Part 15

“Thanks!--hearty, cordial, continued thanks!--for your brave and persistent opposition to Louisiana.

“There is a very much larger share of the community who will sustain you than at first thought may be supposed.

“The idea of negro suffrage in the disloyal States grows daily in favor and advocacy among business men.”

William S. Robinson, the journalist, known as “Warrington,” wrote:--

“I cannot sit down to my work this morning, albeit pressed for time, without giving you the homage of my sincere admiration and respect for killing Louisiana, at least _pro tempore_. Thanks! thanks! thanks!”

General William L. Burt, afterwards Postmaster of Boston, who had served in Louisiana during the Rebellion, wrote:--

“I congratulate you upon your defeat of the Louisiana Bill. Your action was not only justifiable, but commendable,--doubly so in view of the fact of your concession upon the Reconstruction Bill.… The complaints made by the Administration, or its friends, of the means you took to prevent the fraud upon you and the people, are a compliment, first, to your sagacity, and, secondly, to your skill and ability. You will be vindicated a hundred times before December.”

Colonel Albert J. Wright, having great influence in the local politics of Boston, wrote:--

“Something must be done in Boston. Some of your admiring friends here, who at first, in the midst of the muddle of telegraphic despatches, had some misgivings in regard to your action on ‘Reconstruction’ questions before the Senate, have had their eyes opened, and now feel that you have rendered a great service to the country in battling manfully for the rights of humanity,--that you have done right, and saved us from a new disaster. Of course we must have a great meeting at the Music Hall, and give you an ovation: nothing less will satisfy us.”

F. B. Sanborn wrote from Concord, Massachusetts:--

“Allow me to add my congratulations to those of your other friends on your successful opposition to the Louisiana scheme of Reconstruction. I look upon you as the real destroyer of that fine web of intrigue and absurdity so carefully spun.”

Henry O. Stone wrote from Framingham, Massachusetts:--

“Although an humble and obscure individual, I cannot refrain from thanking you for your persistent resistance to the admission into Congress of the Louisiana claimants. I feel as if you ought to have personal acknowledgment from every one in Massachusetts who can appreciate your just and patriotic motives and wise statesmanship. I know you will be accused of factious opposition to the Administration and the President; but there are those who believe your opposition comes from a desire to do justice, not only to the blacks, but to the poor whites, and to establish the Government upon the only permanent and safe foundation on true democratic principles.”

Hon. Adin Thayer wrote from Worcester:--

“I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your heroic and successful opposition to the Louisiana fraud. Nothing you have ever done better deserves the gratitude of the country and of mankind.”

Elizur Wright, one of our earliest Abolitionists, wrote from Boston:--

“Your keeping out the _sham_ State of Louisiana is worth, in my estimation, any three average military victories. I would give the United States Treasury half I am worth to have Congress, the next thing it does on the subject, decide black suffrage as the ‘inexorable condition’ of readmission.”

Rev. A. P. Marvin wrote from Winchendon, Massachusetts:--

“I have just risen from reading in the telegraphic despatch of the noble stand made by you in the Senate last night, by which the admission of Louisiana is staved off for the present. I have often fervently thanked God that you were in your present position, and enabled to do so much to prevent evil and accomplish good,--but never more earnestly than now. I know it must be hard to withstand so many of the supporters of the Administration, but the battle _must_ be fought on the very question involved in this measure. It will not only be wicked and infamous, but suicidal, for us to let the greater part of the rank and file of the Rebels come back and be voters, while we exclude our colored countrymen. I hope strength will be given to you, according to your day; as to your zeal, courage, ability, and prudence, nothing is wanting.”

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

“I have just been reading, with my wife, some account of your course on the Louisiana question; and we can’t help sending you our thanks for your persistent efforts to avert the very possible evils likely to come from a wrong decision in this case. God grant you success in preventing here a precedent that _may_ lead to irretrievable mischief!”

Rev. George B. Cheever, the constant Abolitionist, wrote from New York:--

“Permit me the pleasure of congratulating you on the firm and noble stand you are maintaining in the Senate for the rights of loyal men in Louisiana, irrespective of color, and for the prerogative of Congress, as well as its obligation, to settle the government of that State as a republican government. Your efforts are so much the more admirable and important as they are opposed by mistaken Senators, such as Trumbull and Doolittle, and by some of our editors, as of the _Times_. The heart of the country goes with you, not with your opponents. It would be a terrible disaster to have the precedent set of a State readmitted to the Union with the sacrifice of the rights of the blacks. Your resolutions of Saturday, as well as the amendment you proposed, were admirable. The victory will be worth everything, if you can carry something of that kind.”

A. P. Hayden wrote from New York:--

“I cannot let this opportunity pass of thanking you for the manner in which you have stood by the colored people of Louisiana,--almost the only out-and-out Loyalists of that State. I agree with you that any settlement of the question that will not put the ballot into their hands will create mischief that will take a long time to remedy. When I read in this morning’s _Tribune_ of the vote to postpone the Louisiana matter until December, I felt as if a great moral as well as political battle had been won by our side.”

Dr. J. B. Smith, giving expression to the feelings of colored citizens in a letter from Boston, said:--

“I know of no words of any language adequate to convey to you the gratitude I feel in my inmost soul towards you for your efforts and final success in defeating the bill for the readmission of Louisiana as a State into the Union, with the present flagrantly unjust and proscriptive laws and Constitution. _The white people of this country have been so accustomed to regard and treat us as their natural inferiors_, that we dread the very thought of submitting to them the adjustment of our rights after their own are made secure. What is not gained for us now will not be obtained for a quarter of a century after peace is declared.”

Frederick Douglass, the watchful orator of his race, wrote from Rochester, New York:--

“The friends of Freedom all over the country have looked to you, and confided in you, of all men in the United States Senate, during all this terrible war. They will look to you all the more, now that peace dawns, and the final settlement of our national troubles is at hand. God grant you strength equal to your day and your duties! is my prayer and that of millions.”

In harmony with these expressions, the following resolution was adopted unanimously by the Worcester Freedom Club, and communicated to Mr. Sumner:--

“_Resolved_, That the ‘Worcester Freedom Club’ tenders to the Hon. Charles Sumner their gratitude as freemen, for the able manner in which he met the question for the admission of Louisiana, and for his noble defence of the ‘Equality of all men before the Law.’”

Evidently Mr. Sumner was not alone. The right of colored fellow-citizens was recognized as next in order for discussion and judgment. The Antislavery fires were flaming forth anew.

GUARANTY OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENTS IN THE REBEL STATES.

RESOLUTIONS IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 25, 1865.

While the resolution recognizing the existing State government of Louisiana was under consideration, Mr. Sumner introduced the following resolutions, which, on his motion, were ordered to be printed. He gave notice that at the proper time he should move them as a substitute for the pending resolution. But before the proper time the Louisiana resolution was postponed, and it fell with the session.

Resolutions declaring the duty of the United States to guaranty Republican Governments in the Rebel States, on the basis of the Declaration of Independence; so that the new Governments shall be founded on the consent of the governed, and the Equality of all persons before the Law.

_Resolved_, That it is the duty of the United States, by Act of Congress, at the earliest practicable moment consistent with the common defence and the general welfare, to reëstablish republican governments in those States where loyal governments have been vacated by the existing Rebellion, and thus, to the full extent of their power, fulfil the requirement of the Constitution, that “the United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government.”

2. That this important duty is positively imposed by the Constitution on “the United States,” and not on individuals or classes of individuals, or on any military commander or executive officer, and cannot be intrusted to any such persons, acting, it may be, for an oligarchical class, and in disregard of large numbers of loyal people; but it must be performed by the United States, represented by the President and both Houses of Congress, acting for the whole people.

3. That, in determining the extent of this duty, and in the absence of any precise definition of the term “republican in form,” we cannot err, if, when called to perform this guaranty, we adopt the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence as an authoritative rule, and insist that in every reëstablished State the consent of the governed shall be the only just foundation of government, and all persons shall be equal before the law.

4. That, outside the Declaration of Independence, it is plain that any duty imposed by the Constitution must be performed in conformity with justice and reason, and in the light of existing facts; that therefore, in the performance of this guaranty, there can be no power under the Constitution to disfranchise loyal people, or to recognize any such disfranchisement, especially when it may hand over the loyal majority to the government of the disloyal minority; nor can there be any power under the Constitution to discriminate in favor of the Rebellion by admitting to the electoral franchise Rebels who have forfeited all rights, and excluding loyal persons who have never forfeited any right.

5. That the United States, now at a crisis of history called to perform this guaranty, will fail in duty under the Constitution, should they allow the reëstablishment of any State without proper safeguards for the rights of all the citizens, and especially without making it impossible for Rebels in arms against the National Government to trample upon the rights of those fighting the battles of the Union.

6. That the path of justice is also the path of peace, and that for the sake of peace it is better to obey the Constitution, and, in conformity with the guaranty, to reëstablish State governments on the consent of the governed, and the equality of all persons before the law, to the end that the foundations may be permanent, and that no loyal majorities may be again overthrown or ruled by any oligarchical class.

7. That a government founded on military power, or having its origin in military orders, cannot be “republican in form,” according to the requirement of the Constitution; and that its recognition will be contrary, not only to the Constitution, but also to that essential principle of our Government which, in the language of Jefferson, establishes “the supremacy of the civil over the military authority.”[180]

8. That, in the States whose governments have already been vacated, a government founded on an oligarchical class, even if erroneously recognized as “republican in form” under the guaranty of the Constitution, cannot sustain itself securely without national support; that such an oligarchical government is not competent at this moment to discharge the duties and execute the powers of a State; and that its recognition as a legitimate government will tend to enfeeble the Union, to postpone the day of reconciliation, and to endanger the national tranquillity.

9. That considerations of expediency are in harmony with the requirements of the Constitution and the dictates of justice and reason, especially now, when colored soldiers have shown their military value; that, as their muskets are needed for the national defence against Rebels in the field, so are their ballots yet more needed against the subtle enemies of the Union at home; and that without their support at the ballot-box the cause of human rights and of the Union itself will be in constant peril.

NO PICTURE AT THE CAPITOL OF VICTORY OVER FELLOW-CITIZENS.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON JOINT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH WILLIAM H. POWELL, FEBRUARY 27, 1865.

February 27th, the Senate having under consideration a joint resolution from the House of Representatives, authorizing a contract with William H. Powell for a picture at the Capitol, not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars in amount, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I am sorry that my friend from Vermont [Mr. COLLAMER] feels obliged to press this proposition. I do not like to vote against it. Still more, I am reluctant to speak against it. But, satisfied as I am, after careful reflection, that it ought not to pass, I shall express briefly the grounds of my opposition. When it was called up the other day, I ventured to say that I did not think this the time for us to enter upon the patronage of art. Of course such patronage is beautiful and most tempting. It may seem ungracious to arrest it; but I submit confidently, that at this moment, with the national debt accumulating at the rate of millions a day, with brave soldiers still unpaid, with a drain upon our resources at every point, it is not advisable to enter upon the patronage of art, beautiful and most tempting as it is.

There is much to be done to complete the National Capitol in all its parts. Let the work proceed, until the sublime structure stands forth worthy in everything of the destinies it enshrines. But I think we may hesitate at this time to enter upon any ornamentation not essential to the work. If you order one costly picture, you will be called to order another; and where will this expenditure stop? Better wait for the days of peace, soon to come, I trust, when your means will be greater, and you will approach the question in a calmer mood.

Thus far I have said nothing of the artist. But the vote proposed selects one artist for especial honor, and leaves all others unnoticed. It is like a vote of thanks to an officer in the army or navy. Are the merits of this artist so peculiar and commanding that he should be taken and all others left? I doubt. At least, I know that there are other artists in the country who deserve well of those who assume the patronage of art. Are you ready, in this off-hand way, without inquiry, without even hearing their names, to discriminate against them all? I put these questions in no spirit of criticism, and certainly in no unkindness to the artist, for whom, let me say, I have a sincere regard. There is already one picture by him in the Capitol. A second would be more than enough.

Then, again, are you sure that the subject selected at the present time would be such as a maturer and more chastened taste could approve? This is a period of war. We are all under its influence. But I doubt if it be desirable to keep before us any picture of war, especially of a war with fellow-citizens. There are moral triumphs to which art may better lend its charms. I need only refer to the Proclamation of Emancipation, which belongs to the great events of history.

I send to the Chair an amendment, to come in at the end of the resolution:--

“_Provided_, That in the National Capitol, dedicated to the National Union, there shall be no picture of a victory in battle with our own fellow-citizens.”

* * * * *

In the debate that ensued, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, said: “I rise more especially to say that I disagree with my colleague altogether in the proposition that no work of art shall grace the Capitol of this country that represents anything of the present war of a military or naval character. I do not believe in that doctrine.” Mr. Howe, of Wisconsin, said: “If there were any one proposition which could make the original resolution more distasteful to me than it is in itself, it would be the proviso moved by the Senator from Massachusetts.”

February 28th, the amendment of Mr. Sumner was rejected without a division.

Mr. Sumner then offered another:--

“_Provided_, That no contract shall be made, until after a competition among the artists of the country, all of whom shall have an opportunity of offering themselves as candidates, and of exhibiting designs for the proposed picture; and the committee shall postpone any contract with Mr. Powell, until they shall be satisfied, after such competition, that he is the most meritorious artist.”

This also was lost,--Yeas 15, Nays 23,--as also another amendment, to purchase of F. B. Carpenter his picture of “The Emancipation Proclamation,” instead of a picture from Mr. Powell, for which there were only two votes. The resolution was then passed.

* * * * *

Among those who expressed sympathy with Mr. Sumner on this occasion was General Robert Anderson, who commanded at Fort Sumter. He wrote:--

“I am glad to see that you, like myself, are looking forward to the time when this Rebellion shall end, and do not wish to see perpetuated, on canvas or in marble, a trace of its having existed.”[181]

FREE SCHOOLS AND FREE BOOKS.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE ACT, MAKING BOOKS FREE, FEBRUARY 27, 1865.

February 27th, the Senate had under consideration a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Act, by striking out of the clause relating to printed books the word “magazines,” and by inserting after the word “newspapers” the words “and periodical magazines,” so that it would read: “On all printed books, pamphlets, reviews, and all other similar printed books, except newspapers and periodical magazines, a duty of five per cent ad valorem.” In commenting on this proposition and another adopted by the House, Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, remarked: “I almost became a convert to the idea of the Senator from Massachusetts, and that it would be better to strike out the whole clause, rather than to attempt to make these discriminations and qualifications and exceptions.” Mr. Sumner followed.

I am very glad to hear the Senator from Ohio say that he had become almost a convert to the idea of removing all tax on books. He reminded me of a certain person who was “almost persuaded to be a Christian.” I think it would be better for the Senator, had he become a complete convert. I am sure his influence would be better for the country.

I speak from no motive of self, and from no personal interest whatever, but from a profound conviction that for the best interests of the country there should be no tax on books. What you can extort out of this tax, in any event, is very small; and it is always a tax on knowledge. Look at it as you will, to that complexion it comes at last. I do not think it worth while for Congress to adopt such a tax. It is the boast of our institutions that they stand upon the intelligence of the people, and it is a further boast that we supply education for all at the public cost; but books are indispensable in this benefaction. Every tax upon books, therefore, is an impediment to that education which is the pride of our country. Plainly it is inconsistent with the genius of our institutions. The result of this tax will be petty, but, to the extent of its influence, prejudicial.

Mr. Sumner moved to strike out the whole clause. Then, in reply to Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, he remarked:--

The Senator from New Hampshire does not quite like to tax the Bible. Sir, I do not like to tax it. My proposition is broader than his; but he knows very well that the real signification of _Bible_ is _book_.

MR. CLARK. Not in our language.

MR. SUMNER. I do not know about that. The Senator does plead, however, for the manufacturer of the shirt, whose shop is by the side of the bookseller; but the difference between the two cases is, as I have indicated: that, if you tax the book, you tax knowledge; if you tax the shirt, you but tax one of the general manufactures of the country. The distinction may not be accepted by all; and yet to my mind it is perfectly clear. You cannot tax a book without taxing knowledge. But it is said there are books that might very well be taxed out of existence. Where run the line? How make the discrimination? The trouble is more than it is worth. Better, therefore, have no such tax than run any such line or make any such discrimination. A book is a book; and there should be no tax on a book.

Afterwards, in reply to Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, he remarked:--

I have only one word in reply to the learned Senator from Maryland. He does not regard a tax on books as a tax on knowledge. Pray, then, what is such a tax? I can imagine no tax more directly on knowledge. If the Senator can, I should like to have him indicate it. Possibly he can. I believe he cannot. If we repair to the experience of other countries, we find that books are not taxed. In England, where taxation is carried to the farthest point, we know that books are not taxed. We know, also, that, after long and protracted struggle, only during this last year was the last tax on knowledge overthrown, being the paper duty. And yet, Sir, Senators would take up the cast-off taxes of Great Britain, and do even worse. Great Britain has taxed paper, has imposed a stamp-tax also on newspapers, all of which have been latterly removed; but I am not aware that this taxing nation has imposed a tax upon books. And shall our Republic, founded on knowledge, whose duty and mission are to make knowledge cheap, impose, for the first time, a tax on books?