duty and the terrible responsibilities of war, has never been absent from my mind. While insisting on the Abolition of Slavery, while urging Enfranchisement, while vindicating the Equal Rights of All, and while pressing Reconstruction, I have constantly declared that all these were for no purpose of vengeance or punishment, but only for the security of the citizen and the establishment of government on just foundations, and that when this was done nobody should outdo me in those generosities that become the conqueror more than his conquest.

PERSONAL RECORD.

Here the testimony is complete. If I open it now, it is less to show the obligations which constrain me personally than to make these witnesses plead again the cause which from the beginning I have had at heart. I follow the order of time, letting each speak in a few words.

There are some among us who may remember that early speech before the Republican State Convention at Worcester, October 1, 1861, which excited at the time so much discussion, when, after calling for Emancipation, I united this cause with Peace:--

“Two objects are before us, _Union and Peace_, each for the sake
of the other, and both for the sake of the country; but without
Emancipation how can we expect either?”[199]

Thus at the beginning was I mindful of Peace.

Then again, in the same strain, at the Cooper Institute, New York, November 27, 1861, after showing Slavery to be the origin and main-spring of the Rebellion, I pleaded for Emancipation, and at the same time first sounded the key-note of Reconciliation:--

“Perversely and pitifully do you postpone that sure period of
_reconciliation, not only between the two sections, not only
between the men of the North and the men of the South, but, more
necessary still, between slave and master_, without which the true
tranquillity we all seek cannot be permanently assured. Believe it,
_only through such reconciliation_, under sanction of freedom, can
you remove all occasions of conflict hereafter.”[200]

Thus early was reconciliation associated with my most earnest efforts; nor did I at any moment hesitate in this work.

The same spirit was manifest in opposition to perpetuating the memory of victories over fellow-citizens. The question arose on a dispatch of General McClellan, where, after announcing the capture of Williamsburg, he inquired whether he was “authorized to follow the example of other generals, and direct the names of battles to be placed on the colors of regiments.”[201] This being communicated to the Senate, I felt it my duty to move, May 8, 1862, the following resolution:--

“_Resolved_, That in the efforts now making for _the restoration of
the Union and the establishment of peace throughout the country_,
it is inexpedient that the names of victories obtained over our
fellow-citizens should be placed on the regimental colors of the
United States.”[202]

Here again was anxiety for peace. Mr. Wilson, my colleague, did not agree with me, and he made haste to introduce a counter-resolution;[203] but no further action was had upon it. The usage of civilized nations is against placing on regimental colors the names of victories gained over fellow-countrymen. In France, the most military country of the world, the principle was carefully discarded by King Louis Philippe, when, in preparing the Museum at Versailles, he excluded every picture or image of civil war. Everything to arouse and gratify the patriotic pride of Frenchmen, of all Frenchmen, is there, but nothing to exhibit Frenchmen warring with each other.

Then came the bills for Confiscation, which I supported chiefly with a view to Emancipation. While enforcing this object, May 19, 1862, I said:--

“People talk flippantly of the gallows as the certain doom of
the Rebels. This is a mistake. For weal or woe, the gallows is
out of the question. It is not possible as a punishment for this
rebellion.”

Then declaring our supreme object to be Peace, I said:

“In this work it is needless to say _there is no place for any
sentiment of hate or any suggestion of vengeance_. There can
be no exaction and no punishment beyond the necessity of the
case,--nothing harsh, nothing excessive. Lenity and pardon become
the conqueror more even than victory. ‘Do in time of peace the most
good, and in time of war the least evil possible: such is the Law
of Nations.’ These are the admirable words of an eminent French
magistrate and statesman. In this spirit it is our duty to assuage
the calamities of war, and especially to spare an inoffensive
population.”[204]

Shortly afterwards, June 27th, while the same subject was under consideration, I returned to it again:--

“But I confess frankly that I look with more hope and confidence
to Liberation than to Confiscation. To give freedom is nobler
than to take property, and on this occasion it cannot fail to be
more efficacious, for in this way the rear-guard of the Rebellion
will be changed into the advance-guard of the Union. There is in
Confiscation, unless when directed against the criminal authors of
the Rebellion, a harshness inconsistent with that mercy which it
is always a sacred duty to cultivate, and which should be manifest
in proportion to our triumphs, ‘mightiest in the mightiest.’ _But
Liberation is not harsh; and it is certain, if properly conducted,
to carry with it the smiles of a benignant Providence._”[205]

At last the country was gladdened by the Proclamation of Emancipation, which here in Faneuil Hall, October 6, 1862, I vindicated as a measure of peace; and then I said:--

“In the old war between King and Parliament, which rent England,
the generous Falkland cried from his soul, _Peace! Peace!_--and
History gratefully records his words. Never did he utter this cry
with more earnestness than I do now. But how shall the blessing be
secured?”[206]

_By Emancipation_, was my answer.

Then came the bill creating the Freedmen’s Bureau. In opening the debate on this interesting subject, June 8, 1864, I said:--

“It is for the Senate to determine, under the circumstances,
what it will do. My earnest hope is that it will do something.
The opportunity must not be lost of helping so many persons now
helpless, and _of aiding the cause of Reconciliation, without which
peace cannot be assured_.”[207]

Here again Reconciliation is announced as an ever-present object.

In the same spirit, I deemed it my duty to oppose the efforts made in the winter of 1865 to authorize Retaliation, differing from valued friends. The proposition for Retaliation was met by the following declaration, moved by me, January 24th:--

“The United States … call upon all to bear witness that in this
necessary warfare with Barbarism they renounce all vengeance and
every evil example, and plant themselves firmly on the sacred
landmarks of Christian civilization, under the protection of that
God who is present with every prisoner, and enables heroic souls to
suffer for their country.”[208]

Then came the effort, favored by President Lincoln, to receive Louisiana with a Constitution which failed to recognize the equal rights of colored fellow-citizens. Here again, February 25th, I encountered the proposition by a resolution, where it is declared:--

“That such an oligarchical government is not competent at this
moment to discharge the duties and execute the powers of a State;
and that its recognition as a legitimate government will tend to
enfeeble the Union, _to postpone the day of Reconciliation_, and to
endanger the national tranquillity.”[209]

Mark, if you please, “_the day of Reconciliation_.”

Then came the question of perpetuating the memory of our victories. February 27th, the Senate having under consideration an appropriation for a picture in the National Capitol, I moved as an amendment,--

“That in the National Capitol, dedicated to the National Union,
there shall be no picture of a victory in battle with our own
fellow-citizens.”[210]

Mr. Wilson again made haste to announce that he “disagreed with his colleague altogether,”--saying, according to the “Congressional Globe,”[211] “I do not believe in that doctrine.”

In the eulogy on President Lincoln, pronounced before the municipal authorities of Boston, June 1, 1865, the great object of Reconciliation was presented as dependent on the establishment of our ideas. After insisting upon Emancipation and the Equal Suffrage, these words occur:--

“Such a vengeance will be a kiss of reconciliation, for it will
remove every obstacle to peace and harmony. The people where
Slavery once ruled will bless the blow that destroyed it. The
people where the kindred tyranny of Caste once prevailed will
rejoice that this fell under the same blow. They will yet confess
that it was dealt in no harshness, in no unkindness, in no desire
to humiliate, but simply and solemnly, in the name of the Republic
and of Human Nature, for their good as well as ours,--ay, for their
good more than ours.

“By ideas, more than by armies, we have conquered. The sword of the
Archangel was less mighty than the mission he bore from the Lord.
But if the ideas giving us the victory are now neglected, if the
pledges of the Declaration, which the Rebellion openly assailed,
are left unredeemed, then have blood and treasure been lavished for
nought.”

Then I proceeded to ask:--

“How shall these ideas be saved? How shall the war waged by Abraham
Lincoln be brought to an end, _so as to assure peace, tranquillity,
and reconciliation_?”[212]

In the speech at Worcester, before the Republican State Convention, September 14, 1865, I insisted upon guaranties for the national freedman and the national creditor; and until these were accomplished, proposed to exclude the Rebel from political power:--

“I ask not his punishment. I would not be harsh. There is nothing
humane that I would reject. Nothing in hate. Nothing in vengeance.
Nothing in passion. I am for gentleness. I am for a velvet glove;
but for a while I wish the hand of iron. I confess that I have
little sympathy with those hypocrites of magnanimity whose appeal
for the Rebel master is only a barbarous indifference towards
the slave; _and yet they cannot more than I desire the day of
Reconciliation_.”[213]

Thus constantly did this idea return.

And yet again, in a letter to the “Evening Post” of New York, dated September 28, 1865, after insisting upon “supplementary safeguards” for the protection of the freedman, I used these words:--

“Without this additional provision, I see small prospect of
_that peace and reconciliation which are the objects so near our
hearts_.”[214]

Again it appeared in a telegraphic dispatch to President Johnson, dated November 12, 1865, and afterwards published. Asking the President to suspend his “policy towards the Rebel States,” I said:--

“I should not present this prayer, if I were not painfully
convinced that thus far it has failed to obtain any _reasonable
guaranties for that security in the future which is essential to
peace and reconciliation_.… The Declaration of Independence asserts
the equality of all men, and that rightful government can be
founded only on the consent of the governed. I see small chance of
peace, unless these great principles are practically established.
Without this, the house will continue divided against itself.”[215]

Here Reconciliation is associated with Reconstruction on the basis of the Equality of All Men.

Shortly afterwards, in the “Atlantic Monthly” for December, 1865, p. 758, I pleaded again:--

“The lesson of Clemency is of perpetual obligation.… Harshness
is bad. Cruelty is detestable. Even Justice may relent at the
prompting of Mercy. Fail not, then, to cultivate the grace of
Clemency.…

“There must be no vengeance upon enemies; but there must be no
sacrifice of friends. And here is the distinction never to be
forgotten: _Nothing for vengeance; everything for justice_. Follow
this rule, and the Republic will be safe and glorious.”[216]

Then again in the Senate speech, February 5 and 6, 1866, while dwelling at length upon Equal Suffrage without distinction of color, I thus spoke for the Southern people:--

“The people there are my fellow-citizens, and gladly would I
hail them, if they would permit, as no longer _a section_, no
longer _the South_, but an integral part of the Republic, under a
Constitution which, knowing no North and no South, cannot tolerate
_sectional_ pretension. Gladly, in all sincerity, do I offer
my best effort for their welfare. But I see clearly that there
is nothing in the compass of mortal power so important to them
in every respect, morally, politically, and economically--that
there is nothing with such certain promise to them of beneficent
result--that there is nothing so sure to make their land smile
with industry and fertility,--as the decree of Equal Rights I now
invoke.… This is our retaliation. This is our only revenge.”[217]

In an address at the Music Hall, in Boston, October 2, 1866, entitled “The One-Man Power _vs._ Congress,” I declared that the Reconstruction I sought was one where “the Rebel region, no longer harassed by controversy and degraded by injustice, _will enjoy the richest fruits of security and reconciliation_,”--and then added, “_To labor for this cause may well tempt the young and rejoice the old_.”[218]

Then, in the same address, I said:--

“Our first duty is to provide safeguards for the future. This can
be only by provisions, sure, fundamental, and irrepealable, fixing
forever the results of the war, the obligations of the Government,
and the equal rights of all. Such is the suggestion of common
prudence and of self-defence, as well as of common honesty. To this
end we must make haste slowly. States which precipitated themselves
out of Congress must not be permitted to precipitate themselves
back. They must not enter the Halls they treasonably deserted,
until we have every reasonable assurance of future good conduct. We
must not admit them, and then repent our folly.…

“But, while holding this ground of prudence, I desire to disclaim
every sentiment of vengeance or punishment, and also every thought
of delay or procrastination. Here I do not yield to the President,
or to any other person. Nobody more anxious than I to see this
chasm closed forever.

“_There is a long way and a short way. There is a long time and a
short time._ If there be any whose policy is for the longest way
or for the longest time, I am not of the number. _I am for the
shortest way, and also for the shortest time._”[219]

Then in considering Reconstruction in the Senate, March 16, 1867, I said:--

“But I ask nothing in vengeance or unkindness. All that I propose
is for their good, with which is intertwined the good of all.
I would not impose any new penalty or bear hard upon an erring
people. Oh, no! I simply ask a new safeguard for the future, that
these States, through which so much trouble has come, may be a
strength and a blessing to our common country, with prosperity
and happiness everywhere within their borders. I would not impose
any new burden; but I seek a new triumph for civilization. _For a
military occupation bristling with bayonets I would substitute the
smile of Peace._”

I then said:--

“But this cannot be without Education. As the soldier disappears,
his place must be supplied by the schoolmaster. The muster-roll
will be exchanged for the school-register, and our head-quarters
will be in a school-house.”

And I accompanied this with a proposition to require in the reconstructed States “a system of public schools open to all, without distinction of race or color,” which was lost by a tie vote, being 20 to 20.[220]

The subject recurred again in the Senate July 13, 1867, when, after declaring regret at the inadequacy of the pending measure, especially in not securing a system of Public Education, and not excluding Rebel influence, I remarked:--

“In saying this, I desire to add, that, in my judgment, all
exclusions belong to what I call _the transition period_. When
Reconstruction is accomplished, the time will come for us to open
the gates.”[221]

In these few words will be found the ruling principle which I have recognized in Reconstruction.

The address, “Are We a Nation?” made at the Cooper Institute, November 19, 1867, testifies again to Reconciliation. After showing how the national supremacy in the guardianship of equal rights is consistent with local self-government, and vindicating the two in their respective spheres, it says:--

“There will be a sphere alike for the States and Nation. Local
self-government, which is the pride of our institutions, will
be reconciled with the national supremacy in maintenance of
human rights, and the two together will constitute the elemental
principles of the Republic. The States will exercise a minute
jurisdiction required for the convenience of all; the Nation
will exercise that other paramount jurisdiction required for the
protection of all. _The reconciliation--God bless the word!_--thus
begun will embrace the people, who, forgetting past differences,
will feel more than ever that they are one.”[222]

Then again, in addressing the Republican State Convention at Worcester, September 22, 1869, I said:--

“Do not think me harsh; do not think me austere. I am not. I will
not be outdone by anybody in clemency; nor at the proper time will
I be behind any one in opening all doors of office and trust.…
Who can object, if men recently arrayed against their country are
told to stand aside yet a little longer, until all are secure in
their rights? Here is no fixed exclusion,--nothing of which there
can be any just complaint,--nothing which is not practical, wise,
humane,--nothing which is not born of justice rather than victory.
In the establishment of Equal Rights conquest loses its character,
and is no longer conquest,--

‘For then both parties nobly are subdued,
And neither party loser.’”[223]

PERSONAL DUTY.

Here I suspend this testimony. Such is the simple and harmonious record, showing how from the beginning I was devoted to peace,--how constantly I longed for reconciliation,--how with every measure of Equal Rights this longing found utterance,--how it became an essential part of my life,--how I discarded all idea of vengeance or punishment,--how Reconstruction was to my mind a transition period,--and how earnestly I looked forward to the day, when, after the recognition of Equal Rights, the Republic should again be one in reality as in name. If there are any who ever maintained a policy of hate, I was never so minded; and now in protesting against any such policy, I only act in obedience to the irresistible promptings of my soul.

In embracing the opportunity unexpectedly presented at this election, I keep myself still in harmony with the past. Unable to vote a second time for President Grant, and confident that the choice of Horace Greeley will tend to assure that triumph of peace which has occupied so much of my desires, it only remains to vote for him. I would not expect too much; but, knowing something of the spirit in which the Democratic party has adopted him as its candidate, and knowing something also of his eminent character, I cannot doubt that with his election there will be a new order of things, where the harsh instrumentalities of power will yield to a sentiment of good-will, and surviving irritations will be lost in concord. The war is ended. There must be an end also to belligerent passions; and the freedman, assured in rights, must enter upon a new career of happiness and prosperity. Such, at least, is the object I now seek. Even those differing from me in faith at this critical moment will not deny that such a result would mark an epoch in American history. And now, in the hope of its accomplishment, I forget personal consequences, and think only of the inestimable good.

PREJUDICE AND INVENTION.

The partisans of Reëlection, resorting to prejudice and invention, insist, first, that the Democratic party, which has adopted as its candidate an original Republican on a Republican platform, will prove untrue, and, secondly, that the candidate himself will prove untrue,--as if the Democratic party were not bound now to the very principles declared at Philadelphia, without the viscous alloy of Grantism, and as if the life and character of the candidate were not a sufficient answer to any such slander.

ADHESION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Evidently there are individuals, calling themselves Democrats, who feel little sympathy with the movement, and there are others who insist upon the old hates, whether towards the North or towards the freedman. Unhappily, this is only according to human nature. It must be so. Therefore, though pained in feeling, my trust is not disturbed by sporadic cases cited in newspapers, or by local incidents. This is clear: in spite of politicians, and against their earnest efforts, the people represented in the Democratic Convention adopted a Republican nomination and platform. Baltimore answered to Cincinnati. A popular uprising, stirred by irresistible instinct, triumphed over all resistance. The people were wiser than their leaders,--illustrating again the saying of the French statesman, so experienced in human affairs, that above the wisdom of any individual, however great, is the wisdom of all. But this testifies to that Providence which shapes our ends:

“So Providence for us, high, infinite,
Makes our necessities its watchful task.”

Plainly in recent events there has been a presiding influence against which all machinations have been powerless. Had the Convention at Philadelphia nominated a good Republican, truly representing Republican principles without drawback, there is no reason to believe that Horace Greeley would have been a candidate. The persistence for President Grant dissolved original bonds, and gave practical opportunity to the present movement. The longing for peace, which in existing antagonisms of party was without effective expression, at last found free course.