Part 1

_Statesman Edition_ _VOL. XVI_

Charles Sumner

HIS COMPLETE WORKS

With Introduction BY HON. GEORGE FRISBIE HOAR

BOSTON LEE AND SHEPARD MCM

COPYRIGHT, 1877, BY FRANCIS V. BALCH, EXECUTOR.

COPYRIGHT, 1900, BY LEE AND SHEPARD.

Statesman Edition. LIMITED TO ONE THOUSAND COPIES. OF WHICH THIS IS No. 320.

Norwood Press: NORWOOD, MASS., U.S.A.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME XVI.

PAGE

EQUAL RIGHTS, WHETHER POLITICAL OR CIVIL, BY ACT OF CONGRESS. Letter to the Border State Convention at Baltimore, September 8, 1867 1

ARE WE A NATION? Address before the New York Young Men’s Republican Union, at the Cooper Institute, Tuesday Evening, November 19, 1867 3

CONSTANT DISTRUST OF THE PRESIDENT. Remarks in the Senate, on the Final Adjournment, November 26, 1867 66

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: WITHDRAWAL OF ASSENT BY A STATE. Remarks in the Senate, on the Resolutions of the Legislature of Ohio rescinding its former Resolution in Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, January 31, 1868 69

LOYALTY IN THE SENATE: ADMISSION OF A SENATOR. Remarks in the Senate, on the Resolution to admit Philip F. Thomas as Senator from Maryland, February 13, 1868 73

INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT. Letter to a Committee in New York, on this Subject, February 17, 1868 86

THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT. THE RIGHT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE PRO TEM. TO VOTE. Remarks in the Senate, on the Question of the Competency of Mr. Wade, Senator from Ohio, then President of the Senate pro Tem., to vote on the Impeachment of President Johnson, March 5, 1868 88

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, PRESIDING IN THE SENATE, CANNOT RULE OR VOTE. Opinion in the Case of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, March 31, 1868 98

EXPULSION OF THE PRESIDENT. Opinion in the Case of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, May 26, 1868 134

CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF SENATORS FOR THEIR VOTES IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT. Resolutions in the Senate, June 3, 1868 227

VALIDITY AND NECESSITY OF FUNDAMENTAL CONDITIONS ON STATES. Speech in the Senate, June 10, 1868 230

ELIGIBILITY OF A COLORED CITIZEN TO CONGRESS. Letter to an Inquirer at Norfolk, Va., June 22, 1868 255

INDEPENDENCE, AND THOSE WHO SAVED THE ORIGINAL WORK. Letter on the Soldiers’ Monument at North Weymouth, Mass., July 2, 1868 256

COLORED SENATORS,--THEIR IMPORTANCE IN SETTLING THE QUESTION OF EQUAL RIGHTS. Letter to an Inquirer in South Carolina, July 3, 1868 257

FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION THROUGH PUBLIC FAITH AND SPECIE PAYMENTS. Speech in the Senate, on the Bill to fund the National Debt, July 11, 1868 259

NO REPRISALS ON INNOCENT PERSONS. Speech in the Senate, on the Bill concerning the Rights of American Citizens, July 18, 1868 297

THE CHINESE EMBASSY, AND OUR RELATIONS WITH CHINA. Speech at the Banquet by the City of Boston to the Chinese Embassy, August 21, 1868 318

THE REBEL PARTY. Speech at the Flag-Raising of the Grant and Colfax Club, in Ward Six, Boston, on the Evening of September 14, 1868 326

ENFRANCHISEMENT IN MISSOURI: WHY WAIT? Letter to a Citizen of St. Louis, October 3, 1868 331

ISSUES AT THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. Speech at the City Hall, Cambridge, October 29, 1868 333

EQUAL RIGHTS, WHETHER POLITICAL OR CIVIL, BY ACT OF CONGRESS.

LETTER TO THE BORDER STATE CONVENTION AT BALTIMORE, SEPTEMBER 8, 1867.

September 12, 1867, Tennessee, Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, and the District of Columbia were fully represented in what was called “the Border State Convention,” which assembled in the Front Street Theatre, Baltimore. The object, in the language of the call, was “to advance the cause of manhood suffrage, and to demand of Congress the passage of the Sumner-Wilson bill.” The following letter from Mr. Sumner was read to the Convention.

BOSTON, September 8, 1867.

DEAR SIR,--I shall not be able to be with you at your Convention in Baltimore, according to the invitation with which you have honored me. I ask you to accept my best wishes.

Congress will leave undone what it ought to do, if it fails to provide promptly for the establishment of Equal Rights, whether political or civil, everywhere throughout the Union. This is a solemn duty, not to be shirked or postponed.

The idea is intolerable, that any State, under any pretension of State Rights, can set up _a political oligarchy_ within its borders, and then call itself a republican government. I insist with all my soul that such a government must be rejected, as inconsistent with the requirements of the Declaration of Independence.

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

A letter from Hon. Henry Wilson stated: “At the last session I offered an amendment, on the 17th of July, allowing all, without distinction of color, to vote and hold office, making no distinction in rights or privileges.”

ARE WE A NATION?

ADDRESS BEFORE THE NEW YORK YOUNG MEN’S REPUBLICAN UNION, AT THE COOPER INSTITUTE, TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 19, 1867.

And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel, … and they shall be no more two nations.… Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions.--EZEKIEL, xxxvii. 22, 23.

* * * * *

In these days their union is so entire and perfect that they are not only joined together in bonds of friendship and alliance, but even make use of the same laws, the same weights, coins, and measures, the same magistrates, counsellors, and judges: so that the inhabitants of this whole tract of Greece seem in all respects to form but one single city, except only that they are not enclosed within the circuit of the same walls; in every other point, both through the whole republic and in every separate state, we find the most exact resemblance and conformity.--POLYBIUS, _General History_, tr. Hampton, (London, 1756,) Vol. I. pp. 147, 148.

* * * * *

We represent the people,--we are a Nation. To vote by States will keep up colonial distinctions.… The more a man aims at serving America, the more he serves his colony. I am not pleading the cause of Pennsylvania; I consider myself a citizen of America.--BENJAMIN RUSH, _Speech in the Continental Congress, July, 1776_: Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol. IX. p. 54.

* * * * *

It is my first wish to see the United States assume and merit the character of _one great Nation_, whose territory is divided into different States merely for more convenient government and the more easy and prompt administration of justice,--just as our several States are divided into counties and townships for the like purposes. Until this be done, the chain which holds us together will be too feeble to bear much opposition or exertion, and we shall be daily mortified by seeing the links of it giving way and calling for repair, one after another.--JOHN JAY, _Letter to John Lowell, May 10, 1785_: Life, by William Jay, Vol. I. p. 190.

* * * * *

He took this occasion to repeat, that, notwithstanding his solicitude to establish a National Government, he never would agree to abolish the State Governments or render them absolutely insignificant. They were as necessary as the General Government, and he would be equally careful to preserve them.--GEORGE MASON, _Speech in the Constitutional Convention, June 20, 1787_: Debates, Madison Papers, Vol. II. pp. 914, 915.

* * * * *

Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a National Government, and no longer a Confederation: I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes.--GEORGE MASON, _Speech in the Virginia Convention to ratify the Constitution, June 4, 1788_: Elliot’s Debates, (2d edit.,) Vol. III. p. 29.

* * * * *

The Declaration of Independence having provided for the _national_ character and the _national_ powers, it remained in some mode to provide for the character and powers of the States individually, as a consequence of the dissolution of the colonial system. Accordingly the people of each State set themselves to work, under a recommendation from Congress, to erect a local government for themselves; but in no instance did the people of any State attempt to incorporate into their local system any of those attributes of national authority which the Declaration of Independence had asserted in favor of the United States.--ALEXANDER JAMES DALLAS, _Argument in the Case of Michael Bright and others, in the Circuit Court of the United States, April 28, 1809_: Life and Writings, p. 104.

* * * * *

Hence, while the sovereignty resides inherently and inalienably in the people, it is a perversion of language to denominate the State, as a body politic or government, sovereign and independent.--_Ibid._, p. 100.

* * * * *

America has chosen to be, in many respects and to many purposes, a Nation; and for all these purposes her government is complete, to all these objects it is competent. The people have declared, that, in the exercise of all powers given for these objects, it is supreme. It can, then, in effecting these objects, legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory. The Constitution and laws of a State, so far as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States, are absolutely void. These States are constituent parts of the United States; they are members of one great empire.--CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL, _Cohens_ v. _Virginia_, Wheaton, Rep., Vol. VI. p. 414.

* * * * *

This Address was prepared as a lecture, and was delivered on a lecture-tour reaching as far as Milwaukee, Dubuque, and St. Louis. On its delivery in New York, Dr. Francis Lieber was in the chair. It became the subject of various local notice and discussion.

The idea of Nationality had prevailed with Mr. Sumner from the beginning of his public life. In his appeal to Mr. Webster before the Whig State Convention, as early as September 23, 1846, while calling on the eminent Senator and orator to become _Defender of Humanity_, he recognized his received title, _Defender of the Constitution_, as justly earned by the vigor, argumentation, and eloquence with which he had “upheld the Union and that interpretation of the Constitution which makes us a Nation.”[1] And from that time he had always insisted that we were a Nation,--believing, that, while many things were justly left to local government, for which the States are the natural organs, yet the great principles of Unity and Human Rights should be placed under central guardianship, so as to be everywhere the same; and this he considered the essence of the Nation.--The word “Federal” Mr. Sumner habitually rejected for “National.” Courts and officers under the United States Government he called “National.”

ADDRESS.

MR. PRESIDENT,--At the close of a bloody Rebellion, instigated by hostility to the sacred principles of the Declaration of Independence, and inaugurated in the name of State Rights, it becomes us now to do our best that these sacred principles shall not again be called in question, and that State Rights shall not again disturb the national repose. One terrible war is more than enough; and since, after struggle, peril, and sacrifice, where every household has been a sufferer, we are at last victorious, it is not too much to insist on all possible safeguards for the future. The whole case must be settled now. The constant duel between the Nation and the States must cease. The National Unity must be assured,--in the only way which is practical and honest,--through the principles declared by our fathers and inwoven into the national life.

In one word, the Declaration of Independence must be recognized as a fundamental law, and State Rights, in all their denationalizing pretensions, must be trampled out forever, to the end that we may be, in reality as in name, a Nation.

* * * * *

Are we a Nation? Such is the question I now propose, believing that the whole case is involved in the answer. Are we a Nation? Then must we have that essential, indestructible unity belonging to a Nation, with all those central, pervasive, impartial powers which minister to the national life; then must we have that central, necessary authority inherent in just government, to protect the citizen in all the rights of citizenship; and then must we have that other central, inalienable prerogative of providing for all the promises solemnly made when we first claimed our place as a Nation.

* * * * *

Words are sometimes things; and I cannot doubt that our country would gain in strength and our people in comprehensive patriotism, if we discarded language which in itself implies certain weakness and possible disunion. Pardon me, if I confess that I have never reconciled myself to the use of the word “Federal” instead of “National.” To my mind, our government is not Federal, but National; our Constitution is not Federal, but National; our courts under the Constitution are not Federal, but National; our army is not Federal, but National. There is one instance where this misnomer does not occur. The debt of our country is always _National_,--perhaps because this term promises in advance additional security to the anxious creditor. “Liberty” and “Equality” are more than dollars and cents; they should be National also, and enjoy the same security.

During the imbecility of the Confederation, which was nothing but a league or _fœdus_, the government was naturally called Federal. This was its proper designation. Any other would have been out of place, although even then Washington liked to speak of the Nation. In summoning the Convention which framed the National Constitution, the States all spoke of the existing government as “Federal.” But after the adoption of the National Constitution, completing our organization as one people, the designation was inappropriate. It should have been changed. If not then, it must be now. New capacities require a new name. The word Saviour did not originally exist in the Latin; but St. Augustine, who wrote in this language, boldly used it, saying there was no occasion for it until after the Saviour was born.[2] If among us in the earlier day there was no occasion for the word Nation, there is now. A Nation is born.

* * * * *

The word Nation is suggestive beyond any definition of the dictionary. It awakens an echo second only to that of Country. It is a word of unity and power. It brings to mind intelligent masses enjoying the advantage of organization, for whom there is a Law of Nations,--as there is a Law of Nature,--each nation being a unit. Sometimes uttered vaguely, it is simply an intensive, as in the familiar exaggeration, “only a _nation_ louder”; but even here the word furnishes a measure of vastness. In ordinary usage, it implies an aggregation of human beings who have reached such advanced stage of political development that they are no longer a tribe of Nomads, like our Indians,--no longer a mere colony, city, principality, or state,--but they are one people, throbbing with a common life, occupying a common territory, rejoicing in a common history, sharing in common trials, and securing to each the protection of the common power. We have heard, also, that a Nation is a people with the consciousness of Human Rights. Well spoke Louis the Fifteenth of France, when this word first resounded in his ears: “What means it? I am king; is there any king but me?” The monarch did not know that the Nation was more than king, all of which his successor learned among the earliest lessons of the Revolution, as this word became the inspiration and voice of France.

The ancients had but one word for State and City; nor did they use the word Nation as it is latterly used. Derived from the Latin _nascor_ and _natus_, signifying “to be born” and “being born,” it was originally applied to a race or people of common descent and language, but seems to have had no reference to a common government. In the latter sense it is modern. Originally ethnological, it is now political. The French Communists have popularized the kindred word “Solidarity,” denoting a community of interests, which is an element of nationality. There is the solidarity of nations together, and also the solidarity of a people constituting one nation, being those who, according to a familiar phrase, are “all in one bottom.”

England early became a Nation; and this word seems to have assumed there a corresponding meaning. Sir Walter Raleigh, courtier of Queen Elizabeth, and victim of James the First, who was a master of our language, in speaking of the people of England, calls them “our Nation.”[3] John Milton was filled with the same sentiment, when, addressing England and Scotland, he says: “Go on, both hand in hand, _O Nations_, never to be disunited! be the praise and the heroic song of all posterity!”[4] In the time of Charles the Second, Sir William Temple furnished a precise definition, which foreshadows the definition of our day. According to this accomplished writer and diplomatist, a Nation was “a great number of families, derived from the same blood, born in the same country, and _living under the same government and civil constitutions_.”[5] Here is the political element. Johnson, in his Dictionary, follows Temple substantially, calling it “a people distinguished from another people, generally by their language, original, _or government_.” Our own Webster, the lexicographer, calls it “the body of inhabitants of a country _united under the same government_”; Worcester, “a people born in the same country and _living under the same government_”; the French Dictionary of the Academy, “the totality of persons born or naturalized in a country and _living under the same government_.”[6] Of these definitions, those of Webster and the French Academy are the best; and of the two, that of Webster the most compact.

These definitions all end in the idea of unity under one government. They contemplate political unity, rather than unity of blood or language. Undoubted nations exist without the latter. Various accents of speech and various types of manhood, with the great distinction of color, which we encounter daily, show that there is no such unity here. But this is not required. If the inhabitants are of one blood and one language, the unity is more complete; but the essential condition is one sovereignty, involving, of course, one citizenship. In this sense Gibbon employs the word, when, describing the people of Italy,--all of whom were recognized as Roman citizens,--he says: “From the foot of the Alps to the extremity of Calabria, all the natives of Italy were born citizens of Rome. Their partial distinctions were obliterated, and they insensibly _coalesced into one great Nation_, united by language, manners, and _civil institutions_, and equal to the weight of a powerful empire.”[7] Here dominion proceeding originally from conquest is consecrated by concession of citizenship, and the great historian hails the coalesced people as Nation.

One of our ablest writers of History and Constitutional Law, Professor Lieber, of Columbia College, New York, has discussed this question with learning and power.[8] According to this eminent authority, Nation is something more than a word. It denotes that polity which is the normal type of government at the present advanced stage of civilization, and to which all people tend just in proportion to enlightenment and enfranchisement. The learned Professor does not hesitate to say that such a polity is naturally dedicated to the maintenance of all the rights of the citizen as its practical end and object. It is easy to see that the Nation, thus defined, must possess elements of perpetuity. It is not a quicksand, or mere agglomeration of particles, liable to disappear, but a solid, infrangible crystallization, against which winds and rains beat in vain.

* * * * *

Opposed to this prevailing tendency is the earlier propensity to local sovereignty, which is so gratifying to petty pride and ambition. This propensity, assuming various forms in different ages and countries, according to the degree of development, has always been a species of egotism. When the barbarous islanders of the Pacific imagined themselves the whole world, they furnished an illustration of this egotism in its primitive form. Its latest manifestation has been in State pretensions. But here a distinction must be observed. For purposes of local self-government, and to secure its educational and political blessings, the States are of unquestioned value. This is their true function, to be praised and vindicated always. But _local sovereignty_, whether in the name of State or prince, is out of place and incongruous under a government truly national. It is entirely inconsistent with the idea of Nation. Perhaps its essential absurdity in such a government was never better illustrated than by the homely apologue of the ancient Roman,[9] which so wrought upon the secessionists of his day that they at once returned to their allegiance. According to this successful orator, the different members of the human body once murmured against the “belly,” which was pictured very much as our National Government has been, and they severally refused all further coöperation. The hands would not carry food to the mouth; nor would the mouth receive it, if carried; nor would the teeth perform their office. The rebellion began; but each member soon found that its own welfare was bound up inseparably with the rest, and especially that in weakening the “belly” it weakened every part. Such is the discord of State pretensions. How unlike that unity of which the human form, with heaven-directed countenance, is the perfect type, where every part has its function, and all are in obedience to the divine mandate which created man in the image of God! And such is the Nation.

* * * * *