Part 22

Mr. Buchanan, the Democratic candidate for the Presidency, deserves to be added to this list. At the Commencement of Franklin and Marshall College, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, July 23, 1856, one of the students, W. W. Davis, of Sterling, Illinois, made an address on “The Decline of Political Integrity,” where he described modern politicians as “so truckling in their character and destitute of moral courage and political integrity, that men are found who applaud the attack of _Canine_ Brooks upon the noble Sumner for defending Freedom.” The scene that ensued, and the remarks of Mr. Buchanan, who was present on the stage, were given by a correspondent of the _New York Tribune_.

“During the delivery of this sentence, the whole house was still as death, and at its close it was heartily applauded. Mr. Davis finished his oration and retired from the front of the stage amid thunders of applause and showers of bouquets from his lady friends. For him it was truly a triumph. But on retiring to his seat, next to that of Mr. Buchanan, did he receive congratulation of the Sage of Wheatland? No, no. Mr. Buchanan said to him, loud enough that the whole class could hear: ‘_My young friend, you look upon the dark side of the picture. Mr. Sumner’s speech was the most vulgar tirade of abuse ever delivered in a deliberative body._’ To which the young orator replied, that he ‘hoped Mr. Buchanan did not approve of the attacks upon Mr. Sumner by Brooks and others.’ To which Mr. Buchanan rejoined, that ‘_Mr. Brooks was inconsiderate, but that Senator Butler was a very mild man_.’ Mr. Davis expressed his regret at the moderation of Mr. Buchanan’s views, and dropped the conversation. After the close of the exercises, the friends of Mr. Davis related what I have written. Mr. Davis himself said, he ‘did not think for a moment that he was not in conversation with James Buchanan,’ but now learns that it was the Representative of the Cincinnati Platform he was addressed by.”

With such words of approbation from eminent leaders of the South, it was natural that other organs of opinion there should be stronger in their language. The people by formal acts, and the press by a succession of articles, signalized their adhesion.

The following extract from a letter of a young gentleman, said to be of “high respectability,” at Charleston, South Carolina, was communicated for publication.

“I suppose you have heard of the lambasting Mr. Brooks gave Mr. Sumner. Well, the Charlestonians have subscribed ten cents each and bought a splendid cane, with the words ‘_Hit him again_’ engraved on the head; and if Mr. Sumner troubles South Carolina or Mr. Brooks again, he will get something _engraved on his head_ which will be very apt to make him a _grave_ subject.”

At a meeting at Martin’s Depot, South Carolina, the following resolution was adopted.

“_Resolved_, If Northern fanatics will persist in meddling with our private institutions, we deem it expedient that Southern members should reply to them by the use of _gutta-percha_.”

At a meeting in Clinton, South Carolina, the following resolutions were adopted by acclamation.

“_Resolved_, That we, as a portion of the constituents of the Hon. Preston S. Brooks, do heartily agree with him in chastising, coolly and deliberately, the vile and lawless Sumner, of Massachusetts.

“_Resolved_, That, for the high respect and full appreciation of Colonel Brooks’s conduct, we present him a cane from the soil of his own Congressional district, with this inscription: ‘_Use knock-down arguments_’: feeling that none other can be effectual on a perverted mind and degenerate race.”

The Columbia _South Carolinian_, of May 28, spoke thus:--

“We learn that some of the gentlemen of Charleston have provided a suitable present, in the shape of a cane, to be given to Mr. Brooks, to show their appreciation of his late act of ‘hiding’ the Abolition Senator Sumner. It is to bear the inscription, ‘_Hit him again_.’ Meetings of approval and sanction will be held not only in Mr. Brooks’s district, but throughout the State at large, and a general and hearty response of approval will reëcho the words ‘_Well done_,’ from Washington to the Rio Grande.”

_The Richmond Enquirer_, of May 30, reports a response from the University of Virginia.

“ANOTHER CANE FOR MR. BROOKS.--We understand that a very large meeting of the students of the University of Virginia was held on Tuesday evening, to take into consideration the recent attack of the Hon. Preston S. Brooks on Charles Sumner, in the United States Senate Chamber. Several very eloquent speeches were delivered, all of which fully approved the course of Mr. Brooks, and the resolution was passed to purchase for Mr. Brooks a splendid cane. The cane is to have a heavy gold head, which will be suitably inscribed, and also bear upon it a device of the human head, badly cracked and broken. The chivalry of the South, it seems, has been thoroughly aroused.”

The _Richmond Examiner_, of May 30, testifies thus:--

“The chastisement of Sumner, in spite of the blustering nonsense of the regiments of Yankee Bob Acres, who have been talking about ‘avenging his wrongs,’ will be attended with good results. The precedent of Brooks _vs._ Sumner will become a respected authority at Washington. It will be a ‘leading case,’ as it clearly defines the distinction between the liberty of speech as guarantied to the respectable American Senator and that scandalous abuse of it by such men as Charles Sumner.

…

“Far from blaming Mr. Brooks, we are disposed to regard him as a conservative gentleman seeking to restore to the Senate that dignity and respectability of which the Abolition Senators are fast stripping it. His example should be followed by every Southern gentleman whose feelings are outraged by unprincipled Abolitionists.”

The _Richmond Enquirer_ thus spoke, June 9th:--

“It is idle to think of union or peace or truce with Sumner or Sumner’s friends. Catiline was purity itself, compared to the Massachusetts Senator, and his friends are no better than he. They are all (we mean the leading and conspicuous ones) avowed and active traitors.… Sumner and Sumner’s friends must be punished and silenced. Government which cannot suppress such crimes as theirs has failed of its purpose. Either such wretches must be hung or put in the penitentiary, or the South should prepare at once to quit the Union. We would not jeopard the religion and morality of the South to save a Union that had failed for every useful purpose. Let us tell the North at once, If you cannot suppress the treasonable action, and silence the foul, licentious, and infidel propagandism of such men as Stephen Pearl Andrews, Wendell Phillips, Beecher, Garrison, Sumner, and their negro and female associates, let us part in peace.

…

“Your sympathy for Sumner has shaken our confidence in your capacity for self-government more than all your past history, full of evil portents as that has been. He had just avowed his complicity in designs far more diabolical than those of Catiline or Cethegus,--nay, transcending in iniquity all that the genius of a Milton has attributed to his fallen angels. We are not surprised that he should be hailed as hero and saint, for his proposed war on everything sacred and divine, by that Pandemonium where the blasphemous Garrison, and Parker, and Andrews, with their runaway negroes and masculine women, congregate.”

The _Richmond Enquirer_ again spoke, June 12th:

“In the main, the press of the South applaud the conduct of Mr. Brooks, without condition or limitation. Our approbation, at least, is entire and unreserved. We consider the act good in conception, better in execution, and best of all in consequence. The vulgar Abolitionists in the Senate are getting above themselves. They have been humored until they forget their position. They have grown saucy, and dare to be impudent to gentlemen! Now, they are a low, mean, scurvy set, with some little book-learning, but as utterly devoid of spirit or honor as a pack of curs. Intrenched behind ‘privilege,’ they fancy they can slander the South and insult its representatives with impunity. The truth is, they have been suffered to run too long without collars. They must be lashed into submission. Sumner, in particular, ought to have nine-and-thirty early every morning. He is a great strapping fellow, and could stand the cowhide beautifully. Brooks frightened him, and at the first blow of the cane he bellowed like a bull-calf. There is the blackguard Wilson, an ignorant Natick cobbler, swaggering in excess of muscle, and absolutely dying for a beating. Will not somebody take him in hand? Hale is another huge, red-faced, sweating scoundrel, whom some gentleman should kick and cuff until he abates something of his impudent talk. These men are perpetually abusing the people and representatives of the South, for tyrants, robbers, ruffians, adulterers, and what not. Shall we stand it?

…

“Mr. Brooks has initiated this salutary discipline, and he deserves applause for the bold, judicious manner in which he chastised the scamp Sumner. It was a proper act, done at the proper time, and in the proper place.”

In a Democratic procession at Washington, one of the party banners had this inscription:--

“SUMNER AND KANSAS: LET THEM BLEED.”

Texts like these might be multiplied; but here are more than enough to exhibit the brutal spirit of Slavery, and the extent of its sympathy with the assault. This head may be properly closed by the words of the _Charleston Standard_ on the death of Mr. Brooks.

“Within the last year his name has transcended the limits of tongues and nations. What will be the verdict of posterity upon him will depend upon the question of power between the North and South. If the North shall triumph, if the South shall be gradually ground under, if Slavery shall be smuggled out of sight, and decent people shall be ashamed to own it, he will be condemned and execrated; but if the South shall stand firm in her integrity, if Slavery shall not fall before its antagonist, but shall stand, as it is capable of standing, _the great central institution of the land for all other interests to climb upon_, and shall give law to opinion, as it shall give regulation to Liberty, then his memory will be loved and venerated; _he will be recognized as one of the first who struck for the vindication of the South_; and as, like those who seized the tea in Boston Harbor, he had no other warrant of authority than that afforded _by his own brave heart_, he will only the more certainly be placed among the heroes and patriots of his country.”

Here is a plain and most interesting recognition of the assault as belonging to the glories of Slavery, while the author is one of its heroes.

III.

PREVIOUS PERSONALITIES AND AGGRESSIONS.

There is a proper interest in knowing the personal provocation under which Mr. Sumner spoke. Something of this will be seen in the early onslaught upon him by the combined forces of Slavery, to which he replied promptly.[149] The _Globe_ shows constantly the tone which was adopted by the representatives of Slavery towards all who presumed in any way to question its rights. Here Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, was always prominent; and when the question of the admission of Kansas as a Free State occurred, he was especially aroused.

His previous personalities and aggressions were set forth by Hon. Henry Wilson, in a speech made in the Senate, June 13, 1856, in direct reply to him, after he had spent two days in criticising Mr. Sumner and defending his assailant. On this occasion Senator Butler was particularly indignant because Mr. Sumner had personified Slavery as a “harlot,” saying, “What in the name of justice and decency could have ever led that man to use such language?”[150] In the course of his speech the Senator described his former patronage of Mr. Sumner, saying, “I did not hesitate to keep up what my friends complained of, an intercourse with him, _which was calculated to give him a currency far beyond what he might have had, if I had not indulged in that species of intercourse_. My friends here and everywhere know it.”[151] Mr. Wilson’s reply is important in this history.

SPEECH OF HON. HENRY WILSON.

“MR. PRESIDENT,--I feel constrained, by a sense of duty to my State, by personal relations to my colleague and friend, to trespass for a few moments upon the time and attention of the Senate.

“You have listened, Mr. President, the Senate has listened, these thronged seats and these crowded galleries have listened, to the extraordinary speech of the honorable Senator from South Carolina, which has now run through two days. I must say, Sir, that I have listened to that speech with painful and sad emotions. A Senator of a sovereign State more than twenty days ago was stricken down senseless on the floor for words spoken in debate. For more than three weeks he has been confined to his room upon a bed of weakness and of pain. The moral sentiment of the country has been outraged, grossly outraged, by this wanton assault, in the person of a Senator, on the freedom of debate. The intelligence of this transaction has flown over the land, and is now flying abroad over the civilized world; and wherever Christianity has a foothold, or civilization a resting-place, that act will meet the stern condemnation of mankind.

“Intelligence comes to us, Mr. President, that a civil war is raging beyond the Mississippi; intelligence also comes to us that upon the shores of the Pacific Lynch Law is again organized; and the telegraph brings us news of assaults and murders around the ballot-boxes of New Orleans, growing out of differences of opinion and of interests. Can we be surprised, Sir, that these scenes, which are disgracing the character of our country and our age, are rife, when a venerable Senator--one of the oldest members of the Senate, and chairman of its Judiciary Committee--occupies four hours of the important time of the Senate in vindication of and apology for an assault unparalleled in the history of the country? If lawless violence here, in this Chamber, upon the person of a Senator, can find vindication, if this outrage upon the freedom of debate finds apology from a veteran Senator, why may not violent counsels elsewhere go unrebuked?

“The Senator from South Carolina commenced his discursive speech by an allusion to the present condition of my colleague which I cannot say exhibited good taste. I know it, personally, to be grossly unjust, because I know that for more than twenty days--three weeks--Mr. Sumner has been compelled to lie upon a bed of pain, from the effects of blows received by him here in the Senate Chamber.

“The Senator from South Carolina, I am aware, referred to the evidence of a medical person, who was accidentally employed in the early stages of the case, but who has not seen Mr. Sumner lately. I have in my hands the testimony of his present medical adviser, a distinguished physician of this city, who has been selected for his known talents and character, and who _understands_ his present condition. The Secretary will please to read his letter, which I now send to the desk.”

The Secretary read as follows.

“C STREET, June 12, 1856.

“DEAR SIR,--In answer to your inquiries, I have to state that I have been in attendance on the Hon. Charles Sumner, as his physician, on account of the injuries received by him in the Senate Chamber, from the 29th of May to the present time,--part of this time in consultation with Dr. Perry, of Boston, and Dr. Miller, of Washington.

“I have visited him at least once every day. During all this time Mr. Sumner has been confined to his room, and the greater part of the day confined to his bed.

“NEITHER AT THE PRESENT MOMENT, _nor at any time since Mr. Sumner’s case came under my charge_, HAS HE BEEN IN A CONDITION TO RESUME HIS DUTIES IN THE SENATE.

“My present advice to him is to go into the country, where he can enjoy fresh air; and I think it will not be prudent for him to enter upon his public duties for some time to come.

“Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

“H. LINDSLY.”

“HON. HENRY WILSON.”

MR. WILSON. “Mr. President, this is the testimony of Dr. Lindsly, known by the members of the Senate, and others around me, to be an eminent physician of Washington. I will say, that Mr. Sumner, and Mr. Sumner’s friends, when he was first assailed, underestimated altogether the force of the assault. He is a man of great physical power, in full vigor and maturity, and in the glow of health. For a day or two after that assault he believed, and his friends believed, that he would soon throw off its effects; but time disclosed the extent and force of his injuries, while he was doomed to hours of restless, sleepless pain. Dr. Perry, of Boston, a gentleman of great professional eminence, accidentally in Washington, expressed the strongest solicitude concerning his case. To his skill and advice I believe my colleague and his friends are under the deepest obligations. His testimony before the Committee is the testimony of one who knows what he affirms.--But I pass from this topic.

“The Senator from South Carolina, through this debate, has taken occasion to apply to Mr. Sumner, to his speech, to all that concerns him, all the epithets----

[MR. BUTLER. I used criticism, but not epithets.]

Mr. WILSON. “Well, Sir, I accept the Senator’s word, and I say ‘criticism.’ But I say, in his criticism, he used every word that I can conceive a fertile imagination could invent, or a malignant passion suggest. He has taken his full revenge here on the floor of the Senate, here in debate, for the remarks made by my colleague. I do not take any exception to this mode. This is the way in which the speech of my colleague should have been met,--not by blows, not by an assault.

“The Senator tells us that this is not, in his opinion, an assault upon the constitutional rights of a member of the Senate. He tells us that a member cannot be permitted to print and send abroad over the world, with impunity, his opinions,--but that he is liable to have them questioned in a judicial tribunal. Well, Sir, if this be so,--he is a lawyer, I am not,--I accept his view, and I ask, Why not have tested Mr. Sumner’s speech in a judicial tribunal, and let that tribunal have settled the question whether Mr. Sumner uttered a libel or not? Why was it necessary, why did the ‘chivalry’ of South Carolina require, that for words uttered on this floor, under the solemn guaranties of Constitutional Law, a Senator should be met here by violence? Why appeal from the floor of the Senate, from a judicial tribunal, to the bludgeon? I put the question to the Senator,--to the ‘chivalry’ of South Carolina,--ay, to ‘the gallant set’ (to use the Senator’s own words) of ‘Ninety-Six,’--Why was it necessary to substitute the bludgeon for the judicial tribunal?

“Sir, the Senator from South Carolina--and in what I say to him to-day I have no disposition to say anything unkind or unjust, and if I utter any such word, I will withdraw it at once--told us, that, when my colleague came here, he came holding fanatical ideas, but that he met him, offered him his hand, and treated him with courtesy, supposing, as in other cases which had happened under his eye, that acquaintance with Southern gentlemen might cure him of his fanaticism. He gravely told us that his courtesy and attentions introduced Mr. Sumner where he could not otherwise have gone. The Senator will allow me to say that this is not the first time during this session we have heard this kind of talk about ‘social influence,’ and the necessity of association with gentlemen from the South, in order to have intercourse with the refined and cultivated society of Washington. Sir, Mr. Sumner was reared in a section of country where men know how to be gentlemen. He was trained in the society of gentlemen, in as good society as could be found in _that_ section of the country. He went abroad. In England and on the Continent he was received everywhere, as he had a right to be received, into the best social circles, into literary associations, and into that refined and polished society which adorns and graces the present age in Western Europe. I do not know where any gentleman could desire to go that Mr. Sumner could not go, without the assistance of the Senator from South Carolina, or any other person on this floor. Sir, we have heard quite enough of this. It is a piny-wood doctrine, a plantation idea. Gentlemen reared in refined and cultivated society are not accustomed to this language, and never indulge in its use towards others.

“The Senator from South Carolina commenced his speech by proclaiming what he intended to do, and he closed it by asserting what he had done. Well, Sir, I listened to his speech with some degree of attention, and I must say that the accomplishment did not come quite up to what was promised, and that without his assurance the Senate and the country would never have supposed that his achievements amounted to what he assured us they did in this debate.

“The Senator complained of Mr. Sumner for quoting the Constitution of South Carolina; and he asserted over and over again, and he winds up his speech by the declaration, that the quotation made is not in the Constitution. After making that declaration, he read the Constitution, and read the identical quotation. Mr. Sumner asserted what is in the Constitution; but there is an addition to it which he did not quote. The Senator might have complained because he did not quote it; but the portion not quoted carries out only the letter and the spirit of the portion quoted. To be a member of the House of Representatives of South Carolina, it is necessary to own a certain number of acres of land and ten slaves, or seven hundred and fifty dollars of real estate, free of debt. The Senator declared with great emphasis--and I saw nods, Democratic nods, all around the Senate--that ‘a man who was not worth that amount of money was not fit to be a Representative.’ That may be good Democratic doctrine,--it comes from a Democratic Senator of the Democratic State of South Carolina, and received Democratic nods and Democratic smiles,--but it is not in harmony with the Democratic ideas of the American people.

“The charge made by Mr. Sumner was, that South Carolina was nominally republican, but in reality had aristocratic features in her Constitution. Well, Sir, is not this charge true? To be a member of the House of Representatives of South Carolina, the candidate must own ten men,--yes, Sir, ten men,--five hundred acres of land, or have seven hundred and fifty dollars of real estate, free of debt; and to be a member of the Senate double is required. This Legislature, having these personal qualifications, placing them in the rank of a privileged few, are elected upon a representative basis as unequal as the rotten-borough system of England in its most rotten days. That is not all. This Legislature elects the Governor of South Carolina and the Presidential Electors. The people have the privilege of voting for men with these qualifications, upon this basis, and they select their Governor for them, and choose the Presidential Electors for them. The privileged few govern; the many have the privilege of being governed by them.