[190]
‘the senator from Maine had lectured the body about enough.’
Next he took Sumner to task for superfluous comments on a celebrated law case, for his style, particularly in the resort to poetry for illustrations, and for want of practical knowledge.
Sumner tried to avoid a personal controversy, but Fessenden was persistent in his thrusts.1 The unpleasant scene, lasting for some minutes, was closed by Sherman, who recalled the Senate to the question before it. Other encounters of the kind were in store, and the two senators,—both important to the public service, and of equal integrity and patriotism,—were not to be in cordial relations for some years.2 Mutual respect, however, remained; and neither, it is believed, would have wished at any time to see the other dropped from public life.3 In the end their reconcilement was complete.4 Sumner as the survivor paid a heart-felt and discriminating tribute to Fessenden.5
The urgency of military matters did not exclude civil reforms from Sumner's attention.
He had in early life expressed his disgust with ‘the patronage system,’ under which a new President paid off the political debts of his party and his own by the
1 The Boston Commonwealth replied, May 13, 1864, to Fessenden's imputation in debate that Sumner had instigated its criticisms of himself, and denied that Sumner had any complicity with them. Fessenden so far forgot himself at times as to talk audibly in the Senate while Sumner was speaking. This is stated by another senator, Mr. Conness, in an interview published in the Gold Hill (Colorado) ‘News,’ and sent by him in a note to Sumner, August 22. 1865. Mr. Conness said, ‘Mr. Fessenden was always snapping at Mr. Sumner in debate.’ Frederick Douglass, writing to Sumner, Sept. 9, 1869, the day after Mr. Fessenden's death, said: ‘He [Mr. Fessenden] was never just to you, and sometimes I fear intentionally offensive; but now that his chair is vacant, and his voice silent in the Senate, you must remember with satisfaction your forbearance towards him and your freedom from bitter retort when his words and bearing seemed to invite other treatment.’
2 July 3, 5, 10, 1837. Works, vol. XI. pp. 369-396.
3 The writer passed two days in Portland, Me., in the summer of 1864, most of the time with Fessenden (then having Mr. Chase as his guest), and they spoke freely of Sumner, to whom Fessenden referred with entire respect.
4 In his later days Fessenden used to say to his neighbors in Portland that at first he misconceived Sumner, supposing him to be a mere idealist and theorist, but had afterwards found him to be a public man of various ability. In his last illness, hearing a report, which proved incorrect, that Sumner was very ill, he expressed his regret at the loss the country would suffer by Sumner's death, and his satisfaction that their differences had been settled and that they were now good friends. Sumner was touched by these expressions when they were communicated to him, and was sad to think that the happy intercourse and co-operation in the public service which he had looked forward to were terminated. A. L. Hobson to Sumner, Sept. 3, 1869, and in the Portland Press, Nov. 20, 1876; New York Independent, Sept. 16, 1869.
5 Dec. 14, 1869. Works, vol. XIII. pp. 189-194. Certain passages in Sumner's eulogy on Senator Collamer, Dec. 14, 1865, to which Fessenden listened, were supposed to refer to the latter (Works, vol. x. p. 40): ‘Though at times earnest, he was never bitter. He never dropped into the debate any poisoned ingredients.’
Cambridge, MA. Press of John Wilson and Son. 1877.
Tufts University provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.