This text is part of:
[123]
to suppress the rebellion was in effect an encouragement to it, was calculated to prolong and embitter the conflict, and would if repeated be regarded as an unfriendly act. They attributed to the hope of foreign support the continued vitality of the rebellion, and expressed the regret that its chiefs had not been assured by foreign powers that a new government, ‘with slavery as its acknowledged corner-stone, and with no other declared object of separate existence, is so far shocking to civilization and the moral sense of mankind that it must not expect welcome or recognition in the commonwealth of nations.’1 And finally, the United States, ‘awaiting with well-assured trust the final suppression of the rebellion, . . . hereby announce as their unalterable purpose that the war will be vigorously prosecuted, according to the humane principles of Christian nations, until the rebellion is overcome; and they reverently invoke upon their cause the blessing of Almighty God.’
Sumner declined to debate the resolutions when objected to by Powell, Saulsbury, and Carlile, but contented himself with saying that though agreed upon by the committee without any suggestion from the Administration, they met the entire and cordial approval of Mr. Seward.
They passed the House by a large majority, and were sent, as was required by the last resolution, to our ministers abroad to be communicated to foreign governments.2
One incident concerning the resolutions—the assent of Garrett Davis of Kentucky to them in committee, notwithstanding the prominence they gave to the pro-slavery inspiration of the rebellion—is worthy of note.
From the beginning of the Civil War Mr. Davis had been the most indefatigable opponent of antislavery measures; and he .and Sumner had been on that account often opposed to each other in debate.
Their relations were, however, very friendly in the Senate, as well as co-operative in the committee.3 Davis's sincerity of conviction was apparent
1 This doctrine was embodied in a resolution drawn by Mr. Lincoln, to be transmitted by Sumner to John Bright. Sumner's ‘Eulogy on Lincoln,’ Works, vol. IX. pp. 403, 404.
2 Mr. Greeley had advocated in the New York Tribune the submission of the questions involved in the contest to a neutral power,—Switzerland, for instance, and in letters to Sumner, March 16 and Sept. 24, 1863, expressed his grief that the latter had rejected in the present instance the remedy of arbitration as a substitute for war which he had on other occasions supported. Sumner commented briefly on the subject of mediation, Jan. 16, 1863, in connection with W. C. Jewett's petition. Congressional Globe, p. 348.
3 On Feb. 28, 1863, some pleasantry passed between them in the Senate on Mr. Davis's mentioning that Sumner and himself had been named together as ‘Abolitionists.’ Congressional Globe, pp. 1376, 1377.
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.