Mr. Sumner contemplated a speech reviewing the various propositions of Compromise, but he never made it. The following passages are given, as proposed at the time.
Mr. Sumner contemplated a speech reviewing the various propositions of Compromise, but he never made it. The following passages are given, as proposed at the time.
…
I would not say a word except of kindness and respect for the Senator of Kentucky [Mr.Crittenden]. But that Senator must pardon me, if I insist that he is entirely unreasonable in pressing his impracticable and unconstitutional propositions so persistently in the way of most important public business. Yesterday it hindered a great measure of Internal Improvement. To-day it blocks the admission of a State into this Union, being none other than Kansas, which has earned a better hospitality.
The Senator makes his appeal in the name of the Union. But I must remind him that he takes a poor way of showing that attachment to the Union which he avers. He turns round and lectures us who are devoted to the Union, when his lecture should be addressed to the avowed and open Disunionists in this Chamber. Nay, more, he actually sides with the Disunionists in their claims. Imagine Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, John Jay, Andrew Jackson, or HenryClay, in the place of the venerable Senator. They would not wheel towards the known friends of the Union, and ask an impossible surrender of sacred principles, but rather face to face address the Disunionists frankly, plainly, austerely, calling upon them to renounce their evil schemes; to acknowledge the National Constitution, and especially in this age of light to make no new demands for Slavery.
In reply to the Senator, who so constantly lectures us, I say, look to the good examples of our history; take counsel of the Spirit of Nationalism, rather than Sectionalism, and be willing to defend the Constitutionas it is, rather thanpatch it overwith propositions which our fathers would have disowned.
…
Putting aside all question of concession or compromise, the single question remains,How shall we treat the seceding States?And this is the question which the new Administration will be called to meet. I see well that it will naturally bear much and forbear long,—that it will be moved by principle, and not by passion,—and that it will adopt the harsh instrumentalities of power only when all other things have failed. And I see well the powerful allies which will be enlisted on its side. There will be the civilization of the Christian world, speaking with the innumerable voices of the press, and constituting a Public Opinion of irresistible energy. There will be the great contemporary example of Italy, after a slumber of centuries aroused to assertion of her rights,—and of Russia also, now completing that memorable act of Emancipation by which Freedom is assured to twenty millions of serfs. There will be also the concurring action of European powers, which, turningwith disgust from a new confederacy founded on Human Slavery, will refuse to recognize it in the Family of Nations. There will be also the essential weakness of Slavery with the perils of servile insurrection, which, under the influence of this discussion, must become more and more manifest in every respect. There will be also the essential strength of Freedom, as a principle, carrying victory in its right hand. And there will be Time, which is at once Reformer and Pacificator. Such are some of the allies sure to be on the side of the Administration.
Report from Committee on Foreign Relations, advising the President to submit the San Juan Boundary Question to Arbitration, in the Senate, March 19, 1861.
By the withdrawal of Southern Senators, the Republicans were left with a majority in the Senate, enabling them to reorganize the Standing Committees, which was done March 8, 1861. At the head of the Finance Committee was Mr. Fessenden, instead of Mr. Hunter,—of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Trumbull, instead of Mr. Bayard,—of the Military Committee, Mr. Wilson, instead of Mr. Jefferson Davis,—and of the Naval Committee, Mr. Hale, instead of Mr. Mallory. Mr. Sumner was appointed Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, in place of Mr. Mason, of Virginia, who had held this position from December 8, 1851. With the former on the new Committee were Messrs. Collamer, of Vermont, Doolittle, of Wisconsin, Harris, of New York, Douglas, of Illinois, Polk, of Missouri, and Breckinridge, of Kentucky. The appointment of Mr. Sumner to this important position was contrasted with his treatment at an earlier day, when the omission of his name from any committee was justified on the ground that he was “outside of any healthy political organization in this country,” and this Senatorial sally was received with “laughter.”[141]Mr. Hale and Mr. Chase were in the same category. Only Democrats and Whigs were accepted: such was the Law of Slavery. At last this was all changed.The reorganization of the Committees attracted the attention of the press at home and abroad. It was properly recognized as marking a change from old to new. The LondonStar, in an elaborate article on the transition, welcomed especially the new Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations.“The Republican Senators have selected for the Chairman of this Committee the Hon. Charles Sumner, a statesman deservedly honored in thiscountry, not only for his eloquence as an orator, but for his unswerving fidelity to the cause of Freedom. No man could have been chosen for this office in every respect more acceptable to the English people. It is not only as the Antislavery legislator, who, from the first moment that he took his seat in the Senate as the representative of Massachusetts, has ever raised his voice and given his vote for the hapless negro,—it is not only as the patriot who almost suffered martyrdom on the floor of the Senate Chamber from the ruffian hand of Preston S. Brooks, that the English people will be disposed to regard his appointment with hearty approval: he has established other claims to our sympathy and admiration, which we must not be slow to recognize. Mr. Sumner is well known in this country—scarcely less, indeed, than in America—as the stanch friend of Peace. Years ago, in his famous oration on the True Glory of Nations, he set forth the advantages of a pacific policy, with arguments as cogent and irresistible as those which have been employed by Mr. Cobden, and with an eloquence of language and a fertility of illustration which revived the oratory of classic times.…“And if during the period of Mr. Lincoln’s administration causes of dispute should unhappily arise between America and Great Britain, or any other foreign power, Mr. Sumner will not fail to point toarbitration as the only reasonable and satisfactory modeof settling international differences.He will not, if he can help it, permit San Juan to be made a casus belli, or tolerate any more of those periodical expeditions against the weak and effeminate republics of South America, by which Mr. Buchanan and his predecessors treated with contempt the solemn injunctions of the Fathers of the Republic, that their posterity should avoid the fatal quicksands of European diplomacy, and abstain from intermeddling with the affairs of other states.”The very questions anticipated by the London journal were presented at an early day, even before its article could reach Washington. The advice of the Senate was asked by the President on submitting the San Juan Question to arbitration.March 16, 1861, the following Message from President Lincoln was read in Executive Session, and on motion of Mr. Sumner referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.“To the Senate:—“The Senate has transmitted to me a copy of the Message sent by my predecessor to that body on the 21st day of February last, proposing to take its advice on the subject of a proposition made by the British Government through its minister here to refer the matter in controversy between that Government and the Government of the United States to the arbitrament of the King of Sweden and Norway, the King of the Netherlands, or the Republic of the Swiss Confederation.“In that Message my predecessor stated that he wished to submit to the Senate the precise questions following, namely:—“‘Will the Senate approve a Treaty referring to either of the sovereign powers above named the dispute now existing between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain concerning the boundary line between Vancouver’s Island and the American continent? In case the referee shall find himself unable to decide where the line is by the description of it in the Treaty of June 15, 1846, shall he be authorized to establish a line according to the Treaty as nearly as possible? Which of the three powers named by Great Britain as an arbiter shall be chosen by the United States?’“I find no reason to disapprove of the course of my predecessor in this important matter, but, on the contrary, I not only shall receive the advice of the Senate thereon cheerfully, but I respectfully ask the Senate for their advice on the three questions before recited.“Abraham Lincoln.“Washington, March 16, 1861.”From this Message it appears that the subject had been already before the Senate on the submission of President Buchanan in the last days of his Administration. In his Message the latter stated these precise questions:—“Will the Senate approve a treaty referring to either of the sovereign powers above named [Sweden, the Netherlands, or Switzerland] the dispute now existing between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain concerning the boundary line between Vancouver’s Island and the American continent?“In case the referee shall find himself unable to decide where the line is by the description of it in the Treaty of June 15, 1846, shall he be authorized to establish a line according to the Treaty as nearly as possible?“Which of the three powers named by Great Britain as an arbiter shall be chosen by the United States?”February 27, 1861, Mr. Mason, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported the following Resolution, directly responsive to the questions proposed.“Resolved, That in the opinion of the Senate the boundary in dispute between the Governments of Great Britain and the United States should be referred to the arbitrament and final award of an umpire to be agreed on between the two Governments; that such umpire should, if practicable, determine said boundary as the same is prescribed in the Treaty aforesaid; or if that be not practicable, then that he be authorized to establish a boundary, conforming as nearly as may be to that provided by said Treaty.“And that, of the three powers referred to in the Message of the President, the Senate would indicate as such umpire the Republic of the Swiss Confederation.”This was the last diplomatic act of Mr. Mason as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations.March 19, 1861, Mr. Sumner submitted the following Report, which was his first diplomatic act as Chairman.
By the withdrawal of Southern Senators, the Republicans were left with a majority in the Senate, enabling them to reorganize the Standing Committees, which was done March 8, 1861. At the head of the Finance Committee was Mr. Fessenden, instead of Mr. Hunter,—of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Trumbull, instead of Mr. Bayard,—of the Military Committee, Mr. Wilson, instead of Mr. Jefferson Davis,—and of the Naval Committee, Mr. Hale, instead of Mr. Mallory. Mr. Sumner was appointed Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, in place of Mr. Mason, of Virginia, who had held this position from December 8, 1851. With the former on the new Committee were Messrs. Collamer, of Vermont, Doolittle, of Wisconsin, Harris, of New York, Douglas, of Illinois, Polk, of Missouri, and Breckinridge, of Kentucky. The appointment of Mr. Sumner to this important position was contrasted with his treatment at an earlier day, when the omission of his name from any committee was justified on the ground that he was “outside of any healthy political organization in this country,” and this Senatorial sally was received with “laughter.”[141]Mr. Hale and Mr. Chase were in the same category. Only Democrats and Whigs were accepted: such was the Law of Slavery. At last this was all changed.
The reorganization of the Committees attracted the attention of the press at home and abroad. It was properly recognized as marking a change from old to new. The LondonStar, in an elaborate article on the transition, welcomed especially the new Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations.
“The Republican Senators have selected for the Chairman of this Committee the Hon. Charles Sumner, a statesman deservedly honored in thiscountry, not only for his eloquence as an orator, but for his unswerving fidelity to the cause of Freedom. No man could have been chosen for this office in every respect more acceptable to the English people. It is not only as the Antislavery legislator, who, from the first moment that he took his seat in the Senate as the representative of Massachusetts, has ever raised his voice and given his vote for the hapless negro,—it is not only as the patriot who almost suffered martyrdom on the floor of the Senate Chamber from the ruffian hand of Preston S. Brooks, that the English people will be disposed to regard his appointment with hearty approval: he has established other claims to our sympathy and admiration, which we must not be slow to recognize. Mr. Sumner is well known in this country—scarcely less, indeed, than in America—as the stanch friend of Peace. Years ago, in his famous oration on the True Glory of Nations, he set forth the advantages of a pacific policy, with arguments as cogent and irresistible as those which have been employed by Mr. Cobden, and with an eloquence of language and a fertility of illustration which revived the oratory of classic times.…“And if during the period of Mr. Lincoln’s administration causes of dispute should unhappily arise between America and Great Britain, or any other foreign power, Mr. Sumner will not fail to point toarbitration as the only reasonable and satisfactory modeof settling international differences.He will not, if he can help it, permit San Juan to be made a casus belli, or tolerate any more of those periodical expeditions against the weak and effeminate republics of South America, by which Mr. Buchanan and his predecessors treated with contempt the solemn injunctions of the Fathers of the Republic, that their posterity should avoid the fatal quicksands of European diplomacy, and abstain from intermeddling with the affairs of other states.”
“The Republican Senators have selected for the Chairman of this Committee the Hon. Charles Sumner, a statesman deservedly honored in thiscountry, not only for his eloquence as an orator, but for his unswerving fidelity to the cause of Freedom. No man could have been chosen for this office in every respect more acceptable to the English people. It is not only as the Antislavery legislator, who, from the first moment that he took his seat in the Senate as the representative of Massachusetts, has ever raised his voice and given his vote for the hapless negro,—it is not only as the patriot who almost suffered martyrdom on the floor of the Senate Chamber from the ruffian hand of Preston S. Brooks, that the English people will be disposed to regard his appointment with hearty approval: he has established other claims to our sympathy and admiration, which we must not be slow to recognize. Mr. Sumner is well known in this country—scarcely less, indeed, than in America—as the stanch friend of Peace. Years ago, in his famous oration on the True Glory of Nations, he set forth the advantages of a pacific policy, with arguments as cogent and irresistible as those which have been employed by Mr. Cobden, and with an eloquence of language and a fertility of illustration which revived the oratory of classic times.…
“And if during the period of Mr. Lincoln’s administration causes of dispute should unhappily arise between America and Great Britain, or any other foreign power, Mr. Sumner will not fail to point toarbitration as the only reasonable and satisfactory modeof settling international differences.He will not, if he can help it, permit San Juan to be made a casus belli, or tolerate any more of those periodical expeditions against the weak and effeminate republics of South America, by which Mr. Buchanan and his predecessors treated with contempt the solemn injunctions of the Fathers of the Republic, that their posterity should avoid the fatal quicksands of European diplomacy, and abstain from intermeddling with the affairs of other states.”
The very questions anticipated by the London journal were presented at an early day, even before its article could reach Washington. The advice of the Senate was asked by the President on submitting the San Juan Question to arbitration.
March 16, 1861, the following Message from President Lincoln was read in Executive Session, and on motion of Mr. Sumner referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
“To the Senate:—“The Senate has transmitted to me a copy of the Message sent by my predecessor to that body on the 21st day of February last, proposing to take its advice on the subject of a proposition made by the British Government through its minister here to refer the matter in controversy between that Government and the Government of the United States to the arbitrament of the King of Sweden and Norway, the King of the Netherlands, or the Republic of the Swiss Confederation.“In that Message my predecessor stated that he wished to submit to the Senate the precise questions following, namely:—“‘Will the Senate approve a Treaty referring to either of the sovereign powers above named the dispute now existing between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain concerning the boundary line between Vancouver’s Island and the American continent? In case the referee shall find himself unable to decide where the line is by the description of it in the Treaty of June 15, 1846, shall he be authorized to establish a line according to the Treaty as nearly as possible? Which of the three powers named by Great Britain as an arbiter shall be chosen by the United States?’“I find no reason to disapprove of the course of my predecessor in this important matter, but, on the contrary, I not only shall receive the advice of the Senate thereon cheerfully, but I respectfully ask the Senate for their advice on the three questions before recited.“Abraham Lincoln.“Washington, March 16, 1861.”
“To the Senate:—
“The Senate has transmitted to me a copy of the Message sent by my predecessor to that body on the 21st day of February last, proposing to take its advice on the subject of a proposition made by the British Government through its minister here to refer the matter in controversy between that Government and the Government of the United States to the arbitrament of the King of Sweden and Norway, the King of the Netherlands, or the Republic of the Swiss Confederation.
“In that Message my predecessor stated that he wished to submit to the Senate the precise questions following, namely:—
“‘Will the Senate approve a Treaty referring to either of the sovereign powers above named the dispute now existing between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain concerning the boundary line between Vancouver’s Island and the American continent? In case the referee shall find himself unable to decide where the line is by the description of it in the Treaty of June 15, 1846, shall he be authorized to establish a line according to the Treaty as nearly as possible? Which of the three powers named by Great Britain as an arbiter shall be chosen by the United States?’
“‘Will the Senate approve a Treaty referring to either of the sovereign powers above named the dispute now existing between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain concerning the boundary line between Vancouver’s Island and the American continent? In case the referee shall find himself unable to decide where the line is by the description of it in the Treaty of June 15, 1846, shall he be authorized to establish a line according to the Treaty as nearly as possible? Which of the three powers named by Great Britain as an arbiter shall be chosen by the United States?’
“I find no reason to disapprove of the course of my predecessor in this important matter, but, on the contrary, I not only shall receive the advice of the Senate thereon cheerfully, but I respectfully ask the Senate for their advice on the three questions before recited.
“Abraham Lincoln.
“Washington, March 16, 1861.”
From this Message it appears that the subject had been already before the Senate on the submission of President Buchanan in the last days of his Administration. In his Message the latter stated these precise questions:—
“Will the Senate approve a treaty referring to either of the sovereign powers above named [Sweden, the Netherlands, or Switzerland] the dispute now existing between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain concerning the boundary line between Vancouver’s Island and the American continent?“In case the referee shall find himself unable to decide where the line is by the description of it in the Treaty of June 15, 1846, shall he be authorized to establish a line according to the Treaty as nearly as possible?“Which of the three powers named by Great Britain as an arbiter shall be chosen by the United States?”
“Will the Senate approve a treaty referring to either of the sovereign powers above named [Sweden, the Netherlands, or Switzerland] the dispute now existing between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain concerning the boundary line between Vancouver’s Island and the American continent?
“In case the referee shall find himself unable to decide where the line is by the description of it in the Treaty of June 15, 1846, shall he be authorized to establish a line according to the Treaty as nearly as possible?
“Which of the three powers named by Great Britain as an arbiter shall be chosen by the United States?”
February 27, 1861, Mr. Mason, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported the following Resolution, directly responsive to the questions proposed.
“Resolved, That in the opinion of the Senate the boundary in dispute between the Governments of Great Britain and the United States should be referred to the arbitrament and final award of an umpire to be agreed on between the two Governments; that such umpire should, if practicable, determine said boundary as the same is prescribed in the Treaty aforesaid; or if that be not practicable, then that he be authorized to establish a boundary, conforming as nearly as may be to that provided by said Treaty.“And that, of the three powers referred to in the Message of the President, the Senate would indicate as such umpire the Republic of the Swiss Confederation.”
“Resolved, That in the opinion of the Senate the boundary in dispute between the Governments of Great Britain and the United States should be referred to the arbitrament and final award of an umpire to be agreed on between the two Governments; that such umpire should, if practicable, determine said boundary as the same is prescribed in the Treaty aforesaid; or if that be not practicable, then that he be authorized to establish a boundary, conforming as nearly as may be to that provided by said Treaty.
“And that, of the three powers referred to in the Message of the President, the Senate would indicate as such umpire the Republic of the Swiss Confederation.”
This was the last diplomatic act of Mr. Mason as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations.
March 19, 1861, Mr. Sumner submitted the following Report, which was his first diplomatic act as Chairman.
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the Message of the President of the United States dated the 16th instant, with the documents accompanying it, have had the same under consideration, and now report.
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the Message of the President of the United States dated the 16th instant, with the documents accompanying it, have had the same under consideration, and now report.
The Treaty concluded between Great Britain and the United States on the 15th of June, 1846, provided in its first Article that the line of boundary between the territories of her Britannic Majesty and those of the United States, from the point on the 49th parallel of north latitude, to which it was ascertained, should be continued westward along this parallel, “to the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver’s Island, and thence southerly, through the middle of said channel and of Fuca’s Straits, to the Pacific Ocean.” When the commissioners appointed by the two Governments to mark the boundary line came to that part of it required to run southerly through the channel dividing the continent from Vancouver’s Island, they differed entirely in their opinions, not only concerning the true point of deflection from the 49th parallel, but also as to the channel intended in the Treaty. After long discussion, producing no result, they reported a disagreement to their respective Governments. Since then the two Governments, through their ministers here and at London, have carried on a voluminous correspondence on the matter in controversy, each sustaining the conclusion of its own commissioner, and neither yielding in any degree to the other. Meanwhilethe unsettled condition of this question produced serious local disturbance, and on one occasion threatened to destroy the harmonious relations existing between Great Britain and the United States, causing serious anxiety.
If our construction of the Treaty be right, the island of San Juan, with other small islands, will fall to the United States, while, if the British interpretation be adopted, these islands will be on their side of the line. President Buchanan, in his Message to the Senate of February 21, 1861, declared his conviction that the territory thus in dispute “is ours by the Treaty fairly and impartially construed.” But the British Government, on their side, insist that it is theirs. The argument on both sides seems to have been exhausted.
Under these circumstances, it appears from the correspondence submitted to the Senate, that General Cass, Secretary of State, by letter of June 25, 1860, to Lord Lyons, the British Minister at Washington, invited the British Government to make a proposition of adjustment. Here are his words:—
“And I have it further in charge to inform your Lordship, that this Government is ready to receive and fairly to consider any proposition which the British Government may be disposed to make for a mutually acceptable adjustment, with an earnest hope that a satisfactory arrangement will speedily put an end to all danger of the recurrence of those grave questions which have more than once threatened to interrupt that good understanding which both countries have so many powerful motives to maintain.”
“And I have it further in charge to inform your Lordship, that this Government is ready to receive and fairly to consider any proposition which the British Government may be disposed to make for a mutually acceptable adjustment, with an earnest hope that a satisfactory arrangement will speedily put an end to all danger of the recurrence of those grave questions which have more than once threatened to interrupt that good understanding which both countries have so many powerful motives to maintain.”
The reply of the British Government to this invitation was communicated by Lord Lyons, in a letter to General Cass, dated December 10, 1860, in the courseof which he uses the following language.
“In reference to the line of the water boundary intended by the Treaty, with respect to which also her Majesty’s Government have been invited by the United States Government to make a proposition for its adjustment, I am instructed to inform you that her Majesty’s Government are glad to reciprocate the friendly sentiments expressed in your note of the 25th of June, and will not hesitate to respond to the invitation which has been made to them.“It appears to her Majesty’s Government that the argument on both sides being nearly exhausted, and neither party having succeeded in producing conviction on the other, the question can only be settled by arbitration.”
“In reference to the line of the water boundary intended by the Treaty, with respect to which also her Majesty’s Government have been invited by the United States Government to make a proposition for its adjustment, I am instructed to inform you that her Majesty’s Government are glad to reciprocate the friendly sentiments expressed in your note of the 25th of June, and will not hesitate to respond to the invitation which has been made to them.
“It appears to her Majesty’s Government that the argument on both sides being nearly exhausted, and neither party having succeeded in producing conviction on the other, the question can only be settled by arbitration.”
Lord Lyons then proceeds to details connected with the offered arbitration, and, in behalf of his Government, proposes that the King of the Netherlands, or the King of Sweden and Norway, or the President of the Federal Council of Switzerland should be invited to be arbiter.
Upon these facts the President submits to the consideration of the Senate the following interrogatories.
“Will the Senate approve a Treaty referring to either of the sovereign powers above named the dispute now existing between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain concerning the boundary line between Vancouver’s Island and the American continent?“In case the referee shall find himself unable to decide where the line is by the description of it in the Treaty of June 15, 1846, shall he be authorized to establish a line according to the Treaty as nearly as possible?“Which of the three powers named by Great Britain as an arbiter shall be chosen by the United States?”
“Will the Senate approve a Treaty referring to either of the sovereign powers above named the dispute now existing between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain concerning the boundary line between Vancouver’s Island and the American continent?
“In case the referee shall find himself unable to decide where the line is by the description of it in the Treaty of June 15, 1846, shall he be authorized to establish a line according to the Treaty as nearly as possible?
“Which of the three powers named by Great Britain as an arbiter shall be chosen by the United States?”
The Committee, in conclusion, recommend to the Senate the adoption of the following Resolution.
“Resolved, That, in pursuance of the Message of the President of the 16th instant, the Senate advises a reference of the existing dispute between the Government of the United States and the Government of Great Britain, concerning the boundary line which separates Vancouver’s Island and the American continent, to the arbitration of a friendly power, with authority to determine the line according to the provisions of the Treaty of 15th June, 1846, but without authority to establish any line other than that provided for in the Treaty.“And of the three powers named by Great Britain, the Senate advises that the Republic of Switzerland be chosen by the United States as arbiter.”
“Resolved, That, in pursuance of the Message of the President of the 16th instant, the Senate advises a reference of the existing dispute between the Government of the United States and the Government of Great Britain, concerning the boundary line which separates Vancouver’s Island and the American continent, to the arbitration of a friendly power, with authority to determine the line according to the provisions of the Treaty of 15th June, 1846, but without authority to establish any line other than that provided for in the Treaty.
“And of the three powers named by Great Britain, the Senate advises that the Republic of Switzerland be chosen by the United States as arbiter.”
On two different days the Senate proceeded with this resolution, when, March 27, 1861, the day before the close of the Session, it was ordered that its further consideration be postponed to the second Monday of December next. This was done on the suggestion that the time was not propitious for the arbitration of a disputed boundary line. April 12, Fort Sumter was bombarded.A difference between the resolution of Mr. Mason and that of Mr. Sumner will be noted. The former declared that the umpire “should, if practicable, determine said boundary as the same is prescribed in the Treaty aforesaid; or if that be not practicable, then that he be authorized to establish a boundary,conforming as nearly as may be to that provided by said Treaty.” The latter resolution declared, that the arbiter should have “authority to determine the line according to the provisions of the Treaty of 15th June, 1846,but without authority to establish any line other than that provided for in the Treaty.” The obvious purpose was to prevent a compromise line. This same purpose appears in the terms of the Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, signed at Washington, May 8, 1871, where, after mentioning the Article of the original Treaty under which the question arose, it is declared, that, “whereas the Government of her Britannic Majesty claims that such boundary line should, under the terms of the Treatyabove recited, be run through the Rosario Straits, and the Government of the United States claims that it should be run through the Canal de Haro, it is agreed that the respective claims of the Government of the United States and of the Government of her Britannic Majesty shall be submitted to the arbitration and award of his Majesty the Emperor of Germany, who, having regard to the abovementioned Article of the said Treaty, shall decide thereupon, finally, and without appeal,which of these claims is most in accordance with the true interpretation of the Treaty of June 15, 1846.” This provision follows substantially the early resolution of Mr. Sumner.
On two different days the Senate proceeded with this resolution, when, March 27, 1861, the day before the close of the Session, it was ordered that its further consideration be postponed to the second Monday of December next. This was done on the suggestion that the time was not propitious for the arbitration of a disputed boundary line. April 12, Fort Sumter was bombarded.
A difference between the resolution of Mr. Mason and that of Mr. Sumner will be noted. The former declared that the umpire “should, if practicable, determine said boundary as the same is prescribed in the Treaty aforesaid; or if that be not practicable, then that he be authorized to establish a boundary,conforming as nearly as may be to that provided by said Treaty.” The latter resolution declared, that the arbiter should have “authority to determine the line according to the provisions of the Treaty of 15th June, 1846,but without authority to establish any line other than that provided for in the Treaty.” The obvious purpose was to prevent a compromise line. This same purpose appears in the terms of the Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, signed at Washington, May 8, 1871, where, after mentioning the Article of the original Treaty under which the question arose, it is declared, that, “whereas the Government of her Britannic Majesty claims that such boundary line should, under the terms of the Treatyabove recited, be run through the Rosario Straits, and the Government of the United States claims that it should be run through the Canal de Haro, it is agreed that the respective claims of the Government of the United States and of the Government of her Britannic Majesty shall be submitted to the arbitration and award of his Majesty the Emperor of Germany, who, having regard to the abovementioned Article of the said Treaty, shall decide thereupon, finally, and without appeal,which of these claims is most in accordance with the true interpretation of the Treaty of June 15, 1846.” This provision follows substantially the early resolution of Mr. Sumner.
Speech before the Third Massachusetts Rifles, in the Armory at New York, April 21, 1861.
After adjournment of the Senate, Mr. Sumner remained for some time in Washington, as was his habit. Meanwhile occurred the bombardment of Fort Sumter, and the President’s Proclamation, calling for seventy-five thousand men to suppress insurrectionary combinations, “and to cause the laws to be duly executed.” On the afternoon of 18th April, 1861, amidst the general commotion, he left on his way to Boston, stopping over night at Baltimore, where an incident occurred, which, besides illustrating the state of the country, helps to explain the brief speech which follows.On arrival by the train, Mr. Sumner drove at once to Barnum’s Hotel, where he entered his name in the open book. Taking a walk before dark in the principal street, he was recognized by excited persons, whose manner and language went beyond any ordinary occasion.[142]Early in the evening he called on a family friend, with whom he took tea, surrounded by her children. Leaving her house about nine o’clock, he walked slowly back to the hotel. When descending Fayette Street by its side, he could not but observe an enormous assemblage of people, with very little apparent government, in the open square at the foot of the street. Entering the private door, which was at some distance from the riotous crowd, he came upon a gentleman, who, addressing him by name, expressed surprise at seeing him there, saying, “That mob in the square is after you. Their leaders have been to the hotel and demanded you. They were told that you were out,—that nobody knew where you were, and that you had probably left town”; and he wound up by insisting that it was not safe for Mr. Sumner to continue at the hotel, or anywhere in town, if his place of stopping were known. Without reply to this notice, Mr. Sumner walked down the long corridor of the hotel, and, turning into the office, asked for hiskey. At once Mr. Barnum, with one of his assistants, took him into a small back room, where they explained the condition of things, narrated the visit of the leaders, and the answer they were able to give, by which the mob were turned aside; but this temporary relief left them still anxious, especially if Mr. Sumner’s return should be suspected, and therefore they must request him to leave the hotel; and this was enforced by saying that his longer stay was perilous to the hotel as well as to himself, and that he must find shelter somewhere else. Mr. Sumner, while declaring his sincere regret that he should be the innocent occasion of peril to the hotel, said that there was nowhere else for him to go,—that he had no right to carry peril to the house of a friend,—that it was impossible for him to do this,—that he had come to the hotel as a traveller, and he must claim his rights, believing that in so large a structure there was more safety than in a private house, even if there were any such where he could go. The interview ended in conducting him to a chamber on a long entry of the third story, where all the rooms were alike, when, after saying that nobody in the hotel but themselves would know where he was, they left him alone. From the window which opened on the street at the side of the hotel, he could see the swaying multitude, and hear their voices. In the gray of the morning he left for the Philadelphia Railroad.[143]On the way to Philadelphia, he met a long train for Baltimore, containing the Sixth Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers, hurrying to the defence of the national capital. It was the first regiment of volunteers he had seen, and he was struck by the gayety of soldier life, which overflowed as the train passed. On his arrival at Philadelphia, the telegraph was announcing the tragedy which had befallen them.The troops were passing through Baltimore from the Philadelphia station, in the large horse-cars, and a portion had arrived at the Washington station, when those behind were set upon by a mob, the successor of that at the hotel on the preceding evening. Before they could leave the station, the streets were barricaded, and the rails removed, so that they were obliged to make their way on foot, amidst the growing fury of the mob, which had increased to ten thousand. Stones, bricks, and other murderous missiles were thrown at them. Then came pistol-shots. As the soldiers saw their comrades fall, they fired. Several of the assailants dropped upon the pavements, and others were wounded. And so for two miles they fought their way to the Washington station. Of the troops, four were killed, and thirty-six wounded. That evening the regiment quartered at Washington, in the SenateChamber.[144]Thus, on the 19th of April, 1861, began and closed the first encounter of the terrible war at hand.The mob now reigned in Baltimore. Gun-shops were plundered. Other shops were closed. The President was notified that no more troops could pass through the city, unless they fought their way. That night the bridges on the railroad to Philadelphia were burnt, so that this great avenue was closed.[145]On the 21st of April, the Third Battalion of Massachusetts Rifles, with Hon. Charles Devens as Major, consisting of two hundred and sixty-six men, arrived at New York from Worcester, on their way to the scene of action, and quartered in the armory of the famous New York Seventh, which had left on the preceding afternoon. On a visit to the armory by Mr. Sumner, the Battalion was called into line, and he made the following remarks.
After adjournment of the Senate, Mr. Sumner remained for some time in Washington, as was his habit. Meanwhile occurred the bombardment of Fort Sumter, and the President’s Proclamation, calling for seventy-five thousand men to suppress insurrectionary combinations, “and to cause the laws to be duly executed.” On the afternoon of 18th April, 1861, amidst the general commotion, he left on his way to Boston, stopping over night at Baltimore, where an incident occurred, which, besides illustrating the state of the country, helps to explain the brief speech which follows.
On arrival by the train, Mr. Sumner drove at once to Barnum’s Hotel, where he entered his name in the open book. Taking a walk before dark in the principal street, he was recognized by excited persons, whose manner and language went beyond any ordinary occasion.[142]Early in the evening he called on a family friend, with whom he took tea, surrounded by her children. Leaving her house about nine o’clock, he walked slowly back to the hotel. When descending Fayette Street by its side, he could not but observe an enormous assemblage of people, with very little apparent government, in the open square at the foot of the street. Entering the private door, which was at some distance from the riotous crowd, he came upon a gentleman, who, addressing him by name, expressed surprise at seeing him there, saying, “That mob in the square is after you. Their leaders have been to the hotel and demanded you. They were told that you were out,—that nobody knew where you were, and that you had probably left town”; and he wound up by insisting that it was not safe for Mr. Sumner to continue at the hotel, or anywhere in town, if his place of stopping were known. Without reply to this notice, Mr. Sumner walked down the long corridor of the hotel, and, turning into the office, asked for hiskey. At once Mr. Barnum, with one of his assistants, took him into a small back room, where they explained the condition of things, narrated the visit of the leaders, and the answer they were able to give, by which the mob were turned aside; but this temporary relief left them still anxious, especially if Mr. Sumner’s return should be suspected, and therefore they must request him to leave the hotel; and this was enforced by saying that his longer stay was perilous to the hotel as well as to himself, and that he must find shelter somewhere else. Mr. Sumner, while declaring his sincere regret that he should be the innocent occasion of peril to the hotel, said that there was nowhere else for him to go,—that he had no right to carry peril to the house of a friend,—that it was impossible for him to do this,—that he had come to the hotel as a traveller, and he must claim his rights, believing that in so large a structure there was more safety than in a private house, even if there were any such where he could go. The interview ended in conducting him to a chamber on a long entry of the third story, where all the rooms were alike, when, after saying that nobody in the hotel but themselves would know where he was, they left him alone. From the window which opened on the street at the side of the hotel, he could see the swaying multitude, and hear their voices. In the gray of the morning he left for the Philadelphia Railroad.[143]
On the way to Philadelphia, he met a long train for Baltimore, containing the Sixth Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers, hurrying to the defence of the national capital. It was the first regiment of volunteers he had seen, and he was struck by the gayety of soldier life, which overflowed as the train passed. On his arrival at Philadelphia, the telegraph was announcing the tragedy which had befallen them.
The troops were passing through Baltimore from the Philadelphia station, in the large horse-cars, and a portion had arrived at the Washington station, when those behind were set upon by a mob, the successor of that at the hotel on the preceding evening. Before they could leave the station, the streets were barricaded, and the rails removed, so that they were obliged to make their way on foot, amidst the growing fury of the mob, which had increased to ten thousand. Stones, bricks, and other murderous missiles were thrown at them. Then came pistol-shots. As the soldiers saw their comrades fall, they fired. Several of the assailants dropped upon the pavements, and others were wounded. And so for two miles they fought their way to the Washington station. Of the troops, four were killed, and thirty-six wounded. That evening the regiment quartered at Washington, in the SenateChamber.[144]Thus, on the 19th of April, 1861, began and closed the first encounter of the terrible war at hand.
The mob now reigned in Baltimore. Gun-shops were plundered. Other shops were closed. The President was notified that no more troops could pass through the city, unless they fought their way. That night the bridges on the railroad to Philadelphia were burnt, so that this great avenue was closed.[145]
On the 21st of April, the Third Battalion of Massachusetts Rifles, with Hon. Charles Devens as Major, consisting of two hundred and sixty-six men, arrived at New York from Worcester, on their way to the scene of action, and quartered in the armory of the famous New York Seventh, which had left on the preceding afternoon. On a visit to the armory by Mr. Sumner, the Battalion was called into line, and he made the following remarks.
Major Devens, Soldiers, and Fellow-Citizens of Massachusetts:—
Being in New York, on my way home from Washington to our beloved Massachusetts, and learning that you also were here on your way to duty, I have called, that I might have the privilege of looking upon your faces. [Cheers.] Your commanding officer, whom I have known long in other walks of life, does me the honor of inviting me to say a few words. If I have yielded, it is because he is irresistible, for I feel in my soul that action, and not speech, is needed now. [Cheers.] Elsewhere it has been my part to speak. It is your part now to act. [Applause.] Nor do I doubt that you will act as becomes the Commonwealth that has committed to you her name. [Cheers.]
I cannot see before me so large a number of the sons of Massachusetts, already moving to the scene of trial, without feeling anew the loss we have just encountered:I allude to the death, at Baltimore, of devoted fellow-citizens, who had sprung forward so promptly at the call of country. As I heard that they had fallen, my soul was touched. And yet, when I thought of the cause for which they met death, I said to myself, that, for the sake of Massachusetts, ay, and for their own sake, I would not have it otherwise. [Enthusiastic applause.] They have died well, for they died at the post of duty, and so dying have become an example and a name in history, while Massachusetts, that sent them forth, adds new memories to a day already famous in her calendar, and links the present with the past. It was on the 19th of April that they died, and their blood was the first offering of patriotism in the great cause which snatched them from the avocations of peace. Thus have they passed at once into companionship with those forefathers who on the 19th of April, 1775, made also the offering of their blood. [Loud cheers.] Lexington is not alone. As on that historic field, Massachusetts blood is again the first to be spilled, and in a conflict which is but a continuation of the other; and these dying volunteers have placed Massachusetts once more foremost, as on that morning which heralded Independence. [Cheers.] Therefore I would not have it otherwise. [Cheers.] Nor do I doubt that the day we now deplore will be followed, as was that earlier day, by certain triumph. [Cheers.]
Those other times, when our forefathers struggled for Independence against the British power, were often said “to try men’s souls”; and these words are yet repeated to depict those trials. But, witnessing the willingness and alacrity with which patriot citizens now offer themselves for country, and to die, if need be, I look in vainfor signs that souls are tried. [Cheers.] And yet I cannot disguise from you, soldiers, that there are hardships and perils in your path. But what is victory, unless through hardship and peril? [Cheers.] Be brave, then, and do the duty to which you are called; and if you need any watchword, let it be,Massachusetts,the Constitution, and FREEDOM! [Loud applause from the soldiers.]
On the same evening, the Battalion embarked on board the transport “Ariel” for Annapolis, where it arrived on the morning of April 24th, and on the 2d of May was transferred to Fort McHenry, in the harbor of Baltimore. There it remained to the end of its term of service.
On the same evening, the Battalion embarked on board the transport “Ariel” for Annapolis, where it arrived on the morning of April 24th, and on the 2d of May was transferred to Fort McHenry, in the harbor of Baltimore. There it remained to the end of its term of service.
Note to the Secretary of State, June 27, 1861.
The question of Passports for Colored Citizens was embarrassed by the Dred Scott decision, and the usage of the State Department, refusing to recognize colored persons as citizens. The position of the latter was set forth in a letter of Mr. Thomas, Assistant Secretary, communicating the judgment of Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State.“Department of State, Washington, November 4, 1856.“Your letters of the 29th ult. and 3d inst., requesting passports for eleven colored persons, have been received, and I am directed by the Secretary to inform you that the papers transmitted by you do not warrant the Department in complying with your request. The question whether free negroes are citizens is not now presented for the first time, but has repeatedly arisen in the administration of both the National and State governments. In 1821 a controversy arose as to whether free persons of color were citizens of the United States, within the intent and meaning of the Acts of Congress regulating foreign and coasting trade, so as to be qualified to command vessels, and Wirt, Attorney-General, decided that they were not, and he moreover held that the words ‘citizens of the United States’ were used in the Acts of Congress in the same sense as in the Constitution. This view is also fully sustained in a recent opinion of the present Attorney-General.“The judicial decisions of the country are to the same effect.… Such being the construction of the Constitution in regard to free persons of color, it is conceived that they cannot be regarded, when beyond the jurisdiction of this Government, as entitled to the full rights of citizens; but the Secretary directs me to say, that, though the Department could not certify that such persons are citizens of the United States, yet, if satisfied of the truth of the facts, it would give a certificate that they were born in the United States, are free, and that the Government thereof would regard it to be its duty to protect them, if wronged by a foreign government while within its jurisdiction for a legal and proper purpose.”[146]Amidst the general anxieties of the time this important question was presented for revision. A colored youth of Boston, son of RobertMorris, Esq., a practitioner in the courts of Massachusetts, unable to obtain a college education at home, proposed to seek it in France, where there was no exclusion on account of color, and Mr. Sumner, in a written communication to the Secretary of State, requested a passport for him, at the same time inclosing the description of his person duly authenticated, in which his complexion was said to be “colored” and his hair “short and curly.” There being some delay, Mr. Sumner called at the Department to urge personally his formal application. Mr. Seward did not like to issue a passport on the description furnished, but at the same time would furnish a passport to Mr. Sumner for anybody whom he certified to be a citizen, without description. The authenticated description was then returned, and Mr. Sumner, at Mr. Seward’s own desk, and on the ordinary despatch paper of the Department, wrote at once the following.
The question of Passports for Colored Citizens was embarrassed by the Dred Scott decision, and the usage of the State Department, refusing to recognize colored persons as citizens. The position of the latter was set forth in a letter of Mr. Thomas, Assistant Secretary, communicating the judgment of Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State.
“Department of State, Washington, November 4, 1856.“Your letters of the 29th ult. and 3d inst., requesting passports for eleven colored persons, have been received, and I am directed by the Secretary to inform you that the papers transmitted by you do not warrant the Department in complying with your request. The question whether free negroes are citizens is not now presented for the first time, but has repeatedly arisen in the administration of both the National and State governments. In 1821 a controversy arose as to whether free persons of color were citizens of the United States, within the intent and meaning of the Acts of Congress regulating foreign and coasting trade, so as to be qualified to command vessels, and Wirt, Attorney-General, decided that they were not, and he moreover held that the words ‘citizens of the United States’ were used in the Acts of Congress in the same sense as in the Constitution. This view is also fully sustained in a recent opinion of the present Attorney-General.“The judicial decisions of the country are to the same effect.… Such being the construction of the Constitution in regard to free persons of color, it is conceived that they cannot be regarded, when beyond the jurisdiction of this Government, as entitled to the full rights of citizens; but the Secretary directs me to say, that, though the Department could not certify that such persons are citizens of the United States, yet, if satisfied of the truth of the facts, it would give a certificate that they were born in the United States, are free, and that the Government thereof would regard it to be its duty to protect them, if wronged by a foreign government while within its jurisdiction for a legal and proper purpose.”[146]
“Department of State, Washington, November 4, 1856.
“Your letters of the 29th ult. and 3d inst., requesting passports for eleven colored persons, have been received, and I am directed by the Secretary to inform you that the papers transmitted by you do not warrant the Department in complying with your request. The question whether free negroes are citizens is not now presented for the first time, but has repeatedly arisen in the administration of both the National and State governments. In 1821 a controversy arose as to whether free persons of color were citizens of the United States, within the intent and meaning of the Acts of Congress regulating foreign and coasting trade, so as to be qualified to command vessels, and Wirt, Attorney-General, decided that they were not, and he moreover held that the words ‘citizens of the United States’ were used in the Acts of Congress in the same sense as in the Constitution. This view is also fully sustained in a recent opinion of the present Attorney-General.
“The judicial decisions of the country are to the same effect.… Such being the construction of the Constitution in regard to free persons of color, it is conceived that they cannot be regarded, when beyond the jurisdiction of this Government, as entitled to the full rights of citizens; but the Secretary directs me to say, that, though the Department could not certify that such persons are citizens of the United States, yet, if satisfied of the truth of the facts, it would give a certificate that they were born in the United States, are free, and that the Government thereof would regard it to be its duty to protect them, if wronged by a foreign government while within its jurisdiction for a legal and proper purpose.”[146]
Amidst the general anxieties of the time this important question was presented for revision. A colored youth of Boston, son of RobertMorris, Esq., a practitioner in the courts of Massachusetts, unable to obtain a college education at home, proposed to seek it in France, where there was no exclusion on account of color, and Mr. Sumner, in a written communication to the Secretary of State, requested a passport for him, at the same time inclosing the description of his person duly authenticated, in which his complexion was said to be “colored” and his hair “short and curly.” There being some delay, Mr. Sumner called at the Department to urge personally his formal application. Mr. Seward did not like to issue a passport on the description furnished, but at the same time would furnish a passport to Mr. Sumner for anybody whom he certified to be a citizen, without description. The authenticated description was then returned, and Mr. Sumner, at Mr. Seward’s own desk, and on the ordinary despatch paper of the Department, wrote at once the following.
Washington, 27 June, ’61.SIR,—Please send me a passport for Robert Morris, Jr., of Boston, a citizen of the United States.Faithfully yours,Charles Sumner.The Secretary of State.
Washington, 27 June, ’61.
SIR,—Please send me a passport for Robert Morris, Jr., of Boston, a citizen of the United States.
Faithfully yours,
Charles Sumner.
The Secretary of State.
The passport was duly issued, bearing date June 29, 1861, and Mr. Sumner’s note was filed in the Passport Bureau, being the only paper in the case.The opinion of the Attorney-General, affirming the citizenship of colored freemen, November 29, 1862,[147]settled this question definitively.
The passport was duly issued, bearing date June 29, 1861, and Mr. Sumner’s note was filed in the Passport Bureau, being the only paper in the case.
The opinion of the Attorney-General, affirming the citizenship of colored freemen, November 29, 1862,[147]settled this question definitively.
Proceedings in the Senate, on the Crittenden Resolution declaring the Object of the War, July 24 and 25, 1861.
July 4th, 1861, Congress met in extraordinary session, at the call of the President, to make provision for the welfare of the country, and especially for the prosecution of the war. Meanwhile, Mr. Crittenden, so famous for his attempt at Compromise, had ceased to be a Senator, but he had become a member of the other House. Here he introduced a resolution, declaring the object of the war, which was adopted by the House with only two dissenting votes.July 24, the same resolution, in nearly the same words, was introduced into the Senate by Hon. Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, afterwards President, who pressed a vote at once, even without having it printed. On Mr. Sumner’s objection it was postponed. His few words in making this objection have significance, as showing his feeling towards Mr. Johnson at that time, and also his unwillingness that the Senate should commit itself hastily to a proposition which, under the name of the “Crittenden Resolution,” was destined to play an important part.Mr. Sumner said:—
July 4th, 1861, Congress met in extraordinary session, at the call of the President, to make provision for the welfare of the country, and especially for the prosecution of the war. Meanwhile, Mr. Crittenden, so famous for his attempt at Compromise, had ceased to be a Senator, but he had become a member of the other House. Here he introduced a resolution, declaring the object of the war, which was adopted by the House with only two dissenting votes.
July 24, the same resolution, in nearly the same words, was introduced into the Senate by Hon. Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, afterwards President, who pressed a vote at once, even without having it printed. On Mr. Sumner’s objection it was postponed. His few words in making this objection have significance, as showing his feeling towards Mr. Johnson at that time, and also his unwillingness that the Senate should commit itself hastily to a proposition which, under the name of the “Crittenden Resolution,” was destined to play an important part.
Mr. Sumner said:—
I am unwilling to stand in the way of any desire of the Senator from Tennessee [Mr.Andrew Johnson]. I hesitate, therefore, to use the privilege, under the rules, of objecting to a resolution on the day of its introduction; but I do think, in view of its importance, that it ought at least to be printed, so that we may have an opportunity of reading it carefully and considering it well, before we act upon it. Therefore I object to its consideration at this time. I wish the Senator to understand that it is with great respect for himself, and with a desire to do really what the occasion, as I think, requires. I hope the Senator himself will consent that it lie on the table and be printed.
Mr. Johnson said that he would not object, and the resolution was ordered to be printed, as follows.“Resolved,—That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States, now in revolt against the Constitutional Government, and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency, Congress, banishing all feeling of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and all laws made in pursuance thereof, and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished, the war ought to cease.”The next day the resolution was taken up, on motion of Mr. Johnson. Mr. Trumbull objected to the allegation in it that the disunionists were “in arms around the capital,” which in his opinion was not true; and he added, that, in his opinion, the revolt was occasioned by people who are not here or in this vicinity: it was started in South Carolina. He objected also to the clause that the war was “not prosecuted for any purpose of conquest or subjugation,”—on which he said, “I trust this warisprosecuted for the purpose of subjugating all rebels and traitors who are in arms against the Government.” For these reasons he voted in the negative. Every other Republican present voted in the affirmative, except Mr. Sumner, who declined to vote. His name does not appear in the record.This resolution was general in terms, but specious. Though not mentioning Slavery expressly, or interfering with the requirement of military necessity, it was considered at the time as a safeguard of Slavery, even to the Fugitive Slave Bill itself, which was included under the words, “the supremacy of the Constitution, and all laws made in pursuance thereof.” Nor could it be forgotten that it was first brought forward by the same person who, during the previous winter, as Senator from Kentucky, had most pertinaciously urged an odious compromise, by which Slavery was to be intrenched in the Constitution, and made dominant in the National Government. Mr. Sumner, alwayssensitive to any recognition of Slavery, saw in it an effort to commit Congress the wrong way, so that inaction on Slavery should be the policy of the war, when, to his mind, the sooner Slavery was attacked, the better. His objection to the resolution was radical; but, unwilling to separate openly from political associates, anxious also with regard to the President, who held back, and hoping that time would bring general concurrence in striking at Slavery, he was silent, and contented himself by withholding his vote, so that he was not committed to the resolution in any respect.This statement is made to explain the progress of events, and also because Mr. Sumner’s course was the occasion of comment, and even of hostile criticism, at the time.
Mr. Johnson said that he would not object, and the resolution was ordered to be printed, as follows.
“Resolved,—That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States, now in revolt against the Constitutional Government, and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency, Congress, banishing all feeling of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and all laws made in pursuance thereof, and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished, the war ought to cease.”
“Resolved,—That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States, now in revolt against the Constitutional Government, and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency, Congress, banishing all feeling of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and all laws made in pursuance thereof, and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished, the war ought to cease.”
The next day the resolution was taken up, on motion of Mr. Johnson. Mr. Trumbull objected to the allegation in it that the disunionists were “in arms around the capital,” which in his opinion was not true; and he added, that, in his opinion, the revolt was occasioned by people who are not here or in this vicinity: it was started in South Carolina. He objected also to the clause that the war was “not prosecuted for any purpose of conquest or subjugation,”—on which he said, “I trust this warisprosecuted for the purpose of subjugating all rebels and traitors who are in arms against the Government.” For these reasons he voted in the negative. Every other Republican present voted in the affirmative, except Mr. Sumner, who declined to vote. His name does not appear in the record.
This resolution was general in terms, but specious. Though not mentioning Slavery expressly, or interfering with the requirement of military necessity, it was considered at the time as a safeguard of Slavery, even to the Fugitive Slave Bill itself, which was included under the words, “the supremacy of the Constitution, and all laws made in pursuance thereof.” Nor could it be forgotten that it was first brought forward by the same person who, during the previous winter, as Senator from Kentucky, had most pertinaciously urged an odious compromise, by which Slavery was to be intrenched in the Constitution, and made dominant in the National Government. Mr. Sumner, alwayssensitive to any recognition of Slavery, saw in it an effort to commit Congress the wrong way, so that inaction on Slavery should be the policy of the war, when, to his mind, the sooner Slavery was attacked, the better. His objection to the resolution was radical; but, unwilling to separate openly from political associates, anxious also with regard to the President, who held back, and hoping that time would bring general concurrence in striking at Slavery, he was silent, and contented himself by withholding his vote, so that he was not committed to the resolution in any respect.
This statement is made to explain the progress of events, and also because Mr. Sumner’s course was the occasion of comment, and even of hostile criticism, at the time.
Speech in the Senate, against Increase of Ten per Cent on all Foreign Duties, July 29, 1861.
In the consideration of the Tariff Bill at this session, Mr. Sumner differed from friends on some of the points involved. One of these differences occurred on his motion, July 29, 1861, to strike out the following clause:—“That, in addition to the duties now imposed by law on goods, wares, and merchandise not enumerated in the foregoing section, and on all goods not herein otherwise provided for, hereafter imported from foreign countries, there shall be levied, collected, and paida duty of ten per centum ad valorem, to include all merchandise subject to or exempt from duty by former laws.”On this motion he spoke as follows.
In the consideration of the Tariff Bill at this session, Mr. Sumner differed from friends on some of the points involved. One of these differences occurred on his motion, July 29, 1861, to strike out the following clause:—
“That, in addition to the duties now imposed by law on goods, wares, and merchandise not enumerated in the foregoing section, and on all goods not herein otherwise provided for, hereafter imported from foreign countries, there shall be levied, collected, and paida duty of ten per centum ad valorem, to include all merchandise subject to or exempt from duty by former laws.”
“That, in addition to the duties now imposed by law on goods, wares, and merchandise not enumerated in the foregoing section, and on all goods not herein otherwise provided for, hereafter imported from foreign countries, there shall be levied, collected, and paida duty of ten per centum ad valorem, to include all merchandise subject to or exempt from duty by former laws.”
On this motion he spoke as follows.
MR. PRESIDENT,—I think we had better take a vote on the simple proposition, because in that way we shall arrive at the precise wishes of the Senate. I therefore move to strike out the words just read; and if I can have the attention of the Senate for two minutes, I think I can explain why they should be stricken out.
It will be remembered that in the latter days of the last session a new tariff was adopted; but, owing to the disturbed state of the country, and the impediments to commerce, it is not too much to say that we have no present experience of its operation. We do not know to what extent it will supply revenue. While thusignorant of its operation, it is proposed to make an important change, being nothing less than to pile another story upon what is already criticised as too high. In addition to all existing duties, we are asked to impose a further duty of ten per cent. In the present exigencies of the country, if there were reasonable assurance that out of such extraordinary tax the revenue would be advanced, I should have nothing to say against it,—on the contrary, I should hold up both hands for it; but, so far as I am informed,—and I have taken pains to inform myself,—there is no reasonable ground to believe that the addition of ten per cent extra upon present duties would yield any additional revenue.
Mr. Polk.If the Senator will allow me to interrupt him——Mr. Sumner.Certainly.Mr. Polk.I will ask if the result of his investigations is not that the addition of ten per cent would actually decrease the revenue?
Mr. Polk.If the Senator will allow me to interrupt him——
Mr. Sumner.Certainly.
Mr. Polk.I will ask if the result of his investigations is not that the addition of ten per cent would actually decrease the revenue?
Mr. Sumner.The Senator properly directs attention to an important point. I said there was no reasonable assurance that there would be an increase of revenue. I believe that I may go further, as the Senator has suggested, and say that a tariff so far prohibitory will actually diminish instead of increasing revenue. Where then will be your revenue? Revenue comes from commerce, and is just in proportion to the extent of commerce; but if you make commerce impossible, where is your revenue? You kill the bird that lays the golden egg.
There is a pleasant story, which I remember to have heard, of a shopkeeper who once announced to hisfriends that before breakfast he had increased his fortune by ten per cent; but, on inquiry, it was ascertained that he had merely marked his goods on hand at an increased price of ten per cent, and that was his boasted increase. I much fear that this additional ten per cent will be equally vain for the increase of our national revenue.
But, Mr. President, while the advantages of this proposed increase are all uncertain, there are disadvantages that are certain. It will add to the bad name which, unhappily, the tariff of the last session has already with those disposed to criticise it, and especially with foreign countries. At this moment, when every suggestion of prudence dictates that in our relations with foreign countries we should be governed by a supreme policy of moderation, conciliation, and good-will, you propose to take a step which, to say the least of it, will be regarded as indicative of hostility or of indifference. Now, whatever may be the sentiments and the feelings of European Governments with regard to us, it is perfectly clear that the laboring classes of Europe do sympathize with us in our present struggle; and all those sympathies you turn aside, when you impose prohibitory duties which cut off a market for their labor. I am therefore, Mr. President, opposed to this increase on two positive grounds: first, because its advantages are uncertain; secondly, because its disadvantages are certain.
Mr. Fessenden replied, saying, among other things,—“I am very glad that the Senator has made the remarks he has, and I desire to say a few words in reply, more particularly to the last portion of his speech. As Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, it being his duty to keep on the best possible terms with all foreign powers, he had a right, perhaps, to say what he has said; but, after all, that is not the question. I would suggest to the honorable Senator, that there is something else to be considered, at the present time, besides the good or bad opinion which certain foreign ministers and others may have of our domestic policy.”Then again:—“Now the Senator says: ‘Be careful how you lay these duties on, because foreign countries will be offended at us.’ What right has a foreign country to make any question about what we choose to do with reference to these matters,—to say, when we are in a state of war, and struggling for national existence even, that we shall not impose duties which are necessary to enable us to prosecute that war, because, forsooth, it may affect the interests of foreign gentlemen?”Here Mr. Sumner interposed:—
Mr. Fessenden replied, saying, among other things,—
“I am very glad that the Senator has made the remarks he has, and I desire to say a few words in reply, more particularly to the last portion of his speech. As Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, it being his duty to keep on the best possible terms with all foreign powers, he had a right, perhaps, to say what he has said; but, after all, that is not the question. I would suggest to the honorable Senator, that there is something else to be considered, at the present time, besides the good or bad opinion which certain foreign ministers and others may have of our domestic policy.”
“I am very glad that the Senator has made the remarks he has, and I desire to say a few words in reply, more particularly to the last portion of his speech. As Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, it being his duty to keep on the best possible terms with all foreign powers, he had a right, perhaps, to say what he has said; but, after all, that is not the question. I would suggest to the honorable Senator, that there is something else to be considered, at the present time, besides the good or bad opinion which certain foreign ministers and others may have of our domestic policy.”
Then again:—
“Now the Senator says: ‘Be careful how you lay these duties on, because foreign countries will be offended at us.’ What right has a foreign country to make any question about what we choose to do with reference to these matters,—to say, when we are in a state of war, and struggling for national existence even, that we shall not impose duties which are necessary to enable us to prosecute that war, because, forsooth, it may affect the interests of foreign gentlemen?”
“Now the Senator says: ‘Be careful how you lay these duties on, because foreign countries will be offended at us.’ What right has a foreign country to make any question about what we choose to do with reference to these matters,—to say, when we are in a state of war, and struggling for national existence even, that we shall not impose duties which are necessary to enable us to prosecute that war, because, forsooth, it may affect the interests of foreign gentlemen?”
Here Mr. Sumner interposed:—
I know the Senator does not intend to misstate my argument. I assumed that there would be no increase of revenue from this additional ten per cent,—at least, that the advantages of the increase were uncertain, doubtful; and then that it was very certain there would be disadvantages.