Part 15

“The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER], as he has a perfect right to do, introduced a series of resolutions giving his idea about the effect of the war upon the political status of the States, and at once those resolutions are seized upon as the dogmas of the Republican party, and we are denounced for them, although candid men must know that they are but the emanation of a single individual, who has decided convictions on this subject, and who is far in advance of any political organization in this country.”

Then, at the close of his speech, after saying that “we ought to oppose all useless and unconstitutional measures of legislation,” he proceeded:--

“I, therefore, cannot help but say, that, while I respect the motives of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, while I give him credit for consistency, ability, and a great deal of culture, and am always glad to hear him speak, yet I must confess, that, when I looked over his resolutions, they struck me with surprise and regret. They would revolutionize this Government. Sir, strike the States out of this system of Government, and your Government is lost and gone. I cannot conceive of the United States governing colonies and provinces containing millions upon millions of people, black and white. I do not think such a thing can exist. I do not believe it is in the power of Secession to bring us to such a state of things. I can draw no distinction between the resolutions of the Senator from Massachusetts and the doctrines that are proclaimed by Jefferson Davis.… The doctrine of the Senator from Massachusetts is substantially an acknowledgment of the right of secession, of the right to secede. He, however, puts the States in the condition of abject Territories, to be governed by Congress. Jefferson Davis puts it in the power of the people of the States to govern the States themselves. As to which is the most dangerous or obnoxious doctrine I leave every man to determine.”[147]

Not long afterwards, Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, took up the same strain, characterizing the doctrine of the Resolutions as “fatal to our form of government, destructive of our Federal system, and utterly incompatible with a restoration of harmonious relations between the States in which rebellion now prevails and the United States”; and he condensed his judgment by calling the doctrine a “fatal heresy.”[148]

Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, some time later, spoke in harmony with the others.

“Now everybody knows that the honorable Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] has a scheme by which he proposes to turn all these States, in case they could be conquered, into Territories, that they shall be governed by the United States as Territories, and then, when their people come to their senses,--this is the language of the advocates of the scheme,--they are to be readmitted into the Union upon terms. Mr. President, I do not know anybody hardly who has not deprecated that as a most mischievous scheme to agitate just at present.”[149]

Still later, Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, in an elaborate speech, discussed Mr. Sumner’s policy in the same spirit, saying that he had provided a way of disunion,--“which for brevity I will call, with no disrespect to my honorable friend from Massachusetts, THE SUMNER WAY FOR STATES TO GO OUT OF THE UNION, namely, by Act of Congress.” And he attributed the same position to his colleague, Mr. Howe.

“What, in effect, do the Senator from Massachusetts and my colleague propose? To place outside of the Constitution, and to govern with unlimited power, eleven States and ten million people, nearly one third of all the States and people of the United States, without any representation.”[150]

Mr. Howe replied to Mr. Doolittle, and, after referring to a resolution introduced by himself, declaring that “local governments ought to be provisionally organized forthwith for the people in each of the districts named in the preamble hereto,”[151] being the Rebel States, paid the following tribute to Mr. Sumner.

“As to the matter of fact, whether this resolution is the Lincoln and Johnson theory or the Sumner theory, the Senator from Massachusetts has not yet, I regret to say, indorsed that resolution, nor anything that I said in support of it; and I suppose the Senator from Massachusetts will claim the right, which, under the Constitution, as I understand it, belongs to every Senator on this floor, to speak for himself. If it should hereafter happen to receive his indorsement, it will be very gratifying to me. If I should find that I had given utterance on this floor to one sentiment which is approved by the Senator from Massachusetts, it will be only a small compensation for the great number of living sentiments to which I have listened from the Senator from Massachusetts, and which are bound to live long after my colleague and myself shall have passed from this stage of existence.”[152]

Meanwhile, Mr. Sumner, acting upon the principles of his Resolutions, insisted upon colored suffrage in the Rebel States to be ordained by Congress, as will appear hereafter in these volumes. Senators who had originally opposed the power of Congress over these States now united in this requirement. Among those who still stood out was Mr. Doolittle, who, after alluding to President Lincoln’s policy of Reconstruction, said:--

“Neither Mr. Lincoln, nor any member of his Cabinet, nor more than two Senators, I believe, in this body, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] and the Senator from Missouri [Mr. GRATZ BROWN], at that time advocated Reconstruction upon a basis including negro suffrage.”

And Mr. Doolittle then proclaimed that more than twenty Republican Senators, who had stood with him, “advocating Reconstruction upon the white basis,” now “go over to the side of the Senator from Massachusetts, and advocate his theory of Reconstruction upon the basis of negro suffrage and white disfranchisement.”[153]

Then came another speech by the same Senator, in which he describes Mr. Sumner as adding to his demands only to find them adopted by Senators who had begun by opposing him.

“My friend from Massachusetts ought to feel a sense of profound satisfaction to see the progress they have made. I mean no discourtesy, when I say the ideas advanced by him that night, rejected then by a majority of four to one, rule the Senate now. Not only have they educated, they have Sumnerized the Senate.”[154]

Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, the Democratic leader of the Senate, differing widely from Mr. Sumner, in the debate on the Supplementary Reconstruction Bill, gave this testimony:--

“I said in the Senate, a year or two ago, that the course of things is this: the Senator from Massachusetts steps out boldly, declares his doctrine, and then he is approached, and finally he governs. Believing that he is in the right,--I concede that belief to him as a Senator,--his place in this body and before this country to-day is a very proud one. He was told somewhat sneeringly, two years ago, that among his party friends he stood alone; and to-day they all stand upon his position. This is a compliment and indorsement of sagacity and intelligence that but few men receive in the course of a public life.”[155]

THE PRESS.

From the Senate the question was transferred to the great arena where pamphlets, reviews, and newspapers were the disputants. Here the opposition in the Senate found frequent expression. The Resolutions by their positive character offered a full front, and they were openly attacked.

Public meetings and committees also made them the subject of discussion,--especially a great meeting at Cooper Institute, New York, and a meeting of the German Republican Committee in New York, where they were fully sustained.[156]

The _North American Review_,[157] in an elaborate article, under the title of “Constitutional Law,” afterwards published in a pamphlet with the author’s name[158] on the title-page, treated the Resolutions with a severity which may be judged by the concluding words.

“It is to be hoped that disloyalty will not become more general by reason of threats of conquest, or by propositions that the United States shall become _administrator de bonis non_ of the seceding States. One description of treason against the United States consists ‘in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.’ Mr. Conway[159] and Mr. Sumner have given the ‘aid and comfort.’ Had they sent in their _adhesion_ at the same time, they would have done the Union much less mischief.”

Not content with this article, the learned author addressed the following letter to the _Boston Journal_.

“UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION.

“DEAR SIR,--Will you permit me to say, that, the sooner the Republican party cuts itself loose from all unconstitutional projects (whether they relate to emancipation by proclamation, conquering States and holding them as Territories, confiscation without trial, or any other measure not warranted by the Constitution), the sooner it will begin to provide for its own salvation.

“Very truly yours,

“JOEL PARKER.

“CAMBRIDGE, May 5, 1862.”

On the other side, Dr. Brownson, the able and indefatigable Catholic writer, sustained Mr. Summer in a powerful article, entitled “State Rebellion, State Suicide.”[160] A few sentences will show its character.

“The slave-owners, by their rebellion, have unquestionably forfeited their right under the Federal Constitution to be protected in their slave property, or, as to that matter, in any other species of property. If Slavery be ever again recognized as legal, therefore, the responsibility will attach not to Slave States only, but to the whole people of the United States, and we of the Free States will become, clearly and decidedly, _participes criminis_.”[161]

“We hold with Mr. Sumner in his noble Resolutions, creditable alike to him as a statesman and a lawyer, that the State by rebellion commits suicide, and lapses as a civil and political entity. All laws, customs, or usages, depending for their vitality, force, or vigor on the State, are rendered null and void by its secession, and are to be treated as _non avenues_. Slavery exists in any country only by municipal law,--in no country by the _jus gentium_. In our political system it exists by the local law, or by the law or usage of a particular State, in distinction from a law or usage of the United States.”[162]

“The Rebellion, in a word, kills the whole State and everything dependent on it. Whether the State be revived and permitted to return to the Union depends entirely on the good pleasure of the Federal authority. It cannot be claimed as a right by the population on the territory of the defunct State. As they could not take the territory out of the Union, and as they, so long as they remain on it, are within the jurisdiction of the United States, the Federal Government has authority to govern them, and may govern them either as a Territory or as a conquered province.”[163]

“The two most important measures ever introduced into the American Congress are, first, the resolutions of Mr. Sumner in the Senate, declaring that a State by rebellion commits suicide, and, second, General Ashley’s bill in the House, from the Territorial Committee, providing for the government of the rebellious States as Territories.… Their adoption would save constitutional government, and give new guaranties of man’s capacity for freedom. But whether these measures be adopted or not, Mr. Sumner’s resolutions will serve as a platform on which will take their stand all in the country worthy of consideration for their political sagacity, their wise statesmanship, their disinterestedness, and their nobility of sentiment.”[164]

The newspapers were not behind the quarterlies in earnestness of difference; but citations from them will not add to the case already stated. An article in the _Temps_, an Imperialist organ at Paris, is interesting, as showing that the debate had crossed the ocean to France.

“The confidence of the nation possesses the Washington Cabinet, too often accessible to incertitude and discouragements, and its members seem about to rally to the system presented by Mr. Sumner. It is known that the Constitution gives to Congress the absolute power over what is called the Territories,--that is to say, the territorial portions not yet incorporated politically into the Union.… The practical consequence which Mr. Sumner draws from that can be divined. He proposes to consider the Rebel States as simple Territories, which necessarily after victory will return one after another to their vitality. Then, according to the manner in which the Washington Government and Congress shall pronounce definitively on this supreme question, can admittance into the Union be refused to States which do not abolish Slavery or regulate it in a sense favorable to Abolition.”[165]

CORRESPONDENCE.

The response by letters showed that Senatorial protest and newspaper criticism did not prevent the acceptance of the Resolutions by earnest, thoughtful people, anxious for decisive measures and a true preparation for the future. Here was a plan of Reconstruction without Slavery, and this was a wide-spread longing of hearts.

Hon. John Jay, afterwards Minister at Vienna, wrote from New York:--

“There is no question about the fact that Slavery in the Rebel States has ceased to exist, within the meaning and under the protection of the Constitution.

“I have thought somewhat on the matter, and have just completed an argument on it, which I proposed to include in my lecture before the Washington Association. The Southern States have ceased to be States of the Union; their soil has become national territory; and the slaves, in the eyes of the Constitution, are freemen. I wish your resolutions had been referred to some committee from whom we could have had a careful report in their favor, even though it were a minority report, to get the argument before the country.”

Charles T. Rodgers, President of the Young Men’s Republican Union, wrote from New York:--

“I have just read the preamble and resolutions offered by you in the Senate, in which you define the position and status of the revolted States, and of persons held to service under the laws thereof.

“I cannot refrain from expressing to you, personally, my pleasure at the fact that the true doctrine on this subject has been so clearly laid down. I am sure that your theory is the true one, and, in fact, the only one this Government can consistently follow, and the only one which seems to offer a plain path out of the maze of conflicting legal and constitutional points in which so many of our public men seem to have become entangled. The States, by seceding, have committed suicide. The slaves therein are _de facto_ free. Stick to that, and you will come out all right.”

Hon. Charles A. Dana, the accomplished journalist, afterwards Assistant Secretary of War, wrote:--

“I fully appreciate the difficulty of settling the South after it is conquered. I don’t see how your plan can be avoided; _bon gré, mal gré_, it is what we all must come to.”

Park Benjamin, writer and poet, who had not formerly sympathized with Mr. Sumner politically, wrote from New York:--

“Your Territorial plan is the only right and just one, let the short-sighted geese hiss at it as they may.”

William Herries, journalist, wrote from New York:--

“It was my pleasure to-night to be present at the meeting of the German Republican Central Committee, and it was truly refreshing to witness the enthusiasm manifested in behalf of those lofty sentiments embraced in your Rebel Territory Bill. A Memorial is now in course of preparation for you on the subject.”

Hon. J. Y. Smith, of the _Wisconsin Argus_, wrote from Madison:--

“Early in the Rebellion I took the same view of the effect of Secession upon the Rebel States as is set forth in your Resolutions,--suggested it to our Wisconsin Senators, and wrote several articles in support of it, but could find very few public journals or public men to agree with me. When your resolutions on that subject appeared, I hailed them with joy, and have been exerting the little influence I have to instil the principle into the public mind. It is the true theory, and I wonder why any friend of the country can object to it. By their rebellion they have tumbled Slavery right into our bag, and if we shake it out, our life will go for its life.”

Thomas Garrett, a Quaker Abolitionist, wrote from Wilmington, Delaware:--

“I yesterday read the resolutions thou offeredst on the 11th of this month, and think the view thou hast taken is correct: that any vote of secession, or other act by which a State may undertake to put an end to the supremacy of the Constitution within its territory, is inoperative and void against the Constitution, and, when sustained by force, is practical abdication by the State of all rights under the Constitution; and every such State ought to be expunged and revert back into a Territory, and begin anew. I thought, six months since, that ere this Slavery would have been abolished by the War Power in all the seceded States, but at present I have very little hope of it. It seems to me incredible that the President and Cabinet should have so much more sympathy for the Rebels than they have for the loyal North.”

W. G. Snethen, lawyer, earnest against Slavery, wrote from Baltimore:--

“Your admirable resolutions respecting the status of the Rebel region, in which the Rebellion has killed Slavery, did my heart good, especially as indicating an Administration policy. I hope and pray that this doctrine speaks the mind of Lincoln, and that he will not flinch from its execution with the whole power of the Government.… Oh that Congress may adopt your set just as they came from your mighty pen, and then follow them up by legislation to give them active life!”

Edward P. Brownson communicated the opinion of his father, Orestes A. Brownson, in a letter from Elizabeth, New Jersey.

“I suppose my father has long since told you of his delight, when you introduced your Resolutions into the Senate. The joy with which he read them, and the attention he has given them, you will find very clearly expressed in the deep and careful study he has given the subject, evident in his article on _State Rebellion, State Suicide_; and he would much rather see them pass than win a victory in the field.”

Mrs. Maria Weston Chapman, the devoted Abolitionist, and among the earliest in the warfare, wrote from Boston:--

“Thanks a thousand-fold for the eleventh volume Pacific Railroad Survey. Your Resolutions are _the great Pacific Road to Freedom_,--made possible by the War Power though they be. I thank you a million-fold. To say so is no exaggeration, since all done in this behalf is done for all men and all time; and from the hour that Garrison struck the first blow, I have ever felt that the highest numbers were needed fitly to express human gratitude for services rendered to human nature.”

Jabez C. Woodman, an able lawyer, wrote from Portland, Maine:--

“You are not without some judicial authority. As much as ten months ago I heard Judge Ware[166] express the opinion that the Union troops would prevail. He then said he was in favor of coercion,--that he would subjugate the Rebel States, and, taking them at their word, he would not acknowledge them at once as States, but would govern them as conquered provinces, till they were fit to govern themselves.”

Elizur Wright, the early and constant Abolitionist, wrote from Boston:--

“Your Resolutions are _the very thing_. Had they been passed at the extra session, the war would have been over before now. They, or something to the same effect, must be passed before spring opens, or we are lost. Victories, without this _law_ of the _conquest_, cannot save us. Quite the reverse. I beg you to press the resolutions with any amount of animosity or violence, and to know that all that is alive at the North will sustain you.

“There are thousands ready to see the present Government blotted out in blood and chaos rather than see the old curse reinstated. On us, not on our children! There has been fooling enough. Heaven bless you!”

Rev. George C. Beckwith, Secretary of the American Peace Society, wrote from Boston:--

“I had some difficulty for a time about your _Territorial_ views; but I am coming fully to the conclusion that we must deal with all rebellion in some such way, before the South can be brought to any terms. We must have and keep them all in our grasp, until they prove themselves, by their good behavior, fit to come again into the Union.”

Charles Husband, an intelligent citizen, whose correspondence was always valuable, wrote from Taunton, Massachusetts:--