Part 18

“I say this much, before turning again to my immediate subject, for our great Senator, who has done justice to the manufacturing interests and the shipping of Massachusetts, as Webster did, and also justice to her conscience and her thought, as Webster did not. [_Applause._] I do not wish to take one leaf from the laurel of the great Defender of the Constitution; he rests at Marshfield, beneath the honors he fairly earned. But we have put in his place a man far more practical than he was; we have put in his place the hardest worker that Massachusetts ever sent to the Senate of the United States [_applause_]; we have put in his place the Stonewall Jackson of the floor of the Senate,--patient of labor, untiring in effort, boundless in resources, terribly in earnest,--the only man who, in civil affairs, is to be compared with the great terror of the Union armies, the General of the Virginia forces: both ideologists, both horsed on an idea, and both men whom a year ago the drudges of State Street denounced, or would have denounced, as unpractical and impracticable; but when the war-bugle sounded through the land, both were found to be the only men to whom Carolina and Massachusetts hasted to give the batons of the opposing hosts.”

John G. Whittier, whose words of flame had done so much in the long warfare with Slavery, was aroused from his retirement to testify. In the Amesbury _Villager_, near his home, he wrote:--

“In looking over the speeches and newspapers of his active opponents, it really seems to me, that, if ever a man was hated and condemned for his very virtues, it is this gentleman. Nobody accuses him of making use of his high position for his own personal emolument; no shadow of suspicion rests upon the purity of his private or public character; no man can point to an instance in which he has neglected any duty properly devolving upon him; no interest of his State has been forgotten or overlooked; no citizen has appealed to him in vain for kindly offices and courteous hearing and attention. As Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Affairs, his industry and ability have never been denied by his bitterest enemies. All admit that he has rendered important service to his Government. What, then, is his crime? Simply and solely this, that he stands inflexibly by his principles,--that he is too hearty in his hatred of the monstrous Wrong which initiated and still sustains the present Rebellion,--that in advance of his contemporaries he saw the danger and proclaimed it,--that he heartily sustains the President in his Proclamation,--that he is in favor of destroying the guilty cause of all our national calamities, that red-handed murderer and traitor against whom the sighs and groans of Massachusetts wives and mothers, weeping in every town and hamlet for dear ones who are not, are rising in swift witness to God.

“This is his crime, his real offence, in the eyes of his leading opponents. I know it has been said that he is too much a man of ideas, and not a statesman. That he is not a politician, in the modern sense of the word, I admit; and if indirection, trickery, and the habit of looking upon men, parties, and principles as mere stock in trade and tools of convenience are the qualifications of statecraft, then he is not a statesman. But if a thorough comprehension of the great principles of law and political economy, of all which constitutes the true honor and glory and prosperity of a people,--if the will and ability to master every question as it arises,--if entire familiarity with the history, resources, laws, and policy of other nations, derived not merely from the study of books, but from free personal intercourse with the leading minds of Europe, are essential requisites of statesmanship, then is Charles Sumner a statesman in the noblest and truest sense. Certain it is that he is so regarded by the diplomatic representatives of European nations, and that no man in the country has so entirely the confidence and esteem of all who are really our friends in the Old World.”

Horace Greeley, in an article under his own name in the New York _Independent_, and entitled, “Charles Sumner as a Statesman,” united with the Republicans of Massachusetts.

“For the first time in our political history, a party has been organized and a State ticket nominated for the sole purpose of defeating the reëlection of one who is not a State officer, and never aspired to be. Governor Andrew is regarded with a hostility intensified by the fewness of those who feel it; but the bitterness with which Mr. Sumner is hated insists on the gratification of a canvass, even though a hopeless one; and, since there was no existing party by which this could be attempted without manifest futility, one was organized for the purpose. And it was best that this should be. Let us have a census of the friends and the enemies of Mr. Sumner in the State which he has so honored.

“I have said, that, while other Senators have shared his convictions, none has seemed so emphatically, so eminently, as he to embody and represent the growing, deepening Antislavery sentiment of the country. None has seemed so invariably to realize that a public wrong is a public danger, that injustice to the humblest and weakest is peril to the well-being of all. Others have seemed to regard the recent developments of disunion and treason with surprise and alarm: he has esteemed them the bitter, but natural, fruit of the deadly tree we have so long been watering and cherishing. The profound, yet simple truth, that ‘RIGHTEOUSNESS exalteth a nation,’--that nothing else is so baleful as injustice,--that the country which gains a large accession of territory or of wealth at the cost of violating the least tittle of the canons of eternal rectitude has therein made a ruinous mistake,--that nothing else can be so important or so profitable as stern uprightness: such is the key-note of his lofty and beneficent career. May it be vouchsafed him to announce from his seat in the Senate the final overthrow of the demon he has so faithfully, so nobly resisted, and that from Greenland to Panama, from the St. John to the Pacific, the sun in his daily course looks down on no master and no slave!”

A single incident will illustrate the interest excited throughout the Commonwealth. A venerable citizen of New Bedford, seventy-nine years of age and very feeble, was assisted to the polls, saying, “Here goes a dying vote for Charles Sumner!”

The triumphant result of the election was known at once. It was declared officially on the meeting of the Legislature.

* * * * *

January 15, 1863, at twelve o’clock, each branch of the Legislature proceeded, by special assignment, to vote for a Senator to represent Massachusetts for six years from March 4th next ensuing. The vote in each branch was _vivâ voce_, the roll bring called and each member pronouncing the name of the candidate he voted for.

In the Senate, the vote was,--

Charles Sumner, of Boston 33 Josiah G. Abbott, of Boston 5 Charles Francis Adams, of Quincy 1

In the House of Representatives, the vote was,--

Charles Sumner 194 Josiah G. Abbott 38 Caleb Gushing 2 Charles Francis Adams 1

In the House there were slight manifestations of applause when the result was announced, but they were promptly checked by the Speaker.

The result was noticed by the press throughout the country. The venerable _National Intelligencer_, at Washington, which had been opposed to the principles and policies of Mr. Sumner, employed the following generous terms.

“This is the third time that this gentleman has been thus honored by the Legislature of Massachusetts. Such repeated tokens of confidence would seem sufficiently to indicate, that, whatever dissent from the views of Mr. Sumner may elsewhere exist, he is the favorite, as he is admitted by all to be the able, representative of the opinions entertained by a majority of the people of this great and influential State. And these views now predominate in the conduct of the present Administration, which may be said to have adopted, reluctantly and at a late day, the political and military policy early commended to its favor by Mr. Sumner.

“If we are not able to concur with Mr. Sumner in certain of his opinions on questions of domestic politics, it gives us only the greater pleasure to bear our cheerful and candid testimony to the enlightened judgment and peculiar qualifications he brings to the discharge of the important duties devolved on him as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate. In this capacity he has deservedly won the confidence of the whole country.”

Such testimony from a political opponent attested the change that had occurred in public policy and private feeling.

The _Tribune_ exhibited the change in yet stronger light.

“By a vote of nearly six to one, Massachusetts again declares her confidence in her long-tried Senator, and, on an issue defined with unmistakable clearness, for the third time returns him to his seat.

“The contrast between his present position and that which he held on first entering the Senate is instructive. Then an arrogant Democratic majority with unequalled effrontery declared him outside of any healthy political organization, excluded him from the Committees, denied him parliamentary courtesies, and withheld the common civilities of social intercourse and acquaintance. There were hardly three or four Senators in Congress who were in any degree identified with his opinions. He declared them none the less boldly, and his speeches for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, on the Nebraska Bill, and on the Crime against Kansas finally exasperated the slaveholding oligarchy into personal violence, and for words spoken in orderly debate he was brutally assaulted on the floor of the Senate and seriously injured. This outrage, and the enthusiastic approval with which it was received throughout the South, were largely instrumental in rousing the North to a right estimate of the system and the political power which sought such means of defence.”

The _Liberator_, by the pen of its faithful and able editor, William Lloyd Garrison, gave expression to the sentiments of those most enlisted against Slavery.

“Thus has Massachusetts nobly vindicated her name and fame as the foremost State of all the world in the cause of free institutions, and trampled beneath her feet the malignant aspersions cast upon the political reputation of her gifted Senator by the minions of a traitorous Slave Oligarchy. The vote is an overwhelming one, notwithstanding the desperate efforts of Mr. Sumner’s enemies to make his defeat a sure event. Such enemies only serve to prove his personal worth and public usefulness, and their factious and profligate character.

“Mr. Sumner’s friends in Washington proposed, last week, to give him a serenade in honor of his reëlection to the Senate; but, hearing of their intention, he declared that the compliment was not in accordance with the present condition of public affairs, and intimated that he preferred that the funds subscribed for the music should be donated to the Massachusetts Soldiers’ Relief Association, which was done.”

In Mr. Sumner’s reëlection the cause of Emancipation triumphed, and Massachusetts was fixed irrevocably on that side.

THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION OUR CORNER-STONE.

LETTER TO FELLOW-CITIZENS AT SALEM, OCTOBER 10, 1862.

BOSTON, October 10, 1862.

GENTLEMEN,--I feel flattered by your invitation, where I recognize so many excellent names, and shall be happy to take advantage of the opportunity with which you honor me.

The Emancipation Proclamation of the President, on which you ask me to speak, is now the corner-stone of our national policy. For the sake of our country, and in loyalty to our Government, it ought to have the best support of every patriot citizen, without hesitation or lukewarmness. Now is the time for earnest men.

If agreeable to you, I accept your invitation for Monday evening, 20th October.

Believe me, Gentlemen, with much respect,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

FARMERS, THEIR HAPPINESS AND LIBERAL SENTIMENTS.

SPEECH AT THE DINNER OF THE HAMPSHIRE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY, AT NORTHAMPTON, MASS., OCTOBER 14, 1862.

At the dinner which followed the cattle-show, Mr. Sumner was introduced by Hon. Erastus Hopkins, who commenced by alluding to their early days at the Boston Latin School.

“GENTLEMEN,--It is now full forty years, when at school I had a schoolmate and a classmate who in point of physical altitude and breadth, but more especially (I am no flatterer, I only speak historic truth) in point of diligence and scholarship, was _primus inter pares_,--first among equals. That boy was father of the man. He now holds the position of Senator in the Senate of the United States, with a relative eminence no less than that of his earlier days. He is the valued servant and the honored Senator of Massachusetts, whom she has hitherto delighted to honor, and whom, so long as she remains true to her cherished sentiments, to her gushing instincts, and to her memorable history, SHE WILL EVER HONOR. [_Loud applause._]

“We were told yesterday by the Rev. Dr. Huntington, in his admirable address delivered in this hall, that the farmer owed his first duty to his land,--to care for it, to fertilize it, and to beautify it. Recurring to this point, at the close of his address, he reminded the farmer that ‘duty to his land’ was susceptible of a double meaning: the one referring to the few acres of his own individual and exclusive proprietorship; the other, to that great land, that vast country, which he owned, and to which he owed duty, in common with all his fellow-citizens.

“I do not know that the honorable Senator owns, or ever did own, in separate proprietorship, any acres of land,--that he ever held the plough, or ‘drove the team a-field’; I do not know whether he intends to enlighten us with regard to the care and culture of our homesteads and our farms; but I do know that he understands the farmer’s ‘duty to his land,’ in the secondary and higher sense to which allusion has been made,--that, looking over our wide country, our rich heritage, and heritage of our fathers, he has been ever diligent and untiring in his endeavors to remove its deformities, to augment its fertility, and to crown it with beauty.

“To which department of farming the Senator will direct his remarks I know not; but, whatever his topic, I submit without fear his words of instruction and of eloquence to the ordeal of your verdict.

“I have the honor to introduce to you the Hon. CHARLES SUMNER.”

* * * * *

Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.

MR. PRESIDENT, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:--

I cannot forget the first time that I looked upon this beautiful valley, where river, meadow, and hill contribute to the charm. It was while a youth in college. With several of my classmates I made a pedestrian excursion through Massachusetts. Starting from Cambridge, we passed, by way of Sterling and Barre, to Amherst, where, arriving weary and footsore, we refreshed ourselves at the evening prayer in the College Chapel. From Amherst we walked to Northampton, and then, ascending Mount Holyoke, saw the valley of the Connecticut spread out before us, with river of silver winding through meadows of gold. It was a scene of enchantment, and time has not weakened the impression it made. From Northampton we walked to Deerfield, sleeping near Bloody Brook, and then to Greenfield, where we turned off by Coleraine through dark woods and over hills to Bennington in Vermont. The whole excursion was deeply interesting, but no part more so than your valley. Since then I have been a traveller at home and abroad, but I know no similar scene of greater beauty. I have seen the meadows of Lombardy, and those historic rivers, the Rhine and the Arno, and that stream of Charente, which Henry the Fourth called the most beautiful of France,--also those Scottish rivers so famous in legend and song, and the exquisite fields and sparkling waters of Lower Austria; but my youthful joy in the landscape which I witnessed from the neighboring hill-top has never been surpassed in any kindred scene. Other places are richer in the associations of history; but you have enough already in what Nature has done, without waiting for any further illustration.

It is a saying of Antiquity, often quoted: “Oh, too fortunate husbandmen, if they only knew their blessings!”[135] Nowhere are these words more applicable than to this neighborhood, where Nature has done so much, and where all that Nature has done is enhanced by an intelligent and liberal spirit. An eminent French writer, one of the greatest of his country, who wrote in the middle of the last century, when France was a despotism, Montesquieu, has remarked in his “Spirit of Laws,” that “countries are not cultivated in proportion to their fertility, but in proportion to their liberty.”[136] A beautiful truth. But here in this valley are both. Where is there greater fertility? where is there truer liberty?

If the farmers of our country needed anything to stimulate pride in their vocation, it would be found in the statistics furnished by the national census. That of 1860 is not yet prepared, and I go back to that of 1850. Here it appears, that, out of the whole employed population of the United States over fifteen years of age, two millions four hundred thousand, or forty-four per cent, were engaged in agricultural pursuits, while the total number engaged in commerce, trade, manufactures, mechanic arts, and mining was only one million six hundred thousand, or about thirty per cent. These figures show an immense predominance of the agricultural interest in the whole country. Of course in Massachusetts the commercial and manufacturing interests are relatively larger than in other parts of the country. But our farmers are numerous.

This same census shows, that, in 1850, the four largest staples of our country, ranking them according to their nominal value, were: Indian corn, two hundred and ninety-six million dollars; wheat, one hundred million dollars; cotton, ninety-eight million dollars; hay, ninety-six million dollars. These figures, of course, are familiar, but they are so instructive that they will bear repetition. Besides illustrating the magnitude of our agricultural interests, they shed new light on the lofty pretensions that have been made for King Cotton. There is no crown for hay, or wheat, or Indian corn, and yet two of these stand above cotton. But the whole table testifies to the power of the farmer.

From another quarter are statistics showing how agricultural pursuits favor longevity. Out of seventeen hundred persons, the average life of farmers was forty-five years; of merchants, thirty-three years; of mechanics, twenty-nine years; and of laborers, twenty-seven years. Thus length of days seems to be an agricultural product.

Gratifying as it may be to glance at agriculture in these statistics, which must arouse the pride, if not the content of the farmer, there are other aspects which to my mind are more interesting. In early days agriculture was only an art, most imperfectly developed. The plough of the ancient husbandman was little more than a pole with a stick at the end by which the earth was scratched, and other implements were of like simplicity. As for the knowledge employed, it was all of the most superficial character. But agriculture is now not only an art, in a high degree of perfection, it is also a science, with its laws and rules, as much as navigation or astronomy. There is no knowledge which will not help the farmer; especially is there no branch of science. Geography, geology, meteorology, botany, chemistry, zoölogy, and animal physiology, all contribute. Regarding agriculture in this light, we cannot fail to give the farmer a high standard of excellence. In the cultivation of the earth he practises an art and pursues a science. But human character is elevated by the standard which is followed.

There is another feature in the life of the farmer which is to me more interesting still. The farmer is patriotic and liberal. Dependent upon Nature, he learns to be independent of Man. If not less than others under the influence of local prejudices, he is at least removed from those combinations engendered by the spirit of trade. He thinks for himself, and acts for his country. I do not venture to say that he is naturally a reformer, but I think the experience of our country attests that he does not set himself against the ideas of the age.

Here Mr. Sumner dwelt on that spirit of obstructiveness which is so common, illustrating it by historic instances, and then proceeded.

I rejoice to believe that there is no such hide-bound indifference to liberal ideas among our farmers. But, just in proportion as these are numerous, intelligent, powerful, and liberal, do they constitute an arm of strength. Pardon me, if now more than ever I see them in this character. In appealing to them for the sake of our country, I make no appeal inconsistent with the proprieties of this occasion. Our country is in peril, and it must be saved. This is enough.

Under God, our country will be saved through the united energy, the well-compacted vigor of the people directed by the President of the United States. Our first duty is to stand by the President, and to hold up his hands. There must be no hesitation or timidity. If he calls for troops, he must have them. If, besides calling for troops, he enlist other agencies for the suppression of the Rebellion, he must be sustained precisely as in calling for troops.

Thus far the main dependence has been troops, to which our honored Commonwealth has made generous contributions. No part of the country has suffered more in gallant officers, youthful, gentle, and excellent in all things. This neighborhood has its story of sorrow. Amherst has buried the pure and patriotic Stearns, and only within a few days here in Northampton you have received from the field of death the brave and accomplished Baker.