Part 15

Note the language: "Such vile and most odious courses, justly abhorred of all good and just men." Better words could not be employed against the infamies of Slavery in our day. The Colony that could issue this noble decree was inconsistent with itself, when it permitted its rocky soil to be pressed by the footstep of a single slave. But a righteous public opinion early and constantly set its face against Slavery. As early as 1701 the following vote appears on the Records of Boston: "The Representatives are desired to promote the encouraging the bringing of white servants, _and to put a period to negroes being slaves_."[90] Perhaps, in all history, this is the earliest testimony from any official body against Negro Slavery, and I thank God that it came from Boston, my native town. In 1705 a heavy duty was imposed upon every negro imported into the Province;[91] in 1712 the importation of Indians as servants or slaves was strictly forbidden;[92] but the general subject of Slavery attracted little attention till the beginning of the controversy which ended in the Revolution, when the rights of the blacks were blended by all true patriots with those of the whites. Sparing unnecessary detail, suffice it to say, that, as early as 1770, one of the courts of Massachusetts, anticipating by two years the renowned judgment in Somerset's case, established within its jurisdiction the principle of emancipation, and, under its touch of magic power, changed slave into freeman. Similar decisions followed from other courts. In 1776 the whole number of blacks, both free and slave, sprinkled thinly over "hardy" Massachusetts, was five thousand two hundred and forty-nine, being to the whites as one to sixty-five,[93]--while in "slaveholding" South Carolina the number of negro slaves at that time was not far from one hundred thousand, being at least one slave for every freeman, thus rendering that Colony anything but "hardy." In these figures I give South Carolina the benefit of the most favorable estimates. Good authorities make the slaves at that time in this State more than twice as numerous as the freemen.[94] At last, in 1780, even before the triumph of Yorktown led the way to that peace which set its seal upon National Independence, Massachusetts, glowing with the struggles of the Revolution, and filled with the sentiments of Freedom, placed foremost in her Declaration of Rights those emphatic words, "All men are born free and equal," and by this declaration exterminated every vestige of Slavery within her borders. All hail, then, to Massachusetts! the just and generous Commonwealth in whose behalf I have the honor to speak.

[90] Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., 2d Ser. Vol. VIII. p. 184. Drake's History and Antiquities of Boston, p. 525.

[91] Acts and Laws of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, 1705, Ch. VI. § 6.

[92] Ibid., 1711-12, Ch. V.

[93] Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., Vol. IV. p. 198.

[94] Hewatt, History of South Carolina, Vol. II. p. 292; Drayton, View of South Carolina, p. 103; Mills, Statistics of South Carolina, p. 177. In harmony with these is the recent History of South Carolina, by William Gilmore Simms, (ed. 1860,) p. 199.

Thus, Sir, does the venerable Senator err, when he presumes to vouch Massachusetts for Slavery, and to associate this odious institution with the names of her great patriots.

But the venerable Senator errs yet more, if possible, when he attributes to "slaveholding" communities a leading part in those contributions of arms and treasure by which independence was secured. Here are his exact words, as I find them in the "Globe," revised by himself.

"Sir, when blood was shed upon the plains of Lexington and Concord, in an issue made by Boston, to whom was an appeal made, and from whom was it answered? The answer is found in the acts of slaveholding States,--_animis opibusque parati_. Yes, Sir, the independence of America, to maintain republican liberty, was won by the arms and treasure, by the patriotism and _good faith_, of slaveholding communities."[95]

[95] Congressional Globe, 33d Cong. 1st Sess., June 26, 1854, Vol. XXVIII. p. 1516.

Observe, Sir, the words as emphasized by himself. Surely, the Senator, with his silver-white locks, all fresh from the outrage of the Nebraska Bill, and that overthrow of a solemn compact, cannot stand here and proclaim the "_good faith_ of slaveholding communities," except in irony,--yes, Sir, in irony. And let me add, that, when this Senator presumes to say that American Independence "was won by the arms and treasure of _slaveholding_ communities," he speaks either in irony or in ignorance.

The question which the venerable Senator from South Carolina opens by his vaunt I have no desire to discuss; but since it is presented, I confront it at once. This is not the first time, during my brief service here, that this Senator has sought on this floor to provoke comparison between slaveholding communities and the Free States.

MR. BUTLER [_from his seat_]. You cannot quote a single instance in which I have done it. I have always said I thought it was in bad taste, and I have never attempted it.

MR. SUMNER. I beg the Senator's pardon. I always listen to him, and I know whereof I affirm. He has profusely dealt in it. I allude now only to a single occasion. In his speech on the Nebraska Bill, running through two days, it was one of his commonplaces. There he openly presented a contrast between the Free States and "slaveholding communities" in certain essential features of civilization, and directed shafts at Massachusetts which called to his feet my distinguished colleague at that time [Mr. EVERETT], and more than once compelled me to take the floor. And now, Sir, the venerable Senator, not rising from his seat and standing openly before the Senate, undertakes to deny that he has dealt in such comparisons.

MR. BUTLER. Will the Senator allow me?

MR. SUMNER. Certainly: I yield the floor to the Senator.

MR. BUTLER. Whenever that speech is read,--and I wish the Senator had read it before he commented on it with a good deal of rhetorical enthusiasm,--it will be found that I was particular not to wound the feelings of the Northern people who were sympathizing with us in the great movement to remove odious distinctions. I was careful to say nothing that would provoke invidious comparisons; and when that speech is read, notwithstanding the vehement assertion of the honorable Senator, he will find, that, when I quoted the laws of Massachusetts, particularly one Act which I termed the _Toties Quoties_ Act, by which every negro was whipped every time he came into Massachusetts, I quoted them with a view to show, not a contrast between South Carolina and Massachusetts, but to show that in the whole of this country, from the beginning to this time,--even in my own State,--I made no exception,--public opinion had undergone a change, and that it had undergone the same change in Massachusetts; for at one time they did not regard this institution of Slavery with the same odium that they do at this time. That was the purpose; and I challenge the Senator, as an orator of fairness, to look at it and see if it is not so.

MR. SUMNER. Has the Senator done?

MR. BUTLER. I may not be done presently; but that is the purport of that speech.

MR. SUMNER. Will the Senator refer to his own speech? He now admits, that, under the guise of an argument, he did draw attention to what he evidently regarded an odious law of Massachusetts. And, Sir, I did not forget, that, in doing this, there was, at the time, an apology which ill concealed the sting.[96] But let that pass. The Senator is strangely oblivious of the statistical contrasts which he borrowed from the speech of a member of the other House, and which, at his request, were read by a Senator before him on this floor. The Senator, too, is strangely oblivious of yet another imputation, which, at the very close of his speech, he shot as a Parthian arrow at Massachusetts. It is he, then, who is the offender; and no hardihood of denial can extricate him. For myself, Sir, I understand the sensibilities of Senators from "slaveholding communities," and would not wound them by a superfluous word. Of Slavery I speak strongly, as I must; but thus far, even at the expense of my argument, I have avoided the contrasts founded on detail of figures and facts which are so obvious between the Free States and "slaveholding communities"; especially have I shunned all allusion to South Carolina. But the venerable Senator to whose discretion that State has intrusted its interests here will not allow me to be still.

[96] The following, from the _Congressional Globe_ (33d Cong. 1st Sess., Appendix, p. 234), will show the spirit of Mr. Butler's remarks, on the occasion referred to.

"MR. BUTLER. ... I have said, that, before the adoption of the Missouri Compromise, even the Northern States were not so very kind and philanthropic towards this race, which is now under the peculiar care of the Senator from Massachusetts, as he would represent. I have before me a statute of that State, which I ask my friend from Alabama [Mr. C. C. Clay], who sits beside me, to read."

[Here Mr. Clay read from the Act in question (withholding the title, "_An Act for suppressing and punishing of Rogues, Vagabonds, Common Beggars, and other Idle, Disorderly, and Lewd Persons_") a section prohibiting the tarrying of vagrant negroes in the State _longer than two months_, on pain, in case of complaint, and continuance after due warning, of being "whipped not exceeding ten stripes, and ordered to depart out of the Commonwealth within ten days; and if he or she shall not so depart, the same process to be had and punishment inflicted, and so _toties quoties_."]

"MR. BROADHEAD. What is the date of that statute?

"MR. BUTLER. Seventeen hundred and eighty-eight; and it remained on the statute-book _in full force_ until 1823, until after the adoption of the Missouri Compromise. I will call it the _Toties Quoties_ Act. The negroes were to be whipped every time they happened to get to Boston, or any other place in Massachusetts. That is a specimen of statutory philanthropy at least."

To this Mr. Sumner replied at once:--

"The Senator from South Carolina is so jealous of the honor of his own State, that he will pardon me, if I interrupt him for one moment, merely to explain the offensive statute to which he has referred. I have nothing to say in vindication of it: I simply desire that it should be understood. This statute, which bears date 1788, anterior to the National Government, was applicable only to Africans or negroes not citizens of some one of the United States; and, according to contemporary evidence, it was intended to protect the Commonwealth against the vagabondage of fugitive slaves. But I do not vindicate the statute; I only explain it; and I add, that it has long since been banished from the statute-book."

There is a Report to the Massachusetts Legislature by Theodore Lyman, Jr., as Chairman of a Committee "to report a Bill concerning the Admission into this State of Free Negroes and Mulattoes," dated January 16, 1822, which confirms the position of Mr. Sumner. After a few preliminary remarks, it is said:--

"The Committee have already found in the statute-books of this Commonwealth a law, passed in 1788, regulating the residence in this State of certain persons of color. They believe that _this law has never been enforced_, and, ineffectual as it has proved, they would never have been the authors of placing among the statutes a law so arbitrary in its principle, and in its operation _so little accordant with the institutions, feelings, and practices of the people of this Commonwealth_."

The Report then goes into a history of the public acts and proceedings in relation to colored persons in Massachusetts, from the earliest colonial times down to the date of the enactment, in order to show the spirit of the people towards this class, and concludes with observations like the following:--

"The feelings of the people disclosed since the year 1760 in the votes of towns and in the verdicts of juries, ... the fact that there is no law at present in force which makes a distinction between white and black persons, ... the same law which allows justices to expel blacks from the State after a certain notice expressly recognizing the right of blacks to become citizens (a law, the constitutionality of which has been called in question, and which it is well known was passed on the same day as the Abolition Act of March, 1788, in order to prevent the State from being overrun with runaway slaves),--blacks having the same public provisions for education, and the same public support in case of sickness and poverty,--many blacks before and during the Revolution having obtained their freedom by a legal process, and, as the spirit of the Constitution of this State abrogates all exclusive laws, thereby becoming invested with all the rights of freemen, and with a capability of becoming freeholders, ... and, above all, the construction given to the first principle in the Declaration of Rights at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, both in the public mind and in the courts of law,--clearly manifest and demonstrate that the people of this Commonwealth have always believed negroes and mulattoes to possess the same right and capability to become citizens as white persons."

God forbid that I should do injustice to South Carolina! I know well the gallantry of many of her sons. I know the response which she made to the appeal of Massachusetts for union against the Stamp Act--the Fugitive Slave Act of that day--by the pen of Christopher Gadsden. And I remember with sorrow that this patriot was obliged to confess, at the time, her "weakness in having such a number of slaves," though it is to his credit that he recognized Slavery as "crime."[97] I have no pleasure in dwelling on the humiliations of South Carolina; I have little desire to expose her sores; I would not lay bare even her nakedness. But the Senator, in his vaunt for "slaveholding communities," has made a claim for Slavery so derogatory to Freedom, and so inconsistent with history, that I cannot allow it to pass unanswered.

[97] Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol. V. pp. 294, 425, 426.

* * * * *

This, Sir, is not the first time, even during my little experience here, that the same claim has been made on this floor; and this seems the more astonishing, because the archives of the country furnish such ample and undoubted materials for its refutation. The question of the comparative contributions of men by different States and sections of the country in the war of the Revolution was brought forward as early as 1790, in the first Congress under the Constitution, in the animated and protracted debate on the assumption of State debts by the Union. On that occasion, Fisher Ames, a Representative from Massachusetts, famous for classic eloquence, moved a call upon the War Department for the number of men furnished by each State to the Revolutionary armies. The motion, though vehemently opposed, was carried by a small majority. Shortly afterwards an answer to the call was received from the Department, at that time under the charge of General Knox. This answer, which is one of the documents of our history, places beyond cavil or criticism the exact contributions in arms made by each State. Here it is,--taken from the original, in a volume of the "American State Papers,"[98] published under the authority of Congress. This is official.

[98] Military Affairs, Vol. I. pp. 14-19. Compare with Coll. New Hamp. Hist. Soc., Vol. I. p. 236.

_Statement of the number of troops and militia furnished by the several States, for the support of the Revolutionary War, from 1775 to 1783, inclusive._

Number of Number of Total militia Conjectural continental militia. and continental estimate of NORTHERN STATES. troops. troops. militia. New Hampshire 12,496 2,093 14,589 3,700 Massachusetts 67,907 15,155 83,062 9,500 Rhode Island 5,908 4,284 10,192 1,500 Connecticut 32,039 7,792 39,831 3,000 New York 17,781 3,312 21,093 8,750 Pennsylvania 25,608 7,357 32,965 2,000 New Jersey 10,726 6,055 16,781 2,500 ------ ------ ------ ------ Total 172,465 46,048 218,513 30,950

SOUTHERN STATES. Delaware 2,387 376 2,763 1,000 Maryland 13,912 5,464 19,376 4,000 Virginia 26,678 4,163 30,841 21,880 North Carolina 7,263 2,706 9,969 12,000 South Carolina 6,417 ---- 6,417 25,850 Georgia 2,679 ---- 2,679 9,900 ------ ------ ------ ------ Total 59,336 12,709 72,045 74,630

At this time there was but little difference in numbers between the population of the Southern States and that of the Northern States. By the census of 1790 the Southern had a population of 1,851,804; the Northern a population of 1,882,615. Notwithstanding this essential equality of population in the two sections, the North furnished vastly more men than the South.

Of continental troops, the Southern States furnished 59,336; the Northern, 172,465: making about three men furnished to the continental army by the Northern States to one from the Southern.

Of militia whose services are authenticated by the War Office, the Southern States furnished 12,709; the Northern, 46,048: making nearly four men contributed to the militia by the Northern States to one from the Southern.

Of militia whose services are not authenticated by the War Office, but are set down in the return as "conjectural" only, we have 74,630 furnished by the Southern States, and 30,950 by the Northern: making, under this head, five men contributed by the Southern to two from the Northern. The chief services of the Southern States, for which the venerable Senator now claims so much, it will be observed with a smile, were _conjectural_ only.

Looking, however, at the sum-total of continental troops, authenticated militia, and "conjectural" militia, we have 146,675 from the Southern States, while 249,463 were from the Northern: making upwards of 100,000 men contributed to the war by the Northern more than by the Southern.

The disparity swells, when we compare South Carolina and Massachusetts directly. Of continental troops and authenticated militia and "conjectural" militia, South Carolina furnished 32,267, while Massachusetts furnished 92,562: making nearly three for every one furnished by South Carolina. Look, however, at the continental troops and the authenticated militia from the two States, and here you will find only 6,417 furnished by South Carolina, while 83,062 were furnished by Massachusetts,--_being thirteen times more than by South Carolina, and much more than by all the Southern States together_. Here are facts and figures of which the Senator ought not to be ignorant.

So obvious was this at the time, that we find John Adams recording in his Autobiography, that "almost the whole army was derived from New England."[99] General Knox, in a letter to Colonel Joseph Ward, of Massachusetts, under date of July 28, 1780, with regard to the reestablishment of the army, has a few words in point. After complaining of the general inertness, as sufficient "to induce a ready belief that the mass of America have taken _a monstrous deal of opium_," he says:--

"It is true, the Eastern States and New York have done something in this instance, but no others. Propagate this truth."[100]

[99] Works, Vol. III. p. 48; see also p. 87.

[100] Jackson's History of Newton, p. 517.

In a letter to General Gates, under date of Philadelphia, March 23, 1776, John Adams touches a difference in sentiment between the Northern and Southern States, which of itself accounts for this disparity of military contributions.

"However, my dear friend Gates, all our misfortunes arise from a single source, _the reluctance of the Southern Colonies to republican government_."[101]

[101] Works, Vol. I. p. 207.

Nothing could be stronger, although it is painful to think that it was true.

Foreign testimony, also, is in harmony with the official Statement. The Marquis de Chastellux, who travelled through the States towards the close of the Revolution, records somewhere that he "never met anybody from the North who had not been in the army." So marked and preeminent was the service of the Northern States, ay, Sir, so peculiar and special was the service of Boston, from which comes the present petition, that the Revolution was known in Europe by the name of this patriotic town. Edmund Burke exclaimed in Parliament: "The cause of Boston is become the cause of all America. Every part of America is united in support of Boston. By these acts of oppression you have made Boston the Lord Mayor of America."[102] And it was the same on the Continent. Our fathers in arms for Independence were known as "the insurgents of Boston." The French King was praised for protecting with his arms what was called "the justice of the Bostonians."[103] In saying this, I do not speak vaguely or without authority.

[102] Hansard, Parliamentary History, Vol. XVIII. col. 45.

[103] Vie Publique et Privée de Louis XVI., p. 43. See also Memoir of the Right Honorable Hugh Elliot, by the Countess of Minto, published since this speech, where will be found (p. 48) a letter from a fine lady of Vienna, who, writing to Mr. Elliot in 1775, confesses that she has been "Bostonian at heart": _J'etais Bostonienne de coeur._

Did occasion require, I might go further, and minutely portray the imbecility of Southern States, and particularly of South Carolina, in the War of the Revolution, as compared with Northern States. This is a sad chapter, upon which I dwell unwillingly. Faithful annals record, that, as early as 1778, the six South Carolina regiments, composing, with the Georgia regiment, the regular force of the Southern Department, did not, in the whole, muster above eight hundred men; nor was it possible to fill up their ranks. The succeeding year, the Governor of South Carolina, pressed by British forces, offered to stipulate the neutrality of his State during the war, leaving its permanent position to be decided at the peace: a premonitory symptom of the secession menaced in our own day. After the fatal field of Camden, no organized American force was left in this region. The three Southern States--_animis opibusque parati_, according to the vaunt of the Senator--had not a single battalion in the field. During all this period the men of Massachusetts were serving their country, not at home, but away from their own borders: for, from the Declaration of Independence, Massachusetts never felt the pressure of a hostile foot.