Chapter VIII: Introduction: To the Collection,41 April 1, 1872 (6)

Accordingly the original Republican who had announced himself ready to “clasp hands” in peace was accepted on a Republican platform, declaring support of the three Constitutional amendments, and placing in the foreground the great truth that all men are equal before the law. Such is the historic fact. That the party will be disloyal to this act, that it will turn its back on its covenants, and seek through a Republican President to reverse these safeguards, or in any way impair their efficacy, is not only without probability, but to imagine it is absolutely absurd.

Beyond the unequivocal adhesion of the party in its corporate capacity is that of eminent members who volunteer as individuals in the same declarations, so that personal pledge unites with party obligation. I quote two instances at hand.

Mr. Hendricks, so well known for his service in the National Senate, said recently in the Democratic State Convention of Indiana, on his nomination for Governor:--

“We have this day substantially turned our backs upon the Past. We
now stand in the Present, and look forward to the great Future. The
Past is gone.”

Nobody in the country can speak for his party with more authority; nor could there be better words to denote the change that has occurred.

Mr. Kerr, also of Indiana, an able Democratic Representative in Congress, and now Congressional candidate at large, bears the same testimony. In a recent speech this distinguished Democrat says:--

“The best impulse, the most patriotic sentiment, the most
intelligent judgment of the wisest and the best men of the country
now demand that the accomplished results of our great civil war,
as they are crystallized in the Amendments to the Constitution,
shall stand as parts of the fundamental law of the country, to be
obeyed and maintained in good faith, without evasion, denial, or
diminution, in favor of all classes of the people. The Democratic
party, in the most authoritative and solemn manner, accepts this
judgment.”

Nothing could be more complete. All the Amendments are “to be obeyed and maintained in good faith, without evasion, denial, or diminution, in favor of all classes of the people”; and this is the covenant of the Democratic party, countersigned by their Representative. Not content with this unequivocal adhesion, the speaker proceeds:--

“Any intelligent citizen, in public or private life, who
charges that the Democratic party, if invested with power,
would reëstablish slavery, or pay for slaves, or assume or pay
Confederate debts, and take suffrage from colored men, or do other
acts in defiance of the Constitution, must be a hypocrite and
a demagogue, and he can have no higher aim than to slander and
deceive.”

It is easy to pardon the indignation with which this Democrat repels the calumnies employed to sow distrust.

In strictest harmony with these authorities is the public press entitled to speak for the Democratic party. Out of innumerable testimonies I content myself with two.

The Cincinnati “Enquirer,” a leading Democratic journal, of August 1st, alluding to myself, says:--

“His confidence in the honor of the Democratic party is not
misplaced. It will stand by the position which it assumed at
Baltimore, and maintain it under any and all circumstances. Upon
that he may depend.”

Then again the same Democratic organ says:--

“It pleases some of the Grant papers to speak of Mr. Greeley as
a Democratic candidate, because he was nominated by a Democratic
Convention. They ignore the fact that he had been previously
nominated by a Republican Convention,--that he has always been a
Republican, and never cast a Democratic ballot in his life. None of
them have answered our query, whether they would have considered
General Grant the Democratic candidate, if he had been nominated at
Baltimore; and if not, why do they make the difference between him
and Greeley?”

The Washington “Patriot,” the Democratic journal at the national capital, of August 7th, thus explicitly pronounces:--

“The Democratic party have loyally and honorably conditioned to
uphold the Cincinnati platform and all its obligations. _They mean
to fulfil that bond in good faith and to the last letter._ Hence
not a word was altered at Baltimore, not a letter changed, not a
comma erased. _We took it in the exact sense and in all the spirit
of the several declarations, with entire knowledge of the duty
which they enjoined, and an honest purpose to perform it at any
cost._ So far from regarding that acceptance as a sacrifice, it was
welcomed everywhere with joy.”

Are these speakers and these newspapers united in conspiracy to deceive, or are they dupes? Spurning the idea of dishonest conspiracy, I cannot doubt that they believe what they say, and that what they say is true. Again I insist that the sallies of local disaffection or of personal brutality, however painful or discreditable, cannot interfere to change the open adhesion of the party, followed by declarations so authentic in form. On this open adhesion and these declarations I act, and to the complete fulfilment of all the obligations assumed I feel that I may confidently hold the party.

MOTIVES TO KEEP THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TRUE.

But why should the Democratic party be untrue to the covenants it has assumed? This imputation, so insulting to a great political organization, and to the distinguished members who have openly united in its adhesion, cannot be accepted without some ground of reason, or at least of presumption. But all reason and every presumption are the other way. Men act according to their supposed interests,--this is a law of human nature; but every interest of former Rebels is for peace. Under the influence of uncontrolled passion, and for the sake of Slavery, they went into rebellion; but now that passion has abated and Slavery has ceased, they see that nothing is gained by prolonging the animosities it engendered. Peace has become their absorbing interest. So obvious is the advantage from this assured possession, that it is unreasonable to suppose them indifferent when it is within reach; it is absurd to imagine them professing peace as a cover for war,--war in which they know they must fail. This explains the promptitude with which they seized the opportunity now presented. At once they declared their desire and offered the hand of fellowship, at the same time announcing their acceptance of those great measures by which the Equal Rights of All are assured.

The motives naturally governing former Rebels, in accepting Horace Greeley and a Republican platform, are plain. There is, first, the general prostration of their region, which they would see improved; but this can be only by the establishment of peace undisturbed, so that all men, white and black, may live in security. This is an essential condition. Violence breeds a kindred crop; nor can distrust exist without detriment to all. Let either appear, and the most fertile fields will fail in productive power. Men will not mingle their sweat with the soil, becoming colaborers with the sun,--they will not sow and plough,--unless assured in the enjoyment of what the generous earth is ready to yield. Above all, those truest allies so essential to prosperous industry, capital and immigration, will turn away from the land that is not blessed by peace. Security is a constant invitation and encouragement. There must be security in all things,--security in life, security in property, and security in rights, including Liberty and Equality, the great promises of the Declaration of Independence. Let any of these be in any peril, let any shadow rest upon their enjoyment, and the whole community must suffer. Therefore by the impulse of self-interest, now clearly manifest, are the people of the South moved to the present effort for peace.

This same motive assumes another form in the desire to escape from existing misrule, which has left such traces in the disordered finances of the Southern States. So colossal has been the scale of plunder that even authentic report seems like fable. Second only to the wide-spread devastations of war are the robberies to which these States have been subjected,--I am sorry to say, under an Administration calling itself Republican, at Washington, and with local governments deriving their animating impulse from the party in power, with the President as its dominant head. Surely the people in these communities would have been less than men, if, sinking under the intolerable burden, they did not turn for help to a new party, promising reform and honesty. They have seen custom-houses used to maintain the plunderers in power; they have seen all available political forces pressed to procure the renewed rule of the President under whom they have suffered so much; and they have seen this very President teach by example that every office-holder should begin by looking out for himself. It would be a wonder, if they did not join the present movement and maintain its declared purposes to the end.

It is easy to see that under these promptings, where personal and local interests were so strong, Horace Greeley was commended as a candidate, and then sincerely accepted. They knew him as the steadfast enemy of Slavery so long as it existed, dealing against it hard and constant blows; they knew him as the faithful ally of the freedman, insisting promptly upon his equal right to suffrage, which he vindicated with persuasive power; and they knew him also as the devoted friend of the colored race, never failing in effort for their welfare: but they knew also that he was a lover of peace and honesty, whose soul had been transfigured in works, and that, as sincerely as he had striven for the colored race, he now strove to mitigate those other burdens which had reduced them to a new slavery, being a debt which was like chain and manacle upon their industry; and they were assured that with _him_ the great office for which he is a candidate would be a trust and not a personal perquisite, so that his example would be constant testimony to industry, integrity, and fidelity in the discharge of public duties, thus fixing a standard for all. These things being evident, how could they hesitate?

FAITH IN HORACE GREELEY.

The partisans of Reëlection dwell much on the position and character of Mr. Greeley, insisting that he cannot be trusted in the Presidency,--partly because helped into power by Democrats, and partly from an alleged want of stability. It is difficult to hear these barefaced allegations, in utter disregard of the prodigious testimony afforded by his long career, without wonder at the extent to which prejudice and invention can be carried. Had he been presented at Philadelphia with the saving sanction of a regular nomination, the same partisans who now seek to exhibit him as a tool or an imbecile would dwell with pride on his eminent qualities, making him, by the side of his competitor, an angel of light. Knowing them both, his superiority I may affirm. To say that under him Slavery can in any way be revived, or that the Rebel debt or the pension of Rebel soldiers or compensation for slaves can find favor, or that the equal rights of the freedmen, to which he is so solemnly pledged, can in any way be impaired,--all this is simply atrocious. Nothing of the kind can be done without violation of the Constitution as amended,--not to speak of the departure from that rule of life which he has ever followed. There is no Democrat sympathizing with his nomination who would not spurn the infamous treachery. I dismiss the whole partisan extravagance to the contempt it deserves.

The imputation that his election will be the return to power of the old Democratic party is much like saying that he will cease to be himself, and that his surpassing individuality, making him so conspicuous, will be lost. They who make the imputation forget that this old party, if it has not ceased to exist, is changed in character. Standing on a Republican platform, and with a Republican candidate, it may look the Republican party in the face, claiming for itself the Future, if not the Past. Plainly it is not that Democratic party against which Republicans have contended. If Democrats have influence with Horace Greeley, it will be because they have sincerely placed themselves by his side on a platform which distinctly announces all that Republicans have ever claimed.

Against all pretended distrust I oppose the open record of his life. By this let him be judged. And here it will be observed, that, while sometimes differing from others in methods, he has never, at any moment, ceased to be a champion, being always the same. Here is a private letter, which has only recently appeared, being a gleam of sunlight from his soul, which the dark days of the war could not quench:--

OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNE, NEW YORK,
June 26, 1863.

MY DEAR SIR,--In God’s good time this is to be a land of real
freedom, where equal rights and equal laws shall banish rebellion,
treason, and riot, and all manner of kindred diabolisms. I hardly
hope to live to see that day, but hope that those who may remember
me, when I am gone, will believe that I earnestly tried to hasten
its coming.

Yours,

HORACE GREELEY.

To suppose, that, under any circumstances of pressure or temptation, he can fail in loyalty to the cause he has served so constantly, is an offence to reason and to decency. In his two letters of acceptance this loyalty is nobly conspicuous. Replying to the nomination at Cincinnati, he drew the wise line between “local self-government” and “centralization,” asserting the former as our true policy, “_subject_ to our solemn constitutional obligation to maintain the equal rights of all citizens,”[224]--thus placing these under national safeguard, and making them absolutely the same in all parts of the country. Replying to the nomination at Baltimore, made after the enunciation of this master principle, he announces his “hope and trust that the first century of American Independence will not close before the grand elemental truths on which its rightfulness was originally based by Jefferson and the Continental Congress of 1776 will have become the universally accepted and honored foundations of our political fabric.”[225] And thus is his great record crowned.

Living so entirely in the public eye, all know his life, which speaks for him now. Who so well as himself could stand the trial? The “Tribune,” in its career of more than thirty years, speaks for him also. Those opponents who in the work of disparagement assert that he wants executive ability, I point to this journal, begun by Horace Greeley in 1841, without partner or business associate, with a cash capital of only one thousand dollars, and with but six hundred subscribers. And yet, under his individual effort, by his amazing industry and through his rare intelligence, with his determined nature animating all, the enterprise prospered, until he found himself at the head of one of the first newspapers of the world, completely organized intellectually and mechanically, with writers for every subject, with correspondents everywhere at home and abroad, and with a constantly increasing influence never surpassed in newspaper history. A President with the ability that did all this would impart new energy to the public service, impressing it with his own faithful character, and assuring, on a larger scale, a corresponding success, so that the whole country would be gainer. Again, those opponents who assert that Horace Greeley wants fidelity, or that he can be easily swayed against life-long convictions, I point to this same journal, which from the beginning, and throughout the whole course of its existence, has been an unwavering representative of the liberal cause, foremost always in warfare with Slavery, prompt in support of reform, inflexible in honesty, and a beacon-flame to all struggling for human advancement.

Not to put faith in Horace Greeley is to act not only without evidence, but against evidence so manifest and constant in unbroken continuity as to seem like a law of Nature. As well distrust the sun in its appointed course.

ANSWER TO TWO OBJECTIONS.

Such is the easy answer to objectors who cry out, that Democrats uniting with Republicans on a Republican platform cannot be trusted, and that the candidate himself cannot be trusted. The wantonness of partisanship is too apparent in this pretension. I have considered it carefully, as a lover of truth, and you have my conclusion. Therefore do I say, Be not deterred from voting for Horace Greeley because Democrats will also vote for him, but rather rejoice. Their votes will be a new bond of peace, and a new assurance for the great principles declared by our fathers at our birth as a nation.

THE OLIVE-BRANCH AND EQUAL RIGHTS.

And has not the time arrived when in sincerity we should accept the olive-branch? Is it not time for the pen to take the place of the sword? Is it not time for the Executive Mansion to be changed from a barrack cesspool to a life-giving fountain? Is it not time for a President who will show by example the importance of reform, and teach the duty of subordinating personal objects to the public service? Is it not time for the Head of the National Government to represent the idea of peace and reconciliation, rather than of battle and strife? Is it not time for that new era, when ancient enemies, forgetting the past, shall “clasp hands” in true unity with the principles of the Declaration of Independence as the supreme law? Deploring the fate of Poland and of Ireland, I seize the earliest moment to escape from similar possibility here. Mindful that the memories of the Past can only yield to a happy Present, something would I do to promote this end. Anxious for the Equal Rights of All, and knowing well that no text of Law or Constitution is adequate without a supporting sentiment behind, I cannot miss the opportunity afforded by the present election of obtaining this strength for our great guaranties.

Reconstruction is now complete. Every State is represented in the Senate, and every District is represented in the House of Representatives. Every Senator and every Representative is in his place. There are no vacant seats in either Chamber; and among the members are fellow-citizens of the African race. And amnesty, nearly universal, has been adopted. In this condition of things I find new reason for change. The present incumbent knows little of our frame of government. By military education and military genius he represents the idea of Force; nor is he any exception to the rule of his profession, which appreciates only slightly a government that is not arbitrary. The time for the soldier has passed, especially when his renewed power would once more remind fellow-citizens of their defeat. Victory over fellow-citizens should be known only in the rights it assures; nor should it be flaunted in the face of the vanquished. It should not be inscribed on regimental colors, or portrayed in pictures at the National Capitol. But the present incumbent is a regimental color with the forbidden inscription; he is a picture at the National Capitol recalling victories over fellow-citizens. It is doubtful if such a presence can promote true reconciliation. Friendship does not grow where former differences are thrust into sight. There are wounds of the mind as of the body; these, too, must be healed. Instead of irritation and pressure, let there be gentleness and generosity. Men in this world get only what they give,--prejudice for prejudice, animosity for animosity, hate for hate. Likewise confidence is returned for confidence, good-will for good-will, friendship for friendship. On this rule, which is the same for the nation as for the individual, I would now act. So will the Republic be elevated to new heights of moral grandeur, and our people will manifest that virtue, “greatest of all,” which is found in charity. Above the conquest of others will be the conquest of ourselves. Nor will any fellow-citizen suffer in rights, but all will find new safeguard in the comprehensive fellowship.

NO NAMES OF BATTLES WITH FELLOW-CITIZENS ON THE ARMY-REGISTER OR THE REGIMENTAL COLORS OF THE UNITED STATES.

BILL IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 2, 1872.

December 2, 1872, Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent
obtained, leave to bring in the following bill, which was read
twice and ordered to be printed:--

A Bill to regulate the Army-Register and the Regimental Colors of the United States.

Whereas the national unity and good-will among fellow-citizens can be assured only through oblivion of past differences, and it is contrary to the usage of civilized nations to perpetuate the memory of civil war: Therefore,

_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That the names of battles with fellow-citizens shall not be continued in the Army-Register, or placed on the regimental colors of the United States.

TRIBUTE TO HORACE GREELEY.

REMARKS INTENDED TO BE MADE IN THE SENATE, IN SECONDING A MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT ON THE OCCASION OF MR. GREELEY’S FUNERAL, DECEMBER 3, 1872.

The death of Mr. Greeley at the close of the canvass in which
nearly three millions of his fellow-citizens had given him their
suffrages for the Presidency, seemed, in the view of leading
Senators on both sides, to require from their body a respectful
recognition of the day appointed for his funeral; and it was
accordingly arranged that a motion for adjournment on this occasion
should be offered by Mr. Fenton, of New York, and seconded by
Mr. Sumner, with appropriate remarks by each. But a dominant
party-spirit, by recourse to parliamentary tactics, prevented
its introduction, and the day passed without notice. The remarks
designed by Mr. Sumner were as follows:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I have been requested to second this motion. One word, if you please. A funeral will take place to-morrow, on which the eyes of the nation will rest, while innumerable hearts throb with grief, and the people everywhere learn the instability of life and the commandment of charity. It is proper, therefore, for the representatives of the nation to suspend labor, that they too may be penetrated by the lesson of the day. More for them than the illustrious dead is this needed. He is gone beyond any earthly call; we remain. Duties are always for the living; and now, standing at the open grave of HORACE GREELEY, we are admonished to forget the strifes of party, and to remember only truth, country, and mankind, to which his honest life was devoted. In other days the horse and armor of the departed chieftain have been buried in the grave where he reposed. So, too, may we bury the animosities, if not the badges, of the past. Then, indeed, will there be victory for the dead which all will share.

RELIEF OF BOSTON.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 12, 1872.

The subject under consideration was a bill from the House providing
for a drawback of the duties on all materials imported into Boston
for the rebuilding of that portion of the city laid waste by the
recent conflagration,--with amendments, including one excepting
lumber, proposed by the Committee on Finance, to whom the bill had
been referred.

Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--Hoping that the Senate will not be less generous than the House of Representatives, I trust that we shall take the bill as it comes from the House, voting down the amendments reported by our Committee.

I hear it said by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERRY] that the bill will be a bad precedent; and the same argument is repeated, with variety of illustration, by my excellent friend the Senator from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL]. Sir, is it not too late to correct the precedent? You already have the case of Portland and the case of Chicago; I am sorry that you must now add the case of Boston. Call it a bad precedent. It can only be applicable in a parallel case, and I do not believe such cases can occur often. The fire-fiend latterly has been very busy in our land; but he cannot always be so; at least I have a well-founded trust that by proper precaution, if not also by better fortune, we shall escape from his visitations. I put aside, therefore, the argument that this is a bad precedent. It can be called into activity only in a similar case; and when a similar case occurs, I am ready for its application. Let any other metropolis sit like Boston in ashes, and I hope there will be no hesitation in extending to it a friendly hand.

It is not fair to call up the smaller losses that may occur in smaller places, for the simple reason that such losses are not within the reach of Congress by any ordinary exercise of its powers. It is only where the loss is great, as in the familiar cases before us, that there is opportunity for Congress. An ancient poet says: “Nor should the Divinity intervene, unless the occasion be worthy.”[226] I would say, Nor should Congress interfere, unless the case be such as to justify the exercise of extraordinary powers. Obviously such an occasion does not occur except where the scale of loss is great.

Then, again, the Senator from Michigan reminded us of the exception of lumber in the bill for the relief of Chicago; but he vindicated that exception by facts which do not occur in the present case. He said, as we all know, that Michigan was also a sufferer at that calamitous moment; and he did not think it right, therefore, that the peculiar interests of his State should be called to contribute even to the great losses of Chicago. I do not say that the Senator was not entirely right in that position. Certainly the case as presented by him is entirely reasonable. Had I had the honor to represent Michigan at the time, I know not that I should have acted otherwise than he did. But I call attention to the point, as presented by him, that no such case exists now. Michigan is not a sufferer; Maine is not a sufferer; nor is any part of our country which contributes timber to our business a sufferer. Therefore is there no reason for introducing this exception. The reason failing, the exception should fail also. I hope, therefore, that the Senate will keep the bill in that respect precisely as it came from the House.

Then my friend from Vermont suggests that this bill is practically an invitation to the people of Boston to go to Europe and elsewhere in order to find workmen. He seemed frightened at the possibility. I think my friend sees too often the question of protection to American industry, and makes himself too unhappy on this account. I hope that this bill will be considered without any question of protection. Let the people of Boston go where they can buy cheapest in order to meet their great calamity; and if it be to their neighbor British provinces, I hope my friend from Vermont will not interfere to prevent it.

THE LATE HON. GARRETT DAVIS, SENATOR OF KENTUCKY.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE ON HIS DEATH, DECEMBER 18, 1872.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I was a member of the Senate, when, in 1861, our departed Senator entered it; and I was to the end the daily witness of his laborious service. Standing now at his funeral, it is easy to forget the differences between us and remember those things in which he was an example to all.

Death has its companionship. In its recent autumn harvest were Garrett Davis, William H. Seward, and Horace Greeley. Seward was the precise contemporary of Davis, each beginning life with the century and dying within a few days of each other. Always alike in constancy of labor, they were for the larger part of this period associated in political sentiment as active members of the old Whig party. But the terrible question of Slavery rose to divide them. How completely they were on opposite sides I need not say. Horace Greeley was ten years the junior, but he was the colleague and peer of Garrett Davis in devotion to Henry Clay. In the whole country, among all whose enthusiastic support he aroused, there was no one who upheld the Kentucky statesman with more chivalrous devotion than these two. Here they were alike, and in the record of life this signal fidelity cannot be forgotten. It was to the honor of Henry Clay that he inspired this sentiment in such men, and it was to their honor that they maintained it so truly. Kindred to truth is fidelity.

At his death, Garrett Davis was our Congressional senior, having entered the other House as early as 1839, after previous service of six years in the Legislature of Kentucky. For eight years he sat as Representative, and then, after an interval of thirteen years, he was for nearly twelve years Senator. During this long period he was conspicuous before the country, dwelling constantly in the public eye. How well he stood the gaze, whether of friend or foe, belongs to his good name.

All who knew him in the Senate will bear witness to his wonderful industry, his perfect probity, and the personal purity of his life. No differences of opinion can obscure the fame of these qualities, or keep them from being a delight to his friends and an example to his country. Nor can any of us forget how, amid peculiar trials, he was courageous in devotion to the National Union. No pressure, no appeal, no temptation, could sway him in this patriotic allegiance. That fidelity which belonged to his nature shone here as elsewhere. He was no holiday Senator, cultivating pleasure rather than duty, and he was above all suspicion in personal conduct. Calumny could not reach him. Nothing is so fierce and unreasoning as the enmities engendered by political antagonists; but even these never questioned that he was at all times incorruptible and pure. Let this be spoken in his honor; let it be written on his monument. Nor can the State that gave him to the national service and trusted him so long fail to remember with pride that he was always an honest man.

With this completeness of integrity there was a certain wild independence and intensity of nature which made him unaccommodating and irrepressible. Faithful, constant, devoted, indefatigable, implacable, he knew not how to capitulate. Dr. Johnson, who liked “a good hater,”[227] would have welcomed him into this questionable fellowship. Here I cannot doubt. Better far the opposite character, and even the errors that may come from it. Kindred to hate is prejudice, which was too often active in him, seeming at times, especially where we differed from him, to take the place of reason. On nothing was this so marked as Slavery. Here his convictions were undisguised; nor did they yield to argument or the logic of events. How much of valuable time, learned research, and intellectual effort he bestowed in support of this dying cause, the chronicles of the Senate attest. How often have we listened with pain to this advocacy, regretting deeply that the gifts he possessed, and especially his sterling character, were enlisted where our sympathies could not go! And yet I cannot doubt that others would testify, as I now do, that never on these occasions, when the soul was tried in its depths, did any fail to recognize the simplicity and integrity of his nature. Had he been less honest, I should have felt his speeches less. Happily, that great controversy is ended; nor do I say anything but the strict truth, when I add that now we bury him who spoke last for Slavery.

Time is teacher and reconciler; nor is it easy for any candid nature to preserve a constant austerity of judgment toward persons. As evening approaches, the meridian heats lose their intensity. While abiding firmly in the truth as we saw it, there may be charity and consideration for those who did not see it as we saw it. A French statesman, yet living, whose name is indissolubly connected with the highest literature, as well as with some of the most important events of his age, teaches how with the passage of life the judgment is softened toward others. “The more,” says M. Guizot, “I have penetrated into an understanding and experience of things, of men, and of myself, the more I have perceived at the same time my general convictions strengthen and my personal impressions become calm and mild. Equity, I will not say toleration for the faith of others, in religion or politics, has come to take place and grow by the side of tranquillity in my own faith. It is youth, with its natural ignorance and passionate prejudices, which renders us exclusive and biting in our judgments of others. In proportion as I quit myself, and as time sweeps me far from our combats, I enter without difficulty into a serene and pleasant appreciation of ideas and sentiments which do not belong to me.” Even if not adopting these words completely, all will confess their beauty.

Here let me be frank. Nothing could make any speech for Slavery tolerable to me; but when I think how much opinions are determined by the influences about us, so that a change of birth and education might have made the Abolitionist a partisan of Slavery and the partisan of Slavery an Abolitionist, I feel, that, while always unrelenting toward the wrong, we cannot be insensible to individual merits. In this spirit I offer a sincere tribute to a departed Senator, who, amid the perturbations of the times, trod his way with independent step, and won even from opponents the palm of character.

EQUALITY IN CIVIL RIGHTS.

LETTER TO THE COMMITTEE OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE ANNIVERSARY OF EMANCIPATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, APRIL 16, 1873.

The long procession stopped before Mr. Sumner’s house, where one of
the bands played “Auld Lang Syne.” Arriving in front of the City
Hall of Washington, they were addressed by R. T. Greene, Esq., and
also by Hon. Frederick Douglass. Letters were read from President
Grant, Senators Anthony, Pratt, and Sumner, Hon.’s Horace Maynard,
B. F. Butler, A. G. Riddle, S. J. Bowen, N. G. Ordway, and A. M.
Clapp. Mr. Sumner’s letter was as follows:--

WASHINGTON, April 16, 1873.

DEAR SIR,--I regret that it is not in my power to be with you
according to the invitation with which you have honored me. This is a
day whose associations are as precious to me as to you.

Emancipation in the national capital was the experiment which
prepared the way for Emancipation everywhere throughout the country.
It was the beginning of the great end.

Here, as in other things, you are an example to our colored
fellow-citizens in the States. Your success here will vindicate the
capacity of colored people for citizenship, and your whole race will
be benefited thereby.

Let me speak frankly. Much has been done, but more remains to be
done. The great work is not yet accomplished. Until your equality
in civil rights is assured, the pillar of your citizenship is like
the column in honor of Washington,--unfinished and imperfect. There
is constant talk of finishing that column at great cost of money,
but the first thing to be done is to finish the pillar of your
citizenship. Here I shall gladly work; but I trust that you will all
work likewise, nor be content with anything less than the whole.

Accept my thanks and best wishes, and believe me, dear Sir,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO THE CHAIRMAN.

EQUAL RIGHTS OF COLORED FELLOW-CITIZENS IN NORMAL SCHOOLS.

LETTER READ AT A PUBLIC MEETING IN WASHINGTON, JUNE 22, 1873.

A proposition in the Legislature of the District of Columbia,
opening the Normal School without distinction of color, failed
through the vote of a colored member, which was the occasion of
the following letter, written in reply to an inquiry. The letter
was read by the chairman of a public meeting of colored citizens
on the evening of June 30, 1873, who said he had conferred with
distinguished gentlemen, legal and otherwise, regarding the right
of the District Legislature to pass such a bill, and all had stated
that their power was unquestionable. He had addressed a letter to
the Hon. Charles Sumner upon that question, and had received the
following reply:--

WASHINGTON, June 22, 1873.

DEAR SIR,--In reply to your inquiry, I have no hesitation in saying
that in my judgment the right of the District Legislature to provide
a normal school where there shall be no distinction of color is
beyond doubt. To call it in question is simply ridiculous.

Having the right, the duty of the Legislature is clear as sunshine.
It must open the school to all, without distinction of color. Should
any persons be shut out from this right on the wretched apology of
color, I trust they will make their indignation felt by the guilty
authors of the outrage.

I write plainly, because the time has come for those who love justice
to speak out. Too long have colored fellow-citizens been deprived of
their rights; they must insist upon them.

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

THE PRESIDENT OF HAYTI AND MR. SUMNER.

LETTER IN REPLY TO ONE FROM THE FORMER, JULY 4, 1873.

The following is a translation of the Haytian President’s letter:--

REPUBLIC OF HAYTI, PORT-AU-PRINCE,
September 24, 1872.

Sixty-Ninth Year of Independence.

HONORABLE SENATOR,--I eagerly seize the good opportunity
offered me by the departure of our Minister, Citizen S.
Preston, to pray you to receive the testimony of my high
consideration, which does not cease to grow, by reason of the
eminent services which you render daily to the noble cause of
an oppressed people.

I should consider myself as failing in one of my most imperious
duties, if I did not express to you the sentiments of gratitude
which your name awakens in the breast of every one belonging to
the African race.

In assuming the defence of the rights of this people, guided by
the most generous sentiments of your rich nature, by a sincere
love of justice, you have acquired an immortal title to the
gratitude of all the descendants of the African race.

Please to receive this feeble expression of my high esteem for
the noble character of an illustrious citizen, and believe in
the depth of sentiment with which I declare myself, Honorable
Senator,

Your devoted friend,

NISAGE SAGET.

MR. SUMNER’S REPLY.

WASHINGTON, July 4, 1873.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I cannot, at this late day, acknowledge the letter
with which you have honored me, without explaining the reason of my
delay.

Owing to absence in Europe, where I had gone for my health, I did not
receive your valuable communication until some time in the winter,
when it was put into my hands by your excellent Minister. Continuing
feeble in health, I reluctantly postponed this acknowledgment. I now
take advantage of convalescence to do, thus tardily, what my feelings
prompted at an earlier day.

Please, Sir, accept my thanks for your generous appreciation of what
I have done, and your kindness in letting me know it under your own
hand. But I beg you to understand that I do not deserve the praise
with which you honor me. In advocating the cause of an oppressed
people I have only acted according to my conscience. I could not have
done otherwise; and now my only regret is that I have done so little.
I wish I had done more.

In the history of mankind the crime against the African race will
stand forth in terrible eminence,--always observed, and never
forgotten. Just in proportion as civilization prevails will this
enormous wrong be apparent in its true character; and men will read
with astonishment how human beings, guilty only of being black,
were sold into slavery, and then (such was the continuing injustice
towards this unhappy people) how, when slavery ceased, they were
still treated with indignity by persons whose lordly pretensions were
founded on the skin only. As these things are seen in increasing
light, they will be condemned in no uncertain words; nor will the
denial of equal rights, on account of color, escape the judgment
awarded to slavery itself. Human conduct on this question is a
measure of character. Where the African race is enslaved or degraded,
where it is exposed to any indignity or shut out from that equality
which is a primal right to humanity, there civilization is still
feeble.

To the certain triumph of civilization I look with constant hope. It
is sure to come; and one sign of its arrival will be that prevailing
sentiment which recognizes the perpetual obligations of equal justice
to all, and the duty to repair past wrongs by compensations in the
future.

In the great debt of the whites to the blacks there is a bank from
which, for generations to come, the latter can draw.

Accept, Mr. President, the expression of my ardent hope for the
peace, prosperity, and happiness of the Republic of Hayti, and allow
me to subscribe myself with true regard,

Your faithful friend,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF HAYTI.

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

LETTER TO HENRY RICHARD, M. P., ON THE VOTE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AGREEING TO HIS MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS TO THE QUEEN, PRAYING COMMUNICATION WITH FOREIGN POWERS WITH A VIEW TO A GENERAL AND PERMANENT SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION, JULY 10, 1873.

UNITED STATES SENATE CHAMBER, WASHINGTON,
July 10, 1873.

MY DEAR SIR,--Few events have given me more pleasure than the vote on
your motion. I thank you for making the motion; and I thank you also
for not yielding to Mr. Gladstone’s request to withdraw it. You were
in the very position of Buxton on his motion against Slavery. He,
too, insisted upon a division; and that vote led to Emancipation. May
you have equal success!

I anticipate much from this vote. It will draw attention on the
Continent, which the facts and figures of your speech will confirm.

I find in your speech grand compensation for the long postponement to
which you have been constrained. It marks an epoch in a great cause.
I know you will not rest. But this speech alone, with the signal
result, will make your Parliamentary life historic. Surely Mr.
Gladstone acted under some imagined exigency of politics. He cannot,
in his soul, differ from you. Honoring him much, I regret that he has
allowed himself to appear on the wrong side. What fame so great as
his, if he would devote the just influence of his lofty position to
securing for nations the inappreciable benefits of a tribunal for the
settlement of their differences!

How absurd to call your motion Utopian, if by this word is meant that
it is not practical. There is no question so supremely practical;
for it concerns not merely one nation, but every nation; and even
its discussion promises to diminish the terrible chances of war. Its
triumph would be the greatest reform of history. And I doubt not that
this day is near.

Accept my thanks and congratulations, and believe me, my dear Sir,

Sincerely yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

HENRY RICHARD, ESQ., M.P., LONDON.

A COMMON-SCHOOL SYSTEM IRRESPECTIVE OF COLOR.

LETTER TO THE COLORED CITIZENS OF WASHINGTON, JULY 29, 1873.

WASHINGTON, July 29, 1873.

GENTLEMEN,--I am honored by your communication of July 26th, in
which, after congratulating me upon returning health, and expressing
your sincere hopes that I may resume my labors in the Senate, there
to take up again the cause of Equal Rights, you mention that the
colored citizens of Washington are now engaged in agitating what you
properly call “a common-school system for all children.”

I desire to thank you for the good-will to myself which your
communication exhibits, and for your hopes that I may again in the
Senate take up the cause of Equal Rights. Health itself is valuable
only as it enables us to perform the duties of life, and I know no
present duty more commanding than that to which you refer.

I confess a true pleasure in learning that the colored people are
at last rising to take the good cause into their own hands, because
through them its triumph is certain. But they must be in earnest.
They must insist and labor, then labor and insist again. Only in
this way can indifference, which is worse even than the stubbornness
of opposition, be overcome. The open foe can be met. It is hard to
deal with that dulness which feels no throb at the thought of opening
to all complete equality in the pursuit of happiness.

Permit me to remind you, Gentlemen, that, living at the national
capital, you have a peculiar responsibility. In the warfare for
Equal Rights you are the advance guard, sometimes the forlorn hope.
You are animated to move forward, not only for your own immediate
good, but because through you the whole colored population of the
country will be benefited. What is secured for you will be secured
for all,--while, if you fail, there is small hope elsewhere. Do not
forget--and let this thought arouse to increased exertion--that your
triumph will redound to the good of all.

The District of Columbia is the place where all the great reforms
born of the war have begun. It is the experimental garden and nursery
where all the generous plants have been tried. Emancipation, colored
suffrage, the right of colored persons to testify, and the right to
ride in the street-cars,--all these began here, and I remember well
how they were all encountered.

On the abolition of Slavery we were solemnly warned that riot,
confusion, and chaos would ensue. Emancipation took place, and not a
voice or sound was heard except of peace and gladness. I was soberly
assured by eminent politicians, that if colored persons were allowed
to vote there would be massacre at the polls. Then, again, colored
testimony was deprecated,--while it was insisted that the street-cars
would be ruined, if opened to colored persons. But all these changes,
demanded by simple justice, have been in every way beneficent.
Nobody would reverse them now. Who would establish Slavery again? Who
would drive the colored citizen from the polls? Who would exclude
him from the court-room? Who would shut him from the street-cars?
And now the old objections are revived, and made to do service
again, in order to defeat the effort for common schools,--being
schools founded on the very principle of Equal Rights recognized in
the elective franchise, in the court-room, and in the street-car.
If this principle is just for all the latter,--and nobody says the
contrary now,--why hesitate to apply it in education? How often we
are enjoined to train the child in the way he should go! Why, then,
compel him in those tender years to bear the ban of exclusion? Why,
at that early period, when impressions are received for life, impose
upon him the badge of inferiority? He is to be a man; therefore he
must be trained to that self-respect without which there can be no
true manhood. But this can be only by removing all ban of exclusion,
and every badge of inferiority from color.

As the old objections are revived, so again do I present the great
truth announced by our fathers in the Declaration of Independence,
“that all men are created equal.” Admitting this principle as a
rule of conduct, the separation of children in the public schools
on account of color is absolutely indefensible. In abolishing it we
simply bring our schools into conformity with the requirements of the
Declaration.

To the objection that this change will injure the schools, I reply
that this is contrary to experience in other places, where the
commingling of children according to the genius of republican
institutions has been found excellent in influence. And I further
reply by insisting now, as I always do, upon that justice to an
oppressed race which has been too long delayed, and which never fails
to be a well-spring of strength and happiness, blessing all who help
it and all who receive it.

Feeling as I do on this question, you will understand that I cannot
see without regret any opportunity neglected of advancing the cause,
especially among colored fellow-citizens. On this they should be a
unit. Wherever the question presents itself, whether in Congress, or
the Legislative Chambers of the District, or the popular assembly,
there should be a solid vote against every discrimination on account
of color. It is easy for lawyers and politicians to find excuses
according to their desires; but no fine-spun theory or technicality
should be allowed to prevail against the commanding principle.

Accept my best wishes, and believe me, Gentlemen,

Your faithful friend,

CHARLES SUMNER.

HENRY PIPER, Chairman.

BOSTON: ITS PROPER BOUNDARIES.

LETTER TO HON. G. W. WARREN, OF CHARLESTOWN, ON THE ANNEXION TO BOSTON OF THE SUBURBAN TOWNS, OCTOBER 4, 1873.

COOLIDGE HOUSE, October 4, 1873.

DEAR MR. WARREN,--I should be glad to meet your friends in a
conference on the question, How Boston shall be rounded so as
to be in reality itself. I cannot meet with you, but I unite in
your purpose, as I understand it, and especially with regard to
Charlestown.

I doubt if the future Boston will be content until it holds and
possesses all the territory which hugs the harbor bearing its name,
so that in Boston harbor nobody shall land except in Boston.

Evidently Boston should contain all Bostonians, which it does not
now. I know no better way of accomplishing this result than by
widening the circle of its jurisdiction.

But there is a stronger reason. Every capital is a natural focus
of life, politically, socially, and commercially; and every person
living in this natural focus properly belongs to the capital. So it
is with London, Paris, and Vienna,--each of which is composed of
suburbs and faubourgs grouped about the original city; and so in
reality it is with Boston,--for the places about the city, though
called by different names, are parts of the same unity, which needs
nothing now but a common name.

A capital may be artificial or natural. The artificial body is
that formed by original unchangeable boundaries. The natural body
is that combination, cluster, or expansion which changes with the
developments of time and to meet the growing exigencies.

With these views, I find the various processes of annexion only a
natural manifestation, to be encouraged always, and to be welcomed
under proper conditions of population and public opinion. I say
“annexion” rather than “annexation.” Where a word is so much used,
better save a syllable,--especially as the shorter is the better.

Ever sincerely yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

This letter appeared just previously to the vote on the
annexion to Boston of Charlestown, West Roxbury, Brighton, and
Brookline,--which was taken on the first Tuesday of October, 1873,
with a favorable result as to the first three municipalities.

YELLOW FEVER AT MEMPHIS AND SHREVEPORT: AID FOR THE SUFFERERS.

REMARKS BEFORE THE BOARD OF TRADE AT BOSTON, OCTOBER 24, 1873.

At a meeting in aid of the sufferers by yellow fever in Memphis
(Tennessee) and Shreveport (Louisiana), held at the rooms of the
Board of Trade in Boston, at which the Mayor, Hon. Henry L. Pierce,
presided, after remarks by Mr. Pierce and Hon. Alexander H. Rice,
Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. MAYOR,--I have come less for speech than to show by my presence here the sincere interest I feel in the present meeting. For what can I say to prompt the generosity of Boston merchants? They understand this call, and their hearts have already answered it.

It is hard to hear of suffering anywhere without longing to relieve it. But happily now all impediment of distance is removed; and such are the facilities of communication that before the set of sun your contributions will brighten the faces of those distant sufferers. Do not think of distance. It is nothing. If Boston should be startled by hearing to-day that pestilence had appeared in one of our new-found possessions, as in Charlestown,--or even in Brookline, which will not be annexed,--we should feel the ties of neighborhood. But Memphis and Shreveport are neighbors by telegraph and steam, and the grander ties of a common country, which the ancient Roman orator called the “great charity comprehending all.”[228] Besides, there is that other more touching neighborhood which springs from suffering,--for I do not forget the divine hymn which teaches that

“Our neighbor is the suffering man,
Though at the farthest pole.”[229]

In these latter days, my friends, distress has come less from pestilence than from conflagration. The Fire Fiend has been more active than the other demon, and property has suffered more than life. Such are the favoring conditions of climate and the general security of health in our country, that we are rarely disturbed by contagion. But it has come at last with the “reaper whose name is Death.”