Part 20

Yet, in the face of all this, which occurred in open debate on the floor of the Senate, which is here in the records of the country, and has been extensively circulated, quoted, discussed, criticised, the Senator from Illinois, in the swiftness of his audacity, presumes to assail me. Perhaps I had better leave that Senator without a word more; but this is not the first, or the second, or the third, or the fourth time that he has launched against me his personalities. Sir, if this be agreeable to him, I make no complaint,--though, for the sake of truth and the amenities of debate, I could wish that he had directed his assaults upon my arguments; but since he has presumed to touch me, he will not complain, if I administer to him a word of advice.

Sir, this is the Senate of the United States, an important body under the Constitution, with great powers. Its members are justly supposed, from years, to be above the intemperance of youth, and from character to be above the gusts of vulgarity. They are supposed to have something of wisdom and something of that candor which is the handmaid of wisdom. Let the Senator bear these things in mind, and remember hereafter that the bowie-knife and bludgeon are not proper emblems of senatorial debate. Let him remember that the swagger of Bob Acres and the ferocity of the Malay cannot add dignity to this body. The Senator infused into his speech the venom sweltering for months,--ay, for years; and he has alleged matters entirely without foundation, in order to heap upon me some personal obloquy. I will not descend to things which dropped so naturally from his tongue. I only brand them to his face as false. I say also to that Senator, and I wish him to bear it in mind, that no person with the upright form of man can be allowed---- [_Hesitation._]

MR. DOUGLAS. Say it.

MR. SUMNER. I will say it,--no person with the upright form of man can be allowed, without violation of all decency, to switch out from his tongue the perpetual stench of offensive personality. Sir, that is not a proper weapon of debate, at least on this floor. The noisome, squat, and nameless animal to which I now refer is not the proper model for an American Senator. Will the Senator from Illinois take notice?

MR. DOUGLAS. I will,--and therefore will not imitate you, Sir.

MR. SUMNER. I did not hear the Senator.

MR. DOUGLAS. I said, if that be the case, I would certainly never imitate you in that capacity,--recognizing the force of the illustration.

MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, again the Senator switches his tongue, and again he fills the Senate with its offensive odor. But I drop the Senator.

There was still another, the Senator from Virginia, who is now also in my eye. That Senator said nothing of argument, and therefore there is nothing of that to be answered. I simply say to him that hard words are not argument, frowns are not reasons, nor do scowls belong to the proper arsenal of parliamentary debate. The Senator has not forgotten that on a former occasion I did something to exhibit the plantation manners which he displays. I will not do any more now.

APPENDIX.

On the second day after the Speech an event occurred which aroused the country, and was characterized at the time by an eminent English statesman, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, as “the beginning of civil war.” Mr. Sumner was sitting at his desk in the Senate Chamber shortly after the adjournment of the Senate, when he was attacked by the Hon. Preston S. Brooks, a Representative of South Carolina, and by a succession of blows on the head with a bludgeon rendered senseless. As confederates with Mr. Brooks were Hon. Lawrence M. Keitt, a Representative of South Carolina, and Hon. Henry A. Edmundson, a Representative of Virginia, who stood at some distance, evidently to sustain the assault. Mr. Sumner sunk upon the floor of the Senate Chamber. After some time he was carried to an adjoining room, where his wounds were dressed, and he was then taken to his lodgings.

The newspapers of the time attest the profound and wide-spread excitement. The titles of the articles are suggestive. “The Attempt to murder Mr. Sumner,”--“Ruffianism National,”--“Blood in the Senate,”--“Outrageous Assault on Senator Sumner,”--“Brutal and Cowardly Assault upon Charles Sumner,”--“Ruffianism in Washington,”--“A Crisis at Hand,”--“The Outrage on Mr. Sumner,”--“Atrocious Outrage,”--“Disgraceful Assault upon a Senator,”--“Another Outrage upon Massachusetts,”--“A Border Ruffian in the Senate,”--“The Last Argument of Slavery,”--“Barbarism at the Capitol,”--“Shame! Shame!” Such were the general voices. The article in the _National Intelligencer_ at Washington was entitled “Painful Occurrence.”

This incident is inseparable from the speech on the Crime against Kansas, although some have supposed that the earlier speech, of June 28, 1854, in Reply to Assailants,[140] contributed essentially to the feeling which broke forth on this occasion. The documents, resolutions, speeches, and articles which it prompted would occupy volumes. An attempt will be made to present an abstract under the following heads.

I. THE ASSAULT.

II. ADOPTION OF THE ASSAULT BY EMINENT SLAVE-MASTERS, AND BY THE SOUTH GENERALLY.

III. PREVIOUS PERSONALITIES AND AGGRESSIONS.

IV. VOICE OF THE NORTH.

V. INJURIES AND CONTINUED DISABILITY OF MR. SUMNER.

I.

THE ASSAULT.

On Friday, May 23, the day after the assault, Hon. Henry Wilson, colleague of Mr. Sumner, rising in his seat immediately after the reading of the Journal, made the following remarks.

“Mr. President,--The seat of my colleague is vacant to-day. That seat is vacant to-day for the first time during five years of public service. Yesterday, after a touching tribute of respect to the memory of a deceased member of the House of Representatives, the Senate adjourned. My colleague remained in his seat, busily engaged in his public duties. While thus engaged, with pen in hand, and in a position which rendered him utterly incapable of protecting or defending himself, Mr. Preston S. Brooks, a member of the House of Representatives, approached his desk unobserved, and abruptly addressed him. Before he had time to utter a single word in reply, he received a stunning blow upon the head from a cane in the hands of Mr. Brooks, which made him blind and almost unconscious. Endeavoring, however, to protect himself, in rising from his chair his desk was overthrown; and while in that condition, he was beaten upon the head by repeated blows, until he sunk upon the floor of the Senate, exhausted, unconscious, and covered with his own blood. He was taken from this Chamber to the anteroom, his wounds were dressed, and then by friends he was carried to his home and placed upon his bed. He is unable to be with us to-day to perform the duties that belong to him as a member of this body.

“Sir, to assail a member of the Senate out of this Chamber, ‘for words spoken in debate,’ is a grave offence, not only against the rights of the Senator, but the constitutional privileges of this House; but, Sir, to come into this Chamber, and assault a member in his seat until he falls exhausted and senseless on this floor, is an offence requiring the prompt and decisive action of the Senate.

“Senators, I have called your attention to this transaction. I submit no motion. I leave it to older Senators, whose character, whose position in this body and before the country, eminently fit them for the task of devising measures to redress the wrongs of a member of this body, and to vindicate the honor and dignity of the Senate.”

Mr. Seward followed with a resolution.

“_Resolved_, That a Committee of five members be appointed by the President to inquire into the circumstances attending the assault committed on the person of the Hon. Charles Sumner, a member of the Senate, in the Senate Chamber yesterday; and that the said Committee be instructed to report a statement of the facts, together with their opinion thereon to the Senate.”

On motion of Mr. Mason, of Virginia, the resolution was amended, so that the Committee should be elected by the Senate. It was then adopted. Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, Mr. Allen, of Rhode Island, Mr. Dodge, of Wisconsin, Mr. Geyer, of Missouri, and Mr. Cass, of Michigan, were elected. Mr. Seward, who introduced the resolution, and Mr. Wilson, who announced the assault, were excluded.

On the 28th of May Mr. Pearce made a report from the Select Committee, which, after a brief statement of facts, says, that “the Senate, for a breach of its privileges, cannot arrest a member of the House of Representatives, and, _a fortiori_, cannot try and punish him”; that “that authority devolves solely upon the House of which he is a member”; and that “the Senate cannot proceed further than to make complaint to the House of Representatives of the assault committed by one of its members.” It was ordered that “a copy of this report, and the affidavits accompanying the same, be transmitted to the House of Representatives.”

Nothing further was done in the Senate on this matter.

In the House of Representatives, on the day after the assault, Hon. Lewis D. Campbell, of Ohio, moved a Select Committee of five “to investigate the subject, and to report the facts, with such resolutions in reference thereto as in their judgments may be proper and necessary for the vindication of the character of the House.” The resolution was adopted, and the following Committee was appointed by the Speaker: Lewis D. Campbell, of Ohio, John Allison, of Pennsylvania, Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Alfred B. Greenwood, of Arkansas, and Francis E. Spinner, of New York. Alexander C. M. Pennington, of New Jersey, was substituted for Mr. Allison. To this Committee were referred the proceedings of the Senate.

* * * * *

In the testimony taken and reported by the Committee will be found an authentic account of the assault. The Committee visited Mr. Sumner at his house.

“HON. CHARLES SUMNER, being sworn, testified.

“_Question_ (by Mr. Campbell). What do you know of the facts connected with the assault alleged to have been made upon you in the Senate Chamber by Hon. Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, on Thursday, May 22, 1856?

“_Answer._ I attended the Senate as usual on Thursday, the 22d of May. After some formal business, a message was received from the House of Representatives, announcing the death of a member of that body from Missouri. This was followed by a brief tribute to the deceased from Mr. Geyer, of Missouri, when, according to usage, and out of respect to the deceased, the Senate adjourned.

“Instead of leaving the Chamber with the rest on the adjournment, I continued in my seat, occupied with my pen. While thus intent, in order to be in season for the mail, which was soon to close, I was approached by several persons who desired to speak with me; but I answered them promptly and briefly, excusing myself, for the reason that I was much engaged. When the last of these left me, I drew my arm-chair close to my desk, and, with my legs under the desk, continued writing. My attention at this time was so entirely withdrawn from all other objects, that, though there must have been many persons on the floor of the Senate, I saw nobody.

“While thus intent, with my head bent over my writing, I was addressed by a person who had approached the front of my desk so entirely unobserved that I was not aware of his presence until I heard my name pronounced. As I looked up, with pen in hand, I saw a tall man, whose countenance was not familiar, standing directly over me, and at the same moment caught these words: ‘I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine----’ While these words were still passing from his lips, he commenced a succession of blows with a heavy cane on my bare head, by the first of which I was stunned so as to lose sight. I no longer saw my assailant, nor any person or object in the room. What I did afterwards was done almost unconsciously, acting under the instinct of self-defence. With head already bent down, I rose from my seat, wrenching up my desk, which was screwed to the floor, and then pressed forward, while my assailant continued his blows. I have no other consciousness until I found myself ten feet forward, in front of my desk, lying on the floor of the Senate, with my bleeding head supported on the knee of a gentleman, whom I soon recognized, by voice and countenance, as Mr. Morgan, of New York. Other persons there were about me offering me friendly assistance; but I did not recognize any of them. Others there were at a distance, looking on and offering no assistance, of whom I recognized only Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, and I thought also my assailant, standing between them.

“I was helped from the floor and conducted into the lobby of the Senate, where I was placed upon a sofa. Of those who helped me to this place I have no recollection. As I entered the lobby, I recognized Mr. Slidell, of Louisiana, who retreated; but I recognized no one else until some time later, as I supposed, when I felt a friendly grasp of the hand, which seemed to come from Mr. Campbell, of Ohio. I have a vague impression that Mr. Bright, President of the Senate, spoke to me while I was lying on the floor of the Senate or in the lobby.

“I make this statement in answer to the interrogatory of the Committee, and offer it as presenting completely all my recollections of the assault and of the attending circumstances, whether immediately before or immediately after. I desire to add, that, besides the words which I have given as uttered by my assailant, I have an indistinct recollection of the words, ‘old man’; but these are so enveloped in the mist which ensued from the first blow, that I am not sure whether they were uttered or not.

“_Ques._ (by Mr. Greenwood). How long do you suppose it was after the adjournment of the Senate before this occurrence took place?

“_Ans._ I am very much at a loss to say whether it was half an hour or fifteen minutes: I should say ranging from fifteen minutes to half an hour, more or less; perhaps not more than fifteen minutes. I have already testified that I was so much absorbed with what I was doing at my desk, that I took very little note of anything, not even of time.

“_Ques._ (by Mr. Cobb). Was the first blow you received from Mr. Brooks before he had finished the sentence?

“_Ans._ I have no recollection beyond what I have stated.

“_Ques._ My question was, whether a blow was struck before Mr. Brooks finished the remark to you which you have just quoted?

“_Ans._ The blow came down with the close of the sentence.

“_Ques._ Then the sentence was closed before the blow was struck?

“_Ans._ It seemed to me that the blow came in the middle of an unfinished sentence. In the statement I have made I used the language, ‘While these words were still passing from his lips, he commenced a succession of blows.’ I heard distinctly the words I have given; I heard the words ‘a relative of mine,’ and then it seemed to me there was a break, and I have left it as an unfinished sentence, the sequel of which I did not hear on account of the blows.

“_Ques._ (by Mr. Campbell). Did you, at any time between the delivery of your speech referred to and the time when you were attacked, receive any intimation, in writing or otherwise, that Mr. Brooks intended to attack you?

“_Ans._ Never, directly or indirectly; nor had I the most remote suspicion of any attack, nor was I in any way prepared for an attack. I had no arms or means of defence of any kind. I was, in fact, entirely defenceless at the time, except so far as my natural strength went. In other words, I had no arms either about my person or in my desk. Nor did I ever wear arms in my life. I have always lived in a civilized community, where wearing arms has not been considered necessary. When I had finished my speech on Tuesday,[141] I think it was, my colleague came to me and said, ‘I am going home with you to-day; several of us are going home with you.’ Said I, ‘None of that, Wilson.’ And instead of waiting for him, or allowing him to accompany me home, I shot off just as I should any other day. While on my way from the Capitol, I overtook Mr. Seward, with whom I had engaged to dine. We walked together as far as the omnibuses. He then proposed that we should take an omnibus, which I declined, stating that I must go to the printing-office to look over proofs. I therefore walked alone, overtaking one or two persons on the way. I have referred to this remark of my colleague in answer to your question, whether I had in any way been put on my guard?

“_Ques._ (by Mr. Cobb). What do you attribute the remark of your colleague to? In other words, was it founded upon an apprehension growing out of what you had said in your speech?

“_Ans._ I understand that it was. He has told me since that a member of the House had put him on his guard, but he did not mention it to me at the time. I suspected no danger, and therefore I treated what he said to me as trifling.

“_Ques._ (by Mr. Pennington). Have you ever defied or invited violence?

“_Ans._ Never, at any time.

“_Ques._ State what was the condition of your clothing after this violence, when you were taken from the Chamber.

“_Ans._ I was in such a condition at the time that I was unaware of the blood on my clothes. I know little about it until after I reached my room, when I took my clothes off. The shirt, around the neck and collar, was soaked with blood. The waistcoat had many marks of blood upon it; also the trousers. The broadcloth coat was covered with blood on the shoulders so thickly that the blood had soaked through the cloth, even through the padding, and appeared on the inside; there was also a great deal of blood on the back of the coat and its sides.

“_Ques._ Were you aware of the intention of Mr. Brooks to strike or inflict a blow before the blow was felt?

“_Ans._ I had not the remotest suspicion of it until I felt the blow on my head.

“_Ques._ (by Mr. Campbell). Do you know how often you were struck?

“_Ans._ I have not the most remote idea.

“_Ques._ How many wounds have you upon your head?

“_Ans._ I have two principal wounds upon my head, and several bruises on my hands and arms. The doctor will describe them more particularly than I am able to.

“_Ques._ (by Mr. Cobb). You stated, that, when Mr. Brooks approached you, he remarked that he had read your speech, and it was a libel upon his State and upon his relative. I will ask you, if you had, prior to that assault, in any speech, made any personal allusions to Mr. Brooks’s relative, Mr. Butler, or to the State of South Carolina, to which Mr. Brooks applied this remark?

“_Ans._ At the time my assailant addressed me I did not know who he was, least of all did I suppose him to be a relative of Mr. Butler. In a speech recently made in the Senate I have alluded to the State of South Carolina, and to Mr. Butler; but I have never said anything which was not in just response to his speeches, according to parliamentary usage, nor anything which can be called a libel upon South Carolina or Mr. Butler.”

HON. HENRY WILSON, the colleague of Mr. Sumner, first heard of the assault as he was passing down the street, and hastened back. As to threats of violence before the assault, he testified:--

“I know of none, of my own knowledge. Mr. Bingham, of the House of Representatives, said to me just about the time the Senate adjourned: ‘You had better go down with Mr. Sumner; I think there will be an assault upon him.’ Said I, ‘Do you think so?’ He said, ‘I have heard remarks made from which I think an assault will be made.’ I afterwards said to Mr. Sumner that I would like to talk with him, and I spoke to Mr. Burlingame and to Mr. Colfax to walk down with us. While I was standing talking to Mr. Burlingame, Mr. Sumner went to Mr. Sutton’s[142] desk, and then went out of the side door. I waited, supposing he would come back and go down with us. But he did not come, and we left the Capitol, but waited some time near the porter’s lodge, until we heard he had gone home. That is all I know, and it is merely hearsay. I gave myself little trouble about it. I went up to his room afterwards, but did not find him at home. Mr. Sumner paid no attention to what I said. I merely said I wanted to walk down with him,--that I wanted to talk with him.”

HON. JOHN A. BINGHAM, of Ohio, being sworn, testified.

“_Ques._ Had you any reason to apprehend that an assault would be made on Mr. Sumner after the delivery of that speech?

“_Ans._ I can only say that I had no reason to apprehend danger to Mr. Sumner, except what I inferred from the language of Senators at the time he closed his speech. What they said then led me to believe that an attempt to assail him was intended, or was intended to be encouraged.

“_Ques._ Were the threats of Senators, of which you speak, uttered in debate or outside?

“_Ans._ They were uttered in debate. I do not recollect hearing anything of the kind except what was uttered in debate, coupled with the manner of Senators. These are all the reasons I had for apprehending an assault.

“_Ques._ (by Mr. Cobb). Did you communicate to Mr. Wilson your apprehensions in reference to Mr. Sumner?

“_Ans._ I did, before the Senate adjourned, communicate with Mr. Wilson. I said to Mr. Wilson that it was my opinion an assault was intended upon Mr. Sumner, and that he had better see to it that no assault was made.”

JAMES W. SIMONTON, ESQ., reporter of the _New York Times_, being sworn, testified.

“I was standing in the Senate Chamber near Mr. Clayton’s seat, conversing with Mr. Morgan and Mr. Murray of the House, when I heard a blow. I exclaimed, ‘What is that?’ and immediately started. One step brought me in view of the parties. My attention was directed at once to Mr. Sumner, with a view to notice his condition. I saw that he was just in the act of springing forward. As he came upon his feet, I noticed him spin around, and then stagger backwards and sideways until he fell. Mr. Brooks was striking him with his cane, which then seemed to be broken off one third its length. I rushed up as rapidly as possible, with other gentlemen, and, as I reached him, or near him, Mr. Keitt rushed in, running around Mr. Sumner and Mr. Brooks with his cane raised, crying, ‘Let them alone! let them alone!’ threatening myself and others who had rushed in to interfere. Mr. Brooks continued to strike until he was seized by Mr. Murray, and until Mr. Sumner, who had lodged partly against the desk, had fallen to the floor. He did not fall directly, but, after lodging for an instant upon, then slipped off from his desk, and fell upon the floor. I do not know of anything further.

“_Ques._ How often did Mr. Brooks strike?

“_Ans._ With great rapidity: at least a dozen, and I should think twenty blows. Mr. Sumner, at the first moment when I looked at him, seemed to me to be unconscious.