Part 24

“‘I have said I am perfectly willing, so far as I am concerned, to let the memorial be referred; but I wish to ask the honorable Senator from Massachusetts who presented it [Mr. ROCKWELL] a question, and I believe, from the impression which he made on me to-day, that he will answer it. If we repeal the Fugitive Slave Law, will the honorable Senator tell me that Massachusetts will execute the provision of the Constitution without any law of Congress? Suppose we should take away all laws, and devolve upon the different States the duties that properly belong to them, I would ask that Senator, whether, under the prevalence of public opinion there, Massachusetts would execute that provision as one of the constitutional members of this Union? Would they send fugitives back to us, after trial by jury, or any other mode? Will this honorable Senator [Mr. SUMNER] tell me that he will do it?

“‘MR. SUMNER. Does the honorable Senator ask me if I would personally join in sending a fellow-man into bondage? “Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?”

“‘MR. BUTLER. _These are the prettiest speeches that I ever heard._ [_Laughter._] He has them turned down in a book by him, I believe, and he has them so elegantly fixed that I cannot reply to them. [_Laughter._] _They are too delicate for my use._ [_Renewed laughter._] _They are beautiful things_, made in a factory of rhetoric, somewhat _of a peculiar shape_, but, I must be permitted to say, not of a definite texture. Now what does he mean by talking about his not being a dog? [_Continued laughter._] What has that to do with the Constitution, or the constitutional obligations of a State? [_Laughter._] _Well, Sir, it was a beautiful sentiment, no doubt, as he thought, and perhaps he imagined he expressed it with Demosthenian abruptness and eloquence._ [_Laughter._] I asked him whether he would execute the Constitution of the United States, without any Fugitive Slave Law, and he answered me, is he a dog----

“‘MR. SUMNER. The Senator asked me if I would help to reduce a fellow-man to bondage. I answered him.

“‘MR. BUTLER. Then you would not obey the Constitution. Sir [_turning to Mr._ SUMNER], standing here before this tribunal, where you swore to support it, _you rise and tell me that you regard it the office of a dog to enforce it. You stand in my presence, as a coëqual Senator, and tell me that it is a dog’s office to execute the Constitution of the United States?_

“‘MR. PRATT. Which he has sworn to support.

“‘MR. SUMNER. I recognize no such obligation.

“‘MR. BUTLER. I know you do not. _But nobody cares about your recognitions as an individual; but as a Senator, and a constitutional representative, you stand differently related to this body._ But enough of this.’

“This attack upon Mr. Sumner is without a parallel in the records of the Senate. But the Senator from South Carolina was not alone in this outrage. He was assisted, I regret to say, by other Senators,--particularly by the Senator from Virginia [Mr. MASON], by the then Senator from Indiana [Mr. PETTIT]; but I do not quote their words, for I am now dealing with the Senator from South Carolina.

“To all these Mr. Sumner replied fully and triumphantly, in a speech which, though justly severe throughout, was perfectly parliamentary, and which was referred to at that time, and has been often mentioned since, as a specimen of the greatest severity, united with perfect taste and propriety.

“The above imputation which had been heaped upon him, with regard to the Constitution, was completely encountered, and his position vindicated by the authority of Andrew Jackson, and the still earlier authority of Thomas Jefferson. On this point no attempt has ever been made to answer him.

“In the course of this speech, alluding to the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Sumner used words which I now adopt, not only for myself on this occasion, but also as an illustration of his course in this controversy.

“‘It is he, then, who is the offender. 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 details 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 entrusted its interests here, will not allow me to be still. God forbid that I should do injustice to South Carolina!’

“But the Senator from South Carolina was not to be silenced or appeased. He still returned to those personalities which flow so naturally and unconsciously from his lips. The early, bitter, personal assaults were repeated. He charged Mr. Sumner’s speech with being ‘unfair in statement.’ This is one of the delicate accusations of the Senator. The next is bolder. He charged Mr. Sumner as ‘guilty of historical perversion.’ Pray, with what face, after this, can he complain of my colleague? But he seems determined still to press this imputation in the most offensive form, for he next charges my colleague with ‘_historical falsehood_, which the gentleman has committed in the fallacy of his _sectional_ vision.’ It would be difficult to accumulate into one phrase more offensive suggestions; and yet the Senator now complains that he has had administered to him what he has so often employed himself.

“All these are understood to have been accompanied by a manner more offensive than the words.

“In these extracts you will see something of the Senator’s insolence, in contrast with the quiet manner of Mr. Sumner, who, while defending his position, was perfectly parliamentary.

“Other passages from the speech of the Senator might be quoted; but the patience of the Senate is wellnigh exhausted by this long exhibition of personalities; therefore I will content myself with only one more. Here it is.

“‘I know, Sir, he said the other day that all he said was the effusion of an impulsive heart. But it was the effusion of his drawer. Talk to me about the effusions of the heart! What kind of effusions are those which escape from tables, from papers played like cards sorted for the purpose? They are weapons prepared by contribution, and discharged in this body with a view of gratifying the feelings of resentment and malice,--with a view of wounding the pride of the State which I represent, and through her to stab the reputation of the other Southern States. _But, Sir, we are above the dangers of open combat, and cannot be hurt by the assaults even of attempted assassination._’

“‘We cannot be hurt by attempted assassination,’ exclaims the Senator from South Carolina!

“‘Attempted assassination’?

“It ill becomes the Senator from South Carolina to use these words in connection with Massachusetts or the North. The arms of Massachusetts are Freedom, Justice, Truth. Strong in these, she is not driven to the necessity of resorting to ‘attempted assassination,’ either in or out of the Senate.

“But the whole story is not yet told. I wish to refer to another assault made by the Senator, which I witnessed myself a few days after I took a seat in this body. On the 23d of February, 1855, on one of the last days of the last session, to the bill introduced by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. TOUCEY] Mr. Sumner moved an amendment providing for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act. He made some remarks in support of that proposition. The Senator from South Carolina followed him, saying, ‘I would ask him one question, which he, perhaps, will not answer _honestly_.’ Mr. Sumner said, ‘I will answer any question.’ The Senator went on to ask questions, and received his answers; and then he said, speaking of Mr. Sumner, ‘I know he is not a tactician, and I shall not take advantage of the infirmity of a man who does not know half his time exactly what he is about.’ This is indeed extraordinary language for the Senator from South Carolina to apply to the Senator from Massachusetts. I witnessed that scene. I then deemed the language insulting: the manner was more so. I hold in my hands the remarks of the _Louisville Journal_, a Southern press, upon this scene. I shall not read them to the Senate, for I do not wish to present anything which the Senator may even deem offensive. I will say, however, that his language and his deportment to my colleague on that occasion were aggressive and overbearing in the extreme. And this is the Senator who never makes assaults! But not content with assaulting Mr. Sumner, he winds up his speech by a taunt at ‘Boston philanthropy.’ Surely, no person ever scattered assault more freely.

“I have almost done. But something has occurred this session which illustrates the Senator’s manner. Not content with making his own speeches, he interrupted the Senator from Missouri [Mr. GEYER], and desired him to insert in his speech an assault on Massachusetts. Here are his words.

“‘I wish my friend would incorporate into his speech an old law of Massachusetts which I have found. I would remind my friend of an old league between the four New England States, made while they were colonies, expressly repudiating trial by jury for the reclamation of fugitive slaves. They called them “slaves,” too, or rather “fugitive servants”; and they say they shall be delivered up on the certificate of one magistrate.’

“Here is another instance of the Senator’s looseness of assertion, even on law, upon the knowledge of which he has plumed himself in this debate. Sir, there were no slaves in Massachusetts at that day. The law alluded to was passed in 1643. It was not until 1646, three years afterward, that the first slaves were imported into Massachusetts from the coast of Africa, and these very slaves were sent back to their native land at public expense. The following is a verbatim copy of the remarkable statute by which these Africans were returned to Guinea, at the expense of the Commonwealth.

“‘The General Court, conceiving themselves bound by the first opportunity to bear witness against the heinous and crying sin of man-stealing, as also to prescribe _such timely redress for what is past, and such a law for the future, at may sufficiently deter all others belonging to us to have to do in such vile and most odious courses, justly abhorred of all good and just men_, do order that the negro interpreter, with others unlawfully taken, be, by the first opportunity, at the charge of the country for present, sent to his native country of Guinea, and a letter with him, of the indignation of the Court thereabouts, and justice hereof.’

“In the face of this Act of 1646, the learned Senator from South Carolina wished his friend from Missouri to incorporate into his speech a false accusation against Massachusetts and the New England colonies. And he went so far as to assert that this old law contained an allusion to ‘slaves,’ when the word ‘slaves’ was not mentioned, and ‘servants’ only was employed.

“Sir, I might here refer to the assault made by the Senator from South Carolina on the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HARLAN], in which he taunted that Senator with being a clergyman, and modestly told him, in the face of the country, that ‘he understood Latin as well as that Senator understood English.’

[MR. BUTLER. I never taunted any gentleman with being a clergyman; and the Senator from Iowa will not say so. I said that I had respect for his vocation; but when he attempted to correct my speech, I put him right.]

MR. WILSON. “Whether it was a taunt or not, the Senator disclaims its being so, and I accept the disclaimer; but I apprehend it was not intended as a compliment to the Senator from Iowa, or that it was received as such by that Senator, particularly when taken in connection with the other taunting assumption of the Senator from South Carolina, that he ‘understood Latin as well as that Senator understood English.’

“Thus has Mr. Sumner been by the Senator from South Carolina systematically assailed in this body, from the 28th of July, 1852, up to the present time,--a period of nearly four years. He has applied to my colleague every expression calculated to wound the sensibilities of an honorable man, and to draw down upon him sneers, obloquy, and hatred, in and out of the Senate. In my place here, I now pronounce these continued assaults upon my colleague unparalleled in the history of the Senate.

* * * * *

“I come now to speak for one moment of the late speech of my colleague, which is the alleged cause of the recent assault upon him, and which the Senator from South Carolina has condemned so abundantly. That speech--a thorough and fearless exposition of what Mr. Sumner entitled ‘The Crime against Kansas’--from beginning to end is marked by entire plainness. Things are called by their right names. The usurpation in Kansas is exposed, and also the apologies for it, successively. No words were spared which seemed necessary to the exhibition. In arraigning the _Crime_, it was natural to speak of those who sustained it. Accordingly, the Administration is constantly held up to condemnation. Various Senators who have vindicated this Crime are at once answered and condemned. Among these are the Senator from South Carolina, the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. MASON], and the Senator from Missouri [Mr. GEYER]. The Senator from South Carolina now complains of Mr. Sumner’s speech. Surely, it is difficult to see on what ground that Senator can make any such complaint. The speech was, indeed, severe,--severe as truth,--but in all respects parliamentary. It is true that it handles the Senator from South Carolina freely; but that Senator had spoken repeatedly in the course of the Kansas debate, once at length and elaborately, and at other times more briefly, and foisting himself into the speeches of other Senators, and identifying himself completely with the Crime which my colleague felt it his duty to arraign. It was natural, therefore, that his course in the debate, and his position, should be particularly considered. And in this work Mr. Sumner had no reason to hold back, when he thought of the constant and systematic and ruthless attacks which, utterly without cause, he had received from that Senator. The only objection which the Senator from South Carolina can reasonably make to Mr. Sumner is, that he struck a strong blow.

“The Senator complains that the speech was printed before it was delivered. Here, again, is his accustomed inaccuracy. It is true that it was in the printer’s hands, and was mainly in type; but it received additions and revisions after its delivery, and was not put to press till then. Away with this petty objection! The Senator says that twenty thousand copies have gone to England. Here, again, is his accustomed inaccuracy. If they have gone, it is without Mr. Sumner’s agency. But the Senator foresees the truth. Sir, that speech will go to England; it will go to the Continent of Europe; it has gone over the country, and has been read by the American people as no speech ever delivered in this body was read before. That speech will go down to coming ages. Whatever men may say of its sentiments,--and coming ages will indorse its sentiments,--it will be placed among the ablest parliamentary efforts of our own age or of any age.

“The Senator from South Carolina tells us that the speech is to be condemned, and he quotes the venerable and distinguished Senator from Michigan [Mr. CASS]. I do not know what Mr. Sumner could stand. The Senator says he could not stand the censure of the Senator from Michigan. _I could_; and I believe there are a great many in this country whose powers of endurance are as great as my own. I have great respect for that venerable Senator; but the opinions of no Senator here are potential in the country. This is a Senate of equals. The judgment of the country is to be made up on the records formed here. The opinions of the Senator from Michigan, and of other Senators here, are to go into the record, and will receive the verdict of the people. By that I am willing to stand.

“The Senator from South Carolina tells us that the speech is to be condemned. It has gone out to the country. It has been printed by the million. It has been scattered broadcast amongst seventeen millions of Northern freemen who can read and write. The Senator condemns it; South Carolina condemns it: but South Carolina is only a part of this Confederacy, and but a part of the Christian and civilized world. South Carolina makes rice and cotton, but South Carolina contributes little to make up the judgment of the Christian and civilized world. I value her rice and cotton more than I do her opinions on questions of scholarship and eloquence, of patriotism or of liberty.

“Mr. President, I have no desire to assail the Senator from South Carolina, or any other Senator in this body; but I wish to say now that we have had quite enough of this asserted superiority, social and political. We were told, some time ago, by the Senator from Alabama [Mr. CLAY], that those of us who entertained certain sentiments fawned upon him and other Southern men, if they permitted us to associate with them. This is strange language to be used in this body. I never fawned upon that Senator. I never sought his acquaintance,--and I do not know that I should feel myself honored, if I had it. I treat him as an equal here,--I wish always to treat him respectfully; but when he tells me or my friends that we fawn upon him or his associates, I say to him that I have never sought, and never shall seek, any other acquaintance than what official intercourse requires with a man who declared, on the floor of the Senate, that he would do what Henry Clay once said ‘no gentleman could do,’--hunt a fugitive slave.

“The Senator from Virginia, not now in his seat [Mr. MASON], when Mr. Sumner closed his speech, saw fit to tell the Senate that his hands would be soiled by contact with ours. The Senator is not here: I wish he were. I have simply to say that I know nothing in that Senator, moral, intellectual, or physical, which entitles him to use such language towards members of the Senate, or any portion of God’s creation. I know nothing in the State from which he comes, rich as it is in the history of the past, that entitles him to speak in such a manner. I am not here to assail Virginia. God knows I have not a feeling in my heart against her, or against her public men; but I do say it is time that these arrogant assumptions ceased here. This is no place for assumed social superiority, as though certain Senators held the keys of cultivated and refined society. Sir, they do not hold the keys, and they shall not hold over me the plantation whip.

“I wish always to speak kindly towards every man in this body. Since I came here, I have never asked an introduction to a Southern member of the Senate,--not because I have any feelings against them, for God knows I have not; but I knew that they believed I held opinions hostile to their interests, and I supposed they would not desire my society. I have never wished to obtrude myself on their society, so that certain Senators could do with me, as they have boasted they did with others,--refuse to receive their advances, or refuse to recognize them on the floor of the Senate. Sir, there is not a Coolie in the Guano Islands of Peru who does not think the Celestial Empire the whole Universe. There are a great many men who have swung the whip over the plantation, who think they not only rule the plantation, but make up the judgment of the world, and hold the keys not only to political power, as they have done in this country, but to social life.

“The Senator from South Carolina assails the resolutions of my State, with his accustomed looseness, as springing from ignorance, passion, prejudice, excitement. Sir, the testimony before the House Committee sustains all that is contained in those resolutions. Massachusetts has spoken her opinions; and although the Senator has quoted the _Boston Courier_ to-day,--and I would not rob him of any consolation he can derive from that source,--I know Massachusetts, and I can tell him, that, of the twelve hundred thousand people of Massachusetts, you cannot find in the State one thousand, Administration office-holders included, who do not look with loathing and execration upon the outrage on the person of their Senator and the honor of their State. The sentiment of Massachusetts, of New England, of the North, approaches unanimity. Massachusetts has spoken her opinions. The Senator is welcome to assail them, if he chooses; but they are on the record. They are made up by the verdict of her people, and they understand the question, and from their verdict there is no appeal.

* * * * *

“Mr. President, I have spoken freely; I shall continue always to speak freely. I seek no controversy with any man; but I shall express my sentiments frankly, and the more frankly because on this floor my colleague has been smitten down for words spoken in debate, and because there are those who, unmindful of the Constitution of their country, claim the right thus to question us.”

IV.

VOICE OF THE NORTH.

Under this head must be put the speech of Hon. Anson Burlingame, afterwards so justly distinguished as the Minister of China, made in the House of Representatives, June 21, 1856. Here is an extract.

“But, Mr. Chairman, all these assaults upon the State of Massachusetts sink into insignificance, compared with the one I am about to mention. On the 19th of May it was announced that Mr. Sumner would address the Senate upon the Kansas question. The floor of the Senate, the galleries, and avenues leading thereto were thronged with an expectant audience; and many of us left our places in this House to hear the Massachusetts orator. To say that we were delighted with the speech we heard would but faintly express the deep emotions of our hearts awakened by it. I need not speak of the classic purity of its language, nor of the nobility of its sentiments. It was heard by many; it has been read by millions. There has been no such speech made in the Senate since the days when those Titans of American eloquence, the Websters and the Haynes, contended with each other for mastery.