OPINION.

The trial proceeded at Charlestown, lasting several months, with able counsel for the defendants, and it ended in judgment against the defendants, who were sentenced to imprisonment for two years and a fine of twenty thousand dollars. This judgment and sentence were approved by the Secretary of the Navy, and it only remained for the President to give them his sanction. Before this was done, Mr. Sumner saw him. The President listened to his appeal, and at once put into his hands the elaborate report from the Secretary of the Navy, setting forth the facts in the case and approving the conclusion of the court-martial,—asking him to read it carefully and give his opinion upon it, which he did without delay.

This case has been pending since 17th June, 1864, when the Messrs. Smith Brothers, who, as merchants, enjoyed an enviable reputation, were suddenly arrested by military authority, and, without any opportunity of conferring with counsel or friends, were hurried off to Fort Warren. During all this period, running over nine months, I have kept myself aloof from the case, so far as possible, knowing that I was not so circumstanced as to consider it on its merits, and under the conviction, that, at last, justice would be done.

On certain matters independent of the merits I have with others been called to speak. One of these was the manner of the arrest and the bail required. At the time of the arrest, all the books and papers of the parties were seized and sequestered. The hardship of the arrest was aggravated by the bail required, which was fixed at half a million of dollars. “Excessive bail” is forbidden by the Constitution; but it would be difficult to say what bail could be “excessive,” if this was not.

The other matter on which I was called to speak was the order for the trial of the Messrs. Smith Brothersby court-martial at Philadelphia, when it was notorious that the proceedings must be protracted, and that numerous witnesses must be summoned from Boston, at great expense: the whole constituting a plain oppression, not unlike the demand of “excessive bail.”

The hardship in these preliminary proceedings seemed to justify an appeal to the President, in which I joined, for his intervention at least to change the place of trial. Perhaps they illustrate also the temper which entered into this prosecution.

It is only since the President has put into my hands the report on the findings of the Court, adopted by the Secretary of the Navy, that I have looked into the case on its merits. I have read that report carefully, and also the arguments of the counsel on both sides; but I have not had any opportunity to examine the whole record. From the fulness of the report, and of the arguments, this was hardly necessary. The record is extensively cited in the report and the arguments, and also in a pamphlet by one of the respondents, which I have read.

The more I have examined the case, the more I have been surprised by the preliminary proceedings, the continued prosecution, and the findings of the Court. I can well understand how they were used in the House of Representatives as an argument for the total repeal of the Act of Congress authorizing the trial of civilians by courts-martial. Such a case must make us fear, that, under this Act, justice may be sacrificed. It might make honest merchants hesitate to enter into business relations with the Government.

On careful examination, it seems that the whole prosecution, so far as proof is seriously pretended, isreduced to one single specification,—to wit, the sale and delivery of five thousand pounds of a tin called Revely, instead of a tin called Banca, by which, at most, the Government lost one hundred dollars. There are other specifications; but the report adopted by the Secretary of the Navy forbears to dwell on them; and I do not think they can be made the foundation of any judgment against the respondents. They did not seem to have impressed the President, in the conversation which I had with him on the subject. I put them aside as unproved or irrelevant. There only remains the single specification with regard to tin.

Look at this carefully, and the wonder increases that these proceedings were ever instituted.

1. The first remark to make is, that, even according to the finding of the Court, the Government has suffered only to the amount of one hundred dollars,—being the difference in price between the two kinds of tin at the date of delivery.The pettiness of this lossis still more apparent, when it is considered that the transactions of the respondents with the Government reached the sum of more than twelve hundred thousand dollars, having such infinite details that they covered twelve hundred and five pages of sales. Surely, on every principle of reason or evidence, the insignificance of this loss, in transactions on so large a scale, and extending over three years of time, constitutes an unanswerable presumption in favor of the respondents, excluding, as it does, any adequate motive for the perpetration of fraud. Even assuming that the supply of tin was questionable, it would be reasonable to call it ill-considered, hasty, or mistaken, rather than criminal, according to the finding of the Court. Certainly it could be no justificationof the vindictive arrest and bail with which the proceedings began, and it is frightful that it should be made the pretence for a sentence of two year’ imprisonment and twenty thousand dollar’ fine. If a mountain in labor ever brought forth a mouse, it is this mountainous prosecution, whose only offspring yet crawling on earth is an allegation of loss to the United States of one hundred dollars! But, if we look further at this transaction, it will be seen that it is absolutely unimpeachable.

2. Much confusion has been caused byignorance with regard to the two tins in question. The report adopted by the Secretary of the Navy says of them, that, “in the course of commerce,the two are never confounded by dealers”; then, again, that “Banca tin isone article, having a certain price, and that Revely tin isanother and a different article, having a different price.” The repetition of this assumption again and again shows how important it was regarded in support of the accusation. But this assumption is founded on mistake.

I call attention to the letter of Hon. S. Hooper, addressed to myself, under date of 14th March instant, in which he testifies from his experience as an importer, for many years, of these two tins. He says: “If the only charge against Messrs. Smith Brothers & Co. is the delivery of Revely tin, on a contract to supply the Government with Banca tin, it is an absurdity, and it is evident to me that the Court did not know what Banca tin was.” He then proceeds to say, that the tin of the East passes under thegeneral nameof Banca tin, which is applicable to the Revely or Straits tin as well as to the Dutch; and he adduces the authority of the CommercialDictionaries. Thus, McCulloch, under the word “Tin,” after speaking of the tin of Great Britain, says, “Tin, Oriental, in commercial language usually called Banca tin,” produced, according to this authority, in China, the Malay countries, and the islands lying toward Java. He also cites Simmonds’s “Dictionary of Trade,” published in London as late as 1858, which, under the term “Banca-Tin,” says, “A valuable kind of tin, equal to English refined, obtained in the Eastern Archipelago, originally from the island of Banca exclusively; but much is now procured in Malacca, and sent to Singapore for shipment.” The latter, it will be borne in mind, is what has been treated in this case as Revely.

Certainly, the testimony of Mr. Hooper, in concurrence with the Commercial Dictionaries, must tend to show that the report is mistaken, when it so confidently asserts, that, “in the course of commerce, the two tins are never confounded by dealers.” On the contrary, they have been treated by “dealers,” and by authoritative writers on commerce, as substantially the same. It is almost superfluous for me to add, that, according to the ruling of our courts, such testimony would be decisive. Thus, where certain words were used in the tariff, Mr. Justice Story decided, that, “the tariff being a statute regulating commerce, the terms of it must be construedaccording to commercial usage and understanding.”[184]Common sense is in harmony with this judgment.

As if to put thiscommercial usagebeyond question, we have the testimony of Mr. Richards, a witnessfor the prosecution, as follows.

“Cross-Question 18.Do you ever have orders from customers for Banca tin, that you execute by the delivery of Revely or Straits?—Ans. We have.”“Cross-Question 22.Suppose you had an order from a foundry—say Hooper & Co.—for five thousand pounds of Banca tin, which you knew was to be used for castings, how would you fill such an order?—Ans. We should not hesitate to give him Revely.”“Re-Cross-Question 1.Would you not deliver to a party five thousand pounds of Revely tin, upon a contract for Banca tin, if you had never known them to buy such a quantity of any kind but Revely or Straits, if you had repeatedly sold them Revely or Straits acceptably, and you considered the tin was to be used for castings?—Ans. I should.”

“Cross-Question 18.Do you ever have orders from customers for Banca tin, that you execute by the delivery of Revely or Straits?—Ans. We have.”

“Cross-Question 22.Suppose you had an order from a foundry—say Hooper & Co.—for five thousand pounds of Banca tin, which you knew was to be used for castings, how would you fill such an order?—Ans. We should not hesitate to give him Revely.”

“Re-Cross-Question 1.Would you not deliver to a party five thousand pounds of Revely tin, upon a contract for Banca tin, if you had never known them to buy such a quantity of any kind but Revely or Straits, if you had repeatedly sold them Revely or Straits acceptably, and you considered the tin was to be used for castings?—Ans. I should.”

3. Theusage at the Navy Yardwas in harmony with commercial usage, as the testimony abundantly shows. Forat least seven yearsprevious to the contract of the respondents, the tin known as Revely had been received at the yard as Banca. Edward Cody, witness for the prosecution, and the master founder, on cross-examination, puts this beyond question.

“Cross-Question 4.During these seven years [past], has not the Revely tin been the standard article in use in your bureau or foundry?—Ans. It has.”“Cross-Question 11.If you had been inquired of by them [Smith Brothers & Co.] what kind of tin you required, what would have been your reply?—Ans. I should have had the same as I have had.“Cross-Question 12.What is that?—Ans. Revely.”

“Cross-Question 4.During these seven years [past], has not the Revely tin been the standard article in use in your bureau or foundry?—Ans. It has.”

“Cross-Question 11.If you had been inquired of by them [Smith Brothers & Co.] what kind of tin you required, what would have been your reply?—Ans. I should have had the same as I have had.

“Cross-Question 12.What is that?—Ans. Revely.”

Another witness, the Hon. Eugene L. Norton, the Navy Agent at Boston, testifies, that, having occasion to buy tin on a requisition from the Ordnance Office, he sent to inquire of Captain Green, the Ordnance Officer,what brand was required. The answer was, “that, in all cases where it was foundry work, Revely or Straits would be the kind that would be received; that, in those cases where it was wanted in small quantities, for solder, Banca would be preferred, as Revely or Straits was somewhat cheaper than Banca.” And he added, that the quantity named in the requisition, as a ton, or a pig, would indicate the kind he should buy. Add to the testimony of these two witnesses the undisputed fact, that, when, in May, 1863, C. W. Schofield, being under contract to deliver five thousand pounds of Banca, failed to perform his contract, the Government, although entitled to purchase the desired article in open market at his expense,bought Revely. Here was a practical interpretation of the contract, which establishes the usage of the Navy Yard.

4. Theopenness of the transactionand of the delivery testify also to theusage. The tin, when delivered, was stamped upon its face “Revely & Co.” This stamp, which was open to the observation of all officers, workmen, and passers-by, is an incontrovertible witness, which no argument of counsel or ingenious commentary can neutralize. Calmly, but unanswerably, it shows two things: first, the usage at the Navy Yard; and, secondly, the good faith of the transaction. But I refer to it now simply to illustrate the usage.

5. Then comesthe acceptance of the tinmarked as Revely, and the approval of the bills by the officers of the Government, in performance of the contract. It is not denied that the tin was accepted by Mr. Merriam, the master machinist at the Navy Yard, and that the bills were approved by Mr. Kimball, the inspecting officer of Government,—an inspector who is said to havebeen unfriendly to the respondents. This double fact is beyond question. An attempt is made to throw doubt on the integrity of one of these witnesses, by charging complicity; but it does not appear that there is a scrap of evidence in the record to sustain the imputation, and I need not say it is outrageous to imagine it, in order to increase the pressure upon the respondents. Mr. Merriam, in his testimony, says: “I was influenced, undoubtedly,from my knowledge of the practice which had existed heretofore, and also from my belief that the article answered every purpose in the department which Banca tin was required for.The previous practice of the department, of which I had been informed, in addition to my own judgmentas to the substantial equality of the articles, were reasons for my approving the bill.” Nothing could be more explicit or reasonable.

The report adopted by the Secretary of the Navy seeks to parry the force of this approval by the allegation, that “there is not a particle of proof on the record that any one of the officers or other persons employed at the Navy Yard, or in the transaction of its business, had ever received from the Government any sort of authority to make such inspection, approval, and payment as appears in the case.” The report forgetsthe usage of seven yearsat the Navy Yard, andthe commercial usagebesides, which were ample to justify them.

6. As it is evident that the Government did not expect to receive other than Revely, so it is proved thatthe respondents never expected to supply other than Revely, unless in cases of small quantities, where, as we have seen, the Banca was supposed to be desired. Such is the testimony of Benjamin G. Smith, one of the respondents, and also of Mr. Dunnells, their clerk.The latter states, that his instructions from the respondents were to deliver Banca when small lots were required, but Revely when large lots of one thousand pounds and upwards were required, and that, as far as his knowledge went, this had always been done. Therefore the contract was performed according tothe mutual understanding of the two parties.

7.The price, according to the contract, shows that the tin called Revely was intended. This can be demonstrated.

At the date of the contract, 30th March, 1863, the price of Banca in the market was fifty-seven to fifty-eight cents a pound. Revely was less. The price stipulated in the contract was fifty-seven cents. But it is plain that the respondents could not undertake to supply an article at less than its market price. This would be absurd. Of course, as merchants, they expected a profit. Therefore, in their bid, they would naturally take into consideration the various elements which would enter into the final price. These would be, first, the original price; secondly, the commission; thirdly, the condition of the currency, which at that time had begun to depreciate; fourthly, the variation of the market for a month; fifthly, store expenses and interest; sixthly, postponement of payment; and, seventhly, risks of a contractor in placing himself within the unhesitating grasp of military power. So far as these can be estimated, they are as follows:—

But the price was fifty-seven cents.

Now can any person, not to say any merchant, assert that fifty-seven cents a pound was a high price for the tin called Revely? Would anybody but a fool offer to supply the tin which in this prosecution is called Banca at fifty-seven cents a pound, when its original price was more than this, and the contractor must lose store expenses and interest, with the risks of currency, market, postponement of payment, and military tribunals, without the possibility of a mill for commissions? Clearly not. It is evident, therefore, that, in offering to supply Banca tin at fifty-seven cents a pound, they must have intended that species of Banca tin known as Revely, which, according to the usage of the Navy Yard and of merchants, had been recognized as Banca tin.

On this point we have the testimony of Mr. Richards, a witness for the Government, whose cross-examination thus confirms the foregoing conclusion.

“Cross-Question 37.What would it be worth to give a party the refusal for, say, five thousand pounds of tin for twenty or thirty days?—Ans. At least fifteen per cent.”“Cross-Question 44.During the year 1863, how much, in addition to the cash market price, would you have considered should be added for a refusal of thirty days?—Ans. From, ten to fifteen per cent.“Cross-Question 45.Tin being sold to us at fifty and three-fourths cents net cash in the market, would fifty-seven cents be an improper sum for us to charge the Government on a time refusal?—Ans. I should think not.“Cross-Question 46.If you were to be subject to a delay of vouchers for merchandise delivered for thirty days, if there should be a reservation of twenty per cent until the contract was closed, and if then you were liable to be compelled to receive certificates of indebtedness that would not sell in the market at par, what, in addition to the cash market price, would you consider should be added?—Ans. From five to ten per cent, I should think.”“Cross-Question 50.Upon a Government contract, to run three months or one year, with a reservation of twenty per cent, a bid being made which amounts to a refusal for twenty or thirty days, and subject to terms of Government payment, what would you consider a fair addition to the cash market price on a sale to the Government?—Ans. At least ten per cent.”“Cross-Question 52.Among Boston merchants what is the character of the house of Smith Brothers & Co. for integrity and fair dealing?—Ans. A No. 1.”

“Cross-Question 37.What would it be worth to give a party the refusal for, say, five thousand pounds of tin for twenty or thirty days?—Ans. At least fifteen per cent.”

“Cross-Question 44.During the year 1863, how much, in addition to the cash market price, would you have considered should be added for a refusal of thirty days?—Ans. From, ten to fifteen per cent.

“Cross-Question 45.Tin being sold to us at fifty and three-fourths cents net cash in the market, would fifty-seven cents be an improper sum for us to charge the Government on a time refusal?—Ans. I should think not.

“Cross-Question 46.If you were to be subject to a delay of vouchers for merchandise delivered for thirty days, if there should be a reservation of twenty per cent until the contract was closed, and if then you were liable to be compelled to receive certificates of indebtedness that would not sell in the market at par, what, in addition to the cash market price, would you consider should be added?—Ans. From five to ten per cent, I should think.”

“Cross-Question 50.Upon a Government contract, to run three months or one year, with a reservation of twenty per cent, a bid being made which amounts to a refusal for twenty or thirty days, and subject to terms of Government payment, what would you consider a fair addition to the cash market price on a sale to the Government?—Ans. At least ten per cent.”

“Cross-Question 52.Among Boston merchants what is the character of the house of Smith Brothers & Co. for integrity and fair dealing?—Ans. A No. 1.”

Such is the testimony of a Government witness. In the face of this testimony, concurring with the reason of the case, it is hard to tolerate the allegation against these respondents founded on price. Indeed, it is hard to tolerate the allegation on any ground.

Under these seven heads, this whole case, so far as concerns the contract for tin, may be considered. It appears that the loss to the United States, from the delivery of Revely instead of what is called Banca, was not more than one hundred dollars in a mass of transactions amounting to more than one million two hundred thousand dollars; that, according to extensive and long-continued usage, Revely is included under Banca; that, according to usage at the Navy Yard, it was treated as Banca; that the whole transaction and the delivery were open and without any concealment; that Revely was actually accepted by the officers of the Government in performance of the contract; that the respondents never expected to supply other than Revely; and,lastly, that the price paid shows that Revely was intended. This is enough. I forbear to go into the evidence of founders and plumbers, derived from experience, of assayers and chemists, derived from analysis of the two tins, and also of business men, as to their comparative value,—for all this is superfluous. To charge fraud against the respondents under such circumstances is cruel, irrational, preposterous. Their conduct cannot be tortured or twisted into fraud. As well undertake to spin sunbeams into cables, or extract oil from Massachusetts granite.

It is difficult to imagine the origin of these unfortunate proceedings, which, beginning in unheard-of harshness, threaten to end in unexampled injustice, unless arrested by the President. But there are certain facts which may shed light upon some of the hidden springs. Nobody supposes that the able and candid Head of the Navy Department became acquainted with this prosecution until after it had been already conceived, shaped, and set in motion. Others in the Department used its great powers, if not for purposes of oppression, at least recklessly and unaccountably.

It appears that Franklin W. Smith, one of the respondents, published a pamphlet, in which he exposed abuses in the contract system of the Navy Department; and it is understood that sundry officials felt aggrieved by these disclosures. The spirit of these officials appears sufficiently in the following extract from a letter of a Government witness, holding an important position in the Navy Department, addressed to another witness, himself also an official.

“I have been summoned before the Select Committee of the Senate for investigating frauds in Naval Supplies; andif the wool don’t fly, it won’t be my fault. Norton, the Navy Agent, has complained that I have interfered with his business: he and his friend Smith aredead cocks in the pit. We have got a sure thing on them in the tin business.They that dance must pay the fiddler.”

The writer of this letter, after appearing before the Senate Committee at a later day, came on from Washington to appear before the court-martial at Charlestown as a witness against the respondents, where he underwent a cross-examination on which I forbear to comment. If the prosecution did not originate in the spirit which fills his letter, it is evident that this spirit entered into it. “If the wool don’t fly, it won’t be my fault”; “Dead cocks in the pit”; “A sure thing on them in the tin business”: such are the countersigns adopted by the agent of this dark proceeding, showing clearly two things: first, the foregone conclusion, that these respondents were to be sacrificed; and, secondly, that the case turned on “the tin business.”

It is hard that citizens enjoying a good name, who had the misfortune to come into business relations with the Government, should be exposed to such a spirit; that they should be dragged from their homes, and hurried to a military prison; that, though civilians, they should be treated as military offenders; that they should be compelled to undergo a protracted trial by court-martial, damaging their good name, destroying their peace, breaking up their business, and subjecting them to untold expense,—when, at the slightest touch, the whole case vanishes into thin air, leaving behind nothing but the incomprehensible spirit in which it had its origin.

Of course, the findings and sentence of the Courtought, without delay, to be set aside. But this is only the beginning of justice. Some positive reparation should be made to citizens who have been so deeply injured.

Charles Sumner.

Washington, March 17, 1865.

To the President of the United States.

The President promptly overruled the judgment and sentence. The result was received with manifestations of joy. The defendants, whose cruel prosecution had been protracted for six months, had an ovation in the congratulations of their friends and fellow-citizens. Strangers at a distance, feeling that public liberty had suffered through them, sent their sympathy. The press gave expression to the prevailing sentiment. Nor was Mr. Sumner forgotten. The defendants made haste by telegraph to say: “Accept the lasting gratitude of Smith Brothers, their families, and their many friends.” Others wrote in the same spirit,—as, for instance, J. C. Hoadley, of New Bedford, who, though not knowing the sufferers, said: “I thank you, in the name of all fair dealing, for your opinion upon the case of Franklin W. Smith”; and John Clark, who, having been connected with the press in Boston, had passed into the public service, wrote from Norfolk:—“Will you permit me to thank you for your able exposition of the case of the Smith Brothers? I do not know those parties; but I am interested in public liberty, and I have seen no abler defender of it, since the beginning of the war, than you have shown yourself to be on this occasion. I thank you, Sir.”From these expressions it appears that the effort of Mr. Sumner was regarded as not only a defence of the individual citizen, but a contribution to good government. The testimony of Mr. Clark was of the more value, as he had not been accustomed to sympathize with Mr. Sumner in his public course.Independent of its character, this case has an incidental interest. It was one of the last, if not the last, having a personal relation, that ever occupied the mind of President Lincoln. His indorsement, overruling the judgment and sentence, bears date March 18th. This was Saturday. Meanwhile the Rebellion was about to fall, and the President left Washington, by boat, Thursday, March 23d, for City Point, the headquarters of the Army of Virginia, where he remained till after thesurrender of Richmond, returning to Washington Sunday evening, April 9th, and being assassinated Friday evening, April 14th.Some circumstances associated with this case help exhibit the character of the President. They will be stated briefly. As soon as Mr. Sumner had prepared his Opinion, he hurried to the President. It was late in the afternoon, and the latter was about entering his carriage for a drive, when Mr. Sumner arrived with the papers in his hand. He at once mentioned the result he had reached, and added that it was a case for instant action. The President proposed that he should return the next day, when he would consider it with him. Mr. Sumner rejoined, that, in his opinion, the President ought not to sleep on the case,—that he should interfere promptly for the relief of innocent fellow-citizens,—and urged, that, if Abraham Lincoln had suffered unjust imprisonment as a criminal, with degradation before his neighbors, an immense bill of expense, a trial by court-martial, and an unjust condemnation, he would cry out against any postponement of justice for a single day. The President, apparently impressed by Mr. Sumner’s earnestness and his personal appeal, appointed eleven o’clock that evening, when he would go over the case, and hear Mr. Sumner’s Opinion.Accordingly, at eleven o’clock that evening, in the midst of a thunder-storm, filling the streets with water, and threatening chimneys, Mr. Sumner made his way to the Presidential mansion. At the very hour named he was received, and at the request of the President proceeded to read his Opinion. The latter listened attentively, with occasional comments, and at the close showed his sympathy with the respondents. It was now twenty minutes after midnight, when the President said that he would write his conclusion at once, and that Mr. Sumner must come and hear it the next morning,—“when I open shop,” said he. “And when do you open shop?” Mr. Sumner inquired. “At nine o’clock,” was the reply. At that hour Mr. Sumner was in the office he had left after midnight, when the President came running in, and read at once the indorsement in his own handwriting, as follows:—“I am unwilling for the sentence to stand and be executed, to any extent, in this case. In the absence of a more adequate motive than the evidence discloses, I am wholly unable to believe in the existence of criminal or fraudulent intent on the part of one of such well-established good character as is the accused. If the evidence went as far toward establishing a guilty profit of one or two hundred thousand dollars, as it does of one or two hundred dollars, the case would, on the question of guilt, bear a fardifferent aspect. That on this contract, involving from one million to twelve hundred thousand dollars, the contractors should attempt a fraud which at the most could profit them only one or two hundred, or even one thousand dollars, is to my mind beyond the power of rational belief. That they did not, in such a case, strike for greater gains proves that they did not, with guilty or fraudulent intent, strike at all. The judgment and sentence are disapproved and declared null, and the accused ordered to be discharged.“A. Lincoln.“March 18, 1865.”Then followed an incident as original as anything in the life of Henry the Fourth, of France, or of a Lacedæmonian king. As Mr. Sumner was making an abstract of the indorsement for communication by telegraph to the anxious parties, the President broke into quotation from Petroleum V. Nasby, and, seeing that his visitor was less at home than himself in this patriotic literature, he said, “I must initiate you,” and then repeated with enthusiasm the message he had sent to the author: “For the genius to write these things I would gladly give up my office.” Then rising and turning to a standing-desk behind, he opened it and took out a pamphlet collection of the letters already published, which he proceeded to read aloud, evidently enjoying it much. For the time he seemed to forget the case he had just decided, and Presidential duties. This continued more than twenty minutes, when Mr. Sumner, thinking there must be many at the door waiting to see the President on graver matters, took advantage of a pause, and, thanking him for the lesson of the morning, left. Some thirty persons, including Senators and Representatives, were in the anteroom as he passed out.[185]Though with the President much during the intervening days before his death, this was the last business Mr. Sumner transacted with him.

“Will you permit me to thank you for your able exposition of the case of the Smith Brothers? I do not know those parties; but I am interested in public liberty, and I have seen no abler defender of it, since the beginning of the war, than you have shown yourself to be on this occasion. I thank you, Sir.”

From these expressions it appears that the effort of Mr. Sumner was regarded as not only a defence of the individual citizen, but a contribution to good government. The testimony of Mr. Clark was of the more value, as he had not been accustomed to sympathize with Mr. Sumner in his public course.

Independent of its character, this case has an incidental interest. It was one of the last, if not the last, having a personal relation, that ever occupied the mind of President Lincoln. His indorsement, overruling the judgment and sentence, bears date March 18th. This was Saturday. Meanwhile the Rebellion was about to fall, and the President left Washington, by boat, Thursday, March 23d, for City Point, the headquarters of the Army of Virginia, where he remained till after thesurrender of Richmond, returning to Washington Sunday evening, April 9th, and being assassinated Friday evening, April 14th.

Some circumstances associated with this case help exhibit the character of the President. They will be stated briefly. As soon as Mr. Sumner had prepared his Opinion, he hurried to the President. It was late in the afternoon, and the latter was about entering his carriage for a drive, when Mr. Sumner arrived with the papers in his hand. He at once mentioned the result he had reached, and added that it was a case for instant action. The President proposed that he should return the next day, when he would consider it with him. Mr. Sumner rejoined, that, in his opinion, the President ought not to sleep on the case,—that he should interfere promptly for the relief of innocent fellow-citizens,—and urged, that, if Abraham Lincoln had suffered unjust imprisonment as a criminal, with degradation before his neighbors, an immense bill of expense, a trial by court-martial, and an unjust condemnation, he would cry out against any postponement of justice for a single day. The President, apparently impressed by Mr. Sumner’s earnestness and his personal appeal, appointed eleven o’clock that evening, when he would go over the case, and hear Mr. Sumner’s Opinion.

Accordingly, at eleven o’clock that evening, in the midst of a thunder-storm, filling the streets with water, and threatening chimneys, Mr. Sumner made his way to the Presidential mansion. At the very hour named he was received, and at the request of the President proceeded to read his Opinion. The latter listened attentively, with occasional comments, and at the close showed his sympathy with the respondents. It was now twenty minutes after midnight, when the President said that he would write his conclusion at once, and that Mr. Sumner must come and hear it the next morning,—“when I open shop,” said he. “And when do you open shop?” Mr. Sumner inquired. “At nine o’clock,” was the reply. At that hour Mr. Sumner was in the office he had left after midnight, when the President came running in, and read at once the indorsement in his own handwriting, as follows:—

“I am unwilling for the sentence to stand and be executed, to any extent, in this case. In the absence of a more adequate motive than the evidence discloses, I am wholly unable to believe in the existence of criminal or fraudulent intent on the part of one of such well-established good character as is the accused. If the evidence went as far toward establishing a guilty profit of one or two hundred thousand dollars, as it does of one or two hundred dollars, the case would, on the question of guilt, bear a fardifferent aspect. That on this contract, involving from one million to twelve hundred thousand dollars, the contractors should attempt a fraud which at the most could profit them only one or two hundred, or even one thousand dollars, is to my mind beyond the power of rational belief. That they did not, in such a case, strike for greater gains proves that they did not, with guilty or fraudulent intent, strike at all. The judgment and sentence are disapproved and declared null, and the accused ordered to be discharged.“A. Lincoln.“March 18, 1865.”

“A. Lincoln.

“March 18, 1865.”

Then followed an incident as original as anything in the life of Henry the Fourth, of France, or of a Lacedæmonian king. As Mr. Sumner was making an abstract of the indorsement for communication by telegraph to the anxious parties, the President broke into quotation from Petroleum V. Nasby, and, seeing that his visitor was less at home than himself in this patriotic literature, he said, “I must initiate you,” and then repeated with enthusiasm the message he had sent to the author: “For the genius to write these things I would gladly give up my office.” Then rising and turning to a standing-desk behind, he opened it and took out a pamphlet collection of the letters already published, which he proceeded to read aloud, evidently enjoying it much. For the time he seemed to forget the case he had just decided, and Presidential duties. This continued more than twenty minutes, when Mr. Sumner, thinking there must be many at the door waiting to see the President on graver matters, took advantage of a pause, and, thanking him for the lesson of the morning, left. Some thirty persons, including Senators and Representatives, were in the anteroom as he passed out.[185]

Though with the President much during the intervening days before his death, this was the last business Mr. Sumner transacted with him.

Resolution adopted at a Meeting of Senators and Representatives, April 17, 1865.

President Lincoln breathed his last on the morning of Saturday, April 15th. Congress not being in session, there was a meeting of Senators and Representatives then in Washington, April 17th, at noon, when Hon. Lafayette S. Foster, Presidentpro temporeof the Senate, was called to the Chair, and Hon. Schuyler Colfax was chosen Secretary. Senator Foot, of Vermont, stated the object of the meeting. On motion of Mr. Sumner, a Committee of five from each House was ordered to report at four o’clock,P. M., on the action proper for the meeting. The Chair appointed Mr. Sumner, Mr. Harris, of New York, Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, Mr. Ramsey, of Minnesota, and Mr. Conness, of California, on the part of the Senate, also Mr. Washburne, of Illinois, Mr. Smith, of Kentucky, Mr. Schenck, of Ohio, Mr. Pike, of Maine, and Mr. Coffroth, of Pennsylvania, on the part of the House of Representatives. On motion of Mr. Schenck, the Chairman and Secretary of the meeting were added to the Committee.The Committee reported a list of pall-bearers for the funeral, and also a Congressional Committee of one from each State to accompany the remains of the late President to Illinois, which were adopted by the meeting.They also reported the following resolution, drawn by Mr. Sumner, which was unanimously agreed to.

The Committee reported a list of pall-bearers for the funeral, and also a Congressional Committee of one from each State to accompany the remains of the late President to Illinois, which were adopted by the meeting.

They also reported the following resolution, drawn by Mr. Sumner, which was unanimously agreed to.

The members of the Senate and House of Representatives now assembled in Washington, humbly confessing their dependence upon Almighty God, who rules all that is done for human good, make haste, atthis informal meeting, to express the emotions with which they have been filled by the appalling tragedy that has deprived the nation of its head and covered the land with mourning, and, in further declaration of their sentiments, resolve unanimously,—

1. That, in testimony of their veneration and affection for the illustrious dead, who has been permitted, under Providence, to do so much for his country and for Liberty, they will unite in the funeral services, and by an appropriate committee will accompany his remains to their place of burial in the State from which he was taken for the national service.

2. That in the life of Abraham Lincoln, who, by the benignant favor of republican institutions, rose from humble beginnings to the height of power and fame, they recognize an example of purity, simplicity, and virtue which should be a lesson to mankind; while in his death they acknowledge a martyr whose memory will become more precious as men learn to prize those principles of constitutional order, and those rights, civil, political, and human, for which he was made a sacrifice.

3. That they invite the President of the United States, by solemn proclamation, to recommend that the people of the United States should assemble on a day appointed by him, in public testimony of their grief, and to dwell on the good that has been done on earth by him we now mourn.

4. That a copy of these resolutions be communicated to the President of the United States, and also to the afflicted widow of the late President, as an expression of sympathy in her great bereavement.

Letter to Colored Citizens of North Carolina, May 13, 1865.

The letter to Mr. Sumner by colored citizens is the first public expression of their interest in the suffrage. The answer was according to the sentiments Mr. Sumner had early declared.Wilmington, N. C., April 29, 1865.Hon. Charles Sumner,Washington.Dear Sir,—We, the undersigned citizens, Executive Board of the Colored Union Leagues of this city, respectfully ask your attention to the subject of Reconstruction in this State, and for a few plain directions in relation to a proper stand for us to make.We forward also a copy of theHerald, containing an article on Reconstruction, which causes us much anxiety, in connection with other facts that are constantly pressed upon our attention in this Rebel State, although much is said concerning its loyalty that is unreliable and untrue. Many of us have done service for the United States Government, at Fort Fisher and elsewhere, and we shrink with horror at the thought that we may be left to the tender mercies of our former Rebel masters, who have taken the oath, but are filled with malice, and swear vengeance against us as soon as the military are withdrawn.We are loyal colored citizens, and strive in all things so to conduct ourselves that no just cause of complaint may exist, although we suffer much from the unwillingness of the Secessionists to regard us asfreemen, and look up to the flag of our country with trembling anxiety, knowing that thefranchisealone can give us security for the future.We speak with moderation and care, we lay no charges, but we fear that an ill-judged lenity to Rebels in this State will leave little to us and our children but the bare name of freedmen. We remember Louisiana! Better “smash the egg” than permit it to produce a viper.We beg an early answer. Direct, simply, “Alfred Howe, Wilmington, North Carolina.” Do not frank your letter: I send a stamp. For reference,Jonathan C. Gibbs mentions the name of Rev. H. H. Garnett, a colored Presbyterian minister in Washington, and Hon. Judge Kelley, from Pennsylvania.Alfred Howe,President.D. Sadgenar,H. D. Sampson,Jonathan C. Gibbs,Owen Burney,Henry Taylor,Richard Reed.

The letter to Mr. Sumner by colored citizens is the first public expression of their interest in the suffrage. The answer was according to the sentiments Mr. Sumner had early declared.

Wilmington, N. C., April 29, 1865.Hon. Charles Sumner,Washington.Dear Sir,—We, the undersigned citizens, Executive Board of the Colored Union Leagues of this city, respectfully ask your attention to the subject of Reconstruction in this State, and for a few plain directions in relation to a proper stand for us to make.We forward also a copy of theHerald, containing an article on Reconstruction, which causes us much anxiety, in connection with other facts that are constantly pressed upon our attention in this Rebel State, although much is said concerning its loyalty that is unreliable and untrue. Many of us have done service for the United States Government, at Fort Fisher and elsewhere, and we shrink with horror at the thought that we may be left to the tender mercies of our former Rebel masters, who have taken the oath, but are filled with malice, and swear vengeance against us as soon as the military are withdrawn.We are loyal colored citizens, and strive in all things so to conduct ourselves that no just cause of complaint may exist, although we suffer much from the unwillingness of the Secessionists to regard us asfreemen, and look up to the flag of our country with trembling anxiety, knowing that thefranchisealone can give us security for the future.We speak with moderation and care, we lay no charges, but we fear that an ill-judged lenity to Rebels in this State will leave little to us and our children but the bare name of freedmen. We remember Louisiana! Better “smash the egg” than permit it to produce a viper.We beg an early answer. Direct, simply, “Alfred Howe, Wilmington, North Carolina.” Do not frank your letter: I send a stamp. For reference,Jonathan C. Gibbs mentions the name of Rev. H. H. Garnett, a colored Presbyterian minister in Washington, and Hon. Judge Kelley, from Pennsylvania.Alfred Howe,President.D. Sadgenar,H. D. Sampson,Jonathan C. Gibbs,Owen Burney,Henry Taylor,Richard Reed.

Wilmington, N. C., April 29, 1865.

Hon. Charles Sumner,Washington.

Dear Sir,—We, the undersigned citizens, Executive Board of the Colored Union Leagues of this city, respectfully ask your attention to the subject of Reconstruction in this State, and for a few plain directions in relation to a proper stand for us to make.

We forward also a copy of theHerald, containing an article on Reconstruction, which causes us much anxiety, in connection with other facts that are constantly pressed upon our attention in this Rebel State, although much is said concerning its loyalty that is unreliable and untrue. Many of us have done service for the United States Government, at Fort Fisher and elsewhere, and we shrink with horror at the thought that we may be left to the tender mercies of our former Rebel masters, who have taken the oath, but are filled with malice, and swear vengeance against us as soon as the military are withdrawn.

We are loyal colored citizens, and strive in all things so to conduct ourselves that no just cause of complaint may exist, although we suffer much from the unwillingness of the Secessionists to regard us asfreemen, and look up to the flag of our country with trembling anxiety, knowing that thefranchisealone can give us security for the future.

We speak with moderation and care, we lay no charges, but we fear that an ill-judged lenity to Rebels in this State will leave little to us and our children but the bare name of freedmen. We remember Louisiana! Better “smash the egg” than permit it to produce a viper.

We beg an early answer. Direct, simply, “Alfred Howe, Wilmington, North Carolina.” Do not frank your letter: I send a stamp. For reference,Jonathan C. Gibbs mentions the name of Rev. H. H. Garnett, a colored Presbyterian minister in Washington, and Hon. Judge Kelley, from Pennsylvania.

Washington, May 13, 1865.GENTLEMEN,—I am glad that the colored citizens of North Carolina are ready to take part in the organization of government. It is unquestionably their right and duty.I see little chance of peace or tranquillity in any Rebel State, unless the rights of all are recognized without distinction of color. On this foundation we must build.The article on Reconstruction to which you call my attention proceeds on the idea, born of Slavery, that persons with a white skin are the only “citizens.” This is a mistake.As you do me the honor to ask me the proper stand for you to make, I have no hesitation in replying that you must insist on all the rights and privileges of a citizen. They belong to you. They are yours; and whoever undertakes to rob you of them is a usurper and impostor.Of course you will take part in any primary meetings for political organization, open to citizens generally, and will not miss any opportunity to show your loyalty and fidelity.Accept my best wishes, and believe me, Gentlemen,Faithfully yours,Charles Sumner.

Washington, May 13, 1865.

GENTLEMEN,—I am glad that the colored citizens of North Carolina are ready to take part in the organization of government. It is unquestionably their right and duty.

I see little chance of peace or tranquillity in any Rebel State, unless the rights of all are recognized without distinction of color. On this foundation we must build.

The article on Reconstruction to which you call my attention proceeds on the idea, born of Slavery, that persons with a white skin are the only “citizens.” This is a mistake.

As you do me the honor to ask me the proper stand for you to make, I have no hesitation in replying that you must insist on all the rights and privileges of a citizen. They belong to you. They are yours; and whoever undertakes to rob you of them is a usurper and impostor.

Of course you will take part in any primary meetings for political organization, open to citizens generally, and will not miss any opportunity to show your loyalty and fidelity.

Accept my best wishes, and believe me, Gentlemen,

Faithfully yours,

Charles Sumner.

This letter was extensively circulated. The New YorkHeraldprinted it in an editorial article entitled “The Chase-Sumner Political Movement—Social War Threatened,” where it said:—“As soon as Mr. Johnson assumed the reins of the Government, Mr. Sumner made an effort to control his official action and secure his assistance in carrying on this appendix warfare to the Abolition question, and thus plunge the country into a sanguinary social war. Finding it impossible to draw President Johnson into his schemes, he at once plants himself in opposition.…“This letter, although short, is explicit and unmistakable in its meaning. Its purpose is evident to the most casual observer. Knowing, as he must, at the time, that the President held that the question of conferring the privilege of suffrage upon the colored people of the South rested exclusively with the States, he endeavors to stir up a feud and create a dissatisfaction among this class. Like the speech of Chief Justice Chase, its whole tendency is to incite the negroes to insurrection, by giving them the impression that the Government is against them. There is not a word in the communication counselling obedience or respect to the laws of the Government. They ask him for direction, and he, in response, counsels them to take part in the organization of the Government,—that it is their right and duty. In the face of the fact that there is no law in their State or in the Constitution of the United States recognizing that right, he tells them that those who oppose them are usurpers and impostors.”

This letter was extensively circulated. The New YorkHeraldprinted it in an editorial article entitled “The Chase-Sumner Political Movement—Social War Threatened,” where it said:—

“As soon as Mr. Johnson assumed the reins of the Government, Mr. Sumner made an effort to control his official action and secure his assistance in carrying on this appendix warfare to the Abolition question, and thus plunge the country into a sanguinary social war. Finding it impossible to draw President Johnson into his schemes, he at once plants himself in opposition.…“This letter, although short, is explicit and unmistakable in its meaning. Its purpose is evident to the most casual observer. Knowing, as he must, at the time, that the President held that the question of conferring the privilege of suffrage upon the colored people of the South rested exclusively with the States, he endeavors to stir up a feud and create a dissatisfaction among this class. Like the speech of Chief Justice Chase, its whole tendency is to incite the negroes to insurrection, by giving them the impression that the Government is against them. There is not a word in the communication counselling obedience or respect to the laws of the Government. They ask him for direction, and he, in response, counsels them to take part in the organization of the Government,—that it is their right and duty. In the face of the fact that there is no law in their State or in the Constitution of the United States recognizing that right, he tells them that those who oppose them are usurpers and impostors.”

“This letter, although short, is explicit and unmistakable in its meaning. Its purpose is evident to the most casual observer. Knowing, as he must, at the time, that the President held that the question of conferring the privilege of suffrage upon the colored people of the South rested exclusively with the States, he endeavors to stir up a feud and create a dissatisfaction among this class. Like the speech of Chief Justice Chase, its whole tendency is to incite the negroes to insurrection, by giving them the impression that the Government is against them. There is not a word in the communication counselling obedience or respect to the laws of the Government. They ask him for direction, and he, in response, counsels them to take part in the organization of the Government,—that it is their right and duty. In the face of the fact that there is no law in their State or in the Constitution of the United States recognizing that right, he tells them that those who oppose them are usurpers and impostors.”

Letter to the Editor of “The Leader,” in Charleston, S. C., May, 1865.

The following brief note appeared in the first number ofThe Leader, a weekly paper which began at Charleston, 1865.

I trust that you will do everything possible to arouse hope and encouragement in the colored people. Let them know that their friends will stand by them. All white persons who have any regard for the Declaration of Independence ought to unite in favor of its principles, and insist that they shall be made the foundation of the new order of things. Courage! the cause cannot fail.Believe me, dear Sir, faithfully yours,Charles Sumner.

Believe me, dear Sir, faithfully yours,

Charles Sumner.

Eulogy on Abraham Lincoln, before the Municipal Authorities of the City of Boston, June 1, 1865.

Think nothing of me, take no thought for the political fate of any man whomsoever, but come back to the truths that are in the Declaration of Independence. You may do anything with me you choose, if you will but heed these sacred principles. You may not only defeat me for the Senate,but you may take me and put me to death.—Abraham Lincoln:Crosby’s Life of Lincoln, p. 33.They [colored people having the ballot] would probably help, in some trying time to come, to keep the jewel of Liberty in the family of Freedom.—Ibid.,Letter to Michael Hahn, of Louisiana, March 13, 1864:McPherson’s Political History of the United States during Reconstruction, p. 20, note.Omnia incrementa sua sibi debuit, vir novitatis nobilissimæ.—Velleius Paterculus,Historia, Lib. II. cap. 34, § 3.Offensarum inimicitiarumque minime memor executorve.—Suetonius,Vespasianus, Cap. XIV.

They [colored people having the ballot] would probably help, in some trying time to come, to keep the jewel of Liberty in the family of Freedom.—Ibid.,Letter to Michael Hahn, of Louisiana, March 13, 1864:McPherson’s Political History of the United States during Reconstruction, p. 20, note.

Omnia incrementa sua sibi debuit, vir novitatis nobilissimæ.—Velleius Paterculus,Historia, Lib. II. cap. 34, § 3.

Offensarum inimicitiarumque minime memor executorve.—Suetonius,Vespasianus, Cap. XIV.

In the universe of God there are no accidents. From the fall of a sparrow to the fall of an empire or the sweep of a planet, all is according to Divine Providence, whose laws are everlasting. No accident gave to his country the patriot we now honor. No accident snatched this patriot, so suddenly and so cruelly, from his sublime duties. Death is as little an accident as life. Never, perhaps, in history has this Providence been more conspicuous than in that recent procession of events, where the final triumph is wrapped in the gloom of tragedy. It is our present duty to find the moral of the stupendous drama.

For the second time in our annals, the country is summoned by the President to unite, on an appointed day, in commemorating the life and character of the dead. The first was on the death ofGeorge Washington, when, as now, a day was set apart for simultaneous eulogy throughout the land, and cities, towns, and villages all vied in tribute. Since this early observance for the Father of his Country more than half a century has passed, and now it is repeated in tribute toAbraham Lincoln.

Thus areWashingtonandLincolnassociated in the grandeur of their obsequies. But this association is notaccidental. It is from the nature of things, and because the part Lincoln was called to perform resembled in character the part performed by Washington. The work left undone by Washington was continued by Lincoln. Kindred in service, kindred in patriotism, each is surrounded in death by kindred homage. One sleeps in the East, the other sleeps in the West; and thus, in death, as in life, one is the complement of the other.

The two might be compared after the manner of Plutarch; but it must suffice for the present to glance only at points of resemblance and of contrast, so as to recall the parts they respectively performed.

Each was head of the Republic during a period of surpassing trial; and each thought only of the public good, simply, purely, constantly, so that single-hearted devotion to country will always find a synonym in their names. Each was national chief during a time of successful war. Each was representative of his country at a great epoch of history. Here, perhaps, resemblance ends and contrast begins. Unlike in origin, conversation, and character, they were unlike also in theideasthey served, except as each was servant of his country. The war conducted by Washington was unlike the war conducted by Lincoln, as the peace which crowned the arms of the one was unlike the peace which began to smile upon the other. The two wars did not differ in scale of operations and in tramp of mustered hosts more than in the ideas involved. The first was for National Independence; the second was to make the Republic one and indivisible, on the indestructible foundation of Liberty and Equality. The first cut the connection with the mother country, and opened the way to the duties and advantages of Popular Government;the secondwill have failed, unless it consummates all the original promises of the Declaration our fathers took upon their lips when they became a Nation. In the relation of cause and effect the first was natural precursor and herald of the second. National Independence became the first epoch in our history, whose mighty import was exhibited when Lafayette boasted to the First Consul of France, that, though its battles were but skirmishes, they decided the fate of the world.[186]

The Declaration of our fathers, entitled simply “The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America,” is known familiarly as the Declaration of Independence, because the remarkable words with which it concludes made independence the final idea, to which all else was tributary. Thus did the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled solemnly publish and declare “that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; … and for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” To sustain this mutual pledge Washington drew his sword and led the national armies, until at last, by the Treaty of Peace in 1783, Independence was acknowledged.

Had the Declaration been confined to this pledge, it would have been less grand. Much as it might havebeen to us, it would have been less of a warning and trumpet-note to the world. There were two other pledges it made. One was proclaimed in the designation “United States of America,” which it adopted as the national name; and the other was proclaimed in those great words, fit for the baptismal vows of a Republic,—“We hold these truths to be self-evident:that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” By the sword of Washington Independence was secured; but the Unity of the Republic and the principles of the Declaration were left exposed to question. From that early day, through various chances, they were assailed and openly dishonored, until at last the Republic was constrained to take up arms in their defence. And yet, since enmity to the Union proceeded entirely from enmity to the great ideas of the Declaration, history must record that the question of the Union itself was absorbed in the grander conflict to uphold the primal truths our fathers had solemnly proclaimed.

Such are the two great wars where these two chiefs bore each his part. Washington fought for National Independence, and triumphed, making his country an example to mankind. Lincoln drew a reluctant sword to save those great ideas, essential to the life and character of the Republic, which unhappily the sword of Washington failed to put beyond the reach of assault.

By no accident did these two great men become representatives of their country at these two different epochs,so alike in peril, and yet so unlike in the principles involved. Washington was the natural representative of National Independence. He might also have represented National Unity, had this principle been challenged to bloody battle during his life; for nothing was nearer his heart than the consolidation of our Union, which, in his letter to Congress transmitting the Constitution, he declares to be “the greatest interest of every true American.”[187]Then again, in a remarkable letter to John Jay, he plainly says that he does “not conceive we can exist long as a nation without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner as the authority of the State governments extends over the several States.”[188]But another person was needed, of different birth and simpler life, to represent the ideas now impugned.

Washington was of ancient family, traced in English heraldry. Some of his ancestors sleep in close companionship with the noble name of Spencer. By inheritance and marriage he was rich in lands, and, let it be said in respectful sorrow, rich also in slaves, so far as slaves breed riches rather than curses. At the age of fourteen he refused a commission as midshipman in the British Navy. At the age of nineteen he was Adjutant General, with the rank of major. At the age of twenty-one he was selected by the British Governor of Virginia as Commissioner to the French posts. At the age of twenty-two he was at the head of a regiment, and was thanked by the House of Burgesses. Early in life he became an observer of form and ceremony. Alwaysstrictly just, according to prevailing principles, and at his death ordering the emancipation of his slaves, he was more a general and statesman than philanthropist; nor did he seem inspired, beyond the duties of patriotism, to active sympathy with Human Rights. In the ample record of what he wrote or said there is no word of adhesion to the great ideas of the Declaration. Such an origin, such an early life, such opportunities, such a condition, such a character, were all in contrast with the origin, early life, opportunities, condition, and character of him we commemorate to-day.

Abraham Lincoln was born, and, until he became President, always lived in a part of the country which at the period of the Declaration of Independence was a savage wilderness. Strange, but happy, Providence, that a voice from that savage wilderness, now fertile in men, was inspired to uphold the pledges and promises of the Declaration! The Unity of the Republic, on the indestructible foundation of Liberty and Equality, was vindicated by the citizen of a community which had no existence when the Republic was formed.

His family may be traced to Quaker stock in Pennsylvania, but it removed first to Virginia, and then, as early as 1780, to the wilds of Kentucky, which at that time was only an outlying territory of Virginia. His grandfather and father both lived in peril from Indians, and the former perished by their knife. The future President was born in a log-house. His mother could read, and perhaps write. His father could do neither, except so far as to sign his name rudely, like a noble of Charlemagne. Trial, privation, and labor entered into his early life. Only at seven years of age, for a verybrief period, could he enjoy school, carrying with him Dilworth’s Spelling-Book, one of the three volumes that formed the family library. Shortly afterwards his father turned his back upon that Slavery which disfigured Kentucky, and with his poor effects and the future chief-magistrate set his face towards Indiana, already guarded against Slavery by the famous Northwestern Ordinance. Reaching the chosen home in a land of Liberty, the son, who was less than eight years old, aided his father in building a shelter of poles, fastened together by notches, and filled in with mud. This preceded the log cabin, where for twelve years afterwards he grew in character and knowledge, as in stature, learning to write as well as read, and especially enjoying Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, Æsop’s Fables, Weems’s Life of Washington, and the Life of Henry Clay. At the age of ten he lost his mother. At the age of nineteen he became a hired hand, at eight dollars a month, on a flatboat laden with stores for plantations on the Mississippi, and in this way floated on that lordly river to New Orleans, little dreaming that only a few years later iron-clad navies would at his command float on that same proud stream. Here also was he learner. From the slaves he saw on the banks he took a lesson of Liberty, which gained new charms by comparison with Slavery.

In 1830 the father removed to Illinois, transporting his goods in a wagon drawn by oxen, and the future President, then twenty-one years of age, drove the team. Another cabin was built in primitive rudeness, and the future President split the rails to inclose the lot. In our history these became classical, and the name of rail-splitter more than the degree of a college,—notthat the splitting of rails is any way meritorious, but because the people are proud to trace aspiring talent back to humble beginnings, and they found in this tribute new opportunity to vindicate the dignity of free labor, and repel the insolent pretensions of Slavery.

His youth was now spent, and at the age of twenty-one he left his father’s house to begin the world. A small bundle, a laughing face, and an honest heart,—these were his simple possessions, together with that unconscious character and intelligence which his country learned to prize. In the long history of worth depressed there is no instance of such contrast between the depression and the triumph,—unless, perhaps, his successor as President may share with him this distinction. No academy, no university, no Alma Mater of science or learning nourished him. No government took him by the hand and gave him the gift of opportunity. No inheritance of land or money fell to him. No friend stood by his side. He was alone in poverty: and yet not all alone. There was God above, who watches all, and does not desert the lowly. Plain in person, life, and manners, and knowing absolutely nothing of form or ceremony, for six months with a village schoolmaster as his only teacher, he grew up in companionship with the people, with Nature, with trees, with the fruitful corn, and with the stars. While yet a child, his father had borne him away from a soil wasted by Slavery, and he was now citizen of a Free State, where Free Labor had been placed under safeguard of irreversible compact and fundamental law. And thus he took leave of youth, happy at least that he could go forth under the day-star of Liberty.

The early hardships were prolonged into manhood.He labored on a farm as hired hand, and then a second time in a flatboat measured the winding Mississippi to its mouth. At the call of the Governor of Illinois for troops against Black Hawk, the Indian chief, he sprang forward with patriotic ardor, most prompt to enlist at the recruiting station in his neighborhood. The choice of his associates made him captain. After the war he became surveyor, and to his death retained a practical and scientific knowledge of this business. Here again was a parallel with Washington. In 1834 he was elected to the Legislature of Illinois, and three years later was admitted to the practice of the law. He was now twenty-eight years old, and, under the benignant influence of republican institutions, he had already entered upon the double career of lawyer and legislator, with the gates of the mysterious Future slowly opening before him.

How well he served in these two characters I pause not to tell. It is enough, if I exhibit the stages of advance, that you may understand how he became representative of his country at so grand a moment. It is needless to say that his opportunities of study as a lawyer were small, but he was industrious in each individual case, and thus daily added to his stores of professional experience. Faithful in all things, most conscientious in conduct at the bar, so that he could not be unfair to the other side, and admirably sensitive to the behests of justice, so that he could not argue on the wrong side, he acquired a name for honesty, which, beginning with the community where he lived, became proverbial throughout his State,—while his genial, mirthful, overflowing nature, apt at anecdote and story, made him, where personally known, a favorite companion.His opinions on public questions were formed early, under the example and teaching of Henry Clay, and he never departed from them, though constantly tempted, or pressed by local majorities, in the name of a false democracy. It is interesting to know that thus early he espoused those two ideas which entered so largely into the terrible responsibilities of his last years,—I mean the Unity of the Republic, and the supreme value of Liberty. He did not believe that a State, in its own mad will, had a right to break up this Union. As reader of Congressional speeches, and student of what was said by the political teachers of that day, he was no stranger to those marvellous efforts of Daniel Webster, when, in reply to the treasonable pretensions of Nullification, the great orator of Massachusetts asserted the indestructibility of the Union, and the folly of those who assail it. On the subject of Slavery, he had the experience of his own family and the warnings of his own conscience. Naturally, one of his earliest acts in the Legislature of Illinois was a protest in the name of Liberty.

At a later day, he was in Congress for a single term, beginning in December, 1847, being the only Whig Representative from Illinois. His speeches during this brief period have the characteristics of his later productions. They are argumentative, logical, and spirited, with quaint humor and sinewy sententiousness. His votes were constant against Slavery. For the Wilmot Proviso he voted, according to his own statement, “in one way and another, about forty times.” His vote is recorded against the pretence that slaves are property under the Constitution. From Congress he passed again to his profession. The day was at hand, when allhis powers, enlarged by experience and quickened to highest activity, would be needed to repel that haughty domination already overshadowing the Republic.

The next field of conflict was in his own State, with no less an antagonist than Stephen A. Douglas, at that time in alliance with the Slave Power. The too famous Kansas and Nebraska Bill, introduced by the latter into the Senate, assumed to set aside the venerable safeguard of Freedom in the territory west of Missouri, under pretence of allowing the inhabitants “to vote Slavery up or to vote it down,” and this barbarous privilege was called by the fancy name of Popular Sovereignty. The champion of Liberty did not hesitate to denounce this most baleful measure in a series of popular addresses, where truth, sentiment, humor, and argument all blended. As the conflict continued, he was brought forward for the Senate against its able author. The debate that ensued is one of the most memorable in our political history, whether we consider the principles involved or the way it was conducted.

It commenced with a close, well-woven speech from the Republican candidate, showing insight into the actual condition of things, in which were these memorable words: “‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ I believe this Government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved, I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.”[189]Here was the true starting-point. Only a few days before his death, in reply to my inquiry, if at the time he had any doubtabout this declaration, he said, “Not in the least. It was clearly true, and time has justified me.” With like plainness he exposed the Douglas pretence of Popular Sovereignty as meaning simply, “that, if anyoneman choose to enslaveanother, nothirdman shall be allowed to object,”[190]and he announced his belief in the existence of a conspiracy to perpetuate and nationalize Slavery, of which the Kansas and Nebraska Bill and the Dred Scott decision were essential parts. Such was the character of this debate at the beginning, and so it continued on the lips of our champion to the end.

The inevitable topic to which he returned with most frequency, and to which he clung with all the grasp of his soul, wasthe practical character of the Declaration of Independence in announcing the Liberty and Equality of all Men. No idle words were there, but substantial truth, binding on the conscience of mankind. I know not if this grand pertinacity has been noticed before; but I deem it a duty to declare that to my mind it is by far the most important incident of that controversy, and perhaps the most interesting in the biography of the speaker. Nothing previous to his nomination for the Presidency is comparable to it. Plainly his whole subsequent career took impulse and complexion from that championship. And here, too, is our first debt of gratitude. The words he then uttered live after him, and nobody now hears how he then battled without feeling a new motive to fidelity in support of Human Rights.

As early as 1854, in a speech at Peoria against the Kansas and Nebraska Bill, after denouncing Slavery as a “monstrous injustice,” which “enables the enemies of free institutions to taunt us as hypocrites,” and“causes the real friends of Freedom to doubt our sincerity,” he complains especially that “it forces so many really good men amongst ourselvesinto open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty, criticizing the Declaration of Independence.”[191]Thus, according to him, criticism of the Declaration was the climax of infidelity as citizen.

Mr. Douglas opened the debate, on his side, at Chicago, July 9, 1858, by a speech, where he said, among other things, “I am opposed to negro equality. I repeat, that this nation is a white people.… I am opposed to taking any step that recognizes the negro man or the Indian as the equal of the white man. I am opposed to giving him a voice in the administration of the Government.”[192]Thus was the case stated for Slavery.

To this speech the Republican candidate replied promptly, and did not forget his championship. Quoting the great words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” he proceeds:—

Back to Index Next