Part 27

As a faithful reader of the “Evening Post” for many years, I have perused your article insisting that all present effort for guaranties of national security and national faith must be postponed, in order to obtain the ratification of the Constitutional Amendment by which slavery is abolished throughout the United States. If the Constitutional Amendment were not already ratified by the requisite number of States, I should doubt if even this most desirable object could be a sufficient excuse for leaving the national freedman and the national creditor exposed to peril, when exertions now can save them. But allow me to inquire if you do not forget, that, according to usage of the National Government in analogous cases, this Amendment has been already ratified by the requisite number of States, so that at this moment it is valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution? There was a butcher once who looked everywhere for his knife, forgetting that he held it between his teeth; there also was the good Dr. Dove, who was in love without knowing it; and you have laughed, I am sure, at the story told by Southey to illustrate this condition, where the traveller, asking how far it was to a place called “The Pan,” was answered directly, “You be in the Pan now.” It seems to me, that, like the traveller, the doctor, and the butcher, you already have what you desire; so that, even according to your programme, the way is clear for insisting upon those other things embraced under “Security for the Future.”

The Constitution of the United States decides that “the Congress, whenever _two thirds of both Houses_ shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, … which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by _the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States_.” On these words the simple question arises, What constitutes the quorum?

But the usage of the National Government in analogous cases has determined that the quorum is founded on the States _actually participating in the Government_. This has been decided in both Houses of Congress. The House of Representatives led the way in fixing its quorum _according to actual representation_, or, in other words, at “a majority of the members chosen.”[253] The Senate, after careful consideration and protracted debate, followed in establishing a similar rule.[254] The Constitutional Amendment was adopted by both houses _organized according to this rule_. The national debt has been sanctioned by both houses _thus organized_. Treaties also with foreign powers have been sanctioned in the Senate _thus organized_.

Applying this rule, the quorum of States requisite for the ratification of the Constitutional Amendment is plainly three fourths of the States _actually participating in the Government_, or, in other words, three fourths of the States having “Legislatures.” Where a State has no Legislature, it may be still a State, but it cannot be practically counted in the organization of Congress; and I submit that the same rule must prevail in the ratification of the Constitutional Amendment. The reason of the rule is the same in each case. If you insist upon counting a rebel State, having no Legislature, you make a concession to rebellion. You concede to a mutinous State the power to arrest, it may be, the organization of Congress, or, it may be, amendments to the Constitution important to the general welfare. This is not reasonable. Therefore, on grounds of reason as well as usage, I prefer the accepted rule.

If this conclusion needed the support of authority, it would find it in the declared opinion of one of our best law-writers, who is cited with respect in all the courts of the country. I refer to Mr. Bishop, who, in the third edition of his “Commentaries on the Criminal Law,” published within a few days, discusses this question at length. In the course of his remarks he uses the following language: “If the matter were one relating to any other subject than Slavery, no legal person would ever doubt, that, when there are States with Legislatures and States without Legislatures, and the Constitution submits a question to the determination of ‘the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,’ the meaning is, three fourths of the States which have Legislatures. In fact, it does not require either legal wisdom or legal acumen to see this, provided we look at the point disconnected from the peculiar subject of Slavery.”[255] The learned author then proceeds to illustrate this statement in a manner to which I can see no answer.

To my mind all this seems so plain that I am disposed to ask pardon for arguing it. Of course there is no question whether a State is _in_ the Union or _out of_ the Union. It is enough that it is without a Legislature, and on this point there can be no question. Being without a Legislature, it cannot be counted in determining the quorum.

Therefore, beyond all dispute, the Constitutional Amendment has been already ratified by the requisite number of States; so that Slavery is now constitutionally abolished twice,--first, by the Proclamation of President Lincoln, under the war powers of the National Constitution; and, secondly, by Constitutional Amendment. It remains that we should provide supplementary safeguards, and complete the good work that has been begun, by taking care that Slavery is abolished in spirit as well as letter, and that the freedmen are protected by further needed guaranties. Without this additional provision, I see small prospect of that peace and reconciliation which are the object so near our hearts.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

BOSTON, 28th September, 1865.

SELF-SACRIFICE FOR THE COLORED RACE. EQUESTRIAN STATUE OF COLONEL SHAW, FIRST COMMANDER OF MASSACHUSETTS COLORED TROOPS.

ARTICLE IN THE BOSTON DAILY ADVERTISER, OCTOBER 2, 1865.

The two colored regiments enlisted, equipped, and sent forth by Massachusetts have returned home and been mustered out. Officers and privates are now dispersed. The last music has died away. Of these two famous regiments, which made such a mark on the times, nothing now remains but the memory. This cannot die; for it belongs to the history of a race. But all who went have not returned. The youthful hero, so gentle and true, who was selected by the Governor to command the Fifty-Fourth Regiment, fell at the head of his men on the very parapets of the Rebel enemy, and was buried in the sand with his humble companions in arms,--thus in death, as in life, sharing their fortunes. Family, parents, wife, were left to mourn. As was said of “Bonnie George Campbell,” in the beautiful Scotch ballad,--

“Hame cam’ his gude horse, But never cam’ he.”

Few who were in Boston at the time can forget that pleasant day in May, when this colored regiment, with Colonel Shaw riding proudly at its head, passed by the State-House, where it had been equipped and inspired. Cheers and the waving of handkerchiefs greeted it. There were tears also. It was a joyous and a sad sight to see this new legion, acquired to the national service, promptly marching to its distant and perilous duty, under a commander who, turning away from the blandishments of life, consecrates himself to his country. Nor was another consecration forgotten. It was to the redemption of a race. Massachusetts had sent forth many brave regiments; but here was the first regiment of colored soldiers marshalled at the North. It was an experiment, destined to be an epoch. By the success of this regiment a whole race was elevated. As he went forth, it became less an incident of war than an act of magnanimity and moral grandeur. Sidney, who refused the cup of cold water, was one of our young hero’s predecessors.

Not long after came tidings of the bloody assault on Fort Wagner, when, by an advance without parallel over an open beach, exposed to a storm of shot and shell, these new-made soldiers of a despised color, sleepless, dinnerless, supperless, vindicated their title as bravest of the brave. They had done what no other troops had done during the war. This was their Bunker Hill, and Shaw was their martyred Warren. Though defeated, they were yet victorious. The regiment was driven back; but the cause was advanced. The country learned to know colored troops, and they learned to know themselves. From that day of conflict nobody doubted their capacity or courage as soldiers. There was sorrow in Massachusetts as we were told how many had fallen, and that the beloved officer so recently admired in our streets was sleeping in an unknown grave; but even this sorrow did not blind an intelligent people to the magnitude of the event. Grief was chastened by honest pride. Swelling hearts were soothed by the thought that much had been done for humanity.

A desire arose at once for a monument to commemorate alike the hero and the event. But the Rebellion was then raging. It was no time for monuments. At last, with the overthrow of the Rebel arms, the time seems to have arrived. The youthful commander still sleeps with his comrades in death. There let him sleep. Westminster Abbey has no resting-place more honorable. But his patriotic sacrifice and the great event deserve commemoration, as well for gratitude as for example. Some propose a monument on the spot where he fell. This may be made; but it can be only a mound or pile of stones, to be seen by ships as they enter the harbor of Charleston. This is not enough. It will not tell the whole story.

The monument should be in Massachusetts, where the hero was born, and where the regiment was also born. Each belonged to Massachusetts,--the martyr by double title: first, as he drew his breath here, and, secondly, as he commanded this regiment of Massachusetts. Let the monument be here. Of course, no common stone or shaft will be sufficient. It must be of bronze. It must be an equestrian statue. And there is a place for it. Let it stand on one of the stone terraces of the steps ascending from Beacon Street to the State-House. It was in the State-House that the regiment was equipped and inspired. It was from the State-House that the devoted commander rode to death. Let future generations, as long as bronze shall endure, look upon him there riding always, and be taught by his example to succor the oppressed and to surrender life for duty. Especially let legislators of Massachusetts, by daily sight of the symbolic statue, be gratefully led to constant support of the cause for which he died. Here is a theme for Art, and its elements are youth, beauty, self-sacrifice, death, and a great cause.

On the Continent of Europe, by general usage, only members of a royal family are allowed the honor of an equestrian statue. In the unequalled monument by Rauch, at Berlin, the royal Fritz is mounted, but his generals are about him standing. Near by is Blücher, who was prince and marshal, also standing. In England there are equestrian statues of kings, and of the Duke of Wellington. But this is no reason why a grateful people should not decree an equestrian statue to a youthful hero, whose duty was on horseback, and who was last seen in our streets on horseback. As an American citizen he belonged to our sovereignty, and we fitly celebrate him with the highest honors. Few belonging to any royal family have so good a title. In the Republics of Italy, during the early ages, when royalty did not exist, there were equestrian statues. The first of these in merit, and one of the first in time, was the renowned statue in bronze of the _condottiere_ Bartolommeo Coleoni, who, after a lapse of centuries, is still admired as he rides bravely in a public square of Venice, while the artist has secured the immortality of his own name by engraving it upon the girth of the saddle. It is sometimes said, on doubtful authority, that this early chieftain was the first to mount cannon on wheels, so that they could be used in the field. But our chieftain did more than mount cannon, and the triumphant experiment with which his name is linked surpasses far anything in the life of an Italian trooper. His act was above any triumph of battle. It was a victory of ideas, and belongs to the sacred history of Humanity.

Let the monument be made. Boston has a sculptor without a superior among living artists, whose soul and genius would be in the work. Already a colored person, well known among us, with a heart full of gratitude, has subscribed five hundred dollars. Other colored persons are contributing in smaller sums, according to their means. They properly lead now in tribute to him who died in leading them. But others of ampler means must see that this generous effort does not fail. I should not suggest this, if I thought that I should take away from other things deserving aid. The present charity is so peculiar, that it appeals equally to all who are moved by patriotism, by gratitude, by sympathy, or by Art.

This article was followed by a public meeting in the Council Chamber of the State-House, at the invitation of Governor Andrew, to consider the proposition of an equestrian statue in honor of Colonel Shaw. The following committee was appointed to collect subscriptions and superintend the erection of the statue: John A. Andrew, Charles Sumner, Joshua B. Smith, Charles R. Codman, Samuel G. Howe, Robert B. Storer, Frederick W. Lincoln, Jr., James L. Little, William W. Clapp, Jr., Charles Beck, Rev. Leonard A. Grimes, Peleg W. Chandler, William G. Weld, Edward Atkinson, Charles W. Slack, Robert E. Apthorp, Henry Lee, Jr., Edward W. Kinsley, George B. Loring, LeBaron Russell, Henry I. Bowditch.

At a meeting of this committee, Charles Sumner, Samuel G. Howe, Charles Beck, George B. Loring, LeBaron Russell, Henry I. Bowditch, and Charles R. Codman were appointed a sub-committee to select an artist, to contract with him, to secure a proper place for the statue, and to superintend its erection.

THE LATE RICHARD COBDEN.

LETTER TO MRS. COBDEN, COVERING RESOLUTIONS OF THE REPUBLICAN STATE CONVENTION OF MASSACHUSETTS, OCTOBER 5, 1865.

The letter of Mr. Sumner first appeared in the London papers.

BOSTON, October 5, 1865.

MY DEAR MADAM,--I have been charged by the State Convention of the Republicans of Massachusetts, over which I had the honor of presiding, to communicate to you resolutions unanimously adopted by them, expressing their grateful regard for the memory of your late husband, and their sympathy in your bereavement.[256]

Knowing Mr. Cobden personally, as I did for many years, and corresponding with him on public questions, I confess a sense of personal loss beyond even that of my fellow-citizens. He was the good friend of my country, and he was my own private friend. Therefore, in making this communication, I desire to express my own individual grief.

His lamented death has caused a chasm not only in his own home and country, but here in the United States. We all miss him and mourn him. He was a wise and good man. An Englishman by birth, his heart and all his faculties were given to mankind, knowing well that the welfare and true glory of his own great country were best assured by such a dedication.

Hoping that you may be consoled in your sorrow, and that your children may be blessed in life, I ask you to accept the respect with which I have the honor to be, dear Madam,

Your very faithful servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

The following reply was received from Mrs. Cobden.

DUNFORD, MIDHURST, December 27, 1865.

MY DEAR MR. SUMNER,--On behalf of myself and my children, I beg most kindly to thank you, and the members of the Republican State Convention of Massachusetts, for the resolutions, passed by them, of sympathy with us in our terrible bereavement.

These resolutions are rendered more valuable by the letter from yourself which accompanies them.

The expressions of sympathy and condolence which have reached us from public bodies and private individuals, in your and other countries, have been deeply grateful to my stricken heart; for they assure me of the wide-spread appreciation of the efforts of my beloved husband to promote the cause of international prosperity and peace.

From America they are especially grateful; for his sympathy with the cause of liberty to the slave was undoubted and intense. And it was on his way to Parliament, to speak on the Canadian question in its relation to the American Union, that he contracted the illness which ended his dear and noble life.

Pray accept the kindest remembrances of myself and children, and believe me to remain,

My dear Mr. Sumner,

Yours very sincerely,

C. A. COBDEN.

EQUAL RIGHTS _VS._ THE PRESIDENTIAL POLICY IN RECONSTRUCTION.

LETTER TO THE NEW YORK INDEPENDENT, OCTOBER 29, 1865.

BOSTON, October 29, 1865.

DEAR MR. EDITOR,--I rejoice that “The Independent” has planted itself firmly on the sure ground of Equal Rights. It is natural that a journal which has from the beginning so bravely and constantly opposed Slavery in all its pretensions should now insist that these pretensions shall be trampled out, so that nothing shall be left to breed future trouble. This can be done only through the establishment of Equal Rights.

To my mind, there never was a duty plainer or more instinctive. It is plain as the Moral Law, and it is instinctive as self-defence. If the country fails to do this justice now, it will commit a crime where guilt and meanness strive for mastery. On this head it is enough to say that it is a debt we owe to saviours and benefactors. But here all the instincts of self-defence harmonize with justice.

For the sake of the whole country, which suffers from weakness in any part,--for the sake of the States lately distracted by war, which above all things need security and repose,--for the sake of agriculture, which is neglected there,--for the sake of commerce, which has fled,--for the sake of the national creditor, whose generous trust is exposed to repudiation,--and, finally, for the sake of reconciliation, which can be complete only when justice prevails, we must insist upon Equal Rights as the condition of the new order of things. So long as this question remains unsettled, there can be no true peace. Therefore I would say to the merchant, who wishes to open trade with this region,--to the capitalist, who would send his money there,--to the emigrant, who seeks to find a home there,--begin by assuring justice to all men. This is the one essential condition of prosperity, of credit, and of tranquillity. Without this, mercantile houses, banks, and emigration societies, having anything to do with this region, must all fail, or at least suffer in business and resources.

To Congress we must look as guardian, under the Constitution, of the national safety. I do not doubt its full power over the whole subject; nor do I doubt its duty to see that every pretended government organized by recent Rebels is treated as a present nullity. President Johnson then spoke well, when in Tennessee he said that “in the work of reorganization Rebels must take back seats, leaving place to those who have been truly loyal.” There is the key-note of a just policy, which I trust Congress will adopt.

It is difficult to measure the mischief already accumulating from the policy that has been pursued. Looking at the positive loss to business and the productive industry of the country, it is painful. Looking at the distress it has caused among loyal people by the revival of the Rebel spirit, it is heart-rending. Looking at it in any way, it is a terrible failure. It will be for Congress to apply the remedy.

Meanwhile you have the thanks of good people for your loyalty to the cause, and your strenuous efforts in its behalf. Go on, I entreat you, nor ever hesitate.

I am, dear Sir,

Your grateful fellow-laborer,

CHARLES SUMNER.

CLEMENCY AND COMMON SENSE. A CURIOSITY OF LITERATURE; WITH A MORAL.

ARTICLE IN THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, DECEMBER, 1865.

“Instabile est regnum quod non clementia firmat.”

“Incidis in Scyllam, cupiens vitare Charybdim.”

Here are two famous verses, both often quoted, and one a commonplace of literature. That they have passed into proverbs attests their merit both in substance and in form. Something more than truth is needed for a proverb. And so, also, something more than form is needed. Both must concur. The truth must be expressed in such form as to satisfy the requirements of Art.

Most persons, who have not occasionally indulged in such diversions, if asked where these verses are to be found, would say at once that it was in some familiar poet of school-boy days. Both have a sound as of something heard in childhood. The latter is Virgilian in tone and movement. More than once I have heard it insisted that it was by Virgil. But nobody is able to find it there, although the opposite dangers are represented in the voyage of Æneas:--

“Dextrum Scylla latus, lævum implacata Charybdis Obsidet.”[257]

Another poet shows the peril without the contrast:--

“Scylla, et Charybdis Sicula contorquens freta Minus est timenda: nulla non melior fera est.”[258]

Thinking of the historical proverb, I am reminded of the eminent character who first showed it to me in the heroic poem where it appears. I refer to the late Dr. Maltby, Bishop of Durham, who had been a favorite pupil of Dr. Parr, and was unquestionably among the best scholars of England. His amenity was equal to his scholarship. I was his guest at Auckland Castle early in the autumn of 1838. Conversation turned much upon books and the curiosities of study. One morning, after breakfast, the learned Bishop came to me with a small volume in his hand, printed in the Italian character, and remarking, “You seem to be interested in such things,” he pointed to this much quoted verse. It was the Latin epic, “Alexandreïs, sive Gesta Alexandri Magni,” by Philippus Gualterus, a mediæval poet of France.

Of course the fable of Scylla and Charybdis is ancient; but this verse cannot be traced to antiquity. For the fable Homer is our highest authority, and he represents the Sirens as unfriendly accessories, playing their part to tempt the victim.

These fronting terrors belong to mythology and to geography. Mythologically, they were two voracious monsters, dwelling opposite to each other,--Charybdis on the coast of Sicily, and Scylla on the coast of Italy. Geographically, they were dangers to the navigator in the narrow strait between Sicily and Italy. Charybdis was a whirlpool, where ships were often sucked to destruction; Scylla was a rock, on which ships were often dashed to pieces.

Ulysses in his wanderings encountered these terrors, but by prudence and the counsels of Circe he was enabled to steer clear between them, although the Sirens strove to lure him on the rock. The story is too long; but there are passages like pictures, and they have been illustrated by the genius of Flaxman. The first danger on the Sicilian side is described in the Odyssey:--

“Beneath, Charybdis holds her boisterous reign ’Midst roaring whirlpools, and absorbs the main; Thrice in her gulfs the boiling seas subside, Thrice in dire thunders she refunds the tide.”[259]

Endeavoring to shun this peril, the navigator encounters the other:--