Part 19

The question being put upon the motion by Mr. Sumner to take up his resolution, it was rejected,--Yeas 10, Nays 32,--as follows.

YEAS,--Messrs. Clarke, Davis, Dodge, of Wisconsin, Foot, Hamlin, Seward, Shields, Sumner, Upham, and Wade:--10.

NAYS,--Messrs. Borland, Brodhead, Brooke, Cass, Charlton, Clemens, De Saussure, Dodge, of Iowa, Douglas, Downs, Felch, Fish, Geyer, Gwin, Hunter, King, Mallory, Mangum, Mason, Meriwether, Miller, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Smith, Soulé, Spruance, Toucey, and Weller:--32.

* * * * *

Mr. Sumner was thus deprived of an opportunity to present his views on this important subject, and it was openly asserted that he should not present them during the pending session. Such was the proslavery tyranny which prevailed. He was thus driven to watch for an opportunity, when, according to the rules of the Senate, he might be heard without impediment. On one of the last days of the session it came.

* * * * *

TRIBUTE TO ROBERT RANTOUL, JR.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE DEATH OF HON. ROBERT RANTOUL, JR., AUGUST 9, 1852.

A message was received from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Hayes, its Chief Clerk, communicating to the Senate information of the death of the Hon. ROBERT RANTOUL, JR., a member of the House of Representatives from the State of Massachusetts, and the proceedings of the House thereon.

The resolutions of the House of Representatives were read. Mr. Sumner said:--

Mr. President,--By formal message of the House of Representatives we learn that one of our associates in the public councils is dead. Only a few brief days--I had almost said hours--have passed since he was in his accustomed seat. Now he is gone from us forever. He was my colleague and friend; and yet, so sudden has been this change, that no tidings even of his illness came to me before I learned that he was already beyond the reach of mortal aid or consolation, and that the shadows of the grave were descending upon him. He died here in Washington, late on Saturday evening, 7th August; and his earthly remains, accompanied by the bereaved companion of his life, with a Committee of the other House, are now far on the way to Massachusetts, there to mingle, dust to dust, with his natal soil.

The occasion does not permit me to speak of Mr. Rantoul at length. A few words will suffice; nor will the language of eulogy be required.

He was born 13th August, 1805, at Beverly, in Essex County, Massachusetts, the home of Nathan Dane, final author of the immortal Ordinance by which Freedom was made a perpetual heirloom in the broad region of the Northwest. Here he commenced life under happy auspices of family and neighborhood. Here his excellent father, honored for public services, venerable also with years and flowing silver locks, yet lives to mourn a last surviving son. The sad fortune of Burke is renewed. He who should have been as posterity is to this father in the place of ancestor.

Mr. Rantoul entered the Massachusetts Legislature early, and there won his first fame. For many years he occupied a place on the Board of Education. He was also, for a time, Collector of Boston, and afterwards Attorney of the United States for Massachusetts. During a brief period he held a seat in this body. Finally, in 1851, by the choice of his native District, remarkable for intelligence and public spirit, he became a Representative in the other branch of the National Legislature. In all these spheres he performed acceptable service. And the future promised opportunities of a higher character, to which his abilities, industry, and fidelity would have responded amply. Massachusetts has many arrows in her well-stocked quiver, but few could she so ill spare at this moment as the one now irrevocably sped.

By original fitness, study, knowledge, and various experience, he was formed for public service. But he was no stranger to other pursuits. Devoted early to the profession of the law, he followed it with assiduity and success. In the antiquities of our jurisprudence few were more learned. His arguments at the bar were thorough; nor was his intellectual promptness in all emergencies of a trial easily surpassed. Literature, neglected by many under pressure of professional life, was with him a constant pursuit. His taste for books was enduring. He was a student always. Amidst manifold labors, professional and public, he cherished the honorable aspiration of adding to the historical productions of his country. A work on the history of France, where this great nation should be portrayed by an American pen, occupied much of his thoughts. I know not if any part was ever matured for publication.

The practice of the law, while sharpening the intellect, is too apt to cramp the faculties within the narrow limits of form, and to restrain the genial currents of the soul. On him it had no such influence. He was a Reformer. In warfare with Evil he was enlisted early and openly as a soldier for life. As such, he did not hesitate to encounter opposition, to bear obloquy, and to brave enmity. His conscience, pure as goodness, sustained him in every trial,--even that sharpest of all, the desertion of friends. And yet, while earnest in his cause, his zeal was tempered beyond that of the common reformer. He knew well the difference between the _ideal_ and the _actual_, and sought, by practical means, in harmony with existing public sentiment, to promote the interests he fondly cherished. He saw that reform does not prevail at once, in an hour, or in a day, but that it is the slow and certain result of constant labor, testimony, and faith. Determined and tranquil in his own convictions, he had the grace to respect the convictions of others. Recognizing in the social and political system those essential elements of stability and progress, he discerned at once the offices of Conservative and Reformer. But he saw also that a blind conservatism was not less destructive than a blind reform. By mingled caution, moderation, and earnestness, he seemed often to blend two characters in one, and to be at the same time a _Reforming Conservative_ and a _Conservative Reformer_.

I might speak of his devotion to public improvements of all kinds, particularly to the system of Railroads. Here he was on the popular side. There were other causes where his struggle was keener and more meritorious. At a moment when his services were much needed, he was the faithful supporter of Common Schools, the peculiar glory of New England. By word and example he sustained the cause of Temperance. Some of his most devoted labors, commencing in the Legislature of Massachusetts, were for the Abolition of Capital Punishment. Since that consummate jurist, Edward Livingston, no person has done so much, by reports, essays, letters, and speeches, to commend this reform. With its final triumph, in the progress of civilization, his name will be indissolubly connected. There is another cause that commanded his early sympathies and some of his latest best endeavors, to which, had life been spared, he would have given the splendid maturity of his powers. Posterity cannot forget this; but I am forbidden by the occasion to name it here. Sir, in the long line of portraits on the walls of the Ducal Palace at Venice, commemorating its Doges, a single panel, where a portrait should have been, is shrouded by a dark curtain. But this darkened blank, in that place, attracts the beholder more than any picture. Let such a curtain fall to-day upon this theme.[97]

[97] Slavery could not bear to be pointed at, and this slight allusion, which seemed due to the memory of Mr. Rantoul, caused irritation at the time. Hon. John Davis, the other Senator from Massachusetts, assigned as a reason for silence on the occasion, that he observed the ill-feeling of certain persons, and thought it best that the vote should be taken at once.

In becoming harmony with these noble causes was the purity of his private life. Here he was blameless. In manners he was modest, simple, and retiring. In conversation he was disposed to listen rather than to speak, though all were well pleased when he broke silence and in apt language declared his glowing thought. But in the public assembly, before the people, or in the legislative hall, he was bold and triumphant. As a debater he rarely met his peer. Fluent, earnest, rapid, sharp, incisive, his words came forth like a flashing scymitar. Few could stand against him. He always understood his subject, and then, clear, logical, and determined, seeing his point before him, pressed forward with unrelenting power. His speeches on formal occasions were enriched by study, and contain passages of beauty. But he was most truly at home in dealing with practical questions arising from the actual exigencies of life.

Few had studied public affairs more minutely or intelligently. As a constant and effective member of the Democratic party, he became conspicuous by championship of its doctrines on the Currency and Free Trade. These he often discussed, and from the amplitude of his knowledge, and his overflowing familiarity with facts, statistics, and the principles of political economy, poured upon them a luminous flood. There was no topic within the wide range of national concern which did not occupy his thoughts. The resources and needs of the West were all known to him, and Western interests were like his own. As the pioneer, resting from his daily labors, learns the death of RANTOUL, he will feel a personal grief. The fishermen on the distant Eastern coast, many of whom are dwellers in his District, will sympathize with the pioneer. These hardy children of the sea, returning in their small craft from late adventures, and hearing the sad tidings, will feel that they too have lost a friend. And well they may. During his last fitful hours of life, while reason still struggled against disease, he was anxious for their welfare. The speech which he had hoped soon to make in their behalf was then chasing through his mind. Finally, in broken utterances, he gave to them his latest earthly thoughts.

The death of such a man, so sudden, in mid-career, is well calculated to arrest attention and to furnish admonition. From the love of family, the attachment of friends, and the regard of fellow-citizens, he has been removed. Leaving behind the cares of life, the concerns of state, and the wretched strifes of party, he has ascended to those mansions where there is no strife or concern or care. At last he stands face to face in His presence whose service is perfect freedom. He has gone before. You and I, Sir, and all of us, must follow soon. God grant that we may go with equal consciousness of duty done!

* * * * *

I beg leave to offer the following resolutions.

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the Senate mourns the death of Hon. ROBERT RANTOUL, JR., late a member of the House of Representatives from Massachusetts, and tenders to his relatives a sincere sympathy in this afflicting bereavement.

_Resolved_, As a remark of respect to the memory of the deceased, that the Senate do now adjourn.

The resolutions were adopted, and the Senate adjourned.

NOTE.--A monument of Italian marble was erected to the memory of Mr. Rantoul in the burial-ground at Beverly. It is an upright, four-sided shaft, on the front face of which is the following inscription, written by Mr. Sumner.

Here lies the body of

ROBERT RANTOUL, JR.,

Who was born at Beverly, 13th August, 1805, and died at Washington, 7th August, 1852. An upright lawyer, a liberal statesman, a good citizen, studious of the Past, yet mindful of the Future. Throughout an active life he strove for the improvement of his fellow-men. The faithful friend of Education, he upheld our Public Schools. A lover of Virtue, he opposed Intemperance by word and example. In the name of Justice and Humanity, he labored to abolish the punishment of Death. Inspired by Freedom, he gave his professional services to a slave hunted down by public clamor, and bore his testimony, in Court and Congress, against the cruel enactment which sanctioned the outrage. He held many places of official trust and honor, but the Good Works filling his days were above these. Stranger! at least in something imitate him.

* * * * *

AUTHORSHIP OF THE ORDINANCE OF FREEDOM IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORY.

LETTER TO HON. EDWARD COLES, AUGUST 23, 1852.

Mr. Coles has been private secretary to Mr. Jefferson, and then to Mr. Madison, and afterwards Governor of Illinois. The following extract of a letter from him to Mr. Sumner, dated Schooley's Mountain, New Jersey, August 18, 1852, raises the question of the authorship of the Ordinance of Freedom.

"Not having the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with you, I shall ask the favor of Senator Cooper to present you this, and to make me known to you, and thus explain the obligation you have placed me under, as the friend of Mr. Jefferson, to correct an error you lately made in the Senate, by which you take from him, and give to another, one of the noblest and most consistent acts of his life.

"In your speech in the Senate, on the occasion of the death of Mr. Rantoul, you spoke of Nathan Dane as the "_Author_" of the Ordinance for the government of the Territory northwest of the Ohio. With my recollection,--for I have no book or person to refer to at this summer retreat,--I could not have been more surprised, if you had designated as the author of the Declaration of Independence one of the members who added his name to it after it had been adopted by Congress."

SENATE CHAMBER, August 23, 1852.

Dear Sir,--I have been honored by your letter of August 18th, in which you kindly criticise an allusion by me in the Senate to Nathan Dane, as the author of the Ordinance of 1787. You award this high honor to Mr. Jefferson.

Believe me, I would not take from this great patriot one of his many titles to regard. Among these, I cannot forget the early, though unsuccessful effort, to which you refer, for the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories of the United States. But, while according to him just homage on this account, I cannot forget the crowning labors of another.

I submit to you, as beyond question, that the Ordinance of 1787, as finally adopted, was from the pen of Nathan Dane. In his great work on American Law, published in 1824, while Mr. Jefferson was yet alive, I find the following claim of authorship: "This ordinance (_formed by the author of this work_) was framed mainly from the laws of Massachusetts."[98]

In the celebrated debate of 1830, on Foot's Resolution, Mr. Webster, in his first speech, referred to the Ordinance as "drawn by Nathan Dane."[99] Afterwards, in his remarkable reply to Mr. Hayne, he vindicated at length this claim of authorship. While admitting the earlier efforts for the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories, he says: "It is no derogation from the credit, whatever that may be, of drawing the Ordinance, that its principles had before been prepared and discussed in the form of resolutions. If one should reason in that way, what would become of the distinguished honor of the author of the Declaration of Independence? There is not a sentiment in that paper which had not been voted and resolved in the Assemblies, and other popular bodies in the country, over and over again."[100]

Such, as it seems to me, is the true state of the question. To Jefferson belongs the honor of the first effort to prohibit Slavery in the Territories: to Dane belongs the honor of finally embodying this Prohibition in the Ordinance drawn by his hand in 1787.

[98] Abridgment and Digest of American Law, Vol. VII. ch. 223, art. 1, § 3.

[99] Works, Vol. III. p. 263.

[100] Ibid., p. 283.

As this question has already been presented to the Senate in a classical debate memorable in the history of the country, it seems to me hardly advisable, at this late stage of the session, to undertake its revival. If you should continue to think that I have made an error, I shall be happy to correct it in any practicable way.

* * * * *

Allow me to express my sincere respect for your character, with which from childhood I have been familiar, and my gratitude for the steadfast support you have ever given to the principles of Freedom advocated by Jefferson.

I remain, dear Sir, faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

HON. EDWARD COLES.

NOTE.

The history of the efforts for the exclusion of Slavery from the Northwest Territory is thus related by Mr. Webster, in the speeches above referred to.

"An attempt has been made to transfer from the North to the South the honor of this exclusion of Slavery from the Northwestern Territory. The Journal, without argument or comment, refutes such attempts. The cession by Virginia was made in March, 1784. On the 19th of April following, a committee, consisting of Messrs. Jefferson, Chase, and Howell, reported a plan for a temporary government of the Territory, in which was this article: 'That, after the year 1800, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said States, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been convicted.' Mr Spaight, of North Carolina, moved to strike out this paragraph. The question was put, according to the form then practised, 'Shall these words stand as a part of the plan?' New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, seven States, voted in the affirmative; Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina, in the negative. North Carolina was divided. As the consent of nine States was necessary, the words could not stand, and were struck out accordingly. Mr. Jefferson voted for the clause, but was overruled by his colleagues.

"In March of the next year (1785), Mr. King, of Massachusetts, seconded by Mr. Ellery, of Rhode Island, proposed the formerly rejected article, with this addition: 'And that this regulation shall be an article of compact, and remain a fundamental principle of the constitutions between the thirteen original States and each of the States described in the resolve.' On this clause, which provided the adequate and thorough security, the eight Northern States at that time voted affirmatively, and the four Southern States negatively.[101] The votes of nine States were not yet obtained, and thus the provision was again rejected by the Southern States. The perseverance of the North held out, and two years afterwards the object was attained," by the passage, on the 13th of July, 1787, with only one dissenting voice, of the "Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio."

"We are accustomed, Sir, to praise the lawgivers of Antiquity; we help to perpetuate the fame of Solon and Lycurgus; but I doubt whether one single law of any lawgiver, ancient or modern, has produced effects of more distinct, marked, and lasting character than the Ordinance of 1787. That instrument was drawn by Nathan Dane, then and now a citizen of Massachusetts. It was adopted, as I think I have understood, without the slightest alteration; and certainly it has happened to few men to be the authors of a political measure of more large and enduring consequence. It fixed forever the character of the population in the vast regions northwest of the Ohio, by excluding from them involuntary servitude. It impressed on the soil itself, while it was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to sustain any other than freemen. It laid the interdict against personal servitude in original compact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper, also, than all local constitutions."

[101] More precisely, the seven Northern States, together with Maryland, affirmatively,--and four of the Southern States, namely, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, negatively,--Delaware being unrepresented.

* * * * *

FREEDOM NATIONAL, SLAVERY SECTIONAL.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A MOTION TO REPEAL THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT, AUGUST 26, 1852.

Nihil autem gloriosius libertate præter virtutem, si tamen libertas recte a virtute sejungitur.--JOHN OF SALISBURY.

If any man thinks that the interest of these Nations and the interest of Christianity are two separate and distinct things, I wish my soul may never enter into his secret.--OLIVER CROMWELL.

Mr. Madison thought it WRONG to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.--_Debates in the Federal Convention_, August 25, 1787.

"O Slave, I have bought thee." "That is thy business," he replied. "Wilt thou run away?" "That is my business," said the slave.

_Arabian Proverb._

Aliæ sunt leges Cæsarum, aliæ Christi: aliud Papinianus, aliud Paulus noster præcipit.

ST. JEROME, _Epistola ad Oceanum de Morte Fabiolæ_.

If the marshal of the host bids us do anything, shall we do it, if it be against the great captain? Again, if the great captain bid us do anything, and the king or the emperor commandeth us to do another, dost thou doubt that we must obey the commandment of the king or emperor, and contemn the commandment of the great captain? Therefore, if the king or the emperor bid one thing, and God another, we must obey God, and contemn and not regard neither king nor emperor.

HENRY VIII., _Glasse of Truth_.

Si _la peste_ avoit des charges, des dignités, des honneurs, des bénéfices et des pensions à distribuer, elle auroit bientôt des théologiens et des juris-consultes qui soutiendroient qu'elle est de droit divin, et que c'est un péché de s'opposer à ses ravages.

ABBÉ DE MABLY, _Droits et Devoirs du Citoyen_, Lettre II.

_Cleanthes._ What, to kill innocents, Sir? It cannot be. It is no rule in justice there to punish.

_Lawyer._ Oh, Sir, You understand a conscience, but not law.

_Cleanthes._ Why, Sir, is there so main a difference?

_Lawyer._ You'll never be good lawyer, if you understand not that.

_Cleanthes._ I think, then, 'tis the best to be a bad one.

MASSINGER, _The Old Law_, Act I. Sc. 1.

Among the assemblies of the great A greater Ruler takes his seat; The God of heaven as judge surveys Those gods on earth and all their ways.

Why will ye, then, frame wicked laws? Or why support the unrighteous cause?

ISAAC WATTS.