Part 13

The Senate _de facto_ may consist of Senators actually elected and qualified, or of Senators actually elected.

Whether the “House” shall be the Senate _de jure_ or the Senate _de facto_ is now within our discretion. The question has been raised, and the way is open to adopt either interpretation, according to the meaning of the Constitution as seen in the light of Parliamentary Law, and, I add also, of convenience.

According to Parliamentary Law, the whole question is in our hands.

According to convenience, the quorum should be founded on the actual Senate, being the Senators actually elected and qualified.

If ever the argument of convenience was strong, peculiarly strong, it is now, when a wicked rebellion has undertaken to withdraw the Senators of eleven States, thus reducing our numbers. It is not necessary to assert that these States should be no longer counted among our stars. It is enough, if we declare that their vacant chairs shall no longer be counted in our quorum. As the language of the Constitution is drawn into debate, I cannot doubt, that, according to Parliamentary Law, the present question is within the control of the Senate, to be determined by the teachings of reason and convenience, so as to assure the public welfare. Any other interpretation must leave the Senate to all the hazards of disorganization by treason, or, it may be, by indifference. If the Senate declines to exercise this power, it will abandon an essential principle of self-defence.

An extreme case might be put, where, through defection, the actual Senators are reduced to a mere handful. But the rule is not to be tried by any such extreme case, which can occur only when the Government is broken up.

I rest confidently on the double conclusion: first, that the words of the Constitution with regard to the quorum of the Senate, so far as doubtful, are to be interpreted by Parliamentary Law; and, secondly, that, by Parliamentary Law, these words are within the control of the Senate, to be interpreted according to its own ample discretion under the exigency of the occasion.

PROTEST AGAINST FINAL ADJOURNMENT OF CONGRESS.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A RESOLUTION FOR THE FINAL ADJOURNMENT OF THE TWO HOUSES, JULY 12, 1862.

July 12th, the question being on the final adjournment for the Session, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I do not think, in the present state of the country, the Senate ought to adjourn, and for one I enter my protest against it, and I ask for the yeas and nays that I may make it of record.

It is essential to proper legislation not only that the Senate should vote, but that it should consider measures on which it votes; and the consideration must be in proportion to their importance. Allusion is made to one measure on which the Senate has not voted,--that in charge of my friend the Senator from Ohio [Mr. WADE], the admission of West Virginia as a new State. Perhaps no question of greater importance has ever been presented. It concerns the whole question of Slavery; it concerns the pretension of State Rights; it concerns also the results of this war. Look at it, therefore, in any aspect you please, it is a great question. And yet the idea of Senators anxious to adjourn is, that it is to be hurried forward without any proper discussion.

There is another question, not less important. It is the bill of the Senator from New York [Mr. HARRIS], constituting Provisional Governments for the Rebel States,--a subject of transcendent importance, and I submit, also, of practical interest at this very moment; for it involves precisely this inquiry, Whether you are to allow a system of military governments or Congressional governments. It is a question between the military and the civil power.

Then we have the Army Bill, which my colleague has in charge. Few matters of greater importance have ever been laid before the Senate. It involves nothing less than the organization in our country of a system of conscription, so well known on the Continent of Europe, but thus far happily unknown to us; and yet, Sir, this great question, also, is to be hurried forward without any adequate discussion.

Then we have Executive business, to which I can only allude in a general way, but of vast moment, which cannot be adequately considered without days, and I might say weeks.

Then we have also the whole Calendar, to which the Senator from Illinois has referred, that ought to occupy us for weeks.

Here are at least five important matters,--West Virginia, the Provisional Governments, the Army Bill, Executive business, and the whole Calendar,--all open to consideration; and yet, Sir, Senators propose to go home,--Senators are weary,--Senators would like to find a retreat, away from these legislative cares. I can enter into that feeling. Sir, I should be glad to be at home. I suppose the gallant soldiers on the James River, on the Chickahominy, would also be glad to be at home. They are not excused, they have not a furlough,--and yet we Senators talk of our furlough.

Now it is known that formerly, when Congress was paid by the day, it never thought of adjourning at this time. One of the most important bills on your statute book bears date the 18th day of September, 1850;[102] and for some years immediately thereafter Congress did not adjourn until late in August. I think I have sat myself close upon September; but when I mentioned this fact the other day, the Senator from Ohio reminded me that then Congress was paid by the day, whereas now it is paid by the year. Has it come to this, that Congress could sit here content when paid by the day, and now that it is paid by the year it leaves its important business to be neglected entirely, or to be hurried forward without that discussion which it ought to receive?

Sir, I hope the Senate will not consent to fix any day of adjournment. I hope it will sit here, proceeding regularly with the business now on its Calendar, and meeting any contingencies which in the present state of the country may arise. A duty is cast upon Congress which ought not to be slighted. It is to see that the Republic receives no detriment. Solemnly now this duty addresses itself to all of us. Let us not neglect it. For the sake of the public business, and for the sake of those responsibilities which from their very uncertainty at this crisis are so vast, I ask the Senate to continue here.

The resolution, which was originally for adjournment on Monday, July 14th, was amended by substituting Wednesday, July 16th, and then, as amended, adopted,--Yeas 29, Nays 10.

July 14th, President Lincoln communicated to Congress the draught of a bill to compensate any State which might abolish Slavery within its limits, the passage of which as presented he earnestly recommended. On motion of Mr. Sumner, the Message with the accompanying draught was referred to the Committee on Finance. Immediately thereafter he offered the following resolution.

“_Resolved_, That, in order that the two Houses of Congress may have time for the proper consideration of the Message of the President and the accompanying bill for Emancipation in the States, and for the transaction of other public business, the resolution fixing Wednesday, the 16th of July, for adjournment, is hereby rescinded.”

The consideration of the resolution was objected to.

PATRIOTIC UNITY AND EMANCIPATION.

LETTER TO A PUBLIC MEETING AT NEW YORK, JULY 14, 1862.

WASHINGTON, July 14, 1862.

DEAR SIR,--I welcome and honor your patriotic efforts to arouse the country to a generous, determined, irresistible unity in support of the National Government; but the Senate is still in session, and my post of duty is here. A Senator cannot leave his post, more than a soldier.

But, absent or present, the cause in which the people are to assemble has my God-speed, earnest, devoted, affectionate, and from the heart. What I can do let me do. There is no work I will not undertake, there is nothing I will not renounce, if so I may serve my country.

There must be unity of hands, and of hearts too, that the Republic may be elevated to the sublime idea of a true commonwealth, which we are told “ought to be but as one huge Christian personage, one mighty growth and stature of an honest man, as big and compact in virtue as in body.”[103] Oh, Sir, if my feeble voice could reach my fellow-countrymen, in workshops, streets, fields, and wherever they meet together, if for one moment I could take to my lips that silver trumpet with tones to sound and reverberate throughout the land, I would summon all, forgetting prejudice and turning away from error, to help unite, quicken, and invigorate our common country--most beloved now that it is most imperilled--to a compactness and bigness of virtue in just proportion to its extended dominion, so that it should be as one huge Christian personage, one mighty growth and stature of an honest man, instinct with all the concentration of unity. Thus inspired, the gates of Hell cannot prevail against us.

To this end the cries of faction must be silenced, and the wickedness of sedition, whether in print or public speech, must be suppressed. These are the Northern allies of the Rebellion. An aroused and indignant people, with iron heel, must tread them out forever, as men tread out the serpent so that it can neither hiss nor sting.

With such concord God will be pleased, and He will fight for us. He will give quickness to our armies, so that the hosts of the Rebellion will be broken and scattered as by the thunderbolt; and He will give to our beneficent government that blessed inspiration, better than newly raised levies, by which the Rebellion shall be struck in its single vulnerable part, by which that colossal abomination, its original mainspring and present motive power, shall be overthrown, while the cause of the Union is linked with that divine justice whose weapons are of celestial temper.

God bless our country! and God bless all who now serve it with singleness of heart!

I have the honor to be, dear Sir,

Your faithful servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

CHARLES GOULD, Esq., _Secretary of the Select Committee_.

HARMONY WITH THE PRESIDENT AND EMANCIPATION.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE JOINT RESOLUTION EXPLANATORY OF THE ACT FOR CONFISCATION AND LIBERATION, JULY 16, 1862.

While the bill providing for Confiscation and Liberation was in the hands of the President, and before its signature, it was understood that he objected to it on certain grounds, one of which was that under it real estate was forfeited beyond life. In point of fact, the President had already drawn up a Message stating his objections to its becoming a law.[104] In anticipation of these objections, a joint resolution was adopted, containing the provision, “Nor shall any punishment or proceedings under said Act be so construed as to work a forfeiture of the real estate of the offender beyond his natural life.”[105]

Mr. Sumner did not sympathize with the objections, but, in his anxiety to secure the approval of the Act as a step to Emancipation, he did not hesitate to support the joint resolution.

July 16th, he said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--Our country is in peril. This is much to say, but it must be said, and we must all govern ourselves accordingly. More than ever before, the time has come for an earnest, absolute, controlling patriotism. This is the lesson of the day. In presence of such peril, and under the weight of such duties, there is no pride of opinion which I would not freely sacrifice, nor can I stand on any order of proceeding. I ask no questions, and I make no terms. Show me how an important measure can be secured, which I think vital to the country, and I shall spare no effort to secure it.

Rules are for protection, for defence, and to facilitate business. If in any way they become an impediment, they cease to perform their natural office, and I can easily abandon them, especially when my country may suffer. Therefore, Sir, I am only slightly impressed by the argument that our information with regard to the President is informal. It is enough that a measure we all have at heart as essential to national life may fail to receive his constitutional approval, unless modified in advance by supplementary statute. Anxious for this measure, I think how it may be secured, rather than how the opinions of the President have become known to us.

Of course, Sir, I cannot share the doubts attributed to the President. To me they seem groundless and fallacious. Waiving all question of their accuracy as an interpretation of the Constitution, even in criminal proceedings, I cannot forbear saying that they proceed on the mistaken idea of a procedure by _indictment_ and not by _war_, subjecting the country to all the constraint of a criminal trial when the exigency requires the ample latitude of war. If soldiers are sent forth to battle, if fields are occupied as camps, and houses are occupied as hospitals, without permission of the owners, it is under the War Powers of Congress, or, in other words, the belligerent rights of this Government. And it is by virtue of these same belligerent rights that the property of an enemy is taken. Now, if he be an enemy, is there in the Constitution any check upon these rights? Whether you choose to take property for life or beyond life, the Constitution is indifferent; for all constitutional limitations are entirely inapplicable to belligerent rights. There are express words ordaining that you must not “abridge the freedom of speech or of the press,” or “infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms”; nor can you take “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” And yet, wherever your armies move, and elsewhere too, you do all these very things in the exercise of acknowledged belligerent rights. As plainly, the right of confiscation, whether for life or beyond life, is also yours.

Unhappily, Sir, our country is engaged in war,--terrible, relentless, unquestionable war,--and if we would not discard success, it must be prosecuted as war, in the full exercise of belligerent rights. If we were dealing with sporadic cases of treason, with simple sedition, or with a mere outbreak, our process would be limited by the Constitution; but with an enemy before us, lashed into fury and led on by “Até hot from Hell,” where is the limit to the powers to be employed? I remember that Burke, in his great effort on Conciliation with America, says: “It looks to me to be narrow and pedantic to apply the ordinary ideas of criminal justice to this great public contest; I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against an whole people.”[106] But when, on account of a provision in the Constitution obviously intended only for the protection of _the citizen_, you refuse to take the property of _an enemy in open war_, then do you substitute the safeguards of criminal justice for war, thus voluntarily weakening your armies and diminishing your power. I am tempted to say, that, in devotion to the form of the Constitution, you sacrifice its substance. I might say, that, in misapplying the text of the Constitution, you sacrifice the Constitution itself.

Pardon me for seeming, even briefly, to argue this question. I do it only because I would not have my vote misunderstood. I shall support the proposition, not because I concur with it, but because its adoption will help secure the approval of the bill that has so much occupied the attention of Congress and the hopes of the country.

Mr. President, I have never, from the beginning, disguised my conviction that the most important part of the bill concerns Emancipation. To save this great part, to secure this transcendent ally, to establish this assurance of victory, and to obtain for my country this lofty crown of prosperity and glory, I willingly abandon all the rest. The navigator is called sometimes to save his ship by casting part of the cargo into the sea.

But whatever the difference between the President and Congress, there are two points on which there is no difference. Blacks are to be employed, and slaves are to be freed. In this legislative proclamation the President and Congress will unite. Together they will deliver it to the country and to the world.

It is an occasion of just congratulation, that the long debates of the session have at last ripened into a measure which I do not hesitate to declare more important than any victory achieved by our arms. Thank God, the new levies will be under an inspiration which cannot fail. It is the idea of Freedom, which, in spite of all discomfiture, past or present, must give new force to the embattled armies of the Republic, making their conflicts her own.

Sir, from this day forward the war will be waged with new hopes and new promises. A new power is enlisted, incalculable in influence, strengthening our armies, weakening the enemy, awakening the sympathies of mankind, and securing the favor of a benevolent God. The infamous Order No. 3, which has been such a scandal to the Republic, is rescinded. The slave everywhere can hope. Beginning to do justice, we shall at last deserve success.

The original bill and the explanatory joint resolution were returned to the Senate together, with the approval of the President, July 17th, being the last day of the session, and just before its close.

UNION OF GOOD CITIZENS FOR A FINAL SETTLEMENT.

LETTER TO THE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE, SEPTEMBER 9, 1862.

At the Republican State Convention at Worcester, September 10th,[107] Mr. Claflin, Chairman of the State Committee, read the following letter from Mr. Sumner, which, according to the report, was received with great applause.

BOSTON, September 9, 1862.

MY DEAR SIR,--As a servant of the State, I have always recognized the right of my constituents in State Convention to expect from me such counsels on public affairs as I could offer, and I have accepted with gratitude the invitations with which they have honored me. If now, in these dark days, when danger thickens, I do not take advantage of the opportunity you present, believe me, it is not from indifference, nor is it because our duties at this moment are uncertain.

Eagerly do gallant soldiers (God bless them!) rush to the field of death for the sake of their country. Eagerly do good citizens at home (God bless them!) contribute of their abundance, or it may be of their poverty, to smooth the lot of our gallant soldiers. But there is another duty, hardly less commanding. It is union, without distinction of party, to uphold the Government, and also to uphold those who uphold the Government. Therefore do I recognize the just liberality of the call for our Convention, which is addressed not only to Republicans, but also to “all who support the present National and State Governments and are in favor of the use of all means necessary for the effectual suppression of the Rebellion.” Under such a call there is no patriot citizen of the Commonwealth who may not claim a place.

Is there a patriot citizen who hesitates to support the National Government, beleaguered by a rebel enemy?

Is there a patriot citizen who hesitates to support the State Government, now, under the inspiring activity and genius of John A. Andrew, so efficiently sustaining the National Government?

And is there a patriot citizen who is not for the use of all means necessary for the effectual suppression of the Rebellion?

Were I able to be at the Convention, according to the invitation with which you honor me, gladly would I appeal to all such citizens. This country must be saved; and among the omens of victory I hail confidently that unanimity of sentiment and trust with which all loyal citizens now look to the National Government, determined that nothing of energy or contribution or sacrifice shall be wanting, by which its supremacy may be reëstablished. Another omen is yet needed. It is that the people, forgetting the past, shall ascend to that plane of justice and truth where is the light of candor, and all shall frown indignantly upon the rancors and animosities of party, which even now are so disturbing in their influence, shall silence the senseless prejudices of personal hate, and stifle the falsehoods of calumny, so that here among ourselves there may be unity and concord, giving irresistible strength to our patriotic labors.

Beyond this appeal from heart to heart, I should rejoice to show clearly _how to hamstring this Rebellion and to conquer a peace_, all of which I am sure can be done. To this _single practical purpose_ all theories, prepossessions, and aims must yield. So absorbing at the present moment is this question, that nothing is practical which does not directly tend to its final settlement. All else is blood-stained vanity. And the citizen soldiers you send forth to battle may justly complain, if you neglect any means by which they may be strengthened. Good Democrats, who have enjoyed the confidence of their party and also public trust,--Daniel S. Dickinson, of New York, and Robert Dale Owen, of Indiana,--bear their generous testimony. So also does Parson Brownlow, of Tennessee, in a letter which I have just read, where he says that the negroes “must be urged in every possible way to crush out this infernal Rebellion.” Butler bore his testimony, when, by virtue of an outstanding order of the Rebel Governor of Louisiana, he organized a regiment of colored persons in the national service. Banks also symbolized the idea, when, overtaking the little slave-girl on her way to Freedom, he lifted her upon the national cannon. In this act--the brightest, most touching, and most suggestive of the whole war, which Art will hereafter rejoice to commemorate--our Massachusetts general gave a lesson to his country. Who can doubt that the country will yet be saved?

I hope you will excuse me to my fellow-citizens of the Convention, and believe me, with much regard,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO HON. WM. CLAFLIN, _Chairman of State Committee_.

THE PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION:

ITS POLICY AND NECESSITY AS A WAR MEASURE FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE REBELLION.

SPEECH AT FANEUIL HALL, OCTOBER 6, 1862. WITH APPENDIX, ON THE NOMINATION AND REËLECTION OF MR. SUMNER AS SENATOR.

A patriot’s blood, Well spent in such a strife, may earn, indeed, And for a time insure to his loved land, The sweets of Liberty and Equal Laws.

COWPER, _The Task_, Book V. 714-717.

* * * * *

I assure you, He that has once the Flower of the Sun, The perfect ruby which we call Elixir, Not only can do that, but by its virtue Can confer Honor, Love, Respect, Long Life, Give Safety, Valor,--yea, and Victory,-- To whom he will.

BEN JONSON, _The Alchemist_, Act II. Sc. 1.

* * * * *

Rendez-les libres,--et plus près que vous de la nature, ils vaudront beaucoup mieux que vous.--CONDORCET, _Note 109 aux Pensées de Pascal_.

* * * * *

When a leak is to be stopped, or a fire extinguished, do not all hands coöperate without distinction of sect or party? Or if I am fallen into a ditch, shall I not suffer a man to help me out, until I have first examined his creed?--BISHOP BERKELEY, _A Word to the Wise, or an Exhortation to the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland_: Works (London, 1837), p. 360.

* * * * *