Chapter 11:
- The persistent course of Mr. Sumner. -- petition of the citizens of Boston. -- condemnation of the Fugitive-slave Bill. -- defence of Massachusetts. -- violent opposition. -- opinions of Messrs. Chase, Giddings, Andrew, and Channing. -- a Tribute from Whittier. -- a Specimen of senatorial Tactics. -- anti-slavery sentiment extending. -- Formation of the Republican party. -- Mr. Sumner's Reception and speech at Worcester. -- tyranny of the slave-power. -- backbone needed. -- the American Merchant. -- Mr. Wilson enters the United-States Senate. -- the position and out-look. -- Mr. Sumner's plan of Emancipation. -- speech in New York May 9, 1855. -- spread of anti-slavery sentiment. -- his Views of slave-hunting. -- the American party. -- all men equal in respect to the Law. -- our Indebtedness to Foreigners.
Where is charity? Where is the love of God? Where is the zeal for his glory? Where is desire for his service? Where is human pity, and the compassion of man for man? Certainly, to redeem a captive, to liberate him from wretched slavery, is the highest work of charity, of all that can be done in this world. --Topografia y Historia de Argel por Fra Haedo.
Moved by a lofty purpose,--the redemption of the slave,--sustained by the rectitude of his intentions, and by the generous sympathies of many advocates of freedom both in [188] America and Europe, the inflexible patriot pursued his course with giant stride; and, though the dominant party held him in contempt, it trembled when he struck. The rendition of Anthony Burns to servitude, and the violent scenes thereon attendant, served to deepen the anti-slavery sentiment in Massachusetts; and a petition for the repeal of the Fugitive-Slave Bill, signed by two thousand nine hundred citizens of Boston, many of whom had hitherto opposed the course of Mr. Sumner, was on the twenty-second day of June, 1854, presented to the Senate by Mr. Rockwell, who had taken the place of Mr. Everett. An exciting debate arose on the motion to refer this memorial, when Mr. Sumner took the floor in defence of himself and Massachusetts.And 'tis for this we live,--
To smite the oppressor with the words of power;
To bid the tyrant give
Back to his brother Heaven's allotted hour.
So far as the arraignment touches me personally, “he said,” I hardly care to speak. It is true that I have not hesitated, here and elsewhere, to express my open, sincere, and unequivocal condemnation of the Fugitive-Slave Bill. I have denounced it as at once a violation of the law of God, and of the Constitution of the United States. In violation of the constitution, it commits the great question of human freedom — than which none is more sacred in the law — not to a solemn trial, but to summary proceedings. It commits this question, not to one of the high tribunals of the land, but to the unaided judgment of a single petty magistrate. [189] It commits this question to a magistrate appointed, not by the President with the consent of the Senate, but by the court; holding his office, not during good behavior, but merely during the will of the court; and receiving, not a regular salary, but fees according to each individual case. It authorizes judgment on ex parte evidence, by affidavits, without the sanction of cross-examination. It denies the writ of habeas corpus, ever known as the palladium of the citizen. Contrary to the declared purposes of the framers of the constitution, it sends the fugitive back “at the public expense.” Adding meanness to the violation of the constitution, it bribes the commissioner by a double fee to pronounce against freedom. If he dooms a man to slavery, the reward is ten dollars; but, saving him to freedom, his dole is five dollars.“In response for Massachusetts,” he emphatically asserted,
there are other things. Something surely must be pardoned to her history. In Massachusetts stands Boston. In Boston stands Faneuil Hall, where, throughout the perils which preceded the Revolution, our patriot fathers assembled to vow themselves to freedom. Here, in those days, spoke James Otis, full of the thought that “the people's safety is the law of God.” Here also spoke James Warren, inspired by the sentiment that “death with all its tortures is preferable to slavery.” And here also thundered John Adams, fervid with the conviction that “consenting to slavery is a sacrilegious breach of trust.” Not far from this venerable hall — between this temple of freedom and the very court-house to which the senator [Mr. Jones] has referred — is the street where, in 1770, the first blood was spilt in conflict between British troops and American [190] citizens; and among the victims was one of that African race which you so much despise. Almost within sight is Bunker Hill: farther off, Lexington and Concord. Amidst these scenes a slave-hunter from Virginia appears; and the disgusting rites begin by which a fellow-man is to be doomed to bondage. Sir, can you wonder that the people were moved?This manly speech, as the last one on the Kansas and Nebraska Bill, hit the vulnerable point of his opponents, and was followed by a torrent of vituperation [191] and abuse. Said Mr. Mason of Virginia in a most contemptuous tone: “I am speaking of a fanatic, one whose reason is dethroned. Can such a one expect to make impressions upon the American people from his rabid, vulgar declamation here, accompanied by a declaration that he would violate his oath now recently taken?” In spite of bitter opposition, Mr. Sumner on the 28th instant again obtained the floor, and made a masterly reply to his assailants, and a glorious defence of the Commonwealth he represented. Though his reason were “dethroned,” enough was left to annrihilate the arguments and meet the taunts of Messrs. Mason, Butler, Petitt, and other domineering and abusive senators. At the conclusion of this splendid speech, Mr. Chase said to him, “You have struck slavery the strongest blow it ever received: you have made it reel to the centre.” Said Mr. Giddings, “Sumner stood inimitable, and hurled back the taunts of his assailants with irresistible force.” “Your recent encounter with the wild beasts of Ephesus,” wrote John A. Andrew to him, “has been a brilliant success.” “Sumner,” wrote Edward T. Channing to a friend, “has done nobly. He is erect, and a man of authority among the slave holders, dealers, and hunters. He has made an historical era for the North.” [192] He had done so; for thousands of the temporizing saw, by this masterly exposition of the weakness of the slave-power, and by the ferocity manifested in this debate, that the dark wave of human servitude must be stayed; that there was business to be done; and that it was time to wheel into the line of those who had the will and backbone to go forward. Among the many cordial tributes Mr. Sumner received for this massive argument in defence of Northern principles, none was more welcome than these elegant lines of John G. Whittier--Who can be wise, amazed, temperate, and furious,It is true that the Slave Act was with difficulty executed, and that one of its servants perished in the effort. On these grounds the senator from Tennessee charges Boston with fanaticism. I express no opinion on the conduct of individuals; but I do say that the fanaticism which the senator condemns is not new in Boston. It is the same which opposed the execution of the Stamp Act, and finally secured its repeal. It is the same which opposed the tea tax. It is the fanaticism which finally triumphed on Bunker Hill. The senator says that Boston is filled with traitors. That charge is not new. Boston, of old, was the home of Hancock and Adams. Her traitors now are those who are truly animated by the spirit of the American Revolution. In condemning them, in condemning Massachusetts, in condemning these remonstrants, you simply give a proper conclusion to the utterance on this floor, that the Declaration of Independence is “a self-evident lie.”
Loyal and neutral, in a moment? No man.
Bravely and persistently Mr. Sumner pressed the question of slavery upon the attention of the Senate; but he met at every point malignant opposition. Parliamentary practice was boldly set aside to thwart his purposes. “The miscreant must be silenced!” was the general cry. A specimen of the debate on the thirty-first day of July will exhibit the tactics of the partisans of slavery. [194] During the passage of two unimportant measures, Mr. Sumner endeavored to present a proposition for the repeal of the Fugitive-Slave Act; and, having gained the floor, this interesting scene occurred:--
Mr. Sumner. In pursuance of notice, I now ask leave to introduce a bill. Mr. Stuart (of Michigan). I object to it, and move to take up the River and Harbor Bill. The Presiding Officer (Mr. Cooper of Pennsylvania). The other bill is not disposed of,--the third reading of a Bill for the Relief of Betsey Nasht. The bill was then read a third time, and passed. Mr. Sumner. In pursuance of notice, I ask leave to introduce a bill which I now send to the table. Mr. Stuart. Is that in order? Mr. Sumner. Why not? Mr. Benjamin (of Louisiana). There is a pending motion of the senator from Michigan to take up the River and Harbor Bill. The Presiding Officer. That motion was not entertained, because the senator from Massachusetts had and has the floor. Mr. Stuart. I make the motion now. The Presiding Officer. The Chair thinks it is in order to give the notice. Mr. Sumner. Notice has been given; and I now, [195] in pursuance of notice, introduce the bill. The question is on its first reading. The Presiding Officer. The first reading of a bill. Mr. Norris (of New Hampshire). I rise to a question of order. Mr. Sumner. I believe I have the floor. Mr. Norris. But I rise to a question of order. I submit that that is not the question. The senator from Massachusetts has given notice that he would ask leave to introduce a bill. He now asks that leave. If there be objection, the question must be decided by the Senate, whether he shall have leave or not. Objection is made; and the bill cannot be read. Mr. Sumner. Very well; the first question, then, is on granting leave; and the title of the bill will be read. The Presiding Officer (to the Secretary). Read the title. The Secretary read it as follows: “A Bill to repeal the Act of Congress, approved Sept. 18, 1850, for the Surrender of Fugitives from Service or Labor.” The Presiding Officer. The question is on granting leave to introduce the bill. Mr. Sumner. And I have the floor. The Presiding Officer. The senator from Massachusetts is entitled to the floor. [196] Mr. Sumner. I shall not occupy much time, nor shall I debate the bill. Some time ago, Mr. President, after the presentation of the memorial from Boston, signed by twenty-nine hundred citizens, without distinction of party, I gave notice that I should, at a day hereafter, ask leave to introduce a bill for the repeal of the Fugitive-Slave Act. Desirous, however, not to proceed prematurely, I awaited the action of the Committee on the Judiciary, to which the memorial, and others of a similar character, were referred. At length an adverse report was made, and accepted by the Senate. From the time of that report down to this moment, I have sought an opportunity to introduce this bill. Now, at last, I have it. At a former session, sir, in introducing a similar proposition, I considered it at length, in an argument which I fearlessly assert-- Mr. Gwin (of California). I rise to a point of order. Has the senator a right to debate the question, or say any thing on it, until leave be granted? The Presiding Officer. My impression is that the question is not debatable. Mr. Sumner. I propose simply to explain my bill,--to make a statement, not an argument. Mr. Gwin. I make the point of order. The Presiding Officer. I am not aware precisely what the rule of order on the subject is; but I [197] have the impression that the senator cannot debate-- Mr. Sumner. The distinction is this-- Mr. Gwin. I insist upon the application of the decision of the Chair. Mr. Mason (of Virginia). Mr. President, there is one rule of order that in undoubted,--that, when the Chair is stating a question of order, he must not be interrupted by a senator. There is no question about that rule of order. The Presiding Officer. The senator did not interrupt the Chair. Mr. Sumner. The Chair does me justice, in response to the injustice of the senator from Virginia. The Presiding Officer. Order! order! Mr. Mason. The senator is doing that very thing at this moment. I am endeavoring to sustain the authority of the Chair, which certainly has been violated. The Presiding Officer. It is the opinion of the Chair that the debate is out of order. I am not precisely informed of what the rule is; but such is my clear impression. Mr. Walker (of Wisconsin). If the senator from Massachusetts will allow me, I will say a word here. Mr. Sumner. Certainly.[198] Thus, fearful of the truth, and fencing off the question, the slaveocracy prolonged the struggle through the entire day; and, at the close, the Senate determined not to introduce the bill. But the elements were in commotion; the breast of the nation was heaving; a spirit was abroad which neither senatorial manoeuvrings nor unjust laws nor bannered army could intimidate or resist. Under the persistent arrogance of the South, the anti-slavery sentiment of the North was still extending; and, in order to combine the scattered elements opposed to the servile system into one grand, compact, and solid body, the Republican party was, through the constructive power of Henry Wilson and a few other leading politicians, formed in the summer of 1854 to occupy the place of the Free-soil organization. A large convention was held in the city of Worcester on the seventh day of September, over which the Hon. Robert Rantoul of Beverly presided. As Mr. Sumner entered the convention, the whole assembly rose, and with long-continued cheering gave him welcome as their honored champion. He then made one of the most effective and brilliant speeches ever heard in that city. His theme was “The duties of Massachusetts at the present crisis;” and with the skill of a master whose heart is glowing with the grandeur of his subject, whose [199] tongue is touched with a celestial flame, he proceeded amidst continued outbursts of applause from the vast audience. “After months,” said he,
of constant, anxious service in another place, away from Massachusetts, I am permitted to stand among you, my fellow-citizens, and to draw satisfaction and strength from your generous presence. Life is full of changes and contrasts. From slave soil I have come to free soil: from the tainted breath of slavery I have passed to this bracing air of freedom; and the heated antagonism of debate, shooting forth its fiery cinders, is changed into this brimming, overflowing welcome, where I seem to lean on the great heart of our beloved Commonwealth as it palpitates audibly in this crowded assembly. Let me say at once, frankly and sincerely, that I have not come here to receive applause, or to give occasion for any tokens of public regard, but simply to unite with my fellow-citizens in new vows of duty. And yet I would not be thought insensible to the good — will now swelling from so many honest bosoms: it touches me more than I can tell. During the late session of Congress, an eminent supporter of the Nebraska Bill said to me, with great animation, in language which I give with some precision, that you may appreciate the style as well [200] as the sentiment, “I would not go through all that you do on this nigger question, for all the offices and honors of the country.” To which I naturally and promptly replied, “Nor would I, for all the offices and honors of the country.” Not in such things can be found the true inducements to this warfare. For myself, if I have been able to do any thing in any respect not unworthy of you, it is because I thought rather of those commanding duties which are above office and honor.In the progress of his address he said with emphasis,--
The Fugitive-Slave Bill, monstrous in cruelty as in unconstitutionality, is a usurpation which must be opposed. The admission of new slave States, from whatsoever quarter, from Texas or Cuba, Utah or New Mexico, must be opposed. And to every scheme of slavery — whether in Cuba or Mexico, on the high seas in opening the slave-trade, in the West Indies, the valley of the Amazon, whether accomplished or merely plotted, whether pending or in prospect — we must send forth an everlasting no!He concluded his grand address by these memorable words:--
By the passage of the Nebraska Bill, and the Boston kidnapping case, the tyranny of the slave-power [201] has become unmistakably manifest; while, at the same time, all compromises with slavery are happily dissolved, so that freedom now stands face to face with its foe. The pulpit, too, released from ill-omened silence, now thunders for freedom, as in the olden time. It belongs to Massachusetts--nurse of the men and principles which made the earliest Revolution — to vow herself anew to her ancient faith, as she lifts herself to the great struggle. Her place now, as of old, is in the van, at the head of the battle. But, to sustain this advanced position with proper inflexibility, three things are needed by our beloved Commonwealth, in all her departments of government,--the same three things which once in Faneuil Hall I ventured to say were needed by every representative of the North at Washington. The first is backbone; the second is backbone; and the third is backbone. With these Massachusetts will be respected, and felt as a positive force in the national government; while at home, on her own soil,--free at last in reality as in name,--all her people, from the islands of Boston to Berkshire Hills, and from the sands of Barnstable to the northern line, will unite in the cry,--[202] Mr. Sumner was called this autumn to bear the loss of his beloved brother Albert, his wife and daughter Kate, who perished in the ill-fated steamer “Arctic” which collided with the French steamer “Vesta” off Newfoundland, Sept. 27, 1854, sending three hundred persons to an ocean-grave. Albert was an able financier, and had been of great service to his mother in her economical affairs. The Sumner family long hoped that some way of escape from the wreck had been effected; but no tidings of the unfortunate voyagers ever came. On the evening of the 15th of November, 1854, Mr. Sumner delivered an admirable address before the Mercantile Library Association of Boston, on “The position and duties of the Merchant,” which he illustrated by sketching the life of Granville Sharp, the earliest abolitionist of England. In portraying the character of this eminent philanthropist, he pointed out the duties of the mercantile profession, especially in respect to slavery and the practical demands of the present age. On the tenth day of February, 1855, Henry Wilson, a fearless representative of the working-men, and of the progressive spirit, of Massachusetts, took his seat in the United-States Senate. His advent was hailed with joy by Mr. Sumner, who saw in him a combatant well girded to repel the assaults on [203] freedom. They were stigmatized as “Black Republicans,” and held as members sent for the reception of the ridicule and invective of the dominant party; but they well understood its weakness, and by a kind of inspiration prophesied its coming dissolution. Their own cause, they as clearly saw, stood on the immutable basis of the gospel: they heard afar the rolling of the tidal wave; they caught faint glimpses of the dawn of a new day. “A forlorn hope,” said politicians on the lower plane. But the feet of Sumner and of Wilson touched the rock: their temples felt the breeze of an incoming power. Shoulder to shoulder they, beneath the aegis of the constitution, defiantly confronted their opponents, and with burning words denounced the usurpations of the partisans of slavery. They were heroes; and men now accord to them this appellation. Referring to the course pursued by Mr. Sumner in Congress, Theodore Parker says, in a letter to Henry Wilson, dated Feb. 15, 1855,--No slave-hunt in our borders! no pirate on our strand!
No fetter in the Bay State! no slave upon her land!
What a noble stand Sumner has taken and kept in the Senate! He is one of the few who have grown morally as well as intellectually by his position in Congress. But his example shows that politics do not necessarily debase a man in two years. I hope the office may do as much for you as for your noble and generous colleague.[204] Mr. Sumner's next senatorial effort, Feb. 23, 1855, was an earnest speech, during which he was frequently interrupted by Messrs. Rusk and Butler, on the repeal of the Fugitive-Slave Act. In the course of his remarks, he declared again his plan of emancipation to be, not a political revolution, but the awakening of an enlightened, generous, human, Christian, public opinion, which “should blast with contempt, indignation, and abhorrence, all who, in whatever form, or under whatever name, undertake to be agents in enslaving a fellow-man.” At the close of his speech, Mr. Butler said, “I will ask the gentleman one question: If it devolved upon him as a representative of Massachusetts, all federal laws being put out of the way, would he recommend any law for the delivery of a fugitive slave under the constitution of the United States?” “never!” Mr. Sumner instantly replied. The following letter to his classmate the Rev. S. B. Babcock. D. D., of Dedham, exhibits his anxiety for union at the North:--
On the 9th of May following, he delivered, at the Metropolitan Theatre, New York, a brilliant address on “The Necessity, Practicability, and Dignity of the Anti-Slavery Enterprise.” In presenting him to the vast audience, the Hon. William Jay said, “I introduce him to you as a Northern senator on whom nature has conferred the unusual gift of a backbone,--a man who, standing erect on the floor of Congress amid creeping things from the North, with Christian fidelity denounces the stupendous wickedness of the Fugitive Law and Nebraska perfidy, and, in the name of liberty, humanity, and religion, demands the repeal of those most atrocious enactments.” Speaking of the outspread and power of the antislavery sentiment, Mr. Sumner beautifully said, “It [206] touches the national heart as it never before was touched, sweeping its strings with a might to draw forth emotions such as no political struggle has ever evoked. It moves the young, the middle-aged, and the old. It enters the family circle, and mingles with the flame of the household hearth. It reaches the souls of mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters, filling all with a new aspiration for justice on earth, and awakening not merely a sentiment against slavery, such as prevailed with our fathers, but a deep, undying conviction of its wrong, and a determination to leave no effort unattempted for its removal. With the sympathies of all Christendom as allies, it has already encompassed the slave-masters by a moral blockade, invisible to the eye, but more potent than navies, from which there can be no escape except in final capitulation.” Referring to the contemptible part performed by the slave-hunter, he made the emphatic declaration: “For myself, let me say that I can imagine no office, no salary, no consideration, which I would not gladly forego rather than become in any way an agent for the enslavement of my brother-man. Where, for me, would be comfort or solace after such a work? In dreams and waking hours, in solitude and in the street, in the study of the open book, and in conversation with the world, wherever I turned, there my [207] victim would stare me in the face; while, from the distant rice-fields and sugar-plantations of the South, his cries beneath the vindictive lash, his moans at the thought of liberty once his, now — alas!--ravished away, would pursue me, repeating the tale of his fearful doom, and sounding, forever sounding, in my ears, ‘Thou art the man.’ Mr. President, may no such terrible voice fall on your soul or mine!” He concluded this magnificent address by these strong words:-- “Face to face against the slave oligarchy must be rallied the United masses of the North, in compact political association, planted on the everlasting base of justice, knit together by the instincts of a common danger and by the holy sympathies of humanity; enkindled by a love of freedom, not only for themselves, but for others; determined to enfranchise the national government from degrading thraldom; and constituting the backbone party, powerful in numbers, wealth, and intelligence, but more powerful still in an inspiring cause. Let this be done, and victory will be ours.” Entertaining broad and catholic views of humanity and brotherhood, Mr. Sumner did not identify himself with the American or “Know-nothing” organization, which he truly characterized as a “separate” and “short-lived” party. “Cut off from the [208] main body,” said he, “it may still show a brief vitality, as a head of a turtle still bites for some days after it is severed from the neck, but can have no permanent existence.” “It is proposed,” he as justly as eloquently remarked,
to attaint men for their religion, and also for their birth. If this object can prevail, vain are the triumphs of civil freedom in its many hard-fought fields, vain is that religious toleration which we all profess. The fires of Smithfield, the tortures of the Inquisition, the proscriptions of non-conformists, may all be revived. It was mainly to escape these outrages, dictated by a dominant religious sect, that our country was early settled, in one place by Quakers, who set at nought all forms; in another by Puritans, who disowned bishops; in another by Episcopalians, who take their name from bishops; and in yet another by Catholics, who look to the pope as their spiritual father. Slowly among sects was evolved the great idea of the equality of all men before the law, without regard to religious belief; nor can any party now organize a proscription merely for religious belief, without calling in question this unquestionable principle. . . . The history of our country in its humblest as well as most exalted spheres testifies to the merits of foreigners. Their strong arms have helped furrow our [209] broad territory with canals, and stretch in every direction the iron rail. They have filled our workshops, navigated our ships, and tilled our fields. Go where you will, among the hardy sons of toil on land or sea, and there you will find industrious and faithful foreigners bending their muscles to the work. At the bar, and in the high places of commerce, you will find them. Enter the retreats of learning, and there you will find them too, shedding upon our country the glory of science. Nor can any reflection be cast upon foreigners claiming hospitality now, which will not glance at once upon the distinguished living and the illustrious dead; upon the Irish Montgomery, who perished for us at the gates of Quebec; upon Pulaski the Pole, who perished for us at Savannah; upon De Kalb and Steuben, the generous Germans, who aided our weakness by their military experience; upon Paul Jones the Scotchman, who lent his unsurpassed courage to the infant thunders of our navy; also upon those great European liberators, Kosciusko of Poland, and Lafayette of France, each of whom paid his earliest vows to liberty in our cause. Nor should this list be confined to military characters, so long as we gratefully cherish the name of Alexander Hamilton, who was born in the West Indies, and the name of Albert Gallatin, who was born in Switzerland, and never, to [210] the close of his octogenarian career, lost the French accent of his boyhood,--both of whom rendered civic services which may be commemorated among the victories of peace.
