Part 23

It is difficult to treat this proposition, proceeding from a Committee of the Senate, except as you would treat a direct proposition of Atheism. “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God”; but it was only in his heart; the fool in Scripture did not openly declare it. Had he openly declared it, he would have been in a position hardly more offensive than your Committee.

There is a saying of antiquity, which has the confirming voice of all intervening time, that “whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.” And now, Sir, while humbled for my country that such a proposition should be introduced into the Senate, I accept it as the omen of that madness which precedes the fall of its authors.

At this moment the number of free persons, African by descent, in the United States, is almost half a million,--being a population two thirds larger than the white population in South Carolina, more than one third larger than the white population in Mississippi, and six times larger than the white population in Florida. I mention these facts in order to show at the outset the number of persons whose rights are now assailed.

Already, in several States, free negroes are threatened with expulsion, under the terrible penalty of being sold into Slavery. The Supreme Court of the United States has stepped forward, and by cruel decree declared that they are not citizens, and therefore are not entitled to sue in the courts of the United States. And now, to complete their degradation and exclusion from all rights, it is proposed to declare that their petitions cannot be received by the Senate.

* * * * *

The right of petition is not _political_, but _personal_,--born with Humanity, and confirmed by Christianity,--belonging to all, but peculiar to the humble, the weak, and the oppressed. It belongs even to the criminal; for it is simply the right to pray.

There is no country, professing civilization, where this right is not sacred. In Mahometan countries it is revered. One of the most touching stories of the East is where a petitioner in affliction came before the Sultan, crying out,--

“‘My sorrow is my right, And I _will_ see the Sultan, and to-night.’ ‘Sorrow,’ said Mahmoud, ‘is a reverend thing; I recognize its right, as king with king: Speak on.’”[144]

To take this right away from any portion of our _fellow-subjects_--even if you say they are not _fellow-citizens_--will be barbarous. And when I consider under what influence this proposition is brought forward, I present it as a fresh illustration of the Barbarism of Slavery,--most barbarous in the unconsciousness of its Barbarism.

The outrage is apparent from a simple statement.

In all the States--even in the Slave States--a free colored man may hold property of all kinds, personal or real,--even land, in which citizenship strikes its strongest root; but you will not allow him the poor right of petition.

He may own stocks of the United States, Treasury notes, and in other ways be the creditor of the Government; but you will not allow him the poor right of petition.

He is strictly bound by every enactment upon our statute-book; and yet you will not allow him to appear before you with a prayer to modify or soften this statute-book.

He is rigidly held to pay his quota of taxes; but you will not allow him to ask for their reduction.

And still further, under all your pension laws for Revolutionary services, and for services in other wars, whether on land or sea, he is entitled to a pension precisely as if he were white; but you will not allow him to solicit aid under these laws.

Such is a simple statement of the injustice you are about to do. On this statement alone, without one word of argument or illustration, you will surely recoil.

But this proposition proceeds on two assumptions, each of which is radically false: _first_, that a free person of African descent is not a citizen of the United States; and, _secondly_, that none other than a citizen is entitled to petition Congress.

In support of the first assumption is the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dred Scott. But against that decision--so unfortunate for the character of the tribunal from which it proceeded,--which has degraded that tribunal hardly less than it sought to degrade the African race--I oppose the actual fact in at least _six_ of the original thirteen States at the adoption of the Constitution.

_First_, in Massachusetts, where the present petitioners reside, all persons, without distinction of color, are treated as citizens by its Constitution adopted in 1780.

_Secondly_, in Virginia, the State represented by the Senator [Mr. MASON] who brings forward this decree of disfranchisement, the same principle prevailed at the same time. And here I call attention to the 11th volume of Hening’s Virginia Statutes, where, on page 322, may be found the law of October, 1783, which repeals that of 1779, limiting citizenship to whites, and enacts, “that _all free persons_ born within the territory of this Commonwealth … shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth,” without one word referring to descent or color.

_Thirdly_, in New Hampshire, whose Constitution conferred the elective franchise upon “every inhabitant of the State having the proper qualifications,”--of which descent or color was not one.

_Fourthly_, in New York, where the Constitution conferred the elective franchise upon “every male inhabitant of full age who shall have personally resided,” &c., “if during the time aforesaid he shall have been a freeholder,” &c.,--without any discrimination of descent or color.

_Fifthly_, in New Jersey, by whose Constitution the elective franchise was conferred upon “_all inhabitants_ of this colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds, proclamation money, clear estate,”--also without any discrimination of descent or color.

_Sixthly_, in North Carolina, where Mr. Justice Gaston, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of the State in the case of _The State_ v. _Manuel_, declared that “the Constitution extended the elective franchise to _every freeman_ who had arrived at the age of twenty-one and paid a public tax; and it is a matter of universal notoriety, that, under it, _free persons_, without regard to color, claimed and exercised the franchise, until it was taken from free men of color a few years since by our amended Constitution.”[145]

To these authoritative precedents, drawn from the very epoch of the National Constitution, I might add other illustrations. I content myself with referring to the Constitution of Missouri, which, in speaking of “every free _white_ male citizen,”[146] admits by implication that colored persons may be _citizens_, and to the Code of Alabama, which declares that certain sections “do not apply to or affect any free person of color who by the Treaty between the United States and Spain became _a citizen of the United States, or the descendants of such_.”[147]

But not only in six of the old thirteen States _all freemen_ without distinction of color were _citizens_, but also under the Articles of Confederation they were _citizens_. By the fourth article it was expressly declared that “the _free inhabitants_ of each of these States (paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted) shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of _free citizens_ in the several States.” The meaning of this clause, which is clear on its face, becomes clearer still, when it is known, that, while it was under discussion, on the 25th of June, 1778, the delegates from South Carolina moved to amend it by inserting between the words “free inhabitants” the word “white,” so that the character of a citizen should be restricted to white persons. This proposition was rejected,--two States only voting for it, eight States against it, and the vote of one State being divided; so that the term “free inhabitants” was left in its full significance, without any distinction of descent or color.

The Constitution of the United States next followed. And it contains not a sentence, phrase, or word of disfranchisement on account of descent or color, any more than on account of religion.

* * * * *

If the present question depended upon citizenship, you could not refuse to receive the petition. But it does not depend upon citizenship. The right to petition Congress is not an incident of the elective franchise. It exists where the elective franchise does not exist. The Constitution expressly secures it, not simply to _citizens_, but broadly and completely to THE PEOPLE, declaring, in the first article of its Amendments, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, _or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances_.”

The term _people_ here naturally means all, without distinction of class, who owe allegiance to the Government. It is the American equivalent for _subjects_. If there were any doubt on this point, it would be removed by the clear and irresistible meaning of the term in other parts of the Constitution. Thus, in the clause constituting the House of Representatives, it is declared that it “shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the _people_ of the several States, and the _electors_ in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.” Here is an obvious difference between the “people” and “electors.” The former is broader than the latter. It is the former that constitutes the _basis of representation_, and the Constitution then proceeds to declare that this basis “shall be determined by adding _to the whole number of free persons_, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.” Whatever may be the position of the _fractional_ class, nothing can be clearer than that all _free persons_, without distinction of color or descent, belong to the _people_, and, so belonging, they are solemnly and expressly protected by the Constitution in the right of petition.

The Constitution next provides for the “enumeration” of the _people_, and under this provision there is a decennial census of the whole _people_, without distinction of color or descent; and yet, while including all of African descent in your population, you refuse to receive their petitions.

The present proposition is aggravated by well-attested facts in our history. A colored man, Crispus Attucks, was the first martyr of our Revolutionary struggle. Throughout the long war of seven years, while national independence was still doubtful, colored men fought sometimes in the same ranks with the whites, and sometimes in separate companies, but always with patriotic courage, and often under the eye of Washington. The blood of the two races mingled, and, dying on the same field, they were buried beneath the same sod. And this same association was continued throughout the War of 1812, in all our naval contests, and especially in the Battle of Lake Erie under Perry, and of Lake Champlain under Macdonough, where colored men performed a conspicuous part. But no better testimony can be presented than the eloquent proclamation of General Jackson, before the Battle of New Orleans, where he calls upon the “free colored inhabitants of Louisiana” to take part in the contest as _American soldiers_, and speaks of them by implication as “fellow-citizens.”[148] “American soldiers” and “fellow-citizens”: such is the language of Andrew Jackson, when speaking of those whom you would despoil of a venerable right.

Thus, Sir, throughout our history, you have used these men for defence of the country, you have coined their blood into your own liberties; but you deny them now the smallest liberty of all,--the last which is left to the miserable,--_the liberty to pray_. In the history of misfortune or of tyranny nothing can surpass this final act of robbery. The words of the classic poet are fulfilled:--

“‘The wretch, in short, had nothing.’ You say true: And yet the wretch _must lose that nothing too_.”[149]

There is a story of General Washington which illustrates by contrast the wrong of the present proposition. On a certain occasion, being engaged late at the quarters of his aid, Colonel Pickering, of Massachusetts, he proposed to pass the night, if the colored servant, Primus Hall, whom I remember at Boston in my childhood, could find straw and a blanket. Of course they were found; but it was by the surrender of the servant’s own blanket. In the course of the night, the General, becoming aware of the sacrifice, most authoritatively required the servant to share the blanket, saying, “There is room for both, and I insist upon it”; and on the same straw, beneath the same blanket, the General and the faithful African slept till morning sun.[150] You not only refuse to share your liberties with the colored man, but you now propose to take from him his last blanket.

* * * * *

This is not the time to dwell on the character of the colored race; for the right of petition can never depend on the character of the petitioner, while in criminal cases liberty and life even may. But I mention two facts which speak for this much injured people. The first, Sir, is the official census, by which it appears that throughout the Free States among the colored population a much larger proportion attend school than among the whites of the Slave States, and this contrast becomes still more apparent when we consider the small attendance upon school by the whites in South Carolina. The other fact appears in the last will and testament of Mr. Upshur, of Virginia, Secretary of State under President Tyler, where he thus speaks:--

“I emancipate and set free my servant, David Rich, and direct my executors to give him one hundred dollars. I recommend him in the strongest manner to the respect, esteem, and confidence of any community in which he may happen to live. He has been my slave for twenty-four years, during which time he has been trusted to every extent and in every respect. My confidence in him has been unbounded; his relation to myself and family has always been such as to afford him daily opportunities to deceive and injure us, and yet he has never been detected in a serious fault, nor even in an intentional breach of the decorums of his station. His intelligence is of a high order, his integrity above all suspicion, and his sense of right and propriety always correct and even delicate and refined. I feel that he is justly entitled to carry this certificate from me into the new relations which he now must form. It is due to his long and most faithful services, and to the sincere and steady friendship which I bear him. In the uninterrupted and confidential intercourse of twenty-four years, I have never given nor had occasion to give him an unpleasant word. I know no man who has fewer faults or more excellencies than he.

A. P. UPSHUR.”[151]

I do not dwell on precedents; for Senators willing to entertain this proposition can have little regard for any precedents in favor of Human Rights. I content myself with saying, that never before has this assault on Human Rights been made,--that petitions from colored persons have been often presented and refused, precisely as other petitions. Here, for example, is an instance on the Journals of the Senate:--

“Mr. Seward presented a petition of citizens of Ontario County, New York, praying that the army may be disbanded, and its services hereafter dispensed with; _a petition of male and female colored inhabitants of Boston, Massachusetts_, praying that colored men may be employed in transporting the mails, and enrolled in the militia; _and a petition of male and female colored inhabitants of Boston, Massachusetts_, protesting against the enactment of a law for the recovery of fugitive slaves.”[152]

But I have said enough. Most earnestly and sincerely do I protest against this attempt, on three grounds: _first_, because, being essentially barbarous in character, it must be utterly shameful to a government boasting Christianity and professing Civilization; _secondly_, because it is a flagrant violation of the constitutional rights of more than half a million of American people; and, _thirdly_, because, in the present case, it is an insult to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where these petitioners reside in the free enjoyment of all the rights of citizens,--among others, of voting for Members of Congress. I am unwilling to weaken this argument for Human Rights by any appeal to State Rights; but I cannot fail to observe that this proposition, which tramples down State Rights in order to assail Human Rights, proceeds from a Senator [Mr. MASON] who always avows himself the defender of State Rights.

For myself, Sir, my course is plain. Whatever may be the action of the Senate, I shall continue to present such petitions. And permit me to say, that I should be little worthy of the place I now hold, if, at any time hereafter, receiving such petitions, I hesitate in the discharge of this sacred duty.

THE LATE HONORABLE JOHN SCHWARTZ, OF PENNSYLVANIA.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE RESOLUTIONS IN TRIBUTE TO HIM, JUNE 21, 1860.

MR. PRESIDENT,--Some men make themselves felt at once by their simple presence, and Mr. Schwartz was of this number. No person could set eyes on him without being moved to inquire who he was, or, if the occasion presented, to form his acquaintance. His look was that of goodness, and he acted in a way to confirm the charm of his appearance. Entering tardily into public life, he followed the prompting of duty, and not of ambition. At this call he severed friendships, personal and political, believing that principle was of higher worth than party or politician or President. Thus, when already reverend with age, he became a Representative in Congress.

His presence in the other House was a protest. All who saw him there knew that he came from a constituency which had always been represented by an unhesitating member of the Democratic party, while he openly denounced that party,[153] and associated himself cordially and completely with those who, founding themselves on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, sought to bring the National Government to the ancient ways. I mention this circumstance, because it is an essential part of his too brief public life, while it illustrates his character, and proclaims his title to honor. The powerful party leader, “with a Senate at his heels,” is less worthy of love and consideration than the simple citizen, who, scorning party ties, dares to be true and just.

But never did man, who had broken down a party at home, and taken his seat as representative of Opposition, wear his signal success more gently. Though decided and firm in conduct, he was winning and sweet in manner, and by beautiful example showed how to unite two qualities which are not always found together. Winter was not sterner, summer was not softer.

In character he did honor to the brave and pure German stock, which, even from that early day when first revealed to history in the sharp and clean-cut style of Tacitus, has preserved its original peculiarities untouched by change, showing, that, though the individual is mortal, the race is immortal. American by birth, and American in a generous patriotism, he was German in his clear blue eye, in his physical frame, in the warmth of his affections, and in the simplicity of his life. To him alone our tribute is now due; but, in pronouncing the name of JOHN SCHWARTZ, we cannot forget the “fatherland” of his ancestors, which out of its abundance has given to our Republic so many good heads, so many strong arms, with so much of virtue and intelligence, rejoicing in freedom, and calling no man master.

UNHESITATING ASSERTION OF OUR PRINCIPLES.

LETTER TO THE REPUBLICANS OF NEW YORK CITY, JUNE 27, 1860.

An enthusiastic meeting of the Old Men’s and Young Men’s Republican Central Committees of the City of New York was held on the evening of June 28, for the purpose of extending a welcome to the Republican Senators of the Eastern States, on their return from Congress. D. D. Conover, of the Old Men’s Committee, presided, assisted by Charles S. Spencer, of the Young Men’s Committee. The following letter from Mr. Sumner, in answer to an invitation, was read by Edgar Ketchum.

SENATE CHAMBER, June 27, 1860.

MY DEAR SIR,--I must renounce the opportunity of meeting the Republicans of New York to-morrow evening, asking them to accept my thanks for the invitation with which they have honored me.

Let me congratulate them on the good omens which cheer us on every side.

It only remains, that, by _unhesitating assertion of our principles_, we continue to deserve victory.

Believe me, my dear Sir,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

EDGAR KETCHUM, Esq.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY: ITS ORIGIN, NECESSITY, AND PERMANENCE.

SPEECH BEFORE THE YOUNG MEN’S REPUBLICAN UNION OF NEW YORK, AT COOPER INSTITUTE, JULY 11, 1860.

This early speech in the Presidential campaign which ended in the election of Abraham Lincoln was made by Mr. Sumner while on his way home from Washington. It was reported and noticed by the New York press. A journal having little sympathy with it describes the magnificence and enthusiasm of the auditory, and thus abridges the speech in flaming capitals: “The Presidential Contest; Great Convulsion in the Republican Camp; Charles Sumner on the Stump; A Strong Plea for Old Abe; Another Attack upon Slaveholders; The Fivefold Wrong of Human Slavery.”

The meeting is mentioned in all the journals as one of the largest ever assembled within the walls of Cooper Institute, and also remarkable for respectability of appearance. One of them says it seemed more like an audience of some great concert or festival than a political meeting. As soon as the doors were opened every available position was occupied, and in half an hour afterwards it was impossible to find accommodation. More than one third of the vast hall had been reserved for ladies, and it was completely filled. The windows of the upper floor opening upon the basement were crammed with people. On the stage were many distinguished persons, judges and ex-judges. The welcome of the speaker is thus noticed by another:--

“Mr. Sumner appeared on the rostrum precisely at eight o’clock, and was received with an outburst of excited enthusiasm which defies all description. The applause was unanimous and intense. Cheer after cheer arose, loud and vociferous; men stood up and waved their handkerchiefs and their hats till scarcely anything else could be seen.”

The scene at this time was chronicled by the _Independent_.

“The orator’s return to the people, after his long and enforced retirement from the platform, was celebrated at Cooper Institute with such a welcome as we have rarely seen given to any man. On coming forward, he was greeted with cheer after cheer, the audience rising and prolonging their salutations through many minutes, with continuous shouting and waving of handkerchiefs.”