Part 12

“With much misgiving I accepted the place urged upon me in your course. For some time I declined it, and yielded only to the most pressing solicitation. Afterwards, in reply to an inquiry from one of your officers, I let it be known that my subject would be ‘Lafayette,’ and I think you have already announced the same in your course. You are too familiar with the career of this constant friend of Human Freedom not to know that it cannot be adequately presented without touching upon the topics which you forbid. It was the peculiar glory of this illustrious man, that from his early days to his death-bed he strove always for Human Freedom, and especially sought to remove the intolerable evil of African Slavery. To leave so great a part of his life untouched would be an infidelity I cannot commit. Indeed, I do not think your careful judgment could approve such an act. If at any other time it might be done, you will see that at this moment, when persons acting in behalf of Slavery openly threaten _treason_, silence upon testimony so powerful would be nearly akin to complicity with the treason. The pirates of the Caribbean Sea are said to have carefully recited the Ten Commandments, omitting ‘Thou shalt not steal.’ A precedent like this I have no disposition to follow.

“Even if the subject of my lecture did not require me to infringe your instructions, I beg to assure you that I could not consent to speak under any such constraint. For many years I have addressed associations, societies, and meetings of all kinds; but never before have I been met by any hint of interference with the completest latitude of speech, according to my sense of the duties and proprieties of the occasion. Long accustomed to free speech, I am too old now to renounce it.

“There are two recent events in Philadelphia which furnish a commentary upon your letter. The first is a resolution adopted at a public meeting, with the Mayor in the chair, openly proclaiming that free speech must not be permitted at the North; and the other is a practical illustration of this tyranny in the refusal to hear the accomplished Mr. Curtis, when announced to lecture before your Institute on ‘The Policy of Honesty.’ All this is done for the sake of Slavery, and in the hope of soothing traitors. You can know little of me, if you suppose that I can take part in any such work. Of course my place in your list is now vacant.

“I observe that your letter, although signed officially as President of the People’s Institute, is marked ‘_Confidential_.’ I have no desire to draw your name into any public discussion; but it is obvious that my refusal to take part in your course cannot be frankly stated without reference to what you have written.

“I have the honor to be, dear Sir,

“Your obedient servant,

“CHARLES SUMNER.

“---- ----, “President of the People’s Literary Institute, Philadelphia.”

December 22, Mr. Sumner received from the President of the Institute the following telegram:--

“Permit me to withdraw my letter. Come and speak freely. Do not decline. I have written you to-day.”

This was followed by a letter from the President, repeating his request, and saying, among other things,--

“That the public are very desirous to hear you, and will be greatly disappointed, if you cancel the engagement.

“That, in common with the Managers and patrons of the Institute, I earnestly hope that you will reconsider your determination not to speak on the 27th instant, and that you will consent to deliver the lecture on ‘Lafayette,’ which has been advertised, and which the people expect, without any feeling of constraint as to the treatment of the subject.”

Accordingly, December 27, Mr. Sumner spoke for the first time in Philadelphia. A few sentences from the _Press_ show how he was received.

“The announcement that Hon. Charles Sumner would lecture at Concert Hall, before the People’s Literary Institute, last evening, attracted an immense audience. At an early hour the hall was filled to its utmost sitting and standing capacity, and there must have been enough turned away, after the sale of tickets was discontinued at the door, to have filled another hall of equal size. The audience was also of the most respectable character.…

“When the lecturer entered the platform, he was greeted with uproarious applause. For several minutes the audience--the greater part of whom rose to receive him--continued clapping, cheering, and waving their handkerchiefs.…

“He was introduced to the audience by President Allen, of Girard College, who said that the scholar, the eloquent orator, and the steadfast friend of man, all found a synonym in the name of the statesman who was now to address them; and his subject was suggestive to all lovers of Liberty. He had now the pleasure of introducing the Hon. Charles Sumner, who was to speak on Lafayette. The lecture which followed occupied two hours and a quarter in its delivery, and was given without notes.”

The address on Lafayette was the last of a series during the year, by which Mr. Sumner had striven to direct public opinion against Slavery, so at least that it should not be carried into the Territories. Amidst hostile criticism there were friendly expressions, showing that he had not spoken in vain. Of these, one is presented as applicable to the series. It is the Dedication of the Thanksgiving Sermon, Sunday Evening, November 11, 1860, by Rev. Gilbert Haven, entitled, “The Cause and Consequence of the Election of Abraham Lincoln.”

“TO THE HON. CHARLES SUMNER:

“Who has spoken the bravest words for Liberty in the most perilous places; who has suffered in behalf of the Slave only less than those who wear the martyr’s crown; who has come forth from that suffering with the profoundest, because experimental, sympathy with the Oppressed, with a more intense hatred of the Oppression, yet without any bitterness of heart against the Oppressor; who will stand forth in the future times as the clearest-eyed, boldest-tongued, and purest-hearted Statesman of the age: these few words of Thanksgiving and Praise, for the manifestation of the Presence and Power of the ALMIGHTY REDEEMER in this greatest work of our time, are most respectfully dedicated.”

DISUNION AND A SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY: THE OBJECT.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 10, 1860.

The opening of Congress was signalized by two things: first, the Message of President Buchanan, December 4, 1860, misrepresenting the North, and practically abdicating the power to control rebellious States; and, secondly, the development of a determination on the part of certain States at the South to secede from the Union. Here South Carolina took the lead.

* * * * *

In the Senate, December 6th, Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, brought forward a resolution, which, after modification by himself, was as follows.

“_Resolved_, That so much of the President’s Message as relates to the present agitated and distracted condition of the country, and the grievances between the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding States, be referred to a special committee of thirteen members, and that said committee be instructed to inquire into the present condition of the country and report by bill or otherwise.”

In the consideration of this resolution a debate ensued on the state of the Union, and the resolution was adopted December 18th. The committee appointed by the Vice-President, Mr. Breckinridge, was Mr. Powell of Kentucky, the mover, Mr. Hunter of Virginia, Mr. Crittenden of Kentucky, Mr. Seward of New York, Mr. Toombs of Georgia, Mr. Douglas of Illinois, Mr. Collamer of Vermont, Mr. Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, Mr. Wade of Ohio, Mr. Bigler of Pennsylvania, Mr. Rice of Minnesota, Mr. Doolittle of Wisconsin, and Mr. Grimes of Iowa. December 31st, Mr. Powell reported to the Senate “that the Committee have not been able to agree upon any general plan of adjustment.” In the propositions offered in committee by Mr. Douglas we first meet that for the disfranchisement of the colored race, even where already voters, which was part of the Crittenden Compromise in its final form.[129]

Immediately after the first reading of Mr. Powell’s resolution for the appointment of a committee Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I have no desire to make a speech at this time, nor to take any part in the discussion that has commenced. I can bear yet a little longer the misrepresentations in the President’s Message, and I believe the North can bear them yet a little longer. The time will come, perhaps, when I shall deem it my duty to set forth those things in the light of reason and of history; meanwhile I content myself with simply offering to the Senate testimony of direct and most authoritative bearing upon the present state of the Union. If I may adopt the language of the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. JEFFERSON DAVIS], it will help us to make the diagnosis of the present disease in the body politic.

I hold in my hand an unpublished autograph letter, written by General Jackson while President of the United States, and addressed to a clergyman in a slaveholding State. Omitting certain sentences which are of a purely private nature, the letter is as follows.

“[_Private._] “WASHINGTON, May 1, 1833.

“MY DEAR SIR,-- … I have had a laborious task here, but Nullification is dead; and its actors and courtiers will only be remembered by the people to be execrated for their wicked designs to sever and destroy the only good government on the globe, and that prosperity and happiness we enjoy over every other portion of the world. Haman’s gallows ought to be the fate of all such ambitious men, who would involve their country in civil war, and all the evils in its train, that they might reign and ride on its whirlwinds and direct the storm. The free people of these United States have spoken, and consigned these wicked demagogues to their proper doom. Take care of your Nullifiers; you have them among you; let them meet with the indignant frowns of every man who loves his country. The Tariff, it is _now_”--

and he underscores, or italicizes, the word “now”--

“known, was a mere pretext. Its burden was on your coarse woollens. By the law of July, 1832, coarse woollen was reduced to five per cent for the benefit of the South. Mr. Clay’s bill takes it up and classes it with woollens at fifty per cent, reduces it gradually down to twenty per cent, and there it is to remain, and Mr. Calhoun and all the Nullifiers agree to the principle. The cash duties and home valuation will be equal to fifteen per cent more, and after the year 1842 you pay on coarse woollens thirty-five per cent. If this is not protection, I cannot understand; therefore the Tariff was only the pretext, and Disunion and a Southern Confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the Negro or Slavery Question.

“My health is not good, but is improving a little. Present me kindly to your lady and family, and believe me to be your friend. I will always be happy to hear from you.

“ANDREW JACKSON.

“THE REV. ANDREW J. CRAWFORD.”[130]

Here is the original autograph letter, in the well-known, unmistakable, bold, broad handwriting. [_Here Mr. Sumner held the letter up._] These are the words of a patriot slaveholder of Tennessee, addressed to a patriot clergyman of a slaveholding State, and they are directly applicable to the present hour. Of practical sense, of inflexible purpose, and of various experience, Andrew Jackson saw intuitively the springs and motives of human conduct, while he loved his country with a firm and all-embracing attachment. Thus inspired, he was able to judge the present and to discern the future. The Tariff, in his opinion, was a pretext only,--Disunion and a Southern Confederacy the real object. “The next pretext,” says he,--and you, Sir, cannot fail to mark the words,--“will be the Negro or Slavery Question.” These, Sir, are his words, not mine. Such is his emphatic judgment. Words and judgment now belong to history; nor can they be assailed without assailing one of the greatest examples that a slaveholding community has given to our common country.

ATTEMPT AT COMPROMISE: THE CRITTENDEN PROPOSITIONS.

INCIDENTS AND NOTES, DECEMBER 18, 1860, TO MARCH 4, 1861.

Before the organization of the Committee of Thirteen on the State of the Union, mentioned in the preceding article, Mr. Crittenden brought forward a joint resolution, December 18, 1860, containing propositions of Compromise, which soon became known by the name of their author. These propositions were extensive in character, covering amendments to the Constitution and recommendations to the States. Afterwards, January 3, 1861, he reintroduced his propositions, with a new preamble, and with two additional amendments to the Constitution. That such propositions could have been seriously presented as a basis of Union shows the exacting spirit of Slavery, and the deplorable insensibility to great principles.

The Compromise in its final form opened with a Constitutional prohibition of Slavery in all territory of the United States north of 36° 30´, but on the other hand it was expressly declared that “in all the territory now held, or hereafter to be acquired, south of said line of latitude, _Slavery of the African race is hereby recognized as existing_, and shall not be interfered with by Congress, but shall be protected as property by all the departments of the Territorial Government during its continuance”; and any territory north or south of this line was to be admitted into the Union as a State with or without Slavery, as the Constitution of such new State might provide. It was further declared that Congress should have no power to abolish Slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction and within the limits of slaveholding States; that Congress should have no power to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia, so long as it exists in the adjoining States of Virginia and Maryland, or either, nor without the consent of the inhabitants, nor without just compensation to slave-owners who do not consent to such abolishment; that Congress should not prohibit officers of the Federal [National] Government, or Members of Congress, whose duties require them to be in the District, from bringing with them their slaves and holding them as such; and that Congress should have no power to prohibit or hinder the transportation of slaves from one State to another, or to a Territory in which slaves are by law permitted to be held, whether that transportation be by land, navigable rivers, or by sea.

Then followed Constitutional amendments, providing that the United States should pay to the owner of a fugitive slave the full value of such slave, in case of obstruction to the recovery thereof,--also providing that no future amendment of the Constitution should affect these articles, or the existing provisions relating to slave representation and the surrender of fugitives from service, or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with Slavery in any of the States where it exists.

Then followed another Constitutional amendment, providing that “the elective franchise and the right to hold office, whether Federal [National], State, Territorial, or municipal, shall not be exercised by persons who are in whole or in part of the African race,”--and still another, providing for the acquisition of “districts of country in Africa and South America” for the colonization of “free negroes and mulattoes.”[131]

Besides these amendments to the Constitution, the joint resolution, in order “to remove all just cause for the popular discontent and agitation which now disturb the peace of the country and threaten the stability of its institutions,” proceeded to declare, that the laws now in force for the recovery of fugitive slaves are in strict pursuance of the plain and mandatory provisions of the Constitution, that the slaveholding States are entitled to their faithful observance and execution, and that laws should be made for the punishment of those who illegally interfere to prevent their execution,--that State laws interfering with the recovery of fugitive slaves (referring to Personal Liberty Laws) should be repealed, that the Fugitive Slave Act of September 18, 1850, should be amended in certain particulars, and that the laws for the suppression of the African Slave-Trade should be made effectual.

The Crittenden Compromise was encountered in the Senate by the following counter propositions, offered by Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, January 9, 1861.

“_Resolved_, That the provisions of the Constitution are ample for the preservation of the Union and the protection of all the material interests of the country; that it needs to be obeyed rather than amended; and that an extrication from the present dangers is to be looked for in strenuous efforts to preserve the peace, protect the public property, and enforce the laws, rather than in new guaranties for particular interests, compromises for particular difficulties, or concessions to unreasonable demands.

“_Resolved_, That all attempts to dissolve the present Union, or overthrow or abandon the present Constitution, with the hope or expectation of constructing a new one, are dangerous, illusory, and destructive; that in the opinion of the Senate of the United States no such reconstruction is practicable; and therefore to the maintenance of the existing Union and Constitution should be directed all the energies of all the departments of the Government, and the efforts of all good citizens.”

January 16, the question being taken by yeas and nays, on the motion to substitute, resulted, yeas 25, nays 23, as follows.

_Yeas_,--Messrs. Anthony, Baker, Bingham, Cameron, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hall, Harlan, King, Seward, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilson,--25.

_Nays_,--Messrs. Bayard, Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Clingman, Crittenden, Fitch, Green, Gwin, Hunter, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Latham, Mason, Nicholson, Pearce, Polk, Powell, Pugh, Rice, Saulsbury, Sebastian,--23.

So the amendment was agreed to, and the proposition of Mr. Clark was substituted for that of Mr. Crittenden.

This important result, by which the Crittenden Compromise received a heavy blow, was a surprise, brought about by the Senators of the Gulf States,--Iverson of Georgia, Clay and Fitzpatrick of Alabama, Brown and Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, Benjamin and Slidell of Louisiana, Mallory and Yulee of Florida, Hemphill and Wigfall of Texas, and Johnson of Arkansas,--who were in attendance, but withheld their votes. The two Senators of South Carolina, Hammond and Chesnut, also Toombs of Georgia, had not appeared in their seats during the session. Three of these Senators voting against the substitute, it could not have been carried, and the original propositions would have been still before the Senate. The adoption of the substitute was used by them to inflame their constituents. Their conduct on this occasion showed a “foregone conclusion.” Nothing but Disunion would satisfy them,--not even the Crittenden Compromise, so full of surrender.

Then ensued a comedy. Immediately after the adoption of the substitute, a reconsideration of the vote was moved by Mr. Cameron, of Pennsylvania, at the request of Mr. Crittenden, which on a subsequent day was carried. The question was then allowed to sleep on the table, until, unexpectedly, on the last legislative day of the session, just before the expiration of the Congress, and after the withdrawal of the Southern Senators, it was called up by Mr. Mason, of Virginia, when Mr. Clark again offered his substitute, which was lost by a vote of 22 nays against 14 yeas, several Senators expressing a desire to vote directly on the original propositions. On these propositions the final vote stood, yeas 19, nays 20, as follows.

_Yeas_,--Messrs. Bayard, Bigler, Bright, Crittenden, Douglas, Gwin, Hunter, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Latham, Mason, Nicholson, Polk, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian, Thomson, Wigfall,--19.

_Nays_,--Messrs. Anthony, Bingham, Chandler, Clark, Dixon, Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Harlan, King, Morrill, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilson,--20.

So the joint resolution of Mr. Crittenden, with its various propositions, was rejected. The final withdrawal of the Senators from seceding States obviously aided this result.

As the session was coming to a close, a joint resolution was received from the House of Representatives proposing yet another amendment to the Constitution, as follows.

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any State with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

Bills and joint resolutions must be read on three several days; but on ordinary occasions they receive their first and second readings the same day. Mr. Sumner, unwilling that this other attempt should be hurried through the Senate, objected to the second reading on the first day, and the next day had a question with Mr. Douglas on the correction of the Journal, which failed to record his objection. On his motion the Journal was corrected.[132] The Senate then suspended the rule requiring the three readings of a Constitutional amendment on three separate days, and proceeded to the consideration of the proposed amendment. Mr. Pugh, of Ohio, spoke lightly of its composition, saying:--

“I think it was De Quincey who said, that, next to the duty which a man owes God and his country and his family, it was his duty to preserve the purity of his mother tongue. The Constitution of the United States is written in excellent English; but if this amendment be expressed in the English language, or by any rule of grammar, I do not understand it.”

Mr. Crittenden replied, that he could “bear with bad English, when it expressed a good thing.”

The vote on its passage was 24 yeas to 12 nays, as follows.