Mr. Mason rejoined: “I did not undertake to lecture the Senator, of all others, upon the subject of manners or propriety. I do not mean it offensively, but, for my own convenience, I should consider it time thrown away. All that I said was, that I was not accustomed, in my intercourse with the world outside of this Chamber, to hear language of that sort in the circles in which I move.”April 17, 1860, the memorial of Mr. Sanborn was referred to the Judiciary Committee, according to the motion of Mr. Sumner.June 7, Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the return of the Deputy-Marshal and the other papers, reported a “Bill concerning the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate and the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives,” authorizing the appointment of deputies. This was intended to meet the decision of Chief Justice Shaw, of Massachusetts.[23]June 15, Mr. Bayard moved to proceed with the consideration of his bill. The motion was not agreed to,—there being, on a division, ayes 22, noes 25. This was the end of that bill.This incident was much noticed by the Northern press, especially in Massachusetts. The BostonAtlas and Beeexpressed itself thus:—“In our opinion the people of the Free States are never better satisfied with their representatives than when they see them repelling indignantly and manfully the arrogant insults of the slave-driving aristocracy. It will not diminish their attachment to Mr. Sumner, when they take notice that his rebuke of Mr. Mason was not in reply to any insult upon himself, but upon one of his outraged and abused constituents.”
Mr. Mason rejoined: “I did not undertake to lecture the Senator, of all others, upon the subject of manners or propriety. I do not mean it offensively, but, for my own convenience, I should consider it time thrown away. All that I said was, that I was not accustomed, in my intercourse with the world outside of this Chamber, to hear language of that sort in the circles in which I move.”
April 17, 1860, the memorial of Mr. Sanborn was referred to the Judiciary Committee, according to the motion of Mr. Sumner.
June 7, Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the return of the Deputy-Marshal and the other papers, reported a “Bill concerning the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate and the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives,” authorizing the appointment of deputies. This was intended to meet the decision of Chief Justice Shaw, of Massachusetts.[23]
June 15, Mr. Bayard moved to proceed with the consideration of his bill. The motion was not agreed to,—there being, on a division, ayes 22, noes 25. This was the end of that bill.
This incident was much noticed by the Northern press, especially in Massachusetts. The BostonAtlas and Beeexpressed itself thus:—
“In our opinion the people of the Free States are never better satisfied with their representatives than when they see them repelling indignantly and manfully the arrogant insults of the slave-driving aristocracy. It will not diminish their attachment to Mr. Sumner, when they take notice that his rebuke of Mr. Mason was not in reply to any insult upon himself, but upon one of his outraged and abused constituents.”
“In our opinion the people of the Free States are never better satisfied with their representatives than when they see them repelling indignantly and manfully the arrogant insults of the slave-driving aristocracy. It will not diminish their attachment to Mr. Sumner, when they take notice that his rebuke of Mr. Mason was not in reply to any insult upon himself, but upon one of his outraged and abused constituents.”
Speech in the Senate, April 18, 1860.
The treatment of these petitions illustrates the tyranny of the Slave Power to the very eve of its fall. Such an incident is not without historic significance.
The treatment of these petitions illustrates the tyranny of the Slave Power to the very eve of its fall. Such an incident is not without historic significance.
MR. PRESIDENT,—I present the petition of Henry Elwell, Jr., and four hundred and fifty-five others, of Manchester, in Massachusetts, earnestly petitioning Congress to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850,—to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia, and in the United States Territories,—to prohibit the inter-State slave-trade,—and to pass a resolution pledging Congress against the admission of any Slave State into the Union, the acquisition of any Slave Territory, and the employment of any slaves by any agent, contractor, officer, or department of the National Government; also, a like petition of Alvan Howes and fifty-five others, of Barnstable, Massachusetts; also, a like petition of John Clement and one hundred and nineteen others, of Townsend, Massachusetts; also, a like petition of Samuel L. Rockwood and seventy-three others, of Weymouth, Massachusetts; also, a like petition of J. H. Browne and sixty-four others, of Sudbury, Massachusetts; also, a like petition of Daniel Hosmer and ninety-eight others, of Sterling, Massachusetts; also, a like petition of AlbertGould and one hundred and thirty-one others of Leicester, Massachusetts; also, a like petition of James M. Evelett and two hundred others, of Princeton, Massachusetts; also, a like petition of Daniel Otis and seventy-nine others, of South Scituate, Massachusetts; also, a like petition of Calvin Cutter and eighty-four others, of Warren, Massachusetts; also, a like petition of R. W. French and thirty others, of Lawrence, Massachusetts; also, a like petition of Edmund H. Sears and two hundred and forty-five others, of Wayland, Massachusetts.
These several petitions I now present. On a former occasion, during this session, a similar petition presented by me was laid upon the table. A similar petition presented by another Senator was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. An authoritative precedent, established after debate, since I have been in the Senate, seems to be the best guide on this occasion. That was on a memorial from four thousand citizens of Boston, praying the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act. After ample consideration, during which much was said against the memorialists, no proposition was made to lay their prayer on the table. Following that precedent, and another established during the present session, I move that all these petitions be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. Mason, of Virginia, at once moved that the petitions lie on the table, thus precluding debate and stifling action. The yeas and nays were ordered on motion of Mr. Sumner, and resulted as follows, 25 yeas and 19 nays:—Yeas,—Messrs. Bayard, Bragg, Chesnut, Clay, Clingman, Crittenden, Davis, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Gwin, Hemphill, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Latham,Mason, Nicholson, Polk, Rice, Sebastian, Slidell, and Thomson,—25.Nays,—Messrs. Bingham, Cameron, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Hamlin, King, Seward, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, and Wilson,—19.So the petitions were ordered to lie on the table. The Democrats all voted yea; the Republicans all voted nay.
Mr. Mason, of Virginia, at once moved that the petitions lie on the table, thus precluding debate and stifling action. The yeas and nays were ordered on motion of Mr. Sumner, and resulted as follows, 25 yeas and 19 nays:—
Yeas,—Messrs. Bayard, Bragg, Chesnut, Clay, Clingman, Crittenden, Davis, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Gwin, Hemphill, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Latham,Mason, Nicholson, Polk, Rice, Sebastian, Slidell, and Thomson,—25.
Nays,—Messrs. Bingham, Cameron, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Hamlin, King, Seward, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, and Wilson,—19.
So the petitions were ordered to lie on the table. The Democrats all voted yea; the Republicans all voted nay.
Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, May 21, 1860.
May 21, 1860, Mr. Sumner introduced the following resolution.“Resolved, That the Committee on Commerce be instructed to consider the expediency of further action, in order to secure proper accommodations and proper safety for passengers on board the steamers between New York and San Francisco, and to increase the efficacy of the existing passenger laws of the United States in their application to California passengers; with liberty to report by bill or otherwise.”The Senate, by unanimous consent, proceeded to consider the resolution.
May 21, 1860, Mr. Sumner introduced the following resolution.
“Resolved, That the Committee on Commerce be instructed to consider the expediency of further action, in order to secure proper accommodations and proper safety for passengers on board the steamers between New York and San Francisco, and to increase the efficacy of the existing passenger laws of the United States in their application to California passengers; with liberty to report by bill or otherwise.”
“Resolved, That the Committee on Commerce be instructed to consider the expediency of further action, in order to secure proper accommodations and proper safety for passengers on board the steamers between New York and San Francisco, and to increase the efficacy of the existing passenger laws of the United States in their application to California passengers; with liberty to report by bill or otherwise.”
The Senate, by unanimous consent, proceeded to consider the resolution.
MR. PRESIDENT,—I see the Senator from California [Mr.Latham] in his place, and I very gladly take the opportunity of calling his attention particularly to the resolution which I now have the honor to offer. By a communication in the newspapers, from a distinguished source,—a clergyman, who, during the last two months, sailed from Boston to San Francisco,[24]—it appears that the steamers are overloaded with passengers, and without adequate accommodations of other kinds for safety. His statement on the subject is explicit, and has been made in the newspapers, as also in private letters to his friends. I do not know that the evil can be reached by any additional legislation;perhaps no additional legislation is needed; but it is an evil which should be remedied in some way, or else we shall be startled some morning by the news of a great calamity,—the loss of one of these steamers, with, it may be, a thousand passengers.
Letter to a Ratification Meeting at Buffalo, New York, May 30, 1860.
This was addressed to a meeting at Buffalo for the ratification of the nomination of Abraham Lincoln as President and Hannibal Hamlin as Vice-President.
This was addressed to a meeting at Buffalo for the ratification of the nomination of Abraham Lincoln as President and Hannibal Hamlin as Vice-President.
Senate Chamber, May 30, 1860.DEAR SIR,—My duties here will not allow me to be with you at Buffalo; but I shall unite with you in every generous word uttered for Freedom, and in every pledge of enthusiastic support to the Republican candidates.We have a Platform of noble principles, and candidates, each of whom, through his well-known principles and integrity of character, is a Platform in himself.Accept my thanks for the honor of your invitation, and believe me, dear Sir,Faithfully yours,Charles Sumner.A. W. Harvey, Esq.
Senate Chamber, May 30, 1860.
DEAR SIR,—My duties here will not allow me to be with you at Buffalo; but I shall unite with you in every generous word uttered for Freedom, and in every pledge of enthusiastic support to the Republican candidates.
We have a Platform of noble principles, and candidates, each of whom, through his well-known principles and integrity of character, is a Platform in himself.
Accept my thanks for the honor of your invitation, and believe me, dear Sir,
Faithfully yours,
Charles Sumner.
A. W. Harvey, Esq.
Speech in the Senate, on the Bill for the Admission of Kansas as a Free State, June 4, 1860.
Thou art a slave, whom Fortune’s tender armWith favor never clasped, but bred a dog.Shakespeare,Timon of Athens, Act IV. Sc. 3.A universe of death, which God by curseCreated evil, for evil only good,Where all life dies, death lives, and Nature breeds,Perverse, all monstrous, all prodigious things.Milton,Paradise Lost, Book II. 622-625.Onward! onward!With the night-wind,Over field and farm and forest,Lonely homestead, darksome hamlet,Blighting all we breathe upon!Longfellow,Golden Legend.Instrumenti genus vocale, et semivocale, et mutum:vocale, in quo sunt servi; semivocale, in quo sunt boves; mutum, in quo sunt plaustra.—Varro,De Re Rustica, Lib. I. cap. xvii. § 1.Nil metuunt jurare, nihil promittere parcunt;Dicta nihil metuere, nihil perjuria curant.Catullus,Carm.LXIV. 146, 148.Pone crucem servo.—Meruit quo crimine servusSupplicium? quis testis adest? quis detulit? Audi;Nulla unquam de morte hominis cunctatio longa est.—O demens, ita servus homo est? Nil fecerit, esto:Hoc volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas.Juvenal.Sat.VI. 219-223.There is a tradition of the Prophet having said, that the greatest mortification at the Day of Judgment will be when the pious slave is carried to Paradise and the wicked master condemned to Hell.—Saadi,The Gulistan, tr. Gladwin, p. 242.“And the Black Oppressor am I called. And for this reason I am called the Black Oppressor, that there is not a single man around me whom I have not oppressed, and justice have I done unto none.” … “Since thou hast, indeed, been an oppressor so long,” said Peredur, “I will cause that thou continue so no longer.” So he slew him.—The Mabinogion, tr. Lady Charlotte Guest, Vol. I. pp. 341, 342.After we had secured these people, I called the linguists, and ordered them to bid the men-negroes between decks be quiet (for there was a great noise amongst them). On their being silent, I asked, What had induced them to mutiny? They answered,I was a great rogue to buy themin order to carry them away from their own country, and that they were resolved to regain their liberty, if possible.—Snelgrave,New Account of some Parts of Guinea and the Slave-Trade, p. 170.A system of concubinage was practised among them worse than the loose polygamy of the savages: the savage had as many women as consented to become his wives; the colonist as many as he could enslave. There is an ineffaceable stigma upon the Europeans in their intercourse with those whom they treat as inferior races; there is a perpetual contradiction between their lust and their avarice. The planter will one day take a slave for his harlot, and sell her the next as a being of some lower species, a beast of labor. If she be indeed an inferior animal, what shall be said of the one action? If she be equally with himself a human being and an immortal soul, what shall be said of the other? Either way there is a crime committed against human nature.—Southey,History of Brazil, Chap. VIII., Vol. I. p. 258.Negro slavery exists in no part of the world without producing indolence, licentiousness, and inhumanity in the whites; and these vices draw after them their earthly punishment,—to look no farther into their fearful, but assured consequences.—Ibid., Chap. XLIV., Vol. III. p. 816.I had observed much, and heard more, of the cruelty of masters towards their negroes; but now I received an authentic account of some horrid instances thereof. The giving a child a slave of its own age to tyrannize over, to beat and abuse out of sport, was, I myself saw, a common practice. Nor is it strange, being thus trained up in cruelty, they should afterwardsarrive at so great perfection in it; that Mr. Star, a gentleman I often met at Mr. Lasserre’s, should, as he himself informed L., first nail up a negro by the ears, then order him to be whipped in the severest manner, and then to have scalding water thrown over him, so that the poor creature could not stir for four months after. Another much applauded punishment is drawing their slaves’ teeth. One ColonelLynchis universally known to have cut off a poor negro’s legs, and to kill several of them every year by his barbarities.—Rev. Charles Wesley,Journal, Charleston, S. C., August 2, 1736.You are to have no regard to the health, strength, comfort, natural affections, or moral feelings, or intellectual endowments of my negroes. You are only to consider what subsistence to allow them and what labor to exact of them will subserve my interest. According to the most accurate calculation I can make, the proportion of subsistence and labor which will work them up in six years upon an average is the most profitable to the planter. And this allowance, surely, is very humane; for we estimate here the lives of our coal-heavers, upon an average, at only two years, … and our soldiers and seamen no matter what.—A West-India Planter’s Instructions for his Overseers:John Adams,Works, Vol. X. pp. 339, 340.The unfortunate man would have been tried upon five other indictments, some of them still more atrocious than the one upon which he was found guilty; and his general character for barbarity was so notorious that no room was left for me even to deliberate. His victims have been numerous; some of them were even buried in their chains, and there have been found upon the bones taken from the grave chains and iron rings of near forty pounds’ weight.… He had been three times married, has left several children; he had been in the Army, had a liberal education, and lived in what is called the great world. His manners and address were those of a gentleman. Cruelty appears in him to have been the effect of violence of temper,and habit had made him regardless of the death and suffering of a slave.—Right Hon. Hugh Elliot, Governor of the Leeward Islands:Memoir, by theCountess of Minto, pp. 409, 410.Is slavery less slavery in a Christian than in a Mahometan country? I entreat your attention, while I plead the general cause of humanity. In such a cause it is right to appeal to your sensibility as well as your reason. It is now no longer time to flatter petty tyrants by acknowledging that color constitutes a legitimate title for holding men in abject and perpetual bondage. In support of this usurpation what can be urged but the law of the strongest?—Col. David Humphreys,Valedictory Discourse before the Cincinnati of Connecticut, July 4, 1804, p. 29.Christianity suppressed slavery, but the Christians of the sixteenth century reëstablished it,—as an exception, indeed, to their social system, and restricted to one of the races of mankind; but the wound thus inflictedupon humanity, though less extensive, was far more difficult of cure.—Tocqueville,Democracy in America, ed. Bowen, Chap. XVIII. sec. 2, Vol. I. p. 457.The Kentuckian delights in violent bodily exertion; he is familiar with the use of arms, and is accustomed from a very early age to expose his life in single combat.… Were I inclined to continue this parallel, I could easily prove that almost all the differences which may be remarked between the characters of the Americans in the Southern and in the Northern States have originated in Slavery.—Ibid., pp. 467, 468.I visited our State Penitentiary a short time since, and from my own personal observation I am led to the inevitable conclusion that the plan of sending our slaves to the Penitentiary, as apunishmentfor crime, is exactly the reverse: it is rather a reward than punishment. “Let sober reason judge.”We punish offenders to prevent crime. I would ask any reasonable man, Is the sending a slave of any of our farms to the Penitentiary a punishment? The white man is punished by being deprived of his liberty for that length of time: what liberty is the slave deprived of? He has as much, and oftentimesmore, liberty within the walls of the Penitentiary than on any of those large sugar or cotton plantations. Then where is the punishment? We send white men there, and the dread of going is astainon his character: what character has the negro to lose? Hence we must come to the conclusion that sending negro slaves to the Penitentiary is not a punishment.A moment’s reflection will convince any man who has ever had the management of negroes on a plantation, that the well-being and safety of societies demand that any offence committed by a negro, for which thelashis not a sufficient punishment,deathshould be the penalty.Taking these things into consideration, would it not be just and laudable to sell all negroes now in the Penitentiary to the highest bidder, on or about the first of November next, by the Sheriff of the Parish of East Baton Rouge, on the same terms and conditions that negroes are sold at present, under an ordinaryfi. fa., and, as near as can be, two thirds of the net proceeds of each negro be paid to the former owners or their legal representatives, the balance be and remain in the State Treasury for ordinary purposes?—Weekly Advocate, Baton Rouge, La., Jan. 17, 1858.
Thou art a slave, whom Fortune’s tender armWith favor never clasped, but bred a dog.Shakespeare,Timon of Athens, Act IV. Sc. 3.A universe of death, which God by curseCreated evil, for evil only good,Where all life dies, death lives, and Nature breeds,Perverse, all monstrous, all prodigious things.Milton,Paradise Lost, Book II. 622-625.Onward! onward!With the night-wind,Over field and farm and forest,Lonely homestead, darksome hamlet,Blighting all we breathe upon!Longfellow,Golden Legend.
Thou art a slave, whom Fortune’s tender armWith favor never clasped, but bred a dog.Shakespeare,Timon of Athens, Act IV. Sc. 3.A universe of death, which God by curseCreated evil, for evil only good,Where all life dies, death lives, and Nature breeds,Perverse, all monstrous, all prodigious things.Milton,Paradise Lost, Book II. 622-625.Onward! onward!With the night-wind,Over field and farm and forest,Lonely homestead, darksome hamlet,Blighting all we breathe upon!Longfellow,Golden Legend.
Thou art a slave, whom Fortune’s tender arm
With favor never clasped, but bred a dog.
Shakespeare,Timon of Athens, Act IV. Sc. 3.
A universe of death, which God by curse
Created evil, for evil only good,
Where all life dies, death lives, and Nature breeds,
Perverse, all monstrous, all prodigious things.
Milton,Paradise Lost, Book II. 622-625.
Onward! onward!
With the night-wind,
Over field and farm and forest,
Lonely homestead, darksome hamlet,
Blighting all we breathe upon!
Longfellow,Golden Legend.
Instrumenti genus vocale, et semivocale, et mutum:vocale, in quo sunt servi; semivocale, in quo sunt boves; mutum, in quo sunt plaustra.—Varro,De Re Rustica, Lib. I. cap. xvii. § 1.
Instrumenti genus vocale, et semivocale, et mutum:vocale, in quo sunt servi; semivocale, in quo sunt boves; mutum, in quo sunt plaustra.—Varro,De Re Rustica, Lib. I. cap. xvii. § 1.
Nil metuunt jurare, nihil promittere parcunt;Dicta nihil metuere, nihil perjuria curant.Catullus,Carm.LXIV. 146, 148.Pone crucem servo.—Meruit quo crimine servusSupplicium? quis testis adest? quis detulit? Audi;Nulla unquam de morte hominis cunctatio longa est.—O demens, ita servus homo est? Nil fecerit, esto:Hoc volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas.Juvenal.Sat.VI. 219-223.
Nil metuunt jurare, nihil promittere parcunt;Dicta nihil metuere, nihil perjuria curant.Catullus,Carm.LXIV. 146, 148.Pone crucem servo.—Meruit quo crimine servusSupplicium? quis testis adest? quis detulit? Audi;Nulla unquam de morte hominis cunctatio longa est.—O demens, ita servus homo est? Nil fecerit, esto:Hoc volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas.Juvenal.Sat.VI. 219-223.
Nil metuunt jurare, nihil promittere parcunt;
Dicta nihil metuere, nihil perjuria curant.
Catullus,Carm.LXIV. 146, 148.
Pone crucem servo.—Meruit quo crimine servus
Supplicium? quis testis adest? quis detulit? Audi;
Nulla unquam de morte hominis cunctatio longa est.—
O demens, ita servus homo est? Nil fecerit, esto:
Hoc volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas.
Juvenal.Sat.VI. 219-223.
There is a tradition of the Prophet having said, that the greatest mortification at the Day of Judgment will be when the pious slave is carried to Paradise and the wicked master condemned to Hell.—Saadi,The Gulistan, tr. Gladwin, p. 242.
There is a tradition of the Prophet having said, that the greatest mortification at the Day of Judgment will be when the pious slave is carried to Paradise and the wicked master condemned to Hell.—Saadi,The Gulistan, tr. Gladwin, p. 242.
“And the Black Oppressor am I called. And for this reason I am called the Black Oppressor, that there is not a single man around me whom I have not oppressed, and justice have I done unto none.” … “Since thou hast, indeed, been an oppressor so long,” said Peredur, “I will cause that thou continue so no longer.” So he slew him.—The Mabinogion, tr. Lady Charlotte Guest, Vol. I. pp. 341, 342.
“And the Black Oppressor am I called. And for this reason I am called the Black Oppressor, that there is not a single man around me whom I have not oppressed, and justice have I done unto none.” … “Since thou hast, indeed, been an oppressor so long,” said Peredur, “I will cause that thou continue so no longer.” So he slew him.—The Mabinogion, tr. Lady Charlotte Guest, Vol. I. pp. 341, 342.
After we had secured these people, I called the linguists, and ordered them to bid the men-negroes between decks be quiet (for there was a great noise amongst them). On their being silent, I asked, What had induced them to mutiny? They answered,I was a great rogue to buy themin order to carry them away from their own country, and that they were resolved to regain their liberty, if possible.—Snelgrave,New Account of some Parts of Guinea and the Slave-Trade, p. 170.
After we had secured these people, I called the linguists, and ordered them to bid the men-negroes between decks be quiet (for there was a great noise amongst them). On their being silent, I asked, What had induced them to mutiny? They answered,I was a great rogue to buy themin order to carry them away from their own country, and that they were resolved to regain their liberty, if possible.—Snelgrave,New Account of some Parts of Guinea and the Slave-Trade, p. 170.
A system of concubinage was practised among them worse than the loose polygamy of the savages: the savage had as many women as consented to become his wives; the colonist as many as he could enslave. There is an ineffaceable stigma upon the Europeans in their intercourse with those whom they treat as inferior races; there is a perpetual contradiction between their lust and their avarice. The planter will one day take a slave for his harlot, and sell her the next as a being of some lower species, a beast of labor. If she be indeed an inferior animal, what shall be said of the one action? If she be equally with himself a human being and an immortal soul, what shall be said of the other? Either way there is a crime committed against human nature.—Southey,History of Brazil, Chap. VIII., Vol. I. p. 258.
A system of concubinage was practised among them worse than the loose polygamy of the savages: the savage had as many women as consented to become his wives; the colonist as many as he could enslave. There is an ineffaceable stigma upon the Europeans in their intercourse with those whom they treat as inferior races; there is a perpetual contradiction between their lust and their avarice. The planter will one day take a slave for his harlot, and sell her the next as a being of some lower species, a beast of labor. If she be indeed an inferior animal, what shall be said of the one action? If she be equally with himself a human being and an immortal soul, what shall be said of the other? Either way there is a crime committed against human nature.—Southey,History of Brazil, Chap. VIII., Vol. I. p. 258.
Negro slavery exists in no part of the world without producing indolence, licentiousness, and inhumanity in the whites; and these vices draw after them their earthly punishment,—to look no farther into their fearful, but assured consequences.—Ibid., Chap. XLIV., Vol. III. p. 816.
Negro slavery exists in no part of the world without producing indolence, licentiousness, and inhumanity in the whites; and these vices draw after them their earthly punishment,—to look no farther into their fearful, but assured consequences.—Ibid., Chap. XLIV., Vol. III. p. 816.
I had observed much, and heard more, of the cruelty of masters towards their negroes; but now I received an authentic account of some horrid instances thereof. The giving a child a slave of its own age to tyrannize over, to beat and abuse out of sport, was, I myself saw, a common practice. Nor is it strange, being thus trained up in cruelty, they should afterwardsarrive at so great perfection in it; that Mr. Star, a gentleman I often met at Mr. Lasserre’s, should, as he himself informed L., first nail up a negro by the ears, then order him to be whipped in the severest manner, and then to have scalding water thrown over him, so that the poor creature could not stir for four months after. Another much applauded punishment is drawing their slaves’ teeth. One ColonelLynchis universally known to have cut off a poor negro’s legs, and to kill several of them every year by his barbarities.—Rev. Charles Wesley,Journal, Charleston, S. C., August 2, 1736.
I had observed much, and heard more, of the cruelty of masters towards their negroes; but now I received an authentic account of some horrid instances thereof. The giving a child a slave of its own age to tyrannize over, to beat and abuse out of sport, was, I myself saw, a common practice. Nor is it strange, being thus trained up in cruelty, they should afterwardsarrive at so great perfection in it; that Mr. Star, a gentleman I often met at Mr. Lasserre’s, should, as he himself informed L., first nail up a negro by the ears, then order him to be whipped in the severest manner, and then to have scalding water thrown over him, so that the poor creature could not stir for four months after. Another much applauded punishment is drawing their slaves’ teeth. One ColonelLynchis universally known to have cut off a poor negro’s legs, and to kill several of them every year by his barbarities.—Rev. Charles Wesley,Journal, Charleston, S. C., August 2, 1736.
You are to have no regard to the health, strength, comfort, natural affections, or moral feelings, or intellectual endowments of my negroes. You are only to consider what subsistence to allow them and what labor to exact of them will subserve my interest. According to the most accurate calculation I can make, the proportion of subsistence and labor which will work them up in six years upon an average is the most profitable to the planter. And this allowance, surely, is very humane; for we estimate here the lives of our coal-heavers, upon an average, at only two years, … and our soldiers and seamen no matter what.—A West-India Planter’s Instructions for his Overseers:John Adams,Works, Vol. X. pp. 339, 340.
You are to have no regard to the health, strength, comfort, natural affections, or moral feelings, or intellectual endowments of my negroes. You are only to consider what subsistence to allow them and what labor to exact of them will subserve my interest. According to the most accurate calculation I can make, the proportion of subsistence and labor which will work them up in six years upon an average is the most profitable to the planter. And this allowance, surely, is very humane; for we estimate here the lives of our coal-heavers, upon an average, at only two years, … and our soldiers and seamen no matter what.—A West-India Planter’s Instructions for his Overseers:John Adams,Works, Vol. X. pp. 339, 340.
The unfortunate man would have been tried upon five other indictments, some of them still more atrocious than the one upon which he was found guilty; and his general character for barbarity was so notorious that no room was left for me even to deliberate. His victims have been numerous; some of them were even buried in their chains, and there have been found upon the bones taken from the grave chains and iron rings of near forty pounds’ weight.… He had been three times married, has left several children; he had been in the Army, had a liberal education, and lived in what is called the great world. His manners and address were those of a gentleman. Cruelty appears in him to have been the effect of violence of temper,and habit had made him regardless of the death and suffering of a slave.—Right Hon. Hugh Elliot, Governor of the Leeward Islands:Memoir, by theCountess of Minto, pp. 409, 410.
The unfortunate man would have been tried upon five other indictments, some of them still more atrocious than the one upon which he was found guilty; and his general character for barbarity was so notorious that no room was left for me even to deliberate. His victims have been numerous; some of them were even buried in their chains, and there have been found upon the bones taken from the grave chains and iron rings of near forty pounds’ weight.… He had been three times married, has left several children; he had been in the Army, had a liberal education, and lived in what is called the great world. His manners and address were those of a gentleman. Cruelty appears in him to have been the effect of violence of temper,and habit had made him regardless of the death and suffering of a slave.—Right Hon. Hugh Elliot, Governor of the Leeward Islands:Memoir, by theCountess of Minto, pp. 409, 410.
Is slavery less slavery in a Christian than in a Mahometan country? I entreat your attention, while I plead the general cause of humanity. In such a cause it is right to appeal to your sensibility as well as your reason. It is now no longer time to flatter petty tyrants by acknowledging that color constitutes a legitimate title for holding men in abject and perpetual bondage. In support of this usurpation what can be urged but the law of the strongest?—Col. David Humphreys,Valedictory Discourse before the Cincinnati of Connecticut, July 4, 1804, p. 29.
Is slavery less slavery in a Christian than in a Mahometan country? I entreat your attention, while I plead the general cause of humanity. In such a cause it is right to appeal to your sensibility as well as your reason. It is now no longer time to flatter petty tyrants by acknowledging that color constitutes a legitimate title for holding men in abject and perpetual bondage. In support of this usurpation what can be urged but the law of the strongest?—Col. David Humphreys,Valedictory Discourse before the Cincinnati of Connecticut, July 4, 1804, p. 29.
Christianity suppressed slavery, but the Christians of the sixteenth century reëstablished it,—as an exception, indeed, to their social system, and restricted to one of the races of mankind; but the wound thus inflictedupon humanity, though less extensive, was far more difficult of cure.—Tocqueville,Democracy in America, ed. Bowen, Chap. XVIII. sec. 2, Vol. I. p. 457.
Christianity suppressed slavery, but the Christians of the sixteenth century reëstablished it,—as an exception, indeed, to their social system, and restricted to one of the races of mankind; but the wound thus inflictedupon humanity, though less extensive, was far more difficult of cure.—Tocqueville,Democracy in America, ed. Bowen, Chap. XVIII. sec. 2, Vol. I. p. 457.
The Kentuckian delights in violent bodily exertion; he is familiar with the use of arms, and is accustomed from a very early age to expose his life in single combat.… Were I inclined to continue this parallel, I could easily prove that almost all the differences which may be remarked between the characters of the Americans in the Southern and in the Northern States have originated in Slavery.—Ibid., pp. 467, 468.
The Kentuckian delights in violent bodily exertion; he is familiar with the use of arms, and is accustomed from a very early age to expose his life in single combat.… Were I inclined to continue this parallel, I could easily prove that almost all the differences which may be remarked between the characters of the Americans in the Southern and in the Northern States have originated in Slavery.—Ibid., pp. 467, 468.
I visited our State Penitentiary a short time since, and from my own personal observation I am led to the inevitable conclusion that the plan of sending our slaves to the Penitentiary, as apunishmentfor crime, is exactly the reverse: it is rather a reward than punishment. “Let sober reason judge.”We punish offenders to prevent crime. I would ask any reasonable man, Is the sending a slave of any of our farms to the Penitentiary a punishment? The white man is punished by being deprived of his liberty for that length of time: what liberty is the slave deprived of? He has as much, and oftentimesmore, liberty within the walls of the Penitentiary than on any of those large sugar or cotton plantations. Then where is the punishment? We send white men there, and the dread of going is astainon his character: what character has the negro to lose? Hence we must come to the conclusion that sending negro slaves to the Penitentiary is not a punishment.A moment’s reflection will convince any man who has ever had the management of negroes on a plantation, that the well-being and safety of societies demand that any offence committed by a negro, for which thelashis not a sufficient punishment,deathshould be the penalty.Taking these things into consideration, would it not be just and laudable to sell all negroes now in the Penitentiary to the highest bidder, on or about the first of November next, by the Sheriff of the Parish of East Baton Rouge, on the same terms and conditions that negroes are sold at present, under an ordinaryfi. fa., and, as near as can be, two thirds of the net proceeds of each negro be paid to the former owners or their legal representatives, the balance be and remain in the State Treasury for ordinary purposes?—Weekly Advocate, Baton Rouge, La., Jan. 17, 1858.
I visited our State Penitentiary a short time since, and from my own personal observation I am led to the inevitable conclusion that the plan of sending our slaves to the Penitentiary, as apunishmentfor crime, is exactly the reverse: it is rather a reward than punishment. “Let sober reason judge.”
We punish offenders to prevent crime. I would ask any reasonable man, Is the sending a slave of any of our farms to the Penitentiary a punishment? The white man is punished by being deprived of his liberty for that length of time: what liberty is the slave deprived of? He has as much, and oftentimesmore, liberty within the walls of the Penitentiary than on any of those large sugar or cotton plantations. Then where is the punishment? We send white men there, and the dread of going is astainon his character: what character has the negro to lose? Hence we must come to the conclusion that sending negro slaves to the Penitentiary is not a punishment.
A moment’s reflection will convince any man who has ever had the management of negroes on a plantation, that the well-being and safety of societies demand that any offence committed by a negro, for which thelashis not a sufficient punishment,deathshould be the penalty.
Taking these things into consideration, would it not be just and laudable to sell all negroes now in the Penitentiary to the highest bidder, on or about the first of November next, by the Sheriff of the Parish of East Baton Rouge, on the same terms and conditions that negroes are sold at present, under an ordinaryfi. fa., and, as near as can be, two thirds of the net proceeds of each negro be paid to the former owners or their legal representatives, the balance be and remain in the State Treasury for ordinary purposes?—Weekly Advocate, Baton Rouge, La., Jan. 17, 1858.
A very large edition of this speech was printed at Washington, immediately after its delivery. Another appeared at Boston, with a portrait; and another at San Francisco, with the Republican Platform. While the Rebellion was still warring on the National Government, an edition was brought out in New York by the “Young Men’s Republican Union,” to which Mr. Sumner prefixed a Dedication to the Young Men of the United States, which will be found in its proper place, according to date, in this collection.A letter from that devoted friend of the Slave, the late George L. Stearns, of Boston, under date of March 1st, 1860, shows something of the outside prompting under which Mr. Sumner spoke.“I have just read ——’s speech. He stands up to the markwell, for a politician; but we want one who believes a Man is greater than a President, and who would not lift his finger to obtain the best office in the gift of our nation, to raise this question above the political slough into its true position. Charles O’Conor, in his late speech in New York, affirmed, that, ‘if Slavery were not a wise and beneficent institution for the black as well as the white, it could not be defended.’ We want you to take up the gauntlet that he has thrown down so defiantly.”A letter from William H. Brooks, of Cambridgeport, unconsciously harmonized with Mr. Stearns.“Feeling that our nation is now in the very throes of her deliverance, and I trust her prompt deliverance, from bondage to her, not Thirty, but Three Hundred Thousand Tyrants, may I frankly say, that, if not inconsistent with your health and safety, which are on no consideration to be perilled, you could aid more than any single person, or score of them, in effectually accomplishing the great triumph.… The unseen forces of public opinion are gathering and forming for the great November conflict. Your long, enforced, and martyr silence will give a depth of impression and moving power and ten thousand echoes to your words beyond their accustomed might.”Something about the menace of violence after this speech, with illustrations of its reception at the time, is postponed to an Appendix.Kansas was not admitted as a State into the Union until January 29, 1861, after the slaveholding Senators had withdrawn to organize the Rebellion, when the bill on which the present speech was made became a law.
A very large edition of this speech was printed at Washington, immediately after its delivery. Another appeared at Boston, with a portrait; and another at San Francisco, with the Republican Platform. While the Rebellion was still warring on the National Government, an edition was brought out in New York by the “Young Men’s Republican Union,” to which Mr. Sumner prefixed a Dedication to the Young Men of the United States, which will be found in its proper place, according to date, in this collection.
A letter from that devoted friend of the Slave, the late George L. Stearns, of Boston, under date of March 1st, 1860, shows something of the outside prompting under which Mr. Sumner spoke.
“I have just read ——’s speech. He stands up to the markwell, for a politician; but we want one who believes a Man is greater than a President, and who would not lift his finger to obtain the best office in the gift of our nation, to raise this question above the political slough into its true position. Charles O’Conor, in his late speech in New York, affirmed, that, ‘if Slavery were not a wise and beneficent institution for the black as well as the white, it could not be defended.’ We want you to take up the gauntlet that he has thrown down so defiantly.”
“I have just read ——’s speech. He stands up to the markwell, for a politician; but we want one who believes a Man is greater than a President, and who would not lift his finger to obtain the best office in the gift of our nation, to raise this question above the political slough into its true position. Charles O’Conor, in his late speech in New York, affirmed, that, ‘if Slavery were not a wise and beneficent institution for the black as well as the white, it could not be defended.’ We want you to take up the gauntlet that he has thrown down so defiantly.”
A letter from William H. Brooks, of Cambridgeport, unconsciously harmonized with Mr. Stearns.
“Feeling that our nation is now in the very throes of her deliverance, and I trust her prompt deliverance, from bondage to her, not Thirty, but Three Hundred Thousand Tyrants, may I frankly say, that, if not inconsistent with your health and safety, which are on no consideration to be perilled, you could aid more than any single person, or score of them, in effectually accomplishing the great triumph.… The unseen forces of public opinion are gathering and forming for the great November conflict. Your long, enforced, and martyr silence will give a depth of impression and moving power and ten thousand echoes to your words beyond their accustomed might.”
“Feeling that our nation is now in the very throes of her deliverance, and I trust her prompt deliverance, from bondage to her, not Thirty, but Three Hundred Thousand Tyrants, may I frankly say, that, if not inconsistent with your health and safety, which are on no consideration to be perilled, you could aid more than any single person, or score of them, in effectually accomplishing the great triumph.… The unseen forces of public opinion are gathering and forming for the great November conflict. Your long, enforced, and martyr silence will give a depth of impression and moving power and ten thousand echoes to your words beyond their accustomed might.”
Something about the menace of violence after this speech, with illustrations of its reception at the time, is postponed to an Appendix.
Kansas was not admitted as a State into the Union until January 29, 1861, after the slaveholding Senators had withdrawn to organize the Rebellion, when the bill on which the present speech was made became a law.
MR. PRESIDENT,—Undertaking now, after a silence of more than four years, to address the Senate on this important subject, I should suppress the emotions natural to such an occasion, if I did not declare on the threshold my gratitude to that Supreme Being through whose benign care I am enabled, after much suffering and many changes, once again to resume my duties here, and to speak for the cause so near my heart. To the honored Commonwealth whose representative I am, and also to my immediate associates in this body, with whom I enjoy the fellowship which is foundin thinking alike concerning the Republic,[25]I owe thanks which I seize the moment to express for indulgence extended to me throughout the protracted seclusion enjoined by medical skill; and I trust that it will not be thought unbecoming in me to put on record here, as an apology for leaving my seat so long vacant, without making way, by resignation, for a successor, that I acted under the illusion of an invalid, whose hopes for restoration to natural health continued against oft-recurring disappointment.
When last I entered into this debate, it became my duty to expose the Crime against Kansas, and to insistupon the immediate admission of that Territory as a State of this Union, with a Constitution forbidding Slavery. Time has passed, but the question remains. Resuming the discussion precisely where I left it, I am happy to avow that rule of moderation which, it is said, may venture to fix the boundaries of wisdom itself. I have no personal griefs to utter: only a vulgar egotism could intrude such into this Chamber. I have no personal wrongs to avenge: only a brutish nature could attempt to wield that vengeance which belongs to the Lord. The years that have intervened and the tombs that have opened[26]since I spoke have their voices, too, which I cannot fail to hear. Besides, what am I, what is any man among the living or among the dead, compared with the question before us? It is this alone which I shall discuss, and I begin the argument with that easy victory which is found in charity.
The Crime against Kansas stands forth in painful light. Search history, and you cannot find its parallel. The slave-trade is bad; but even this enormity is petty, compared with that elaborate contrivance by which, in a Christian age and within the limits of a Republic, all forms of constitutional liberty were perverted, all the rights of human nature violated, and the whole country held trembling on the edge of civil war,—while all this large exuberance of wickedness, detestable in itself, becomes tenfold more detestable, when its origin is traced to the madness for Slavery. The fatal partition between Freedom and Slavery, known as the Missouri Compromise,—the subsequent overthrow of this partition, and the seizure of all by Slavery,—the violation of plightedfaith,—the conspiracy to force Slavery at all hazards into Kansas,—the successive invasions by which all security there was destroyed, and the electoral franchise itself was trodden down,—the sacrilegious seizure of the very polls, and, through pretended forms of law, the imposition of a foreign legislature upon this Territory,—the acts of this legislature, fortifying the Usurpation, and, among other things, establishing test-oaths, calculated to disfranchise actual settlers friendly to Freedom, and securing the privileges of the citizen to actual strangers friendly to Slavery,—the whole crowned by a statute, “the be-all and the end-all” of the whole Usurpation, through which Slavery was not only recognized on this beautiful soil, but made to bristle with a Code of Death such as the world has rarely seen,—all these I fully exposed on a former occasion. And yet the most important part of the argument was at that time left untouched: I mean that found in the Character of Slavery. This natural sequel, with the permission of the Senate, I now propose to supply.
Motive is to Crime as soul to body; and it is only when we comprehend the motive that we can truly comprehend the Crime. Here the motive is found in Slavery and the rage for its extension. Therefore, by logical necessity, must Slavery be discussed,—not indirectly, timidly, and sparingly, but directly, openly, and thoroughly. It must be exhibited as it is, alike in its influence and its animating character, so that not only outside, but inside, may be seen.
This is no time for soft words or excuses. All such are out of place. They may turn away wrath; but what is the wrath of man? This is no time to abandon any advantage in the argument. Senators sometimesannounce that they resist Slavery on political grounds only, and remind us that they say nothing of the moral question. This is wrong. Slavery must be resisted not only on political grounds, but on all other grounds, whether social, economical, or moral. Ours is no holiday contest; nor is it any strife of rival factions, of White and Red Roses, of theatric Neri and Bianchi; but it is a solemn battle between Right and Wrong, between Good and Evil. Such a battle cannot be fought with rosewater. There is austere work to be done, and Freedom cannot consent to fling away any of her weapons.
If I were disposed to shrink from this discussion, the boundless assumptions made by Senators on the other side would not allow me. The whole character of Slavery, as a pretended form of Civilization, is put directly in issue, with a pertinacity and a hardihood which banish all reserve on this side. In these assumptions Senators from South Carolina naturally take the lead. Following Mr. Calhoun, who pronounced Slavery “the most solid and durable foundation on which to rear free and stable political institutions,”[27]and Mr. McDuffie, who did not shrink from calling it “the corner-stone of our republican edifice,”[28]the Senator from South Carolina [Mr.Hammond] insists that its “frame of society is the best in the world”[29]; and his colleague [Mr.Chesnut] takes up the strain. One Senator from Mississippi [Mr.Jefferson Davis], adds, that Slavery“is but a form of civil government for those who by their nature are not fit to govern themselves”;[30]and his colleague [Mr.Brown] openly vaunts that it “is a great moral, social, and political blessing,—a blessing to the slave, and a blessing to the master.”[31]One Senator from Virginia [Mr.Hunter], in a studied vindication of what he is pleased to call “the social system of the South,” exalts Slavery as “the normal condition of human society,” “beneficial to the non-slave-owner as it is to the slave-owner,” “best for the happiness of both races,”—and, in enthusiastic advocacy, declares, “that the very keystone of the mighty arch, which, by its concentrated strength, and by the mutual support of its parts, is able to sustain our social superstructure, consists in the black marble block of African Slavery: knock that out, and the mighty fabric, with all that it upholds, topples and tumbles to its fall.”[32]These are his very words, uttered in debate here. And his colleague [Mr.Mason], who never hesitates where Slavery is in question, proclaims that it is “ennoblingto both races, the white and the black,”—a word which, so far as the slave is concerned, he changes, on a subsequent day, to “elevating,” assuming still that it is “ennobling” to the whites,[33]—which is simply a new version of the old assumption, by Mr. McDuffie, of South Carolina, that “the institution of Domestic Slavery supersedes the necessity of an order of nobility.”[34]
Thus, by various voices, is Slavery defiantly proclaimed a form of Civilization,—not seeing that its existence is plainly inconsistent with the first principles of anything that can be called Civilization, except by that figure of speech in classical literature where a thing takes its name from something which it has not, as the dreadful Fates were called merciful because they were without mercy. Pardon the allusion, if I add, that, listening to these sounding words for Slavery, I am reminded of the kindred extravagance related by that remarkable traveller in China, the late Abbé Huc, where a gloomy hole in which he was lodged, infested by mosquitoes and exhaling noisome vapors, with light and air entering by a single narrow aperture only, was styled by Chinese pride “The Hotel of the Beatitudes.” According to a Hindoo proverb, the snail sees nothing but its own shell, and thinks it the grandest palace in the universe. This is another illustration of the delusion which we are called to witness.
It is natural that Senators thus insensible to the true character of Slavery should evince an equal insensibility to the true character of the Constitution. This is shown in the claim now made, and pressed with unprecedented energy, degrading the work of our fathers, that by virtue of the Constitution the pretended property in man is placed beyond the reach of Congressional prohibition even within Congressional jurisdiction, so that the slave-master may at all times enter the broad outlying territories of the Union with the victims of his oppression, and there continue to hold them by lash and chain.
Such are two assumptions, the first of fact, and the second of Constitutional Law, now vaunted withoutapology or hesitation. I meet them both. To the first I oppose the essential Barbarism of Slavery, in all its influences, whether high or low,—as Satan is Satan still, whether towering in the sky or squatting in the toad. To the second I oppose the unanswerable, irresistible truth, that the Constitution of the United States nowhere recognizes property in man. These two assumptions naturally go together. They are “twins” suckled by the same wolf. They are the “couple” in the present slave-hunt. And the latter cannot be answered without exposing the former. It is only when Slavery is exhibited in its truly hateful character that we fully appreciate the absurdity of the assumption, which, in defiance of express letter in the Constitution, and without a single sentence, phrase, or word upholding human bondage, yet foists into this blameless text the barbarous idea that man can hold property in man.
On former occasions I have discussed Slavery only incidentally: as, in unfolding the principle that Slavery is Sectional and Freedom National; in exposing the unconstitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Bill; in vindicating the Prohibition of Slavery in the Missouri Territory; in exhibiting the imbecility, throughout the Revolution, of the Slave States, and especially of South Carolina; and, lastly, in unmasking the Crime against Kansas. On all these occasions, where I spoke at length, I said too little of the character of Slavery,—partly because other topics were presented, and partly from a prevailing disinclination to press the argument against those whom I knew to have all the sensitiveness of a sick man. But, God be praised, this time has passed, and the debate is now lifted from details to principles. Grander debate has not occurred in ourhistory,—rarely in any history; nor can it close or subside, except with the triumph of Freedom.
Of course I begin with the assumption of fact, which must be treated at length.
It was the often-quoted remark of John Wesley, who knew well how to use words, as also how to touch hearts, that Slavery is “the sum of all villanies.” The phrase is pungent; but it were rash in any of us to criticise the testimony of that illustrious founder of Methodism, whose ample experience of Slavery in Georgia and the Carolinas seems to have been all condensed in this sententious judgment. Language is feeble to express all the enormity of an institution which is now exalted as in itself a form of civilization, “ennobling” at least to the master, if not to the slave. Look at it as you will, and it is always the scab, the canker, the “barebones,” and the shame of the country,—wrong, not merely in the abstract, as is often admitted by its apologist, but wrong in the concrete also, and possessing no single element of right. Look at it in the light of principle, and it is nothing less than a huge insurrection against the eternal law of God, involving in its pretensions the denial of all human rights, and also the denial of that Divine Law in which God himself is manifest, thus being practically the grossest lie and the grossest atheism. Founded in violence, sustained only by violence, such a wrong must by sure law of compensation blast master as well as slave,—blast the lands on which they live, blast the community of which they are part, blast the governmentwhich does not forbid the outrage; and the longer it exists and the more completely it prevails, must its vengeful influences penetrate the whole social system. Barbarous in origin, barbarous in law, barbarous in all its pretensions, barbarous in the instruments it employs, barbarous in consequences, barbarous in spirit, barbarous wherever it shows itself, Slavery must breed Barbarians, while it develops everywhere, alike in the individual and the society to which he belongs, the essential elements of Barbarism. In this character it is conspicuous before the world.
Undertaking now to expose theBarbarism of Slavery, the whole broad field is open before me. There is nothing in its character, its manifold wrong, its wretched results, and especially in its influence on the class claiming to be “ennobled” by it, that will not fall naturally under consideration.
I know well the difficulty of this discussion, involved in the humiliating truth with which I begin. Senators, on former occasions, revealing their sensitiveness, have even protested against comparison between what were called “two civilizations,”—meaning the two social systems produced respectively by Freedom and Slavery. The sensibility and the protest are not unnatural, though mistaken. “Two civilizations!” Sir, in this nineteenth century of Christian light there can be but one Civilization, and this is where Freedom prevails. Between Slavery and Civilization there is essential incompatibility. If you are for the one, you cannot be for the other; and just in proportion to the embrace of Slavery is the divorce from Civilization. As cold is but the absence of heat, and darkness but the absence of light, so is Slavery but the absence ofjustice and humanity, without which Civilization is impossible. That slave-masters should be disturbed, when this is exposed, might be expected. But the assumptions so boastfully made, while they may not prevent the sensibility, yet surely exclude all ground of protest, when these assumptions are exposed.
Nor is this the only difficulty. Slavery is a bloody Touch-Me-Not, and everywhere in sight now blooms the bloody flower. It is on the wayside as we approach the National Capitol; it is on the marble steps which we mount; it flaunts on this floor. I stand now in the house of its friends. About me, while I speak, are its most jealous guardians, who have shown in the past how much they are ready to do or not to do, where Slavery is in question. Menaces to deter me have not been spared. But I should ill deserve the high post of duty here, with which I am honored by a generous and enlightened people, if I could hesitate. Idolatry has been exposed in the presence of idolaters, and hypocrisy chastised in the presence of Scribes and Pharisees. Such examples may impart encouragement to a Senator undertaking in this presence to expose Slavery; nor can any language, directly responsive to Senatorial assumptions made for this Barbarism, be open to question. Slavery can be painted only in sternest colors; nor can I forget that Nature’s sternest painter has been called the best.
The Barbarism of Slaveryappears,first, in thecharacter of Slavery, and,secondly, in thecharacter of Slave-Masters.
Under the first head we shall properly consider (1) the Law of Slavery with its Origin, and (2) the practicalresults of Slavery, as shown in comparison between the Free States and the Slave States.
Under thesecondhead we shall naturally consider (1) Slave-Masters as shown in the Law of Slavery; (2) Slave-Masters in their relations with slaves, here glancing at their three brutal instruments; (3) Slave-Masters in their relations with each other, with society, and with Government; and (4) Slave-Masters in their unconsciousness.
The way will then be prepared for the consideration of the assumption of Constitutional Law.
In presenting theCharacter of Slavery, there is little for me, except to make Slavery paint itself. When this is done, the picture will need no explanatory words.
(1.) I begin with theLaw of Slavery and its Origin; and here this Barbarism sketches itself in its own chosen definition. It is simply this: Man, created in the image of God, is divested of the human character, and declared to be a “chattel,”—that is, a beast, a thing, or article of property. That this statement may not seem made without precise authority, I quote the statutes of three different States, beginning with South Carolina, whose voice for Slavery has always unerring distinctiveness. According to the definition supplied by this State, slaves
“shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to bechattels personalin the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever.”[35]
“shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to bechattels personalin the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever.”[35]
And here is the definition supplied by the Civil Code of Louisiana:—
“A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, and his labor. He can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire anything, but what must belong to his master.”[36]
“A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, and his labor. He can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire anything, but what must belong to his master.”[36]
In similar spirit the law of Maryland thus indirectly defines a slave as anarticle:—
“In case the personal property of a ward shall consist of specificarticles, such as slaves, working beasts, animals of any kind, … the court, if it shall deem it advantageous for the ward, may at any time pass an order for the sale thereof.”[37]
“In case the personal property of a ward shall consist of specificarticles, such as slaves, working beasts, animals of any kind, … the court, if it shall deem it advantageous for the ward, may at any time pass an order for the sale thereof.”[37]
Not to occupy time unnecessarily, I present a summary of the pretended law defining Slavery in all the Slave States, as made by a careful writer, Judge Stroud, in a work of juridical as well as philanthropic merit:—
“The cardinal principle of Slavery—that the slave is not to be ranked amongsentientbeings, but amongthings, is an article of property, a chattel personal—obtains as undoubted law in all of these [Slave] States.”[38]
“The cardinal principle of Slavery—that the slave is not to be ranked amongsentientbeings, but amongthings, is an article of property, a chattel personal—obtains as undoubted law in all of these [Slave] States.”[38]
Out of this definition, as from a solitary germ, which in its pettiness might be crushed by the hand, towers our Upas Tree and all its gigantic poison. Study it, and you will comprehend the whole monstrous growth.
Sir, look at its plain import, and see the relation which it establishes. The slave is held simplyfor theuse of his master, to whose behests his life, liberty, and happiness are devoted, and by whom he may be bartered, leased, mortgaged, bequeathed, invoiced, shipped as cargo, stored as goods, sold on execution, knocked off at public auction, and even staked at the gaming-table on the hazard of a card or a die,—all according to law. Nor is there anything, within the limit of life, inflicted on a beast, which may not be inflicted on the slave. He may be marked like a hog, branded like a mule, yoked like an ox, hobbled like a horse, driven like an ass, sheared like a sheep, maimed like a cur, and constantly beaten like a brute,—all according to law. And should life itself be taken, what is the remedy? The Law of Slavery, imitating that rule of evidence which in barbarous days and barbarous countries prevented the Christian from testifying against the Mahometan, openly pronounces the incompetency of the whole African race, whether bond or free, to testify against a white man in any case, and thus, after surrendering the slave to all possible outrage, crowns its tyranny by excluding the very testimony through which the bloody cruelty of the Slave-Master might be exposed.
Thus in its Law does Slavery paint itself; but it is only when we look at details, and detect its essential elements,five in number, all inspired bya single motive, that its character becomes completely manifest.
Foremost, of course, in these elements, is the impossible pretension, where Barbarism is lost in impiety, by which man claimsproperty in man. Against such blasphemy the argument is brief. According to the Law of Nature, written by the same hand that placed the planets in their orbits, and, like them, constituting part of the eternal system of the Universe, every human beinghas complete title to himself direct from the Almighty. Naked he is born; but this birthright is inseparable from the human form. A man may be poor in this world’s goods; but he owns himself. No war or robbery, ancient or recent,—no capture—no middle passage,—no change of clime,—no purchase-money,—no transmission from hand to hand, no matter how many times, and no matter at what price, can defeat this indefeasible, God-given franchise. And a divine mandate, strong as that which guards Life, guards Liberty also. Even at the very morning of Creation, when God said, “Let there be Light,”—earlier than the malediction against murder,—he set the everlasting difference between man and chattel, giving to man “dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”