Part 20

“Nor put they to their curious search an end, Till reason had scaled heaven, thence viewed this round, And Nature latent in its causes found: Why thunder does the suffering clouds assail; Why winter’s snow’s more soft than summer’s hail; Whence earthquakes come, and subterranean fires; Why showers descend; what force the wind inspires: From error thus she wondering minds uncharmed, _Unsceptred Jove, the Thunderer disarmed_.”

Enough has been said on the question of origin; but there is yet one other aspect of the story.

The verse was hardly divulged when it became the occasion of various efforts in the way of translation. Turgot had already done it into French; so had D’Alembert. M. Nogaret wrote to Franklin, inclosing an attempted translation, and says in his letter: “The French have done their best to translate this Latin verse, where justice is done you in so few words. They have appeared as jealous of transporting this eulogy into their language as they are of possessing you. But nobody has succeeded, and I think nobody will succeed.” He then quotes a translation which he thinks defective, although it appeared in the “Almanach des Muses” as the best:--

“Cet homme que tu vois, sublime en tous les tems, Dérobe aux dieux la foudre et le sceptre aux tyrans.”[279]

To this communication Dr. Franklin made the following reply.

“PASSY, 8 March, 1781.

“SIR,--I received the letter you have done me the honor of writing to me the 2d instant, wherein, after overwhelming me with a flood of compliments, which I can never hope to merit, you request my opinion of your translation of a Latin verse that has been applied to me. If I were, which I really am not, sufficiently skilled in your excellent language to be a proper judge of its poesy, the supposition of my being the subject must restrain me from giving any opinion on that line, except that it ascribes too much to me, especially in what relates to the tyrant,--the Revolution having been the work of many able and brave men, wherein it is sufficient honor for me, if I am allowed a small share. I am much obliged by the favorable sentiments you are pleased to entertain of me.…

“With regard, I have the honor to be, Sir, &c.,

“B. FRANKLIN.”[280]

In acknowledgment, M. Nogaret says: “Paris is pleased with the translation of your ‘_Eripuit_,’ and your portrait, as I had foreseen, makes the fortune of the engraver.”[281] But it does not appear to which translation he refers.

Here is an attempt preserved in the Works of Turgot:--

“Il a, par ses travaux toujours plus étonnans, Ravi la foudre aux Dieux et le sceptre aux Tyrans.”[282]

Mr. Sparks found among Franklin’s papers the following paraphrastic version:--

“Franklin sut arrêter la foudre dans les airs, Et c’est le moindre bien qu’il fit à sa patrie; Au milieu de climats divers, Où dominait la tyrannie, Il fit régner les arts, les mœurs, et le génie; Et voilà le héros que j’offre à l’univers.”[283]

Nor should I omit a translation into English by Mr. Elphinston:--

“He snatched the bolt from Heaven’s avenging hand, Disarmed and drove the tyrant from the land.”[284]

A song, by the Abbé Morellet, written for one of the dinners of Madame Helvétius, adopts, in some of its verses, the idea of Turgot.

“Comme un aigle audacieux, Il a volé jusqu’aux cieux, _Et dérobé le tonnerre_ Dont ils effrayaient la terre, Heureux larcin De l’habile Benjamin.

“L’Américain indompté _Recouvre sa liberté_; Et ce généreux ouvrage, Autre exploit de notre sage, Est mis à fin Par Louis et Benjamin.”

These verses are characteristic of that intimate circle. _L’habile Benjamin!_

Nothing with regard to Franklin is more curious than the Memoirs of the long-lived Abbé,[285] including especially the humorous engraving illustrating the benevolence of Nature in the construction of the elbow, from a design by the lightning-and-sceptre-seizer. In some copies this engraving is wanting. Franklin is represented as fond especially of Scottish airs and _chansons à boire_, which he accompanied sometimes on the harmonica, “an instrument, as is known, of his invention.” The scandalous whispers with regard to him, strangely adopted by a German traveller in our country,[286] had no better authority, probably, than these hilarities and the well-known “infatuation” of the court ladies. But the good Abbé, who saw him so freely with the friends he loved, dwells on his exquisite social qualities, his perfect good-nature, his simplicity of manners, his uprightness of soul, which made itself felt in the smallest things, his extreme tolerance, and, above all, his sweet serenity, changing easily into gayety; and he describes the great void made in that circle when he left for America.

* * * * *

In concluding this sketch, I wish to say that the literary associations of the subject did not tempt me; but I could not resist the inducement to present in proper light an interesting incident, which is truly comprehended only when seen in its political relations. Its history, even in details, becomes important, so that the verse which occupied so much attention should be recognized not only in its scholarly fascination, but in its wide-spread influence among the learned and even the fashionable in Paris and throughout France, binding this great nation by an unchangeable vow to the support of American Liberty. Words are sometimes deeds; but never were words so completely deeds as those with which Turgot welcomed Franklin. The memory of that welcome cannot be forgotten in America. Can it ever be forgotten in France?

* * * * *

And now the country is amazed by the report that the original welcome of France to America, and the inspired welcome of Turgot to Franklin, are forgotten by the France of this day, or, rather let me say, forgotten by the Emperor, whose memory for the time is the memory of France. It is said that Louis Napoleon is concerting alliance with the Rebel Slavemongers of our country, founded on the recognition of their independence, so that they may take their place as a new power in the Family of Nations. Indeed, we have been told, through the columns of the official organ, the “Moniteur,” that he wishes to do this thing. Can he imagine that he follows the great example of the last century?

What madness!

The two cases are in conspicuous contrast,--as opposite as the poles, as unlike as Liberty and Slavery.

The struggle for American independence was for Liberty, and was elevated throughout by this holy cause. But the struggle for Slavemonger independence is necessarily and plainly for Slavery, and is degraded throughout by the unutterable vileness of its undisguised pretensions.

The earlier struggle, adopted by the enlightened genius of France, was solemnly placed under the benediction of “God and Liberty.” The present struggle, happily thus far discarded by that same enlightened genius, can have no other benediction than “Satan and Slavery.”

The earlier struggle was to snatch the sceptre from a kingly tyrant. The present struggle is to put whips in the hands of Rebel Slavemongers with which _to compel work without wages_, thus giving wicked power to vulgar tyrants without number.

The earlier struggle was fitly pictured by the welcome of Turgot to Franklin. But another feeling must be found, and other words invented, to portray the struggle now seeking the protection of France.

The earlier struggle was grandly represented by Benjamin Franklin, who was already known by a sublime discovery in science. The present struggle is characteristically represented by John Slidell,[287] whose great fame is from electioneering frauds to control a Presidential election; so that his character is fitly drawn, when it is said that he thrust fraudulent votes into the ballot-box, and whips into the hands of taskmasters.

The earlier struggle was predicted by Turgot, who said, that, in the course of Nature, colonies must drop from the parent stem, like ripe fruit. But where is the Turgot who has predicted, that, in the course of Nature, the great Republic must be broken to found a new power on the corner-stone of Slavery?

The earlier struggle gathered about it the sympathy of the learned, the good, and the wise, while the people of France rose up to call it blessed. The present struggle can expect nothing but detestation from all not lost to duty and honor, while the people of France must cover it with curses.

The earlier struggle enjoyed the favor of France, whether in assemblies of learning or of fashion, in spite of its King. It remains to be seen if the present struggle must not ignobly fail in France, still mindful of its early vows, in spite of its Emperor.

Where duty and honor are so plain, it is painful to think that even for a moment there can be hesitation.

Alas for France!

VICTORY AND PEACE THROUGH EMANCIPATION.

LETTER TO COLORED CITIZENS IN NEW YORK, CELEBRATING THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE PROCLAMATION, DECEMBER 18, 1863.

WASHINGTON, December 18, 1863.

GENTLEMEN,--It is not in my power to be present at your festival in honor of the Proclamation of Emancipation. But, wherever I may be, I shall celebrate it in my heart.

That Proclamation was the key to open the gates of victory and peace. Without it victory would have been doubtful, and peace impossible. And now both are certain.

Accept my best wishes, and believe me, Gentlemen,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

THE COMMITTEE, &c.

THE MAYFLOWER AND THE SLAVE SHIP.

LETTER TO THE NEW ENGLAND SOCIETY AT NEW YORK, DECEMBER 21, 1863.

At the anniversary of the Society speeches were made by Rev. Dr. Hitchcock, Mayor Opdyke, General Dix, General Burnside, General Sickles, Senator Hale, Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, and James T. Brady, Esq. Among the letters read was one from Mr. Sumner.

SENATE CHAMBER, December 21, 1863.

MY DEAR SIR,--I had counted on partaking of your patriotic, invigorating, and gratifying festival, where New-Englanders away from home annually meet for fellowship; but the Senate is in session, and you know it is not a habit with me to leave my post. I must put off to another occasion the pleasure I had promised myself.

Never before, since the Mayflower landed its precious cargo, have New-Englanders had more reason for pride and gratulation than now. We are told that a little leaven shall leaven the whole lump, and that saying is verified. The principles and ideas which constitute the strength and glory of New England have spread against opposition and contumely, till at last their influence is visible in a regenerated country,--tried, it may be, by murderous conspiracy and rebellion, but aroused and stimulated to the manly support of Human Rights.

Amid all the sorrows of a conflict without precedent, let us hold fast to the consolation that it is in simple obedience to the spirit in which New England was founded that we are now resisting the bloody efforts to raise a wicked power on the corner-stone of Human Slavery, and that as New-Englanders we could not do otherwise.

If such a wicked power can be raised on this continent, the Mayflower traversed its wintry sea in vain.

We remember, too, that another ship crossed at the same time, buffeting the same sea. It was a Dutch ship, with twenty slaves, who were landed at Jamestown, in Virginia, and became the fatal seed of that Slavery which has threatened to overshadow the land. Thus the same ocean, in the same year, bore to the Western Continent the Pilgrim Fathers, consecrated to Human Liberty, and also a cargo of slaves. In the holds of those two ships were the germs of the present direful war, and the simple question now is between the Mayflower and the slave ship. Who that has not forgotten God can doubt the result? The Mayflower must prevail.

Believe me, with much regard, my dear Sir,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

ELLIOT C. COWDIN, Esq.

COMMUTATION FOR THE DRAFT: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RICH AND POOR.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT MOVED TO THE ENROLMENT BILL, JANUARY 8, 12, AND JUNE 20, 1864, AND FEBRUARY 7, 1865.

January 8, 1864, the Senate having under consideration a bill to amend an act entitled “An Act for enrolling and calling out the national forces and for other purposes,” approved March 3, 1863, Mr. Sumner moved an amendment, afterwards modified as follows.

“That, in addition to the substitute furnished by a drafted person, or, where no substitute is furnished, then in addition to the sum fixed by the Secretary of War for the procuration of a substitute, every such drafted person shall, before his discharge from the draft, be held to contribute a certain proportion, in the nature of a tithe, of his annual gains, profits, or income, whether derived from any kind of property, dividends, salary, or from any profession, trade, or employment whatever, according to the following rates, to wit: on all income over one thousand dollars and not over two thousand dollars, five per centum; over two thousand dollars and not over five thousand dollars, ten per centum; and on all income over five thousand dollars, twenty per centum. And it shall be the duty of every such person, seeking to be discharged, to make return, either by himself or his guardian, to the provost-marshal of his district, of the amount of his income, according to the requirements of the Act to provide internal revenue, of July 1, 1862. And it is further provided, That the contribution thus made shall be employed by the Secretary of War, in his discretion, to promote enlistments, or for the benefit of enlisted men.”

January 8th, Mr. Sumner explained his amendment, remarking as follows.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I presume that I do not exaggerate, if I say, that, of all the questions connected with this bill, that relating to commutation for service is the most difficult and the most sensitive. It is the question which has most occupied the attention of the country. It has been most discussed in the newspapers, and also in conversation. I presume it is the ground of objection most often made against the draft.

Now I think all Senators will unite in any proposition that promises in any way to smooth these difficulties,--in short, to popularize a part of the bill which has been open to so much objection among the people.

January 12th, in the course of debate, Mr. Sumner replied to Mr. Sherman, of Ohio.

The Senator from Ohio, not contenting himself with opposing the amendment, introduced other and extraneous matter, which has been under discussion since, diverting our minds from the original proposition. But if I can have his attention for a few minutes, it seems to me--I do not know--- I may even satisfy him that his argument was not well founded.

If I understand the Senator, he objects to my proposition on the ground, in the first place, that it is an unusual tax. Sir, what is the draft but a tax? The draft compels all persons drafted to contribute strength, muscle, life, to the defence of the Republic. That, if I am not mistaken, is the highest tax the country can impose. But, still further, what is the commutation which the statute positively requires but a tax? If, then, there be anything in the argument of the Senator, both the draft itself and the commutation of three hundred dollars are a tax, and both are therefore objectionable. But neither the one nor the other is a tax in a received sense, because neither the one nor the other is an imposition for revenue; and I ask the attention of the Senator to the distinction, neither the one nor the other is an imposition for revenue. Not on any such ground do I present this amendment, but simply and distinctly on the duty of equalizing this burden, that it shall bear, so far as we can make it, with something like equality upon the rich and the poor. Now I have to say that at present the burden is not equalized, and that it does not bear with anything like equality upon the rich and the poor. You make the poor man pay three hundred dollars; but the rich man pays no more. Is this equality?

But the Senator went further. Not satisfied with objecting to the amendment on the ground that it was a tax, he complained that it was an exorbitant tax, and asked me whether in all history I could point to any instance of a tax of thirty per cent on income. It seems to me that it should be the pride of our country, at this moment and on an occasion like this, that it is not to be deterred by history from an endeavor to equalize a burden upon the rich and the poor. Because other nations have not undertaken to equalize this burden, is that a reason why we should not set the example? But is the tax exorbitant? I will read it.

“On all income over six hundred dollars and not over two thousand dollars, ten per cent; over two thousand dollars and not over five thousand dollars, twenty per cent; and on all income over five thousand dollars, thirty per cent.”[288]

Now the Senator complains of the thirty per cent, that is, thirty per cent on an income over five thousand dollars. Suppose a person drafted with an income over five thousand dollars, I put it to the Senator, what sum would be too great for him to pay for exemption, carrying with it, as the draft does, exposure to death, disease, wounds, with the absolute consumption of time during the period of one, two, or three years, according to the duration of the service? Is thirty per cent on an income above five thousand dollars too much for the exemption? Is it exorbitant? Is that the estimate the Senator puts upon such exposure? He requires three hundred dollars from the poor man who has no income, but he thinks it exorbitant to require thirty per cent on an income over five thousand dollars. Sir, I do not think that even in the requirement of this amendment there is equality. If any objection can be brought forward, it is that it is too lenient, that it does not go far enough.

I am sure, eminent as the Senator is, and justly representing his own State, that he does not represent on this question every citizen of that State. I have in my hand a letter, received since this amendment was first mentioned, from a most respectable citizen of Cincinnati, and with your permission I will read three or four sentences from it. I read simply to show how this proposition strikes citizens at a distance, yet having the same interest in it that we have.

“Permit a stranger to address a few words to you, expressive of approbation of your bill”--

He calls it a bill, when it is only an amendment.

--“providing for a revision of the Enrolment Act, so as to afford a sliding scale of commutation for the draft, the object being to rate commutation according to the means of the drafted individual. I quote from telegrams of this morning’s news. In my humble opinion you have hit the nail on the head. I think this is the only method to equalize the burden, and satisfy all claims for justice and equitable dealing. When any fixed sum is indicated as the commutation fee to exempt from actual military duty, it needs but little reflection to see that it indirectly imposes a premium upon property while it taxes the poor.”

Then he goes on to suppose a case, somewhat at length, quite elaborately indeed, between two citizens of Cincinnati, neighbors, whom he minutely describes, and finally winds up that part of his communication by saying,--

“Suppose the latter person [whom he calls John Smith] is drafted. Why, three hundred dollars is no more to him than a three-penny loaf to the other person. Am I not right, that a fixed sum for exemption imposes a tax upon honest poverty and a premium upon wealth?”

This intelligent constituent of the Senator objects to his whole theory as a tax upon honest poverty and a premium upon wealth. The Senator opposes my amendment as a tax upon wealth. Call it, if you please, a tax upon wealth. The time has come when it should be levied. But I put aside such language. I put aside the idea, except in the general sense, that the draft itself is a tax, and the amendment simply aims to equalize that tax.

The amendment was lost,--Yeas 15, Nays 25.

* * * * *

January 15th, Mr. Sumner moved his amendment as an additional section. Again it was lost,--Yeas 16, Nays 28.

* * * * *

June 20th, the Senate having under consideration a bill to prohibit the discharge of persons from liability to military duty by reason of the payment of money, Mr. Sumner moved again the former amendment, with the further proviso:--

“That the contributions thus made shall be employed by the Secretary of War as a fund for bounties to be paid to the men actually drafted and mustered into the service under any call subsequent to the date of this Act, whenever they shall be honorably discharged, or, in the case of death, to the widow and minor children of any such man, according to rules and regulations established by the War Department.”

Mr. Sumner again vindicated his amendment. In the course of his remarks, he said:--

When a citizen is drafted as a soldier, and the question arises of his ransom by a pecuniary contribution, there is no element of equity which is not shocked, so my conscience tells me, if you fail to regulate the requirement of money according to the wealth of the individual. What is there which a man will not give for his life? What is there which a man, having the means, and indisposed to military exposure, will not pay for his exemption? And yet, Sir, by the law as it now stands, you compel the poor to pay the same as the rich. The rich man is drafted, and he pays three hundred dollars, which to him is nothing; he puts his hand into his purse, as you put yours into your pocket to find the change for a newspaper; whereas the poor man, perhaps, is driven to sell all that he has to save himself for his family. Sir, is that just? To my mind it is not.

…

Suppose the Senator himself were drafted; indisposed, as he probably would be, to the toils of war, what is there that he would not consent to pay for exemption? To him, under such circumstances, the required amount would be nothing; and yet to the poor man it is everything. In short, there are many who have it not; and there are many, who, by calling upon their friends, and exhausting every resource within their reach, are not able to command that small sum; others, perhaps, just able to command it, are compelled to burden their families and deny comfort to wife and child.