The Russian treaty tried me severely; abstractedly I am against further accessions of territory, unless by the free choice of the inhabitants. But this
[318]
In the debates on reconstruction, as in those on slavery, it was noted in the Senate how often Sumner's Republican associates, first rejecting his views, afterwards accepted them; and though disagreeing with him in a body when he announced these views, they all came later, even within two years, if not at heart concurring with him, to act and vote with him.1 Buckalew called him ‘the pioneer of agitation in the Senate,’ whose propositions when made were ‘criticized by all his colleagues as extreme, inappropriate, and untimely,’ but were supported by them the next year with a zeal and vehemence even greater than his.2 The Democratic senators were apt to harass their Republican opponents with thrusts of this kind.3
During the debates on reconstruction and suffrage, Sumner's style of treating his Republican opponents was not altogether agreeable to them.
He had an insight into the rebellion which they had not had, and he saw what Johnson was before they did. Tardily they came to his positions, forced by circumstances and popular pressure.
When in pressing forward he encountered their resistance, he was apt to remind them how they had from time to time changed their course, and come at last to accept doctrines which they had before repudiated.4 When confronted by a large majority, almost a unanimous opposition of Republican senators, he recalled old days when he had confronted almost alone an equally solid pro-slavery body.
This was not agreeable to the self-love of public men, and would not be read, as they knew, to their advantage by their constituents.
Senators affected to resent his ‘didactic style’ or his ‘lecturing,’5 as they called it,—a term which they are apt to apply to remarks savoring of reproof.
There is a temptation to administer such correction, but there is a want of tact in doing it. Laggards do not take kindly to ‘the cracking of the whip.’
Sumner wrote to Mr. Bright, April 16:—
1 Dixon in the Senate. March 11, 1867; Congressional Globe, pp. 51, 52.
2 March 16; Congressional Globe, p. 170.
3 Hendricks said (Jan. 30, 1868, Congressional Globe, p. 860): ‘I said in the Senate a year or two ago that the course of things is this: the senator from Massachusetts steps out boldly, declares his doctrine, and then he is approached [reproached?], and finally he governs.’ He referred probably to his remarks, June 24, 1864. Doolittle's remarks (June 6, 1868, Globe. p. 2898, and Feb 9, 1869. Globe. p. 1031) were to the same effect.
4 March 15, 1867; Works, vol. XI. p. 133.
5 ‘Warrington’ (V. S. Robinson) in the Springfield Republican, Sept. 7, 1867.
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.